Graham County transit feasibility review final report

              GRAHAM COUNTY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY REVIEW FINAL REPORT
May 2007
with RAE Consultants Inc

TABLE OF CONTENTS



I. II.



Introduction....................................................................................1 Community Profile Major Cities/Employers ...................................................................3 Population ........................................................................................5 Education .........................................................................................6 Recreation ........................................................................................6 Community Profile Observations/Issues..........................................7 Demographic Characteristics Transit Dependent Factors ...............................................................8 Community Characteristics/Study Area ........................................10 Demographic Characteristics Observations/Issues ........................12 Transit Needs Estimate Quantitative Analysis.....................................................................13 Qualitative Factors .........................................................................15 Strategies for Providing Transit Organization Alternatives ..............................................................16 Service Types/Productivity............................................................16 Funding Alternatives......................................................................18 Review of Community Interests/Needs ......................................20 Next Steps Service Options..............................................................................22 Funding Requirements ...................................................................24 Organization...................................................................................25 Comments from Policy Boards......................................................25 Recommendations..........................................................................26



III.



IV.



V.



VI VII



TABLES Table II-1 Table II-2 Table III-1 Table III-2 Table IV-1 Table IV-2 Table V-1 Graham County Population .........................5 School Enrollment .......................................6 Transit Dependent Factors ...........................9 Comparison of Communities .....................10 Transit Needs Estimate ..............................14 Peer Group Comparison.............................14 Transit Funding Sources ............................18



FIGURES Figure II-1 Figure III-1 Figure III-2 Figure VII-1 Graham County Map....................................4 Census Tract.................................................8 Primary Study Area....................................11 Proposed Bus Zones...................................23



APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Transit Advisory Committee Quantitative Transit Need Estimate Background Census Data TAC Minutes, January 16, 2007 Key Stakeholder Interviews SEAGO Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan Issued March 2007, Graham/Greenlee Counties only



For More Information Contact: Ostrander Consulting, Inc. 3025 Umatilla Street, Unit 102 Denver, CO 80211 720-855-7404 aostranderconsulting@msn.com Cover: Snow on Mount Graham, view from east side. Courtesy of Graham County Chamber of Commerce Photo Gallery.



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



INTRODUCTION

Graham County is located on the Old West Highway (U.S. Route 70), approximately 160 miles from Phoenix and 130 miles from Tucson. Major cities include Safford, Thatcher, and Pima. Located in the Gila Valley, the area is mostly high desert plains surrounded by the Gila, Pinaleno, and St. Teressa Mountains. Recent development associated with a major Phelps Dodge expansion and the emergence as a regional shopping and services center, has spurred both population and economic growth. Along with issues associated with population, housing, and building growth, community leaders are committed to addressing other service needs including the opportunity to provide public transportation in the area. The Arizona Department of Transportation, Public Transportation Division is supporting these local stakeholders by providing assistance to assess the potential for successful transit services in the planning area. This process will include a Feasibility Review to assess the community environment, local interest, and alternatives to providing effective transit services. If a decision is made that there is a viable opportunity to provide transit services, the project will include the development of an Implementation Plan. � Feasibility Phase will include: o Public input process structured to identify, motivate and encourage stakeholders. o Key stakeholders will be identified and included in discussions. This will include not only local service programs (seniors, human service agencies, etc.) but also the business community. o Identification of transit dependent populations and needs as well as important community connections between activity centers. o Potential links will focus on both employee work trips and other customer needs. o Opportunities for coordination with current human service and other transit providers will be carefully reviewed and potential private partnerships developed as appropriate. Implementation Phase will include: o The Implementation Phase will only be initiated if an affirmative decision is made following the Feasibility Phase. o All elements of the Implementation Plan will be supportive of the requirements of the Section 5311 and other grant funding programs. o The product for this task will be a detailed transportation service plan including elements such as service type, route/schedules/bus stop locations, vehicle number and type, facility needs and other operational elements. o Implementation will be supported by a detailed operating plan, budgets, and timetable for implementation, support documents and forms . 1



�



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review The feasibility review includes; � Chapter One Introduction to study process � Chapter Two Community profile including an overview of major cities and employers. � Chapter Three Demographic characteristics focusing on groups that are considered prime target markets for transit services. � Chapter Four Estimate of the transit needs of the communities. � Chapter Five An overview of organizational, service types, and funding alternatives to providing transit services. � Chapter Six Discussion of the major issues and perception of transit needs by community stakeholders. � Chapter Seven Next steps to determine feasibility and strategy for reviewing potential implementation of transit services.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



2



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



CHAPTER II:



COMMUNITY PROFILE



Following a period of limited economic activity, Graham County received a significant boost when Phelps Dodge announced that the Dos Pobres and San Juan mines � the first to be built in the United States in more than 30 years � would be opened northeast of Safford in 2006. The career opportunities coupled with the attraction of living in a smalltown setting are fueling dynamic growth in Graham County. Agriculture has traditionally been a mainstay of the region. Cotton is the principal commodity with hay and small grains also being produced. Water is drawn from the Gila River to create over 40,000 acres of irrigated land. Graham County encompasses 4,630 square miles, including 22 square miles of water. The San Carlos Indian Reservation covers approximately one-third of the land. Individual and corporate ownership accounts for 9.9 percent of land ownership; the U.S. Forest service and Bureau of Land Management, 38 percent; the state of Arizona, 18 percent. The remaining area, 36 percent, is Indian reservations. Major highways include U.S. 70 traversing from Globe to the west and Duncan/Franklin to the east and U.S. Highway 191 from Guthrie/Thatcher connecting to Interstate 10 near Willcox. State Highways 266 and 366 provide access to Coronado National Forest west for U.S. Highway 191. Figure 1 provides an overview of Graham County. Major Cities/Employers Graham County has three nearly contiguous incorporated cities. There are also independent local governmental structures including law enforcement agencies and school districts. Pima, Safford and Thatcher are located on US Highway 70 corridor. The close proximity of the cities makes it difficult to separate employment centers. Major employers that draw employees from all three cities and as well as unincorporated county locations include: � Arizona State Prisons � Fort Grant and San Jose � Federal Prison Facility � Bonita Nursery producing tomatoes with 200 acres under glass. � Phelps Dodge Mining Company o Morenci Mine (current operation) o Dos Pobres and San Juan Mines (new development) o Process Technology Center o Central Analytical Services Center � Eastern Arizona College with the recently completed science and technology centers. � Mt. Graham Regional Medical Center with expanded cancer and dialysis treatment centers.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



3



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



4



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review The Town of Pima is located at an elevation of 2,846 feet and has historically been an agricultural center, with irrigation water coming from the Gila River. A farm trade center, Pima serves the surrounding agricultural areas. Pima is becoming a popular retirement community. According to the community profile prepared by the Arizona Department of Commerce, major employers include Ace Aviation, Minit Mart, and the Glen Bar Gin. Major public employers include Graham County Coop, Pima Public Schools, and Pima Town Government. Safford, the county seat of Graham County, serves as a retail and government center for the region. According to the community profile prepared by the Arizona Department of Commerce, major employers include Mt. Graham Regional Medical Center, the Mt. Graham International Observatory and Impressive Labels. Major public employers include the Safford Unified School District, City of Safford and Graham County. At one point over 68% of the land within the corporate limits of Thatcher was used for agricultural purposes. However, retail trade/services/tourism is beginning to play a more significant role in the local economy. In the past three years, a Wal-Mart Super Center has been built in Safford and Home Depot has been built in Thatcher. According to the community profile prepared by the Arizona Department of Commerce, other major employers include Phelps Dodge, Basha's and Safeway. Major public employers include Eastern Arizona College, Thatcher Public Schools, and the Thatcher Town Government. Population In Census 2000, the population of Graham County was reported to have increased 26% over 1990. At that time, the population growth was reported to be relatively flat. However, with the announcement of the Phelps Dodge mine expansion, the area has experienced an influx of workers and their families. Table II-1 provides the population of the three incorporated towns as well as the unincorporated area in Graham County. TABLE II-1 Graham County Population

Increase: 1990 to 2000 15% 25% 7% 19% 33% 26% Increase: 2000 to 2005 5% 1% 13% 5% 7% 6%



Pima Safford Thatcher Subtotal: Unicorporated County Total:



1990 1,725 7,359 3,763 12,847 13,707 26,554



2000 1,989 9,232 4,022 15,243 18,246 33,489



2005 2,085 9,360 4,550 15,995 19,460 35,455



Sources: Arizona Department of Economic Security and U.S. Census Bureau



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



5



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review According to a report by Wick Communications Area in Focus, it is predicted that 7,000 people will move into the Gila Valley by 2010 to support Phelps Dodge mine construction and peripheral services. A significant increase in the number of retirement communities is also anticipated. Education From 2000 to 2005, enrollment has dropped in all four school districts serving Graham County. However, increases by all districts were experienced in 2006 � a first indication of the influx of workers to the various communities. All schools report excess capacity to accommodate additional students. TABLE II-2 School Enrollment

