AZ AUDITOR GENERAL RTP REPORT1.PDF

Performance Audit
Maricopa Association of Governments
Regional Transportation Plan
November 2016
Submitted To:
Debra Davenport, Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Submitted By:
SJOBERG EVASHENK
CONSU .TING, INC
455 Capitol Mall•Suite 700•Sacramento, California•95814•Tel 916.443.1300•www.secteam.com

STATE OF ARIZONA
DEBRA AUDITOR K. DAVENPORT, GENERAL CPA OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY MELANIE AUDITOR M. CHESNEY GENERAL
AUDITOR GENERAL
November 23, 2016
The Honorable Andy Biggs, President The Honorable David Gowan, Speaker
Arizona State Senate Arizona House of Representatives
Members of the Arizona Legislature The Honorable Doug Ducey, Governor
State of Arizona
Mr. Dennis Smith, Executive Director Mr. John Halikowski, Director
Maricopa Association of Governments Arizona Department of Transportation
Mr. Scott Smith, Chief Executive Officer Mr. Roc Arnett, Chairman
Valley Metro Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee
Transmitted herewith is a report, A Performance Audit of the Maricopa Association of
Governments Regional Transportation Plan. This audit was conducted by the independent
firm Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting under contract with the Auditor General and was in
response to the requirements of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §28-6313.
Responses to the audit can be found at the end of the audit report. As outlined in their
responses:
• The Maricopa Association of Governments agrees with all of the findings and plans to
implement or implement in a different manner all of the recommendations directed to it.
• The Arizona Department of Transportation agrees with all but three of the findings and
plans to implement or implement in a different manner all but one of the
recommendations directed to it.
• Valley Metro agrees with all of the findings and plans to implement or implement in a
different manner all of the recommendations directed to it.
In addition, to comply with A.R.S. §28-6313(E), a representative for the Citizens
Transportation Oversight Committee (CTOC) indicated that CTOC will provide a written
response to the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Policy Committee
2910 NOIR1-1-1 44"` STREET' I•• SUITE 410 - PHOENIX, ARAZONA 85018 - (502) 563-0333 - FAX (602) 553-0051

November 23, 2016
Page -2-
within 45 days after the audit report is released indicating whether it agrees or disagrees
with the findings and whether the recommendations should be implemented, be
implemented with modification, or not be implemented.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
DD:ka
cc: The Honorable Michele Reagan, Arizona Secretary of State
Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee Members
Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Council Members
Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Policy Committee Members
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
State Transportation Board Members
Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Board of Directors
Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Board of Directors
Attachment

SJOBERG EVASI ILNK
CON S ULTING, INC
November 14, 2016
Ms. Debra Davenport
Auditor General
Arizona Office of Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 85018-7243
Dear Ms. Davenport:
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting is pleased to submit our final report for the Performance Audit of the
Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan in response to Arizona
Revised Statutes §28-6313 and Proposition 400 passed in November 2004. We assessed the
performance of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as planned and implemented by the
Maricopa Association of Governments, Arizona Department of Transportation, Valley Metro
Regional Public Transportation Authority, and Valley Metro Rail, Inc.—together, referred to as the
RTP partners. Additionally, we evaluated projects scheduled for funding as well as recommended
ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the plan. Within forty-five days after the release
of the audit, the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority, the Citizens'
Transportation Oversight Committee, State Transportation Board, and County Board of Supervisors,
are responsible for holding a public hearing and submitting written recommendations to the
transportation policy committee.
Our report concludes that the RTP partners have planned and implemented many strong activities
and strengthened existing processes related to performance measures, project management and
delivery, and intelligent transportation system technology and monitoring. Additionally,
performance data reveals results that are comparable to or better than peers across the country related
to congestion, travel time, crashes, pavement and bridge condition, on-time performance, and transit
operating metrics.
With the Prop 400 program halfway through its 20-year dUration, the RTP partners have completed
many projects and made strides since fiscal year 2004-2005 when the sales tax was extended. We
found that most projects reviewed were on schedule—or had reasonable delays that were
documented—and were within budget. Moreover, project management techniques used by the RTP
partners on freeway, arterial streets, and transit projects aligned with industry best practices. Further,
while most RTP projects are specific to individual transportation modes, the RTP partners have also
undertaken activities toward moving people and traffic more efficiently on the existing regional
multimodal network through the use of intelligent transportation system technology.
SJOBERG EVASITENK

Debra Davenport, Auditor General
November 14, 2016
Page -2-
Based on the audit work performed, there are no significant changes warranted for the
transportation system. However, to enhance the existing solid RTP and Prop 400 framework, we
provide several recommendations to help the RTP partners be more efficient and effective in their
implementation of the plan as well as demonstrate stronger accountability for the performance
goals of the plan.
We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service to the Office of the Auditor General and it
has been our pleasure to work with you and your staff. We also appreciate the cooperation we
received from all those who assisted us throughout the course of our review including the Maricopa
Association of Governments, Arizona Department of Transportation, Valley Metro Regional
Public Transportation Authority, and Valley Metro Rail, Inc.
Respectfully Submitted,
Catherine Brady
Director
I II L I() \11(1‘,It)I))
1.5,5 \ )I NI Ni L'1 Iii ))) 10 I \ j)kNi \ 1 -))) •t ti» I \ \ ))))t)))) \ \\ \ ..dj j \Nl ( \I

Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Acronym List ii
Executive Summary 1
Introduction and Background 5
Scope and Methodology 11
Chapter 1: Regional Efforts and Progress Since 2011 Audit 13
Chapter 2: Freeway Performance 29
Chapter 3: Arterial Street Performance 47
Chapter 4: Transit Performance 59
Chapter 5: Multimodal Systems Management and Operations 77
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations 93
Appendix A: Audit Scope and Methodology 95
Appendix B: Local Jurisdiction Survey Results 101
Appendix C: Planned Prop 400 Projects for Phase III 7/1/2015 through 6/30/2020 105
Response to Audit Recommendations: Maricopa Association of Governments ....... 109
Response to Audit Recommendations: Arizona Department of Transportation 115
Response to Audit Recommendations: Valley Metro 119
SJOBERG EVASHENK MAG RTP Audit-2016

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR REPRODUCTION PURPOSES]
SJOBERG EVASHENK ii MAG RTP Audit-2016

Acronym List
AADT — Average Average Annual Daily Traffic
AASHTO — American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ADOT — Arizona Department of Transportation
ATM — Active Traffic Management
BRT — Bus Rapid Transit
CTOC — Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee
DMS — Dynamic Message Sign
FAST Act — Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
FHWA — Federal Highway Administration
FTA — Federal Transit Administration
GPL — General Purpose Lane
HOVL — High Occupancy Vehicle Lane
MAG — Maricopa Association of Governments
MAP-21 — Moving Ahead with Progress for the 21 5t Century
MCDOT — Maricopa County Department of Transportation
PMBOK — Project Management Body of Knowledge
Prop 400 — Proposition 400, passed in 2004
RPTA — Regional Public Transportation Authority
RTP — Regional Transportation Plan
US DOT— OT— United States Department of Transportation
SJOBERG EVASHENK iii MAG RTP Audit-2016

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR REPRODUCTION PURPOSES]
SJOBERG EVASHENK iv MAG RTP Audit-2016

Executive Summary
Recognizing the continued need for transportation and transit improvement projects in the
region, Maricopa County voters passed Proposition 400 (Prop 400) authorizing a 20-year
continuation of a countywide, half-cent sales tax in November 2004. With the passage of Prop
400, voters added a significant investment in rail projects, new and improved freeways, street
improvement programs, and bus transit features to address regional needs through projects
specified and developed as part of the long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
Statutes enacted by Prop 400's passage included provisions for a performance audit of the RTP
every five years focused on project expenditure impacts in relieving congestion and improving
mobility, as well as federal criteria related to light rail transit including ridership and costs and
whether changes to the overall transportation system are warranted. This report provides the
results of the second performance audit of the Prop 400 program focused on project
expenditures and activities during the five-year period between fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2014-
2015 as well as planned activities for fiscal years 2015-2016 through 2019-2020.
Audit Results
When voters passed Prop 400 in 2004 authorizing additional funding of the RTP, the plan
included a variety of transportation choices from new freeways, arterial streets, bus routes, and
light rail lines to funding for technology that can be used to optimize the capital construction
investments. As such, the transportation and transit entities in Maricopa County have a variety
of options at their disposal to address congestion challenges and transportation needs. Yet, it is
important to note, that there is no one solution or correct combination of strategies to address a
region's transportation needs. Transportation planners, operators, and engineers must work
collaboratively with the public to consider and implement the best strategies and techniques as
determined through technical study, deliberation, oversight, and public input.
Since the prior audit in 2011, the RTP partners—namely, the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), and Valley Metro, 1 and local
jurisdictions—have planned and implemented many strong activities and strengthened existing
processes related to performance measures, project management and delivery, and intelligent
transportation system technology and monitoring—although additional improvements could
further enhance practices. For instance, the RTP partners have solidified a strong performance-
based infrastructure to better track and report performance. Additionally, performance data
generally reveals results that are comparable to or better than peers across the country related
to congestion, travel time, crashes, pavement and bridge condition, on-time performance, and
transit operating metrics.
With the Prop 400 program halfway through its 20-year duration, the RTP partners have
completed many projects and made strides since fiscal year 2004-2005 when the sales tax was
1 Regional Pubic Transportation Authority and Valley Metro Rail, Inc. are together referred to as Valley Metro for purposes of this
audit.
SJOBERG SVASHENK 1 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
extended. We found that most projects reviewed were on schedule—or had reasonable delays
that were documented—and were within budget. Moreover, project management techniques
used by the RTP partners on freeway, arterial streets, and transit projects aligned with industry
best practices.
Further, while most RTP projects are specific to individual transportation modes, the RTP partners
have also undertaken activities toward moving people and traffic more efficiently on the existing
regional multinnodal network through the use of intelligent transportation system technology and
various management techniques. 2 As such, the RTP partners should continue the strong practices
in place implementing the transportation system.
Specifically, we found:
• RTP partners addressed many of the 2011 RTP Performance Audit recommendations such
as creating a robust performance measurement system, enhancing communication, and
developing project cards for freeway and arterial street projects as well as creating project
scorecards for transit projects that provide a quick, 1-page description of a project, its
benefits, schedule, and costs.'
One area that remains unaddressed from the 2011 RTP Performance Audit pertains to the
Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee. Specifically, the committee still does not
function as effectively as peers. In addition, the committee has not met since May 2014.
• While methodologies and preliminary targets have been created, no formal or official
performance targets have been established as suggested by best practices. Consequently,
it is not possible at this point to determine whether actual performance met expectations
for the region and whether the mix of transportation and transit strategies is
accomplishing RTP performance goals.
Congestion trends on freeways and arterial streets has generally increased between
calendar years 2011 and 2014, although average speeds have slightly increased on
freeways and slowed on arterial streets—nonetheless, these trends are better than those
reported nationally.
Crash data reported by MAG and ADOT in Maricopa County reveals a growth trend with
total annual crashes on freeways and arterials growing from 72,800 in calendar year 2011
to nearly 80,000 in calendar year 2014—although statewide fatal and serious injury
crashes have decreased.
ADOT and local jurisdictions reported that freeway and arterial street pavement and
bridges are in good condition.
2 For purposes of this audit, the regional multimodal network refers to the freeways, arterial streets, light rail lines, and bus transit
routes operating in the Maricopa County area.
3 MAG and ADOT use "project cards," while Valley Metro uses "project scorecards," to report on project status.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 2 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Light rail and bus transit continue to outperform peer agencies in terms of boardings, 4
farebox recovery, 5 and operating costs; additionally, transit vehicles were on-time at least
92 percent of the time or higher between fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2013-2014 and
mechanical failures have been decreasing over the same timeframe.
• Freeway, arterial streets, and transit projects we reviewed generally were delivered on
budget and within schedule, although justifiable variances from schedule existed.
Leading project management practices are being employed on freeways, arterial streets,
light rail lines, and bus transit routes although some process enhancements could be
incorporated. Further, internal project delivery and efficiency metrics are available for all
modes.
• Significant investment has been made in intelligent transportation system technology and
the management and use of that technology, but regional operational coordination is still
in progress; and
Some active traffic management tools, such as traffic signal synchronization and transit
signal priority, are in place to enhance mobility. However, the region is still moving
toward more active real-time monitoring and dynamic, proactive adjustment of the
system to meet traffic conditions on a 24-hour a day basis.
Based on the audit work performed, there are no significant changes warranted for the
transportation system. However, to enhance the existing solid RTP and Prop 400 framework, we
provide 12 recommendations to the RTP partners as follows:
1. MAG should work with ADOT and the local jurisdictions to enhance freeway and arterial
project cards by including baseline budgets and baseline schedules to allow comparisons
against actual.
2. Valley Metro should strengthen current capital construction project scorecards by
including the initial baseline budget for the project as well as develop consistent project
scorecard formats for all transit capital construction projects, regardless of whether Valley
Metro oversees the project or a local jurisdiction is managing the project.
3. Valley Metro and MAG should work together to make available transit project scorecards
on MAG's website, so performance data can be more centrally accessible and transparent
to the Prop 400 voters.
4. RTP partners should fully employ best practices and establish performance targets for key
indicators for freeway, arterial streets, and transit performance.
5. ADOT should work with the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee to ensure
responsibilities, such as annual reporting, are fulfilled and methods of committee
operations are changed to be more effective in meeting statutory requirements.
4 Transit boarding is the term used in industry to count a passenger of public transit systems.
5 Farebox recovery refers to the portion of a trip's operating expenses covered by passenger fare revenue.
SJOBERG ::'EVASHENK 3 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
6. ADOT, as the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee's administrative support,
should encourage the County Board of Supervisors and the Governor's Office to fill
vacancies on the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee and encourage the
committee to meet on a regular basis as statutorily required.
7. ADOT should report freeway bridge and pavement condition data at the Maricopa County
or Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area level, in addition to current statewide data already
available.
8. ADOT should track and report internal project delivery performance metrics at the
Maricopa County or Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area level.
9. ADOT should consider using additional project delivery metrics including "project
administrative costs as a percent of budget."
10. With many innovative project management practices employed on the South Mountain
Freeway project, ADOT should consider applying techniques and tools from this project to
other ADOT freeway projects, as appropriate.
11. MAG should work with the local jurisdictions to gather and make available local
performance indicators related to pavement and bridge deck condition at the Maricopa
County or Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area level on MAG's website, so performance data
can be more centrally accessible and transparent to the Prop 400 voters.
12. ADOT should continue its efforts currently underway to scientifically explore, evaluate,
and implement active traffic management techniques where practical or feasible,
including continued efforts to work with RIP partners on considering and prioritizing the
maintenance of the communication infrastructure to remain functional and current.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 4 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Introduction and Background
In November 2004, Maricopa County voters extended an existing one-half-cent sales tax that was
initially set to expire in 2005, for another 20 years with the passage of Proposition 400 (Prop
400). While the previous proposition mainly concentrated on the spending of incremental tax
funding on freeway projects, Prop 400 added a significant investment in rail projects, new and
improved freeways, arterial street improvement programs, and bus transit features. These
projects were specified and incorporated into Maricopa County's 2025 long-range Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) compiled in 2003.
Developed by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the RIP includes goals and
objectives for increasing mobility and reducing congestion through a mix of specific freeway,
high-capacity arterial road and street, and transit improvement projects. Together with other
RIP components, the freeway, arterial streets, and transit elements are known as the MAG
Region's "regional transportation system." Since the ultimate blend of projects and activities
considered necessary to meet transportation needs for the MAG Region including Maricopa
County is a regional decision, MAG developed the RTP through a cooperative effort with
government, business, and local public interest representatives. Every three to five years, MAG is
required to update its long-range RTP to cover a rolling 20-year time period or longer. The most
recent plan is the 2035 RIP updated in January 2014 that covers the remaining Prop 400 projects
as well as other regional projects.
Maricopa County and the Urbanized Phoenix Area
With nearly 60 percent of the population, Maricopa County is the largest of Arizona's 15 counties
and the fourth largest county in the nation.' When compared to other U.S. areas with
populations greater than three million, the Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area was ranked third for
lowest congestion hours of delay per commuter in calendar year 2014. 7 However, in another
national comparison, Phoenix trends are worsening indicating that congestion may be a
significant challenge for the region moving forward. 8 Currently, nearly 1,800 miles of freeway
and 4,000 miles of arterial streets as well as 42 bus routes and 26 miles of light rail transport
residents across and throughout the 30 cities and communities in the Maricopa County region.
