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