FLAGSTAFF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CITY OF FLAGSTAFF  COCONINO COUNTY  ARIZONA DOT 211 West Aspen Avenue  Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Phone: (928) 213-2651 www.flagstaffmpo.org  [email protected]

A G E N D A Executive Board 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Wednesday, January 23, 2013 ______County Supervisors Offices, 2nd Floor Conference Room 219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Regular meetings and work sessions are open to the public. Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation by contacting the City of Flagstaff City Clerk’s Office at 928-779-7607. The FMPO complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to involve and assist underrepresented and underserved populations (age, gender, color, income status, race, national origin and LEP – Limited English Proficiency.) Requests should be made by contacting the FMPO at 928-213-2651 as early as possible to allow time to arrange the accommodation. A quorum of the TAC may be present.

CALL TO ORDER EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS Matt Ryan, Chair Hank Rogers Coral Evans, Vice Chair Mark Woodson Mandy Metzger Jeff Oravits

FMPO STAFF David Wessel, FMPO Manager Martin Ince, Multimodal Planner Justine Otto, Administrative Specialist Temp

I. PRELIMINARY GENERAL BUSINESS A. PUBLIC COMMENT (At this time, any member of the public may address the Board on any subject within their jurisdiction that is not scheduled before the Board on that day. Due to Open Meeting Laws, the Board cannot discuss or act on items presented during this portion of the agenda. To address the Board on an item that is on the agenda, please wait for the Chair to call for Public Comment at the time the item is heard.)

B. ANNOUNCEMENTS (Reconsiderations, Changes to the Agenda, and other Preliminary Announcements)

C. APPROVAL of MINUTES. Meeting November 28, 2012

FMPO Executive Board Packet 1/23/13 Page 1 of 34

II. OLD BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.)

1. Legislative and Regulatory Update and Review FMPO Staff: David Wessel, FMPO Manager REQUESTED ACTION: Handout – no discussion Staff seeks Board direction as needed. Board may wish to discuss positions of federal reauthorization issues with a set policy and/or to support indexing in the short term. Staff will report on state legislation with an update from RTAC.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and Possible Action 2. Draft FY 2014 Unified Planning Work Program and Budget FMPO Staff: David Wessel, FMPO Manager REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion Only Staff will seek direction from the Board in preparing the FY 14 work program and budget. A draft program with suggestions from the Technical Advisory Committee and Management Committee will be presented. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and Possible Action

III. NEW BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.)

3. History of I-11 and Feasibility Study Status FMPO Staff: David Wessel, FMPO Manager REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion Only Staff will present background information on this proposed new interstate facility RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion Only

4. Regional Plan 2012 Road Network FMPO Staff: David Wessel, FMPO Manager REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion Only Staff will present background information on this proposed new interstate facility RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion Only

5. FMPO Working Calendar FMPO Staff: David Wessel, FMPO Manager REQUESTED ACTION: Table the item The agenda on the next meeting will include the work program, transportation improvement program process and legislative update. If possible, updates on I-11 and freight will be made. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Table this item

IV. CONCLUDING GENERAL BUSINESS A. REPORTS 1) Technical Advisory Committee 2) Staff Report

B. ANNOUNCEMENTS (Informal Announcements, Future Agenda Items, and Next Meeting Date) TAC February 7, 2013 Coconino County Human Resources Bldg Management Committee February 15, 2013 (if needed) Coconino County Supervisors Offices FMPO Executive Board Packet 1/23/13 Page 2 of 34 Executive Board February 27, 2013 Coconino County Supervisors Offices

ADJOURNMENT

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF NOTICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted at Flagstaff City Hall on ,at a.m./p.m. in accordance with the statement filed by the Recording Secretary with the City Clerk.

Dated this day of , 2013.

FMPO Executive Board Packet 1/23/13 Page 3 of 34 FLAGSTAFF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CITY OF FLAGSTAFF  COCONINO COUNTY  ARIZONA DOT Office: 211 West Aspen Avenue  Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Phone: (928) 213-2651 www.flagstaffmpo.org  [email protected]

Draft Minutes Executive Board 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 28, 2012 ______Coconino County Administration Building – 2nd Floor Conference Room 219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Vice Chair Evans called the meeting to order at 8:09 a.m.