Projects Proposed by Prop 400
When voters agreed to extend Maricopa County's half-cent sales tax increment to pay for
transportation improvements, Prop 400's revenue stream was dedicated to projects approved
and proposed as part of the original 2003 RTP for the following:
• 344 total miles of new or improved freeways and highways
6 According to the Maricopa County website at www.maricopa.gov/bos/cities.aspx.
7 According to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard. Congestion hours of delay is one of
multiple metrics to measure congestion.
6 According to the 2015 United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Urban Congestion Report,
comparing calendar year 2014 to calendar year 2015 as measured for the three-month period from April to June each year. This
report's measures are partially based on observed data, but also included volumes that are interpolated, factored, or imputed.
SJOBERG :'EVASHRIIK 5 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
• 275 miles of new or improved streets
• 34 major intersections
• 27.7 new miles of light rail
• 40 enhanced or new bus routes
Projects were scheduled according to four distinct phases as follows:
• Phase I: Fiscal years 2005-2006 through 2009-2010,
As well as January 1, 2005 through June 30, 2005
• Phase II: Fiscal years 2010-2011 through 2014-2015
• Phase Ill: Fiscal years 2015-2016 through 2019-2020
• Phase IV: Fiscal years 2020-2021 through 2024-2025,
As well as July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025
After the 2007 through 2009 recession and significantly reduced Prop 400 revenues, the RTP
partners9 developed program rebalancing scenarios applied to the portfolio of projects initially
envisioned that could be completed with Prop 400 funding. The rebalancing done in 2012 shifted
projects between the four phases, deleted certain projects from the plan, and extended other
projects outside the 20-year tax window ending on December 31, 2025.
Prop 400 Funding
The RTP, which was created in 2003, served as the blueprint for projects to be funded through
Prop 400. Although the MAG Region's RTP relies on other funding sources as well, the Prop 400
sales tax revenue was expected to provide nearly half of the funds for projects envisioned in the
RIP. Under Arizona Revised Statutes §42-6105, funds generated under Prop 400 must be
allocated as follows:
• Freeway:
56.2 percent for freeways including capital expense and maintenance.
• Arterial:
10.5 percent for major arterial street and intersection improvements.
• Transit:
33.3 percent for capital construction, maintenance, and operation of public transportation
as well as for capital construction costs associated with a light rail system.
Moreover, the enacted legislation prohibits the transfer of sales tax fund revenues distributed in
accordance with these percentages from one transportation mode to another—for instance,
freeway money cannot be transferred to transit projects, nor can transit funds be spent on
9 RTP partners refers to MAG, Arizona Department of Transportation, Valley Metro, and local jurisdictions in Maricopa County.
SJOBERG EVASEENK 6 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
arterial street projects. Other funds supplementing the Prop 400 funds include a variety of
federal highway, federal transit, state highway, and local matching funds.
In November 2004 after Prop 400 passed, sales tax projections available to complete Prop 400
projects were estimated at $14.3 billionl° for fiscal years 2005-2006 through 2025-2026. Yet, the
effects of the economic recession between 2007 and 2009 reduced sales tax revenues during the
first 10 years of the program and lowered total expected sales tax projections to $8.6 billion.
Although sales tax receipts were only $3.3 billion through fiscal year 2014-2015, Maricopa County
has experienced a resurgence in the past five years where revenues are starting to show slow
growth and $5.3 billion in receipts are expected for fiscal years 2015-2016 through 2025-2026.
The revised projections of $8.6 billion over the entire 20-year period is approximately 40 percent
less than the $14.3 billion estimated at the time Prop 400 passed.
RTP Partner Entities Involved with Prop 400
While MAG is the primary entity responsible for developing the RTP and programming funding for
the RTP projects, several other entities partner together in the MAG region to share
responsibilities for planning, implementation, operation, and monitoring of projects and
programs funded through Prop 400 as shown in Figure 1.
10 According to the 2005 Prop 400 Annual Report.
SJOBERG 'EVASHENK 7 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Figure 1: Responsibilities of Entities Involved with Prop 400 and Related RTP
Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee (CTOC)
Committee established with oversight responsibilities of the RTP, including reviewing and advising entities such as MAG,
ADOT, and Valley Metro on matters and projects relating to RIP.
Maricopa Association of Arizona Department of Valley Metro Regional Public
Governments (MAG) Transportation (ADOT) Transportation Authority (RPTA)
Federally designated metropolitan • Statewide entity with primary role RPTA is a political subdivision of
planning organization for of implementing and maintaining the State of Arizona
Maricop,-ILounty state highway system Overseen by a Board of Directors
Overseen by a 34-member Overseen by the State comprised of elected officials
agencies Regional Council Transportation Board from the 16 member jurisdictions-
Members include region's 27 • Responsible for the design, -Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, El
incorporated cities and towns, engineering, acquisition, Mirage, Gilbert, Glendale,
Maricopa and Pinal Counties, construction, and maintenance of Goodyear, Maricopa County,
three Indian Communities, CTOC, freeways Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale,
and ADOT • Develops strategies for optimizing Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson and
Responsible for Hong-term investment in preservation and Wickenburg
planning, developing the RIP, expansion of transportation Responsible for short-term
program fundingfor RIP projects, infrastructure planning and the operation of the
balancing RIP project costs with • Assists State Transportation Board regional bus transit system in
revenue, and managingthe with program policies and Maricopa County
Arterial Life Cycle Program funding, such as grants and Ad m injstratively combined with
revenue bonds Valley Metro Rail, Inc. underone
Chief Excecutive Officer and
together known as Valley Metro
Local Jurisdictions Maricopa County Valley Metro Rail, Inc.
Cities, towns, and communities Governed by a Board of A non-profit, public corporation,
oversee local roads and transit Supervisors formed by the cities of Glendale,
services Responsible for transportation Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe, and
Overseen by individual city, town, infrastructure construction and Chandler
or community councils maintenance within the county, Overseen by a Board of Directors
Responsible for managing and including implementation of generally comprised of designated
delivering transportation arterial capital construction elected officials of the
improvement projects to residents projects participating cities of Chandler,
Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and
16 Cities include--ApacheJunction, Tempe
Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, El
Mirage, Glendale, Goodyear, Responsible for design,
Litchfield Park, Maricopa, Mesa, construction, and operation of the
Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, light rail system in Maricopa
Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson County
11 Towns include—Carefree, Cave Administratively combined with
Creek, Florence, Fountain Hills, Valley Metro Regional Public
Transportation Authority under
Gila Bend, Gilbert, Guadalupe,
Paradise Valley, Queen Creek, one Chief Executive Officer and
together known as Valley Metro
Wickenburg, Youngtown
3 Communities include—Fort
McDowell Yavapi Nation, Gila
River Indian Community, Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
SJOBERG 'EVASHENK 8 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Measuring Effectiveness of Prop 400
Typical models for determining the effectiveness of a government program—such as Prop 400—
center on inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. As presented in Figure 2, program inputs
include the funding, staffing and expertise, and policies and procedures available for a program.
For the Prop 400 program, inputs are the sales tax revenues and planning conducted by MAG and
the RTP partners. These inputs are funneled into freeway, arterial streets, and transit projects
and the day-to-day professional practices and activities employed by the RTP partners in
completing and operating the RIP projects. Results of activities are outputs, or what is delivered
by the program, as well as outcomes, or the ultimate impact of the program in reaching
established goals.
Figure 2: Logic Model for Determining Effectiveness of Government Programs
• Funding
Inputs • Policies & Procedures
• Staffing
• Freeway Construction
• Arterial Streets Construction
• Transit Construction
Liransit Operations
• Dollars Spent
• Number of Projects Completed
• Number of Miles Added
• Number of Transit Routes
Added
• On-Time Performance
ri • Pavement Condition
• Congestion Relief
Source: San Jose State University, Program Evaluation and Logic Models
This audit focused on evaluating the activities, outputs, and outcomes that resulted from the
Prop 400 sales tax investment. Specifically, we reviewed the project management activities
exercised by the RIP partners in constructing freeway, arterial streets, and transit capital
projects, as well as reviewed the operational activities performed by Valley Metro over transit
operations. Further, auditors assessed Prop 400 outputs for each of the transportation modes in
terms of number of projects delivered and whether those projects were within budget and on
schedule. Auditors also analyzed performance data reported on Prop 400 outcomes related to
speed, congestion, travel delay, crashes, mobility, and pavement and bridge condition. Related
regional efforts are presented in Chapter 1 of this report, and the performance assessment for
individual modes are discretely presented in separate chapters that follow.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 9 MAG RTP Audit-2016

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR REPRODUCTION PURPOSES]
SJOBERG EVASIIENK 10 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Scope and Methodology
In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes §28-6313, the Arizona Office of the Auditor General
(Auditor General) has the responsibility for contracting with an independent auditor to conduct a
performance audit of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In April 2016, the Auditor General
hired Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, to conduct the second performance audit of the RTP for the
five-year period covering fiscal years 2010-2011 through 2014-2015 as well as projects scheduled
in fiscal years 2015-2016 through 2019-2020. The purpose of the audit is to assess the efficiency,
effectiveness, and performance of MAG's RTP for Maricopa County and address the following
seven objectives identified by the Auditor General:
1. Examine past expenditures of RTP projects previously funded between fiscal years 2010-
2011 through 2014-2015 to determine project impacts on relieving congestion and
improving mobility as well as performance of the system.
2. Review future RTP projects scheduled for funding during fiscal years 2015-2016 through
2019-2020 based on the performance factors in statute, the RTP, the federal New and
Small Starts Criteria, and in context of the transportation system.
3. Confirm whether light rail systems met prescribed federal funding criteria.
4. Assess whether light rail systems have met standards and performance measures related
to service levels, capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, transit ridership, and
farebox revenues in addition to how performance compares to peer agencies.
5. Identify the extent to which active traffic management technology has been, and is being,
effectively used to manage congestion and optimize existing freeway, road, and transit
capacity as well as its impact on previously funded projects and future projects scheduled
for funding.
6. Evaluate changes to federal or state laws that may have a significant impact on the RTP.
7. Make recommendations on whether further implementation of a project or a
transportation system is warranted, warranted with modifications, or not warranted.
Audit Methodology
To fulfill these objectives, we conducted a series of in-depth audit tasks involving data mining and
analysis, documentary examinations, peer comparisons, source data verification, and one-way
interviews. Appendix A provides the detailed methodology employed on this audit.
We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 11 MAG RTP Audit-2016

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR REPRODUCTION PURPOSES]
SJOBERG EVASHENK 12 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Chapter 1: Regional Efforts and Progress Since 2011 RTP Performance Audit
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Funded in large part by Proposition 400 (Prop 400) revenues, the Regional Transportation Plan (RIP) is a
comprehensive, multimodal plan including projects for freeways, arterial streets, and public transit in
addition to other modes, safety, and intelligent transportation system technology.
Prop 400 Expectations Regional Efforts
Ballot language for Prop 400 outlined general regional V Over the past five years, RIP partners'
goals related to congestion relief and improved have implemented many of the 2011 RTP
mobility through the implementation of transportation Performance audit recommendations and
and transit improvement projects on freeways, arterial made extensive changes to performance
streets, light rail, and bus transit. measurement systems, project cards,
external Prop 400 reporting, and
Implementing these projects relies on a number of
administrative efficiencies at the transit
different entities with shared responsibility at the
operator level.
state, regional, and local levels.
V Region is still in the process of developing
performance targets.
Audit Results Highlights
• Many improvements have been made since the 2011 RTP Performance Audit to enhance the
program; in particular, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) performance measurement
system now has interactive dashboard features that displays observed freeway and arterial street
performance.
• Further, the RTP partners developed project cards and project scorecards to share project
information and status with the public on agency websites. Minor improvements could be made to
include budget to actual performance and make local jurisdictional data more centrally available.
• Targets are still not in place although best practices suggest that targets are a key component of a
functioning performance monitoring system.
o While RTP partners have established methodologies to set targets and have proposed some
possible targets, RIP partners are waiting on pending federal guidance before officially setting
specific targets as part of emerging federal requirements on transportation planning.
o Yet, aligned with best practices, several transportation entities in the country already use targets
to measure performance related to crash, speed, ride quality, and congestion goals.
o Without targets, the RTP partners cannot assess how actual performance compares with goals
and expectations on how the system should function.
• Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee (CTOC) is inactive and does not function as effectively
as its peers.
o Committee has not met since May 2014, or issued its required compliance audit since 2010.
o Vacancies exist and impact the ability to establish a quorum of members.
o CTOC is still not being utilized as effectively as it could or as compared to other similar
committees in the country.
11 RTP partners refers to MAO, Arizona Department of Transportation, Valley Metro, and local jurisdictions in Maricopa County.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 13 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Recommendations
• MAG should work with ADOT and the local jurisdictions to enhance freeway and arterial project cards
by including cost budgets and baseline schedules to allow comparisons against actual.
• Valley Metro should strengthen current capital construction project scorecards by including the initial
baseline budget for the project as well as develop consistent project scorecard formats for all transit
capital construction projects, regardless of whether Valley Metro oversees the project or a local
jurisdiction is managing the project.
• Valley Metro and MAG should work together to make available transit project scorecards on MAG's
website, so performance data can be more centrally accessible and transparent to the Prop 400
voters.
• RTP partners should fully employ best practices and establish performance targets for key indicators
for freeway, arterial streets, and transit performance.
• ADOT should work with the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee to ensure responsibilities,
such as annual reporting, are fulfilled and methods of committee operations are changed to be more
effective in meeting statutory requirements.
• ADOT, as the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee's administrative support, should
encourage the County Board of Supervisors and the Governor's Office to fill vacancies on the Citizens
Transportation Oversight Committee and encourage the committee to meet on a regular basis as
statutorily required.
Many Improvements Have Been Made Since 2011 RTP Performance Audit
In 2011, the first Prop 400 audit offered 27 recommendations to MAG, ADOT, Valley Metro
Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), and Valley Metro Rai1 12 to improve practices.
Following the issuance of that audit report, the RTP partners 13 began addressing audit
recommendations and have adopted or implemented the recommendations in some manner.
While we find that some efforts related to the recommendations are still in progress, many
improvements have been made. The RTP partners have:
• Ensured data on Prop 400 reports and related public documents are more consistent;
Enhanced communication of performance data and provided easy to use tools and links to
related information;
Coordinated individual RTP partner performance measurement activities into a central
location on MAG's website with links to other data as needed;
Provided more detailed communications to committee members;
Strengthened written agreements and protocols between RTP partners; and
• Realized operational efficiencies and stronger practices from administrative consolidation
of certain Valley Metro functions.
12 RPTA and Valley Metro Rail, Inc. are administratively combined under one Chief Executive Officer and known as Valley Metro,
except when discussing light rail only activities. For those areas pertaining solely to light rail, we use Valley Metro Rail, Inc.
13 RTP partners refers to MAG, ADOT, Valley Metro, and local jurisdictions in Maricopa County.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 14 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
As recommended by the 2011 RTP Performance Audit, one improvement implemented relates to
the creation of project cards to enhance transparency and report on project progress toward
meeting budget, schedule, and outcome goals. Specifically, as shown in Figure 3, MAG and ADOT
created project cards for freeway and arterial street projects to provide a quick description of a
project, its benefits, current project schedule, and actual expenditures—although there is no
budget or baseline information provided for comparison purposes.
Similarly, Valley Metro created monthly project "scorecards" 14 for light rail and transit projects
that provide an overview of a project, schedule (baseline to current), actual and forecasted costs,
and key project milestones including status of construction. Not only do the Valley Metro project
scorecards provide additional levels of accountability to the public on how well projects are
delivered, but also there are links to Valley Metro's project scorecards on MAG's performance
dashboard that provide a centralized and transparent location to view performance related to
Prop 400 projects.
Unlike light rail projects, most transit bus capital construction projects are managed by local
jurisdictions and no project scorecards are easily available for these locally managed projects.
We found two jurisdictions that had some similar information available on their website, but it
was often limited to items such as capital improvement project maps, assigned project managers,
prime contractors, bid and approval dates, and construction start and end dates. Thus, Valley
Metro should work with the local jurisdictions to enhance the type of information available on
these scorecards and establish formats with uniform elements to be reported such as baseline
budget, revised budget, actual expenditures to-date, baseline schedule and revised schedule, and
information on other key project milestones and updates. Additionally, MAG could include the
scorecards on the performance dashboard or provide links to the local websites where scorecards
are located.
MAG refers to its project status documents as "project cards," while Valley Metro refers to its project status documents as
"project scorecards." Both have similar content and serve a similar purpose.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 15 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Figure 3: Project Card Example for Completed Freeway Project
1-10 Papago to Van Buten St - Addition of new northbound and
southbound lanes
The project improved 99th Avenue between
Intestate 10 and Van en Street within the
Cities of Avondale and Tolleson. The vapTk incUed
widening the existing street and improving ma* W Van Buren St
ilitefsections. In edditbn, new traffic igrsals were
installed, and curbs and storm dra'nage were
improved.
