Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
DEFINITION OF NEEDS, RESOURCES AND REVENUES
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
9:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Arizona State Capitol
1938 Addition, 2nd Floor
Library and Archives Room
Phoenix, Arizona
The Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 19, 2000 with Vice-Chair John Mawhinney presiding. Other members in attendance were Steve Basila, Robert Bulla, Gary Knight, Valerie Manning, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald and Steve Wheeler. Alan Maguire was also present. Guest panelists included Sam Morse, Rob Bohannan, and Earl Eisenhower from the Arizona Rail Passenger Association (ARPA) and George Chilson of the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP).
Welcome
Mr. Mawhinney called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m.
Acceptance of Minutes for July 26, 2000
Action: A motion to approve the minutes from the July 26, 2000 meeting was made by Mr. Thorwald, seconded by Mr. Basila and carried unanimously.
Passenger and Freight Rail Presentations
Mr. Chilson introduced himself and explained that NARP’s mission is to educate government and business leaders about the value of rail in meeting future transportation needs. He said that growth will force the state to build a lot of new transportation capacity and that the Task Force is charged with the daunting task of determining how best to accomplish that. He suggested that the current system has created such reliance on automobiles that people have no realistic alternative to driving. He stated that rail service, both transit and commuter based, is a bold and visionary idea. He said that rail, though old is not obsolete, just neglected. He pointed out that rail is the only form of transportation that does not receive public investment and that that policy should be updated.
Mr. Chilson identified seven reasons why rail should be included in Arizona’s transportation plan. The first is that rail expands choices and is a reliable, safe and non-polluting form of transportation. Second, he said that rail guarantees mobility because it can be expanded relatively easily and inexpensively. The third reason he identified is that rail is cost-effective, noting that, dollar for dollar, rail will return more new transportation capacity than highways. He also pointed out that rail requires very little land for the right-of-way, a major cost in new highway construction. He suggested that rail would provide an alternative form of transportation that people would actually use. He said that rail would enhance the appeal of the entire multi-modal system by allowing the bus system to run more efficiently and effectively and increasing the state’s credibility in public transportation. The sixth reason he identified was that rail can help reduce sprawl by encouraging more compact density development. He said that government is uniquely able to provide the expensive facilities necessary for rail transportation at a very low cost to users because it has the power to tax, has no need to earn a profit and no obligation to pay property taxes.
Mr. Chilson concluded his presentation by pointing out that it is not an either/or situation. He explained that they have the resources to build rail and expand highways. He suggested that the notion that gas tax money can only be spent on highways reflects a policy choice made years ago when the state needed to build a highway system. He stated that it is time the state update that policy to reflect the need to build a multi-modal system. He said that the public is not hostile towards rail, just unaware. He suggested that when the public is given the opportunity to experience rail first hand, they will embrace it. He pointed out that 47 of the 50 largest metropolitan areas are now planning some type of rail investment, with projects already under construction in 17 of those areas. He urged the Committee to be bold and seize the opportunities rail provides.
Mr. Eisenhower provided members with a copy of a draft report entitled "Rail Passenger Service Goals for Arizona," researched and prepared by ARPA. He explained that ARPA’s goal is to convince people that rail is the transportation method of the future. He stated that light rail and commuter rail service should be included as part of the whole transportation picture and work in conjunction with other transportation methods. He said that the state has a responsibility to work with the Class I railways. He cited Dallas as an example of how a light rail system can positively affect a community. He suggested that the Westline from Phoenix to Yuma could be a vital link for intrastate travel. He pointed out that certain areas of the freeways cannot be expanded further as they have no additional right-of-way. He identified a link between Phoenix and Tucson as the highest priority because he believes that corridor will experience high growth in the future. He said that all forms of transportation need to work together to create an efficient system.
Mr. Bohannan suggested that there are niches where the private sector could play a role in offering rail services. He said that rail is a valid investment because of its ability to encourage development. He noted that Phoenix is the largest metropolitan area without a rail system and that European travelers are surprised by that fact. He asked the Committee to encourage the state to include rail in its transportation plan.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Chilson which states he believes have done particularly well in implementing rail systems. Mr. Chilson identified California and New Jersey as having done particularly good jobs. Ms. Steffey noted that she recently toured the Portland and San Jose systems and expressed her opinion that they were very well done. She said that San Diego also has a good system.