Pima Safford Thatcher Fort Thomas 2000 7 03 2 , 8 19 1,336 5 68 2005 646 2,700 1,137 528 Change -8% -4% -15% -7%



Source: Growth: A Special Report, Wick Communications, October 25, 2006



Recreation Recreation, and related tourism activities, is a major lifestyle and economic factor for Graham County. Among the attractions are water sports, game hunting, birding, and an extensive trail system. With easy access to lakes and rivers, boating and fishing is a popular pastime. River rafting is available in the Gila Box area on the Gila River. Sports enthusiasts can enjoy big and small game hunting for deer, javelina, quail and other wildlife. The tremendous altitude ranges � 2,400 feet to 10,720 feet at Mt. Graham - and habitats from desert to spruce-fir forests attract a variety of bird species. Miles of rivers and streams plus numerous lakes and ponds provide excellent riparian habitat. More than 300 species have been recorded in Graham County. The Gila Valley Trail System has been developed in partnership with the National Park Service's Rivers and Trail Programs. Discovery Park, including a two mile narrowgauge railway, provides a glimpse into the historic past of the region as well as the Gov Aker Observatory.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



6



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review Community Profile: Observations and Issues Observations Historically an agricultural economy, Graham County is transitioning into more regional trade and an educational center. Growth of Phelps Dodge will be a significant economic generator with accompanying need/opportunity for support services. Significant growth of over 55 age group communities is anticipated. Recreation/tourism will remain a strong factor. Growth is occurring in all three communities, Pima, Safford and Thatcher. Major employers, mining, retail, medical, correctional facilities, and education, will create a challenging need for labor. Issues for transportation Population growth will require increased city/municipal services. Potential traffic congestion on the Highway 70 corridor. Access to job sites will be important for workers. A transit alternative to the single occupant vehicle could be important to mitigating growth issues.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



7



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



CHAPTER III:



DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS



Generally, transit dependent persons are defined as those individuals who have characteristics that prevent them from driving, leaving public transit as the major motorized form of transportation available to them. Transit Dependent Factors Four census categories provide information about the transit dependent population groups including. � Elderly Population: The population 65 years of age and older. � Mobility Limited: A new category in Census 2000 identified the mobility limited. Limited to persons with a "Go outside home disability for civilians not institutionalized over 16 years." � Below Poverty: Thresholds include, for example, single person, under 65 $9,183; family of four - $18,392. � Zero Vehicle Population: Households reporting zero automobiles. Transit dependent population characteristics from the Census 2000 were compiled for the cities of Safford, Thatcher, and Pima. Census information is collected in Block Group/Census Tract data sets and reported under the city name. For mapping purposes, these sets may extend beyond the city/town limits. The areas for these Census Blocks are shown in Figure 2.



FIGURE III-1

Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



8



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review During discussions about the population factors to be used for this study, it was estimated that approximately 30% of the Graham population resides in unincorporated areas adjacent to the towns of Pima, Safford, and Thatcher. Therefore, 30% of the total Graham County population was added to identify transit dependent populations. TABLE III-1 Transit Dependent Population Factors: City Geographic Area

Adjacent County 10,047 3,464 5,387 1,197 487 2,086 266 % of Study Area



Total Population Population by Age Under 19 20 to 64 65 and Older Mobility Limited Below Poverty No Vehicle Available



Pima 1,989 746 961 282 145 406 31



Safford 9,232 3,090 4,596 1,546 531 1,565 332



Thatcher 4,022 1,562 1,961 499 306 758 24



Total 25,290 8,862 12,905 3,524 1,469 4,815 653



35% 51% 14% 6% 19% 3%



Source: Census 2000 Detail of County Estimate in Appendix B



Elderly Population Of the total population inside the study area of 25,290 there are 3,524 residents over the age of 65. This represents approximately 14% of the total population. This is slightly higher than national statistics, where the elderly represent 12.5% of the total population. Elderly populations are typically more transit dependent due to physical and financial limitations associated with retirement incomes. Elderly persons tend to depend more on family, friends, local senior centers or communities of faith to provide transportation as they grow older. They are also more likely to need the services of local transportation providers. Limited Mobility Population For the first time, Census 2000 identified a specific category for populations with mobility limitation. This category was defined as persons identifying that they had a disability but were able to go outside the home. This excluded persons with a mobility limitation that were institutionalized, for example in a health care facility, or not able to leave the home. Of the total population in the study area of 25,290, 1,469 persons were identified with a mobility limitation, 6% of the total population.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



9



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review Households Below the Poverty Level Low income persons tend to depend on transit to a greater extent than persons with more disposable income. Of the total population in the study area of 25,290, 4,815 were identified as below the poverty level. This represents 19% of the population. Zero Vehicle Population The final census category related to transit dependency is the number of households without its own vehicle. This factor could be associated with the economics of owning a car, the physical ability to drive an automobile, or the choice of the person to not drive. In the study area, 653 residents were identified as not having access to an automobile. Community Characteristics/Study Area Table III-2 shows the comparison of these demographics characteristics. TABLE III-2 Comparison of Community Characteristics



Comparison of Community Characteristics

6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 -



P opula tion



ve rt y



64



9



er



r1



ite



Un de



Ol d



im



Po



20



an d



yL



ob ilit



low



65



Be



Pima



Safford



Thatcher



Adjacent County



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



No



Ve hi



M



cle



Av



ai



lab



to



le



d



10



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



Based on review of demographic data and discussion with advisory group, it was determined that for this study, the feasibility of providing transit to Graham County will focus on the three communities of Pima, Safford, and Thatcher. Figure 3 identifies this primary study area.



Primary Study Area



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



11



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



Demographic Characteristics: Observations and Issues Observations The three communities have similar population profiles. This supports the perception of the three towns as having similar needs. The elderly population, which is larger that the national average, tends to live in the cities/towns as opposed to the rural areas of Graham County. Mobility limited population is spread throughout the county. Low income population is greater in unincorporated areas of the county. Pima has a larger percentage of population without access to a vehicle. Issues for transportation The needs of the communities are relatively equal. In considering transit, it will be important to provide transportation links along the entire Highway 70 corridor. 46% of the population of Graham County lives in the communities of Pima, Safford, and Thatcher. Focusing on this area will be a reasonable approach to determining if transit is a viable option.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



12



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



CHAPTER IV:



TRANSIT NEEDS ESTIMATE



Transit planners use a variety of methods to estimate demand for transit services. These include both quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative methods are mathematical models based on observed ridership in similar communities. Several of these models have been designed specifically for rural areas and small communities. These techniques provide a ballpark estimate of ridership if effective transit services are provided. In addition to the quantitative techniques to identify potential ridership, it is equally useful to look at some qualitative factors that could influence the need for transit services. Local stakeholders are often able to identify local situations and provide relevant insight to the community activities that influence the need for transit services. Actual ridership will depend on the ability to provide effective service as well as the demand. For transit services to meet the demand, they must operate frequently and provide workable connections between trip origins and destinations. Because of geographic or financial constraints, the ability to provide viable transit services varies with each area. As with many community services, it is unrealistic to anticipate that all the identified needs will be provided. Quantitative Analysis Demographic data can be used to analyze community mobility needs. Two methods were selected to estimate ridership for Graham County. � Survey Research Trip Method: Developed in 1992 for Mesa County, CO, this method provides separate projections for general, elderly, and mobility limited populations. Factors developed for this model reflect the rural/small urban characteristics of the study area. � Transit Propensity Method: A process developed to measure the inclination for transit use by specific market niches indexed by average transit use by these and other groups. Annual trip estimate based on average of trips generated per population by the Survey Research Trip Method multiplied by the Transit Propensity Factor. Detailed information, including census data factors, adjustment to census data and formulas used to calculate the transit demand for the study area is available in Appendix B. The standard for reporting transit ridership is as a one-way trip. A round-trip, for example a trip to a medical appointment and back home, would be recorded as two oneway trips.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



13



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review Table IV-1 indicates the estimated transit trip need for the study area. Based on the Survey Research Method, approximately 54,000 one-way passenger trips are needed. Almost 15,000 additional one-way passenger trips are anticipated to be generated according to the Transit Propensity Method by transit dependent populations including low income and persons with no vehicles, for a total of 69,000 annual one-way passenger trips. TABLE IV-1 Transit Need Estimate (Annual One-Way Passenger Trip)

General Pop. Elderly Mobility 1 , 6 20 6 26 2 , 5 40 4,786 7,294 3,343 3,431 1,107 9,303 5,361 20,028 9,812 Average Riders/Person 8,400 2,656 8,532 19,588 20,657 7,820 25,737 54,214 2 .1



Propensity Factor Low Income Zero Vehicles Factor 1. 0 4 5.76 9 05 148 1,053 5,839 3,489 1,939 5,428 25,456 1,690 185 1,875 11,687 4,651 1,963 6,614 10,735 4,235 14,970



Total Rider Estimate



26,202 69,184 (One Way Passenger Trips)



As mentioned above, the actual number of trips provided by a system each year is dependent on a number of factors including frequency of service, ease of using transit, and overall community support for transit. Table IV-2 provides some benchmarks from the experience of other towns of similar size that are currently providing transit services. TABLE IV-2 Peer Group Comparison

Location Cottonwood, AZ Show Low, AZ Valley/Adams, ID Bisbee, AZ Graham Study Area Population 23,323 24,404 11,446 6,093 25,290 Estimated Trips 58,995 52,378 30,892 21,897 69,184 Trips/ Person 2.5 2.1 2.7 3.6 2.7 Actual Trips 34,722 85,386 24,497 36,000 Hours/ Service 9,588 7,416 4,368 4,463 Trips/ Hour 3.6 11.5 5.6 8.1



59% 163% 79% 164%



A note of caution, the relative performance of these systems has many explanations. For example, Cottonwood, with the fewest trips/hour, has a very efficient system that is transitioning from a demand response service to deviated fixed route. Bisbee has recently connected to regional service, increasing ridership. The impact of these types of operational factors will have on Graham County alternatives will be addressed in the discussion of service alternatives.

Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



14



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



Qualitative Factors Other factors that will have a significant impact on the need for transit services in the Graham County study area include: � � � � The increase in retirement housing will most likely drive additional need for transit services. The influx of workers for Phelps Dodge will require attention to the need for employee transportation. Currently, Phelps Dodge is providing bus service from a fenced, lighted parking area in Safford to the Morenci Mine location. The concentration of retail and government services from 8th to 20th Avenues provides a central area of activity that will make the use of transit attractive for many riders. There is a significant need for transit services. Currently, the only transit service available that is not limited to clients of specific human service program is provided by SEACAP with one vehicle.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



15



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



CHAPTER V:



STRATEGIES FOR PROVIDING TRANSIT



Before a discussion of possible transit options for Graham County, it will be helpful to establish a baseline of information about the development of transit services. Three primary factors impact all transit services, organizational options, service types, and funding alternatives. Organization Alternatives Eight institutional alternatives have been identified as commonly used to manage rural transit services. � Department of Local Government � Intergovernmental Transit Agency � Metropolitan District � Regional Service Authority � Rural Transportation Authority � Public-Private Partnership � Private, Non-Profit Corporation � Private, For-Profit Corporation Given the multiple jurisdictions and numerous large, active non-profits in the study area, considerable thought must be given to the appropriate placement of the administration and operation of transit services. Service Types While there are several traditionally defined service types, a community can also consider a hybrid of any of these services to best suit local needs. The responsibility for compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act is an important consideration in selecting the most appropriate service configuration. Traditional types of transit services include: Fixed Route, Fixed Schedule Transit vehicle travels a pre-established route. Passengers are picked up or dropped off at predesignated locations along the route. Customers board a vehicle at specified times on a schedule established by the transit agency. Commuter Route, Fixed Schedule � Subscription Services Fixed route operating with designated stops primarily operated for employee destinations and times, usually over long distances rather than short fixed route. Not subject to ADA compliance. Fixed Route, Flexible Schedule Transit vehicle travels a pre-established route. Passengers are picked up or dropped off at predesignated locations along the route. Schedule changes are permitted with short notice to reflect changing circumstances.

Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



16



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



Intercity Fixed Route, Fixed Schedule Transit vehicle travels a pre-established route. Passengers are picked up or dropped off at predesignated location along the route. Customers board a vehicle at specified times on a schedule established by transit agency. Most serve to make connections with airport, other intercity destinations with urban populations of 5,000 or more. Feeder services to intercity connections are included. Variable Route, Fixed Schedule Route Deviation: A vehicle travels a basic fixed route picking up passengers anywhere along the route and will deviate a few blocks from the fixed route to pick up or deliver passengers requiring curb-to-curb service. Point Deviation: A vehicle stops at specified checkpoints (shopping centers, libraries, etc.) at specified times but travels a flexible route between these points to serve specific customer requests for curbside pickup/delivery. Schedules are established by the transportation agency. Demand Responsive Demand Responsive service is based on passenger request. A passenger contacts a scheduler or dispatcher and requests a ride for a particular date and time. Demand responsive service may operate on a curb-to-curb or door-to-door basis. This service is often referred to as "dial-a-ride." Again, these services types are not separate and distinct and should be tailored and modified in response to specific community needs. Consideration should also be given to the relative productivity of the various types of service. Transit services are often evaluated based on productivity � how many rides are provided for each hour of service provided. Different types of service are expected to provide different levels of productivity. Estimates of these productivity levels are shown below: Average Productivity by Service Type Service Type Dial-a-Ride: Countywide Dial-a-Ride 1-2 trips per hour Rural Town Dial-a-Ride 1-3 trips per hour Dial-a-Ride Zone 4-8 trips per hour Fixed Schedule - Rural 6-12 trips per hour Schedule by service area is established based on resources/rider needs. Must be clearly posted and well marketed. Examples: Nutrition Site Meals Alternate service days to cover remote, distant locations Flexible Routes 8-12 trips per hour Vehicle will deviate on request from route. Entry level or precursor service for fixed route.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



17



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review Service Routes Vehicle Capacity Grouped trips for specific service program. Specific clients to specific locations, often subscription riders. Examples: Shopper Shuttle from Senior Housing Adult Daycare/Sheltered Workshops Head Start Fixed Routes Vehicle Capacity Fixed routes, timed schedule Baseline for urban feeder routes: 22 trips per hour Productivity Estimates from KFH Group, Inc., October 2002 Funding Alternatives Securing funding for any public transit service is an on-going challenge. Several Federal Transit Administration grant programs are basic funding sources. Local government/community sources include general funds, in-kind services, and various dedicated taxes. Passenger fares and revenue from contracts are also included in this category. Table V-1 provides an overview of funding sources. TABLE V-1 Transit Funding Sources

FEDERAL FTA 5303/5307 Urbanized Formula 5309 Capital Discretionary 5310 Elderly/Disabled 5311 Non-Urban Welfare to Work Demonstration Grants 5316 Job Access 5317 New Freedom Other FTA Older Americans Act Title III STATE/REGIONAL LTAF-II Medicaid LOCAL General Fund Special Districts Public/Private Partnerships OTHER Fare Revenues Contract Services Advertising Other Grants Comments Formula Allocation Capital Fed. Earmark Capital: FTA Operations/Administration/Capital ADOT/FTA Application Application ADOT/FTA ADOT/FTA Application Regional Lottery Based State/Regional In-Kind Council/Commission Action Policy Policy Policy Application



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



18



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review The critical factor in providing needed transit services is the development of funding that allows a transit provider to operate reliably and efficiently within a set of clear goals and objectives and to accomplish long and short-range plans. Dependable resources to fund transit service are important in developing reliable service that encourages ridership. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was a six-year bill that stabilizes funding and includes funding increases to many transit programs. SAFETEA-LU provides $286.4 billion in guaranteed funding for federal surface transportation programs over six years through FY 2009, including $52.6 billion for federal transit programs. This 46% increase over transit funding guaranteed in TEA 21 includes: � Significant increase in Section 5310 funding for programs serving elderly and people with disabilities � Significant increase in funding for rural transit formula program. � Support for Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funding; changed to formula funding. � Significant reductions in the local match rates for preventive maintenance, capital purchases, and operating expenses. In Arizona, the Federal Transit Administration grant programs are administered by the Arizona Department of Transportation � Public Transportation Division. Other funding in Arizona is available from the Local Transportation Assistance Funds established in 1998 when the State Legislature passed House Bill 2565. This program, called LTAF, assists counties and incorporated communities in Arizona with additional transportation funds based upon a tiered distribution formula during any fiscal year. The fund initially permitted any transportation use in communities and counties outside Maricopa County, as well as those within the County under 50,000 in population. In 2000, additional legislation was passed making the use of LTAF II funds "transit use only" (public transportation sponsored by a local government entity or special needs transportation) for jurisdictions allocated more than $2,500. This legislative change also made it clear that Indian communities could engage in Intergovernmental Agreements with local jurisdictions receiving LTAF II allocations in order to assist tribal governments with their local transit needs. Similarly, private-nonprofit agencies have been permitted to apply to local jurisdictions for assistance with their transit operations, effectively making them "second-tier" grant recipients.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



19



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



CHAPTER VI:



