Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
DEFINITION OF NEEDS, RESOURCES AND REVENUES
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:30 p.m., Thursday, February 8, 2001
Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower, 2nd Floor State Reception Room
Phoenix, Arizona
The Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, February 8, 2001 with Chairperson Barbara Ralston presiding. Other members in attendance were: Steve Basila, Joe Herrick, Dennis Mitchem, Lela Steffey, Valerie Manning, John Mawhinney, and Steve Wheeler. Also present were Alan Maguire, Mary Lynn Tischer, John Carlson, Matt Carpenter and Lisa Pendrick.
Welcome, Opening Remarks
Chairperson Ralston called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance.
Acceptance of Minutes for November 28, 2000
Action: A motion to accept the minutes, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Discussion of Retention of Federal Dollars for State Transportation System
Mr. Maguire gave members a handout showing calculations of 2000 quarterly amounts of federal budget allotted for states’ transportation needs. He stated that Arizona’s percentage for transportation allotment was 90.5%. He further stated that it was recently proposed by state lawmakers to raise the percentage to 95%.
Mr. Herrick wondered why 95% was decided upon, and Mr. Maguire explained that the percentage is determined by a state’s electoral votes as well as other political factors. He further stated that there were twenty-six states receiving under 95%, so it was felt that the figure was a good amount, allowing some increase, yet staying in keeping with other states.
Dr. Tischer explained that the states with lower population have a higher return, because they have fewer citizens being taxed but possibly longer roadways. She stated if there weren’t an equitable allocation, the fuel tax in those states would have to be enormous to compensate.
Mr. Carlson stated that a mere two points could make a big difference in the amount of money received. He further stated that before the Transportation Act of 1996, states like Arizona had no recourse, but once that Act passed, Arizona applied for an increase to 90.5% and received it.
Mr. Herrick asked where the legislators stood on the issue, and Mr. Carlson replied that he felt it had good support, just as in 1996, when Sen. McCain had been instrumental in getting the allocation raised.
Discussion of Intelligent Transportation System Improvements to State Transportation System
Mr. Carlson gave some background on this item, stating that he had met with Mr. Tim Wolfe and discussed MAG, PAG and City of Phoenix issues. He stated that he had asked ADOT to evaluate the ITS plan and identify short-term strategies, so some quick changes could be shown to the public. He said that Mr. Wolfe had prepared information on each entity.
Mr. Wolfe began by stating that there were three past examples of governmental agencies working on ITS incentives. He explained that approximately three years ago MAG had developed an early deployment ITS plan, although there was now a new plan in place. He stated that PAG did a plan about five years ago and they were currently updating it. He said that the third example was a statewide ITS plan.
Mr. Wolfe discussed road weather sensors and their value, stating there were currently about a dozen in place. He explained that they were largely for assistance in predicting what measures would need to be taken for snowstorm conditions. He stated that the plan recommended fifty-six additional sites. Another recommended monitoring system was cameras, especially for the rural areas. He stated that the plan recommended seventy-three cameras statewide. Mr. Wolfe stated the plan required that additional funding (in 2002-3) would need to be requested in order to properly maintain the cameras in the rural areas.
Mr. Wolfe pointed out three recommendations that were not in the original statewide plan, the first being two devices in Northern Arizona to monitor stranded motorists who were in a white out situation. Mr. Wolfe stated that NAU had done a study of algorithms of the surface that would keep human monitors abreast of the present weather and road conditions and would provide for advisory speed postings on message boards, operating on information gained in real time.
Mr. Wolfe stated that there was a federal DGPS in place that was much closer to the assessment of the situation. He further stated that even with military advances, this type of monitoring can be checked on a scale similar to a tennis court size. The proposed plan would require more funding in order to purchase newer technology.
Mr. Wolfe stated that two commercial vehicle operation centers were recommended. He stated that a CANAMEX study suggested the state would get together with ITS technicians to begin a project that would require two monitoring centers. The estimated cost to install these two centers would be $1.6 million. Putting the system in place would also allow a better emergency vehicle response to accident scenes.
Mr. Wolfe discussed commercial vehicle and network systems, focused on trucking operations that would cover areas of administration for areas such as taxing, as well as borders, and reduction in the time it took to cross state lines. He stated that DPS would play a primary role if such a system were in place. He further stated that Phase I of this project was currently funded by U of A and that Phase II would cost approximately an additional million dollars to implement.
Mr. Carlson stated that based on the Committee’s feedback, he would adjust ITS estimates.
