Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESS COMMITTEE
1:30 p.m., Thursday, May 27, 1999
Arizona State Capitol
1938 Edition Building
Phoenix, Arizona
The Planning and Programming Process Committee met in official session for a Regular Meeting at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, May 27, 1999, with Chairperson Kevin Olson presiding. Other members present were Vice-Chairperson Diane McCarthy, John Bivens, Mary Peters, Raul Piña, and Rene Redondo. Panel members were: Harry Reed, ADOT; Mike Sabatini, Maricopa County; Mark Clark, Lake Havasu City; Joe McCullough, Pima Association of Governments; Dean Giles, Central Arizona Association of Governments; and Jim Bourey, Maricopa Association of Governments. Staff members present were: Stephanie Bondeson, John Carlson, Dale Buskirk, Jennifer Macdonald, John McGee and Lorraine Moreno. Task Force Consultant Alan Maguire and Dennis Mittelstedt, FHWA, were also present.
Welcome, Acceptance of 4/22/99 Minutes
Mr. Olson called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
A motion was made by Ms. McCarthy to approve the April 22, 1999 minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Ms. Peters and carried unanimously.
Mr. Olson discussed the change in the meeting format that had been decided upon. He encouraged discussion throughout the meeting. He stated that Mr. Maguire had been retained as a consultant to the task force and welcomed him. Mr. Olson announced that Mr. McGee had replaced Suzanne Sale as ADOT’s Chief Financial Officer. Mr. McGee will replace Ms. Sale as a technical advisor to the committee.
He advised members of the public that due to the heavy agenda time for the call to the public might be limited.
Presentation and Discussion: The Programming Process
Local and Regional Planning
Mr. Dale Buskirk, Acting Division Director, Transportation Planning Division, ADOT, said that his presentation would cover the generic transportation planning process, whereas panel members would discuss the process from the jurisdictional position. He introduced the panel members. He emphasized that tribal governments and privately owned modes of transportation need to also be recognized.
Mr. Buskirk began with an overview of the basic steps of the priority programming process. He noted the obvious, that there are insufficient resources to address the priorities identified.
Mr. Bourey explained the joint project programming and development process and the importance of stakeholder involvement in that process. He explained the congestion management system used to rank projects in MAG. It is a very involved process and he defined the criteria used. All factors consider land use development and regional needs. There is also a component of public input in the process that affects the outcome. He explained that MAG has a 20-year transportation plan for the region, which addresses all modes of transportation. They work with the various jurisdictions to create the plan.
Mr. Buskirk indicated that since ISTEA and TEA 21, the emphasis in transportation has been on multi-modal modes, i.e. corridor studies. However, there are significantly more resources that can be devoted to highway solutions than alternative transportation solutions.
Mr. Giles stated that each of the COGs have a different process, and they are again different from the TMAs. Mr. Clark said that there are fewer conflicts at the city level. He added that regional resources are tied to regional or statewide planning and managed through the COGs or State Transportation Board.
Mr. Bivens asked how a level playing field is established. Mr. Sabatini indicated that the county’s revenues come primarily from HURF, which has specific requirements for spending money on roadways. Therefore, roadways are the focus of their process. He suggested that the legislature has not been interested in investing in transportation in the past.
Mr. Clark commented on how Lake Havasu City was able to build its public transportation system and described the resources used.
Ms. Peters stated that the ideal goal would be to be able to choose a project regardless of the revenue resource, but that is not the case under the current system.
Mr. Buskirk described the relationship between transportation and land use planning. He cites examples of problems on S.R. 69 with the ability to control access. He attributed these problems to the lack of coordinated land use and transportation planning.
Mr. Sabatini explained that Maricopa County has no federal funds for transit planning now. The county is 9,200 square miles, mostly rural, and where it is urbanized low-density development is the norm. The automobile is the best mode of transportation in Maricopa County outside the metropolitan area. He agreed that transportation planning cannot take place without land use planning. He suggested that as technology improves more telecommuting will occur. He described the county’s vanpool system and stressed the importance of HOV lanes to that system.
Mr. Bourey suggested that there is a direct linkage in how the population projection models are used to drive transportation planning. He described how MAG uses the DES growth projections for the region and discussed the accuracy of the information.
The issue of the extent to which planning is driving the population to places where it has been planned was discussed, i.e. are people moving to where infrastructure improvements have been made. Mr. Reed noted that the opposite of this would be the Anthem Development where the developer itself built the transportation infrastructure and is enticing the public to move.
