FY 2012 - 2016 Short Range Transit Plan Prepared by Valley Metro - Regional Public Transpor tation Authority (RPTA ) VALLEYMETRO.ORG Short Range Transit Program Prepared by: Regional Public Transportation Authority 101 North First Avenue, Suite 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85003 May 17, 2012 ` Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 3 WHY A SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM? ............................................................................ 3 WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM TO OTHER REGIONAL TRANSIT PLAN DOCUMENTS AND PROCESSES? .................................... 3 WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGION? ........................................................... 4 WHAT TRANSIT SERVICES AND FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED IN THE REGION? ................... 5 WHAT REGIONAL TRANSIT INVESTMENTS ARE PLANNED IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS? ........... 9 1.0 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 15 1.1 REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY/VALLEY METRO AND MEMBER CITIES—BACKGROUND AND TRANSIT FUNDING INITIATIVES ................ 16 1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS ............................................................................... 18 1.3 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS ......................................................................................... 19 1.4 TRANSIT AND EQUITY .................................................................................................... 26 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ........................................................................... 29 2.1 SHARETHERIDE.COM .................................................................................................... 29 2.2 VANPOOL PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 29 2.3 TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM ASSISTANCE ................................................................ 30 2.4 CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN ................................................................................................... 30 2.5 TRANSIT EDUCATION PROGRAM ................................................................................. 30 2.6 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR ASSOCIATIONS—ASSISTANCE ...................... 30 2.7 ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES/TELEWORK PROGRAM—ASSISTANCE........... 31 2.8 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS ........................................................................................ 31 2.9 BIKE SAFETY EDUCATION ............................................................................................. 32 3.0 TRANSIT SERVICE EVALUATION ................................................................................................ 33 3.1 SERVICE GOALS AND STANDARDS ............................................................................. 34 3.2 FIXED ROUTE .................................................................................................................. 34 3.2.1 Service Characteristics ................................................................................. 34 3.2.2 Funding Sources .......................................................................................... 38 3.2.3 Private Contractors ...................................................................................... 38 3.2.4 Comparison of Fixed Route Performance Data ............................................... 38 3.2.5 Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Service ................................................................. 40 3.3 HIGH CAPACITY / LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ....................................................................... 41 3.4 CIRCULATORS ................................................................................................................ 44 3.5 REGIONAL CONNECTORS ............................................................................................. 44 3.6 PARATRANSIT ................................................................................................................. 44 3.7 VANPOOL ......................................................................................................................... 46 4.0 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................. 48 4.1 PASSENGER AND SUPPORT FACILITIES .................................................................... 48 4.1.1 On-Street Passenger Facilities ...................................................................... 48 4.2 PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES ......................................................................................... 49 4.2.1 Existing Transit Centers ............................................................................... 53 4.3 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FACILITIES .......................................................... 59 4.3.1 Existing Publicly Owned Transit Only Operations and Maintenance Facilities .... 59 4.3.2 Planned Operations and Maintenance Facilities .............................................. 59 GLENDALE ...................................................................................................................................... 60 VALUTRANS (TOTAL TRANSIT) ...................................................................................................... 60 ATYPICAL ....................................................................................................................................... 60 SECOND GENERATION .................................................................................................................. 60 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 ` AJO Executive Summary 60 MV TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................... 60 1001 S. 4 ST ................................................................................................................................. 60 4.4 ROADWAY ENHANCEMENTS ........................................................................................ 63 4.4.1 Existing and Planned HOV Lanes and Ramps ................................................. 63 4.4.2 Arterial Street Improvements ....................................................................... 65 TH 5.0 REGIONALLY FUNDED SHORT RANGE TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ............................................ 70 5.1 REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANIST OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS .............................. 70 5.1.1 Funded Regional Transit Operating Improvements FY 2012 through FY 2016 .. 70 5.3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANSIT OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS (FY 2012 through FY 2016) ................................................................ 71 5.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................. 71 5.3.1 Funded Regional Transit Facility Improvements FY 2011 through FY 2016 ...... 71 5.4.2 Fixed Route Vehicle Inventory ...................................................................... 73 5.4.3 Funded Regional Transit Expansion Vehicles: FY 2012 through FY 2016 .......... 75 5.4.4 Comparison of Funded Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles and Implementation (FY 2011) ........................................................................... 77 5.5 REGIONAL PLANNING STUDIES AND RELATED PROJECTS ..................................... 77 6.0 REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDING .............................................................................................. 79 6.1 REGIONAL FIXED ROUTE BUS & PARATRANSIT FUNDING ...................................... 79 6.1.1 Revenues .................................................................................................... 79 6.2 Expenditures ............................................................................................... 80 6.3 REGIONAL HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT CAPITAL FUNDING ........................................ 82 6.3.1 Revenues .................................................................................................... 82 6.4 Expenditures ............................................................................................... 84 6.5 REGIONAL TRANSIT FINANCING .................................................................................. 85 TABLE 6-5: LOCALLY FUNDED TRANSIT OPERATIONS INVESTMENTS FY 2012 AND FY 2016 FOR THE CITY OF TEMPE .................................................................................................. 86 TABLE 6-6: LOCALLY FUNDED TRANSIT OPERATIONS INVESTMENTS FY 2012 AND FY 2016 FOR THE CITY OF SCOTTSDALE ........................................................................................ 87 7.0 COST SAVINGS THROUGH SERVICE REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 87 7.1 COST SAVINGS THROUGH SERVICE REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 92 7.1.1 Cost Savings ............................................................................................... 92 7.2 Local Route Identification .................................................................................................. 92 7.2.2 Local Route Analysis .................................................................................... 96 7.3 EXPRESS/RAPID ROUTE IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY ................................... 97 7.3.1 Express/RAPID Route Analysis ...................................................................... 98 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................... 100 TABLE A-1: FY 2011 REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM DATA ........................................................... 101 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................. 106 TABLE B-1: OPERATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA FOR FY 1995 THROUGH FY 2011 ........... 107 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................................. 116 TABLE C-1: FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE HISTORICAL TRENDS SINCE FY 1985 ................. 117 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 ` 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] 2012 to 2016) and provides support for regional transit projects contained in the Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (MAG RTP). Regional transit service and capital improvements programmed in the TLCP are funded by the transit portion of the half-cent sales tax put in place by voter approval of Proposition 400 in 2004. Some local jurisdictions in the region provide local funding for additional transit services and capital improvements beyond what is identified in the TLCP. Objectives of the SRTP include: • • • document transit service performance from the previous fiscal year; maintain an inventory of the region’s transit capital infrastructure; and, identify options for service adjustments and capital facility needs based on the programmed regional transit investments identified in the RTP and TLCP. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM TO OTHER REGIONAL TRANSIT PROGRAM DOCUMENTS AND PROCESSES? The SRTP is an interrelated component of a performance based multi-part annual regional transit implementation program. The core components of the program include the following: • • • Transit Performance Report (TPR) Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) The core components function in a circular relationship with one providing input into or serving to affect the other. Starting with the TPR, system and route performance data is documented for each transit mode in the region. Performance data from the TPR is carried forward into the SRTP to provide context for potential service and capital facility considerations for existing and near-term (next five years) regional transit investments identified in the TLCP. The SRTP provides an opportunity for local jurisdictions and agencies to request potential amendments to project definitions within the TLCP. Potential amendments may include adjusting a planned route pattern or reassigning regional capital funds from one capital project (such as a Park and Ride [PNR]) to another. For example, the planned location of a PNR facility may be less beneficial than an alternative site. Even though this has not been accomplished, this document provides the background for potential amendments to the TLCP. The capital and service adjustments identified in the SRTP will be carried forward to the TLCP process for potential inclusion in the official annual TLCP update. However, all potential project adjustments are subject to approval through the regionally adopted TLCP policies. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 ` Executive Summary Completing the circular relationship, the service planning and budgetary decisions made in the annual SRTP and TLCP updates, potentially impact the performance of the regional transit system. Figure ES-1 illustrates the relationship of the core components of the annual regional transit program process. Figure ES-1: Regional Transit Plan Process WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGION? Maricopa County comprises 25 cities and towns and three Native American communities. Maricopa County continues to gain population, but at a slower rate than in past decades, according to official census figures released March 10, 2011 by the U.S. Census Bureau. The information was gathered during the decennial census conducted on April 1, 2010. The resident population for Maricopa County was 3,817,117, representing an increase of 744,968 people, a 24.2 percent increase in population since Census 2000. The annual average growth rate was 2.2 percent. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 ` Executive Summary WHAT TRANSIT SERVICES AND FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED IN THE REGION? Transit Services A summary of services currently provided in the region is presented in Table ES-1. Figures ES-2 and ES-3 display the local, express, and RAPID bus routes. Table ES-2 is an Annual Efficiency and Effectiveness Report Card that compares the major FY 2010 performance features (boardings, revenues, operating costs, and farebox recovery ratio) with regional targets. Table ES-1: Transit Services in the Region Fixed Route Number routes Total Number vehicles Hours of Operation: - Local routes and circulators - Express and RAPID - Regional circulator Paratransit (Dial-a-Ride) 9 systems or services: 1 58 local 1 19 express 1 4 RAPID 1 1 light rail line 2 arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) 17 circulators 1 regional connector 113 889 Weekdays: Generally 5:00 AM-10:00 PM weekdays Weekends: Hours of service somewhat reduced Peak hours on weekdays only Limited number of daily stops (peak period service only, no weekend service.) Limited number of daily runs (weekday and Saturday Service, no Sunday Service) − East Valley Dial-a-Ride - Phoenix Dial-A-Ride Glendale - Southwest Valley ADA Surprise - Paradise Valley ADA RPTA managed Countywide service (Maricopa County STS replacement service). − RTPTA managed service in El Mirage, with some trips in 2 Peoria. Operating hours, service eligibility requirements, transfer policies, fares vary by provider. Vanpool Valley Metro Vanpool Program Light Rail Route: Hours of operation: Provides vans to groups of 6-15 commuters who share in the monthly cost of the van through payment of an equitable monthly fee. 20 miles within portions of Phoenix, Tempe, and west Mesa Weekdays: 4:30 AM to midnight Weekends: 5:00 AM to 3:00 AM 1 Some of these routes are 100 percent locally funded, and some are funded with a mix of regional and local funding 2 Some Peoria trips refers to the fact that some trips from the RPTA managed El Mirage trips travel into sources. Peoria. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 ` Executive Summary Figure ES-2: Local Routes Map—January 2012 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 6 ` Executive Summary Figure ES-3: Express & RAPID Routes Map—January 2012 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 7 ` Executive Summary Capital Facilities Transit capital facilities and fleet support daily transit operations. The region’s inventory of transit infrastructure includes passenger facilities such as transit centers, park-and-rides and bus stops. In addition, other capital facilities such as maintenance and operations centers aren’t directly utilized by passengers, but provide vital functions that ensure service quality and reliability. The major capital transit facilities in the region are listed in Table ES-3. A picture of a LINK bus stop is shown in figure ES-4. Table ES-3: Capital Facilities in the Region Passenger & Support Facilities On-Street Passenger Park-and-Ride Existing: Transit Centers Planned: Existing: Planned: Maintenance & Operations Facilities Existing: 1 Planned : Roadway Enhancements High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes Existing: 2 Planned : HOV Direct Access Ramps (Freeway to Arterials) Existing: HOV Direct Access Ramps (Freeway to Freeway) Existing: HOV Direct Access (Freeway to Freeway) Planned Arterial Street Improvements - Traffic Signal priority - Arterial BRT limited stop with transit signal priority - Arterial BRT (planned) Regional Transit Fleet Fixed Route Light Rail 1 7,626 bus stops; 3,236 shaded bus stops (natural and shelters); 1,146 with bench only 1 28 BRT stations in Mesa Main Street Corridor 1 26 BRT stations in Arizona Avenue/Country Club Corridor 28 LRT stops in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa 25 publicly-owned 30 joint-use with agreement with private property owners 55 facilities with 9137 spaces 9 publicly-owned 16 existing 7 new 1 to be expanded 5 fixed route/demand response facilities 1 light rail 4 fixed route privately owned 1 upgrades to existing 352 lane miles 111 lane miles 6 6 2 3 on Arizona Avenue in Chandler (existing) 1 Arizona Ave LINK and Main Street LINK 2 2 889 vehicles 50 vehicles There is traffic signal priority at nearly every intersection for both BRT routes. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 8 ` Executive Summary Figure ES-4: LINK bus stop WHAT REGIONAL TRANSIT INVESTMENTS ARE PLANNED IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS? Planned Regionally Funded Transit Services Regional transit service investments planned for implementation in the next five years include a range of transit modes. New Supergrid routes, express bus routes, arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service and an extension to the region’s light rail line will be implemented to serve growing demand for public transportation alternatives. In addition, limited regional funding will be available to reimburse local jurisdictions and agencies for expenses associated with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transportation services. There are several routes in the transit system that are funded by local jurisdictions. These routes are discussed in this report,but not in great detail.. Many routes that are operated as part of the Supergrid are partly or wholly funded locally. Some segments are scheduled to be regionally funded in the future, and some are not. Table ES-4 provides a summary of the planned transit operations investments by initial fiscal year of regional funding. The investments include three Supergrid routes, three express/BRT routes; one light rail extension and one modern streetcar are included as improvements. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 9 ` Executive Summary Table ES-4: Planned Regional Operations Investments Initial Fiscal Year Regional Funding 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total 2013-2017 Routes 1 express/BRT No new routes1 1 Supergrid 1 express/BRT 1 light rail extension 1 modern streetcar No new routes 1 Supergrid 2 express/BRT 1 light rail extension 1 modern streetcar 1 “No new routes” refers to no additional routes being added to the system, although regional funding will replace local funding on some routes. Source: Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update, 2012 DRAFT Planned Regionally Funded Capital Improvements A summary of the transit capital improvements planned between FY 2012 and 2016 is presented in Table ES-5. Key facts about the programmed transit facility investments include: • • Planned capital investments/improvements for the fiscal years 2012 through 2016 include three transit centers and four park-and-ride facilities. Improvements include expansion and/or rehabilitation of one transit center. Some transit facility investments in the TLCP have multiple funding sources. These could include monies from Federal grants and/or local funding from jurisdictions, as well as regional funding. Table ES-5: Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2012 through FY 2016 Facility Central Station Transit Center Rehabilitation / Expansion Country Club Dr & US 60 (Superstition Freeway) Park-and-Ride East Buckeye Park-and-Ride Scottsdale Rd & Loop 101 Park-and-Ride Arrowhead Transit Center Peoria Downtown Transit Center th Laveen/59 Ave Park-and-Ride Mesa Downtown Transit Center Pre-Design (FY) Design (FY) Land (FY) Construction/ Open (FY) 2010 2011 NA 2012 2009 2010 2010 2012 2009 2010 2011 2013 2014 2011 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2012 2009 2011 2012 2014 2015 2012 2012 2012 2014 2015 2016 2016 Source: 2012 DRAFT Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update Table ES-6 identifies the regional funds programmed in the FY 2012 DRAFT TLCP Update for regional bus stop construction and upgrades. Because of a downturn in tax revenue projections, Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 10 ` Executive Summary no bus stop improvements are planned and regionally funded for the next five fiscal years. However, some local municipalities have planned to improve bus stops with local funding. Table ES-6: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2012 through FY 2016 TLCP Fiscal Year 2012 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total TLCP Programmed Funding $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 1 Funding subject to change based on annual budget Source: 2012 DRAFT Transit Life Cycle Program Update Planned Regionally Funded Transit Vehicle Acquisitions A total of 101 transit vehicles are programmed for services planned to be implemented through FY 2016. Table ES-7 summarizes the planned acquisition of regional transit vehicles to support service expansion. A standard 12-year transit bus fleet replacement cycle is assumed. The acquisition year identified in the table corresponds with the year that the vehicle will be put into service; however, vehicles are generally purchased in the previous fiscal year. For example, if a vehicle is programmed to go into service in FY 2012, it will be programmed for purchase during FY 2011. Fixed route buses, account for 14 of the vehicles. Because of the success of the Vanpool program, 85 new vehicles are planned for acquisition over five years to support expansion. However, this discussion of vehicle acquisitions does not reflect anticipated cuts that may be made, until such decisions have been made final. Table ES-7: Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles Fiscal Year For Acquisition 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Fixed Route 0 0 8 6 0 14 Paratransit 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rural 2 0 0 0 0 2 Vanpool 10 0 25 25 25 85 Total Vehicles 12 0 33 31 25 101 Source: 2012 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Transit Funding Based on the estimated sources of revenues and programmed expenditures in the 2012 DRAFT TLCP update there are several years that expenditures exceed revenues. Table ES-8 and Figure ES-5 describes the RPTA expenditures. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 11 ` Executive Summary Table E-8: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (in $millions) Revenue Category FY 2011 FY 2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Regional Bus Operations $39.37 $41.30 $41.84 $45.19 $46.99 $48.26 $262.95 Paratransit Operations $19.49 $24.16 $25.33 $27.17 $28.12 $28.87 $153.14 RPTA Planning & Administration $3.66 $3.74 $3.73 $3.60 $3.68 $3.75 $22.16 Regional Services $6.41 $6.73 $6.86 $7.00 $7.14 $7.28 $41.42 Transit Vehicles $33.21 $42.49 $54.63 $53.29 $28.82 $35.48 $247.92 Arterial BRT ROW $2.28 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.28 Capital Facilities $16.75 $16.64 $20.88 $15.67 $3.82 $2.44 $76.20 Total $121.16 $135.08 $153.26 $151.93 $118.56 $126.08 $806.07 Source: 2012 DRAFT Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Figure ES-5 Estimated RPTA Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (percentage of totals) Estimated RPTA Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (percentage of totals) Arterial BRT ROW 0% Capital Facilities 9% Regional Bus Operations 33% Transit Vehicles 31% Paratransit Operations 19% Regional Services 5% RPTA Planning & Administration 3% Source: FY 2012 Draft TLCP Changes in the level of estimated revenues or expenditures could either positively or negatively affect the programmed implementation schedules and scope of the projects identified herein. Through the annual TLCP update process, estimates for short and long range revenues and expenditures are reviewed to determine the financial fitness of the regional transit program. Appropriate finance strategies and other actions are considered annually to maintain a reasonable and sustainable finance plan. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 12 ` Executive Summary Planning Considerations for Regionally Funded Transit Investments Specific initial planning considerations for each of the regionally funded improvements are identified in Chapter 7 of this program. The planning considerations range from providing adequate capacity for vehicles at transit facilities to retaining interim passenger parking capacity for new transit services. The SRTP includes recommendations to guide the regional transit planning process. To provide a basis for measuring the performance of the regional transit system, Valley Metro RPTA authorized a Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study (SEES) to develop uniform standard for collecting data and measuring performance, and to develop performance targets for the region. The RPTA Board approved this study in April 2007. Using the structure provided by the SEES, four Annual Transit Performance Reports (FY 2008, FY 2009, FY 2010 and FY 2011) have been prepared and accepted by the Board since that time. However, the SEES goals were developed in 2007, a time when there were increased revenues and service. Because the standards have become outdated, for FY2011 the adopted goals have been largely removed. The results of the Transit Performance Reports need to be evaluated with respect to whether or not transit investments are considered worthwhile. This report makes that evaluation and recommends actions that are in keeping with good stewardship of Public Transportation Funds provided through the county-wide sales tax for transportation. This exercise has taken on added significance as Valley Metro RPTA is faced with revenue shortfalls caused by the downturn in the economy. To that end, RPTA staff has identified potential cost savings through transit service adjustments. The cost savings could assist the agency in addressing the projected county-wide sales tax revenue shortfall which is the result of a decline in both the regional and national economies. Once the lowest performing PTF funded local routes were identified by jurisdiction, a closer look was taken at average daily boardings over the last five fiscal years (FY 2007 through FY 2011). Graphs were developed showing average daily boardings during this time period to show ridership trends. For example, the city of Chandler cut miles from the unproductive portion of Route 96 (south of Pecos) and cut Sunday service on Route 96 during the last TLCP update (January 2012 implementation). Graphs showing the historic trends of bottom quartile routes funded or partially fund with PTF can be found in the appendices. Only those jurisdictions with routes funded or partially funded with PTF that fall into the bottom quartile of regional performance are shown. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 13 ` Executive Summary Weekday Local Summary - East Valley PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Mile History 1.2 96 Chandler 136 Chandler 1 Boardings Per Mile 66 Chandler 0.8 AZ Ave LINK Chandler 136 Gilbert 0.6 184 Gilbert 108 Gilbert 0.4 156 Gilbert 0.2 108 Mesa 184 Mesa 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 FY 2010 FY 2011 81 Scottsdale 14 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction INTRODUCTION 1.0 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM This Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) update proposes transit service and capital improvements for implementation in Fiscal Years (FY) 2012 to 2016. In addition, the report evaluates existing service, costs, and trends based on past performance and identifies current and anticipated funding levels and revenue sources. This report provides substantial transitrelated input into the multi-modal transportation improvements described in MAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The report also serves as an important resource guide for anyone interested in public transit in the greater Phoenix Metropolitan area. The report is organized as follows: • • • • • • • Chapter 1, Introduction—Purpose of the SRTP; Valley Metro RPTA and member cities background information; transit funding initiatives, relationship to other plans; regional demographics; transit passenger characteristics; and transit and equity. Chapter 2, Transportation Demand Management—Important characteristics of the regional rideshare and trip reduction programs. Chapter 3, Fixed Route Transit Service Evaluation—Service goals and standards of fixed route service as well as a presentation of the performance and service characteristics for each transit mode. Chapter 4, Existing Transit Capital Infrastructure—Passenger and support facilities; maintenance and operations facilities; roadway enhancements; and regional transit fleet. Chapter 5, Regionally Funded Short Range Transit Improvements—presents the current operations and capital improvements over the next five years and discussion of mode, corridor, and area specific studies and system-based studies that are on-going and planned for completion during this period. Several projects have been deferred because of a lack of revenue. Chapter 6, Regional Transit Funding—presents the current capital and operating revenue sources and amounts and projections over the next five years as well as the transit life cycle plan operating capital and administration budgets. Chapter 7, Cost Savings through Service Reductions—presents the service reduction recommendations to help determine which routes to adjust based on performance. This chapter will also analyze boarding data from routes 30, 60 and the light rail. Only select routes will be analyzed using GIS software as a proof of concept. The SRTP is produced annually by Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) on behalf of the MAG member cities, Native American communities, and public agencies: Apache Junction, Arizona Department of Transportation, Avondale, Buckeye, Carefree, Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee, Chandler, El Mirage, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fountain Hills, Gila Bend, Gila River Indian Community, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Guadalupe, Litchfield Park, Maricopa County, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Peoria, Phoenix, Queen Creek, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Scottsdale, Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson, Wickenburg, and Youngtown. It should be noted that funding for public transportation comes from a variety of local, regional, and federal sources. Some sources are dedicated solely to transportation, so funding projections can be fairly reliable; however, the future of funding from other sources, including grant funds and general funds, can experience wide variability and remains uncertain. As a result, this report is intended to be as flexible as possible to accommodate change. Projects Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 15 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction 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 plan of reasonable expectations, realization of future plans and projects is entirely subject to future appropriations by local, state, and federal governments. 1.1 REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY/VALLEY METRO AND MEMBER CITIES—BACKGROUND AND TRANSIT FUNDING INITIATIVES RPTA’s history, creation, other major public transit milestones as well as transit funding initiatives in the Valley are summarized in Table 1-1. Public transit in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area comprises several systems where much of the service is planned and operated by local cities and the RPTA. The cities of Glendale, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe provide for fixed route service in their jurisdictions. The RPTA provides service in Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, and often assists other communities with planning and/or operating service. Many fixed routes cross municipal boundaries; therefore, intergovernmental agreements have been developed among neighboring communities to jointly provide this service. Paratransit sometimes referred to as Dial-a-Ride (DAR) services are provided individually by the following cities: Glendale, Surprise, Phoenix, RPTA managed County-wide service (Maricopa County STS replacement Service), and RPTA managed for the cities of El Mirage, including some trips to Peoria. The El Mirage service has taken on a different model from the traditional DAR service, and now operates similarly to a taxi program. 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. In 2012, the East Valley Dial-a-Ride will change contractors, and be operated using the taxi model. However, some trips will continued to be operated like a traditional dial a ride program. RPTA also funds a successful vanpool program in partnership with area employers. In addition, Valley Metro Rail (METRO) operates the first 20 miles of light rail transit (LRT) and serves the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. LRT operations are funded entirely by the local cities participating in METRO. LRT operations began in late December 2008. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 16 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction Table 1-1: Public Transit Milestones Year 1985 Initiative Passed?  1989 1989  1993 N/A 1994 1996  1997 1997 1998  1998  1999 2000 2000 2001    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. This also included cooperation on the development of transit schedules and the Bus Book. 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. Part of the opposition resulted from cost overruns on the Freeway program that necessitated additional tax revenue. Result of the propositions defeat was the dropping of some regional freeway projects from the program including Loop 303. 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. One half of the tax was dedicated to transit. State legislature provided transit funding through HB 2565 by allocating a portion of vehicle license tax revenues to the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) for distribution to cities, town, and counties. ADOT also allocates secondary LTAF funds from sale of multi-state and bingo lottery tickets up to $18 million per year in proportion to each county’s population. Chandler residents did not approve a 3/8 cent Transportation Improvement Program which included a transit component. State legislature extended HB 2565 (1998) and modified it with SB 1556. This is known as LTAF II. Phoenix passed a 0.4-cent dedicated transportation sales tax to help fund transit projects included in the Transit 2000 Plan for bus and light rail. Glendale passed a dedicated transportation sales tax to help fund transit projects in their community. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 17 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction 2004  2008 2010 2011 2011 1.2 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. METRO light Rail opens for operation on December 28, 2008. The first Bus Rapid Transit LINK route opens along Main Street in Mesa. In March 2010, the State legislature repealed the Local Transportation Assistance Funds which had provided a significant source of funds ($22 million annually in Maricopa County out of $34 million statewide) that had supported public transportation services in the Valley for 30 years. These funds were supplied by Arizona Lottery revenues – referred to as LTAF. The reduction of LTAF was made retroactive to February 1, 2010. In January 2011, the second BRT line in the valley opened for operation along Arizona Ave and Country Club Drive. The route serves the cities of Mesa, Chandler and the Town of Gilbert. The United States District Court ordered the State Treasurer to reinstate Public Transportation funding in Maricopa County from proceeds of the Powerball lottery game (LTAF II). To be eligible for these funds, jurisdictions must apply for the funds annually. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS The SRTP provides a description of current operating and capital conditions and also forecasts operating and capital plans for the next five years. This report incorporates public transit plans from several sources and in turn provides information that can be incorporated into other regional plans. Plans that feed into the SRTP include the transit element of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), RPTA’s Master Facilities Plan, local area transportation plans, and the Transit Performance Report (TPR). The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) feeds into the SRTP, and the SRTP then feeds into the next TLCP. Regional transit service and capital improvements programmed in the TLCP are funded by the transit portion of the half-cent sales tax put in place by voter approval of Proposition 400 in 2004. Some local jurisdictions in the region provide local funding for additional transit services and capital improvements beyond what is identified in the TLCP. The SRTP identifies near term regional transit service and capital facility implementation considerations for regional transit projects contained in the MAG RTP and RPTA’s TLCP. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 18 ` 1.3 Chapter 1 – Introduction REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS Maricopa County comprises 25 cities and towns and three Native American communities. Maricopa County continues to gain population, but at a slower rate than in past decades, according to official census figures released March 10, 2011 by the U.S. Census Bureau. The information was gathered during the decennial census conducted on April 1, 2010. The resident population for Maricopa County was 3,817,117, representing an increase of 744,968 people, a 24.2 percent increase in population since Census 2000. The annual growth rate was 2.2 percent. According to the numbers, the 10 largest cities in Maricopa County include Phoenix (1,445,632), Mesa (439,041), Chandler (236,123), Glendale (226,721), Scottsdale (217,385), Gilbert (208,453), Tempe (161,719), Peoria (154,065), Surprise (117,517), and Avondale (76,238). In terms of total growth by percentage, Buckeye was the fastest-growing community in the Maricopa region, adding 44,339 people since 2000 for a growth rate of 678 percent. Surprise moved into the top 10 Maricopa County cities by population, while Chandler moved up in rank to number three on the list. Of the 20 largest cities in Arizona, 12 are in Maricopa County, including Goodyear, which ranked 14th in the state (11th in the region), and Buckeye, which ranked 16th in the state (12th in the region) 1. 1 Source: Maricopa Association of Governments Census Data Released on March 10, 2010. http://www.azmag.gov/Administration/News.asp?y=2011&i=277 Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 19 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction Table 1-2: Population Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 20 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction The remainder of this section focuses on those demographic groups that tend to be more transit dependent than the general population. Not all data from the 2010 census was available during the development of this report, so to track demographics the American Community Survey (ACS) was used. Figure 1-1 shows a map that portrays the percent of the population that is age 60 and over per Census Tract. The percent breaks are based on the county average of 17% so it depicts the tracts that are over that. The attached map is from the 2010 Census Data. Higher concentrations generally live along a wide diagonal band stretching from about the Loop 303 and Beardsley Road in the northwest valley to about the Loop 202 (Santan Freeway) and Guadalupe Road in the southeast valley. The highest concentrations (>60%) live in the far northwest valley near Surprise, Sun City, Youngtown, and Peoria and in the far southeast valley near east Mesa. This is not surprising given the numbers of age-restricted retirement communities that are found in these outlying areas of the valley. Figure 1-2 shows locations of high concentrations (>80% of a census tract) of minority populations. Minority population is defined as the 2000 Census total population minus “white not of Hispanic origin” population. With the exception of three Native American communities that are located mainly in the outer portions of the region, most minorities live in the central, southern, and southwestern portions of Maricopa County. For consistency sake, the map shown uses the ACS data. This map also shows the population breaks in relation to the county average. Figure 1-3 shows “linguistic isolation” - these are households where no family member speaks English “very well.” The percent breakdowns are based on the county average. This data was based on ACS five-year estimates. Figure 1-4 displays locations of persons living in poverty in the Maricopa Region according to the American Community Survey estimates. This map, like the others, is based on the county average. The average number of persons living in Poverty in Maricopa County is 13.91%, according to the American Community Survey five year estimatess. The map indicates that the areas with higher concentrations of low-income households than the county as a whole are generally located in the central portion of the county; however, there are numerous instances of these households in the east, west, and south sections of the county. The highest concentrations of families living in poverty (>35% ) are generally in three areas: 1) Vicinity of the I-10 freeway between about 67th Avenue and the SR-51 freeway; 2) Near the Loop 202 (Red Mountain Freeway) from approximately the SR-51 freeway to 48th Street; and 3) Vicinity of the I-17 freeway between about Thomas and Bethany Home Roads. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 21 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction Figure 1-1: Population Concentration Age 60 and Over Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 22 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction Figure 1-2: Minority Population Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 23 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction Figure 1-3: Language Spoken at Home in Arizona Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 24 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction Figure 1-4: Families in Poverty Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 25 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction 1.4 TRANSIT AND EQUITY The basic principles of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice involve: • • • Preventing or lessening effects on minority populations and low-income populations. Ensuring public involvement by all communities affected by the transportation decisionmaking process. Ensuring that benefits are not concentrated in one area or population. Title VI states: “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Executive Order 12898 states: “Each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Public transit complies with Title VI and Executive Order 12898 by making sure that investment and changes benefit all populations equally, preventing and lessening the effects on minority and low-income populations, and involving minority and low-income populations in the public input process. Valley Metro complies with these principles. 1.4.1 Methodology for Transit Dependent RPTA’s methodology uses the guidance information provided in the circular to assess the effects of the proposed service changes on minority and low-income populations. Our approach is based on evaluating the impacts to routes that have minority or low income population greater than the service are average. We have defined a route subject to Title VI analysis is defined as one that has 50% of more of its length in an area (census tract or traffic analysis zone) where the total minority population or low-income population is greater than the service area average. Overall, our Title VI methodology is based on criteria that guide the Transit Service Plan. RPTA’s approach is system wide and is meant to improve travel in the core areas where transit demand is greatest, augmented with specialized services (Bus Rapid Transit, express, neighborhood circulator, rural connector) to fulfill certain travel niches. Concentrations of minority and low-income populations are well served by this approach based on our market analysis and onboard surveys. Travel within the core market throughout the day (not just peak periods) was identified as being important to our passengers. The plan decreases the overall service hours provided as part of the region’s effort to balance operating costs with anticipated revenues. Service miles from unproductive services that are eliminated or reduced would be used to improve existing well performing routes. Concentrations of minority and low-income populations, which are transit dependent, show high use of Valley Metro transit services. The service area population contains a significant minority population. In the 2010 On-Board Survey, 54.3 % of our passengers were drawn from the Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 26 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction region’s minority population. 32.2% of Valley Metro passengers reported they had no other option available to make their trip if the transit route was eliminated, thus indicating they are transit dependent. Figure 1-5 is a map of the low income and minority populations combined with the bus routes. Low income is defined as 16.3% or more population below poverty level. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 27 ` Chapter 1 – Introduction Figure 1-5: Title VI Phoenix Update Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 28 Chapter 2 – Transportation Demand Management 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Transportation Demand Management (TDM) involves strategies to reduce automobile travel demand or to redistribute the demand so that it occurs less during peak commute periods. Its purpose is to provide cost-effective, environmentally sustainable alternatives to increasing capacity. TDM can defer and reduce the need to expand roads and parking facilities, and provide other potential benefits such as reduced traffic congestion, reduced traffic accidents, energy conservation, improved air quality through reduced auto emissions and improved mobility for non-drivers. TDM can create more sustainable transportation through achievement of sustainability objectives such as resource conservation, equity, environmental protection, efficient land use, and public involvement. RPTA provides and administers a number of TDM services in the region, known collectively as Valley Metro Business Services. Services include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ShareTheRide.com (an online ride-matching service) Vanpool program Trip reduction program—employer assistance Clean Air Campaign—promote alternatives to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution Transit education and outreach programs Transportation Coordinator Associations—assistance Alternative work schedules/telecommute program—assistance Safe Routes to Schools Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety and Education Each of these services is described below. 2.1 SHARETHERIDE.COM This free online service (ShareTheRide.valleymetro.org) allows commuters to quickly and securely find a carpooling partner, or vanpool, a bicycle commuting partner or view transit options for the daily journey to work. The system maintains a database of persons throughout the Valley and matches commuters based on proximity, destination and travel route, as well as schedules and preferences. Aside from creating ride matches, the state-of-the-art system manages on-line contest for alternative mode users, calculates pollution savings from alternative mode usage on an individual or custom sub-site basis, as well as gas savings and the financial savings associated with alternative mode usage. RPTA is the TDM agency for the Phoenix metropolitan area and is responsible for overseeing this service. This matching service can also complement employer’s ride-matching services and help them comply with Maricopa County’s mandated Trip Reduction Program. 2.2 VANPOOL PROGRAM In addition to facilitating ridesharing vanpools with vans owned by others, RPTA has a vanpool program as an additional transportation option for larger groups of commuters. Valley Metro provides clearly marked vans to qualifying groups of six to 15 commuters, driven by one of the vanpool members. Passengers share the cost of operating the van by paying a monthly fare to the primary driver. The driver is then responsible for paying RPTA out of the fare proceeds. The fare covers fuel, insurance, and vehicle maintenance costs. Vans are purchased using federal transportation funds. Billing, insurance, and maintenance are provided by Valley Metro via a contracted vendor. Additional information about this program may be found in Chapter 3. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 29 Chapter 2 – Transportation Demand Management 2.3 TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM ASSISTANCE The Maricopa County Air Quality Department administers the mandated Trip Reduction Program (TRP) for employers and schools in the county with 50 or more employees and/or driving-age students at one site. The region’s goal is to reduce employers’ and schools’ single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips and/or miles traveled to the work site by 10% a year for a total of five years, and by 5% for the next three additional years, with an overall target of reaching a 60% rate of SOV travel at each work site. RPTA is under contract with Maricopa County to provide training, technical support, and promotional support to organizations affected by the TRP. Valley Metro’s Business Services team provides free on-site support to help employers develop commuting solutions for employees. Among the services provided are: workshop training sessions to introduce and familiarize program participants with the TRP, as well as one-on-one assistance with conducting surveys, writing TRP plans, and developing and implementing trip reduction strategies such as carpool and vanpool matching. 2.4 CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN Originally launched in 1987 by the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, the goal of the Clean Air Campaign is to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion. The Clean Air Campaign comprises a variety of sponsors who have gathered together in a public/private partnership and hold events to promote use of alternative modes. Each year Valley Metro hosts an event honoring individuals and organizations for their significant efforts in reducing air pollution and traffic congestion and presents winners with a Clean Air Campaign Award. 2.5 TRANSIT EDUCATION PROGRAM RPTA presents transit education programs to a variety of audiences including senior citizens, persons with disabilities, refugee organizations, social services, and other related organizations. Valley Metro also has a school outreach program that includes classroom presentations tailored to the specific audience. The program offers students and teachers an opportunity to learn about transportation choices and how to safely travel on the Valley Metro transit system. The transit educators provide various fun and educational materials for students and a teacher’s packet full of useful transit trips. Another educational program is the is the bus wrap contest, where transit themed art is created by area school children with the winning design displayed on a Valley Metro bus. 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. In addition, Valley Metro has also won several awards for the Notes Campaign. Local bands have partnered with Valley Metro to sings songs about how to ride and use transit and its associated elements, such as the transit book. 2.6 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR ASSOCIATIONS—ASSISTANCE As part of the regional rideshare program, Valley Metro provides assistance to transportation coordinator associations (TCA). TCAs are organized by geographic area and offer transportation coordinators in the TRP and the opportunity to share ideas and solve problems in a supportive group environment. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 30 Chapter 2 – Transportation Demand Management 2.7 ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES/TELEWORK PROGRAM—ASSISTANCE Alternative work schedules usually consist of a compressed work week where employees have the option to work more hours per day but fewer days within a one or two-week period. Teleworking is a flexible work arrangement allowing employees to work at a location other than their main office (most commonly their own home). RPTA provides assistance, resource materials, marketing, and sample information to employers who want to implement or expand teleworking or compressed work weeks programs. These programs benefit both employer and employee. Primary employer benefits include: • Employer Primary Benefits - • Benefits of alternative working arrangements to the employee include: - 2.8 Continuity of business operations Improved employee morale Helps achieve trip reduction goals Decreased overhead and operating costs Increased worker productivity Serves as a retention and recruitment tool Decreased absenteeism Decreased stress Improved productivity and effectiveness Eliminated or reduced commute time and expenses Increased job satisfaction Decreased work-related expenses Provides better work/life balance SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS Working in partnership with local and tribal governments, school districts, healthcare and corporate/community organizations, the Statewide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Support Center Project is providing integrated programs to develop safe routes for children to walk and bike to school and instill in students lifelong skills regarding healthy and active life choices, traffic safety and travel injury prevention. Funded through the Arizona Department of Transportation’s (ADOT) Transportation Enhancement Fund (TE) Program, the program is: • • • • Providing Arizona curriculum-aligned program support to 17-21 pilot schools statewide, including transportation, safety, GIS-based mapping, health, and air quality curriculums. Teaching and promoting use of student-friendly web-based program support and reporting tools through statewide and e-learning workshops and/or webinars. Providing a statewide purchasing program and central outreach for partnerships with health, business and community organizations and to secure underwriting for student incentives & safety equipment for crossing guards. Training schools to match parents with “school-pools” to improve school safety, traffic flow and air quality during peak-hour commutes. Valley Metro RPTA has secured additional funding to continue the program and expand it statewide through the ADOT TE Program. Work on this aspect of the project is expected to begin in early 2012. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 31 Chapter 2 – Transportation Demand Management 2.9 BIKE SAFETY EDUCATION Valley Metro RPTA also secured funding for the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program. Valley Metro RPTA has also benefitted from prior ADOT Transportation Enhancement (TE) funding awarded in 2007 (Program funding from September 2008 to November 2011). This funding allowed has allowed the agency to leverage limited local staffing and time; Valley Metro RPTA has provided additional staff and helped promote safer walking and cycling practices through public service announcements and educational programs. Updating the Valley Metro website capabilities continues, with links to local efforts and contacts. Funding to continue educational efforts will possible with additional ADOT TE (Program funding October 2010 to September 2012). Major aspects of the program will target low-income and minority workers, public outreach on how to be safe around light rail and HAWK (High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk) signals, and multi-generational safety programs. Safety messages will be delivered by television, radio, e-learning and targeted outreach with the assistance of numerous local nonprofits, healthcare providers, senior centers and local schools. Short Range Transit Program—FY 2012– 2016 32 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation 3.0 TRANSIT SERVICE EVALUATION Public transportation services in the region are provided through interagency cooperation and coordination. Transit planning, operations, and capital acquisition are the joint responsibility of many separate agencies and municipalities in the region. The Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) helps to coordinate these activities. This chapter includes an overview of the regional transit system describing the performance characteristics of each mode. Table 3-1 reflects the FY 2011 performance statistics for the system as a whole (all modes). This chapter also includes service goals and standards, a description of the service characteristics, performance statistics, and a vehicle inventory for the fixed route, circulator, dial-a-ride, regional connector, light rail and vanpool services provided in the region. Table 3-1: FY 2011 System Data Total Boardings 69,462,678 Total Revenue Hours 2,667,427 Total Passenger Revenues $60,949,544 Boardings Per Revenue Hour 26.04 Total Wheelchair Boardings Total Vehicle Miles 435,653 Operating Cost 44,845,566 Capital Cost $267,393,257 Percent On-Time Performance Boardings Per Revenue Mile N/A Farebox Recovery Ratio 22.8% $3.85 Total Vehicle Hours 2,796,386 Total Cost N/A Operating Cost Per Boarding 1.59 43,604,693 N/A Vehicle Accidents 96.74% Total Revenue Miles Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $101.24 Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile $6.13 N/A = data not available A comparison of major ridership, financial, and other major statistics for the five-year period FY 2007 -- FY 2011 is shown in Table 3-2. Over the five-year period, boardings and passenger revenues increased by about 15% and 49%, respectively. The operating costs increased by nearly 46% in the same period. One of the reasons for increased operating costs is the higher price of fuel. Another reason is the contract cost per mile increased greatly. However, there was a slight 2% increase in the farebox recovery ratio. The farebox recovery ratio is the percentage of operating costs covered by passenger revenues. For more detailed information, refer to Appendix A – 2011 System Data for performance data by jurisdiction, by mode, by paratransit system and by individual fixed route. Appendix B – 1995 to 2011 System Data presents various performance data by mode over a 17 year period. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 33 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation Table 3-2: Comparison of System-wide Data for Five-Year Period— FY 2007 and FY 2011 General Vehicle Revenue Miles Vehicle Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Per Hour Ridership Total Boardings Boardings Per Revenue Mile Boardings Per Revenue Hour Financial Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Costs Passenger Revenues Operating Cost Per Boarding Fare Revenue Per Boarding Subsidy Per Boarding Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile FY 2007 34,699,313 1,966,138 17.65 FY 2007 60,525,851 1.74 30.78 FY 2007 22.20% $184,473,347 $40,953,630 $3.05 $0.68 $2.37 $93.83 $5.32 FY 2011 43,604,693 2,667,427 16.35 FY 2011 69,462,678 1.59 28.99 FY 2011 22.80% $267,393,257 $60,948,544 $3.85 $0.88 $2.79 $100.24 $6.13 5 Years (FY 2007-2011) % Change 25.66% 35.67% -7.37% 5 Years (FY 2007-2011) % Change 14.77% -0.87% -5.83% 5 Years (FY 2007-2011) % Change 2.67% 44.95% 48.82% 26.30% 29.68% 25.34% 6.84% 15.35% 3.1 SERVICE GOALS AND STANDARDS On April 19, 2008, the RPTA Board of Directors approved a series of service goals and standards for Valley Metro transit services. These targets (see Table 3.3) were developed as part of the Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study, and include targets for fixed route – system-wide, fixed route – route level, paratransit, as well as for light rail transit. However, for FY 2011, most of the service targets were eliminated, with the exception of the fixed route fare recovery ratio and the rail service standards. However, the SEES goals were developed in 2007, a time when there were increased revenues and service. Because the standards have become outdated, for FY2011 the adopted goals have been largely removed. However, METRO light rail is in the process of adopting new targets. 3.2 FIXED ROUTE 3.2.1 Service Characteristics During FY 2011, fixed route transit service was provided in a 940 square mile service area and served residents in the communities of Avondale, Chandler, El Mirage, Fountain Hills, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Guadalupe, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sun City, Surprise, Tempe, and Tolleson. There were fifty eight (58) local, eighteen (18) express, fifteen(15) circulators, four (4) RAPID routes, two (2) BRT lines, one (1) rural route and one (1) rail line operated throughout the region on weekdays (see Figures 3-1 and 3-2). Weekday hours vary considerably, but most local routes operate from about 5:00 am to about 10:00 pm. Express and RAPID service operate during peak hours on weekdays only. Most local routes operate on weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays throughout most of the region. Weekend hours of service also vary by route, but are generally somewhat reduced from the weekday level. However, the light rail line now runs until 3:00 am on Friday and Saturday night. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 34 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation Table 3-3: Efficiency and Effectiveness Performance Measures Targets FY 2011 Fixed Route Bus, Systemwide Target Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness 1 Farebox Recovery Ratio Rail Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness 1 Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Cost per Boarding Subsidy (Net Opt 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 1 25% Target TARGET 25% 3.19 $2.34 $16.19 $0.82 7,827,000 26,090 N/A N/A 3.94 8.04 N/A N/A 95% 25,000 Proposed Rail Target Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness 29% $2.82 $1.99 $13.44 $0.83 Service Effectiveness 12,542,376 38,876 27,507 20,833 4.76 9.52 .42 0 95% 25,000 Farebox recovery ratio = % of operating costs covered by passenger revenues. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 35 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation Figure 3-1: Local Routes Map for January 2012 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 36 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation Figure 3-2: Express & RAPID Routes Map for January 2012 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 37 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation 3.2.2 Funding Sources Local funding for these routes is provided by the municipalities of Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sun City, Surprise, Tempe, and Tolleson. Regional operating funds are provided by the Regional Public Transportation Authority. The Cities of Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe each have some form of dedicated sales tax for public transportation. Many of these communities are using also using general funds to support transit services. RPTA receives approximately 33 percent of the half-cent Maricopa County sales tax for transportation that was approved by voters in November 2003. In March 2010, the State legislature repealed the Local Transportation Assistance Funds (LTAF). These funds were supplied from Arizona Lottery revenues, and represented a significant block of funds ($22 million annually in Maricopa County out of $34 million statewide) that has supported public transportation services in the Valley for 30 years. The reduction of LTAF was made retroactive to February 1, 2010. However, in September 2011, a judge ruled in a lawsuit to restore LTAF funding because the state’s decision to eliminate it was illegal because the transit-support dollars are part of the Phoenix area's federally approved plan to combat air pollution. The Legislature does not have the authority to unilaterally change requirements of the federal Clean Air Act without federal approval. The money, 11.2 million, should be received by the state by April. RPTA will be sending out letters to its member agencies so they can apply for their share of the reinstated funding. 3.2.3 Private Contractors During FY 2011, the local and express routes described in this report were provided by five private contractors. The five contractors are Veolia Phoenix, First Transit, Veolia RPTA, ValuTrans and Veolia Tempe. These transit operators are under contract to the City of Phoenix, the City of Tempe and the RPTA and provide service throughout the region. The City of Phoenix contracts with Veolia Phoenix and First Transit for fixed route service. RPTA has service contracts with Veolia RPTA and ValuTrans, and the City of Tempe contracts with Veolia Tempe. Many routes are funded by multiple government agencies, usually based on the miles of service provided in each jurisdiction. 3.2.4 Comparison of Fixed Route Performance Data A comparison of data for fixed route service is displayed in Table 3-4 for FY 2007, 2010, and 2011. In FY 2008, RPTA began reporting circulator and rural connector data in with fixed route service. So, to provide an equal comparison, these two modes were also combined in the other FY data as applicable. Note that rural connector service did not begin until March 2005 during FY 2006. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 38 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation Between FY 2009 and 2010, the total fixed route boardings decreased by about 15%. The total boardings have also decreased about 6% since FY 2006. The boardings were down for a combination reasons including a down economy, and due to service reductions resulting from declines in public revenues that fund transit. However, revenues increased about 7% and 47%, respectively, in the one- and five-year periods of comparison because of a fare increase. Operating costs decreased nearly 1% between FY 2009 and FY 2010. These costs also increased about 44% over the previous five years. This all resulted in the farebox recovery ratio increasing slightly about 8% in the one-year period and almost 2% during the five-year period of comparison. Appendix C – Trends provides annual boardings, revenue miles of service provided, and boardings per mile from 1985 to 2010. The increase in transit service and the resulting increases in ridership over the years are clearly apparent. However, Table 3-5 provides available statistics on boardings and revenue miles for FY 2010. 1 Table 3-4: Comparison of Fixed Route Data—2007, 2010 and 2011 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 FY 2007 28,902,813 1,966,138 14.70 FY 2007 58,184,594.51 2.01 29.59 FY 2007 FY 2010 32,968,784 2,393,455 13.77 FY 2010 55,574,959 1.69 23.22 FY 2011 29,513,595 1,989,384 14.84 FY 2011 54,814,001 1.86 27.55 1 Year (FY 10-11) % Change -10.48% -16.88% 7.70% 1 Year (FY 10-11) % Change -1.37% 10.18% 18.66% 1 Year (FY 10-11) % Change -7.47% 5.09% 5 Years (FY 07-11) % Change 2.11% 1.18% 0.92% 5 Years (FY 07-11) % Change -5.79% -7.74% -6.89% 5 Years (FY 07-11) % Change -7.99% 33.84% 6.55% -2.80% 42.07% 23.08% -1.45% 30.65% FY 2010 FY 2011 24.24% $152,662,789 24.10% $194,414,536 $2.62 $37,000,313 $3.50 $46,853,915 $0.64 $0.84 22.30% $204,316,6 78 $3.73 $45,541,64 5 $0.83 $1.99 $77.65 $2.66 $81.23 $2.90 $102.70 9.09% 26.44% 45.72% 32.27% $5.28 $5.90 $6.92 17.40% 31.07% 1 Fixed Route includes local, supergrid, circulator and rural connector routes for the entire system. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 39 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation Table 3-5: Annual Boardings and Revenue Miles—FY 2011 Ridership Statistic Boardings Revenue Miles Boardings Per Revenue Mile Number 69,462,678 43,604,693 1.59 Source: RPTA, Annual Ridership Report for FY 2011, as derived from farebox data, which doesn’t include free circulator service. 3.2.5 Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Service The Regional Transportation Plan calls for arterial bus rapid transit service in several corridors. The first corridor was the Main Street in Mesa from Superstition Springs Mall Transit Center and Park-and-Ride to the east end of line light rail station at Sycamore and Main Street. This new type of service has a separate identity known as LINK Bus Service. It will be provided by new articulated buses with a different paint scheme to identify it as a connection (or “LINK”) to light rail service. To provide faster service, LINK buses stop less often, approximately once every mile (as compared to local bus which stops every quarter mile). LINK service features a unique station design that maximizes shade for transit patrons, features dynamic message signs that provide real time bus arrival data, and will eventually include fare vending machines at some stations to allow for off vehicle fare collection. On weekdays the service operates every 15 minutes during peak hours, and every 30 minutes during off-peak hours. Service is available from about 4:30 am to approximately 10:30 pm. However, this service does not operate on Saturdays and Sundays. Implementation of the Mesa Main Street LINK service began in December 2008 concurrent with the opening of the light rail starter line. The region’s second arterial BRT line, Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive LINK, began operation in January 2011. This service operates every 30 minutes during peak hours, and hourly during off-peak times. The service operates from about 5:00 am to 9:30 pm Monday through Friday. On Saturday and Sunday service operates hourly. Future corridors for this type of service include Chandler Boulevard, South Central Avenue and Scottsdale/Rural Road. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 40 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation 3.3 HIGH CAPACITY / LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT Light rail transit (LRT) began revenue operations in late December 2008. Valley Metro Rail (METRO) is the regional agency responsible for construction and operation of this high capacity mode of transit. The initial LRT segment operates a total of 20 miles through the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. Headways (frequencies) of train service are: Weekdays (Monday – Thursday): 4:40 AM – 7:30 AM 20 minutes 7:30 AM – 6:30 PM 12 minutes 6:30 PM – midnight 20 minutes Saturdays: 5:00 AM – 7:30 AM 7:30 AM – 7:00 PM 7:00 PM – 3:00 AM 15 minutes 15 minutes 20 minutes Weekdays (Friday): 4:40 AM – 7:30 AM 7:30 AM – 6:30 PM 6:30 PM – 3:00 AM Sundays/Holidays: 5:00 AM – 7:30 AM 7:30 AM – 7:00 PM 7:00 PM – midnight 20 minutes 20 minutes 20 minutes 20 minutes 12 minutes 20 minutes The 20-year RTP includes an additional 37 miles of high capacity transit in six corridors planned to connect with the initial system: 3.3.1 Northwest I & II Northwest Extension is a 4.6 mile light rail project starting at the northwest termination point of the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail project. The project follows 19th Avenue to Dunlap Avenue, then west on Dunlap Avenue to 25th Avenue and then runs on 25th Avenue to Mountain View Road. In March 2007, Phoenix City Council approved an initial 3.2 mile phase to be locally funded, without federal funding support. With the economic downturn, construction of the first phase, which includes the 19th Avenue to Dunlap portion of the project, will be phased based upon the availability of funding. Real estate acquisition and private utility relocation for the project is continuing in preparation for future construction. Phase I of the project is scheduled to be open by 2023, although METRO and city of Phoenix are currently exploring opportunities to expedite the construction. Phase II of the project (1.4 miles) is scheduled to be open by 2026. 3.3.2 Central Mesa In March 2010, the Mesa City Council approved a 3.1 mile extension of the LRT system. In August 2010, the Federal Transit Administration approved the alignment for project development as the next step towards federal funding. In July 2011, METRO received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) completed for the project. METRO will submit the request to complete the Project Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA) in early 2012 that would allow construction to begin. The extension begins at the eastern limits of METRO’s existing light rail system (Sycamore/Main Street) and extends east on Main Street to Mesa Drive. There are four stations planned on Main Street – Alma School Road, Country Club Drive, Center Street and Mesa Drive. The project is expected to be built by 2016. The total capital cost of the project is $199.0 million to be funded with a combination of regional and federal funds. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 41 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation 3.3.3 Tempe Streetcar In October 2010, Tempe City Council approved a 2.6 mile streetcar project in Central Tempe. Tempe streetcar will run in a one-way loop between Rio Salado Parkway and University Drive, going north on Mill Avenue and south on Ash Avenue. It will continue to travel north/south on Mill Avenue between University Drive and Southern Avenue. METRO has begun the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and federal grant applications. The project is expected to be built by 2016. The total capital cost of the project is $129.4 million to be funded with a combination of regional and federal funds. 3.3.4 Phoenix West METRO initiated an Alternatives Analysis on the Phoenix West (formerly I-10 West) corridor in 2007 to select a HCT alternative that addresses regional growth, increased congestion, changes in land use, lack of access to local destinations, inadequate transit service, and regional planning goals. The Phoenix West extension will travel westbound from the METRO starter line in downtown Phoenix to 79th Avenue park-and-ride serving Downtown Phoenix and State Capitol complex. The study recommendation is expected to be adopted by Phoenix City Council in spring 2012. The project is scheduled to open in 2021 using a mix of regional and federal funds. 3.3.5 Glendale METRO initiated a Glendale High Capacity Transit (HCT) Alternatives Analysis phase I study in 2010 to assess the feasibility of HCT along two proposed corridors – an east-west planning area along Glendale Avenue, and a north-south planning area along SR-101. These planning areas would originate at the Northwest Extension (19th Ave) and the Phoenix West extension respectively and would terminate at Westgate City Center at the intersection of SR-101 and Glendale Avenue. Final recommendations will be presented to Cities of Glendale and Phoenix in spring 2012. An Alternatives Analysis will be conducted on the selected corridor. The project is scheduled to open in 2026 using a mix of local, regional and federal funds. 3.3.6 Northeast Phoenix The Northeast extension will travel generally along the SR-51 corridor north to Paradise Valley Mall area. The project is scheduled to open in 2031 using a mix of regional and federal funds. Planning for this corridor has not yet begun. 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. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 42 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation Figure 3-4: High Capacity Transit Corridors Figure 3-5: High Capacity Transit Corridors—Schedule Source: Metro 2012 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 43 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation 3.4 CIRCULATORS Several cities provide circulator services (usually in their downtown areas) and /or neighborhood circulator service. The city of Phoenix operates DASH from downtown to the State Capitol area, and ALEX, a neighborhood circulator in the Ahwatukee/Desert Foothills area. They also operate the SMART, which is a neighborhood circulator in Sunny Slope, and the MARY, which operates in Maryvale. The city of Tempe provides FLASH that travels between downtown Tempe and the Arizona State University area. Tempe also provides the Orbit routes to serve residential areas and connect them to local destinations such as shopping areas, other neighborhoods, major bus routes, schools and multi-generational centers. The Orbit Routes include Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter. The city of Glendale operates GUS I, GUS II, in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown Glendale. The GUS III serves as a connection between the other GUS circulators and several senior centers, the Glendale Main Library, Glendale Community College, and the Glendale Adult Center along with various shopping centers. The city of Mesa also provides a free circulator, the downtown BUZZ. The city of Scottsdale operates a trolley service with a Downtown, a Neighborhood route, and a trolley route that operates along Miller Road. In July 2011, the city Avondale began operating the ZOOM, which replaced the discontinued START route and links major activity centers in the city including the Estrella Mountain Community College, the Avondale Civic Center and Gateway Pavillions. Most of these neighborhood circulators are free except for Glendale’s GUS services which charge a $0.25 fare, and Avondale’s ZOOM, which charges a $.50 fare. Beginning in FY 2007, RPTA combined circulator service data with the fixed route service data, so performance information about these services is included in Table 3-4. However, the data for the individual circulator routes is combined with fixed route and is shown in Appendix A – 2011 System Data. 3.5 REGIONAL CONNECTORS The RPTA provides one Regional Connector services. Route 685 – Gila Bend Regional Connector providing service between Ajo, Gila Bend, Buckeye and the Desert Sky Mall in Phoenix. Route 660 – Wickenburg Connector was discontinued in 2011. However, new service partnerships with Indian Communities have resulted in the planned (January 2012) implementation of Rt. 251 to Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) via 51st Avenue. This is in addition to the existing Rt. 66 (Kyrene) extension. 3.6 PARATRANSIT There are eight different paratransit systems in the region with a variety of service characteristics and eligibility criteria. Some are open to the general public, some serve only elderly and persons with disabilities and other paratransit systems are only available to Americans with Disabilities Act dial-a-ride eligible persons only. The new EVDAR contract that will begin in FY13 will lead to significant cost savings for east valley cities. Table 3-6 presents the major statistics for paratransit, or dial-a-ride, services in the region for FY 2007, 2010, and 2011. The available data by specific service is included in Appendix A. Paratransit boardings increased 2% between FY 2010 and FY 2011, but decreased by about 13% between FY 2007 and FY 2011. However, operating costs increased about 9% and 6% over the same periods, respectively. Passenger revenues increased by about 14% from the Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 44 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation previous year, and increased by about 48% over five years. The farebox recovery ratio also increased about 4% from the previous year and a 46% increase compared to FY 2007. Table 3-6: Comparison of Paratransit Data—2007, 2010 and 2011 General Vehicle Revenue Miles Vehicle Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Per Hour Ridership Total Boardings Boardings Per Revenue Mile Boardings Per Revenue Hour 922,790 N/A 777,525 0.12 800,833 0.11 1 Year (FY 10-11) % Change -2.30% -7.45% 5.56% 1 Year (FY 10-11) % Change 3.00% 5.43% N/A 1.63 1.81 11.29% FY 2007 N/A N/A N/A FY 2007 FY 2010 6,572,800 478,158 13.75 FY 2010 FY 2011 6,421,324 442,524 14.51 FY 2011 5 Years (FY 07-11) % Change N/A N/A N/A 5 Years (FY 07-11) % Change -13.22% N/A N/A 5 Years (FY 07-11) % Change 47.64% 6.15% 22.32% Financial FY 2007 FY 2010 FY 2011 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 4.41% $29,505,513 $31.97 6.23% $28,762,414 $36.99 6.52% $31,320,380 $39.11 1 Year (FY 10-11) % Change 4.65% 8.89% 5.72% $1,302,579 $1.41 $1,791,298 $2.30 $2,041,388 $2.55 13.96% 10.64% 56.72% 80.59% $30.56 N/A $34.69 $60.15 $33.56 $70.78 5.40% 17.66% 19.63% N/A N/A $4.38 $4.88 11.46% N/A After extensive input from RPTA member jurisdictions and paratransit users, a new ADA paratransit eligibility process was put into effect in March 2011. The new in-person process replaces the former paper-only process. It establishes a customer’s eligibility to use the complementary paratransit service required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Individuals applying for ADA certification are interviewed in-person by qualified staff. On an asneeded basis, some customers are asked to participate in a mobility assessment. Mobility assessments take place on “the Transit Walk,” an indoor facility which simulates a transit user’s environment. The Transit Walk seeks to bring the outdoors inside by using curb cuts, murals, different ground surfaces, a bus shelter and a bus to help people navigate what it is like to use transit The ADA eligibility program and Transit Walk are housed in the new Valley Metro Mobility Center, which opened in February 2011. The Mobility Center will also house other mobility programs such as travel training and Ride Choice (alternatives to both fixed route and traditional Dial-a-Ride). Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 45 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation 3.7 VANPOOL Vanpools are organized rideshare arrangements, much like large carpools, in which 6-15 riders who have similar origins and destinations collectively agree to commute in a single vehicle. Vehicles for this type of service may be owned or leased by one of the commuters in the group, a company, or by a third party representative. In the Valley Metro Vanpool Program all vanpool vans are owned by the agency and procured using federal funding or fare returns from active vanpools. Valley Metro Vanpool Program vehicles are fully insured, and maintained full size vans which offer a reliable, safe, efficient, and economical alternative to driving alone. RPTA provides vans to groups of 6 – 15 commuters who then share in the monthly cost of the van by paying an equitable monthly fare. Valley Metro has provided vanpool services to residents and employers in Maricopa County for twenty two years, and VPSI has served as the vanpool contractor for the majority of those years. VPSI contracts with Valley Metro to provide regional services including billing, administration, insurance, vehicle maintenance, and National Transit Database Reporting. Performance data for vanpool for fiscal years 2007, 2010, and 2011 is displayed in Table 3-7. Between FY 2010 and 2011, boardings decreased about -7%. Between FY 2007 and 2011 boardings decreased by almost -26%. In addition, operating costs increased by about 18% in the same one year period and increased by 36% during the previous five years. However, revenues increased with an almost 18% increase in one year and over a five year period increased nearly 36%. The farebox recovery ratio also increased by nearly 9% between FY 2010 and FY 2011. However, between FY 2007 and FY 2011, the farebox recovery ratio had also decreased by nearly 12%. One of the reasons the farebox recovery ratio went down over five years, is because the collection method for the vanpool farebox recovery data changed. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 46 Chapter 3 – Transit Service Evaluation Table 3-7: Comparison of Vanpool Data—2007, 2010 and 2011 General Vehicle Revenue Miles Vehicle Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Per Hour Ridership Total Boardings Boardings Per Revenue Mile Boardings Per Revenue Hour Financial Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Costs Operating Cost Per Boarding Fare Revenue Fare Revenue Per Boarding Subsidy Per Boarding Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile 1,418,466 0.27 1,135,783 0.20 1,054,315 0.20 1 Year (FY 10-11) % Change -6.38% N/A N/A 1 Year (FY 10-11) % Change -7.17% -0.85% N/A 8.42 N/A N/A N/A 5 Years (FY 07-11) % Change -12.33% 36.20% 83.25% FY 2007 5,264,469 N/A N/A FY 2007 FY 2010 5,623,377 134,927 41.68 FY 2010 FY 2011 5,264,634 N/A N/A FY 2011 5 Years (FY 07-11) % Change 0.00% N/A N/A 5 Years (FY 07-11) % Change -25.67% -25.67% FY 2010 FY 2011 115.00% $2,305,045 $1.63 92.88% $2,658,382 $2.34 100.82% $3,139,579 $2.98 1 Year (FY 10-10) % Change 8.55% 18.10% 27.23% $2,650,738 $1.87 $2,469,143 $2.17 $3,165,415 $3.00 28.20% 38.10% 19.42% 60.66% -$0.24 N/A $0.17 $19.70 -$0.02 N/A -114.71% N/A -89.94% N/A $0.44 $0.47 $0.60 26.15% 36.20% FY 2007 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 47 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 4.0 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE The provision of transit service in an area that is nearly 940 square miles (0.75 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. 4.1 PASSENGER AND SUPPORT FACILITIES 4.1.1 On-Street Passenger Facilities In 2010, geo-coded bus stop data was collected as part of the Origin and Destination. In the summer of 2011, new signs, which feature NextRide—a way to instantly get next bus and train arrival times—began to be installed at each of Valley Metro’s 7,465 bus stops and light rail stations. Using their cell phone instead of a personal computer, transit riders can key in the NextRide number to get stop specific transit schedules. The installation will continue through early 2012. Figure 4-1 depicts the numbered bus stops. Figure 4-1: Bus Stop sign with NextRide number Recognizing that lack of improved bus stops with shelters and other amenities can be a major impediment 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 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 48 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 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. Chapter 8 will assess boarding data at the bus stop level from the fareboxes. However, it will only be a limited assessment, to evaluate whether the methodology is can be applied to the rest of the routes in the valley. There are 28 LRT stations located along the light rail alignment in Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. There are also fare vending machines at every light rail station and several along both LINK routes. There has also been a significant facility investment on the two LINK routes, along the corridors of Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive and Main Street. These routes share four stations along Main Street plus their terminus at Sycamore Transit center. From the transit center, Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive LINK terminates at the Tumbleweed Park and Ride; the Main Street LINK terminates at the Superstition Springs Transit Center. There are a total of 20 additional stations constructed for the Arizona Ave/Country Club Drive LINK route. For Main Street, there are a total of 28 stations, including the shared stations and the terminus at Superstition Springs Transit Center. The LINK stations feature Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) and rider actuated verbal announcements of bus arrival times. 4.2 PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES Existing Park-and-Ride Facilities Region-wide, there are a total of 56 park-and-ride facilities. Of these facilities, 30 are publicly owned and operated, which provide 10,001 automobile spaces. The remaining 26 park-and-ride facilities are joint-use. The joint use facilities have an informal “handshake” agreement with private property owners and are established for shared parking arrangements. An exception is the McClintock/Apache Blvd park & ride. This parking structure is joint use but is not controlled by an informal agreement. Instead it is the result of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) project that was memorialized by a development agreement between the developer, the City of Tempe and Metro. 