Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Reprioritization Study Prepared for REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Prepared by April 2008 Table of Contents 1. 2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Project Process ................................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Reconciliation with 2007 Regional Transportation Plan Evaluation .......................... 2 3. Findings & Recommendations .......................................................................................... 2 3.1 Revised Implementation Schedule ............................................................................ 2 3.2 Park-and-ride Capital Costs and Funding ................................................................. 3 3.3 Valley Park-and-Ride Network .................................................................................. 5 3.4 Land Availability & Cost ............................................................................................. 9 4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 10 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 11 List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Park-and-Rides funded by PTF ..................................................................................... 4 Valley Park-and-Ride Facilities ..................................................................................... 6 West Loop 101 Spacing ................................................................................................. 7 North Loop 101 Spacing ................................................................................................ 8 i DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization 1. Introduction It is difficult to overstate the importance of adequate passenger facilities in creating a successful transit network. Limited-stop services such as freeway express buses are dependent upon the availability of park-and-rides to ensure passenger access to the service. The lack of adequate parking facilities could result in low ridership or passenger trespassing through “hide-and-ride” where passengers park their vehicles in unauthorized private parking lots or residential neighborhoods. Most importantly, the uncoordinated implementation of passenger facilities and services can impact the public’s perception of the regional transit system and prevent the system from reaching its maximum operating potential. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which was adopted by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Regional Council in 2003, and which is funded by an extension of the county-wide half-cent sales tax passed by Maricopa County voters in 2004, identifies 13 regional park-and-ride lots to be developed over the twenty-year life of the plan. The Park-andRide Re-prioritization Study is an effort to ensure that implementation of RTP capital facilities is aligned with the phasing of supergrid, express bus, and arterial BRT bus service operations that they will support. Specifically, the objectives of this effort are to develop implementation priorities for the 13 regional park-and-ride facilities identified in the RTP and funded by Proposition 400. The study updates the recommendations of the 2001 MAG Park & Ride Plan, which was developed prior to adoption of the RTP and passage of Proposition 400. In addition to the primary goal of re-prioritizing the 13 park-and-ride lots, the Park-and-Ride Reprioritization Study also describes the Valley’s overall park-and-ride network and makes recommendations to facilitate implementation. 2. Project Process To determine the appropriate implementation schedule for the park-and-ride lots funded by the Public Transportation Fund (PTF), the project team reviewed existing planning documents, ongoing planning projects from RPTA and its member agencies, and MAG to examine the following: • Planned implementation of regionally and locally funded transit services and facilities. • Transportation infrastructure: Current and programmed road and freeway improvements. • System Connectivity: Identify which routes will be using each park-and-ride facility. In addition to reviewing documentation relevant to transit implementation, the project team gathered input from public agencies through group and face-to-face meetings, as described below. TAG Meetings To examine the assumptions made during the project and allow input to the process, a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for the project was formed. The TAG consisted of representatives from each of the member cities that were allocated funding for a park-and-ride facility in the RTP. In addition to the cities, representatives from Maricopa County Department of Transportation, MAG, Arizona Department of Transportation, and Valley Metro Rail were invited to participate in the TAG. 1 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization A kickoff meeting was held with the TAG in January 2006; three TAG meetings followed in August 2006, October 2006, and March 2007. The project was on hold during the period in which the RTP Evaluation took place (see section 2.1). To ensure coordination between the Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Study and a related study, the Freeway Express Bus/BRT Operations Plan, TAG meetings for the two projects were held jointly in October 2006 and March 2007. This was done to ensure that the planning assumptions and subsequent implementation recommendations were coordinated. Meetings with Individual Cities In addition to the TAG meetings, the consultant team met with representatives from each of the cities individually. The purpose of these meetings was to understand local conditions and needs, particularly with regard to local transit projects and local land costs. At each of these meetings, the participants discussed current park-and-ride status, trends in land costs, and the local jurisdiction’s preferred solutions and park-and-ride timing. 