VMOCC Meeting Packet
MEETING OF THE Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee
MEETING DATE January 27, 2009
TIME 1:00 p.m.
LOCATION MAG Saguaro Room 302 N. 1st Avenue Suite 200
Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
January 20, 2009
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee (VMOCC) MAG – Saguaro Room 302 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 200 Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:00 p.m.
Action Recommended
1. Summary Minutes 1. For action
Summary minutes from the December 16, 2008 VMOCC meeting are presented for approval.
2. Regional Fare Policy Program 2. For information
Mario Diaz, Chief Marketing Officer, will present a summary of the existing Fare Policy Program and potential changes thereto, along with preliminary input from the fare policy public hearings.
3. 2007 Origins and Destinations Study 3. For action
Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Executive Director of Planning, will request the VMOCC accept the 2007 Origins and Destinations Study and forward it to the TMC for consideration.
4. Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System for East Valley 4. For action Dial-a-Ride Contract Award
Jim Wright, Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations, will request the VMOCC to forward to the TMC the recommendation to award a contract to Trapeze for an IVR System in an amount not to exceed $142,616.
The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at 1 www.ValleyMetro.org.
5. Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Policy Issues and 5. For information Recommendations and possible action
Paul Hodgins, Manager of Capital Programming, will lead a discussion with the VMOCC on the TLCP policy issues and recommendations and solicit the VMOCC comments that will be forwarded to the TMC and Budget and Finance Subcommittee (BFS) for consideration.
6. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Fund Utilization 6. For information and discussion Jim Book, Project Manager, will lead a discussion of prioritized ITS projects that could be brought forward for RPTA Board of Directors approval and programming into the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP).
7. Regional Operations Technical Advisory 7. For information Committee (TAC) and discussion
Chairman Greg Jordan will lead a discussion on the potential formation of a TAC of the VMOCC to address Regional Operations.
8. Valley Metro Planning Studies Overview Update, 4th 8. For information Quarter 2008
Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Executive Director of Planning, will provide a report on the ongoing studies in the Planning department.
9. Future VMOCC Agenda Items 9. For information
Chairman Greg Jordan will request future VMOCC agenda items from the committee members. The attached matrix illustrates past and pending agenda items of the VMOCC.
10. Member Agency Updates 10. For information
An opportunity will be provided for VMOCC members to provide an update on projects in their jurisdictions.
11. Public Comment 11. For information
An opportunity for general public comment on issues related to Valley Metro RPTA. Up to three (3) minutes will be provided for each speaker.
The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at 2 www.ValleyMetro.org.
12. Next Meeting 12. For information
The next meeting of the VMOCC is scheduled for February 17, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at MAG in the Saguaro Room.
To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez for the dial-in information.
Qualified sign language interpreters are available with 72 hours notice. Materials in alternative formats (large print, audio cassette or computer diskette) are available upon request. For further information, please call Nichole Myers, Valley Metro at 602-262-7433 or TDD at 602-495-0936.
The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at 3 www.ValleyMetro.org.
Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary
Agenda Item #1
Date January 20, 2009
Subject Summary Minutes
Summary Summary minutes from the December 16, 2008 meeting of the VMOCC are presented for review and approval.
Fiscal Impact None
Considerations None
Prior Committee Action None
Recommendation Approve the summary meeting minutes from the December 16, 2008 meeting of the VMOCC.
Contact Person Bryan Jungwirth Chief of Staff 602-534-1803
Attachments Summary Minutes
1
Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
Summary Meeting Minutes of the Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee (VMOCC) December 16, 2008 MAG Saguaro Room Phoenix, AZ 10:00 a.m.
VMOCC Members Present
Greg Jordan, City of Tempe, Chair – via teleconference Cathy Colbath, City of Glendale, Vice Chair Kristen Taylor, City of Avondale Mike Normand, City of Chandler Rick Becker, City of Chandler Ken Maruyama, Town of Gilbert Terry Johnson, City of Glendale Christine McMurdy, City of Goodyear Jim Hash, City of Mesa Julie Howard, City of Mesa Randy Roberts, City of Peoria Reed Caldwell, City of Phoenix Al Villaverde, City of Phoenix Madeline Clemann, City of Scottsdale John Kelley, City of Scottsdale Dave Golder, City of Surprise Norma Mancini, City of Surprise Jason Hartong, City of Tempe Marc Pearsall, City of Tempe Arleen Schenck, Maricopa County
Members Not Present
City of El Mirage Town of Queen Creek
Vice-Chair Cathy Colbath called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
Mario Diaz, Senior Marketing Manager, informed the committee there will be a Fare Policy Committee meeting on Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 1:00 pm at the Valley Metro Offices. 2 1. Summary Minutes
Summary minutes from the following meetings were presented for review and approval. A. October 21, 2008 joint FOAC and VMOCC Meeting B. November 18, 2008 VMOCC Meeting C. December 8, 2008 Special VMOCC Meeting for the Bus Stop Improvement Program Funding Allocation
IT WAS MOVED BY MIKE NORMAND, SECONDED BY ARLEEN SCHENCK AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE SUMMARY MINUTES FROM THE THREE MEETINGS PRESENTED.
