INTRODUCTION The 2011 State of the System Report (SOS) is a compilation of the physical inventory and status of the Maricopa County Department of Transportation’s (MCDOT) infrastructure. It addresses roadway congestion, traffic safety, low volume road paving, bridges, and pavement conditions. Also, included are recommendations for future improvements within each of the infrastructure categories. The SOS report has been produced annually since 1998. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Congestion Management System Current and future roadway congestion is addressed in the Congestion Management System Report (CMS). The ratio of a roadway segment’s current traffic volume as compared to its physical capacity (V/C Ratio) is used to determine its congestion level. The conservative method of measuring congestion as identified in the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual is used in the report. Roadways under the jurisdiction of MCDOT were analyzed with respect to their V/C ratios and their corresponding Levels of Service (LOS). Currently 22.5% of all arterial and collector roadway segments are at 86% or higher of their physical capacity. Safety Management System Safety conditions on MCDOT roadways are addressed under the Safety Management System Report (SMS). This report documents the intersection safety improvements made each year and those planned for the following year. In 2011 MCDOT completed 13 intersection safety improvements and has planned an additional 10 to be completed in 2012. The SMS also tracks the overall crash rates and crash history of MCDOT’s roadways. In 2008, the latest date federal crash statistics were available, the crash rate for the nation as a whole was 2.2 crashes per Million Vehicle Miles of Travel (MVMT). In 2008 the County’s overall crash rate was 1.49 per MVMT, considerably below the national average. Low Volume Road Management System Paving Low Volume Roads is an annual budgeted activity within MCDOT’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Dirt roadways are selected for paving based on criteria established by the MCDOT Transportation Advisory Board and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency through the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Since 1983 MCDOT has paved more than 453 miles of dirt roadways. 1 Bridge Management System Bridges and other structures are identified in the Bridge Management System (BMS). In 2011 MCDOT maintains 420 bridges and structures. This includes 86 bridges and 334 culverts. Three new bridges and structures were added this year and two were removed through annexations by cities and towns. Bridges and structures are categorized as Federal or Non-Federal depending on their length. Those over 20 feet in length are classified as bridges. Those under 20 feet in length are classified as structures. Federal bridges and structures are rated on a 1-100 scale using the Federal Highway Administration’s rating system. Those that have a rating between 50 and 80 are eligible for federal bridge rehabilitation funds. Bridges and structures rated below 50 are eligible for federal bridge replacement funds. In 2011 MCDOT has 23 bridges and structures rated between 50 and 80 and only one bridge rated below 50. The BMS lists all of MCDOT bridges and structures as well as their ratings. Each year MCDOT must report the physical status of their bridges to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) in accordance with the Governments Accounting Standards Board Statement 34. The physical condition of MCDOT’s bridges is within the targeted bridge sufficiency ratings (BSR) adopted by the BOS. Criteria Target Value Actual Value % of Bridges and Structures with BSR > 70 min. 90% 98.33% % of Bridges & Structures with BSR < 50 max. 3% 0.24% Roadway Management System The Roadway Management System (RMS) is the pavement management program MCDOT uses to track and report on the physical attributes and conditions of all MCDOT paved roads. Two methods are used to measure a roadway’s condition. The International Roughness Index (IRI) on a 1-500 scale and the Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) on a 1-100 scale. In 2011 81.01% of all roadways were rated Excellent to Good with respect to their PCR while only 0.61% were rated fair to poor. Using the IRI, 17.6% of MCDOT’s roadways were rated Smooth to Very Smooth with 44.6% rated rough to very rough. This was accomplished through the adoption of a proactive pavement maintenance program designed to prolong the life of pavements and forestall the need for very expensive reconstruction as long as possible. PCR Quality Excellent to Very Good Fair to Poor PCR Range > 70 < 55 2 Miles 901.58 6.77 Percent 81.01% 0.61% Asset Management System The Maricopa County and the Department of Transportation (MCDOT) maintains effective internal controls to manage its infrastructure assets, and to maintain proper records regarding the use and disposition of these assets. This is done to safeguard and maintain MCDOT’s assets in order to receive the maximum benefit from these assets and to comply with State and Federal requirements regarding their use and disposition. MCDOT properly accounts each year for its infrastructure assets for financial reporting purposes in accordance with the Governments Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 34. MCDOT provides transparency as to how services are provided within the organization and to the County’s constituents. It is the intent of the MCDOT Planning Division and Asset Management Team to educate, inform, develop and streamline Asset Management Reporting throughout MCDOT. Assets Acquired By MCDOT In FY 2010 $45,622 $50,000 Asset Value ('000) $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $509 $2,128 $10,000 $5,000 $0 TIP Land Dedicated Land Subdivisions New MCDOT Assets 3 Asset Reductions in FY 2010 $792 $900 Deleted Asset Value ('000) $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $28 $100 $0 Abandonments Annexations 4 Congestion Management System TABLE OF CONTENTS CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND Page Purpose of the CMS 1 Past MCDOT Congestion Management Efforts 1 1 CMS OBJECTIVES Objectives Based on the Comprehensive Plan 1 Objectives Based on the Transportation System Plan 2 2 CONGESTION EVALUATION PARAMETERS Definition of Congestion 2 MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Definition 2 CMS Performance Measures 3 Area of Consideration 3 CMS ANALYSIS PROCESS 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 List of Tables Table 1: MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Levels of Service and Volumes 4 Table 2: MCDOT Roadways With V/C Ratios Greater Than 0.70 6 List of Figures Figure 1: MCDOT 2010 ADT on Arterial & Collector Road Segments 5 Figure 2: MCDOT 2010 Arterial & Collector Road Segments V/C Ratios 5 List of Maps Map 1: 2010 Traffic Counts 9 Map 2: Congestion V/C Ratios in 2010 10 MCDOT CMS i Congestion Management System CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND Purpose of the CMS The Maricopa County Congestion Management System (CMS) identifies existing and potential traffic congestion on Maricopa County roads. The primary purposes for the County’s CMS are: 1. To identify and measure traffic congestion on Maricopa County roads based on MCDOT’s annual traffic count program. 2. To implement the goals in the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the Major Streets and Routes Plan. 3. To improve the efficiency and safety of travel on Maricopa County roads. Past MCDOT Congestion Management Efforts MCDOT has developed and updated its CMS annually for the past 14 years. The CMS identifies congested roads based on the volume/capacity criteria established in the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual (RDM.)1 The adopted MCDOT Transportation System Plan (TSP) sets the overall policies, goals, and fundamental considerations for MCDOT decisions concerning current and future transportation needs and investments. The TSP also recommends investment priorities based on three types of routes; primary, secondary and local. Much of the content of the TSP regarding CMS development and actions are a reflection of the County’s Comprehensive Plan guidelines for transportation management. CMS OBJECTIVES Objectives Based on the Comprehensive Plan The adopted Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan directs the management of the County's Public Works Department. The Plan calls for the coordination of development, conservation of natural resources, effective expenditures of public monies, and the promotion of the health, convenience and welfare of the County's citizens. Several objectives related to congestion are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. They include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Reducing trips made in single occupancy vehicles. Increasing transit ridership. Employing technology to improve transportation facilities. Identify and accommodate transportation corridors. CMS 1 MCDOT Congestion Management System 5. Optimize public investment. 6. Minimize travel times. Objectives Based on the Transportation System Plan The TSP provides guidance to manage the Maricopa County roadway network. The TSP goals set forth a vision for the planning and construction of transportation facilities in the County. The TSP includes several objectives to ease traffic congestion: 1. Roadway widening. 2. Intersection improvements. 3. Alternate route enhancement. 4. Establish parking rules that influence traffic congestion reduction. 5. Improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 6. Provide for both current and future traffic volume needs. 7. Monitor and measure congestion. 8. Help decide what improvements are needed. 9. Identify alternative actions. 10. Recommend cost-effective mitigation measures. 11. Evaluate actions related to congestion management. CONGESTION EVALUATION PARAMETERS Definition of Congestion A widely accepted definition of traffic congestion is not firmly established because congestion is primarily a perceived condition rather than an absolute one. However, several definitions have been defined by various agencies. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Interim Final Rule for the Management Systems element of the original ISTEA in 1991 defined congestion as "the level at which transportation system performance is no longer acceptable due to traffic interference."1 MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Definition The MCDOT Roadway Design Manual (RDM) uses a combined functional classification and level of service (LOS) system for defining congestion. This provides a measure of congestion and the flexibility to view individual road segments based on their general characteristics and desired operation. To determine whether a segment is congested, a minimum desired LOS is first assigned based on its functional classification (Table 1). Local roads are classified at LOS A, collectors at B and C, and arterials at C and D depending on their urban or rural classification. Roadway capacities are established based on their desired minimum LOS and adjusted for their number of lanes. Their traffic volumes are then divided by their roadway capacities to see if they exceed the desired LOS. MCDOT CMS 2 Congestion Management System The definition of congestion in the CMS is based on the operation of a roadway and the RDM standards. If traffic volumes exceed the RDM roadway capacity, the road is considered congested. CMS Performance Measures Accurate identification of congestion on roadway segments and intersections is critical to the effective management of the entire network. This CMS identifies road segments where congestion may be a problem. MCDOT uses traffic volume to roadway capacity ratios (V/C) because they best identify congestion while satisfying County congestion management needs. These ratios typically use the average number of vehicles (in the most recent year) that travel a road per day divided by the number of vehicles that the road can reasonably handle per day, as per the RDM standards. Area of Consideration Geographically, the CMS is applied within the confines of Maricopa County and to roadways that are partially or completely under Maricopa County ownership or control. The MCDOT 2010 traffic count program includes counts on many of MCDOT’s arterial and collector roadways. CMS ANALYSIS PROCESS This report uses the data from the annual 2010 MCDOT traffic count program and previous MCDOT traffic data. There were 813 arterial and collector roadway segments that were counted in 2010. Each roadway segment with a 2010 traffic count was compared to its 2006 count value. The absolute ADT increases or decreases were calculated along with each segment’s positive or negative percentage change between 2006 and 2010. A roadway volume to capacity ratio was then calculated based on the number of lanes in each segment, the RDM recommended roadway capacity, and each segment’s 2010 traffic count. The results are shown in Table 2. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results of the 2010 MCDOT traffic count program are shown on Map 1. Currently 22.4% of MCDOT’s arterial and collector roadway segments have a volume to capacity ratio of 0.86 or greater. This means that the 2010 traffic volumes on these roadway segments exceed 86% of the road’s vehicle carrying capacity, according to the MCDOT RDM. The RDM criteria shown in Table 1 are very conservative with respect to capacity. This is done to give MCDOT ample warning of potential problems. Table 2 shows roadway segments with 2010 volume to capacity ratios > 70%. CMS 3 MCDOT Congestion Management System A roadway’s high V/C ratio may indicate a capacity problem. However, the solution may not be to immediately increase the capacity of the roadway. There may be multiple causes and solutions. For example, not having enough alternative routes parallel to a congested roadway may cause a temporary increase in traffic. A roadway may also be experiencing increased traffic due to construction or closures on alternative routes. Therefore, a thorough analysis of the roadway segments with high V/C ratios is required before there is a determination concerning which ones need immediate attention and which have high ratios due to other unseen or temporary factors. Detailed scoping studies may be necessary to further define solutions to the capacity problems identified in this report. Table 1: MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Levels of Service and Volumes Urban Roadway Level of Service and Service Volumes # Thru Lanes 2-Way ADT Pk.Hr/ ADT% Max Rdwy Length 350 2 50 –1500 15 1,000 ft. Minor Collector 2,500 2 500 - 5,000 12 ½ mi. Major Collector 3,500 2 600 - 8,500 10 2 mi. Minor Arterial 5,500 4 5,000 - 35,000 8 -- Principal Arterial 7,500 6 30,000 - 60,000 8 -- Road Classification Local ADT/Lane Rural Roadway Level of Service and Service Volumes # Thru Lanes 2-Way ADT Pk.Hr/ ADT% Max Rdwy Length 500 2 50- 1,500 15 1 mi. Minor Collector 3,000 2 800 - 5,000 12 2 mi. Major Collector 4,000 2 1,000 - 8,500 10 -- Minor Arterial 9,000 4 5,000 -35,000 10 -- 10,000 4 10,000 - 40,000 10 -- Road Classification Local Principal Arterial ADT/Lane 1 Metropolitan Planning Technical Report No. 2, Congestion Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, July 1994. MCDOT CMS 4 Congestion Management System Figure 1: MCDOT 2010 ADT on Arterial & Collector Road Segments Arterial & Collector Road Segments 2010 Average Daily Traffic 40% 36.4% % of Road Segments 35% 29.7% 30% 25% 19.5% 20% 15% 10.3% 10% 3.0% 5% 1.1% 0% 1,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Average Daily Traffic Figure 2: MCDOT 2010 Arterial & Collector Road Segments V/C Ratios Arterial & Collector Road Segments 2010 V/C Ratios 30% 29.2% % of Road Segments 26.6% 25% 21.8% 20% 13.5% 15% 10% 4.8% 5% 2.2% 1.1% 0.9% 0% 0.10 0.25 0.50 0.85 1.00 1.50 2.00 3.10 Volume/Capacity Ratio CMS 5 MCDOT MCDOT N GRAND AVE THUNDERBIRD S BLVD N NORTHERN AVE S BROADWAY RD N BELL RD E 51ST AVE E LITCHFIELD RD R H JOHNSON S BLVD W 107TH AVE 9 103RD AVE 11 LITCHFIELD RD 12 67TH AVE 13 EL MIRAGE RD 14 SOUTHERN AVE 15 NORTHERN AVE 16 CAMINO DEL SOL 17 UNION HILLS DR CMS 6 B E COOPER RD N BROADWAY RD 20 67TH AVE B B N BASELINE RD B B B B B B B B B 18 67TH AVE CHANDLER HEIGHTS 19 RD 10 111TH AVE N MAGNOLIA ST 8 WATSON RD B B B E CRISMON RD E 107TH AVE 5 UNION HILLS DR B 7 SOUTHERN AVE N OLIVE AVE 4 LITCHFIELD RD B B E RITTENHOUSE RD 3 RIGGS RD B B Travel 6 GRANITE VALLEY DR W MEEKER BLVD N CLOUD RD 2 RITTENHOUSE RD Ref Road N RIGGS RD Dir 1 RITTENHOUSE RD On Road 1.27 1.29 1.33 1.37 1.40 1.48 1.52 1.54 1.58 1.69 1.73 1.77 1.78 1.96 2.03 2.15 2.16 2.22 2.40 3.03 V/C Ratio -1,916 3,693 4,815 -2,101 2,004 2,337 -3,207 3,844 -2,676 3,110 2,835 -2,432 8,269 4,942 5,227 3,074 4,611 6,890 12,708 14,138 Difference 10,827 10,976 11,333 11,641 11,922 12,578 12,929 13,093 13,425 14,397 14,703 15,023 15,132 16,649 17,256 18,272 18,369 18,862 20,376 25,720 ADT 2010 Study Name 12,743 7,283 6,518 13,742 Union Hills Dr CAR 9,918 10,241 16,136 El Mirage Rd Corridor 9,249 Study 16,101 11,287 11,868 17,455 6,863 Under Study 11,707 12,029 15,198 Union Hills Dr CAR 13,758 Riggs Road Corridor 11,972 Study 7,668 11,582 ADT 2006 Congestion Management System Table 2: MCDOT Roadways With V/C Ratios Greater Than 0.70 CMS 7 W JACKRABBIT TL E 114TH AVE W SOSSAMAN RD S BELL RD E BULLARD AVE 37 MC 85 38 OLIVE AVE 39 ELLIOT RD 40 BOSWELL BLVD 41 PEORIA AVE B B B B B B B 0.83 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.89 N US 60 0.98 36 SIGNAL BUTTE RD B 0.99 E RAINBOW RD 31 COTTON LN B 1.00 35 MC 85 30 OLIVE AVE B 1.01 B N OLIVE AVE 29 INDIAN SCHOOL RD B 1.01 N WADDELL RD E 99TH AVE 28 BEARDSLEY RD B 1.05 34 COTTON LN E COTTON LN 27 MC 85 B 1.05 0.93 E 128TH AVE 26 MC 85 B 1.05 B E JACKRABBIT TL 25 POWER RD B 1.07 0.97 W ESTRELLA PKWY 24 103RD AVE B 1.08 1.22 V/C Ratio B N RAY RD 23 OLIVE AVE B B Travel W SOUTHERN AVE R H JOHNSON 33 GRANITE VALLEY DR S BLVD W 99TH AVE THUNDERBIRD N BLVD 22 HUNT HWY 32 MC 85 W SOSSAMAN RD 21 CAMINO DEL SOL Dir Ref Road R H JOHNSON N BLVD On Road 2,135 1,930 2,060 -3,473 -2,704 -2,582 -1,943 1,834 2,608 -3,746 2,513 -2,284 2,361 2,720 -3,914 -4,500 -3,460 2,147 -2,779 -5,509 2,312 Difference 7,073 7,182 7,268 29,980 7,325 7,499 7,504 7,585 7,915 8,240 8,333 34,589 8,458 8,578 8,600 8,883 36,650 8,966 37,595 9,171 10,357 ADT 2010 Study Name 4,938 5,252 5,208 Elliot Rd Corridor Study 33,453 10,029 10,081 9,447 MC 85 Corridor Study 5,751 5,307 11,986 MC 85 Corridor Study 5,820 36,873 6,097 5,858 12,514 MC 85 Corridor Study 13,383 MC 85 Corridor Study Power Rd Corridor 40,110 Study 6,819 40,374 14,680 8,045 ADT 2006 Congestion Management System Table 2: MCDOT Roadways With V/C Ratios Greater Than 0.70 (continued) MCDOT MCDOT N US 60 W JACKRABBIT TL E 114TH AVE W SOSSAMAN RD S BELL RD E BULLARD AVE S PECOS RD E 99TH AVE S ST JOHNS RD N UNIVERSITY DR E 103RD AVE W 27TH AVE E 83RD AVE E SR 87 36 SIGNAL BUTTE RD 37 MC 85 38 OLIVE AVE 39 ELLIOT RD 40 BOSWELL BLVD 41 PEORIA AVE 42 51ST AVE 43 THUNDERBIRD BLVD 44 51ST AVE 45 CRISMON RD 46 THUNDERBIRD BLVD 47 DOBBINS RD 48 BROADWAY RD 49 RIGGS RD S BELL RD R H JOHNSON N BLVD W MARICOPA RD 51 128TH AVE 52 RIGGS RD 50 BURNS DR E RAINBOW RD 35 MC 85 CMS 8 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B N WADDELL RD 34 COTTON LN 0.70 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.93 V/C Ratio B Travel 0.97 Ref Road B Dir W SOUTHERN AVE R H JOHNSON 33 GRANITE VALLEY DR S BLVD 32 MC 85 On Road -3,676 2,072 2,126 1,925 -2,521 2,682 3,364 -2,495 -3,834 -2,583 -3,357 2,135 1,930 2,060 -3,473 -2,704 -2,582 -1,943 1,834 2,608 -3,746 Difference 5,952 6,217 6,269 26,292 6,411 6,427 26,985 6,598 6,911 28,482 6,940 7,073 7,182 7,268 29,980 7,325 7,499 7,504 7,585 7,915 8,240 ADT 2010 Study Name 9,628 4,145 4,143 Riggs Road Corridor 24,367 Study 8,932 3,745 23,621 9,093 10,745 31,065 10,297 4,938 5,252 5,208 Elliot Rd Corridor Study 33,453 10,029 10,081 9,447 MC 85 Corridor Study 5,751 5,307 11,986 MC 85 Corridor Study ADT 2006 Congestion Management System Table 2: MCDOT Roadways With V/C Ratios Greater Than 0.70 (continued) Ð ? Map 1 ¿ ? AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS FY 2010 WICKENBURG Rd Beardsley Rd 555th Ave ! er ( ! Rd ( ! ( ! ( am Horse shoe D Cav eC ree k Rd 7th Ave 32nd St 16th St 43rd Ave ! ( ! ( Ð ? ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ( 571st Ave aC al i en te R ! ( d ry Pass Rd ! ( Use Hawes Rd ñ Germann Rd A ! ( ! ( Ñ ? Riggs Rd ! ( ! !( ! ( !( ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ( Broadway Ave Southern Ave nh ou se v I Baseline Rd Elliot Rd APACHE JUNCTION ! ( ! ! ( Rd ( QUEEN CREEK ! ( ! ! Cloud Rd ( ! ! ( ( ( ! ! ( ! !( ( ( ! !( ! ( ! ( ( Empire Blvd ! ( $ a " ! ì A Ð ? Rd Ag u Hwy Æ ? Dam Rock Pa inte d Rit te j? A ÐHunt Hwy Bullard Ave Patterson Rd ! ( GILBERT ! ( ! ( Bu s h ! ! ( ( Recker Rd Power Rd Cooper Rd Gilbert Rd Dobson Rd $ a " ! Rd ! ( ! ( v I GUADALUPE CHANDLER Be ltlin e GOODYEAR ! ( Broadway Rd MESA ! ( ! ( GILA BEND ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 10,001 - 38,977 ! ( Brown Rd Ellsworth Rd ! ( ! ( TEMPE ! ( Chandler Heights Rd ! ( 32nd St Val Vista Dr 7th St 16th St ! ( ! ( ? (! Ð ñ (! A 32nd St ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( Elliot Rd ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( $ a " ! ! ( Meridian Rd 7th St 7th Ave Sunris Reems Rd B e lvd Bullard Ave Litchfield Rd Dysart Rd 27th Ave Southern Ave Baseline Rd á A ß A 83rd Ave 579th Ave ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ñ A $ Buckeye Rd c " ! 5,001 - 10,000 Maricopa County Ð ? Crismon Rd 203rd Ave Rd Agua Caliente E xten sion er Rd Harquahala Hyd d rise R Pierpoint Rd ! ( 85 Van Buren St ! ( Arterials ! ( FOUNTAIN HILLS PARADISE VALLEY PHOENIX 1,001 - 5,000 Arterial Roadways ! ( ß A Bell Rd Camelba ck Rd Indian School Rd Thomas Rd McDowell Rd ¸ ? ! ( 012345 10 Miles y Hw nt Hu Enterp Woods Rd ! ( H yd Riggs Rd Patterson ! Rd ( 7 5 6 4 ! ( ¸ ? 1 - 1,000 Maricopa County Dr Sossaman Rd ! ( TOLLESON ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( w Valley Rd bo ! ( ! ( ! ( Í ? ! ( Elliot Rd Tuthill Rd Narramore Rd ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Valle y ! ( State Highways ! ( 16th St ! ( ! ! ( ( Southern Ave ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ( Beloat Rd ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Union Hills Dr 67th Ave ! ( Deer ! ( ! ( Thomas Rd $ a " ! in Ra ! ( BUCKEYE Jackrabbit Tr 351st Ave 411th Ave ! ( AVONDALE Cotton Ln Elliot Rd Narramore Rd Narramore Rd $ a " ! ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( Broadway Rd ! ( ! ( !( ( ! ! ( ! !( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( LITCH FIELD PARK ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Rainbow Rd ! ( Perryville Rd Citrus Rd ! ( ( Dobbins Rd ! ( Van Buren St ! ( Buckeye Rd ! Southern Ave Baseline Rd ! ( ! ( ! ( Turtleback Mountain ! ( Rd ! ( SCOTTSDALE v I A ß ÿ A Dean Rd ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( McDowell Rd !( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Bruner Rd ! ( ! Indian School Rd ( ! ( Wintersburg Rd Centennial Rd ! ( Van Buren St ! ( Buckeye Rd ! ( Lower Buckeye Rd 491st Ave Camelback Rd ß A Sarival Ave 387th Ave ! ( ! ( 355th Ave y 411th Ave me Hw 111th Ave Sa lo (! ! ! !! ! (( ( ! ( (! (! ( ! ! ( ( ( ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Olive Ave ( ! ( ! ( ! SURPRISE 331st Ave YOUNGTOWN v I ß A !( ( ! !( ! ( ! ( Bell Rd ! ( ! !( ( ( !( !( ! ! ( ! ( !( !!( ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! Greenway Rd ! (( ! ( ! !( ( ! !( ( !( !( ( ! !( ! EL MIRAGE ( ! ( !( ! ( !( ( ( ! ! ! ! ( !( ( !( ( ! ! ( ( !( ! Peoria Ave ! YOUNGTOWN ( !( ( !( ! !( !( !( ! ( ( ! !( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ( ((((( Olive Ave ! ! ( ( Northern Ave GLENDALE !( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Ð ? CAREFREE ! ( Rio Verde Dr !! !( ( ( ! ( ! ( !( !( !( ( !( ! ( ! ( ! !( !( ! ( ! ( !( !( ( !( ! ! ( ! !( ( ! ( ! ( Ne e dlero Rd ck Rd ve r Ri Ave 99th EL MIRAGE ! ( CAVE CREEK ! ( Average Daily ! ( ! ( PHOENIX 51st Ave 103rd Blvd $ c " ! 51st Ave ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ! ! ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( !( ! !( !( !( !( ( Ne w ( ! ( ! ! ( ve Bo A ! ( swell ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( Carefree Hwy PEORIA 75th Ave 67th Ave ! ( 91st Ave 83rd Ave Dr Carefree Hwy 91st Ave Burn s  ? Cloud Rd ! ! (! ( ( Hutto n Dr ! ( ! ( 83rd Ave Bell Rd 107th Ave 99th Ave ! ( ! ( ! ( 99th Ave ! ( ! ( ! ( Dysart Rd ! ( ! ( ! ( Sarival Ave bb We De l lvd B ! ( ! ( 203rd Ave ! ( 144th St v I Union Hills Dr 331st Ave ! ( ! ( ! ( !( ( ! ! ( ! ( 16th St ! ( 7th Ave ! ( 91st Ave v I 491st Ave 523rd Ave ! ( ó A ü A I Produced by the Maricopa County Public Works GIS Division $̀ " ! April 13, 2011 Ì ? ! ( Í ? $̀ " ! CMS 9 Ð ? Map 2 ¿ ? CONGESTION V/C RATIO FY 2010 WICKENBURG ! ( ! ( !( ( ! ! ( ! (  ? Carefree Hwy PEORIA SCOTTSDALE ! ( ! ( 203rd Ave ! ( ! ( ! ( e Rd kR Cave C ree 7th St 32nd St 7th Ave Alma School Rd $ a " ! ! ( Broadway Rd ! ( ! ( d ! ( ! ( Riggs Rd ! ( 2 - 3.02588 Arterials ! h Hwy ( Bus Maricopa County Ð ? ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( Broadway Ave ! ! ( ( ! ( GILBERT ñ A ! ( ! !( ! ( !( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( v I Elliot Rd Germann Rd ! ( ! ( ! ( MESA CHANDLER Be ltlin eR Riggs Rd Hawes Rd 83rd Ave 75th Ave 67th Ave 7th St ! ( ! ( ! ( GOODYEAR ? (! Ð ñ (! A ! ( ! ( TEMPE GUADALUPE ! ( ! ! ( ( v I APACHE JUNCTION ! ( v I QUEEN CREEK ! ( ! ! ! ( ( ! ( ( ! Empire ! ( ! !( ( ( ! !( ! ! ( ( ( Hunt Hwy Blvd j? A Ð Æ ? 012345 10 Miles 571st Ave am Rock D ! ( $ a " ! ì A 99th Ave Ð ? Rd te Rd 83rd Ave P ! ainted ( ! ( y Hw 555th Ave nt Hu 579th Ave $ a " ! 1.51 - 2 Maricopa County 91st Ave ! ( MARICOPA UNINCORPORATED ! ( en ( ( ! ( ! ( Dobbins Rd ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( á A ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Ag ua Ca li Southern Ave Baseline Rd ! ! Bullard Ave rpris Ent e ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ( Patterson Rd ! ( ! ( 85 ñ A 1.01 - 1.5 Arterial Roadways Ð ? an Sossam Rd ! ( ! ! ( ( Southern Ave ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ( Beloat Rd ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( Narramore Rd ! ( Í ? 7 5 6 4 ! ( ! ( ! ( ow Valley Rd inb Ra ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( PHOENIX ! ( Ñ ? Cooper Rd Gilbert Rd ( ! ( $ c " ! TOLLESON 0.851 - 1 ! ( ! ( Dobson Rd Narramore Rd Elliot Rd ! Van Buren St BUCKEYE ! ( State Highways FOUNTAIN HILLS ß Indian School Rd A Thomas Rd McDowell Rd ( ! 16th St 32 nd St Dobbins Rd !( ( ! $ a " ! 16th St ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( $ a " ! ß A PARADISE VALLEY ¸ ? 7th Ave ! ( AVONDALE ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 99th Ave ! ( Bell Rd 0 - 0.85 ! ( ! ( 51st Ave ! ( LITCH FIELD PARK Tuthill Rd !( ! ( ÿ A Deer Valle y Dr ¸ ? ! ( ! ( ! ( Peoria Ave 91st Ave ! ( 351st Ave ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 411th Ave ! ( ! ( Indian School Rd ! ( ! ( 491st Ave 539th Ave Centennial Rd ! ( Van Buren ! ( St ! ( Union Hills Dr Bell Rd v I A ß ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ß A 43rd Ave 27th Ave Citrus Rd Camelback Rd 387th Ave ! ( !( ! ( ! ( SURPRISE Perryville Rd y Wintersburg Rd lom eH w !( ( ! ! !( ( ! ( ! ( ! !( ( ( !( !( ! ! ( ! ( !( !!( ( ! ( ! ! !( ( !( ( ! ( ! ( Greenway Rd ! ( ! !( ( !( !! ( ! ! (( ! Waddell Rd EL MIRAGE ( ( !( ! ( !( ( !( ! ! !( ( !!( ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ( YOUNGTOWN ! ! !( !( !( ! ! ( ( (( ! !( ( ( ! ! ( ! ! ! ( ! ( !( !! ! !( ( ( (( ( Olive Ave ! ! ( ( !( !( ! GLENDALE ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 411th Ave Sa 91st Ave 83rd Ave 75th Ave Dysart Rd ! ( !! !( ( ( ! ( ! ( (( !! !( ( !( ! ( ! ( ! !! (( ! ( ! ! !( ( (( !( ! ! ( ! !( ( Ð ? ! ( PHOENIX $ c " ! Volume/Capacity Ratio ! ( CAREFREE d Carefree Hwy CAVE CREEK ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( !( !( ! !( !! ( (( ! ( tt Da rtle m Rd a B ! ( ! ( Recker Rd Power Rd Sarival Ave 27t ! ( h Ave Cloud Rd ! ( Mountain Rd Meridian Rd ! ( Crismon Ellsworth Rd Rd v I 144th St ! ( ! ( Val Vista Dr v I 16th St 491st Ave ! ( GILA BEND ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ó A ü A I Produced by the Maricopa County Public Works GIS Division $̀ " ! April 13, 2011 Ì ? ! ( Í ? $̀ " ! CMS 10 Safety Management System TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW & BACKGROUND 1 PURPOSE OF THE SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1 MCDOT Safety Management Procedures 1 1 ANALYSIS OF MCDOT’S SPOT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR FY 2011-2012 Identifying and Ranking Low Cost Intersection Safety Improvements 1 SAFETY AUDIT PROGRAM 2 SPOT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR FY 2010 2 EVALUATION OF SAFETY 2 OVERALL COUNTY CRASH RATES 4 ARTERIAL INTERSECTION SAFETY 4 List of Tables Table 1: Safety Improvement Projects Completed in FY 2011 3 Table 2: Planned Spot Safety Improvement Projects for FY 2012 4 Table 3. County Crash Rates 1998-2008 6 List of Maps Map 1. Safety Improvement Projects Completed in 2011 MCDOT 8 SMS i Safety Management System SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND PURPOSE OF THE SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The County Safety Management System (SMS) is a systematic process that has three goals.  Document the safety improvements made by Maricopa County to specific intersections and road segments during the previous fiscal year.  Identify the location, type, and severity of traffic crashes in the unincorporated portions of Maricopa County.  Report trends in traffic crashes and recommend improvements to reduce the number and rate of crashes primarily at intersections. MCDOT Safety Management Procedures MCDOT makes every effort to respond quickly to identified intersection or roadway safety problems. These problems are frequently identified through public complaints about unsafe roadway conditions, first-hand observation by County staff members, and by reviewing recent crash records for county roadways. When an actual problem or potential problem is encountered, a detailed engineering analysis may be conducted with recommendation made as how to mitigate the situation. These recommendations are handled in three ways. Initially, through the MCDOT maintenance process for relatively simple and inexpensive solutions. More complex problems are handled by the MCDOT’s Traffic Engineering Division. Complex problems involving significant changes that require substantial funding amounts are handles through the MCDOT’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). ANALYSIS OF MCDOT’S SPOT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR FYS 2010 Identifying and Ranking Low Cost Intersection Safety Improvements The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is used by MCDOT as the guide to determine whether an identified safety problem meets the criteria, also known as warrants, to move forward to become a project. The MUTCD provides a guide to install multi-way stop control or traffic signals when it is determined that five or more reported crashes at an intersection have occurred in a 12-month period, and are susceptible to correction by one or more traffic control alternatives. Other warrant factors may also be used to determine if an intersection needs improvements such as signalization, additional turn lanes, or other safety items. SMS 1 MCDOT Safety Management System SAFETY AUDIT PROGRAM MCDOT Traffic Engineering is continuing its program to identify and evaluate roadway conditions and to prioritize and schedule improvements for upcoming years. This program is a continuation, at the local level, of the recently announced MAG initiative, also known as the Safety Audit Program. This program ensures that the latest safety standards are included in the designs for new roadways. A large percentage of MCDOT roadways were constructed 20 to 30 years ago with the design standards applicable at the time. The goal of this program is to be proactive in identifying those areas where current design standards may be more applicable. Criteria to determine priorities includes accident history, average daily traffic, roadway function, posted speed, and already scheduled transportation improvement projects. Accident history is used to determine if improvements are required along roadways. Accident locations are plotted as indicated on the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) accident reports. If five or more correctable accidents are detected within a roadway segment or intersection and occur within a 12 month period during the past three years, an engineering evaluation follows to determine what action, if any, should to be taken. Once projects meet the warrants criteria, projects are typically implemented in the order in which they have been identified for improvement. SPOT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR FY 2009 In 2011, 13 projects were completed (Table 1). These were implemented by the MCDOT Traffic Engineering Division. Ten projects were identified in FY 2012 for completion (Table 2). EVALUATION OF SAFETY MCDOT is continuing its ongoing process of analyzing locations that exhibit potential safety problems. The initial step each year is to examine the location and number of crashes, crash rates, injury severity, and the types of crashes occurring on the unincorporated roadways in Maricopa County. This was done for calendar year 2006. However, in 2007 the Arizona Department of Transportation changed their policies with respect to making crash data available. The new policy is to only allow jurisdictions to download from the ADOT website their own crash data and not the data of any other jurisdiction. Therefore, the County is currently attempting to acquire permissions from all the jurisdictions in the County to share their crash data. MCDOT SMS 2 Safety Management System Table 1: Safety Improvement Projects Completed in FY 2011 Location Project 1 Burton Avenue & 184th Avenue (Cortessa Elementary School) School Crossing 2 Castle Hot Springs Road West & Rockaway Hills Dr Multiway Stop 3 Daisy Mountain Drive & Dedication Way New Signal 4 Daisy Mountain Drive & Hastings Way New Signal 5 Daisy Mountain Drive & Meridian Drive New Signal 6 Dobbins Road & 43rd Avenue Multiway Stop 7 Glendale Avenue & Cotton Lane Multiway Stop 8 Happy Valley Parkway & 115th Avenue Signal Update 9 Lower Buckeye Road & Airport Road Multiway Stop 10 MC 85 & Baseline Road New Signal 11 MC 85 & Sarival Avenue New Signal 12 Northern Avenue & Litchfield Road Signal Update 13 Stardust Blvd. & 135th Avenue New Signal Table 2: Planned Spot Safety Improvement Projects for FY 2012 Location 1 Banff Lane: 75th Avenue - 79th Avenue 2 Baseline Road & Miller Road 3 Beloat Road & Jackrabbit Trail / Tuthill Road Project Traffic Calming New Signal Roadway Improvements 4 Elliot Road & Sossaman Road 5 Fire Station Driveway - North of Sun City Blvd. New Signal New Signal 6 Meeker Blvd. & Wilson Way New Signal 7 Olive Avenue & Reems Road New Signal 8 Olive Avenue & Sarival Avenue 9 R.H. Johnson Blvd. & Trail Ridge Drive New Signal New Signal 10 Southern Avenue & Meridian Road New Signal SMS 3 MCDOT Safety Management System OVERALL COUNTY CRASH RATES Table 4 shows the relationship between the vehicle miles of travel per mile of County Roadway and the total roadway miles in the County system through 2008. Data will be added to this table for 2009, 2010 and 2011 when it becomes available. This table shows that the miles of County roadways are continuously declining primarily due to annexations, while the vehicle miles of travel on these remaining roadways are constantly increasing. The net result is ever increasing in congestion on the County roads. The overall county crash rate is the best indicator to represent the history of the entire County system. The overall crash rate measures the number of crashes per million vehicle miles of travel (VMT) per mile of County-owned roadway per year in the unincorporated portions of the County. Table 5 shows that while the overall county crash rate has annually gone up and down, overall it has declined when compared to the increase in population in the unincorporated county. Since 1998 despite an increase of more than 53,000 people, more licensed drivers, and a rising number of miles traveled on County roadways, the crash rate for many types of crashes has declined. ARTERIAL INTERSECTION SAFETY MCDOT has approximately 1,500 intersections on its arterial roadway system that have experienced crashes in the past three years (2006-2008). Updated data for 2009-2010 will be added to this table when it becomes available from ADOT. Each of these intersection will be evaluated based on four safety criteria and given a score between 1 and 100. The higher the score the greater the safety concern. The criteria to be used to evaluate and produce the overall MCDOT Safety Score includes:  Crash Frequency (CF): The total number of crashes at an intersection over a three year period (2006-2008) divided by the intersection with the highest CF value of all MCDOT intersection.  Crash Severity (CS): Crashes are rated by injury severity, i.e., fatal, incapacitating injury, non-incapacitating injury, possible injury and property damage only. Each value is given a weight and multiplied times the number of crashes in each category. The result is divided by the intersection with the highest CS value.  