Graham County Transit Feasibility Study Final Feasibility Working Paper Full Report July 2015 Prepared by Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Table  of  Contents   1.    Introduction  ...................................................................................................................................  1   Background  .....................................................................................................................................................  2   Working  Paper  Organization  ...................................................................................................................  3   2.  Public  Involvement  Effort  ..........................................................................................................  5   Technical  Advisory  Committee  (TAC)  ...................................................................................................  5   Stakeholder  Interviews  ..............................................................................................................................  6   Public  Workshops  ........................................................................................................................................  7   Focus  Groups  ..................................................................................................................................................  7   3.    Existing  and  Planned  Transportation  Services  .................................................................  8   San  Carlos  Apache  Public  Transit  ...........................................................................................................  8   SouthEastern  Arizona  Community  Action  Program  (SEACAP)  ...................................................  8   Easter  Seals  Blake  Foundation:  SAGE  Program  .................................................................................  9   Greyhound  .....................................................................................................................................................  10   Private  Transportation  Providers  .......................................................................................................  10   4.    Transportation  Needs  ..............................................................................................................  11   Qualitative  Input  from  Stakeholders  and  Focus  Groups  ..............................................................  11   Destinations  Where  Public  Transportation  Is  Needed  .................................................................  13   Census  Summary  .........................................................................................................................................  13   Estimation  of  Transportation  Need  from  National  Research  Efforts.  .....................................  19   Summary  Conclusion  on  Transportation  Needs  .............................................................................  20   5.  Rural  Public  Transit:  FTA  5311  Program  ..........................................................................  21   Overview  ........................................................................................................................................................  21   Eligibility  ........................................................................................................................................................  21   General  Public  Service  ..............................................................................................................................  21   Coordination  with  Existing  Services  ....................................................................................................  21   Pilot  Program  Option  ..................................................................................................................................  22   Transit  Advisory  Committee  ..................................................................................................................  22   Local  Financial  Support  ..............................................................................................................................  22   Cost  Reimbursement  Basis  .....................................................................................................................  23   Fares  .................................................................................................................................................................  23   Project  Evaluation  Criteria  ........................................................................................................................  23   6.  Service  Options  ............................................................................................................................  25   Overview  of  Service  Modes  .....................................................................................................................  25   Service  Options  for  Graham  County  ....................................................................................................  27   Estimated  Ridership  Demand  ................................................................................................................  32   7.  Governance  Structure  ...............................................................................................................  34   Overview  of  Governance  and  Management  Duties  ........................................................................  34   Overview  of  Governance  Options  .........................................................................................................  35   Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority  ..................................................................  37   Stakeholder  Input  and  Consensus  of  Technical  Advisory  Committee  ....................................  38   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     i   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   8.  Financial  Feasibility  ..................................................................................................................  39   Three  Financial  Scenarios  .......................................................................................................................  39   Administrative  Costs  and  Revenues  Assumptions  .........................................................................  40   Operating  Costs  and  Revenues  ..............................................................................................................  42   Capital  Costs  and  Revenues  ....................................................................................................................  44   Best  Estimate  Scenario  Summary  .........................................................................................................  45   Cost  Allocation  Among  Potential  Partners  ........................................................................................  46   Comparison  of  Scenarios  .........................................................................................................................  49   Summary  of  Cost  and  Revenue  Estimates  .........................................................................................  50   9.  Benefits  and  Costs  of  Public  Transportation  ....................................................................  52   Generalized  National  Findings  on  Economic  Benefits  of  Rural  Public  Transportation  ...  52   Types  of  Economic  Benefits  .......................................................................................................................  53   Illustrative  Case  Studies  in  Rural  Areas  .................................................................................................  53   Inferences  for  Graham  County  based  on  National  Research  ......................................................  55   Appendix  A    Arizona  Statutes  for  ..............................................................................................  56   Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority  .......................................................  56       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     ii   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   1.    Introduction   This  working  paper  presents  the  key  findings  and  recommendations  from  the  first  phase  of  the   Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study.       The  San  Carlos  Apache  Tribe  provides  public  transit  intercity  service  among  Globe,  Apache  Gold   Casino,  San  Carlos,  Bylas,  Pima  Thatcher  and  Safford  three  times  a  day.    There  is  no  intracounty  public   transportation  service  that  provides  internal  circulation  among  the  communities  of  Pima,  Thatcher,   Safford  and  Solomon.   Several  social  service  agencies  also  provide  transportation  for  mostly  senior  and  disabled  residents   who  participate  in  their  respective  programs.  Members  of  the  general  public  who  do  not  own  an   automobile  or  do  not  possess  a  valid  drivers  license  do  not  have  public  transit  mobility  options  for   work,  education,  medical,  social  service  agency,  or  shopping  trips.  The  purpose  of  the  Graham  County   Transit  Study  is  to  address  the  following  questions:   1) Is  there  community  support  and  adequate  potential  ridership  for  a  viable  public  transit   system  in  Graham  County?   2) Does  sufficient  local  or  other  financial  support  exist  to  provide  necessary  matching  funds  for   federal  funding  to  financially  sustain  transit  services  over  time?   3) Does  a  viable  governance  structure  exist  or  can  one  be  created  to  govern,  manage  and   comply  with  federal  funding  regulations?   4) Is  there  the  potential  to  leverage  existing  funding  for  transportation  in  Graham  County,  and   coordinate  and  add  value  to  existing  social  service  agency  transportation  services  with  a   public  transit  service?   5) Do  the  benefits  of  providing  a  public  transit  system  outweigh  the  costs  of  service  delivery?   This  study  is  meant  to  update  the  2007  Graham  County  Transit  Study  that  concluded:     “This  feasibility  study  identified  a  substantial  demand  for  transit  and  developed  a  recommended   operating  alternative,  the  complexity  of  the  funding  and  management  issues  was  not  resolved.”     The  work  scope  for  the  2015  Graham  County  feasibility  study  has  two  phases.      The  first  phase  is   designed  to  answer  the  five  questions  above  to  determine  if  public  transportation  is  feasible  in   Graham  County.  This  working  paper  presents  the  key  findings  from  the  first  phase  of  the  study  on   whether  or  not  public  transportation  is  feasible.    The  working  paper  will  be  reviewed  by  the  Technical   Advisory  Committee  (TAC)  and  a  recommendation  made  to  the  Graham  County  Board  of  Supervisors,   City  of  Safford  City  Council,  City  of  Thatcher  City  Council  and  the  Pima  Town  Council  regarding   whether  or  not  public  transportation  is  feasible  for  Graham  County.    If  public  transportation  is  found   to  be  feasible  by  the  TAC,  advisory  votes  will  be  taken  by  each  of  the  elected  bodies  to  determine  if   the  study  should  move  to  the  second  phase  of  the  analysis  in  developing  a  detailed  service,  financial   and  marketing  plan.       In  order  to  be  feasible,  each  elected  body  must  determine:     1.    There  is  a  need  for  public  transportation  in  their  jurisdiction.   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     1   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   2.    They  are  willing  and  able  to  sustain  a  fair  share  of  funding  or  in-­‐kind  service  over  a  minimum  five-­‐ year  period.   3.    They  are  willing  to  participate  in  a  governance  body  to  provide  oversight  to  the  public   transportation  system.         This  working  paper  is  meant  to  provide  the  information  necessary  for  elected  officials  and  key   stakeholders  to  make  informed  determinations  on  the  feasiblity  of  public  transportation  in  Graham   County.       Background   There  have  been  several  past  attempts  to  determine  the  feasibility  of  public  transportation  services  in   Graham  County.         2007  ADOT  Sponsored  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Review   A  similar  study  was  sponsored  by  the  Arizona  Department  of  Transportation  in  2007.    This  study  is   meant  to  update  the  2007  Graham  County  Transit  Study.    In  2007,  a  need  for  public  transportation  in   Graham  County  was  identified,  and  the  study  concluded  that  there  was  potential  for  generating   69,000  annual  transit  trips  with  a  public  transportation  system.    In  a  comparison  with  five  other  peer   regions,  the  annual  transit  per  capita  ranged  from  2.1  to  3.6  when  public  transportation  was  made   available.  In  Graham  County,  the  estimate  was  that  a  public  transportation  system  would  generate   2.9  annual  trips  per  capita.       While  the  need  for  public  transportation  was  identified,  there  were  two  stumbling  blocks  that   ultimately  made  public  transportation  not  feasible.         The  first  barrier  was  that  there  was  not  consensus  on  how  to  pay  for  the  local  support  dollars   required  to  operate  a  public  transportation  system.    A  two  bus  service  was  estimated  to  cost   $411,000  with  fares  contributing  about    $37,000  annually.    The  Federal  Transit  Administration  5311   program  was  expected  to  contribute  58%  of  the  net  total    (less  fares)  or  $231,000.    The  need  for  local   contributions  for  annual  operations  was  therefore  anticipated  to  be  $143,000.    The  local  match  for   the  capital  costs  was  estimated  at  an  additional  $11,500.  No  consensus  was  reached  among  the   potential  partners  on  how  to  financially  sustain  the  service.   The  second  barrier  was  that  no  local  agency  was  willing  to  take  on  the  responsibility  for   administration  of  the  public  transportation  service.    The  study  presented  several  management   alternatives;  however,  the  final  report  concluded  that  “No  one  government  or  organization  is   prepared  to  take  on  the  task  of  administering  a  transit  agency.”   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     2   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   2010  Safford  Transit  Study   In  2010,  Mayor  Chris  Gibbs  from  Safford  convened  a  stakeholder  group  to  explore  the  feasibility  of   public  transportation.    The  effort  included  a  survey  of  408  individuals1  that  explored  the  feasibility   including  potential  stops,  anticipated  number  of  trips  per  week,  special  needs  and  use  factors  such  as   cost  and  schedule.      A  potential  schedule  and  coordination  with  the  San  Carlos  Apache  Tribe  intercity   service  was  explored.         Again,  there  was  no  consensus  on  how  to  pay  for  and  govern  a  public  transportation  service  in   Graham  County.   Bi-­‐Monthly  Mobility  Management  Coordination  Meetings   Every  other  month,  key  stakeholders  involved  with  human  service  agency  transportation  and  staff   from  the  SouthEastern  Arizona  Governments  Organization  (SEAGO)  meet  to  discuss  training  issues,   maintenance  issues,  outreach  to  seniors,  and  a  number  of  other  coordinaton  issues.    The  subject  of   public  transportation  and  FTA  5311  services  in  other  communities  regularly  comes  up  in  the  group   discussions.       Graham  County  Application  to  ADOT  for  Transit  Feasibility  Study   In  March  2014,  Graham  County  submitted  an  application  to  the  Arizona  Department  of   Transportation  (ADOT)  Planning  Assistance  for  Rural  Areas  (PARA)  grant  program  requesting  funding   for  this  public  transportation  feasibility  study.    The  following  was  the  primary  rationale  for  requesting     the  grant  funding  for  the  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study:  “We  need  this  study  as  a  tool  for   evaluationg  our  complete  transit  needs,  community  interest,  and  the  viability  of  Section  5311   program  serving  all  of  the  communities  of  the  County.”      The  grant  application  was  approved  and   ADOT  has  hired  Mobility  Planners  LLC  in  collaboration  with  Transit  Marketing  LLC  to  conduct  the   study.   Working  Paper  Organization   The  next  chapter  documents  the  public  involvement  effort  that  has  informed  the  development  of  this   working  paper.     Chapter  3  provides  an  overview  of  existing  and  planned    transportation  services  provided  within   Graham  County.     Chapter  4  discusses  the  needs  for  public  transportation  in  Graham  County.  It  includes  qualitative   input  from  stakeholders  and  focus  groups,  an  analysis  of  2010  Census  data,  and  a  comparison  of  per   capita  utilization  of  public  transportation  in  comparable  rural  Arizona  and  California  communities.         Chapter  5  provides  an  overview  of  the  Federal  Transit  Administration  (FTA)  5311  program  features   and  requirements.    FTA  5311  funding    provides  funding  support  for  rural  public  transportation   services  throughout  the  United  States.                                                                                                                               1  Respondents  could  respond  to  a  question  multiple  times.    The  number  of  actual  of  respondents  is  based  on   the  number  of  individuals  who  respondents  to  the  age  question.   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     3   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Chapter  6  provides  an  overview  of  service  delivery  options  in  Graham  County  including  intercity  fixed   route,  local  fixed  route,  community  service  route,  flex-­‐route  and  dial-­‐a-­‐ride  options.    