Minutes of a Public Meeting

 

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

OF THE

DEFINITION OF NEEDS, RESOURCES AND REVENUES COMMITTEE

9 a.m., Thursday, July 8, 1999

Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower
Phoenix, Arizona

The Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee met in official session for a Regular Meeting at 9 a.m., Thursday, July 8, 1999, with Chairperson Barbara Ralston presiding. Other members present were Steve Basila (arrived at 10:25), Robert Bulla, Joe Herrick, Gary Knight, Valerie Manning, John Mawhinney, Jim Simmons, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald, and Dr. Sharon Megdal (ex-officio member). Also present were Alan Maguire, John McGee, Harry Reed, and Stephanie Bondeson. Guests present included James M. Bourey and Eric Anderson from MAG and Thomas L. Swanson and Joseph McCullough from PAG.

Pledge of Allegiance and Welcome

Ms. Ralston called the meeting to order and all present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ms. Ralston reminded the committee members of upcoming meetings and introduced Ms. Bonnie Glass, an ASU student working as an intern with staff on the task force.

Ms. Ralston outlined the themes that have emerged from the public input meetings thus far: transportation is an important issue in all areas of the state; issues are extremely complex and interrelated; where a person lives influences their views and positions, i.e. rural versus urban; every local elected official has wanted more funding and flexibility; every citizen believes their mode of transportation is underfunded; the seasonal impact on needs; commute distance issues are not restricted to urban areas; transportation, economic development and land use management are all interdependent; and the importance of communication.

Ms. Ralston asked that committee members prepare a list during the meeting of additional data or clarification needed or issues that need resolution. She suggested that these would be reviewed at the end of the meeting.

Acceptance of 5/20/99 Minutes

A motion was made by Jim Simmons to approve the May 20, 1999 minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thorwald and carried unanimously.

Presentation and Discussion of MAG’s Long Range Transportation Plan

Mr. Maguire provided some introductory remarks to both of the presentations. He listed the important similarities that the committee would see, i.e. both plans are fiscally balanced and both incorporate certain tax rate increases. He explained that MAG and PAG used different approaches to calculate needs.

Mr. Anderson discussed projections used to create the MAG plan, comparing population in 1998 to 2020 when MAG and PAG are expected to serve 78 percent of Arizona’s population. He discussed projected growth in population and travel and the employment growth expected in the state. He emphasized the need to move faster than the population growth to keep up with increasing passenger travel miles. He explained the sources of the population projections and the modeling tools used. He explained employment growth in various categories/industries: government, financial, aerospace and back office operations. Where they locate largely depends on the type of industry. The projections suggest employment concentrations being spread out. Mass transit will serve several key areas: the downtown areas of Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa and Scottsdale; the Scottsdale AirPark; and the Deer Valley area. An intensification of concentration is being seen as cities redevelop their downtown areas. The state is also starting to see major concentration of employment centers at freeway interchanges. Ms. Ralston suggested that most of the corridors were developed in the 1960s when the concentration of employment in the Valley was in downtown Phoenix.

Mr. Anderson presented an overview of the process MAG goes through to develop the three federally required planning documents--the long range plan, five-year program and conformity analysis. There are four legs of the planning process: analysis, input, visioning and decision making. The Regional Council, made up of 27 organization members, votes to adopt the final plan. In response to a question about whether MAG is reactive or proactive, Mr. Anderson cited their plan to motivate businesses to locate to fit with the transportation system. Mr. Bourey explained that when projects are considered, MAG looks at the comprehensive plans of all jurisdictions, and the projects are mapped out based on those plans. This needs to take place on a long-range basis. He said that 18 months ago MAG started a process to develop a vision out to 2025. He discussed the Vision 2025 process to date and said that a draft will be available by yearend. Part of the process considered changes in technology over the next 25 years.

Mr. Anderson outlined the draft programming process, which is the multi-modal regional planning process that came out of the Casa Grande Resolves meeting. MAG believes that the process will result in a much higher level of cooperation between ADOT, the MPOs and TMAs in the state. The technical analysis for the plan is based on three major factors/impacts: land use, transportation and air quality. MAG uses state of the art modeling tools and four major data sources to create the plan: socioeconomic/land use, community input, transportation and air quality. The budget to keep the models updated is well into seven figures. He explained that the latest congestion study is now being finalized, and the data could be made available to the committee. He provided an overview of MAG’s transportation management systems, the consideration of Title VI populations and the federal certification of the plan last completed in 1998.