Improvements Include:
/1,/
fiat only did the project enhance traffic flow on
99th Avenue., It also improved the connectivity
between 99th Avenue and the 1 -10 frontage road
system.
: . .
our vaiey Freeway System s part ot tne 2004 v3tet-avprocl Reyn Tramnpvrrzon FISt fAACICIT
Pultist.-10 Date- 14,15,2012
Up.aate3 Da: 61012014
Source: MAG Performance Measurement website; http://projectcards.azmag.gov/
SJOBERG EVASHENK 16 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Robust Freeway and Arterial Performance Measurement System is in Place
Since the 2011 RTP Performance Audit's recommendations calling for enhancements to MAG's
performance system, significant efforts and great diligence have been put into performance
measurement with many strong practices being employed by MAG. For instance, to complement
its existing performance data on freeways, MAG also uses private sector 15 data to analyze travel
time, planning time, and congestion. This private sector data provides better information for
arterial streets based on global positioning system data, rather than using less reliable counting
station data previously available. Moreover, MAG conducts several activities to analyze the
performance data captured before reporting this information on its website. Another
enhancement to MAG's performance system is its MAGnitude Dashboard with interactive
maps—as shown in Figure 4—with toggle buttons to show or hide certain map layers showing
where RTP projects were completed or are still in progress. Hovering the pointer over a project
area would "pop-up" information including the year completed and a short description of the
project.
Figure 4: MAGnitude Dashboard's RTP Project Pop-Up Information Available
Videning of freeway to add one HOV lane
each direction, reconfiguring of freeway
t1-17 to allow for an additional general
Construction of dual left urpose lane, construction of sound walls,
Cactus Road onto 1-17
Source: MAG Performance Measurement website, http://performance.azmag.gov
Many of MAG's efforts were in response to emerging federal requirements from the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21 5t Century (MAP-21) Act implemented in 2012 and the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in December 2015. 16 While performance measures
have been encouraged and discussed for at least 30 years, the federal government is now
mandating performance-based planning and development of certain performance indicators.
These performance requirements are aimed at increasing accountability and transparency and
improving project decision-making through performance-based planning and programming.
Systemwide performance data is also captured and reported by MAG—mainly focused on
freeways and arterial streets. Transit performance is not specifically detailed in the MAGnitude
Dashboard, but based on the 2011 RTP Performance Audit recommendations, MAG's website has
15 Two private data providers were under contract with MAG, including NAVTEQ a provider of base electronic navigable maps.
16 The main purpose of MAP-21 was to provide long-term federal funding for surface transportation, but the law also established
national performance goal areas codified in 23 U.S.C. 150. The FAST Act modified and continued the long-term funding in addition
to strengthening the performance goal areas by requiring target setting to be incorporated into performance based planning.
SJOBERG :EVASHENK 17 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
links to Valley Metro's website for transit performance data. In addition, ADOT tracks
performance indicators including bridge and pavement conditions and fatal and serious injury
crashes. However, this data is reported at the statewide level and is not specific to the Maricopa
County region.
Performance Targets for Freeways and Arterial Streets have not yet Been Established
For decades, best practices have recommended using targets or standards as part of any entity's
performance plan. In the 1990s, the federal government enacted the Government Performance
and Results Act17 to improve public accountability by encouraging governmental entities to
report on whether they were meeting annual performance goals and what actions were needed
to achieve or modify goals not met. 18 Further, the U.S. General Accounting Office offered
additional direction that entities should use a particular target level or baseline to assess their
progress towards goals. More recent guidance from the Transportation Research Board also cites
realistic targets as one of the characteristics of an effective performance-measurement system
allowing program staff to monitor progress towards program objectives and goals and to enhance
public transparency and accountability. However, ADOT and MAG have not yet set formal or
official targets for the freeway or arterial network.
According to MAG, they are in the process of establishing targets that will likely be introduced
with the next iteration of the RTP—which may occur in fiscal year 2017-2018. Specifically, MAG
has developed a detailed methodology to set targets and proposed preliminary targets in certain
areas. Additionally, ADOT has begun discussions with MAG and other metropolitan planning
organizations across the State to develop performance targets and measures in accordance with
federal provisions encouraging coordination between state departments of transportation and
metropolitan planning organizations. In part, MAG and ADOT are waiting for final federal rulings
on FAST Act performance measures—a draft ruling was open for comment until August 20, 2016,
but a final rule date has not yet been set. Because it is challenging for entities to address the
evolving changes regarding performance data as required by FAST Act and how those
requirements will reshape future efforts, it is understandable that MAG has adopted a "wait and
see" approach before devoting significant resources in developing policies and practices to
comply with still-evolving federal rules.
Nonetheless, some level of performance targets are still needed—not just for the sake of
compliance with federal guidance, but simply for evaluating system performance against
expected outcomes and demonstrating accountability to the Maricopa County taxpayers that
supported the 2004 tax initiative. However, MAG believes that setting and reporting on targets
prematurely leads to consecutive shifting and moving targets that results in counterproductive
and conflicting information to various audiences.
17 The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 set forth provisions to improve government performance management
by setting goals and reporting progress.
18 U.S. General Accounting Office Publication GAO/GGD-10.1.20 An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance
Plans, April 1998.
SJOBERG: ,EVASHENK 18 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Other Transportation Peers Regularly use Performance Targets
We found examples in the nation where other transportation entities regularly reported
performance targets as shown in the sections that follow.
San Francisco Bay Area, California
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the San Francisco Bay Area and its sister
agency, the Association of Bay Area Governments, use performance targets to measure and
report on its transportation network conditions including:
• Reduce the number of injuries and fatalities from all collisions by 50 percent.
• Increase non-auto mode share by 10 percent and decrease automobile vehicle miles
traveled per capita by 10 percent.
Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area, Illinois
In its long-range transportation plan titled Choices 2035, the metropolitan planning organization
for the Champaign-Urbana region in central eastern Illinois established objectives and
performance measures with specific targets such as:
• Increase the miles dedicated to bicycle facilities and bike routes by 15 percent by 2014.
• Reduce the total number of crashes in the region by 5 percent by 2014.
• Improve average vehicular travel by at least 1.5 minutes during peak hours on major
corridors by 2035.
Minnesota Department of Transportation
To determine investment levels and guide decision-making, the Minnesota Department of
Transportation uses performance targets such as the following:
• Have less than or equal to 2 percent of Interstate System with poor ride quality.
• Realize less than or equal to 5 percent of system miles operating at more than two miles
per hour below corridor level speed target.
For each measure the Minnesota Department of Transportation presented data showing trends,
projected future performance, targets, and desired trends. For example, as shown in Figure 5,
the Minnesota Department of Transportation tracks performance against its target to keep the
percentage of its interstate roadway system in "poor ride" quality at less than 2 percent. Further,
the department prepares annual performance reports that also provided narrative on how the
data was used to affect transportation improvement decision-making.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 19 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Figure 5: Example of Minnesota Department of Transportation Performance Measure Reporting
Against Established Targets
Percent of Interstate System with poor ride quality
Target 2% d
tren
..egE.........,..,
Desired
3.9
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Source: Minnesota Department Transportation, 2014 Transportation Performance Report
based on investments in the 2015-2018 State Transportation Improvement Program
Utah Department of Transportation
In Utah, performance targets are used to prioritize where funds should be directed by creating a
tiered classification system. Specifically, the Utah Department of Transportation created two
levels of system targets with the Level 1 system designated as roads with average annual daily
traffic (AADT) greater than 1,000 vehicles. As shown in Figure 6, the Level 1 system's target,
indicated by a shaded band, is to have less than 10 percent of road miles in poor condition as
shown in red on the graph. Green reflects miles in good condition and yellow shows miles in fair
condition. For example, in 2013, Level 1 system road quality was 54 percent in the green, or
good condition, and 38 percent in fair condition—leaving only 8 percent of the roads registering
in poor condition indicating the target was met. The Level 2 system, consisting of roads with less
traffic, has a goal of less than 20 percent of miles in poor condition.
SJOBERG: RVASHENK 20 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Figure 6: Example of Tiered Targets Used by Utah Department of Transportation"
LEVEL 1 SYSTEM LEVEL 2 SYSTEM
(GREATER THAN 1,000 AADT-2,945 MILES) (LESS THAN 1,000 AADT-1,985 MILES)
Ride Quality—Forecasted with $106 million NHPP+STP/yr Ride Quality—Forecasted with $10 million Code 1/yr
100% 9" 9' 8' 8" 8" 8' 9' 8" 9' 9. 100%
I I t5M1 ,
90% 90%
80% 5. 44' 44' 39" 38' 34' 32' 31' 29' 27' 80%
70% 70%
60% Miles 60%
50% 50% 60" 59" 60' 59' 58' 55. 56. 54. 53' 51'
of
40% Vo 40% Historical Estimated Future
30% .45C 47H 47i1. 53" 54". 57" 59, 61" 62" 64. 30% Conditions
20% 20%
10% Historical Estimated Conditions Future 10% 23' 21' 21' 21- 18 19' 17. 16. 15" 15'
0
Cs Lo N. co 0 CD Cs co CD CD N- CO
CD Cs Cs Cs CD Cs 5 0.1 N Cs CD Cs N Cs Cs CD CD Cs CD Cs CD Cs CD Cs
Source: Utah Department of Transportation Strategic Direction and Performance Measures, 2014
Performance can be Reported through Trend Analysis
Even without targets, MAG and ADOT could report useful information on whether freeways and
arterial street performance trends are favorable or unfavorable. This trend information is
important when presenting performance data because a measure with a numerical decrease
could indicate a favorable or unfavorable direction. For some measures the direction is obvious,
such as for safety related measures for which a downward trend (towards zero crashes) is
favorable. However, for other measures, the goals of the region can affect whether a specific
measure going down is favorable or not. For example, a region may have a target to increase
vehicle miles traveled as part of its goal of a stronger economy, while another region may have a
target to decrease vehicle miles traveled as part of its goal to promote alternative forms of
transportation. Because an unfavorable trend might still be aligned with regional goals, such as
keeping congestion below certain thresholds where projections indicate congestion will rise with
regional population growth, it is important to include narrative explaining trend results.
One partnership in Arizona—AZTech—has issued public reports that discuss freeway
performance trends. AZTech was launched in 1996 as a regional coalition led by ADOT and the
Maricopa County Department of Transportation that includes more than 17 contributing
agencies, including the towns and cities in the region, MAG, Valley Metro, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), and the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Although it is not a
19 Red indicates "poor" condition, yellow indicates "fair" condition, and green indicates "good" condition. These ratings are based
on the International Roughness Index ratings and accepted by the FHWA as the standard reference widely-used freeway
pavement condition indicator that captures ratings of smoothness of freeway pavement.
SJOBERG EVASBENK 21 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
regulatory or governing body, AZTech has a stated goal of improving mobility, reducing
congestion, and increasing safety for travelers throughout the region as well as guiding the
application of intelligent transportation system technologies for managing regional traffic.
AZTech has evaluated performance trends and reported on whether changes were favorable or
unfavorable as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Example of AZTech Performance Data Reported in 2015
Performance trending in favorable direction. Performance is trending in an unfavorable direction.
CY 2012-2013 CY 2014-2015
Policy Goal/ Performance Measure Period Period Description
Percent of Miles Congested (Out of 31.6% 36.7% Overall congestion freeways where are average experiencing vehicle more speeds drop
Total of 240 Miles Measured) below 50 mph
Percent of Time Congested Per Mile 25.2% 32.1% Overall congested freeways time where are experiencing average vehicle more speeds
(Out of Total of 240 Miles Measured) drop below 50 mph
Source: AZTech Traffic Management and Operations Performance Indicators Book, 2015
In Maricopa County, MAG and ADOT should work together to establish freeway and arterial
targets for the region given that performance data is available. If sufficient levels of baseline data
are not available 20, the entities could, at a minimum, set directional or aspirational targets to
capture general performance expectations, recognizing that there are many factors that affect
the ability to meet these targets. As more historical data becomes available, more realistic
targets can be developed at that point since targets are meant to be constantly monitored and
refined. These types of targets could be established while MAG and ADOT continue to monitor
and comply with emerging federal performance measure rules and regulations. Some
preliminary trend analysis was presented to a regional performance measures and targets
working group in July 2016, but those targets presented have not been officially adopted
according to MAG.
Transit Employs a Strong Performance Measurement and Monitoring System
As part of a performance framework built on industry-standard metrics and best practices, Valley
Metro collects a broad range of performance data both for transit systemwide and by category of
rail, fixed route, vanpool, and paratransit (dial-a-ride) service 21 related to cost efficiency (such as
operating cost per boarding), service effectiveness (such as safety incidents per 100,000
boardings), on-time performance, and total mechanical failures. Moreover, Valley Metro collects
and reports performance through a variety of avenues including transit performance reports,
ridership reports, rider satisfaction surveys, transportation demand management reports, and
on-board surveys as summarized in the bullets that follow:
20 According to MAG, at least three years of traffic data is needed to determine baseline levels for trend analysis. National
discussions support this premise calling for a similar number of years-worth of data before setting baseline targets.
21 Transit services include rail (a light rail electric railway with a light passenger volume capacity), fixed route bus services (with
regular schedules and dedicated stops), vanpool (seating capacity for at least six people), and paratransit (dial-a-ride) services.
SJOBERG 'EVASHENK 22 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
• Transit Performance Report: This report captures performance measurement data for
regional and local bus services, including fixed route, paratransit (dial-a-ride), vanpool,
and light rail services regardless of whether the service is funded by Proposition 400 or by
a local city operator. Valley Metro tracks its performance compared to peers for a variety
of industry-standard metrics related to on-time performance, cost recovery, and
ridership, and this report includes dashboard indicators showing whether trends are
positive, neutral, or negative through green, yellow, and red signals.
• Rider Satisfaction Survey: Valley Metro's Annual Rider Satisfaction Survey is designed to
capture demographic characteristics, ridership patterns, and level of satisfaction of people
who use Valley Metro's bus, light rail, and paratransit services.
• Transportation Demand Management: Valley Metro conducts annual phone surveys to
understand the travel behavior of Maricopa County residents, including both riders and
non-riders, as well as asks respondents about their familiarity with Valley Metro services
and opinions on the most important transit-related issues facing Maricopa County. The
survey provides some insight into the demand for and public perception of transit services
that assist Valley Metro with transit planning.
• Ridership Report: This annual ridership report contains a detailed breakdown of ridership
for each mode and route by fare type (such as full fare, reduced fare, or monthly passes)
and weekday versus weekend service.
• On-Board Survey: Over the last five years, Valley Metro completed two on-board surveys
to capture ridership behavior, trip origin and destination, and general demographic data
for use on transit capital construction project studies. Additionally, Valley Metro surveys
riders to identify transit customers and system usage, issues with individual routes, and
opportunities to improve connectivity within the transit system. For instance, the most
recent report revealed that approximately 66 percent of riders only use one route to
complete their one-way trip—thus, most riders do not need multiple connections to reach
their end destination.
In addition to these performance tracking tools, Valley Metro has focused on tracking and
improving connectivity between bus stops and routes, light rail stations and routes, and park-
and-ride centers during fiscal year 2015-2016. 22 Specifically, Valley Metro completed a recent
study in fiscal year 2015-2016 that made several recommendations to increase service frequency,
optimize and streamline routes, eliminate service, add service, and better integrate local bus with
rail service.
These efforts are aligned with others across the U.S. where measuring transit performance
related to connectivity is picking up momentum. Specifically, with more federal.focus on
performance measurement including connectivity since 2011, 23 other transit entities are
beginning to develop and use connectivity measures. 24 For instance, the City of Colorado Springs
22 Connectivity refers to the ease of transfer from one system to another such as bus to bus, bus to light rail, or vehicle to light rail.
23 More federal focus on connectivity is seen as part of the MAP-21 and FAST Acts.
24 According to a January 5, 2015 USDOT Transportation Connectivity Whitepaper.
SJOBERG -EVASHENK 23 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
tracks the number of system connectivity components, such as transit transfer locations and
park-and-ride lots. In Washington D.C., one measure used for connectivity is how many high-
capacity transit stations are within a 7.5-minute walk. Like these other entities, Valley Metro
indicated that it implemented a practice in calendar year 2016 to assess system connectivity as
part of its route evaluation process. Prior to any service change or new service implementation,
Valley Metro now conducts a route analysis to identify and measure the number of direct transit
route connections to assess regional connectivity. However, this practice was not in place during
our audit fieldwork; thus, we could not review Valley Metro's efforts in this area.