Mr. Wheeler asked if there were any particular lessons to be learned from California or New Jersey. Mr. Chilson said California found that their initiative had to include something for every area in the state. He explained that in order for more rural communities to buy into the concept of rail, a form of transportation that would not directly affect their area, they had to realize some other benefit from the initiative.
Mr. Mawhinney suggested that rail faces other impediments than funding. He questioned how the effects freight trains have on commuter traffic would be avoided if passenger service was implemented. Mr. Bohannan explained that, from a safety standpoint, grade separation is desirable. He said that double tracking would also speed up the train movement through busy portions of the railway. He pointed out that passenger trains are not nearly as long or obtrusive as freight trains and compared the wait they cause to that of a normal red light. Mr. Chilson cited San Diego as an example, stating that few of their crossings are grade separated, yet they have had very few, if any, traffic problems at the crossings. Mr. Eisenhower suggested that they could also implement fly-overs, similar to what is currently planned for Grand Avenue.
Mr. Mawhinney asked how they would begin the process of getting a rail link between Phoenix and Tucson.
Mr. Thorwald suggested that passenger travel would take a back seat to freight service because railroads see higher profits in freight. Mr. Bohannan suggested that the bigger issue is that the railroads do not see the state’s commitment to rail service and do not believe the state would dedicate the necessary funding. He explained that the railroads got out of passenger service because the government created policies during the 1950’s and 1960’s that supported rail’s competition at their expense. Mr. Chilson suggested rail could encourage compact development in areas, which would help make the rail self-sustaining.
Mr. Bulla asked if there are any examples of passenger rail systems that do not require subsidies. Mr. Bohannan cited the Grand Canyon Railroad as a good example. Mr. Chilson stated that transportation is very price sensitive. He explained that the fares charged for rail transportation usually cover the cost of operating the vehicles, stating that the infrastructure is what makes rail transportation expensive.
Ms. Manning asked Mr. Eisenhower for his recommendation on how to fund a rail system. Mr. Eisenhower suggested they use either a transportation bond issue or a revenue sales tax. He said, however, that those initiatives would have to presented to the public in a proper way to garner the necessary support. He suggested that the state could also do a direct appropriation from its budget. He said, regardless of the means, rail would need to have it’s own source of dedicated funding because the initial investment is so large. Ms. Manning asked if that source would be made available to local systems also. Mr. Eisenhower stated that it would.
Mr. Thorwald stated that some people feel rail costs a lot more if they create the system in incremental steps. He questioned the panelists as to whether the state should approach a rail system using incremental upgrades or go for a full system from the beginning. Mr. Eisenhower questioned whether the population would accept the cost of a full system up front approach. Mr. Chilson agreed, suggesting that the state would have to do gradual improvements and demonstrate the system’s benefits to the public. Mr. Bohannan stated that he is unaware of any area, either in the U.S. or in Europe, where they have implemented a full system from the start. He explained that the equipment is designed to allow for incremental upgrades.
Mr. Thorwald pointed out that the state would also need to create a means of transporting people to and from the rail stations to prevent them from driving or renting cars once they reach their destination. Mr. Bohannan suggested opportunities could be created for alternative fuel rental cars.
Mr. Maguire stated that he is troubled by the fact that the market abandoned Phoenix as a rail destination. He suggested that New Jersey and California have density levels and life styles that Arizona, because of its land use patterns, would not be able to emulate. He stated that the light rail system going into Phoenix does not serve fundamental multi-modal needs and questioned how they can hope to make a large scale system work when they cannot make a demonstration project work. He disagreed with Mr. Chilson’s assessment that transportation is price sensitive, stating that he believes it is more time sensitive and concerned with reliability. He pointed out that it is physically impossible to beat a car to Tucson by plane. Mr. Bohannan stated that Arizona is one of the most urbanized states in the country. He compared the corridor between Phoenix and Tucson to the corridor between Philadelphia and Harrisburg. He said that Philadelphia’s rail system works well and suggested it is a copout to say that Arizona cannot do it because they do not have the same lifestyle or density levels. He pointed out that when Amtrak was in Arizona, they only serviced the area three days a week and was rarely on time. He said that they did not consider Phoenix a destination and did not attempt to serve the market in a direct fashion. He stated that Amtrak pulled out of Phoenix because it was easy for them to do so since the state did not support rail traffic.
