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, July 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 9:00 a.m., Thursday, July 27, 2000 with Vice Chairwoman McCarthy presiding. Other members in attendance were John Bivens, Paulson Chaco, Rene Redondo and Jim Shipman. Also present were Mary Lynn Tischer and Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company. Special guest panelists included Lindy Bauer, Jim Dickey, RPTA; Ken Driggs, RPTA; Randy Overmeyer, RPTA; Mary O’Connor, City of Tempe; and George Caria, City of Tucson.
Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance
Ms. McCarthy called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. McCarthy welcomed those in attendance and had both committee members and audience members introduce themselves.
Acceptance of Minutes from June 22, 2000
A quorum was not present; therefore the minutes of the June 22, 2000 meeting were not accepted.
Mr. Bivens expressed his appreciation for being provided copies of minutes from other committee meetings.
Roundtable Discussion of Additional Capacity Enhancement Strategies and Potential Recommendations
Ms. McCarthy reminded members of the importance of continuing to discuss congestion mitigation.
Mr. Maguire explained that the intent of today’s discussion is to identify alternate ways to increase capacity, with the principal focus being on peak times, as well as how to better utilize means already in existence.
Mr. Overmeyer passed out a summary entitled Regional Commuter Congestion Relief Measures. He stated that improvements to commuter express bus service, van pools, HOV lanes and passenger amenities and facilities could all contribute to congestion relief. He said that their long-range plans look at increasing commuter express bus service and taking advantage of HOV lanes and freeway corridors. He acknowledged the importance of park and ride lot amenities, including shade, water and up-to-date traveler information, in encouraging people to use transit. In response to Ms. McCarthy’s question, Mr. Overmeyer stated that they make approximately 3,000 trips per day with approximately 40 percent of those trips occurring on local routes. He noted that the average annual income of the local ridership is $20,000 and that they are usually transit dependent, whereas express riders have an average annual income of $50,000 and choose to use transit.
Mr. Driggs noted that many express buses are filling in for local service. He identified bus purchases and funding sources as two constraints to express service. He explained that most of the funding comes from cities who consider movement within the cities as their priority, defeating a regional approach.
Mr. Caria stated that Tucson only has four or five dedicated express routes and agreed that funding is the biggest constraint. He noted that some companies on express routes have agreed to subsidize the routes so they can operate at revenue neutral. He stated that they would not be offering the shuttle service to the University of Arizona football games unless they agree to subsidize the service. In regards to the transit centers, he stated that people want shelter, water and to be able to purchases passes.
Mr. Redondo suggested they point out to companies, such as the University of Arizona, that if they do not agree to subsidize the express services, they will have to provide additional parking to compensate for the loss of that service.
Mr. Bivens asked if it would be possible to use vans to pick riders up and take them to larger transit centers. He explained that this would eliminate having larger buses going through neighborhoods, it would improve the express service and would make the larger buses work more efficiently and effectively. Mr. Overmeyer stated that it is a viable concept and that they touch on that approach in their long-range plan. Mr. Bivens suggested that employers in various areas could also use it. Mr. Overmeyer pointed out that passengers do not always want to make transfers and suggested that a paradigm shift would be necessary for the concept to work. Mr. Bivens disagreed, suggesting that the constraint lies in the wait that people have to experience when transferring. He stated that if the wait could be lessened or eliminated, people would not mind making transfers. Mr. Overmeyer stated that Phoenix’s lack of core service makes for an inefficient express service and would make transfers unpleasant. Mr. Caria noted that collector vans would have to cross city boundaries requiring cooperation between the cities. Ms. Tischer suggested that Mr. Biven’s concept is similar to the rail system, which uses a bus system to collect its passengers. Mr. Redondo stated that for the concept to be viable it would have to be done in a high-density corridor, be attractive and have a common destination. He reiterated the need for regional support.
Mr. Shipman noted that a regional system would create nodes of economic development. He stated that the committee has struggled with the issue of land use and pointed out that transit would help reduce the number of parking spaces needed at many locations.
Ms. McCarthy asked if any studies have been done in Ahwatukee indicating that people would use a commuter express if it were available. Mr. Driggs stated that they already use it and that Phoenix’s bus rapid transit system will be extensive in that corridor. He said that ADOT needs to step into the transit role through a comprehensive commuter package. He questioned whether the private sector would find getting into transit profitable. He suggested the circulators be free, local buses be subsidized and express services support themselves. He suggested that private enterprise could be involved in the express service.