2.1 Reconciliation with 2007 Regional Transportation Plan Evaluation The transit element of the RTP provides an overview of the planned regional public transportation services and infrastructure improvements through the year 2025. The 2007 Regional Transportation Plan Evaluation (“2007 RTP Evaluation”) was undertaken by a separate consultant to examine the assumptions made regarding operations and capital infrastructure in the RTP transit element and the associated Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP). To ensure consistency with the findings of this baseline-setting study, the project team reviewed the findings and recommendations contained in the final report of the 2007 RTP Evaluation. With a few exceptions, the Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Study endorses the findings and recommendations of the 2007 RTP Evaluation: Where the Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Study differs from the 2007 RTP Evaluation, the differences are noted in the text. 3. Findings & Recommendations 3.1 Revised Implementation Schedule In general, this study supports the implementation suggested in the 2007 RTP Evaluation. However, several changes reflect updated information and are described in the findings and recommendations below. Finding: Several changes affecting the implementation of the PTF-funded park-and-ride lots 1. The “Cactus/101” park-and-ride lot was previously swapped in priority with the “Scottsdale Road/101” park-and-ride lot. Therefore, the implementation schedule should be updated to reflect that. 2. The park-and-ride facility at Peoria/Grand has been delayed until 2023, and is now located at Cactus/Loop 101 in Peoria. 3. The park-and-ride lot previously located at Northern/Loop 303 in Glendale will now be located at Arrowhead Mall, and will be implemented in 2013 as a parking structure. Recommendation: Revise implementation schedule for park-and-rides The implementation schedule should be updated to reflect the changes above, as shown in Table 1. 2 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Table 1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Revised schedule of park-and-ride implementation Facility location (estimated) Jurisdiction Happy Valley/I-17 Phoenix Scottsdale Rd/101 Scottsdale Price/202 (“Tumbleweed” site at Chandler McQueen/Germann) Grand/Surprise Surprise Country Club/US 60 Mesa East Buckeye Buckeye Bell Rd./101 (“Arrowhead” site at Glendale mall) Glendale/Grand Glendale Camelback/101 Phoenix Laveen/59th Ave Phoenix Elliot/I-10 Phoenix Val Vista/202 Gilbert Cactus/101 (West loop of 101) Peoria Year of Construction 2009 2009 2009 2008 2011 2011 2013 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018 2023 A map of the park-and-ride facilities funded by the public transportation fund (PTF) is shown in Figure 1. A list of services associated with each park-and-ride lot is shown in Appendix I. In some cases, a shared-use or other temporary facility may be required for express bus or bus rapid transit services that begin operating before park-and-ride facilities are fully constructed. 3.2 Park-and-ride Capital Costs and Funding The 2007 RTP Evaluation recommended that a fixed amount of funding be allocated per parkand-ride facility, as follows: “The capital cost for park-and-ride facilities should be a flat per unit investment, adjusted annually for inflation, with a PTF funding limit designated per facility. Under this recommendation, communities would be responsible for any costs over the ceiling.”1 Based on the assumptions made in the Transit Life Cycle Program, the amount allocated per park-and-ride lot is approximately $4.5 million (in $2008).2 This funding cap is per-facility, regardless of size or design. The $4.5 million in PTF funding is to be used for pre-design (i.e., site selection and environmental review), design, land acquisition, and/or construction. Local jurisdictions will be responsible for operations and maintenance costs associated with the parkand-ride lot. 1 See 3.2.3.5, finding 35, of 2007 RTP Evaluation Final Report II. The funding contribution per facility is $3,766,000 in $2002; this figure has been inflated to $2008 using an annual inflation rate of 3%. The more precise amount is $4,496,801, which is rounded to $4.5 million. The funding contribution from the PTF will be some combination of federal and regional funding. The proportions of regional and federal funding may vary from facility to facility, and the federal funding contribution may actually be 0% on some specific projects. For more information on PTF funding and funding mixes, please contact RPTA. 2 3 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Figure 1 Park-and-Rides funded by PTF 4 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization 3.3 Valley Park-and-Ride Network The Valley’s current regional park-and-ride network consists of eight dedicated facilities and many shared-use facilities. The opening of the Central Phoenix/East Valley light rail will add eight more park-and-ride lots to the system, and several more express bus or bus rapid transit park-and-ride lots are under construction. With the PTF-funded facilities, the Valley will have a complete network of park-and-ride facilities, with every freeway having at least one park-andride. The map in Figure 2 shows the funding status, as of November 2007, of various proposed park-and-ride lots in the Valley. Finding: Spacing of park-and-ride facilities In several locations around the Valley, park-and-ride facilities are in close proximity of one another. The spacing reflects, in part, the region’s development patterns and