2. Annual Transit Performance Report (TPR)
Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Executive Director of Planning, gave a brief overview of the annual TPR. She said staff relies on the data submitted by the contracting agencies to develop the TPR and it is used as a tool for the five-year performance audit for Proposition 400 funded projects. She said detailed information for route- by-route data is available upon request. Ms. Ketcherside said there is a correction on page 11 of the draft TPR – under system summary, operating cost per boarding for paratransit; it should read $35.33, not $31.33. The correction will be made going forward.
Mr. Caldwell said the City of Phoenix does not support the annual TPR in its current version. He asked about the purpose of the annual TPR.
Bryan Jungwirth, Chief of Staff, said the State Auditor General does performance audits of the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) from the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Prop. 400 funding, every five years. He said staff hired Booz Allen Hamilton with Board approval to do a Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study (SEES) on measures of performance to monitor the transit system. He said it is something that has to be completed on an annual basis.
Mr. Caldwell requested a copy of the entire report before moving forward with the recommended changes before the City of Phoenix will support the TPR.
Ms. Ketcherside said the TPR is a report of data and it is a tool for our policy makers to use in analyzing and making decisions about what service changes they might like to make.
Ms. Howard asked for clarification on the text under the Farebox Recovery Ratio section on page 5 of the report.
Ms. Ketcherside said Valley Metro introduced a lot of new service and the passenger per mile ridership on brand new service is not going to be necessarily as high as the established service. She said because it is new service, the farebox recovery is expected to be lower on that service and some of the new routes are circulators with no fare that’s also going to contribute to the calculation of the farebox recovery.
3 The committee suggested the following items be included in the FY08 TPR: A table showing regional vs. local funding by jurisdiction A table of local contributions Acknowledge the agencies who contributed information and funding
IT WAS MOVED BY MIKE NORMAND AND SECONDED BY JULIE HOWARD TO ACCEPT THE DRAFT FY 2008 ANNUAL TRANSIT PERFORMANCE REPORT WITH THE ABOVE CHANGES AND FORWARD IT TO THE TMC FOR CONSIDERATION.
The committee suggested in the future that all the data tables be reviewed by all the jurisdictions. They also suggested prior to the TMC meeting, providing the data tables on the Valley Metro website.
Mr. Caldwell said City of Phoenix would like recognition for the funds contributed to the data in the TPR.
THE MOTION CARRIED. THE CITIES OF PHOENIX AND TEMPE VOTED NO.
3. Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)
Ms. Ketcherside introduced Scott Miller, consultant with HDR, to address the committee.
Ms. Clemann suggested the following: ¾ Referring to the Table ES-1: Transit Services in the Region on page 2 of the draft SRTP Executive Summary – she requested for service improvements, to include the paratransit and vanpool information into the summary. ¾ Referring to the Table ES-2: Express & RAPID Routes Map on page 4 of the draft SRTP Executive Summary – she asked if the missing numbers will be included. ¾ She said to make certain that if the data isn’t included, somehow in the text address the fact when that data will be available so that it shows a history of the progress. ¾ She said in the Chapter 1: Introduction in the draft SRTP report, the paratransit and vanpool information was not included.
Mr. Miller said the draft summary was sent out as a draft and there are a couple of data points that staff is still pulling together. He said staff is verifying the data information before including it in the document.
Mr. Caldwell requested meeting with Mr. Miller to go over a lot of the information for the City of Phoenix that needs to be updated in the SRTP and wants to ensure the information is accurate.
Ms. McMurdy asked the following questions: ¾ Is this report prepared every five years? Ms. Ketcherside said this study is prepared every year and every year a year is added. She said it’s prepared for the future five years each year. ¾ Will RPTA staff undertake the preparation in this study in the future? Ms. Ketcherside said yes.
4
IT WAS MOVED BY MIKE NORMAND, SECONDED BY MADELINE CLEMANN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE DATE UNTIL THE ISSUES BROUGHT UP ARE ADDRESSED.
Ms. Ketcherside encouraged the committee to go through the SRTP study in detail and contact Mr. Miller or Anne MacCracken, Project Manager for the SRTP, to get all issues resolved, if possible within the next 30 days.
