DOCSLIB.ORG

Combined Gas Tax Rates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Combined Gas Tax Rates Transportation Needs & Funding: Where do we go from here? Surface Transportation Funding Task Force September 28, 2016 © 2016, All Rights Reserved. Best Driving Experience in the World – Phoenix Waze is the world's largest community- based traffic and navigation app. ©2016, All Rights Reserved. 2 Major Sources of Transportation Uses of Local & Regional Funds Revenue in Maricopa County (estimated for FY 2017) Other, (estimated for FY 2017) 0.4% $2,914,340 Regional Highways, HURF, $246,000,000 $368,954,384 Dedicated 32.8% 23.5% Local & Regional Funds, $749,658,000 47.8% ADOT Funds, $282,200,000 Streets, 18.0% $48,781,870 Transit, 6.5% $451,961,790 Federal Funds, 60.3% $167,800,000 10.7% Total Major Sources: $1.568 billion Local & Regional Funds: $749.6 million ©2016, All Rights Reserved. 3 $1.25 billion Rebalancing $1.77 billion Under Construction 1 $2.30 billion Programmed $3.90 billion Deferred 13 14 12 11 8 3 5 2 10 6 7 4 9 0 New Construction 0 Traffic Interchange 0 ROW Protection 0 Technology REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS FOR Illustrative Projects = $8.7 bil. PRESENTATION PURPOSES ONLY. Interstate 17 Loop 303 Add Lanes, Anthem Way to Yavapai County Final determination will be Add Lanes, SR-30 to Interstate 17 completed with the fiscally- constrained NexGen Regional Transportation Plan. US-60/Grand Ave Interstate 10/Interstate 17 Spine COMPASS Improvements Add Lanes, Loop 202 to Loop 101 I-11/Hassayampa New Freeway, Interstate 10 to US-93 Interstate 10/Papago Add Lanes, 459th Ave to Verrado Way SR-24/Gateway Meridian Rd to US-60/SR-79 Arizona SR-30 Freeway Conversion, SR-85 to Loop 303 Add Lanes, Loop 303 to Loop 202 New Freeway, Loop 202 to I-17 Pinal North-South New Freeway, SR-287 to US-60 Loop 303 New Freeway, SR-238 to SR-30 Arizona SR-85 Freeway Conversion, I-8 Interchange Interstate 8 to Interstate 10 SR-238 SR-347 Interstate 10 SR-79 Add Lanes, Riggs Rd to SR- Add Lanes, SR-79B (South) to Add Lanes, Loop 303 to SR-347 Add Lanes, Maricopa to I-10 387 Hunt Hwy © 2013, All Rights Reserved. 5 Illustrative Projects REGIONAL FREEWAY AND HIGHWAY PROGRAM Improvements Cost Opinion New Freeway Corridors Interstate 11, SR-24, SR-30, Loop 303, Pinal North-South $5,500 million Add Lanes I-10, I-17, SR-79, SR-85, SR-238, Loop 303, SR-347 $1,900 million New DHOV and Service Interchanges Unspecified; up to 12 locations $300 million US-60/Grand Ave COMPASS Operational and Access Management Improvements $500 million Operations and Maintenance for Illustrative Projects $500 million $8.7 billion © 2016, All Rights Reserved. 6 ADOT Roadways within MAG Region $80.8 million Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs $67.4 million Fwy Operations and Maintenance Costs $13.4 million Hwy Operations and Maintenance Costs © 2013, All Rights Reserved. 7 2013 Operations and Maintenance Costs . Pavement Preservation $80.8 $31.2 (not Quiet Pave). million million . Bridge Scour and Ideal GAP Deck Maintenance. Drainage/Pumps. $49.6 . Deck Park Tunnel. million . Lighting. ACTUAL . Traffic Operations. Litter/Graffiti. Signs, Signals, and Striping. Source: FY2013-FY2017 State Transportation Improvement Program, ADOT, retrieved September 2013. ©2016, All Rights Reserved. 8 Operations and Maintenance Costs with New Corridors $91.6 $80.8 million million With Existing Opening of System Loop 303, Loop 202, I-10/I-17 Total Operations and Maintenance thru 2040 $2.4 billion 2013 by 2025 © 2013, All Rights Reserved. 9 “Big Budget” Maintenance Items By 2040: . Quiet Pavement Replacement – up to three applications. Interstate 10/Interstate 17 traffic interchange - “The Stack” - structure rehabilitation and deck replacement. Deck Park Tunnel Maintenance. Pump Replacement and Rehabilitation. Rough Estimate - $1.0 billion © 2013, All Rights Reserved. 10 Needs Summary REGIONAL FREEWAY AND HIGHWAY PROGRAM Category Cost Opinion Deferred Proposition 400 Projects $3.9 billion* llustrative Projects (2032-2040) Interstate 11, Pinal North-South, SR-24, SR-30, SR-85 $8.7 billion* Annual Operations and Maintenance 2025 System thru 2040 $2.4 billion Large Maintenance Projects Quiet Pavement Preservation, The Stack, Deck Park Tunnel $1.0 billion $15.6 billion *Includes Operations and Maintenance for that project phase. Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, September 2013. © 2016, All Rights Reserved. 11 Combined Transit Capital and Operations Estimates for 20 Years (billions of 2013 dollars) Base Case $6.27 $6.41 Scenario #1 $8.27 $6.41 Scenario #2 $21.72 $5.78 Scenario #3 $32.37 $7.03 Current Rev. $5.52 $3.41 Regional Local 33.3% of Half Cent Federal Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, September 2013. © 2013, All Rights Reserved. 