These  options   were  discussed  at  the  Technical  Advisory  Committee  (TAC)  meeting  on  May  7,  2015  and  this  input  is   further  developed  with  a  concept  map  on  a  preferred  service  delivery  option.   Chapter  7  provides  information  on  the  governance  and  management  options  for  public   transportation  services.    These  options  were  discussed  at  the  May  7,  2015  TAC  meeting  and  the   consensus  position  on  the  preferred  governance  option  is  provided.   Chapter  8  provides  a  reasonable  estimate  of  the  start-­‐up,  first  year  and  five-­‐year  costs  for  a  public   transportation  service  in  Graham  County.      Options  for  allocating  costs  are  discussed,  and  the   consensus  from  the  May  7,  2015  TAC  meeting  is  provided.    Based  on  this  consensus,    a  reasonable   range  of  needed  funding  support  from  local  partners  to  initiate  and  sustain  the  public  transportation   service  is  estimated  over  a  five-­‐year  period.    Conservative  assumptions  are  utilized  and  these  are   documented  in  this  chapter..         Chapter  9  provides  further  input  on  the  benefits  and  costs  of  public  transportation  services  based  on   national  research  efforts  to  quantify  benefits.           Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     4   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   2.  Public  Involvement  Effort   Significant  efforts  have  been  made  to  solicit  public  input  in  determining  whether  or  not  public   transportation  is  feasible  in  Graham  County.  The  public  involvement  effort  includes  four  components:       Technical  Advisory  Committee   Stakeholder  Interviews   Public  Meetings   Targeted  Focus  Groups   The  public  involvement  process  had  a  dual  focus  -­‐    collecting  information  about  transportation  needs   and  feasability,  while  simultaneously  educating  community  stakeholders  about  the  possibilities  for   alternate  service  designs,  governance  models  and  funding  opportunities.   This  section  of  the  working  paper  documents  the  process  for  the  public  involvement  effort.  Key   findings  and  input  received  are  incorporated  into  later  chapters  that  address  the  key  questions  on   whether  or  not  transit  is  feasible  in  Graham  County.   Technical  Advisory  Committee  (TAC)   The  Technical  Advisory  Committee  includes  key  representatives  of  all  sectors  of  the  community.    This   body  is  a  critical  component  of  the  public  involvement  process.    The  TAC  has  provided  direct  input   about  the  views  of  their  own  constituencies,  will  serve  as  a  critical  conduit  for  communicating  with   their  jurisdictions  and  organizations,  and  will  help  to  facilitiate  outreach  to  key  potential  rider   segments.   An  initial  meeting  was  held  with  the  TAC  on  April  1,  2015.    Participating  entities  included:              ADOT   Graham  County   SEAGO   City  of  Safford   Town  of  Thatcher   Town  of  Pima   Blake  Foundation   Graham  County  Health  Department   Mt.  Graham    Regional  Medical  Center   Eastern  Arizona  College   SEACAP   The  meeting  provided  an  opportunity  for  participants  to  review  the  scope  of  work  and  provide  input   about  desirable  outcomes  for  the  project.       Additional  organizations  were  identified  at  the  first  TAC  and  were  invited  to  attend  the  May  7,  2015   meeting:     Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     5   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study         July  13,  2015   United  Way   SEACUS   Mt.  Graham  Regional  Medical  Center   Freeport-­‐McMoRan  Inc.   County  Board  of  Supervisors   Chamber  of  Commerce   A  second  meeting  with  the  TAC  was  held  May  7,  2015  at  1:00  PM.    During  this  meeting,  the   consultants  provided  a  preliminary  report  of  findings  from  other  outreach  efforts  and    provided  an   overview  of  potential  service  designs,  costs  and  revenues,  and  governance  models  which  are  further   developed  in  this  working  paper.   A  third  meeting  with  the  TAC  was  held    on  July  7,  2015  at  9:00  am  when  the  consulting  team   presented  findings  of  subsequent  chapters  of  this  working  paper.  At  that  time,  the  TAC  made   recommendations  that  transit  is  feasibile  in  Graham  County.  Members  of  the  TAC  will  present  the  key   findings  and  recommendations  to  their  respective  governing  bodies,  asking  for  a  preliminary   commitment  to  provide  the  local  match  necessary  and  form  a  governenance  structure  to  govern  and   manage  the  public  transportation  system.    If  there  is  concurrence  from  the  governing  bodies  of  Pima,   Thatcher,  Safford  and  Graham  County,  then  the  study  will  proceed  to  the  second  phase  where  a   detailed  service,  marketing  ,  financial,  and  management  plan  will  be  prepared.         Stakeholder  Interviews   In-­‐depth  stakeholder  interviews  were  initiated  in  conjunction  with  the  kick-­‐off  TAC  meeting.     Interviews  were  held  with  representatives  of:        Blake  Foundation   SEACUS   Town  of  Thatcher   City  of  Safford   SEACAP  (Community  Action  Program)   Additional  interviews  were  held  with  several  other  stakeholders  during  a  3-­‐day  on-­‐site  visit  May  5-­‐7,   2015.            Department  of  Economic  Security     Workforce  Connection   Freeport-­‐McMoRan  Inc.   Mt.  Graham  Regional  Medical  Center   San  Carlos  Apache  Tribe   Eastern  Arizona  College   Canyonlands  Health  –  Safford  Clinic     Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     6   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Public  Workshops   Three  public  workshops  were  held  on  May  5-­‐6,  2015.            City  of  Safford  –  General  Services  Building  meeting  room   Town  of  Thatcher  –  council  chambers  or  conference  room   Town  of  Pima  –  town  hall   The  public  meetings  were  announced  in  the  local  newspaper.    In  addition,  TAC  members  were   provided  with  a  promotional  flyer  and  asked  to  assist  with  recruiting  participation  in  the  public   meetings  by  posting  the  flyer,  including  information  on  their  own  social  media  sites  and  encouraging   their  constituents  to  attend.       Focus  Groups   To  better  understand  the  transportation  needs  of  key  potential  rider  segments,  the  consulting  team   worked  with  TAC  members  and  other  stakeholders  to  recruite  and  conduct  focus  groups  with  several   target  populations.  The  following  stakeholder  meetings  were  held:         Eastern  Arizona  College  students  (April  21,  2015)   DES/Workforce  Connection  clients    (May  5-­‐6,  2015)   WIC  Clients  through  County  Public  Health    (April  21,  2015)   Seniors  at  SEACUS  Senior  Center  (May  6,  2015)   The  focus  groups  were  used  to  understand  the  factors  that  influence  the  use  of  transit  in  Graham   County  and  to  test  demand  for  potential  services.  This  was  an  education  process  in  presenting   simplified  examples  of  service  delivery  models  and  service  levels  and  discussing  how  such  services   might  improve  resident  mobility.    The  input  from  the  focus  groups  was  incorporated  into  the   narrative  of  Chapter  4  on  Transportation  Needs.   The  findings  of  the  stakeholder  meetings,  public  workshops  and  focus  groups  have  been  incorporated   into  the  next  two  chapters.         Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     7   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   3.    Existing  and  Planned  Transportation  Services   San  Carlos  Apache  Public  Transit     The  San  Carlos  Apache  Nnee  Bich’o  Nii  Transit  has  several  routes  that  are  open  to  the  general  public   but  are  designed  to  meet  the  needs  of  tribe  members.         Buses  operate  Monday  through  Friday  on  three  general  public  routes:    San  Carlos  to  Globe        San  Carlos  To  Safford    Bylas  to  San  Carlos   Service  is  provided  between  San  Carlos  and  Safford  three  times  a  day,  with  service  to  Safford  starting   in  San  Carlos  at  6:45  am,  10:55  am  and  4:45  pm,  and  arriving  at  Walmart  at  8:10  am,  12:20  pm  and   the  MVD  at  6:10  pm.  (It  does  not  stop  at  Walmart  on  its  last  run).    The  return  trip  from  Walmart  in   Safford  leaves  at  8:15  am,  1:25  pm  and  6:30  pm.         Connections  are  provided  to  Globe  on  the  outbound  trips  from  Safford,  with  the  8:15  am  and  1:25   pm  departures  from  Walmart  in  Safford  arriving  in  Globe  at  10:15  am  and  3:20  pm.  These  trips  also   serve  the  casino.         In  addition  to  the  intercity  routes,  the  San  Carlos  Tribe  also  has  a  community  route  which  serves  local   San  Carlos  trips  and  a  Casino  employee  shutttle  between  Bylas  and  the  Casino.     Funding  for  the  San  Carlos  Apache  service  comes  from  the  Federal  Transit  Administration  Tribal   Transportation  Program.    Funding  applications  are  submitted  directly  to  the  Federal  Transit   Administration.           Public  Involvement  Input   The  existing  perception  by  many  Graham  County  residents  from  stakeholders  interviewed  is  that  the   San  Carlos  Apache  Bus  is  for  tribe  members  and  is  not  open  to  the  general  public.  The  buses  are   currently  branded  with  tribal  images  and  “public  transit”  is  not  displayed  on  the  buses.    The  Tribal   Transportation  Manager  is  taking  steps  to  re-­‐brand  the  bus  to  be  more  inclusive  of  the  Graham   County  general  public.    According  the  Tribal  Lead  Driver/Supervisor,  there  are  a  couple  of  Graham   County  residents  who  utilize  the  service  to  the    Casino  and  back  as  well  as  one  individual  who   regularly  takes  the  bus  between  Pima  and  Safford  and  back.         SouthEastern  Arizona  Community  Action  Program  (SEACAP)   The  SouthEastern  Arizon  Community  Action  Progam  (SEACAP)  provides  transportation  services  in  the   Safford,  Pima  and  Thatcher  area.  SEACAP  is  a  community  action  agency  with  the  following  mission:   “To  assist  families  in  the  movement,  transition  and  achievement  of  self-­‐sufficiency.”   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     8   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   SEACAP  provides  dial-­‐a-­‐ride  service  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  elderly  and  disabled,  but  will  serve  the   general  public  on  a  space  available  basis.    The  services  are  utilized  for  trips  to  congregate  meal  sites,   doctor  visits,  dialysis,  grocery  shopping,  DES  visits,  among  other  trip  purposes.      SEACAP  is  able  to   serve  about  15-­‐16  trips  a  day.  Trips  are  normally  scheduled  with  an  advanced  reservation.  SEACAP   transportation  is  free,  with  a  donation  box  available  for  those  clients  who  wish  to  contribute  to  the   program.     SEACAP  serves  about  120  individuals  with  transportation  according  to  the  2013  Coordination  Plan.    A   2011    cutaway  bus  with  a  lift  is  utilized  to  provide  service  from  8:00  am  to  12:30  pm  and  1:30  pm  to   5:00  pm,  Monday  through  Friday.         In  the  past,  funding  has  come  from  Federal  Transit  Administration  (FTA)  5310,  5316,  5317  and  SEAGO   Area  Agency  on  Aging.         Service  is  also  provided  to  Clifton  in  the  morning  from  9:00  am  to  1:00  pm  four  days  a  week  and  on   Thursday  from  8:00  am  to  5:00  pm.         Easter  Seals  Blake  Foundation:  SAGE  Program   Easter  Seals  Blake  Foundation,  a  501(c)3  non-­‐profit  corporation,  was  originally  formed  in  1950  as  the   Cerebral  Palsy  Foundation  of  Southern  Arizona.  Easter  Seals  Blake  Foundation  is  dedicated  to  the  idea   that  all  people  deserve  the  chance  to  live  healthy,  productive  and  independent  lives.  The  Blake   Foundation’s  educational,  therapeutic,  family  support  and  community  living  programs  are  designed  in   accordance  with  their  mission:  to  enable  each  individual  served  to  discover  and  meet  his  or  her   maximum  potential  for  independent,  productive  living  and  developmental  growth.   In  Graham  County,  the  Easter  Seals  Blake  Foundation’s  SAGE  Division  provides  residential,   employment  and  day  program  services  for  individuals  with  developmental  disabilities.  SAGE  provides   programs  to  enable  individuals  with  physical  and/or  intellectual  disabilities  to  reach  their  maximum   potential  for  independence.         SAGE  provides  transportation  to  and  from  day  programs,  residential  programs,  and  individual  homes.     Clients  are  driven  to  social  and  recreactional  activitiies.    Transportation  is  also  available  to  clients  for   vacation  use,  visits  to  family  and  other  group  excursions  to  various  cultural,  historic  and  tourist  sites   both  within  and  outside  of  Arizona.     In  collaboration  with  S.E.A.C.U.S.,    SAGE  provides  seniors  the  opportunity  to  travel  to  and  from  the   Apache  Gold  Casino  in  San  Carlos,  AZ    the  fourth  Friday  of  the  month.      This  service  is  paid  for  by  the   Blake  Foundation.     In  collaboration  with  SEACAP,  SAGE  provides  back-­‐up  transportation  to  SEACAP  when  they  cannot   provide  transportation  to  clients  due  to  vehicle  availabiltiy,  or  vacation  or  illness  of  SEACAP  drivers.             The  Blake  Foundation  has  nine  vehicles  that  operate  in  Graham  County,  funded  with  FTA  5310  capital   funds.      In  2014,    SAGE’s  Blake  Foundation  transportation  service  provided  29,252  transportation   trips.         Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     9   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Greyhound   Greyhound  has  submitted  a  Section  5311  application  to  the  state  DOT  to  provide  intercity  service  that   would  serve  Graham  County.  The  proposed  route  would  provide  one  daily  round  trip  between   Phoenix  and  El  Paso,  TX  with  intermediate  stops  in  Mesa,  Superior,  Miami,  Globe,  Peridot,  Bylas,   Safford,  Duncan,  Lordsburg,  NM  and  Las  Cruces,  NM.    This  new  service  would  serve  rural  residents  in   the  communities  identified  in  the  schedule  and  connect  with  service  provided  by  Cobre  Valley  Transit   in  Globe,  with  the  San  Carlos  Apache  Transit  in  Bylas  and  Peridot  and  with  Valley  Metro  in  Phoenix.     Not  only  would  the  service  connect  with  existing  transit,  but  would  also  provide  daily  service  to  many   Arizona  communties  that  do  not  have  access  to  the  national  intercity  bus  network.   Private  Transportation  Providers   There  are  at  least  three  private  transportation  providers  that  serve  the  area  between  Pima  and   Solomon.  A  local  taxi  service  provides  local  on-­‐demand  taxi  trips.    A  limousine  and  shuttle  service   provides  transportation  to  both  Phoenix  and  Tucson  and  intermdiary  destinations.    For  example,   according  to  their  website,  it  costs  $145  for  a  trip  from  Safford  to  the  Tucson  airport.      A  non-­‐ emergency  medical  transportation  service  provider  also  provides  services  in  several  southeastern   Arizona  counties,  including  Graham  County.     Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     10   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   4.    Transportation  Needs   The  purpose  of  this  section  is  to  answer  the  question,  is  there  a  need  for  additional  public   transportation  in  Graham  County?   To  answer  this  question,  we  will  rely  on  several  sources:   1. Qualitative  input  from  stakeholder  interviews,  focus  groups,  public  meetings,  and  TAC  meetings.     When  possible,  quantitative  input  on  the  number  of  clients  being  served  by  social  service   agencies  in  Graham  County  who  might  benefit  from  public  transportation.     2. Quantitive  characterization  of  the  socioecomic  needs  utilizing  Census  data.     3.  Quantitative  input  of  average  public  transportation  trips  per  capita  in  Arizona  rural  areas  similar   to  Graham  County.         Qualitative  Input  from  Stakeholders  and  Focus  Groups   The  key  finding  from  the  focus  groups  and  stakeholder  interviews  is  that  there  are  essentially  four  key   market  segments  with  a  need  for  public  transportation:    Low  income  persons  without  a  drivers  license  or  without  access  to  an  automobile  to  get  to   training,  jobs  and  other  needs.    College  students  living  on  campus  at  Eastern  Arizona  College  without  an  automobile.    Growing  senior  demand  that  will  likely  outstrip  the  available  capacity  of  the  SEACAP   transportation  program.    Persons  with  disabilities,  including  behavioral  health  clients.         Input  regarding  the  destinations  that  public  transportation  needs  to  serve  was  quite  consistent   among  stakeholders  and  focus  groups.  These  locations  are  itemized  at  the  end  of  this  section.     Transportation  needs  of  low  income  individuals   According  to  the  Census,  25.4%  of  Graham  County  residents  live  below  the  poverty  level  -­‐  almost  1  in   4  or  8,300  Graham  County  residents.  This  is  significantly  higher  than  the  statewide  average  of  18.6%     Several  of  the  stakeholders  we  talked  to  work  with  these  residents  on  a  regular  basis  to  provide   services.       The  Arizona  Supplemental  Nutrition  Program  for  Women,  Infants,  and  Children  (WIC)  provides   nutrition  education  and  breastfeeding  support  services,  supplemental  nutritious  foods  and  referrals   to  health  and  social  services.  WIC  serves  pregnant,  breastfeeding,  and  postpartum  women,  infants,   and  children  under  the  age  of  five  who  are  determined  to  be  at  nutritional  risk.  The  WIC  Program  is   funded  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture.    