120314 ccfpt packet by Michael Cornelius

CITY OF PHOENIX CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, A.R.S. Section 38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION and to the general public, that the CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION will hold a meeting open to the public on December 3, 2014, at 6:00p.m. located in the Saguaro Room, 2nd Floor, Phoenix Public Transit Building, 302 N. 1st Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona. One or more Committee members may participate via teleconference. Agenda items may be taken out of order. 1.

Call to Order

Chair Peters

Approval of the minutes of the November 5, 2014 meeting

Committee members

This item is for information, discussion and possible action. Approval of the minutes for the November 22, 2014 workshop

Committee members

This item is for information, discussion and possible action. Call to the Public Chair Peters Consideration, discussion, and concerns from the public. Those wishing to address the Committee need not request permission in advance. Action taken as a result of the public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter or rescheduling the matter for further consideration and decision at a later date. Public Involvement Update This item provides an update on the public involvement process.

Public outreach report only

This item is an information report only. Committee Workshop results and other considerations This item provides an overview of the committee workshop results, noted commonalities and differences, and other transportation considerations for review.

Maria Hyatt Public Transit Director Terry Gruver HDR/ Valley Metro

This item is for information, discussion, and possible action. Introduction to funding options This item provides an overview of potential funding options.

Est.: 20 min. Ken Kessler Deputy Public Transit Director

This item is for information, discussion, and possible action.

Est.: 20 min.

Request for Future Agenda Items

Chair Peters

Adjournment

Chair Peters

For further information, please call Megan Neal, Management Assistant II, Public Transit Department at 602-534-6192. Persons paid to lobby on behalf of persons or organizations other than themselves shall register with the City Clerk prior to lobbying or within five business days thereafter, and must register annually to continue lobbying. If you have any questions about registration or whether or not you must register, please contact the City Clerkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office at 602-262-6811. To request reasonable accommodations, call Megan Neal at Voice/602-534-6192 or TTY/7-1-1 as early as possible to coordinate needed arrangements.

November 26, 2014

Citizens Committee on the Future of Phoenix Transportation, December 3, 2014, Item 2

CITY OF PHOENIX CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION MEETING MINUTES November 5, 2014 Maricopa Association of Governments 302 North First Avenue, 2nd Floor Committee Present

Committee Present (con’t)

Public Present

City Staff Present

City Staff Present (con’t)

Baele, Roger

Keuth, Don

Barker, Diane

Bowar, Joe

Neal, Megan

Baier, Maria (Vice Chair)

Martin, David

Frazier, Carrie

Dovalina, Ray

Santana, Albert

Brown, Kerwin

Mattox, Claude

May, Howard

Gruver, Terry

Sapien, Jesus

McCune, Frank

Heil, Matt

Upton, Curt

Miller, Roy

Hernandez, Monica

Gilroy, Len (via call-in)

Olivas, Eva

Hyatt, Maria

Federhar, Andy

Pangrazio, Phil

Bunch, Ed (via call-in) Cornelius, Michael

Hoover, Mike Hubbard, Richard Hunter, Yvonne James, Abraham

Pastor, Sonya

Knudson, Kini

Peters, Mary (Chair)

Mariscal, Ted

Rees, Julie

Melnychenko, Mark

Scutari, Shannon

Miller, Wendy

Tribken, Craig

Naimark, Rick

Vera, Feliciano (via call-in)

Committee Absent Brossart, Diane Cannon, Bob Ferniza, Sandra Scherer, Diane Simplot, Tom

Kessler, Ken

Committee Absent (con’t) Loo, Leonardo Scrivano, Catherine Shultz, Marty (Vice Chair) Danley, Ian

Trujillo, Gary

Call to Order Chair Mary Peters called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m., and a quorum was established.

Approval of the minutes from October 21, 2014 meeting Committee Member Roy Miller motioned to approve the minutes from the October 21, 2014 meeting. Committee Member Don Keuth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Call to the Public Chair Peters had three requests from the public to speak, Ms. Carrie Frazier, Ms. Diane Barker and Mr. Howard May. Ms. Carrie Frazier expressed her concern with the reverse lanes on 7th Avenue and 7th Street. She referenced an accident in March 2012 where she was seriously injured resulting in a long recovery which impacted her financially. She stated that many people do not understand how the lanes work and they are confusing. She commented the lanes are dangerous and would like them removed. Ms. Diane Barker stated that she was hit by an SUV in a crosswalk and survived it. She continued that often cars pull into the crosswalks in the downtown area making it dangerous. She mentioned walking was good for downtown commerce. Ms. Barker mentioned a Central Phoenix study that looks at vacant land and travel patterns. She stated she was surprised there were not more people speaking out against the South Mountain Bypass. Ms. Barker indicated her support for mass transit. Mr. Howard May stated he was here on behalf of a friend who lives at 21st Avenue and Pima Road, and could not make it to the meeting due to the difficulty of accessing transit after service cuts in October which affected Route 10 (Roosevelt). Mr. May mentioned a crosswalk needing to be installed on 19th Avenue for his friend due to her disability and expressed concern with cars that do not yield for crosswalks. He expressed his concern with the cutbacks which could affect the number of people who are using transit. Mr. May commended the individuals who work hard on the light rail system. He also expressed concern with the width of the barricades for the crosswalk being too narrow at 19th Avenue and Bethany Home Road.