Crash Type (CT): Crashes by collision manner for 2007 and 2008 were calculated. This is based on the average per vehicle cost at each MCDOT intersection for the 11 types of collision manner as listed in the Arizona Department of Transportation’s crash statistics. This value is then divided by the highest CT value for all MCDOT intersections. MCDOT SMS 4 Safety Management System  Crash Rate (CR): This is the crash rate per million vehicles entering the intersection from all approaches. The final MCDOT safety score was calculated with crash severity given twice the weight of the other criteria. Safety Score = ((CF * .20)+(CS * .40)+(CT * .20)+(CR * .20))* 100 It is MCDOT’s intent to accurately portray each of its arterial roadway intersections fairly by using these four criteria and weighting them most heaviest for crash severity. This methodology negates the influence of any one criteria, i.e., total number of crashes or crash rates on the final score. The top 50 intersections based on their MCDOT Safety Scores are listed in table 12. SMS 5 MCDOT 2,719 5.6283 2,070 1.55 0.477 0.017 0.022 0.384 0.084 3,312 2,768 2.52 MCDOT 2.15 1.58 0.487 0.016 0.022 0.351 0.054 3,200 2,822 5.1135 5.5277 1,812 Arizona Fatal Crash Rate** US Fatal Crash Rate** Single Vehicle Crash Rate Pedestrian Crash Rate Bicycle Crash Rate Injury Crash Rate Work Zone Related Rate Total Number of Crashes Total County Road Miles Million Vehicle Miles/Day VMT/Mile SMS 3,011 0.077 0.321 0.014 0.008 0.425 1.55 2.08 2.34 2,644 3,018 0.057 0.299 0.014 0.014 0.417 1.15 2.17 1.56 1.39 2002 2,629 3,161 0.044 0.308 0.015 0.011 0.412 1.50 2.10 2.02 1.35 2003 2,597 3,324 0.051 0.275 0.016 0.012 0.365 1.44 2.02 1.99 1.38 2004 2,567 3,997 0.066 0.344 0.020 0.012 0.390 1.46 2.03 2.13 1.74 2005 2,426 2,923 0.067 0.244 0.014 0.013 0.300 1.42 2.08 3.03 1.36 2006 2,423 3,811 0.073 0.334 0.023 0.015 0.417 1.36 1.70 2.64 1.83 2007 2,419 3,390 0.055 0.275 0.018 0.011 0.348 1.27 1.53 1.40 1.49 2008 2,260 2,256 2,435 2,543 2,456 2,421 2,352 2,584 6.0568 5.9649 6.4016 6.6042 6.3046 5.8733 5.6989 6.2507 2,680 2,329 0.037 0.250 0.011 0.012 0.311 1.50 2.08 1.54 1.05 2001 Source: Crash data is from the Arizona Department of Transportation modified by MCDOT. Crashes that did not occur on County roadways were excluded. ** Crashes Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles of Travel * Crashes Per Million Vehicle Miles of Travel (MVMT) 1,997 2.18 3.07 1.47 MCDOT Fatal Crash Rate** 1.64 1.71 2000 Annual County Crash Rate* 1999 1998 Factors Safety Management System Table 3. County Crash Rates 1998-2008 6 Safety Management System Table 4: MCDOT Top 50 Arterial Roadway Intersection Safety Scores 2010 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 SMS MCDOT Safety Score 79.62 78.53 76.84 76.46 74.60 67.95 65.22 65.11 63.74 62.06 60.38 59.55 56.68 54.59 52.05 50.98 50.86 49.63 47.64 46.10 45.24 44.47 43.09 42.96 42.87 42.43 42.21 41.90 41.66 41.13 41.02 40.91 40.87 40.78 40.57 40.20 40.19 39.30 38.13 38.10 37.69 37.58 36.93 36.70 36.67 36.27 36.09 36.09 35.93 35.84 7 Intersection RAY RD, POWER RD ELLSWORTH RD, ELLIOT RD ELLSWORTH RD, BROADWAY RD INDIAN SCHOOL RD, 107TH AVE UNIVERSITY DR, HIGLEY RD BELL RD, 99TH AVE UNIVERSITY DR, ELLSWORTH RD MC 85, AVONDALE BLVD ELLSWORTH RD, APACHE TRL RITTENHOUSE RD, CLOUD RD KYRENE RD, ELLIOT RD RIGGS RD, ARIZONA AVE OLIVE AVE, 107TH AVE DEL WEBB BLVD, BELL RD OLIVE AVE, 103RD AVE BELL RD, 98TH AVE APACHE TRL, 80TH ST OAKMONT DR, 107TH AVE UNIVERSITY DR, RECKER RD BASELINE RD, 67TH AVE OLIVE AVE, 99TH AVE OLIVE AVE, LITCHFIELD RD INDIAN SCHOOL RD, 99TH AVE WARNER RD, POWER RD CRISMON RD, BROADWAY RD OLIVE AVE, 111TH AVE GREENFIELD RD, GERMANN RD THOMAS RD, PIMA RD POWER RD, HUNT HWY ELLSWORTH RD, BROWN RD OCOTILLO RD, ELLSWORTH RD BOSWELL BLVD, BELL RD SIGNAL BUTTE RD, BROADWAY RD WILLIAMS FIELD RD, POWER RD UNIVERSITY DR, 64TH ST MC 85, ESTRELLA PKWY PEORIA AVE, 99TH AVE RIGGS RD, ELLSWORTH RD ELLIOT RD, 51ST ST CRISMON RD, APACHE TRL BELL RD, 114TH AVE PIMA RD, CHAPARRAL RD RIGGS RD, POWER RD INDIAN SCHOOL RD, 103RD AVE SOUTHERN AVE, 35TH AVE QUEEN CREEK RD, GILBERT RD THUNDERBIRD BLVD, 103RD AVE WILLIAMS FIELD RD, GILBERT RD MERIDIAN RD, APACHE TRL SOUTHERN AVE, 27TH AVE MCDOT Map 1 CA MORRISTOWN ROCKAWAY HILLS DRIVE S RD SR 74 GATE PROJECT OLIVE AVENUE G CIRCLE CITY Safety Improvement Projects Completed in FY 2011 MERIDIAN DRIVE DESERT HILLS DRIVE PROJECT AN IL AV G 60 Multiway Stop DAISY MO IN TA UN MERIDIAN DRIVE DESERT HILLS DRIVE AN IL AV G IV E DR N AI NT OU DAISY M MERIDIAN DRIVE DESERT HILLS DRIVE DOBBINS ROAD PROJECT AN IL AV New Signal New Signal Happy Valley Parkway & 115th Avenue N MC 85 NORTHERN AVENUE STA PROJECT L OU BELOAT ROAD Signal Update Banff Lane: 75th Avenue - 79th Avenue PROJECT D AR EV Multiway Stop MEE K BROADWAY ROAD BETHANY HOME ROAD Multiway Stop BOULE VAR D ST RDU PROJECT PROJECT DEER VALLEY DRIVE 135TH MC 85 N ER B PROJECT JACKRABBIT TRAIL 115TH AVENUE PROJECT AIRPORT ROAD PROJECT LOOP 303 AVENUE BASELINE RO AD LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD OLIVE AVENUE N DYSART ROAD COTTON LANE APACHE ROAD LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD LITCHFIELD ROAD N Stardust Blvd. & 135th Avenue LOOP 303 N SOUTHERN AVENUE SARIVAL AVENUE HAPPY VALLEY PARKWAY GLENDALE AVENUE Northern Avenue & Litchfield Road MC 85 & Sarival Avenue SARIVAL AVENUE YUMA ROAD N N Multiway Stop EL MIRAGE ROAD MC 85 & Baseline Road NORTHERN AVENUE New Signal Lower Buckeye Road & Airport Road ESTRELLA PARKWAY Glendale Avenue & Cotton Lane COTTON LANE PROJECT E IV DR WITTMANN School Crossing LOOP 303 17 PROJECT N 43RD AVENUE 17 D BASELINE ROAD N 211TH AVE DOUGLA S RANC H RD PROJECT ISY DA IN TA UN O M AY W PE AK PARK LE AY W PE AK PARK 17 ST PEORIA AVENUE BURTON AVENUE N VE SP DEDICATION WAY N S HOT AY ANTHEM W N G RIN Dobbins Road & 43rd Avenue Daisy Mountain Drive & Meridian Drive AY ANTHEM W 51ST AVENUE RO AD COTTON LANE 184TH AVENUE N Daisy Mountain Drive & Hastings Way AY ANTHEM W AY W PE AK PARK CACTUS ROAD 35TH AVENUE Daisy Mountain Drive & Dedication Way Castle Hot Springs Road West & Rockaway Hills Dr RI Burton Avenue & 184th Avenue (Cortessa Elementary School) GLENDALE AVENUE New Signal New Signal Signal Update New Signal Beloat Road & Jackrabbit Trail / Tuthill Road Baseline Road & Miller Road Elliot Road & Sossaman Road BELL ROAD GUADALUPE ROAD MC 85 Planned Spot Safety Improvement Projects for FY 2012 ER IV A R L GI BELOAT ROAD MC 85 BANFF LANE PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT ELLIOT ROAD SOSSAMAN ROAD BASELINE ROAD TUTHILL ROAD MC 85 THUNDERBIRD ROAD ELLIOT ROAD BELOAT ROAD New Signal Traffic Calming Fire Station Driveway - North of Sun City Blvd. Olive Avenue & Reems Road Olive Avenue & Sarival Avenue PROJECT WARNER ROAD Roadway Improvements Meeker Blvd. & Wilson Way N N POWER ROAD APACHE ROAD MILLER ROAD 67TH AVENUE 75TH AVENUE 79TH AVENUE 83RD AVENUE N SOUTHERN AVENUE JACKRABBIT TRAIL N LOOP 101 R.H. Johnson Blvd. & Trail Ridge Drive New Signal Southern Avenue & Meridian Road THUND ERBIRD BLVD New Signal New Signal .J OH NS NO MI CA O New Signal PROJECT BO U G RA ND LE VAR D IRONWOOD DRIVE LS DE SIGNAL BUTTE ROAD BOU LE VA RD L NORTHERN AVENUE SARIVAL AVENUE E PROJECT COTTON LANE NU MEEKER P. AV E UL EV ARD R. H OLIVE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE SOUTHERN AVENUE A. RA O N BO G LS DE C. C O IN AM O WILSON WAY ND I:\0000 CLIENTS\2011\CHRIS PLUMB\FINISHED MAPS\FY 2011.cdr G D RI L AI E TR RIV D L MEEKER PROJECT PEORIA AVENUE PROJECT REEM ROAD SU N CITY BOULEVARD LOOP 303 N BROADWAY ROAD E SARIVAL AVENUE LOOP 101 91ST AVENUE 99TH AVENUE R. H. JO HN SO N N PROJECT PINAL COUNTY N PEORIA AVENUE MERIDIAN ROAD N REEMS ROAD UE 107TH AVENUE PEORIA AVENUE AVE N BOU LE VA RD ND MARICOPA COUNTY N N GRA PROJECT 60 AV E NU E BASELINE ROAD NORTHERN AVENUE New Signal New Signal New Signal SMS 8 5/03/2011 Low Volume Road Management System TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LOW VOLUME ROAD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1 OVERVIEW 1 BACKGROUND 1 GENERAL ROADWAY ANALYSIS 1 COUNTY ROADWAY SYSTEM 1 Facts About County Unpaved Roads 2 TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD EVALUATION CRITERIA 2 LAND OWNERSHIP 3 DESIGN CRITERIA 5 COST SHARE POLICY 6 List of Tables Table 1: Low Volume Roads Completed or Underway in FY 2011 4 List of Figures Figure 1: MCDOT Dirt Road Paving History 1983-2011 MCDOT 6 LVR i Low Volume Road Management System LOW VOLUME ROAD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) in FY 2004 initiated a formal program to pave low volume roads (LVR) in the County. A multi-year capital improvement program for paving low traffic volume dirt roadways was then created. OVERVIEW This report documents the number and miles of low volume roads paved by MCDOT in Fiscal Year 2011. It also provides an historical picture of all MCDOT low volume road paving since1983. BACKGROUND Prior to 2004 MCDOT paved low volume roads primarily based on citizen complaints and field observations by MCDOT staff. However, beginning in 2004, MCDOT initiated a program to systematically identify low volume dirt roadways for paving. Unpaved roads with high or increasing traffic volumes, safety issues, or other significant concerns were to be considered for paving. This program was to specifically address those unpaved roads that do not meet federal criteria for paving under the PM-10 (federal dust abatement) program. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) recommended to the Board of Supervisors that an annual allocation of 3 to 4 million dollars per year be set aside to in the MCDOT annual budget to pave selected LVR’s. GENERAL ROADWAY ANALYSIS In addition to developing detailed maps and evaluation tables, a general analysis of the unpaved road system was also conducted. This included analysis of where the roads are located throughout Maricopa County. Many of these roads are located on Federal (such as BLM or Forest Service) or State lands. An environmental overview noted that due to the scattered nature of these roadways environmental concerns will vary for each segment. A few of these roads are in or near public parks and wilderness areas, and have multiple wash crossings. When recommending individual segments for paving, more detailed environmental reviews may be needed. The design criteria for paving these low volume unpaved roads provide guidance for right-of-way requirements and overall cost considerations. COUNTY ROADWAY SYSTEM In FY 2010 Maricopa County owned or maintained 2,353 miles of roadways. These roads are located in the unincorporated parts of the county, which includes both urban or near urban conditions as well as rural locations. There are five different types of unpaved roads in Maricopa County. The first type is unpaved roads that are owned by the county and identified as open and declared. This LVR 1 MCDOT Low Volume Road Management System means the county owns right-of-way for these segments of road and has accepted the roadway into the County System. The second type are partially opened and declared roads. These are roads where part of the right-of-way is owned by the county. The third type are primitive roads. These roads are usually located in remote parts of the county and are accessing wilderness areas and are typically less developed than other areas. The fourth type are known as courtesy grade roads. These roads are existing unpaved roads with little or no county owned right-of-way, but maintained by MCDOT through historical precedent and allowed by state statute. The fifth type is unpaved roads not owned or maintained by the county. The table below provides a summary of these five roadway types and associated mileage of each. Facts About County Unpaved Roads          803 miles of unpaved roads are within unincorporated Maricopa County. 166 of these miles are considered open and declared by the County. 218 of these miles are courtesy graded by the County. 7 of these miles are partially owned by the County. 360 of these miles are unpaved roads that are neither owned by the County nor courtesy graded by the county, but serve growing areas. 52 miles of these roads are primitive roads, accessing remote parts of the County. 597 road segments connect directly to a paved road. 230 miles of unpaved roads are inside the PM10 area and 573 miles of unpaved roads are outside the PM10 area. 164 miles of unpaved road segments are adjacent to or surrounded by an incorporated city or town boundary. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD EVALUATION CRITERIA A comprehensive inventory of the unpaved roads system builds on the updated base map and centerline file created in 2008 by inserting evaluation criteria into the database for each unpaved road segment. The data for the evaluation criteria are important because it provides a descriptive picture of each unpaved road segment. The criteria used by the TAB is listed below.           The Board of Supervisor District the segment is located in. The length of the roadway segment (miles). Is the road segment located inside or outside the PM10 area? Is the road segment county maintained or not? The Major Streets and Routes Plan classification. The average daily traffic count. Does the road segment connect to an existing paved road? The percent of estimated right-of-way. Does the segment serve a public facility? Are there any safety concerns (high accident rate for instance)? MCDOT LVR 2 Low Volume Road Management System  The cost per mile to pave.  The total project cost. Additional Criteria In addition to the TAB evaluation criteria, MCDOT staff collected data on the following information for each roadway segment:         How many small washes cross the road segment? How many large washes or rivers cross the road segment? Are there any major utilities within close proximity? How many public facilities are in the vicinity of a given road segment. Crash data for a three year period The general land ownership where the road segment is located. The distance to the nearest paved road. What is the nearest or adjacent city? LAND OWNERSHIP Unpaved roadways in unincorporated Maricopa County are found in both urban and rural settings. Due to the growing municipal areas and annexation patterns, many pieces of unincorporated county lands are often immediately adjacent to or surrounded by cities. Analysis of the unpaved road segments revealed 235 miles of unpaved roads that are immediately adjacent to various cities and towns. In addition, there are 25 miles of unpaved roads within one mile of a jurisdiction. However, these unpaved roads are not likely to become urban in the future unless or until they are paved to a public standard. Land ownership in Maricopa County falls into one of the following general categories: private, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Military, National Forest, State Trust Lands, Indian Reservation, local or state parks, wilderness, and unidentified other lands. The table below shows a breakdown of land ownership type, estimated percentage of ownership within the county, and the number of miles of unpaved roads located in each type. Land Ownership Type Private BLM Military State Trust Lands Indian Reservation Local or State Parks Other Total LVR 3 Acres 734,989 1,606,205 655,332 482,819 268,466 58,171 9,922 4,537,393 %of Acres 16.20% 35.40% 14.44% 10.64% 5.92% 1.28% 0.22% 100.00% Unpaved Mileage 546 144 18 84 1 9 0 803 MCDOT Low Volume Road Management System Table 1: Low Volume Roads Completed or Underway in FY 2011 Road Name From To Feet Miles Width SQ Yd $435,000 ROADS Paved in FY 2011 - TT317 McNEIL ST 35TH AVE Cost 31ST AVE 2,587 0.49 20 5,749 TIP $195,000 ROADS AWAITING ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION - TT317 007TH AVE HONDA BOW RD LEANN RD 3,270 0.62 24 8,720 TIP CAVALRY RD 7TH AVE 1,320 0.25 24 3,520 TIP 3RD AVE $93,000 ROADS AT 70% DESIGN - TT317 11TH AVE HONDA BOW RD 13TH AVE 2,600 0.49 20 5,778 TIP $700,000 ROADS SCOPED And To Be Paved In FY 2011 - TT318 11TH AVE IRVINE RD DESERT HILLS DR 2,640 0.50 24 7,040 TIP 11TH AVE MADDOCK RD JOY RANCH RD 2,640 0.50 24 7,040 TIP 17TH AVE MADDOCK RD JOY RANCH RD 2,640 0.50 24 7,040 TIP BRILES RD REEMS RD EOM 2,640 0.50 24 7,040 TIP SHAWNEE DR 37TH AVE 35TH AVE 1,320 0.25 24 3,520 TIP $560,000 ROADS To be Paved in FY 2011 - TT319 92ND ST/OMEGA ST USERY PASS RD EOM 2,350 0.45 24 6,267 TIP 94TH ST McLELLAN RD EOM 1,300 0.25 24 3,467 TIP 104TH ST BROWN RD EOM 650 0.12 24 1,733 TIP 104TH ST BOM McLELLAN RD 1,000 0.19 24 2,667 TIP 104TH ST UNIVERSITY DR QUARTERLINE RD 1,300 0.25 24 3,467 TIP 105TH ST JENSEN RD McKELLIPS RD 1,300 0.25 24 3,467 TIP BOULDER DR 96TH ST EOM 300 0.06 24 800 TIP DENNIS ST BOM ELLSWORTH RD 650 0.12 24 1,733 TIP STACEY RD 164TH ST 165TH PL 800 0.15 24 2,133 TIP MCDOT LVR 4 Low Volume Road Management System DESIGN CRITERIA Typical roadway sections from the 2004 MCDOT Roadway Design Manual were initially used to guide the design criteria for paving a roadway. The information below provides a summary of the overall estimated ROW needs. Approximately 499 miles of unpaved roads do not have any ROW, 73 miles of unpaved roads have some percentage of required ROW, and 231 miles of unpaved roads have the entire ROW required. Estimated Right-of-Way Mileage No ROW available 1% to 25% 26% to 50% 51% to 75% 76% to 99% 100% of needed ROW estimated Total 499 7 38 14 14 231 803 Current street functional classifications for unpaved roads are Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Major Collector, Minor Collector, and Rural Local. The information below provides a summary of the unpaved road mileage of each classification. The current MCDOT Roadway Design Manual recommends standards for these roadway classifications. Classification Mileage Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Rural Local 1.34 16.78 7.69 77.13 701.56 803.00 Total COST SHARE POLICY MCDOT will always seek financial partnering for paving a dirt road from any jurisdiction or significant commercial traffic generators adjacent to or benefiting from the project. MCDOT can only pay for HURF related expenditures. Cost sharing will be consistent with the adopted MCDOT Cost Share Policy. LVR 5 MCDOT Low Volume Road Management System Figure 1: MCDOT Dirt Road Paving History 1983-2011 Miles of Dirt Road Paving by MCDOT FY 1983‐2011 45 41.3 40 35.5 36.4 34.6 36.1 30 5.3 4.6 2011 2.6 3.8 2010 2008 0.2 1.1 2009 Fiscal Years MCDOT 12.2 10.4 10.5 8.9 6.2 3.7 3.9 2006 0 10.5 2007 5 18.9 17.8 15.1 2005 10 24.1 2003 15 20.8 2004 20 22.7 20.0 19.4 15.3 11.2 2002 25 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Miles of Dirt Roads Paved 35 LVR 6 Bridge Management System TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA 1 REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING BRIDGES 1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TIP PROGRAMMING PROCEDURES 2 ASSET MANAGEMENT FOR BRIDGES 2 SUMMARY OF THE 2010-2011 INSPECTION SEASON (8/1/10 to 6/30/11) 2 FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY COMPARISONS 2 Structures Eligible for Federal Replacement Funds (SR < Than 50) 2 Structures Eligible for Federal Rehabilitation Funds (SR between 50 and 80) 3 POTENTIAL FEDERAL FUND PROJECTS .VS. OVERALL MCDOT INVENTORY 3 NOTABLE 2010-2011 BRIDGE EVENTS 3 SYNOPSIS OF MCDOT’S BRIDGE PROJECTS 5 Bridge Projects in the MCDOT FY 2012-2016 TIP 5 Status of Bridge/Structure Projects Completed in FY 2010 (July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011) 6 Status of Bridge & Structure Projects Currently Under Construction 6 Status of Bridge & Structure Projects Currently Being Designed 6 SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY FOR THE 2010–2011 BRIDGE INSPECTION SEASON BRIDGE INVENTORY LIST 8 10-20 List of Tables Table 1. Structures with Sufficiency Ratings between 80 and 50 4 Table 1A. Structures with Sufficiency Ratings Lower than 50 4 Table 2. Structure Projects in MCDOT FY 2012-2016 TIP 5 Table 3. Structure Projects Completed in FY 2011 6 Table 4. Status of Bridge & Structure Projects Under Construction 6 Table 5. Projects Currently in the Design Phase by MCDOT 7 Table 6. Summary for Activity 2010-2011 Bridge Inspection Season 7 Table 7. Alphabetical Listing of All Structures in the MCDOT Bridge Inventory Database. 