Roll Call Present: Vice Chair Coral Evans, Councilmember City of Flagstaff Mark Woodson, Councilmember City of Flagstaff Mandy Metzger, Supervisor Coconino County Chuck Gillick, Arizona Department of Transportation (designated alternate for Hank Rogers)

Absent: Chair Matt Ryan, Supervisor Coconino County Hank Rogers, Arizona Department of Transportation Jeff Oravits, Councilmember City of Flagstaff

Others Present: David Wessel, FMPO Manager Justine Otto, FMPO Administrative Specialist Temp Kevin Adam, Rural Transportation Advocacy Council

I. PRELIMINARY GENERAL BUSINESS A. PUBLIC COMMENT None.

B. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Wessel reminded the Board that there would be no December meeting due to its proximity to the holidays.

C. APPROVAL of MINUTES. Ms. Metzger made a motion to approve the Minutes of October 24, 2012 and Mr. Woodson seconded, motion passed unanimously.

II. OLD BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.) 1. Legislative and Regulatory Update and Review Mr. Wessel requested that the item be postponed until the arrival of Kevin Adam. Mr. Adam arrived

FMPO Executive Board Packet 1/23/13 Page 4 of 34 at 8:16, discussion resumed at 9:20. The TAC discussed funding and issues that were arising from various consolidations and disbursements. It was agreed that another discussion was necessary before January, possibly a phone conference with RTAC members. Mr. Adam confirmed that half of funding (approximately 31 million dollars) would be directed to rural funding. It was agreed that State funding would be preferable over Federal funding, and it was requested that Ms. Metzger follow up with Andy Bertelsen. There was discussion only.

III. NEW BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.) 1. Draft FY 2014 Unified Planning Work Program and Budget Mr. Wessel introduced the topic, confirming that the new MPOs for the state to support would likely be cause for funding cuts. He suggested moving the traffic counts schedule to every two years, and stated that performance measures were now required in MAP-21 federal legislation, confirming that the FMPO’s performance was in keeping with the MAP-21 expectations. Mr. Wessel stated that the Regional Transportation Plan was scheduled to be approved in 2014, and (with the possible exception of public participation sections) could be handled by the FMPO. The Board discussed projects that could be executed to obligate funding, including implementing a FUTS Master Plan, a transportation funding analysis, fixing the Milton bottleneck, and studying potential bus port locations for a new central transportation hub. It was agreed that a crosswalk study of Fourth Street would be unnecessary and attentions should instead be directed to creating a better City access management policy. The Board was also in favor of a freight study for a regional freight facility, and a sidewalk study using excess traffic count funds. There was discussion only.

2. FMPO Working Calendar The December Executive Board meeting was cancelled. Mr. Woodson and Mr. Wessel confirmed that they would be in attendance at the December RTAC meeting, and Mr. Gillick stated that Mr. Ryan may also attend. Tentative plans for the Board to telephone conference with RTAC members were made. There was discussion only.

IV. CONCLUDING GENERAL BUSINESS A. REPORTS There was no discussion.

B. ANNOUNCEMENTS None.

ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Evans adjourned the meeting 9:50 a.m.

FMPO Executive Board Packet 1/23/13 Page 5 of 34

Memorandum – Staff Reports

Date: January 16, 2013 To: FMPO Executive Board From: Martin Ince, Multi-Modal Planner David Wessel, FMPO Manager

Re: Ongoing Transportation Projects

Enhancement Grants: Indefinitely on hold pending ADOT response to MAP-21 revisions. Currently, ADOT seems to be leaning toward shifting state share of new Transportation Alternative funds into the general highway construction/preservation program.

Federal Reauthorization – MAP-21 is now law. MPO processes are relatively unchanged. Funding levels are at the same level of unsustainable. See these sites for more:

FHWA: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/

FTA: http://www.fta.dot.gov/map21/index.html

I-40 Design Concept Report – the Initial DCR is released and available for review at http://www.azdot.gov/I40StudyFlagstaff/ . The NEPA hearing is tentatively scheduled for May 2013. A Change of Access Report (COAR) for the Lone Tree Traffic Interchange is underway.

I-17 Design Concept Report. Now complete.

US 89A/J.W. Powell Boulevard Intersection – right-of-way purchase underway. Out to bid later Spring 2013.

Fourth Street North – Lee Engineering completed its analysis of Fourth Street performance. A comparison to the original analysis by city staff remains pending and is now a priority task.

FHWA Initiative - Every Day Counts – no update

Traffic Counts/ADOT Traffic Data Management System – Traffic Research & Analysis will supply counts to MS2 under the current contract. TRA completed a cordon count and some interior counts at NAU to support a traffic study there.

