Minutes of a Public Meeting

 

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

OF THE

PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESS COMMITTEE

2:00 p.m., Thursday, April 22, 1999

Arizona State Capitol

Executive Tower

Phoenix, Arizona

The Planning and Programming Committee met in official session for a Regular Meeting at 2:00 p.m., Thursday, April 22, 1999, with Vice-Chairperson Diane McCarthy presiding. Other members present were Malcolm Barrett, John Bivens, Paulson Chaco, Sheldon Miller, Raul Piña, Rene Redondo, Sharon Megdal (ex-officio). Also present were Stephanie Bondeson, Transportation Planner, Arizona Department of Transportation, and Dale Buskirk, Acting Division Director, Transportation Planning Division, Arizona Department of Transportation.

Pledge of Allegiance, Welcome

Ms. McCarthy called the meeting to order and all present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Remarks and Charge of this Committee

Ms. McCarthy outlined the charge of the committee. She stated that the committee’s most important function is to understand how planning takes place today and develop a foundation for a multimodal transportation plan for the next 20 years.

Ms. McCarthy noted that the April 29 meeting had been cancelled. She reviewed the public meeting schedule and encouraged committee members to think about the meetings they could attend. She suggested that members call Ms. Bondeson about travel arrangements.

Presentation and Discussion: Planning Process

Mr. Dale Buskirk, Acting Division Director, Transportation Planning Division, ADOT, said that his presentation would cover the generic transportation planning process, whereas others would discuss the process for the MPOs, COGs and cities. He began with an overview of the transportation performance and societal objectives, the definition of planning and the objective of transportation planning. He stated that there is always a greater need than funds available; therefore, prioritization is the key. A simple diagram of the planning process was provided. Mr. Buskirk explained that long-range transportation futures need to take into consideration demographics, economic profiles, transportation demands, energy scenarios, transportation technologies, social changes and communications. The goals of transportation planning are efficiency, effectiveness and externality. The multimodal performance objectives establish 10-year objectives and ensure surveillance and evaluation programs. Mid range project priorities include project identification, project prioritization and meaningful public participation. The process for capital improvements includes the development of financial strategies, project scheduling and public participation. Mr. Buskirk reviewed the resource allocation process and the TEA-21 provisions for statewide and metropolitan planning. He defined three key terms relative to TEA-21: consultation, cooperation and coordination.

Mr. Bivens asked how performance objectives for the overall system are addressed in planning. Mr. Buskirk reviewed the performance measures for facilities provided. Mr. Bivens suggested that the system needs to consider the interface between services and facilities, i.e. bicycle use and a light rail system. Mr. Buskirk explained that how one mode of transportation connects to another is what intermodal transportation is all about. He added that corridor profiles are multimodal in character as are small area transportation studies.

In response to a question asked by Mr. Redondo, Mr. Buskirk explained that ADOT prepared a State Transportation Plan, which was adopted by the State Transportation Board in 1994. The plan identified goals and objectives and included measurement tools to measure the degree to which the system was meeting its goals and objectives. The department uses a number of specific measurement tools, and he offered to report separately on that issue. The plan adopted in 1994 was a policy document. As a result of the plan, a multimodal study was done for Phoenix and Tucson. It was decided that all committee members would be provided copies of the goals and objectives included in the 1994 State Transportation Plan.

Mr. Terry Johnson, MAG, provided an overview of the MPO and TMA designations and the six federal planning requirements associated with those designations. He indicated that the congestion management system is the most important from a TMA’s perspective, and he explained the process of that system. He stated that both MPOs and TMAs prioritize recommendations. The long-range plan drives the decisions, including the selection of individual projects. Mr. Johnson explained how MAG integrates the cities and towns plans into a region’s transportation system. He reviewed MAG’s role in the development of the regional freeway system and the state’s role in maintaining the system. He explained the composition of the MAG committees and how members are selected. He discussed the working relationship between MAG and ADOT and stressed that both entities have the power to stop a project, depending on the issue involved. In response to a question by Mr. Bivens, Mr. Johnson stated that the county’s transportation focus is outside the urban areas.

Mr. Mike Sabatini, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, indicated that his agency is a member of MAG, and he confirmed that their focus is outside the urban area. One advantage they have is that they can be the implementing agency. They work closely with the cities within their boundaries. He explained their relationship to ADOT and noted that they also work closely together to coordinate activities. Mr. Buskirk cited several examples of the strong working relationship between the county and the state.

