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 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 25, 2001 with Co-Chairperson Barbara Ralston presiding. Other members in attendance were: Steve Basila, Robert Bulla, Joe Herrick, John Mawhinney Dennis Mitchem, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald and Steve Wheeler. Also present were John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor, Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company, Mary Lynne Tischer, Matt Carpenter and Lisa Pendrick.
Welcome, Opening Remarks, Pledge of Allegiance
Ms. Ralston called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. She reflected on the new meaning of the Pledge and the emotions attached to the display of patriotism. She noted the blessing of committee members to dialog freely on issues related to the future of transportation.
Acceptance of Minutes for March 6, 2001
Action: A motion to accept the minutes, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Presentation and Review of Task Force Public Input Meetings and Focus Groups
Mr. Maguire presented the Report on Transportation Open Houses. He highlighted the public notification of each open house, the format, materials presented and the attendance at the ten open houses conducted in Southern, Central and Northern Arizona over the summer. The demographic findings of those attending the open houses were noted. All comments made at the open houses were captured and categorized; Mr. Maguire touched upon a few of them. Mr. Maguire reviewed the results of the request for transportation priority identification, the transportations system tax increases in rank order, and the five most significant transportation routes.
Mr. Thorwald reported that he attended all of the open houses and noted that those who answered the survey did so before going to the information stations, which he feels resulted in skewed survey results.
Ms. Steffey questioned the ranking of synchronized traffic lights as number one when this issue has been addressed in Phoenix and Tucson. Mr. Maguire explained the problems caused by off-cycle traffic lights and the fact that the lights are not adaptive to traffic flows and overload during peak hours.
Mr. Mitchem commented on conversations he had with persons attending the open houses as well as other interested persons. No one he has spoken with thinks the revenue needs estimate of $20 billion over the twenty-year plan is too high. Secondly, with regard to governance, he encountered people wanting to eliminate the idea of an independent authority; however, after discussion those people could understand the recommendation and all agreed with the need for a regional approach. He stated that the most visible authority in the state is the Tourism and Sports Authority, and most feel a similar concept for transportation will not work.
Mr. Thorwald said the concerns he heard were legitimate, but those relaying those concerns had no recommendations. He said that some areas have high local taxes already. He described the types of concerns he heard and said that some people were supportive of a regional authority if the population threshold were raised.
Mr. Carlson stated that in almost every meeting there were people concerned with the plan being too road heavy; but, when he explained the plan, they understood it was truly a multi-modal plan.
Mr. Maguire next presented the Qualitative Results Report of the modified focus groups conducted to discuss preliminary Task Force recommendations. Two sessions were held in June, one in Phoenix and one in Tucson. He reviewed the participant selection, methodology and demographics of the 80 participants. The key findings from the focus groups were discussed. They included the top five priorities in terms of transportation improvements, participants’ satisfaction with the current system, key transportation routes, funding preferences, and funding levels.
Mr. Maguire stated that he would be conducting a statewide telephone survey in the net couple of weeks to supplement the data gathered. They will be doing this instead of a third focus group in a rural area.
Mr. Thorwald informed the committee that a federal bill was going to be introduced that would upgrade the nation’s rail and high speed rail system.
Review of Possible Task Force Findings
Mr. Carlson reported that over the past four months he had gone through all information related to the Task Force findings to create data points to back up the recommendations and findings of the Task Force. He highlighted the goal of the exercise and stated that it will be complete in the very near future. Once complete the information will be disseminated for the committee’s review.
Mr. Thorwald inquired about the impact of the attack on America on the state of Arizona. Mr. Carlson stated that any impact is not reflected in the document, but he could try to include a section that would address the impact.
Ms. Ralston anticipated that the attack will require a couple of decision points by the Task Force: 1) the tolerance for funding mechanisms; 2) while there are historical ups and downs in the state’s economy, the Task Force will still need to look at the long-term picture.
Review of Preliminary Recommendations Based on Public Input
Mr. Maguire reviewed the suggested changes to the preliminary recommendations.
Mr. Carlson passed out and reviewed a summary of the ADOT/MAG Value Lane Feasibility Study, which envisions ADOT building and operating HOT lanes. The study evaluated two systems in California, including the enforcement strategies, which ADOT will mirror in developing a program. The factual findings of the study have been included in the findings document, which will be included in the Task Force report.
Ms. Steffey asked if California is building new facilities based on the success of the existing facilities. The committee was informed that California is considering extending its two current facilities, and there are only three examples of this type of facility in the entire country.
Mr. Bulla asked what the East Valley would think about HOT lanes and suggested that ADOT analyze whether it would be more effective to invest the same level of resources elsewhere.
Mr. Thorwald asked about the potential for public/private partnerships relative to HOT lanes. Mr. Carlson explained that the state’s constitution currently does not allow public/private partnerships and to do so would require an amendment to the gift clause. He stated that California did extensive public surveys before implementing the HOT lanes and found that over time users’ incomes did not factor into the use of the facility. He believed that under performance based planning ADOT would have to make a determination on the affect on other modes, i.e. express bus service.