Transit Performance Targets would Help Manage the Progress toward System Goals
In fiscal year 2010-2011, Valley Metro stopped including performance targets in its annual transit
performance reports although targets are a key component of a comprehensive performance
measurement system. Rather, Valley Metro uses performance thresholds to measure individual
route performance against other similar routes. However, without targets, Valley Metro cannot
assess its progress towards meeting performance goals. At a minimum, some level of narrative
describing what the performance and trend data indicates is needed to assist taxpayers in
understanding whether transit is achieving its stated goals for the region.
Other entities, such as Seattle Sound Transit, provide monthly actual, and year-to-date
performance against targets for a variety of measures such as on-time performance, percentage
of scheduled trips operated, and farebox recovery. This entity also provides a brief narrative of
the historical performance and expectations for future trends. While we noted that Valley Metro
discussed performance trends in detail during board presentations, this discussion was not
included in the annual Transit Performance Report itself making it difficult for taxpayers
reviewing the data to discern whether or not performance trends were favorable or unfavorable.
In a 2014 report on best practices in transit performance, the Florida Department of
Transportation cites a variety of authoritative documents and case studies of performance
practices and setting targets. Valley Metro employs many of these best practices and
benchmarks its performance against peer transit providers in the country. Yet, without some
type of target or standard such as "increasing ridership by 10 percent every five years" or
"realizing on-time performance at least 90 percent of the time on an annual basis," Valley Metro
cannot assess whether itis meeting its performance expectations and goals.
Transit uses Performance Categories for Decision-Making
In an effort to use performance data to develop a performance-based public transportation
system consistent with federal and state requirements and as recommended in the 2011 RIP
Performance Audit, Valley Metro began a Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures
study in 2013. The study, meant to establish a set of service standards and performance
measures to guide the development of current and future transit services, was conducted in
three phases with final completion in June 2016.
SJOBERG ,EVASHENK 24 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Study phases included:
1. Phase I: Completed in November 2013, this phase focused on development of service
goals, standards for transit service, and measures for assessing the performance of transit
services. Many stakeholders—including MAG, ADOT, local jurisdictions, and regional peer
agencies—were involved with identifying challenges and opportunities as well as
establishing the final eleven performance measures to evaluate transit performance.
2. Phase II: This phase, completed in December 2014, focused on developing measurement
tools, service thresholds, and standards for assessing the need for new services. In order
to compare the relative performance of specific routes or services areas, Valley Metro
developed a transit service threshold tool.
3. Phase III: Recently completed in June 2016, this phase established standards for service
design—including route duplication and end-of-line vehicle turnaround standards—as
well as created a fleet prioritization process to meet current and future fleet needs.
In accordance with its Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures study, individual
routes are ranked based on five industry-standard and appropriate performance metrics:
1. On-time Performance
2. Weekday Boa rdings per Revenue Hour
3. Weekday Boardings per Revenue Mile
4. Weekday Farebox Recovery Rate
5. Weekday Boardings per Trip
Routes falling within the bottom 25 percent or rising to the top 25 percent in two of the five
metric areas are evaluated annually to determine if system or route specific adjustments are
warranted including route revisions, increased or decreased service levels, or expanded or
eliminated services.
Our review of individual route performance found that Valley Metro actively monitored and
made adjustments following this performance-based methodology using actual performance
data. Specifically, we selected five routes funded with Prop 400 funds for further analysis as
shown in Table 1, including a variety of fixed route service, rural service, and link service. We
found that when route performance declined over the audit period, Valley Metro made route
adjustments or eliminated the underperforming routes. For instance, performance data revealed
Route 511 had low ridership and a high subsidy per boarding; specifically, the farebox recovery
ratio was only 2.2 percent and the subsidy per boarding was $62.25 in fiscal year 2010-2011.
Initially, Valley Metro reduced service on this route in 2012 and saw increases in the amount of
"per boarding subsidies" between fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Yet, when those
subsidies sky-rocketed to $140.56 in fiscal year 2014-2015, Valley Metro ultimately eliminated
the route.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 25 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Table 1: Prop 400 Funded Route Performance, Fiscal Years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015
Performance Route 40 A Route 112 B Link-Arizona Route 511 ° Wickenburg
Measure: Avenue ° Connector E
Farebox
Recovery '
FY 2010-11 22.9% 33.5% 13.8% 2.2% Not Available
FY 2011-12 21.8% 26.9% 15.5% 1.5% 3.6%
FY 2012-13 27.6% 34.2% 22.0% 1.5% Not Available
FY 2013-14 25.1% 34.8% 23.2% 1.7% Not Available
FY 2014-15 22.1% 29.5% 20.9% 1.3% Not Available
Subsidy per
Boarding
FY 2010-11 $2.93 $1.69 $5.27 $62.25 Not Available
FY 2011-12 $2.95 $2.29 $4.63 $89.28 $76.84
FY 2012-13 $2.57 $1.86 $3.53 $88.78 Not Available
FY 2013-14 $2.59 $1.65 $2.84 $95.15 Not Available
FY 2014-15 $2.89 $1.97 $3.04 $140.56 Not Available
Boardings per
Revenue Mile
FY 2010-11 1.55 2.21 0.97 2.35 Not Available
FY 2011-12 1.86 2.24 1.28 1.62 0.07
FY 2012-13 2.06 2.59 1.62 1.57 Not Available
FY 2013-14 1.87 2.55 1.75 1.42 Not Available
FY 2014-15 1.82 2.42 1.76 1.00 Not Available
Net Operating
Cost per Mile
FY 2010-11 $4.56 $3.74 $5.09 Not Available Not Available
FY 2011-12 $5.49 $5.13 $5.93 $7.21 $5.13
FY 2012-13 $5.30 $4.82 $5.71 $6.91 Not Available
FY 2013-14 $4.84 $4.21 $4.97 $6.54 Not Available
FY 2014-15 $5.28 $4.77 $5.35 $7.04 Not Available
Source: Valley Metro Transit Performance Reports
Note: A Route 40 provides local service within Mesa, and was reduced in fiscal year 2011-2012; B Regional Funding for Route 112,
which runs from Chandler to Mesa increased in fiscal year 2011-2012; C Arizona Avenue-Link service runs from Chandler to Main
Street in Mesa. ° Route 511 service ran from the Scottsdale Airpark to the Chandler Park and Ride. EWickenburg Rural Service
Connector began in 2006 and was eliminated in 2011; F Farebox Recovery is rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent for fiscal
years 2011-2012 through 2014-2015.
SJOBERG EVASHIHNK 26 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Statutorily Established Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee is not Functioning as
well as other Peers
In 1994, Arizona statutes created the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee (CTOC) as part
of Maricopa County's Proposition 300 sales tax initiative which was primarily related to freeway
transportation projects. With the passage of Proposition 400 (Prop 400) in 2004, CTOC was
tasked with facilitating citizen involvement in the decision-making process for planning and
construction of freeways as well as those activities related to arterial streets and transit
improvements funded by the one-half cent sales tax. Composed of public members, CTOC is an
independent body with authority and responsibility separate from the RTP partners illustrated
and discussed in Figure 1 in the Introduction and Background section of this report.
The 2004 publicity pamphlet for Prop 400 describes CTOC as having responsibility for monitoring
the RTP. However, CTOC is not functioning as intended. For example, CTOC has not contracted
for a statutorily required financial compliance audit of all expenditures from the regional area
road fund and the public transportation fund since fiscal year 2013. In addition, CTOC has not
met since May 2014. Two factors may explain CTOC's failure to meet as required by statute.
First, Arizona legislative House Bill 2600 was proposed in 2016 to eliminate CTOC—efforts that
were not successful, but may have dissuaded the committee from fulfilling its responsibilities.
Second, as of August 31, 2016, there were several vacancies on CTOC.
Even when CTOC was meeting, its role was limited. Based on our review of minutes for the 19
CTOC meetings held during our five-year audit period, the RTP partner agencies did not ask the
committee for input or recommendations on proposed changes to the RTP. Further, CTOC
seldom voted or made recommendations during any of its meetings other than on CTOC internal
activities such as meeting schedules and required annual CTOC reports.
Arizona Revised Statute 28-6356 provides CTOC broad authority and allows it to advise and make
recommendations on matters in the regional transportation plan. Specifically, CTOC is statutorily
tasked with key responsibilities as follows.
• Review and advise the Governor, Legislature, State Transportation Board, Director of ADOT,
MAG Regional Council, and the Board of Directors of the Regional Public Transportation
Authority on matters related to projects funded by Proposition 400 and in the RTP;
• Review and make recommendations regarding any proposed major amendment of the RTP
by the MAG Regional Council;
• Annually review and comment on the criteria developed by MAG to establish the priority of
corridors, corridor segments, and other transportation projects.
• Annually contract with an independent auditor who is a certified public accountant to
conduct a financial compliance audit of all expenditures from the regional area road fund
and the public transportation fund and receive the auditor's report.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 27 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
The CTOC may also make recommendations to MAG, RPTA, and the State Transportation Board
regarding transportation projects and public transportation systems funded in the RTP, the
Transportation Improvement Program, the ADOT Five-Year Construction Program and the Life
Cycle Management Programs. Although other avenues are available for citizens to provide a
great deal of input through the various RTP partners' committee processes, this input is typically
provided during a short public-comment window at a committee meeting. Through a mechanism
like CTOC, citizens serving on the committee have an opportunity to inquire, deliberate, and
request additional information from the RTP partners on proposed RTP actions.
Unlike CTOC, other peer agencies have developed formal protocols to guide committee functions
and operate as a more critical step in the regional transportation process. In particular San
Diego's "Statement of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of the Independent
Taxpayer Oversight Committee for the TransNet Program" describes not only practices guiding
how the committee fulfills its duties, but also its functional role as a partner to the regional
planning agency. The established protocols delineate a number of responsibilities and duties
such as to review the major congestion relief projects for performance in terms of cost control
and schedule adherence on a quarterly basis. Another citizens' sales tax oversight committee
from the City of Springfield, Missouri spent time developing specific functions to fulfill its
mandate, identifying information to request, defining how to interpret and evaluate data, and
contemplating mechanisms for obtaining citizen input.
Further, other similar oversight committees are provided substantive data related to projects and
rationale behind ultimate actions and decisions made as part of the same presentation packets
that are provided to official decision-making bodies. With this type of data, CTOC members can
vote their formal approval or disapproval of project activities and that vote can be carried
forward with the CTOC chair as a voting member of the MAG Transportation Policy Committee.
Moreover, if CTOC incorporated some of these peer techniques, CTOC could better employ its
duties transferring knowledge between members rotating on or off the committee, establishing
expectations for information and data needs from the RTP partners, and demonstrating
accountability to the public.
With half of the Prop 400 term still remaining, ADOT should work together with existing CTOC
members to transition the current inactive state of CTOC into a more robust oversight committee
that better serves the public and contributes to the transportation and transit processes. As
such, we believe that ADOT, as the administrative support for CTOC, should work cooperatively
with the remaining CTOC members, County Board of Supervisors, and the Governor's Office to fill
CTOC vacancies and revamp committee practices. Consideration should be given to ensure CTOC
members possess a broad complement of skills and expertise related to freeway, arterial streets,
bus transit, and rail. Moreover, ADOT should encourage all the RTP partners to use the
committee as an important step in the RIP planning and project implementation process to seek
perspective and input on the broad spectrum of project and program issues, whether it is related
to funding or project design and scoping issues. They should strive to facilitate citizen input and
best protect the public's interest. In addition, ADOT should ensure that CTOC contracts with an
independent auditor to conduct the annual financial compliance audit.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 28 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Chapter 2: Freeway Performance
CHAPTER SUMMARY
With 56.2 percent of funding earmarked for improvements on the freeway network in the Maricopa
County region, Proposition 400 (Prop 400) placed significant emphasis on the construction of new
freeway corridors and expanding capacity on existing freeways to help relieve congestion.
Prop 400/RTP Improvements Proposed Performance
Of the $14.3 billion of Prop 400 fu nding expected in 2005, $8 / There were over 30 million vehicle
billion in sales tax revenues was allocated towards freeway and miles of travel on freeways in
highway projects intended to build nearly 770 miles of new and calendar year 2014 which was about
improved freeways through new corridors, added lanes, high four percent greater than in calendar
occupancy vehicle lanes, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges, year 2011.
landscaping, and maintenance. / Average travel time index during the
Funding deficits during the recession required rebalancing afternoon peak travel hours
efforts to cut the freeway program down to $6.6 billion in fiscal increased resulting in longer travel
year 2011-2012 which was mainly achieved through value times across the regional freeway
engineering decisions that cut costs and the deferral of projects system from calendar years 2010 to
beyond the 2003 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) horizon of 2014.
fiscal year 2025-2026. / Morning average travel time index
remained relatively flat and midday
Status of Projects and Activities
travel time decreased.
As of June 2015, 67 freeway projects have opened to traffic
/ 37 projects opened to traffic
adding approximately 240 miles of new and improved lanes to
between fiscal years 2010-2011 and
the freeway network—for a total of nearly 1,800 freeway miles
2014-2015 adding or improving 153
in Maricopa County.
freeway miles and 10 traffic
interchanges.
Audit Results Highlights
• Between fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2014-2015, freeway performance trends related to the
expenditure of Prop 400 and RTP funding show congestion and travel time have increased in the
afternoon and decreased during midday.
• While performance indicators generally reveal higher levels of congestion with longer travel times in
the afternoon, we cannot evaluate this performance in terms of expectations because no official or
formal targets have been established or adopted.
• Congestion growth trends in Maricopa County are aligned with performance nationwide—although the
Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area is less congested than several other peers in the nation.
• Completed portions of the Red Mountain/Loop 101 Pima to Broadway design-build project were
delivered below budget and schedule delays were reasonable and documented.
• Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) uses many widely-accepted project management best
practices and also tracks internal project delivery efficiency and performance.
• Major progress has been made on the South Mountain/Loop 202 freeway with many leading and
innovative practices being employed.
SJOBERG -EVASBENK 29 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Recommendations
• ADOT should report freeway bridge and pavement condition data at the Maricopa County or
Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area level, in addition to current statewide data already available.
• ADOT should track and report internal project delivery performance metrics at the Maricopa County
or Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area level.
• ADOT should consider using additional project delivery metrics including "project administrative
costs as a percent of budget."
• With many innovative project management practices employed on the South Mountain Freeway
project, ADOT should consider applying techniques and tools from this project to other ADOT
freeway projects, as appropriate.
Performance Results Show that the Freeway Systemwide is More Congested during the
Evening Commute, but Less Congested during Midday and Morning Commuting Hours
With a majority of Prop 400 funds and other state and local funds allocated to the freeway
system, the RIP freeway projects are important to the successful operation of the MAG regional
network as freeways comprise the vast majority of the entire multimodal network. Thus, freeway
performance in terms of congestion and speed is critical to mobility in the region.
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) is currently tracking performance on 10
freeway corridors, which represent the key travelled corridors and cover the majority of the
region's freeway network. Performance is not tracked on all corridors because some freeways
are not yet complete (e.g. South Mountain) or data is limited or not available for others.' As of
June 30, 2015, more than $2.4 billion has been spent on these 10 corridors as part of the RIP and
Prop 400 projects started in 2005 as shown in Table 2.
To understand potential impacts resulting from expenditures on these freeway projects over
fiscal years 2010-2011 through 2014-2015, we reviewed changes in system performance using
MAG's new dashboard feature—MAGnitude—which offers a multitude of valuable performance
information related to freeway activity. While we were asked to examine performance of the
system, MAG also has voluminous data available to examine the 10 freeway corridors separately
by time of day and in various directions (northbound, southbound, westbound, and eastbound).
Specifically, we assessed regional freeway performance using calendar year data available based
on four industry standard performance indicators—vehicle miles of travel, speed, travel time, and
planning time. 26
25 Given the expense, significant effort, and cost-benefit involved with capturing performance data, others in the U.S. are similar
to Maricopa County where performance data is not captured or available for every segment or mile of freeway.