10 List of Figures Figure 1: 2010-2011 Bridge & Structure Sufficiency Ratings MCDOT 9 BMS i Bridge Management System List of Maps Map 1: Bridge Locations and Sufficiency Ratings BMS ii 21 MCDOT Bridge Management System INTRODUCTION As of April 2011, Maricopa County maintains and inspects a total of 420 bridges and structure on public roads. By the Federal Highway Administration definition, 278 of these structures are qualified to be called “bridges” or “in-service” structures, meaning each of these has a length greater than 20 feet. The remaining 142 are called “offsystem” structures, because their length is 20 feet or less. DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS “In-Service” and “Off-System” Structures An “in-service” structure is described as one with an overall length greater than 20 feet, therefore qualifying the structure for federal aid, while bridge structures 20 feet or less in length are often called “off-system” or “non-federal aid” bridges. However, every structure within MCDOT’s jurisdiction is inspected in accordance to the Federal Highway Administration’s National Bridge Inspection Standards Recording and Coding Guide. This procedure allows MCDOT to maintain thorough, consistent records on each bridge and structure in the County system. The decision to maintain and inspect all of MCDOT’s structures enables MCDOT to include off-system structures when considering how to best appropriate funds and prioritize in-house projects. Due to the comprehensive data MCDOT maintains on all structures, MCDOT is readily able to evaluate its inventory as a whole, rather than being restricted to information gathered only on the in-service structures. EVALUATION CRITERIA In 1997 the Maricopa County Bridge Investment Study (BIS) recognized the need to evaluate bridges separately from roadway projects. The following information identifies MCDOT’s method of scoring and prioritizing bridge projects. The following categories of bridge projects were chosen for evaluation and prioritization. 1. 2. 3. 4. Replacement Projects Replacement of Dip Sections with New Structures Scour Protection Projects New Bridge Projects (not included in major road projects) REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING BRIDGES During FY 2010-2011, MCDOT did not replace any existing bridge structure. A bridge should only be considered for replacement if all four of the following conditions are met: 1. The cost of rehabilitation is 55% or more than the cost of a new bridge. MCDOT BMS 1 Bridge Management System 2. The bridge is functionally obsolete. 3. The sufficiency rating is less than 50. 4. The Bridge Engineer agrees replacement is justifiable. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TIP PROGRAMMING PROCEDURES Each year, MCDOT reviews the highest rated bridge projects from the following subcategories: 1. 2. 3. 4. TIP Projects Replacement of Existing Bridges Replace Dip Sections with New Structures New Bridge Projects (not included in major road projects) In any given year, the budget allocation may not support inclusion of all top rated bridge projects in the Transportation Improvement Program. When this occurs, decisions are made based on the rating criteria and professional engineering judgment. ASSET MANAGEMENT FOR BRIDGES In 2002, MCDOT began an asset management program for its bridge inventory. To date, MCDOT’s bridge and structure inventory asset valuation is estimated at $136,557,471. SUMMARY OF THE 2010-2011 INSPECTION SEASON (8/1/10 to 6/30/11) In the FY 2010-2011 inspection seasons, MCDOT’s bridge inventory consisted of 278 in-service structures and 142 off-system structures. These numbers include eleven new structures that were added to the MCDOT inventory. Nine of these are in-service structures (concrete box culverts) and two are off-system structures (bridges) This year seven structures were annexed or otherwise removed from MCDOT’s bridge inventory. A complete summary of the activity for the 2010-2011 inspection season is included at the end of this report. FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY COMPARISONS Structures Eligible for Federal Replacement Funds (SR < Than 50) The Federal Highway Administration guidelines stipulate that when a bridge’s sufficiency rating falls below a Sufficiency Rating (SR) of 50, the bridge becomes eligible for federal replacement funds. As of March 2010, Maricopa County has only one structure which has a rating below 50: the Gillespie Dam Bridge located on Old US 80 at the Gila River. This structure was originally constructed in 1927 and is on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It is the only steel truss bridge in the BMS 2 MCDOT Bridge Management System County. Due to the value and importance in retaining and restoring this historical structure, the MCDOT Bridge Engineer initiated an in-depth inspection of the Old US 80 Bridge at the Gila River in 2005. The in-depth inspection report was completed in June 2007 and restoration items have been identified. Construction and rehabilitation plans were finalized in 2010 and work is anticipated to start in the Fall of 2011. Structures Eligible for Federal Rehabilitation Funds (SR between 50 and 80) The Federal Highway Administration guidelines stipulate that when an in-service structure’s bridge’s sufficiency rating falls between a score of 50 and 80, the bridge structure becomes eligible for federal rehabilitation funds. Currently, there are twentyfive structures in MCDOT’s inventory that have sufficiency ratings between 50 and 80. Of these twenty-five, eighteen are in-services structures that would qualify for federal aid for rehabilitation. After each inspection cycle the Bridge Engineer or his designee pays specific attention to all structures that had a significant change (ten points or more) in the sufficiency rating in order to determine what caused the change. Remedial action is taken as necessary. Table 1 lists the in-service structures in MCDOT’s inventory that have sufficiency ratings between 50 and 80. Table 1A lists the in-service structures in MCDOT’s inventory that have a sufficiency rating lower than 50. The tables also show the deficiency ratings. POTENTIAL FEDERAL FUND PROJECTS VS. OVERALL MCDOT INVENTORY In June 2010, the percentage of in-service structures in MCDOT’s inventory that were eligible for federal funds was 6%. In July 2011, the percentage of these structures in our inventory was 4%. The vast majority of structures in Maricopa County are still in excellent condition. NOTABLE 2010-2011 BRIDGE EVENTS The Federal Highway Administration and all fifty states have established a goal that Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) be the standard design code applied in all new bridge designs beginning in 2007. LRFD takes variability in the behavior of structural elements into account and relies extensively on the use of statistical methods to calculate design loads. MCDOT is in compliance with this goal and began using the LRFD code in new bridge designs in 2006. MCDOT BMS 3 Bridge Management System Table 1. Structures with Sufficiency Ratings between 80 and 50 Structure No Structure Name Feature Carried by Structure Deficiency Sufficiency Rating 10516 Olive Ave RCB Olive Ave 9825 Cave Creek Bridge Carefree Hwy WB 79.92 11009 Olive Ave RCB Olive Ave & BNSFRR 79.01 9289 RID Canal RCB 091st Ave 76.93 8554 Salt River Bridge SB Alma School Rd 76.74 8553 Salt River Bridge NB Alma School Rd 76.74 9859 Agua Fria River Bridge Camelback Rd 76.69 9384 Tempe Canal Bridge WB Broadway Rd WB 990158 Agua Fria Drain RCB Camelback Rd 75.69 9145 Agua Fria River Bridge Indian School Rd 75.51 9126 Drainage Ditch RCB Bell Rd 74.94 9375 Tempe Canal Bridge EB Broadway Rd EB 990164 80 Functional Functional 76.49 74.62 Drainage Ditch RCB Cotton Lane 74.48 7671 Wash RCB Sun Valley Pkwy-44 73.67 10084 Cline Creek RC Arch Circle Mtn Rd 73.57 7780 Salt River Bridge Gilbert Rd 73.22 10405 Anthem Way RCB Anthem Way 72.32 990143 Wash RCB Sun Valley Pkwy-29 70.67 990169 Drainage Ditch RCB El Mirage Rd 70.17 990172 Beardsley Canal Bridge Indian School Rd 68.8 8570 Drainage Ditch RCB RH Johnson Blvd 66.41 990121 RWCD Canal RCB Queen Creek Rd 64.89 990181 Arlington V Wash Bridge Old US 80 Structural 64.62 Table 1A. Structures with Sufficiency Ratings Lower than 50 Structure No 8021 BMS 4 Structure Name Gila River Bridge Feature Carried by Structure Deficiency Sufficiency Rating Old US 80 Functional 46.5 MCDOT Bridge Management System The Gillespie Dam Bridge continues to be the only bridge currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Bridge rehabilitation for this structure is programmed in the TIP in FY 2012-2016. Federal Aid will be used to finance the rehabilitation cost. SYNOPSIS OF MCDOT’S BRIDGE PROJECTS Bridge Projects in the MCDOT FY 2012-2016 TIP Currently, MCDOT has seven bridge and structure projects in the TIP. These projects include bridge rehabilitation, replacement, and new bridge designs. Refer to Table 2 for a list of the projects. Table 2. Bridge Projects in the MCDOT FY 2012 – 2016 TIP STATUS FEATURE FACILITY/ FACILITIES LOCATION IMPROVEMENT FY 2012 Agua Fria Riv- Deer Valley Rd to 2016 er Bridge El Mirage Rd to Lake Pleasant Rd Prepare Final Design FY 2012 Gila River to 2016 Old US 80 Bridge Gillespie Bridge Bridge Rehabilitation Final Plans FY 2012 Salt River Gilbert Road Bridge At Salt River Bridge Replacement Final Design FY 2011 BID Canal to 2012 Miller Road Bridge At BID Canal Prepare Final Design FY 2012 Salt River to 2016 Dobson Road and McKellips Road Bridges at Salt River Design Concept Report for two new bridges FY 2012 Queen Creek to 2016 Wash Meridian Road Bridge At Queen Creek Wash Design Concept Report in Progress FY 2012 MCDOT Beardsley Canal Indian School Road At Beardsley Canal Box Culvert Construction Plans being finalized BMS 5 Bridge Management System Status of Bridge/Structure Projects Completed in FY 2010 (July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011) Five bridge/structure projects (new structures, reports, or scour protection) were completed in FY 2011, as listed below in Table 3. Table 3. Structure Projects Completed in FY 2011 New RCBs Two new RCBs constructed on El Mirage Rd north of Bell Rd RCB Extended El Mirage Rd north of Bell Rd New RCB Deer Valley Access Rd west of El Mirage Rd New RCB El Mirage Rd south of Loop 303 Report 67th Avenue Box Culvert at the Salt River Scoping Study Status of Bridge & Structure Projects Currently Under Construction Presently, MCDOT has two new box culverts under construction and one existing box culvert is being widened and extended. In addition, there are several private development structures currently under construction. Table 4 lists the bridge projects currently under construction by MCDOT. Table 4. Bridge Projects Under Construction by MCDOT PROJECT LOCATION Work Description Ellsworth Rd Improvements Two New Box Culverts and One Culvert Widening and Extension Status of Bridge & Structure Projects Currently Being Designed There are currently six bridge projects in various stages of design by MCDOT, as well as numerous structure projects within private developments in the design phase. Table 5 lists the bridge projects currently under design or in the Design Concept Report (DCR) process. BMS 6 MCDOT Bridge Management System Table 5. Projects Currently in the Design Phase by MCDOT NAME FACILITY STATUS Indian School Road Box Culvert Beardsley Canal Construction Plans being finalized. Deer Valley Road Bridge Agua Fria River Construction Plans in progress. Dobson Road Bridge and McKellips Road Bridge Salt River DCR in progress. Ellsworth Road Box Culverts Sonoqui Wash East Branch and Sonoqui Wash Construction completion in Spring 2011. Miller Road Bridge Rehabilitation BID Canal Scoping Study completed. Construction Plans in progress. Riggs Road Bridge Sonoqui Wash Construction Plans completed. Construction to begin Fall 2011. Each year MCDOT must report to the Board of Supervisors concerning the physical condition of its bridges and structures as compared to the adopted criteria as required by the Governments Accounting Standards Board Statement 34. The latest ratings of the County’s bridges and structures along with the bridge sufficiency ratings (BSR) are shown below. Table 6. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY FOR THE 2010–2011 BRIDGE INSPECTION Criteria Target Value Actual Value % of Bridges and Structures with BSR > 70 min. 90% 99.8% % of Bridges & Structures with BSR < 50 max. 3% 0.24% MCDOT BMS 7 Bridge Management System Summary of Structures for the 2010 - 2011 Inspection Season Total number of structures in inventory: 420 Number of Federal Structures: Number of Non-Federal Structures: Number of bridges: Number of culverts: 278 142 86 334 Total number of new structures added to database this year: 7 Total number of federal structures added to database this year: 5 Structure Number 11070 Structure Number 11071 Structure Number 11105 Structure Number 11106 Structure Number 11111 Gavilan Peak Parkway RCB (just N. of Jordan Lane) Deer Valley Road RCB (just N. of Existing Deer Valley Dr) El Mirage Rd RCB (1.7 miles N of Bell Rd) El Mirage Rd RCB (3.4 miles N of Bell Rd) Centennial Rd Bridge (5.7 miles W of Harquahala Valley Rd) Total number of non-federal structures added to database this year: 2 Structure Number 990279 El Mirage Rd RCB (600’ S. of Loop 303) Structure Number 990280 116th St RCB at Consolidated Canal Total number of structure replacements made this year: 0 Total number of structures removed/annexed from database this year: 7 Structure Number 7641 Bell Road Bridge at Beardsley canal - Annexed by Surprise Structure Number 8858 Greenway Rd Bridge at Beardsley canal - Annexed by Surprise Structure Number 10087 Germann Rd Bridge at Eastern canal - Annexed by Gilbert Structure Number 8980 Meadowbrook Ave Bridge at Lateral 23 - Annexed by Phoenix Structure Number 7553 Deer Valley Rd Bridge at wash - Annexed by Surprise Structure Number 990173 Indian School Rd RCB at Lateral 23 - (not maintained by MCDOT) Structure Number 990199 Thomas Rd RCB at Lateral 23 - (not maintained by MCDOT) BMS 8 MCDOT Bridge Management System Figure 1: 2010-2011 Bridge & Structure Sufficiency Ratings 2010 Bridge & Structure Sufficiency Ratings 200 185 Number of Bridges & Structures 180 Range 50-80 Elligible For Federal Bridge Rehabilitation Funds 160 130 140 120 100 80 60 38 Range < 50 Eligible For Federal Bridge Replacement Funds 38 40 11 20 9 2 1 2 0 100-95 95-90 85-90 80-85 75-80 70-75 65-70 51-65 <50 Sufficiency Ratings MCDOT BMS 9 Bridge Management System Table 7. Structure No 10051 Alphabetical Listing of All Structures in the MCDOT Bridge Inventory Database. Roadway Location Feature Intersected 007th St 450' N/ Carefree Hwy Desert Lk Wash S Branch Sufficiency Rating 97.9 10050 007th St 0.2 mi N/ 7th St/Carefree Desert Lake Wash 97.9 10553 012th St N of Circle Mtn Rd Wash 99.97 8583 059th Ave 0.5 mi S/ Buckeye Rd RID Canal 97.15 9289 091st Ave at McDowell Rd RID Canal 76.93 10444 096th St 1/8 mi N/ Broadway Road Wash 96.7 9672 099th Ave 0.5 mi N/ McDowell Rd RID Canal 97.84 990153 099th Ave at Concho Circle Drainage Ditch 95.74 990151 099th Ave 200' N/ Grand Drainage Ditch 95.65 9666 099th Ave 250' N Grand Ave Drainage Ditch 95.65 990154 103th Ave NB 325' N/ Olive Drainage Ditch 96.65 9677 990234 105th Ave 105th Pl at Del Webb Blvd Median Quarterline Rd to Contess Drainage Ditch Drain Ditch 96.94 96.94 9678 106th Ave at Del Webb Blvd Median Drainage Ditch 96.94 990257 107th Ave 0.5 mi. N of Williams Rd Wash 99.06 9679 990280 107th Ave 116th Street at Del Webb Blvd Median 600’ S/ Riggs Rd Drainage Ditch Consolidated Wash 96.64 93.59 10783 117th Ave 620' S/ Agua Fria Blvd Wash 92.43 990265 119th Ave 0.5 mi s/ Williams Drive Drainage Ditch 90.5 10368 129th Ave N/ Camelback Rd Drainage Channel 96.91 7561 138th Ave 200' W/ Camino del Sol Drainage Ditch 96.95 990202 141st Ave 200' W/ Yosemite Dr Drainage Ditch 96.95 10556 144th St-Rio Verde at Windstone Trail Wash 81.82 10554 144th St-Rio Verde 350' S of Peakview Rd Wash 81.82 10552 144th St-Rio Verde 120' S of Dixileta Dr Wash 81.82 10555 144th St-Rio Verde 1250' S of Dixileta Dr Wash 81.82 990203 145th Dr 200' W/ Yosemite Dr Drainage Ditch 96.95 990204 147th Dr 200' N/ Antelope Drainage Ditch 96.95 10849 150th St 765' N of Rio Verde Drive Wash 86.83 10850 150th St 1610' N of Rio Verde Dr 86.83 8571 163rd Ave 5 mi N/ US 60_Grand Ave Wash HaydenRhodes CAP Aqueduct 11109 203rd Place S/ Riggs Rd Sonoqui Wash Under const 89.21 7582 309th Ave S of Lower River Rd Buckeye Canal 94.87 8576 355th Ave 7 mi N/ Indian School Rd CAP Canal 95.93 7548 571st Ave_AguaCal Rd 9.75 mi N/ I-8 via ACRd Gila River 98.92 990156 571st Ave_AguaCal Rd 8.5 mi N/ I-8 via AguaCal Wash 95.92 10126 Airport Rd 1 mi N/ MC85 Buckeye Canal 98.67 BMS 10 MCDOT Bridge Management System Structure No Roadway Location Feature Intersected Sufficiency Rating 8001 Airport Rd 0.5 mi N/ Lower Buckeye RID Canal 94.93 7549 Aleppo Dr 200' N/136th Dr_W/SpnGrdn Drainage Ditch 96.77 990117 Alma School Rd 0.5 mi S/ Riggs Rd golf cart underpass 99.6 8554 Alma School Rd 0.25 mi N/ McLellan Salt River(S.Channel) 76.74 8553 Alma School Rd 300' S/ McKellips Salt River(N.Channel) 76.74 990187 Amigo Dr (SCW) at Stardust Blvd Median Drainage Ditch 95.06 10551 Anthem Way 0.89 mi E/ Daisy Mtn Dr Wash 99.55 990258 Anthem Way 0.53 mi E/ Daisy Mtn Dr Wash 96.55 990259 Anthem Way 0.4 mi E/ Daisy Mtn Dr Wash 96.55 990250 Anthem Way 370' NW of LibertyBellWay Wash 96.38 990232 Anthem Way .25 mi W/ Daisy Mtn Dr Wash 96.38 990229 Anthem Way 200' W of Anthem Club Dr Wash 95.69 990227 Anthem Way 530' E/ Navigation Way Wash 95.69 990231 Anthem Way 220' E/ Freedom Way Wash 95.69 990228 Anthem Way 475' E/ Venture Court Wash 95.41 990230 Anthem Way 