AZ AUDITOR GENERAL RTP REPORT2.PDF

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Chart 8: Transit System-wide Ridership, Fiscal Years 2010-2011 through 2014-2015
70,759,847
FY 2014-15
' 56,482,963
72,137,268
FY 2013-14
' 57,805,780
73,409,805
FY 2012 33
59,123,712
71,023,488
['2 201112
1,r1 49,998
67,607,530
FY 2010-11 1.1 , /7 1,',20
54,814,601
0 10,0017,000 20,01 100,033 60,0 1X), OIX) 70,000 000 20,000,013J
ra Total s Rail MI Fixed Route, System .wide
Source: Valley Metro Transit Ridership Reports.
Several factors contributed to the decline in ridership over recent years, including:
• Improved Economy and Lower Gas Prices: Nationally, operators are experiencing
decreased ridership in transit—particularly bus ridership—as the economy improves and
gas prices decline causing a shift in those choosing to drive vehicles rather than taking
public transit. According to the American Public Transportation Association's quarterly
Transit Ridership Report, bus ridership is down nearly 2 percent nationally for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2015-2016 when compared to the first quarter of fiscal year 2014-
2015. These trends are similar to those experienced by Valley Metro.
• Declined student ridership from Arizona State University: Beginning in Fiscal Year 2009-
2010, university transit pass yearly sales have begun to decline from approximately
18,000 in fiscal year 2009-2010 to approximately 8,000 in fiscal year 2013-2014—a decline
of more than 55 percent. Valley Metro estimates that it has lost about 15,000 student
trips per day—mostly on light rail—believed to be caused by more students taking online
courses, availability of free student shuttles, increased cost of the student transit pass,
and growth of student housing closer to campus.
Ridership Survey Indicates Declining Satisfaction, but Increased Likelihood To Continue
Transit Use
On an annual basis, Valley Metro conducts a Rider Satisfaction Survey designed to capture
demographic characteristics, ridership patterns, and general levels of satisfaction of those people
using Valley Metro's bus, light rail, and paratransit services. In the most recent survey conducted
in 2014, more than 75 percent of current riders indicated a high likelihood to continue using
SJOBERG IEVASHENK 61 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
public transit although overall system satisfaction slightly declined to 70 percent in 2014. For
those riders that indicated dissatisfaction, primary reasons reported were the need for increased
service frequency or longer hours of operation, lack of on-time performance, and rude or
unprofessional drivers.
Light Rail and Fixed Route Bus Service Generally Perform Better than Peers
To perform peer comparisons, we used data from the National Transit Database-the most
available and widely-used transit performance comparison data in the nation. While National
Transit Database data is well used, there is some risk of inaccuracy given that data is self-reported
by transit agencies and remains unaudited. Valley Metro also uses National Transit Database
data to perform its own peer comparisons and report on results in annual Transit Performance
Reports. Based on National Transit Database performance data for light rail and systemwide
fixed route bus service for five specific performance metrics between fiscal years 2011-2012 and
2013-2014, results show that transit in Maricopa County generally performed better than its
peers.
Specifically, as shown in Table 13, Valley Metro light rail outperformed the six-peer average for
four of the five categories. For instance, Valley Metro was able to recover a greater proportion of
total operating costs through passenger fares than the six-peer average over all three years. For
all three years, Valley Metro's farebox recovery was more than 10 percentage points higher than
the six-peer average. Valley Metro's operating cost per boarding, a metric assessing operational
efficiency, also outperformed the six-peer average for all three years examined.
Table 13: Comparison of Valley Metro Light Rail, Inc. Performance with Six National Peers,
Fiscal Years 2011-2012 through 2013-2014"
2012 2013 2014
Performance
Measure Valley Peer % Valley Peer % Valley Peer %
Metro Average Variance Metro Average Variance Metro Average Variance
Operating Cost
per Revenue $11.87 $10.89 9.0% $11.81 $10.84 8.9% $12.60 $11.84 6.4%
MileA
Boardings per 5.56 3.59 54.9% 5.88 3.29 78.7% 5.77 3.45 40.2%
Revenue Mile°
Farebox 41.1% 31.0% 32.6% 44.6% 34.0% 31.2% 40.0% 30.0% 25.0%
Recovery°
Operating Cost $2.13 $4.43 -51.9% $2.01 $3.30 -39.1% $2.18 $3.43 -57.3%
per Boarding°
Subsidy per $1.26 $2.08 -39.4% $1.11 $2.17 -48.8% $1.31 $2.41 -84.0%
BoardingE
Source: Valley Metro Transit Performance Reports, fiscal years 2011-2012 through 2013-2014
Notes: A Operating Cost per Revenue Mile = Operating Expenses/Annual Revenue Miles; ° Average Boardings per Revenue Mile =
Total Boardings/Annual Revenue Miles; C Farebox Recovery Ratio = Fare Revenue/Operating Expenses; ° Operating Cost Per
Boarding = Operating Expenses/Total Boardings; E Subsidy per Boarding = (Operating Expenses net Fare Revenue)/ Total Boardings
73Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Dallas, TX); METRO Rail (Houston, TX); Regional Transportation (Denver, CO); San Diego Metro Transit
(San Diego, CA); Regional Transit (Sacramento, CA); and Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, UT).
SJOBERG ,1\TASHENK 62 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Similarly, as illustrated in Table 14, fixed route bus service in Maricopa County outperformed the
six-peer average for all five performance measures between fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2013-
2014. For instance, Valley Metro outperformed the six-peer average for two metrics capturing
operational efficiency-operating costs per revenue mile and operating cost per boarding-
indicating it costs less to operate fixed route bus service in Maricopa County than in other peer
transit systems. In particular, the operating cost per boarding was approximately 16 percent less
than peers between fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2013-2014.
Table 14: Comparison of Maricopa County Systemwide Fixed Route Bus Performance with 6
National Peers, Fiscal Years 2011-2012 through 2013-2014'
2012 2013 2014
Performance
Measure Valley Peer % Valley Peer % Valley Peer %
Metro Average Variance Metro Average Variance Metro Average Variance
Operating Cost
per Revenue $7.47 $8.83 -15.4% $8.09 $8.98 -9.9% $7.65 $8.87 -13.8%
Mile A
Boardings per 2.00 1.99 0.5% 2.10 1.95 7.7% 2.00 1.95 2.6%
Revenue Mile E
Fare box 22.2% 20.0% 11.0% 21.6% 18.9% 14.3% 21.9% 19.4% 12.9%
Recovery C
Operating Cost $3.73 $4.43 -15.8% $3.85 $4.59 -16.1% $3.83 $4.55 -15.8%
per Boarding °
Subsidy per $2.90 $3.53 -17.8% $3.02 $3.73 -19.0% $3.00 $3.67 -18.3%
Boarding E
Source: Valley Metro Transit Performance Reports
Notes: A Operating Cost per Revenue Mile = Operating Expenses/Annual Revenue Miles; E Average Boardings per Revenue Mile =
Total Boardings/Annual Revenue Miles; C Farebox Recovery Ratio = Fare Revenue/Operating Expenses; 0 Operating Cost Per
Boarding = Operating Expenses/Total Boardings; E Subsidy per Boarding = (Operating Expenses net Fare Revenue)/Total Boardings
Light Rail Continues to Outpace Its Own Expectations
Over the audit period, the performance of Valley Metro's light rail system generally improved as
shown in Table 15. With the exception of on-time performance, we found favorable trends
across each of the performance metrics. For instance, total boardings increased by nearly 12
percent from fiscal year 2010-2011 to fiscal year 2014-2015, from nearly 12.8 million boardings to
14.3 million boardings. While total boardings increased over the audit period, boardings have
remained fairly constant over the last three years. Other performance measures indicate the
strength and operation of the system, such as the farebox recovery that shows the portion of
total operating expenses covered by passenger fares. In Maricopa County, the light rail system's
farebox recovery increased by more than 24 percent over the five-year audit period from nearly
33 percent in fiscal year 2010-2011 to 41 percent in fiscal year 2014-2015.
Moreover, light rail performed well when measured against each of the following indicators.
71Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Dallas, TX); King County Metro Transit (Seattle, WA); Regional Transportation (Denver, CO); San Diego
Metro Transit (San Diego, CA); Tri-Mt (Portland, OR); Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, UT)
SJOBERG . 'EVASHENK 63 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
• Service Levels
While light rail on-time performance has remained at 92 percent or higher for the audit
period, it has declined from a peak on-time performance reported at 97.5 percent in fiscal
year 2010-2011 to 92.1 percent in fiscal year 2014-2015.
Table 15: Light Rail System Performance, Fiscal Years 2010-2011 through 2014-2015
Percent
Performance Measure Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Change Over 5-
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Year
Period
Operating Cost per $12.90 $11.87 $11.81 $12.60 $12.60 -2.3%
Revenue Mile
Boardings per Reyenue Mile 5.32 5.56 5.88 5.77 5.75 8.1%
Farebox Recovery 33.0% 41.1% 44.6% 40.0% 41.0% 24.2%
Operating Cost per $2.42 $2.13 $2.01 $2.18 $2.19 -9.5%
Boarding
Subsidy per Boarding $1.62 $1.26 $1.11 $1.31 $1.29 -20.4%
Total Boardings 12,793,529 13,553,490 14,286,093 14,331,488 14,276,884 11.6%
Vehicle Revenue Miles 2,405,140 2,435,946 2,430,774 2,481,951 2,482,556 3.2%
Average Fare75 $0.80 $0.88 $0.90 $0.87 $0.90 12.5%
On-time Performance 97.5% 97.2% 94.7% 93.5% 92.1% -5.5%
Mechanical Failures 117 85 82 67 71 -39.3%
Source: Valley Metro Annual Transportation Performance Reports
• Light Rail Capital Project Costs
Between fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2014-2015, no new light rail capital construction projects
were completed. However, Valley Metro Rail, Inc. recently completed construction of the
federally funded Central Mesa 3.1 mile light rail extension with passenger operations that
started in August 2015-three months ahead of schedule and within budget. Also, Valley
Metro Rail, Inc. began construction of the Northwest light rail extension with one 3.2 mile
stretch scheduled for completion in 2016. As of June 30, 2015, Valley Metro Rail Inc. had
spent $894.5 million of the $2.9 billion scheduled to be spent through fiscal year 2025-2026.
• Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Operations and Maintenance Costs
In terms of operational costs, Valley Metro Rail, Inc. was under its budget by nearly $868,000,
or 3 percent, in fiscal year 2013-2014 and more than $1.3 million under budget for fiscal year
2014-2015. For the same timeframe, vehicle maintenance labor and material costs were
more than $1 million, or 60 percent, lower than budget in fiscal year 2013-2014. However,
Valley Metro Rail, Inc. experienced higher costs in fiscal year 2014-2015 where expenses were
75 Average fare reported is the average of all fares collected, which includes a combination of standard fares, reduced fares, youth
fares, and passes.
SJOBERG EVASBENK 64 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
over budget by more than $294,000 due to expensive bumper and brake replacement parts
as well as a heating and air conditioning overhaul according to Valley Metro staff.
• Light Rail Transit Ridership
Over the five-year audit period, total boardings increased by nearly 12 percent between fiscal
years 2010-2011 and 2014-2015, from 12.8 million to 14.3 million-but remained fairly
constant between fiscal years 2012-2013 and 2014-2015.
Bus Transit Shows Generally Consistent Performance
Between fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2014-2015, fixed route bus system performance showed
improvements in certain areas and slight decreases in performance in other areas as shown in
Table 16. For instance, we noted improvements in five of the 12 metrics reviewed-total
boardings, boardings per revenue mile, safety incidents, security incidents, and mechanical
failures. While fixed route bus service out performed peers as discussed earlier in this chapter,
metrics related to service efficiency-such as operating cost per revenue mile and operating cost
per boarding-showed an increase between fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2014-2015. With costs
increasing and the average fare remaining relatively consistent, the farebox recovery declined by
nearly 7 percent and the subsidy per boarding increased by more than 10 percent.
Table 16: Fixed Route System-wide Performance, Fiscal Years 2010-2011 through 2014-2015
Performance Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Percent
Measure Years Years Years Years Years Change Over
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 5-year Period
Operating Cost per $7.08 $7.47 $8.09 $7.65 $7.90 11.6%
Revenue Mile
Boardings per 1.88 2.00 2.10 2.00 1.94 3.2%
Revenue Mile
Farebox Recovery 22.00% 22.20% 21.60% 21.90% 20.50% -6.8%
Operating cost per $3.77 $3.73 $3.85 $3.83 $4.07 8.0%
Boarding
Subsidy per $2.94 $2.90 $3.02 $3.00 $3.24 ' 10.2%
Boarding
Total Boardings 54,814,001 57,489,998 59,123,712 57,805,780 56,482,963 3.0%
Vehicle Revenue 29,216,449 28,686,261 28,152,162 28,963,377 29,089,942 -0.4%
Miles
Average Fare $0.83 $0.83 $0.83 $0.84 $0.83 0%
On-time 95.60% 96.20% 95.00% 93.70% 92.70% -3.0%
Performance
Total Safety 48 95 31 17 23 -52.1%
Incidents
Total Security 11 33 16 0 0 -100.0%
Incidents
Total Mechanical 4,046 4,665 3,627 -10.4%
Failures76
Source: Valley Metro Transit Performance Reports
m According to Valley Metro, mechanical failures were not consistently reported in FY 2010-2011 and FY 2011-2012; therefore,
amounts reported were not used for audit purposes to assess trends.
SJOBERG1:TVASHENK 65 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
On a positive note, bus passengers experienced increased levels of safety while using fixed route
bus services. In particular, safety and security incidents have significantly declined with safety
incidents dropping 52 percent from 48 reported incidents in fiscal year 2010-2011 to just 23 in
fiscal year 2014-2015. Security incidents similarly dropped from a high of 33 reports in fiscal year
2011-2012 to no incidents reported at all for the last two fiscal years. Additionally, metrics
related to bus vehicle mechanical failures decreased more than 10 percent over the 3-year period
where data was available from an approximate 4,000 failures or breakdowns in fiscal year 2012-
2013 down to an approximate 3,600 failures by fiscal year 2014-2015.
Many Transit Projects Are Being Completed, Although Some Projects Are Deferred
Beyond Fiscal Year 2025-2026
As of June 30, 2015, nearly $1.9 billion had been spent on transit capital construction projects
and transit operations since fiscal year 2005-2006. As shown in Table 17, while progress has been
made to complete projects originally promised in Prop 400, several projects and new or improved
routes have been deferred beyond fiscal year 2025-2026. During Phase II, from fiscal year 2010-
2011 to 2014-2015, several park-and-ride lots were constructed and three large capital
construction projects were completed including the Central Station Rehab, Arizona Avenue Bus
Rapid Transit, and Central Mesa light rail extension. In addition, 35 new routes or route
enhancements were implemented—although 14 routes were subsequently eliminated and 10
routes were adjusted through service or trip reductions.
Table 17: Status of Prop 400 Transit Projects as of June 30, 2015
Improvements proposed by Prop 400 in 2004 Project Status as of June 30, 2015
Regional Transit Improvements – Transit Capital Projects
Construct 26 New Passenger Facilities including:
• 13 Park-and-Ride Lots • 6 Park-and-Ride Lots completed, 5 additional park-and-
rides scheduled to be completed by fiscal year 2025-2026—
2 deferred beyond fiscal year 2025-2026
• 13 Transit Centers • 1 transit centers completed, 3 additional transit centers
scheduled to be completed by fiscal year 2025-2026-9
deferred beyond fiscal year 2025-2026
Purchase:
• 2,978 Buses • To-date 666 buses and 623 vanpool vans purchased—a
total of 1,446 buses and 1,500 vanpool vans scheduled to
be purchased through fiscal year 2025-2026
• 1,000 Dial-A-Ride Vehicles
• To-date 244 paratransit vans purchased—a total of 580
paratransit (dial-a-ride) buses scheduled to be purchased
through fiscal year 2025-2026
Improve:
• 1,200 Bus Stop Pullouts and Improvements • 424 bus stops completed
Upgrade and Construct Transit Maintenance and 2 maintenance facilities have been completed to date, with no
Operations Facilities additional facilities through 2025-2026. Remaining facilities
(2 dial-a-ride, 1 rural, 2 bus, 2 bus expansions, and 1 vanpool
facility) were deferred beyond fiscal year 2025-2026
SJOBERG EVASEWC 66 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Improvements proposed by Prop 400 in 2004 Project Status as of June 30, 2015
Improve High Capacity/Light Rail Transit including:
• Construct 27.7 miles of high capacity transit/light
rail extensions between:
o Downtown Phoenix to 79 th Avenue aka 1-10 o Scheduled to open Phase IV between fiscal years 2020-
2021 and 2025-2026
West (11 miles)
o Apache Boulevard to Southern Avenue aka o Scheduled to open Phase III between fiscal years 2015-
2016 and 2019-2020, although it is now identified as a
Tempe Streetcar (2 miles)
streetcar at 2.6 miles
o Central Phoenix to Paradise Valley Mall aka
Northeast Corridor (12 miles) o Deferred beyond fiscal year 2025-2026
o Sycamore to Mesa Drive aka Central Mesa o Opened in Phase 11, identified as a 3.1 mile light rail
Corridor (2.7 miles) extension
• Regional Support Infrastructure for light rail system • On-going expenditures are made in these areas
(maintenance facilities, bridges, rail cars)
Regional Transit Improvements - Transit Bus Operations
Provide New or Enhance Existing Regional Bus
Service on:
• 12 New Routes • 14 freeway express/BRT and 19 supergrid routes
implemented
• 28 Existing Routes
• 16 freeway express/BRT and 11 supergrid routes deferred
beyond fiscal year 2025-2026
• 4 implemented freeway express/BRT routes eliminated in
fiscal year 2010-2011
Provide Rural Bus Routes to:
• Wickenburg 2 rural bus routes implemented —Wickenburg eliminated in
fiscal year 2012-2013 due to low ridership.
• Gila Bend
Other Transit Bus Operations Improvements: Expenditures in these areas include:
• Triple Dial-A-Ride Para-transit Services for ADA • $141.1 million on ADA services
riders • $66.8 million on regional passenger support services
• Triple Vanpool Services • $4.3 million on safety
• Improve Transit Security Vanpool services are funded entirely by fares.
Source: Prop 400 Proposed Projects; 2003 RIP, and 2015 Prop 400 Status Update Report
When looking at projects initially scheduled for completion between fiscal years 2015-2016 and
2019-2020 in Phase III, we found that a lot of movement has occurred. Some projects are still
scheduled for completion or will be advanced during that time frame, but others have been
deferred to the final five-year phase of Prop 400 or beyond fiscal year 2024-2025 due to funding
shortfalls. For instance, the Interstate-10 West Link light rail project initially scheduled to be
completed in Phase III was deferred to the last Prop 400 phase, as shown in Table 18. Also, the
Glendale Link light rail project was deferred out past fiscal year 2024-2025. In addition to the
deferred light rail projects, 13 bus projects scheduled for completion in Phase III were also
deferred beyond the Prop 400 timeframe into fiscal year 2024-2025 or later due to funding
shortfalls.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 67 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Table 18: Light Rail Projects Initially Scheduled vs Currently Scheduled
For Completion in Phase Ill
Phase Current Current
Initially Initial Cost Phase Cost
Project Scheduled (in millions) Scheduled for (in millions) Comments
for 2002 $ Completion 2015 $
Completion
Fiscal year In final phase of identifying
2025-2026 locally preferred alternative,
Glendale Link III 180 (outside the 6.15 but now called West
Prop 400 Phoenix/Central Glendale
window) Extension.
2016 transit life cycle
program update split project
into two phases, with the
1- 10 West Link III 660 IV 13.32 environmental work nearly
complete. Also, project
renamed as Capitol/I-1
West Extension.
Originally called Metro
Center Link, but as project
Northwest I 180 III 174.4 was split into two phases and
Extension Phase I renamed to Northwest
Extension.
2016 transit life cycle
program update pushed
completion to fiscal year
Tempe Streetcar II 120 III 105.9 2018-2019. Currently
completing preliminary
engineering.
Not mentioned in 2003 RTP,
but amended into RTP in
Not initially Not initially 2014. Project funded with
Gilbert Road in Prop 400 in Prop 400 III 122.8 federal funds from the arterial
Plan Plan life cycle program and local
funds from City of Mesa.
Source: 2003 RTP and 2015 Prop 400 Status Update Report
Transit Activities Are Regularly Audited for Compliance with Federal Requirements
With a large portion of transit capital projects funded with federal monies, transit projects and
related operations are regularly audited by a variety of oversight agencies. For instance, Valley
Metro receives federal funding through the City of Phoenix, which is the region's designated
recipient of federal transit funds related to the federal new starts and small starts transit
programs. Use of these federal funds is subject to review by the City of Phoenix on behalf of the
federal government. Valley Metro and local jurisdictions must comply with a variety of
administrative requirements related to allowable costs, procurement, cash management, and
financial reporting in addition to programmatic requirements, such as utility relocation and
alternative analysis provisions.
SJOBERG EVASRIDIK 68 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
To assess compliance, the Federal Transit Administration conducts triennial audits of the City of
Phoenix as the designated recipient for federal transit funds. In the most recent triennial audit
conducted for fiscal year 2014-2015, auditors identified several findings and recommended
corrective action related to federal financial reports, Americans with Disabilities Act activities,
procurement, and drug-free workplace requirements—although auditors concluded that there
was general compliance with requirements. In October 2015, the City of Phoenix provided the
Federal Transit Administration with a formal response describing the City of Phoenix Public
Transit Department's implementation of corrective action and demonstration of new practices
employed to address issues identified.
In addition, the Federal Transit Administration requires the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) to ensure that subrecipients of federal assistance distributed through
ADOT comply with requirements. As such, ADOT conducted a site review of Valley Metro's
compliance with federal requirements and issued a report in March 2016 identifying issues
related to legal requirements, governance, service provision, and Americans with Disabilities Act
requirements. According to Valley Metro, it has addressed the findings and is in the process of
developing refined procedures.
Further, federally funded transit capital projects are required to use an independent project
management oversight contractor and submit regular reports to the Federal Transit
Administration. Four of the five projects we selected for review as part of our RTP performance
audit used federal funding and, thus, were subject to the oversight contractor requirement.
Upon review of project files, we found records of the required reports that provided a summary
of the topics discussed, meeting attendees, and efforts taken to help adhere to federal
requirements and reduce the risk of non-compliance. Based on our review of these reports, we
did not find any significant compliance areas that were not being addressed. Moreover, it
seemed that Valley Metro and the local entities responsible for transit capital construction
appear to have employed many best practices to reduce the risk of non-compliance—or, when
issues were noted during oversight reviews, implemented practices and formal procedures for
immediate corrective action.
Transit Employs Leading Capital Project Management Practices
While rail capital projects are managed and overseen by Valley Metro Rail, Inc. most bus transit
capital projects for transit centers and park-and-rides are managed and overseen by local
jurisdictions. In recent years, Valley Metro has been working more closely with local jurisdictions
on bus transit capital projects to provide informal project feedback and assistance when needed
to enhance regional coordination and connectivity.
As shown in Table 19, we reviewed project management and delivery practices employed on five
transit capital construction projects that were completed or were in-progress over the last five
SJOBERG EVASHENK 69 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
years. Projects selected included a variety of project delivery methods, including construction
manager at-risk, design-bid-build, and design-build. 77
Table 19: Transit Capital Construction Projects Selected for Review
Agency Overseeing
Project Project Delivery Method Project
1 Northwest Light Rail Extension Phase I Construction Manager at Risk Valley Metro Rail
2 Central Mesa Light Rail Extension Design Build Valley Metro Rail
3 Arizona Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Design-Bid-Build Valley Metro RPTA
4 West Mesa Park-and-Ride Lot Design-Bid-Build City of Mesa
5 Desert Sky Transit Center Design-Bid-Build City of Phoenix
Source: Auditor generated based on project files.
Our review found that many leading project management practices were employed over transit
capital construction projects through Valley Metro's and the local jurisdictions' use of a variety of
automated and manual project management tools. For example, Valley Metro used a widely-
known and accepted Primavera project management
software for document control and project administration Transit Employs Leading Project
during the audit period and recently transitioned to Delivery Practices
Aconex Project Management software for current capital Cradle-to-grave project
construction projects. Although the City of Mesa management structure
employed manual processes to oversee and manage its Project Management Plan at
projects, it began implementing a new capital Valley Metro
improvement program planning software in 2014. This Budget to actual monitoring
software will be used to manage projects from design to Regular project development
completion, including modules for contract management, team meetings to discuss cost,
once fully implemented—and would be in line with schedule, and issues
standard project management practices. 78 V Value assessment reviews
• Daily inspections of quality and
Further, many of the practices employed align with compliance
nationally recognized protocols of the Project
Quality assurance and quality
Management Institute's Project Management Body of control practices
Knowledge Guide and Standards (known as PMBOK) that
Punch lists and close out
includes widely-accepted guidelines, rules, and practices
reports
over project management that identify generally accepted
77 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 design-build. 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.
78 Leading industry project management practice standards are drawn from a variety of sources such as the Project Management
Institute's PMBOK, Construction Management Association of America's Construction Management Standards of Practice, Federal
Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration reports and guidance.
SJOBERG EVASBENK 70 MAG RTP Audit -2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
standards as well as how those standards apply within the unique realm of construction project
management. For example, Valley Metro created project management plans for each of the rail
projects that described how the project would be executed, monitored, and controlled as
suggested by PMBOK guidance. Project files included documentation demonstrating that project
managers generally followed the project integration management processes identified in PMBOK,
including documentation supporting project initiation, plans, execution, monitor and control,
change control, and project closeout. At the City of Phoenix, files maintained held key change
management documentation, including change order logs, request for information, records of
negotiation, pending change orders, justification for the change, and the final authorized change
order. 79
We also found that project management files maintained by lead entities were well organized
and generally followed a logical indexing system established by the entity. Project files included
documentation supporting key decisions and project milestones, project team meeting minutes,
project baseline and current schedules, initial project budgets and actual costs to date, future
cost estimates, and reports submitted to oversight agencies as part of grant funded projects.
Transit Capital Construction Projects Generally Completed under Budget
Our review of five capital construction projects found that projects were generally completed or
are projected to be completed within budget, as shown in Table 20.
Table 20: Transit Capital Construction Project Costs Reviewed were within 10 percent of Budget
Actual Projected Projected Percent
Project Name Initial Budget Expenditures Costs Total Cost at Over/(Under)
as of FY 2015-16 Completion Budget at
June 30, 2015 thru 2019-20 Completion
Central Mesa $199,010,443 $181,934,517 $8,867,926 $190,802,443 -4%
Light Rail Extension A
Northwest Light Rail $326,591,900 $269,575,899 $57,016,142 $326,592,041 0%
Extension Phase I B
Arizona Avenue BRT c $15,000,000 $11,062,810 $0 $11,062,810 -26%
West Mesa Park and $6,834,500 $5,494,384 $0 $5,494,384 -20%
Ride (City of Mesa
Desert Sky Transit
Center (City of $12,740,236 $4,422,126 $4,000,000 $8,422,126 -34%
Phoenix) E
Source: Valley Metro Project Status Spreadsheet
Note: A Central Mesa Light Rail Extension extended service from the Sycamore Transit Center to Main Street and Mesa Drive in
Mesa; B Northwest Light Rail Extension Phase I extended service along 19th Ave, from Montebello to Dunlap Avenue in Phoenix; C
Arizona Avenue BRT runs along Arizona Ave from Chandler Blvd in Chandler to Main Street in Mesa; ° The West Mesa Park and
Ride is located at the intersection of W Juanita and S Vineyard; EThe Desert Sky Transit Center is located at the corner of 79 th Ave
and W. Thomas Road adjacent to the Desert Sky Mall, but was not part of the original Transit Life Cycle Program.
79 Best practices over change orders are gathered from a variety of sources including Federal Transit Administration guidance and
Construction Management Standards of Practice.
SJOBERG 'EVASHENK 71 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
For instance, the Arizona Avenue bus rapid transit project was completed within the initial
project budget of $15 million with only approximately $11.1 million expended on the project as
of June 30, 2015. Similarly, with a budget for the Central Mesa Light Rail Extension of $199
million in fiscal year 2013-2014, only $181.9 million, or 91 percent, has been spent to date. Even
with an additional $8.8 million in costs expected to be spent between fiscal years 2014-2015 and
2018-2019, the project should still be 4.6 percent under budget with total costs of $190 million.
In another example on the Northwest Light Rail Extension Phase I, Valley Metro has spent $269.6
million of the approximate $326.6 million budgeted as of June 30, 2015-83 percent of the
budget. Again, even with Valley Metro estimates of $57 million more to be spent between fiscal
years 2015-2016 and 2019-2020, the project is expected to be completed within budget.
Bus transit projects reviewed have also been delivered under budget. For instance, the West
Mesa Park and Ride project was initially budgeted at $6.8 million; however, the project was
completed under budget at nearly $5.5 million—less than 20 percent lower than the budgeted
amount. According to the City of Mesa, construction bids were significantly lower than expected
due to the economic recession.
Light Rail Project Delivered on Schedule, but Bus Transit Experienced Some Delays
As discussed in more detail in the bullets that follow, light rail projects reviewed were all
delivered on or earlier than scheduled. While bus transit capital projects experienced delays and
began service later than planned, the delays were reasonable and documented.
• Northwest Light Rail Extension Phase I: The Northwest Light Rail Extension was broken
into two phases with the first phase completed in 2016 adding 3.2 miles to the existing
light rail and extending service into North Central Phoenix. The project also included
construction of three stations and a park-and-ride lot. As shown in Figure 10, a
screenshot of the project scorecard indicates the project was completed approximately
four months ahead of schedule when it opened for revenue service on March 19, 2016.
Figure 10: Northwest Light Rail Extension Phase I Project Schedule Baseline vs. Actual
Construction 04.26.2016 03.18.2016 98.0%
Utilities 06.30.2014 07.15.2015 100.0%
Right of Way 10.30.2013 08.15.2015 100.0%
Public Art 11.30.2015 02.29.2016 100.0%
Design/Management 07.30.2015 06.30.2016 90.0%
Testino/Start-uo 07.25.2016 03.19.2016 100.0%
Source: Screenshot of Valley Metro Project Scorecard March 2016
Note: Baseline, a commonly used terminology in industry, marks the planned or anticipated completion of a project milestone and
current indicates the status of activities or when actually completed.
SJOBERG '-EVASIlliNK 72 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
• Central Mesa Light Rail Extension: As part of another light rail extension, the Central
Mesa project extended the main operating segment of light rail by 3.1 miles, bringing
service through downtown Mesa to Mesa Drive. The project also included construction of
four stations and a park-and-ride. Like the Northwest Extension project, this Central Mesa
Extension was also completed three months ahead of schedule—as shown the screenshot
of the project scorecard in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Central Mesa Light Rail Extension Project Schedule Baseline vs. Actual
Construction 08.01.2015 08.06.2015 100.0%
Utilities 04.08.2015 07.27.2015 100.0%
Right of Way 07.15.2013 10.01.2014 100.0%
Public Art 04.30.2015 07.15.2015 100.0%
Design/Management 05.29.2015 12.31.2015 98.0%
Testing/Start-up 11.15.2015 8.21.2015 100.0%
Source: Screenshot of Valley Metro Project Scorecard September 2015
Note: Baseline, a commonly used terminology in industry, marks the planned or anticipated start of a project milestone and
current indicates the status of activities or when actually completed.
• Arizona Avenue Bus Rapid Transit: BRT uses buses or specialized vehicles on roadways or
dedicated lanes to quickly transport passengers to their destinations. Although the
Arizona Avenue project was initially envisioned to be a BRT route, the project scope was
revised to an express service, or LINK, between the Chandler park-and-ride at
Tumbleweed Park and the Sycamore/Main Street Transit Center in Phoenix. LINK vehicles
are equipped with traffic signal priority technology allowing better mobility through
communication with traffic signals to stay green longer for buses to pass through as well
as provide streamlined routes and service. The project was initially scheduled to begin in
November 2009, with an expected completion date in September 2010; however, the
project was delayed by roughly 14 weeks in order to address design issues with local
jurisdictions and complete right of way acquisition. These delays resulted in revenue
service beginning several months late on January 24, 2011. However, documents detailing
the delays were appropriately supported, managed, and discussed.
• West Mesa Park and Ride: Also known as Country Club Park-and-Ride, the West Mesa
Park-and-Ride was initiated by the City of Mesa's Transit Department and led by the
Engineering Design Department. Work on the project began in 2009 with site alternatives
analysis, followed by a construction start on June 13, 2011, and expectations for project
completion on October 11, 2011. In March 2012, the prime contractor abruptly ceased
construction and ultimately went out of business, resulting in several months delay as the
City of Mesa worked with the bonding company to hire a new contractor to complete
SJOBERG 'EVASHENTK 73 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
construction. Ultimately, the West Mesa Park and Ride opened for service on November
21, 2012 with a notice of substantial completion issued on November 26, 2012. Due to
the unexpected complications with the prime contractor, the project was completed 407
days after it was initially scheduled to finish. Project file documents showed adequate
management and justification of the delay.
• Phoenix Desert Sky Transit Center: Although the Desert Sky Transit Center was not
included in the 2003 RTP, this project was identified by the City of Phoenix and approved
for inclusion in the 2010 transit life cycle program funded with a combination of sale tax
revenue and federal funds. Construction began on February 2, 2015, and was originally
scheduled to be completed by November 30, 2015. While the transit center opened for
public service close to schedule on December 8, 2015, the notice of final completion was
not issued until June 12, 2016. Although the project was completed significantly under
budget, the project final acceptance was delayed by six months. According to the City of
Phoenix, warranty information was not provided in a timely manner and delayed the
notice of project completion. Project files showed appropriate management and
responses to the delay.
Change Orders Were Generally Appropriately Supported and Approved
Construction change orders and contract amendments are standard practice for capital projects
where varying circumstances require changes to scope, schedule, or cost. We reviewed two
change orders for each of the five transit capital construction projects, for a total of 10 change
orders. Our review found that nine of the ten change orders examined had appropriate and
reasonable documentation, such as a detailed explanation for the change order, request for
information or owner requests for proposals to initiate changes, records of negotiation between
the contractor and owner, and authorization from agency staff discussed in the bullets that
follow:
• Light Rail Projects: For the two capital construction projects to extend light rail—namely,
the Central Mesa Rail Extension and Northwest Rail Extension Phase I—change orders
reviewed were reasonable, appropriately supported, and approved by Valley Metro Rail,
Inc. staff. However, for one change order on the Northwest Rail Extension Phase I project,
Valley Metro Rail, Inc. staff approving the change order did not provide the date the
change order was signed for approval; thus, we could not determine whether changes
were appropriately authorized before the contractor began work. Specifically, before a
contractor begins work, Valley Metro Rail, Inc. staff should sign and date the change order
indicating its approval. However, the change order log indicated the change was
approved several days after the contractor's signature. Thus, there were no issues with
these change orders.
• Transit Projects: For the remaining three capital construction projects, each project was
managed by a different entity—RPTA the City of Mesa, or the City of Phoenix. Four of the
six change orders on these three projects appeared reasonable and were approved by the
agency. However, for one change order related to the Arizona Avenue BRT project, RPTA
SJOBERGEVASHENK 74 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
approved the change order before the contractor. By allowing the contractor to approve
the change order after RPTA, it increases the risk of the contractor making changes or
modifications that were not approved by RPTA management and these changes going
undetected by RPTA staff. However, we did not identify any modifications made to the
change order by the contractor after RPTA's signature and, thus, there were no identified
negative impacts on the project.
For the second change order reviewed on the Desert Sky project overseen by the City of
Phoenix, we noted a significant time delay between the date the initial pending change
order was approved and the date the final change order was approved. Specifically, the
change order approval was delayed by approximately 3.5 months. While industry
practices often allow approval authority to be delegated within certain threshold amounts
as part of established project contingency amounts, the City of Phoenix requires all
change orders to be approved by the City Council regardless of dollar amount. Because
work technically should not start until final change order approval is received, these
delays can potentially have negative impacts on overall project timelines.
Practices Employed Ensure Accurate and Appropriate Construction Payments
We tested two progress payments for each of the five transit capital construction projects
selected for review, for a total of ten progress payments. Our review found that invoices were
mathematically accurate, agreed with contract terms and conditions, included a schedule of
values that aligned with the scope of work established in the contract, and were approved by
agency staff prior to payment—all practices aligned with leading industry guidance. Moreover,
all payments conformed to the Maricopa Association of Government's Uniform Standard
Specifications and Details for Public Works Construction § 109.7 requiring a 10 percent retention
until the project is 50 percent complete.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 75 MAG RTP Audit-2016