Beulah Boulevard Extension – ADOT is negotiating with the two finalists to select a finalist for the public private partnership. Negotiations and selection near complete.

FMPO Executive Board Packet 1/23/13 Page 6 of 34 Miscellaneous - • Staff is cooperating with EcoNA on freight data collection as discussions with property owners and business interests regarding a regional freight facility continue. I-40 truck traffic data, meetings with BNSF, and business freight survey formulation are under way.

Sidewalk Inventory and Improvement Program • Staff is supervising an intern in the digital mapping of existing sidewalks and development of sidewalk construction and improvement prioritization scheme. Opportunities to rate sidewalk condition exist through coordination with NAU or through use of the street video log captured for the sign inventory.

FY 13 Work Program Update • FY 13 UPWP: Adopted • Data Collection: FY 13 –summer counts – completed, waiting QA/QC o Trip Diary Survey – draft report under review by staff. o HPMS – no activity till April. New TDMS training available. • TIP: FY 13 adopted. Transit amendments completed. Safety amendments complete. New process and forms for FY 14-18 process need final formatting and Board approval. • NAIPTA 5-Year Transit Plan – Draft service plans now under consideration for adoption. • Long Range Planning o Regional Plan 2012 - working draft complete. Editor hired. Visual/Graphics productions in draft. Scenario D – most compact form - is target performance for preferred scenario. Draft for public comment release deferred from February 2013 to March 2013 • Special Projects o Benefit Cost Analysis (actually under Long Range Planning) – Award to Parsons- Brinckerhoff tentatively scheduled before City Council for 2/5/2013 • Regional Planning o Juniper Point project work complete for time being. o Fourth Street – North Corridor – see earlier comments. • Public Participation o Website is being maintained

FMPO Executive Board Packet 1/23/13 Page 7 of 34

Central Arizona Governments Central Yavapai Metro. Planning Org. Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Org. Northern Arizona Council of Gov’ts Southeastern Arizona Governments Org. Western Arizona Council of Gov’ts Yuma Metropolitan Planning Org.

December 5, 2012

STOP TRANSPORTATION FUNDING RAIDS

As state general fund revenues continue to grow, transportation revenues are declining. While transportation funding raids were reduced last year from roughly $226 to $127 million, the current level is still substantial. With the improved general fund outlook and the increasing inadequacy of transportation funding, now is the time to stop raiding and start directing all of the transportation revenues to their intended use.

TRANSPORTATION REVENUE TRENDS:

• Transportation revenue streams are declining. Gas taxes have not been adjusted for inflation for close to twenty years. Better vehicle fuel efficiency and higher gas prices have reduced fuel consumption. Miles driven and car sales both declined during the recession.

• Even if taxes had been adjusted for inflation, historically, construction costs have risen at a far greater rate than inflation accelerating the purchasing power declines of the unadjusted transportation revenues.

• For over two years, state general fund revenues have continued to climb steadily even surpassing forecasted levels. While the outlying years are more uncertain, a budget surplus is highly anticipated for the current year. Before deciding how to use the surplus, the state should first set its fiscal house in order and stop redirecting dedicated funding such as HURF away from its intended uses.

• While state general fund revenues are rebounding, state transportation revenues continue to falter. Last year, HURF collections were flat compared to the previous year and comparable to 2004 collection levels. So far, current year collections have actually decreased compared to last year.

• On top of the revenue declines, for the past twelve years, the State has raided over $1.7 billion in highway and road funding transferring it to the State General Fund and to pay for an increasingly larger portion of DPS operations.

• This year’s $127 million raid was transferred to DPS while the General Fund, which should be the predominant source, contributed $45 million. While DPS is eligible for HURF, there is a $20 million annual funding cap. $127 million dramatically exceeds that cap but is unfortunately consistent with the raiding trend of the last decade. Also, while the State continues to use an increasingly larger amount of HURF for DPS, local governments are precluded from using any of their HURF funding for similar law enforcement operations.

FMPO Executive Board Packet 1/23/13 Page 8 of 34 • Federal transportations dollars continue to be highly volatile as the dedicated revenue streams for the Highway Trust Fund can only sustain about two-thirds of current spending levels. A series of one- time revenue infusions from various sources have been secured over the last five years to maintain relatively constant spending levels. However, unless a revenue increase to levels that can sustain current spending levels is enacted, the forecast for future federal funding will remain volatile with cuts as high as one-third a possibility. That would equate to over a $200 million loss of federal transportation dollars annually to Arizona.