Mr. Mawhinney suggested that if there was money to be made, someone would already be offering passenger service. Mr. Bohannan disagreed, explaining that the railroads are very difficult to deal with, making it impossible for would-be entrepreneurs to get anything initiated.
Mr. Chilson stated that Amtrak did not leave because they wanted to, but because Union Pacific said they would be solely responsible for supporting and upgrading the track. He suggested that there is a demand for passenger rail in Arizona, noting that more than 30,000 people a year rode Amtrak prior to its departure from the state.
Mr. Mawhinney pointed out that their discussions are of no value until they have determined the railroads’ position on passenger service. He asked the presenters to produce a plan, starting with negotiations with the railroad owners, outlining what has to be done to initiate passenger rail service in Arizona. Mr. Bohannan agreed that the state needs to begin a dialog with the railroads, stating, however, they first need to get the Governor and Legislature behind the idea so that the railroads will take the state seriously.
Mr. Maguire questioned whether railroads are not interested in passenger service in Arizona because they do not believe it will work.
Mr. Thorwald stated that the 1993 Inter-Modal High-Speed Rail Study listed, as number six, the corridor from Phoenix to LA.
Mr. Mawhinney thanked the guest speakers for attending.
Ms. Steffey asked if air travel is considered part of the public transit system . Mr. Mawhinney said that, prior to deregulation, air transport was definitely a portion of public transit because the government required air service to all types of small communities through subsidies. He said they are no longer subsidized, which is why airlines no longer service smaller communities. Mr. Maguire said that air travel is moving towards less subsidies, therefore, they are making more economic based decisions. He said the opposite is true in public transportation, explaining that they are trying to drive prices down to create demand. He said that bus travel is down because they are ignoring the critical factor, time. He said that any transportation system will work effectively if they use a time mechanism. Mr. Thorwald agreed that time is the prevailing factor as to whether people will use a given method of transportation.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Maguire if he has seen any study that convinces him rail makes sense for Arizona. Mr. Maguire stated that he has not because the people who do the studies do not understand the importance of the time factor. He said that, based on the initial investment that would be required and the high costs associated with rail, it is hard to argue pursuing rail over other forms of mass transit.
Mr. Mawhinney stated that he believes people would use passenger service between Phoenix and Tucson if it was offered. He suggested that the state condemn the tracks, allowing them use of the tracks for free, otherwise, the cost of creating a rail system is too high. Mr. Maguire pointed out that the state would first have to amend the constitution because of Arizona’s specific prohibition on subsidizing railroads.
Mr. Thorwald said that they need to determine if a commuter service would actually reduce traffic congestion and what the cost would be. Mr. Maguire stated that there are far more efficient means of moving people than a fixed schedule system.
Mr. Mawhinney reiterated the need to talk with the railroads prior to discussing rail as a viable form of public transportation. Mr. Thorwald agreed that they need to work with the owners of the tracks, noting they have historically not be supportive of passenger service. Ms. Steffey stated that they are more excited about the prospect than they were ten years ago. Mr. Thorwald suggested they invite representatives of the railroads to attend a committee meeting. Mr. Mawhinney agreed.
Discussion on Purchasing Abandoned Railroad Right of Way
Mr. Maguire referred to a paper entitled "Protecting Abandoned ROW" which discusses the history of the abandoned rights-of-way and funding assistance.
Mr. Thorwald asked Mr. Maguire if he has any maps that indicate where railroads have pulled up tracks but continue to own the right-of-way. Mr. Maguire said that they only looked at pieces that were about to be abandoned. He said that the Task Force may want to consider taking action to facilitate the state in preserving the rights-of-way. He said that rights-of-way that are not significant to transportation could be purchased by local governments for other purposes, including parks and pedestrian pathways.
Mr. Mawhinney asked if the state would have the right to operate a railroad if they purchased the right-of-way between Phoenix and Yuma. Mr. Maguire pointed out that the Constitution prohibits subsidizing railroads.
Ms. Steffey asked if the land was given to the railroads originally. Mr. Maguire explained that the railroads own the land outright.