Mr. Sabatini described their multimodal efforts but stated that their funding comes almost totally from HURF, which limits their focus to roadway construction. They play a minor role in public transit, although they are a member of the RPTA. He noted that they had recently forwarded a bicycle plan to the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Johnson confirmed that there is a very high level of cooperation and coordination between the three plans of ADOT, MAG and MCDOT. He pointed out a couple of differences between the state plan and the local plans. She stressed the importance of vehicle emissions testing being extended to ten years and concluded her presentation with comments on the 2025 Visioning Process.

Mr. Dave Barber, WACOG, stated that the three Cs, consultation, cooperation and coordination, are not mandated for rural transportation, but ADOT has kept the COGs in the process. He explained the means by which ADOT includes the rural COGs in ADOT’s planning and programming process. He explained how the rural COGs measure successes. He stated that intermodal transportation is an issue even in rural Arizona, and a need for expanded levels of service has been identified. He cited Kingman as an example of a community that has experienced economic growth due to multimodal transportation, i.e. rail transportation. He emphasized the importance of small area transportation studies in rural areas. Mr. Barber reviewed WAGOG’s planning process and stated that rural COGs will be programming $9.2 million dollars this year for local roadways. He stated that rural areas also have congestion management issues that need to be addressed in their communities. He noted that a lot of transportation planning efforts are focused around the overall work program provided by ADOT. He emphasized the importance of planning in rural Arizona because of the limited resources. He was pleased to cite an example of excellent cooperation with ADOT, an IGA to share the cost of the study to realign S.R. 95 along the Colorado River.

Mr. Jim Glock, Deputy Director, City of Tucson Department of Transportation, provided an overview of the city’s transportation plan. He briefly discussed the financial constraints tied to the planning process, which were established in TEA-21. He explained the challenges presented by air quality conformity requirements. A variety of additional funding sources are addressed in the plan. He commented on the frustration involved with state project cooperation in terms of TIP conformance. He confirmed that they look closely at system performance measurements including safety, congestion and connectivity. They have a congestion management plan as well as an intermodal plan. He explained the basis for including local plans into the regional plan.

Ms. Cherie Campbell, Transportation Planning Manager, PAG, said she would provide copies to the group of PAG’s Regional Transportation Plan. She compared PAG’s process to that of MAG. She pointed out that PAG makes a concerted effort to get a broad representation of stakeholders on their committees. She noted that ADOT is represented on their Regional Council. They have a long-range plan and a prioritization process for their five-year plan. She outlined the criteria for the five-year plan and discussed the public participation process. She stated that all projects are generated by local jurisdictions and are included in the long-range plan.

Mr. Redondo commented that the business community also played an important part in the PAG planning process. He acknowledged the significant benefit of the public outreach efforts.

Ms. McCarthy asked about the time frame between when a project is planned and when construction is begun. Mr. Glock suggested that ten years seems to be an average timeframe. Ms. Campbell added that the scope of a project and funding sources have a lot to do with the timing. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Buskirk agreed with the answers to the question in terms of both of their entities. Mr. Barber added that rural areas generally have to accumulate funds over a period of years before a project can be completed, but he also agreed that ten years is an accurate timeframe.

Closing Remarks and Preview of Next Meeting

Mr. Bivens welcomed additional input from the previous speakers throughout the committee process, specifically on how the planning process can be expedited/streamlined.

Ms. McCarthy requested that all materials to be sent to the committee members be circulated through Ms. Bondeson. Ms. Bondeson added that questions and requests for information should also be sent to her.

Mr. Barrett asked if the group would have an opportunity to hear from all of the rural COGs.

Mr. Miller inquired about the format for the public hearings. Ms. Bondeson explained that the creation of the format is a work in progress. She expected to have a draft agenda out by the following week. She stated that local COGs and elected officials would be encouraged to attend the meetings and take part.

Mr. Chaco asked how the Indian tribes are involved in the development of long-term transportation plans. Mr. Buskirk explained that TEA-21 mandated the involvement of the tribes. He explained how they are involved in the small area transportation studies as well as the corridor profile between Tucson and Phoenix. With respect to the programming process, tribal representatives are encouraged to meet with the district engineers and participate in the development of project recommendations. They are also encouraged to participate in the public hearings.

Mr. Buskirk made one final comment, that being that if transportation planning is to work, it is essential that there be coordination. While there are challenges involved with this, ADOT makes a strong good faith effort. He welcomed the recommendations of the Task Force. He stressed the importance of public participation but noted that this is a challenging part of the process. He welcomed recommendations as to how to more effectively involve the public.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

DIANE MCCARTHY, Vice-Chairperson