MINUTES OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
9:30 a.m., Monday, December 13, 1999
Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a regular meeting at 9:30 a.m., Monday, December 13, 1999, with Co-Chairpersons Martin Shultz and Sharon Megdal presiding. Other Task Force members present were: Lisa, Atkins, Malcolm Barrett, Steve Basila, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Robert Bulla, Patrick Carlin, Paulson Chaco, Priscilla Cornelio, Joe Herrick, Valerie Manning, John Mawhinney, Diane McCarthy, Sheldon Miller, Mary Peters, Raul Pina, Ingo Radicke, Rene Redondo, Jim Shipman, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald, and Steve Wheeler. Task Force members absent were: Cecil Antone, Kurt Davis, Gary Knight, Dave Olney, Kevin Olson, Barbara Ralston, and Jim Simmons.
Staff members present were: John Carlson, Alan Maguire, Stephanie Bondeson, Matt Carpenter, Marsha Johnson, Jennifer Macdonald, John McGee, Harry Reed, and Mary Lynn Tischer.
Pledge of Allegiance, Opening Comments
Dr. Megdal called the meeting to order and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. She introduced Governor Hull.
Governor Hull thanked the Task Force for their work, which she has been following closely. She expressed appreciation to the members for fast-forwarding the process, as was indicated in the Interim Report. Governor Hull acknowledged the urban and rural highway needs and stated that what the state will do is in the best hands of the Vision 21 Task Force and the legislature. In conclusion, she thanked the Task Force for the time they are giving to the citizens of the state.
Mr. Shultz conveyed his hope that the Task Force would deliver an interim report today that would the Governor’s direction included in the Executive Order. He was glad that the Task Force was given two years to accomplish their goals. He noted tremendous gaps in information relative to revenues and needs, which the consultants will help fill. He commented that the state, together with all of the jurisdictions, have not ever created a comprehensive statewide plan. He stated the Task Force’s intent to have their recommendation “on the street” by the third quarter to allow ample public consideration and input.
Discussion and Approval of the Interim Report
Mr. Shultz described how the meeting would proceed, noting that all members had received revised copies of the Interim report as well as a document containing recommendations by Mr. Bivens. He asked that members submit minor wording changes directly to Mr. Maguire. He added that a standard transmittal letter would be included with the Interim Report. The purpose of the transmittal letter was to acknowledge the contributions of the Task Force members and the challenges they will face in the year 2000.
Typographical and grammatical changes were suggested and accepted by the Task Force without discussion. Those changes were to be incorporated into the final document.
Ms. Cornelio recommended that an estimated dollar amount be referenced in conjunction with the State Aviation Needs Assessment (SANS 2000). Mr. Maguire agreed to include a qualified number, using preliminary data in that the study is not completed.
Mr. Bulla expressed concern that the report includes no sense of revenue generation. Mr. Shultz explained that the writers had tried to accomplish Mr. Bulla’s recommendation in the paragraph after the preliminary findings. He encouraged Mr. Bulla to review the text and submit suggested changes.
Mr. Redondo commented that a couple of jurisdictions, PAG and YMPO, do not fall into the generalization that “the Task Force has found little or no coordination or standardization among the jurisdictions.” Mr. Maguire recommended changing the word “little” to “limited” to ensure a more accurate statement.
Ms. Steffey recommended that the report specifically highlight the increased population projections. Mr. Maguire said he would insert an additional finding noting the past and projected growth. Ms. Steffey said she would agree to the verbiage, although she preferred Mr. Bivens’ version. She suggested that both be combined. There was general agreement among the Task Force members with this suggestion.
Mr. Bivens explained his intent in creating recommended language. He was simply trying to simplify the bulk of the report by highlighting and by dropping repetitive sections. He verified that his verbiage does not change the meaning of the preliminary findings. He understood from the December 6 meeting that a paragraph would be included directing interested persons on who to call with questions and how to get additional information. He included such a paragraph in his version.
Mr. Thorwald recommended that the paragraph to be inserted relative to population growth address where the population growth will be and the impact it will have on those areas. He suggested that special mention be made of the need to put money into expanding infrastructure to accommodate growth.