The  WIC  program  in  Graham  County  has  a   caseload  of  1,120  with  985  participating  in  the  program  currently.      At  present,    clients  walk,  get  rides   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     11   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   or  have  transportation  for  their  trips.    Staff  at  the  WIC  program  and  the  department  of  health  believe   that  a  public  transportation  system  would  provide  a  significant  benefit  to  their  clients  not  only  for   trips  to  the  program,  but  for  general  health  care,  grocery  shopping  and  other  travel.   The  Workforce  Connection  based  in  Safford    is  a  One  Stop  for  unemployed  and  underemployed   persons.      At  present,  most  individuals  bike,  catch  a  ride  or  walk  to  get  there.    One  young  woman   attending  the  focus  group  session  had  walked  from  Daily  Estates  to  the  Workforce  Connections,    a   walk  of  90  minutes  one  way.  Typical  of  many,  she  had  an  older  car,  but  it  needs  signifcant  repairs  and   she  cannot  afford  to  get  it  fixed.    Workforce  Connection  encounters  prison  release  clients  who  are   looking  for  work  but  have  no  drivers  license  and  are  without  a  car.      In  April  2015,  there  were  1,038   visits  by  clients  to  Worforce  Connections.  Most  of  these  clients  would  benefit  from  a  public   transportation  system  that  provided  circulation  among  Pima,  Thatcher,  Safford,  and  Solomon.       At  the  Canyonlands  Health  clinic,    approximately  60%  of  clients  qualify  for  Access,  Arizona’s  medicaid   program.    Access  will  pay  for  transportation.    The  clinic  sometimes  struggles  in  utilizing  SEACAP  for   medical  appointments  with  clients  often  having  to  wait  2-­‐3  hours  in  their  waiting  room  after  their   appointment.    They  call  Access  for  transportation,  but  it  usually  requires  a  reservation  three  days  in   advance.    The  service  is  provided  by  a  contractor.    Access  will  pay  for  a  taxi  to  Wilcox  for  a  connection   to  Greyhound.    The  cost  for  a  local  trip  is  $12  and  $200  for  a  trip  to  a  specialist  in  Tucson.           The  Department  of  Economic  Security  is  currently  serving  5,000  clients  in  Graham  County.    This  does   include  some  double  counting  for  clients  who  are  enrolled  in  multiple  DES  programs.    However,  with   9,300  residents  living  below  poverty,    the  current  caseload  is  not  surprising.    Due  to  the  housing  costs,   many  of  their  clients  live  in  outlying  areas  and  do  not  own  automobiles.    A  large  majority  of  DES   clients  would  benefit  from  a  local  public  transportation  service.     Eastern  Arizona  College  Students   Eastern  Arizona  College  has  approximately  3,500  students  with  2,000  part-­‐time  and  1,500  full-­‐time   students.  While  many  students  have  vehicles  and  can  provide  their  own  transportation,  others  rely   on  getting  rides  or  walking  to  get  around  the  local  area.   Of  the  student  population,  420  live  on  campus  and  80%  of  these  don’t  have  automobiles.    Students   particulary  need  public  transportation  for  trips  to  Walmart,  the  grocery  store  and  for  evening  service.     There  is  no  taxi  service  after  midnight,  and  it’s  problematic  for  students  to  get  back  to  campus  if  they   get  out  of  the  emergency  room  in  the  late  evening.    Some  students  at  a  focus  group  mentioned  the   difficulty  of  getting  around  without  a  car  in  the  Thatcher/Safford  area.  Other  students  with  cars   related  that  they  are  often  called  on  to  provide  rides  for    friends  and  dormmates.           Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     12   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Senior  Transportation   Older  adults  (65  years  of  age  or  older)  make  up  12.2%  of  the  Graham  County  population.    This  is   below  the  Arizona  statewide  average  of  13.8%.    This  represents  4,500  seniors.    From  Pima  to   Solomon,  the  percentage  is  consistently  very  close  to  12%.    The  number  of  older  adults  75  years  old   and  above  is  5.1%  or  about  1900  indivduals.      These  older  adults  75+  are  the  ones  with  a  higher   propensity  to  need  specialized  transportation  service  like  what  is  currently  provided  by  SEACAP.     According  to  SEACAP  many  of  the  elderly  clients  they  serve  would  be  considered  the  frail  elderly,  but   SEACAP  also  serves  many  other  local  transportation  needs  throughout  Graham  County.           Disabled  Transportation   The  number  of  disabled  individuals  below  65  years  of  age  is  7.3%  in  Graham  County,  slightly  below   the  statewide  average  of  8.1%.      While  data  is  not  available  for  Graham  County,  the  number  of   seniors  65+  who  have  a  disability  statewide  is  33.8%.      Assuming  a  similar  percentage  for  Graham   County,  there  are  approximately  4,700  Graham  County  residents  with  a  disability.       A  representative  from  Southeastern  Arizona  Behavioral  Health  Services  (SEABHS)  says  that  with  a   recent  rule  change,  Behavioral  Health  can  only  provide  transportation  for  medical  trips  that  are   “clinically  justifiable.”      In  the  past,  they  used  to  provide  transportation  services  for  daily  living  such  as   trips  to  the  grocery  store.      Such  trips  are  now  quite  difficult  for  many  clients  who  do  not  own  an   automobile.    Clients  are  forced  to  walk  and  for  many  their  medications  and  heat  do  not  mix  well.       From  Pima  to  Solomon,  SEABHS  has  approximately  300  clients  and  approximately  50%  are  transit   dependent  without  an  automobile  or  drivers  license.         Destinations  Where  Public  Transportation  Is  Needed   The  following  are  locations  that  were  consistently  mentioned  by  stakeholders  and  focus  group   participants  as  key  destinations  for  a  transit  service.          Eastern  Arizona  College    Medical  Facilities  along  20th  Ave    Shopping  at  Hwy  70/20th  Ave  commercial  area  including  Walmart,  Safeway,  and  Bashas    Downtown  Safford    Social  Service  Offices    Low  Income  and  Senior  residential  areas  in  Safford,  Thatcher  and  outlying  areas   Census  Summary   The  table  below  summarizes  U.S.  Census  data  for  towns  and  cities  in  Graham  County,  along  with  a   comparison  of  Graham  County  to  Arizona  as  a  whole.   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     13   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015     What  stands  out  in  the  table  above  are  the  market  segments  for  public  transportation:       Youth  10-­‐19  years  old  need  public  transportation  for  mobility  due  to  their  age,  student  status   and  employment  status.      In  many  rural  areas,  youth  who  have  not  obtained  their  drivers   license  are  an  important  market  segment  for  public  transportation.    With  approximately  340   Eastern  Arizona  students  living  on  campus  without  a  car,  in  addition  to  the  substantial   number  of  middle  school  and  high  school  students  without  a  car,    this  is  a  market  segment   with  a  substantial  need  for  public  transportation.   Seniors  are  a  very  important  market  for  public  transportation.  Many  seniors  in  other   communities  with  a  community  service  route  that  connects  their  housing  with  the  library,   medical  clinics,  pharmacies,  the  senior  center,    grocery  shopping  like  the  flexibility  and  lower   cost  of  using  a  local  bus.      Even  seniors  who  are  currently  driving  like  the  option  of  having  a   public  transportation  service  available  as  most  recognize  that  they  will  reach  a  point  when   they  can  no  longer  drive.    SEACAP’s  dial-­‐a-­‐ride  service  is  accommodating  many  of  the  frail   senior  population,  but  a  community  service  route  and  general  public  dial-­‐a-­‐ride  coordinated   with  SEACAP  would  provide  signficiantly  more  mobility  options  with  the  growing  number  of   seniors.   There  are  many  low  income  households  in  Graham  County  that  live  below  the  poverty  line.     The  Department  of  Economic  Security  (DES)  has  5,000  residents  on  its  case  load  at  the   moment.      While  many  own  a  car,  many  do  not,  as  will  be  further  explored  with  a  map  of   autoless  households  in  the  next  section  of  this  chapter.    Stakeholders  told  us  that  many  of  the   very  low  income  households  live  in  isolated  areas,  such  as  the  area  adjacent  to  Jo-­‐Bi   Convenvenice  store  south  of  Safford  along  Highway  191.      Providing  mobility  options  for   individuals  without  access  to  an  automobile  to  receive  DES  services,    attend  school,  get  a   part-­‐time  or  full-­‐time  job  ,  or  conduct  the  basic  necessities  of  life  such  as  access  to  the  grocery   store  are  all  important  needs  in  Graham  County.   Veterans  make  up  7.3  percent  of  the  Graham  County  population.    Some  of  the  veterans   returning  home  from  recent  wars  have  either  physical  or  mental  disabilites.    Providing  public   transportation  serves  an  important  mobility  need  for  veterans.   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     14   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study    July  13,  2015   As  described  above,  there  are  approximately  4,700  disabled  individuals,  many  of  which  are   also  low  income  or  are  in  the  senior  category.         The  maps  on  the  following  three  pages  show  the  distribution  of  seniors,  households  that  do  not  own   an  automobile  and  persons  living  below  the  poverty  level.    The  following  are  relevant  observations   from  the  review  of  the  demographic  maps:      In  the  map  of  seniors  75  and  older,  there  are  concentrations  of  Census  block  groups  with  8%   or  more  located  in  Thatcher,  Safford  and  east  to  Solomon.      This  is  currently  an  important   market  segment  served  by  SEACAP.    The  demand  on  SEACAP  is  growing.  The  aging  of  the   population  and  a  coordinated  public  transportation  service  with  SEACAP  would  be   advantageous  for  the  senior  population  concentrations  dispayed  on  the  map.   The  percentage  of  households  without  automobiles  varies  significantly  in  Graham  County.     The  map  displays  the  highest  concentration  with  12%  or  more  households  without   automobiles  in  both  the  San  Carlos  reservation  area  as  well  as  Safford.      Secondary   concentrations  are  found  in  southeastern  Thatcher,  Pima  and  Solomon.        This  is  where  the   need  for  public  transportation  service  among  the  general  public  population  is  greatest.       Much  of  Thatcher  has  households  with  high  auto  ownership.   In  terms  of  concentration  of  households  living  below  the  poverty  line,    poverty  is  most   prevalent  with  over  12%  of  households  living  in  poverty  located  in  the  San  Carlos  reservation   and  small  areas  of  Pima,  Thatcher  and  Safford.                 Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     15   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015     Estimation  of  Transportation  Need  from  National  Research  Efforts.   Estimating  the  need  for  public  transportation  is  more  of  an  art  than  a  science.      There  are  many   factors  that  go  into  translating  predictive  transportation  need  into  actual  transit  ridership  including   the    service  convenience,  reliability,  and  affordability  of  fares.    However,  there  has  been  good   national  research  on  rural  public  transit  demand  that  can  help  to  guide  a  reasonable  range  of   expected  ridership.         The  Transit  Cooperative  Research  Program  is  an  arm  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences  and  serves   as  one  of  the  principal  means  by  which  the  transit  industry  can  develop  innovative  near-­‐term   solutions  to  meet  demands  placed  on  it.    One  of  the  research  efforts  that  was  funded  was  TCRP   Report  161:  Methods  for  Forecasting  Demand  and  Quantifying  Need  for  Rural  Public  Transportation:   Final  Workbook.    The  Workbook  is  an  excel  spreadsheet  tool  that  provides  step-­‐by-­‐step  procedures   for  quantifying  the  need  for  public  transportation  services  and  the  demand  that  is  likely  to  be   generated  if  passenger  transportation  services  are  provided.    The  demand  estimation  tool  is  based  on   data  from  the  Rural  National  Transit  Database  (2006,  2009,  and  2010),  the  National  Household   Transportation  Survey  (2001  and  2009)  and  the  American  Community  Survey.   The  tool  provides  a  realistic  range  of  transportation  need  based  on  the  number  of  persons  living   below  poverty,  the  number  of  households  without  access  to  an  automobile,  and  the  trips  per   household  per  day  for  low  income  families  based  on  national  research.      The  area  defined  for  the   analysis  was  from  Pima  to  Solomon,  including  about  5,000  persons  in  the  unincorporated  area  of   Graham  County.   The  following  is  a  table  that  provides  the  output  from  the  TCRP  Report  #161  Rural  Transit  Demand   Estimation  Tool:     TCRP  Report  161  Variable   Output   Total  Households  without  Access  to  Auto   1,070   Arizona  Trips  Per  Capita  On  Transit   0.8   Total  Transit  Need,  Daily  One  Way  Trip   860   Annual  One-­‐Way  Transit  Trips   256,800   The  estimation  of  transit  need  from  Pima  to  Solomon  is  estimated  at  256,800  annual  trips.  This  is  the   estimated  need  that  could  be  served  by  a  combination  of  human  service  agency  transportation  and   public  transportation  services.    As  discussed  above,  how  much  of  this  need  can  be  served  by  public   transportation  is  dependent  on  a  number  of  factors.    The  projection  of  actual  public  transportation   ridership  is  shown  later  at  the  end  of  Chapter  6.       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     19   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Summary  Conclusion  on  Transportation  Needs   Based  on  both  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  input,    there  is  a  need  for  additional  public   transportation  in  Graham  County.      The  qualitative  input  from  key  stakeholders  was  unanimous  on   the  need  for  public  transportation.    Based  on  national  research  the  total  need  for  transit,  including   both  public  transportation  and  human  service  agency  transportation  is  approximately  257,000  annual   trips.   The  Technical  Advisory  Committee  provided  direction  on  May  7,    2015  that  there  was  a  need  for   public  transportation.    The  TAC  asked  for  additional  quantitative  documentation  of  the  need  for   public  transportation  and  this  is  documented  above.     At  the  July  7,  2015  TAC  meeting,    TAC  reaffirmed  in  a  finding  and  recommendation  that  there  is  a   need  for  local  public  transportation  service  between  Pima  and  Solomon,  as  well  as  south  along   Highway  191  to  Swift  Trail  Junction.   The  Federal  Transit  Administration  (FTA)  provides  a  funding  program  to  meet  the  public   transportation  needs  in  rural  areas.    The  next  chapter  provides  an  overview  of  the  FTA  5311  program   for  rural  public  transportation.   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     20   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   5.  Rural  Public  Transit:  FTA  5311  Program   Once  there  are  identified  transportation  needs  in  rural  areas  like  Graham  County,  an  eligible  entity   can  apply  for  Federal  Transit  Administration  (FTA)  5311  funding  to  support  a  public  transportation   service.  The  following  are  important  excerpts  from  the  Arizona  Department  of  Transportation  (ADOT)   Program  Guidebook.  The  Guidebook  is  44  pages  and  only  the  key  elements  relevant  to  the  Graham   County  Transit  Feasibility  Study  are  included  below.         Overview   The  Multimodal  Planning  Division  (MPD)  of  the  Arizona  Department  of  Transportation  (ADOT)   administers  the  Federal  Transit  Administration  (FTA)  Formula  Grants  for  Rural  Areas  Program   commonly  known  as  the  Section  5311  Program  or  as  the  Rural  Public  Transit  Program.  This  program   provides  funds  for  public  transportation  and  intercity  bus  projects  serving  rural  areas.  The  purpose  of   these  funds  is  to  address  the  mobility  needs  of  Arizona’s  rural  population.  Section  5311  grants  are   intended  to  provide  access  to  employment,  education,  health  care,  shopping,  and  recreation.  Funds   may  be  used  for  public  transit  services  operating:  a)  within  rural  communities,  b)  among  rural   communities,  and  c)  between  rural  communities  and  urbanized  areas.   Eligibility   Eligible  applicants  for  Rural  Public  Transit  funds  include  local  public  bodies  (e.g.,  counties  and   municipalities),  State  agencies,  Tribal  governments  and  related  Tribal  communities  and  private  non-­‐ profit  agencies.   General  Public  Service   The  transportation  services  funded  under  Section  5311  must  be  open  and  marketed  to  the  general   public.  Projects  or  portions  of  projects  which  exclude  certain  groups  of  the  general  public,  or  are   intended  to  benefit  a  specific  group  to  the  exclusion  of  others,  are  not  eligible  for  funding.  Providers   of  special  needs  transportation  (e.g.,  elderly  or  disabled  clients)  are  eligible  to  apply  if  they  are  a   government  entity  (e.g.  City,  County,  Tribe)  and  open  their  transit  services  to  the  general  public.     Coordination  with  Existing  Services   Section  5311  funds  may  be  used  in  conjunction  with,  or  to  support,  services  provided  under  a  variety   of  human  service  initiatives.  