12 Needs Summary Regional Regional Transit Regional Freeways and Options Arterials- Highways Parkways $32.7 bil. $21.7 bil. $15.6 billion Scenario 1 Base Case $6.3 $8.2 bil. Scenario 3 bil. Scenario 2 $3 billion © 2013, All Rights Reserved. 13 What has Happened since 1991? New Home Price of a Median Consumer Arizona Gas Prices Honda Houehold Price Index Tax $400,000 Accord Income 260 $0.20 240 $350,000 $25,000.0 $60,000.0 220 $300,000 $50,000.0 $0.18 $20,000.0 200 $250,000 $40,000.0 180 $15,000.0 160 $200,000 $30,000.0 $0.16 140 $10,000.0 $150,000 $20,000.0 120 $100,000 $5,000.0 $10,000.0 100 $0.14 1991 2016 1991 2016 1991 2016 1991 2016 1991 2016 139.2% 87.3% 87.6% 76.6% 0.0% ©2016, All Rights Reserved. 14 Potential Transportation Revenue Sources Annual Average Net New Statewide Revenue 2013 to 2022 (millions of dollars) $10 drivers' license fee increase $13.1 0.9% Percent Increase in HURF Revenues 10% Surcharge on Luxury Tax Collections $42.6 3.0% Compared to Projections for 2013 to 2022 $10 registration fee increase $53.4 3.8% Property tax for transportation $96.8 6.8% 5 Cent Local Option Fuel Tax in Maricopa County Indexed $108.6 7.7% Index current state fuel tax to CPI $115.2 8.1 % Replace fuel tax with state sales tax $116.0 8.2 % Add 5 cents to fuel tax $178.0 12.6 % Index current state & federal fuel tax to CPI (state & federal) $228.7 16.2 % Add 5 cents and index state fuel taxes to CPI $316.4 22.4 % Replace fuel tax with state & local sales tax Local $221.06 $337.0 23.8 % Add 5 cents and index state & federal fuel taxes to CPI $429.8 30.4 % 1/2 cent State Transportation Sales Tax $604.9 42.8 % Add state sales tax in addition to current fuel taxes $820.1 58.0 % Add state & local sales tax in addition to current fuel taxes Local $221.06 $1,041.2 73.6 % $0.00 $200.00 $400.00 $600.00 $800.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, August, 2013. ©2016, All Rights Reserved. 15 Revenue Categories Sales Tax Fuel Tax Options Options Increase fuel tax Arizona Index to inflation Transportation Sales County option Tax Sales tax on fuel sales Other Options Property tax Driver’s license fee Registration fee Sin tax Transportation Needs & Funding: Where do we go from here? Surface Transportation Funding Task Force September 28, 2016 © 2016, All Rights Reserved. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Socioeconomic Assessment for the Tonto National Forest
    4. Access and Travel Patterns This section examines historic and current factors affecting access patterns and transportation infrastructure within the four counties surrounding Tonto National Forest (TNF). The information gathered is intended to outline current and future trends in forest access as well as potential barriers to access encountered by various user groups. Primary sources of data on access and travel patterns for the state’s national forests include the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), and the circulation elements of individual county comprehensive plans. Indicators used to assess access and travel patterns include existing road networks and planned improvements, trends in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on major roadways, seasonal traffic flows, and county transportation planning priorities. Additional input on internal access issues has been sought directly from forest planning staff. Various sources of information for the area surrounding TNF cite the difficulty of transportation planning in the region given its vast geographic scale, population growth, pace of development, and constrained transportation funding. In an effort to respond effectively to such challenges, local and regional planning authorities stress the importance of linking transportation planning with preferred land uses. Data show that the area surrounding Tonto National Forest saw relatively large increases in VMT between 1990 and 2000, mirroring the region’s relatively strong population growth over the same period. Information gathered from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and county comprehensive plans suggest that considerable improvements are currently scheduled for the region’s transportation network, particularly when compared to areas surrounding Arizona’s other national forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • Route Restriction Information: Table 4