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR REPRODUCTION PURPOSES]
SJOBERG, 'EVASHENK 76 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Chapter 5: Multimodal Management and Operations
CHAPTER SUMMARY
In addition to projects on freeways, arterial streets, and transit routes, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
sets aside funding for the management and operation of systemwide activities over multiple modes of
transportation in Maricopa County. One goal of this regionally integrated approach is to optimize
performance of the multimodal system by implementing and monitoring intelligent transportation system
technology and operating transportation operations and management centers.
Prop 400/11TP Improvements Proposed Multimodal Efforts
As part of the RTP and Proposition 400 (Prop 400) V Region has initiated many steps towards moving traffic
funding, money is spent to optimize the more efficiently using existing roadway capacity.
performance of the multinnodal transportation V RTP and Prop 400 funds have been allocated and spent
system through intelligent transportation system on establishing a solid technological foundation and
management. planning to enable use of nnultimodal management
techniques—such as active traffic management—
where the system is dynamically monitored and
managed on a real-time basis.
V Opportunities exist to enhance active management
techniques within and across freeways, arterial streets,
and transit networks.
Audit Results Highlights
• Financial investments have been made for intelligent transportation systems technology on freeways,
arterial streets, and transit networks.
• Freeway traffic activities are monitored through the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)'s traffic
operation center 24-hours a day.
• Department of Public Safety officers located in the ADOT traffic operation center to monitor traffic incidents
have reduced crash response time by nearly 50 percent.
• There are 13 transportation management centers in operation with staff monitoring arterial streets in local
jurisdictions, but they primarily operate only during regular business hours.
• ADOT, Valley Metro, and the local jurisdictions have taken several steps towards implementing ATM, but its
use is not widespread.
o No freeway ATM tools are in place—although ADOT uses existing freeway ramp meters to address the
flow of traffic, ADOT cannot dynamically regulate traffic based on real-time changing conditions until
their meter technology is more advanced.
o Some ATM in use on arterial streets such as traffic signal synchronization and reversible lanes.
o Transit priority signal and bus queue jumping are used at some intersections. '
• These same entities are working toward integrating ATM and managing corridors across the freeway, arterial
streets, and transit networks.
8° Bus queue jumping refers to an additional bus-only lane approaching a traffic signal with its own signal allowing the bus to jump
ahead of other vehicles stopped at the intersection.
SJOBERG ::EVASIIENK 77 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Recommendations
• 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 RTP
partners on considering and prioritizing the maintenance of the communication infrastructure to remain
functional and current.
Components of Integrated Multimodal Management
Traffic congestion continues to grow every year, creating continued problems for counties,
states, and countries. To solve a region's congestion challenges, transportation and transit
agencies have a variety of options at their disposal.
Some options involve capacity building approaches
Multimodal Management Tools
such as adding lanes to a freeway, widening streets,
implementing a light rail system, or buying • Intelligent Transportation Systems
refers to the technology used to
additional buses and adding routes. Other monitor and manage the safety and
approaches focus on managing congestion and reliability of transportation. Traffic data
mobility within the existing roadways through the is provided by this technology.
use of technology and multimodal coordination to
• Traffic Operation Centers and
optimize investments in roadways already made in a Traffic Management Centers use
particular area. Yet, there is no one solution or specialized staff to monitor information
correct combination of strategies for addressing a and data provided through intelligent
transportation systems technology and
region's transportation needs. adjust the transportation network in
response to traffic incidents.
When voters passed Prop 400 in 2004 authorizing
additional funding of the RTP, the plan included a • Active Traffic Management uses
intelligent transportation systems tools
variety of transportation choices from new in combination with operational
freeways, arterial streets, and transit projects to management employed by traffic
funding for technology projects and management operations and management centers
systems. These financial investments in technology to dynamically adjust the
transportation system on a real-time
solutions focus on better utilization and basis, using predictive methods, and
management of existing infrastructure and the 24-hours a day operations.
leveraging of under-used capacity across modes of
transportation. Intelligent transportation systems
help entities manage traffic conditions across multiple modes of transportation for improving
system efficiency and reducing congestion. Techniques known as active traffic management
(ATM) bring together these technology tools through the operational management of that
technology to make real-time decisions on the freeway, arterial streets, and transit networks.
Specifically, the foundation of ATM is built upon intelligent transportation systems components
that include a combination of items such as conduit, sensors, cameras, signals, controls,
electronics, and telecommunication devices to collect and report traffic data as well as control
traffic. Once an infrastructure is in place, trained staff monitor and manage traffic data from
intelligent transportation systems technology. This monitoring is done by staff located at traffic
operation centers or transportation management centers to take action as needed to address
SJOBERG EVASIEW 78 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
traffic needs and ensure continued mobility throughout a region. While some traffic operation
centers and transportation management centers nationally take on a reactive basis in response to
a traffic incident, others operate their centers on a proactive basis anticipating events and using
predictive tools to estimate traffic and influence traveler behavior.
Examples of ATM strategies used by transportation agencies nationwide include:
Adaptive ramp metering to smartly control the rate of vehicles entering a freeway
depending on current levels of congestion;
Dynamic lane reversal to better match the direction of traffic demand to roadway
capacity;
V Adaptive traffic signal controls to continuously monitor traffic and wait times as well as
adjust signal timing at intersections to adjust for real-time traffic volumes; and
Dynamic transit signal priority using probe vehicle technology on buses or light rail
vehicles to turn traffic signals green as the transit vehicle nears a signal controlled
intersection. 81
RTP Partners Have Installed a Solid Technology Foundation that is used to Monitor
Transportation Network
More than ten years ago, the RIP partners identified a need for a more collaborative approach to
transportation operations. 82 As a result, in November 2003, the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) developed a Regional Concept of Transportation Operations document
which outlines several initiatives for coordinating operations in the region and utilizing intelligent
transportation systems technology to better manage the system. MAG continues to work toward
this goal through its systems management and operation projects supporting the funding of
cross-jurisdictional systems and services. Through this regional approach, dedicated RTP funding
is used for technology infrastructure and regionally focused operational activities that require
collaboration between ADOT, Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), Valley Metro Rail,
Inc.,83 and the local jurisdictions.
For ATM to be successful, it uses an intelligent transportation systems foundation to
communicate real-time travel information through roadway loop detectors and advanced sensors
measuring speed and traffic volume, closed circuit television cameras, traffic signal controllers,
variable message signs, and wired and wireless communication technologies. 84 We found that
Maricopa County has these systems and components in place on freeways, arterial streets, and
transit.
81 Probe vehicle technology relies on global positioning systems or other methods such as cellular geolocation and ground-based
radio navigation data to communicate with signals.
82 RTP partners refers to MAG, ADOT, Valley Metro, and local jurisdictions in Maricopa County.
83 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.
84 Variable message signs, also known as dynamic message signs, are electronic traffic signs used on roadways to give travelers
information about incidents and traffic conditions.
SJOBERG ::-EVASIENK. 79 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Freeway Intelligent Transportation Systems
Established in 1996, ADOT's freeway management system uses an integrated package of
intelligent transportation systems and strategies including surveillance, incident management,
travel time displays, and traveler advisory functions. According to ADOT, it has a robust
technology network in place throughout Maricopa County and is using fiber optic technology to
upgrade system reliability and prepare for future active traffic management activities. As part of
the upgrade, all new regional freeway construction includes installation of basic intelligent
transportation system communication and infrastructure components.
Currently, the intelligent transportation systems on ADOT's regional freeways cover
approximately 200 miles of freeway although coverage is expected to increase to more than 225
miles, or more than 80 percent of the 275 miles in the region, by calendar year 2023. ADOT's
intelligent transportation systems network is enhanced by their purchase of third party private
sector data 85 that relies on probe vehicle data; thus, real-time freeway speed information is
available beyond the freeway management system coverage area.'
In addition to in-ground technology and equipment, ADOT uses 226 closed-circuit television
cameras and more than 130 digital message signs that utilize traffic speed, volume, and road
conditions to capture and communicate traffic data. Moreover, it has 370 ramp meters on the
regional freeway system. Current ramp meters only use fixed-time algorithms meaning that
signal times are set depending on times of the day, rather than adjusted by real-time traffic
conditions. Additional technology would be needed to convert the fixed ramp meters to "smart"
meters capable of making real-time adjustments, and ADOT has plans to make the conversions as
described later in this chapter.
Arterial Intelligent Transportation Systems
According to data gathered by MAG and AZTech, local jurisdictions in the region have a wide
range of intelligent transportation systems technologies in use on their arterial streets. 87 For
instance, as shown in Table 21, approximately 1,100 arterial closed-circuit television cameras and
dynamic message signs provide information to travelers on the road regarding construction or
emergency conditions to assist with mobility. Communications are aided by fiber, copper, and
wireless connections. On an annual basis, MAG makes funds available to local jurisdictions for
intelligent transportation systems planning and technology including items such as conduit, fiber
optic enhancements, closed-circuit television cameras, and dynamic message signs.
86 Two private data providers were under contract with MAG, including NAVTEQ a provider of base electronic navigable maps.
86 Probe vehicle data is from global positioning systems or other methods such as cellular geolocation and ground-based radio
navigation data to communicate with signals.
AZTech is an informal coalition of federal, state, local, and private entities focused on regional traffic operations, incident
management, and telecommunications for the entire Maricopa County region.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 80 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Table 21: Arterial Intelligent Transportation Systems in Place
CCTV DIOS Miles of Fiber Number of
Jurisdiction Cameras (Permanent and Copper Wireless Devices
(Owned) & Portable) Connections
Avondale •6 0 1 33
Buckeye 0 2 0
Chandler 29 3 82 10
Gilbert 87 2 29 135
Glendale 115 14 62 26
Goodyear 63 2 20 0
Maricopa County 53 3 12 44
Mesa 193 2 155 106
Peoria 61 2 32 46
Phoenix 200 13 70 615
Queen Creek 30 0 3 0
Scottsdale 134 34 85 15
Surprise 47 8 18 9
Tempe 71 0 0 0
Youngtown 0 0 0 0
Totals 1,089 85 569 1,039
Source: MAG Regional Traffic Signal Management Optimization, 2011 and AZTech 2015 Traffic Management & Operations
Performance Indicators BOok
Note: CCTV = Closed-circuit television cameras; DMS = Dynamic message signs
Transit Intelligent Transportation Systems
Similar to freeway and arterial street modes, Valley Metro has also built an intelligent
transportation systems technology foundation on its bus and light rail transit network through
the purchase and installation of a fiber optic network of loop detection and vehicle
communication technology. Much of the management and operation of a public transit system
relies on technologies known as advanced public transportation systems. These technologies
include real-time schedule updates and vehicle dispatch based on remote monitoring of the
electrical and mechanical health of transit vehicles.
Since 2005, Valley Metro has followed a vehicle management master plan guiding the
implementation of advanced public transportation systems applications within Maricopa County.
As part of this plan, Valley Metro has integrated its communication system for 750 fixed route
buses, 200 paratransit (dial-a-ride) vehicles, and 60 support vehicles—covering more than 84
percent of the entire Maricopa County transit network. Specifically, Valley Metro uses a
computer-aided dispatch system to track and manage transit fleet operations. The system
includes radio communication, an automatic vehicle location system using global positioning
system satellite receivers, automatic passenger counting systems, and next stop announcement
systems.
Regional Coordination of Intelligent Transportation Systems is in Progress
Historically, states and local agencies across the nation have developed and operated their own
separate and independent technology systems for freeways, arterial streets, and transit. As such,
SJOBERG EVASHENK 81 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
a freeway operator might focus solely on relieving freeway congestion through ramp metering
without considering the impact metering may have on adjacent arterial streets and transit
services on those streets. In this instance, a freeway operator could safely divert travelers
through message signs onto arterial streets to bypass an incident. Yet, if the local jurisdictions
are not aware that additional traffic is being detoured to their arterial streets, the roads could
become Congested and transit using the roads could also be delayed—in essence defeating the
purpose of using intelligent transportation systems technology. Thus, solutions are needed to
bridge the gap between the disparate systems allowing them to function as an integrated system.
Similar to other transportation regions in the nation, individual entities in Maricopa County
operate and maintain their own intelligent transportation systems networks. Most of the local
jurisdictions in Maricopa County, as well as ADOT, have their own intelligent transportation
systems policies for operating their networks tailored to their individual system or mode of
transportation. One challenge with having multiple local entities constructing, operating, and
maintaining individual infrastructures is aligning fragmented local area goals with the larger
regional goals to ensure that investments are successful.
While there is no single entity responsible for operating and coordinating the freeway, arterial
streets, and transit systems at the regional level, MAG focuses on regional long-term planning
and coordination in Maricopa County through its Intelligent Transportation Systems Committee.
Over the last five years, MAG has issued guidance such as its 2012 Intelligent Transportation
Systems Strategic Plan that established regional priorities and directed intelligent transportation
systems infrastructure investments. Additionally, MAG has created a Regional Intelligent
Transportation Systems Architecture document outlining technology requirements and best
practices based on federal guidelines to provide a common framework for planning and
integrating intelligent transportation systems across the region. The most recent update to the
architecture guidelines occurred in 2013. MAG also leads a regional community network that
addresses coordination issues by identifying the telecommunication needs for linking MAG
member agencies.
Another opportunity for regional coordination is provided through AZTech. With members from
MAG, ADOT, local jurisdictions, and private firms, AZTech provides a forum for these entities to
discuss regional issues related to traffic operations, incident management, and communication
practices throughout Maricopa County. Although AZTech does not have formal authority,
representatives from each agency can leverage AZTech discussions by influencing change within
their individual agencies to ensure entity-specific activities are conducted with a regional focus in
mind. As these discussions occur, continued focus should be on ensuring the detection and
communication infrastructure remains functional and current. Additionally, the RTP partners
should continue considering the impact of connected and self-driving vehicles on existing
technology and the need for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure data exchange. With
technology rapidly evolving, the RTP partners are proactively considering, evaluating, and
planning for these future technologies as well as monitoring the dynamically-changing landscape
of related technology developments. In fact, ADOT and Maricopa County are participating in a
national pilot project testing connected vehicle concepts for emergency vehicles. Further, MAG
SJOBERG EVASBELNK 82 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
has begun discussions at the regional level on possible future planning scenarios involving
connected and highly automated vehicles and continue to monitor related developments and
national advances in this area.
ADOT Uses its Traffic Operation Center to Monitor Freeway Network
To best utilize an intelligent transportation systems network, dynamic management is needed
through the creation and use of a traffic operation center or transportation management center
that continuously monitors the freeway system. These centers are responsible for managing and
operating the intelligent transportation systems network including controlling devices and
responding to incidents. As such, these centers are a critical piece of a region's strategy to
improve mobility and optimize existing roadway capacity.
ADOT operates a traffic operation center staffed 24-hours seven days a week to monitor,
manage, and respond to traffic and improve mobility. Like others across the nation, ADOT has
dedicated management and staff with specialized skills and training in its traffic operation center
and uses standard strategies such as incident management and response as well as display of
travel information on dynamic message signs. Since 2014, when two specialized Department of
Public Safety Troopers were moved onsite to the ADOT traffic operation center, the average time
taken to clear a crash site has been reduced by nearly one hour between calendar years 2014 and
2015 increasing mobility and preventing possible secondary collisions. Specifically, the time
needed to clear crashes was reduced between 48 and 65 percent according to the Department of
Public Safety Director. In October 2015, ADOT's traffic operation center was moved under a
newly created Transportation Systems Management and Operations Division that manages the
current infrastructure and new technologies as well as combines technology and engineering
capabilities with traffic management and maintenance.
While ADOT is continually monitoring the freeway system, it is not yet actively managing and
adjusting traffic on a real-time basis using predictive methods. Current standard practices are
reactive to changing conditions, rather than proactively anticipating and managing the system in
real-time. Yet, ADOT continues to technically consider and evaluate these priorities as part of its
operational activities.
Local Jurisdictions Operate Multiple Traffic Management Centers
In Arizona and across the nation, the management of traffic flow on arterial streets is typically the
responsibility of individual local jurisdictions. In Maricopa County, local jurisdictions own and
operate 13 separate transportation management centers over nearly 75 percent of the
approximately 3,000 traffic signals in Maricopa County as shown in Table 22. 88 Most of the
centers operate during traditional business hours, although some traffic management centers
also house local law enforcement units to quickly assist with incident dispatch for safety and
mobility purposes. Yet, unlike the ADOT's traffic operation center, none of the local jurisdictional
88 According to a 2011 survey conducted by MAG and documented in its Regional Transportation Systems Management and
Operations Report.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 83 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
transportation management centers operate continually 24-hours a day to actively manage
congestion. As such, most activity is in response to traffic congestion rather than predicting
events and making proactive changes.
Table 22: Signals Operated by Traffic Management Centers in the Maricopa County,
as of calendar year 2014
Number of Percent of
Number of Signals Signals
Jurisdiction/Agency Signals Owned Operated by Managed
TMC
Avondale 46 0 0%
Chandler 199 187 94%
Gilbert 174 167 96%
Glendale 193 130 67%
Goodyear 74 18 24%
Maricopa County 154 93 60%
Mesa 379 404 107%
Peoria 108 105 97%
Phoenix 1,092 615 56%
Queen Creek 34 12 35%
Scottsdale 301 280 93%
Surprise 41 25 61%
Tempe 221 199 90%
Totals 3,026 2,235 74%
Source: MAG 2035 RTP
Note: The RTP did not provide an explanation for reported numbers where "number operated" are greater than "number owned."
While MAG provides funding through the RTP to help with implementation costs of setting up the
transportation management centers, ongoing operation and maintenance costs associated with
data gathering and technology upgrades are mostly paid through local general funds, local sales
tax, and local construction funding source.
To operate efficiently in the region, these individual transportation management centers must
focus on two essential elements—data gathering and communication. First, local agencies must
gather data on the current status of traffic and delays. According to MAG, most local jurisdictions
in the region use loop detectors and video image detection to gather data although more than 40
percent use more advanced detection technology.
Additionally, local transportation management centers must be able to communicate with one
another and share traffic information. Toward that end, MAG developed a Regional
Transportation Systems Management and Operations program to set the long-term vision for
arterial streets. According to MAG, the first efforts to establish regional intelligent transportation
systems communications to link 10 local agencies through leased telecommunication lines began
in 1998—although, the leases were allowed to expire before 2001. Subsequent efforts over the
years included a 2001 MAG study outlining concepts for the public sector agencies to share
information across boundaries as well as a 2007 MAG-approved regional community network to
support data and video transmission related to these local traffic management activities.
SJOBERGEVASBENK 84 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Further, in 2009, ADOT completed a project connecting its traffic operation center with eight
local transportation management centers in Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Maricopa County, Mesa,
Peoria, Phoenix, and Surprise. ADOT has continued to connect to other transportation
management centers across the region. As such, the majority of entities can share traffic data
captured by all connected cameras to support regional management activities.
Region is still Developing ATM Practices, Although Some Basic Use Exists
As described earlier in this chapter, ATM uses dynamic and proactive activities to impact travel
conditions on a real-time basis. For the most part throughout the nation, ATM has been
implemented primarily on limited access freeway corridors. The Federal Highway Administration
has described steps involved with evolving from a static management environment to a proactive
state as shown in Figure 12. At the lowest step, traffic management is static—this could include
using ramp meters that have fixed-basis timing or arterial street signals with set green light and
red light timing patterns. Next steps in the active management evolution involve staff from
traffic operation centers and transportation management centers reviewing traffic data and
reacting to current conditions such as sending emergency vehicles and other response teams to a
traffic incident to minimize related road delays. Later steps include proactively using technology
such as adaptive ramp meters or smart signals to predict travel and inform travel behavior by
regulating vehicle speed, rate of vehicles entering a roadway, or green conditions of signal lights.
These steps help avoid traffic delays and incidents.
Figure 12: Process Evolution toward Active Management
• Respond to predicted changes in
Proactive supply and demand
Management • Ability to delay or eliminate
breakdowns
• Respond to current conditions
Responsive • Account for traffic impacts due to
Management conditions
• Reduce time of degraded operation
—Static
t • Time of day
Management • Set-it and forget it
• Will work when there is limited variability
Source: Federal Highway Administration's Active Transportation Demand Management Overview at
http://ops.fhwa.dot.goviatdmiaboutioverview.htm
With a solid foundation in place and commitment towards exploring more real-time techniques,
ADOT, Valley Metro, and the local jurisdictions have some examples of ATM techniques in