freeway system routing. This situation seemed especially likely at locations where park-and-ride sites were near jurisdictional boundaries. On the west loop of the 101, for example, park-and-rides are planned at roughly four-mile intervals in Glendale, Peoria, and Phoenix (Figure 3). On the north loop of the 101, the 101/Scottsdale Rd. site and a potential site at Desert Ridge (in Phoenix) would be less than four miles apart (see Figure 4). There are no regionally developed guidelines for park-and-ride spacing, and, indeed, closelyspaced park-and-ride facilities are not inherently detrimental to the system, especially where park-and-rides may serve different transit modes or travel needs. For example, an express bus may fill completely at a single point-of-origin park-and-ride and continue to its destination without stopping at other facilities. Park-and-rides on the Central Phoenix/East Valley light rail line are spaced roughly every mile, in some locations. The planned regional transit system consists of a combination of connector (suburb-to-suburb) and express (suburb-to-downtown) routes. While an express route may be negatively impacted by multiple stops, a connector route may actually be enhanced by multiple stop opportunities to serve a greater range of trip needs. In any case, it is important to recognize the effect that multiple stops have on transit operations and efficiency. Recommendation: Consider the regional transit network when implementing park-and-ride facilities Any community or agency planning on implementing a park-and-ride facility with funding from the Public Transportation Fund (PTF) must, within the Project Assessment Report (PAR), show the context in which the new park-and-ride will operate, including the effect on transit network operations and ridership. 5 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Figure 2 Valley Park-and-Ride Facilities 6 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Figure 3 West Loop 101 Spacing 7 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Figure 4 North Loop 101 Spacing 8 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization 3.4 Land Availability & Cost Finding: A clear concern that many participants expressed throughout the project was the rapid development that has occurred around the Valley in recent years and the resulting escalation in land prices. The recent downturns in the regional and national housing markets resulting from sub-prime mortgage defaults have slowed land development. This development slowdown may provide local jurisdictions with some breathing room as they work to secure land for park-and-ride facilities. Several local jurisdictions expressed the desire to act quickly and purchase available land in likely locations to avoid losing the opportunity altogether; either because of higher costs or because the land is developed. At the same time, project participants do not wish to bypass the federal environmental process and, thereby, risk the loss of federal funding. In addition, local jurisdictions each have varying policies regarding the purchase of land for future development. Recommendation 1: Regional park-and-ride site selection/environmental clearance process To facilitate the early purchase of land for future park-and-ride development without bypassing the federal environmental process, a regional park-and-ride site selection and environmental review study is recommended. The proposed study would follow the federal site selection and environmental processes. Recommendation 2: Allow advance purchase and construction of park-and-ride facilities at any time If a local jurisdiction is able to fund the land purchase, construction costs, and ongoing operations and maintenance costs of park-and-ride facilities, it may do so at any time, regardless of the implementation schedule proposed in section 3.1. A community may request that its regional funding reimbursement be advanced as well, which would allow the RPTA and affected jurisdictions to take advantage of current real estate and construction costs. This strategy provides an opportunity for communities to secure available parcels sooner, which is increasingly more important for communities with established development. It could result in an overall financial benefit to the PTF, but could also result in the need to issue bonds for project financing. The process defined by TLCP Guiding Principle 2 must be followed when amending the scope or timing of any PTF-funded park-and-ride facility. Recommendation 3: Explore alternative means of securing space for park-and-ride facilities Other models of providing park-and-ride facilities exist and communities should explore these options for park-and-ride development. Partnering with the development community may allow the development of a dedicated park-and-ride in a new residential area. Another option includes joint-use or joint development, where the parking use is complementary; such as at churches, shopping malls, office complexes, or public recreation spaces. In this instance, leveraging private investment with public dollars could allow for the development of parking structures rather than surface lots. Parking structures can provide additional parking capacity over what could be provided by a surface lot on the same parcel. Please note that any agency should consider Federal Transit Administration regulations when purchasing land if federal funds will be applied for any point. 9 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization 4. Conclusion The Regional Transportation Plan and Proposition 400 identified funding for 13 regional parkand-ride lots to support transit operations. The Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Study provides recommendations to ensure that park-and-ride implementation are aligned with operational requirements, especially regarding express bus and bus rapid transit needs. The Park-andRide Re-prioritization also describes issues concerning the Valley’s overall park-and-ride network and makes recommendations to facilitate implementation. 