MAG’s long range multimodal transportation plan is comprised of nine key elements: street and freeway improvements, transit, pedestrians, air travel, telecommuting, traffic signals, rail options, bike lanes, and car pools/HOV lanes. The basis of the plan is that it is a 20-year plan, is financially constrained, contains extensive technical analysis, includes a significant public outreach process, and meets air quality objectives. Maps were presented of the regional highway projects to 2007 and over the entire plan period, the 20-year HOV plan, street improvements, local bus plan, express bus plan, light rail transit plan and the aviation system plan.

Dr. Megdal inquired about the aspects of the plan that have been eliminated. She asked what the difference is between what MAG can and cannot complete. Mr. Anderson said that there were a number of routes taken off the map, but some have been put back on in some way. The Paradise Freeway was permanently removed. Grand Avenue was removed, but eight new overpass interchanges were added back in. The Estrella Freeway was taken off, but the county has programmed some funds to improve the corridor. They are also doing a study to connect the 303 to I-17. While the South Mountain corridor is not shown as a complete freeway, substantial investments have been made to provide critical links. Mr. Bulla commented that from a miles standpoint, the plan now only shows half the originally planned miles being built. The problem has been the major funding shortfall.

Mr. Thorwald asked about Grand Avenue as part of the CANAMEX Corridor. He requested information on the project cost difference between what is proposed and a full freeway. Mr. Bourey explained that no route has been determined for the CANAMEX Corridor through the Valley. The latest cost estimate of a Grand Avenue Freeway was $1 billion. The cost of the programmed interchanges over the next 20 years is between $400 million and $500 million. Mr. Anderson offered to provide information comparing the traffic flow that will be achieved by what is planned versus a freeway. Dr. Megdal indicated that the task force would hold a second public input meeting in the West Valley, and a presentation would be made on Grand Avenue at that time. Mr. Thorwald suggested that it might be better to spend the $1 billion to achieve what is really needed in terms of Grand Avenue. Mr. Anderson said it is MAG’s goal that the investment will be part of a long-term solution, i.e. a freeway. Mr. Bourey discussed the degree of cooperation that is taking place between MAG and the other counties in designing the best CANAMEX Corridor. He noted that federal funding might be available to help with the route. It is hoped that a statewide task force will be set up over the next few months to address the issue and that the corridor will be set by yearend. Dr. Megdal noted that two issues need to be addressed relative to the corridor: destination traffic to and from Phoenix and the heavy truck traffic.

Mr. Bourey and Mr. Anderson discussed the impact of skyrocketing right-of-way costs on the system because of land values. ADOT’s goal is to buy as much right-of-way as possible, but the problem is that final route designs are not necessarily complete. They commented on how property speculation is dealt with along corridors through a red-letter notification process between cities and MAG and ADOT. Measures are in place to forestall speculation along corridors. Dr. Megdal suggested that right-of-way acquisition be addressed in a separate session.

Mr. Thorwald asked if MAG had considered updating the bus plans so that routes could be flexible depending on ridership needs. Mr. Anderson confirmed that the plan takes optimum equipment utilization into consideration. He stated that transit usage overall is about one percent of total trips; at peak travel times, it is two percent of total trips. Some increased usage was factored into the plan. Ms. Ralston asked how the plan encourages use of public transit as the population of the state increases. Mr. Thorwald asked how the light rail system would be interfaced with the bus system. Mr. Bourey said there has been a lot of discussion about the interface between the three transit systems. The local bus service will feed both the rail and express bus systems. He did not have the cost per mile of the light rail system or ridership projections. Ms. Manning stated that the transit ridership figures are much greater than 1-2 percent when one looks at the lines that are served well by transit. Mr. Bourey agreed with this statement.

Mr. Mawhinney asked if the bus and rail plans would result in the reduction of highway usage and by how much. Mr. Bourey explained that the numbers show a reduced increase in highway usage, but not a decrease. He offered to get the exact figures for the committee. He stressed the importance of meeting travel demand by multimodal means.

The meeting was recessed at 10:35 a.m. and reconvened at 10:45 a.m.