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. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 49 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Table 4-1: Existing Park-and-Ride Facilities Park-and-Ride Facility 7th Ave and Camelback Park and Ride 19th Ave and Montebello Transit Center & Park and Ride 19th Ave and Camelback Ave Park and Ride 27th Ave & Baseline Park and Ride 40th St/Pecos Park and Ride 79th Ave/I-10 Park and Ride Apache & Dorsey PNR Bell/I-17 Park and Ride Bell/SR-51 Park and Ride Buckeye Park and Ride Central and Camelback Transit Center and Park and Ride Chandler Park and Ride Gilbert Park and Ride Gilbert Road & McDowell Park and Ride Glendale City Lot Glendale Park and Ride Goodyear Park and Ride Happy Valley and I-17 Park and Ride Loop 101 and Apache Blvd1 Main St and Sycamore Transit Center and Park and Ride Metrocenter Transit Center & PNR McClintock Dr and Apache Blvd Peoria Park and Ride East Power Rd Park and Ride Shea/SR-51 Park and Ride Sunnyslope Transit Center & Park and Ride Superstition Springs Park and Ride Surprise Park and Ride Washington and 38th St Park and Ride West Mesa Park and RIde Joint-Use Facilities Carl’s Jr. Cactus Square Chaparral Park City Lot Cobblestone Village Community Church of Joy Confederate Air Force Costco Costco (Hayden Rd) East Mesa Service Center Food City Plaza Fry’s Market Grace Community Church Greenway Village Square Miller Plaza Mountain View Lutheran Church Mustang Library Location Publicly Owned Facilities City Capacity Routes Served 7th Ave and CamelbackRd Phoenix 123 8,50, Light Rial Montebello Ave and 19th Ave Phoenix 794 15, 19, 60, Light Rail 19th Ave and Camelback Rd Phoenix 410 19, 50, Light Rail 27th Ave and Baseline Phoenix 200 19, 35, 251 Pecos Rd and40th St Phoenix 906 79 Ave and I-10 Phoenix 607 Apache Blvd and Dorsey Ln Bell and I-17 SR-51 and Bell Rd Jackrabbit Trail and Palm Ln Tempe Phoenix Phoenix Buckeye 190 350 377 250 I-10 East RAPID, ALEX 17, 17A, 560, I-10 West RAPID Orbit, Light Rail 27, 170, I-17 RAPID 170, SR-51 RAPID 563 Central Ave and Camelback Rd Phoenix 135 0, 39, 50, GL, Light Rail Chandler 460 542, Arizona Ave LINK Gilbert 250 531, 136 Gilbert Road and Loop 202 Mesa 220 136, 535 59th Ave and Myrtle Ave Glendale 109 99 Ave and Glendale Cornerstone Blvd and Dysart Rd Glendale Goodyear 388 400 59, GUS I & II, Grand Ave Limited 70, 573 562, 563 Happy Valley Rd and I-17 Phoenix 512 35, I-17, RAPID Loop 101 and Apache Blvd Tempe 693 Main St and Sycamore Mesa 802 Phoenix 215 Tempe Peoria Mesa Phoenix 300 82 194 370 3rd St and Dunlap Ave Phoenix 45 Power Rd and US-60 Mesa 200 40, 511, Orbit, Light Rail 30,,40, 45, 96, 104 LINK— Main Street, Metro 15, 27, 35, 90, 106, 122, 581, I-17 RAPID 81, Light Rail Grand Ave Limited, 184, 535 16, 512, SR-51 RAPID 0, 8, 12, 16, 80, 90, 106, Dial-a-Ride, SMART 533, LINK, 40, 45,61,108,184 Bell Rd and 134 Drive Surprise 230 571 Washington St and 38th St Phoenix 189 1, Light Rail Country Club Drive and Juanita Mesa 305 112, 531, Arizona Ave LINK Warner Rd and Alma School Rd 32nd Street and Cactus Rd Hayden Rd and Jackrabbit Rd Chicago St and Arizona Ave Warner Rd and McClintock Dr 75th Avenue and Rose Garden Ln Greenfield Rd and McKellips Priest Dr and Elliot Rd 83rd Pl and Butherus Dr Decatur St and Power Rd Arizona Ave and Ray Rd Recker Rd and McKellips Rd Southern Ave and Dorsey Ln 35th Ave and Greenway Rd Montecito Ave and Miller Rd 48th St and Cheyenne St 90th Street and Shea Chandler Phoenix Scottsdale Chandler Tempe Glendale Mesa Tempe Scottsdale Mesa Chandler Mesa Tempe Phoenix Scottsdale Phoenix Scottsdale N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 104, 151 32, 106, 138 81, 510 104, 112, 540, 541 81, 540 573, 575, 532 56, 108 81, 170 532, 533 112, 541, Arizona Ave LINK 532 61, 520, Orbit 35, 154 50, 510, Miller Rd Trolley 56, 540, ALEX 81, 106, 511 th Hamilton and Germann (Arizona Ave./Loop 202) Oak St and Page Ave th Metrocenter Pkwy (Metrocenter Mall parking lot) McClintock Dr & Apache Blvd Jefferson St and 84th Ave Power Rd and Loop 202 Shea Blvd and SR-51 th Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 50 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Park-and-Ride Facility Paradise Valley Community College Safeway Shopping Center Shopping Center Shopping Center South Center Shopping Plaza Target Shopping Center Tolleson City Offices Trinity Church Wal-Mart Location City Capacity Routes Served 32nd St and Union Hills Dr Phoenix N/A 32, 90, 186 7th St and Thunderbird Rd Thunderbird Rd and 51st Ave McKellips Rd and Scottsdale Rd Gilbert Rd and Southern Ave McClintock & Baseline Rd 96th Ave & Van Buren St Hayden Rd and McCormick Pkwy 129th ave and Thunderbird Rd Phoenix Glendale Tempe Mesa Tempe Tolleson Scottsdale El Mirage N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7, 138 51, 138, 581 72, 532, Orbit 531, 136, 61 77, 81, 521 3, 560 81, 510 GAL Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 51 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Figure 4-2: Existing and Planned Publicly Owned Park-and-Rides Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 52 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Planned Park-and-Ride Facilities A total of 8 park-and-ride facilities are planned and identified in Table 4-2. The location of the each of the planned park-and-ride facilities is subject to change based on findings of individual site planning and design processes. In addition, the projected facility opening dates may also change based on the availability of funding, local priorities or other variables. Several park-andrides have been postponed due to less than anticipated Proposition 400 sales tax revenues. Figure 4-2 depicts the location of existing and planned park-and-ride facilities. Table 4-2: Planned1 Publicly Owned Park-and-Ride Facilities Park-and-Ride Facility/ Year of Implementation* Desert Sky (FY 2013) Arrowhead (FY 2014)2 Prop 400 Funded No Yes Location1 Thomas/75th Avenue City Phoenix Bell Rd & 75th Ave Glendale Avondale (FY 2014) No I-10 & Avondale Blvd Avondale Laveen (FY 2016) Yes Dobbins Rd & 59th Ave Phoenix No Baseline & 24th St Phoenix No Shea Blvd & 90th St Scottsdale Yes Scottsdale and Thunderbird Scottsdale Yes Peoria Ave & Grand Ave Peoria 3 East Baseline Road , Mustang Transit Center & PNR (FY 2015) Scottsdale/Thunder Bird (FY 2012) Peoria (FY 2018) Routes Served - I-10 RAPID (FY 2013) - Local Routes 67, 170 & 186 - Express Routes 573, 575 - Peoria Express (FY 2014) - Goodyear Express (FY 2009) 30, 70, 77, future Central-South Mountain RAPID (FY 2014) - Routes 81, 106, 512, 511 - Pima Express (FY 2013) - 72,154, 511 - Route 106 - Grand Avenue Limited 1 As identified in the 20 year RTP 2 Facility was switched with the Peoria/Grand Park-and-Ride 3 (80/20 Fed & Local) * Year of implementation and location is subject to change 4.2.1 Existing Transit Centers Transit center facilities are developed to facilitate convenient passenger transfers between buses or other modes of transportation, where two or more routes or modes come together. A total of fifteen transit centers are currently operated in the region, six of which serve METRO light rail. The amenities and services available at each transfer facility vary, with a majority of the facilities in the region providing services such as public transit information kiosks, the sale of fare media, and other relevant customer services. The transit center at both the Main St and Sycamore, and the Tempe Transportation Center also have public restrooms for use by transit riders. Table 4-3 provides specific information about each transfer center facility. Table 4-4 lists four future transit centers, whereas Figure 4-3 illustrates the locations of existing and planned transit center facilities. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 53 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Table 4-3: Passenger Facilities and Transit Centers—FY 2012 Central Station 300 N. Central Ave Phoenix Route / Daily Round Trips 0 1 3 7 8 10 12 15 Grand Avenue Limited 510 512 520 521 531 532 533 535 540 541 542 560 562 563 571 573 575 581 I-10 W RAPID I-10 E RAPID SR-51 RAPID I-17 RAPID METRO light Rail (M-T/F Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri1 76 22 65 42 34 37 25 34 4 2 2 4 7 8 3 5 4 4 5 5 2 2 2 3 4 3 2 12 14 13 26 85 Sat2 25 15 29 28 29 15 15 16 -----------------------80 Sun 25 15 29 28 29 15 15 16 -----------------------54 Total 585 266 218 City of Phoenix 1997 2.8 acres A 4,000 square foot building with a police office, two evaporative cooled open air colonnades totaling 500 lineal feet, shade trees, children’s play area, information kiosk, public restrooms, drinking fountains, bicycle racks, and telephones. Services provided at Central Station include ticket and pass sales, transit information, lost and found, and push cart vending. Central Station was remodeled and opened for public use in July of 2011. Sunnyslope Transit Center Route / Daily Round Trips Mon-Fri Sat Sun 8927 N. 3rd Street 0 51 25 25 Phoenix 8 34 29 29 12 26 15 15 16 46 30 30 80 34 15 15 90 32 30 30 106 34 29 29 Dial-a-Ride Service Total 257 178 178 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 Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 54 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Metrocenter Mall Transit Center 9415 N. Metro Parkway Phoenix Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Route / Daily Round Trips 15 27 35 90 106 122 581 I-17 RAPID Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri 34 35 43 32 34 16 4 13 Sat 15 29 28 30 29 14 --- Sun 15 29 28 30 29 14 --- Total 171 145 145 Leased land 1984 24,700 square feet 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 Paradise Valley Mall Transit Center 4623 E. Paradise Village Parkway N. Phoenix Route / Daily Round Trips 39 44 106 138 SR-51 RAPID Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri 17 33 34 33 2 Sat 14 20 29 15 -- Sun 14 20 29 15 -- Total 138 78 78 Leased land 1990 Approximately 1 acre Two large cool tower shelters, four other shelters, driver’s restroom, over 50 large arid region trees, drinking fountains, telephone, bicycle racks, and 100 shared parking spaces Desert Sky Mall Transit Center Route / Daily Round Trips Mon-Fri Sat Sun 17 61 29 29 7611 W. Thomas Road 17A 15 14 -Phoenix 29 66 29 29 41 61 30 30 560 2 --I-10 W RAPID 13 --685 5 2 -Dial-a-Ride Service Total 175 119 88 Ownership: Leased land Completed: 1989 Project Size: 900 square feet Facilities: One shelter, shade trees, information kiosk, and bicycle racks. Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Arizona Mills Mall 5000 Arizona Mills Circle Tempe Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Route / Daily Round Trips 48 56 77 Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri 34 46 35 Sat 34 32 33 Total 115 99 Private 1997 1,000 square feet One bus bays one artist-designed bus shelter, drinking fountain, information kiosk and a bicycle rack. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 Sun 34 32 33 99 55 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Ed Pastor Transit Center Route / Daily Round Trips 0 7 8 45 52 Dial-a-Ride Service 10 W. Broadway Phoenix Mon-Fri 77 42 34 47 34 Sat 29 28 29 33 16 Sun 29 28 29 33 16 Total 194 135 135 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 47 31 22 Chandler 81 29 0 0 Dial-a-Ride Service Total 76 31 22 Ownership: City of Chandler Completed: 2004 Project Size: 0.5 acres Facilities: Two 40-foot passenger shelters, benches, bicycle rack, and drinking fountains Tempe Transportation Center Route / Daily Round Trips Mon-Fri Sat Sun 48 34 34 34 200 E 5th Street 62 51 39 35 Tempe 65 34 20 18 66 34 20 18 72 53 39 35 Orbit 282 260 260 METRO light rail 89 89 59 Dial-a-Ride Service Total 577 501 459 Ownership: City of Tempe Completed: 2008 Project Size: 40,000 square feet Facilities: Thirteen bus shelters, ticket/information counter, public restrooms, retail spaces, drinking fountains, information kiosks and bicycle racks. Arrowhead Towne Center Route / Daily Round Trips Mon-Fri Sat Sun 7700 W. Arrowhead Town Center 67 32 15 15 Glendale 170 34 30 14 186 17 15 15 573 6 --575 3 --Dial-a-Ride Service Total 92 60 44 Ownership: Private Completed: 1994 Project Size: 1,000 square feet Facilities: Four bus bays used for layover purposes only on outer road, shade trees and sitting area in boarding area near mall, lighting, easy access to mall restroom facilities and food court. Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Montebello / 19th Ave Transit Center 1825 W. Montebello Phoenix Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: Route / Daily Round Trips 15 19 60 METRO light rail Dial-a-Ride Service Total City of Phoenix 2008 1.8 acres Six bus shelters, four bike racks, information kiosk and shade trees. Mon-Fri1 34 61 32 89 Sat2 16 28 15 89 Sun 16 28 15 59 216 148 118 Central Ave / Camelback Transit Center Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 56 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 5 W. Camelback Road Phoenix Route / Daily Round Trips 0 39 50 METRO light rail Dial-a-Ride Service Mon-Fri1 51 17 49 89 Sat2 29 14 29 89 Sun 29 14 29 59 206 161 131 Mon-Fri1 22 64 29 32 93 Sat2 15 29 15 20 89 Sun 15 29 15 20 43 240 168 122 Total Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: City of Phoenix 2008 1.25 acres Five bus shelters, four bike racks, information kiosk and shade trees 44th St / Washington Transit Center 4349 E. Washington Street Phoenix Route / Daily Round Trips 1 3 13 44 METRO light rail Dial-a-Ride Service Total Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: City of Phoenix 2008 3.2 acres Three bus shelters, four bike racks, information kiosk, security operations center and shade trees. Sycamore / Main St Transit Center Route / Daily Round Trips 30 40 45 96 104 LINK-Main Street LINK-Arizona Ave METRO light rail Dial-a-Ride Service 1804 W. Main St Mesa Mon-Fri1 35 34 32 44 31 45 30 93 Sat2 18 32 15 34 16 -16 89 Sun -32 -34 --14 43 344 0 135 Mon-Fri1 34 32 51 13 40 5 45 Sat2 32 15 36 -16 --- Sun 32 -17 -16 --- 220 99 65 Total Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: City of Mesa 2008 3.2 acres Three bus shelters, four bike racks, information kiosk, security operations center and shade trees. Superstition Springs Transit Center 6555 E. Southern Ave Mesa Route / Daily Round Trips 40 45 61 108 184 533 LINK-Main Street Dial-a-Ride Service Total Ownership: Completed: Project Size: Facilities: 1 2 City of Mesa 2008 3.2 acres Three bus shelters, four bike racks, information kiosk, security operations center and shade trees. Monday-Friday on bus routes is compared to Monday to Thursday on METRO light rail. Saturday on bus routes is compared to Friday and Saturday on METRO light rail. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 57 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Figure 4-3: Existing and Planned Transfer Facilities Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 58 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Table 4-4: Planned1 Transit Centers and Transit Center Improvements Transit Center/ Year of Implementation Bell/101 (FY 2013) Skysong Transit Center (FY 2015) Mustang Transit Center & PNR (FY 2015) Peoria Downtown (2015) Mesa Downtown (FY 2016) Prop 400 Funded Location City Yes Bell Rd & 83rd Ave No Scottsdale Rd & McDowell Rd Scottsdale No Shea Blvd & 90th St Scottsdale Yes Peoria/Grand Avenue Peoria Yes Main St & Center St Mesa Glendale Routes Served (Existing and Planned) - Routes 67, 170, 186, 575, 576 - Arrowhead Downtown Express - Surprise-Scottsdale Express - 83rd/75th Avenue Supergrid (FY 2023)t Loop 101 Connector (FY 2009) - Loop 303 Express (FY 2023) - Routes 17, 72 - Miller Rd Neighborhood Connector - Routes 81, 106, , 511, 512 106, Grand Ave Limited - Routes 40, 45, 104, 112, 120 - Main St LINK - Light Rail Extension 1 As identified in the 20 year RTP Source: DRAFT 2012 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update 4.3 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FACILITIES Transit operations and maintenance (O&M) facilities are essential public assets that support the delivery of transit services. These facilities serve multiple purposes including functioning as operating bases, vehicle service and fueling centers, employee training centers and administrative offices. O&M facilities are often designed to meet the specialized needs of the services that the facilities are planned to support. 4.3.1 Existing Publicly Owned Transit Only Operations and Maintenance Facilities Dedicated publicly owned transit O&M facilities provide long term operating efficiencies through reduced local cost of ownership. Capital development funds available through the Federal Transit Administration’s formula and discretionary grant programs can be leveraged to fund a significant portion of the capital costs associated with constructing dedicated transit O&M facilities. By owning a facility funded through federal tax revenues, a local community can reduce fixed operating costs associated with facility leasing. 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 4-5). Privately Owned Operations and Maintenance Facilities are also included In Table 4-5 to give a more comprehensive overview of our existing system. 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. The existing O&M facilities are depicted in figure 4-4. 4.3.2 Planned Operations and Maintenance Facilities To support the planned expansion of the regional transit system as outlined in the RTP, two additional dedicated O&M facilities are planned and funded. These facilities include a new regional heavy maintenance facility and a new fixed route bus facility. Additionally, funding is identified in the RTP for regional O&M facility upgrades at two facilities: Phoenix South Division and RPTA Mesa (includes funding for upgrades to the fixed route and demand response sections of the facility). The future facilities and their associated implementation years are Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 59 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations described in Table 4-6. Additional funding for three other facilities was originally identified in the RTP to support regional rural bus service, vanpool service and Phoenix Dial-a-Ride. However, all of these facilities have been postponed to a year outside of the TLCP. In addition, the RTP includes a new light rail O&M facility; however, the programmed year for completion has not been determined. Table 3-6 shows the planned O&M facilities. Table 4-5: Existing Publicly and Privately Owned Operations and Maintenance Facilities Facility Contractor Phoenix South Division 2225 W Lower Buckeye Phoenix Veolia Vehicle Capacity 250 Phoenix North Division 2010 W Desert Cove Phoenix Veolia 150 Fixed Route Phoenix West Division th 79 Avenue & Van Buren St. Phoenix Tempe/Scottsdale 2050 W. Rio Salado Parkway Tempe RPTA Mesa 3320 N. Greenfield Rd. Mesa Metro Rail th 48 & Washington St. Phoenix Glendale 6210 W. Myrtle Ave. Suite S Glendale ValuTrans (Total Transit) 4600 W. Camelback Road Glendale Atypical 1680 N 74th Street Scottsdale Second Generation 1248 N 2nd Avenue Ajo MV Transportation th 1001 S. 4 St Phoenix First Transit 250 Fixed Route Veolia 250 Fixed Route Veolia 250 METRO 100 Fixed Route, Demand Response Light Rail None N/A Demand Response ValuTrans N/A Fixed Route Modes Served Primary Functions Fixed Route & DASH Circulator Heavy Vehicle Maintenance, LNG and Diesel Fueling, Cleaning, and Painting. Operator Dispatch and Regional Radio Support. Vehicle Maintenance, LNG and Diesel Fueling, Vehicle Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Vehicle Maintenance, CNG, LNG, and Diesel Fueling, Vehicle Cleaning and Operator Dispatch Vehicle Maintenance, LNG fueling, Vehicle Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Vehicle Maintenance, Fueling, Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Vehicle Maintenance, Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Vehicle Maintenance, Fueling, Vehicle Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Vehicle Maintenance, Fueling, Vehicle Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Atypical N/A Circulator Second Generation N/A Rural MV Transportati on N/A Circulator Vehicle Maintenance, Fueling, Vehicle Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Vehicle Operations, Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Vehicle Maintenance, Diesel Fueling, Cleaning, and Operator Dispatch Sources: 2012 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Regional Public Transportation Authority Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 60 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Table 4-6: Planned Publicly Owned Operations and Maintenance Facilities Facility New Heavy Maintenance – Fixed Route Bus New Fixed Route Bus Phoenix South Division Rehabilitation RPTA Mesa Fixed Route Upgrades/Rehabilitation RPTA Dial-a-Ride Phoenix Dial-a-Ride Rural Routes Vanpool Facility Metro Light Rail Facility Modes Served Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Demand Response Demand Response Rural Vanpool Light Rail Programmed Year Complete 2034 2046 2035 2035 2038 2033 2038 2040 TBD Source: 2012 Draft Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 61 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Figure 4-4: Existing Operations and Maintenance Facilities Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 62 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 4.4 ROADWAY ENHANCEMENTS 4.4.1 Existing and Planned HOV Lanes and Ramps Since passage of the first countywide half-cent sales tax for transportation in 1985, MAG and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) have worked together on a program of constructing HOV lanes on many of the new regional freeways. In some places, such as I-10, the HOV lanes were built concurrently with the original general purpose lanes. On other freeways, HOV lanes have been added after the general purpose lanes opened. As an example, HOV lanes were retrofitted to portions of I-17 (Black Canyon Highway), the oldest freeway in Maricopa County. Currently, segments of I-10, I-17, SR-51, US-60, SR 101 and SR-202 have one HOV lane in each direction, located to the inside of the general traffic lanes and marked with regulatory signs and painted diamonds. The HOV lanes are restricted to vehicles with two or more occupants during peak hours: Monday through Friday from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Motorcycles, certain alternative-fueled vehicles and a limited number of hybrid vehicles are also permitted to use the lanes at all times. During off-peak hours, HOV lanes are open to all vehicles. HOV lanes are intended to encourage carpooling/vanpooling and bus ridership. Many existing express and freeway BRT routes use the lanes, and more will do so as they come on line during the 20-year life cycle of the RTP. Table 4-7 shows that approximately 272 lane miles (i.e., 97 centerline miles) of HOV lanes currently exist on regional freeways in Maricopa County. Nearly all existing HOV lane segments currently support express bus or RAPID operations during peak periods. This table was updated in December. The MAG freeway system has three local service interchanges that offer direct access to and from the HOV lanes for carpools and buses. All are located along I-10, and are specifically at: • • • 79th Avenue, providing an eastbound on-ramp and a westbound off-ramp connecting the I-10 HOV lanes with the 79th Avenue park-and-ride lot. 5th Avenue/3rd Avenue, providing a westbound on-ramp and an eastbound off-ramp connecting the I-10 HOV lanes with these north-south links to downtown Phoenix. 3rd Street, providing an eastbound on-ramp and a westbound off-ramp between the I-10 HOV lanes and this north-south collector street serving downtown Phoenix. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 63 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Table 4-7: Existing and Planned Freeway HOV Lanes Route From I-10 I-17 SR-51 US-60 SR-101 SR-202 SR-303L Sarival Ave SR-101L Chandler Blvd Begin I-17 I-10 “stack” SR-101L SR-74 I-10 Shea Blvd I-10 Power Rd I-10 Grand Ave I-17 Tatum Blvd Princess Dr Red Mtn Fwy I-10/SR-51 Pima Fwy Gilbert Rd Higley Rd US 60 Gilbert Rd To Sarival Ave SR-101L Chandler Blvd Riggs Rd I-10 “stack” SR-101L SR-74 Anthem Way Shea Blvd SR-101L Power Rd Meridian Rd Grand Ave I-17 Tatum Blvd Princess Dr Red Mtn Fwy Santan Fwy Pima Fwy Gilbert Rd Higley Rd US 60 Gilbert Rd I-10 Total Existing Lane Miles Total Planned Lane Miles Approximate Lane Miles 3 18 52 14 14 28 18 10 20 12 34 12 20 24 16 10 30 20 18 12 10 20 28 20 Status of HOV Lanes 1 Planned RTP Phase II Existing Existing Planned RTP Phase II Planned RTP Phase IV Existing Existing Planned RTP Phase V Existing Existing Existing Planned RTP Phase III Existing Existing Underway Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Planned RTP Phase III Planned RTP Phase IV Planned RTP Phase IV Existing 352 111 Sources: MAG Regional Transportation Plan – 2010 Update (July, 2010), MAG 2010 Annual Report on the Status of the Implementation of Proposition 400 (September 2010). 1 Phase II: Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015 2 Phase III: Fiscal Years 2016 through 2020 3 Phase IV: Fiscal Years 2021 through 2025 4 Phase V: Fiscal Years 2026 through 2031 The regional freeway network also contains direct ramps connecting one HOV lane to another at the following system (directional, freeway-to-freeway) interchanges: • • • • • I-10/SR-51/SR-202: (1) from I-10/east to SR-202/east; (2) from SR-202/west to I10/west; (3) from I-10/west to SR-51/north; and (4) from SR-51/south to I-10/east. I-10/US-60: (1) from I-10/east to US-60/east; and (2) from US-60/east to I-10/west. SR 51/SR101: (1) from SR-51/north to SR-101/east; and (2) from SR-101/west to SR51/south. I-10/SR-202 (Santan): (1) from I-10/east to SR-202/east, and (2) from SR-202/west to I10/west. SR-101/SR-202 (Santan): (1) from SR-101/south to SR-202/east, and (2) from SR-202/ west to SR-101/north. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 64 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Also direct ramps connecting one HOV lane to another are planned in Phase V at the following system (directional, freeway-to-freeway) interchange: • US-60/SR-202(Red Mtn./Santan): (1) from US-60/west to SR-202/south; and (2) from SR-202/north to US-60/east. 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. 