Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING
OF THE
GOVERNANCE AND
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESS COMMITTEES
1:00 p.m., Thursday, January 25, 2000
Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governance and Planning and Programming Process Committees met in official session for a Joint Meeting at 1 p.m., Thursday, January 25, 2000, with Chairperson Kevin Olson (P&PP) and Chairperson Kurt Davis (GOV) presiding. Other Committee members present were: Cecil Antone, Lisa Atkins, John Bivens, Paulson Chaco, Priscilla Cornelio, Sharon B. Megdal, Ph.D., Mary Peters, Raul Pina, Ingo Radicke, Rene Redondo and Martin Shultz. Committee Members absent included: Malcolm Barrett, Tom Browning, Pat Carlin, Diane McCarthy, Sheldon Miller, Dave Olney, and Jim Shipman. Others present were John Carlson, Matt Carpenter, Alan Maguire, Jennifer Macdonald, Harry Reed and Mary Lynn Tischer.
Welcome, Introductions, Opening Comments
Mr. Olson called the meeting to order and welcomed those present.
Review of Various Criteria Utilized in Transportation Planning
Mr. Reed reviewed the legislative direction for the state of Washington’s six-year DOT program, including the major categories, performance measures and project selection criteria. The two major program areas directed by legislation in Washington are system preservation and system improvement. The objectives of each were reviewed. He described the selection criteria for system improvement and system preservation described in their legislation. The DOT commission in Washington may depart from priority programming in certain cases, which were outlined specifically. Mr. Reed provided a sampling of how the Washington DOT deals with mobility improvement and roadway preservation in urban and rural corridors. He reviewed the elements of programming and prioritization processes for pavement preservation.
Mr. Davis asked about consistency with local plans and regional plans. Mr. Reed explained that Washington’s statutes lay out requirements for a state and regional plan, and they require that both plans come together so that they are in concert as the process moves forward. He was not aware of a formal mechanism for resolving inconsistencies.
Mr. Reed confirmed that Washington DOT has specific allocation goals by region, or highway districts, and they allocate to those districts based on the condition of the roadway and performance standards.
Mr. Reed commented on the similarities between the systems in Washington and Arizona. He stated that only the states of Washington and Florida put specific criteria into legislation. Mr. Thorwald asked if this type of legislation could be enacted into law in the form of an executive order. Dr. Tischer answered affirmatively.
Mr. Thorwald inquired about complications that may have arisen in the state of Florida from their legislation. Dr. Tischer explained that the Florida legislation is broader than in the state of Washington. A series of performance requirements are imposed on the state of Florida with respect to strategic planning and the budgetary process in the transportation system. She explained how the state has implemented the legislation, and although they have not experienced serious complications, they did spend three years developing specific criteria to implement the legislation. She further explained that ISTEA contained 23 planning factors, and TEA 21 reduced the number of planning factors to 7, because of the difficulties encountered by some states.
Ms. Peters asked if the Washington criteria are applied to local government projects. Mr. Reed answered that they are applied only to the state, and Dr. Tischer stated that this is true in Florida as well.
Mr. Tom Swanson, Pima Association of Governments, explained that PAG hired a consultant in 1995 to help develop a procedure to assess and prioritize projects included in their transportation program. He discussed the problems associated with their process and the need to update their evaluation factors annually. He proposed that a statewide plan is critical to the development of their prioritization process. Mr. Swanson provided a detailed overview of PAG’s criteria for evaluating roadway projects, as well as the success of the process. He cautioned the state against adopting overly prescriptive criteria. Mr. Swanson reviewed the weaknesses in PAG’s system for evaluating projects. He commented on the problem with data availability and data collection, particularly for smaller jurisdictions.
Mr. Davis asked why project readiness and improving accessibility were weighted less than enhancement of economic development. Mr. Swanson explained that the overall economic considerations of a project are very important, and the committee takes this into account. Mr. Davis asked if the category weightings are adjusted by project. Mr. Swanson stated that each year, the weighting factors are held constant. They can be changed with a new program year. Some criteria have remained consistent for a number of years, while others may be subject to change, depending on conditions in the region and goals and objectives of the local governments. He stated that this flexibility needs to be reflected in whatever plan is adopted at the statewide level.
