MINUTES OF THE
JOINT meeting of the Assembly Committee on Transportation
AND THE
Senate Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
March 4, 2003
The Joint Meeting of the Assembly Committee on Transportation and the Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 4, 2003. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada and via simultaneous videoconference in Room 4101 of the Grant Sawyer Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Assembly Committee on Transportation MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. Rod Sherer
Senate Committee on Transportation MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark E. Amodei
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
Senator Warren B. Hardy
Senator Michael Schneider
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov-Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
Kim Morgan, Committee Counsel
William Fowler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jacob Snow, General Manager, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
Greg Krause, Director, Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County
John Flansberg, Transportation Manager, Carson City Regional Transportation Commission
Richard Wiggins, Transportation Division Chief, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Chairwoman Chowning called the meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. and requested the roll call. She asked that members be marked present as they arrived, and she noted that Assemblywoman Ohrenschall was excused.
The first order of business was the introduction of BDR 43-126. It provided for the issuance of a special permit to display vintage license plates on the front of certain vehicles. Chairwoman Chowning called for a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 43-126.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mrs. Ohrenschall was absent for the vote.)
Chairwoman Chowning declared the Senate Committee on Transportation lacked a quorum; however, members were expected, and the meeting would proceed. A welcome was extended to both Committees, and introductory comments were presented on the efficiency of a joint hearing. She encouraged the legislators to ask questions and participate in all discussions. Acknowledgement was given to the Las Vegas hearing room. She noted the arrival of Senator Hardy and declared a quorum was present for the Senate Committee on Transportation. The first witness was invited to testify.
Jacob Snow, General Manager of the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, commenced testimony on the future of transportation in southern Nevada. Using a PowerPoint presentation with video segments, Mr. Snow demonstrated how traffic congestion had accompanied the mushrooming development of the Las Vegas area. Photocopies of his presentation were distributed to the Committees (Exhibit C). He emphasized that traffic congestion served to decrease mobility in southern Nevada, and he illustrated that point with video of the “Second Rainbow Curve,” the Beltway at Rainbow Boulevard. The footage had been recorded more than 1 year ago, and it was clearly evident that traffic was queued up more than one mile. Viewing the same intersection from the opposite direction, bumper-to-bumper traffic coming onto to the Beltway from Interstate 15 was clearly evident.
Continuing, Mr. Snow stated that, in addition to the issue of mobility, a second issue was the impact of traffic volume on public safety. That was clearly evident in video footage of traffic merging onto the Beltway. Air quality was the third significant negative impact connected to traffic congestion. Mr. Snow identified the need for additional roadway capacity and illustrated that point with a photo of U.S. Highway 395, a segment utilized by more than 200,000 vehicles per day.
According to Mr. Snow, the problem of congestion was pervasive and had an impact on other modes of transportation in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. The Citizens Area Transit Bus System (CAT) carried more than 45 million passengers in 2002. He called attention to the video of the Charleston Route 206 in Exhibit C. Mr. Snow explained the bus route experienced high ridership for more than 20 hours per day. On a monthly basis, more than 40,000 bikes were transported on the fronts of the transit buses. Mr. Snow emphasized that was the highest number for that statistic in the United States. He noted the video had been shared with the editor of the Las Vegas Review Journal newspaper whose comment was, “That bus is so crowded that people can’t even read the newspaper. You need to do something about that.”
Since 1950, southern Nevada had experienced significant population increases every decade, according to Mr. Snow. A map displaying growth in the valley (Exhibit C) revealed a 1990 Clark County population of 770,280. He called attention to key congestion spots on the map, described as areas affected by significantly excessive traffic volumes at peak hour. Because of that dilemma, a man by the name of Bruce Woodbury constructed a ballot advisory question that went to the voters and was passed in 1990. Ballot Question 10 consisted largely of a request for funding. In response to that, the Nevada Legislature enabled the Clark County Commission to raise local sources of revenue to build the projects displayed on the screen. Mr. Snow voiced pride in what had been accomplished in the past decade to fulfill a promise to the public. Most projects were built ahead of schedule and within budget, which were obvious successes.
Mr. Snow remarked that the population since 1990 had doubled from 770,280 to 1.4 million residents; however, growth in peak-hour traffic had increased by 216 percent. The expansion of growth was evident beyond the boundaries of the Resort Corridor. Given the current resources, Mr. Snow predicted the trend would continue. Looking at the forecast for traffic in 2005, the video revealed that traffic congestion was no longer concentrated in the Spaghetti Bowl or along the Strip and Resort Corridor. Rather, it was spreading to the surface streets of the community. Mr. Snow voiced his fear that, by the year 2025, the Las Vegas area was facing a traffic gridlock that would surpass Los Angeles’. He illustrated his point with a photo and stated current transportation resources were inadequate to prevent that scenario.
Continuing, Mr. Snow explained all of the information had been presented to a citizen group, the Regional Transportation Commission Community Coalition (RTC3). The Coalition met for 14 months, and, although the members did not reach consensus on all matters, the group was unanimous in their recommendation to go forward with an advanced transportation program. Key stakeholders from the community played a role in that process. Their principal recommendation was a multimodal solution to transportation congestion problems. Although road construction was inevitable, it had to be viewed in concert with alternative modes of transportation.
Returning to the subject of road building, Mr. Snow emphasized it had to be accomplished in a smart fashion, utilizing an intelligent transportation system (ITS). That included the synchronization of traffic signals and the addition of closed-circuit television systems. By incorporating the Internet, a real-time dissemination of information could be provided to drivers on the roads. That real-time data would include notices of traffic incidents, weather problems, and construction zones so that drivers could avoid congested areas.