practice as described in detail in the sections that follow. While there can be dispute as to the
specific advanced practices that can be classified as ATM, there is general agreement in the
industry that it involves a higher level of control and response. Most importantly, the Maricopa
County RTP partners are considering and planning to move toward more active and advanced
techniques.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 85 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Freeway ATM Tools are not yet in Place
In Maricopa County, ADOT has not yet incorporated ATM tools into the freeway system although
ADOT continues to technically evaluate projects or scenarios where ATM could be feasibly put
into use. Instead, ADOT continues to use more traditional programs such as those activities
employed through its traffic operation center monitoring and management of congestion as well
as it incident response practices.
For instance, ADOT makes extensive use of traditional freeway ramp metering to regulate the
volume of vehicles entering a freeway at a given time. ADOT has approximately 370 basic ramp
meters in place throughout the county. Although these are in
Freeway ATM Examples: place at more than half of the freeway traffic interchanges,'
• Adaptive ramp metering ADOT is aware of the limitations with its current ramp
using special algorithms to metering software and has goals of having more dynamic on-
control rate of vehicles and off-time monitoring rather than fixed time at some point
entering the freeway
in the future. Specifically, ADOT intends to deploy "smart"
Dynamic lane meters, or adaptive freeway ramp meters, that will allow staff
assignment to open or
close lanes and provide to control the rate " of vehicles entering the freeway utilizing
advance driver warning advanced algorithms that change vehicle release rates based
through sign controls on the level of congestion on the mainline freeway." For
• Dynamic lane reversal to instance, ADOT is currently implementing corridor adaptive
better match capacity with ramp meters on SR 51 southbound over the fall of 2016 and
traffic demand has plans to monitor ramp performance with before and after
• Variable Speed limits studies. Other planned efforts include enhancements to ADOT
adjusted based on real- ramp metering strategies through integration with the arterial
time conditions through
speed limit displays street network.
Dynamic shoulder lane
use based on real-time Yet, ADOT is similar to many other departments of
congestion transportation across the nation that are still using fixed-time
ramp meters and have not yet incorporated ATM practices.
For instance, a 2014 Transportation Review Board research survey found that strategies such as
dynamic ramp metering are only in place in 30 to 50 percent of states. More advanced types of
ATM strategies, such as high occupancy toll lanes, bus-only shoulder lanes, and dynamic priced
shoulder use, are deployed in less than 30 percent of states responding to the survey. 90
As ADOT begins to incorporate ATM techniques, it should continue its focus on being nimble and
reshaping historical practices with a more proactive mindset. Currently, ADOT is actively focused
89 Traffic interchange is a combination of ramps and grade separations at the junction of two or more highways to reduce or
eliminate traffic issues. In Maricopa County, examples of traffic interchanges include the stack connecting Interstate-10 and
Interstate-17, mini-stack linking Interstate-10 to State Route 51 and Loop 202, and the split where the Interstate-10 splits or
merges with Interstate-17 near the airport.
99 High occupancy toll lane is a lane of traffic available to high occupancy vehicles and other exempt vehicles without charge, but
other vehicles pay a variable price adjusted by demand. Bus-only shoulder lane are used by buses to get around stationary traffic
during congested periods. Dynamic priced shoulder use works similarly when general purpose lanes are congested, the shoulder is
opened and vehicles pay a price for use—although some carpools can use the shoulder at no cost.
SJOBERG 1::=EVASHENK 86 MAG RIP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
on technically studying and evaluating the implementation of ATM techniques on the freeway
system as feasible. For instance, ADOT examined lessons learned and conducted peer exchanges
with entities across the nation when considering the deployment of variable speed limits on the
Insterstate-17.
Locals Report Use of ATM Tools at the Arterial Streets level
To better manage traffic flow and improve safety within arterial street capacity, federal experts
suggest arterial ATM techniques such as adaptive traffic
control signals, transit signal priority, reversible lanes,
Arterial ATM Examples:
and dynamic turn restrictions. 91
Adaptive traffic control signals
where traffic and the queuing at
intersections is continuously In Maricopa County, some basic arterial ATM strategies
monitored to dynamically adjust are in place such as adaptive traffic control, signal
signal timing priority, and reversible lanes. For example, reversible
Signal priority uses sensors to traffic lanes are used on 7th Avenue in Phoenix where
detect when a transit or lane direction is altered during peak commute times to
emergency vehicle approaches an open more lanes to heavier traffic patterns. Lane
intersection and turns signals to
green sooner or extends the direction is communicated to drivers through dynamic
green phase message signs on the roadway.
Reversible lanes where vehicle
direction is changed depending on Further, according to results received from 7 of the 12
demand local jurisdictions auditors surveyed, signal
V Dynamic turn restrictions that synchronization and traffic signal priority were cited as
prevent certain turning restrictions the most prevalent ATM strategy used by more than
when necessary to improve safety
or operation of an intersection half of the respondents, as shown in Table 23. On
average, the survey respondents reported annual costs
spent on ATM ranging from less than $250,000 to more
than $1 million. In fact, the cities of Mesa and Peoria along with Maricopa County each
responded that their entities spent more than $1 million on ATM strategies annually.
Table 23: ATM Strategies in Place at 7 Local Jurisdictions Surveyed
a: al ix
Fountain Hills Gilbert Maricopa County U) a) ...a. o a) Phoen Scottsdale
E 0_
_
Active Traffic Management Technologies
• Traffic signal synchronization ,/ ,/ v ,/ v
• Traffic signal prioritization ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/
• Emergency/Transit priority ,/ ,/ V ,/
Sources: Survey responses unaudited.
91 Federal experts include the Transportation Research Board and the Federal Highway Administration.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 87 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
While the responsibility for operating traffic signal systems falls on the local jurisdictions, there
have been long-term planning efforts to improve regional strategies through data sharing and
cross-jurisdictional collaboration. For example, MAG has sponsored a Regional Traffic Signal
Optimization Program providing technical assistance to local agencies for improving traffic signal
operations through signal timing software and requisite training for agency personnel. On-call
consultants hired by MAG provided traffic engineering assistance to refine signal operations with
the best timing settings to minimize traveler stops and delays as well as to maximize mobility
along an arterial street. Since 2004, this Traffic Signal Optimization Program has involved more
than 110 projects and 1,100 signaled intersections. With projects ranging from $30,000 to
$50,000, MAG has provided more than $1 million of funding between fiscal years 2010-2011 and
2014-2015 for this effort.
However, MAG believes these existing traffic management practices have been around for
several years and are not considered advanced practice. MAG believes that ATM requires a much
higher level of control and response than exists now and that no current arterial streets
technology systems applications are ATM. Nonetheless, MAG has long-term planning priorities
and the local jurisdictions have operational priorities to incorporate more real-time management
into current practices with the belief that ATM strategies are the next logical step to combat
worsening travel conditions.
Transit Uses Several ATM techniques
To be efficient along the roadway corridors, Valley Metro uses two primary types of ATM
techniques in Maricopa County—signal priority and
bus queue jumping.
Transit ATM Examples:
For signal priority, certain local traffic signals across • Transit signal priority manages
the region are equipped with priority capability for traffic signals by using sensors or
probe vehicle technology (based
bus transit and light rail vehicles as shown in Table on global positioning systems or
24. These tools allow transit vehicle-to-traffic other methods) to detect when a
signal communication to keep a green light on transit or emergency vehicle
longer or cause a red light to turn green sooner approaches an intersection and
turning signals to green sooner or
allowing for the efficient movement of transit extending the green phase
along a corridor. Communication at these Bus -only shoulder lanes allow
intersections happens through an intelligent buses to use lanes to pass
transportation systems foundation built by Valley stationary traffic when general
Metro using an Ethernet network and controllers lanes are congested
connected to electronic switches that enable Bus queue jumping where
signals and vehicles to talk to each other. separate signals are provided for
transit only lanes that displays a
Additionally, there is signage at intersections to green for the transit lane before it
assist transit vehicles in knowing when they can turns green for vehicles in the
turn on red signals and guiding car or motorcycle other roadway lanes
drivers around transit vehicles in other situations. Source: FHWA
SJOBERG -EVASHENK 88 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Valley Metro also uses bus queue jumping ATM techniques to reduce the effects of congestion.
For example, on one of its bus routes—the Arizona Avenue LINK bus—the vehicle is equipped
with intelligent transportation systems technology to utilize queue jump at four intersections to
reduce delay. At these intersections, vehicles use bus-only lanes while approaching an
intersection and communicate with dedicated bus-only traffic signals through cameras and
technology. This communication enables the bus to get an earlier green signal before other
vehicles allowing the bus to "jump" ahead of the vehicles in queue. Although Valley Metro has
not measured the effect of this technique, officials believe queue jumping inherently saves time
because the bus does not have to wait in a line of traffic.
Table 24: Number of Signals across Region with Priority Capability
Number of Signals
152
140 m Transit Priority
1,347
Light Rail Priority
Emergency Vehicle
1,387 Preemption
Non-ATM Signals
Source: MAG Regional Systems Management and Operations site, 2016, and MAG 2035 RTP, page 17-8
Others Entities Use of ATM Techniques Have Reported Benefits
Throughout the country, other agencies are realizing benefits in employing ATM techniques on
freeways, arterial streets, and transit systems. For instance, several other states that employ
dynamic freeway metering techniques have shown speed increases ranging from approximately
10 percent in Seattle to more than 170 percent reported in Portland. Further, reported travel
times were reduced by at least 20 percent in Minneapolis/St. Paul, Long Island, and Denver areas.
Collision reductions ranging from 15 percent in Long Island to more than 40 percent in Denver
were also reported.
Like freeways, several entities across the U.S. are experiencing decreased travel times on arterial
streets through the use of adaptive traffic control systems that actively monitor and adjust
arterial street signal timing on a real-time basis given current traffic conditions, demand, and
system capacity. For instance, in Los Angeles, the Department of Transportation first
implemented an automated traffic surveillance and control system in the 1980's and now 70
SJOBERG EVASIIINK 89 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
percent of the city's 4,300 traffic signals are included in its adaptive traffic control systems.
Studies have shown a 15 percent decrease in travel times and 20 to 30 percent decrease in
vehicle stops or signal delays. Another reported benefit of the Los Angeles system is the ability to
add new traffic control features through software rather than incurring significant hardware or
infrastructure costs when modifications are needed. While adaptive traffic control systems show
favorable mobility performance, there are no signals currently operating under adaptive traffic
control systems in Maricopa County.
In 2010, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program surveyed 38 domestic and foreign
agencies to determine whether agencies operated signals under this approach. The percent of an
agency's signals using adaptive traffic control systems varied widely, with some using adaptive
traffic control systems on well over half of their signals, such as the City of Los Angeles at 70
percent, Victoria Roads in Australia at 83 percent, and Southhampton in the United Kingdom at
100 percent. Most of the domestic agencies in the U.S. had much lower percentages with some
examples shown in Table 25.
Table 25: Examples of Adaptive Traffic Control Systems Signals Operated by Other Entities
Number of Number of Percent of
Jurisdiction/Agency Signals Signals Using Signals Using
Operated ATCS ATCS
Anaheim, CA 300 0 0%
Minnesota State DOT 675 0 0%
Utah State DOT 1,100 16 1.5%
Washington State DOT 520 10 1.9%
Tucson, AZ 375 15 4%
Longview, TX 132 16 12%
Ann Arbor, MI 150 34 23%
Oakland County, MI 1,500 650 43%
Los Angeles, CA DOT 4,300 3,000 70%
Victoria Roads, Australia 3,000 2,500 83%
Southampton, UK 200 200 100%
Source: National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 403: Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS)
Domestic and Foreign State of Practice, 2010
Several reasons may explain why adaptive traffic control systems are not more widely utilized
including estimated adaptive traffic control systems installation costs per intersection at
approximately $65,000—ongoing maintenance, operation, and management costs escalate the
costs even higher. 92 Other challenges for implementing adaptive traffic control systems include
hiring or training staff skilled with the requisite expertise in dynamically operating traffic signals.
92 National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis 403, Adaptive Traffic Control Systems: Domestic and Foreign State
of Practice, 2010.
SJOBERG EVASIENK 90 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
RTP Partners are Working on Integrating ATM across Multiple Modes of Transportation
While certain ATM techniques are being used in individual transportation modes in Maricopa
County, MAG and its RTP partners are also working collaboratively towards planning and
integrating active management along multimodal corridors. One approach being considered that
is used across the U.S. to connect and coordinate freeway, arterial streets, and transit modes is
known as integrated corridor management. This practice shifts the focus from traditional
approaches of individually managing roadways toward a regional focus on managing
transportation corridors as a system through the use of technology and operational strategies. A
benefit of this approach is that individual freeway, arterial, and transit mode networks can be
integrated across entities to improve incident management, safety, and mobility. 93
For instance, in 2014, MAG initiated a study
on one of its busiest corridors—the
Interstate-10/Interstate-17 or "Spine" 1-10/1-17 "Spine" Corridor
Corridor—that runs through the center of
Maricopa County and handles more than 40 1131111-11110111•"-111.11111ISIMMITIi North 1111111•AMILL Stack lir
10711
percent of all daily freeway traffic in the Ilk 11 P=111111111111111111
region. This study is exploring and creating ittilalli
multimodal solutions for congestion in the 111111111 1111111111111 A111 widown%stiv
region and is expected to combine intelligent IIIIIFINI 3•11i111 !__ 1 ir
transportation systems technology and ATM 161.1E-0111 mg 1r 11 ilkisimr — s .7. 14::1:6 1111
techniques on multiple modes along the 1M111110 !tritiii7 IThieoslitaliiikr.77.1.1ta II Iltulam 14:6.11Z
corridor. The nnultimodal study is part of a
phased plan that will likely span several years 11,11111. a nj The split a .1 20 14 ,- tapporlumlin PS9-31-11111112‘11110E :—* Alls I
i
before full implementation. While outcomes Ramiimmon
milimmissamompaimag
of the Spine Corridor study are expected to a Ham us-60 Transition -it
guide RTP partners toward developing MEP Nor am. I
maw
ultimate solutions for the future, several near .....1
-mREE
term improvement projects are planned to be 'atm
constructed by 2020 such as braiding ramp optimmum
Source: MAG Spine Study
improvements that separate the merging https://www.azmaq.qoy/transportation/The Spine Study.asp
traffic for a smoother transition between the
State Route 143 and US 60 freeways.
In addition, according to AZTech, there is an integrated corridor program in place for the Loop
101 Corridor in Scottsdale. Specifically, this program includes several regional agencies that help
manage congestion and construction detours of the State Route 101 widening/high occupancy
vehicle lane project using tools such as arterial signal control and freeway digital messaging signs.
Traveler information is provided through various avenues including telephone, website, and
dynamic message signs.
93 U.S. Department of Transportation website.
SJOBERG 'EVASEIENK 91 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Reported benefits indicate significant reductions in travel time as reflected in performance
measures provided by Maricopa County Department of Transportation as shown in Table 26—
although some of the reduction could be attributed to lower traffic volumes in the area. Given
the reported levels of success, Maricopa County is moving forward with plans to implement
similar integrated practices for other parts of the State Route 101 in 2016.
Table 26: Integrated Corridor Management Project on
Bell Road Corridor (Grand Avenue to Loop 101)
Shows Reduction in Travel Times between 2012 and 2014
Reduction in Reduction in
Year Travel Time Traffic Volumes
2012 22.5% 6%
2013 27.8% 5.7%
2014 28.5% 4.2%
Source: Maricopa County Department of Transportation, intelligent transportation systems Branch Manager
Other Agencies Nationwide are Realizing Benefits of ATM Use and Integrated Corridor
Management
Others have noted great successes with integrated corridor management strategies deployed in
regions across the U.S. at pioneer sites such as Dallas, Minneapolis, Oakland, San Diego, San
Francisco, and Seattle. Reports quantify annual travel time savings in person-hours ranging from
132,000 in Minneapolis to 740,000 in Dallas. Travel time reliability improvements ranged from 3
percent in Dallas to 10.6 percent in San Diego. Moreover, benefit-cost ratios of employing the
integrated corridor management strategies ranged from 7:1 to 25:1.
These early adopters offer several lessons learned for getting started with integrated corridor
management. If and when the RTP partners in Maricopa County implement integrated corridor
management practices within its region, the following key operational lessons identified at the
national level would assist the RIP partners—many of which the RTP partners are technically
evaluating or beginning to consider for the Maricopa County region.'
• Define corridor and system assets, identify corridor needs, and develop common
vocabulary among partners for existing systems and proposed capabilities.
Develop a systems engineering management plan for achieving quality and write well-
formed system requirements that are concise with data elements that are identifiable.
Create a list of short-term and long-term factors and metrics to analyze system
performance and determine how well a corridor is operating.
Adequately train all operations and maintenance personnel.
Manage project procurements, costs, schedules, and risks across the project and partners,
and schedule team meetings to improve processes and procedures.
94 According to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 92 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations
Transportation planning and project implementation is as much art as it is science where the
correct mix of tools and approaches that a region can employ to address congestion and mobility
needs will vary, evolve, and morph over time. Yet, during the five-year audit period between
fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2014-2015, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT), Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), Valley
Metro Rail, Inc. 95 and their local jurisdiction partners have operated the Proposition 400 (Prop
400) program through challenges creating a strong framework for completing promised projects.
Our audit found that, with half of the 20-year program elapsed, many good practices have been
built into the Regional Transportation Plan (RIP) foundation relating to performance
measurement, project management and delivery, cost and schedule control, and intelligent
transportation systems.
Additionally, we identified certain opportunities for improvement and made several
recommendations that MAG, ADOT, and Valley Metro should consider to improve efficiency,
effectiveness, and accountability for the taxpayers in Maricopa County as follows.
Valley
Recommendation MAG ADOT
Metro
Chapter 1: Regional Efforts and Progress Since 2011 Audit
L MAG should work with ADOT and the local jurisdictions to
enhance freeway and arterial project cards by including baseline
X X
budgets and baseline schedules to allow comparisons against
actual.
Valley Metro should strengthen current capital construction
2.
project scorecards by including the initial baseline budget for the
project as well as develop consistent project scorecard formats for
X
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
3.
transit project scorecards on MAG's website, so performance data X X
can be more centrally accessible and transparent to the Prop 400
voters.
RTP partners should fully employ best practices and establish
4.
performance targets for key indicators for freeway, arterial X X X
streets, and transit performance.
RPTA and Valley Metro Rail, Inc. are administratively combined under one Chief Executive Officer, except when discussing light
rail only activities. For those areas pertaining solely to light rail, we use Valley Metro Rail, Inc.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 93 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Maricopa County Regional Transportation Plan
2016 Prop 400 Performance Audit
Valley
Recommendation MAG ADOT
Metro
5. ADOT should work with the Citizens Transportation Oversight
Committee to ensure responsibilities, such as annual reporting, X
are fulfilled and methods of committee operations are changed to
be more effective in meeting statutory requirements.
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 X
Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee and encourage the
committee to meet on a regular basis as statutorily required.
Chapter 2: Freeway Performance
7. ADOT should report freeway bridge and pavement condition data
at the Maricopa County or Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area level, in X
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 X
Urbanized Area level.
9. ADOT should consider using additional project delivery metrics X
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 X
applying techniques and tools from this project to other ADOT
freeway projects, as appropriate.
Chapter 3: Arterial Street Performance
ii 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 X
Urbanized Area level on MAG's website, so performance data can
be more centrally accessible and transparent to the Prop 400
voters.
Chapter 4: Transit Performance
No recommendations for this chapter, but refer to Chapter 1 for
transit-related recommendations.
Chapter 5: Multimodal Systems Management and Operations
12 ADOT should continue its efforts currently underway to
scientifically explore, evaluate, and implement active traffic
management techniques where practical or feasible, including X
continued efforts to work with RTP partners on considering and
prioritizing the maintenance of the communication
infrastructure to remain functional and current.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 94 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Appendix A: Audit Scope and Methodology
As specified in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §28-6313, beginning in 2010 and every fifth year
thereafter, the Arizona Auditor General shall contract with a nationally recognized independent
auditor with expertise in evaluating multimodal transportation systems and in regional
transportation planning, to conduct a performance audit of the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and projects scheduled for funding during a five-year period. In 2016, the Auditor General
contracted with Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc. to conduct the second performance audit of
the RIP.
Seven primary objectives were identified by the Auditor General as follows:
1. Examine past expenditures of RTP projects previously funded between fiscal year 2010-
2011 through fiscal year 2014-2015, and a project's impact on relieving congestion and
improving mobility, and 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 RIP.
7. Make recommendations on whether further implementation of a project or a
transportation system is warranted, warranted with modifications, or not warranted.
Our audit encompassed the five-year period under Proposition 400 from July 1, 2010 through
June 30, 2015, although we reviewed related studies and efforts as far back as 2000 and current
practices in place through August 31, 2016.
To gain an understanding of the environment and changes over the last five years, we reviewed
federal and state laws and regulations related to sales tax revenues, freeway and arterial street
capital project implementation, performance measures, and regional public transportation. In
particular, we analyzed provisions of the federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
(MAP-21) Act and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Additionally, we
reviewed provisions pertaining to the Federal Transit Administration "New and Small Starts"
program related to mobility improvements, land use, environmental benefits, cost effectiveness,
and operating efficiencies (pursuant to 49 USC 5309(e)(1)(b)). We assessed regional
SJOBERG EVASHENK 95 MAG RTP Audit-2016

