SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 Prepared by: Regional Public Transportation Authority 101 North First Avenue, Suite 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85003 September 22, 2011 ` Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 3 WHY A SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM? ............................................................................ 3 WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM TO OTHER REGIONAL TRANSIT PROGRAM DOCUMENTS AND PROCESSES? ........................... 3 WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGION? ........................................................... 4 WHAT TRANSIT SERVICES AND FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED IN THE REGION? ................... 5 WHAT REGIONAL TRANSIT INVESTMENTS ARE PLANNED IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS? ......... 10 1.0 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 15 1.1 REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY/VALLEY METRO AND MEMBER CITIES—BACKGROUND AND TRANSIT FUNDING INITIATIVES ................ 16 1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS ............................................................................... 16 1.3 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS ......................................................................................... 17 1.4 TRANSIT AND EQUITY .................................................................................................... 26 2.0 TRANSIT SERVICE EVALUATION.............................................................................................. 27 2.1 SERVICE GOALS AND STANDARDS ............................................................................. 28 2.2 FIXED ROUTE .................................................................................................................. 28 2.2.1 Service Characteristics ............................................................................... 28 2.2.2 Funding Sources ....................................................................................... 32 2.2.3 Private Contractors .................................................................................... 32 2.2.4 Comparison of Fixed Route Performance Data ............................................. 32 2.2.5 Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Service ............................................................... 34 2.3 HIGH CAPACITY / LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ....................................................................... 34 2.4 CIRCULATORS ................................................................................................................ 36 2.5 REGIONAL CONNECTORS ............................................................................................. 37 2.6 PARATRANSIT ................................................................................................................. 37 2.7 VANPOOL ......................................................................................................................... 38 3.0 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................ 40 3.1 PASSENGER AND SUPPORT FACILITIES .................................................................... 40 3.1.1 On-Street Passenger Facilities .................................................................... 40 3.2 PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES ......................................................................................... 40 3.2.1 Existing Transit Centers ............................................................................. 44 3.3 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FACILITIES .......................................................... 44 3.3.1 Existing Publicly Owned Transit Only Operations and Maintenance Facilities ... 45 3.3.2 Planned Operations and Maintenance Facilities ............................................ 51 3.4 ROADWAY ENHANCEMENTS ........................................................................................ 54 3.4.1 Existing and Planned HOV Lanes and Ramps ............................................... 54 3.4.2 Arterial Street Improvements ..................................................................... 57 4.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ......................................................................... 58 4.1 SHARETHERIDE.COM .................................................................................................... 58 4.2 VANPOOL PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 58 4.3 TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM ASSISTANCE ................................................................ 59 4.4 CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN ................................................................................................... 59 4.5 TRANSIT EDUCATION PROGRAM ................................................................................. 59 4.6 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR ASSOCIATIONS—ASSISTANCE ...................... 59 4.7 ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES/TELEWORK PROGRAM—ASSISTANCE .......... 60 4.8 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS ........................................................................................ 60 4.9 BIKE SAFETY EDUCATION ............................................................................................. 61 5.0 REGIONALLY FUNDED SHORT RANGE TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS........................................... 62 5.1 REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANIST OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS .............................. 62 5.1.1 Funded Regional Transit Operating Improvements FY 2011 through FY 2016 . 62 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 1 ` Executive Summary 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 COMPARISON OF FUNDED OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION (FY 2010) ......................................................................................... 62 CONSIDERATIONS FOR REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANSIT OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS (FY 2011 through FY 2016) ................................................................ 62 5.3.1 Regionally Funded Service Adjustments and Preliminary Thresholds .............. 65 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................. 65 5.4.1 Funded Regional Transit Facility Improvements FY 2011 through FY 2016...... 65 5.4.2 Fixed Route Vehicle Inventory .................................................................... 67 5.4.3 Funded Regional Transit Expansion Vehicles: FY 2011 through FY 2016 ......... 67 5.4.4 Comparison of Funded Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles and Implementation (FY 2011) ......................................................................... 69 REGIONAL PLANNING STUDIES AND RELATED PROJECTS ..................................... 70 6.0 REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDING ............................................................................................ 71 6.1 REGIONAL FIXED ROUTE BUS & PARATRANSIT FUNDING....................................... 71 6.1.1 Revenues ................................................................................................. 71 6.1.2 Expenditures ............................................................................................. 72 6.2 REGIONAL HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT CAPITAL FUNDING ........................................ 74 6.2.1 Revenues ................................................................................................. 74 6.2.2 Expenditures ............................................................................................. 76 6.3 REGIONAL TRANSIT FINANCING .................................................................................. 77 7.0 COST SAVINGS THROUGH SERVICE REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 78 7.1 COST SAVINGS THROUGH SERVICE REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 78 7.1.1 Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 78 7.2 Local Route Identification .................................................................................................. 78 7.2.1 Local Route Analysis .................................................................................. 79 7.3 EXPRESS/RAPID ROUTE IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY ................................... 80 7.3.1 Express/RAPID Route Analysis .................................................................... 80 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 82 8.1 OPERATIONAL INVESTMENTS ...................................................................................... 82 8.2 CAPITAL INVESTMENTS ................................................................................................ 83 8.2.1 Park and Rides .......................................................................................... 83 8.2.2 Transit Centers ......................................................................................... 83 8.2.3 Operations and Maintenance Facilities ......................................................... 84 8.2.4 BRT Right-of-Way Improvements ............................................................... 84 8.3 LOCAL ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 85 8.4 EXPRESS/RAPID ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 85 APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................. 86 APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................................. 92 APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................................. 98 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 2 ` 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] 2010/11 to 2015/16) 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 options 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 performance based multi-part annual regional transit implementation program. The core components of the program include the following:    Transit Performance Report (TPR) Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) The core components function in a circular relationship with one providing input into or serving to affect the other. Starting with the TPR, system and route performance data is documented for each transit mode in the region. Performance data from the TPR 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 Park and Ride [PNR]) to another. For example, the planned location of a PNR facility may be less beneficial than an alternative site. Even though this has not been accomplished, this document provides the background for potential amendments to the TLCP. The capital and service adjustments 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. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 3 ` Executive Summary 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. Figure ES-1: Regional Transit Program Process WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGION? Maricopa County comprises 25 cities and towns and three Native American communities. Maricopa County continues to gain population, but at a slower rate than in past decades, according to official census figures released March 10, 2011 by the U.S. Census Bureau. The information was gathered during the decennial census conducted on April 1, 2010. The resident population for Maricopa County was 3,817,117, representing an increase of 744,968 people, a 24.2 percent increase in population since Census 2000. The annual average growth rate was 2.2 percent. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 4 ` 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-1. Figures ES-2 and ES-3 display the local, express, and RAPID bus routes. Table ES-2 is an Annual Efficiency and Effectiveness Report Card that compares the major FY 2010 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 routes and circulators - Express and RAPID - Regional circulator Paratransit (Dial-a-Ride) 8 systems or services: 59 local1 18 express1 4 RAPID1 1 light rail line1 2 arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) 16 circulators 2 regional circulators 113 916 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 (peak period service only, no weekend service.) Limited number of daily runs (weekday and Saturday Service, no Sunday Service) - East Valley Dial-a-Ride El Mirage Glendale - Surprise - Phoenix Dial-A-Ride Southwest Valley ADA Peoria  RPTA managed County-wide service (Maricopa County STS replacement service). Operating hours, service eligibility requirements, transfer policies, fares vary by provider. Vanpool Valley Metro Vanpool Program Light Rail Route: Hours of operation: Provides vans to groups of 6-15 commuters who share in the monthly cost of the van through payment of an equitable monthly fee. 20 miles within portions of Phoenix, Tempe, and west Mesa Weekdays: 4:30 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. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 5 ` Executive Summary Figure ES-2: Local Routes Map—January 2011 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 6 ` Executive Summary Figure ES-3: Express & RAPID Routes Map—January 2011 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 7 ` Executive Summary Table ES-2: Annual Efficiency & Effectiveness Report Card FIXED ROUTE BUS, SYSTEMWIDE TARGET ACTUAL FY 2010 Cost Efficiency/ Effectiveness Farebox Recovery Ratio 3 RAIL TARGET ACTUAL FY 2010 25% 28% Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness 1 1 25% 24.1% Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Cost per Boarding $2.39 $3.50 Operating Cost per Boarding $3.19 $2.72 Subsidy per Boarding $1.80 $2.66 Subsidy per Boarding $2.34 $1.96 Operating Cost per Revenue Mile $5.10 $5.90 Operating Cost per Revenue Mile $16.19 $12.43 Average Fare $0.69 $0.84 Average Fare $0.82 $0.76 7,827,00 0 12,112,7 38 Service Effectiveness Service Effectiveness Annual Increase in Total Boardings 3 3% -15.22% Total Boardings Annual Increase in Boardings; Weekday, Saturday, Sunday 3% -14.08% Boardings Avg. Weekday 26,090 38,030 Avg. Boardings per Revenue Mile 2.1 1.69 Boardings Avg. Sat. 20,800 27,393 TARGET ACTUAL FY 2010 Boardings Avg. Sun./Holiday 11,267 17,266 Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Mile 3.94 4.57 PARATRANSIT Cost Efficiency/ Effectiveness Farebox Recovery Ratio 1 5% 6.3% Boardings per Revenue Mile 8.04 N/A N/A N/A Operating Cost per Boarding $29.38 $36.99 Safety Incidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles Subsidy per Boarding $27.95 $34.69 Security Incidents per "x" Boardings N/A N/A Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $51.76 $60.15 On-time Performance 93% 95.80% Miles between failures 25,000 12,107 89% N/A TARGET ACTUAL FY 2010 100% 92.9% $1.82 $1.69 $0 $0.17 Operating Cost per Revenue Mile $0.49 0.45 Average Fare $1.96 $1.88 Annual Increase in Total Boardings 0% 1,418,466 Boardings per Revenue Hour 0.27 0.6 24 44 Service Effectiveness Annual Increase in Total Boardings -- -11.05 Boardings per Revenue Hour 1.76 1.63 ADA On-time Performance 95% 97.35% Customer Satisfaction 2 VANPOOL Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness Farebox Recovery Ratio 1 Operating Cost per Boarding 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". 3 Percentage increase in boardings as compared to previous year. TBD = To Be Determined NA = Not Available Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 Service Effectiveness Net Van Pool Starts 8 ` Executive Summary Capital Facilities Transit capital facilities and fleet 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. A picture of a LINK bus stop is shown in figure ES-4. Table ES-3: Capital Facilities in the Region Passenger & Support Facilities On-Street Passenger Park-and-Ride Existing: Transit Centers Planned: Existing: Planned: Maintenance & Operations Facilities Existing: Planned1: Roadway Enhancements High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes Existing: Under construction: Planned2: HOV Direct Access Ramps (Freeway to Arterials) Existing: HOV Direct Access Ramps (Freeway to Freeway) Existing: HOV Direct Access (Freeway to Freeway) Underway Arterial Street Improvements - Queue jumpers (bus priority access) - Arterial BRT limited stop with transit signal priority - Arterial BRT (planned) Regional Transit Fleet Fixed Route Light Rail 7,626 bus stops; 3,236 shaded bus stops (natural and shelters); 1146 with bench only 281 BRT stations in Mesa Main Street Corridor 261 BRT stations in Arizona Avenue/Country Club Corridor 28 LRT stops in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa 25 publicly-owned 30 joint-use with agreement with private property owners 55 facilities with 9137 spaces 9 publicly-owned 16 existing 7 new 1 to be expanded 5 fixed route/demand response facilities 1 light rail 1 upgrades to existing 272 lane miles 80 lane miles 111 lane miles 6 along I-10 6 4 3 on Arizona Avenue in Chandler (existing) 1 1 on Main Street & Power Road in Mesa 1 916 vehicles 50 vehicles 1 This includes the shared stations Main Street and Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive share. It also includes the termini for both routes. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 9 ` Executive Summary Figure ES-4: LINK bus stop 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 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 partly or wholly funded locally. Some segments are scheduled to be regionally funded in the future, and some are not. Table ES-4 provides a summary of the planned transit operations investments by initial fiscal year of regional funding. The investments include seven Supergrid routes, five express/BRT routes; one light rail extension and one modern streetcar are included as improvements. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 10 ` Executive Summary Table ES-4: Planned Regional Operations Investments Initial Fiscal Year Regional Funding 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 2010-2016 Routes 1 Supergrid 1 express/BRT 1 Supergrid 1 express/BRT 1 Supergrid 1 express/BRT 2 Supergrid 0 express/BRT 1 Supergrid 1 express/BRT 1 Supergrid 1 express/BRT 1 light rail extension 1 modern streetcar 7 Supergrid 5 express/BRT 1 light rail extension 1 modern streetcar Source: Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update, 2010. Planned Regionally Funded Capital Improvements A summary of the transit capital improvements planned between FY 2011 and 2016 is presented in Table ES-5. Table ES-6 identifies the regional funds programmed in the FY 2010 TLCP Update for regional bus stop construction and upgrades. Because of a downturn in tax revenue projections, no bus stop improvements are planned for the next five fiscal years. Table ES-5: Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2011 through FY 2016 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 East Buckeye Park-and-Ride Scottsdale Rd & Loop 101 Park-and-Ride Arrowhead Transit Center Peoria Downtown Transit Center Laveen/59th Ave Park-and-Ride Mesa Downtown Transit Center Scottsdale/Rural BRT Improvements Pre-Design (FY) Design (FY) Land (FY) Construction/ Open (FY) 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2011 2011 2010 2011 NA 2012 2009 2010 2010 2012 2009 2010 2011 2013 2014 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2012 2014 2009 2011 2012 2014 2015 2012 2015 2012 2012 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016 Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update . Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 11 ` Executive Summary Table ES-6: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2011 through FY 2016 TLCP Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total TLCP Programmed Funding1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 Funding subject to change based on annual budget Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Key facts about the programmed transit facility investments include:   Planned capital investments/improvements for the fiscal years 2011 through 2016 include five transit centers and six park-and-ride facilities. Improvements include expansion and/or rehabilitation of four transit centers. 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 95 transit vehicles are programmed for services planned to be implemented through FY 2016. Table ES-7 summarizes the planned acquisition of regional transit vehicles to support service expansion. A standard 12-year transit bus fleet replacement cycle is assumed. 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 2012, it will be programmed for purchase during FY 2011. Fixed route buses, account for 31 of the vehicles. Because of the success of the Vanpool program, 60 new vehicles are planned for acquisition over five years to support expansion. However, this discussion does not reflect anticipated cuts that may be made, until such decisions have been made final. Table ES-7: Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles Fiscal Year For Acquisition 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Fixed Route 5 4 5 6 11 31 Paratransit 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rural 1 4 0 0 0 5 Vanpool 10 0 0 25 25 60 Total Vehicles 16 8 4 31 36 95 Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 12 ` Executive Summary Planning Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Investments Specific initial planning considerations for each of the regionally funded improvements are identified in Chapter 7 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. The SRTP includes recommendations to guide the regional transit planning process. 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 RPTA Board approved this study in April 2007. Using the structure provided by the SEES, three Annual Transit Performance Reports (FY 2008, FY 2009 and FY 2010) have been prepared and accepted by the Board since that time. 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. Transit Funding Based on the estimated sources of revenues and programmed expenditures in the 2010 TLCP update there are several years that expenditures exceed revenues. Table ES-8 and Figure ES5 describes the RPTA expenditures. Table E-8: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (in $millions) Revenue Category FY 2010 FY 2011 FY2012 Regional Bus Operations $39.27 $43.42 $46.60 Paratransit Operations $14.97 $18.11 RPTA Planning & Administration $4.17 Regional Services FY 2014 FY 2015 $50.66 $53.60 $59.32 $292.88 $23.21 $24.87 $28.30 $29.51 $138.96 $4.28 $4.41 $4.54 $4.68 $4.82 $26.89 $7.26 $7.44 $7.66 $7.89 $8.13 $8.37 $46.77 Transit Vehicles $79.97 $63.49 $48.32 $52.71 $46.02 $61.17 $351.68 Arterial BRT ROW $12.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21.76 $22.41 $56.62 $4.36 $9.24 $37.20 $1.20 $6.74 $7.49 $66.22 $162.46 $145.97 $167.40 $141.87 $169.22 $193.09 $980.01 Capital Facilities Total Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 FY2013 Total 13 ` Exxecutive Sum mmary Figure ES-5 E Estimate ed RPTA Reg gional Fixed Route R & Parattransit Expenditures (perce entage of tota als) 2 TLCP update Source: 2010 Changes s in the levell of estimate ed revenues or expendittures could e either positivvely or nega atively affect the e programm med impleme entation schedules and scope of th he projects identified he erein. Through the annual TLCP upda ate process,, estimates for short an nd long rang ge revenuess and expenditures are rev viewed to determine d th he financial fitness of th he regional transit prog gram. Appropria ate finance strategies and other actions arre considerred annuallyy to mainta ain a reasonab ble and susta ainable finan nce plan. nge Transit Program—FY 2010/11 2 – 2015/16 Short Ran 14 4 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction INTRODUCTION 1.0 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM This Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) report update proposes transit service and capital improvements for implementation in Fiscal Years (FY) 2010/11 to 2015/16. In addition, the report 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 multi-modal transportation improvements identified in MAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The report serves as an important resource guide for anyone interested in public transit in the greater 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, Fixed Route 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 during this period. 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 to help determine which routes to adjust based on performance. 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, Native American communities, and public agencies: 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. It should be noted 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, including grant funds, can experience wide variability and remains uncertain. As a result, this report is intended to be as flexible as possible to accommodate change. Projects may be shifted from Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 15 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction one year to another or eliminated completely, depending on the availability of funding for transit programs. 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 and RPTA. The cities of Glendale, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe provide for fixed route service in their jurisdictions. The RPTA provides service in Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, and often assists other communities with planning and/or 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, RPTA managed County-wide service (Maricopa County STS replacement Service), 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) operates 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 provides information that can be incorporated 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. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 16 ` 1.3 Chapter 1 – Introduction REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS Maricopa County comprises 25 cities and towns and three Native American communities. Maricopa County continues to gain population, but at a slower rate than in past decades, according to official census figures released March 10, 2011 by the U.S. Census Bureau. The information was gathered during the decennial census conducted on April 1, 2010. The resident population for Maricopa County was 3,817,117, representing an increase of 744,968 people, a 24.2 percent increase in population since Census 2000. The annual growth rate was 2.2 percent. According to the numbers, the 10 largest cities in Maricopa County include Phoenix (1,445,632), Mesa (439,041), Chandler (236,123), Glendale (226,721), Scottsdale (217,385), Gilbert (208,453), Tempe (161,719), Peoria (154,065), Surprise (117,517), and Avondale (76,238). In terms of total growth by percentage, Buckeye was the fastest-growing community in the Maricopa region, adding 44,339 people since 2000 for a growth rate of 678 percent. Surprise moved into the top 10 Maricopa County cities by population, while Chandler moved up in rank to number three on the list. Of the 20 largest cities in Arizona, 12 are in Maricopa County, including Goodyear, which ranked 14th in the state (11th in the region), and Buckeye, which ranked 16th in the state (12th in the region)1. 1 Source: Maricopa Association of Governments Census Data Released on March 10, 2010. http://www.azmag.gov/Administration/News.asp?y=2011&i=277 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 17 ` 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. 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 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 18 ` 2008 Chapter 1 – Introduction  2010  2011  extensions to the 30 miles being funded from other sources. METRO light Rail opens for operation on December 28, 2008. The first Bus Rapid Transit LINK route opens along Main Street in Mesa. In March 2010, the State legislature repealed the Local Transportation Assistance Funds (LTAF) which had provided a significant source of funds ($22 million annually in Maricopa County out of $34 million statewide) that had supported public transportation services in the Valley for 30 years. These funds were supplied by Arizona Lottery revenues – referred to as LTAF. The reduction of LTAF was made retroactive to February 1, 2010. In January 2011, the second BRT line in the valley opened for operation along Arizona Ave and Country Club Drive. The route serves the cities of Mesa and Chandler and the Town of Gilbert. Table 1-2: Population and Employment (2005-2020) Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 19 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction The remainder of this section focuses on those demographic groups that tend to be more transit dependent than the general population. Not all data from the 2010 census was available during the development of this report, so to track demographics the American Community Survey (ACS) was used. Figure 1-1 shows a map that portrays the percent of the population that is age 60 and over per Census Tract. The percent breaks are based on the county average of 15.2% so it depicts the tracts that are over that. The attached map is from the 2005-2009 five-year American Community Survey (ACS) estimates. 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 (>60%) 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 retirement communities that are found in these outlying areas of the valley. Figure 1-2 shows areas where people with disabilities live. The county average for people age 5 and over living with a disability in Maricopa County is 18%. The map is depicts those areas above the 18% average (according to the 2000 Census). The map indicates that these residents live in higher concentrations in pockets almost everywhere throughout the county, especially in the northeast, far north, far west, southwest, and far south portions of the county. The highest concentrations (>35%) reside mostly in the following areas: 1) Generally in the area Grand Ave and Loop 101 in Youngtown; 2) Southern portion of portion of Phoenix; and 3) East and central Mesa. Figure 1-3 shows locations of high concentrations (>80% of a census tract) of minority populations. 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. For consistency sake, the map shown uses the ACS data. This map also shows the population breaks in relation to the county average. Figure 1-4 shows “linguistic isolation” - these are households where no family member speaks English “very well.” The percent breakdowns are based on the county average. This data was based on ACS five-year estimates. Figure 1-5 displays locations of persons living in poverty in the Maricopa Region according to the American Community Survey estimates. This map, like the others, is based on the county average. The average number of persons living in Poverty in Maricopa County is 13.4%. 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 (>35% ) are generally in three areas: 1) Vicinity of the I-10 freeway between about 67th Avenue and the SR-51 freeway; 2) Near the Loop 202 (Red Mountain Freeway) from approximately the SR-51 freeway to 48th Street; and 3) Vicinity of the I17 freeway between about Thomas and Bethany Home Roads. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 20 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction Figure 1-1: Population Concentration Age 60 and Over Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 21 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction Figure 1-2: Population Age 5 and Over With Disability Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 22 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction Figure 1-3: Minority Population Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 23 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction Figure 1-4: Language Spoken at Home in Arizona Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 24 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction Figure 1-5: Families in Poverty Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 25 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction 1.4 TRANSIT AND EQUITY The basic principles of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 12898 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 low-income populations.” Public transit complies with Title VI and Executive Order 12898 by making sure that investment 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 2010/11 – 2015/16 26 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 an overview of the regional transit system describing the performance characteristics of each mode. Table 2-1 reflects the FY 2010 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, circulator, dial-a-ride, regional connector, light rail and vanpool services provided in the region. Table 2-1: FY 2010 System Data Total Boardings 69,601,005 Total Revenue Hours 3,189,320 Total Passenger Revenues $60,342,414 Boardings Per Revenue Hour 21.82 Total Wheelchair Boardings 395,345 Operating Cost Total Vehicle Miles 55,319,639 Capital Cost $258,800,032 Percent On-Time Performance Boardings Per Revenue Mile N/A Farebox Recovery Ratio 23.3% $3.72 Total Vehicle Hours 3,312,810 Total Cost N/A Operating Cost Per Boarding 1.46 47,817,719 N/A Vehicle Accidents 96.14% Total Revenue Miles Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $81.14 Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile $5.41 N/A = data not available A comparison of major ridership, financial, and other major statistics for the five-year period FY 2006 -- FY 2010 is shown in Table 2-2. Over the five-year period, boardings and passenger revenues increased about 14% and 3%, respectively. However, operating costs increased nearly 90% in the same period. One of the reasons for increased operating costs is the higher price of fuel. Another reason is the contract cost per mile increased greatly. This resulted in an approximate 46% decrease 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 – 2010 System Data for performance data by jurisdiction, by mode, by paratransit system and by individual fixed route. Appendix B – 1995 to 2010 System Data presents various performance data by mode over a 16 year period. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 27 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation Table 2-2: Comparison of System-wide Data for Five-Year Period— FY 2006 and FY 2010 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 2006 40,087,019 2,624,329 15.28 FY 2006 61,067,461 1.52 23.27 FY 2006 `21.70% $136,436,729 $58,723,062 $2.23 $0.96 $1.27 $13.70 $4.17 FY 2010 47,817,719 3,189,320 14.99 FY 2010 69,601,005 1.45 21.82 FY 2010 23.32% $259,800,032 $60,342,414 $3.72 $0.87 $2.85 $81.14 $5.41 5 Years (FY 2006-2010) % Change 19.28% 21.53% -1.85% 5 Years (FY 2006-2010) % Change 13.97% -4.45% -6.22% 5 Years (FY 2006-2010) % Change 10.68% 89.69% 2.76% 66.43% -9.84% 124.06% 492.18% 29.93% SERVICE GOALS AND STANDARDS On April 19, 2008, the RPTA Board of Directors approved a series of service goals and standards for Valley Metro transit services. These targets (see Table 2-3) were developed as part of the Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study, and include targets for fixed route – system-wide, fixed route – route level, paratransit, as well as for light rail transit. 2.2 FIXED ROUTE 2.2.1 Service Characteristics During FY 2010, fixed route transit service was provided in a 940 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 fifty nine (59) local, eighteen (18) express, fifteen(15) circulators, four (4) RAPID routes, two (2) rural routes, one (2) BRT lines 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 2010/11 – 2015/16 28 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation Table 2-3: Efficiency and Effectiveness Performance Measures Targets FY 2010 Fixed Route Bus, Systemwide Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness Farebox Recovery Ratio1 Operating Cost per Boarding Subsidy (Net Opt Cost) per Boarding Cost per Revenue Mile Average Fare Service Effectiveness Total Boardings (Number) Total Boardings2 Boardings Avg. Weekday, Sat., Sun. 2 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 Customer Satisfaction3 Fixed Route Bus, Route Level Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness Farebox Recovery Ratio1 Operating Cost per Boarding Subsidy (Net Opt Cost) per Boarding Cost per Revenue Mile Service Effectiveness Total Boardings (Number) Total Boardings2 Boardings Avg. Weekday, Sat., Sun. 2 Boardings per Revenue Mile Boardings per Revenue Hour (Express Bus) On-time Performance Miles between Mechanical Failures Vanpool Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness Farebox Recovery Ratio1 Operating Cost per Boarding Subsidy (Net Opt Cost) per Boarding Cost per Revenue Mile Average Fare Total Boardings (Number) Boardings per Revenue Mile Increase in Net Vanpools Target 25% $2.39 $1.80 $5.10 $0.69 Rail Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness Farebox Recovery Ratio1 Operating Cost per Boarding Subsidy (Net Opt Cost) per Boarding Cost per Revenue Mile Average Fare Service Effectiveness -3% 3% 2.1 1.2 0 28 90% 23,400 89% 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 Target 25% $2.39 $1.80 $5.10 -3% 3% 2.1 TBD 90% 23,400 Target 100% $1.75 $0.00 $0.47 $1.89 --0.27 24 Target TARGET 25% $3.19 $2.34 $16.19 $0.82 7,827,000 26,090 N/A N/A 3.94 8.04 N/A N/A 95% 25,000 89% Paratransit Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness Farebox Recovery Ratio1 Operating Cost per Boarding Subsidy (Net Opt Cost) per Boarding Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Average Fare Service Effectiveness Total Boardings (Number) Total Boardings2 Boardings Avg. Weekday, Sat., Sun. 2 Boardings per Revenue Hour Percent No Shows Target On-time Performance Miles between Mechanical Failures Customer Satisfaction3 95% TBD 90% 5% $29.38 $27.95 $51.76 TBD -------1.76 5% 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”. 