REVIEW OF COMMUNITY INTERESTS/NEEDS



A keystone to developing a feasibility review is a comprehensive process to clearly identify and understand the community environment, local interest and perceived and actual needs for transit services. This foundation will be used to develop alternatives for transit system operations that will then be reviewed by the broader community. This process got an excellent start with twenty-five local stakeholders attending the initial Transit Advisory Committee meeting. Target dates and work scope were reviewed and modified. Important topics discussed included identification of additional partners and agreement that the study area would focus on the corridor from Safford to Pima. Minutes of this meeting are in Appendix C. Stakeholder interviews were conducted with representatives of the business, educational institutions, and community service providers. Similar interviews were conducted with the staff of Graham County, Pima, Safford, and Thatcher to get specific community input. Each group was asked to address major needs and stakeholders, issues to be addressed and other comments and concerns. A summary of these interviews is in Appendix D. Based on this input and the information developed in the community profile, demographic overview, and transit needs estimate, the following issues have been identified: Community Environment Observations Historically an agricultural economy, Graham County is transitioning into more regional trade and an educational center. Growth of Phelps Dodge will be a significant economic generator with accompanying need/opportunity for support services. Significant growth of over 55 age group communities is anticipated. Recreation/tourism will remain a strong factor. Growth is occurring in all three communities, Pima, Safford and Thatcher. Major employers, mining, retail, medical, correctional facilities, and education, will create a challenging need for labor. Issues for transportation Population growth will require increased city/municipal services. Potential traffic congestion on the Highway 70 corridor. Access to job sites will be important for workers. A transit alternative to the single occupant vehicle could be important to mitigating growth issues.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



20



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



Local Characteristics Observations The three communities have similar population profiles. This supports the perception of the three towns as having similar needs. The elderly population, which is larger that the national average, tends to live in the cities/towns as opposed to the rural areas of Graham County. Mobility limited population is spread throughout the county. Low income population is greater in unincorporated areas of the county. Pima has a larger percentage of population without access to a vehicle. Issues for transportation The needs of the communities are relatively equal. In considering transit, it will be important to provide transportation links along the entire Highway 70 corridor. 76% of the population of Graham County lives in the communities of Pima, Safford, and Thatcher and unincorporated county adjacent to these towns. Focusing on this area will be a reasonable approach to determining if transit is a viable option. Perceived/Estimated Needs The increase in retirement housing will most likely drive additional need for transit services. The influx of workers for Phelps Dodge will require attention to the need for employee transportation. Currently, Phelps Dodge is providing bus service from a fenced, lighted parking area in Safford to the Morenci Mine location. The concentration of retail and government services from 8th to 20th Avenues provides a central area of activity that will make the use of transit attractive for many riders. There is a significant need for transit services. Currently, the only transit service available to the general public, including the Senior Center, is provided by SEACAP with one vehicle. Calculated need for transit services is estimated to be 69,000 annual oneway passenger trips. The need for transit services to various job sites, including Phelps-Dodge mine sites, has not been calculated separately. The challenge for the Transit Advisory Committee, assisted by the consultant team, will be to identify the organizational alternatives, service types and funding sources that will address the community need for transit services effectively.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



21



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



CHAPTER VII



NEXT STEPS



At the Transit Advisory Committee meeting on March 6th, three important areas were discussed, the appropriate type of service to provide transit to Safford, Thatcher, Pima and unincorporated Graham County, alternatives for management and administration of transit service, and finally, options for funding transit services. Based on this discussion, the following service alternative and estimated budget was developed. Service Types Based on the review of service types, in Chapter V, the group consensus was that some sort of variable route operating on a fixed schedule would be preferable. This "checkpoint" or route deviation alternative could be configured to serve the primary study area and would provide an estimated five rides per hour per vehicle. Checkpoint Deviation Option: Fixed stops (checkpoints) are established on a predetermined time schedule, but the vehicle may follow any route need to pick up individuals along the way and make it to the fixed points on schedule. Requests for pick-up may be made by subscription or "standing order" or by particular date/time reservation.

Number of Vehicles Service Hours/Day Days/Year: Mon.-Sat. Service Hours/Year 2 12 312 7,488 Riders/Service Hour Annual Riders Transit Needs Estimate % of Estimate Average Fare Annual Farebox $ 5 3 7 ,4 0 0 69,000 54% $ 1.00 $37,400



Checkpoints: Hwy 70/20th Ave Thatcher/College Pima/Main St. Thatcher/College Hwy 70/20th Ave



Bus 1 :00 :15 :30 :45 :00



Checkpoints: Hwy 70/20th 8th Ave/Downtown/20th Ave/Med Center Discovery Park/Hwy 191 Hwy 191/20th St/8th Ave Downtown/Hwy 70/20th Ave



Bus 2 :00 :15 :30 :45 :00



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



22



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



Figure VII-1 Proposed Checkpoint Bus Zones

Note: For Bus 1: Map is not to scale/Break in distance between Thatcher and Pima.



Comments: � Other alternatives could include: o Dial-a-Ride (Demand Response): All rides by reservation; very difficult to cover large service area. Anticipated rides/hour/vehicle 1 to 3. o Fixed Route: Fixed routes, fixed schedule. Difficult to determine most appropriate location for stops in rural area without specific housing concentrations. ADA compliance requires complementary paratransit, expensive service. Anticipate rides/hour/vehicle 6 to 12. � Advantages of Checkpoint: o Frequency to residential areas of Thatcher/Safford every thirty minutes, Pima every hour. o Service to commercial/government areas every thirty minutes. (Downtown, 20th Avenue Retail/DES Offices) o Accommodates mobility limited by allowing curb-to-curb pick-up. o Transfer between vehicles every hour.

Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



23



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review Funding Requirements Based on an Operating Cost of $55 for an hour of service: $55.00 x 7,488 annual service hours = $411,840

FTA GRANT ASSUMPTIONS: % of Budget Administration 15% Oper ating 85% Administration Federal Grant (80%) Local Match (20%) Operating Less Farebox $ $ $ $ $ $ Federal Grant (58%) $ Local Match (42%) $ 61,776 49,421 12,355 350,064 37,440 312,624 181,322 131,302



Total: Fe d e r a l $ Farebox $ Local Funds $ $ 230,743 37,440 143,657 411,840



Note: Historically the Federal/Local Match ratio for operating funds has been 50% Federal/50% Local. With additional funding from SAFETEA-LU legislation, (see page 19), additional funding allowed this ratio to be reduced in 2008 to 58% Federal/42% Local. It is not clear if this increased funding will extend beyond 2009.



Capital: Three 22-passenger Cutaway vehicles @$55,000 each = $165,000 Federal Grant (93%) = $153,500 Local Funds (7%) = $11,500 Comments: Estimated Local Match Required for Funding Two Vehicle System: o Operating: $143,500 (rounded) o Capital: $ 11,500 o Total Estimate: Approximately $155,000 Annually Operating Costs for One Vehicle System: o $205,920, Local Match $72,000 (rounded) Sources of local match: o LTAF II: Not predictable. In 2006, $106,000 was awarded to four local human service programs/agencies. o Local General Funds: Equitable way to allocate between cities/county? o Other Program Funds (Contract with DES/Other Programs

Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



24



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review Organization After discussing the possible organizational alternatives discussed in Chapter V and reviewing other transit agencies management structures, there was no consensus about: Are there existing agencies/programs that could/should manage transit services? What kind of new organization could manage transit services? o Usual options include City, County, or Non-Profit organization already providing transportation services to program clients. Comments from Policy Boards The TAC agreed that it would be helpful to obtain policy direction from the major stakeholders, Graham County, Safford, Thatcher, and Pima. The consultant was directed to meet with the Councils/Boards of each of these governmental entities and use this input to determine options for the next step in determining the feasibility of bringing transit to Graham County. Presentations were scheduled for: City of Safford Council Meeting, Monday, April 9th, 7 pm Graham County Board of Supervisors Work Session, Tuesday, April 10th, 9 am Thatcher Town Council Meeting, Tuesday, April 10th, 7 pm Town of Pima, phone interview with Etha Bartlett suggested Comments from these meetings include: Comments about feasibility report to date: Concern about no public survey; depending on demographic data for ridership estimates. So many projects in the pipeline at this point; concern that activity centers/areas needing transit will be changing. The new Phelps-Dodge mines are anticipated to open in 2009, employing 900 people. Coupled with growth of adult communities, the consensus was there needed to be a clearer picture of growth/location of new housing within the communities before a decision could be made about transit services. Comments about community need for transit service: Hear more about need for transportation to/from airport in Tucson than the need transit services within the communities. Potential for regional air connections. Need for intercity commuter to Interstate connections. Would like more information about possibility of Greyhound connecting to the I-10 corridor.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



