Minutes of a Public Meeting

MINUTES OF THE

GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE 

2:00 p.m., Friday, March 17, 2000

Francisco Grande Resort

Eagles Nest Meeting Room

Casa Grande, Arizona

The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a retreat at 2:00 p.m., Friday, March 17, 2000, with Co-Chairpersons Martin Shultz and Sharon Megdal presiding. Other Task Force members present were: Kevin Olson, Diane McCarthy, Malcolm Barrett, John Bivens, Paulson Chaco, Sheldon Miller, Mary Peters, Rene Redondo, Kurt Davis, Tom Browning, Dave Olney, Ingo Radicke, Jim Shipman, Barbara Ralston, John Mawhinney, Joe Herrick, Valerie Manning, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald, Steve Wheeler. Task Force members absent were: Cecil Antone, Raul Pina, Lisa Atkins, Pat Carlin, Priscilla Cornelio, Steve Basila, Gary Knight, Robert Bulla, Jim Simmons.

Staff members present were: John Carlson, Alan Maguire, Lisa Pendrick, Matt Carpenter, Ross Silberfarb, and Mary Lynn Tischer.

Opening Comments

Mr. Shultz called the meeting to order and opened with comments outlining the responsibility and dedication shown by the Task Force members, staff and consultants.  He stated that Prop. 2000 had passed but stated that this was only a small solution to the whole picture.  He explained that he had called the Mayor, other city and state leaders, as well as private CEOs  and stated such to them.  He said that some of those officials were willing to advocate the need for money in order to assist the transportation problems in Arizona, as a lot more money was needed statewide.  He stated he had a list of these persons who were willing to make public appearances and advocate monetary assistance in this cause.

He read a poem from the book Book of Virtues by Edgar Gepp, “The Ones Who Dared to Do What we Now Take for Granted by the Ones We Remember.” 

He reminded the Task Force that there was a deadline of August or September to have a comprehensive transportation plan in place and the purpose of today’s gathering was to come up with some guidelines for that.

Mr. Mawhinney wondered if Task Force members could argue procedures and was told by Mr. Shultz that they could but that they needed to be tactful and reasonable about it.

Discussion Among Task Force Members, Staff and Consultants

Mr. Shultz then called for opinions on the topic “The Best Aspects of the Arizona Transportation System.”  He requested that the comments be categorized by Needs,  Revenues, System of Governments and Planning and Programming areas.

Ms. Manning stated that within the category of Planning and Programming, one of the best aspects was the Council of Governments’ (COG) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations’ (MPO) involvement in the planning and programming aspects of the transportation system because it provided for local and regional input. 

Mr. Mawhinney stated that, regarding the involvement of the COGs, a possible solution might be to replace the current government system with some elected transportation officials who would be over entire regions, in other words, a COG that had power to act and not simply plan.

Ms. McCarthy stated that she believed the County Board of Supervisors currently served this function within the scope of a town, to which Ms. Manning stated that that was true except the Board did not have full authority to make decisions.

Ms. McCarthy wondered if reconfiguring the system and adding a new group to the picture would be the better solution over giving authority to those governments already in place.

Ms. Peters stated that this might be a good alternative if they were allowed to use innovative financial techniques and had the ability to manage the funds.  She referred to SB1201 which regulates freeway systems.

Mr. Bivens said he felt the best aspects of the system were that there was now a good highway system in place compared with other parts of the country.  He stated that there was also a good interstate airline service out of Arizona but that the intrastate air service was rotten.  He also felt that the COGs and MPOs should get involved in the transportation process in a more powerful position rather than simply as planners.  He further stated that he thought Mr. Mawhinney’s idea of a new organization with elected transportation officials was a good idea.

Ms. McCarthy raised the concern that the rural areas would not have as much influence as the urban areas if a new organization of elected officials were put in place.

Mr. Olson stated that he felt Mr. Bivens was correct in his analysis of the current system, as he also felt the highways were well-maintained, with different resources devoted to continuing that standard of maintenance.  He did state, however, that he felt “good” was not enough.  He said he would like to see the system made more adequate to meet all transportation needs, not just have well-maintained and well-connected highways.

Mr. Thorwald stated that the rural Arizona maintenance of highways was not good, in his opinion.  He said that he agreed with Mr. Bivens in general, though, that the Arizona highway system is good.  He said that instead of underestimating costs of any tranpsportation projects, overestimation of costs should be considered, and an honest plan needs to be developed to address the actual cost of improvements.

