Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:30 p.m., Thursday, December 28, 2000
Arizona State Capitol, Executive Tower
1700 W. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor, State Reception Room
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, December 28, 2000 with Co-Chairpersons Sharon Megdal, Ph.D. and Martin Shultz presiding. Other members in attendance were Lisa Atkins, Malcolm Barrett, Steve Basila, John Bivens, Priscilla Cornelio, Kurt Davis, Joe Herrick, John Mawhinney, Diane McCarthy, Dennis Mitchem, Dave Olney, Kevin Olson, Mary Peters, Ingo Radicke, Rene Redondo, Jim Shipman, Lela Steffey, and Frank Thorwald. Also present were Alan Maguire, John Carlson and Matt Carpenter.
Welcome, Opening Remarks
Mr. Shultz called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and let the pledge of allegiance. He thanked the Task Force members for agreeing to meet during the holidays. Mr. Shultz reviewed the meeting schedule and goals. Mr. Shultz provided copies of a press release on the results of a Maricopa County study, which called for the improvement of transportation to make Arizona the place citizens would want to live in the next 20 years. Transportation dominated as the number one issue among the respondents. Mr. Thorwald referred to a study among rural chambers of commerce and cities, which also found transportation to be one of the top ten issues of concern.
Presentation of Hypothetical Plans
Mr. Maguire introduced the topic of discussion and stated that the purpose of the presentation is to review the hypothetical plan process. He discussed the consultants’ efforts since the last meeting to refine the data and the plans. The presentation will focus on the impacts and consequences of the existing circumstances and the different alternative plans.
Mr. Yonel Grant, Booz-Allen Hamilton, highlighted the research done since the last meeting to refine the data. He outlined the major components of his presentation: the context for transportation needs growth, the hypothetical plans themselves and the benefits, and the next steps in the process. Mr. Grant presented a chart depicting population growth as a major driving factor for transportation trends in Arizona in the past and over the term of the long-range plan. He provided examples of freeway levels of service to give Task Force a point of reference for comparison purposes. Keeping the freeway levels of service in mind, Mr. Grant provided a map of congestion areas throughout the state. He presented a service level map of 2020 assuming no new projects. The same exercise was performed for the major arterials in the metropolitan areas, and maps were provided to demonstrate the results. Mr. Grant noted the difficulty in reporting data consistently on a system-wide basis because of the performance measures available. Task Force members noted two key costs, productivity and air quality, as a result of the delays that would occur without improvements.
Looking at the maps presented, Dr. Megdal expressed concern with the validity of the data depicted for the PAG region.
Mr. Grant reviewed the hypothetical plan refinement efforts since the last meeting. He discussed the Task Force’s role in the process on a step-by-step basis. He noted the priorities reflected in the hypothetical plans and provided examples of the assumptions used in the development of the plans. He emphasized the huge impact the assumptions have on how the costs are extrapolated over 20 years. Mr. Grant presented the 20-year costs of each of the hypothetical plans: Plan 1, $19.9 Billion; Plan 2, $53.9 Billion; Plan 3, $64.2 Billion; Plan 4, $66.6 Billion. He described in detail the conceptual differences between each plan.
Mr. Maguire pointed out that Plan 1 is possibly conservative, because of the difficulty in obtaining accurate preservation data, which may impact the 20-year costs of not only this plan but Plans 3 and 4, which build on Plan 1.
Mr. Grant continued with in-depth descriptions of the purpose, key elements and project examples for each plan. He highlighted the cost allocations by mode of transportation for each plan. Mr. Grant presented no-build/build service level comparisons that would result from Plans 3 and 4.
Dr. Megdal requested that Mr. Grant provide for the Task Force the formula used for projecting future costs in Plan 2.
At the request of Mr. Bivens, Mr. Grant specifically compared the aviation expansion components between Plans 3 and 4 in terms of dollars and number of projects.
Mr. Thorwald asked the consultants to present information on the differences in air quality impact between Plans 3 and 4.
Mr. Olson requested additional service level information relating to the number of persons impacted in each level of service and the length of time they are delayed.
Mr. Ferreri proceeded with an overview of the next steps in the process of creating the vision. He noted the consultants’ assessment of what the Task Force believes the statewide plan is and is not. He stated that the consultants believe the vision is not simply a list of projects. He suggested that the vision does not endorse a particular study, plan or program; it should focus on broad levels of expenditures, what it will accomplish and what it will do for the consumer. He listed recommendations for broad categorical priorities for the plan and called for direction from the Task Force, who were supportive of this approach.
Mr. Olson requested more information than a dollar amount and a percentage on the chart that reflected this approach, specifically a quantification of return on investment (modal market share as a result of the plan). Mr. Shultz asked that the consultants provide the most useful set of performance criteria. Dr. Megdal requested information that would give her an indication of the trade-offs between Plans 3 and 4 and cargo movement versus people movement.
Mr. Maguire noted that the data might not be available to completely answer the requests of Task Force members, and the consultants’ capacity to provide that requested is limited. He was confident that the next Task Force would be better able to capture the data necessary simply by virtue of the process the Task Force has undergone. Task Force members recognized the problems related to the data that was available at the outset of this process.
Mr. Ferreri continued with a listing of key questions that need to be considered to develop critical components and characteristics for the draft plan. He compared the dollar values of the needs and revenues available for Plans 1 through 4. He concluded with a listing of four key tasks necessary in the development of the statewide plan over the next several weeks.