2 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 29 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation Figure 2-1: Local Routes Map for January 2011 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 30 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation Figure 2-2: Express & RAPID Routes Map for July 2009 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 31 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation 2.2.2 Funding Sources Local funding for these routes is provided by the municipalities of Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sun City, Surprise, Tempe, and Tolleson. Regional operating funds are provided by 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. Many of these communities are using also using general funds to support transit services. In March 2010, the State legislature repealed the Local Transportation Assistance Funds (LTAF). These funds were supplied from Arizona Lottery revenues, and represented a significant block of funds ($22 million annually in Maricopa County out of $34 million statewide) that has supported public transportation services in the Valley for 30 years. The reduction of LTAF was made retroactive to February 1, 2010. RPTA receives approximately 33 percent of the half-cent Maricopa County sales tax for transportation that was approved by voters in November 2003. 2.2.3 Private Contractors During FY 2010, 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. RPTA has service contracts 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 data for fixed route service is displayed in Table 2-4 for FY 2006, 2009, and 2010. In FY 2008, RPTA began reporting 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 2009 and 2010, the total fixed route boardings decreased by about 15%. The total boardings have also decreased about 6% since FY 2006. The boardings were down for a combination reasons including a down economy, and due to service reductions resulting from declines in public revenues that fund transit. However, revenues increased about 7% and 47%, respectively, in the one- and five-year periods of comparison because of a fare increase. Operating costs decreased nearly 1% between FY 2009 and FY 2010. These costs also increased about 44% over the previous five years. This all resulted in the farebox recovery ratio increasing slightly about 8% in the one-year period and almost 2% 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 2010. The increase in transit service and the resulting increases in ridership over the years are clearly apparent. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 32 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation Not all data for FY 2010 is available at the time of preparation of this SRTP. However, Table 25 provides available statistics on boardings and revenue miles for FY 2010. Table 2-4: Comparison of Fixed Route1 Data—2006, 2009 and 2010 General FY 2006 Vehicle Revenue Miles Vehicle Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Per Hour FY 2009 27,504,359 1,973,510 13.94 Ridership 34,172,826 2,305,116 14.82 FY 2006 Total Boardings Boardings Per Revenue Mile Boardings Per Revenue Hour FY 2009 58,858,166.00 2.14 29.82 Financial 65,551,812 1.92 28.44 FY 2006 Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Costs FY 2010 32,968,784 2,393,455 13.77 FY 2010 55,574,959 1.69 23.21 FY 2009 FY 2010 23.67% $134,825,841 22.35% $196,568,442 $2.29 $31,908,357 $3.00 $43,931,147 $0.54 $0.67 24.10% $194,414,5 36 $3.50 $46,853,91 5 $0.84 $1.75 $68.32 $2.33 $85.27 $4.90 $5.75 Operating Cost Per Boarding Fare Revenue Fare Revenue Per Boarding Subsidy Per Boarding Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile 1 Year (FY 0910) % Change -3.52% 3.83% -7.08% 1 Year (FY 0910) % Change -15.22% -12.12% -18.35% 1 Year (FY 0910) % Change 7.83% -1.10% 5 Years (FY 06-10) % Change 19.87% 21.28% -1.16% 5 Years (FY 06-10) % Change -5.58% -21.23% -22.14% 5 Years (FY 06-10) % Change 1.83% 44.20% 16.66% 6.65% 52.72% 46.84% 25.80% 55.51% $2.66 $81.23 14.03% -4.75% 51.85% 18.90% $5.90 2.52% 20.30% 1 Fixed Route includes local, supergrid, circulator and rural connector routes for the entire system. Table 2-5: Annual Boardings and Revenue Miles—FY 2010 Ridership Statistic Boardings Revenue Miles Boardings Per Revenue Mile Number 69,601,005 47,817,719 1.45 Source: RPTA, Annual Ridership Report for FY 2010, as derived from farebox data, which doesn’t include free circulator service.. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 33 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation 2.2.5 Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Service The Regional Transportation Plan calls for arterial bus rapid transit service in several corridors. The first corridor was the 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 has 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 stop less often, approximately once every mile (as compared to local bus which stops every quarter mile). LINK service features a unique station design that maximizes shade for transit patrons, features dynamic message signs that provide real time bus arrival data, and will eventually include fare vending machines at some stations to allow for off vehicle fare collection. On weekdays the service operates every 15 minutes during peak hours, and every 30 minutes during off-peak hours. Service is available from about 4:30 am to approximately 10:30 pm. However, this service does not operate on Saturdays and Sundays. Implementation of the Mesa Main Street LINK service began in December 2008 concurrent with the opening of the light rail starter line. The region’s second arterial BRT line, Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive LINK, began operation in January 2011. This service operates every 30 minutes during peak hours, and hourly during off-peak times. The service operates from about 5:00 am to 9:30 pm Monday through Friday. On Saturday and Sunday service operates hourly. Future corridors for this type of service include Chandler Boulevard, South Central Avenue and Scottsdale/Rural Road. 2.3 HIGH CAPACITY / LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT Light rail transit (LRT) began revenue operations in late December 2008. Valley Metro Rail (METRO) is the regional agency responsible for construction and operation of this high capacity mode of transit. The initial LRT segment operates a total of 20 miles through the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. Headways (frequencies) of train service are: Weekdays (Monday – Thursday): 4:40 AM – 7:30 AM 20 minutes 7:30 AM – 6:30 PM 12 minutes 6:30 PM – midnight 20 minutes Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 Saturdays: 5:00 AM – 7:30 AM 7:30 AM – 7:00 PM 7:00 PM – 3:00 AM 15 minutes 15 minutes 20 minutes 34 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation Weekdays (Friday): 4:40 AM – 7:30 AM 7:30 AM – 6:30 PM 6:30 PM – 3:00 AM 20 minutes 12 minutes 20 minutes Sundays/Holidays: 5:00 AM – 7:30 AM 7:30 AM – 7:00 PM 7:00 PM – midnight 20 minutes 20 minutes 20 minutes The 20-year RTP includes an additional 37 miles of high capacity transit in six corridors planned to connect with the initial system:       Northwest I & II Central Mesa Tempe South Glendale Phoenix 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. Figure 2-4: High Capacity Transit Corridors Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 35 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation Figure 2-5: High Capacity Transit Corridors—Schedule Source: Metro 2010 2.4 CIRCULATORS Several cities provide circulator services (usually in their downtown areas) and / or neighborhood circulator service. The City of Phoenix operates DASH from downtown to the State Capitol area, and ALEX, a neighborhood circulator in the Ahwatukee/Desert Foothills area. They also operate the SMART, which is a neighborhood circulator in Sunny Slope, and the MARY, which operates in Maryvale. The City of Tempe provides FLASH that travels between downtown Tempe and the 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 neighborhood circulators are free except for Glendale’s GUS services which charge a $0.25 fare. Beginning in FY 2007, RPTA combined circulator service data with the fixed route service data, so performance information about these services is included in Table 2-4. Even though the data changed from 2006 to 2007, all data was included in the table. However, the data for the individual circulator routes is combined with fixed route and is shown in Appendix A – 2010 System Data. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 36 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. 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 dial-a-ride eligible persons only. Table 2-6 presents the major statistics for paratransit, or dial-a-ride, services in the region for FY 2006, 2009, and 2010. The available data by specific service is included in Appendix A. Paratransit boardings decreased 2% between FY 2009 and FY 2010 and about 13% between FY 2004 and FY 2008. This could be because of cutbacks in Non-ADA service. Also, when fixed route is cut, there is a reduction in the ADA service area. However, 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 2006. Table 2-6: Comparison of Paratransit Data—2006, 2009 and 2010 General Vehicle Revenue Miles Vehicle Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Per Hour Ridership Total Boardings Boardings Per Revenue Mile Boardings Per Revenue Hour FY 2006 7,865,367 532,887 14.76 FY 2006 FY 2009 7,329,082 524,842 13.96 FY 2009 FY 2010 6,572,800 478,158 13.74 FY 2010 938,879 0.12 874,132 0.12 777,525 0.11 1.76 1.67 1.62 1 Year (FY 09-10) % Change -10.32% -8.89% -1.58% 1 Year (FY 09-10) % Change -11.05% 5 Years (FY 06-10) % Change -16.43% -10.27% -6.91% 5 Years (FY 09-10) % Change -17.19% -0.82% -0.90% -7.71% 5 Years (FY 06-10) % Change 27.68% 7.30% 29.57% Financial FY 2006 FY 2009 FY 2010 Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Costs Operating Cost Per Boarding Fare Revenue Fare Revenue Per Boarding Subsidy Per Boarding 4.88% $26,805,994 $28.55 4.10% $31,857,041 $36.44 6.23% $28,762,414 $36.99 -2.37% 1 Year (FY 09-10) % Change 52.06% -9.71% 1.50% $1,307,546 $1.39 $1,304,778 $1.49 $1,791,298 $2.30 37.29% 54.35% 37.00% 65.43% $27.16 $34.95 $34.69 -0.75% 27.73% Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 37 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile $50.30 $60.70 $60.15 -0.90% 19.58% $3.41 $4.35 $4.37 0.67% 28.40% After extensive input from RPTA member jurisdictions and paratransit users, a new ADA paratransit eligibility process was put into effect in March 2011. The new in-person process replaces the former paper-only process. It establishes a customer’s eligibility to use the complementary paratransit service required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Individuals applying for ADA certification are interviewed in-person by qualified staff. On an asneeded basis, some customers are asked to participate in a mobility assessment. Mobility assessments take place on “the Transit Walk,” an indoor facility which simulates a transit user’s environment. The Transit Walk seeks to bring the outdoors inside by using curb cuts, murals, different ground surfaces, a bus shelter and a bus to help people navigate what it is like to use transit The ADA eligibility program and Transit Walk are housed in the new Valley Metro Mobility Center, which opened in February 2011. The Mobility Center will also house other mobility programs such as travel training and Ride Choice (alternatives to both fixed route and traditional Dial-a-Ride). 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. RPTA provides vans Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 38 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation 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 2006, 2009, and 2010 is displayed in Table 2-6. Between FY 2009 and 2010, boardings decreased about -11%. Between FY 2006 and 2010 boardings decreased by almost -17%. In addition, operating costs fell almost -10% in the same one year period but increased by 7% during the previous five years. However, revenues increased with an almost 37% increase in one year and over a five year period increased nearly 37%. The farebox recovery ratio increased by nearly 3% between FY 2009 and FY 2010. However, between FY 2009 and FY 2010, the farebox recovery ratio had also decreased by nearly 14%. One of the reasons the farebox recovery ratio went down over five years, is because the way vanpool farebox recovery data was collected changed. Table 2-7: Comparison of Vanpool Data—2006, 2009 and 2010 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 1,270,416 0.27 1,896,888 0.31 1,135,783 0.20 1 Year (FY 09-10) % Change -9.43% -14.26% 5.64% 1 Year (FY 09-10) % Change -40.12% -33.89% 10.77 12.05 8.42 -30.16% -21.86% 5 Years (FY 06-10) % Change -13.91% 23.17% 37.77% FY 2006 4,717,293 117,932 40.00 FY 2006 FY 2009 6,208,650 157,369 39.45 FY 2009 FY 2010 5,623,377 134,927 41.68 FY 2010 5 Years (FY 06-10) % Change 19.21% 14.41% 4.19% 5 Years (FY 06-10) % Change -10.60% -25.00% FY 2006 FY 2009 FY 2010 107.89% $2,158,282 $1.70 90.56% $4,118,258 $2.17 92.88% $2,658,382 $2.34 1 Year (FY 09-10) % Change 2.57% -35.45% 7.81% $2,328,632 $1.83 $3,729,293 $1.97 $2,469,143 $2.17 -33.79% 10.58% 6.03% 18.60% $0.00 $18.30 $0.21 $26.17 $0.17 $19.70 -18.75% -24.71% 7.66% $0.46 $0.66 $0.47 -28.73% 3.32% Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 39 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure 3.0 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE The provision of transit service in an area that is nearly 940 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. New bus stop data was collected in late 2010, but was not available when the Short Range Transit Program went to press. RPTA is currently in the process of developing a new database. Recognizing that lack of improved bus stops with 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. The two LINK routes, Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive and Mesa Main Street share four stations along Main street. They also share their terminus at Main Street and Sycamore Transit Center. The other terminus for Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive is the Tumbleweed Park and Ride. There are a total of 20 additional stations constructed for the LINK route. For Main Street, there are a total of 28 stations, including the shared stations and the terminus ant Superstition Springs Transit Center. There are 28 LRT stations located along the light rail alignment in Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. There are also fare vending machines at every light rail station and several along both LINK routes. 3.2 PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES Existing Park-and-Ride Facilities Region-wide, there are a total of 55 park-and-ride facilities providing 9,137automobile spaces. Of these facilities, 25 are publicly owned and operated. The remaining 30 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. However, the McClintock/Apache Blvd park & ride is joint use but is not controlled by an informal agreement. Instead it is the result of a TOD development project between that was memorialized by a development agreement between the developer, the City of Tempe and Metro. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 40 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure 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 9 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. Table 3-1: Existing Park-and-Ride Facilities Park-and-Ride Facility Tumbleweed PNR Gilbert PNR Goodyear Park and Ride Glendale City Lot Location City Publicly Owned Facilities Hamilton and Germann (Arizona Ave./Loop Chandler 202) Ash and Page Gilbert 13183 W. Cornerstone Blvd., south side of Goodyear Cornerstone Blvd just west of Dysart Rd Surprise Park and Ride 1 Loop 101 & Apache Blvd McClintock Dr & Apache Blvd Apache & Dorsey PNR 460 250 400 Routes Served 511,540,541,542, AZ Ave LINK 531, 136 562 Peoria 82 Phoenix 794 7 Ave and Camelback rd Phoenix 123 59, 570, GUS I & II, Grand Ave Limited 70, 573 533, LINK 30, 40, 45, 96, 104, LINK, METRO Grand Ave Limited, 15, 19, 60, RAPID I-17, Light Rail 8, 50, Light Rail Central Ave & Camelback Rd Phoenix 135 0, 39, 50, GL, Light Rail Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 410 189 377 370 350 906 607 Phoenix 215 Phoenix 512 Phoenix 45 19, 50, Light Rail 1, 32, Light Rail 39,170, SR-51 RAPID 512, SR-51 RAPID 27, 170, I-17 RAPID I-10 East RAPID, ALEX 17, 560, I-10 West RAPID 15, 27, 35, 90, 106, 122, 581, I-17 RAPID I-17, RAPID 0, 8, 12, 16, 80, 90, 106, Dial-a-Ride, SMART Surprise 230 571 Tempe Tempe Tempe 693 300 190 40, 511, Orbit, Light Rail 40, 81, Light Rail 40, Orbit, Light Rail th Glendale PNR Superstition Springs PNR Main St & Sycamore Transit Center & PNR Peoria PNR East Spectrum Mall Transit Center & PNR th 7 Ave and Camelback Rd PNR Central & Camelback Transit Center & PNR th 19 Ave & Camelback PNR th Washington & 38 St PNR Bell/SR-51 PNR Shea/SR-51 PNR Bell/I-17 PNR th 40 St/Pecos PNR th 79 Ave/I-10 PNR Metrocenter Transit Center & PNR Happy Valley/I-17 PNR Sunnyslope Transit Center & PNR Capacity 59 Ave & Myrtle Ave Glendale 109 th 7111 N 99 Ave Power Rd & US-60 Glendale Mesa 388 200 Main St & Sycamore St Mesa 802 th Jefferson St & 84 Ave th Montebello Ave & 19 Ave th th 19 Ave & Camelback Rd th Washington St & 38 St SR-51 & Bell Rd Shea Blvd & SR-51 Bell & I-17 th Pecos Rd & 40 St th 79 Ave & I-10 Metrocenter Pkwy (Metrocenter Mall parking lot) Happy Valley Rd & I-17 rd 3 St & Dunlap Ave 13327 W. Bell Rd South of Bell Rd. one block th east of 134 Dr Loop 101 & Apache Blvd McClintock Dr & Apache Blvd Apache Blvd & Dorsey Ln Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 41 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Joint-Use Facilities Donnie Hale Park Carl’s Jr. Food City Plaza City Lot Wal-Mart 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 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 th 4 St & Jessie May Way Warner Rd & Alma School Rd Arizona Ave & Ray Rd Chicago St & Arizona Ave th 129 ave and Thunderbird Rd st Thunderbird Rd & 51 Ave th 75 Avenue & Rose Garden Ln Decatur St & Power Rd Gilbert Rd & Southern Ave Recker Rd & McKellips Rd Greenfield Rd & McKellips nd 32 & Cactus Rd th 19 Ave & Utopia th Greenway Rd & 29 Ave th 35 Ave & Greenway Rd th 48 St & Cheyenne St Avondale Chandler Chandler Chandler El Mirage 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 N/A 131 104, 151 112, 541 104, 112, 540, 541 GAL 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 Phoenix N/A 32, 90, 186 7 St & Thunderbird Rd Windrose & Tatum Blvd Phoenix Phoenix N/A Hayden Rd & Jackrabbit Rd rd 83 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 th 96 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 nd 32 St & Union Hills Dr th Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 N/A 42 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Figure 3-1: Existing and Planned Publicly Owned Park-and-Rides Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 43 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Table 3-2: Planned1 Publicly Owned Park-and-Ride Facilities Park-and-Ride Facility/ Year of Implementation* Prop 400 Funded 1 Location City Avondale (FY 2014) No I-10 & Avondale Blvd Avondale East Buckeye (FY 2011) Yes I-10 & Verrado Way Buckeye Yes Bell Rd & 75 Ave Desert Sky (FY 2013) No Thomas/75 Avenue Phoenix 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 Yes Cactus Rd & Loop 101 Scottsdale Arrowhead (FY 2013) 2 Scottsdale/101 (FY 2012) Mustang Transit Center & PNR (FY 2015) No th th th Shea Blvd & 90 St Glendale Scottsdale Routes Served - Goodyear Express (FY 2009) - Goodyear Express Extension (FY 2015) - Local Routes 67, 170 & 186 - Express Routes 573, 575 - Peoria Express (FY 2014) - I-10 RAPID (FY 2013) - Superstition Springs Express (FY 2019) - Power Road Supergrid (FY 2010) - Red Mountain Express (FY 2009) - Red Mountain Freeway Connector (FY 2019) - Route 136 - Northeast Mesa/Downtown Express (FY 2009) - Red Mountain Freeway Connector (FY 2019) - 511 - Pima Express (FY 2013) - Routes 81, 106, 512, 511 - Pima Express (FY 2013) 1 As identified in the 20 year RTP Facility was switched with the Peoria/Grand Park-and-Ride * Year of implementation and location is subject to change 2 3.2.1 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. A total of sixteen transit centers are currently operated in the region, six of which serve METRO light rail. 