    R17-6-412, Table 4 – Updated April 06, 2021 Table 4. Permanent Highway Restrictions, Requirements, Conditions, and Allowances For “Transport Subject To” requirements see end of document. Route Restriction Location Transport Subject to: Height Length Width Weight (in lbs) (MP = Milepost) Escort requirements: F = front escort, R = rear escort, F/R = front and rear escort, and LE = law enforcement escort Interstate 8 MP 0.00 (California State R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Line) to MP 21.06 (Dome R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Valley Road TI) Interstate 8 MP 21.06 Westbound (Dome R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 11” Over 14’ - 16’ = R Valley Road TI Underpass - R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Structure 1325) Interstate 8 MP 21.06 (Dome Valley R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Road TI) to MP 30.80 R17-6-408; R17-6-409 (Avenue 29E - Wellton TI) Interstate 8 MP 30.80 Westbound R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 11” Over 14’ - 16’ = R (Avenue 29E - Wellton R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Underpass - Structure 1332) Interstate 8 MP 30.80 (Avenue 29E - R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Wellton TI) to MP 144.55 R17-6-408; R17-6-409 (Vekol Valley Road TI) Interstate 8 MP 144.55 (Vekol Valley R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 11” Over 14’ - 16’ = R Road Underpass - Structure R17-6-408; R17-6-409 550) Interstate 8 MP 144.55 (Vekol Valley R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Road TI) to MP 151.70 R17-6-408; R17-6-409 (Junction SR 84) Interstate 8 MP 151.70 Eastbound R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 10” Over 14’ - 16’ = R (Junction SR 84 Underpass - R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Structure 1063)
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Concurrent Resolution 1012
    Senate Engrossed State of Arizona Senate Fifty-second Legislature First Regular Session 2015 SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1012 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S COMMENTS TO THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF THE PRIMARY FREIGHT NETWORK. (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE) - i - S.C.R. 1012 1 Whereas, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) submitted 2 comments to the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) in response to the 3 proposed designation of the Primary Freight Network (PFN) that highlighted 4 problems with the proposal and provided recommendations for improvement; and 5 Whereas, the federal legislation "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 6 Century Act" (MAP-21) calls for the United States Secretary of Transportation 7 to designate up to 27,000 miles on existing interstate and other roadways, 8 with a possible addition of 3,000 miles in the future, as a PFN to help 9 states strategically direct resources toward improving freight movement; and 10 Whereas, the Federal Register notice identifies more than 41,000 miles 11 of comprehensive, connected roadway that a Federal Highway Administration 12 (FHWA) analysis shows would be necessary to transport goods efficiently on 13 highways throughout the nation to make up the PFN; and 14 Whereas, the PFN proposal is based on the origins and destination of 15 freight movement, shipment tonnage and values, truck traffic volumes and 16 population; and 17 Whereas, under MAP-21, the PFN
    [Show full text]
  • National Hazardous Materials Route Registry (March 31, 2021)
    32306 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Notices under which such actions were taken Resource Conservation and Recovery Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., are described in the Environmental Act (RCRA) [42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k)]. ET., Monday through Friday, except for Assessment (EA) approved on December 10. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Federal holidays. 17, 2020, in FHWA’s FONSI issued on Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Legal Basis and Background May 26, 2021, and other documents in Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, the project file. The EA, FONSI and Federal Actions to Address Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of section other project records are available by Environmental Justice in Minority 5112 of title 49 United States Code contacting FHWA or the Georgia Populations and Low Income (U.S.C.) permit States and Tribal Department of Transportation at the Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and governments to designate and limit addresses listed above. The EA and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; highway routes over which hazardous FONSI can also be reviewed and E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. materials (HM) may be transported, downloaded from the project website at 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 provided the State or Tribal government https://majormobilityga.com/projects/ Consultation and Coordination with complies with standards prescribed by eastsideic/. Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 the Secretary of Transportation (the This notice applies to all Federal Protection and Enhancement of Secretary) and meets publication agency decisions as of the issuance date Environmental Quality; E.O.