4.4.2 Arterial Street Improvements There are few transit priority facilities that currently exist on arterial streets in the MAG region, with the exception of Metro Rail and three queue jumpers that allow transit buses priority access through signalized traffic intersections on Arizona Avenue in the City of Chandler. The queue jumpers were constructed by the City to function in both directions of travel on Arizona Avenue at Elliot Road, Warner Road and Ray Road. There will be as part of The Main Street and Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive LINK routes feature traffic signal priority (TSP), which began operation in 2011. Each queue jumper lane, signed for “Bus and Bike Only” approaching a signalized intersection, allows buses to bypass the queue of vehicles waiting at the intersection. When a bus is stopped at the signal, a special indication is provided to give the bus a four-second head start (“queue jump”) before the onset of the green signal. The queue jumper may be used in conjunction with a far side bus stop. Chandler uses a special camera configuration connected to a 16-phase signal cabinet to detect only 40-foot buses, while preventing bicycles and autos (which have a separate right turn lane) from triggering the queue jump. Local buses are currently taking advantage of the travel time savings provided by the queue jumpers. Table 4-8 only reflects cases where an agency is doing a roadway improvement that is included in the TIP and indicates that the current facility does not have a bus pullout, but that the planned facility will have a bus pullout. Projects that are not regionally significant (e.g. add through lane capacity) or that does not use federal transportation funding, do not need to be in the TIP, so it is highly likely that this list is not complete. Table 4-8: Planned Arterial Street Improvements. Work Year 2006 2007 Agency Name Gilbert Scottsdale Maricopa County Segment ID 6639 28136 Segment Location Val Vista Dr: Warner Rd to Pecos Rd Shea at 90th/92nd/96th Streets Power Rd: Baseline Rd to East Maricopa 2009 17533 Floodway Gilbert Rd: SR202L/Germann Rd to 2010 Chandler 21578 Queen Creek Rd Fountain Shea Blvd: Palisades Blvd. to Fountain 2010 Hills 31771 Hills Blvd. 2010 Gilbert 23157 Warner Rd at Cooper Rd Greenfield Rd: Baseline Rd to Southern 2010 Mesa 15638 Ave 2011 Avondale 6567 Avondale & McDowell Road 2011 Chandler 20236 Chandler Blvd at Dobson Rd Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 Bus Pullouts/After 2 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 65 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 2011 2011 Chandler Chandler 4641 23642 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 Glendale Mesa Mesa Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 9095 35619 27277 41583 34623 37823 1184 11368 1834 31735 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Queen Creek Valley Metro/RPTA 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Avondale Buckeye Chandler Chandler Chandler Chandler 38041 38038 43457 2139 16093 14005 2012 2012 2012 2012 Chandler Gilbert Gilbert Gilbert 8127 43309 24369 48790 2012 Glendale 36051 2012 Mesa 43034 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 19748 534 2994 33867 6500 2012 Peoria Peoria Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Queen Creek 2013 Chandler 32395 2011 1 1 47629 11724 39724 30525 Ray Rd at Alma School Rd Various locations along Dobson Rd Various Locations: Camelback Rd, Litchfield Rd, Olive Ave, Greenway Rd, 83rd Ave, 75th Ave Hawes Rd: Santan Fwy to Ray Rd Ray Rd: Sossaman Rd to Ellsworth Rd 19th Ave: Baseline Rd to Southern Ave Eastbound Van Buren St at 19th Ave Northbound 19th Ave At Van Buren St Phoenix Phoenix Regionwide Regionwide Southbound 67th Ave at Indian School Rd VA Hospital Westbound McDowell Rd at 43rd Ave Westbound Thomas Rd at 24th St 22067 Hunt Highway: Power Rd to Ellsworth 1 38997 Regionwide McDowell Road: Aqua Fria Bridge to 119th Avenue Various Locations: Yuma Rd, Miller Rd Chandler Blvd at Alma School Rd Gilbert Rd: Queen Creek to Ocotillo Gilbert Rd: Queen Creek to Ocotillo Gilbert Rd: Queen Creek to Hunt Hwy Various locations along Arizona Ave and Ocotillo Rd Greenfield Rd: Germann Rd to Pecos Rd Guadalupe Rd at Cooper Rd Power Rd: Santan Fwy to Pecos Rd Grand Canal in west Glendale, from Loop 101 to New River Dobson Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Route Improvements (Broadway Road to Main Street) 75th Avenue at Thunderbird Rd: Intersection Improvement 83rd Ave: Butler to Mountain View Rd Eastbound Thunderbird Rd at 32nd St Westbound Indian School Rd at 24th St Westbound Indian School Rd at 32nd St Meridian Rd: Queen Creek Rd to Ocotillo Rd Chandler Blvd: Colorado Street to McQueen Road 1 9201 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 66 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 2013 2013 2013 2013 Chandler Gilbert Gilbert Glendale 47236 47974 48903 42528 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Peoria 19918 45807 46901 651 16056 2013 2013 2013 2013 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 30567 14264 4149 5611 2013 2013 2013 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 2103 5213 34468 2013 20203 18786 Regionwide 1 2013 2014 Scottsdale Valley Metro Rail Valley Metro/RPTA Avondale Gilbert Rd: Chandler Heights Rd to Hunt Hwy Guadalupe Rd at Gilbert Rd Queen Creek Rd: Greenfield to Higley Bell/L101 Mesa Dr: US-60 (Superstition Fwy) to Southern Southern Ave at Country Club Dr Southern Ave at Country Club Dr Southern Ave at Stapley Dr 83rd Avenue: Butler Rd to Mountain View 75th Ave: Lower Buckeye Rd to Buckeye Rd 79th Avenue/Thomas Road Lower Buckeye Rd: 51st Ave to 43rd Ave Northbound 32nd St at McDowell Rd Sonoran Blvd: 15th Avenue to Cave Creek Southbound Central Rd At Baseline Rd Westbound Southern Ave at Central Scottsdale Rd: Thompson Peak Pkwy to Pinnacle Peak Rd 37256 16547 2 1 2014 Chandler 2014 Peoria 28009 2014 2014 2014 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 34833 6914 40778 2015 2015 2015 2015 Avondale Chandler Chandler Gilbert 1791 13885 35350 20194 2015 Gilbert 41383 2015 2015 Gilbert Gilbert 11047 21812 2015 Gilbert 2950 2015 2015 2015 2015 Gilbert Gilbert Gilbert Gilbert 27689 16366 39144 48998 2015 Gilbert 43657 Regionwide El Mirage and Lower Buckeye Road Gilbert Rd: Ocotillo Rd to Chandler Heights Lake Pleasant Pkwy: Dynamite Blvd to CAP Northbound Greenway Pkwy At Cave Creek Rd Southbound 32nd St At Thomas Rd Westbound Glendale Ave At 7Th St 107th Avenue & McDowell Roadway Improvements Ray Rd at Dobson Rd Ray Rd at McClintock Dr Germann Rd: Greenfield Rd to Higley Rd Greenfield Rd: Queen Creek Rd to Ocotillo Rd Lindsay Rd: Germann Rd to Queen Creek Rd Lindsay Rd: Pecos Rd to Germann Rd Lindsay Rd: Queen Creek Rd to Ocotillo Rd Queen Creek Rd: Lindsay Rd to Greenfield Rd Ray Rd: Higley Rd to Recker Rd Recker Rd: Queen Creek to Ocotillo Rds Recker Rd: Ray Rd to Warner Rd Val Vista Dr: Ocotillo Rd to Chandler Heights Rd 2013 7687 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 67 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 2015 2015 Gilbert Gilbert 14165 14677 2015 Peoria 4936 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Peoria Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 7203 48563 40954 19232 2280 23204 20222 2015 2015 2015 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 21328 864 18036 2015 2015 2015 2015 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 9065 33107 33174 43372 2015 2015 Phoenix Phoenix Valley Metro Rail Valley Metro Rail Valley Metro Rail 30218 39257 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 Valley Metro Rail Gilbert Gilbert Gilbert Maricopa County Mesa Mesa Scottsdale 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 Chandler Gilbert Gilbert Gilbert Gilbert Scottsdale Scottsdale Gilbert 2015 2016 2016 2016 49041 27383 5655 13425 8180 34743 19677 42523 21422 13167 4292 2757 28235 2659 14079 7489 24722 485 6991 Val Vista Dr: Ocotillo Rd to Queen Creek Rd Warner Rd: Higley Rd to Recker Rd 67th Ave: Pinnacle Peak Rd to Happy Valley Rd Vistancia Blvd: Central Arizona Canal to Twin Buttes Pkwy 16th St at Thomas Rd 7th St at Camelback Rd Baseline Rd: 59th - 51st Ave Buckeye Rd: 67th Ave to 59th Ave Eastbound Indian School Rd At 16Th St McDowell Road & 32nd Street Southbound 16th St At Bethany Home Rd Southbound 35th Ave At Dunlap Rd Southbound Central Ave At Dunlap Rd Southbound Greenway Pkwy At Cave Creek Rd Various Locations Various Locations Westbound Broadway Rd At 16Th St Westbound Cave Creek Rd At Greenway Pkwy Westbound Greenway Rd At 19th Ave 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-10 WEST Phoenix I-17 Corridor - Bethany Home Rd to Dunlap Rd 3 Main Street Corridor Mill Avenue: Rio Salado Pkwy to Southern Ave with Downtown Mill Ave/Ash Loop Germann Rd: Gilbert Rd to Val Vista Rd Germann Rd: Val Vista Dr to Higley Greenfield Rd: Elliot Rd to Ray Rd 2 El Mirage Rd: Thunderbird Rd to Bell Rd Baseline Rd: Power Rd to Ellsworth Rd Mesa Dr at Broadway Rd Pima Rd: Krail to Chaparral Rd Gilbert Rd: Chandler Heights Rd to Riggs Rd Elliot Rd at Greenfield Rd Ray Rd: Higley to Recker Ray Rd: Recker to Power Ray Rd: Val Vista to Higley Shea at Via Linda (Phase 2) Shea Blvd at 110th Street Guadalupe Rd at Val Vista Dr 2 1 1 1 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 2 2 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 68 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 2018 2018 42229 19897 2020 2020 2020 Gilbert Gilbert Maricopa County Maricopa County Scottsdale Chandler Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Fountain Hills Mesa Scottsdale 2021 Chandler 45793 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 2024 Scottsdale Mesa Mesa Chandler Gilbert Mesa 30558 21831 29679 8744 24200 30455 2024 2024 2025 2025 2026 Peoria Scottsdale Chandler Mesa Chandler Maricopa County Maricopa County Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa 35820 38424 45636 16883 33540 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 14133 11959 6515 25039 46053 29678 33206 35748 36089 Guadalupe Rd/Power Rd: Intersection Improvements Ray Rd at Gilbert Rd El Mirage Rd: Thunderbird to Northern Ave. 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 35778 Jomax Rd: Loop 303 to Sun Valley Pkwy Pima Rd: Chaparral Rd to Thomas Rd Gilbert Rd: Riggs Rd to Hunt Hwy Country Club at Brown Rd Country Club Dr at University Dr Higley Rd Pkwy: Loop 202 to Brown Rd McKellips Rd at Power Southern Ave at Lindsay Rd Shea Blvd: Palisades Blvd. to Technology Dr Higley Rd Pkwy: Brown to US60 Miller Rd at Loop 101 Underpass Queen Creek Rd: McQueen Rd to Gilbert Rd Scottsdale Rd: Dixileta Dr to Ashler Hills Dr University Dr: Val Vista Dr to Higley Southern Ave: Sossaman Rd to Crismon Kyrene Rd at Ray Rd Power Rd: Pecos to Chandler Heights Rd University Dr: Higley Rd to Hawes Rd Lake Pleasant Pkwy: CAP to SR74/Carefree Hwy Hayden Rd: Redfield to Raintree Ray Rd at Rural Rd Elliot Rd: Ellsworth to Meridian Chandler at Kyrene Northern Parkway: 91st to Grand Ave Intersection Improvements 23099 27208 2456 44642 45133 672 8622 Northern Parkway: Loop 101 to 91st McKellips Rd at Greenfield Rd McKellips Rd at Higley Rd McKellips Rd at Lindsay Rd McKellips Rd at Recker Ray Rd: Ellsworth to Meridian Elliot Rd: Power Rd to Ellsworth 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 30243 41869 29198 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 69 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 5.0 REGIONALLY FUNDED SHORT RANGE TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Regionally funded transit operations and capital improvements through Fiscal year 2026 are identified in the DRAFT FY 2012 Transit Life Cycle Program Update (TLCP). The update has not yet been approved by the Valley Metro Board of Directors. 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 2012 and 2016 is provided in this chapter. In addition, technical considerations for route adjustments, phased service implementation strategies and schedule/service coordination alternatives are provided for each operation and capital improvement programmed for implementation during this same time period. The projects described in the TLCP come from the MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The projects identified in the RTP include a mix of federal, regional and local funding. The funding assumptions in the RTP are reflected in the five year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). 5.1 REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANIST OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS 5.1.1 Funded Regional Transit Operating Improvements FY 2012 through FY 2016 Planned regionally funded transit operations improvements between FY 2012 and FY 2016 include new bus routes and the provision of regional funding for existing locally funded bus routes. Table 5-1 lists the 6 local bus routes, 2 express/BRT routes, one light rail extension and one streetcar construction that will be impacted by regional transit funding between FY 2012 and FY 2016. Several planned routes in the RTP have been delayed due to fiscal constraints resulting from declines in sales tax revenue. Table 5-1: Regionally Funded Transit Operations Investments FY 2012 through FY 2016 Weekday Route Supergrid Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive McDowell/McKellips Roads Elliot Road th 59 Avenue Baseline Road University Drive Express/BRT South Central Express Scottsdale/Rural Roads LINK Light Rail Central Mesa Extension Tempe Modern Streetcar Initial Fiscal Year of Regional Funding Peak Headway (min) Base Headway (min) Weekend Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips Base Headway (min) Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips 2012 15 30 18 72 30 16 64 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016 15 15 30 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 18 17 17 18 18 88 68 68 72 72 30 60 60 30 60 17 16 16 17 17 68 32 32 68 34 2015 2016 Two-way Two-way ----- ----- 48 48 ----- ----- ----- 2016 2016 Source: 2012 DRAFT Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 70 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 5.3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR REGIONALLY FUNDED TRANSIT OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS (FY 2012 through FY 2016) Regionally funded transit operating improvements identified in the DRAFT FY 2012 TLCP Update for FY 2012 through FY 2016 will create opportunities to optimize existing locally and regionally funded transit services. In some cases new regionally funded bus routes will result in service duplications that could provide an opportunity to re-prioritize local transit investments for enhanced transit connectivity or expanding local services to new areas. In other cases considerations must be made for providing adequate capital infrastructure, such as park-andride facilities, necessary to support new regionally funded transit services. It is recommended that the service planning process facilitated by RPTA for the implementation of new transit services and capital facilities be launched at the completion of each year’s Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) update. This timeline provides an opportunity to utilize the transit service and capital considerations identified in the annual SRTP update to initiate the planning process and improve the integration of local and regional transit planning efforts. Participation in the service planning process is voluntary for RPTA member agencies; however, it is recommended that member agencies directly affected by service or capital considerations contribute to the process. The SRTP provides an opportunity for local jurisdictions and agencies to request potential amendments to project definitions within the TLCP. Potential amendments may include adjusting a planned route pattern or reassigning regional capital funds from one capital project (such as a PNR) to another. For example, the planned location of a PNR facility may be less beneficial than an alternative site. The considerations identified in the SRTP will be carried forward to the TLCP process for potential inclusion in the official annual TLCP update. However, all potential project adjustments are subject to approval through the regionally adopted TLCP policies. The route considerations at the end of the SRTP provide a guideline for future route adjustments. 5.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 5.3.1 Funded Regional Transit Facility Improvements FY 2011 through FY 2016 Planned regionally funded transit capital improvements between FY 2012 and FY 2016 include three transit centers, four park-and-ride facilities, and one rehabilitation of a transit center.. Several planned transit centers, park-and-rides and maintenance and operations facilities have been postponed because of projected revenues shortfalls from the regional sales tax. However, the remaining capital facilities investments include expansion and rehabilitation of some existing facilities as well as new facilities. Table 5-3 summarizes the eight regionally funded transit facilities programmed for funding between FY 2012 and FY 2016. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 71 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Figure 5-1: Buckeye Park and Ride Table 5-3: Regionally Funded Transit Facility Investments FY 2012 through FY 2016 Facility Central Station Transit Center Rehabilitation / Expansion Country Club Dr & US 60 (Superstition Freeway) Park-and-Ride East Buckeye Park-and-Ride Scottsdale Rd & Loop 101 Park-and-Ride Arrowhead Transit Center Peoria Downtown Transit Center th Laveen/59 Ave Park-and-Ride Mesa Downtown Transit Center Pre-Design (FY) Design (FY) Land (FY) Construction/ Open (FY) 2010 2011 NA 2012 2009 2010 2010 2012 2009 2010 2011 2013 2014 2011 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2012 2009 2011 2012 2014 2015 2012 2012 2012 2014 2015 2016 2016 Source: 2012 DRAFT Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update In addition to major passenger and operations maintenance facilities the earlier TLCP updates identify regional funds for bus stop construction and upgrade throughout the region. An application and project prioritization process has been established by the RPTA to administer regional capital funds programmed for bus stop improvements. However, there are currently no funds available for regional bus stop improvements identified in the DRAFT TLCP update. This may change in the future, but in the current TLCP update, those funds originally programmed for bus stop improvements have been reallocated to other projects. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 72 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Table 5-7: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2011 through FY 2016 TLCP Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total TLCP Programmed Funding $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 1 Funding subject to change based on annual budget Source: 2012 DRAFT Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update However, several local funding sources have been identified. For instance, the city of Scottsdale will locally fund additional new shelters/amenities for approx. 22 stops. 47 existing shelter stops will be funded next year. The city of Scottsdale is also adding solar lights in 50 locations. Scottsdale spends approx. $200,000 a year on bus stop improvements including access improvements (curb cuts, sidewalk extensions, etc.). Mesa is planning for 50 more in the next few years. The city of Mesa also relocated LINK station at the NEC of Country Club/Main, bus interface facility at Centennial/Main (two LINK bays and one standard bay). The city of Chandler will spend approximately $30,000 dollars a year on bus stop improvements, totaling $150,000 over five years. In the city of Phoenix, if new bus stops are needed in the future, then money will be drawn from the $400,000 allocated for each fiscal year for bus stops. Table 5-7: Regional Bus Stop Funding FY 2011 through FY 2016 Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 5.4.2 Programmed Funding – New Bus Stops and Improvements to Existing Bus Stops City of Phoenix $500,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 2,100,000 Programmed Funding – New Bus Stops and Improvements to Existing Bus Stops City of Chandler $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 150,000 Fixed Route Vehicle Inventory As of December 2011 the Regional Transit System had 915 vehicles available to provide fixed route service. The City of Glendale had 7 vehicles; the City of Phoenix operated 527 vehicles; the City of Scottsdale had 15 vehicles; the City of Tempe had 160 vehicles and the RPTA had 206 vehicles available to provide fixed route service. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 73 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 74 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 5.4.3 Funded Regional Transit Expansion Vehicles: FY 2012 through FY 2016 To support fixed route service expansion through FY 2016, the TLCP identifies the acquisition of 101 vehicles between FY 2012 and 2016. The TLCP fleet expansion plan provides for the acquisition of vehicles in the fiscal year prior to service need. For existing routes that are programmed to be supported by PTF funding, the existing fleet already assigned to the route is considered in the fleet expansion plan. For example, Scottsdale/Rural Road BRT route is programmed to receive six additional busses for service expansion in FY 2015. Table 5-9 provides a summary of the regionally funded fleet expansion plans for fixed route, paratransit, rural connectors and vanpools. A standard 12-year transit bus fleet replacement cycle is assumed. The detailed (by route) fixed route fleet expansion requirements for new and expanded services programmed to be implemented between FY 2011 and 2016 are summarized in Table 5-10. However, this discussion does not reflect anticipated cuts that may be made, until such decisions have been made final. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service is funded in the RTP for a limited number of arterial street corridors. In December 2008 the first route, the Main St LINK, began service from the Main Street/Sycamore light rail station to Superstition Springs Mall, using Main Street and Power Road. To enhance operating speeds of the Main Street BRT service, the RPTA and City of Mesa installed TSP bus priority systems at signalized intersections along Main Street, and at the intersections of Power Road with Broadway Road and Southern Avenue. BRT buses have the ability to extend or recall the green signal phase through the use of special hardware and software connections with the traffic signal network. The second arterial BRT route operates along Arizona Avenue and Country Club Drive, from the Chandler Park and Ride at Germann and Hamilton Roads to the Sycamore and Main Street METRO station. The Arizona Ave/Country Club Dr LINK began operation in January of 2011. Both the Main St LINK and the Arizona Ave/Country Club Dr LINK are currently using Bus Tracker tracking technology to determine when the next bus arrival will be. The information is displayed on dynamic message signs at the stations, and is also available to the public via smartphone or on the internet. Additional arterial BRT routes were scheduled to enter service beginning in FY 2014. However, the projected shortfall in tax revenues has delayed the start of the Scottsdale Road, BRT. The Alternatives Analysis is complete for the Scottsdale/Rural Road Corridor, and the Locally Preferred Alternative identified but not approved. This project is currently delayed due to a lack of operating funds. Related street improvements for each arterial BRT corridor have not yet been identified, but could include queue jumpers, transit signal priority or other bus priority treatments. This will be determined when each corridor enters into the design process. The city of Phoenix is currently performing a South Central Corridor Study Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 75 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Figure 5-2: LINK Bus Table 5-9: Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles Forecast of regional expansion vehicles Fiscal Year For Acquisition 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Fixed Route 0 0 8 6 0 14 Paratransit 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rural 2 0 0 0 0 2 Vanpool 10 0 25 25 25 85 Total Vehicles 12 0 33 31 25 101 Source: RPTA, 2012 Table 5-10: Planned Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles FY 2012 through FY 2016 Route Gila Bend Rural Scottsdale/Rural Road BRT South Central Avenue Total FY Service Implemented 2012 2015 2014 Planned Regional Expansion Vehicles (Fiscal Year Acquired) FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 2 6 8 2 8 6 Source: RPTA, 2012 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 76 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 5.4.4 Comparison of Funded Regional Fixed Route Transit Vehicles and Implementation (FY 2011) Fixed route fleet requirements for regionally funded service expansion are calculated based on the availability of existing fleet, federally required fleet spare ratios and a mathematical formula that considers route length, peak headway and an average operating speed. Variances in these variables result in differences between estimated fleet requirements and actual fleet requirements. There was an estimated nine vehicles planned for the Arizona Ave BRT, and nine were acquired. However, occasionally there is some inconsistency between the number of planned vehicles and the number of vehicles acquired due to variables such as delayed service improvements. Table 5-11 provides a comparison of planned regional fixed route transit expansion vehicles and actual vehicles acquired for service expansion in FY 2009 and FY 2010. Table 5-11: Comparison of Planned Regional Fixed Route Transit Expansion Vehicles and Vehicles Acquired (FY 2011) Fixed Route Expansion Vehicles TLCP Fleet Plan Actual Vehicles Acquired 40' Bus 60' Bus Total 40' Bus 60' Bus Total Route Arizona Ave Dedicated BRT Total 9 8 0 7 9 15 9 8 0 10 9 18 1 Fleet was acquired for expected service expansions, but declining revenues have resulted in delaying expansions. Fleet acquired may be used to replace older fleet that is eligible for retirement pending discussions with and approval by FTA. Source: RPTA, 20011 Source: RPTA, 2011 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. Other regional studies and planning related projects that are recommended for consideration by the region include the following: • Regional Transit Safety and Security Implementation Plan: The purpose of this study is to prioritize the implementation of strategic measures identified in the Regional Safety and Security Plan (November 2006). The 2006 plan identifies potential transit safety and security vulnerabilities but does not provide a prioritized schedule to implement the mitigating measures identified. • Regional Dial-a-Ride Implementation – Short range and operational planning associated with the phased implementation of the recommendations of the Regional Paratransit Study including development of the regional call center, and drafting of required intergovernmental agreements necessary to implementing sub-regional or regional ADA Paratransit programs. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 77 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations • Transit Performance Report (TPR) – Annual and quarterly updates. Provide staff support to TPR working group in the development of annual performance targets that will subsequently be adopted through the RPTA committee process. In FY 2012, significant work will be done to improve the format and content of the report, as well as to update the target goals and the methodologies for inflating them annually. • Regional Bus Stop Database Implementation – Update of regional bus stop database to reflect service changes that generally occur in July and January. (Original bus stop database was an output of the 2010 O&D Survey.) Includes numbering of new stops to allow their inclusion in Next Bus cell phone trip planning application. Includes development of on-line report module on STG developed web based transit reporting tool to allow member agencies to supply timely updates to database as part of their quarterly and annual reporting responsibilities. • Transit Life Cycle Program Update – a requirement of Proposition 400 that ensures the regional transit program is in fiscal balance and that the transit projects are scheduled according to the Regional Transportation Plan. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 78 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 6.0 REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDING AND LOCAL TRANSIT FUNDING Financial support for regional public transit services are provided in Maricopa County through multiple funding sources, including regional sales tax collections, passenger fares, and federal grants. Local funding sources including municipal general fund allocations and local sales tax collections also contribute significantly towards fulfilling some of the elements of the regional transit system. While local contributions serve as an important component of the regional transit system, this chapter is limited to the revenue and expenditure estimates associated with the regional transit service and capital investments identified in the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP). 6.1 REGIONAL FIXED ROUTE BUS & PARATRANSIT FUNDING 6.1.1 Revenues Regional transit revenues in the TLCP allocated for fixed route bus and paratransit investments can be classified into five general revenue categories. The revenue categories include: • • • • • • Public Transportation Fund (PTF) – Regional transportation sales tax approved by voters as part of Proposition 400 in November 2004. Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) – Funds generated from the regional transportation sales tax provided for regional transit planning and administration, as well as related activities. Federal Allocations – Federal allocations are awarded to the region through multiple federal programs including formula distributions that are based on the region’s population, on-going transit investments and transit system performance and discretionary investments that are awarded on a limited basis. Passenger Fares – Revenues generated through assessed user fees. Other – Any other funding available such as LTAFII or local sale Tax. 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 2012 through FY 2017. 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 DRAFT FY 2012 TLCP Update. Table 6-1: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues (in $millions) Revenue Category FY2012 FY2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total Public Transportation Fund $60.79 $65.06 $68.96 $72.84 $76.72 $80.61 $424.97 Regional Area Road Fund $4.77 $4.37 $3.95 $4.07 $4.19 $4.32 $25.68 Federal Allocations $42.36 $49.74 $55.67 $58.42 $28.61 $32.22 $267.03 Passenger Fares $7.36 $8.49 $8.74 $9.25 $9.69 $10.74 $54.27 Other Interest $0.73 $1.33 $10.47 $0.22 $0.22 $0.22 $13.21 $0.28 $0.31 $0.33 $0.35 $0.37 $0.38 $2.03 $116.30 $129.29 $148.13 $145.16 Source: 2012 DRAFT Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update $119.81 $128.50 $787.19 Total Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 79 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Figure 6-1: Estimated RPTA Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues FY 2011 - FY 2016 Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues (percentage of totals) Passenger Fares Other Interest 7% 2% 0% Federal Allocations 34% Public Transportation Fund 54% Regional Area Road Fund 3% Source: 2012 DRAFT Valley Metro Transit Life Cycle Program Update 6.2 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 and reimbursements. RPTA Planning & Administration – Expenditures associated with on-going regional transit planning and agency administration. Regional Services – Expenditures for regional transit customer service, Bus Book production and other regional based programs. Transit Vehicles – Includes regional purchases for expansion and replacement of fixed route bus, paratransit, and vanpool vehicles. Other elements in this category include vehicle contingency and vehicle upgrades (Intelligent Transportation System/Vehicle Management Systems [ITS/VMS], fareboxes, etc.). Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 80 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations • • Dedicated BRT Right of Way (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-andrides, transit centers and bus stops), operations and maintenance facilities, and capital contingency. The TLCP is updated on an annual basis in response to changes in sales tax revenue projections to determine reasonable Table 6-2 identifies the projected expenditures summarized by the seven general categories described above for FY 2012 through FY 2017. 