Task Force members discussed whether or not stakeholder meetings should be mentioned in the report. Mr. Maguire explained that they were not mentioned because they have not been completed and are not being held in any type of prioritized order. Mr. Shultz suggested that the meetings should be acknowledged in some manner, without indicating prioritization.
Ms. McCarthy suggested that paragraph 7 on page 3 of the report somehow explain intermodal freight capabilities, which includes the transportation of freight from truck to train.
It was decided that the phrase (page 3, paragraph 1) “multimodal planning including the traditional components of a multimodal system” would be changed to “the system” to ensure that all modes are included.
Task Force members discussed whether or not to attach the Casa Grande Resolves as an addendum. Dr. Megdal stated her preference to describe the process and results in a sentence. Mr. Shultz explained that he would prefer to attach the document simply because the Interim Report is so critical of the lack of coordination between jurisdictions, and the Casa Grande Resolves is an example of efforts to work within the structure and fill in the gaps. He finds the spirit, intent and great detail to be significant, but he also agreed with Dr. Megdal. Ms. Peters suggested that the document be included because of the historic significance—it was the first time all of the jurisdictions worked together to address the state’s transportation system and needs. There was general agreement among the Task Force members to include a summary of the Casa Grande Resolves in the body of the Interim Report text.
Mr. Maguire presented two paragraphs for inclusion on page 16. There was general agreement among the members that the paragraphs be added.
Mr. Browning requested that the first bullet on page 17 be changed to add the word “surface” to “intelligent surface transportation systems” in that the majority of the work that has been done to date has centered on surface transportation issues. He suggested that a paragraph about future actions, to include definition of aviation needs in the state; review of rules and regulations, best practices, and governance systems of other states, and; examination of the inter-relationship of cargo transportation be written. He offered to draft the paragraph and forward it to Mr. Maguire.
Mr. Thorwald questioned whether the work required for bullet 8 on page 17 is realistic for the Task Force. Mr. Carlson indicated that some members of the Task Force have requested the work. He explained that the intent is to review what is being done rather than create additional work. The decision was to leave the item in the report for the time being.
Task Force members discussed whether the report adequately stresses the need for additional revenue sources. Mr. Bulla commented that the Task Force needs to convey to the citizens what their communities will look like without additional funding for transportation. Dr. Megdal suggested changing Section Five – Future Actions to reflect Mr. Bulla’s recommendation. She suggested that page 1 be amended as well with the same intent.
Mr. Thorwald suggested that a map be added to the document depicting the state’s unique situation with respect to problems caused by the limited amount of privately owned property. Mr. Shultz suggested that this be included in the final report and the report on needs.
Mr. Browning, referring to #5 on page 20, stated that the additional study may not identify the totality of aviation needs in Arizona. He questions the criteria being used in the model. He is confident that there is a way to identify aviation needs in Arizona and agreed to work with Mr. Maguire on the wording.
Dr. Megdal expressed concern with the word “preliminary” when referring to findings. She suggested that this word be used sparingly and that a “not withstanding statement” be added before the findings are listed.
Mr. Thorwald agreed with this suggestion. He added that he was not sure about strengthening the aviation needs paragraph, but he felt that a statement should be included about the need for restoring aviation funding to 100 percent.
Mr. Browning suggested that the SANS 2000 aviation study be put in the context that it may not represent the whole story with respect to aviation needs in Arizona. Additionally, he recommended that “clear zones and land use issues with respect to noise contours around airports” be included in # 2 of the growth management proposal recommendations.
Task Force members agreed that the first sentence of the last bullet on page 21 should be stricken. They also agreed to add the word “infrastructure” where the reference is made to efficient use of all available monies.
Mr. Maguire reviewed the organizational changes made to the report. He explained that it was presented in such a manner so as to meet the needs of the typical reader, who will either read the Executive Summary or the full report. The Executive Summary is intended to be a summary of the full report. Task Force members emphasized the necessity of the Executive Summary being consistent with the body of the report. It was noted that the report would be placed on the website in a PDF format. Mr. Thorwald suggested that the stakeholder meetings be listed in the back of the report along with the public input meetings. Comments from the stakeholder meetings will be included in the recommendations of the Task Force.