In the area of transportation alternatives to solve congestion, Mr. Snow addressed the added benefit of improving air quality. The Coalition had concluded that, if the sole focus was road building, air pollution would continue to increase and, among other problems, that would result in the loss of $150 million in federal funds each year. Developing alternatives to single vehicle travel was imperative. Mr. Snow described the ideal system as being high quality, such as the Resort Corridor Monorail. Another was the Metropolitan Area Express (MAX), a transit option being implemented in North Las Vegas, with a targeted date of completion at the end of 2003. Widening additional roadways and the expansion of the “park and ride” infrastructure were included in the list of transportation solutions.
Continuing, Mr. Snow alluded to the volume of questions his agency received from the public. Generally, the inquirers understood that the Monorail would improve mobility and air quality in the Resort Corridor area; however, most callers would inevitably ask when the residents of the greater Las Vegas area would get a high quality rail transit system.
The next photo of his presentation captured a wide expanse of freeway containing an inner corridor (Exhibit C). Mr. Snow explained that the central corridor was a Union Pacific Railroad spur that traversed the middle of Green Valley. The view was looking to the southeast from the airport and toward downtown Henderson. That railroad corridor, described as 200 feet wide, was used on a daily basis by only two freight trains. Mr. Snow described the rail track as “class I track” and was fully welded. Given that quality, he voiced optimism that a public rail system could utilize the track and be operated at a respectable speed. The diesel locomotive for that system was manufactured in the United States. Mr. Snow voiced optimism that a high quality rail transit would be easily launched on the Henderson spur, with the ultimate plan to operate that rail service throughout the Las Vegas valley.
Mr. Snow next called the Committees’ attention to a map outlining the conceptual route of the rail system. The proposed route traversed the downtown Henderson area, moving through Green Valley in the direction of the McCarran Airport. As proposed, there would be an intermodal connection at the McCarran Airport and one at the new bus terminal under construction. At that point, the transit would commence utilization of the Union Pacific mainline on its track, moving toward connections with the Rio Hotel, the Fashion Show Mall, Circus-Circus, and an intermodal transportation facility in downtown Las Vegas. Regarding the latter, Mr. Snow commented that federal monies had been received for construction of the terminal. From that location, the transit was slated to run toward North Las Vegas, connecting along the way with a series of Park and Ride lots, terminating in the area of the Nellis Air Force Base and the Speedway. Total rail distance would be 33 miles, according to the witness.
In terms of expense, Mr. Snow was optimistic the infrastructure could be created at a cost lower than any other transit system in the nation. The principal reason was land cost. For most light rail systems, typical land acquisition costs were $35 million to $50 million per mile. The right-of-way had to be acquired separately, and there was often competition from other transportation modes, such as roadways. That was followed by the construction of the actual rail lines and the electrification of the corridor. Mr. Snow reminded the Committees that the proposal for Las Vegas was a diesel locomotive system. As such, the high costs of electrification would be avoided. Since the track already existed, an existing resource would be utilized, resulting in significant savings. Mr. Snow estimated the cost at $10 million per mile compared to $50 million per mile in other areas of the country.
Continuing, Mr. Snow referred to Bob Broadbent’s foresight in planning the tunnel underneath the McCarran Airport. At that time, a rail connection was envisioned for the future and, unknown to most, a third bay was built in the tunnel to accommodate the rail connection to the airport.
Chairwoman Chowning interrupted the witness and asked if the diesel locomotives would be fueled by low sulfur diesel. Mr. Snow explained it was ultra-low diesel fuel in anticipation of the federal government’s expected requirement of eliminating 95 percent of the sulfur from diesel fuels. As such, Mr. Snow declared the diesel fuel for the rail system would be cleaner than compressed natural gas.
Looking back to the 1997 Legislative Session, Assemblyman Collins recalled that a bill had been passed which dealt with a light rail system operating in parallel with U.S. Highway 95 to the northwest. He asked if that proposed rail would dovetail with the current proposal. Mr. Snow acknowledged that had been under discussion. The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), in conjunction with the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), had completed preliminary evaluations as part of the U.S. Highway 95 corridor-widening process. The conclusion was, if a high quality rail system were to be built in that corridor, there would not be sufficient right-of-way. As such, it would dictate the construction of elevated or underground portions. Neither option was judged to be cost-effective.
Assemblyman Collins requested clarification if that meant the light rail proposal for that corridor had been discarded. In response, Mr. Snow stated it was their preference to first demonstrate there would be a market for such a service in that corridor. Additionally, as part of the U.S. Highway 95 widening project, high-occupancy vehicle lanes were under construction. As part of those lanes, plans called for inclusion of a metropolitan express system on the roadway. If the existence of a viable market could be demonstrated with that lower-cost solution, then consideration of the higher-cost solution, such as an elevated rail system, would be examined. There had to be evidence of support from area residents.
Returning to his presentation, Mr. Snow described the Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) system as “not your grandfather’s bus stop.” Plans called for 18 stations and platforms comprising what would actually be a light rail system without the rail. Expansion of service to senior citizens, the Silver Star Service, was designed to provide transportation from the front doors of group living facilities to a variety of destinations.
Looking ahead to the future, Mr. Snow emphasized that additional roadway capacity was essential. In November 2002, voters approved another Question 10, which granted authority to the Clark County Commission to raise revenue for expansion of the transportation infrastructure. It was predicted to generate enough local revenue to leverage hundreds of millions of dollars in additional federal investment.
In terms of priorities for spending federal funds, Mr. Snow stated the focus would be on system-to-system interchanges with the Beltway. He called attention to a map on page 26 of Exhibit C, which displayed interchanges at Interstate 15 in the north, U.S. Highway 95 in the northwest, the Summerlin Parkway in the west, the Airport Connector, the Henderson Interchange, and at the widening project of U.S. Highway 95 near the Spaghetti Bowl.
