Minutes of a Public Meeting

 

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

OF THE

GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE

9:00 a.m., Thursday, August 12, 1999

Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower
Phoenix, Arizona

The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a Regular Meeting at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, August 12, 1999 with Co-Chairperson Sharon Megdal presiding. Other members in attendance were Cecil Antone, Lisa Atkins, Steve Basila, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Patrick Carlin, Paulson Chaco, Pricilla Cornelio, Joe Herrick, Valerie Manning, Diane McCarthy, Sheldon Miller, Dave Olney, Kevin Olson, Mary Peters, Raul Piña, Barbara Ralston, Rene Redondo, Jim Shipman, and Jim Simmons. Also present were Stephanie Bondeson, ADOT Project Manager, and Alan Maguire, Resource Director and Consultant, The Maguire Company.

Acceptance of Minutes

Action: It was moved and seconded to accept the minutes of the April 8, 1999 Vision 21 Task Force Meeting as written. The motion was carried unanimously.

Dr. Megdal requested that the reference to "SEP" in the next to the last paragraph on Page 2 of the June 10, 1999 minutes be clarified prior to finalizing the minutes for the record.

Action: It was moved and seconded to accept the minutes of the June 10, 1999 Vision 21 Task Force Meeting. The motion was carried unanimously.

Presentation, Discussion, Possible Modification and Possible Approval of Letter to Growing Smarter Commission

Dr. Megdal presented the letter to be signed by the cochairs on behalf of the task force related to the Growing Smarter Commission. Dr. Megdal briefly described the process followed in creating this letter.

Action: It was moved and seconded to authorize the cochairs to sign the letter on behalf of the task force. The motion was carried unanimously.

Presentation, Discussion of Task Force Work Plan

Mr. Maguire presented a working draft of the research outline for the task force. It describes the research effort that the task force needs to go through to obtain data and information for the process. Mr. Maguire stated there have been public meetings that are not reflected in this draft, and there will be a report drafting process at the end which is also not reflected. He explained that this draft is simply for review and comments. Mr. Maguire noted that five key goals are identified which the research outline attempts to organize and identify specific tasks related to those goals by committee. Mr. Maguire described the tasks identified in relation to each goal.

Definition of Needs, Revenues and Resources Committee. Mr. Maguire pointed out there are three goals including the identification of long range transportation needs in both rural and urban areas, the development of preliminary estimates of the long term costs, and identification of funding strategies for the multimodal system. Mr. Maguire stated that tasks identified include the establishment of standards and methodologies for the estimation of state, regional and local transportation system requirements, estimation of system requirements, estimation of transportation system revenues and analysis of the estimated needs.

Planning and Programming Committee. Mr. Maguire referenced two principal goals: identification of planning strategies and the study and recommendation of guidelines and procedures for prioritizing needs and expenditures. He identified tasks involved including the review of planning and programming processes in other states as well as federal planning and programming requirements. Discussions regarding proposed revisions to the current processes and alternative program evaluation criteria, expenditure principals and performance standards and ultimately the development of long term standards to carry on beyond the task force complete the list of tasks identified.

Governance Committee. Mr. Maguire stated that the principal task identified in the Executive Order would be the review of structure and responsibilities of the various governmental entities involved in transportation. Tasks include a review of the structure of other states and the identification of federal requirements as to who can be delegated funding and the controls they must have. Discussions of alternative models as well as lines of authority, responsibilities and accountability are also included as tasks.

Mr. Redondo suggested the inclusion of time frames in the report. Mr. Maguire stated time frames have not been included because there have been no decisions as to available resources. Dr. Megdal expanded on this issue stating that how resources would flow to the department has changed. The use of outside consultants has been discussed, but scopes of work have not yet been developed. They are hoping to use ADOT’s on-call consultants, which would reduce the time it takes to procure the services.

Mr. Olson urged that the magnitude of the definition of needs, revenues and resources not be underestimated.

Ms. Cornelio suggested that recommendations at the end of each step be identified. She also noted that details as to what can be done and how it should be done legally be included in the report.