4. FFY 2010 Congressional Appropriations Request
Mr. Jungwirth briefed the committee on the request for FFY 2010 Congressional Appropriations as written in the memo.
Mr. Caldwell asked if the Intergovs have discussed or approved this request. Mr. Jungwirth said the Intergovs received the information for comments via email but no comments have been received. The Intergovs will consider this at their next meeting in January, before the TMC meeting.
Mr. Johnson suggested the economic stimulus projects list should be part of the longer term reauthorization list.
Mr. Jungwirth informed the committee that the Maricopa Associations of Governments (MAG) is requesting $3 billion for the valley for transportation projects. He said RPTA staff will look into merging both the 2010 Appropriations and the stimulus into the Reauthorization Requests.
IT WAS MOVED BY JOHN KELLEY AND SECONDED BY KRISTEN TAYLOR TO APPROVE THE FFY 2010 CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR REGIONAL TRANSIT PROJECTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE MEMORANDUM AND FORWARD THE REQUEST TO THE TMC FOR CONSIDERATION. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH CITY OF PHOENIX ABSTAINING.
5. Authorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funding Requests and Guiding Policy Issues
Mr. Jungwirth briefed the committee on the request for Authorization (or Reauthorization) of the Federal STP Funding Requests and Guiding Policy Issues as written in the memo. He said the economic stimulus projects and the 2010 Appropriations will be included in this request.
Mr. Normand requested to increase the funding for future park-and-rides in the request. Mr. Jungwirth said in the stimulus request, staff tripled the funding for the park-and-rides and that will be included in this request.
Ms. Colbath asked if the policies have been reviewed by the Intergovs. Mr. Jungwirth said the Intergovs received them electronically through email.
5 Mr. Johnson said he appreciated the addition of the park-and-rides in the request. He asked why METRO is not included in the request, primarily the I-10 project. Mr. Jungwirth said RPTA had discussions with METRO and RPTA is working with METRO to make sure their requests and RPTA’s are all aligned.
Mr. Antila said METRO has prepared a schedule of cost, but without having a full funding grant agreement and some of the environmental processes done, METRO can’t actually request it in the bill, but RPTA is working with METRO to make sure the request includes their appropriate projects.
Ms. McMurdy asked if the request will compete with the stimulus request. Mr. Jungwirth said it could possibly in the first year.
Mr. Villaverde felt there isn’t enough information to vote on the request and the committee should get direction from the Finance Oversight Advisory Committee (FOAC) and Intergovs.
Mr. Jungwirth said we can always amend the policies or the funding requests as the bill gets discussed and go back through the committee process and change items.
Ms. McMurdy felt this item should be for information only and the Intergovs should be the committee to give the authority to move it to the TMC and/or the Board. She was concerned about the possibility that there’s going to be a transit piece moving forward the same time as the stimulus.
IT WAS MOVED BY TERRY JOHNSON AND SECONDED BY CHRISTINE MCMURDY TO APPROVE THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) FUNDING REQUESTS AND GUIDING POLICY ISSUES AS DESCRIBED IN THE MEMORANDUM, WITH ADDING THE METRO LIGHT RAIL APPROPRIATIONS AND THE STIMULUS FUNDING, AND FORWARD THE REQUEST TO THE TMC FOR CONSIDERATION. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH CITY OF PHOENIX VOTING NO.
6. Bus Stop Improvement Program Funding Allocation
Mr. Antila thanked everyone for attending the special bus stop VMOCC meeting and briefed the committee on the updated information included in the meeting packet. He gave a special thanks to Reed Caldwell for noticing the levels of the treatments that were assigned to some of the stops were not consistent with the program. Mr. Antila said the project is about $122,000 short of funding priority 1 and 2 treatments warranted bus stops and to overcome this shortfall, staff’s recommendation is to reduce the funding amount for level 4 bus stops.
Ms. Clemann asked if the bus stops were prioritized relative to the super-grid system. Mr. Antila said the bus stops located on a funded super-grid route already receiving RTP funding, is an automatic priority 1, but it doesn’t determine the level of treatment.
6 Mr. Kelley asked if the new calculation changed any of the final distributions. Mr. Antila said the calculation changes are for the treatment levels and did not change the priorities.
The Cities of Chandler, Mesa, and Glendale were pleased with the results in identifying the problems and what’s being presented.