26 Only calendar year data was available so performance assessments do not exactly align with the fiscal years under audit.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 30 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Table 2: Regional Freeway System Performance Corridors and Costs in Maricopa County,
July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2015 (dollars in millions)
Corridor Design Right-of-Way Construction Total
1 1-10 Papago & Maricopa $ 24.0 $ 204.6 214.4 $ 443.0
2 1-17 Black Canyon $ 14.6 $ 94.5 $ 317.2 $ 426.3
3 SR 51 Piestewa $ 3.7 $ 0.1 $ 49.9 $ 53.7
4 US 60 Superstition $ 3.2 $ 2.3 $ 128.9 $ 134.4
5 SR 101 Agua Fria $ 2.4 $ 1.2 $ 185.0 $ 191.4
6 SR 101 Pima $ 15.0 $ 4.0 $ 202.1 $ 217.1
7 SR 101 Price $ 5.0 $ - $ 43.9 $ 49.2
8 SR 143 Hohokam $ 3.6 $ 0.3 $ 20.7 $ 24.3
9 SR 202 Red Mountain $ 4.3 $ 5.0 $ 394.2 $ 398.5
10 SR 202 Santan $ 1.8 $ - $ 114.0 $ 500.2
Total Freeways: $ 77.6 $ 312.0 $ 1,670.3 $ 2,438.1
Source: ADOT Freeway Life Cycle Program Certification, July 2015
I = Interstate; SR = State Route
Some data is available for the Maricopa County region, while other data is only available for the
Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area as defined by the U.S. Census. 27 Because the Phoenix-Mesa
Urbanized Area accounts for the vast majority of the population in Maricopa County, it is a useful
indicator of regional performance. Specific results are discussed in the sections that follow;
however, performance of the freeways systemwide in terms of congestion is mixed depending on
specific corridor traveled and time of day. While performance is measured, an evaluation of
whether expectations were met cannot be determined with certainty until ADOT and MAG
officially set formal performance targets.
Vehicle Miles of Travel on Freeways Has Mostly Increased
Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is a measure of the volume of traffic for a roadway system. 28 The
vehicle miles of travel for the Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area is captured by ADOT's freeway
management system that counts and measures traffic volume through a network of cameras,
ramp meters, and traffic detectors connected by miles of fiber optic networks. Loop detectors
embedded in asphalt assist in determining the speed of vehicles that pass over them, while MAG
analyzes and reports on the freeway performance information gathered for the MAG region.
Based on this data, the annual average of daily vehicle miles of travel for the Phoenix-Mesa
Urbanized Area increased approximately four percent between calendar years 2011 and 2014
27 U.S. Census urbanized areas are areas consisting of a central core and adjacent densely settled territory with 50,000 residents
or more.
28 Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is a measure of the number of miles traveled by vehicles in a region over a period of time. VMT is
determined by either actual odometer readings or by estimated modeling calculations.
SJOBERG EVASIENIC 31 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
rising from 29.5 million miles in calendar year 2011 to 30.8 million miles in calendar year 2014.
According to MAG's 2014 RTP Update Report, the increase in vehicle miles of travel is linked to
the upward trend in the national and regional economy where more people are employed and
are using their vehicles to drive to jobs.
Speed Levels have Slightly Increased Midday, but Slightly Decreased in the Afternoon on
Maricopa County Freeway System
Speed is an important measure for the general taxpaying public as most individuals want to drive
on the freeways at maximum posted speed limits. Like others in the industry, MAG purchases
performance data from third party private sector vendors 29 to capture information on the entire
freeway system and not just the miles covered by ADOT detection methods. MAG uses
geographic information system software to visually display the data on the MAGs performance
measurement website. The result is an interactive map with color-coded streets and freeways
that show the speed and congestion. MAG also uses the data to calculate traffic statistics,
averaged over three periods of the clay.'
For the Maricopa County freeway system, we found varying speed results for different times of
day, as shown in Chart 1. Specifically, morning and midday speeds favorably increased between
calendar years 2011 and 2014—although by small increases of 0.3 percent and 2.5 percent,
respectively. 31 Conversely, afternoon speeds have decreased slightly by 1.5 percent from 60.6
miles per hour to 59.7 miles over the same period.
29 Two private data providers were under contract with MAG, including NAVTEQ a provider of base electronic navigable maps.
3° The three periods of the day used for reporting are morning (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.), midday (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.), and
afternoon (3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
31 Percent change in speed was calculated based on the speeds rounded to the nearest tenths decimal place.
SJOBERG ,EVASHENK 32 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Chart 1: Average Speeds on Freeway System
Calendar Years 2011 through 2014
----A 64.7
Hour 63.1 ir
per
iles
M 60.6
59.7
59.0 59.2
2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
—W–AM —A—Mid PM
Source: Private sector data provided from MAGnitude Dashboard at http://performance.azmag.gov/
A.M. refers to morning data (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.); Mid refers to midday data (9 a.m. to 3 p.m.); P.M. refers to afternoon data (3 p.m.
to 6 p.m.)
The change observed when summarizing speed across the entire freeway system may at first
seem small in magnitude. However, the summary includes both directions of each section of
freeway, so variances in speed due to high commute traffic will be minimized. For example, on
Interstate-10 Papago, 32 the average westbound afternoon speed was about 53 miles per hour in
2014, whereas the average eastbound speed was about 64 miles per hour. Further, some
corridors of the freeway system, such as the Agua Fria Freeway/Loop 101, showed an increasing
trend in afternoon speeds for both directions of travel.'
Travel Time Reliability on Maricopa County Freeways has Mostly Shown Slight Increases
Another important measure of freeway performance is the reliability of the network for drivers to
reach their destinations within expected timeframes. One metric, the travel time index, conveys
the estimated time needed to travel a segment of freeway compared to "free flow" or normal
conditions.' The higher the travel time index, the longer a driver's travel time will be. For
instance, a travel time index of 1.14 means that a 30-minute commute at normal free-flow
conditions would take approximately 34.2 minutes in reality. 35
32 The segment known as 1-10 Papago is located west of Phoenix and was analyzed for portion of road between Agua Fria
Freeway/Loop 101 and State Route 51.
33 Average afternoon speed for the Agua Fria Freeway/Loop 101 corridor in 2014 was 65.1 miles per hour in the north-east bound
direction and 62.7 miles per hour in the south-west bound direction.
34 The free flow speed is calculated based on the 85th-percentile of observed speeds on a specific segment (across all time
periods), which establishes an estimation of the speed of traffic at '"free-flow" for that segment.
35 30 minutes multiplied by 1.14 travel time index equates to 34.2 minutes of driving time.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 33 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
As indicated in Chart 2, the average travel time index across the freeway system in Maricopa
County increased only slightly between calendar years 2011 and 2014 during the morning and
afternoon peak travel hours—while midday average travel time index slightly decreased. 36 The
largest change in the average freeway travel time index was shown in the afternoon peak hours.
In 2011, the average travel time index for the freeway system was 1.11 and in 2014 was 1.14—an
approximate 2.7 percent increase. 37 This means that a commute that took 33.3 minutes in
calendar year 2011 took slightly more time at 34.2 minutes in calendar year 2014—a mostly
insignificant increase.
Chart 2: Average Travel Time Index on Freeway System Calendar Years 2011 through 2014
1.14
Index
Time
Travel 1.07
1.05
2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
—0—AM Mid PM
Source: Private sector data provided from MAG Performance Measurement website http://performance.azmag.gov/
A.M. refers to morning data (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.); Mid refers to midday data (9.a.m. to 3.p.m.); P.M. refers to afternoon data (3 p.m.
to 6 p.m.)
Planning Time Reliability on Maricopa County Freeway System also had Varied Results
For drivers, a planning time index can often be more useful for determining how long a freeway
trip will take to arrive at a destination on-time 95 percent of the time. 38 In Maricopa County,
between calendar years 2011 and 2014, the planning time index was flat during the morning
commute, decreased during the midday commute indicating shorter than expected time spent on
the freeway system, and increased on the afternoon commute resulting in longer than expected
time spent on the freeway system as shown in Chart 3. 39 For an example of how the planning
38 Travel time index data was summarized on the MAGnitude Dashboard by three periods—morning (6:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m.),
midday (9:00 a.m.to 3:00 p.m.), and afternoon (3:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m.).
37 Percent change in travel time index was calculated based on the travel time index rounded to the nearest hundredths decimal
place. •
38 The planning time index is a multiplier of "free flow" or normal conditions time just like travel time index.
39 Planning Time Index data was summarized on the MAGnitude Dashboard by three periods—morning (6:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m.),
midday (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.), and afternoon (3:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m.).
SJOBERG EVASHENK 34 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
time index works, imagine a driver that wants to be certain (at a 95 percent confidence level) to
arrive at the airport on time for a 5 p.m. flight. If the trip normally took 30 minutes in free flow
conditions, that driver would need to plan for 43.2 minutes of travel time in 2011. By 2014, that
planning time grew slightly to 44.4 minutes in 2014. 4°
Chart 3: Average Planning Time Index on Freeway System
Calendar Years 2011 through 2014
Source: Private sector data provided on MAG Performance Measurement website http://performance.azmag.gov/
A.M. refers to morning data (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.); Mid refers to midday data (9 a.m. to 3 p.m.);
P.M. refers to afternoon data (3 p.m. to 6 p.m.)
Yet, there were also variances in planning time index results across specific freeway corridors.
For example, one of the highest planning time indices calculated was for the 1-10 Papage -
freeway, eastbound traffic for the morning period. In 2014, the planning time index was 2.12,
meaning that a driver should more than double the normal trip time to ensure an on-time arrival.
Specifically, a 30-minute commute in free flow conditions should be planned to take over 63
minutes. In another corridor, the Agua Fria Freeway/Loop 101, auditors calculated that the
planning time index increased moderately for some parts of the day depending on direction of
travel and remained flat during the other times. Even with these increases, the Agua Fria
Freeway/Loop 101 planning time indices were in the 1.1 to 1.4 range in 2014—well below the
levels registered on the 1-10.
Freeway Performance Trends in the Phoenix-Mesa Area are Better than Others Across the Nation
While there are several entities that track freeway performance throughout the country, one of
the most widely-accepted reports on congestion is the Urban Mobility Report issued by the Texas
Transportation Institute. The report has its critics, but the data provided is the most readily
available and widely used by government agencies and the general public. According to this
402011 planning time of 43.2 minutes calculation of 30 minutes x 1.44; 2014 planning time of 44.4 minutes calculation of 30
minutes x 1.48.
41 The free segment known as 1-10 Papago is located west of Phoenix and was analyzed for portion of road between Agua Fria
Freeway/Loop 101 and State Route 51.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 35 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
report, the Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area trends showing reduced speeds in the afternoon on
freeways and increased travel time indexes are aligned with national observations that
congestion was worse during afternoon commutes than at other times of day. 42 The Texas
Transportation Institute also pointed to the recovering economy—with increases in population
and employment—as an integral driver behind those congestion level increases.
Yet, even with the Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area's worsening trends, congestion levels were
better than most other comparable large urban areas. Specifically, when compared to 15 other
urban areas with populations greater than 3 million, the Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area
experienced the second lowest travel time index—meaning that travelers in the area experienced
faster trips than travelers in all but one of the other peer areas."
Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Rates Decreased Statewide and in Maricopa County, but
Total Crashes Increased
Total crashes on Maricopa County freeways were greater by more than 21,000 in calendar year
2014 than in calendar year 2011 when approximately 18,000 crashes were reported. 44 Although
vehicle miles of travel was also greater, the growth was smaller than the increase in crashes. In
other words, the rate of crashes per thousand vehicle miles of travel was 11.5 percent greater in
calendar year 2014 than compared to calendar year 2011 as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Rate of Total Crashes per Thousand Vehicle Miles of Travel on Freeways,
Calendar Years 2011 to 2014
Percent Change
2011 2012 2013 2014 from 2011 to
2014
Total Freeway VMT 29,495,000 29,073,330 29,400,899 30,802,738 4.4%
Freeway Crashes 18,083 18,139 20,073 21,064 16.5%
Crashes per Thousand VMT 0.613 0.624 0.683 0.684 11.5%
Source: MAG Performance Measurement website http://performance.azmag.gov/ and crash data provided by MAG
Note: VMT = vehicle miles of travel
ADOT reports that the trend in "fatal and serious injury" only crashes on freeways was down 8
percent statewide between calendar years 2011 and 2014. When compared to overall national
trends, the Maricopa County freeway system had a lower level of fatal crashes as a rate of vehicle
miles of travel.' Further, the rate of fatal crashes per vehicle miles of travel for the Phoenix-
Mesa Urbanized Area freeway system was slightly lower in calendar year 2014 when compared to
calendar year 2011—a trend that is similar to national results where fatalities also slightly
decreased during that same time frame.
42 Texas A&M Transportation Institute's 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard.
43 Texas A&M Transportation Institute's 2015 Urban Congestion Report. The urban area with the lowest reported congestion was
the Philadelphia area; highest was the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim area.
44 While MAG has assumed the lead role in reporting performance data for the freeway system in Maricopa County, ADOT also
collects and reports on certain other performance elements including safety related measures of fatal and serious injury crash
rates.
45Federally reported data did not distinguish between freeway and arterial roadways.
SJOBERG EVASIDDIK 36 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Statewide Data Suggests Freeway Pavement and Bridges are in Fair or Good Condition
Another measure of how well a freeway system performs relates to the condition of its pavement
and bridges that can affect the quality and speed of the ride as well as the safety on those
roadways. In Maricopa County, ADOT tracks pavement and bridge conditions—yet this data is
only reported at the statewide level and not easily reportable discretely by county. That said,
ADOT reports that freeway pavement and freeway bridges in the state are in good condition with
the most recent performance data from calendar year 2014 suggesting a solid foundation is in
place. Specifically, 2014 calendar year statewide data demonstrates the following:
• 94 percent of miles of pavement are in good or fair condition 46
• 98 percent of freeway bridges are in good (65 percent) or fair condition (33 percent) 47
As ranked by the Federal Highway Administration, only Florida, Texas, and Nevada have more
bridges in good condition than Arizona nationwide. 48 However, there has been a slight decline in
freeway bridge condition dropping from 73 percent of bridges in good condition in calendar year
2011 to 65 percent in good condition in calendar year 2014. Even so, Arizona compares favorably
to other states. To enable Prop 400 voters to weigh performance against their sales tax
investments, ADOT should report pavement and bridge condition data at the Maricopa County or
the Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area level.
Impact of Individual RTP Projects on Travel Time is Difficult to Evaluate
In addition to analyzing performance trends over freeways systemwide, we attempted to assess
how certain RTP project improvements along a specific corridor affected performance in that
particular area. Yet, it should be noted that the performance of a specific project is influenced by
many factors mostly outside the RIP partners' control such as population changes, volume of
traffic incidents, and economic vitality. Additionally, measuring performance of a single project
may over or under estimated that project's impact on overall system performance—especially if
the project is part of a series of project improvements along a corridor or freeway segment.
Nonetheless, project level analysis provides some indication of performance that can be analyzed
and used as part of monitoring efforts.
As such, we reviewed the performance of the Agua Fria Freeway/Loop 101 from Interstate-10
Papago to Tatum Boulevard as highlighted in Figure 8. This project opened to traffic in October
2011 and added 30 miles of new northbound and southbound high occupancy vehicle lanes.
Based on data from the MAGnitude Dashboard, reliability decreased after the RTP project was
completed. Data revealed that the planning time index was higher—indicating longer travel
times in calendar year 2012 after the RTP project was completed, than when compared against
46 As categorized against the International Roughness Index—an-FHWA accepted standard reference and widely-used and freeway
pavement condition indicator that captures the smoothness of freeway pavement.
47 Using the National Bridge Inventory Condition Rating that ranks bridge deck conditions on a scale from 0 to 9, where a rating of
0 to 4 is considered poor, 5 to 6 is fair, and 7 to 9 is good.
48 According to FHWA's National Bridge Inventory 2015 data, Arizona ranks 4th of 51 States with reported data.
SJOBERG EVASHENTK 37 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
travel times in calendar year 2010 before the project was completed. In particular, the morning
planning time index was greater by about 2.2 percent in the north/east direction and greater by
about 2.6 percent in the south/west direction. In practical terms, these results indicate that a
driver with a 20-minute commute in normal, free flow conditions, south-west bound in the
morning would have planned for an average of 22.6 minutes to travel in 2010 and increased
planning time to 23.2 minutes in 2012.
Figure 8: Map of SR101, 1-10 Papago to Tatum Boulevard Improvements
Gleddale
Scottsdale !I
Phoenix
Tempe
Source: Map data ©2016 Google, INEGI displayed on MAG MS2 website
http://mag.ms2cloud.com/tdms.ui/ttds/dashboard?loc=Mag
While an increase in travel time may not be favorable, it could be a result of a growing population
or strengthened economy. As population increases, it seems logical to assume that congestion
and travel times might also increase. Yet, it is difficult to determine whether these increases in
travel time noted on the Agua Fria Freeway/Loop 101 project were expected by MAG and ADOT
without being able to measure against some level of targets or whether this increase in travel
time was within acceptable limits for the region. As recommended in Chapter 1, establishing
targets would enable the quantifiable evaluation of implemented projects against performance
expectations and strategies in achieving regional goals. For example, an entity may expect travel
time to increase even after a project was completed given possible projections of a growing
population and increased demand on a roadway. Yet, those expectations could also estimate
that travel time would increase by a smaller percentage than it would have if a project was not
completed at all.
