Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
9:15 a.m., Wednesday, November 29, 2000
Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower
Phoenix, Arizona
The Planning and Programming Committee of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 29, 2000 with Chairman Kevin Olson presiding. Other members in attendance were Malcolm Barrett, John Bivens, Paulson Chaco, Rene Redondo and Jim Shipman. Also present were Director Mary Peters, John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor, Mary Lynn Tischer and Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company.
Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance
Chairman Olson called the meeting to order at 9:06 a.m. and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Acceptance of Minutes from November 9, 2000
Action: A motion to accept the minutes of the November 9, 2000 meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Ms. Peters passed out a summary report on unfunded and underfunded issues.
Discussion of Planning and Programming Processes Draft Recommendations
Mr. Maguire provided copies of a handout entitled DRAFT Potential Recommendations dated November 29, 2000.
Performance Based Planning and Programming
Ms. Peters suggested they enforce the transition to performance based planning and programming by requiring a project be in compliance to be included in the TIP.
Chairman Olson suggested funding be tied to satisfying the requirements. He stated, however, the Committee needs to come to an agreement as to the definition of performance based planning. He explained he believes it should measure outcome rather than output.
Mr. Shipman asked if the individual jurisdictions would receive money to assist them in meeting planning requirements. Chairman Olson stated he believes they would have to receive financial assistance.
Chairman Olson recommended they add a sentence that a project will only be included in the TIP if it follows the required processes.
Mr. Carlson noted the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee adopted a similar recommendation. He said the state used to have a statute with a similar means of enforcement. He stated he would research it to find out why that statute was repealed.
Mr. Bivens stated the provision should also include all modes of transportation and look at the system as a whole. Mr. Maguire agreed.
Chairman Olson stated the regional freeway system did not have adequate information or collect the necessary data when it first started. He said the certification process has improved the situation and provides a clearer picture of what the state has, what it is getting and what the associated costs are. He suggested that level of reporting be extended into all transportation systems throughout the state. He stated he would also like to have reports showing performance based results such as the number of people and goods moved as well as an indication as to how effectively they were moved.
Mr. Maguire noted the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee adopted recommendations to expand the Life Cycle Program to the statewide system.
Mr. Bivens suggested the provisions include a reference to air quality. Chairman Olson agreed environmental effects should be part of the measurement system, stating, however, he believes environmental effects, as they relate to transportation, is a transitory issue. Mr. Bivens said that including environmental measurements could increase public support of the Task Force’s recommendations.
Mr. Redondo questioned whether multi-modal transportation was addressed in the provision. He explained they currently only measure highway performance, while he believes they should also measure the form and seamlessness of the multi-modal system.
Chairman Olson said people have a hard time understanding what difference other modes of transportation can make. He suggesting measuring the number of people and goods moved by the various modes would assist them in putting those modes into action.
Mr. Carlson noted the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee endorsed the idea of funding ADOT’s Data Center, which has the capability of measuring transit and aviation related data. He explained the database could be expanded to include city, county and tribal roads for an estimated $2.23 million. Chairman Olson suggested the Planning and Programming Committee also endorse that expenditure.
Ms. Peters expressed her opinion they need to have a macro level measurement to determine how well the various modes meet demand and to look at negative or unintended impacts consequently imposed elsewhere. She suggested the issue should be looked at over time rather than from a specific point in time.
Ms. Tischer suggested performance factors, such as mobility and quality of life, be used, noting measurements would change and evolve as the system improves.
Mr. Barrett stated a common denominator is necessary to measure performance.
Ms. Peters stated they have to look at what they want to accomplish because, while what they choose to do might not be the most cost efficient choice, it might be the most effective in accomplishing the goal.
Mr. Bivens suggested the Task Force compile a glossary of definitions. He agreed the provisions should indicate the process is evolutionary and that specific recommendations might not be immediately adopted by ADOT.
Chairman Olson stated the Committee has reached a consensus to adopt the recommendations.
Ms. Peters suggested the State Legislature only consider comprehensive transportation-based legislation on a periodic basis to avoid unintended consequences. Chairman Olson said he would endorse Ms. Peter’s suggestion, but does not believe the State Legislature would agree.
Long-range Planning Processes
Mr. Bivens suggested including a statement that the long-range plan is an evolutionary process and is based on what is known at a given point in time.
Ms. Peters said the plan should be firm in the early years and more flexible in the later years to allow for greater responsiveness to changing conditions.