Mr. Buskirk presented information on the department’s resource allocation system and discussed the impact of limited resources on system improvements. Mr. Clark commented that access management has a lot to do with system management and is a zero cost issue. Mr. Buskirk stated that the system has traditionally dealt with problems by adding capacity, which involves large dollars. ADOT is now focusing on technology and strategic procedures to increase the carrying capacity without actually increasing capacity. They are attempting to address increased demand, because there is no way to continue to meet demand by building more highways. He emphasized the need to use the system efficiently.
Mr. Buskirk discussed project identification, how highway needs are identified, the part the stakeholders play in the programming process, and the need for coordination in planning and programming among stakeholders. He asked the panel members to discuss how they involve stakeholders.
Mr. Sabatini explained that stakeholders are involved in the development of the county’s master transportation plan for the unincorporated county areas. It is annually reviewed, and their process leads to the programming recommendations to ADOT.
Mr. McCullough outlined PAG’s programming process. They involve the owners and operators of all systems at every stage. He explained how citizen advisory groups participate at the local jurisdiction level.
Mr. Giles explained that CAAG uses a 15-member technical advisory committee. He explained the representation on the committee and the work that they do. They have no regional transportation plan but do rely on local jurisdictions as well as the county to identify project needs. CAAG influences decisions made by ADOT through their district engineers. The district engineers are in constant contact with the local jurisdictions. Mr. Buskirk explained that the State Transportation Board travels throughout Arizona to take input from the various jurisdictions. Mr. Giles confirmed that the technical advisory committee is made up of professional staff members and representatives from such entities as citizens advisory committees and environmental organizations.
Mr. Bourey presented a chart indicating the part stakeholders play in MAG’s process.
Mr. Clark explained that at the city level most decisions are made at City Council hearings. He emphasized the importance of the small area transportation studies.
Mr. Buskirk reviewed the basic schedule for program development and described the use of scoping, noting the benefit of cost estimation. Mr. Sabatini stated that Maricopa County also scopes projects. He described their scoping process. Mr. Clark said that depending on the level of government, the scoping process may not be as formal of a process as, for instance, with ADOT projects. Ms. Peters explained that ADOT is looking at the quality and quantity of a project in the scoping process. She said that smaller communities rely on ADOT almost entirely for scoping.
Mr. McCullough emphasized the need for planning resources, regardless of the availability of funding. He discussed the difference between planning and a 20-year plan. Because of the huge funding gap, PAG is forced to program a maximum of two years out.
Mr. Bourey said that MAG does have a visionary transportation plan, although some funding portions are based on certain assumptions. Mr. Olson expressed his personal frustration with the fact that the plans are not visionary for the most part because of financial constraints. He emphasized the need to strike the right balance in terms of planning based on funding and planning based on need. He suggested that perhaps there is a need for both types of plans. Mr. Clark cautioned against adopting plans that create unrealistic expectations on the part of citizens. Mr. Sabatini noted the difficulty with implementing plans because of the land use market, which is not necessarily reliable. Mr. Buskirk responded that this is exactly why planning must be continuous and based on real world changes.
Mr. Redondo stated that PAG concluded they could only build 40 percent of their system, and they presented three funding recommendations.
Mr. Buskirk concluded his presentation with a review of the project selection process, what the process should be, and the potential improvements to the programming process. He defined three key terms determined by the federal government as the key to the effective implementation of TEA-21: consultation, cooperation and coordination. Ms. Peters commented on how technology will change the complexion of transportation demand, i.e. e-commerce and teleworking. Mr. Buskirk agreed with the suggestion that ADOT should work closely with the many private and public entities that need to anticipate needs, i.e. utilities.
Ms. McCarthy suggested that perhaps five-year plans should be based on critical needs and fiscal realities while 20-year plans should be based on other assumptions.
Mr. Piña stated that transportation planning needs to consider more than cars. He stressed the need for education at the local level.
Mr. Mittelstedt commented that the federal government is also attempting to get away from its concentration on automobile transportation and turn its efforts toward encouraging bicycle and pedestrian transportation. He agreed with the need to plan for the future, and there are ways to handle that without necessarily committing to the plan. The federal government relies on state and local governments to anticipate growth and plan with that growth in mind. In transportation, government is catching up rather than leading. He stated that the federal government is also reluctant to get involved in the priority programming process. Another area that makes planning difficult is environmental constraints in that environmental documents are usually geared toward short-term plans. The federal government is not requiring environmental documents on the MAG system by specific agreement.