Mr. Snow reviewed the current transportation projects in southern Nevada funded by Question 10. Referring to page 27 of Exhibit C, the list included the addition of 425 miles of high-speed lane improvements, 225 Citizens Area Transit (CAT) buses and 7 routes, 12 Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) vehicles and 2 routes, 12 Silver Star routes, 70 miles of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on the freeways, and resources for traffic signal optimization. Private sector efforts, in cooperation with the RTC, were being directed at bringing federal dollars and private sector donations to create the Las Vegas monorail system. Phase I would build a 3.4-mile system followed by an additional 2.3-mile extension in downtown. For purposes of demonstrating impacts to Senate and Assembly districts, all of the transportation improvement projects were displayed on maps in Exhibit C. Mr. Snow described the distribution of improvements as well-balanced.
In terms of legislative requests, Mr. Snow emphasized he was not appealing for tax increases; however, he was asking for enabling authority to be granted to the Clark County Commission and to the Washoe County Commission. Those agencies, in turn, would implement four programs for purposes of generating revenue to support transportation initiatives. The first program (Exhibit C) was to increase the development taxes in their areas, resulting in an estimated $125 million over 25 years. Additionally, each Commission would be authorized to request the allocation of 1 cent per gallon of jet aviation fuel, with an expected revenue of $128 million over 25 years. The third program was to redirect existing property tax, specifically to reallocate 2 cents of the existing 5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, which would raise an estimated $300 million over 25 years for use in transportation projects. The final means would be to temporarily increase the sales tax by one quarter of 1 percent, resulting in an estimated revenue of $2.1 billion.
Mr. Snow commented that Carole Vilardo of the Nevada State Taxpayers’ Association played an active role in the RTC3 Community Coalition effort. In terms of the sales tax, Ms. Vilardo pushed assiduously for a sunset provision on that sales tax. One eighth of 1 percent (half of the tax) would sunset when $1.7 billion was earned or by the year 2028, whichever occurred first. Calling attention to a slide entitled “Sales Tax Rates in Western Regions,” Mr. Snow characterized Las Vegas as “the lowest of the low” in terms of the sales tax rates in surrounding states. He attributed the low yield to the excessive number of exemptions to sales tax, which included food, prescription drugs, gasoline, and utilities.
Mr. Snow encouraged the Committees to “act now” to curb the multiple financial and environmental losses caused by commuter congestion. A bill draft had been submitted, and he expected the legislation to be introduced soon. Congestion was costing commuters in southern Nevada $1.30 per day in wasted time. That did not include the costs for wasted fuel or degraded air quality. He estimated total losses at more than $1 million per day due to traffic congestion. He summarized by stating that money spent on transportation improvements programs translated to about $1 per year per resident in southern Nevada.
In viewing the photos of traffic gridlock, Senator Schneider asked the witness if, in his opinion, the highway funds allocated to the Interstate 580 Carson City bypass in northern Nevada should be diverted to Las Vegas. Mr. Snow responded that, in looking at the overall transportation plan, he would not support that proposal. The State Transportation Board had recently reviewed the plan and decided to allocate an additional $60 million to the Henderson Spaghetti Bowl. In Mr. Snow’s words, “that action was in contemplation of going ahead and funding the I-580 extensions up here in the Carson City bypass.” He added that, in his opinion, the northern Nevada projects were needed, despite the graphic comparisons with Las Vegas traffic congestion. As a caveat, Mr. Snow added his agency would continue to be vigilant and would continue to make a case for additional funding for southern Nevada.
Senator Schneider requested clarification if the rail system for the Resort Corridor would be connected to the airport. Mr. Snow replied that Phase 3 of the monorail project would extend the rail from the MGM Grand Hotel, past the University of Nevada, Las Vegas campus, and directly connect to the McCarran International Airport. At that point, there would be an intermodal station to handle passengers from various transportation systems meeting at that terminus.
Citing the example of Vail, Colorado, Senator Schneider commented that other resort areas provided free busses for tourists. He asked if consideration had been given to the idea of connecting McCarran Airport with the Las Vegas Strip via a free rail system. Mr. Snow acknowledged that idea had been considered. He noted that, in the baggage claim area of the McCarran Airport, there were large portions set aside for hotel kiosks designed for remote check-in. He predicted, in the future, passengers would retrieve their luggage, go to the kiosk for check-in, pick up the room key, drop off the bags, and hop on the monorail to go directly to the hotel. Because there was no taxpayer subsidy to provide that service, he cautioned that a “free fare” had not been part of that discussion.
Senator Schneider asked if any of the resorts had expressed an interest in participating. In response, Mr. Snow predicted there would be greater participation once the monorail was built. He added that the resorts had already contributed a significant amount of capital to the first phase of the monorail project. Their continued support was anticipated for the second phase.
Referencing maps in Exhibit C, Senator Carlton requested clarification on why the Beltway would not totally encompass the geographic areas of high traffic congestion and serve the residents of the extreme east side of the valley. She voiced concern that the situation would force the use of major streets as highways. Mr. Snow explained his agency had worked with the NDOT on the Northeast Corridor Study in which the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) had been asked to examine an eastside Beltway connection. That link would provide a full loop around the valley.
Digressing momentarily, Mr. Snow stated the original Beltway plans contained no provision for an eastside leg of the highway. Reasons for that decision related to Nellis Air Force Base, as well as to environmental concerns regarding the Las Vegas Wash. Subsequently, a request was made to the NDOT to address that problem, and several options were presented. The alignment that was judged to be most cost-effective would have forced condemnation of 2000 homes and several hundred businesses. Despite their ability to clearly demonstrate the need for increased freeway infrastructure in that locale, area residents loudly protested the proposal for the freeway. Mr. Snow stated that overcoming the environmental concerns and opposition from neighborhoods were formidable obstacles, which he found regrettable.
