Graham County Transit Feasibility Study Prepared by: Mobility Planners and Transit Marketing Executive Summary Feasibility Working Paper July 2015 Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   Phase  One  Executive  Summary   The  Arizona  Department  of  Transportation  (ADOT)  is  funding  a  planning  grant  to  study  the  feasiblity   of  public  transportation  in  Graham  County.    A  planning  grant  application  was  submitted  by  Graham   County  for  the  study.  The  purpose  of  the  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  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  a  viable  governance  structure  exist  or  can  one  be  created  to  govern,  manage  and  comply   with  federal  funding  regulations?   3) Does  sufficient  local  or  other  financial  support  exist  to  provide  necessary  matching  funds  for   federal  funding  to  financially  sustain  transit  services  over  time?     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  of  the  first  phase  of  the  study  regarding   whether  or  not  public  transportation  is  feasible.  The  working  paper  has  been  reviewed  by  the   Technical  Advisory  Committee  (TAC)  and  a  recommendation  is  being  made  to  the  Graham  County   Board  of  Supervisors,  City  of  Safford  City  Council,  City  of  Thatcher  City  and  the  Pima  Town  Council   that  public  transportation  is  feasibile  and  should  be  established  for  the  Pima-­‐Thatcher-­‐Safford-­‐ Solomon  area.These  elected  bodies  are  being  asked  to  take  an  advisory  vote  regarding  their   willingness  to  participating  in  supporting  a  potential  public  transportation  system  by  providing  local   funding  to  match  Federal  Transit  Administration  Rural  Transit  Funding.  The  outcome  of  these  votes   will  determine  if  the  study  should  move  to  the  second  phase  of  the  analysis  –  development  of  a   detailed  service,  financial  and  marketing  plan.   Rural  Public  Transportation  Funding   If  there  is  an  identified  public  transportation  need  in  a  rural  area  like  Graham  County,  an  eligible   entity  can  apply  for  Federal  Transit  Administration  (FTA)  5311  funding  to  support  a  public   transportation  service.     Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     1   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   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.   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.  The  transportation  services  funded  under  Section  5311  must  be  open  and  marketed   to  the  general  public.   The  FTA  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.     Local  financial  support  is  needed  to  cover  the  balance  of  the  expenses.   Local  match  funding  typically  comes  from  the  local  sponsoring  agency  or  agencies,  usually  a  local   government  agency,  but  other  sources  may  also  support  the  transit  program.  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  overall  goal  of  this  study  is  to  determine  if  it  is  feasible  to  establish  a  Rural  Transit  program  within   Graham  County  and  whether  an  application  should  be  submitted  to  ADOT  to  become  part  of  the  FTA   5311  program.       Public  Involvement  Effort   To  understand  the  potential  need  for  public  transportation  within  Graham  County,    an  extensive   outreach  effort  was  conducted.    This  included:         Three  meetings  of  the  Technical  Advisory  Committee  which  included  representatives  of  the   ADOT,  Graham  County,  City  of  Safford,  Town  of  Thatcher,  Town  of  Pima,  Eastern  Arizona   College,  SEAGO,  Freeport-­‐McMoran,  Chamber  of  Commerce,  SEACAP,  Blake  Foundation,   SEACUS,  SEABHS,  DES,  Mount  Graham  Medical  Center  and  other  social  service  agencies.   Twelve  stakeholder  interviews  with  representatives  from  social  service  agencies,  government   agencies,  tribal  transit    and  the  private  sector.  Several  elected  officials  were  also  interviewed.   Focus  groups  of  students  from  Eastern  Arizona  College,    clients  from  the  Department  of   Economic  Security  and  Workforce  Connections,    WIC  Clients  through  County  Public  Health   and  seniors  at  the  SEACUS  Senior  Center.     Three  public  workshops  in  the  City  of  Safford  ,  Town  of  Thatcher,  and  Town  of  Pima.     Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     2   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Existing  and  Planned  Transportation  Services   The  San  Carlos  Apache  Nnee  Bich’o  Nii  Transit  provides  the  only  general  public  transit  service  within   Graham  County.    They  operate  intercity  routes  that  are  open  to  the  general  public  but  that  are   designed  to  meet  the  needs  of  tribal  members.  Buses  operate  Monday  through  Friday  on  three   routes:  San  Carlos-­‐Safford,  San  Carlos-­‐Globe,  and  Bylas-­‐San  Carlos.   