Staff Review/Public Involvement Update Matt Heil, City of Phoenix Public Transit Department Public Information Officer, provided an update on the current public outreach activities. To date, staff has

held 61 outreach events reaching over 3,000 people. Mr. Heil stated that over 500 individuals are engaged online with the talktransportation.org website. He mentioned staff is currently categorizing the public comments and will provide the committee the comments in aggregate. Mr. Heil mentioned the comments will be categorized into themes such as Light Rail, High Capacity Transit (HCT), Bus, Complete Streets, Technology, Funding, and Other. He provided clarification that the Bus theme will include comments on frequency, hours of operation, span of service for local, Rapid, and Dial-a-Ride Services. The HCT theme will include comments on overcrowding, and other issues that suggest the need for HCT. The Complete Streets category will include comments on safe crossing, access to transit, shade, bike lanes, multi-modal/walkability, ADA access, and distance to transit stops. Mr. Heil mentioned the technology category will include comments on digital ticketing, reloadable cards, and WI-FI. Committee Member Eva Olivas asked for clarification on a comment from the public on the redevelopment of the Park and Rides, and if they could be sold back or used for other functions. Mr. Heil responded the comment was related to ridership and parking at light rail Park and Rides and if those spaces could be sold or otherwise utilized. He continued this idea has not yet been analyzed. Committee Member Roy Miller expressed concern that the focus of the presentation is based mostly on transit and not automobile traffic and issues which represents 80% of the population. Mr. Heil responded that staff held open houses which were open to everyone and did not receive many concerns with pavement issues. He continued that some of the comments received were related to HAWK crossings and pedestrian access. Chair Peters stated that other than street-related transit improvements, the entire street transportation system is not included as part of the committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s charge. Mr. Heil stated that staff accepts all comments and would break out any comments related to street transportation. Committee Member Feliciano Vera suggested the lack of feedback on the street transportation network may be attributed to the fact that Phoenix does a good job at managing the street network. Mr. Vera asked for a little deeper drill down of information related to multimodal accessibility, last mile, safe routes to schools and pedestrian safety issues. Mr. Heil stated the issues include safe crossing on arterial streets, crosswalk issues, and speed around schools. Committee Member Michael Cornelius commented there is a broad source of information being ignored which is the comments from transit workers and asked if there was any outreach planned for the operators. Mr. Heil responded staff can make arrangements. Chair Peters asked Committee Member Cornelius to assist in making those arrangements.

Committee Member Olivas suggested contacting FedEx, UPS, and other commercial drivers for feedback. Committee Member Cornelius mentioned he has a contact at UPS and will reach out. Committee Member Miller commented he thought the committee’s goal was broader than just transit. Chair Peters reiterated the charge of the committee which includes street improvements which help facilitate transit. Committee Member Miller asked if the committee documents stated that specifically. Deputy City Manager Rick Naimark responded that the committee’s goal is to develop a comprehensive transportation plan for transit, street improvements which support transit, and a funding strategy. He continued the funding plan should be based on what needs to be done with the expiring Transit 2000 tax, either renewal or changing it. Mr. Naimark commented the City’s street needs and street funding are also out of balance, but the discussion for that issue needs to be separate from the transit funding discussion. He suggested the trigger for this issue has been the transit tax and although he wouldn’t exclude discussion on street transportation, it is not a major focus. Committee Member Miller asked to clarify that our focus is just transit, and not the rest of the population. Mr. Naimark responded that all of the modes are integrated. Committee Member Vera stated his perspective that the committee look at mobility from a wholistic approach in Phoenix by facilitating efficiently the transfer of all people and goods ensuring a healthy society. He stated it was risky to focus on a single mode and should be looked at more broadly. Mr. Vera continued that Mr. Grote’s presentation at the last meeting did mention that the Federal perspective on funding was multimodal projects. Chair Peters respectfully requested a deferral of discussion related to Street Transportation issues in the interest of time for the current agenda. She introduced Public Transit Director Maria Hyatt. Director Hyatt requested that the staff review portion of item 4 could be taken out of order and delayed until the end. 5.

North and South Phoenix overview: Transportation Needs Assessment and Solutions Discussion Director Hyatt provided a brief overview of North Phoenix. Ms. Hyatt indicated although currently the north has limited density and limited service, the population is continuing to grow and this area will need different solutions. She

