Minutes of a Public Meeting
PROFESSIONALLY PREPARED SUMMARY
OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
10:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 7, 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 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 7, 2000 with Co-Chairpersons Martin Shultz and Sharon Megdal presiding. Other members in attendance were Lisa Atkins, John Bivens, Paulson Chaco, Joe Herrick, Gary Knight, Valerie Manning, John Mawhinney, Diane McCarthy, Richard Narcia, Kevin Olson, Mary Peters, Ingo Radicke, Barbara Ralston, Rene Redondo, Jim Shipman, Jim Simmons, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald and Steve Wheeler. Also present were John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor; Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company; and Mary Lynn Tischer. Panelists included Pitu Mirchandi, University of Arizona; Tim Wolfe, Arizona Department of Transportation; Bill Hayden, Arizona Department of Transportation; Terry Johnson, Maricopa Association of Governments; Richard Bishop, Richard Bishop Consulting; Mike Frisbee, City of Phoenix and Richard Nassi, City of Tucson.
Pledge of Allegiance and Welcome
Mr. Shultz called the meeting to order and all present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Shultz thanked everyone for their efforts in today’s Capacity Enhancement Strategies and Intelligent Transportation Systems show, specifically Mr. Carlson for his leadership.
Acceptance of the Minutes
Action: A motion to approve the minutes for the December 5, 1999 meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously. Editorial comments were submitted by Dr. Megdal.
Action: A motion to approve the minutes for the December 13, 1999 meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Action: A motion to approve the minutes for the February 29, 2000 meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously. Editorial comments were submitted by Dr. Megdal.
Action: A motion to approve the minutes for the March 17, 2000 meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously. Editorial comments were submitted by Dr. Megdal.
Action: A motion to approve the minutes for the March 18, 2000 meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Mr. Bivens stated that while reviewing the minutes he noticed several instances where the Task Force was promised materials and asked how they can ensure that they have received those materials.
Mr. Shultz explained that a lot of requests are made during the meetings and that those requests are then analyzed and prioritized. He suggested that if any members know of information that was promised, but not received, that they contact Dr. Megdal.
Presentations and Discussion of Capacity Enhancement Strategies and Intelligent Transportation Systems
Mr. Shultz began the discussion by suggesting that if Arizona can intelligently select capacity enhancement strategies it will have accomplished a great deal towards its 20-year plan. He then introduced the panelists.
Mr. Nassi explained that his presentation focuses on no and/or low cost alternatives to increasing capacity. He referred to a handout entitled “Get More ‘GO’ Out of Traffic Signals,” which outlines the guidance policies he recommends the Task Force consider in terms of state and local traffic signals. He explained that there are two main elements, signal phasing and roadway design. He stated that signal spacing is one of the most critical factors in timing signal progressions. He noted that Tucson recently passed a bond program for the development of a short-term Intersection Traffic Control, Safety and Air Quality fund. He suggested that a similar fund be established statewide.
Mr. Mike Frisbee stated that the City of Phoenix has an advanced traffic management system that is approximately 80 percent complete. He noted that they have approximately 900 traffic signals throughout the city. He stated that one holdup with the system is the communications protocol that has been set as the standard by the Federal government. He explained that they have had a great deal of difficulty implementing that protocol.
Mr. Shultz asked if other communities are doing similar activities. Mr. Frisbee stated that other communities are moving forward with their advanced transportation system, but are not trying to implement a communications protocol. He explained that they are looking to Phoenix to work out all of the bugs. He stated that, while Phoenix has had traffic signal progression for twenty years, the centralized system they are going to is new. He stated that it would provide immediate feedback in regards to problems at intersections, improving response times. He stated that they will see the most benefit in terms of dedicated staff to observe traffic flows, allowing them to fine tune traffic control. He suggested that another short term benefit would be communication capabilities with other cities when construction will effect their signal timing.
Mr. Mirchandi, Director of the ATLAS Center, stated that ROADS, a real time traffic adaptive control system, is one of their main research projects. He explained that the idea behind ROADS is that detection is taking place all the time and that that detection can be used to predict what traffic will be like over the next few minutes and adjust the signals as necessary. He stated that, while they have not implemented anything on the streets yet, through partnerships with the cities of Tucson and Tempe, ADOT, MAG, PAG and the Federal Highways Administration they have been able to plan a couple field tests. He explained that the main difference between this program and current practices is that it will use algorithms to predict traffic.
Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Mirchandi for clarification that they have a model that simulates traffic and, if their algorithms are correct, could accurately predict what will happen without the need to have people in the field observing traffic.
Mr. Frisbee stated that they are excited about the program, but do not see it as a city wide solution. He explained that for the city of Phoenix they would have a field staff of one or two people.
Mr. Mirchandi stated that real time data is the key element because the system would allow them to determine how much green time is necessary for approaching traffic.
Mr. Shultz asked the first three panelists to give their opinion of what intelligent transportation systems can do to increase capacity in five, ten or twenty years.
Mr. Nassi stated that it would be equivalent to building an extra lane on an arterial street.
Mr. Mawhinney suggested that the signal synchronization would be good only up until they reach maximum capacity.
Mr. Thorwald asked if any analysis has been done on the use of reverse lanes on arterial streets.
Mr. Nassi stated that Tucson and Phoenix experimented with reverse lanes in the early 1980’s. He said that by eliminating the left turn operation, they increase capacity by 30 percent without changing the physical construction of the street. He stated it would add capacity almost instantly to the existing system.
Mr. Shultz asked what the downsides are to reverse lanes.
Mr. Frisbee identified the inability to make left turns as the major downside.
Ms. Manning noted that accident rates on reverse lanes are quite low.
Mr. Frisbee agreed stating that there was no increase in accidents. He noted, however, that they do challenge some drivers who ultimately choose not to use the reverse lanes.
Mr. Thorwald mentioned an example where they had automated bars that would prevent people from entering the reverse lanes by accident. He asked if they have considered other corridors for reverse lanes.
Mr. Frisbee stated that they have looked at several other corridors, but have not pursued any.
Ms. Peters asked if they could use the loop detectors they currently have.
Mr. Mirchandi stated that it is their intent to use the detectors they already have. He noted that if the detectors do not work, the algorithms would be wrong. He stated that the one requirement for the system is that there be detection at each intersection.
Mr. Frisbee explained that loop detectors are the most reliable, but they have problems with the loops getting cut during construction.
Ms. Peters asked for clarification that loops would be the most reliable form of detection if they could be protected.
Mr. Frisbee stated that they would be.
Mr. Shultz asked for explanations of the detectors.
Mr. Nassi explained that loop detectors are wire loops embedded in asphalt and camera detectors are video cameras that look at the street. He stated that Tucson moved away from loop detectors because they were being cut on a regular basis. He explained that they use cameras because they allow them to see traffic volume and determine how to best handle the flow. He also noted that cut loops can be very expensive and take a long time to repair, whereas, camera’s can be relocated within minutes. He stated that the key issue is that the detectors be accurate and provide timely detection.
Dr. Megdal suggested that they need more analysis on the advantages and disadvantages of reversible lanes.
Mr. Wolfe stated that many people see intelligent transportation systems as a panacea to solving all transportation problems, however he characterized it as a tool to gain safety and capacity improvements. He explained that there are four categories in the intelligent transportation system, urban, rural, commercial and intelligent vehicles. He stated that the commercial category is somewhat driven by the industry itself. He explained that the newest category, intelligent vehicles, give the driver tools to make better decision. He stated that they need to look at how they can entice people to use these vehicles. He stated that they also look at freeway management and whether ramps should be metered. He noted that while ramp metering improves congestion on the freeway, it causes arterial streets to fail. He stated that they need to consider capacity on both the freeway and arterial streets. He stated they also look at incident management. He explained that they want to get to incidents quicker and open the freeways sooner. He stated that they also need to look at how they can inform people about incidents that have occurred so they can reroute or make other plans.
Mr. Johnson stated that fundamental things such as adding lanes, completing streets and adding turn lanes can all expand capacity. He suggested that neighborhood consequences including landscaping and noise walls also need to be looked at. He stated that demand management including car pooling, van pooling and alternate work hours would also help with capacity. He stated that their sophisticated models are capable of testing the different approaches to determine which strategy would be the most effective and efficient. He stated that the data used in those models has to be accurate and current.