The  San  Carlos  to  Safford  route  provides  public  transportation  within  the  study  area.    Three  round   trips  per  day  serve  Pima,  Thatcher  and  Safford.  The  route  includes  stops  at  key  destinations  within   the  study  area  including  Pima,  Eastern  Arizona  College,  Walmart  and  Mount  Graham  Medical  Center.     It  provides  service  to  San  Carlos  and  the  Apache  Gold  Casino,  with  connecting  service  to  Globe.  While   some  Safford  residents  routinely  use  the  San  Carlos  service,  many  stakeholders  reported  to  the   consulting  team  that  their  constituents  believe  that  the  service  is  only  available  to  tribe  members.   The  Tribe  is  taking  steps  to  remedy  this  incorrect  perception.   The  SouthEastern  Arizona  Community  Action  Progam  (SEACAP)  provides  transportation  services  in   the  Safford,  Pima  and  Thatcher  area.  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  shoping  and  Department  of   Economic  Security  (DES)  visits.      SEACAP  is  able  to  serve  about  15-­‐16  one-­‐way  passenger  trips  a  day.       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   transportation  to  and  from  day  programs,  residential  programs,  individual  homes  and  for  a  variety  of   recreational  purposes.    SAGE  also  provides  seniors  with  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  availability,  or  vacation  or  illness  of   SEACAP  drivers.             There  are  at  least  three  existing  providers  of  private  transportation  service  including  a  local  taxi   service,  a  limousine  service,  and  a  provider  of  non-­‐emergency  medical  transportation.   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,  Texas  with  intermediate  stops  in  Mesa,  Superior,  Miami,  Globe,  Peridot,  Bylas,   Safford,  Duncan,  Lordsburg  and  Las  Cruces.    This  proposed  service  would  serve  rural  residents  in  the   communities  identified  in  the  schedule  and  connect  with  public  transit  service  provided  by  Cobre   Valley  Transit  in  Globe,  by  the  San  Carlos  Apache  Transit  in  Bylas  and  Peridot,  and  by  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.       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     3   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Transportation  Needs   Is  there  community  support  and  adequate  potential  ridership  for  a  viable  public  transit  system  in   Graham  County?   The  2007  Transit  Feasibily  Study  found  that  there  was  significant  need  for  public  transportation  in   Graham  County.    The  outreach  conducted  during  Phase  One  of  the  current  study  strongly  supports   that  finding.    Interviews  with  stakeholders  and  focus  groups  with  potential  users  indicate  that  there   are  four  key  market  segments  with  a  need  for  public  transportation:   Low  income  persons  without  a  driver’s  license  or  without  access  to  an  automobile  to  get  to  training,   jobs  and  other  needs.  According  to  the  Census,  22.3%  of  Graham  County  residents  live  below  the   poverty  level  -­‐  almost  1  in  4  or  8,300  Graham  County  residents.  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)     program  has  a  caseload  of  1,120  with  985  participating  in  the  program  currently  in  Graham   County.  Staff  at  the  WIC  program  and  the  department  of  health  believe  that  a  public   transportation  system  would  provide  siginificant  benefit  to  their  clients  not  only  for  trips  to   the  program,  but  for  general  health  care,  grocery  shopping  and  other  travel.     The  Workforce  Connection  is  based  in  Safford  and  is  a  One  Stop  service  for  unemployed  and   underemployed  persons.  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.  The  cost  for  a  local  trip  by  the  Acccess  transportation  vendor  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  8,300  residents  in  Graham  County  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.     College  students  living  on  campus  at  Eastern  Arizona  College  without  an  automobile.      Eastern   Arizona  College  has  approximately  3,500  students  (1500  full  time  and  2000  parti-­‐time).    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.        Growing  senior  population,  which  will  likely  outstrip  the  available  capacity  of  the  SEACAP   transportation  program.    Older  adults  (65  years  of  age  or  older)  make  up  12.2%  of  the  Graham   County  population.    This  represents  4,500  seniors,  from  Pima  to  Solomon,  with  the  percentage   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     4   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   consistently  very  close  to  12%  in  each  jurisdiction.    The  number  of  olders  adults  75  years  old  and   above  is  5.1%  or  about  1,900  individuals.  