Dr. Megdal stated that she felt it was one thing to discuss a “super agency” with authority, but lack of accountability was the chief complaint when citizens discussed the County Boards of Supervisors.  She stated that she felt more discussion and information would be necessary before adding more authority to the Boards of Supervisors in cities,  or the other option of appointing new political powers could be considered.

Mr. Shultz requested that issue be listed by Mr. Maguire on the focus points that the individual groups would discuss Saturday, March 18, 2000.  He also mentioned tribal issues and the Navajo Nation Comprehensive Transportation Plan and informed the Task Force that that schedule would be distributed to them.

Mr. Olney observed that the Chandler City Council currently had the authority to raise taxes for transportation purposes.  He stated that Chandler chose to have Advisory Elections in order to assist them in meeting that authority. 

Mr. Mawhinney reiterated that he was not proposing to give added responsibility of making transportation decisions and raising taxes to the existing politicians but to set up a new entity of elected officials to run a regional transportation plan with the caveat that they would  not use their authority to hide real issues in the political machine.

Mr. Thorwald said that he believed the long-term goal and vision needed to be clarified at this point.  He stated that transportation was a vehicle for economic development and the improvement of the quality of life.  He further stated that if that is the Task Force’s goal, they should be focusing on existing systems, as well as what measures would achieve the goal of improving the state’s economy. 

Mr. Olney stated that he felt that a good transportation system was intrinsic to improving the quality of life.  He stated that he felt Chandler citizens like living there because they have a voice in the city decisions (Advisory Elections). 

Mr. Redondo stated that he felt that there could be a disconnect between quality of life and what keeps the economy viable.  He stated that street improvements and economic growth would be good general goals to shoot for, as individual and particular neighborhood concerns might be totally diverse from the overall plan’s good.

Mr. Shipman said that he felt the way the planners reacted to the system would also be important.  He was concerned about institutional barriers.  He brought up different ways the Task Force members had so far suggested overcoming these barriers.  He felt it would be a necessary point to build into the institutional framework the capacity to plan and market their ideas.  He said he felt that having a regional system or a regional and state system had both good points and drawbacks. 

Ms. Manning said that the existing COGs’ government structure working in conjunction with a collaboration of government entities would be a plus in the planning process, to which Mr. Bivens agreed.  She also expressed a need to improve the process of the governments and the COGs.

Ms. Steffey stated that all these were good points but she was concerned about small factions, especially in Maricopa County, having different priorities than the good of the overall plan.  She further stated that COGs have proven that citizen surveys do not generally work.

Ms. Manning said that she felt politics, process, structure, etc., were important issues that COGs could address but the Indian Reservations had only recently been involved in this process.  She said she felt that local involvement was very important in setting up criteria and enforcing it.  She thought, perhaps, in this scenario, ADOT could do more of creating standards across the board.  She concluded by saying that the COG system was not wrong, but the current process was.

Mr. Herrick said he felt it was important to focus clearly on the vision.  He felt that creating a new entity could possibly double the work for the agencies involved.  His suggestion was to fine tune the machine that is now working.  He stated he felt the worst thing about the current system was the rural public transportation problem and that it should be deal with by the community, not passed on to COGs.

Dr. Megdal stated that she felt the Task Force needed to have a statewide view, that it was not fair to state that rural communities did not have much done for them in the state of Arizona’s transportation system (existing).  She noted that Arizona had led economic development for many years.  She did, however, state that more could be done for the rural communities and that this issue needed to be addressed.

Mr. Davis stated that he felt that the system was good by and large for getting from Point A to Point B, but that the current system cannot adjust to the rapid changes that had occurred in daily living since the system was built.  He felt an adjustment factor needed to be built in the system in the future.

Mr. Browning agreed with Mr. Davis’ statement and Mr. Herrick said the inability of the system to adjust to changing needs also causes conflict between the rural and urban areas.

Mr. Shultz introduced the next topic as the “Worst Aspects of the existing AZ Transportation System.” 

Mr. Redondo stated that the current system is tough to manage because inconsistent measurements are used.  He clarified that he was not talking about particular measurements but the fact that the measurements were not clearly defined at any point.

Ms. Peters stated that there were clearly defined measures that were given on a yearly basis in a report by ADOT and Mr. Redondo went on to say that he did not have a problem with that.

Mr. Olson stated that he, too, felt customer needs and satisfaction level measurements would have to be included in the new system.  He further stated the current performance measures were not good.