Mr. Mawhinney stressed the need for immediate relief of highway and inter-city roads. He stated that the draft plan under discussion was largely ethereal, in his opinion. He thought more study might help to clarify certain areas. One area he felt needed further clarification was how cameras were going to assist in traffic flow. Mr. Mawhinney expressed that although a perfect system could not be found, he felt the effective use of stoplights would make a major difference in the level of congestion. He wondered how to utilize the large amount of information that Mr. Maguire had provided in a more immediate manner.
Mr. Wolfe discussed traffic signal synchronization and stated that was definitely an ADOT focus. He stated that a common problem when an accident occurs in a rural situation is what is the best way to get emergency vehicles there and clear the road. He said that Phoenix and Tucson discussions will mainly focus on traffic management as part of the MAG Strategic Plan. Mr. Carlson stated that ADOT would like to turn the synchronized lights issue over to the local jurisdictions.
Mr. Nassi discussed information related to the Tucson area. He gave the Committee members a handout regarding Near Term Implementation for ITS in Tucson and Pima County and reviewed the information contained therein in detail. He stated that the main element involved what could be done right away, and that no cost elements had been reviewed and decided upon. He stated that even thought the measures did not have a cost attached, the Committee still needed to make recommendations. Other longer term measures he discussed were signal operations in metro areas. He stated that synchronization agreements had been reached in Tucson, but not in the metro Phoenix area. He said that because of the agreements, the Tucson City and Pima County signal lights were all under one system.
Mr. Nassi discussed the City of Tucson’s work regarding a camera system to improve the efficient operation of traffic lights and the impact on traffic flow of an 8% to 25% improvement. Mr. Nassi recommended that the state use what is in place rather than raise taxes to create new systems. Mr. Carlson explained that two hundred and sixty intersections now had cameras. He wanted clarification on whether three hundred more could be installed with a budget of three million dollars and Mr. Nassi stated that they could. Mr. Carlson noted that possible revenue resources were included in the handout.
Mr. Casertano stated that Tucson and other jurisdictions were working on smart corridors and that these concerned traffic flow to major employment centers. He stated that due to detection capabilities, Phoenix would need more cameras to augment the system.
Mr. Mawhinney wondered where the liability and enforcement responsibilities would lie in the case of a state route or highway that crossed jurisdiction lines. He also expressed concern about how the money would be used, and he had reservations about changing the left turn laws. Mr. Carlson stated that the Planning and Programming Committee had spent some time on this issue. He called for the Committee’s recommendations on removing lights at greater than half-mile intervals as well as on ingress/egress issues. Dr. Tischer noted that the Transportation Board was looking at establishing policies regarding access procedures.
Ms. Steffey thought that one issue might be how to dispense money if the Committee recommended additional funding. Mr. Carlson stated that a mandate would have to be set before funds were collected as to the division of funds. Chairperson Ralston stated there had to be equity in the mandate. She stated that if those who had already invested money for the same purposes were not allotted some of the pot, they would be treated unfairly.
Mr. Mawhinney stated that transportation management needed to include railways. He said that Tucson had many major intersections blocked by trains coming in at peak time. Mr. Nassi stated that the PAG and the City of Tucson were working together on this issue. He stated they should have a report in approximately two months that would identify the major issues.
Mr. Mawhinney brought up the Phoenix/Glendale problem of trains at peak times. Mr. Joshua agreed with Mr. Mawhinney that those things would have to be incorporated into the plan, citing Goodyear as a pilot project site. Mr. Nassi agreed that there was a necessity for no or low cost quick fixes to include management of the railroad companies. Mr. Mawhinney asked if the state had any rights with respect to restricting railroad activities, stating that the Phoenix problem was not as bad as Tucson, with the Southern Pacific running straight through Tucson. Mr. Carlson stated that there is a statute prohibiting railroads from blocking intersections longer than fifteen minutes. Ms. Steffey wondered if ADOT had looked into more over- or under- passes to accommodate the traffic at train crossing sites. Mr. Nassi replied that ADOT had, and that, in fact, that type of planning would play a large role in the Tucson planning. He stated that another advantage to the situation was that the railroads were eager to comply with plans that separate them from the traffic, as their liability goes down.
Mr. Casertano stated that the current funding set up limited the metro areas. He stated that there was no funding from the Federal Railroad Administration, either, to implement changes. The price tags for these kings of changes would be enormous. He felt the focus should be on cost saving strategies. He reminded those present that these types of changes in Congress can take years, so that the Committee should go forward with recommendations on the assumption that the interstate highways and railroads would stay about the same as they are today.
Ms. Steffey wondered what happened to taxes that railroads pay. Mr. Carlson reported he thought they went back into the general revenue fund and could not be used for transportation. He stated he would verify his information. Mr. Maguire opined that the taxes are placed in the General Corporation Tax fund, which eventually goes into the general fund. He further stated that railroads don't pay privilege taxes.