25



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review Comments about management alternatives: No one government or organization is prepared to take on the task of administering a transit agency. Comments about funding alternatives: Significant concern about ability to sustain funding. Concern about taking LTAF II funding from current recipients. Cooperative disbursement of these funds is sensitive. Current community needs, triggered by growth, are overwhelming budgets. Cost for needed utilities/services are "front-loaded" with revenue streams to provide additional general funds "back-loaded." Need to focus resources on "mission critical" projects. Recommendations for Next Steps In addition to three meetings of the Transit Advisory Committee (TAC), the original scope of work included the option of community meetings. However, based on the discussion and concerns at the TAC meetings, it was agreed that policy direction from City's and County elected officials was necessary before moving forward. Presentations were scheduled for and included on the public notice with the City Council's of Safford, Thatcher, and the Graham County Board of Supervisors. Overall, the consensus of these groups was that the concerns about sustainable funding and administrative support could not be resolved at this time. In summary, while this feasibility study identified a substantial demand for transit and developed a recommended operating alternative, the complexity of the funding and management issues was not resolved. The TAC and local government staff committed to the following next steps to address the potential for bringing transit services to Graham County: Complete feasibility portion of study and issue Graham County Transit Feasibility Review to establish transit needs and preferred alternatives as of the study date. Revisit the implementation phase after a specific period of time. A logical time to update the data and community needs would be September 2008. The Graham County Community Development representative agreed to reconvene the TAC to review local circumstances, discuss funding sources, administrative alternatives, and determine if it is appropriate to re-examine the potential for implementing transit service. ADOT-Public Transportation Division will continue to provide information about the Section 5311 Grant program to each municipality.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



26



Graham County Transit Feasibility Review



If conditions including administrative and funding support were favorable in the review to be conducted in September 2008, the typical timetable (subject to change) for applying for funding for the Federal Fiscal Year 2009 would be: o o o o o o o 2009 January February March April/May June September October 1 Guidelines Issued/Application Workshops Application Deadline Review Panel Budget Negotiation/Modifications Contracts to Successful Applicants Signed Contracts Project Start-Up: October, 2009 (Funding on the Federal Fiscal Year, Oct. to Sept.)



The first year of funding could be for administrative support and capital for purchase of vehicles. Operating funds could be requested for the second year with transit service starting in October 2010. Build on the information provided in the SEAGO Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan issued March 2007 to support coordination of current transit services. Information about these programs for Graham/Greenlee Counties is included in Appendix E. Monitor statewide legislative efforts to secure a dedicated source of funding for rural transit through the LTAF II or a similar program.



Final Report Ostrander Consulting, Inc. with RAE Consultant



27



GRAHAM COUNTY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY REVIEW



APPENDICES



1



APPENDIX A TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Graham County Contact List Updated January 19, 2007 Organization/Government Blake Foundation DES/Adult Protective Service DES/Voc Rehab DES/Child Support Enforcement DES/Job Services DES/DD Eastern AZ College GCCNT Graham Chamber Graham County Graham County Graham County Rehab Center Mt. Graham Reg. Med.Cen. Mt. Graham Safe House Phelps Dodge San Carlos Apache SEABHS SEACAP SEACUS SEACUS SEACUS SEACUS Senior Citizen Center Southeastern AZ CRS Town of Pima City of Safford City of Safford Town of Thatcher Housing W al Mart Home Depot Citizen Citizen Citzen Staff ADOT ADOT ADOT Ostrander Consulting RAE Name Cheryl Ron Brent CJ Norma Marie Holly Shari Sheldon Terry W ill Kay Jean Randy Ron Lenore Sandi Linda Kathy Norine Olga Pearl Vince Randy Dan Heath Mariela James Carol Sarah Ann



W ilson Williams Emery Acres Matlock Arbizo Pascoe Elkins Miller Cooper W right Matlock Crinan Ellison Howard Mondolado Dixon Bennie Grimes Soto Lopez Cauthen Keiffer Petty Smith Brown Maldonado Johnson Siltala Foote Johnson



Mark Matt Sam Amy Rick



Hoffman Carpenter Chavez Ostrander Evans



2



APPENDIX B QUANTITATIVE TRANSIT NEED ESTIMATE

Adjustment to Census Data to Include Adjacent Unincorporated County Population During a discussion about the population of the study service area, there was agreement that the residents of the areas in unincorporated Graham County that are adjacent to the three towns, Pima, Thatcher and Safford, needed to be included in the estimate of transit needs. After review of the current development and projections of new development, it was agreed that approximately 30% of the total Graham County population lived in these adjacent areas. The adjusted figures to include adjacent areas of Graham County are shown below:

Total Graham County 3 3 ,4 8 9 11,545 17,955 3,989 1 ,6 2 4 6,952 855 Adjacent (30%) 10,047 3,464 5,387 1,197 487 2,086 266 Towns 15,243 4,398 7,518 2,327 982 2,729 387 Total Study Area 25,290 7,862 12,905 3,524 1,469 4,815 653 Not in Study Area 76% 8,199 68% 72% 88% 90% 69% 76% 3,684 5,051 465 155 2,137 202



Total Population Population by Age Under 19 20 to 64 65 and Older Mobility limited Below Poverty No Vehicle Available



24% 32% 28% 12% 10% 31% 24%



Census Data Sets Used for Transit Demand Estimate

Pima Total Population Population by Age Under 19 20 to 64 65 and Older Mobility limited Below Poverty No Vehicle Available Total Over 65 Net Stafford Thatcher 1 ,9 8 9 9,232 4,022 746 961 282 145 406 31 19 12 3,090 4,596 1,546 531 1,565 332 175 157 1,562 1,961 499 306 758 24 9 15 Adjacent County 10,047 3,464 5,387 1,197 487 2,086 266 107 159 Total 25,290 8,862 12,905 3,524 1,469 4,815 653 310 343



3



Two models were chosen to estimate potential riders and need for transit in the study area. Survey Research Method (Developed for Mesa County, CO 1992) This model was designed to predict local service in small urban areas with surrounding rural areas. The data needed to calculate the demand using this model is available from the Census 2000. Model Form: General Population Trips = Population under 65, w/o mobility limitations x 6.5% of that population use transit x 0.02 round trips per day per person x 2 one way trips per round trips x 365 days per year Elderly Population Trips = Population 65+, w/o mobility limitations x 7.6% of that population use transit x 0.04 round trips per day per person x 2 one way trips per round trip x 365 days per year Disabled Population Trips = Mobility limited population all ages x 80% of that population use transit x 0.03 round trips per day per person x 2 one way trips per round trips x 365 days per year Transit Propensity Method TCRP Report 28, Transit Markets of the Future, 1998



This methodology to determine potential ridership was prepared by the Transit Cooperative Research Program and included information from several survey/data sources including the Public Use Factors from the Census, American Housing Survey, and Nationwide Personal Transportation Study. The process developed a measure of the inclination for transit use by specific market niches that was then indexed by average transit use by these and other groups. For this analysis, factors used were: Factor Propensity Index Vehicle Ownership-No Car 5.76 Household Income $15 � $20k 1.04 For comparison, other examples: Vehicle Ownership-One or More Household Income $40 - $50k .68 .77 4



When the Propensity Index is multiplied by the census characteristic group population, an overall transit propensity score, essentially a measurement of the density of population that have demonstrated a strong inclination to depend on transit use is developed. In order to translate this measurement into potential ridership, this transit propensity score was then multiplied by the anticipated rider/total population developed in the Survey Research Method above. Total Population: Pima, Safford, Thatcher, Unincorporated County Estimated Trips/Year Survey Research Method Annual Trips/Person 25,290 54,214 2.144



Example: Pima: Low Income Population = 905 406 population x 1.04 x 2.144 Average Trips = 905 passenger trips Pima: Net No Car Population = 12 12 population x 5.76 factor x 2.144 Average Trips = 148 passenger trips There will be some duplication in these two methods. The low income and zero vehicles population groups are also reported in the aggregated age group data. In order to minimize this duplication in the calculation for householders with no vehicles, the number of persons 65 and older, a group often choosing to not drive due to frailty or expense of owning a car, was deducted before calculating this factor. Overall the estimate of transit needs should be within a satisfactory range.



5



APPENDIX C TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes January 16, 2007 Graham County Offices 921 Thatcher Blvd, Safford, Arizona January 16th, 2007, 1:00 PM