Mr. Maguire described the process by which the document would be sent to the Governor and duplicated for public dissemination.
Action: It was moved by Mr. Thorwald and seconded by Ms. Cornelio to approve the Interim Report of the Vision 21 Task Force.
The meeting was opened up to public comment.
Mr. Joe Ryan, a resident of Sun City West, suggested that all references to pedestrian paths and sidewalks be deleted from the Interim Report. He explained that these areas are typically located on private property and should be given low priority consideration. He noted that the Governor’s order makes no mention of pedestrian paths.
Ms. Donna Redford, representing Arizona Bridge to Independent Living, expressed her disappointment that there were no specific findings on the need for a regional transit system, although it was clearly identified in the public hearings and meetings with stakeholders. Mr. Shultz commented that the sense of regional public transit needs is in the report and is a high priority in the minds of the Task Force members.
There were no other requests to speak.
Upon a call for the question, the motion carried unanimously.
Presentations by Transportation Experts:
Commuting in America and Sociodemographic Determiners, Alan Pisarski
Mr. Pisarski presented slides addressing issues related to the 20th Century and transportation. He discussed trends that have dominated the century and the difficult times that the populace has survived relative to baby boomers coming of age, women joining the labor force and extraordinary growth in just-in-time freight and foreign trade. He emphasized that every county in Arizona is growing faster than the nation. He explained how all of these issues have affected the transportation system. He discussed future trends that will affect commuting and transportation in general. Mr. Pisarski stated his belief that people will demand and be willing to pay for efficient transportation. In conclusion, he stated that the question facing the Task Force is how it will serve the brave new world in the new millennium.
Alternate Route: Toward Efficient Urban Transportation, Clifford Winston
Mr. Winston discussed the relationship between transportation and the GDP. He stressed the importance of keeping in mind that if the transportation system becomes more efficient, it raises the GPD and promotes growth of the country. The core of his research has focused on the concept of privatizing transportation and, therefore, producing dramatic improvements in the efficiency of the system. He suggested that what is needed is market-oriented solutions. He encourages more efficient use of existing resources before more money is spent. He feels that politics is the fundamental problem with public sector involvement in transportation and that shielding the system from politics will spur innovation. Mr. Winston presented key facts that back up his privatization concept, guidelines for an efficient public sector solution, and listed some of the effects that might be seen if transit is privatized.
Mobility Challenges, Dr. Sandra Rosenbloom
Dr. Rosenbloom presented a summary of her work culminating in recommendations for improving the transit system in the state, thus mitigating the myriad of surface transportation issues that exist. Her studies looked at transit systems that increase ridership. She described traditional riders and discussed the problem with counting on those riders in the future. Traditional systems are seeing shares of traditional riders decreasing while shares are increasing for non-traditional riders. She explained the services that were linked to increased ridership. In those cases, providers focused on large potential rider pools, such as employment centers and large universities. She recommended the development of market-appropriate targets and standards for suburban routes and the disabled population. She recommended the implementation of different performance measures for different markets, addressing a range of solutions to provide those aged 65+ with mobility options, finding ways to regular private sector operators for public safety but encouraging them to operate, and targeting the huge market of young people. In conclusion, Dr. Rosenbloom emphasized the need to understand the market in Arizona and find ways to respond to the needs of the people.
General Discussion
Mr. Pisarski and Mr. Winston confirmed that the transit share is 5% of the commuting public. Mr. Mawhinney asked if there has ever been any attempt to charge the expenses back to the transit riders.
Dr. Rosenbloom commented that there is currently no incentive for any agency to provide transportation, although there have been a lot of studies on the issue. Mr. Winston commented that the mindset upon which transit, air and rail transportation is set up has to change away from a bequeath system. Dr. Rosenbloom stated that the question is how to make the system most effective. She noted that a lot of people who use the system are not poor or elderly, and their use of the system does not need to be subsidized. Mr. Pisarski felt that recent trends to go after vogue riders has not worked. In his mind, transit funding should be focused on people who experience mobility problems.