Services  funded  under  these  initiatives  potentially  include  a  large  group   of  economically  disadvantaged  clientele.  Section  5311  Program  applicants  should  work  with  local   Department  of  Economic  Security  (DES)  representatives  to  identify  unmet  transportation  needs,   investigate  opportunities  to  coordinate  service,  and  leverage  funding  opportunities  available  through   these  programs.  Section  5311  Program  participants  are  required  to  coordinate  their  services  with   other  transportation  providers  in  their  areas,  including  potential  purchase-­‐of-­‐service  arrangements.         Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     21   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Pilot  Program  Option   Concern  has  been  expressed  by  a  number  of  providers,  and  other  entities,  that  critical  gaps  now  exist  in   transit  service  in  their  communities  and  between  these  locales  and  their  proximate  urban  centers.  Services   impacted  include  critical-­‐purpose  trips  such  as  those  meeting  medical,  employment  and  nutrition  needs.   Therefore,  ADOT  will  consider  pilot  projects  that  demonstrate  the  viability  of  transit  services  that  address   these  needs.  In  order  to  increase  the  opportunity  for  early-­‐phase  success  for  a  particular  project,  ADOT   may  elect  to  modify  or  waive  certain  performance  and  evaluation  criteria  for  pilot  projects.     Pilot  project  applications  will  be  evaluated  by  the  standard  Section  5311  criteria  and  by  how  the  following   concerns  are  addressed  in  the  planning  process:      Area  wide  scope  of  plans,  documenting  demand  by  user  group  and/or  trip  origins  and   destinations.      Coordination  of  planning  and  articulation  of  demand  among  employers,  businesses,  social  service   agencies  and  user  groups.      Consolidation  opportunities  with  social  service  transportation  providers.     Pilot  projects  must  meet  all  requirements  in  the  Section  5311  program  for  initial  funding.  Once   beyond  pilot  status,  the  transit  service  must  continue  to  be  managed  by  a  local  governmental  agency   if  funded  by  ADOT  through  the  5311  Program.   Transit  Advisory  Committee   During  the  feasibility  study  process  in  Graham  County,  a  Technical  Advisory  Committee  has  been   formed  to  guide  the  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study.  Obtaining  and  sustaining  community   support  is  an  important  part  of  developing  and  growing  an  effective  rural  public  transit  system.  Section   5311  program  applicants  are  responsible  for  garnering  support  from  a  broad  number  of  stakeholders  –   local  governments,  local  businesses,  the  medical  community,  agencies  serving  seniors  and  people  with   disabilities,  as  well  as  others.  A  Transit  Advisory  Committeee  (TAC),  made  up  of  key  stakeholders  similar  to   the  current  makeup  of  the  Technical  Advisory  Committtee  for  this  study,  is  required.  The  TAC’s  role  is  to   advise  the  grantee  agency  on  the  operation  of  the  system.  This  includes  ensuring  that  the  service  responds   to  changing  local  needs,  commenting  on  service  quality  and  effectiveness,  soliciting  community   participation,  helping  the  system  achieve  financial  sustainability,  and  related  issues.    The  TAC  meets   quarterly  to  provide  ongoing  guidance  to  the  FTA  5311  rural  program.       Local  Financial  Support     Sustained  local  financial  support  is  needed  for  effective  transit  systems.  The  Section  5311  program  covers   58%  of  the  subsidy  needed  to  operate  transit  services,  80%  of  the  cost  of  administering  the  service,  and   80%  of  the  cost  of  capital  equipment  (A  higher  ratio  of  Federal  funds  may  be  available  for  capital  projects   under  certain  conditions).  Local  financial  support  is  needed  to  cover  the  balance  of  the  expenses.   Typically,  local  match  funding  comes  from  the  local  sponsoring  agency  or  agencies,  usually  a  local   government  agency,  but  other  sources  may  support  the  transit  program.    Non-­‐Federal  local  match   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     22   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   can  be  in  the  form  of  contract  revenue,  derived  as  part  of  purchase-­‐of-­‐service  agreements  with   human  service  agencies,  only  if  the  funding  source  is  local  or  state.   In-­‐kind  contributions  may  be  used  toward  the  local  match  only  if  the  recipient  formally  documents   the  value  of  each  non-­‐cash  share,  and  if  this  value  represents  a  cost  that  would  otherwise  be  eligible   under  the  project.  The  net  project  cost  must  include  the  value  of  any  in-­‐kind  contributions  included  in   net  project  cost  to  the  extent  it  is  used  as  local  match.   Cost  Reimbursement  Basis     All  payments  made  under  the  Rural  Public  Transit  Program  are  on  a  cost  reimbursement  basis,  up  to   the  authorized  amounts  described  in  grantee  contracts.  All  expenses  incurred  during  the  contract   period  must  be  paid  in  full  by  the  contractor  to  be  eligible  for  reimbursement  by  ADOT.  Non-­‐ compliance  with  billing  schedules  may  result  in  delay  or  denial  of  reimbursement.  ADOT  will  not   consider  requests  for  prepayment,  no  exceptions.   For  vehicle  purchases,  Graham  County  has  the  option  of  going  through  the  state  contract  where  only   the  local  match  is  required  at  the  time  of  the  contract.    If  a  local  procurement  process  is  utilized,  then   the  vehicle  would  need  to  be  purchased,  and  the  80%  Federal  share  would  be  reimbursed  after  the   purchase.     This  is  a  very  important  provision  to  note  as  the  lead  agency  will  need  to  provide  sufficient  cash  flow   in  order  to  provide  cost  reimbursement.       Fares      FTA  5311  funded  transit  systems  are  not  required  to  charge  a  fare.  Applicants  may  establish  a  fare   based  upon  its  local  needs.  The  farebox  and  other  operating  revenue  reduce  the  overall  project   operating  costs  eligible  for  Federal  funding.   Purchase  of  fares  by  local  social  service  agencies  can  be  a  means  of  providing  local  contributions.       Project  Evaluation  Criteria     ADOT’s  Multimodal  Planning  Division  uses  the  same  evaluation  criteria  for  all  projects.  However,  it  is   recognized  that  new  systems  may  not  be  able  to  achieve  the  same  service  levels  as  systems  that  have  been   in  place  for  several  years.  The  ADOT  MPD  expects  new  systems  to  begin  with  a  firm  foundation  and  to   steadily  improve  over  the  first  few  years  of  operations.     The  evaluation  criteria  address  five  specific  areas:   1. Appropriateness  and  Effectiveness  of  Service   2. Financial  and  Managerial  Capability     3. Local  Commitment  to  Transit  and  Accessibility   4. Safety  and  Training   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     23   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   5. Coordination     Applicants  from  existing  5311  programs  are  evaluated  based  on  current  system  performance,  financial   management,  and  contract  deliverables.  New  applicants  are  evaluated  on  estimated  performance  and   demonstrated  financial  management  capabilities.   The  Graham  County  Feasibility  Study  Phase  I  effort  will  evaluate  the  appropriateness  or  the  need  for  the   service,  the  local  commitment  to  transit  and  accessibility,    and  whether  there  is  commitment  to  provide   adequate  financial  and  managerial  capability.           Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     24   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   6.  Service  Options     There  are  a  number  of  service  delivery  options  with  potential  to  meet  the  public  transportation  needs   in  Graham  County.  This  section  will  provide  a  conceptual  overview  of  these  options  to  help  decision-­‐ makers  identify  the  type  of  public  transportation  most  desirable  for  Graham  County.    If  there  is  a   determination  that  public  transportation  is  feasible,  Phase  II  will  develop  a  detailed  service  plan,   including  specific  bus  routing,  schedule,  and  bus  stop  locations.         Overview  of  Service  Modes   The  figure  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  typical  types  of  rural  public  transportation  service.   Typical Rural Mode Options Dial-A-Ride Shopping Center Fixed Route School Large Apartment Complex Intercommunity Transit Route Transit Center Library Medical Office Senior Housing Complex On-demand route deviation Pharmacy Route-Deviation (Flex-Route) Community Service Route   There  are  four  primary  modes  of  public  transportation  service  as  illustrated  above.   1. Fixed  route  with  fixed  schedule.    The  bus  has  an  established  route  and  schedule  of  when  the   bus  stops  at  each  location.    In  rural  transit  systems,  there  are  typically  local  fixed  routes  that   serve  the  needs  of  specific  communities,  and  intercity  routes  connecting  cities  and  towns  in  a   region.       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     25   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   The  San  Carlos  Apache  Public  Transit  service  between  Globe  and  Safford  is  an  example  of  an   intercity  fixed  route  and  fixed  schedule  service  that  is  available  to  the  general  public.  The   intercity  transit  needs  between  Globe  and  Safford  are  being  met  and  the  San  Carlos  Apache   Tribe  administrators  are  taking  steps  to  make  it  more  inviting  for  the  general  public  to  utilize,   as  well  as  providing  better  information  and  signage  at  the  stops.  The  need  for  local  transit   service  among  Pima,  Thatcher,  Safford  and  Solomon  is  not  being  met  and  a  fixed  route,  fixed   schedule  service  is  a  viable  option  to  consider.           2. Community  service  route.    A  regular  fixed  route  bus  drops  off  and  picks  up  passengers  at   curbside  of  the  street  where  a  bus  stop  sign  is  located.      A  community  service  route  is  a   variation  of  a  fixed  route  that  picks  up  and  drops  off  passengers  at  or  near  the  front  door  of   the  activity  center  it  is  serving.    This  makes  the  service  more  attractive  to  seniors  and  persons   with  disabilities  who  may  have  mobility  limitations,  as  well  as  to  families  with  small  children   or  persons  carrying  groceries.  There  was  consensus  at  the  May  7,  2015  TAC  meeting  for  a   preference  of  the  community  service  route.     3. Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  with  advanced  reservation  from  origin  to  destination.    Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service   typically  provides  one  of  three  levels  of  service:  curb-­‐to-­‐curb  (passengers  dropped  off  at  the   curb  at  both  the  origin  and  destination  end),  door-­‐to-­‐door  (driver  escorts  passenger  from  the   door  of  the  origin  to  the  front  door  of  the  destination),  or  door  through  door  (driver  escorts   passenger  from  inside  the  origin  building  to  the  dial-­‐a-­‐ride  bus  and  escorts  the  passenger   inside  the  door  of  the  destination).         The  SEACAP  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  provides  door  through  door  transportation  for  seniors  and   disabled  individuals  throughout  Graham  County.    The  general  public  can  utilize  the  service  on   a  space  available  basis.      Overall,  there  is  not  sufficient  capacity  or  funding  to  serve  all  of  the   need  for  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  at  present.         Easter  Seals  Blake  Foundation  serves  the  needs  of  the  developmentally  disabled  population   with  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  for  their  clients.    They  regularly  coordinate  with  SEACAP  to  provide   back-­‐up  assistance  when  the  SEACAP  service  is  not  available.   4. Flex-­‐route,  or  similar  hybrid  of  fixed  route  and  dial-­‐a-­‐ride  services.    There  are  a  number  of   hybrid  service  designs  that  combine  fixed  route  and  dial-­‐a-­‐ride  elements.    The  most  common   hybrid  is  a  flex  route  service  where  the  driver  serves  every  stop  on  a  schedule  but  deviates  off   the  route  (typically  up  to  ¾  mile)  to  pick  up  a  passenger  with  an  advanced  reservation  and   then  returns  to  the    next  scheduled  stop.    Another  hybrid  that  was  the  recommended  service   type  in  the  2007  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study  is  a  checkpoint  dial-­‐a-­‐ride.  In  this   type  of  service,  major  stops  are  served  on  a  regular  schedule,  but  the  bus  picks  up  passengers   at  other  locations  and  brings  them  to  and  returns  them  from  the  “checkpoint”  stops.       The  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  requires  that  all  fixed  route  services  (with  some   exemptions  for  commuter  services)  provide  complementary  ADA  Paratransit  service.    Service   criteria  provide  guidelines  on  the  coverage,  hours  of  operation  and  fares  for  ADA  Paratransit   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     26   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   service.  The  ADA  Paratransit  requirement  can  be  satisfied  through  the  provision  of  dedicated   Dial-­‐a-­‐Ride  service  or  a  hybrid  service  such  as  a  flex-­‐route.     5. Taxi  services.    A  fifth  option  used  by  many  public  agencies  is  to  make  taxis  a  part  of  their   public  transportation  system  through  a  user-­‐side  subsidy  program  where  the  public  agency   subsidizes  a  portion  of  a  taxi  trip  up  to  a  limited  dollar  value.  Riders  who  are  eligible  for  these   subsidies  are  generally  seniors  and  persons  with  disabilities.          A  50%  subsidy  is  typical  up  to  a   maximum  of  $20  (user  pays  $10),  but  there  are  many  variations  based  on  local  conditions.     There  is  a  often  a  trip  cap  per  individual  on  a  monthly  or  quarterly  basis,  so  that  subsidy   dollars  are  available  to  a  larger  number  of  individuals.  This  allows  seniors  and  disabled   individuals  to  have  a  mobility  option  when  public  transportation  services  are  not  available.     Some  programs  utilize  public  monies  to  purchase  an  accessible  taxi  for  wheelchair  users  and   lease  it  to  the  taxi  company.    The  Pima  to  Solomon  area  has  two  taxi  or  limousine  service   providers,  but  the  current  operations  are  all  private  with  no  public  subsidy  provided.   Service  Options  for  Graham  County   Following  are  five  service  options  which  offer  the  potential  to  meet  transportation  needs  within   Graham  County.   1.      Expand  the  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  capability  to  make  it  available  to  the  general  public.      Under  this   alternative,  funding  for  one  additional  bus  and  operating  expenses  would  be  coordinated  with  the   existing  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  to  expand  the  service  to  the  general  public  utilizing  FTA  5311  monies.       The  general  public  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  would  be  coordinated  with  the  SEACAP  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  that  is  primarily   limited  to  seniors  and  persons  with  disabilities.      In  this  alternative,  the  governing  entity  would  enter   into  a  MOU  with  SEACAP  to  provide  for  this  purpose,  making  the  $30,000  that  SEACAP  receives  in   Area  Agency  on  Aging  funding  eligible  for  in-­‐kind  match.      Under  this  alternative,  it  would  make  sense   to  have  SEACAP  operate  both  their  existing  service  and  the  general  public  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  with  two  buses.     A  map  of  the  general  public  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  boundaries  is  shown  on  the  followng  page.    This  is  a  general   concept  map  and  a  more  refined  map  would  be  developed  in  the  second  phase  of  the  Feasibility   study.    The  General  Public    Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  would  operate  Monday  to  Friday    from  7:00  am  to  6:00   pm.      Advanced  reservation  trips    made  the  day  before  would  receive  priority  over  same  day  requests.         2.      Expanded  Dial-­‐a-­‐Ride  Plus  Taxi  Subsidy.  The  second  service  option  would  be  to  expand  Dial-­‐a-­‐Ride   as  in  option  #1  above,  plus  offer  a  user-­‐side  taxi  subsidy  program  for  trips  that  start  before  7:00  am  or   after  6:00  pm  on  weekdays  and  weekends  and  holidays.    The  details  of  a  user-­‐side  subsidy  program   would  be  developed  in  the  second  phase  of  the  project,  but  would  likely  be  a  50%  subsidy  of  the   standard  taxi  fare.    This  option  would  enable  the  general  public  without  a  car  living  inside  the  service   boundary  area  (shown  on  the  next  page)  to  have  a  mobility  option.               Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     27   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   3.    Checkpoint  Dial-­‐a-­‐Ride.  The  third  option  is  to  implement  a  two  bus  checkpoint  dial-­‐a-­‐ride  service   as  was  recommended  in  the  2007  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study.    Service  would  be   provided  on  a  regular  schedule  to  key  destinations  such  as  Walmart,  Safeway,  and  Mt.  Graham   Regional  Center.  However,  a  prior  day  advanced  reservation  would  be  required  for  a  pick-­‐up  at  home   or  other  location  which  is  not  a  checkpoint.    