The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
The recent opinion piece, “Citizen leader of 2006 RTA plan process invites healthy dialogue” by Rick Myers, published in the Star Aug. 16, rejects the idea of weighted voting as a way to address disproportionate representation and other issues on the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) Board and Pima Association of Governments (PAG) Regional Council. Myers argues instead that robust dialogue worked in the past, and will work again for RTA Next.
Robust dialogue, as framed by Myers, sounds like a collegial and inclusive approach — however, in reality, it has not resulted in outcomes that represent the best interests of the region as a whole.
A Brookings Institution report on transportation reform found that metropolitan planning organizations, like PAG, that follow the one-vote-per-jurisdiction model are biased toward suburban populations at the expense of urban residents.
Because millions of federal and state transportation dollars (and the funds generated from the RTA) flow through PAG, decisions are made all the time with lasting consequences to where people live, what schools their children attend, and even what jobs they can access, because all of this is predicated on how people move.
I don’t need a research report to tell me how an unrepresentative board of decision makers has resulted in negative impacts to my southwest-side urban community; I see it everywhere. A historical disinvestment in our roads, bike/pedestrian bridges, sidewalks and transit means that people from our side of town have fewer mobility options.
Many of us can’t afford the kinds of modes of transportation our streets have been designed for — fast-moving cars — and so we are at higher risk for being victims of fatal traffic crashes, especially for those walking or taking the bus.
As someone who served on the first and the current RTA Next Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), let me tell you a little about what has and has not changed in the last 15 years.
What has not changed? On the current CAC, looking at the 22 continuing members, there’s one other person the U.S. census would describe as similar to me — a Hispanic female. There are four other women on the committee, described as white. There is one Hispanic male. The rest of the committee is made up of white men who average 68 years old. This is not different from the first CAC that created the RTA package voters approved in 2006.
Who has written to the Star recently endorsing the RTA and the work of the CAC? Since fall 2020, CAC Chair Tom McGovern, Mayor of Sahuarita Tom Murphy, Tucson attorney and attorney Si Schorr (twice), Marana Mayor Ed Honea, and Pima County Supervisors Steve Christy and Rex Scott — all white men — have endorsed the RTA CAC process and the status quo.
It makes one wonder if they realize who they need to convince.
What has changed since 2006? Updated census data for Tucson and Pima County make it clear Tucson’s population is trending younger and more diverse, a fact that is not and has not been reflected by the faces around the tables at either the CAC or at the PAG Regional Council/RTA Board.
I am hopeful the effort to recruit 13 new CAC members will result in a more demographically representative body, but we must also revisit the process by which RTA Next is being crafted.
Meetings in the middle of the day, confusing and disempowering rules, and no clear timeline or direction for the volunteers on the committee means that many people like me aren’t able to meaningfully participate. The meeting format itself is a barrier to the robust, respectful and inclusive discussion necessary for a plan that will address the needs of everyone, including my community.
Healthy dialogue is important, on this Mr. Myers and I agree. But who is having that dialogue matters, as does the way the conversation is being controlled.