Chairman Olson recommended the plan not be comprehensively updated every year. He explained this should be an opportunity to step outside the federally mandated 20-year plan to determine the state’s long range goals. He suggested the plan be updated every five years.
Mr. Redondo suggested they expand on the federal requirements to include other factors, including multi-modal transportation. He stated he would like to see more flexibility in the five-year TIP.
Ms. Peters stated they should not be fiscally constrained by current funding. Chairman Olson agreed, stating, however, the long-range plan needs to be realistic.
Mr. Shipman questioned whether there is a need for a formalized visioning process every five years.
Mr. Bivens recommended periodically examining where the state is going without considering fiscal restraints. He said they could then let the public know what the state has identified as needs and what can be accomplished with current funding. He expressed his opinion they would be unable to identify necessary changes as long as their vision is fiscally restrained.
Mr. Redondo pointed out that every project in the TIP has to be part of the 20-year plan. He agreed they should look at what needs to be done and then narrow it down based on fiscal restraints. He said each entity needs to make a commitment to the measurements and the state needs to determine how to hold those entities accountable.
Mr. Maguire said one of the problems with the federally mandated planning process is they do not force the identification of funded and unfunded projects. He agreed they should not limit their visioning to what could be done with existing revenue.
Mr. Redondo suggested they lobby to have the concept of identifying global needs and narrowing them down based on available funding included as part of the federal process.
Ms. Peters agreed with Mr. Shipman that they should periodically look at where they want to go on a policy level.
Mr. Bivens said a lot of the fiscal restraints come from the need to maintain the existing structure. He suggested Arizona and other states go to the federal government and ask them to define what kind of nationwide system they should have.
Mr. Redondo agreed they should have a comprehensive long-range plan that defines what the system should look like before fiscal constraints are applied. Chairman Olson said the problem with being unrestrained is that everything gets included and the plan is then not seen as being credible. He stated the plan has to be tied to the result it will achieve. Mr. Redondo explained that, by removing fiscal restraints, they allow people the opportunity to make and prioritize choices. Ms. Peters stated they have to make sure people understand the effects of their choices. Mr. Redondo agreed.
Expanded Multi-modal Planning and Support
Chairman Olson stated they have to look at the interrelationships of the various transportation modes. He explained the choices they make in regards to one mode could have implications on other modes.
Ms. Peters suggested these recommendations be included in the Performance Based Planning and Programming provision.
Mr. Bivens recommended adding mobility to the language as it would reinforce the interrelationships.
Mr. Carlson stated more money should be spent on how ADOT conducts its corridor studies and how it utilizes new models and capabilities.
Ms. Peters said they are prevented from meeting needs by their inability to move funding. Mr. Bivens said that is why the state needs a general transportation fund. Ms. Peters agreed.
Mr. Maguire agreed the recommendations should be included in the Performance Based Planning and Programming provision.
Ms. Peters stated they have to look at both private and public sector funding sources. Mr. Maguire pointed out they have very little information on the private sector. Mr. Bivens said they should identify the essential ingredients before talking with the private sector. He stated they should talk with air cargo as well as rail. He suggested police and fire departments should also be consulted in regards to medical transportation needs.
Mr. Chaco pointed out that tribal right-of-way issues have not been resolved. Ms. Peters explained arbitration language in Arizona Revised Statutes subjects the Navajo Nation to the state court system. She suggested they could arrive at a cooperative agreement in regards to rights-of-way.
Mr. Maguire asked the Committee if they believe multi-modal funding should be expanded. Ms. Peters stated it should, noting a transportation fund would provide more flexibility and allow them to best meet the state’s needs.
Chairman Olson agreed the current system of narrowly constrained funding interferes with their ability to effectively and efficiently meet needs. He suggested that part of the problem is that advocates for each mode of transportation believe their mode is best, but do not offer performance measurement data to back up their beliefs. He agreed the state should move away from individual funds and towards a general transportation fund.
Mr. Carlson pointed out that the $18 million fund created by LTAP II is scheduled to sunset in 2003. He stated there has been a consensus to have a permanent LTAP II. He provided copies of a handout outlining HB2565 Local Fund distributions.
Mr. Bivens expressed his opinion the Task Force should not filter its recommendations based on what is politically acceptable. He explained they are charged with providing a vision and an opportunity for choice and that it is up to the Governor to decide what to do with the Task Force’s recommendations. Mr. Redondo said planning and funding for planning are their main charge.