Mr. Bivens expressed his concern that needs are defined without having actually defined the State Transportation System for Arizona, including all modes. Additionally, under governance, there may be a need to identify the levels of government to whom these roles apply. Mr. Maguire agreed that different levels, responsibilities and authorities will be involved.

Dr. Megdal noted that the public participation program was not included. She then asked for volunteers to assist in the creation of scopes of work.

Mr. Antone questioned the role tribal governments would play. Mr. Maguire explained that tribal governments serve in different capacities depending on the circumstances. The tribal government’s role will be dependent on the situation. Mr. Antone suggested that he and other tribal leaders get together to create a document outlining alternatives for how the tribal government can be a part of Arizona’s transportation needs.

Mr. Simmons asked Mr. Maguire to expand on the possibility of using nationally recognized outside consultants. Mr. Maguire stated there are two issues that motivate the potential use of outside consultants. The first is a manpower issue. The second is that there is some benefit for the task force, and the project as a whole, to have independent verification or validation of the products and estimation of needs and revenues that the task force bases its recommendations on. Mr. Simmons then questioned Mr. Maguire as to whether anything has been done to get the consultants lined up and is the money available for paying these people. Dr. Megdal stated that it was hoped in the beginning that the expenditure of substantial sums of money for outside consultants would not be necessary. She said that in reality, the use of outside consultants will be necessary. Dr. Megdal restated that a commitment of resources does need to be done expeditiously and that ADOT’s list of on-call consultants does include nationally recognized firms.

Mr. Olson stated he does not believe the data will provide one clear choice, but hopes it will provide comparability between the choices available.

Ms. Cornelio questioned the makeup of the consultants, i.e., three independent versus one which would oversee the other two. Mr. Maguire stated that that has yet to be determined. He explained that divisions have to be identified as to what work would be done in-house and what would need to be done by an outside consultant.

Ms. Peters suggested that a two-week deadline be set for submitting comments on the workplan to Mr. McGuire. She also noted that Mary Lynn Tischer, TPD director has been hired by the department.

The meeting was recessed from 10:00 a.m. until 10:10 a.m..

Discussion of Task Force Issues

Dr. Megdal explained that this would be part one of a continuing dialog on issues facing the task force.

1. What are the expectations for Arizona’s statewide multimodal transportation system in 5, 10, 20 years? What functions do you expect the system to perform? What aspects will be similar to and different from today?

Ms. Cornelio suggested being visionary and looking at how transportation will change in 20 years. She suggested an increase in telecommuting which may help reduce traffic congestion. She stated she thinks "Generation X" believes family values are very important and that travel will increase during off-peak hours. She suggested a new lane for trucks only from Tucson to the Colorado Bridge. She stated she does not see rail transportation as being a panacea.

Ms. Peters stated she foresees the use of intelligent transportation systems to increase safety and improve carrying capacity dramatically. She stated she believes the use of existing modes of transportation will continue at least through the shorter horizon of 20 years, but through the use of technology we can have more vehicles on the road, safely placed closer together on roadways. She stated that using intelligent systems to help improve the information flow that relates to freight will help reduce costs.

Mr. Browning commented that he would like to see changes to some of the terms of reference to place the focus on the size of the population and moving them from one place to another efficiently.

Mr. Basila stated his belief that it is a matter of quality of life. He suggested that needs of the different types of people living here need to be addressed. He added that technology, such as telecommuting, will play a big role.

Mr. Antone expressed concern for the environment. He brought up the possibility of increased use of electric vehicles or other technologies that would help.

Mr. Olney agreed with Mr. Antone. He suggested looking at Curitiba as a model of mass transportation. He stated freight traffic will increase as e-commerce increases. He stated that the benefit of telecommuting is that they can do so from anywhere. He suggested setting up satellite facilities for people to use for conferences and meetings without having to go to a downtown Phoenix location.

1. What external factors will affect the operation and utilization of the future multimodal transportation system?

Mr. Basila brought up the issue of water and suggested that it is a major issue that needs to considered.