mentioned some of the solutions are commuter-based and might include adding bus routes and extending RAPID service to areas like Anthem. Director Hyatt presented information on South Phoenix, indicating the growth and need for Bus Rapid Transit and/or High Capacity Transit in the area. She indicated Downtown Phoenix had a separate presentation. Item 4 taken out of orderâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Mr. John Harlow from Arizona State University presented on the planned scenario workshop soon to be scheduled for an upcoming Saturday. Mr. Harlow developed a tool which helps reduce the need for math during decision making activities for the plan. He explained the tool which converts ideas to tactile and visual aids during the workshop. Committee Member Miller asked who made the request for an extra day. Committee Member Don Keuth replied he made the initial request. Committee Member Shannon Scutari mentioned she had seconded the request. Director Hyatt stated she understands weekend time is precious and only a few hours are needed for the committee to start prioritizing, discuss funding and help develop the final plan. Committee Member Pastor asked how long was expected for the workshop. Director Hyatt replied the workshop is intended to be three hours. Ms. Pastor indicated she had a conflict on the November 15 proposed date, which involved a My Plan Phoenix event with the Mayor and she thought others might likely have the same conflict. Director Hyatt noted the conflict. Committee Member Claude Mattox requested for the date to be selected soon to aid in scheduling. Facilitator Terry Gruver reminded the committee that a Doodle Poll was sent out to request dates for the workshop. Committee Member Roger Baele stated he sent a list of concerns to the Chair, Vice Chair and staff regarding the lack of a clear path to attaining the development of a final plan within the three remaining meetings without just rubberstamping the recommendation. He noted some suggestions- reducing the PowerPoint presentations as well as voting on items which are already in agreement and not needing to readdress. Mr. Baele expressed concerns with the ASU tool and the need to determine a philosophical approach to look at different scenarios, either high-end or bare bones. He continued that he was not sure if the committee needs to drill down to a route level like was done with the previous tax. Mr. Baele stated the committee has not discussed the different funding alternatives such as sales tax and fuel tax and has concerns in not getting to the meat of the discussion quickly enough.

Deputy City Manager Rick Naimark responded that this is the point at which everyone on the committee has been brought up to speed with the same information, as some were already closely familiar with the topic, and others were not. He stated the approach would likely be bigger picture ideas and giving the committee bigger picture choices. Mr. Naimark continued that one meeting will be to focus entirely on the funding, while another is to focus on the ideas generated by the community. He acknowledged staff would be helping with the ASU activity by building packages that include scenario details and the committee would be broken into smaller groups for easier ways to discuss the topics and find commonalities. Mr. Naimark said we want to build up from the existing system and discuss if any services need to go away, change, or ideas for expansion. Committee Member Baele suggested the committee is at that time where this is necessary. Committee Member Keuth mentioned there is an existing list of what items were promised for the current tax, what was done, and what was not along with the price tag to complete. Committee Member Scutari stated this was a good process, however attaining consensus is challenging with the larger group. She mentioned she liked the ASU activity idea to work in smaller groups and bring it back to the larger group. Committee Member Vera stated he wanted to the assumptions to be realistic based on empirical data and supported Committee Member Baeleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comments on urgency. Committee Member Andy Federhar stated with his past experience in freeway transportation issues, that it is tough to substitute the expertise of staff. He supported the idea of subcommittees and expressed concern the committee would get bogged down otherwise. Committee Member Baele mentioned staff had done a lot of work and would like to make a motion that before the next meeting, all activities should be listed with deliverables. Chair Peters agreed and asked Committee Members Miller, Baele, and Keuth to assist with charting the list. She mentioned other committee members could be included. Chair Peters asked for the entire committee to please make note of their five top priorities and send them to Megan Neal and asked for everyone to make note of their other homework items- answering the Doodle Poll sent by Megan for establishing a date for the workshop. Committee Member Mattox left at 7:04 p.m.

Committee Member Craig Tribken asked if the committee would have a pre-set list of items to choose from to establish the top priorities. Committee Member Sonya Pastor mentioned page 11 in the charter has a list of items. Committee Member Scutari mentioned Megan Neal has a list of themes. Chair Peters requested Ms. Neal to send out a list of the themes. Committee Member Frank McCune stated his preference for starting with a dollar figure first and building the plan backwards from there. Committee Member David Martin clarified the priorities are not limited to those in page 11 and are augmented by the themes sent by Ms. Neal. Chair Peters reminded everyone that the expectation is to complete the Doodle Poll and provide the top five priorities to Ms. Neal by the end of the week. Committee Member Baele asked for examples of the ASU activity tool. Committee Member Miller asked if the whole committee could be copied on the committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s priority responses. Mr. Naimark responded no due to open meeting law requirements. Chair Peters requested the â&#x20AC;&#x153;readers digest versionâ&#x20AC;? of the remaining presentations. Mr. Mark Melnychenko, City of Phoenix Street Transportation Special Projects Administrator provided an overview of the Phoenix Comprehensive Downtown Transportation Study, an 11-year project with focus on enhanced transit/bicycle/pedestrian emphasis in the Central Avenue corridor in response to increased light rail activity anticipated to occur with the I-10 Capitol West and South Central Light Rail Extensions. The goals and objectives of the study include improved movement of people downtown, identification of alternative multimodal transportation improvements, changes to current traffic plans, and to coordinate with other related study area projects as well as expand economic development opportunities. Committee Member Scutari asked if this was an example of a microcosm of complete streets in conjunction with transit improvements. Mr. Melnychenko replied yes. Committee Member Miller asked about the reversal from one-way streets to twoway streets. Mr. Melnychenko responded that one-way streets were designed prior to freeways and other changes which have modified the traffic flow over time.