transportation plans and updates, transportation improvement plans, short range transit plans,
Proposition 400 annual reports, life cycle reports, customer satisfaction surveys, board and
committee agendas and meeting minutes, board and committee presentations and staff reports,
and a variety of publications, brochures, and fact sheets. Additionally, we interviewed officials,
management, and staff from MAG, ADOT, Valley Metro, Maricopa County, City of Phoenix, and
City of Mesa.
As required by A.R.S. §28-6313(C)(2), we reviewed RTP expenditures incurred during fiscal years
2010-2011 through 2014-2015 to examine the performance of the system in relieving congestion
and improving mobility in terms of outcomes and outputs. Specifically, we:
• Reviewed factors currently used to measure congestion and mobility goals and targets for
each transportation mode as well as overall system, corridors, segments, transit lines and
routes, and individual projects.
• Assessed how processes and activities are tracked against baselines and targets as well as
whether indicators and measures are analyzed over time to identify any significant trends
and program or project impacts.
To evaluate performance related to RTP projects, we reviewed the most recent data available
and captured on the RTP partner websites, dashboards, project cards, performance reports, and
national databases and assessed vehicle miles of travel, speed, congestion, and crashes, looking
for trends over the last five years. Depending on the source, some data was available on a
calendar year basis and other data was available on a fiscal year basis. Performance data is
tracked and captured using sophisticated loop detectors; also, certain performance data is
purchased from third-party vendors 96 for those freeway and arterial streets not covered by loop
detection. Without re-performing MAG's geographic information system (GIS) analytic steps, it is
difficult to determine the absolute reliability with full certainty. However, to form a basis for us
to rely on the performance data we gained a thorough understanding of the GIS methodology
employed by MAG. Further, when analyzing data, we vetted missing or inconsistent metrics to
better understand the reliability of the data. Moreover, this is the best available performance
data for Maricopa County.
Further, we compared performance measures and practices employed with those used by other
similar transportation and transit entities in the nation using data from the National Transit
Database, Urban Mobility Report, and Urban Congestion Report among other documents. For
transit projects, we compared transit activity in Maricopa County with other peer systems in
Dallas, Denver, Houston, Sacramento, San Diego, and Utah. These reported results could not be
verified as they were either self-reported by agencies not subject to this audit, or were analyzed
and correlated by the specific industry entity reports results. In these instances, we attribute the
data to the, sources as appropriate. However, this is the best available and most widely-used
comparable performance data in industry.
96 Two private data providers were under contract with MAG, including NAVTEQ a provider of base electronic navigable maps.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 96 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Additionally, we created and distributed a survey to the local jurisdictions in Maricopa County to
ascertain information about performance practices, actual performance indicators, pavement
maintenance, active traffic management practices, and project management and delivery
practices on arterial street and transit capital projects.
To evaluate variances between budget cost and actual expenditures as well as baseline schedule
and actual completion, we:
• Identified the universe of projects and related expenditures incurred between July 1, 2010
and June 30, 2015 as well as those planned between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2020, using
data from Proposition 400 annual reports, freeway, arterial, and transit life cycle program
reports, federal project management reports, and financial data to identify budget and
actual costs as well as schedule information within modes of transportation and individual
projects. While the 2011 RTP Performance Audit determined the reliability of cost and
schedule data, we ensured that data sources and processes used to gather and report
data had not significantly changed since the prior audit and, thus, determined we could
rely on the data.
• Additionally, we used arterial project overview documents to identify baseline budgets
and the stage at which the baseline was established as well as ADOT's internal data
warehouse and several spreadsheets and reports from Valley Metro.
• Selected a sample of freeway, arterial, and transit projects to compare planned
expenditures with actual results and identify methods used, and frequency of,
communications and reports on schedule, cost, and progress of projects. Additionally, we
considered comparing variances between engineer's estimates and bids. Specifically,
o For freeway, we selected one completed freeway loop corridor (consisting of
several projects) and one large project in progress and planned for completion in
the next five years each employing a different project delivery method.
o For arterial, we selected one of the largest projects completed during the last five
years and administered a survey to the remaining jurisdictions related to project
management practices.
o For transit, we selected five capital construction projects that were either
completed or in-progress between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2015, ensuring
projects selected included a mix of bus and light rail capital projects. Because bus
capital construction projects are primarily completed by local jurisdictions, we
selected bus projects managed by different entities including Valley Metro, City of
Phoenix, and City of Mesa.
• For the projects in our sample with significant variance in project costs or schedules, we
identified the reason(s) to determine reasonableness and whether they were supported.
However, we did not evaluate the appropriateness of individual project design concepts
or second guess the precision of related project cost estimates prepared by expert
transportation engineering consulting firms, nor did we assess whether the right decisions
SJOBERG EVASHENK 97 MAG RTP Audit-2016

