The following is an original production of AZPM News.

Welcome to a very special edition of The Press Room.

Today we are going to be bringing you a very special show talking about RTA Next, something that is going to affect Pima County over the next 20 years.

What will a new transportation project look like?

Well tonight we have members from the RTA with us.

We have a panel of journalists, and we have a live studio audience as well.

The Press Room starts right now.

I'm David Lee.

♪ RHYTHMIC BRASS MUSIC ♪ Welcome to The Press Room, a very special edition of it.

I am David Lee III, I am the News Director here at AZPM, and we are at the beautiful Paul and Alice Baker Center for Public Media.

Tonight is a special show because we're talking all about the RTA Next Plan.

It is an important plan that affects Pima County, and one that we all as a community need to talk about.

Tonight we have a great group of folks joining us to have this conversation.

First, the Executive Director of the Regional Transportation Authorit Next to him, we have Ted Maxwell, the Chair of the Arizona State Transportation Board and an RTA Board member as well.

On my left, Tim Steller from the Arizona Daily Star, Caitlin Schmidt from Tucson Spotlight, and Nick Rommel from AZPM News.

Thank you all for joining me tonight.

You know, tonight we're here to have a discussion, a conversation, if you will, regarding the RTA Next project and what Pima County voters are really going to have to think about when they have to come to the voter booth in March.

There is a lot at stake with this vote and a lot to discuss.

First though, we want to remind you of what the RTA Next is all about, and we have a look back at the first 20 years and how they've gone so far.

(Upbeat Music) Okay, Mike, golf carts and bikes, I know that's an alternative for some folks, but just in general, take us through a little bit about the RTA Next plan.

What are some things that people really need to understand?

Sure, well, first of all, I think the important thing to understand is it's a 20-year plan.

The legislature gave us authority 20 years ago, actually about 22 years ago, to go to the voters, and that's a key piece of this, because the ultimate form of accountability, the best form of accountability, is the voter going to them and asking them.

So the conversation really is one of what does the need, or what are the needs of the community as a whole?

So through a series of public engagement, both through a citizens' advisory committee with public outreach afterward, including the jurisdictional partners, that plan is then developed, and it has something for everyone.

There's opportunity, not only for roads, as you heard there, in terms of some of the constraints there, but also public transit, and also other alternative modes of transportation.

So the key here is we have to go back to the voters, ask for permission, ask for an approval of a new plan, but also the funding that goes along with that.

And so those two questions will be on the ballot in March.

Okay, Caitlin, what are you hearing from folks in your reporting about how they're feeling right now about where we're at with the project in general?

Yeah, I mean, I think I'm hearing a lot of the same.

It depends on who you talk to.

There are a lot of good points that came out of the first RTA project, but there is a lot of uncertainty as well.

Like these people in the video said, more of the same is not necessarily something we want, but they do want better roads, and they do want more access to public transportation, and they do want safer roads for their bicycles.

So it's, you know, they want these things, but do they want it this way?

We'll find out in March.

Ted, what do you think it will mean if this passes kind of not only for Tucson, but for the state of Arizona?

Well, for the state of Arizona, this is about investing in ourselves.

Let's be honest.

The state is not gonna bring dollars to our region to fix our roads.

The federal government's not gonna bring dollars to fix our region to our roads.

We have to figure out how we can leverage the dollars they do give us, and RTA Next is one way to do it.

Everything that was mentioned in that video presentation is available in RTA Next.

People like to focus on the 31 new projects, the seven carryover projects, but every single one of those projects has bicycle, pedestrian, drainage improvements.

It not only fixes the roads, creates new roads.

There's not as many new miles in this one, but it addresses all of those issues.

It makes the roads better and safer for everybody in this community, and if you really take a dive, and too often you just look at the headlines and the total number, look at the individual projects.

They all have safety embedded in them, and they all have improvements on each road as well.

Okay, Tim, when you look at the plan, the way it's laid out right now, versus the way it first started, I guess, 20 years ago, what are some of the things you're seeing?

Well, I mean, I think the thing that jumps out is that there are seven projects from the last iteration of RTA One that are to be completed, and I guess I would, that's to me the biggest question in this is if we put our faith or our vote toward a 20-year plan 20 years ago, and it wasn't completed, why would we do that again?

And I guess I would, if you're willing, I'd ask you all that.

I'll take that one, just because it's absolutely true, and what people forget is when that plan went in front of the voters, at 2.1, they used the method of economic projections that would be dead middle, which means it's a 50-50 flip of the coin.

This one, the board did a good job of talking it through, and they're using the pessimistic view, which means 80% of the time, you're gonna get more income than you had.

We had 2008.

Now, you can always say that there's gonna be some glitch in the economy, that was a big setback, and you also had the COVID pandemic.

Two, what I would call abnormal incidents, but the big thing was we did not collect the money that the original forecast had because of those incidents, and that's why those seven projects are there.

They all need money, and some of them need some structural changes that we need to go back to the voter to get, because this is a voter-approved plan with voter-approved ideas.

So there's a lot of things in this plan, including a new element I'm sure we'll talk about later, that warrant in the first one to ensure that we don't face what we were facing the last five years.

You mind if I add to that?

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

So Tim, I think it's a very valid concern, a very valid question.

So let's dissect what went on 20 years ago versus what's going on today.

Now, clearly, projecting out 20 years is really difficult.

It doesn't matter who you are, projecting that out is very tough.

I think the conversation today, though, is really the accountability, and that accountability has been something I've been working with the board to establish, and there's a few components of that.

The first is quarterly reports to the board with the Citizens Oversight Committee, which is basically the Citizens Accountability for Regional Transportation, the CART Committee.

And that's important because they're gonna be looking hard at not only schedules, but also the finances.

And it's not just a look back, but what we've actually done is establish criteria by which they're going to be looking at the entirety of the program.

And it's important that that conversation happen in public so that when or if there's a problem, there's a challenge in the 12th year.

We're not waiting until the 11th year to understand or recognize it, but instead we're doing that up front.

That same analysis, that same quarterly reporting also goes through the Technical Management Committee, which didn't necessarily happen in the past.

That's important, and that's a key differentiation between the way that the original RTA was administered and the way we're projecting it going forward.

Last thing I'll leave you with is those are not codified.

Those are the administrative code that has been established by the RTA Board for how this RTA next will be implemented going forward.

Nick, as you have conversations with folks, what are they saying to you?

What is standing out for them when they look now at this proposal?

Well, I think it's similar to what we saw in the video.

A lot of people know it's something to do with transportation, but I think again, like Tim said, the kind of poster child that a lot of people know is Grant Road, of course.

Grant Road is still under construction.

So really I think that that is the fundamental question that most people have is the one that Tim just posed, and that the new plan, I'm sure people have willingness to trust the RTA that it will change something, but are also skeptical.

Okay, one of the questions that came to us via Slido, can federal money cover the cost of these projects if the RTA next doesn't pass?

So today, for example, I was up at the state legislature talking to some of the bipartisan leaders in both the House and the Senate, and we received a briefing from ADOT.

And the federal dollar situation coming to this state is going the wrong direction right now.

Now there's some things that can be addressed, and the federal government's been good about stepping in and doing one-time funding to get the highway funds back up.

But the fact of the matter is, there is not a state, a federal solution.

And so there are no federal dollars that can cover any of the shortfalls.

The investment that was made 20 years ago was made as a plan.

