SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM
FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Prepared by:

Regional Public Transportation Authority
302 North First Avenue, Suite 700
Phoenix, AZ 85003

October 6, 2009
Version 2.0

SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM:
FY 2009/10 – FY 2014/15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1
WHY A SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM? ............................................................................ 1
WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM TO OTHER
REGIONAL TRANSIT PROGRAM DOCUMENTS AND PROCESSES? ........................... 1
WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGION? ........................................................... 2
WHAT TRANSIT SERVICES AND FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED IN THE REGION? ................... 3
WHAT REGIONAL TRANSIT INVESTMENTS ARE PLANNED IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS? ........... 8
1.0
SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 13
1.1
REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY/VALLEY METRO AND
MEMBER CITIES—BACKGROUND AND TRANSIT FUNDING INITIATIVES ................ 14
1.2
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS ............................................................................... 14
1.3
REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS ......................................................................................... 14
1.4
TRANSIT PASSENGER CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................ 18
1.5
TRANSIT AND EQUITY .................................................................................................... 20
2.0
TRANSIT SERVICE EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 23
2.1
SERVICE GOALS AND STANDARDS ............................................................................. 24
2.2
FIXED ROUTE .................................................................................................................. 24
2.2.1
Service Characteristics ................................................................................ 24
2.2.2
Funding Sources ......................................................................................... 28
2.2.3
Private Contractors...................................................................................... 28
2.2.4
Comparison of Fixed Route Performance Data.............................................. 28
2.2.5
Fixed Route On Time Performance .............................................................. 29
2.2.6
Fixed Route Vehicle Inventory...................................................................... 30
2.2.7
Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Service ................................................................ 30
2.3
HIGH CAPACITY / LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ....................................................................... 31
2.4
SHUTTLE AND CIRCULATOR......................................................................................... 31
2.5
REGIONAL CONNECTORS ............................................................................................. 33
2.6
PARATRANSIT ................................................................................................................. 33
2.7
VANPOOL ......................................................................................................................... 33
3.0
EXISTING & PLANNED TRANSIT CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................... 36
3.1
PASSENGER AND SUPPORT FACILITIES .................................................................... 36
3.1.1
On-Street Passenger Facilities ..................................................................... 36
3.1.2
Park-and-Ride Facilities ............................................................................... 36
3.1.3
Passenger Transfer Facilities & Major Park-and Rides ................................... 39
3.2
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FACILITIES .......................................................... 40
3.2.1
Existing Publicly Owned Transit Only Operations and Maintenance Facilities .. 40
3.2.2
Planned Operations and Maintenance Facilities ............................................ 47
3.3
ROADWAY ENHANCEMENTS ........................................................................................ 49
3.3.1
Existing and Planned HOV Lanes and Ramps ............................................... 49
3.3.2
Arterial Street Improvements ........................................................................ 51
4.0
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT..................................................................... 53
4.1
SHARETHERIDE.COM .................................................................................................... 53
4.2
VANPOOL PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 53
4.3
TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM ASSISTANCE ................................................................ 53
4.4
CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN ................................................................................................... 54
4.5
TRANSIT EDUCATION PROGRAM ................................................................................. 54
4.6
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR ALLIANCES—ASSISTANCE ............................. 54
4.7
ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES/TELECOMMUTE PROGRAM—ASSISTANCE ... 54
4.8
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS ........................................................................................ 55
BIKE SAFETY EDUCATION ............................................................................................. 55
4.9
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

i

REGIONALLY FUNDED SHORT RANGE TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ................................... 56
5.1
REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANIST OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS .............................. 56
5.1.1
Funded Regional Transit Operating Improvements FY 2010 through FY
2015 ........................................................................................................... 56
5.2
COMPARISON OF FUNDED OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS AND
IMPLEMENTATION (FY 2010) ......................................................................................... 56
5.3
CONSIDERATIONS FOR REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANSIT OPERATING
IMPROVEMENTS (FY 2010 through FY 2015) ................................................................ 56
5.3.1
Transit Ridership Projections for New Regionally Funded Routes ................... 59
5.3.2
Regionally Funded Service Adjustments and Preliminary Thresholds ............. 60
5.4
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................. 61
5.4.1
Funded Regional Transit Facility Improvements FY 2010 through FY 2015 ..... 61
5.4.2
Comparison of Funded Transit Facility Investments and Implementation (FY
2010).......................................................................................................... 62
5.4.3
Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2010
through FY 2015 ......................................................................................... 63
5.4.4
Funded Regional Transit Expansion Vehicles: FY 2010 through FY 2015 ....... 63
5.4.5
Comparison of Funded Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles and
Implementation (FY 2010)............................................................................ 65
5.5
REGIONAL PLANNING STUDIES AND RELATED PROJECTS ..................................... 66
6.0
REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDING ........................................................................................... 67
6.1
REGIONAL FIXED ROUTE BUS & PARATRANSIT FUNDING ...................................... 67
6.1.1
Revenues ................................................................................................... 67
6.1.2
Expenditures ............................................................................................... 68
6.2
REGIONAL HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT CAPITAL FUNDING ........................................ 70
6.2.1
Revenues ................................................................................................... 70
6.2.2
Expenditures ............................................................................................... 72
6.3
REGIONAL TRANSIT FINANCING .................................................................................. 73
7.0
COST SAVINGS THROUGH SERVICE ................................................................................. 74
REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 74
7.2
LOCAL ROUTE IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................... 74
7.2.1 Local Route Recommendations ........................................................................................ 75
7.3
EXPRESS/RAPID ROUTE IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY ................................... 75
7.3.1 Express/RAPID Route Analysis ........................................................................................ 75
7.3.2 Express/RAPID Route Recommendations ....................................................................... 76
5.0

8.0

RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 77
8.1
OPERATIONAL INVESTMENTS ...................................................................................... 77
8.2
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS ................................................................................................ 78
8.2.1 Park and Rides .................................................................................................................. 78
8.2.2 Transit Centers .................................................................................................................. 78
8.2.3 Operations and Maintenance Facilities ............................................................................. 79
8.2.4 BRT Right-of-Way Improvements ..................................................................................... 79
8.3
PERFORMANCE AUDIT .................................................................................................. 80
8.4
LOCAL ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 80
8.5
EXPRESS/RAPID ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 80

APPENDIX A.................................................................................................................................... 82
APPENDIX B.................................................................................................................................... 88
APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................................... 94
APPENDIX D…………………………………………………………………………………………………...96

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1: Transit Services in the Region ..........................................................................................3
Table ES-2: Annual Efficiency & Effectiveness Report Card ..................................................................6
Table ES-3: Capital Facilities in the Region ..........................................................................................7
Table ES-4: Planned Regional Operations Investments ........................................................................9
Table ES-5: Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2010 through FY 2015 ..........................9
Table ES-6: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2009 through FY 2014 ..................................................... 10
Table ES-7: Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles ............................................................................ 11
Table 1-1: Public Transit Milestones .................................................................................................. 16
Table 1-2: Population and Employment (2005-2020) .......................................................................... 17
Table 1-3: Language Spoken at Home ............................................................................................... 19
Table 2-1: FY 2008 System Data....................................................................................................... 23
Table 2-2: Comparison of System-wide Data for Five-Year Period—2004 and 2008 ............................. 24
Table 2-3: Efficiency and Effectiveness Performance Measures Targets .............................................. 25
1
Table 2-4: Comparison of Fixed Route Data—2004, 2007 and 2008 ................................................... 29
Table 2-5: Annual Boardings and Revenue Miles—FY 2009................................................................ 29
Table 2-6: Comparison of Paratransit Data—2004, 2007 and 2008 ...................................................... 34
Table 2-7: Comparison of Vanpool Data—2004, 2007 and 2008.......................................................... 35
Table 3-1: Existing Park-and-Ride Facilities ....................................................................................... 37
Table 3-2: Planned Publicly Owned Park-and-Ride Facilities ............................................................... 39
Table 3-3: Passenger Facilities and Transit Centers—FY 2008 ........................................................... 41
Table 3-4: Planned Transit Centers and Transit Center Improvements ................................................. 46
Table 3-5: Existing Publicly Owned Operations and Maintenance Facilities .......................................... 47
Table 3-6: Planned Publicly Owned Operations and Maintenance Facilities ......................................... 48
Table 3-7: Existing and Planned Freeway HOV Lanes ........................................................................ 51
Table 5-1: Regionally Funded Transit Operations Investments FY 2010 and FY 2015 ........................... 57
Table 5-2: Comparison of Funded Operating Improvements and Implementation (FY 2010) .................. 57
Table 5-3: Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Operations Investments ................................ 58
FY 2010 through FY 2015 ................................................................................................ 58
Table 5-4: Example of the Density Score for Power Road Supergrid Route .......................................... 60
Table 5-5: Ridership Estimates for New Regionally Funded Routes Through FY 2014/2015 .................. 60
Table 5-6: Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2010 and FY 2015 ................................. 62
Table 5-7: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2010 through FY 2015 ....................................................... 62
Table 5-8: Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments ...................................... 63
FY 2010 through FY 2015 ................................................................................................ 63
Table 5-9: Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles ............................................................................... 65
Table 5-10: Planned Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles FY 2010 through FY 2015 ........................ 65
Table 5-11: Comparison of Planned Regional Fixed Route Transit Expansion Vehicles and Vehicles
Acquired (FY 2009 and FY 2010) ..................................................................................... 65
Table 6-1: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues (in $millions) ............................... 67
Table 6-2: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (in $millions) ........................... 69
Table 6-3: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Revenues (in $millions) ................................................... 71
Table 6-4: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Expenditures (in $millions) ............................................... 72
Table 7-1: Estimated Annual Savings from Service Reductions ........................................................... 76
Table 8-1: TLCP Operations Adjustments .......................................................................................... 77
Table 8-2: TLCP Capital Facilities Adjustments .................................................................................. 78
Table 8-3: TLCP Transit Center Capital Facilities Adjustments ............................................................ 79
Table 8-4: TLCP Operations and Maintenance Facilities Adjustments.................................................. 79
Table 8-5: TLCP Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Right of Way Adjustments .................................................. 79
Table A-1: FY 2008 Regional Transit System Data ............................................................................ 83
Table A-2: Operations and Performance Data for FY 2004 through FY 2008 ........................................ 84
Table B-1: Operations and Performance Data for FY 1995 through FY 2007 ........................................ 89
Table C-1: Fixed Route Transit Service Historical Trends since FY 1985 ............................................. 95
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

i

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1: Regional Transit Program Process ..................................................................................2
Figure ES-2: Local Routes Map—July 2009 .........................................................................................4
Figure ES-3: Express & RAPID Routes Map—July 2009 ......................................................................5
Figure 1-1: Population Concentration Age 60 and Over ...................................................................... 21
Figure 1-2: Population Age 5 and Over With Disability ........................................................................ 21
Figure 1-3: Minority Population ......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 1-4: Families in Poverty.......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 2-1: Local Routes Map for July 2009 ....................................................................................... 26
Figure 2-2: Express & RAPID Routes Map for July 2009..................................................................... 27
Figure 2-3: On Time Performance for City of Phoenix Fixed Route Service .......................................... 30
Figure 2-4: High Capacity Transit Corridors ....................................................................................... 32
Figure 2-5: High Capacity Transit Corridors—Schedule ...................................................................... 32
Figure 3-1: Existing and Planned Publicly Owned Park-and-Rides ...................................................... 38
Figure 3-2: Existing and Planned Transfer Facilities and Major Park-and-Rides ................................... 44
Figure 3-3: Existing Operations and Maintenance Facilities ................................................................ 48
Figure 3-4: HOV Facilities and Queue Jumpers ................................................................................. 49
Figure 6-1: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues FY 2009 - FY 2014..................... 68
Figure 6-2: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (in $millions).......................... 69
Figure 6-3: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Revenues FY 2009 - FY 2014......................................... 71
Figure 6-4: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Expenditures FY 2009 - FY 2014 .................................... 72

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

i

`

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WHY A SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM?
The Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) identifies those regional transit service and capital
improvements programmed in the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) during the next five years
(Fiscal Years [FY] 2009/10 to 2014/15) and provides support for regional transit projects
contained in the Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (MAG
RTP). Regional transit service and capital improvements programmed in the TLCP are funded
by the transit portion of the half-cent sales tax put in place by voter approval of Proposition 400
in 2004. Some local jurisdictions in the region provide local funding for additional transit services
and capital improvements beyond what is identified in the TLCP.
Objectives of the SRTP include:
•
•
•

document transit service performance from the previous fiscal year;
maintain an inventory of the region’s transit capital infrastructure; and,
identify considerations for service adjustments and capital facility needs based on the
programmed regional transit investments identified in the RTP and TLCP.

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM TO OTHER
REGIONAL TRANSIT PROGRAM DOCUMENTS AND PROCESSES?
The SRTP is an interrelated component of a multi-part annual regional transit implementation
program. The core components of the program include the following:
•
•
•

Annual Transit Performance Report (ATPR)
Short Range Transit Program (SRTP)
Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP)

The core components function in a circular relationship with one serving input into or affecting
the other. Starting with the ATPR, system and route performance data is documented for each
transit mode in the region. Performance data from the ATPR is carried forward into the SRTP to
provide context for potential service and capital facility considerations for existing and near-term
(next five years) regional transit investments identified in the TLCP. The SRTP provides an
opportunity for local jurisdictions and agencies to request potential amendments to project
definitions within the TLCP. Potential amendments may include adjusting a planned route
pattern or reassigning regional capital funds from one capital project (such as a PNR) to
another. For example, the planned location of a PNR facility may be less beneficial than an
alternative site.
The considerations identified in the SRTP will be carried forward to the TLCP process for
potential inclusion in the official annual TLCP update. However, all potential project
adjustments are subject to approval through the regionally adopted TLCP policies.
Completing the circular relationship, the service planning and budgetary decisions made in the
annual SRTP and TLCP updates, potentially impact the performance of the regional transit
system. Figure ES-1 illustrates the relationship of the core components of the annual regional
transit program process.
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

1

`

Executive Summary

Figure ES-1: Regional Transit Program Process

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGION?
The 2005 population 1 for the MAG region is estimated to be nearly 3.7 million. By 2020, overall
population is anticipated to rise about 42%. The largest increases are expected to occur in the
outlying areas of Maricopa County; however, in terms of absolute population, more than half of
the 2020 population is projected to live near the core of the urbanized area in locations such as
Phoenix, Glendale, Scottsdale, and Tempe. Employment in Maricopa County in 2005 was
estimated at 1.7 million. A nearly 60% increase is anticipated by 2020 with the highest Major
characteristics of passengers 2 using the region’s transit system include:
•
•
•
•

80% of passengers live in households with four or fewer individuals
71% of passengers have an annual household income of $35,000 or less
51% of passengers live in households with no vehicles
71% of passengers are employed and 27% are students

1

Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, Socioeconomic Projections of Population, Housing, &
Employment by Municipal Planning Areas and Regional Analysis Zones, May 2007.
2
Source: Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority 2007 Origin-Destination Survey, Draft
Final Report, 2008.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

2

`

Executive Summary

WHAT TRANSIT SERVICES AND FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED IN THE REGION?
Transit Services
A summary of services currently provided in the region is presented in Table ES-2. Figures
ES-2 and ES-3 display the local, express, and RAPID bus routes. Table ES-3 is an Annual
Efficiency and Effectiveness Report Card that compares the major FY 2007 performance
features (boardings, revenues, operating costs, and farebox recovery ratio) with regional
targets.
Table ES-1: Transit Services in the Region
Fixed Route
Number routes

Total
Number vehicles
Hours of Operation:
- Local/shuttles and circulators

- Express and RAPID
- Regional connector
Paratransit (Dial-a-Ride)
9 systems or services:

1

63 local
1
24 express
4 RAPID
1 light rail line
2
1 arterial bus rapid transit (BRT)
18 shuttle
2 regional connectors
113
994
Weekdays: Generally 5:00 AM-10:00 PM weekdays
Weekends: Hours of service somewhat reduced
Peak hours on weekdays only
Limited number of daily stops
Limited number of daily stops
-

East Valley Dial-a-Ride
El Mirage
Glendale
Paradise Valley ADA
Peoria

-

Phoenix Dial-A-Ride
Southwest Valley ADA
Sun Cities (SCAT)
Surprise

Operating hours, service eligibility requirements, transfer
policies, fares vary by provider.
Vanpool
Valley Metro Vanpool Program

Provides vans to groups of 6-15 commuters who share in the
monthly cost of the van through payment of an equitable
monthly fee.

1

Light Rail
Route:
Hours of operation:

20 miles within portions of Phoenix, Tempe, and west Mesa
Weekdays: 4:00 AM to midnight
Weekends: 5:00 AM to 3:00 AM

1

Some of these routes are 100 percent locally funded, and some are funded with a mix of regional and local funding
sources.
2
METRO light rail and arterial BRT began revenue operations in late December 2008.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

3

`

Executive Summary

Figure ES-2: Local Routes Map—July 2009

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

4

`

Executive Summary

Figure ES-3: Express & RAPID Routes Map—July 2009

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

5

`

Executive Summary

Table ES-2: Annual Efficiency & Effectiveness Report Card
FIXED ROUTE BUS, SYSTEMWIDE

TARGET

ACTUAL
FY 2008

Cost Efficiency/ Effectiveness
1

RAIL3

TARGET

ACTUAL
FY 2008

Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness

Farebox Recovery Ratio

25%

22.4%

Farebox Recovery Ratio1

25%

N/A

Operating Cost per Boarding

$2.49

$3.05

Operating Cost per Boarding

TBD

N/A

Subsidy per Boarding

$1.88

$2.37

Subsidy per Boarding

TBD

N/A

Operating Cost per Revenue Mile

$5.32

$5.61

Operating Cost per Revenue Mile

TBD

N/A

Average Fare

$0.72

$0.68

Average Fare

TBD

N/A

N/A

N/A

Service Effectiveness

Service Effectiveness

Annual Increase in Total Boardings

3%

3.50%

Annual Increase in Total Boardings

Annual Increase in Boardings;
Weekday, Saturday, Sunday

3%

3.40%

Boardings Avg. Weekday

26,090

N/A

Avg. Boardings per Revenue Mile

2.1

1.84

Boardings Avg. Sat.

20,800

N/A

TARGET

ACTUAL
FY 2008

Boardings Avg. Sun./Holiday

11,267

N/A

Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Mile

3.94

N/A

4.00%

Boardings per Revenue Mile

8.04

N/A

N/A

N/A

PARATRANSIT
Cost Efficiency/ Effectiveness
Farebox Recovery Ratio1

5%

Operating Cost per Boarding

$30.61

$35.33

Safety Incidents per 100,000 Vehicle
Miles

Subsidy per Boarding

$29.12

$33.90

Security Incidents per "x" Boardings

N/A

N/A

Operating Cost per Revenue Hour

$53.92

$59.04

On-time Performance

95%

N/A

Miles between failures

25,000

N/A

Customer Satisfaction2

89%

N/A

TARGET

ACTUAL
FY 2008

Farebox Recovery Ratio1

100%

111.30%

Operating Cost per Boarding

$1.82

$1.69

$0

-$0.19

Operating Cost per Revenue Mile

$0.49

0.45

Average Fare

$1.96

$1.88

Service Effectiveness
Annual Increase in Total Boardings

--

-2.05%

Boardings per Revenue Hour

1.76

1.67

ADA On-time Performance

90%

94.73%

VANPOOL
Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness

Subsidy per Boarding
1

Farebox recovery ratio = % of operating costs covered
by passenger revenues.

2

Based on annual telephone survey of % of respondents
rating rider satisfaction as "excellent" or good".

Service Effectiveness

3

METRO light rail began operations in December 2008,
so there is minimal data available for FY 2008.

Annual Increase in Total Boardings

0%

1,418,466

Boardings per Revenue Hour

0.27

0.6

TBD = To Be Determined

Net Van Pool Starts

24

44

NA = Not Available

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

6

`

Executive Summary

Capital Facilities
Transit capital facilities support daily transit operations. The region’s inventory of transit
infrastructure includes passenger facilities such as transit centers, park-and-rides and bus
stops. In addition, other capital facilities such as maintenance and operations centers aren’t
directly utilized by passengers, but provide vital functions that ensure service quality and
reliability. The major capital transit facilities in the region are listed in Table ES-3.
Table ES-3: Capital Facilities in the Region
Passenger & Support Facilities
On-Street Passenger

Park-and-Ride

Existing:

Transit Centers

Planned :
Existing:
2
Planned :

2

Maintenance & Operations Facilities
Existing:
2

Planned :

Roadway Enhancements
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes
Existing:
Under construction:
2
Planned :
HOV Direct Access Ramps
(Freeway to Arterials)
Existing:
HOV Direct Access Ramps
(Freeway to Freeway)
Existing:
Arterial Street Improvements
- Queue jumpers (bus priority access)
- Arterial BRT limited stop with transit
signal priority
2
- Arterial BRT (planned)
Regional Transit Fleet
Fixed Route
1
Light Rail
1
2

7,626 bus stops; 3,236 shaded bus stops (natural and shelters);
1146 with bench only
1
15 BRT stops in Mesa Main Street Corridor
1
28 LRT stops in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa
21 publicly-owned
29 joint-use with agreement with private property owners
50 facilities with 7,540 spaces
11 publicly-owned
15 existing
4 new
8 to be expanded
5 fixed route/demand response facilities
1
1 light rail
2 new
3 upgrades to existing
1 light rail

152 lane miles
42 lane miles (SR 51 and Loop 101)
461 lane miles
3 along I-10
7

3 on Arizona Avenue in Chandler (existing)
1
1 on Main Street & Power Road in Mesa
1
994 vehicles
50 vehicles

Operations begin late 2008 concurrent with initiation of the METRO light rail line and arterial BRT operations.
As shown in the 20-year MAG RTP.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

7

`

Executive Summary

WHAT REGIONAL TRANSIT INVESTMENTS ARE PLANNED IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS?
Planned Regionally Funded Transit Services
Regional transit service investments planned for implementation in the next five years include a
full range of transit modes. New Supergrid routes, express bus routes, arterial Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) service and an extension to the region’s light rail line will be implemented to serve
growing demand for public transportation alternatives. In addition, limited regional funding will
be available to reimburse local jurisdictions and agencies for expenses associated with
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transportation services. There are several routes in the
transit system that are funded by local jurisdictions. These routes are not discussed at length in
this report. Many routes that are operated as part of the Supergrid are locally funded. Some
segments are scheduled to be regionally funded in the future, and some are not.
Several key facts about the planned regional transit operations investments between FY 2010
and FY 2015 are identified below:
•
•
•
•

Two supergrid routes, one express/BRT routes, and one light rail extension are included
as improvements.
Of these, one supergrid route is a totally new service.
Regional funding of the supergrid services will provide weekday peak period frequencies
of 15 minutes and off-peak frequencies of 30 minutes during the off-peak for all but three
of the routes.
One local bus route (Table 5-2) was programmed in the FY 2009 TLCP Update to be
regionally funded in FY 2010. This route, Gilbert Rd, was initiated in July 2009, but only
on a partial level. One express route that was implemented in July 2008 at service level
below the level identified in the TLCP. For this route, the Papago Freeway Connector
(Goodyear to Downtown Express), full implementation is being delayed until a park-andride facility is available in Buckeye.

Chapter 5 of the SRTP provides detailed initial planning considerations for each of the routes
programmed for regional funding through FY 2015. Examples of considerations identified in the
SRTP include:
•
•

Consider re-organizing existing local services where the implementation of new
regionally funded bus routes will result in service duplications or where new transit
connections will be provided.
Consider retaining short-term use capital infrastructure, such as an interim park-and-ride
facility, necessary to support new regionally funded transit services.

Table ES-4 provides a summary of the planned transit operations investments by initial fiscal
year of regional funding.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

8

`

Executive Summary

Table ES-4: Planned Regional Operations Investments
Initial Fiscal Year
Regional Funding
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Total 2010-2015

Routes
1 supergrid
0 express/BRT
0 supergrid
1 express/BRT
0 supergrid
0 express/BRT
0 supergrid
0 express/BRT
1 supergrid
0 express/BRT
0 supergrid
0 express/BRT
2 supergrid
1 express/BRT
0 light rail extension

Source: Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program
Update, 2009.

Planned Regionally Funded Capital Improvements
A summary of the transit capital improvements planned between FY 2010 and 2015 is
presented in Table ES-5. Table ES-6 identifies the regional funds programmed in the FY 2009
TLCP Update for regional bus stop construction and upgrades.
Table ES-5: Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2010 through FY 2015
Facility

Happy Valley Rd & I-17 Park-and-Ride
Grand/Surprise Park-and-Ride
Central Station Transit Center Rehabilitation /
Expansion
Country Club Dr & US 60 (Superstition Freeway)
Park-and-Ride
South Tempe Transit Center
East Buckeye Park-and-Ride
Scottsdale Rd & Loop 101 Park-and-Ride
South Chandler Transit Center
Downtown Chandler Transit Center
19th Ave & Camelback Rd Transit Center

Pre-Design
(FY)

Design
(FY)

Land
(FY)

Construction/
Open (FY)

2009
2009
2009

2009
2009
2010

2009
2009
NA

2010
2010

2009

2009

2009

2009
2009
2010
2012
2012
2012

2010
2010
2010
2013
2013
2013

2010
2009
2010
2013
2013
2013

2010
2010
2011
2011
2011
2014
2014
2014

Source: 2009 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update
.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

9

`

Executive Summary

Table ES-6: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2009 through FY 2014
TLCP Fiscal Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Total

1

TLCP Programmed Funding
$287,895
$300,562
$313,787
$323,201
$332,897
$342,884
$7,362,289

Source: 2009 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update
1
Funding subject to change based on annual budget.

Key facts about the programmed transit facility investments include:
•
•

•

Planned capital investments/improvements for the fiscal years 2010 through 2015
include five transit centers, five park-and-ride facilities and new/upgraded regional bus
stops. Improvements include expansion and/or rehabilitation of four transit centers.
Several of the facilities programmed in the FY 2009 TLCP Update for implementation in
FY 2009 have been delayed to FY 2010. Two transit facility improvements are
programmed to open in FY 2010, including some of those delayed from FY 2009. The
two facilities programmed for completion in FY 2009 will not be open for service until at
least FY 2010.
Some transit facility investments in the TLCP have multiple funding sources. These
could include monies from Federal grants and/or local funding from jurisdictions, as well
as regional funding.

Planned Regionally Funded Transit Vehicle Acquisitions
A total of 125 transit vehicles are programmed for services planned to be implemented through
FY 2015. Fixed route buses, account for 35 of the vehicles which is significantly less than
anticipated at this point last year due to the decline in forecasted revenues. The fixed route fleet
acquired in FY 2008 and FY 2009 was the same as originally planned in the TLCP, however,
eight fixed route buses purchased for expansion of the Gilbert Road and Power Road routes will
not be used for those service expansions since the revised TLCP has delayed the start of new
services to later years. Instead, pending discussions with FTA and with approval, the buses
may be used to replace older buses that have reached the end of their useful life and would
have been replaced either this year or next year. A standard 12-year transit bus fleet
replacement cycle is assumed. Table ES-7 summarizes the planned acquisition of regional
transit vehicles to support service expansion. The acquisition year identified in the table
corresponds with the year that the vehicle will be put into service; however, vehicles are
generally purchased in the previous fiscal year. For example, if a vehicle is programmed to go
into service in FY 2011, it will be programmed for purchase during FY 2010. Because of the
success of the Vanpool program, 25 new vehicles are planned for acquisition each year to
support expansion.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

10

`

Executive Summary

Table ES-7: Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles
Fiscal Year
For Acquisition
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Total

Fixed Route
19
0
5
6
5
35

Paratransit
0
0
0
0
0
0

Rural
0
0
4
0
0
4

Vanpool
25
25
25
25
25
125

Source: RPTA, 2009

Planning Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Investments
Specific initial planning considerations for each of the regionally funded improvements are
identified in Chapter 5 of this plan. The planning considerations range from providing adequate
capacity for vehicles at transit facilities to retaining interim passenger parking capacity for new
transit services.
Transit Planning Process Recommendations
The SRTP includes recommendations to guide the regional transit planning process.
Recommendations include implementing thresholds for identifying when a regionally funded
transit service is eligible for frequency adjustments (to exceed the programmed regional funding
budget) and additional planning studies that the RPTA may wish to consider.
Service Level Thresholds
•

•

The service planning process for implementation of new transit services and capital
facilities should be launched at the completion of each year’s SRTP update. This
timeline provides an opportunity to utilize the transit service and capital considerations
identified in the annual SRTP update to initiate the planning process and improve
integration of local and regional transit planning efforts.
A measurable process should be employed to determine when a regionally funded bus
route has reached a performance level that warrants improved service frequency (not to
exceed the programmed regional funding budget). It is recommended that the process
integrate the following RPTA adopted efficiency and effectiveness performance targets
and regional service level standards:
o Must meet or exceed 2.1 passenger boardings per revenue mile or
o Have three or more consecutively sequenced trips that regularly (at least 3 of 5
weekdays for the same trip for a period of 6 consecutive or non-consecutive months
within a 12 month period) exceed the applicable passenger bus load standard:
- Local bus = 125%
- Express bus = 100%
o If overcrowding (exceeding the applicable load standard) occurs on less than three
consecutive trips, schedule or vehicle assignment adjustments should be considered
before implementing additional service.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

11

`

Executive Summary

Additional Planning Studies
•

•

•

Service Thresholds for Regionally Funded Services and Facilities. In addition to the
thresholds identified herein for improving regionally funded bus route service frequency,
other thresholds should be developed. The thresholds should apply to other service
types (e.g., arterial BRT, LRT, etc.) and other service parameters as well as facilities
(park-and-rides, transit centers, etc.). Currently, LRT operations are funded entirely by
the local jurisdictions in which they operate. Thresholds may provide regional benefits
such as a more efficient regional transit system, which will increase the likelihood of
positive results from mandatory efficiency and effectiveness audits.
Regional Transit Safety and Security Implementation Plan. This study would prioritize
implementation of strategic measures identified in the Regional Safety and Security Plan
(November 2006). The 2006 plan identifies potential safety and security vulnerabilities
but does not provide a prioritized schedule for implementing the identified mitigation
measures.