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 DRAFT FY 2012 TLCP Update. Table 6-2: Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (in $millions) Revenue Category FY2012 FY2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total Regional Bus Operations $39.37 $41.30 $41.84 $45.19 $46.99 $48.26 $262.95 Paratransit Operations $19.49 $24.16 $25.33 $27.17 $28.12 $28.87 $153.14 RPTA Planning & Administration $3.66 $3.74 $3.73 $3.60 $3.68 $3.75 $22.16 Regional Services $6.41 $6.73 $6.86 $7.00 $7.14 $7.28 $41.42 $33.21 $42.49 $54.63 $53.29 $28.82 $35.48 $247.92 Transit Vehicles Arterial BRT ROW Capital Facilities Total $2.28 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.28 $16.75 $16.64 $20.88 $15.67 $3.82 $2.44 $76.20 $121.16 $135.08 $153.26 $151.93 $118.56 $126.08 $806.07 Source: 2012 DRAFT Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 81 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Figure 6-2: Estimated RPTA Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (percentage of totals) Estimated RPTA Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Expenditures (percentage of totals) Arterial BRT ROW 0% Capital Facilities 9% Regional Bus Operations 33% Transit Vehicles 31% Paratransit Operations 19% Regional Services 5% RPTA Planning & Administration 3% Source: 2012 DRAFT Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update 6.3 REGIONAL HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT CAPITAL FUNDING 6.3.1 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. Federal Allocations includes Sec 5309, CMAQ, Sec 5307, Special Federal and TIGGER. Local – Local municipal contributions, which includes Local includes Phoenix T2000, RPTA and MAG. Interest – Includes interest earned on year-end cash balance. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 82 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Table 6-3 identifies the projected revenues summarized by the four HCT capital revenue categories for FY 2012 through FY 2017. 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 DRAFT FY 2012 TLCP Update. Table 6-3: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Revenues (in $millions) Revenue Category FY 2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total Public Transportation Fund (PTF) $46.31 $49.56 $52.53 $55.49 $58.44 $61.41 $323.74 Federal Allocations $20.81 $48.63 $66.00 $62.55 $54.23 $37.93 $290.15 Local ($1.66) $31.00 $31.00 $0.73 $0.68 ($60.00) $1.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65.46 $129.19 $149.53 $118.77 $113.35 $39.34 $615.64 Interest Total Source: 2012 DRAFT Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update, Option 2 Figure 6-3: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Revenues FY 2011 - FY 2016 Estimated Regional HCT Capital Revenues (Percentages of Total) Local 0% Federal Allocations 47% Public Transportation Fund (PTF) 53% Interest 0% Source: 2012 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 83 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 6.4 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 2012 through FY 2017. 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 DRAFT FY 2012 TLCP Update. Table 6-4: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Expenditures (in $millions) Expenditure Category FY 2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total HCT Guideway Extensions $33.89 $116.40 $154.99 $116.57 $137.68 $128.62 $688.14 Reimbursements $31.53 $6.22 $10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $47.75 $2.29 $2.32 $2.37 $2.42 $1.66 $1.71 $12.76 $10.34 $10.36 $10.50 $28.57 $0.50 $0.50 $60.76 $78.04 $135.29 $177.86 $147.55 $139.84 $130.83 $809.41 Studies & Design Criteria Systemwide Support Infrastructure Total Source: 2012 DRAFT Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update, Option 2 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 84 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Figure 6-4: Estimated Regional HCT Capital Expenditures FY 2012 - FY 2017 Estimated Regional Fixed Route & Paratransit Revenues (percentage of totals) Reimbursements 6% Studies & Design Criteria 2% Systemwide Support Infrastructure 7% HCT Guideway Extensions 85% Source: 2012 Valley Metro RPTA Transit Life Cycle Program Update 6.5 REGIONAL TRANSIT FINANCING Based on the estimated sources of revenues and programmed expenditures through FY 2016 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 working group, which addresses these issues on a yearly basis, helps address these funding shortfalls. Changes in the level of estimated revenues or expenditures could either positively or negatively affect the programmed implementation schedules and scope of the projects identified herein. Through the annual TLCP update process, estimates for short and long range revenues and expenditures are reviewed to determine the financial fitness of the regional transit program. Appropriate finance strategies and other actions are considered annually to maintain a reasonable and sustainable finance plan. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 85 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 6.6 Local Transit Funding Several cities have locally funded transit operations they include the following cities: Tempe, Scottsdale, Phoenix, Glendale and Mesa. A funding responsibility table is listed in Appendix E. Investments in locally funded operations within these jurisdictions are listed below in the Tables 6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8 and 6-8. In all tables, the time from is between FY 2012 and FY 2016. The term “Service Span” in the tables below means the number of hours of service a day. The city of Tempe passed a sales tax in 1996 that has supported locally funded transit since. In 2000, the city of Phoenix also passed Transit 2000, which also continues to support locally funded routes. A ½ cent transportation sales tax passed by Glendale voters in 2001. There is no sunset on the tax. The city of Mesa uses LTAF II money and general fund dollars for funding local transit. Table 6-5: Locally Funded Transit Operations Investments FY 2012 and FY 2016 for the City of Tempe Weekday Weekend Initial Fiscal Year of Local Funding Peak Headway (min) Base Headway (min) Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips Base Headway (min) Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips Local 30 – University 45 - Broadway th 48 – 48 St./Rio Salado 56 – Priest 61 – Southern 62 – Hardy 65 – Mill/Kyrene 66 – Mill/Kyrene 77 – Baseline 81 – Hayden/McClintock 108 - Elliot Orbit Neighborhood Circulators ASU FLASH 1997 1997 2010 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 2007 1997 30 15 30 15 15 30 30 30 30 15 30 15 10 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 30 30 30 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 16 18 79 101 78 102 102 78 68 68 79 102 76 691 196 30/60 30/30 30/30 30/30 30/30 30/30 60/60 60/60 30/30 60/60 60/60 15/30 N/A 20/17 20/17 20/17 20/17 20/17 20/17 20/17 20/17 20/17 20/17 20/17 14/11 N/A 78/34 77/66 78/70 77/68 77/65 78/69 40/36 40/36 77/69 41/35 38/35 Light Rail Metro Light Rail 2009 12 186 20 21 Route 20 21 Source: City of Tempe Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 86 565/230 N/A 130 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Table 6-6: Locally Funded Transit Operations Investments FY 2012 and FY 2016 for the City of Scottsdale Weekday Route Initial Fiscal Year of Local Funding Peak Headway (min) Base Headway (min) Weekend Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips Base Headway (min) Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips Supergrid 72 1984 20 30 19 N49/ S53 50 1986 15 60 17 E26/ W26 60 13 29 1984 30 40 16 E36/ W34 30 14 17 n/a 30 30 17 E33/ W31 30 14 41 n/a 15/30 15/30 16 E61/ W60 106 n/a 30 30/60 16 E25/ W26 60 13 154 n/a 30 30 16 E34/ W34 60 15 170 n/a 30 30 17 E/34/ W34 30 15 Miller Road Trolley n/a 30 30 17 E34 W36 60 13 Downtown Trolley Neighborhood Trolley n/a n/a n/a 20 15 20 7/10Th 15 15 20 7 15 n/a 30 17 30 14 Source: City of Scottsdale Route 72 is now 100% paid from PTF. All express routes are funded from PTF. A portion of Route 50 is also funded from PTF. Table 6-7: Locally Funded Transit Operations Investments FY 2012 and FY 2016 for the Phoenix Route Initial Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 Weekday Weekend 87 37/34 Sat: 34/36 Sun Sat&S un14/ 14 Sat&S un 13/13 Sat&S un29/ 29 Sat&S un30/ 23 Sat&S un14/ 14 Sat&S un16/ 16 Sat&S un30/ 29 Sat&S un14/ 14 n/a n/a Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Fiscal Year of Local Funding Peak Headway (min) Base Headway (min) Fixed Local 0 10 20 1 45 45 3 15 30 7 20 30 8 30 30 10 30 30 Service Span (hr) 500A No. of Daily Trips Base Headway (min) Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips 153 30 550A 915P 59 44 60 603A 930P 30 129 30 530A-930P Sat 61 617A-930P Sun 58 85 30 546A 56 68 30 83 60 1000P 505A 930P 502A 1044P 500A 1115P 523A 924P 1106P 513A 30 30 514A 30 30 530A 51 60 30 30 511A 58 60 30 30 513A 68 60 15 30 455A 94 30 60 60 500A 125 30 30 30 27 30 30 29 10 30 35 20 30 39 60 60 41 15 30 500A 30 60 120 30 69 30 132 30 86 30 34 60 121 30 30 30 512A 1053P Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 58 600A 30 532A 56 523A 58 555A 58 605A 55 608A 28 841P 1119P 43 600A 913P 1051P 507A 60 929P 1104P 516A 601A 929P 1125P 507A 31 902P 1103P 506A 555A 715P 1130P 503A 30 924P 715P 19 600A 907P 1100P 17A 30 949P 1046P 17 600A 900P 1048P 16 30 840P 1000P 15 525A 927P 1000P 13 58 853P 1104P 12 513A 68 60 523A Sat 60 928P Sun 59 551A 32 1002P 88 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Weekday Route Initial Fiscal Year of Local Funding Peak Headway (min) Base Headway (min) 44 30 30 50 15 30 51 35 35 52 30 30 59 30 40 60 30 30 Weekend Service Span (hr) 513A No. of Daily Trips Base Headway (min) 65 45 97 30 55 60 69 60 67 60 63 60 1011P 503A 30 30 600A 30 30 80 30 30 510A 63 60 96 30 67 60 1000P 90 30 30 524A 30 30 500A 64 30 60 60 527A 68 30 30 30 505A 32 60 30 30 500A 66 60 30 30 186 30 30 509A 68 60 68 30 67 60 10 600A-900A 620A Sat 62 900P Sun 56 638A 30 551A 607A-922P 626A 600A 534A 543A 600A 900P 26 320P-700P 450(I-10E) 10 510A-854A 29 321P-651P Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 31 60 58 28 30 32 59 903P 1030P Express/BRT 400(SR 51) 615A 937P 1034P 500A 30 851P 1028P 170 530A 827P 953P 154 32 616A-922P 934P 138 550A 928P 1030P 122 32 926P 1004P 106 557A 931P 1101P 510A 28 904P 1016P 70 545A 911P 916P 67 58 933P 1000P 524A 604A 730P 1019P 530A 40 915P 845P 501A 610A No. of Daily Trips 934P 1048P 500A Service Span (hr) 89 30 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Weekday Route Initial Fiscal Year of Local Funding Peak Headway (min) 460(I-10W) 13 480(I-17) 8 Base Headway (min) Weekend Service Span (hr) 520A-850A No. of Daily Trips Base Headway (min) Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips 60 750A 14 25 320P-630P 500A-915A 55 300P-730P 560 30/60 581 40/45 GAL 30/35 600A-750A 4 409P-630P 600A-700A 4 510P-622P 500A-832A 8 402P-726P Circulators DASH 12 12 ALEX 60 60 630A 59 630P 515A 26 645P MARY 60 60 SMART 60 60 500A 300P 28 60 29 60 800P 500A 600A 23 700P 745P 700A Sat 20 445P Sun 19 Source: City of Phoenix Table 6-7: Locally Funded Transit Operations Investments FY 2012 and FY 2016 for the Glendale Weekday Route Supergrid (ALL BUS ROUTES) st Rte. 51 – 51 Ave. th Rte. 59 – 59 Ave.* Rte. 60 – Bethany Home Rd. th Rte. 67 – 67 Ave.* Rte. 80 – Northern Ave. Rte. 90 – Olive Ave. Rte. 106 – Peoria Ave.* Rte. 122 – Cactus Rd. Initial Fiscal Year of Local Funding 2002 2007 Peak Headway (min) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 Base Headway (min) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 Weekend Service Span (hr) 16 16 15.5 15.5 16.5 15.5 16 15 No. of Daily Trips Base Headway (min) Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips 55 67 63 63 67 64 61 32 60 60 60 60 60 60 30/60 60 13 15 14 14 14 14 14/13 13 28 32 30 29 30 30 58/28 28 90 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Weekday Route Initial Fiscal Year of Local Funding Rte. 138 – Thunderbird Rd. Rte. 170 – Bell Road Rte. 186 – Union Hills Dr. Peak Headway (min) 30 30 60 Base Headway (min) 30 30 60 Weekend Service Span (hr) 16 16.5 15.5 No. of Daily Trips Base Headway (min) Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips 66 67 33 60 30/60 60 14 14.5/14 14 30 59/29 30 Express/BRT NONE Light Rail NONE Source: City of Glendale. *NOTE: Rte. 59 – 644.9 weekday miles; Rte. 67 – 294 weekday miles; Rte. 106 – 120 weekday miles are funded by RPTA Table 6-8: Locally Funded Transit Operations Investments FY 2012 and FY 2016 for the Mesa Weekday Route Initial Fiscal Year of Local Funding ALL BUS ROUTES University* Broadway* Baseline* Elliot* Alma School* Mesa Dr.* Stapley* Peak Headway (min) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Base Headway (min) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Weekend Service Span (hr) 17 16 16 16 16 16 13 No. of Daily Trips Base Headway (min) Service Span (hr) No. of Daily Trips 30 32 34 63 67 64 61 60 60 60 60 60 60 30/60 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 18 16 30 29 30 30 58/28 Source: City of Mesa *No Sunday Service Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 91 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations 7.0 COST SAVINGS THROUGH SERVICE REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS As a part of the Proposition 400 transportation tax referendum, the Arizona Legislature required that every five years performance audit be performed on the transit service paid for by public transportation funds. To provide a basis for measuring the performance of the regional transit system, Valley Metro RPTA authorized a Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study (SEES) to develop uniform standard for collecting data and measuring performance, and to develop performance targets for the region. The Board approved this report in April 2007. Using the structure provided by the SEES, three annual Transit Performance Reports (FY 2008, FY 2009, FY 2010, and FY 2011) have been prepared and accepted by the Board since that time. However, the SEES goals were developed in 2007, a time when there were increased revenues and service. Because the standards have become outdated, for FY2011 the adopted goals have been largely removed. 7.1 COST SAVINGS THROUGH SERVICE REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1.1 Cost Savings The results of the Transit Performance Reports need to be evaluated with respect to whether or not transit investments are considered worthwhile. This report makes that evaluation and recommends actions that are in keeping with good stewardship of Public Transportation Funds provided through the county-wide sales tax for transportation. This exercise has taken on added significance as Valley Metro RPTA is faced with revenue shortfalls caused by the downturn in both the regional and national economies. To that end, RPTA staff has identified potential cost savings through transit service adjustments. The cost savings could assist the agency in addressing the projected county-wide sales tax revenue shortfall resulting from the economic downturn. Following the recommendations of the SEES helps ensure that potential service adjustments adhere to best planning practices, and will not adversely impact the operational efficiency of the regional transit system. To that end, planning staff have evaluated currently operating routes using the performance measures identified in the Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study (SEES) which have been adopted by the RPTA Board. Use of the measures has allowed staff to identify underperforming routes. The evaluation was conducted for all Valley Metro Routes, but more detailed analysis has been limited to just those routes funded or partially funded by RPTA. The results of this analysis are discussed below. See Appendix D for additional details. 7.2 Local Route Identification The first step in the process of identifying the least productive routes was to list all of the local routes in the system with their boardings per mile performance by jurisdiction. This recognizes that routes traveling through more than one jurisdiction may perform well in one community and less well in others. This was done for weekday, Saturday, and Sunday data. These lists were then sorted from high to low according to boardings per mile to identify the routes that fell into the bottom quartile of system performance. The bottom quartile routes by jurisdiction were then highlighted in yellow and them re-sorted by jurisdiction. Table 1 shows all of the routes operated in each jurisdiction. Once these rankings were determined, further analysis was focused on those routes that are funded or partially funded by RPTA. The results of this process for Weekday Local Routes are shown in Figures 7-1 and 7-2. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 92 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations RPTA funded (or partially funded) routes that appear in the bottom quartile of the weekday system include: • • • • • • • • • • • • • Route 96—Dobson – Chandler Route 136—Gilbert Road – Chandler Route 66—Mill/Kyrene – Chandler Arizona Avenue LINK - Chandler Route 136—Gilbert Road – Gilbert Route 184—Power – Gilbert Route 108—Elliot – Gilbert Route 156—Chandler Blvd – Gilbert Route 108—Elliot - Guadalupe Route 108—Elliot – Mesa Route 184—Power - Mesa Route 81—Hayden/McClintock – Scottsdale Route 106—Peoria/Shea – Sun City Figure 7-1: Weekday Local Summary –West Valley Weekday Local Summary - West Valley PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Mile History 2.5 Boardings Per Mile 2.0 Grand Ave Ltd Glendale 1.5 Grand Ave Ltd Peoria 106 Sun City 1.0 Grand Ave Ltd Surprise 0.5 0.0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 FY 2010 FY 2011 93 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Figure 7-2: Weekday Local Summary –East Valley Weekday Local Summary - East Valley PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Mile History 1.2 96 Chandler 136 Chandler 1 Boardings Per Mile 66 Chandler 0.8 AZ Ave LINK Chandler 136 Gilbert 0.6 184 Gilbert 108 Gilbert 0.4 156 Gilbert 0.2 108 Mesa 184 Mesa 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 81 Scottsdale 7.2.1 The performance of local routes on both Saturday and Sunday were identified using the same process. Figure 7-3 presents the results for Saturday service and Figure 7-4 presents the results for Sunday service. Routes funded or partially funded by RPTA that fall in the bottom quartile for Saturday service include: • • • • • • • • • • • • Route 156—Chandler Boulevard – Chandler Arizona Avenue LINK – Chandler Route 72—Scottsdale/Rural – Chandler Route 66—Mill/Kyrene – Chandler Route 136—Gilbert Road – Chandler Arizona Avenue LINK – Gilbert Route 136—Gilbert Road – Gilbert Route 184—Power – Gilbert Route 156—Chandler Blvd – Gilbert Route 156—Chandler Blvd – Mesa Main Street LINK – Mesa Route 184—Power – Mesa Figure 7-3: Saturday Summary Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 94 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Saturday Summary PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Mile History 1.2 1.0 156 Chandler Boardings Per Mile AZ Ave LINK Chandler 0.8 72 Chandler 66 Chandler 0.6 136 Chandler 136 Gilbert 0.4 184 Gilbert 156 Gilbert 0.2 184 Mesa 0.0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Routes funded or partially funded by RPTA that fall in the bottom quartile for Sunday service include: • • • • • • • • • • Route 156—Chandler Blvd – Chandler Route 96—Dobson – Chandler Route 66—Mill/Kyrene – Chandler Arizona Avenue LINK – Chandler Arizona Avenue LINK – Gilbert Route 184—Power – Gilbert Route 156—Chandler Blvd – Gilbert Main Street LINK – Mesa Route 184—Power – Mesa Route 81—Hayden/McClintock – Scottsdale Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 95 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Figure 7-4: Sunday Summary Sunday Summary PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Mile History 0.7 Boardings Per Mile 0.6 156 Chandler 0.5 AZ Ave LINK Chandler 0.4 66 Chandler 184 Gilbert 0.3 156 Gilbert 0.2 184 Mesa 81 Scottsdale 0.1 0.0 FY 2007 7.2.2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Local Route Analysis Once the lowest performing PTF funded local routes were identified by jurisdiction, a closer look was taken at average daily boardings over the last five fiscal years (FY 2007 through FY 2011). Graphs were developed showing average daily boardings during this time period to show ridership trends. Graphs showing the historic trends of bottom quartile routes funded or partially fund with PTF can be found in Appendix D. Only those jurisdictions with routes funded or partially funded with PTF that fall into the bottom quartile of regional performance are shown. Chandler: Although Route 96 performance in Chandler falls into the bottom quartile on weekdays and Sundays, historic trends show this route to be improving over time. Route 136 on weekdays and Saturdays also falls into the bottom quartile, but it’s extension to Crossroads Shopping Center in July 2010 may have helped this route’s performance. Route 66 numbers are very low, but do seem to be trending up. This route should continue to be watched. The Arizona Avenue LINK was implemented in January 2011, and needs time to establish itself. Route 156 falls into the bottom quartile on Saturdays and Sundays, but performance on both weekend days is trending upward. Need to explain that Chandler cut miles from the unproductive portion of Route 96 (south of Pecos) and cut Sunday service on Route 96 during the last TLCP update (January 2012 implementation). Gilbert: Route 136 performance is in the bottom quartile for both weekday and Saturday in Gilbert and historic trends show little improvement. The same is true for Route 156 on weekday, Saturday, and Sunday. Route 108 on weekdays is also a poor performer that isn’t showing Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 96 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations improvement over time. Route 184 is new and needs more time to become established. Although new, the Arizona Avenue LINK is doing well enough to avoid the bottom quartile on weekdays and Saturdays, but not on Sunday. More time is needed. Guadalupe: Weekday performance on Route 108 is in the bottom quartile and the historic trend seems negative. Mesa: Route 108 weekday service continues to perform poorly. Route 184 is a new route and appears in the bottom quartile for weekday, Saturday, and Sunday. Main Street LINK on weekends also appears in the bottom quartile, however Saturday and Sunday service has already been deleted. Scottsdale: The only PTF funded route in the bottom quartile is Route 81 on weekdays and Sundays. Recent reductions of Route 81 service need to be monitored to determine the impact on productivity. 7.3 EXPRESS/RAPID ROUTE IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY A similar process was used for express and RAPID routes, although boardings per trip were used as a more appropriate measure of productivity for commuter oriented service. Also, several routes from this analysis have already been eliminated, so they have been removed from the below graph. As mentioned earlier, the Grand Avenue Limited was included. The results are shown in Figure 7-5. The following RPTA funded routes fall into the bottom quartile of this type of service: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Grand Avenue Limited – El Mirage Route 511—Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express – Chandler Route 511—Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express – Scottsdale Route 511—Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express – Tempe Route 532—Mesa Express - Tempe Route 536—Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU Express – Mesa Route 536—Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU Express - Tempe Route 540—Chandler Express - Tempe Route 570—Glendale Express - Glendale Route 572—Surprise/Scottsdale Express – Glendale Route 572—Surprise/Scottsdale Express – Scottsdale Route 572—Surprise/Scottsdale Express – Surprise Route 576—Northwest Valley/Montebello Express – Glendale Route 576—Northwest Valley/Montebello Express – Phoenix Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 97 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Figure 7-5 Express Service Summary Boardings per trip Express Service Summary PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Trip History 7 6 Boardings Per Trip 5 511 Scottsdale 4 540 Tempe 532 Tempe 3 511 Tempe 2 560 Tolleson 1 0 FY 2007 7.3.1 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Express/RAPID Route Analysis As with the local routes, once the lowest performing quartile of express routes was identified, a closer look was taken at the average daily boardings. Boardings per trip were used instead of boardings per mile, as a better indicator of performance for peak-hour commuter-oriented service. Also like the local routes, for PTF funded routes falling into the bottom quartile of express/RAPID performance, graphs of performance over the last five years were developed to gain a better understanding of what is happening with these routes. These graphs can be found in Appendix D. Only those jurisdictions with routes funded or partially funded with PTF that fall into the bottom quartile of regional performance are shown. Chandler: The portion of Route 511—Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express in Chandler was eliminated in July 2010. El Mirage: The Grand Ave Limited route was extended to El Mirage in July 2010 and should be watched to see if performance improves. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 98 Chapter 7 –Cost Savings through Service Reduction Recommendations Glendale: Route 570—Glendale Express continues to perform poorly. Historical data shows a downward trend. Route 572—Surprise/Scottsdale Express and Route 576—Northwest Valley/Montebello Express were eliminated in July 2010. Mesa: Route 536—Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU Express was eliminated in July 2010. Phoenix: Route 576—Northwest Valley/Montebello Express was eliminated in July 2010. Scottsdale: Route 511—Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express route is also performing poorly in Scottsdale, and the historical trend shows no improvement over time. Some changes were made in Route 511 in October 2011. Performance should continue to be monitored. Route 572—Surprise/Scottsdale Express was eliminated in July 2010. Tempe: Route 540—Chandler and Route 532—Mesa show poor performance in Tempe, but each route does well in the jurisdictions they were designed to serve. Route 511— Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express route is also performing poorly in Tempe. Route 536— Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU Express was eliminated in July 2010. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 99 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 100 APPENDIX A Table A-1: FY 2011 Regional Transit System Data FY 2011 System Data Total Wheelchair Boardings 270,787 164,866 System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Rail Total Boardings 54,814,001 800,833 1,054,315 12,793,529 Total System 69,462,678 435,653 System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Rail Total System Total Revenue Hours 1,989,384 442,524 69,883 165,636 2,667,427 Operating Cost $204,316,678 $28,916,889 $3,139,579 $31,020,110 $267,393,257 System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Rail Total System Total Passenger Revenues $45,541,645 $2,039,204 $3,165,415 $10,238,281 $60,984,544 System Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Vanpool Rail Total System Boardings Per Revenue Hour 27.55 1.81 15.09 77.24 26.04 Percent OnTime Performance 95.28% 97.39% Total Vehicle Miles 34,987,728 7,491,024 5,264,634 2,475,015 Total Revenue Miles 29,513,595 6,421,324 5,264,634 2,405,140 Total Vehicle Hours 2,954,169 50,218,401 43,604,693 3,192,714 Capital Cost n/a n/a n/a Total Cost n/a n/a n/a Vehicle Accidents 97.50% 96.72% Boardings per Revenue Mile 1.86 0.12 0.20 5.32 1.86 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 Operating Cost per Boarding $3.73 $36.11 $2.98 $2.42 $3.85 69,883 168,662 Farebox Recovery Ratio 22.3% 7.1% 100.82% 33.0% 22.8% Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $102.70 $65.35 $44.93 $187.28 $100.24 Operating Cost per Revenue Mile $6.92 $4.50 $0.60 $12.90 $6.13 101 APPENDIX A Table A-2: Operations and Performance Data for FY 2007 through FY 2011 Revenue Miles Percent Change Percent Change System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010- 2011 FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route 28,766,992 32,755,717 34,172,826 32,968,784 29,513,595 -10.48% 2.60% Dial-a-Ride n/a 7,533,814 7,329,082 6,572,800 6,421,324 -2.30% Vanpool 5,253,578 5,603,997 6,208,650 5,623,377 2,405,140 -57.23% 1,362,250 2,652,759 5,264,634 98.46% 34,020,570 45,893,528 49,072,808 47,817,719 43,604,693 -8.81% 28.17% System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Percent Change FY 2010- 2011 Percent Change FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route 1,966,138 1,988,847 2,305,116 2,393,455 1,989,384 -16.88% 1.18% Dial-a-Ride 532,031 540,907 524,842 478,158 442,524 -7.45% Vanpool 131,612 115,100 157,369 134,927 69,883 -48.21% 95,213 182,780 165,636 -9.38% 2,644,854 3,082,540 3,189,320 2,667,427 -16.36% 1.43% Rail Total System -54.22% Revenue Hours Rail Total System 2,629,781 -46.90% On-Time Performance System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Percent Change FY 2010- 2011 Percent Change FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route 91.50% 92.10% 93.16% 95.27% 95.28% 0.01% 4.13% Dial-a-Ride 95.40% 89.90% 96.08% 97.35% 97.39% 0.04% 2.08% Vanpool ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Rail ----- ----- 93.90% 95.80% 97.50% 1.77% Total System 93.50% 91.00% 94.38% 96.14% 96.72% 0.60% 3.44% System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Percent Change FY 2010- 2011 Percent Change FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route 58,184,595 60,153,649 65,551,812 55,574,959 54,814,001 -1.37% -5.79% Dial-a-Ride 922,790 903,868 874,132 777,525 800,833 3.00% -13.22% Vanpool 1,418,466 1,478,148 1,896,888 1,135,783 1,054,315 -7.17% -25.67% 5,580,857 12,112,738 12,793,529 5.62% 62,535,665 73,903,689 69,601,005 69,462,678 -0.20% 14.77% Total Boardings Rail Total System 60,525,851 Wheelchair Boardings System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Percent Change FY 2010- 2011 Percent Change FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route 251,738 277,206 286,935 263,610 270,787 2.72% 7.57% Dial-a-Ride n/a n/a 194,935 131,231 164,866 25.63% #VALUE! Vanpool ----- ----- NR 504 Rail ----- ----- NR NR Total System 251,738 277,206 481,870 395,345 435,653 10.20% 73.06% Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 102 APPENDIX A Boardings Per Revenue Mile Boardings Per Revenue Mile System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Percent Change FY 2010- 2011 Percent Change FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route 2.01 1.84 1.92 1.69 1.86 9.90% -7.60% Dial-a-Ride n/a 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 3.93% Vanpool 0.27 0.26 0.31 0.2 0.20 0.13% 4.1 4.57 5.32 16.39% 1.36 1.51 1.46 1.59 9.11% -10.00% Rail Total System 1.77 -25.83% Boardings Per Revenue Hour Percent Change Percent Change System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010- 2011 FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route 29.59 30.25 28.44 23.22 27.55 18.66% -6.88% Dial-a-Ride 1.73 1.67 1.67 1.63 1.81 11.29% 4.61% Vanpool 10.78 12.84 12.05 8.42 15.09 79.23% 39.95% 58.61 66.27 77.24 16.55% 23.97 21.82 26.04 19.33% 13.12% Percent Change FY 2010- 2011 Percent Change FY 2007-2011 Percent Change FY 2010- 2011 Percent Change FY 2007-2011 Percent Change Percent Change Rail Total System 23.02 23.64 Safety Incidents Per 100,000 Boardings System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Fixed Route 0.04 0.17 0.09 0 0 Dial-a-Ride 1.72 0 0 Vanpool 0 0 0 Rail 0.16 0 0 0.11 0 0 Total System 0.098 0.16 Security Incidents Per 100,000 Boardings System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Fixed Route n/a 0.14 0.09 0 0 Dial-a-Ride n/a n/a 1.72 0 0 Vanpool n/a n/a Rail Total System 0.14 0 0 0.16 0 0 0.11 0 0 Operating Expenses System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010- 2011 FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route $152,662,789 $183,809,441 $196,568,442 $194,414,536 $204,316,678 5.09% 33.84% Dial-a-Ride $29,505,513 $31,936,477 $31,857,041 $28,762,414 $28,916,889 0.54% -1.99% Vanpool $2,305,045 $2,499,972 $4,118,258 $2,658,382 $3,139,579 18.10% 36.20% $15,886,434 $32,964,700 $31,020,110 -5.90% $248,430,175 $258,800,032 $267,393,257 3.32% Rail Total System $184,473,347 $218,245,890 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 45.95% 103 APPENDIX A Total Passenger Revenue System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Percent Change FY 2010- 2011 Percent Change FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route $37,000,313 $41,091,397 $43,931,147 $46,853,915 $45,541,645 -2.82% 23.08% Dial-a-Ride $1,302,579 $1,292,611 $1,304,778 $1,791,298 $2,039,203 13.84% 56.55% Vanpool $2,650,738 $2,781,438 $3,729,293 $2,469,143 $3,165,415 28.20% 19.42% $3,371,103 $9,228,058 $10,238,281 10.95% $45,165,446 $52,336,321 $60,342,414 $60,984,544 1.06% 48.91% Rail Total System $40,953,630 Farebox Recovery Ratio System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Percent Change FY 2010- 2011 Percent Change FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route 24.24% 22.36% 22.35% 24.10% 22.3% -7.47% -8.00% Dial-a-Ride 4.41% 4.05% 4.10% 6.23% 7.1% 13.64% 60.54% Vanpool 115.00% 111.26% 90.56% 92.88% 100.8% 8.55% -12.33% 21.22% 27.99% 33 % 17.90% 21.07% 23.32% 22.8% -3.09% 1.80% Percent Change Percent Change Rail Total System 22.20% 0.21% Operating Cost Per Boarding System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010- 2011 FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route $2.62 $3.06 $3.00 $3.50 $3.73 6.57% 42.37% Dial-a-Ride $31.97 $35.33 $36.44 $36.99 $36.11 -2.38% 12.95% Vanpool $1.63 $1.69 $2.17 $2.34 $2.98 27.35% 82.82% $2.85 $2.72 $2.42 -11.03% $3.49 $3.36 $3.72 $3.85 4.49% 26.23% Rail Total System $3.05 Net Operating Cost Per Boarding Percent Change Percent Change System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010- 2011 FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route $1.99 $2.37 $2.33 $2.66 $2.90 9.02% 45.73% Dial-a-Ride $30.56 $33.90 $34.95 $34.69 $33.56 -3.26% 9.82% Vanpool ($0.24) ($0.19) $0.21 $0.17 -$0.02 -111.76% -91.67% $2.24 $1.96 $1.62 -17.35% $2.77 $2.65 $2.85 $2.97 4.21% 25.32% Rail Total System $2.37 Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Percent Change FY 2010- 2011 Percent Change FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route $5.31 $5.61 5.75 5.9 $6.92 17.29% 30.32% Dial-a-Ride n/a $4.24 4.35 4.38 $4.50 2.74% Vanpool $0.44 $0.45 0.66 0.47 $0.60 27.66% 11.66 12.43 $12.90 3.78% 5.06 5.41 $6.13 13.31% Rail Total System $5.40 $3.49 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 36.36% 13.52% 104 APPENDIX A Fare Revenue Per Boarding Percent Change Percent Change System FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010- 2011 FY 2007-2011 Fixed Route $0.64 $0.68 $0.67 $0.84 $0.83 -1.19% 29.69% Dial-a-Ride $1.41 $1.43 $1.49 $2.30 $2.55 10.87% 80.85% Vanpool $1.87 $1.88 $1.97 $2.17 $3.00 38.25% 60.43% $0.60 $0.76 $0.80 5.26% $0.71 $0.87 $0.88 1.15% Rail Total System $0.68 $0.72 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 29.41% 105 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 106 APPENDIX B Table B-1: Operations and Performance Data for FY 1995 through FY 2011 Boardi ngs Fiscal Year 1995 Fixed Route % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride % Change From Previous Year Vanpool % Change From Previous Year % Change From Previous Year Rail % Change From Previous Year 1996 34,979,080 35,028,406 0.14% 970,983 22.13% 35,999,389 0.63% 1997 35,141,668 0.32% 959,400 -1.19% 36,101,068 0.28% 1998 36,377,705 3.52% 938,659 -2.16% 37,316,364 3.37% 1999 37,366,572 2.72% 919,886 -2.00% 38,286,458 2.60% 2000 37,496,804 0.35% 968,120 5.24% 38,464,924 0.47% 2001 40,250,847 7.34% 1,023,700 5.74% 41,274,547 7.30% 2002 45,277,131 12.49% 1,023,885 0.02% 917,070 47,218,086 14.40% 2003 51,510,536 13.77% 1,029,378 0.54% 941,682 2.68% 53,481,596 13.27% 2004 54,362,135 5.54% 1,034,742 0.52% 975,156 3.55% 56,372,033 5.40% 2005 57,881,656 6.47% 1,063,600 2.79% 1,025,138 5.13% 59,970,394 6.38% 2006 58,855,322 1.68% 938,879 -11.73% 1,270,416 23.93% 61,064,617 1.82% 2007 58,184,595 -1.14% 922,790 -1.71% 1,418,466 11.65% 60,525,851 -0.88% 2008 55,475,543 -4.66% 903,868 -2.05% 1,478,148 4.21% 57,857,559 -4.41% 2009 65,551,812 8.97% 874,132 -3.29% 1,896,888 28.33% 5,580,857 68,322,832 18.08% 2010 55,574,959 -15.22% 777,525 -11.05% 1,135,783 -40.12% 12,112,738 57,488,267 -15.85% 2011 54,814,001 -1.37% 3.00% 1,054,315 -7.17% 12,793,529 69,462,678 20.83% % Change 1995 – 2011 795,019 Total 800,833 56.71% Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 35,774,099 0.73% n/a 5.62% 94.17% 107 APPENDIX B Revenue Miles Fiscal Year Fixed Route % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride % Change From Previous Year Vanpool % Change From Previous Year % Change From Previous Year Rail 5,213,388 Total % Change From Previous Year 1995 13,664,992 1996 14,331,831 4.88% 5,775,167 10.78% 20,106,998 6.51% 1997 14,740,186 2.85% 5,507,665 -4.63% 20,247,851 0.70% 1998 16,198,218 9.89% 5,699,540 3.48% 21,897,758 8.15% 1999 16,226,425 0.17% 5,581,523 -2.07% 21,807,948 -0.41% 2000 18,039,016 11.17% 6,100,013 9.29% 24,139,029 10.69% 2001 20,633,013 14.38% 6,852,797 12.34% 27,485,810 13.86% 2002 24,106,344 16.83% 7,034,138 2.65% 3,364,956 34,505,438 25.54% 2003 26,357,307 9.34% 7,185,339 2.15% 3,639,578 8.16% 37,182,224 7.76% 2004 27,081,486 2.75% 8,052,626 12.07% 3,568,488 -1.95% 38,702,600 4.09% 2005 26,914,322 -0.62% 7,623,118 -5.33% 3,900,162 9.29% 38,437,602 -0.68% 2006 27,371,759 1.70% 7,865,367 3.18% 4,717,293 20.95% 39,954,419 3.95% 2007 28,766,992 5.10% 7,699,590 -2.11% 5,253,578 11.37% 41,720,160 4.42% 2008 32,755,717 13.87% 7,533,814 -2.15% 5,603,997 6.67% 45,893,528 10.00% 2009 34,172,826 4.15% 7,329,082 -2.79% 6,208,650 9.74% 2010 32,968,784 -3.65% 6,572,800 -11.51% 5,623,377 -10.41% 2,652,759 2011 29,513,595 -10.48% 6,421,324 -2.30% 5,264,634 -6.38% 2,405,140 % Change 1995 - 2011 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 18,878,380 115.98% 23.17% -9.33% n/a 108 47,710,558 3.81% 45,164,960 -5.64% 43,604,693 -3.45% n/a APPENDIX B Boardings Per Revenue Mile Fiscal Year Fixed Route 1995 2.60 1996 2.40 1997 1998 % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride % Change From Previous Year % Change From Previous Year % Change From Previous Year Rail Vanpool 0.20 % Change From Previous Year Total 1.90 -7.69% 0.20 0.00% 1.80 -5.26% 2.40 0.00% 0.20 0.00% 1.80 0.00% 2.20 -8.33% 0.20 0.00% 1.70 -5.56% 1999 2.30 4.55% 0.20 0.00% 1.70 0.00% 2000 2.10 -8.70% 0.20 0.00% 1.60 -5.88% 2001 1.90 -9.52% 0.10 -50.00% 1.50 -6.25% 2002 1.90 0.00% 0.10 0.00% 0.27 2003 2.00 5.26% 0.10 0.00% 0.26 2004 2.00 0.00% 0.10 0.00% 2005 2.10 5.00% 0.10 0.00% 2006 2.10 0.00% 0.10 2007 2.00 -4.76% 2008 2.10 5.00% 2009 1.92 2010 1.69 2011 1.86 10.06% 0.12 1.50 0.00% -3.70% 1.60 6.67% 0.27 3.85% 1.60 0.00% 0.26 -3.70% 1.70 -3.70% 0.00% 0.27 3.85% 1.50 -3.70% 0.10 0.00% 0.27 0.00% 1.80 -3.70% 0.10 0.00% 0.26 -3.70% 1.40 -3.70% -8.57% 0.12 20.00% 0.31 19.23% 4.10 2.34 -3.70% -11.98% 0.12 0.00% 0.27 -12.90% 4.57 11.46% 2.07 -3.70% 0.00% 0.20 -25.93% 5.32 16.41% 1.59 % Change 1995 - 2011 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 -28.46% -40.00% n/a 109 -3.70% 16.32% APPENDIX B Operating Cost Fiscal Year Fixed Route % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride % Change From Previous Year Vanpool % Change From Previous Year % Change From Previous Year Rail Total % Change From Previous Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 $61,579,208 1999 $65,686,899 6.67% $13,523,191 14.49% $79,210,090 7.93% 2000 $74,743,277 13.79% $15,606,135 15.40% $90,349,412 14.06% 2001 $96,207,450 28.72% $18,359,527 17.64% $114,566,977 26.80% 2002 $109,819,956 14.15% $21,517,640 17.20% $1,976,964 2003 $124,341,810 13.22% $23,496,877 9.20% $1,873,665 2004 $130,742,263 5.15% $24,333,403 3.56% 2005 $126,860,874 -2.97% $27,961,152 14.91% 2006 $134,522,499 6.04% $26,805,994 2007 $152,662,789 13.48% $29,505,513 2008 $183,809,441 20.40% $31,936,477 8.24% 2009 $196,568,442 6.49% $31,857,041 -0.25% 2010 2011 $194,414,536 $204,316,678 -1.11% 5.09% $28,762,414 $28,916,889 -10.76% 0.54% % Change 1998 - 2011 231.79% $11,811,483 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 $73,390,691 $133,314,560 16.36% -5.23% $149,712,352 12.30% $1,940,161 3.55% $157,015,827 4.88% $1,702,112 -12.27% $156,524,138 -0.31% -4.13% $2,158,282 26.80% $163,486,775 4.45% 10.07% $2,305,045 6.80% $184,473,347 12.84% $2,499,972 8.46% $218,245,890 18.31% $4,118,258 39.30% $232,543,741 6.15% $2,658,382 $3,139,579 -54.92% 18.10% $225,835,332 $267,393,257 -2.97% 18.40% 144.82% $32,964,700 $31,020,110 n/a -5.90% n/a 110 264.34% APPENDIX B Operating Cost Per Boarding % Change From Previous Year % Change From Previous Year % Change From Previous Year % Change From Previous Year % Change From Previous Year Fiscal Year Fixed Route 1995 $1.46 1996 $1.51 3.42% 1997 1998 $1.67 $1.69 10.60% 1.20% 1999 $1.76 4.14% $14.13 2000 $1.99 13.07% $16.12 14.08% 2001 $2.39 20.10% $17.93 11.23% 2002 $2.44 2.09% $21.02 17.23% $2.16 2003 $2.45 0.41% $22.83 8.61% $1.99 -7.87% $2.85 1.06% 2004 $2.45 0.00% $23.52 3.02% $1.99 0.00% $2.78 -2.46% 2005 $2.22 -9.39% $26.29 11.78% $1.66 -16.58% $2.65 -4.68% 2006 $2.32 4.50% $28.55 8.60% $1.70 2.41% $2.68 1.13% 2007 $2.62 12.93% $31.97 11.98% $1.63 -4.12% $3.05 13.81% 2008 $3.06 16.79% $35.33 10.51% $1.69 3.68% $3.49 14.43% 2009 $3.00 -1.90% $36.44 3.05% $2.17 22.10% $2.85 $3.40 -2.48% 2010 2011 $3.50 $3.73 14.28% 6.57% $36.99 $36.11 1.48% -2.38% $2.34 $2.98 7.24% 27.35% $2.72 $2.42 $3.93 $3.85 13.36% -2.04% % Change 1998 - 2011 Dial-a-Ride 155.48% Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 n/a Vanpool Rail Total $2.82 -11.03% n/a n/a 111 n/a APPENDIX B Revenue Fixed Route % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride % Change From Previous Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 $19,188,643 $19,759,452 2.97% $1,024,347 $1,107,043 2000 $23,033,517 16.57% 2001 $26,650,087 15.70% 2002 $24,441,819 2003 % Change From Previou s Year % Change From Previous Year Total % Change From Previous Year 8.07% $20,212,990 $20,866,495 3.23% $1,386,709 25.26% $24,420,226 17.03% $1,224,283 -11.71% $27,874,370 14.14% -8.29% $1,282,289 4.74% $1,905,774 $27,629,882 -0.88% $26,930,430 10.18% $1,259,045 -1.81% $1,533,316 -19.54% $29,722,791 7.57% 2004 $29,996,266 11.38% $1,263,195 0.33% $1,606,046 4.74% $32,865,507 10.57% 2005 $32,841,189 9.48% $1,244,350 -1.49% $1,791,450 11.54% $35,876,989 9.16% 2006 $31,899,646 -2.87% $1,307,546 5.08% $2,328,632 29.99% $35,535,824 -0.95% 2007 $37,000,313 15.99% $1,302,579 -0.38% $2,650,738 13.83% $40,953,630 15.25% 2008 $39,295,207 6.20% $1,292,611 -0.77% $2,781,438 4.93% $43,369,256 5.90% 2009 $41,091,397 $0.06 $1,304,778 0.93% $3,729,293 25.42% $3,371,103 $48,965,218 7.76% 2010 $46,853,914 6.24% $1,791,298 27.16% $2,469,143 -51.04% $9,228,058 $51,114,356 4.20% 2011 $45,541,645 -2.80% $2,039,281 13.84% $3,165,415 28.20% $10,238,281 $60,984,544 19.31% Fiscal Year Vanpool Rail 1995 % Change 1998 - 2011 137.34% Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 99.08% n/a 10.95% n/a 112 201.71 APPENDIX B Revenue Per Boarding % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride % Change From Previous Year -3.64% 0.00% $1.09 $1.26 $0.61 15.09% 2001 $0.68 2002 2003 % Change From Previous Year % Change From Previous Year Total % Change From Previous Year 15.60% 13.49% $0.54 $0.56 3.70% $1.43 -16.08% $0.63 12.50% 11.48% $1.20 4.17% $0.68 7.94% $0.56 -17.65% $1.25 -2.40% $0.48 $0.56 -17.65% $0.55 -1.79% $1.22 0.00% $0.61 27.08% $0.54 -3.57% 2004 $0.58 5.45% $1.22 -4.10% $0.61 0.00% $0.56 3.70% 2005 $0.60 3.45% $1.17 18.80% $0.57 -6.56% $0.58 3.57% 2006 $0.57 -5.00% $1.39 1.44% $0.55 -3.51% $0.56 -3.45% 2007 $0.64 12.28% $1.41 1.42% $0.54 -1.82% $0.65 16.07% 2008 $0.68 6.25% $1.43 4.19% $0.53 -1.85% $0.72 10.77% 2009 $0.67 -1.93% $1.49 35.21% $1.97 4.29% $0.60 $0.72 -0.78% 2010 $0.84 20.51% $2.30 10.87% $2.17 9.57% $0.76 26.67% $0.89 19.40% 2011 $0.83 -1.19% $2.55 15.60% $3.00 38.25% $0.80 5.26% $0.88 -1.12% Fiscal Year 1995 Fixed Route $0.54 1996 1997 $0.55 $0.55 1.85% 0.00% 1998 1999 $0.53 $0.53 2000 % Change 1998 - 2011 53.70% Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 n/a Vanpool Rail n/a n/a 113 n/a APPENDIX B Farebox Recovery Ratio Fiscal Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Fixed Route % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride % Change From Previous Year 31.30% 36.40% 33.20% 31.20% 30.20% 30.80% 28.40% 23.00% 22.30% 23.60% 26.90% 24.60% 24.20% 22.40% 22.30% 24.10% 22.30% 16.29% -8.79% -6.02% -3.21% 1.99% -7.79% -19.01% -3.04% 5.83% 13.98% -8.55% -1.63% -7.44% -0.03% 7.27% -7.47% 8.70% 8.20% 8.90% 6.70% 6.00% 5.40% 5.20% 4.50% 4.90% 4.40% 4.10% 4.10% 6.20% 7.1% -5.75% 8.54% -24.72% -10.45% -10.00% -3.70% -13.46% 8.89% -10.20% -6.82% 1.18% 34.24% 4.19% % Change 1998 - 2011 -28.75% Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 n/a Vanpool 96.40% 122.10% 120.80% 114.10% 107.90% 115.00% 111.30% 90.60% 92.90% 100.80% % Change From Previous Year 26.66% -1.06% -5.55% -5.43% 6.58% -3.22% -22.86% 2.50% 8.50% Rail 21.20% 28.00% 33.00% n/a % Change From Previous Year Total % Change From Previous Year 32.08% 17.86% 24.80% 20.70% 36.50% 28.00% 27.60% 28.10% 22.20% 20.70% 21.00% 23.30% 22.80% -16.53% 76.33% -23.29% -1.43% 1.81% -21.00% -6.76% 1.72% 6.97% -2.15% n/a 114 n/a APPENDIX B On Time Performance Fiscal Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Fixed Route 95.80% 94.90% 94.70% 87.00% 93.00% 89.70% 88.80% 92.40% 92.50% 91.90% 92.50% 90.70% 91.50% 92.70% 93.20% 95.30% 95.25% % Change 1998 - 2011 % Change From Previous Year Dial-a-Ride -0.94% -0.21% -8.13% 6.90% -3.55% -1.00% 4.05% 0.11% -0.65% 0.65% -1.95% 0.88% 1.31% 0.54% 2.25% 81.40% 84.50% 84.10% 69.20% 86.20% 87.80% 73.30% 92.23% 91.60% 93.00% 93.51% 94.90% 95.39% 94.73% 96.08% 97.35% 3.81% -0.47% -17.72% 24.57% 1.86% -16.51% 25.83% -0.68% 1.53% 0.55% 1.49% 0.52% -0.69% 1.43% 1.32% -0.05% 97.39% 0.04% -0.57% Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 % Change From Previous Year 19.64% Vanpool % Change From Previous Year n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a % Change From Previous Year Total % Change From Previous Year 93.90% 95.80% 2.02% 88.60% 89.70% 89.40% 78.10% 89.60% 92.50% 84.77% 91.43% 92.57% 93.00% 93.38% 93.90% 93.47% 90.98% 94.38% 96.10% 1.24% -0.33% -12.64% 14.72% 3.24% -8.36% 7.86% 1.25% 0.46% 0.41% 0.56% -0.46% -2.66% 3.74% 1.82% 97.50% 1.77% 96.71% 0.63% Rail n/a n/a 115 9.15% APPENDIX C APPENDIX C Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 116 APPENDIX C Table C-1: Fixed Route Transit Service Historical Trends since FY 1985 Fiscal Year Annual Boardings 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 16,501,219 17,487,296 19,327,298 21,035,796 25,000,896 28,642,983 31,063,899 32,227,853 32,194,122 33,252,295 34,227,244 35,028,406 35,141,668 36,377,705 37,366,572 37,496,804 40,194,501 45,277,131 50,510,536 54,013,410 56,361,933 58,855,322 58,184,595 60,153,649 65,551,812 55,571,959 54814001 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 Revenue Miles Boardings of Service Per Mile 7,592,893 8,331,290 9,275,347 10,524,537 10,824,442 11,664,511 11,503,650 11,904,888 12,029,150 12,462,098 13,365,761 13,664,992 14,331,831 14,740,186 16,198,218 18,039,016 21,221,858 24,106,344 26,357,307 26,672,410 27,427,972 27,504,359 28,766,992 32,755,717 34,172,826 32,968,784 29,513,595 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.86 117 APPENDIX C Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 118 APPENDIX E APPENDIX D Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 119 APPENDIX E TABLE 1 - Weekday Local Routes Boardings Per Mile By Jurisdiction City of Avondale WEEKDAY LOCAL Route 29A 17A 131 Boardings Per Mile City Avondale Avondale Avondale FY 2007 0.4 FY 2008 0.3 0.4 0.4 FY 2009 0.5 0.3 0.5 FY 2010 0.5 0.5 0.4 FY 2011 0.8 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 City of Chandler WEEKDAY LOCAL Route Boardings Per Mile City 96 Chandler 136 Chandler 66 AZ Ave LINK Chandler Chandler FY 2007 FY 2008 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 Gila River Indian Community 66 0.8 Gila River Town of Gilbert WEEKDAY LOCAL Route 136 Boardings Per Mile City Gilbert 184 108 156 FY 2007 0.4 FY 2008 0.5 FY 2009 0.7 FY 2010 0.6 FY 2011 0.7 Gilbert Gilbert Gilbert 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 90 Glendale 2.4 2.0 2.9 2.2 2.5 80 Glendale 2.3 1.7 3.3 2.7 2.5 60 Glendale 2.9 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.2 City of Glendale Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 120 APPENDIX E 59 Glendale 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.1 138 Glendale 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.1 2.0 67 Glendale 1.7 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.0 106 70 170 Glendale Glendale Glendale 2.5 4.5 1.8 2.6 4.2 1.8 2.4 1.6 2.5 1.8 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.4 1.4 WEEKDAY LOCAL Route Boardings Per Mile City FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 1.1 1.0 0.4 Grand Ave Ltd Glendale 122 Glendale 131 Goodyear 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 56 108 Guadalupe Guadalupe 1.8 0.9 1.9 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.2 0.5 1.1 0.4 96 Mesa 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.9 112 Mesa 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.7 2.9 61 104 77 Mesa Mesa Mesa 2.5 2.3 1.8 2.2 2.1 1.6 2.1 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.8 156 Mesa 1.8 2.4 1.7 1.8 120 40 45 30 AZ Ave LINK 136 Mesa 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.3 128 Mesa 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.3 Main St LINK Mesa 1.4 1.3 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 WEEKDAY LOCAL Route Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Boardings Per Mile City FY 2007 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 FY 2008 121 APPENDIX E 108 184 Mesa 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.3 44 Paradise Valley 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.2 106 Peoria 2.0 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.3 Grand Ave Ltd Peoria 2.4 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.4 WEEKDAY LOCAL Route Mesa Boardings Per Mile City FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 50 15 41 17 70 19 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 3.5 2.5 3.6 3.6 3.1 2.8 3.4 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.7 2.6 4.1 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.6 2.5 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.9 80 3 Phoenix 3.2 3.8 3.5 3.1 3.7 2.9 2.9 3.4 2.6 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.3 2.6 3.1 2.9 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.9 2.9 59 27 10 35 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 51 Phoenix 2.3 2.4 3.1 2.6 2.6 60 0 Phoenix Phoenix 2.5 3.6 2.4 3.0 3.1 3.3 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 67 Phoenix 3.2 2.5 3.6 2.6 2.5 90 43 12 7 61 8 170 106 16 44 45 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 1.8 2.9 2.3 1.7 3.3 1.9 1.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.8 2.9 1.9 1.6 2.8 2.7 3.2 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.0 2.1 0.4 2.4 2.3 3.1 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.8 1.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 17A Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 122 APPENDIX E 186 77 138 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.3 32 Phoenix 0.6 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.2 13 52 30 1 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 1.3 1.4 0.7 1.1 154 Phoenix Phoenix 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.2 0.7 Phoenix 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 Grand Ave Ltd Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.6 122 Phoenix 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.6 39 56 29A 40 WEEKDAY LOCAL Route 17 29 50 41 762 72 106 661 WEEKDAY LOCAL Route Phoenix Boardings Per Mile City Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 2.5 2.6 1.9 1.9 0.6 1.1 0.9 0.7 2.8 2.0 1.8 1.8 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.7 3.1 2.4 2.2 2.0 0.6 1.1 1.3 0.8 2.5 2.2 1.5 2.0 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.8 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 Boardings Per Mile City FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 0.6 1.3 0.7 1.3 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.4 81 170 Scottsdale Scottsdale 154 Scottsdale 106 Sun City 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.7 Grand Ave Ltd Surprise 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 123 APPENDIX E 77 61 45 72 56 30 65 81 661 40 48 62 108 44 Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe 2.2 2.2 3.6 1.9 1.9 2.3 1.5 1.4 1.1 2.0 2.8 2.9 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.2 1.7 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.4 1.6 0.9 1.2 Tempe Tempe Tempe 1.4 1.0 2.5 1.3 0.9 2.2 3 Tolleson 0.4 0.5 Tempe Tempe 1.4 1.0 3.1 2.2 1.8 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.3 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.0 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 3 2 3 7 15 13 13 5 7 6 8 4 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 2 3 0 Bottom Quartile Funded in Full or Part by PTF Funding WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route City 560 Avondale 542 541 540 Chandler Chandler Chandler WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route City 511 Boardings Per Trip FY 2007 FY 2008 6 6 6 7 2 3 Boardings Per Trip FY 2007 FY 2008 Chandler Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 124 APPENDIX E 512 Fountain Hills 2 2 2 2 3 531 Gilbert 3 3 6 5 5 575 Glendale Glendale Glendale 16 14 15 4 6 4 8 3 8 3 11 3 2 2 1 1 3 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 4 3 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 12 13 17 21 10 11 19 10 8 17 14 8 6 5 4 4 5 5 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 1 2 0 573 581 Grand Ave Ltd Glendale WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route City 570 576 Glendale 572 Glendale Glendale 562 Goodyear 533 Mesa Mesa Mesa 3 535 532 531 541 Mesa Mesa WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route City Boardings Per Trip FY 2007 FY 2008 5 4 1 15 21 12 15 7 9 4 6 Boardings Per Trip FY 2007 FY 2008 536 Mesa Grand Ave Ltd Peoria 6 4 4 2 3 I-17 Rapid I-10 East Rapid SR51 Rapid Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 27 31 25 26 28 25 29 30 28 25 25 23 30 25 23 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 125 APPENDIX E I-10 West Rapid Phoenix Phoenix 533 Phoenix 575 WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route City 560 542 540 581 573 571 541 535 562 512 531 510 590 532 582 Grand Ave Ltd 521 570 24 22 13 17 19 15 17 7 11 15 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Trip FY 2007 FY 2008 18 12 11 15 7 20 13 12 16 17 13 12 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 16 13 15 5 15 15 10 11 12 7 8 12 11 11 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 10 12 18 9 11 9 10 10 7 9 10 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 13 8 12 12 10 12 12 11 11 11 9 9 10 9 8 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 16 9 14 15 12 10 16 9 13 12 7 11 7 7 6 8 7 8 5 6 9 6 5 4 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 7 4 4 0 2 0 12 6 9 5 8 5 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 2 5 2 2 1 0 10 15 14 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 3 3 0 Phoenix Phoenix Scottsdale Scottsdale WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route City 10 8 8 7 11 8 Boardings Per Trip FY 2007 FY 2008 7 7 10 10 5 4 Boardings Per Trip FY 2007 FY 2008 Scottsdale Scottsdale 571 Surprise WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route City 572 26 19 510 512 511 572 25 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route City 520 576 26 1 11 14 Boardings Per Trip FY 2007 FY 2008 Surprise Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 2 126 APPENDIX E 521 520 Tempe Tempe WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route City 540 532 511 536 10 10 9 6 9 7 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Tempe 4 6 4 2 2 Tempe Tempe Tempe 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 0 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 1 3 2 1 255.0 255.0 256.0 251.0 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 778 915 715 1,262 48 45 19 17 5 25 7 50 81 54 132 97 644 771 644 1,117 36 37 22 13 10 21 8 46 51 34 118 72 643 762 602 1,311 31 33 1 8 9 20 10 38 53 30 111 67 WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route City 560 12 10 8 8 Boardings Per Trip FY 2007 FY 2008 Tolleson Boardings Per Trip FY 2007 FY 2008 1 Bottom Quartile Funded in Full or Part by PTF Funding 255.0 WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route City SR51 Rapid I-10 East Rapid I-10 West Rapid I-17 Rapid 510 510 511 511 511 512 512 512 520 520 521 521 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Scottsdale Phoenix Chandler Scottsdale Tempe Scottsdale Fountain Hills Phoenix Tempe Phoenix Tempe Phoenix Boardings Per Trip FY 2007 FY 2008 703 961 690 1,205 40 49 699 875 680 1,147 40 49 19 10 52 63 54 152 101 16 9 47 66 54 134 95 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 127 APPENDIX E 531 531 531 532 532 532 533 533 535 535 536 536 540 540 540 541 541 541 542 542 560 560 560 562 562 570 570 571 571 572 572 572 573 573 575 575 576 576 581 581 582 590 Mesa Phoenix Gilbert Tempe Mesa Phoenix Mesa Phoenix Mesa Phoenix Tempe Mesa Tempe Chandler Phoenix Mesa Chandler Phoenix Chandler Phoenix Avondale Phoenix Tolleson Goodyear Phoenix Glendale Phoenix Phoenix Surprise Scottsdale Glendale Surprise Glendale Phoenix Glendale Phoenix Glendale Phoenix Glendale Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 99 119 38 13 93 74 147 126 35 16 96 70 94 155 23 77 3 18 42 53 45 22 99 108 130 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 134 152 50 17 120 95 211 174 48 21 132 102 119 197 22 70 2 15 33 61 57 17 11 19 71 54 22 89 84 121 83 163 96 16 85 72 214 191 60 53 65 138 76 13 62 60 191 153 60 52 76 141 77 12 64 54 172 168 85 60 6 9 18 20 1 1 32 43 133 50 131 178 19 46 105 41 70 110 19 33 99 49 77 100 44 39 91 120 132 127 13 46 10 9 43 6 11 59 5 73 44 78 55 102 60 15 31 65 61 55 19 33 91 123 13 37 50 93 26 11 31 94 80 5 15 64 82 1 1 1 92 86 95 41 9 4 84 66 17 15 88 90 1 1 21 89 101 125 16 73 85 95 12 48 46 55 128 APPENDIX E 255.0 WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route City SR51 Rapid I-10 East Rapid I-10 West Rapid I-17 Rapid 510 510 511 511 511 512 512 512 520 520 521 521 531 531 531 532 532 532 533 533 535 535 536 536 540 540 540 541 541 541 542 542 560 560 560 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Scottsdale Phoenix Chandler Scottsdale Tempe Scottsdale Fountain Hills Phoenix Tempe Phoenix Tempe Phoenix Mesa Phoenix Gilbert Tempe Mesa Phoenix Mesa Phoenix Mesa Phoenix Tempe Mesa Tempe Chandler Phoenix Mesa Chandler Phoenix Chandler Phoenix Avondale Phoenix Tolleson 255.0 Boardings Per Trip FY 2007 FY 2008 703 961 690 1,205 40 49 699 875 680 1,147 40 49 19 10 52 63 54 152 101 99 119 38 13 93 74 147 126 16 9 47 66 54 134 95 134 152 50 17 120 95 211 174 35 16 96 70 94 155 48 21 132 102 119 197 23 77 835 22 70 2 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 255.0 256.0 251.0 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 778 915 715 1,262 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 644 3 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 643 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 129 APPENDIX E 562 562 570 570 571 571 572 572 572 573 573 575 575 576 576 581 581 582 590 Goodyear Phoenix Glendale Phoenix Phoenix Surprise Scottsdale Glendale Surprise Glendale Phoenix Glendale Phoenix Glendale Phoenix Glendale Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 1 Route 66 no longer exists. calendar year 2011, 18 42 53 45 15 33 61 57 17 11 19 71 54 22 99 108 130 22 89 84 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Route 76 is now called the Miller Road Trolley 3Route 572 was eliminated in Table 1 - Weekday Local Boardings Per Mile City of Avondale WEEKDAY LOCAL Boardings Per Mile Route City FY 200 7 FY 200 9 FY 2010 FY 2011 Avondale 0.6 FY 200 8 3 29A 0.4 0.2 1.0 Avondale 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.8 17A Avondale 0.3 0.5 131 Avondale 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 112 Chandler 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.6 156 Chandler 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.2 104 Chandler 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 72 Chandler 1.0 1.2 1.3 0.9 1.0 108 Chandler 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.9 81 Chandler 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 96 Chandler 0.5 0.6 0.7 136 Chandler 0.8 City of Chandler Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 0.6 130 APPENDIX E 66 Chandler 0.6 0.4 0.6 AZ Ave LINK Chandler 0.5 Gila River 0.8 112 Gilbert 1.4 AZ Ave LINK Gilbert 0.9 136 Gilbert 184 Gilbert 108 Gilbert 156 Gilbert Gila River Indian Community 66 Town of Gilbert 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 City of Glendale 90 Glendale 2.4 2.0 2.9 2.2 2.5 80 Glendale 2.3 1.7 3.3 2.7 2.5 60 Glendale 2.9 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.2 59 Glendale 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.1 138 Glendale 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.1 2.0 67 Glendale 1.7 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.0 106 Glendale 2.5 2.6 2.4 1.8 2.0 70 Glendale 4.5 4.2 1.6 1.3 1.4 170 Glendale 1.8 1.8 2.5 1.5 1.4 Table 1 - Weekday Local Boardings Per Mile (Continued) City of Glendale (Continued) WEEKDAY LOCAL Boardings Per Mile Route City FY 200 8 1.4 FY 200 9 1.2 FY 2010 FY 2011 Glendale FY 200 7 1.4 51 1.0 1.1 186 Glendale 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.8 1.1 122 Glendale 1.2 1.0 0.5 Grand Ave Ltd Glendale 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 122 Glendale 1.1 1.0 0.4 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 131 APPENDIX E City of Goodyear 131 Goodyear 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 Guadalup e Guadalup e 1.8 1.