    [Show full text]
  • CX Appendix C Burro Movem
    1 B. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 2 Name and Address of Applicant or Applicant Organization: 3 Arizona Game and Fish Department 4 5000 W. Carefree Highway 5 Phoenix, AZ 85086 6 Evaluation of Burro Movements and Collisions along Roads Near Lake Pleasant 7 Herd Management Area 8 With burro populations above acceptable Herd Management Area (HMA) levels, burro- 9 vehicle collisions (BVC) have become an increasing problem for the travelling public on 10 roads in proximity to Lake Pleasant (LP) HMA. BVC in and around the LPHMA have 11 increased dramatically and exceeded 35 between October 1, 2015 and December 7, 12 2015, and will continue to pose a hazard to motorists. The Bureau of Land Management 13 (BLM) and its partners are seeking solutions to return the population to acceptable HMA 14 levels. Current BLM burro removal efforts cannot keep pace with the herd’s population 15 growth. Until long-term burro reduction strategies are implemented, there is an ever 16 increasing risk to the safety of both motorists and burros. The Arizona Department of 17 Transportation (ADOT) shoulders a bulk of the liability associated with BVCs. To help 18 mitigate risks to motorists and burros, an evaluation of burro movements and collision 19 locations is warranted. We propose to gather information on burro movements along 20 roads within and adjacent to LPHMA through the collection of 1) GPS movement data, 21 2) BVC hotspots and associated variables, and 3) burro roadway access point camera 22 data collection. Our analysis of this Information will 1) provide recommendations for 23 strategic reduction in BVCs while considering implications to wildlife connectivity and 2) 24 identify additional areas for burro removal efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Transportation History
    Arizona Transportation History Final Report 660 December 2011 Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers' names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-AZ-11-660 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date December 2011 ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION HISTORY 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author 8. Performing Organization Report No. Mark E. Pry, Ph.D. and Fred Andersen 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. History Plus 315 E. Balboa Dr. 11. Contract or Grant No. Tempe, AZ 85282 SPR-PL-1(173)-655 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.Type of Report & Period Covered ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 206 S. 17TH AVENUE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Project Manager: Steven Rost, Ph.D. 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract The Arizona transportation history project was conceived in anticipation of Arizona’s centennial, which will be celebrated in 2012. Following approval of the Arizona Centennial Plan in 2007, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) recognized that the centennial celebration would present an opportunity to inform Arizonans of the crucial role that transportation has played in the growth and development of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Costs
    Infrastructure Costs Leah Brooks and Zachary Liscow* July 2019 DRAFT. COMMENTS WELCOME. There is widespread consensus that US infrastructure investment—and infrastructure quality—has been on the decline. In response, politicians across the ideological spectrum have called for increased infrastructure spending. How much infrastructure we would get depends on how much output is produced per dollar of spending. Yet we know surprisingly little about infrastructure costs across time and place. We help to fill this gap by using data we digitized on the Interstate highway system—one of the nation’s most valuable infrastructure assets—to document spending per mile over the history of its construction. We make two main contributions. First, we find that spending per mile on Interstate construction increased more than three-fold (in real terms) from the 1960s to the 1980s. We date the inflection point of increase to the early 1970s. We further show that changes in observed geography over time do not explain these changes. Second, we provide suggestive evidence of the determinants of the increase in spending per mile. In particular, the increased spending per mile coincides with the rise of “citizen voice” in government decision-making in the early 1970s. And rising incomes and housing prices nearly completely statistically explain the increase in costs. We also largely rule out several common explanations for rising costs, such as increases in per-unit labor or materials prices. JEL codes: H4, H5, H7, K0, N4, N7, N9, R4 Keywords: infrastructure; highways; public participation; environmental review 1. Introduction Although the United States spends over $400 billion per year on infrastructure, there is a consensus that infrastructure investment has been on the decline and with it the quality of US * Associate Professor, George Washington University ([email protected]) and Associate Professor, Yale University ([email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Major Roadways Plan