Under  this  alternative,  SEACAP  and  the  Blake  Foundation   would  continue  to  provide  specialized  transportation  for  their  clients,  with  SEACAP  providing  door   though  door  service  for  the  elderly  and  disabled  populations.       4.    Local  flex  route  service  that  is  open  to  the  general  public.    Under  this  option,  the  bus  would   operate  on  an  established  route,  but  would  deviate  up  to  ¾  miles  from  the  route  to  pick  up   passengers.    Sufficient  recovery  time  would  be  built  into  the  schedule  to  allow  the  bus  to  remain  on   time  at  scheduled  stops.    Route  deviation  requests  would  be  required  one  day  in  advance  and  would   have  a  higher  fare  than  regular  fixed  route  service.         5.  Community  service  route  plus  dial-­‐a-­‐ride  service.    There  was  general  input  among  stakeholders  and   focus  group  participants  that  there  is  a  need  for  both  local  fixed  route  service  between  Pima  and   Solomon,  but  also  the  need  for  dial-­‐a-­‐ride  service  that  serves  outlying  areas  beyond  the  reach  of   available  fixed  route  service  and  individuals  who  are  unable  to  utilize  fixed  route  service.      At  the  May   7,  2015  TAC  meeting,  there  was  a  consensus  for  a  combination  of  a  community  service  route  and   general  public  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  in  addition  to  the  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  currently  provided  by  SEACAP   primarily  to  seniors  and  persons  with  disabilities.    This  option  addresses  that  consensus.    Under  this  alternative,  the  first  phase  would  be  to  have  one  fixed  route  bus  on  a  fixed  schedule  that   would  serve  Pima,  Thatcher,  Safford,    Solomon,  and    Jobi’s  market  along  Highway  191.      The  one  bus   fixed  route  would  serve  all  stops  along  the  Highway  70  corridor  and  in  Thatcher  and  Safford  on  every   trip,  and  would  alternate  serving  Daily  Estates  in  Thatcher,  Solomon  and  Jobi’s  market  every  third   run.      Assuming  nine  runs  a  day,      Daily  Estates,  Solomon  and  Jobi’s  Market  would  have  local  fixed   route  service  three  times  in  each  direction  each  day  and  Thatcher  and  Solomon  stops  would  be   served  in  both  directions  nine  times  a  day.    Pima  would  continue  to  be  served  by  three  runs  per  day   on  the  San  Carlos  Apace  Tribe  service  and  would  potentially  be  served  by  three  to  six  additional  trips   on  this  service.     The  community  service  route  would  combine  curbside  stops  with  stops  within  major  activity  centers   to  limit  the  amount  of  walking  required  to  reach  key  destinations.    A  generalized  concept  map  of  the   community  service  route  is  shown  on  the  map  on  the  following  page.   The  general  public  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride    would  have  the  same  parameters  as  Option  #1,  including  the   partnership  with  SEACAP.         For  planning  and  budgeting  purposes,    the  service  would  operate  on  weekdays  and  not  on  major   holidays.      One  bus  would  be  a  fixed  route  bus  and  a  second  bus  would  be  added  to  the  SEACAP  Dial-­‐ a-­‐Ride  service  in  order  to  provide  more  capacity  and  coverage.  The  hours  of  operation  would  be  11   hours  per  day  from  7:00  am  to  6:00  pm.             Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     29   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Following  is  a  preliminary  list  of  fixed  route  stops  indicating  how  often  the  community  service  route   would  serve  each  stop.    This  is  currently  just  a  conceptual  framework  and  would  be  refined  and   adjusted  based  on  additional  input  during  Phase  II  of  the  Feasibility  Study.      The  stop  list,    turn  by  turn   directions  for  the  routing,    and  detailed  schedule  would  be  developed  in  detail  in  Phase  II  if  public   transportation  is  found  to  be  feasible  in  Graham  County.       Pima:  (3-­‐6  times  daily  in  each  direction)       Taylor  Freeze   Pima  Post  Office         Pima  High  School   Neighborhood  and  apartment  complex  stops   Central    (3-­‐6    times  daily  in  each  direction)    Stop  location  to  be  determined   Thatcher:  (7-­‐9  times  daily  in  each  direction)        Eastern  Arizona  College   Thatcher  High  School   Safeway   Basha’s  Grocery  Store   Neighborhood    and  apartment  complex  stops   Thatcher  (3  times  daily  in  each  direction)    Daily  Estates   Safford  (7-­‐9  times  daily  in  each  direction)           Walmart   Safford  High  School   Mt.  Graham  Regional  Medical  Center   Medical  offices  on  20th  St.       Downtown  Safford  Main  St.     Courthouse   Post  Office   Neighborhood  and  apartment  complex  stops   Solomon  (3  times  daily  in  each  direction)   191  Corridor  (3  times  daily  in  each  direction)     Neighborhood  and  apartment  complex  stops   Jo-­‐Bi  Convenience  market   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     31   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   The  map  on  the  following  page  shows  both  the  conceptual  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  boundary  and  the  conceptual   community  service  route.    A  refined  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  and  detailed  route,  schedule  and  bus  stops  would  be   developed  in  Phase  II  of  Graham  County  Feasibility  Study.    This  map  graphically  displays  the  May  7,   2015  TAC  meeting  consensus  for  a  combination  of  a  community  service  route  and  general  public  Dial-­‐ A-­‐Ride  service  in  addition  to  the  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  currently  provided  by  SEACAP  primarily  to  seniors   and  persons  with  disabilities.       Estimated  Ridership  Demand   The  above  service  description  of  a  local  public  transportation  service  between  Pima  and  Solomon,   starting    with  two  buses  operating  11  hours  per  day  from  7:00  am  to  6:00  pm,  253  weekdays  a  year   generates  a  total  of  5,566  annual  vehicle  service  hours  and  83,490  annual  vehicle  service  miles.       Ridership  demand  has  been  estimated  using  the  TCRP  Report  161  demand  estimation  workbook   methodology  for  a  peer  analysis  of  per  capita  ridership  in  FY  2012/13  that  includes  Bisbee,  Benson,   and  Douglas.       The  average  per  capita  ridership  for  these  three  areas  is  5.6  annual  transit  trips  per  capita,  with  a   median  of  4.8  transit  trips  per  capita.      Based  on  the  TCRP  Report  161  methodology  for  5,566  vehicle   service  hours  of  public  transportation,    the  ridership  for  a  two  bus  public  transporation  system  would   be  in  the  range  of  21,700  to  45,641  annual  transit  trips.      The  best  estimate  is  approximately  31,000   annual  trips,  likely  at  the  end  of  the  second  full  year  of  implementation.      As  a  benchmark  in  FY   2012/13,  Benson  had  an  estimated  20,000  annual  trips,  and  the  more  fully  developed  Douglas  transit   service  has  51,572  annual  transit  trips  in  FY  2012/13  (with  a  supply  of  10,804  vehicle  service  hours).     Ridership  on  Douglas  Transit  on  the  route  serving  Cochise  College  now  exceeds  1,000  passengers  per   month  during  peak  months,  and  has  doubled  ridership  since  2013.         A  five-­‐year  goal  of  45,000  to  50,000  annual  transit  trips  would  seem  to  be  a  reasonable  goal.      The   growth  in  vehicle  service  hours  necessary  to  achieve  this  goal  is  captured  in  the  growth/minimized   cost  financial  scenario  discussed  in  Chapter  8,  Financial  Feasibility.               Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     32   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   7.  Governance  Structure   This  section  of  the  working  paper  provides  information  on  the  options  for  a  governance  structure     and  helps  to  answer  one  of  the  key  feasibility  study  questions:   Does  a  viable  governance  structure  exist  or  can  one  be  created  to  govern,  manage  and   comply  with  federal  funding  regulations?     In  order  to  address  this  question,  this  chapter  first  starts  with  the  governance  and  management   duties  of  the  governing  body.    The  second  section  is  an  overview  of  the  available  organizational   options  that  are  typically  utilized  in  Arizona  to  govern  and  manage  public  transportation  services,   with  Arizona  examples  provided.  The  final  section  provides  input  on  the  governance  structure   discussed  during  the  public  participation  process.       Overview  of  Governance  and  Management  Duties   All  public  transportation  systems  have    the  following  functions:    Scheduling,  Dispatch  and  Operations:    Assignment  and  scheduling  of  drivers  and  vehicles  to   routes;  scheduling,  dispatching  and  assigning  of  passengers  to  demand  responsive  routes;   daily  operations  of  buses.    Maintenance:  preventive  maintenance,  vehicle  repairs,  parts  management,  and  facility   maintenance.    Personnel  Management  and  Training:  recruitment,  training  and  safety,  benefits,  and   discipline.    Planning:  strategic  planning,  public  participation,  short  range  planning,  and  passenger   surveys.    Marketing  and  Public  Information:    passenger  communication,  promotion,  advertising,   communication  with  other  agencies.    General  Management:    Correspondence  with  governing  board,  organizational  structure  and   reporting,  administrative  oversight,  and  compliance  with  Arizona  and  Federal  regulations.    Financial  Administration:    Budgeting,  management  information,  grant  administration  risk   management,  contract  management,  accounting,  procurement,  revenue  collection,  payroll.   Governance  and  management  of  these  functions  are  handled  in  numerous  ways  throughout  the   United  States  and  Arizona  in  particular.         The  governing  body  for  public  entities  are  elected  officials  such  as  members  of  the  Board  of   Supervisors  or  City  Council.      They  are  responsible  for  approving  grant  applications,  approving  the   service  plan  and  fares,  adopting  an  annual  budget,  and  ensuring  that  the  Transit  Manager  has  the   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     34   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   policies  and  procedures  in  place  to  ensure  that  safe,  reliable  and  compliant  public  transportation   services  are  being  provided.    Receiving  Federal  funding  comes  with  a  number  of  requirements  and   audit  provisions.    While  these  will  be  detailed  further  in  Phase  II  of  the  Feasibility  Study,  the  Transit   Manager  must  have  the  knowledge  and  experience  to  administer  the  requirements  that  come  along   with  Federal  funding.    Please  note  that  two  key  criteria  for  FTA  5311  funding  are:    1)  Financial  and   managerial  capability  and  2)  Safety  and  training  capabilities.   An  overview  of  governance  options  are  presented  below.    An  important  component  of  financial   capability  is  the  ability  to  handle  the  cash  flow  of  the  cost  reimbursement  nature  of  FTA  5311   funding.      All  expenses  incurred  during  the  contract  period  must  be  paid  in  full  by  the  governing   agency  to  be  eligible  for  reimbursement  by  ADOT.       Finally,  regardless  of  the  governance  option  selected  for  Graham  County,    the  Transit  Manager  must   be  someone  who  can  build  and  sustain  partnerships  among  the  public  and  human  service  agencies  in   Graham  County.  This  will  be  critically  important  in  not  only  providing  the  necessary  bundling  of   financial  resources  necessary  for  public  transportation  service,    but  also  building  and  sustaining  the   political  support  to  sustain  the  public  service  for  the  transit  dependent  populations  in  the  community:   older  adults,  disabled,  youth,  and  low  income  individuals.         Overview  of  Governance  Options   There  are  essentially  three  primary  governance  options:   1.    Governance  by  an  existing  public  entity  such  as  Graham  County  or  the  City  of  Safford.   2.    Governance  by  an  existing  private  non-­‐profit.   3.    Governance  by  a  shared  governance  structure,  an  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation   Authority  (IPTA).       The  overview  of  the  options  below  is  generalized  in  this  first  phase  of  the  feasibility  study.    If  public   transportation  is  found  to  be  feasible,  the  second  phase  of  the  feasibility  study,  will  provide   significantly  more  detail  on  how  the  governance  would  work  for  the  preferred  option.           Governance  by  An  Existing  Public  Entity   In  this  governance  alternative,    an  existing  City  or  Graham  County  would  take  responsibility  for  the   public  transportation  function.    This  would  likely  be  Graham  County  or  the  City  of  Safford.   Under  this  governance  alternative,    public  transportation  would  be  added  as  a  program  of  the  City  of   Safford  or  Graham  County.      Due  to  bus  maintenance  requirements,  it  is  not  unusual  for  public   transportation  to  be  a  program  of  the  Public  Works  or  Maintenance  Departments.    Other  typical   departments  are  Community  Development  or  Planning.    In  this  alternative,  public  transportation   would  become  a  distinct  budgeted  program  of  the  designated  department.       Like  any  other  public  program,  the  Board  of  Supervisors  would  be  the  governing  body  in  the  case  of   Graham  County,  or  the  City  Council  in  the  case  of  the  City  of  Safford.    The  governing  body  would   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     35   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   approve  the  public  transportation  budget,  authorize  approval  of  necessary  grant  applications,  and   provide  oversight  to  Federal  and  State  compliance  issues  as  well  as  required  reporting.         The  day-­‐to-­‐day  management  of  the  public  transportation  function  would  be  an  employee  of  the   designated  department.    There  are  two  models  for  public  transportation  service  delivery.    The  public   transportation  service  can  be  directly  operated  which  would  mean  the  public  entity  would  hire  the   drivers,    provide  maintenance  of  the  buses,    and  provide  all  of  the  accounting  and  financial   accounting  of  a  public  service.    The  second  typical  model  is  to  contract  the  operations  and   maintenance  to  a  private  or  non-­‐profit  vendor  in  a  procurement  process.     In  the  directly  operated  model,    the  Transit  Manager  is  typically  responsible  for  planning,  budgeting,   grant  writing  and  compliance.    The  Transit  Manager  would  also  typically  hire,  train,  and  supervise  the   drivers.    The  Maintenance  Department  would  provide  maintenance  of  the  buses.      Financial   accounting  and  procurement  is  typically  handled  by  the  Finance  Department.  In  a  directly  operated   system,  the  public  entity  owns  the  buses.         In  the  outsourcing  model,  the  Transit  Manager  is  responsible  for  planning,  contract  administration,   budgeting,    grant  writing  and  compliance.    A  third  party  vendor  is  typically  selected  through  a   competitive  procurement  process  to  provide  operations  (drivers  and  dispatcher)  and/or  maintenance   (mechanics  and  parts).    In  the  outsourcing  model,  the  contract  with  a  third  party  vendor  can  specify   the  provision  of  buses  for  the  contract  period  or  the  public  entity  can  own  the  buses  and  allow  the   contract  vendor  to  utilize  the  buses  for  operations.    In  the  long-­‐term,  it  is  in  the  best  interest  of  the   governing  agency  to  own  and  ensure  proper  maintenance  of  the  buses  utilized  in  the  transit   operations.         Arizona  Examples   The  City  of  Douglas  has  established  a  separate  Transit  Department,  directly  operates  its  service  and   provides  all  the  necessary  drivers  and  maintenance  personnel  to  operate  and  maintain  the  public   transportation  service.  The  City  Council  is  the  governing  body.         The  City  of  Bisbee  Transit  Program  is  an  example  of  a  public  entity  governing  the  public   transportation  service,  but  who  contracts  with  a  third  party  to  operate  the  service.  The  City  of  Bisbee   has  contracted  with  Catholic  Community  Services  to  run  the  day  to  day  operations  of  the  Bisbee   Transit  Program.  The  program  uses  5311  funds  for  its  deviated  flex  route  service.     Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     36   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Governance  by  an  Existing  Non-­‐Profit   FTA  5311  guildelines  allow  for  a  non-­‐profit  agency  to  be  the  governing  agency  for  administration  of   public  transportation  services.  In  this  governance  model,  an  existing  agency  that  is  currently  providing   transportation  would  be  the  public  transportation  governing  and  management  agency  responsible  for   public  transportation  services.    SEACAP  or  the  Blake  Foundation  are  the  most  likely  candidates  in   Graham  County  to  be  the  governing  agency.         There  are  a  couple  of  primary  constraints  for  a  non-­‐profit  to  take  on  the  responsibility  of  governing  a   public  transportation  system.    The  first  primary  barrier  is  the  cost  reimbursement  requirements  of   FTA  5311  funding.    Most  non-­‐profit  agencies  do  not  have  the  necessary  cash  flow  to  accommodate   the  signficant  cash  requirements  of  a  public  transportation  system.    A  second  constraint  is  the  lack  of     Board  representation  from  the  various  jurisdictions  in  Graham  County.         Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority   In  Arizona,  shared  governance  of  public  transportation  is  authorized  by  Arizona  law,  and  the  type  of   governing  agency  depends  on  the  size  of  the  County.    In  Arizona,  counties  with  less  than  200,000  are   organized  as  an  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority.       Appendix  A  provides  the  regulatory  details  for  the  formaton  and  rights  of  an  intergovernmenal  public   transportation  authority.  The  provisions  are  summarized  below.       The  members  of  an  intergovernmal  public  transportation  authority  can  include  one  or  more  county   entities,  incorporated  cities  or  towns,  community  college  districts,  and  any  Indian  nation  that  has  a   boundary  within  a  county  in  which  an  authority  is  established.       Any  combination  of  above  potential  members  can  petition  the  County  Board  of  Supervisors  to   establish  an  intergovernmental  public  transportation  authority  consisting  of  the  combined  areas  in   the  counties.    The  County  Board  of  Supervisors  holds  a  public  hearing  on  the  petition  to  determine   public  support  for  the  authority  and  whether  establishing  the  authority  would  be  in  the  public   interest.    The  County  Board  of  Supervisors  approves  a  resolution  that  includes  the  boundaries  of  the   authority.    Additional  members  can  be  added  over  time  by  the  same  petitioning  process.   The  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority  gives  the  members  all  the  rights  and   immunities  of  municipal  corporations  granted  by  the  Arizona  constitution  and  statutes,  including  the   immunity  of  its  property  from  taxation.       Arizona  Examples  of  Intergovenmental  Public    Transportation  Authority    The  Yuma  County  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority  (YCIPTA)  is  an  IPTA  that  was   formed  on  December  13,  2010  by  the  Yuma  County  Board  of  Supervisors  to  administer,  plan,  operate   and  maintain  public  transit  services  throughout  Yuma  County,  including  within  the  political   jurisdictional  boundaries  of  the  Cities  of  Yuma,  San  Luis,  Somerton,  Town  of  Wellton  and  the   unincorporated  Yuma  County  areas.   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     37   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   The  intitial  members  of  YCIPTA  were  the  Town  of  Welton,  City  of  Somerton,  City  of  San  Luis,  City  of   Yuma,  Yuma  County  and  Northern  Arizona  University.      Later  Arizona  Western  College  and  Cocopah   Indian  Tribe  joined  in  2011,  and  Quechan  Indian  Tribe  joined  in  2012.       Yuma  County  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority  (YCIPTA)  provides  Yuma  County   Area  Transit  (YCAT)  fixed  route,  vanpool  and  YCAT  On  Call  demand  responsive  bus  service  throughout   southwestern  Yuma  County  including  the  cities  of  Yuma,  San  Luis,  Somerton,  Town  of  Wellton,   Cocopah  Indian  Reservation  and  unincorporated  communities  of  Yuma  County,  including  Gadsden,   Fortuna  Foothills  and  Ligurta.  YCAT  also  provides  service  into  Winterhaven  and  El  Centro,  CA  and  on   the  Quechan/Fort  Yuma  Indian  Reservation.   In  2006,  the  Northern  Arizona  Intergovernmenal  Public  Transportation  Authority  (NAIPTA)  was   formed  to  provide  a  regional  approach  to  transit  in  and  around  the  Flagstaff  area.  NAIPTA  is  a   regional  organization  including  Coconino  County,  the  City  of  Flagstaff,  and  Northern  Arizona   University. NAIPTA  operates  and  maintains  Mountain  Line/Mountain  Link  fixed  route  and  Mountain  Lift   demand  response  public  transportation  systems.  These  systems  have  been  in  operation  since  October,   2001.       Stakeholder  Input  and  Consensus  of  Technical  Advisory  Committee   Discussions  with  representatives  from  the  Town  of  Pima,  Town  of  Thatcher,  City  of  Safford,    and   Graham  County  in  general  felt  that  the  public  transportation  service,  “needs  to  be  combined.”  in  the   words  of  one  elected  official.    The  concept  of  shared  funding  and  governance  was  a  common  theme   among  most  stakeholder  interviews.    The  prospect  of  an  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation   Authority  had  the  best  chance  to  survive  over  the  long-­‐term  according  to  one  key  stakeholder.       There  were  a  few  stakeholders  who  felt  that  the  County  was  the,  “natural  governmental  agency.”  in   the  words  of  another  elected  official.    The  County  has  the  regional  perspective  needed  to  make  a   public  transportation  operation  work.         At  the  May  7,  2015  Technical  Advisory  Committee  meeting,  there  was  general  consensus  to  move   forward  with  an  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority.    This  type  of  governing  entity  in   the  opinion  of  most  TAC  members  has  the  best  chance  of  being  a  viable  governance  structure  to   govern,  manage  and  comply  with  federal  funding  regulations  for  a  Graham  County  public   transportation  service.       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     38   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   8.  Financial  Feasibility   This  section  is  designed  to  provide  input  on  two  key  questions  posed  at  the  beginning  of  this  working   paper:    Does  sufficient  local  or  other  financial  support  exist  to  provide  necessary  matching  funds  for   federal  funding  to  financially  sustain  transit  services  over  time?    Is  there  the  potential  to  leverage  existing  funding  for  transportation  in  Graham  County,  and   coordinate  and  add  value  to  existing  social  service  agency  transportation  services  with  a   public  transit  service?   It  is  important  to  note  that  the  budget  information  provided  here  are  generalized  budget  estimates  in   order  to  provide  decision-­‐makers  a  reasonable  range  of  costs  and  needed  local  matching  funds  over  a   five-­‐year  period.    The  information  is  intended  to  assist  potential  members  and  partners  of  the   Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority  to  determine  whether  the  financial  participation   of  their  agency  is  something  they  are  willing  to  potentially  commit  to  over  a  five-­‐year  period.    Only  a   preliminary  and  non-­‐binding  commitment  by  the  governing  bodies  of  the  potential  partners  is   required  for  Phase  II  of  the    Feasibility  Study.    The  Towns  of  Pima  and  Thatcher,  City  of  Safford,  and   Graham  County  governing  bodies  will  be  asked  to  vote  on  a  resolution  that  says  that  subject  to  final   operating  and  capital  financial  plan,    the  entity  is  a  willing  and  able  financial  partner  in  providing  the   necessary  financial  resources  for  a  local  public  transportation  system  in  Graham  County.     A  final  more  detailed  and  more  specific  five-­‐year  operations  and  capital  budget  would  be  prepared   for  final  considersation  and  commitment  in  Phase  II  of  the  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study.   Three  Financial  Scenarios   Since  there  are  many  cost  and  revenue  variables  that  would  need  to  be  addressed  in  the  second   phase  of  the  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study,  it  is  best  to  provide  a  reasonable  range  of  costs   and  revenues  that  would  need  to  be  provided.  Three  financial  scenarios  are  described  below  which   help  to  bracket  the  potential  actual  costs  and  revenues,  including  a  reasonable  range  of  in-­‐kind  and   cash  contributions  that  would  be  required  to  match  available  FTA  5311  funding.  In  order  to  provide   realistic  estimates,    budget  figures  for  FTA  5311  grants  for  Bisbee,  Benson  and  Douglas  for  FY  2012/13   were  utilized  as  comparables  for  the  purpose  of  providing  the  reasonable  range  of  costs  and  revenues   needed  for  a  public  transportation  system  in  Graham  County.    The  following  is  a  description  of  the   three  potential  scenarios.   Very  Conservative  Scenario:    This  scenario  assume  very  low  level  in-­‐kind  contributions  and  estimated   costs  are  very  conservatively  estimated  at  the  high  end  of  the  cost  ranges.    This  scenario  provides  a   high  end  estimate  of  what  would  be  required  for  cash  contributions  by  potential  members  of  the   Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority.    Best  Estimate  Scenario:      This  scenario  is  based  on  known  cost  information  and  a  moderate  level  of   in-­‐kind  contributions.  In  this  scenario,    costs  are  calculated  based  on  the  average  of  actual  2012/13   costs  from  three  Arizona  rural  agencies  and  inflated  to  2015  dollars.       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     39   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Growth/Minimized  Cost  Scenario:    In  this  scenario,  the  maxium  amount  of  in-­‐kind  contributions  are   assumed,    providing  the  low  end  estimate  of  what  local  match  hard  cash  requirements  might  be.      A   low  end  estimate  of  potential  operating  costs  is  also  utilized.    This  scenario  results  in  the  low  end   range  of  cash  contributions  by  the  potential  members  of  the  IPTA.           The  assumptions  uitlized  for  each  scenario  are  further  documented  below.         A  bundling  of  financial  resources  –  federal  and  local  -­‐  will  be  required  to  operate  rural  public   transportation  services  in  Graham  County.    The  necessary  costs  and  revenues  are  broken  into  three   distinct  categories  due  to  different  matching  requirements  and  potential  funding  partners.          Administrative  Costs  and  Revenues    Operating  Costs  and  Revenues      Capital  Costs  and  Revenues   Administrative  Costs  and  Revenues  Assumptions   Administrative  costs  include  the  salary  and  fringe  benefit  costs  for  the  project  director,  Transit   Manager,    secretarial  services,  insurance  costs,  and  facilties  to  house  the  administration  of  the  transit   program  and  any  office  supplies  and  rental  equipment  necessary  for  administration.    Administrative   costs  can  be  no  more  than  30%  of  the  budget.   All  scenarios  assume  that  a  full-­‐time  Transit  Manager  will  be  required  for  one-­‐year  of  start-­‐up  to   formalize  the  organizational  structure,    develop  policies  and  procedures,    order  buses,  develop  bus   stop  shelters  and  signage,    procure  buses,  and  either  contract  for  operations  and/or  maintenance  or   directly  hire  drivers  and  make  maintenance  arrangements.    The  Phase  II  products  will  provide   guidance  on  start-­‐up.   Administrative  costs  for  the  Transit  Manager,  office  space,  administrative  oversight  and  other  eligible   expenses  are  estimated  to  range  from  $100,000  to  $140,000  during  the  first  full  year  of  operation,   with  the  best  estimate  scenario  at  $125,000  per  year.    After  the  the  first  full  year  of  implementation,   it  may  be  possible  to  reduce  the  Transit  Manager  position  to  a  half-­‐time  position.  That  potential  is   reflected  in  the  growth/minimized  cost  scenario.      Most  administrative  costs  are  expected  to  increase   at  the  rate  of  inflation.         Administrative  revenues  are  funding  sources  to  cover  the  cost  of  administering  the  public   transportation  service.  FTA  5311  funds  will  pay  80%  of  administrative  costs  with  20%  of  the   administrative  revenue  coming  from  local  match.    Local  match  can  include  cash  contributions  from   participating  members  and  in-­‐kind  contributions.   In-­‐kind  match  for  administration  could  be  the  use  of  office  space  from  one  of  the  participating   entities,    secretatarial  support,  and  department  head  oversight  of  the  Transit  Manager.  It  could  also   include  participation  by  particants  in  the  quarterly  TAC  meetings.       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     40   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study      July  13,  2015   The  very  conservative  scenario  assumes  the  only  administrative  in-­‐kind  contribution  would  be   the  participation  in  quarterly  TAC  meetings.       The  best  estimate  scenario  assumption  would  add    office  rental  and  utilities  provided  by  one   of  the  participating  agencies  as  an  in-­‐kind  contribution.       The  growth/minimized  cost  scenario  adds  administrative  overhead,  the  administrative   oversight  costs  of  the  Transit  Manager  as  an  in-­‐kind  contribution.       Below  is  an  illustrative  administrative  budget  for  the  best  estimate  scenario  for  the  first  full  year  of   public  transportation  operations.                   If  the  above  were  the  actual  administration  budget  for  the  first  full  year  of  operation,  the  following     are  potential  revenue  sources  to  fund  the  administrative  costs.     As  discussed  earlier,    the  Phase  II  more  detailed  budget  estimates  will  better  define  the  in-­‐kind   contributions  and  actual  hard  cash  contributions  for  administration.         Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     41   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Operating  Costs  and  Revenues   Operating  expenses  are  considered  those  costs  directly  related  to  system  operations.  At  a  minimum,   the  following  items  are  considered  to  be  operating  expenses:  fuel,  oil,  licenses,  salaries  and  fringe   benefits  for  drivers,  dispatchers  and  transit  supervisor/operations  manager.    In  small  rural  systems   like  the  anticipated  Graham  County  service  a  lead  driver  often  takes  on  the  responsibility  of  an   operations  manager.     There  are  number  of  important  factors  that  go  into  determining  operating  costs  and  revenues.    Of   course,  the  supply  of  service  is  a  primary  determinant,  and  this  is  typically  measured  in  vehicle  service   hours  and  vehicle  service  miles  provided.    A  vehicle  service  hour  is  when  the  bus  is  in  revenue  service   and  available  for  a  passenger  to  board.    A  two  bus  public  transportation  system  operating  on  253   weekdays  a  year  (excludes  major  holidays)    from  7:00  am  to  6:00  pm  results  in  5,566  vehicle  service   hours.      This  assumes  one  bus  is  in  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  operation  and  the  second  bus  is  in  fixed  route   operation  for  a  community  service  route.            The  very  conservative  scenario  assumes  that  the  service  supply  remains  the  same  over  the   first  four  years  of  operation.     The  best  estimate  scenario  assumes  that  two  buses  are  in  operation,  but  the  hours  of   operation  are  expanded  to  6:00  am  to  7:00  pm  and  Saturday  service  is  operated  from  9:00   am  to  5:00  pm  starting  in  the  third  full  year  of  operation.    This  is  a  very  typical  limited   expansion  of  public  transportation  services.       The  growth/minimized  cost  scenario  assumes  that  a  third  bus  is  added  to  the  operations  in   the  third  full  year  of  operations  to  improve  service  frequencies  on  the  community  service   route.      Therefore,  the  range  of  vehicle  service  hours  is  from  5,566  for  baseline  service  to   10,683  vehicle  service  hours  for  the  growth/minimized  cost  scenario.      This  provides  a   reasonable  range  of  operating  costs  over  the  first  five  years  of  public  transportation   development.         The  biggest  driver  of  operating  costs  are  driver  wages  and  benefits.  Fully  burdened  driver  wages   include  direct  wages  and  fringe  benefits.      A  standard  measure  for  comparison  is  the  fully  burdened   driver  wages  per  vehicle  service  hour.  Total  driver  paid  time  includes  inspecting  the  bus,  driving  to  the   start  of  revenue  service,    meal  and  other  breaks.      The  median  of  the  three  local  examples  for  fully   burdened  driver  wages  is  $17.13  per  vehicle  service  hour.      This  is  typical  of  fully  burdened  driver   costs  in  more  exhaustive  peer  review  of  driver  wage  costs  in  eight  small  rural  systems  in  California   where  the  average  fully  burdened  cost  per  vehicle  serivce  hours  was  $18.11.         Maintenance  costs  can  be  included  in  operations  cost  or  can  be  capitalized.  The  capitalization  of   operating  will  be  explored  in  more  detail  if  the  project  proceeds  to  Phase  II  of  the  feasibility  study.     For  the  purposes  here,  vehicle  maintenance  is  included  as  an  operating  cost  for  direct  comparison  of   scenarios.      There  are  a  number  options  for  maintenance  including  utilizing  the  fleet  maintenance   department  of  one  of  the  participating  government  entities  or  contracting  with  a  vendor.       The  third  major  cost  item  for  transit  operations  is  fuel  and  there  have  been  wide  fluctuations  in  fuel   costs  for  diesel,  gasoline,  and  CNG  over  the  past  ten  years.      For  the  purposes  here  to  illustrate  the   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     42   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   range  of  costs,  the  consulting  team  is  utilizing  the  average  fuel  cost  per  vehicle  service  mile  of  the   three  Southeastern  Arizona  peer  examples,  updated  to  2015  dollars,    in  the  operating  cost  estimates.         For  the  three  local  public  transportation  examples  in  Souteast  Arizona,  the  average  operations  cost   per  vehicle  service  hour  was  $46  per  hour  in  2015  dollars,  with  significant  variance  of  $35  per  hour  to   $67  per  hour  among  the  three  systems.2    A  review  of  the  cost  components  revealed  that  a  public   transportation  system  in  Graham  County  should  range  from  $45  per  vehicle  service  hour,  utilized  in   the  growth/minimized  cost  scenario  to  $60  per  vehicle  service  hour  for  the  very  conservative   scenario.      