were made based on the information since projects were presumably discussed and
vetted through the MAG committee process.
• Additionally, for the same sample of freeway, arterial, and transit projects, we compared
actual schedule to interim internal milestones such as preliminary engineering,
environmental, right-of-way, design, advertise bid, start construction, open to traffic, and
substantial completion, where practical.
To assess project management practices employed on the individual projects, we reviewed status
reports, design concept reports, change orders, project management plans, invoices, cost and
schedule tools, engineer's estimates, punch lists, notices to proceed, inspections, grant reporting
(where applicable), and other project file documentation at an overall agency level as well as for
our project sample items. Specifically, we assessed the project management techniques used
and followed during all stages and phases of the lifecycle—including project scoping, design,
construction, operation, and maintenance—in comparison with industry standards, federal
requirements, and the Project Management Institute's Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK).
To evaluate light rail compliance with federal requirements, we considered the criteria used by
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) related to mobility improvements, land use,
environmental benefits, cost effectiveness, and operating efficiencies (pursuant to 49 USC
5309(e)(1)(b) and the interrelationship among the criteria to provide federal funding for light rail
systems including the ETA's "new starts" program. Additionally, we:
• Identified federal grants received for Maricopa County's light rail and transit system, and
reviewed applicable Federal Transit Administration Triennial Audits and Section 5311
assistance compliance review for findings and corrective actions.
• Reviewed 6nd assessed applicable project management plan reports completed by Valley
Metro and any reviews conducted on improving mobility, achieving environmental
benefits, cost or operational efficiencies, and project effectiveness.
As required by A.R.S 28-6313(B), we considered light rail performance related to service levels,
capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, transit ridership, and fare box revenues as well as
significant changes or patterns through a review of project management documentation, project
management office reports, and performance data reported in Valley Metro Transit Performance
Reports as well as in the National Transit Database for the following indicators:
• Operating cost per vehicle service hour or revenue mile
• Operating cost per boarding
• Passenger trips per revenue mile
• Passenger trips per vehicle service hour
Using qualitative and quantitative measures, we evaluated the extent to which active traffic
management (ATM) technology has been used to manage road and freeway congestion as well as
SJOBERG EVASHENK 98 MAG RTP Audit-2016

