regional transportation authority roadway capacity project ... · regional transportation authority...

76
Regional Transportation Authority ROADWAY CAPACITY PROJECT ASSESSMENTS September 15, 2010 DRAFT REPORT PROVIDING AN ASSESSMENT OF THE BACKGROUND AND STATUS: ROADWAY CAPACITY PROJECT ELEMENT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN, A VOTER APPROVED PROGRAM FUNDED BY THE RTA AND OTHER MATCHING FUNDS Prepared for the RTA by Curtis Lueck & Associates Herrick Consultants, Inc. In Tucson, AZ Commissioned by the RTA

Upload: phamthuy

Post on 09-Sep-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Regional Transportation Authority

ROADWAY CAPACITY PROJECT ASSESSMENTS

September 15, 2010

DRAFT REPORT

PROVIDING AN ASSESSMENT

OF THE BACKGROUND AND STATUS:

ROADWAY CAPACITY PROJECT ELEMENT

OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN,

A VOTER APPROVED PROGRAM

FUNDED BY THE RTA AND OTHER MATCHING FUNDS

Prepared for the RTA by

Curtis Lueck & Associates

Herrick Consultants, Inc.

In Tucson, AZ

Commissioned by the RTA

September 15, 2010

Mr. Gary G. Hayes

Executive Director

Regional Transportation Authority

Dear Mr. Hayes:

Enclosed is our review on the RTA’s 23 ongoing roadway capacity projects. There are

two parts, including an Executive Summary and a full report. Each of the projects was

reviewed in detail. Overall, we found an exceptional level of accomplishment,

professionalism, and accountability by the lead agencies. Most projects are on schedule

and at or near budget, while a few projects are slightly behind schedule or over budget.

Based on local and national experience on very complex construction programs in urban

areas, this is both an expected and manageable situation.

While this report contains a summary of each project and “dashboard” exhibits showing

project status, more detailed information is contained in supporting documents. We are

providing a series of recommended actions based on our findings at the end of the

report, and in capsule format in the Executive Summary. The recommendations, if

implemented, would among other things: change the level of detail and expense for

pre-design activities; better focus public involvement activities; and provide higher

levels of RTA Board and committee involvement and oversight in current and future

arterial corridor projects.

Significant information was provided to us by the lead agencies, which were afforded an

opportunity to comment on our findings prior to finalizing the report. The interpretation

of the information provided, however, is our own.

We express our gratitude for the cooperation and courtesies extended to us by the

management and employees of the lead agencies during this endeavor, and by the

assistance that was provided by your staff.

Sincerely,

Curtis C. Lueck, P.E., Ph.D., P.E. Joseph Herrick

Curtis Lueck & Associates Herrick Consulting, LLC.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ES1

Participants...................................................................................................................ES1

Assessment Process .....................................................................................................ES1

Major Findings..............................................................................................................ES2

INTRODUCTION 1

Participants...................................................................................................................... 2

Approach ......................................................................................................................... 2

RTA Policies and Procedures ........................................................................................... 4

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND STATUS 8

Project –By-Project Briefing ............................................................................................ 8

RTA 1: Tangerine Road .............................................................................................. 11

RTA 2: Camino de Mañana (Twin Peaks Road).......................................................... 12

RTA 3: Twin Peaks Road –.......................................................................................... 14

RTA 4: La Cholla Boulevard........................................................................................ 15

RTA 5: Silverbell Road................................................................................................ 16

RTA 7: Cortaro Farms Road and Magee Road ........................................................... 18

RTA 8: Sunset Road.................................................................................................... 19

RTA 10: La Cholla Boulevard...................................................................................... 20

RTA 11: La Canada Drive............................................................................................ 21

RTA 12: Magee Road ................................................................................................. 23

RTA 16: Downtown Links........................................................................................... 24

RTA 17: Broadway Boulevard .................................................................................... 25

RTA 18: Grant Road ................................................................................................... 26

RTA 19: 22nd Street................................................................................................... 27

RTA 21: Valencia Road............................................................................................... 29

RTA 24: Valencia Road – East .................................................................................... 30

RTA 26: Kolb Road ..................................................................................................... 31

RTA 27: Tanque Verde Road...................................................................................... 32

RTA 28: Speedway Boulevard.................................................................................... 33

RTA 32: Houghton Road ............................................................................................ 34

RTA 33: Wilmot Road................................................................................................. 36

RTA 34: Sahuarita Road ............................................................................................. 36

RTA 35: I-19 Frontage Road....................................................................................... 38

Unidentified: $352....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 46

Project Funding ............................................................................................................. 46

RTA Funding............................................................................................................... 46

Local and Regional Matching Fund............................................................................ 47

Timely Availability of Funds....................................................................................... 48

Project Costs.................................................................................................................. 48

Project Scope................................................................................................................. 49

Disparity between Administrative Code and Ballot Language.................................. 49

Scope of Professional Services .................................................................................. 49

Procurement Activities..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

RTA Administrative Code .............................................................................................. 50

Peer Review................................................................................................................... 50

Contra Costa Transportation Authority – A case study............................................. 51

Measure J Enacted..................................................................................................... 51

Strategic Project Tools............................................................................................... 52

Peer Review / Design Guidelines............................................................................... 52

Authority/CCEAC Review during Design.................................................................... 53

Project Submittals for Design Review ....................................................................... 54

Structure of the CCEAC.............................................................................................. 54

Reimbursements........................................................................................................ 55

Audits......................................................................................................................... 55

Negotiations .............................................................................................................. 56

Post-Construction Activities .......................................................................................... 56

RECOMMENDATIONS 57

ThinkTank Recommendations....................................................................................... 57

1. Project Costs ..................................................................................................... 57

2. Utilities .............................................................................................................. 58

3. Schedules .......................................................................................................... 58

4. Cost Estimates................................................................................................... 58

5. Other Considerations........................................................................................ 59

Project “Soft Costs”....................................................................................................... 59

Earned Value Management (EVM)................................................................................ 60

Public Involvement........................................................................................................ 60

List of Exhibits

Exhibit ES-1 Project Map............................................................................................ES1

Exhibit ES-2 Project Status .........................................................................................ES1

Exhibit 1 RTA Project Assessment Process ...................................................................... 5

Exhibit 2 List of RTA Projects Reviewed .......................................................................... 6

Exhibit 3 RTA Project Map............................................................................................... 7

Exhibit 4 RTA Project Schedule Dashboard ..................................................................... 1

Exhibit 5 RTA Cash Flow Forecast.................................................................................. 10

Exhibit 6 RTA Project Scopes of Work ........................................................................... 40

Exhibit 7 Recommendations.......................................................................................... 61

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y | ES1

Executive Summary

The RTA plan includes 35 roadway projects that

will be constructed within the initial 20-year life of

the RTA plan. Basic ground rules for project

implementation were established shortly after the

plan was approved. The RTA’s “Our Mobility”

brochure identifies which period the project will

be implemented, and the ground rules are

identified in RTA Primer for Project Submittals.

Of the 35 roadway projects, 23 projects slated for

Period 1 and Period 2 are now underway, with

progress ranging from initial planning to near

completion. The RTA is accountable for facilitating

the delivery of all of these projects within scope,

on time and on budget. As the end of first five-

year period approaches, the RTA Board requested

an assessment of the roadway projects relative to

meeting the voters’ mandates. This report fulfills

the Board’s request by identifying the status of

the projects, assessing the challenges and best

practices associated with each, and

recommending modifications to RTA programs

and procedures based on the findings. The

projects are shown on the map in Exhibit ES1.

Schedule status is shown schematically in Exhibit

ES2.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants in this assessment include the key

staff of all the lead agencies with first period and

second period projects: City of Tucson, Pima

County, Marana, and Sahuarita. The lead agencies

also invited selected consultants to participate in

project interviews and to provide supporting

information requested by the RTA project

assessment team. Extensive project information

was collected, including contracts, plans, planning

and engineering studies, and construction

documents. All of the information was placed on

an FTP site created for this assessment. The

completion of the assessment could not have

been possible without the enthusiasm, openness,

and professionalism of the jurisdictional staff and

their project consultants.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The approach to this endeavor is multifaceted and

collaborative. Major steps include:

Detailed initial and follow-up interviews were held

with the lead agencies regarding the status and

challenges for each of the projects. The results of

the interviews are summarized and are further

detailed in a separate report.

Three “ThinkTank” expert panel sessions were

held to address five key questions. The results of

ThinkTank sessions are summarized and are

further detailed in a separate ThinkTank report.

A peer agency study was undertaken with

emphasis on California “self help counties”,

especially Contra Costa County which has many

similarities to our region. The peer review is

summarized in this report and a full report

provides additional resource information.

An FTP site was created to act as a mailbox for

information requested from the jurisdictions and

as a repository of detailed records about all of the

RTA projects. The site will be refined and may

eventually be accessible to the public after this

study is complete.

The four activities were combined to provide

observations and recommendations for use by the

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y | ES2

RTA staff and governing board, as well as the local

jurisdictions, to improve the delivery of both the

current projects and as the remaining arterial

projects commence.

MAJOR FINDINGS *Overall, the projects in the first two periods

are progressing well. All of the first period

projects will be under construction or completed

as promised to the voters. Projects in the second

period are aggressively scheduled by the

jurisdictions and may need to be rescheduled to

align with RTA funding availability.

*Some of the projects exceed the approved

RTA scope. Any additional costs will need to be

paid by the local jurisdictions. Examples include

four-lanes on a portion of Silverbell Road that was

scoped as three, and a railroad grade separation

and pedestrian underpass on Sahuarita Road that

were added by the Town of Sahuarita. Similarly,

the City of Tucson designed a six-lane cross

section instead of four-lanes on portions of

Houghton Road. These projects are being

enhanced at the direction of the lead agency. The

RTA expects these enhancements to occur

without additional RTA funding for the

incremental costs.

*Project soft costs (all costs except for right-of-

way and construction) are high on some projects

and need to be better controlled. Soft costs can

be controlled primarily by refining some tasks

from the consultants work program, through

better negotiating consultant fees, and by

curtailing agency/staff management and overhead

charges to RTA projects.

*Most of the projects have matching funds

provided by the local jurisdiction. The anticipated

local revenue sources are impact fees,

construction sales taxes, and County HURF bonds.

Revenues from these sources have diminished due

to the sluggish economy, and this may have a

schedule impact on some projects. The

magnitude of the impact has not yet been

assessed and will require ongoing review.

*Our peer agency review/case study

emphasizes Contra Costa (CA) Transportation

Authority, which can serve as a model for effective

project management and efficient project

delivery. Refining project cost estimating and

regional funding allocation processes will help

ensure that excessive funding of projects does not

hinder the development of additional needed

regional projects.

*The jurisdictions provided current estimates of

probable cost for their projects. In aggregate, the

current cost estimates for all Roadway Element

projects is $1,882,488,000, an increase of

$379,177,000 (about 25%) over the RTA Plan. In

contrast, the construction bids are coming in 28%

under the estimated cost. RTA soft cost estimates

were 30% of the cost of construction, based upon

industry standards. The actual experience has

been that soft costs have been much greater than

predicted, with several projects having soft costs

exceeding 70% of the construction cost. The

Region has the capacity to fully fund the RTA

projects at the increased amounts through the use

of other regional funds, but there will be little

additional funding for other projects. Reigning in

soft costs and preventing scope creep will enable

the region to retain its discretionary funding for

other needed regional transportation priorities.

*Finally, based on the ThinkTank sessions and

our project reviews, we formulated a draft Action

Plan for review by the RTA committees and Board,

to be implemented over the coming months.

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y | ES3

Exhibit ES-1 Project Map

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y | ES4

RTA

Project #

Lead

AgencyProject Period

Jul-

06

Jan

-07

Jul-

07

Jan

-08

Jul-

08

Jan

-09

Jul-

09

Jan

-10

Jul-

10

Jan

-11

Jul-

11

Jan

-12

Jul-

12

Jan

-13

Jul-

13

Jan

-14

Jul-

14

Jan

-15

2 MaranaCamino de Manana, Tangerine to

Linda Vista1st

3 MaranaTwin Peaks, Silverbell to I-10

(including I-10 Interchange)1st

Magee/Cortaro Farms, Thornydale

to Mona Lisa1st

Magee/Cortaro Farms, Mona Lisa to

La Canada1st

10 Pima Co. La Cholla, River to Ruthrauff 1st

1st DESIGN

1st DESIGN

26 TucsonKolb Road Connection with Sabino

Canyon1st

27 Pima Co.Tanque Verde, Catalina Highway to

Houghton1st

28 TucsonSpeedway, Camino Seco to

Houghton1st

1st

1st

35 Pima Co.I-19 Frontage Road, Canoa to

Continental1st

1 Marana Tangerine, I-10 to La Canada 2nd CONSTRUCT

4 Pima Co.La Cholla Blvd., Magee to

Tangerine2nd

5 Tucson Silverbell, Grant to Ina 2nd

12 Pima Co. Magee, La Canada to Oracle 2nd DESIGN

2nd

17 TucsonBroadway Blvd, Euclid to Country

Club2nd DESIGN

2nd

2nd

21 Pima Co. Valencia, Ajo to Mark 2nd

24 Pima Co. Valencia, Alvernon to Kolb 2nd

33 Pima Co.Wilmot Road, North of Sahuarita

Road2nd

8 Pima Co. Sunset, Silverbell to I-10 to River 3rd

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCT

DESIGN

PLANNING

PLANNING

South Section

Est. Complete 2/2011

PERIOD 1 ↓ PERIOD 2 (THROUGH 2016)

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

Sahuarita Rd., Interstate 19 to

Country Club

La Canada, River to Calle Concordia

(North and South Sections) 11 Pima Co.

Houghton, I-10 to Tanque VerdeTucson32

PH II -

CONSTRUCTION

PH III - PLANNING PH III - DESIGNPHIII -

PLNG

7

PLANNING

Pima Co.

DESIGN CONSTRUCT

North Section

CONSTRUCTPLANNING

34 Sahuarita

DESIGN

PLANNING CONSTRUCT

PLANNING

PLAN DESIGN CONSTRUCT

PLANNING DESIGN

CONSTRUCT

PH I-DCR PH I-DESIGN

PLANNING

PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION

PLANNING CONSTRUCTION

PH I -

CONST.

PH I -

DESIGN

PHIV - DESIGNPH IV -

CONSTRUCTION

PH II-DCR PH II-DESIGN

PH I-CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

DESIGNPLANNING

CONSTRUCTION

Est. Complete 12/2010

PH II-CONSTRUCTION

PH III - CONST.

PH II - DESIGN

PH V -

CONSTRUCTION

PHASE 6 through PHASE 11 WORK TO BE PERFORMED IN PERIOD 3

PH II - CONST.

PH II - DESIGN

PH V - DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

PH III - DESIGN

PH III -

CONSTRUCTIO

22nd Street, I-10 to Tucson

Boulevard/BarazzaTucson19

PH I - CONSTRUCTION

PH II -

PLANNINPH II - DESIGN

Grant Road, Oracle to SwanTucson18 PH III - DESIGN

PHI - PLANNING

PH II - DES.

PH IV DESIGN BEGIN 2016; PH V DESIGN BEGIN 2019; PHVI DESIGN BEGIN 2021

PH II -

CONST.

16PH III -

CONSTRUCTION

PHIV - DESIGN

PHI - PLANNING

PHII - DESIGNPH II -

CONSTRUCTIO

PHIII - DESIGN

PH I - PLANNING PH I-DESIGN

Downtown LinksTucson

Advance Planning

Intersection Alignment

No schedule at this time

Exhibit ES-2 Project Status

| 1

INTRODUCTION

On May 16, 2006, the voters of Pima County overwhelmingly approved a $2.1 billion

transportation plan and authorized a new ½¢ sales tax for its implementation. The plan

includes dedicated funding for four distinct elements: roadway capacity, safety, transit,

and environmental and economic vitality. About $1.2 billion (roughly 57%) of the 20-

year revenue stream is earmarked for roadway improvements over four, five-year

implementation periods. In addition to the RTA funding, another $334 million in local

and regional matching funds are needed to complete the projects on schedule.

The RTA plan includes 35 roadway projects that will be constructed within the initial 20-

year life of the RTA plan. Basic ground rules for project implementation were

established shortly after the plan was approved. The RTA’s “Our Mobility” brochure

identifies which period the project will be implemented, and the ground rules are

identified in RTA Primer for Project Submittals.

The 5-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) document more specifically outlines

what funding will be available for these projects during the coming five years for

advanced planning, design, right-of-way acquisition and construction activities. RTA

funding was programmed initially based on projected cash flow. If a jurisdiction wants

to accelerate a project within the same 5-year period (per the RTA ballot), the

jurisdiction may submit the request during the annual development of the TIP, or during

the course of the fiscal year through a TIP amendment. Any acceleration must be

approved by the RTA Board along with the PAG Regional Council. If there is a significant

impact to the cash flow, RTA revenue stream, the jurisdiction may be required to pay for

all costs associated with the funding acceleration. If a project is being accelerated from

one period to another period, the jurisdiction will pay for any costs associated with the

acceleration.

Of the 35 roadway projects, 23 are now underway, with progress ranging from very

initial planning to near completion. The RTA is accountable for facilitating the delivery of

all of these projects within scope, on time and on budget. As the end of first five-year

period approaches, the RTA Board requested an assessment of the roadway projects

relative to meeting the voters’ mandates. This report fulfills the Board’s request by

identifying the status of the projects, assessing the challenges and best practices

associated with each, and recommending modifications to RTA programs and

procedures based on the findings.

| 2

This is voluntary self-initiated management-based assessment and it should not be

considered a formal audit. Some RTA projects were placed on-hold by directive of the

RTA. Several of the projects have been released, yet a few a still on-hold pending the

results of this assessment.

