The purpose of this study was to develop a multi-modal transportation plan that outlines the region’s transportation priority projects and provides a plan for ultimate implementation. The transportation study was focused around identifying regional mobility needs that can accommodate the anticipated future population and employment growth. This transportation study is a joint effort of Navajo County, the City of Holbrook, the City of Winslow and the Arizona Department of Transportation to develop multi-modal transportation recommendations for the study area, Heber-Overgaard, Holbrook and Winslow over a 20-year planning horizon.

The Yuma Regional Transit Study identifies transit needs within southwestern Yuma County and presents recommended transit system improvements based on three funding scenarios. This study examined current and projected population, demographics, and employment for the region, conducted extensive public outreach and data collection, identified transit deficiencies and developed recommended transit improvements based on the identified deficiencies.

Pima County, in partnership with the National Park Service, has been an active participant in the development of a 70 mile segment of the trail. With the preparation of this Master Plan, Pima County has embarked on an active program to acquire the necessary rights-of-way and easements and to construct the Pima County segment of the national historic trail.

In 1992, Graham County conducted a transportation study for the Gila Valley Region. This study prepared a long-range transportation plan and a transportation improvement program. Many of the improvements have been completed. The purpose of this study is to update the 1992 transportation plan and to address the current issues within the area.

The Graham County, Safford, Thatcher, Pima Small Area Transportation Study was initiated by Graham County, in conjunction with the Arizona Department of Transportation, to develop a countywide, long-range multimodal transportation plan for this growing rural Arizona community. The project sponsors selected the PB Americas team to conduct this study under the direction of a Technical Advisory Committee, which included representatives from Graham County, City of Safford, Town of Thatcher, Town of Pima, Southeastern Arizona Governments Organization, and ADOT.

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.