Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
DEFINITION OF NEEDS, RESOURCES AND REVENUES
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 8, 2000
Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower, 2nd Floor State Reception 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 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 8, 2000 with Co-Chairman John Mawhinney presiding. Other members in attendance were: Steve Basila, Joe Herrick, Gary Knight, Dennis Mitchem, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald and Steve Wheeler. Task Force members John Bivens and Tom Browning attended the meeting. Also present were Alan Maguire, Mary Lynn Tischer, John Carlson, Matt Carpenter and Lisa Pendrick.
Welcome, Opening Remarks
Mr. Mawhinney called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance.
Acceptance of Minutes for June 21, 2000 and September 19, 2000
Action: A motion to accept the minutes, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Update on Transportation Needs Database
Mr. Yonel Grant, Booz-Allen Hamilton, Inc. introduced the newest member of the project team, Mike Ferari.
Mr. Grant explained that the project team had focused their efforts in three areas since the committee last met, updating the database, cost normalization methodology and development of parameters for hypothetical plans. He outlined the database clean-up efforts, which involved an extensive outside review process, and the results of the process. Projects not eliminated by the outside review process were identified in a detailed route-by-route analysis. Mr. Maguire emphasized the fact that this was a monumental undertaking, stating that the level of scrutiny was excellent. He noted the substantial benefit of the exercise and gave credit to those involved in the process. He stated that the database is the foundation of the work the Task Force will do as it develops its recommendations.
Mr. Grant reported that the approach to cost normalization involved five main steps: database clean-up, audit of individual projects, analyzing unit costs by category, developing missing cost data and copying the results into the master database. The projects with the highest total cost were audited individually by comparing them to similar projects in Arizona and nationwide. Mr. Grant reviewed the four sources used in the analysis. Nearly 150 projects were selected for this individual project analysis. This resulted in the selection of the top 98 non-programmed projects. Mr. Grant touched on a few of the big-ticket projects, including some non-highway projects. Unit cost categories were developed to analyze a large portion of the database and enabled the team to rank projects in ranges. Mr. Grant explained how the unit cost categories would be a useful tool to the Task Force and the state. He discussed the calculation of the mean and standard deviation for each unit cost category and presented a graphical illustration to depict the exercise. Mr. Grant listed the tasks, which remain to finalize the cost normalization process. He explained how the final results would be incorporated into the cost normalization database.
Mr. Mawhinney asked if there was a way to factor in a project’s life expectancy. Mr. Grant stated that this level of detail would be outside the capabilities of the project team. He further explained that this type of analysis is done when a project is programmed. Mr. Maguire reminded the committee members that the consultants had been asked to provide reasonably reliable cost estimates, regardless of location of project or jurisdiction. He stated that the process affirms that the costs used to establish need are consistent. The reason the analytical approach was used was based upon the consultant team’s expertise in analytical techniques. He was hopeful that there would be uses for the database in the future. Mr. Mawhinney stated his belief that the database would provide the Task Force with a valuable resource. Mr. Grant continued with a review of ranking big-ticket project costs.
Mr. Grant stated that the development of the hypothetical plans would be the next critical phase of the project. He outlined four points: the hypothetical plans should reflect statewide priorities; the plans should address future Arizona transportation needs; the plans are not the sum of all projects, and; the plans are the first step toward developing the comprehensive plan, which may have components of some or all hypothetical plans. He indicated that the team has a draft framework they are working on in terms or how the plans will be developed. One plan will address preservation. Another plan will be fiscally constrained. And, there will be two expansion plans, one multi-modal in nature and one that assumes additional discretionary funds for roadway improvements. He hoped to show the committee a more defined framework at their next meeting.
Mr. Mawhinney commented that the task left to the Task Force will be to develop a vision that results in the movement of the maximum number of people at the lowest possible cost.
Mr. Bivens asked if the hypothetical plans would include all modes of transportation in all political jurisdictions. Mr. Grant said they would.