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 public restrooms for use by transit riders. Table 3-3 provides specific information about each transfer center facility. Figure 3-2 illustrates the locations of existing and planned transit center facilities. Nine future transit centers which are identified are shown in Table 3-4. 3.3 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. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 44 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure 3.3.1 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. Table 3-3: Passenger Facilities and Transit Centers—FY 2010 Central Station 300 N. Central Ave Phoenix Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Route / Daily Round Trips 0 1 3 7 8 10 12 15 Grand Avenue Limited 510 512 520 521 531 532 533 535 540 541 542 560 562 570 571 573 575 581 582 590 I-10 W RAPID I-10 E RAPID SR-51 RAPID I-17 RAPID METRO light Rail Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri 77 35 64 39 34 37 25 34 4 2 2 4 6 7 4 5 3 4 5 5 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 14 15 15 25 93 Sat 30 15 29 28 29 13 15 16 -------------------------89 Sun 30 15 29 28 29 13 15 16 -------------------------43 Total 585 266 220 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. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 45 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Sunnyslope Transit Center rd 8927 N. 3 Street Phoenix Route / Daily Round Trips 0 8 12 16 80 90 106 Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri 51 34 25 46 34 32 34 Sat 30 29 15 30 15 30 29 Sun 30 29 15 30 15 30 29 Total 256 178 178 City of Phoenix 1989 1.8 acres 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 15 34 15 15 9415 N. Metro Parkway 27 43 29 29 Phoenix 35 43 28 28 90 32 30 30 106 34 29 29 122 16 14 14 581 4 --582 4 --I-17 RAPID 9 --Dial-a-Ride Service Total 219 145 145 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: Paradise Valley Mall Transit Center 4623 E. Paradise Village Parkway N. Phoenix 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 Desert Sky Mall Transit Center Route / Daily Round Trips Mon-Fri Sat Sun 17 59 29 29 7611 W. Thomas Road 17A 15 14 -Phoenix 29 66 29 29 29 A 15 15 -41 61 30 30 560 2 --I-10 W RAPID 13 --685 5 2 -Dial-a-Ride Service Total 236 119 88 Ownership: Leased land Completed: 1989 Project Size: 900 square feet Facilities: One shelter, shade trees, information kiosk, and bicycle racks. Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 46 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Arizona Mills Mall 5000 Arizona Mills Circle Tempe Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Route / Daily Round Trips 48 56 77 108 Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri 50 51 37 38 Sat 39 39 36 17 Total 176 131 Private 1997 1,000 square feet One bus bays one artist-designed bus shelter, drinking fountain, information kiosk and a bicycle rack. Sun 35 34 35 17 121 Ed Pastor Transit Center 10 W. Broadway Phoenix Route / Daily Round Trips 0 7 8 45 52 Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri 77 42 34 54 34 Sat 29 28 29 39 21 Sun 29 28 29 33 21 Total 241 146 140 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 32 Dial-a-Ride Service Total 121 70 66 Ownership: City of Chandler Completed: 2004 Project Size: 0.5 acres Facilities: Two 40-foot passenger shelters, benches, bicycle rack, and drinking fountains Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 47 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Tempe Transportation Center Route / Daily Round Trips 48 62 65 66 72 536 Orbit METRO light rail Dial-a-Ride Service th 200 E 5 Street Tempe Mon-Fri 51 51 34 34 67 5 282 93 Sat 39 39 20 20 42 -260 89 Sun 35 35 18 18 37 -260 43 Total 617 509 446 City of Tempe 2008 40,000 square feet 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 32 15 15 170 34 30 14 186 33 15 15 572 6 --573 6 --575 3 --576 5 --660 4 2 -Dial-a-Ride Service Total 123 62 44 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: th Montebello / 19 Ave Transit Center 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. Mon-Fri 34 61 32 6 93 1 Sat 16 28 15 -89 2 Sun 16 28 15 -43 226 148 102 Mon-Fri 49 34 49 93 1 Sat 29 28 29 89 2 Sun 29 28 29 43 225 175 129 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 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 48 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure th 44 St / Washington Transit Center Sat 15 29 15 15 20 89 2 Sun 15 29 15 15 20 43 Total 286 183 City of Phoenix 2008 3.2 acres Three bus shelters, four bike racks, information kiosk, security operations center and shade trees. 137 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 1 Mon-Fri 35 64 29 33 32 93 Sycamore / Main St Transit Center 1804 W. Main St Mesa Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: 1 2 Sat 18 40 15 34 16 18 89 2 Sun -40 -34 -18 43 Total 323 230 City of Mesa 2008 3.2 acres Three bus shelters, four bike racks, information kiosk, security operations center and shade trees. 135 Route / Daily Round Trips 30 40 45 96 104 LINK METRO light rail Dial-a-Ride Service 1 Mon-Fri 35 42 32 44 31 46 93 Monday-Friday on bus routes is compared to Monday to Thursday on METRO light rail. Saturday on bus routes is compared to Friday and Saturday on METRO light rail. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 49 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Figure 3-2: Existing and Planned Transfer Facilities Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 50 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Table 3-4: Planned1 Transit Centers and Transit Center Improvements Transit Center/ Year of Implementation Bell/101 (FY 2013) Prop 400 Funded Location rd City Routes Served (Existing and Planned) - Routes 67, 170, 186, 575, 576 - Arrowhead Downtown Express - Surprise-Scottsdale Express rd th - 83 /75 Avenue Supergrid (FY 2023) - West Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009) - Loop 303 Express (FY 2023) Yes Bell Rd & 83 Ave Glendale Chandler - Routes TBD Phoenix - Routes 19, 50, Light Rail South Chandler Transit Center (FY 2014) th 19 Ave/Camelback (FY 2014) Skysong Transit Center (FY 2015) No Alma School Rd & Chandler Heights Rd Yes 19 Ave & Camelback Rd No Scottsdale Rd & McDowell Rd Mustang Transit Center & PNR (FY 2015) No Shea Blvd & 90 St Main St/Sycamore (FY 2016) No Main St & Sycamore St Mesa Mesa Downtown (FY 2016) Yes Main St & Center St Mesa th th Scottsdale Scottsdale - Routes 17, 72 - Neighborhood Connector - Routes 81, 106, , 512 - East Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009) - Pima Express (FY 2013) - 30, 40, 45, 96, 104 - Main St LINK - Light Rail - Routes 40, 45, 104, 112, 120 - Main St LINK - Light Rail Extension Planned Transit Center Improvements Metrocenter Upgrades (FY 2016) Central Station Upgrades (FY 2011) Yes Metrocenter Pkwy (Metrocenter Mall parking lot) Phoenix Yes Central Ave & Van Buren St Phoenix - Routes 15, 27, 35, 90,106, 122, - Express 581 - I-17 RAPID - Black Canyon Fwy Connector (2016) - North I-17 Express (2022) - Routes 0, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, - Express 560, 562, 571, 573, 575 - Grand Ave Limited - I-10 West RAPID - Light Rail 1 As identified in the 20 year RTP Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update 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. 3.3.2 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). 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. However, all of these facilities have been postponed to a year outside of the TLCP. 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. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 51 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure 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 79th Avenue & Van Buren St. Phoenix Tempe/Scottsdale 2050 W. Rio Salado Parkway Tempe RPTA Mesa 3320 N. Greenfield Rd. Mesa Metro Rail 48th & Washington St. 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 Circulator 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: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Regional Public Transportation Authority City of Phoenix Public Transit Department Veolia Transportation – Phoenix Table 3-6: Planned Publicly Owned Operations and Maintenance Facilities Facility 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 Modes Served Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Demand Response Demand Response Rural Vanpool Light Rail Programmed Year Complete 2034 2046 2035 2035 2038 2033 2038 2040 TBD Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 52 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Figure 3-3: Existing Operations and Maintenance Facilities Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 53 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure 3.4 ROADWAY ENHANCEMENTS 3.4.1 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. 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 272 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 July of 2010. 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, and are specifically 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 2010/11 – 2015/16 54 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Figure 3-4: Existing and Planned HOV Facilities and Queue Jumpers Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 55 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Table 3-7: Existing and Planned Freeway HOV Lanes Route From I-10 I-17 SR-51 US-60 SR-101 SR-202 SR-303L Sarival Ave SR-101L Chandler Blvd Begin I-17 I-10 “stack” SR-101L SR-74 I-10 Shea Blvd I-10 Power Rd I-10 Grand Ave I-17 Tatum Blvd Princess Dr Red Mtn Fwy I-10/SR-51 Pima Fwy Gilbert Rd Higley Rd US 60 Gilbert Rd. 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 US 60 Gilbert Rd I-10 Approximate Lane Miles 3 18 52 14 14 28 18 10 20 12 34 12 20 24 16 10 30 20 18 12 10 20 28 20 Status of HOV Lanes Planned RTP Phase II1 Existing Existing Planned RTP Phase II Planned RTP Phase IV Existing Existing Planned RTP Phase V Existing Existing Existing Planned RTP Phase III Underway Underway Underway Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Planned RTP Phase III Planned RTP Phase IV Planned RTP Phase IV Underway 272 111 Sources: MAG Regional Transportation Plan – 2010 Update (July, 2010), MAG 2010 Annual Report on the Status of the Implementation of Proposition 400 (September 2010). 1 Phase II: Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015 2 Phase III: Fiscal Years 2016 through 2020 3 Phase IV: Fiscal Years 2021 through 2025 4 Phase V: Fiscal Years 2026 through 2031 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. SR 51/SR101: From SR 51 North to SR 101 west Also direct ramps connecting one HOV lane to another are under construction at the following system (directional, freeway-to-freeway) interchanges:   I-10/SR-202(Santan): From I-10 east to SR-202 east, and from SR-202 west to I-10 west. SR-101/SR-202 (Santan): From SR-101 south to SR-202 east, and from SR-202 west to SR-101 north. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 56 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure 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. 3.4.2 Arterial Street Improvements There are no transit priority facilities that currently exist on arterial streets in the MAG region, with the exception of Metro Rail and three queue jumpers that allow transit buses priority access through signalized traffic intersections in the City of Chandler. The queue jumpers were constructed by the City to function in both directions of travel on Arizona Avenue at Elliot Road, Warner Road and Ray Road. There will be traffic signal priority as part of the Main Street and Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive LINK routes that will be operational in 2011. 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. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 57 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 occurs less during peak commute periods. Its purpose is to provide cost-effective, environmentally sustainable 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 congestion, reduced traffic accidents, energy conservation, improved 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. RPTA provides or administers a number of TDM services in the region, known collectively as Valley Metro Business Services. Services include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ShareTheRide.com (an online ride-matching 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 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Each of these services is described below. 4.1 SHARETHERIDE.COM This free online service (ShareTheRide.valleymetro.org) allows commuters to quickly and securely find a carpooling partner or view transit options for the daily journey to work. The system maintains a database of persons throughout the Valley and matches commuters based on proximity, destination and travel route, as well as schedules and preferences. Aside from creating ride matches, the state-of-the-art system manages on-line contest for alternative mode users, calculates pollution savings from alternative mode usage on an individual or custom subsite basis, as well as gas savings and the financial savings associated with alternative mode usage. RPTA is the TDM agency for the Phoenix metropolitan area and is responsible for overseeing this service. This matching service can also complement employer’s 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, RPTA has a vanpool program as an additional transportation option for larger groups of commuters. Valley Metro provides clearly marked vans to qualifying groups of six to 15 commuters, driven by one of the vanpool members. Passengers share the cost of operating the van by paying a monthly fare to the primary driver. The driver is then responsible for paying RPTA out of the fare proceeds. The fare covers fuel, insurance, and vehicle maintenance costs. Vans are purchased using federal transportation funds. Billing, insurance, and maintenance are provided by Valley Metro via a contracted vendor. Additional information about this program may be found in Chapter 2. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 58 Chapter 4 – Transportation Demand Management 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 driving-age 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. 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: workshop training sessions to introduce and familiarize program participants with the TRP, as well as one-on-one assistance with conducting surveys, writing TRP plans, developing and implementing trip reduction strategies such as carpool and vanpool matching. 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 winners with a Clean Air Campaign Award. 4.5 TRANSIT EDUCATION PROGRAM RPTA 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 ASSOCIATIONS—ASSISTANCE As part of the regional rideshare program, Valley Metro provides assistance to transportation coordinator associations (TCA). TCAs are organized by geographic area and offer transportation coordinators in the TRP and the opportunity to share ideas and problem solve in a supportive group environment. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 59 Chapter 4 – Transportation Demand Management 4.7 ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES/TELEWORK 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. Teleworking is a flexible work arrangement allowing employees to work at a location other than their main office (most commonly their own home). RPTA provides assistance, resource materials, marketing, and sample information to employers who want to implement or expand teleworking or compressed work weeks programs. These programs benefit both employer and employee. Primary employer benefits include:  Employer Primary Benefits -  Benefits of alternative working arrangements to the employee include: - 4.8 Continuity of business operations Improved employee morale Helps achieve trip reduction goals Decreased overhead and operating costs Increased worker productivity Serves as a retention and recruitment tool Decreased absenteeism Decreased stress Improved productivity and effectiveness Eliminated or reduced commute time and expenses Increased job satisfaction Decreased work-related expenses Provides 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 is providing 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. Funded through the Arizona Department of Transportation’s (ADOT) Transportation Enhancement Fund (TE) Program, the program is:     Provide Arizona curriculum-aligned program support to 17-21 pilot schools statewide, including transportation, safety, GIS-based mapping, health, and air quality curriculums. 