Ms. Manning asked about the railroads requirements to pay Maricopa County sales tax, and Mr. Maguire replied that the railroads did not purchase much that required a sales tax.
Mr. Casertano outlined some aspects of the new plan, stating that a key aspect was smart streets or corridors. He stated that in Arizona, ADOT was planning to add 12 locations, which would increase the cost by $150,000. He explained that in order to maintain the integrity of the strategic plan, it would cost a total of approximately 62 million dollars. He stated that the Committee would need to include the high traffic, high congestion areas in their planning to give better access to emergency vehicles.
Mr. Joshua stated that there was a pilot project in Tempe that utilized a system that would track the city buses in real time, then report it at the bus stops to waiting passengers. He stated the funding for this project totaled $500,000 for the first two years. Mr. Mitchem stated that he thought the buses generally adhered to schedules listed in the bus books provided by the local transit companies. Mr. Joshua stated that often there were bus breakdowns, as well as other traffic delays that could occur. He stated that the pilot system in Tempe was already in place in Europe and Japan, so much information could be gleaned from them. He said that there were 150 miles of arterials that could be added to the Smart System, for a total of 300,000 miles. Although some of the next topics were not immediate changes, he stated all aspects were going to be a lot of work to achieve a fully comprehensive system that would alleviate accidents and road closures.
Ms. Manning asked if it were appropriate for the Committee to make recommendations at this point, and Chairperson Ralston explained that the purpose of the current discussion was education.
Mr. Mawhinney asked if the $62 million would cover only additional highways, and Mr. Carlson stated it would cover all attachments to highways, such as loops, ramps, meters, variable message signs, etc.
Mr. Mitchem requested a clearer definition of the improved transportation pay off.
Mr. Carlson asked if the cameras in Tucson would enable real time management of the lights. Mr. Frishie replied that Smart was not a real-time control, but that the data generated from cameras would be real-time information. The system would have to have someone monitoring it. Mr. Carlson stated that the plan estimated $21.8 million to link the lights to an observation center. Mr. Joshua stated that that total encompassed the plans that each jurisdiction wanted to implement. Mr. Carlson asked if that included linking lights between jurisdictions, and Mr. Joshua replied that some, but not all, would be included in that figure.
Mr. Maguire asked for more explanation of the time-based coordination, and Mr. Frishie stated that lights would be set to coordinate with other lights before and after them, that no computer or staff to manipulate in real time would be necessary. Mr. Frishie stated that the real time monitoring systems would only apply to Smart corridors, not the rest.
Mr. Mawhinney asked Mr. Nassi why the Tucson plan was being used as a model, and Mr. Nassi stated that no one else was doing anything similar to it right now.
Ms. Steffey asked about what amount of federal grant monies were allocated for ITS, and Mr. Wolfe replied that it was around $100 million, stating that Arizona generally gets $1-2 million per year. All other ITS funding was from Arizona revenues.
Mr. Joshua stated that in this region of the country there were 40,000,000 ITS systems, and that Arizona was now considered a leader in light communications systems.
Mr. Maguire asked if the estimate of 150 miles of Smart corridors would later increase, and Mr. Joshua explained that the 150 miles of Smart corridors would provide a total of 8 arterials, closed circuit television, ADOT control computer, and direct connections to ADOT’s system.
Mr. Carlson asked if Smart would enable operators to synchronize lights on Baseline from Mesa all the way through West Phoenix, and Mr. Frishie explained that there was planned coordination between borders. Mr. Frishie mentioned the aim to have two one-way corridors and coordinate the lights for one on the morning drive, then coordinate the lights in the afternoon for the return rush.
Mr. Wolfe stated that 50% of traffic congestion was generally due to factors that could not be controlled by ADOT or any other jurisdiction, as they were every day unexpected incidents, such as accidents, stranded motorists, etc. He also explained that once the synchronization of lights was thrown off, it would take a few cycles for it to get back on track. He stated that getting disabled vehicles off the road quickly would greatly increase traffic flow, as well as be a no cost solution.
Chairperson Ralston thanked Mr. Wolfe for his information.
Discussion and Adoption of Transportation Needs and Revenue Draft Recommendations
Mr. Maguire gave those present a handout that showed the revisions that the Committee had recommended last meeting.
Mr. Mitchem asked how the projected 20-year plan costs could be certified since the future could not be predicted, and Mr. Maguire explained that the certifications were done by ADOT’s Chief Financial Engineer, who also required the information he used be certified.
Mr. Mitchem stated that he would prefer wording in this document to use a term less solid than certify, and Mr. Maguire assured him he would come up with a suitable substitute.
