Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon," the concept of toll
roads for the Phoenix area
freeways is on the fast track.
We'll talk about the politics
surrounding the U.S. Senate's
new immigration reform bill.
Earlier this week we heard from
critics of a proposed copper
mine in Superior.
Tonight a voice in favor of the
mine.
Those stories next on "Arizona
Horizon."
>>> Good evening, and welcome to
"Arizona Horizon," I'm Ted
Simons.
A transportation panel of the
Maricopa Association of
Governments approved a study
yesterday that looks at how best
to make toll roads work in the
Phoenix area.
Sean Holstege of the "The
Arizona Republic" is following
the story.
Good to see you again.
Thanks for joining us.
>> Thanks for inviting me.
>> Sounds like we're getting
close to toll roads here?
>> It's been studied, we've gone
further in the region than ever
before.
It took them two years to get to
this point, and the basic
question was, will it work.
The answer was yes, let's move
forward, and the panel voted to
move into the next phase of the
study.
>> The preliminary study was a
couple of years ago.
>> What did that look at?
>> The results of that study
will be out on Wednesday.
>> Yeah, okay.
>> They concluded they are
feasible and they pay for
themselves, and they relieve
congestion.
They concluded basically they
would work.
The question now is what would
they look like, how well would
they work, where would you put
them, what would that system
entail.
>> I want to get to more focused
questions in just a second.
Are we talking about solo
commuters?
>> They call them carpool lane
conversions.
They are called hot lanes in
transportation jargon.
What a lot of regions have done
is take the carpool lanes and
charge a toll if they wanted to
drive solo in the carpool lanes.
The theory being, you'd make up
time.
The traffic would move smoother
if you work out some of those
knots of traffic.
>> I'm driving in the regular
lane, over to my left there's
nobody in that lane.
Why do we have these carpool
lanes?
>> One of the answers, let's get
more cars in the lane to get
more traffic moving through the
whole system.
>> Another system is, let's
build more lanes.
>> That's the next phase.
Two ways, one is a straight
conversion.
The other is the same thing,
only adding a second carpool
lane with a toll in basically
the urban core.
>> Yes.
>> One costs $300 million
according to estimates, and the
other is three billion.
>> Yes.
>> Time savings, one versus the
other, that's what they have to
find out now.
And is there any support.
>> Are we talking all carpool
lanes on all freeways, or just
select lanes on select freeways?
>> That was the point of this
first study.
Do we want to target specific
freeways or routes or segments,
and the answer is no.
We want a systemwide carpool
lane in the Valley.
>> I-10, 202, 101, the whole
nine yards?
>> All of it.
>> How much would commuters
theoretically be charged?
>> They looked into Denver and
Salt Lake City, Utah and
Colorado, as sort of pure models
to follow.
In Utah you can go all the way
from Ogden to Provo for no more
than two bucks.
They charge a variable toll
based on how thick the traffic
is and how far you're going to
go.
You'll see a sign that says your
toll will be X for X number of
miles.
That tops out at $2.
Colorado tops out at $5.
California, Texas, other places
are more expensive.
>> They are monitoring traffic
all day, they have monitors
watching the traffic, computer
modeling the congestion levels
and the freeway speeds.
They just dynamically calculate.
They do that now.
>> That's how they do it.
>> So if I have my little --
I've paid my money and wind up
not in the hot lane, do I get a
refund or a rebate?
>> I don't know about that.
It comes down to a choice.
You look over and say, how much
is my time worth to me?
It's much more sophisticated
than the standard sort of
knee-jerk reaction and most
people who oppose.
And it is opposed by most
people.
Why should I be tolled to drive
on a freeway I just paid for?
It's a common argument.
The answer is it's because
you're buying time.
You can choose not to do it or
choose to pay, depending on what
you need to do.
>> Would we see toll booths
like the old days or little
transponders, how that is going
work?
>> To be determined, again.
The phase of the study will wrap
up in 2014.
The conventional wisdom is
technology has driven a lot of
this.
Transponders, like the ones in
California, are typically the
favored system.
It could be anything, we don't
know yet.
>> Motorcycles and clean air
vehicles, now you get to ride in
the hot lane.
And what about buses?
>> The carpool lane as a carpool
lane stays there.
All of the above.
One of the other benefits they
like to tout in selling the hot
lane concept is it also frees up
time and speed, improves the
speed, travel and predictability
for the buses.
If you don't think the bus on
the freeway is a good idea for
you now, but you know that it
will be, and you know that
travel time will be predicted,
that improves your transit
system, as well.
