SPR-733

JULY 2016

Transit in
Greater Arizona

Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center

Transit in Greater Arizona
SPR‐733
July 2016

Prepared by:
Joseph McClure
McClure Consulting, LLC.
5070 North 40th Street, Suite 205
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Bruce Hernandez
Behavior Research Center, Inc.
45 East Monterey Way
Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Published by:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
In cooperation with
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

This report was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration, US Department
of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for
the facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation of previously published material,
presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona
Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration, US Department of
Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or
manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to
the objectives of the report. The US government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or
manufacturers.

1. Report No.

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

FHWA‐AZ‐16‐733
4. Title and Subtitle

5. Report Date

Transit in Greater Arizona

July 2016
6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

8. Performing Organization Report No.

Joseph McClure, Bruce Hernandez
9. Performing Organization Name and Address

10. Work Unit No.

McClure Consulting, LLC
5070 N. 40th Street, Suite 205
Phoenix, AZ 85018

11. Contract or Grant No.

SPR‐PL1 (187) 733

Behavior Research Center, Inc.
45 East Monterey Way
Phoenix, AZ 85012
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

FINAL (07/2014 – 10/2015)
14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Project performed in cooperation with the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration.
16. Abstract

This study informed the Arizona Department of Transportation’s future State Transit Plan. The study
addressed transit planning and use with emphasis on Greater Arizona, those portions of the state that
consist primarily of rural areas or smaller cities. Findings were compiled through a literature review, a
household survey on travel preferences and behaviors, an inventory of transportation service providers in
the private sector (including some non‐profits) serving Greater Arizona, and other research related to the
future State Transit Plan. Survey data and the transportation‐provider database were reported by Greater
Arizona subregions.
Almost half of household‐survey respondents stated that lack of public transportation was the biggest
transportation problem in their local area. Other survey findings suggested that this might be due in part
to a lack of awareness of local transportation options. The online survey poll of transportation providers
yielded information from a small but diverse set of respondents, approximately half of whom were
located outside the major metropolitan regions of Phoenix and Tucson.
17. Key Words

18. Distribution Statement

transit, transportation service
providers, household survey, Greater
Arizona, State Transit Plan, rural
transit planning

Document is available to the US
public through the National
Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.

19. Security
Classification

21. No. of Pages

Unclassified

20. Security Classification

Unclassified

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8‐72)

108

Reproduction of completed page

22. Price

23. Registrant’s Seal

v

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1
DERIVATION OF KEY OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 2

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3
DEFINITION OF GREATER ARIZONA ........................................................................................................................... 3
STUDY TASKS ............................................................................................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 5
DOCUMENT REVIEWS ...............................................................................................................................................6
Regional and Generational Patterns in Use of Transportation Modes ................................................................. 6
Expressed Generational Preferences for Transit Use and other Lifestyle Choices................................................. 8
Are Millennials Changing Cities, and If So, Based on What Underlying Factors? ............................................... 10
Urban Changes and Seniors ................................................................................................................................11
City and other Area Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 13
Communication Technology’s Influence on Transportation, Transit Use, and Planning..................................... 14
Transit Planning Processes and Considerations .................................................................................................. 15
Expansion and Redefinition of Role of Transportation Agencies: Implications for Rural Transit ........................17

CHAPTER 3. PROFILE OF TRAVEL PREFERENCES AND BEHAVIORS IN GREATER ARIZONA .................... 21
INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................... 21
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................................21
SURVEY FINDINGS....................................................................................................................................................24
Biggest Problem with Local Transportation System ........................................................................................... 24
Current Utilization of Selected Transportation Options ...................................................................................... 26
Rating of Local Public Transit Availability ........................................................................................................... 32
Awareness of Local Public Transit Options ......................................................................................................... 37
Interest in Using Local Public Transit Options ..................................................................................................... 39
DISCUSSION OF SURVEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 44
Context ................................................................................................................................................................ 44
Selected Highlights of Overall Results ................................................................................................................. 44
Regional Variations .............................................................................................................................................45
Demographic Variations .....................................................................................................................................45
Comparison of Sample to the Universe ............................................................................................................... 47

CHAPTER 4. GREATER ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS ......................................................... 49
THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PROVIDER DATABASE .......................................................................................... 49
Data Refinement Process ....................................................................................................................................50
DISTINCTIONS AMONG TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS ......................................................................................... 50
INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT ........................................................................................................................................51
GREATER ARIZONA TRANSIT SERVICE AVAILABILITY ANALYSIS............................................................................... 54
ONLINE SURVEY OF PRIVATE AND NON‐PROFIT‐SECTOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PROVIDERS .......................56
ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS, RESPONSE RATE, AND FINDINGS .................................................................................. 56
Organizational Information for Responding Transportation Providers .............................................................. 57
General Operational Characteristics of Responding Transportation Providers .................................................. 60

vi

Services Offered, Typical Trip Purposes, and Vehicles Used by Transportation Providers .................................. 62
Trip Location and Duration .................................................................................................................................64
Discussion of Transportation Provider Profile from Survey Results .................................................................... 67

CHAPTER 5. INTEGRATION OF FINDINGS WITH STATE TRANSIT PLAN ................................................. 69
KEY OBSERVATIONS RELEVANT TO FUTURE STATE TRANSIT PLAN ......................................................................... 69
OVERVIEW OF HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 70
Regional Variations .............................................................................................................................................72
SPECIFIC THEMES ADDRESSED ................................................................................................................................74
Millennials ...........................................................................................................................................................74
Seniors................................................................................................................................................................. 74
EVOLVING TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND PROCESSES ................................76
Relationship of Transportation/Transit Planning to Rural Communities’ Economic Development ....................76
OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION PROVIDER FINDINGS......................................................................................... 78
Summary of Findings from the Transportation Provider Inventory .................................................................... 78
Summary of Findings from Transportation Provider Online Survey .................................................................... 79

REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................... 81
APPENDIX A. GREATER ARIZONA HOUSEHOLD SURVEY PROFILE ........................................................ 87
APPENDIX B. GREATER ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS ONLINE SURVEY POSTCARD ........... 91
.......................................................................................................................................................... 91
APPENDIX C. GREATER ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS ONLINE SURVEY ............................. 93

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Survey: Biggest Perceived Problem with Local Transportation System .................................... 25
Figure 2. Survey: Current Use of Selected Transportation Options ......................................................... 27
Figure 3. Survey: Transportation Options that Respondents Would Like to Use More .......................... 30
Figure 4. Survey: Rating of Local Public Transit Availability ..................................................................... 33
Figure 5. Survey: Public Perception of Availability and of Changing Need for Public Transit ................. 35
Figure 6. Survey: Knowledge of Public Transit Options in Area ............................................................... 38
Figure 7. Survey: Interest in Using Selected Types of Public Transit ........................................................ 40
Figure 8. Survey: Expressed Likely Use of Public Transit for Selected Purposes ...................................... 42
Figure 9. Number of Transportation Provider Establishments by COG/MPO.......................................... 51
Figure 10. Number of Employees by Industry Classification, by Location (Partial Database) ................. 53
Figure 11. Respondents Providing Passenger Transportation Services.................................................... 57
Figure 12. Percent of Respondents by Employee Class ............................................................................ 58
Figure 13. Organizations’ Primary Industry Classification ........................................................................ 59
Figure 14. Primary Location of Responding Organizations ....................................................................... 60
Figure 15. Respondents’ Focus on Transportation, and Organization Type ............................................ 61
Figure 16. Respondents’ Participation in FTA Funding ............................................................................. 61
Figure 17. Percentage of Transportation Providers Affected by Transportation Network
Companies .................................................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 18. Types of Passenger Transportation Services Provided by Survey Respondents..................... 63
Figure 19. Typical Trip Purpose Requested by Passengers ....................................................................... 63
Figure 20. Type of Vehicle Used by Responding Transportation Providers ............................................. 64
Figure 21. Respondents’ Primary Service Areas ........................................................................................ 65
Figure 22. Number of Trips per Day ........................................................................................................... 67
Figure 23. Graphic Summary of Greater Arizona Transit Household Survey Findings ............................ 73
Figure 24. Location of Transportation Providers by COG/MPO ............................................................... 78

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Topics and Responses from Forums .............................................................................................. 9
Table 2. Sample Distribution under Alternative Sampling Methods ....................................................... 22
Table 3. Sample Weighting Factors ........................................................................................................... 23
Table 4. Sampling Errors with Variations in Sample Size .......................................................................... 24
Table 5. Survey: Biggest Problem with Local Transportation System, Response by Region ................... 26
Table 6. Survey: Current Use of Selected Transportation Options, Response Detail .............................. 28
Table 7. Survey: Current Use of Selected Transportation Options, Response by Region........................ 29
Table 8. Survey: Transportation Options Would Like to Use More,......................................................... 31
Table 9. Survey: Rating of Public Transit Availability, by Region and by Respondent
Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................ 34
Table 10. Survey: Changes in Availability of Public Transit in Area, by Region and by Respondent
Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................ 36
Table 11. Survey: Changing Need for Public Transit in Area, By Region and Respondent
Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................ 37
Table 12. Survey: Awareness of Local Public Transit Options .................................................................. 38
Table 13. Survey: Awareness of Local Public Transit Options, by Region ................................................ 39
Table 14. Survey: Interest in Using Local Public Transit Options, Detail .................................................. 40
Table 15. Survey: Interest in Using Local Public Transit Options, By Region and Respondent
Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................ 41
Table 16. Survey: Likely Use of Local Public Transit for Selected Purposes (Among Respondents
Definitely Interested in Using Public Transit) ............................................................................................ 42
Table 17. Survey: Likely Use of Local Public Transit for Selected Purposes, by Region and Respondent
Characteristics (Among Respondents Definitely Interested in Using Public Transit) .............................. 43
Table 18. Survey Topic: Existing Transit Services – Actual Availability versus
Respondent Perception.............................................................................................................................. 55
Table 19. Respondents’ Intercity Transit Origin and Destination Communities ...................................... 66
Table 20. Summary of Typical Passenger Trip Lengths by Interval .......................................................... 67

ix

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS
ADOT
APA
APTA
BRC
CAG
COG
CYMPO
DOT
FHWA
FMPO
FTA
LHMPO
MAG
M.E.
MPO
MTI
NACOG
NAICS
NAR
NCTR
NHTS
PAG
PwC
SCMPO
SEAGO
SIC
SSTI
SVMPO
TDM
TNC
TRB
TTI
UCTC
ULI
US
USDOT
VMT
WACOG
YMPO

Arizona Department of Transportation
American Planning Association
American Public Transportation Association
Behavior Research Center
Central Arizona Governments
Council of Governments
Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization
department of transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization
Federal Transit Administration
Lake Havasu City Metropolitan Planning Organization
Maricopa Association of Governments
margin of error
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Mineta Transportation Institute
Northern Arizona Council of Governments
North American Industry Classification System
National Association of Realtors
National Center for Transportation Research University of South Florida
National Household Travel Survey
Pima Association of Governments
Price Waterhouse Cooper
Sun Corridor Metropolitan Planning Organization
SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization
Standard Industrial Classification System
State Smart Transportation Initiative
Sierra Vista Metropolitan Planning Organization
travel demand management
transportation network companies
Transportation Research Board
Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University
University of California, Berkeley Transportation Center
Urban Land Institute
United States
United States Department of Transportation
vehicle miles of travel
Western Arizona Council of Governments
Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization

x

xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The findings of this study were intended to inform the scope and focus of Arizona Department of
Transportation’s (ADOT) forthcoming project, the State Transit Plan. Study findings were generated
through the following processes:
1. A review of relevant literature.
2. A household survey administered to residents of Greater Arizona, focused on transportation
behaviors in general and transit specifically.
3. An inventory of transportation service providers in the private sector (including some non‐
profits) serving Greater Arizona, and additional provider information obtained through an online
survey.
4. A compilation of the study findings that have the most potential relevance to the future State
Transit Plan.
For the purpose of this study, Greater Arizona was defined as the areas of the state outside the
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) boundaries of the Maricopa Association of Governments
(MAG—metropolitan Phoenix), the Pima Association of Governments (PAG—metropolitan Tucson), the
Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO), the Yuma Metropolitan Planning
Organization (YMPO), and the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO). For portions of this
study, Greater Arizona was defined or segmented differently in order to achieve different analytical and
reporting purposes.
Key observations were made that have potential relevance to the future State Transit Plan. In Greater
Arizona, residents have opinions regarding possible deficiencies in public transportation, although some
of these opinions may be due to a lack of knowledge about services that are available. Residents are
most likely to use transit for medical appointments and intercity travel. Commuting, leisure activities,
and school are viewed as less important transit‐trip purposes (and about equal to one another in
importance).
The extent to which the Millennial Generation (defined in Chapter 2) embraces fundamental values that
may alter that group’s predisposition to use public transit is an ongoing subject of research, and
definitive conclusions are not available at this time. However, this research topic will continue to be
important for transit providers.
The increasing availability and popularity of communication devices that increase the accessibility of
public transit can benefit all users, including Millennials who may be more attuned to such technology
than other generations. Seniors, who tend to use transit less than others and may need alternatives to
transportation, may benefit from new communication technology.
Trends in transportation planning have tended to reflect greater integration with land use planning and
urban design considerations, which generally leads to greater diversification of travel options, and an
enhanced relationship between these options. For example, the walkability of an area increases the
viability of transit. Transportation systems have always been understood to be closely related to
1

economic development capability. In rural areas, the role of transit in supporting economic
development is particularly meaningful, in part because, generally, only a limited set of job
opportunities are available in any particular community. Rural areas, with a small set of business‐
support firms, leasable space options, and other infrastructure, face an inherent disadvantage when
competing with urban areas for economic development.
Although the online survey of transportation service providers was not intended to provide statistically
reliable results, those responding tended to offer call‐in limousine‐type service most frequently, and to
use small vans or larger vans with a capacity of up to 15 passengers. Most did not believe that
transportation network companies (such as Uber) were negatively affecting their business, although
those who did believe this to be so were concerned that these companies might have potentially unfair
regulatory advantages.
DERIVATION OF KEY OBSERVATIONS
The literature review addressed a broad range of topics, including generational differences in transit
use, the role of urban living as a factor in transit use involving younger and perhaps older generations,
and whether Millennials and seniors have common interests that affect the demand for transit. Some
researchers question whether reported differences in Millennial lifestyles, compared with those of other
generations, are based on underlying values or economic necessity brought about by the recent
recession.
Transportation literature discusses the contradiction between the apparent need of seniors for public
transit and their tendency to avoid using it. Results of the Greater Arizona household survey also
indicated less interest in using public transit among respondents age 55 or older than among younger
age groups.
In the household survey, almost half of respondents stated that lack of public transportation was the
biggest transportation problem in their local area. Other survey findings suggested that this might be
due in part to a lack of awareness of local transportation options. The result could also be an indication
that people were generally satisfied with other transportation elements in their area, such as streets
and roads. Nevertheless, the sensitivity to lack of public transportation was confirmed in other survey
questions. For example:
 51 percent indicated that public transit availability in their area should be rated “poor.”
 Nearly one‐half of the respondents stated that they would like to have the opportunity to make
greater use of both intercity bus service and regularly scheduled local bus service.
The online survey of transportation service providers obtained information about the business
characteristics, and a limited set of opinions, from those who responded. Respondents represented a
diverse set of transportation‐related industries, and approximately half of the respondents were located
outside the major metropolitan regions of Phoenix and Tucson (with none from Yuma County).

2

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
This study’s primary purpose was to identify travel preferences and behaviors among the population of
Greater Arizona that may affect the development of transit in those regions in the coming years. A
secondary purpose was to compile information about transportation service providers in Greater
Arizona, primarily in the private for‐profit sector but also some non‐profit providers, including providers
partially funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The findings of this study were intended to
inform the scope and focus of ADOT’s forthcoming project, the State Transit Plan.
DEFINITION OF GREATER ARIZONA
For the purpose of this study, Greater Arizona was defined as the areas of the state outside the MPO
boundaries of the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the Pima Association of Governments
(PAG), the Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO), the Yuma Metropolitan
Planning Organization (YMPO), and the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO). For
portions of this study, Greater Arizona was defined or segmented differently in order to achieve
different analytical and reporting purposes, as described in subsequent chapters.
STUDY TASKS
This report documents the four tasks embodied in the project:
1. Address the general topic of transit planning and use, with an emphasis on rural areas, through
a review of relevant literature, which would both help inform future transit studies and provide
guidance for the structure of research processes applied in this study.
2. Document, through a household survey process, travel preferences and behaviors in the Greater
Arizona region and defined subregions, with an emphasis on transit. This task also included
interpreting the findings into a brochure format for use with the general public (Appendix B).
3. Provide an inventory and other information, by means of an online survey, about transportation
service providers in the private, for‐profit sector (and to a lesser extent some non‐profits)
serving Greater Arizona.
4. Compile in a concise format the study findings that have the most relevance to the future State
Transit Plan.

3

4

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review was intended to inform all the other tasks within the assignment: documenting
travel preferences and behaviors in Greater Arizona, compiling data on transportation service providers,
and summarizing the study findings that have the most relevance to the future State Transit Plan.
Specific challenges associated with the literature review included the following:
 No studies could be identified that address the topic of rural residents’ use of transit in ways
that would directly provide guidance on how to structure a household survey. Studies that
investigate changing transit‐use patterns and preferences tend to focus on urban areas, and
even if rural areas are included in the study area, rural‐specific findings are generally
unreported.
 The challenge of translating primarily urban research findings to rural conditions requires a
comprehensive view of the relationship between multiple factors affecting transit use and
planning. These factors include the location of residences in relation to goods and services,
workplaces, and institutions; traffic congestion, parking fees, and other details affecting the
practicality of using automobiles; and lifestyle choices and attitudes pertaining to
transportation.
 Many topics addressed in this literature review involve conditions that are still evolving and
consequently not necessarily fully described in prior or even current studies.
 To the extent that transit use patterns are changing and expected to continue to change, the
relative importance of factors causing the changes, such as underlying lifestyle attitudes,
remains largely unknown.
 Some trends and preferences expressed in the research studies reviewed here are almost
certainly influenced by the recent recession and other evolving economic conditions, although
assessing the extent of these kinds of influences is virtually impossible. Therefore, it is hard to
determine whether such economic conditions should be thought of as temporarily or
permanently altering behavior.
 In certain studies, the surveyed responses sometimes convey preferences that do not always
match surrounding conditions or current lifestyles. Such responses might be partly due to the
lag between adopting a behavioral preference in principle and actually making considerable
personal commitments that change their living environment or other conditions.
As outlined below, this literature review responds to the study intent and the above challenges:
 The literature review addresses a broad range of topics, organized under a series of explanatory
headings that reflect the multiple topics addressed. Generally, the most relevant topics are
addressed earliest in the sequence of material presented. For conciseness, some topics are
introduced and discussed using only a few examples.
 Study guidance and other conclusions derived from the review of individual reference material
are in some cases stated in general rather than specific terms, especially for topics that relate
only indirectly to transit use and planning, such as the relationship of transportation planning to
economic development and the evolving use of technology in accessing public transit.
5

DOCUMENT REVIEWS
Regional and Generational Patterns in Use of Transportation Modes
The reviewed literature makes frequent reference to the Millennial Generation, sometimes referred to
as Generation Y, which is generally defined as those persons born from 1981 through 2004 (although
researchers often drop the non‐adult segments from their analyses). Other generations mentioned in
this review and source materials are: Generation X, born 1965‐1980, and Baby Boomers, born 1946‐
1964.
The literature search conducted for this review identified more studies of generational lifestyle
differences that focused on preferences than studies that focused on actual, detailed use data. This
section of the review focuses on transit‐use and auto‐use data.
The National Household Travel Survey, or NHTS (FHWA 2009,) provides one source by which transit use
and other transportation modes can be examined. One potential drawback of this source is its 2009
publication date, at which point travel behavior may have been affected by the economic recession to a
greater degree than at present, depending on when the data were actually collected. The recession is
one of several presumed causes for changes in travel behavior that researchers have observed (and
which may be continuing along various trend lines), but for which they have not necessarily established
firm cause‐effect relationships. One advantage in the NHTS data, however, is the availability of an
interactive table that allows cross‐tabulation of variables, such as travel mode by urban/rural and by
life‐cycle stage (a substitute for generational differences, although the data can also be analyzed by age
of respondents). A review of the data indicates that, for life‐cycle groups that tend to approximate
Millennials and seniors have slightly higher percentages of miles traveled by transit modes than the
intervening age groups. As expected, transit use in rural areas is considerably less (in absolute terms)
than in urban areas, and attempting to make distinctions among rural/urban age (life‐cycle) groups is
especially challenging due to very small sample sizes that result from this cross‐tabulation.
The article “Who’s on Board: 2014 Mobility Attitudes Survey” (TransitCenter 2014), presents survey‐
based data comparing transit use patterns between Millennials and Baby Boomers. Results were
categorized geographically in five primary regions. The article highlights generational preferences and
transit use for Millennials and Baby Boomers in "traditional cities," which included cities with "mature
and widely used transit systems" as well as those with minimal systems (referred to in the study by
region, such as west/southwest, which has typically younger cities with less‐developed transit systems).
Under this system, traditional cities’ transit use rates were two to four times those of the least‐use
category (west/southwest). The findings showed that, especially in traditional cities, Millennials were
roughly four times more likely to ride transit systems than the over‐60 age group. However, race and
ethnicity are also major predictors of transit use, with minorities having usage rates two to four times
those of (non‐minority) whites. Across many demographic types and city types/regions, about twice as
many participants used transit occasionally as those who used it as their primary commuting method.
The report helps clarify the point that the settings in which transit activity takes place vary widely, not

6

only with respect to degree of urbanization but also according to the age and other characteristics of
cities.
Chu (2012) assesses public transportation markets using NHTS data, and provides an assessment of
public transit markets in Florida in comparison with the United States as a whole, from five perspectives:
market size, modal share, attitudes, socio‐demographics, and trip characteristics. These five are cross‐
tabulated with seven personal, household, and travel characteristics of persons in transit markets:
driver status, immigration status, existence of medical conditions that make it difficult to travel out of
the home, household income, vehicle availability, race and ethnicity, and monthly frequency of transit
use. The study also compared attitudes of trip makers between transit and four other travel modes.
Respondents were asked about their attitudes concerning: highway congestion, access and availability
of transit, lack of walkways and sidewalks, price of travel, aggressive and distracted drivers, and other
safety concerns.
According to Chu (2012), the nationwide transit market is concentrated according to a few prime
socioeconomic indicators. For example, at 6.1 percent of the total US population, zero‐vehicle
households represent the largest transit market, capturing more than 48.5 percent of the entire transit
market in the United States. Over 40 percent of these zero‐vehicle households have an annual income of
less than $15,000. The study noted that transit use by market segment in Florida is generally quite
different from that in the rest of the country, which serves as a cautionary finding for researchers using
national data to estimate state‐specific conditions.
The Frontier Group, working with the US Public Interest Research Group Education Fund (Davis, Dutzik,
and Baxandall 2012) examined data from the NHTS, laws affecting the use of mobile devices while
driving, fuel prices, number of persons holding driver’s licenses, bicycle use and walking, surveys by the
National Association of Realtors and KRC Research (with Zipcar, Inc.), and other sources, and concluded
that 16‐ to 34‐year‐olds are traveling less in cars (23 percent drop from 2000 to 2009) and increasingly
making use of public transportation, and prefer to live in places that support this choice. The report
indicated that the combination of higher costs, regulations, improvements in technology that make
transit use more practical, and other factors would tend to make these shifts permanent, and concluded
with a call for transportation policy reform to reflect these findings.
Documentation of the decline in auto use was recently augmented by research presented at the
Transportation Research Board 2015 Annual Meeting (Garceau, Atkinson‐Palombo, and Garrick 2015),
which described how state‐level data indicate that in many states, vehicle miles of travel (VMT) peaked
much earlier than the national trends have shown, and that increasing economic activity in a state was
associated with continued reductions in driving. However, an article by the TranSystems Corporation
(2014) describes how a drop in home ownership, one segment of the economy, among Millennials may
be an important cause of the decrease in driving by this group. The author speculates that if Millennials
cannot afford a home purchase, they are more likely to live in an urban setting that requires less driving
and has more transit options available. However, if they are not buying homes because they are priced
out of the market, rather than as a preference or attitude, the change in Millennials’ driving habits
should not be ascribed to philosophical inclinations.
7

The region‐specific data in the TransitCenter and Chu studies indicate how transit use varies across the
country, so national‐level data should be viewed accordingly. The studies also demonstrate that
racial/ethnic and age characteristics, lack of an automobile, and income are primary predictors of transit
use, especially in cities where transit systems are relatively mature. For Transit in Greater Arizona, these
variables can be included in the research process with the recognition that statistics for cities do not
necessarily have the same meaning in rural Arizona. For example, in mature cities such as New York, in
contrast to rural Arizona, the wealthiest residents in downtown areas are likely to have access to many
transit options and nearby high‐quality goods and services, and therefore have the least need for an
automobile. Other implications for the Greater Arizona household survey include the following:
 Respondents (all adults) can be asked whether they have a driver’s license.
 Whether respondents own or rent their dwellings can be one way of tying lifestyle to transit use
dispositions.
 Employed persons can be asked whether their commute involves leaving their community of
residence.
Expressed Generational Preferences for Transit Use and other Lifestyle Choices
Generational differences in preferences for housing, urban environments, recreation, and other lifestyle
choices can have direct implications for transit use and demand. Millennial‐focused surveys that address
these preferences are discussed in this review. The implications for the Transit in Greater Arizona study
are at least twofold. First, Millennials, according to some studies, prefer urban lifestyles, which tend to
include more transit options than rural areas. Second, seniors tend to need transit services (whether
they prefer them or not) and other attributes of urban environments that support transit. Both sets of
preferences and needs would have implications for how much growth can be expected in rural areas
and how transit demand could be affected.
A related issue is whether Millennial preferences that appear to be quite different from those of
previous generations are long‐term or temporary, and if long‐term, whether they will eventually alter
the configuration of cities in ways that affect the viability of transit.
The four studies cited below, which were based on surveys of Millennials (and a series of public
hearings, for one report), provide insight into the relationship between lifestyle preferences of
Millennials and tendencies to make use of transit systems. The opportunities and challenges of applying
the findings from these studies to the research for Transit in Greater Arizona include the following:
 Based on these studies, Millennials are less likely to live in rural areas than urban areas, yet they
would, possibly, tend to embrace transit if it were available there. However, nothing in the
Millennial‐focused studies (or other works in this literature review) defines a transit system that
Millennials would find acceptable, and this could be an especially important issue in rural areas.
 Perceptions do not always match reality, and preferences and attitudes vary by location. Part of
this variation is likely due to variations in opportunity. In other words, if a service is available
and valued in one place, its absence (or reduced presence) in another place may result in it
being valued less through lack of knowledge or experience of the service.

8







In any survey probing respondents’ preferences, expressed preferences ideally should reflect
the trade‐offs among alternative choices. However, it is very difficult to reflect such conditions
in a research process. Consequently, stated preferences will not necessarily reveal actual “real
world” choices that reflect the trade‐offs.
As discussed in the following section of this literature review, researchers disagree about the
extent to which the Millennial generation is different from others, specifically along the lines
outlined in the following four studies.
One detail based on review of these documents is the need to include car‐sharing systems as a
mode of transportation in the household survey research.

In 2014, the Vermont Congress Joint Legislature Transportation Committees Transportation Board
(2014) decided to focus its public hearings on obtaining feedback on transportation issues from young
adults. The Board was responding to two kinds of data: 1) indicators showing that the state’s population
of young adults had been declining for at least 20 years, even while the overall population had grown,
and 2) a major study (Frontier Group 2012) stating that the Millennial Generation uses transportation
very differently when compared with every generation that came before it. The Vermont Board held
eight forums at various college campuses around the state (and also obtained input from regional
commissions and other groups). The six topics addressed at the hearings, and a summary of the
responses obtained relevant to this study (right‐hand column), are shown in Table 1. However, the
Board’s report noted the important distinction that the findings did not represent those of a
scientifically derived sample. Also, the focus on university students would have left out the views of
working Millennials, who might see these issues differently.
Table 1. Topics and Responses from Forums
Topic
What transportation options influence
the decisions of young adults?
Car ownership and car sharing
Bicycle and pedestrian issues

Public transportation

Technology advances, such as apps and
services like Uber and Lyft
Roadway safety

Response Summary
Participants mentioned transportation options as a
key factor in their selection of a place to live.
The cost was cited as a negative factor in car
ownership.
Participants overwhelmingly stated that the ability to
walk and bike to destinations is extremely important
to them.
According to the participants, the existing systems in
Vermont were not sufficiently extensive or convenient
to provide a realistic option for them.
Participants expected technology advancements such
as placing Wi‐Fi on buses so that they could be tracked
with global positioning systems on smart phones.
Participants suggested that narrowing travel lanes will
slow traffic and increase the potential for making the
road safer for cyclists and pedestrians.

Source: Vermont Congress Joint Legislature Transportation Committees Transportation Board 2012; McClure
Consulting LLC.

9

The report Generation Y: Shopping and Entertainment in the Digital Age (Lachman and Brett 2013),
summarizes the results of "a nationally representative online survey of 1,251 Gen‐Yers (Millennials) to
gauge their retail, dining, and entertainment preferences." The survey design was based on prior
research, and is generally focused on shopping habits (Lachman and Brett 2013). Locational self‐images
(as revealed in responses) did not necessarily (according to the researchers) match respondents’ current
places of residence (Lachman and Brett 2013). For example, while 39 percent defined themselves as
“city” people, nearly 48 percent actually lived in cities as defined by the researchers (a combination of
downtown/near downtown [14 percent] and a city neighborhood outside downtown [34 percent]).
Downtowners have distinct demographic characteristics: e.g., they are more likely than the population
as a whole to be male and minorities. Not quite one‐third of respondents were aware of local car‐
sharing systems, and among those, one‐quarter used the programs. The authors state that members of
Generation Y “acquire driver’s licenses later than prior generations and they drive far fewer miles per
year,” but provide minimal data supporting this statement, other than a finding that 24 percent of their
respondents have no car.
A survey by Global Strategy Group in conjunction with the Rockefeller Foundation (Rockefeller 2014)
examined Millennials' perceptions and attitudes towards public transportation in 10 major US cities
across three “tiers” of public transit systems: "mature" (Chicago, New York, San Francisco), "growing"
(Charlotte, Denver, Los Angeles, Minneapolis‐St. Paul), and "aspiring" (Indianapolis, Nashville, Tampa‐St.
Petersburg). The study provides additional perspective on Millennials’ preferences for urban versus
other lifestyles. More than half (54 percent) of Millennials surveyed said they would consider moving to
another city if it had more and better options for getting around, and 66 percent said that access to
high‐quality transportation is one of the top three criteria when deciding where to live. Almost half (46
percent) of current vehicle owners agreed they would seriously consider giving up their car if they could
count on a range of transportation options. Only 27 percent of Millennials in cities with "mature" public
transit systems said it is very important to have regular access to a car or truck in their city, versus 60
percent in cities with "growing" systems and 82 percent in cities with "aspiring" systems (Rockefeller
2014). Millennials said it is important for their city to offer opportunities to live and work without relying
on a car (86 percent agree in mature cities, 82 percent in growing cities, and 77 percent in aspiring
cities).
The report Millennials—Breaking the Myths (Nielsen 2014) appears to be a compilation of other studies.
The focus is on Millennials, with some data by younger/older segmentation and some comparisons with
other generations. The report identifies Millennial preferences related to: urban living, healthy lifestyles,
less driving, walkable communities with transportation options, and green orientation. The findings
about urban living and reduced auto usage are similar to those of the other studies cited: Millennials
prefer urban living and less dependence on automobiles.
Are Millennials Changing Cities, and If So, Based on What Underlying Factors?
A study by the Demand Institute (Demand Institute 2013), a division of The Conference Board, rebuts
other studies’ findings about the uniqueness of Millennials, and asserts that their survey shows that
home and auto ownership are prime goals for Millennials; many simply have not yet had the resources
10

to realize these ambitions. While the findings do show strong preferences for traditional lifestyles (e.g.
75 percent believe home ownership is an important long‐term goal), the data are not presented in a
form that allows clear comparisons with past generations’ preferences.
In contrast, city‐changing Millennial trends are highlighted in the annual report by Price Waterhouse
Cooper and Urban Land Institute (PWC and ULI 2014) on real estate trends and forecasts. The report
states that "the growth of generation Y [Millennials] and its impact on all sectors of commercial real
estate could be the singular most dominant trend for many years” (PWC and ULI 2014, 7). The report is
based on the views of over 1,000 individuals in the real estate industry who completed surveys or were
interviewed as a part of the research process. The survey respondents expect Generation Y members to
be more urban and less suburban than their predecessors; to drive less but still value mobility.
Studies by others have attempted to explore philosophical and psychological foundations for why
Millennials seem to have lifestyle preferences markedly different from previous generations, and
whether these are long‐term or temporary. The article “Why Generation Y Is Causing the Great
Migration of the 21st Century” (Norris 2014) explores the psychological, economic, and other factors
that drive Millennial preferences. Underlying reasons for Millennial shifts in behavior may be complex,
may or may not be "fundamental" (and therefore long‐term), and are not necessarily readily
understandable. As an example of the challenges in attempting to understand these issues, Lachman
and Brett (2013) cite an article In Time magazine, in which author Roya Wolverson observed that the
Facebook age is “one that prioritizes impermanence and immediacy, which also breeds a renter
mentality.” In other words, "if you are into the continuously fresh, rental is the answer."
The three preceding examples provide additional perspective on how to view Millennial preferences and
their potential influences on transit demand. One approach would be to monitor changes in the built
environment, consumption patterns, and use of transportation modes that can be attributed to
Millennials as a way of confirming or refuting predicted trends. Attitudinal surveys conducted in the
future could be used to compare findings of those studies with past survey‐based reports. While
admittedly long‐term approaches, one or both of these methods could be very useful in future transit
planning in Greater Arizona. For purposes of the Transit in Greater Arizona study, the reports add
insight, useful for non‐quantitative input to the analysis, but no directly quantifiable analytical direction.
Urban Changes and Seniors
The report entitled Investing in Place for Economic Growth and Competitiveness (Farmer, Simms, Jordan,
and Rewers 2014) summarizes the results of a survey conducted online within the United States in 2014
on behalf of the American Planning Association, which focused on the relationship between planning
and economic development and the Millennial and Baby Boomer generations (with other generations
included peripherally). The sample screened for those age 21 or over with two or more years of college.
The study found that the two generations, based on this sample, have many common interests
regarding community. One summary of findings refers to a "sharp decline across demographic groups of
interest in traditional, auto‐dependent suburban living," in which fewer than 10 percent of Millennials,
Gen Xers, or Active Boomers see themselves in this type of community in the future (the choice was
11

“living in a suburb where you have to drive most places,” compared to “a suburb with walkable
amenities”), despite the fact that 40 percent of them lived in the former type of community at the time
of the survey. Respondents wanted increased mobility options, regardless of where they live. Their
location choices will be driven more by quality‐of‐life issues, including transportation options, than by
such traditional considerations as economic factors.
A ULI article on “livable communities” (Spivak 2014) summarizes a staff interview with a representative
of AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons). The report summarizes AARP's
advocacy of "livable communities," which is put forth by various means, including an informational video
on the benefits of creating neighborhoods around transit. The post highlights AARP's position that
livable‐community policies and practices, such as investments in public transportation and the need for
continued funding for subsidized affordable housing, are connected with enhanced quality of life for the
segment of the population served by AARP: those over age 50, most of whom, AARP claims, want to
remain in their communities.
Taken literally in terms of their potential application to Transit in Greater Arizona, the preceding two
reports suggest that both Millennials and Baby Boomers prefer lifestyles more similar to urban than
suburban settings, and therefore by inference would be less inclined to live in rural areas. However,
before such conclusions are applied to the Greater Arizona transit study, researchers should consider
the issue, described above, of whether the survey respondents/interviewee were able to incorporate
full consideration of the trade‐offs involved if these preferences were put into practice. Desirable urban
features generally are associated with other features that are less desirable.
On the other hand, a report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(Gehr 2010) makes the point that increasing numbers of seniors in rural areas (the document implies
that this is due to the natural increase of this demographic segment rather than migration) are creating
additional demand for rural transit services.
The following two studies discuss various aspects of why seniors should be living in transit‐based
communities, and how they can be encouraged to do so. The studies suggest that transit use by seniors
could expand beyond the levels indicated by data that show seniors are disinclined to use transit
systems. For purposes of Transit in Greater Arizona, age is an important research variable. Transit
planning must consider how to assess the importance of seniors’ needs for transit versus their
inclination to use it, and examine creative options for meeting these needs.
The report Attracting Senior Drivers to Public Transportation (Cevallos, Fabian, Skinner, Ivy, and Joslin
2010) is a guide for helping transit providers attract senior riders, and for understanding why it is
important to do so. Some seniors have trouble accessing transit and need services to help them with
such things as finding bus stops and understanding fares and schedules. Some seniors also have mobility
or other disabilities, which is another reason they may need special attention. With proper support,
seniors’ use of transit could expand. The Internet, social marketing, electronic payment technology, and
other developments can encourage senior ridership. Special transit modes (e.g., on‐demand) are

12

inefficient and expensive, and some demand for these modes now generated by seniors could be met by
traditional transit. Tucson is included as one of several case studies used in the report.
The post “The Surprisingly Simple Amenities that Help Urban Residents Age in Place” (McIlwain 2014)
discusses issues pertaining to the assertion that "the density of urban areas provides an environment
that more naturally supports people as they age,” through better public transit, good health care, a
healthier, walkable lifestyle, and access to goods and services. The article makes the point that, as the
elderly population expands, accommodating them might require more creative urban forms. In the
context of this study, a community‐scale urbanized area that is compatible with an aging population and
that occurs in Greater Arizona communities might not be greatly different from "urban" models for such
purposes, even if the role for transit is not as great. The article also notes innovations such as New
York’s use of school buses to transport seniors to shopping districts after the buses have finished their
school duties for the day.
City and other Area Definitions
Designations of “cities” that researchers have used in some studies are questioned by other researchers
who claim that the designations are not rigorous enough to segment lifestyle preferences between
urban and rural areas. This could result in a tendency for Millennial differences from other generations
to be overgeneralized or overstated, as some authors claim in some of the reviewed documents. While
the literature review can identify this potential problem, it is discussed here in relation to future Greater
Arizona transit planning processes.
The three studies discussed below illustrate the desirability of considering alternative geographic
classifications when planning transit systems. This concept could be highly relevant in Greater Arizona,
given the region’s wide variety of communities, their distribution, and differing proximities to urban
centers.
An analysis of "urban" classification systems was prepared by researchers (Gordon and Janzen 2013)
using Canadian cities as the modeling subject. The authors recommended a system by which functional
definitions of suburban, urban, and other classifications could be made more meaningful for
transportation and other analyses. One issue, according to the authors, is that “urban” designations are
often applied to conditions that should be designated as “suburban,” and therefore the “urbanization”
of populations is overstated in some research. Functional definitions of urban, suburban, and rural, and
resulting area classifications ultimately have implications for understanding transportation trends,
transportation conditions, and policy.
In the article “Dispersing Millennials” (Cox 2014), researchers used another urban reclassification
scheme to better understand changes in patterns of growth in urban and other areas across a 10‐year
time period, using special designations of urban cores and other areas. By this analysis, Millennials do
not show preferences for urban core locations, but for suburban and exurban locations. This study is
part of the debate about how to define urban‐related terms for analyses of this type, which encourages
planners to better refine their understanding of urban and non‐urban transit preferences. However, Cox

13

uses a unique system, the City Sector Model, that relies heavily on differences in the age of housing
stock and whether auto use was prevalent when the city began.
Kolko (2014) uses US Census estimates to track changes in Millennials' choice of location in the article
“Millennials Are Suburbanizing, While Big Cities Are Having a Baby Boom.” This frequently‐cited article
uses only a single year of Census‐estimate data. Findings imply the need to consider new ways of
classifying analysis areas—based on density, transit feasibility standards, commute modes, and other
criteria, rather than typical Census designations such as named central cities, suburbs, and metropolitan
areas—in order to add clarity to the research and design of transit systems. Kolko divided all US counties
into four quartiles based on their household density so that each quartile includes around one‐fourth of
the total population. The densest quartile he designated “big, dense cities” and then named two types
of suburbs, with the final quartile being “smaller towns and rural areas.” This approach is probably too
crude for application in Greater Arizona.
Communication Technology’s Influence on Transportation, Transit Use, and Planning
The four studies discussed below address the potential use of communication technology (and software)
to influence the use of transit. While review of these studies provides only a sampling of this topic, the
discussions suggest that transit use could expand substantially through these kinds of technological and
software advances. Because Millennials are growing up in this age of expanded communication
capabilities, this potential is particularly relevant to the consideration of Millennials’ influence on transit
use in Greater Arizona.
The study A New Way to Go (Davis, Dutzik, and Baxandall 2013) poses the question of whether the rapid
spread of mobile, Internet‐connected technologies and the emergence of social networking are related
to indications of the recent decline in driving. New services such as car sharing, which are aided by
communication technology, shift the cost of driving from fixed to per‐mile costs, providing an incentive
for users to drive less and thereby reduce their overall spending on transportation, while car ownership
has the opposite influence. Technology‐enhanced transit services can improve the efficiency of transit
systems and also the transit‐riding experience for rural and suburban users, potentially expanding the
number of areas where transit service can be provided cost‐effectively. For example, the benefits of
real‐time arrival information could be greater for riders of rural transit systems, which tend to deliver
less‐frequent service, than for users of urban systems.
Technology and software to facilitate transit accessibility continue to evolve rapidly, along with the
transition of Internet access by cellphones. Because ease of use is a factor in demand for any service,
these advances could affect the demand for transit. A recent article in Fast Company (Fast Company
2014) described three new systems that make accessing public transit easier: a downloadable software
application helps users find the fastest and most cost‐effective way to travel between two points, a
special projector digitally beams (from a stationary point such as a light pole) real‐time transit data onto
sidewalks (this system is being installed in a few large cities), and a map display mounted in public
spaces orients itself to the direction the viewer is facing and incorporates transit information (currently
in New York only). Google Maps (and other transit‐based mobile technology apps) has begun to
14

integrate public transportation routes and schedules into its product offerings (Dechert 2014). This
software acts as an intermediary that makes it possible for the app to interact with local data to retrieve
relevant public transit schedule and route data. App integration makes public transit more accessible by
providing access to routes, schedules, and other information at the user’s fingertips. In addition to
Google Maps, numerous other app‐based transit services provide similar offerings and aid in simplifying
access to public transit information.
A survey addressing Millennials and mobility (APTA 2013) included 1000 participants in six urban areas
(Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and Washington, DC). The research provided detailed
data on attitudes toward mobility and mobility behaviors across demographic and lifestyle groups. The
report identified opportunities for promoting transit options, including new digital offerings, updated
communication approaches, and “experience planning," an undefined term but presumably having to do
with making the experience of traveling a rewarding one. The study found that Millennials are
multimodal, based on findings about mode use, and that respondents used an average of three modes
(including walking) on any given trip. Communities that attract Millennials have a multitude of
transportation choices. The study reinforces the need to consider, from a transit planning standpoint,
the relationship of walking and bicycling to transit use in Greater Arizona, and the need to consider the
role of emerging communication technology when estimating future transit demand.
Transit Planning Processes and Considerations
Changing Habits in Auto Use: Local and Nationwide Perspectives
One transportation trend that has direct transit implication is the decrease in rates of auto use. This
phenomenon is similar to others that tend to be associated with Millennials, but for which direct cause‐
effect relationships can be elusive. Many potential, highly interrelated causes can affect auto use,
including living in urban settings where the need to travel by car is diminished; stagnant or dropping
incomes for many drivers; increasing use of the Internet for shopping and socializing; and increased
transit options. Having some perspective on these trends is useful in setting the stage for transit
planning in Greater Arizona. Questions in this study’s household survey probed respondents’ interests in
the expansion of various transportation modes.
The report entitled Bikes, Trains & Less Driving: Transportation Trends in Arizona (Unrein and Brown
2014) describes the drop in VMT, from a peak of 10,100 trips in 2005‐06 to 9200 in 2012, increases in
transit use throughout Arizona, and reasons for agencies to invest in other options in and throughout
the state. The report presents arguments for transportation policy shifts that reflect these trends in
changing driving and other habits, and calls for more data relevant to this issue.
Monthly and annual data pertaining to national VMT since 1989 are contained in the periodic report
“Traffic Volume Trends” produced by the FHWA (2009). The data do not address changing rates of use
because the number of drivers and other population‐related measures are not part of the report. The
report shows a nationwide drop in VMT in 2008‐2009, after which VMT remains mostly level. The overall
decrease from 2007 to 2014 is just under 2 percent.

15

Transit Planning Influences Pertaining to Greater Arizona
A report on travel demand management ([TDM], Obermann 2012) investigated and recommended a
suite of TDM measures to reduce travel by single‐occupant vehicles in the urban areas of Phoenix and
Tucson. Five categories of strategies were recommended for TDM implementation in these cities: social
and individualized marketing, telework, transit subsidies and promotional campaigns, parking
management, and shuttle and circulator links to regional transit. Some of these measures may apply in
Greater Arizona, including especially social marketing.
A historic perspective on transit planning in Arizona is provided in the Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
(ADOT 2008), which describes projected demographic trends for rural Arizona. The data show growth in
the rural population for all counties except the metropolitan counties of Maricopa and Pima, which will
reduce their rural population. The projected growth or decline is then applied to a set of scenarios that
would meet different levels of current and anticipated transit need. In the lowest‐level increase in
service, 25 percent of the demand in 2016 would be met. The highest level of service would meet 100
percent of demand. This approach reflected the researchers’ estimate that only 18 percent of demand
was being met in 2007. To the extent that the unmet demand still exists, planning for transit in Greater
Arizona will need to take this into account.
Innovations in Transit Planning
The studies in this section represent examples of concepts that have been applied in rural areas and in
general to make transit use more efficient. All of these are potentially applicable in Greater Arizona and
their use would tend to make transit more viable.
The report Innovative Rural Transit Services: A Synthesis of Transit Practice (Hosen and Powell 2011)
summarizes results of a literature search and survey of transit agencies conducted to synthesize
innovative approaches that transit agencies are taking in response to changing rural community
transportation needs, focusing on the following six categories:
 Innovative agency characteristics
 Service responses to changing demographics
 Involvement in the transportation planning process
 Alternative service modes
 Outreach, education, and training
 Leveraging funding opportunities
The report notes that rural areas experiencing population growth face challenges when they cross
categorization thresholds from some form of “rural” to some form of “urban” designation, a condition
that is likely to occur in a growing state such as Arizona. Demographic changes can have many
dimensions. For example, seniors today are more likely to be employed now than in the past, so systems
that cater to traditional senior lifestyles, focusing on shopping and recreational destinations and
excluding employment centers, have less relevance today. In response to the challenges of making an
on‐call system (in which only one passenger might be served on any single trip) more efficient, agencies
16

are developing sophisticated scheduling systems, such as a new rural hybrid service design called “fixed‐
schedule” service, providing on‐demand service but within scheduled periods. Other system operators
are changing the way they communicate with the public, making much greater use of social media, for
example. A number of rural transit systems have generated revenue from agreements with big box and
grocery stores, through such means as advertising (which could occur on buses or at business‐provided
bus shelters), providing direct service to a store, and bus shelters (which stores could provide or make
provision for) at locations that help draw patrons to these stores.
The Innovative DOT: A handbook of policy and practice (Anderson, Bellis, Dodds, Ebeling, Gad, Grodnik,
Holloway, Madrecki, Millar, Munger, Sundquist, and Webber 2012) collects innovative DOT approaches
around the country "to make systems more efficient and effective in today’s challenging economy." The
handbook authors recognize that economic changes sometimes involve an emphasis on livability,
including urban form and transportation options. One report recommendation is to partner with
regional transit authorities, intercity bus providers, and Amtrak to provide better‐integrated transit
service between cities and along corridors. The objective of such partnerships would be to encourage
local and long‐distance transit travel with more frequent and reliable service, which could relieve
pressure on highways and expand travel options for residents in rural areas. This concept could be
applied, theoretically, to transit planning in Greater Arizona.
The guidebook Estimating Bicycling and Walking for Planning and Project Development (Kuzmyak,
Walters, Bradley, and Kockelman 2014) presents models for scientifically estimating bicycling and
walking, based on case studies of models developed at Seattle, Washington and Washington, DC. The
guidebook also notes that the ability to bicycle or walk to a transit station relates directly to the viability
of transit, which implies that the extent to which these attributes are present, and used, could affect
projections of transit use. One challenge is how to estimate the activity levels associated with these
modes, which is a goal of this guidebook. Based on the observations in this study, walking as a mode of
transportation should be included in the research process for Transit in Greater Arizona, and the
walkability of communities should be included as a factor in projecting transit use.
Expansion and Redefinition of Role of Transportation Agencies: Implications for Rural Transit
Diminishing auto use and fuel tax revenue, resulting fiscal constraints on street and highway budgets,
increasing popularity of travel modes other than the private auto, and national legislation broadening
the guidelines for highway planning and design are some of the factors that encourage DOTs throughout
the United States to broaden the role of transportation planning. Economic development and
community development are intuitively understood to be linked closely to transportation planning,
design, and implementation. However, these relationships are not always explicitly recognized in
planning processes. In Greater Arizona, economic development is especially relevant, because rural
areas are often less competitive than urban areas as locations for economic activity.
Economic Development and Benefits
The following three studies give examples of how economic development considerations can be
incorporated into transit planning.
17

A report entitled Aligning Strategies to Maximize Impact: Case Studies on Transportation and Economic
Development (Humphrey 2012), highlights case studies where transportation planning efforts are linked
with economic development strategies in a regional context. For example, an economic development
organization in a rural area combined two types of program: one that identifies and promotes industry
clusters, while also promoting business opportunities and linkages; and a set of mobility programs that
encourage ridesharing and vanpooling, coordinating with employers to help them increase their
employees’ transportation choices. Besides being sound economic development practice, the cluster
program helps employers coordinate on the vanpooling. Combined, the two programs make the region
more attractive for industry by making workers more efficient and enhancing employee satisfaction.
This model could have broad application in Greater Arizona, as workers in any given small city have
limited job choices locally, need to commute to other places to expand that choice, and can incur high
costs when distances are great.
Emerging economic development trends are addressed by the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (Wieder and Williams 2008) in a report that investigates the relationship between
transportation planning, roadway design, and economic development. The report discusses how
changes in the way economic development is occurring influence transportation needs, and vice versa.
The report includes a literature review, results of phone interviews, and a series of case studies from
throughout the United States. The study also identifies emerging trends in economic development in
five subject areas: business production; site selection; labor market considerations; international trade
and global market influence; and urban and rural development practices. One aspect of rural
development practices potentially applicable to Greater Arizona is the concept of communities
combining to form economic regions that are more competitive than any single community. From a
transportation standpoint, this could mean coordinating intercommunity transit services.
Rural transportation systems can maximize the economic benefits they offer to their riders and their
communities if they focus on generating the kinds of trips that lead to the largest economic benefits.
Burkhardt, Hedrick, and McGavock (1998) note that employment trips, education and training trips, trips
for medical services (particularly dialysis), and trips that promote independent living, especially for
seniors and persons with disabilities, were found to produce the largest economic benefits (191). The
authors also list economic impact categories in which rural cities are expected to show results (139):
 Employment effects, both from the transit system itself and from those who use it for journey‐
to‐work trips, including services to commuters
 Benefits from increased mobility
o Participation in education and training programs
o Increased participation in social service programs
o Health benefits of increased access to medical care
o Personal independence
 Transportation cost impacts for the system users
 Impacts on expenditure patterns

18



Growth of the local economy (beyond that expected without public transportation services)
o Local development impacts and reduced congestion
o Access for tourists and related employees

These impacts have a role in fostering overall economic development in a community, particularly the
category “growth of the local economy,” but the report contains minimal documentation of such
effects. The authors claim that the benefits to rural communities, in total nationally, exceed federal
investments in rural transit by a factor of 3.35 to one, based on their interpretation of costs and the
summation of estimated benefits.
Community Design and Development
The following studies provide a few examples of how community design can affect travel behavior and
the viability of transit options. The extent to which these kinds of considerations influence transit
planning in Greater Arizona depend on the larger issue of how thoroughly transportation and land use
planning (and other planning considerations) are integrated in practice.
Land Use and Traffic Congestion (Kuzmyak 2012) adds perspective to the link between land use, travel
behavior, and traffic congestion. Researchers analyzed the relationships between higher‐density land
use and traffic conditions in four Phoenix transportation corridors (three urban and one suburban). The
analysis showed that the three urban corridors had considerably less congestion despite densities that
were many times higher than the suburban corridor. The reasons for this were identified as: a broader
mix of uses, including retail, which led to shorter trips; more transit and non‐motorized travel; and fewer
VMT. Another factor was the importance of a secondary street grid in the three urban areas, which
allows for better channeling of traffic and facilitates walking. A gridded street system is common in
many older, small cities, including some parts of Greater Arizona communities.
The question of how the built environment affects reduction in VMT is examined in a report (Moudon
and Stewart 2013) that summarizes the relationship between individual, household, land use, and built‐
environment factors associated with transit, and addresses the tools (such as walk scores) that utilize
these built environment characteristics to estimate travel changes. The report points out the complexity
of fully assessing the built environment's scope and other aspects of influence on travel behavior;
however, planning the built environment for optimal transportation efficiency is key to effective transit
system design. For transit planning in Greater Arizona, the sequence by which planning processes occur
for communities, transportation systems, and other elements can be coordinated to maximize the
effectiveness of each process.
The City of San Diego General Plan describes the concept of a "city of villages" in which growth is
encouraged to occur in walkable, mixed‐use community cores that are linked by transit options
(Bragado, Camacho, Cameron, Galloway, Gardiner, Levin, Pangilinan, Williams, and Cathy 2006). This
concept could potentially have application in some non‐metro areas in Greater Arizona. Groups of cities
that potentially could be linked through intercity transit could, individually, encourage development to
concentrate in existing cores, thereby making the linkage of those “destination” cores within the
intercity transit system a more viable option.
19

A handbook entitled Main Street . . . when a highway runs through it: A Handbook for Oregon
Communities (Kambur, Smith, Swirsky, Eddy, Olsen, Rankin, Burden, and Kliewer 1999), created by the
Oregon DOT to help guide highway improvements to enhance functionality of town business districts,
details Main Street design characteristics related to land use, transportation, urban design, funding
options, and scale. The handbook authors argue that making "Main Street" a more complete street
creates an interface between transit and other modes, such as walking or biking, thereby making transit
more likely to attract riders.

20

CHAPTER 3. PROFILE OF TRAVEL PREFERENCES AND BEHAVIORS IN GREATER
ARIZONA
INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTER 3
The primary purpose of the research described in this chapter was to identify, among the population of
Greater Arizona, travel preferences and behaviors that may significantly affect the development of
transit over the next 20 years. The research was accomplished by means of telephone interviews of
heads of households throughout Greater Arizona. The survey‐research firm of Behavior Research Center
(BRC) conducted the research described in this chapter.
Within Greater Arizona, five target regions were identified among which the survey sample would be
distributed. These were:
 Four Councils of Governments (COGs) and their associated counties: Central Arizona
Governments (CAG) with Pinal and Gila counties, Northern Arizona Council of Governments
(NACOG) with Apache, Coconino, Navajo, and Yavapai counties, South Eastern Arizona
Governments Organization (SEAGO) with Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, and Santa Cruz counties,
and Western Area Council of Governments (WACOG) with Mohave and La Paz counties; and
 One metropolitan planning organization, the Sun Corridor Metropolitan Planning Organization
(SCMPO), a region consisting primarily of the cities of Casa Grande, Coolidge, and Eloy. (Other
MPOs in the COGs listed above, except those excluded from Greater Arizona, were not treated
as separate entities in order to maintain reasonable sample sizes among selected study regions.)
METHODOLOGY
The information in this chapter is based on in‐depth telephone interviews conducted among a
representative cross‐section of 1,225 Arizonans who defined themselves as the heads of their
households in the study’s five target areas. The survey used a sample of this size because it allows for
meaningful analysis by key demographic subgroups and geographic areas. In order to achieve sampling
errors of not more than +/‐6.3 percent at a 95 percent confidence level within each of the study’s five
target areas, a disproportionate, stratified sample was generated. Table 2 shows how the sample would
be configured under Proportional and Disproportional (the method used) samples. The survey
questionnaire is shown in Appendix A.

21

Table 2. Sample Distribution under Alternative Sampling Methods

Study Area
CAG (Gila, Pinal)
NACOG (Apache, Coconino, Navajo,
Yavapai)
SCMPO (part of Pinal)
SEAGO/SVMPO (Cochise, Graham,
Greenlee, Santa Cruz)
WACOG/LHCMPO (Mohave and La
Paz)
TOTAL

Proportional Sample
Disproportional Sample
Number
+/‐ M.E.
Number
+/‐ M.E. *
101
10.0%
125
8.9%
446

4.7%

400

5.0%

138

8.5%

200

7.1%

261

6.2%

250

6.3%

279
1,225

6.0%
2.9%

250
1,225

6.3%
2.9%

* M.E. = Margin of Error
Survey respondents were selected from a computer‐generated random‐digit‐dial telephone sample that
selects household landline and personal cell phone numbers on the basis of telephone prefix. (The
technical term for this system is Equal Probability of Selection Method). This method ensures a “pure
unweighted” sample—a randomly selected sample of area households that is proportionately allocated
throughout the sample universe. This method also ensures that all unlisted and newly listed telephone
households are included in the sample. A computerized pre‐identification process screened the sample
to remove known business and commercial phone prefixes in addition to disconnected numbers and fax
numbers.
The questionnaire used in this study was designed by the study team in collaboration with the project’s
technical advisory committee. A draft questionnaire was pre‐tested on a randomly selected cross‐
section of respondents. The pre‐test focused on the value and understandability of the questions,
adequacy of response categories, questions for which probes were necessary, and similar issues. No
changes were made following the pre‐test.
Telephone interviews were conducted between December 4, 2014, and January 9, 2015 (interviewing
was suspended between December 20 and January 3) at the BRC central location telephone facility
where each interviewer worked under direct supervision. Interviewers were made aware of the study’s
purpose and trained in sampling procedures, survey protocols, and other details.
Interviewing on this study was conducted during a cross‐section of late afternoon, evening weekday and
weekend hours. During the interviewing segment of this study, up to five separate attempts, on
different days and during different times of day, were made to contact each selected household. Only
after five unsuccessful attempts was a household deleted from the sample and replaced with another
household from the sample base. Using this method, the full sample was completed and partially
completed interviews were not accepted or counted toward fulfillment of the total quotas.

22

Completed and validated interviews were turned over to BRC’s in‐house Coding Department. The
Coding Department edited, validated, and coded the interviews. Upon completion of coding, a series of
validity and logic checks were run to ensure the data were accurately compiled. Following this
procedure, the study data were weighted by the actual volume of households in each geographic area to
make the final study sample representative of the study universe (Table 3).

Table 3. Sample Weighting Factors

Geographic Sampling Area
CAG (Gila, Pinal)
NACOG (Apache, Coconino,
Navajo, Yavapai)
SCMPO (Pinal)
SEAGO/SVMPO (Cochise, Graham,
Greenlee, Santa Cruz)
WACOG/LHCMPO (La Paz, Mohave)
TOTAL

Unweighted
10.2%

Weighted by Household
Volume
8.2%

32.7%
16.3%

36.4%
11.3%

20.4%
20.4%
100.0%

21.3%
22.8%
100.0%

All surveys are subject to sampling error, the difference between the results obtained from a sample and
those that would be obtained by surveying the entire population under consideration. The size of
sampling error varies, to some extent, with the number of interviews completed and with the division of
opinion on a particular question. An estimate of the sampling error range for this study is provided in
Table 4. The estimates were calculated at the confidence level most frequently used by social scientists,
the 95 percent level, and represent the maximum error for the sample sizes shown (i.e., for the survey
findings where the division of opinion is approximately 50 percent/50 percent). Survey findings that
show a one‐sided distribution of opinion, such as 70 percent/30 percent or 90 percent/10 percent, are
usually subject to slightly lower sampling errors than those shown in the table.
As the table indicates, the overall sampling error for this study was +/‐2.9 percent overall. However,
when subsets of the total sample are studied (for individual geographic areas, age groups, and other
categories), the amount of sampling error increases as sample sizes decrease the sample size within the
subset.

23

Table 4. Sampling Errors with Variations in Sample Size

Sampling
Size
1,225
900
600
300
200
100

Approximate Sampling
Error at a 95% Confidence Level
(+/‐ Percentage of
Sampling Tolerance)
2.9%
3.3%
4.1%
5.8%
7.1%
10.0%

SURVEY FINDINGS
Survey findings are reported below by survey question. The source for all charts and tables in this
section is the survey conducted by BRC as described in the preceding section.
Biggest Problem with Local Transportation System
“To begin, what do you feel is the number one biggest problem with the transportation system
in your area of Arizona? What else?”
When respondents were asked this question, nearly one‐half (49 percent) mentioned public
transportation. In comparison, less than one out of five (19 percent) mentioned either local roads (17
percent) or freeways (2 percent), while 30 percent felt there were no problems or could not think of
any. The percentages are shown in Figure 1 for all respondents. Findings by region, in Table 5, indicate
that these observations were relatively consistent across the five study regions.

24

Other
( 4%)
Local Roads
(17%)

No Problems / Not
Sure
(30%)
Lack of Public
Transportation
(49%)

Figure 1. Survey: Biggest Perceived Problem with Local Transportation System

25

Table 5. Survey: Biggest Problem with Local Transportation System,
Response by Region

Public Transportation**
Lack of public transportation
Poor bus service—limited
schedules/coverage,
unreliable
No taxi, high taxi fares
No senior/handicap service
No medical transport
No trains
No light rail
Local roads – poor quality, traffic congestion
Freeways – not enough
Existing public transit not used
None/no problems
Not sure
**

Total CAG NACOG SCMPO
49% 56%
45%
50%

SEAGO/ WACOG/
SVMPO LHCMPO
47%

32%

47%

30%

38%

29%

30%

14%
3%
2%
*
*
*

8%
2%
0%
0%
0%
1%

12%
2%
1%
1%
*
0%

9%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%

16%
4%
1%
0%
*
*

21%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%

17%
2%
2%
22%
8%

21%
4%
2%
15%
2%

20%
2%
2%
21%
10%

11%
4%
4%
22%
9%

16%
2%
1%
24%
10%

13%
1%
2%
24%
6%

*Indicates % < 0.5
Sum of mentions of “Public Transportation,” net of overlap within the compilation of open‐ended responses

Current Utilization of Selected Transportation Options
“Next, as you are aware, Arizona residents have a variety of transportation options they
can rely on to meet their transportation needs. I’d like to mention a few of these options
and have you tell me if you or other members of your household always, regularly, rarely
or never rely on each to meet your personal transportation needs in your area.”
When respondents were asked to indicate their use of 11 different transportation options, automobiles
received the highest response, with 88 percent indicating that they always (79 percent) or regularly (9
percent) relied on a car, truck, sport‐utility vehicle or van to meet their personal transportation needs.
The highest responses among the public transit options were scheduled local bus service and transport
by local organization (6 percent each), followed by taxicab, dial‐a‐ride service, and intercity bus (5
percent each). (The survey option “Transportation provided by local organizations” was provided in
anticipation that some respondents would be familiar with a van or small bus operated by a service
organization that they were affiliated with.) These results are summarized in Figure 2 and the findings
shown in detail in Table 6. Table 7 indicates that the readings were similar among the study regions. (In
the survey, respondents were asked about “bus service between their home area and other
communities,” for which the term “intercity bus” has been substituted in the figures and tables that
follow.)
26

Car, truck, SUV or van

88%

Walking

31%

Bicycle

11%

Car‐sharing service

10%

Motorcycle

8%

Vanpool or carpool

7%

Regular community bus service

6%

Transportation by local organization

6%

Taxicab

5%

Dial‐a‐ride service

5%

Intercity Bus

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Figure 2. Survey: Current Use of Selected Transportation Options
(Percent Indicating Always or Regularly)

27

80%

100%

Table 6. Survey: Current Use of Selected Transportation Options,
Response Detail

Car, truck, SUV or van

% Always/
Always
Regularly Rarely
Never
Regularly
79%
9%
2%
10%
88%

Walking

13%

18%

23%

46%

31%

Bicycle

3%

8%

17%

72%

11%

Car‐sharing services

4%

6%

8%

82%

10%

Motorcycle

2%

6%

7%

85%

8%

Vanpool or carpool

2%

5%

11%

82%

7%

Regular bus service within
community

2%

4%

7%

87%

6%

Transportation provided by local
organizations

3%

3%

6%

88%

6%

Taxicab

2%

3%

14%

81%

5%

Dial‐a‐ride service

2%

3%

5%

90%

5%

Intercity bus

2%

3%

9%

86%

5%

28

Table 7. Survey: Current Use of Selected Transportation Options,
Response by Region

SEAGO/ WACOG/
SVMPO LHCMPO
90%
84%
27%
31%
10%
9%
9%
8%
9%
11%
6%
4%

Total
88%
31%
11%
10%
8%
7%

CAG
91%
30%
11%
7%
8%
10%

NACOG
87%
33%
11%
13%
7%
10%

SCMPO
93%
26%
11%
5%
4%
7%

6%

2%

7%

3%

3%

10%

Transportation provided by local
organizations

3%

3%

9%

3%

3%

7%

Taxicab

5%

6%

5%

4%

3%

7%

Dial‐a‐ride service

5%

4%

5%

5%

2%

7%

Intercity bus

5%

2%

6%

2%

4%

6%

Car, truck, SUV or van
Walking
Bicycle
Car‐sharing services
Motorcycle
Vanpool or carpool
Regular bus service within
community

Continuing with this line of questioning, after respondents indicated their use of the 11 transportation
options, they were asked if they would like to have the opportunity to make greater use of each in order
to meet their household’s transportation needs. Two of the four public transit options received
expressions of interest from nearly one‐half of all respondents—intercity bus service (49 percent) and
regularly scheduled local bus service (47 percent). Receiving lower interest were dial‐a‐ride services (33
percent) and taxicabs (26 percent). See Figure 3.

29

Car, truck, SUV or van

81%

Intercity Bus

49%

Regular community bus service

47%

Walking

45%

Transportation by local organization

38%

Vanpool or carpool

33%

Dial‐a‐ride service

33%

Bicycle

26%

Taxicab

26%

Car‐sharing service

25%

Motorcycle

19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 3. Survey: Transportation Options that Respondents Would Like to Use More

Once again, very little difference is found in the response patterns among the five study regions, as
shown in Table 8. Table 9 provides detail by respondent characteristics and reveals that respondents
who were under age 55, had low incomes, and had no driver’s license had a higher interest than others
in each of the four public transit options.

30

Table 8. Survey: Transportation Options Would Like to Use More,
Response by Region

Total
81%

CAG
76%

NACOG
81%

SCMPO
84%

SEAGO/
SVMPO
79%

Intercity bus

49%

51%

51%

48%

44%

49%

Regular bus service
within community

47%

47%

47%

47%

44%

51%

Car, truck, SUV or van

WACOG/
LHCMPO
84%

Walking
45%

47%

48%

41%

43%

46%

Transportation
provided by local
organizations

38%

37%

41%

35%

33%

38%

Vanpool or carpool

33%

29%

38%

30%

30%

30%

Dial‐a‐ride service

33%

25%

36%

31%

31%

34%

Bicycle

26%

26%

29%

29%

22%

24%

Taxicab

26%

26%

25%

24%

28%

28%

Car‐sharing services

25%

17%

31%

23%

22%

21%

Motorcycle

19%

16%

20%

9%

20%

22%

31

Table 9. Survey: Interest in Public Transit Services by Demographic
Intercity
Bus Service
49%

Local Bus
Service
47%

Dial‐a‐Ride
33%

Taxicabs
26%

Gender
Male
Female

47%
50%

44%
49%

33%
33%

25%
27%

Age
Under 35
35 to 54
55 and over

59%
55%
43%

57%
53%
41%

38%
39%
29%

36%
32%
19%

Income
Under $25,000
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 and over

61%
48%
49%
38%

61%
45%
48%
35%

44%
30%
31%
26%

34%
24%
28%
20%

Driver’s License
Yes
No

46%
62%

44%
63%

30%
48%

23%
39%

Total

Rating of Local Public Transit Availability
“Next, I’d like to ask you some questions about public transit in your area of Arizona. By public
transit I mean such things as regularly scheduled bus service, dial‐a‐ride service, intercity bus
service, or vanpools. Overall, would you rate the availability of public transit in your area as
excellent, good, only fair or poor?”
Nearly 70 percent of respondents rated their local scheduled bus service negatively (poor or fair), with
51 percent rating it as poor and 18 percent as fair. Only 17 percent rated the service as either excellent
(2 percent) or good (15 percent). Geographically, CAG residents (Table 9) offered the most negative
rating at 83 percent. See Figure 4 and Table 9 for details.

32

70%

60%

51%

Percent of Respondents

50%

40%

30%

20%

18%
15%
11%

10%
2%

0%
Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Figure 4. Survey: Rating of Local Public Transit Availability

33

Not Sure

Table 9. Survey: Rating of Public Transit Availability, by Region and by Respondent Characteristics

Total
Not Sure Negative*
11%
69%

Excellent
2%

Good
15%

Fair
18%

Poor
51%

Region
CAG
NACOG
SCMPO
SEAGO/SVMPO
WACOG/LHCMPO

1%
7%
5%
5%
6%

7%
16%
8%
15%
18%

12%
19%
18%
19%
20%

71%
49%
53%
49%
46%

9%
9%
16%
12%
10%

83%
68%
71%
68%
66%

Gender
Male
Female

4%
6%

15%
14%

20%
18%

49%
52%

12%
10%

69%
70%

Age
Under 35
35 to 54
55 and over

6%
6%
4%

19%
13%
15%

28%
20%
15%

42%
55%
51%

5%
6%
15%

70%
75%
66%

Income
Under $25,000
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 and over

7%
8%
2%
5%

16%
14%
15%
17%

21%
17%
20%
18%

48%
52%
53%
51%

8%
9%
10%
9%

69%
69%
73%
69%

Driver’s License
Yes
No

5%
3%

14%
13%

17%
23%

51%
55%

13%
6%

68%
78%

Total

*”Fair” plus “Poor”

As a follow‐up to this question, 20 percent of respondents indicated that they believe public transit in
their area has improved in the last few years, while 13 percent believed it had become worse and 53
percent believed it had remained the same, with the remainder not sure (Figure 5). As shown in Table
10, SCMPO residents (“Net Improved” percentage at +19 percent) and those under 35 (+21 percent)
reported the most improvement, while WACOG/LHCMPO residents reported the least (‐6 percent).

34

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Improved Remained Gotten
Same
Worse

Not Sure

Increased Remained Decreased Not Sure
Same

Changes in
Availability
over Past Few
Years

Need for Public Transit
over Past Few Years

Figure 5. Survey: Public Perception of Availability and of Changing Need for Public Transit

35

Table 10. Survey: Changes in Availability of Public Transit in Area,
by Region and by Respondent Characteristics

Net
Not Sure Improved*
14%
7%

Improved
20%

Remained Same
53%

Gotten Worse
13%

Region
CAG
NACOG
SCMPO
SEAGO/SVMPO
WACOG/LHCMPO

13%
21%
24%
22%
17%

67%
55%
55%
52%
47%

7%
11%
5%
11%
23%

13%
13%
16%
15%
13%

6%
10%
19%
11%
‐6%

Gender
Male
Female

22%
18%

53%
54%

13%
13%

12%
15%

9%
5%

Age
Under 35
35 to 54
55 and ove

26%
21%
19%

55%
56%
52%

5%
12%
12%

4%
11%
17%

21%
9%
7%

53%
56%

17%
17%

15%
8%

8%
2%

Total

Driver’s License
Yes
20%
No
19%
*”Improved” minus “Gotten Worse”

The final question in this section asked respondents if the need for public transit in their area had
increased, decreased, or remained the same over the past several years. Responses to this question
indicated that nearly one‐half (45 percent) believed the need had increased (Figure 5). This attitude was
relatively consistent across population subgroups, as shown in Table 11.

36

Table 11. Survey: Changing Need for Public Transit in Area,
By Region and Respondent Characteristics
Increased
45%

Total

Remained Same Decreased
36%
7%

Not Sure
12%

Net Increased*
38%

Region
CAG
SCMPO
SEAGO/SVMPO
NACOG
WACOG/LHCMPO

46%
52%
40%
41%
50%

39%
29%
42%
38%
29%

4%
6%
6%
8%
10%

11%
13%
12%
13%
11%

42%
46%
34%
33%
40%

Gender
Male
Female

41%
47%

40%
33%

8%
7%

11%
13%

33%
40%

Age
Under 35
35 to 55
Over 55

47%
49%
43%

38%
35%
36%

10%
7%
7%

5%
9%
14%

37%
42%
36%

Driver’s License
Yes
No

45%
39%

35%
41%

7%
11%

13%
9%

38%
28%

*“Increased” minus “Decreased”

Awareness of Local Public Transit Options
“To the best of your knowledge, is each of the following types of public transit available or not
available in your area of Arizona? If you are not sure, just say so.”
Sixty‐one percent of respondents believed that taxi service was available in their area and 31 percent
believed it was not available. In comparison, a plurality of respondents believed three additional key
public transit options were not available in their area: 1) regularly scheduled local bus service (59
percent); 2) intercity bus service (45 percent), and 3) dial‐a‐ride service (45 percent). See Figure 6 and
Table 12 below for details.

37

Taxicab

61%

31%

Transportation by local organization

30%
33%

Regular community bus service

31%

Intercity Bus

45%

24%

Vanpool
0%

10%

20%
Available

59%
45%

27%

Dial‐a‐ride service

44%

46%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Not Available

Figure 6. Survey: Knowledge of Public Transit Options in Area

Table 12. Survey: Awareness of Local Public Transit Options
Available

Not Available

Not Sure

Taxicab

61%

31%

8%

Transportation provided by local
community organizations

44%

30%

26%

Regularly scheduled bus service
within community

33%

59%

8%

Intercity bus

31%

45%

15%

Dial‐a‐ride service

27%

45%

28%

Vanpool

24%

46%

30%

Belief that selected public transit options are available varied significantly by region for some options, as
shown in Table 13.

38

Table 13. Survey: Awareness of Local Public Transit Options, by Region

Taxicabs
Transportation provided by local
organizations

WACOG/
Total
LHCMPO
61%
78%

NACOG
49%

CAG
70%

SEAGO/
SVMPO
59%

SCMPO
65%

44%

48%

42%

40%

47%

44%

Regularly scheduled bus service
within community
Intercity bus

33%
31%

45%
29%

32%
38%

16%
16%

36%
24%

21%
32%

Dial‐a‐ride service

27%

39%

23%

29%

22%

26%

Vanpool

24%

22%

23%

30%

25%

24%

Interest in Using Local Public Transit Options
“Let’s assume for a minute that the following types of transit services were available throughout
your area of Arizona at a reasonable cost. If each of these services was available, would you or
other members of your household definitely, probably, probably not or definitely not consider
using it?”
When respondents answered this question, regularly scheduled local bus service generated the most
interest with a “definite” response of 30 percent, followed by intercity bus service at 28 percent. Each of
the remaining options registered a “definite” reading of 20 percent or less. See Figure 7 and Table 14.

39

Local Bus Service

30%

Intercity Bus Service

28%

Dial‐a‐Ride

20%

Organzation Based

19%

Taxicab

17%

Vanpool

15%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Figure 7. Survey: Interest in Using Selected Types of Public Transit
(Percent Definitely Interested)

Table 14. Survey: Interest in Using Local Public Transit Options, Detail
Definitely

Probably

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Not Sure

Regularly scheduled bus service
within community

30%

30%

23%

15%

2%

Intercity bus

28%

33%

21%

15%

3%

Dial‐a‐ride service

20%

29%

29%

18%

4%

Transportation provided by local
community organizations

19%

33%

28%

17%

3%

17%
15%

25%
24%

31%
32%

25%
25%

2%
4%

Taxicab
Vanpool

When “definite use” of each option is analyzed geographically, the results are relatively consistent
across the five study regions. Also, note that the highest interest in each option comes from lower‐
income respondents, non‐workers, renters, and respondents without a driver’s license (Table 15).

40

Table 15. Survey: Interest in Using Local Public Transit Options,
By Region and Respondent Characteristics

Local Bus
Service
30%

Intercity Bus
Service
28%

Dial‐a‐Ride
20%

Organization
Based
19%

Taxicab
17%

Vanpool
15%

Region
CAG
NACOG
SCMPO
SEAGO/SVMPO
WACOG/LHCMPO

27%
32%
34%
23%
32%

27%
31%
30%
24%
25%

19%
22%
15%
19%
21%

16%
20%
15%
18%
20%

13%
18%
18%
17%
18%

15%
17%
11%
15%
16%

Gender
Male
Female

26%
33%

25%
30%

17%
23%

16%
21%

16%
18%

13%
17%

Age
Under 35
35 to 54
55 and over

37%
37%
24%

33%
35%
22%

22%
28%
15%

18%
26%
15%

24%
24%
10%

20%
21%
10%

Income
Under $25,000
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 and over

43%
30%
26%
21%

41%
28%
24%
21%

31%
18%
18%
12%

32%
14%
16%
10%

25%
13%
16%
15%

26%
11%
13%
12%

Driver’s License
Yes
No

26%
52%

25%
44%

17%
41%

16%
37%

14%
35%

13%
24%

Employed
Yes
No*
Retired

28%
48%
23%

26%
41%
23%

17%
32%
17%

17%
26%
17%

17%
27%
13%

15%
23%
12%

Home
Own
Rent

27%
37%

25%
36%

18%
24%

17%
25%

14%
26%

13%
20%

Total

*Unemployed, homemaker, student, etc.

A majority of those respondents who revealed an interest in using public transit indicated they were
most likely to use it for medical appointments (53 percent “definitely”) and intercity travel (51 percent).
Those in the highest income category were marginally more likely than those in the lower income
41

groups to report an interest in using public transit for work. Each of the remaining purposes received
“definitely use” readings between 34 and 38 percent (Figure 8). Table 16 and Table 17 provide
additional detail on the responses.

To go to medical appointments

53%

To travel between home area and other
communities

51%

To go to work

38%

To conduct personal business

36%

To participate in leisure time activities

36%

To go to school

34%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 8. Survey: Expressed Likely Use of Public Transit for Selected Purposes
(Percent Definitely Use, Among Those Reporting Definite Interest in Using Public Transit)

Table 16. Survey: Likely Use of Local Public Transit for Selected Purposes (Among Respondents
Definitely Interested in Using Public Transit)

To go to medical appointments
To travel between home area
and other Arizona communities
To go to work
To conduct personal business
To participate in leisure time
activities
To go to school

Definitely
53%

Probably
25%

Probably Not
11%

Definitely Not
10%

Not Sure
1%

51%
38%
36%

30%
23%
31%

10%
15%
18%

8%
23%
13%

1%
1%
2%

36%
34%

32%
21%

18%
15%

12%
28%

2%
2%

Table 17 presents responses to this line of inquiry by geographic and demographic subgroup.

42

Table 17. Survey: Likely Use of Local Public Transit for Selected Purposes, by Region and Respondent
Characteristics (Among Respondents Definitely Interested in Using Public Transit)

Medical
53%

Intercity
Travel
51%

Work
38%

Personal
Business
36%

Leisure
Activities
36%

School
34%

Region
CAG
NACOG
SCMPO
SEAGO/SVMPO
WACOG/LHCMPO

42%
60%
43%
45%
58%

41%
56%
49%
49%
50%

28%
46%
34%
35%
35%

35%
42%
26%
31%
37%

30%
35%
27%
40%
41%

23%
40%
35%
28%
34%

Gender
Male
Female

47%
57%

46%
55%

40%
37%

36%
37%

34%
37%

27%
39%

Age
Under 35
35 to 54
55 and over

55%
57%
49%

61%
56%
44%

61%
44%
24%

39%
39%
34%

43%
39%
31%

54%
43%
17%

Income
Under $25,000
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 and over

65%
50%
44%
44%

56%
55%
46%
43%

39%
34%
38%
44%

45%
31%
31%
35%

40%
29%
39%
39%

36%
37%
38%
26%

Driver’s License
Yes
No

48%
70%

48%
58%

33%
48%

32%
53%

33%
45%

28%
38%

Employed
Yes
No*
Retired

50%
61%
50%

51%
66%
42%

47%
52%
18%

34%
42%
33%

39%
42%
28%

37%
57%
14%

48%
57%

36%
44%

36%
37%

37%
33%

32%
39%

Total

Home
Own
51%
Rent
57%
*Unemployed, homemaker, student, etc.

43

DISCUSSION OF SURVEY FINDINGS
Context
ADOT commissioned this study to complement and inform the Statewide Transit Plan, which is intended
to help coordinate options within, and generally inform, the State Long Range Transportation Plan.
ADOT is sensitive to recent changes that other research organizations have noted in the travel patterns
and preferences of various segments of the nation’s urban population. However, little was known about
either existing or emerging travel and mode preferences among the demographic subsets of Arizona’s
rural population. To gain insight into this topic, the household survey described in this chapter was
conducted as part of the overall research process, which included a literature review and compilation of
demographic data for Greater Arizona. The research process was designed in recognition of certain
conditions that could affect the potential for obtaining the most meaningful results. For example, trends
in travel patterns and preferences identified through existing research mostly pertain to urban
populations. To the extent that findings for rural areas are either similar or different, additional research
would be required to determine definitely whether similarities or differences are due to underlying
demographic conditions such as age differences, to transportation options available in cities but limited
in rural areas, to different education and job opportunities in the two types of regions, or to different
levels of concentration of economic activity in urban and rural areas.
Selected Highlights of Overall Results
The survey began with an open‐ended question asking respondents to indicate what they felt was the
single biggest problem with the transportation system in their area. Unlike the other questions in the
survey, each of which had a specific structure and intent, this question had a strategic purpose, that
being to allow respondents to clear their minds of the first things that occur to them when the local
transportation system is mentioned, so that they could better focus on the specifics of the survey as it
progresses. Consequently, the fact that 49 percent of the respondents stated that lack of public
transportation was the biggest local transportation problem indicates that people are very aware of this
issue. This level of awareness, and identification of the problem, was confirmed in other survey
questions. For example:
 Fifty‐one percent indicated that public transit availability in their area should be rated “poor.” If
we consider a negative rating of availability to include responses of “poor” and “fair,” the least
negative rating, 66 percent, came from respondents in the WACOG/LHCMPO region. The
negative percentage was higher in all the other regions.
 Nearly one‐half of the respondents stated they would like to have the opportunity to make
greater use of both intercity bus service and regularly scheduled local bus service.
 Forty‐five percent of respondents said that the need for public transit in their area had
increased over the past few years.
 Thirty percent of respondents said that their household would “definitely” use regularly
scheduled local bus service if it were available throughout their area at a reasonable cost, while
28 percent would use intercity bus service.

44

When asked about transportation options that they would like to have the opportunity to make greater
use of, respondents indicated relatively high levels of interest, ranging from a low of 25 percent, for car‐
sharing services, to 49 percent for intercity buses. Some observations by respondents may be due to a
lack of information about transportation options that do exist within these communities. For example,
more respondents tended to believe that taxicabs, and transportation provided by local community
organizations, were available in their communities than believed that they were not available. Even so,
the percentages associated with these responses reflected a fairly high level of doubt about the
availability of services that are fairly common throughout the state. For other transit options—regularly
scheduled bus service, intercity bus, dial‐a‐ride services, and vanpools—substantially more respondents
believed they were not available than those who believed they were available.
Commuters (travelers to and from work) had a relatively low level of interest in using public transit. For
respondents with a “definite” interest in using public transit, medical appointments and intercity travel
are the most important intended use categories, with each attracting just over 50 percent of
respondents. Commuting to work, conducting personal business, participating in leisure activities, and
going to school were all approximately equal in transit interest (34 to 38 percent of respondents).
Regional Variations
The survey respondents’ answers to questions generally did not vary greatly across the five regions
analyzed. Some patterns in regional differences among responses are summarized below:
 Respondents in CAG were the most likely, and those in NACOG the least likely, to recognize a
lack of public transit as the biggest transportation problem in their area.
 The percent of respondents always or regularly using personal motorized transportation (car,
truck, etc.) was highest in the SCMPO region and lowest in WACOG/LHCMPO, where regularly
scheduled bus service was most likely to be used. The WACOG region was also rated highest in
availability.
 Respondents in the SCMPO region were most likely to indicate that availability of transit service
in their area had improved and those in WACOG/LHCMPO least likely, although percentages
indicating improvements in availability were low in all the regions.
 Respondents in the WACOG/LHCMPO region were most likely to be aware of taxi services (78
percent), and those in NACOG least aware. Awareness of regularly scheduled bus service was
relatively low for all regions combined, at 33 percent, and was lowest in the CAG region.
Demographic Variations
Of the three age groups segmented in the survey sample (under 35, 35 to 54, and 55 and over),
respondents under 35 were most likely to want increased opportunities to use intercity bus service (59
percent), local bus service (57 percent), and taxicabs (36 percent). However, the percentage spread
between this age group and the next (age 35‐54) was small, just 4 percentage points for all three
transportation options. Those age 55 and over were the least interested in using public transit, and the
percentage spread from the under‐35 group was 16 to 19 points. Respondents age 35 to 54 gave the
lowest rating of any age group to the availability of public transit in their community. Those under 35
were more likely to believe that service had improved in the past few years.
45

Income has been noted in other studies to be an indicator of the use of public transit, with lower
incomes associated with higher public transit use (for example see Chu [2012]). Respondents to the
Greater Arizona household survey with household incomes under $25,000 were most likely to have an
interest in using public transportation. Those with the highest incomes, $75,000 and over, were least
likely. Respondents with incomes under $25,000 were most likely to use public transit for medical
services, intercity travel, and personal business. Those in the highest income bracket were somewhat
more likely than those in the lower brackets to use public transit for work. Respondents who were
unemployed (but not retired) and those without a driver’s license were most likely to anticipate using
public transit for all possible purposes.
This survey focused on the non‐urban population of Arizona. There is no similarly designed, Arizona‐
specific, urban survey to which to refer. Consequently, the survey results cannot be directly compared
to those that a survey of urban populations might produce. Generally speaking, however, the survey
findings were consistent with prior studies in urban areas that indicated that persons in lower income
brackets and those using transit for other than commuting purposes tend to be heavier users of public
transit. For example, see Chu (2012) and FHWA (2009).
Transportation literature discusses the apparent contradiction between the relatively high apparent
need of seniors for public transit and their frequent tendency not to use it. Some researchers have
suggested that this is largely due to a combination of a lack of orientation/education, and the need for
scheduling, fares, and other details to be communicated in ways more accessible to seniors. These
concepts are discussed in Cevallos et. al. (2010). Results of this survey also indicated that respondents
age 55 and over have a lower level of interest in using public transit, compared with younger age
groups.
Aspects of Transit in Greater Arizona other than this survey have addressed the issue of potential
changes in public transit interest and use by the Millennial generation (born within the upper end of the
date range). Some studies of adult Millennials (for example TransitCenter [2014]) have indicated that
this group is more interested in using public transit than other segments of the population, although
other researchers dispute these kinds of claims. This dispute sometimes takes the form of research that
indicates that Millennials do not have a preference for the urban settings that tend to foster transit use.
According to Cox (2014), Millennials do not have a preference for urban locations, based on analysis of
their locations. Authors of a study by the Demand Institute (2013) assert that their Millennials survey
shows that home and auto ownership are prime goals of Millennials; many simply have not yet had the
resources to realize these ambitions.
In the Greater Arizona household survey, differences in the percentage of respondents interested in
using transit options were generally small between the lowest (Millennial) and middle age group,
although a slightly higher percentage of Millennials indicated interest in various transit options.
Differences between these two groups and the oldest age group were more pronounced. Consequently,
Millennials living in Greater Arizona may not be much more inclined to use transit than older adults aged
35 to 54 years old.

46

Comparison of Sample to the Universe
The telephone interviews were conducted among a representative cross‐section of 1,225 Arizona heads
of households. The sample size allowed for meaningful analysis of results by key demographic
subgroups, and for each of the study’s five geographic regions in Greater Arizona. In allocating the
sample among the regions, and because the regions varied greatly in their number of households, it was
necessary to use a disproportionate, stratified sample in order to maintain acceptable levels of sampling
error. Once the data were obtained and processed, the study data were weighted by the actual volume
of households in each geographic area to make the final study sample representative of the study
universe.
Although the survey process attempted to capture a demographic cross‐section of heads of households
throughout Greater Arizona, some variation between the composition of the survey sample and the
overall population is inevitable. The comparison of the sample and the head‐of‐household universe in
Greater Arizona is summarized below. Data for the universe are based on the Census Bureau’s 2012
American Community Survey 5‐Year estimates, unless noted otherwise.
Age of Head of Household
The age ranges reported by respondents were distributed among the category options given in the
survey as shown below:
 Under 35 – 19 percent
 35 to 54 – 32 percent
 55 and over – 49 percent
This distribution is very similar to the head‐of‐household age distribution in Greater Arizona according to
Census data.
Income
The income ranges reported by respondents were distributed among the category options given in the
survey as shown below:
 Under $25,000 – 29 percent
 $25,000 to $49,999 – 32 percent
 $50,000 to $74,999 – 20 percent
 $75,000 and over – 19 percent
This distribution is very similar to the household‐income distribution in Greater Arizona reported in the
Census estimates.

47

Employment Status
Employment status reported by respondents was distributed among the category options given in the
survey as shown below:
 Yes [employed] – 41 percent
 No – 19 percent
 Retired – 40 percent
This distribution is similar to the employment status (including heads of households as well as other
workers) in Greater Arizona reported in the Census estimates. According to the Census, 46 percent of
persons aged 16 and older (a group which includes many non‐heads‐of‐household) in Greater Arizona
were employed.
Gender
The survey sample contained a higher proportion of females than males, as shown below:
 Male – 45 percent
 Female – 55 percent
Although the available Census data are not directly comparable to the survey sample, women constitute
51 percent of all household heads in Greater Arizona (source is Census 2000 data). In the survey results,
female heads of household were somewhat more likely than their male counterparts to be “definitely”
interested in using public transit for medical purposes, intercity travel, and school.
Own or Rent Home
According to Census data, 66 percent of households own their homes in Greater Arizona, compared with
73 percent in the survey sample. The survey results indicated that renters are more inclined than
homeowners to have a “definite” interest in using public transit options and an intent to use them.
Consequently, when looking at survey results from all respondents, expressions of interest in using
transit and intent to use transit may be understated somewhat with respect to the overall population.

48

CHAPTER 4. GREATER ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS
This chapter documents two subtasks related to transportation service providers in Greater Arizona:
1. Preparing a contact database of providers serving Greater Arizona, and
2. Conducting an informal survey of providers to obtain input on the types of services they provide,
vehicles used, general route data, and business operation details.
THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PROVIDER DATABASE
Identifying the existing transportation providers that serve Greater Arizona was addressed by:
 Purchasing and organizing a business database from InfoUSA.
 Compiling data on non‐profit providers, and in some cases private‐sector providers, using
sources such as the NACOG Directory of Transit Providers, ADOT databases, and the APTA
database for Arizona.
 Supplementing and in many cases cross‐checking the purchased listings by visiting individual
websites for companies and for organizations such as Manta, Whitepages, Yellowpages, Yelp,
Google+, Facebook, Twitter, and other advertising or business listing services.
The intent was to include only those organizations that were not entirely governmentally supported in
the database, so some partially supported organizations are included. Because some transportation
firms providing services to Greater Arizona are located in the metro areas of Phoenix, Tucson, and Yuma
County, most businesses in those areas were included in the database based on the criteria listed below.
These criteria were available within the InfoUSA database obtained for this project (which provided data
for many but not all listings in the final database): Industry classification codes using the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the older Standard Industrial Classification System (SIC). The
criteria were applied as follows:
 Primary NAICS of Limousine Service and Special Needs Transportation were all included.
 If the primary NAICS code description was "Taxi Service" or "All Other Transit & Ground
Passenger Transportation" (and miscellaneous other NAICS categories), the firm was deleted,
except that listings under the primary NAICS noted above were retained if either of these two
conditions was met:
o Primary or Secondary SIC Descriptions (the database included both NAICS and SIC
designations) for the firm included "Limousine Service" or "Airport Transportation
Service," or
o

The firm was listed as a transportation provider in listings that applied to Greater
Arizona communities.

Any transportation‐service firm, regardless of industry classification, was included if located in the
counties within Greater Arizona.(Although there was originally an intent to exclude listings with a
primary NAICS code description of "Charter Bus Industry," — and thereby exclude sightseeing trip
providers — the charter bus listings were subsequently retained because they could be involved in
providing custom chartered trips.)
49

Other NAICS categories included: All Other Related Industries, Other Urban Transit Systems, and
Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation. The database was compiled to enable ADOT representatives to
easily identify, analyze, and use the list as an information resource. The “transportation network
companies” such as Uber and Lyft were examined in a general sense from the standpoint of their service
coverage. According to Uber’s online database (https://www.uber.com/cities), out of 141 US cities
listed, the service is available in Arizona in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas and in Flagstaff.
According to Lyft’s online database (https://www.lyft.com/cities ), out of 60 US cities listed, the service
is available in Arizona in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. Transportation network companies
were addressed specifically in the survey of transportation providers (described below) by including a
question asking providers if they believed that their organization had been affected by ridership
captured by such firms.
Data Refinement Process
The sources of the transportation provider data supplied varying levels of detail. In order to enhance
quality control and accuracy, several methods for refining the data were used to provide a more concise
list for reference and distribution. These methods involved using multiple sources to verify and update
information, such as reverse phone and email listings, primary contact and location detail comparisons,
and others.
DISTINCTIONS AMONG TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS
The database revealed several facts about the universe of providers from across the state. The total
number of transportation providers in the database is 576, of which 536 represent unique firms, as
opposed to multiple locations of the same organization. (For those firms with multiple listings, part of
the data‐cleaning process involved attempting to distinguish separate establishments from multiple
addresses of the same establishment.) The database includes private companies and their operational
divisions in different locations (sometimes in different cities), as well as a number of non‐profit or quasi‐
governmental organizations, which may be partially but not wholly publicly funded. See Figure 9 below
for the distribution of transportation providers among COGs and MPOs included in this study.

50

CAG
(Excluding SCMPO)
3

YMPO
13

SCMPO
8

SEAGO
38

FMPO
14

WACOG
(Excluding
YMPO)
43

CYMPO
42

PAG
91

MAG
252
NACOG
(Excluding FMPO
and CYMPO)
71

Figure 9. Number of Transportation Provider Establishments by COG/MPO

Thirty‐one providers included in the database are located in rural portions of three heavily urbanized
counties: Maricopa, Pima, and Yuma.
INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT
The acquired database from InfoUSA, consisting of 421 listings which are primarily private businesses,
made possible a limited assessment of transportation providers’ business composition. Of the 421
enterprises, 59 (14 percent) are non‐employers, (and therefore generally sole proprietorships), while the
remaining 362 (86 percent) are employers. The employers have an average of 11 employees. The
providers based outside Maricopa, Pima, and Yuma counties (focusing on the general area of Greater
Arizona, and ignoring for this analysis the MPOs technically excluded) generate 946 jobs, which are 22
percent of the total in the database. Note that because this list of firms does not include the entire
database, the employment numbers tend to understate the actual total. Also, the employment numbers
in an acquired database such as this one should be considered estimates only.

51

Based on the information provided by InfoUSA, eight industry classifications summarize the composition
of the firms in the compiled group of transportation providers:
 All Other Related Industries
 Other Urban Transit Systems
 Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation
 Taxicab Owner/Operators
 Limousine Services
 Charter Bus Services (Except Scenic, Sightseeing)
 Special Needs Transportation
 All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
Figure 10 displays the number of employees associated with these industry classifications by location in
the three‐county urban area of Maricopa, Pima, and Yuma counties, and in the rest of Arizona.

52

3‐County Urban
1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Figure 10. Number of Employees by Industry Classification, by Location (Partial Database)

53

GREATER ARIZONA TRANSIT SERVICE AVAILABILITY ANALYSIS
The household survey discussed in Chapter 3 included a question on the perceived availability of various
transit modes within respondents’ communities. Respondents were presented with the following
choices:
 Regularly scheduled bus service
 Taxicabs
 Vanpools
 Dial‐a‐ride bus service
 Intercity bus service
The results of this question were compared to information compiled for this chapter about the
availability of various services in Greater Arizona, and this information was supplemented by additional
information obtained from ADOT for purposes of this comparison, consisting of a database of
transportation services provided by FTA grant recipients. The resulting comparison, shown in Table 18,
provides a general overview of the relationship between the actual service provision and the perception
by residents of the services available.
At the community level, the type of service mentioned may or may not be available to a respondent
residing in any particular COG region. The results of the comparison suggest that respondents to the
survey perceived that many services were not available, when in fact they did exist at least somewhere
within respondents’ COG/MPO‐area of residence. (For this analysis, no distinction within the FTA data
were applied to the two excluded MPOs within NACOG, because the household survey respondents
would not necessarily recognize this distinction when considering availability of services.) Respondents
may be more aware of some types of service than of others.

54

Table 18. Survey Topic: Existing Transit Services – Actual Availability versus Respondent Perception
Percent of Household Survey Respondents that Believe Service is Available

COG/ MPO
CAG
NACOG
SCMPO
SEAGO/ SVMPO
WACOG

Local Organization −
Shuttle Service
40%
42%
44%
47%
48%

Demand
Responsive
Services
29%
23%
26%
22%
39%

Intercity
16%
38%
32%
24%
29%

Source: McClure Consulting LLC.

55

Local Fixed
Route
16%
32%
21%
36%
45%

Taxicab
70%
49%
65%
59%
78%

ONLINE SURVEY OF PRIVATE AND NON‐PROFIT‐SECTOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PROVIDERS
The work task for transportation service providers included the creation and administration of a survey
by which providers could give input on the types of services they provide, vehicles used, general route
data, and business information.
ADOT and the consultants understood the survey process to involve certain challenges:
 Many potential respondents were small businesses, whose owners would not necessarily
perceive the importance of a survey such as this to their business. Small‐business owners have
many other tasks to perform that they would see as taking priority over providing information to
a public agency.
 Despite having the provider database as described above, contacting these businesses would
not be a simple task, partly due to the challenge of maintaining a current database of their
addresses or other contact information. Some did not have websites or other means of
establishing email contact.
 The same survey would not necessarily be optimal for both large and small businesses.
For these and other reasons the survey was designed as an online survey that was accessible through
the use of a website link, which was included in an invitation postcard, sent by first‐class mail to the
provider database. Of these, 98 were returned as undeliverable, in spite of multiple efforts to verify and
update contact information. (The postcard is shown in Appendix C.) Returned postcards were subjected
to an additional attempt to establish a correct address, so that the firm could be properly inventoried in
the provider database. Providers with email contact information were sent an additional invitation by an
ADOT representative, which contained a direct link to the survey website. Spikes in the number of
responses received coincided with these initial and follow‐up email invitations.
The online survey also allows some of the questioning to be more efficient than might be possible
through direct contact. For example, certain logic steps were incorporated to automate linkages
between some survey responses and successive questions applicable only to those responses. The
primary disadvantage of a survey of this type is that it does not lend itself to being a scientific sample of
the universe from which information is being sought, as the respondents are generally self‐selecting to
participate. However, this disadvantage was not critical to this survey, as the intent was to informally
poll this group, and a truly scientific sample was never within the scope of this study.
The survey was drafted to present respondents with concise questions, in part reflecting the need to
keep online surveys simple, while still providing enough information for respondents to engage with
each question. Draft questions underwent numerous revisions in the phrasing of questions and the ways
in which respondents could answer when prompted to provide certain information. The questionnaire is
shown in Appendix D.
ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS, RESPONSE RATE, AND FINDINGS
Survey responses were compiled during April 2015. A total of 51 respondents elected to take the online
survey. Results are summarized in this chapter. The file containing question‐by‐question responses,
56

which the online survey company provides as output, was transmitted to ADOT under separate cover.
The source for all the charts and tables that follow is the online survey results.
Organizational Information for Responding Transportation Providers
Most of the 51 total respondents (78 percent) provide services to some portion of Greater Arizona on a
regular basis, 12 percent occasionally, and 10 percent rarely or never (Figure 11). The broadest
definition of Greater Arizona was applied for this survey, disregarding the exclusion of the two NACOG
MPOs so that respondents from all over the state would not be required to make this geographic
distinction.

Percent of Responses

12%
Occasionally
Provide
Transportation
Services

10%
Rarely or Never
Provide
Transportation
Services

78%
Regularly Provide
Transportation
Services

Figure 11. Respondents Providing Passenger Transportation Services
within Greater Arizona

57

Transportation providers were asked to provide information on number of employees, and how they
would categorize themselves in terms of economic activity. After analyzing the results drawn from
responses given for number of employees, groups of respondents were separated into categories by the
number of employees in their organization, as identified in Figure 12 (25 respondents) below. For
respondents answering this question, the group with the largest percentage has between one and five
employees.

> 30
12%

16 ‐ 30
16%
1‐5
52%

6 ‐ 15
20%

Figure 12. Percent of Respondents by Employee Class

Survey respondents’ organizations represent a broad range of industry categories. Thirty‐eight percent
of respondents indicated that their organization most closely identifies with the transportation industry
specializing in limousine services. These results are shown in Figure 13 (24 respondents). The top chart is
the industry breakdown for the provider database. The bottom chart is the breakdown by industry for
the online survey respondents.

58

Industry Composition Based on Transportation Provider Database

28%
3%

7%
6%

19%
16%

21%

Industry Composition Based on Survey Respondents
Other Urban Transit Systems
4%

4%

17%

Interurban & Rural Bus Transportation
Taxicab Service

21%
8%

Limousine Service
Charter Bus Industry

8%

Special Needs Transportation
All Other Transit & Ground Passenger
Transportation

38%

Figure 13. Organizations’ Primary Industry Classification

59

General Operational Characteristics of Responding Transportation Providers
Respondents were asked to provide basic information about the operations of their organization. Out of
the 29 respondents who identified the county of their primary place of business, and focusing on
providers based in counties associated with Greater Arizona, NACOG has the largest percentage of
transportation providers, at 28 percent, followed by SEAGO at 9 percent. See Figure 14 (29
respondents).

PAG
4 Providers
13%

WACOG
1 Provider
3%

Outside AZ
2 Providers
6%
SEAGO
3 Providers
9%

NACOG
9 Providers
28%

CAG
9 Providers
28%

MAG
11 Providers
35%

Figure 14. Primary Location of Responding Organizations

Seventy‐nine percent of transportation providers consider passenger transportation to be the primary
activity of their organization. Seventy‐one percent are private businesses. See Figure 15 (48 and 44
respondents respectively) below.

60

Percent of Respondents: Transportation Service Primary or Secondary/Ancillary
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Primary

90%

100%

90%

100%

79%

Secondary/Ancillary

21%

Percent of Respondents: Type of Organization
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

For profit

70%

Non‐Profit
Other

80%

25%
5%

Figure 15. Respondents’ Focus on Transportation, and Organization Type

When respondents were asked how long their organizations have been operating, all but one of 45
responding firms represent mature businesses. Only one has been in business less than 3 years.
Respondents were asked if their organization receives Federal Transit Authority (FTA) funding. Based on
the response to this question, 86 percent of respondents indicated that their organization does not, as
shown in Figure 16 (44 respondents).

0%

10%

20%

Percent of Respondents
30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

No

Yes

80%

90%

86%

14%

Figure 16. Respondents’ Participation in FTA Funding

61

100%

One question asked respondents if they believed their organization had been affected by ridership
captured by various transportation network companies (TNC), such as Uber. Although regulated
separately in each state, a TNC has generally been defined as an organization providing prearranged
transportation services in exchange for compensation, using an online‐enabled application or web
platform to connect passengers in need of transportation with drivers that use their own vehicles to
take them to a destination (CPUC 2013, 24). Thirty‐seven percent of respondents to this question
answered that they believed their business had been affected, as shown in Figure 17 (43 respondents).
Among respondents who answered "no," 26 percent provided information on how they determined that
answer. Most reported that their clientele, service, or trip purpose is too specialized for TNCs to
compete with. Others stated that they did not believe that TNCs could be profitable in their service area.
Of those answering "yes," half provided information about how they determined their answer. Most
frequently their customers tell them, either directly or indirectly.
Respondents were given the opportunity to comment on this question. Of the 17 respondents making
comments (about 40 percent of those addressing this question), all but three said that insurance
requirements or other regulations unfairly favor TNCs. One comment expressed concern for the
industry's reputation. Only one comment was supportive of TNCs, stating that they are an integral part
of the full spectrum of transportation services.

Percent of Respondents
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

No
Yes

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

63%
37%

Figure 17. Percentage of Transportation Providers Affected by Transportation Network Companies

Services Offered, Typical Trip Purposes, and Vehicles Used by Transportation Providers
Responding transportation providers were asked to indicate the types of passenger transportation they
provide. Call‐in or online limousine service was the service most often mentioned by respondents (about
52 percent). See Figure 18 (44 respondents) for a more detailed summary.

62

Percent of Responses
0%

20%

40%

Regularly scheduled and routed service (such as a city‐to‐
city/airport shuttle)

60%

80%

100%

34%

Respond to call‐in or standing requests under contract
(such as a dial‐a‐ride service), including transporting people
with special needs

36%

Group charter service

25%

Respond to call‐in or online requests by individuals (such as
a limousine service)

52%

Follow a more‐or‐less defined route or series of stops
where passengers might be found, when not otherwise
carrying passengers (such as a taxicab)

7%

Figure 18. Types of Passenger Transportation Services Provided by Survey Respondents

When respondents were asked about the typical trip purpose requested by their passengers, about 78
percent noted that their passengers request rides for a variety of reasons. The next two most common
trip purposes are making connections to other modes of transportation and going shopping. See Figure
19 (32 respondents) for a more detailed summary.

0%

20%

Percent of Responses
40%

60%

Serve people with a wide variety of transportation needs

80%
78%

Access workplace

38%

Access educational institution

31%

Access commercial and shopping destinations

44%

Access medical care or senior center

41%

Access recreation/tourism sites, or sightseeing

41%

Connect to other transportation modes

47%

Access events or special services

13%

Figure 19. Typical Trip Purpose Requested by Passengers

63

100%

Transportation providers were asked to indicate what type of vehicle they use for providing passenger
transportation. Although the responses varied, the two types of vehicles most often used by providers
taking this survey are small and large vans carrying up to 15 passengers, as shown in Figure 20 (34
respondents).

Percent of Responses
0%

20%

Regular auto or SUV

40%

100%

15%

Limousine

35%

Small Van (Regular)

50%

Small Van (Modified for Special Needs Passengers)

35%

Large Van (10 ‐ 15 Passengers)

50%

Cutaway Bus

32%

Standard Bus (Bike Racks/Interior Storage Racks)

9%

Intercity Bus (Bathroom/Luggage Racks)

12%

School‐Type Bus (Regular Size)

3%

School‐Type Bus (Small)

3%

Other

80%

21%

Taxicab

Trolley‐Like Vehicle

60%

0%
3%

Figure 20. Type of Vehicle Used by Responding Transportation Providers

Trip Location and Duration
Transportation providers were asked to provide information concerning trip routes and trip duration.
One question asked about primary service areas in which they provide passenger transportation
services. This question provided two formats by which respondents could describe their service areas.
First, the question included a comment box in which respondents could provide the name of the service
areas in which they travel. Second, those respondents selecting the option "A route from one
community to another" or "Combination of [the offered] options" were given the opportunity to provide
detail on the origins and destinations of their intercity routes. By structuring this question so that any
answer would provide an opportunity for obtaining information about service areas, some overlap
between the two methods was inevitable.
In the first, "comment box" set of responses, eight respondents stated that they serve all of Arizona.
Some listed northern or southern Arizona as their service area. Only Graham and Greenlee counties
were completely omitted by the remaining respondents. See Figure 21 (44 respondents) for a detailed
summary of responses to the initial question.

64

Percent of Respondents
0%
A route from one community to another

10%

20%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5%

Within a county or group of counties

18%

Within a community or group of communities

18%

Combination of these options
Other

30%

52%
7%

Figure 21. Respondents’ Primary Service Areas

The follow‐up to the preceding question, which asked for detailed trip origin and destination, yielded
the information shown in Table 19 (18 respondents). This information is supplemented by detailed
origin/destination data provided by Greyhound. In Table 19, the only counties in Greater Arizona not
represented are Apache, Gila, Graham, and Greenlee counties.

65

Table 19. Respondents’ Intercity Transit Origin and Destination Communities

Location of Service Origin
Ajo
Benson
Bullhead City
Casa Grande
Community Unspecified
Flagstaff
Fort Huachuca/Sierra Vista
Gila Bend
Grand Canyon National Park
Holbrook
Kingman
Lake Havasu
Maricopa
Mesa
Nogales
Phoenix
Prescott/Prescott Valley
Quartzsite
Tolleson
Tucson
Verde Valley area and Sedona
Willcox
Yuma

Number of Times
Mentioned by
Respondents*
1
1
3
2
4
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1

*Included data provided by Greyhound.

Location of Service
Destination
Benson
Bisbee
Bullhead City
Camp Verde
Casa Grande
Chino Valley
Clarkdale
Cottonwood
Flagstaff
Gila Bend
Glendale
Grand Canyon
Holbrook
Kingman
Maricopa County
Mesa
Phoenix
Prescott Valley
Quartzsite
Scottsdale
Sedona
Sierra Vista
Tolleson
Tombstone
Tucson
Willcox
Yavapai County
Yuma

Number of Times
Mentioned by
Respondents*
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
5
1
2
1

The next series of questions provided information on the distance traveled in providing passenger
transportation services. Respondents were asked to report the length of their longest and shortest trip
provided in a given week. They were also asked to report the average trip length in miles for any given
trip during the week, and to estimate the longest trip in miles that they might provide during any given
year. After the results were analyzed, the data were categorized by intervals of miles for the “average
length of a typical trip” occurring within a given week.

66

Table 20 shows the intervals to which respondents were assigned and the resulting aggregate data.

Table 20. Summary of Typical Passenger Trip Lengths by Interval

Interval
Categories
Less Than 20 miles
At least 20 but less
than 40 miles
40 miles or more

10

3
9

Average
Longest
Weekly Trip
58
99

16

253

Average
Shortest
Weekly Trip

Average
Weekly Trip
Number of
Respondents Length (Miles)
10
7
11
26
158

Most respondents providing information on the origin and destination of transit trips indicated that
their transit routes operate more than one trip per day. Figure 22 summarizes the responses to these
questions.

Percent of Respondents
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

More than 1 per day
1 per day
Less than once daily

70%

80%

90%

100%

86%
1%
13%

Figure 22. Number of Trips per Day

The last question relating to trip routes asked respondents whether they provided transportation
services to people outside Arizona. Responses to this question indicate that several providers (35
respondents) offer services to the five adjacent states of California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and
Utah, and also to Texas.
Discussion of Transportation Provider Profile from Survey Results
Several characteristics profile the transportation providers who responded to the survey. Most
respondents noted that they are private businesses that offer passenger transportation services as their
primary business activity. Call‐in or online limousine services are the service type most often requested
by customers. Small regular vans or larger vans with a capacity of up to 15 passengers are the type of
conveyance most used. In addition, the highest percentage of transportation providers answering the
survey:
 Have one to five employees the transportation industry,
67




Specialize in either limousine services, taxi services, or other transit and ground transportation
services, and
Make more than one trip per day

Most responding transportation providers based outside the three urban counties of Maricopa, Pima,
and Yuma are located in Coconino, Navajo, and Yavapai counties (NACOG). The responding
transportation providers, taken together, operate through much of Arizona and some provide
transportation services outside the state.

68

CHAPTER 5. INTEGRATION OF FINDINGS WITH STATE TRANSIT PLAN
This study has three research components, all of which provide material for this chapter:
 Conduct a literature review of the key topics related to transit in Greater Arizona (Chapter 2).
 Identify travel preferences and behaviors of residents of Greater Arizona that may affect the
development of transit services (Chapter 3).
 Provide an inventory, obtained through a survey process, of private transit providers serving
Greater Arizona.
Highlights from these components are incorporated in this chapter, which is intended to inform the
design and content of the future State Transit Plan.
The research processes were undertaken while recognizing conceptual challenges that could affect the
potential for obtaining meaningful results. For example, travel behaviors and preferences identified
through existing research mostly pertain to urban populations. Whether findings related to rural areas
are different or not, any research process, even with a broader scope than this one, might never be
comprehensive enough to determine definitely whether the differences (or similarities) are due to
underlying demographic conditions such as age differences, to transportation options available in cities
but limited in rural areas, to different educational/job opportunities in the two types of regions, or to
different levels of concentration of economic activity in urban and rural areas.
This chapter is primarily a series of excerpts from other chapters, organized thematically as well as by
the different processes (i.e. the literature review and surveys) addressed in those chapters. This chapter
consists of the following sections:
 A summary of findings from the transportation provider inventory and survey, including an
overview of the composition of the provider industry.
 A summary of findings from the survey of Greater Arizona households, including respondents’
perceptions and attitudes regarding transit, and regional similarities and differences across
Greater Arizona.
 Generational differences and commonalities regarding transit, based on survey results and the
literature review, including common interests in ways that transit can be made more accessible.
 Evolving transportation and transit planning considerations and processes that may influence
approaches to rural transit planning in Arizona.
KEY OBSERVATIONS RELEVANT TO FUTURE STATE TRANSIT PLAN
In Greater Arizona, residents perceive that there are deficiencies in public transportation, although
some of this may be due to a lack of knowledge about services that are available. Residents are most
likely to use transit for medical appointments and intercity travel. Commuting, leisure activities, and
school are viewed as less important transit trip purposes.

69

The extent to which the Millennial generation embraces fundamental values that may alter its
predisposition to use public transit is an ongoing subject of research, and definitive conclusions are not
available at this time. However, this research topic will continue to be important for transit providers.
The increasing availability and popularity of communication devices that increase the accessibility of
public transit can benefit all users, including Millennials who may be more attuned to such technology
than other generations. Seniors, who tend to use transit less than other generations but need
transportation options, may benefit from such technology if they are instructed in its use.
Over the past decade, transportation planning has trended toward an increased integration with land
use planning and consideration of urban design, which generally leads to greater diversification of travel
options, and enhanced relationships between these options. For example, the walkability of an area
increases the viability of transit. Transportation systems have always been understood to be closely
related to economic development capability. In rural areas, the role of transit in supporting economic
development is particularly meaningful, in part because, generally, only a limited set of job
opportunities is available in any community. Rural areas, with a small set of business‐support firms,
leasable space options, and other related opportunities, face an inherent disadvantage when competing
with urban areas for economic development.
Although the online survey of transportation service providers was not intended to provide statistically
reliable results, respondents tend to offer call‐in limousine‐type service most frequently, and to use
small vans or larger vans with a capacity of up to 15 passengers. Most do not believe that TNCs (such as
Uber) negatively affect their business, although those who see a negative effect are concerned that
these companies may have unfair regulatory advantages.
OVERVIEW OF HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINDINGS
The primary purpose of the Greater Arizona household survey was to identify travel preferences and
trends that may affect the development of transit in Greater Arizona over the next 20 years. The
research was accomplished by telephone interviews of heads of households.
The household survey began with an open‐ended question asking respondents to indicate what they
believed was the single biggest problem with the transportation system in their area. Unlike the other
survey questions, each of which had a specific structure and intent, this question had the strategic
purpose of inviting respondents to express the thoughts that initially occur to them when the local
transportation system is mentioned. The results of this question, with 49 percent of respondents stating
that lack of public transportation is the biggest local transportation problem, indicate that this opinion is
widespread.
The result could also be interpreted as an indication that people are generally satisfied with other
transportation in their area, such as streets and roads. Nevertheless, the sensitivity to lack of public
transportation was confirmed in other survey questions. For example:
 51 percent indicated that public transit availability in their area should be rated “poor.”

70





Nearly one‐half of the respondents stated they would like to have the opportunity to make
greater use of both intercity and regularly scheduled local bus service.
45 percent of respondents said that the need for public transit in their area had increased over
the past few years.
30 percent said their household would “definitely” use regularly scheduled local bus service if it
were available throughout their area at a reasonable cost, while 28 percent would use intercity
bus service.

Some observations by respondents may be due to a lack of awareness about transportation options that
actually exist within these communities. For example, the respondents who tended to believe that
taxicabs and transportation provided by local community organizations were available outnumbered
those who believed that they were not available. Even so, the percentages associated with these
responses reflected a fairly high level of doubt about the availability of services that are offered
throughout the state. For other types of transit options–regularly scheduled bus service, intercity bus,
dial‐a‐ride services, and vanpools–more respondents, by a substantial margin, believed they were not
available than were available. However, by comparing these results with a database of transportation
services provided by grant recipients, supplied by ADOT, in combination with the Greater Arizona
Transportation Provider database described in a previous chapter, it is apparent that all types of services
are available somewhere within all COG/MPO areas within Greater Arizona. In any particular
community, however, some services may be lacking (and the data do not contain enough geographic
specificity to draw definitive conclusions about this).
For respondents with a “definite” interest in using public transit, medical appointments and intercity
travel are the most prevalent intended uses, with each mentioned by just over 50 percent of
respondents. Commuting to work, conducting personal business, participating in leisure activities, and
going to school were all approximately equal in terms of travel intent, with 34 to 38 percent of
respondents expressing interest.
This survey focused on the non‐urban population of Arizona. Consequently, the results cannot be
directly compared to those that a similar survey of urban populations might produce. Generally
speaking, however, the survey findings are consistent with studies focused on urban populations. The
latter indicate that lower‐income populations and those using transit for other than commuting tend to
be heavier users of public transit than other groups. Respondents to the Greater Arizona survey with
household incomes under $25,000 are most likely to have an interest in using public transportation, and
most likely to use public transit for medical services, intercity travel, and personal business. Those with
the highest incomes, $75,000 and over, are least likely to have an interest. Those in the highest income
category are marginally more likely than those in the lower income groups to use public transit for work.
Unemployed, but not retired, respondents and those without a driver’s license are most likely to use
public transit for any purpose.

71

Regional Variations
The survey respondents’ answers to questions varied little across the five regions analyzed. Some
regional differences are summarized below:
 Respondents in CAG were more likely to recognize lack of public transportation as the biggest
transportation problem in their area, and those in NACOG the least likely.
 The percent of respondents always or regularly using personal motorized transportation modes
was highest in the SCMPO region and lowest in WACOG/LHCMPO.
 Respondents in the SCMPO region were most likely to indicate that availability of transit service
in their area had improved, and those in WACOG/LHCMPO least likely, although percentages
indicating improvements in availability were low in all the regions.
 Respondents in the WACOG/LHCMPO region were most likely to be aware of taxi services (78
percent of respondents), and those in NACOG the least aware. Awareness of regularly scheduled
bus service was relatively low in all regions, at 33 percent, and lowest in the CAG region.
Figure 23 shows a graphic summary of the key findings from the2014 Greater Arizona household survey.
ADOT has made the infographic available for distribution.

72

Figure 23. Graphic Summary of Greater Arizona Transit Household Survey Findings
73

SPECIFIC THEMES ADDRESSED
Millennials
Potential changes in public transit use by the Millennial generation, those born in 1981 through 2004, is
a matter of interest in this study, in part because studies of Millennials in general (examples cited in the
following paragraphs) have reported that this generation is very different from previous generations in a
number of lifestyle preferences that may affect transit use. Because the Greater Arizona household
survey interviewed heads of households, younger Millennials were excluded from the sample. Of the
three age groups segmented in the survey sample (under 35, 35 to 54, and 55 and over), respondents
under 35 are most likely to want increased opportunities to use intercity bus service (59 percent), local
bus service (57 percent), and taxicabs (36 percent). However, the percentage spread between this age
group and the next (age 35 to54) is small, just 4 percentage points for all three transportation options.
Those age 55 and over were generally the least interested in using public transit, and the percentage
spread from the under‐35 group is 16 to 19 percentage points.
Some studies of Millennials (for example TransitCenter 2014) have indicated that they are more
interested than other population segments in using public transit, although other researchers dispute
these claims. This dispute sometimes focuses on whether Millennials prefer the urban settings that tend
to foster transit use. Authors of one study by the Demand Institute (2013) assert that their Millennials
survey shows that home and auto ownership are prime goals for Millennials, and the authors speculate
that many simply have not had the resources to realize these ambitions.
Seniors
Transportation literature (examples are cited in the following paragraphs) discusses the apparent
contradiction in the observation that seniors may need public transit more than other age groups, but
they tend not to use it. The Greater Arizona household survey also indicates that the oldest age group
has the least interest in using transit. Some researchers have suggested that this phenomenon is largely
due to a combination of a lack of education in use of transit and the need for scheduling, fares, and
other details to be communicated in ways more accessible to seniors. These concepts are discussed in
Cevallos et. al. (2010). With proper support, seniors’ use of transit has been shown to expand.
The Internet, social marketing, electronic payment technology, and other developments can encourage
senior ridership. Special transit modes (e.g., on‐demand) are inherently inefficient and expensive, and
some demand for these modes now generated by seniors could be met by traditional transit by applying
some of these advanced technologies. For riders of rural transit systems, the benefits of enhancing real‐
time arrival information, for example, could be greater than for users of urban systems (Dutzik et. al.
2013), because rural providers will tend to deliver less‐frequent service than those in urban areas.
In response to the challenges of making an on‐call system (in which only one passenger might be served
on any single trip) more efficient, agencies are developing sophisticated scheduling systems, such as a
new rural hybrid service design called “fixed‐schedule” service, providing on‐demand service but within
scheduled periods. Other system operators are changing the way they communicate with the public,
74

making much greater use of social media, for example. A number of rural transit systems have
generated revenue from agreements with big box and grocery stores through such means as advertising
(which could occur on buses or at business‐provided bus shelters), provision of direct service, and bus
shelters. Stores could provide or make provision for these shelters at locations that help draw patrons to
their stores. Seniors are more likely to be employed now than in the past, so systems that cater to
traditional senior lifestyles, such as those focusing on shopping and recreational destinations and
excluding employment centers, have less relevance today (Hosen and Powell 2011).
Advanced technology that could make transit service more efficient has other potential implications for
transportation in general. One study (Dutzik et. al.2013) examines whether the rapid spread of mobile
Internet‐connected technologies and social networking are related to indications of the recent decline in
driving. Car sharing and other new services that are aided by communication technology shift the cost of
driving from a fixed rate to a per‐mile cost, possibly motivating users to drive less and thereby reduce
their overall spending on transportation, while car ownership has the opposite influence.
The post, “The Surprisingly Simple Amenities that Help Urban Residents Age in Place” (McIlwain 2014),
discusses issues pertaining to the assertion that "the density of urban areas provides an environment
that more naturally supports people as they age,” through better public transit, good health care, a
healthier, walkable lifestyle, and access to goods and services. In terms of potential application to
Transit in Greater Arizona, this observation suggests that Baby Boomers prefer lifestyles more similar to
urban than suburban settings, and therefore by inference would be less inclined to live in rural areas. At
the same time, a report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (Gehr
2010) asserts that increasing numbers of seniors in rural areas are creating additional demand for rural
transit services. (The document implies that this is due to the natural increase of this demographic
segment rather than migration). In the Greater Arizona household survey, respondents age 55 and over
were less interested than the other age groups in using public transit (and the percentage spread from
the under 35 group was 16 to 19 percentage points).
The report entitled Investing in Place for Economic Growth and Competitiveness (Farmer et. al. 2014)
summarizes the results of a survey conducted online in the United States in 2014 on behalf of the
American Planning Association, which focused on the relationship between planning/economic
development and the Millennial and Baby Boomer generations. The sample screened for those 21 or
over with two or more years of college. The study found that the two generations, based on this sample,
have many common interests regarding "community”. For example, fewer than 10 percent of
Millennials, Gen Xers, or Active Boomers saw themselves as favoring traditional, auto‐dependent
suburban living settings, (compared to “a suburb with walkable amenities”), despite 40 percent of them
living in that type of community at the time of the survey. In practice, a community‐scale urbanized area
that is compatible with an aging population and that could be encouraged to occur in Greater Arizona
communities might not be that much different from "urban" models for such purposes, even if a role for
transit is not as great.

75

EVOLVING TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND PROCESSES
Land Use and Traffic Congestion (Kuzmyak 2012) adds perspective to the link between land use, travel
behavior, and traffic congestion. Researchers analyzed the relationships between higher‐density land
use and traffic conditions in four Phoenix transportation corridors. The analysis showed that the urban
corridors had considerably less congestion despite densities that were many times higher than the
suburban corridor. One reason for this was the importance of a secondary street grid in the three urban
areas, which allows for better channeling of traffic and facilitates walking. A gridded street system is
common in many older, small cities, including some parts of Greater Arizona communities.
The City of San Diego General Plan describes the concept of a "city of villages" in which growth is
encouraged to occur in walkable, mixed‐use community cores that are linked by transit options (Bragado
et al. 2006). This concept could potentially have application in some non‐metro areas in Greater Arizona.
Groups of cities that potentially could be linked through intercity transit could, individually, encourage
development to concentrate in existing cores, thereby making the linkage of those “destination” cores
within the intercity transit system more viable.
A handbook entitled, Main Street . . . when a highway runs through it: A Handbook for Oregon
Communities (Kambur et. al. 1999), created by the Oregon DOT to help guide highway improvements to
enhance functionality of town business districts, details Main Street design characteristics related to
land use, transportation, urban design, funding options and scale. The Handbook authors argue that
making "Main Street" a more complete street creates an interface between transit and other modes,
such as walking or biking, thereby making transit more likely to attract riders.
Authors of the guidebook, Estimating Bicycling and Walking for Planning and Project Development
(Kuzmyak et. al. 2014) note that the ability to bicycle or walk to a transit station relates directly to the
viability of transit, which implies that the extent to which pedestrian attributes are present, and used,
could affect projections of transit use. Household survey respondents in Greater Arizona were asked
about transportation options that they “always, regularly, rarely or never rely on” to meet personal
transportation needs. Thirty‐one percent indicated that they “always” or “regularly” used “walking.”
Relationship of Transportation/Transit Planning to Rural Communities’ Economic Development
Rural areas experiencing population growth face challenges when they cross categorization thresholds
from some form of “rural” to some form of “urban” designation, a condition that is likely to occur in a
growing state such as Arizona (Hosen and Powell 2011).
The question of how the built environment affects reductions in VMT is examined in a report (Moudon
and Stewart 2013) that points out the complexity of fully assessing the built environment's scope and
other aspects of influence on travel behavior. However, planning the built environment for optimal
transportation efficiency is key to effective transit system design. For transit planning in Greater Arizona,
the sequence by which planning processes occur, for communities, transportation systems, and other
elements can be coordinated to maximize the effectiveness of each process along with the potential for
plans to work synergistically.
76

The Innovative DOT: A handbook of policy and practice (Anderson et. al. 2012) collects innovative DOT
approaches around the country "to make systems more efficient and effective in today’s challenging
economy." The handbook authors recognize that economic changes sometimes involve an emphasis on
livability, including urban form and transportation options. One report recommendation is to create
partnerships with regional transit authorities, intercity bus providers, and Amtrak to provide better‐
integrated transit service between cities and along corridors. The objective of such partnerships would
be to encourage local and long‐distance transit travel with more frequent and reliable service, which
could relieve pressure on highways and expand travel options for residents in rural areas. This concept
could in theory be applied to transit planning in Greater Arizona.
A 2012 report (Humphrey 2012) highlights case studies where transportation planning efforts are linked
with economic development strategies in a regional context. For example, an economic development
organization in a rural area combined two programs: a program that identifies and promotes industry
clusters, in the process also promoting business opportunities and linkages, and mobility programs that
encourage ridesharing and vanpooling, coordinating with employers to help them increase their
employees’ transportation choices. Besides being sound economic development practice, the cluster
program helps employers coordinate on the vanpooling. Combined, the two programs make this region
more attractive for industry, generally, by making workers more efficient and enhancing employee
satisfaction. This model could have broad application in Greater Arizona, as workers in any given small
city have limited job choices locally, need to commute to other places to expand those choices, and can
incur high commuting costs when distances are great, which can often be the case in sparsely settled
portions of Greater Arizona.
One aspect of rural development practices potentially applicable to Greater Arizona is the concept of
communities combining to form economic regions that are more competitive than any single
community would be on its own (Wieder and Williams 2008). From a transportation standpoint, this
could mean coordinating intercommunity transit services in such regions.
Rural transportation systems can maximize the economic benefits they offer to their riders and their
communities if they focus on generating the kinds of trips that lead to the largest economic benefits.
Burkhardt et. al. (1998) note that according to their study, employment trips, education and training
trips, trips for medical services, particularly dialysis, and trips that promote independent living,
especially for seniors and persons with disabilities, were found to produce the largest economic
benefits. In the Greater Arizona household survey, commuters had a relatively low level of interest in
using public transit. Medical appointments and intercity travel were their most important intended use
categories. In terms of overall expected use, 30 percent of respondents said they would “definitely” use
regularly scheduled local bus service if it were available throughout their area at a reasonable cost,
while 28 percent would use intercity bus service.

77

OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION PROVIDER FINDINGS
Summary of Findings from the Transportation Provider Inventory
The provider database was compiled as an active resource that would enable ADOT representatives to
use the list for multiple purposes. Existing transportation providers that serve Greater Arizona (including
some firms based in metropolitan areas outside Greater Arizona) were identified by multiple means,
starting with a purchased business database.
The database revealed many facts about providers across the state. There are 576 establishments in the
database, of which 536 listings represent unique firms (separate organizations). The distribution of
providers by COG and MPO is shown in Figure 24.

CAG
(Excluding SCMPO)
3

YMPO
13

SCMPO
8

SEAGO
38

FMPO
14

WACOG
(Excluding
YMPO)
43

CYMPO
42

PAG
91

MAG
252
NACOG
(Excluding FMPO
and CYMPO)
71

Figure 24. Location of Transportation Providers by COG/MPO

Of the 421 firms with employment data, 59 (14 percent) are non‐employers, and therefore generally
sole proprietorships, while the remaining 362 (86 percent) are employers. Employers with payrolls have
an average of 11 employees. Overall, the providers based outside Maricopa, Pima, and Yuma counties
generate 946 jobs, or 22 percent of those accounted for in the database. Because this list of firms does
78

not include the entire database, the employment numbers tend to understate the actual total and
should be considered estimates only.
Summary of Findings from Transportation Provider Online Survey
Fifty‐one respondents elected to take the online transportation provider survey. Although a primary
disadvantage of a survey of this type is the absence of scientific sampling, the survey was always
intended to be a poll of businesses rather than a scientific survey.
Within Greater Arizona, 28 percent of the responding transportation providers were based in the
NACOG region (the region represented by the largest percentage of respondents), followed by SEAGO at
9 percent. Types of services delivered by transportation providers are summarized below, ordered by
highest to lowest percent:
 Respond to call‐in or online requests by individuals (such as a limousine service), 52 percent of
respondents
 Respond to call‐in or standing requests under contract (such as a dial‐a‐ride service), including
transporting people with special needs, 36 percent
 Regularly scheduled and routed service (such as city‐to‐city/airport shuttle), 34 percent
 Group charter service, 25 percent
 Follow a more‐or‐less defined route or series of stops where passengers might be found, when
not otherwise carrying passengers (such as a taxi), 7 percent
The numbers in the bullet list add to more than 100 percent because some providers offer more than
one type of service.
Transportation providers were asked to provide information concerning trip routes and distance. Several
respondents stated that they serve the entire state of Arizona, while some listed northern or southern
Arizona as their service area. All of Arizona except Graham and Greenlee counties is at least partly
covered by one or more respondents' service areas. Although roughly one‐third of the respondents
believe that their organization has had ridership captured by TNCs, the majority see no such effect.
Respondents to the provider survey yield a particular profile. Most respondents noted that they offer
passenger transportation as their primary business activity. Services offered by call‐in or online
limousine service are most often requested by transportation provider customers. The greatest number
of providers use vans with a capacity of 15 or fewer passengers. In addition, the highest percentage of
responding providers:
 Have one to five employees working for them in the transportation industry,
 Specialize in limousine services, taxi services, or other transit and ground transportation
services, and
 Make more than one trip per day

79

80

REFERENCES
Agrawal, Asha Weinstein, Evelyn Blumenberg, Sarah Abel, Gregory Pierce, and Charles N. Darrah. 2011.
Getting Around When You're Just Getting By: The Travel Behavior and Transportation Expenditures of
Low‐Income Adults. San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI), College of Business, San Jose
State University. MTI Report 10‐02.
American Public Transportation Association (APTA). 2013. Millennials & Mobility: Understanding the
Millennial Mindset. Washington, D.C.: American Public Transportation Association (APTA).
Anderson, Geoff, Rayla Bellis, Alex Dodds, Mary Ebeling, Anthony Gad, Ann Grodnik, Bill Holloway, Tom
Madrecki, Roger Millar, Sam Munger, Eric Sundquist, and Robbie Webber. 2012.The Innovative DOT:
A Handbook of Policy and Practice. New York, NY: Prepared by Smart Growth America and State
Smart Transportation Initiative (SSTI) and produced by the Rockefeller Foundation.
Arizona Department of Transportation. 2008. Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study: Final Report. AZ‐08‐
501. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Transportation, Public Transit Division.
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). 2011. What Moves You Arizona? Phoenix: Arizona
Department of Transportation.
Bartholomew, Keith. "Land Use‐Transportation Scenario Planning: Promise and Reality." 2007.
Transportation 34, no. 4 : 397‐412.
Becker, Sofia, Scott Bernstein, and Linda Young. 2013. The New Real Estate Mantra: Location Near Public
Transportation. Prepared by The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) and commissioned by
APTA in partnership with the National Association of Realtors (NAR). Washington, D.C.: APTA.
Belden Russonello & Stewart: Research and Communications. 2011. The 2011 Community Preference
Survey: What Americans are looking for when deciding where to live. Conducted for the NAR.
Washington, D.C.: NAR.
Berens, Gayle, and Patrick Pontius. SB 375 Impact Analysis Report. 2010. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land
Institute.
Burkhardt, J. E., Hedrick, J. L., & McGavock, A. T. 1998. Assessment of the Economic Impacts of Rural
Public Transportation (Vol. 34).Transportation Research Board.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2013. Decision adopting rules and regulations to protect
public safety while allowing new entrants to the transportation industry. Decision 13‐09‐045 in
Rulemaking 12‐12‐011 2013. Accessed June 18, 2015 via:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M077/K112/77112285.PDF
Cervero, Robert and Erick Guerra. 2011. Urban Densities and Transit: A Multi‐Dimensional Perspective.
Working Paper UCB‐ITS‐VWP‐2011‐6. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of

81

California, Berkeley,. Accessed December 1, 2014, via:
http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2011/VWP/UCB‐ITS‐VWP‐2011‐6.pdf
Cevallos, Fabian, Jon Skinner, Tekisha Ivy, and Ann Joslin. 2010. Attracting Senior Drivers to Public
Transportation: Issues and Concerns. Report No. FTA‐FL‐04‐7104‐2010.02. Washington, D.C.:
Prepared by Lehman Center for Transportation Research at Florida International University for US
DOT, Federal Transit Administration.
Chu, Xuehao. 2012. An Assessment of Public Transportation Markets Using NHTS Data. Report No.
NCTR778‐03, FDOT BDK85 977‐17. Tampa, FL: National Center for Transit Research (NCTR), University
of South Florida prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation and the USDOT.
Cox, Wendell. 2014. “Dispersing Millennials.” New Geography. Accessed on July 9, 2014, via:
http://www.placemakers.com/2012/04/09/generation‐ys‐great‐migration/.
Davis, Benjamin, Tony Dutzik, and Phineas Baxandall. 2012. Transportation and the New Generation:
Why Young People Are Driving Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy. Washington, D.C.:
Frontier Group and US PIRG Education Fund.
deBettencourt, James. 2012. Economic Effects of Public Investment in Transportation and Directions for
the Future. Washington, D.C.: Prepared by Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) for the SSTI.
Dechert, Sandy. 2014. “Google Maps Covering World’s Public Transit Routes & Schedules.”
CleanTechnica. Accessed October 17, 2014, via: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/19/google‐maps‐
covering‐public‐transit‐routes‐schedules/.
Demand Institute. 2013. 2013 Demand Institute Housing & Community Survey. Washington, D.C.:
Demand Institute.
Dutzik, Tony and Phineas Baxandall. 2013. A New Direction: Our Changing Relationship with Driving and
the Implications for America’s Future. Washington, D.C.: US PIRG Education Group and Frontier
Group.
Dutzik, Tony, Travis Madsen, and Phineas Baxandall. 2013. A New Way to Go: The Transportation Apps
and Vehicle‐Sharing Tools that are Giving More Americans the Freedom to Drive Less. Washington,
D.C.: US PIRG Education Group and Frontier Group.
Edrington, Suzie, Jonathan Brooks, Linda Cherrington, Meredith Highsmith, and Matt Sandidge. 2012.
Toolkit for Rural Transit Planning: Five‐Year Operations and Financial Plan. College Station, TX: Texas
Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System.
Farmer, W. Paul, Ann M. Simms, Jason Jordan, and Roberta Rewers. 2014. Investing In Place for
Economic Growth and Competitiveness. Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association.
Fast Company. 2014. “Better Navigation Makes Better Cities.” Fast Company.

82

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. 2009 National Household Travel Survey. Washington,
D.C.: US Department of Transportation (USDOT).
Garceau, Timothy J., Carol Atkinson‐Palombo, and Norman Garrick. 2015. "Peak Car Travel in the United
States: A Two‐Decade‐Long Phenomenon at the State Level." Presentation of paper at the
Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., January 11‐15, 2015.
Gehr, David. 2010. “Unlocking Gridlock.” In Transportation Reboot: Restarting America’s Most Essential
Operating System. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
Goodyear, Sarah. 2014. “Millennials Love Transit Most, Boomers Still Stuck on Cars.” CityLab., Accessed
September 18, 2014, via: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/09/new‐study‐millennials‐love‐
transit‐most‐boomers‐still‐stuck‐on‐cars/380380/.
Gordon, David LA, and Mark Janzen. 2013. "Suburban nation? Estimating the size of Canada’s suburban
population." Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 30, no. 3 : 197.
Guerra, Erick and Robert Cervero. 2011. Mass Transit & Mass: Densities Needed to Make Transit
Investments Pay Off. UCTC Policy Brief 2011‐02. Berkeley, CA: Transportation Center, University of
California, Berkeley (UCTC),. Accessed December 1, 2014, via:
http://www.uctc.net/research/briefs/UCTC‐PB‐2011‐02.pdf.
Hine, Steve, Rachel Vilsack, and John Clay. 2014. Minnesota Cost of Living Study: 2014 Annual Report.
Saint Paul, MN: Labor Market Information Office, Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development.
Hosen, Kenneth I. and S. Bennett Powell. 2011. “Innovative Rural Transit Services.” TCRP Synthesis 94.
TCRP Project J‐07/Topic SB‐17. Washington, D.C.: Prepared by KFH Group, Inc. for the Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies.
Humphrey, Kate. Aligning Strategies to Maximize Impact: Case Studies On Transportation and Economic
Development. 2012. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Development Organizations Research
Foundation.
Kambur, Pamela, Lainie Smith, Karen Swirsky, Nils Eddy, David Olsen, Brian Rankin, Dan Burden, and Pat
Kliewer. 1999. Main Street . . . When a Highway Runs Through It: A Handbook for Oregon
Communities. Salem, OR: Transportation and Growth Management Program, David Evans and
Associates Inc., Walkable Communities, and Kliewer and Associates prepared for Oregon Department
of Transportation.
Kolko, Jed. 2014. “Millennials Are Suburbanizing, While Big Cities Are Having a Baby Boom.” Trulia.
Accessed June 26, 2014, via: http://www.trulia.com/trends/2014/06/millennials‐suburbanizing/.

83

Kuzmyak, J. Richard. 2012. Land Use and Traffic Configuration. FHWA‐AZ‐12‐618. Phoenix: Arizona
Department of Transportation.
Kuzmyak, J. Richard, Jerry Walters, Mark Bradley, and Kara M. Kockelman. 2014. Estimating Bicycling
and Walking for Planning and Project Development: A Guidebook. NCHRP Report 770. Washington,
D.C.: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program.
Lachman, M. Leanne and Deborah L. Brett. 2013. Generation Y: Shopping and Entertainment In The
Digital Age. Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Lee, Eric S., Ben Sprung, Sean Stefanik, Michelle Lau, Bruce Schaller, Thomas Maguire, Michael Flynn,
Sean Quinn, Irena Nedeljkovic, Erica DeCresenzo, and Gavin Barber. 2013. The Economic Benefits of
Sustainable Streets. New York, NY: Prepared initially by Bennett Midland, LLC and finalized by New
York City Department of Transportation.
Litman, Todd. Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts. Victoria, BC, Canada: Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, 2004.
Livingston, Jennifer and John McNamara. 2007. “Working Paper #2: Issue Paper – Economic
Development.” Building a Quality Arizona: Statewide Intrastate Mobility Reconnaissance Study.
Phoenix, AZ: Prepared by DMJM Harris/AECOM and Partners for Strategic Action (PSA) for Maricopa
County Association of Governments (MAG).
Markham, Derek. 2013. “Public transportation & mass transit are keys to smart cities.” Inspired
Economist. Accessed on September 24, 2014, via: http://inspiredeconomist.com/2013/12/10/public‐
transportation‐mass‐transit‐keys‐smart‐cities/.
McCahill, Chris. 2014. Per Capita VMT Drops For Ninth Straight Year: DOTs Taking Notice. Washington,
D.C.: SSTI.
Mcllwain, John. 2011. “The Surprisingly Simple Amenities that Help Urban Residents Age in Place.”
Urban Land. Accessed September 24, 2014, via: http://urbanland.uli.org/economy‐markets‐
trends/the‐surprisingly‐simple‐amenities‐that‐help‐urban‐residents‐age‐in‐place/.
Mistretta, Mark, Jay Goodwill, Robb Gregg and Christopher DeAnnuntis. 2009. Best Practices in Transit
Service Planning. Report 2117‐77720‐00. Tallahassee, FL: Prepared for Florida Department of
Transportation Research Center by NCTR, University of South Florida. Florida Department of
Transportation.
Moudon, Anne Vernez, and Orion Stewart. 2013. Tools for Estimating VMT Reductions From Built
Environment Changes. Research Report WA‐806.3. Olympia, WA: Prepared for State of Washington
Department of Transportation by Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington.
The State of Washington Department of Transportation.

84

Norris, Nathan. 2012. “Why Generation Y is Causing the Great Migration of the 21st Century.” Place
Makers. Accessed on April 9, 2014, via: http://www.placemakers.com/2012/04/09/generation‐ys‐
great‐migration/.
Obermann, William R. 2012. Travel Demand Management (TDM): A Toolbox of Strategies to Reduce
Single‐occupant Vehicle Trips and Increase Alternate Mode Usage in Arizona. FHWA‐AZ‐12‐654.
Prepared in cooperation with the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Phoenix: Arizona Department of Transportation.
Peralta, Katherine. 2014. “Homeownership for Millennials Declines to New Lows.” U.S. News & World
Report. Accessed on April 30, 2014, via:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/04/30/homeownership‐for‐millennials‐declines‐to‐
historic‐lows.
Pew Center on the States and Rockefeller Foundation. 2011. Measuring Transportation Investments: The
Road to Results. Washington, D.C.: Pew Center on the States and Rockefeller Foundation.
Pew Research Center. 2010. Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next. Edited by Paul Taylor and Scott
Keeter. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Accessed December 1, 2014, via:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/millennials‐confident‐connected‐open‐to‐change.pdf
Price Waterhouse Cooper (PwC) and Urban Land Institute. 2014. Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2014.
Washington, D.C.: PwC and Urban Land Institute.
Rockefeller Foundation. 2014. “Access To Public Transportation A Top Criterion For Millennials When
Deciding Where To Live, New Survey Shows.” The Rockefeller Foundation. Accessed April 22, 2014,
via: http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/about‐us/news‐media/access‐public‐transportation‐top.
Spivak, Jeffrey. 2011. “Q&A with AARP – Livable Communities.” Urban Land. Accessed on September 24,
2014, via: http://urbanland.uli.org/industry‐sectors/q‐a‐with‐aarp‐livable‐communities/.
Tao, Wendy and Caroline Leary. 2013. Preliminary Study of Climate Adaptation for the Statewide
Transportation System in Arizona. FHWA‐AZ‐13‐696. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Transportation.
The Nielson Company. 2014. Millennials – Breaking the Myths. New York, NY: The Nielson Company.
Accessed September 24, 2014 via:
http://digitalmarketingstrategiessummit.com/assets/files/presentations/Mancini_Report.pdf
TransitCenter. 2014. Who’s on Board: 2014 Mobility Attitudes Survey. New York, NY: Prepared for
TransitCenter by Resource Systems Group (RSG, Inc.) and M&R Strategic Services.
TranSystems Corporation. 2014. “Maybe the Millennials are Driving Less Because They're Buying Fewer
Houses.” TranSystems News in Motion. Accessed on March 30, 2015, via:
http://transystems.com/Home/News‐Press/News‐In‐Motion/October‐30‐2014/Maybe‐the‐
Millennials‐are‐Driving‐Less‐Because‐
85

The.aspx?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TSYS%20604%20‐
%2010&utm_content=TSYS%20604%20‐
%2010+CID_e419cc582ec9bc3349e1c8ada9950dda&utm_source=News%20In%20Motion%20Traffic
&utm_term=Maybe%20the%20Millennials%20are%20Driving%20Less%20Because%20Theyre%20Bu
ying%20Fewer%20Houses.
Unrein, Serena and Diane E. Brown. 2014. Bikes, Trains & Less Driving: Transportation Trends in Arizona.
Phoenix, AZ: Arizona PIRG Educational Fund.
Valley Metro. 2012. Arizona Avenue High Capacity Transit: Long Range Study. Prepared in cooperation
with the City of Chandler, Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Valley Metro.
Vermont Congress. Joint Legislature Transportation Committees. 2014. Getting Millennials From A to B.
Vermont Transportation Board Annual Report, 2014‐2015 General Assembly, Committee Print 2‐20‐
2015.
Wieder, S. Anne, and Jon M. Williams. 2008. “Transportation Implications of Emerging Economic
Development Trends.” Research Results Digest, no. 327. Washington, D.C.: National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP).
Wolverson, Roya. 2012. “Rental Nation.” Time.

86

APPENDIX A. GREATER ARIZONA HOUSEHOLD SURVEY PROFILE

87

88

89

90

APPENDIX B. GREATER ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS
ONLINE SURVEY POSTCARD

91

92

APPENDIX C. GREATER ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS ONLINE SURVEY

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101