Comprehensive Regional Bus Stop Inventory. The region’s last comprehensive bus stop
inventory was completed in 2002. An up to date and comprehensive regional bus stop
inventory will provide more accurate and reliable information for on-going regional and local
planning activities as well as for passenger uses such as the on-line trip planner.

Transit Funding
Based on the estimated sources of revenues and programmed expenditures through FY
2014/15 there are several years that expenditures exceed revenues. Many regional transit
service and capital investments are dependent upon the ability to maintain adequate cash flow
to be implemented as identified in this plan. The TLCP includes financing through the issuance
of bonds to maintain positive cash flows. RPTA issued $100.075 million bonds (par amount) in
FY 2009 for the transit program, of which approximately $47.65 million was for the bus program.
Par amount refers to the face value of the bond. Based on the FY 2009 TLCP Update, one
additional bond issuances of approximately $54 million is planned for FY 2011 to provide a
positive annual cash flow for the bus program through the period identified in this plan.
The HCT program has a separate financing strategy to address cash for these projects.
Changes in the level of estimated revenues or expenditures could either positively or negatively
affect the programmed implementation schedules and scope of the projects identified herein.
Through the annual TLCP update process, estimates for short and long range revenues and
expenditures are reviewed to determine the financial fitness of the regional transit program.
Appropriate finance strategies and other actions are considered annually to maintain a
reasonable and sustainable finance plan.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

12

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.0

SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM INTRODUCTION

This Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) proposes transit service and capital improvements
for implementation in Fiscal Years (FY) 2009/10 to 2014/15. In addition, the plan evaluates
existing service, costs, and trends based on past performance and identifies current and
projected funding levels and revenue sources. This report provides substantial transit-related
input into the transportation improvements identified in MAG’s Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). The plan also serves as an important resource guide for anyone interested in transit in
the Phoenix Metropolitan area.
The report is organized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Chapter 1, Introduction—Purpose of the SRTP; Valley Metro RPTA and member cities
background information; transit funding initiatives, relationship to other plans; regional
demographics; transit passenger characteristics; and transit and equity.
Chapter 2, Transit Service Evaluation—Service goals and standards of fixed route
service as well as a presentation of the performance and service characteristics for each
transit mode.
Chapter 3, Existing Transit Capital Infrastructure—Passenger and support facilities;
maintenance and operations facilities; roadway enhancements; and regional transit fleet.
Chapter 4, Transportation Demand Management—Important characteristics of the
regional rideshare and trip reduction programs.
Chapter 5, Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements—presents the current
operations and capital improvements over the next five years and discussion of mode,
corridor, and area specific studies and system-based studies that are on-going and
planned for completion in the short range.
Chapter 6, Regional Transit Funding—presents the current capital and operating
revenue sources and amounts and projections over the next five years as well as the
transit life cycle plan operating capital and administration budgets.
Chapter 7, Cost Savings through Service Reductions—presents the service reduction
recommendations made to the Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee
(VMOCC) in August 2009.
Chapter 8, Recommendations—presents the combined recommendations of the Cost
Savings through Service Reductions, the TLCP and the SRTP.

The SRTP is produced by Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) on
behalf of the MAG member cities and organizations: Apache Junction, Arizona Department of
Transportation, Avondale, Buckeye, Carefree, Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee,
Chandler, El Mirage, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fountain Hills, Gila Bend, Gila River Indian
Community, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Guadalupe, Litchfield Park, Maricopa County, Mesa,
Paradise Valley, Peoria, Phoenix, Queen Creek, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community,
Scottsdale, Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson, Wickenburg, and Youngtown.
Note that funding for public transportation comes from a variety of local, regional, and federal
sources. Some sources are dedicated solely to transportation, so funding projections can be
fairly reliable; however, the future of funding from other sources remains uncertain. As a result,
this report is intended to be as flexible as possible to accommodate change. Projects may be
shifted from one year to another or eliminated completely, depending on the availability of
funding for transit programs.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

13

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Nothing herein should be assumed to commit the appropriation of funds by any level of
government. While every attempt has been made to present a transit program of reasonable
expectations, realization of future programs and projects is entirely subject to future
appropriations by local, state, and federal governments.
1.1

REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY/VALLEY METRO AND
MEMBER CITIES—BACKGROUND AND TRANSIT FUNDING INITIATIVES

RPTA’s history, creation, other major public transit milestones as well as transit funding
initiatives in the Valley are summarized in Table 1-1.
Public transit in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area comprises several systems where much of the
service is planned and operated by local cities. The cities of Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix,
Scottsdale, and Tempe provide for fixed route service in their jurisdictions. The RPTA often
assists other communities with planning and operating service. Many fixed routes cross
municipal boundaries; therefore, intergovernmental agreements have been developed among
neighboring communities to jointly provide this service.
Paratransit (or Dial-a-Ride [DAR]) services are provided individually by the following cities: El
Mirage, Glendale, Peoria, Phoenix, Sun Cities, and Surprise. The communities of Chandler,
Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Tempe coordinate, manage, and fund the East Valley DAR which
allows residents to travel beyond the boundaries of their individual communities. RPTA also
funds a successful vanpool program in partnership with area employers. In addition, Valley
Metro Rail (METRO) completed construction of the first 20 miles of light rail transit (LRT) and
serves the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. LRT operations are funded entirely by the local
cities participating in METRO. LRT operations were begun in late December 2008.
1.2

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS

The SRTP provides a description of current operating and capital conditions and also forecasts
operating and capital plans for the next five years. This report incorporates public transit plans
from several sources and in turn feeds into other regional plans. Plans that feed into the SRTP
include the transit element of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), RPTA’s Master
Facilities Plan, local area transportation plans, and the Transit Performance Report (TPR). The
Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) feeds into the SRTP, and the SRTP then feeds into the next
TLCP. Regional transit service and capital improvements programmed in the TLCP are funded
by the transit portion of the half-cent sales tax put in place by voter approval of Proposition 400
in 2004. Some local jurisdictions in the region provide local funding for additional transit services
and capital improvements beyond what is identified in the TLCP. The SRTP identifies near term
regional transit service and capital facility implementation considerations for regional transit
projects contained in the MAG RTP and RPTA’s TLCP.
1.3

REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS

Maricopa County comprises 25 cities and towns and three Indian communities. MAG’s 2005
population estimate for the county is nearly 3.7 million (Table 1-2). Overall population is
expected to rise about 42% by 2020. The largest increases are anticipated to occur in the
outlying areas of the county in municipalities such as Buckeye, Goodyear, Queen Creek and
Surprise. In terms of absolute population, more than half of the 2020 population is projected to
live near the heart of the urbanized area of the county in locations such as Phoenix, Glendale,
Scottsdale, and Tempe.
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

14

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Employment in the county is expected to increase at a higher rate than population (or almost
60%) by 2020. Employment is anticipated to increase in all areas; however, the highest
employment growth rates are anticipated in outlying areas such as Avondale, Buckeye, El
Mirage, Gila Bend, Gilbert, Goodyear, Peoria, Queen Creek, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community, and Surprise.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

15

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Table 1-1: Public Transit Milestones
Year
1985

Initiative
Passed?


1989

1989
1993


N/A

1994

1996



1997
1997
1998



1998


1999
2000
2000
2001





2004



Event
Maricopa County voters approved Proposition 300, which created a half-cent sales
tax to fund freeway construction and provide $5 million (inflated annually) as seed
money for development of regional transit service. The proposition also created
RPTA and allowed RPTA to receive RARF funding through 2005. RPTA’s mission
was to develop a regional transit plan, find dedicated transit funding sources, and
develop and operate a regional transit system.
The first regional transit plan, Valtrans, was proposed to be funded by a half-cent
sales tax dedicated solely to transit. The initiative failed because many voters
believed the plan was too big and expensive.
Scottsdale passed a dedicated transportation sales tax to help fund transit projects in
their community.
RPTA Board adopted Valley Metro as identity for the regional transit system to give
buses a more recognizable identity and help unify public transit services in the Valley.
County voters defeated a proposition for a half-cent sales tax for emergency funding
for freeway construction and an additional quarter-cent sales tax for transit to
implement a regional bus system and conduct rail-transit studies. Most voters
indicated they wanted transit and freeway funding to be kept separate and, while they
were in favor of the proposed transit plans, they were opposed to tax increases.
Tempe passed a dedicated half-cent transit sales tax to help fund bus improvements
and a rail study in their community. Many indicated that Tempe needs public transit
and should lead the way in improving air quality and relieving traffic congestion.
Phoenix voters narrowly defeated a half-cent sales tax that would have provided a
number of transit improvements.
Scottsdale voters defeated the “Transit Plus” Plan to relieve congestion in Scottsdale.
Mesa passed a quality-of-life sales tax. Portions of this tax are used to generate
transportation funds.
State legislature provided transit funding through HB 2565 by allocating a portion of
vehicle license tax revenues to the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) for
distribution to cities, town, and counties. ADOT also allocates secondary LTAF funds
from sale of multi-state and bingo lottery tickets up to $18 million per year in
proportion to each county’s population.
Chandler residents did not approve a 3/8 cent Transportation Improvement Program
which included a transit component.
State legislature extended HB 2565 (1998) and modified it with SB 1556. This is
known as LTAF II. LTAF II is still in effect.
Phoenix passed a 0.4-cent dedicated transportation sales tax to help fund transit
projects included in the Transit 2000 Plan for bus and light rail.
Glendale passed a dedicated transportation sales tax to help fund transit projects in
their community.
Maricopa County voters approved Proposition 400, reauthorizing the half-cent sales
tax passed in 1985. Proposition 400 extended the tax to 2025 and increased the
amount of funding for public transportation from about 2% to more than 33% of total
sales tax revenues (or approximately $2.8 billion over the 20 year life of the RTP).
These local funds, expected to be matched by Federal transit funds, are to provide a
range of bus and light rail transit improvements. Among the improvements include:
• A “Supergrid” fixed route bus system providing consistent levels of service
throughout the region;
• Bus rapid transit (BRT) service on the region’s freeway network and selected
arterials;
• More than 27 miles of light rail transit or other high capacity transit route
extensions to the 30 miles being funded from other sources.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

16

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Table 1-2: Population and Employment (2005-2020)

The remainder of this section focuses on those demographic groups that tend to be more transit
dependent than the general population. Figure 1-1 displays the concentrations in the county
where people aged 60 and older live. According to the 2000 Census, the average in the county
is 50.55 persons per square mile. Higher concentrations generally live along a wide diagonal
band stretching from about the Loop 303 and Beardsley Road in the northwest valley to about
the Loop 202 (Santan Freeway) and Guadalupe Road in the southeast valley. The highest
concentrations (>2,000 per square mile) live in the far northwest valley near Surprise, Sun City,
Youngtown, and Peoria and in the far southeast valley near east Mesa. This is not surprising
given the numbers of age-restricted communities found in these outlying portions of the valley.
Figure 1-2 shows areas where people with disabilities live. The county average is 94.2
residents with a disability per square mile (according to the 2000 Census). The map indicates
that these residents live in higher concentrations almost everywhere throughout the county, with
the exception of the northeast, far north, far west, southwest, and far south portions of the
county. The highest concentrations (>3,000 per square mile) reside mostly in the following
areas: 1) Generally in the area near I-10 from 75th Avenue to SR 51 in Phoenix;
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

17

Chapter 1 – Introduction

2) Southeastern portion of Glendale; 3) Vicinity of I-17 from Thomas Road to Glendale Avenue
in Phoenix; and 4) East and central Mesa in an area roughly bounded by Loop 101, University
Drive, Greenfield Road, and Southern Avenue.
Locations of high concentrations (>50% of a census tract) of minority populations are presented
in Figure 1-3. Minority population is defined as the 2000 Census total population minus “white
not of Hispanic origin” population. With the exception of three Native American communities
that are located mainly in the outer portions of the region, most minorities live in the central,
southern, and southwestern portions of Maricopa County.
Table 1-3 shows the languages spoken at home by numbers of people living in the State of
Arizona, Maricopa County, and the MAG member agencies. Nearly ¼ of the county’s
population speaks a language other than English at home, according to the 2000 Census. The
largest numbers of those speaking other languages, by far, reside in the City of Phoenix
(388,445). Other municipalities with large numbers of people speaking languages other than
English in their homes include: 1) Mesa (68,629); 2) Glendale (45,818); 3) Chandler (35,359);
and 4) Tempe (32,092).
Figure 1-4 displays locations of families per square mile living in poverty in the Maricopa Region
according to the 2000 Census. The average number of families per square mile in the county is
6.68. The map indicates that the areas with higher concentrations of low-income households
than the county as a whole are generally located in the central portion of the county; however,
there are numerous instances of these households in the east, west, and south sections of the
county. The highest concentrations of families living in poverty (>400 per square mile) are
generally in three areas: 1) Vicinity of the I-10 freeway between about 67th Avenue and the SR51 freeway; 2) Near the Loop 202 (Red Mountain Freeway) from approximately the SR-51
freeway to 48th Street; and 3) Vicinity of the I-17 freeway between about Thomas and Bethany
Home Roads. It is important to note that, according to the MAG Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP), 2007 Update, the transit improvements listed in the plan serve 97% of low-income
communities in the region compared to only 88% of non-low income communities.
1.4

TRANSIT PASSENGER CHARACTERISTICS

According to an origin/destination survey conducted in 2007 by RPTA 3, the following major
characteristics of riders using the system were noted:
•
•
•
•
•
•

80% live in a household with four or fewer individuals.
71% have a household income of $35,000 or less.
51% reside in a household with no vehicle. This compares to 6% of the general
population households having no vehicle.
71% are employed (52% work full time and 19% work part time); 27% are students.
Trips destination breakdown: 37% home; 27% work; 7% shopping.
Ridership by mode: 97% local bus; 1.2% express bus; and 1.8% RAPID bus.

3

Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority 2007 Origin-Destination Survey Final Report,
2008.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

18

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Table 1-3: Language Spoken at Home
Arizona, Maricopa County, and MAG Member Agencies

*Census data shown is for entire jurisdiction, including areas outside of
Maricopa County.
**Does not reflect adjustment to Buckeye’s population to include the group
quarters population of the Lewis Prison.
Source: Census 2000 Demographic Profile DP-2, prepared by MAG and
Arizona Department of Economic Security, June 2002.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

19

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.5

TRANSIT AND EQUITY

The basic principles of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Executive Order on
Environmental Justice involve:
•
•
•

Preventing or lessening effects on minority populations and low-income populations.
Ensuring public involvement by all communities affected by the transportation decisionmaking process.
Ensuring that benefits are not concentrated in one area or population.

Title VI states:
“No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin be
excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under
any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Executive Order 12898 states:
“Each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations.”
Public transit complies with Title VI and Executive Order 12898 by making sure that investments
and changes benefit all populations equally, preventing and lessening the effects on minority
and low-income populations, and involving minority and low-income populations in the public
input process. Valley Metro complies with these principles.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

20

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Figure 1-1: Population Concentration Age 60 and Over

Figure 1-2: Population Age 5 and Over With Disability

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

21

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Figure 1-3: Minority Population

Figure 1-4: Families in Poverty

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

22

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

2.0

TRANSIT SERVICE EVALUATION

Public transportation services in the region are provided through interagency cooperation and
coordination. Transit planning, operations, and capital acquisition are the joint responsibility of many
separate agencies and municipalities in the region. The Regional Public Transportation Authority
(RPTA) helps to coordinate these activities. This chapter includes a summary of the regional transit
system describing the performance characteristics of each mode. Table 2-1 reflects the FY 2008
performance statistics for the system as a whole (all modes). This chapter also includes service
goals and standards, a description of the service characteristics, performance statistics, and a vehicle
inventory for the fixed route, shuttle/circulator, dial-a-ride, regional connector, and vanpool services
provided in the region.
Table 2-1: FY 2008 System Data
Total Boardings
62,535,665
Total Revenue
Hours
2,644,854
Total Passenger
Revenues
$45,165,446
Boardings Per
Revenue Hour
23.64

Total Wheelchair
Boardings
1,469,713
Operating Cost

Total Vehicle
Miles
47,391,584

2

n/a

n/a

102

Farebox
Recovery
Ratio
20.69%

Operating Cost
Per Boarding

1.52

40,968,457l

Total
Vehicle
Hours
3,312,810

Total Cost

Vehicle
Accidents

90,98%
Boardings Per
Revenue Mile

1

Capital Cost

$218,245,890
Percent On-Time
Performance

Total Revenue
Miles

$3.49

Operating Cost
Per Revenue
Hour
$82.51

Operating Cost
Per Revenue
Mile
$5.33

1

Fixed Route vehicle miles were corrected after the FY 07/08 Transit Performance Report (TPR) was issued.
2
Fixed Route revenue miles were corrected after the FY 07/08 Transit Performance Report
n/a = data not available

A comparison of major ridership, financial, and other major statistics for the five-year period FY
2004 -- FY 2008 is shown in Table 2-2. Over the five-year period, boardings and passenger
revenues increased about 11% and 40%, respectively. However, operating costs increased
nearly 39% in the same period. This resulted in only an approximate 1% increase in the farebox
recovery ratio. The farebox recovery ratio is the percentage of operating costs covered by
passenger revenues.
For more detailed information, refer to Appendix A – 2008 System Data for performance data by
jurisdiction, by mode, by paratransit system and by individual fixed route. Appendix B – 1995 to
2008 System Data presents various performance data by mode over a 14 year period.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

23

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

Table 2-2: Comparison of System-wide Data for Five-Year Period—2004 and 2008
General
Vehicle Revenue Miles
Vehicle Revenue Hours
Revenue Miles Per Hour
Ridership
Total Boardings
Boardings Per Revenue Mile
Boardings Per Revenue Hour
Financial
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Operating Costs
Passenger Revenues
Operating Cost Per Boarding
Fare Revenue Per Boarding
Subsidy Per Boarding
Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour
Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile

2.1

FY 2004
38,702,600
2,545,286
15.21
FY 2004
56,390,033
1.46
22.15
FY 2004
20.49%
$157,015,827
$32,165,507
$2.78
$0.57
$2.21
$61.69
$4.06

FY 2008
40,968,457
2,644,854
15.49
FY 2008
62,535,665
1.53
23.64
FY 2008
20.69%
$218,245,890
$45,165,446
$3.49
$0.72
$2.77
$82.52
$5.33

5 Years
(FY 2004-2008)
% Change
5.8%
3.9%
1.9%
5 Years
(FY 2004-2008)
% Change
10.9%
4.8%
6.7%
5 Years
(FY 2004-2008)
% Change
1%
39%
40.4%
25.3%
26.6%
25%
33.8%
31.3%

SERVICE GOALS AND STANDARDS

The RPTA Board of Directors approved service goals and standards on April 19, 2008. These
targets (see Table 2-3) were developed as part of the Efficiency and Effectiveness Study and include
targets for fixed route, systemwide, fixed route, route level, paratransit and for light rail transit.
2.2

FIXED ROUTE

2.2.1

Service Characteristics

During FY 2008, fixed route transit service was provided in a 660 square mile service area and
served residents in the communities of Avondale, Chandler, El Mirage, Fountain Hills, Gilbert,
Glendale, Goodyear, Guadalupe, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sun City,
Surprise, Tempe, and Tolleson. There were sixty-five (65) local, twenty four (24) express, eighteen
(18) shuttle/circulators, four (4) RAPID routes, two (2) rural routes, one (1) BRT line and one (1) rail
line operated throughout the region on weekdays (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2). Weekday hours vary
considerably, but most local routes operate from about 5:00 am to about 10:00 pm. Express and
RAPID service operate during peak hours on weekdays only. Most local routes operate on
weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays throughout most of the region. Weekend hours of
service also vary by route, but are generally somewhat reduced from the weekday level. However,
the light rail line now runs until 3.00 am on Friday and Saturday night.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

24

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

Table 2-3: Efficiency and Effectiveness Performance Measures Targets
Fixed Route Bus, Systemwide
Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness
1

Farebox Recovery Ratio
Operating Cost per Boarding
Subsidy (Net Opg Cost) per Boarding
Cost per Revenue Mile
Average Fare
Service Effectiveness
Total Boardings (Number)
2
Total Boardings
2
Boardings Avg. Weekday, Sat., Sun.
Boardings per Revenue Mile
Safety Incidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles
Security Incidents per 100,000 Boardings
Complaints per 100,000 Boardings
On-time Performance
Miles between Mechanical Failures
3
Customer Satisfaction
Fixed Route Bus, Route Level

Rail
Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness

25%
$2.49
$1.88
$5.32
$0.72

Farebox Recovery Ratio
Operating Cost per Boarding
Subsidy (Net Opg Cost) per Boarding
Cost per Revenue Mile
Average Fare
Service Effectiveness

-3%
3%
2.1
1.2
0
28
90%
23,400
89%
Target

Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness
1

Farebox Recovery Ratio
Operating Cost per Boarding
Subsidy (Net Opg Cost) per Boarding
Cost per Revenue Mile
Service Effectiveness
Total Boardings (Number)
2
Total Boardings
2
Boardings Avg. Weekday, Sat., Sun.
Boardings per Revenue Mile
Boardings per Revenue Hour (Express Bus)
On-time Performance
Miles between Mechanical Failures
Vanpool
Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness
1

Farebox Recovery Ratio
Operating Cost per Boarding
Subsidy (Net Opg Cost) per Boarding
Cost per Revenue Mile
Average Fare
Total Boardings (Number)
Boardings per Revenue Mile
Increase in Net Vanpools

4

Target

25%
$2.32
$1.75
$4.96
-3%
3%
2.1
TBD
90%
23,400
Target
106%
$1.82
$0.00
$0.49
$1.96
--0.27
24

1

Total Boardings (Number)
Boardings Avg. Weekday
Boardings Avg. Sat.
Boardings Avg. Weekday Sun./Holiday
Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Mile
Boardings per Revenue Mile
Safety Incidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles
Security Incidents per "x" Boardings
On-time Performance
Miles between Failures
3
Customer Satisfaction
Paratransit
Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness
1
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Operating Cost per Boarding
Subsidy (Net Opg Cost) per Boarding
Operating Cost per Revenue Hour
Average Fare
Service Effectiveness

Target
TARGET
25%
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
7,827,000
26,090
N/A
N/A
3.94
8.04
N/A
N/A
95%
25,000
89%
Target
5%
$30.61
$29.12
$53.92
TBD

Total Boardings (Number)
2
Total Boardings
2
Boardings Avg. Weekday, Sat., Sun.
Boardings per Revenue Hour
Percent No Shows

-3%
3%
1.76
5%

On-time Performance
Miles between Mechanical Failures
3
Customer Satisfaction

90%
TBD
90%

TBD = To Be Determined
N/A = Not Available

1

Farebox recovery ratio = % of operating costs covered by passenger revenues.
% increase in boardings compared to previous year.
3
Based on annual telephone survey of % of respondents rating rider satisfaction as “excellent” or “good”.
4
Light rail starter line began operations in December 2008.
2

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

25

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

Figure 2-1: Local Routes Map for July 2009

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

26

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

Figure 2-2: Express & RAPID Routes Map for July 2009

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

27

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

2.2.2

Funding Sources

Funding for these routes is provided by Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear,
Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sun City, Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson and the Regional
Public Transportation Authority. The Cities of Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe
each have some form of dedicated sales tax for public transportation. Most of these
communities are using general funds to support transit services.
Some State funding is also available for transit through the Local Transportation Assistance
Fund (LTAF II). The LTAF II funding is in the form of multistate lottery game and instant bingo
game monies along with a portion of the State Highway Fund's Vehicle License Tax monies.
The State distributes the funds to the RPTA, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and
cities, towns and counties not represented by a RPTA or MPO.
RPTA receives a portion of the 0.5% Maricopa County sales tax for transportation approved by
voters in November 2003. The City of Avondale is designated by the federal government as a “small
urbanized area” and receives some federal assistance for transit operations.
2.2.3

Private Contractors

During FY 2008, the local and express routes described in this report were provided by five private
contractors. The five contractors are Veolia Phoenix, First Transit, Veolia RPTA, ValuTrans and
Veolia Tempe. These transit operators are under contract to the City of Phoenix, the City of Tempe
and the RPTA and provide service throughout the region. The City of Phoenix contracts with Veolia
Phoenix and First Transit for fixed route service. The RPTA has a service contract with Veolia RPTA
and ValuTrans, and the City of Tempe contracts with Veolia Tempe.
Many routes are funded by multiple government agencies, usually based on the miles of service
provided in each jurisdiction.
2.2.4

Comparison of Fixed Route Performance Data

A comparison of major data for fixed route service is displayed in Table 2-4 for FY 2004, 2007,
and 2008. In FY 2008, RPTA began reporting shuttle/circulator and rural connector data in with
fixed route service. So, to provide an equal comparison, these two modes were also combined
in the other FY data as applicable. Note that rural connector service did not begin until March
2005 during FY 2006.
Between FY 2007 and 2008, fixed route boardings increased slightly 3.4%. The total boardings have
also increased about 16% since FY 2004. Revenues increased about 11% and 40%, respectively, in
the one- and five-year periods of comparison. Operating costs increased nearly 20.4% between FY
2007 and FY 2008. These costs also increased almost 23% over the previous five years. This all
resulted in the farebox recovery ratio increasing slightly more than 16.5% in the one-year period and
about 24.7% during the five-year period of comparison.
Appendix C – Trends provides annual boardings, revenue miles of service provided, and boardings
per mile from 1985 to 2008. The increase in transit service and the resulting increases in ridership
over the years are clearly apparent.
Not all data for FY 2009 is available at the time of preparation of this SRTP. However, Table 25 provides available statistics on boardings and revenue miles for FY 2009.
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

28

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

Table 2-4: Comparison of Fixed Route1 Data—2004, 2007 and 2008
General

FY 2004

Vehicle Revenue Miles
Vehicle Revenue Hours
Revenue Miles Per Hour
Ridership

Financial

2.01

2.16

7.4%

8.0%

29.59

30.25

5.8%
5 Years
(FY 04-08)
% Change
24.7%
44.8%

28,902,813
1,966,138
14.70

27,830,645
1,988,847
13.99

FY 2007

FY 2008

51,815,468

58,184,596

2.0
28.59

25,885,061
1,812,653
14.28

FY 2007

FY 2008

23.1%
$126,955,128

24.2%
$152,662,789

3.06%
$182,809,441

2.2%
1 Year
(FY 07-08)
% Change
16.5%
20.4%

2.45
$29,284,245

2.62
$37,000,313

3.06
$41,091,397

16.5%
11.1%

24.7%
40.3%

$0.57
$1.88

$0.64
$1.99

$0.68
$2.37

7.4%
19.4%

20.9%
25.9%

$70.04

$77.65

$92.42

19.%

32.%

$4.90

$5.28

$6.60

25.%

34.7%

FY 2004

Farebox Recovery Ratio
Operating Costs
Operating Cost Per
Boarding
Fare Revenue
Fare Revenue Per
Boarding
Subsidy Per Boarding
Operating Cost Per
Revenue Hour
Operating Cost Per
Revenue Mile

60,153,649

5 Years
(FY 04-08)
% Change
7.5%
9.7%
-2.0%
5 Years
(FY 04-08)
% Change
16.1%

FY 2008

FY 2004

Total Boardings
Boardings Per Revenue
Mile
Boardings Per Revenue
Hour

1 Year
(FY 07-08)
% Change
-3.7%
1.2%
-4.8%
1 Year
(FY 07-08)
% Change
3.4%

FY 2007

1

Fixed Route includes local, supergrid, shuttle/circulator and rural routes.

Table 2-5: Annual Boardings and Revenue Miles—FY 2009
Ridership Statistic
Boardings
Revenue Miles
Boardings Per Revenue Mile

Number
71,251,667
33,406,055
2.13

Source: RPTA, Annual Ridership Report for FY 2009, as derived from farebox data.

