DRAFT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Prepared for: Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 North First Avenue, Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. February 5, 2009 Version 2.0 DRAFT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM: FY 2008/09 – FY 2013/14 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 1 WHY A SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM? .................................................................... 1 WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM TO OTHER REGIONAL TRANSIT PROGRAM DOCUMENTS AND PROCESSES? ........................ 1 WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGION? ..................................................... 2 WHAT TRANSIT SERVICES AND FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED IN THE REGION? ................. 3 WHAT REGIONAL TRANSIT INVESTMENTS ARE PLANNED IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS? .......... 8 1.0 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM INTRODUCTION...................................................... 13 1.1 REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY/VALLEY METRO AND MEMBER CITIES—BACKGROUND AND TRANSIT FUNDING INITIATIVES .............. 14 1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS ....................................................................... 14 1.3 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................ 14 1.4 TRANSIT PASSENGER CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................... 17 1.5 TRANSIT AND EQUITY.......................................................................................... 19 2.0 TRANSIT SERVICE EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 22 2.1 SERVICE GOALS AND STANDARDS ..................................................................... 23 2.2 FIXED ROUTE ...................................................................................................... 23 2.2.1 Service Characteristics .............................................................................. 23 2.2.2 Funding Sources....................................................................................... 27 2.2.3 Private Contractors ................................................................................... 27 2.2.4 Comparison of Fixed Route Performance Data ............................................ 27 2.2.5 Fixed Route On Time Performance............................................................. 28 2.2.6 Fixed Route Vehicle Inventory .................................................................... 29 2.2.7 Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Service .............................................................. 29 2.3 HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT .................................................................................... 30 2.4 SHUTTLE AND CIRCULATOR................................................................................ 30 2.5 REGIONAL CONNECTORS ................................................................................... 32 2.6 PARATRANSIT...................................................................................................... 32 2.7 VANPOOL ............................................................................................................. 32 3.0 EXISTING & PLANNED TRANSIT CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................... 35 3.1 PASSENGER AND SUPPORT FACILITIES ............................................................. 35 3.1.1 On-Street Passenger Facilities ................................................................... 35 3.1.2 Park-and-Ride Facilities............................................................................. 35 3.1.3 Passenger Transfer Facilities & Major Park-and Rides ................................. 39 3.2 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FACILITIES .................................................... 39 3.2.1 Existing Publicly Owned Transit Only Operations and Maintenance Facilities . 39 3.2.2 Planned Operations and Maintenance Facilities ........................................... 46 3.3 ROADWAY ENHANCEMENTS ............................................................................... 47 3.3.1 Existing and Planned HOV Lanes and Ramps ............................................. 47 3.3.2 Arterial Street Improvements ...................................................................... 50 4.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ................................................................... 50 4.1 SHARETHERIDE.COM .......................................................................................... 50 4.2 VANPOOL PROGRAM ........................................................................................... 50 4.3 TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM ASSISTANCE ......................................................... 50 4.4 CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN ......................................................................................... 51 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 i 4.5 4.6 4.7 TRANSIT EDUCATION PROGRAM......................................................................... 51 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR ALLIANCES—ASSISTANCE .......................... 51 ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES/TELECOMMUTE PROGRAM—ASSISTANCE .. 51 5.0 REGIONALLY FUNDED SHORT RANGE TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS .................................. 53 5.1 REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANIST OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS........................... 53 5.1.1 Funded Regional Transit Operating Improvements FY 2009 through FY 2014 ........................................................................................................ 53 5.2 Comparison of Funded Operating Improvements and Implementation (FY 2009) ......... 53 5.3 Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Operating Improvements FY 2010 through FY 2014 .................................................................................................... 53 5.3.1 Transit Ridership Projections for New Regionally Funded Routes .................. 59 5.3.2 Regionally Funded Service Adjustments and Preliminary Thresholds ............. 60 5.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................... 62 5.4.1 Funded Regional Transit Facility Improvements FY 2009 through FY 2014 .... 62 5.4.2 Comparison of Funded Transit Facility Investments and Implementation (FY 2009) ....................................................................................................... 63 5.4.3 Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2010 through FY 2014 ....................................................................................... 63 5.4.4 Funded Regional Transit Expansion Vehicles: FY 2009 through FY 2014 ....... 63 5.4.5 Comparison of Funded Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles and Implementation (FY 2009) ......................................................................... 66 5.5 REGIONAL PLANNING STUDIES AND RELATED PROJECTS ................................. 67 6.0 REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDING ......................................................................................... 67 6.1 REGIONAL FIXED ROUTE BUS & PARATRANSIT FUNDING .................................. 67 6.1.1 Revenues................................................................................................. 67 6.1.2 Expenditures ............................................................................................ 68 6.2 REGIONAL HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT CAPITAL FUNDING .................................... 70 6.2.1 Revenues................................................................................................. 70 6.2.2 Expenditures ............................................................................................ 72 6.3 REGIONAL TRANSIT FINANCING .......................................................................... 73 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................ 74 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................ 80 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................................ 86 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 ii LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1: Transit Services in the Region ........................................................................................ 3 Table ES-2: Annual Efficiency & Effectiveness Report Card ................................................................ 6 Table ES-3: Capital Facilities in the Region........................................................................................ 7 Table ES-4: Planned Regional Operations Investments ...................................................................... 9 Table ES-5: Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2009 through FY 2014 ......................... 9 Table ES-6: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2009 through FY 2014 ................................................... 10 Table ES-7: Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles .......................................................................... 10 Table 1-1: Public Transit Milestones ................................................................................................ 15 Table 1-2: Population and Employment (2005-2020) ........................................................................ 16 Table 1-3: Language Spoken at Home ............................................................................................ 18 Table 2-1: FY 2007 System Data .................................................................................................... 22 Table 2-2: Comparison of System-wide Data for Five-Year Period—2003 and 2007 ............................ 23 Table 2-3: Efficiency and Effectiveness Performance Measures Targets ............................................ 24 Table 2-4: Comparison of Fixed Route1 Data—2003, 2006 and 2007 ................................................. 28 Table 2-5: Annual Boardings and Revenue Miles—FY 2008 .............................................................. 28 Table 2-6: Comparison of Paratransit Data—2003, 2006 and 2007 .................................................... 33 Table 2-7: Comparison of Vanpool Data—2003, 2006 and 2007 ........................................................ 34 Table 3-1: Existing Park-and-Ride Facilities ..................................................................................... 36 Table 3-2: Planned Publicly Owned Park-and-Ride Facilities ............................................................. 38 Table 3-3: Passenger Facilities and Transit Centers—FY 2007.......................................................... 41 Table 3-4: Planned Transit Centers and Transit Center Improvements ............................................... 44 Table 3-5: Existing Publicly Owned Operations and Maintenance Facilities ......................................... 46 Table 3-6: Planned Publicly Owned Operations and Maintenance Facilities ........................................ 47 Table 3-7: Existing and Planned Freeway HOV Lanes ...................................................................... 49 Table 5-1: Regionally Funded Transit Operations Investments FY 2009 and FY 2014.......................... 54 Table 5-2: Comparison of Funded Operating Improvements and Implementation (FY 2009) ................. 54 Table 5-3: Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Operations Investments .............................. 55 FY 2010 through FY 2014 .............................................................................................................. 55 Table 5-4: Example of the Density Score for Power Road Supergrid Route......................................... 60 Table 5-5: Ridership Estimates for New Regionally Funded Routes Through FY 2013/2014 ................. 61 Table 5-6: Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2009 and FY 2014 ............................... 62 Table 5-7: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2009 through FY 2014...................................................... 63 Table 5-8: Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments ..................................... 64 FY 2009 through FY 2014 .............................................................................................................. 64 Table 5-9: Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles ............................................................................. 66 Table 5-10: Funded Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles FY 2010 through FY 2014 ........................ 66 Table 5-11: Comparison of Planned Regional Fixed Route Transit Expansion Vehicles and Vehicles Acquired (FY 2008 and FY 2009) .................................................................................................... 67 Table 6-1: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues (in $millions) .............................. 67 Table 6-2: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures FY 2009 - FY 2014 ................. 69 Table 6-3: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Revenues (in $millions) .................................................. 71 Table 6-4: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Expenditures (in $millions).............................................. 72 Table A-1: FY 2007 Regional Transit System Data .......................................................................... 75 Table A-2: Operations and Performance Data for FY 2003 through FY 2007 ...................................... 76 Table B-1: Operations and Performance Data for FY 1995 through FY 2007 ...................................... 81 Table C-1: Fixed Route Transit Service Historical Trends since FY 1985 ............................................ 87 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES-1: Regional Transit Program Process ................................................................................ 2 Figure ES-2: Local Routes Map—January 2007 ................................................................................. 4 Figure ES-3: Express & RAPID Routes Map—January 2007 ............................................................... 5 Figure 1-1: Population Concentration Age 60 and Over .................................................................... 20 Figure 1-2: Population Age 5 and Over With Disability ...................................................................... 20 Figure 1-3: Minority Population ....................................................................................................... 21 Figure 1-4: Families in Poverty ....................................................................................................... 21 Figure 2-1: Local Routes Map for January 2007 ............................................................................... 25 Figure 2-2: Express & RAPID Routes Map for January 2007 ............................................................. 26 Figure 2-3: On Time Performance for City of Phoenix Fixed Route Service ........................................ 29 Figure 2-4: High Capacity Transit Corridors ..................................................................................... 31 Figure 2-5: High Capacity Transit Corridors—Schedule .................................................................... 31 Figure 3-1: Existing and Planned Publicly Owned Park-and-Rides ..................................................... 37 Figure 3-2: Existing and Planned Transfer Facilities and Major Park-and-Rides .................................. 44 Figure 3-3: Existing Operations and Maintenance Facilities ............................................................... 47 Figure 3-4: HOV Facilities and Queue Jumpers ............................................................................... 48 Figure 6-1: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues FY 2009 - FY 2014.................... 68 Figure 6-2: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (in $millions) ........................ 70 Figure 6-3: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Revenues FY 2009 - FY 2014 ....................................... 71 Figure 6-4: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Expenditures FY 2009 - FY 2014 ................................... 73 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 iv 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] 2008/09 to 2013/14) and provides support for regional transit projects contained in the Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (MAG RTP). Objectives of the SRTP include: • • • document transit service performance from the previous fiscal year; maintain an inventory of the region’s transit capital infrastructure; and, identify considerations for service adjustments and capital facility needs based on the programmed regional transit investments identified in the RTP and TLCP. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM TO OTHER REGIONAL TRANSIT PROGRAM DOCUMENTS AND PROCESSES? The SRTP is an interrelated component of a multi-part annual regional transit implementation program. The core components of the program include the following: • • • Annual Transit Performance Report (ATPR) Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) The core components function in a circular relationship with one serving input into or affecting the other. Starting with the ATPR, system and route performance data is documented for each transit mode in the region. Performance data from the ATPR is carried forward into the SRTP to provide context for potential service and capital facility considerations for existing and near-term (next five years) regional transit investments identified in the TLCP. The SRTP provides an opportunity for local jurisdictions and agencies to request potential amendments to project definitions within the TLCP. Potential amendments may include adjusting a planned route pattern or reassigning regional capital funds from one capital project (such as a PNR) to another. For example, the planned location of a PNR facility may be less beneficial than an alternative site. The considerations identified in the SRTP will be carried forward to the TLCP process for potential inclusion in the official annual TLCP update. However, all potential project adjustments are subject to approval through the regionally adopted TLCP policies. Completing the circular relationship, the service planning and budgetary decisions made in the annual SRTP and TLCP updates, potentially impact the performance of the regional transit system. Figure ES-1 illustrates the relationship of the core components of the annual regional transit program process. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 1 Executive Summary Figure ES-1: Regional Transit Program Process WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGION? The 2005 population1 for the MAG region is estimated to be nearly 3.7 million. By 2020, overall population is anticipated to rise about 42%. The largest increases are expected to occur in the outlying areas of Maricopa County; however, in terms of absolute population, more than half of the 2020 population is projected to live near the core of the urbanized area in locations such as Phoenix, Glendale, Scottsdale, and Tempe. Employment in Maricopa County in 2005 was estimated at 1.7 million. A nearly 60% increase is anticipated by 2020 with the highest Major characteristics of passengers2 using the region’s transit system include: • • • • 1 80% of passengers live in households with four or fewer individuals 71% of passengers have an annual household income of $35,000 or less 51% of passengers live in households with no vehicles 71% of passengers are employed and 27% are students Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, Socioeconomic Projections of Population, Housing, & Employment by Municipal Planning Areas and Regional Analysis Zones, May 2007. 2 Source: Valley Metro/Regional Public Transportation Authority 2007 Origin-Destination Survey, Draft Final Report, 2008. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 2 Executive Summary WHAT TRANSIT SERVICES AND FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED IN THE REGION? Transit Services A summary of services currently provided in the region is presented in Table ES-2. Figures ES-2 and ES-3 display the local, express, and RAPID bus routes. Table ES-3 is an Annual Efficiency and Effectiveness Report Card that compares the major FY 2007 performance features (boardings, revenues, operating costs, and farebox recovery ratio) with regional targets. Table ES-1: Transit Services in the Region Fixed Route Number routes Total Number vehicles Hours of Operation: - Local/shuttles and circulators - Express and RAPID - Regional connector Paratransit (Dial-a-Ride) 10 systems or services: 65 local 17 express 4 RAPID 1 arterial bus rapid transit (BRT)1 9 shuttle 2 regional connectors 97 811 Weekdays: Generally 5:00 AM-10:00 PM weekdays; some popular routes operate to midnight or 1:00 AM Weekends: Hours of service somewhat reduced Peak hours on weekdays only Limited number of daily stops - East Valley Dial-a-Ride El Mirage Glendale Maricopa County Paradise Valley ADA - Peoria Phoenix Dial-A-Ride Southwest Valley ADA Sun Cities (SCAT) Surprise Operating hours, service eligibility requirements, transfer policies, fares vary by provider. Vanpool Valley Metro Vanpool Program Light Rail1 Route: Hours of operation: 1 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: 4:00 AM to midnight Weekends: 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM Light rail and arterial BRT are scheduled to begin revenue operations in late December 2008. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 3 Executive Summary Figure ES-2: Local Routes Map—January 2007 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 4 Executive Summary Figure ES-3: Express & RAPID Routes Map—January 2007 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 5 Executive Summary Table ES-2: Annual Efficiency & Effectiveness Report Card Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 6 Executive Summary Capital Facilities Transit capital facilities support daily transit operations. The region’s inventory of transit infrastructure includes passenger facilities such as transit centers, park-and-rides and bus stops. In addition, other capital facilities such as maintenance and operations centers aren’t directly utilized by passengers, but provide vital functions that ensure service quality and reliability. The major capital transit facilities in the region are listed in Table ES-3. Table ES-3: Capital Facilities in the Region Passenger & Support Facilities On-Street Passenger Park-and-Ride Existing: Transit Centers Planned2: Existing: Planned2: Maintenance & Operations Facilities Existing: Planned2: 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: 7,480 bus stops (43% with shelters; 1,186 with bench only) 15 BRT stops in Mesa Main Street Corridor1 28 LRT stops in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa1 20 publicly-owned 30 joint-use with agreement with private property owners 50 facilities with 7,082 spaces 19 publicly-owned 15 existing 13 new 3 to be expanded 5 fixed route/demand response vehicles 1 light rail1 2 new 3 upgrades to existing 1 light rail 152 lane miles 42 lane miles (SR 51 and Loop 101) 461 lane miles 3 along I-10 7 Arterial Street Improvements - Queue jumpers (bus priority access) - Arterial BRT limited stop with transit signal priority - Arterial BRT (planned)2 4 Regional Transit Fleet Fixed Route Light Rail1 811 vehicles 50 vehicles 1 2 3 on Arizona Avenue in Chandler (existing) 1 on Main Street & Power Road in Mesa1 Operations begin late 2008 concurrent with initiation of the LRT Starter Line and arterial BRT operations. As shown in the 20-year MAG RTP. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 7 Executive Summary WHAT REGIONAL TRANSIT INVESTMENTS ARE PLANNED IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS? Planned Regionally Funded Transit Services Regional transit service investments planned for implementation in the next five years include a full range of transit modes. New Supergrid routes, express bus routes, arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service and an extension to the region’s light rail line will be implemented to serve growing demand for public transportation alternatives. In addition, limited regional funding will be available to reimburse local jurisdictions and agencies for expenses associated with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transportation services. Several key facts about the planned regional transit operations investments between FY 2009 and FY 2014 are identified below: • • • • 13 supergrid routes, 12 express/BRT routes, and one light rail extension are included as improvements. Of these, one supergrid route, six express/BRT routes, and the light rail extension are totally new services. Regional funding of the supergrid services will provide weekday peak period frequencies of 15 minutes and off-peak frequencies of 30 minutes during the off-peak for all but three of the routes. Eight bus routes (three supergrid and five express/BRT) were programmed to be regionally funded beginning in FY 2009. Six routes were implemented in July 2008. However, three express routes were implemented at a service level below that identified in the Transit Life Cycle Program Update (TLCP). Two of the express routes will be funded at full service levels in December 2008 when the LRT starter line opens. Full implementation of the third route (Papago Freeway Connector – operated as the “Goodyear Express”) is being delayed until a park-and-ride facility is available in Buckeye. Chapter 5 of the SRTP provides detailed initial planning considerations for each of the routes programmed for regional funding through FY 2014. Examples of considerations identified in the SRTP include: • • Consider re-organizing existing local services where the implementation of new regionally funded bus routes will result in service duplications or where new transit connections will be provided Consider retaining short-term use capital infrastructure, such as an interim park-and-ride facility, necessary to support new regionally funded transit services Table ES-4 provides a summary of the planned transit operations investments by initial fiscal year of regional funding. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 8 Executive Summary Table ES-4: Planned Regional Operations Investments Initial Fiscal Year Regional Funding 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total 2009-2014 Routes 3 supergrid 5 express/BRT 2 supergrid 0 express/BRT 1 supergrid 2 express/BRT 2 supergrid 1 express/BRT 3 supergrid 2 express/BRT 2 supergrid 2 express/BRT 1 light rail extension 13 supergrid 12 express/BRT 1 light rail extension Source: Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update, 2008. Planned Regionally Funded Capital Improvements A summary of the transit capital improvements planned between FY 2009 and 2014 is presented in Table ES-5. Table ES-6 identifies the regional funds programmed in the FY 2008 TLCP Update for regional bus stop construction and upgrades. Table ES-5: Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2009 through FY 2014 Facility Pre-Design (FY) Design (FY) Land (FY) Construction/ Open (FY) 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2011 2011 2011 2010 2011 2014 2014 2009 2009 2009 2010 2009 2010 2010 2010 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2009 2009 2009 2010 2009 2010 2010 NA 2012 2012 2012 NA 2013 NA NA 2009 2009 2010 2011 2010 2011 2011 2011 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 Happy Valley Rd & I-17 Park-and-Ride Grand/Surprise Park-and-Ride Cactus Rd & Loop 101 Park-and-Ride Price Freeway & Loop 202 Park-and-Ride (Chandler Tumbleweed PNR) 19th Ave & Camelback Rd Transit Center South Tempe Transit Center Downtown Chandler Transit Center Mesa Downtown Transit Center Country Club Dr & US 60 (Superstition Freeway) Park-and-Ride South Chandler Transit Center East Buckeye Park-and-Ride Metrocenter Rehabilitation / Expansion 1 Arrowhead Park-and-Ride Glendale/Grand Park-and-Ride Glendale / Grand Transit Center Central Station Rehabilitation / Expansion Phoenix Heavy Maintenance Facility Phoenix South Fixed Route O&M Rehabilitation Mesa Fixed Route O&M Rehabilitation Note: Phoenix Paratransit O&M facility was originally programmed in the TLCP to be constructed and open in FY 2013. The facility was delayed to a year outside of the TLCP as identified in the FY 2008 TLCP Update. The facility is eligible to be reinstated if regional revenues become available. 1 Facility was switched with the Peoria/Grand Park-and-Ride Source: 2008 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 9 Executive Summary Table ES-6: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2009 through FY 2014 TLCP Fiscal Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total TLCP Programmed Funding3 $5,468,8354 $1,672,137 $1,722,301 $1,773,970 $1,827,189 $1,882,004 $14,346,436 Source: 2008 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update Key facts about the programmed transit facility investments include: • • Planned capital investments for the fiscal years 2009 through 2014 include seven transit centers, eight park-and-ride facilities, three operations and maintenance facilities, and new\upgraded regional bus stops. Improvements include expansion and/or rehabilitation of two transit centers and two operations and maintenance facilities. Several of the facilities programmed in the FY 2008 TLCP Update for implementation in FY 2008 have been delayed to FY 2009. Six transit facility improvements are programmed to open in FY 2009, including some of those delayed from FY 2008. All six of the facilities programmed for completion in FY 2009 will not be open for service until at least FY 2010. Planned Regionally Funded Transit Vehicle Acquisitions A total of 298 transit vehicles are programmed for services planned to be implemented through FY 2014. The largest category, fixed route buses, account for 169 of the vehicles. The fixed route fleet acquired in FY 2008 and FY 2009 was 34 less than that identified in the TLCP. A benefit of acquiring fewer vehicles includes long-term savings through reducing future replacement vehicle requirements. Table ES-7 summarizes the planned acquisition of regional transit vehicles to support service expansion. The acquisition year identified in the table corresponds with the year that the vehicle will be put into service; however, vehicles are generally purchased in the previous fiscal year. For example, if a vehicle is programmed to go into service in FY 2010, it will be programmed for purchase during FY 2009. Table ES-7: Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles Fiscal Year For Acquisition 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Fixed Route 18 25 33 42 51 169 Paratransit 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rural 0 0 0 4 0 4 Vanpool 25 25 25 25 25 125 Source: RPTA, 2008 3 Funding subject to change based on annual budget. FY 2009 balance reflects bus stop funds unspent since start of TLCP. This was to allow for development of the Regional Bus Stop Study and associated fund disbursement methodology. 4 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 10 Executive Summary Planning Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Investments Specific initial planning considerations for each of the regionally funded improvements are identified in Chapter 5 of this plan. The planning considerations range from providing adequate capacity for vehicles at transit facilities to retaining interim passenger parking capacity for new transit services. Transit Planning Process Recommendations The SRTP includes recommendations to guide the regional transit planning process. Recommendations include implementing thresholds for identifying when a regionally funded transit service is eligible for frequency adjustments (to exceed the programmed regional funding budget) and additional planning studies that the RPTA may wish to consider. Service Level Thresholds • • The service planning process for implementation of new transit services and capital facilities should be launched at the completion of each year’s SRTP update. This timeline provides an opportunity to utilize the transit service and capital considerations identified in the annual SRTP update to initiate the planning process and improve integration of local and regional transit planning efforts. A measurable process should be employed to determine when a regionally funded bus route has reached a performance level that warrants improved service frequency (not to exceed the programmed regional funding budget). It is recommended that the process integrate the following RPTA adopted efficiency and effectiveness performance targets and regional service level standards: o Must meet or exceed 2.1 passenger boardings per revenue mile or o Have three or more consecutively sequenced trips that regularly (at least 3 of 5 weekdays for the same trip for a period of 6 consecutive or non-consecutive months within a 12 month period) exceed the applicable passenger bus load standard: - Local bus = 125% - Express bus = 100% o If overcrowding (exceeding the applicable load standard) occurs on less than three consecutive trips, schedule or vehicle assignment adjustments should be considered before implementing additional service. Additional Planning Studies o o Service Thresholds for Regionally Funded Services and Facilities. In addition to the thresholds identified herein for improving regionally funded bus route service frequency, other thresholds should be developed. The thresholds should apply to other service types (e.g., arterial BRT, LRT, etc.) and other service parameters as well as facilities (park-andrides, transit centers, etc.). Thresholds may provide regional benefits such as a more efficient regional transit system, which will increase the likelihood of positive results from mandatory efficiency and effectiveness audits. Regional Transit Safety and Security Implementation Plan. This study would prioritize implementation of strategic measures identified in the Regional Safety and Security Plan (November 2006). The 2006 plan identifies potential safety and security vulnerabilities but does not provide a prioritized schedule for implementing the identified mitigation measures. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 11 Executive Summary o Comprehensive Regional Bus Stop Inventory. The region’s last comprehensive bus stop inventory was completed in 2002. An up to date and comprehensive regional bus stop inventory will provide more accurate and reliable information for on-going regional and local planning activities as well as for passenger uses such as the on-line trip planner. Transit Funding Based on the estimated sources of revenues and programmed expenditures through FY 2013/14 there are several years that expenditures exceed revenues. Many regional transit service and capital investments are dependent upon the ability to maintain adequate cash flow to be implemented as identified in this plan. The TLCP includes financing through the issuance of bonds to maintain positive cash flows. Based on the FY 2008 TLCP Update, two bus program bond issuances valued at $180.2 million and $183.1 million were planned for FY 2008/09 and FY 2012/13 respectively to provide a positive annual cash flow through the period identified in this plan. The HCT program has a separate financing strategy to address cash for these projects. Changes in the level of estimated revenues or expenditures could either positively or negatively affect the programmed implementation schedules and scope of the projects identified herein. Through the annual TLCP update process, estimates for short and long range revenues and expenditures are reviewed to determine the financial fitness of the regional transit program. Appropriate finance strategies and other actions are considered annually to maintain a reasonable and sustainable finance plan. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 12 Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.0 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM INTRODUCTION This Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) proposes transit service and capital improvements for implementation in Fiscal Years (FY) 2008/09 to 2013/14. In addition, the plan evaluates existing service, costs, and trends based on past performance and identifies current and projected funding levels and revenue sources. This report provides substantial transit-related input into the transportation improvements identified in MAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The plan also serves as an important resource guide for anyone interested in transit in the Phoenix Metropolitan area. The report is organized as follows: • • • • • • Chapter 1, Introduction—Purpose of the SRTP; RPTA/Valley Metro and member cities background information; transit funding initiatives, relationship to other plans; regional demographics; transit passenger characteristics; and transit and equity. Chapter 2, Transit Service Evaluation—Service goals and standards of fixed route service as well as a presentation of the performance and service characteristics for each transit mode. Chapter 3, Existing Transit Capital Infrastructure—Passenger and support facilities; maintenance and operations facilities; roadway enhancements; and regional transit fleet. Chapter 4, Transportation Demand Management—Important characteristics of the regional rideshare and trip reduction programs. Chapter 5, Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements—presents the current operations and capital improvements over the next five years and discussion of mode, corridor, and area specific studies and system-based studies that are on-going and planned for completion in the short range. Chapter 6, Regional Transit Funding—presents the current capital and operating revenue sources and amounts and projections over the next five years as well as the transit life cycle plan operating capital and administration budgets. The SRTP is produced by Valley Metro/Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) on behalf of the MAG member cities and organizations: Apache Junction, Arizona Department of Transportation, Avondale, Buckeye, Carefree, Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee, Chandler, El Mirage, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fountain Hills, Gila Bend, Gila River Indian Community, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Guadalupe, Litchfield Park, Maricopa County, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Peoria, Phoenix, Queen Creek, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Scottsdale, Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson, Wickenburg, and Youngtown. Note that funding for public transportation comes from a variety of local, regional, and federal sources. Some sources are dedicated solely to transportation, so funding projections can be fairly reliable; however, the future of funding from other sources remains uncertain. As a result, this report is intended to be as flexible as possible to accommodate change. Projects may be shifted from one year to another or eliminated completely, depending on the availability of funding for transit programs. 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. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 13 Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1 REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY/VALLEY METRO AND MEMBER CITIES—BACKGROUND AND TRANSIT FUNDING INITIATIVES The history of creation of RPTA and 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 is comprised of several systems where much of the service is planned and operated by local cities. The cities of Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe provide for fixed route service in their jurisdictions. The RPTA often assists other communities with planning and operating service. Many fixed routes cross municipal boundaries; therefore, intergovernmental agreements have been developed among neighboring communities to jointly provide this service. Paratransit (or Dial-a-Ride [DAR]) services are provided individually by the following cities: El Mirage, Glendale, Peoria, Phoenix, Sun Cities, and Surprise. Residents wishing to cross municipal boundaries must transfer to the other city’s DAR service to complete the trip. On the other hand, 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) is nearing completion of construction of the first 20 miles of light rail transit (LRT) and will serve the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. LRT operations are scheduled to begin in late December 2008. 1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS The SRTP provides a description of current operating and capital conditions and also forecasts operating and capital plans for the next five years. This report incorporates public transit plans from several sources and in turn feeds into other regional plans. Plans that feed into the SRTP include the transit element of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), RPTA’s Master Facilities Plan, local area transportation plans, and the Performance Management Analysis System (PMAS) Report. The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) feeds into the SRTP, and the SRTP then feeds into the next TLCP. The SRTP identifies near term regional transit service and capital facility implementation considerations for regional transit projects contained in the MAG RTP and RPTA’s TLCP. 1.3 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS Maricopa County is composed of 25 cities and towns and three Indian communities. MAG’s 2005 population estimate for the county is nearly 3.7 million (Table 1-2). Overall population is expected to rise about 42% by 2020. The largest increases are anticipated to occur in the outlying areas of the county in municipalities such as Buckeye, Goodyear, Queen Creek and Surprise. In terms of absolute population, more than half of the 2020 population is projected to live near the heart of the urbanized area of the county in locations such as Phoenix, Glendale, Scottsdale, and Tempe. Employment in the county is expected to increase at a higher rate than population (or almost 60%) by 2020. Employment is anticipated to increase in all areas; however, the highest employment growth rates are anticipated in outlying areas such as Avondale, Buckeye, El Mirage, Gila Bend, Gilbert, Goodyear, Peoria, Queen Creek, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and Surprise. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 14 Chapter 1 - Introduction Table 1-1: Public Transit Milestones Year 1985 Initiative Passed? D 1989 1989 1993 D N/A 1994 1996 D 1997 1997 1998 D 1998 D 1999 2000 2000 2001 D D D 2004 D Event Maricopa County voters approved Proposition 300, which created a half-cent sales tax to fund freeway construction and provide $5 million (inflated annually) as seed money for development of regional transit service. The proposition also created RPTA and allowed RPTA to receive RARF funding through 2005. RPTA’s mission was to develop a regional transit plan, find dedicated transit funding sources, and develop and operate a regional transit system. The first regional transit plan, Valtrans, was proposed to be funded by a half-cent sales tax dedicated solely to transit. The initiative failed because many voters believed the plan was too big and expensive. Scottsdale passed a dedicated transportation sales tax to help fund transit projects in their community. RPTA Board adopted Valley Metro as identity for the regional transit system to give buses a more recognizable identity and help unify public transit services in the Valley. County voters defeated a proposition for a half-cent sales tax for emergency funding for freeway construction and an additional quarter-cent sales tax for transit to implement a regional bus system and conduct rail-transit studies. Most voters indicated they wanted transit and freeway funding to be kept separate and, while they were in favor of the proposed transit plans, they were opposed to tax increases. Tempe passed a dedicated half-cent transit sales tax to help fund bus improvements and a rail study in their community. Many indicated that Tempe needs public transit and should lead the way in improving air quality and relieving traffic congestion. Phoenix voters narrowly defeated a half-cent sales tax that would have provided a number of transit improvements. Scottsdale voters defeated the “Transit Plus” Plan to relieve congestion in Scottsdale. Mesa passed a quality-of-life sales tax. Portions of this tax are used to generate transportation funds. State legislature provided transit funding through HB 2565 by allocating a portion of vehicle license tax revenues to the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) for distribution to cities, town, and counties. ADOT also allocates secondary LTAF funds from sale of multi-state and bingo lottery tickets up to $18 million per year in proportion to each county’s population. Chandler residents did not approve a 3/8 cent Transportation Improvement Program which included a transit component. State legislature extended HB 2565 (1998) and modified it with SB 1556. This is known as LTAF II. LTAF II is still in effect. Phoenix passed a 0.4-cent dedicated transportation sales tax to help fund transit projects included in the Transit 2000 Plan for bus and light rail. Glendale passed a dedicated transportation sales tax to help fund transit projects in their community. Maricopa County voters approved Proposition 400, reauthorizing the half-cent sales tax passed in 1985. Proposition 400 extended the tax to 2025 and increased the amount of funding for public transportation from about 2% to more than 33% of total sales tax revenues (or approximately $2.8 billion over the 20 year life of the RTP). These local funds, expected to be matched by Federal transit funds, are to provide a range of bus and light rail transit improvements. Among the improvements include: • A “Supergrid” fixed route bus system providing consistent levels of service throughout the region; • Bus rapid transit (BRT) service on the region’s freeway network and selected arterials; • More than 27 miles of light rail transit or other high capacity transit route extensions to the 30 miles being funded from other sources. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 15 Chapter 1 - Introduction Table 1-2: Population and Employment (2005-2020) The remainder of this section focuses on those demographic groups that tend to be more transit dependent than the general population. Figure 1-1 displays the concentrations in the county where people aged 60 and older live. According to the 2000 Census, the average in the county is 50.55 persons per square mile. Higher concentrations live generally along a wide diagonal band stretching from about the Loop 303 and Beardsley Road in the northwest valley to about the Loop 202 (Santan Freeway) and Guadalupe Road in the southeast valley. The highest concentrations (>2,000 per square mile) live in the far northwest valley near Surprise, Sun City, Youngtown, and Peoria and in the far southeast valley near east Mesa. This is not surprising given the numbers of age-restricted communities found in these outlying portions of the valley. Figure 1-2 shows areas where people with disabilities live. The county average is 94.2 residents with a disability per square mile (according to the 2000 Census). The map indicates that these residents live in higher concentrations almost everywhere throughout the county, with the exception of the northeast, far north, far west, southwest, and far south portions of the county. The highest concentrations (>3,000 per square mile) reside mostly in the following areas: 1) Generally in the area near I-10 from 75th Avenue to SR 51 in Phoenix; 2) Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 16 Chapter 1 - Introduction Southeastern portion of Glendale; 3) Vicinity of I-17 from Thomas Road to Glendale Avenue in Phoenix; and 4) East and central Mesa in an area roughly bounded by Loop 101, University Drive, Greenfield Road, and Southern Avenue. Locations of high concentrations (>50% of a census tract) of minority populations are presented in Figure 1-3. Minority population is defined as the 2000 Census total population minus “white not of hispanic origin” population. With the exception of three Native American communities that are located mainly in the outer portions of the region, most minorities live in the central, southern, and southwestern portions of Maricopa County. Table 1-3 shows the languages spoken at home by numbers of people living in the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, and the MAG member agencies. Nearly ¼ of the county’s population speaks a language other than English at home, according to the 2000 Census. The largest numbers of those speaking other languages, by far, reside in the City of Phoenix (388,445). Other municipalities with large numbers of people speaking languages other than English in their homes include: 1) Mesa (68,629); 2) Glendale (45,818); 3) Chandler (35,359); and 4) Tempe (32,092). Figure 1-4 displays locations of families per square mile living in poverty in the Maricopa Region according to the 2000 Census. The average number of families per square mile in the county is 6.68. The map indicates that the areas with higher concentrations of low-income households than the county as a whole are generally located in the central portion of the county; however, there are numerous instances of these households in the east, west, and south sections of the county. The highest concentrations of families living in poverty (>400 per square mile) are generally in three areas: 1) Vicinity of the I-10 freeway between about 67th Avenue and the SR51 freeway; 2) Near the Loop 202 (Red Mountain Freeway) from approximately the SR-51 freeway to 48th Street; and 3) Vicinity of the I-17 freeway between about Thomas and Bethany Home Roads. It is important to note that, according to the MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), 2007 Update, the transit improvements listed in the plan serve 97% of low-income communities in the region compared to only 88% of non-low income communities. 1.4 TRANSIT PASSENGER CHARACTERISTICS According to an origin/destination survey conducted in 2007 by RPTA5, the following major characteristics of riders using the system were noted: • • • • • • 80% live in a household with four or fewer individuals. 71% have a household income of $35,000 or less. 51% reside in a household with no vehicle. This compares to 6% of the general population households having no vehicle. 71% are employed (52% work full time and 19% work part time); 27% are students. Trips destination breakdown: 37% home; 27% work; 7% shopping. Ridership by mode: 97% local bus; 1.2% express bus; and 1.8% RAPID bus. 5 Valley Metro/Regional Public Transportation Authority 2007 Origin-Destination Survey Draft Final Report, 2008. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 17 Chapter 1 - Introduction Table 1-3: Language Spoken at Home Arizona, Maricopa County, and MAG Member Agencies *Census data shown is for entire jurisdiction, including areas outside of Maricopa County. **Does not reflect adjustment to Buckeye’s population to include the group quarters population of the Lewis Prison. Source: Census 2000 Demographic Profile DP-2, prepared by MAG and Arizona Department of Economic Security, June 2002. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 18 Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.5 TRANSIT AND EQUITY The basic principles of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Executive Order on Environmental Justice involve: • • • Preventing or lessening effects on minority populations and low-income populations. Ensuring public involvement by all communities affected by the transportation decisionmaking process. Ensuring that benefits are not concentrated in one area or population. Title VI states: “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Executive Order 12898 states: “Each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations.” Public transit complies with Title VI and Executive Order 12898 by making sure that investments and changes benefit all populations equally, preventing and lessening the effects on minority and low-income populations, and involving minority and low-income populations in the public input process. Valley Metro complies with these principles. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 19 Chapter 1 - Introduction Figure 1-1: Population Concentration Age 60 and Over Figure 1-2: Population Age 5 and Over With Disability Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 20 Chapter 1 - Introduction Figure 1-3: Minority Population Figure 1-4: Families in Poverty Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 21 Chapter 2—Transit Service Evaluation 2.0 TRANSIT SERVICE EVALUATION Public transportation services in the region are provided through interagency cooperation and coordination. Transit planning, operations, and capital acquisition are the joint responsibility of many separate agencies and municipalities in the region. The Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) helps to coordinate these activities. This chapter includes a summary of the regional transit system describing the performance characteristics of each mode. Table 2-1 reflects the FY 2007 performance statistics for the system as a whole (all modes). This chapter also includes service goals and standards, a description of the service characteristics, performance statistics, and a vehicle inventory for the fixed route, shuttle/circulator, dial-a-ride, regional connector, and vanpool services provided in the region. Table 2-1: FY 2007 System Data Total Boardings 60,525,851 Total Revenue Hours 2,629,781 Total Passenger Revenues $40,953,630 Boardings Per Revenue Hour 23.02 Total Wheelchair Boardings n/a Operating Cost Total Vehicle Miles 46,697,586 Capital Cost $184,473,347 Percent On-Time Performance Boardings Per Revenue Mile 1.77 34,201,1371 n/a Total Cost n/a n/a n/a Farebox Recovery Ratio 22.20% Vehicle Accidents 93.47% Total Vehicle Hours Total Revenue Miles Operating Cost Per Boarding $3.051 Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $70.15 Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile $5.401 1 Does not include Dial-a-Ride revenue miles since this data was not available for FY 2007 n/a = data not available. A comparison of major ridership, financial, and other major statistics for the five-year period FY 2003-FY 2007 is shown in Table 2-2. Over the five-year period, boardings and passenger revenues increased about 15% and 38%, respectively. However, operating costs increased nearly 24% in the same period. This resulted in an approximate 14% 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 – 2007 System Data for performance data by jurisdiction, by mode, by paratransit system and by individual fixed route. Appendix B – 1995 to 2007 System Data presents various performance data by mode over a 13 year period. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 22 Chapter 2—Transit Service Evaluation Table 2-2: Comparison of System-wide Data for Five-Year Period—2003 and 2007 General Vehicle Revenue Miles1 Vehicle Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Per Hour1 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 Mile1 FY 2003 29,996,885 2,465,752 12.2 FY 2003 52,481,596 1.41 21.28 FY 2003 36.50% $149,712,352 $29,722,791 $2.85 $1.63 $1.22 $60.72 $2.85 FY 2007 34,201,137 2,629,781 13.0 FY 2007 60,525,851 1.77 23.02 FY 2007 22.20% $184,473,347 $40,953,630 $3.05 $1.87 $1.18 $70.15 n/a 5 Years (FY 2003-2007) % Change 14.02% 6.65% 6.90% 5 Years (FY 2003-2007) % Change 15.33% 25.40% 8.13% 5 Years (FY 2003-2007) % Change -14.3% 23.22% 37.79% 6.92% 14.77% -3.28% 15.53% n/a 1 Dial-a-Ride revenue miles not available for FY 2007. Therefore, totals for FY 2003 and FY 2007 do not include Dial-a-Ride data to provide an equal comparison. n/a = data not available. 2.1 SERVICE GOALS AND STANDARDS The Regional Public Transportation Authority Board of Directors approved service goals and standards on April 19, 2008. These targets (see Table 2-3) were developed as part of the Efficiency and Effectiveness Study and include targets for fixed route, systemwide, fixed route, route level, paratransit and for light rail transit. 2.2 FIXED ROUTE 2.2.1 Service Characteristics During FY 2007. fixed route transit service was provided in a 653 square mile service area and served residents in the communities of Avondale, Chandler, El Mirage, Fountain Hills, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Guadalupe, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sun City, Surprise, Tempe, and Tolleson. There were sixty-five (65) local, seventeen (17) express and four (4) RAPID routes 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. Many of the most popular routes operate to midnight and even 1:00 am. 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. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 23 Chapter 2—Transit Service Evaluation Table 2-3: Efficiency and Effectiveness Performance Measures Targets Fixed Route Bus, Systemwide Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness 1 Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Cost per Boarding Subsidy (Net Opg Cost) per Boarding Cost per Revenue Mile Average Fare Service Effectiveness Total Boardings (Number) 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 Opg 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 Opg Cost) per Boarding Cost per Revenue Mile Average Fare Total Boardings (Number) Boardings per Revenue Mile Increase in Net Vanpools Target 25% $2.32 $1.75 $4.96 $0.67 -3% 3% 2.1 1.2 0 28 90% 23,400 89% Target 25% $2.32 $1.75 $4.96 -3% 3% 2.1 TBD 90% 23,400 Target 100% $1.71 $0.00 $0.46 $1.85 --0.27 24 Rail4 Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness 1 Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Cost per Boarding Subsidy (Net Opg Cost) per Boarding Cost per Revenue Mile Average Fare Service Effectiveness Total Boardings (Number) Boardings Avg. Weekday Boardings Avg. Sat. Boardings Avg. Weekday Sun./Holiday Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Mile Boardings per Revenue Mile Safety Incidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles Security Incidents per "x" Boardings On-time Performance Miles between Failures 3 Customer Satisfaction Paratransit Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness Farebox Recovery Ratio1 Operating Cost per Boarding Subsidy (Net Opg 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 On-time Performance Miles between Mechanical Failures Customer Satisfaction3 Target TARGET 25% TBD TBD TBD TBD 7,827,000 26,090 N/A N/A 3.94 8.04 N/A N/A 95% 25,000 89% Target 5% $28.55 $27.16 $50.30 TBD -3% 3% 1.76 5% 90% TBD 90% TBD = To Be Determined N/A = Not Available 1 Farebox recovery ratio = % of operating costs covered by passenger revenues. % increase in boardings compared to previous year. 3 Based on annual telephone survey of % of respondents rating rider satisfaction as “excellent” or “good”. 4 Light rail starter line begins operations in December 2008. 2 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 24 Chapter 2—Transit Service Evaluation Figure 2-1: Local Routes Map for January 2007 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 25 Chapter 2—Transit Service Evaluation Figure 2-2: Express & RAPID Routes Map for January 2007 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 26 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation 2.2.2 Funding Sources Funding for these routes is provided by Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sun City, Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson and the Regional Public Transportation Authority. The Cities of Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix and Tempe each have some form of dedicated sales tax for public transportation. Most of these communities are using general funds to support transit services. Some State funding is also available for transit through the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF II). The LTAF II funding is in the form of multistate lottery game and instant bingo game monies along with a portion of the State Highway Fund's Vehicle License Tax monies. The State distributes the funds to the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and cities, towns and counties not represented by a RPTA or MPO. RPTA receives a portion of the 0.5% Maricopa County sales tax for transportation approved by voters in November 2003. The City of Avondale is designated by the federal government as a “small urbanized area” and receives some federal assistance for transit operations. 2.2.3 Private Contractors During FY 2007, these local and express routes were provided by five private contractors. These five private transit operators are under contract to the City of Phoenix, the City of Tempe and the Regional Public Transportation Authority and provide service throughout the region. Many routes are funded by multiple government agencies, usually based on the miles of service provided in each jurisdiction. The City of Phoenix contracts with Veolia Phoenix and First Transit for fixed route service. The RPTA has a service contract with Veolia RPTA, and the City of Tempe contracts with Veolia Tempe. 2.2.4 Comparison of Fixed Route Performance Data A comparison of major data for fixed route service is displayed in Table 2-4 for FY 2003, 2006, and 2007. In FY 2007, RPTA began reporting shuttle/circulator and rural connector data in with fixed route service. So, to provide an equal comparison, these two modes were also combined in the other FY data as applicable. Note that rural connector service did not begin until March 2005 during FY 2006. Between FY 2006 and 2007, fixed route boardings decreased slightly (1.1%). However, boardings increased about 15% since FY 2003. Revenues increased about 16% and 38%, respectively, in the one- and five-year periods of comparison. Operating costs decreased nearly 15% between FY 2006 and FY 2007; however, these costs increased almost 23% over the previous five years. This all resulted in the farebox recovery ratio increasing slightly more than 6% in the one-year period and about 3.0% 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 2007. The increase in transit service and the resulting increases in ridership over the years are clearly apparent. Not all data for FY 2008 is available at the time of preparation of this SRTP. However, Table 2-5 provides available statistics on boardings and revenue miles for FY 2008. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 27 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation Table 2-4: Comparison of Fixed Route1 Data—2003, 2006 and 2007 General FY 2003 Vehicle Revenue Miles Vehicle Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Per Hour 2.1 2.0 -5.48% 5.54% 20.0 29.6 6.88% 5 Years (FY 03-07) % Change 2.58% 22.78% 28,766,992 1,966,138 14.63121714 FY 2006 FY 2007 50,510,536 58,855,322 1.9 27.7 FY 2006 FY 2007 21.66% $124,341,810 17.88% $178,436,399 24.24% $152,662,789 48.00% 1 Year (FY 06-07) % Change 6.36% -14.44% $2.46 $26,930,430 $3.03 $31,899,646 $2.62 $37,000,313 -13.46% 15.99% 6.58% 37.39% $0.53 $1.93 $0.54 $2.49 $0.64 $1.99 17.33% -20.16% 19.27% 3.08% $68.16 $60.62 $77.65 28.09% 13.92% $4.72 $6.49 $5.31 -18.20% 12.49% Financial FY 2003 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 58,184,595 27,504,359 2,943,510 9.344068476 FY 2003 Total Boardings Boardings Per Revenue Mile Boardings Per Revenue Hour 5 Years (FY 03-07) % Change 9.14% 7.78% 1.27% 5 Years (FY 03-07) % Change 15.19% FY 2007 26,357,307 1,824,233 14.4484323 Ridership 1 Year (FY 06-07) % Change 4.59% -33.20% 56.58% 1 Year (FY 06-07) % Change -1.14% FY 2006 1 For FY 2007, the data reported for shuttle/circulator and rural connector were included in the fixed route data. To provide a fair comparison, the totals shown for FY 2003 and FY 2006 also combined these two modes with fixed route service. Table 2-5: Annual Boardings and Revenue Miles—FY 2008 Ridership Statistic Number Boardings Revenue Miles Boardings Per Revenue Mile 59,843,059 33,410,203 1.8 Source: RPTA, Annual Ridership Report for FY 2008, as derived from farebox data. 2.2.5 Fixed Route On Time Performance The Vehicle Management System allows for very accurate measurement of the System’s schedule adherence. The position of each bus is tracked throughout the day using global positioning satellites and compared to the published schedule. Figure 2-3 presents the on time performance for City of Phoenix contractors by month for the past three years. Similar data for City of Tempe and RPTA was not available. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 28 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation Figure 2-3: On Time Performance for City of Phoenix Fixed Route Service City of Phoenix On Time Performance By Fiscal Year 94.0% 92.0% 90.0% 88.0% 86.0% 84.0% 82.0% JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YR AVG 2006 89.8% 88.8% 88.6% 88.4% 89.8% 90.1% 91.2% 89.1% 86.7% 86.1% 87.3% 89.0% 88.7% 2007 88.4% 86.7% 86.6% 86.4% 87.1% 89.8% 90.9% 88.9% 88.5% 85.7% 87.8% 85.7% 2008 89.3% 90.7% 91.5% 91.3% 91.7% 91.9% 92.7% 2.2.6 87.7% 91.3% Fixed Route Vehicle Inventory In June 2007 the Regional Transit System had 741 vehicles available to provide fixed route service. The City of Glendale had 5 vehicles; the City of Phoenix operated 488 vehicles; the City of Tempe had 91 vehicles; and the Regional Public Transportation Authority had 157 vehicles available to provide fixed route service. 2.2.7 Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Service The Regional Transportation Plan calls for arterial bus rapid transit service in several corridors. The first corridor will be Main Street in Mesa from Superstition Springs Mall Transit Center and Park-and-Ride to the east end of line light rail station at Sycamore and Main Street. This new type of service will have a separate identity known as LINK Bus Service. It will be provided by new articulated buses with a different paint scheme to identify it as a connection (or “LINK”) to light rail service. To provide faster service, LINK buses will stop less often, approximately once every mile. On weekdays the service will be operated every 15 minutes during peak hours, and every 30 minutes during off-peak hours. Service will be available from about 4:30 am to approximately 10:30 pm. The service will also operate on Saturdays and Sundays. Implementation of this Mesa Main Street LINK service is scheduled to begin December 2008 concurrent with the opening of the light rail starter line. Future corridors for this type of service include Arizona Avenue, Chandler Boulevard, South Central Avenue and Scottsdale/Rural Road. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 29 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation 2.3 HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT Light rail transit (LRT) will begin 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 will operate a total of 20 miles through the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. Headways (frequencies) of train service on opening day will be: Weekdays: 4:00 AM – 6:00 AM 6:00 AM – 8:00 PM 8:00 PM – midnight 20 minutes 10 minutes 20 minutes Weekends: 5:00 AM – 7:00 AM 7:00 AM – 8:00 PM 8:00 PM – 1:00 AM 30 minutes 15 minutes 20 minutes The 20-year RTP includes an additional 57 miles of high capacity transit in six corridors planned to connect with the initial system: • • • • • • Northwest Central Mesa Tempe South Glendale I-10 West Northeast Phoenix Figure 2-4 displays the initial LRT alignment as well as future high capacity transit corridors and scheduled opening dates. A detailed schedule for completion of the corridors included in the RTP is presented in Figure 2-5. 2.4 SHUTTLE AND CIRCULATOR Several cities provide shuttle services (usually in their downtown areas) and / or neighborhood circulator service. The City of Phoenix operates DASH in the downtown and State Capitol area, and ALEX, a neighborhood circulator in the Ahwatukee/Desert Foothills area. The City of Tempe provides FLASH Forward and Back and FLASH to University in the downtown Tempe and Arizona State University area. Tempe also provides the Neighborhood FLASH connecting the Escalante and University Heights neighborhoods with the Riverside/Sunset and Lindon Park neighborhoods through the downtown Tempe/Arizona State University area. The City of Glendale operates GUS I, GUS II, and GUS III in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown Glendale. The City of Scottsdale operates the Scottsdale Neighborhood Connector and the Scottsdale Trolley in and around downtown Scottsdale. All of these shuttle/neighborhood circulators are free except for Glendale’s GUS services which charge a $0.25 fare. Beginning in FY 2007, RPTA combined shuttle and circulator service data with the fixed route service data, so performance information about these services is included in Table 2-4. Data for the individual shuttle and circulator routes is shown in Appendix A – 2007 System Data. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 30 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation Figure 2-4: High Capacity Transit Corridors Figure 2-5: High Capacity Transit Corridors—Schedule Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 31 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation 2.5 REGIONAL CONNECTORS The Regional Public Transportation Authority provides two Regional Connector services. Route 660 – Wickenburg Connector provides service between Wickenburg and Arrowhead Towne Center in Glendale, and Route 685 – Gila Bend Regional Connector providing service between Ajo, Gila Bend, Buckeye and the Desert Sky Mall in Phoenix. Beginning in FY 2007, RPTA combined regional connector service data with the fixed route service data. Please refer to Appendix A – 2007 System Data for performance information on the regional connectors. 2.6 PARATRANSIT There are ten different paratransit systems in the region with a variety of service characteristics and eligibility criteria. Some are open to the general public, some serve only elderly and persons with disabilities and other paratransit systems are only available to Americans With Disabilities Act eligible persons only. Table 2-6 presents the major statistics for paratransit, or Dial-a-Ride, services in the region for FY 2003, 2006, and 2007. Some FY 2007 data was not collected on a systemwide basis for paratransit, so the table includes only the available data. Many individual services in the region reported data for FY 2007. The available data by specific service is included in Appendix A. Paratransit boardings decreased almost 2% between FY 2006 and FY 2007 and about 10% between FY 2003 and FY 2007. At the same time, operating costs increased about 10% and 26% over the same periods, respectively. Passenger revenues decreased slightly (less than 1%) over the previous year, and also decreased about 3.5% over the previous five-year period. The farebox recovery ratio remained fairly steady with a 0.5% decrease from the previous year, and an almost 1% decrease compared to FY 2003. 2.7 VANPOOL Vanpools are organized rideshare arrangements, much like large carpools, in which 6-15 riders who have similar origins and destinations collectively agree to commute in a single vehicle. Vehicles for this type of service may be owned or leased by one of the commuters in the group, a company, or by a third party representative. In the Valley Metro Vanpool Program all vanpool vans are owned by the agency and procured using federal funding or fare returns from active vanpools. Valley Metro Vanpool Program vehicles are fully insured, and maintained full size vans which offer a reliable, safe, efficient, and economical alternative to driving alone. Valley Metro provides vans to groups of 6 – 15 commuters who then share in the monthly cost of the van by paying an equitable monthly fare. Valley Metro has provided vanpool services to residents and employers in Maricopa County for twenty-one 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 2003, 2006, and 2007 is displayed in Table 2-7. Between FY 2006 and 2007, boardings increased nearly 12%. Between FY 2003 and 2007 boardings jumped more than 50%. In addition, operating costs climbed nearly 7% in the same one year period and about 23% during the previous five years. However, comparatively Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 32 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation speaking, revenues rose at a much higher rate than operating costs with an almost 14% increase in one year and a nearly 73% increase during the previous five years. This resulted in a farebox recovery ratio that by FY 2006 was more than 107% and by FY 2007 had grown to 115%. Table 2-6: Comparison of Paratransit Data—2003, 2006 and 2007 General Vehicle Revenue Miles Vehicle Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Per Hour Ridership Total Boardings Boardings Per Revenue Mile Boardings Per Revenue Hour 1,029,378 0.14 938,879 0.12 922,790 n/a 1 Year (FY 06-07) % Change n/a n/a n/a 1 Year (FY 06-07) % Change -1.71% n/a 1.87 1.76 n/a n/a n/a 5 Years (FY 03-07) % Change -0.97% 25.57% 40.07% 3.46% 15.71% FY 2003 8,365,039 550,531 13.05 FY 2003 FY 2006 7,865,367 532,887 14.76 FY 2006 FY 2007 n/a n/a n/a FY 2007 5 Years (FY 03-07) % Change n/a n/a n/a 5 Years (FY 03-07) % Change -10.35% n/a Financial FY 2003 FY 2006 FY 2007 Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Costs Operating Cost Per Boarding Fare Revenue Fare Revenue Per Boarding Subsidy Per Boarding Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile 5.38% $23,496,877 $22.83 4.88% $26,805,994 $28.55 4.41% $29,505,513 $31.97 1 Year (FY 06-07) % Change -0.47% 10.07% 12.00% $1,259,045 $1.22 $1,307,546 $1.39 $1,302,579 $1.41 -0.38% 1.56% $21.60 $42.68 $27.16 $50.30 $30.57 n/a n/a n/a $3.27 $3.41 n/a n/a n/a 12.54% 41.51% n/a = data not available. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 33 Chapter 2 – Transit Service Evaluation Table 2-7: Comparison of Vanpool Data—2003, 2006 and 2007 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 941,682 1,270,416 1,418,466 1 Year (FY 06-07) % Change n/a 11.6% n/a 1 Year (FY 06-07) % Change 11.65% 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.26% 4.35% 10.35 10.77 10.78 4.14% 5 Years (FY 03-07) % Change 33.16% 23.02% FY 2003 3,639,578 90,989 40.0 FY 2003 FY 2006 4,717,293 117,932 40.0 FY 2006 FY 2007 n/a 131,612 n/a FY 2007 5 Years (FY 03-07) % Change n/a 44.65% n/a 5 Years (FY 03-07) % Change 50.63% FY 2003 FY 2006 FY 2007 81.84% $1,873,665 107.89% $2,158,282 115.00% $2,305,045 0.05% 1 Year (FY 06-07) % Change 7.11% 6.80% $1.99 $1,533,316 $1.70 $2,328,632 $1.63 $2,650,738 -4.05% 13.83% -18.08% 72.88% $1.63 $.36 $1.83 -$.13 $1.87 -$.24 1.95% 84.62% 14.77% -166.67% $20.59 $18.30 $17.51 -4.30% -14.95% $0.51 $0.46 n/a/ n/a n/a n/a = not available. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 34 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure 3.0 EXISTING & PLANNED TRANSIT CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE The provision of transit service in an area that is nearly 652.5 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 8th, 2008 update of the Regional Bus Stop Database administered by the City of Phoenix reports that there are 7,480 bus stops throughout the region. 43 percent, or 3,244 of these stops include passenger shelters and 1,186 stops consist of a bench only. Recognizing that lack of bus stop shelters and other amenities can be a major disincentive to public use of the transit system, Valley Metro/RPTA and its member agencies continually work to improve these passenger facilities based on available funding. Bus stop improvements are achieved through a combination of public and private funds. These include local municipal funds, regional sales tax funds, Federal Transit Administration funds, developer fees, and advertising and bench contracts with Viacom Outdoor Systems Advertising. Advertising shelter and bench locations are developed, improved, and maintained by the individual contractor. In addition to bus stops, there are 15 designated BRT bus stops located along the Main St. corridor in Mesa and 28 LRT stops located along the light rail alignment in Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. Both of these services will begin operating in December of 2008. 3.1.2 Park-and-Ride Facilities Existing Park-and-Ride Facilities Region-wide, there are a total of 50 park-and-ride facilities providing 7,082 automobile spaces. Of these facilities, 20 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. 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 20 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 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 35 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure on the availability of funding, local priorities or other variables. 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 Gilbert PNR Glendale City Lot Glendale PNR Superstition Springs PNR Main St & Sycamore Transit 1 Center & PNR Peoria PNR East Spectrum Mall Transit 1 Center & PNR Central & Camelback Transit 1 Center & PNR th 1 19 Ave & Camelback PNR th 1 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 Sunnyslope Transit Center & PNR 1 Loop 101 & Apache Blvd McClintock Dr & Apache 1 Blvd 1 Apache & Dorsey PNR Joint-Use Facilities Donnie Hale Park Carl’s Jr. Food City Plaza City Lot Shopping Center Arrowhead Church of Joy East Mesa Service Center South Center Shopping Plaza Fry’s Market Confederate Air Force Cactus Square Deer Valley Community Center First Indian Baptist Church Greenway Village Square Mountain View Lutheran Church Paradise Valley Community College Location City Publicly Owned Facilities Gilbert Ash and Page Capacity Routes Served 250 59 Ave & Myrtle Ave Glendale 109 th 7111 N 99 Ave Power Rd & US-60 Glendale Mesa 388 200 Main St & Sycamore St Mesa 812 Peoria 82 531 59, 70, 570, GUS, Grand Ave Limited 70, 573 533 30, 40, 45, 96, 104, Main St Arterial BRT, Light Rail Grand Ave Limited Montebello Ave & 19 Ave Phoenix 795 15, 19, 60, 576, Light Rail Central Ave & Camelback Rd Phoenix 135 19 Ave & Camelback Rd th Washington St & 38 St SR-51 & Bell Rd Shea Blvd & SR-51 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 411 189 377 370 Bell & I-17 Phoenix 350 Pecos Rd & 40 St th 79 Ave & I-10 Phoenix Phoenix 562 607 off I-17 between Peoria & Dunlap Ave Phoenix 215 3 St & Dunlap Ave Phoenix 45 0, 8, 12, 16, 80, 90, 106 Loop 101 & Apache Blvd Tempe 695 40, 575, Orbit, Light Rail McClintock Dr & Apache Blvd Tempe 300 40, 81, Orbit, Light Rail Apache Blvd & Dorsey Ln Tempe 190 40, Orbit, Light Rail 4 St & Jessie May Way Warner Rd & Alma School Rd Arizona Ave & Ray Rd Chicago St & Arizona Ave st Thunderbird Rd & 51 Ave th 75 Avenue & Rose Garden Ln Decatur St & Power Rd Gilbert Rd & Southern Ave Avondale Chandler Chandler Chandler Glendale Glendale Mesa Mesa N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 131 104, 151 112, 541 104, 112, 156, 540, 541 51, 138, 581 573 30, 532, 533 531, 136 Recker Rd & McKellips Rd Greenfield Rd & McKellips nd 32 & Cactus Rd th 19 Ave & Utopia Mesa Mesa Phoenix Phoenix N/A N/A N/A Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix N/A N/A th th Jefferson St & 84 Ave th th th rd th th Greenway Rd & 29 Ave th 35 Ave & Greenway Rd th 48 St & Cheyenne St nd 32 St & Union Hills Dr Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Phoenix N/A N/A N/A N/A 0, 39, 50, 512, 570, 582, 590, Light Rail 19, 50, Light Rail 1, 32, Light Rail 170, SR-51 RAPID 32, 512, SR-51 RAPID 27, 170, 582, 590, I-17 RAPID I-10 East RAPID, ALEX 17, 560, I-10 West RAPID Red, 27, 35, 90, 106, 122, 581, 582, I-17 RAPID 532 532 32, 106, 138 19, I-17 RAPID 27 35 56, 540, ALEX 32, 90, 186 36 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Park-and-Ride Facility Safeway Shopping Center Paradise Valley Transit Center Chaparral Park Costco (Hayden Rd) 2 Dial Tech Center Miller Plaza Trinity Church Surprise Aquatic Center Big Lots Cobblestone Village Costco Grace Community Church Target Shopping Center Tolleson City Offices 1 2 Location th 7 St & Thunderbird Rd Windrose & Tatum Blvd City Phoenix Phoenix Hayden Rd & Jackrabbit Rd rd 83 Pl & Butherus Dr Scottsdale Rd & 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 Scottsdale Surprise Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tolleson Capacity 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 Routes Served 7, 7L, 138 Blue, 44, 106, 138, SR-51 RAPID 81, 510 81, 170 72 50, 76, 510 81, 510 571 72, 532 540 56, 108 61, 520 77, 81, 521 131, 560 Facility opening in December of 2008 (FY 2009), concurrent with initiation of LRT starter line operations. Facility closed in 2008. Figure 3-1: Existing and Planned Publicly Owned Park-and-Rides Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 37 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Table 3-2: Planned Publicly Owned Park-and-Ride Facilities Park-and-Ride Facility/ Year of Implementation* Prop 400 Funded Location* City Avondale (FY 2014) No I-10 & Avondale Blvd Avondale East Buckeye (FY 2011) Yes I-10 & Verrado Way Buckeye Price/202 (FY 2010) Yes Price Freeway & Loop 202 Chandler Val Vista/202 (FY 2018) Yes Val Vista Dr & Loop 202 Gilbert Glendale/Grand (FY 2013) Yes Glendale Ave & Grand Ave Glendale Loop 303 (FY 2023) Yes Northern Ave & Loop 303 Glendale Arrowhead (FY 2013) Yes Bell Rd & 75 Ave th Glendale Dysart & I-10 (FY 2010) No Dysart & I-10 Goodyear Country Club/US 60 (FY 2011) Yes Country Club Dr & US 60 Mesa Power Rd & Loop 202 (FY 2012) No Power Rd & Loop 202 Mesa Gilbert Rd & Loop 202 (FY 2012) No Gilbert Rd & Loop 202 Mesa Happy Valley/I-17 (FY 2010) Yes Happy Valley Rd & I-17 Phoenix Camelback/101 (FY 2015) Yes Camelback Rd & Loop 101 Phoenix Yes 59 Ave & Baseline Rd Phoenix Yes Elliot Rd & I-10 Phoenix No Baseline Rd & 27 Ave Phoenix No Tatum Blvd & Loop 101 Phoenix 1 th Laveen/59 Ave (TBD) 2 Elliot/I-10 (TBD) th Baseline Rd & 27 Ave (TBD) Desert Ridge (TBD) th 3 th 4 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Routes Served - Papago Freeway Connector (FY 2009) - Buckeye Express (FY 2015) - Papago Freeway Connector (FY 2009) - Buckeye Express (FY 2015) - East Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009) - San Tan Express (FY 2018) - Santan Express (FY 2018) - Routes 59 & 70 - Grand Avenue Limited (FY 2013 Exp) - Loop 303 Express (FY 2023) - Local Routes 67, 170 & 186 - Express Routes 572, 573, 575 & 576 - Peoria Express (FY 2014) - Papago Freeway Connector (FY 2009) - Apache Junction Express (FY 2011) - Superstition Springs Express (FY 2019) - Power Road Supergrid (FY 2010) - Red Mountain Express (FY 2009) - Red Mountain Freeway Connector (FY 2019) - Route 136 - Red Mountain Express (FY 2009) - Red Mountain Freeway Connector (FY 2019) - I-17 RAPID - Black Canyon Freeway Connector (FY 2016) - Anthem Express (FY 2018) - North I-17 Express (FY 2022) - Route 50 - Arrowhead Downtown Express - West Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009) - Peoria Express (FY 2014) - Route 77 - South Central Avenue Arterial BRT (FY 2016) - Route 56 - I-10 East RAPID - Ahwatukee Connector (FY 2017) - Santan Express (FY 2018) - Route 77 - South Central Avenue Arterial BRT (FY 2016) - SR-51 RAPID - Anthem Express (FY 2018) 38 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Park-and-Ride Facility/ Year of Implementation* Prop 400 Funded Location* City Cactus/101 (FY 2010) Yes Cactus Rd & Loop 101 Mustang Transit Center & PNR (FY 2015) No Shea Blvd & 90 St Scottsdale Grand/Surprise (FY 2010) Yes Grand Ave & Bell Rd Surprise th Scottsdale Routes Served - East Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009) - San Tan Express (FY 2018) - Routes 81, 106, 114, 512 - East Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009) - Pima Express (FY 2013) - Route 571 - Surprise-Scottsdale Express - Grand Avenue Limited (FY 2013 Expansion) - Bell Road Supergrid (FY 2019) - Loop 303 Express (FY 2023) 1 Facility was switched with the Peoria/Grand Park-and-Ride Dependent upon loop 202 freeway development plan Funding for facility construction not identified 4 Funding for facility construction and service not identified * Year of implementation and location is subject to change. 2 3 3.1.3 Passenger Transfer Facilities & Major Park-and Rides Existing Transit Centers Transit center facilities are developed to facilitate convenient passenger transfers between buses or other modes of transportation, where two or more routes or modes come together. Eleven transit centers are currently operated in the region, and four additional LRT transit centers will begin operation in December of 2008. The amenities and services available at each transfer facility vary, with a majority of the facilities in the region providing services such as public transit information kiosks, the sale of fare media, and other relevant customer services. Table 3-3 provides specific information about each transfer facility and major park-and-ride. Figure 3-2 illustrates the locations of existing and planned transit center facilities. The RTP as well as transportation plans from the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, Scottsdale, and Glendale were reviewed to identify future transit centers within the region. A total of twelve future transit centers are identified as shown in Table 3-4. Figure 3-2 illustrates the future transit centers in the MAG region. 3.2 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FACILITIES Transit operations and maintenance (O&M) facilities are essential public assets that support the delivery of transit services. These facilities serve multiple purposes including functioning as operating bases, vehicle service and fueling centers, employee training centers and administrative offices. O&M facilities are often designed to meet the specialized needs of the services that the facilities are planned to support. 3.2.1 Existing Publicly Owned Transit Only Operations and Maintenance Facilities Dedicated publicly owned transit O&M facilities provide long term operating efficiencies through reduced local cost of ownership. Capital development funds available through the Federal Transit Administration’s formula and discretionary grant programs can be leveraged to fund a significant portion of the capital costs associated with constructing dedicated transit O&M Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 39 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure facilities. By owning a facility funded through federal tax revenues, a local community can reduce fixed operating costs associated with facility leasing. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 40 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Table 3-3: Passenger Facilities and Transit Centers—FY 2007 Central Station 300 N. Central Avenue Phoenix Route / Daily Round Trips Red Blue 0 3 7 8 10 12 15 Grand Avenue Limited 560 571 I-10 W RAPID I-10 E RAPID SR-51 RAPID I-17 RAPID Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri 70 50 53 68 50 37 42 26 37 4 2 2 14 15 15 25 Sat 34 32 46 33 33 33 32 17 33 -------- Sun 32 28 30 29 28 29 15 15 16 -------- Total 510 293 222 City of Phoenix 1997 2.8 acres A 4,000 square foot building with a police office, two evaporatively cooled open air colonnades totaling 500 lineal feet, shade trees, children’s play area, information kiosk, public restrooms, drinking fountains, bicycle racks, telephones, and a gated display area for vintage transit vehicles. Services provided at Central Station include ticket and pass sales, transit information, lost and found, and push cart vending. Sunnyslope Transit Center Route / Daily Round Trips Mon-Fri Sat Sun rd 8927 N. 3 Street 0 52 46 30 Phoenix 8 37 33 29 12 26 17 15 16 49 33 29 80 33 32 15 90 32 32 30 106 38 31 29 Dial-a-Ride Service Total 267 224 177 Ownership: City of Phoenix Completed: 1989 Project Size: 1.8 acres Facilities: Two cool tower shelters, eleven other shelters, shaded seatwall, driver’s restroom, extensive landscaping with over 140 large arid region trees, bicycle racks, and 45 parking spaces Metrocenter Mall Transit Center Route / Daily Round Trips Mon-Fri Sat Sun 9415 N. Metro Parkway Red 48 33 29 Phoenix 27 37 32 29 35 45 31 28 90 32 32 30 106 38 31 29 122 16 16 14 581 3 --582 4 --I-17 RAPID 9 --Dial-a-Ride Service Total 232 175 159 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: Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 41 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Table 3-3: Passenger Facilities and Transit Centers—FY 2007 (cont’d) Paradise Valley Mall Transit Center 4623 E. Paradise Village Parkway N. Phoenix Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Route / Daily Round Trips Blue 44 106 138 SR-51 RAPID Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri 49 33 38 33 2 Sat 33 23 31 33 -- Sun 28 20 29 15 -- Total 155 120 92 Leased land 1990 Approximately 1 acre Two large cool tower shelters, four other shelters, driver’s restroom, over 50 large arid region trees, drinking fountains, telephone, bicycle racks, and 100 shared parking spaces Loloma Station nd 7084 E. 2 Street Scottsdale Route / Daily Round Trips 41 66 72 76 Downtown Trolley Neighborhood Trolley Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri 64 40 67 36 60 43 Sat 33 39 41 36 60 43 Sun 29 35 37 14 60 43 Total 310 252 218 City of Scottsdale 1997 1.8 acres Four shelters, trees, ticket sales, information, public restrooms, bicycle racks, bicycle lockers, clock tower and telephones Desert Sky Mall Transit Center Route / Daily Round Trips Mon-Fri Sat Sun 7611 W. Thomas Road Green 69 32 29 Phoenix Green A 17 13 -17 64 33 29 41 65 33 29 41A 17 14 -131 11 --560 2 --I-10 W RAPID 13 --685 5 2 -Dial-a-Ride Service Total 263 127 87 Ownership: Leased land Completed: 1989 Project Size: 900 square feet Facilities: One shelter, shade trees, information kiosk, and bicycle racks. Arizona Mills Mall Route / Daily Round Trips Mon-Fri Sat Sun 5000 Arizona Mills Circle 56 51 39 39 Tempe 77 54 40 35 92 52 39 35 108 38 19 18 Dial-a-Ride Service Total 195 137 127 Ownership: Private Completed: 1997 Project Size: 1,000 square feet Facilities: One bus bays one artist-designed bus shelter, drinking fountain, information kiosk and a bicycle rack. Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 42 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Table 3-3: Passenger Facilities and Transit Centers—FY 2007 (cont’d) Ed Pastor Transit Center 10 W. Broadway Phoenix Route / Daily Round Trips Blue 0 7 8 45 52 Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri 50 52 46 37 48 35 Sat 32 46 33 33 33 23 Sun 28 29 28 29 33 21 Total 268 200 168 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 156 36 32 31 Dial-a-Ride Service Total 97 70 65 Ownership: City of Chandler Completed: 2004 Project Size: 0.5 acres Facilities: Two 40-foot passenger shelters, benches, bicycle rack, and drinking fountains Downtown Tempe/ASU College Avenue Bus Stops Route / Daily Round Trips Mon-Fri Sat Sun th College Avenue/5 Street 1 34 17 15 Tempe 44 33 22 20 56 51 39 34 62 52 40 35 65 39 40 34 66 40 39 35 72 65 42 37 76 35 35 14 81 55 20 17 92 50 39 35 FLASH 102 --Dial-a-Ride Service Total 556 333 276 Ownership: City of Tempe Completed: 1998 Project Size: 10,000 square feet Facilities: Four bus bays, two artist-designed shelters and an artist-designed seat wall, eight standard shelters, drinking fountains, information kiosks and bicycle racks. Arrowhead Towne Center Route / Daily Round Trips Mon-Fri Sat Sun Glendale 67 31 27 14 170 35 33 14 186 33 33 15 660 4 2 -Dial-a-Ride Service Total 103 95 43 Ownership: Private Completed: 1994 Project Size: 1,000 square feet Facilities: Four bus bays used for layover purposes only on outer road, shade trees and sitting area in boarding area near mall, lighting, easy access to mall restroom facilities and food court. Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 43 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Figure 3-2: Existing and Planned Transfer Facilities and Major Park-and-Rides Table 3-4: Planned Transit Centers and Transit Center Improvements Transit Center/ Year of Implementation Prop 400 Funded Location City Downtown Chandler (FY 2011) Yes Chandler Blvd & Arizona Ave Chandler South Chandler Transit Center (FY 2011) No Alma School Rd & Chandler Heights Rd Chandler Glendale/Grand (FY 2013) Yes Bell/101 (FY 2019) Main St/Sycamore Mesa Downtown (FY 2010) 1 Glendale Ave & Grand Ave rd Glendale Yes Bell Rd & 83 Ave No Main St & Sycamore St Mesa Yes Main St & Center St Mesa Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Glendale Routes Served (Existing and Planned) - Routes 112, 156 - Arizona Avenue Arterial BRT (FY 2011) - Santan Express (FY 2018) - Chandler Blvd Arterial BRT (FY 2024) - Routes TBD - Routes 59, 79 - Grand Avenue Limited - Glendale Urban Shuttle (GUS) - Light Rail Extension - Routes 67, 170, 186 - 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) - 30, 40, 45, 96, 104 - Main St Arterial BRT (FY 2009) - Light Rail - Routes 45, 104, 112, 120 - Main St Arterial BRT - Main St Supergrid (FY 2009) 44 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Transit Center/ Year of Implementation Prop 400 Funded Location City Superstition Springs (FY 2009) Yes Southern Ave & Power Rd Mesa Peoria (FY 2015) Yes Peoria Ave & Grand Ave Peoria Yes 19 Ave & Camelback Rd Phoenix No Central Ave & Camelback Rd Phoenix No Montebello Ave & 16 St No Washington St & 44 St Yes 44 St & Cactus Rd Yes Scottsdale Rd & Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd Scottsdale Skysong Transit Center (FY 2015) No Scottsdale Rd & McDowell Rd Scottsdale Mustang Transit Center & PNR (FY 2015) No Shea Blvd & 90 St th 19 Ave/Camelback (FY 2009) Central Ave/Camelback Spectrum Mall th 1 1 th Washington St/44 St th Phoenix 1 th 44 / Cactus (FY 2015) Scottsdale Airpark/101 (FY 2015) South Tempe Yes (FY 2009) Planned Transit Center Improvements th th Phoenix Phoenix th Scottsdale Guadalupe Rd & McClintock Rd Tempe Tempe Transportation Center 2 Upgrades (FY 2019) Yes College Ave & 5 St Tempe Metrocenter Upgrades (FY 2011) Yes Metrocenter Pkwy (Metrocenter Mall parking lot) Phoenix Central Station Upgrades (FY 2014) Yes Central Ave & Van Buren St Phoenix th Routes Served (Existing and Planned) - Light Rail Extension - Routes 30, 45, 61, 108, 533 - Main St Arterial BRT - Route 106 - Grand Avenue Limited rd th - 83 /75 Avenue Supergrid (FY 2023) - Routes 19, 50, 50 Limited - Light Rail - Routes 0, 39, 50 - Express 512, 570, 582, 590 - Light Rail -Routes 15, 19, 60 -Express 576 - Light Rail - Routes 1, 13, 32, 44 - Airport Shuttle - Light Rail - Routes 44, 106, 138, Blue - SR-51 RAPID - Light Rail Extension - Routes 72, 170 - Surprise-Scottsdale Express - East Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009) - Pima Express (FY 2013) - Anthem Express (FY 2018) - Routes 17, 66, 72, 76 - Neighborhood Connector - Routes 81, 106, 114, 512 - East Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009) - Pima Express (FY 2013) - Routes 66, 81, 92 - East Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009) - Routes 1, 30, 44, 56, 62, 65, 66, 72, 76, 81, 92 - Express 534 - ORBIT - Routes 15 (replaces Red Line FY 2009), 27, 35, 90,106, 122, - Express 570 (scheduled to discontinue in FY 2013), 581, - I-17 RAPID - Black Canyon Fwy Connector (2016) - North I-17 Express (2022) - Routes 0, 3, 8, 10, 12, 15, 27 - Express 560 - Grand Ave Limited - I-10 West RAPID - Light Rail. 1 Transit centers opening late December 2008 concurrent with initiation of LRT starter line service. Tempe Transportation Center opening fall 2008. Source: MAG regional Transportation Plan 2007 Update, Scottsdale Transportation Master Plan – Transportation Element, 2008 2 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. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 45 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure 3.2.2 Planned Operations and Maintenance Facilities To support the planned expansion of the regional transit system as outlined in the RTP, two additional dedicated O&M facilities are planned and funded. These facilities include a new regional heavy maintenance facility and a new fixed route bus facility. Additionally, funding is identified in the RTP for regional O&M facility upgrades at two facilities: Phoenix South Division and RPTA Mesa (includes funding for upgrades to the fixed route and demand response sections of the facility). Funding for three other facilities were originally identified in the RTP to support regional rural bus service, vanpool service and Phoenix Dial-a-Ride. These facilities have been eliminated or postponed to a year outside of the regional Transit Life Cycle Program (multi-year implementation plan for transit component of the RTP). In addition, the RTP includes a new light rail O&M facility; however, the programmed year for completion has not been determined. Table 3-6 shows the planned O&M facilities. Table 3-5: Existing Publicly Owned Operations and Maintenance Facilities Facility Contractor Phoenix South Division 2225 W Lower Buckeye Phoenix Veolia Vehicle Capacity 250 Phoenix North Division 2010 W Desert Cove Phoenix Veolia 150 Fixed Route Phoenix West Division 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 Sts. Phoenix First Transit 250 Fixed Route Veolia 250 Fixed Route Veolia 250 METRO 100 Fixed Route, Demand Response Light Rail Modes Served Primary Functions Fixed Route & DASH Shuttle Heavy Vehicle Maintenance, LNG and Diesel Fueling, Cleaning, and Painting. Operator Dispatch and Regional Radio Support. Vehicle Maintenance, LNG and Diesel Fueling, Vehicle Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Vehicle Maintenance, CNG, LNG, and Diesel Fueling, Vehicle Cleaning and Operator Dispatch Vehicle Maintenance, LNG fueling, Vehicle Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Vehicle Maintenance, Fueling, Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Vehicle Maintenance, Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Sources: Valley Metro FY 2008 Transit life Cycle program Update, 2008 Regional Public Transportation Authority City of Phoenix Public Transit Department Veolia Transportation – Phoenix Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 46 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Table 3-6: Planned Publicly Owned Operations and Maintenance Facilities Facility Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Programmed Year Complete 2014 2026 2015 Fixed Route 2015 Demand Response 2018 Light Rail TBD Modes Served New Heavy Maintenance – Fixed Route Bus New Fixed Route Bus Phoenix South Division Rehabilitation RPTA Mesa Fixed Route Upgrades/Rehabilitation RPTA Mesa Dial-a-Ride Upgrades/Rehabilitation Metro Light Rail Facility Source: Valley Metro FY 2008 Transit life Cycle program Update, 2008 Figure 3-3: Existing Operations and Maintenance Facilities 3.3 ROADWAY ENHANCEMENTS 3.3.1 Existing and Planned HOV Lanes and Ramps Since passage of the first countywide half-cent sales tax for transportation in 1985, MAG and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) have worked together on a program of constructing HOV lanes on many of the new regional freeways. In some places, such as I-10, Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 47 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure the HOV lanes were built concurrently with the original general purpose lanes. On other freeways, HOV lanes have been added after the general purpose lanes opened. As an example, HOV lanes were retrofitted to portions of I-17 (Black Canyon Highway), the oldest freeway in Maricopa County. Currently, segments of I-10, I-17, SR-51, US-60 and SR-202 have one HOV lane in each direction, located to the inside of the general traffic lanes and marked with regulatory signs and painted diamonds. The HOV lanes are restricted to vehicles with two or more occupants during peak hours: Monday through Friday from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Motorcycles, certain alternative-fueled vehicles and a limited number of hybrid vehicles are also permitted to use the lanes at all times. During off-peak hours, HOV lanes are open to all vehicles. Figure 3-4 shows the existing and planned HOV facilities in addition to the arterial bus queue jumper locations. Figure 3-4: HOV Facilities and Queue Jumpers 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. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 48 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure Table 3-7 shows that approximately 194 lane miles (i.e., 97 centerline miles) of HOV lanes currently exist on regional freeways in Maricopa County. Nearly all existing HOV lane segments currently support express bus or RAPID operations during peak periods. The MAG freeway system has three local service interchanges that offer direct access to and from the HOV lanes for carpools and buses. All are located along I-10, at: • • • 79th Avenue, providing an eastbound on-ramp and a westbound off-ramp connecting the I10 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. Table 3-7: Existing and Planned Freeway HOV Lanes Route I-10 From SR-303L Sarival Ave SR-101L Chandler Blvd I-17 Begin I-17 I-10 “stack” SR-101L SR-74 SR-51 I-10 Shea Blvd US-60 I-10 Power Rd SR-101 I-10 Grand Ave I-17 Tatum Blvd Princess Dr Red Mtn Fwy SR-202 I-10/SR-51 Pima Fwy Gilbert Rd Higley Rd Val Vista Dr Total Existing Lane Miles Total Planned Lane Miles To Sarival Ave SR-101L Chandler Blvd Riggs Rd I-10 “stack” SR-101L SR-74 Anthem Way Shea Blvd SR-101L Power Rd Meridian Rd Grand Ave I-17 Tatum Blvd Princess Dr Red Mtn Fwy Santan Fwy Pima Fwy Gilbert Rd Higley Rd Val Vista Dr I-10/Pecos Rd Approximate Lane Miles 3 18 52 14 14 28 18 10 20 12 34 12 20 24 16 10 30 20 18 12 10 42 24 152 461 Status of HOV Lanes Planned RTP Phase II1 Programmed FY 2008-09 Existing Programmed FY 2010 Planned RTP Phase III2 Existing Programmed FY 2008 Planned RTP Phase IV3 Existing Under construction Existing Planned RTP Phase III Planned RTP Phase III Planned RTP Phase IV Planned RTP Phase II Programmed FY 2008 Under construction Programmed FY 2008 Existing Programmed FY 2009 Planned RTP Phase III Planned RTP Phase IV Planned RTP Phase II Sources: MAG Regional Transportation Plan (November 25, 2003), MAG RTP 2007 Update (July 2007), MAG 2007 Annual Report on the Status of the Implementation of Proposition 400 (August 2007), MAG Transportation Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2008-2012. 1 Phase II: Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015 2 Phase III: Fiscal Years 2016 through 2020 3 Phase IV: Fiscal Years 2021 through 2026 The regional freeway network also contains direct ramps connecting one HOV lane to another at the following system (directional, freeway-to-freeway) interchanges: Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 49 Chapter 3 – Existing & Planned Transit Capital Infrastructure • • I-10/SR-51/SR-202: From I-10 east to SR-202, SR-202 to I-10 west, I-10 west to SR-51, and SR-51 to I-10 east. I-10/US-60: From I-10 east to US-60, and US-60 to I-10 west. Additional infrastructure investments such as crossover lanes (similar to SR51 & Shea Blvd), and transit slip ramps would further improve transit operations by reducing overall passenger travel time and operating expenses. 3.3.2 Arterial Street Improvements There are no transit priority facilities that currently exist on arterial streets in the MAG region, with the exception of three queue jumpers that allow transit buses priority access through signalized traffic intersections. The queue jumpers were constructed by the City of Chandler to function in both directions of travel on Arizona Avenue at Elliot Road, Warner Road and Ray Road. Each queue jumper lane, signed for “Bus and Bike Only” approaching a signalized intersection, allows buses to bypass the queue of vehicles waiting at the intersection. When a bus is stopped at the signal, a special indication is provided to give the bus a four-second head start (“queue jump”) before the onset of the green signal. The queue jumper may be used in conjunction with a far side bus stop. Chandler uses a special camera configuration connected to a 16-phase signal cabinet to detect only 40-foot buses, while preventing bicycles and autos (which have a separate right turn lane) from triggering the queue jump. Local buses are currently taking advantage of the travel time savings provided by the queue jumpers. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service is funded in the RTP for a limited number of arterial street corridors. In December 2008 the first route will begin service from the Main Street/Sycamore light rail station to Superstition Springs Mall, using Main Street and Power Road. To enhance operating speeds of the Main Street BRT service, the RPTA and City of Mesa will install bus priority systems at signalized intersections along Main Street, and at the intersections of Power Road with Broadway Road and Southern Avenue. BRT buses will have the ability to extend or recall the green signal phase through the use of special hardware and software connections with the traffic signal network. The second arterial BRT route will operate primarily along Arizona Avenue and Country Club Drive, from Ocotillo Road to a connection with the Main Street Arterial BRT route in Mesa. This route is scheduled to begin operation in July 2010. Additional arterial BRT routes are scheduled to enter service beginning in FY 2014. 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. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 50 Chapter 4 – Transportation Demand Management 4.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Transportation Demand Management (TDM) involves strategies to reduce automobile travel demand or to redistribute the demand so that it does not occur only during peak commute periods. Its purpose is to provide cost-effective alternatives to increasing capacity. TDM can defer and reduce the need to expand roads and parking facilities, and provide other potential benefits such as reduced traffic accidents, energy conservation, and improved mobility for nondrivers. TDM can create more sustainable transportation through achievement of sustainability objectives such as resource conservation, equity, environmental protection, efficient land use, and public involvement. Valley Metro provides or administers a number of TDM services in the region, known collectively as the Rideshare Program. Services include: • • • • • • • ShareTheRide.com (an online ride-match service) Vanpool program Trip reduction program—employer assistance Clean Air Campaign—promote alternatives to reduce congestion and air pollution Transit education program Transportation Coordinator Alliances—assistance Alternative work schedules/telecommute program—assistance Each of these services is described below. 4.1 SHARETHERIDE.COM This free online service (www.ShareTheRide.com) facilitates finding others who are interested in sharing the ride to work in a carpool or vanpool or even someone a person can bike with to work. The service maintains a data base of persons throughout the valley and their work trip origin/destination locations and schedules and matches them to others making similar work trips. Valley Metro is the rideshare agency for the Phoenix metropolitan area and is responsible for overseeing this service. This matching service can also complement individual employer’s in-house ride-matching services and help them comply with Maricopa County’s mandated Trip Reduction Program. 4.2 VANPOOL PROGRAM In addition to facilitating ridesharing vanpools with vans owned by others, Valley Metro has a vanpool program in which the agency owns vans that were procured using federal funds or fare returns from active vanpools. The vehicles are fully insured and maintained and offer vans to groups of 6 to 15 commuters who then share in the monthly cost of the van by paying an equitable monthly fee that covers all van costs, including insurance and maintenance. Additional information about this program may be found in Chapter 2. 4.3 TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM ASSISTANCE The Maricopa County Environmental Division administers the mandated Trip Reduction Program (TRP) for employers and schools in the county with 50 or more employees and/or students at one site. The region’s goal is to reduce employers’ and schools’ single occupant Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 50 Chapter 4 – Transportation Demand Management 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. The RPTA is under contract with Maricopa County to provide training, technical support, and promotional support to organizations affected by the TRP. Valley Metro’s Business Services team provides free on-site support to help employers develop commuting solutions for employees. Among the services provided are: training including a series of standard workshops, special topical workshops, one-on-one assistance with conducting surveys, writing TRP plans, developing and implementing trip reduction strategies, rideshare matching, and a full service vanpool program. 4.4 CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN Originally launched in 1987 by the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, the goal of the Clean Air Campaign is to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion. The Clean Air Campaign is comprised of a variety of sponsors who have gathered together in a public/private partnership and hold events to promote use of alternative modes. Each year Valley Metro hosts an event honoring individuals and organizations for their significant efforts in reducing air pollution and traffic congestion and presents each of them with a Clean Air Campaign Award. 4.5 TRANSIT EDUCATION PROGRAM Valley Metro presents transit education programs to a variety of audiences including senior citizens, persons with disabilities, refugee organizations, social services, and other related organizations. Valley Metro also has a school outreach program that includes classroom presentations tailored to the specific audience. The program offers students and teachers an opportunity to learn about transportation choices and how to safely travel on the Valley Metro transit system. The transit educators provide various fun and educational materials for students and a teacher’s packet full of useful transit trips. Field trip coordinators are available to assist in planning group trips and itineraries and to provide other useful information. A “Free Group Field Trip All Day Pass” (Free Pass) is available to eligible preschool through 8th grade groups. 4.6 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR ALLIANCES—ASSISTANCE As part of the regional rideshare program, Valley Metro provides assistance to transportation coordinator alliances (TCA). TCA’s are organized by geographic areas and offer transportation coordinators the opportunity to share ideas and problem solve in a supportive group environment. 4.7 ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES/TELECOMMUTE PROGRAM—ASSISTANCE Alternative work schedules usually consist of a compressed work week where employees have the option to work more hours per day but fewer days within a one or two-week period. Telecommuting is a flexible work option allowing employees to work at a location other than their main office (most commonly their own home). Valley Metro provides assistance, resource materials, marketing, and used computer equipment to employers who want to implement or expand telecommuting programs or compressed work weeks. These programs benefit both employer and employee through: Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 51 Chapter 4 – Transportation Demand Management • • Employer Benefits - Help to achieve trip reduction goals - Increase worker productivity - Decrease absenteeism - Improve employee morale - Decrease overhead - Provide a great retention and recruitment tool Employee Benefits - Decrease stress - Eliminate or reduce commute time and expenses - Increase job satisfaction - Decrease work related expenses - Provide better work/life balance Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 52 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 2008 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 2008/2009 and 2013/14 is provided in this chapter. In addition, technical considerations for route adjustments, phased service implementation strategies and schedule\service coordination alternatives are provided for each operation and capital improvement programmed for implementation during this same time period. 5.1 REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANIST OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS 5.1.1 Funded Regional Transit Operating Improvements FY 2009 through FY 2014 Planned regionally funded transit operations improvements between FY 2008/2009 and FY 2013/2014 include new bus routes and the provision of regional funding for existing locally funded bus routes. Table 5-1 lists the 25 bus routes and one light rail extension that will be impacted by regional transit funding between FY 2008/2009 and FY 2013/2014. 5.2 Comparison of Funded Operating Improvements and Implementation (FY 2009) Eight bus routes (Table 5-2) were programmed in the FY 2008 TLCP Update to begin regional funding in FY 2009. Regional funding was initiated on six routes in July 2008. The other two routes will be implemented in December 2008 coinciding with the opening of LRT. Three of the routes that were implemented in July 2008 were implemented at service level below the level identified in the TLCP. All three routes with partial implementation are express routes. Full implementation of two routes (Red Mountain / Downtown Express and Northwest Valley / Downtown Express) will be fulfilled in December 2008 coinciding with the opening of LRT and will be achieved through providing additional trips using alternative trip patterns on each route that will provide direct connections with the LRT line. Full implementation of the third route, the Papago Freeway Connector, is being delayed until a park-and-ride facility is available in Buckeye. 5.3 Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Operating Improvements FY 2010 through FY 2014 Regionally funded transit operating improvements identified in the FY 2008 TLCP Update for FY 2009/2010 through FY 2013/2014 will create opportunities to optimize existing locally and regionally funded transit services. In some cases new regionally funded bus routes will result in service duplications providing an opportunity to re-prioritize local transit investments for enhanced transit connectivity or expanding local services to new areas. In other cases considerations must be made for providing adequate capital infrastructure, such as park-andride facilities, necessary to support new regionally funded transit services. Table 5-3 provides a summary of initial planning considerations for each route planned for regional funding through FY 2013/2014. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 53 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements Table 5-1: Regionally Funded Transit Operations Investments FY 2009 and FY 2014 Initial Fiscal Year of Regional Funding Route Weekday Peak Headway (min) Base Headway (min) Weekend Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips 83 (T) 67 (M) 88 104 68 68 88 84 84 88 80 80 80 88 Base Headway (min) Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 19.5 (T) 16.5 (M) 17 30 17 16 17 16 16 17 16 17 16 17 78 (T) 67 (M) 68 72 68 64 68 64 68 68 64 68 64 68 Supergrid Main Street 2009 30 30 Dobson Road Southern Avenue Gilbert Road Power Road Baseline Road Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive University Drive Camelback Road Elliot Road Broadway Avenue Alma School Road McDowell/McKellips Road Express/BRT East Loop 101 Connector Main St Arterial BRT Papago Frwy Connector Red Mountain Express West Loop 101 Connector (renamed North Glendale Express) Apache Junction Express Arizona Avenue Arterial BRT Superstition Frwy Connector Grand Avenue Limited Pima Express Peoria Express Scottsdale/Rural Arterial BRT Light Rail Northwest Extension (Phase I) 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 15 15 30 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 20.5 Tempe 16.5 Mesa 18 20 17 17 18 18 18 19 17 17 17 18 2009 2009 2009 2009 Two-way 15 One-way One-way --30 ----- --17.5 ----- 8 90 8 8 --60 ----- --16 ----- --33 ----- 30 2009 Two-way --- --- 12 --- --- --- 2011 2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 One-way Two-way Two-way Two-way One-way One-way Two-way --------------- --------------- 8 40 6 24 8 12 48 --------------- --------------- --------------- 2012 10 20 20 180 20 20 120 Source: 2008 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update Table 5-2: Comparison of Funded Operating Improvements and Implementation (FY 2009) July 2008 July 2008 TLCP Funded Daily Weekday\Weekend Trips 83 \ 78 Tempe 67 \ 67 Mesa 88 \ 68 104 \ 72 Implemented Daily Weekday\Weekend Trips 83 \ 78 Tempe 67 \ 67 Mesa 88 \ 70 101 \ 71 Sat \ 69 Sun 511 July 2008 8\0 8\0 Full 440 December 2008 90 \ 33 90 \ 33 Full 562 July 2008 8\0 6\0 Partial 535 July 2008 8\0 6\0 Partial 575 July 2008 12 \ 0 6\0 Partial Route Number Implementation Date Main Street 40 December 2008 Dobson Road Southern Ave East Loop 101 Connector (renamed Chandler / Scottsdale Airpark) Main St Arterial BRT (renamed Main St Link) Papago Frwy Connector (renamed Goodyear / Downtown) Red Mountain Express (renamed Red Mountain / Downtown) West Loop 101 Connector (renamed Northwest Valley / Downtown) 96 61 Route Implementation Full Full Full Source: 2008 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update and July 2008 Valley Metro Bus Book Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 54 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements Table 5-3: Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Operations Investments FY 2010 through FY 2014 Route 156 - Chandler Blvd Year (FY) 2010 Existing Route Yes 136 - Gilbert Rd 2010 Yes McDowell Rd to Riggs\Val Vista 184 - Power Rd 2010 No Thomas Rd to Rittenhouse Rd Description Desert Foothills Pkwy to ASU Polytechnic Route Pattern Variance No Extend south to Riggs Rd and Val Vista (Basha HS). Extend north to McDowell Rd. Map does not include Boeing extension. New Route Service Variance Increase peak headway to 15 minutes. Increased service span and increased mid-day headways in Mesa. New Route 77 - Baseline Rd 2011 Yes 59th Ave to Dobson Rd Extend west to 59th Ave from 39th Ave. Phoenix portion is locally funded. 30 minute all day service currently provided in Phoenix and Mesa. 15 minute peak service in Tempe is locally funded. 112 - Country Club Dr 2012 Yes McKellips\Center St to Ocotillo\Alma School Extend South to Ocotillo\Alma School Rd from Frye\Arizona Ave Span of service increase from 13 hours to 18 hours. Peak frequency increase from 30 minute to 15 minute. Regional funding provides weekend service. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Considerations Will increase in peak headway be desired on entire length of route? Phoenix portion is locally funded. Service levels to the Boeing facility in Mesa should be coordinated with Boeing. Future Connection to Red Mtn PNR Consider rote deviations to Mesa Community College Red Mention Campus, Superstition Springs PNR and Airport Terminal (coordinate with ASU for possible end-of-line PNR). Duplication with existing local routes serving Power Rd: (30) University, (40) Main\Apache, (45) Broadway, (61) Southern, (108) Elliot, (440) LINK Main St and (533) Mesa Express. Consider extending all Route 30 trips east to Multi-Generation Center and moving Route 533 east end-of-line to Superstition Springs PNR. Consider terminating Route 40 at Power Rd and Baywood. Route 40 savings could potentially be applied towards adding some limited stop trips to Route 184 providing a quick connection between LINK Main St BRT and the ASU Polytechnic campus. Phoenix and Tempe is locally funded. Regional funding is provided in Mesa and Guadalupe (transferred to Tempe). Connection to future South Chandler Transit Center. Consider coordinating service schedule\number of daily trips with LINK Arizona Ave\Country Club Dr route programmed for 2011. Consider providing service to the Chandler tumbleweed PNR. 55 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements Route 30 - University Dr Year (FY) 2012 Existing Route Yes 50 - Camelback Rd 2013 Yes Scottsdale Community College to Litchfield Rd Extend west to Litchfield Rd from 67th Ave. 108 - Elliot Rd 2013 Yes AZ Mills Mall to Superstition Springs Mall No 45 - Broadway Rd 2013 Yes 35th Ave to Superstition Springs Mall Extend west to 35th Ave. Phoenix portion is locally funded. 104 - Alma School Rd 2014 Yes McDowell Rd to Ocotillo Extend route north to McDowell Rd and provide deviations to Mesa Riverview commercial center and Sycamore LRT station. Description South Mtn Community College to Ellsworth Rd Route Pattern Variance Extend east to Ellsworth Rd and University Dr. Eliminate deviation to Superstition Springs Mall. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Service Variance Planned service levels are less than currently provided today. PTF will fund 84 weekday and 68 weekend trips in Mesa and Tempe. Considerations Consider extending all trips to the Red Mountain Multi Gen Center on Adobe Rd (see Route 184 considerations) and extend further east if suitable east end-of-line turn around is available. Remove downtown Mesa route diversion and replace with Sycamore rail station diversion. Planned service levels are less than currently provided in Phoenix today. PTF will fund 84 weekday and 68 weekend trips in Glendale, Litchfield Park and Scottsdale. Weekday service levels in Chandler, Gilbert and Mesa are increased to a similar level of service currently operated within Tempe. Weekend service increased to 30 minutes in all served communities. Planned service levels are less than currently provided today in the Tempe portion of the route. PTF will fund 88 weekday and 68 weekend trips in Mesa and Tempe. Will increase in peak headway be desired on entire length of route? Phoenix portion is locally funded. Peak frequency increase from 30 minute to 15 minute. Regional funding provides weekend service. Connection to future South Chandler Transit Center. Consider terminating north end route at Mesa Riverview commercial center. See also Route 17 considerations. Should limited trips continue to serve Sunland Village East? Duplication of service on Power Rd (1.5 miles) to serve Superstition Springs Mall. Route could be extended east to serve new destinations. Phoenix portion is locally funded. Route duplicates service on Power Rd. Could be extended east to serve new destinations (see Route 184). Include deviation to Sycamore & Main St light rail station. 56 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements Route 17 – McDowell Rd Year (FY) 2014 Existing Route Yes (2 routes 17A and 17) I-17 RAPID 2010 Yes Happy Valley Rd to Downtown Phoenix Extend route north to Happy Valley PNR None Apache Junction Express 2011 No Signal Butte Rd to Downtown Phoenix New Route 8 one-way trips each weekday LINK Arizona Ave \ Country Club Dr (Dedicated BRT) 2011 No Ocotillo and Alma School to Sycamore and Main LRT Station New Route 40 total trips each weekday Description Litchfield Rd to Power Rd Route Pattern Variance Extend west to Litchfield Rd from Desert Sky Mall. Desert Sky Mall deviation is eliminated. Extend east to Power Rd and Thomas Rd from McDowell Rd & Granite Reef Rd. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Service Variance Peak frequency increase from 30 minutes to 15 minutes in Scottsdale and 60 minutes to 15 minutes in Avondale. Regional funding provides weekend service. Considerations Consider modifying route to form two routes. One route could serve McDowell Rd between Litchfield Rd and Mesa Riverview commercial center via Tempe Marketplace. Other route could serve McKellips Rd between Power Rd & Thomas Rd and Mesa Riverview commercial center. See also Route 104 considerations. Consider 30 minute all day headways at start up of McKellips route. Regional funding for Route 532 is programmed to be eliminated with the implementation of PTF Route 17 improvements on McKellips Rd. Finally, consider reducing start-up frequency on Avondale segment to supplement or advance (implementation) other TLCP routes in Avondale. Consider coordinating implementation with opening of PNR Happy Valley Rd\I-17. Consider joint-use PNR operation near Signal Butte Rd. Superstition Springs PNR may have limited capacity due to existing local, express and LINK services. Consider increasing travel speeds by eliminating deviations to Southern Ave and Arizona Mills Mall. See footnote 1 below this table regarding considerations for alternate routing through downtown Phoenix. Connection to future South Chandler Transit Center. Consider coordinating service schedule\number of daily trips with Arizona Ave\Country Club Dr Supergrid route programmed for 2012. Consider providing service to the Chandler tumbleweed PNR. 57 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements Year (FY) 2012 Existing Route No Grand Ave Limited 2013 Yes Bullard and Greenway to Downtown Phoenix All trips will be extended to Surprise. 24 total daily weekday trips. Programmed to operate two-way service. 570 - Glendale Express 2013 Yes 59th Ave & Glenn Dr to Downtown Phoenix\State Capitol NA Eliminate regional funding Pima Express 2013 No Scottsdale Airpark to Downtown Phoenix\State Capitol New Route 8 one-way trips each weekday 532 - Mesa Express 2014 Yes Power Rd to Downtown Phoenix\State Capitol NA Eliminate regional funding Peoria 2014 No Peoria and 101 (Agua Fria) to Downtown Phoenix\State Capital New Route (similar pattern to existing 573) 12 one-way trips each weekday Route Superstition Freeway Connector Description Superstition Springs PNR to Arizona Mills Mall Route Pattern Variance New Route Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Service Variance 6 one-way trips each weekday Considerations Superstition Springs PNR may have limited capacity due to existing local, express and LINK services. Consider increasing travel speeds by eliminating deviation to Southern Ave. Consider alternative end of line from Arizona Mills Mall to Price\Apache LRT Station or Downtown Tempe\ASU. Connection to future Grand\Surprise PNR. Consider coordinating implementation and routing adjustments with opening of Glendale\Grand PNR and Transit Center. Due to duplication, consider combining with or eliminating Route 571. Regional funding for Route 570 is programmed to be eliminated with the implementation of PTF Grand Ave Limited improvements. Regional funding is programmed to be eliminated with the implementation of PTF Grand Ave Limited improvements. Cactus\101 PNR and Scottsdale Airpark TC may not be open at implementation. Interim stops and parking facilities may need to be considered. Consider increasing travel speeds by eliminating stop at Scottsdale Community College. Due to duplication with LRT, consider terminating route in Downtown Tempe\ASU. Regional funding is programmed to be eliminated with the implementation of PTF Route 17 improvements on McKellips Rd. Consider coordinating schedules with Route 573 to maximize efficiency and service levels at the new Peoria\Grand PNR and existing Glendale PNR. See footnote 1 below this table regarding considerations for alternate routing through downtown Phoenix. 58 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements Route LINK Scottsdale \ Rural Rd (Dedicated BRT) LRT Northwest Extension Phase I Year (FY) 2014 Existing Route No 2012 Yes Description Shea Blvd to Chandler Fashion Center th 19 Ave and Bethany Home to Main St and Sycamore Route Pattern Variance New Route (similar pattern to Scottsdale\Rural Supergrid Route) Extend LRT th north on 19 Ave to Dunlap Ave Service Variance 48 total trips each weekday None Considerations Consider coordinating service schedule\number of daily trips with Scottsdale Rd\Rural Rd Supergrid route. Consider terminating some trips of the I-17 express \ RAPID routes at Dunlap & th 19 Ave LRT Station. Source: HDR | S.R. Beard & Associates, 2008 1 Express bus service levels are causing increased bus congestion in downtown Phoenix, all new express bus routes should consider an alternate routing through the downtown area including but not limited to utilizing the bus pull-out on northbound Central Ave far side of Van Buren St. PNR = Park-and-Ride TC = Transit Center It is recommended that the service planning process facilitated by the RPTA for the implementation of new transit services and capital facilities be launched at the completion of each year’s Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) update. This timeline provides an opportunity to utilize the transit service and capital considerations identified in the annual SRTP update to initiate the planning process and improve the integration of local and regional transit planning efforts. Participation in the service planning process is voluntary for RPTA member agencies; however, it is recommended that member agencies directly affected by service or capital considerations contribute to the process. The SRTP provides an opportunity for local jurisdictions and agencies to request potential amendments to project definitions within the TLCP. Potential amendments may include adjusting a planned route pattern or reassigning regional capital funds from one capital project (such as a PNR) to another. For example, the planned location of a PNR facility may be less beneficial than an alternative site. The considerations identified in the SRTP will be carried forward to the TLCP process for potential inclusion in the official annual TLCP update. However, all potential project adjustments are subject to approval through the regionally adopted TLCP policies. 5.3.1 Transit Ridership Projections for New Regionally Funded Routes Basic ridership projections have been developed for the regionally funded routes planned for implementation through FY 2013/2014. Ridership projections are based on a five year maturity rate, in which routes are expected to have a level of performance (boardings\mile) consistent with service previously operated in the corridor or adjacent corridors by the fifth year of operation. Ridership projections are calculated based upon an assumption of maintaining the same performance level (boardings\mile) for pre-existing revenue miles. New or additional revenue miles are assumed to be half as productive as the existing service in year one with a target of achieving base year performance (boardings\mile) for the entire route in year five. In cases that a route doesn’t already exist in the corridor, a system-wide performance factor (boardings\mile) is assumed as the route’s performance goal but is adjusted by a factor linked to population and employment. The ridership adjustment factor is based on a density scale that compares the transit service area population and employment density to the service area population and employment density of the planned bus route. The service area is determined by a .25 mile buffer around the existing transit system network for local and express bus service independently. Supergrid routes are compared to existing local service area densities and Express routes are compared Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 59 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements to existing express (excluding RAPID) service area densities. One point is assigned to every percentage point difference from the system average. Scores below zero indicate routes that are likely to perform below system averages for ridership. Density scores above zero indicate routes that are likely to perform above system averages for ridership. Table 5-4 provides an example of the density score for the Power Rd Supergrid Route. Table 5-4: Example of the Density Score for Power Road Supergrid Route Density Scale Regional Local Bus Service Area Power Rd Supergrid Overall Density Score (% difference) Projected 2010 Population Density Projected 2010 Employment Density Density Score 4,003 2,411 -66 2,232 1,428 -56 NA NA -122 Source: HDR | S.R. Beard & Associates, 2007 Using the methodology described above, ridership projections for each new regionally funded route through FY 2013/2014 is provided in Table 5-5. The ridership projections are developed using basic assumptions of existing transit performance, projected population density, and projected employment density. The projections are provided as estimates only; actual ridership may vary. 5.3.2 Regionally Funded Service Adjustments and Preliminary Thresholds The TLCP provides flexibility to implement regionally funded transit services below the full funding level. This flexibility provides an opportunity to implement new routes at a service level consistent with expected passenger demand enabling new routes to build ridership and potentially be more likely to perform better in a mandatory service efficiency and effectiveness audit. The Chandler Blvd Supergrid (Route 156) was implemented with a reduced initial headway and several routes identified in Section 5.1.3 of this report have been identified as potential candidates for a phased service level implementation. Funding is currently programmed in the TLCP to provide 15 minute peak headway (from 30 minutes) service on the Chandler Blvd Supergrid Route in FY 2010. This service level increase will provide the full level of service designated in the TLCP. However, the implementation date for increasing peak headways on the Chandler Blvd Supergrid is based on budgetary programming, not route performance. 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. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 60 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements Table 5-5: Ridership Estimates for New Regionally Funded Routes Through FY 2013/2014 Route Supergrid Main Street Dobson Road Southern Ave Gilbert Road Power Road Baseline Road Arizona Avenue/Country Club University Drive Camelback Road Elliot Road Broadway Avenue Alma School Road McDowell/McKellips Road Express/BRT East Loop 101 Connector Main St Arterial BRT Papago Frwy Connector Red Mountain Express West Loop 101 Connector (renamed North Glendale Express) Apache Junction Express Arizona Avenue Arterial BRT Superstition Frwy Connector Grand Avenue Limited Pima Express Year 1 Projected Annual Ridership Year 3 Projected Annual Ridership Year 5 Projected Annual Ridership 1,007,472 537,793 1,902,921 227,436 155,410 776,776 523,871 991,944 1,896,999 456,913 1,511,514 476,679 2,765,801 1,276,060 679,739 1,902,921 330,221 233,115 924,483 722,093 1,071,685 2,586,425 456,913 1,511,514 682,464 3,572,401 1,544,647 821,685 1,902,921 433,005 310,820 1,072,191 920,314 1,151,426 3,275,850 456,913 1,511,514 888,250 4,379,001 31,315 145,132 23,088 26,316 46,973 217,698 34,633 39,474 62,631 290,264 46,177 52,632 48,972 30,932 61,936 10,869 99,164 29,248 73,458 46,398 92,904 16,303 132,695 43,872 97,943 61,864 123,873 21,737 166,226 58,496 Source: 2008 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update PAR Documents A methodology that utilizes RPTA adopted efficiency and effectiveness performance measure targets and regional service level standards is recommended. For supergrid bus routes, the adopted efficiency and effectiveness performance measure target for passenger boardings per revenue mile (2.1) and the regional local bus standard for passenger load ratio (125%) are recommended for considering increased service levels. The passenger load ratio is a measure of the passenger count at a route’s max load point divided by the number of seats provided in the vehicle. This standard has been documented in previous editions of the regional Short Range Transit Plan. Both of these variables provide a reasonable measure of passenger demand. The proposed application of the measures would require a supergrid route to meet or exceed 2.1 passenger boardings per revenue mile or have three or more consecutively sequenced trips that regularly (at least 3 of 5 weekdays for the same trip for a period of 6 consecutive or non-consecutive months within a 12 month period) exceed the regional local bus passenger load standard of 125%. If supergrid route overcrowding (exceeding 125% passenger load) occurs on less than three consecutive trips, schedule adjustments or vehicle assignment should be considered before implementing additional service. For express\arterial BRT routes, the adopted efficiency and effectiveness performance measure target for passenger boardings per revenue mile (2.1) and the regional express bus standard for Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 61 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements 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 2009 through FY 2014 Planned regionally funded transit capital improvements between FY 2008/2009 and FY 2013/2014 include transit centers (7), park-and-ride facilities (8), operations and maintenance facilities (3), and bus stops. The capital facilities investments include expansion and rehabilitation of some existing facilities as well as new facilities. Table 5-6 summarizes the 18 regionally funded transit facilities programmed for funding between FY 2009/2010 and FY 2013/2014. Table 5-6: Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2009 and FY 2014 Facility Happy Valley Rd & I-17 Park-and-Ride Grand/Surprise Park-and-Ride Cactus Rd & Loop 101 Park-and-Ride Price Freeway & Loop 202 Park-and-Ride (Chandler Tumbleweed PNR) 19th Ave & Camelback Rd Transit Center South Tempe Transit Center Downtown Chandler Transit Center South Chandler Transit Center Mesa Downtown Transit Center Country Club Dr & US 60 (Superstition Freeway) Park-and-Ride East Buckeye Park-and-Ride Metrocenter Rehabilitation / Expansion Peoria/Grand Park-and-Ride Glendale/Grand Park-and-Ride Glendale / Grand Transit Center Central Station Rehabilitation / Expansion Phoenix Heavy Maintenance Facility Phoenix South Fixed Route O&M Rehabilitation Mesa Fixed Route O&M Rehabilitation Pre-Design (FY) 2009 2009 2009 Design (FY) 2009 2009 2009 Land (FY) 2009 2009 2009 Construction \ Open (FY) 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2011 2011 2011 2010 2011 2014 2014 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2009 2010 2010 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2009 2010 NA 2012 2012 2012 NA 2013 NA NA 2009 2009 2011 2011 2011 2010 2011 2011 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 Note: Phoenix Paratransit O&M facility was originally programmed in the TLCP to be constructed and open in FY 2013. The facility was delayed to a year outside of the TLCP as identified in the FY 2008 TLCP Update. The facility is eligible to be reinstated if regional revenues become available. Source: 2008 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update In addition to major passenger and operations maintenance facilities the TLCP identifies regional funds for bus stop construction and upgrade throughout the region. An application and project prioritization process has been established by the RPTA to administer regional capital funds programmed for bus stop improvements. Table 5-7 provides an annual summary of the level of regional funding programmed for bus stop improvements between FY 2008/2009 and FY 2013/2014 based on the FY 2008 TLCP Update Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 62 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements Table 5-7: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2009 through FY 2014 TLCP Fiscal Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total TLCP Programmed Funding1 $5,468,835 $1,672,137 $1,722,301 $1,773,970 $1,827,189 $1,882,004 $14,346,436 1 Funding subject to change based on annual budget Source: 2008 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update 5.4.2 Comparison of Funded Transit Facility Investments and Implementation (FY 2009) Several of the facilities programmed in the FY 2008 TLCP Update for implementation in FY 2009 are projects that were delayed to FY 2009 as the facilities were not constructed in the original programmed year. Six regionally funded transit facility improvements are programmed for opening in FY 2009 (including facilities delayed from FY 2008). Based upon current project status, completion of all six facilities programmed for completion in FY 2009 will not be open for service until at least FY 2010. See Table 5-8 for the current project status of each regionally funded transit facility through FY 2014. 