The roadway projects are being delivered to the community by RTA member

jurisdictions who serve as the lead agency through an intergovernmental agreement

with the RTA. The lead agency is responsible for assuring that the planning, design, and

construction is completed within the scope approved by the voter and its agreement

with the RTA. The RTA is essentially in an oversight role, monitoring the progress of

each project, and paying for allowable project expenses on a reimbursement basis. The

RTA uses a performance monitoring system called Earned Value Management (EVM) to

comparatively track project progress and expenditures in an objective manner. EVM has

the ability to combine measurements of scope, schedule, and cost in a single integrated

system.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants in this assessment include the key staff of all the lead agencies with first

period and second period projects: City of Tucson, Pima County, Marana, and Sahuarita.

The lead agencies also invited selected consultants to participate in project interviews

and to provide supporting information requested by the RTA project assessment team.

Extensive project information was collected, including contracts, plans, planning and

engineering studies, and construction documents. All of the information was placed on

an FTP site created for this assessment. The completion of the assessment could not

have been possible without the enthusiasm, openness, and professionalism of the

jurisdictional staff and their project consultants.

In addition to the jurisdictions, numerous representatives of the planning, design, public

involvement, and utility stakeholder groups attended expert panel sessions discussed

later. Collectively, they contributed almost 100 hours of their time to share their

experiences and insights with us.

APPROACH

The approach to this endeavor is multifaceted and collaborative. Major steps include:

1. Detailed initial and follow-up interviews were held with the lead agencies

regarding the status and challenges for each of the projects. In some cases, the

jurisdictions included project consultants involved in project planning, design,

and public involvement activities. The interviews were preceded by completion

of three questionnaires, one dealing with project status, one on public

involvement, and the third focusing on costs and expenses to date. The results

| 3

of the interviews are summarized herein and are further detailed in a separate

report.

2. Three “ThinkTank” expert panel sessions were held to address five key

questions. The sessions were conducted on three successive Tuesdays beginning

August 17 and concluding August 31, 2010. There were about 20 active

participants at each session, and over 300 pages of documentation were created

by RTA staff and project consultants. The results of ThinkTank sessions are

summarized herein and are further detailed in a separate ThinkTank

report.

Above, one of the three RTA ThinkTank session in progress.

3. A peer agency study was undertaken with emphasis on California “self help

counties”, especially Contra Costa County which has many similarities to our

region. The peer review is summarized in this report and a full report provides

additional resource information. The report also provides some insight from a

national perspective and results of nationwide survey conducted for the USDOT.

4. An FTP site was created with two primary purposes. The first is to act as a

mailbox for information requested from the jurisdictions in support of the initial

and follow-up interviews. The second is to act as a repository of detailed records

about all of the RTA projects for use in future reporting and as a component of

the RTA’s goal of public transparency. The site will be refined and may eventually

be accessible to the public after this study is complete.

The four activities were combined to provide observations and recommendations for

use by the RTA staff and governing board, as well as the local jurisdictions, to improve

the delivery of both the current projects and as the remain arterial projects commence.

This overall project approach is shown schematically in Exhibit 1. A listing of the

projects by jurisdiction is provided in Exhibit 2, and their location is shown on the map in

Exhibit 3.

| 4

RTA POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

The RTA Board had established a comprehensive set of policies and procedures. They

describe how lead agencies can apply for project funding, RTA and lead agency

commitments, the need to enter into Intergovernmental Agreements IGAs) for each

project, funding and local match commitments, and other elements. These documents

are all available on the RTA’s website and are incorporated by reference.

The extensive Administrative Code is comprised of policies, objectives, and procedures

(POPs) including:

• Policies, Objectives, and Procedures - June 2006

• Roadway, Safety, and Environmental and Economic Vitality Elements

• Policies, Objectives and Procedures - June 2006 (Transit Element)

• RTA Implementation Plan - June 2006

• A resolution of the Regional Transportation Authority Board of Directors adopting

the RTA Implementation Plan for May 16, 2006, Special Election

The Board and staff also have approved a series of Memoranda of Policy dealing with

specific funding and implementation topics.

• Memorandum of Policy - January 2008

o Funding of Project Re-Design

o Required Local Funding

o Acceleration of Roadway Improvement Element Projects

• Memorandum of Policy - November 2007

o Deprogramming of Funds

o Distribution of RTA Tax Revenues to Member Jurisdictions

o Periodic Adjustments in Project Allocations

• Memorandum of Policy - October 2007

o Use of Unexpended Funds on Categorical Projects

o Categorical Projects with Costs that Exceed the Authorized Funding

Amount

o Maintenance of Effort Reports

• Memorandum of Policy - September 2007

o Public Outreach/Involvement Costs

o RTA Reimbursement of In-house Staff Costs

o In-House Staff Costs - Eligible Costs

o RTA Project Approval Process

o RTA Project Funding - Multiple Funding Sources

| 5

Exhibit 1 RTA Project Assessment Process

| 6

Exhibit 2 List of RTA Projects Reviewed

Pima County

RTA 4, La Cholla Blvd., Magee to

Tangerine

RTA 7, Magee/Cortaro Farms,

Thornydale to La Canada

RTA 8, Sunset, Silverbell to I-10 to River

RTA 10, La Cholla, River to Ruthrauff

RTA 11, La Canada, River to Calle

Concordia

RTA 12, Magee, La Canada to Oracle

RTA 21, Valencia, Ajo to Mark

RTA 24, Valencia, Alvernon to Kolb

RTA 27, Tanque Verde, Catalina

Highway to Houghton

RTA 33, Wilmot Road, North of

Sahuarita Road

RTA 35, I-19 Frontage Road, Canoa to

Continental

City of Tucson

RTA 5, Silverbell, Grant to Ina

RTA 16, Downtown Links

RTA 17, Broadway Blvd, Euclid to

Country Club

RTA 18, Grant Road, Oracle to Swan

RTA 19, 22nd Street, I-10 to Tucson

Boulevard/Barazza

RTA 26, Kolb Road Connection with

Sabino Canyon

RTA 28, Speedway, Camino Seco to

Houghton

RTA 32, Houghton, I-10 to Tanque Verde

Marana

RTA 1, Tangerine, I-10 to La Canada

RTA 2, Camino de Manana, Tangerine to

Linda Vista

RTA 3, Twin Peaks, Silverbell to I-10

(including I-10 Interchange)

Sahuarita

RTA 34, Sahuarita Rd.

| 7

Exhibit 3 RTA Project Map

| 8

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND STATUS

PROJECT –BY-PROJECT BRIEFING

This section provides a brief synopsis of each of the 23 projects and summary charts of their

status. Prior to this information is Exhibit 4, which shows the schedule status of the projects.

The table shows that Period 1 projects which have not already broken ground are slated to

begin construction by the end of Period 1. Period 2 projects are substantially underway in

planning and design. The construction timelines shown in the exhibit are estimates from the

jurisdictions, and may be overly aggressive. RTA funding may not be available to meet these

schedules, but funding is expected to be available to comply with period 2 construction starts

for all projects. One caveat is the availability of local funds, which is discussed later in the

report.

Exhibit 6 shows anticipated RTA cash flows for period 1 and period 2 projects. Following the

summaries, Exhibit 6 includes a series of tables that present the project scopes as they appear

in the ballot language and in the Administrative Code. As the tables show, several of the

projects have differences in scope for structures such as bridges and interchanges, and for

more minor cross sectional elements such as sidewalks, curb and gutter, and drainage features.

The project team examined the status of each project during the interview process.

| 9

Exhibit 4 RTA Project Schedule Dashboard

(Note: Period 2 projects as scheduled by jurisdictions)

RTA

Project #

Lead

AgencyProject Period

Jul-

06

Jan

-07

Jul-

07

Jan

-08

Jul-

08

Jan

-09

Jul-

09

Jan

-10

Jul-

10

Jan

-11

Jul-

11

Jan

-12

Jul-

12

Jan

-13

Jul-

13

Jan

-14

Jul-

14

Jan

-15

2 MaranaCamino de Manana, Tangerine to

Linda Vista1st

3 MaranaTwin Peaks, Silverbell to I-10

(including I-10 Interchange)1st

Magee/Cortaro Farms, Thornydale

to Mona Lisa1st

Magee/Cortaro Farms, Mona Lisa to

La Canada1st

10 Pima Co. La Cholla, River to Ruthrauff 1st

1st DESIGN

1st DESIGN

26 TucsonKolb Road Connection with Sabino

Canyon1st

27 Pima Co.Tanque Verde, Catalina Highway to

Houghton1st

28 TucsonSpeedway, Camino Seco to

Houghton1st

1st

1st

35 Pima Co.I-19 Frontage Road, Canoa to

Continental1st

1 Marana Tangerine, I-10 to La Canada 2nd CONSTRUCT

4 Pima Co.La Cholla Blvd., Magee to

Tangerine2nd

5 Tucson Silverbell, Grant to Ina 2nd

12 Pima Co. Magee, La Canada to Oracle 2nd DESIGN

2nd

17 TucsonBroadway Blvd, Euclid to Country

Club2nd DESIGN

2nd

2nd

21 Pima Co. Valencia, Ajo to Mark 2nd

24 Pima Co. Valencia, Alvernon to Kolb 2nd

33 Pima Co.Wilmot Road, North of Sahuarita

Road2nd

8 Pima Co. Sunset, Silverbell to I-10 to River 3rd

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCT

DESIGN

PLANNING

PLANNING

South Section

Est. Complete 2/2011

PERIOD 1 ↓ PERIOD 2 (THROUGH 2016)

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

Sahuarita Rd., Interstate 19 to

Country Club

La Canada, River to Calle Concordia

(North and South Sections) 11 Pima Co.

Houghton, I-10 to Tanque VerdeTucson32

PH II -

CONSTRUCTION

PH II I - PLANNING PH III - DESIGNPHIII -

PLNG

7

PLANNING

Pima Co.

DESIGN CONSTRUCT

North Section

CONSTRUCTPLANNING

34 Sahuarita

DESIGN

PLANNING CONSTRUCT

PLANNING

PLAN DESIGN CONSTRUCT

PLANNING DESIGN

CONSTRUCT

PH I-DCR PH I-DESIGN

PLANNING

PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION

PLANNING CONSTRUCTION

PH I -

CONST.

PH I -

DESIGN

PHIV - DESIGNPH IV -

CONSTRUCTION

PH II-DCR PH II-DESIGN

PH I-CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

DESIGNPLANNING

CONSTRUCTION

Est. Complete 12/2010

PH II-CONSTRUCTION

PH III - CONST.

PH II - DESIGN

PH V -

CONSTRUCTION

PHASE 6 through PHASE 11 WORK TO BE PERFORMED IN PERIOD 3

PH II - CONST.

PH II - DESIGN

PH V - DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

PH III - DESIGN

PH III -

CONSTRUCTIO

22nd Street, I-10 to Tucson

Boulevard/BarazzaTucson19

PH I - CONSTRUCTION

PH II -

PLANNINPH II - DESIGN

Grant Road, Oracle to SwanTucson18 PH III - DESIGN

PHI - PLANNING

PH II - DES.

PH IV DESIGN BEGIN 2016; PH V DESIGN BEGIN 2019; PHVI DESIGN BEGIN 2021

PH II -

CONST.

16PH III -

CONSTRUCTION

PHIV - DESIGN

PHI - PLANNING

PHII - DESIGNPH II -

CONSTRUCTIO

PHIII - DESIGN

PH I - PLANNING PH I-DESIGN

Downtown LinksTucson

Advance Planning

Intersection Alignment

No schedule at this time

| 10

EXHIBIT 5 RTA CASH FLOW FORECAST

RTA

Project #

Lead Agency Project Period FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total

7 Pima Co. RTA #7 Magee/La Cholla 1st $5,036,000 $12,451,000 $7,847,433 $25,334,433

7 RTA #7 Magee Mona Lisa-

Thornydale 1st $1,071,087 $1,071,087

11 Pima Co. RTA #11 La Cananda, Ina - Calle

Concordia1st $9,750,000 $1,034,650 $10,784,650

11 RTA #11 La Cananda, Ina - River 1st $843,000 $843,000

26 Tucson RTA #26 Kolb Connection 1st $5,000,000 $2,900,000 $7,900,000

28 Tucson RTA #28 Speedway 1st $6,833,335 $4,691,663 $11,524,998

32 Tucson RTA #32 Houghton Valencia-

Irvington1st $11,500,000 $11,800,000 $2,500,000 $25,800,000

32 Tucson RTA #32 Houghton Broadway &

Speedway1st $8,004,000 $500,000 $350,000 $8,854,000

32 Tucson RTA #32 Houghton I-10-Valencia 1st $120,000 $120,000 $60,000 $300,000

34 Sahuarita RTA #34 Sahuarita 1st $5,100,000 $5,100,000 $5,100,000 $5,100,000 $2,550,000 $22,950,000

1 Marana RTA #1 Tangerine 2nd $1,125,000 $1,125,000

4 Pima Co. RTA #4 La Cholla Magee-Overton 2nd $4,930,000 $9,600,000 $4,851,737 $19,381,737

5 Pima Co. RTA #5 Silverbell 2nd $2,836,000 $4,333,000 $1,664,000 $8,000,000 $8,800,000 $25,633,000

6 Marana RTA #6 Ina Interchange 2nd $1,148,000 $1,148,000 $3,304,000 $13,735,000 $19,335,000

12 Pima Co. RTA #12 Magee 2nd $700,000 $1,840,000 $3,307,258 $5,847,258

16 Tucson RTA #16 Downtown Links (St

Marys)2nd $10,500,000 $500,000 $11,000,000

16 Tucson RTA #16 Downtown Links (7th -

Broadway)2nd $996,000 $3,239,000 $9,960,000 $2,490,000 $16,685,000

16 Tucson RTA #16 Downtown Links (7th -

Church)2nd $2,790,000 $2,220,000 $720,000 $720,000 $180,000 $6,630,000

17 Tucson RTA #17 Broadway 2nd $1,098,000 $3,498,000 $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $7,500,000 $31,096,000

18 Tucson RTA #18 Grant (Oracle Int) 2nd $11,048,000 $2,700,000 $13,748,000

18 Tucson RTA #18 Grant (Oracle-1st) 2nd $999,000 $17,931,000 $12,080,000 $10,000,000 $41,010,000

18 Tucson RTA #18 Grant (Swan - Alvernon) 2nd $267,000 $1,068,000 $2,967,000 $10,800,000 $15,102,000

19 Tucson RTA #19 22nd St (Kino Int) 2nd $17,665,000 $11,800,000 $29,465,000

19 Tucson RTA #19 22nd St (Viaduct) 2nd $1,825,000 $1,075,000 $11,075,000 $24,000,000 $18,000,000 $55,975,000

19 Tucson RTA #19 22nd St (I-10 - Kino) 2nd

21 Pima Co. RTA #21 Valencia (Mark -Wade) 2nd $1,365,000 $2,000,000 $791,188 $2,000,000 $6,156,188

21 Pima Co. RTA #21 Valencia (Wade - Eagle) 2nd

24 Pima Co. RTA #24 Valencia, Alvernon-

Wilmot2nd $1,350,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $39,227,000 $40,877,000

24 Pima Co. RTA #24 Valencia,Wilmot-Kolb 2nd

33 Tucson RTA #33 Wilmot 2nd $480,000 $8,920,000 $9,400,000

8 Pima Co. RTA #8, Sunset Rd 3rd

FY Total $112,964,422 $109,768,313 $72,622,616 $67,681,000 $100,792,000 $463,828,351

Original Cashflow $82,204,000 $71,886,000 $79,490,000 $43,932,000 $56,375,000 $333,887,000

FISCAL YEAR

| 11

RTA 1: Tangerine Road

Period 2; Planning Stage – Lead Agency: Marana

Estimated Project Budget: $74,215,000

Ballot Project Budget: $74,215,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $45,325,000

2. Marana Impact Fees: $21,390,000

3. Oro Valley Impact Fees: $1,000,000

4. Pima County Impact Fees: $6,500,000

This improvement project for Tangerine Road from I-10 to La Canada (in Oro Valley) will provide

a reconstructed roadway with a minimum of 4 lanes with raised medians, drainage

improvements, sidewalks, ADA facilities, multi-use path and bike lanes, traffic signals, and

wildlife crossings. The project will require right-of-way acquisitions and utility relocations and

modifications. This project will be tied to other Marana public works projects related to a sewer

line extension and a water line extension.

This project has a long history as a state route; however, it is not on the State Highway System.

Parsons Brinkerhoff conducted an alignment study in the 1980s and additional studies defined a

300-foot limited access corridor along Tangerine Road. In some areas, the full 300 ft. wide right-

of-way width has been obtained. There is a prior Memorandum of Understanding that would

give Tangerine Road to the State and in exchange, the State would turn back Oracle Road to the

local jurisdictions. The disposition of this Memorandum of Understanding is unknown and

probably should be investigated further, and then rescinded if no longer valid.

Prior to the establishment of RTA, various commitments were made by the local jurisdictions

with the Arizona Department of Transportation (reconstruction of the I-10 /Tangerine Road

traffic interchange) and several developers. The total RTA project may be divided into three

subprojects. The Town of Oro Valley may be responsible for one of the subprojects. There has

been discussion about a new I-10 traffic interchange that would include a grade separation at

the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. However, it is uncertain whether this will be built in the near

future and how it would integrate with the RTA’s project.

Some of the project challenges for the Town staff include the following.

• Due to the location of the project, there are numerous environmental issues, e.g.,

archeological, cultural, and wildlife issues. All are considered challenges.

• There are no major wash crossings of the roadway; however, there are dozens of minor

crossings that will need to be accommodated.

| 12

• A significant challenge will be the project funding due to co-funding from several local

sources. (Depending on the final project scope and the resolution of the interchange’s

schedule, this project could be underfunded. If project scope is expanded to include a

new interchange, additional funding will need to be identified).

Best practices discovered during this project include the following.

• The Town staff conducts its public involvement effort without a Community Advisory

Committee or anything similar. They believe that their public involvement effort is still

meaningful, productive and relatively inexpensive.