These  older  adults  75+  are  the  ones  with  a  higher   propensity  to  need  specialized  transportation  service  like  what  is  currently  provided  by  SEACAP.         Persons  with  disabilities,  including  behavioral  health  clients.  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  driver’s  license.         Based  on  both  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.    The  quantitative  information  provided  by  social  service  agencies  on  their   caseloads,  census  data,  and  estimates  of  transit  needs  based  on  national  research  all  corroborate  the   need  for  local  public  transportation  in  Graham  County       Based  on  national  research  from  an  arm  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences,  transportation  needs   for  Graham  County  were  quantified  based  on  an  estimation  model  for  rural  public  transportation   needs.  The  estimation  of  transit  need  from  Pima  to  Solomon  is  256,800  annual  transit  trips.    The   transit  need  could  be  served  by  a  combination  of  human  service  agency  transportation  and  public   transportation  services.       Public  Transportation  Service  Delivery  Options   The  working  paper  and  discussions  with  the  Technical  Advisory  Committee  explored  five  service   delivery  options  for  meeting  the  identified  needs  within  Graham  County:   1.      Expand  the  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  capability  to  make  it  available  to  the  general  public,  Monday  to  Friday     from  7:00  am  to  6:00  pm.         2.      Expand  Dial-­‐a-­‐Ride  to  the  general  public,  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.     3.    Implement  a  checkpoint  Dial-­‐a-­‐Ride.  service  as  was  recommended  in  the  2007  Graham  County   Transit  Feasibility  Study.       4.    Implement  a  local  flex  route  service  that  is  open  to  the  general  public  and  would  deviate  up  to  ¾   miles  from  the  route  to  pick  up  passengers.         5.  Implement  a  community  service  route  plus  dial-­‐a-­‐ride  service,  both  open  to  the  general  public.       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     5   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Recommended  Service  Delivery  Option   The  clear  consensus  of  the  TAC  was  for  option  five,  a  community  service  route  between  Pima,   Thatcher,  Safford  and  Solomon,  plus  expansion  of  Dial-­‐a-­‐Ride  service  to  the  general  public.    This   concept  was  strongly  supported  by  input  from  stakeholders  and  focus  group  participants  throughout   the  outreach  process.    On  July  7,  the  TAC  voted  to  recommend  this  service  option  which  would   include  the  following  characteristics.        A  fixed  bus  route  would  be  established  and  operated  with  a  single  bus  on  weekdays  (except   holidays),  from  7:00  am  to  6:00  pm.   § The  core  route  would  serve  the  Pima,  Thatcher  and  Safford  area  throughout  the  day,  with   seven  to  nine  round  trips.    Extensions  of  the  route  to  Daley  Estates,  Solomon  and  the  191   Corridor  (from  Safford  south)  would  be  served  with  three  round  trips  each  day.    (A   preliminary  route  is  shown  on  the  Service  Concept  Map  below).   § The  community  service  route  would  combine  curbside  stops  with  stops  within  major   activity  centers  (such  as  medical  center  and  grocery  store)  to  limit  the  amount  of  walking   required  to  reach  key  destinations.       A  second  bus  would  be  used  to  provide  general  public  Dial-­‐a-­‐Ride  service  within  a  defined   area  (shown  on  the  Service  Concept  Map).  The  General  Public    Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  would   operate  weekdays    from  7:00  am  to  6:00  pm.      Advanced  reservation  trips    would  receive   priority  over  same  day  requests.   § This  service  would  both  satisfy  the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  requirement  for   complementary  paratransit  for  persons  unable  to  use  the  fixed  route  and  would  offer   service  to  areas  outside  the  reach  of  the  fixed  route.       § If  possible,  the  Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  would  be  coordinated  with  the  current  SEACAP   Dial-­‐A-­‐Ride  service  that  is  funded  by  the  Area  Agency  on  Aging  and  is  primarily  limited   to  seniors  and  persons  with  disabilities.  Under  this  coordination  approach,  the   governing  entity  would  enter  into  a  MOU  with  SEACAP  to  provide  the  expanded  Dial-­‐ a-­‐Ride  service  (SEACAP’s  existing  one-­‐bus  operation,  plus  an  additional  bus  funded  by   FTA  5311),  making  the  $30,000  that  SEACAP  receives  in  Area  Agency  on  Aging  funding   eligible  for  in-­‐kind  match.         