Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
9:15 a.m., Thursday, April 27, 2000
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona
The Planning and Programming Committee of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 9:15 a.m., Thursday, April 27, 2000 with Chairman Olson presiding. Other members in attendance were Malcolm Barrett, Paulson Chaco, Sheldon Miller, Raul Piña, Rene Redondo and Martin Shultz. Also present were Mary Lynn Tischer, Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company and John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor. Special guest panelists included Harry Reed of Michael J. Baker Jr., Inc.
Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Shultz called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Acceptance of Minutes for October 28, 1999 and January 25, 2000
Action: A motion to accept the minutes of the October 28, 1999 meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Action: A motion to accept the minutes of the January 25, 2000 meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Mr. Shultz thanked everyone for the work they have done and for their future efforts. He stated that the Steering Committee has made a commitment to make preliminary recommendations by mid-August.
Discussion of Alternative Planning Processes
Mr. Maguire stated that he will discuss the development of recommendations as to how the programming and planning processes should function. He mentioned the reports provided to members entitled “Case Studies” and “Synopsis and Observations of ‘Methods of Capital Programming and Project Selection’” explaining the Mr. Reed and Ms. Tischer would review these documents in further detail.
Mr. Reed reviewed the Case Studies handout explaining that it focuses on transportation governance and planning as found in several states. He explained that the states selected, Oregon, Illinois, Georgia and Washington, were done so because each represents different structures, Governor and Legislative involvement as well as regional coordination. He provided a general overview of each state and their transportation system and the roles and responsibilities of principal transportation entities.
Mr. Redondo asked if Oregon’s Area Commissions on Transportation are separate from their Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Mr. Reed explained that four out of the five are also Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Mr. Olson asked if, in terms of Arizona, a group like the Transportation Oversight Committee regional membership, would make and submit recommendations and prioritizations to Maricopa Association of Governments. He asked for clarification that Maricopa Association of Governments would have the authority to approve or disapprove those recommendations, but would not be able to make changes to the recommendations.
Mr. Reed agreed with Mr. Olson’s explanation and pointed out that the members would all be elected officials. He noted that three of the eight people on this committee also serve on the Joint Policy Advisory Committee.
Mr. Maguire asked if they have a Metropolitan Planning Organization for Chicago, which, in turn, designates a Policy Committee who acts as the decision maker.
Mr. Reed explained that the Policy Committee is the Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Director of the Department of Transportation serves as the Chair of the Policy Committee.
Mr. Redondo asked what the difference is between the Regional Transportation Authority and the Chicago Area Transit Authority.
Mr. Reed explained that the Regional Transportation Authority is the overriding transit authority.
Mr. Carlson asked, in rural areas where the Department of Transportation dominates the Metropolitan Planning Organizations, if they still have to adhere to Federal Law where the Metropolitan Planning Organization has to sign off on enhancement projects.
Mr. Reed explained there are only two areas in the state where they get into that, St. Louis and Chicago. He stated that the other Metropolitan Planning Organizations are too small.
Mr. Carlson noted that there was an audit performed in 1991 that recommended that the Transportation Planning Organizations, namely Maricopa Association of Governments and the Department of Transportation, be separated. He stated that subsequently, in 1996-1997, the Legislature, based on a recommendation from the Auditor General, made the same recommendation in regards to Pima Association of Governments.
Mr. Olson asked if, in Georgia, the Metropolitan Planning Organization has the authority to make changes to the Transportation Improvement Program recommended by the Technical Advisory Committee.
Mr. Reed stated that they do.
Mr. Olson stated that that is a significant difference in the dynamics created in the process.
Mr. Redondo noted that Georgia requires that the money distributed by the eleven Congressional Districts be distributed equally and asked how they would capture that when most Transportation Improvement Programs roll.
Mr. Reed stated that it would probably be difficult, however, they are only in their second year. He stated that a big problem they have is identifying where the money gets spent within each Congressional District.
Mr. Carlson asked if the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority became the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Mr. Reed stated that the current Metropolitan Planning Organization is the Atlanta Regional Council.
Mr. Carlson asked if the Metropolitan Planning Organization has to ultimately have a say in the Transportation Improvement Program.
Mr. Reed stated that the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority has to send the Transportation Improvement Program back if they want changes.
Mr. Carlson asked if the Metropolitan Planning Organization approves what the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority puts forth.
Mr. Reed stated that the opposite is true.
Ms. Tischer suggested that Federal Highways considers the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority to be an advisor to the Governor.
Mr. Carlson asked if, for example, Governor Hull would only have the authority to reject the Transportation Improvement Program, not alter it.
Mr. Reed agreed.
Ms. Tischer stated that the relationship between the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Governor is presumably collaborative.
Mr. Maguire pointed out that only 68 percent of residents reside in Metropolitan Statistical Areas, whereas approximately 95 percent of Arizona residents do.
Mr. Reed concluded by noting that all of these states are using some form of performance measures for individual projects as well as the entire system. He stated that all of the states, except Illinois, use sub-area organizations and that several of the Boards include the private sector. He pointed out that Washington and Oregon are leaders in public involvement.
Mr. Redondo asked if they use the same measurements when evaluating individual projects as they do when evaluating the entire system.
Mr. Reed stated that individual projects have different criteria.