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. Train schools to match parents with “school-pools” to improve school traffic flow and air quality during peak-hour commutes. Valley Metro RPTA has secured additional funding to continue the program and expand it statewide through the ADOT TE Program. Work on this aspect of the project is expected to begin in late 2011. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 60 Chapter 4 – Transportation Demand Management 4.9 BIKE SAFETY EDUCATION Valley Metro RPTA also secured funding for the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program. Valley Metro RPTA has also benefitted from prior ADOT Transportation Enhancement (TE) funding awarded in 2007 (Program funding 9/15/08 to 11/30/10). This funding allowed has allowed the agency to leverage limited local staffing and time; Valley Metro RPTA has provided additional staff and helped promote and incentivize safer walking and cycling practices through public service announcements and educational programs. Updating the Valley Metro website capabilities continues, with links to local efforts and contacts. Funding to continue educational efforts will possible with additional ADOT TE (Program funding 10/1/10 to 9/30/12). Major aspects of the program will target low-income and minority workers, public outreach on how to be safe around light rail and HAWK (High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk) signals, and multi-generational safety programs. Safety messages will be delivered by television, radio, e-learning and targeted outreach with the assistance of numerous local nonprofits, healthcare providers, senior centers and local schools. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 61 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 2010 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 2010/2011 and 2015/16 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. The projects described in the TLCP in the MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The projects identified in the RTP include a mix of federal, regional and local funding. The funding assumptions in the RTP are reflected in the five year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). 5.1 REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANIST OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS 5.1.1 Funded Regional Transit Operating Improvements FY 2011 through FY 2016 Planned regionally funded transit operations improvements between FY 2010/2011 and FY 2015/2016 include new bus routes and the provision of regional funding for existing locally funded bus routes. Table 5-1 lists the 7 local bus routes, 5 express/BRT routes, one light rail extension and one streetcar construction that will be impacted by regional transit funding between FY 2010/2011 and FY 2015/2016. Several planned routes in the RTP have been delayed due to fiscal constraints resulting from declines in sales tax revenue. 5.2 COMPARISON OF FUNDED OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION (FY 2010) One local bus route (Table 5-2) was programmed in the FY 2010 TLCP Update to be regionally funded in FY 2011. This route, Rt. 136, Gilbert Rd, was initiated but only on a partial level. Currently there are 56 weekday trips in Gilbert and 47 trips in Mesa. On the weekends, there are 43 trips in Gilbert and 27 in Mesa. 5.3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANSIT OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS (FY 2011 through FY 2016) Regionally funded transit operating improvements identified in the FY 2010 TLCP Update for FY 2010/2011 through FY 2015/2016 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 that could provide 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. It is recommended that the service planning process facilitated by 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. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 62 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements 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. Table 5-1: Regionally Funded Transit Operations Investments FY 2011 and FY 2016 Weekday Route Supergrid Power Road Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive Elliot Road 59th Avenue McDowell/McKellips Roads Baseline Road University Drive Express/BRT Arizona Avenue Arterial BRT Papago Freeway Connector Grand Avenue Limited South Central Express Scottsdale/Rural Roads Arterial BRT Light Rail Central Mesa Extension Tempe Modern Streetcar Initial Fiscal Year of Regional Funding Peak Headway (min) Base Headway (min) Weekend Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips Base Headway (min) Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips 2011 30 30 17 68 60 16 32 2012 15 30 18 72 30 16 64 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016 15 30 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 17 17 18 18 18 68 68 88 72 72 60 60 30 30 60 16 16 17 17 17 32 32 68 68 34 2011 2011 2013 2015 Two-way One-Way Two-way Two-way Two-way --------- --------- 40 4 8 48 --------- --------- --------- --- --- 48 --- --- --- 2016 2016 2016 Source: 2010 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 63 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements Table 5-2: Comparison of Funded Operating Improvements and Implementation (FY 2010) Route Gilbert Road Route Number Implementation Date 136 July 2009 TLCP Funded Daily Weekday/Week end Trips 68 / 34 Gilbert 68 / 34 Mesa Implemented Daily Weekday/Weeke nd Trips 56 / 43 Gilbert 47 / 24 Mesa Implementation 136 Source: 2010 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update and July 2009 Valley Metro Bus Book Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 64 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding 5.3.1 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. 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 Program. 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 2011 through FY 2016 Planned regionally funded transit capital improvements between FY 2010/2011 and FY 2015/2016 include four transit centers, six park-and-ride facilities, and one BRT improvement. Several planned transit centers, park-and-rides and maintenance and operations facilities have Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 65 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding 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 11 regionally funded transit facilities programmed for funding between FY 2010/2011 and FY 2015/2016. Figure 5-1: Surprise Park and Ride Table 5-6: Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2011 through FY 2016 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 East Buckeye Park-and-Ride Scottsdale Rd & Loop 101 Park-and-Ride Arrowhead Transit Center Peoria Downtown Transit Center Laveen/59th Ave Park-and-Ride Mesa Downtown Transit Center Scottsdale/Rural BRT Improvements Pre-Design (FY) Design (FY) Land (FY) Construction/ Open (FY) 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2011 2011 2010 2011 NA 2012 2009 2010 2010 2012 2009 2010 2011 2013 2014 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2012 2014 2009 2011 2012 2014 2015 2012 2015 2012 2012 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016 Source: 2010 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update In addition to major passenger and operations maintenance facilities the earlier TLCP updates identify 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. However, there are currently no funds available for regional bus stop improvements identified in the 2010 TLCP update. This may change in the future, but in the current TLCP update, those funds originally programmed for bus stop improvements have been reallocated to other projects. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 66 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding Table 5-7: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2011 through FY 2016 TLCP Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total TLCP Programmed Funding1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 Funding subject to change based on annual budget Source: 2010 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update 5.4.2 Fixed Route Vehicle Inventory As of June 2010 the Regional Transit System had 915 vehicles available to provide fixed route service. The City of Glendale had 7 vehicles; the City of Phoenix operated 527 vehicles; the City of Scottsdale had 15 vehicles; the City of Tempe had 160 vehicles and the RPTA had 206 vehicles available to provide fixed route service. 5.4.3 Funded Regional Transit Expansion Vehicles: FY 2011 through FY 2016 To support fixed route service expansion through FY 2016, the TLCP identifies the acquisition of 95 vehicles between FY 2011 and 2016. 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, Scottsdale/Rural Road BRT route is programmed to receive six additional busses for service expansion in FY 2015. 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 2011 and 2016 are summarized in Table 5-10. However, this discussion does not reflect anticipated cuts that may be made, until such decisions have been made final. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 67 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service is funded in the RTP for a limited number of arterial street corridors. In December 2008 the first route, the Main St LINK, 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 installed bus priority systems at signalized intersections along Main Street, and at the intersections of Power Road with Broadway Road and Southern Avenue. BRT buses 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 operates 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. The Arizona Ave/Country Club Dr LINK began operation in January of 2011. Both the Main St LINK and the Arizona Ave/Country Club Dr LINK are currently using Next Bus tracking technology to determine when the next bus arrival will be. The information is displayed on dynamic message signs at the stations is available to the public on the internet. Additional arterial BRT routes were scheduled to enter service beginning in FY 2014. However, the projected shortfall in tax revenues has delayed the start of the Scottsdale Road, BRT. The Alternatives Analysis is complete for the Scottsdale/Rural Road Corridor, and the Locally Preferred Alternative identified but not approved. This project is currently delayed due to a lack of funding. 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. This will be determined when each corridor enters into the design process. Figure 5-2: LINK Bus Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 68 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding Table 5-9: Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles Fiscal Year For Acquisition Fixed Route Paratransit Rural Vanpool Total Vehicles 5 4 5 6 11 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 5 10 0 0 25 25 60 16 8 4 31 36 95 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Source: RPTA, 2011 Table 5-10: Planned Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles FY 2011 through FY 2016 Route Grand Avenue Limited Scottsdale/Rural Road BRT South Central Avenue Phoenix General Local Bus Expansion FY Service Implemented 2012 2015 2014 ----- Total Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles (Fiscal Year Acquired) FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 4 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 5 6 11 Source: RPTA, 2011 5.4.4 Comparison of Funded Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles and Implementation (FY 2011) Fixed route fleet requirements for regionally funded service expansion are calculated based on the availability of existing fleet, federally required fleet spare 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. There was an estimated nine vehicles planned for the Arizona Ave BRT, and nine were acquired. However, occasionally there is some inconsistency between the number of planned vehicles and the number of vehicles acquired due to variables such as delayed service improvements. 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. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 69 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding Table 5-11: Comparison of Planned Regional Fixed Route Transit Expansion Vehicles and Vehicles Acquired (FY 2010) Route Arizona Ave Dedicated BRT Total Fixed Route Expansion Vehicles TLCP Fleet Plan Actual Vehicles Acquired 40' Bus 60' Bus Total 40' Bus 60' Bus Total 9 0 9 9 0 9 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 Source: RPTA, 2009 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 has just completed the Scottsdale/Rural Road Alternatives Analysis. The BRT route planned along Scottsdale/Rural Road 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:  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.  Regional Dial-a-Ride Implementation – Short range and operational planning associated with the phased implementation of the recommendations of the Regional Paratransit Study including development of the regional call center, and drafting of required intergovernmental agreements necessary to implementing sub-regional or regional ADA Paratransit programs.  Transit Performance Report (TPR) – Annual and quarterly updates. Provide staff support to TPR working group in the development of annual performance targets that will subsequently be adopted through the RPTA committee process. In FY 2012, significant work will be done to improve the format and content of the report, as well as to update the target goals and the methodologies for inflating them annually.  Regional Bus Stop Database Implementation – Update of regional bus stop database to reflect service changes that generally occur in July and January. (Original bus stop database was an output of the 2010 O&D Survey.) Includes numbering of new stops to allow their inclusion in Next Bus cell phone trip planning application. Includes development of on-line report module on STG developed web based transit reporting tool to allow member agencies to supply timely updates to database as part of their quarterly and annual reporting responsibilities.  Transit Life Cycle Program Update – a requirement of Proposition 400 that ensures the regional transit program is in fiscal balance and that the transit projects are scheduled according to the Regional Transportation Plan. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 70 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding 6.0 REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDING Financial support for regional public transit services are provided in Maricopa County through multiple funding sources, including regional sales tax collections, passenger fares, 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 and administration, as well as 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. 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 2010/11 through FY 2015/16. 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 2010 TLCP Update. Table 6-1: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues (in $millions) Revenue Category Public Transportation Fund FY 2010 FY 2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Total $60.85 $65.61 $71.63 $82.25 $93.03 $99.05 $472.41 $4.34 $4.45 $4.58 $4.72 $4.86 $5.01 $27.96 $72.38 $55.41 $57.26 $42.77 $51.07 $63.88 $342.76 Passenger Fares $6.85 $7.86 $8.42 $9.28 $9.82 $11.10 $53.32 Interest $1.29 $1.29 $1.29 $1.29 $1.29 $1.29 $7.72 $145.70 $134.62 $143.17 $140.30 $160.06 $180.32 $904.17 Regional Area Road Fund Federal Allocations Total Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 71 Chapte er 6 – Regional Transit Fun nding Figure 6-1: 6 Estimate ed RPTA Re egional Fixed d Route & P Paratransit R Revenues FY Y 2011 - FY 2 2016 FY 2011‐20116 Passengeer Fares Intereest 6% % 1% Federal F Allocattions 38% PPublic Transporrtation Fund 552% Regional Area Road Fund 3% Source: 2010 Valley Metro Transit Liffe Cycle Progra am Update 6.1.2 Expenditure E s Regionall transit expenditures in the TLC CP allocated d for fixed route bus and paratrransit investme ents can be classified into seven general exp penditure ca ategories. The expend diture categorie es include:       Regional R Bu us Operations – Region nal bus ope erations inclu udes PTF fu unded fixed route bus service (Supergrid d, Express, Arterial BRT, Rura al Connecto ors), opera ations co ontingency, annual con ntributions to t the opera rating reservve and regional safetyy and se ecurity. Paratransit P Operations s – Includes s regional ffunding for ADA and reimbursem ments. RPTA R Planning & Adm ministration – Expenditu ures associa ated with o on-going reg gional trransit plannin ng and agen ncy administtration. Regional R Se ervices – Expenditures E s for region nal transit ccustomer service, Bus Book production an nd other regiional based programs. Transit T Vehiicles – Includes regiona al purchasess for expansion and repllacement of fixed ro oute bus, pa aratransit, and vanpool vehicles. O Other eleme ents in this category incclude ve ehicle contingency and d vehicle up pgrades (Inttelligent Tra ansportation n System/Ve ehicle Management M t Systems [IT TS/VMS], fareboxes, etcc.). Dedicated D BRT B Right of Way (R ROW) – Re egional inve estments in purchasing g and upgrading right-of-way fo or arterial bus s rapid transsit operations Capital C Faciilities – Re egional capittal investme ents for passsenger faccilities (parkk-andrides, transit centers and d bus stops)), operationss and mainte enance facilities, and capital ontingency. co nge Transit Program—FY 2010/11 2 – 2015/16 Short Ran 72 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding The TLCP is updated on an annual basis in response to changes in sales tax revenue projections to determine reasonable Table 6-2 identifies the projected expenditures summarized by the seven general categories described above for FY 2010/11 through FY 2015/16. Figure 62 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 2010 TLCP Update. Table 6-2: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (in $millions) Revenue Category FY 2010 FY 2011 FY2012 Regional Bus Operations $39.27 $43.42 $46.60 Paratransit Operations $14.97 $18.11 RPTA Planning & Administration $4.17 Regional Services FY 2014 FY 2015 $50.66 $53.60 $59.32 $292.88 $23.21 $24.87 $28.30 $29.51 $138.96 $4.28 $4.41 $4.54 $4.68 $4.82 $26.89 $7.26 $7.44 $7.66 $7.89 $8.13 $8.37 $46.77 Transit Vehicles $79.97 $63.49 $48.32 $52.71 $46.02 $61.17 $351.68 Arterial BRT ROW $12.