This research study addresses the collection, preparation, and use of traffic data required for pavement design by the Arizona Department of Transportation, focusing on data required as inputs for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials "Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide" design procedures. ADOT’s current traffic data collection and preparation processes are not adequate to meet the needs of the MEPDG procedure, and improvements are needed. These improvements include enhanced volume, classification, and weight data collection for vehicles, processing data and performing quality assurance checks, and the preparation/analysis of the data for use in the MEPDG. Use of the MEPDG in Arizona will require (1) an annual flow of updated key traffic data and (2) the ability to collect on-site (MEPDG Level 1) data in a timely manner for key projects.

In the mid‐1990s, the Arizona Department of Transportation initiated the Maintenance Cost Effectiveness study (SPR 371) with the development of plans and an experiment design to evaluate the effectiveness of a variety of asphalt pavement maintenance treatments. During 1999 and 2001, ADOT oversaw the construction of hundreds of experimental sections throughout the state under the Phase I, Wearing Course Experiment (nine treatments and 82 sections at three sites), and the Phase II, Preventive Maintenance Experiment (24 treatments and 137 sections at four sites). Work continued in 2006 and 2007 under the Evaluation of Maintenance Strategies study (SPR 628) for ADOT with a yearlong program of pavement performance monitoring involving manual pavement distress surveys and automated skid, friction, and surface texture measurements at all the experimental sites. The project culminated with a detailed analysis of key pavement performance data to compare the performance of the individual treatments and determine their overall effectiveness. This report documents the independent findings of both the Phase I and II experiments.

RTI International is working on behalf of the Arizona Department of Health Services’ Bureau of Tobacco and Chronic Disease to identify existing tobacco-related data and data needs. RTI interviewed ADHS-BTCD’s partnering organizations by telephone and conducted an environmental scan of existing public use datasets. This report describes the results obtained from the environmental scan and the partner telephone interviews, and it discusses recommendations for addressing the identified data gaps.

The Maricopa County Department of Public Health and the Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Center at Arizona State University initiated an evaluation of ASU’s Tobacco-Free Campus policy, which went into effect on August 1, 2013. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the impacts of this policy on the ASU community and environment. This report summarizes tobacco consumption patterns, norms and perceptions surrounding tobacco use, tobacco litter on campus, and overall benefits of a tobacco-free campus both before and after policy implementation.

In 2006, the Smoke-Free Arizona Act outlawed smoking within most enclosed public spaces and places of employment primarily to reduce the exposure of individuals to harmful secondhand smoke. The purpose of the Maricopa County Smoke-Free Parks Policy Assessment is three-fold: 1) to evaluate the extent and health impact of tobacco usage in public parks; 2) analyze smoke-free parks policies that have been proposed in cities, counties, and states nationwide; and 3) to assess the feasibility of introducing and implementing similar policies in Arizona, and in Maricopa County in particular.

Fierce competition for workers is one of the top issues today in Arizona. Many people may be surprised to hear that anything related to the state’s economic situation is on a list of pressing issues. Arizona’s economy is and remains robust, the state is finding it difficult to supply workers in demand by industry. The result is a new but deep threat to our economic future. Businesses’ inability to find and retain the workers they need, where they will need them, may in fact be the spear that unexpectedly pierces the state’s prosperity.

Arizonans have been divided in their feelings about growth and what to do about it, especially during the past two decades. To complicate matters, the debate over the best responses to growth has been drawn along overly simplistic lines—the economy versus the environment. Arizonans who follow the myriad issues related to urban growth closely are becoming convinced that the discussion needs to be recast in a new light.

Scholar Leo Marx coined the phrase “the machine in the garden” in 1964 to describe the relationship between nature and technology. Considering much of the writing about Arizona’s growth, it seemed an apt title for this volume of Arizona Policy Choices. "The Machine in the Garden" presents growth policy choices for Arizona along a continuum: Yesterday’s Growth—the policies that have been used in the past; Today’s Growth—the “smarter” approaches from around the country; and Tomorrow’s Growth—cutting edge thinking about the economy and experiments in urbanism and governance.

This report brings together the results of a survey of 1100 homeless people living in and around downtown Phoenix in 1996 with the results of a similar survey conducted in 1983. In addition to providing a snapshot of the homeless population in Phoenix, the data and comparative information presented in this report also reveal the complex and intractable nature of the homeless problem in general.

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.