Ms. McCarthy asked if RPTA has enough data to know where people live and work and can match routes accordingly. Mr. Overmeyer stated that they have reasonable information explaining that all major employers are required to report that information. He pointed out that residential and employment cores continually change as the valley grows. Mr. Bivens stated that improvements in technology should make it possible to track those changes and suggested the state spend money on ensuring that the data is always updated. He suggested making laundry services, convenience stores and day care centers available at transit centers, reducing the number of trips people have to make. Mr. Driggs stated that that is already happening, but questioned whether park and ride lots would have the concentration necessary to attract private enterprise.
Ms. McCarthy noted that the stark collector system on 79th Avenue has been more successful than anticipated and is now being considered for expansion.
Mr. Driggs stated that the potential is unlimited but cautioned against assuming that the private sector would buy into the concept. Ms. Tischer stated that they need to differentiate between having the private sector provide services and having regulations in place that prevent that from happening. Mr. Bivens agreed that they need to open it up to the private sector and let them determine if it is a viable opportunity. He stated that there is an inseparable relationship between land use and transportation and questioned the viability of withholding funds to communities who do not work with major developers to do the traffic generating studies necessary to determine preferred transportation modes. Mr. Overmeyer mentioned an example where Goodyear required developers to put in bus pullout bays which, to date, are not being used. He agreed that it is cheaper for developers to include those types of items while the road is being built rather than to put it in afterwards.
Mr. Maguire noted that the state has subsidized retail at various locations downtown. He questioned the economic development rationale for assisting lower income households and penalizing higher income households. He explained that they spend millions of dollars at the state level, and even more at the local level, trying to create high-income jobs, and that subsidizing local bus services and refusing to subsidize employers on express services would encourage those companies to bring in lower paying jobs. He also pointed out that there are not enough buses at the park and ride lot. Mr. Overmeyer clarified that they subsidize commuter express services as much, if not more, than local routes on a per mile basis. He explained that express services have one rider per seat whereas local service would have multiple riders throughout the day.
Mr. Shipman stated that funds dedicated to planning for public transportation is small in comparison to other areas. He pointed out that 2565 was the first time the state directed the use of transit money. He stated that they need a regional perspective and suggested that a portion of new funding be earmarked for planning. Mr. Redondo agreed that they need to do comprehensive planning.
Mr. Overmeyer reviewed the Proposed Express Bus Service matrix. He explained that they looked at the issue from a regional perspective, focusing on how to spread service around the region rather than the level of service that might be needed in each area. Mr. Driggs noted that all express buses go to downtown phoenix and provided copies of the current bus book for comparison. Mr. Overmeyer stated that they incur over $5 million per year in operating costs and expect a 20 percent fairbox return. He suggested that they could realize a higher fairbox return on express buses, but pointed out that the higher the fair, the more likely people are to purchase monthly passes, thereby lowering the return. He stated that they would have to buy the buses and it would take approximately 18 to 24 months to have them built and delivered. He estimated it would cost $23 million for 72 buses, each having a 12-year usable life. He explained that the money in the first two years would be put into capital and vanpool acquisition. He stated that by year three they would have the rolling stock of buses and would move into the operational phase. He said that year four would see continuing vanpool acquisition as well as money for capital replacement.
Mr. Maguire expressed his opinion that the identification of the corridors is the most important part of the matrix. He stated that the schedule needs to be increased fifty-fold to make a significant impact on congestion. He pointed out that the cost and time involved in purchasing buses is much less than that involved in building an extra lane. Mr. Driggs agreed that there would not be dramatic effect, however the proposed increases in service would help alleviate some of the congestion.
Ms. O’Connor noted that discussions have been had with express riders about increasing the quality of the buses, thereby increasing the costs. She offered to provide the Committee with copies of the express rider survey Tempe conducted. Mr. Bivens questioned whether it would be possible to offer a higher-quality express service on a subscription basis. He explained that having the exact fare is a problem for a lot of people and that those people would be willing to pay a higher rate for the convenience of being able to pay it on a monthly basis. Mr. Overmeyer noted that the transit system currently takes credit cards and, within the next few years, will replace their current fair boxes with fair boxes equipped with a GPS system providing the State with the ability to collect data. He explained that, while in some metropolitan areas there are legal constraints prohibiting the private sector from competing with transit, no such constraints exist in Arizona.