Mr. Anderson briefly reviewed the other elements of the plan: bicycle, pedestrian, demand and system management and special needs. He stressed the fact that the plan is designed to add capacity without building more lanes. He discussed the system performance aspect of the long-range plan, including system performance indicators. Graphics were presented depicting travel congestion, congested intersections, average speeds system wide, average speeds on freeways and streets, freeway lane miles per capita and bus service compared to peer cities.

Mr. Anderson reviewed the results of the Vision 2025 process to date and the estimated costs of the components beyond the financially constrained plan: freeways, $3 billion; streets, $3.5 billion; transit, $2 billion; aviation, $1.5 billion; and others $1 billion. Mr. Anderson highlighted the sources of current transportation funding, the funding for the long-range plan and the potential funding shortfall.

Dr. Megdal requested that the committee be presented with an explanation of how the various transit plans fit into the regional system plans. She felt this information would be critical to the committee’s work. Mr. Thorwald asked that this be expanded to include how toll roads fit into the financial plans.

Ms. Manning asked if MAG’s plan could be funded without a change in the distribution of dollars to MAG. Mr. Bourey explained that the equitable distribution of federal dollars was an issue debated heavily in the last year. They worked aggressively to resolve the issue and did so successfully. MAG received a significant increase in their distribution, which is what allowed them to accelerate the regional freeway plan.

Mr. Anderson confirmed for Mr. Thorwald that there was no consideration of toll road revenues in the plan. The transit aspect does, however, include a combination half-cent sales tax increase. He confirmed for Mr. Herrick that the plan does include the cost of maintenance and operation for transit, freeways and streets.

Ms. Steffey asked how much money MAG controls of the total transportation funding. Mr. Anderson answered that the $60 million federal appropriation is split between CMAQ and surface transportation. The total dollars that go through local transportation is $400 million per year. Ms. Steffey requested that all of the MPOs answer this question. She also requested that they each answer the question as to who has decision making power.

Mr. Bourey encouraged the committee members to call MAG with questions on any aspect of the presentation. He offered to meet with the committee members individually.

Presentation and Discussion of PAG’s Long Range Transportation Plan

Mr. Swanson stated that the size of the urban area is a huge factor in the complexity of the plan. He provided an overview of how PAG worked with the elected officials in that region and the public to develop a realistic and financially proactive plan. There were four key goals agreed upon by all governments involved: mobility and accessibility, environment and community, financial feasibility, and public support.

Mr. McCullough outlined the Metropolitan Transportation Plan development process for Pima County. It included a needs assessment of the current system, financial assessment, presentation of three alternative plans, public involvement, determination of a final plan and performance assessment. The needs assessment criteria included roadways, transit, bicycle, pedestrian and operations and maintenance. The plan did not consider a freeway system other than what exists today. Operations and maintenance was a major component of the plan, because it was one of the top concerns expressed. These costs are included in the plan; it was determined that this area would not be shorted in the long-range plan.

PAG’s existing needs total $4.3 billion, broken down as follows: existing operations and maintenance needs $2.2 billion; improvements for existing demand, $1.8 billion; and operations and maintenance costs for the improvements, $.3 billion. At current levels existing revenues through 2020 will be $3.9 billion, demonstrating a shortfall of $.4 billion to meet current needs only. Total transportation needs over the period 1998 – 2020 are $9.2 billion, including operations and maintenance. Existing revenues will provide 40 percent of the need, which is unacceptable to the public.

New revenue sources most likely to be supported by the public include an indexed gas tax, quarter-cent sales tax for transit, and development impact fees. Mr. Thorwald asked if fare box increases or toll roads were considered. Mr. McCullough answered that they were not because they were not supported by the public. They have found that ridership drops when fares are increased. He reiterated that a quarter-cent sales tax was the most acceptable new revenue stream, and this would totally support the transit system. Mr. Thorwald asked if advertising on buses was considered as a revenue source. Mr. McCullough explained that the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee has continually refused to consider this revenue source.

Mr. McCullough explained that the long-range plan will be updated every three years; the financial plan will be updated annually. He stated that a 3.5 percent inflation index was used for the gas tax. Assuming revenues of $5.6 billion, 60 percent of the region’s total needs would be met. This breaks down as follows: roadways, 60 percent; transit, 51 percent; bicycle and pedestrian, 96 and 80 percent respectively.