RTA 2: Camino de Mañana (Twin Peaks Road)

Period 1; Construction (near completion) – Lead Agency: Marana

Estimated Project Budget: $25,702,000

Ballot Project Budget: $15,685,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $6,185,000

2. Regional HURF: $8,200,000

3. Pima County Impact Fees: $2,000,000

4. Marana Impact Fees: $9,317,000

Construction of the Camino De Mañana Roadway Improvement project consists of the

realignment and reconstruction of approximately 3.3 miles of a four-lane divided roadway with

curbed median, outside curb, sidewalk, paved path, drainage structures, and storm drain and

traffic signal modifications. It also includes utility line construction that will include new water

and sewer modifications. The northern connection is at the intersection of Dove Mountain

Boulevard and Tangerine Road.

This roadway improvement project was already in the Design Phase prior to the approval of the

RTA Regional Transportation Plan in 2006. The design was based on the Pima County Roadway

Design Manual. For design purposes, this roadway was determined to not be an

environmentally sensitive roadway.

Based on the RTA documentation, this roadway was envisioned to be a 4-lane divided roadway

for part of its length and a 2-lane roadway for the remainder. The Town staff, after performing

an evaluation in 2008/2009, made the decision to construct the entire length of the roadway as

a 4-lane divided roadway. The analysis performed established that the additional cost to

| 13

construct the higher capacity roadway was low enough to warrant the Town’s investment in

the additional work. The Planning and Design Phases have been completed. Construction is

underway and is expected to be completed in December 2010. The opening of this roadway will

be coordinated with the opening of the new I-10 / Twin Peaks Road traffic interchange. The

name of the roadway has been changed to Twin Peaks Road.

Some of the project challenges for the Town staff include the following.

• The overall design, particularly the drainage design, was a challenge.

• The construction started prior to the acquisition of all of the property for right of way.

However, there were some rights of entry. The contractor had to work around some of

the properties where negotiations were still occurring.

• Water line work was included in the project. However, all of the costs related to the

water line work have been kept separate because RTA does not fund utility upgrades.

The Town opted to use Marana Water Utility resources to expand its system in

conjunction with the roadway project..

• Some of the residents adjacent to the project wanted noise walls and protection for wells

beyond the clear zone. The Town staff’s decision to not construct any noise walls along

the project was challenging.

Best practices discovered during this project included the following.

• It was decided to use the Construction Manager at Risk process so that this project would

be completed at the same time as the I-10/Twin Peaks traffic interchange. This process

provided improved project constructability, faster delivery and few, if any, change orders.

There has been better overall input, including utility coordination, and there has been no

“posturing” for change orders. This made the project more cost effective with lower

construction and in-house indirect costs. In addition, there was support from both the

Town Council and the Town procurement staff. The Town staff was able to negotiate with

the prime contractor for the selection of subcontractors, surveyors, and other

elements/issues related to the project.

• The surveyors performing field surveying related to the construction were hired by the

contractor from a list of acceptable surveying companies provided by the Town. As

construction progresses, the surveyors collect information that will be used for the As-

Built drawings. Having the survey company as a subcontractor to the prime contractor

reduces the liability of the Town.

• Reducing the width of the curb gutter pan from 2 ft. to 1 ft. reduced the cost of the

project by $80,000. This design change was recommended by a bike advisory committee.

| 14

RTA 3: Twin Peaks Road –

Period 1, Construction (near completion) – Lead Agency: Marana

Estimated Project Budget: $83,349,000

Ballot Project Budget: $76,422,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $30,752,000

2. Marana Impact Fees: $14,000,000

3. ADOT: $14,000,000

4. Federal Earmarks: $10,176,000

5. Regional HURF: $1,730,000

6. STP: $15,979,000

The new Twin Peaks Interchange is located on Interstate 10 (I-10) at exit 245 between the Avra

Valley Road and Cortaro Road interchanges. The improvements extend existing Twin Peaks

Road over the Santa Cruz River, to what is referred to as the former Camino de Mañana portion

of roadway and the Linda Vista Boulevard intersection east of I-10. This project also

incorporates an overpass at the Union Pacific Railroad tracks east of I-10; a new access road,

Tiffany Loop, is built to provide local business access on the west side of I-10. The traffic

interchange is estimated to be open by late October, 2010, with all construction completed by

December 2010.

This project originated in the Continental Ranch Master Plan and was incorporated into the I-10

General Plan utilizing a Change of Access report. The project starts west of I-10 and ends at the

point where it connects with reconstructed Camino de Mañana in the vicinity of the 1600 block

of Oasis Road. The proposed roadway is a 4-lane divided roadway with a raised median and

bike lanes. There will be a new bridge over the Santa Cruz River, a new traffic interchange with

I-10, and a new overpass over the Union Pacific Railroad.

While the Federal Highway Administration does not allow the Construction Manager at Risk

process, they do allow a Design/Build project delivery process. The Town elected to use an

Arizona Department of Transportation competitive low bid process. The prime contractor is

Pulice Construction.

Some of the project challenges for the Town staff include the following.

• Working with the Arizona Department of Transportation staff on funding issues was a

challenge. It was difficult to get funding contact and confirmation information on

available funds. This created confusion and indecision. In addition, the Town is not

receiving Local Government Investment Pool reports.

| 15

• The Arizona Department of Transportation staff assigned to manage this project changed

five times over the life of the project. In addition, it appears that there are no

documented processes or guidelines to help the local agencies expedite their projects.

• The prime contractor was challenging to work with, especially compared with the

adjoining project being built using CMAR.

RTA 4: La Cholla Boulevard

Period 2, Engineering – Lead Agency: Pima County

Estimated Project Budget: $29,260,000 (incomplete estimate)

Ballot Project Budget: $48,333,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $42,233,000

2. Pima County Impact Fees: $5,300,000

3. Unidentified: Undetermined

The planned improvements include widening La Cholla Boulevard to a four lane divided

roadway with a center median, paved shoulders, a bridge over the Canyon del Oro Wash,

pedestrian ways, and landscaped curbed medians.

A critical feature of the project is the construction of a bridge over the Canada del Oro Wash.

The residents of this part of the community have been waiting years for an all-weather crossing

to be constructed. The proposed roadway is being called a “desert parkway”. The roadway will

be constructed as a typical PCDOT arterial roadway with a 20 ft. wide curbed median and 11 ft.

wide travel lanes. Curbing and drainage structures will be provided along the outside of the

roadway pavement. Due to the Canada del Oro Wash and the wildlife features that are

associated with it, the roadway will be designed using the environmental sensitive criteria

contained in the PCDOT Roadway Design Manual (Third Edition/2010). Project Cost Estimates

are incomplete, but additional funding needs are anticipated.

Some of the project challenges for the PCDOT staff include the following.

• There is a Metro Water District well with prior rights within the footprint of the

northbound directional roadway. As a result, the north bound lanes will be aligned to

the east around the well, which will create a wider median and a gentle reverse curve.

Metro Water would prefer to have the County relocate the well outside of the median.

• The relocation of utility facilities will be a significant effort. The number of cross

roadway drainage structures complicates the underground utility work. The utility work

will require a continuous coordination effort in order to maintain the project schedule.

• It appears that the Corps of Engineers will require PCDOT to apply for an individual 404

permit, a requirement of the Clean Water Act. This could delay the project.

| 16

Best practices discovered during this project included:

• A corridor approach is being used to address this long roadway improvement. The DCR

is prepared for the entire corridor and then individual Environmental Assessment and

Mitigation Reports are prepared for smaller segments.

• Pre-construction work tasks are scheduled for a two year timeframe.

• The Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report process has been streamlined in

order to expedite implementation.

• The Community Advisory Committee selection process has been refined.

• The Community Advisory Committee has representatives from many Homeowners

Associations who have been very helpful in disseminating information to the members

of their associations.

RTA 5: Silverbell Road

Period 2 and 4; Planning– Lead Agency: City of Tucson

Estimated Project Budget: $61,955,610

Ballot Project Budget: $57,053,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $42,653,000

2. Pima County Impact Fees: $6,400,000

3. City of Tucson Impact Fees: $8,000,000

4. Unidentified: $4,902,610

Silverbell Road is a critical regional transportation link that serves the west and northwest

portions of the Tucson metropolitan area. This roadway is scoped for reconstruction primarily

as a 4-lane divided desert parkway to include pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, drainage

improvements, new native landscaping, and enhanced wildlife crossings. The approved scope

calls for a 3-lane segment from Ina Road to Sunset Road; however the Town of Marana

proposes that this segment also be four-lanes. Funding for any additional costs will not be an

RTA responsibility.

Because three jurisdictions are involved in this project, it has been decided to implement a

consensus process to adopt the procedures that will be used. In addition, the City and the

County will be co-signers of the submittals.

The consultant is currently preparing the Design Concept Report for the entire eight mile

project. As part of this effort, the consultant will prepare 30% plans for the southern section

and 15% plans for the remainder of the project. The Pima County Sunset Road project is being

merged with this project and steps are being taken to define the intersection of the two

| 17

projects. This corridor planning effort will be completed in the fall of 2010. The City staff and

the consultant will then make presentations to the governing bodies of the City, the County and

the Town of Marana. Once this is done, the roadway alignment will be set and the impacted

property owners will be notified. It is envisioned that the right of way acquisition costs in the

southern section of the project will be low, which will allow the savings to be used for other

project expenses.

Some of the concerns of the City staff include the following.

• The archaeological survey is a significant concern. The effort on this project is both

massive and very expensive. The entire effort could cost as much as $12 million. The

potential exists that the effort could slow progress on this improvement project. In

addition, it will have an impact on the issue of the 404 Permit by the Corps of Engineers.

Overall, the delay to the project could be as long as two years.

• The relocation of utility facilities will be a substantial effort. Each cross roadway

drainage structure further complicates the underground utility work.

• The project funding is a concern. The staffs of the three jurisdictions are evaluating how

the existing funding can be enhanced by other funding sources. Efforts to contain costs

will be ongoing throughout the life of this project.

• Related to the previous concern is the issue of allocating funds between the southern

and northern sections of the project. This is especially critical since the project will be

constructed in short segments starting at the southern terminal. Will there be sufficient

funds for reconstructing the northern section at the appropriate time? Should

consideration be given to applying for federal funds? All three jurisdictions have impact

fee benefit areas. Can some of those funds be used on this project?

Best practices discovered during this project included:

• This project is unique because of the number of jurisdictions involved (three). There is

an excellent spirit of cooperation helping to implement the project.

• The use of consensus to establish the procedures and guidelines to follow on the

project.

| 18

RTA 7: Cortaro Farms Road and Magee Road

Central and West Period 1, Design – Lead Agency: Pima County

Estimated Project Budget: $61,606,325

Ballot Project Budget: $33,270,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $29,570,000

2. Pima County Bonds: $7,105,

3. Pima County Impact Fees: $5,392,220

4. Regional HURF: $26,637,000

The RTA 7 project has been divided into two subprojects. This subproject, which is either

referred to as the Stage 1 project or the Central project, is far advanced in the design phase of

implementation. The prime consultant is AECOM. This subproject will connect with the RTA 12

or Stage 3 project (La Canada Drive to Oracle Road) immediately to the east. West of the Stage

2 subproject (Thornydale Road to Mona Lisa Road) is a 1997 Bond Transportation Improvement

Program project between Camino de Oeste and Thornydale Road. It is anticipated that the

construction phase of the Stage 1 subproject will be substantially completed in the summer of

2013. Similar to other RTA projects, the PCDOT staff is attempting to perform the preliminary

planning effort for the entire corridor. Once that has been completed and major decisions have

been made, more detailed evaluations and analyses will be performed. Subprojects will

advance to construction as funds become available.

Some of the concerns of the staffs of PCDOT and AECOM include the following.

• The relocation of utility facilities at the La Cholla Boulevard intersection is a significant

effort. The number of cross roadway drainage structures complicates the underground

utility work. The AECOM staff is working very closely with the staffs of the various

utilities. In particular, the Metro Water District has a significant number of water lines to

relocate. To keep this subproject on schedule, the water district staff may need outside

assistance, which will increase their costs. In addition, there is some concern about their

willingness to cooperate.

• Due to the utility relocation work and the complexity of the reconstruction of the La

Cholla Boulevard intersection, maintaining the approved construction schedule may be

difficult.

Best practices discovered during this project to date include:

• Utility coordination at the earliest stages of the implementation process is important. It

has also helped to know which utilities have prior rights and to define where the utilities

can be relocated to. Informing the utilities of the tentative schedule and whether

multiple utilities will be sharing the same area of the right of way or utility trench has

also helped.

| 19

• The innovative accommodations made for bicyclists make the design of the La Cholla

Boulevard/Magee Road intersection is very unique.

RTA 8: Sunset Road

Period 3; Advance Planning Lead Agency: Pima County

Estimated Project Budget: $24,825,000

Ballot Project Budget: $22,764,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $12,764,000

2. Pima County Impact Fees: $5,000,000

3. City of Tucson Impact Fees: $5,000,000

The Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) is planning to construct a new bridge

across the Santa Cruz River along the Sunset Road alignment east of Silverbell Road. The

previous bridge was severely damaged and demolished after the October flood of 1983. As a

part of this project, Sunset Road will be reconstructed as a 3-lane roadway with a center two-

way left turn lane. The roadway cross-section will include bike lanes and ADA-accessible

sidewalks. The new roadway will continue east from Silverbell Road across the Santa Cruz River

to I-10 and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad tracks. A grade separation is being discussed to

span I-10 and the railroad tracks. Ultimately, Sunset Road east of the railroads tracks will

intersect or connect with River Road. It will improve vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle safety

and provide an improved east-west, all weather route for residents, commuters and emergency

service providers in the northwest portion of the Tucson Metropolitan Area. This improvement

project will also reduce congestion at the two adjacent I-10 interchanges.

The preliminary planning efforts have been initiated in conjunction with the Silverbell Road

improvement project between Grant Road and Ina Road, which is currently being led by the

City of Tucson staff. Preliminary discussions with other agencies regarding various activities on

Silverbell Road and I-10 have also been initiated.

This project faces an unusually large number of challenges and unresolved issues including:

• The configuration of the roadways at the required I-10 traffic interchange

• The sequencing of the I-10 reconstruction project and its impact on this project

• Whether there will be a grade separation at the Union Pacific Railroad tracks (This

involves input from the Arizona Corporation Commission, ADOT, FHWA, and UPRR.)

• The details of the cost participation agreement with ADOT and FHWA

• The use and timing of RTA funds

| 20

• The FHWA regulations that will need to be adhered to obtain federal financial

participation.

RTA 10: La Cholla Boulevard

Period 1; Construction Lead Agency: Pima County

Estimated Project Budget: $19,566,081

Ballot Project Budget: $14,760,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $14,760,000

2. Pima County Impact Fees: $1,218,996

3. Pima County Bonds: $2,075,000

4. Pima County HURF: $1,012

5. Regional HURF: $1,511,073

The project consists of improving the roadway to six travel lanes, paved shoulders for bicycles,

sidewalks, curbs, and storm drains, intersection improvements at Curtis and at Ruthrauff, a new

six-lane bridge over the Rillito River, a raised landscaped median, and public art.

The project was designed and is being constructed as described in the RTA documentation.

Construction was started in September 2009 and is expected to be completed in the summer of

2011. The PCDOT staff wanted to do a full roadway closure to reduce the duration and cost of

the project. This proposal was rejected due to the need to provide access for emergency

services and transit. This required the existing bridge to remain in place for a significant amount

of time after the construction started which complicated the construction of the replacement

structure.

Some of the project challenges for the PCDOT staff include the following.

• Addressing the issue of direct access to/from residences along an arterial roadway. This

project involved both the purchase of some of the properties and safely accommodating

those that chose not to sell their properties.

• The river crossing made utility work difficult. Ultimately, the utility relocation work is

expected to be completed without affecting the schedule of the contractor.

• The discussions during the Community Advisory Committee meetings that were held for

the project tended to be dominated by one or two committee members.

• The inexperience of the prime contractor, Eagle Rock Construction, in some instances

has resulted in the contractor not planning activities far enough into the future than

they should.

| 21

• The decision by the PCDOT staff as to whether or not there should be a full closure of

the roadway to replace the bridge over the Rillito River was difficult. The next closest

river crossing is one mile to the east at Flowing Wells Road/La Canada Drive.

Best practices discovered during this project included:

• Public involvement activities should be managed in a way that promotes reasonable and

constructive public involvement. For example, ground rules established for conducting

Community Advisory Committee meetings for a project should encourage, or perhaps

require, a reasonable amount of input from each committee member. This could help

prevent discussion during the meetings from being dominated by just a few committee

members.

• Options for access control during roadway construction should be carefully considered

in order to avoid undue costs and issues such as those associated with providing

frontage roads during the construction of this project.

• More research needs to be conducted in the Planning and Design Phases on the subject

of “prior commitments” made in the early stages of the project in order to identify

inconsistencies with the RTA project scope and other related problems.

RTA 11: La Canada Drive

Period 1; North - Construction and South- Design Lead Agency: Pima County

Estimated Project Budget: $66,169,906

Ballot Project Budget: $41,731,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $27,665,000

2. Pima County Impact Fees: $5,605,783

3. Pima County Bonds: $575,558

4. Pima County HURF: $30,365

5. Regional HURF: $2,426,000

6. STP: $29,867,000

The Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) has finalized plans, environmental

documents and permits to improve La Cañada Drive from Ina Road to Calle Concordia and

awarded the construction contract to KE&G Construction. The plans call for La Cañada Drive to

be widened to four-lanes in order: to accommodate increased traffic demands in the area for

the year 2030; to improve vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian safety; and to provide

a key north-south, all weather route for residents, commuters and emergency service providers

| 22

in the northwest portion of the Tucson Metropolitan Area. It is anticipated that construction

will require 22 months to complete.

The planning for this portion of the project was done in cooperation with the Town of Oro

Valley. The Town reconstructed its segment of La Canada Drive several years ago. This

cooperative planning effort reduced the cost of this implementation phase for PCDOT.

