Minutes of a Public Meeting

MINUTES OF THE

GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE 

1:30 p.m., Thursday, February 29, 2000

Arizona State Capitol

Executive Tower

Phoenix, Arizona

The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a regular meeting at 1:39 p.m., Thursday, February 29, 2000, with Co-Chairpersons Martin Shultz and Sharon Megdal presiding. Other Task Force members present were: Malcolm Barrett, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Robert Bulla, Paulson Chaco, Kurt Davis, Joe Herrick, Gary Knight, Valerie Manning, John Mawhinney, Dave Olney, Kevin Olson, Mary Peters, Ingo Radicke, Rene Redondo, Jim Shipman, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald, and Steve Wheeler.  Task Force members absent were: Cecil Antone, Lisa Atkins, Patrick Carlin, Diane McCarthy, Raul Pina, and Jim Simmons.

Staff members present were: John Carlson, Matt Carpenter, Alan Maguire, Jennifer Macdonald, John McGee, Harry Reed, and Mary Lynn Tischer.  Speakers were representatives from Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Tarek Hatata and Yonel Grant.

Pledge of Allegiance, Opening Comments

Dr. Megdal highlighted the meeting agenda and called the Task Force members’ attention to a general purpose brochure that had been prepared to explain the work of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force.  She mentioned that Anne Warner had also developed two items for broad distribution explaining what the Task Force has done to date.  Dr. Megdal discussed the upcoming retreat schedule for March 17 and 18, noting that staff would be working on the structure of the sessions.  She encouraged all Task Force members to attend.  Cecil Antone’s resignation was announced.  The Governor is considering a replacement and will advise when that appointment has been made. 

Update on Task Force Consultants

Mr. Maguire informed the group that the following consultants had been retained:  Needs—Booz-Allen & Hamilton; Revenue and Resources—Smith Wilbur, and; Analytical—Booz-Allen & Hamilton. He indicated that excerpts from the proposals submitted by the firms had been provided to the Task Force for their information.  Mr. Maguire described the firms, noted their principals and provided an overview of their experience.  He introduced the representatives present from Booz-Allen & Hamilton.

Discussion of Task Force Work Plan & Meeting Schedule for 2000

Mr. Maguire recapped a meeting he had had with the Extended Steering Group and presented a tentative meeting schedule and overall work plan in the form of a Gant chart.  He delineated what he envisions the plan will contain: 1) 20-year multi-modal system requirements; 2) proposed revenue structure balanced with #1; 3) recommendations with respect to governance system reforms, and; 4) planning and programming reform recommendations.  With this in mind a detailed sequence of events was developed using the Gant chart.  He highlighted the major categories and explained how hypothetical plans would be used to provide information and analysis for the Task Force’s use in drafting its own plan. 

Dr. Megdal recommended that time be scheduled to fully discuss the draft recommendations of the three committees in August.  Mr. Maguire added that it is probable in some cases that the committees may need additional meetings as well.

Mr. Shultz noted the simultaneous equations that need to be considered in the appointment by Governor Hull of the New Economy Task Force as well as the passage of Growing Smarter Plus. 

In response to comments by Mr. Bulla and Mr. Shultz, Mr. Maguire explained that the consultants and the Task Force members will develop and consider needs from all existing plans, including local, regional, state, as well as estimates for places where no plans exist, i.e. rural COGs.  They will then draw a reasonable funding plan.  Mr. Maguire discussed the capacity of the consultant team to re-validate data available.

Mr. Shipman inquired about the hypothetical plans, the reliability of the new data, and when the Task Force would be at a point in terms of the availability of data to make real choices.  Mr. Maguire answered that this would be the most difficult task.  He outlined  the existing sources that would be used by the team.  He reminded the Task Force members that the plans that exist currently are primarily revenue-constrained plans.

In response to a question about the definition of objectives, Mr. Maguire explained that the upcoming retreat would be very useful in defining objectives.  He anticipates that the plan will be a policy level plan rather than a project level plan.  The raising of revenues will force specificity on the project side.

Mr. Hatata stressed the importance of the plan being a policy/program plan.  He explained that it will be the consultants’ job to manage the expectations of the Task Force.  He assured the members that there are ways to create a defensible plan.  He suggested that they may need to think of the plan as a living document versus a final plan, with the plan being more specific in the first five to ten years and more vague in the range of 10 to 20 years.  The plan will be continuously updated as growth trends and technologies emerge. 

Mr. Thorwald cited the importance of visioning for the state, with one example being a seaport for the state.  He referred to Booz-Allen & Hamilton’s significant experience in new technologies.  He recommended working with the consultants sooner than two weeks from the date of the meeting.