Mr. Thorwald asked if bicycle licensing was considered a potential revenue source. Mr. McCullough stated that the Tucson City Council is currently considering this issue.

Mr. Mawhinney asked if PAG measured the impact of transit spending on highway congestion. Mr. McCullough answered that the impact is measured very specifically along certain routes, but he was not able to provide a definitive answer in general terms. Mr. Swanson confirmed that PAG has not priced or compared the congestion and air quality impacts of mixed transportation modes.

Mr. McCullough discussed the performance of PAG’s system, comparing 1995’s system to that anticipated in 2020. He summarized specific roadway improvements, including I-10 widening, new frontage roads, new/wider arterial and collector streets, reconstruction of arterial and collector streets, new grade separated intersections, and major intersection reconstruction.

Mr. Mawhinney asked if the CANAMEX Corridor impact was considered in Tucson. Mr. McCullough answered that it was considered only from the aspect of increased truck traffic. As no route has been set, more specific impacts have not been considered.

Mr. McCullough outlined transit improvements and other alternative modes of transportation included in the plan. They will increase the bus fleet from 200 to 415, increase service miles, build 610 new bicycle facility miles and 740 new pedestrian facility miles. He explained that the need for additional revenues was based to some degree on the carbon monoxide emissions modeling for conformity determination. The federal requirements tied to carbon monoxide emissions could not be met without new revenue sources. He noted the serious consequences of not having new revenue sources. He stated that PAG believes that ozone will be a more serious problem in the region in the future.

In response to a question by Mr. Mawhinney, both MAG and PAG explained that current plans provide for maintenance on the existing roadways to an economic level, although standards are different throughout the system. Mr. McCullough explained that there are federal maintenance standards that must be met, but these do not address local streets, which is becoming a hotter issue in Tucson and is where the most significant shortfalls are occurring. He felt that state roads were being maintained fairly well.

Mr. Bourey briefly discussed the freeway metering system used to manage traffic flow. Mr. McCullough indicated that the goal is to get information to the people so that they can choose an alternate route.

The group discussed whether or not they should meet in August and how long the meetings should last. The decision was that each member would contact staff with an indication of whether they would like to meet on August 11 or August 13.

Review of State and Regional 20-Year Plans

Mr. Maguire presented an update on the state highways needs study and aviation needs study, both of which would be done by the fall. Mr. Simmons expressed concern with going through the committee process without this vital information. Dr. Megdal indicated that the task force would discuss the overall work plan at the August 12 meeting.

Mr. Maguire discussed the county roads study and stated that Flagstaff and Yuma are now doing their first plans. The least and/or oldest information that exists is at the COG level. Generally, they do not have comprehensive plans. He noted the small area studies that are available, suggesting that this data could be used to come up with better needs information for the COG areas. The COGs are in agreement with this approach. With respect to revenue information, there is good state and MPO level information, but again revenue information is not available at the rural levels. Although it is slightly dated, there is also the Wilbur Smith Revenue Study to consider. He suggested that the foundation information is stronger on the revenue side than the needs side. Mr. Thorwald indicated that the committee still needs the comparison of new sources of revenue with other cities and states.

Call to the Public

Mr. Blue Crowley, a citizen of Maricopa County, thanked staff for the information they had provided to him. He stated that the rural areas were not adequately addressed in the needs assessment. He asked where the reasonable expectation is for funding of a light rail system. He would like to see more cooperation between the City of Phoenix and the task forces. He would like to see a better system for increasing fare box revenues. He noted that in 1989 three percent of those traveling the roads were using mass transit. He listed the bus routes that take citizens to the capital and the number that do not. He questioned how the public could reach these meetings. He suggested that a uniform work program needs to be considered. He suggested that the state’s four top employers should be encouraged to make changes in the work situations of the employees that would positively impact the state’s transportation needs. He stated that there are aspects of ISTEA that are not being addressed in the task force process. In conclusion, he said he would like to see the committee and task force members use multi-modal means of transportation to reach the task force meetings.

Closing Remarks and Preview of Next Meeting

Ms. Ralston requested that committee members submit their requests for additional information in writing to staff, as there was no time to discuss the requests/issues.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m.

BARBARA RALSTON, Chairperson