10 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization APPENDICES 11 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Appendix I: Express bus or bus rapid transit services associated with regional park-and-ride facilities Facility Location (approximate) Jurisdiction Phoenix Year of Construction (FY) 2009 Happy Valley/I-17 Scottsdale Rd/Loop 101 Price/202 (“Tumbleweed” site - McQueen/Germann) Grand/Surprise High-capacity Services present I-17 RAPID Black Canyon Freeway Connector Anthem Express North I-17 Express Start (FY) already operating 2016 2018 2022 Scottsdale 2009 Surprise-Scottsdale Express East Loop 101 Connector Pima Express Rural/Scottsdale BRT Chandler 2009 Arizona Ave BRT East Loop 101 Connector Santan Express Surprise 2008 Surprise-Scottsdale Express Grand Avenue BRT Loop 303 Express Mesa 2011 Apache Junction Express Arizona Avenue BRT Superstition Freeway Connector Superstition Springs Express 2011 2011 Papago Express Buckeye Express 2009 2015 Country Club/US 60 East Buckeye Buckeye 2011 Bell Rd./101 (Arrowhead Mall site) Glendale 2013 Glendale/Grand Glendale Phoenix 2011 2009 2018 already operating 2013 2023 2012 2019 Arrowhead-Downtown Phoenix Express Northwest Valley Express already operating 2009 2013 570 Grand Ave BRT already operating 2013 2015 I-10 East RAPID Arrowhead-Downtown Phoenix Express Northwest Valley Express Peoria Express already operating Camelback/101 Laveen/59th Ave Phoenix already operating 2009 2013 2014 2016 South Central Ave BRT Route A already operating 2009 2014 2015 12 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Facility Location (approximate) Jurisdiction Phoenix Year of Construction (FY) 2017 Elliot/I-10 High-capacity Services present I-10 East RAPID Ahwatukee Connector 540 Val Vista/202 Cactus/101 (west loop) Gilbert 2018 Peoria 2023 Santan Express Chandler Blvd Arterial BRT Arrowhead-Downtown Phoenix Express Peoria Express Grand Ave BRT Start (FY) already operating 2017 already operating (ends 2017) 2018 2024 already operating 2014 2013 13 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Appendix II: Facility cost and local and regional funding requirements The table below presents a cost estimate to implement a regional park-and-ride lot based on two park-and-ride projects that were recently constructed in the Valley, both of which were roughly 500 spaces in size. This cost information is provided for information only. Actual project costs may vary substantially, and depend on location, local land costs, facility size, and design preferences. Task Site selection study & environmental documentation Land Final design Construction of park-and-ride lot Construction of off-site street improvements Construction management TOTAL Cost ($2008) $ 240,000 $ 2,900,000 $ 500,000 $ 6,100,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 650,000 $ 11,890,000 Implementation timeline & costs An estimated timeframe for the development of a park-and-ride is two to four years, with the following task breakdown: Site selection and environmental review: 1 – 1½ years Land acquisition: 3 – 6 months Design: 6 – 9 months Construction: 1 year Actual timeframes for park-and-rides may vary based on land availability, environmental mitigation requirements, number of parking spaces, and type of design/construction procurement utilized. 14 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Based on these funding amounts and the implementation timeline, a rough schedule of funding needs is presented for planning purposes in the table below. The table below is presented to provide assistance to local jurisdictions and the RPTA in budgeting for park-and-ride facility improvements. The table shows an amount based on the work anticipated for a given year. The right-most column of each table shows the total, per parkand-ride. Note that the total funding amount per park-and-ride is identical for the purposes of this table. The table is NOT a definitive assessment of the actual costs, which will vary depending on local conditions. The actual available budget is defined in the Transit LifeCycle Program and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). PTF Funding Happy Valley/I-17 Scottsdale Rd/Loop 101 Price/202 (“Tumbleweed” site - McQueen/Germann) Grand/Surprise Country Club/US 60 East Buckeye Bell Rd./101 (Arrowhead Mall site) Glendale/Grand Camelback/101 Laveen/59th Ave Elliot/I-10 Val Vista/202 Cactus/101 (west loop) Phoenix Scottsdale Chandler Surprise Mesa Buckeye Glendale Glendale Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Gilbert Peoria $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2006 1,160,416 1,160,416 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2007 1,160,416 85,604 190,232 1,350,648 2,786,900 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2008 2,425,459 1,265,043 3,015,178 3,015,178 9,720,859 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2009 779,952 3,015,178 85,604 85,604 3,966,339 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2010 1,502,833 1,502,833 3,005,667 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2011 2,777,388 2,777,388 85,604 85,604 5,725,986 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2012 1,502,833 1,502,833 3,005,667 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2013 2,777,388 2,777,388 85,604 5,640,381 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2014 1,502,833 85,604 1,588,438 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2015 2,777,388 1,502,833 85,604 4,365,826 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2016 2,777,388 1,502,833 