The Arizona Department of Transportation, through the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program, awarded funding for the City of Sierra Vista Safe Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Plan. Improving bicycle and pedestrian safety has many benefits to the city of Sierra Vista and its residents. Improving and providing safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities provides a viable transportation option for those people who cannot or do not drive. In addition, it is anticipated that development of a network of safe bicycle and pedestrian routes will increase the number of bicycle and pedestrian trips, thus reducing reliance on personal vehicles.

With the advent of multi-modal transportation planning, and given that most of the major metropolitan areas in Arizona have implemented bicycle and pedestrian plans, it is now desirable that ADOT develop a bicycle and pedestrian plan that encompasses all of Arizona. The major intent of the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is to provide a long-term plan for a system of shared roadways and bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the ADOT State Highway System. This includes the definition of the roles of the State and local government in the continual development of the bicycle and pedestrian transportation system in Arizona. It also includes the identification of all existing bicycle and pedestrian plans of the MPOs within Arizona to address the relationship between ADOT and the jurisdictions in the advancement of these plans. In addition, this plan includes design and maintenance guidelines for consideration by all implementing agencies in Arizona. Most importantly, this statewide bicycle and pedestrian plan guides ADOT in making transportation decisions impacting bicycling and pedestrian activity, and improves the accommodation of these non-motorized modes of transportation within Arizona’s multi-modal transportation system.

The Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Phase II Plan focuses on implementing some of the main recommendations of the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Phase I Plan. This includes the development of documents for statewide distribution, the development of plans for a number of future programs, and significant improvements to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program website.

The best way to evaluate job quality would be to analyze a dataset that presents both occupational and industrial data, but the only dataset of this nature available by state comes from the decennial census. It is severely limited by small sample size, the latest data are for 1999, and the 1999 data are not consistent with the 1989 data. Thus, the initial work by the Seidman Institute on job quality ("Job Quality in Arizona," March 2005) presented data on Arizona job quality from several sources of either industrial or occupational data. "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States" (June 2005), is an extension of the March 2005 report. Arizona’s job quality in the latest year and its change over time is compared to the national
average and is ranked among the 51 “states” (including the District of Columbia).

Available data on the cost of living indicate that living costs in Arizona are close to the national average — thus, the state’s lower-than-average wages are not offset by low living costs. No productivity data exist for Arizona. Worker productivity in Arizona could be below the national average due to lesser investments in physical or human capital, which would result in lower wages. Labor market supply and demand factors are a likely cause of the low wages in Arizona. A substantial number of people seem willing to move to Arizona and accept a substandard wage in exchange for perceived qualitative advantages to living in Arizona, primarily climate.

The long-term trend toward lower-quality jobs in the United States continued between 2001 and 2004. Industrial job quality fell 1.6 percent nationally between 2001 and 2004. The decrease in occupational job quality was not quite as great at 0.9 percent. Thus, overall U.S. job quality dropped 2.5 percent during the three years, causing the U.S. average wage to be 2.5 percent less than it otherwise would have been. Arizona’s job quality fell between 2001 and 2004 at a pace worse than the national average. Relative to the national average, the industrial and occupational job mixes each slipped a bit more than 0.3 percent during the three years, for an overall decline of 0.7 percent. In Arizona, job quality in 2004 was 2.0 percent below the national average, but Arizona ranked 23rd among all states.

The quality of jobs in the United States became a national concern in the 1980s after a long period of losses of relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs and gains of frequently low-paying service jobs. National job quality remains a concern today, as witnessed by the debate in the 2004 presidential campaign. The overall average wage is a measure of prosperity or well-being, but is not in itself a measure of job quality since job quality is just one of several factors — including cost of living, productivity, and desirability of an area — that affect the overall average wage. Little information on these factors is available by state. Adjusting for job quality reduces the state-by-state variation in wages. However, even after adjusting for job quality, the average wage still varies substantially by state.