The  best  estimate  is  $53  per  vehicle  service  hour.         The  figure  below  is  an  illustrative  example  showing  the  best  estimate  scenario  for  operating  cost  for   the  first  full  year  of  operations.     The  fringe  benefit  rate  for  operations  is  the  average  of  three  public  transporation  rural  services  in   southeastern  Arizona.      The  best  estimate  approach  assumes  coordinated  operations  with  SEACAP.    A   MOU  with  SEACAP  would  slightly  expand  the  SEACAP  paratransit  services  for  elderly  and  disabled   transportation.    This  would  enable  $30,000  they  are  receiving  from  SEAGO  to  be  utiized  as  matching   funds,  therefore  reducing  the  cash  local  match  by  participating  entities.    This  will  be  discussed  in   more  detail  under  the  cost  allocation  section  later  in  this  chapter.       The  following  is  an  illustrative  example  using  the  best  estimate  scenario  in  how  costs  would  be   funded  over  the  first  four  years  of  operation.  Year  One  would  be  devoted  to  handling  start-­‐up  tasks.   The  service  supply  expansion  in  vehicle  service  hours  is  to  increase  span  of  coverage  and  initiate   Saturday  service  would  start  in  the  fourth  year.    Fares  are  assumed  to  be  low  at  $1.00  for  the  general   public  and  $0.50  seniors  and  the  disabled,  with  children  riding  free.      The  average  fare  is   conservatively  estimated  at  $0.55  per  passenger.                                                                                                                           2  Based  on  2012/13  FTA  5311  budget  spreadsheets  for  Benson,  Bisbee  and  Douglas  provided  by  ADOT  and   adjusted  to  2015  dollars.   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     43   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   The  net  operating  costs  are  the  total  operating  costs  minus  fare  revenues.    The  net  operating  costs   are  what  are  eligible  for  FTA  5311  reimbursement.      The  federal  share  of  net  operating  costs  is  58%,   representing  $161,138  the  first  full  year  of  operation,    the  second  year  of  the  five  year  plan.      The   local  share  is  42%  or  $116,686..           With  the  desirable  use  of  $30,000  of  local  match  for  a  coordinated  service  with  SEACAP,      the  local   share  cash  requirements  for  operating  costs  would  start  at    approximately  $87,000  and  increase  to   approximately  $120,000  over  four  years.      The  allocation  of  costs  are  described  in  more  detail  later  in   this  chapter.     The  very  conservative  scenario  does  not  include  the  SEACAP  coordination  and  this  increases  the  first   year  cash  contribution  by  local    entities  for  transit  operations.     Capital  Costs  and  Revenues   Capital  expenses  include  the  acquisition  and  improvement  of  public  transit  equipment  and  facilities   needed  for  an  efficient  public  transit  system.  By  FTA  definition,  all  capital  expenses  include  facilities   or  equipment  with  a  useful  life  of  at  least  one  year.  Capital  expenses  generally  exceed  $5,000   purchase  cost.  Capital  expenses  include  buses,  vans,  radios  and  communication  equipment,  vehicle   rehabilitation,  wheelchair  lifts  and  restraints,  engine  overhauls  and  special  maintenance  tools,   operational  support  such  as  computer  hardware/software  and  minor  construction  or  rehabilitation  of   transit  facilities.    Capital  expenses  also  include  bus  shelters,  and  bus  stop  signage.           The  major  capital  expense  for  a  Graham  County  transit  service  will  be  procurement  of  three  buses.     Two  buses  would  be  in  operation,  and  one  bus  would  be  utilized  as  a  spare,  when  one  of  the   operating  buses  needs  repairs  or  preventative  maintenance.  The  fleet  characteristics  and  exact  type   of  vehicle,  and  the  options  that  should  be  part  of  the  procurement  will  be  detailed  in  the  second   phase  of  the  feasibility  study.    To  provide  a  reasonable  estimate  of  capital  costs,  it  has  been  assumed   that  the  average  cutaway  bus  purchased  will  cost  $80,000.    This  assumption  is  utilized  in  all  three   scenarios,  and  80%  of  the  capital  costs  are  paid  for  through  FTA  5311.           A  second  major  capital  expense  will  be  bus  shelters.    The  exact  number  and  type  of  shelters  will  be   determined  in  the  next  phase  of  the  project.    For  budgeting  purpose,  a  total  of  $140,000  in  bus   shelter  and  signage  is  provided  for  the  start-­‐up  year  and  the  first  year  of  operation.  A  basic  bus   shelter  with  delivery  and  installation  typically  costs  an  average  of  $10,000.  Another  $72,000  over  the   five  year  period  is  preliminarily  budgeted  for  site  improvements  to  address  ADA  accessibility  issues.     Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     44   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   This  is  likely  a  very  low  figure  compared  to  what  may  be  needed,  but  it  provides  a  reasonable  effort   to  ensure  adequate  wheelchair  access  at  key  bus  stops.   The  figure  below  is  an  illustrative  example  of  a  capital  budget  over  a  five  year  period.      This  is  very   preliminary  and  would  be  significantly  refined  in  the  second  phase  of  the  Graham  County  Transit   Feasibility  Study.      The  first  year  is  the  start  up  year  where  three  buses  would  be  ordered  early  in  the  year  and  delivered   later  in  the  same  year.    The  first  year  capital  cost  is  estimated  at  approximately  $425,000  and  FTA   5311  would  provide  revenue  to  cover  80%  of  the  cost  or  $340,000.      The  20%  local  match  required  is   $85,000.      The  best  estimate  scenario  assumes  that  Freeport-­‐McMoRan  would  fund  50%  of  the  local   share  and  the  other  partners  fund  the  other  $42,500  in  contributions.        Freeport-­‐McMoRan  has   provided  very  preliminary  and  non-­‐committal  interest  in  assisting  with  the  start-­‐up  development  of   the  public  transportation  service  in  Graham  County.    After  the  second  year,  all  capital  costs  are   expected  to  be  cash  contributions  by  members  of  the  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation   Authority.        Best  Estimate  Scenario  Summary   The  table  on  the  next  page  provides  a  five  year  summary  of  expected  administrative,  operating  and   capital  costs  over  a  five-­‐year  period.      Under  the  best  estimate  scenario,  these  costs  average  just  over   $500,000,  per  year  over  a  five-­‐year  period.      The  amount  of  local  share  required  ranges  from   $109,000  to  $179,000  over  the  five-­‐year  period.             Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     45   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015       Cost  Allocation  Among  Potential  Partners   The  following  discussion  is  meant  to  provide  elected  officials  with  information  on  how  the  local  share   requirement  could  be  shared  among  the  potential  partners  of  a  local  public  transportation  system  in   Graham  County.  The  information  is  meant  to  help  stakeholders  and  elected  officials  answer  one  of   the  critical  questions  on  public  transportation  feasibility:   Does  sufficient  local  or  other  financial  support  exist  to  provide  necessary  matching  funds  for   federal  funding  to  financially  sustain  transit  services  over  time?   At  the  May  7,  2015  Technical  Advisory  Committee,  there  was  consensus  for  using  total  population  as   the  basis  for  cost  allocation  for  the  Town  of  Pima,  Town  of  Thatcher,  and  City  of  Safford,  and  Graham   County.           Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     46   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   A  more  refined  analysis  of  population  by  jurisdiction  will  be  evaluated  in  Phase  II  of  the  project.      The   following  is  meant  to  be  illustrative  based  on  rough  approximations.      Graham’s  County  population  is   estimated  to  be  about  5,000  in  the  unincorporated  areas.      The  basis  for  determining  the  actual   population  in  the  unincorporated  area  would  be  the  population  in  the  unincorporated  areas  within   the  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  boundary  as  presented  earlier  in  Chapter  6.      Eastern  Arizona  College  has   approximately  3,500  students  (2,000  part-­‐time  and  1,500  full  time),  420  of  whom  reside  on  campus.     The  table  below  has  several  sections.         The  first  section  is  on  service  supply,  showing  the  number  of  buses  in  operation,  the  number   of  spares,  and  the  annual  vehicle  service  hours  provided.     The  second  section  shows  the  primary  share  of  the  major  entities,  and  their  total  shares  of   the  required  local  matched  based  on  the  illustrative  example  percentages  of  population   shown  above.         The  third  section  is  the  in-­‐kind  contributions  that  would  be  provided.  The  assumptions   utilized  for  the  in-­‐kind  contributions  are  explained  immediately  after  the  table.     The  final  section  is  an  estimate  of  local  cash  share  contributions.       The  cash  contributions  required  are  the  total  local  share  minus  the  in-­‐kind  contribution.    In  the  first   full  year  of  operation  of  a  local  public  transportation  system,  the  best  estimate  scenario  projects  a   need  for  $152,686  in  total  local  share.  This  is  projected  to  include  a  total  of  $48,890  in  in-­‐kind  and   $103,796    in  cash  contributions  by  members  of  the  recommended  Intergovernmental  Public   Transportation  Authority    (IPTA),  based  on  allocation  of  cash  contribution  by  population  shares.       Another  $5,152  is  contributed  by  other  social  service  agency  partners  in  purchasing  transit  passes  for   a  total  of  $108,498  in  total  cash  contributions.         Individual  contributions  by  potential  members  of  the  recommended  ITPA  are  shown.      For  example,   Safford  would  need  to  contribute  $41,518  in  cash  the  first  year  of  full  operation  (Year  2)  of  the  public   transportation  service  and  this  would  grow    to  $51,362  in  the  fourth  year  of  operation  (year  5),  based   on  best  estimate  scenario  assumptions.     Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     47   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015       In-­‐Kind  Contribution  Assumptions   SEACAP  MOU:      SEACAP  currently  receives  $30,000  per  year  in  Area  Agency  on  Aging  (AAA)  funding   from  SEAGO,  and  is  assumed  to  inflate  at  3%  per  year.      Staff  at  SEAGO  and  Arizona  DOT  have  both   confirmed  that  if  the  governing  body  executed  a  memorandum  of  understanding  with  SEACAP  to   continue  to  provide  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  for  elderly  and  disabled  individuals  in  coordination  with  the   public  transportation  service,    the  $30,000  could  be  uitlized  as  in-­‐kind  match.    In  effect,  this   substantially  reduces  the  hard  cash  contributions  by  the  members  of  the  IPTA.   Participation  in  Transit  Avisory  Committee  meetings:    The  labor  value  of  participating  in  quarterly   Technical  Advisory  Committee  meetings,  and  any  other  meeting  regarding  the  business  of  public   transportation  can  be  utilized  as  in-­‐kind  contribution.      It  is  conservatively  estimated  at  $500  annually   per  participant,  inflated  by  3%  annually.      The  actual  value  would  be  more  definitely  determined  in   Phase  II  of  the  Feasibility  Study.   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     48   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Graham  County  In-­‐Kind:    Assuming  an  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority  is  the   governing  agency,  it  would  likely  sign  an  agreement  with  one  of  the  local  partners  to  house  the   Transit  Manager.      The  Best  Estimate  Scenario  assumes  that  Graham  County  houses  the  Transit   Manager  and  the  annual  value  of  the  office  space  and  utilities  is  conservatively  estimated  at  $8,000   annually.      Again,  the  value  would  be  more  definitively  determined  in  the  next  phase  of  the  project.   Freeport  McMoRan  Mine:    In  stakeholder  interviews,  Freeport  McMoran  Mine  (Freeport)  indicated   an  interest  in  providing  start-­‐up  assistance  for  a  public  transportation  service  and  not  providing   ongoing  operating  support.    The  Best  Estimate  Scenario  assumes  that  Freeport  matches  dollar  for   dollar  the  capital  expenses  during  start-­‐up,  which  is  not  completed  until  Year  2.    Therefore,  Freeport   provides  50%  of  the  capital  costs  in  the  start-­‐up  year  and  the  first  year  of  operations  (year  2),  with  the   governing  agency  entities  providing  the  other  50%  of  capital  contributions.    In  addition,  it  is  assumed   in  the  Best  Estimate  Scenario  that  Freeport  McMoran  Mine  provides  $1,500  in  advertising  for  the   transit  system  the  first  full  year  of  operating  and  increases  this  by  $500  per  year.         Other  Advertising  Revenue;      Advertising  is  an  eligible  in-­‐kind  expense.    Advertising  opportunties   would  exist  in  providing  advertising  on  the  buses,  in  bus  shelters  and  local  radio  stations.      This  would   be  further  investigated  in  the  next  phase  of  the  Study,    but  is  conservatively  estimated  at  $1,500   annually  in  the  first  year,  and  increasing  by  $500  per  year  over  the  first  four  years  of  full  operation.     Comparison  of  Scenarios   The  Best  Estimate  Scenario  presented  above  is  based  on  a  series  of  assumptions  documented  above.       The  table  below  is  meant  to  provide  a  reasonable  bracket  of  what  in-­‐kind  contributions  might  be,   with  the  resulting  cash  contributions  of  member  agencies.      There  needs  to  be  a  sustained   commitment  and  therefore  the  total  five  year  commitment  is  shown  in  the  table,  with  average  local   match  contribution  required  by  scenario.         Using  Safford  as  an  example,  the  required  cash  contributions  vary  based  on  the  scenario  and  specific   assumptions.        Very  Conservative  Scenario  -­‐  the  average  annual  cash  contribution  would  be  $60,391.   Best  Estimate  Scenario  -­‐  the  average  annual  cash  contribution  would  be  $41,956.       Growth/Minimized  Cost  Scenario  -­‐  the  more  aggressive  use  of  in-­‐kind  contributions  result  in   an  average  annual  cash  contribution  of  $28,968.  Under  this  scenario,  Safford’s  in-­‐kind   contribution  would  average  35,176  and  would  include  providing  vehicle  maintenance  as  in  in-­‐ kind  service.           Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     49   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015     Summary  of  Cost  and  Revenue  Estimates   The  analysis  above,  utilizing  three  scenarios,  provides  a  realistic  range  of  the  cash  contributions  that   would  be  required  by  members  of  the  IPTA.            The  best  estimate  is  based  on  the  assumptions  that  the  consulting  team  feels  are  most  likely   and  realistic  based  on  experience  elsewhere.       The  growth/minimized  costs  scenario  maximizes  the  use  of  in-­‐kind  contributions  and  has  the   lowest  operating  cost  assumptions.    It  provides  what  is  likely  the  low  end  of  what  would  be   required  in  hard  cash  contributions  on  an  annual  basis.         The  very  conservative  scenario  utilizes  the  high  end  of  what  operating  costs  might  be  and   only  assumes  a  minimal  use  of  in-­‐kind  contributions.         Each  potential  member  of  the  IPTA  would  need  to  answer  the  question:     Is  my  jurisdiction  or  college  willing  to  provide  financial  support  to  meet  local  match  requirements  for   federal  funding  to  financially  sustain  local  public  transportation  services  over  the  next  five  years?   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     50   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   It  is  important  to  note  that  at  this  stage,  participants  are  not  being  asked  for  a  firm  commitment,  but   rather  for  a  pledge  to  the  Arizona  Department  of  Transportation  that  1)  yes,  our  jurisdiction  would   like  to  proceed  to  the  second  phase  of  the  study  for  a  more  refined  and  detailed  operations  and   capital  financial  plan  and  2)  that  when  the  final  financial  plan  is  completed  and  comes  back  for  formal   adoption,  that  my  jurisdiction  is  a  willing  and  financially  able  partner  based  on  the  range  of  potential   financial  commitments  described  in  the  table  above.     Of  course,  the  response  can  come  back  with  yes,  proceed  with  Phase  II  of  the  study,  but  our  financial   participation  comes  with  specified  conditions  on  financial  participation  based  on  the  potential   member’s  internal  analysis  of  what  is  financially  feasible.                       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     51   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015    9.  Benefits  and  Costs  of  Public  Transportation     Chapter  8  provided  significant  detail  on  the  estimated  financial  investment  of  local  partners    in  public   transportation.    This  chapter  utilizes  national  research  efforts  to  help  provide  a  framework  for   understanding  the  benefits  of  public  transportation.      There  has  been  a  significant  amount  of   economic  analysis  research  on  public  transportation  efforts  in  rural  communities.    