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.4 96 Mesa 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.9 112 Mesa 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.7 2.9 61 Mesa 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.2 104 Mesa 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.8 2.0 77 Mesa 1.8 1.6 2.2 2.2 1.8 156 Mesa 1.8 2.4 1.7 1.8 120 Mesa 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.8 40 Mesa 1.5 1.4 1.6 45 Mesa 1.1 1.0 1.6 1.4 1.5 30 Mesa 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 AZ Ave LINK Mesa 136 Mesa 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.4 128 Mesa 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 Main St LINK Mesa 0.7 1.0 1.1 108 Mesa 1.1 0.7 0.7 184 Mesa Town of Guadalupe 56 108 City of Mesa 1.2 1.5 0.8 0.9 0.3 Town of Paradise Valley 44 Paradise Valley 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.2 106 Peoria 2.0 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.3 Grand Ave Ltd Peoria 2.4 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.4 City of Peoria Table 1 - Weekday Local Boardings Per Mile (Continued) Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 132 APPENDIX E City of Phoenix WEEKDAY LOCAL Boardings Per Mile Route City FY 200 8 3.4 FY 200 9 4.1 FY 2010 FY 2011 Phoenix FY 200 7 3.5 50 3.6 3.7 15 Phoenix 2.5 2.9 3.2 2.5 3.4 41 Phoenix 3.6 3.1 3.6 3.3 3.3 17 Phoenix 3.6 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.2 70 Phoenix 3.1 2.7 3.3 2.9 3.1 19 Phoenix 2.8 2.6 3.1 2.8 2.9 80 Phoenix 3.2 3.5 3.7 2.9 2.9 3 Phoenix 3.8 3.1 3.2 2.9 2.9 59 Phoenix 2.9 3.0 3.5 3.1 2.8 27 Phoenix 3.4 3.0 3.3 2.6 2.8 10 Phoenix 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.8 35 Phoenix 3.1 2.8 3.1 2.5 2.7 51 Phoenix 2.3 2.4 3.1 2.6 2.6 60 Phoenix 2.5 2.4 3.1 2.5 2.6 0 Phoenix 3.6 3.0 3.3 2.5 2.5 67 Phoenix 3.2 2.5 3.6 2.6 2.5 90 Phoenix 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.4 43 Phoenix 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.4 12 Phoenix 2.5 2.3 3.2 3.1 2.3 7 Phoenix 2.7 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.2 61 Phoenix 1.8 1.9 2.3 1.9 2.2 8 Phoenix 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.2 170 Phoenix 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.1 106 Phoenix 1.7 1.8 2.3 1.9 2.1 16 Phoenix 3.3 2.9 3.0 2.3 2.0 44 Phoenix 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.7 2.0 45 Phoenix 1.9 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.9 17A Phoenix 0.4 1.6 1.8 186 Phoenix 0.9 1.2 1.7 1.5 1.7 77 Phoenix 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.6 138 Phoenix 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.3 32 Phoenix 0.6 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.2 13 Phoenix 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.2 52 Phoenix 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.1 30 Phoenix 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.8 1.0 1 Phoenix 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.9 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 133 APPENDIX E 154 Phoenix 39 Phoenix 56 Phoenix 29A 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.8 Phoenix 0.6 0.8 0.8 40 Phoenix 0.8 0.6 0.6 Grand Ave Ltd Phoenix 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.6 122 Phoenix 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.7 Table 1 - Weekday Local Boardings Per Mile (Continued) City of Scottsdale WEEKDAY LOCAL Boardings Per Mile Route City 17 Scottsdal e Scottsdal e Scottsdal e Scottsdal e Scottsdal e Scottsdal e Scottsdal e Scottsdal e Scottsdal e Scottsdal e Scottsdal e 29 50 41 762 72 106 661 81 170 154 FY 200 7 2.5 FY 200 8 2.8 FY 200 9 3.1 FY 2010 FY 2011 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.8 2.2 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.4 Maricopa County / Sun City 106 Sun City 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.7 Surprise 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 City of Surprise Grand Ave Ltd Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 134 APPENDIX E City of Tempe 77 Tempe 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.8 61 Tempe 2.2 2.8 2.0 1.8 2.6 45 Tempe 3.6 2.9 2.4 2.1 2.3 72 Tempe 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.6 2.2 56 Tempe 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.9 2.1 30 Tempe 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.4 1.8 65 Tempe 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 81 Tempe 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.7 66 Tempe 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.5 40 Tempe 1.2 1.1 1.4 48 Tempe 0.9 1.2 62 Tempe 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.1 108 Tempe 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 44 Tempe 2.5 2.2 3.1 1.3 0.4 Tolleson 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.0 City of Tolleson 3 Bottom Quartile Funded in Full or Part by PTF Funding 1 Route 66 no longer exists. 2Route 76 is now called the Miller Road Trolley Table 4 - Weekday Express Boardings Per Trip City of Avondale WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Route 560 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 City FY 200 7 Avondale 6 Boardings Per Trip FY FY FY 200 200 201 FY 8 9 0 2011 6 3 2 3 135 APPENDIX E City of Chandler 542 Chandler 541 Chandler 6 540 Chandler 2 511 Chandler 7 15 13 7 13 7 8 3 5 6 4 2 3 0 City of El Mirage Grand Avenue LTD 2 El Mirage Town of Fountain Hills 512 Fountain Hills 2 2 2 2 3 Gilbert 3 3 6 5 5 16 14 15 6 8 8 11 Town of Gilbert 531 City of Glendale 575 Glendale 573 Glendale Grand Avenue LTD Glendale 2 2 1 1 3 581 Glendale 4 4 3 3 3 570 Glendale 5 4 576 Glendale 4 1 3 2 1 0 572 Glendale 1 2 1 0 12 13 17 21 19 17 10 10 14 City of Goodyear 562 Goodyear Table 4 - Weekday Express Boardings Per Trip (Continued) City of Mesa 533 Mesa 535 Mesa 532 Mesa 12 15 11 8 8 531 Mesa 7 9 6 4 5 541 Mesa 4 6 536 Mesa 5 1 4 2 5 0 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 15 21 136 APPENDIX E City of Peoria Grand Avenue LTD Peoria 6 4 4 2 3 City of Phoenix WEEKDAY Express / RAPID Boardings Per Trip FY FY FY 200 200 201 FY 8 9 0 2011 City FY 200 7 I-17 Rapid Phoenix 27 26 29 25 30 I-10 East Rapid Phoenix 31 28 30 25 25 SR51 Rapid Phoenix 25 25 28 23 23 I-10 West Rapid Phoenix 26 25 26 24 22 533 Phoenix 13 17 575 Phoenix 19 7 15 11 17 15 560 Phoenix 19 18 542 Phoenix 12 7 11 20 15 13 540 Phoenix 12 16 17 13 12 581 Phoenix 16 15 15 12 12 573 Phoenix 5 10 7 11 571 Phoenix 13 15 11 8 11 541 Phoenix 10 12 18 11 10 535 Phoenix 562 Phoenix 9 7 9 9 10 10 512 Phoenix 13 12 12 11 10 531 Phoenix 8 10 11 9 9 510 Phoenix 12 12 11 9 8 590 Phoenix 16 15 16 12 7 532 Phoenix 9 12 9 7 7 582 Phoenix 14 10 13 11 6 Grand Avenue LTD Phoenix 10 8 8 5 6 521 Phoenix 8 7 7 6 5 570 Phoenix 11 8 8 9 4 520 Phoenix 7 7 576 Phoenix 7 0 4 2 4 0 10 10 12 9 8 Route Table 4 - Weekday Express Boardings Per Trip (Continued) City of Scottsdale 510 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 Scottsdal e 137 APPENDIX E 512 511 572 Scottsdal e Scottsdal e Scottsdal e 5 4 6 5 5 2 2 1 1 5 2 0 14 10 15 14 2 3 3 0 City of Surprise 571 Surprise 572 Surprise 11 City of Tempe 521 Tempe 12 10 10 9 9 520 Tempe 8 8 10 6 7 540 Tempe 4 6 4 2 2 532 Tempe 2 2 2 2 2 511 Tempe 536 Tempe 1 1 1 2 1 0 3 2 1 City of Tolleson 560 Tolleson 1 1 Bottom Quartile Funded in Full or Part by PTF Funding GRAPH 1 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 138 APPENDIX E Chandler Weekday Local Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Mile History 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 96 Chandler 0.4 136 Chandler 0.3 66 Chandler 0.2 AZ Ave LINK Chandler 0.1 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Mile Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 139 APPENDIX E Gilbert Weekday Local Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Mile History 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 136 Gilbert 0.4 184 Gilbert 0.3 108 Gilbert 0.2 156 Gilbert 0.1 0.0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Mile Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 140 APPENDIX E Mesa Weekday Local Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Mile History 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 108 Mesa 0.4 184 Mesa 0.2 0.0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Mile Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 141 APPENDIX E Scottsdale Weekday Local Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Mile History 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 81 Scottsdale 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Mile Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 142 APPENDIX E Scottsdale Weekday Local Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Mile History 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 81 Scottsdale 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Mile Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 143 APPENDIX E Chandler Express Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Trip History 3 2.5 2 1.5 511 Chandler 1 0.5 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Trip GRAPH 6 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 144 APPENDIX E Glendale Express Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Trip History 5 5 4 4 3 3 570 Glendale 2 576 Glendale 2 572 Glendale 1 1 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Trip Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 145 APPENDIX E Mesa Express Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Trip History 2.5 2 1.5 1 536 Mesa 0.5 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Trip Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 146 APPENDIX E Phoenix Express Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Trip History 8 7 6 5 4 520 Phoenix 3 576 Phoenix 2 1 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Trip Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 147 APPENDIX E Scottsdale Express Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Trip History 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 511 Scottsdale 1.5 572 Scottsdale 1 0.5 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Trip Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 148 APPENDIX E Surprise Express Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Trip History 3 2.5 2 1.5 572 Surprise 1 0.5 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Trip Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 149 APPENDIX E Tempe Express Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Trip History 7 6 5 4 540 Tempe 3 532 Tempe 2 511 Tempe 1 536 Tempe 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Trip Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 150 APPENDIX E Tolleson Express Service PTF Funded Routes in Regional Bottom Quartile Boardings Per Trip History 3 3 2 2 560 Tolleson 1 1 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Boardings Per Trip SATURDAY Route Boardings Per Mile City FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.9 FY 2010 FY 2011 3 Avondale 17A Avondale 29A Avondale 0.4 0.2 0.4 96 Chandler 0.4 SATURDAY Route S Boardings Per Mile City FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 A 156 Chandler AZ Ave LINK 72 66 Chandler Chandler 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.2 0.8 0.4 Chandler Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 151 APPENDIX E 136 Chandler 0.2 66 Gila River 0.8 AZ Ave LINK Gilbert 1.2 SATURDAY Route Boardings Per Mile City FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 Glendale 1.2 2.1 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.6 1.4 1.2 2.0 1.4 1.5 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.9 Glendale 0.6 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.3 Glendale 1.2 1.4 1.6 2.9 0.9 0.4 1.3 1.6 1.7 2.8 0.9 0.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.4 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 1.3 0.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 136 Gilbert 184 Gilbert 156 Gilbert 90 60 59 80 Glendale 138 67 170 106 70 51 186 122 Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale SATURDAY Route Boardings Per Mile FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 108 Guadalupe City 1.3 1.4 0.7 0.3 0.3 96 104 40 Mesa 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.9 1.8 2.2 1.2 2.1 1.9 1.3 2.3 2.0 1.8 Mesa Mesa Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 152 APPENDIX E AZ Ave LINK 61 136 45 77 30 120 Mesa 128 Mesa Mesa 156 Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.0 SATURDAY Route 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.3 1.5 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.8 Boardings Per Mile City Main St LINK Mesa 184 Mesa 44 Paradise Valley 29 Phoenix 15 80 50 19 Phoenix FY 2007 FY 2008 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 Phoenix 4.2 2.1 1.8 2.8 2.9 3.9 2.4 2.1 2.7 2.3 3.9 3.3 2.7 3.1 2.8 4.2 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.1 3.1 41 Phoenix 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 17 Phoenix 3 Phoenix 60 59 67 70 35 0 10 43 27 61 170 186 Phoenix 3.5 3.7 2.1 1.3 2.1 2.7 2.6 2.1 1.3 1.4 2.2 1.3 1.7 0.4 2.9 2.9 1.8 1.5 2.3 2.3 2.5 1.9 1.7 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.9 0.5 3.2 3.5 2.7 2.6 3.4 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.3 1.8 2.1 1.1 2.9 2.9 2.6 3.1 3.0 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix SATURDAY Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 Boardings Per Mile 153 APPENDIX E Route City FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.2 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.9 1.4 1.6 2.0 1.4 2.3 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.6 0.8 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 77 44 51 106 16 7 8 90 12 45 Phoenix 32 Phoenix 17A Phoenix 122 Phoenix 0.5 0.5 1.2 1.8 2.1 1.7 2.5 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.2 0.4 138 Phoenix 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.6 1.0 13 Phoenix 0.8 154 Phoenix 0.9 0.9 Phoenix 1.0 1.6 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.7 29A Phoenix 40 Phoenix 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 1 56 52 30 39 0.7 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 50 Scottsdale 29 Scottsdale 17 Scottsdale 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.4 5.8 2.0 2.4 2.4 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.6 41 Scottsdale 1.4 1.3 3.5 1.3 1.2 106 66 72 76 81 Scottsdale 170 Scottsdale 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.3 0.7 1.2 154 Scottsdale 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.2 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale SATURDAY Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 Boardings Per Mile 154 APPENDIX E Route City FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.7 1.1 1.7 2.2 0.8 1.7 0.9 0.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.7 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.1 2.2 0.8 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 1.3 0.6 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 56 72 61 77 81 45 65 40 Tempe 48 Tempe 66 62 30 44 108 Tempe Tempe 0.5 0.9 1.5 1.9 0.4 3 Tolleson 0.3 Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Bottom Quartile Funded in Full or Part by PTF Funding SUNDAY Route 72 Boardings Per Mile City Chandler FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.8 SUNDAY Route Boardings Per Mile City 156 Chandler 96 Chandler AZ Ave LINK Chandler FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.5 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 0.5 155 APPENDIX E 66 Chandler 66 Gila River 0.1 0.9 SUNDAY Route 0.4 Boardings Per Mile City FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 184 Gilbert 0.2 156 Gilbert 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 90 Glendale 1.5 1.1 1.8 1.5 1.9 60 Glendale 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.6 59 Glendale 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 67 Glendale 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 106 Glendale 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.1 186 Glendale 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 170 Glendale 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.0 0.9 138 Glendale 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 80 Glendale 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 70 Glendale 2.7 3.3 1.0 0.9 0.7 122 Glendale 0.4 0.2 0.6 51 Glendale 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 0.5 156 APPENDIX E 56 Guadalupe 1.8 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 108 Guadalupe 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 SUNDAY Boardings Per Mile Route City FY 2007 FY 2008 96 Mesa 1.0 1.5 1.6 61 Mesa 0.9 1.0 1.6 40 Mesa 0.9 1.1 1.5 AZ Ave LINK Mesa 156 Mesa 1.3 N/A SUNDAY 1.2 0.9 1.0 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 0.4 0.5 0.4 Boardings Per Mile Route Main LINK 0.8 City FY 2007 FY 2008 St Mesa 184 Mesa 0.2 44 Paradise Valley 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.1 29 Phoenix 3.2 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.9 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 157 APPENDIX E 15 Phoenix 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.9 2.5 41 Phoenix 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.3 50 Phoenix 2.0 1.9 2.3 2.2 2.2 17 Phoenix 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.2 19 Phoenix 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.1 59 Phoenix 1.2 1.5 2.2 1.7 2.0 3 Phoenix 2.9 2.4 2.4 1.9 2.0 60 Phoenix 2.2 2.0 2.5 1.8 1.9 67 Phoenix 1.7 1.8 2.4 1.8 1.8 70 Phoenix 1.9 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.8 35 Phoenix 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.6 1.6 0 Phoenix 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.4 1.5 80 Phoenix 1.7 2.2 2.8 2.1 1.4 43 Phoenix 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.4 10 Phoenix 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.4 27 Phoenix 2.4 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.3 186 Phoenix 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.3 51 Phoenix 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.3 106 Phoenix 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2 170 Phoenix 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.2 44 Phoenix 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 61 Phoenix 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 90 Phoenix 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 16 Phoenix 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.1 7 Phoenix 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.1 77 Phoenix 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.0 8 Phoenix 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 158 APPENDIX E 12 Phoenix 0.9 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.9 122 Phoenix 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 SUNDAY Route Boardings Per Mile City FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 45 Phoenix 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 32 Phoenix N/A 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.7 13 Phoenix 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 154 Phoenix N/A 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 138 Phoenix 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.1 0.7 1 Phoenix 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.5 56 Phoenix 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 52 Phoenix 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 39 Phoenix 0.5 0.4 0.5 40 Phoenix 0.6 0.5 0.4 30 Phoenix 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 50 Scottsdale 1.5 1.3 2.5 1.6 1.5 17 Scottsdale 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.4 1.2 29 Scottsdale 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 41 Scottsdale 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 106 Scottsdale 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.8 72 Scottsdale 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 76 Scottsdale 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.6 SUNDAY Route 81 Boardings Per Mile City Scottsdale FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 159 APPENDIX E 66 Scottsdale 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 170 Scottsdale 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 154 Scottsdale N/A 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 61 Tempe 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 72 Tempe 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 56 Tempe 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.4 77 Tempe 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 81 Tempe 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.2 40 Tempe 0.6 0.8 1.2 45 Tempe 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 66 Tempe 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.0 65 Tempe 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 48 Tempe 0.6 0.8 30 Tempe 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.8 62 Tempe 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 108 Tempe 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 44 Tempe 1.2 1.2 1.5 0.7 0.2 Bottom Quartile Funded in Full or Part by PTF Funding Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 160 APPENDIX E Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 161 APPENDIX E Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 162 APPENDIX E APPENDIX E Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 163 APPENDIX E FUNDING SOURCES AND TRANSIT OPERATORS BY ROUTE AS OF January 23, 2012 Local Routes: Route: Funded By: Contracted By: Operated By: ALEX DASH Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix MV Transportation Veolia Phoenix MARY Phoenix Phoenix First Transit SMART Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix Grand Ave Ltd RPTA, Phoenix Phoenix First Transit GUS 1 & 2 Glendale Glendale City of Glendale GUS 3 Glendale Glendale City of Glendale FLASH Arizona State University Tempe Veolia Tempe Mercury Tempe Tempe Veolia Tempe Venus Tempe Tempe Veolia Tempe Earth Tempe Tempe Veolia Tempe Mars Tempe Tempe Veolia Tempe Jupiter Tempe Tempe Veolia Tempe BUZZ Mesa RPTA Veolia RPTA downtown trolley Scottsdale Scottsdale Dunn Transportation Neighborhood Tolley Scottsdale Scottsdale Dunn Transportation MILLER Tolley Scottsdale Scottsdale Dunn Transportation ZOOM Avondale RPTA Valu Trans METRO LRT Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa METRO LRT METRO Light Rail LINK – Main St LINK – Arizona Ave 0 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 1 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 3 Phoenix, Avondale Phoenix First Transit 7 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 8 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 10 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 12 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 13 Phoenix Phoenix First Transit 15 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 16 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 17 Phoenix, Scottsdale Phoenix First Transit ROAD Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 164 APPENDIX E Route: Funded By: Contracted By: Operated By: 17A Phoenix, Avondale, Goodyear Phoenix First Transit 19 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 27 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 29 Phoenix, Scottsdale Phoenix First Transit 30 Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe RPTA Veolia RPTA 35 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 39 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 40 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 41 Phoenix, Scottsdale Phoenix First Transit 43 Phoenix Phoenix First Transit 44 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 45 Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 48 Tempe Tempe Veolia Tempe 50 Phoenix, Scottsdale, RPTA Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 51 Glendale, Phoenix Phoenix First Transit 52 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 56 Phoenix, Tempe, RPTA Tempe Veolia Tempe 59 Phoenix, Glendale, RPTA Phoenix First Transit 60 Phoenix, Glendale Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 61 Phoenix, Mesa, RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 62 Tempe Tempe Veolia Tempe 65 Tempe Tempe Veolia Tempe 66 Tempe, GRIC, RPTA Tempe Veolia Tempe 67 Phoenix, Glendale, RPTA Phoenix First Transit 70 Phoenix, RPTA Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 72 RPTA Tempe Veolia Tempe 77 Phoenix, RPTA, Mesa Tempe Veolia Tempe 80 Phoenix, Glendale Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 81 Scottsdale, Tempe, RPTA Tempe Veolia Tempe 90 Phoenix, Glendale Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 96 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 104 Mesa, RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 106 Phoenix, Scottsdale, Glendale, RPTA Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 108 Tempe, Gilbert, Mesa, RPTA Tempe Veolia Tempe 112 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 120 Mesa RPTA Veolia RPTA 122 Phoenix, Glendale Phoenix Veolia Phoenix Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 165 APPENDIX E Route: Funded By: Contracted By: Operated By: 128 Mesa RPTA Veolia RPTA 136 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 138 Phoenix, Glendale Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 154 Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 156 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 170 Phoenix, Glendale, Scottsdale Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 184 RPTA, JARC RPTA Veolia RPTA 186 Phoenix, Glendale Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 251 GRIC RPTA Valu Trans RAPID AND Express ROUTES: Route: Funded By: Contracted By: Operated By: SR-51 RAPID Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix I-10 East RAPID I-10 West RAPID I-17 RAPID Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix First Transit Phoenix Phoenix Veolia Phoenix 510 RPTA Tempe Veolia Tempe 511 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 512 RPTA Tempe Veolia Tempe 520 RPTA Tempe Veolia Tempe 521 RPTA Tempe Veolia Tempe 531 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 532 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 533 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 535 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 540 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 541 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 542 RPTA RPTA Veolia RPTA 560 RPTA Phoenix First Transit 562 RPTA RPTA Valu Trans 563 RPTA RPTA Valu Trans 571 Surprise RPTA Valu Trans 573 RPTA RPTA Valu Trans 575 RPTA RPTA Valu Trans Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 166 APPENDIX E Route: Funded By: Contracted By: Operated By: 581 RPTA Phoenix Veolia Phoenix RURAL ROUTES: Service: Funded By: Contracted By: Operated By: 685 ADOT, RPTA RPTA AJO Transportation Service: Funded By: Contracted By: Operated By: El Mirage El Mirage Glendale Glendale, RPTA Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, RPTA Dial-A-Ride Systems: East Valley DAR Paradise Valley ADA RPTA, Paradise Valley Southwest ADA Peoria RPTA, Avondale, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Tolleson Peoria, RPTA Valley City of El Mirage City of Glendale RPTA RPTA City of Phoenix Veolia RPTA Veolia RPTA MV Transportation MV Transportation City of Peoria MV Transportation City of Surprise Phoenix Phoenix City of Phoenix Surprise RPTA Total Transit Other Services: Surprise, RPTA El Mirage, Fountain Hills, weekend Peoria, Sun City, Mobility Center (eff Feb 2011) Funded By: Contracted By: Operated By: Regional Vanpool RPTA RPTA VPSI MCDRTS NOTE: RPTA began funding ADA service on February 1, 2006. Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 167 APPENDIX E Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 168 APPENDIX E Short Range Transit Program —FY 2012 – 2016 169