IMPACTS:

• During the recession, Arizona private sector construction jobs were slashed from 250,000 to 120,000. This was one of the hardest hit Arizona employment sectors which would now benefit greatly from a greater transportation infrastructure investment.

• Local roads comprise 75% of the nation’s pavement. Due to the raiding and revenue declines, Arizona county and municipal road programs have significantly scaled back routine maintenance work that will hasten far more costly reconstruction activity at the public’s expense. The conditions will impact safety and increase vehicle maintenance and repair costs for both the general public and businesses. Navajo County estimates its street repavement cycle has been adjusted from 20 to 68 years due to the declining funding. Similar maintenance delays and growing road budget shortfalls are being experienced rather consistently statewide.

• On the state system, available funding for new highway construction in Greater Arizona is on a downward trend and moving closer to zero as the rural funding allocation is becoming increasingly absorbed by maintenance needs which may also not be fully funded if current trends continue.

• Due to funding and financing trends, preliminary work on the state’s five-year plan update indicates that $350 million in previously planned highway construction and maintenance activity in 2016 and 2017 will need to be eliminated.

• A year ago, reductions to the State Highway Fund triggered a bond rating downgrade subjecting ADOT financing to higher interest rates.

• The State’s 25-year Long Range Transportation Plan, which considers such factors as pavement conditions, congestion levels and safety performance, projects a $63 billion gap between needs and revenues.

• The Arizona long-range transportation vision, which considers what would be needed for an optimal system to support mobility, travel efficiencies, quality of life and maximal economic growth potential, places the funding gap at $224 billion.

CONCLUSION: Eliminating the transportation funding raids is vital for developing and maintaining the quality infrastructure needed to protect public safety and the environment, support jobs and economic growth and enhance the overall quality of life for Arizonans. Current funding is increasingly inadequate for meeting those needs. The persistent and sizable fund raiding that has occurred over the last decade has greatly exacerbated these inadequacies. Also, General Fund revenues have been consistently rising over the last two years, lessening any rationale that may have been used for justifying the raids.

*IT’S TIME TO STOP LOCAL AND STATE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING RAIDS*

For further information, please contact Kevin Adam of the Rural Transportation Advocacy Council of Arizona (RTAC) at [email protected] or (480) 577-7209.

FMPO Executive Board Packet 1/23/13 Page 9 of 34 1/23/13 Packet Board 34 of Executive 10

FMPO Executive Board FMPO Page

January 23, 2013 II.1 Legislative Review 1/23/13

• FEDERAL LEGISLATION Packet

– Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21): RULE MAKING Board

34 of

Executive 11

• STATE LEGISLATION/FUND TRENDS FMPO Page – General Fund revenue is up and may reduce the need to “raid” Highway User Revenue Funds. • Raids have dropped from $226 million to $127 million for DPS • DPS is eligible for HURF up to a legislative cap of $20 million which the legislature routinely overrides – However, the temporary sales tax is set to expire. • Ballot measure has been approved for consideration by voters – Highway URF is stagnant or declining slightly and raids have local impacts • The City of Flagstaff, through our Pavement Management System, has identified a current backlog of approximately $ 52 million for needed pavement preservation, repairs or reconstructions. At current levels of HURF funding, that backlog will grow to $ 88 million in five years and to $ 120 million in ten years. – Large expense question: Healthcare – Individual Board Member Discretion – advance RTAC information to respective governing boards

• City/County/State Legislative Initiatives/Concerns

II.2 Unified Planning Work Program 1/23/13 Packet

• Program largely the same since last discussion Board 34 of

– Regional Plan, RTP, access management, Milton Road study, Sidewalk Executive program, Regional Freight organization options 12 FMPO Page • Points for discussion – Milton Road study: Staff recommends expanding budget to allow for testing conceptual access management treatments and transit options. $45,000 in funds to be shifted from $145,000 in TIP Surface Transportation Program for Adaptive Control Signal Technology. New Milton Road study estimate is $105,000. – Additional program – Adaptive Control Signal Technology study. $100,000 for Systems Engineering and Concept of Operations study for select corridor. – May desire to amend current work program to account for these projects, initiate them this spring. This helps protect the $145,000. Alternatively, amend the program to delete the ACST program and loan fund to ADOT.