IT WAS MOVED BY MIKE NORMAND AND SECONDED BY JULIE HOWARD TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALLOCATING THE CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDING TO ALL PRIORITY 1 AND PRIORITY 2 BUS STOPS AT THE INFLATED FUNDING AMOUNTS PRESCRIBED IN THE RPTA BUS STOP PROGRAM AND STANDARDS – FINAL REPORT BUT WITH A REDUCED FUNDING AMOUNT FOR A LEVEL 4 TREATMENT FROM $25,338 TO $23,363 AND FORWARD THE REQUEST TO THE TMC FOR CONSIDERATION. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH CITY OF SCOTTSDALE VOTING NO.
7. Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Policy Issues
The Budget and Finance Subcommittee (BFS) requested guidance from the committee on the TLCP policy issues on how to address the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) projected revenue shortfalls. Paul Hodgins, Manager of Capital Programming, presented the committee with the first six TLCP policy issues.
9 Inflation ¾ Current Policy – use the Consumer Price Index (CPI). ¾ Alternative Use multiple inflation indexes for components of TLCP: transit operations, transit vehicles, equipment, real estate, and construction.
Mr. Caldwell asked the following questions: ¾ On the indexes, would it be a combination or a straight percentage and would it be based on the amount of money that’s in the RTP for transit operations and transit vehicles and that would have a weighted value? Mr. Hodgins said it would have five different indexes or five separate inflation rates. ¾ What is considered as equipment? Mr. Hodgins said the equipment relates to the ITS/VMS line item, which includes farebox equipment, VMS equipment, etc.
Mr. Johnson said whatever indices used on the cost side have to be fully in sync with the inflation rates used on revenue projections because if the two deviate, it would destroy the life cycle program. He felt the safest way would be to keep the inflation rates being used for revenues the same as what is used for operations and capital.
Mr. Caldwell said he supports what Mr. Hodgins is doing with the plan.
9 Contract rates ¾ Current Policy – no current TLCP policy; focusing on what is in RPTA’s contract rates.
7 ¾ Alternative Cap rates paid for service Include capital charge in rate Major facility expenses Fleet replacement
Mr. Normand said there will be an issue in the future for the different jurisdictions that don’t get a local funding source. He suggested looking at the possibility of incrementally implementing the improvements so the jurisdictions don’t start at very high level of service that’s planned from day one, and then maybe you can stretch out resources without having to do caps or cutting service.
Mr. Hodgins said staff is looking at incorporating that issue as part of the Short Range Transit Plan.
Include capital charge in rate: based on depreciation of capital assets and funds placed in reserve for future expenses (such as major facility expenses and fleet replacement)
Mr. Caldwell asked if there is an affect on the jurisdictional equity allocation and could a capital charge be put back in there. Mr. Hodgins said currently the fleet is allocated on a percentage basis and this would put the charge back into where the service is being provided. He said this ensures that the jurisdictions have the funds set aside to replace fleet when that time comes and it’s not used for expansion fleet.
Mr. Caldwell asked what is the amount for capital funds. Mr. Hodgins said for replacement fleet there is $1.3 billion for FY 09-26, which includes federal funds as well.
Mr. Normand asked if this would save funds in terms of finance cost for bonding and debt services. Mr. Hodgins said it could potentially have a savings.
Ms. Howard asked where do the extra collected revenues go if they’re no longer going to replace the fleet and who determines where the revenues go. Mr. Hodgins said the Public Transportation Fund (PTF) will be paying for its share through the operating cost and if there is any excess revenue it will go towards whatever shortfalls that may occur.
The issue is not only are you paying for it operationally, it’s the issue of what happens to the RTP funds that you paid for operationally, where is the RTP funds, is it reallocated to the jurisdiction that paid for it rather than going into the general fund – does the RTP funds go back to the point of origin or does it go to the general fund to be spent else where
City of Phoenix and City of Scottsdale asked what happens to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) funds that were paid operationally. Mr. Hodgins said the fleet is not tracked at that level of detail. He said it’s a percentage allocation and it would be difficult to go back and figure out the point of origin.
Ms. McMurdy asked if staff would continue to ask for federal support to purchases buses. Mr. Hodgins said yes because staff is only building in the local share.
8
Mr. Normand said the jurisdictional equity needs to be looked at to see how the different jurisdictions purchase their service and what funds they use to purchase it.
Ms. McMurdy asked if this issue would be looked at after the audit is finished to see what is involved in the depreciation rate for all the jurisdictions to determine the overall impact would be. Mr. Hodgins said yes.
Alternative methodology for rates: revenue miles, split express/local, total miles, revenue hours, total hours, and mixed methodology
Ms. Colbath said most of the jurisdictions don’t have a choice regarding the rates, so keep that in consideration as we look at caps and effects on caps on rates and what’s considered as part of the rates.
The committee adjourned for a 15 minute break at 12:00pm.
------
The meeting reconvened at 12:15pm.