Meeting Summary

Attendance Norine Soto, SEACUS (elderly based services) Olga Lopez, SEACUS (elderly based services) Randy Ellison, Phelps-Dodge Norma Matlock, DES Job Service Pearl Cauthen, Senior Center Sara Foote., citizen/mobility limited rider Ann Johnson, citizen/Rural Contingent Deana Stone, Safe House Jeanette Aston, Safe House Sherry Espinoza, Safe House Jean Crionan, Safe House Sheri Herbert (for Cheryl Wilson), Blake Foundation Marie Arbizo, DES Developmental Disabilities James Cooper, Home Depot Will Wright, Graham County Randy Petty, City of Safford Holly Pascoe, Eastern Arizona College C. J. Acres,, DES Child Support Enforcement Ron Williams, DES Adult Protected Services Carol Siltala, citizen Brent Emery, Vocational Rehabilitation Kathy Grimes, SEACUS Mark Hoffman, ADOT/Phoenix Rick Evans, RAE Consultants, Inc. Amy Ostrander, Ostrander Consulting, Inc. Getting Started Amy Ostrander opened the meeting and welcomed attendees. She then game a brief overview of the project and reviewed the agenda. Those present were then asked to 6



introduce themselves and address their interest in having a public transit system for the area. Review of Target Dates and Work Scope Amy then reviewed the work scope, clarifying that the study was a two phased project. The first phase will look at the feasibility of transit for the area, including; needs, potential service types, costs and funding. If, after the Phase I analysis, it is determined that public transit is not feasible at this time, the project will end. If, however, it is determined that some type of public transit service is feasible, an implementation plan will be done. The implementation plan would be Phase II of the project. The work scope for Phase I will include a look at the demographics of the area, current transportation services, transit service alternatives, costs and funding options. Amy will complete a draft of this analysis and bring it back for the group to discuss in late February. After that information is presented to the group, it will be taken out for public comment. Rick Evans stated that the initial thinking was to have one or more community workshops, rather than traditional public meetings. The group appeared supportive of that idea. A general discussion then took place addressing issues such as types of service which may be possible, other stakeholders who should be included, service area and funding resources. With respect to other stakeholders, the group suggested the Downtown Merchant's Association, the Graham County School Superintendent, contacts at the prisons, Chap Ministeries, day care, the Boys and Girls Club, and the VA Hospital. Regarding service area, it was decided that at least initially the study should focus on the Safford-Thatcher-Pima corridor. In the future, if transit service appears feasible in this corridor, a study could be done regarding the potential to expand service to other areas of Graham County and possibly to Greenlee County. In the Safford-Thatcher-Pima corridor, it was stated that two hubs of activity exist ... one in the downtown civic area and one in the downtown shopping area. It was suggested that the study be open to new creative service alternatives. With respect to service area, it was decided that at least initially the study should focus on the Safford-Thatcher-Pima corridor. In the future, if transit service appears feasible in this corridor, a study could be done regarding the potential to expand service to other areas of Graham County and possibly to Grenlee County. Important Discussion Topics Most of the topics included on the agenda had already been discussed at this point in the agenda. The service area was confirmed, focusing on the Safford-Thatcher-Pima corridor. The two-phased process for the study was confirmed. Amy then mentioned an issue related to the timing of grant funding. The transit grants managed by ADOT have application deadlines which occur annually in the spring. Since 7



the Graham County Transit Feasibility Study will not be completed prior to this year's grant application deadline, one option would be to submit a "place-holder request" for capital and administration funding, with operating funding being requested later. If transit is determined to be feasible the grant application for administration and capital would move forward. If not, the grant application would be withdrawn. This process was suggested due to the long lead time required to obtain vehicles through an ADOT capital grant. For example, a capital grant request submitted in the spring of 2007 would likely lead to vehicle delivery in the summer or fall of 2008. If transit is deemed feasible, the vehicle would be on order and administrative tasks could be initiated prior to service start-up, assumed in 2009. Under this scenario, operating funds would then be requested in the spring of 2008 request, with the funds available for a late 2008 or early 2009 start-up. Otherwise everything would be delayed a year. ADOT has indicated that it would not have any problems with such a process if that was deemed to be appropriate by Graham County stakeholders. Will Wright mentioned that another funding issue relates to the fact that there are already existing commitments for the roughly $100,000 in LTAF II dollars that the county gets. That funding could not necessarily be freed up from its current uses to use for match for a transit program. Another issue related to the size and make-up of the advisory group for this study. After discussion, it was determined that the existing group of attendees, and others who were invited but could not attend, would be the initial Study Advisory Committee. If the study moved into Phase II (Implementation Plan), a smaller working group may be identified. Next Steps After further discussion, it was decided to schedule the next meeting in late February, with a specific date to be determined by the consultant team. At that meeting Amy will present the results of her initial analysis regarding feasibility. The group agreed that it would be good to move the meeting locations to different communities in order to demonstrate the partnership approach that would be needed if transit is to be implemented. There being no further business the meeting ended at approximately 2:45 PM.



8



APPENDIX D

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS Stakeholder interviews were conducted with: � Representatives of the business, educational institutions, and community service providers � Staff of Graham County, Pima, Safford, and Thatcher What do you see as the major needs for transit in your community? Business/Community Service Providers: � No businesses have mentioned the need for public transit in the Safford-ThatcherPima area, although there is a new bus service provider by Phelps-Dodge to the mine in Greenlee County, 54 miles to the east. This bus is not open to subcontractors. Employees only. � There is an employment shortage in the area, primarily for skilled workers. � The biggest need may be for medical and shopping trips from Pima to Safford/Thatcher as there are few services in Pima. � Seniors and disabled have a need for transportation services, as well as others without access to a private automobile. More younger family members are working and not able to provide parents with transportation. � The current transportation service for seniors is operated by (SEACAP) but only operates three days a week. Southeast Arizona Unique Services delivers approximately 60 lunches daily to people in their homes. The Senior Center provides lunches a the center to a few people (6-12) on weekdays but serves 3570 people for evening meals. For the evening meals, people need to get to the center on their own because the SEACAP transportation service doesn't operate after 5 pm. � Activities aren't planned because there is no way for people without a car to get to them. � There is no taxi service in the area now. � In the past when Greyhound served the area there was transportation from the Greyhound station to the state and federal prisons for visitors. Was also important for EAC � Unlicensed drivers are a problem; limited choices for transportation if license suspended. � Eastern Arizona College (EAC), total enrollment 1,200, with 440 students in residential housing. Need transportation to Tucson airport at start, holidays, and end of semesters. Informal car pooling to shops/grocery stores. � EAC charters vehicles for athletic teams. Only owns smaller vans. � EAC students also need transportation to part-time off campus jobs. Would need to be available until after store closing, i.e 9 pm and Saturday.



9



Town and County Staff: � Transportation for workers: Phelps Dodge has fenced/paved parking lot adjacent to Safford Public Works office; running charter bus for workers 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. � Access to Regional Medical Center. � Services for growing senior population. � Safford: Transportation for Safe House; support for downtown redevelopment with upgrades underway. Currently 3,000 housing units; additional 1,100 platted; 10 to 13 subdivisions/developers; anticipate doubling in size in +/- 5 years � Pima: No Senior Center in Pima, largely agricultural base. Recently annexed Amerind development, doubled size of town from 100 to 280 housing units. Annexation is underway east of town. Eastern Arizona College (EAC) major facility. Seeking four year status. Current seniors receive support from LDS church family. Very limited local funds/tax base to provide any match. No groceries/medical services in town � Thatcher: New developments - Quail Ridge, younger, working, Bailey Estates, retirement; elderly need access to shopping. � County: Recent overview of new housing units in development process: o County: 617 o Safford 1,172 + 39 RV o Thatcher 590 + 248 apartments o Total: 2,379 units + 387 RV/Apartments Who are major stakeholders? Business and Community Service Providers: � Seniors and disabled have a big interest; Opportunities for elderly at EAC include classes, performances. � Two groups of developmentally disabled; higher level of function could use public transit, other will required more assistance. � There are two existing transportation services on the Carlos Apache Reservation. The tribe operates an internal service for employees and a separate service for visitors. The visitor service comes to the Safford-Thatcher-Pima area periodically. � Local government, social service agencies and Phelps-Dodge are primary stakeholders. Phelps-Dodge does a lot to support the local communities. � JOBS program has $4/day allocated to providing transportation to job site. Town and County Staff: � Phelps Dodge (PD) � Morenci, 60 miles, New Open Pit: 1,000 during construction, then 750 full-time employees by 2009. New employees anticipate $40k annually. Every new job is anticipated to add 1.5 service jobs. � Major employers: Government and School District employees, Wal-Mart � Prisons/Correctional Officers-Support Personnel: Bonita/Ft. Grant (State), San Jose (State-East), Swift Trail (Federal-State 366) � New immigrants � low income, working cars not readily available to all. � EAC campus/students shopping/restaurants; many have cars; affiliated with NAU � HUD housing in Pima and Safford 10



Issues to be addressed Business/Community Service Providers: � Voc Rehab clients are widely dispersed/intake workers average 30 clients � Transportation to Morenci for subcontractors. � Transportation to Tucson Airport � EAC campus expanding to Discovery Park campus � Phelps-Dodge expansion diverting workforce from local jobs. Town and County Staff: � Lack of activity centers; growth is on "strip" following highway from Safford to Pima � Equity/service levels between towns/rural Graham County � Clear understanding of service area � Coordination with current non-profit providers; commitment of providers to continue to participate in providing/funding transportation services to clients. Other comments/concerns Business/Community Service Providers: � Weekday curb-to-curb transit service with 24-hour advance reservation would be wonderful. � A bus fare of $1.00 in town and $3.00 to Pima would be appropriate. � Market a new service through the radio, the cable channel (Channel 6) and through flyers at key activity centers. � EAC provided transit for a short period of time during construction of dormitories. Was very difficult to accommodate all schedules. Town and County Staff: � Significant regional growth: includes retirement communities, regional shopping activity center; PD Expansion. � Agricultural lands, especially small parcels, being sold for development. � Anticipate low income to remain constant. (Schools in Pima have 80% of students on Free/Reduced Lunch program) � San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation � Byles, Peridot, closer to Globe? � Starting transit: need to start right;; prefer open workshop format for community presentations (versus formal meeting) � Start with larger population areas before moving into smaller locations such as Solomon, San Jose (prison), Byles, � Commute time/expense will not be major factor. Parking readily available, workers use commute trip for groceries, etc. � Support of recreation? Gila River/Gila Box shuttle service provided by Gila Outdoor; transportation to Mt. Graham (U of A telescope); Discovery Park � Consolidated Graham County Chamber of Commerce will be good representative of business community. � Current recipients of LTAF II: ARC, Blake Foundation, SEACAP, Mt. Graham Safe House. In 2006 was $106,000. Towns all returned to County (can keep if under $2,500) 11