optimize existing transit, road, and freeway capacity. Further, we reviewed technology strategic
plans, concepts of operations, and inventory data, as well as results from our survey of local
jurisdictions to identify local practices. We also reviewed MAG guidance and reports, AZTech
publications, and ADOT documents. Where applicable, we gathered quantitative measures
captured to assess benefits of ATM usage in terms of mobility, delay, and, safety. Further, we
identified future short-term and long-term plans to use ATM as well as researched national
studies, reports, and evaluations of ATM across the country to identify best practices to compare
against Maricopa County's plans.
As required by A.R.S 28-6313(c)(3), we considered whether recommendations regarding further
implementation of the transportation system was warranted, warranted with modifications, or
not warranted. Specifically, we:
• Identified progress made since the 2011 RTP Performance Audit including improvements
made to enhance compliance, effectiveness, or efficiencies related to components of the
regional transportation system through interviews and documentary review as well as
assessed corrective actions taken, status of unresolved issues, estimated time of
completion to resolve outstanding issues, matters of concern, ongoing non-compliant
issues, and obstacles or impediments to full implementation.
• Determined the impact and effect of the current audit findings on the transportation
system components, performance of the system, adherence to Prop 400, and projects
accomplished to date to assess whether modifications were necessary.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 99 MAG RTP Audit-2016