2.2.5 Fixed Route On Time Performance
The Vehicle Management System allows for very accurate measurement of the System’s schedule
adherence. The position of each bus is tracked throughout the day using global positioning satellites
and compared to the published schedule. Figure 2-3 presents the on time performance for City of
Phoenix contractors by month for the past three years. Similar data for City of Tempe and RPTA
were not available.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

29

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

Figure 2-3: On Time Performance for City of Phoenix Fixed Route Service

City of Phoenix On Time Performance By Fiscal
Year
96.0%
94.0%
92.0%
90.0%
88.0%
86.0%
84.0%
82.0%
80.0%
JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

YR
AVG

2007 88.4% 86.7% 86.6% 86.4% 87.1% 89.8% 90.9% 88.9% 88.5% 85.7% 87.8% 85.7% 87.7%
2008 89.30% 90.7% 91.5% 91.3% 91.7% 91.9% 92.7% 90.0% 89.6% 90.1% 91.7% 92.2% 91.1%
2009 91.8% 92.1% 93.3% 93.1% 93.7% 94.1% 95.0%

2.2.6

93.3%

Fixed Route Vehicle Inventory

In June 2008 the Regional Transit System had 994 vehicles available to provide fixed route
service. The City of Glendale had 8 vehicles; the City of Phoenix operated 574 vehicles; the
City of Scottsdale had 8 vehicles; the City of Tempe had 198 vehicles and the RPTA had 198
vehicles available to provide fixed route service.
2.2.7

Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Service

The Regional Transportation Plan calls for arterial bus rapid transit service in several corridors.
The first corridor will be Main Street in Mesa from Superstition Springs Mall Transit Center and
Park-and-Ride to the east end of line light rail station at Sycamore and Main Street. This new
type of service will have a separate identity known as LINK Bus Service. It will be provided by
new articulated buses with a different paint scheme to identify it as a connection (or “LINK”) to
light rail service. To provide faster service, LINK buses will stop less often, approximately once
every mile. On weekdays the service will be operated every 15 minutes during peak hours, and
every 30 minutes during off-peak hours. Service will be available from about 4:30 am to
approximately 10:30 pm.
The service will also operate on Saturdays and Sundays.
Implementation of this Mesa Main Street LINK service began in December 2008 concurrent with
the opening of the light rail starter line. Future corridors for this type of service include Arizona
Avenue, Chandler Boulevard, South Central Avenue and Scottsdale/Rural Road. Arizona Ave,
is set to begin operations in FY 2011, including 20 stations constructed by the RPTA.
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

30

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

2.3

HIGH CAPACITY / LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT

METRO light rail began revenue operations in December 2008. Valley Metro Rail (METRO) is
the regional agency responsible for the planning, design, construction and operation of this high
capacity transit mode. The 20-mile METRO starter line operates through the cities of Phoenix,
Tempe, and Mesa. Frequency and hours of train service are:
Weekdays (M – Th):
4 – 6 AM 20 min
6 AM – 7 PM 10 min
7 PM – 12 AM 20 min

Fridays:
4 – 6 AM 20 min
6 AM – 7 PM 10 min
7 PM – 3 AM 20 min

Saturdays
4:30 – 6 AM 20 min
6 AM – 7 PM 15 min
7 PM – 3 AM 20 min

Sundays
4:30 – 12 AM 20 min

The 20-year RTP includes an additional 57 miles of high capacity transit in six corridors planned
to connect with the initial system:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Northwest
Central Mesa
Tempe South
Glendale
I-10 West
Northeast Phoenix

Figure 2-4 displays the initial LRT alignment as well as future high capacity transit corridors and
scheduled opening dates. A detailed schedule for completion of the corridors included in the
RTP is presented in Figure 2-5.
2.4

SHUTTLE AND CIRCULATOR

Several cities provide shuttle services (usually in their downtown areas) and / or neighborhood
circulator service. The City of Phoenix operates DASH in the downtown and State Capitol area,
and ALEX, a neighborhood circulator in the Ahwatukee/Desert Foothills area. The City of
Tempe provides FLASH Forward and Back and FLASH to University in the downtown Tempe
and Arizona State University area. Tempe also provides the Orbit routes to serve residential
areas and connect them to local destinations such as shopping areas, other neighborhoods,
major bus routes, schools and multi-generational centers. The Orbit Routes include Mercury,
Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter. The City of Glendale operates GUS I, GUS II, in the
neighborhoods surrounding downtown Glendale. The GUS III serves as a connection between
the other GUS circulators and several senior centers, the Glendale Main Library, Glendale
Community College, and the Glendale Adult Center along with various shopping centers. The
City of Scottsdale operates a trolley service with a Downtown and a Neighborhood route. All of these
shuttle/neighborhood circulators are free except for Glendale’s GUS services which charge a
$0.25 fare.
Beginning in FY 2007, RPTA combined shuttle and circulator service data with the fixed route
service data, so performance information about these services is included in Table 2-4. Data for
the individual shuttle and circulator routes is combined with fixed route and is shown in
Appendix A – 2008 System Data.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

31

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

Figure 2-4: High Capacity Transit Corridors

Figure 2-5: High Capacity Transit Corridors—Schedule

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

32

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

2.5

REGIONAL CONNECTORS

The RPTA provides two Regional Connector services. Route 660 – Wickenburg Connector
provides service between Wickenburg and Arrowhead Towne Center in Glendale, and Route
685 – Gila Bend Regional Connector providing service between Ajo, Gila Bend, Buckeye and
the Desert Sky Mall in Phoenix. Beginning in FY 2007, RPTA combined regional connector
service data with the fixed route service data.
2.6

PARATRANSIT

There are ten different paratransit systems in the region with a variety of service characteristics
and eligibility criteria. Some are open to the general public, some serve only elderly and
persons with disabilities and other paratransit systems are only available to Americans with
Disabilities Act eligible persons only.
Table 2-6 presents the major statistics for paratransit, or Dial-a-Ride, services in the region for
FY 2004, 2007, and 2008. Some FY 2007 data was not collected on a systemwide basis for
paratransit, so the table includes only the available data. Many individual services in the region
reported data for FY 2007. The available data by specific service is included in Appendix A.
Paratransit boardings decreased 2% between FY 2007 and FY 2008 and about 13% between
FY 2004 and FY 2008. At the same time, operating costs increased about 8% and 31% over
the same periods, respectively. Passenger revenues decreased slightly (less than 1%) over the
previous year. However, they increased slightly by about 2% over the previous five-year period.
The farebox recovery ratio decreased about 8% from the previous year and a 22% decrease
compared to FY 2004.
2.7

VANPOOL

Vanpools are organized rideshare arrangements, much like large carpools, in which 6-15 riders
who have similar origins and destinations collectively agree to commute in a single vehicle.
Vehicles for this type of service may be owned or leased by one of the commuters in the group,
a company, or by a third party representative. In the Valley Metro Vanpool Program all vanpool
vans are owned by the agency and procured using federal funding or fare returns from active
vanpools.
Valley Metro Vanpool Program vehicles are fully insured, and maintained full size vans which
offer a reliable, safe, efficient, and economical alternative to driving alone. Valley Metro provides
vans to groups of 6 – 15 commuters who then share in the monthly cost of the van by paying an
equitable monthly fare.
Valley Metro has provided vanpool services to residents and employers in Maricopa County for
twenty two years, and VPSI has served as the vanpool contractor for the majority of those
years. VPSI contracts with Valley Metro to provide regional services including billing,
administration, insurance, vehicle maintenance, and National Transit Database Reporting.
Performance data for vanpool for fiscal years 2004, 2007, and 2008 is displayed in Table 2-7.
Between FY 2007 and 2008, boardings increased nearly 4.2%. Between FY 2004 and 2008
boardings jumped by almost 52%. In addition, operating costs climbed nearly 9% in the same
one year period and about 29% during the previous five years. However, revenues rose as well
with an almost 5% increase in one year and a nearly 69% increase during the previous five
years. The farebox recovery ratio in FY 2007 fell by more than 3%. However, between in FY
2004 and FY 2008, the farebox recovery ration had grown by 34%.
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

33

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

Table 2-6: Comparison of Paratransit Data—2004, 2007 and 2008
General
Vehicle Revenue Miles
Vehicle Revenue Hours
Revenue Miles Per Hour
Ridership
Total Boardings
Boardings Per Revenue
Mile
Boardings Per Revenue
Hour

1,034,742
0.13

922,790
n/a

903,868
0.12

1 Year
(FY 07-08)
% Change
n/a
1.7%
n/a
1 Year
(FY 07-08)
% Change
-2.1%
n/a

1.88

1.73

1.67

-3.7%

-10.9%
5 Years
(FY 04-08)
% Change
-22.0%
31.2%
50.2%

FY 2004
8,052,626
551,554
14.60
FY 2004

FY 2007
n/a
532,031
n/a
FY 2007

FY 2008
7,533,814
540,907
13.93
FY 2008

5 Years
(FY 04-08)
% Change
-6.4%
-1.9%
-4.6%
5 Years
(FY 04-08)
% Change
-12.6%
-6.6%

Financial

FY 2004

FY 2007

FY 2008

Farebox Recovery Ratio
Operating Costs
Operating Cost Per
Boarding
Fare Revenue
Fare Revenue Per
Boarding
Subsidy Per Boarding
Operating Cost Per
Revenue Hour
Operating Cost Per
Revenue Mile

5.2%
$24,333,403
$23.52

4.4%
$29,505,513
$31.97

4.0%
$31,936,477
$35.33$

1 Year
(FY 07-08)
% Change
-8.3%
8.2%
10.5%

$1,263,195
$1.22

$1,302,579
$1.41

$1,292,611
$1.43

-0.8%
1.3%

2.3%
17.1%

$22.30
$44.12

$30.56
$55.46

$33.90
$59.04

10.9%
6.5%

52.1%
33.8%

$3.02

n/a

$4.24

n/a

40.3%

n/a = data not available.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

34

Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation

Table 2-7: Comparison of Vanpool Data—2004, 2007 and 2008
General
Vehicle Revenue Miles
Vehicle Revenue Hours
Revenue Miles Per Hour
Ridership
Total Boardings
Boardings Per Revenue
Mile
Boardings Per Revenue
Hour
Financial
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Operating Costs
Operating Cost Per
Boarding
Fare Revenue
Fare Revenue Per
Boarding
Subsidy Per Boarding
Operating Cost Per
Revenue Hour
Operating Cost Per
Revenue Mile

975,156

1,418,466

1,478,148

1 Year
(FY 07-08)
% Change
6.4%
-12.5%
21.7%
1 Year
(FY 07-08)
% Change
4.2%

0.27

.027

0.26

-2.1

-3.7%

10.93

10.78

12.84

17.5%
5 Years
(FY 04-08)
% Change
34.4%
28.8%

FY 2004
3,568,488
89,212
40.0
FY 2004

FY 2007
5,264,469
131,612
40.0
FY 2007

FY 2008
5,603,997
115,100
48.69
FY 2008

5 Years
(FY 04-08)
% Change
57.4%
29.0%
21.7%
5 Years
(FY 04-08)
% Change
51.6%

FY 2004

FY 2007

FY 2008

82.78%
$1,940,161

115.0%
$2,305,045

111.26%
$2,499,972

19.2%
1 Year
(FY 07-08)
% Change
-3.3%
8.5%

$1.99
$1,606,046

$1.63
$2,650,738

$1.69
$2,718,438

4.1%
4.9%

-15.1%
69.26%

$1.65
$.34

$1.87
$-0.24

$1.88
$-0.19

.7%
-21.9%

13.94%
-155.9%

$24.75

$17.51

$21.72

24%

-.1%

$0.54

$0.44

$0.45

-1.9%

16.7%

n/a = not available.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

35

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

3.0

EXISTING & PLANNED TRANSIT CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The provision of transit service in an area that is nearly 660 square miles (.75 mile buffer for
ADA service area) requires the acquisition, development and maintenance of appropriate capital
infrastructure. Such infrastructure is not limited to vehicles, but also includes passenger
facilities, maintenance facilities, and specific roadway enhancements. In an effort to assist in
the identification of future capital needs, this chapter identifies the region’s existing capital
infrastructure and quantifies its utilization.
3.1

PASSENGER AND SUPPORT FACILITIES

3.1.1

On-Street Passenger Facilities

The August 8, 2008 update of the Regional Bus Stop Database administered by the City of
Phoenix reports that there are 7,626 bus stops throughout the region. 43 percent, or 3,236 of
these stops include passenger shelters and 1,146 stops consist of a bench only. Recognizing
that lack of bus stop shelters and other amenities can be a major disincentive to public use of
the transit system, Valley Metro RPTA and its member agencies continually work to improve
these passenger facilities based on available funding. Bus stop improvements are achieved
through a combination of public and private funds. These include local municipal funds,
regional sales tax funds, Federal Transit Administration funds, developer fees, and advertising
and bench contracts with Viacom Outdoor Systems Advertising. Advertising shelter and bench
locations are developed, improved, and maintained by the individual contractor.
In addition to bus stops, there are 15 designated BRT bus stops located along the Main St.
corridor in Mesa and 28 LRT stops located along the light rail alignment in Phoenix, Tempe, and
Mesa. Both of these services began operation in December of 2008.
3.1.2

Park-and-Ride Facilities

Existing Park-and-Ride Facilities
Region-wide, there are a total of 50 park-and-ride facilities providing 7,540 automobile spaces.
Of these facilities, 21 are publicly owned and operated. The remaining 29 park-and-ride
facilities are joint-use. The joint use facilities have an informal agreement with private property
owners and are established for shared parking arrangements.
Recognizing that long term access to shared use facilities based on informal agreements is
problematic, Valley Metro RPTA and its members have undertaken the development of publicly
owned regional park-and-ride lots. These lots, which are identified in the MAG Park & Ride
Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), will be developed over the next twenty years
and will be supported by the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and express bus networks identified in the
RTP. Table 3-1 identifies the existing facilities, including the location, capacity (when available),
and routes served, while Figure 3-1 illustrates the location of publicly owned existing and
planned park-and-rides.
Planned Park-and-Ride Facilities
A total of 11 park-and-ride facilities are planned and identified in Table 3-2. The location of
planned park-and-ride facilities is subject to change based on findings of individual site planning
and design processes. In addition, the projected facility opening dates may also change based
on the availability of funding, local priorities or other variables. Several park-and-rides have
been postponed due to a lack of funding. Figure 3-1 depicts the location of existing and planned
park-and-ride facilities.
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

36

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Table 3-1: Existing Park-and-Ride Facilities
Park-and-Ride Facility
Tumbleweed PNR
Gilbert PNR
Glendale City Lot
Glendale PNR
Superstition Springs PNR
Main St & Sycamore Transit
Center & PNR
Peoria PNR East
Spectrum Mall Transit Center &
PNR
Central & Camelback Transit
Center & PNR
19th Ave & Camelback PNR
Washington & 38th St PNR
Bell/SR-51 PNR
Shea & SR-51 PNR
Deer Valley Park and Ride
th

Location
City
Publicly Owned Facilities
Hamilton and Germann (Arizona Ave./Loop
Chandler
202)
Ash and Page
Gilbert

Capacity

Routes Served

460

511,540,541,542

250

Jefferson St & 84 Ave

Peoria

82

531, 136
59, 570, GUS I & II, Grand
Ave Limited
70, 573
533, LINK
30, 40, 45, 96, 104, LINK,
METRO
Grand Ave Limited,

Montebello Ave & 19th Ave

Phoenix

794

15, 19, 60, 576, Light Rail

Central Ave & Camelback Rd

Phoenix

135

19th Ave & Camelback Rd
Washington St & 38th St
SR-51 & Bell Rd
Shea Blvd & SR-51

Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix

410
189
377
370

Bell & I-17

Phoenix

350

59th Ave & Myrtle Ave

Glendale

109

7111 N 99th Ave
Power Rd & US-60

Glendale
Mesa

388
200

Main St & Sycamore St

Mesa

802

th

th

0, 39, 50, 512, 570, 582, 590,
Light Rail
19, 50, Light Rail
1, 32, Light Rail
39,170, SR-51 RAPID
32, 512, SR-51 RAPID
27, 170, 582, 590, I-17
RAPID
I-10 East RAPID, ALEX
17, 560, I-10 West RAPID
27, 35, 90, 106, 122, 581,
582, I-17 RAPID

40 St & Pecos PNR
79th Ave & I-10 PNR
Metrocenter Transit Center &
PNR
Sunnyslope Transit Center &
PNR
Loop 101 & Apache Blvd1
McClintock Dr & Apache Blvd
Apache & Dorsey PNR
Joint-Use Facilities
Donnie Hale Park
Carl’s Jr.
Food City Plaza
City Lot
Shopping Center
Arrowhead Church of Joy
East Mesa Service Center
South Center Shopping Plaza
Fry’s Market
Confederate Air Force
Cactus Square
Deer Valley Community Center
First Indian Baptist Church
Greenway Village Square
Mountain View Lutheran Church
Paradise Valley Community
College
Safeway Shopping Center
Paradise Valley Transit Center

Pecos Rd & 40 St
79th Ave & I-10

Phoenix
Phoenix

562
607

off I-17 between Peoria & Dunlap Ave

Phoenix

215

3rd St & Dunlap Ave

Phoenix

45

0, 8, 12, 16, 80, 90, 106

Loop 101 & Apache Blvd
McClintock Dr & Apache Blvd
Apache Blvd & Dorsey Ln

Tempe
Tempe
Tempe

693
300
190

40, 511, Orbit, Light Rail
40, 81, Light Rail
40, Orbit, Light Rail

4th St & Jessie May Way
Warner Rd & Alma School Rd
Arizona Ave & Ray Rd
Chicago St & Arizona Ave
Thunderbird Rd & 51st Ave
75th Avenue & Rose Garden Ln
Decatur St & Power Rd
Gilbert Rd & Southern Ave
Recker Rd & McKellips Rd
Greenfield Rd & McKellips
32nd & Cactus Rd
19th Ave & Utopia
Greenway Rd & 29th Ave
35th Ave & Greenway Rd
48th St & Cheyenne St

Avondale
Chandler
Chandler
Chandler
Glendale
Glendale
Mesa
Mesa
Mesa
Mesa
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

131
104, 151
112, 541
104, 112, 540, 541
51, 138, 581
572, 573, 575, 576
30, 532, 533
531, 136
532
532
32, 106, 138
19, I-17 RAPID
27, 154
35, 154
56, 540, ALEX

32nd St & Union Hills Dr

Phoenix

N/A

32, 90, 186

7 St & Thunderbird Rd
Windrose & Tatum Blvd

Phoenix
Phoenix

N/A

Chaparral Park
Costco (Hayden Rd)
Miller Plaza
Trinity Church
Surprise Aquatic Center
Big Lots
Cobblestone Village
Costco
Grace Community Church
Target Shopping Center
Tolleson City Offices

Hayden Rd & Jackrabbit Rd
83rd Pl & Butherus Dr
Montecito Ave & Miller Rd
Hayden Rd & McCormick Pkwy
Bullard & Tierra Buena Ln
McKellips Rd & Scottsdale Rd
Warner Rd & McClintock Dr
Priest Dr & Elliot Rd
Southern Ave & Dorsey Ln
McClintock & Baseline Rd
96th Ave & Van Buren St

Scottsdale
Scottsdale
Scottsdale
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tempe
Tempe
Tempe
Tempe
Tolleson

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

7, 138
39, 44, 106, 138, SR-51
RAPID
81, 510
81, 170
50, 76, 510
81, 510
571
72, 532, Orbit
81, 540
56, 108
61, 520, Orbit
77, 81, 521
131, 560

th

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

N/A

37

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Figure 3-1: Existing and Planned Publicly Owned Park-and-Rides

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

38

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Table 3-2: Planned Publicly Owned Park-and-Ride Facilities
Park-and-Ride Facility/
Year of Implementation*

Prop 400
Funded

Location*

City

Avondale (FY 2014)

No

I-10 & Avondale Blvd

Avondale

East Buckeye
(FY 2011)

Yes

I-10 & Verrado Way

Buckeye

Arrowhead (FY 2013)1

Yes

Bell Rd & 75th Ave

Glendale

Dysart & I-10 (FY 2010)

No

Dysart & I-10

Goodyear

Country Club/US 60
(FY 2011)

Yes

Country Club Dr & US 60

Mesa

Power Rd & Loop 202
(FY 2012)

No

Power Rd & Loop 202

Mesa

Gilbert Rd & Loop 202
(FY 2012)

No

Gilbert Rd & Loop 202

Mesa

Happy Valley/I-17
(FY 2010)

Yes

Happy Valley Rd & I-17

Phoenix

Yes

Cactus Rd & Loop 101

Scottsdale

Scottsdale/101
(FY 2012)
Mustang Transit Center & PNR
(FY 2015)

Grand/Surprise
(FY 2010)

th

No

Shea Blvd & 90 St

Scottsdale

Yes

Grand Ave & Bell Rd

Surprise

Routes Served
- Papago Freeway Connector (FY
2009)
- Buckeye Express (FY 2015)
- Papago Freeway Connector (FY
2009)
- Buckeye Express (FY 2015)
- Local Routes 67, 170 & 186
- Express Routes 572, 573, 575 &
576
- Peoria Express (FY 2014)
- Papago Freeway Connector (FY
2009)
- Apache Junction Express (FY 2011)
- Superstition Springs Express (FY
2019)
- Power Road Supergrid (FY 2010)
- Red Mountain Express (FY 2009)
- Red Mountain Freeway Connector
(FY 2019)
- Route 136
- Red Mountain Express (FY 2009)
- Red Mountain Freeway Connector
(FY 2019)
- I-17 RAPID
- Black Canyon Freeway Connector
(FY 2016)
- Anthem Express (FY 2018)
- North I-17 Express (FY 2022)
- 511
- Pima Express (FY 2013)
- Routes 81, 106, 512, 511
- Pima Express (FY 2013)
- Route 571
- Surprise-Scottsdale Express
- Grand Avenue Limited (FY 2013
Expansion)
- Bell Road Supergrid (FY 2019)
- Loop 303 Express (FY 2023)

1

Facility was switched with the Peoria/Grand Park-and-Ride
* Year of implementation and location is subject to change.

3.1.3 Passenger Transfer Facilities & Major Park-and Rides
Existing Transit Centers
Transit center facilities are developed to facilitate convenient passenger transfers between
buses or other modes of transportation, where two or more routes or modes come together.
Eleven transit centers are currently operated in the region, and four additional LRT transit
centers began operations in December of 2008. The amenities and services available at each
transfer facility vary, with a majority of the facilities in the region providing services such as
public transit information kiosks, the sale of fare media, and other relevant customer services.
The transit center at both the Main St and Sycamore and the Tempe Transportation Center also
have a public toilet for use by transit riders. Table 3-3 provides specific information about each
transfer facility and major park-and-ride. Figure 3-2 illustrates the locations of existing and
planned transit center facilities.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

39

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Valley Metro RPTA provided information on a total of twelve future transit centers are identified
as shown in Table 3-4. However, in Table 3-4, the transit center at 19th/Ave and Camelback
could be amended and reallocated to other City of Phoenix projects. There is a current facility
at this location, and the allocated funding for this project may need to be redistributed. Figure 32 illustrates the future transit centers in the MAG region.
3.2

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FACILITIES

Transit operations and maintenance (O&M) facilities are essential public assets that support the
delivery of transit services. These facilities serve multiple purposes including functioning as
operating bases, vehicle service and fueling centers, employee training centers and
administrative offices. O&M facilities are often designed to meet the specialized needs of the
services that the facilities are planned to support.
3.2.1

Existing Publicly Owned Transit Only Operations and Maintenance Facilities

Dedicated publicly owned transit O&M facilities provide long term operating efficiencies through
reduced local cost of ownership. Capital development funds available through the Federal
Transit Administration’s formula and discretionary grant programs can be leveraged to fund a
significant portion of the capital costs associated with constructing dedicated transit O&M
facilities. By owning a facility funded through federal tax revenues, a local community can
reduce fixed operating costs associated with facility leasing.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

40

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Table 3-3: Passenger Facilities and Transit Centers—FY 2008
Central Station
300 N. Central Ave
Phoenix

Route / Daily Round Trips
0
3
7
8
10
12
15
Grand Avenue Limited
560
571
I-10 W RAPID
I-10 E RAPID
SR-51 RAPID
I-17 RAPID
METRO light Rail
Dial-a-Ride Service

Mon-Fri
77
64
39
34
37
25
34
4
2
3
14
15
15
25
106

Sat
30
29
28
29
13
15
16
-------115

Sun
30
29
28
29
13
15
16
-------60

Total
494
275
220
City of Phoenix
1997
2.8 acres
A 4,000 square foot building with a police office, two evaporative cooled open air colonnades totaling 500 lineal
feet, shade trees, children’s play area, information kiosk, public restrooms, drinking fountains, bicycle racks,
telephones, and a gated display area for vintage transit vehicles. Services provided at Central Station include
ticket and pass sales, transit information, lost and found, and push cart vending.
Sunnyslope Transit Center
Route / Daily Round Trips
Mon-Fri
Sat
Sun
8927 N. 3rd Street
0
34
30
30
Phoenix
8
34
29
29
12
25
15
15
16
46
29
29
80
34
15
15
90
32
17
17
106
34
29
29
Dial-a-Ride Service
Total
239
164
164
Ownership:
City of Phoenix
Completed:
1989
Project Size:
1.8 acres
Facilities:
Two cool tower shelters, eleven other shelters, shaded seatwall, driver’s restroom, extensive landscaping with
over 140 large arid region trees, bicycle racks, and 45 parking spaces
Metrocenter Mall Transit Center
Route / Daily Round Trips
Mon-Fri
Sat
Sun
9415 N. Metro Parkway
27
43
29
29
Phoenix
35
32
28
28
90
34
30
30
106
16
29
29
122
3
14
14
581
4
--582
9
--I-17 RAPID
9
--Dial-a-Ride Service
Total
176
130
130
Ownership:
Leased land
Completed:
1984
Project Size:
24,700 square feet
Facilities:
Construction upgrades include installation of 184 parking shade canopies, passenger shade structures
enhancements, ADA upgrades, landscaping, video surveillance system, new site lighting, existing water line
upgrades, and security kiosk
Ownership:
Completed:
Project Size:
Facilities:

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

41

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Table 3-3: Passenger Facilities and Transit Centers—FY 2008 (cont’d)
Paradise Valley Mall Transit Center
4623 E. Paradise Village Parkway N.
Phoenix

Ownership:
Completed:
Project Size:
Facilities:

Route / Daily Round Trips
39
44
106
138
SR-51 RAPID
Dial-a-Ride Service

Mon-Fri
34
33
34
33
2

Sat
20
20
29
15
--

Sun
20
20
29
15
--

Total
155
92
92
Leased land
1990
Approximately 1 acre
Two large cool tower shelters, four other shelters, driver’s restroom, over 50 large arid region trees, drinking
fountains, telephone, bicycle racks, and 100 shared parking spaces

Loloma Station
7084 E. 2nd Street
Scottsdale

Route / Daily Round Trips
41
66
72
Downtown Trolley
Neighborhood Trolley
Dial-a-Ride Service

Mon-Fri
64
40
67
60
43

Sat
33
39
41
60
43

Sun
29
35
37
60
43

Total
274
216
204
City of Scottsdale
1997
1.8 acres
Four shelters, trees, ticket sales, information, public restrooms, bicycle racks, bicycle lockers, clock tower and
telephones
Desert Sky Mall Transit Center
Route / Daily Round Trips
Mon-Fri
Sat
Sun
7611 W. Thomas Road
29
66
29
29
Phoenix
29 A
15
15
-17
59
29
29
41
61
30
30
41A
15
13
-131
11
--560
2
--I-10 W RAPID
13
--685
5
2
-Dial-a-Ride Service
Total
247
118
88
Ownership:
Leased land
Completed:
1989
Project Size:
900 square feet
Facilities:
One shelter, shade trees, information kiosk, and bicycle racks.
Arizona Mills Mall
Route / Daily Round Trips
Mon-Fri
Sat
Sun
5000 Arizona Mills Circle
56
51
39
34
Tempe
77
53
40
35
92
51
39
35
108
38
19
18
Dial-a-Ride Service
Total
193
137
122
Ownership:
Private
Completed:
1997
Project Size:
1,000 square feet
Facilities:
One bus bays one artist-designed bus shelter, drinking fountain, information kiosk and a bicycle rack.
Ownership:
Completed:
Project Size:
Facilities:

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

42

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Table 3-3: Passenger Facilities and Transit Centers—FY 2008 (cont’d)
Ed Pastor Transit Center
10 W. Braodway
Phoenix

Route / Daily Round Trips
0
7
8
45
52
Dial-a-Ride Service

Mon-Fri
77
39
34
47
34

Sat
29
28
29
33
21

Sun
29
28
29
33
21

Total
231
140
140
City of Phoenix
2003
4.5 acres
300’ long passenger shade canopy; pedestrian plaza; ample landscaping and seating; art features rehabilitation
of historic building that now houses transit security, customer service-ticketing, public restrooms and drinking
fountains
Chandler Fashion Center
Transit Plaza
Route / Daily Round Trips
Mon-Fri
Sat
Sun
3334 W. Frye Road
72
61
38
34
Chandler
81
24
0
0
156
36
32
31
Dial-a-Ride Service
Total
121
70
65
Ownership:
City of Chandler
Completed:
2004
Project Size:
0.5 acres
Facilities:
Two 40-foot passenger shelters, benches, bicycle rack, and drinking fountains
Tempe Transportation Center
Route / Daily Round Trips
Mon-Fri
Sat
Sun
200 E 5th Street
62
52
40
35
Tempe
65
39
39
34
66
40
39
35
72
67
42
37
76
35
14
14
92
51
39
35
536
5
--Orbit
282
260
260
METRO light rail
106
115
60
Dial-a-Ride Service
Total
677
588
510
Ownership:
City of Tempe
Completed:
2008
Project Size:
40,000 square feet
Facilities:
Thirteen bus shelters, ticket/information counter, public restrooms, retail spaces, drinking fountains, information
kiosks and bicycle racks.
Arrowhead Towne Center
Route / Daily Round Trips
Mon-Fri
Sat
Sun
Glendale
67
31
27
14
170
35
33
14
186
33
33
15
572
6
--573
6
--575
3
--576
5
--660
4
2
-Dial-a-Ride Service
Total
128
97
43
Ownership:
Private
Completed:
1994
Project Size:
1,000 square feet
Facilities:
Four bus bays used for layover purposes only on outer road, shade trees and sitting area in boarding area near
mall, lighting, easy access to mall restroom facilities and food court.
Ownership:
Completed:
Project Size:
Facilities:

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

43

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Table 3-3: Passenger Facilities and Transit Centers—FY 2008 (cont’d)
th

Montebello / 19 Ave Transit Cetner
Mon-Fri1
34
61
32
6
106

Sat2
16
28
15
-115

Sun
16
28
15
-60

239

174

119

Mon-Fri1
51
35
33
106

Sat2
30
28
33
115

Sun
30
25
15
60

239

174

119

Mon-Fri1
33
64
29
33
6
106

Sat2
15
29
15
15
15
115

Sun
15
29
15
15
15
60

Total
241
202
City of Phoenix
2008
3.2 acres
Three bus shelters, four bike racks, information kiosk, security operations center and shade trees.