III.3. History of I-11

and Feasibility Study Status 1/23/13 Packet

• Interstate 11 is a proposed corridor, now codified in federal Board 34

legislation, that connects Phoenix to Las Vegas of Executive • The Phoenix to Las Vegas segment is part of two larger corridor 13 FMPO Page concepts that stretch from Mexico to Canada – CANAMEX – I-11 • These international corridors are only two of several that date back to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – “Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders … on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. “ – “With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. “From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

1/23/13 Packet Board 34 of Executive 14 FMPO Page

The goals of the CANAMEX Trade Corridor are to: •Improve access for the north-south flow of goods, people and information •Increase transport productivity and reduce transport costs •Promote a seamless and efficient intermodal transport system, and Reduce administration and enforcement costs through harmonized regulations.

III.3 I-11 and Federal Legislation 1/23/13

• 1991 – Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Packet

– Elevated freight and goods movement as a planning factor Board

– Introduced “High Priority Corridors” 34 of Executive – Amended by NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF 1995 15

(corridor #26) The CANAMEX Corridor from Nogales, Arizona, through Las Vegas, Nevada, to Salt Lake City, Utah, to FMPO Page Idaho Falls, Idaho, to Montana, to the Canadian Border as follows: – In the State of Arizona, the CANAMEX Corridor shall generally follow-- • I-19 from Nogales to Tucson; • I-10 from Tucson to Phoenix; and • United States Route 93 in the vicinity of Phoenix to the Nevada Border. – In the State of Nevada, the CANAMEX Corridor shall follow- • United States Route 93 from the Arizona Border to Las Vegas; and • I-15 from Las Vegas to the Utah Border. – From the Utah Border through Montana to the Canadian Border, the CANAMEX Corridor shall follow I-15. • Next two laws elevate freight and economic development, but don’t advance CANAMEX or I-11 – 1998 – Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) – 2005 – Safe, Accountable, Flexible Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

FMPO Executive Board Packet 1/23/13 Page 16 of 34 III.3. I-11 Road Status Today 1/23/13 Packet • As recently as 1997, US 93 was mostly a two-lane road between Phoenix and Las Vegas, and was known for its dangerous curves and hills in the stretch between Wickenburg and I-40. In the late 1990s, ADOT began widening Board

US 93 to four lanes, and in some areas building a completely new roadway. In other places along the route, ADOT 34 of

simply repaved the old highway and built two new lanes parallel to it. ADOT also began studying the possibility of Executive 17 adding grade separations to US 93 near the Santa Maria River to make the road a full freeway. • At the same time Arizona and Nevada began looking at US 93's crossing of Hoover Dam, a major bottleneck for FMPO Page regional commerce, with hairpin turns, multiple crosswalks for pedestrians and steep grades. Plans for a bridge to bypass the dam became even more urgent when the road was closed to trucks after September 11, 2001, forcing commercial traffic to detour through Bullhead City, Arizona, and Laughlin, Nevada. • With the completion of the Mike O'Callaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge in October 2010,[7] the vast majority of the roadway is now a four-lane divided highway. • Interstate 11 (I-11) was designated by the U.S. Congress in the 2012 Surface Transportation Act for an Interstate Highway in the United States to run from Casa Grande, Arizona northwest to Buckeye, Arizona, north and then west to Las Vegas, Nevada, by way of Kingman, Arizona.[1] The designation is a proposed Congressional law that has not been acted on by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the agencies normally charged with Interstate Highway numbering and planning. The highway would overlap existing I-515 in Las Vegas, U.S. Route 93 (US 93 from Boulder City, Nevada to Kingman, Arizona, I-40 around Kingman and east to the U.S. 93 junction, and then U.S. 93 south to Wickenburg, Arizona. South of Wickenburg, it is likely to follow a new proposed freeway near the Hassayampa River to reach Buckeye (about 40 miles west of Phoenix) near the junction with Arizona State Route 85. From there, the new bill would route Interstate 11 as, in essence, a new bypass around Phoenix, connecting again to Interstate 10 near Casa Grande, Arizona. [2]

III.3. I-11 Long Term Plan 1/23/13 I-11 is projected to serve as an "Intermountain West" part of the US's long-term CANAMEX Corridor transportation plans, with potential extensions south from Casa Grande to the Sonoran border, and north from Las Vegas through Packet northern Nevada (potentially passing through Reno or Elko) and onward through either eastern Oregon/Washington or western Idaho before terminating at the Canadian border.[9] Feasibility studies for these corridor extensions are Board

scheduled to begin in July 2013. 34 of Executive 18 FMPO Page III-3. I-11 Supporters