>> Takes the uncertainty out of
it.
>> How much would enforcement
cost?
Right now I think we all see a
lot of folks singing a happy
tune by themselves in the
carpool lane when they shouldn't
be there.
Big question.
The answer is we don't know yet.
Part of the answer is it depends
on how you frame the system.
There could be a public toll
road, ADOT could run that
system, and contract that out to
a private vendor.
They could contract the entire
thing out and have it as a
privately managed lane.
If it's contracted out -- and
that's how most are done in
other states -- those costs are
borne by the private contractor.
When MAG does the study and says
it'll net X million a year, it
incorporates some assumptions
about what that cost of
enforcement will be.
>> You mentioned the criticism,
and the idea that we've already
paid for these things, and also
the idea that these are Lexus
lanes.
The people who can afford it
will be there, and the average
Joe and Jane will not be able to
afford it.
>> We did a very unscientific
poll along along with my story.
Something like 8% of people
found any validity to the idea
of converting to a carpool lane.
Most thought it was waste of
money or it wasn't going to
benefit me.
If you've driven in Mexico,
there's the toll road freeway
and the old highway.
I've driven on both.
That's where the Lexus lane
argument comes from.
They have done studies of who
actually uses these things in
California and some other
states.
People that want to get their
kids from day-care and don't
want to pay the penalty, it's to
their advantage to pay the toll.
It works out to be much more
representative of society than
we would expect.
>> End of 2014, and then what?
>> MAG goes out to the public
and refines their study, answers
some of the questions you're
posing.
They narrow from the feasibility
idea to a plan.
By that time they will have
specific highways they want to
try out.
They may do a pilot project and
then they go into implementation
if there's public support.
>> Interesting stuff, good to
have you here, thanks for
joining us.
>> Thank you.
>>> A comprehensive immigration
bill was formally introduced
today in the U.S. Senate after
years of political wrangling
over the issue.
Joining us to talk about where
the politics of immigration
reform go from here is Lisa
Magana, associate professor of
ASU's School of Transborder
Studies.
It's good to have you here.
>> Thank you for having me.
>> Lisa, are you surprised the
bill has made it so far?
>> I'm excited, there's so much
going on in terms of immigration
and politics it's hard to keep
up.
I think the reason this all
started was the reelection of
President Barack Obama, quite
honestly.
I think that politicians
underestimated the Latino vote.
I think that's one of the
reasons we have a bipartisan
approach to this.
I think that Republicans are
really trying to rebrand
themselves, and trying to court
more Latinos, because it was
such a powerful constituency.
We know that 70% of Latinos
voted for President Obama.
>> Before we get into some more
focused questions here, with
something like this, let's say
the outline of this does wind up
passing and becomes law.
The Latino vote, does it
seismically shift to the
Republican Party?
What happens?
>> You know, that's a good
question.
A couple things before actually
voting, one of the things we saw
was that when a politician's
parties were anti-immigrant, it
came off as being anti-Latino.
So a lot of kind of
counterintuitive, that a lot of
the anti-immigrant rhetoric
actually galvanized people
politically.
Not just in terms of voting but
people organizing.
I think in the future we will
see a lot of people that will
remember what happened with the
anti-immigrant stuff.
I don't necessarily think that
people, if this passes -- and I
think it will -- people will
automatically unify with one
party versus the other, but they
will instead think about the
issues.
I do think this will have a big
impact.
>> Let's talk about interparty
kind of stuff.
Impacts on Republicans and
Democrats who support the bill
within their own party.
>> That's what's so clear right
now.
I was just reading, for example,
Senator Rubio, one of the Gang
of Eight, the eight senators,
four Democrats and 4 Republicans
that put this bill together.
He's getting a lot of push-back.
There are conservatives within
the Republican Party that don't
think we should do anything for
immigrants until we "secure the
border."
It's enforcement first and then
the sort of servicing aspect of
it.
It's not so clear-cut how
unified the party is, in terms
of the Republican side.
I think there's a little more
solidarity I guess on the side
of the Democrats.
>> Okay.
So for the Republican side,
though, does that mean primary
opposition?
Does that mean trouble down the
pike here?
>> I think so.
I think before we do any
immigration reform, some people
believe -- I think it's the most
conservative part of the party
-- that we have to have
enforcement first and secure the
border.
We shouldn't do anything about
these immigrants in the country
until the border is secure.
There's a lot of talk about what
that actually means, securing
the border.