Rather than adding freeway infrastructure to that part of the valley, Mr. Snow suggested a viable option would be converting portions of Sahara to a super-arterial. Traffic signals would be eliminated, making that stretch a high-speed corridor. That could be accomplished in areas where the right-of-way had already been acquired. Mr. Snow summarized by stating there was no grass roots support for building an east leg of the Beltway.
Chairwoman Chowning voiced her pride over the role the Assembly and Senate Transportation Committees had played in enabling legislation for the monorail and the Metropolitan Area Express (MAX). She asked if enabling legislation for the light rail system would be required, and Mr. Snow replied that a legislative vehicle would not be needed for the light rail. Continuing, Chairwoman Chowning commended the innovative approach of the light rail system and encouraged taxpayer awareness of the cost-effectiveness of utilizing the Union Pacific spur.
Regarding the estimate of $2.69 billion, Chairman Chowning asked if that figure had been broken down into specific program allocations, and Mr. Snow clarified by stating that $1.4 billion would be dedicated to roadway infrastructure. Approximately one-third of the $2.7 billion would be used for mass-transit projects, with the exception of the monorail. The capital and operating funds for the monorail system had already been identified for Phase I and II. The remainder of the $2.7 billion would be allocated to air-quality improvements and to traffic-signal synchronization and optimization in the intelligent transportation systems. In terms of the previously mentioned $1.4 billion for roadways, Mr. Snow clarified that $200 million of that amount was earmarked for the repair and reconstruction of existing roads. Despite the need for expansion, maintenance of the current roadways was essential.
Chairman Chowning asked if the maintenance of roads being turned over by the state of Nevada to the county had been considered in the $200 million allocation, and Mr. Snow replied in the affirmative.
Chairman Chowning gratefully acknowledged the presentation by Mr. Snow and closed the testimony from the southern Nevada representatives. She invited the witnesses from the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County to begin testimony.
Greg Krause, Director of the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC), distributed a portfolio of information (Exhibit D) and commenced testimony. He underscored the importance of Mr. Snow’s presentation and remarked there would be similarities in issues and concerns. Mr. Krause called the Committees’ attention to the handout folder that included photocopies of his slide presentation, a one-page description of the RTC agency, a one-page summary of Ballot Questions 2 and 10, and a two-page reproduction of the entire Washoe County Ballot Question 2. He introduced Derek Morse, Deputy Director of the Regional Transportation Commission, and commented that he would oversee the legislative agenda throughout the session.
Mr. Krause provided introductory comments about the mission of the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) and how the RTC addressed regional transportation needs. He emphasized that those needs transcended all local, state, and legislative boundaries. Although the private automobile was the most conspicuous mode of transportation, the full range of options was taken into consideration by the RTC. That included the movement of goods by the trucking industry, public transportation, rapid transit, and “para-transit,” described as the door-to-door service for the handicapped. Future technologies, such as light rail, the monorail, and downtown trolleys, were under consideration in northern Nevada.
Continuing, Mr. Krause described three major functions performed by the RTC. The first was planning, and the Commission had the designation of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Washoe County. The second major function was to provide public transportation, accomplished largely through contracts with private entities. The third function, and the most conspicuous, was the building and rebuilding of regional roads.
In the area of planning, Mr. Krause emphasized it was essential to address both the long-range plan as well as the short-term plans for implementation of services. Integrating all modes of transportation was a key to the success of the planning process. The driving force behind all planning efforts was public opinion on the relative importance of each mode, as well as public sentiment on what residents were willing to support.
The most visible public transportation system was Citifare, a bus system that carried approximately 8 million people per year. According to Mr. Krause, more than half of that ridership was for purposes of commuting to work. Efficiency of that service was essential, and Citifare ranked among the top 25 “best in the nation” for many years. He commented the Citizens Area Transit (CAT) system in southern Nevada had a similar distinction of ranking in the top 25.
Continuing, Mr. Krause stated Citifare was ranked first for cost per passenger and second for productivity and ridership per capita. On the subject of safety, Citifare had received national recognition for their performance. Door-to-door service for the disabled was provided through Citilift on a 24-hour, 7-day-per- week basis. Customer satisfaction levels were monitored continuously, with more than 90 percent of riders giving favorable reports. Mr. Krause emphasized that, for many residents, Citifare was the only access to the outside world. The growing population of elderly citizens underscored the need for that service. On the subject of addressing those public needs, Mr. Krause explained a non-profit organization called Citicare was created. Foundations and grant monies were solicited, with funds earmarked for services to senior citizens and the disabled.
On the subject of the road infrastructure, Mr. Krause stated the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) was the primary builder of roads and worked in partnership with local governments and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). That collaboration was essential to meet the transportation needs of the entire area. More than $52 million dollars had been invested in new road construction and existing road maintenance. Mr. Krause stated with pride that the contracts administered by the RTC were coming in “on time and ahead of budget.” With an ongoing awareness of cost efficiencies, the RTC continuously investigated new innovations, for example in the area of performance specifications and the reuse of pavement materials. He reiterated the success of privatization of services, described by Mr. Krause as including the design of projects, as well as the construction and implementation.
Mr. Krause summarized the overall mission as building a transportation system, operating it, and maintaining it, all the while protecting the quality of life in the community. Transportation was key to the economy, both in keeping the community attractive, providing a reasonable commute, moving the goods, and connecting residents with recreational areas. The transportation infrastructure also played a critical role in maintaining air quality. Mr. Krause reiterated the role transportation played in providing independence to residents who required help.
Looking to the future, Mr. Krause predicted growing problems with traffic congestion in Washoe County, especially with U.S. Highway 395 during the peak hours. Another issue was the growing backlog of deteriorating roads that had been neglected through the years. Air quality ranked among the top issues of the future.
