Minutes of a Public Meeting

MINUTES OF A

PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE

MEETING OF THE

GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE

9:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2001

Arizona State Capitol

Executive Tower

Phoenix, Arizona

The Planning and Programming Committee of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2001 with Chairman Kevin Olson presiding. Other members in attendance were John Bivens, Paulson Chaco, Raul Piña, and Rene Redondo. Also present were Director Mary Peters, John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor; Mary Lynn Tischer and Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company. Special guests included Bill Hayden, ADOT and Eric Anderson, MAG.

Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance

Chairman Olson called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Acceptance of Minutes from November 29, 2000

Action: A motion to accept the minutes of the November 29, 2000 meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously.

Discussion of Planning and Programming Processes Draft Recommendations

Chairperson Olson asked that the discussion include how recommendations from other committees could impact Planning and Programming’s recommendations.

Mr. Maguire reviewed changes made to the DRAFT Potential Recommendations dated December 12, 2000.

Performance Based Planning and Programming

Ms. Peters suggested they modify the first sentence to read, "ADOT should develop in conjunction with local agencies…" to reflect inclusion of those agencies in the planning process.

In response to Mr. Chaco’s question regarding enforcement of the mandate, Mr. Maguire said, if these rules were put in place, the regulations would follow state money.

Ms. Peters questioned whether prioritization could be done without local involvement.

Mr. Bivens asked how the mandates would effect DES and other groups that provide transportation services. Mr. Carlson reported they have had discussions with ADOT about combining those offices with the caveat that it be for grant money DES provides to a provider for services. He said they are currently researching to see if any federal law would prohibit that combination. Mr. Bivens said that sounds good because he can foresee existing conflicts continuing if something is not done.

Mr. Maguire suggested he add a sentence stating the process should recognize and incorporate all publicly funded entities.

Mr. Carlson noted expanding LTAF II to $30 million would require adding two full time employees, one to help coordinate grants and services. He said they are working to justify the increase to $30 million because of the amount of requests they have received. He said the idea is that state money should be used for express bus services not currently being funded.

Chairperson Olson emphasized the importance of establishing performance based measures. Mr. Redondo agreed, stating they would help in making better decisions. Mr. Maguire said he would try to see that the Long Range Plan and Planning Processes paragraphs pick up the same language.

Long-range Planning Processes

Mr. Bivens noted a technical error in the third paragraph and asked that "evolution" be changed to "evolutionary."

Ms. Tischer suggested the last sentence in the fourth paragraph be modified to "identify specific projects" rather than "prioritize specific projects."

Chairperson Olson commented that the statement "projects and priorities not established using the performance based processes would not be included in any Transportation Improvement Plan" ensures people take the long-range plan seriously.

Mr. Maguire noted each committee chose a separate means of penalizing those who do not follow the approved processes. He questioned whether the committees want to pick one penalty to cover all of the processes or if separate penalties pertinent to each process would be more effective. Ms. Peters noted that projects could be in a TIP without being in the HURF, suggesting, therefore separate penalties might be necessary. She recommended the last sentence in the sixth paragraph be modified to state, "The initial plan should be completed within two years following approval of the Task Force’s work..." She explained that would reflect an acceptance of the work done by the Task Force. Mr. Maguire suggested it be tied to the issuance of the Task Force report. Mr. Bivens agreed, stating they should not restrict their recommendations based on the potential for approval by the Governor.

Mr. Bivens stated he likes the recommendation that projects be identified without fiscal restraints because it gives the public an idea of what could be done if money were available. He suggested it could help garner more public support. Chairperson Olson said it should also show differences in outcomes that could be realized as a result of different funding options. Ms. Peters said they have to hope the public will understand why projects are prioritized as they are.

Mr. Redondo asked how they plan to reconcile all of the different planning schedules, explaining some entities have 25 year plans while others have 23 year plans and so forth. He noted they also do not publish unconstrained versions of their plans. Ms. Tischer noted there is federal language that allows for unconstrained versions, as long as the constrained version is published.

Chairperson Olson asked if they want to explicitly include the federally constrained plan as a third level of comparison. He acknowledged it would add a level of complication, stating however, it could help identify how much additional revenue would be necessary.

Mr. Maguire said he would add a sentence stating these requirements are in addition to any federally mandated planning requirements. In regards to updating the plan, he suggested they could either update the plan every five years or do a technical review every year with a comprehensive update every fifth year. Ms. Peters expressed her opinion they should do a comprehensive review every five years with technical updates done on a periodic basis. Mr. Redondo agreed.