Mr. Shipman pointed out that a lot of the money is being used to leverage federal funds. He said the state is committed to transit, pointing out all but four jurisdictions in the state offer transit services.
Mr. Redondo said people need relevant information to make educated choices.
Mr. Carlson noted cities are reluctant to use their own monies to fund regional bus systems.
Chairman Olson said the Committee should endorse it as a sensible measure and suggested LTAP be part of commuter services.
Ms. Peters noted there is transportation-related funding in schools and other agencies that could be used to teach children how to utilize the bus system. Ms. Tischer pointed out they tend to forget about Greyhound and other privately operated bus systems and they need to be included when considering the totality of the system.
Mr. Shipman stated various cities have a great deal of funds available for transit and suggested those funds be combined to obtain economies of efficiency. Mr. Maguire noted the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee specifically moved to include all monies collected by the state.
Mr. Redondo asked if school buses should be included, suggesting they could be an incredible resource. Chairman Olson said having a comprehensive picture of those expenses would be useful, however, there are times when single purpose uses are appropriate.
Mr. Bivens asked if they would recommend the state provide multi-modal funding for planning. Mr. Olson said they would.
Mr. Carlson said there is an existing statute and he would like to work with Ms. Peters to determine what the cost increase should be.
Prioritization of Congestion Relief and Commuter Services
Mr. Maguire noted the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee incorporated the same provision.
Mr. Bivens recommended statewide standards be established and enforced through inclusion in the TIP.
Mr. Redondo said he would support the adoption of statewide standards.
Ms. Peters stated the standards would have to reflect local autonomy, but agreed the basic definitions should not differentiate.
Planning Support for Local Transportation Agencies
Chairman Olson expressed his opinion they should use existing revenue and that planning and programming should be considered a first-priority expenditure. He said ADOT should provide a combination of funding and actual assistance. Mr. Shipman agreed.
Mr. Bivens suggested having an ADOT Planning and Technical Center, thereby making resources available to rural parts of the state. He suggested having the results of the performance measures published on the web.
Mr. Carlson noted the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee recommended a three-year period for the Life Cycle Program. He stated the ADOT Data Center is already published on the Web.
Mr. Bivens said the state should use ADOT’s communication resources to let local jurisdictions know what is available to them.
Ms. Peters agreed planning and programming should be considered a first-priority expenditure. She suggested they link the GIS database to all systems, explaining database information is a basic part of planning.
Mr. Redondo also agreed planning should be considered a high priority.
Coordinated Land Use Planning and Transportation Planning
Ms. Peters suggested it be enforced through the TIP. She recommended they talk in terms of transportation corridors rather than modes. She stated they should also look at utilities.
Mr. Bivens said there are two issues: small incremental changes made through local zoning and major developments. He said he would like to see a requirement at the local level, whereby major developments have to address the transportation issues they raise.
Mr. Maguire said they could propose a change to the development approval process at the local level requiring steps be taken to mitigate the effects of major developments. He referred to the assured water supply restrictions already in place as an example.
Mr. Shipman suggested the issue is larger than just transportation.
Chairman Olson questioned whether ADOT should impose on local zoning decisions.
Ms. Peters stated developments impact regional, interregional and statewide systems. She pointed out every development currently has to do a traffic impact study. She said the developments have to be consistent with and not contradictory to the state’s plans.
Chairman Olson stated it could be included in the long-range plan, however, developers would have to be able to rely on the long-range plan when identifying the effects of their development. Mr. Shipman questioned what would happen if the state did not follow through with the long-range plan.
Mr. Carlson said they would have to work with others to make sure the draft does not violate any state laws. He stated the committee has embraced access control standards.
Mr. Maguire said he is convinced they could levy a statewide development fee and still meet the Nolan Dolan test. He stated the fee would probably not be enough to completely offset the costs, but he believes it would help.
Possible Discussions of Hypothetical Transportation Plan
The Committee decided to forego this discussion as they felt it was included in the Planning and Programming Processes Draft Recommendations discussion.
Mr. Maguire said the consultants are trying to identify major projects and subjective categories of performance need. He noted it is difficult to assemble all of the information contained in the database into something meaningful. Chairman Olson said they are more interested in how much difference each plan would make and the magnitude of each plan’s results.
Call to the Public
Mr. Swanson emphasized enhancing ADOT Planning Staff levels to increase the department’s efficiency and effectiveness.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 11:37 a.m.
KEVIN OLSON, Chairperson