MAG has indicated that it is ready to set targets, but it is waiting to collaborate with ADOT's in-
progress target setting efforts as well as receive final rule guidance from the federal government
on implementing targets as part of the FAST Act.
SJOBERG -EVASHENIC 38 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
ADOT is Completing Many Projects as Promised under Prop 400, Although Some Future
Projects have been Delayed or Replaced with Other Projects
Performance can also be measured in terms of output and completed projects. In Maricopa
County, many of the promised freeway projects have been completed. Specifically, in the 2003
RTP, 96 freeway projects were planned for completion by fiscal year 2025-2026 at an estimated
cost of $8 billion. 49 Since that time, those original projects have evolved into a myriad of project
segments where project scope, limits, and budgets have changed over time with projects added,
merged, delayed or even removed outside the original 2003 RIP plan timeline past fiscal year
2025-2026. These changes were discussed and deliberated through the MAG committee process
in response to changing conditions similar to transportation planning processes that occur in
other regions throughout the nation. For example, the new State Route 303 freeway originally
consisted of two projects, but has since grown to include seven individual projects.
ADOT has completed many projects promised under Prop 400. Specifically, as of June 30, 2015,
ADOT has completed 67 freeway projects including capacity improvements through new general
purpose and high occupancy vehicle lanes, new ramps, bridges, and traffic interchange
improvements at a total cost of $3.7 billion. Of those 67 projects, 37 projects totaling $2 billion
opened to traffic between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2015 as shown in Table 4. The other 30
projects opened to traffic prior to July 1, 2010 as discussed in the 2011 RTP Performance Audit.
Table 4: Number of Freeway Projects Completed and Opened to Traffic,
July 1,2010 through June 30, 2015
Expenses
Project Date Open as of
Corridor Segment Type to Traffic 613012015
in millions)
1 I-10 Verrado Way - Sarival Road GPL Aug-11 $30
2 SR-85 to SR-303 Perryville Road T1 Oct-14 $29.5
3 Sarival Ave - Dysart Road GPL Jan-11 $38.7
4 1-10 Sarival Rd — 101 Loop Agua Fria GPL, HOVL Jul-10 $93
5 SR-303 to SR-101 Avondale Blvd @I-10 T1 FY2010/11 $2.8
_ 6 SR-24 Jomax Road - SR74 Carefree Highway GPL, HOVL Jul-10 $97.6
7 202L Santan to Meridian 202 Loop Santan - Ellsworth Road, 4 GPLs May-14 $119.73
Road Phase 1
8 303 Loop Bob Stump - 99th Avenue, GPL Jun-11 $33.18
_ US-60 Grand Ave Phase 1
9 SR-303 to SR-101 99th Ave - 83rd Avenue, and new river GPL, Bridge Apr-11 $12.01
bridge
10 US-60 Grand Ave 101 Loop Agua Fria - 71st Avenue Widening Aug-13 $6.41
11 SR-101 to Van Buren 71st Avenue - McDowell Rd (101 Loop Widening Jul-14 $31.72
- McDowell Road)
12 US 60 Grand —303 Loop Bob Stump Pass Lane Apr-11 $4.11
SR-74 MP 13-15
13 US-60 to SR-303 U560 Grand —303 Loop Bob Stump Pass Lane Oct-10 $4.3
MP 20-22
49 Amount estimated in 2002 dollars.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 39 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Expenses
Project Date Open as of
Corridor Segment Type to Traffic 613012015
(in millions)
14 SR-85 SR 85 at Gila Bend, Phase 1 GPL Jan-13 $24.88
1-8 to MC-85
15 SR-85 Southern Avenue -1-10 Papago GPL Jul-11 $12.61
MC-85 to 1-10
16 SR-87 New Four Peaks Road - Dos S Ranch Turn May-11 $16.51
— 17 Forest Boundary to Mile MP 211.8 - MP 213 Drainage May-11 $1.39
Post 213
18 SR-8 Fish Creek Hill Retaining FY2012 $0.59
Fish Creek Hill Walls
19 1-10 Papago - Tatum Boulevard HOV Oct-11 $109.33
20 SR-101 1-10 Papago -Van Buren (99th GPL Dec-10 $5.66
Avenue)
21 1-10 to US-60 Maryland Avenue HOV Ramps HOV Ramps Mar-14 $14.31
22 Olive Avenue T1 Jul-11 $3.86
23 SR-101 Beardsley Road/Union Hills Drive T1 May-11 $20.06
US-60 to 1-17
24 SR-101 Chaparral Road T1 Imp Aug-11 $1.17
Princess Dr to SR-202
25 SR-143 SR143/SR 202 Loop TI New Jul-12 $27.52
SR-143 at SR-202
26 SR-202 I-10/SR 51 TI — 101 Loop Pima GPL Aug-10 $216.29
1-10 to SR-101 Pima
27 SR-202 101 Loop Pima - Gilbert Road HOV Aug-10 $27.59
SR-101 Pima to Gilbert Rd
SR-202 HOV & 2
28 Val Vista Dr - Gilbert Rd to Gilbert Road -1-10 Maricopa HOV Ramps Oct-11 $101.30
1-10 Maricopa
29 1-10/303 Loop System T1, Phase 1, New Fwy Sep-14 $290.10
1-10 Realignment
30 Thomas Road - Camelback Road New Fwy Nov-13 $41.80
31 Camelback Road - Glendale Avenue New Fwy May-14 $55.40
32 SR-303 Glendale Avenue - Peoria Avenue New Fwy Sep-13 $93.50
33 1-10 to US-60 Peoria Ave - Mountain View Road New Fwy Nov-13 $150.50
34 Cactus Road, Waddell Road & Bell New Fwy Mar-11 $37.40
Road
35 Waddel Road - Mountain View Road New Fwy Nov-13 $11.50
36 Happy Valley Road - Lake Pleasant New Fwy May-11 $128.54
SR-303 Road
37 US-60 to 1-17 Lake Pleasant Road -1-17 Black New Fwy May-11 $92.60
Canyon
Total: $2 Billion
Source: 2015 Prop 400 Annual Report
Note: GPL = General Purpose Lane; HOVL = High Occupancy Vehicle Lane; TI = Traffic Interchange; SR = State Route; MP = Milepost
In addition to the $3.7 billion in freeway projects completed to date, the 2003 RTP programmed a
total of eight projects to begin construction in Phase III of the RTP between July 1, 2015 and June
30, 2020. Of those eight projects, seven are capacity improvement projects adding a general
purpose and/or high-occupancy vehicle lane while the remaining project will add a high
occupancy vehicle ramp. Related costs for these eight projects were estimated to be $1.6 billion
in 2003.
SJOBERG EVASHRNK 40 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
For these eight original Phase III planned projects, ADOT is experiencing some delays although
one project was completed ahead of time. Table 5 details the status of the eight projects
originally planned for Phase III. As of June 30, 2015, three projects are partially complete and the
remaining four projects are currently in the design phase; however, for these remaining projects,
construction is not scheduled to begin until Phase IV with some projects even pushed beyond the
Prop 400 sunset date of December 2025. However, ADOT has also programmed 18 additional
projects for Phase III that were not part of the original 2003 Phase III projects. For example, the
new South Mountain freeway was originally planned for Phase I and II, but has been delayed to
Phase III. Similarly, there are elements of completed projects that still need to be constructed
such as interchanges on the new State Route-303 freeway, US-60, and Interstate-10 freeways.
The majority of these projects are currently underway. 5°
While ADOT has moved construction start and anticipated completion dates for many of its Phase
III projects, those changes and reasons behind the changes are reviewed and approved through
the MAG committee process as discussed in the 2011 RTP Performance Audit.
Table 5: Status of Eight Planned Phase III Projects as of June 30, 2015
Project Length Programmed Total Estimated
Corridor Segment Type (Miles) for Final Cost FY06-26 Current Status
Construction (in millions)
1-17 Arizona Canal to GPL 7 FY2021-26 $385.60 DCR ("Spine Study")
McDowell Road
2 1-17 1-10 (West) to 1-10 HOV 7 FY2021-26 $400.00 DCR ("Spine Study")
(East)
Agua Fria: 1-10 to GPL/ HOVL Opened 10/2011;
3 Loop 101 US 60/Grand HOV 10 FY 2027-35 $226.35 GPL delayed to Phase V
Avenue
Red Mountain: GI'L/ HOVL Opened 12/2015;
4 Loop 202 Gilbert Road to HOV 5 FY2027-35 $51.90 GPL delayed to Phase V
Higley Road
Superstition: GPL/
5 US 60 Crismon Road to HOV 2 FY2016-20 $30.53 DCR
Meridian Road
Interim Lanes Opened
6 SR-24 Loop 202 to GPL 2 FY2027-35 $188.53 5/2014; Final Lanes
Ellsworth Road delayed past the Prop
400 timeframe
7 SR-24 Ellsworth Road to GPL 3 FY2027-35 $213.30 DCR
Meridian Road
8 Loop 202 Santan & Loop n/a n/a Completed $101.30 Opened October 2011
101/Price
Total: $1.6 Billion
Source: 2003 RTP; 2015 Prop 400 Annual Report
Note: GPL = General Purpose Lane; HOVL = High occupancy Vehicle Lane; TI = Traffic Interchange; DCR = Design Concept Report
5° Per the 2015 Prop 400 Update Report.
SJOBERG ::EVASHENK 41 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
ADOT Uses Metrics to Track Progress against Internal Performance Targets
In addition to measuring performance outcomes and outputs, ADOT also uses metrics to measure
internal project performance and efficiency in delivering capital projects. This leading practice
uses meaningful goals and tracks performance against those goals to help highlight potential
areas in need of improvement, hold project owners accountable and efficient, and demonstrate
performance to the public. ADOT practices align with other peers across the country that
measure their own project performance with examples of these tools found in California, Florida,
Missouri, Virginia, and Washington as well. Still other transportation entities across the country
are just beginning to realize that efficiency performance measurement is a critical tool used at a
project level allowing stakeholders to evaluate the benefits of transportation improvements.
Since the beginning of calendar year 2016, ADOT has tracked several monthly project
performance targets on a statewide level through an agency scorecard as shown in Table 6.
Table 6: ADOT Agency Scorecard Project Management Performance Metrics, Statewide Results
Actual as Target Met
Metric Target of July as of July
2016A 2016
Task Order Execution Time: Decrease time needed to execute
a design consultant task order from 172 days to 50 days or less 50 Days 64 No
by the end of CY 2016
On-Time Construction Delivery: Increase the percent of
construction projects with on-time delivery from 50 percent to 55% 33% No
55 percent by the end of CY 2016
On-Budget Construction Delivery: 100 percent of construction 100% 100% Yes
projects delivered within original program amount B
Source: ADOT Agency Scorecard, July 2016
Note: AADOT tracks internal performance on a calendar year basis; in this table, actual is from January 2016 to July 2016;
B Calculated monthly using final construction cost vs. total construction delivery cost (=program amount) which includes contract
award amount, construction administration, and other related costs. This is not the construction contract cost only.
While the scorecard's design is still in-flux and metrics are being fine-tuned, ADOT reported that
33 percent of construction projects statewide were delivered on-time—below its current target
of 55 percent. Similarly, while ADOT has not yet met its target of 50 days to execute design
consultant task orders, it has made progress towards that goal by decreasing the average time
from 172 days on average to 64 days as of July 2016. ADOT also reported that 100 percent of its
completed construction projects were delivered within the total project's budget. Yet, to allow
Prop 400 voters to weigh RTP project performance against their sales tax investments, ADOT
should report this internal performance data at the Maricopa County or Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized
Area level.
Additional performance metric information also seems to indicate improvements in project
delivery. For example, as shown in Table 7, internal metrics for projects completed in ADOT's
Phoenix District show improvement over the last five years in many categories. Not only are
construction contract costs staying within five percent more of the contracted amount
SJOBERG EVASHENIK 42 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
regularly—only exceeding 27 percent of the time in calendar year 2015 versus 34 percent of the
time in calendar year 2010—but also the number of working days was 40 days shorter than the
construction contract period in 2015. ADOT uses this information to assess how well
construction projects are managed in terms of schedule and cost and, if necessary, to adjust its
practices in delivering projects more efficiently.
Table 7: ADOT Phoenix District (District 1, Maricopa County)
Project Delivery & Management Performance Metrics 51
Metric 2010 2015
Number of Finalized Construction Projects where the Final 11(34%) 8 (27%)
Cost Exceeded the Bid Amount by 5 percentA
Number of construction working days allowed per contract 2680 days longer 40 days shorter
versus actual days used
Comparisons of ADOT engineer's construction cost estimate Bids 4.19% lower Bids 1.27% lower
versus contractor low bid received on average
Source: Auditor-calculated results using data from monthly ADOT State Engineer's Report to State Transportation Board.
Note: AThis is tracking the construction contract bid or awarded amount against the total amount paid to the contractor at the
end of the project.
Tracking internal project performance is a strong practice employed by ADOT and it should
continue to monitor and refine its practices based on results. To improve its tracking, ADOT
could also track percent of "project administrative costs as a percent of budget." Other state
departments of transportation use this metric to create greater accountability and ultimately
contain administrative and support costs incurred by state employees. Examples can be found at
state departments of transportation in California, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, and Washington.
ADOT Employs Many Leading Project Management Practices
Overall, our audit revealed that ADOT has employed several strong practices to implement
freeway capital projects. For example, ADOT uses typical project management practices such as
cradle-to-grave project management with one project manager involved from the design stage
through construction, regular project team meetings, and various project management plans. 52
In addition, in 2015, ADOT began using newer industry project management best practices such
as cost risk assessments to help evaluate cost and schedule concerns, identify those areas that
could adversely impact cost and schedule, and develop mitigation strategies. ADOT is also in the
process of creating an alternative project delivery decision matrix for use in scoring factors
related to various project delivery methods and assisting in determining the delivery approach to
51 ADOT engineering and maintenance operations are divided into seven districts with District 1 (Phoenix District) covering most of
Maricopa County and part of Pinal County.
52 Best practices are drawn from a variety of industry sources including the Construction Management Association's Construction
Management Standards of Practice, Federal Highway Administration guidance, and Project Management Body of Knowledge,
among others. Auditors reviewed ADOT project files for availability and completeness of key documentations such as
procurement records, design concept reports, project team meeting minutes, and change order discussions.
SJOBERGOEVASHENK 43 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
use on a particular project such as between traditional design-bid-build, design-build, or
construction manager at-risk approaches.'
To gain a more detailed understanding of ADOT's project management practices and how they
are used on freeway projects, we selected the Red Mountain/Loop 101 Pima to Broadway project
for review. This capacity-increasing project involved a 6-mile stretch of freeway that added one
high occupancy vehicle lane and one general purpose lane—the High Occupancy Vehicle lane
opened to traffic in July 2010 and the general purpose lane opened in December 2015. As part of
using a design-build project delivery method for this project, the design-builder team was
appropriately tasked with finalizing designs while at the same time coordinating construction
activities. The design and construction overlap envisioned by this delivery approach is geared to
save project delivery time, but also requires close collaboration between the design-builder and
the ADOT project-owner.
Our review of project files for the Red Mountain/Loop 101 Pima to Broadway project found that
ADOT employed several best practices in project management as shown in Table 8.
Table 8: ADOT Employed Best Project Management Practices
on Red Mountain/Loop 101 Project
General Best Practices Areas Practices Employed by ADOT
V Design Quality Management Plan
V Construction Quality Management Plan
Project Management Plans and Related Tools
V Design Partnering Workshop
V Cost Risk Assessments
V Daily Diary
V Material Quantity Sheets
Inspections and Field Reports
V Force Account
V Bituminous Material Price Adjustments
V Progress Payments Reviews
Construction Progress Payments and Change Orders
V Change Order Negotiations
V Primavera for Scheduling
Schedule and Task Management
V Critical Path Method
V Lessons Learned
Project Management Performance Measures V On-Time Delivery
V Change Order % against Contingency
Source: Red Mountain/Loop 101 project files. Auditors compared general best practices as indicated in Footnote 50 to
demonstrate ADOT practices documented in project files.
53 Design-bid-build is the typical project delivery method where the design and construction is sequenced with the project owner
hiring a contractor after design is complete. Design-build allows for closer cooperation between the engineer/architect and
construction contractor as those are normally joint venture partners for designing and building. Construction manager at-risk
project delivery, also known as CMAR or construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), is a project delivery method which
entails a commitment by the Construction Manager to deliver the project within a Guaranteed Maximum Price with the
Construction Manager generally provides input to the designer during the design phase.