9 Regional Services ¾ Current Policy - Regional services will be fully funded by the PTF.
¾ Alternative - Modify policy to charge a share of regional services to each agency that funds fixed route service.
Mr. Normand suggested putting in cost controls rather than finding a way to fund these increased costs and possibly establish a target for what is spent on Regional Services. He also suggested adopting new technologies or modifying what is provided to keep it within the budget. He said another alternative could possibly be to establish a package as a base level of Regional Services that would be funded by the RTP and any additional services a jurisdiction may request, that city would pay for the additional services.
Ms. Colbath suggested establishing a budget for Regional Services and stay within that budget.
Ms. McMurdy felt that the “share” piece is intangible and vague and would need a recommendation to have further discussion.
Mr. Hodgins said the policy doesn’t have to change; it can still reflect that the PTF pays for 100% of Regional Services. He said the implication is that anything the jurisdictions do in the future that increases beyond what the base level is, the budget will have to increase which adds to the base that the RTP is funding.
9 Mr. Villaverde asked if there is a performance ratio that could be used as a guide for Customer Service. Mr. Hodgins said that Scott Wisner, Customer Service Manager, came up with the estimates of the FTE’s.
Mr. Jungwirth said Customer Services runs reports and one of the primary performance indicators used is the percentage of calls that are answered within a certain number of minutes. He said staff can provide the report on the performance indicators for information.
Mr. Hodgins asked the committee what they felt about keeping the current policy for Regional Services.
The Cities of Chandler and Mesa are not in favor of charging the jurisdictions for these services based on miles.
Mr. Normand said he would like to see alternatives that keep the Regional Services funded by the PTF.
Ms. Clemann suggested figuring out a way to start giving more credit financially to those jurisdictions that are already putting their own local funds beyond their local match back into transit and that turns around and helps the region.
Ms. Colbath felt since the RPTA took over management of this particular service, the RPTA needs to address the shortfalls.
Mr. Hodgins said in the original RTP it was envisioned to fund additional Regional Services as a result of the RTP. He said it’s taking additional funds from other projects and there may be some consequences in the future.
9 Revenue Shortfalls ¾ Current Policy – If there is a deficit in the actual amount of funds provided by sales tax collections and/or federal contributions versus the projections in the Regional Transportation Plan, the projects will be delayed in priority order of the TLCP.
¾ Alternatives – Operations Increase fares Delay service implementation (up to 2 years) No routes drop out of plan (3 years or more) Routes delayed beyond TLCP horizon Limit scope of services implemented Implement base service only
Mr. Villaverde asked if there are other fare increase assumptions in the remainder of the plan. Mr. Hodgins said it’s based on the farebox recovery and would adjust the TLCP based on the percentage of operational cost.
Reduce ADA Paratransit Percentage (currently 7% of PTF) Reduce Regional Services
10 Reduce RPTA Planning and Administration
¾ Alternatives – Capital Limited impact on TLCP Some capital is 100% PTF (bus stop program and ITS/VMS program) Ensure projects that remain are regional priorities
Ms. Colbath asked if other areas have impacts, for example if the charging for capital goes into the contract rates that would possibly negate the need for looking at some changes on this end, how will staff take that into consideration moving forward. Mr. Hodgins said the first step is to get feedback on whether the alternatives are viable for pursuing and then get an idea of a priority.
Mr. Caldwell felt it’s important throughout the life of the TLCP that the projects are treated the same.
Mr. Villaverde asked about the amount of the bus stop program. Mr. Hodgins said the total is about $40 million over the 20 years of the plan and the ITS/VMS program is about $46 million.
Mr. Normand asked if the larger projects would be easier to get federal funding for. Mr. Hodgins said yes.
Mr. Villaverde suggested cutting back the bus stop program to fund some of the $377 million deficit.
Mr. Normand said bus stops are important and should provide the amenities for the passengers.
Mr. Caldwell asked if any current projects should be held back. Mr. Hodgins said some of the current projects are at the beginning stages and if there’s an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with a jurisdiction, he recommends not cutting the project.
9 Federal Revenues ¾ Current Policy – no current policy; current estimates may be too aggressive in past history (last 4 years – in 2004).
Mr. Villaverde said he supports using the revenue estimates from prior years.
Mr. Johnson suggested slowing down the capital programs rather than up fronting a lot of PTF funds. He also suggested not being overly aggressive about having to keep projects implemented pursuit to the existing TLCP.
Ms. Clemann said staff may want to think about local jurisdictions, if they have any funding available they might be able to continue going forward without full federal revenues by pitching in the balance remaining of local revenues.