Mr. Curt Upton, City of Phoenix Planning and Development Project Manager presented on Reinvent Phoenix and transportation priorities along the Light Rail line. Mr. Upton discussed Reinvent Phoenix and their transportation priorities. He discussed what ideas and concepts the different specific neighborhoods had discussed off of the existing rail line. Committee Member Federhar left at 7:32 p.m. Committee Member McCune left at 7:33 p.m. Committee Member Tribken asked about the priorities within the width of large corridors, such as Van Buren. Mr. Upton responded they do prioritize which varies with each project. Committee Member Miller stated that his disappointment centered around attempts to limit the scope of the committee's charge to tax and transit related matters. Miller said that, in response to Miller's question at the first meeting, Mayor Stanton had been very clear about the fact that the committee should come up with a comprehensive plan and there were NO limits to our actions. Miller said he also questioned this idea when Vice Chairman Schultz made comments a couple of meetings later which seemed to try to limit the committee's scope. Finally, Miller observed that no one had questioned the inclusion by Miller at subsequent committee meetings of including such subjects as HOT lanes or toll lanes on the freeways, synchronized traffic signals, services like Uber and Lyft, autonomous vehicle use, etc. Miller noted that, with respect to Uber and Lyft, the staff had even agreed to approach those companies about making presentations to the committee. 6.

Request for Future Agenda Items Item was not addressed due to lack of quorum.

Adjournment Staff Megan Neal stated there was no longer a quorum. Chair Peters adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m.

Citizens Committee on the Future of Phoenix Transportation, December 3, 2014, Item 3

CITY OF PHOENIX CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF PHOENIX TRANSPORTATION WORKSESSION MINUTES November 22, 2014 Valley Metro Operations and Maintenance Center 605 S. 48th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034 Committee Present

Committee Present (con’t) Loo, Leonardo

Public Present

City Staff Present

City Staff Present (con’t)

Fierro, Andres

Bowar, Joe

Neal, Megan

Baier, Maria (Vice Chair)

Lunsford, Jack

Harlow, John

Dovalina, Ray

Santana, Albert

Brown, Kerwin

Miller, Roy

Hekler, Eric

Grote, Wulf

Sapien, Jesus

Brossart, Diane

Olivas, Eva

Johnston, Eric

Bunch, Ed

Pangrazio, Phil

Karrick, Anthony

Ferniza, Sandra

Pastor, Sonya

Tevlin, Jack

Gilroy, Len

Rees, Julie

Hyatt, Maria

Hoover, Mike

Scherer, Diane

Kessler, Ken

Hunter, Yvonne

Scutari, Shannon

Knudson, Kini

James, Abraham

Tribken, Craig

Mariscal, Ted

Trujillo, Gary

Melnychenko, Mark

Baele, Roger

Keuth, Don

Scrivano, Catherine

Committee Absent Cannon, Bob Cornelius, Michael Danley, Ian Federhar, Andy

Shultz, Marty (Vice Chair) Committee Absent (con’t) Mattox, Claude McCune, Frank Peters, Mary Vera, Feliciano

Gruver, Terry Heil, Matt Hernandez, Monica

Naimark, Rick

Scott, Seth

Hubbard, Richard Martin, David

1. Called to Order The worksession began at 9:15am. Director Maria Hyatt thanked everyone for attending and introduced Terry Gruver to discuss the exercise. 2. Scenario Planning Workshop Terry Gruver discussed that there is a visualization of the total 2050 transportation plan improvements as presented and identified by staff and the community. Each potential plan element from the spreadsheet in your packet is represented here as a card. The size of each card is proportional to its cost. The cards are laid out on a surface area that represents total dollar amount needed to fund the plan. For example, the total 2050 transportation improvements cost 40 billion dollars over 30 years. Each team has a Guide and map to assist showing all potential solutions with projected population and employment density. Your facilitator will walk you through each category of cards so that your team can identify priorities. The categories are color coded, so that you can find the cards more easily. Once you have discussed all the plan elements, your facilitator will capture your work with a picture for staff to review before the next meeting. Team facilitators provided instructions for the exercise, that the cards correspond to the spreadsheet in their packet, and answered any clarifying questions for their team. GREEN TEAM Team Members: Gary Trujillo Yvonne Hunter Ed Bunch Marty Schultz Shannon Scutari The team discussed as follows: Existing Service • An element of future funding should be on improving/eliminating any weaknesses (i.e. inefficiencies) in the current system. • Convey the value of existing routes (in operating dollars) when proposing changes to applicable entities (Citizens Transit Commission(CTC) and Subcommittee meetings). • Convey the efficiencies of existing routes when proposing changes to applicable entities (CTC, T&I subcommittee).

• •

Ensure CTC involvement in future decisions relative to making changes to existing services. Ensure future, long-term connections to the South Phoenix area.