Presentation of Hypothetical Revenue Plans
Ms. Linda Carpenter, Wilbur Smith Associates, provided a presentation on the revenue side of the hypothetical packages. She shared estimates of the base case revenues available over the next 20 years in constant 2000 dollars by transportation mode. The results show that HURF is the main source of highway revenue anticipated over the next 20 years. Half of these funds come from fuel taxes, which are impacted significantly over time by inflation and fuel efficiency. She stressed the importance of looking beyond fuel taxes in the future to help fill the funding gap. Ms. Carpenter noted that available revenues had been reduced by debt service requirements. Mr. Maguire noted that the revenues do not include any projected future bonding.
Mr. Shultz stated that the Task Force would make the policy decision relative to the use of bonds. Dr. Megdal stressed the need to spell out the revenue assumptions to avoid confusion. She suggested that the revenue projections be updated based on the alternative fuels impact.
Ms. Carpenter continued her presentation with a summary of highway revenues after debt service obligations are met, distinguishing between what can be used for capital and operating for transit. She noted the difficulty in estimating how the transit sales tax revenues would be spent but presented some assumptions. Mr. Shultz asked for a comparison between Phoenix and other major metropolitan areas in terms of transit revenues. Continuing, aviation revenues were described. Mr. Bivens asked if it were possible to determine the local share of aviation revenues.
Ms. Carpenter presented an overview of additional revenue sources considered in 1994 and 1995. She highlighted potential revenue yields of the alternative sources, which had been pared down to a list of those that would actually generate the substantial levels of revenues needed. She detailed yield estimates on an average annual basis and over the 20-year period. She confirmed that Yavapai, Pinal, Gila and Maricopa counties all have half-cent sales taxes dedicated to transportation.
Task Force members discussed the concept of tolling. Ms. Carpenter and Mr. Maguire explained that tolling and congestion pricing are more project specific financing mechanisms than true new revenue sources. Dr. Megdal asked that the Task Force at least comment on this issue in its recommendation for the record.
Mr. Bivens stated his support for the concept of indexing the fuel tax; Dr. Megdal also supported this concept.
Mr. Bivens stated his opposition to the development fee revenue option because of the small amount of traffic generated by residential development as opposed to commercial development. Ms. Carpenter clarified that the development fee would apply to both residential and commercial development. She emphasized the importance of not adopting a revenue program that is totally dependent upon fuel taxes.
Ms. Carpenter presented revenue option packages that would generate $5, $10 and $20 billion over the 20-year period. She pointed out that gas tax revenues are restricted for use on highway projects, whereas sales tax revenues would be unrestricted.
Mr. Thorwald requested that the Task Force be provided with revenue estimates for toll roads and congestion pricing. He felt it important that the Task Force consider alternate forms of revenue other than taxes.
Ms. Carpenter concluded her presentation with information on the impact of the various taxes presented on the typical household.
Mr. Radicke stated that one thing the state needs to do is increase the amount of fuel taxes that are returned to the state from 91.5 cents on the dollar to 95 cents on the dollar.
Mr. Maguire emphasized that the revenues presented were the "big producers," and they are not trying to preclude the smaller revenue contributors. He noted some of the benefits of those revenue sources in terms of the incentives they create and the important impacts they can have.
Task Force Hypotheticals Survey
Mr. Maguire highlighted the summary of the Task Force survey completed since the last Task Force meeting.
Due to time constraints and the inability to review this in more detail, Mr. Shultz asked Task Force members that did not respond to the survey or those that wanted to recharacterize their responses to call either he or Dr. Megdal, who would then summarize that information and provide it to Mr. Maguire. Dr. Megdal called for exception comments only and requested that they be submitted via e-mail. Mr. Shultz set a time limit of January 5 for submission of comments.
Mr. Maguire said that it is critically important to understand that the data with respect to questions one and two is in rank order, whereas questions three, four, five and six were open ended and are not in any specific order.
Approval of Minutes for November 21, 2000
Action: A motion to accept the minutes, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Task Force members discussed the January meeting schedule and locations for the Task Force and the subcommittees. Mr. Maguire stated the objective is to have preliminary final recommendations by the end of January. Once that document is ready, it will be taken to public hearings and open houses around the state. It is hoped that the Task Force can then reconvene in March or April to make final decisions on the recommendation to the Governor. Mr. Bivens asked that the Task Force members be provided a draft of the preliminary final recommendation well in advance of the meeting at which it will be acted upon.
In response to comments by Task Force members relative to creating a realistic plan, Mr. Grant agreed to try to present information on project efficiency at least on a corridor basis.
Mr. Olney suggested that the Task Force use the website more effectively to generate public comments by putting some of the consultants’ documentation on the website with a request for feedback. He also suggested that the website be used as more of a public education tool. Dr. Megdal suggested that this issue be put on a future meeting agenda. She also suggested the Task Force ask for outside assistance on the optimal use of the website for the purposes of soliciting public comment. She stressed the importance of educating the public on the needs, available and potential revenue sources and the consequences of the various choices available.
Call to the Public
Mr. Bill Ordway, 12009 S. Piute Street Phoenix, ADOT director from 1974 to 1985, currently representing a group called the Arizona Transportation Improvement Association, stated the goal of the group is to educate and inform the public about transportation in Arizona. He provided background information on the organization and expanded on the original goals and objectives of the organization. He discussed the lack of success in achieving those goals and objectives and the evolvement of a relationship with the Town Hall organization. He suggested that the final recommendation of the Task Force include a voice of support for a privately funded organization, such as ATIA, to provide an ongoing education/information forum for the citizens of Arizona.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson
SHARON MEGDAL, Co-Chairperson
