In 2011, Drachman Institute contracted with the Arizona Department of Housing to develop a public education project about sustainable communities and transit-oriented development along the Metro Light Rail in Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa, Arizona. The resulting reports present neighborhood analyses and transit-oriented development issues for eight light rail stations selected by the Arizona Department of Housing and the Sustainable Communities Working Group, providing base information on the square half mile area surrounding these sites.

At a “micro” level, the study developed information and provided recommendations to assist each of the paratransit programs in the region to operate services in the most efficient and effective manner possible. At the “macro” level, the study considered alternative regional service designs and developed a regional service plan for the area that would improve mobility for people with disabilities and satisfy the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

With the agency integration of Valley Metro and Valley Metro Rail, the budgets for each agency are developed with a unified staffing plan but are maintained as two separate financial entities, with fund and project accounting to segregate revenues and expenses. Each Operating and Capital Budget has been prepared with the goal of delivering a fiscally prudent, balanced budget. FY 2006/2007 was the first full year of Proposition 400 Public Transportation Fund revenues; FY 2005/2006 reflected only five months of PTF revenues.

The historical advantages of Grand Avenue and the railroad that led to the development of the West Valley cities have become a detriment to the further development or redevelopment in the past few decades. There is general agreement that significant improvements are needed for the Grand Avenue Corridor. Identified transportation funds provide an opportunity to develop a more modern transportation corridor along Grand Avenue. This study addresses these concerns by developing, evaluating, and recommending transportation investment options.

The Committee selected the following environmental goal: A goal with the purpose of showing continued progress through 2018 by; 1) improving visibility to move days now in the poor/very poor categories up to the fair category, and 2) moving days classified as fair to the good/excellent categories. A progress
assessment will be conducted every 5 years through 2018. The members concluded that this option provides a clear, long term method to track visibility trends in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Additionally, the Committee reached general agreement that the index should not be used to affect short term actions because other programs, such as the High Pollution Advisory Program, are currently in place.

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.