Span of Bus Service • If Phoenix is to consider 24-hour service, identify other peer agencies that may be doing the same, and inquire about those services' efficiency and usefulness to citizens. • Identify the public's desires relative to what passengers want for span of service (i.e., more frequency vs. longer hours). • If Phoenix is to consider 24-hour service, identify key usage and key employment areas which would need/support such service. • Engage partners when identifying corridors for potential 24-hour service - i.e., is there support from an adjacent city to for the operation of 24-hour routes? Is there regional consensus for areas where 24-hour service might be needed? • Increasing the span of bus service operating hours should be structured: identify corridors where it is most needed; potentially operated pilot route(s) to determine if 24-hour service works and is viable long-term. • Entity such as the CTC would need details from staff to justify proposing 24hour service; details would include: service need, target areas ("build service based on data"), costs, and frequency. • Determine if proposing 24-hour service would be "attractive" to supporters of the transit ballot initiative. • Evaluate the effectiveness of routes based on data gathered (ridership, pickup/drop-off points, connectivity to other routes).

Frequency of Service • Entity such as the CTC should rely on staff recommendations relative to changes in route frequencies; base such proposed changes on actual data gathered.

Service Expansion • More circulator systems are needed, and receive much public support. • For long-term planning purposes, add neighborhood circulator routes and fixed route extensions so that they complement each other and provide connectivity. • Is there a way to make circulator routes "safer" - there is generally negative comments heard about the DASH, and such connotations might keep passengers from riding. • Neighborhood circulators can be presented to the public as a way to add economic vitality/opportunities for a local area.

•

As with frequency changes, give staff the flexibility to propose appropriate route expansions as funding becomes more available and as targeted areas (employment centers) are identified. Long-term plan should be to give staff the flexibility to make appropriate adjustments to routes (again, based on data gathered).

Approved Light Rail • The group chose to include all approved light rail segments 'as is'. • Is there a way to combine construction projects/segments to realize cost savings - for example, could Camelback Phase I and Phase 2 be built together to save on project costs. • Does it benefit the region to submit projects jointly to the federal government for example, could Camelback Phase I and Phase 2 be submitted as one project? • Including the proposed LRT extension are positive for the region, and would provide greater connectivity for passengers. HCT Corridors • The group chose to include the following HCT corridors in their plan, all as LRT: Camelback Phase I, Camelback Phase 2, Baseline East, Baseline West, Northeast Extension, and Northwest/ASU West Extension. The 44th Street, 24th Street, 44th Street/Tatum, and Downtown Streetcar projects were seen as unnecessary and not the best use of public funds. • The group assumed that capital and operating costs were reflected in each card's cost. • In the future, ensure a "solid" Northeast Extension corridor is proposed, as there are multiple streets that can be used. • Ensure a long-term vision (20-30 years or more) is conveyed to the public when proposing the T2000 extension. • If funding falls short during the plan, identify corridors that could start off as BRT to lay the groundwork for being an LRT corridor sometime thereafter. Future BRT • The group chose to include all of the proposed BRT routes. • BRT routes make sense, based on historical ridership for the routes proposed, and provide connectivity citywide. Infrastructure Improvements • Natural gas fueling is positive and works great for the city - this is a good story to tell the voters. • Ensure other potential propulsion technologies are evaluated in the future once they are vetted out and are proven to be cost effective.

BLUE TEAM Team Members:

Roger Baele Julie Rees Phil Pangrazio Diane Brossart Kerwin Brown The team discussed as follows: Complete Streets • Complete streets in our proposal was 75% of existing transit and new HCT corridors Approved Light rail • Would like the LRT station at 50th Street and Washington to be included in the program Other •

In the scenario we ran if we had to lose $5B from our program, the options to get back in budget were to drop from 75% to 50% on complete streets, take out Capitol/I-10 West LRT Phase II, and the other monies would need to be reduced from bus operations (we didn't get into specifics about how this would be done).

GREY TEAM Team Members: Diane Scherer Roy Miller Jack Lunsford Abraham James The team discussed as follows: Span of bus service • Committee member Scherer preferred Span of Service between 24 hours and matching light rail service hours. Frequency of service • For frequency of service, the team discussed arrival and departure times should be more predictable throughout the system. The team discussed if 15 minute frequency was too much for the Phoenix system versus 30 minutes or a percentage of the service being increased. The team determined a percentage of the service should have increased frequency at peak times. Service Expansion • Committee member Miller discussed considering using individualized transportation on lesser used bus routes and off peak times; such as

taxis/Uber/Lyft or privatized shared taxi/van pool. These could be subsidized with vouchers. The team and Committee should also consider allowing these users to use the bus pullout bays. Committee Miller and the team noted that the circulators should not be free and have a weekly or monthly card (fee). Approved light rail/Service expansion • Committee member Miller discussed that light rail is not the answer for any future transportation plan and should not be considered for any of the Approved Light Rail or High Capacity Transit Corridors categories. • Committee member James noted he was for the Streetcar downtown. • Committee member Miller noted autonomous vehicles are the future of transportation and should be in the plan. Infrastructure improvements • The team discussed the Fuel improvements/infrastructure should be made for most cost effective fuel and solar included. Committee member Lunsford clarified the solar should be for facilities in the future. • Committee member Miller specified that the Phoenix Police should decide security. The team discussed that there should not be a separate police for transit. Complete Streets • The team decided that Complete Streets needs to be broadened to include street improvements where needed, should not be off transit routes. Streets analysis should determine where the greatest improvements are needed. RED TEAM Team Members: Mike Hoover Don Keuth Craig Tribken Catherine Scrivano Leonardo Loo The team discussed as follows: Existing Service • Committee member Tribken discussed zoned fares for senior, disabled transit users with the team. Approved Light Rail

•

The team discussed completing I-10 W Phase I & II before Northeast Extension if Northeast Extension if light rail or similar.