And if you look at this plan and you overlay the two maps, the maps from RTA 1 and RTA Next, it fills in a lot of the gaps that were not covered in that first part of the plan.

Maricopa has done it, they've done it differently than us, and we're not gonna do it like they do.

But the fact of the matter is they're on year 42 of their regional transportation investment.

And what happens if this doesn't go through is we get in line with all other, the other 13 counties to compete for our projects and that funding that may be able to come from the state dollars as well.

This is a way of codifying it, voter approved, and guarantees us entrance into the five-year state transportation plan.

Caitlin, do you sense from the people that you're talking with, I don't know if it's that they believe that the next 20 years can happen and be a continuation of what's going on, or do they just say, we got 20 years in, let's move on to something else?

We write for a younger audience, we interview a lot of young voters, so we deal with a lot of people that didn't vote in the first RTA election and really are just starting to pay attention to it now and get involved.

And one of the questions that I get a lot from them is about the power dynamic and the vote split.

Tucson represents such a large part of the region, it brings in so much of the sales tax, but the city still gets one vote, the project splits, so they're confused about the structure, I'm hearing a lot.

Mike, you wanna address that?

I do, since I was part of that argument a few years ago, I don't mind telling you about that.

So people have asked, what's changed?

And the dynamic has truly changed in the chemistry of the RTA and PAG, quite frankly.

So the first thing is, I mentioned the Citizens Accountability for Regional Transportation, the CART Committee, very influential group now and is basically reconstituted to include four residents from the city of Tucson, so in essence four votes, one as a transit advocate as well.

So that opportunity for additional voices at that level is extremely important.

But let's also take a step back to the technical management committee as well.

The technical management committee was reconstituted, there's three votes, if you will, three members for the city of Tucson now, there's two for Pima County and one for the other jurisdictional partners.

Now keep in mind that, as I mentioned, on a quarterly basis, those groups will come before the board in a public setting and make recommendations and have conversations around whatever is on their mind with regard to successful implementation of the plan going forward, which again is the accountability.

Tim, $2.67 billion, that's a lot of money.

And there are still some shortfalls from the first 20 years.

What are folks saying that you're seeing?

Well, I think one of the big questions I've heard about is, relates to the money to be spent on the overhanging projects, that is the projects from the last iteration, and the money on hand.

So if you could spell this out for me, I'd love to hear.

My understanding is it's about $257, $258 million worth of projects that are left to be done.

Is that right?

-Correct.

Okay, but you all have money on hand too in the hundreds of millions of dollars, right?

Do you know about how much that is?

I do, and I can answer that.

Go for it.

Now you want me to-- Yeah, sure, no, sure.

I just, yeah, maybe we can have a dialogue here.

So we have $423 million that are, we'll call fund balance, that's been committed to completing the RTA 1 projects that are not on the ballot.

And that's important because you'll hear commentary about, well, you have a fund balance, you've got all this money in the bank.

Yes, but we have 22nd Street Bridge that just kicked off.

We have the completion of Grant Road, for example.

Those dollars are already committed to those RTA 1 projects.

So if we don't pass RTA Next, that money will be there, but will be totally committed to projects that are already on the books, is that what you're saying?

So, absolutely.

So the money that is in the bank today for RTA 1 is committed to RTA 1 projects and the completion of those projects.

The additional money, the $257 million that you mentioned, is also part of leveraging other regional monies that will be brought forth and used to complete those RTA-1 projects.

So it's important that all of those projects be completed and the board is absolutely committed to making that happen.

Another alternative, I know it's not something that is really in the air right now, and it's not on the ballot or anything, but you all are in the air right now.

But you all are speaking as if there is no alternative, there's no federal money, and I agree with that, there's no state money.

And if RTA is passed, then what are we gonna do?

Well, isn't the obvious answer that the jurisdictions will pass or put to the voters their own half-cent sales tax?

So, Marana, Sahuarita, Oro Valley, and Tucson will all do some version of a sales tax to do some of the similar things to what we would be doing?

And Tim, you're right on that.

That is the alternative.

The alternatives to let the individual municipalities, those who want to go forward with the tax in their communities, to go on their own.

But what we miss is transportation is a regional issue.

Cars and roads, they don't know what jurisdiction they're in.

When I take, I live in Oro Valley, when I drive in every day, we were talking about RTA 1, we forget all the projects they did, like La Canada and La Cholla.

When I used to drive down those roads, I'd be driving down and I'd go, okay, I'm in Oro Valley.

Okay, now I'm in the county.

Because you can feel it.

Now I'm in the city.

-You can feel it in the car.

The cars don't know, the roads don't know, and if we want to have a good, collaborative transportation system that works for all, and that's for all.

That's not just for the cars, that's for the transit users that use it, that's for pedestrian and bike users that want to use it.

If we don't have them be collaborative, then we're just getting into little portions of the county that are in one shape and you just go 10 miles north and it's totally different.

So I may follow up just with one more thing.

When I look at the map and I see how the projects have been kind of doled out, a few to Sahuarita, a few in Oro Valley, et cetera, it looks to me like even though this is a regional plan, it's almost been done jurisdictionally so that everybody gets their fair share.

While it's regional, I don't see the connections myself, and maybe I'm wrong, so if you want to explain that to me, please feel free.

Let me take a stab at that.

So yes, those investments are scattered across the entirety of the region, Colossal Cave to the east, Sahuarita interchange to the south, Moore Road interchange to the north.

So let's take a look at those interchanges just as an example.

So if you look at Tangerine Road and Rita Road, two examples, today, right now today, cars will actually back up onto the main freeway line, dead stop.

Because there is congestion, they can't get off the freeway.

The concern, obviously, then is if you draw the map, that project on Tangerine is in Marana, so that should be a Marana project.

The Rita Road interchange should be in the city of Tucson because that's in Tucson.

But I can assure you that when you're stopped on the road, it doesn't matter what jurisdiction you're in because that safety problem, that constraint, is going to be there regardless from where you came.

So think about it that way.

But then also, think about if you don't use I-10.

Most people do.

But let's say you don't use I-10 regularly, or you don't ever use I-10.

Virtually every aspect of your life comes in on I-10, whether it's the grocery store, whether it's the delivery of other goods and services in a semi-pickup truck or semi-tractor trailer.

And those interchanges become important.

And those are just examples of the regional value of that improvement in that investment.

Again, as Ted mentioned, it's investing in ourselves in a regional manner.

We initially didn't start off with saying, where are the jurisdictions?

We looked at these projects regionally.

But then people started to ask, well, what's in it for me?

Where are these boundaries?

So we draw them and outline that.

But when you start to take a little bit of a step back, and then you look at the Tohono O'odham Nation, just as an example, we have one of the highest bus routes on the nation going to Sells and over to Ajo.

We have a waiting list today for folks.

Now I can tell you, when you do a straight population analysis, right?

You know, they wouldn't necessarily qualify for that investment.

But we all know and understand the importance of that investment to get folks to their employment, to get folks to see their families.

And again, we have a waiting list.

So those are just some examples of how that regional approach is all inclusive.

Caitlin, one of the things that I've heard a lot since coming to town is that the streetcar was a big thing that was a part of the RTA part one.

What do you think is going to happen, again, if this passes or if it doesn't pass, to that?

I mean, sure, a fare free transit has been a huge point of discussion since it became free in the pandemic.

You know, I think the streetcar is a huge asset to the community.

It's certainly very popular amongst university students and that crowd, but I think the streetcar will survive with or without the RTA.