Mr. Mawhinney noted that there are only one or two segments of the rights-of-way that hold significance for transportation. He agreed that other right-of-way areas may be of interest to local governments for use in other ways.
Mr. Chilson stated that Union Pacific has fiber optic cable buried in the Phoenix Westline right-of-way. He said that Union Pacific has indicated they are interested in conveying that portion of the line to the state, however, it would require mutual easements allowing Union Pacific access to the tracks and fiber optic companies access to their cables.
Mr. Maguire suggested that, as long as there was a fair market exchange, the state could get past the constitutional prohibition.
Mr. Mawhinney asked what it would cost to upgrade the track to a level necessary for regular speed service. Mr. Maguire estimated the cost to be approximately $25 million.
Ms. Manning said that the state needs to purchase the rights-of-way in corridors it feels will benefit rail transportation in the future.
Mr. Mawhinney suggested they ask ADOT to identify potential population corridors and determine which rights-of-way would be most beneficial in terms of future transportation.
Discussion of Progress by Needs and Revenues Consultants
Mr. Maguire reported that the needs and revenue consultants are finishing up their work and the analysis consultant will come in soon. He explained that the consultant will create three hypothetical plans to help the Committee look at alternative ways to develop a long term plan. He said that within the next couple weeks he and Mr. Carlson will talk with the consultant to help them craft the structure of those plans. He asked Committee members for their suggestions and comments. He explained that they are looking to develop three different alternatives, which will then be critiqued to determine which portions of the plan work best.
Mr. Thorwald asked if Mr. Biven’s suggestions for creating funds would be taken into consideration because he believes they will get a lot of resistance from the Legislature and public on traditional forms of funding. Mr. Maguire pointed out that it is hard to estimate what revenues could be realized from certain sources.
Mr. Mawhinney stated that they have to concentrate on needs at this point. Mr. Maguire said that after they assess the state’s needs, they will create plans analyzing different funding sources.
Mr. Wheeler asked what standards would be used to determine the efficacy of the plans. Mr. Maguire stated that the consultant would look at three different central objectives. He said that they will not work from benchmarks, but look for the most contrast.
Mr. Mawhinney stated that it will be the committee’s job to take the best parts of the three plans to create a plan they support. Mr. Maguire pointed out that the plans will have a lot of redundancy because there will be several needs with only one identifiable solution. He said that each of the plans will address critical needs in different ways and at different expenditure levels. He said that the consultants will apply different techniques, including national standards and internal reference checks, to determine if the cases are logical. He explained that the plans will reflect an average cost of all of the projects included in each plan. He said that analysis of the plans would also identify related consequences.
Ms. Manning asked if all modes of transportation would be included in the plans. Mr. Maguire stated that, to the degree possible, all modes would be represented. He explained that the data is dependent on plans created by local governments and COG’s, therefore, it is somewhat soft in terms of visionary ideas.
Ms. Steffey asked if it would be possible to compare the effects of not doing anything with what would happen at the other extreme to assist in identifying a reasonable middle ground. Mr. Maguire said that they could to a large extent, however it would be more difficult in rural areas because information in those areas is not as thorough.
Mr. Mawhinney pointed out that the data at the beginning of the project was unreliable and inaccurate. He stated that one of the most important achievements they could make would be to recommend rules and policies that the state can adopt to ensure future data is collected in a more organized fashion.
Mr. Thorwald stated that they need to detail what the state stands to gain or lose with each plan. Mr. Mawhinney agreed. Mr. Wheeler reiterated the need to know what would happen if the state chose to do nothing. Mr. Maguire agreed that it would make sense to do a scenario reflecting those effects.
Mr. Maguire stated that he would be speaking with the consultants at the end of the month. He pointed out that a secondary purpose of the needs analysis is to get transportation professionals in the state comfortable with the numbers.
Mr. Basila reminded Committee members that they are supposed to be visionary in their approach to transportation.
Mr. Mawhinney stated that the plans need to be easy for people to understand.
Mr. Maguire noted that the next meeting is scheduled for November 8 and asked if the committee would like to meet prior to that. It was determined that a meeting prior to November 8 would not be necessary, although, Mr. Mawhinney suggested they may need to increase the number of meetings later on.
Call to the Public
No requests to address the committee were submitted by the public.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
JOHN MAWHINNEY, Vice-Chairperson