High Capacity Transit (HCT) Corridors The team discussed the following corridors specific to mode and indicated the following should be considered as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). • Baseline East – BRT • Baseline West – BRT • 24th Street – BRT • Camelback Phase II – BRT • Northeast Ext – BRT

Complete Streets • Committee member Tribken noted to please do Glendale Ave complete streets first or make complete streets priority The team noted the following as not a priority (HCT Corridors/Approved Light rail/Service Expansion/Complete Streets/Frequency of Service/Span of Service). • 19th Ave S BRT • Bell Road BRT • 35th Ave BRT • Circulator Expansion • 44th St/Tatum Extension • 44th St Rail • Frequency of Service – 15 min (ALL Bus Schedules) • Frequency of Service – 30 min (ALL Bus Schedules) • Service Expansion – 15 min (ALL NEW Routes) • Service Expansion – 30 min (ALL Bus Schedules) • Span of Service – 24 Hours • Complete Streets – All NEW HCT • Complete Streets – 25% new and existing • Complete Streets – All existing and all new HCT GOLD TEAM Team Members: Sandy Ferniza Sonya Pastor Eva Olivas Maria Baier Len Gilroy The team discussed as follows:

Span of bus Service • The team discussed the need to look at changing the hours of light rail to accommodate late and early commuters to work • The team discussed bus hours need to be in coordination with other communities as we have people traveling into Phoenix for jobs and going home after work to their communities. Frequency of service • The team discussed existing services need more frequency Service Expansion • The team specifically discussed potentially supporting service expansion for circulator as long as staff examines a fee for the use of the circulators. Nothing should be for free. Approved Light rail • The team discussed seeing a cost benefit analysis for the light rail that was approved by Council. HCT Corridors • The team discussed the northeast extension, 24th street, and other corridors to determine their inclusion or exclusion in the future transportation plan. The team discussed community needs in northeast Phoenix and Laveen specifically. • The team did not see the need for future rail to Northwest ASU West Extension and thinks that ASU and the City need to work on the ASU shuttle service. Infrastructure Improvements • Committee member Gilroy and team discussed looking at the option of using a P3 model for CNG infrastructure. Complete Streets • The team agreed that staff needs to look at equity throughout the city in terms of Complete Streets including potential improvements to the drainage system. 3. Adjourned. The meeting ended approximately 11:45am with all workshop activities completed.

What we’re hearing: The city should tout the safety and security of the bus compared to other forms of transportation. ~ Laveen VPC Member How is service and funding coordinated with Valley Metro to ensure regional connectivity? ~ Ahwatukee VPC Member Where is more bus and rail service needed? Around downtown Phoenix to support a walkable urban lifestyle – favoring rail over bus to enhance effect on urban form ~ Central City VPC Member

Citizens Committee on the Future of Phoenix Transportation, December 3, 2014, Item 5

Public Involvement Community Events

Public Transit staff has now attended or hosted 84 outreach activities since the start of the public involvement process on Aug. 26. To date we have reached more than 3000 community members through our participation in these events. Twelve of those activities included presentations before the city’s Village Planning Committees with a reach of more than 100 of their members. Staff guided the committees through the PowerPoint presentation and fielded questions and concerns.

TalkTransportation.org: 562 Active Participants!! Meetings/Hearings

Public Transit staff is scheduled to speak at the following meetings: Dec. 2 Sustainable Communities Collaborative January 2014 Citywide Open House Series Feb. 25 Northern Ave Business Alliance

ASU Survey As part of the Public Transit Department’s work with Arizona State University, students worked to create an online survey of attitudes related to transit improvements that was distributed via links on talktransportation.org, as well as e-mails to the ASU population on the downtown campus. The survey has seen a total of 463 respondents. Results indicate respondents are satisfied with bus and rail service and feel the fares are fare. They have also indicated that the rail and bus are important to the city’s future. See graphs below.

Public Involvement

CCFPT Workshop Results by Team & Average Total Category

Card Bus & Dial-a-Ride

Existing Service

Cost (millions)

Results - Grey

Results Blue

Results Gold

Results Green

Results - Red

WORKSHOP TOTALS

11,803

Light Rail & Dial-A-Ride

2,142

270

Span of Bus Service (Hrs of Operation)

Bus matches Light Rail service

1,454

24 hour bus service day

1,849

15 minute peak frequency on all bus routes 15 minute peak frequency on 60% of bus routes

1,818

Frequency of Service

Service Expansion (New Bus Service)

30 minute frequency for all bus service Add bus service to unserved major streets at 15 minute peak frequency Add bus service to unserved major streets with 60% of new routes at 15 minute peak frequency Add bus service to unserved major streets at 30 minute peak frequency new RAPID service

Approved Light Rail

Future BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)

Infrastructure Improvement

1,072

755

1,606

1,453

1,223

new Circulator service

300

Capitol/I-10 W Phase 1 Rail Capitol/I-10 W Phase 2 Rail (have to Phase 1)