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR REPRODUCTION PURPOSES]
SJOBERG EVASHENK 100 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Appendix B: Local Jurisdiction Survey Results
1:2 Scottsdale
a)
3
I. Capital Project Management & Delivery
1. Average annual CIP budget for street $26- $26-
improvements, traffic reduction, and transit <$19M >$50M >$50M 50M >$50M 50M
improvements.
2. Use of single project manager, cradle-to-grave ,/
3. Most common project delivery method DBB CMAR DBB DBB DBB DBB DBB
employed."
4. Project management tools/software used:
• Automated (Primavera, Microsoft Project, VI V
In-House System)
• Manual (Excel, Word, Microsoft Outlook) V I VIVI ,/
6. Final project file storage method:
• Central repository (scanned) V I V
• Central repository (mix of scan/hard copies)
6. Management plans prepared and used:
• Project management plan
• Design quality management plan V
• Construction quality management plan
7. Baseline-to-actual schedule milestones
tracked:
• Right-of-way
• Environmental
• Design
• Construction (ready to advertise)
• Construction (contract award) V
• Open to public V
8. Budget-to-actual costs tracked:
• Right-of-way
• Environmental V
• Design V
• Construction V
• Construction Support V V
• Administration V
9. Documentation considered when approving
construction progress payments:
• Schedule of values ,/
97 DBB = Design-Bid-Build; CMAR = Construction Manager At-Risk
SJOBERG ,EVASHENK 101 MAG RTP Audit-2016

1
.x
vt a) ca E
Fountain Hills 1:2 Maricopa County CD Peoria o Scottsdale
3 E ..o a.
• Certified payroll v V v
• Field inspection reports v v v v v v
10. Documentation used in approving change
orders:
• Request for information (RFI) v v v v
• Proposed change order (PCO) v v v v sr
• Scope, schedule, cost negotiations v v v v
• Final change order approval v v v v v v
• Other v
11. Stage of design-bid-build project using value Design, Cont. Design As Design Const. Cont.
engineering Const. needed
12. Use of value engineering on design-build v v v v
projects
Risk
13. Types of risk analyses performed Register
14. Metrics tracked at an individual project level:
• Description of change order categories .7 v v V v v
• Construction bid v. final cost (change order .7 v v v v v
percentage)
• Submittal/RFI review turnaround time .7 v v
• Construction bid v. Engineer's Estimate v v .7 v v v
15. Metrics tracked across all projects:
• Description of change order categories v v v V v
• Construction bid v. final cost (change order v v v v v
percentagej_
• Submittal/RFI review turnaround time v v
• Construction bid v. Engineer's Estimate .7 v v v V
• # and/or % projects done within original V v v v
amount
• # and/or % projects done within original v v v v
schedule
II. Pavement Condition, Maintenance & Rehabilitation
16. Pavement assessment frequency 5-yr Annual Other Annual 2-yr Annual
17. Pavement condition goal 58-74 75-85 75-85 86-100 75-85 75-85
18. Pavement condition currently 58-74 86-100 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85
Micro - Aran/
19. Pavement management system used Manual GBA paver Other Vision, Lucity
DTIMS
Ill. Bridge Condition
20. Bridges responsible for maintaining <50 <50 >200 <50 101- 150 151- 200 151- 200
MENEM&
SJOBERG EVASHENK 102 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Scottsdale
0_
21. Bridge assessment frequency 5-yr 5-yr 2-yr Annual 2 to 4- 2 to 4- Annual
yr yr
22. Bridge deck area by condition:
• Good 95% 90% 100% 88% 98%
• Fair 5% 10% 8% 2%
• Poor 4%
IV. Active Traffic Management Technologies
23. ATM strategies in place:
• Traffic signal synchronization ,/
• Traffic signal adaptation/prioritization V. V.
• Dynamic geometric controls
• EMS/Transit priority V.
• None
24. Average annual amount spent on ATM <$250K >$1M >$1M >$1M $500K -1M <$1M
25. Monitoring devices in place V.
V. Safety
26. Measures tracked to assess fatalities and
serious injuries:
• Number of fatalities
• Rate of fatalities per VMT V
• Number of serious injuries V.
• Rate of serious injuries per VMT
• Number of non-motorized fatalities and ,/
serious injuries
• None
• Other
Note: Shaded Fields = No Answer Provided; Blank = Not Used
SJOBERG EVASHENK 103 MAG RTP Audit-2016

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR REPRODUCTION PURPOSES]
SJOBERG 'EVASHENK 104 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Appendix C: Planned Prop 400 Projects for Phase III 7/1/2015 through
6/30/2020
Final FY for
Planned Total Project Construct-
Original Planned Expenses Cost in ion per
LEAD LOCATION per 2003 RTP Activity FY2016-20 Millions per Prop 400
AGENCY 2015 ALCP Phase per 2016-20 per per 2015 Prop 400 2015 2015
2015 ALCP 2015 ALCP ALCP Annual Annual
Report Report
Chandler
1 Chandler Blvd/Alma School I Const. $ 2.094 $ 9.869 2017
Rd
Gilbert Rd:
2 Chandler Ocotillo Rd to IV Const. $ 6.160 $ 8.908 2015
Chandler Heights
Chandler Heights
3 Chandler Rd: Arizona III Design; ROW $ 1.288 $ 10.464 2019
Avenue to
McQueen Road
Ocotillo Road:
4 Chandler Arizona Avenue to III Const. $ 0.939 $ 9.047 2016
McQueen Road
Ocotillo Road: Design;
5 Chandler Cooper Road to III ROW; Const. $ 4.388 $ 9.285 2020
Gilbert Road
Old Price Rd at
Chandler Queen Creek Rd: III ROW; Const. $ 2.505 $ 3.414 2016
Intersection
Improvements
Mc Queen Rd:
Chandler Chandler Heights III Const. $ 0.590 $ 10.956 2016
to Riggs Rd
Ocotillo Rd:
8 Chandler Gilbert Rd to not in 2003 Design $ 0.364 $ 11.404 2024
148th Street
Cooper Rd: South
9 Chandler of Queen Creek not in 2003 Const. $ 4.202 $ 8.066 2019
Rd to Chandler
Heights
Queen Creek Rd:
10 Chandler/ McQueen Rd to II ROW; Const. $ 3.069 $ 19.016 2018
Gilbert Gilbert Rd (CHA)
El Mirage/ El Mirage Rd:
11 Northern Ave to II Const. $ 7.788 $ 14.753 2017
County Peoria Ave (MC)
Thunderbird Rd:
12 El Mirage/ 127th Ave to II Const. $ 1.965 $ 5.704 2017
County Grand Avenue
(ELM)
El Mirage/ El Mirage Rd:
13 Peoria Ave to II Const. $ 4.936 $ 9.194 2017
County Cactus Rd (ELM)
Shea Blvd:
14 Fountain Technology Dr to Const. $ 0.194 $ 4.464 2016
Hills Cereus Wash
SJOBERG EVASHENK 105 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Final FY for
Planned Total Project Construct-
Original Planned Expenses Cost in ion per
LEAD LOCATION per 2003 RTP Activity FY2016-20 Millions per Prop 400
AGENCY 2015 ALCP Phase per 2016-20 per per 2015 Prop 400 2015 2015
2015 ALCP 2015 ALCP ALCP Annual Annual
Report Report
Elliot Rd at
15 Gilbert Cooper Rd: I Design; $ 4.140 $ 7.615 2018
Intersection ROW; Const.
Improvements
Elliot Rd at Gilbert Design;
16 Gilbert Rd: Intersection III ROW; Const. $ 3.775 $ 9.382 2021
Improvements
Germann Rd:
17 Gilbert Gilbert Rd to Val I Design; ROW $ 0.210 $ 11.967 2022
Vista Dr
Germann Rd: Val
18 Gilbert Vista Dr to Higley I Const. $ 2.407 $ 17.816 2015
Rd
Dobson Rd:
19 County Bridge over Salt I ROW $ 2.800 $ 47.802 2023
River
El Mirage Rd: Bell
20 County Rd to Deer Valley III Const. $ 9.725 $ 12.600 2010
Drive
21 County Gilbert Rd: Bridge II Design; $ 14.005 $ 66.773 2020
over Salt River Const.
McKellips Rd: SR-
22 County 101L to SRP- IV Design; $ 8.035 $ 24.534 2020
MIC/Alma School ROW; Const.
Rd
23 County Northern Parkway: III ROW; Const. $ 26.912 $ 38.213 2016
Dysart to 111th
Northern Parkway: Design.
24 County Northern Ave to III ROW; Const. , $ 8.449 $ 12.069 2017
Loop 101
25 County Northern No Parkway: III Design ; $ 23.356 $ 33.367 2017
Dysart Overpass Const.
26 County Northern Parkway: III ROW $ 10.199 $ 2.000 2017
111th to Grand
Country
27 Mesa Club/University Dr III PE; Design $ 0.137 $ 21.282 2022
Intersection
Improvements
Mesa Dr: 8th
28 Mesa Avenue to Main I ROW; Const. $ 7.563 $ 16.690 2016
Street
Pecos Rd:
29 Mesa Ellsworth Rd to I Design; ROW $ 7.565 $ 22.158 2021
Meridian Rd
30 Mesa Southern/Country I Design ; $ 6.469 $ 12.605 2021
Club Dr ROW; Const.
SJOBERG EVASHENK 106 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Final FY for
Planned Total Project Construct-
Original Planned Expenses Cost in ion per
LEAD LOCATION per 2003 RTP Activity FY2016-20 Millions per Prop 400
AGENCY 2015 ALCP Phase per 2016-20 per per 2015 Prop 400 2015 2015
2015 ALCP 2015 ALCP ALCP Annual Annual
Report Report
31 Mesa Southern I Design " $ 10.288 $ 21.744 2021
Ave/Stapley Dr ROW; Const.
32 Mesa Stepley IV Design " $ 7.785 $ 30.534 2022
Dr/University Dr ROW; Const.
Mesa Main Street:
33 Mesa Mesa Dr to Gilbert III Flex $ 102.606 $ 162.637 2020
Rd Light Rail
Extension
Scottsdale/ Pima Rd: Pinnacle Design
34 Peak to Happy II ROW; Const. " $ 15.990 $ 22.844 2018
Carefree Valley Rd (SOT)
Pima Rd:
35 Scottsdale/ Dynamite Blvd to II Design; $ 21.616 $ 55.270 2022
Carefree Stagecoach Rd ROW; Const.
(SOT)
Pima Rd: Via
36 Scottsdale Linda to Via De I Const. $ 1.236 $ 1.913 2016
Ventura
37 Scottsdale Pima Rd: Krail to I Design - ' $ 9.463 $ 11.041 2021
Chaparral Const.
Pima Rd: Design .
38 Scottsdale Chaparral Rd to I Const. ' $ 6.326 $ 8.761 2022
Thomas Rd
Pima Rd: Thomas Design' .
39 Scottsdale Rd to McDowell I Const. $ 6.129 $ 16.551 2019
Rd
Frank Lloyd
40 Scottsdale Wright - Loop 101 III Design " $ 5.983 $ 8.547 2021
Traffic ROW; Const.
Interchange
Raintree - Loop Pre-Design;
41 Scottsdale 101 Traffic III Design; $ 3.166 $ 4.524 2019
Interchange ROW; Const.
Frank Lloyd
Wright Frontage
42 Scottsdale Rd: Northsight to III Design $ 0.704 $ 11.065 2022
Greenway-
Hayden Loop
Raintree/Redfield Design
43 Scottsdale Rd: Scottsdale Rd III ROW; Const. " $ 1.500 2017
to Hayden $ 22.820
Raintree Drive
44 Scottsdale Extension: 76th PI III ROW; Const. $ 14.918 2017
to Hayden Rd
Raintree Drive: Design' '
45 Scottsdale Loop 101 to III ROW; Const. $ 6.304 $ 6.036 2020
Hayden
Southbound Loop
46 Scottsdale 101 Frontage III ROW; Const. $ 2.700 $ 4.360 2017
Road Connections
SJOBERG EVASHENK 107 MAG RTP Audit-2016

Final FY for
Planned Total Project Construct-
Original Planned Expenses Cost in ion per
LEAD LOCATION per 2003 RTP Activity FY2016-20 Millions per Prop 400
AGENCY 2015 ALCP Phase per 2016-20 per per 2015 Prop 400 2015 2015
2015 ALCP 2015 ALCP ALCP Annual Annual
Report Report
Scottsdale Rd:
Thompson Peak Design
47 Scottsdale Pkwy to Pinnacle II " $ 6.128 $ 18.000 2020
ROW; Const.
Peak Pkwy Phase
II
Scottsdale Rd:
48 Scottsdale Pinnacle Peak II Design $ 1.800 $ 36.937 2022
Pkwy to Jomax Rd
Scottsdale Rd:
49 Scottsdale Jomax Rd to III Design; ROW $ 3.073 $ 18.801 2021
Dixileta Dr
Scottsdale Rd:
50 Scottsdale Dixileta Dr to III Design $ 1.095 $ 16.624 2023
Ashler Hills Dr
Shea Auxiliary Design
51 Scottsdale Lane from 90th St IV ROW; Const. " $ 6.390 $ 9.129 2020
to Loop 101
Shea Blvd at
Frank Lloyd
52 Scottsdale Wright Blvd IV Design.' $ 0.665 $ 1.489 2025
ROW; Const.
Intersection
Improvements
Total without ITS $ 412.094 $ 981.044
53 Multi- ITS Program n/a n/a $ 20.178 not available
Agency
Total with ITS $ 432.272 981.044
SJOBERG "EVASBENK 108 MAG RTP Audit-2016