A  generalized  concept  map  of  the  community  service  route  and  Dial-­‐a-­‐Ride  service  area   boundary  is  shown  on  the  map  on  the  following  page.  A  more  refined  service  design  and  map   would  be  developed  in  the  second  phase  of  the  Transit  Feasibility  Study.     Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     6   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Estimated  Ridership   The  best  estimate  of  ridership  for  the  recommended  Graham  County  transit  service  is  approximately   31,000  annual  trips,  likely  at  the  end  of  the  second  full  year  of  implementation.  This  is  based  on   national  statistics  and  the  experience  of  comparable  Arizona  communities.     National  research  methodology  indicates  that  the  ridership  for  a  two  bus  public  transporation   system  can  be  expected  to  be  in  the  range  of  21,700  to  45,641  annual  transit  trips.   FY  2012/13,  Benson  Transit  provided  an  estimated  20,000  annual  trips,  and  the  more   extensive  Douglas  transit  service  with  a  greater  service  supply  and  service  levels  had  ridership   of  51,572.       A  five-­‐year  goal  of  45,000  to  50,000  annual  transit  trips  would  be  a  reasonable  and  realistic  objective   for  a  local  public  transportation  service  in  Graham  County,  between  Pima  and  Solomon.     Governance  Structure   Does  a  viable  governance  structure  exist  or  can  one  be  created  in  Graham  County  to  govern,   manage  and  comply  with  federal  funding  regulations?      This  is  a  critical  question  that  must  be   answered  by  the  Graham  County  Board  of  Supervisors,  and  City  of  Stafford,  Town  Thatcher,  and   Town  of  Pima  City  Councils.         There  are  three  primary  governance  options:   1.    Governance  by  an  existing  public  entity  such  as  Graham  County  or  the  City  of  Safford.  Under  this   governance  alternative,  an  existing  city  or  county  would  take  responsibility  for  the  public   transportation  function;    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.   2.    Governance  by  an  existing  private  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  private  non-­‐profit  candidates  in  Graham  County.         3.    Governance  by  a  shared  governance  structure,  an  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation   Authority  (IPTA).    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  population  are  organized  as  an  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority.  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.       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     8   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   One  important  factor  is  selecting  a  governance  structure  is  the  financial  capability  of  the  governing   entity.    They  must  be  able  to  sustain  the  cash  flow  required  to  operate  the  transit  service  under  the   ADOT’s  cost  reimbursement  system.    With  the  exception  of  buses  purchased  through  the  state   contract,  all  expenses  must  be  paid  in  full  by  the  governing  agency  and  then  be  submitted  for   reimbursement  by  ADOT.   Representatives  from  the  Town  of  Pima,  Town  of  Thatcher,  City  of  Safford,    and  Graham  County   generally  believed  that  the  public  transportation  service  “needs  to  be  a  combined  effort.”    The   concept  of  shared  funding  and  governance  was  a  common  theme  among  other  stakeholder   interviews  as  well.    An  Intergovernmenal  Public  Transportation  Authority,  “has  the  best  chance  to   survive  over  the  long-­‐term.”  according  to  one  key  stakeholder.       Any  combination  of    potential  members  can  petition  the  County  Board  of  Supervisors  to  establish  an   Intergovernmenal  Public  Transportation  Authority  consisting  of  their  combined  areas  in  the  county.     The  County  Board  of  Supervisors  would  hold  a  public  hearing  on  the  petition  to  determine  public   support  for  the  authority  and  whether  establishing  the  authority  would  be  in  the  public  interest.    If   successful,  the  County  Board  of  Supervisors  would  approve  a  resolution  that  includes  the  boundaries   of  the  authority.    Additional  members  can  be  added  over  time  by  the  same  petitioning  process.  The   Intergovernmenal  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.     In  each  of  the  above  governance  options,  the  governing  entity  would  hire  or  contract  for  a  Transit   Manager  to  manage  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  operations  of  a  public  transportation  service.     It  is  the  consensus  of  the  TAC  that  an  IPTA  would  be  the  most  viable  governance  structure  to  govern,   manage  and  comply  with  federal  funding  regulations  for  a  Graham  County  public  transportation   service.  