Ms. Cornelio asked if the California trend in toll roads will be a nationwide trend. Mr. Winston answered that findings are only preliminary. The key is congestion pricing, and there are no conclusive findings as of yet. Mr. Pisarski added that he sees an opportunity to sell a premium service system, and the good news is that low-income persons also use those systems. To him, one key issue is “time is money,” and he feels resources are better spent on systems that provide time savings and reliability.
Mr. Bivens asked for guidance on how to create a pricing mechanism. Mr. Pisarski was opposed to pricing because of the uncertainty with who is in charge of setting the price and what their goals are. Mr. Winston encouraged the Task Force to take a broader view of the problem, stating that it is hard to introduce cost based regulations. He would trust the market to regulate price rather than a third party.
Mr. Thorwald asked how the experts feel speed affects ridership, i.e. bullet trains versus private automobiles and air travel. He asked how short-term state budgets affect their ability to finance transportation. Mr. Pisarski encouraged the Task Force to examine high-speed rail, but felt they would find that it doesn’t work. He added that short-term state budgets (5-6 year cycles) do have an important effect on transportation systems. Dr. Rosenbloom agreed, noting that riders have to provide some form of transportation at their destination, which may defeat the purpose and be cost prohibitive. Mr. Winston suggested that speed would increase ridership but not to the point that high-speed rail could be profitable.
Mr. Shipman asked Mr. Winston if he advocates privatization of transit for all trips or certain markets. Mr. Winston compared transit privatization to the de-regulation of the airline industry. The problem with the current system is that it assumes all people have the same needs. If the system were private, the market would discover niches of services people want. He envisions a transit system developing in a much broader way. Dr. Rosenbloom said she would set it up so that public and private operators work together to make an efficient system. In her opinion, there are ways to set up incentives without throwing out the current system. She referenced an effective system in New Zealand. Mr. Winston stated that he does not believe a public and private sector system could compete effectively. He would predict that private enterprise would put the public sector system out of business.
Mr. Pisarski confirmed for Mr. Browning that the facts presented in his presentation included aviation and air freight.
Mr. Shultz thanked the panelists for their presentations.
Call to the Public
Mr. Bill Stephens, representing the Earth Millennium Project, emphasized the need to ban motorized skateboards on the streets, think in futuristic terms and think of we and us so that Phoenix doesn’t turn into L.A. He commented on the poverty that is evident on the drive to the capital. He called for 24-hour transit service throughout the state, an overhead monorail system in the Valley, a state transit authority, a heavy tax on gasoline to encourage the use of alternative transportation means, and bullet trains between Tucson and Phoenix, Phoenix and Flagstaff, and Yuma and Phoenix.
Mr. Ken Driggs, Executive Director for RPTA, expressed appreciation for the experts’ perspectives, especially Dr. Rosenbloom’s creative ideas on the use of stewardship of public funds. He stated his personal preference for alternate transportation modes and noted the unbelievable breakthrough over the past through years in forms of alternate transportation, citing several examples. He stressed the need for competition in the transportation system. He suggested that perhaps today’s youth will demand a variety of transportation options.
Mr. Ed and Mrs. Marilyn Burkam, dba Handicar in Tucson, explained that they are a private sector transportation provider, successfully providing services in Pima County for 15 years. They do paratransit for Pima County and the City of Tucson. They have been very successful in increasing utilization. Mrs. Burkam commented that many social agencies have zero funding for transportation.
Mr. Scott Duncan, representing All Aboard America, stated his support for private sector options as a viable alternative. He described his services, which provide transportation from outlying areas directly to downtown Phoenix. Eighty percent of their passengers previously drove private vehicles. Their goals have been accomplished without any taxpayer assistance.
Mr. Antonio Valenzuela, a resident of Tempe, agreed with the comments of Dr. Rosenbloom with respect to ceasing to think of public transportation as a public welfare system. He stressed the need to attract affluent riders to gain public support. He was very much opposed to a high speed rail system in Arizona, noting that it doesn’t even work between Washington and New York. He encouraged the Task Force to concentrate on improving the transit system within the metropolitan areas.
Mr. Shultz discussed how the Task Force would proceed from this point forward. A target was set for December 31 to have the first quarter schedule for the Task Force. He commended the Task Force on what they had done by approving the Interim Report.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson
SHARON MEGDAL, Co-Chairperson
