1700 W. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor, State Reception Room
The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 16, 2001 with Co-Chairpersons Sharon Megdal, Ph.D. and Martin Shultz presiding. Other members in attendance were Lisa Atkins, Malcolm Barrett, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Paulson Chaco, Priscilla Cornelio, Kurt Davis (arrived at 3:30), Valerie Manning, Diane McCarthy, Richard Narcia, Ingo Radicke, Barbara Ralston, Jim Shipman, and Frank Thorwald. Also present were John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor, Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company, Matt Carpenter and Lisa Pendrick.
Pledge, Opening Remarks
Mr. Shultz called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. and let the pledge of allegiance.
Mr. Shultz thanked the Task Force members for attending and noted that the work of the Task Force is coming to a conclusion. He outlined the meeting’s agenda and stated that the issue of governance is still being discussed. He stated that the Governor has been briefed on all aspects of the Task Force’s work and discussed the current status of the state’s budget noting that the Task Force’s report remains important for the future.
Dr. Megdal requested that all correspondence to the Task Force and the co-chairpersons be directed through Mr. Carpenter.
Approval of Minutes for June 27, 2001
As a quorum of the group was not present, the minutes were not approved.
Review of Recent Committee Meetings
Mr. Maguire summarized the committee meetings that had taken place over the last month. Changes to the recommendations were reflected in the documents to be reviewed at this meeting. He commented on the open house process and information gathered through the open houses and from the surveys. Mr. Maguire summarized the results of the focus groups held in Phoenix and Tucson and provided a comparison between both the open house and focus group forums. He encouraged Task Force members to review carefully the written documents from the focus groups. As a result of the information gleaned, the Task Force has engaged a consultant to perform a demographically appropriate statewide telephone survey, and Mr. Maguire reviewed the methodology for the survey.
Mr. Thorwald stated that he was the only Task Force member to attend all open houses. He stressed the fact that the attendees completed the surveys before visiting the informational displays; therefore, their views were dramatically changed in some cases after visiting the displays. He suggested that the survey results are somewhat skewed as a result. He indicated that he provided Ms. Atkins his comments from all open houses. He stated that a number of communities were concerned that Population Technical Advisory Committee’s (POPTAC) estimations would not work in their areas.
Mr. Maguire confirmed for Mr. Radicke that most of the surveys that were submitted after the open houses came in promptly.
Review and Discussion of Task Force Findings
Mr. Shultz encouraged discussion of significant errors in the findings and submission of minor or typographical errors to Mr. Carlson and Mr. Maguire.
Mr. Maguire explained that the exercise of compiling the findings grew out of a request by the Task Force in June. He reviewed the organization of the document and said he would focus his presentation and the discussion on the bold headings for each item. He asked that Task Force members submit comments on the supporting facts to him by the following Monday. Mr. Carlson noted that the findings are primarily based on current data with a few minor exceptions.
Mr. Maguire reviewed the findings related to transportation system needs and funding.
Mr. Bivens asked if it were possible to deal with the change from the movement of freight from air to truck and rail. Mr. Carlson indicated there was a section in the findings under aviation on air cargo. Mr. Shultz stated that air/rail freight is significant in regard to economic development and has not gotten a lot of attention.
Mr. Bivens suggested that cost projections being used need to be consistent, i.e. the cost of additional lanes on I-10 or I-17. He stated that ignoring the cost of interchange work is a mistake. Mr. Carlson said he grappled with this issue; however, the range of intersection improvements is very wide in disparity. Dr. Megdal agreed that the cost projection for adding lanes is unrealistically low if intersections are not improved to accommodate the widening. She asked the consultants to look further at this issue.
