The purpose of the 2012 ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update is to update the 2003 plan and address the most critical bicycle and pedestrian transportation planning needs on the State Highway System, responding to the significant growth in Arizona that has occurred over the last decade. The Plan establishes a vision for bicycling and walking in Arizona.

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.

In fiscal year 2012, Laveen Elementary School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’ averages, and the District operated efficiently overall with lower costs per pupil than peer districts’, on average, in all operational areas. Despite operating efficiently, Laveen ESD spent 21 percent, or $751, less per pupil in the classroom than peer districts, on average, because it received less funding primarily because it had a lower poverty rate and fewer special needs students. In fact, the District had nearly the lowest overall per pupil spending amount in the State. Although the District operated efficiently overall, it needs to better ensure that its bus drivers meet all certification requirements and it may be able to reduce its plant operations costs by further reducing the amount it pays for custodial services.

In fiscal year 2011, Chinle Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’ averages, and the District’s operational efficiency was mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’ averages. The District’s per pupil administrative costs were much higher than peer districts’, and it lacked adequate controls over its vehicles, accounts payable processing, and computer systems. The District’s plant operations costs were also much higher than peer districts’ because the District maintained more building space per student, which was likely not needed since Chinle USD operated its schools far below their designed capacities. The District’s food service program was reasonably efficient, and its transportation program had similar per mile costs as peer districts’. However, the District did not meet bus driver and bus preventative maintenance requirements.

In fiscal year 2012, Clifton Unified School District’s student AIMS scores were lower than both its peer districts’ and state averages. The District’s instructional program needs improvement. For example, some students were not provided the statutorily required number of instructional hours, and one of its four teachers did not have a teaching certificate. The District’s operational efficiencies were mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’. However, the District lacked proper oversight and adequate controls over nearly all of its operations. In particular, the District lacked basic administrative processes such as monitoring budgets and maintaining proper controls over expenditures resulting in it overspending its legal budget limits in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The District also failed to meet several transportation safety requirements. For example, its primary driver was not certified to drive a school bus. Lastly, the District lacked proper supervision of inmate workers on its school campus.