350' W/ Anthem Club Dr Ped X 80.4 10405 Anthem Way East of I-17 Wash 72.32 990184 Aurora Dr at Stardust Blvd Median Drainage Ditch 97.84 10163 Avondale Blvd 0.75 mi S/ Southern Ave Gila River 99.55 990185 Ballad Dr at Stardust Blvd Median Drainage Ditch 97.84 8000 Baseline Rd 200' NW MC-85 Buckeye Canal 93.47 8555 Beardsley Rd 100' E/ 125th Ave Drainage Ditch 97.44 990272 Belfair Way just N of Meridian Drive Wash 89.38 9126 Bell Rd at 99th Ave Drainage Ditch 74.94 9686 Bell Rec Center Dr at 99th Ave Median Drainage Ditch 96.51 990157 Beloat Rd E/ Rainbow Rd Buckeye Canal S. Branch 81.16 10512 Bethany Home Rd 200' E of 125th Ave Wash 96.82 990243 Bethany Home Rd 350' E of 137th Ave wash 85.55 990244 Bethany Home Rd 418' W of 135th Ave Wash 85.55 9687 Boswell Blvd at 99th Avenue Median Drainage Ditch 99.81 9676 Boswell Blvd at Del Webb Blvd Median Drainage Ditch 96.68 8975 Broadway Rd 400' W/ FanninMcFar CAP Drainage Ditch 97.41 990101 Broadway Rd at Meridian Rd. Drainage Ditch 96.14 990102 Broadway Rd 1000' E/ Crismon Rd Drainage Ditch 96.14 9375 Broadway Rd EB 0.2 mi E/ Price Rd Tempe Canal 74.62 9384 Broadway Rd WB 0.2 mi E/ Price Rd Tempe Canal 76.49 MCDOT BMS 11 Bridge Management System Structure No 8855 Roadway Location Feature Intersected Bruner Rd 0.75 mi N/ Old US-80 Buckeye Canal Sufficiency Rating 98.99 9688 Burns Dr at 99th Avenue Median Drainage Ditch 99.66 9824 Bush Hwy 1.7 mi N/ Thomas FanninMcFar CAP Aqueduct 96.24 990113 Bush Hwy 3.25 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 95.94 7779 Bush Hwy 3.5 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 95.94 9849 Bush Hwy at Blue Point-Salt River Salt River 92.35 9763 Bush Hwy 3.2 mi N/ McDowell Rd Spook Hill Fldwy 85.55 9859 Camelback Rd 1.0 mi E/ El Mirage Rd Agua Fria River 76.69 990158 Camelback Rd 0.5 mi E/ El Mirage Rd Drainage Ditch 75.69 9689 Cameo Dr at 99th Avenue Median Drainage Ditch 85.85 9893 Carefree Hwy 200' W/ 24th St Wash 98.54 10158 Carefree Hwy W/ 16th Street Wash 98.54 9892 Carefree Hwy 200' W/ 12th St Wash 98.54 9891 Carefree Hwy at 10th St Wash 98.54 10159 Carefree Hwy 0.5 mi W/ 24th Street Wash 95.63 10161 Carefree Hwy 0.5 mi E/ 24th Street Apache Wash 95.63 10160 Carefree Hwy 0.25 mi E/ 24th Street Wash 95.63 10162 Carefree Hwy EB 1 mi W/ Cave Creek Rd Cave Creek Wash 94.64 9825 Carefree Hwy WB 1 mi W/ Cave Creek Rd Cave Creek Wash 79.92 990269 Carlota Lane 313' W of 119th Avenue Drainage Ditch 99.89 990256 Castano Dr just N. of Bethany Home R Wash 96.82 7550 Cavalcade Dr 200' E/ 141th Ave Drainage Ditch 96.77 7898 Cave Creek PKWY 1.5 mi N/32nd St/Cloud Rd Wash 98.86 11111 Centennial Rd 5.7 mi W/ Harquahala Val Rd CAP Aux Canal 99.00 10240 Chambers St 0.6 mi S/ Broadway Rd Buckeye Feeder Ditch 98.99 990116 Chandler Hts Rd 0.5 mi E/ SR-87 (AZ Ave) Consolidated Canal 95.48 990218 Cicero St E/ 105 St & N/ Univ Dr Drain Ditch 96.95 10084 Circle Mtn Rd 3437' E/ New River Rd Wash 73.57 10229 Citrus Rd just N/ Northern Ave Wash 80.78 10520 Clarendon Ave just W/ 195th Ave Drain Ditch 92.33 990261 Clearview Trail just N/ Meridian Dr Wash 81.72 990235 Cloud Rd just E/ Via Puzzola Wash 87.45 10443 Cloud Rd 500' W of 32nd Drive Wash 86.7 990236 Cloud Rd 1000' W/ 32nd Dr Wash 84.82 990162 Conquistador Dr 200' E/ Regal Drainage Ditch 96.87 990163 Conquistador Dr 200' S/ Beechwood Drainage Ditch 86.89 990107 Coralbell Ave E/ Ellsworth & S/Broadway Drainage Ditch (Wash) 96.85 10629 Cotton Lane 1mi. S/ MC-85 Gila River 99.93 10630 Cotton Lane 0.25 mi S/ MC-85 Buckeye Canal 98.93 990164 Cotton Lane N/ Camelback Rd Drainage Ditch 74.48 10062 Cottonwood Rd N Entrance Lk Plsnt Pk Cottonwood Creek 85.98 BMS 12 MCDOT Bridge Management System Structure No 9736 Courthouse Rd 3 mi W/ Salome Rd Saddleback Diversn Chn Sufficiency Rating 98.48 8856 Crismon Rd 500' N/ Apache Rd CAP Canal 94.35 8761 Crismon Rd 0.25 mi N/ Brown Rd Signal Butte Fldwy 84.17 10628 Daisy Mtn Dr 520' W/GavilanPk Pkwy Wash 95.26 10627 Daisy Mtn Dr 0.4mi W/GavilanPkPkwy Wash 95.26 10519 Daisy Mtn Dr 0.6 mi S of Anthem Way Wash 91.44 10557 Daisy Mtn Dr 92' E of Dedication Trail Wash 83.54 10559 Daisy Mtn Dr 0.36 mi NE/ Dedication Tr Wash 83.54 10558 Daisy Mtn Dr 750' E/ Dedication Trail Wash 83.54 990247 Daisy Mtn Dr RCB 0.52 mi S of Anthem Way Wash 91.45 990266 Daley Lane just e/ 123rd Avenue Drainage Channel 96.89 7551 Dean Rd 600' N/ Lower Buckeye Rd RID Canal 98.66 8638 Dean Rd 0.75 mi N/ MC-85 Buckeye Canal 98.52 990167 Deer Valley Dr W/ Acapulco Drive Golf Cart Path 96.51 990165 Deer Valley Dr W/ Dustrytrail Blvd (SCW) Golf Cart Path 96.32 990166 Deer Valley Dr E/ Veterans Golf Cart Path 85.44 10044 Deer Valley Dr W/ 135th Ave Golf Cart Path (SCW) 85.22 11071 Deer Valley Dri Just N/ existing Deer Val Dr Deer Valley Channel 81.61 990168 Desert Glen Dr 100' N/ 132nd Ave Drainage Ditch 82.85 10787 Dysart Rd 0.25 mi. S/ Jomax Rd Beardsley Canal 99.94 7883 Dysart Rd 0.25 mi N/ Camelback Rd Colter Channel 98.36 990224 Dysart Rd N/ Camelback Rd Drain Chnl 95.36 9412 Dysart Rd 0.5 mi S/ Indian School RID Canal 92.46 8560 Eagle Eye Rd 2 mi S/ Salome Hwy CAP Canal 97.99 10786 El Granada Blvd 0.4 mi. N/ HappyValley Rd Beardley Canal 99.96 10785 El Granada Blvd 0.42 mi. N/HappyValley Rd Drainage Channel 99.96 10784 El Granada Blvd 0.18 mi. S/ Jomax Rd Drainage Channel 96.96 9949 El Mirage Rd 0.5 mi N/ Glendale Ave Dysart Drain 96.98 11105 11106 8561 El Mirage Rd El Mirage Rd El Mirage Rd 1.7 mi N/ Bell Rd 3.4 mi N/ Bell Rd N/ Bell Rd McMicken Dam Outlet Wash McMicken Dam Outlet Wash Drainage Ditch 96.1 96.1 83.95 990169 El Mirage Rd 0.25 mi S/ Beardsley Drainage Ditch 70.17 9586 Elliot Rd at Sossaman Sossaman Ditch 95.26 7899 Ellsworth Rd 400' N/ Broadway Wash 99.03 9842 Ellsworth Rd 200' S/ Apache Trail Drainage Ditch 99.03 9895 Ellsworth Rd 0.25 mi N/ University Rd CAP Canal 98.74 9138 Ellsworth Rd Empire Blvd_PinalCo Line Sonoqui Wash 90.76 11107 Ellsworth Rd At Riggs Rd Sonoqui Wash Each Br` Under constr 10366 Forest Rd 1.3 mi N/ McDowell Mtn Rd Large Wash 95.64 10367 Forest Rd 1.4 mi N/ McDowell Mtn Rd Small Wash 93.75 990223 Forest Rd 1.3 mi N/McDowell Mtn Rd golf cart crossing 84.29 10104 Fort McDowell Rd just N/ Yavapai Rd Wash 99.5 MCDOT Roadway Location Feature Intersected BMS 13 Bridge Management System Structure No 8019 Roadway Location Feature Intersected Ft McDowell Rd 2.25 mi N/ SR 87 Wash Sufficiency Rating 86.84 11005 Gavilan Peak Pkwy 0.5 mi N of Pioneer Rd Wash 98.8 10855 Gavilan Peak Pkwy 840' N of Daisy Mtn Drive Wash 96.85 10384 Gavilan Peak Pkwy 300 ' N. King Drive Wash 96.04 990233 Gavilan Peak Pkwy 1600' E/ Navigation Way Wash 84.29 10582 Gavilan Peak Pkwy just S of DaisyMtnDr Deadman Wash 82.83 10397 Gavilan Peak Pkwy W/ Navigation Way Wash 81.58 11107 Gavilan Peak Pkwy Just N/ Jordan Lane Was 98.6 7554 Gemstone Dr 200' W/ 136th Dr_SCW Drainage Ditch 89.29 10276 Germann Rd .25 mi E/ Sossaman Rd Drainage channel 83.89 7780 Gilbert Rd 0.5 mi N/ Thomas Rd Salt River 73.22 990170 Granite Valley Dr 200' N/ Antelope Dr (SCW) Drainage Ditch 96.47 8562 Greenway Rd at 99th Ave Drainage Ditch 88.47 10396 Happy Valley Pkwy 1.5 mi W/LkPleasant Rd Agua Fria River 82.0 10457 Happy Valley Pkwy 2.06 mi w/ LakePleasantRd Wash 87.77 10458 Happy Valley Pkwy 1.65 mi W/LakePleasantRd Wash 87.77 11006 Happy Valley Rd 0.7 mi E of Dysart Rd Trilby Wash 96.62 990255 Hastings Way 277' NW of Blaze Court Wash 96.77 990254 Hastings Way 250' SW of Blaze Court Wash 96.77 990249 Hastings Way 250' SE of Hickcock Trail Wash 96.77 10518 Hemingway Lane just E of DedicationTrail Wash 81.73 10581 High Noon Way just N of Kuralt Drive Wash 96.89 9503 Higley Rd 0.5 mi S/ Germann RWCD Canal 91.62 9668 Hutton Dr at 99th Ave Median_SCW Drainage Ditch 98.63 990213 I-17 Frontage Rd S/ Meander Rd Wash 99.59 8640 I-17 Frontage Rd 0.7 mi S/ New River Wash 96.59 10085 I-17 Frontage Rd 1000' S/ New River Rd New River 88.28 9145 Indian School Rd 0.5 mi E/ El Mirage Agua Fria River 75.51 990172 Indian School Rd at 191st Ave Beardsley Canal 68.8 990225 Indian Springs Rd W/ El Mirage Rd Wash 98.68 990216 Indian Springs Rd at 116th Ave at PIR Pedestrian Xing 92.26 990260 Iron Horse Way just N/ Meridian Dr Wash 89.37 9831 Jackrabbit Trail 1000' N/ Southern Ave Buckeye Canal 98.1 990175 Jackrabbit Trail 0.25 mi S/ SR-85 Buckeye Canal S. Branch 97.31 10088 Jackrabbit Trail 0.25 mi N/ Yuma RID Canal 95.23 8680 Johnson Rd 0.25 mi N/ Broadway RID Canal 98.83 10274 Jomax Rd .25 mi W/ Grand Ave Wash 99.91 BMS 14 MCDOT Bridge Management System Structure No Roadway Feature Intersected Sufficiency Rating 10511 King Dr 990248 Laurel Valley Way 180' W of Opportunity Way just N of Keller Drive Wash 89.37 Wash 96.88 990177 Lk Pleasant Ent Rd 0.2 mi E/ Castle HSpr Rd Wash 93.82 10052 Lone Mountain Rd 0.75 mi E/ 227th Ave Wash 98.96 10053 Lone Mountain Rd 0.65 mi E/ 227th Ave Wash 98.96 7556 Lower Buckeye Rd 1 mi W/ El Mirage Rd AFR Diversion Channel 83.13 11110 Marsh Rd S of Riggs Rd Sonoqui Wash Under constr 7901 MC 85 Hwy 0.5 mi W/ Perryville Buckeye Canal 96.45 990127 MC-85 0.5 mi W/ Sarival Drainage Ditch 93 10230 MC-85 0.3 mi E/ Estrella Pkwy Bullard Wash 91.92 990220 MC-85 0.3 mi W/Estrella Pkwy Dirt Irr Ditch 87.82 990219 MC-85 335' W/ Estrella Pkwy Dirt Irr Ditch 87.82 990215 MC-85 Just E/ Perryville Rd Buckeye Canal S Branch 80.9 990214 MC-85 0.25 mi E/ Perryville Rd Buckeye Canal S Branch 80.9 990128 MC-85 0.25 mi E/ Cotton Lane Drainage Ditch 78.24 7819 MC-85 Hwy Agua Fria River 93.97 7583 McDowell Rd Wash 99.66 990262 McDowell Rd Drainage Ditch 95.75 10105 McKellips Rd 0.5 mi W/ El Mirage W/ Jackrabbit Tr_195th Av 0.5 mi E of Hawes Rd_Mesa 0.5 mi W/ SR 101 Granite Reef Wash 98.37 10242 Meadowbrook Ave W/ Jackrabbit Tr (195Ave) Wash 92.93 8797 Meeker Blvd 0.5 mi S/ RH Johnson Rd Drainage Ditch 96.19 990179 Meeker Blvd 0.75 mi S/ RH Johnson Golf Cart Underpass 96.19 10560 Memorial Dr 480' S/ Daisy Mtn Dr Wash 99.52 Location 10561 Memorial Dr 0.3 mi S/ Daisy Mtn Dr Wash 99.52 990275 Memorial Dr Wash 96.78 10385 Memorial Dr 270' W of Daisy Mtn Drive 600' E of Gavilan Pk Pkwy 170' E of Republic Way Wash 81.52 Split Flow Wash 81.52 Split Flow Wash 81.52 Wash 81.52 990226 Memorial Dr 10388 Memorial Dr 10386 Memorial Dr 10442 Meridian Rd 350' E of Republic Way 1700' E of Gavilan Pk Pkw 0.45 mi N/ Warner Rd Wash 99.85 990217 Meridian Rd 1/8 mi N/ University Drainage Ditch 96.55 10847 Meridian Rd 0.5 mi S of Warner Road Power Line Fldwy Chnl 96.13 10846 Meridian Rd 0.5 mi S of Warner Rd Drainage Channel 96.13 7557 Meridian Rd 0.5 mi N/ Brown Rd Bulldog Floodway 84.98 10108 Meridian Rd 0.25 mi N/ McKellips Rd Wash 82.93 9593 Miller Rd 0.25 mi N/ SR-85 Buckeye Canal 85.94 10778 Mingus Rd just E/ 25th Avenue White Spar Wash 99.96 10241 Minnezona Ave Wash 96.96 10510 Missouri Ave W/ Jackrabbit Trl N/ Marshall Ave_135thAve Wash 84.37 MCDOT BMS 15 Bridge Management System Structure No 990245 Roadway Location Feature Intersected Missouri Ave S/ Marshall Ave near 135 Wash Sufficiency Rating 84.37 990246 Missouri Ave just W of Dysart Wash 84.28 7642 New River Rd at 29th Ave Wash 99.76 7643 New River Rd 0.25 mi E/ 27th Ave Wash 99.76 10083 New River Rd 350' N/ Circle Mtn Rd Cline Creek Wash 99.59 10021 New River Rd 0.25 mi W/ 7th Ave Skunk Creek 98.59 10106 New River Rd 0.25 mi E/ I 17 New River 97.66 8011 New River Rd 0.25 mi E/ I 17 Wash 97.43 10086 New River Rd 100' E/ I 17 Frontage Wash 86.31 10781 Northern Ave 1 mi W/ Perryville Rd FRS#3 Dvrsn Chnl 93.98 10780 Northern Ave 1 mi. W/ Perryville Rd Beardsley Wash 94.94 8565 Old Lk Plsnt Acc Rd 1 mi N/ SR-74 Wash 99.93 Wash 94.52 Wash 94.52 Wash 86.56 10507 Old SR 87 10521 Old SR 87 990114 Old Stage Rd 0.8 mi NW of New SR87Junc 1.0 mi NW of New SR87Junc 0.6 mi N/ New River Rd 990208 Old US 80 1.25 mi S/ Cactus Rose Arlington Valley Wash 99.76 11007 Old US 80 3.5 mi S of Patterson Rd Layton Wash 99.69 9999 Old US 80 500' E/ Salome Hwy Hassayampa River 99.62 990155 Old US 80 0.5 mi W/ Palo Verde Rd Buckeye Lateral 98.87 9834 Old US 80 1 mi W/ Jct SR-85 Buckeye Drain 98.62 990206 Old US 80 7/8 mi S/ Cactus Rose Arlington Valley Wash 96.76 990205 Old US 80 0.75 mi S/ Cactus Rose Arlington Valley Wash 96.76 990180 Old US 80 50' S/ Cactus Rose Arlington Valley Wash 96.76 990209 Old US 80 1.5 mi S/ Cactus Rose Arlington Valley Wash 94.76 8023 Old US 80 1 mi S/ Arlington Sch Rd Arlington Valley Wash 95.73 8025 Old US 80 600' N/ 331st Ave Arlington Valley Wash 95.35 10061 Old US 80 0.3 mi S/ 331th Ave Arlington Valley Wash 89.26 990207 Old US 80 1 mi S/ Cactus Rose Arlington Valley Wash 85.73 990181 Old US 80 0.25 mi S/ Cactus Rose Arlington Valley Wash 64.62 8021 Old US 80 S/ Gillespie Dam Gila River 46.5 990276 Olive Ave 800' E of Perryville Rd Wash 96.95 8981 Olive Ave 0.8 mi E/ El Mirage Rd Agua Fria River 91.04 10779 Olive Ave 0.49 mi. W/ Perryville Rd Waterfall Wash 83.41 9588 Olive Ave E/ of 99th Ave New River 80.06 10516 .5 mi W/ Perryville Rd Wash W/ Beardsley Canal 80 just W of Reems Road Reems Road Channel 79.01 10517 Olive Ave Olive Ave & BNSFRR Osborn Rd just W of 195th Avenue Drain Ditch 84.72 990251 Owens Dr E of Capra Way Wash 89.38 7782 Palo Verde Rd 0.75 mi N/ Old US80 Hwy Buckeye Canal 98.85 11009 BMS 16 MCDOT Bridge Management System Structure No 9426 Roadway Location Feature Intersected Palo Verde Rd 0.25 mi N/ Broadway N of Honor Court (Anthem) RID Canal Sufficiency Rating 98.02 Wash 96.89 10580 Patagonia Way 8569 Patton Rd 1 mi W/ Grand Ave CAP Canal 93.78 8044 Perryville Rd 0.5 mi N/ Southern Buckeye Canal 98.86 8043 Perryville Rd 1/3 mi S/ Van Buren RID Canal 98.7 990264 Pinnacle Peak Rd 70' w/ 121st Avenue Drainage Ditch 85.74 990271 Plymouth Dr Drainage Channel 81.73 10390 Power Rd Queen Creek 94.57 9927 Power Rd just E of GavilanPkPkwy 0.2 mi S/ Queen Creek Rd S/ Guadalupe Rd RWCD Canal (N. Crossing) 93.07 9928 Power Rd S/ Guadalupe Rd East Maricopa Fldwy 81.18 990121 Queen Creek Rd RWCD Canal (Gilbert) 64.89 10776 Rainbow Rd Buckeye Canal 98.79 8681 Rainbow Rd 0.3 mi W/ Higley 0.5 mi S/ Southern Avenue 1 mi N/ Broadway RID Canal 98.66 990278 Ray Rd 900' E of Mountain Rd Wash 96.89 990277 Ray Rd 1200' E of Mountain Rd Wash 96.89 11008 Reems Rd 0.5 mi N of Northern Ave Reems Road Channel 82.79 990182 RH Johnson Blvd 100' E/ 132nd Ave Drainage Ditch 81.47 8570 RH Johnson Blvd N/ Bell Rd Drainage Ditch 66.41 11108 Riggs Rd E/ Ellsworth Sonoqui Wash Under constr 990270 Riggs Rd 160' W of Robson Blvd Golfcart Underpass 92.5 8038 Rittenhouse Rd 0.25 mi N/ Cloud Queen Creek Wash 89.72 10239 Roeser Rd 0.5 mi S/ Broadway Rd Buckeye Feeder Ditch 98.98 9669 Royal Oak Rd at 99th Avenue Median Drainage Ditch 96.81 9670 Royal Ridge Rd Drainage Ditch 85.78 9832 Salome Rd CAP Canal 93.93 8982 Signal Butte Rd at 99th Avenue Median 8 mi W/ Harquahala Val Rd N/ Broadway Rd Drainage Ditch 98.44 990112 Signal Butte Rd 0.5 mi N/ Brown Rd Signal Butte Floodway 97.85 990186 Skylark Dr at Stardust Blvd Median Drainage Ditch 97.81 990253 Sossaman Rd 0.3 mi N of McDowell Rd Drain Ditch 89.38 990252 Sossaman Rd 980' N of McDowell Rd Wash 89.38 7716 Southern Ave .6mi E of Signal Butte Rd CAP Drainage Channel 97.07 8884 Southern Ave .6mi E/ Signal Butte Rd CAP Canal (Mesa) 97.07 990108 Southern Ave E/ Ellsworth (Mesa) Drainage Ditch 95.88 990211 Southern Ave 0.5 mi E/ MC-85 (dirt rd) Buckeye Canal S Branch 93.78 990222 Southern Ave 0.5 mi E/ Crismon Rd Drainage Channel 92.28 8573 Spanish Garden Dr 200' E/ 132nd Ave Drainage Ditch 97.75 990183 Stardust Blvd 165' S/ Yosemite Rd Drainage Ditch 96.75 7644 Sun Valley Pkwy 300' W/ McMicken Dam McMicken Dam Channel 99.45 7645 Sun Valley Pkwy-01 0.7 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 MCDOT BMS 17 Bridge Management System Structure No Roadway Location Feature Intersected Sufficiency Rating 7646 Sun Valley Pkwy-02 0.8 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7647 Sun Valley Pkwy-03 1.3 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7648 Sun Valley Pkwy-04 1.5 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7649 Sun Valley Pkwy-05 1.9 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7650 Sun Valley Pkwy-06 2.0 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7651 Sun Valley Pkwy-07 2.5 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7652 Sun Valley Pkwy-08 2.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7653 Sun Valley Pkwy-09 2.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 990134 Sun Valley Pkwy-10 2.9 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7654 Sun Valley Pkwy-11 3.3 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7655 Sun Valley Pkwy-12 3.4 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7656 Sun Valley Pkwy-13 3.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 990135 Sun Valley Pkwy-14 3.7 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 990136 Sun Valley Pkwy-15 4.2 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7657 Sun Valley Pkwy-16 4.4 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7658 Sun Valley Pkwy-17 4.5 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7659 Sun Valley Pkwy-18 4.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 990137 Sun Valley Pkwy-19 4.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 990138 Sun Valley Pkwy-20 5.0 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7660 Sun Valley Pkwy-21 5.1 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7661 Sun Valley Pkwy-22 5.3 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 990139 Sun Valley Pkwy-23 5.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7662 Sun Valley Pkwy-24 6.1 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7663 Sun Valley Pkwy-25 6.1 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 990140 Sun Valley Pkwy-26 6.4 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 80.67 990141 Sun Valley Pkwy-27 6.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990142 Sun Valley Pkwy-28 6.7 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990143 Sun Valley Pkwy-29 6.8 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 70.67 990144 Sun Valley Pkwy-30 7.0 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990145 Sun Valley Pkwy-31 7.2 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990146 Sun Valley Pkwy-32 7.3 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7664 Sun Valley Pkwy-33 7.3 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7665 Sun Valley Pkwy-34 7.4 mi N/ McDowell Rd. Wash 84.67 7666 Sun Valley Pkwy-35 7.4 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 83.67 990147 Sun Valley Pkwy-36 7.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7667 Sun Valley Pkwy-37 8.0 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 83.67 7668 Sun Valley Pkwy-38 8.1 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 990148 Sun Valley Pkwy-39 8.5 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990149 Sun Valley Pkwy-40 8.