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21.76 $22.41 $56.62 $4.36 $9.24 $37.20 $1.20 $6.74 $7.49 $66.22 $162.46 $145.97 $167.40 $141.87 $169.22 $193.09 $980.01 Capital Facilities Total FY2013 Total Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 73 Chapte er 6 – Regional Transit Fun nding Figure 6-2: 6 Estimate ed RPTA Re egional Fixed d Route & Pa aratransit Exxpenditures (percentage e of totals) Source: 20 010 Valley Metrro RPTA Trans sit Life Cycle Prrogram Update e 6.2 REGIONAL R HIGH H CAPA ACITY TRAN NSIT CAPITA AL FUNDIN NG 6.2.1 Revenues R High cap pacity transitt (HCT) inclu udes modes s such as lig ght rail transsit, modern streetcar, or bus rapid tran nsit normally y traveling in n exclusive or semi-excclusive laness. Regional transit reve enues in the TL LCP allocate ed for high capacity tra ansit capital investmentss can be cla assified into o four general revenue r cattegories. While W a regional service, HCT opera ations costs are funded from local juriisdictions se erved by an n HCT route e. The HC CT capital p program revvenue categ gories include:     Public P Trans sportation Fund (PTF)) – Regiona al transporta ation sales tax approve ed by vo oters in Nov vember 2004 4. Federal F Allo ocations – Federal alllocations aw warded to tthe region through mu ultiple fe ederal progra ams. Local L – Loca al municipal contributions c s. In nterest – Inc cludes intere est earned on year-end ccash balancce. nge Transit Program—FY 2010/11 2 – 2015/16 Short Ran 74 Chapte er 6 – Regional Transit Fun nding Table 6--3 identifies the projec cted revenue es summariized by the e four HCT capital revvenue categorie es for FY 20 010/11 through FY 201 15/16. Figu ure 6-3 illusttrates the to otal revenue es by category for the sam me time perio od. The rev venue estim mates represe ent the mosst recent upd dated information for the re egion based on the FY 2010 2 TLCP U Update. Table 6-3: Estimated Regiona al HCT Capittal Revenue es (in $million ns) Revenue Category FY F 2011 FY Y2012 FY20 013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Public Tra ansportation Fu und (PTF) $46.35 $49.99 $5 54.57 $62.6 65 $70.87 $75.45 $359.89 Federal Allocations A $26.78 $68.19 $8 9.87 $62.4 46 $77.62 $66.89 $391.82 Local ($1.03) $19.89 $2 0.70 $0.0 00 ($0.00) ($0.00) $39.56 $0.00 $0.00 $ 0.00 $0.0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $72.10 $138.06 65.13 $16 $125.1 12 $148.49 $142.35 $791.26 Interest Total Source: 2010 Valley Metrro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Prrogram Update e Figure 6-3 3: Estimated d Regional HCT H Capital Revenues F FY 2011 - FY Y 2016 FY 2011‐201 2 16 Intereest 0% Local 5% Federal Allocations 50% PPublic Transporrtation Fund (PTFF) 45% Source:: 2010 Valley Metro M RPTA Tra ansit Life Cycle e Program Upd date nge Transit Program—FY 2010/11 2 – 2015/16 Short Ran 75 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 2010/11 through FY 2015/16. 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 2010 TLCP Update. Table 6-4: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Expenditures (in $millions) Expenditure Category FY 2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total HCT Guideway Extensions $33.89 $116.40 $154.99 $116.57 $137.68 $128.62 $688.14 Reimbursements $31.53 $6.22 $10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $47.75 $2.29 $2.32 $2.37 $2.42 $1.66 $1.71 $12.76 $10.34 $10.36 $10.50 $28.57 $0.50 $0.50 $60.76 $78.04 $135.29 $177.86 $147.55 $139.84 $130.83 $809.41 Studies & Design Criteria Systemwide Support Infrastructure Total Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 76 Chapte er 6 – Regional Transit Fun nding Figure 6-4: 6 Estimate ed Regional HCT Capita al Expenditurres FY 2010 0 - FY 2015 FY 2011‐FY 20016 Studies & Deesign Criteria 2% Reim mbursements 6% Systtemwide Supp port Infrastructure 7% HCT G Guideway Exteensions 885% Source: 20 010 Valley Metrro RPTA Trans sit Life Cycle Prrogram Update e 6.3 REGIONAL R TRANSIT T FINANCING Based on o the estim mated sourc ces of reve enues and programmed d expenditu ures through h FY 2015/16 there are several s yearrs that expe enditures exxceed reven nues. Manyy regional trransit a capital investments are depend dent upon th e ability to m maintain ade equate cash h flow service and to be imp plemented as a identified in this plan.. The TLCP P working grroup, which addresses tthese issues on n a yearly ba asis, helps address a thes se funding sh hortfalls. s in the levell of estimate ed revenues or expendittures could e either positivvely or nega atively Changes affect the e programm med impleme entation schedules and scope of th he projects identified he erein. Through the annual TLCP upda ate process,, estimates for short an nd long rang ge revenuess and expenditures are rev viewed to determine d th he financial fitness of th he regional transit prog gram. Appropria ate finance strategies and other actions arre considerred annuallyy to mainta ain a reasonab ble and susta ainable finan nce plan. nge Transit Program—FY 2010/11 2 – 2015/16 Short Ran 77 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 every five years 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 report in April 2007. Using the structure provided by the SEES, three annual Transit Performance Reports (FY 2008, FY 2009 and FY 2010) 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 both the regional and national economies. 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 resulting from the economic downturn. 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. 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 136—Gilbert Road Route 48—48th Street Route 108—Elliot Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 78 Chapter 7 – Cost Savings Through Service Reductions Recommendations   Route 156—Chandler Boulevard Grand Avenue Limited 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:   Route 136—Gilbert Road Route 156—Chandler Boulevard Only one RPTA-funded route appears in the bottom quartile for Sunday service:  7.2.1 Route 156—Chandler Boulevard Local Route Analysis Once the lowest performing local routes were identified, a closer look was taken at average daily boardings over an eighteen month period from January 2009 through June 2010. Graphs were developed showing average daily boardings during this time period to show ridership trends. Graphs referred to below can be found in Appendix D. Route 136—Gilbert Road: This route appeared in the bottom quartile for both weekday and Saturday service. Graph 1 shows average weekday boardings per mile and average Saturday boardings per mile respectively. In July 2010, weekday short trips were extended in Mesa, and the route was extended south in Gilbert to serve the Crossroads Shopping Center. The data for Route 136 indicate that it may be too early to make any changes, but the service should continue to be watched. Route 48—48th Street: Route 48 was implemented to cover portions of Route 92 that was eliminated at the same time. The data on Graph 2 clearly shows that ridership on this route is trending upward since its implementation. Route 108—Elliot: Ridership on this route (Graph 3) seems relatively stable during this time period when ridership systemwide has generally declined. This route should continue to be monitored over time. Route 156—Chandler Boulevard: Average daily boardings for an eighteen-month period are presented in Graph 4. The data for this route indicate that progress is being made with ridership generally trending upwards. Continued monitoring is recommended. 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 average daily boardings over the eighteen month period. Average boarding per trip data is presented in Graph 6. The steep decline during the summer and fall is attributed to significant road construction on Grand Avenue/US 60. While not completely trending upwards, the data does seem to be stabilizing and recovering from the construction. Grand Avenue Limited should also continue to be watched. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 79 Chapter 7 – Cost Savings Through Service Reductions Recommendations 7.3 EXPRESS/RAPID ROUTE IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY A similar process was used for express and RAPID routes, although boardings per trip were used as a more appropriate measure of productivity for commuter oriented service. The following RPTA funded 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. Graphs referred to below can be found in 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. 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, termination of Rt. 582 is recommended. Route 520—Tempe Express: This route is showing a downward trend for the last several months. Graph 8 shows that average daily boardings are declining, particularly since the implementation of light rail. 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. Route 511—Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express: This route was implemented in December 2008. Although ridership is low, graph 10 shows that the numbers are fairly stable. This route operates bi-directionally during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Another factor affecting ridership includes the impact of the Loop 101 HOV lane construction project which has been underway in this corridor since 2008. With the tight budget situation, this route was shortened to no longer travel south of the Apache/Price Park-and-Ride in July 2010. Route 572—Surprise/Scottsdale Express: Graph 11 indicates that this route is attracting only about 70 boardings per day on average. This route was implemented in July 2008 and includes some reverse commute trips. This route was eliminated in July 2010. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 80 Chapter 7 – Cost Savings Through Service Reductions Recommendations Route 536—Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU: Graph 12 shows that this route was never able to attract significant ridership. This route was eliminated in July 2010. Route 576—Northwest Valley/Montebello Express: This route was also implemented in December 2008. Graph 13 shows that average boardings per day are very low. Although this route is less than two years old, elimination of this route occurred in July 2010. Table 7-1: Estimated Annual Savings from Service Reductions Estimated Route Route 511--Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Route 536--Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU Route 570--Glendale Route 572--Surprise/Scottsdale Route 576--Northwest Valley/Montebello Route 582--North Mountain Contractor Rate Per Daily Annual Annual Farebox Mile Miles Miles Cost Revenue Annual Net Savings Veolia RPTA $5.95 114.5 28,739.5 $171,000 $17,000 $154,000 Veolia RPTA First Transit ValuTrans $5.95 $8.21 $8.95 177.8 74.1 416.3 44,627.8 18,599.1 104,491.3 $266,000 $153,000 $935,000 $27,000 $15,000 $94,000 $239,000 $138,000 $841,000 ValuTrans Veolia Phoenix $8.95 $8.06 200.1 145.5 50,225.1 36,520.5 $450,000 $294,000 $45,000 $29,000 $405,000 $265,000 $2,042,000 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 81 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 2010 update (approved by the Valley Metro Board of Directors in June 2010 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 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 Ray Rd Arterial BRT Arizona Ave BRT Scottsdale/Rural BRT South Central BRT Limited Express Grand Ave Limited Freeway Express Bus Apache Junction Express Superstition Freeway Connector Buckeye Express Pima Express Peoria Express South Central Express Black Canyon Freeway Connector Original Implementation Year Revised Implementation Year 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2016 2015 2012 2016 2025 2013 2018 2018 2015 2035 2021 2035 2023 2011 2014 2016 2011 2016 2036 2013 2013 2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 2015 20146 2031 2032 2033 2033 2034 2015 2036 Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 82 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 because 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 Surprise Happy Valley PNR (ARRA)1 Country Club Dr/US 60 PNR (ARRA)1 Buckeye Arrowhead Peoria/Grand Camelback/101 Laveen/59th Ave Original Implementation Year Revised Implementation Year 2009 2010 2010 2011 2013 2013 2015 2016 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2018 2030 2016 1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update 8.2.2 Transit Centers It is recommended that the implementation of the South Tempe, downtown Chandler, and South Chandler Transit Centers 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 Program, it is important to be aware of because up until this year, it was within the allotted time frame. The other remaining transit center originally identified to be implemented within the current SRTP horizon is delayed beyond the current planning horizon year. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 83 Chapter 8 – Recommendations Table 8-3: TLCP Transit Center Capital Facilities Adjustments Transit Center South Tempe 4-bay 19th Ave Camelback 6-bay2 Downtown Chandler 4-bay South Chandler 4-bay Mesa Downtown 6-bay Metrocenter TC Rehab Central Station Rehab (ARRA)1 Glendale/Grand 4-bay Peoria 4-bay 44/Cactus 6-bay2 Scottsdale 4-bay Original Implementation Year Revised Implementation Year 2009 2009 2009 2010 2011 2011 2013 2013 2015 2015 2015 2028 2028 2028 2028 2016 2028 2012 2028 2015 2030 2030 1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act These transit centers may have funding allocated to other City of Phoenix projects. Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update 2 8.2.3 Operations and Maintenance Facilities It is recommended that all operations and maintenance facilities originally identified to be implemented within the SRTP planning horizon be delayed. Table 8-4: TLCP Operations and Maintenance Facilities Adjustments Facility Phoenix Paratransit Phoenix Heavy Rehab-Mesa Rehab Phoenix-South Original Implementation Year Revised Implementation Year 2013 2014 2015 2015 2028 2027 2029 2029 Source: Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update 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. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 84 Chapter 8 – Recommendations Table 8-5: TLCP Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Right of Way Adjustments Right of Way Arizona Ave BRT (ARRA)1 Scottsdale/Rural Rd BRT Rural Rd BRT South Central BRT Original Implementation Year Revised Implementation Year 2011 2014 2014 2015 2011 2016 2030 2030 1 ARRA stands for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Source: Source: 2010 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update 8.3 LOCAL ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis, it was determined that no action was needed in regards to the identified underperforming local routes. Many of these 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. 8.4 EXPRESS/RAPID ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS With the ongoing economic conditions, steps have already been taken to discontinue or modify most of express routes identified as being in the lowest quartile. On July 25, 2010, the following changes were made to these routes:       Route 511—Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express: The portion of the route south of the Park-and-Ride at Apache Boulevard and the Loop 101 was eliminated. Route 536—Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU: This route was entirely eliminated. Route 570—Glendale Express: This route was entirely eliminated. Route 572—Surprise/Scottsdale Express: This route was entirely eliminated. Route 576—Northwest Valley/Montebello Express: This route was entirely eliminated. Route 582—North Mountain Express: This route was entirely eliminated. Elimination or modification of these six routes resulted in an annual cost saving of a little more that $2 million. RPTA planning staff also recommends identifying what marketing resources are available for the promotion of the remaining express routes to increase their visibility to the traveling public. Educating the public on these travel options could go a long way to increasing the use of these services by the travelling public, especially the projected rise of gasoline prices. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 85 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 86 APPENDIX A Table A-1: FY 2010 Regional Transit System Data FY 2010 System Data System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Rail Total System Total Boardings 55,574,959 777,525 1,135,783 12,112,738 69,601,005 Total Wheelchair Boardings 263,610 131,231 504 na 395,345 System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Rao; Total System Total Revenue Hours 2,393,455 478,158 134,927 182,780 3,189,320 Operating Cost $194,414,536 $28,762,414 $2,658,382 $32,964,700 $258,800,032 System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Rail Total System Total Passenger Revenues $46,853,915 $1,791,298 $2,469,143 $9,2228,058 $60,342,414 System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Rail Total System Boardings Per Revenue Hour 23.22 1.63 8.42 66.27 21.82 Percent OnTime Performance 95.27% 97.35% n/a 95.80% Boardings per Revenue Mile 1.69 0.12 .20 4.57 1.46 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 Total Vehicle Miles 39,395,355 7,564,816 5,623,377 2,736,091 55,319,639 Total Revenue Miles 32,968,784 6,572,800 5,623,377 2,652,759 47,817,719 Capital Cost n/a n/a n/a Total Cost n/a n/a n/a n/a Farebox Recovery Ratio 24.1% 6.2% 92.9% 28% 23.32% Operating Cost per Boarding $3.50 $36.99 $2.34 $2.72 $3.72 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $81.23 $60.15 $19.70 $180.35 $81.15 Vehicle Accidents n/a n/a n/a Total Vehicle Hours 2,943,010 NA 134,927 186,416 Operating Cost per Revenue Mile $5.90 $4.38 $0.47 $12.43 $5.41 87 APPENDIX A Table A-2: Operations and Performance Data for FY 2006 through FY 2010 Revenue Miles System Fixed Route FY 2006 27,504,359 Dial-a-Ride 7,865,367 Vanpool 4,717,293 FY 2007 28,766,992 n/a 5,253,578 FY 2008 32,755,717 40,087,019 34,020,570 FY 2010 34,172,826 Percent Change FY 2007-2008 FY 2004-2008 32,968,784 -3.52% 19.87% 7,533,814 7,329,082 6,572,800 -10.32% -16.43% 5,603,997 6,208,650 5,623,377 -9.43% 19.21% 1,362,250 2,652,759 94.73% N/A 49,072,808 47,817,719 -2.56% 19.28% Rail Total System FY 2009 Percent Change 45,893,528 Revenue Hours System FY 2006 Fixed Route FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Percent Change Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 1,973,510 1,966,138 1,988,847 2,305,116 2,393,455 3.83% 21.28% Dial-a-Ride 532,887 532,031 540,907 524,842 478,158 -8.89% -10.27% Vanpool 117,932 131,612 115,100 157,369 134,927 -14.26% 14.41% 95,213 182,780 91.97% 3,082,540 3,189,320 3.46% Rail Total System 2,624,329 2,629,781 2,644,854 21.53% On-Time Performance System FY 2006 Fixed Route 90.7% Dial-a-Ride 94.9% FY 2007 91.5% 95.4% FY 2008 92.1% 89.9% Vanpool ----- ----- ----- Rail ----- ----- ----- Total System 92.8% 93.5% 91.0% FY 2009 FY 2010 93.16% 96.08% ----- Percent Change Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 95.27% 2.26% 97.35% ----- 5.04% 1.32% 2.58% ----- ----- 93.90% 95.80% 2.02% 94.38% 96.14% 1.86% ----3.60% Total