Unlike most PCDOT projects, the Project Manager for this project is a consultant. The individual

charges his time to the project as an expense. A Value Engineering exercise was performed, but

the savings produced from the effort were very small. It is believed that this occurred because

the PCDOT staff made very good decisions in the design and the preparation of the plans. The

PCDOT staff does believe that the Value Engineering effort needs to be performed earlier,

possibly at the 30% plan set level, to obtain the most benefit.

The various implementation phases of the section from River Road to Ina have progressed in a

smoother, more straightforward fashion than those of the La Canada Drive project immediately

to the north. This is due to the fact that the PCDOT staff addressed and resolved several major

issues on the northerly project that would have had to be addressed on this project.

This section has always been designated to receive federal funding. As a result, various federal

requirements (particularly environmental requirements) need to be satisfied. It is anticipated

that construction will begin in March 2011 and will be substantially completed in March 2013.

The construction phase of this project will overlap with the construction phase of the project to

the north for approximately six months.

Some of the project challenges for the PCDOT staff include the following.

• During the pre-construction phase, there was a significant controversy about the

number of noise walls to be constructed along the project. Some residents wanted more

noise walls constructed than were technically warranted. The PCDOT staff was able to

convince the Pima County Board of Supervisors that only those walls that were

technically warranted should be constructed.

• The relocation of utility facilities is a massive effort. The number of cross roadway

drainage structures complicates the underground utility work. In addition to the typical

utilities found along arterial roadways, the right of way for this roadway included a

Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) overhead electric transmission line. (WAPA

has prior rights.) This transmission line has been reasonably accommodated within the

right of way. A total of 17 poles have been relocated in the Northern section.

• The Corps of Engineers required PCDOT to apply for an individual 404 permit. This

permit is a requirement of the Clean Water Act and is related to the discharge of

materials into jurisdictional water courses. This also required jurisdictional delineation

of the washes. The requirements for individual permits for the water courses included in

this project complicated and slowed the permitting process.

• Because this southern portion of the project receives federal funding, there is some

concern that some of the reviews being performed by the staffs of the Arizona

| 23

Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration may not be

performed in a timely manner.

Best practices discovered during this project included:

• The right of way should be staked very early in the implementation process in order to

determine encroachments and other property-related problems. This will also expedite

relocations of the encroachment elements.

• Community workshops should be held at logical points in the implementation process to

address issues in a reasonable fashion. This results in lower levels of controversy and

concern. The Community Advisory Committee members from Homeowners Associations

have been very helpful by disseminating information to the members of their

associations.

• Access to flood control features should be addressed early in the implementation

process.

• Communication with the Pima County Board of Supervisors is important. It has been

helpful to minimize inaccurate information reaching the board and creating unnecessary

concerns and/or problems.

RTA 12: Magee Road

Period 2; Design Construction Lead Agency: Pima County

Estimated Project Budget: $20,894,789

Ballot Project Budget: $9,600,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $5,850,000

2. Pima County Bonds: $3,752,030

3. STP: $5,497,000

4. Unidentified: $5,795,759

This project appears to be proceeding in a reasonable fashion. Interviews for the design

contract will take place in early July 2010. The preparation and execution of the needed

intergovernmental agreements is progressing satisfactorily. Documentation states that

construction will start in the spring of 2012. It is anticipated that the construction phase will be

substantially completed in the fall of 2013.

Similar to other RTA projects, the PCDOT staff is attempting to perform the preliminary

planning effort for the entire corridor. Once that has been completed and major decisions have

been made, more detailed evaluations and analyses will be performed. Subprojects will

advance to construction as funds become available. The major concern of the PCDOT staff is the

level of funding for the project. The RTA project cost is approximately one-half of the current

cost estimate.

| 24

RTA 16: Downtown Links

Periods 2 and 3; Planning and Design – Lead Agency: City of Tucson

Estimated Project Budget: $76,110,140

Ballot Project Budget: $84,674,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $76,134,000

2. Regional HURF: $8,540,000

Downtown Links is the six-lane 'last mile' of the Barraza-Aviation Parkway. The City of Tucson

offered to take over the project from ADOT in 1989. Over the past 19 years, scores of

alternative routes and alignments have been considered in an open public process. In addition,

former elected officials have approved supporting plans that relate to the downtown area:

• 1993 approval of Downtown Land Use Circulation Study

• 1996 approval of Barraza-Aviation General Plan

• 2003 approval of the Rio Nuevo Master Plan

• 2004 approval of the Tucson Warehouse Arts District Master Plan approved

Four Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings and two public meetings were held between

January 1-June 30, 2008, where alignment options and issues were studied and commented

upon. On June 23, 2008 the CAC voted to endorse the Curved 6th Street Alignment 3.d. to the

Mayor and Council. And, on July 8th, the Mayor and Council voted 6-0 to approve Alignment

3.d. The next phase of the project is design and is expected to take 18 to 24 months.

This is a significant public works infrastructure improvement project on the north and east sides

of the downtown area. Numerous streets will be reconstructed, storm water drainage will be

improved, and a railroad grade separation will be constructed. Seventeen lane miles of roadway

will be constructed or reconstructed.

Various improvements related to this project have already been completed. These

improvements include:

• Diamondback Snake shared use bridge over Broadway Boulevard

• Basket shared use bridge over Euclid Ave/Park Avenue

• 4th Avenue underpass below the Union Pacific Railroad tracks

• Preservation efforts for the Warehouse District

• Master plan for the Arts District

• Downtown land use planning which incorporates an overlay zone

| 25

Some of the project challenges for the City staff include the following.

• The western subproject was selected to go to construction first, and it appears that the

remaining two subprojects may be challenging to implement because they are in closer

proximity to residential neighborhoods and the Warehouse and Arts Districts than the

western subproject.

• The funding of this project is a constant concern to the City due to its complexity and

relationship to other projects such as the Modern Streetcar. It would be desirable to

advance the first subproject to construction as soon as possible, especially considering

how low some of the recent bids have been on other reconstruction projects in the

area. Any construction cost savings could be used to help fund the remaining two

subprojects.

RTA 17: Broadway Boulevard

Period 2; Design – Lead Agency: City of Tucson

Estimated Project Budget: $74,760,580

Ballot Project Budget: $71,347,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $42,125,000

2. Pima County Bonds: $25,000,000

3. Regional HURF: $1,222,000

4. City of Tucson Impact Fees: $3,000,000

The Broadway Boulevard Corridor includes the widening of the roadway from Euclid Avenue to

Country Club Road to an eight-lane, divided roadway with two lanes dedicated for transit; and

bike lanes in each direction.

This project is part of the Broadway Boulevard corridor improvement project. The overall goal

of the corridor project is to provide an 8-lane divided principal arterial roadway (two of the

lanes will be bus lanes) from downtown Tucson to the far-east side of the City. Over the past

year, the consultant has been collecting information for the pre-design and design efforts. To

date, the Mayor and Council have authorized the formation of a Citizens Advisory Committee.

Representatives of some of the surrounding neighborhoods have expressed concerns about the

1987 approved roadway alignment. There is a funding issue related to $25 million that was

supposed to be provided for this project from the 1997 Pima County Bond Transportation

Improvement Program. The problem is whether the eastern terminus of the project is located

at Campbell Avenue or Country Club Road, which is a difference of one mile. Based on the 10%

plans cost estimate prepared by URS for the RTA in 2005, the project cost should be

approximately $75 million. This is approximately $3.5 million more than what is currently

budgeted for this project.

| 26

Some of the project challenges for the City staff include the following.

• Funding appears to be the most significant issue on this project. Without the Pima

County bond funds, this project cannot advance. It is hoped that the RTA staff can

convince the Pima County staff to release the $25 million in funding that was identified

in the 1997 Pima County Bond Transportation Improvement Program. Regardless, the

City staff believes that this project will still be underfunded by approximately $3.5

million even if the $25 million is released by Pima County.

• Some representatives of the surrounding community have concerns regarding the

alignment that was approved in 1987. However, some of the recent land redevelopment

projects along the project roadway were required to be designed to accommodate the

approved 1987 alignment. Therefore some issues could arise if the approved alignment

changes.

• There appears to be an issue related to rental income from the advance right of way

acquisition efforts.

• There are some historic properties along this project that will need to be addressed. A

consultant is currently preparing a draft course of action.

RTA 18: Grant Road

Periods 2, 3, and 4; Planning and Design – Lead Agency: City of Tucson

Estimated Project Budget: $173,701,701

Ballot Project Budget: $166,850,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $160,850,000

2. City of Tucson Impact Fees: $6,000,000

3. Unidentified: $6,851,701

This is a significant principal arterial roadway improvement project within a fully developed

urban area in the north central part of the City. When complete, Grant Road will greatly

improve our region's east-west mobility by adding a new travel lane in each direction and

significant enhancements to improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian use. The project will also

include new and wider sidewalks, more signalized crosswalks, improved bicycle lanes, and

enhanced landscaping that will greatly improve both the pedestrian and bicyclist use and the

appearance of Grant Road. A median and managed access to businesses will improve safety,

and new local access lanes will provide a safer and easier way to get to and from residences and

businesses in congested areas.

Early in the planning process, the Mayor and Council created a citizen task force and

established a vision and guiding principles for the roadway and its alignment. By the end of

| 27

January 2009, a conceptual alignment and cross-section had been prepared and approved by

the Mayor and Council.

Some of the project challenges for the City staff include the following.

• Involving the community in the establishment of the design vision was a difficult task

because there were two general competing visions expressed by community members.

One vision was to build a standard arterial roadway to current City standards and the

other was to build a more pedestrian friendly roadway.

• The right of way acquisition effort may be one of the largest ever encountered by the

City, a total of 425 properties are affected.

• Project management has been an issue for the City staff. Over the past four years, there

have been three different City Project Managers assigned to this project. Such a

turnover rate could be problematic for a project of this scale.

Best practices discovered on this project included the following.

• Consideration should be given to submitting roadway alignments and cross-sections to

the RTA board for approval before advancing past the preliminary design effort,

especially if the project costs will increase.

• This project has been successfully planned and designed using the Context Sensitive

Solution process, which has gained widespread support throughout the United States in

recent years. However, it does require extra time and effort to implement at the

beginning of the project. Overall, it may reduce the project duration from conception to

construction.

• The extensive public involvement process was extremely beneficial in allowing the

consultant to achieve acceptance of a roadway alignment, cross-section, and traffic

operations plan for the five mile long roadway segment in only 18 months.

RTA 19: 22nd Street

Periods 2 and 3; Planning and Design – Lead Agency: City of Tucson

Estimated Project Budget: $116,551,823

Ballot Project Budget: $107,952,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $104,952,000

2. Pima County Bonds: $10,000,000

3. City of Tucson Impact Fees: $3,000,000

| 28

The 22nd Street Corridor Improvements from Interstate 10 (I-10) to Tucson Boulevard will add

one new travel lane in each direction, a grade separation at the railroad tracks.

The study and design of 22nd Street, is occurring in two sections:

1) The planning for the Kino Parkway/22nd Street Interchange and widening of 22nd Street,

from Kino Parkway east to Tucson Boulevard, has been underway for more than four years. The

City has established a Citizen Advisory Committee representing neighborhoods, businesses, and

property owners that meet regularly for this planning and design effort.

2) The planning for the 22nd Street Corridor, from I-10 to Kino Parkway, has been underway for

more than two years. A 17-member Citizen Oversight Committee was established by the City to

guide the planning and design effort, and has met regularly since November 2008.

The planning and design for this Corridor is expected to be completed by 2010. The

construction is currently planned for the second and third periods of the RTA Regional

Transportation Plan, 2012-2021.

Some of the project challenges for the City staff include the following.

• Working with the Union Pacific Railroad on the railroad overpass element in the center

section involves a documentation process that is typically fairly slow. Also, the

demolition of the existing overpass and the construction of its replacement over active

railroad tracks will need to be carefully orchestrated due to safety concerns. This issue is

even more complicated on this project because a portion of the main railroad yard is

beneath the overpass. Although the overpass is in the center section, it also impacts the

east section.

• This project requires a significant amount of involvement with the Arizona Department

of Transportation due to potential issues related to their facilities (I-10, Barraza-Aviation

Parkway (SR 210), and the District 2 office complex). Fortunately, the newly

reconstructed I-10/22nd Street traffic interchange was designed and constructed to

accept the 6-lane divided roadway. Similar to the railroad overpass being constructed

over the railroad tracks, the overpass also spans across SR 210. This will require detours

on SR 210. The District 2 offices are located on the south side of 22nd Street at 2nd

Avenue and will be impacted by this project. Issues related to the Arizona Department

of Transportation are on the west and center sections.

• In order to accommodate access concerns of the representatives of the residential,

commercial, and industrial developments north of 22nd Street between 4th Avenue and

Kino Parkway, the City staff agreed to install a traffic signal at the Park Avenue/18th

Street intersection. This proposed traffic signal potentially could impact traffic flow on

Park Avenue and encourage cut-through traffic in the residential neighborhoods west of

Park Avenue, which are issues that the City may need to monitor over time. This issue is

related to both the west and the center sections.

• When work is restarted on the west section, the City staff may need to strategize how to

best seek citizen input in an organized and controlled way in light of the disruptions that

occurred during some of the Community Advisory Committee meetings in 2009.

| 29

• There are challenges related to the RTA project funding. At this point, it appears that

there is a significant funding deficit for the west section. For the center section, the

difference between the current cost estimate and the available funding is approximately

$8.5 million. Construction alone for the center section is estimated to be approximately

$53 million. The funding for the east section appears reasonable; however,

consideration is being given to applying for federal funds.

• There may be environmental issues yet to be addressed. If federal funds are used, a

Section 4(f) evaluation will need to be performed as part of the Environmental Impact

Statement prepared by the consultant and the City staff. If federal funds are not used, a

Section 6(f) evaluation will need to be performed.

RTA 21: Valencia Road

West; Period 2; Planning - Lead Agency: Pima County

Estimated Project Budget: $18,065,001 (Incomplete Project Estimate)

Ballot Project Budget: $38,157,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $15,057,000

2. Pima County Impact Fees: $23,100,000

3. STP: $6,026,000

4. Unidentified: Unknown

Valencia Road is a major east-west arterial on the south side of the Tucson Metropolitan Area

and designated as a Scenic Major Route in the Pima County Major Streets and Routes Plan. It is

proposed that this arterial be designed as a “desert parkway”.

This project has been interrupted because the original prime consultant is no longer conducting

business and terminated the business very suddenly. A new prime consultant has been

identified for the initial subproject from Wade Road to Mark Road.

Similar to other RTA projects, the PCDOT staff has divided the single RTA project into three

subprojects. Each subproject is approximately 1.5 miles in length. A Design Concept Report will

be prepared for the entire RTA project. The subproject that is advancing involves the

reconstruction of the roadway segment from Wade Road to Mark Road.

Some of the project challenges for the PCDOT staff include the following.

• There appear to be inconsistencies in some of the RTA documentation regarding the

features/elements of this project. This issue needs to be resolved.

• Should this project be identified to receive federal funding, there is some concern that

some of the reviews being performed by the staffs of the Arizona Department of

Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration may not be performed in a

timely manner.

| 30

• PCDOT staff would like to have a clearer understanding about the use and timing of the

RTA funding source. This concern needs to be addressed.

• The amount of drainage work related to this subproject is significant. Aside from the

design and construction issues, the constructed drainage features complicate

underground utility relocation.

• The Corps of Engineers may require PCDOT to apply for one or more individual 404

permits. These permits are a requirement of the Clean Water Act and are related to the

discharge of materials into water courses. The requirements for individual permits for

the water courses complicate and could potentially slow the permitting process.

• There are residential developments proposed in the vicinity of the western terminal at

Ajo Way. Therefore, coordination efforts between the roadway and residential

development construction will need to occur.

RTA 24: Valencia Road – East

Period 2; Planning - Lead Agency: Pima County

Estimated Project Budget: $39,869,098 (Incomplete Project Estimate)

Ballot Project Budget: $46,298,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $43,298,000

2. City of Tucson Impact Fees: $3,000,000

3. Pima County HURF: $19,224

4. RTA Intersection (RTA #36): $6,900,000

5. Unidentified: Unknown

The Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) is planning to improve Valencia Road

from Alvernon Way to Kolb Road. Specifically, the project will widen the existing roadway from

four lanes to six lanes including widening the bridge structure over the Union Pacific Railroad.

Some of the potential improvements to be considered and evaluated include a depressed

landscaped median, multi-use lanes, provisions for pedestrians and other uses and landscaped

shoulders. The initial eastern terminal of the improvement project will be Wilmot Road.

This is a unique project for several reasons. These reasons include the following:

• The RTA project has been divided into two subprojects and the eastern subproject

design (Wilmot Road to Kolb Road) has been suspended. The eastern subproject will

utilize federal funds when it is reactivated.

• The eastern terminal of the RTA project (Kolb Road/Valencia Road intersection) will be

reconstructed as a separate improvement project. The planning and design phases will

commence as soon as a consultant contract is executed with Kimley-Horn & Associates.

| 31

The intersection improvement project will include improvements to Valencia Road

between Wilmot Road and Kolb Road.

• The western subproject (Alvernon Way to Wilmot Road) is extremely complicated due

the need to reconstruct or construct two freeway interchanges (I-10 and SR 210) and

widen or reconstruct the overpass over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, which may be

increased in number from two tracks to three. The western subproject will not utilize

federal funds.

• There is discussion about the level of improvement to be made to the western

subproject because of the previously stated complications and the need to satisfy the

RTA Plan approved by the Pima County voters. One solution is to widen this segment of

Valencia Road as simply and inexpensively as possible recognizing that modifications will

be needed in the future. This is especially true at the I-10 and SR 210 interchange

locations because the design of these two interchanges has yet to begin. To wait for

ADOT to complete the interchange designs will delay this subproject for years. A similar

situation exists at the Union Pacific Railroad overpass due to the consideration of a third

track below the overpass and the possible need to replace the existing overpass.