85,604 4,365,826 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2017 2,777,388 1,502,833 4,280,222 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2018 2,777,388 2,777,388 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2019 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2020 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2021 85,604 85,604 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2022 1,502,833 1,502,833 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2023 2,777,388 2,777,388 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4,365,826 4,365,826 4,365,826 4,365,826 4,365,826 4,365,826 4,365,826 4,365,826 4,365,826 4,365,826 4,365,826 4,365,826 4,365,826 56,755,740 Phoenix Scottsdale Chandler Surprise Mesa Buckeye Glendale Glendale Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Gilbert Peoria $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2006 1,979,584 1,979,584 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2007 1,979,584 154,396 309,768 2,289,352 4,733,100 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2008 4,174,541 2,134,957 5,234,822 5,234,822 16,779,141 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2009 1,370,048 5,234,822 154,396 154,396 6,913,661 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2010 2,547,167 2,547,167 5,094,333 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2011 4,822,612 4,822,612 154,396 154,396 9,954,014 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2012 2,547,167 2,547,167 5,094,333 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2013 4,822,612 4,822,612 154,396 9,799,619 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2014 2,547,167 154,396 2,701,562 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2015 4,822,612 2,547,167 154,396 7,524,174 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2016 4,822,612 2,547,167 154,396 7,524,174 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2017 4,822,612 2,547,167 7,369,778 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2018 4,822,612 4,822,612 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2019 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2020 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2021 154,396 154,396 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2022 2,547,167 2,547,167 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2023 4,822,612 4,822,612 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7,524,174 7,524,174 7,524,174 7,524,174 7,524,174 7,524,174 7,524,174 7,524,174 7,524,174 7,524,174 7,524,174 7,524,174 7,524,174 97,814,260 Phoenix Scottsdale Chandler Surprise Mesa Buckeye Glendale Glendale Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Gilbert Peoria $ $ $ $ $ $ 2006 3,140,000 - $ $ $ $ $ $ 2007 3,140,000 240,000 500,000 3,640,000 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2008 6,600,000 3,400,000 8,250,000 8,250,000 26,500,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2009 2,150,000 8,250,000 240,000 240,000 10,880,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2010 4,050,000 4,050,000 8,100,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2011 7,600,000 7,600,000 240,000 240,000 15,680,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2012 4,050,000 4,050,000 8,100,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2013 7,600,000 7,600,000 240,000 15,440,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2014 4,050,000 240,000 4,290,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2015 7,600,000 4,050,000 240,000 11,890,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2016 7,600,000 4,050,000 240,000 11,890,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2017 7,600,000 4,050,000 11,650,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2018 7,600,000 7,600,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2019 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2020 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2021 240,000 240,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2022 4,050,000 4,050,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2023 7,600,000 7,600,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 11,890,000 11,890,000 11,890,000 11,890,000 11,890,000 11,890,000 11,890,000 11,890,000 11,890,000 11,890,000 11,890,000 11,890,000 11,890,000 154,570,000 Local funding Happy Valley/I-17 Scottsdale Rd/Loop 101 Price/202 (“Tumbleweed” site - McQueen/Germann) Grand/Surprise Country Club/US 60 East Buckeye Bell Rd./101 (Arrowhead Mall site) Glendale/Grand Camelback/101 Laveen/59th Ave Elliot/I-10 Val Vista/202 Cactus/101 (west loop) Total funding needed Happy Valley/I-17 Scottsdale Rd/Loop 101 Price/202 (“Tumbleweed” site - McQueen/Germann) Grand/Surprise Country Club/US 60 East Buckeye Bell Rd./101 (Arrowhead Mall site) Glendale/Grand Camelback/101 Laveen/59th Ave Elliot/I-10 Val Vista/202 Cactus/101 (west loop) Note: Assumes a cap of $4.5 million ($2008) per facility from the PTF. PTF contribution may be a mix of federal and regional funds. Funding mix will be determined by RPTA and shown in the TIP.. 15 DRAFT Final Report RPTA Park-and-Ride Re-prioritization Appendix III: 2007 RTP Evaluation Park-and-Ride Implementation Schedule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Facility location (assumed) Jurisdiction Happy Valley/I-17 Cactus/101 (“Mustang” site at 101/Shea) Price/202 (“Tumbleweed” site at McQueen/Germann) Grand/Surprise Country Club/US 60 East Buckeye Peoria/Grand Glendale/Grand Camelback/101 Laveen/59th Ave Elliot/I-10 Val Vista/202 Loop 303 Phoenix Year of Construction 2009 Scottsdale 2009 Chandler 2009 Surprise Mesa Buckeye Peoria Glendale Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Gilbert Glendale 2008 2011 2011 2013 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018 2023 16