Mr. Clark passed out information on planning at the local level. He commented on the impact of the HURF funding formulas on small communities. Mr. Buskirk stated that ADOT is sponsoring and helping the rural COGS to develop regional transportation plans. He was hopeful that they would be completed within the next six months. Mr. Clark explained how regionally significant roads are designated.
Mr. Giles elaborated on Mr. Clark’s comments. He emphasized that the COGs make every effort to avoid duplicating local transportation planning efforts. They try to focus on the routes that have inter-city roles. He used an overhead presentation on the CAAG process (Gila and Pinal Counties), commenting on Pinal County’s importance to the TMA areas, their work with the district engineers to identify major corridor improvements and the existing Pinal County system. He reviewed their project evaluation form, which is used to help identify priority projects.
Mr. Sabatini explained how Maricopa County’s land use areas relate to comprehensive planning. He reviewed their primary transportation system. Maricopa County is interested in making capital investments to help develop urban growth in urbanizing areas. He presented the county’s investment matrix and discussed the scoring system used to make investment decisions. He emphasized the importance of integrating land use and transportation planning, mandating coordination between communities, providing incentives for cooperative transportation development and the need to tie funding to the roads versus population and fuel sales. He suggested that if these problems are solved, the symptoms will be resolved.
Mr. Maguire offered to provide copies of all overheads to the committee members.
Proposed Changes to the Planning and Programming Process
Mr. Reed presented an overview of the results of the April 29-30 Casa Grande Resolves Meeting. He highlighted the assessment of the current ADOT process, the guiding principles of what would be the new Arizona transportation planning and programming process and the resolves that were addressed. The participants agreed to move forward to: “implement a new regionally based transportation planning and programming process; establish a revenue allocation process with representation from ADOT, TMAs, MPOs/COGs, and transit operators; move ahead aggressively with the development of a statewide long range transportation plan; and present the agreements to their governing bodies.” Mr. Reed presented a chart depicting the Casa Grande Resolves Programming Process. At the request of Mr. Bivens, Mr. Reed expanded on the proposed financial resource allocation system and project selection process. Mr. Reed and Ms. Peters emphasized that policy should drive resource allocations rather than projects.
Mr. Bourey indicated that MAG is in the process of bringing the agreement back to its governing boards to get their buy-in, which seems likely. Mr McCullough indicated that the PAG Regional Council was briefed on the revised Regional Planning Process, and were quite surprised at the significant change that is proposed. Having the major stakeholders at the table at the beginning of the planning process is a significant step in addressing the need for cooperatively developed funding estimates. PAG Regional Council will send a letter to the State Transportation Board indicating their approval with the proposed changes.
Ms. Peters stated that the State Transportation Board was briefed on the effort, and their initial reaction was positive. While some refinement is anticipated, the primary goal is to avoid what happened last fall with respect to resource allocations. She did not believe that the Casa Grande meeting would pre-empt the work of the task force, but the process needed to go on so that a program could be put out. The goal of the task force is to get to a long-range plan.
Mr. Olson said he had no objections to the Casa Grande effort, noting that incremental improvements are important. He said he would be very interested in receiving the feedback to the process.
Discussion of Committee Work Process
Mr. Maguire provided a brief overview of an outline of a preliminary committee work process. He encouraged the committee members to submit comments to him.
Mr. Bivens requested copies of the work programs of the other committees to ensure that duplication is avoided. Mr. Maguire agreed but commented on the overlap between the Governance and Planning and Programming Process Committees.
Ms. Peters said she would also provide the committee members with copies of the Growing Smarter report recently issued.
Ms. Tonia Garrett encouraged the committee members to access the Arizona Planning Association website for information on the work of the Growing Smarter Commission. The address was noted to be azplanning.org.
Call to the Public
Mr. Blue Crowley stated that he had requested information from the task force support staff and was not receiving it. He suggested that the statewide plan needs to be multi-modal. It needs to address bicycle, pedestrian and heavy rail transportation. He stressed the need to separate the movement of things from the movement of people. He suggested that MAG needs a COG because a major part of Maricopa County is rural. He encouraged more public participation in the task force process and in transportation planning in general. He would also encourage more stakeholder investment in the system. He suggested the use of impact fees to augment the state’s transportation revenues.
Mr. Olson expressed appreciation for Mr. Crowley’s interest in transportation issues and requested that Mr. Crowley submit a written request for materials. He encouraged Mr. Crowley to refrain from attacking the good faith effort of those involved with this process.
Closing Remarks and Preview of Next Meeting
Mr. Olson announced that a full task force meeting is being considered for June 10, and this would replace the committee meetings scheduled that month.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
KEVIN OLSON, Chairperson