Boardings System Fixed Route FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2010 Percent Change Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 58,855,322 58,184,595 60,153,649 65,551,812 55,574,959 -15.22% -5.58% 938,879 922,790 903,868 874,132 777,525 -11.05% -17.19% 1,270,416 1,418,466 1,478,148 1,896,888 1,135,783 -40.12% -10.60% 5,580,857 12,112,738 117.04% 73,903,689 69,601,005 -5.82% Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Rail Total System FY 2009 61,064,617 60,525,851 62,535,665 13.97% Wheelchair Boardings System FY 2006 FY 2007 Fixed Route 224,671 Dial-a-Ride 186,603 n/a Vanpool 304 Rail ----- Total System 411,578 251,738 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 286,935 263,610 -8.13% 17.33% n/a 194,935 131,231 -32.68% -29.67% ----- ----- NR 504 ----- ----- ----- NR NR ----- 481,870 395,345 251,738 277,206 Percent Change 277,206 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 65.79% ----- -17.96% -3.94% 88 APPENDIX A Boardings Per Revenue Mile System FY 2006 Fixed Route 2.14 Dial-a-Ride 0.12 Vanpool 0.27 FY 2007 FY 2008 2.01 n/a 0.27 FY 2009 1.54 1.77 Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 1.84 1.92 1.69 -12.12% -21.23% 0.12 0.12 0.12 -0.82% -0.90% 0.26 0.31 0.20 -33.89% 69.20% 4.10 4.57 11.46% 1.51 1.46 -3.35% Rail Total System FY 2010 Percent Change 1.36 -21.93% Boardings Per Revenue Hour System FY 2004 Fixed Route FY 2005 28.59 Dial-a-Ride FY 2006 30.99 FY 2007 29.99 29.59 FY 2008 Percent Change Percent Change FY 2007-2008 FY 2004-2008 30.25 2.23% 5.81% 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 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Percent Change Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 Fixed Route 29.99 29.59 30.25 28.44 23.22 -18.35% -22.14% Dial-a-Ride 1.76 1.73 1.67 1.67 1.63 -2.37% -7.71% 10.77 10.78 12.84 12.05 8.42 -30.16% -21.86% 58.61 66.27 13.06% 23.97 21.82 -8.98% Vanpool Rail Total System 23.27 23.02 23.64 255.82% Security Incidents Per 100,000 Boardings System FY 2006 FY 2007 n/a n/a Dial-a-Ride n/a n/a n/a Vanpool n/a n/a n/a Fixed Route FY 2008 FY 2009 0.14 Rail Total System 0.14 FY 2010 Percent Change Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 0.09 0 ------ n/a 1.72 0 ------ n/a 0 ------ n/a 0.16 0 ------ 0.11 0 ------ ------ Operating Expenses System FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Percent Change Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 Fixed Route $134,522,499 $152,662,789 $183,809,441 $196,568,442 $194,414,536 -1.10% 44.20% Dial-a-Ride $26,805,994 $29,505,513 $31,936,477 $31,857,041 $28,762,414 -9.71% 7.30% $2,158,282 $2,305,045 $2,499,972 Vanpool $4,118,258 $2,658,382 -35.45% $15,886,434 $32,964,700 107.50% $248,430,175 $258,800,032 4.17% Rail Total System $163,486,775 $184,473,347 $218,245,890 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 23.17% -----58.01% 89 APPENDIX A Total Passenger Revenue System Percent Change Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Fixed Route $31,899,646 $37,000,313 $41,091,397 $43,931,147 $46,853,915 6.65% 46.84% Dial-a-Ride $1,307,546 $1,302,579 $1,292,611 $1,304,778 $1,791,298 37.29% 37.00% Vanpool $2,328,632 $2,650,738 $2,781,438 $3,729,293 $2,469,143 -33.79% 6.03% $3,371,103 $9,228,058 173.74% 15.30% Rail Total System $35,535,824 $40,953,630 $45,165,446 $52,336,321 $60,342,414 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 69.77% Farebox Recovery Ratio System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool FY 2006 24.59% 24.24% 22.36% Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 24.10% 7.83% 1.83% 4.88% 4.41% 4.05% 4.10% 6.23% 52.06% 27.68% 107.89% 115.00% 111.26% 90.56% 92.88% 2.57% -13.91% 21.22% 27.99% 31.92% 21.07% 23.32% 10.68% Rail Total System 22.35% Percent Change 28.11% 22.20% 0.21% 7.44% Operating Cost Per Boarding System FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Percent Change Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 Fixed Route $2.32 $2.62 $3.06 $3.00 $3.50 16.66% 52.72% Dial-a-Ride $28.55 $31.97 $35.33 $36.44 $36.99 1.50% 29.57% $1.70 $1.63 $1.69 $2.17 $2.34 7.81% 37.77% $2.85 $2.72 -4.39% $3.36 $3.72 10.61% Vanpool Rail Total System $2.68 $3.05 $3.49 38.63% Net Operating Cost Per Boarding System FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Percent Change Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 Fixed Route $1.75 $1.99 $2.37 $2.33 $2.66 Dial-a-Ride $27.16 $30.56 $33.90 $34.95 $34.69 -0.75% 27.73% Vanpool -$0.13 -$0.24 -$0.19 $0.21 $0.17 -18.75% -224.26% $2.24 $1.96 -12.62% $2.65 $2.85 7.46% Rail Total System $2.10 $2.37 $2.77 14.03% 51.85% 35.77% Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile System FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Percent Change Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 Fixed Route $4.96 $5.31 $5.61 5.75 5.90 2.52% 20.30% Dial-a-Ride $3.41 n/a $4.24 4.35 4.38 0.67% 28.40% Vanpool $0.46 $0.44 $0.45 3.32% Rail Total System $4.09 $5.40 $3.49 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 0.66 0.47 -28.73% 11.66 12.43 6.56% 5.06 5.41 6.91% 32.46% 90 APPENDIX A Fare Revenue Per Boarding System Fixed Route FY 2006 $0.57 FY 2007 $0.64 FY 2008 $0.68 FY 2009 $0.67 FY 2010 $0.84 Percent Change Percent Change FY 2009-2010 FY 2006-2010 25.80% 55.51% Dial-a-Ride $1.39 $1.41 $1.43 $1.49 $2.30 54.35% 65.43% Vanpool $1.83 $1.87 $1.88 $1.97 $2.17 10.58% 18.60% $0.60 $0.76 26.12% $0.71 $0.87 22.42% Rail Total System $0.58 $0.68 $0.72 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 48.95% 91 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 92 APPENDIX B Table B-1: Operations and Performance Data for FY 1995 through FY 2010 Boardings Fiscal Year Fixed Route % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride % Change From Previous Year Vanpool % Change From Previous Year Total 795,019 % Change From Previous Year 1995 34,979,080 1996 35,028,406 0.14% 970,983 22.13% 35,999,389 35,774,099 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% 2005 57,881,656 6.47% 1,063,600 2.79% 41,274,547 7.30% 47,218,086 14.40% 2.68% 53,481,596 13.27% 975,156 3.55% 56,372,033 5.40% 1,025,138 5.13% 59,970,394 6.38% 2006 58,855,322 1.68% 938,879 -11.73% 1,270,416 23.93% 61,064,617 1.82% 2007 58,184,595 -1.14% 922,790 -1.71% 1,418,466 11.65% 60,525,851 -0.88% 2008 55,475,543 -4.66% 903,868 -2.05% 1,478,148 4.21% 57,857,559 -4.41% 2009 65,551,812 8.97% 874,132 -3.29% 1,896,888 28.33% 68,322,832 18.08% 2010 55,574,959 -15.22% 777,525 -11.05% 1,135,783 -40.12% 57,488,267 -15.85% % Change 1995 - 2010 58.88% -2.20% n/a 60.69% % Change From Previous Year Total % Change From Previous Year Revenue Miles Fiscal Year 1995 Fixed Route % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride 13,664,992 % Change From Previous Year Vanpool 5,213,388 18,878,380 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% 2002 24,106,344 16.83% 7,034,138 2.65% 3,364,956 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% 2009 34,172,826 4.15% 7,329,082 -2.79% 6,208,650 9.74% 47,710,558 3.81% 2010 32,968,784 -3.65% 6,572,800 -11.51% 5,623,377 -10.41% 45,164,960 % Change 1995 - 2010 141.26% 26.08% Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 n/a 27,485,810 13.86% 34,505,438 25.54% -5.64% 139.24% 93 APPENDIX B Boardings Per Revenue Mile Fiscal Year % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride Fixed Route 1995 2.6 1996 2.4 1997 1998 1999 % Change From Previous Year % Change From Previous Year Total Vanpool 0.2 % Change From Previous Year 1.9 -7.69% 0.2 0.00% 1.8 -5.26% 2.4 0.00% 0.2 0.00% 1.8 0.00% 2.2 -8.33% 0.2 0.00% 1.7 -5.56% 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 2003 2.0 5.26% 0.1 0.00% 0.26 2004 2.0 0.00% 0.1 0.00% 0.27 2005 2.1 5.00% 0.1 0.00% 0.26 2006 2.1 0.00% 0.1 0.00% 0.27 3.85% 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% 2009 1.92 -12.68 0.12 16.09 0.31 13.67 2.34 -7.78 2010 1.69 -13.80 0.12 -0.82 0.27 -13.45 2.07 -13.01 % Change 1995 - 2010 -34.15% -22.43% 1.5 0.00% 1.6 6.67% 3.85% 1.6 0.00% -3.70% 1.7 6.25% 1.5 -10.59% -3.70% n/a -23.56% % Change From Previous Year Total % Change From Previous Year Operating Costs Fiscal Year Fixed Route % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride % Change From Previous Year Vanpool 1995 1996 1997 1998 $61,579,208 $11,811,483 $73,390,691 1999 $65,686,899 6.67% $13,523,191 2000 $74,743,277 13.79% $15,606,135 15.40% $90,349,412 14.06% 2001 $96,207,450 28.72% $18,359,527 17.64% $114,566,977 26.80% 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% 14.49% $79,210,090 7.93% $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% 2006 $134,522,499 6.04% $26,805,994 -4.13% $2,158,282 26.80% $163,486,775 4.45% 2007 $152,662,789 13.48% $29,505,513 10.07% $2,305,045 6.80% $184,473,347 12.84% 2008 $183,809,441 20.40% $31,936,477 8.24% $2,499,972 8.46% $218,245,890 18.31% 2009 $196,568,442 6.49% $31,857,041 -0.25% $4,118,258 39.30% $232,543,741 6.15% 2010 $194,414,536 -1.11% $28,762,414 -10.76% $2,658,382 -54.92% $225,835,332 -2.97% % Change 1998 - 2010 215.71% 143.51% Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 n/a 207.72% 94 APPENDIX B Operating Costs Per Boarding Fiscal Year Fixed Route % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride 1995 $1.46 1996 $1.51 3.42% 1997 $1.67 10.60% % Change From Previous Year Vanpool % Change From Previous Year Total % Change From Previous Year 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 -7.87% $2.85 1.06% 2004 $2.45 0.00% $23.52 3.02% $1.99 0.00% $2.78 -2.46% 2005 $2.22 -9.39% $26.29 11.78% $1.66 -16.58% $2.65 -4.68% 2006 $2.32 4.50% $28.55 8.60% $1.70 2.41% $2.68 1.13% 2007 $2.62 12.93% $31.97 11.98% $1.63 -4.12% $3.05 13.81% 2008 $3.06 16.79% $35.33 10.51% $1.69 3.68% $3.49 14.43% 2009 $3.00 -1.90% $36.44 3.05% $2.17 22.10% $3.40 -2.48% 2010 $3.50 14.28% $36.99 1.48% $2.34 7.24% $3.93 13.36% % Change 1995 - 2010 98.71% n/a $2.82 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 Total % Change From Previous Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 $19,188,643 $1,024,347 $20,212,990 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% 2002 $24,441,819 -8.29% $1,282,289 4.74% $1,905,774 2003 $26,930,430 10.18% $1,259,045 -1.81% $1,533,316 2004 $29,996,266 11.38% $1,263,195 0.33% $1,606,046 2005 $32,841,189 9.48% $1,244,350 -1.49% $1,791,450 $27,874,370 14.14% $27,629,882 -0.88% $29,722,791 7.57% 4.74% $32,865,507 10.57% 11.54% $35,876,989 9.16% -19.54% 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 5.90% 2009 $43,931,1417 6.46% $1,304,778 0.93% $3,729,293 25.42% $48,965,218 7.76% 2010 $46,853,914 6.24% $1,791,298 27.16% $2,469,143 -51.04% $51,114,356 4.20% % Change 1998 - 2010 144.18% 47.87% Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 n/a 152.88% 95 APPENDIX B Revenue Per Boarding Fiscal Year Fixed Route % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride % Change From Previous Year Vanpool % Change From Previous Year Total % Change From Previous Year 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 -17.65% $1.25 4.17% $0.48 2003 $0.55 -1.79% $1.22 -2.40% $0.61 27.08% 2004 $0.58 5.45% $1.22 0.00% $0.61 0.00% $0.56 3.70% 2005 $0.60 3.45% $1.17 -4.10% $0.57 -6.56% $0.58 3.57% 2006 $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% $0.54 15.60% $0.56 3.70% $1.43 13.49% $0.63 12.50% $1.20 -16.08% $0.68 7.94% $0.56 -17.65% $0.54 -3.57% 2009 $0.67 -1.93% $1.49 4.19% $1.97 4.29% $0.72 -0.78% 2010 $0.84 20.51% $2.30 35.21% $2.17 9.57% $0.89 19.40% % Change 1995 - 2010 56.13% n/a n/a n/a Farebox Recovery Ratio Fiscal Year Fixed Route % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride % Change From Previous Year 1995 31.3% 1996 36.4% 1997 33.2% -8.79% 1998 31.2% -6.02% 8.7% 1999 30.2% -3.21% 8.2% -5.75% 2000 30.8% 1.99% 8.9% 8.54% Vanpool % Change From Previous Year Total % Change From Previous Year 16.29% 2001 28.4% -7.79% 6.7% -24.72% 2002 23.0% -19.01% 6.0% -10.45% 24.8% 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% 96.4% 20.7% -16.53% 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% 2009 22.3% -0.03% 4.1% 1.18% 90.6% -22.86% 21. % 1.72% 2010 24.1% 7.27% 6.2% 34.24% 92.9% 2.50% 22.6% 6.97% % Change 1995 - 2010 -23.00% Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 n/a n/a n/a 96 APPENDIX B On Time Performance Fiscal Year Fixed Route % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride % Change From Previous Year % Change From Previous Year Total Vanpool % Change From Previous Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 87.0% 1999 93.0% 2000 89.7% -3.55% 8.9% 8.54% 2001 88.8% -1.00% 6.7% -24.72% 2002 92.4% 4.05% 6.0% -10.45% 2003 92.5% 0.11% 5.4% -10.00% 122.1% 2004 91.9% -0.65% 5.2% -3.70% 120.8% 2005 92.5% 0.65% 4.5% -13.46% 114.1% 2006 90.7% -1.95% 4.9% 8.89% 107.9% 2007 91.5% 0.88% 4.4% -10.20% 115.0% 2008 92.1% 0.66% 4.1% -6.82% 111.3% 2009 93.2% 1.2% 96.1% 6.9% n/a 2010 95.3% 2.2% 97.3% 1.3% n/a % Change 1998 - 2010 8.7% 6.90% 8.2% -5.75% 5.86% Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 n/a 24.8% 20.7% -16.53% 36.5% 76.33% 28.0% -23.29% -5.55% 27.6% -1.43% -5.43% 28.1% 1.81% 6.58% 22.2% -21.00% -3.22% 20.7% -6.76% -1.06% n/a n/a 97 APPENDIX C APPENDIX C Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 98 APPENDIX C Table C-1: Fixed Route Transit Service Historical Trends since FY 1985 Fiscal Year Annual Boardings 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 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 65,551,812 55,571,959 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 Revenue Miles Boardings of Service Per Mile 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 34,172,826 32,968,784 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 1.9 1.7 99 APPENDIX D APPENDIX D Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 100 APPENDIX D TABLE 1 Service Evaluation Process Weekday Local: Sorted By Route Route 0 1 3 3A 7 8 10 12 13 15 16 17 17A 19 27 29 29A 30 32 35 39 40 41 43 44 45 48 50 51 52 56 59 60 61 62 65 66 67 70 Revenue Miles 2,008.5 725.2 1,786.7 339.2 2,021.1 1,180.5 1,164.2 588.6 928.4 1,215.1 1,698.4 2,374.0 308.0 2,905.8 1,544.1 2,447.0 231.2 2,311.1 1,233.1 2,264.4 1,148.9 1,746.8 2,621.8 1,098.5 1,518.7 2,469.7 818.6 1,695.6 621.4 681.4 1,211.7 1,603.3 1,089.4 3,129.0 1,059.7 702.6 1,261.2 1,195.3 2,919.0 Jan 10 5,052 541 5,027 48 4,486 2,366 2,833 1,943 910 2,904 3,921 7,268 330 8,372 4,152 9,865 107 2,549 1,926 6,004 867 2,118 8,544 2,541 1,949 4,199 407 5,663 1,089 784 1,958 2,497 2,608 5,654 1,352 890 1,063 2,345 6,787 Feb 10 5,235 599 5,278 55 4,609 2,553 2,938 2,099 921 3,158 3,996 7,532 291 9,027 4,343 10,567 195 2,735 2,078 6,357 925 2,078 8,899 2,668 2,037 4,583 635 6,029 1,108 792 2,115 2,692 2,703 5,822 1,624 1,143 1,086 2,466 7,182 Mar 10 5,054 567 5,412 1182 4,463 2,466 2,708 1,964 929 3,039 3,835 7,096 288 8,601 4,067 9,792 213 2,587 1,915 5,959 878 2,161 8,549 2,656 2,035 4,385 694 5,735 1,061 725 1,975 2,590 2,582 5,620 1,558 1,069 1,084 2,322 6,792 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 Apr 10 5,211 581 5,442 119 4,616 2,615 2,928 1,634 920 3,144 3,869 7,601 294 7,523 3,180 10,189 229 2,642 1,994 5,338 912 2,125 8,862 2,724 2,062 4,509 715 6,049 1,151 836 1,960 2,729 2,673 5,969 1,629 1,120 1,122 2,564 6,808 May 10 4,984 561 5,205 107 4,334 2,433 2,689 1,811 909 2,986 3,970 6,999 266 8,304 4,004 8,985 215 2,530 1,904 5,898 850 2,020 8,481 2,592 2,011 4,206 806 5,531 1,047 687 1,860 2,384 2,616 5,656 1,499 1,003 1,021 2,427 6,784 Jun 10 4,523 593 4,674 60 3,843 2,204 1,945 1,530 786 2,872 3,397 5,824 258 7,417 3,511 8,100 197 2,293 1,632 5,164 789 2,005 7,602 2,255 1,831 3,695 767 4,937 934 482 1,797 2,218 2,316 4,971 1,135 873 889 2,092 5,891 Boardings Per Mile 2.49 0.79 2.90 0.77 2.17 2.07 2.30 3.11 0.96 2.48 2.26 2.97 0.93 2.82 2.51 3.92 0.83 1.11 1.55 2.56 0.76 1.19 3.24 2.34 1.31 1.73 0.82 3.34 1.71 1.05 1.60 1.57 2.37 1.79 1.38 1.45 0.83 1.98 2.30 101 APPENDIX D Route 72 76 77 80 81 90 96 104 106 108 112 120 122 128 131 136 138 154 156 170 186 GAL LINK Revenue Miles 3,779.5 932.7 1,433.2 539.7 2,866.1 1,167.8 1,474.1 883.4 1,951.6 972.5 586.1 256.1 515.6 301.2 439.3 730.4 1,087.1 1,110.1 2,152.3 1,417.0 1,241.8 259.4 1,224.0 Jan 10 4,429 509 2,601 1,492 2,794 2,750 2,079 1,409 3,408 698 1,370 405 517 333 272 654 1,258 972 1,038 2,516 1,635 18 1,260 = Feb 10 4,919 418 2,611 1,589 2,948 3,062 2,249 1,525 3,548 712 1,441 408 501 363 144 746 1,436 1,003 1,086 2,617 1,856 26 1,483 Mar 10 4,886 385 2,611 1,515 2,898 2,941 2,100 1,485 3,590 724 1,324 428 509 332 120 693 1,348 974 1,070 2,605 1,743 62 1,494 Apr 10 4,432 390 2,557 1,561 2,919 3,002 2,305 1,537 3,616 747 1,360 398 489 331 140 707 1,418 1,019 1,138 2,585 1,812 107 1,337 Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 May 10 4,254 310 2,522 1,580 2,936 2,819 1,941 1,392 3,570 695 1,323 417 474 323 122 651 1,361 959 1,045 2,526 1,737 76 1,050 Jun 10 3,925 288 2,223 1,378 2,501 2,611 1,919 1,236 3,233 648 1,196 389 450 276 126 580 1,202 760 1,015 2,319 1,558 90 810 Boardings Per Mile 1.18 0.41 1.76 2.81 0.99 2.45 1.42 1.62 1.79 0.72 2.28 1.59 0.95 1.08 0.35 0.92 1.23 0.85 0.49 1.78 1.39 0.24 1.01 System Average 1.90 102 APPENDIX D TABLE 1 (Continued) Service Evaluation Process Weekday Local: Sorted By Boardings Per Mile Route 29 50 41 12 17 3 19 80 35 27 0 15 90 60 43 70 10 112 16 7 8 67 61 106 170 77 45 51 104 56 120 59 32 65 96 186 62 44 138 40 72 30 Revenue Miles 2,447.0 1,695.6 2,621.8 588.6 2,374.0 1,786.7 2,905.8 539.7 2,264.4 1,544.1 2,008.5 1,215.1 1,167.8 1,089.4 1,098.5 2,919.0 1,164.2 586.1 1,698.4 2,021.1 1,180.5 1,195.3 3,129.0 1,951.6 1,417.0 1,433.2 2,469.7 621.4 883.4 1,211.7 256.1 1,603.3 1,233.1 702.6 1,474.1 1,241.8 1,059.7 1,518.7 1,087.1 1,746.8 3,779.5 2,311.1 Jan 10 9,865 5,663 8,544 1,943 7,268 5,027 8,372 1,492 6,004 4,152 5,052 2,904 2,750 2,608 2,541 6,787 2,833 1,370 3,921 4,486 2,366 2,345 5,654 3,408 2,516 2,601 4,199 1,089 1,409 1,958 405 2,497 1,926 890 2,079 1,635 1,352 1,949 1,258 2,118 4,429 2,549 Feb 10 10,567 6,029 8,899 2,099 7,532 5,278 9,027 1,589 6,357 4,343 5,235 3,158 3,062 2,703 2,668 7,182 2,938 1,441 3,996 4,609 2,553 2,466 5,822 3,548 2,617 2,611 4,583 1,108 1,525 2,115 408 2,692 2,078 1,143 2,249 1,856 1,624 2,037 1,436 2,078 4,919 2,735 Mar 10 9,792 5,735 8,549 1,964 7,096 5,412 8,601 1,515 5,959 4,067 5,054 3,039 2,941 2,582 2,656 6,792 2,708 1,324 3,835 4,463 2,466 2,322 5,620 3,590 2,605 2,611 4,385 1,061 1,485 1,975 428 2,590 1,915 1,069 2,100 1,743 1,558 2,035 1,348 2,161 4,886 2,587 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 Apr 10 10,189 6,049 8,862 1,634 7,601 5,442 7,523 1,561 5,338 3,180 5,211 3,144 3,002 2,673 2,724 6,808 2,928 1,360 3,869 4,616 2,615 2,564 5,969 3,616 2,585 2,557 4,509 1,151 1,537 1,960 398 2,729 1,994 1,120 2,305 1,812 1,629 2,062 1,418 2,125 4,432 2,642 May 10 8,985 5,531 8,481 1,811 6,999 5,205 8,304 1,580 5,898 4,004 4,984 2,986 2,819 2,616 2,592 6,784 2,689 1,323 3,970 4,334 2,433 2,427 5,656 3,570 2,526 2,522 4,206 1,047 1,392 1,860 417 2,384 1,904 1,003 1,941 1,737 1,499 2,011 1,361 2,020 4,254 2,530 