11 ¾ Alternative Require federal match for all capital Require that federal requests be in TLCP – RPTA’s pitch would be for TLCP projects
Mr. Caldwell encouraged a jurisdictional equity allocation assessment and projects be reflected to show that they were totally funded. Mr. Hodgins said the jurisdictional equity shows where the PTF funds are spent.
Mr. Villaverde asked what would be the reasonable federal share. Mr. Hodgins said it could possibly be 80/20 percent, with a minimum of 50 percent. He said he would leave that up for discussion.
9 Financing ¾ Current Policy Current operating expenditures will not be funded by debt issuances or loans. All PTF revenues would be needed to retire debt
¾ Alternative Pay as you go for fleet Pay as you go for all capital
Mr. Johnson suggested (regarding the maximizing of federal funds) that some reductions in bonding may be appropriate as a savings measure, with one exception on the light rail side. He said the light rail projects will have to be bonded.
9 Moving Forward Review policy alternatives with staff committees (FOAC, Intergovs, & TMC) Develop recommendations based on input Bring recommendations to Subcommittee Subcommittee to make policy recommendations to Board
Mr. Hodgins said all the feedback from the staff committees will be brought back to the BFS and they will consider recommendations on any policy changes.
Ms. Colbath asked if the other six policy issues were critical to this year’s update. Mr. Hodgins said staff wanted to get through the first six critical issues discussed and get recommendations before discussing the other six issues.
This item was presented for information.
8. Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Process and Annual Schedule of the TLCP
Mr. Hodgins will update the TLCP schedule according to the discussion and input given during the meeting regarding the policy issues.
This item was presented for information only.
12 9. Development of Revenue Enhancing Programs for the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP)
Mr. Jungwirth briefed the committee on the City of Mesa’s request as written in the memorandum. He said RPTA staff will coordinate a meeting in January 2009.
This item was presented for information only.
10. Future VMOCC Agenda Items None.
11. Member Agency Updates
City of Chandler Park-and-Ride construction at Tumbleweed Park is almost complete and buses will be operating at the park-and-ride on December 29, 2008, with an official grand opening in late January.
12. Public Comment
Mr. PF Leyva provided comments on bus dead-head: “My understanding is if they open the door and they’re dead-heading back to the yard that’s considered revenue service and effects how you pay the contractor. My understanding is that this comes up whenever you negotiate your contract with each yard operator. If you all would study the idea maybe as long as the bus is going back to the yard and not going veering from the yard and nothing else you would consider the idea of changing the way you look at that. Example would be, like the route 30 is going back to the yard to the Mesa yard at the end of the night all the buses that terminate, go back to the yard. Maybe as a way of studying whether later service might be justified, maybe you can study the notion altering how you pay the contractor to offer a drop off only option for a bus that is going back to the yard anyway. The bus is already going back that way, so it’s not adding more miles to it, to its drive and it wouldn’t offer any options beyond the distance the bus has to go. It wouldn’t necessarily slow the driver down very much because he’s not picking up people it would be in that instance he would be dropping off people. So the bus would officially go out of service, say Price Road for example, in that instance. If you weren’t on the bus on Price Road, as soon as the bus is empty, he would be done. He’s still going back to the yard; it’s a reasonable efficiency use for the bus because he’s going back that way anyway. It would be a way to study later service and a better way to explore the service. My understanding is that you have to do this whenever you negotiate a contract with the yard operator. You all might study this because a lot of agencies let people dead-head to and from the yard to service and you all don’t do that here.”
13. Next Meeting
The next meeting of the VMOCC is scheduled for January 20, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at MAG in the Saguaro Room.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m.
13 Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary
Agenda Item #2
Date January 20, 2009
Subject Regional Fare Policy Program
Summary Sales taxes in Maricopa County subsidize operating expenses for Valley Metro public transit services. With the economic slowdown, much of the tax revenues used to subsidize transit service have declined. That has resulted in an operating deficit for Valley Metro services. This sales tax shortfall has prompted a proposal to restructure the fare policy to help alleviate the budget challenges.
Although the base Valley Metro fare is $1.25 for 1-ride on a local bus or light rail, fares paid by Valley Metro customers covers just 24 percent of the cost of a ride. The other 76 percent is subsidized by tax revenues. The base fare for local bus service has remained $1.25 since 1994 and in 2007 the 1 day pass price was reduced from $3.60 to $2.50.
Valley Metro is required to maintain fare revenues at a 25% target and the portion paid by riders does not currently meet the target. Over time the forecasted share paid by riders will continue to decline. In the next few years as the cost of providing transit increases the portion that riders currently pay will be less. If the current fares remain in place the forecasted fare revenue by the year 2012 will drop to about 22%.
