1. ARIZONA COUNTIES’ ROADWAY NEEDS STUDY 2008 UPDATE AACE 2009 January Quarterly Meeting, January 29, 2009 Rancho De Los Cabelleros, Wickenburg, AZ Arizona Association of County Engineers

2. Total County Roadway Needs 2008 Compared to Previous Study Years $12.85 Billion

3. How Can One Declare “$12.85 Billion”… As Costs Rise and Fall Daily?  The Easy Answer: Study Methods and Cost Inflator Series are Consistent with Previous Studies  Yes, but… Costs are Inflated to 3 rd Quarter 2008 Dollars Cost of $1.00 in 2004 became $1.308 in 3 rd Quarter 2008  Users of the Study during 2009-2013 Should Revise the Costs to the (Current) Year as they use the Study Results.  But What about 2009? Gasoline, in one year, $3.09 to $4.11 to $1.68 /gal. Copper, in one year, $ 3.46 to $4.10 to $ 1.84 /lb.

4. Costs Rise and Fall… Continued  If Costs are coming Down, could adjust the inflator Are contractor labor costs coming down? Are Asphalt costs coming down?  Let’s decide--in the Strategy Session--whether to Adjust the Inflator

5. Revenue and Needs Effects of Decline in Travel DECLINE IN VEHICLE-MILES TRAVELED ON RURAL HIGHWAYS, UNITED STATES, 2006-NOVEMBER, 2008 Source: USDOT, FHWA, Policy Information, Travel Monitoring

6. Decline in Vehicle-miles Traveled on Rural Arterial Roads, 2008 vs. 2007 Area NovemberOctober Vehicle-Miles (Millions) Percent Change Vehicle-Miles (Millions) Percent Change 2008 (Preliminary) 2007 2008 (Revised) 2007 Arizona9401,029-8.61,0181,110-8.3 Western United States* 9,98810,617-5.910,73011,336-5.3 United States49,72152,524-5.353,66056,210-4.5 Source: USDOT, FHWA, Policy Information, Travel Monitoring *Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming

7. Revenue Effects of Decline in Travel… HURF and VLT Funds Year September 2008 January 2009 Net HURF Counties 3 Revised Net HURF 4, CountiesVLT, Counties Revised VLT, Counties 2009$247.1$232.3 $53.0$48.7 2010$271.8$243.9 $56.9$50.6 2011$284.7$252.5 $62.0$52.8 2012$299.0$265.3 $67.4$57.4 2013$314.5$279.0 $73.5$62.6 2014$329.8$292.6 $79.6$67.8 2015$346.6$307.4 $86.1$73.4 2016$364.0$322.9 $93.4$79.6 2017$380.6$337.7 $100.3$85.5 2018$398.8$353.8 $108.4$92.4 Total$3,236.9$2,887.3 $780.7$670.6 HURF AND VLT REVENUE PROJECTIONS ($MILLIONS) Source: September projections, adopted by AZ State Transportation Board; January, by consultant to AACE study

8. Needs Effects of Decline in Travel… Needs Effects of Less Growth in Travel…  If Travel is Down by 10% for a Few Years, Can the Period For Repaving Stretch (from 7..from 20…from 40…to longer multiple- year intervals ?)  If it is decided to reduce Population Projections, the Model would Indicate fewer Capacity Failures Should the Population increases for 2009-2013 be adjusted?

9. How Did the Model Calculate the “$12.85 Billion”…  Asked the question previously, as a jumping-off point to discuss the current economic conditions Do we adjust Inflator for Needs? Do we adjust Population Projections? Do we adjust Maintenance Periods?  Now asked the question again to transition to discussion of Progress Methods Findings in the Data Counties Supplied

10. Scope and Study Progress  Kickoff Meeting on September 25 th  Requested County Data on Cost Factors  Requested County 2008 Roadway Inventory Data  Developed Revised Cost Factors and Economic Inflators  TAC Meeting on October 30 th  TAC Meeting on October 30 th ; Focus upon Cost Factors and Planning Guidelines Received Inventories from many counties; received Bridge Data from ADOT  Received Inventories from many counties; received Bridge Data from ADOT  Ran the AACE Model with 2004 County Data and Revised Cost Factors  County Engineers’ Meeting, December 11th; Interim results by county  Continued to receive and update county data Remainder of Study applied Revised Cost Factors to 2008 Roadway Inventories  Remainder of Study applied Revised Cost Factors to 2008 Roadway Inventories  Draft Report Provided to MCDOT  County Needs Study Report at AACE January 2009 Meeting (Wickenburg): Draft Report and Presentation Slides Distributed  Final Written Report, March 2009

11. Procedure: Same as in 2004

12. Comparison of Urban vs. Rural Miles County 2004 Urban Miles 2004 Rural Miles 2004 Totals 2008 Urban Miles 2008 Rural Miles 2008 Totals Apache01,6891,69801,694 Coconino361,0971,1333396911,030 Graham2174876918714731 Maricopa1,2291,4002,6291,5319072,438 Pima2526138641,3798382,217 Pinal1,3409452,2851,3548632,217 9,37010,330

13. Breakout of Roadways by Functional Classification 2004

14. Breakout of Roadway by Functional Classification 2008

15. 2009-2018 Needed Expenditures by County CountyMaintenance Existing Bridges New Bridges on Existing Roads Upgrade Existing Roads New RoadsSafetyOperatingTotal Apache$213,861$1,576$0$106,904$0$34,373$21,386$378,099 Cochise$125,839$7,102$2,615$247,190$1,306$39,663$12,584$436,298 Coconino$154,750$64$0$408,736$25,028$60,405$15,475$664,459 Gila$58,872$530$5,151$102,685$71,428$24,455$5,887$269,008 Graham$43,871$6,435$11,853$69,723$12,335$14,861$4,387$163,466 Greenlee$15,650$2,555$0$7,062$0$2,683$1,565$29,516 La Paz$66,902$1,706$0$72,271$0$14,757$6,690$162,327 Maricopa$465,261$128,011$152,617$1,783,362$200,718$277,650$46,526$3,054,145 Mohave$362,595$1,353$0$1,608,531$6,661$201,540$36,259$2,216,939 Navajo$107,721$11,853$0$159,377$49,462$33,918$10,772$373,103 Pima$367,782$28,351$44,076$1,409,641$317,452$220,408$36,778$2,424,489 Pinal$244,950$20,026$0$719,809$27,942$103,722$24,495$1,140,943 Santa Cruz$54,432$6,484$0$55,578$25,847$14,778$5,443$162,562 Yavapai$180,730$38,029$0$428,156$1,894$66,688$18,073$733,571 Yuma$143,203$1,934$0$399,481$28,242$58,718$14,320$645,898 TOTAL$2,606,419$256,009$216,311$7,578,507$768,315$1,168,620$260,642$12,854,824

16. Nearly Finished, but Will Ask Help Refining…  New Roads and Bridges  Bridge Repairs /Replacements  Other Items You Discover in Your Review