Jun 10 8,100 4,937 7,602 1,530 5,824 4,674 7,417 1,378 5,164 3,511 4,523 2,872 2,611 2,316 2,255 5,891 1,945 1,196 3,397 3,843 2,204 2,092 4,971 3,233 2,319 2,223 3,695 934 1,236 1,797 389 2,218 1,632 873 1,919 1,558 1,135 1,831 1,202 2,005 3,925 2,293 Boardings Per Mile 3.92 3.34 3.24 3.11 2.97 2.90 2.82 2.81 2.56 2.51 2.49 2.48 2.45 2.37 2.34 2.30 2.30 2.28 2.26 2.17 2.07 1.98 1.79 1.79 1.78 1.76 1.73 1.71 1.62 1.60 1.59 1.57 1.55 1.45 1.42 1.39 1.38 1.31 1.23 1.19 1.18 1.11 103 APPENDIX D Route 128 52 LINK 81 13 122 17A 136 154 29A 66 48 1 3A 39 108 156 76 131 GAL Revenue Miles 301.2 681.4 1,224.0 2,866.1 928.4 515.6 308.0 730.4 1,110.1 231.2 1,261.2 818.6 725.2 339.2 1,148.9 972.5 2,152.3 932.7 439.3 259.4 Jan 10 333 784 1,260 2,794 910 517 330 654 972 107 1,063 407 541 48 867 698 1,038 509 272 18 Feb 10 363 792 1,483 2,948 921 501 291 746 1,003 195 1,086 635 599 55 925 712 1,086 418 144 26 = = Mar 10 332 725 1,494 2,898 929 509 288 693 974 213 1,084 694 567 1182 878 724 1,070 385 120 62 Apr 10 331 836 1,337 2,919 920 489 294 707 1,019 229 1,122 715 581 119 912 747 1,138 390 140 107 May 10 323 687 1,050 2,936 909 474 266 651 959 215 1,021 806 561 107 850 695 1,045 310 122 76 Bottom Quartile Jun 10 276 482 810 2,501 786 450 258 580 760 197 889 767 593 60 789 648 1,015 288 126 90 Boardings Per Mile 1.08 1.05 1.01 0.99 0.96 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.85 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.79 0.77 0.76 0.72 0.49 0.41 0.35 0.24 System Average 1.90 Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 104 APPENDIX D TABLE 2 Service Evaluation Process Saturday Local: Sorted By Route Route 0 1 3 3A 7 8 10 12 13 15 16 17 17A 19 27 29 29A 30 32 35 39 40 41 43 44 45 48 50 51 52 56 59 60 61 62 65 66 67 70 Revenue Miles 937.4 337.7 817.3 339.2 1,331.2 1,006.9 473.7 346.2 470.3 553.9 1,057.3 1,227.0 287.0 1,355.8 1,319.1 1,121.6 200.3 1,228.6 563.5 1,521.5 953.1 1,654.0 1,397.2 517.0 853.8 1,489.7 628.3 914.2 316.5 413.3 920.5 540.7 518.5 2,042.3 853.6 530.6 987.6 474.5 1,895.7 Jan 10 1,972 287 2,425 141 2,042 1,417 843 467 382 1,474 1,925 3,628 155 4,543 2,375 4,231 69 1,050 755 3,175 558 1,802 4,281 1,108 993 1,828 125 2,709 371 287 1,297 1,147 1,284 3,006 698 394 509 927 3,384 Feb 10 2,103 255 2,666 116 2,079 1,492 828 321 349 1,515 1,896 3,527 166 4,558 2,351 4,249 77 1,004 782 3,397 558 1,798 4,245 1,075 1,085 1,960 388 2,893 371 256 1,599 1,306 1,300 3,040 982 413 444 747 3,520 Mar 10 1,976 282 2,776 134 2,016 1,518 808 370 404 1,499 2,120 3,503 147 4,499 2,183 4,241 53 1,081 822 3,403 613 1,934 4,340 1,164 1,126 1,978 395 2,810 388 254 1,409 1,057 1,349 2,897 910 469 495 991 3,480 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 Apr 10 1,956 307 2,656 155 2,005 1,615 857 342 374 1,528 2,032 3,579 180 3,337 2,115 4,446 85 1,010 846 3,221 594 1,734 4,147 1,058 1,209 2,044 509 2,808 369 251 1,367 1,220 1,387 3,004 876 496 486 883 3,566 May 10 1,777 267 2,531 136 2,055 1,507 740 431 344 1,546 2,128 3,302 154 4,354 2,278 4,026 76 1,015 747 3,315 562 1,781 4,060 1,081 1,063 1,844 528 2,875 335 249 1,304 921 1,291 2,964 848 442 456 1,132 3,355 Jun 10 1,598 294 2,436 95 1,837 1,382 724 365 314 1,278 1,810 3,022 148 3,907 2,099 3,766 77 897 677 2,973 573 1,801 3,700 992 989 1,763 590 2,653 334 222 1,223 967 1,155 2,756 789 379 471 842 3,041 Boardings Per Mile 2.02 0.84 3.16 0.38 1.51 1.48 1.69 1.11 0.77 2.66 1.88 2.79 0.55 3.10 1.69 3.71 0.36 0.82 1.37 2.13 0.60 1.09 2.96 2.09 1.26 1.28 0.67 3.05 1.14 0.61 1.48 2.04 2.50 1.44 1.00 0.81 0.48 1.94 1.79 105 APPENDIX D Route 72 76 77 80 81 90 96 104 106 108 120 122 128 136 138 154 156 170 186 LINK Revenue Miles 2,318.4 324.9 778.4 241.7 937.1 1,013.5 1,175.3 218.1 1,322.1 260.5 128.1 437.1 156.2 456.8 494.1 522.4 1,615.7 1,231.8 556.0 484.1 Jan 10 2,865 173 1,254 699 1,156 1,484 1,429 426 1,794 177 129 116 175 260 765 407 690 1,846 780 452 = Feb 10 2,692 133 1,381 630 1,163 1,598 1,458 386 1,785 172 109 145 173 304 738 415 722 1,736 891 484 Mar 10 3,123 157 1,462 530 1,191 1,705 1,320 388 1,867 168 167 150 210 277 846 456 704 1,846 869 531 Apr 10 2,381 122 1,332 492 1,124 1,797 1,430 397 1,910 169 148 143 187 274 735 426 736 1,779 872 498 May 10 2,694 87 1,225 585 1,070 1,634 1,371 381 1,785 159 114 111 175 226 748 426 724 1,864 703 258 Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 Jun 10 2,477 99 1,255 609 1,083 1,359 1,335 342 1,745 142 116 195 163 225 616 369 671 1,700 737 202 Boardings Per Mile 1.17 0.40 1.69 2.44 1.21 1.57 1.18 1.77 1.37 0.63 1.02 0.33 1.16 0.57 1.50 0.80 0.44 1.46 1.45 0.83 System Average 1.50 106 APPENDIX D TABLE 2 (Continued) Service Evaluation Process Saturday Local: Sorted By Boardings Per Mile Route 29 3 19 50 41 17 15 60 80 35 43 59 0 67 16 70 104 77 27 10 90 7 138 56 8 170 186 61 106 32 45 44 81 96 72 128 51 12 40 Revenue Miles 1,121.6 817.3 1,355.8 914.2 1,397.2 1,227.0 553.9 518.5 241.7 1,521.5 517.0 540.7 937.4 474.5 1,057.3 1,895.7 218.1 778.4 1,319.1 473.7 1,013.5 1,331.2 494.1 920.5 1,006.9 1,231.8 556.0 2,042.3 1,322.1 563.5 1,489.7 853.8 937.1 1,175.3 2,318.4 156.2 316.5 346.2 1,654.0 Jan 10 4,231 2,425 4,543 2,709 4,281 3,628 1,474 1,284 699 3,175 1,108 1,147 1,972 927 1,925 3,384 426 1,254 2,375 843 1,484 2,042 765 1,297 1,417 1,846 780 3,006 1,794 755 1,828 993 1,156 1,429 2,865 175 371 467 1,802 Feb 10 4,249 2,666 4,558 2,893 4,245 3,527 1,515 1,300 630 3,397 1,075 1,306 2,103 747 1,896 3,520 386 1,381 2,351 828 1,598 2,079 738 1,599 1,492 1,736 891 3,040 1,785 782 1,960 1,085 1,163 1,458 2,692 173 371 321 1,798 Mar 10 4,241 2,776 4,499 2,810 4,340 3,503 1,499 1,349 530 3,403 1,164 1,057 1,976 991 2,120 3,480 388 1,462 2,183 808 1,705 2,016 846 1,409 1,518 1,846 869 2,897 1,867 822 1,978 1,126 1,191 1,320 3,123 210 388 370 1,934 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 Apr 10 4,446 2,656 3,337 2,808 4,147 3,579 1,528 1,387 492 3,221 1,058 1,220 1,956 883 2,032 3,566 397 1,332 2,115 857 1,797 2,005 735 1,367 1,615 1,779 872 3,004 1,910 846 2,044 1,209 1,124 1,430 2,381 187 369 342 1,734 May 10 4,026 2,531 4,354 2,875 4,060 3,302 1,546 1,291 585 3,315 1,081 921 1,777 1,132 2,128 3,355 381 1,225 2,278 740 1,634 2,055 748 1,304 1,507 1,864 703 2,964 1,785 747 1,844 1,063 1,070 1,371 2,694 175 335 431 1,781 Jun 10 3,766 2,436 3,907 2,653 3,700 3,022 1,278 1,155 609 2,973 992 967 1,598 842 1,810 3,041 342 1,255 2,099 724 1,359 1,837 616 1,223 1,382 1,700 737 2,756 1,745 677 1,763 989 1,083 1,335 2,477 163 334 365 1,801 Boardings Per Mile 3.71 3.16 3.10 3.05 2.96 2.79 2.66 2.50 2.44 2.13 2.09 2.04 2.02 1.94 1.88 1.79 1.77 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.57 1.51 1.50 1.48 1.48 1.46 1.45 1.44 1.37 1.37 1.28 1.26 1.21 1.18 1.17 1.16 1.14 1.11 1.09 107 APPENDIX D Route 120 62 1 LINK 30 65 154 13 48 108 52 39 136 17A 66 156 76 3A 29A 122 Revenue Miles 128.1 853.6 337.7 484.1 1,228.6 530.6 522.4 470.3 628.3 260.5 413.3 953.1 456.8 287.0 987.6 1,615.7 324.9 339.2 200.3 437.1 Jan 10 129 698 287 452 1,050 394 407 382 125 177 287 558 260 155 509 690 173 141 69 116 Feb 10 109 982 255 484 1,004 413 415 349 388 172 256 558 304 166 444 722 133 116 77 145 Mar 10 167 910 282 531 1,081 469 456 404 395 168 254 613 277 147 495 704 157 134 53 150 Apr 10 148 876 307 498 1,010 496 426 374 509 169 251 594 274 180 486 736 122 155 85 143 May 10 114 848 267 258 1,015 442 426 344 528 159 249 562 226 154 456 724 87 136 76 111 Jun 10 116 789 294 202 897 379 369 314 590 142 222 573 225 148 471 671 99 95 77 195 Boardings Per Mile 1.02 1.00 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.77 0.67 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.48 0.44 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.33 System = Bottom Quartile Average 1.50 = Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 108 APPENDIX D TABLE 3 Service Evaluation Process Sunday Local: Sorted By Route Route 0 1 3 7 8 10 12 13 15 16 17 19 27 29 30 32 35 39 40 41 43 44 45 48 50 51 52 56 59 60 61 62 65 66 67 70 Revenue Miles 937.4 337.7 817.3 1,331.2 1,006.9 473.7 346.2 470.3 553.9 1,057.3 1,226.7 1,355.8 1,319.1 1,121.6 374.1 563.5 1,521.5 953.1 1,650.7 1,362.9 517.0 853.8 894.1 563.9 914.2 316.5 413.3 839.8 540.7 518.5 1,795.2 739.3 471.6 933.9 474.5 1,820.5 Jan 10 1,250 146 1,514 1,302 853 520 310 285 985 1,472 2,259 2,960 1,661 2,726 139 489 2,409 369 1,458 2,469 701 699 781 337 1,893 257 151 897 776 843 1,893 468 254 328 596 2,361 Feb 10 1,222 141 1,559 1,311 779 516 372 270 945 1,380 2,365 2,802 1,679 2,749 138 527 2,406 343 1,434 2,448 654 692 734 254 1,919 299 149 951 595 837 1,751 602 279 258 645 2,200 Mar 10 1,311 167 1,678 1,389 911 577 356 263 936 1,382 2,365 2,768 1,586 2,786 151 509 2,278 362 1,578 2,629 670 726 792 202 1,968 247 180 954 699 863 1,898 683 344 315 621 2,338 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 Apr 10 1,375 193 1,712 1,381 948 579 336 274 1,032 1,269 2,396 2,765 1,621 2,763 140 496 2,313 377 1,544 2,627 683 764 798 283 1,961 248 186 882 716 826 1,774 624 306 330 576 2,173 May 10 1,220 144 1,650 1,398 900 527 359 250 984 1,493 2,364 2,883 1,608 2,787 144 557 2,296 412 1,529 2,589 702 722 767 380 1,900 200 183 941 749 863 1,877 596 307 397 567 2,197 Jun 10 1,176 160 1,642 1,333 811 508 322 236 909 1,323 2,131 2,611 1,484 2,684 135 496 2,253 370 1,461 2,388 652 675 737 355 1,796 200 196 837 726 768 1,772 533 284 351 458 2,140 Boardings Per Mile 1.34 0.47 1.99 1.02 0.86 1.14 0.99 0.56 1.74 1.31 1.89 2.06 1.22 2.45 0.38 0.91 1.53 0.39 0.91 1.85 1.31 0.84 0.86 0.54 2.09 0.76 0.42 1.08 1.31 1.61 1.02 0.79 0.63 0.35 1.22 1.23 109 APPENDIX D Revenue Route 72 76 77 80 81 90 96 106 108 122 138 154 156 170 186 LINK Miles 2,103.3 328.1 731.7 241.7 889.3 1,013.5 1,176.1 1,118.1 240.4 437.1 494.1 522.4 1,615.7 1,129.3 556.0 484.1 Boardings Jan 10 1,967 99 717 414 739 1,089 962 1,186 92 87 526 341 488 1,219 575 262 = Feb 10 2,169 85 887 453 725 1,004 993 1,158 120 118 485 338 448 1,146 594 291 Mar 10 2,206 76 825 422 762 1,046 948 1,190 107 142 464 336 451 1,112 663 322 Apr 10 1,606 74 754 352 709 1,139 947 1,167 98 113 477 334 491 1,161 642 320 May 10 1,902 64 829 443 675 1,114 989 1,263 108 110 498 325 490 1,160 641 137 Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA Jun 10 1,752 71 755 414 735 1,052 935 1,164 100 138 432 278 476 1,019 633 228 Per Mile 0.92 0.24 1.09 1.72 0.81 1.06 0.82 1.06 0.43 0.27 0.97 0.62 0.29 1.01 1.12 0.54 System Average 1.10 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 110 APPENDIX D TABLE 3 (Continued) Service Evaluation Process Sunday Local: Sorted By Boardings Per Mile Route 29 50 19 3 17 41 15 80 60 35 0 59 16 43 70 27 67 10 186 77 56 106 90 61 7 170 12 138 72 32 40 8 45 44 96 81 62 51 65 Revenue Miles 1,121.6 914.2 1,355.8 817.3 1,226.7 1,362.9 553.9 241.7 518.5 1,521.5 937.4 540.7 1,057.3 517.0 1,820.5 1,319.1 474.5 473.7 556.0 731.7 839.8 1,118.1 1,013.5 1,795.2 1,331.2 1,129.3 346.2 494.1 2,103.3 563.5 1,650.7 1,006.9 894.1 853.8 1,176.1 889.3 739.3 316.5 471.6 Jan 10 2,726 1,893 2,960 1,514 2,259 2,469 985 414 843 2,409 1,250 776 1,472 701 2,361 1,661 596 520 575 717 897 1,186 1,089 1,893 1,302 1,219 310 526 1,967 489 1,458 853 781 699 962 739 468 257 254 Feb 10 2,749 1,919 2,802 1,559 2,365 2,448 945 453 837 2,406 1,222 595 1,380 654 2,200 1,679 645 516 594 887 951 1,158 1,004 1,751 1,311 1,146 372 485 2,169 527 1,434 779 734 692 993 725 602 299 279 Mar 10 2,786 1,968 2,768 1,678 2,365 2,629 936 422 863 2,278 1,311 699 1,382 670 2,338 1,586 621 577 663 825 954 1,190 1,046 1,898 1,389 1,112 356 464 2,206 509 1,578 911 792 726 948 762 683 247 344 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 Apr 10 2,763 1,961 2,765 1,712 2,396 2,627 1,032 352 826 2,313 1,375 716 1,269 683 2,173 1,621 576 579 642 754 882 1,167 1,139 1,774 1,381 1,161 336 477 1,606 496 1,544 948 798 764 947 709 624 248 306 May 10 2,787 1,900 2,883 1,650 2,364 2,589 984 443 863 2,296 1,220 749 1,493 702 2,197 1,608 567 527 641 829 941 1,263 1,114 1,877 1,398 1,160 359 498 1,902 557 1,529 900 767 722 989 675 596 200 307 Jun 10 2,684 1,796 2,611 1,642 2,131 2,388 909 414 768 2,253 1,176 726 1,323 652 2,140 1,484 458 508 633 755 837 1,164 1,052 1,772 1,333 1,019 322 432 1,752 496 1,461 811 737 675 935 735 533 200 284 Boardings Per Mile 2.45 2.09 2.06 1.99 1.89 1.85 1.74 1.72 1.61 1.53 1.34 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.23 1.22 1.22 1.14 1.12 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.06 1.02 1.02 1.01 0.99 0.97 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.79 0.76 0.63 111 APPENDIX D Route 154 13 LINK 48 1 108 52 39 30 66 156 122 76 Revenue Miles 522.4 470.3 484.1 563.9 337.7 240.4 413.3 953.1 374.1 933.9 1,615.7 437.1 328.1 Jan 10 341 285 262 337 146 92 151 369 139 328 488 87 99 Feb 10 338 270 291 254 141 120 149 343 138 258 448 118 85 Mar 10 336 263 322 202 167 107 180 362 151 315 451 142 76 Apr 10 334 274 320 283 193 98 186 377 140 330 491 113 74 May 10 325 250 137 380 144 108 183 412 144 397 490 110 64 Jun 10 278 236 228 355 160 100 196 370 135 351 476 138 71 Boardings Per Mile 0.62 0.56 0.54 0.54 0.47 0.43 0.42 0.39 0.38 0.35 0.29 0.27 0.24 System = Bottom Quartile Average 1.10 = Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 112 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 June '10 May '10 April '10 March '10 Feb '10 Jan '10 Dec '09 Nov '09 Oct '09 Sept '09 Aug '09 July '09 June '09 May '09 April '09 Mar '09 Feb '09 Jan '09 June '10 May '10 April '10 March '10 Feb '10 Jan '10 Dec '09 Nov '09 Oct '09 Sept '09 Aug '09 July '09 June '09 May '09 April '09 Mar '09 Feb '09 Jan '09 APPENDIX D GRAPH 1 Route 136‐‐Gilbert Average Daily Boardings 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 Weekday 136 200 Saturday 100 0 GRAPH 2 Route 48‐‐48th Street Average Daily Boardings 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 Weekday 48 200 100 0 113 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 June '10 May '10 April '10 March '10 Feb '10 Jan '10 Dec '09 Nov '09 Oct '09 Sept '09 Aug '09 July '09 June '09 May '09 April '09 Mar '09 Feb '09 Jan '09 June '10 May '10 April '10 March '10 Feb '10 Jan '10 Dec '09 Nov '09 Oct '09 Sept '09 Aug '09 July '09 June '09 May '09 April '09 Mar '09 Feb '09 Jan '09 APPENDIX D GRAPH 3 Route 108‐‐Elliot Average Daily Boardings 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 Weekday 108 200 100 0 GRAPH 4 Route 156‐‐Chandler Boulevard Average Daily Boardings 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 Weekday 156 600 Saturday 400 Sunday 200 0 114 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 June '10 May '10 April '10 March '10 Feb '10 Jan '10 Dec '09 Nov '09 Oct '09 Sept '09 Aug '09 July '09 June '09 May '09 April '09 Mar '09 Feb '09 Jan '09 Jan '09 Feb '09 Mar '09 April '09 May '09 June '09 July '09 Aug '09 Sept '09 Oct '09 Nov '09 Dec '09 Jan '10 Feb '10 March '10 April '10 May '10 June '10 July '10 Aug '10 Sept '10 Oct '10 Nov '10 Dec '10 APPENDIX D GRAPH 5 Grand Avenue Limited Average Daily Boardings 120 100 80 60 40 Weekday GAL 20 0 GRAPH 6 Grand Avenue Limited Average Boardings Per Trip 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 Weekday GAL 4.0 2.0 0.0 115 APPENDIX D TABLE 4 Service Evaluation Process Express: Sorted By Route Route Revenue Trips Jan 10 Feb 10 Mar 10 Apr 10 May 10 Jun 10 SR51 I-10 East I-10 West 28 31 27 638 747 624 632 750 637 646 763 634 664 812 660 666 812 645 643 765 650 I-17 510 44 4 1,150 75 1,129 80 1,127 76 1,142 63 1,146 66 1,148 75 511 8 35 50 49 42 54 48 512 520 4 8 78 90 75 88 84 76 78 77 85 80 79 75 521 13 163 190 194 208 207 191 531 532 15 8 279 134 300 143 301 142 303 148 290 136 280 126 533 10 366 298 317 355 350 335 535 536 6 10 118 37 96 43 100 34 116 43 127 25 119 26 540 8 167 168 182 180 173 165 541 542 560 10 6 4 245 208 55 218 213 51 214 214 54 234 217 56 220 225 52 217 223 52 562 570 6 4 128 39 126 37 130 29 130 36 138 47 139 38 571 6 128 135 129 146 154 151 572 573 12 12 70 172 69 176 70 186 74 187 69 181 57 187 575 6 158 155 157 166 161 160 576 581 582 10 6 8 34 89 84 33 92 83 37 90 90 27 93 95 29 90 90 24 93 92 590 8 97 98 96 101 102 92 = Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA Boardings Per Trip 23 25 24 26 18 6 20 10 15 19 17 34 19 3 22 22 36 13 22 9 23 6 15 27 3 15 11 12 System Average 18 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 116 APPENDIX D TABLE 4 (Continued) Service Evaluation Process Weekday Express: Sorted By Boardings Per Trip Revenue Route 542 533 575 I-17 I-10 East I-10 West 571 SR51 541 562 540 512 531 535 510 532 581 573 521 560 590 582 520 570 511 572 536 576 Trips 6 10 6 44 31 27 6 28 10 6 8 4 15 6 4 8 6 12 13 4 8 8 8 4 8 12 10 10 Boardings Jan 10 208 366 158 1,150 747 624 128 638 245 128 167 78 279 118 75 134 89 172 163 55 97 84 90 39 35 70 37 34 Feb 10 213 298 155 1,129 750 637 135 632 218 126 168 75 300 96 80 143 92 176 190 51 98 83 88 37 50 69 43 33 Mar 10 214 317 157 1,127 763 634 129 646 214 130 182 84 301 100 76 142 90 186 194 54 96 90 76 29 49 70 34 37 Apr 10 217 355 166 1,142 812 660 146 664 234 130 180 78 303 116 63 148 93 187 208 56 101 95 77 36 42 74 43 27 May 10 225 350 161 1,146 812 645 154 666 220 138 173 85 290 127 66 136 90 181 207 52 102 90 80 47 54 69 25 29 Jun 10 223 335 160 1,148 765 650 151 643 217 139 165 79 280 119 75 126 93 187 191 52 92 92 75 38 48 57 26 24 Per Trip 36 34 27 26 25 24 23 23 22 22 22 20 19 19 18 17 15 15 15 13 12 11 10 9 6 6 3 3 System = Bottom Quartile Average 18 = Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 117 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 June '10 May '10 April '10 March '10 Feb '10 Jan '10 Dec '09 Nov '09 Oct '09 Sept '09 Aug '09 July '09 June '09 May '09 April '09 Mar '09 Feb '09 Jan '09 June '10 May '10 April '10 March '10 Feb '10 Jan '10 Dec '09 Nov '09 Oct '09 Sept '09 Aug '09 July '09 June '09 May '09 April '09 Mar '09 Feb '09 Jan '09 APPENDIX D GRAPH 7 Route 582‐‐North Mountain Express Average Daily Boardings 120 100 80 60 40 20 582 0 GRAPH 8 Route 520‐‐Tempe Express Average Daily Boardings 120 100 80 60 40 520 20 0 118 APPENDIX D GRAPH 9 Route 570‐‐Glendale Express Average Daily Boardings 120 100 80 60 570 40 20 June '10 May '10 April '10 March '10 Feb '10 Jan '10 Dec '09 Nov '09 Oct '09 Sept '09 Aug '09 July '09 June '09 May '09 April '09 Mar '09 Feb '09 Jan '09 0 GRAPH 10 Route 511‐‐Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express Average Daily Boardings 70 60 50 40 30 20 511 10 0 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 119 APPENDIX D GRAPH 11 Route 572‐‐Surprise/Scottsdale Express Average Daily Boardings 140 120 100 80 60 572 40 20 June '10 May '10 April '10 March '10 Feb '10 Jan '10 Dec '09 Nov '09 Oct '09 Sept '09 Aug '09 July '09 June '09 May '09 April '09 Mar '09 Feb '09 Jan '09 0 GRAPH 12 Route 536‐‐Northeast Mesa/Tempe ASU Express Average Daily Boardings 60 50 40 30 20 536 10 0 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 120 APPENDIX D GRAPH 13 Route 576‐‐Northwest Valley/Montebello Express Average Daily Boardings 70 60 50 40 30 20 576 10 0 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2010/11 – 2015/16 121