APPENDIX E Graham/Greenlee Counties Sub Region Information From SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION PLAN Completed March 2007 For complete report contact SEAGO Office 118 Arizona Street, Bisbee 520-432-5301



12



IV. GRAHAM/GREENLEE COUNTIES SUB-REGION

There are no general public transit agencies operating in the Graham/Greenlee Counties Sub-Region. In January 2007, the Graham County Transit Feasibility Study was kicked off with a meeting attended by twenty-two stakeholders. The study area will focus on the Safford-Thatcher-Pima corridor. During this feasibility process, the various communities participated in this coordination process but are not able to provide information. The study, which will incorporate opportunities to coordinate service, is scheduled to be completed by July 2007. At that time, if an affirmative decision is made to implement transportation, an amendment to this plan will be submitted. Existing Transportation Providers Blake Foundation The Blake Foundation's SAGE Division provides residential, employment and day program services for individual with developmental disabilities. May of the clients utilize wheelchairs and/or have physical disabilities. Our transportation services provide these individuals with access to the community for shopping, recreation, employment, medical appointments and other services. SAGE provides transportation to and from day programs, residential programs and individual homes. Transportation schedules are based on the need of each individual and therefore primarily "on demand." The general service area is within Graham, Greenlee and Cochise counties, although transportation is available to any community or private location, service, or activity. While transportation is available 24 hours a day � 7 days a week, most services are used between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm. The peak service hours are 7 am to 6 pm, Monday through Friday. Weekdays from 8 am to 4 pm, most routes will originate and terminate at SAGE's Adult Day program or our three employment sites. These rides are typically traveling to and from client residences, doctor appointments, therapy appointments, volunteer positions, employment, educations programs/classes and scheduled support related meetings. During the early mornings, evening, weekends and holidays, the vehicles are utilized by SAGE's Supported Living program. This program provided support to adults with developmental disabilities, living independently in their own homes. Vehicles are used for transportation to clients for hat-to-day errands and routine trips (i.e. grocery stores, pharmacies). In addition to daily errand related rides, clients are also driven to medical appointments, employment sites, day programs and social/recreational locations. Transportation is also available for vacation use, visits to family and other group excursions to various cultural, historic and tourist sites both within and outside of Arizona.



13



Vehicle Inventory: Vehicle Make Chevrolet Chevrolet Ford Ford Ford Vehicle Model Uplander Astro Maxi Maxi Maxi Year 2006 2002 2003 2003 2005 # of Seats 5 4 5 5 5 # W/C Tie-Downs N/A N/A 8 8 8 Condition New Fair Good Good Good



Annual Service Data for 2005: � � � � Total Operating and Administrative Budget: No separate transportation budget. Per vehicle cost is estimated to be $18,000 to $28,000 annually Annual Vehicle Miles: Annual Vehicle Hours: Annual Passenger Trips: 114,433 vehicle miles 2,861 vehicle hours 10,560 passenger trips



Graham County Rehabilitation Center Graham County Rehab Center serves Safford, Thatcher, Pima, Central and all surrounding areas in Graham County transporting disabled people and senior citizens to and from work to doctors, shopping for food and other necessities, to counseling sessions, and various activities in Graham County. ;They also transport people to and from doctors and dentist in the Tucson and Phoenix area. The major part of the transport services is between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays with some transportation on weekends on a limited basis. Most of the people transported are developmentally disabled, or seriously mentally ill. The seniors the are transported are mostly from the disable populations. Vehicle Inventory: Vehicle Make Ford Dodge GMC GMC Chevy Chevy Vehicle Model Van Van Van Van P/U P/U # Of Seats 15 5 7 15 6 6 # W/C Tie-Downs 0 1



Year 2000 1987 2000 2005 2005 2000



Condition Fair Poor Fair Excellent Excellent Good 14



Annual Service Data: (for 2005) � Total Op. and Admin. Budget: $16,777.00 � � � Annual Vehicle Miles Annual Vehicle Hours Annual Passenger Trips 120,000 miles 2,500 hours 2,250 trips



SEABHS, Inc. Transport agency clientele to and from home for outpatient services or other behavioral health services in Safford and surrounding Graham/Greenlee Counties. Transportation schedule vary from 6:30 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Emergency and weekend trips are provided as needed basis. Vehicle Inventory: Vehicle Vehicle Make Model Ford E350 MaxiVan Ford E350 MaxiVan Chevrolet Uplander MiniVan Chevrolet Uplander MiniVan Annual Service Data: (for 2005) � � � � Total Op. and Admin. Budget: Annual Vehicle Miles Annual Vehicle Hours Annual Passenger Trips $77,430. 92,395 miles 8,000 hours 26,070 rides # of Seats 12 12 7 7 # W/C Tie-Downs 2 2 None None



Year 2004 2004 2005 2005



Condition Fair Fair Good Good



SouthEastern AZ Community Action Program, Inc. (SEACAP) Service is provided by SEACAP from several locations in Graham and Greenlee counties. Vehicles are based in Clifton, Safford, and Duncan. The SEAGO Area Agencies on Aging provides financial support for these services. The current contract operating budget for period July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007 is: � Clifton $7,356 � Safford $28,006 � Duncan $3,556 and $3,801 = $7,357



15



The Clifton van operates Monday thru Friday 9:00 am to 2:pm M T Th F and 8:00am to 5:00pm on Wed to transport clients to Safford for Dr's appointments, bill paying, shopping, prescriptions pick up and banking. Area Served: Clifton and and surrounding areas. The Safford van operates Monday thru Friday 8:00 am to 12:30 and 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm providing service to low income and elderly clients to Dr's appointments, bill paying, shopping, banking and to the senior nutrition sites for meals. Area Served:Ft. Thomas, Pima, Thatcher, Safford, Solomon, and San Jose in Graham County. The Duncan van operates Monday thru Friday 9:00 am to 2:pm M T Th F and 8:00am to 5:00pm on Wed to transport clients to Safford for Dr's appointments, bill paying, shopping, prescriptions pick up and banking. Area Served: Duncan, Franklin and surrounding areas. Vehicle Inventory Vehicle Make Cilfton: Ford Safford Ford Duncan: Ford Annual Service Data: Total Op./Admin Budget Annual Vehicle Miles Annual Vehicle Hours Annual Passenger Trips Other Providers Several other agencies participated in the Workshops and information indicates that limited transit service providers are located throughout the County. This includes SEACRS and Mt. Graham Safe House. Based on ADOT records, an estimate of the vehicles in service at various locations in Graham/Greenlee County is provided on the following page. Vehicle Model Maxi-Lift Maxi-Lift Maxi-Lift Clifton $20,697 7,958 1,248 4,593 # of Seats 8 8 8 Safford $40,863 16,021 2,080 7,540 # W/C Tie-Downs 8 8 8 Duncan $19,478 7,857 1,248 5,353



Year 2006 2006 2006



Condition New New New



16



GRAHAM/GREELEY COUNTY: SNAPSHOT OF SECTION 5310 VEHICLE AWARDS

Grant Year 30/05 30/05 29/04 31/06 30/05 31/06 29/04 30/05 30/05 30/05 29/04 1 1 2 3 Vehicles 4 Recipient Blake Foundation Blake Foundation #2 Blake Foundation (SAGE) Blake/SAGE #4 SEABHS - Safford SEABHS #2 - Safford SEABHS-Safford SEACAP- Graham County SEACAP - Greenlee County Duncan Senior Center SEABHS-Greenlee County Asset Description Minivan No Lift Maxivan with Lift Maxivan With Lift Maxivan With Lift Minivan No Lift Minivan No Lift Minivan No Lift Maxivan With Lift Maxivan With Lift Maxivan With Lift Minivan No Lift County Graham Graham Graham Graham Graham Graham Graham Graham Greenlee Greenlee Greenlee Location Safford Area Safford Area Safford Area Safford Area Safford Area Safford Area Safford Safford Area Greenlee County Duncan Greenlee County Original Puchase Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 22,000 44,000 42,000 44,000 22,000 22,300 24,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 24,000 $ 19,200 Original Fed. Share $ 17,600 $ 35,200 $ 33,600 $ 35,200 $ 17,600 $ 17,840 $ 19,200 $ 35,200 $ 35,200