Mr. Bivens stated he foresees a plan based on Performance Based Measures and a stronger database increasing local entities’ ability to better deal with issues they could not before address. He suggested, therefore, plans for TIPs would be more meaningful. Mr. Redondo agreed.

Chairperson Olson again stressed the importance of performance based measures, explaining they create information. Mr. Redondo noted they would also be more objective and less emotional.

Ms. Peters noted that local governments sometimes think the regional or state government will pay for things they cannot afford. She said the state, at times, is not aware of the local governments assumptions and the integration of the plans would help resolve that issue.

Mr. Maguire suggested a previously proposed recommendation calling for the periodic review of state transportation laws be made a separate recommendation.

Mr. Olson noted the federal government does a comprehensive review every six years. Ms. Peters pointed out the federal government disciplines itself to only consider technical changes in the interim.

Chairperson Olson stated their ability to enforce the mandates would be that any projects or priorities that do not follow the process would not be included in the TIP. Mr. Redondo said projects that merit funding have to have sufficient impact.

Mr. Bivens suggested projects that do not follow the processes not only be excluded from the TIP, but, if the project is done anyway, money be withheld from the jurisdiction for the violations. He explained that it would keep people from political power from coming in and overriding the process.

Mr. Chaco asked how the performance based process would impact rural areas explaining they do not have a large number of goods traveling through the area. Chairperson Olson explained performance based measures would also take into account particular area needs, including safety and economic development impact, as well as the number of people and goods on the road. Ms. Tischer noted most states include measures that evaluate and assign weights to a range of factors.

Mr. Maguire suggested they add language to the fourth paragraph under Performance Based Planning and Programming that says standards should recognize geographic and demographic differences.

Mr. Redondo stated he sees the performance-based measures as a tool to make better decisions and prioritize projects throughout the region. Chairperson Olson agreed performance based measures are most important within regions because they could improve the rural/urban split. Ms. Peters stated they also make it possible to compare and evaluate the future effects of proposed changes.

Expanded Multi-modal Planning

Chairperson Olson recommended placing more emphasis on the need to devote substantially more resources to accomplish the requirements. Mr. Carlson noted they are working with Ms. Tischer to put together a two-page summary of hypothetical staffing costs for comparison to ADOT’s current staffing levels. Chairperson Olson stated they should expect large percentage increases.

Mr. Maguire noted they would have the option of dedicating a funding source. Chairperson Olson stated a dedicated funding source would conflict with other recommendations. Mr. Bivens agreed stating dedicated funding sources keep them restrained. He said he would like to see a general transportation fund from which they can allocate funds for resources based on need.

Mr. Carlson noted comments from COGs and MPOs indicate they would request additional funds to help meet the requirements. He explained that, under current law, they would not have to identify specific funding sources.

Ms. Tischer noted it is very difficult to get information from trucking lines, airlines, railroads and private delivery services. Chairperson Olson explained they would not be requesting information specific to any individual businesses, but rather the goal is to understand how each type of provider contributes to the movement of goods and people. Mr. Bivens agreed it is important to carefully consider how private providers impact the transportation system. Mr. Redondo suggested associations might be able to provide more global information.

Expanded State Multi-modal Support

Chairperson Olson questioned whether the $30 million figure should be part of the basic recommendation. Mr. Maguire stated he would remove the second sentence in the second paragraph.

Mr. Bivens suggested changing "express bus systems" in the last paragraph to "express transit service" to allow for more flexibility.

Prioritization of Congestion Relief and Commuter Services

Mr. Carlson noted staff met with MAG, PAG and the City of Phoenix and he expects to have an executive summary of ITS strategies by February 2, 2001. He said a survey would be sent to major MPOs asking for recommendations on travel reduction. He said they would further discuss blending the ITS system with performance based measures. He estimated the cost for the ITS system to be approximately $3 to $5 million. Mr. Redondo expressed his reservations concerning the ITS system, explaining real-time changes in signal timing would have to have consequential effects at subsequent intersections. Mr. Carlson explained choices are made based on traffic patterns. Ms. Tischer explained ITS analyzes the entire system and makes the necessary changes.

Mr. Maguire suggested adding language regarding improved access management.

Planning Support for Local Transportation Agencies

Chairperson Olson suggested the intent of the last paragraph is to point out that many rural areas do not have a planning staff and that planning activities in those areas could be done more efficiently if they were able to draw from a centralized pool of resources.