CAN-DO Coalition : Connecting Arizona and Nevada – Delivering Opportunities 1/23/13 Packet Board of Directors - Arizona Board • Steve Betts, Chairman - Recently retired CEO of SunCor Development Company, a major developer of

commercial, mixed use and master planned community projects throughout the Mountain West 34 of Executive • Eddie Basha Chairman & CEO of Bashas’, Inc. (Bashas’, AJ’s and Food City Grocery Stores). 19

• Jerry Colangelo - Chairman of USA Basketball. Former owner of the Phoenix Suns and the AZ Diamondbacks. FMPO Page • Mike Gallagher - Attorney, Chaired Committees for both Governor and Mayor to bring NFL football and Major League baseball to the valley. Currently a director of Arizona Public Service Co. and U-Haul. • Rusty Gant - Owner and General Manager of Rancho De Los Caballeros; Past Mayor of the Town of Wickenburg; Board Member – Wickenburg Chamber of Commerce • Joe Hart - Arizona State Mine Inspector; Ten year member of the State of Arizona House of Representatives • Sharon Harper- President and Chief Executive Officer of Plaza Companies, one of Arizona’s premier real estate firms specializing in medical facilities, luxury senior living and technology and bioscience facilities. • Paul Johnson – CEO of Old World Homes. Paul served as Phoenix Mayor from 1990-1994. • Jim Pederson - co-founder of the commercial development firm The Pederson Group, and was the Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party from 2001 to 2005. • Bill Post – Director, First Solar, Inc. Former Chairman of the Board and CEO of Pinnacle West. Current chairman of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona and chairman of the Board of Trustees of Arizona State University. • Candace Wiest - President and CEO of West Valley Bancorp, Inc, and West Valley National Bank, the West Valley's only locally owned and operated community Bank. •

III-3. I-11 Supporters

CAN-DO Coalition : Connecting Arizona and Nevada – Delivering Opportunities 1/23/13 Packet Board of Directors - Nevada Board

• Larry Brown - Clark County Commissioner. Prior to being elected Commissioner in 2009, Larry Brown served on 34 of Executive

the Las Vegas City Council for 11 years. Commissioner Brown is the chairman of the Regional Transportation 20 Commission of Southern Nevada FMPO Page • Glenn Christenson - Managing Director for Velstand Investment. Current Chairman of the Nevada Development Authority. Glenn is also the former CFO/CAO for Station Casinos, Inc. • Jan Jones - Senior Vice President of Communications and Government Relations for Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. Jan served two four-year terms as Mayor of Las Vegas. • Kristin McMillan -President and CEO of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce • James E. Rogers - Owner, Chairman and CEO of Sunbelt Communication Company (NBC channels in Las Vegas, Reno and Elko, NV; Pocatello, ID; Cheyenne and Casper, WY; Helena, MT and Yuma, AZ and the Fox Channel in Twin Falls, ID). • Anthony Santo - Former Senior Vice President of Operations, Products and Services for Harrah's Entertainment, Inc and Senior Vice President of Western and Mid-South Regions for Caesars Entertainment Inc. Currently a consultant to the Hospitality and Gaming Industry in Las Vegas.

III.3. I-11Potential Benefits 1/23/13 Packet • Phoenix and Las Vegas are the only two cities in the U.S. with populations of over 1 million that Board do not have a direct Interstate connection. 34

– By the year 2035, the populations of the metropolitan Phoenix and Las Vegas areas are of Executive expected to increase by 2.5 million and 1.5 million persons, respectively. 21 – The combined populations of these two areas will be over 10 million people. FMPO Page – This 60 percent population increase will result in a commensurate job growth • A multi-modal link (rail and Interstate) will facilitate trade movement between two fast growing regions in the US. • The I-11 transportation corridor has been identified by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) on their I-10/Hassayampa Transportation Framework Study and on the Interstate10/Interstate 8 - Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study • The Interstate-11 transportation corridor is also a component of efforts to route commercial truck traffic around the metropolitan Phoenix area, alleviating pollution and roadway congestion within the Phoenix area and on I-17. • The transportation corridor will increase economic activity and relieve congestion and air pollution in communities along the route, including Wickenburg, Kingman and Boulder City. • The Interstate-11 corridor is the last link to create a continuous north-south interstate corridor in the Mountain West region of the United States • Enhancement of this transportation linkage will allow further use of the recent investment to improve the Hoover Dam/Colorado River Bridge.