Ms. Peters agreed with that and stated that there should be built-in accommodation for changing transportation needs as Mr. Thorwald mentioned earlier.

Mr. Shultz called for the opinions of Mr. Mawhinney, Mr. Bivens and Ms. Tischer on this issue.

Mr. Bivens stated he felt the real question was what were the goals as far as highways were concerned.  He stated that there could be no performance measurements agreed upon if there were no definition of system first.

Ms. Tischer stated that mobility of highway vs. rail systems needed to be evaluated.

Mr. Olson said that separate money pots for the transportation needs caused problems in the existing system.  He said he thought a large pot to cover all transportation needs statewide might be controlled less by particular political whims of the moment.

Mr. Thorwald mentioned that Dr. Megdal had pointed out that Arizona was leading economic development for many years  but that when it took several years to respond to a developer, as sometimes happened in the existing system, it killed economic development.  He felt these red tape snafus needed to be addressed.  The Task Force members generally agreed with him.  He further stated that important points in developing a new system would be integration of rail, air, road systems, taxation (with a long-term look at taxation), and types of planning.  He felt that Indian Tribes could process and measure their own transportation needs but that when they tried to coordinate with COGs or MPOs it would not mesh. 

Mr. Maguire interjected that he felt a long-term tax plan of  looking at 20 years’ of balance and expenditures would be helpful, although the information provided would be mainly on highway development.

Mr. Thorwald said that this responsibility should fall to governments, not ADOT.

Mr. Chaco said that the Navajo Reservation was responsible for 373 miles of highway but that they did not have jurisdiction over the right of ways for this area.  He stated it was a constant struggle to deal with state routes because of the legal aspects of coordinating with the State of Arizona as both courts, Navajo and Arizona wanted jurisdiction and neither were willing to give in.

Ms. Peters stated that the original idea of giving the State jurisdiction had been put in place to give the user would then have consistency in knowing who to go to for questions or problems with the roadways.  She also stated that she felt that both sides had legitimate concerns in not giving the other jurisdiction.

Ms. Peters and Mr. Chaco stated that this was a festering issue and that a third alternative was needed but not yet in sight.

Mr. Mawhinney stated that the Task Force was formed to address a transportation crisis.  He wondered how a crisis was or should be defined.  He said he felt that automobiles are the real issue as it had been proven for the past twenty years that about 90% of the population would still use automobiles no matter what the incentives for public transit or alternative methods were employed.  He stated that, based on this, he felt that a focus should be on the automobile usage, not a plan to “force” people to use mass transit.  He stated that he, too, was concerned about current measurements.  He pointed out that the Legislature and the citizens did not currently have confidence in the system.  Until there is a confidence there, people will look at the new plan, no matter how good it is, say, “that’s nice” and lay it aside.  He wondered if congestion were measurable.

Ms. Peters explained that it definitely was measurable and that there were algorithms in place to address congestion measuring at different sites at different times of the day that ADOT currently employed.

Mr. Shultz added that similar measures were being implemented in Los Angeles.

Ms. Manning responded to Mr. Mawhinney by saying that she felt it would be a big mistake to go by information gleaned in the past 20 years as there had been such dramatic geographic and economic changes.  She wondered what the impact of telecommuting and airport usage might have on the entire transportation picture in the future.

Mr. Mawhinney stated that statistics that proved the current use of private vehicles must be available but he did not know who might have them.

Mr. Olney stated that computers and telecommuting would be the future modes of getting to work and that there would be a rapid increase of this in years to come.  He mentioned also the concern of e-commerce delivery being a growing transportation need, along with non-gas powered vehicles. 

Mr. Olson stated that many transit advocates wanted the highway systems tripled but that people would be more prone to use mass transit once their often traveled area became seriously congested.  He stated that it was still very important to develop mass transit options rather than focus extra energy on private vehicle concerns. 

Mr. Redondo stated that he felt there was some misinterpretation on the part of some Task Force members regarding Mr. Mawhinney’s statements.  He felt Mr. Mawhinney meant that first things should come first and there should be a balance to the system, to which Mr. Mawhinney agreed.

Ms. McCarthy said that she thought the Task Force should consider disbursing job sites from the Phoenix metro area so that citizens would not be going to the same place at the same time.  She pointed out that even though Tolleson’s jobs far exceeded their population (because people commuted from Glendale and Peoria), there was no mass transit system in Tolleson.  She felt that bad things about the existing transportation system were a lack of dedicated staff and funds and no way to integrate other government money pots, although other government agencies had been allowed to take from ADOT’s funds.