310

1,500

South Central Ave Rail

850

Northwest Phase 2 Rail

250

500

880 1,000 1,200 2,600 850

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

4 4 4 5 4

1 1

5 5

Camelback Phase 1 High Capacity Transit (HCT) Corridors: Future bus rapid transit (BRT), streetcar, or rail

Camelback Phase 2 Baseline East Baseline West Northeast Extension Northwest / ASU West Extension 44th St

800

24th St

2,700

44th St / Tatum Extension

960

Downtown Streetcar

750

1 1

19th Ave S BRT

19th Ave N BRT Thomas BRT

91 160

1 1

35th Ave BRT Bell Road BRT All bus stops shaded

217 121 18

1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1

4 3 5

30 60 60

1 1 1

5 5 5

Customer service technology upgrades ADA enhancements Security improvements

CNG fuel infrastructure and solar installation New Northwest bus operation and maintenance facility Existing transit and all new HCT and bus 50% of existing transit and all new HCT Complete Streets 25% of existing transit and all new HCT All new HCT *Blue Team selected 75% Complete Streets improvements

60 2,930 1,478 944 410 # of CARDS: $ TOTALS:

1 1

5 2.5 * 3.5 * 0 0

34 37,593

AVERAGE $ TOTAL:

33,080

1 of 1

26 28,374

30 31,761

30 34,009

28 33,661

Workshop Consensus Plan (majority and closest to average workshop revenue total) 5+4+3 Category

Existing Service

Span of Bus Service (Hrs of Operation) Frequency of Service*

Service Expansion

Approved Light Rail

Card

Complete Streets*

Workshop Results - Grey

Workshop Results - Blue

Workshop Results - Gold

Workshop Results Green

Workshop Results - Red

WORKSHOP TOTALS

Continue currently provided service, maintenance, and federally required dial-a-ride

11,803

Light Rail & Dial-A-Ride

Continue currently provided service, maintenance, and federally required dial-a-ride

2,142

Technology upgrades and replacements

Maintain fare collection system, scheduling, GPS tracking in a state of good repair

270

Bus matches Light Rail service 15 minute peak frequency on 60% of bus routes Add bus service to unserved major streets with 60% of new routes at 15 minute peak frequency

Provide service for early morning or late night travelers (would fulfill T2000) Decreases waiting and improves connectivity on some routes (would partially fulfill T2000)

1,454

1,072

Provide connectivity to unserved areas of the city (would partially fulfill T2000)

1,453

new RAPID service

Provide connectivity to unserved areas of the city

new Circulator service Capitol/I-10 W Phase 1 Rail Capitol/I-10 W Phase 2 Rail (have to select Phase 1) South Central Ave Rail

Provide connectivity to local service in unserved neighborhoods Connect existing rail to the Capitol (3 mi)

Northwest Phase 2 Rail

Connect existing rail to Metrocenter (1.7 mi) Connect 19th Ave to 43rd Ave and Grand Canyon University, the 8th highest ridership bus route (3 mi) Connect 43rd Ave to 83rd Ave, WestGate, and the Stadium, 8th highest ridership bus route (5 mi) Connect existing rail to Paradise Valley Mall (13 mi) Connect Central Ave to I-10 (5.5 mi) Connect Central Ave to 59th Ave and the potential future 202 (8.5 mi) Connect Metrocenter Mall to ASU West (5.5 mi)

44th St / Tatum Extension

Connect Shea Blvd to the 101, Mayo Clinic, and Desert Ridge Marketplace (5 mi)

19th Ave N BRT

Connect existing rail to Happy Valley Rd, 3rd highest ridership bus route (10.5 mi)

Camelback Phase 2 High Capacity Transit Northeast Extension Corridors (HCT) Rail, Bus Baseline East Rapid Transit, or Streetcar Baseline West Northwest / ASU West Extension

Infrastructure Improvements

Cost (millions)

Bus & Dial-a-Ride

Camelback Phase 1

Future BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)

Back of Card / Specific Details

Connect the Capitol to the 79th Ave Park-n-Ride (8 mi) Connect existing rail to Baseline Road (5 mi)

300 310

1 1

1,500 850

1 1

250

500

880 2,600 1,000 1,200 850

1 1 1 1 1

960

1 1

3 5

1 1

5 5

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

4 5 4 4 4

19th Ave S BRT

Connect existing rail to Baseline Rd, the 3rd highest ridership bus route (9.5 mi)

35th Ave BRT

Connect Baseline Rd to Happy Valley Rd, 6th highest ridership bus route (20 mi)

217

Thomas Road BRT

Connect 44th St to 91st Ave, the highest ridership bus route (18.5 mi)

160

Bell Road BRT All bus stops shaded

Connect Scottsdale Rd to 51st Ave (15 mi) Comfort and protection from the heat as desired by passengers Reloadable cards (most popular talktransportation.org idea), wifi, digital signs, realtime data trip planning More convenient ADA access, and vehicle and facility improvements Increased security

121 18

1 1

3 5

30 60 60

1 1 1

5 5 5

60 1478

1 1

5 3.5 *

Workshop Results - Grey

Workshop Results - Blue

Workshop Results - Gold

Workshop Results Green

Workshop Results - Red

WORKSHOP TOTALS

Customer service technology upgrades ADA enhancements Security improvements CNG fuel infrastructure and solar installation New Northwest bus operation and maintenance facility 50% of existing transit and all new HCT