Ms. Manning suggested that the aging population will have an impact on the transportation systems needs. She explained that density shifts in urban areas and master plan communities will have an impact. She agreed with statements regarding the importance of technology.

Mr. Pina spoke regarding the baby boomer’s desire for quick service. He also touched on the topic of immigration and its impact on Arizona.

Mr. Bivens stated that as we start looking at the information that is needed to do the necessary planning, we have to take into account all factors that are changing. One factor he outlined is the purpose of trips that people will be making and the time of day they will be made. He suggested that freight traffic on the local level would increase. He stated his belief that no changes will be made in the next five years that will change where Arizona is right now. He stated that in ten years a few changes may be made, assuming funding is available. He recommended shortening the processes to be more responsive to the residents of Arizona. He suggested looking further into the future to predict what will be needed rather than focusing on what is needed now.

Mr. Jim Shipman stated his biggest concern is that alot of the decisions that will affect the system are not transportation decisions and will be made elsewhere. He explained that currently 50 percent of funding is federal and with that come issues involving environmental compliance, modes of transportation. He also expressed concern about the linkage between the state policy process and the transportation system. He stated that policy processes exist at the state, regional and city level and how successfully those processes work together will determine how well the resources will be utilized.

Ms. McCarthy agreed that there are issues within policies that compete. She cited Federal funding, transportation funding, Welfare to Work and school transportation funding.

Mr. Herrick questioned how to get people to change the way they think and to use mass transportation.

Mr. Olson stated that as the state grows economically, the need to move people and goods will increase. He suggested that trying to change the way people think is not going to work. He stated that as we become more prosperous, we value time more and more. He recommended that the transportation system has to address what people want. Transit will have to be better than cars to make the public want to use it.

Mr. Maguire summarized the main points for questions 1 and 2.

2. How should the views of various entities and groups be reflected in the "overall design" of Arizona’s long range statewide multimodal transportation system? Who should have the authority over and responsibility for statewide, regional and local multimodal transportation system planning, engineering, construction, operations and maintenance?

A task force member stated she sees it as a partnership. She explained that, in other words, ADOT should not be the entity saying to Tucson or Yuma that this is the way we want you to do it. She further stated that local jurisdictions should make recommendations as they are closest to their communities. ADOT should then develop their plans to reflect what the people want.

Mr. Olson questioned whether travelers care. He stated he believes the answer is no. He explained that travelers want to be able to move conveniently, quickly and economically. They don’t care if they have to use different systems as long as those systems work together.

Ms. Peters stated mobility is the issue and how that affects quality of life. She recommended the task force look at not only whose responsibility it should be to make sure the system works seamlessly, but to determine who is best suited to make that happen.

Mr. Redondo stated that local jurisdictions make better decisions at the local level, but that all levels need to be integrated to have a seamless system.

Mr. Olney stated he would like to see a better partnership with business and industry in the planning processes. He suggested inviting the resources of business and industry into the process to capitalize on their expertise.

Dr. Megdal questioned Mr. Olney as to any ideas he may have on how to accomplish this. Mr. Olney cited the relationship between the Arizona Association of Industry and Maricopa County Environmental Services Department as an example.

Ms. Manning recommended being more disciplined and strategic in the future about how private sector input might be included in the process and planning for the transportation system.

Mr. Basila stated he believes one way for the local government to obtain input from the private sector is to create an alliance or partnership with the local association that represents local businesses.

Mr. Maguire summarized main points from question 3.

Ms. Cornelio noted that the Phoenix Chamber does not have any members in the area of freight. She recommended that, due to the importance of freight, their input be obtained during the planning process.

3. What are the greatest challenges facing the current planning, programming and delivery systems for Arizona’s transportation systems? What are the potential solutions?
4. What sources of revenue should fund the transportation system? What are the equitable, perhaps innovative ways to obtain the required funding for the realization of Arizona’s statewide multimodal transportation system vision for the 21^st century.

Ms. Ralston stated that prioritization is one of the biggest challenges faced.

