Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-503 (2026)

Performance based planning and programming

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

28-503. Performance based planning and programming

A. The division shall develop for submission to the board performance based planning and programming processes for use by the department.

B. The division shall consult with local, regional and tribal transportation agencies before developing the processes. The division shall encourage and assist tribal transportation agencies that want to adopt these performance based planning and programming processes.

C. The performance based planning and programming processes shall provide a means of evaluating the current performance of the plan developed pursuant to section 28-506 and the five year transportation facilities construction program developed pursuant to section 28-6951 and for evaluating and prioritizing proposed changes to the plan and program.

D. In compliance with policies established pursuant to section 28-304, the department and the board shall use the performance based planning and programming processes in determining future allocations of state and federal financial resources among the department's major program categories.

E. The performance based planning and programming processes shall be used to monitor and evaluate the performance outcomes of transportation planning and programming decisions made by the department and the board.

F. The performance based processes shall:

1. Be periodically reviewed and updated as conditions and system requirements change.

2. Include, at a minimum, all of the following:

(a) Uniform transportation system performance measures established pursuant to section 28-504 and the routine collection and reporting of adopted performance measures.

(b) Uniform transportation system performance factors for evaluating existing and potential projects and services established pursuant to section 28-505.

(c) Weights to be applied to the performance factors identified pursuant to subdivision (b) in evaluating and prioritizing proposed changes to the system. These performance factor weights shall consider and recognize local and regional differences in transportation system performance expectations and shall be used in all state transportation planning.

(d) Systematic forecasts of the anticipated performance outcomes of proposed expenditures.

(e) Systematic periodic reporting and certification of system performance.

3. Integrate planning, programming and reporting processes to ensure a sustainable and reliable highway system.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1967–1988 · leading case: Kadota v. Hosogai, 608 P.2d 68 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kadota v. Hosogai, 608 P.2d 68 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 12× “As a second alternative, appellee argues that she substantially complied with requirements of the non-resident motorists statute, A.R.S. § 28-503 A(l), when she served the superintendent of motor vehicles and mailed service to the appellant.”

Walker v. Dallas, 706 P.2d 1207 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 28-503. It is not, however, argued on appeal that service complied with this statute.”

Dixon v. Picopa Constr. Co., 755 P.2d 421 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “Although process was not served as permitted by A.R.S. § 28-503 and under Rule 4(e)(5), Ariz.”

Dunn v. Superior Court of Arizona, 427 P.2d 516 (Ariz. 1967). “Service was obtained on the defendant by compliance with A.R.S. 28-503, the non-resident responsibility statute pertaining to automobile accidents.”

Hosogai v. Kadota, 700 P.2d 1327 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 28-503(A)(1). Similarly, the attempted service on respondent through a Japanese process server was ineffective.”

Nosal v. Collett, 448 P.2d 415 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “, by this decision of our Supreme Court would indicate that it would give similar treatment to the requirements of the subject statute (A.R.S. § 28-503). A unanimous court now believes that the dissenting opinion of Chief Judge Hathaway, appended to the opinion previously…”

Nosal v. Collett, 446 P.2d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 28-503 provides: “A. Service of process under § 28-502 shall be made by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint and a fee of two dollars with the vehicle superintendent, or in his office during office hours, and shall be deemed sufficient service upon the…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-503(A)(1) — 1 case

Hosogai v. Kadota, 700 P.2d 1327 (Ariz. 1985). “A.R.S. § 28-503(A)(1). Similarly, the attempted service on respondent through a Japanese process server was ineffective.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.