Dr. Megdal agreed that fragmentation was a problem in the current system.  She discussed Iselia, NJ as an example of a small town with a large metro transit park.  She stated she is concerned about proper planning for the Arizona system.

Mr. Davis stated that he felt the single largest problem with the current system was the separation of planning and silos.  He felt that the planning, funding, and organization of the system should all be under the same jurisdiction.

Ms. Ralston stated she felt the worst things about the system were lack of accountability and clarity of roles, as these things seemed to change from day to day in all jurisdictions.

Mr. Bivens stated that there was no synergy integration, which led back to an inadequate planning process.  He felt the future vision should encompass all modes of transportation, as well as economic development issues.  He further stated that the time it took people to travel from one point to another was an important aspect of the success of a new system.  Based on time constraints, he felt it was sometimes appropriate to use private autos and that citizens deserved the choice.  He also mentioned the importance of including the aspect of Arizona companies using mass transit to ship products.  He said he thought that it would be invaluable to have good relations with San Diego, El Paso and other international airports.  He said that he agreed with Ms. McCarthy that ADOT should identify with other state agencies in the planning of their transportation dollars, which should include private businesses, state, tribal, rail roads, goods shipping, etc.

Mr. Wheeler felt two areas should be addressed by government alliance, namely, economic development and tourism. 

Ms. Steffey stated that the three worst things, in her opinion, were the inability to move goods and people from city to city and state to state, a system of governments or political structure that drove transportation planning,  and lack of funding, although she stated she felt that the funding problem should be addressed after a new plan was drafted.  She cited the fact that her sister lives in Morenci but does not drive so cannot visit her in Phoenix except by mass transit, which does not exist in that area.

Mr. Browning said that he agreed with all of Ms. Steffey’s concerns but that he would add criteria that corresponded with federal criteria.  He defined transportation as an issue of mobility and connectivity and felt locations should be measured in time to arrive, not distance.  He wondered why aviation was not more of a concern in the current system.  He suggested a special freeway lane for train or plane systems access in order to arrive at hospitals faster.  He thought there should be clear cut definitions of accountability and what the transportation objectives were.

Mr. Miller stated two things concerned him most: moving employment centers and employment centers in rural areas.  He used Kingman as an example, as they had recently created over three hundred jobs but have apparently not revised transportation planning.  He said that county level, COG, and ADOT planning sessions had been conducted but there had since ensued a “disconnectedness.”  

Mr. Barrett stated that Maricopa County is currently the hub of all planning and there needed to be a wider perspective.  He wondered if transportation planners would think of government subsidy or aid to private companies to alleviate the transportation problems at employment centers, such as Tolleson.

Mr. Shultz introduced the next topic as “What Would You Like to Change?” in the current transportation system.

Mr. Wheeler said that he believed there should be concentration on rail road, air traffic and other areas of mass transit.  He mentioned that time zones originated from the increase in air travel.  He asked if the planning process would identify public needs or give the public more options in their transportation decision making processes.  He felt having a centralized government control with authority would be the most effective way to plan and implement transportation issues.

Mr. Thorwald stated that he would change the current operation of economic development processes and more effectively utilize state, federal, and private funds for transportation needs.  He would integrate systems, including rail and rural transit between cities. 

Mr. Browning was concerned about the Task Force’s recommendations falling on deaf ears at the Legislative level. He stated the need for a common criteria rather than focusing on freeways or train systems, although he believed a good and widely integrated system was called for. 

Mr. Chaco said that he felt the state needed to recognize the tribes as government entities rather than special interest groups.  He said that other states are more respectful of the status of tribal governments.  He further stated he felt this issue would stifle economy and growth in Arizona until it was ironed out.

Mr. Olney reiterated the need for a single source in control who would be responsible, accountable and have authority to implement the system.  He was concerned about getting caught up in past transportation issues instead of looking ahead. 

Mr. Bivens said that Arizona State Personnel did not yet recognize the need for highly skilled, talented individuals in its transportation planning process.  He mentioned that there had been a 1999 Integrated State Transportation Plan submitted by ADOT but then not implemented.  He felt private providers should be used much more in the overall planning process.  He stated he feared that the ideas arrived at by the Task Force would not be implemented because there would be no way to monitor or supervise the implementation. 

Mr. Shultz stated that he understood from Governor Hull that when the comprehensive report and data from the Task Force were submitted, she would embrace what she felt was sound.  He stated the hope of the Task Force was to achieve much support from the Governor and involve legislature early in the process.