On the subject of traffic congestion, Mr. Krause described it as being limited to a few segments of the arterial system and portions of the freeway. Looking ahead 10 years, Mr. Krause predicted a major increase in traffic congestion. In the long term, Mr. Krause cautioned that it was imperative not to reach a traffic gridlock situation. Although population growth in northern Nevada was not as dramatic as that in Clark County, it still held the distinction as being the third fastest area of growth in the country.
Returning to the issue of deteriorating roadways, Mr. Krause explained that 10 years ago, there was a backlog of $100 million of road maintenance projects. That figure was now over $200 million. He called the Committees’ attention to a graphic on page 21 of Exhibit D that displayed the projected backlog to the year 2030.
Mr. Krause stated that the Citifare service regrettably had declined 33 percent per capita in the last 10 years. As such, the transit system could not continue to grow as the community added population. He voiced great concern over that situation and stated there were several causes for that problem. There was a distinct increase in driving, measured in miles per day. The other issue was the declining buying power of fuel taxes, due largely to inflation. He stated, “For each mile driven, we collect 44 percent less today than in 1955 due to inflation.” Over time, the impact magnified. That issue was compounded by improved fuel economy and the purchase of less gasoline. The net effect was 65 percent less purchasing power compared to 45 years ago. Mr. Krause described it as a major obstacle. The lack of timely, preventative road maintenance and under-investment through the years eventually caused greatly inflated costs later, often because the roadway required total rehabilitation.
In terms of recommendations, Mr. Krause described the development of a 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. It was the culmination of more than 2 years of working with the community to identify key issues and solutions. A steering committee, consisting of 30 community residents, guided the process. Thousands of residents participated through their attendance at meetings and Web site input. Mr. Krause stated the committee’s conclusion was similar to that described by Mr. Snow, namely “we just can’t pave over the valley.”
Key actions of the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) included the improvement of road maintenance to protect the investment in the highway infrastructure, which had an estimated worth of over $1 billion in Washoe County. Additionally, it was recommended to build new roads and widen existing roads. Controlling access, traffic signal coordination, and intelligent transportation information systems were identified as part of the solution. The expansion of transit and paratransit systems was essential. Mr. Krause added that the entire transportation infrastructure had to be connected to pedestrian and bike facilities. Both were regarded as important modes of travel in the community.
In terms of financing the transportation solutions, a steering committee identified a major shortfall of $800 million. Mr. Krause explained that, because of the shortfall, a blue ribbon committee of 33 community leaders was assembled to explore ways to finance the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Their recommendations focused on impact fees paid in Washoe County, characterized as a critical part of the existing funding for new road construction. More than $2000 per residential dwelling unit was paid to the county, with commensurate fees being assessed against commercial and office development. Mr. Krause emphasized that those fees had to increase with inflation. Similarly, it was essential to make inflationary adjustments to the local fuel taxes, described as another source of revenue for Washoe County. The third part of the solution was a small increase of one-eighth of I cent per dollar of sales tax. That amount would be split between public transportation and the road maintenance needs. In concert with those solutions should be the continuation of efficiency improvements undertaken by the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). In the last 4 years, approximately $3 million in savings had been identified. Mr. Krause stated the long-term goal was to identify another $50 million in efficiency savings.
Regarding Ballot Advisory Question WC-2, Mr. Krause summarized that as a request to the voters on whether the RTC should seek the funding proposals in the blue ribbon committee solution. He voiced his satisfaction at the level of support, with 57.4 percent of Washoe County voters saying “yes” to the ballot question. In summary, the promise of the WC-2 question was to address the backlog of road maintenance and to construct new roads. Mr. Krause illustrated those plans with maps (Exhibit D) of area highways. Over the next 30 years, extensive plans to improve the transportation system were demonstrated.
In terms of controlling traffic congestion, Mr. Krause stated WC-2 would enable them to manage that problem. Handling the backlog of major road repairs was predicted to take more than 10 years. By accomplishing that, Mr. Krause assured the Committees that more than $2 billion in future costs would be avoided. Reduction of future emissions, especially carbon monoxide, was predicted to be at the 50 percent level. On the transit side, development of the paratransit system for the disabled and improvements to the Citifare system were planned. The addition of bus routes and higher frequency service in high- use areas were priority items. On the South Virginia Street corridor, the Citifare buses were scheduled at 10-minute intervals and picked up more than 70 passengers per hour.
Summarizing, Mr. Krause voiced confidence that the future was “very bright” if the promises made on WC-2 were kept. The community was increasingly supportive of transportation needs and quality-of-life issues.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if the projected number was $1 billion, and Mr. Krause replied that, with the efficiency savings, it was $800 million. Chairwoman Chowning asked what percentage of that $800 million would be dedicated to roads, mass transit, and maintenance of existing infrastructure. Mr. Krause explained that the WC-2 package contained $142 million for public transportation projects, which was basically 50 percent of the sales tax revenue. “That percentage was approximately 20 percent towards mass transit,” he added. The breakout of the remaining funds was dependent on where the existing sources would go. It could all go toward capacity; however, the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) approach was to ensure that all needs were met through the total funding package.
Continuing, Mr. Krause commented that impact fees, by statute, were allowed to be used solely for new capacity improvements. The sales tax, in the initial years, would be used to address the backlog of maintenance, as well as preventative efforts. Eventually, it would shift towards capacity improvements. The fuel taxes, currently being used almost exclusively for rehabilitation, would be diverted to capacity improvements in the future.
Assemblyman Knecht asked the witness if there was documentation available illustrating a time-series of expenditures on a per-capita basis for transportation in Washoe County. Mr. Krause replied that he had not examined expenditures on a per-capita level; however, he estimated that expenditure had been decreasing over time. That was due to the growth rate and to the fact that gas tax revenue was a flat gas tax. The RTC portion had not increased in 8 years. The other portion that would come to local governments had not grown in 14 years. Mr. Krause voiced confidence that per-capita expenditures were declining. As a follow-up, Assembly Knecht stated it appeared the per-capita analysis could be drafted and supplied to the Committees. Mr. Krause agreed to the request.