What might be a question is what happens to the fares on the streetcar, the fares on the bus, if we don't have funding from here.

And Nick, anything that you've been seeing?

Yeah, it's, I mean, the fare free question comes up at city council constantly.

And generally the consensus is that if RTA Next doesn't pass, there's, the city doesn't have a ton of options for keeping it that way, because they might have to start raising revenues for the transit system in new ways.

And the other thing I would just point out is that the city has a whole slew of transit safety upgrades that they want to do, which are also contingent on RTA next time.

Okay, you know, in order for this plan to pass, there needs to be, I guess, a yes vote on two parts of it, 418 and 419, one to pass the plan and then one to pass the funding source.

I guess, Ted or Mike, I'll open this one up to you.

If both pass, what's the overall vision for the project, kind of moving forward, maybe that we're not talking about?

Well, the importance of them both passing is, if either one fails, they both fail.

So it's not like, I mean, you obviously can't have a plan that has no funding and you can't collect funding for no plan.

They've got to both be there.

So that is a real important thing for folks to remember.

The challenge, and you've heard some of the concerns over there, I mean, I personally don't know if free fares are tied into the RTA.

I tell you, they're not, they're tied to the votes of the city council, and that's what it really comes down to.

And free fares has some support there.

So I personally have said, I think if it passes, you're gonna have free fares, and if it fails, you're gonna have free fares.

Because the 10, the eight to 12 million is a relatively small number in the overall spectrum.

The streetcar, there's $40,000 of continued, or $40 million over the 20 years.

So $2 million a year to operate that in the plan.

The challenge will be, is come June 1st, or July 1st first, when the first plan ends, money goes away.

That's the money for the continuation of building some of the roads we've got.

We've got the money that Mike Ortega talked about that's gonna let us finish those other ones.

But those other seven, we're gonna have to figure out where that money's coming from.

And it's gonna take a significant more amount of time.

So that's gonna slow down.

But the things that are gonna be heard on the transit side are significant.

Mike referenced the shuttle out to Ajo and some of the more regions that are farther away from the city of Tucson.

People forget Pima County's over 9,100 square miles.

The city of Tucson's 426 square miles.

Those are big, we are big communities in big areas.

But there'll be impact on Dial-A-Ride, there'll be impact on Paratransit, there'll be impact on routes.

So there's a lot of things that are gonna fall away if it doesn't happen.

Everybody wants to say, what's the plan going forward?

The plan going forward is what Tim outlined.

Individual municipalities can go it on their own.

And then they're gonna set their priorities, they're gonna have the responsibility in the bank, the planner and the builder.

Where the RTA accountability ensures that RTA's the bank, the plan's voter protected and voter approved.

And then we work with the municipalities and all the jurisdictions to complete the project.

So you've got a broader coverage on that.

But the fact of the matter is there's gonna be a lot of unknown if this doesn't pass.

And I think it's a risk that could be, could cause some issues on for sure our transportation system's connectivity.

But even inside the individual municipalities, I think it's gonna be difficult.

Tim, when you think about this, the half cent sales tax has already been here for 20 years.

What's another 20 more?

I mean, it continues, right?

As opposed to having to start a new whole tax again?

Well, right.

I mean, that's why we're here now, right?

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but you all were hoping to get this election done earlier.

But now it's the last minute.

I remember you and I, Ted have talked and you have insisted various times, not just with me, that you wanna put a plan before the voters.

My memory is it before time runs out.

So that is the situation, right?

That it has to be done before the time arises when it's called a tax increase.

That's the political reality, right?

That's true.

But I think the thing to take away from that discussion is, yes, in a perfect world, we would have given this to the voters about a year ago.

If it fails, we figure out why it failed and we have a chance to come back before we lose the funding.

If the tax, if the funding goes away, the roads don't instantly improve.

Matter of fact, it's gonna be the opposite.

They're gonna go in the other direction.

The investment in all of our infrastructure, whether it's a pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or support for vehicles is gonna go away.

But at the time, we didn't have a solid plan.

It was continued to be a discussion of the board and eventually, the plan we finally got to, and you heard it loud and clear from all of the mayors, this is a plan, perfect, no, you're never gonna get a perfect plan when it's regional and it's collaborative and it's compromised, but this is a good plan and they all voted to move this forward and still have maintained their support.

Mike, we have a question coming in from Slido that I think you can handle here.

What metrics are we using to hold ourselves accountable to the promises made, especially regarding safety, mobility, and quality of life?

Are we setting measurable goals for addressing the pedestrian safety crisis?

I don't think, I'm a number of guys, so thank you for that question.

So let me give you a couple things and I wanna go back to the accountability, the quarterly reports and the staff gets tired of me or hearing me say that, but that's extremely important because it's a litmus test as well against the plan, but also what's going on in the real world.

Are there adjustments that need to be made and if so, we have a conversation with the voter.

We could go back to the voter after five years and have a discussion about saying, wait a minute, this was the 20-year plan, but we wanna go back to the voter and have a conversation, extremely important because again, accountability.

But with regard to the metrics very specific, I'll give you a couple of numbers which are really surprising to me quite frankly.

The University of Arizona did a study on HAWKs which are the on-demand pedestrian crossings.

At those locations, the pedestrian crashes reduced by 50%.

I mean, that's huge and so we have dollars set aside specifically for that kind of an investment.

So then the next question from Tim is gonna be, well, where are they gonna go, right?

We wanna know.

Well, that's a function of data, but also community input and that's a unique part of this plan where there is a mechanism by which the community can provide input on the location of those going forward.

But I'm gonna give you a couple other statistics as well, a couple other pieces.

When you invest in bike safety, bike lanes, bike paths, you reduce the bike crashes, the vehicle conflicts, if you will, with bikes by about 40%.

So when you look, and that's from the FHWA, the Federal Highway Administration.

So when you look at those opportunities, we do have those metrics that we can test against.

And so as we're going down this path, because pedestrian safety and bike safety as well as vehicle safety are all important and the entirety of the $2.67 billion is an investment in safety.

Every aspect of the plan is for safety.

Nick, how important have you seen from talking with folks is the bike infrastructure and try to expand that a little bit?

Well, it's pretty important for those among us, including myself, who use a bike to get around.

I can say Tucson has a little ways to go compared to some other cities when it comes to being able to bike and that has to do with bike lanes, bike paths, other than of course the great Loop trail.

But also just the way the roads are, sometimes you just feel scared to even bike on the median of them.

And I know that bike improvements are a bigger part of this RTA plan than the next one.

So it would be interesting to see what kind of effect that would have on the overall landscape of biking in Tucson.

Okay, we have a question that was sent in to us from Logan Havens.

Several RTA projects like Broadway Boulevard and First Avenue were approved decades ago with inaccurate projected capacity needs and roadway designs to no longer align with the current city of Tucson goals around safety, multimodal access and land use.

Can you explain how flexible the RTA is when voter approved projects no longer reflect local priorities and what the real cost financial and political are to make those changes?

Mike, you talked a little bit about going back to the voters if you need to.

Yes, thank you, David.

And Logan, thank you for that question.

If you look at the plan, I believe it's note number two, outlines flexibility that the board has for unforeseen conditions, okay?

So that's one opportunity.

But keep in mind that the voter mandate, the voter commitment is also covered by statute.

And so there are certain pieces.

So for example, 22nd Street is part of the RTA Next plan.

Originally, that was supposed to be a six-lane divided roadway.