Mr. Mawhinney said he felt that it would be a long time to develop revenue streams to deal with most of the problems presented.   He stated that if there were not enough money to implement the plan, then privatization would be a good option to supplement the funding needs.   He further stated that local jurisdiction in developing and maintaining roadways would complicate matters and render the road subject to the whims of parties who may not be looking at the overall good of the transportation system.  He felt that COGs or a similar entity should be allowed to designate and implement changes, impose tax and control the road use.

Dr. Megdal stated that she felt Mr. Mawhinney’s comments were inconsistent because a local jurisdiction, such as a COG, might impose frivolous or inappropriate changes to the road.  She felt that was why ADOT should be in control of the road.

Mr. Davis stated that he would eliminate the current structure and form a new entity to see to the transportation plan, with the state being the adjudicating  body between companies.  He said that in this model the county would have authority over  the city.

Mr. Maguire asked for clarification about Route 66.  He wondered if Coconino County would decide on changes and maintenance of this road in Mr. Davis’ theoretical plan, to which Mr. Davis replied that they would.  Mr. Davis stated he felt that the planners who actually resided in the area would be the best planners for that area’s needs.

Mr. Maguire then asked for clarification of Mr. Davis’ ideas, that Mr. Davis’ first choice would be to give authority to the counties and his second choice would be to give authority to the state.  Either of these two entities could contract with COGs or MPOs about matters, including tax hikes to get projects completed.  Mr. Davis confirmed Mr. Maguire’s summary.  Mr. Maguire then wondered about accountability if the taxing authority were given to a new and separate power than the current system allows.

Mr. Davis stated he felt there would be accountability in such a system as the city would still make the planning and zoning decisions, which also allows for citizens to have recourse.

Mr. Barrett stated that he was concerned about tailoring the Task Force recommendations to be flexible enough to meet changing needs.

Ms. Peters stated that she felt the worst aspects of the current system were lack of overall transportation system management.  She also cited mobility and connectivity and issues of repair, replacement, and preservation of the system.  She wondered how to influx that revenue.

Mr. Miller commented that he felt some parts of state should have the resources to act on their own. 

Ms. Steffey stated that there should be a system to connect rural cities.  She felt the state should be responsible for the areas between cities.  She also recommended privatization of systems by government subsidy.  She also thought that the rail study should be resurrected as it might be a good way to connect cities.  She felt that a dedicated funding system would be a good way to go with the budgeting process overall.

Mr. Herrick said that funding, funding funding was the major issue involved in any revising of the current plan.  He wondered if increasing the amount of gas tax transportation plans could utilize would be a viable assistance.

Mr. Radicke stated that right of ways should be in the transportation entities jurisdiction.  He further stated that he agreed with Mr. Herrick about possibly obtaining more the gas tax for transportation funding and that it was important to remember to call the legislature on the issue, as increasing it slightly could generate $100 to $200 million dollars per year.

Mr. Shipman stated he felt that ADOT should be the lead agency in the transportation plan for management, standards, criteria, etc.  He felt private subsidy was also a good way to go.  He felt there was a need to have transparent planning so the public would be able to follow and give support.

Mr. Ralston said that there needed to be a strategy to build enough flexibility to keep projects from halting midstream.

Ms. Manning stated the need for a format that would organize and label guiding principles in future planning.  She felt this format should encompass economic vitality and mobility of citizens measurements.  She stated she felt ADOT’s role and its involvement needed to be clarified in order to ensure consistency and quality in planning across the state.

Mr. Shultz stated that the highlights of this session would be typed and available for the morning session, which would be a breakout session of the three subcommittees.

Mr. Thorwald said that he felt the Task Force should narrow down their wish list.

Dr. Megdal stated she agreed with that as it would make the morning session more productive. 

Mr. Shipman wondered if the consultants would meet with the Task Force in the morning and lend their expertise, to which Mr. Shultz and Mr. Hatata replied that they would.

Ms. McCarthy stated the need for common sense in the planning.  She also felt political ramifications of planning should be considered.

Ms. Peters announced that there would be a train run from Phoenix to Tucson on May 5, 2000, and that Ms. Steffey would be the honorary chairperson representing Arizona.  She also mentioned that it might be a good move to evaluate the transportation system on a five to six year cycle. 

Mr. Carlson stated that Governor Hull would announce tomorrow her appointment of a replacement for Cecil Antone. 

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson

SHARON MEGDAL, Co-Chairperson