    Major Roadways Plan 2005 City of Yuma April 20, 2005 R2005-41 As amended by R2007 -008, adopted February 7, 2007 and R2007-71, adopted November 20, 2007 2005 Major Roadways Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Table of Contents................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures.................................................................................................................... iii 1 Guiding Policy.....................................................................................................................1 2 Roadway Functional Classification Plan.............................................................................3 Roadway Characteristics and Features to be Provided..................................................4 Interstates and Freeways..........................................................................................4 Expressways.............................................................................................................4 Principal Arterials ....................................................................................................6 Minor Arterials.........................................................................................................7 Collectors .................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Draft NHMRR Federal Register Notice
    State: California State Agency: CA Highway Patrol FMCSA: CA FMCSA Field Office POC: Tian-Ting Shih FMCSA POC: CA Motor Carrier Division Administrator Address: Commercial Vehicle Section Address: 1325 J Street, Suite 1540 P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001 Phone: (916) 843-3400 Phone: (916) 930-2760 Fax: (916) 322-3154 Fax: (916) 930-2778 Web Address: www.chp.ca.gov California – Restricted HM routes Desig- Route Restriction(s) nation Route Description City County Order (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,i) Date 10/28/92 A No person shall drive or permit the driving of 1 any vehicle transporting commodities listed in Section 13 CCR 1150 upon any highway not designated by this article. For pickup and delivery not over designated routes, the route selected must be the shortest-distance route from the pickup location to the nearest designated route entry location, and the shortest-distance route to the delivery location from the nearest designated route exit location. 01/01/95 B State 75 [Coronado Toll Bridge] from Mile Post San Diego San Diego 1,2,3,4 20.28 to Mile Post R22.26 Junction 5 [San Diego County] No flammables/corrosives or explosives on Coronado Bay Bridge (otherwise route is terminal access) 06/29/00 C Sepulveda Blvd. [tunnel] from Interstate Los Angeles Los Angeles 1,2,3,4,5,6,8 105/Imperial Highway to W. Century Blvd. [Restriction for Tank Vehicles] 10/28/92 D State 118 from State 232 [Oxnard] to Los 1 Angeles [western county line] 01/01/95 E State 154 from State 246 [MP 8.11- Santa Ynez] Santa Barbara 0 to US 101 [near Los Olivos] No hazardous materials or waste except pickup and delivery (otherwise, from R8.11 to R9.97 is Terminal Access and from R9.97 to 32.29 is California Legal) 1968 F Monterey Traffic Underpass from Washington Monterey Monterey 0 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Wildlife Guards and Right of Way Escape Mechanisms for Large Ungulates in Arizona
    SPR-729 SEPTEMBER 2020 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Wildlife Guards and Right of Way Escape Mechanisms for Large Ungulates in Arizona Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Wildlife Guards and Right of Way Escape Mechanisms for Large Ungulates in Arizona SPR-729 September 2020 Published by: Arizona Department of Transportation 206 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration This report was funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation of previously published material, presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. This report is subject to the provisions of 23 USC § 409. Any intentional or inadvertent release of this material, or any data derived from its use, does not constitute a waiver of privilege pursuant to 23 USC § 409, which reads as follows: 23 USC
    [Show full text]
  • DMS Travel Time Evaluation-Final Report
    DDMMSS TTrraavveell TTiimmee PPiilloott PPrroojjeecctt EEvvaalluuaattiioonn Final Report Prepared by: April, 2011 091025054 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Travel Time Pilot Program Background ................................................................................. 5 1.2 Pilot Program Initiation ............................................................................................................ 5 1.3 DMS Travel Time Pilot Program Timeframe ......................................................................... 7 1.4 Project Evaluation Overview and Goals .................................................................................. 7 1.5 Focus and Organization of This Report ................................................................................... 8 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Atlanta, Georgia ....................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Chicago, Illinois ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Houston, Texas ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]