Chairwoman Chowning voiced support of the information request and directed the witness to supply the data. Seeing no questions, she thanked the witness for his presentation and for his efforts in meeting community transportation needs. Chairwoman Chowning announced the next witnesses would represent the rural voice on transportation issues.
Because of technical difficulties, John Flansberg of the Carson City Regional Transportation Commission requested that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) representative proceed with his presentation.
Richard Wiggins, Chief of the Transportation Division of the TRPA, distributed photocopies of his slide presentation (Exhibit E) and commenced testimony. He introduced Christine Roberts, Senior Transportation Planner. Mr. Wiggins announced he would address four topics, the first being an overview of the institutions responsible for transportation planning programs at Lake Tahoe. The remaining three topics related to the areas most affected by the transportation system and the plans to address those impacts.
In the area of institutions, Mr. Wiggins described four distinct entities responsible for program planning. As projects moved to implementation, one or more of those entities had approval authority. In way of review, Mr. Wiggins explained the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) was originally created by the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. The most recent version of that Compact was approved by the U.S. Congress, Nevada, and California in 1980. It was described as an encompassing piece of legislation that prescribed a variety of activities to protect Lake Tahoe. Most notably was the adoption of a regional plan in 1987, with the scheduled update currently in progress and due in 2007.
Continuing, Mr. Wiggins explained the Compact required that the TRPA adopt a regional transportation plan that included clear identification of goals. It was essential to reduce the dependence on automobile travel through the utilization of existing modes of transportation. That effort would serve to reduce the air pollution caused by motor vehicles. Together, those two goals formed the framework for transportation planning at Lake Tahoe (Exhibit E).
Other conditions of the Compact, according to Mr. Wiggins, mandated the TRPA to give preference to providing capacity through public transportation and projects. Although transit systems were judged to be important, Mr. Wiggins emphasized his agency was required to look at other means in their attempt to provide additional capacity. Federal regulations on maintenance of existing highway systems added a layer of complication. Capacity could not just be defined as “new pavement or roads,” but included the ability to move cars more efficiently, for example, through traffic signal improvements.
In terms of the federal requirements, Mr. Wiggins explained those rules were tied to the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization (TMPO). That agency was the direct result of the 1997 Presidential Summit. At that time, the federal government recognized the need for additional resources to address transportation impacts in the Lake Tahoe area. Senator Reid had been instrumental in adding language in the Federal Transportation Reauthorization Act 221 that authorized an MPO at Lake Tahoe. Governor Miller and Governor Wilson then designated the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) status based on the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) and Caltrans recommendations and endorsements.
Mr. Wiggins clarified that the TRPA staff supported the functions of the TMPO. As in Las Vegas, Reno, and Carson City, there was a requirement to develop transportation improvement programs under federal regulations. Mr. Wiggins described the challenge as blending the requirements of the TRPA with those federal requirements, as well as with those of two states’ transportation departments. He noted the designation as the TMPO had provided an additional $500,000 per year in federal transportation planning assistance. The staff had been increased from two full-time planning positions to eight positions.
The third entity of his agency was described as a California designation, specifically a regional transportation-planning agency (RTPA). Mr. Wiggins emphasized his group was not an RTC as in Nevada. As such, they did not construct or maintain roadways or perform other functions typical for a regional transportation commission (RTC). The TRPA Governing Board acted as the RTPA, and TRPA staff provided administrative support.
Continuing, Mr. Wiggins stated the California RTPA provided two primary functions. The first was the administration of the California Transportation Development Act, a set of statutes focused on the allocation of sales and gasoline tax receipts. Between 80 and 85 percent of the funds provided to the Tahoe Basin were used to support transit operations. Some jurisdictions used the money to maintain local streets and roads, but could only do that after determining there were no unmet transit needs.
The second function was the programming of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) dollars. In 2002, the TRPA programmed more than $5 million for three major roadway projects in California. Mr. Wiggins stated there were more than $64 million in project costs in each of California and Nevada. Nevada was not eligible for the STP funds because the population did not exceed 200,000 in the Lake Tahoe area.
The fourth entity with regional transportation responsibility, the Tahoe Transportation District (TTD), was established under Article 9 of the Compact (Exhibit E). It was envisioned as the operating entity for the Lake Tahoe transit services. In the 1980’s, the TTD narrowly lost a sales tax election that would have provided an ongoing source of operating revenue for transit. Since that time, the TTD had functioned more like a planning agency; however, a renewed emphasis on operating functions was predicted. Mr. Wiggins reiterated the TRPA staff supported the administrative functions of the TTD since 1998.
Mr. Wiggins highlighted the cooperative working arrangements with other organizations (Exhibit E), including the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). He voiced his gratitude for the support of NDOT Director Stephens and welcomed the new Director. He described a close working relationship with Nevada State Lands and Nevada State Parks through the years.
Continuing with his testimony, Mr. Wiggins described three primary planning and project-emphasis areas for transportation in the Tahoe Basin. Studies had revealed that roadway runoff was a major source of pollution in Lake Tahoe. Considerable investments had been made to retrofit the existing highway in order to capture and treat the runoff before it reached the Lake. Location of the roadway determined the treatment method. Mr. Wiggins elaborated by stating if the roadway was at some distance from the Lake, detention ponds could be easily installed. For roadways adjacent to the Lake, the treatment was much more difficult. There were fewer locations to treat the water, and land acquisition was costly. According to Mr. Wiggins, once completed, the projects provided multiple benefits, including pedestrian, bicycle, and scenic improvements. Wildlife and recreational benefits were also evident. Mr. Wiggins assured the Committees that TRPA would continue to work with NDOT to retrofit the roadways to protect Lake Tahoe.