Mr. Bishop provided a brief description of his background. He stated that intelligent vehicles address both safety and capacity, with safety being the most important aspect. He referred to a handout entitled “Opportunities for Arizona” which outlines how Arizona can take advantage of intelligent vehicle technology. He also suggested that attendees review other handouts concerning “Smart Cruise 21”, bus rapid transit, an ADOT report on intelligent truck lanes and the intelligent vehicle initiative.
Mr. Hayden stated that to enhance mobility the primary mandate is to complete the freeway systems. He stated that they also need to consider ways to increase high occupancy vehicle lane usage on the freeways. He stated that they are currently doing a financial feasibility study as to the use of HOV Toll lanes, which would allow single occupant drivers to utilize the HOV lanes for a fee. He stated that a draft of this study would be available this summer.
Mr. Shultz asked the panelists to submit their recommendations and priorities within the next week. He stated that the task force would send them a letter with specific questions. He suggested that the panelists include both intelligent vehicle system strategies that were discussed today as well as those that were not.
Mr. Shipman asked how intelligent vehicle systems would impact the level of decrease in speed on the freeways over the next 20 years.
Mr. Johnson explained that speeds would decrease by half if they did nothing, however, projections are that it will drop by a couple miles per hour based on the improvements that are planned.
Mr. Wolfe noted that half of the delays during peak hour capacity are related to incidents that occur. He stated that they cannot build enough freeways to handle peak hour capacity, however, intelligent vehicle systems are a tool that will help in terms of reducing the number of incidents.
Mr. Thorwald asked Mr. Johnson to elaborate on the benefits and problems involved in reversible lanes. He also asked Mr. Charles Hodges to explain the computer modeling PAG is doing.
Mr. Johnson stated that improved capacity is the main benefit to reversible lanes. He stated that it creates mobility problems, however, because of the loss of left turns. He stated that they have also explored reversible lanes on the freeways.
Mr. Hodges, Transportation Model Manager, PAG, stated that there are a lot of software tools now available to look at subarea modeling. He stated that in terms of intersection and reversible lane modeling the key issue is directional capacity and directional speed. He stated that their model looks at reversible lanes as simply adding a lane.
Mr. Mawhinney asked Mr. Wolfe if he has ever done an analysis on the cost of not being able to move people efficiently. He also asked if the state has a policy to require that construction on roads include the fiber optics or wiring for intelligent systems that will eventually be necessary. He noted that the state has looked at what can be done on roads of regional significance, however, determined it would cost too much, He suggested they should look at ways to do what they can, rather than doing nothing at all. He requested that the panelists submit written responses to his questions.
Ms. Manning asked if any analysis has been done on the effect of HOV utilization by single occupant drivers during off peak times.
Mr. Hayden stated that they have analyzed that, however, part of the problem is the lack of connectivity between HOV lanes.
Mr. Shultz asked task force members to submit ideas, comments and questions for inclusion in the letter to the panelists by Monday, June 12.
Public comments
Mr. Shultz asked those who want to address the task force to simply introduce themselves and the topic they wish to address and then submit their comments in writing.
Ms. Pam Allen thanked the task force for their efforts, research and consideration in terms of disabled citizens.
Mr. Alex Bowie thanked Mr. Carlson for his support. He stated that he would submit information regarding the removal of traffic lights to establish a continuous flow of traffic.
Ms. Lisa Shaffer, ASU, stated that her topic is transportation research in automated highway systems.
Mr. Joe Ryan submitted written comments. He stated that changing certain streets into one way routes would be a better alternative than reversible lanes.
Mr. Mike Navaras, Operations Manager, City of Phoenix Transportation Department, urged the task force to look at public transit.
Mr. Shultz agreed that public transit is an important component and stated that he would also send him a copy of the letter he is sending to the panelists.
Mr. Shultz submitted written comments by Mr. Thurman.
Closing comments and adjournment.
Dr. Megdal expressed her appreciation for the reference book provided to the task force members and complimented the panelists on their succinct presentations.
The meeting adjourned at 12:01 p.m.
MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson
SHARON MEDGAL, Co-Chairperson