Reduce air pollution and operating costs Storage and maintenance necessary for increased bus service. 50% of existing transit (236 mi); all new HCT (60 mi)

Total Cost for Consensus Plan (billions)

4 4

31,891

* Due to majority indicating 60% or all at 15 minute; Frequency at 15-minute peak frequency at 60% was calculated in consensus plan total * Due to the majority indicating Complete Streets at 50% or more, Complete Streets at 50% was calculated in the consensus plan total

Cost (millions)

Items removed from above plan HCT HCT HCT Frequency of Service* Span of Service Frequency of Service* Service Expansion Service Expansion Complete Streets* Complete Streets* Complete Streets*

44th St 24th St Downtown Streetcar 15 minute peak frequency on all bus routes 24 hour bus service day 30 minute frequency for all bus service Add bus service to unserved major streets at 15 minute peak frequency Add bus service to unserved major streets at 30 minute peak frequency Existing transit and all new HCT and bus 25% of existing transit and all new HCT All new HCT

All Consensus Plan Totals 5s = $26,201 5 + 4 = $30,430 5 + 4 + 3 = $31,891 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 = $36,141 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = $36,887

Connect existing rail to McDonald Dr, just north of Camelback, a major employment center (4.5 mi) Connect Biltmore Fashion Park to Baseline Road, the 4th highest ridership bus route (10 mi) Connect major commercial and employment destinations in downtown Phoenix (5 miles)

800

2,700

1 1

750

1 1

2 2

Decreases waiting and improves connectivity on all routes (would fulfill T2000) Provide service for travel any time of day or night Higher frequency on routes with greater than 30 minute frequency, especially weekend service

1,818 1,849

Provide connectivity to unserved areas of the city (would fulfill T2000)

1,606

Provide connectivity to unserved areas of the city (would fulfill T2000) All existing transit (473 mi); new HCT (60 mi) and bus (97 mi) 25% of existing transit (118 mi); all new HCT (60 mi) 60 mi

1,223 2,930 944 410

0 2.5 * 0 0

755

1 0 0

1 1

Citizens Committee on the Future of Phoenix Transportation, December 3, 2014, Item 7

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES Revenue

Potential Amount

Reliability

Equity

Political Feasibility

Fuel Tax

Robust

Driving rates are historically steady (subject to increasing fuel efﬁciency standards and recent changes in driving patterns)

Regressive—not a concern for transit dependent residents

Low—high fuel prices make new taxes difﬁcult and not all local governments have the authority to impose a fuel tax. Phoenix is pre-empted from imposing a fuel tax. State legislative action required.

Sales Tax

Sales taxes are broad-based and generate robust revenue

Sales taxes are a little less stable than property taxes but still provide a great deal of predictability

Sales taxes are regressive— although this may be addressed by exempting certain items such as food

High—sales taxes are typically politically successful when the projects they fund bring regional beneﬁts. No state action required; local control.

Vehicle Registration Tax

Moderate

Vehicle ownership rates are stable

Regressive like all other ﬂat taxes—not a concern for transit dependent residents

Moderate—vehicle owners are sensitive to registration fees. NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER PHOENIX IS PREEMPTED

Tax Increment

Variable depending on the size of the tax increment district boundary around the transit facility

Land values tend to be stable over time providing predictable revenues

Tax increment revenues tie project beneﬁts (increased land values) to funding the transit project

Low—although tax increment is not a new tax or a tax increase, it is not legal in Arizona, and would be restricted by the property value growth limitation imposed by Arizona proposition 117. State legislative action required.

Special Assessment District (property tax)

Variable depending on the size of the district and the tax rate applied to properties

Land values tend to be stable over time providing predictable revenues

Ties project funding to taxes levied on surrounding landowners who are direct beneﬁciaries

Low—these are new taxes and land owners need to understand the connection between a new project and its beneﬁts. Arizona state law does not specifically allow for public transit districts, and would be restricted by the property value growth limitation

Page 1 of 2

Revenue

Potential Amount

Reliability

Equity

Political Feasibility imposed by Arizona proposition 117.

Primary Property Tax

Variable depending on property values and tax rates applied. Current additional revenue capacity limitations for Phoenix specifically

Fairly stable and predictable revenues

Few equity concerns other than the burden is solely on City property owners, and users of transit include those who live outside City limits and visitors

Low—depends on local support. Phoenix is restricted by state imposed 2% annual levy growth limit and the property value growth limitation imposed by Arizona proposition 117. State legislative action and/or constitutional amendment required to remove limitations.

Development Contributions

Speciﬁc amount negotiated between project sponsor and developer

Typically a one-time contribution

Ties project funding to real estate development that will beneﬁt directly from the new transit facility

High—provided the contribution is viewed as reasonable in relation to the beneﬁt to the developer. No state action required; local control.

Proposition 117 passed by the voters of Arizona takes effect with the 2015 tax year. This measure places a 5 percent annual limit on how much the assessed value of properties can increase.

Page 2 of 2