SJOBERGI ,EVASHENK 44 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Red Mountain/Loop 101 Pima to Broadway Project Schedule Delays Appear Reasonable,
and Project will likely be Delivered On-Budget
To identify whether ADOT's project management practices provided needed controls over project
schedule and budget, we reviewed milestones for the Red Mountain/Loop 101 Pima to Broadway
Project. Our review revealed a 3-month delay for substantial completion. 54 However, the
substantial completion date of February 2016 still fell within the 600-calendar day maximum set-
forth by the contract as shown in Table 9; thus, there was no significant impact to the overall
project schedule. According to the ADOT project manager, the main reasons for the delay related
to two change orders that added 14 and 42 days respectively. These changes were to procure
and install wrong way signs to comply with new ADOT guidelines issued in June 2015 after the
contract was awarded and to fix pavement resulting from unforeseen conditions—all reasons
that were documented and appeared reasonable.
Table 9: Planned-to-Actual Milestones for Red Mountain/Loop 101
Milestones Planned-to-Actual
Planned Actual Deadline Met
Design-Build Contract Award 09/2014 09/12/2014 Yes
Design & Construction Start/notice to proceed 10/27/2014 10/27/2014 Yes
Substantial Completion w/Completion Memo 11/15/2015 02/14/2016 No
Total Days between Contract Award and 429 Days 520 Days
Substantial Completion
Source: Red Mountain/Loop 101 project files.
Moreover, while two design concept reports estimated costs for the Red Mountain/Loop 101
project at $126 million, current project expenses only total $104 million as of April 2016. The
project is still not fully complete as there is another related High Occupancy Vehicle segment—
Higley Road to US 60 (now known as Broadway Road to US 60)—that is not scheduled to start
design until fiscal year 2020-2021. Yet, even when combining this additional segment currently
budgeted at $5.65 million with the actual $104 million spent to date, this project is still likely to
be completed within the original cost estimate amounts.
In-Progress South Mountain Freeway Project uses Techniques that could be used on
Other ADOT Projects
After deliberations spanning more than 30 years, construction on the South Mountain/Loop 202
Connection began in February 2016 when ADOT issued a notice to proceed for final design and
construction. With the project currently in-progress, auditors reviewed the project management
practices, file documentation, agreements, and plans developed to date. Similar to the Red
Mountain/Loop 101 project, we found many standard project management practices in place as
well as certain innovative practices.
54 Substantial completion is an industry term used to describe the completion status of a construction project when it is ready for
its intended use.
SJOBERG -EVASHENK 45 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
In particular, ADOT is using several practices on the South Mountain/Loop 202 freeway project
that should be considered and implemented on other future projects—scaled to the specific size
and complexity of other ADOT projects. ADOT should consider the following:
Conducting risk modeling or a cost risk assessment process with technical experts
discussing results from running Monte Carlo risk analysis using Microsoft Excel "At-Risk"
iterative algorithm.
Providing more detailed activities with shorter lengths of time for completion on the
schedule of values. 55 By breaking the work into blocks that are completed within one
billing cycle, payment negotiation may be easier because most tasks will be 100 percent
complete and ready to bill or will be in progress for at most one billing cycle.
Using monthly reports to assist in tracking the progress and measuring success of the
project related to meeting or exceeding project goals with data such as cash flow,
schedule variances, change orders, submittal status, and milestones.
Enhancing document control with system tools, such as E-builder that uses a cloud-based
application, or similar methods that maintain and track process workflows, received
dates, action taken, approval, correspondence, payment requests, and changes to
payment requests in addition to providing internal project management performance
statistics.
Tracking of internal project management performance statistics electronically, such as
average number of days for document approval turnaround times, through data collected
in E-builder or similar tools.
Maintaining records supporting contractor payment approvals such as schedule of values
reviews, deliberations, and negotiations.
55 A schedule of values is a document based on the contractor's bid listing all elements of the services and goods to be provided
under the contract including quantities and pricing. It is typically updated monthly and serves as the basis for progress payments.
SJOBERG - EVASHENK 46 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Chapter 3: Arterial Street Performance
CHAPTER SUMMARY I
Arterial street projects in the Regional Transportation Plan (RIP) are expected to help relieve congestion
by adding new arterial linkages, widening existing streets, improving intersections, and implementing
intelligent transportation system technology and plans.
Prop 400/RTP Improvements Proposed Arterial Street Performance
Of the $14.3 billion of Proposition 400 (Prop 400) V Several performance factors show increases in
funding expected in 2005, $1.5 billion in sales tax crashes and congestion on arterial streets.
revenues was dedicated towards arterial street o Arterial crashes increased from 54,721
projects. crashes in 2011 to 58,578 in 2014.
Arterial streets primarily consist of roadways with o Congested arterial miles increased from 15
four or more lanes on a mile grid and, in Maricopa percent in 2011 to 35 percent in 2014.
County, carry over half of the total vehicles miles V Pavement and bridge conditions were mostly
traveled. reported in good condition and are regularly
The 2003 RTP outlined 95 arterial projects planned assessed.
to provide approximately 200 individually defined o Pavement conditions reported range from
projects adding capacity to 281 arterial miles and at-risk to good condition.
improving 32 intersections, as well as allocating o Over 88 percent of bridges were reported to
funds for systemwide intelligent traffic system be in good condition.
technology improvement projects.
V 34 projects were completed during the five-
Status of Projects and Activities year audit period between fiscal years 2010-
As of June 30, 2015, 54 of the 200 arterial projects 2011 and 2014-2015.
have been completed, adding over 74 miles of new
and improved roadways and 17 traffic interchanges.
Audit Results Highlights
• Congestion growth trends in Maricopa County are aligned with other entity performance nationwide.
• While performance indicators reveal higher levels of congestion and travel times at lower speeds, we
cannot assess whether expectations were met as no formal targets have been established.
• Although some arterial projects were delayed, costs were under budget.
• The one City of Phoenix arterial streets project we reviewed has employed standard project
management practices.
• Several local jurisdictions capture common internal project management and delivery efficiency
measures such as construction bid versus final cost, construction bid versus engineer's estimate,
submittal or request for information review turnaround time, baseline schedule milestones to actual,
and budget-to-actual by project phases.
Recommendations
• Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) should work with the local jurisdictions to gather and
make available local performance indicators related to pavement and bridge deck condition at the
Maricopa County or Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area level on MAG's website, so performance data can
be more centrally accessible and transparent to the Prop 400 voters.
SJOBERG I BVASHENK 47 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Arterial Street System Performance Data Suggests Crashes and Congestion Increases
According to the 2035 RTP updated in January 2014, the "continued expansion and improvement
of the arterial street system will be vital to the functioning of the regional transportation system"
as the region grows in the future. With only 10.5 percent of the $14.3 billion of Prop 400 funding
dedicated to arterial street projects—local and other funding sources are also used to enhance
the arterial network.
Although local jurisdictions manage and construct capital arterial projects, MAG captures
performance outcome data on the arterial streets network using indicators related to congestion
(travel time, speed, or delays) and safety (crashes, incidents, and fatalities). MAG identified 21
primary roadways as the major arterial corridors of the region based on highest volume of travel
and proximity to freeways such that the corridor is used as an alternative route.
MAG Primary Arterial Street Corridors
1. 19th Avenue 12. Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard
2. 44th Street/Tatum Boulevard 13. Gilbert Road
3. 59th Avenue 14. Glendale Avenue/Lincoln Drive
4. 7th Street 15. Grand Avenue
5. Apache Boulevard / Main Street 16. Indian School Road
6. Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive 17. McDowell Road
7. Baseline Road 18. Power Road
8. Bell Road 19. Scottsdale Road/Rural Road
9. Buckeye Road/County Road 85 20. Shea Boulevard
10. Chandler Boulevard 21. Southern Avenue
11. Dysart Road
To understand potential impacts of arterial street project expenditures over the five-year audit
period, we reviewed changes in system performance using data from MAG's MAGnitude
dashboard reported between calendar years 2011 and 2014 based on three widely-accepted
performance indicators used in industry—crashes, congestion, and speed. While we were asked
to examine performance of arterial streets systemwide, MAG also has voluminous data available
to examine the arterial corridors separately by time of day and in all directions (northbound,
southbound, westbound, and eastbound). Audit results are discussed in the sections that follow.
Crashes on Primary Arterial Street System Have Increased, but Vehicle Miles Traveled
have Also Risen
One key arterial street performance indicator of safety is crash rate. According to data collected
by Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) through its Accident Location Identification
Surveillance System, there were 58,578 crashes based on performance data for all arterial streets
SJOBERG :RVASHBNIC 48 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
in the region in calendar year 2014—which was 7.0 percent greater than the 54,721 recorded in
calendar year 2011 as shown in Chart 4. 56
Chart 4: Total Crashes per Year Have Increased Between Calendar Years 2011 and 2014
56,750 58,578
54,721 54,172
Crashes
Total
2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
Source: Crash data collected by ADOT, provided by MAG
Although arterial street crashes in total were greater in calendar year 2014 than in calendar year
2011, when normalized by the rate of volume of traffic, there was a downward trend.
Specifically, as shown in Table 10, the rate of crashes per thousand miles of vehicle travel was 4.6
percent less in calendar year 2014 than calendar year 2011 because the increase in vehicle miles
of travel outpaced the increase in the number of crashes.
Table 10: Rate of Total Crashes per Thousand Vehicle Miles of Travel on Arterial Streets,
Calendar Years 2011-2014
Percent
2011 2012 2013 2014 from Change 2011
to 2014
Total Arterial VMT 21,194,451 21,651,648 23,403,357 23,792,514 12.3%
Arterial Street Crashes 54,721 54,172 56,750 58,578 7.0%
Crashes per Thousand VMT 2.582 2.502 2.425 2.462 -4.6%
Source: MAG Performance Measurement website at http://performance.azmag.gov/ and crash data provided by MAG
When these arterial street results are compared to the freeway system results presented in
Chapter 1 of this report, the data reveals that crashes are much more common on arterial streets.
In calendar year 2014, there were approximately 2.462 crashes per thousand vehicle miles of
56 When compared with newly released calendar year 2015 data, the increase in crashes is even greater; there were 61,416 total
crashes on the Maricopa County freeway system in calendar year 2015 which was 12.2 percent greater than the number of total
crashes in calendar year 2011.
SJOBERG -EVASHENK 49 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
travel on the arterial system, but only 0.684 crashes per thousand vehicle miles of travel on the
freeway system.
When considered against overall national trends, the Maricopa County arterial streets had a
higher level of fatal crashes as a rate of vehicle miles of travel. Further, the rate of fatal crashes
per vehicle miles of travel for the Maricopa County arterial system was slightly higher in calendar
year 2014 when compared to calendar year 2011—a trend that differs from national results
where fatalities have been slightly decreasing since calendar year 2011. 57
Congestion has Increased on Primary Arterial Streets
Another key performance indicator on arterial streets relates to congestion. Congestion data for
arterials is tracked and displayed on the MAGnitude dashboard as calculated by a "congested
mile." According to MAG, a road is considered congested if average speeds were less than 75
percent of the posted speed limit. 58 MAG's performance data indicates congested miles have
increased on arterial streets between calendar years 2011 and 2014 by more than 130 percent.
As noted in Table 10, there were also more vehicle miles of travel on the arterial system between
2011 and 2014. However, the portion of congested miles increased much more than compared
to the 12.3 percent increase in vehicle miles of travel.
Specifically, in calendar year 2011, the average for all time periods of the day was 633 congested
miles out of an approximate 4,150 total miles revealing that nearly 15 percent of the arterial
network was congested. In comparison, for calendar year 2014, the average percent of
congested miles grew to 35 percent as shown in Chart 5. However, the reduction is also
influenced by the additional arterial street miles of roadway added through completed Prop 400
projects. According to MAG, the number of intersection improvements have made travel on
major arterial streets more desirable and that a significant portion of the increased vehicle miles
of travel relates to this increased demand.
Chart 5: Percent of Congested Arterial Street Miles Calendar Years 2011 and 2014
Source: MAG Performance Measurement website http://performance.azmag.gov/
57 National Highway Traffic Safety 2014 Traffic Administration's Safety Facts, Published July 2016 did not distinguish between
arterial and freeway, but the overall trend was decreasing.
58 MAG calculates the average speed for morning (6a.m. to 9a.m.), midday (9a.m. to 3p.m.) and afternoon (3p.m .to 6p.m.).
SJOBERG EVASHENK 50 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
The biggest increase was seen during the morning peak hours where congestion grew more than
200 percent over the four-year period from 11 percent in calendar year 2011 to 34 percent by
calendar year 2014. While the trend of congestion is worsening with impacts of more
unproductive time in traffic and more pollutants from car exhaust, the increase in congestion
may also be a sign of a stronger economy as more people move to the area and need to drive to
job sites. Yet, we cannot conclude on whether the trend is within acceptable limits because MAG
and its local RIP partners have not set specific targets to assess performance against what they
expected to occur in the region.
Speed Levels for Key Arterial Corridors have Slowed Down
Average speed for afternoon travel on the 21 primary arterial street corridors was slower in
calendar year 2014 when compared to calendar year 2011. 59 Specifically, as shown in Chart 6,
the average speed in calendar year 2011 was 33.8 miles per hour, while the average speed
decreased in calendar year 2014 to 31.2 miles per hour—approximately 7.8 percent slower.
Chart 6: System Wide Average Afternoon Speeds on Arterials
Calendar Years 2011 through 2014
Source: Summary analysis of data provided by MAG Performance Program
This decreasing trend was observed for each of the 21 key corridors of the arterial system with
speeds decreasing more on some corridor than on others. For instance, we found that the 19th
Avenue arterial corridor running 20 miles north-to-south from Deer Valley Road to Southern
Avenue through downtown Phoenix experienced the largest decrease in afternoon speeds
between calendar years 2011 and 2014. In fact, the average afternoon speed in the northbound
direction along the entire corridor between calendar years 2011 and 2014 dropped 16.6 percent
from 32.1 miles per hour in calendar year 2011 to 26.7 miles per hour in calendar year 2014.
However, for part of the time period, there was construction of the 3.2 mile light rail extension
that began in January 2013 extending north on 19th Avenue from Montebello to Dunlap Avenue
59 Results based on speed data collected by third party providers and analyzed by MAG staff to calculate the average speed for the
afternoon period (3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
SJOBERG 1EVASHENK 51 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
that was not opened to traffic until 2016. According to MAG, this construction affected the
arterial corridor through flow disruptions, access diversions, and lane closures. Speed data for
another arterial corridor—Power Road that runs 10 miles north-to-south through the City of
Mesa and along the eastern edge of the Town of Gilbert—showed a much smaller 5.5 percent
reduction in speed from 33.8 miles per hour in calendar year 2011 to 31.9 miles per hour in
calendar year 2014.
Six Local Jurisdictions Report the Majority of Arterial Street Pavement is in Good or
Excellent Condition
In addition to these performance indicators, the health of local roadways is an important factor
impacting congestion, speed, and safety. For roadways, a pavement condition index is a widely-
accepted measure for roadways that is also used by the local jurisdictions in Maricopa County.
Typically, a pavement condition index is captured in categories ranging from a low of 0 to a high
of 100 to indicate the general condition of pavement as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Typical Pavement Condition Index Thresholds
86- 100 • Excellent Condition
75- 85 •Good Condition
58- 74 •At-Risk Condition
0-57 •Poor/Failed Condition
Source: Adapted from U.S Corps of Engineers
Although performance data related to pavement and bridge condition is captured at the local
jurisdiction level, the data was not available for the specific Maricopa County or the Phoenix-
Mesa Urbanized Area. Thus, to assess arterial street pavement conditions, we distributed a
survey to 12 local jurisdictions 60 in Maricopa County who had current projects in the arterial life
cycle program. While we only received responses from seven local jurisdictions, several of the
more largely populated jurisdictions were part of those that responded. Only six of those seven
jurisdictions provided comments on pavement conditions. Based on the six responses received
from Fountain Hills, Maricopa County, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix and Scottsdale, local jurisdictions
use a variety of pavement management systems to evaluate pavement condition. 61 Half of the
entities reported assessing pavement on an annual basis.
Moreover, as shown in Table 11, five of the six jurisdictions stated that they are meeting their
current pavement condition goals with a pavement condition index rating of 75 or higher
indicating pavement was in the good or excellent range.
60 Survey was sent to Carefree, Chandler, El Mirage, Fountain Hills, Gilbert, Maricopa County, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Salt River
Pima Maricopa Indian Community, Scottsdale, and Queen Creek.