1 We have been fortunate that sales tax revenues have supported most of the cost to use transit however the decline has reduced funds available to continue to operate the service at its current level. Without the restructuring of the fare policy, Valley Metro or its members may be forced to continue to cut service to help offset the budget shortfall.
In addition to the fare policy restructuring, the new light rail service presents opportunities to consider fare policies to attract additional riders to both bus and rail while providing benefits for Valley Metro and METRO light rail operations. Valley Metro RPTA’s purpose in undertaking this study was to evaluate and recommend fare policies (including pricing) to streamline transit use by developing: A policy for large volume users (e.g., universities/colleges/technical schools, employers, and conventions) A program for major sports/cultural events along the rail line A policy that will meet the Board approved 25% farebox revenue recovery target
Booz Allen Hamilton, a third party consultant, has been contracted to work with Valley Metro to identify and recommend fare policies that achieve these objectives. The Booz Allen proposed scope of work, staffing, schedule and budget was presented to the Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee (VMOCC) for informational purposes on September 16, 2008.
RPTA worked with the Valley Metro Fare Policy Committee to discuss proposed fare changes and to obtain their input on the alternatives to be modeled. This meeting took place on October 14. Based on the committee input, the recommended fare policies and pricing strategies were presented to the VMOCC and Finance Oversight Advisory Committee (FOAC) for consideration. The FOAC recommended moving forward the Fare Policy Program proposal to the Transit Management Committee (TMC) with several modifications.
The TMC and Board reviewed the revised program proposal and made additional modifications to reflect comments by several members. In November 2008, the Valley Metro Board approved taking the proposal through the public hearing process in January 2009. The public hearing process is taking place and the results will be brought back to Valley Metro TMC and the Valley Metro Board for final approval of the Fare Policy adjustments in February 2009.
The following outlines the schedule and process to implement a fare change (if adopted) by July 2009 or earlier.
1. RPTA and City of Phoenix staff jointly develop proposed fare policy scenarios – early October 2. RPTA convenes the Regional Fare Policy Committee to discuss proposed alternatives – October 14, 2008 3. Booz Allen to run fare policy model scenarios based on input from the Regional Fare Policy Committee – October 15-20, 2008 4. Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee (VMOCC) and FOAC considers recommended fare policy scenario – October 21, 2008 2 5. Valley Metro Transit Management Committee considers recommended fare policy scenario – November 5, 2008 6. Valley Metro Board considers the regional fare policy scenario and directs staff to conduct public meetings on the proposed fare policy – November 20, 2008 7. Public hearing process – January 2009 (The Federal Transit Administration requires 30-day advance public notice prior to convening the public hearings) 8. VMOCC is apprised of public hearing process input – January 2009 9. Valley Metro Transit Management Committee considers public hearing input on proposed fare policy – February 4, 2009 10. Valley Metro Board of Directors considers approval of new fare policy – February 19, 2009 11. Scheidt Bachman, a regional fare system vendor, re-programs the fare tariff – February thru May 2009 12. Conduct public information campaign and order new fare media if required. 13. Implementation of new fare policy – July 2009 or earlier
The Regional Fare Policy Proposal The following proposed regional fare policy proposal was approved by the Valley Metro Board for public input.
Adjustments to the fare policy which impacts: - Local bus and light rail service - Express bus service - Rural route service - ADA paratransit (Dial-A-Ride) o City of Phoenix - Phoenix also provides paratransit service (Dial-a-Ride) to Avondale, Goodyear, Tolleson, and Litchfield Park. o East Valley including Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, Paradise Valley, Guadalupe and parts of Maricopa County.