Mr. Thorwald asked how the cost projections were affected by the September 11 attack. Mr. Carlson indicated that the attack was not taken into account. He suggested he could include a caveat that the information was based on facts available prior to the events of September 11. He suggested that at this time there is no way to determine the impact of September 11. Mr. Browning cautioned against undercutting estimates based on the September 11 attack and potential future events. He noted that there would be a lot of ups and downs over the 20-year period. Mr. Bivens agreed with this comment. Mr. Maguire agreed to craft some language and bring it back to the Task Force for consideration.
Mr. Bivens asked if the needs study included the "wish list" items. He was concerned that the Governor and legislature might wrongly assume that the recommendation is based on "wish lists."
Dr. Megdal commented that transit was conspicuously left out of the Transportation System Needs and Funding findings and said she would like to see more emphasis on alternative modes as opposed to the heavy emphasis on roads. Mr. Carlson conceded that this was one of the challenges he faced in creating the findings. Mr. Maguire said they would revisit the section and try to address Dr. Megdal’s comment. Mr. Radicke agreed the findings need to emphasize multi-modal transportation and transit in a stronger manner.
Mr. Thorwald suggested that the findings recognize the increased use of rail since the events of September 11 considering the time delays involved with flying.
Mr. Maguire continued with his review of the findings, moving on to the Transportation System Priorities section.
Mr. Browning inquired about information on bus pullouts and their impact on the system. Mr. Carlson indicated he has requested but not yet received this data from the MPOs.
Mr. Bivens expressed concern with the reference to the lack of success of MPOs due to voluntary member participation. He suggested that the lack of success is due to the fact that the members are elected to represent their municipalities, and there is no overriding incentive to act with regional perspectives in mind. Dr. Megdal suggested this finding be revisited to remove the negative connotation.
Mr. Thorwald questioned the capacity and cost figures for high-speed rail. Mr. Carlson indicated that the figures came from the 1997 corridor study by ADOT. Mr. Thorwald felt that the study was flawed, and Mr. Maguire said he would go back and verify the figures. He encouraged Mr. Thorwald’s input on specific data points.
Ms. Cornelio suggested that a specific statement be made that performance based planning is not being done in Arizona. Mr. Carlson said he would add a bullet on the efforts being made at various levels and the overall status of performance based planning in Arizona.
Due to the lack of quorum, Mr. Shultz announced that the discussion of the governance issue would be postponed until the next Task Force meeting.
Mr. Thorwald stated that there is a proposal to build a Transrapid TM Maglev rail system between Phoenix and Tucson, which would be discussed later in the meeting. Dr. Megdal suggested the inclusion of a bullet point about the issue of moving people/cargo. She added that every fact cannot be included in the report, and that it must be limited to established facts rather than proposed changes.
Mr. Carlson indicated that he has asked that RPTA and Pima County work with him to update the finding on travel reduction programs. Mr. Carpenter passed out a document on travel reduction strategies.
Mr. Maguire encouraged comments on the findings over the next week or so.
Review and Discussion of Task Force Recommendations
Mr. Bivens stated that he found the Immediate and Obvious Strategies to be quite good, and he would like to make sure they are integrated into the Task Force’s final recommendations. Mr. Carlson said that the strategies would be briefly summarized and then referred to as an attachment.
Mr. Bivens recommended that the term performance based planning be defined when the concept is first introduced in the recommendations.
Mr. Maguire presented the Recommendations document and discussed its organization and how changes from the preliminary recommendations were highlighted.
Ms. McCarthy suggested that the verbiage in the first sentence under "Establish Transportation System Performance Measures" be clarified as it relates to the change in legal requirements.
Mr. Bivens suggested that the order of recommendations Develop a Long-Range, Statewide, Multi-modal Transportation Plan and Develop a Statewide Transportation Policy Statement be reversed. This suggestion was discussed, and Mr. Bivens retracted his suggestion.
After discussion, the Task Force members present decided that the "initial Long-Range Plan should be completed within two years following the issuance of the Task Force’s final report…" rather than changing the deadline date to January 2004.