5.4.3 Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2010 through FY 2014 Regionally funded transit capital improvements support locally and regionally funded transit operations. The capital improvements identified in the FY 2008 TLCP Update for FY 2008/2009 through FY 2013/2014 will create opportunities to optimize transit operations and route connections. Table 5-8 provides a summary of initial planning considerations for each regionally funded capital improvement planned through FY 2013/2014. Most of the considerations identified are related to providing adequate capacity for vehicles at transit facilities. 5.4.4 Funded Regional Transit Expansion Vehicles: FY 2009 through FY 2014 To support fixed route service expansion through FY 2014, the TLCP identifies the acquisition of 298 vehicles between FY 2010 and 2014. The TLCP fleet expansion plan provides for the acquisition of vehicles in the fiscal year prior to service need. For existing routes that are programmed to be supported by PTF funding, the existing fleet already assigned to the route is considered in the fleet expansion plan. For example, the Gilbert Rd Supergrid route is programmed to receive two additional vehicles for service expansion in FY 2010. When fully implemented, the route will need a total of eight buses to provide service; six in-service vehicles plus two spare vehicles. The route is currently assigned six vehicles. Table 5-9 provides a summary of the regionally funded fleet expansion plans for fixed route, paratransit, rural connectors and vanpools, while the detailed (by route) fixed route fleet expansion requirements for new and expanded services programmed to be implemented between FY 2010 and 2014 are summarized in Table 5-10. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 63 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements Table 5-8: Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2009 through FY 2014 Facility Happy Valley Rd & I-17 Park-and-Ride Programmed Opening 1 Year (FY) 2009 Current Project 2 Status Preferred site selected and design is in progress General 3 Location Happy Valley Rd & I-17 Existing Facility No Grand/Surprise Park-and-Ride 2009 Site selection and predesign process in progress Bell Rd & Grand Ave No Cactus Rd & Loop 101 Park-and-Ride 2009 Site selection and predesign process in progress Cactus Rd & Loop 101 (Pima Frwy) No Price Freeway & Loop 202 Parkand-Ride (Chandler Tumbleweed PNR) 2009 Scheduled to open in December 2008 No 19th Ave & Camelback Rd Transit Center 2009 Project has not been formally initiated North of Germann Rd between Arizona Ave & McQueen Rd 19th Ave & Camelback Rd South Tempe Transit Center 2009 5 St and College Ave No Downtown Chandler Transit Center 2010 Site selection and predesign process in progress Site selection process in progress Chandler Blvd & Arizona Ave No Mesa Downtown Transit Center 2011 Project will be formally initiated after completion of Mesa AA Main St & Center St No th Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 No Considerations Consider inclusion of bus stop space for potential connecting routes: I-17 RAPID, Route 35, Deer Run Circulator, Black Canyon Freeway Connector (FY 2016), Anthem Express (FY 2018) and North I-17 Express (FY 2022). Consider inclusion of bus stop space for potential connecting routes: Route 571, Route 572, Grand Ave Limited RTP Expansion (2013), Bell Rd Supergrid (2019) and Loop 303 Express (FY 2023). Consider inclusion of bus stop space for potential connecting routes: Route 511, Route 512, Route 572 and future locally funded services. Consider inclusion of bus stop space for potential connecting routes: Route 511, Arizona Ave Dedicated BRT (FY 2011), Arizona Ave\Country Club Dr Supergrid (FY 2012) and San Tan Express (FY 2018). Location already has PNR facility and PNR facility is located with .75 miles of th Ave & proposed site near 19 Montebello. Consider applying programmed funds to another passenger facility. The City of Phoenix is the benefactor of the programmed regional funds for this facility. None. Facility has already been designed and constructed. Consider inclusion of bus stop space for potential connecting routes: Route 112 (AZ Ave\Country Club Supergrid), Route 156 (Chandler Blvd Supergrid), Arizona Ave Dedicated BRT (2011), San Tan Express (2018) and Chandler Blvd Dedicated BRT (2024). Facility may also be served by Route 104 until route extends south to Ocotillo Rd in 2014. Consider inclusion of bus stop space for potential connecting routes: Main St Supergrid (2009), Main St Dedicated BRT (2009), Mesa Downtown Circulator (2009) Route 45 (Broadway Rd Supergrid), Route 104 (Alma School Rd Supergrid), Route 112 (AZ Ave\Country Club Supergrid) and Route 120. Continuation of Supergrid routes 45 (FY 2013), 104 (FY 2014) and 112 (FY 2012) into the facility to be determined when Supergrid routing for each route is implemented. 64 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements Facility Country Club Dr & US 60 (Superstition Freeway) Parkand-Ride Programmed Opening 1 Year (FY) 2010 Current Project 2 Status Site selection process in progress General 3 Location Country Club Dr & US 60 I-10 & Verado Way Metrocenter Mall (Metro Pkwy & Tree Lane) East Buckeye Park-and-Ride 2011 Preferred site selected Metrocenter Rehabilitation / Expansion 2011 Project has not been formally initiated Peoria/Grand Park-and-Ride 2013 Project has not been formally initiated Peoria Ave & Loop 101 (Agua Fria) Glendale/Grand Park-and-Ride 2013 Finished site selection and initial design concept 59 Ave & Glendale Ave Glendale / Grand Transit Center 2013 Central Station Rehabilitation / Expansion 2014 Finished site selection and initial design concept Project has not been formally initiated 59 Ave & Glendale Ave Central Ave & Van Buren St Phoenix Heavy Maintenance Facility 2014 Land acquisition completed Phoenix South Fixed Route O&M Rehabilitation 2015 Project has not been formally initiated Adjacent to Phoenix West O&M Facility-Van Buren St th & 75 Ave st 21 Ave & Lower Buckeye Mesa Fixed Route O&M Rehabilitation 2015 Project has not been formally initiated Existing Facility No No Yes No th No th No Greenfield Rd & Virginia St Yes No Yes Yes Considerations Consider inclusion of bus stop space for potential connecting routes: Apache Junction Express (FY 2011) and Superstitions Springs Express (FY 2019). Route 61, Route 531 Gilbert Express, Route 112 (AZ Ave\Country Club Supergrid), Arizona Ave Dedicated BRT (2011), and Superstition Freeway Connector (FY 2012) may also be considered to serve the facility depending upon the site selected. Consider inclusion of bus stop space for potential connecting routes: 562 and Buckeye Express (2015). Consider inclusion of bus stop space for potential connecting routes: Route 15 (replaces Red Line FY 2009), Route 27, Route 35, Route 90 (supergrid service begins FY 2021), Route 106, Route 122, Route 570 (scheduled to discontinue in FY 2013), Route 581, I17 RAPID, Black Canyon Fwy Connector (2016), and North I-17 Express (2022). Consider inclusion of bus stop space for potential connecting routes: Route 106 (Peoria\Shea Supergrid), 83rd Ave/75th Ave Supergrid (2023) and Peoria Express (2014). In addition, Route 573 could potentially serve the facility. Consider combining with transit center (see next facility in table) and including bus stop space for potential connecting routes: Route 59 (59th Ave Supergrid), Route 70 (Glendale Ave Supergrid), Grand Ave Limited and GUS. Facility may also be served by future light rail extension. See Glendale/Grand Park-and-Ride considerations. Consider inclusion of bus stop space for potential connecting routes: DASH, Route 0, Route 3, Route 8, Route 10, Route 12, Route 15, Route 27, Route 560, Route 562, Route 571, Route 573, Route 575, Grand Ave Limited, I-10 West RAPID and Light Rail. Consider incorporating some additional capacity for non-heavy maintenance activities and vehicle storage to address O&M facility deficiencies projected before year 2026. Consider possible future service expansions, including additional capacity for maintenance activities and vehicle storage to address O&M facility deficiencies projected before year 2026. Consider possible future service expansions, including additional capacity for maintenance activities and vehicle storage to address O&M facility deficiencies projected before year 2026. Source: 2008 Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update PAR Documents Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 65 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements 1 Year of opening subject to change Current status as of November 2008 3 Location is subject to change based on site availability and other variables 2 Table 5-9: Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles Fiscal Year For Acquisition 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Fixed Route 18 25 33 42 51 169 Paratransit 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rural 0 0 0 4 0 4 Vanpool 25 25 25 25 25 125 Source: RPTA, 2008 Table 5-10: Planned Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles FY 2010 through FY 2014 Route Gilbert Road Power Rd Baseline Rd Apache Junction Express Arizona Ave Dedicated BRT Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive University Drive Superstition Freeway Connector Chandler Blvd Peak Headway Expansion Broadway Rd Camelback Rd Elliot Rd Grand Ave Limited Pima Express Alma School Rd McDowell Rd/McKellips Rd Peoria Express Scottsdale/Rural Rd Dedicated BRT City of Phoenix General Local Buses Expansion Total FY Service Implemented 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 --- Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles (Fiscal Year Acquired) FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 2 6 11 5 9 8 9 4 7 7 7 12 11 5 9 17 6 14 10 5 5 18 25 33 42 51 Source: RPTA, 2008 5.4.5 Comparison of Funded Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles and Implementation (FY 2009) Fixed route fleet requirements for regionally funded service expansion are calculated based on the availability of existing fleet, federally required fleet ratios and a mathematical formula that considers route length, peak headway and an average operating speed. Variances in these variables result in differences between estimated fleet requirements and actual fleet requirements. Fixed route fleet acquired for service expansion in FY 2008 and FY 2009 was less than the estimated quantity of vehicles identified in the TLCP. In total, 34 fewer buses were acquired, including 20 fewer articulated buses (60’ bus). A benefit of acquiring fewer vehicles includes long-term savings through reducing future replacement vehicle requirements. Table 5- Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 66 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements 11 provides a comparison of planned regional fixed route transit expansion vehicles and actual vehicles acquired for service expansion in FY 2008 and FY 2009. Table 5-11: Comparison of Planned Regional Fixed Route Transit Expansion Vehicles and Vehicles Acquired (FY 2008 and FY 2009) Route Main St Supergrid (40) Dobson Rd Supergrid (96) Southern Ave Supergrid (61) Chandler Blvd Supergrid (156) Glendale Ave Supergrid (70) Papgo Frwy Connector (562) Loop 101 East Connector (511) Loop 101 West Connector (574) Red Mountain Express (534) Main St LINK BRT Total Fixed Route Expansion Vehicles TLCP Fleet Plan Actual Vehicles Acquired 40' Bus 60' Bus Total 40' Bus 60' Bus Total 13 0 13 13 0 13 12 0 12 11 0 11 17 0 17 4 0 4 20 0 20 15 0 15 18 0 18 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 8 8 8 0 8 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 7 7 0 10 10 80 30 110 66 10 76 Source: RPTA, 2008 5.5 REGIONAL PLANNING STUDIES AND RELATED PROJECTS Specialized planning studies and related projects may be necessary to support short range and long range transit planning processes to help identify potential regional transit opportunities, constraints, strategies and refinements. RPTA is currently working on the Regional Comprehensive Arterial BRT Study to define the region’s arterial BRT program, which is funded by regional Public Transportation Fund (PTF) revenues; however investments in additional studies or planning related projects may be beneficial. Other regional studies and planning related projects that are recommended for consideration by the region include the following: • Service Thresholds for Regionally Funded Services and Facilities: Section 5.1.5 of this document provides recommendation for determining when a regionally funded bus route has reached a performance level that warrants improved service frequency. The development of thresholds for other service types (arterial BRT, LRT, etc.) and other service parameters as well as facilities (park-and-rides, transit centers, etc.) may help in implementing an efficient regional transit system that increases the likelihood of positive results from the mandatory efficiency and effectiveness audits. • Regional Transit Safety and Security Implementation Plan: The purpose of this study is to prioritize the implementation of strategic measures identified in the Regional Safety and Security Plan (November 2006). The 2006 plan identifies potential transit safety and security vulnerabilities but does not provide a prioritized schedule to implement the mitigating measures identified. • Comprehensive Regional Bus Stop Inventory: A comprehensive bus stop inventory of the entire region was last completed in 2002. Regular updates of the bus stop inventory have not consistently included the entire region’s stock of bus stop locations\facilities. A Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 67 Chapter 5 – Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements comprehensive regional bus stop inventory will provide more accurate information for regional and local operations and facility planning, and more reliable passenger information. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 68 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding 6.0 REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDING Regional public transit services are provided in the region through multiple funding sources including regional sales tax collections, passenger fares, state sources and federal grants. Local funding sources including municipal general fund allocations and local sales tax collections also contribute significantly towards fulfilling some of the elements of the regional transit system. While local contributions serve as an important component of the regional transit system, this chapter is limited to the revenue and expenditure estimates associated with the regional transit service and capital investments identified in the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP). 6.1 REGIONAL FIXED ROUTE BUS & PARATRANSIT FUNDING 6.1.1 Revenues Regional transit revenues in the TLCP allocated for fixed route bus and paratransit investments can be classified into five general revenue categories. The revenue categories include: • Public Transportation Fund (PTF) – Regional transportation sales tax approved by voters as part of Proposition 400 in November 2004. • Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) – Funds generated from the regional transportation sales tax provided for regional transit planning, operations and related activities • Federal Allocations – Federal allocations are awarded to the region through multiple federal programs including formula distributions that are based on the region’s population, on-going transit investments and transit system performance and discretionary investments that are awarded on a limited basis. • 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 2008/09 through FY 2013/14. 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 2008 TLCP Update. Table 6-1: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues (in $millions) Revenue Category FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY 2014 $81.2 $4.3 $58.4 $9.8 $2.1 $86.2 $4.4 $33.0 $11.9 $1.5 $91.8 $4.6 $51.9 $12.8 $0.7 $98.1 $4.7 $55.4 $14.6 $0.4 $104.7 $4.8 $70.1 $17.9 $2.3 $111.8 $5.0 $74.6 $20.9 $0.8 $573.7 $27.8 $343.4 $88.0 $7.7 $155.7 Total Source: 2008 RPTA TLCP Update $137.0 $161.8 $173.2 $199.8 $213.0 $1,040.5 Public Transportation Fund Regional Area Road Fund Federal Allocations Passenger Fares Interest Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Total 67 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding Figure 6-1: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues FY 2009 - FY 2014 Passenger Fares 8% Interest 0% Federal Allocations 33% Public Transportation Fund 55% Regional Area Road Fund 3% Source: 2008 RPTA TLCP Update 6.1.2 Expenditures Regional transit expenditures in the TLCP allocated for fixed route bus and paratransit investments can be classified into seven general expenditure categories. The expenditure categories include: • Regional Bus Operations – Regional bus operations includes PTF funded fixed route bus service (Supergrid, Express, Arterial BRT, Rural Connectors), operations contingency, annual contributions to the operating reserve and regional safety and security. • Paratransit Operations – Includes regional funding for ADA reimbursements and allocations for Sun Cities Area Transit (SCAT). • RPTA Planning & Administration – Expenditures associated with on-going regional transit planning and agency administration. • Regional Services – Expenditures for regional transit customer service, Bus Book production and other regional based programs. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 68 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding • Transit Vehicles – Includes regional purchases for expansion and replacement of fixed route bus, paratransit, and vanpool vehicles. Other elements in this category include vehicle contingency and vehicle upgrades (Intelligent Transportation System\Vehicle Management Systems [ITS\VMS], fareboxes, etc.). • Dedicated BRT ROW – Regional investments in purchasing and upgrading right-of-way for arterial bus rapid transit operations • Capital Facilities – Regional capital investments for passenger facilities (park-and-rides, transit centers and bus stops), operations and maintenance facilities, and capital contingency. The TLCP is updated on an annual basis to determine reasonable estimates for future year expenditures. Table 6-2 identifies the projected expenditures summarized by the seven general categories described above for FY 2008/09 through FY 2013/14. Figure 6-2 illustrates the total expenditures by category for the same time period. The expenditure estimates represent the most recent updated information for the region based on the FY 2008 TLCP Update. Table 6-2: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures FY 2009 - FY 2014 (in $millions) Revenue Category FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Regional Bus Operations Paratransit Operations RPTA Planning & Administration Regional Services Transit Vehicles Dedicated BRT ROW Capital Facilities $40.2 $10.2 $7.2 $9.0 $45.4 $14.0 $101.5 $48.1 $10.8 $5.6 $8.6 $54.5 $11.1 $11.1 $51.7 $11.5 $5.1 $8.9 $84.1 $0.0 $9.9 $59.9 $12.3 $5.3 $9.1 $70.9 $18.7 $58.1 $74.3 $13.1 $5.5 $9.4 $75.1 $29.1 $41.6 $86.8 $14.0 $5.6 $9.7 $32.4 $10.2 $41.5 $361.0 $72.0 $34.3 $54.7 $362.4 $83.0 $263.7 Total Source: 2008 RPTA TLCP Update $227.6 $149.9 $171.2 $234.3 $248.1 $200.2 $1,231.1 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 FY2012 FY2013 FY 2014 Total 69 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding Figure 6-2: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (in $millions) Capital Facilities 21% Regional Bus Operations 30% Dedicated BRT ROW 7% Transit Vehicles 30% Paratransit Operations 6% Regional Services 6% RPTA Planning Administration 4% Source: 2008 RPTA TLCP Update 6.2 REGIONAL HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT CAPITAL FUNDING 6.2.1 Revenues High capacity transit (HCT) includes modes such as light rail transit, modern streetcar, or bus rapid transit normally traveling in exclusive or semi-exclusive lanes. Regional transit revenues in the TLCP allocated for high capacity transit capital investments can be classified into four general revenue categories. While a regional service, HCT operations costs are funded from local jurisdictions served by an HCT route. The HCT capital program revenue categories include: • Public Transportation Fund (PTF) – Regional transportation sales tax approved by voters in November 2004. • Federal Allocations – Federal allocations awarded to the region through multiple federal programs. • Local – Local municipal contributions. • Interest – Includes interest earned on year-end cash balance. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 70 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding Table 6-3 identifies the projected revenues summarized by the four HCT capital revenue categories for FY 2008/09 through FY 2013/14. Figure 6-3 illustrates the total revenues by category for the same time period. The revenue estimates represent the most recent updated information for the region based on the FY 2008 TLCP Update. Table 6-3: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Revenues (in $millions) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY 2014 Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Federal Allocations Local Interest Revenue Category $61.8 $5.4 $64.1 $0.0 $65.6 $10.0 $56.8 $0.0 $70.0 $31.7 $38.0 $0.0 $74.7 $52.1 $42.0 $0.0 $79.8 $67.8 $12.5 $0.0 $85.1 $92.0 $25.3 $0.0 Total $437.1 $258.9 $238.7 $0.0 Total Source: 2008 RPTA TLCP Update $131.3 $132.5 $139.7 $168.8 $160.1 $202.3 $934.7 Figure 6-3: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Revenues FY 2009 - FY 2014 Local 26% Public Transportation Fund (PTF) 46% Federal Allocations 28% Source: 2008 RPTA TLCP Update Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 71 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 2008/09 through FY 2013/14. 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 2008 TLCP Update. Table 6-4: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Expenditures (in $millions) Expenditure Category HCT Guideway Extensions Reimbursements Studies & Design Criteria Systemwide Support Infrastructure* FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY 2014 $81.9 $55.9 $1.3 $0.0 $86.9 $47.1 $0.9 $0.0 $108.8 $34.8 $0.9 $0.0 $171.5 $0.0 $0.9 $0.0 $193.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $276.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Total $918.5 $137.7 $4.1 $0.0 Total $139.1 $134.9 $144.4 $172.4 $193.2 $276.3 $1,060.3 Source: 2008 RPTA TLCP Update * While no expenses are attributed to this category in FY 2008/09 through FY 2013/14, expenses are programmed in future years. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 72 Chapter 6 – Regional Transit Funding Figure 6-4: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Expenditures FY 2009 - FY 2014 Systemwide Support Infrastructure 0% Reimbursements 13% High Capacity Guideway Extensions 87% Source: 2008 RPTA TLCP Update 6.3 REGIONAL TRANSIT FINANCING Based on the estimated sources of revenues and programmed expenditures through FY 2013/14 there are several years that expenditures exceed revenues. Many regional transit service and capital investments are dependent upon the ability to maintain adequate cash flow to be implemented as identified in this plan. The TLCP includes financing through the issuance of bonds to maintain positive cash flows. Based on the FY 2008 TLCP Update, two bus program bond issuances valued at $180.2 million and $183.1 million were planned for FY 2008/09 and FY 2012/13 respectively to provide a positive annual cash flow through the period identified in this plan. The HCT program has a separate financing strategy to address cash flow for these projects. Changes in the level of estimated revenues or expenditures could either positively or negatively affect the programmed implementation schedules and scope of the projects identified herein. Through the annual TLCP update process, estimates for short and long range revenues and expenditures are reviewed to determine the financial fitness of the regional transit program. Appropriate finance strategies and other actions are considered annually to maintain a reasonable and sustainable finance plan. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 73 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 74 APPENDIX A Table A-1: FY 2007 Regional Transit System Data FY 2007 System Data Total Wheelchair Boardings 251,738 n/a n/a Total Vehicle Miles 32,683,900 8,749,218 5,264,469 46,697,586 Total Revenue Miles 28,947,560 n/a 5,253,578 34,201,137 System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Total System Total Boardings 58,184,595 922,790 1,418,466 60,525,851 System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Total System Total Revenue Hours 1,966,138 532,031 131,612 2,629,781 Operating Cost $152,662,789 $29,505,513 $2,305,045 $184,473,347 Capital Cost n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Cost n/a n/a n/a n/a System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Total System Total Passenger Revenues $37,000,313 $1,302,579 $2,650,738 $40,953,630 Percent OnTime Performance 91.55% 95.39% ------93.47% Vehicle Accidents n/a n/a n/a n/a Farebox Recovery Ratio 24.24% 4.41% 115% 22.20% System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Total System Boardings Per Revenue Hour 29.59 1.73 10.78 23.02 Boardings per Revenue Mile 2.01 n/a 0.27 1.77 Operating Cost per Boarding $2.62 $31.97 $1.63 $3.05 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $77.65 $55.46 $17.51 $70.15 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Total Vehicle Hours n/a n/a n/a n/a Operating Cost per Revenue Mile $5.28 n/a $0.44 $5.40 75 APPENDIX A Table A-2: Operations and Performance Data for FY 2003 through FY 2007 Revenue Miles System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route 25,199,371 25,885,061 25,736,871 26,133,953 28,766,992 Shuttle/Circulator 1,157,936 1,196,425 1,177,451 1,237,806 ------Dial-a-Ride 7,185,339 8,052,626 7,623,118 7,865,367 n/a Rural Connector ------------------132,600 ------Vanpool 3,639,578 3,568,488 3,900,162 4,717,293 5,253,578 Total System 37,182,224 38,702,600 38,454,239 40,087,019 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 10.08% 14.16% ------------n/a n/a ------------11.37% 44.35% Revenue Hours System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route 1,741,760 1,812,653 1,743,150 1,861,464 1,966,138 Shuttle/Circulator 82,473 91,867 86,288 107,711 ------Dial-a-Ride 550,531 551,554 546,078 532,887 532,031 Rural Connector ------------------4,335 ------Vanpool 90,989 89,212 97,504 117,932 131,612 Total System 2,465,752 2,545,286 2,473,560 2,624,329 2,629,781 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 5.62% 12.88% -------------0.16% -3.36% ------------11.60% 44.65% 0.21% 6.65% On-Time Performance System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route 92.5% 91.0% 92.5% 90.7% 91.5% Shuttle/Circulator 93.6% 94.1% 94.0% 96.0% ------Dial-a-Ride 91.6% 92.8% 93.5% 94.9% 95.4% Rural Connector ------------------0.0% ------Vanpool ------------------------------93.5% Total System 92.6% 92.6% 93.3% 93.9% Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 0.94% -1.03% ------------0.48% 4.13% -------------------------0.40% 0.90% Total Boardings System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route 48,190,883 51,815,468 54,012,208 55,832,297 58,184,595 Shuttle/Circulator 2,319,653 2,564,667 2,969,448 3,023,025 ------Dial-a-Ride 1,029,378 1,034,742 1,063,600 938,879 922,790 Rural Connector ------------------------------Vanpool 941,682 975,156 1,025,136 1,270,416 1,418,466 Total System 52,481,596 56,390,033 59,070,596 61,067,461 60,525,851 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 4.21% 20.74% -------------1.71% -10.35% ------------11.65% 50.63% -0.89% 15.33% Wheelchair Boardings System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route 189,448 195,277 214,024 222,878 251,738 Shuttle/Circulator 3,002 3,111 4,376 1,793 ------Dial-a-Ride 166,650 172,896 185,275 186,603 n/a Rural Connector ------------------------------Vanpool NR NR NR 304 n/a Total System 359,100 371,284 403,675 411,578 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 12.95% 32.88% ------------n/a n/a ------------n/a n/a 76 APPENDIX A Boardings per Revenue Mile System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route 1.91 2.00 2.10 2.14 2.01 Shuttle/Circulator 2.00 2.14 2.52 2.44 ------Dial-a-Ride 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.12 n/a Rural Connector ------------------0.02 ------Vanpool 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.27 Total System 1.41 1.46 1.54 1.54 1.77 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 -5.92% 5.10% ------------n/a n/a ------------0.26% 4.35% 15.22% 25.40% Boardings per Revenue Hour System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route 27.67 28.59 30.99 29.99 29.59 Shuttle/Circulator 28.13 27.92 34.41 28.07 ------Dial-a-Ride 1.87 1.88 1.95 1.76 1.73 Rural Connector ------------------------------Vanpool 10.35 10.93 10.51 10.77 10.78 Total System 21.28 22.15 23.88 23.27 23.02 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 -1.33% 6.96% -------------1.56% -7.24% ------------0.05% 4.14% -1.09% 8.13% Accidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route 0.84 0.01 0.01 1.22 n/a Shuttle/Circulator 1.10 1.91 0.36 1.10 ------Dial-a-Ride 0.86 0.83 0.59 0.87 n/a Rural Connector ------------------------------Vanpool 0.77 0.70 0.72 0.02 n/a Total System 0.85 0.29 0.20 1.04 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 n/a n/a ------------n/a n/a ------------n/a n/a Operating Expenses System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route $120,710,747 $126,955,128 $121,945,969 $129,643,141 $152,662,789 Shuttle/Circulator $3,631,063 $3,787,135 $4,914,905 $4,879,358 ------Dial-a-Ride $23,496,877 $24,333,403 $27,961,152 $26,805,994 $29,505,513 Rural Connector ------------------------------Vanpool $1,873,665 $1,940,161 $1,702,112 $2,158,282 $2,305,045 Total System $149,712,352 $157,015,827 $156,590,693 $163,790,117 $184,473,347 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 17.76% 26.47% ------------10.07% 25.57% ------------6.80% 23.02% 12.63% 23.22% Total Passenger Revenue System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route $26,919,917 $29,984,245 $32,825,197 $31,883,320 $37,000,313 Shuttle/Circulator $10,513 $12,021 $15,992 $16,326 ------Dial-a-Ride $1,259,045 $1,263,195 $1,244,350 $1,307,546 $1,302,579 Rural Connector ------------------------------Vanpool $1,533,316 $1,606,046 $1,791,450 $2,328,632 $2,650,738 Total System $29,722,791 $32,865,507 $35,877,630 $35,544,535 $40,953,630 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 16.05% 37.45% -------------0.38% 3.46% ------------13.83% 72.88% 15.22% 37.79% 77 APPENDIX A Farebox Recovery Ratio System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route 22.30% 23.62% 26.92% 24.59% 24.24% Shuttle/Circulator 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% ------Dial-a-Ride 5.38% 5.19% 4.45% 4.88% 4.41% Rural Connector ------------------------------Vanpool 81.84% 82.78% 105.25% 107.89% 115.00% Total System 36.50% 27.98% 27.58% 28.11% 22.20% Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 -1.44% 8.69% -------------9.59% -17.98% ------------6.59% 40.53% -21.04% -39.19% Operating Cost per Boarding System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route $2.50 $2.45 $2.26 $2.32 $2.62 Shuttle/Circulator $1.57 $1.48 $1.66 $1.61 ------Dial-a-Ride $22.83 $23.52 $26.29 $28.55 $31.97 Rural Connector ------------------------------Vanpool $1.99 $1.99 $1.66 $1.70 $1.63 Total System $2.85 $2.78 $2.65 $2.68 $3.05 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 12.83% 4.60% ------------11.97% 40.06% -------------4.05% -18.08% 13.72% 6.92% Net Operating Cost per Boarding System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route $1.95 $1.87 $1.65 $1.75 $1.99 Shuttle/Circulator $1.56 $1.47 $1.66 $1.56 ------Dial-a-Ride $21.60 $22.30 $25.12 $27.16 $30.56 Rural Connector ------------------------------Vanpool $0.36 $0.34 -$0.09 -$0.13 -$0.24 Total System $2.29 $2.20 $2.04 $2.10 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 13.53% 2.14% ------------12.53% 41.47% ------------81.75% -167.43% Operating Cost per Revenue Mile System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route $4.79 $4.90 $4.74 $4.96 5.31 Shuttle/Circulator $3.14 $3.17 $4.17 $3.94 ------Dial-a-Ride $3.27 $3.02 $3.67 $3.41 n/a Rural Connector ------------------------------Vanpool $0.51 $0.54 $0.44 $0.46 n/a Total System $4.03 $4.06 $4.07 $4.09 #DIV/0! Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 6.98% 10.79% ------------n/a n/a ------------n/a n/a Operating Cost per Revenue Hour System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route $69.30 $70.04 $69.96 $69.65 $77.65 Shuttle/Circulator $44.03 $41.22 $56.96 $45.30 ------Dial-a-Ride $42.68 $44.12 $51.20 $50.30 $55.46 Rural Connector ------------------------------Vanpool $20.59 $21.75 $17.46 $18.30 $17.51 Total System $60.72 $61.69 $63.31 $62.41 $70.15 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 11.49% 12.04% ------------10.25% 29.94% -------------4.30% -14.95% 12.39% 15.53% 78 APPENDIX A Fare Revenue per Boarding System FY 2003 Total FY 2004 Total FY 2005 Total FY 2006 Total FY 2007 Total Fixed Route $0.56 $0.58 $0.61 $0.57 $0.64 Shuttle/Circulator $0.00 $0.00 $0.01 $0.01 ------Dial-a-Ride $1.22 $1.22 $1.17 $1.39 $1.41 Rural Connector ------------------------------Vanpool $1.63 $1.65 $1.75 $1.83 $1.87 Total System $0.57 $0.58 $0.61 $0.58 $0.68 Notes: 1. Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Percent Change Percent Change From FYs 2006- From FYs 20032007 2007 11.36% 13.84% ------------1.36% 15.41% ------------1.95% 14.77% 16.25% 19.47% 79 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 80 APPENDIX B Table B-1: Operations and Performance Data for FY 1995 through FY 2007 Boardings % Change From Previous Year % Change From Shuttle/ Previous Circulator Year ------937,154 1,753,179 87.1% 32.3% 2,319,653 9.8% 2,546,667 2,969,448 16.6% 3,023,025 1.8% --- % Change From Previous Year Dial-A FY Fixed Route Ride 1995 34,979,080 795,019 35,028,406 0.1% 795,019 0.0% 1996 1997 35,141,668 0.3% 959,400 20.7% 1998 36,377,705 3.5% 938,659 -2.2% 1999 37,366,572 2.7% n/a n/a 37,496,804 0.3% 968,120 n/a 2000 39,313,693 4.8% 1,023,700 5.7% 2001 2002 43,523,952 10.7% 1,023,885 0.0% 2003 1,029,378 0.5% 49,190,883 13.0% 1,034,742 0.5% 51,815,468 5.3% 2004 54,912,208 6.0% 1,063,600 2.8% 2005 2006 55,832,297 1.7% 938,879 -11.7% 2007* 58,184,595 4.2% 922,790 -1.7% % Change 1998-2007 59.9% n/a -1.7% Note: *Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector Totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data. Total 35,774,099 35,823,425 36,101,068 37,316,364 37,366,572 38,464,924 41,274,547 46,301,017 52,539,914 55,396,877 58,945,256 59,794,201 59,107,385 % Change From Previous Year 0.1% 0.8% 3.4% 0.1% 2.9% 7.3% 12.2% 13.5% 5.4% 6.4% 1.4% -1.1% 58.4% Revenue Miles % Change From Previous Year % Change From Shuttle/ Previous Circulator Year ------------n/a 1,060,183 n/a 9.2% 1,157,936 3.3% 1,196,425 1,177,451 -1.6% 1,237,806 5.1% --- % Change From Previous Year Dial-A FY Fixed Route Ride 1995 13,664,992 5,213,388 14,331,831 4.9% 5,213,388 1996 1997 14,740,186 2.8% 5,507,665 1998 16,198,218 9.9% 5,699,540 1999 16,226,425 0.2% 5,581,523 18,039,016 11.2% 6,100,013 2000 20,633,013 14.4% 6,852,797 2001 2002 23046161 11.7% 7,034,138 2003 7,185,339 25,199,371 9.3% 8,052,626 25,885,061 2.7% 2004 25,736,871 -0.6% 7,623,118 2005 2006 26,133,953 1.5% 7,865,367 2007* 28,766,992 10.1% n/a % Change 1998-2007 77.6% n/a Note: *Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector Totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 0.0% 5.6% 3.5% -2.1% 9.3% 12.3% 2.6% 2.1% 12.1% -5.3% 3.2% n/a n/a Total 18,878,380 19,545,219 20,247,851 21,897,758 21,807,948 24,139,029 27,485,810 31,140,482 33,542,646 35,134,112 34,537,440 35,237,126 28,766,992 % Change From Previous Year 3.5% 3.6% 8.1% -0.4% 10.7% 13.9% 13.3% 7.7% 4.7% -1.7% 2.0% -18.4% 31.4% 81 APPENDIX B Boardings/Revenue Mile % Change From Previous Year % Change From Shuttle/ Previous Circulator Year % Change From Previous Year Dial-A FY Fixed Route Ride 1995 2.6 0.2 2.4 -4.5% 0.2 0.0% 1996 1997 2.4 -2.5% 0.2 14.2% 1998 2.2 -5.8% 0.2 -5.5% 1999 2.3 2.5% n/a n/a 2.1 -9.7% 0.2 n/a 2000 1.9 -8.3% 1.5 0.1 -5.9% 2001 2002 1.9 -0.9% 1.7 9.5% 0.1 -2.6% 2003 21.1% 0.1 -1.6% 2.0 3.4% 2.0 2.0 2.5% 2.1 6.3% 0.1 -10.3% 2004 2.1 6.6% 2.5 18.5% 0.1 8.6% 2005 2006 2.1 0.1% 2.4 -3.2% 0.1 -14.4% 2007* 2.0 -5.3% ----n/a n/a % Change 1998-2007 -9.9% n/a n/a Note: *Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector Totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data. % Change From Previous Year Total 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.1 -3.3% -2.7% -4.4% 0.5% -7.0% -5.8% -1.0% 5.3% 0.7% 8.2% -0.6% 21.1% 20.6% Operating Costs % Change From Previous Year % Change From Shuttle/ Previous Circulator Year % Change From Previous Year Dial-A Ride FY Fixed Route 1995 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1996 1997 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1998 n/a $11,811,483 n/a $61,579,208 1999 $65,686,899 6.7% $13,523,191 14.5% $74,743,277 13.8% $15,606,135 15.4% 2000 $93,806,320 25.5% $2,401,130 $18,359,527 17.6% 2001 2002 $106,208,292 13.2% $3,611,664 50.4% $21,517,640 17.2% 2003 $120,710,747 13.7% $3,631,063 0.5% $23,496,877 9.2% $126,955,128 5.2% $3,787,135 4.3% $24,333,403 3.6% 2004 $121,945,969 -3.9% $4,914,905 29.8% $27,961,152 14.9% 2005 2006 $129,643,141 6.3% $4,879,358 -0.7% $26,805,994 -4.1% 2007 $152,662,789 17.8% ----- $29,505,513 10.1% % Change 1998-2007 147.9% n/a 149.8% Note: *Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector Totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Total $73,390,691 $79,210,090 $90,349,412 $114,566,977 $131,337,597 $147,838,687 $155,075,666 $154,822,026 $161,328,493 $182,168,302 % Change From Previous Year 7.9% 14.1% 26.8% 14.6% 12.6% 4.9% -0.2% 4.2% 12.9% 148.2% 82 APPENDIX B Operating Costs/Boarding % Change % Change % Change From From From Previous Shuttle/ Previous Dial-A Previous Year Circulator Year Ride Year FY Fixed Route 1995 $1.46 --n/a $1.51 3.4% ----n/a n/a 1996 1997 $1.67 10.6% ----n/a n/a 1998 $1.69 1.2% ----n/a n/a 1999 $1.76 4.1% ----$14.13 n/a $1.99 13.1% ----$16.12 14.1% 2000 $2.39 20.1% $2.56 --$17.93 11.2% 2001 2002 $2.44 2.1% $2.06 -19.5% $21.02 17.2% 2003 0.6% $1.57 -24.0% $22.83 8.6% $2.45 $2.45 -0.2% $1.49 -5.0% $23.52 3.0% 2004 $2.22 -9.4% $1.66 11.3% $26.29 11.8% 2005 2006 $2.32 4.6% $1.61 -2.5% $28.55 8.6% 2007 $2.62 13.0% n/a n/a $31.97 12.0% % Change n/a 1998-2007 55.3% n/a Note: *Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector Totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data. Total n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $2.78 $2.84 $2.81 $2.80 $2.63 $2.70 $3.08 % Change From Previous Year n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.2% -0.8% -0.5% -6.2% 2.7% 14.2% n/a Total Revenues % Change From Previous Year % Change From Shuttle/ Previous Circulator Year % Change From Previous Year Dial-A Ride FY Fixed Route 1995 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1996 1997 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1998 $19,188,643 n/a $1,024,347 n/a 1999 $19,759,452 3.0% $1,107,043 8.1% $23,033,517 16.6% $1,386,709 25.3% 2000 $26,643,610 15.7% $6,477 $1,224,283 -11.7% 2001 2002 $24,429,588 -8.3% $12,231 88.8% $1,282,289 4.7% 2003 $26,919,917 10.2% $10,513 -14.0% $1,259,045 -1.8% $29,984,245 11.4% $12,021 14.3% $1,263,195 0.3% 2004 $32,825,197 9.5% $15,992 33.0% $1,244,350 -1.5% 2005 2006 $31,883,320 -2.9% $16,326 2.1% $1,307,546 5.1% 2007* $37,000,313 16.0% n/a n/a $1,302,579 -0.4% % Change 1998-2007 92.8% n/a 27.2% Note: *Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector Totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Total n/a n/a n/a $20,212,990 $20,866,495 $24,420,226 $27,874,370 $25,724,109 $28,189,475 $31,259,461 $34,085,539 $33,207,192 $38,302,892 % Change From Previous Year n/a n/a n/a 3.2% 17.0% 14.1% -7.7% 9.6% 10.9% 9.0% -2.6% 15.3% 89.5% 83 APPENDIX B Revenue Per Boarding % Change From Previous Year % Change From Shuttle/ Previous Circulator Year n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $0.01 n/a $0.01 0.9% $0.00 -35.0% $0.00 4.2% $0.01 14.1% $0.01 0.3% n/a n/a % Change From Previous Year Dial-A Ride FY Fixed Route 1995 n/a $1.51 $0.55 -63.6% n/a n/a 1996 1997 $0.55 0.0% n/a n/a 1998 $0.53 -4.1% $1.09 n/a 1999 $0.53 0.2% n/a n/a $0.61 16.2% $1.43 n/a 2000 $0.68 10.3% $1.20 -16.5% 2001 2002 $0.56 -17.2% $1.25 4.7% 2003 $0.55 -2.5% $1.22 -2.3% $0.58 5.7% $1.22 -0.2% 2004 $0.60 3.3% $1.17 -4.2% 2005 2006 $0.57 -4.5% $1.39 19.0% 2007* $0.64 11.4% $1.41 1.4% % Change 1998-2007 20.6% n/a 29.3% Note: *Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector Totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data. Farebox Recovery Ratio (%) % Change % Change % Change From From From Previous Shuttle/ Previous Dial-A Previous Year Circulator Year Ride Year FY Fixed Route 1995 31.3% n/a n/a 36.4% 5.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a 1996 1997 33.2% -3.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a 1998 31.2% -2.0% n/a n/a 8.7% n/a 1999 30.2% -1.0% n/a n/a 8.2% -0.5% 30.8% 0.6% n/a n/a 8.9% 0.7% 2000 28.4% -2.4% 0.3% n/a 6.7% -2.2% 2001 2002 23.0% -5.4% 0.3% 0.1% 6.0% -0.7% 2003 22.3% -0.7% 5.4% 5.0% 5.4% -0.6% 23.6% 1.3% 5.2% -0.2% 5.2% -0.2% 2004 26.9% 3.3% 4.5% -0.7% 4.5% -0.7% 2005 2006 24.6% -2.3% 4.9% 0.4% 4.9% 0.4% 2007* 24.2% -0.4% ----4.4% -0.5% % Change 1998-2007 -7.0% n/a -4.3% Note: *Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector Totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Total n/a n/a n/a $0.54 $0.56 $0.63 $0.68 $0.56 $0.54 $0.56 $0.58 $0.56 $0.65 % Change From Previous Year n/a n/a n/a 3.1% 13.7% 6.4% -17.7% -3.4% 5.2% 2.5% -4.0% 16.7% 19.6% Total n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 24.8% 20.7% 36.5% 28.0% 27.6% 28.1% 22.2% % Change From Previous Year n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a -4.1% 15.8% -8.5% -0.4% 0.5% -5.9% n/a 84 APPENDIX B On-Time Performance (%) % Change % Change % Change From From From Previous Shuttle/ Previous Dial-A Previous Year Circulator Year Ride Year FY Fixed Route 1995 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1996 1997 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1998 87.0% n/a 69.2% n/a 1999 93.0% 6.0% 86.2% 17.0% 89.7% -3.3% 87.8% 1.6% 2000 88.8% -0.9% 92.2% 73.3% -14.5% 2001 2002 92.4% 3.6% 94.0% 1.8% 87.9% 14.6% 2003 92.5% 0.1% 93.6% -0.4% 91.6% 3.7% 91.9% -0.6% 94.1% 0.5% 92.8% 1.2% 2004 92.5% 0.6% 94.0% -0.1% 93.5% 0.7% 2005 2006 90.7% -1.8% 96.0% 2.0% 94.9% 1.4% 2007* 91.5% 0.8% ----95.4% 0.5% % Change 1998-2007 4.5% n/a 26.2% Note: *Shuttle/Circulator and Rural Connector Totals are included in 2007 Fixed Route data. Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 Total n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 92.6% 92.6% 93.3% 93.9% 93.5% % Change From Previous Year n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0% 0.7% 0.6% -0.4% n/a 85 APPENDIX C APPENDIX C Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 86 APPENDIX C Table C-1: Fixed Route Transit Service Historical Trends since FY 1985 Fiscal Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Annual Boardings Revenue Miles of Service 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 59,253,904 58,184,595 Draft Short Range Transit Program—FY 2008/09 – 2013/14 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 27,870,551 28,766,992 Passengers Per Mile 2.17 2.10 2.08 2.00 2.31 2.46 2.70 2.71 2.68 2.67 2.56 2.56 2.45 2.47 2.32 2.08 1.89 1.88 1.91 2.03 2.05 2.13 2.02 87