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 BMS 18 MCDOT Bridge Management System Structure No Roadway Location Feature Intersected Sufficiency Rating 990150 Sun Valley Pkwy-41 8.9 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7669 Sun Valley Pkwy-42 9.2 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7670 Sun Valley Pkwy-43 9.2 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 84.67 7671 Sun Valley Pkwy-44 10.0 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 73.67 7672 Sun Valley Pkwy-45 10.2 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7673 Sun Valley Pkwy-46 10.2 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990189 Sun Valley Pkwy-47 10.5 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990190 Sun Valley Pkwy-48 10.8 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7674 Sun Valley Pkwy-49 11.1 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7675 Sun Valley Pkwy-50 11.2 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7676 Sun Valley Pkwy-51 11.8 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7677 Sun Valley Pkwy-52 11.8 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7678 Sun Valley Pkwy-53 11.9 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7679 Sun Valley Pkwy-54 11.9 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7680 Sun Valley Pkwy-55 11.9 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7681 Sun Valley Pkwy-56 11.9 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7682 Sun Valley Pkwy-57 12.0 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990191 Sun Valley Pkwy-58 13.1 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7683 Sun Valley Pkwy-59 13.9 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7684 Sun Valley Pkwy-60 14.1 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7685 Sun Valley Pkwy-61 14.3 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990192 Sun Valley Pkwy-63 17.7 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990193 Sun Valley Pkwy-64 18.1 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7687 Sun Valley Pkwy-65 18.3 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7688 Sun Valley Pkwy-66 18.4 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990194 Sun Valley Pkwy-67 18.5 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7689 Sun Valley Pkwy-68 18.9 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7690 Sun Valley Pkwy-69 18.9 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7691 Sun Valley Pkwy-70 19.1 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990195 Sun Valley Pkwy-71 19.1 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7692 Sun Valley Pkwy-72 19.3 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990196 Sun Valley Pkwy-73 19.5 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7693 Sun Valley Pkwy-74 19.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7694 Sun Valley Pkwy-75 19.7 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7695 Sun Valley Pkwy-76 19.7 mi N McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990197 Sun Valley Pkwy-77 19.8 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7696 Sun Valley Pkwy-78 20.4 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7697 Sun Valley Pkwy-79 21.4 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7698 Sun Valley Pkwy-80 21.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 MCDOT BMS 19 Bridge Management System Structure No Roadway Location Feature Intersected Sufficiency Rating 7699 Sun Valley Pkwy-81 22.1 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7700 Sun Valley Pkwy-82 22.5 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7701 Sun Valley Pkwy-83 22.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7702 Sun Valley Pkwy-84 22.9 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7703 Sun Valley Pkwy-85 23.4 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990198 Sun Valley Pkwy-86 23.6 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7704 Sun Valley Pkwy-87 24.1 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 7705 Sun Valley Pkwy-88 24.2 mi N/ McDowell Rd Wash 81.67 990110 Sunland Ave E/ Ellsworth Drainage Ditch 96.89 9683 Thunderbird Rd at 99th Ave Median Drainage Ditch 87.53 990200 Trail Ridge Dr 200' W/ Yosemite Dr Drainage Ditch 96.87 8629 Turner Rd 0.5 mi S/ Baseline Rd Buckeye Canal 99.89 8584 Tuthill Rd 0.5 mi S/ Beloat Rd Gila River 95.61 990152 Union Hills Dr at 99th Ave Drainage Ditch 95.03 8862 University Dr 0.5 mi E/ Ellsworth Rd CAP Canal 98.29 9374 University Dr 900' W/ Dobson Tempe Canal 93.34 7706 Van Buren St E/ SVP-Palo Verde Rd Drainage Ditch 99.88 8881 Van Buren St 0.5 mi W/ Citrus Rd RID Canal 98.4 8882 Van Buren St 1 mi W/ 339th Ave Dickey Wash 90.99 990273 Venture Dr 0.46 mi. SW of Anthem Way Wash 84.37 8983 Via Hermosa W/ Forest Rd (Rio Verde) Wash 99.7 990274 White Tanks Mnt Blvd 460' W of 183rd Ave Drainage Channel 96.56 10369 Whitman Drive 600' E/ Galvin Peak Pkwy Wash 99.85 10513 Wigwam Creek Blvd 200' SW of 124th Lane Drain Channel 96.51 10514 Wigwam Creek Blvd 550' NW of Orange Drive Drain Ditch 81.41 10515 Wigwam Creek Blvd just N of Camelback Rd Drain Ditch 81.41 8577 Wildwood Dr 200' W/ 125th Ave Drainage Ditch 97.89 10782 Williams Dr 0.3 mi. E/ El Mirage Rd McMicken Outfall Wash 92.17 990263 Williams Dr at 123rd Avenue Drainage Ditch 89.38 8578 Wilson (283rd) Ave 1 mi S/ Baseline Buckeye Canal 98.65 9919 Woods Rd E/ Old US-80 Gila Bend Canal 98.65 990267 Yearling Rd 0.2 mi. e/ Litchfield Rd Drainage Channel 85.62 BMS 20 MCDOT Map 1 Ð ? BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATINGS FY 2010 ¿ ? WICKENBURG wo Cave Cree 59th Ave 24th St 27th Ave Elliot Rd $ a " ! CHANDLER ñ A ( ! ! ( Germann Rd Chandler Heights Rd Riggs Rd ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( QUEEN CREEK Cloud Rd ( ! ! ( Queen Creek Empire Blvd se ou Rd j? A Ð River ! ( v I APACHE JUNCTION nh G ila ! ( ! ( Maricopa County Broadway Ave Southern Ave tte Ri ?!( Ð ! (! ( Power Rd v I Queen Creek Rd Chandler Heights Rd ! ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ! ! (! ( ! ( ! ( (! ( ! (! ( (! ! ( ( ! ( (! ! ( ! ! ( ! ! ! ( ! ( ( ( GILBERT ! ( Lakes Rivers, Washes & Canals ! ( Southern Ave Higley Rd Riggs Rd ! ( Ellsworth Rd GUADALUPE Guadalupe Rd Æ ? ! ( 012345 99th Ave ! ( a Rive r Gil 571st Ave $ a " ! GILA BEND 10 Miles I ì A Ð ? ! ( ! ( 90 - 100% Ñ ? Power Rd ! ( TEMPE Baseline Rd University Dr ! ( Broadway Rd h $ a " ! MESA a st Br a nc Southern Ave 24th St 7th St an al á A ! ( ! ( ! ( ted Ca nal E Gilbert Rd $ c " ! Thomas Rd McDowell Rd Alma School Rd ñ A ? !( Ð ñ A McKellips Rd 80 - 90% ! ( ( (! ! ! ( Sa l River t ß A GOODYEAR O ! ( ld US 8 0 Cottonwood 7th St C ree k 91st Ave 91st Ave Elliot Rd Hwy Bush Signal Butte Rd P. A. C. Ag ua 103rd Ave Reems Rd Elliot Rd Camelback Rd Higley Rd er Ne w New River F r ia Riv e r Be Perryville Rd Cotton Ln Sarival Ave Citrus Rd 107th Ave ! (( anal 50 - 80% Arterials Ð ? PARADISE VALLEY Co ns olid a ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Í ? ! ( Lower Buckeye Rd Broadway Rd ! ( S er ! ( alt R iv ! 59th Ave n Can a l ! ( ! ( RooseveltC .P. C ! ( ! ( man Sossa Rd Arlingto ( ! ! ( ! ( TOLLESON Estrella Pkwy ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ( ! ( ( ( ! ! ( ! 7 5 6 4 85 ( !! !( ( ( (! ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! !( ! ( ( Airport Tuthill Rd Rd Broadway Rd Southern Ave ! ( Dean Rd Johnson Rd ( ( ! Roosevelt Canal ! ! ( C .A ¸ ? $ a " ! Van Buren St ( ! (! GLENDALE FOUNTAIN HILLS Greenway Rd Northern Ave ! ( ! ! ! ! ( ( ( Bethany Home Rd ( ! ( ( !! (( ! !! (! ( (! ( (! ! ( Indian School Rd ! ( ! ( Thomas Rd ! (ell AVONDALE McDow ! ( Rd ! ( ! ( LITCHFIELD PARK Avondale Blvd 219th Ave BUCKEYE Dysart Rd Wagn er Wash ÿ A ß A l h ( !! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( v I A ß YOUNGTOWN Olive ! (( ! Ave ! ( Bell Rd ¸ ? ana Baseline Rd ! ( ! ( Union Hills Dr al Can Elliot Rd ! ! (( ! ( ! ( ! ( ß A SURPRISE !! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( s ! ( ! ( lt C Lu k e Wa s Baseline Rd !( !( ! !( ! ! ! ! ( !(( !!( !!( !( ! ! !( ! ( ( ( ( (( ( ( !( ( !( !( !( ! ard nal Ca l ey < 50% State Highways Maricopa County Arterial Roadways ! ( ! ( !( ( ! ! ( Jomax Rd Happy Valley Rd Happy Valley Rd ! !! (( ! (( ! ! ( (( !! !! (( ( ! (( ! (! ! ( ! Deer Valley Rd ( ! ( ! (! (! ! (! (! (! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (( ! ! (( ! ! ( Bell Rd ( ! ( ! ( Greenway Rd ! ( ! ( ! ( EL MIRAGE ! ( ( ! ! (( (! !! ( (! ! ( ! ( SCOTTSDALE Lone Mountain Rd e rn Lower Buckeye Rd Southern Ave ! ( PHOENIX $ c " ! ! ( Hwy st Ea Van Buren St Happy Valley R d ! ( $ a " ! ! ( Jomax Rd ! ( a C ! ( Ð ? seve Ro o Salome Hwy iver yam p a R H as sa Lower Buckeye Rd ! ( Indian School Rd ! ( ! ( Wilson Ave Camelback Rd Riv ay a m pa Ri ver Has s Eagle Eye Rd Eagle Eye Rd ! ( ! ( Patton Rd Carefree Hwy ! ( owellRd Fort McD ! ( ! ! ( ( !( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( urg Rd CAP Ca nal C.A.P. Can a l  ? Cotto n ! ( Bridge Locations Sufficiency Ratings reek od C ( (! ! k (! ! ( ! ! (! ( ( ! ( !! ( ( ( ! ( ! (! ! ! ( (! ( ash ! (! ! ( !! !! (( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (( ( ( !( ( ( ! !! ! ! ! ( !! !( ( ( !( ( CAVE CREEK ( ! (! ! ( ! ( CAREFREE Cloud Rd !( ! ! ( ( Carefree ! (!! (! (! ( ! ((!! ((! ( l na nb Wicke wy ! ( PEORIA Lone Mountain Rd me H ! ( ! ( ! !! ( ! ( (( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( S kunk Creek Cloud Rd Carefree Hwy ek A pache W d v I Sa lo C re Rd o C ott nwoo v I ü A Produced by the Maricopa County Public Works GIS Division ó A $̀ " ! April 8, 2011 Ì ? BMS 21 Í ? $̀ " ! Roadway Management System TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 ROADWAY/PAVEMENT EVALUATION RATINGS 1 Pavement Condition Ratings 1 International Roughness Index 1 Sufficiency Ratings 2 TRUCK TRAFFIC ON ARTERIALS 4 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE 5 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE RESULTS 6 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PLAN 6 SUMMARY 10 List of Tables Table 1: Preventive Maintenance Treatment Longevity 6 Table 2: FY 2010 Pavement Preservation 5 Year Summary Report 7 Table 3: Miles of MCDOT Paved Roads FY 1996-2010 9 Table 4: FY 2010 Completed Maintenance Plans 12 Table 5: FY 2011 Pavement Preservation Plan 13 Table 6: FY 2010 Annual Network Rating Summary 14 List of Figures Figure 1: FY 2005-2010 Pavement Condition Ratings 2 Figure 2: FY 2005-2010 International Roughness Index 3 Figure 3. FY 2005-2010 Sufficiency Ratings 3 Figure 4: Average Percent of Trucks on Arterials & Collectors 4 Figure 5: Yearly Percent of Trucks on Arterials & Collectors 2006-2010 5 Figure 6: FY 2010 Completed Maintenance Mileage 8 Figure 7: FY 2010 Maintenance Costs 8 Figure 8: Miles of Paved Roads 1996-2010 9 Figure 9: FY 2011 Pavement Preservation Plan 11 Figure 10: FY 2011 Estimated Maintenance Cost 11 List of Maps Map 1: Large Trucks as a Percentage of Traffic Volume 2006 15 Map 2: Large Trucks as a Percentage of Traffic Volume 2007 16 Map 3: Large Trucks as a Percentage of Traffic Volume 2009 17 Map 4: Large Trucks as a Percentage of Traffic Volume 2010 18 MCDOT RMS i Roadway Management System Introduction Pavement maintenance is broadly identified as work accomplished to preserve or extend the pavement’s life until major rehabilitation or complete reconstruction is performed. Maintenance is classified by function as either routine or preventive. Preventive maintenance preserves rather than improve the capacity or strength of the pavement structure. In order for preventive maintenance to be effective, it should be applied to structurally sound pavement, before the pavement displays significant amount of environmental distress such as raveling, oxidation, and block cracking. Timely treatments prove to be the most cost effective. While, routine maintenance more typically consists of, pothole repair, patching, sweeping and/or striping. All roads deteriorate over time due to environmental conditions and the volume and type of traffic using the roadway. The roadways within the jurisdiction of the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) are maintained at a high level of service by the following County program:  Continuously monitor and evaluate roadway conditions, roadway evaluation ratings are stored in the Road Management System (RMS) database  Report roadway conditions to decision makers via annual reports  Modeling pavement conditions and maintenance strategies  Develop annual and long term maintenance plans and implement the plans as funding permits Roadway and Pavement Evaluation Ratings Pavement Condition Ratings (PCR) The Road Management Section evaluates pavement conditions for surface distress every 12-18 months for arterial roads and every other year for local roads. Half of the local roads are evaluated each year. The ratings range from 0 to 100 with 100 being a new pavement with no distress. The result allows for quantifying the overall pavement condition of the road network. See the Pavement Preservation Program (PPP) document for further details. International Roughness Index (IRI) MCDOT uses a Laser Road Profiler (LRP) equipped with triple (3) lasers, one in each wheel track and one in the mid-lane to collect IRI data. Annually the MCDOT Road Management Section collects the IRI for each arterial road segment with a length greater than a quarter of a mile. The IRI values are scored for each road segment on a scale from 1 to 500 with 500 representing an extremely rough road. IRI values are categorized by performance subgroups and the percentage of each group can be seen in Figure 2; IRI Ratings. MCDOT utilizes the PCR and IRI ratings to forecast preventive maintenance programs and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) planning. The consistent RMS 1 MCDOT Roadway Management System Figure 1: FY 2005-2010 Pavement Condition Ratings FY 2005-2010 Pavement Condition Ratings (PCR)% 100% P e r c e n t 90% 80% 70% 60% 60% 55% 58% 57% 54% 51% o f 50% 40% S y s t e m 30% 20% 10% 24% 24% 23% 21% 24% 23% 22% 20% 17% 19% 18% 16% 4% 4% 4% 3% 1% 1% 0% FY 2005 FY 2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 Fiscal Year Excellent (100-85) Very Good (8 4-71) Good (70-55) Fair (54-40) Poor (<40) results of implementing preventive maintenance on MCDOT roads is evident in the following chart Figure 1: PCR Ratings, which shows the PCR quality by percentage ranking of all arterial roads in the County. The PCR data is also presented in Table 4 on page 12 of this report. Sufficiency Ratings The Road Management Section collects most of the details for each arterial road segment. The rating identifies how well each road segment compares to the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual (RDM) standards. Ratings for each category are combined per road segment and scored on a scale from 0 to 100, 100 representing a road in compliance with the RDM standards. The sufficiency ratings of arterial roads are updated only after major improvements or reconstruction of the road. New construction, widening, or significant improvement to the safety issues such as, bottleneck, drainage, vertical and horizontal sight distance are required to impact the rating. Sufficiency Rating of the network is provided in Figure 3. MCDOT RMS 2 Roadway Management System Figure 2: FY 2005-2010 International Roughness Index FY 2005-2010 International Roughness Index (IRI) 100% P e r 90% c e n t 80% o f 70% S y s t 60% e m 50% 44% 40% 38% 38% 36% 29% 28% 30% 38% 36% 29% 27% 26% 22% 19% 20% 18% 18% 18% 17% 15% 18% 17% 16% 16% 14% 11% 10% Fiscal Year 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Very Smooth (0-59) Smooth (60-94) FY 2008 FY 2009 Average (95-169) Rough (170-220) FY 2010 Very Rough (>220) Figure 3. FY 2005-2010 Sufficiency Ratings FY 2005-2010 Sufficiency Ratings 100% P e r c e n t 90% o f 50% S y s t e m 80% 70% 60% 53% 51% 40% 35% 53% 52% 34% 34% 53% 53% 34% 34% 33% 30% 20% 10% 0% 13% 12% 1% 0% FY 2005 1% 0% FY 2006 12% 12% 2% 0% FY 2007 12% 1% 0% FY 2008 13% 1% 0% FY2009 1% 0% FY2010 Fiscal Year Excellent (100-85) RMS 3 Very Good (84-71) Go od (70-55) Fair (54-40) Poor (<40) MCDOT Roadway Management System TRUCK TRAFFIC ON ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS Vehicle classification counts are conducted annually by MCDOT. The latest truck count data is shown in Figure 4. Truck traffic has declined 49% on MCDOT’s arterial and collector roads since 2006. This is one indicator of the slow economy in the County. Individual yearly declines in the percent of truck traffic are shown in figure 5. The only positive aspect of this decline is that MCDOT’s roadways will experience slower deterioration until the economy improves. Figure 4: Average Percent of Trucks on Arterials & Collectors Average Percent Trucks on Arterials & Collectors 2006‐2010 8.42% 9% 7.33% 8% 5.53% Percent Trucks 7% 6% 4.43% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 2006 2007 2009 2010 Years MCDOT RMS 4 Roadway Management System Figure 5: Yearly Percent of Trucks on Arterials & Collectors 2006-2010 Number & Percent Truck Traffic On Arterials & Collectors 2006‐2010 80 No. Of Road Segments 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0-5% 6-10% 11-15% 15-40% Percent Truck Traffic 2006 2007 2009 2010 Preventive Maintenance Performance Preventive maintenance extends the life of the pavement and provides for better performance. The majority of treatments for flexible pavements involves sealing the existing surface and providing a new wearing surface for traffic. Two of the primary factors leading to the deterioration and premature failure of flexible pavements are oxidization and water environmental damage. MCDOT has used preventive maintenance practices for decades with excellent results. Table 1 shows the break down of each treatment that is typically used, the frequency of application and the observed increase in pavement life per application. We can see how the maintenance of the road network could fall behind with only one tenth ($10 million) of the needed amount ($95 million) funded each year. The following table Figure 11 “ FY 2007 Complete Maintenance Pans & Costs” provides us with a look at the aggressive maintenance utilized last year, the type of treatments, with the associated quantities and costs. RMS 5 MCDOT Roadway Management System Table 1: Preventive Maintenance Treatment Longevity Treatment Pavement age at time of first application (yr.) Frequency of application (yr.) Observed increase in pavement life (yr.) Fog Seal/ Rejuvenate 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 Crack Filling/Sealing 8 to 10 4 to 5 4 to 5 Single Chip Seal 10 to 12 5 to 6 5 to 6 Double Chip Seal 10 to 12 5 to 6 5 to 6 Micro Surfacing 10 to 12 5 to 6 5 to 6 Slurry Seal 10 to 12 5 to 6 5 to 6 Arterial—Thin Overlay— 1.5”- 2” ARHM Local—Mill & Resurface 1.5” ARHM * TBD—To be determined 12 to 15 12 to 15 12+ 35+ TBD* TBD* Preventive Maintenance Results MCDOT currently has jurisdiction of 1112 miles (2613 lane miles.) of arterial roads, 884 miles (1856 lane miles) of local roads and 52 