17



Current Coordination/Needs: � Greenlee County Board of Supervisors reviews the above listed donations annually. Submission of requests for continued funding must be received before May 1. � For SAGE, the only formal working agreement is with the Arizona Vocational Rehabilitation program. SAGE provides transportation to work for several adults residing in the York Valley and Duncan. SAGE also shares vehicle between our Community Living Service Program (providing residential services to individuals with a diagnosis of both a developmental disability and mental illness) and our Children program (providing services for children with disabilities.) Whenever possible, SAGE coordinates informally with other social service agencies that support DDD and VR clients, in order to assist with transportation needs that cannot be met. Assessment of Needs � Greenlee County Board of Supervisors will attempt to continue donations at current levels. All funding is determined annually during the budget process for Greenlee County. � People who fall through the cracks � hospital may call and the called provider can't accommodate that day/time. � SAGE commented that the limited number of vehicles operated by local private agencies makes providing the minimally necessary number of rides difficult. Arrangements for non-emergency transportation need to made well in advance. Strategies to Address Needs Current Coordination � Informal information sharing (not structured), some emergency back-up (but not structured) � people fall through the cracks. � Graham County Rehab Center has assisted by transporting SAABS clients and with the Blake Foundation to transport people to programs in Greenlee County. No formal contracts cover these coordination effort. Potential Future Coordination � Formalize some type of information exchange system � Develop some type of back up or quick response system (form example when hospital calls for a needed trip) � A task force or coordinating council to meet periodically (monthly? quarterly? twice a year?) to discuss transportation issues and service. � All providers are open to plans for additional coordination.



18



Program of Projects Desired project by each agency (or funding source) were requested and include: Section 5310 � � Blake Foundation: No requests submitted � Graham County Rehab Center: o A Lift van our current lift van is a 1989 conversion Dodge and is only suitable for in town transport. o A 15-passenger van, we transport people that live in the community to work, and home from work. We currently run three routes each weekday morning and evening. We have one 2005 15 passenger van and one 2000 15 passenger van that will need to be replaced soon. o A Mini Van, we transport people out of town and in town to work, doctors, shopping, counseling, and for recreation. We are applying for a replacement for our high mileage mini van. � SEABHS: Continue to replace existing vehicles and/or increase fleet vehicles to accommodate our current and future needs. � SEACAP: Year 2009, Three vans to replace existing fleet at a cost of approximately $138,000. Section 5316 � No Projects Submitted FTA Section 5317 � No Projects Submitted FTA Section 5311 � Graham County is currently conducting a Feasibility Review to determine if general public transit is possible for the service area including Safford, Thatcher, and Pima. No decision about the feasibility and implementation of transit has been made. The Feasibility Review will be completed by June 2007. The earliest an application for funding would be made is February, 2008 for funding in Federal Fiscal Year 2009. The tables on the following pages show the funding planned by the Graham/Greenlee County Sub-Region for the years 2007 through 2009. Detail by year is also provided. A summary of the proposed projects indicate total funding needs of for $7.3M for rural public transit, with capital equipment requests of $1.1M from transportation services provided to the elderly and persons with disabilities.

PROGRAM OF PROJECTS 2007 Region _______SEAGO____________ Sub-region Graham/Greenlee Counties____ 5311- Rural 5310 - E&D 5316 - Job 5317 - New Total Year Public Transit Capital Access Freedom



2007 2008

2009



3 Year Total $



-



$ $ $ $



95,000 141,000 229,050 465,050



$



-



$



-



$ $ $ $



95,000 141,000 229,050 465,050



19



PROJECT PLANNING WORKSHEET

Agency ______________________________Graham County Rehabilitation Center Contact Person __Kay Matlock E-mail _________ gcarc@qwest.net Phone _______________________________928-428-7968



Project FTA Section 5310-E&D Capital Replacement vehicle



Project Description



Fiscal Year 2007 (1)



Anticipated Total Cost Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2008 (1) 2009 (1)



Expanded service vehicle Radio equipment Mobility Management Other FTA Section 5316-Job Access Operating (new service) Vehicle (new/replacement) Radio equipment Mobility Management Other FTA Section 5317-New Freedom Operating (new service) Vehicle (new/replacement) Radio equipment Mobility Management Other FTA Section 5311-Rural General Public Operating Vehicle (new/replacement) Equipment Mobility Management Other FTA Section 5307-Urban General Public Operating Vehicle (new/replacement) Equipment Mobility Management Other



Lift-Equipped Maxivan Van 6/7 Passenger Minivan (no lift/or ramp) 12 Passenger Maxivan (no Lift) Total:



$48,000 $24,000 $23,000 $95,000



$50,000 $25,000 $24,000 $99,000



$50.00 $25,000.00 $24,000.00 $49,050.00



Notes: 1) FY 2007 funding will be available for use in calendar 2008; FY 2008 used in calendar 2009, etc.



20



PROJECT PLANNING WORKSHEET

Agency _SEABHS, Inc. Graham and Greenlee Counties__ Phone ___(520) 287-4713 Ext. 3516____________ Contact Person _Richard Paco, SEABHS Finance Director__ E-mail _________pacor@seabhssolutions.org______________



Project FTA Section 5310-E&D Capital Replacement vehicle Expanded service vehicle Radio equipment Mobility Management Other FTA Section 5316-Job Access Operating (new service) Vehicle (new/replacement) Radio equipment Mobility Management Other FTA Section 5317-New Freedom Operating (new service) Vehicle (new/replacement) Radio equipment Mobility Management Other FTA Section 5311-Rural General Public Operating Vehicle (new/replacement) Equipment Mobility Management Other FTA Section 5307-Urban General Public Operating Vehicle (new/replacement) Equipment Mobility Management Other



Project Description



Fiscal Year 2007 (1)



Anticipated Total Cost Fiscal Year 2008 (1)



Fiscal Year 2009 (1)



Replacement Vehicle Additional Vehicle



0 0



$42,000 $0



$42,000 $42,000



Notes: 1) FY 2007 funding will be available for use in calendar 2008; FY 2008 used in calendar 2009, etc.



21



PROJECT PLANNING WORKSHEET

Agency _SouthEastern Arizona Community Action Program, Inc. Phone __(928) 428-4653_______________ Contact Person __Sandi L. Dixon________ E-mail __seacapsd@qwest.net__________



Project FTA Section 5310-E&D Capital Replacement vehicle Expanded service vehicle Radio equipment Mobility Management Other FTA Section 5316-Job Access Operating (new service) Vehicle (new/replacement) Radio equipment Mobility Management Other FTA Section 5317-New Freedom Operating (new service) Vehicle (new/replacement) Radio equipment Mobility Management Other FTA Section 5311-Rural General Public Operating Vehicle (new/replacement) Equipment Mobility Management Other FTA Section 5307-Urban General Public Operating Vehicle (new/replacement) Equipment Mobility Management Other



Project Description



Fiscal Year 2007 (1)



Anticipated Total Cost Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2008 (1) 2009 (1)



3 Vans replaced - 1 Graham, 2 Greenlee



138,000.00



Notes: 1) FY 2007 funding will be available for use in calendar 2008; FY 2008 used in calendar 2009, etc.



22



PROGRAM OF PROJECTS 2007 Region _______SEAGO__________________ Sub-region __Graham/Greenlee Counties____ 5311- Rural 5310 - E&D 5316 - Job 5317 - New Total Public Transit Capital Access Freedom Agency 2007 Graham County Rehab Admin/Operation $ $ $ $ Capital $ 95,000 $ $ $ 95,000 Other $ Total $ $ 95,000 $ $ $ 95,000 SEABHS Admin/Operation $ $ $ $ Capital $ $ $ $ Other $ Total $ $ $ $ $ SEACAP Admin/Operation $ $ $ $ Capital $ $ $ $ $ Other $ Total $ $ $ $ $ -



2007 Total $



-



$



95,000



$



-



$



-



$



95,000

Total



2008 5311- Rural Public Transit Agency Graham County Rehab Admin/Operation Capital Other Total $ SEABHS Admin/Operation Capital Other Total $ SEACAP Admin/Operation Capital $ Other Total $ -



5310 - E&D Capital $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 99,000 99,000 42,000 42,000 -



5316 - Job Access $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -



5317 - New Freedom $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $



99,000 99,000 42,000 42,000 -



$



-



2008 Total $



-



$



141,000



$



-



$



-



$



141,000

Total



2009 5311- Rural Public Transit Agency Graham County Rehab Admin/Operation Capital Other Total $ SEABHS Admin/Operation Capital Other Total $ SEACAP Admin/Operation Capital $ Other Total $ -



5310 - E&D Capital $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 49,050 49,050 42,000 42,000 138,000 138,000



5316 - Job Access $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -



5317 - New Freedom $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $



49,050 49,050 42,000 42,000 138,000 138,000



2009 Total $



-



$



229,050



$



-



$



-



$



229,050



23