Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
9:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 9, 2000
Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower, 2nd Floor State Reception Room
Phoenix, Arizona
The Planning and Programming Committee of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 9 a.m., Wednesday, November 9, 2000 with Chairperson Olson presiding. Other members in attendance were Malcolm Barrett, Paulson Chaco, Diane McCarthy, Mary Peters, and Rene Redondo. Task Force members present were Co-Chair Sharon Megdal and John Bivens. Also present were Alan Maguire, Mary LynneTischer, Matt Carpenter, and John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor.
Pledge of Allegiance, Welcome, Introductions and Opening Remarks
Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 9:20 a.m. and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. Self-introductions by those present were made.
Acceptance of Minutes for June 22, 2000 and July 27, 2000
Action: A motion to accept the minutes, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Quality Growth Planning in Utah, A Growth Perspective
Mr. Brad Barber, Governor’s Office of Planning & Budget, State of Utah, Retired, provided an in-depth presentation on the Envision Utah program, a partnership for quality growth. He reviewed the strategies, goals and objectives of the program and the extensive public process utilized to create the program. Mr. Barber discussed the roles and responsibilities of the state in the partnership. He discussed the Urban Sim Model used to integrate land use and travel. The model was cited by the U.S. Department of Transportation as one of the best applications trying to integrate land use and transportation. He noted that the recent election had resulted in the passage of a quarter cent transit tax to develop a regional rail corridor.
Mr. Barber outlined the lessons learned and their recommendations for others going through a similar process: it is a long-term process; work with the program critics; state government must be a partner, not the lead; local government is the key to the process, but they need the right tools; the Department of Transportation is an important partner; the Department of Transportation must allow flexibility at the local level on street design; transit development and funding is critical; and, change is slow, but it does happen. Mr. Barber suggested that interested persons visit their website at www.envisionutah.org.
Roundtable Discussion of Transportation and Land Use Planning
Chairman Olson introduced the three panel members: Mr. Robert Dunphy, Urban Land Institute (ULI); Mr. John McNamara, BRW, Inc.; and Mr. Barber.
Mr. Dunphy described the mission and membership of ULI. He outlined the organization’s work on the issue of transportation and growth, including the development of a range of policy and practice items. He presented suggestions for overcoming gridlock. For in metropolitan regions comparable to Phoenix, Mr. Dunphy provided 1998 regional driving comparisons, 1997 regional transit comparisons, 1980 to 1990 growth trends, 1980 to 1990 daily travel trends, transit travel trends, 1980 – 1990 commute trends, 1982 – 1997 congestion trends, 1990-1997 congestion trends in Southwest metro areas, and city density comparisons. He discussed the regional styles for the cities previously compared in terms of livable communities, sun cities and boomtowns, highlighting the characteristics of each category.
Mr. Dunphy highlighted the strategies and results of growth management efforts in Portland, Houston, Atlanta, San Diego and New Jersey. He suggested that the keys to success are: a consistent vision, know the territory, reliable funding, getting serious about transit, taming the car, and following up.
Suggested ideas for Arizona included: ADOT living by The Golden Rule, the need for a supporting vision, enhance metropolitan planning, reinforce existing infrastructure, and extend only as a last resort. Design and operations suggestions included reinventing the strip, taming the traffic on residential streets, and creating innovative parking solutions. Mr. Dunphy discussed the pros and cons of impact fees and the technique of localizing revenues versus federalizing. He recommended that the Task Force accept the fact that the most effective solutions are politically unpopular—pricing and governance.