miles (104 lane miles) of park roads. That adds up to a total of 2048 miles of road and 4573 lane miles. In Fiscal Year 2010 we maintained 1257 lane miles of road which is equal to 27.5% of the total lane miles. The details of the completed maintenance plans are presented in Figure 4. The cost to complete the 2010 maintenance plans was $22,327,505, while we spent $13,563,980 in 2009. The cost breakdown of all the maintenance completed is shown graphically in Figure 5. The same information is also presented in Table 2 on page 10 categorized by work order number. These efforts resulted in network average PCR value of 82.6 for arterial roads versus 81.70 for 2009. Local roads improved the average PCR value of 91.9, versus 90.3 for 2009. Park roads rated 89.40 for 2010, park roads are a new breakout in 2010. Pavement Preservation Plan Pavement preservation plans are generated by application of the preservation strategy filters to the current pavement ratings in the database. Implementation of our projected maintenance plans for FY 2011 will cost $27.0 million to apply all the recommended surface treatments and existing pavement rehabilitation. While, the total network maintenance needs for the next five fiscal years (FY 2011 - 2015) are estimated at $70 million. The FY 2011 pavement preservation plans and estimated costs are provided in Figures 6 and 7. The MCDOT maintenance funds will be enhanced in FY 2011 by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for $6.47 million and $2.5 million additional funds to be utilized in a MCDOT RMS 6 Roadway Management System Table 2: FY 2010 Pavement Preservation 5 Year Summary Report FY 2010 - Pavement Preservation 5 Year Summary Report 7/15/2010 FY 2009 - FY 2013 5 Yr Projection - 2008 FY 2009 - FY 2010 Completed Preservation Type Ln Miles Cost Ln Miles Cost % Reconstruction Arterial AR Overlay Local M&R Chip Seal HV Chip Seal LV Slurry Micro Seal Preservative Seal Crack Seal 15.83 129.51 263.00 234.88 187.70 264.74 0.00 565.00 383.66 $3,412,500 $12,189,230 $25,058,275 $3,742,328 $2,990,576 $5,659,845 $0 $2,923,374 $1,985,130 1.85 92.69 314.96 165.77 152.87 37.97 29.61 385.36 711.38 $465,000 $7,700,356 $15,923,455 $2,929,188 $2,166,356 $695,445 $863,409 $2,198,335 $3,414,938 14% 63% 64% 78% 72% 12% Pavement Preservation Totals: 2,044.32 $57,961,258 1,892.46 $36,356,482 75% 172% 63% FY 2011 - FY 2015 5 Yr Projection - 2010 Preservation Type Ln Miles Cost Reconstruction Arterial AR Overlay Local M&R Chip Seal HV Chip Seal LV Slurry Seal Micro Seal Preservative Seal Crack Seal 12.18 229.89 259.37 626.06 160.84 307.43 0.00 717.91 824.38 $2,570,000 $27,531,558 $11,817,465 $11,931,122 $3,224,500 $5,681,016 $0 $4,663,373 $5,028,982 Pavement Preservation Totals: 3,138.06 $72,448,016 RMS 7 MCDOT Roadway Management System Figure 6: FY 2010 Completed Maintenance Mileage FY 2010 Completed Maintenance Mileage 600 580 550 500 L a n e 450 400 350 300 M i l e s 246 250 200 176 150 108 100 56.5 38 50 30 22 0 Crack Seal Mill and Preservative RBST HV Seal Resurface SC & SCW RBST LV Slurry Seal Micro Seal AR Overlay Surface Treatments Figure 7: FY 2010 Maintenance Costs FY 2010 Maintenance Costs $12,000,000 $11,000,000 $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 C o s t $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Surface Treatments MCDOT RMS 8 Roadway Management System Table 3: Miles of MCDOT Paved Roads FY 1996-2010 Miles of MCDOT Paved Roads FY 1996-2010 Classification 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 1,998 1,305 1,281 1,284 1,276 1,262 1,254 1,236 1,246 1,258 1,258 1,227 1,179 Local Minor Collec123 652 639 630 635 621 616 602 411 406 404 391 390 tor Major Collec583 669 654 645 648 630 622 601 318 314 315 287 282 tor Minor Arterial Principal Arterial Diff -819 267 -301 86 88 87 85 85 78 73 69 484 473 472 389 376 290 39 108 106 105 104 105 105 109 150 150 150 125 126 87 2,829 2,822 2,769 2,750 2,749 2,696 2,670 2,618 2,608 2,601 2,600 2,419 2,353 -476 TOTAL Note: As a result of changed land usages and road upgrades, a shift from collector roads to arterial roads occurred. In 1997 and 2005 MCDOT roads were reclassified accordingly as seen in the above table. Figure 8: Miles of Paved Roads 1996-2010 Miles of Paved Roads 1996‐2010 2,000 Miles of Paved Roads 1,750 1,500 * 1,250 * Classified Local 1,000 Minor Collector Major Collector 750 500 250 0 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 * As a result of changing land uses and road upgrades, a shift from collector roads to RMS 9 MCDOT Roadway Management System 1.5” asphalt rubber overlay program. Furthermore, we are going to fund $5.30 million for a mill and resurface plan for Sun City West MRS 1. There will be $2.20 million of arterial AR overlays, $2.25 million for crack sealing, $2.5 million dollars for chip seal, $1.20 million for preservative seal and $0.88 million for slurry seal. There will be 13 programs in all executed this year. See Table 4: FY 2011 Pavement Preservation Plan for the details. Summary FY 2010 has been a very successful year for pavement preservation group and the Operations Division. We have completed 16 of 17 programs this year with an expenditure of $22,327,505 and only the 2010 ARRA AR Overlay being delayed due to federal requirements is still in progress. All the effort this year has resulted in an improvement in the network average PCR value of 82.6 for arterial roads and PCR value of 91.9 for local roads. The results of the FY2010 pavement preservation program show the network is improving from 2009 85.56 PCR to 2010 86.80 and a 1.5% improvement. If additional funding becomes available we will consider accelerating our preventative maintenance plans for more crack seal, slurry seal, chip seal and mill and overlay projects to improve the quantity of MCDOT roads. In 2008, it was projected that the pavement preservation and preventative maintenance needs for the five- year period of FY 2009 to 2013 would be $57.9 million to keep the county roadway system at the then existing serviceability level. In the past two fiscal years, FY2009 and 2010, MCDOT has completed pavement preservation and preventative maintenance projects for a total amount of $36.4 million, or 63 percent of the projection. Furthermore, due to the dynamic nature of the roadway system, in FY 2010 the projected needs for pavement preservation and preventative maintenance were identified to be $72.5 million for the next cycle of five fiscal years, FY2011 to 2015. See Table 2: Pavement Preservation 5 Year Summary Report for details. MCDOT RMS 10 Roadway Management System Figure 9: FY 2011 Pavement Preservation Plan FY 2011 Pavement Preservation Plan L a n e M i l e s 400 350 300 391 250 200 150 205 142 128 84 100 50 0 48 45 30 28 2 Surface Treatments Figure 10: FY 2011 Estimated Maintenance Cost FY 2011 Estimated Maintenance Costs $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 C o s t $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Surface Treatments RMS 11 MCDOT Roadway Management System Table 4: FY 2010 Completed Maintenance Plans MCDOT Pavement Management Program Road Management System FY 2010 Completed Maintenance - RMS Project Name WO# Cost/SY SY Ln Miles Total Cost 2010 - AR Overlay 30050068 $ 13.00 184,100 22.42 $2,393,300.00 2010 - Chip Seal HV 30050069 $ 1.94 459,050 55.89 $890,557.00 2010 - Chip Seal LV 30050069 $ 1.94 463,991 56.49 $900,142.52 2010 - Slurry Seal 30050070 $ 2.23 311,859 37.97 $695,445.57 2010 - Preservative Seal - Local - TRMSS 30050071 $ 0.94 1,009,514 122.92 $948,943.16 2010 - Crack Seal - All 30050072 $ 0.52 993,097 120.92 $516,410.44 2010 - Micro Seal 30050080 $ 3.55 243,214 29.61 $863,409.70 2010 - Crack Seal - All 30050081 $ 0.46 1,113,921 135.63 $512,403.66 2010 - Crack Seal - All 30050082 $ 0.50 1,267,200 154.29 $633,600.00 2010 - Chip Seal HV 30050083 $ 2.33 428,871 52.22 $999,270.29 2010 - Preservative Seal - Local - TRMSS 30050084 $ 0.65 360,740 43.92 $234,481.00 2010 - Crack Seal - All 30050093 $ 0.51 32,690 3.98 $16,671.90 2010 - Preservative Seal - Local - TRMSS 30068006 $ 0.18 75,100 9.14 $13,518.00 2010 - Sun City - MRS 3 TT174 $ 5.74 662,719 80.69 $3,804,007.06 2010 - Sun City - MRS 4 TT175 $ 5.79 1,357,522 165.29 $7,860,052.38 2010 - Crack Seal - All TT175 $ 0.77 1,357,522 165.29 $1,045,291.94 Project Maintenance Totals: 1,256.68 MCDOT $22,327,504.62 TIP Funding: $12,709,351.38 Operations Funding: $9,618,153.24 RMS 12 Roadway Management System Table 5: FY 2011 Pavement Preservation Plan FY 2011 - Pavement Preservation Plan Status Update 06.30.2010 Project Name WO # Cost/SY SY Ln Miles 300500XX 30050087 TT--TT322 & 326 TT343 TT--TT--30050086 30050086 30050088 30050088 30050092 30050091 30050091 30050089 30050090 $26.00 $9.80 $8.50 $7.75 $7.75 $0.00 $0.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.25 $0.75 $0.75 $0.65 $0.65 20,000 224,772 370,000 1,167,647 686,594 721,818 523,281 681,000 158,500 370,811 82,500 390,500 401,656 1,282,575 1,933,000 1,276,665 2.44 27.37 45.05 142.17 83.60 87.89 63.71 82.92 19.30 45.15 10.05 47.55 48.90 156.16 235.36 155.44 Needs Cost ARRA Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Reconstruct 2 Ln Arterial - AR Overlay Arterial - AR Overlay - Bush Hwy & Usery Pass AR Overlay - ARRA Funds Mill & Resurface - Sun City West - MRS 1 Mill & Resurface - Sun City West - MRS 2 Mill & Resurface - Sun City West - MRS 3 RBST - High Volume - Plan 1 Fall - Low Bid RBST - Low Volume - Plan 1 SE Fall - Low Bid RBST - High Volume - Plan 4 - Spring JOC RBST - Low Volume - Plan 4 - Spring JOC Slurry Seal - Plan 1 Preservative Seal - Arterial Preservative Seal - Local - Plan 1 Crack Seal - Plan 1 - Article 5 Crack Seal - Plan 2 - JOC Pavement Preservation Totals: Project Name 10,291,319 TIP Funding: Ops Funding: Additional Funding Required: $520,000 $2,202,766 $3,145,000 $9,049,264 $5,321,104 $0 $0 $1,362,000 $317,000 $741,622 $165,000 $878,625 $301,242 $961,931 $1,256,450 $829,832 $3,145,000 $9,049,264 1,253.05 $27,051,836 $12,194,264 $5,321,104 $9,536,468 $12,194,264 WO # Cost/SY SY Ln Miles 300500XX TT--TT--TT--300500XX 300500XX 300500XX 300500XX 300500XX 300500XX TT286 $25.00 $8.00 $9.00 $9.00 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $0.75 $0.75 $0.70 $2.50 20,000 200,000 721,818 523,281 1,840,000 330,000 420,000 600,000 1,200,000 561,000 1,114,396 2.44 24.35 87.89 63.71 224.04 40.18 51.14 73.05 146.11 68.31 135.69 Needs Cost Fiscal Year 2012 Reconstruct 2 Ln *** Arterial Thin AR Overlay Mill & Resurface - Sun City West - MRS 2 Mill & Resurface - Sun City West - MRS 3 RBST - HV - FY11-2 608k & FY11-3 1.23m RBST - LV - FY11-2 290k & FY11-3 40k Slurry Seal - FY 11-2 Preservative Seal - Arterial FY11 Preservative Seal - Local FY11-2 Crack Seal - Plan Micro Seal - Sun Valley Parkway Pavement Preservation Totals: RMS 13 7,530,495 TIP Funding: Ops Funding: Additional Funding Required: $500,000 $1,600,000 $6,496,362 $4,709,529 $4,140,000 $742,500 $945,000 $450,000 $900,000 $392,700 $2,785,990 916.90 $23,662,081 $15,591,881 $8,070,200 MCDOT Roadway Management System Table 6: FY 2010 Annual Network Rating Summary MCDOT Pavement Management Program Road Management System FY 2010 Annual—Network Rating Summary Arterial Average PCR Average IRI Mileage 2006 80.55 162.02 1213.37 2007 80.52 165.17 1132.23 2008 82.04 163.50 1100.18 2009 81.73 163.80 1102.45 2010 82.61 163.09 1112.54 PCR 100-85 PCR 84-70 PCR < 55 Miles above 70 623.30 284.67 49.22 907.97 602.88 221.15 43.56 824.03 655.57 177.67 28.50 833.24 646.28 200.90 18.76 847.18 636.02 260.19 6.77 896.21 % above 70 % below 55 74.8% 4.1% 72.8% 3.8% 75.7% 2.6% 77.0% 2.0% 81.0% 1.0% Average PCR Mileage 2006 88.51 840.86 2007 89.54 808.33 2008 89.18 806.64 2009 90.32 885.31 2010 91.93 884.09 PCR 100-85 PCR 84-70 PCR < 55 Miles above 70 525.42 254.94 3.95 780.36 587.38 181.21 1.55 768.59 597.49 173.76 1.30 771.25 721.16 136.03 1.30 857.19 724.48 119.62 5.10 844.10 % above 70 % below 55 92.8% 0.5% 95.1% 0.2% 95.6% 0.2% 96.8% 0.1% 98.5% 0.6% Local Park 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average PCR Mileage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89.39 52.11 PCR 100-85 PCR 84-70 PCR < 55 Miles above 70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.97 5.46 1.30 50.43 % above 70 % below 55 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 97.0% 3.0% Network Avg PCR 83.81 84.28 85.06 85.56 86.80 82.19% 2.59% 82.07% 2.32% 84.14% 1.56% 85.74% 1.01% 87.41% 0.64% Network Totals Network % above 70 Network % below 55 Note: FY data is typically selected from June 30th or the last work day of the fiscal year. MCDOT RMS 14 Ð ? ¿ ? Large Trucks as a Percentage of Traffic Volume 2006 WICKENBURG Mingus Rd v I Riv er Rd 16th St v I Cre ek Rd Elliot Rd bow Be lt Rd Riggs Rd Ð ? 16th St Riggs Rd Chandler Heights Rd Patterson Rd line Germann Rd j? A Ð Hunt Hwy Goldfield Rd Pass Rd Meridian Rd Apache Broadway Ave Tr v I QUEEN CREEK Cloud Rd Empire Blvd Æ ? 83rd Ave 91st Ave $ a " ! ì A Ð ? GILA BEND ó A 012345 10 Miles ü A I Produced by the Maricopa County Public Works GIS Division $̀ " ! April 13, 2011 Ì ? Í ? Maricopa County y Hw nt Hu 99th Ave Chandler Heights Rd Arterials APACHE JUNCTION Elliot Rd Warner Rd GILBERT Val Vista Dr Valley Rd ñ A GOODYEAR Ellsworth Rd v I Crismon Rd in Ra CHANDLER Hawes UseRd ry Recker Rd Baseline Rd MESA Sossaman Rd $ a " ! r Carve Rd Broadway Rd Hawes Rd TEMPE GUADALUPE McKellips Rd University Dr Brown Rd Hw y State Highways Ñ ? Power Rd $ a " ! ? Ð ñ A 32nd St á A 16th St 32nd St 7th Ave Broadway Rd ñ A Thomas Rd Cooper Rd Gilbert Rd PHOENIX ß A 51st Ave Baseline Rd Dobbins Rd Elliot Rd Estrella Dr 67th Ave Arlington Rd $ c " ! Camelba ck Rd Bush Alma School Rd 43rd Ave 27th Ave 75th Ave 91st Ave Southern Ave Ð ? PARADISE VALLEY ¸ ? Arterial Roadways Meridian Rd 7th St 16th St 67th Ave 111th Ave 32nd St Old El Mirage Rd 107th Ave 91st Ave 83rd Ave Sarival Ave 99th Ave El Mirage Rd Avondale Blvd Elliot Rd 203rd Ave Í ? Beloat Rd 7 5 6 4 Maricopa County FOUNTAIN HILLS McDowell Rd $ a " ! > 15% ß A Bullard Ave Hazen Rd Tuthill Rd Broadway Rd Cav e Dysart Rd Reems Rd Bullard Ave Cotton Ln Dunlap Rd Airport Rd Narramore Rd Patterson Rd MARICOPA UNINCORPORATED AVONDALE 11 - 15% Peoria Ave Van Buren St TOLLESON Lower Buckeye Rd 85 Rainbow Rd Dean Rd Turner Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd Palo Verde Rd Wilson Ave Dobbins Rd LITCH FIELD PARK BUCKEYE 331st Ave Johnson Rd Bruner Rd 351st Ave Wintersburg Rd $ a " ! Citrus Rd 355th Ave 387th Ave 411th Ave Harquahala Valley Rd 523rd Ave Elliot Rd Narramore Rd Thomas Rd Glendale Ave GLENDALE Bell Rd Dobson Rd Narramore Rd Dobbins Rd Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Lower Buckeye Rd 355th Ave Elliot Rd ÿ A v I A ß YOUNGTOWN Cotton Ln Buckeye Lower Buckeye Rd Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd 539th Ave Van Buren St Thomas Rd Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd n Sc ia hoo Ind l Rd Greenway Rd ¸ ? 6 - 10% Rio Verde Dr Lake Rd uaro Camelback Rd Olive Ave EL MIRAGE 0 - 5% Sag y Bell Rd of Traffic Volume (2006) d eH w SCOTTSDALE Deer Valle y Dr ß A ll we Bos lvd B Sa lom Waddell Rd CAREFREE Carefree Hwy Forest R Stardust Blvd SURPRISE Cloud Rd Trucks as a Percentage Ð ? 144th St PHOENIX $ c " ! CAVE CREEK 32nd St Sarival Ave 203rd Ave 331st Ave Carefree Hwy PEORIA 7th St 27th 7th Ave Ave Ne w Desert Hills Dr Joy Ranch Rd  ? Carefree Cloud Rd Hwy Map 1 $̀ " ! RMS 15 Ð ? ¿ ? Large Trucks as a Percentage of Traffic Volume 2007 WICKENBURG Mingus Rd v I Riv er Rd 16th St v I Cre ek Rd Elliot Rd bow Be lt Rd Riggs Rd Ð ? 16th St Riggs Rd Chandler Heights Rd Patterson Rd line Germann Rd j? A Ð Hunt Hwy Goldfield Rd Pass Rd Meridian Rd Apache Broadway Ave Tr v I QUEEN CREEK Cloud Rd Empire Blvd Æ ? 83rd Ave 91st Ave $ a " ! ì A Ð ? GILA BEND ó A 012345 10 Miles ü A I Produced by the Maricopa County Public Works GIS Division $̀ " ! April 13, 2011 Ì ? Í ? Maricopa County y Hw nt Hu 99th Ave Chandler Heights Rd Arterials APACHE JUNCTION Elliot Rd Warner Rd GILBERT Val Vista Dr Valley Rd ñ A GOODYEAR Ellsworth Rd v I Crismon Rd in Ra CHANDLER Hawes UseRd ry Recker Rd Baseline Rd MESA Sossaman Rd $ a " ! r Carve Rd Broadway Rd Hawes Rd TEMPE GUADALUPE McKellips Rd University Dr Brown Rd Hw y State Highways Ñ ? Power Rd $ a " ! ? Ð ñ A 32nd St á A 16th St 32nd St 7th Ave Broadway Rd ñ A Thomas Rd Cooper Rd Gilbert Rd PHOENIX ß A 51st Ave Baseline Rd Dobbins Rd Elliot Rd Estrella Dr 67th Ave Arlington Rd $ c " ! Camelba ck Rd Bush Alma School Rd 43rd Ave 27th Ave 75th Ave 91st Ave Southern Ave Ð ? PARADISE VALLEY ¸ ? Arterial Roadways Meridian Rd 7th St 16th St 67th Ave 111th Ave 32nd St Old El Mirage Rd 107th Ave 91st Ave 83rd Ave Sarival Ave 99th Ave El Mirage Rd Avondale Blvd Elliot Rd 203rd Ave Í ? Beloat Rd 7 5 6 4 Maricopa County FOUNTAIN HILLS McDowell Rd $ a " ! > 15% ß A Bullard Ave Hazen Rd Tuthill Rd Broadway Rd Cav e Dysart Rd Reems Rd Bullard Ave Cotton Ln Dunlap Rd Airport Rd Narramore Rd Patterson Rd MARICOPA UNINCORPORATED AVONDALE 11 - 15% Peoria Ave Van Buren St TOLLESON Lower Buckeye Rd 85 Rainbow Rd Dean Rd Turner Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd Palo Verde Rd Wilson Ave Dobbins Rd LITCH FIELD PARK BUCKEYE 331st Ave Johnson Rd Bruner Rd 351st Ave Wintersburg Rd $ a " ! Citrus Rd 355th Ave 387th Ave 411th Ave Harquahala Valley Rd 523rd Ave Elliot Rd Narramore Rd Thomas Rd Glendale Ave GLENDALE Bell Rd Dobson Rd Narramore Rd Dobbins Rd Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Lower Buckeye Rd 355th Ave Elliot Rd ÿ A v I A ß YOUNGTOWN Cotton Ln Buckeye Lower Buckeye Rd Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd 539th Ave Van Buren St Thomas Rd Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd n Sc ia hoo Ind l Rd Greenway Rd ¸ ? 6 - 10% Rio Verde Dr Lake Rd uaro Camelback Rd Olive Ave EL MIRAGE 0 - 5% Sag y Bell Rd of Traffic Volume (2007) d eH w SCOTTSDALE Deer Valle y Dr ß A ll we Bos lvd B Sa lom Waddell Rd CAREFREE Carefree Hwy Forest R Stardust Blvd SURPRISE Cloud Rd Trucks as a Percentage Ð ? 144th St PHOENIX $ c " ! CAVE CREEK 32nd St Sarival Ave 203rd Ave 331st Ave Carefree Hwy PEORIA 7th St 27th 7th Ave Ave Ne w Desert Hills Dr Joy Ranch Rd  ? Carefree Cloud Rd Hwy Map 2 $̀ " ! RMS 16 Ð ? ¿ ? Large Trucks as a Percentage of Traffic Volume 2009 WICKENBURG Mingus Rd v I Riv er Rd 16th St v I Cre ek Rd Elliot Rd bow Be lt Rd Riggs Rd Ð ? 16th St Riggs Rd Chandler Heights Rd Patterson Rd line Germann Rd j? A Ð Hunt Hwy Goldfield Rd Pass Rd Meridian Rd Apache Broadway Ave Tr v I QUEEN CREEK Cloud Rd Empire Blvd Æ ? 