Mr. Wheeler asked if proposed legislative changes would be included in the Task Force’s final recommendations. He asked if it were possible to quantify the dollars spent to achieve some unit of measure of relief to determine investment performance and what that unit of measure might be. Mr. Carlson indicated that the current unit of measure being used is commute time savings. Mr. Maguire noted that the different modes of transportation don’t have the same unit of measure. Mr. Carlson stated that there are analytical DOT models available to help make a determination of investment performance up front.
The consensus of the committee was to prepare legislation that would give ADOT the authority to go with a pilot program for HOT lanes.
In light of the current situation, Mr. Bulla suggested that the Task Force give consideration to recommendations that will have a multiplier effect on the economy, i.e. what will create the most jobs. He suggested the need to realize there is a potential for the Task Force to do something that would have far more impact than its original task envisioned. Mr. Thorwald thought that public/private partnerships would move the state even further toward achieving a multiplier effect on the economy. Mr. Carlson said he would add this concept to the list of items to consider when evaluating the Task Force’s recommendations. He added that he has asked ADOT to do something along those lines already, i.e. the impact of a multi-million dollar project on the economy. Mr. Mitchem suggested that the economic stimulus should not be overlooked, but the Task Force needs to emphasize cost effectiveness and environmental aspects. Mr. Carlson said there is a federal study that found that every transportation dollar spent generated six dollars in economic development. Mr. Mawhinney felt that Mr. Bulla’s suggestion makes sense if it can be included in the performance measures aspect of the recommendations.
Mr. Carlson presented and reviewed in detail a draft list of immediate and obvious strategies to reduce congestion and improve capacity with existing revenues. The document reflects key recommendations and comments from the public input process as well as the Planning and Programming Committee. Specifically added at the direction of the Planning and Programming Committee was the potential funding source for each strategy. Mr. Carlson noted that the list is not ranked in order of priority, but it could easily be amended to place the greatest congestion relievers first.
In response to a question by Mr. Thorwald, Mr. Carlson explained how the strategies would affect the CANAMEX Corridor project.
Mr. Carlson provided maps depicting the locations of variable message signs and video cameras. He discussed the ITS recommendations and their impact on truck and rail components at border crossings. He suggested that there will be a safety component added to all studies in the future and pointed out that traffic incidents account for 60 percent of the congestion on Arizona’s roads.
Mr. Mawhinney asked if the legislature or governor have the ability to impact the rail schedule to avoid congestion, primarily in Tucson and Flagstaff. Mr. Carlson said that at the committee’s direction he could add an examination of this issue to the study’s scope of work. He commented on the inability to adjust the rail schedule in Tucson because of the sheer volume of rail traffic.
Mr. Basila asked if there is a way to sell the immediate and obvious strategies as high priority projects. He added that other states are very aggressive in seeking federal funding for high priority projects, whereas Arizona has backed off. Mr. Carlson answered that there is a significant amount of federal ITS money going to MAG and PAG, and it may be an issue of reprioritizing how existing money is spent rather than going after new money. He said he is looking at the issue of earmarked federal funds and a strategy of going after more of these funds. Mr. Maguire added that there is some advantage to having a statewide plan and statewide priority projects as opposed to individual communities approaching the federal government for project funding.
Action: A motion to recommend that the Task Force consider making a recommendation to ADOT to create a high priority list to forward to Arizona’s congressional delegation for federal funding was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Mr. Mawhinney suggested that strategy four be amended to require local jurisdictions "to have in place an effective traffic synchronization plan."
Ms. Ralston asked that each committee member take time after the meeting to look more carefully at the draft and provide their feedback to Mr. Maguire and Mr. Carlson within one week.
Mr. Carlson provided a spreadsheet outlining the cost of linking all Valley traffic signals to the appropriate traffic operations center.
Mr. Carlson explained that the technology to automatically adjust traffic signals based on the flow of traffic is being tested but is still in the initial research stage. He confirmed that the linkage step recommended will not be wasted once an adaptable traffic signal synchronization program can be implemented.
Mr. Mawhinney cited the best example of traffic synchronization (Jefferson Street) and the worst example (Baseline Road) and asked whether there was anything that could be done to make Baseline Road more like Jefferson Street. A member of the audience stated that it is a communication and cost issue. Mr. Carlson said he would work with Tim Wolfe to try to prioritize the Immediate and Obvious Strategy List in terms of congestion relief and get this information out to the Task Force.
Mr. Maguire moved the discussion toward the suggested discussion issues on the committee’s preliminary recommendations.
Ms. Steffey stated her belief that the Task Force has not sufficiently addressed the need for a true multi-modal transportation system. To that end, more needs to be done in the area of transit.