Mr. Maguire suggested they add, "increased support for state and local transportation planning" in this section and leave Expanded Multi-modal Planning alone. Chairperson Olson agreed.

Coordinated Land Use Planning and Transportation Planning

Mr. Maguire suggested expanding the last sentence to include three issues identified by the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee: 1) increased funding, 2) being able to purchase rights-of-way for a longer period of time and 3) providing two mechanisms for obtaining right of way, a sale/lease back option or the option to purchase development rights. He stated public disclosure of the impacts of proposed land use decisions on expected system performance is needed. He said the notification process has to be improved and should include a means of mitigating the identified impacts. He suggested mitigation could be done through access control, through self-funded improvements to the system or by providing for the intercept of distributions.

Mr. Carlson said they might want to consider restricting the placement of major employers on roads of regional significance.

Mr. Bivens expressed his opinion that the burden needs to be shifted to local governments who have authority over land use. He said private and public facilities that generate a lot of traffic need to be held responsible for mitigating their impacts. Chairperson Olson expressed concern about adding another layer of bureaucratic review and filing. Mr. Maguire suggested the burden should be on local governments rather than on the developers themselves. Chairperson Olson stated they should be required to pay for impacts to the entire system, not just those to the local area.

Discussion of Congestion Pricing Options

Bill Hayden, Arizona Department of Transportation

Mr. Hayden addressed the Committee regarding the ADOT-MAG Value Lane Study. He explained the study evaluated the financial feasibility of adding value lanes as well as their effectiveness as a congestion relief tool. He said the template of HOV lanes already in place and connectivity would be critical if the implementation of value lanes were to go forward. He noted there are approximately 50 miles of HOV lanes currently in place, with another 40 miles planned. He said states have determined HOV lanes do not get the expected use, therefore, capacity exists for single occupant vehicles willing to pay for the ability to use those lanes. He referred to two examples where HOV lanes are in use, S.R. 91 and I-15 in San Diego County. He said both systems have proven to be very productive. He noted their consultant has finished the study and they are currently reviewing the resulting recommendations. He said the recommendations would then go to the Regional Council and then on to the State Transportation Board for comment and approval.

Mr. Hayden said they went through an extensive public involvement process and found that 50-60 percent of the public supported HOT lanes once they understood they would continue to have the option of not using the HOT lanes or of having multiple occupants and using the HOT lanes without charge. He referred to and reviewed a handout summarizing the fiscal results. He stressed the importance of connectivity to the viability of the program. He said citizens expressed concerns about the system catering to the elite. He said, in fact, data shows that people of all income levels choose to use the lanes when saving time is of importance. He noted HOT lanes allow emergency vehicles to gain a less congested path to their destinations.

In regards to revenue generation, Mr. Hayden said if the I-10 project was implemented, they could expect to generate $19.5 million in the first year following capitalization costs. He estimated $60-70 million in gross revenue generation if all five projects were implemented. He said those funds could be used for various things, including new construction, maintenance and transit services.

Mr. Carlson stated using revenues to fund express bus services would require a change in the Constitution. He asked if converting existing lanes into HOT lanes would violate any federal air quality standards. Mr. Hayden said it would not and, in fact, it could be an element of the plan for improving air quality.

Mr. Carlson noted that California found congestion pricing actually increased the use of carpools. Chairperson Olson explained it establishes value, which, in turn, changes behavior. Mr. Hayden said they also found a 15 percent increase in the efficient use of other lanes.

Chairperson Olson suggested they add examination of the feasibility of HOT lanes to its congestion recommendations.

Mr. Hayden reiterated that their review of the study would be completed within the next two months and, at that time, they would seek endorsement and approval. He said they would then decide whether or not to move forward with a pilot program. He noted existing statutes would have to be modified to implement the program, explaining ADOT does not have authority to toll roadways. He said they hope FHWA would make additional funds available should they decide to proceed with a pilot program.

Mr. Bivens strongly recommended they include an examination of the HOT lane concept in their recommendations. Ms. Peters agreed. Mr. Maguire stated he would add language to the draft to reflect that recommendation.

Mr. Maguire noted aviation recommendations are being crafted in the Governance Committee and he would be bringing those to the Planning and Programming Committee in the future.

Call to the Public

No requests to address the committee were submitted by the public.

Adjourn

The meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m.

KEVIN OLSON, Chairperson