In the revised plan, based on data, based on community impact or input, it's a four-lane divided.

Well, that's an example.

And those two, the Broadway and North First Avenue, are great examples.

But the key piece to that is making sure that we're having that community dialogue.

Because if we find that a roadway that is configured a certain way today needs to be revised down the road because of community input and or because of data, because of the traffic data, that we have the opportunity and the confidence, quite frankly, to go back out to the voter and have a conversation with the voter about that change.

And those are the conversations that we're having now to make sure, going back to those quarterly reports, make sure that those are the conversations that are happening now throughout the entirety of the program, not waiting until the 11th year for the 12th year project.

Caitlin, do you think voters and members of the community feel like they're being heard, that they're able to make suggestions?

I mean, this is a great opportunity to have these kind of conversations.

But in your reporting, do voters feel like they're being heard?

I mean, that always depends on who you talk to and to any community groups.

For the people who feel like this plan doesn't align with what they want for the community, I'm sure they don't feel like they're being heard.

But others probably do.

I do have a question about all of the accountability pieces that we have in here.

Talking about the quarterly reports and the audits and the CART committee, can you give us an example of one time that that committee has saved money or stopped some money from being wasted on a project?

Can I just take this real quick?

Because it's always dangerous to say, trust us.

That's not what's done.

What we've done now is we've codified these changes in a lot of the administrative code.

That was not done in RTA 1.

It was a 20-year plan and you see there's projects here.

When the voters passed RTA 1, we were supposed to be at 1.3 million residents in Pima County by now.

We're barely over 1.1.

Another reason the funding came in short.

So, but the board has committed it and we've codified as much as we can legally into the code that will allow us to have those conversations.

The CART has actually been elevated in their role.

They used to be just kind of an organization that looked at the board and didn't have a lot of feedback to the board and didn't have a lot of say on if something's going wrong.

But we've talked anywhere from a two-year, every two-year taking a hard look at the plan or more.

But note, if we need to go back, we want to do it before we switch periods.

The other thing, Tim, you alluded to the money that was brought up, you know, that's still in the system.

We're also, put some language in there that's going to change it so that if a project's not ready to go or things are changing, we can then use that money and move these periods around a little bit.

If it's anything that's a significant change to the plan, we're going to put it back in front of the voters.

Tim, you got a follow up?

Yeah, okay, so I wanted to clarify that first of all, that it is, we have to go back.

So for example, with Broadway, this is confusing.

I think what really confuses people is that we successfully narrowed the Broadway project, changed its alignment and that sort of thing, and it got done.

And I like it.

Then we ran into First Avenue, where a similar idea was put forward, and that was rejected by the RTA Board, even though the city did a bunch of outreach and that sort of thing.

So what you're saying now is that this kind of change, like the Broadway type of change, would now go back to voters.

It would not be done the way we did it before when Broadway, that project was narrowed.

Is that what you're saying?

I'm going to take that one.

Good luck.

Yeah, so.

-Sorry.

No, no, that's a good question, and it's reasonable.

It's a reasonable question, because I think people need to know and understand.

At the time, and I'll just say it, at the time, the opinion was that it didn't need to go back to the voters.

It was just that simple, right?

And as time went on, folks changed, et cetera, the North First Avenue project came up and said, nope, that needs to go back to the voters.

Okay, so how do you keep that from happening?

And that's really what the board has asked me to do, is how do you codify, how do you memorialize these processes so we don't have a question as to who's sitting in what chair that makes those determinations.

And I go back to the CART, the Citizens Accountability for Regional Transportation, their role is different today than it was.

It is actually more robust.

In some of the original org charts, if you will, the organizational charts, they're reported to the executive director.

That's great, but I also think that the citizens should report directly to the board, to the elected officials, so that there's no filtering.

And I'm not speaking ill of anyone, it's just the fact that the citizens group should be, or have a direct line to the RTA board.

And I think that's pretty significant Tim, to be honest with you.

And to piggyback on that just a little, these changes are intended to make things more streamlined and make them more effective.

We go back to the Broadway project, took over three, I think three, three and a half years to get to the point of making the change.

You delay in the up, since 2016, infrastructure or road construction costs have gone up 250%.

So every year that you're delaying and not making a decision, that's why both identifying the projects that are run into problems and identifying the data, you know, but our population wasn't growing.

Okay, I've seen a couple of numbers that have stood out when I've looked at the materials for this particular plan.

If it passes, there's a possibility of creating upwards of about 48,000 jobs.

But I've also seen that if it doesn't pass, it could be a loss of 54,000 jobs.

How are we kind of figuring this out?

You want to go ahead and go?

So both of those numbers came out from an economic assessment of the impact of the projects.

Those are not things that the RTA board sat around and we said, oh, it could be approximately this.

Some of the jobs obviously are, there's a lot of construction jobs that are affiliated with the new project.

There's a lot of continuation of the current construction jobs that may slow down or may not continue.

So you lose some both construction jobs, but there's also impacts on business and the economy and the potential growth.

And as we said, predicting anything 20 years is extremely difficult.

But what we do know historically is that improved quality infrastructure brings growth in the economy and growth in businesses.

It's an attraction to companies that come here and look here.

I think if you look at some of the feedback from the economic developers in the region, they all ask, what's up with the roads?

We've got to have both for the economy and for quality of life.

We've got to improve our roads and the way we get around town.

Tim, when you hear those numbers.

Yeah, they definitely caused me to question.

So my understanding from the numbers I've seen, that 48,000 number may be even bigger than total job growth in the city or county over that.

That number sounds high to me.

Granted, you got it from some smart economists, I believe that.

But the thing that I really don't understand is the idea, okay, if we don't pass it, so we're not spending that half cent on every dollar, that there would be a loss of jobs.

That doesn't add up to me because all that you're doing is not, that half cent is still doing something.

That half cent that we're not spending on every dollar could be doing anything.

So how do we end up losing jobs if we don't pass this?

So I'm gonna take a shot at that.

I would encourage you to look through the economic impact study, the Rounds Consulting impact.

It's on our website, it's on the RTA Next, Or actually, it's on the RTA website.

And I think that can help answer some of that.

But keep in mind that this is the long game.

This isn't tomorrow, this isn't gonna happen overnight.

And when you're not investing in infrastructure, that is basically the support of commerce as a whole.

I mean, all aspects of the community then are going to potentially suffer because of the lack of that infrastructure or that infrastructure deteriorating.

It's aging.

And so when you look at, as time goes on, it's a very steady and gradual decline of the infrastructure that supports that commerce.

And I'm summarizing, I'd give Mr.

Rounds here to tell you exactly what he can tell you.

Maybe you could explain this.

Is it saying that we will have a net loss of jobs as a result of not passing this?

Or is it saying that our growth in jobs will be 54,000 less than it would have been if we had passed it?

Do you understand what I'm saying?

I think it's the second.

You're talking to apparently two (Tim) I know, you didn't do the study, but yeah.

(Ted) But the fact of the matter is I think that's based on the opportunity of jobs coming in the future as well.

So it's not necessarily straight 54, we're still gonna have some growth.

Some are the immediate job losses from lack of construction projects and others.

But it's done over the 20 year forecast and they forecast so many different things in it.

But, Caitlin-- Oh, go ahead, Nick.

I have a question about housing and RTA, if that's all right.

When I look at the projects that are proposed, the roadway projects, the new plan, it really seems like a lot of them are even in growing areas on the outskirts of the metro area that maybe don't even have that much housing yet, but it seems like maybe this is in anticipation of future housing growth.