In response to a question posed by Ms. Peters, Mr. Swanson suggested that criteria for both the state and regions could be developed so that they are not in conflict. He felt it wouldn’t be unhealthy to have some difference in terms of prioritization, i.e. connectivity may be a higher goal for the state than a region.
Mr. Bivens commented on the mention of the lack of data as a weakness in the process and asked what could be done to improve data availability and data standards. Mr. Swanson stated that he would welcome ADOT having a larger role in this area, because it is something that must be standardized for efficacy.
Mr. Bivens stated that one of the problems he sees in the process is that old data is being used. He asked how data could be made more current. Mr. Swanson suggested that the leadership of Federal Highways has been very helpful in this area and that the state could use their data as a starting point.
Mr. Swanson confirmed that the success of the PAG programming process is effective because of the efforts made in the development of consensus in the community through the stakeholder/public involvement process. He added that they constantly work on improving the process.
Mr. Thorwald asked about setting different standards for metropolitan areas versus smaller communities. Mr. Swanson answered that this concept would work, noting that even within regions size is an important consideration. He suggested that integration might put less focus on rural/urban differences.
Mr. Tom Buick, Maricopa County DOT, described the fundamental concepts of the county’s priority programming process. He discussed the content of Maricopa County’s Capital Improvement Plan, the county’s investment emphasis, project scoring criteria, and project ranking system. A map was presented of the primary and secondary transportation system in the county. Mr. Buick reviewed the McDOT Transportation Improvement Program Process briefly.
Dr. Megdal inquired about the Loop 303, which was originally part of the MAG Regional Freeway System. Mr. Buick explained that the 303 started in the state priority process and was eliminated. It then became a project for the county to pick up, and it was put into the county’s priority process. The project is part of the county’s long-range priority system. He confirmed that there is a right-of-way agreement that is in jeopardy if the project is not developed within a certain period of time. He spoke to the advantage of having a close partnership with the state with respect to completing this project.
Mr. Bivens asked about system integration between the county and state systems. Mr. Buick explained the concept of integrating the system, which boils down to who has administrative responsibility for functional classifications of the roadway system. He explained the county’s philosophy to provide the right system at the right time and the right cost, regardless of competing jurisdictional responsibilities. The key issue is the best benefit to the traveler. With the traveler’s interest in mind, decisions are made as to responsibility.
At Mr. Bivens’ request, Mr. Buick explained the county’s long-range plan to create nodes of high urban activity that are served by a variety of modes of transportation. The county would provide priority in its funding for this to occur.
Mr. Thorwald asked what demand reduction methods have been implemented in Maricopa County. Mr. Buick explained demand reduction conceptually and discussed how it is addressed within McDOT substantially by offering telecommuting opportunities, van pools, free bus passes, etc. He briefly described MAG’s trip reduction program, which is stimulated by the statewide air quality plan and encourages for employers to implement travel reduction plans. As to future plans for demand reduction, Mr. Buick cited examples of concepts that have potential for success: improvement of the jobs/housing balance and encouragement to shift modes from single occupancy vehicles to transit (requires a viable, attractive alternate mode of travel). Mr. Carlson expanded on the subject and offered to provide the committees with copies of the state statute that addresses the issue.
At the request of Ms. Steffey, Mr. Buick explained their working relationship with MAG in terms of project approval and implementation.
Mr. Terry Johnson, representing MAG, presented an overview of the MAG transportation planning and programming criteria, analyses and project rating system. He reviewed the programming process, including policy guidelines, long-range plan, public involvement and technical analysis. Federal requirements, including the 20-year multi-modal plan, planning factors, and management systems were briefly outlined. He highlighted the alternatives to new roads that must be taken into consideration. Mr. Johnson outlined state freeway requirements, freeway prioritization criteria and air quality requirements. He provided committee members with copies of the MAG management system.
Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Johnson to discuss his expectations as to the reaction of the average citizen to the controversy over widening U.S. 60. Mr. Johnson said that there are very broad community decisions that need to be made, and this is the number one issue that needs to be addressed in dealing with freeways in built-up areas. Mr. Bourey commented on the difference between reality and what the media is reporting. The reality is that Tempe did not want any roadway through the city, and MAG voted to have HOV lanes.
Ms. Steffey asked about the dichotomy between the planning and programming process and the reality of the MAG Regional Council’s vote on projects. She cited an example of a project that was recommended to be funded by staff but was overturned by the Regional Council. Mr. Johnson clarified that the variables presented are for consideration. The objective of the criteria is to make sure that the decision-makers and general public have the information they need. Mr. Bourey emphasized that in the three years he has been with MAG the Regional Council has never turned down a professional staff recommendation.
Dr. Megdal asked how the size of the Regional Council compares to other MPOs across the country. Dr. Tischer explained that there is quite a bit of diversity in how transportation management areas are defined. Therefore, there is quite a diversity in the sizes of the organizations. Mr. Bourey described a survey of 16 other metropolitan areas across the country and learned that the MAG Regional Council is not at all an exception in terms of numbers of members. Many of the boards looked at are much larger than in the MAG organization. Most are comprised of locally elected officials. He offered to provide copies of the survey results to the committee members. He explained what it would take to accomplish a redesignation of the MPO in a region, based on federal law. He explained MAG’s general voting method as well as the provision for a weighted voting method. He compared MAG’s voting method to other cities.
Mr. Thorwald asked what alternatives to roads MAG has implemented. Mr. Johnson listed MAG’s principal alternative transportation projects: bicycle, pedestrian, telecommunications, transit, HOV lanes, travel reduction programs. Mr. Bourey expanded on the components of the regional transit plan. Mr. Thorwald asked about the integration of bus system between cities throughout the metropolitan region. Mr. Johnson felt that the regional bus system is currently very well integrated. He explained that the Dial a Ride systems operate only within the various jurisdictions and felt that there was room for improvement in these systems. Mr. Bourey commented that RPTA’s jurisdiction is, in fact, somewhat less than MAG’s.
Mr. Carlson presented an overview of the Title 28 regional freeway system criteria for prioritizing corridors. The Title 28 rewrite repealed the only other existing criteria that were in statute, that being criteria previously used by the State Transportation Board.
Dr. Tischer gave a presentation on the development of a long-range state transportation plan, which is the development process in cooperation with regional COGs and MPOs. The plan will be based on performance factors and criteria. The plan would be an unconstrained vision that would be fiscally balanced. The plan will identify performance factors and be based on project ratings. Dr. Tischer reviewed a proposed prioritization process and the key components: system condition, policy direction, funding, and program implementation and monitoring. The performance factors would include safety, mobility, accessibility, connectivity and economic development. Additional considerations that would impinge on the project selection process would include land use patterns, environmental quality, user costs and resources. Dr. Tischer referred to two documents provided to the committee members, that being a draft process for the long-range state plan and another, which identifies the points of necessary public involvement.
Dr. Tischer presented an outline of the federal planning requirements derived from TEA 21 relative to metropolitan and statewide planning. She confirmed that two-thirds of the funds in the state transportation plan come from HURF, and that federal law has no jurisdiction over state funds. She explained that the guiding principles in the Casa Grande Resolves are principles that would be wholeheartedly endorsed by the state regardless of whether the Casa Grande Resolves had ever occurred.
Mr. Thorwald asked if the state could impose restrictions on local jurisdictions before they would qualify for state transportation funds. Dr. Tischer answered affirmatively. Ms. Peters reiterated the objective of the Casa Grande Resolves, which was to create a seamless transportation system in the eyes of the user.