In response to a question posed by Mr. Thorwald, Mr. Grant explained that the number of projects in the outliers and the dollar differences were not summed up for a couple of reasons. He explained the potential for misinterpretation and emphasized that a lot of projects are alternates of each other. In response to a second question, Mr. Grant explained that the analytical team developed a list of outcomes per project, and one was the cost effectiveness. Mr. Maguire added that the Task Force would be relied upon to make a series of subjective decisions, considering that the database is not all-inclusive given that Arizona has never developed a true statewide plan. Mr. Ferari indicated that this will be an incremental process for the state; the first couple of plans will help formulate expansion plans.
Update on Transportation Revenues
Mr. Thorwald expressed concern that the process is not addressing or focusing on creative financing opportunities. He felt strongly that the state cannot rely strictly on taxes and that it must look at public/private financing opportunities.
Ms. Carpenter began her presentation noting that the figures that would be discussed were expressed in constant year 2000 dollars and would not account for the impact of the alternative fuel vehicle tax credits. She highlighted future revenue forecasts by transportation mode: highway, transit and aviation. She reviewed the key assumptions made in each category. The total base case revenue estimate for all modes of transportation was $38.3 billion over the next 20 years. In terms of potential alternative revenue sources, 26 sources were originally looked at, and this number was screened down to 16 based on previous analysis. Ms. Carpenter listed the 16 sources, grouped in six categories: existing HURF; user-type alternatives; sales taxes; income, property and utility taxes; financing methods; and miscellaneous taxes. The 16 sources were further narrowed down to those that would be considered as part of the hypothetical packages: motor vehicle fuel tax increase, sales tax on motor fuels, dedicated sales tax on motor vehicles, statewide sales tax and development fees. Ms. Carpenter discussed the revenue yields of the major potential alternative sources and the potential impacts on the average household.
Ms. Steffey commented that there were four successful propositions on the previous day’s election ballot that asked tax increases.
Mr. Thorwald called for evaluation of public/private partnerships to fill the revenue gaps as opposed to traditional taxing sources. At the request of Mr. Mawhinney, Mr. Carlson offered to have ADOT put together a list of impediments that prevent the state from considering public/private partnerships. Mr. Thorwald asked that the committee receive a presentation by a state mining operations expert about the impact of increased mining activity on transportation needs.
State Aviation Needs Study 2000 (SANS 2000) Update
Mr. Gary Adams, ADOT Aeronautics Division Director, presented an overview of the SANS 2000 update, highlighting the performance based aviation needs studies conducted since 1985, the project elements of the 2000 needs study, the status of the current study, the oversight of the study by the 29-member Project Advisory Committee, the principal project team members, and the SANS 2000 study goals and objectives. Mr. Adams discussed the current status and condition of air carrier airports and general aviation airports and the forecasts developed for the next 20 years relative to aircraft operations and airline passengers. The performance measures recommended by the Task Force include mobility and accessibility, reliability of the system, cost effectiveness of the system, safety and economic vitality. The aviation system assessment performance measures are: facility performance (safety, condition and capacity), service level (availability, adequacy and efficiency, and reliability), and economic performance (benefits). The performance measures for the previous aviation needs studies were reviewed, and the performance measures being used for SANS 2000 were reviewed in depth. Three investment scenarios were highlighted: investment preservation, facility preservation and facility upgrade to standard.
Mr. Thorwald asked about the intermodal capability of Arizona’s airports. Mr. Adams explained that ADOT has not looked at this concept, but they have discussed it. Several other states have looked at certain aspects of airport intermodal capabilities. Mr. Thorwald asked about regional mobility, and Mr. Adams discussed a list of performance measures dealing with service levels and system coverage with commercial and general aviation airports. He stated that these performance measures are a useful tool for making policy decisions.
Mr. Mawhinney commented that the airport system in Arizona has been looked at more as a public service than a cost effective service.
Mr. Thorwald commented on the number of airports that get very little use and the overlap that exists. He felt that the state should focus on key airports in particular areas and think of the others as feeder airports or for private use. Mr. Adams indicated that there is a concept used across the country where there are limited aviation funds. He referred to a past study which looked at regionalizing the state’s airports.