Ms. McCarthy suggested that a change be made as follows, "An oversight panel composed of knowledgeable private citizens throughout the state with an interest …"
Dr. Megdal suggested that "six years" was insignificant relative to the recommendation that the State Transportation Board be required to develop a multi-modal transportation program. She felt that the number was not all that meaningful.
Ms. McCarthy asked how would pay for the requirement of increased coordination of land use plans and transportation plan and what penalty would be assessed for not doing so. Mr. Carlson explained that current Growing Smarter statues refer to this in a vague manner, but there is no funding mechanism in place. Ms. Manning commented that planning is not currently regulated by the state; therefore, the Task Force should be careful about recommending regulations about regional and local planning. Mr. Maguire stated that he attempted to draft the language such that it would be consistent with Growing Smarter. Dr. Megdal verified that there is no regional planning component in Growing Smarter. Mr. Maguire suggested that the Task Force could recommend expanding the Growing Smarter language dealing with "adjoining community coordination" to more of a regional nature. He added that the language in the recommendation is consistent with comments heard in the open house process. He suggested that the recommendations identify how long it should take to achieve regional planning and who should be responsible for it. Dr. Megdal stated that this issue requires more work than the Task Force has time to undertake. She suggested it would be very beneficial to recommend regional coordination and an immediate examination of the means to accomplish that coordination. Mr. Shultz stated that an attempt should be made to look at the Growing Smarter statutes and determine whether the Task Force can fashion a consistent recommendation. He added that the issue has been worked out in proposed statutes, which are available. Ms. Manning noted that land use is an element of a city’s general plan, which is required to go to voters every ten years. She is concerned with state government’s involvement in terms of oversight and enforcement. Ms. McCarthy stressed the need to make a recommendation calling for coordinated land use and transportation planning. The Task Force members reached a consensus that language would be drafted consistent with the discussion; however, there was no agreement reached on who would be responsible for overseeing/enforcing the coordination. It was decided that the Governance Committee would discuss this issue.
Mr. Thorwald commented on an Arizona Republic article about widening the sales tax base to include services. He stated that the Task Force has not addressed this issue at all, and it is an option that could bring in a significant amount of revenue.
Dr. Megdal asked how manageable it would be to update the twenty-year plan annually and perform a major review every five years. She was not sure of the necessity of this recommendation.
Mr. Thorwald indicated that the Definition of Needs, Revenues and Resources Committee wanted to see the constitution’s gift clause addressed in the recommendations. He asked that the document be appended to the recommendations. Mr. Maguire recollected that the committee discussed this subject but did not reach a conclusion. Mr. Thorwald asked that Mr. Maguire clarify the matter with the chair and co-chair.
Mr. Shultz suggested that the Task Force consider travel reduction strategies, roads of regional significance and the remainder of the recommendations report at the next Task Force meeting.
Mr. Maguire suggested that a recommendation relating to the exploration of Immediate and Obvious Strategies be made but the document itself be included as an appendix to the recommendations document rather than incorporated entirely within the recommendations document.
Review and Discussion of Finalization of Task Force Report
Mr. Maguire presented the table of comments and asked the Task Force to review it as a general structure for the final report.
Mr. Shipman asked if the Task Force would make a comment on funding recommendations. Mr. Maguire explained that the Definition of Needs, Revenues and Resources Committee discussed his recommendation of a concept of a staging process for phasing in implementation of the recommendations. Their thought was to lay out the recommendation and let the Governor and legislature do with it what they want. Mr. Shultz suggested that the Task Force present implementation strategies in a general sense to the Governor and Legislature for implementation as early as next legislative session in 2002 with an eye toward the future.
Mr. Shultz verified that December 13th would be the final meeting and asked Mr. Carlson if the Governor was anticipating the Task Force’s report well before the development of her 2002 priorities. Mr. Carlson responded that she was.
Call to the Public
There were no requests to speak.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson
SHARON MEDGAL, Co-Chairperson