Dr. Megdal asked how the Casa Grande Resolves relate to the role of the State Transportation Board and suggested that the issue be worked into the governance agenda. Ms. Peters explained the role of the State Transportation Board to set broad policy goals, which drive the process in which the State Transportation Department works in cooperation, consultation and coordination with local governments. Board members also participate on the local level in the process. The board’s work ultimately results in the selection of projects.
Mr. Shultz asked who is really in charge and accountable for the construction of the system. He felt that the goal of the Task Force should be to determine who is in charge and who, ultimately, should be in charge. Ms. Peters clarified that the State Transportation Board’s responsibility is program adoption, and ADOT’s responsibility is implementation.
Presentation and Discussion on Efforts to Widen U.S. 60 (Superstition Freeway)
Mr. Dan Lance, ADOT, presented an overview of the U.S. 60, Superstition Freeway, HOV and widening improvements, reviewing the need, objectives, study limits, alternatives and study recommendations. He discussed the funding constraints, which require a phased implementation of the recommendations, and the public and political input process. Mr. Lance described the Phase I implementation (estimated cost of $263 million), the current status of the projects, and the anticipated schedule, which would conclude with completed construction in January 2004. Typical sections of the completed freeway project were presented. He addressed the controversy that has been played out in the newspapers about the widening project through Tempe. Based on consultation with Tempe, Mesa and MAG, the project was scaled back to only three general-purpose lanes and one HOV lane through the Tempe section. The ongoing discussion involves whether to move the retaining walls back along the freeway to allow for future additional expansion. The MAG Regional Council and the State Transportation Board will determine the final resolution.
Mr. Davis queried MAG representatives about an article that appeared in the newspaper in 1998 as compared to the current controversy. Mr. Bourey explained the differences between the two issues and briefly recapped the decisions made over the past couple of years with respect to U.S. 60 through Tempe. He stated that the Regional Council has approved general-purpose lanes in Mesa, not Tempe, in the 20-year-plan. In the five-year funding plan, the TIP, there are HOV lanes approved through Tempe and Mesa. He emphasized that there has been no change in plans with respect to the U.S. 60 widening through Tempe.
Mr. Bourey commented that the joint process MAG and ADOT followed this year has worked very well.
Mr. Olson stated that he drives the Superstition daily and noted that overall the planning process has worked very well, while the reporting on the process has been problematic. He suggested that Tempe’s opposition has been generated by a number of neighborhoods that have become sensitive to everything ADOT does. They have been very vocal to the Tempe City Council, who has been responsive to them. Personally, he believes their opposition is short sighted and not in the best interest of the region. Mr. Olson felt that the bigger issue should be the public policy question as to whether nearly $300 million should be spent widening U.S. 60 when an equal amount of money could build a light rail line parallel that would handle the equivalent of three lanes of freeway traffic.
Dr. Megdal asked about the responsibility for design, i.e. retaining walls or loops versus tunnels, and whether that responsibility lies solely in the hands of ADOT or with the public. Ms. Peters clarified the department’s responsibility to come up with the best technical engineering solutions and then to take those solutions to the public for discussion. She confirmed that it is an iterative process with a hopeful outcome that a project is accepted by the community, the Regional Council and the State Transportation Board. She believes it is the responsibility of ADOT to build transportation projects for the communities it serves, not in spite of them. She stated that, unfortunately, there will not always be agreement with the communities. She stressed that the process is not concluded and that regardless of what happens, ADOT will not build an unsafe project. Mr. Bourey discussed the process from the Regional Council perspective, which must serve all communities in the region.
Ms. Peters explained the Department’s basis for proposing that the walls in Tempe be moved to accommodate the necessity of future capacity expansion. She addressed the complicating factors presented by federal law.
Mr. Shultz asked for Mr. Bourey’s recommendation with respect to improvements in the governance process, which he was to formulate after the MAG Regional Council retreat. Mr. Bourey stated that there was significant discussion at the retreat about governance, and one issue that came up was the appointment of a second State Transportation Board member to represent MAG. There was extensive discussion about better accommodating general public and private sector interests within the Regional Council action. There was no decision to change the governance structure itself, although they would be open to some types of changes. On an ongoing basis, they felt they would look at the process, but they have a level of comfort now about the way the process works.