144

1825 W. Montebello
Phoenix

Ownership:
Completed:
Project Size:
Facilities:

Route / Daily Round Trips
15
19
60
576
METRO light rail
Dial-a-Ride Service

Total
City of Phoenix
2008
1.8 acres
Six bus shelters, four bike racks, information kiosk and shade trees.

Central Ave / Camelback Transit Center
5 W. Camelback Road
Phoenix

Ownership:
Completed:
Project Size:
Facilities:

Route / Daily Round Trips
0
39
50
METRO light rail.
Dial-a-Ride Service

Total
City of Phoenix
2008
1.25 acres
Five bus shelters, four bike racks, information kiosk and shade trees

44th St / Washington Transit Center
4349 E. Washington Street
Phoenix

Ownership:
Completed:
Project Size:
Facilities:

Route / Daily Round Trips
1
3
13
32
44
METRO light rail
Dial-a-Ride Service

Sycamore / Main St Transit Center
1804 W. Main St
Mesa

Ownership:
Completed:
Project Size:
Facilities:
1
2

Sat2
18
40
15
34
16
18
115

Sun
-40
-34
-18
60

Total
241
202
City of Mesa
2008
3.2 acres
Three bus shelters, four bike racks, information kiosk, security operations center and shade trees.

144

Route / Daily Round Trips
30
40
45
96
104
LINK
METRO light rail
Dial-a-Ride Service

Mon-Fri1
35
42
32
44
31
46
106

Monday-Friday on bus routes is compared to Monday to Thursday
Saturday on bus routes is compared to Friday and Saturday on METRO light rail.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

on

METRO

light

44

rail.

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Figure 3-2: Existing and Planned Transfer Facilities and Major Park-and-Rides

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

45

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Table 3-4: Planned Transit Centers and Transit Center Improvements
Transit Center/
Year of Implementation

Prop 400
Funded

Location

City

Downtown Chandler
(FY 2014)

Yes

Chandler Blvd & Arizona Ave

Chandler

South Chandler Transit Center
(FY 2014)

No

Alma School Rd & Chandler
Heights Rd

Chandler

Glendale/Grand
(FY 2013)

Yes

Glendale Ave & Grand Ave

Glendale

Bell/101
(FY 2013)

Yes

Bell Rd & 83rd Ave

Main St/Sycamore

No

Main St & Sycamore St

Mesa

Mesa Downtown
(FY 2016)

Yes

Main St & Center St

Mesa

Yes

19th Ave & Camelback Rd

No

Scottsdale Rd & McDowell Rd

Scottsdale

No

Shea Blvd & 90th St

Scottsdale

19th Ave/Camelback1
(FY 2014)
Skysong Transit Center
(FY 2015)
Mustang Transit Center & PNR
(FY 2015)

South Tempe
Yes
(FY 2014)
Planned Transit Center Improvements

Guadalupe Rd & McClintock Rd

Glendale

Phoenix

Tempe

Metrocenter Upgrades
(FY 2016)

Yes

Metrocenter Pkwy (Metrocenter
Mall parking lot)

Phoenix

Central Station Upgrades
(FY 2011)

Yes

Central Ave & Van Buren St

Phoenix

Routes Served
(Existing and Planned)
- Routes 112, 156
- Arizona Avenue LINK (FY 2011)
- Santan Express (FY 2018)
- Chandler Blvd Arterial BRT (FY 2024)
- Routes TBD
- Routes 59, 70
- Grand Avenue Limited
- Glendale Urban Shuttle (GUS)
- Light Rail Extension
- Routes 67, 170, 186, 575, 576
- Arrowhead Downtown Express
- Surprise-Scottsdale Express
- 83rd/75th Avenue Supergrid (FY 2023)
- West Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009)
- Loop 303 Express (FY 2023)
- 30, 40, 45, 96, 104
- Main St Arterial BRT (FY 2009)
- Light Rail
- Routes 45, 104, 112, 120
- Main St Arterial BRT
- Main St Supergrid (FY 2009)
- Light Rail Extension
- Routes 19, 50, 50 Limited
- Light Rail
- Routes 17, 72,
- Neighborhood Connector
- Routes 81, 106, , 512
- East Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009)
- Pima Express (FY 2013)
- Routes 66, 81, 92
- East Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009)
- Routes 15 (replaces Red Line FY
2009), 27, 35, 90,106, 122,
- Express 570 (scheduled to discontinue
in FY 2013), 581,
- I-17 RAPID
- Black Canyon Fwy Connector (2016)
- North I-17 Express (2022)
- Routes 0, 3, 8, 10, 12, 15, 27
- Express 560
- Grand Ave Limited
- I-10 West RAPID
- Light Rail.

1

This transit center may have funding allocated to other City of Phoenix projects.
Source: Valley Metro RPTA

The region’s current dedicated transit and maintenance facilities support fixed route bus,
demand response (dial-a-ride) and light rail operations. There are five regional publicly owned
fixed route/demand response facilities and one light rail transit (LRT) facility (Table 3-5 and
Figure 3-3). These facilities are dedicated to serve transit operations and do not support other
fleet operations such as municipal public works fleet vehicles. The existing O&M facilities within
the region have been strategically located to provide reasonable operating efficiencies.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

46

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

3.2.2

Planned Operations and Maintenance Facilities

To support the planned expansion of the regional transit system as outlined in the RTP, two
additional dedicated O&M facilities are planned and funded. These facilities include a new
regional heavy maintenance facility and a new fixed route bus facility. Additionally, funding is
identified in the RTP for regional O&M facility upgrades at two facilities: Phoenix South Division
and RPTA Mesa (includes funding for upgrades to the fixed route and demand response
sections of the facility). However, funding for these facilities has been postponed to a year
outside the SRTP. However, the future facilities and their associated implementation years are
described in Table 3-6. Additional funding for three other facilities were originally identified in
the RTP to support regional rural bus service, vanpool service and Phoenix Dial-a-Ride. These
facilities have also been postponed to a year outside of the regional Transit Life Cycle Program
(multi-year implementation plan for transit component of the RTP). In addition, the RTP
includes a new light rail O&M facility; however, the programmed year for completion has not
been determined. Table 3-6 shows the planned O&M facilities.
Table 3-5: Existing Publicly Owned Operations and Maintenance Facilities
Facility

Contractor

Phoenix South Division
2225 W Lower Buckeye
Phoenix

Veolia

Vehicle
Capacity
250

Phoenix North Division
2010 W Desert Cove
Phoenix

Veolia

150

Fixed Route

Phoenix West Division
th
79 Avenue & Van
Buren St.
Phoenix
Tempe/Scottsdale
2050 W. Rio Salado
Parkway
Tempe
RPTA Mesa
3320 N. Greenfield Rd.
Mesa
Metro Rail
th
48 & Washington Sts.
Phoenix

First Transit

250

Fixed Route

Veolia

250

Fixed Route

Veolia

250

METRO

100

Fixed Route,
Demand
Response
Light Rail

Modes Served

Primary Functions

Fixed Route &
DASH Shuttle

Heavy Vehicle Maintenance,
LNG and Diesel Fueling,
Cleaning, and Painting.
Operator Dispatch and
Regional Radio Support.
Vehicle Maintenance, LNG
and Diesel Fueling, Vehicle
Cleaning, and Operator
Dispatch
Vehicle Maintenance, CNG,
LNG, and Diesel Fueling,
Vehicle Cleaning and
Operator Dispatch
Vehicle Maintenance, LNG
fueling, Vehicle Cleaning, and
Operator Dispatch
Vehicle Maintenance,
Fueling, Cleaning, and
Operator Dispatch
Vehicle Maintenance,
Cleaning, and Operator
Dispatch

Sources: Valley Metro FY 2009 Transit life Cycle program Update, 2009

Regional Public Transportation Authority
City of Phoenix Public Transit Department
Veolia Transportation – Phoenix

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

47

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Table 3-6: Planned Publicly Owned Operations and Maintenance Facilities
Facility

Fixed Route
Fixed Route
Fixed Route

Programmed Year
Complete
2026
2042
2029

Fixed Route

2029

Demand Response
Demand Response
Rural
Vanpool
Light Rail

2020
2034
2034
2038
TBD

Modes Served

New Heavy Maintenance – Fixed Route Bus
New Fixed Route Bus
Phoenix South Division Rehabilitation
RPTA Mesa Fixed Route
Upgrades/Rehabilitation
RPTA Dial-a-Ride
Phoenix Dial-a-Ride
Rural Routes
Vanpool Facility
Metro Light Rail Facility

Source: Valley Metro FY 2009 Transit life Cycle program Update, 2009

Figure 3-3: Existing Operations and Maintenance Facilities

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

48

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

3.3

ROADWAY ENHANCEMENTS

3.3.1

Existing and Planned HOV Lanes and Ramps

Since passage of the first countywide half-cent sales tax for transportation in 1985, MAG and
the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) have worked together on a program of
constructing HOV lanes on many of the new regional freeways. In some places, such as I-10,
the HOV lanes were built concurrently with the original general purpose lanes. On other
freeways, HOV lanes have been added after the general purpose lanes opened. As an
example, HOV lanes were retrofitted to portions of I-17 (Black Canyon Highway), the oldest
freeway in Maricopa County.
Currently, segments of I-10, I-17, SR-51, US-60 and SR-202 have one HOV lane in each
direction, located to the inside of the general traffic lanes and marked with regulatory signs and
painted diamonds. The HOV lanes are restricted to vehicles with two or more occupants during
peak hours: Monday through Friday from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM.
Motorcycles, certain alternative-fueled vehicles and a limited number of hybrid vehicles are also
permitted to use the lanes at all times. During off-peak hours, HOV lanes are open to all
vehicles. Figure 3-4 shows the existing and planned HOV facilities in addition to the arterial bus
queue jumper locations.
Figure 3-4: HOV Facilities and Queue Jumpers

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

49

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

HOV lanes are intended to encourage carpooling/vanpooling and bus ridership. Many existing
express and freeway BRT routes use the lanes, and more will do so as they come on line during
the 20-year life cycle of the RTP.
Table 3-7 shows that approximately 194 lane miles (i.e., 97 centerline miles) of HOV lanes
currently exist on regional freeways in Maricopa County. Nearly all existing HOV lane segments
currently support express bus or RAPID operations during peak periods. This table was
updated in October 2007 when the regional council approved the modifications to that planned
HOV lanes. In October 2009, the regional council will alter these approved HOV lanes. But at
the time of print, these numbers were still current.
The MAG freeway system has three local service interchanges that offer direct access to and
from the HOV lanes for carpools and buses. All are located along I-10, at:
•
•
•

79th Avenue, providing an eastbound on-ramp and a westbound off-ramp connecting the
I-10 HOV lanes with the 79th Avenue park-and-ride lot.
5th Avenue/3rd Avenue, providing a westbound on-ramp and an eastbound off-ramp
connecting the I-10 HOV lanes with these north-south links to downtown Phoenix.
3rd Street, providing an eastbound on-ramp and a westbound off-ramp between the I-10
HOV lanes and this north-south collector street serving downtown Phoenix.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

50

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Table 3-7: Existing and Planned Freeway HOV Lanes
Route
I-10

From

SR-303L
Sarival Ave
SR-101L
Chandler Blvd
I-17
Begin I-17
I-10 “stack”
SR-101L
SR-74
SR-51
I-10
Shea Blvd
US-60
I-10
Power Rd
SR-101 I-10
Grand Ave
I-17
Tatum Blvd
Princess Dr
Red Mtn Fwy
SR-202 I-10/SR-51
Pima Fwy
Gilbert Rd
Higley Rd
Val Vista Dr
Total Existing Lane Miles
Total Planned Lane Miles

To
Sarival Ave
SR-101L
Chandler Blvd
Riggs Rd
I-10 “stack”
SR-101L
SR-74
Anthem Way
Shea Blvd
SR-101L
Power Rd
Meridian Rd
Grand Ave
I-17
Tatum Blvd
Princess Dr
Red Mtn Fwy
Santan Fwy
Pima Fwy
Gilbert Rd
Higley Rd
Val Vista Dr
I-10/Pecos Rd

Approximate
Lane Miles
3
18
52
14
14
28
18
10
20
12
34
12
20
24
16
10
30
20
18
12
10
42
24
152
461

Status of HOV Lanes
1

Planned RTP Phase II
Programmed FY 2008-09
Existing
Programmed FY 2010
2
Planned RTP Phase III
Existing
Programmed FY 2008
3
Planned RTP Phase IV
Existing
Under construction
Existing
Planned RTP Phase III
Planned RTP Phase III
Planned RTP Phase IV
Planned RTP Phase II
Programmed FY 2008
Under construction
Programmed FY 2008
Existing
Programmed FY 2009
Planned RTP Phase III
Planned RTP Phase IV
Planned RTP Phase II

Sources: MAG Regional Transportation Plan (November 25, 2003), MAG RTP 2007 Update (July 2007), MAG 2007
Annual Report on the Status of the Implementation of Proposition 400 (August 2007), MAG Transportation
Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2008-2012.
1
Phase II: Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015
2
Phase III: Fiscal Years 2016 through 2020
3
Phase IV: Fiscal Years 2021 through 2026

The regional freeway network also contains direct ramps connecting one HOV lane to another
at the following system (directional, freeway-to-freeway) interchanges:
•
•

I-10/SR-51/SR-202: From I-10 east to SR-202, SR-202 to I-10 west, I-10 west to SR-51,
and SR-51 to I-10 east.
I-10/US-60: From I-10 east to US-60, and US-60 to I-10 west.

Additional infrastructure investments such as crossover lanes (similar to SR51 & Shea Blvd),
and transit slip ramps would further improve transit operations by reducing overall passenger
travel time and operating expenses.
3.3.2

Arterial Street Improvements

There are no transit priority facilities that currently exist on arterial streets in the MAG region,
with the exception of three queue jumpers that allow transit buses priority access through
signalized traffic intersections. The queue jumpers were constructed by the City of Chandler to
function in both directions of travel on Arizona Avenue at Elliot Road, Warner Road and Ray
Road.
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

51

Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure

Each queue jumper lane, signed for “Bus and Bike Only” approaching a signalized intersection,
allows buses to bypass the queue of vehicles waiting at the intersection. When a bus is stopped
at the signal, a special indication is provided to give the bus a four-second head start (“queue
jump”) before the onset of the green signal. The queue jumper may be used in conjunction with
a far side bus stop. Chandler uses a special camera configuration connected to a 16-phase
signal cabinet to detect only 40-foot buses, while preventing bicycles and autos (which have a
separate right turn lane) from triggering the queue jump. Local buses are currently taking
advantage of the travel time savings provided by the queue jumpers.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service is funded in the RTP for a limited number of arterial street
corridors. In December 2008 the first route began service from the Main Street/Sycamore light
rail station to Superstition Springs Mall, using Main Street and Power Road. To enhance
operating speeds of the Main Street BRT service, the RPTA and City of Mesa will install bus
priority systems at signalized intersections along Main Street, and at the intersections of Power
Road with Broadway Road and Southern Avenue. BRT buses will have the ability to extend or
recall the green signal phase through the use of special hardware and software connections
with the traffic signal network.
The second arterial BRT route will operate primarily along Arizona Avenue and Country Club
Drive, from the Chandler Park and Ride at Germann and Hamilton Roads to the Sycamore and
Main Street METRO station. This route is scheduled to begin operation in July 2010. Additional
arterial BRT routes are scheduled to enter service beginning in FY 2014. However, it the budget
projected shortfalls may delay the start of the Scottsdale Rd, BRT.
Related street
improvements for each arterial BRT corridor have not yet been identified, but could include
queue jumpers, transit signal priority or other bus priority treatments.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

52

Chapter 4 – Transportation Demand Management

4.0

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) involves strategies to reduce automobile travel
demand or to redistribute the demand so that it does not occur only during peak commute
periods. Its purpose is to provide cost-effective alternatives to increasing capacity. TDM can
defer and reduce the need to expand roads and parking facilities, and provide other potential
benefits such as reduced traffic accidents, energy conservation, improve air quality through
reduced auto emissions and improved mobility for non-drivers. TDM can create more
sustainable transportation through achievement of sustainability objectives such as resource
conservation, equity, environmental protection, efficient land use, and public involvement.
Valley Metro provides or administers a number of TDM services in the region, known collectively
as the Business Services or Rideshare Program. Services include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

ShareTheRide.com (an online ride-match service)
Vanpool program
Trip reduction program—employer assistance
Clean Air Campaign—promote alternatives to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution
Transit education and outreach programs
Transportation Coordinator Alliances—assistance
Alternative work schedules/telecommute program—assistance
Safe Routes to Schools
Bike Safety Education

Each of these services is described below.
4.1

SHARETHERIDE.COM

This free online service (ShareTheRide.valleymetro.org) facilitates finding others who are
interested in sharing the ride to work in a carpool or vanpool or even someone a person can
bike with to work. The service maintains a data base of persons throughout the valley and their
work trip origin/destination locations and schedules and matches them to others making similar
work trips. Valley Metro is the rideshare agency for the Phoenix metropolitan area and is
responsible for overseeing this service. This matching service can also complement individual
employer’s in-house ride-matching services and help them comply with Maricopa County’s
mandated Trip Reduction Program.
4.2

VANPOOL PROGRAM

In addition to facilitating ridesharing vanpools with vans owned by others, Valley Metro has a
vanpool program in which the agency owns vans that were procured using federal funds or fare
returns from active vanpools. The vehicles are fully insured and maintained and offer vans to
groups of 6 to 15 commuters who then share in the monthly cost of the van by paying an
equitable monthly fee that covers all van costs, including insurance and maintenance.
Additional information about this program may be found in Chapter 2.
4.3

TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM ASSISTANCE

The Maricopa County Environmental Division administers the mandated Trip Reduction
Program (TRP) for employers and schools in the county with 50 or more employees and/or
students at one site. The region’s goal is to reduce employers’ and schools’ single occupant
vehicle (SOV) trips and/or miles traveled to the work site by 10% a year for a total of five years,
and by 5% for the next three additional years, with an overall target of reaching a 60% rate of
SOV travel at each work site.
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

53

Chapter 4 – Transportation Demand Management

The RPTA is under contract with Maricopa County to provide training, technical support, and
promotional support to organizations affected by the TRP. Valley Metro’s Business Services
team provides free on-site support to help employers develop commuting solutions for
employees. Among the services provided are: training including a series of standard
workshops, special topical workshops, one-on-one assistance with conducting surveys, writing
TRP plans, developing and implementing trip reduction strategies, rideshare matching, and a
full service vanpool program.
4.4

CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN

Originally launched in 1987 by the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, the goal of the Clean Air
Campaign is to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion. The Clean Air Campaign comprises
a variety of sponsors who have gathered together in a public/private partnership and hold
events to promote use of alternative modes. Each year Valley Metro hosts an event honoring
individuals and organizations for their significant efforts in reducing air pollution and traffic
congestion and presents each of them with a Clean Air Campaign Award.
4.5

TRANSIT EDUCATION PROGRAM

Valley Metro presents transit education programs to a variety of audiences including senior
citizens, persons with disabilities, refugee organizations, social services, and other related
organizations. Valley Metro also has a school outreach program that includes classroom
presentations tailored to the specific audience. The program offers students and teachers an
opportunity to learn about transportation choices and how to safely travel on the Valley Metro
transit system. The transit educators provide various fun and educational materials for students
and a teacher’s packet full of useful transit trips. Field trip coordinators are available to assist in
planning group trips and itineraries and to provide other useful information. A “Free Group Field
Trip All Day Pass” (Free Pass) is available to eligible preschool through 8th grade groups.
4.6

TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR ALLIANCES—ASSISTANCE

As part of the regional rideshare program, Valley Metro provides assistance to transportation
coordinator alliances (TCA). TCA’s are organized by geographic areas and offer transportation
coordinators the opportunity to share ideas and problem solve in a supportive group
environment.
4.7

ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES/TELECOMMUTE PROGRAM—ASSISTANCE

Alternative work schedules usually consist of a compressed work week where employees have
the option to work more hours per day but fewer days within a one or two-week period.
Telecommuting is a flexible work option allowing employees to work at a location other than
their main office (most commonly their own home). Valley Metro provides assistance, resource
materials, marketing, and sample information to employers who want to implement or expand
telecommuting or compressed work weeks programs. These programs benefit both employer
and employee through:
•

Employer Primary Benefits
- Continuity of operations planning
- Help to achieve trip reduction goals
- Increase worker productivity
- Decrease absenteeism

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

- Improve employee morale
- Decrease overhead and operating costs
- Provide a great retention and recruitment tool

54

Chapter 4 – Transportation Demand Management

•

4.8

Employee Primary Benefits
- Decrease stress
- Eliminate or reduce commute time and expenses
- Increase job satisfaction
- Decrease work related expenses
- Provide better work/life balance
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS

Working in partnership with local and tribal governments, school districts, healthcare and
corporate/community organizations, the Statewide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Support
Center Project will provide integrated programs to develop safe routes for children to walk and
bike to school and instill in students lifelong skills regarding healthy and active life choices,
traffic safety and travel injury prevention. This two (2) year program will:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.9

Provide Arizona curriculum-aligned program support to 17-21 pilot schools statewide,
including transportation, safety, GIS-based mapping, health, and air quality curriculums.
Support the roll-out of Maricopa County-wide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Support
Center, previously funded by a federal Transportation Enhancements.
Add new curriculums and modify existing ones to fit the target audiences.
Teach and promote use of student-friendly web-based program support and reporting
tools through statewide and e-learning workshops and/or webinars.
Provide a statewide purchasing program and central outreach for partnerships with
health, business and community organizations and to secure underwriting for student
incentives & safety equipment for crossing guards.
Utilize the same nonprofit organization to provide any services outside Maricopa County
to ensure the enabling legislative mandates are followed.
Train schools to match parents with “school-pools” to improve school traffic flow and air
quality during peak-hour drive times.
BIKE SAFETY EDUCATION

Valley Metro is requesting continued funding for our Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety
Education Program. Valley Metro has benefitted from the current Transportation Enhancement
(TE) funding awarded in 2007 – Round XV (15). This grant has allowed us to leverage limited
local staffing and time; Valley Metro RPTA has provided additional staff and helped promote
and incentivize safer walking and cycling practices. Before schools end classes for the summer
break and before students return in late summer, funding from the current grant will allow us to
modify public service announcements and air them across 3/4 of Arizona and through our local
access channels. Updating the Valley Metro website capabilities continues, with links to local
efforts and contacts. MAG and Valley Metro RPTA are also working to develop an interactive
bike trip planner that will benefit the entire Phoenix Metropolitan region.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

55

Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements

5.0

REGIONALLY FUNDED SHORT RANGE TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS

Regionally funded transit operations and capital improvements through Fiscal year 2026 are
identified in the FY 2009 Transit Life Cycle Program Update (TLCP). The TLCP identifies basic
operational characteristics for all regionally funded transit service (operations) improvements as
well as programmed funding and implementation schedules for all Public Transportation Fund
(PTF) funded capital improvements. A summary of the improvements programmed for
implementation between FY 2009/2010 and 2014/15 is provided in this chapter. In addition,
technical considerations for route adjustments, phased service implementation strategies and
schedule/service coordination alternatives are provided for each operation and capital
improvement programmed for implementation during this same time period.
5.1

REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANIST OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS

5.1.1

Funded Regional Transit Operating Improvements FY 2010 through FY 2015

Planned regionally funded transit operations improvements between FY 2009/2010 and FY
2014/2015 include new bus routes and the provision of regional funding for existing locally
funded bus routes. Table 5-1 lists the 3 bus routes and one light rail extension that will be
impacted by regional transit funding between FY 2009/2010 and FY 2014/2015. Several
planned routes in the RTP have been delayed due to fiscal constraints. Budget availability has
been impacted by lower than anticipated sales tax revenues which have impacted routes region
wide.
5.2

COMPARISON OF FUNDED OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS AND
IMPLEMENTATION (FY 2010)

One local bus route (Table 5-2) was programmed in the FY 2009 TLCP Update to begin
regional funding in FY 2010. This route, Gilbert Rd, was initiated but only on a partial level. One
express route that was implemented in July 2008 at service level below the level identified in the
TLCP. Full implementation this route, the Papago Freeway Connector (Goodyear to Downtown
Express), is being delayed until a park-and-ride facility is available in Buckeye.
5.3

CONSIDERATIONS FOR REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANSIT OPERATING
IMPROVEMENTS (FY 2010 through FY 2015)

Regionally funded transit operating improvements identified in the FY 2009 TLCP Update for FY
2009/2010 through FY 2014/2015 will create opportunities to optimize existing locally and
regionally funded transit services. In some cases new regionally funded bus routes will result in
service duplications providing an opportunity to re-prioritize local transit investments for
enhanced transit connectivity or expanding local services to new areas. In other cases
considerations must be made for providing adequate capital infrastructure, such as park-andride facilities, necessary to support new regionally funded transit services. Table 5-3 provides a
summary of initial planning considerations for each route planned for regional funding through
FY 2014/2015.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

56

Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements

Table 5-1: Regionally Funded Transit Operations Investments FY 2010 and FY 2015
Initial
Fiscal
Year of
Regional
Funding

Route

Supergrid
Gilbert Road
Power Road
Express/BRT
Arizona Avenue Arterial BRT
Light Rail
Northwest Extension (Phase I)

Weekday

Weekend

Peak
Headway
(min)

Base
Headway
(min)

Service
Span
(hr)

No.
of
Daily
Trips

Base
Headway
(min)

Service
Span
(hr)

No.
of
Daily
Trips

2010
2014

30
30

30
30

17
17

68
68

30
30

17
16

68
64

2011

Two-way

---

---

40

---

---

---

2014

10

20

20

180

20

20

120

Source: 2009 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update

Table 5-2: Comparison of Funded Operating Improvements and Implementation (FY 2010)

Route

Route
Number

Implementation
Date

TLCP Funded
Daily
Weekday/Week
end Trips

Implemented
Daily
Weekday/Weeke
nd Trips

Implementation

Papago Frwy
Connector
(renamed Goodyear /
Downtown)

562

July 2008

8/0

6/0

Partial

Gilbert Road

136

July 2009

68 / 68 Gilbert
68 / 68 Mesa

56 / 43 Gilbert
47 / 24 Mesa

Partial

Source: 2009 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update and July 2009 Valley Metro Bus Book

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

57

Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements

Table 5-3: Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Operations Investments
FY 2010 through FY 2015
Year
(FY)
2010

Existing
Route
Yes

136 - Gilbert Rd

2010

Yes

McDowell Rd to
Riggs/Val Vista

184 - Power Rd

2014

No

Thomas Rd to
Rittenhouse Rd

Route
156 - Chandler
Blvd

Description
Desert Foothills
Pkwy to ASU
Polytechnic

Route Pattern
Variance
No

Extend south to
Riggs Rd and Val
Vista (Basha HS).
Extend north to
McDowell Rd.
Map does not
include Boeing
extension.
New Route

Service Variance
Increase peak
headway to 15
minutes.