Versus when I look at investments in the city of Tucson, it's like continuing existing transit services.

So I'm wondering why, what would you say to people maybe in the city of Tucson who would think, this is accommodating to maybe future residents of the county who are gonna buy and not yet build house in 15 years in Marana, off the Moore Road interchange, whereas my bus service to get from, you know, whatever, somewhere in Alvernon Road to downtown is exactly the same as it was, you know, during RTA 1.

Go ahead.

Yeah, you can take this.

I heard him reading, so I'm like-- Well, so Nick, I think it's both.

And I think that there are thousands of lots that are undeveloped, that are platted, that are undeveloped in the outer areas, in the Vail area, in the Marana area.

These are thousands of home opportunities.

And so we all know there's a housing shortage, right?

I mean, that's a very clear challenge for our region.

And so the support of infrastructure for housing in general is important and a good thing.

Now, when you look at the difference, it goes back to the regional approach and the regional investment.

When you look at the difference between the type of infrastructure that is in these other areas, the Marana, the Oro Valleys, the Vail, or the southeast area of the community, they're different.

They're diverse compared to what's in the urban core.

And that's really where that safety component, that active transportation component, those opportunities to improve the safety in those areas, we're not looking at widening, you know, Speedway, for example, but we are looking at potentially HAWKs and we're looking at potentially other types of infrastructure to help you get to and from your bus stop.

And those are the types of investments.

And again, the diversity of the region really is what warrants a different approach to those investments across the board.

And I think it's important just to follow up because Nick, you were saying it's the same as RTA1.

It's not.

RTA next has $227 million for expansion, the weekday evening and weekend bus service hours and expanded Paratransit service.

So there is continued expansion.

RTA 1 was a big expansion of transit.

This continues that trend and to expand the services more so that it's more viable for everybody.

Caitlin, when you look at this and you hear now, when we talk about some of the expansion and things that are gonna happen in front of local businesses, you know, I know some of them have complained that, you know, it's taken forever.

people aren't coming into my storefront.

How is that manifesting itself, I guess?

I mean, just that, right?

Yeah, I mean, we see it all over town, you know, every time there's a new construction project or a lingering construction project, we see the stories on TV where you were talked to the business owners about how it impacts them.

That just is an undeniable reality of all of this.

But what we do hear consistently from people is job growth and new jobs.

And this 48,000 new jobs does sound appealing.

But one of the things that has always struck me about Southern Arizona, and I am a California transplant myself, but we are very popular for people from other states to relocate to, especially as we see costs rising around the nation.

So we're bringing all these new jobs here, but what is the plan to make sure that these jobs are marketed for and being swooped up by locals rather than by people looking to relocate for a better cost of living?

That's a great question.

So I think by and large, it's an all-inclusive approach.

So again, I go back to the infrastructure has to support the commerce.

And so it depends on what kind of commerce and what kind of conversation we're having around that job growth.

But I wanna touch on the business, the impact of the businesses, because I think it's important that we at least acknowledge that.

And that's, look at Grant Road.

People ask me, why don't we just get that done?

What's the problem?

What's the holdup?

Well, if we could close Grant Road for an extended period of time from point A to point B, we'd be done.

But that's not realistic, right?

Because the businesses need to survive during that time.

Part of the plan invests in small business assistance.

So we have advocates that will go out, and we do today, that's in the current plan, and it will continue even on more robust.

And when you're having conversations and say, okay, what can we do?

What kind of signage can we help with?

Those are the kinds of community conversations people don't oftentimes hear or don't see.

But it's also the opportunity to have a discussion, say, well, what do you think about us closing the road?

What do you think about us starting late or early to try to compress the timeframes?

It's not lost on anyone how long these projects take.

But when you have to keep it open for traffic, open for business, which we understand, right?

That's a fact that it will delay the entirety of the project.

Mike, we got another question coming in from Slido, and it's along the same lines here.

And the question was, I believe East Grant Road and North Country Club widening was planned for 2016.

Local businesses moved out in anticipation.

Why should we trust you to complete your plans this time?

So I'll go back over the accountability again.

It's a ditto to that.

But I will also tell you, I was somewhat involved in Grant Road in a prior life.

And part of the conversation, in fairness to the RTA at the time, was an identification of how to fund it.

Because if you remember, three years ago, there was no option because we weren't having robust conversations about when we're gonna go to the voter and what the chemistry of the plan was.

It wasn't just until recently that the conversation was really, how do we finish these projects?

The board was committed, right?

The board said, we're committed, we're ready to go.

But without a funding source, it's very difficult.

My suggestion to you on the accountability, I go back to those quarterly reports, two issues, schedule and budget.

And it will be a very unpleasant conversation in front of a bunch of elected officials if one of the projects is delayed for whatever reason.

It will be very unpleasant, it'll be a very unhappy day.

But the conversation needs to happen in public so that people know.

And oh, by the way, what are those alternatives?

One of the things that I've pitched to the board is the RTA may come in and say, we will help you, we will facilitate, we will assist you in delivering the program or the project.

We've not done that before.

To me, again, that's the accountability to make sure that these projects are delivered is the key piece to this from the RTA board.

And they've demonstrated that commitment.

I just wanna throw one thing out because I wanna give Mr.

Ortega some credit on this one too.

The one advantage of having that regional approach, you've got all the decision makers of throughout Pima County on that board.

All the mayors, the two tribal chiefs, then we got representatives from theBoard of Supervisors as well.

This has been a conversation we've been having a lot of.

And we're already leaning in on how can RTA help shorten those timelines?

One of them's right-of-way construction.

The right-of-way acquisition that is done by the municipalities tends to be, okay, we're gonna go, let's acquire the right-of-way.

We're talking about how can we look in and maybe acquire some projects that we know this project's gonna be built in this timeframe.

If properties become available or businesses are moving, let's help in that way.

The other way is with collaboration with the utilities.

The utilities are a big slowdown on a project because you get the road off finally, and then somebody says, oh, do we need to move the utilities?

And now they start.

That can be done in advance, at least taking a look at what the basics are of what they're gonna have to do with the utilities.

That's a role that the RTA had not played in the past.

It's really the PAG, because people think the RTA board, the PAG and RTA are pretty much one of the same.

It's just what they're responsible for.

And the RTA's responsible for execution of the plan, oversight of the plan, and then collaboration with the municipalities.

And we've got, have you heard, a lot of different oversight and accountability built in?

Well, a lot of folk sare looking into the plan.

They're looking at some of the projects that are there in terms of widening the roads, car infrastructure, things like that.

But I know, Caitlin, a lot of folks are talking about alternative forms of transportation.

And Nick, a lot of folks are also talking about safety issues and where some of that money could go to make things a little bit safer.

Can you guys both talk a little bit about that?

Sure, well, with safety, I think, it looks like the plan has two parts.

There's the pedestrian and bike safety part.

Then there's also a $50 million for transit safety in Tucson, which would be a big change from now.

I mean, the city council has a new transit safety and security plan.

It's $500,000 one time.

RTA Next would give it $2 million every year for that.

So that would be a huge change, which they mostly want to use to hire more subcontracted security, expand police patrols in the transit system, and basically redo all the bus stops, it seems like.

Yeah, and to that end, I guess, I do have a question actually for Mike and Ted.

I know you mentioned that there are some expansions of what's being invested in transit.