Mr. Bivens asked how and where in the process do we bring in the private sector and how does that relate to the technical work that has to be done. He noted that the private sector can have a dramatic impact on what the policies should be. He stated the criteria for priorities should be identified and questioned whether that criteria could then be applied at the state, regional and local levels.

Ms. McCarthy added that the private sector should also be involved in accountability at the end of a process.

Mr. Simmons stated the federal government dictates a lot of what can be done and suggested that if evidence can be shown to the federal government of what should be done, it would be easier to get the money. He also stated that government at the state, regional and local levels also needs to be convinced that the transportation plan is credible.

Mr. Olson noted that fees are not charged in a way that lets people understand the costs of the system for the choices they are making. He suggested that one area where technology can have a dramatic impact is the potential use of toll revenues. He explained that the cost of collecting tolls, in terms of waiting times and congestion created by toll booths has been eliminated due to advances in technology. He touched on congestion pricing schemes, where tolls vary depending on how much congestion there is, and giving people information as to the cost of their choices.

Ms. Peters agreed with Mr. Olson on the issue of a user-based system for funding transportation in the future. She stated that privacy concerns would be an issue, as records of where you went and when would then exist.

Ms. Ralston brought forth the issue that for some there are no choices as to how or when to utilize roads. She stated the planning process will be more difficult due to the fact that there are those who have fewer financial options.

Mr. Shipman stated he believes that which level of government will use which revenues needs to be looked at so that competition for those funds does not occur. He questioned whether the extraction of user taxes should be done at a state, regional or local level.

It was suggested that the public be educated as to the significance of the transportation issue so they understand the importance of it.

Mr. Bivens suggested the possibility of creating a bonding program. He cited the state of Georgia Regional Transportation Authority as an example.

Mr. Redondo suggested the use of toll lanes versus toll roads which would allow users a choice.

Mr. Maguire summarized main points from questions 4 and 5.

[Question 6 was not discussed, in the interest of time]

7. What do we, as a task force, need to do in order to develop a long range multimodal transportation plan for Arizona? What do we need to know?

Mr. Bivens stated the task force cannot develop a multimodal statewide transportation plan. The resources and time are not available. He explained that he believes there a lot of things the task force can do, including setting the planning process in motion and improving the process. Ms. Peters and Ms. Cornelio expressed their agreement with Mr. Bivens.

Mr. Olson added that one of the tasks of the task force is to look at the plan that exists and the process by which it was developed and suggest policy changes that would lead to changes in the plan and then provide an outline of the impact those changes might have.

Dr. Megdal recommended this discussion be continued at a later date.

Update on Public Input Meetings

Ms. Bondeson presented statistics on the public input meetings held around the state. She stated that potential stakeholders are being identified. A draft list of identified stakeholders will be distributed to the task force members for their review. Task force members were encouraged to provide information on additional stakeholders to staff.

Call to the Public

Mr. Joe Ryan stated his belief that there will be a chaotic condition of traffic congestion in the northwest valley if steps are not taken in the near future to reassign the responsibility for Arizona’s transportation planning. He presented a copy of his presentation for the August 11, 1999 Definition of Needs Committee meeting, which was cancelled. He requested that the document be placed in the minutes for this task force meeting.

Mr. Charles Spencer suggested bringing the fragmented busing system under one umbrella of a regional bus system and out of the hands of privatization. He recommended utilizing a bond initiative separate from all other transportation discussed here today.

Mr. Joe Mickelson, Financial Secretary/Treasury, ATU, explained there are 5-6 different providers of bus transportation in the Valley. He expressed his concern that the issue of safety should be more important than that of hiring the lowest paid operators possible.

Ms. Donna Redford, a representative for people with disabilities, stated transit is a vital issue. She expressed her hope that one of the task force’s recommendations would be for dedicated funding for transit as if it were an equal part of the transportation system. She questioned the economic makeup of the task force and feels people who would need to utilize public transportation are poorly represented.

Closing comments and adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 12:03 p.m.

SHARON MEDGAL, Co-Chairperson