Considerations
Will increase in peak headway
be desired on entire length of
route? Phoenix portion is locally
funded.

Increased service
span and
increased midday headways in
Mesa.

Service levels to the Boeing
facility in Mesa should be
coordinated with Boeing.

New Route

Future Connection to Red Mtn
PNR

LINK Arizona Ave /
Country Club Dr
(Dedicated BRT)

2011

No

Ocotillo and
Alma School to
Sycamore and
Main LRT
Station

New Route

40 total trips each
weekday

LRT Northwest
Extension Phase I

2014

Yes

19th Ave and
Bethany Home
to Main St and
Sycamore

Extend LRT north
on 19th Ave to
Dunlap Ave

None

Source: HDR | S.R. Beard & Associates, 2008

PNR = Park-and-Ride

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Consider route deviations to
Mesa Community College Red
Mention Campus, Superstition
Springs PNR and Airport
Terminal (coordinate with ASU
for possible end-of-line PNR).
Duplication with existing local
routes serving Power Rd: (30)
University, (40) Main/Apache,
(45) Broadway, (61) Southern,
(108) Elliot, (440) LINK Main St
and (533) Mesa Express.
Consider extending all Route 30
trips east to Multi-Generation
Center and moving Route 533
east end-of-line to Superstition
Springs PNR. Consider
terminating Route 40 at Power
Rd and Baywood. Route 40
savings could potentially be
applied towards adding some
limited stop trips to Route 184
providing a quick connection
between LINK Main St BRT and
the ASU Polytechnic campus.
Connection to future South
Chandler Transit Center.
Consider coordinating service
schedule/number of daily trips
with Arizona Ave/Country Club
Dr Supergrid route programmed
for 2012. Consider providing
service to the Chandler
tumbleweed PNR.
Consider terminating some trips
of the I-17 express / RAPID
routes at Dunlap & 19th Ave LRT
Station.

TC = Transit Center

58

Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements

It is recommended that the service planning process facilitated by the RPTA for the
implementation of new transit services and capital facilities be launched at the completion of
each year’s Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) update. This timeline provides an opportunity
to utilize the transit service and capital considerations identified in the annual SRTP update to
initiate the planning process and improve the integration of local and regional transit planning
efforts. Participation in the service planning process is voluntary for RPTA member agencies;
however, it is recommended that member agencies directly affected by service or capital
considerations contribute to the process.
The SRTP provides an opportunity for local jurisdictions and agencies to request potential
amendments to project definitions within the TLCP. Potential amendments may include
adjusting a planned route pattern or reassigning regional capital funds from one capital project
(such as a PNR) to another. For example, the planned location of a PNR facility may be less
beneficial than an alternative site. The considerations identified in the SRTP will be carried
forward to the TLCP process for potential inclusion in the official annual TLCP update.
However, all potential project adjustments are subject to approval through the regionally
adopted TLCP policies. The route considerations at the end of the SRTP provide a guideline for
future route adjustments.
5.3.1

Transit Ridership Projections for New Regionally Funded Routes

Basic ridership projections have been developed for the regionally funded routes planned for
implementation through FY 2014/2015. Ridership projections are based on a five year maturity
rate, in which routes are expected to have a level of performance (boardings/mile) consistent
with service previously operated in the corridor or adjacent corridors by the fifth year of
operation. Ridership projections are calculated based upon an assumption of maintaining the
same performance level (boardings/mile) for pre-existing revenue miles. New or additional
revenue miles are assumed to be half as productive as the existing service in year one with a
target of achieving base year performance (boardings/mile) for the entire route in year five. In
cases that a route doesn’t already exist in the corridor, a system-wide performance factor
(boardings/mile) is assumed as the route’s performance goal but is adjusted by a factor linked to
population and employment.
The ridership adjustment factor is based on a density scale that compares the transit service
area population and employment density to the service area population and employment density
of the planned bus route. The service area is determined by a .25 mile buffer around the
existing transit system network for local and express bus service independently. Supergrid
routes are compared to existing local service area densities and Express routes are compared
to existing express (excluding RAPID) service area densities. One point is assigned to every
percentage point difference from the system average. Scores below zero indicate routes that
are likely to perform below system averages for ridership. Density scores above zero indicate
routes that are likely to perform above system averages for ridership. Table 5-4 provides an
example of the density score for the Power Rd Supergrid Route.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

59

Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements

Table 5-4: Example of the Density Score for Power Road Supergrid Route
Projected 2010
Population
Density

Projected 2010
Employment
Density

Density
Score

4,003
2,411
-66

2,232
1,428
-56

NA
NA
-122

Density Scale Regional Local Bus
Service Area
Power Rd Supergrid
Overall Density Score (% difference)
Source: HDR | S.R. Beard & Associates, 2007

Using the methodology described above, ridership projections for each new regionally funded
route through FY 2014/2015 is provided in Table 5-5. The ridership projections are developed
using basic assumptions of existing transit performance, projected population density, and
projected employment density. The projections are provided as estimates only; actual ridership
may vary.
5.3.2

Regionally Funded Service Adjustments and Preliminary Thresholds

The TLCP provides flexibility to implement regionally funded transit services below the full
funding level. This flexibility provides an opportunity to implement new routes at a service level
consistent with expected passenger demand enabling new routes to build ridership and
potentially be more likely to perform better in a mandatory service efficiency and effectiveness
audit.
To be consistent with the RPTA adopted efficiency and effectiveness performance measure
targets, it is recommended that a measureable process be employed to determine when a
phased implementation route (defined as a route that was implemented with an initial service
level lower than the TLCP programmed service level for the same route) is eligible for regionally
funded service level adjustments based on performance. It is assumed that service levels on a
regionally funded route could be increased at the affected jurisdiction’s expense if the route
does not yet reach the performance measure for additional regional funding.
Table 5-5: Ridership Estimates for New Regionally Funded Routes Through FY 2014/2015

Route
Supergrid
Gilbert Road
Power Road
Express/BRT
Arizona Avenue Arterial BRT

Year 1
Projected
Annual
Ridership

Year 3
Projected
Annual
Ridership

Year 5
Projected
Annual
Ridership

227,436
155,410

330,221
233,115

433,005
310,820

61,936

92,904

123,873

Source: 2009 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update PAR Documents

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

60

Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements

A methodology that utilizes RPTA adopted efficiency and effectiveness performance measure
targets and regional service level standards are recommended. For supergrid bus routes, the
adopted efficiency and effectiveness performance measure target for passenger boardings per
revenue mile (2.1) and the regional local bus standard for passenger load ratio (125%) are
recommended for considering increased service levels. The passenger load ratio is a measure
of the passenger count at a route’s max load point divided by the number of seats provided in
the vehicle. This standard has been documented in previous editions of the regional Short
Range Transit Plan. Both of these variables provide a reasonable measure of passenger
demand. The proposed application of the measures would require a supergrid route to meet or
exceed 2.1 passenger boardings per revenue mile or have three or more consecutively
sequenced trips that regularly (at least 3 of 5 weekdays for the same trip for a period of 6
consecutive or non-consecutive months within a 12 month period) exceed the regional local bus
passenger load standard of 125%. If supergrid route overcrowding (exceeding 125% passenger
load) occurs on less than three consecutive trips, schedule adjustments or vehicle assignment
should be considered before implementing additional service.
For express/arterial BRT routes, the adopted efficiency and effectiveness performance measure
target for passenger boardings per revenue mile (2.1) and the regional express bus standard for
passenger load ratio (100%) are recommended for considering increased service levels. The
proposed application of the measures would require an express/arterial BRT route to meet or
exceed 2.1 passenger boardings per revenue mile or have three or more consecutively
sequenced trips that regularly (at least 3 of 5 weekdays for the same trip for a period of 6
consecutive or non-consecutive months within a 12 month period) exceed the regional express
bus passenger load standard of 100%. If express/arterial BRT route overcrowding (exceeding
100% passenger load) occurs on less than three consecutive trips, schedule or vehicle
assignment adjustments should be considered before implementing additional service.
5.4

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

5.4.1

Funded Regional Transit Facility Improvements FY 2010 through FY 2015

Planned regionally funded transit capital improvements between FY 2009/2010 and FY
2014/2015 include transit centers (5), park-and-ride facilities (5), and bus stops. Several
planned transit centers, park-and-rides and maintenance and operations facilities have been
postponed because of projected revenues shortfalls from the regional sales tax. However, the
remaining capital facilities investments include expansion and rehabilitation of some existing
facilities as well as new facilities. Table 5-6 summarizes the 10 regionally funded transit
facilities programmed for funding between FY 2009/2010 and FY 2014/2015.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

61

Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements

Table 5-6: Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2010 and FY 2015
Facility

Happy Valley Rd & I-17 Park-and-Ride
Grand/Surprise Park-and-Ride
Central Station Transit Center Rehabilitation /
Expansion
Country Club Dr & US 60 (Superstition Freeway)
Park-and-Ride
South Tempe Transit Center
East Buckeye Park-and-Ride
Scottsdale Rd & Loop 101 Park-and-Ride
South Chandler Transit Center
Downtown Chandler Transit Center
19th Ave & Camelback Rd Transit Center

Pre-Design
(FY)

Design
(FY)

Land
(FY)

Construction/
Open (FY)

2009
2009
2009

2009
2009
2010

2009
2009
NA

2010
2010

2009

2009

2009

2009
2009
2010
2012
2012
2012

2010
2010
2010
2013
2013
2013

2010
2009
2010
2013
2013
2013

2010
2010
2011
2011
2011
2014
2014
2014

Source: 2009 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update

In addition to major passenger and operations maintenance facilities the TLCP identifies
regional funds for bus stop construction and upgrade throughout the region. An application and
project prioritization process has been established by the RPTA to administer regional capital
funds programmed for bus stop improvements. Table 5-7 provides an annual summary of the
level of regional funding programmed for bus stop improvements between FY 2009/20010 and
FY 2014/2015 based on the FY 2009 TLCP Update.
Table 5-7: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2010 through FY 2015
TLCP Fiscal Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Total

TLCP Programmed Funding
$287,895
$300,562
$313,787
$323,201
$332,897
$342,884
$7,362,289

1

1

Funding subject to change based on annual budget
Source: 2009 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update

5.4.2

Comparison of Funded Transit Facility Investments and Implementation (FY 2010)

Several of the facilities programmed in the FY 2009 TLCP Update for implementation in FY
2010 are projects that were delayed to FY 2010 as the facilities were not constructed in the
original programmed year. Five regionally funded transit facility improvements are programmed
for opening in FY 2010 (including facilities delayed from FY 2009). Based upon current project
status, completion of all five facilities programmed for completion in FY 2009 will not be open for
service until at least FY 2011. See Table 5-8 for the current project status of each regionally
funded transit facility through FY 2015.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

62

Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements

5.4.3

Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2010
through FY 2015

Regionally funded transit capital improvements support both locally and regionally funded transit
operations. Additionally some transit facility investments in the TLCP have multiple funding
sources themselves. These could include monies from Federal grants and/or local funding from
jurisdictions, as well as regional funding.
The capital improvements identified in the FY 2009 TLCP Update for FY 2009/2010 through FY
2014/2015 will create opportunities to optimize transit operations and route connections. Table
5-8 provides a summary of initial planning considerations for each regionally funded capital
improvement planned through FY 2014/2015. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 will fund several park-and-ride and facility improvements. The Act will provide funding for
many “shovel ready” projects throughout the region. However, most of the considerations
identified are related to providing adequate capacity for vehicles at transit facilities.
5.4.4

Funded Regional Transit Expansion Vehicles: FY 2010 through FY 2015

To support fixed route service expansion through FY 2015, the TLCP identifies the acquisition of
125 vehicles between FY 2010 and 2015. The TLCP fleet expansion plan provides for the
acquisition of vehicles in the fiscal year prior to service need. For existing routes that are
programmed to be supported by PTF funding, the existing fleet already assigned to the route is
considered in the fleet expansion plan. For example, the Arizona Ave Dedicated BRT route is
programmed to receive nine additional vehicles for service expansion in FY 2011. Table 5-9
provides a summary of the regionally funded fleet expansion plans for fixed route, paratransit,
rural connectors and vanpools. A standard 12-year transit bus fleet replacement cycle is
assumed. The detailed (by route) fixed route fleet expansion requirements for new and
expanded services programmed to be implemented between FY 2010 and 2015 are
summarized in Table 5-10.
Table 5-8: Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments
FY 2010 through FY 2015

Facility
Happy Valley Rd &
I-17 Park-and-Ride

Grand/Surprise
Park-and-Ride

Programmed
Opening
Year (FY)1
2010

2010

Current
Project
Status2
Preferred site selected
and design is in
progress

General
Location3
Happy
Valley Rd &
I-17

Existing
Facility
No

Site selection and predesign process in
progress

Bell Rd &
Grand Ave

No

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Considerations
$5.5 million in ARRA 4 funds allocated.
Consider inclusion of bus stop space for
potential connecting routes: I-17
RAPID, Route 35, Deer Run Circulator,
Black Canyon Freeway Connector (FY
2016), Anthem Express (FY 2018) and
North I-17 Express (FY 2022).
Consider inclusion of bus stop space for
potential connecting routes: Route 571,
Route 572, Grand Ave Limited RTP
Expansion (2013), Bell Rd Supergrid
(2019) and Loop 303 Express (FY
2023).

63

Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements

Facility
Central Station
Rehabilitation /
Expansion

Programmed
Opening
Year (FY)1
2010

Current
Project
Status2
Project has not been
formally initiated

General
Location3
Central Ave
& Van
Buren St

Existing
Facility
Yes

Considerations
$5.0 million in ARRA funds allocated
Consider inclusion of bus stop space for
potential connecting routes: DASH,
Route 0, Route 3, Route 8, Route 10,
Route 12, Route 15, Route 27, Route
560, Route 562, Route 571, Route 573,
Route 575, Grand Ave Limited, I-10
West RAPID and Light Rail.
Consider inclusion of bus stop space for
potential connecting routes: Route 112
(AZ Ave/Country Club Supergrid),
Route 156 (Chandler Blvd Supergrid),
Arizona Ave Dedicated BRT (2011),
San Tan Express (2018) and Chandler
Blvd Dedicated BRT (2024). Facility
may also be served by Route 104 until
route extends south to Ocotillo Rd in
2014.
$9.4 million in ARRA funds allocated
Consider inclusion of bus stop space for
potential connecting routes: Apache
Junction Express (FY 2011) and
Superstitions Springs Express (FY
2019). Route 61, Route 531 Gilbert
Express, Route 112 (AZ Ave/Country
Club Supergrid), Arizona Ave Dedicated
BRT (2011), and Superstition Freeway
Connector (FY 2012) may also be
considered to serve the facility
depending upon the site selected.
$5.0 million in ARRA funds allocated

Downtown
Chandler Transit
Center

2010

Site selection process
in progress

Chandler
Blvd
&
Arizona Ave

No

Country Club Dr &
US 60
(Superstition
Freeway) Parkand-Ride

2010

Site selection process
in progress

Country
Club Dr &
US 60

No

Scottsdale Rd &
Loop 101 Parkand-Ride

2011

Site selection and predesign process in
progress

No

East Buckeye
Park-and-Ride

2011

Preferred site selected

South Tempe
Transit Center

2014

19th Ave &
Camelback Rd
Transit Center

2014

Site selection and predesign process in
progress
Project has not been
formally initiated

Scottsdale
Rd & Loop
101 (Pima
Frwy)
I-10 &
Verado
Way
5th St and
College Ave
19th Ave &
Camelback
Rd

No

3rd Ave and
Camelback Park
and Ride Facility
Montebello/19th
Ave / Camelback,
Central Ave/
Camelback

2010

Central
Ave/3rd Ave
to 7th Ave
Montebello/
19thAve
19th
Ave
/Camelback
Central/Cam
elback

No

Location already has PNR facility and
PNR facility is located with .75 miles of
proposed site near 19th Ave &
Montebello.
Consider
applying
programmed
funds
to
another
passenger facility. The City of Phoenix
is the benefactor of the programmed
regional funds for this facility.
1.4 Million ARRA4 funds allocated

Yes

$2.5 million ARRA4 funds allocated

2010

Site Selection and predesign process in
progress
Site selection and predesign process in
progress for shade
canopy Installation

No

No

Consider inclusion of bus stop space for
potential connecting routes: 562 and
Buckeye Express (2015).
None.
Facility has already been
designed and constructed.

Source: 2009 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update PAR Documents
1
Year of opening subject to change
2
Current status as of November 2009
3
Location is subject to change based on site availability and other variables
4
ARRA stands for The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

64

Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements

Table 5-9: Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles
Fiscal Year
For Acquisition
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Total

Fixed Route
19
0
5
6
5
35

Paratransit
0
0
0
0
0
0

Rural
0
0
4
0
0
4

Vanpool
25
25
25
25
25
125

Source: RPTA, 2009

Table 5-10: Planned Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles FY 2010 through FY 2015

Route
Arizona Ave Dedicated BRT
Power Rd
City of Phoenix General Local Buses Expansion
Total

FY Service
Implemented
2011
2013
---

Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles
(Fiscal Year Acquired)
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13
FY14
9
6
10
5
5
19
0
5
6
5

Source: RPTA, 2008

5.4.5

Comparison of Funded Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles and Implementation
(FY 2010)

Fixed route fleet requirements for regionally funded service expansion are calculated based on
the availability of existing fleet, federally required fleet ratios and a mathematical formula that
considers route length, peak headway and an average operating speed. Variances in these
variables result in differences between estimated fleet requirements and actual fleet
requirements. Fixed route fleet acquired for service expansion in FY 2009 and FY 2010 was
more than the estimated quantity of vehicles identified in the TLCP. However, additional fleet
had been acquired because expected of service extensions, but they were postponed. The
additionally acquired fleet may be used to replace older vehicles, pending conservation with and
approval by FTA. A benefit of acquiring more vehicles is they might assist in replacing older
vehicles with more efficient ones. Table 5-11 provides a comparison of planned regional fixed
route transit expansion vehicles and actual vehicles acquired for service expansion in FY 2009
and FY 2010.
Table 5-11: Comparison of Planned Regional Fixed Route Transit Expansion Vehicles and
Vehicles Acquired (FY 2009 and FY 2010)

Route
Main Street BRT
Gilbert Road1
Power Road1
Total

Fixed Route Expansion Vehicles
TLCP Fleet Plan
Actual Vehicles Acquired
40' Bus
60' Bus
Total
40' Bus
60' Bus
Total
0
7
7
0
10
10
2
0
2
2
0
2
6
0
6
8
10
6
8
7
15
8
10
18

1

Fleet was acquired for expected service expansions, but declining revenues have resulted in delaying expansions. Fleet acquired
may be used to replace older fleet that is eligible for retirement pending discussions with and approval by FTA.
Source: RPTA, 2009

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

65

Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements

5.5

REGIONAL PLANNING STUDIES AND RELATED PROJECTS

Specialized planning studies and related projects may be necessary to support short range and
long range transit planning processes to help identify potential regional transit opportunities,
constraints, strategies and refinements.
RPTA is currently working on the Regional
Comprehensive Arterial BRT Study to define the region’s arterial BRT program, which is funded
by regional Public Transportation Fund (PTF) revenues; however investments in additional
studies or planning related projects may be beneficial. Other regional studies and planning
related projects that are recommended for consideration by the region include the following:
•

•

•

Service Thresholds for Regionally Funded Services and Facilities: Section 5.1.5 of this
document provides recommendation for determining when a regionally funded bus route
has reached a performance level that warrants improved service frequency. The
development of thresholds for other service types (arterial BRT, LRT, etc.) and other
service parameters as well as facilities (park-and-rides, transit centers, etc.) may help in
implementing an efficient regional transit system that increases the likelihood of positive
results from the mandatory efficiency and effectiveness audits.
Regional Transit Safety and Security Implementation Plan: The purpose of this study is
to prioritize the implementation of strategic measures identified in the Regional Safety
and Security Plan (November 2006). The 2006 plan identifies potential transit safety
and security vulnerabilities but does not provide a prioritized schedule to implement the
mitigating measures identified.
Comprehensive Regional Bus Stop Inventory: A comprehensive bus stop inventory of
the entire region was last completed in 2002. Regular updates of the bus stop inventory
have not consistently included the entire region’s stock of bus stop locations/facilities. A
comprehensive regional bus stop inventory will provide more accurate information for
regional and local operations and facility planning, and more reliable passenger
information.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

66

Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding

6.0

REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDING

Regional public transit services are provided in the region through multiple funding sources
including regional sales tax collections, passenger fares, state sources and federal grants.
Local funding sources including municipal general fund allocations and local sales tax
collections also contribute significantly towards fulfilling some of the elements of the regional
transit system. While local contributions serve as an important component of the regional transit
system, this chapter is limited to the revenue and expenditure estimates associated with the
regional transit service and capital investments identified in the Transit Life Cycle Program
(TLCP).
6.1

REGIONAL FIXED ROUTE BUS & PARATRANSIT FUNDING

6.1.1

Revenues

Regional transit revenues in the TLCP allocated for fixed route bus and paratransit investments
can be classified into five general revenue categories. The revenue categories include:
•
•
•

•
•

Public Transportation Fund (PTF) – Regional transportation sales tax approved by
voters as part of Proposition 400 in November 2004.
Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) – Funds generated from the regional transportation
sales tax provided for regional transit planning, operations and related activities.
Federal Allocations – Federal allocations are awarded to the region through multiple
federal programs including formula distributions that are based on the region’s
population, on-going transit investments and transit system performance and
discretionary investments that are awarded on a limited basis. Included in the federal
allocations are funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (AARA). It
was an economic stimulus package passed by Congress in February of 2009. The
region received around $39 million dollars.
Passenger Fares – Revenues generated through assessed user fees.
Interest – Includes interest earned on the annual operating reserve and year-end cash
balance.

The TLCP is updated on an annual basis to determine reasonable estimates for future year
revenues. Table 6-1 identifies the projected revenues summarized by the five general
categories described above for FY 2009/10 through FY 2014/15. Figure 6-1 illustrates the total
revenues by category for the same time period. The revenue estimates represent the most
recent updated information for the region based on the FY 2009 TLCP Update.
Table 6-1: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues (in $millions)
Revenue Category

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY2012

FY2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Total

Public Transportation Fund

$66.30

$69.64

$74.87

$80.83

$87.18

$93.71

$472.53

Regional Area Road Fund

$4.36

$4.45

$4.56

$4.69

$4.83

$4.98

$27.87

Federal Allocations

$85.45

$48.02

$47.78

$48.55

$52.31

$52.98

$335.09

Passenger Fares

$14.34

$14.28

$14.96

$15.19

$15.97

$16.33

$91.07

$0.05

$0.19

$0.08

$0.22

$0.12

$0.51

$1.17

$170.50

$136.58

$142.24

$149.49

$160.41

$168.51

$927.73

Interest
Total

Source: 2009 RPTA TLCP Update

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

67

Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding

Figure 6-1: Estimated RPTA Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues FY 2010 - FY 2015

Source: 2009 RPTA TLCP Update

6.1.2

Expenditures

Regional transit expenditures in the TLCP allocated for fixed route bus and paratransit
investments can be classified into seven general expenditure categories. The expenditure
categories include:
•

•
•
•
•

Regional Bus Operations – Regional bus operations includes PTF funded fixed route
bus service (Supergrid, Express, Arterial BRT, Rural Connectors), operations
contingency, annual contributions to the operating reserve and regional safety and
security.
Paratransit Operations – Includes regional funding for ADA reimbursements and
allocations for Sun Cities Area Transit (SCAT).
RPTA Planning & Administration – Expenditures associated with on-going regional
transit planning and agency administration.
Regional Services – Expenditures for regional transit customer service, Bus Book
production and other regional based programs.
Transit Vehicles – Includes regional purchases for expansion and replacement of
fixed route bus, paratransit, and vanpool vehicles. Other elements in this category
include vehicle contingency and vehicle upgrades (Intelligent Transportation
System/Vehicle Management Systems [ITS/VMS], fareboxes, etc.).

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

68

Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding

•
•

Dedicated BRT ROW – Regional investments in purchasing and upgrading right-ofway for arterial bus rapid transit operations
Capital Facilities – Regional capital investments for passenger facilities (park-andrides, transit centers and bus stops), operations and maintenance facilities, and
capital contingency.

The TLCP is updated on an annual basis to determine reasonable estimates for future year
expenditures. Table 6-2 identifies the projected expenditures summarized by the seven general
categories described above for FY 2009/10 through FY 2014/15. Figure 6-2 illustrates the total
expenditures by category for the same time period. The expenditure estimates represent the
most recent updated information for the region based on the FY 2009 TLCP Update.
Table 6-2: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (in $millions)
Revenue Category

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY2012

$47.06

$51.56

$54.68

Paratransit Operations

$8.38

$8.79

RPTA Planning & Administration

$5.54

$5.66

Regional Services

$8.16

$8.32

Regional Bus Operations

FY2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Total

$56.13

$59.68

$61.68

$330.79

$9.43

$10.17

$10.95

$11.76

$59.48

$5.80

$5.97

$6.15

$6.33

$35.45

$8.53

$8.78

$9.05

$9.32

$52.16

Transit Vehicles

$77.12

$82.90

$59.70

$45.84

$61.94

$44.96

$372.46

Arterial BRT ROW

$12.35

$12.89

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$25.24

Capital Facilities

$34.23

$5.19

$0.57

$5.03

$8.25

$3.33

$56.60

$192.65

$175.10

$138.50

$131.72

$155.82

$137.38

$932.18

Total
Source: 2009 RPTA TLCP Update

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

69

Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding

Figure 6-2: Estimated RPTA Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (in $millions)
Arterial BRT ROW
Capital Facilities
3%
6%

Regional Bus
Operations
35%

Transit Vehicles
40%

Regional Services
6%

Paratransit
Operations
6%

RPTA
Planning
Administration
4%
Source: 2009 RPTA TLCP Update

6.2

REGIONAL HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT CAPITAL FUNDING

6.2.1

Revenues

High capacity transit (HCT) includes modes such as light rail transit, modern streetcar, or bus
rapid transit normally traveling in exclusive or semi-exclusive lanes. Regional transit revenues
in the TLCP allocated for high capacity transit capital investments can be classified into four
general revenue categories. While a regional service, HCT operations costs are funded from
local jurisdictions served by an HCT route. The HCT capital program revenue categories
include:
•
•
•
•

Public Transportation Fund (PTF) – Regional transportation sales tax approved by
voters in November 2004.
Federal Allocations – Federal allocations awarded to the region through multiple federal
programs.
Local – Local municipal contributions.
Interest – Includes interest earned on year-end cash balance.

Table 6-3 identifies the projected revenues summarized by the four HCT capital revenue
categories for FY 2009/10 through FY 2014/15. Figure 6-3 illustrates the total revenues by
category for the same time period. The revenue estimates represent the most recent updated
information for the region based on the FY 2009 TLCP Update.
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

70

Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding

Table 6-3: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Revenues (in $millions)
Revenue Category
Public Transportation Fund (PTF)
Federal Allocations
Local
Interest
Total

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY2012

FY2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

$50.53

$53.05

$57.02

$0.95

$7.60

$25.30

$83.68

$63.09

$0.00
$135.16

$61.58

$66.41

$71.38

$359.97

$48.16

$78.81

$89.42

$250.24

$42.42

$13.00

$14.52

$16.49

$233.20

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$123.73

$124.74

$122.74

$159.73

$177.29

$843.41

Source: 2009 RPTA TLCP Update

Figure 6-3: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Revenues FY 2010 - FY 2015
Interest
0%
Local
28%
Public Transportation
Fund (PTF)
43%
Federal Allocations
30%

Source: 2009 RPTA TLCP Update

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

71

Total

Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding

6.2.2

Expenditures

Regional high capacity transit (HCT) capital expenditures in the TLCP can be classified into four
general revenue categories. The expenditure categories include:
•
•
•
•

HCT Guideway Extensions – Includes right-of-way acquisition, construction, materials,
vehicles and other elements associated with developing a new operable HCT corridor or
corridor extension.
Reimbursements – Issuances to local jurisdictions to reimburse local investments for
regional expenditures associated with the construction of the Central Phoenix East
Valley Light Rail Starter Line.
Studies & Design Criteria – Ongoing studies and design work.
Systemwide Support Infrastructure – Regional expenditures required to develop and
maintain an operable HCT system.