It was my impression that RTA was mostly continuing the weekend and night service that was implemented in RTA 1.

Is it also expanding those services?

And could you talk about that?

You may know that better than I. So the short answer is yes.

The longer answer is it will depend on feedback from the jurisdictions.

The jurisdictional partners will be a part of that.

There is some additional money for expansion, but I won't be sitting here telling you it's gonna be from point A to point B. I think that's part of the robust conversation with the jurisdictional partners and using their mechanisms to get public feedback.

But there is $227 million in that line, and that's the thing on that side to remember about it.

Yeah, I mean, and you had talked extensively about the expanding of the bus services to our rural communities that need them and the significant investment in street car and whatnot and the street car line and its operation.

But I'm wondering how does this plan address safety and access in neighborhoods where car ownership is less common?

We're seeing a generation that is moving away from cars that is more concerned about the environment, and I think we're seeing more of that.

I'll take a stab at starting now, and then I'll turn it over to Ted.

So I think when you look at safety, as I mentioned before, the $2.67 billion ask and prop program is around safety.

And I think one of the differentiating parts is there's 31 new roadway projects in the plan, right?

And so when you dissect those further, only eight of those are capacity.

23 of those address aging infrastructure, which address those issues and those safety issues in the urban core as well.

So the needs, again, we'll use an example of Colossal Cave Road.

That safety need, there's a railroad crossing at grade today, there's a school right there.

I mean, that is a very significant safety challenge for us as a region.

You compare that to, we use the term modernization, right?

But it's really upgrading and the aging infrastructure to address those safety needs so we can get Nick to his bus stop.

But not only on his bike, right?

Also as a pedestrian.

And those investments are throughout.

So all of those projects have pedestrian and bike infrastructure, not just the one line that says it's ADA safety and active transportation.

It's beyond that.

And let's take it to a category we haven't talked about yet.

And that's the arterial and the collector roads pavement rehabilitation.

So you talk about more of the urban core, you talk about the roads that bring people into the town.

And those are some of the roads that need the most investment on fixing them because they're unsafe.

It's where you find most of the pedestrian deaths.

It's where you find a lot of the issues with vehicle accidents.

And even when they put that in, you'll get a lot of these new amenities.

But the biggest factor is that something we didn't have in RTA 1.

The biggest complaint around here is the condition of the roads.

Well, we finally have a way to do it while the city's recent absent sales tax will focus on neighborhood city streets here.

This will focus on all the roads that get people to and from and around town.

And it's the 177 million people go, well, that's not enough.

But it's also one of the elements and categoricals if our revenues do come in higher.

And remember, we're using a different estimate for what our budget is.

That's gonna be where a lot of the, any money that goes to roads will be going because we'd have to go back to the voters to add other projects.

But we know we've got roads and every municipality, the irony about it is when we start to put in that category in there, every municipality didn't have money, but every municipality wanted money to help fix their roads that were in worse shape.

-Tim?

-Yeah, if I may, this is, I think, one of the highest priority questions for people.

So I wanna make sure it's totally clear.

I had a weird experience last night.

I went to an RTA meeting at El Rio and heard the explanation that no, a man said, hey, I'm having to replace my windshield every year or something like that because it gets smashed from stuff on the road and potholes.

And they explained, I thought that, no, we don't fix potholes.

That's not what RTA does, but they do.

We plan to repair, this is what the RTA people are saying, we plan to reconstruct the arterials in, right, okay.

But then I had this experience of hearing that last night, and then today on my social media, an ad comes up from Connect Pima, which is the entity that's been formed to promote RTA and try to get it passed.

And it says something about a species that we don't like, the Pima County pothole.

And the whole ad is about how, if you want safer roads from potholes, vote yes on 418 and 419.

So could you just make that 100% clear about the pothole?

I'll make it 100% clear because the fact of the matter is, a lot of the roads that people complain about the potholes on are on the arterials and the connector roads.

That is the one that has the most usage, it has the heaviest vehicles that drive on.

And I'll tell you, we had this argument today about the state funding.

The heavier the vehicles, the more it tears up the roads.

The arterial and collector, as you said, rehabilitation is what it's listed as now.

It is a curb to curb reconstruction.

It has to meet an expected 10 year standard before it will need to be touched again.

So it is actually doing an engineered road.

You put a pothole in and I think we've all experienced it.

We know after the first rain or a couple weeks later, guess what, it's back.

And it generally brings a friend.

So the fact of the matter is, that's exactly what that element was placed in there for.

How can we fix the roads and do it under something where we're talking about construction, not just temporary maintenance?

And those aren't prioritized already, right?

In other words, those will be done as needs arise or how is that, do you have that prioritized yet?

So maybe I can help you with some of that.

So I wanna go back to our jurisdictional partner, Pima County, no offense on the Pima County pothole.

I think it's really the Southern Arizona pothole.

So we don't wanna put anyone in a bad spot there to confirm that.

But as far as the repaving goes, and are you going to see RTA funded crews out there patching potholes?

No, and we can't because the statues don't allow us to do that.

So that's why as Ted outlined, it's a 10 year life for that pavement.

Now you asked a very important question, which is, well, which roads are gonna get done?

Which is a very fair and reasonable question.

Well, the opportunity is for the jurisdictions to designate where those roads and that road investment is going to occur.

And they do that either through their needs studies or they do that through public input.

I know, I believe there was a meeting scheduled of the city's oversight commission, which they were going to discuss that and provide feedback to the city for their priorities.

So we expect that that will be the case across the board.

And that is another opportunity for the public to weigh in.

David, I can just follow up real quick too?

The intent is that the roads that are in the poor and fair position are to be the ones they're gonna do.

So there will be some oversight from the CART committee and the TMC.

And you've got to understand that oversight between the experts and the citizens in a weighted manner is incredibly important.

And so the municipalities, when they come and say we wanna do this road, it's gonna have to have some justification behind it that that road needs that.

And we've got plenty of, right now, we've got plenty of roads that are in poor and fair condition to pick from.

Okay, I'm gonna get to this Slido question because it's pretty interesting.

Young people have trouble affording housing and cars.

Why do we continue to support sprawl versus invest more on our urban core?

I'm gonna take a stab at that.

I don't know that this plan supports sprawl.

I think what it does is it invests across the entirety of the spectrum.

And as I mentioned, the entirety of this region is diverse.

The urban core has certain needs that were asked earlier and I addressed in terms of some of the investments, some of the safety pieces.

The areas outside of the urban core have other needs and this plan tries to address them as best it can with the regional eye, with an eye towards the region.

What does that regional investment look like?

Okay, and I think we want the region, the region we want the core, the city of Tucson, the largest municipality in this region where the activity is, where that's, we want it that way.

You don't want everybody staying in their own little world.

So you have to have all of this in here that's a good blend of what we do with roads and how we do it.

And it's not about sprawl because these roads are already existing.

As Mike said, there's very few what you go, oh, that's gonna be a brand new road.

It's improvement extensions, Mary Ann Cleveland and Colossal Cave are two perfect examples.

All right, some great conversation up here right now, but now it's time to go in the audience and have some conversation with folks here.

Before we open things up, we started the show again with a poll on Slido, asking if you are for, against or undecided.

If you have the opportunity now, go ahead and answer that question again, based on the conversation that you've had with us right now.

And then again, we have two mics here.

We're gonna ask folks to come up and ask a question.

When you come down, please let us know your name, your affiliation if you have one and limit your question to 60 seconds.