RTA 26: Kolb Road

Period 1; Design – Lead Agency: City of Tucson

Estimated Project Budget: $21,564,234

Ballot Project Budget: $9,115,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $9,115,000

2. STP: $11,750,000

3. Unidentified: $669,234

The City of Tucson Department of Transportation (TDOT) is currently in the Conceptual Design

Phase of the proposed connection of Sabino Canyon Road with Kolb Road. The proposed

addition to Sabino Canyon Road would extend south from Tanque Verde Road, near the

northern boundary of Morris K. Udall Regional Park, across the Pantano Wash to Kolb Road,

approximately one-quarter mile north of Speedway Boulevard. Although the length of the

project is short, there are a significant number of issues to be resolved. The RTA election cost

estimate was $9,115,000; however, the URS cost estimate did not include the cost of the

roadway crossing the Mullins Landfill. As a result, there is an expected shortfall in funding.

Additional funding will be provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Some of the project challenges for the City staff include the following.

| 32

• The presence of an existing, but closed, landfill within the footprint of the roadway

presented a very unique challenge that is seldom encountered.

• Working with the Arizona Bureau of Land Management to acquire right of way was

more difficult than anticipated.

• The Arizona Department of Transportation is responsible for processing the National

Environmental Policy Act documentation. Due to limited staffing, the processing is slow,

which is creating a challenge.

• The City Project Manager position is being reassigned. This typically creates challenges

as the new Project Manager becomes familiar with the project and the individuals

associated with the project.

• The Davis-Bacon Act applies to only the southern subproject due to federal funding

requirements.

• The project funds were removed from the Transportation Improvement Program to help

balance the program. This needs to be addressed because it could be a funding

constraint.

The information obtained during the interview regarding the work that has been carried out so

far highlights the importance of logically managing the planning, design, and construction of

complex improvement projects. The two-phase project (and associated implementation

schedules) that the City staff has created has been accepted by the Federal Highway

Administration. Currently, the Phase 1 subproject will advance to construction in mid-2011 and

the Phase 2 subproject will advance to construction in late 2011.

RTA 27: Tanque Verde Road

Period 1; Construction - Lead Agency: Pima County

Estimated Project Budget: $15,804,193

Ballot Project Budget: $12,833,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $12,833,000

2. Pima County Bonds: $1,543,546

3. Regional HURF: $1,234,951

4. Tucson Water Reimbursement: $186,964

The proposed improvements consist of widening the existing roadway from Catalina Highway

to Houghton Road in order to reduce congestion, provide alternative modes of transportation,

improve drainage and enhance safety along Tanque Verde Road. The proposed improvements

include widening the roadway to four lanes with raised medians, multi-use lanes, curbs,

sidewalks, drainage improvements, storm drains, landscaping and public art.

It is anticipated that the construction phase will be substantially completed in the fall of 2011.

| 33

Some of the project challenges for the PCDOT staff include the following.

• The PCDOT staff wanted to involve the elected officials and business community at the

beginning of the project and throughout the implementation process. Scheduling

meetings to accommodate the elected officials was difficult.

• The contractor on this project, a small firm that typically does not bid on large roadway

reconstruction projects, had some problems due to their inexperience working on large

projects. Some of the examples given at the interview involved the development of

traffic detours and the salvage of vegetation.

• The relocation of utilities was more difficult than usual because some of the utility

companies already had their staffs relocating their facilities on other projects in the

metropolitan area.

Best practices discovered during this project included:

• The PCDOT staff retained a project management firm, ARCADIS Group, to assist moving

this project forward with the public and the elected officials. The firm’s efforts were

successful because their staff was able to meet with the public individually and explain

issues in terms that the layperson could understand. They also performed “what if”

technical analyses that proved to be effective and useful.

• Having a strong chairperson for the Community Advisory Committee, who recognized

that negotiations are required, proved very helpful on this project.

RTA 28: Speedway Boulevard

Period 1; Construction – Lead Agency: City of Tucson

Estimated Project Budget: $23,357,655

Ballot Project Budget: $17,127,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $14,127,000

2. City of Tucson Impact Fees: $3,000,000

3. Utility Reimbursements: $3,677,540

4. Unidentified: $2,553,115

The widening of Speedway Boulevard from Camino Seco to Houghton Road will provide two

through lanes in each direction with a 20-ft wide center landscaped median. Concrete curbs,

new rubberized asphalt paving, six-foot wide sidewalks, bike lanes, and frontage roads will be

provided from end to end and promote alternative modes of transportation. Drainage

improvements include storm drains, catch basins, and reinforced concrete box culvert crossings

to control flooding and provide all weather crossing capability. The project will be landscaped

and include public art. This project also will include new traffic signals at Harrison Road and

| 34

Houghton Road, signalized pedestrian crossings at Schrader Lane and Igo Way Drive. Street

lighting for driver safety and neighborhood security will be included as well.

The prime consultant is HDR and they have completed the design phase. The Engineer’s

estimate was increased by approximately $3.7 million by the City staff. This has created a $3

million shortfall, which would be a City obligation. The construction project was advertised in

June and the bids are due in mid-July. Construction is expected to take at least two years. At

one point, consideration was given to requesting Construction Manager at Risk proposals. This

was unacceptable to the City procurement department. The bids were opened on July 27, 2010.

The apparent low bidder was NAC with a proposal for approximately $13 million, which could

alleviate some of the shortfall.

Some of the project challenges for the City staff include the following.

• There are a number of cultural and archeological issues associated with this project that

will complicate the construction effort. The archeological survey effort alone is very

large and is expected to take 12-15 months.

• The number of utilities involved in this project was a challenge with respect to

construction planning. Fortunately, there was agreement that a joint utility trench was a

reasonable solution that the utility companies found acceptable. The utility companies

are also sharing in the cost of the trench, which is generating approximately $3.7 million

as new revenue for the project.

• The City staff administrating this project believed that the Construction Manager at Risk

alternative delivery method was reasonable; however, the City procurement staff

disagreed.

RTA 32: Houghton Road

Lead Agency: City of Tucson

Estimated Project Budget: $180,517,250

Ballot Project Budget: $160,642,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $95,342,000

2. Pima County Bonds: $20,000,000

3. City of Tucson Impact Fees: $18,000,000

4. Pima County Impact Fees - $27,300,000

5. Unidentified: $19,875,250

Three sections of Houghton Road are being designed and constructed as separate projects: the

northern section is from Tanque Verde Road to 22nd Street, the central section is from 22nd

Street to Valencia Road, and the southern section is from Valencia Road to I-10. With the

| 35

exception of the segment from Tanque Verde Road to Speedway Boulevard, the approved

scope is to widen each section to a 6-lane divided arterial roadway with bike lanes and

sidewalks. A 4-lane divided roadway is scoped for construction from Tanque Verde Road to

Speedway Boulevard although the City proposes to build six-lanes for the entire project. Costs

associated with additional construction will need be provided by the City. The expanded cross

section was a concern to some area residents, who provided comments to the RTA board

during call to the audience.

Implementation of the entire corridor project from Tanque Verde Road to I-10 (13.1 miles) was

started approximately 10 years ago. The Arizona Department of Transportation initially

managed this project. ADOT was involved in this corridor project because Houghton Road is a

state route from I-10 to Golf Links Road. In addition to the ADOT transportation planning

efforts, a Houghton Area Master Plan and other planning documents were prepared.

Based on the information collected at the interview and from RTA documentation, there are

several noticeable discrepancies of basic information. There is no agreement on the termini of

two of the three major segments of the project. The interviews indicate that Old Spanish Trail is

a terminal. Also, there is no agreement of the length of the 6-lane divided roadway segment.

According to the City website, only the segment from Tanque Verde to Speedway Boulevard

will be constructed as a 4-lane divided roadway. According to the June 2006 RTA Administrative

Code, the length of the 4-lane divided roadway is significantly longer (Golf Links to Tanque

Verde). The RTA Administrative Code also calls for two grade separated intersections at Old Vail

Road and Valencia Road which are not being constructed. The City Roadway Development

Policies were not met; however, for this project it is not a requirement that they be satisfied. As

a result, the City staff and its consultant are using the preliminary plans and the previously

performed ADOT work as guidance.

For the segment from Tanque Verde to 22nd Street (or Old Spanish Trail), the Design Concept

Report and the 30% plans have been completed. This completes the planning phase of the

project. No special approvals are needed because both the roadway and right of way exist. This

segment has been divided into four improvement projects.

• Tanque Verde Road to Speedway Boulevard

• Speedway Boulevard to Broadway Boulevard

• Broadway Boulevard intersection

• Broadway Boulevard to 22nd Street

There have been project scope changes. The most noticeable one is the roadway cross-section.

Based on the forecasted traffic volumes at build-out on Houghton Road, the 6-lane cross-

section is justified. However, in the URS cost estimate prepared five years ago, the URS staff

assumed a 4-lane divided roadway with 10 ft. wide shoulders. The City standard shoulder is 6 ft.

wide. The City staff has not calculated the difference in cost between the URS 4-lane cross-

section and the proposed City 6-lane cross-section.

| 36

For the segment from Valencia Road to I-10, the 15% plans have been completed and the

roadway profile included in them appears usable; however, the Design Concept Report has not

been completed. No special approvals are needed because both the roadway and right of way

exist. This segment has been divided into three improvement projects.

• Valencia Road to Mary Ann Cleveland (MAC) Way

• Union Pacific Railroad bridge (PCDOT is managing this project)

• Union Pacific Railroad bridge to I-10

Another possible scope change is related to the I-10 interchange. The Arizona Department of

Transportation and Jacobs Engineering are evaluating an alignment modification. A third scope

change involves the Union Pacific Railroad bridge. Any change order reviewed by the Arizona

Department of Transportation typically takes six to eight months to review and approve.

Some of the project challenges for the City staff include the following.

• The cost of the project, as currently proposed, appears to exceed the funds available.

• The selection of an appropriate roadway cross-section for this subproject will be

challenging. The City staff would like to construct a longer segment of the 6-lane divided

cross-section than RTA has approved based on future traffic demand.

• The funding of improvements during RTA Period 2 appears to be an issue. However, the

RTA is willing to re-evaluate the existing funding plan.

RTA 33: Wilmot Road

Period 2; Not yet under way - Lead Agency: Pima County

Estimated Project Budget: $9,800,000

Ballot Project Budget: $9,800,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $9,800,000

2. Unidentified: $0

This project involves paving the remaining Wilmot Road, north of Sahuarita Road to 6 miles

south of I-10 to a 2-lane roadway to connect the existing paved roadway. This project was

minimally discussed at the interview. The PCDOT staff did state that there has been little

activity related to the project and that there is currently no need to prepare an Environmental

Assessment and Mitigation Report.

RTA 34: Sahuarita Road

Period 1; Design and Construction - Lead Agency: Town of Sahuarita

Estimated Project Budget: $58,870,173

| 37

Ballot Project Budget: $40,785,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $30,785,000

2. Sahuarita Local Funds: $5,720,000

3. Pima County Bonds $1,462,500

4. Regional HURF: $16,799,000

5. ESP Grant: $444,000

6. RTA Wildlife Linkages (RTA #42): $703,000

7. Unidentified: $2,956,673

The Town of Sahuarita is widening and improving Sahuarita Road from Interstate 19 to the

eastern Town Limits (approximately Country Club Road). The primary improvements include

additional travel lanes, landscaped medians, new pavement and cross-drainage facilities (to

improve all-weather travel), paved shoulders and sidewalks (to improve bicycle/pedestrian

connectivity), and new traffic signals at strategic intersections.

The design and construction of the roadway improvements has been separated into two

specific phases. The Sahuarita Road Phase I project includes improvements between Interstate

19 and La Villita Road; construction began in September 2009 with anticipated completion near

the end of 2010.

The Phase 2 project is from La Villita Road to Country Club Road and is in the design phase. The

Phase 2 project construction phase is likely to be underway by July 2011. The Union Pacific

Railroad overpass structure is being designed and will be constructed concurrently, but

separately, with the Phase 2 project. It is a totally separate project and is neither part of the

RTA project scope nor being funded with RTA funds. Its funding source is PAG 12.6% funds

supplemented with other local funds. For RTA, there are two projects and for the Town, there

are three projects

Some of the project challenges for the Town staff include the following.

• Working with both the Arizona Corporation Commission and the Union Pacific Railroad

on the proposed railroad overpass has been challenging.

• The area that the roadway passes through has presented some challenges due to the

flood plain and floodway conditions.

Best practices discovered during this project included the following.

• The organization of the project should be simplified in order to minimize costs and

reduce opportunities for conflict. For example, the Town staff performed the public

involvement activities to reduce the cost of the project. Also, the prime contractor was

required to provide its own field survey staff to reduce the potential for conflict and to

minimize the cost.

| 38

• There should be an attempt made to hire a good design firm with a solid understanding

of the project conditions. This will help to ensure that a high quality set of construction

documents will be produced that will require a minimal number of field change orders.

It is expected that the design firm will conduct a thorough quality assurance effort.

• The Town staff responsible for construction inspection is very small and an attempt is

made to resolve problems at the lowest levels possible. However, there is an escalation

ladder available, if needed.

RTA 35: I-19 Frontage Road

Period 1; Construction (near completion) - Lead Agency: Pima County

Estimated Project Budget: $24,182,847

Ballot Project Budget: $11,920,000

Funding Sources:

1. RTA: $3,920,000

2. Pima County Impact Fees: $3,481,689

3. Pima County Bonds: $3,653,806

4. Regional HURF: $13,127,000

The project involves the construction of a two lane Frontage Road between the Canoa Road

Interchange and Continental Road Interchange. The project will include new bridges over the

Esperanza Wash and Unnamed Wash, approximately 2 miles of newly-constructed roadway.

The newly constructed frontage road will include two 12-foot travel lanes and 4-foot paved

shoulders.

This project will include the signalization of the southbound and northbound I-19 off ramps at

the Continental Road Interchange, widening of Continental Road under I-19 and construction of

a combined ramp for northbound I-19 and the East Frontage Road. The new improvements will

improve traffic operations at the Continental Road Interchange, Improve the frontage road

connectivity and improve the safety and serviceability of the frontage road.

The project is now in the construction phase, and it is anticipated that construction will be

substantially completed by the fall of 2010. Due to the importance of both I-19 and this

frontage road, both ADOT and FHWA have been extensively involved in many aspects of this

project, starting with the required Intergovernmental Agreements.

Some of the project challenges for the PCDOT staff include the following. All of these issues

were effectively addressed and, where possible, the least costly solutions were selected.

| 39

• The ADOT/FHWA project alternatives development process was challenging and

lengthy. The PCDOT staff had prepared three alternatives, but additional alternatives

were requested by ADOT/FHWA. Once the preparation of the additional alternatives

was completed, ADOT requested further analysis of the alternative options, which

slowed the implementation process.

• The ADOT/FHWA review process was not well coordinated by those agencies. Several

ADOT/FHWA staff members were involved in reviewing documentation, and at times,

revisions requested by one staff reviewer were counter to comments previously

submitted by another staff reviewer.

• An attempt to have “over the shoulder” design meetings at the 60% plan level proved to

belabor rather than accelerate the plan preparation process. This in turn created delays

in the review and approval of the design plans.

• Some of the documentation demands by ADOT were somewhat excessive and, in some

cases, required extensive additional effort, which adversely affected the project

schedule and cost

• Both Qwest and Southwest gas had substantial relocation efforts. In order to move

forward, conflict resolution charts were used. In addition, Qwest discovered that they

had an undocumented major underground cable line (which was discovered by another

utility’s potholing efforts) that had to be relocated.

• This project significantly affected the nearby post office, and addressing this issue with

the US Postal Service was more challenging than expected.

Best practices discovered during this project included:

• The Green Valley residents and businesses were well informed about this project

through a variety of information sources, including the RTA’s Main Street program. This

proved to be very helpful. This effort was an improvement over what had previously

occurred when the west side frontage road was improved. It is a good example of good

lines of communication expediting an improvement project.

| 40

Exhibit 6 RTA Project Scopes of Work

RTA # RTA Project Name Ballot Scope Admin Code Scope Difference

1 Tangerine, I-10 to La

Canada

Widen to 4-lane divided desert parkway,

bike lanes, drainage & turn lanes

Widen Tangerine Road to a 4-lane desert parkway from Interstate -10

to La Canada Drive, with 4 travel lanes; raised, landscaped median; and

bike lanes in each direction. Additional turn lanes and signalization at

key intersections. New culverts throughout to convey the 100-year peak

discharge under the road.

2 Camino de Manana,

Tangerine to Linda Vista

New 2 & 4-lane roadway, bike lanes &

drainage

Construct a new Camino de Mañana 2-lane arterial from Tangerine

Road to Linda Vista Road with 2 travel lanes and bike lanes in each

direction. This project will connect with Project 3. Twin Peaks, Silverbell

Road to I-10, with Interchange, to form a Twin Peaks/Camino De

Manana Corridor, with a link to Tangerine Road.

Code scope is unclear and does

not describe the project well. A

new 4-lane road is being

constructed between Tangerine

and Camino de Manana. Camino

de Manana to the south of this

section was widened to a 4-lane

section.

3

Twin Peaks Road,

Silverbell to I-10 (including

new I-10 Interchange)

Bridge over Santa Cruz, new 4-lane

roadway connecting to I-10

Reconstruct Twin Peaks Road as a 4-lane arterial west of Interstate-

10 to Silverbell Road, with 4 travel lanes; raised landscaped median;

bike lanes in each direction; and curb and sidewalks. New traffic

interchange on I-10 at Twin Peaks Road, including a railway overpass

over the UPRR. New Camino de Manana divided arterial extending

from Interstate-10 at the Twin Peaks interchange north and east to

Linda Vista Road, with 4 travel lanes; raised, landscaped median; bike

lanes in each direction. New bridge on Twin Peaks Road over the Santa

Cruz River. New culverts throughout to convey the 100-year peak

discharge under the road.

Code scope is more specific,

defining structures, cross section,

and storm intervals for drainage

design.