Table 6-4 identifies the projected expenditures summarized by the four HCT capital expenditure
categories for FY 2009/10 through FY 2014/15. Figure 6-4 illustrates the total expenditures by
category for the same time period. The expenditure estimates represent the most recent
updated information for the region based on the FY 2009 TLCP Update.
Table 6-4: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Expenditures (in $millions)
Expenditure Category

FY 2010

FY 2011

HCT Guideway Extensions

$98.55

$91.26

Reimbursements

FY2012

FY2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Total

$88.09

$104.44

$174.26

$161.77

$718.37

$61.05

$53.20

$11.34

$19.62

$36.57

$7.24

$189.02

Studies & Design Criteria

$0.78

$0.78

$0.79

$0.81

$0.00

$0.00

$3.16

Systemwide Support

$0.59

$0.36

$0.39

$0.00

$0.53

$0.00

$1.87

$160.97

$145.60

$100.61

$124.86

$211.36

$169.01

$912.42

Infrastructure*
Total
Source: 2009 RPTA TLCP Update

* While no expenses are attributed to this category in FY 2009/10 through FY 2014/15, expenses are programmed in
future years

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

72

Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding

Figure 6-4: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Expenditures FY 2010 - FY 2015
Systemwide Support
Infrastructure
0%
Studies & Design
Criteria
0%

Reimbursements
21%

High Capacity
Guideway Extensions
79%

Source: 2009 RPTA TLCP Update

6.3

REGIONAL TRANSIT FINANCING

Based on the estimated sources of revenues and programmed expenditures through FY
2014/14 there are several years that expenditures exceed revenues. Many regional transit
service and capital investments are dependent upon the ability to maintain adequate cash flow
to be implemented as identified in this plan. The TLCP includes financing through the issuance
of bonds to maintain positive cash flows. RPTA issued $100.075 million bonds (par amount) in
FY 2009 for the transit program, of which approximately $47.65 million was for the bus program.
Par amount refers to the face value of the bonds. Based on the FY 2009 TLCP Update, one
additional bond issuances of approximately $54 million is planned for FY 2011 to provide a
positive annual cash flow for the bus program through the period identified in this plan. The HCT
program has a separate financing strategy to address cash flow for these projects.
Changes in the level of estimated revenues or expenditures could either positively or negatively
affect the programmed implementation schedules and scope of the projects identified herein.
Through the annual TLCP update process, estimates for short and long range revenues and
expenditures are reviewed to determine the financial fitness of the regional transit program.
Appropriate finance strategies and other actions are considered annually to maintain a
reasonable and sustainable finance plan.
Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

73

Chapter 7 – Cost Savings Through Service Reductions Recommendations

7.0

COST SAVINGS THROUGH SERVICE
REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

As a part of the Proposition 400 transportation tax referendum, the Arizona Legislature required
that a performance audit be performed on the transit service paid for by public transportation
funds. To provide a basis for measuring the performance of the regional transit system, Valley
Metro RPTA authorized a Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study (SEES) to develop
uniform standard for collecting data and measuring performance, and to develop performance
targets for the region. The Board approved this study in April 2007. Using the structure provided
by the SEES, two Annual Transit Performance Reports (FY 2008 and FY 2009) have been
prepared and accepted by the Board since that time.
7.1

COST SAVINGS THROUGH SERVICE REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1.1

Cost Savings

The results of the Transit Performance Reports need to be evaluated with respect to whether or
not transit investments are considered worthwhile. This report makes that evaluation and
recommends actions that are in keeping with good stewardship of Public Transportation Funds
provided through the county-wide sales tax for transportation.
This exercise has taken on added significance as Valley Metro RPTA is faced with revenue
shortfalls caused by the downturn in the economy. To that end, RPTA staff has identified
potential cost savings through transit service adjustments. The cost savings could assist the
agency in addressing the projected county-wide sales tax revenue shortfall which is the result of
a decline in both the regional and national economies.
Following the recommendations of the SEES helps ensure that potential service adjustments
adhere to best planning practices, and will not adversely impact the operational efficiency of the
regional transit system. To that end, planning staff have evaluated currently operating routes
using the performance measures identified in the Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
(SEES) which have been adopted by the RPTA Board. Use of the measures has allowed staff to
identify underperforming routes. The evaluation was conducted for all Valley Metro Routes, but
recommendations for service changes or terminations has been limited to just those routes
funded or partially funded by RPTA. The results of this analysis are discussed below. See
Appendix D for additional details.
7.2

LOCAL ROUTE IDENTIFICATION

The first step in the process of identifying the least productive routes was to list all of the local
routes in the system with their boardings per mile performance. This was done for weekday,
Saturday, and Sunday data. These lists were then ranked from high to low according to
boardings per mile to identify the routes that fell into the bottom quartile of system performance.
Once these rankings were determined, further analysis was focused on those routes that are
funded or partially funded by RPTA. The results of this process for Weekday Local Routes are
shown in Table 1. RPTA funded routes that appear in the bottom quartile of the weekday
system include:
•
•
•
•

Route 81—Hayden/McClintock
LINK
Route 156—Chandler Boulevard
Grand Avenue Limited

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

74

Chapter 7 – Cost Savings Through Service Reductions Recommendations

The performance of local routes on both Saturday and Sunday were identified using the same
process. Table 2 presents the results for Saturday service and Table 3 presents the results for
Sunday service. Routes funded or partially funded by RPTA that fall in the bottom quartile for
Saturday service include:
•
•
•

LINK
Route 136—Gilbert Road
Route 156—Chandler Boulevard

RPTA-funded routes in the bottom quartile for Sunday service include:
•
•
•
7.2.1

LINK
Route 96—Dobson
Route 156—Chandler Boulevard
Local Route Recommendations

It appears that no drastic action is needed with these underperforming local routes. Many are
new routes or routes recently upgraded to regional Supergrid route levels of service which take
some time to mature. The SEES recommends that new routes be given two years to mature
before being considered for alteration or termination under the performance measures.
Therefore it is simply recommended that these local routes continue to be monitored over time.
It is further recommended that for each of the routes identified for continued monitoring, Valley
Metro consider what marketing resources are available that could enhance these routes’
visibility with the traveling public.
7.3

EXPRESS/RAPID ROUTE IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY

A similar process was used for express and RAPID routes, although boardings per trip was
used as a more appropriate measure of productivity for commuter oriented service. The
following routes fall into the bottom quartile of this type of service:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7.3.1

Route 511—Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express
Route 520—Tempe Express
Route 536—Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU Express
Route 570—Glendale Express
Route 572—Surprise/Scottsdale Express
Route 576—Northwest Valley/Montebello Express
Route 582—North Mountain Express
Express/RAPID Route Analysis

As with the local routes, once the lowest performing quartile of express routes was identified, a
closer look was taken at the average daily boardings. Boardings per trip were used instead of
boardings per mile, as a better indicator of performance for peak-hour commuter-oriented
service. Unlike the local routes, in some cases the express route data were then broken down
into boardings per individual trip to gain a better understanding of what is happening with these
routes.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

75

Chapter 7 – Cost Savings Through Service Reductions Recommendations

7.3.2

Express/RAPID Route Recommendations

In developing recommendations, planning staff gave special consideration to routes that have
operated for less than two years. This is in line with the Service Effectiveness and Efficiency
Study (SEES) recommendation that a new route be given two years to mature before being
considered for alteration or termination under the performance measures. The maturation
recommendation recognizes that new routes take time to build ridership, especially in areas
where little or no transit service previously existed.
Based on the previously discussed service performance evaluation the planning staff
recommend that the following routes be considered for termination:
•
•
•

Route 520—Tempe Express
Route 570—Glendale Express
Route 582—North Mountain Express

Elimination of these three routes could result in an annual cost saving of $717,000.
Despite the two-year maturation recommendation of the SEES, another recommendation
resulting from this analysis is to consider the elimination of the four reverse commute trips on
Route 572 (Surprise/Scottsdale Express). The amount of cost savings that would be realized
may be minimal since dead heading would increase with the loss of the revenue reverse
commute trips. To minimize the resulting dead heading, interlining of this route with Rt. 511
should be explored.
Planning staff also recommends identifying what marketing resources are available for the
promotion of new express routes to increase their visibility to the traveling public. Several of
these routes include features that have not previously existed in the region (i.e. bi-directional
service, suburb to suburb commuting, arterial BRT, etc.). Educating the public on these new
travel options could go a long way to increasing the use of these services by the travelling
public.
Table 7-1: Estimated Annual Savings from Service Reductions
Route

Route 520—Tempe Express

Contractor

Veolia Tempe

Rate
per Mile

Daily
Miles

Annual
Miles

Annual
Cost

Farebox
Revenue

$5.82

156.3

39,856.5

$232,000

$23,000

Estimated
Annual
Net Savings
$209,000

Route 570—Glendale Express

First Transit

$8.21

74.1

18,895.5

$155,000

$16,000

$139,000

Route 582—N Mountain
Express

Veolia Phoenix

$11.05

145.5

37,102.5

$410,000

$41,000

$369,000
$717,000

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

76

Chapter 8 – Recommendations

8.0

RECOMMENDATIONS

In response to declining sales tax revenues resulting from the regional and national economic
downturn in 2008 and 2009, Valley Metro RPTA undertook an evaluation of the Transit Life
Cycle Program (TLCP). This evaluation sought to bring the operating and capital programs
back in balance with anticipated revenues. The result of this evaluation was a series of
operating and capital recommendations that affect projects identified in the previous Short
Range Transit Program (SRTP). Affected investments and their recommended phasing are
detailed below.
8.1

OPERATIONAL INVESTMENTS

This postponement of bus routes sought to bring the output of future service back in balance
with anticipated revenues. This table includes information from the TCLP 2009 update
(approved by the Valley Metro Board of Directors in June 2009 as a “placeholder,” pending
additional work by the TLCP working group to be completed in December 2009). The
implementation years change with every new update of the TLCP.
Table 8-1: TLCP Operations Adjustments

Route
Supergrid
Gilbert Rd
Power Rd
Baseline Rd
Arizona Ave/Country Club Dr
University Dr
Camelback Rd
Elliot Rd
Broadway Rd
Alma School Rd
McDowell Rd/Mckellips Rd
Dysart Rd
Hayden/McClintock
Peoria/Shea
Arterial BRT
Arizona Ave BRT
Scottsdale/Rural BRT
South Central Express
Limited Express
Grand Ave Limited
Freeway Express Bus
Apache Junction Express
Superstition Freeway Connector
Buckeye Express
Pima Express
Peoria Express

Original
Implementation
Year

Revised
Implementation
Year

2010
2010
2011
2012
2012
2013
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2015
2015

2010
2014
2016
2016
2016
2020
2020
2020
2026
2026
2029
2029
2029

2010
2014
2015

2010
2026
2029

2013

2020

2011
2012
2013
2013
2014

2016
2016
2020
2020
2026

Source: HDR | S.R. Beard & Associates, 2009

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

77

Chapter 8 – Recommendations

8.2

CAPITAL INVESTMENTS

The projected revenue shortfall also impacts the capital program. To balance annual cash flow,
passenger capital facility projects will be delayed up to 18 years in chronological order of
previously programmed implementation year. However, some facilities have not been delayed
as result of a pre-existing intergovernmental agreement to fund the project or the project is
supported with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds. A standard 12-year
transit bus fleet replacement cycle is assumed.
8.2.1

Park and Rides
Table 8-2: TLCP Capital Facilities Adjustments

Facility
Price/202
Grand/Surprise
1
Happy Valley PNR (ARRA)
1
Country Club Dr/US 60 PNR (ARRA)
East Buckye
Glendale/Grand
Peoria/Grand
Camelback/101

Original
Implementation
Year

Revised
Implementation
Year

2009
2009
2010
2010
2011
2013
2013
2015

2009
2009
2010
2000
2011
2020
2020
2029

1

ARRA stands for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Source: HDR | S.R. Beard & Associates, 2009

8.2.2

Transit Centers

It is recommended that the implementation of the South Tempe, downtown Chandler, and South
Chandler Transit Centers (TC) be delayed to 2014. However, the transit center at 19th/Ave and
Camelback and 44th St/Cactus could be amended and reallocated to two other City of Phoenix
projects. There are current facilities at these locations, and the allocated funding for these
projects may need to be redistributed. Even though the transit center at 44th St and Cactus has
moved beyond the scope of this Short Range Transit Plan, it is important to be aware of
because up until this year, it was within the allotted time frame. The other remaining TC
originally identified to be implemented within the current SRTP horizon is delayed beyond the
current planning horizon year.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

78

Chapter 8 – Recommendations

Table 8-3: TLCP Transit Center Capital Facilities Adjustments

Transit Center
South Tempe 4-bay
th
2
19 Ave Camelback 6-bay
Downtown Chandler 4-bay
South Chandler(formerly Chandler Mall TC)
Mesa Downtown (6-bay)
Metrocenter TC Rehab
1
Central Station Rehab (ARRA)
Glendale/Grand 4-bay
Peoria 4-bay
2
44/Cactus 6-bay
Scottsdale 4-bay

Original
Implementation
Year

Revised
Implementation
Year

2009
2009
2009
2010
2011
2011
2013
2013
2015
2015
2015

2014
2014
2014
2014
2016
2016
2010
2020
2029
2029
2029

1

ARRA stands for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Source: HDR | S.R. Beard & Associates, 2009
2
These transit centers may have funding allocated to other City of Phoenix projects.

8.2.3

Operations and Maintenance Facilities

It is recommended that all O&M facilities originally identified to be implemented within the SRTP
planning horizon be delayed.
Table 8-4: TLCP Operations and Maintenance Facilities Adjustments

Facility
Phoenix Heavy
Rehab-Mesa
Rehab Phoenix-South

Original
Implementation
Year

Revised
Implementation
Year

2014
2015
2015

2026
2029
2029

Source: HDR | S.R. Beard & Associates, 2009

8.2.4

BRT Right-of-Way Improvements

Only those right of way improvements associated with the Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive
BRT are recommended for implementation within the SRTP planning horizon.
Table 8-5: TLCP Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Right of Way Adjustments

Right of Way
1
Arizona Ave BRT (ARRA)
Scottsdale/Rural BRT

Original
Implementation
Year

Revised
Implementation
Year

2011
2014

2011
2026

1

ARRA stands for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Source: HDR | S.R. Beard & Associates, 2009

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

79

Chapter 8 – Recommendations

8.3

PERFORMANCE AUDIT

As a part of the Proposition 400 transportation tax referendum, the Arizona Legislature required
that a performance audit be performed on the transit service paid for by public transportation
funds. To provide a basis for measuring the performance of the regional transit system, the
Valley Metro RPTA authorized a Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study (SEES) to develop
uniform standard for collecting data and measuring performance, and to develop performance
targets for the region. The Board approved this study in April 2007. Using the structure provided
by the SEES, two Annual Transit Performance Reports (FY 2008 and FY 2009) have been
prepared and accepted by the Board since that time.
To take the process one step further, the results of the Transit Performance Reports (TPR) were
evaluated with respect to whether or not transit investments are considered worthwhile. An
evaluation of Valley Metro transit routes was undertaken to investigate their performance. The
routes examined are paid for by regional PTF funds, however, several routes also include local
funding for portions of routes. This exercise took on added significance as RPTA and its
operating partners are faced with revenue shortfalls caused by the downturn in the economy. To
that end, RPTA staff attempted to identify potential cost savings through transit service
adjustments. The cost savings could assist the agency in addressing the projected county-wide
sales tax revenue shortfall which is the result of a decline in both the regional and national
economies.
Planning staff followed the recommendations of the SEES to ensure that potential service
adjustments adhered to best planning practices, and would not adversely impact the operational
efficiency of the regional transit system. Using the performance measures allowed staff to
identify underperforming routes. While the evaluation was conducted for all Valley Metro
Routes, recommendations for service changes have been limited to those routes funded or
partially funded by RPTA that fall within the bottom quartile of all service within that category.
The recommendations of the Cost Savings/Service Adjustments Report (which is included in
Appendix D) are summarized below.
8.4

LOCAL ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the analysis, it was determined that no action was needed in regards to the identified
underperforming local routes. Many are new routes or routes recently upgraded to regional
Supergrid route levels of service which take some time to mature. The SEES recommends that
new routes be given two years to mature before being considered for alteration or termination
under the performance measures. Therefore it is simply recommended that these local routes
continue to be monitored over time. It is further recommended that for each of the routes
identified for continued monitoring, Valley Metro consider what marketing resources are
available that could enhance these routes’ visibility with the traveling public.
8.5

EXPRESS/RAPID ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS

In developing recommendations, planning staff gave special consideration to routes that have
operated for less than two years. This is in line with the Service Effectiveness and Efficiency
Study (SEES) recommendation that a new route be given two years to mature before being
considered for alteration or termination under the performance measures. The maturation
recommendation recognizes that new routes take time to build ridership, especially in areas
where little or no transit service previously existed.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

80

Chapter 8 – Recommendations

Based on the service performance evaluation the planning staff recommend that the following
routes be considered for termination:
•
•
•

Route 520—Tempe Express
Route 570—Glendale Express
Route 582—North Mountain Express

Despite the two-year maturation recommendation of the SEES, another recommendation
resulting from this analysis is to consider the elimination of the four reverse commute trips on
Route 572 (Surprise/Scottsdale Express). The amount of cost savings that would be realized
may be minimal since dead heading would increase with the loss of the revenue reverse
commute trips. To minimize the resulting dead heading, interlining of this route with Rt. 511
should be explored.
Planning staff also recommends identifying what marketing resources are available for the
promotion of new express routes to increase their visibility to the traveling public. Several of
these routes include features that have not previously existed in the region (i.e. bi-directional
service, suburb to suburb commuting, arterial BRT, etc.). Educating the public on these new
travel options could go a long way to increasing the use of these services by the travelling
public.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

81

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

82

APPENDIX A

Table A-1: FY 2008 Regional Transit System Data

FY 2008 System Data

System
Fixed Route
Dial-a-Ride
Vanpool
Total System

Total
Boardings
60,153,649
903,868
1,478,148
62,535,665

Total
Wheelchair
Boardings
1,277,206
192,507
n/a
1,469,713

Total
Vehicle
Miles
32,755,717
9,031,870
5,603,997
47,391,584

Total
Revenue
Miles
27,830,645
7,533,814
5,603,997
40,968,457

System
Fixed Route
Dial-a-Ride
Vanpool
Total System

Total
Revenue
Hours
1,988,847
540,907
115,100
2,644,854

Operating
Cost
$183,809,441
$31,936,477
$2,499,972
$2,499,972

Capital Cost
n/a
n/a
n/a

Total Cost
n/a
n/a
n/a

System
Fixed Route
Dial-a-Ride
Vanpool
Total System

Total
Passenger
Revenues
$41,091,397
$1,292,611
$2,781,438
$45,165,446

Vehicle
Accidents
102
n/a
n/a
102

Farebox
Recovery
Ratio
22.36%
4.05%
111.00%
20.69%

System
Fixed Route
Dial-a-Ride
Vanpool
Total System

Boardings
Per Revenue
Hour
30.24
1.67
12.84
23.64

Operating
Cost per
Boarding
$3.06
$35.33
$1.69
$3.49

Operating
Cost per
Revenue
Hour
$92.42
$59.04
$21.72
$82.52

Percent OnTime
Performance
92.07%
89.90%
n/a

Boardings per
Revenue Mile
2.16
0.26
.26
1.52

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Total
Vehicle
Hours
2,536,553
661,158
115,100
3,312,810

Operating
Cost per
Revenue
Mile
$6.60
$4.24
$0.45
$5.33

83

APPENDIX A

Table A-2: Operations and Performance Data for FY 2004 through FY 2008
Revenue Miles