Mr. Wheeler asked about page 1, Comprehensive Financial Management, wondering if one could add "supposed to be based on what the working plan is" for further clarification to the reader. Chairperson Ralston stated this would be appropriate for the first paragraph only.
Mr. Wheeler brought up the issue of clearer wording on tribal government participation. Mr. Maguire stated that the state had no power over tribal governments, but that the wording meant they were strongly encouraged to participate. Dr. Tischer stated that the only roadways in which tribal involvement was required were on state roads on their land.
Ms. Steffey asked if there was any way to enforce a rule that transportation tax revenues only be spent on transportation needs. Mr. Maguire stated that the audit results for transportation tax revenues were included on page two. Ms. Steffey stated that she did not want entities blatantly misusing the general fund, while others adhered to using transportation tax money for transportation needs only.
Mr. Mitchem stated he strongly agreed.
Mr. Maguire stated that the State Transportation Board is responsible to take recommendations of the Audit Committee.
Mr. Maguire brought up the issue of aviation concerns, citing paragraph 3, top of page 2, stating that funds would be focused on key regional airports. Mr. Mitchem asked for clarification of the phrase "funds to be focused" and Mr. Maguire agreed that "dedicated" should replace "focused." He reviewed airport categorization.
Mr. Mawhinney stated that there were agreements with Tucson International and Sky Harbor that most of the funding would go the balance of the state, as the two international airports operated on a totally different jurisdiction and received other fund sources, as well as their own large revenue bases. Mr. Mawhinney felt there was a need to further explain how the balance of state airports could operate as regional airports. Mr. Maguire stated that the economy of the small airports would directly impact the region, therefore, they could be considered vital to the region’s transportation revenue. Dr. Tischer stated that a lot of airports would need to divide the money.
Ms. Manning suggested striking the sentence "to the extent that funds are available." Mr. Maguire stated that in the 4th paragraph, 2nd page, he would strike the first clause "up to the level of available funds."
Mr. Wheeler felt the current wording of the document allowed only for the funds to maintain and preserve existing systems, and did not allow money to be spent on new systems or improvements. Mr. Maguire stated that the Committee’s concern last meeting had been to make sure there was enough money set aside for maintaining and preserving systems, as that is the area the plans usually failed in the past. Mr. Maguire agreed that the majority of the funds would be applied to maintenance and preservation, stating that approximately $36 or $37 billion would be needed for those matters. He stated that he would change the wording to reflect that some funding could be used for new items.
Mr. Mawhinney was concerned about the possibility of enforced preservation of unused routes, and Chairperson Ralston agreed that there had to be a caveat for changing patterns. Mr. Maguire stated that the preservation budget was used approximately 80% for often-used roads, and only 5% for the older, less used roads. Dr. Tischer stated this was not meant to be interpreted literally, only to assure maintenance of the entire system in a sensible manner. Chairperson Ralston suggested on item number 1, under Preservation Issues, that the statement "exclude preservation when not cost effective," should be inserted, and Mr. Maguire agreed.
Mr. Maguire and Mr. Carlson then proposed the wording under "Dedicated funding for transportation," to read "To protect and preserve existing corridors."
Mr. Maguire referred to the portion of the handout regarding private toll roads. He stated that Arizona currently has in place a statute regarding privatization of toll roads. He explained that the plan called for privately run toll roads to generate their own revenues, while public toll roads were 85% funded by revenues, so HURF funds would need to be used for the balance of the 15%. Mr. Carlson stated that the best thing might be to give authority on the toll roads to ADOT. Mr. Mawhinney stated that repaying the private provider first would be smart, as it would encourage people to come forward with money and technology.
Mr. Mitchem indicated that when the present toll road law was passed, he was in a position to see many people come and show interest, but they most always left considering toll roads as not viable. He stated his belief that the public feels that they’ve already paid for the transportation system and should not have to pay tolls in addition.
Mr. Maguire outlined the major toll roads proposed by the plan and stated that there had been a 95% acceptance rate by those polled, as long as all funds were spent on the actual road projects. He stated creating a road from the ground up as a toll, using no other revenues, might fly with the public. He also noted that some states allow public/private partnerships.
Mr. Mawhinney asked if anyone wanted to discuss the information in his letter. Mr. Wheeler asked if the recommendations were included in the plan, and Mr. Mawhinney stated that they now were.
Mr. Maguire stated that he would provide an updated document reflecting today’s changes as soon as possible. The need for and possibility of meeting again at the end of February was discussed. Mr. Maguire was asked to try to schedule a meeting as soon as possible. Mr. Carlson stated he would compile a list of the issues that still had to be resolved before March.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:38 p.m.
BARBARA RALSTON, Chairperson