4 La Cholla, Magee to

Tangerine

Widen to 4-lane desert parkway, bridge

over Cañada del Oro wash, bike lanes &

drainage

Widen La Cholla to a 4-lane desert parkway between Tangerine Road

to Magee Road, with 4-travel lanes; raised, landscaped median; a new

4-lane bridge at the Canada del Oro Wash north of Magee Road, and

bike lanes in both directions. New turning lanes and traffic signals as

needed at Naranja Road, Lambert Lane, and Overton Road. This project

will connect at the north end with the recently completed La Cholla,

River Road to Magee Road improvements completed under the 1997

Pima County HURF Bond Program. Project 10, La Cholla, River Road to

Ruthrauff, will complete the La Cholla Road Corridor on the south end.

.

| 41

5 Silverbell, Grant to Ina

Widen to 3 & 4-lane divided desert

parkway, drainage improvements & bike

lanes

Widen Silverbell Road from Ina Road to Grant Road to a 4-lane

desert parkway with 3-lane segment, with 4 and 3 travel lanes;

raised, landscaped median; bike lanes in each direction; and curbs

and ADA-accessible sidewalks. Right and left turn lanes and intersection

improvements at Grant Road, Sweetwater Drive, El Camino del Cerro,

Sunset Road, Orange Grove Road, and Ina Road. This project will

connect with Project 8, Sunset Road, Silverbell

Road to I-10 to River Road. When completed, Silverbell Road will

provide a continuous travel corridor from Ina Road to St. Mary’s Road,

with several points of access over the Santa Cruz River and connections

to Interstate-10.

.

7 Magee/Cortaro Farms,

Thornydale to La Canada

4-lane divided arterial, eliminates jog at La

Cholla Blvd., bike lanes & sidewalks

Following the Cortaro Farms Road alignment between Thornydale

Road and Shannon Road, widen Magee Road to a 4-lane arterial

between Thornydale and La Canada, with 4-travel lanes; raised,

landscaped median; bike lanes in each direction; and ADA accessible

sidewalks.

New bridge across the Canada del Oro Wash. New culverts

throughout to convey the 100-year peak discharge under the road

Additional turn lane, signalization and intersection improvements

at Thornydale Road, both Shannon Road intersections, and La

Cholla Boulevard.

This project connects to the east with Project 12, Magee Road, La

Canada Boulevard to Oracle Road, and on the west with Cortaro

Farms Road, UPRR to Thornydale, being constructed under Pima

County’s 1997 HURF Transportation Bond Program jointly with

the Town of Marana. When completed, there will be a continuous

corridor along Cortaro Farms Road/Magee Road, from UPRR to

Oracle Road.

Ballot scope does not include

new bridge across CDO Wash.

8 Sunset Rd., Silverbell Rd.

to I-10 to River Rd.

New 3-lane arterial,bridge over Santa Cruz

& bike lanes

New 3-lane Sunset Road from Silverbell Road to I-10 to River

Road, with 2 travel lanes; center turn lane; new bridge across the

Santa Cruz River; new railroad grade separation; bike lanes in each

direction; and curbs and ADA-accessible sidewalks.

This project connects with Project 5, Silverbell Road, Ina Road to

Grant Road

Ballot scope does not include

new RR Grade Separated

Interchange.

10 La Cholla Blvd, River Rd.

to Ruthrauff Rd.

Widen to 6-lane desert parkway, new

bridge at Rillito River, bike lanes & sidewalks

Widen La Cholla to a 6-lane desert parkway between River Road

and Ruthrauff Road, with 6 travel lanes; a raised, landscaped

median; a new 6-lane bridge over the Rillito River, just south of

River Road; and bike lanes in each direction.

This project connects with Project # 9, Ruthrauff Road at I-10 and

UPRR Overpass.

Admin code scope does not

include sidewalks.

| 42

11 La Cañada Drive, Calle

Concordia to River Rd.

Widen to 4-lane arterial roadway,

equestrian trial, drainage & multi-use lanes

Widen La Canada to a 4-lane arterial between Calle Concordia and

River Road, with 4-travel lanes; raised, landscaped median; multiuse

lanes in both directions; and an equestrian trail on the east side

of the roadway.

New turning lanes and traffic signals as needed at intersections

with Orange Grove Road, Ina Road, Magee Road, and Hardy Road

New box culverts at the Pegler Wash, Carmack Wash, Garfield

South Wash, Roller Coaster Wash, Casas Adobes Wash, and

Nanini Wash to convey 100-year peak discharge under the road.

.

12 Magee Rd., La Cañada

Drive to Oracle Rd.

Widen to 4-lane arterial roadway, bike

lanes & sidewalks

Widen Magee Road to a 4-lane arterial between La Canada

Boulevard and Oracle Road, with 4-travel lanes; raised, landscaped

median; bike lanes in each direction; and ADA-accessible

sidewalks.

Additional turn lane, signalization and intersection improvements

at Mona Lisa.

New culverts throughout to convey the 100-year peak discharge

under the road.

.

16 Downtown Links, I-10 to

Broadway Rd.

New 4-lane urban linkage, enhanced multi-

modal features, drainage & noise mitigation

measures

New Barazza-Aviation Parkway west end linkage from Broadway

Traffic Interchange to St. Mary’s Road, with a 4-lane urban

linkage, with 4 travel lanes; new ADA-accessible shared-use path

for bicycles and pedestrians; noise mitigation and urban design

features, including enhancements for bicycles and other alternate

modes; and stormwater drainage improvements. New connection

from Barazza-Aviation Parkway to Eastbound 22nd Street.

Grade separation at St. Mary’s and the Union Pacific Railroad

Associated improvements for a total of 17 lane miles of new

roadway infrastructure in the Downtown area, including

improvements to St. Mary’s Road, Sixth Street, Granada Avenue,

Church Avenue, Stone Avenue, Sixth Avenue, Fourth Avenue,

Westbound Broadway Boulevard/Congress Street, and northbound

Toole Avenue to westbound Broadway Boulevard.

.

17 Broadway Blvd., Euclid

Ave. to Country Club Rd.

Widen roadway to 6-lane arterial plus 2

dedicated bus lanes, bike lanes & sidewalks

Widen Broadway Boulevard between Euclid Avenue and Country

Club Road, with 6 travel lanes and 2 dedicated bus lanes; bike

lanes in each direction; raised, landscaped median; ADA accessible

sidewalks; and continuous street lighting.

This project will connect with Broadway Boulevard to the east,

which is improved with adequate travel lanes from Country Club

to Camino Seco. The project is tied with Project # 29, Broadway,

Camino Seco to Houghton. When completed, Broadway Boulevard

will be improved from downtown to Houghton Road.

.

| 43

18 Grant Rd., Oracle Rd. to

Swan Rd.

Widen to 6-lane arterial, streetscaping,

bike lanes & sidewalks

New, expanded Grant Road underpass at the UPRR rail road tracks

and I-10.

Widen Grant Road to a 6-lane arterial between Oracle Road and

Swan Road, with 6 travel lanes; raised, landscaped median; bike

lanes in each direction; ADA-accessible sidewalks; continuous

street lighting; and drainage improvements. Additional turn lane,

signalization and intersection improvements at 6 arterial and 6

collector streets that cross the project.

This project connects to the east with Grant Road, from Swan to

Tanque Verde, which has adequate lane capacity. When

completed, Grant Road will be an improved corridor from Oracle

Road to Tanque Verde.

The project is also tied to Project # 15, UPRR Underpass at Grant

Road.

Admin Code scope includes RR

underpass which may be in error

since the underpass project is RTA

#15.

19

22nd St., I-10 to Tucson

Blvd./Barraza-Aviation

Pkwy.

Widen to 6 lanes, 6-lane bridge over

railroad tracks, bicycle lanes & sidewalks

Widen 22nd Street to a 6-lane arterial, with 6 travel lanes, raised,

landscaped median; bike lanes in each direction; ADA accessible

sidewalks; and continuous street lighting.

6-lane bridge over railroad tracks from Kino Parkway to Tucson

Boulevard, with new frontage roads and retaining walls.

New linkage to Barazza-Aviation Parkway to the east.

New railroad grade separation at the Nogales branch.

This project connects to the east with 22nd Street, from Tucson

Boulevard to Camino Seco, which has adequate travel lane

capacity. The project is tied to Project # 30, 22nd Street, Camino

Seco to Houghton Road. When completed, 22nd Street will be an

improved corridor from Interstate-10 to Houghton Road.

.

| 44

21 Valencia Rd., Ajo Rd. to

Mark Rd.

Widen to 4-lane desert parkway, bike lanes

& sidewalks

Widen Valencia Road between Ajo Highway and Mark Road to a

4-lane desert parkway, with 4 travel lanes; raised, landscaped

median; bike lanes in each direction; ADA-accessible sidewalks;

and continuous street lighting.

Additional turn lanes, signalization and intersection improvements

at Ajo Highway.

This projects connects to the west to Pima County HURF Revenue

Bond Project DOT-17, Valencia Road, Mark Road to Camino de la

Tierra (to be substantially completed in FY 2006/07) and continues

other County bond funded improvements to Valencia Road west of

south 12th Avenue, including DOT-49, Valencia Road, Mission to I

-19 (to be completed in FY 2005/06) and DOT-39, Valencia Rd., I-

19 to south 12th Avenues (which is completed), and the new bridge

and interchange constructed by ADOT over I - 19.

This project is part of three other projects to improve the Valencia

Rd corridor eastward from I-19 to Houghton Rd. When all

projects are completed, the Valencia Rd. corridor will have been

improved from Ajo Highway east to Houghton Road.

24 Valencia Rd., Alvernon

Rd. to Kolb Rd

Widen to 6-lane desert parkway, bike lanes

& sidewalks

Increase Valencia Road between Alvernon Road and Kolb Road

from 4 lanes to six lanes, to connect with the improvements to the

east and existing conditions to the west.

This project is part of three other projects to improve the Valencia

Rd corridor eastward from I-19 to Houghton Rd, including Project

# 21, Valencia Rd., Ajo Highway to Mark Road; Project # 23,

Valencia Road, I-19 to Alvernon Road (Controlled Access

Improvements); and Project # 25, Valencia Rd, Kolb Road to

Houghton Road. When all these projects are completed, and are

tied into improvements to Valencia Road to the west accomplished

by Pima County HURF Revenue Bond Funds and ADOT funding,

the Valencia Rd. corridor will have been improved from Ajo

Highway east to Houghton Road.

Admin Code scope does not

specifically include bike lanes and

sidewalks.

26 Kolb Rd. Connection

with Sabino Canyon Rd.

New 4-lane roadway connecting Sabino

Canyon Rd. with Kolb Rd., bike lanes &

sidewalks

Extend Kolb Road to Sabino Canyon Road with a new 4-lane

roadway and a new bridge across Pantano Wash.

This project complements the completed 1997 Pima County HURF

Revenue Bond at the intersection of Kolb Rd and Sabino Canyon

Rd and the upcoming bond project Kolb Rd, Sabino Canyon Rd to

Sunrise Dr.

Admin Code scope does not

specifically include bike lanes and

sidewalks. Also, Ballot scope does

not include new bridge over

Pantano Wash.

27

Tanque Verde Rd.,

Catalina Highway to

Houghton Rd.

Widen to 4-lane roadway, bike lanes &

sidewalks

Widen the existing 2-lane road to a 4-lane facility, with bicycle

lanes and sidewalks in both directions.

This project complements the completed Pima County Bond

Program project, Catalina Highway, Tanque Verde Road to

Houghton Rd.

.

| 45

28 Speedway Blvd., Camino

Seco to Houghton Rd.

Widen to 4-lane arterial, bike lanes &

sidewalks

Widen Speedway Boulevard from Camino Seco to Houghton Road

to a 4-lane arterial, with 4 travel lanes; raised, landscaped median;

bike lanes in each direction; and curbs and ADA-accessible

sidewalks.

Additional turn lanes, signalization and intersection improvements

at Harrison Road and Houghton Road.

New box culverts at Hidden Hills Wash, Wrightstown Wash, Estes

Wash and Coronado Ridge Wash.

.

32 Houghton Rd., I-10 to

Tanque Verde Rd.

Widen to 4- and 6-lane desert parkway,

new bridges (washes and rail), bike lanes &

sidewalks

Widen 1.8 miles of Houghton Road to a 4-lane arterial between I-

10 and Old Vail Road, with 4 travel lanes; raised, landscaped

median; bike lanes in each direction; and sidewalks.

Widen 7.3 miles of Houghton Road from Old Vail Road to Golf

Links Road to a 6-lane arterial, with 6 travel lanes; raised,

landscaped median; bike lanes in each direction; and sidewalks.

Widen 4.0 miles of Houghton Road between Golf Links Road and

Tanque Verde Road to a 4-lane arterial, with 4 travel lanes; raised,

landscaped median; bike lanes in each direction; and sidewalks.

New bridge on Houghton Road over the railroad tracks between I-

10 and Old Vail Road, over the Pantano Wash, Agua Caliente

Wash, and Tanque Verde Creek, and new grade separated

interchanges at Old Vail Road and Valencia Road.

Preserve right-of-way for new interchange at I-10

Ballot scope does not include

Grade Separated Iinterchanges at

Houghton/Old Vail and

Houghton/Valencia.

33 Wilmot North of

Sahuarita Rd

New 2-lane roadway connecting Sahuarita

Rd. with existing paved facility (6 miles north)

Pave the remaining Wilmot Road, north of Sahuarita Road to 6

miles south of I-10 to a 2-lane roadway to connect the existing

paved roadway.

.

34 Sahuarita Rd., I-19 to

Country Club Rd.

Widen to 4-lane divided arterial, bike lanes

& sidewalks

Widen Sahuarita Road to a 4-lane arterial between Interstate – 19

and Country Club Road, with 4 travel lanes; raised, landscaped

median; bike lanes in each direction; and ADA-accessible

sidewalks.

New bridge on Sahuarita Road over the Santa Cruz River.

New traffic signal at the intersection of Sahuarita Road and Old

Nogales Highway.

Ballot scope does not include

new bridge over Santa Cruz River.

35

Frontage Road (I-19),

Continental Rd. to Canoa

Rd.

New 2-lane roadway

Design and construct a new 2-lane frontage road on the east side of

I-19, from Continental Ranch Road to Canoa Road, with shoulders

and bicycles lane.

.

| 46

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

PROJECT FUNDING

There are three project funding considerations: RTA funding using the ½¢ sales tax, local (and in

some cases regional) matching funds, and the timely availability of these funds to complete a

project on schedule.

RTA Funding

Prior to the sales tax election, the RTA retained design consultants to examine each of the

arterial corridors at a pre-design level, to prepare preliminary alignments and cross sections,

and to provide construction costs estimates at the (+/-) 30% confidence interval. Based on this

confidence level, it is expected that some projects will come in under budget, and some over

budget, but that the overall level of expenditure for the plan would be attained. The results of

this work were used to help write project scopes, define the RTA investment and local matching

levels, and be included in the IGAs. The project alignments, cost estimates, and IGAs are

available on the RTA website and are incorporated by reference. The cash flow estimates for

remaining period 1 and all period 2 projects was shown previously in Exhibit 5.

RTA projects are currently being funded at the original RTA voter-approved amounts, plus the

local matching amounts. These are all based on 2006 dollars, and according to the RTA policy

on periodic funding adjustments, “project funding adjustments will be reviewed at least tri-

annually, considering growth in sales tax receipts, growth in the population (already accounted

for in the project funding) and economic trends. Proposed adjustments will be approved by the

RTA Board prior to implementation.”

Since 2006, the Construction Cost Index has increased by almost 15%, the Consumer Price Index

is up 8%, and the Gross Domestic Product (required by statute to establish Maintenance of

Effort levels) has increased by about 4%. However, the level of RTA sales tax collection has not

kept pace with the original forecast due to the economic downturn. Further, construction bids

have been extremely favorable compared to engineer’s construction cost estimates. The RTA

staff, Board, and member jurisdictions should assess the need to adjust the RTA’s funding level

for major projects, taking into account all these factors, especially as the time span increases

between 2006 and the implementation year. Some adjustment seems warranted, but the

amount of the adjustment is indeterminable by this initial project assessment. Nevertheless,

adjustments in RTA funding levels must be limited by the actual growth in RTA collections.

| 47

Local and Regional Matching Fund

RTA funding is matched with about 20% local funds. The RTA Plan included the commitment of

$334,422,000 in local and regional funds to meet the planned budget for the RTA Roadway

Element projects. This outside funding commitment was made from Pima County 1997 Bond

funds, impact fees and/or construction sales taxes, and previously programmed regional funds

(Federal STP funds, Regional HURF, etc.).

Regional funds continue to be available as originally planned. The Region annually has

approximately $30 million a year in funding which can be used on regional transportation

priorities. These regional funds come from the Federal Highway Administration’s Surface

Transportation Program (STP) and from the State Highway Fund’s 12.6% fund. In the long term,

these funding sources are expected to fluctuate slightly, but have been reliable, relatively

consistent sources of project funding.

The recent recession, declines in the housing market, and State of Arizona budget shortfalls

have all negatively impacted the availability of the local funding committed to the RTA Plan

projects. In the case of the 1997 HURF Bonds, declining HURF revenues have occurred due to

the State Legislature’s changes to HURF distribution formula and declines in motor fuel sales.

This has left Pima County in a position where it is difficult to issue new bond indebtedness until

HURF revenues improve or prior issuances are retired. At the time of this report, it appears

that it is likely that a new bond issuance will not be feasible for several years.

Similarly, new home starts have fallen precipitously since the RTA Plan was approved, and

consequently development related revenues are sharply lower than originally projected. This

has not adversely impacted the first implementation period projects, as previously collected

development revenues are being used on these projects, but implementation period 2 projects

will definitely be affected. Local funds include development impact fees, construction sales

taxes, or 1997 Pima County HURF bonds on 26 of the 35 arterial projects. The HURF bond

program was approved by the voters, and includes partial funding for nine RTA projects,

totaling $66.3 million.