MAMP CORA 302 North 1st Avenue, Suite 300 A Phoenix, Arizona 85003 50th
ASSOMATION of Phone (602) 254-6300 A FAX (602) 254-6490
GOVERNMENTS E-mail: mag@azmag.gov A www. azmag. gov
Anniversary
November 7, 2016
Ms. Cathy Brady
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 98514
Dear Ms. Brady:
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) has completed its review of the final draft report of
the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan Performance Audit received November 4, 2016. This
response includes comments to four recommendations which apply uniquely to MAC or apply to
MAG and partner agencies.
MAG appreciates the auditor's efforts to constructively comment on the performance of the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and offers the response to the general findings of the audit in Appendix A
and specific responses to audit recommendations as follows:
Recommendation # I : MAG should work Wrth ADOT and the local jurisdictions to enhance
freeway and arterial project cards by including baseline budgets and baseline schedules to allow
comparisons against actual.
The finding is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented. MAC already
has initiated work toward implementation of this recommendation. It is anticipated that the
enhanced RTP Project Cards for the Freeway and Arterial Life Cycle Programs will be
published online on MAG's website during the month of December 20 I 6.
Recommendation #3: Valley Metro and MAC 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.
The finding is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the finding will be
implemented. MAG will continue to reserve web space and resources in order to co-locate
multimodal performance information. Currently, Valley Metro's performance reports are
linked to the MAG Performance Dashboard (MAGnitude) website.
Recommendation #4: RTP partners should fully employ best practices and establish
performance targets for key indicators for freeway, arterial streets, and transit performance.
109
50 Years of Serving the Region
City of Apache Junction A Arizona Department of Transportation A City of Avondale A City of Buckeye A Town of Carefree A Town of Cave Creek A City of Chandler A Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee
City of El Mirage A Town of Florence A Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation A Town of Fountain Hills A Town of Gila Bend A Gila River Indian Community A Town of Gilbert A City of Glendale A City of Goodyear
Town of Guadalupe A City of Litchfield Park A City of Maricopa A Maricopa County A City of Mesa A Town of Paradise Valley A City of Peoria A City of Phoenix A Pinal County A Town of Queen Creek
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community A City of Scottsdale A City of Surprise A City of Tempe A City of Tolleson A Town of Wickenburg A Town of Youngtown

Ms. Cathy Brady
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting
Page 2
The finding is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the finding will be
implemented. MAG already has employed best practices and developed proposed targets for
the regional freeway and arterial systems pursuant to the process required by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) Metropolitan Planning Rules and System Congestion Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking. MAG has completed its component of the target setting process and
is currently anticipating coordination sessions with the Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) in order to move forward with the final component of regional target determination.
Per Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rules, transit performance targets are required to be
set by regional transit agencies and operators.
Recommendation # I I MAG should work with the local jurisdictions to gather and make
available local performance indicators related to pavement and bridge 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.
The finding is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the finding will be
implemented. Per federal legislation, state departments of transportation are responsible for
monitoring and reporting on metrics, measures and targets included in the Asset Management
Rule and Pavement and Bridge Condition Rule, The recommendation states that these
indicators need to be made available on MAG's website which can be implemented fully when
data collection efforts can ensure consistency and completeness.
MAG again thanks you and your audit team for your efforts and recommendations on how MAG,
along with our RTP Partners, can improve the delivery of the Proposition 400 program and improve
the regional transportation system; we believe the audit recommendations are a positive step toward
improving transportation in the region.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Eric Anderson, MAG Transportation Director, at the
MAG Office,
Sincerely,
Dennis Smith
Executive Director
cc: Eric J. Anderson
110

Ms. Cathy Brady
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting
Page 3
APPENDIX A
MAG General Comments
A. Report page 2
"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".
And
B. Report page 3
"RTP partners should fully employ best practices and establish performance targets for key
indicators for freeway, artenal streets, and transit performance".
MAG Response
Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes are governed by federal law.
Pursuant to federal rulemaking, within one year of the effective date of the rules, State
departments of transportation (DOTs) are required to establish two-year and four-year targets.
One hundred and eighty days after the DOT establishes targets, Municipal Planning Organizations
(MPOs) are required to establish targets by agreeing to support the statewide targets or
establishing their own. To date, numerous peer agencies have revisited existing target setting
methodologies and reconsidered adopted regional targets in light of new federal rules.
Notwithstanding, draft targets have been developed by MAG for the System Congestion, Freight,
and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in
collaboration with member jurisdictions and the local FHWA office. Complete information
detailing the process and methodology followed to establish proposed targets per federal rules
was shared with the auditor's team on May 17, 20 I 6. MAG is looking forward to the coordination
of target setting with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) before targets are
finalized,
C. Report Page 3
"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
111

Ms. Cathy Brady
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting
Page 4
Some active tragic management tools, such as traffic signal synchronization and transit signal
pnOrizy, 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".
MAG Response
Traffic signal systems and related operations at RIP partner agencies rely heavily on vehicle
detectors and the communications infrastructure being functional. When either of these
components fail, the system fails and RTP partner agencies hear directly from citizens in the form
of complaints, All RIP partners already recognize the need to ensure a high degree of reliability
for these components as important agency goals. However, many RIP partners have expressed
difficulty in obtaining adequate local funds to reach this goal, The RIP does not provide any funds
to RIP partner's' for the maintenance of either vehicle detection devices or communications
infrastructure, both of which are critical for the operation of traffic control systems.
D. Report page 4
"NAG 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 Phoeni;v-
Mesa Urbanized Area level on MAG's website, so performance data can be more centrally
accessible and transparent to the Prop 400 voters".
MAG Response
As part of its responsibility to provide the Federal Highway Administration with critical information,
ADOT develops and maintains the Highway Performance Management System (HPMS) for
Arizona. HPMS, which includes statistics for the Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized area, is a spatial
database that houses key pavement information on all roadways in the State that are functionally
classified as major collector or above. Once HPMS data is made available by ADOT, MAG will
post this content on the Transportation section of the MAG website.
Additionally, MAG member agency bridges and bridges on the State Highway System are included
in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). On an annual basis, MAG publishes a listing of member
agency bridge data from the NBI in its MAG Transportation Programming Guidebook, which is
available on the MAG website.
E. Report page 5
However, in another national comparisorrw, Phoenix trends are worsening indicating that
congestion may be a significant challenge for the region moving forward",
,2015 United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Urban Congestion Report
112

Ms. Cathy Brady
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting
Page 5
MAG Response
The Urban Congestion Report (UCR) measure equivalent to the congestion hours of delay is
based on two-way Annual Average Daily volumes reported on the HPMS database. These
volumes are partially based on observed data; the majority of the volumes in the HPMS formulas
are estimated, which has to be considered when using it in comparison with other congestion
measures. Additionally, the UCR bases their analysis on speed data from the NPMRDS (National
Performance Management Research Data Set) reporting only on the NHS (National Highway
System), which only includes 40 percent of the arterial network in the MAG region. Taking into
account traffic count sampling error and variation in traffic estimation, data collection and the size
of NHS networks among urban areas, direct comparisons among urban areas using the UCR
congestion measures is questionable. http://www.ops.fhwa.dotgov/perf measurement/ucr/
F. Report page' I I
_Yet, aligned with best practices, several transportation entities in the countly already use
targets to measure performance related to crash, speed, ride qua/i0', and congestion goals",
Agencies in the U.S. that have developed targets are largely DOT's, which are agencies that
implement projects and are in control of and responsible for delivering new construction,
modernization and preservation projects.
MPOs that have established targets typically have jurisdiction over land use planning and in some
cases operation of transit services.
Furthermore, to date, numerous peer agencies have revisited existing target setting
methodologies and reconsidered adopted regional targets in light of new federal rules.
G. Report page 17
"We found examples in the nation where other transportation entities regularly reported
performance targets as shown in the sections that follow",
MAG Response
The examples cited belong to entities that are not MAG peers. They are either:
• A consortium of an MPO and a Transit providing agency with a completely different legal
structure, jurisdiction and mandate, or a State DOT.
• An MPO with Land-Use jurisdiction.
113

Ms. Cathy Brady
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting
Page 6
H. Report page 36
"Impact of Individual RTP Projects on Travel Time is Difficult to Evaluate without Targets"
MAG Response
Measuring project level performance as it relates to overall system performance has to
recognize that often the performance analysis of a single project may significantly over- or
underestimate the project's contribution to system performance. For example, a project to
add high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on one section of freeway may appear to perform
poorly when analyzed in isolation with the overall system, when in fad the single project is
part of a series of system improvements to build the HOV network. Measuring performance
by quantifying results of individual highway and or arterial projects tends to render inconsistent
and sometirnes unexplainable results.
114

A. DOT
Director's Office Douglas A. Ducey, Governor
John S. Halikowski, Director
Scott Omer, Deputy Director for Operations
Kevin Biesty, Deputy Director for Policy
Dallas Hammit, Deputy Director for Transportation
November 8, 2016
Ms. Catherine M. Brady, Director
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Brady:
ADOT has completed its review of the Revised Draft Report of the Performance Audit of the Ma ricopa
County Regional Transportation Plan by Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc., dated October 28, 2016.
We have carefully reviewed all of the recommendations contained in the Revised Draft Report. We have
included a response to each recommendation that is directed to the Arizona Department of
Transportation.
Chapter 1: Regional Efforts and Progress Since 2011 Audit
Recommendation #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.
ADOT Response to Recommendation #1: The finding is agreed to and the audit recommendation will
be implemented.
ADOT will provide MAG with the baseline budget and baseline schedule information that is needed to
enhance the Project Cards.
Recommendation #4: RTP partners should fully employ best practices and establish performance
targets for key indicators for freeway, arterial streets, and transit performance.
ADOT Response to Recommendation #4: The finding is agreed to and the audit recommendation will
be implemented.
ADOT started working with regional partners on establishing performance targets per USDOT Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. ADOT will continuously coordinate with MAG in setting performance targets for
freeway as soon as USDOT issues publication of final rules.
Recommendation #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.
ADOT Response to Recommendation #5: The finding is agreed to and the audit recommendation will
be implemented.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
206 S. 17th Ave. I Phoenix, AZ 85007 I azdot.gov 115

Recommendation #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.
ADOT Response to Recommendation #6: The finding is agreed to and a different method of dealing
with the finding will be implemented.
ADOT will comply with the statutory requirements of ARS 28-6356 and will notify appointing bodies
when vacancies occur.
Chapter 2: Freeway Performance
Recommendation #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.
ADOT Response to Recommendation #7: The finding is not agreed to, but the recommendation will be
implemented.
There is no significant value in separating out Maricopa County from a system performance perspective.
We will start separating out Urban vs. Rural.
Recommendation #8: ADOT should track and report internal project delivery performance metrics at
the Maricopa County or Phoenix-Mesa Urbanized Area level.
ADOT Response to Recommendation #8: The finding is not agreed to and the recommendation will not
be implemented.
There is no significant value in separating out Ma ricopa County from a system performance perspective.
Recommendation #9: ADOT should consider using additional project delivery metrics including
"project administrative costs as a percent of budget."
ADOT Response to Recommendation #9: The finding is not agreed to, but the recommendation will be
implemented.
Starting in FY17, ADOT will track Project Development Cost as a % of Construction Cost. Right-of-Way
Acquisition will be either separated or included in the Construction Cost.
Recommendation #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.
2 116

ADOT Response to Recommendation #10: The finding is agreed to and the audit recommendation will
be implemented.
Best practices will be implemented on other projects as applicable.
Chapter 5: Multimodal Systems Management and Operations
Recommendation #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 RTP partners on considering and prioritizing the maintenance of the
communication infrastructure to remain functional and current.
ADOT Response to Recommendation #12: The finding is agreed to and the audit recommendation will
be implemented.
ADOT will 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 RTP partners on considering and prioritizing the maintenance of the communication infrastructure
to remain functional and current.
The audit team from Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc. and the Auditor General's staffs has been very
accommodating during the course of the audit and their diligence and expertise in assisting the
Department throughout the auditing process are appreciated.
Sincerely,
John S. Halikowski
Director
3 117

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR REPRODUCTION PURPOSES]
SJOBERG EVASBENK 118 MAG RTP Audit-2016

VALLEY
METRO
I 101 N First Avenue I Suite 1300 I Phoenix, AZ 85003
Valley tvietto.org I I' 602 262 7433 F 602 262 2682 TTY 602.251.2039
November 1, 2016
Ms. Catherine Brady, Director
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 98514
Subject: Response to revised draft Performance Audit Report
Dear Ms. Brady:
Valley Metro has completed its review of the revised draft Performance Audit Report dated
October 28, 2016. Our responses are outlined below and on the subsequent pages for each
audit recommendation. Please note our responses are contingent upon Valley Metro Board of
Directors approval.
Recommendation Response
Recommendation 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.
Response: The finding is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented. A
procedure will be developed to establish when the baseline budget is determined depending on
the type of project. The baseline budget for capital construction projects will be included in the
project scorecards. Valley Metro will work with the jurisdictions to ensure a consistent project
scorecard format is used.
Recommendation 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.
Response: The finding is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented. Valley
Metro transit project scorecards are currently linked to MAG's website. Valley Metro will work
with the jurisdictions that sponsor transit projects to ensure they are also linked to MAG's
website.
119

Ms. Catherine Brady
November 1, 2016
Page 2
, Recommendation 4. RTP partners should fully employ best practices and establish
performance targets for key indicators for freeway, arterial streets, and transit performance.
Response: The finding is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented.
Valley Metro and its partner agencies have several system-wide performance targets
incorporated into service provider contracts. These targets and the system's performance
compared to them will be reported in the TPR going forward.
• On-time performance (a 92%)
• Fare box recovery (a 25%)
• Customer complaints (s 45 per 100,000 revenue miles)
• Percentage of scheduled trips operated (a 99.95%)
Beginning with the FY16 Report, the TPR will also include narrative describing what the
performance and trend data indicate, which will assist taxpayers in understanding whether
transit is achieving its stated goals for the region.
Thank you for allowing Valley Metro the opportunity to respond to the revised draft Performance
Audit Report findings. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at
602.495.8205.
Sincerely
Scott W. Smith
Interim Chief Executive Officer
c: Document Control
A. DeVore
J. Ferry
P. Hodgins
120