And then we'll have that conversation up here with our panel.

So right now, a reminder to make sure you answer that Slido question, we'll bring it back as we wrap everything up.

So the first question we have down in front.

Thank you, I'm Steve Farley.

I am a public artist, long time public transit advocate, central city resident.

I was one of the members of the original Citizens Advisory Committee for the original RTA.

And we were very proud to have put in massive transit expansions, including the streetcar extension.

Some of my political opponents have called me the streetcar godfather.

And I was, while I would have liked to have seen a lot more transit expansion, because I'm a transit guy, I was excited to see more than three quarters of a billion dollars investing in keeping those expansions that we did after 40 years of failed plans before that time and building more expansions on it.

So I'm a strong supporter of 418, 419, because I cannot imagine what is going to happen to our transit system if this fails.

Losing that three quarters of a billion dollars, I cannot imagine how that's going to slash our service across the board or dial it right or the rest of it.

So I wanna know specifically what is gonna happen if we don't pass this to our transit system?

What kind of cuts are gonna be made?

Have you heard from the jurisdictions?

Thank you.

Okay, so I can address that.

I know that the city of Tucson just yesterday was presented an analysis of what happens to their, or at least from their perspective to the transit system, should RTA Next not pass?

I would encourage folks to watch that.

I know there's some materials that were also generated that give you an idea of some of those challenges that the city of Tucson will face.

I'm gonna take a little bit of a step back and answer it this way for Mr.

Farley.

Thank you for the question.

When the board first asked me to come on board and help out, the first order of business was what happens if this doesn't pass?

So it was really an opportunity to explore all funding, all sources of funding.

What does this really look like?

Can I buy this time until maybe November?

Can I buy this time to have a conversation so that there's, I'll use the term gap funding.

So I explored the board of supervisors, unanimous tax.

That's an option, sales tax.

So I talked to all of the boards at the time, excuse me, all of the board members at the time.

And I can tell you there's not support for unanimous vote on that.

So, you know, check, we went through that one.

I also explored bonding through the county as an option.

A robust conversation with the county administrator around that and her finance folks.

That won't work for us because it's only for capital.

So the capital, certainly we could potentially make improvements to bus stops, those kinds of things.

But from a transit standpoint, that's not an option for the bonding.

So then the conversation moves towards just the property tax, right?

And had a conversation around that.

Say, okay, let's explore that.

What does that look like?

The counties are regulated by the state in terms of how much money they can actually generate with property tax on an annual basis.

And I believe that number is around 2% plus new construction.

And so on an annual basis, their budget can grow, their tax rate can grow by that amount.

And so when you do the math on that and then you realize the cost of operating the county, there's no room left for transit or very little room left for transit.

So looked at that.

So then the other question was, well, why can't we use the regional funding that comes into the region?

Which is highway user revenue fund monies.

So I looked at that.

And again, dead end in that we can't use that for transit operations.

So then the last one was, okay, how can we use the fund balance?

Tim asked about the money that's in the bank, right?

That's already committed to road projects.

Well, so conversation went down that path.

And so when you look at that fund balance, that's been committed to complete RTA 1.

The fact that the services for transit have been provided for 20 years, that's complete.

The roadway component that's now under, we'll call it the commitment, have not been completed.

And so the conversation is, well, can't the board just move that money and have that discussion about those dollars, right?

Very reasonable question.

And so the conversation then is, it doesn't mean the board can't do that.

But I can tell you that the board would have to have a conversation around the voter commitment to complete the rest of the RTA program, which are those road rate projects that I mentioned earlier.

So I wanted to just let you know that when someone asks about what happens to the transit, and by the way, that's not a scare tactic.

That's an analysis that I performed early on, very open.

I mentioned this to the board in the board meetings, and I walked them through that analysis so that they understood, really explored, hey, is there a way to potentially delay this and use some gap funding?

Okay, we have another question off to our left here.

Standing up, yep, you.

(Laughs) Can you tell us your name and your question?

Hi there, my name is Paul George Blasewich.

I'm an urban planning graduate student at the University of Arizona.

I rent a home near the intersection of Campbell and Prince in Tucson.

I wanna see funding continue for these really great cycling and pedestrian safety projects, as well as public transit service in Pima County.

That's why I'm excited about RTA Next.

But I also do not want to see roads widen to feed continuing suburban sprawl and the destruction of desert habitat in the exurbs and suburbs of Pima County.

If I were to vote no on RTA Next because of these reasons, is there a foreseeable way that I could vote yes in the future on some sort of program to only fund transit service and cycling and pedestrian safety infrastructure in Pima County?

I'll take that one.

I will never say that there's never an opportunity.

You may have that opportunity, highly unlikely.

You gotta remember the RTA is a regional body.

I mentioned earlier, I said it for a reason, 426 square miles is the city of Tucson.

It's not all the urban core.

Over 9,000 miles is Pima County in footage.

The beauty, in my opinion, of the RTA is that you've got all of the elected leaders of all five of the municipalities, as well as the input from the tribes and the county, and they all agree this is the best plan going forward for all, for the car users, for the transit users, for the bike users, for the pedestrians.

Now, that doesn't mean that the individual municipalities can't do more if they want to.

They can.

I encourage it.

I'm a big infrastructure person if they can.

But when it comes to a regional transportation plan, that again, if you take a look at the two maps and you overlay them, you'll see there is some thought process behind where these roads are going down.

They're filling in the gaps.

There's still parts of the county that are gonna need it, and that will have to be addressed at a later date.

But the fact of the matter is, will there be an RTA, and you're gonna be able to collect a half-cent sales tax if it doesn't give everybody something they plan they like?

I think everybody can find things in the plan they're not gonna like.

But I think everybody's gonna find something in the plan that they really like.

And the question is, do you want to throw everything out because you don't like that, or do you want to really improve your portion of the community for the things you want?

Caitlin, are you hearing that too, kind of the frustration that we can't take the first one and then not the second?

Not an a la carte menu.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's the beauty of elections, right?

I am curious, though, I guess about the branding for Prop 418 and 419.

When I first saw the signs, I had no idea that this was connected to RTA because it doesn't say anything about RTA on the signs Why is that?

I think that's an easy answer.

The question in front of the voters will be Prop 418, 419.

There's no hiding it.

It's all about the roads.

And right now, I think the discussion, as we've seen for several years, has been all about RTA.

And my concern is everybody's forgot what happened in the first 15 years of RTA.

I mean, you look at Houghton, you look at Speedway, you look at La Cholla, La Canada, Sahuarita Road, the TIs, the intersections to get on and off the freeways at Ina, at Twin Peaks.

That whole Twin Peaks was developed from RTA.

And now we're about to complete sunset links that will give us, we already know the congestion that you've got and you see at Orange Grove when you get on and off the freeway.

Now we're gonna have the next exit.

You're gonna be able to get on off the freeway and skip all that Orange Grove might and get yourself over to River.

Infrastructure and a transportation system takes long-term planning.

Okay, Mike, before we jump to our next question.

You don't mind.

- Yeah, go ahead.

Paul, I appreciate that question.

And one of the things that I wanted to bring you back to was the conversation I had earlier about the diversity of the region.

I understand your perspective on that in terms of where the investment should be for the alternative modes in the urban core.

Got it, I'm clear.

But when you look at the entirety of the region, and as I mentioned, those examples of those interchanges, they may look like urban scrawl, but they're safety improvements.

They're needed for all of us, but also for the transportation of those goods and services.