Ms. Steffey stated that she struggles with the role the state plays in the aviation system in that the state doesn’t actually own any of the airports. Mr. Adams noted that the state actually owns the Grand Canyon Airport. He explained that the Federal Aviation Administration has jurisdiction over aviation in the United States and outlined the partnership between the local governments and the federal government. The state’s role in the past has been to encourage the safe and orderly development of airports in the state. The state does have control over the airports through funding.
General Browning expressed concern with aviation using different criteria to define need. He asked how the state would define funding shortfalls from a regional perspective, for example. Mr. Adams explained that aviation needs are gleaned from airport master plans, and the study is essentially a grass roots look at each airport in the system. General Browning suggested that the SANS 2000 scope out aviation needs for the next 20 years and apply the same needs criteria to avoid duplication. Additionally, he emphasized the importance of looking at air space capacity at airports. He was concerned that the study methodology does not address the third dimension of air space capacity. Mr. Adams suggested that the additional of the three new performance measures would address General Browning’s concern to some extent. However, to date, they have not been able to find a performance measure that would measure air space capacity. Something relatively close that has been used is the measure of "peak hour operating capacity."
In response to concerns expressed, Mr. Carlson offered to provide copies of a Wilbur Smith study done at the Governor’s request. Mr. Adams stated that he would like to add an array of performance measures and look at the overlap of controlled air space areas.
ATIS—Arizona’s Statewide Transportation Framework
Mr. Joe Breyer, Works Consulting, provided an overview of the Arizona Transportation Information System (ATIS) project, discussing how the Task Force’s efforts can be augmented using the data in the system. Mr. Breyer explained the Highway Performance Monitoring System and is use in satisfying federal government issues for highway funding appropriations. He explained the evolvement of the system to a GIS structure, the technical capabilities of the system, the usefulness of the information to the state, county and local jurisdictions, the capabilities of the data, which can be utilized by any agency. He described how the data is collected using a photo log system, how the data is reviewed and cited examples of uses of the data. He noted the minimal cost of the data collection to the end user. Mr. Breyer stated that data on the entire state highway system has been collected, and they are getting more and more cooperation from other jurisdictions. The system includes data on 50,000 miles of public roads, 90 percent of data on metropolitan areas, and one million traffic accidents in the CRASH system. He explained that the project team is now ready to populate the databases. He reviewed the goals and objectives of the project and requested help in promoting the system and information that can be gleaned from it throughout the state of Arizona. Mr. Breyer presented future recommendations for the project and options for accomplishing the data collection recommendations. The anticipated costs associated with the necessary photo log imagery and populating the databases is $2.3 to $3 million over the next five years.
Mr. Breyer confirmed for Mr. Thorwald that his system could be overlapped with the project database created by the needs consulting team.
Arizona Association of County Engineers Year 2000 Roadway Needs Study Update
Mr. Tom Buick, Arizona Association of County Engineers, presented the countywide needs study, as a complement to the statewide needs study. He identified those who participated in the study, noting that it includes all counties in Arizona. He reviewed the key features of the ten-year study and noted that the ten-year total cost estimate for counties was $5.1 billion, an increase from $4.4 billion in 1994. He briefly reviewed the division of needs and stated that currently 52% of the needs are unmet ($2.8 billion). Existing roads account for 85 percent of the needs. He emphasized that the study deals only with roads, not transit, and confirmed that the projects are included in the database developed by the needs consultants.
Mr. Maguire asked Mr. Buick to help the Task Force consultant team identify local general revenues expended on transportation by the counties. Mr. Buick said he would help but noted that the amount is not significant.
Call to the Public
Ms. Esther Corbett, speaking on behalf of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, called for increased coordination, cooperation and consultation between the tribal governments, Arizona Department of Transportation, Department of Economic Security, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the US Department of Transportation. She highlighted the transportation challenges faced by tribal governments, including insufficient funding and qualified personnel necessary to address transportation planning issues. She requested that the task force and legislature promote the intent of TEA-21 in all transportation endeavors through full consultation, coordination and cooperation.
Mr. Mawhinney asked Ms. Corbett to contact staff to get on the agenda for a future committee meeting.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:52 p.m.
JOHN MAWHINNEY, Co-Chairperson