Mr. Carlson noted that those criteria are listed in a handout provided at the Joint Meeting.
Mr. Olson suggested that they need a means of comparing how they are doing in various regions and the impact different modes have on the system as a whole. He explained that they need to be able to compare the various tradeoffs and alternatives. He stated that they need to make it easy for people to understand how the different pieces of the system work together and how each impacts the other.
Mr. Maguire referred to a handout entitled “Standardization of Data and Methodologies Used in Transportation Planning and Reporting.” He agreed that they do not have comparability between or across modes. He explained that this does not mean however that one region is doing it right or wrong, they are simply using a different methodologies. He stated that they are all internally consistent, but do not cross modes or areas.
Mr. Olson stated that many suspect that certain methodologies are chosen to justify a desired program rather than because they are the appropriate methodologies for measuring results. He stated that they need to create a process in which measures of performance impose a discipline on the ultimate decision making process.
Mr. Maguire agreed that the methodologies used dramatically effect the outcome.
Ms. Tischer reviewed the handout entitled “Synopsis and Observations of ‘Methods of Capital Programming and Project Selection.’” She explained that the purpose of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 243 was to determine the state of the practice of state Departments of Transportation in performing the capital programming process and to identify “best practice” in preparing a transportation plan. She reviewed the elements of the programming process, the programming and project selection methods and conclusions of the study.
Mr. Olson observed that, while they are scoring individual projects, they do not score the overall system. He suggested that they should look at projects in the context of their effect on the system as a whole.
Mr. Reed stated that that is how conformity analysis is done.
Mr. Redondo suggested that conformity analysis would be a good model.
Mr. Olson agreed.
Ms. Tischer stated that the state of the practice is moving towards the idea of planning and programming performance.
Mr. Carlson noted that Arizona is doing most of the components of the model in some fashion.
Ms. Tischer agreed, however, she believes it is done intrinsically rather than as part of a formal process.
Mr. Redondo agreed with Mr. Olson that they need to look at and evaluate the tradeoffs and alternatives.
Mr. Olson stated that the transit system is immensely complicated and that they need a means to measure how the state is doing.
Mr. Carlson asked if this should occur at the corridor study level.
Mr. Olson expressed his opinion that it needs to be more pervasive. He described it as a report card that scores how all of the different regions and modes are doing and outlines which tradeoffs were or were not made. He suggested that it also needs to include a feedback process in which they keep asking people what they want.
Ms. Tischer stated that it would need to be developed through a policy and implemented through the long-range plan and would eventually become part of the process. She explained that it would need to evolve because they do not currently have the necessary data.
Mr. Olson mentioned the Life Cycle Program as an example of how the process can make a difference.
Mr. Maguire pointed out that Arizona is good at making priority decisions within certain categories. He stated that the fact that Arizona is a rapidly growing state causes a struggle between preservation, maintenance and operation and capacity construction priorities.
Mr. Olson stated that it is easy to create measures for individual categories, however, asked for suggestions on how they develop measures that evaluate the categories together.
Mr. Reed noted that there are different levels of service and asked how they would know what is enough.
Mr. Maguire noted that other states, similar to Arizona, are also struggling with the same process. He stated that the ultimate issue is the need for reliable, consistent, comparable data.
Mr. Carlson stated that the Life Cycle program was discussed at the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues meeting and that they were given direction to research how to create and apply a similar system statewide.
Mr. Olson agreed. He stated that they need to strike a balance in identifying sensible measures while recognizing that those measures need to evolve. He stated that there also needs to be a feedback process. He recognized that it might be more important to have a measure that is easy to understand than to have a perfect measure.
Mr. Maguire stated that they will not get to the point where they could make intermodal decisions with the degree of pure quantitative analysis they do for pavement preservation, however, they would be able to make better informed decisions in terms of tradeoffs. He suggested that they have evolved into a modally defined funding mechanism because they cannot make intermodal choices.
Mr. Carlson noted that the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee asked what it would cost to expand the Life Cycle model to a statewide program. He explained that they assumed it would be comparable if they doubled the figure.
Mr. Reed stated that those measures look at delivering the product, whereas Mr. Olson is wanting to measure the performance of the product.
Mr. Olson explained that he is interested in being able to make choices about things that will make a difference in terms of the customer’s perception of the service. He stated that they need to figure out measures that are not based solely on capacity, but include factors that are important to the customers.
Mr. Redondo stated that it could help determine where money should be spent.
Mr. Carlson noted that the June 7 Full Task Force meeting will have information on available transportation technologies.
Mr. Maguire reviewed a handout entitled “Possible Preliminary Recommendations” and asked if the Committee concurred with the recommendations it contained.
The committee indicated concurrence with those recommendations.
Mr. Olson pointed out that the measurement process needed to make proper decisions is costly and that adequate funds should be dedicated.
Mr. Maguire agreed.
Mr. Olson suggested adding a concept to the Preliminary Recommendations that all of the different levels should coordinate.
Mr. Maguire offered to work on Mr. Olson’s suggestion.
Call to the Public
Mr. Terry Johnson, Maricopa Association of Governments, stated that different types of planning analysis occur at different levels and suggested that they look at the tradeoffs that occur in terms of all levels.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
KEVIN OLSON, Chairperson