As required under the Compact, transportation projects were also required to address air pollution. While vehicle technology was greatly reducing the amount of carbon monoxide and nitrogen emissions, those pollutants were still present. According to Mr. Wiggins, studies revealed a link between airborne nitrogen and nitrogen deposited in Lake Tahoe. The sources of that pollutant were traced to vehicles in the Tahoe Basin, as well as to sources generated and carried in from the west. Additionally, the winter season of road sanding had been identified as the source of both air and water pollution; however, both the NDOT and Caltrans had significantly improved their de-icing methods in an effort to limit the amount of sand pollution.
The Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) had embarked upon a compressed natural gas (CNG) program and had recently approved contracts for the construction of a permanent CNG fueling facility to replace a temporary one. Mr. Wiggins explained that, in the past 3 years, the TTD and local jurisdictions had purchased more than ten transit vehicles to replace diesel vehicles. The TRPA and TTD were pursuing additional vehicle replacements in both public and private vehicle fleets, as well as in rental car companies.
Continuing, Mr. Wiggins stated that Caltrans had programmed many of its maintenance vehicles for CNG replacement. Together with sanding improvement operations and other air pollution programs, he voiced confidence that the Tahoe Basin was working hard to improve air quality.
Returning to the subject of transportation planning, Mr. Wiggins reemphasized the focus was mobility for residents and visitors. Success in mobility efforts had to be performed with an accounting process and improved access to the Tahoe Basin. There were more than 500,000 visitors each year to the Lake Tahoe area. Within a 3-hour drive time of Tahoe were millions of additional people, and that number was growing. Mr. Wiggins stated it was essential to shift the planning paradigm to accommodate those people and transport more visitors to and around Tahoe without their personal vehicles.
Mr. Wiggins reminded the Committees there was a tendency for many responsible entities to focus their efforts on local concerns and issues. A transit center at Tahoe City was also a recreational and transfer hub for bicyclists, shoppers, skiers, and rafters. East-shore beaches were part of the quality of life for the residents of Reno, Carson City and Gardnerville. The Presidents’ Day weekend had an impact on Placerville and Auburn on the California side.
In terms of future planning, mobility for seniors might include home delivery services for groceries and prescriptions in the winter when driving was hazardous. The urban cores could require changes to density restrictions or incentives to reduce parking requirements if they were located within one half hour of transit services. In the south Stateline area, changes were being explored that would improve pedestrian amenities and faster transit services. Continuing, Mr. Wiggins stated another idea was to promote cooperative partnerships with employers to provide commuting options and to address affordable housing options for a displaced workforce.
In the area of safety, Mr. Wiggins declared it was a key priority in planning, with emphasis on safer highways, bike paths, and crosswalks. It would include coordinated efforts with the NDOT and Caltrans to replace hillside retaining walls above residential subdivisions.
Concluding, Mr. Wiggins remarked that mobility improvements had to include multiple considerations, including the provision of parking, the integration of air services, and the development of passenger rail services between Sacramento and Reno or between Placerville and South Lake Tahoe. He described Lake Tahoe as a world-class ecological system. As such, the transportation system that served the area had to become world-class as well. Mr. Wiggins summarized by stating his agency looked forward to working with the Nevada Legislature, the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), Reno, Carson City, and others in their search for transportation solutions.
Chairwoman Chowning thanked the witness and remarked on the difficulty of his work to preserve the jewel of the state, Lake Tahoe.
Senator Shaffer commented he had spent considerable time with the oversight committee, and progress was evident. He recalled using old logging maps to determine which properties were buildable.
Chairman Chowning commented that requests had been received from Committee members to travel to Lake Tahoe to see the area. Mr. Wiggins offered to arrange the transportation if such a meeting were to be scheduled. He announced there would be an open house event in April to celebrate their new offices.
John Flansberg, Transportation Manager for Carson City, was invited to the witness table. He introduced Bob Fairman, a representative of Carson City. Mr. Flansberg distributed a photocopy of his slide presentation (Exhibit F) and commenced testimony. In way of historical review, he explained the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) was established in 1969 through the Ormsby County Ordinance No. 169-32 per Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 373. The first meeting was held on September 9, 1969. One of the concerns at that time was the need to remove parking on several areas of Carson Street, especially at Musser Street and Winnie Lane. Those changes were suggested as a means to provide left-turn lanes.
In terms of RTC funding, Mr. Flansberg explained his agency received 9 cents of county gas tax, generating $3 million per year. He voiced great concern over a steady decline in those revenues, as illustrated in a bar chart (Exhibit F). On July 1, 1997, Carson City enacted an additional 5-cent gasoline tax. Prior to that, only 4 cents were collected. “The entire 5 cents that we are collecting today is going to help fund the Carson City freeway,” he stated.
Regarding distribution of revenues, Mr. Flansberg summarized that 5 cents was directed to the freeway, generating $1.7 million per year and representing 55 percent of the total income. An additional $166,000, or 6 percent, was utilized for salaries and benefits. There were only 2.25 full-time employee equivalents, and Mr. Flansberg described himself as the “0.25.” Approximately $292,000 was spent on services and supplies. That included the accounting program provided to consultants and for transportation planning. Finally, the remaining $875,000 per year was reserved for capital projects. Of that, $240,000 was set aside for a traffic signal, and $200,000 was used for helping maintain the major collector arterial streets.
Mr. Flansberg described the functions of the RTC as regional transportation planning, project design and community involvement, construction management, major maintenance of regionally significant roadways, and response to citizen complaints. In the area of planning, there had been a 15-year plan; however, because of pending designation of Carson City as an MPO, a metropolitan planning organization, additional funds would be available for planning. A portion of those funds would be allocated to a transportation plan, already underway at the RTC. That effort would cover years up to 2025.