The  TAC  has  recommended  that  an  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority  be   established  with  potential  members  including  Graham  County,  City  of  Safford,  Town  of  Thatcher,   Town  of  Pima  and  Eastern  Arizona  College.       Financial  Feasibility   The  Phase  One  Working  Paper  includes  an  extensive  financial  feasibility  analysis    to  help  decision-­‐ makers  in  Graham  County  answer  two  key  questions:   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?   This  section  will  briefly  summarize  the  key  findings  of  that  analysis.    Please  note  that  the  budget   information  provided  here  uses  generalized  budget  assumptions  in  order  to  provide  decision-­‐makers   a  reasonable  estimated  range  of  local  resources  required  to  implement  a  Section  5311  funded  rural   transit  program  in  Graham  County  over  a  five-­‐year  period.    The  generalized  budget  assumes  that  a   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     9   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   community  service  route  and  general  public  dial-­‐a-­‐ride  service  (as  described  on  page  6)  is   implemented  with  5,566  vehicle  service  hours  during  the  first  year  of  operation.     This  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  is  required  during  Phase  One  of  the  Transit  Feasibility  Study.    The  Towns  of   Pima  and  Thatcher,  City  of  Safford,  and  Graham  County  governing  bodies  will  be  asked  to  vote  on  a   resolution  stating  that,  subject  to  approval  of  a  final  operating  and  capital  financial  plan,    the  entity  is   a  willing  and  able  partner  in  providing  the  necessary  local  match  funding  to  support  a  public   transportation  system  in  Graham  County.  A  more  detailed  and  specific  5-­‐year  operations  and  capital   budget  would  be  prepared  for  final  consideration  and  commitment  in  Phase  Two  of  the  Graham   County  Transit  Feasibility  Study.     Three  Financial  Scenarios   There  are  many  cost  and   Cash  and  In-­‐Kind  Contributions revenue  variables  that  will   5-­‐Year  Average need  to  be  addressed  in  the   $180,000   second  phase  of  the  Graham   County  Transit  Feasibility   $160,000   Study.    To  allow  for  different   $140,000   outcomes,  the  Phase  One   $120,000   report  analyzed  three   $100,000   financial  scenarios,  each  with   $80,000   different  assumptions  about   $60,000   costs,  use  of  in-­‐kind   contributions  and  growth  of   $40,000   services.  These  provide  a   $20,000   bracket  of  potential  costs  and   $-­‐ revenues  that  would  be   Very  Conservative Best  Estimate Growth/Minimized  Cost required  to  match  available   Cash Inkind FTA  5311  funding.    The  chart   at  the  right  illustrates  the  range  of  local  cash  and  in-­‐kind  contributions  that  would  be  required  to   sustain  the  system  over  five  years,  under  different  scenarios.   The  “Best  Estimate”  scenario  is  based  on  known  cost  information  and  a  moderate  level  of  in-­‐kind   contributions.    Costs  are  calculated  based  on  the  average  of  actual  2012/13  costs  from  three   southeastern  Arizona  rural  agencies  (inflated  to  2015  dollars).  This  provides  the  most  realistic   estimate  of  local  match  requirments  and  will  be  used  as  the  basis  of  estimates  throughout  the   remainder  of  this  section.   Cost/Revenue  Categories   Implementation  of  a  public  transit  service  will  involve  three  types  of  costs  and  revenues  –   administrative,  operating  and  capital.    The  financial  anaylsis  considers  all  of  these  as  follows.   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     10   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Administrative  costs  include  the  salary  and  fringe  benefit  costs  for  the  project  director  and  Transit   Manager.    It  also  includes  secretarial  services,  insurance  costs,  facilties  to  house  the  administration  of   the  transit  program,  as  well  as  office  supplies  and  rental  equipment  necessary  for  administration.     Administrative  costs  can  be  no  more  than  30%  of  the  budget.    Section  5311  covers  80%  of   administrative  costs.   Operating  expenses  are  those  costs  directly  related  to  system  operations.  At  a  minimum,  this   includes:  salaries  and  fringe  benefits  for  drivers,  dispatchers  and  transit  supervisors;  fuel,  oil  and   parts;  vehicle  maintenance;  and    licenses.  Net  operating  costs  are  the  total  of  these  operating  costs   minus  fare  revenues.  Section  5311  covers  58%  of  net  operating  costs.   Capital  expenses  include  the  acquisition  and  improvement  of  public  transit  equipment  and  facilities   needed  for  an  efficient  public  transit  system.  FTA  Section  5311  covers  80%  of  capital  costs.   