I have some issues with that
myself, because it's not so
clear-cut.
Other thing about this idea that
is in terms of politics you're
going to see a group of people
on both sides that are really
going to think about this issue.
>> What about Democrats that
might oppose it?
Probably not too much, too many
out there, but those who do,
what kind of repercussions
there?
>> In terms of policy and
Democratic opposition, it would
be in terms of labor.
There was a lot of talk,
compromise before anything came
out of this.
Mostly in terms of the temporary
worker program or the H.B.
workers.
And also in terms of what wages
would be paid to these immigrant
workers.
There was a lot of compromise
that had to go on before that.
>> What about fallout there?
>> They have come to an
agreement, and I think that's
one of the reasons they were
able to come to some sort of
proposal.
>> Enforcement hawks, what did
they get, what did they give up?
>> Enforcement hawks, according
to this policy there's a few
things.
One is more fence, more of the
fence at the border.
Hiring of more border patrol is
the other thing.
The other part is there is an
assessment where they want to
essentially look at a
percentage.
It's kind of wacky -- a
percentage of how many people
are apprehended via each border
sector.
It's a very strange way of
trying to assess --
>> 50%, isn't it?
>> 90%.
There's tons of apprehension
data.
The problem with that is it's
not the best indication of good
immigration policy.
Somebody could be apprehended
more than one time.
Lots of people being apprehended
means you're doing a good job,
or lots of people being
apprehended means you're not
doing a good job and people are
able to circumvent.
>> What did business give up?
>> I think business, they have
tighter E-verify.
There's going to be tighter
restrictions on what a
businessperson has to do when
they hire an employer,
particularly an immigrant.
In the proposal there are
stricter penalties on employers,
although Arizona has the
toughest, as you know, employer
sanctions law in the country.
There's going to be a sort of
picture looking at your
biometric -- yeah.
>> So there's a tougher E-Verify
and tougher punishment for
employers.
Also in the policy is a -- more
visas for high skilled labor.
That was the other thing.
>> Do you see problems with
certain aspects of the bill?
I'm guessing amendments will
come flying here and there and
some will stick and some won't.
What are you seeing?
>> I think the biggest problem
is trying to assess
effectiveness or what that
means, securing the border.
Let me just remind you, or bring
this up: Half of the 11 million
people are people that
overstayed their visas, they
came in legally, not crossing
through the border the way we
like to think about this.
People come in legally, this
policy has nothing that really
addresses Visa overstayers.
It stresses the idea of secure
the border and make it tough.
>> Is this likely to pass
Congress?
>> I think there will be a lot
of fights.
I have some problems also with
the servicing part I think is
going to be criticized.
I think ultimately it will be
passed.
>> Very good.
Good speaking with you.
>> Appreciate the opportunity,
thank you.
>>> On Monday we heard from
residents of Superior who are
against a proposed land swap
that would allow a massive
copper mine to be built near the
town ofSuperior.
Tonight we hear from Mila
Besich-Lira, and she favors the
land swap.
Good to have you here.
>> Thank you for having me.
>> Why is this a good thing for
Superior?
>> This is a very good thing for
Superior because for generations
we have been a copper mining
region.
Originally for silver, and now
copper is part of our universe.
This is a good thing for us, we
need this.
>> What kind of jobs are we
talking about here?
>> 3700.
We're talking about high tech
jobs, robotics, people who can
fix robots.
This isn't the mining my great
grandfather did, I've been in
the community for four
generations.
>> We had some opponents on
earlier in the week and they are
worried about that.
They say some of these jobs
folks in Superior may not
qualify for, or they may not be
available to them.
>> They are worried about that,
but that's a sad thing to worry
about.
We should be training our
students to be able to have
those jobs.
I think we're going to be able
to do that just fine.
>> You think so?
>> I'm confident in that.
>> You're confident of jobs and
the numbers that are there?
>> Yes, I'm very confident those
things will happen for our
community.
>> Not just the region, but for
Superior?
>> For Superior.
>> As far as the ex-mayor, we
had Roy Chavez on, he was
concerned regarding the nepa
process.
These are environmental studies
down to make sure the land is
not going to be damaged to a
certain extent.
I want to hear what you have to
say about what he had to say,
because he was concerned there
are no NEPA studies in place
prior to the land swap.
Let's listen.
>> I do not believe that the
general public in the community
and region actually realize the
impact that this operation is
taking on.
Without a mining plan of
operation, Ted, we've asked
simple questions.
How is the ore going to be
extracted?