83rd Ave 91st Ave $ a " ! ì A Ð ? GILA BEND ó A 012345 10 Miles ü A I Produced by the Maricopa County Public Works GIS Division $̀ " ! April 13, 2011 Ì ? Í ? Maricopa County y Hw nt Hu 99th Ave Chandler Heights Rd Arterials APACHE JUNCTION Elliot Rd Warner Rd GILBERT Val Vista Dr Valley Rd ñ A GOODYEAR Ellsworth Rd v I Crismon Rd in Ra CHANDLER Hawes UseRd ry Recker Rd Baseline Rd MESA Sossaman Rd $ a " ! r Carve Rd Broadway Rd Hawes Rd TEMPE GUADALUPE McKellips Rd University Dr Brown Rd Hw y State Highways Ñ ? Power Rd $ a " ! ? Ð ñ A 32nd St á A 16th St 32nd St 7th Ave Broadway Rd ñ A Thomas Rd Cooper Rd Gilbert Rd PHOENIX ß A 51st Ave Baseline Rd Dobbins Rd Elliot Rd Estrella Dr 67th Ave Arlington Rd $ c " ! Camelba ck Rd Bush Alma School Rd 43rd Ave 27th Ave 75th Ave 91st Ave Southern Ave Ð ? PARADISE VALLEY ¸ ? Arterial Roadways Meridian Rd 7th St 16th St 67th Ave 111th Ave 32nd St Old El Mirage Rd 107th Ave 91st Ave 83rd Ave Sarival Ave 99th Ave El Mirage Rd Avondale Blvd Elliot Rd 203rd Ave Í ? Beloat Rd 7 5 6 4 Maricopa County FOUNTAIN HILLS McDowell Rd $ a " ! > 15% ß A Bullard Ave Hazen Rd Tuthill Rd Broadway Rd Cav e Dysart Rd Reems Rd Bullard Ave Cotton Ln Dunlap Rd Airport Rd Narramore Rd Patterson Rd MARICOPA UNINCORPORATED AVONDALE 11 - 15% Peoria Ave Van Buren St TOLLESON Lower Buckeye Rd 85 Rainbow Rd Dean Rd Turner Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd Palo Verde Rd Wilson Ave Dobbins Rd LITCH FIELD PARK BUCKEYE 331st Ave Johnson Rd Bruner Rd 351st Ave Wintersburg Rd $ a " ! Citrus Rd 355th Ave 387th Ave 411th Ave Harquahala Valley Rd 523rd Ave Elliot Rd Narramore Rd Thomas Rd Glendale Ave GLENDALE Bell Rd Dobson Rd Narramore Rd Dobbins Rd Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Lower Buckeye Rd 355th Ave Elliot Rd ÿ A v I A ß YOUNGTOWN Cotton Ln Buckeye Lower Buckeye Rd Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd 539th Ave Van Buren St Thomas Rd Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd n Sc ia hoo Ind l Rd Greenway Rd ¸ ? 6 - 10% Rio Verde Dr Lake Rd uaro Camelback Rd Olive Ave EL MIRAGE 0 - 5% Sag y Bell Rd of Traffic Volume (2009) d eH w SCOTTSDALE Deer Valle y Dr ß A ll we Bos lvd B Sa lom Waddell Rd CAREFREE Carefree Hwy Forest R Stardust Blvd SURPRISE Cloud Rd Trucks as a Percentage Ð ? 144th St PHOENIX $ c " ! CAVE CREEK 32nd St Sarival Ave 203rd Ave 331st Ave Carefree Hwy PEORIA 7th St 27th 7th Ave Ave Ne w Desert Hills Dr Joy Ranch Rd  ? Carefree Cloud Rd Hwy Map 3 $̀ " ! RMS 17 Ð ? ¿ ? Large Trucks as a Percentage of Traffic Volume 2010 WICKENBURG Mingus Rd v I Riv er Rd 16th St v I Cre ek Rd Elliot Rd bow Be lt Rd Riggs Rd Ð ? 16th St Riggs Rd Chandler Heights Rd Patterson Rd line Germann Rd j? A Ð Hunt Hwy Goldfield Rd Pass Rd Meridian Rd Apache Broadway Ave Tr v I QUEEN CREEK Cloud Rd Empire Blvd Æ ? 83rd Ave 91st Ave $ a " ! ì A Ð ? GILA BEND ó A 012345 10 Miles ü A I Produced by the Maricopa County Public Works GIS Division $̀ " ! April 13, 2011 Ì ? Í ? Maricopa County y Hw nt Hu 99th Ave Chandler Heights Rd Arterials APACHE JUNCTION Elliot Rd Warner Rd GILBERT Val Vista Dr Valley Rd ñ A GOODYEAR Ellsworth Rd v I Crismon Rd in Ra CHANDLER Hawes UseRd ry Recker Rd Baseline Rd MESA Sossaman Rd $ a " ! r Carve Rd Broadway Rd Hawes Rd TEMPE GUADALUPE McKellips Rd University Dr Brown Rd Hw y State Highways Ñ ? Power Rd $ a " ! ? Ð ñ A 32nd St á A 16th St 32nd St 7th Ave Broadway Rd ñ A Thomas Rd Cooper Rd Gilbert Rd PHOENIX ß A 51st Ave Baseline Rd Dobbins Rd Elliot Rd Estrella Dr 67th Ave Arlington Rd $ c " ! Camelba ck Rd Bush Alma School Rd 43rd Ave 27th Ave 75th Ave 91st Ave Southern Ave Ð ? PARADISE VALLEY ¸ ? Arterial Roadways Meridian Rd 7th St 16th St 67th Ave 111th Ave 32nd St Old El Mirage Rd 107th Ave 91st Ave 83rd Ave Sarival Ave 99th Ave El Mirage Rd Avondale Blvd Elliot Rd 203rd Ave Í ? Beloat Rd 7 5 6 4 Maricopa County FOUNTAIN HILLS McDowell Rd $ a " ! > 15% ß A Bullard Ave Hazen Rd Tuthill Rd Broadway Rd Cav e Dysart Rd Reems Rd Bullard Ave Cotton Ln Dunlap Rd Airport Rd Narramore Rd Patterson Rd MARICOPA UNINCORPORATED AVONDALE 11 - 15% Peoria Ave Van Buren St TOLLESON Lower Buckeye Rd 85 Rainbow Rd Dean Rd Turner Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd Palo Verde Rd Wilson Ave Dobbins Rd LITCH FIELD PARK BUCKEYE 331st Ave Johnson Rd Bruner Rd 351st Ave Wintersburg Rd $ a " ! Citrus Rd 355th Ave 387th Ave 411th Ave Harquahala Valley Rd 523rd Ave Elliot Rd Narramore Rd Thomas Rd Glendale Ave GLENDALE Bell Rd Dobson Rd Narramore Rd Dobbins Rd Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Lower Buckeye Rd 355th Ave Elliot Rd ÿ A v I A ß YOUNGTOWN Cotton Ln Buckeye Lower Buckeye Rd Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd 539th Ave Van Buren St Thomas Rd Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd n Sc ia hoo Ind l Rd Greenway Rd ¸ ? 6 - 10% Rio Verde Dr Lake Rd uaro Camelback Rd Olive Ave EL MIRAGE 0 - 5% Sag y Bell Rd of Traffic Volume (2010) d eH w SCOTTSDALE Deer Valle y Dr ß A ll we Bos lvd B Sa lom Waddell Rd CAREFREE Carefree Hwy Forest R Stardust Blvd SURPRISE Cloud Rd Trucks as a Percentage Ð ? 144th St PHOENIX $ c " ! CAVE CREEK 32nd St Sarival Ave 203rd Ave 331st Ave Carefree Hwy PEORIA 7th St 27th 7th Ave Ave Ne w Desert Hills Dr Joy Ranch Rd  ? Carefree Cloud Rd Hwy Map 4 $̀ " ! RMS 18 Asset Management System TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 1 REAL ESTATE 2 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 3 BRIDGES & STRUCTURES 3 PLANNING 4 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 4 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 4 RECCOMMENDATIONS 6 List of Figures Figure 1: Assets Acquired by MCDOT in FY 2010 2 Figure 2: Asset Reductions in FY 2010 3 Figure 3: FY2010 Transportation Improvement Program Disposition 5 Figure 4: Maricopa County FY10 Assets Value Added 5 MCDOT AMS i Asset Management System INTRODUCTION The Maricopa County and the Department of Transportation (MCDOT) maintains effective internal controls to manage its infrastructure assets, and to maintain proper records regarding the use and disposition of these assets. This is done to safeguard and maintain MCDOT’s assets in order to receive the maximum benefit from these assets and to comply with State and Federal requirements regarding their use and disposition. MCDOT properly accounts each year for its infrastructure assets for financial reporting purposes in accordance with the Governments Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 34. MCDOT provides transparency as to how services are provided within the organization and to the County’s constituents. It is the intent of the MCDOT Planning Division and Asset Management Team to educate, inform, develop and streamline Asset Management Reporting throughout MCDOT. Background Maricopa County adopted the GASB (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) Statement 34, titled Financial Statements and Management’s Discussion and Analysis for State and Local Governments, model. This was done in June 15, 2001 order to be in compliance with GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). GASB has established GAAP for both state and local governments. GAAP sets the criteria that government must follow in order to obtain a “clean opinion” from auditors. A clean opinion means that an agency has good credit. This is very important when a government agency wants to issue bonds, obtain financing for long-term construction projects, and performance bonds. GASB approved its Statement 34 in June 1999. It was the first time government entities were requested to report the value of their infrastructure assets and develop methods and procedures for asset management similar to private businesses. The goal of GASB 34 is to have financial statements reflect the actual financial health of all government entities. Governments that do not comply with GAAP may pay more to issue debt because the bonding rating agencies will not be able to determine the actual financial health of the entity. Maricopa County is still refining its asset infrastructure reporting procedures, internal controls, and how it assesses its non-TIP related assets. This is in response to three consecutive “adverse opinions” from the State Auditor General’s Office, which identified these three areas of concern. Real Estate The Real Estate Division is responsible for property management and acquisitions, on behalf of Public Works. All land rights activity is validated by resolutions, deeds, or AMS 1 MCDOT Asset Management System Board of Supervisors Approvals. The primary function of the Real Estate Division concerns the acquisition of right of way for capital projects in the MCDOT TIP and the Flood Control District (FCD) CIP. The Real Estate Divisions also tracks and/or processes municipal annexations, road declarations, road abandonments and excess land sales. Real Estate also maintains the records and documentation of these activities. The Board of Supervisors authorizes MCDOT and FCD projects by adoption of resolutions authorizing the departments to spend money to acquire right-of-way and construct and maintain projects, thus adding value to the respective asset management inventory In FY 2010 Maricopa County added $48.2 Million in Land assets to its infrastructure inventory. The predominate means of adding to County assets has been the acceptance of subdivision plats and their associated infrastructure. The acceptance of subdivisions into the MCDOT system results in 95% of additional land added to MCDOT‘s inventory. Annexations by county municipalities is the primary means of land asset reductions to the MCDOT Inventory. Traffic Signals Traffic signals are typically part of a TIP project or acquired via the acceptance and opening and declaring a subdivision or other development. When part of a TIP project, Figure 1: Assets Acquired by MCDOT in FY 2010 Assets Acquired By MCDOT In FY 2010 $45,622 $50,000 Asset Value ('000) $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $2,128 $509 $10,000 $5,000 $0 TIP Land Dedicated Land Subdivisions New MCDOT Assets MCDOT AMS 2 Asset Management System Figure 2: Asset Reductions in FY 2010 Asset Reductions in FY 2010 $792 $900 Deleted Asset Value ('000) $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $28 $100 $0 Abandonments Annexations signals are added into the MCDOT inventory on the date the signal is switched on. MCDOT issues a letter of completion when a signal is turned on. The Board of Supervisors then approves the acceptance of the signal into the MCDOT inventory. Signals are deleted from the MCDOT inventory when they are annexed by an incorporated jurisdiction. Bridges & Structures The MCDOT Engineering Division is responsible for the design and inspection of all bridges and structures under County ownership. State and Federal Mandates require MCDOT to track and inspect its approximately 427 bridges and structures. Structures acquired via the Board of Supervisors open and declare (O&D) process are typically from the acquisition of subdivisions or by MCDOT constructing the bridge or structure. The value of each bridge or structure is determined by the current MCDOT unit cost calculation (updated every 2 years). Planning The MCDOT Planning Division annually collects information on new and deleted MCDOT assets from each of the MCDOT divisions. Each identified new asset is assigned a dollar value and reported in the Consolidated Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Assets that are removed from the MCDOT inventory are also reported in the AMS 3 MCDOT Asset Management System CAFR as dollar deletions. The MCDOT Planning Division provides the Maricopa County Department of Finance a copy of the infrastructure inventory each year with the updated additions and deletions. This information is audited annually by the State Auditor General’s Office. Development Services The MCDOT Development Services section issues construction permits and provides oversight of roadway and structure construction conducted by governmental agencies and private developers. The Development Services Section insures that contractors have a valid construction permit and conform to the Uniform Standard Specification for Public Works Construction published by MCDOT. The permit records kept by Development Services provide the detailed paper trail necessary for documenting all new assets built in the unincorporated county and either donated to or acquired by MCDOT. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The Transportation Improvement Program is a collaborative effort between all the MCDOT divisions. The TIP projects are identified, budgeted, and timelines are created for major construction projects. Projects are added to the TIP based on scoping studies, engineering judgment, project schedules, or budgets are initially presented to an internal MCDOT committee and then to the Transportation Advisory Board for recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Projects can include transportation studies, improvements to structures, new traffic signals, low volume road paving, ant the new or reconstruction of roadways. Not all of the projects result in an addition to MCDOT infrastructure inventory. Non-capital projects such as planning studies and feasibility studies are expensed rather than being included as a physical asset. Other projects may be jointly funded through intergovernmental agreements where MCDOT shares the project costs and another municipality retains jurisdiction over the completed project. Once a project is completed, MCDOT prepares correspondence to the contractor and MCDOT internal customers officially ending the project. Only when a project is completed and inspected is the asset accepted into the MCDOT asset inventory. MCDOT AMS 4 Asset Management System Figure 3: FY2010 Transportation Improvement Program Disposition $13,904,668 $37,935,183 Completed Infrastructure 16 PROJECTS $16,329,184 Preservation Expense 24 Projects Non Capital Ex pense 30 Projects Construction in Progress 23 Projects $7,208,109 Figure 4: Maricopa County FY10 Assets Value Added 14% 4% Land 299,890,924 52% 30% Roads 517,740,462 Structures 136,557,471 Signals 35,242,158 AMS 5 MCDOT Asset Management System RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Data Integration and Agency Collaboration Many challenges have been identified from MCDOT's recent audit findings. MCDOT is making significant efforts to improve the accuracy of its asset management reporting in response the findings of the State Auditor General. In order to develop an effective Asset Management System, enhanced collaboration is needed between all MCDOT Divisions and the County Department of Finance. Data Integration: The Maricopa County Department of Transportation has experienced three adverse opinions by the State Auditor General’s Office concerning our asset management practices. These opinions are primarily based on the lack of adequate internal controls with respect to accounting for MCDOt’s assets. Increased data Integration between all MCDOT divisions would allow MCDOT the capacity to establish necessary controls and monitor progress. The annual MCDOT asset data collected needs to become more “Business Intelligent.” A systematic approach to data collection must be addressed by each division with fixed timelines. This should involve all MCDOT divisions and result in each adopting common procedures and coordinating their recordkeeping and data collection efforts more effectively. Each MCDOT division typically supports their own unique databases. These are effective in satisfying their personal and customer needs bur are much less effective in sustaining an Asset Management System. These individual databases are sometimes large and somewhat disjointed from the collective needs of MCDOT’s asset reporting requirements. A proposed Asset Management Team could coordinate and implement a common data field system within each database that would allow linkages between all other division databases. To this end, the MCDOT Infrastructure Technology Center (ITC), has taken the first step in developing a “Business Intelligence” tool to capture MCDOTS Assets. The MCDOT RoadRunner database is now the repository for most of the infrastructure data. Improving the RoadRunner Database to accept each division’s data automatically should be a top priority at MCDOT. MCDOT Management has to lead the efforts to change the corporate environment relating to asset management. Upper management involvement will help to break down the division barriers and encourage success of a project of this magnitude. The ultimate success of a comprehensive data integration process depends on the encouragement and cooperation of all the decision makers within MCDOT. MCDOT AMS 6 Asset Management System Benefits The benefits of creating an integrated asset management system are numerous. The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Asset Management lists the following as benefits of Data Integration: Availability/Accessibility – Data is easily retrieved, viewed, queried, and analyzed by anyone in the agency in a more user friendly form. Timeliness - Data can quickly update and therefore are generally current. Normally in combined or linked databases only one update is necessary. In addition, databases are time stamped to keep track of when they were created, modified, or updated. Accuracy Correctness and Integrity Data are commonly free of errors because the integrity of the databases is upheld in an integrated environment. Likewise, processes exist for automatic or convenient error checking and verification to help maintain the quality of the data during data entry and access. Consistency and Clarity - Specified data have a clear and unique definition throughout the agency, thereby avoiding or eliminating confusing and conflicting meaning and usage of data. Completeness- All available information associated with the assets, including historical and recently collected data can be found in the database. In addition, missing records or data fields are easily identified and flagged by the data management process. Reduce Duplication - Identical Data are not stored in multiple, disparate locations. Integration reduces the need for multiple updating and ensures that everyone has access to the same data. Faster Processing and Turnaround Time Less time is spent on consolidating and transmitting data to various users in the agency. The integration data environment also supports faster data manipulation, allowing multiple users to conduct separate analysis concurrently. Lower Data Acquisitionand Storage Cost Data are not collected and processed twice, and are consolidated and stored at locations in the agency that provide optimal convenience and ease of maintenance. Informed and Defensible Decisions Highly organized, comprehensive databases allow users to drill down through successive levels of detail for any given asset. This depth provides more information to support recommendations and allow users to conduct different types of analysis using various subsets or combinations of data. Integrated Decision Making- One of the greatest benefits of data integration is that it permits decisionsupport analysis throughout the transportation system, from the field to the executive level (vertically) and across divisions within and outside the organization (horizontally). AMS 7 MCDOT