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  uitlized  as  a  spare,  for  use  when  one  of  the   operating  buses  needs  repairs  or  preventative  maintenance.  Other  capital  costs  include  bus  stops,   bus  shelters,  accessibility  improvements  and  other  equipment.   Best  Estimate  Cost  Summary   The  table  at  top  of  the  next  page  is  a  summary  of  the  administrative,  operating  and  capital  costs  for   the  first  five  years  of  a  public  transportation  program  in  Graham  County.    It  is  based  on  the  Best   Estimate  scenario  and  includes  the  following  assumptions:       Year  One  would  be  devoted  to  handling  start-­‐up  tasks.  The  three  buses  would  be  ordered   early  in  the  year  and  delivered  later  in  the  same  year.  Service  would  begin  operation  in  Year   Two.   The  increase  in  vehicle  service  hours  shown  in  the  third  and  fourth  years  are  based  on  an   assumed  increase  in  the  span  of  coverage  in  Year  Three  and  initiation  of  Saturday  service  in   Year  Four.  This  is  a  normal  progression  in  public  transportation  service  development.       Fares  are  assumed  to  be  low:  $1.00  for  the  general  public,  $0.50  for  the  elderly  and  disabled,   and  free  fare  for  children.   The  $30,000  of  local  in-­‐kind  match  for  operations  would  potentially  result  from  a   memorandum  of  understanding  with  SEACAP  by  the  governing  entity  for  providing  dial-­‐a-­‐ride   services  as  part  of  a  coordinated  approach  to  public  transportation  service  delivery.    SEACAP   currently  receive  $30,000  annually  in  Area  Agency  of  Aging  funding  from  SEAGO.  This  could   be  used  to  match  the  5311  funding.   The  table  shows  how  each  category  of  costs  will  be  funded  through  a  combination  of  FTA  funding,   local  cash  contriubtions  and  local  in-­‐kind  contributions.   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     11   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Best  Estimate  Scenario  Preliminary  Estimate First  Year Administrative  Costs  and  Revenues        Total  Administrative  Cost $          120,000          FTA  5311  Share  (80%) $              96,000          Local  Share  (20%) $              24,000                Cash $              11,000                In-­‐Kind $              13,000 Operating  Costs        Estimated  Vehicle  Hours        Total  Operating  Costs        Fare  Revenue        Net  Operating  Costs        FTA  5311  Share  (58%)        Local  Share  (42%)              Cash              In-­‐Kind Capital  Costs First  Year          Buses $          240,000          Bus  s helters/access   $          110,000          Signage  and  panels $              30,000          Equipment  and  Other $              45,000          Total  Capital  Costs $          425,000          FTA  5311  Share  (80%) $          340,000          Local  Share  (20%) $              85,000                Cash $              42,500                In-­‐Kind $              42,500 Total  Costs $          545,000 Total  Local  Share  Required $          109,000 Second  Year Third  Year Fourth  Year Fifth  Year $125,000 $          100,000 $              25,000 $              11,610 $              13,390 $128,750 $          103,000 $              25,750 $                  7,958 $              17,792 $132,613 $          106,090 $              26,523 $                  7,317 $              19,205 $136,591 $          109,273 $              27,318 $                  6,687 $              20,632 Second  Year Third  Year Fourth  Year Fifth  Year                      5,566 $          294,998 $17,174 $277,824 $161,138 $116,686 $86,686 $              30,000 Second  Year                      6,072 $          331,470 $19,297 $312,173 $181,060 $131,113 $101,113 $              30,000 Third  Year                      7,394 $          369,866 $24,204 $345,662 $200,484 $145,178 $115,178 $              30,000 Fourth  Year                      7,394 $          380,962 $24,930 $356,032 $206,499 $149,533 $119,533 $              30,000 Fifth  Year $              30,000 $              10,000 $              15,000 $              55,000 $              44,000 $              11,000 $                  5,500 $                  5,500 $          474,998 $          152,686 $              10,300 $              10,609 $              15,000 $              10,300 $              25,609 $                  8,240 $              20,487 $                  2,060 $                  5,122 $                  2,060 $                  5,122 $              10,927 $              10,927 $                  8,742 $                  2,185 $                  2,185 $          470,520 $          528,087 $          528,480 $          158,923 $          176,822 $          179,037   Under  the  best  estimate  scenario,  total  costs  average  just  over  $500,000  per  year  over  a  five-­‐year   period.  