Where is it going to be
processed, crushed, milled?
Right now there's an issue going
on in regards to the waste,
disposal of the waste, the
byproduct.
>> We have the nepa concerns, no
mining plan of operation.
Are these concerns to you?
>> There is a mining plan of
operation.
All mines are required to have
those.
But the regulations are in place
and I'm confident, as I said
before, I'm very confident this
is a good thing for Superior.
>> Back to the NEPA issue.
Let's hear what Ms. Kiki Peralta
had to say.
>> The major sticking point is
the fact that they don't want to
do the NEPA studies prior to
this land swap.
We want to know what's going to
happen before, you know, we
don't want projections or what
they think is going to happen.
We'd like to see the studies
done prior so that we know.
>> Would you like to see the
studies done prior?
>> The studies are being done as
we speak.
Mine plans of operations are
being done and communicated to
the public as parts of them are
being done.
And once that mine plan of
operations is complete, that
will start the NEPA
automatically.
We need to get this land
exchange moving so we can get
these jobs working in our
community.
>> There's some concern, as
well, once the land is private,
the NEPA study and result, it
doesn't matter, that concerns
public land.
It now becomes private land.
Again, respond.
>> The mine will have to follow
all the regulations, it doesn't
matter if it's private or public
land.
The regulations that the state
imposes, the EPA, I'm confident
that our community will be
protected environmentally.
>> How much is this dividing the
community?
>> Immensely.
The divide is just -- it's very
sad to see, because our
community wants jobs.
We want to thrive and we want a
diversified economy.
But right now there's no plan in
place for that.
Resolution is part of that plan
for us to have a sustainable
economy.
>> As far as the sustainable
economy, the impact directly.
There are some that says these
foreign firms, they pay little
or nothing in the way of
royalties.
What can you tell us about that?
>> Well, you know, that's the
mining laws that are set in
place.
But what people aren't
understanding that is those
revenues that come in, the fact
that people will have jobs and
money to spend, send their
children to college, that's
important.
Those moneys get recirculated
into the community.
Resolution Copper has provided
more money to the town of
Superior and communities
throughout the region, it has
really helped us rebuild our
economy and special projects.
I'm not worried that the mining
companies don't pay the amount
of royalties.
The investments they have to
play, billions of dollars'
investment, trickles down into
the tax coffers, you know,
fairly.
>> What about the idea that
sacred tribal areas will be
affected?
>> You know, in Superior having
jobs is sacred.
That's what I kind of think is
important.
Protecting the Native Americans
is also very important, and what
their needs are.
But we need to sit at the table
and figure out how to preserve
those things together.
>> Why do you think there is so
much opposition to this land
swap?
>> I think the opposition has
come out of just fear and people
not listening to what's really
going on.
I think there's a lot of
specialty -- special interests
that have gotten involved that
are not really listening to what
people in Superior and the
copper corridor really want.
We want to go back to work.
>> I want to go back to our
guests Monday and get one more
response from you.
This is the idea some are saying
that these folks are anti-mine.
Kiki Peralta was saying that's
far from the case.
Let's listen.
>> We're not opposed to mining.
It's a mining community and
basically, you know, my dad was
a miner, my husband was a miner.
I was the first female laborer
to be hired by Magma in 1975, I
am not against mining.
I am against them circumventing
the law to get this land swap.
There's a process that needs to
be followed and they are not
doing that.
>> I hear that time and again,
you're supposed to go A, B and
C.
What's happening in Superior is
all over the alphabet.
How do you respond?
>> I don't think that that is
the case.
Resolution Copper has been
extremely transparent with the
community.
They host meetings and community
sessions for everyone to come
and understand step by step of
the process and where they are
at.
If you're not present at those
meetings and understanding
what's going on, you're going to
be in the dark.
And I think what's most
important is that you listen to
what Resolution is saying,
understanding the NEPA law
entirely.
It's the federal government's
responsibility to impose the
NEPA.
What I would like to see is our
community come together and work
on these issues and not just
stop them completely.
>> All right.
Very good.
I'm glad we had you on the
program.
Thanks for joining us,
appreciate it.
>> Thank you.
>>> Friday on "Arizona Horizon"
it's the "Journalists'
Roundtable," we'll have the
latest on the Governor's budget
and Medicaid expansion plans.
And the legislature looks at a
bill restricting gun buy-back
programs.
That's Friday on the
"Journalists' Roundtable."
That is it for now.
I'm Ted Simons, thank you so
much for joining us, you have a
great evening.