In the area of traffic modeling, Mr. Flansberg described how the existing and the future land use were viewed in concert. Several benchmarks were selected and included the years 2005, 2015, and 2025. After the existing traffic volumes were determined, future projections were made on traffic volumes. The projected figures were input to the model of existing transportation facilities. Future transportation needs were then determined, based upon available money and expected traffic volumes.
Calling attention to a slide (Exhibit F), Mr. Flansberg explained the snapshot on the left captured the 2001 existing traffic patterns. It was evident that Carson Street was the main concern. On the right was the 2015 snapshot that, in contrast, illustrated no traffic congestion on Carson Street, principally due to the completion of the freeway bypass. Mr. Flansberg cautioned that, in looking at the 2015 snapshot, highway congestion on Highway 50 East was becoming more visible. Incremental growth of traffic on the eastern border of Carson City was expected.
In the area of project design and community involvement, Mr. Flansberg displayed examples of public notice (Exhibit F). Public input would soon be sought for a $2 million project on design options for various intersections. His agency also directed the design process of consultants in order to formulate designs and make recommendations. Information from public feedback was also processed. Another area of responsibility was to work with developers who required assistance with design in lane widening or traffic signal needs.
Regarding construction management, Mr. Flansberg described the inspection documentation of contractor operations during construction. He stated there were three aspects of a good project. Those were design, good materials, and good workmanship. Inspection documentation was judged to be very important by the witness in order to ensure quality. Additionally, testing of materials was essential to guarantee compliance with standards. In the event of problems in the field, there had to be a process for addressing them quickly and to communicate that back to the design team.
Major maintenance of regionally significant roadways, the fourth major function of the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), involved more than $200,000 in funding annually. That money was utilized for asphalt overlays and reconstruction of arterial streets. Mr. Flansberg added that his agency coordinated all of that with the annual street maintenance program to get the best value for the dollar. Currently, there was more than $1 million in expenditures on the street maintenance program.
In terms of the final function of the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), response to citizen complaints, Mr. Flansberg stated the primary complaint related to school zones and crosswalk locations. One solution for school zones was the installation of flashing signal lights that operated for 30 minutes on school days. That principally covered the 25 minutes before the students arrived in the morning and the 25 minutes after their dismissal in the afternoon. Mr. Flansberg stated the flashing lights were especially necessary for schools built on major collector streets, a situation he found illogical. Additionally, the activation of the lights had been turned over to the school district. That allowed for activation during special evening events or for days that ended at noon.
The second most frequent citizen request was related to stop signs and traffic signals. He described much of that input as educational for the RTC. The citizen input often precipitated an investigation in the field to determine the actual need. Mr. Flansberg noted that federal mandates often precluded the automatic installation of traffic signals or stop signs based on citizen request.
Mr. Flansberg described the number one complaint was speeding through residential neighborhoods. To address that issue, his agency worked cooperatively with the Carson City Sheriff’s Department. Utilizing traffic counters set in 20-minute increments, the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit could be determined. Normally, those counts were collected over a 7-day period. The information was then shared with the Sheriff’s Department that, in turn, would increase enforcement efforts in specific areas at specific times of the day. To illustrate his point, Mr. Flansberg cited the example of a local street where a 7-day count was performed. Between 2:00 a.m. and 2:20 a.m. every weekday, there were vehicles traveling 70 miles per hour on a 25 mile per hour road. Law enforcement investigated and discovered it was a worker returning home. Despite the obvious success, the approach was employed on a limited basis currently.
In closing, Mr. Flansberg commented that, with Carson City’s population exceeding 50,000 residents and its expected designation as an MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization), transit planning would become more prominent as more federal dollars were obtained.
Chairwoman Chowning thanked the witness for his testimony. She asked if snow removal had improved in Carson City. Mr. Flansberg recalled his first day in Carson City was January 2, 1997, during the flooding crisis. Having worked as a construction estimator for Granite Construction for 7 years, he was aware of the issues. He explained there was a snow-removal policy based upon three levels of priority. Every street was eventually handled during snowstorms. Typically, by the time Level I and level II streets were cleared, the majority of storms were dissipating. The December 1996 event was an exception. Mr. Flansberg voiced confidence of their ability to handle snow events of all magnitude.
Chairwoman Chowning recalled that the opening day of the 1993 Legislative Session was marked by very difficult driving in snow.
Senator Nolan requested clarification on the issue of impact fees assessed on residential developments and commercial construction projects. He asked if the infrastructure was completed in advance, followed by assessment. Mr. Flansberg replied that typically there were development agreements. As such, the assessment on infrastructure was up-front. Those agreements ranged from having the developer doing the full improvement to doing partial improvement. With the latter situation, it would delay assessment until development of adjacent areas was proposed. There was no rigid policy in that area. Often the City Engineer determined how the agreements should best be structured.
Concerning Carson City’s funding structure, Mr. Flansberg explained the city received a one-quarter cent sales tax, passed in 1986, designed to support road maintenance. More than 57 percent of the road maintenance budget was derived from that sales tax allotment. He emphasized that sole reliance on the state gas tax would only provide 43 percent of his funding needs. Mr. Flansberg summarized by saying there was no set policy for impact fees on development. It was a case-by-case basis; however, there had been recent discussion to make the process more orderly through adoption of policy.
Chairwoman Chowning recalled legislation had been passed in 1999 that was helpful to Carson City. It related to the need for on-demand transportation and paratransit options. She asked the witness if he was aware of that. Mr. Flansberg admitted he did not have the details of that legislation, largely because he was new to the transportation program. Chairwoman Chowning remarked on the value of feedback on the impact of legislation from past sessions. She asked the witness to follow up on her request. In her view, it was an innovative approach to attract more federal funds for the on-demand transportation needs.
Seeing no questions, Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
June Rigsby
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: