Arizona rural transit needs study: final report

              www. camsys. com
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
May 2008
Final
Report
prepared for
Arizona Department of Transportation
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
in association with
TranSystems Corporation
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................. ES- 1
Study Baseline Report...................................................................................... ES- 1
Future Trend Analysis..................................................................................... ES- 3
Transit Demand and Need.............................................................................. ES- 4
Funding Issues and Solutions......................................................................... ES- 9
Vision, Goals, and Objectives........................................................................ ES- 10
Service Alternatives and Solutions............................................................... ES- 11
Supporting Policies and Practices................................................................ ES- 15
Summary.......................................................................................................... ES- 16
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1- 1
2.0 Vision, Goals, and Objectives.......................................................................... 2- 1
2.1 Vision............................................................................................................ 2- 1
2.2 Goals............................................................................................................. 2- 1
2.3 Objectives..................................................................................................... 2- 2
3.0 Key Findings........................................................................................................ 3- 1
3.1 Overview...................................................................................................... 3- 1
3.2 Study Areas and Existing Services........................................................... 3- 1
3.3 Demographic Changes............................................................................... 3- 5
3.4 Transit Demand and Need...................................................................... 3- 13
3.5 Strategy and Costs to Meet Need........................................................... 3- 17
4.0 Service Alternatives and Solutions................................................................ 4- 1
4.1 Overview...................................................................................................... 4- 1
4.2 Summary of Stakeholder Input................................................................ 4- 1
4.3 Section 5311 Local Service Alternatives................................................... 4- 4
4.4 Section 5311 Intercity Service Alternatives........................................... 4- 20
4.5 Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 Service Alternatives............................... 4- 25
4.6 Vanpooling and Ridesharing.................................................................. 4- 31
5.0 Supporting Policies and Practices.................................................................. 5- 1
5.1 Background on Funding............................................................................ 5- 1
5.2 Funding Criteria.......................................................................................... 5- 3 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i
7433.050
Table of Contents, continued
5.3 Best Practices Review................................................................................. 5- 7
6.0 Summary and Next Steps.................................................................................. 6- 1
6.1 Overview...................................................................................................... 6- 1
6.2 Study Objectives......................................................................................... 6- 1
6.3 Demographic Trends.................................................................................. 6- 1
6.4 Stakeholder Input....................................................................................... 6- 2
6.5 Transit Demand and Need........................................................................ 6- 3
6.6 Vision, Goals, and Objectives.................................................................... 6- 4
6.7 Strategy to Meet Need................................................................................ 6- 4
6.8 Service Alternatives and Solutions........................................................... 6- 5
6.9 Funding........................................................................................................ 6- 9
6.10 Roles and Responsibilities......................................................................... 6- 9
6.11 Conclusion................................................................................................. 6- 11
Appendix A. Definitions.......................................................................................... A- 1
Appendix B. Case Studies........................................................................................ B- 1
Appendix C. Federal Funding Levels for Arizona............................................... C- 1
Appendix D. FY 2006 Section 5311 Financial and Performance Criteria......... D- 1
ii Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
7433.050
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
List of Tables
Table ES- 1 Comparison of Rural and Urban Arizona, Year 2005..................... ES- 2
Table ES- 2 Summary of Year 2016 Cost and Ridership by Scenario................ ES- 8
Table 3.1 Population Groups in APTNA Method by County, 2007 and 2016.......................................................................................................... 3- 14
Table 3.2 Estimated Annual Rural Transit Demand from APTNA Method by County, 2007 and 2016..................................................... 3- 15
Table 3.3 Summary of Year 2016 Cost and Ridership by Scenario................. 3- 20
Table 4.1 APTNA Demand Forecast for Rural Cities/ Towns With No Section 5311 Program Service................................................................ 4- 5
Table 4.2 List of Top Candidates for New Section 5311 Program Service....... 4- 8
Table 4.3 APTNA Demand Forecast for Rural Cities/ Towns With Section 5311 Program Service.............................................................. 4- 12
Table 4.4 List of Top Candidates for Expanded Section 5311 Program Service..................................................................................................... 4- 14
Table 4.5 Section 5311 Program Service Performance Measures.................... 4- 15
Table 4.6 Intercounty and Out- of- State Commuter Demand Analysis, 2005 and 2016......................................................................................... 4- 21
Table 4.7 List of Top Candidates for New or Expanded Intercity Section 5311 Program Services............................................................ 4- 22
Table 5.1 Section 5311 Program FY 2006 Capital Funding................................. 5- 2
Table 5.2 Section 5311 Program Fiscal Year 2006 Operating Funding............. 5- 3
Table 6.1 Top Candidates for New Local and Tribal Section 5311 Program Service...................................................................................... 6- 6
Table 6.2 Top Candidates for Expanded Local and Tribal Section 5311 Program Service...................................................................................... 6- 7
Table 6.3 Top Candidates for New Intercity Section 5311 Program Service....................................................................................................... 6- 8
Table C. 1 Federal Funding Levels for Arizona, FY 2005 to FY 2009................ C- 2
Table D. 1 Financial- Based Criteria for Existing Section 5311 Operators, FY 2006..................................................................................................... D- 2
Table D. 2 Performance- Based Criteria for Existing Section 5311 Operators, FY 2006................................................................................. D- 3 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
List of Figures
Figure ES. 1 Population Characteristics of Rural Arizona, Year 2005................ ES- 3
Figure ES. 2 Population in Rural Arizona by County, 2005 to 2015................... ES- 4
Figure ES. 3 Projected Transit Demand in Rural Arizona, Year 2016................. ES- 5
Figure ES. 4 Total Annual Rural Transit Ridership Estimates by Scenario, 2007 to 2016........................................................................................... ES- 6
Figure ES. 5 Total Annual Rural Transit Cost Estimates by Scenario, 2007 to 2016.................................................................................................... ES- 7
Figure ES. 6 Per Capita State- Level Transit Funding, Year 2005......................... ES- 9
Figure ES. 7 Top Candidates for New or Expanded Local and Tribal Section 5311 Program Service........................................................... ES- 13
Figure ES. 8 Top Candidates for New Intercity Section 5311 Program Service.................................................................................................. ES- 14
Figure 3.1 Rural Transit Study Areas...................................................................... 3- 2
Figure 3.2 Rural Cities and Tribal Reservations Over 5,000 in Population With and Without Section 5311 Service............................................... 3- 3
Figure 3.3 Existing Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled Rural Transit Services..................................................................................................... 3- 4
Figure 3.4 Amtrak and Greyhound Services in Arizona...................................... 3- 5
Figure 3.5 Population Growth in Rural Arizona by County, 2005 to 2015........ 3- 6
Figure 3.6 Population Change in Pinal County, 2000 to 2025............................. 3- 7
Figure 3.7 Total Population Change of Rural Arizona, 2005 to 2015................. 3- 8
Figure 3.8 Percentage of Elderly Persons in Rural Arizona by County, Year 2015.................................................................................................. 3- 9
Figure 3.9 Change in Elderly Population in Rural Arizona by County, 2005 to 2015............................................................................................ 3- 10
Figure 3.10 Percentage of Persons Below Poverty in Rural Arizona by County, Year 2000................................................................................. 3- 11
Figure 3.11 Change in Low Income Population in Rural Arizona by County, 2005 to 2015............................................................................. 3- 12
Figure 3.12 Persons With No Vehicle Available in Arizona by County, Year 2000................................................................................................ 3- 13 iv Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.13 Projected Transit Demand in Rural Arizona, Year 2016.................. 3- 16
Figure 3.14 Total Annual Rural Transit Ridership Estimates by Scenario, 2007 to 2016............................................................................................ 3- 18
Figure 3.15 Total Annual Rural Transit Costs Estimates by Scenario, 2007 to 2016..................................................................................................... 3- 19
Figure 4.1 Top Candidates for New or Expanded Local and Tribal Section 5311 Program Service.............................................................. 4- 19
Figure 4.2 Top Candidates for New Intercity Section 5311 Program Services................................................................................................... 4- 24
Figure 4.3 Rural Locations With Section 5310 Coordination Opportunities......................................................................................... 4- 27
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. v
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Executive Summary
The State of Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study provides regionally- based solu- tions to rural public transportation in Arizona. The Study is intended to serve as an objective, analytical basis for establishing Arizona’s long- term strategic direc- tion of rural transit service provision. The Arizona Department of Transportation, Public Transportation Division ( ADOT- PTD) worked in close partnership with regional planning organizations and Councils of Governments ( COG) through- out the State to prepare this Study. The primary Study tasks focused on a 10- year planning horizon including:
•
Collection and analysis of relevant data, including population, employment, income levels, automobile ownership, and travel patterns;
•
Identification of national trends in addressing rural transit needs;
•
Obtaining key stakeholder input on current gaps in transit service;
•
Developing projections for future transit demand;
•
Identification and quantification of potential solutions; and
•
Development of a plan for future new services and service improvements.
Four previous interim reports were completed that documented the methodol- ogy, findings, and recommendations of the above tasks of the Study. The transit demand and need analysis estimates that year 2007 ridership of existing rural transit services in Arizona will be about 1.4 million, relative to a total demand for rural transit services of 7.8 million. This indicates that only about 18 percent of existing transit demand are currently being met with appropriate transit services in rural Arizona ( i. e., the unmet need is about 82 percent). If no changes to existing services are made, the percentage of unmet need will increase from 82 percent in the year 2007 to 87 percent in 2016.
This Executive Summary first contains the key findings from the previously completed interim reports. The Executive Summary then provides a description of specific service solutions, supporting policies and practices, and suggested next steps to enhance rural public transportation throughout Arizona.
STUDY BASELINE REPORT
The Study team developed 2005 baseline conditions in rural Arizona, including population, employment, auto ownership, income levels, and travel patterns. Rural Arizona is defined as all areas of the State that are not within one of the five existing urbanized areas in Arizona ( Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma, Flagstaff, and Prescott). Table ES- 1 shows the main characteristics of rural Arizona compared to the State’s urbanized areas.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES- 1
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Table ES- 1 Comparison of Rural and Urban Arizona, Year 2005
Rural Arizona
Urban Arizona
Number
Percent of State Total
Number
Percent of State Total
Total Population
1,501,243
24.8%
4,543,742
75.2%
Elderly Population ( ages 60 and over)
348,533
31.7%
749,488
68.3%
Low- Income Population
230,800
32.3%
483,090
67.7%
Employment
554,317
20.5%
2,155,772
79.5%
Source: Cambridge Systematics, based on U. S. Census and Arizona DES.
The key findings of this baseline conditions analysis include the following:
•
The 2005 population of rural Arizona is estimated at 1.5 million, or 24.8 percent of the total state’s population. The counties with the most rural residents are Pinal ( about 213,000); Mohave ( 188,000); Pima ( 169,000); and Maricopa ( 168,000). Over the past 5 years, the most rapidly growing counties in rural population are Pinal ( 43.9 percent), Yuma ( 22.1 percent), and Mohave ( 21.3 percent).
•
The 2005 elderly population ages 60 and over of rural Arizona is estimated at 348,533, or 31.7 percent of the total state’s elderly population. The percentage of persons who are elderly in rural Arizona is higher than the urbanized areas of the State ( 23.2 percent compared to 16.5 percent). Counties with the highest percentage of elderly persons are La Paz ( 40 percent), Mohave ( 30.4 percent), and Yavapai ( 29.8 percent).
•
The 2005 low- income population ( i. e., persons with household incomes below the poverty line) is estimated at 230,800, or 32.3 percent of the total state’s low- income population. The poverty rate in rural Arizona is signifi- cantly higher than in urbanized areas ( 18.1 percent poverty rate in rural Arizona compared to 12.5 percent in urban Arizona). The counties with the highest poverty rates are Apache ( 37.8 percent), Navajo ( 29.5 percent), and Santa Cruz ( 24.5 percent).
•
While rural Arizona has about 24.8 percent of the State’s total population, the share of the State’s total employment in rural Arizona is smaller at about 20.5 percent.
•
The largest county- to- county commuter travel flows are between Pinal and Maricopa and between Mohave and out- of- state ( i. e., Nevada).
Figure ES. 1 shows the 2005 population characteristics of rural Arizona by county. Elderly, disabled, and low- income population estimates in each county are bro- ken out separately. About 23 percent of rural Arizona residents are elderly, 15 percent are persons of low income ( nonelderly), and 10 percent are disabled persons ( nonelderly).
ES- 2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure ES. 1 Population Characteristics of Rural Arizona, Year 2005 Population of Rural Arizona, 2005 ( 23% elderly; 15% low- income; 10% disabled) 050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000ApacheCochiseCoconinoGilaGrahamGreenleeLa PazMaricopaMohaveNavajoPimaPinalSanta CruzYavapaiYumaDisabled Persons( not in poverty, under age 60) Persons in Poverty( under age 60) Elderly( ages 60 & over) Other
Source: Arizona DES, 2005 and U. S. Census, 2000.
FUTURE TREND ANALYSIS
The Study team prepared future demographic trends in rural Arizona to the year 2015. The key findings of the future trend analysis include:
•
The percentage of the State’s population living in rural areas is projected to decline from 24.8 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2015, due to the designa- tion of two new urbanized areas ( Lake Havasu City- Kingman and Sierra Vista- Douglas), as well as the continued geographic expansion of the Phoenix and Tucson urbanized areas.
•
In order to provide consistency in measuring transit demand over time, the populations of the projected new urbanized areas in Cochise and Mohave Counties, following the 2010 U. S. Census, are included with rural Arizona for this analysis.
•
The 2015 population of rural Arizona is estimated at 1.9 million, including currently rural areas projected to become urbanized following the 2010 U. S. Census. The counties projected to have the most rural residents are Pinal ( about 452,000); Mohave ( 253,000); Cochise ( 180,000); and Yavapai ( 153,000). The most rapidly growing counties in rural population are projected to be Pinal ( 112.3 percent), Cochise ( 36.6 percent), Mohave ( 34.4 percent), and Yavapai ( 34.1 percent).
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES- 3
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
•
The percentage of persons in rural Arizona who are elderly is projected to increase from 23.2 percent in 2005 to 27.7 percent in 2015.
Figure ES. 2 shows the projected population change of rural Arizona from 2005 to 2015 by county.
Figure ES. 2 Population in Rural Arizona by County, 2005 to 2015 Rural Population by County, 2005- 2015 ( largest growth: Pinal, Mohave, Cochise) 050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000500,000ApacheCochiseCoconinoGilaGrahamGreenleeLa PazMaricopaMohaveNavajoPimaPinalSanta CruzYavapaiYuma20052015
Source: Cambridge Systematics based on various data sources. Includes population of projected new urbanized areas in Cochise and Mohave counties.
TRANSIT DEMAND AND NEED
The Study team reviewed five analytical methods to assess their applicability in estimating transit demand and need in rural Arizona. The results from one method were recommended and carried forward to represent rural transit needs and gaps in the State:
•
Transit demand in rural Arizona is projected to grow from 7.8 million pas- senger trips in 2007 to 10.5 million in 2016, an increase of 34 percent. This includes demand in currently rural areas that are projected to become urbanized by 2010 ( according to the U. S. Census).
•
The counties with the highest projected levels of rural transit demand in 2016 are Pinal ( 2.5 million trips), Mohave ( 1.3 million), Navajo ( 1.0 million), and Cochise ( 0.9 million). This is shown in Figure ES. 3.
ES- 4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure ES. 3 Projected Transit Demand in Rural Arizona, Year 2016
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; and TranSystems.
Annual ridership in 2007 carried by existing rural transit services in Arizona is estimated at 1.4 million. This indicates that only about 18 percent of existing transit demand are currently being met with appropriate transit services in rural Arizona. Existing rural transit services are projected to meet only 13 percent of total ridership need in 2016, if no additional services are introduced. This is a result of continued population growth throughout the State during the next 10 years.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES- 5
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Four scenarios were proposed to gradually improve and increase rural transit service provision over time in Arizona ( Figure ES. 4) including:
•
Scenario # 1 was designed to increase service provision to meet 25 percent of the projected rural transit need by 2016. With this scenario, rural transit ridership is projected to increase from the current level of about 1.4 million annual passenger trips in 2007 to 2.6 million annual trips in 2016.
•
Scenario # 2 was designed to increase service provision to meet 50 percent of rural transit need by 2016. With this scenario, annual rural transit ridership is projected to increase from 1.4 million in 2007 to 5.2 million in 2016.
•
Scenario # 3 was designed to increase service provision to meet 75 percent of rural transit need by 2016. With this scenario, annual rural transit ridership is projected to increase from 1.4 million in 2007 to 7.9 million in 2016.
•
Scenario # 4 was designed to increase service provision to fully meet the projected rural transit need by 2016. With this scenario, annual rural transit ridership is projected to increase from 1.4 million in 2007 to 10.5 million in 2016.
Figure ES. 4 Total Annual Rural Transit Ridership Estimates by Scenario, 2007 to 2016
0246810122007200820092010201120122013201420152016Annual Ridership ( in Millions) Ridership Demand1.4 mil7.8 milScenario 4: 10.5 mil% ofNeed Met100% 75% 50% 25% 13% Strategy to Meet NeedScenario 3: 7.9 milScenario 2: 5.2 milScenario 1: 2.6 milBaseline: 1.4 mil100% 18% % ofNeed Met
Source: Cambridge Systematics and TranSystems.
ES- 6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Based on Scenario # 4, which fully meets projected transit need by the year 2016, the projected total capital and net operating cost per year for rural transit services statewide would increase from about $ 32.0 million in 2007 to about $ 133.9 million in 2016 ( Figure ES. 5). In addition:
•
Net operating costs would increase from the current level of about $ 12.1 million in 2007 to $ 97.3 million in 2016. Capital costs, including vehicle and facility expenses, would increase from about $ 19.9 million in 2007 to $ 36.5 million in 2016. The total net operating and capital costs represents the cost estimate associated with a potential 10- year capital expansion plan.
•
The total size of the vehicle fleet in rural Arizona would need to increase from the current level of about 397 vehicles in 2007 to 1,751 vehicles in 2016. In addition to the 1,354 vehicles that would be purchased for fleet expansion, another 1,892 vehicles would need to be purchased for fleet replacement.
The other scenarios represent lower levels of investment, with lower operating and capital costs. The 2016 costs are about $ 20.1 million for the baseline, $ 35.0 million for Scenario # 1, $ 65.8 million for Scenario # 2, and $ 99.6 million for Scenario # 3.
Figure ES. 5 Total Annual Rural Transit Cost Estimates by Scenario, 2007 to 2016
Percent ofNeed Met$ 0$ 20$ 40$ 60$ 80$ 100$ 120$ 140$ 160100% 75% 50% 25% 13% Total Cost( Capital + Operating) Baseline: $ 20.15Scenario 1: $ 35.05Scenario 2: $ 65.84Scenario 3: $ 99.58Scenario 4: $ 133.872007200820092010201120122013201420152016Annual Cost ( in Millions)
Source: Cambridge Systematics and TranSystems.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES- 7
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
With each scenario, year 2016 is the target year for achieving the specified ridership target ( i. e., percent of need met). Table ES- 2 shows a summary of year 2016 costs and ridership for each scenario:
•
The baseline scenario ( no change to existing services) has a year 2016 cost of about $ 20.1 million and a year 2016 ridership of about 1.4 million.
•
Scenario # 1 ( 25 percent of need met) has a year 2016 cost of about $ 35.0 million and a year 2016 ridership of about 2.6 million.
•
Scenario # 2 ( 50 percent of need met) has a year 2016 cost of about $ 65.8 million and a year 2016 ridership of about 5.2 million.
•
Scenario # 3 ( 75 percent of need met) has a year 2016 cost of about $ 99.6 million and a year 2016 ridership of about 7.9 million.
•
Scenario # 4 ( 100 percent of need met) has a year 2016 cost of about $ 133.9 million and a year 2016 ridership of about 10.5 million.
Table ES- 2 Summary of Year 2016 Cost and Ridership by Scenario
Percent of Need Met in 2016
13%: Baseline, No Change to Existing Services
Scenario # 1: 25%
Scenario # 2: 50%
Scenario # 3: 75%
Scenario # 4: 100%, Fully Meet Demand
Year 2016 Capital Cost
$ 4,900,000
$ 10,441,000
$ 17,183,000
$ 26,593,000
$ 36,548,000
Year 2016 Net Operating Cost
$ 15,247,000
$ 24,608,000
$ 48,660,000
$ 72,990,000
$ 97,319,000
Year 2016 Total Cost
$ 20,147,000
$ 35,048,000
$ 65,842,000
$ 99,583,000
$ 133,867,000
Year 2016 Ridership
1,370,000
2,625,000
5,241,000
7,857,000
10,472,000
Source: Cambridge Systematics and TranSystems.
ES- 8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
FUNDING ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
Of the Federal transit funding that is apportioned to Arizona, only 6.2 percent were apportioned to rural transit programs in Fiscal Year ( FY) 2006. This is sig- nificantly lower than the estimated 24.8 percent of Arizona residents who live in rural areas. Going forward, Federal funding will continue to be important for rural transit services in Arizona, but will be insufficient to address all of the State’s current and projected 2016 rural transit needs.
More funding for transit, particularly rural transit, will be needed at the state and local levels in order to significantly expand service provision statewide:
•
Arizona ranks 26th among the 50 states in overall state- level transit funding per capita, at $ 3.38 per capita ( Figure ES. 6):
–
States with lower per capita funding include New Mexico ($ 1.47), Texas ($ 1.30), Oklahoma ($ 0.92), Nevada ($ 0.04), Colorado ($ 0), and Utah ($ 0).
–
States with higher per capita funding include Minnesota ($ 49.59), California ($ 38.74), North Carolina ($ 12.87), Oregon ($ 7.18), Washington State ($ 4.84), and Iowa ($ 3.42).
Figure ES. 6 Per Capita State- Level Transit Funding, Year 2005 $ 0$ 20$ 40$ 60$ 80$ 100$ 120$ 140$ 160$ 180$ 200MAMDNYNJAKDEPACTMNCAILRIVAWIMINCVTFLORINWYTNWANDIAAZSDKSOHNMSCTXWVMEMOLAAROKGANEMTKYMSIDNHNVStateState Transit Funding per CapitaArizona: $ 3.38( 26th of 50) Massachusetts: $ 187.09( Highest) AL, CO, HI, UT: $ 0.00( Lowest; Not Shown)
Source: Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation, 2005, Table 3- 3, page 3- 6, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, May 2006. Includes transit funding for both rural and urban areas.
•
Existing transit ridership in rural Arizona is estimated at about 0.9 annual trips per capita. As a basis of comparison, annual rural transit ridership per capita in four states generally regarded as having made noteworthy invest-
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES- 9
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
ES- 10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
ments in rural transportation are as follows – Iowa: 6.0; Washington State: 5.5; Minnesota: 2.9; North Carolina: 2.6. Anecdotally, none of these four states, despite their high regard, believe that rural transportation needs in their state are being fully satisfied. 1
•
Several strategies were proposed and evaluated in order to provide addi- tional state- level funding for rural transit in Arizona. These strategies included increasing motor fuel taxes, vehicle license taxes, motor carrier fees, registration fees, and retail sales taxes.
•
It will also be important for local entities, including regional governments, counties, local municipalities, and Tribal governments, to increase their funding for rural transit services in order to meet projected rural transit ser- vice needs. The primary sources of funding used for transit services at the local level are sales taxes, property taxes, and fare revenue. Other potential funding sources for rural transit include financial contributions from com- munity foundations or faith- based organizations.
VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES
In this Final Report, the Study team outlines the long- term strategic direction for rural transit service provision in Arizona, starting by defining a vision, goals, and objectives. These are summarized below.
•
Vision. There are numerous unmet needs for rural transit services in Arizona. Presently, only 18 percent of estimated demand for rural transit services are currently being met. Existing rural transit services are projected to meet only 13 percent of total ridership need in 2016 if no additional services are introduced.
The following proposed vision statement describes the desired future for rural transit in Arizona:
“ Rural transit service provision in Arizona should be expanded significantly through the year 2016 to address the rapidly growing transportation demands and needs of rural residents statewide.”
•
Goals. Key findings include:
–
Additional rural transit services are needed in multiple cities, towns, Tribal Reservations, and intercity corridors throughout the State.
–
The key market segments for rural transit services should be elderly per- sons, persons with disabilities, and persons of low income.
1 Source: TranSystems. Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
–
The trip purposes of those who use rural transit services are varied and include medical appointments, shopping, work, education and job training, personal business, and recreation.
The goals for Arizona rural transit service provision represent the intended beneficial outcomes associated with accomplishing the above vision. Three goals are defined for the Final Report:
–
# 1: Provide services in multiple geographic areas;
–
# 2: Address needs of particular market segments; and
–
# 3: Serve a variety of trip purposes.
•
Objectives. Tailoring services to particular geographic areas and market seg- ments, improving service coordination among multiple providers, and monitoring and improving service costs are important criteria with respect to rural transit service provision.
The objectives for Arizona rural transit service provision represent the pri- mary areas of focus needed to accomplish the above goals. Three objectives are presented as part of the Final Report:
–
# 1: Tailor service delivery;
–
# 2: Improve service effectiveness; and
–
# 3: Enhance service coordination.
SERVICE ALTERNATIVES AND SOLUTIONS
Building on the findings from the previous four interim reports and a statewide stakeholder involvement process, a number of specific Section 5311: Nonurban- ized Area general public rural transit service alternatives were defined and rec- ommended as top candidates. Figure ES. 7 shows the top locations for new or expanded 5311 program services that operate within rural communities:
•
New Section 5311 Local Services. New 5311 program services were identi- fied for communities in Pinal County ( Casa Grande, Eloy, City of Maricopa, Florence, Oracle, San Manuel); Santa Cruz County ( Nogales); Gila County ( Payson); Yavapai County ( Camp Verde); Graham County ( Safford/ Thatcher); Navajo County ( Winslow, Holbrook); Apache County ( Eagar/ Springerville); Cochise County ( Willcox, Benson); and Mohave County ( Colorado City). New 5311 program services were also identified for Tribal Reservations: Gila River Reservation ( in Maricopa and Pinal Counties); Fort Apache Reservation ( in Apache, Gila, and Navajo Counties); and the San Carlos Reservation ( in Gila, Graham, and Pinal Counties).
•
Expanded Section 5311 Local Services. Expanded 5311 program services were identified for Navajo Transit System ( in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties, as well as portions of New Mexico and Utah); Catholic Community
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES- 11
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Services in Douglas ( Cochise County); Pima County Rural Transit; Lake Havasu City Transit Services ( Mohave County); Bullhead Area Transit System ( Mohave County); Cotton Express in Coolidge ( Pinal County); Hopi Senom Transit System ( in Coconino and Navajo Counties); City of Sierra Vista Public Transit System ( Cochise County); Kingman Area Regional Transit ( Mohave County); the City of Sedona ( Yavapai County), and the City of Show Low/ Pinetop ( Navajo County).
Figure ES. 8 shows the top potential corridor locations for new Section 5311 gen- eral public intercity transit services that connect rural communities with each other or with urbanized areas. These corridors are located in Pinal County ( Casa Grande- Arizona City- Eloy- Coolidge); Pinal- Maricopa Counties ( Coolidge/ Florence- Phoenix, Maricopa- Tempe); Mohave County ( Bullhead City- Kingman- Lake Havasu City); Yavapai- Coconino Counties ( Cottonwood- Prescott- Camp Verde- Sedona); Navajo County ( Fort Apache Reservation- Show Low- Snowflake/ Taylor- Holbrook); Gila- Maricopa Counties ( Miami- Superior- East Mesa; Payson- East Mesa); Graham- Greenlee Counties ( Safford/ Thatcher- Clifton/ Morenci); and Navajo- Coconino Counties ( Page- Tuba City- Kayenta- Flagstaff).
ES- 12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES- 13
Figure ES. 7 Top Candidates for New or Expanded Local and Tribal Section 5311 Program Service
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation; and Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Note: Tribal Reservations are shown as a single location that represents a larger geographic area. Green Valley is shown as the most significant expansion opportunity for Pima County Rural Transit. Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure ES. 8 Top Candidates for New Intercity Section 5311 Program Service
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, and Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
In addition, there are a number of other potential opportunities for new or expanded Section 5310: Elderly and Persons with Disabilities rural transit ser- vices statewide ( both local and intercity), as well as the potential to improve service coordination between existing Section 5310 services and other rural tran- sit services.
Examples of best practices from other locations with respect to rural transit ser- vice provision pertain to topics, including flexible services, coordination, and technology. Many of these practices revolve around building support at the local level, working closely with stakeholders to effectively understand and meet their rural transit needs, and operating high- quality service in a cost- effective manner.
ES- 14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
SUPPORTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES
The recommended roles, responsibilities, and next steps for implementing the rural transit service alternatives and solutions are as follows.
•
State:
–
Federal funding. Work with transit operators in Arizona to claim and obligate all available Federal funds;
–
Capital program. Develop a master statewide rural transit program for facility expenses and vehicle purchases, and identify new Federal funding sources; and
–
Operating funding. Consider performance- based criteria for operators to receive Federal and state funds.
•
Councils of Government:
–
Regional planning. Oversee detailed service planning and cost estimates for new and expanded services;
–
Data collection. Collect ridership and cost data for Section 5310 and other social service agency operations;
–
Service coordination. Identify public transportation services within the region that promote the efficiency of general public, elderly, and disabled service by supporting the streamlining and coordination of existing pub- lic transportation programs;
–
Regional funding support. Act on behalf of region to garner support for regional funding collaboration to support public transportation within region; and
–
Regional coordination. Act on behalf of region to facilitate communica- tion to other levels of government to ensure regional public transporta- tion needs are identified and action is taken to support identified needs.
The State and COGs should work closely with local and Tribal governments and social service agencies to pool funding resources by region, encourage efficiency, improve service coordination, and consolidate services, if applicable.
•
Local and Tribal governments:
–
Support. Generate support for rural transit among local residents;
–
Monitor demographics. Actively monitor demographic changes in juris- diction that may impact existing or new services;
–
Service coordination. Identify public transportation services within city/ town or Tribal Reservation that promote the efficiency of general public, elderly, and disabled service by supporting the streamlining and coordi- nation of existing public transportation programs; and
–
Planning. Ensure proper planning and development of operations is pro- vided to meet the needs of the city/ town or Tribal Reservation.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES- 15
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
•
Transit operators:
–
Quality service. Provide high- quality operations tailored to rider needs; and
–
Data collection. Monitor service performance on an ongoing basis.
All levels of government should secure additional funding for rural transit ser- vices, in cooperation with the private sector and not- for- profit agencies.
A target should be established to plan and cost out specific rural transit service candidates, secure funding, and begin operations of these top candidates within the next five years.
SUMMARY
Rural public transportation plays an important role in Arizona’s transportation system. The development of mobility options, connecting rural communities to urbanized areas, and properly addressing rural growth factors must all occur to ensure public transportation service needs are met in rural Arizona over the next decade. The further development and improvement of rural public transporta- tion service in Arizona is critical in addressing the anticipated substantial growth of the State’s population. Given only 18 percent of rural Arizona’s public trans- portation needs are being met today, it is clear that significant improvement is necessary. Existing rural public transportation services are projected to meet only 13 percent of total ridership need in 2016 if the current investment strategy continues, as a result of continued population growth throughout the State during the next 10 years. These substantial unmet needs in rural Arizona are in addition to unmet needs in Arizona’s urbanized areas, which are also significant and growing.
Next steps to ensure further development and improvement of service should include the use of regionally- based strategies outlined within this Final Report to address the State’s unmet rural public transportation needs. Strategies include adding rural public transportation service in cities, towns, and Tribal Reservations to ensure general public and elderly and disabled service needs are met. Increasing local, regional, state, and Federal funding to support these services is critical to ensure service options are provided. Connecting rural and urban communities also represents a growing Arizona need. Establishing roles and responsibilities between the State, COGs, local governments, Tribal Governments, and transit operators will facilitate the development of public transportation ser- vice in rural Arizona.
The strategies outlined within the Final Report are important tools to be used in the development of Arizona’s rural public transportation services. It is through the use of these strategies and the establishment of critical public transportation services that Arizona can meet the challenge of the rural mobility needs and the State’s growing rural population today and for years to come.
ES- 16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
1
.0 Introduction
This Final Report recommends the long- term strategic direction for rural transit service provision in Arizona based on results from four previously completed interim reports, a statewide stakeholder involvement process, and ongoing input and guidance from the Study’s Technical Advisory Committee. This is done for a 10- year planning horizon. The remainder of this Final Report is organized by the following sections:
•
Section 2.0: Vision, Goals, and Objectives. This section establishes the vision, goals, and objectives for rural transit service provision in Arizona. The vision statement describes the desired future for rural transit in Arizona. The goals represent the intended beneficial outcomes associated with accom- plishing the above vision. The objectives represent the primary areas of focus needed to accomplish the above goals.
•
Section 3.0: Key Findings. This section presents a summary of the key find- ings from the four previously submitted interim reports for the study:
–
Working Paper # 1: Study Baseline Report presents year 2005 baseline demographic and transit service characteristics in rural Arizona. This includes a description of existing conditions ( i. e., population, employ- ment, auto ownership, income levels, travel patterns); identification of geographic study areas with an overview of existing rural transit services within each area; a literature review of plans and studies relevant to rural transit; and a peer review of rural transit programs in three other states ( Colorado, Nevada, Utah).
–
Working Paper # 2: Future Trend Analysis builds on Working Paper # 1 and contains an analysis of future demographic trends expected in rural Arizona through 2015, including population, employment, and travel patterns.
–
Working Paper # 3: Transit Demand and Need has two main parts. The first part presents five methods for estimating the demand for rural tran- sit in Arizona in terms of annual riders through 2016, and recommends one method to use in supporting this study including the resulting demand estimates. The second part uses the demand projections from the recommended method and calculates the costs ( both capital and operating expenses) required to meet the estimated need.
–
Working Paper # 4: Funding Issues and Solutions was prepared to determine the status and availability of rural transit funding from both existing and potential revenue sources, and recommends options to increase funding for rural transit services statewide. This includes funding options at the Federal, state, and local levels.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1- 1
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
•
Section 4.0: Service Alternatives and Solutions. This section identifies and describes transit service alternatives and solutions in rural Arizona that address both local and intercity needs. These recommendations are based on the results from the Study’s stakeholder input process, a review of previously completed rural transit plans and studies, and the transit demand analysis results at the local level. Thirty top general public service candidates are identified, including proposed new services and the expansion of existing services. The locations, unmet need projections, and a discussion of relevant factors to consider are provided for each service candidate.
•
Section 5.0: Supporting Policies and Practices. This section presents a dis- cussion of supporting policies and practices that are relevant to planning for new and expanded rural transit services in Arizona. This includes back- ground of existing rural transit funding sources, a policy discussion on potential performance- based criteria for rural transit operators to receive Federal and state funding, and a review of best practices relevant to rural transit with respect to flexible services, coordination, and technology.
•
Section 6.0: Summary and Next Steps. This section presents a summary of the recommended rural transit service solutions, and proposes next step rele- vant to implementation. The suggested roles, responsibilities, and next steps for agencies in Arizona pertaining to implementation of these service rec- ommendations are also provided.
This Final Report also contains four appendices:
•
Appendix A. Definitions identifies the terminology used in the report and how these terms are defined.
•
Appendix B. Case Studies provides information on case studies in other states or regional areas nationwide pertaining to the application of best prac- tices in rural transportation.
•
Appendix C. Federal Funding Levels for Arizona provides estimated FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007 Federal funding levels for Arizona through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users ( SAFETEA- LU).
• A
ppendix D. FY 2006 Section 5311 Financial and Performance Criteria shows results from applying five suggested criteria for receiving Federal and state operating funding for Section 5311 program services to existing opera- tors based on FY 2006 data. While definitive conclusions should not be drawn from a single year of data, this provides a starting point for future discussion.
1- 2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
2.0
Vision, Goals, and Objectives
This section establishes the vision, goals, and objectives for transit service provi- sion in rural Arizona. These elements were designed to provide the State’s long- term strategic direction for rural transit. This material was developed from several sources, including eight stakeholder workshops held throughout the State, telephone interviews held with identified key stakeholders, an on- line sur- vey with nearly 400 respondents, the Tribal Forum conducted by ADOT on May 8, input and guidance from the Study’s Technical Advisory Committee, a review of demographic characteristics and trends, and an analysis of transit demand and need.
2
.1 VISION
There are numerous unmet needs for rural transit services in Arizona. Presently, only 18 percent of estimated rural transit demand are currently being met. Existing rural transit services are projected to meet only 13 percent of total rider- ship need in 2016, if no additional services are introduced.
A vision statement that describes the desired future for rural transit in Arizona follows:
“ Rural transit service provision in Arizona should be expanded sig- nificantly through the year 2016 to address the rapidly growing trans- portation demands and needs of rural residents statewide.”
2
.2 GOALS
Key findings include:
•
Additional rural transit services are needed in multiple cities, towns, Tribal Reservations, and intercity corridors throughout the State;
•
The key market segments for rural transit services should be elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and persons of low income; and
•
The trip purposes of those who use rural transit services are varied and include medical appointments, shopping, work, education and job training, personal business, and recreation.
The goals for Arizona rural transit service provision represent the intended bene- ficial outcomes associated with accomplishing the above vision. The proposed goals are as follows:
•
Goal # 1: Provide services in multiple geographic areas, including transit services that operate within designated rural areas, services that connect
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 1
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
rural areas with each other, and services that connect rural areas with urbanized areas;
• G
oal # 2: Address needs of particular market segments that use rural transit services, including but not limited to the elderly, persons with disabilities, and persons of low income; and
•
Goal # 3: Serve a variety of trip purposes for rural Arizona residents, including employment, medical, shopping, and personal business needs.
2
.3 OBJECTIVES
Tailoring services to particular geographic areas and market segments, improving service coordination among multiple providers, and monitoring and improving service costs are important criteria with respect to rural transit service provision.
The objectives for Arizona rural transit service provision represent the primary areas of focus needed to accomplish the above goals. The proposed objectives include:
•
Objective # 1: Tailor service delivery for particular rural transit services, which is essential, given the wide range of traveler demographic characteris- tics and trip purposes that exist in rural Arizona. Delivery of a particular rural transit service should be tailored to the specific needs of the travelers in a particular community or intercity corridor.
• O
bjective # 2: Improve service effectiveness of rural transit services, which is necessary, given the constraints on funding relative to the magnitude of need. As a result of these constraints, it is important to direct rural transit funding to those services that provide the most benefit, as measured primar- ily by ridership, relative to the cost of service provision.
• O
bjective # 3: Enhance service coordination of rural transit services, which was repeatedly mentioned by stakeholders during the course of the study as being of key importance, given the high number of existing transit service providers in rural Arizona. Improvements to service coordination are expected to result in a more efficient provision of transit service and improved service quality.
The service alternatives and solutions described in Section 4.0 below and the supporting policies and practices presented in Section 5.0 were developed in accordance with meeting the vision, goals, and objectives for rural transit service provision in Arizona.
2- 2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
3
.0 Key Findings
3
.1 OVERVIEW
The key findings from four interim reports prepared for the Study (# 1: Study Baseline Report, # 2: Future Trend Analysis, # 3: Transit Demand and Need, and # 4: Funding Issues and Solutions) are presented in this section in the following sequence:
•
Study Areas and Existing Services. Identifies the geographic regions that define rural Arizona and the existing transit services within each region;
• D
emographic Changes. Summarizes existing demographic characteristics of rural Arizona and projected future trends;
•
Transit Demand and Need. Provides results from an analysis of demand and need for transit services in rural Arizona; and
•
Strategy and Cost to Meet Need. Proposes a strategy for addressing unmet transit need in rural Arizona and the associated cost estimates.
3
.2 STUDY AREAS AND EXISTING SERVICES
Nine rural transit study areas were defined for this Study. The study areas excluded the five existing urbanized areas in the State ( Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, Prescott, and Yuma). Figure 3.1 shows the nine study areas.
Designation of these study areas was used to define rural Arizona and imple- ment the stakeholder involvement process. In this report, service alternatives and solutions are referred to by county ( instead of by study area), since the county distinction is more easily recognized and provides a practical reference for purposes of long- term strategy implementation.
Two new urbanized areas are projected to form following the 2010 U. S. Census:
1
. Lake Havasu City- Bullhead City- Kingman in Mohave County; and
2.
Sierra Vista- Bisbee- Douglas in Cochise County.
These designations will have implications on transit funding, as described in Working Paper # 4: Funding Issues and Solutions. For purposes of this report, service alternatives for these transitioning areas are included because these areas are currently rural.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 1
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.1 Rural Transit Study Areas
Source: Cambridge Systematics ( Working Paper # 1, Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.2 shows the cities/ towns and Tribal Reservations in Arizona with an estimated 2005 population of over 5,000. Those that are currently served by an existing Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area general public rural transit system are shown in green. Those without Section 5311 program service are shown in red. The five existing urbanized areas are shown in blue. As shown in red on Figure 3.2, there are a number of cities/ towns and Tribal Reservations of over 5,000 in population throughout the State that do not currently have Section 5311 program service. These locations are likely candidates for new Section 5311 service.
3- 2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.2 Rural Cities and Tribal Reservations Over 5,000 in Population With and Without Section 5311 Service
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., based on information provided by the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Arizona Department of Economic Security.
Note: Places of over 5,000 with Section 5311 service not shown in the figure: Tucson Estates ( Pima County). Places of over 5,000 without Section 5311 service not shown: Three Points ( Pima County), Arizona City ( Pinal County), San Manuel ( Pinal County), and Fortuna Foothills ( Yuma County). Somerton and San Luis in Yuma County have Section 5307 urbanized area service, but not local Section 5311 service.
Figure 3.3 shows the locations in rural Arizona that are currently served by one or more public or nonprofit agencies. These agencies are previous recipients of Section 5310 program, Elderly and Persons with Disabilities transit funding. In total, there are an estimated 102 Section 5310 program services in rural Arizona providing service in 56 cities/ towns. Among these 56 cities/ towns, 23 have more than one Section 5310 program provider.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 3
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.3 Existing Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled Rural Transit Services
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation.
Note: Not shown: Globe ( Gila County) and Mojave Valley ( Mohave County).
Figure 3.4 shows the existing coverage of Greyhound and Amtrak services in Arizona, the primary intercity public transportation services in the State. The locations of the Greyhound and Amtrak stations/ stops in rural Arizona ( excluding the urbanized areas) include:
•
Greyhound. Benson, Willcox ( Cochise County); Quartzsite ( La Paz County); Gila Bend ( Maricopa County); Bullhead City, Kingman ( Mohave County); Holbrook, Winslow ( Navajo County); Casa Grande ( Pinal County); and Nogales ( Santa Cruz County).
•
Amtrak. Benson ( Cochise County); Williams ( Coconino County); Kingman ( Mohave County); Winslow ( Navajo County); and Maricopa ( Pinal County).
3- 4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.4 Amtrak and Greyhound Services in Arizona
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., based on information from the Greyhound and Amtrak web sites. Greyhound service includes trips operated by Crucero USA, a Greyhound- affiliated carrier.
Other intercity public transportation providers in Arizona include Tufesa ( Phoenix- Tucson), several airport shuttle services, and tourist- oriented services primarily in Grand Canyon National Park.
3
.3 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
Figure 3.5 shows the projected population change in rural Arizona by county from 2005 through 2015.
By 2015, rural Arizona population projections include the following:
•
Cochise, Maricopa, Mohave, and Pima Counties are projected to show declines in rural population due to continued urbanization. This takes into account two projected new urbanized areas by 2010, including Lake Havasu City- Kingman- Bullhead City ( in Mohave County) and Sierra Vista- Bisbee- Douglas ( in Cochise County).
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 5
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.5 Population Growth in Rural Arizona by County, 2005 to 2015
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., based on various data sources. Includes population of projected new urbanized areas in Cochise and Mohave Counties.
•
The implications of the projected two new urbanized areas are that about 80 percent of Mohave County’s population and about 60 percent of Cochise County’s population would transition from rural to urban. Federal transit funding for those areas would transition from rural to small urban programs.
•
The counties with the highest increase in rural population from 2005 to 2015 are projected to be Pinal ( 112.3 percent), Cochise ( 36.6 percent), Mohave ( 34.4 percent), and Yavapai ( 34.1 percent). The counties projected to have the most rural residents are Pinal ( about 452,000); Mohave ( 253,000); Cochise ( 180,000); and Yavapai ( 153,000).
The tremendous population growth in Pinal County will have a significant impact on the need for additional rural transit services in the County. Figure 3.6 shows projected county population growth on a subregional level. High- projected population growth is expected not just in the incorporated Cities of Apache Junction ( Study Area 1), Maricopa ( Study Area 3), and Casa Grande ( Study Area 4), but also in currently unincorporated San Tan area ( Study
3- 6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Area 6A). Study Areas 11, 12, and 13 are in Maricopa County adjacent to Pinal County, and are also projected to grow rapidly in population.
Figure 3.6 Population Change in Pinal County, 2000 to 2025
Source: Central Arizona College Bond Feasibility Study Demographic Analysis, Final Draft Report, Map 3, page 23, Applied Economics, May 2004.
Most likely after the 2020 Census ( but possible after the 2010 Census), portions of Pinal County will transition from being classified as rural areas to becoming urbanized areas. Federal transit funding for those areas would then transition from rural to small urban programs.
For purposes of consistency in measuring transit demand over time, the popula- tions of the projected two new urbanized areas were included with that of rural areas for the remainder of the analysis. Based on applying that definition, Figure 3.7 shows the population change of rural Arizona from 2005 to 2015:
•
Total population is projected to grow from about 1.5 million to 1.9 million, an increase of 26.9 percent.
•
Elderly population is projected to grow from about 349,000 to 527,000, an increase of 51.3 percent. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 7
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.7 Total Population Change of Rural Arizona, 2005 to 2015 Population of Rural Arizona, 2005- 2015 ( total growth from 1.5 to 1.9 million) 0200,000400,000600,000800,0001,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,0001,800,0002,000,000200520102015Disabled Persons( not in poverty, under age 60) Persons in Poverty( under age 60) Elderly( ages 60 & over) Other
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., based on various data sources. Includes population of projected new urbanized areas in Cochise and Mohave counties.
Figure 3.8 shows the projected percentage of elderly persons ( ages 60 and over) by county in rural Arizona.
By 2015, elderly population projections in rural Arizona include the following:
•
The percentage of the rural population who are elderly is projected to increase from 23.2 percent in 2006 to 27.7 percent in 2015, an increase of 4.5 percent. In 2015, rural Arizona will continue to have a higher percentage of elderly residents ( 27.7 percent) than urban Arizona ( 20.1 percent).
•
In 2015, counties with the highest percentages of elderly persons in rural areas are expected to be La Paz ( 47.0 percent), Yavapai ( 35.0 percent), Gila ( 33.9 percent), Mohave ( 33.8 percent), and Yuma ( 30.5 percent).
3- 8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.8 Percentage of Elderly Persons in Rural Arizona by County, Year 2015
Source: Cambridge Systematics ( Working Paper # 2, Figure 2.2).
Figure 3.9 shows the projected change in elderly population in rural Arizona by county from 2005 to 2015. The counties with the highest number of elderly per- sons in the year 2015 are Pinal ( about 123,000); Mohave ( 85,000); Yavapai ( 54,000); and Cochise ( 53,000).
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 9
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.9 Change in Elderly Population in Rural Arizona by County, 2005 to 2015 Elderly Rural Population, 2005- 2015 ( total growth from 349,000 to 527,000) 020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000140,000ApacheCochiseCoconinoGilaGrahamGreenleeLa PazMaricopaMohaveNavajoPimaPinalSanta CruzYavapaiYuma20052015
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., based on various data sources. Includes population of projected new urbanized areas in Cochise and Mohave Counties.
Figure 3.10 presents the low- income population ( i. e., persons below the poverty line) in rural Arizona, based on Census 2000 Demographic Profile data. No data source was identified that provided reliable 2015 projections of persons living in poverty. A reasonable assumption used in this analysis is that these percentages will remain roughly the same over time.
By 2015, persons below poverty characteristics in rural Arizona include the following:
•
The percentage of persons below poverty is significantly higher in rural Arizona ( 18.0 percent) than in urban Arizona ( 12.5 percent).
• R
ural counties with the highest percentage of persons living in poverty are Apache ( 37.8 percent), Navajo ( 29.5 percent), Santa Cruz ( 24.5 percent), Yuma ( 23.5 percent), and Graham ( 23.0 percent).
3- 10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.10 Percentage of Persons Below Poverty in Rural Arizona by County, Year 2000
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ( Working Paper # 1, Figure 2.7).
Figure 3.11 shows the projected change in low income population in rural Arizona by county from 2005 to 2015. The counties with the highest number of low income persons in 2015 are Pinal ( about 62,000), Navajo ( 34,000), Mohave ( 27,000), and Apache ( 26,000).
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 11
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.11 Change in Low Income Population in Rural Arizona by County, 2005 to 2015 Low Income Rural Population, 2005- 2015 ( total growth from 223,000 to 285,000) 010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,000ApacheCochiseCoconinoGilaGrahamGreenleeLa PazMaricopaMohaveNavajoPimaPinalSanta CruzYavapaiYuma20052015
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., based on various data sources. Includes population of projected new urbanized areas in Cochise and Mohave Counties.
Figure 3.12 shows the percentage of Arizona households that do not have a per- sonal vehicle available, based on Census 2000 Demographic Profile data. This analysis was conducted at a county level only, as opposed to providing a rural versus urbanized area comparison. As with persons below poverty, no data source was identified that provided reliable year 2015 projections of auto owner- ship; therefore, this data was used to forecast auto ownership to 2015.
By 2015, auto ownership in Arizona will include:
•
Overall statewide, 7.4 percent of households in Arizona do not have access to a personal vehicle ( i. e., zero- vehicle households).
•
Counties with the highest percentage of zero- vehicle households are Apache ( 16.4 percent), Navajo ( 12.9 percent), Pima ( 9.0 percent), Graham ( 8.5 percent), and Santa Cruz ( 8.4 percent).
3- 12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.12 Persons With No Vehicle Available in Arizona by County, Year 2000
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ( Working Paper # 1, Figure 2.8).
3
.4 TRANSIT DEMAND AND NEED
Transit demand in rural Arizona was estimated using two methodologies:
1
. The Arkansas Public Transportation Needs Assessment ( APTNA) method represents the demand for transit service by applying trip rates to three population groups: elderly persons ages 60 and over, persons with disabili- ties under age 60, and persons living in poverty under age 60.
2
. The Mobility Gap method measures the mobility difference between house- holds with a vehicle( s) and households without a vehicle( s). The concept assumes that the difference in travel between the two groups is the demand for transit among households without a vehicle.
The APTNA method was found to produce results more consistent with current experience in Arizona, and was logical with both a modal split comparison and a Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 13
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
comparison with peer states. Therefore, the APNTA method was recommended for use in this study to quantify rural transit demand in Arizona. Table 3.1 pro- vides the 2007 and 2016 rural Arizona population by county for the three key demographic groups that the APTNA method demand estimates were based on. For purposes of consistency in measuring transit demand over time, populations of the two projected new urbanized areas following the year 2010 Census ( Lake Havasu City- Kingman in Mohave County and Sierra Vista- Douglas in Cochise County) were included in this analysis.
Table 3.1 Population Groups in APTNA Method by County, 2007 and 2016
Elderly ( 60+)
Disabled (< 60)
Poverty (< 60)
County
2007
2016
2007
2016
2007
2016
Apache
10,307
14,066
6,970
7,686
24,177
26,662
Cochise*
31,978
49,648
12,170
15,755
19,629
25,410
Coconino ( Rural)
8,920
14,039
6,602
7,482
11,654
13,207
Gila
16,401
21,268
5,551
6,150
7,666
8,494
Graham
6,253
8,145
2,469
2,703
6,521
7,138
Greenlee
1,216
1,473
940
931
697
691
La Paz
8,929
11,616
2,276
2,547
2,905
3,251
Maricopa
22,977
23,557
15,707
13,940
17,940
15,922
Mohave
62,250
91,716
22,650
29,139
21,263
27,354
Navajo
19,343
28,762
10,542
12,630
28,601
34,266
Pima ( Rural)
31,630
29,455
17,190
13,465
15,666
12,272
Pinal
61,737
140,322
22,127
42,871
33,519
64,941
Santa Cruz
7,741
11,713
4,297
5,325
9,448
11,710
Yavapai ( Rural)
37,977
56,840
11,758
15,078
10,892
13,968
Yuma ( Rural)
26,471
37,994
8,077
10,105
20,618
25,793
Rural Total
354,133
540,614
149,326
185,806
231,198
291,079
Source: Cambridge Systematics and TranSystems ( Working Paper # 3, Table 3).
* Includes areas to become urban during the study period.
Table 3.2 presents the 2007 and 2016 annual rural Arizona transit demand pro- jections by county. These were projected using the following trip rates ( i. e., one- way passenger trips per year): elderly persons age 60 and over: 6.79; persons with disabilities under age 60: 4.49; and persons living in poverty under age 60: 20.50.
3- 14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Table 3.2 Estimated Annual Rural Transit Demand from APTNA Method by County, 2007 and 2016
Elderly ( 60+)
Disabled (< 60)
Poverty (< 60)
Annual Total
County
2007
2016
2007
2016
2007
2016
2007
2016
Apache
69,986
95,509
31,295
34,512
495,625
546,567
596,906
676,587
Cochise*
217,129
337,107
54,644
70,738
402,392
520,905
674,165
928,749
Cononino ( Rural)
60,568
95,323
29,644
33,593
238,912
270,742
329,124
399,658
Gila
111,365
144,412
24,923
27,614
157,161
174,127
293,450
346,153
Graham
42,458
55,306
11,087
12,136
133,681
146,321
187,226
213,764
Greenlee
8,254
10,003
4,219
4,181
14,299
14,168
26,772
28,352
La Paz
60,630
78,870
10,218
11,435
59,558
66,653
130,406
156,958
Maricopa ( Rural)
156,014
159,949
70,524
62,591
367,768
326,400
594,305
548,940
Mohave
422,681
622,753
101,701
130,833
435,897
560,759
960,279
1,314,345
Navajo
131,339
195,297
47,333
56,707
586,326
702,447
764,997
954,451
Pima ( Rural)
214,771
199,996
77,182
60,458
321,162
251,570
613,116
512,024
Pinal ( Rural)
419,194
952,786
99,351
192,489
687,134
1,331,301
1,205,678
2,476,576
Santa Cruz
52,564
79,533
19,293
23,911
193,693
240,064
265,550
343,509
Yavapai ( Rural)
257,866
385,942
52,792
67,700
223,285
286,340
533,943
739,982
Yuma ( Rural)
179,940
257,980
36,267
45,370
422,665
528,756
638,671
832,106
Rural Total
2,404,759
3,670,766
670,473
834,268
4,741,5654,738,558
5,969,1365,967,120
7,814,588
10,472,154
Source: Cambridge Systematics and TranSystems ( Working Paper # 3, Table 6).
* Includes areas to become urban during the study period.
The primary findings of projected rural transit demand in Arizona include:
•
The annual transit demand projections are 7.81 million trips for 2007 and 10.47 million trips by 2016. The most significant growth will be in Pinal County, where transit demand is projected to more than double from 1.21 million trips in 2007 to 2.48 million trips in 2016.
•
In 2007, 30.8 percent of the rural transit demand are derived from elderly per- sons, 8.6 percent are from disabled persons, and 60.7 percent are from per- sons living in poverty.
•
By 2016, 35.1 percent of demand will be from elderly persons, 8.0 percent from disabled persons, and 57.0 percent from persons living in poverty. This percentage change from 2007 is reflective of the growing percentage of eld- erly persons living in rural Arizona.
•
Existing rural transit ridership in Arizona is estimated at 1.37 million passen- ger trips. This indicates that only 18 percent of rural Arizona’s public trans- portation needs are being met today. Existing rural transit services are Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 15
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
projected to meet only 13 percent of total ridership need in 2016 if no addi- tional services are introduced.
Figure 3.13 shows the rural transit demand projections in Table 3.2 graphically, on a per county basis.
Figure 3.13 Projected Transit Demand in Rural Arizona, Year 2016
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; and TranSystems ( Working Paper # 3, Table 6).
The primary findings of the county- level comparison of projected rural transit demand in Arizona include:
• P
inal County, as the most populated county in rural Arizona, has the largest projected 2016 rural transit demand at 2.48 million trips. This represents 23.6 percent of the total 2016 rural transit demand.
•
The counties with the next highest rural transit demand projections in 2016 are Mohave ( 1.31 million, 12.6 percent), Navajo ( 0.95 million, 9.1 percent), Cochise ( 0.93 million, 8.9 percent), and Yuma ( 0.83 million, 7.9 percent).
3- 16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
•
The transit demand projections for Mohave and Cochise include currently rural areas that are expected to become designated as urbanized areas fol- lowing the 2010 Census.
3
.5 STRATEGY AND COSTS TO MEET NEED
Annual ridership in 2007 carried by existing rural transit services in Arizona is estimated at 1.4 million. This indicates that only about 18 percent of existing transit demand are currently being met with appropriate transit services in rural Arizona. Existing rural transit services are projected to meet only 13 percent of total ridership need in 2016, if no additional services are introduced. This is a result of continued population growth throughout the State during the next 10 years.
Four scenarios were proposed to gradually improve and increase rural transit service provision over time in Arizona ( Figure 3.14) including:
•
Scenario # 1 was designed to increase service provision to meet 25 percent of the projected rural transit need by 2016. With this scenario, rural transit ridership is projected to increase from the current level of about 1.4 million annual passenger trips in 2007 to 2.6 million annual trips in 2016.
•
Scenario # 2 was designed to increase service provision to meet 50 percent of rural transit need by 2016. With this scenario, annual rural transit ridership is projected to increase from 1.4 million in 2007 to 5.2 million in 2016.
•
Scenario # 3 was designed to increase service provision to meet 75 percent of rural transit need by 2016. With this scenario, annual rural transit ridership is projected to increase from 1.4 million in 2007 to 7.9 million in 2016.
•
Scenario # 4 was designed to increase service provision to fully meet the projected rural transit need by 2016. With this scenario, annual rural transit ridership is projected to increase from 1.4 million in 2007 to 10.5 million in 2016.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 17
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Figure 3.14 Total Annual Rural Transit Ridership Estimates by Scenario, 2007 to 2016
0246810122007200820092010201120122013201420152016Annual Ridership ( in Millions) Ridership Demand1.4 mil7.8 milScenario 4: 10.5 mil% ofNeed Met100% 75% 50% 25% 13% Strategy to Meet NeedScenario 3: 7.9 milScenario 2: 5.2 milScenario 1: 2.6 milBaseline: 1.4 mil100% 18% % ofNeed Met
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; and TranSystems ( Working Paper # 3, Figure 8).
The rationale for gradually increasing operating and capital spending over a 10- year period is to provide a more realistic implementation plan as opposed to trying to meet unmet needs all at once ( which would involve substantial upfront capital expenses and planning). Transit net operating costs ( operating costs minus fare revenue) were projected based on reported data from 2006 Section 5311 program rural National Transit Database ( NTD) reports. Capital costs were projected using parameters pertaining to vehicle utilization, vehicle replacement, and facility expenses.
3- 18 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Based on Scenario # 4, which fully meets projected transit need by the year 2016, the projected total capital and net operating cost per year for rural transit services statewide would increase from about $ 32.0 million in 2007 to about $ 133.9 million in 2016 ( Figure 3.15). In addition:
•
Net operating costs would increase from the current level of about $ 12.1 million in 2007 to $ 97.3 million in 2016. Capital costs, including vehicle and facility expenses, would increase from about $ 19.9 million in 2007 to $ 36.5 million in 2016. The total net operating and capital costs represents the cost estimate associated with a potential 10- year capital expansion plan.
•
The total size of the vehicle fleet in rural Arizona would need to increase from the current level of about 397 vehicles in 2007 to 1,751 vehicles in 2016. In addition to the 1,354 vehicles that would be purchased for fleet expansion, another 1,892 vehicles would need to be purchased for fleet replacement.
The other scenarios represent lower levels of investment, with lower operating and capital costs. The 2016 costs are about $ 20.1 million for the baseline, $ 35.0 million for Scenario # 1, $ 65.8 million for Scenario # 2, and $ 99.6 million for Scenario # 3.
Figure 3.15 Total Annual Rural Transit Costs Estimates by Scenario, 2007 to 2016
Percent ofNeed Met$ 0$ 20$ 40$ 60$ 80$ 100$ 120$ 140$ 160100% 75% 50% 25% 13% Total Cost( Capital + Operating) Baseline: $ 20.15Scenario 1: $ 35.05Scenario 2: $ 65.84Scenario 3: $ 99.58Scenario 4: $ 133.872007200820092010201120122013201420152016Annual Cost ( in Millions)
Source: Cambridge Systematics and TranSystems ( Working Paper # 3, Figure 2).
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 19
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
With each scenario, year 2016 is the target year for achieving the specified ridership target ( i. e., percent of need met). Table 3.3 shows a summary of year 2016 costs and ridership for each scenario:
•
The baseline scenario ( no change to existing services) has a year 2016 cost of about $ 20.1 million and a year 2016 ridership of about 1.4 million.
•
Scenario # 1 ( 25 percent of need met) has a year 2016 cost of about $ 35.0 million and a year 2016 ridership of about 2.6 million.
• S
cenario # 2 ( 50 percent of need met) has a year 2016 cost of about $ 65.8 million and a year 2016 ridership of about 5.2 million.
• S
cenario # 3 ( 75 percent of need met) has a year 2016 cost of about $ 99.6 million and a year 2016 ridership of about 7.9 million.
•
Scenario # 4 ( 100 percent of need met) has a year 2016 cost of about $ 133.9 million and a year 2016 ridership of about 10.5 million.
Table 3.3 Summary of Year 2016 Cost and Ridership by Scenario
Percent of Need Met in 2016
13%: Baseline, No Change to Existing Services
Scenario # 1: 25%
Scenario # 2: 50%
Scenario # 3: 75%
Scenario # 4: 100%, Fully Meet Demand
Year 2016 Capital Cost
$ 4,900,000
$ 10,441,000
$ 17,183,000
$ 26,593,000
$ 36,548,000
Year 2016 Net Operating Cost
$ 15,247,000
$ 24,608,000
$ 48,660,000
$ 72,990,000
$ 97,319,000
Year 2016 Total Cost
$ 20,147,000
$ 35,048,000
$ 65,842,000
$ 99,583,000
$ 133,867,000
Year 2016 Ridership
1,370,000
2,625,000
5,241,000
7,857,000
10,472,000
Source: Cambridge Systematics and TranSystems.
3- 20 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
4
.0 Service Alternatives and Solutions
4
.1 OVERVIEW
The purpose of this section is to define more specific service alternatives and rec- ommend service solutions for rural transit operations throughout the State. These recommendations are based on the results from the study’s stakeholder input process, a review of previously completed rural transit plans and studies, and the transit demand analysis results at the local level. The remainder of this section is organized as follows.
•
Summary of Stakeholder Input. Provides a summary of stakeholder com- ments received on rural transit services obtained from telephone interviews, workshops held throughout the State, and an on- line survey.
• S
ection 5311 Local Service Alternatives. Contains results from a local- level transit need analysis, and describes candidate alternatives for rural transit services that primarily operate within local cities/ towns. This includes new Section 5311 program general public nonurbanized area services and expan- sion of existing Section 5311 program services.
•
Section 5311 Intercity Service Alternatives. Contains results from an inter- city transit need analysis, and describes candidate alternatives for longer distance Section 5311 transit services that connect rural cities/ towns with each other or with urbanized areas.
•
Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 Service Alternatives. Describes options for new or expanded Section 5310 program services for elderly and disabled persons, Section 5316 program services for employment related trips, and Section 5317 program services to improve service and facility needs.
•
Vanpooling and Ridesharing. Discusses options for increased vanpooling and ridesharing.
4
.2 SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Telephone Interviews
Councils of Government and Transit Operators. In October and November 2006, telephone interviews were conducted with 15 representatives from the Arizona Transit Association, Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPO), COGs, and selected transit operators to obtain input for the rural transit needs Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 1
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
study. The common themes that emerged from these stakeholder interviews were as follows.
•
While there are numerous existing transit service providers in rural Arizona, there still continues be significant unmet needs. These needs include local transit services within rural communities, as well as intercity services that connect rural and urbanized areas. Top market segments for rural transit should be elderly, disabled, and low- income riders.
•
Funding for rural transit services is limited. In addition to Section 5310 and 5311 program funds, Local Transportation Assistance Fund ( LTAF) II lottery funds and city general funds serve as the primary funding sources. The amount of available LTAF II funding varies significantly from year to year, which creates difficulty in terms of planning for potential future services.
•
Stakeholder support varies considerably across the State. Stakeholders who do support rural transit can encounter difficulty in making the case to others for funding additional services.
•
Other key concerns include coordination of existing services, coordination with other ongoing plans and studies, and how to effectively serve large geo- graphic regions.
Tribal Governments. In January and February 2007, the Intrinsic/ Jacobs Consortium conducted telephone interviews with representatives from Tribal governments. Common themes that emerged from this input process included:
•
Tribal government representatives expressed similar concerns as COGs, with respect to the amount of unmet needs, insufficient funding, varying stake- holder support, and importance of coordination; and
•
In addition, other concerns expressed by Tribal governments included lack of roads or poor quality roads, worn- out transit vehicles, and need for Internet access, vehicle maintenance facilities, office space for dispatch, and marketing materials.
Stakeholder Workshops
Eight rural transit stakeholder input workshops were held throughout the State in January and February 2007 at the following locations: Phoenix, Tucson, Benson, Yuma, Kingman, Holbrook, Sedona, and Globe. In addition, input for the rural transit needs study was obtained at the January 18, 2007, Rural Transportation Summit held in Casa Grande.
Stakeholders expressed numerous needs for additional rural transit service throughout the State. Some of the rural communities mentioned as having the need for additional service from each workshop included:
•
Study Area 1: Gila and Pinal Counties. Globe, Miami, Payson, San Carlos Reservation, Gila River Reservation, Show Low, Pinetop- Lakeside, Safford, Florence, Casa Grande, and Eloy.
4- 2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
•
Study Area 2: Apache and Navajo Counties. Holbrook, Winslow, Show Low, Navajo Nation Reservation ( including Chinle, Kayenta, Sanders, Sunrise, Tuba City, Window Rock), Hopi Reservation, Whiteriver, Snowflake- Taylor, Concho, Springerville, Eagar, Pinetop- Lakeside, Heber, Payson, Globe, St. Johns, and Page.
•
Study Areas 3 and 4: Coconino and Yavapai Counties. Cottonwood, Sedona, Camp Verde, Page, Navajo Nation Reservation ( including Kayenta, Tuba City), Hopi Reservation, Winslow, Ashfork, Seligman, Paulden, Yarnell, Black Canyon City, Williams, Clarkdale, Oak Creek, and Lake Montezuma.
•
Study Area 5: Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, and Santa Cruz Counties. Willcox, Nogales, Tubac, Rio Rico, Benson, Huachuca City, Sierra Vista, Bisbee, Douglas, Green Valley, Tombstone, Patagonia, Ft. Huachuca, Naco, Safford, and Florence.
•
Study Area 6: Mohave County. Lake Havasu City, Kingman, Bullhead City, Laughlin ( Nevada), Colorado City, Peach Springs, Page, Fredonia, Dolan Springs, Parker, Quartzsite, Golden Shores, Mohave Valley, Fort Mohave, Valle Vista, Grand Canyon West, and Littlefield.
•
Study Area 7: La Paz and Yuma Counties. Somerton, San Luis, Fortuna Foothills, Wellton, Cocopah Reservation, Parker, Quartzsite, and Gila Bend.
•
Study Area 8: Maricopa County. New River, Anthem, Johnson Ranch, Hayden, Camp Verde, Black Canyon City, City of Maricopa, Casa Grande, and Wickenburg.
•
Study Area 9: Pima County. Catalina, Picture Rocks, Three Points, Green Valley, Nogales, San Xavier, Sells, Ajo, Gila Bend, Casa Grande, Benson, Saddlebrook, and Vail.
• R
ural Transportation Summit. Sedona, Cottonwood, Verde Valley, Oak Creek, Ak- Chin, Maricopa ( Ak- Chin) Reservation, Gila River Reservation, Salt River Reservation, White Mountain Apache Reservation, Whiteriver, Show Low, Fort Apache Reservation, Ft. Huachuca, Fortuna Foothills, Holbrook, St. Johns, City of Maricopa, Pinetop- Lakeside, Globe- Miami, Benson, Mayer, and Snowflake- Taylor.
On- Line Survey
A rural transit needs study on- line survey was posted on the ADOT web site from January to March 2007. A total of 435 survey responses were received, of which 41 percent of the respondents use public transit; 22 percent were frequent riders ( i. e., use public transit four days or more per week); 32 percent were 55 and older, and 30 percent do not have a household vehicle available. The main findings from the survey included:
•
Service Availability. When asked if public transit service was available in their communities, 35 percent stated that service were very available, 28 percent stated service were moderately available, and 37 percent responded service were not available.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 3
Arizo na Rural Transit Needs Study
4- 4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
•
Service Quality. Those who use public transit in rural areas are generally pleased with service quality, with 56 percent rating their service as very good. The major concerns expressed were lack of sufficient geographic cov- erage and limited service days, hours and frequency.
•
Service Importance. Public transit service is very important to 85 percent of those who use public transit. The reasons given include sustaining mobility for elderly persons; only way to get to medical appointments; and no vehicle available for the household ( i. e., high cost of owning and operating an automobile).
4
.3 SECTION 5311 LOCAL SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
The Section 5311 nonurbanized area formula program provides funding for pub- lic transportation services in nonurbanized areas. This section presents recom- mended service alternatives for Arizona rural transit services that operate primarily within local cities/ towns. This section is organized according to the following subsections:
•
New Section 5311 Program Services. Presents results from applying the APTNA transit demand methodology to individual cities/ towns that do not currently have Section 5311 program nonurbanized area general public ser- vices. Identifies a list of top locations for new Section 5311 program services based on these results, and provides a discussion of more specific service alternatives.
•
Expansion of Existing Section 5311 Program Services. Presents results from applying the APTNA transit demand methodology to cities/ towns that do have existing Section 5311 program services. Identifies a list of top locations for expansion of existing Section 5311 program services based on these results and a performance analysis of the existing services. Provides a dis- cussion of specific service alternatives for the top locations.
New Section 5311 Program Services
Transit Demand Projections
New Section 5311 program services should be considered for the rural cities/ towns in Arizona where the projected demand for such services is highest. For smaller cities/ towns where the demand is lower, Section 5310 program services should be considered instead.
Transit Demand and Need provided results of the APTNA methodology at a county level. The same methodology can also be applied to individual cities/ towns in rural Arizona. Table 4.1 shows the results of the APTNA 2005 demand forecast for the 48 rural cities/ towns ( including unincorporated places) and Native American Tribes with an estimated population of 2,500 or more in 2005 that do not currently have Section 5311 program service. The cities are ranked in terms of estimated demand. Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Table 4.1 APTNA Demand Forecast for Rural Cities/ Towns With No Section 5311 Program Service
City or Tribe
Year 2005 Population
Percent Without Auto
Percent Elderly ( Ages 60+)
Percent in Poverty ( Under Age 60)
Percent Disabled ( Under Age 60, Not In Poverty)
Year 2005 APTNA Population
Year 2005 Unmet Need
County Population Growth to Year 2016
Year 2016 Unmet Need
Rank
Apache County
Eagar
4,435
2.5%
13.7%
6.0%
1.5%
939
9,900
12.9%
12,300
45
Saint Johns
3,865
5.1%
16.7%
12.8%
3.7%
1,284
15,200
12.9%
18,100
40
Cochise County
Benson
4,740
10.5%
36.9%
9.1%
3.2%
2,330
21,400
38.4%
31,100
31
Willcox
3,885
13.2%
19.7%
21.7%
8.9%
1,953
24,000
38.4%
34,400
29
Coconino County
Kachina Village*
3,114
1.7%
4.2%
8.2%
2.2%
458
6,500
17.0%
8,400
47
Page
7,110
4.9%
9.7%
12.9%
1.4%
1,709
24,000
17.0%
29,900
32
Williams
3,145
10.0%
14.5%
10.8%
1.3%
837
10,300
17.0%
12,900
44
Gila County
Payson
15,430
4.7%
34.5%
7.5%
2.3%
6,856
61,700
13.5%
74,000
13
Graham County
Safford
9,360
10.0%
21.0%
14.4%
3.0%
3,599
42,300
11.9%
49,700
17
Thatcher
4,550
1.9%
13.7%
18.6%
1.9%
1,552
21,900
11.9%
25,600
33
Greenlee County
Clifton
2,495
6.9%
13.9%
9.8%
1.7%
632
7,500
- 1.3%
8,000
48
La Paz County
Parker
3,280
6.6%
13.0%
12.6%
3.4%
953
11,900
14.9%
14,500
42
Quartzsite
3,600
3.8%
66.5%
5.7%
2.4%
2,685
20,800
14.9%
24,800
34
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 5
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
4- 6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
City or Tribe
Year 2005
Population
Percent
Without
Auto
Percent
Elderly
( Ages 60+)
Percent in
Poverty
( Under
Age 60)
Percent
Disabled
( Under Age
60, Not In
Poverty)
Year 2005
APTNA
Population
Year 2005
Unmet Need
County
Population
Growth to
Year 2016
Year 2016
Unmet Need Rank
Maricopa County
New River*
12,755
1.1%
13.9%
5.0%
1.1%
2,537
25,600
29.3%
36,800
26
Wickenburg
6,590
9.2%
34.5%
8.7%
2.6%
3,014
27,900
29.3%
38,000
25
Mohave County
Colorado City
4,080
6.3%
2.2%
31.0%
3.0%
1,480
27,100
37.3%
38,500
24
Navajo County
Heber- Overgaard*
2,897
5.4%
31.3%
12.8%
2.2%
1,341
14,000
25.4%
18,400
39
Holbrook
5,425
8.8%
12.4%
18.6%
3.8%
1,886
26,100
25.4%
34,300
30
Snowflake
4,935
3.6%
13.9%
12.7%
1.6%
1,392
17,800
25.4%
23,700
35
Taylor
4,100
8.7%
12.4%
13.2%
2.5%
1,153
15,000
25.4%
20,000
36
Winslow
9,835
11.7%
12.5%
18.3%
4.8%
3,509
47,500
25.4%
62,300
15
Pima County
Catalina*
8,152
4.0%
20.1%
8.2%
2.7%
2,525
25,800
25.3%
34,600
28
Sells*
3,302
26.7%
6.6%
42.1%
13.3%
2,045
31,900
25.3%
40,900
22
Three Points*
5,956
4.3%
11.1%
19.9%
4.7%
2,126
30,000
25.3%
39,300
23
Pinal County
Arizona City*
5,731
1.3%
30.5%
4.1%
1.7%
2,078
17,100
130.3%
42,300
21
Casa Grande
32,470
8.7%
16.7%
13.5%
2.8%
10,708
130,900
130.3%
318,200
1
Eloy
11,125
12.4%
7.9%
29.2%
4.7%
4,654
74,900
130.3%
178,200
6
Florence
20,530
6.9%
12.4%
5.0%
1.9%
3,959
40,200
130.3%
103,200
11
City of Maricopa
9,790
9.7%
9.0%
23.2%
3.6%
3,504
54,100
130.3%
129,600
9
Oracle*
4,825
6.9%
16.9%
8.9%
1.0%
1,298
14,600
130.3%
36,100
27
San Manuel*
6,003
5.5%
15.2%
11.1%
1.3%
1,661
20,200
130.3%
49,600
18
Superior
3,170
12.4%
25.7%
22.0%
4.4%
1,650
20,500
130.3%
48,800
19 Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 7
City or Tribe
Year 2005
Population
Percent
Without
Auto
Percent
Elderly
( Ages 60+)
Percent in
Poverty
( Under
Age 60)
Percent
Disabled
( Under Age
60, Not In
Poverty)
Year 2005
APTNA
Population
Year 2005
Unmet Need
County
Population
Growth to
Year 2016
Year 2016
Unmet Need Rank
Santa Cruz County
Nogales
21,830
13.2%
14.1%
28.5%
4.3%
10,239
152,600
30.8%
206,000
4
Rio Rico NE*
3,414
2.4%
13.9%
5.3%
1.0%
691
7,100
30.8%
10,300
46
Rio Rico NW*
3,374
0.0%
5.2%
14.9%
2.4%
757
11,800
30.8%
16,400
41
Rio Rico SW*
3,179
3.3%
5.8%
11.7%
2.1%
623
9,200
30.8%
13,000
43
Yavapai County
Black Canyon City*
3,308
7.3%
30.9%
9.3%
2.1%
1,398
13,600
36.9%
19,600
38
Camp Verde
10,730
4.1%
26.0%
11.4%
3.3%
4,364
45,500
36.9%
65,600
14
Lake Montezuma*
3,872
3.3%
26.3%
8.1%
0.9%
1,365
13,500
36.9%
19,700
37
Yuma County
Fortuna Foothills*
24,247
2.5%
55.7%
5.9%
1.4%
15,283
122,700
32.5%
169,800
7
San Luis
22,930
10.5%
6.4%
32.3%
3.9%
9,789
166,000
32.5%
226,800
2
Somerton
9,750
11.9%
9.5%
23.6%
2.9%
3,513
54,700
32.5%
75,400
12
Tribal Reservations
Colorado River
8,026
7.1%
20.2%
17.9%
4.0%
3,379
41,900
14.9%
50,200
16
Fort Apache
14,020
25.0%
6.2%
45.0%
11.2%
8,748
142,300
25.4%
182,400
5
Gila River
15,445
24.1%
6.5%
48.2%
7.9%
9,668
164,900
29.3%
217,700
3
Pasqua Yaqui
3,763
16.8%
5.1%
40.8%
6.8%
1,983
33,900
25.3%
43,500
20
San Carlos
9,957
26.8%
7.3%
46.6%
6.9%
6,054
103,100
13.5%
119,600
10
Tohono O’odham
12,243
30.1%
10.4%
40.2%
10.9%
7,530
115,500
25.3%
148,200
8
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., based on data from Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005; U. S. Census, 2000; U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2005; the Maricopa Association of Governments; the Pima Association of Governments; the Central Arizona College Bond Feasibility Study; the Southeast Arizona Regional Transportation Profile; and the APTNA methodology described in Working Paper # 3.
* Indicates community is an unincorporated city or town. Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Table 4.2 provides the list of cities/ towns that are the top candidates for new Section 5311 program service based on the results from Table 4.1 and results from stakeholder involvement. A discussion of these top candidates for new Section 5311 program service recommendations follows.
Table 4.2 List of Top Candidates for New Section 5311 Program Service
County
City/ Town or Tribe
Year 2005 Population
Year 2005 APTNA Population
Year 2005 Unmet Need
Year 2016 Unmet Need
Pinal
Casa Grande
32,470
10,708
130,900
318,200
Maricopa*
Gila River Reserv.
15,445
9,668
164,900
217,700
Santa Cruz
Nogales
21,830
10,239
152,600
206,000
Navajo*
Ft. Apache Reserv.
14,020
8,748
142,300
182,400
Pinal
Eloy
11,125
4,654
74,900
178,200
Pinal
City of Maricopa
9,790
3,504
54,100
129,600
Gila*
San Carlos Reserv.
9,957
6,054
103,100
119,600
Pinal
Florence
20,530
3,959
40,200
103,200
Graham
Safford/ Thatcher
13,910
5,151
64,200
75,300
Gila
Payson
15,430
6,856
61,700
74,000
Yavapai
Camp Verde
10,730
4,364
45,500
65,600
Navajo
Winslow
9,835
3,509
47,500
62,300
Pinal
San Manuel
6,003
1,661
20,200
49,600
Mohave
Colorado City
4,080
1,480
27,100
38,500
Pinal
Oracle
4,825
1,298
14,600
36,100
Cochise
Willcox
3,885
1,953
24,000
34,400
Navajo
Holbrook
5,425
1,886
26,100
34,300
Cochise
Benson
4,740
2,330
21,400
31,100
Apache
Eagar/ Springerville
6,500
1,730
19,700
23,900
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Unmet need numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred.
* Includes multiple counties ( Gila River Reservation: Maricopa and Pinal; Fort Apache Reservation: Apache, Gila, and Navajo; San Carlos Reservation: Gila, Graham, and Pinal).
Note: Fortuna Foothills, San Luis, and Somerton are not included in Table 4.1, because they are within the jurisdiction of the Yuma MPO. The Tohono O’odham Tribal Reservation is not included, because it has existing Section 5311 service through Pima County Rural Transit.
4- 8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 9
Discussion of Pinal County Section 5311 Program New Service Alternatives
Six of the top candidates for new Section 5311 program services ( Casa Grande, Eloy, City of Maricopa, Florence, San Manuel, and Oracle) shown in Table 4.2 are in Pinal County. This suggests the possibility of establishing a regional Section 5311 program operator in Pinal County, with operations in these cities as well as in Coolidge ( which has an existing Section 5311 program operator). The key advantage of having a single transit operator would be improved service coordination from a scheduling and an operations perspective, with the potential for higher cost effectiveness.
The tremendous population and employment growth occurring in Pinal County through 2016 suggests that a regional Pinal County transit service will generate the underlying transit demand to be successful in the long term. This would include long- haul, fixed- route bus services that connects the cities with each other ( to be discussed later in the intercity services section), as well as local route deviation and dial- a- ride services that operate within individual cities. Previous work has indicated that: 2
•
Service duplication, when examined closely, was found to be less of an issue than the lack of available transportation service; and
•
Major service gaps included general public transportation service county- wide, nonemergency medical transportation within the county and to Phoenix and Tucson, transportation to work and work- related activities, and transportation for shopping trips.
Furthermore, demographic characteristics do differ between the various Pinal County cities that may have implications on service planning, including:
•
Eloy and Maricopa have relatively high poverty rates at 29.2 percent and 23.2 percent, respectively ( persons under age 60). Journey- to- work services and trips to/ from employment training resources may be most important in these Cities.
•
By contrast, Casa Grande and Florence have higher elderly percentages ( per- sons age 60 and higher) at 16.7 percent and 12.4 percent, respectively. Transit services for the elderly may be most important in these Cities.
2 Source: Pinal Transportation Coordination Demonstration Project, Final Report, page 3; RAE Consultants, Inc., December 2005. Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
4- 10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Discussion of Other Section 5311 Program New Service Alternatives
Comments on other top candidates are provided to follow:
•
Gila River Reservation. The Gila River Tribal Reservation in Maricopa and Pinal Counties has an estimated 2005 population of about 15,000, of which an estimated 48.2 percent are persons below poverty under age 60. The relative proximity of the Reservation to the Phoenix urbanized area ( about 20 to 50 miles, depending on the specific location) suggests that route deviation services to/ from the Phoenix urbanized area ( connections with Valley Metro) could be appropriate, with supplemental medical appointment trips. Lessons could be drawn from the Salt River Transit System, an existing Section 5311 program operator.
•
Nogales. For Nogales in Santa Cruz County, having a Section 5311 program service is clearly a major need given its population ( 21,830 in 2005), a high poverty rate ( 28.5 percent), an appreciable elderly population ( 14.1 percent), and a significant amount of visitors in need of transit options from Nogales and Sonora, Mexico. A recent transit planning study for Nogales recom- mended a total of five fixed routes operating on major arterials with a desig- nated central transfer point, with a supplemental paratransit service. 3
•
Fort Apache Reservation and San Carlos Reservation. As with the Navajo Nation Reservation, but on a smaller scale, the Fort Apache and San Carlos Reservations together encompass a high population ( about 24,000 in 2005 between the two reservations) spread out over a large geographic area ( por- tions of five counties: Apache, Gila, Graham, Navajo, and Pinal). The pov- erty rates in the Reservations are relatively high at 45.0 percent and 46.6 percent, respectively. Following the example of the Navajo Transit System, it likely makes sense to begin transit service in these reservations with long- haul fixed routes that provide connectivity with adjacent cities ( i. e., Show Low and Miami/ Globe). Circulator services within the reservation are a longer- term possibility.
•
Safford/ Thatcher. The recently completed Graham County Transit Feasibility Review identified a new route deviation service as a viable and preferred ser- vice alternative for the three cities of Safford, Thatcher, and Pima. 4 Safford has a relatively higher percentage of elderly persons ( 21.0 percent), while Thatcher has a relatively higher percentage of low- income persons ( 18.6 percent).
3 Source: Nogales Transit Feasibility Review and Implementation Plan, Final Report, pages 13 to 24, Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates, November 2006.
4 Source: Graham County Transit Feasibility Review, Final Report, Ostrander Consulting, May 2007. Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 11
•
Payson. Payson in Gila County is most notable for its relatively high popula- tion ( 15,430 in 2005) and an extremely high percentage of elderly persons ages 60 and above ( 34.5 percent). Given this, a route deviation or demand response service open to the general public may make the most sense for ini- tial service. The year 2004 Payson Area Transit Feasibility Study identified two deviated fixed routes as a viable and preferred service alternative. 5
•
Camp Verde. Camp Verde in Yavapai County has a modest population ( 10,730 in 2005) and a high percentage of elderly persons ( 26.0 percent). The relative proximity of Camp Verde to Cottonwood ( distance of about 12 miles) suggests that the Cottonwood Area Transportation System could potentially operate service in Camp Verde instead of a new Section 5311 program operator. Camp Verde could be readily provided with intercity service to/ from both Phoenix and Flagstaff if Greyhound were to locate a stop there for select Phoenix- Flagstaff trips.
The list of top candidates for new Section 5311 program service shown previ- ously in Table 4.2 represent the locations that are projected to have the highest demand for such services and are believed to be the best opportunities. How- ever, the list is not inclusive of all cities where new Section 5311 program local services would be feasible.
Expansion of Existing Section 5311 Program Services
Transit Demand Projections
The APTNA analysis was also used to estimate demand for rural cities/ towns that currently have Section 5311 program service. Table 4.3 shows the results from this analysis. Using this approach, unmet need indicates the difference between estimated demand and existing Section 5311 program ridership.
5 Source: Payson Area Transit Feasibility Study, Final Report, Lima & Associates, December 2004. Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Table 4.3 APTNA Demand Forecast for Rural Cities/ Towns With Section 5311 Program Service
City or Tribe
Year 2005 Population
Percent Without Auto
Percent Elderly ( Ages 60+)
Percent in Poverty ( Under Age 60)
Percent Disabled ( Under Age 60, Not in Poverty)
Year 2005 APTNA Population
Year 2005 APTNA Index
FY 2006 Ridership
Year 2005 Unmet Need
County Population Growth to Year 2016
Year 2016 Unmet Need
Cochise County
Bisbee
6,570
8.1%
26.3%
14.2%
4.3%
2,939
32,100
30,302
1,800
38.4%
16,200
Douglas
17,195
15.6%
17.0%
31.2%
5.3%
9,207
134,000
n/ a
134,000
38.4%
190,800
Sierra Vista
43,690
5.8%
16.1%
9.3%
2.0%
11,985
135,400
115,782
19,600
38.4%
85,200
Gila County
Globe
7,495
9.9%
20.8%
9.3%
2.4%
2,432
25,700
9,957
15,700
13.5%
21,100
Miami
1,955
14.0%
20.7%
18.7%
3.6%
841
10,600
4,267
6,300
13.5%
8,300
Mohave County
Bullhead City
38,210
8.3%
25.7%
12.3%
3.2%
15,741
168,300
113,993
54,300
38.4%
130,800
Kingman
25,860
5.9%
22.1%
9.5%
2.6%
8,835
92,000
66,194
25,800
38.4%
69,200
Lake Havasu City
53,435
4.2%
33.4%
7.0%
1.6%
22,506
202,400
136,817
65,600
38.4%
159,900
Navajo County
Pinetop- Lakeside
4,165
3.8%
21.8%
8.1%
2.1%
1,334
13,500
31,346
- 17,800
25.4%
- 13,200
Show Low
9,885
3.8%
20.4%
12.8%
2.4%
3,519
40,700
73,140
- 32,400
25.4%
- 19,300
Pima County
Ajo*
4,222
9.7%
39.3%
16.3%
4.4%
2,536
26,200
39,714
- 13,500
25.3%
- 5,700
Green Valley*
19,616
5.4%
84.2%
0.5%
0.2%
16,657
114,500
1,933
112,600
25.3%
147,000
Tucson Estates*
11,072
4.2%
36.6%
5.2%
1.2%
4,756
39,800
14,801
25,000
25.3%
38,200
Pinal County
Coolidge
8,180
10.2%
16.6%
20.6%
5.5%
3,492
45,800
21,962
23,800
130.3%
87,700
4- 12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 13
City or Tribe
Year 2005
Population
Percent
Without
Auto
Percent
Elderly
( Ages 60+)
Percent in
Poverty
( Under Age
60)
Percent
Disabled
( Under Age
60, Not in
Poverty)
Year 2005
APTNA
Population
Year 2005
APTNA
Index
FY 2006
Ridership
Year 2005
Unmet
Need
County
Population
Growth to
Year 2016
Year 2016
Unmet
Need
Yavapai County
Clarkdale
3,680
4.2%
29.2%
7.7%
1.6%
1,418
13,400
11,382
2,000
36.9%
8,100
Cottonwood
10,860
11.3%
28.4%
9.8%
1.8%
4,347
43,700
34,146
9,600
36.9%
29,000
Sedona
10,935
3.3%
33.8%
7.3%
1.5%
4,667
42,300
n/ a
42,300
36.9%
61,300
Tribal Reservations
Hopi- Senom
7,835
24.0%
14.2%
35.4%
4.7%
4,254
66,100
5,025
61,100
25.4%
80,100
Navajo Nation
111,153
18.3%
9.9%
37.3%
7.8%
61,134
963,600
35,700
927,900
12.9%
1,080,300
Salt River
7,609
13.1%
16.5%
26.3%
5.5%
3,675
51,400
17,754
33,600
29.3%
50,900
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., based on data from Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005; U. S. Census, 2000; U. S. Census American Community Survey, 2005; the Maricopa Association of Governments; the Pima Association of Governments; the Central Arizona College Bond Feasibility Study; the Southeast Arizona Regional Transportation Profile; and the APTNA methodology described in Working Paper # 3.
* Indicates community is an unincorporated city or town. Arizo na Rural Transit Needs Study
4- 14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 4.4 provides the list of cities/ towns that are the top candidates for future expansion of existing Section 5311 program service based on the results in Table 4.3.
Table 4.4 List of Top Candidates for Expanded Section 5311 Program Service
County Section
5311 Operator
Year 2005 Population
Year 2005 APTNA Population
Year 2005 Unmet Need
Year 2016 Unmet Need
Apache*
Navajo Transit System
111,153
61,134
927,900
1,080,300
Cochise
Catholic Community Services in Douglas
17,195 9,207
134,000
190,800
Pima
Pima County Rural Transit
34,910
23,948
124,100
179,500
Mohave
Lake Havasu City Transit Services
53,435
22,506
65,600
159,900
Mohave
Bullhead Area Transit System
38,210
15,741
54,300
130,800
Pinal
Cotton Express in Coolidge
8,180
3,492
23,800
87,700
Navajo*
Hopi Senom Transit System
7,835
4,254
61,100
80,100
Cochise
Sierra Vista Public Transit System
43,690
11,985
19,600
85,200
Mohave
Kingman Area Regional Transit
25,860
8,835
25,800
69,200
Yavapai
City of Sedona
10,935
4,667
42,300
61,300
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Unmet need numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred.
* Includes multiple counties ( Navajo Transit: Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties, as well as portions of New Mexico and Utah; Hopi Senom Transit System: Coconino and Navajo).
Note: Current ridership data for Catholic Community Services in Douglas and the City of Sedona are not available, as these services have recently begun operation.
Performance Measures for Existing Operations
For rural cities/ towns that currently have Section 5311 program service, another consideration is the performance of existing operations. Table 4.5 shows three relevant performance measures for these operators, including the following:
1
. Cost efficiency. Operating cost per vehicle hour ( i. e., cost per unit of service provision);
2
. Cost effectiveness. Operating cost per passenger trip ( i. e., cost per unit of service consumption); and
3
. Service effectiveness. Passenger trips per vehicle hour ( i. e., service con- sumption per unit of service provision). Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 15
Table 4.5 Section 5311 Program Service Performance Measures
County
Section 5311 Operator
Operating Expenses
Vehicle Hours
Passenger Trips
Operating Cost Per Vehicle Hour
Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip
Passenger Trips Per Vehicle Hour
Apache
Navajo Transit System
$ 633,291
5,989
35,700
$ 105.74
$ 17.74
5.96
Cochise
Bisbee Bus System
$ 179,683
3,388
30,302
$ 53.04
$ 5.93
8.94
Cochise
Sierra Vista Public Transit System
$ 748,282
15,459
115,782
$ 48.40
$ 6.46
7.49
Gila
Cobre Valley Community Transit
$ 154,305
4,040
14,224
$ 38.19
$ 10.85
3.52
Maricopa
Valley Metro Rural Transit
$ 338,486
6,425
2,842
$ 52.68
$ 119.10
0.44
Maricopa
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
$ 326,978
10,934
17,754
$ 29.90
$ 18.42
1.62
Mohave
Bullhead Area Transit System
$ 796,811
16,037
113,993
$ 49.69
$ 6.99
7.11
Mohave
Kingman Area Regional Transit
$ 506,493
10,172
66,194
$ 49.79
$ 7.65
6.51
Mohave
Lake Havasu City Transit Services
$ 1,678,830
44,827
136,817
$ 37.45
$ 12.27
3.05
Navajo
Hopi Senom Transit System
$ 70,991
2,577
5,025
$ 27.55
$ 14.13
1.95
Navajo
Four Seasons Connection in Show Low/ Pinetop
$ 298,579
7,456
104,486
$ 40.05
$ 2.86
14.01
Pima
Pima County Rural Transit
$ 663,831
17,069
100,446
$ 38.89
$ 6.61
5.88
Pinal
Cotton Express in Coolidge
$ 219,736
5,172
21,962
$ 42.49
$ 10.01
4.25
Yavapai
Cottonwood Area Transportation System
$ 526,291
14,787
45,528
$ 35.59
$ 11.56
3.08
Total
$ 7,142,587
164,332
811,055
$ 43.46
$ 8.81
4.94
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., based on FY 2006 National Transit Database rural data reporting.
Note: Performance data for Catholic Community Services in Douglas and the City of Sedona are not available, as these services have recently begun operation. Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
Clearly, the Section 5311 program operators serve different functions and have different ridership characteristics. Furthermore, the measures are based only on a single year of service operation. As such, while no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these results, the data does suggest differing levels of perform- ance among existing operators.
For purposes of assessing service expansion potential, the service productivity measure ( i. e., passenger trips per vehicle hour) is the most relevant. Based on reported FY 2006 data, the Section 5311 program operators can be grouped into the following categories:
•
High- service effectiveness. Four Seasons Connection ( 14.01), Bisbee Bus System ( 8.94), Sierra Vista Public Transit System ( 7.49), Bullhead Area Transit System ( 7.11), and Kingman Area Regional Transit ( 6.51);
•
Medium- service effectiveness. Navajo Transit System ( 5.96), Pima County Rural Transit ( 5.88), Cotton Express ( 4.25), Cobre Valley Community Transit ( 3.52), Cottonwood Area Transit System ( 3.08), and Lake Havasu City Transit Services ( 3.05); and
•
Low- service effectiveness. Hopi- Senom Transit System ( 1.95), Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community ( 1.62), and Valley Metro Rural Transit ( 0.44).
Of the top 10 candidates for expanded Section 5311 program service shown pre- viously in Table 4.4, only one of the opportunities ( Hopi- Senom Transit System) falls in the low- service productivity category. The implication of this is that Hopi- Senom Transit System should focus on improving the performance of its existing service first before adding additional service. For Catholic Community Services in Douglas and the City of Sedona, no performance data is available for FY 2006, but the same principle would apply going forward.
Discussion of Section 5311 Program Expanded Service Alternatives
There is generally a stronger basis on which to define specific service character- istics for existing Section 5311 program services relative to new Section 5311 pro- gram services, given the availability of current performance measures and recently completed three- year transit plans. Nevertheless, the discussion pro- vided to follow is not meant to substitute for the three- year transit planning process, which is a more in- depth investigation of community/ service profiles and transit needs within each respective area.
The following bullets provide comments on each of the top Section 5311 program service expansion candidates shown above in Table 4.5:
•
Navajo Transit System. Expansion of Navajo Transit System services for the Navajo Nation Reservation ( 2005 population of about 110,000) clearly repre- sents one of the most significant rural transit opportunities in the State. The expansion alternatives identified in the most recent three- year transit plan,
4- 16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
most notably having two new routes into Utah ( expressed by Navajo Transit System management as the most pressing need) and having service to/ from additional communities in Arizona and New Mexico ( particularly a Tuba City- Flagstaff service) should be given serious consideration. Navajo Transit System performance in FY 2006 indicated an operating cost per vehicle hour ( i. e., cost efficiency) of $ 105.74, which was nearly twice that of any other Section 5311 operator. Before Navajo Transit System service is expanded, a more thorough investigation of methods for improving Navajo Transit System cost efficiency should be undertaken. This could very well include using smaller vehicles and organizing vanpools in select corridors. Small vehicle services could connect currently unserved areas with the existing major trunk routes.
•
Catholic Community Services in Douglas. Douglas in Cochise County ( 2005 population: 17,195) and the surrounding area is expected to continue to grow rapidly by 2016. Catholic Community Services just recently began service, including three local routes within the City of Douglas, as well as an intercity commuter service between Douglas, Bisbee, and Sierra Vista; and did not report NTD data in FY 2006. Catholic Community Services performance of both the local routes and the intercity service should be monitored over time as the primary basis for determining specific expansion needs over time. The likely options would be increased service frequency on each route and a longer span of service on weekday evenings.
•
Pima County Rural Transit. The projected unmet needs in the Pima County Rural Transit service area is being driven primarily by the unincorporated area of Green Valley ( 2005 population of about 20,000), which has an extremely high elderly population of 84.2 percent. Pima County Rural Transit currently serves Green Valley with both a local route deviation service ( estimated FY 2006 ridership of 1,933) and a Regional Transit Connector pilot service, which began in February 2006. The recent Pima County Rural Transit three- year transit plan, completed in November 2006, focuses more on expansion for services in Ajo, Marana, San Xavier, and Tucson Estates, which may all be worthy needs, but having added service levels for Green Valley residents should also be on the table. Based on stake- holder input received, a new route connecting Catalina and Oro Valley with Tucson also may be a good option.
•
Lake Havasu City Transit Services. City Transit Services, serving Lake Havasu City in Mohave County ( 2005 population: 53,435), just recently in October 2006 transitioned its operations from a purely demand response ser- vice to a “ hub- and- spoke” route deviation and demand response service. City Transit Services performance should be closely monitored over time to determine what the outcomes of the service transition are, as the primary basis for assessing more specific service expansion needs over time. It is likely that additional service provision will be needed as the City continues to grow.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 17
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
•
Bullhead Area Transit System. Bullhead Area Transit System, serving Bullhead City in Mohave County ( 2005 population: 38,210), demonstrated high performance in service productivity and cost effectiveness in FY 2006. Projected growth in the Bullhead City region suggests that Bullhead Area Transit System will need to continue to expand its service provision going forward. Potential service improvement candidates include increasing Red Line frequency from 120 minutes to 90 or 60 minutes, and examining the need for additional routes. Further discussion of intercity needs with Laughlin is discussed in Section 5.5.
•
Cotton Express in Coolidge. The relevant discussion pertaining to service expansion of the Cotton Express, serving Coolidge in Pinal County ( 2005 population: 8,180), is provided previously in the discussion of Pinal County Section 5311 program new service alternatives. Essentially, the service expansion needs of Cotton Express should be considered in the broader con- text of a potential new regional Section 5311 program operation encompassing other cities in Pinal County ( Casa Grande, Eloy, Florence, and Maricopa).
•
Hopi- Senom Transit System. The best opportunities for expansion of Hopi- Senom Transit System services in the Hopi Reservation ( 2005 population of about 8,000) would appear to be shorter local routes that connect currently unserved Hopi communities with Kykotsmovi, timed to allow for transfers to/ from existing routes. As mentioned previously, improving the service productivity of existing Hopi- Senom Transit System services is believed to be a more significant concern at the present time than adding additional service.
•
Sierra Vista Public Transit System. Public Transit System, serving Sierra Vista in Cochise County ( 2005 population: 43,690), had strong FY 2006 per- formance in service productivity and cost effectiveness. Plans currently are underway to change existing routes to locally- oriented circulators, with trans- fers possible at a designated Transfer Center. Other Public Transit System ser- vice improvements would include extending weekday service hours from 5: 00 p. m. to perhaps 7: 00 p. m. or 8: 00 p. m., adding additional Saturday ser- vice, and extending curbside pick- ups to elderly patrons between the ages of 60 and 64. A discussion of intercity service needs for Sierra Vista is discussed to follow in Section 5.5: Intercity Transit Service Alternatives.
• K
ingman Area Regional Transit. Kingman Area Regional Transit, serving Kingman in Mohave County ( 2005 population: 25,860), had above average performance among existing operators in service productivity and cost effec- tiveness. The most pressing needs for service expansion are likely to be those described in the most recent three- year plan: express bus or carpool/ vanpool service for the airport area and adding service for the outlying areas of Golden Valley and Valle Vista.
•
City of Sedona. The daily circulator route in Sedona, paratransit service, and Sedona Roadrunner commuter service recently began service in October
4- 18 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
2006. Performance of these services should be monitored for at least one year before more specific expansion options are defined.
In addition, expansion of the City of Show Low/ Pinetop service ( Four Seasons Connection) is recommended to provide integration with the new service pro- posed for the White Mountain Apache Tribe in the Fort Apache Reservation.
Map of Top Section 5311 Program Service Candidates
Figure 4.1 summarizes the preceding information by showing the top section 5311 program candidates, including both the introduction of new service ( in red) and the expansion of existing service ( in green).
Figure 4.1 Top Candidates for New or Expanded Local and Tribal Section 5311 Program Service
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation; and Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Note: Tribal Reservations are shown as a single location that represents a larger geographic area. Green Valley is shown as the most significant expansion opportunity for Pima County Rural Transit.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 19
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
The summary of Section 5311 program service candidates includes:
•
New Section 5311 Local Services. New 5311 program services were identi- fied for communities in Pinal County ( Casa Grande, Eloy, City of Maricopa, Florence, Oracle, and San Manuel); Santa Cruz County ( Nogales); Gila County ( Payson); Yavapai County ( Camp Verde); Graham County ( Safford/ Thatcher); Navajo County ( Winslow and Holbrook); Apache County ( Eagar/ Springerville); Cochise County ( Willcox and Benson); and Mohave County ( Colorado City). New 5311 program services were also identified for Tribal Reservations: Gila River Reservation ( in Maricopa and Pinal Counties); Fort Apache Reservation ( in Apache, Gila, and Navajo Counties); and the San Carlos Reservation ( in Gila, Graham, and Pinal Counties).
•
Expanded Section 5311 Local Services. Expanded 5311 program services were identified for Navajo Transit System ( in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties, as well as portions of New Mexico and Utah); Catholic Community Services in Douglas ( Cochise County); Pima County Rural Transit; Lake Havasu City Transit Services ( Mohave County); Bullhead Area Transit System ( Mohave County); Cotton Express in Coolidge ( Pinal County); Hopi Senom Transit System ( in Coconino and Navajo counties); City of Sierra Vista Public Transit System ( Cochise County); Kingman Area Regional Transit ( Mohave County); the City of Sedona ( Yavapai County); and the City of Show Low/ Pinetop ( Navajo County).
4
.4 SECTION 5311 INTERCITY SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
During the stakeholder input process, the need for having expanded long- distance, intercity transit services throughout the State was repeatedly identified. Many rural cities/ towns are ( and will continue to be) highly dependent on larger cities and metropolitan areas for their employment, medical, and shopping needs. This section presents alternatives for intercity transit services that connect rural cities/ towns with each other or with urbanized areas. This section is organized according to the following subsections:
•
Demand Analysis. Presents results from a demand analysis for general pub- lic intercity transit services based on U. S. Census Transportation Planning Package ( CTPP) travel pattern data; and
•
New Section 5311 Program Services. Describes proposed alternatives for new intercity Section 5311 program nonurbanized area general public service provision based on results from the demand analysis and stakeholder information.
Demand Analysis
Working Paper # 2: Future Trend Analysis, Section 6.3 presented the estimated number of 2015 intercounty and out- of- state commuters, and the change from 2005. An adjustment from 2015 to 2016 was made based on extrapolation. For
4- 20 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the potential demand for such ser- vices is based on a 1.0 percent transit mode share, with each commuter making 500 one- way transit trips annually ( 250 days, 1 round trip). Since no information is available for nonwork trips, the demand estimate is doubled to account for this. Table 4.6 provides the results of the intercounty and out- of- state commuter demand analysis from 2005 to 2016.
Table 4.6 Intercounty and Out- of- State Commuter Demand Analysis, 2005 and 2016
2005 Intercounty & Out- of- State
2016 Intercounty & Out- of- State
Residence County
Workplace County
Commuters
Demand
Commuters
Demand
Pinal
Maricopa
30,871
308,700
80,974
809,700
Mohave
Out of state
18,262
182,600
33,675
336,800
Maricopa
Pinal
9,755
97,600
16,186
161,900
Pinal
Pima
4,202
42,000
12,041
120,400
Maricopa
Out of state
10,221
102,200
10,480
104,800
Yavapai
Maricopa
5,093
50,900
10,829
108,300
Yavapai
Coconino
4,411
44,100
8,163
81,600
Cochise
Pima
2,510
25,100
5,778
57,8