Ms. Bauer discussed the air quality implications of transit. She explained that in 1993 the legislature provided funding which, for this region equals approximately $8.8 million. She briefly reviewed carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emission reductions. She stated that, while there are no technological fixes for congestion, there are technological ways by which they can improve the environmental quality.
Mr. Maguire stated that air quality is getting better and technology is making air quality issues, with respect to transportation, go away. He distributed and reviewed a handout entitled Capacity Enhancement Strategies. Ms. O’Connor suggested adding the regional rail project as a possible strategy, including partnerships with the rail in respect to park and ride lots. She offered to provide information about the project to Mr. Maguire.
Discussion of Metropolitan Planning Organizations: An Assessment of the Transportation Planning Process – A Report to Congress
Mr. Maguire suggested that the Executive Summary is the most important part of the report.
Mr. Bivens provided copies of his review of the Report to Congress stating that he was disappointed in the ranking the Phoenix metro area received. He suggested that the report provides the task force with the opportunity to look at what has to be done.
Mr. Maguire reviewed the Key Characteristics of Successful MPO’s and Recommendations found in the report. He expressed his opinion that the congressional recommendation to consider removing the requirement of approval of the central city for MPO designation or redesignation is the most startling part of the report. Ms. Tischer suggested that that recommendation came out of Denver where they wanted to set up individual MPO’s.
Mr. Bivens stated that he agrees with the report’s recommendations to Congress. He questioned whether the federal government could deny the Governor and State Legislature should they wanted to make significant changes.
Mr. Shipman stated that he was disappointed in not being given a chance to respond to Phoenix’s rating. He suggested that the audience for whom the report was created should be taken into consideration and questioned whether three metropolitan areas are representative of the entire United States system.
Mr. Bivens stated that issues brought up by the report, including land use, governance and ADOT’s engineering districts, should be considered. Mr. Shipman agreed that there are a number of principals that need to be addressed. He noted that no mention was made of the shortage in funding, stating that some of the issues it identified are limited by the lack of funding. Mr. Bivens stated that federal regulations keep money from being appropriately applied. Mr. Shipman agreed and expressed concern that if the federal government ignores the state’s recommendations, the state may be stuck with even more red tape. Mr. Bivens pointed out the power that the fifty states have when they work together. He stated that he would have no problem with Arizona taking a strong position and finding out if other states would go along.
Mr. Overmeyer suggested that Arizona is being penalized for being in their adolescence. Ms. McCarthy agreed.
Mr. Bivens cautioned them not to ignore that there are improvements that can be made to streamline the process. He stated that he would hate to see the Planning and Programming Committee confine their recommendations to the State of Arizona MPO’s, suggesting that relationships with Tribes and COG’s also need to be considered.
Ms. Tischer stated that it is an interesting and provocative report, but once you get beyond the principals, the recommendations can be problematic. She questioned some of their concepts of effectiveness. Mr. Shipman agreed with Ms. Tischer suggesting that some of the issues raised in the report are behavioral, not procedural. He cautioned them not to focus on being nice at the expense of making the system work.
Mr. Redondo stated that the current planning process is reactionary, not proactive. He suggested that land use and demographics should be part of the planning process. He also said that planning should be more global.
Ms. McCarthy suggested approaching planning as if there are no restrictions and then determining what can actually be done based on available funding.
Mr. Redondo stated that it takes too long to enact anything. Mr. Shipman said that the State does not have enough resources to develop a multi-modal plan, therefore the State Department needs more money dedicated to transportation. He questioned the adequacy of the regional plan, noting that a majority of regional funding is reliant on federal regulations. He questioned whether it is time to put Arizona money into the regional plan. Mr. Bivens suggested having local governments create local plans and then comparing those plans against the regional plan.
Ms. McCarthy stated that this would be the topic of discussion at the next meeting.
Mr. Maguire reviewed a letter from Dr. Megdal and Mr. Shultz regarding extending the Task Force’s schedule.
Call to the Public
Due to time limitations, no call to the public was made.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
DIANE McCARTHY, Vice Chairperson