Mr. Maguire suggested one improvement might be to improve communication between modes, i.e. transit and highways by, for example, developing cross-modal performance measures and data. He explained that the revenue package in the recommendation is largely not HURF dollars, so transportation revenues would not be restricted by mode. Cross modal competition could be created to build a more effective transportation system based on performance measures.
Mr. Thorwald suggested that if transportation departments were restructured to be more solution oriented versus mode oriented, it would allow the creation of a team to develop multi-modal solutions. He referenced the NASA method of matrix management an extremely efficient management tool and a structure, which could work for ADOT.
Mr. Maguire commented that the current structure is "current situation" oriented and continued with his review of the committee preliminary recommendations.
With regard to the recommendation to "Clarify and strengthen discussion of added flexibility due to proposed additional dedicated transportation revenue sources," Mr. Bulla stated that flexibility is fine as long as there is an objective review/decision/evaluation process in place. Mr. Maguire said that flexibility is the foundation and a performance-based system is essential.
Mr. Thorwald stated that public/private partnerships would not work unless the constitution was changed, and this need to be included in the committee’s recommendations, clearly and well defined. Ms. Ralston conveyed the committee members’ agreement that a section will be included in the recommendations to address necessary legislative/constitutional actions. Mr. Carlson offered to circulate to the committee members some language drafted by legislative counsel to address the need to amend the constitution’s gift clause.
Mr. Bulla suggested that the state needs to provide local jurisdictions with the tools necessary to meet the requirements in the recommendations.
Committee members discussed the recommendation to "Establish periodic reporting requirement for all transportation expenditures" and decided to eliminate this recommendation.
Mr. Mawhinney suggested that the state couldn’t ask the people to willingly tax themselves to provide their most essential needs until those needs grow to a critical level. He added that he favors the taxing authority, as it is, an elected body without a vote requirement. He believes the the people think that raising the needed money is perfectly fine as long as you get it from "those guys." He suggested that the state couldn’t be successful with a tax related vote without an extraordinarily expensive educational program. Therefore, he is supportive of creating a body of elected officials with taxing authority, people’s whose only obligation would be transportation. He questioned making them also serve as land use planners and enforcement officers.
With regard to the second item, "Failure is due to essential structure and lack of authority," Mr. Mawhinney stated he believes one of the things that we need to point out is that it is a natural, rational, reasonable, intelligent thing that causes this disruption. That is that locally elected officials will do what is best for their constituent group to the detriment of a flow of traffic that moves through their jurisdiction past the people who own businesses and malls, etc. who have access to the local officials. He thought the committee should recognize that the systems that impede this are operating properly, and they will continue to operate properly absent the Task Force imposing some different kind of a system that deals with roads of regional significance or a regional transportation system that superimposes itself on the jurisdictions.
Mr. Mitchem stated his belief that because of the current county structure, without county home rule, a new regional taxing authority is needed.
Mr. Maguire referred to the Mayors’ unanimous comment that they would never support implementing the roads of regional significance proposal. He noted that he had received two letters of limited support for a regional transportation authority.
Mr. Bulla commented that the overriding problem is the tremendous needs and revenue shortfall. He said he would hate to see the governance issue obliterate the rest of the Task Force’s work and recommendations.
Mr. Carlson stated that he received a lot of positive responses after people looked at the report, regardless of the regional transportation authority issue, and there are a number of consensus items that can be included in the final recommendation to the governor.
Mr. Herrick asked if the governance issue of a regional transportation authority should be left out of the final recommendations given that it is causing so much consternation.
Mr. Wheeler suggested that the issue be left for resolution through the implementation process.
Action: A motion to forward the committee’s preliminary recommendation on the issue of a regional transportation authority, as written, to the Task Force, leaving the Governance Committee to evaluate and make their recommendation on the issue was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Mr. Maguire discussed a possible new recommendation--Outline an Implementation Strategy. He stated that the question to the committee is whether it wants to recommend a structured implementation process. He stated he didn’t believe the plan could be implemented without the public’s confidence in the system. He felt strongly that the state needed to build this confidence with performance measures and accountability.
Mr. Bulla suggested the reverse of that suggested by Mr. Maguire. Mr. Mawhinney agreed but felt that a public willing to support the plan was necessary. Mr. Thorwald commented that the market is based on what is perceived versus what exists; if the people perceive the need, the state will have the ability to accomplish its goals. Ms. Ralston suggested this issue required more in-depth thought and recommended that the committee members do so and call Mr. Maguire with their comments.
Mr. Carlson stated that travel reduction strategies would be sent to the Task Force members for their consideration.
Mr. Mawhinney suggested that model projects throughout the state need to somehow be bannered for all of the citizens of Arizona. Mr. Carlson responded that one of his objectives in writing the findings is to identify best practices.
Call to the Public
There were no requests to speak.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:36 p.m.
BARBARA RALSTON, Chairperson