DOT Bond # Project Description RTA Project #

DOT-06 Magee, La Canada to Oracle RTA-12

DOT-10 La Canada, Ina to Lambert RTA-11

DOT-20 La Cholla, River to Ruthrauff RTA-10

DOT-28 Speedway, Camino Seco to Houghton RTA-28

DOT-29 Houghton, Golf Links to I-10 RTA-32

DOT-31 Tanque Verde, Catalina Highway to Houghton RTA-27

DOT-37 I-19 Frontage Road, Continental to Canoa RTA-35

DOT-40 Grant, Oracle to Park RTA-18

DOT-56 Broadway, Euclid to Campbell RTA-17

| 48

Impact fees (collected by Pima County, Oro Valley, Marana, and Tucson) can only be used on

projects that benefit new development and cannot be used to mitigate current capacity

deficiencies. The use of impact fees is governed by state law, and detailed record keeping and

annual reporting is required. Constructions sales taxes are collected in Oro Valley, Marana, and

Sahuarita. Unlike impact fees, they can be used at the will of the local agency. Receipts of both

impact fees and construction sales taxes have been hurt by the sluggish economy and slowed

pace of development.

Accordingly, it is expected that the short term unavailability of local funds will necessitate that

Roadway Element projects in the outlying areas be phased in order to better match

construction improvements and expenditures with development-related local revenues

Timely Availability of Funds

Cash flow is also an important consideration. Since 2006, the RTA has been readily able to

provide project funds on a pay-as-you-go basis due to ample reserves. After a measured ramp-

up on major project delivery, the RTA now has nominal cash reserves and will be using bonds to

help fund future project activities. The RTA’s bond rating is anticipated to be high, as sales

taxes are a highly reliable revenue source, and so bonding is a fiscally responsible strategy that

has been approved by the Board. We do not anticipate any project delays due to lack of

committed RTA funds.

However, the local funding match may not be available during the implementation period for a

project relying on these funds. This may result in the need to phase projects and/or accelerate

the RTA funding of multi-phase projects. Local jurisdictions will need to review the availability

of their local funds and work with the RTA to adjust project construction schedules to reflect

their cash availability. Pima County bond funds are particularly hurt by the decline in HURF

revenues and by legislative sweep of HURF funds to support DPS and other purposes. Since

there has been a diversion and decline in HURF, repaying outstanding bond debt will likely take

longer than originally planned, which will have a concomitant impact on some project

schedules.

PROJECT COSTS

As a part of the project interview process, the jurisdictions were asked to provide current

estimates of probable cost for their projects. In aggregate, the current cost estimate for the

RTA Roadway Element projects is $1,882,488,000, an increase of $379,177,000 (about 25%)

over the project costs identified in the RTA Plan. The experience to-date on competitively bid

projects has been quite different, with the construction bids coming in 28% under the

estimated cost.

| 49

While the actual bid results seem to discredit the increased cost estimates, the project review

has revealed that soft costs have substantially increased. In the original RTA cost estimate, the

estimated costs of planning, design, and construction management were estimated to be 30%

of the cost of construction, based upon industry standards. The actual experience has been

that soft costs have been much greater than predicted, with several projects having soft costs

exceeding 70% of the construction cost. In some cases, this is due to repetitive work due to

changing conditions or long time lags.

The Region has the capacity to fully fund the RTA Roadway Element projects at the increased

amounts through the use of regional funds that will be available throughout the life of the RTA

program, but there will be little additional funding for other projects. Reigning in soft costs and

preventing scope creep will enable the region to retain its discretionary funding for other

needed regional transportation priorities.

PROJECT SCOPE

Disparity between Administrative Code and Ballot Language

Project scope defines construction beginning and end points, number of lanes, median

treatment, major structures and drainage features, and other key features. Two documents

define the scope of work to be funded by the RTA – the Administrative Code and the RTA ballot

language. The two documents have different levels of specificity and are not always consistent.

In the previous section, we compared the two documents, and included future corridor projects

for Periods 2, 3, and 4.

The result showed the differences were consequential for several of the projects. The RTA,

working with the lead agencies has resolved the disparity for the most part, and can use the

information about future-period projects to better define the scope prior to initiating the IGAs.

Several of the projects are described as “desert parkways”, which is a term first used in the RTA

plan. Since the cross section and amenities associated with this designation are not defined in

RTA or local design standards, each project has had to create its own definition. Generally, a

desert parkway is evolving as a “soft” cross section, with an uncurbed median, uncurbed

shoulders, more fitted to the terrain, and with an emphasis on desert vegetation. A better

definition of the meaning of “desert parkway” is needed for future projects, and could be

added to the Administrative Code’s definition section.

Scope of Professional Services

Project scope also refers to the work elements needed to complete the planning, design, and

construction management of each project. Project activities involving design and planning

services are called ”soft costs”, which are also defined as all project costs exclusive of right-of-

way acquisition and construction. There is concern that these costs have escalated due to two

| 50

factors: fees for professional services, and the broad array of services needed to get to the

construction phase. Services include numerous studies (drainage, structural selection, traffic

forecasts and analysis, noise analysis and mitigation, archeological, plant and wildlife

inventories, public involvement plans, etc.), many of which are necessary as determinants of

design, some of which might be eliminated on a project-by-project basis, and some of which

might be eliminated totally on a case-by-case basis. The requirement for reports and studies

are not driven solely by the planning and design professionals, but rather by jurisdictional

policies and procedure manuals. For most projects, adherence to the policies and manuals is

prescribed as part of the design effort, and so becomes part of the designers’ proposal and,

ultimately, their fee estimate.

Accordingly, fiscal stewardship over soft costs has two elements. First and foremost is only

requesting the consultant services that are truly needed for each project and eliminating

unnecessary, redundant, overlapping, and extraneous tasks. Second is negotiating consulting

fees that are both reasonable and competitive, especially related to overhead and profit.

Although procurement laws for design services preclude selection based on fees alone, there is

great potential for structuring solicitations with fee limitations -- based on per cent of

construction cost for example – and letting the design professionals show creativity in how to

accomplish the project within budgetary constraints.

RTA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

Based on our findings, portions of the Administrative Code need to be reviewed and updated to

better include the RTA in major project decisions. At a minimum the RTA should be involved in

approval of milestone documents such as procurement documents, Design Concept Reports,

public involvement plans, project charrettes, and peer review and value engineering analysis.

PEER REVIEW

The project team examined several jurisdictions in the west with similar conditions and

economies as ours. Although we did examine Maricopa County, we determined it was not a

parallel situation because of the history of the Regional Area Road Fund and its periodic

performance audit requirements. There, mandatory audits examine project effectiveness at

meeting long range planning goals, which is not an issue for the RTA. A performance audit is

currently underway for the Maricopa Association of Governments by the State’s Auditor

General.

We also reviewed audits of transportation programs at several Arizona counties, and at ADOT.

All of the audits resulted in minor changes in internal procedures and some reimbursements of

small amounts of money misspent by managers. In general, they had little impact on the

overall project delivery process, which is the goal of this assessment by the RTA. We did

| 51

however find one entity in California which offers significant insight in controlling costs and

delivering projects effectively in a fiscally constrained environment.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority – A case study

In our search for peer transportation agencies with similar programs and challenges, we had to

look no further than California. Within California, 19 county transportation authorities have a

history of 25 years or more of voter-approval transportation sales tax. These counties

encompass more than 80% of California’s population.

Where the RTA refers to its ½-percent sales tax initiative, California refers to initiatives as

“Measures” and the enacting region as a called a “self-help county”. All 19 self-help

jurisdictions are required by California statute to pass or extend tax referenda by super-

majority voter approval of at least 66%. According to the Self Help Counties Coalition (SHCC),

“[w]ithout self-help county funding, most of California’s priority transportation projects would

not be built.”

Of the 19 self-help Counties, we focused on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA).

Contra Costa’s population of 1.2 million people mirrors Pima County’s, but it has over 40

incorporated and unincorporated towns and cities and a more complex multi-jurisdictional

structure. In our interviews and research with 13 of the regional transportation authorities,

CCTA was the most financially conservative but the most progressive in process and policy for

controlling project cost.

Measure J Enacted

In November 2004, Contra Costa voters approved the current “Measure J” with a 71 % vote.

This measure provided the continuation of the county’s sales tax for 25 years beyond the

original expiration date of Measure C in 2009. Measure C funds were derived from a 1988 sales

tax measure and were used to fund an Expenditure Plan for transportation programs and

projects. This funding allowed some key projects to be undertaken sooner than originally

planned.

Measure J will provide approximately 2.5 billion dollars (RTA/PAG is 2.1 Billion over a 20-year

life) for county-wide and local transportation projects and programs through the year 2034. The

Authority worked for over two years with local governments, organizations, and residents to

develop the Expenditure Plan which specifies how the funds will be spent.

In our research of documents, administrative code, IGA’s, processes, procedures, and

interviews with CCTA staff, five key processes emerged as a foundation for controlling soft costs

and project delivery:

1- Strategic Project Tools

2- Peer review

| 52

3- Reimbursements

4- Audits

5- Negotiations

Strategic Project Tools

The CCTA has adopted a standardized cost-estimating guide that sets out a consistent

framework for estimating project costs at the conceptual level. Jurisdictions are encouraged to

use this guide when preparing cost estimates. These conceptual estimates are prepared at the

early planning and project development phases, when detailed information is unknown. Sound

financial programming requires consistent and reasonable cost estimates. Accurate cost

estimates help project proponents establish funding plans; this allows the Authority to program

sufficient funding to deliver the projects. The Guide provides “rule of thumb” percentages for

estimating the cost of a variety of project elements. The Guide is broken down into six basic

components with specific descriptions and guidelines; they are:

1. Estimating and methodology

2. Scope of the business

3. Type of estimate

4. Procedures for preparing conceptual estimates

5. Below the line cost (planning, design, right of way, contingency)

6. Qualities of a good cost estimate

Accompanying the Guide is a Spread Sheet Template that incorporates the percentages

assigned by the Guide to specific categories such as staking, design, mobilization, construction

storm water, BMP’s, etc. (See Spread Sheet Template in the Peer Review Report). These “rule

of thumb” allowances can be modified if necessary.

Peer Review / Design Guidelines

At the onset of a Measure J project, a member of the Authority staff or its program

management team is assigned as the project coordinator. The coordinator provides assistance

in complying with authority policies and ensuring that adequate funds are available for all

phases of the project. With CCTA staff embedded at the beginning of the project, the authority

encourages conceptual studies to promote cost-effective design. With this structure in place,

the following expectations will apply:

• Conceptual engineering studies which define the alternatives evaluated in the

environmental document should cost approximately 3 percent of the estimated

construction cost.

| 53

• Environmental studies should cost approximately 3 percent of the estimated

construction cost.

• Projects should have final design costs in the range of 12 to14 percent of the estimated

construction cost.

The percentages listed above can be modified depending upon the size and complexity of the

project if justification is submitted by the jurisdiction. In addition to the Authority

representative in place at the beginning of the process, the City/County Engineering Advisory

Committee (CCEAC), similar to RTA technical committee, acts as a second set of eyes. This

establishes a two-pronged approach to reviewing projects.

The Authority representative works with the jurisdiction throughout the project to resolve

issues through all phases of the project and also works in concert with a technical peer review

subcommittee of the CCEAC. The associated authority reviews will: (1) review all documents,

environmental design, and agreements to ensure consistency with Measure policies and

guidelines; (2) review major cost components of the project; and (3) review the project to

ensure that the objectives and purpose are consistent with the Measure J strategic plan and

ordinance.

Formal design reviews will be linked to the CCEAC peer review. The purpose of the CCEAC peer

review is to provide an unbiased review of major components of the design to identify

problems, address cost effectiveness, and resolve any issue or problems. The review involves a

three-step review process to ensure the Authority that the jurisdiction is complying with the

strategic plan.

Authority/CCEAC Review during Design

Phase one review will be completed at the 65% design stage where a project alternative

has been adopted and other project details have been defined. At this stage, the CCEAC peer

review will focus on the cost effectiveness of project components, opportunities for value

engineering, technical aspects of geometrics, right of way, utilities, and environmental impacts.

Schedule and estimated budget will be evaluated.

Phase two review will be at the 90% design stage. This phase focuses on right of way

acquisition, easements, dispositions of property, drainage, utility relocation, draft utility

agreements, signing and striping plans, landscaping, construction staging and final estimates.

The final review will be conducted upon completion of plans, specifications, and estimates

(PS&E). A review by authority representatives will be performed to verify that all comments

from the previous reviews have been addressed and that the project construction costs are

compatible with the Strategic Plan. If previous reviews have not been addressed or there are

major revisions since the previous CCEAC peer review, then a formal review may be conducted

by a CCEAC peer review group.

| 54

Environmental reviews are the responsibility of the lead agency. The lead agency is

expected to meet its obligation to the Authority as related to notification, consultation and

solicitation of comments in the environmental process for non-categorical exempt Measure J

projects. Exemptions from design peer reviews are based upon construction costs of less than

250,000 dollars. These exemptions can be modified within the administrative code in relation to

bike paths, bus pullouts, etc. Additionally, the Authority/CCEAC peer review committee may

elect to limit the number of peer reviews on a project.

The application of peer review has had positive results. For one thing, design assurances are

improved. Additionally, peer review using volunteers from other jurisdictions forces

interjurisdictional cooperation for the greater good to achieve “over the shoulder review”

(Measure J Strategy plan, 2009).

Project Submittals for Design Review

A schedule for design review is established by the jurisdiction; the Authority coordinates

meetings between the CCEAC and jurisdiction. Specific steps are laid out for coordinating

project reviews.

A project summary report and additional project materials must be submitted by jurisdictions

two weeks prior to scheduled design reviews. Summary reports cover project background,

scope, schedule, environmental, final design, right of way, utility relocation, and construction.

In addition, the summary report will include three items; (1) project cost estimate using Cost

Estimating Guide, (2) financial plan which includes all funding sources and amounts, including

shortfalls, potential shortfalls, and potential revenues, (3) Reponses to issues raised by the

Authority representatives and CCEAC peers. The summary report is brief (1-2 pages) with

enough information to aid in the review. The summary report is laid out step-by-step, with

what is expected, who is participating, specific timeframe for meetings etc.

Structure of the CCEAC

Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) introduced the City County Engineering

Advisory Committee (CCEAC) during the Measure C program that passed in 1988 to help reduce

administrative costs to deliver projects. The CCEAC members are volunteers from the different

cities, towns, and county staff that serve as peer reviewers. The CCEAC has developed a

checklist that maintains the momentum of the design and clarifies what will be reviewed at

each stage and when the meetings will be held. Peer reviews may result in specific actions: a).

approve the deliverable as presented, b) recommendations for change, or c) ask for additional

data. The review will be summarized in a letter to the CCTA technical committee containing

recommendations. One member of the peer review committee will summarize the review and

submit a letter with recommendations concerning the technical merits of the project. This

letter will be accompanied by a report from the Authority project coordinator. If the

| 55

recommendation is either b or c above, the CCEAC may request the jurisdiction to present the

deliverable again; this provides assurance the project is in keeping with the original language

and intent of measure J.

Unless a significant issue remains unresolved, the project does need to await formal

approval from CCEAC peer review committee. The Authority, at its discretion, however, may

choose not to appropriate funding for any additional work until a satisfactory completion of the

design peer review. The understanding that has evolved from CCTA’s use of peer review is that

value engineering should be inherent in the design process and may be reinforced by peer

review. The application of a fresh set of eyes in design oversight helps limit unforeseen value

engineering opportunities and minimizes the problems and costs associated with the tendency

to design to perfection.

Reimbursements

Reimbursements are one of the more contentious items between RTA/PAG and jurisdiction

members. During project reviews, CCTA found it difficult to segregate reimbursable expenses

for staff involved in the project from non-reimbursable expenses. To address this problem, the

CCTA implemented a cap for project management or project development work. The CCTA has

adopted a formula that caps hourly wages and fringe benefits charged to the project to 1.5

times the hourly salary or in other words, the standard mark-up rate shall not exceed 50% of

the hourly wage. Expenses CCTA deemed eligible for reimbursement can be found in exhibit E,

Eligible Cost Guidelines for Measure J Funded Projects. Reimbursement procedures are clearly

established within the code and CCTA is not shy about asking for adequate documentation to

justify reimbursement. If clarification is requested or additional information is needed, the

jurisdiction will be contacted before payment is made (refer to exhibit D Funding

Reimbursement Procedures).

Audits

Audits are an effective tool to verify and ensure that financial records are up-to-par and

accurate. The CCTA administrative code clearly spells out when a compliance audit is called for.

The Authority may select any jurisdiction that is a recipient of Measure J funds for an

independent audit. Audit objectives may range from verification of staff hours charged to a

project or the accuracy of payment to vendors, whether reimbursements are mathematically

correct, or whether the net proceeds from the sale of excess land have been returned to the

Authority, etc. At least three Measure J audits are conducted every year: 1) Projects receiving

more than $500,000, (jurisdiction will be selected by Authority staff). 2) local jurisdictions

receiving funds for street maintenance. 3) For Authorities consultants receiving more than

$25,000 in Measure J funds, again selected by the Authority staff, for a complete compliance

audit. What makes this tool so effective is this can be done at the discretion of the Authority

staff for any recipient receiving Measure J funds.

| 56

Negotiations

This seems to be the most difficult item to overcome if there is not a culture of negotiating in

the system. There is no specific guideline within CCTA Administrative Code or IGA’s that instruct

in the art of negotiations. CCTA recognizes that they have a system of peer reviews,

reimbursement criteria, audits, and planning tools that monitor the process form beginning to

end. Even with the process working, negotiations between CCTA and jurisdictions is habitual.

With the approval of the 1988 CCTA sales tax, a process to change “business as usual”

evolved into what CCTA does today. This ability to change and improve has translated into CCTA

leverage for additional revenues such as Tiger Grants, a strong bond rating, and strong voter

support for the 2004 Measure J. Their Strategic Plan has a proven success record while still

maintaining the flexibility to adjust in these hard economic times. In short, the CCTA Strategic

Plan offers an excellent source of guidance to the RTA/PAG for the future.

POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

Since none of the projects are yet completed, the costs associated with post-construction

activities could not be evaluated. However, this will be an important consideration in future

project assessments and benchmarking analysis.

| 57

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation based on the ThinkTank sessions, interviews, project summaries, and peer

review are provided below.

THINKTANK RECOMMENDATIONS

ThinkTank is an innovative tool that helps to leverage collaboration and group intelligence to

create solutions for complex challenges. It has been used often by PAG and the RTA on

technical and policy issues, with great success.

Innovating with group intelligence software helps determine who knows what, empowers all

participants to think and contribute outside normal boundaries and engages all individuals in

creative or problem-solving objectives. ThinkTank allows disparate groups to work better

together without the conflict or animosity that might otherwise occur.

• Anonymity – sessions are conducted anonymously, allowing participants to focus on the

issues and solutions.

• Equality – levels the playing field so that the contributions of each participant are

weighted equally in the group process.

• Productivity – allows participants to achieve objectives simultaneously, which results in

more productivity in less time.

• Accuracy – captures all of the content produced during a session and produces an

accurate transcript at the end of the session.

As mentioned, over 60 professionals participated in the three ThinkTank questions. Participants

were asked the same four specific questions plus one general question, each with its own

premise.

1. Project Costs

Premise: Project planning establishes the foundation for design. In some cases, certain

policies, procedures, and planning activities may be redundant or unnecessary for RTA

projects. (For the sake of discussion assume project planning includes activities up to

30% plans, and design is 30 – 100% plans.)

Question: What can be done to reduce project costs during the planning phase?

Major Findings: Project costs can be reduced with a more lean and structured approach

to project planning, characterized by a highly prescribed process involving only

necessary steps and those with technical expertise in project planning.

Review Team Recommendation: Eliminate planning and design activities that have

marginal benefit, and review design standards and specifications for mandates and

restrictions that impede cost effective solutions.

| 58

2. Utilities

Premise: Utilities placed within roadway corridors need to be adjusted or relocated

prior to or concurrent with roadway construction. Accordingly, utility relocations are a

key component of overall project schedule and schedule adherence.

Question: What can be done to improve working relationships with utilities to achieve

design coordination and schedule adherence?

Major Findings: Design coordination can be improved by proactively identifying utility

locations and schedule adherence can be improved by involving utilities in project

planning at the earliest stages.

Review Team Recommendation: Enhance early and ongoing coordination with all

utilities in the project corridors, perhaps through a utilities task force of the RTA.

3. Schedules

Premise: Project schedules are affected by myriad factors, some of which are outside

the control of the lead agency.

Question: What can be done to better adhere to project schedules?

Major Findings: Project schedule adherence can be improved by improving

communication between all responsible parties and by limiting and carefully considering

assumptions and dependencies that could affect project design changes.

Review Team Recommendation: Enhance partnering between design and construction

activities, and minimize public participation beyond the 30% plan stage.

4. Cost Estimates

Premise: Engineers’ construction cost estimates can vary widely from the winning

contractors’ bids, and the estimates are usually conservative, i.e. higher than the bid

amounts. This requires a commitment of RTA and local funds that could otherwise be

available for other projects.

Question: What can be done to have more accurate project cost estimates while

limiting risks to jurisdictions in the event of an adverse bid?

Major Findings: Project cost estimate accuracy can be improved by leveraging recent

cost data and vetting estimates through independent review, while risk can be limited

by a savings-based contingency fund.

Review Team Recommendations: Establish an RTA projects contingency fund, utilize

professional cost estimators when necessary, and update costs estimates just prior to

bidding if market conditions are changing.

| 59

5. Other Considerations

Premise: You are the experts and can help the RTA further reduce costs and delays on

RTA roadway projects. This could include administration, management, regulatory,

planning, right-of-way, design, and construction activities.

Question: What else can be done to reduce project delivery costs without reducing

project quality?

Major Findings: Project delivery costs can be reduced by improving the project planning

process with a focus on construction and using the project plan as a management tool.

Review Team Recommendations: Review the ThinkTank findings in detail, categorize

the results, and implement the best ideas presented for this question.

Additional information about the ThinkTank session is available in a separate report available

on the RTA’s website.

PROJECT “SOFT COSTS”

Concern has been expressed about the amount of funds being spent on soft costs. There are

two components to this subject: what the design professionals are being asked to do (i.e., their

scope of services) and their compensation for the work. Relating to the latter, when the RTA’s

Executive Director ordered cessation of several ongoing arterial projects in May of this year,

some of the lead agencies initiated a review of their internal procedures. For example, Pima

County began to explore ways to improve its contracting. At the request of the County

Administrator, Pima County is already actively pursuing improvement in its negotiation and

monitoring of contracts. Pima County Procurement responded to this issue in a memorandum

sent to the County Administrator’s office on July 27, 2010; the memorandum states, in part:

“One of the most fundamental rules of negotiations is that you have to be willing

to walk; we have not been. For whatever reason, departments are willing to

negotiate unsuccessfully for months with the highest-rated firm and are

reluctant to terminate negotiations, and to move onto number two. To my

recollection, we have only done it twice since 2001. We should be doing it more

often.”

We feel this observation is on target; the willingness to say “enough” and move on in an

expeditious manner is critical to negotiating successfully. The memorandum also expresses

concern over potentially overbroad scopes of work that allow “endless exploration and

assessment beyond that necessary for a successful project” and recommends either peer

review or greater focus on the scope in the Pima County Project Management exit gate process.

The County Administrator generally concurred with the Procurement Department’s

observations and recommendations and added a deadline for completion of negotiations. Pima

| 60

County Procurement has now moved forward with a draft procurement procedure covering the

negotiation of architect and engineer contracts. This Procedure establishes guidelines for

negotiation goals, a deadline for completion of negotiations, with a process for terminating

negotiations and moving on to the next ranked firm. This is expected to help reduce the soft

costs associated with design activities.

The RTA review demonstrates that there are institutional impediments to cost effectiveness in

how we design and construct roadway projects. The first step towards improvement is to

realize that changes are needed. Pima County has taken this step and is moving to change and

improve its processes, and acts as a role model for all lead agencies.

EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT (EVM)

Based on the interviews and discussions with staff the review team recommends that the EVM

reports be prepared by the jurisdictions, so that they can apply the EVM rules relative to their

progress-to-date. Previously, RTA staff attempted to apply these rules, but it is very challenging

since the needed information is available from the lead agencies. Accordingly, it is preferable

for the lead agencies to provide EVM reports with their monthly invoices so long as there is

consistency in reporting, and accountability on behalf of the agency submitting the reports.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Effective public involvement must be focused on the project goals and budget, and facilitate the

timely completion of the project. The review team recommends that public involvement

activities be fine-tuned at the onset of each project, with particular attention to the special

needs and constraints along the corridor. In most cases, public involvement can be initiated at

the onset of planning, and end upon completion of the project planning phase. Project

planning typically ends with an approved DCR or EAMR, and the acceptance of 30% plans. There

will be some need for public participation during design (for example, public art coordination)

and virtually no need during construction and post-construction phases.

Summary Recommendations

Exhibit 7 summarizes the findings of the project team and can form the foundation of an action

plan for the RTA Board, committees, staff, and the lead agencies.

| 61

Exhibit 7 Recommendations

Topic RecommendationPrimary Implementing

Agency(ies)

Enhance project funding awareness to

help constrain costs to predetermined

budgets.

Clearly reference project budgets in IGAs, design solicitations, RFPs,

consultant proposals, contract documents, and public information

documents. Costs above RTA authorization will need non-RTA funding.

RTA and lead agencies;

project consultants;

procurement agencies.

Local matching funds must be assured to

complete projects on schedule.

Identify specific local match funding sources in IGAs and through adoption

of lead agency resolution. Further codify in TIP documentation.

Lead agencies; PAG TIP

committee

Need contingency strategies if local funds

are unavailable or delayed.

Projects may be considered for phasing, minor redefinition of scope, or

strategically delayed. RTA and lead agencies

Use of regional funds for RTA projects may

impact future non-RTA improvements

RTA must review and approve use of regional funds such as 12.6% and

STP, in addition to PAG.RTA and PAG

Project cost savings should be incentivized

to recognize fiscal stewardship.

Allow lead agencies to utilize a percentage of RTA project cost savings for

related roadway improvements or enhancements. Cost savings and

beneficial uses will be determined at project completion.

RTA

RTA funds can possibly be leveraged with

additional revenue opportunities.

Consider enabling participation in Community Facility Districts,

Improvement Districts, and similar currently-authorized funding options.RTA

Availability and flexibility of County bond

funds is uncertain.

The RTA should work with Pima County to redefine and refine use of 1997

HURF Bonds on RTA projects.RTA and Pima County

Surplus RTA funds could be made available

to assist lead agencies on underfunded

projects, on a loan basis.

Using surplus RTA funds, create a program similar to low interest HELP

loans to help offset local funds on an as-needed, as-available basis.

(Possibly requires legislative action.)

RTA, State Legislature

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PROJECT ASSESSMENTS

INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION

Project Funding

| 62

The current favorable bidding climate may

eventually change so that bids exceed cost

estimates. A policy is needed for

readvertising, and a method may be

needed to fund the shortfall.

Create and adopt a policy on bid readvertising. Create a contingency

account for use when responsible bids exceed cost estimates so that

critical projects can be awarded.

RTA

Normal overhead burden of some

agencies is being billed to RTA projects,

i.e., department heads and senior

management.

Identify in IGAs and RTA policies that department overhead and senior

staff are not chargeable against RTA projects.RTA, lead agencies.

The definition of project scope varies

between the Administrative Code and

voter-approved project descriptions. This

causes some confusion and uncertainty

about project design and delivery.

Correlate the project scope for future RTA projects in Periods 2 -3, and

clarify the scope for ongoing Phase 1 projects. RTA

Clearly establish the project scope and

refine project expectations early in the

delivery process.

Implement an early review of project scope and contract elements to

ensure that only truly necessary activities are undertaken.

RTA and lead agencies;

project consultants

There is a need for a consistent set of

expectations and outcomes for each

project by all key participants, including

RTA, lead agencies, participating agencies,

major utilities, and project consultants.

Create a "project charter" to be signed by all key participants (similar to a

partnering agreement) committing to project scope, schedule, and

funding. Emphasize that scope can be expanded only if additional non-

RTA funds are committed for expansion/augmentation. Commit project

participants to designing a project to the budget.

RTA and lead agencies;

project consultants; major

utilities.

Project performance is sometimes

delayed due to unforeseen, required

activities.

To a reasonable extent, schedules should consider potential for

environmental activity delays (404 permits), other federal clearances,

utility reviews, or other risks prior to RFQ/RFP development. Adopt

uniform scheduling practices for RTA projects.

RTA and lead agencies;

project consultants; major

utilities.

Review times for design submittals take

up a significant portion of the project

schedule.

Include over-the-shoulder reviews to minimize staff review times.

RTA and lead agencies;

project consultants; major

utilities.

Project Scoping

Project Schedules

| 63

Budgets for professional services need to

be constrained to reasonable portions of

overall project costs.

Establish and include in procurement and contract documents:

professional service budgets based on per centage of anticipated

construction costs similar to the current policy on public art. Survey

construction staking should be bid as an add-alternate.

RTA, Lead Agencies,

Procurement agencies

The RTA and lead agency must thoroughly

vet RFPs scope, schedule, and budgets

prior to advertising for professional

services.

Working collaboratively, the RTA and lead agencies will clarify the scope

of design services contracts, with the intention of limiting services to only

those required to execute the project. Procurement documents will

identify fee allocations for various project activities and service

categories.

RTA, Lead Agencies,

Procurement agencies

Project cost and scope negotiations may

delay project starts (both design and

construction.

Establish consistent negotiation time frames for top three teams

selected. If negotiation period for 1st team selected expires, negotiate

with 2nd team, and so on. If negotiation cannot be completed through

3rd team, rebid project.

RTA, Lead Agencies,

Procurement agencies

Comprehensive project checklists could

facilitate RTA project goals and minimize

conflicts regarding scope and payments.

RTA should develop comprehensive project implementation checklists

for use during procurement, planning, design, and construction.RTA

Project "soft costs" are currently not

constrained, resulting in excessive

expenditures for professional services on

some projects.

Establish fee limits for planning, design, and surveying services based on

a per centage of estimate construction cost. Limits should be based on

benchmarking studies and serve as a fixed guide in solicitations for

professional services.

RTA

The Code does not require formal project

reviews at major milestones of project

development.

Adopt and implement a sequence of formal project reviews at a

milestone basis: procurement, scoping, project kickoff, completion of

DCR/EAMR, 60% plans, and 90% plans. Include and emphasize project

finding and schedule at all reviews. However, include opportunities for

less formal, "over the shoulder" reviews.

RTA, lead agencies, project

consultants

Some projects are suitable for alternate

delivery methods that spread risk, assure

schedule adherence, and improve overall

project quality.

Assess the Administrative Code and rewrite appropriate sections to

authorize and encourage alternate delivery methods on a case-by-case

basis.

RTA

Procurement Activities

Administrative Code

| 64

The RTA uses a performance management

system (Earned Value Management) to

track project progress with little input

from lead agencies.

Rather than the RTA assigning the value earned on projects, shift this

responsibility to the lead agency, who would be better informed. Lead agencies

The administrative code is a legal

instrument that guides the RTA and

agencies on project development,

performance and delivery.

The RTA should assess the code periodically and revise to meet needs of

the region.RTA

Projects may continue for months before

questions are raised regarding funds spent

corresponding to project deliverables.

Conduct random audits to ensure jurisdictions are applying RTA funds as

required for the project.RTA

Consultants submitting professional

services proposal must be aware of and

emphasize project budgets in their

proposals and during fee negotiations.

RFPs and RFQs must emphasize that overall cost containment is a major

factor in project delivery. Proposals must define methods and

procedures to ensure cost containment, project-specific activities that can

be reduced or eliminated and means to compress and expedite project

schedules.

Project Consultants

Contract negotiations shall consider cost

containment and on-budget project

delivery as a primary selection criteria.

As a part of the consultant selection process, the top three ranked firms

should be authorized for negotiation. In the event a negotiated fee

amount cannot be reached quickly with the top ranked firm, negotiations

may begin quickly with the next highly rated firm.

Lead agencies; RTA

Routine application of local ordinances can

add undue complexity to most projects.

Consider modifying local roadway development ordinance's applicability

to RTA projects or eliminate the ordinances entirely. RTA, COT, Pima County

Planning and Pre-Design Activities

| 65

Public involvement greatly facilitates

project planning and implementation, but

can also add unnecessary complexity and

delays. The public has been exposed to

many of the RTA arterial projects.

Accordingly, project-long public

involvement may be unnecessary.

A] Create a balanced public involvement (PI) process for each project that

addresses pre-identified issues and concerns. Evaluate PI activities that

are truly needed to implement a project on a case-by-case basis. In most

cases, PI would cease at completion of 30% plans or EAMR/DCR, with the

exception of the public art component. This may require change to some

local ordinances.

B] The RTA will fund a pre-construction open house for the general public.

This is not to be construed as to limit the interaction between the design

team and property owner/business owners affected by the project, or the

posting of project updates on the project website. If the jurisdiction

desires further public involvement it should be done at the jurisdiction’s

sole expense.

Local agencies, RTA

Advanced acquisition of right-of-way

facilitates project delivery and should be

encouraged whenever practicable.

Encourage voluntary early acquisition of properties which have been

identified as being required for acquisition. Properties which are

voluntarily acquired will not have relocation expenses or necessarily be

subject to federal relocation requirements. Interim uses of acquired

properties may generate revenue to offset maintenance and acquisition

costs, and the income should be retained as ”project funds”.

Lead Agencies

Project design options are numerous and

attention must be paid to cost effective

design alternatives.

Utilize peer review and/or value engineering on every project prior to

completion of 30% plans (DCR; EAMR) and implement cost saving design

changes that are consistent with project scope.

Lead agencies

Utility coordination must be enhanced in

order to stay on budget and on schedule.

Utility Companies must be provided plans and schedules at 30% plan

development. Schedules should reflect utility relocation and installation

activities.

Lead agencies

Public Involvement

Right-of-Way Acquisition

Design Phase

| 66

The RTA staff, committees, and Board of

Directors need to be kept informed of

project status.

Prior to commencing final design, the Design Concept Report, project

budget, project schedule and identification of any supplemental funding

shall be presented to the RTA Board for approval. Any significant changes

in funding requirements, project scope or schedule subsequent to RTA

Board approval must be presented to the RTA Board prior to the

proceeding beyond 90% plans.

RTA; lead agencies

Engineers' construction cost estimates are

typically conservative when compared to

contractor's bids.

RTA and Agencies Develop/Maintain database of bid estimates for total

costs, not just construction. Hire professional construction estimators to

prepare better estimates.

RTA; lead agencies

Project review times can be longer than

projected in the schedule, adding to the

project performance period.

Limit the number of agency staff performing reviews and schedule "over-

the-shoulder" reviews for one or more review submittals.Lead agencies

Construction staking is often a separate

professional service, apart from the

contractor's bid.

Include construction surveying as an alternate bid item for the contractor,

and use whichever method is more cost effective.Lead agencies

Alternate delivery methods can lower

costs and enhance project schedules.

Consider alternative delivery methods on every project and implement

whenever practicable.RTA and lead agencies

Contractors submitting bid proposals must

be aware of and emphasize project

budgets in their proposals and during fee

negotiations.

RFPs and RFQs must emphasize that overall cost containment is a major

factor in project delivery. Proposals must define methods and

procedures to ensure cost containment, project-specific activities that can

be reduced or eliminated and means to compress and expedite project

schedules.

Project Consultants

Contract negotiations shall consider cost

containment and on-budget project

delivery as a primary selection criteria.

As a part of the consultant selection process, the top three ranked firms

should be authorized for negotiation. In the event a negotiated fee

amount cannot be reached quickly with the top ranked firm, negotiations

may begin quickly with the next highly rated firm.

Lead agencies; RTA

This section Reserved for subsequent

Assessments

Post-Construction Phase

Construction Phase