Mr. Bivens asked two important questions: 1) How will system integration occur? 2) Will the state be bold enough to cross modal lines?  He indicated he did not want to filter opportunities to explore all alternatives at the beginning of the process. 

Dr. Megdal commented that the outcome of the Task Force’s work will depend upon the judgment of the Task Force and the ability to sell it to the legislature.   Additionally, she indicated her confidence that the Task Force would not be losing ground by having the retreat in two weeks.  She felt that the consultants had plenty to do in the meantime.  She stated that she wanted the development process to be as broad and all encompassing as feasible but still create a reasonable document in terms of implementation. 

Mr. Redondo stated that the Task Force has an opportunity to be visionary by removing the “handcuffs of fiscal constraints.”  He suggested that they look at the issue of performance measurement so that the plan can be managed. 

Preliminary Discussion of Transportation System Performance Measures

Mr. Hatata provided a brief overview of the “big picture” development of the plan, broken down into three steps:  1) Where is the system at today?  2) Where do we want it to be in the future?  3) Development of a strategy to achieve goals.  He discussed the value his firm can add to each of these steps.

Mr. Mawhinney pointed to the danger in using assumptions.  He stated that examples of disparity make the data suspect.

General Browning asked the question of how surface transportation and aviation interconnect.

Ms. Steffey expressed concern with the validity of the figures from the last study because of the input from all levels of government, most of whom used different standards.  She added that there is also no clear picture of the amount of money available for transportation in Arizona.

Mr. Shultz commented that he is very concerned about MAG’s 20-year plan because it assumes the continuance of the existing half-cent sales tax when the path to continue that tax was eliminated by SB 1201.

Mr. Thorwald commented on the disparity between rural and metro areas in terms of the resources available in rural areas to do true transportation planning.

Ms. Cornelia offered to provide the group with copies of the new Navajo Nation Transportation Plan.  She added that other tribes also have plans and are willing to submit them.  Mr. Thorwald stated that one-third of Arizona is Native American Tribes, and they have substantially different needs that need to be looked at if the plan is to be effective.

Mr. Davis said he would argue that the Task Force cannot define local needs.  He feels that they can look at governance structure and statewide needs.  In his opinion, local needs today will be dramatically different tomorrow.  He suggested that the Task Force needs to identify which needs they should define.

Ms. Manning stated that economic vitality is a more desirable goal for the state than economic development.

Mr. Grant went through the consultants’ Transportation System Performance Measures slide presentation covering:  the consultants’ objectives relative to needs and analytical components of the statewide plan; the critical need for policy guidance from the Task Force; the five modal systems in the plan; transportation needs--broken down into three categories of preservation, operations and expansion; the difference between rural and urban projects relative to the three needs categories; performance measurement framework elements; the relationship between transportation outcomes and outputs; recommended outcomes of the project, i.e. safety, mobility, accessibility, cost effectiveness, sustainability, environmental quality and economic well-being; how projects affect those outcomes; and how policy guidance from the Task Force will drive the “best mix” of anticipated outcomes and the final statewide plan.

In response to a question by General Browning about the use of standards, Mr. Hatata explained that they would prefer to use goals versus standards, and those goals must be attainable.

Mr. Mawhinney asked if the consultants’ assessment of the data would identify critical project needs.  He said he would like to see a vision created, a way to get there and a way to measure how money was spent to get there.  Mr. Hatata indicated that time may limit what they can provide.  He suggested they may need to develop a “state of the system” report.  He stressed that there is no time to collect new data in this project.

Dr. Megdal emphasized that mobility is an issue for everyone in Arizona, including those in rural areas.  She stressed the need to distinguish between needs and wants and suggested that the group talk about the survey issue mentioned by Mr. Hatata further.  Finally, she called for serious consideration of the entire issue of aviation, but specifically the provision of commercial aviation services at a reasonable price.

Mr. Hatata explained that they had done a statewide survey in Colorado with a 95% confidence level statewide and 86% confidence level regionally.   The planning in Colorado followed the results of the survey to a reasonable extent.  Ms. Manning suggested that the survey could be used as an instrument to get feedback and educate the public.

Dr. Megdal thanked Mr. Hatata and Mr. Grant for an excellent presentation and reminded the Task Force members that communication with the consultants should be done through Mr. Maguire.

Call to the Public

Mr. Joseph B. Ryan, a resident of Sun City West, presented three questions to the Booz-Allen & Hamilton consultants related to the light-weight, rapid transit proposed element of Maricopa County’s future transportation system.  His written comments are attached in their entirety to these minutes.

Ms. DeeDee Barker, a resident of Phoenix, noted that she came to the meeting by city bus.  She expressed the need to focus on multi-modal transportation, not just road, and specifically to address bus transportation.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:17 p.m.

MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson

SHARON MEGDAL, Co-Chairperson