The  required  total  local  match  ranges  from  $109,000  to  approximately  $179,000  over  the   five-­‐year  period.    It  is  assumed  that  this  local  match  will  be  met  using  a  combination  of  cash  and  in-­‐ kind  contributions  as  shown  in  the  table.   Cost  Allocation   The  consensus  of  the  TAC  was  that  total   population  within  the  transit  service  area   should  be  the  basis  for  cost  allocation  of  costs   to  the  IPTA  members.    The  chart  at  the  right   shows  the  estimated  “population”  for  each  of   the  proposed  IPTA  partners  and  the   preliminary  cost  share.   Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing   Population Safford 9,556 Thatcher 4,848 Graham  County 5,000 Pima 2,387 Eastern  Arizona  College 3,500   Illustrative Percentage 40% 20% 20% 10% 10% 12   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015     The  local  cash  contributions  required  to  support  the  proposed  transit  service  are  the  total  local  share   minus  the  projected  in-­‐kind  contributions.  In  Year  Two  (the  first  full  year  of  operation),  the  best   estimate  scenario  estimates  a  need  for  $152,686  in  total  local  share.  This  is  projected  to  include   $48,890  of  in-­‐kind  services  and  $103,796  in  cash  contributions  allocated  among  the  IPTA  partners.   Another  $5,152  of  cash  is  anticipated  to  be  contributed  by  other  social  service  agency  partners  by   purchasing  transit  passes.    The  result  is  a  total  of  $108,948  in  cash  contributions.         The  allocation  of  local  contributions  by  potential  members  of  the  IPTA  is  shown  below.    The  chart   shows  total  contributions  for  each  partners,  for  each  of  the  first  five  years  of  the  program.    The   contributions  would  potentially  include  a  mix  of  cash  and  in-­‐kind  contributions.   Primary  Partner  Shares  Based  on  Population First  Year Second  Year Safford    (40%) $              43,600 $              61,074 Graham  County  (20)%) $              21,800 $              30,537 Thatcher  (20%) $              21,800 $              30,537 Pima  (10%) $              10,900 $              15,269 Eastern  Arizona  College  (10%) $              10,900 $              15,269 Total  Local  Share $          109,000 $          152,686 Third  Year $              63,569 $              31,785 $              31,785 $              15,892 $              15,892 $          158,923 Fourth  Year $              70,729 $              35,364 $              35,364 $              17,682 $              17,682 $          176,822 Fifth  Year $              71,615 $              35,807 $              35,807 $              17,904 $              17,904 $          179,037   Economic  Benefits  of  Rural  Public  Transportation   Do  the  benefits  of  providing  a  public  transit  system  outweigh  the  costs  of  service  delivery?   Following  are  four  major  findings  from  268  rural  areas  studied  by  a  Transit  Cooperative  Research  Program   (TCRP)  Study  of  counties  with  public  transportation  and  counties  without  public  transportation.    TCRP  is  an   arm  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences.          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  dollars  based  on  the  CPI,  this  is  $1,594,000  in  2015  dollars.   A  study  of  the  cost/benefit  ratio  of  funding  rural  public  transportation  through  the  FTA  5311   program  found  that  implementing  a  FTA  5311  program  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  systems  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.     Access  to  higher  education  is  often  an  important  benefit  of  rural  transit.    In  Douglas,  Arizona,     Douglas  Rides  provides  about  1000  trips  per  month  on  their  Cochise  College  route  during  the   school  year.     Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     13   Task  Assignment  MPD  028  2015  Graham  County  Transit  Feasibility  Study   July  13,  2015   Next  Steps   The  Technical  Advisory  Committee  will  present  the  findings  of  Phase  One  of  the  Graham  County   Transit  Feasibility  Study  and  the  TAC’s  recommendation  regarding  governance  and  funding  to  the   governing  bodies  for  the  potential  Intergovernmental  Public  Transportation  Authority  members.     These  bodies  will  be  asked  to  take  an  advisory  vote  regarding  their  willingness  to  financially  support  a   local  public  transportation  service  with  their  fair  share  of  local  cash  contributions  allocated  based  on   population  shares.  Please  note  that  estimated  costs  will  be  refined  during  Phase  Two  of  the  Transit   Feasibility  Study.    Final  cash  and  in-­‐kind  contribution  shares  will  be  presented  to  each  group  for   formal  approval  prior  to  initiation  of  the  program.       Mobility  Planners/Transit  Marketing     14