Mr. Bivens asked how much additional right-of-way will be available if the current widening plan is adopted. Mr. Lance answered that there is no additional right-of-way anticipated under either scenario in the Tempe or Mesa sections. All of the widening would be within the existing right-of-way. Once built, any future widening beyond what is proposed by the current study would be long term, because it would require all of the bridges to be replaced. From a theoretical point of view, a light rail system over the current corridor would be possible, depending upon the design of the system. Mr. Lance stated that the proposed widening is seen as being at the ultimate capacity, but it will not satisfy future demand. That demand would have to be satisfied by alternative means, i.e. light rail, transit, telecommuting, etc.
Mr. Olson asked if the study assumes further improvement on I-10. Mr. Lance answered affirmatively, on a long-term basis. That improvement study will begin in the spring of 2000.
Mr. Bourey reviewed the next steps to move forward on the Superstition Freeway widening project in conjunction with the approval of the TIP.
Ms. Steffey asked if the Regional Council discussed at the retreat the meetings of West Valley mayors prior to Regional Council meetings. She asked if the meetings were still taking place. Mr. Bourey explained that the issue was discussed at the retreats in 1999 and 2000. He has not seen the meetings take place and believes there is recognition by the members that they need to act regionally responsible, and he believes they are. He has not seen a regionally biased decision since he has been at MAG.
Ms. Steffey asked if MAG is formed as a corporation. Mr. Bourey explained that the Regional Council is incorporated and discussed the question of liability on the individual mayors as well as MAG as an organization.
Previous State Audits and Reforms Associated with the Regional Freeway System
This item was not discussed
Call to the Public
Mr. Joe Ryan, a resident of Sun City West, thanked the Task Force Selection Committee for the consideration of the two offers made by the Go Arizona Team. He made observations that relate to communication and analysis. He noted that CTOC unanimously voted against the use of HOV lanes and listed the reasons for their decision. He commented that New Jersey has received an exception to federal guidelines with respect to using federal funds on HOV lanes. He suggested that multi-modal alternatives and rapid transit corridors are the solution to resolving traffic problems along the U.S. 60 corridor. He cited the benefits of rapid transit routes in terms of carrying capacity. Mr. Ryan’s presentation is appended to these minutes.
Mr. Blue Crowley, a resident of Phoenix, commented on the weighted voting disparity on the MAG Regional Council. He suggested that the task force needs to look at where the state should put new heavy rail lines, which he believes is part of the equation for this century. He commented on the results of the past elections on transit alternatives and suggested that votes be separated on rail versus bus transportation. He noted problems with the state’s trip reduction program. He referred to the CTOC briefing paper on the U.S. 60 issue and turned it over to staff to be shared with the committees. He suggested that the committee should be looking at a bus only election for the region. He encouraged the committee members to publicly demonstrate use of the bus system in the Valley on March 1, or the opening of Spring Training. He again requested a bicycle tunnel at I-17 and Grand Avenue. He expressed appreciation for the outreach of the Task Force. He noted the importance of proper ingress and egress on HOV lanes.
Mr. Shultz updated the committee members on the status of the hiring of the two consultants to the Task Force. He announced the appointment of Booz-Allen Hamilton, Inc. and Wilbur Smith as consultants to the Task Force. He was very confident in the abilities of both firms to help the Task Force meet its goal to get preliminary recommendations out to the public by June 2000. He noted that a detailed work plan would be prepared and presented to the Task Force members within the next several weeks. Regular meetings will be resumed on February 29. Committee members will be consulted with respect to the preparation of the work plan. Dr. Megdal discussed the challenges before the committees and Task Force in the upcoming months.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
KEVIN OLSON, P&PP Committee Chairperson
KURT DAVIS, Governance Committee Chairperson