61 Pavement management systems cited included Micropaver and Lucity—two proprietary software tools that are common
pavement management planning tools used in industry to evaluate pavement condition and make improvement decisions.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 52 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Table 11: Pavement Condition is Generally Good as Reported by Six Local Jurisdictions
Fountain Maricopa Mesa Peoria Phoenix Scottsdale
Hills County
Goal At-Risk Good Good Excellent Good Good
Actual At-Risk Excellent Good Good Good Good
Source: Pavement Condition responses received from jurisdictions shown in chart.
Note: A "at-risk" goal typically represents a pavement management strategy of maintaining roads at a level that prevents them
from further deteriorating (through pothole repairs), but the improvement is not significant enough to improve conditions.
When comparing the Maricopa County survey responses to other urban metropolitan areas, we
found that several regions throughout the U.S. had pavement conditions in worse shape than
Maricopa County with road pavement condition reported to be in the at-risk category. 62 For
instance, San Francisco Bay Area roads have an average pavement condition index of 67, Chicago
reported a pavement condition index of 63, and Seattle's pavement condition index was 69—
which are all in the at-risk range. 63 In another example, a comprehensive roads and streets
assessment conducted in California in 2014 64 covering 99 percent of the State's arterial network
classified the statewide pavement condition as at-risk with an average pavement condition index
rating of 66. Thus, the Maricopa County region has reported better pavement condition than
several others in the country.
Locals Jurisdictions Reveal Good Bridge Condition on Arterial Streets
Similar to pavement condition data, the health and condition of arterial street bridges are
generally tracked at the local jurisdiction level and summarized statewide by ADOT. Because the
bridge condition data is not segregated by Maricopa County or the Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized
Area, we surveyed 12 local jurisdictions to assess the condition of bridges in Maricopa County.
While we received responses from 7 jurisdictions that included several of the more highly
populated jurisdictions, only five of these seven jurisdictions provided comments on bridge deck
conditions. Survey results from five reporting areas stated that bridge deck condition is "good"
for over 88 percent of bridges as shown in Chart 7. Moreover, bridge conditions are assessed, at
a minimum, every five years with 30 percent of the survey respondents assessing bridge
condition on an annual basis.
62 Other urban metropolitan areas include those areas with population greater than 3 million as identified by the Texas A&M
Transportation Institute's 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard. For this comparison, the urban areas include San Francisco Bay Area,
Dallas, and Seattle.
63 San Francisco results reported by the Metropolitan Planning Commission covering nine San Francisco Bay Area counties.
64 Per the California Local Streets & Roads Needs Assessment 2014 Report sponsored by all 58 California counties, 43 California
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, and 343 California cities and towns.
SJOBERG 'EVASHENK 53 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Chart 7: Bridge Conditions in Five Local Jurisdictions
Bridge Deck Area Condition
100%
80%
60% trn
ki Poor 015
Fair 40%
m Good
20%
0%
FoPta:m \-Os oaf CO9a p eda oloev"` scottsoe`e
Source: Bridge deck area condition' survey responses received from local jurisdictions.
Note: "Good" condition means primary structural bridge elements have no problems or only minor deterioration. "Fair" condition
means primary structural bridge elements are sound, but may have minor section loss, deterioration, cracking, spalling or scour.
"Poor" condition means bridges have advanced deficiencies such as section loss, deterioration, scour, cracking or spalling, but
bridge is still safe for travel.
A Quarter of Arterial Street Projects Have Been Completed with Prop 400 Funding, But
Many Projects Remain to be Completed
Over the last decade, the 95 arterial street projects listed in the original 2003 RTP were more
uniquely defined into 200 individual projects with an estimated cost of approximately $1.5 billion.
As of June 30, 2015, at least 54 of those 200 projects have been completed at a cost of $658
million—with the majority, or 34 projects totaling $461 million, completed between July 1, 2010
and June 30, 2015. 65 MAG anticipates that future arterial streets funding of approximately $1
billion available between fiscal years 2015-2016 and 2025-2026 will cover the costs of the
remaining projects—bringing in the arterial streets component of the Prop 400 program close to
original amounts budgeted in the 2003 RIP.
Of the 34 arterial streets projects completed between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2015, 19 projects
experienced an average delay of 231 days. 66 For projects where the baseline schedule was
developed when design was nearing completion, delays were shorter. Similarly, while projects
took longer to complete than initially expected, the final costs were within the original budget
amounts. In fact, those 34 completed projects were budgeted at $484 million, but delivered for
$461 million—a 4.6 percent savings from expectations.
65 According to MAG's 2015 Proposition 400 Update Report.
66 Average delays were gathered by auditors using project documents submitted by local jurisdictions to MAG such as project
overviews, agreements, and payment requests. Auditors did not review each project for specific causes for the delays. Data was
available to calculate this information for all completed arterial projects, as such auditors considered the entire completed project
universe for this statistic. Of the 34 arterial projects completed between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2015, 19 were delayed. For the
remaining 15 projects, two were early and for five projects, documents were submitted by local jurisdictions to MAG after the
project was completed—and for all five instances, the documentation indicated actual completion met baseline schedules.
SJOBERG EVASHINK 54 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
While the 54 completed projects completed to-date added more than 74 arterial miles, 67 a
significant number of projects remain to be constructed. Specifically, with roughly a quarter of
the projects completed at this halfway mark in the Prop 400 timeframe, an additional 207 arterial
miles promised under Prop 400 still need to be constructed by the local jurisdictions.
With the recession during the first half of the Prop 400 program, many local jurisdictions delayed
projects mainly due to funding issues. However, it appears that the current upturn in the
economy has positively impacted arterial project construction with an additional 53 arterial
projects totaling $432.3 million scheduled for funding during Phase Ill between July 1, 2015 and
June 30, 2020 as shown in more detail in Appendix C. This is nearly as many projects as were
completed over the past 10 years. Of those 53 projects, 22 projects were planned for Phase Ill,
while 23 projects were delayed to Phase Ill from Phase I or II. Five projects were advanced from
Phase IV and two projects (not listed in 2003 RIP) were subsequently added. For approximately
half of those 53 Phase III projects, the majority of upcoming activity relates to actual project
construction.
If this historic under-budget pattern continues, it appears that MAG's $1 billion in expenditure
projections for completing the remaining Prop 400 arterial streets projects will be sufficient to
cover the expected costs. However, local jurisdictions will be challenged to complete all projects
within the Prop 400 timeframe if project schedules are not closely monitored.
Local Jurisdictions Deliver Capital Projects Following Standard Industry Practices
While MAG oversees the arterial street program from a programming and administrative
perspective, the implementation and construction of arterial streets capital projects are the
responsibility of local jurisdictions. To assess the type of local project management in place, we
conducted a survey of 12 cities, towns, and communities with RIP projects funded by Prop 400.
Of the 12 surveys distributed, we received responses from seven that indicated most follow
common and leading practices in capital project management and delivery as presented in Table
12. For full survey results, refer to Appendix B.
For instance, all reporting jurisdictions require at least two of the following types of
documentation before approving progress payments—schedule of values, certified payroll, or
field inspection reports—in accordance with best practices. Further, four of the seven local
jurisdictions require formal change order supporting documentation such as request for
information; proposed change order; evidence of scope, schedule, or cost negotiations; and final
change order approval—all strong practices to have in place. Moreover, all seven survey
responders cited that they employed value engineering activities during a project, most
commonly during design.
67 New roadways or widening existing roadways increase the number of miles in an arterial roads network.
SJOBERG -EVASHENK 55 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Table 12: Local Jurisdictions Employ Widely-Accepted Capital Project Management Practices"
6) co co C
co a) Scottsdale
1. Use of single project manager, cradle-to-grave ,/ ,/ ,/
2. Project management tools/software used:
• Automated (Primavera, Microsoft Project, In-House VIVI v I v I v
System)
• Manual (Excel, Word, Microsoft Outlook)
3. Management plans prepared and used:
• Project management plan ,/
• Design quality management plan
• Construction quality management plan
4. Baseline-to-actual schedule milestones tracked:
• Right-of-way V ,/
• Environmental V V
• Design .7 V V V
• Construction (contract award) ,/ V V
• Open to public ,/
5. Budget-to -actual costs tracked:
• Right-of-way V
• Environmental V
• Design
• Construction
• Construction Support V
• Administration V
6. Documentation considered when approving
construction progress payments:
• Schedule of values
• Certified payroll
• Field inspection reports
7. Documentation used in change order approval:
• Request for information
• Proposed change order V
• Scope, schedule, cost negotiations .7 V V
• Final change order approval
8. Project phase using value engineering Design, Const. Cont. Design needed As Design Const Cont.
Source: Survey responses from local jurisdictions; V Indicates Practice in Place
68 Local jurisdiction project management practices were compared against a variety of sources including the Construction
Management Association of America's Construction Management Standards of Practice, Federal Highway Administration
guidance, and American Institute of Architects guidance.
SJOBERG EVASHIINK 56 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Several Local Jurisdictions Measure Internal Project Delivery Performance
In addition to measuring performance in terms of outcomes of what a region wants to achieve—
such as reduced congestion—and outputs (such as number of projects completed), entities also
measured internal project delivery performance to indicate how well project managers are
delivering individual projects. Local jurisdictions we surveyed reported tracking the following
industry-standard metrics to some extent: 69
• Construction bid compared to engineer's estimates
• Construction bid compared to final cost
• Submittal/request for information review turnaround time 7°
• Number or percent of projects completed within original schedule
• Number or percent of projects completed within original cost
Review of City of Phoenix Project Reveals Good Practices to Control Cost and Schedule
For a more thorough review of local arterial project delivery performance and to confirm that
reported practices are in use, we selected the Sonoran Boulevard project managed by the City of
Phoenix that built approximately seven miles of roadway with one lane in both directions and
three bridges with drainage culverts. Based on our file review, we did not find any significant
departures from common practice in public construction. For instance, all project files were
available in an electronic document storage warehouse and contained expected information as
suggested by industry leading practices such as procurement documents, cost estimates,
schedules, change order information, progress payments, and field reports. Further, we found
evidence of strong project management practices in file documentation indicating local project
managers reviewed contractor progress payment requests against the contract's schedule of
values and daily reports from field inspectors before authorizing payment. Moreover, this
particular project was also subject to a performance audit from the Phoenix City Auditor. The City
Auditor's report found a lack of formal policies and procedures related to project delivery
method selection, determinations of fairness and reasonableness of costs, and insurance
approval processes. The City of Phoenix addressed all issues noted through development of the
recommended policies and procedures, including a project delivery decision matrix flowchart.
69 Industry-standard metrics are based on practice standards drawn from a variety of sources such as the Project Management
Institute's Project Management Body of Knowledge, Construction Management Association of America's Construction
Management Standards of Practice, American Institute of Architects, and American Public Works Association.
70 Submittals are construction documents such as shop drawings, material samples, or schedules that the contractor is required to
submit to the project owner. Requests for information are used to formally document communication between the contractor
and project owner related to project scope and/or deliverables that can require negotiation and potentially halt a project until
resolved. Tracking the review turnaround time on these documents would enable the project manager to measure how efficiently
questions are addressed and potential project delays are minimized.
SJOBFRG EVASHINK 57 MAG RTP Audit-2016

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR REPRODUCTION PURPOSES]
SJOBERG EVASHENK 58 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Chapter 4: Transit Performance
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Through the regional transportation plan (RTP), Proposition 400 (Prop 400) funds are leveraged with other
funding sources for bus operations, paratransit (dial-a-ride) services, and on capital investments for high
capacity transit/light rail transit, facilities, fleet, and infrastructure needs.
Prop 400/RTP Improvements Proposed Program Performance
Of the $14.3 billion of Prop 400 funding expected V Transit systemwide bus and light rail ridership
in 2005, more than $4.8 billion was allocated grew by nearly 5 percent over the audit period to
toward light rail and bus transit projects and nearly 71 million boardings in fiscal year 2014-
operations. 2015.
Initial plan was to construct 27.7 miles of high V Light rail generally performed better than six peers
capacity/light rail transit as well as add more than in each fiscal year between 2011-2012 and 2013-
1,200 bus stops and pullout improvements, and 2014. For instance, in fiscal year 2013-2014, Valley
several park and rides, transit centers, and Metro reported 5.77 boardings per revenue mile—
maintenance yards. Additionally, 42 new routes whereas the six-peer average was only 3.45
were planned for local bus service, circulators, boardings per revenue mile.'
rapid or express buses, and rural buses. V Maricopa County systemwide fixed route bus
service outperformed peers for each of the three
Status of Projects and Activities
fiscal years reviewed between 2011-2012 and
As of June 2015, more than 26 miles of high 2013-2014. For instance, in fiscal year 2013-2014,
capacity/light rail transit has been constructed and the operating cost per revenue mile for Maricopa
another 11 miles of light rail and a 2.6 mile County was $7.65—or $1.22 less than the peer
streetcar route are projected to be completed by average.
fiscal year 2025-2026. To date, 666 buses, 623
V Both light rail and systemwide fixed route bus
vanpool vans, and 244 paratransit vehicles have
service maintained on-time performance 92
been purchased as well as 6 Park-and-Ride lots, 2
percent of the time—or more—between fiscal
transit centers, and 2 maintenance facilities were
years 2010-2011 and 2014-2015.
completed. However, 9 transit centers and 2 park-
and-ride lots have been deferred beyond fiscal V Five capital construction projects reviewed were
year 2025-2026. completed or are projected to be completed within
10 percent of budgeted amounts.
Audit Results Highlights
• Transit light rail and bus operations demonstrate generally strong performance and outperform peers.
• More than 400 projects were completed between fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2014-2015, with 3.1 miles
of light rail extensions, 16 bus routes added or frequency increased (some of which were subsequently
eliminated), approximately 3,500 vehicles purchased, 424 bus stops completed, and 8 transit shelters
and park and rides built.
• Transit employs many leading project management practices on transit capital construction projects.
Recommendations
• No recommendations for this chapter, but refer to Chapter 1 for transit-related recommendations.
71 A revenue mile is a mile traveled when the vehicle is available to the general public and there is an expectation of carrying
passengers.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 59 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Transit Still Outperforms Peers, Although Ridership has Slightly Decreased
In 2012, the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) and Valley Metro Rail, Inc. combined
certain administrative functions under the name Valley Metro that is now overseen by one chief
executive officer. Although the Regional Public Transportation Authority is responsible for
distribution of Prop 400 and other sources of money deposited in the public transportation fund,
the separate public nonprofit corporation Valley Metro Rail, Inc., was created to construct and
operate the light rail system through partnership with the cities of Chandler, Glendale, Mesa,
Phoenix, and Temple. Together, Valley Metro is responsible for transit services such as:
Fixed Route: Bus service provided on a repetitive, fixed schedule basis along a specific
route.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): Fixed route bus mode where a majority of each line operates in a
separated right-of-way dedicated for public transportation use during peak periods and
includes features that emulate services provided by rail, such as defined stations and
traffic signal priority.
Express: Bus service intended to run faster than normal bus services between specific
commuter or destination points.
Supergrid: Bus service providing frequent local service throughout the day and evening.
Light rail/high capacity: Urban rail system that uses light rail vehicles on fixed rails in a
dedicated right-of-way space.
• Paratransit (dial-a-ride): Transit service that is more flexible than conventional fixed route
service, including dial-a-ride services throughout Maricopa County. These services
provide Americans with Disabilities Act paratransit service to individuals with disabilities
that cannot access the fixed route bus and rail system.
As part of Valley Metro's performance monitoring and reporting, Valley Metro compares its light
rail and fixed route bus system performance to a six-peer average using transit agencies
identified as part of the Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measure study. 72 Results
show that Maricopa County's fixed route and light rail performed better than the six-peer
average for the five key performance measures reviewed—although transit ridership has declined
in recent years as discussed in the following section.
Ridership Shows Growth over the last 5 Years, but has Declined from Peak Period
One of the industry standard measures of transit performance is ridership that can indicate
interest and use of the transit system. Although transit systemwide ridership declined in recent
years, systemwide ridership was still nearly 5 percent greater in fiscal year 2014-2015 than in
fiscal year 2010-2011, as reflected in Chart 8. Specifically, systemwide ridership declined from a
high of 73.4 million boardings in fiscal year 2012-2013 to nearly 70.8 million boardings in fiscal
year 2014-2015, a decrease of more than 2.6 million boardings or nearly 4 percent.
72 The Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measure study is a performance-based planning tool that established an
approach for managing regionally funded transit services and capital investments in bus stops and park-and-ride facilities.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 60 MAG RTP Audit-2016