You know, those tractor trailers and all the things that bring us those goods and services, whether you order online or you go shopping at the grocery store.

And so it's really looking at the diversity, but keeping in mind that it's a focus and a function of safety.

I just wanted to make sure that you, I made that comment to you, Paul.

Okay, we have a question down front.

Thank you.

My name is Alejandro Angel, and I'm a supporter of RTA, because while I recognize the plan isn't perfect, I do think it's different than the previous one.

It has a different approach from the core than it does for the outskirts.

And I also believe infrastructure is huge in bringing and keeping businesses here.

Caterpillar is here, largely because of infrastructure.

So is Raytheon, because they got the infrastructure they need.

But my question is, I think it's also important that we acknowledge that some citizen groups were really disenfranchised by the process by which this plan was developed.

And I think, I wanna ask you, Mike and Ted, what are we doing?

What lessons have we learned to make sure that this, that we improve the process so that everybody feels heard when we develop these types of plans?

Thank you.

So, I'll start off with that.

Thank you, Alejandro, for that question.

So as I mentioned before, I think that the reporting structure of these citizens groups is extremely important.

And so as you look at how the Citizens Accountability for Regional Transparency, the CART committee is structured today, and the role that they play, I think it provides a very direct line to the RTA board.

I think that's first and foremost.

But I also think I can point to the chemistry, the constitution of that group with the additional members that represent the city of Tucson, and then the technical management committee with the additional members for Pima County as well.

And so I think that brings forth that accountability directly to the board with no filter.

And it's really an opportunity to have a very open and robust conversation with the board at that time.

Okay, Ted, quick, before we get to our next one.

Just real quick.

I was originally on the Citizens Advisory Committee before I got appointed to the board, and it was frustrating.

There was zero doubt about it.

There were times I was frustrated because we weren't having the discussions, we weren't talking, we weren't moving on, we weren't moving forward.

Those voices were heard.

I can't tell you how many times we've talked though at the board level.

If you sat through all our meetings, you'd see us talk about it.

We went back to it time and time again.

I think when you look at the final plan, you'll see there was a lot more fingerprints from both plans that came out of the CAC, not just the one that ended up being the one that started to move forward.

It's been adjusted quite a bit in the last year.

Okay, we have two final questions from the audience.

We'll start here first.

Okay, very good.

My name's Albert Elias, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask a question.

At this point, I'm not supportive of 418 and 419, but here's my question.

Why was a 20-year term proposed for 418 and 419?

You've made a big point tonight, both Ted and Mike, talking about how revenue projections, cost escalation, and project delays all had a negative impact on the original RTA.

So, doesn't a five or a 10-year term make it easier to estimate revenues and match expenditures to revenues and therefore deliver projects on time?

Well, I'm gonna take the second part, then I'm gonna let Mike address the first part.

But the statute requires that you have a 20-year plan.

The statute drives a lot of that stuff.

There was some discussion about going 10 years or 20 years with the tax.

We could have done a shortened tax period and then come back and addressed it on that front.

Here's the challenge.

Sounds like it's a great idea.

Let's do it in shorter bursts.

The people that build the roads, a road design from design to finish generally takes five years.

That means you'd have to do everything at the front, and then you don't have any money.

Nobody's gonna come in and do the work expected to get further on down the road.

If there's no guarantee the money goes any farther than the five-year point.

And the reason that becomes a challenge is we can't do them all at once.

And so it is a flow of continuous construction throughout over the period of the 20-year time.

As a matter of fact, even in a 20-year plan, some of the projects still are gonna get completed about 22.

Those are start dates in the 20-year plan based on the funding that's coming in, so it's difficult.

But you've got a challenge then attracting people to bid on projects that they can't guarantee that the completion money may or may not be there.

And the other thing, and I could be wrong on the 20-year statute, but I'm pretty sure it requires a 20-year plan.

We were trying to work, and Mr.

Ortega came in and gave us a couple proposals on how we could shorten it.

And honestly, there was zero support on the board level for anything to have a 20-year plan, but not a 20-year matching funding stream.

What we're trying to improve is the opportunity to then take it in shorter bites and get more changes, get them earlier if we need to, and flexibility within the plan of moving projects forward and back on the plan.

Okay, Mike.

Albert, good to see you.

Albert was one of my colleagues at the City of Tucson.

So great minds.

When I first came on board with the RTA back this summer, I actually proposed a shorter timeframe because it seemed like that would make the most sense for all the reasons that you mentioned, right?

As we delved into it, I found that, A, the statute was a little bit of a challenge, right?

But to have a plan that was different than the funding source caused incredible confusion.

And so after a very robust conversation with the board, the determination was made, stay with 20 years for both, but make sure that this accountability that I've spoken to is infused in the system so that if revenues aren't coming in or if the conditions change, we can go back and have a conversation with the voter.

As I mentioned, Albert, you know that that's the highest form of accountability.

Thank you.

Okay, Tim, anything that you-- No, no, that was answered, thank you.

Okay.

And then our final question down front here.

I feel a little short for the microphone, so I'm gonna put that down.

Hi, everyone, good evening.

My name is Vanessa Casio, and I'm with Living Streets Alliance.

We're a nonprofit organization advocating for safe, vibrant streets for everybody.

But I'm also a city of Tucson resident, and more importantly, a mom of a seven-year-old.

And I think about how wild it is that he will be 27 years old at the end of this 20-year plan.

And so I come with that perspective.

You know, we have a, as an organization, we've outlined our, the reasons why we can't support the plan, but also just knowing that I am a mom and also an engaged citizen.

One of the things that comes to mind for me is the city of Tucson spent a lot of time, resources, and engagement around developing a climate action plan.

And part of that action plan is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

(David) Do you have a question?

Yes.

And transportation is one of the biggest, largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

And arguably, greenhouse gas emissions also don't know jurisdictional boundaries, right?

But so my question is, are there any provisions in Prop 418 to evaluate scope of proposed projects to reduce carbon emissions and discourage single occupancy of these vehicles?

Thanks.

Mike?

-Sure.

So thank you, Vanessa.

I think when you look at the entirety of the plan, aside from the safety component that I keep harping on, when you look at the investment of infrastructure for bike and peds, et cetera, throughout the plan, I think that does address some of those environmental concerns that you just outlined.

With regard to the analysis of the impact, all of the projects will go through that and will actually, the RTA staff, or excuse me, the PAG staff, will actually analyze the impacts for all of the projects.

And we have actually gone through and looked at all of, post-pre and had a conversation around that internally, but I can tell you that that is not lost on us.

And I think the investment in the active transportation component within all of those elements is what really speaks to that point.

Thank you for your question, Vanessa.

Okay, and that's gonna do it in terms of our viewer question, or audience questions.

Thank you all for coming up and asking.

We wanna go back a little bit and talk about our Slido question at the beginning.

We talked at the very top about whether or not you support it, you opposed, or you were undecided.

To give you the results before, it was 55% that supported it, 5% opposed, and 40% were undecided.

After this conversation, which I certainly appreciate everybody here, the support for the project is 82%, opposed is 13%, and undecided is now at 5%.

So, I wanna thank everybody for coming here tonight.

It was really important to have this discussion.

I especially wanna thank Mike Ortega, Ted Maxwell, Tim Steller, Caitlin Schmidt, and Nick Rommel, and thank you all in the audience and you at home for joining us.

I'm David Lee.

This is The Press Room.

We'll see you next week.