This  chapter   reports  on  the  findings  of  the  national  research  and  applies  them  to  Graham  County.   For  the  national  research,  the  chapter  relies  primarily  on  the  economic  analysis  conducted  in  two   seminal  national  research  efforts  conducted  for  the  Transit  Cooperative  Research  Program.      The  two   research  efforts  were:   1.    TCRP  Report  34  Assessment  of  the  Economic  Impacts  of  Rural  Public  Transportation,  conducted  by   Ecosometrics.    The  objectives  of  this  research  and  the  report  findings  provide  information  that   identifies  and  quantifies  the  economic  impacts  of  rural  public  transportation  in  the  United  States  on   both  a  local  and  national  level.      The  report  also  develops  and  presents  a  practical  economic  impact   methodology  for  planning  and  designing  rural  public  transportation  to  maximize  economic  benefits.     The  methodology  and  lessons  learned  are  applied  to  Graham  County.   2.    TCRP  Report  49  Using  Public  Transportation  to  Reduce  the  Economic,  Social  and  Human  Costs  of   Personal  Immobility  conducted  by  Crain  &  Associates.    The  Project  Manager  for  the  Graham  County   Transit  Feasibility  Study,  Cliff  Chambers,  was  also  the  Project  Manager  for  this  nationwide  research   project.    In  this  research,  a  method  was  developed  to  define  and  measure  the  economic,  social  and   human  costs  of  immobility.  Eleven  case  studies  were  selected  and  economic  analysis  was  applied  to   quantify  the  economic  and  social  benefits  of  public  transportation  services,  including  rural  public   transportation.    Several  of  the  case  studies  were  in  rural  areas,  and  implications  of  the  findings  for   Graham  County  are  discussed.         Generalized  National  Findings  on  Economic  Benefits  of  Rural  Public   Transportation   The  following  are  four  major  findings  from  268  rural  areas  studied  by  TCRP  Report  34  of  counties  with   public  transportation  and  counties  without  public  transportation:       The  average  growth  differential  between  rural  communities  with  transit  and  rural  counties   without  transit  systems  was  11  percent.         The  average  annual  economic  impact  in  counties  where  transit  was  implemented  was  $1,092,293   in  1998  dollars.  Adjusted  to  2015  dollar  based  on  the  CPI,  this  is  $1,594,000  in  2015  dollars.   In  studying  the  cost/benefit  ratio  the  funding  of  rural  public  transportation  throughtout  the  FTA   5311  program  found  that  implementing  a  FTA  5311  had  a  benefit/cost  ratio  of  3.35  to  1.       Rural  transit  systems  that  were  able  to  offer  significant  levels  of  employment  benefits  to  their   riders  scored  quite  highly,  as  did  those  system  that  made  important  contributions  to  the  ability  of   local  residents  to  live  independently  and  to  access  critical  medical  services  (including  dialysis   treatment).      These  two  factors  should  be  seen  as  keys  to  success  in  generating  economic  impacts   in  the  locations  served  by  rural  transit  systems.     Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     52   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Types  of  Economic  Benefits   Both  national  research  efforts  reported  on  the  type  of  direct  and  indirect  benefits  of  rural  public   transportation.    The  benefits  include:         Savings  in  transportation  expenses  for  the  system’s  riders.   The  value  of  trips  that  would  not  have  been  made  without  the  transit  service.   Increased  income  from  the  systems  users  from  participation  in  rural  transit.   The  value  of  health  care  that  would  not  have  otherwise  been  obtained.   Salaries  to  drivers  and  other  employees.   Benefits  to  merchants  in  areas  served  by  the  transportation  system.   TCRP  Report  49  also  reported  on  societal  benefits  when  individuals  can  access  parts  of  society.    While   much  of  the  above  information  is  able  to  be  quantified,  the  following  benefits  are  not  easily  quantified.     Rural    public  transportation  provides  benefits  by  helping  to:        Avoid  medical  institutionalization  of  the  indigent.   Prevent  crime  by  providing  job  training  for  employment  and  food  for  the  hungry.   Provide  a  mobility  alternative  to  a  costly  ambulance  ride  for  medical  care.   Increasing  the  purchasing  power  enjoyed  by  transit  riders  with  access  to  jobs  or  to  broader  market   choices.   Relieve  other  agencies  funded  by  tax  dollars  of  transportation  responsibilities  and,  thereby,   increase  their  productivity.   Illustrative  Case  Studies  in  Rural  Areas   OATS,  Inc.,  Missouri   Since  1971,  OATS,  Inc.  has  been  providing  rural  public  transportation,  serving  87  of  Missouri’s  114   counties.    The  mission  of  OATS,  Inc  is  to  “provide  reliable  transportation  for  transportation   disadvantaged  Missourians  so  they  can  live  independently  in  their  own  communities.”    Graham   County  might  consider  adapting  this  mission  statement  for  its  own  use.       OATS  utilizes  a  mix  of  funding  sources  to  provide  a  broad  array  of  public  and  agency  based   transportation  services.    When  the  case  study  was  conducted  in  1998,  40.6%  of  the  funding  came   from  the  Area  Agency  on  Aging,  and  20.2%  came  from  FTA  5311.      For  the  87  counties  included,  the   overall  budget  was  $6.5  million  in  1998  dollars.  Today,  per  county,  the  annual  budget  is  $108,045.     OATS  utilizes  volunteer  county  committees  to  dispatch  trips  for  their  services.   In  order  to  estimate  the  economic  benefits  of  OATS,  the  research  team  asked  the  question,  What   costs  would  be  incurred  by  OATS  users  in  the  absence  of  the  OATS  system.  If  OATS  did  not  exist,  OATS   users  would  either:   1.    Not  make  a  desired  trip  because  a  transportation  alternative  is  not  available.  These  “missing”  trips   have  an  economic  value  because  the  user  is  not  able  to  receive  a  desired  or  needed  service  due  to   the  lack  of  transportation.    A  value  was  put  on  these  missing  trips  based  on  different  trip  purposes.  In   Graham  County,  where  no  public  transportation  is  provided,  the  “missing  trips”  also  have  an   economic  value.       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     53   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   2.    Substitute  an  auto  trip  for  OATS  trip.      Most  of  these  trips  would  be  provided  by  family  members   or  friends,  since  most  OATS  users  cannot  drive  or  do  not  have  access  to  an  automobile.      The  auto   trips  include  the  cost  of  operating  the  automobile  and  the  value  of  the  drivers’  time  to  make  the  trip.       In  Graham  County,    those  without  access  to  an  automobile  often  rely  on  family  or  friend  to  provide   an  auto  trip.  The  value  of  the  trip  is  the  sum  of  these  costs.   3.    Utilize  another  transportation  provider  to  make  the  desired  trip.    In  Graham  County,  this  is  a  very   common  practice  for  many  medical  trips  for  low  income  individuals.    This  includes  the  use  of  a  taxi,  or   in  the  case  of  individuals  with  Access,      a  private  vendor  provides  the  trip.    It  costs  $12  or  local  trip   within  Safford,  for  example  by  the  Access  vendor.        For  a  visit  to  medical  specialist,  it  costs  $200.           A  detailed  economic  analysis  was  conducted  to  detemine  the  benefits  and  costs  if  OATS  did  not   operate.      The  bottom  line  was  that  for  every  dollar  invested  in  the  OATS  program,      there  is  an   economic  benefit  of  $2.32.    A  benefit/cost  ratio  is  “quite  favorable”  concludes  the  research  effort,   with  the  usual  criterion  of  a  least  a  ratio  1.0  for  economically  viable  projects.      This  is  slightly  lower   than  the  national  benefit/cost  ratio  found  in  the  TCRP  Report  34  of  3.35/1.0.         Sweetwater  County  Transit  Authority   The  Sweetwater  County  (Wyoming)  Area  Transit  (STAR)  Authority  serves  a  very  sparsely  populated   rural  county  not  too  disimilar  from  Graham  County.      Initiated  in  1990,  STAR  integrated  service  with  a   number  of  client-­‐based,  agency-­‐operated  system  with  a  single  coordinated  public  transportation   system,  somewhat  similar  to  the  collaborative  effort  envisioned  in  Graham  County.      At  the  time  of   the  case  study,  the  service  was  demand  response  service  with  higher  than  average  productivity  of  5-­‐6   passenger  per  vehicle  service  hour.    This  is  similar  to  the  productivity  expected  from  the  fixed  route   and  schedule  trip  for  local  transit  within  Graham  County.   A  sample  of  calculation  of  benefits  based  on  1996  data  is  provided  below:   Access  To  Employement:    15,960  of  its  83,059  trips  provided  were  work  trips.    The  researchers   assumed  that  50%  of  systems  work  trip  riders  were  transit  dependent  with  no  other  means  of   transportation  and  thus  subject  to  the  probable  loss  of  their  job  without  the  STAR  public   transportation  service.    Using  the  minimum  wage,  they  calculated  the  annual  wage  of  the  16  workers   this  would  impact,  or  $174,720  in  1996  dollars.    In  addition,  STAR  had  recorded  28  persons  moved  off   of  public  assistance  due  to  their  use  of  public  transit.  The  researchers  assumed  that  the  welfare   benefits  were  half  of  the  employment  benefits,  and  for  28  individuals  moved  off  the  rolls,  this   equated  to  $152,880  in  economic  benefits.      Adding  the  employment  and  welfare  reduction  benefits   together,  there  was  an  employment  benefit  of  $327,600  in  1996  dollars  or  $494,000  in  2015  dollars.     The  lessons  learned  applicable  to  Graham  County  are  that  while  the  number  of  individuals  is   relatively  small  locally,    the  dollar  value  of  economic  benefit  is  relatively  high  even  when  measured   conservatively.         Access  to  Medical  Care  and  Other  Social  Services:    For  the  STAR  case  study,  medical  trips  accounted   for  7%  of  the  total  and  nutrition  trips  accounted  for  14%  representing  17,477  annual  trips.      The   researchers  estimated  that  most  of  the  nutrition  trips  and  about  one  third  of  the  medical  trips  would   not  have  been  made.      The  remaining  trips  would  probably  have  been  made,  but  at  a  much  higher   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     54   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   cost  for  the  passenger.      They  very  conservatively  assumed  a  $5.00  per  extra  cost,  much  lower  than  a   taxi  trip,  then  the  extra  trips  made  by  the  extra  mode  would  be  a  value  of  $36,000  for  the  7,200  trips.   They  decided  not  to  try  to  estimate  the  value  of  increased  health  or  nutrition  that  STAR  provided  to   its  passengers.      Stakeholders  in  Graham  County  discussed  the  cost  of  the  Access  vendor  trip  and  the   costs  of  a  taxi  trip  as  being  too  inexpensive  for  many  of  the  very  low  income  residents  who  might   utilize  public  transportation.      The  value  of  providing  lower  cost    service  to  replace  the  Access  vendor   trips  could  be  quite  substantial  in  Graham  County,  but  the  data  is  not  available  to  calculate  the  value   for  the  purposes  of  this  working  paper.         Access  to  Education  and  Counseling  Services:      These  trips  enable  the  travelers  to  increase  their  long-­‐ term  chance  of  employment  at  a  decent  wage.    Assuming  60%  of  those  in  the  STAR  program  graduate   to  a  paying  job,  and  that  half  of  these  graduates  take  transit,  the  researchers  estimated  that  90   individuals  are  using  STAR  for  those  purposes,  and  benefits  would  accrue  to  27  individuals.  The   researchers  concluded  there  would  be  $365,040  in  annual  wages  in  1996  dollars.        In  Graham  County,     it  would  need  to  be  determined  in  more  detail  what  the  economic  benefit  would  be  for  providing   public  transportation  for  Eastern  Arizona  College  students.    This  would  require  an  intercept  survey  of   students  to  provide  accurate  information,  but  the  economic  value  to  the  students  would  likely  be   very  high.   The  researchers  concluded  that  the  benefit/cost  ratio  would  be  3.5  to  one.             Inferences  for  Graham  County  based  on  National  Research   To  project  what  the  actual  benefit/cost  ratio  would  be  in  Graham  County  would  require  additional   data  collection.    An  intercept  random  sample  survey,  of    1,038  monthly  Workforce  Connection,    the   5,000  Department  of  Economic  Security  caseload,      Canyonland  Health  Clinic  clients,    and  Behavioral   Health  clients  would  be  necessary  to  gather  the  information  needed  to  make  an  informed  calculation   of  the  economic  benefits.    This  could  be  a  task  in  Phase  II  of  the  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility   Study  if  this  task  is  determined  to  be  a  priority  of  the  TAC.         However,  based  on  the  national  research,  the  likely  benefit/cost  ratio  would  likely  be  close  to  the     national  average  of  3.35  to  one,    with  a  likely  range  of  2.8  to  3.8  to  one.    Overall,  there  has  been  a   very  strong  consensus  that  there  is  need  for  public  transportation  in  Graham  County,      and  that  this   need  has  a  very  substanital  economic  value.    As  discussed  earlier,    the  more  important  questions  to   answer  are  whether  or  not  Graham  County  elected  officials  are  willing  and  able  to  1)  provide  financial   support  to  provide  the  needed  local  matching  funds  for  FTA  5311  and  2)  whether  or  not  the  proposed   Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority  would  be  supported  to  govern  and  manage  the   public  transportation  system.       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     55   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Appendix  A    Arizona  Statutes  for   Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority   28-9101. Definitions In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. "Authority" means an intergovernmental public transportation authority established pursuant to this chapter. 2. "Board" means the board of directors of an intergovernmental public transportation authority. 3. "Intergovernmental agreement" means an agreement or contract that meets the requirements of title 11, chapter 7, article 3. 4. "Municipality" means an incorporated city or town. 5. "Operating area" means an area established pursuant to this chapter within which the authority provides transportation services. 6. "Public transportation" means local transportation of passengers by means of a public conveyance.289102. Formation A. An intergovernmental public transportation authority may be organized as provided by this section in any county with a population of two hundred thousand persons or less. B. The governing body of one or more incorporated cities or towns may petition the county board of supervisors to establish an authority consisting of the area within the incorporated boundary of the municipality or municipalities. C. If the organizing municipalities are not contiguous, the unincorporated areas between the organizing municipalities must also be included in the authority with the approval of the county board of supervisors. The board of supervisors shall establish the boundaries of the unincorporated area to be included in the authority. D. Incorporated cities and towns in different counties, each of which meet the population limit prescribed by subsection A, may petition their respective county boards of supervisors to establish a joint authority consisting of the combined areas within their respective municipal boundaries and including any intervening unincorporated areas in the counties. E. The board of supervisors shall hold at least one hearing on the petition in one of the petitioning municipalities to determine public support for the authority and whether establishing the authority would be in the public interest. In the case of petitioning municipalities in different counties, the board of supervisors of each county shall hold separate hearings and each board shall make its determination separately. F. If the board of supervisors determines that establishing the authority would serve the public convenience, necessity, safety or welfare, the board of supervisors shall establish the authority by a resolution that includes a description of the boundaries of the authority. In the case of an authority in different counties, the county boards of supervisors shall establish the authority by an intergovernmental agreement. G. If an authority is established under this chapter, any university that is under the jurisdiction of the Arizona board of regents and that is located in a municipality in the authority, any community college district that is located in a municipality in the authority, or any Indian nation that has a boundary within a county in which an authority is established, may become a member of the authority by intergovernmental agreement.   28-9103. Corporate existence; rights and immunities; official name A. An authority is a corporate body and political subdivision of this state that may act in its official corporate name and has all of the rights and immunities of municipal corporations that are granted by the constitution and statutes of this state, including immunity of its property from taxation. B. The initial board of directors of the authority shall adopt the official name of the authority that shall contain the words "intergovernmental public transportation authority".     Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     56