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

Fixed Route

27,081,486

26,914,322

27,504,359

Dial-a-Ride

8,052,626

7,623,118

7,865,367

Vanpool
Total System

FY 2007
28,766,992
n/a

FY 2008

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

32,755,717

13.87%

20.95%

7,533,814

n/a

-6.44%

3,568,488

3,900,162

4,717,293

5,253,578

5,603,997

6.67%

57.04%

38,702,600

38,437,602

40,087,019

34,020,570

45,893,528

34.90%

18.58%

Revenue Hours

System

FY 2004

Fixed Route

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

1,904,520

1,829,438

1,973,510

1,966,138

1,988,847

551,554

546,078

532,887

532,031

540,907

1.67%

-1.93%

89,212

97,504

117,932

131,612

115,100

-12.55%

29.02%

2,545,286

2,473,020

2,624,329

2,629,781

2,644,854

0.57%

3.91%

Dial-a-Ride
Vanpool
Total System

FY 2005

Percent Change

1.16%

4.43%

On-Time Performance

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

Fixed Route

91.0%

92.5%

90.7%

91.5%

92.1%

0.66%

1.21%

Dial-a-Ride

92.8%

93.5%

94.9%

95.4%

89.9%

-5.77%

-3.13%

Vanpool

-----

Total System

91.9%

----93.0%

-----

-----

92.8%

93.5%

-----

-----

91.0%

-----2.62%

-0.98%

Total Boardings

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

Fixed Route

54,380,135

56,981,696

Dial-a-Ride

1,034,742

1,063,600

938,879

975,156

1,025,136

1,270,416

56,390,033

59,070,432

61,064,617

60,525,851

Vanpool
Total System

58,855,322

FY 2007
58,184,595

FY 2008

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

60,153,649

3.38%

10.62%

922,790

903,868

-2.05%

-12.65%

1,418,466

1,478,148

4.21%

51.58%

62,535,665

3.32%

10.90%

Wheelchair Boardings

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

198,388

218,400

224,671

Dial-a-Ride

172,896

185,275

186,603

n/a

n/a

-----

-----

304

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

Total System

371,284

----403,675

411,578

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

251,738

277,206

Percent Change

Fixed Route

Vanpool

251,738

FY 2008

Percent Change

277,206

10.12%

10.12%

84

39.73%

-25.34%

APPENDIX A

Boardings Per Revenue Mile

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

2.01

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

Fixed Route

2.00

2.10

2.14

1.84

Dial-a-Ride

0.13

0.14

0.12

Vanpool

0.27

0.26

0.27

0.27

0.26

-3.70%

-3.70%

Total System

1.46

1.54

1.54

1.77

1.36

-23.16%

-6.85%

n/a

0.12

-8.46%

-8.00%

n/a

-7.69%

Boardings Per Revenue Hour

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

Fixed Route

28.59

30.99

29.99

29.59

30.25

2.23%

5.81%

Dial-a-Ride

1.88

1.95

1.76

1.73

1.67

-3.47%

-11.17%

Vanpool

10.93

10.51

10.77

10.78

12.84

19.11%

17.47%

Total System

22.15

23.88

23.27

23.02

23.64

2.69%

6.73%

Safety Incidents Per 100,000 Boardings

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

Fixed Route

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Dial-a-Ride

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Vanpool

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

FY 2008
0.17

Total System

0.17

Security Incidents Per 100,000 Boardings

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

Fixed Route

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Dial-a-Ride

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Vanpool

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Total System

FY 2008
0.14

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.14

Operating Expenses

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

Fixed Route

$130,742,263

$126,860,874

$134,522,499

$152,662,789

$183,809,441

20.40%

40.59%

Dial-a-Ride

$24,333,403

$27,961,152

$26,805,994

$29,505,513

$31,936,477

8.24%

31.25%

$1,940,161

$1,702,112

$2,158,282

$2,305,045

$2,499,972

8.46%

28.85%

$157,015,827

$156,524,138

$163,486,775

$184,473,347

$218,245,890

18.31%

39.00%

Vanpool
Total System

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

85

APPENDIX A

Total Passenger Revenue

System

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

Fixed Route

$29,996,266

$32,841,189

$31,899,646

$37,000,313

$41,091,397

11.06%

Dial-a-Ride

$1,263,195

$1,244,350

$1,307,546

$1,302,579

$1,292,611

-0.77%

2.33%

Vanpool

$1,606,046

$1,791,450

$2,328,632

$2,650,738

$2,781,438

4.93%

73.19%

$32,865,507

$35,876,989

$35,535,824

$40,953,630

$45,165,446

10.28%

37.43%

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

Total System

36.99%

Farebox Recovery Ratio

System
Fixed Route
Dial-a-Ride

FY 2004
23.62%

26.92%

24.59%

24.24%

22.36%

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

-7.76%

-5.33%

5.19%

4.45%

4.88%

4.41%

4.05%

-8.16%

-21.97%

Vanpool

82.78%

105.25%

107.89%

115.00%

111.26%

-3.25%

34.40%

Total System

27.98%

27.58%

28.11%

22.20%

0.21%

-99.07%

-99.26%

Operating Cost Per Boarding

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

Fixed Route

$2.45

$2.26

$2.32

$2.62

$3.06

16.79%

24.90%

Dial-a-Ride

$23.52

$26.29

$28.55

$31.97

$35.33

10.51%

50.21%

Vanpool

$1.99

$1.66

$1.70

$1.63

$1.69

3.68%

-15.08%

Total System

$2.78

$2.65

$2.68

$3.05

$3.49

14.43%

25.54%

Net Operating Cost Per Boarding

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

Fixed Route

$1.87

$1.65

$1.75

$1.99

$2.37

Dial-a-Ride

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

19.10%

26.74%

$22.30

$25.12

$27.16

$30.56

$33.90

10.93%

52.02%

Vanpool

$0.34

-$0.09

-$0.13

-$0.24

-$0.19

-20.83%

-155.88%

Total System

$2.20

$2.04

$2.10

$2.37

$2.77

16.88%

25.91%

Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

Fixed Route

$4.90

$4.74

$4.96

$5.31

$5.61

5.65%

14.49%

Dial-a-Ride

$3.02

$3.67

$3.41

n/a

$4.24

n/a

40.40%

Vanpool

$0.54

$0.44

$0.46

$0.44

$0.45

2.27%

-16.67%

Total System

$4.06

$4.07

$4.09

$5.40

$3.49

-35.37%

-14.04%

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

86

APPENDIX A

Fare Revenue Per Boarding

System

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

Percent Change

Percent Change

FY 2007-2008

FY 2004-2008

Fixed Route

$0.58

$0.61

$0.57

$0.64

$0.68

6.25%

17.24%

Dial-a-Ride

$1.22

$1.17

$1.39

$1.41

$1.43

1.42%

17.21%

Vanpool

$1.65

$1.75

$1.83

$1.87

$1.88

0.53%

13.94%

Total System

$0.58

$0.61

$0.58

$0.68

$0.72

5.88%

24.14%

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

87

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

88

APPENDIX B

Table B-1: Operations and Performance Data for FY 1995 through FY 2007
Boardings

Fiscal Year

Fixed Route

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Dial-a-Ride

% Change
From
Previous
Year

Vanpool

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Total

1995

34,979,080

1996

35,028,406

0.14%

970,983

22.13%

35,999,389

0.63%

1997

35,141,668

0.32%

959,400

-1.19%

36,101,068

0.28%

1998

36,377,705

3.52%

938,659

-2.16%

37,316,364

3.37%

1999

37,366,572

2.72%

919,886

-2.00%

38,286,458

2.60%

2000

37,496,804

0.35%

968,120

5.24%

38,464,924

0.47%

2001

40,250,847

7.34%

1,023,700

5.74%

2002

45,277,131

12.49%

1,023,885

0.02%

917,070

2003

51,510,536

13.77%

1,029,378

0.54%

941,682

2004

54,362,135

5.54%

1,034,742

0.52%

975,156

2005

57,881,656

6.47%

1,063,600

2.79%

2006

58,855,322

1.68%

938,879

-11.73%

2007

58,184,595

-1.14%

922,790

2008

55,475,543

-4.66%

903,868

% Change 1995 - 2008

795,019

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

58.60%

35,774,099

41,274,547

7.30%

47,218,086

14.40%

2.68%

53,481,596

13.27%

3.55%

56,372,033

5.40%

1,025,138

5.13%

59,970,394

6.38%

1,270,416

23.93%

61,064,617

1.82%

-1.71%

1,418,466

11.65%

60,525,851

-0.88%

-2.05%

1,478,148

4.21%

57,857,559

-4.41%

13.69%

n/a

61.73%

Revenue Miles

Fiscal Year

Fixed Route

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Dial-a-Ride

% Change
From
Previous
Year

Vanpool

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Total

1995

13,664,992

1996

14,331,831

4.88%

5,775,167

10.78%

20,106,998

6.51%

1997

14,740,186

2.85%

5,507,665

-4.63%

20,247,851

0.70%

1998

16,198,218

9.89%

5,699,540

3.48%

21,897,758

8.15%

1999

16,226,425

0.17%

5,581,523

-2.07%

21,807,948

-0.41%

2000

18,039,016

11.17%

6,100,013

9.29%

24,139,029

10.69%

2001

20,633,013

14.38%

6,852,797

12.34%

27,485,810

13.86%

2002

24,106,344

16.83%

7,034,138

2.65%

3,364,956

34,505,438

25.54%

2003

26,357,307

9.34%

7,185,339

2.15%

3,639,578

8.16%

37,182,224

7.76%

2004

27,081,486

2.75%

8,052,626

12.07%

3,568,488

-1.95%

38,702,600

4.09%

2005

26,914,322

-0.62%

7,623,118

-5.33%

3,900,162

9.29%

38,437,602

-0.68%

2006

27,371,759

1.70%

7,865,367

3.18%

4,717,293

20.95%

39,954,419

3.95%

2007

28,766,992

5.10%

7,699,590

-2.11%

5,253,578

11.37%

41,720,160

4.42%

2008

32,755,717

13.87%

7,533,814

-2.15%

5,603,997

6.67%

45,893,528

10.00%

% Change 1995 - 2008

5,213,388

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

139.71%

18,878,380

44.51%

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

n/a

143.10%

89

APPENDIX B

Boardings Per Revenue Mile

Fiscal Year

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Fixed Route

Dial-a-Ride

% Change
From
Previous
Year

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Vanpool

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Total

1995

2.6

1996

2.4

-7.69%

0.2

0.00%

1.8

-5.26%

1997

2.4

0.00%

0.2

0.00%

1.8

0.00%

1998

2.2

-8.33%

0.2

0.00%

1.7

-5.56%

1999

2.3

4.55%

0.2

0.00%

1.7

0.00%

2000

2.1

-8.70%

0.2

0.00%

1.6

-5.88%

2001

1.9

-9.52%

0.1

-50.00%

1.5

-6.25%

2002

1.9

0.00%

0.1

0.00%

0.27

1.5

0.00%

2003

2.0

5.26%

0.1

0.00%

0.26

-3.70%

1.6

6.67%

2004

2.0

0.00%

0.1

0.00%

0.27

3.85%

1.6

0.00%

2005

2.1

5.00%

0.1

0.00%

0.26

-3.70%

1.7

6.25%

2006

2.1

0.00%

0.1

0.00%

0.27

3.85%

1.5

-10.59%

2007

2.0

-4.76%

0.1

0.00%

0.27

0.00%

1.8

16.45%

2008

2.1

7.00%

0.1

0.00%

0.26

-3.70%

1.4

-23.16%

% Change 1995 - 2008

0.2

-17.69%

1.9

-50.00%

n/a

-28.42%

Operating Costs

Fiscal Year

Fixed Route

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Dial-a-Ride

% Change
From
Previous
Year

Vanpool

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Total

1995
1996
1997
1998

$61,579,208

1999

$65,686,899

6.67%

$13,523,191

14.49%

2000

$74,743,277

13.79%

$15,606,135

2001

$96,207,450

28.72%

$18,359,527

2002

$109,819,956

14.15%

$21,517,640

17.20%

$1,976,964

2003

$124,341,810

13.22%

$23,496,877

9.20%

$1,873,665

2004

$130,742,263

5.15%

$24,333,403

3.56%

2005

$126,860,874

-2.97%

$27,961,152

14.91%

2006

$134,522,499

6.04%

$26,805,994

2007

$152,662,789

13.48%

2008

$183,809,441

20.40%

% Change 1998 - 2008

$11,811,483

198.49%

$73,390,691
$79,210,090

7.93%

15.40%

$90,349,412

14.06%

17.64%

$114,566,977

26.80%

$133,314,560

16.36%

-5.23%

$149,712,352

12.30%

$1,940,161

3.55%

$157,015,827

4.88%

$1,702,112

-12.27%

$156,524,138

-0.31%

-4.13%

$2,158,282

26.80%

$163,486,775

4.45%

$29,505,513

10.07%

$2,305,045

6.80%

$184,473,347

12.84%

$31,936,477

8.24%

$2,499,972

8.46%

$218,245,890

18.31%

170.38%

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

n/a

197.38%

90

APPENDIX B

Operating Costs Per
Boarding

Fiscal Year

Fixed Route

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Dial-a-Ride

% Change
From
Previous
Year

Vanpool

1995

$1.46

1996

$1.51

3.42%

1997

$1.67

10.60%

1998

$1.69

1.20%

1999

$1.76

4.14%

$14.13

2000

$1.99

13.07%

$16.12

14.08%

2001

$2.39

20.10%

$17.93

11.23%

2002

$2.44

2.09%

$21.02

17.23%

$2.16

2003

$2.45

0.41%

$22.83

8.61%

$1.99

2004

$2.45

0.00%

$23.52

3.02%

2005

$2.22

-9.39%

$26.29

11.78%

2006

$2.32

4.50%

$28.55

8.60%

2007

$2.62

12.93%

$31.97

11.98%

2008

$3.06

16.79%

$35.33

10.51%

% Change 1995 - 2008

109.59%

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Total

$2.82
-7.87%

$2.85

1.06%

$1.99

0.00%

$2.78

-2.46%

$1.66

-16.58%

$2.65

-4.68%

$1.70

2.41%

$2.68

1.13%

$1.63

-4.12%

$3.05

13.81%

$1.69

3.68%

$3.49

14.43%

n/a

n/a

n/a

Total Revenue

Fiscal Year

Fixed Route

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Dial-a-Ride

% Change
From
Previous
Year

Vanpool

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Total

1995
1996
1997
1998

$19,188,643

1999

$19,759,452

2.97%

$1,107,043

8.07%

$20,866,495

3.23%

2000

$23,033,517

16.57%

$1,386,709

25.26%

$24,420,226

17.03%

2001

$26,650,087

15.70%

$1,224,283

-11.71%

$27,874,370

14.14%

2002

$24,441,819

-8.29%

$1,282,289

4.74%

$1,905,774

$27,629,882

-0.88%

2003

$26,930,430

10.18%

$1,259,045

-1.81%

$1,533,316

-19.54%

$29,722,791

7.57%

2004

$29,996,266

11.38%

$1,263,195

0.33%

$1,606,046

4.74%

$32,865,507

10.57%

2005

$32,841,189

9.48%

$1,244,350

-1.49%

$1,791,450

11.54%

$35,876,989

9.16%

2006

$31,899,646

-2.87%

$1,307,546

5.08%

$2,328,632

29.99%

$35,535,824

-0.95%

2007

$37,000,313

15.99%

$1,302,579

-0.38%

$2,650,738

13.83%

$40,953,630

15.25%

2008

$39,295,207

6.20%

$1,292,611

-0.77%

$2,781,438

4.93%

$43,369,256

% Change 1998 - 2008

$1,024,347

104.78%

$20,212,990

26.19%

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

n/a

5.90%
114.56%

91

APPENDIX B

Revenue Per Boarding

Fiscal Year

Fixed Route

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Dial-a-Ride

1995

$0.54

1996

$0.55

1.85%

1997

$0.55

0.00%

1998

$0.53

-3.64%

$1.09

1999

$0.53

0.00%

$1.26

2000

$0.61

15.09%

2001

$0.68

11.48%

2002

$0.56

2003
2004
2005
2006

% Change
From
Previous
Year

Vanpool

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Total

$0.54
15.60%

$0.56

3.70%

$1.43

13.49%

$0.63

12.50%

$1.20

-16.08%

$0.68

7.94%

-17.65%

$1.25

4.17%

$0.48

$0.56

-17.65%

$0.55

-1.79%

$1.22

-2.40%

$0.61

27.08%

$0.54

-3.57%

$0.58

5.45%

$1.22

0.00%

$0.61

0.00%

$0.56

3.70%

$0.60

3.45%

$1.17

-4.10%

$0.57

-6.56%

$0.58

3.57%

$0.57

-5.00%

$1.39

18.80%

$0.55

-3.51%

$0.56

-3.45%

2007

$0.64

12.28%

$1.41

1.44%

$0.54

-1.82%

$0.65

16.07%

2008

$0.68

6.25%

$1.43

1.42%

$0.53

-1.85%

$0.72

10.77%

% Change 1995 - 2008

25.93%

n/a

n/a

n/a

Farebox Recovery Ratio

Fiscal Year

Fixed Route

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Dial-a-Ride

% Change
From
Previous
Year

Vanpool

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Total

1995

31.3%

1996

36.4%

16.29%

1997

33.2%

-8.79%

1998

31.2%

-6.02%

8.7%

1999

30.2%

-3.21%

8.2%

2000

30.8%

1.99%

8.9%

8.54%

2001

28.4%

-7.79%

6.7%

-24.72%

2002

23.0%

-19.01%

6.0%

-10.45%

96.4%

20.7%

-16.53%

2003

22.3%

-3.04%

5.4%

-10.00%

122.1%

26.66%

36.5%

76.33%

2004

23.6%

5.83%

5.2%

-3.70%

120.8%

-1.06%

28.0%

-23.29%

2005

26.9%

13.98%

4.5%

-13.46%

114.1%

-5.55%

27.6%

-1.43%

2006

24.6%

-8.55%

4.9%

8.89%

107.9%

-5.43%

28.1%

1.81%

2007

24.2%

-1.63%

4.4%

-10.20%

115.0%

6.58%

22.2%

-21.00%

2008

22.4%

-7.44%

4.1%

-6.82%

111.3%

-3.22%

20.7%

-6.76%

% Change 1995 - 2008

-5.75%

-28.43%

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

n/a

24.8%

n/a

n/a

92

APPENDIX B

On Time Performance

Fiscal Year

Fixed Route

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Dial-a-Ride

% Change
From
Previous
Year

Vanpool

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

%
Change
From
Previous
Year

Total

1995
1996
1997
1998

87.0%

1999

93.0%

6.90%

8.2%

2000

89.7%

-3.55%

8.9%

8.54%

2001

88.8%

-1.00%

6.7%

-24.72%

24.8%

2002

92.4%

4.05%

6.0%

-10.45%

20.7%

2003

92.5%

0.11%

5.4%

-10.00%

122.1%

36.5%

76.33%

2004

91.9%

-0.65%

5.2%

-3.70%

120.8%

-1.06%

28.0%

-23.29%

2005

92.5%

0.65%

4.5%

-13.46%

114.1%

-5.55%

27.6%

-1.43%

2006

90.7%

-1.95%

4.9%

8.89%

107.9%

-5.43%

28.1%

1.81%

2007

91.5%

0.88%

4.4%

-10.20%

115.0%

6.58%

22.2%

-21.00%

2008

92.1%

0.66%

4.1%

-6.82%

111.3%

-3.22%

20.7%

-6.76%

% Change 1998 - 2008

8.7%
-5.75%

5.86%

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

n/a

n/a

-16.53%

n/a

93

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

94

APPENDIX C

Table C-1: Fixed Route Transit Service Historical Trends since FY 1985
Revenue
Miles

Boardings

Fiscal Year

Annual
Boardings

of Service

Per Mile

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

16,501,219
17,487,296
19,327,298
21,035,796
25,000,896
28,642,983
31,063,899
32,227,853
32,194,122
33,252,295
34,227,244
35,028,406
35,141,668
36,377,705
37,366,572
37,496,804
40,194,501
45,277,131
50,510,536
54,013,410
56,361,933
58,855,322
58,184,595
60,153,649

7,592,893
8,331,290
9,275,347
10,524,537
10,824,442
11,664,511
11,503,650
11,904,888
12,029,150
12,462,098
13,365,761
13,664,992
14,331,831
14,740,186
16,198,218
18,039,016
21,221,858
24,106,344
26,357,307
26,672,410
27,427,972
27,504,359
28,766,992
32,755,717

2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.8

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

95

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

96

APPENDIX D

Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority
Cost Savings Recommendations
Through Service Adjustments
As a part of the Proposition 400 transportation tax referendum, the Arizona Legislature required
that a performance audit be performed on the transit service paid for by public transportation
funds. To provide a basis for measuring the performance of the regional transit system, the
Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) authorized a Service Efficiency
and Effectiveness Study (SEES) to develop uniform standard for collecting data and measuring
performance, and to develop performance targets for the region. The Board approved this study
in April 2007. Using the structure provided by the SEES, two Annual Transit Performance
Reports (FY 2008 and FY 2009) have been prepared and accepted by the Board since that
time.
To take the process one step further, the results of the Transit Performance Reports need to be
evaluated with respect to whether or not transit investments are considered worthwhile. This
report makes that evaluation and recommends actions that are in keeping with good
stewardship of Public Transportation Funds provided through the county-wide sales tax for
transportation.
This exercise has taken on added significance as Valley Metro RPTA is faced with revenue
shortfalls caused by the downturn in the economy. To that end, RPTA staff has identified
potential cost savings through transit service adjustments. The cost savings could assist the
agency in addressing the projected county-wide sales tax revenue shortfall which is the result of
a decline in both the regional and national economies.
Following the recommendations of the SEES helps ensure that potential service adjustments
adhere to best planning practices, and will not adversely impact the operational efficiency of the
regional transit system. To that end, planning staff have evaluated currently operating routes
using the performance measures identified in the Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
(SEES) which have been adopted by the RPTA Board. Use of the measures has allowed staff to
identify underperforming routes. The evaluation was conducted for all Valley Metro Routes, but
recommendations for service changes or terminations have been limited to just those routes
funded or partially funded by RPTA.
Local Route Identification Methodology
The first step in the process of identifying the least productive routes was to list all of the local
routes in the system with their boardings per mile performance. This was done for weekday,
Saturday, and Sunday data. These lists were then ranked from high to low according to
boardings per mile to identify the routes that fell into the bottom quartile of system performance.
Once these rankings were determined, further analysis was focused on those routes that are
funded or partially funded by RPTA. The results of this process for Weekday Local Routes are
shown in Table 1. RPTA funded routes that appear in the bottom quartile of the weekday
system include:
•
•
•
•

Route 81—Hayden/McClintock
LINK
Route 156—Chandler Boulevard
Grand Avenue Limited

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

97

APPENDIX D

The performance of local routes on both Saturday and Sunday were identified using the same
process. Table 2 presents the results for Saturday service and Table 3 presents the results for
Sunday service. Routes funded or partially funded by RPTA that fall in the bottom quartile for
Saturday service include:
•
•
•

LINK
Route 136—Gilbert Road
Route 156—Chandler Boulevard

RPTA-funded routes in the bottom quartile for Sunday service include:
•
•

LINK, Route 96—Dobson
Route 156—Chandler Boulevard

.

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

98

APPENDIX D

TABLE 1
Service Evaluation Process
Weekday Local: Sorted By Route
Revenue
Route
Miles
January 09
0
2,008.5
6,610
1
725.2
761
3
1,786.7
6,408
3A
339.2
165
7
2,021.1
5,710
8
1,180.5
3,141
10
1,164.2
3,216
12
588.6
2,311
13
928.4
1,189
15
1,215.1
3,649
16
1,698.4
5,042
17
2,374
8,719
17A
308
134
19
2,905.8
9,776
27
1,544.1
5,085
29
2,447.0
11,368
29A
231.2
146
30
2,311.1
3,519
32
1,233.1
2,324
35
2,264.4
7,385
39
1,148.9
1,067
40
1,746.8
2,379
41
2,621.8
10,041
41A
282.8
197
43
1,098.5
3,365
44
1,518.7
3,082
45
2,469.7
5,280
50
1,695.6
6,916
51
621.4
1,362
52
681.4
1,028
56
1,211.7
1,999
59
1,603.3
3,063
60
1,089.4
3,231
61
3,129.0
6,691
62
1,059.7
1,514
65
702.6
982

Average Daily Boardings
February 09
March 09
April 09
6,403
5,978
6,135
706
659
658
6,425
6,265
6,149
151
151
201
5,659
5,356
5,480
3,032
2,752
2,923
3,188
3,013
3,349
2,232
2,038
2,195
1,162
1,138
1,122
3,656
3,483
3,563
5,030
4,950
4,934
8,636
8,267
8,434
139
166
203
9,874
9,493
9,743
5,260
4,937
4,906
11,416
10,760
11,486
170
189
148
3,484
3,256
3,299
2,388
2,199
2,343
7,487
6,986
7,082
1,109
1,097
1,041
2,372
2,204
2,245
10,241
9,727
9,953
194
229
304
3,284
3,010
3,159
3,065
2,976
2,983
4,992
4,819
4,680
6,865
6,534
6,507
1,398
1,343
1,383
1,038
889
955
2,126
2,058
2,210
3,149
3,013
3,110
3,207
3,081
3,045
6,642
6,103
6,424
1,592
1,481
1,517
1,021
1,002
1,010

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

May 09
5,841
666
5,910
182
4,997
2,817
3,036
2,116
1,021
3,406
4,421
8,106
153
9,343
4,634
10,453
141
2,860
2,168
6,728
998
2,113
9,375
225
2,982
2,633
4,293
6,127
1,279
856
2,057
2,944
3,017
5,857
1,344
840

99

Boardings
Per Mile
3.08
0.95
3.49
0.50
2.69
2.48
2.71
3.70
1.21
2.92
2.87
3.55
0.52
3.32
3.22
4.53
0.69
1.42
1.85
3.15
0.92
1.30
3.76
0.81
2.88
1.94
1.95
3.89
2.18
1.40
1.72
1.91
2.86
2.03
1.41
1.38

APPENDIX D

Route
66
67
70
72
76
77
80
81
84
90
92
96
104
106
108
112
114
120
122
128
131
136
138
154
156
170
186
7L
GAL
LINK

Revenue
Miles
1,261.2
1,195.3
2,919.0
3,779.5
932.7
1,433.2
539.7
2,866.1
200.9
1,167.8
1,433.4
1,474.1
883.4
1,951.6
972.5
586.1
238.0
256.1
515.6
301.2
439.3
730.4
1,087.1
1,110.1
2,152.3
1,417.0
1,241.8
120.2
259.4
1,224.0

January 09
1,180
2,577
8,375
5,071
636
2,894
1,970
2,927
70
3,402
1,940
1,916
1,502
4,187
806
1,684
124
499
700
412
340
783
1,500
1,151
1,382
3,604
1,572
252
107
782

Average Daily Boardings
February 09
March 09
April 09
1,287
1,193
1,235
2,750
2,576
2,549
8,241
7,920
8,195
5,792
5,551
5,459
693
617
668
3,063
2,910
3,099
1,965
1,979
1,966
3,117
3,165
3,132
69
47
36
3,475
3,398
3,382
2,012
1,901
1,899
2,026
1,937
2,045
1,545
1,445
1,480
4,289
4,242
4,152
811
828
790
1,591
1,583
1,630
130
128
132
499
497
446
622
520
564
435
406
416
339
308
316
809
832
825
1,629
1,614
1,597
1,200
1,153
1,126
1,455
1,410
1,436
3,494
3,275
3,226
1,749
1,794
1,774
216
192
236
103
106
106
834
971
1,055

May 09
1,043
2,434
7,858
4,687
539
2,753
1,839
2,867
30
3,214
1,692
1,873
1,421
4,000
684
1,486
126
458
473
354
282
685
1,517
1,034
1,341
2,977
1,820
188
97
750

Boardings
Per Mile
0.94
2.16
2.78
1.41
0.68
2.05
3.60
1.06
0.25
2.89
1.32
1.33
1.67
2.14
0.81
2.72
0.54
1.87
1.12
1.34
0.72
1.08
1.45
1.02
0.65
2.34
1.40
1.80
0.40
0.72
System
Average
2.17

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

100

APPENDIX D

TABLE 1 (Continued)
Service Evaluation Process
Weekday Local: Sorted By Boardings Per Mile
Revenue
Average Daily Boardings
Route
Miles
January 09
February 09
March 09
April 09
29
2,447.0
11,368
11,416
10,760
11,486
50
1,695.6
6,916
6,865
6,534
6,507
41
2,621.8
10,041
10,241
9,727
9,953
12
588.6
2,311
2,232
2,038
2,195
80
539.7
1,970
1,965
1,979
1,966
17
2,374
8,719
8,636
8,267
8,434
3
1,786.7
6,408
6,425
6,265
6,149
19
2,905.8
9,776
9,874
9,493
9,743
27
1,544.1
5,085
5,260
4,937
4,906
35
2,264.4
7,385
7,487
6,986
7,082
0
2,008.5
6,610
6,403
5,978
6,135
15
1,215.1
3,649
3,656
3,483
3,563
90
1,167.8
3,402
3,475
3,398
3,382
43
1,098.5
3,365
3,284
3,010
3,159
16
1,698.4
5,042
5,030
4,950
4,934
60
1,089.4
3,231
3,207
3,081
3,045
70
2,919.0
8,375
8,241
7,920
8,195
112
586.1
1,684
1,591
1,583
1,630
10
1,164.2
3,216
3,188
3,013
3,349
7
2,021.1
5,710
5,659
5,356
5,480
8
1,180.5
3,141
3,032
2,752
2,923
170
1,417.0
3,604
3,494
3,275
3,226
51
621.4
1,362
1,398
1,343
1,383
67
1,195.3
2,577
2,750
2,576
2,549
106
1,951.6
4,187
4,289
4,242
4,152
77
1,433.2
2,894
3,063
2,910
3,099
61
3,129.0
6,691
6,642
6,103
6,424
45
2,469.7
5,280
4,992
4,819
4,680
44
1,518.7
3,082
3,065
2,976
2,983
59
1,603.3
3,063
3,149
3,013
3,110
120
256.1
499
499
497
446
32
1,233.1
2,324
2,388
2,199
2,343
7L
120.2
252
216
192
236
56
1,211.7
1,999
2,126
2,058
2,210
104
883.4
1,502
1,545
1,445
1,480
62
1,059.7
1,514
1,592
1,481
1,517
72
3,779.5
5,071
5,792
5,551
5,459

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

May 09
10,453
6,127
9,375
2,116
1,839
8,106
5,910
9,343
4,634
6,728
5,841
3,406
3,214
2,982
4,421
3,017
7,858
1,486
3,036
4,997
2,817
2,977
1,279
2,434
4,000
2,753
5,857
4,293
2,633
2,944
458
2,168
188
2,057
1,421
1,344
4,687

101

Boardings
Per Mile
4.53
3.89
3.76
3.70
3.60
3.55
3.49
3.32
3.22
3.15
3.08
2.92
2.89
2.88
2.87
2.86
2.78
2.72
2.71
2.69
2.48
2.34
2.18
2.16
2.14
2.05
2.03
1.95
1.94
1.91
1.87
1.85
1.80
1.72
1.67
1.41
1.41

APPENDIX D

Route
186
52
65
128
96
92
40
13
122
136
81
154
1
66
39
41A
108
131
LINK
29A
76
156
114
17A
3A
GAL
84

Revenue
Miles
1,241.8
681.4
702.6
301.2
1,474.1
1,433.4
1,746.8
928.4
515.6
730.4
2,866.1
1,110.1
725.2
1,261.2
1,148.9
282.8
972.5
439.3
1,224.0
231.2
932.7
2,152.3
238.0
308
339.2
259.4
200.9

January 09
1,572
1,028
982
412
1,916
1,940
2,379
1,189
700
783
2,927
1,151
761
1,180
1,067
197
806
340
782
146
636
1,382
124
134
165
107
70

Average Daily Boardings
February 09
March 09
April 09
1,749
1,794
1,774
1,038
889
955
1,021
1,002
1,010
435
406
416
2,026
1,937
2,045
2,012
1,901
1,899
2,372
2,204
2,245
1,162
1,138
1,122
622
520
564
809
832
825
3,117
3,165
3,132
1,200
1,153
1,126
706
659
658
1,287
1,193
1,235
1,109
1,097
1,041
194
229
304
811
828
790
339
308
316
834
971
1,055
170
189
148
693
617
668
1,455
1,410
1,436
130
128
132
139
166
203
151
151
201
103
106
106
69
47
36

May 09
1,820
856
840
354
1,873
1,692
2,113
1,021
473
685
2,867
1,034
666
1,043
998
225
684
282
750
141
539
1,341
126
153
182
97
30

Boardings
Per Mile
1.40
1.40
1.38
1.34
1.33
1.32
1.30
1.21
1.12
1.08
1.06
1.02
0.95
0.94
0.92
0.81
0.81
0.72
0.72
0.69
0.68
0.65
0.54
0.52
0.50
0.40
0.25
System
Average
2.20

=

Bottom Quartile
Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

102

APPENDIX D

TABLE 2
Service Evaluation Process
Saturday: Sorted By Route
Revenue
Route
Miles
January 09
0
937.4
2,717
1
305.5
321
3
817.3
3,210
3A
339.2
184
7
1,331.2
2,732
8
1,006.9
1,765
10
473.7
1,118
12
346.2
644
13
470.3
456
15
553.9
1,942
16
1,057.3
2,872
17
1,227
4,404
17A
287
72
19
1,355.8
5,227
27
1,319.1
3,079
29
1,121.6
5,138
29A
200.3
95
30
1,366.7
1,646
32
563.5
1,034
35
1,521.5
4,487
39
953.1
781
40
1,654.0
1,489
41
1,354.9
5,052
41A
254.5
128
43
517.0
1,567
44
934.7
1,646
45
1,489.0
2,514
50
914.2
3,503
51
316.5
506
52
413.3
363
56
920.7
1,430
59
540.7
1,466
60
518.5
1,817
61
2,041.5
3,346
62
822.9
769
65
695.3
509

Average Daily Boardings
February 09
March 09
April 09
2,429
2,163
2,548
307
307
330
3,330
3,082
2,961
189
202
77
2,687
2,559
2,585
1,835
1,809
1,652
1,129
952
977
616
547
561
509
496
409
1,978
1,905
1,814
3,098
3,021
2,483
4,380
4,110
4,001
97
83
61
5,362
5,139
4,833
3,195
2,823
2,705
5,165
5,113
4,536
89
91
112
1,629
1,393
1,374
1,042
1,025
974
4,449
4,286
3,899
751
697
642
1,730
1,791
1,707
5,205
5,255
5,077
134
87
47
1,453
1,466
1,278
1,719
1,684
1,547
2,330
2,532
2,220
3,426
3,141
3,059
526
486
430
409
329
293
1,567
1,576
1,608
1,246
1,246
1,250
1,729
1,615
1,299
3,413
3,186
3,242
774
793
798
490
577
547

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

May 09
2,114
242
3,001
130
2,485
1,677
990
513
449
1,817
2,728
3,921
45
4,945
2,789
4,430
98
1,313
924
3,908
691
1,671
4,431
81
1,285
1,422
2,205
2,996
438
332
1,511
1,475
1,496
3,171
665
424

103

Boardings
Per Mile
2.55
0.99
3.81
0.46
1.96
1.74
2.18
1.66
0.99
3.41
2.69
3.39
0.25
3.76
2.21
4.35
0.48
1.08
1.77
2.76
0.75
1.01
3.69
0.37
2.73
1.72
1.59
3.53
1.51
0.84
1.67
2.47
3.07
1.60
0.92
0.73

APPENDIX D

Route
66
67
70
72
76
77
80
81
84
90
92
96
104
106
108
114
120
122
128
136
138
154
156
170
186
LINK

Revenue
Miles
1,269.5
474.5
1,895.7
2,335.8
932.7
785.1
241.7
979.8
200.9
1,013.5
1,093.1
1,134.1
205.8
1,288.8
695.7
238.0
128.1
451.2
156.2
456.8
494.1
522.4
1,950.6
1,231.8
556.0
484.1

January 09
736
1,530
4,501
2,823
357
1,452
883
1,005
33
2,085
1,076
1,307
446
2,268
363
54
154
203
273
333
928
590
919
2,207
1,116
335

Average Daily Boardings
February 09
March 09
April 09
805
688
673
1,548
1,484
944
4,369
4,305
3,960
3,158
3,091
2,982
317
335
327
1,737
1,485
1,405
896
927
706
1,121
1,226
1,070
103
8
16
2,062
1,957
1,984
1,019
1,098
959
1,279
1,327
1,261
461
356
414
2,417
2,311
2,172
410
378
412
55
52
40
186
155
149
172
187
178
229
163
176
322
321
286
991
921
819
616
666
640
891
870
859
2,316
2,186
2,206
1,152
982
731
328
359
354

May 09
741
866
3,937
2,769
278
1,372
781
1,033
9
1,876
1,012
1,190
409
2,171
391
50
159
299
195
294
670
476
842
1,986
958
299

Boardings
Per Mile
0.57
2.69
2.22
1.27
0.35
1.90
3.47
1.11
0.17
1.97
0.94
1.12
2.03
1.76
0.56
0.21
1.25
0.46
1.33
0.68
1.75
1.14
0.45
1.77
1.78
0.69
System
Average
1.80

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

104

APPENDIX D

TABLE 2 (Continued)
Service Evaluation Process
Saturday: Sorted By Boardings Per Mile
Revenue
Average Daily Boardings
Route
Miles
January 09
February 09
March 09
April 09
29
1,121.6
5,138
5,165
5,113
4,536
3
817.3
3,210
3,330
3,082
2,961
19
1,355.8
5,227
5,362
5,139
4,833
41
1,354.9
5,052
5,205
5,255
5,077
50
914.2
3,503
3,426
3,141
3,059
80
241.7
883
896
927
706
15
553.9
1,942
1,978
1,905
1,814
17
1,227
4,404
4,380
4,110
4,001
60
518.5
1,817
1,729
1,615
1,299
35
1,521.5
4,487
4,449
4,286
3,899
43
517.0
1,567
1,453
1,466
1,278
16
1,057.3
2,872
3,098
3,021
2,483
67
474.5
1,530
1,548
1,484
944
0
937.4
2,717
2,429
2,163
2,548
59
540.7
1,466
1,246
1,246
1,250
70
1,895.7
4,501
4,369
4,305
3,960
27
1,319.1
3,079
3,195
2,823
2,705
10
473.7
1,118
1,129
952
977
104
205.8
446
461
356
414
90
1,013.5
2,085
2,062
1,957
1,984
7
1,331.2
2,732
2,687
2,559
2,585
77
785.1
1,452
1,737
1,485
1,405
186
556.0
1,116
1,152
982
731
32
563.5
1,034
1,042
1,025
974
170
1,231.8
2,207
2,316
2,186
2,206
106
1,288.8
2,268
2,417
2,311
2,172
138
494.1
928
991
921
819
8
1,006.9
1,765
1,835
1,809
1,652
44
934.7
1,646
1,719
1,684
1,547
56
920.7
1,430
1,567
1,576
1,608
12
346.2
644
616
547
561
61
2,041.5
3,346
3,413
3,186
3,242
45
1,489.0
2,514
2,330
2,532
2,220
51
316.5
506
526
486
430
128
156.2
273
229
163
176
72
2,335.8
2,823
3,158
3,091
2,982

