This project was undertaken to compare operational and safety characteristics of leading versus lagging protected left turn operation. The measures of effectiveness included field measured intersection delay with leading and with lagging left turns. Intersections in Pima County, Glendale, Tempe and Mesa, Arizona were studied with both leading and lagging operation. Intersection delay studies were also done with first car versus third car actuation of leading protected left turn phases. Signal progression was studied with leading, lagging and combination of leading and lagging left turns which provided the best progression. This evaluation was accomplished with an instrumented vehicle and travel time runs throughout a grid. Accident studies were conducted in Tucson, Pima County and Scottsdale, Arizona. These studies compared accident frequency before and after the conversion from leading to lagging left turns. A public opinion survey was conducted to obtain motorists' preference of leading or lagging left turns.

The study objective was to identify a lighting system which has a lower power cost and reduced maintenance requirements and which provides adequately for motorists' needs in terms of legibility and illumination level. Twenty-five candidate lighting systems were identified through a review of technical data and specifications for lamps and fixtures by an independent lighting expert. Photometric tests and computer analyses of sign illumination levels reduced the number of candidates to ten alternative systems which were then field tested. Each alternative lighting system was tested for 10 to 14 months. Sign luminance was measured with a telephotometer. Power consumption was monitored. Maintenance requirements and lamp life were noted. A human factors study determined legibility distance and rated viewing comfort, lighting uniformity, and color rendition. An economic analysis was performed which considered the initial cost of acquiring and installing the lighting systems and annual costs for electric power, washing, relamping, and ballast replacement. A lighting system using the high pressure sodium light source was recommended. Compared to the existing commonly used fluorescent system, it uses one-third as much electric power and has about one-third of the annual owning and operating cost. The recommended system has a satisfactory illumination level and provides the best legibility distance of the ten systems tested.

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) completed a comprehensive customer satisfaction assessment in July 2009. ADOT commissioned the assessment to acquire statistically valid data from residents and community leaders to help it identify short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The survey found that state residents feel: Safe on the state's highways; ADOT keeps the roads clean; ADOT keeps the landscaping well maintained; Satisfied with the Motor Vehicle Division; ADOT is moving in the right direction; Dissatisfied with condition of highway shoulders (should be improved); Dissatisfied with nighttime visibility of highway striping; Dissatisfied with the frequency of public transit where they live; and Dissatisfied with traffic flow on highways during rush hour. Both residents and community leaders said the transportation issues with the highest priorities were: Repairing and maintaining existing highways; Enhancing highway safety; and Relieving congestion on highways.

Believing that voters might support transit if they felt like an integral part of the transit proposal decision-making process, the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce's Valleywide Transit Task Force set out in early 1995 to initiate a bottom-up process which would enable people to say, "here's what we want." The Task Force agreed that the first step in the process was to initiate a new dialogue. the Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked to write a briefing paper, which would re-invigorate the transit debate. The resulting report, "Transit in the Valley: Where Do We Go From Here?" painted a bleak picture of the Valley's existing transit system and challenged many long-held conventional wisdoms. The dialogue had begun. The report was then presented to the citizens of 17 Valley cities and towns for their consideration in 16 public meetings sponsored by cities and their local Chambers of Commerce. In community forums conducted between October 1996 and February 1997, more than 500 Valley residents discussed the Valley's transit future. This document summarizes the questionnaire responses by 501 people who attended the forums.