III.3. I-11 Local Issues &

Opportunities 1/23/13 Packet

• Bypass of the Flagstaff Economy Board

– Much of Phoenix to Las Vegas is 4-lane divided highway now with plans for 34 of Executive improvement in Arizona and Nevada underway. 22

– Interstate status and improvements will largely improve conditions for existing FMPO Page traffic and accommodate traffic in an area of significant growth. – Some truck traffic using I-17 may now elect to use I-11. Truck traffic does not represent a significant economic sector – Might improve Las Vegas as a substitute for Phoenix tourism dollars • Competitive advantage for Competing Communities – Will improve transportation advantages for Prescott, Wickenburg and Kingman with improved access to Phoenix, Las Vegas, and L.A. markets • Benefits to Flagstaff Economy – Access to growing west Phoenix market – Las Vegas within 4 hour – Improved and safer flow on I-17 with removal of some truck traffic – Long-term improved access to the Northwest region of the US III.3. I-11 Selected News Excerpts 1/23/13 Packet Board 34 of Executive 23 FMPO Page

Push for new Las Vegas-to-Phoenix interstate could benefit Maricopa Hidden Valley study looks at links between West Valley, Western Pinal By ADAM GAUB, Managing Editor June 25, 2009 Adam Gaub/Maricopa Monitor An idea that was little more than a "what if" nearly two years ago has blossomed into increasing talk of a freeway corridor between Phoenix and Las Vegas - with Maricopa being one of the many cities that could stand to benefit. Las Vegas Sun - Las Vegas to Phoenix interstate, seen as By Richard N. Velotta (contact) a ‘game-changer,’ is step closer to reality Friday, June 29, 2012 | 2 a.m “Interstate 11 will be the most significant infrastructure built in our region in 50 years and will open up a frontier of opportunities to expand and diversify our economy including in areas of tourism, distribution, manufacturing and logistics,” McMillan said. “It will connect Las Vegas to Phoenix and the entire western region of the United States, positioning Southern Nevada as more nationally and globally competitive.” III.4 – Regional Plan Transportation Element Maps 1/23/13

• Executive Board objectives: Packet

– Review the modeled road network for its performance in service Board 34

of the draft regional plan. of Executive 24

– Determine if elements of the modeled road network are practical. FMPO Page If some elements are not, discuss alternatives – Provide guidance in how the road network and multimodal systems are displayed in the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030

III.4 – Regional Plan Transportation Element Maps

Modeled Network - Background 1/23/13 Packet

• Sources for Network Components Board

– Current Regional Plan 34 of Executive – Current FMPO Regional Transportation Plan 25

– Modifications in response to CAC tentative direction related Scenario D FMPO Page • Areas designated for urban development to receive urban network of smaller blocks • System of Evaluation – Networks compared: • Limited improvements, Wide Roads, More Connections – Alternate mode improvements compared in combination w/ Network Alternatives • Limited improvements, Transit Vision 1, Transit Vision 2 (from NAIPTA Transit Plan effort) • Pedestrian and Bicycle improvements scaled to area type (Urban areas receive higher level) – General Measures • Vehicle Miles of Travel (and per capita) • Vehicle Hours of Travel (and per capita) • Vehicle Hours of Delay (and per capita) • Network level of service compared to area type (i.e., urban areas are expected to be more congested) • “Share” of congestion at subarea level

III.4 – Regional Plan Transportation Element Maps

Modeled Network - Background 1/23/13 Packet

• Review Board

– FMPO Executive Board Retreat – model results 34 of Executive – City Planning and Engineering staff – model results and individual improvements 26

– FMPO Technical Advisory Committee - model results, individual improvements, FMPO Page hybrid network – Citizens Advisory Committee – hybrid network • Results – see chart on next slide for summary – Model is well-calibrated for roadway and alternate modes – “Do nothing” is not an option. Alternate modes only is not an option. Neither performs well. – Wider Roads and More Roads perform about equally well when Alternate modes added – A hybrid of the wider roads and more connections is necessary, with Alternate modes added – Land use in the W. Route 66 area is too intense, overloads the network – High or moderate growth in through trips greatly increases delay