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

May 09
4,430
3,001
4,945
4,431
2,996
781
1,817
3,921
1,496
3,908
1,285
2,728
866
2,114
1,475
3,937
2,789
990
409
1,876
2,485
1,372
958
924
1,986
2,171
670
1,677
1,422
1,511
513
3,171
2,205
438
195
2,769

105

Boardings
Per Mile
4.35
3.81
3.76
3.69
3.53
3.47
3.41
3.39
3.07
2.76
2.73
2.69
2.69
2.55
2.47
2.22
2.21
2.18
2.03
1.97
1.96
1.90
1.78
1.77
1.77
1.76
1.75
1.74
1.72
1.67
1.66
1.60
1.59
1.51
1.33
1.27

APPENDIX D

Route
120
154
96
81
30
40
1
13
92
62
52
39
65
LINK
136
66
108
29A
3A
122
156
41A
76
17A
114
84

Revenue
Miles
128.1
522.4
1,134.1
979.8
1,366.7
1,654.0
305.5
470.3
1,093.1
822.9
413.3
953.1
695.3
484.1
456.8
1,269.5
695.7
200.3
339.2
451.2
1,950.6
254.5
932.7
287
238.0
200.9

January 09
154
590
1,307
1,005
1,646
1,489
321
456
1,076
769
363
781
509
335
333
736
363
95
184
203
919
128
357
72
54
33

Average Daily Boardings
February 09
March 09
April 09
186
155
149
616
666
640
1,279
1,327
1,261
1,121
1,226
1,070
1,629
1,393
1,374
1,730
1,791
1,707
307
307
330
509
496
409
1,019
1,098
959
774
793
798
409
329
293
751
697
642
490
577
547
328
359
354
322
321
286
805
688
673
410
378
412
89
91
112
189
202
77
172
187
178
891
870
859
134
87
47
317
335
327
97
83
61
55
52
40
103
8
16

May 09
159
476
1,190
1,033
1,313
1,671
242
449
1,012
665
332
691
424
299
294
741
391
98
130
299
842
81
278
45
50
9

Boardings
Per Mile
1.25
1.14
1.12
1.11
1.08
1.01
0.99
0.99
0.94
0.92
0.84
0.75
0.73
0.69
0.68
0.57
0.56
0.48
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.37
0.35
0.25
0.21
0.17
System
Average
1.80

=

Bottom Quartile
Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

106

APPENDIX D

TABLE 3
Service Evaluation Process
Sunday: Sorted By Route
Revenue
Route
Miles
January 09
0
937.4
1,578
1
337.7
181
3
817.3
2,095
7
1,331.2
1,654
8
1,006.9
1,161
10
473.7
687
12
346.2
357
13
470.3
409
15
553.9
1,220
16
1,057.3
1,995
17
1,226.7
2,570
19
1,355.8
3,499
27
1,319.1
2,110
29
1,121.6
3,358
30
372.0
181
32
563.5
578
35
1,521.5
3,151
39
953.1
483
40
1,654.0
1,057
41
1,354.9
3,012
43
517.0
899
44
934.7
993
45
961.8
878
50
914.2
2,183
51
316.5
315
52
413.3
234
56
839.8
850
59
540.7
867
60
518.5
1,099
61
1,795.0
2,121
62
719.6
551
65
622.1
277
66
1,136.1
463
72
2,100.0
1,906
76
372.8
148
77
745.4
869
80
241.7
487

Average Daily Boardings
February 09
March 09
April 09
1,641
1,434
1,535
192
198
227
2,243
2,202
2,056
1,709
1,810
1,811
1,059
1,057
1,034
708
711
737
405
443
403
283
334
297
1,230
1,319
1,263
1,867
2,010
1,769
2,893
2,909
2,862
3,683
3,700
3,400
2,271
2,292
2,112
3,522
3,585
3,370
182
163
173
606
696
662
3,238
3,273
3,077
448
493
441
1,189
1,445
1,273
3,095
3,397
2,915
879
922
808
1,046
1,170
1,060
838
848
715
2,224
2,394
2,240
299
314
305
243
199
209
900
1,044
1,043
856
1,041
881
1,184
1,143
1,100
2,038
2,222
1,983
474
541
474
328
378
304
479
554
531
2,232
2,392
2,217
150
122
111
898
1,004
964
416
623
507

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

May 09
1,484
194
1,989
1,722
1,104
719
405
364
1,241
1,783
2,909
3,342
1,990
3,349
153
655
2,985
451
1,212
2,885
883
992
766
2,188
304
220
991
818
945
2,161
467
299
496
2,138
127
886
557

107

Boardings
Per Mile
1.64
0.59
2.59
1.31
1.08
1.50
1.16
0.72
2.27
1.78
2.31
2.60
1.63
3.06
0.46
1.13
2.07
0.49
0.75
2.26
1.70
1.13
0.84
2.46
0.97
0.53
1.15
1.65
2.11
1.17
0.70
0.51
0.44
1.04
0.35
1.24
2.14

APPENDIX D

Route
81
84
90
92
96
106
108
114
122
138
154
156
170
186
LINK

Revenue
Miles
867.1
200.9
1,013.5
981.0
1,170.1
1,114.2
240.4
245.1
451.2
494.1
522.4
1,950.6
1,129.3
556.0
484.1

January 09
660
30
1,340
642
756
1,516
140
38
89
629
347
567
1,533
492
217

Average Daily Boardings
February 09
March 09
April 09
772
772
720
25
7
11
1,451
1,305
1,324
751
755
665
773
803
802
1,565
1,564
1,458
143
128
137
39
44
42
143
91
101
619
681
575
428
462
401
560
540
545
1,615
1,546
1,541
575
694
527
176
272
221

May 09
743
8
1,285
620
820
1,438
118
32
112
561
368
587
1,430
657
198

Boardings
Per Mile
0.85
0.08
1.32
0.70
0.68
1.35
0.55
0.16
0.24
1.24
0.77
0.29
1.36
1.06
0.45
System
Average
1.30

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

108

APPENDIX D

TABLE 3 (Continued)
Service Evaluation Process
Sunday: Sorted By Boardings Per Mile
Revenue
Route
Miles
January 09
29
1,121.6
3,358
19
1,355.8
3,499
3
817.3
2,095
50
914.2
2,183
17
1,226.7
2,570
15
553.9
1,220
41
1,354.9
3,012
80
241.7
487
60
518.5
1,099
35
1,521.5
3,151
16
1,057.3
1,995
43
517.0
899
59
540.7
867
67
474.5
768
0
937.4
1,578
27
1,319.1
2,110
70
1,820.5
2,786
10
473.7
687
170
1,129.3
1,533
106
1,114.2
1,516
90
1,013.5
1,340
7
1,331.2
1,654
138
494.1
629
77
745.4
869
61
1,795.0
2,121
12
346.2
357
56
839.8
850
32
563.5
578
44
934.7
993
8
1,006.9
1,161
186
556.0
492
72
2,100.0
1,906
51
316.5
315
81
867.1
660
45
961.8
878
154
522.4
347

Average Daily Boardings
February 09
March 09
April 09
3,522
3,585
3,370
3,683
3,700
3,400
2,243
2,202
2,056
2,224
2,394
2,240
2,893
2,909
2,862
1,230
1,319
1,263
3,095
3,397
2,915
416
623
507
1,184
1,143
1,100
3,238
3,273
3,077
1,867
2,010
1,769
879
922
808
856
1,041
881
839
781
758
1,641
1,434
1,535
2,271
2,292
2,112
2,752
2,846
2,785
708
711
737
1,615
1,546
1,541
1,565
1,564
1,458
1,451
1,305
1,324
1,709
1,810
1,811
619
681
575
898
1,004
964
2,038
2,222
1,983
405
443
403
900
1,044
1,043
606
696
662
1,046
1,170
1,060
1,059
1,057
1,034
575
694
527
2,232
2,392
2,217
299
314
305
772
772
720
838
848
715
428
462
401

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

May 09
3,349
3,342
1,989
2,188
2,909
1,241
2,885
557
945
2,985
1,783
883
818
743
1,484
1,990
2,745
719
1,430
1,438
1,285
1,722
561
886
2,161
405
991
655
992
1,104
657
2,138
304
743
766
368

109

Boardings
Per Mile
3.06
2.60
2.59
2.46
2.31
2.27
2.26
2.14
2.11
2.07
1.78
1.70
1.65
1.64
1.64
1.63
1.53
1.50
1.36
1.35
1.32
1.31
1.24
1.24
1.17
1.16
1.15
1.13
1.13
1.08
1.06
1.04
0.97
0.85
0.84
0.77

APPENDIX D

Route
40
13
92
62
LINK
96
1
108
52
65
39
30
66
76
156
122
114
84

Revenue
Miles
1,654.0
470.3
981.0
719.6
484.1
1,170.1
337.7
240.4
413.3
622.1
953.1
372.0
1,136.1
372.8
1,950.6
451.2
245.1
200.9

January 09
1,057
409
642
551
217
756
181
140
234
277
483
181
463
148
567
89
38
30

Average Daily Boardings
February 09
March 09
April 09
1,189
1,445
1,273
283
334
297
751
755
665
474
541
474
176
272
221
773
803
802
192
198
227
143
128
137
243
199
209
328
378
304
448
493
441
182
163
173
479
554
531
150
122
111
560
540
545
143
91
101
39
44
42
25
7
11

May 09
1,212
364
620
467
198
820
194
118
220
299
451
153
496
127
587
112
32
8

Boardings
Per Mile
0.75
0.72
0.70
0.70
0.45
0.68
0.59
0.55
0.53
0.51
0.49
0.46
0.44
0.35
0.29
0.24
0.16
0.08
System
Average
1.31

=

Bottom Quartile
Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

110

APPENDIX D

TABLE 4
Service Evaluation Process
Weekday Express: Sorted By Route
Revenue
Route
Trips
January 09
SR51
28
722
I-10 East
31
916
I-10 West
27
736
I-17
44
1,259
510
4
86
511
8
51
512
4
73
520
8
114
521
13
224
531
15
304
532
8
152
533
10
393
535
6
195
536
10
4
540
8
198
541
10
316
542
6
83
560
4
75
562
6
256
570
4
47
571
6
128
572
12
89
573
12
181
575
6
277
576
10
65
581
6
110
582
8
105
590
8
138

Average Boardings Per Trip
February 09
March 09
April 09
745
715
742
917
898
827
743
739
759
1,277
1,217
1,231
87
99
99
47
44
49
80
81
88
110
105
108
231
218
233
315
310
315
155
146
144
382
381
381
146
136
142
31
29
32
215
201
193
292
275
272
145
153
166
80
78
23
121
89
55
50
47
15
106
156
122
87
98
33
206
227
199
122
162
171
41
22
25
108
103
109
107
108
106
135
128
126

May 09
693
854
688
1,178
89
53
78
101
218
293
142
354
132
26
181
232
180
70
87
50
143
128
159
152
27
99
88
114

Boardings
Per Trip
25.84
28.46
27.15
28.01
23.00
6.10
20.00
13.45
17.29
20.49
18.48
37.82
25.03
2.44
24.70
27.74
24.23
16.30
20.27
10.45
21.83
7.25
16.20
29.47
3.60
17.63
12.85
16.03
System
Average
21.56

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

111

APPENDIX D

TABLE 4 (Continued)
Service Evaluation Process
Weekday Express: Sorted By Boardings Per Trip
Revenue
Average Boardings Per Trip
Route
Trips
January 09
February 09
March 09
April 09
533
10
393
382
381
381
575
6
277
122
162
171
I-10 East
31
916
917
898
827
I-17
44
1,259
1,277
1,217
1,231
541
10
316
292
275
272
I-10 West
27
736
743
739
759
SR51
28
722
745
715
742
535
6
195
146
136
142
540
8
198
215
201
193
542
6
83
145
153
166
510
4
86
87
99
99
571
6
128
106
156
122
531
15
304
315
310
315
562
6
256
121
89
55
512
4
73
80
81
88
532
8
152
155
146
144
581
6
110
108
103
109
521
13
224
231
218
233
560
4
75
80
78
23
573
12
181
206
227
199
590
8
138
135
128
126
520
8
114
110
105
108
582
8
105
107
108
106
570
4
47
50
47
15
572
12
89
87
98
33
511
8
51
47
44
49
576
10
65
41
22
25
536
10
4
31
29
32

May 09
354
152
854
1,178
232
688
693
132
181
180
89
143
293
87
78
142
99
218
70
159
114
101
88
50
128
53
27
26

Boardings
Per Trip
37.82
29.47
28.46
28.01
27.74
27.15
25.84
25.03
24.70
24.23
23.00
21.83
20.49
20.27
20.00
18.48
17.63
17.29
16.30
16.20
16.03
13.45
12.85
10.45
7.25
6.10
3.60
2.44
System
Average
21.56

=

Bottom Quartile
Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

112

APPENDIX D

Local Route Analysis
Once the underperforming local routes were identified, a closer look was taken at both average
daily boardings and boardings per mile. Graphs were developed for these two performance
indicators for each route. For routes that have been operating for some time, graphs were
developed showing annual boardings for a five year period to show ridership trends.
LINK: Graph 1 presents average daily boardings for LINK weekday, Saturday, and Sunday
service from its implementation at the end of December through May 2009. Graph 1A presents
boarding per mile data for the LINK over the same time period. Since LINK is a new route, and
the ridership indicators appear to be trending upwards, it is recommended that this route’s
performance continue to be monitored.

LINK

GRAPH 1

Average Daily Boardings
1,200
1,000
800

Weekday

600

Saturday
Sunday

400
200
0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Apr

May

113

APPENDIX D

LINK

GRAPH 1A

Boardings Per Mile
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

Weekday

0.5

Saturday

0.4

Sunday

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Apr

May

114

APPENDIX D

Route 96—Dobson: This route appears to be performing fairly well on weekdays and
Saturdays. However, Route 96 falls into the bottom quartile for Sunday performance. Graph 4
shows the average daily Sunday boarding from its implementation in August 2008 through May
2009. Graph 4A shows the boarding per mile data for the same time period. Both indicators
show an upward trend and therefore no action is recommended other that continued monitoring.

Route 96--Dobson

GRAPH 4

Sunday Service
900
800
700
600
500

Daily Boardings

400
300
200
100
0
Jun

Jul

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Jan

Feb Mar Apr May

115

APPENDIX D

GRAPH 4A

Route 96--Dobson
Sunday Boardings Per Mile

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

Boardings Per Mile

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Jun

Jul

Aug Sept Oct

Nov Dec

Jan

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Feb Mar

Apr May

116

APPENDIX D

Route 136—Gilbert Road: This route only appeared in the bottom quartile for Saturday service.
Graph 3 and Graph 3A show average Saturday boardings and average Saturday boardings per
mile respectively. Annual boarding data is presented in Graph 3B. The data for Saturday Route
136 indicate that it may be too early to make any changes, but the service should continue to be
watched.

Route 136--Gilbert Road

GRAPH 3

Saturday Service
400
350
300
250
200

Daily Boardings

150
100
50
0
May

Jun

Jul

Aug Sept Oct

Nov

Dec

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr May

117

APPENDIX D

GRAPH 3A

Route 136--Gilbert Road
Saturday Service

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Boardings Per Mile

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
May Jun

Jul

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Jan

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Feb Mar Apr May

118

APPENDIX D

GRAPH 3B

Route 136-Gilbert Rd
Annual Saturday Boardings

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

FY 2008

FY 2009

119

APPENDIX D

Route 156—Chandler Boulevard: Average daily boardings for a twelve month period are
presented in Graph 2. Boarding per mile data for Route 156 are presented in Graph 2A. Annual
boarding data are presented in Graph 2B. The data for this route indicate that progress is being
made with ridership generally trending upwards. Continued monitoring is recommended.

GRAPH 2

Route 156--Chandler Blvd
Average Daily Boardings

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000

Weekday
Saturday

800

Sunday

600
400
200
0
May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

120

APPENDIX D

GRAPH 2A

Route 156--Chandler Blvd
Boardings Per Mile

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Weekday

0.4

Saturday
Sunday

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

121

APPENDIX D

GRAPH 2B

Route- 156 Chandler Blvd
Annual Boardings

400000
350000
300000
250000
Weekday

200000

Saturday
Sunday

150000
100000
50000
0
FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

FY 2008

FY 2009

122

APPENDIX D

Grand Avenue Limited: Although Grand Avenue Limited is technically a local route, the peak
period only operation suggest that analysis of its boarding per trip data would provide a better
picture of its performance. Graph 5 presents both average daily boardings and boarding per trip
data over a thirteen month period. Annual boarding data is presented in Graph 5A. While not
exactly trending upwards, the data does seem to be stabilizing. Grand Avenue Limited should
also continue to be watched.

GRAPH 5

Grand Avenue Limited

180
160
140
120
100
Daily Boardings
80

Boardings Per Trip

60
40
20
0
May Jun

Jul

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Jan

Feb Mar Apr May

123

APPENDIX D

GRAPH 5A

Grand Avenue Limited
Annual Boardings

45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
Annual Boardings

20000
15000
10000
5000
0
FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

FY 2008

FY 2009

124

APPENDIX D

Local Route Recommendations
It appears that no drastic action is needed with these underperforming local routes. Many are
new routes or routes recently upgraded to regional Supergrid route levels of service which take
some time to mature. The SEES recommends that new routes be given two years to mature
before being considered for alteration or termination under the performance measures.
Therefore it is simply recommended that these local routes continue to be monitored over time.
It is further recommended that for each of the routes identified for continued monitoring, Valley
Metro consider what marketing resources are available that could enhance these routes’
visibility with the traveling public.
Express / RAPID Route Identification Methodology
A similar process was used for express and RAPID routes, although boardings per trip was
used as a more appropriate measure of productivity for commuter oriented service. The
following routes fall into the bottom quartile of this type of service:
• Route 520—Tempe Express
• Route 582—North Mountain Express
• Route 570—Glendale Express
• Route 572—Surprise/Scottsdale Express
• Route 511—Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express
• Route 576—Northwest Valley/Montebello Express
• Route 536—Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU Express
Express / RAPID Route Analysis
As with the local routes, once the lowest performing quartile of express routes was identified, a
closer look was taken at the average daily boardings. Boardings per trip were used instead of
boardings per mile, as a better indicator of performance for peak-hour commuter-oriented
service. Unlike the local routes, in some cases the express route data were then broken down
into boardings per individual trip to gain a better understanding of what is happening with these
routes.
Route 511—Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express: This route was implemented in December
2008. Although ridership is low, graph 10 shows that the numbers are trending upward. This
route operates bi-directionally during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Graph
10A shows that some a.m. southbound trips, and some p.m. northbound trips have almost no
ridership. This suggests a significant directional travel demand bias in the corridor. Another
factor affecting ridership includes the impact of the Loop 101 HOV lane construction project
which has been underway in this corridor since 2008. Since this corridor has operated for less
than a year, staff is not recommending adjustments at this time. Staff does recommend that
Valley Metro consider what marketing resources are available to enhance this route’s visibility,
especially its connection to light rail. Staff also recommends that additional trips be added to the
route to allow the service to better address travel demand in the corridor. A mid-day southbound
trip should be considered. This would provide greater travel flexibility for express bus riders who
use Route 540, 541, or 542 for their morning commute but need a connection back to the
Chandler Park & Ride if they need to leave work mid day. It is also recommended that a stop be
added at the Chandler Fashion Center/Transit Center to provide access to this major
employment center and significant transit transfer location (connections to Routes 72, 81, and
156).

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

125

APPENDIX D

GRAPH 10
60

Route 511--Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark
Express

50

40

30

Daily Boardings
Boardings Per Trip

20

10

0
Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

126

APPENDIX D

Route 511--Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark
GRAPH 10A
Boardings By Trip
14
12
10
8
6

6 Month Average

4
2
0
Start
Time

NB 525a NB 628a NB 410p NB 510p SB 507a SB 607a SB 410p SB 510p

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

127

APPENDIX D

Route 520—Tempe Express: This route is showing a downward trend for the last several
months. Graph 6 shows that average daily boardings and boardings per trip are declining,
particularly since the implementation of light rail. Annual boarding data are presented in Graph
6A. The downward trend clearly corresponds to the opening of the METRO light rail line linking
Mesa, Tempe and Phoenix. This likely indicates that some Route 520 riders have shifted to
using light rail. Likely reasons for the shift include greater service frequency on light rail which
addresses a greater range of trip needs, and access to three METRO park & ride lots
immediately north of the current Rt. 520 alignment. Staff is recommending that this route be
terminated.

GRAPH 6

Route 520--Tempe Express

200
180
160
140
120
100

Daily Boardings
Boardings Per Trip

80
60
40
20
0
May Jun

Jul

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Jan

Feb Mar Apr May

128

APPENDIX D

GRAPH 6A

Route - 520 Tempe Express
Annual Boardings

40000
35000
30000
25000
20000

Annual Boardings

15000
10000
5000
0
FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

FY 2008

FY 2009

129

APPENDIX D

Route 536—Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU: Graph 12 shows that this route averages fewer
than five boardings per trip. Graph 12A indicates that some trips are averaging only one rider
per trip. This route is also one that was implemented in December, 2008. Valley Metro should
consider what marketing resources are available that could enhance this route’s visibility with
the traveling public. Since this route serves the ASU Tempe campus—a major regional activity
center—it is also recommended that a survey be conducted of university faculty, staff and
students to identify whether or not the current schedule addresses their trip needs. Results of
this survey would provide the agency with guidance on possible schedule modifications that
may better address travel needs in this corridor.

GRAPH 12

Route 536--Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU

35

30

25

20

Daily Boardings
15

Boardings Per Trip

10

5

0
Jun

Jul

Aug Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Feb

Mar

Apr May

130

APPENDIX D

Route 536--Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ ASU
GRAPH 12A
Boardings By Trip
7
6
5
4
3

6 Month Average

2
1
0
Start
Time

635a

705a

735a

940a 1100a 1215p 315p

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

445p

515p

545p

131

APPENDIX D

Route 570—Glendale Express: This is another older route that is not performing particularly
well. Graph 8 shows that boardings per trip average a little over 10. The overall system average
is about 21.5. Annual boardings data are presented in Graph 8B. For part of its route, the
Glendale Express competes with Route 80 which operates in the Northern Avenue corridor.
Express riders seeking a faster trip to central Phoenix have the option of utilizing the Grand
Avenue Limited which provides both a shorter and faster trip due to its routing and limited
number of stops. Staff recommends termination of the Glendale Express, and further
recommends adding one in-bound and one out-bound trip to the Grand Avenue Limited.

70

Route 570--Glendale Express

GRAPH 8

Daily Boardings

60

Boardings Per Trip
50

40

30

20

10

0
May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

132

APPENDIX D

GRAPH 8A

Route 570 - Glendale Express
Annual Boardings

40000
35000
30000
25000
20000

Annual Boardings

15000
10000
5000
0
FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

FY 2008

FY 2009

133

APPENDIX D

Route 572—Surprise/Scottsdale Express: Graph 9 indicates that this route is attracting only
about 10 boardings per trip on average. This route was implemented in July 2008 and includes
some reverse commute trips. In order to find out what going on with this route, Graph 9A was
developed to show average boarding per individual trip. It shows that some trips are doing fairly
well, but that the reverse commute westbound morning and early afternoon trips are performing
poorly. Staff recommends that the reverse commute trips for this route be eliminated and that
additional peak direction trips be considered for this route. To avoid costs associated with the
excessive dead heading that would result, staff further recommends that the feasibility of
interlining this route with Route 511 be evaluated.

Route 572--Surprise/Scottsdale Express

GRAPH 9

180
160
140
120
100

80

Daily
Boardings

60

Boardings Per
Trip

40
20
0
May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

134

APPENDIX D

Route 572 - Surprise/ Scottsdale Express
GRAPH 9A
Boardings By Trip
40
35
30
25
20
12 Month Average
15
10
5
0
Start EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB
Time 455a 520a 548a 618a 510p 540p 605a 630a 340p 410p 440p 510p

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

135

APPENDIX D

Route 576—Northwest Valley/Montebello Express: This route was also implemented in
December 2008. Graph 11 shows that average boardings and boardings per trip are very low,
and Graph 11A shows that the reverse commute trips have almost no riders. Although this
route is less than two years old, elimination of reverse commute trips should be considered.
Additional peak direction trips should be considered if fleet is available. Staff further
recommends the addition of a stop at the I-17/Bell Road Park & Ride as this would address
additional peak travel needs within the corridors of I-17, Camelback (through connection to
METRO light rail), and north Central Avenue (through connection to METRO light rail).

Route 576 - Northwest Valley/
Montebello Express

GRAPH 11
70
60
50

Daily Boardings
Boardings Per Trip

40
30
20
10
0
Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

136

APPENDIX D

GRAPH 11A

Route 576 - Northwest Valley/Montebello
Express Boardings By Trip
7
6
5
4
6 Month Average
3
2
1
0
Start
Time

545a IB 645a IB 745a IB 900a OB 1000a OB 440p OB 540p OB 640p OB 510p IB 610p IB

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

137

APPENDIX D

Route 582—North Mountain Express: Graph 7 shows that this older route has performed
poorly for some time. Although the route attracts approximately one hundred riders per day, it
averages only around 10 or 12 boarding per trip. The overall system average is about 21.5.
Annual boarding data presented in Graph 7B also indicate a decline in ridership over time. This
trend reflects the impact of competing express service, such as Route 590 and the I-17 RAPID.
Both of these routes generally operate within this same commute corridor and offer faster
commute options to central Phoenix. Since these competing travel options apparently better
address commute travel demand within the corridor, the planning staff recommends termination
of Rt. 582. To help alleviate the impact of this, staff also recommends that a stop at the Bell
Road Park & Ride be considered for Rt. 576. This would address any Rt. 582 riders seeking to
access employment centers along north Central Avenue through a connection to METRO Light
Rail at the Montebello Station at 19th Avenue.

GRAPH 7

Route 582--N Mountain Express

120

100

80

60

Daily Boardings
Boardings Per Trip

40

20

0
May Jun

Jul

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

Jan

Feb Mar Apr May

138

APPENDIX D

GRAPH 7A
40000

Route 582 - North Mountain Express
Annual Boardings

35000
Annual Boardings
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

FY 2008

FY 2009

139

APPENDIX D

Express/RAPID Route Recommendations
In developing recommendations, planning staff gave special consideration to routes that have
operated for less than two years. This is in line with the Service Effectiveness and Efficiency
Study (SEES) recommendation that a new route be given two years to mature before being
considered for alteration or termination under the performance measures. The maturation
recommendation recognizes that new routes take time to build ridership, especially in areas
where little or no transit service previously existed.
Based on the previously discussed service performance evaluation the planning staff
recommend that the following routes be considered for termination:
• Route 520—Tempe Express
• Route 582—North Mountain Express
• Route 570—Glendale Express
Elimination of these three routes could result in an annual cost saving of $717,000.
Despite the two-year maturation recommendation of the SEES, another recommendation
resulting from this analysis is to consider the elimination of the four reverse commute trips on
Route 572 (Surprise/Scottsdale Express). The amount of cost savings that would be realized
may be minimal since dead heading would increase with the loss of the revenue reverse
commute trips. To minimize the resulting dead heading, interlining of this route with Rt. 511
should be explored.
Planning staff also recommends identifying what marketing resources are available for the
promotion of new express routes to increase their visibility to the traveling public. Several of
these routes include features that have not previously existed in the region (i.e. bi-directional
service, suburb to suburb commuting, arterial BRT, etc.). Educating the public on these new
travel options could go a long way to increasing the use of these services by the travelling
public.

Estimated Annual Savings From Service Reduction

Rate

Daily

Annual

Annual

Farebox

Estimated Annual

Contractor

Per Mile

Miles

Miles

Cost

Revenue

Net Savings

Route 520--Tempe Express

Veolia Tempe

$5.82

156.3

39,856.5

$232,000

$23,000

$209,000

Route 570--Glendale Express

First Transit

$8.21

74.1

18,895.5

$155,000

$16,000

$139,000

Route 582--N Mountain Express

Veolia Phoenix

$11.05

145.5

37,102.5

$410,000

$41,000

$369,000

Route

$717,000

Short Range Transit Program—FY 2009/10 – 2014/15

140