Mr. McNamara spoke on the issue of crating a land use/transportation connection and the challenge of increasing the success of investments by maximizing the relationship of the investment to the adjacent land use. He discussed the historic context of the challenge before the Task Force prior to and since World War II. He stressed the importance of the opportunity to utilize collective forums for transportation investments, considering traditional and expanded criteria. He suggested that what is creating the opportunity or change in Arizona is the gridlock, under utilized corridors, right-of-way restrictions, a high interest in the community in mobility choices and containing sprawl. He highlighted the factors that have caused the significant amount of interest at this time. Mr. McNamara stated that it is critical to take a multi-scale approach and to invest in a broader framework that interrelates to land uses on three scales: regional, community and site specific. He highlighted planning tools used in public forums, the MAG Urban Form study process and key findings, the community area planning activities in various urban areas, and the public process for the Phoenix light rail system noting the fact that citizens and governments are beginning to focus on land use changes and economic development opportunities. Mr. McNamara discussed the effects of transit on the real estate market. He outlined community involvement tools and techniques, tools necessary to achieve land use and transportation connections, perceived obstacles, examples of non-traditional housing development projects around the country and lessons learned.
Mr. Bivens commended the three guests on their presentations. He asked for advice on how the Task Force can transmit to local governments the importance of considering the relationship between land use, growth and transportation. Mr. Barber stated that what worked best in Utah was talking about local fiscal impact, i.e. no state funding unless certain issues are addressed at the local level. The preaching by the Governor of Utah helped, and they received good support from the Mormon Church, which got the attention of folks at the local level. He suggested that the state has to state emphatically that it will no longer subsidize urban sprawl.
Mr. Bivens suggested that the Task Force needs to do a better job of sharing information and truly involving the private sector in the process.
Mr. Dunphy recommended the creation of a growth SWAT team for communities that lack technical sophistication. He suggested that these communities are making decisions with enormous implications for the entire region. He noted that the state of Maryland asked its municipalities for input on the outer limits of each community. With that information, the state developed infrastructure to meet future demand. They do not meet infrastructure needs when a community develops outside the previously set limit.
Mr. McNamara emphasized the need for a technical assistance team for smaller communities on the fringes of metropolitan areas. These communities have urban transportation and land use issues. He added that the smaller, rural areas also need the technical assistance team.
Dr. Megdal commented that perhaps what is hindering the public sector involvement in the process is government’s tendency to hold endless meetings. She agreed that more than Maricopa County needs to be addressed. She stated that she has grappled a lot with inter-regional planning and how to approach the issue within the context of the Growing Smarter laws and potentially broader laws. Mr. McNamara stated that the Task Force and the Growing Smarter Commission are the only platforms to focus on growth. He stated that there may be efforts the state should look at, in terms of inter-relationships between multiple jurisdictions. He referred to a Utah example where two MPOs integrated their planning models. He stressed the need to look at large growth trends in Arizona past 20 years to the 50 to 70-year horizon. In his opinion, another opportunity for Growing Smarter may be to address issues on a macro level.
Mr. Barber confirmed for Mr. Redondo that Utah citizens, through the survey, gave the Envision Utah group a good mandate to develop strategies. He added that the state legislature also passed a Quality Growth Act, which provided funds for planning assistance and land conservation. In the first year, 35 planning grants were awarded. The grants resulted in good projects, which focused on quality growth principals. The program will seek additional funding this year and attempt to step up the program.
Ms. Peters noted the importance of providing incentives to local/regional jurisdictions. She asked for advice on effective recommendations to achieve this goal. Mr. McNamara responded stating that first one must recognize that a relationship exists and that the decision making process has to move to a demand side approach to what is causing transportation investments to be made. He suggested movement to a series of strategies dealing with the kind of assistance that needs to be available to local communities. He stated that the inter-regional issue is a special situation requiring consideration from a statewide perspective.
Mr. Dunphy stressed the need to engage local communities and the private sector and starting the simple process of designating urban boundaries followed by the development of strategic transportation corridors to support growth.
Chairperson Olson encouraged committee members to submit questions to the panelists through Mr. Maguire. He expressed appreciation to the panel members.
Roundtable Discussion of Current MVD Structure
This item was tabled due to lack of adequate time to address the subject.
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.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
KEVIN OLSON, Chairperson