III.4 Regional Plan Transportation Element Maps

Background – Select Model Results 1/23/13 Packet Delay per capita (min) Impact of higher and 60.00

moderate through trips Board

50.28 34

50.00 of Executive

“Do nothing” 27 FMPO Page 40.00 36.66 Only improve “Alt” modes 30.00 Many Roads and with 26.04 Transit Many Roads and with 23.66 Transit 20.00 17.12 13.37 Today 11.38 12.32 11.20 11.13 11.16 12 10.00 4.88

0.00 EEh) EEm) - Base) - - (Wide) (Many) TransitV1) TransitV2) TransitV1) TransitV2) TransitV1) TransitU2) TransitU1) TPB ------(Summer 10) TransitV1 TransitV1 - (ECD - (Wide (Wide (ECD - (Many (Many (Many (Many Increase from Base Reduction from Base Reduction from Base Reduction from Base Reduction from Base Reduction from Base Reduction from Base Reduction from Base Reduction from Base Reduction from Base (Many (Many Existing FutureBase BaseBase w Transit Package 1 Package 2 Package 3 Package 3.1 Package 3.2 Package 3.3 Package 3.4 Package 4 Package 5 Package 6 III.4 Regional Plan Transportation Element Maps “Hybrid” Network 1/23/13 Packet Board 34 of Executive 28 FMPO Page III.4 Regional Plan Transportation Element Maps

Policy Discussion 1/23/13 Packet

• Questions: Board 34 of

– Does the draft road network mapped fulfill the goals and policies Executive 29

of the draft regional plan? Staff Assessment: Yes, land use FMPO Page notwithstanding • Efficiency: Redundancy in the network, Level of service, connectivity • Context Sensitivity: changes in scale and type of network in response to type of place • Mode choice: Availability of and access to various modes – Are any segments of the draft road network unacceptable or so far into the future to the point they should not be illustrated even as conditional or for further study? Of particular concern: • US 89 Connector • Babbitt Road extension under I-40 • Lockett Road/Cedar Street widening • Others?

III.4 Regional Plan Transportation Element Maps

Map Content 1/23/13 Packet

• Map objectives Board 34 of

– Illustrate important aspects of policy Executive 30

• Transportation systems and service levels commensurate with land use and FMPO Page character – Convey intent for capital investments • General areas and types of investment – C.I.P., private development • Specifics (e.g., number of lanes, functional class) will be conveyed in plan text directly or indirectly through reference to another plan or document or in a subsequent master plan – Map cartographic/illustration concepts • “soft” instead of hard lines • Broad categories of road types: Travel, Circulation, Access • Line weights/thickness to convey relative roadway size • Symbols for specialized facilities (e.g., interchanges, major intersections, urban networks)

III.4 Regional Plan Transportation Element Maps 1/23/13 Packet Board 34 of Executive Map not complete, for 31 graphic concept FMPO Page discussion only

Regional Travel Circulation Access Future facility

Conditional facility

Urban network

New Interchange

Major intersection improvement III.4 Regional Plan Transportation Element Maps Growth Illustration Area Types 1/23/13

Urban areas and corridors receive Packet highest level of transit service and pedestrian connectivity, Suburban Board 34

next highest, and so on of Executive 32 FMPO Page

Map not complete, for graphic concept discussion only III.4 Regional Plan Transportation Element Maps 1/23/13 Packet

• Questions: Board 34 of

– Are the more controversial or difficult elements of the maps Executive 33

illustrated appropriately? FMPO Page – Is there a better or preferred way to label or illustrate conditional facilities? » “Study facilities” » Use of an annotated polygon or “blob” to illustrate geographic range of alternatives? – Is there a need to illustrate “distant future” changes differently? – Will area or place type: Urban, Suburban, Rural, Corridor and Centers serve to convey expected levels of transit, pedestrian and bicycle service? Similar to current RTP.

III.5 – Working Calendar 1/23/13 Packet

• EB/TAC February 2013 Board

– NAIPTA 5-Year Plan Study Update 34 of Executive – FY 2014-2018 TIP Call for Projects 34

– EcoNA Freight Market Analysis Update FMPO Page

• EB/TAC March 2013 – FY 2014-2018 TIP/ADOT eSTIP coordination discussion – FY 2014 Unified Planning Work Program – tentative and release for comment – Benefit Cost Analysis Kick off

• April 4 (tentative) – Intermodal Planning Group Work Program Review • PROJECTS ON HOLD – Fourth Street North Corridor Study – case study, deferred until city process complete – Bicycles in Traditional Neighborhoods