Key elements of the proposed fare policy include: Multiple base fare options, including: – Increasing the base fare by up to $0.50 in July 2009 – An increase to the base fare again in July 2010, by up to $0.50, but not to exceed $1.00 over two years Express fare premium increased from $0.50 to $1.00 Reduced fare discounts remain at 50% Passes priced at multiples of base fare: – 1-Day Pass at 3.0 x base fare – 3 and 7-Day Passes at 2.5 x base fare x number of days of validity (i.e., 3 or 7 day) – 31-Day Pass at 31-33 x base fare Adopt the recommended changes to the ADA paratransit fares Adopt the recommended changes to rural route fares 3
The following chart summarizes the proposed scenario changes:
Fare Type Current $0.50 $0.75 $1.00
LOCAL
Cash $1.25 $1.75 $2.00 $2.25
1-Day On-Board $2.50 $5.00 $6.00 $6.75
1-Day Off-Board $2.50 $4.25 $5.25 $6.00
3-Day $7.50 $13.00 $16.00 $18.00
7-Day $17.50 $30.50 $37.00 $42.00
31-Day $45.00 $55.00 $63.00 $70.00
EXPRESS
Cash $1.75 $2.75 $3.00 $3.25
1-Day On-Board $3.50 $7.00 $8.00 $8.75
1-Day Off-Board $3.50 $6.25 $7.25 $8.00
31-Day $68.00 $85.00 $93.00 $100.00
REDUCED
Cash $0.60 $0.85 $1.00 $1.10
1-Day On-Board $1.25 $2.50 $3.00 $3.25
1-Day Off-Board $1.25 $2.00 $2.50 $2.75
3-Day $3.75 $6.50 $8.00 $9.00
7-Day $8.75 $15.25 $18.50 $21.00
31-Day $22.50 $27.00 $31.00 $35.00
SEMESTER PASS
Spring/Fall $160.00 $195.00 $222.00 $245.00 Reduced Spring/Fall $80.00 $97.50 $110.00 $122.50
Summer $105.00 $125.00 $145.00 $160.00 Reduced Summer $52.50 $62.50 $72.50 $80.00
As we review the chart, you will notice there are different costs associated with the purchase of a 1-Day pass depending on where it is purchased. 4
The reason the cost is different is to encourage customers to purchase their passes at sales locations throughout the Valley. When passes are purchased on-board a bus, it actually slows down the bus to a point where it adds to the operating costs of the service due to delays.
1-day passes purchased off the bus will be discounted $0.75.
The following proposed fare increase scenarios to the one-ride local bus and light rail fares were presented to the public:
Proposed Rural Route Fares The Valley Metro Fare Policy proposal includes changes to Rural Route fares. Two rural routes connect the cities of Ajo/Gila Bend and Wickenburg to the Phoenix metropolitan area.
Fares have remained the same since the inception of the routes while service has been added and costs have increased. The increased fares help to maintain the service.All of the proposed fare changes are in blue.
5
Proposed ADA Paratransit Fares (Dial-a-Ride) The proposed fare policy changes for ADA paratransit fares (Dial-a-Ride) include the city of Phoenix and the East Valley. The East Valley includes Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, Paradise Valley, Guadalupe and parts of Maricopa County. Phoenix provides ADA paratransit service (Dial-a-Ride) to the Southwest Valley. This includes Avondale, Goodyear, Tolleson, and Litchfield Park.
Current Current Fixed ADA Fare Proposed Paratransit Fare Route /Cash Fare Fare Policy (DAR) Bus Fare Policy 1.6 x Local East Valley $2.00 $1.25 2.0 x Local Fare
2.0 x Local Phoenix $2.50 $1.25 2.0 x Local Fare
The proposed change is for the ADA paratransit (Dial-a-Ride) fare to be maintained at two times the local bus fare.
The city of Phoenix is also proposing changes to the Phoenix monthly ADA Dial-a-Ride pass which includes two options:
Option 1 is to increase to monthly pass to 20 times the 1-ride ADA paratransit fare. Option 2 is to eliminate the monthly ADA paratransit pass.
Fare Increase Scenarios $0.50 $0.75 $1.00
One Way Local Bus and Rail Fare $1.75 $2.00 $2.25 ADA Fare (one way) - Scheduled trip (1) $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 Phoenix ADA Monthly Pass (2) $70.00 $80.00 $90.00
The monthly ADA Dial-a-Ride pass is only available to Phoenix residents. The Phoenix City Council will make the final decision on either adopting a fare change to twenty times the local fare for the monthly pass or eliminating it.
Proposed Phoenix Non ADA Paratransit Fares (Dial-a-Ride) The city of Phoenix is also proposing changes to their Non ADA paratransit fares (Dial- a-Ride). This includes adjusting the Non ADA fares based on the local bus and light rail cash fare.
6 Fare Increase Scenarios $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 One ride Local Bus and Rail Fare $1.75 $2.00 $2.25 Full fare - Same Day First Zone $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 Full fare - Same Day Each Additional Zone $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 Reduced – Same day First Zone $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 Reduced – Same day Each Additional Zone $1.00 $1.25 $1.25
Public Awareness and Involvement Public notices were provided via mail, on buses, Valleymetro.org, and in local newspaper advertisements and press releases have been made available to local media.
Most of the local media have been promoting the hearings and carrying the information on their web sites.
The public had the following options to comment on the fares.
• Mail their comments to Valley Metro • Email their comment to [email protected] • Phone in comments to Customer Service • Fill out a survey and provide comments at ValleyMetro.org • 7 Public Hearings (Avondale, Glendale, Mesa, 3 in Phoenix, and Tempe) • 1 Webinar. The Webinar was recorded and made available on ValleyMetro.org with the opportunity to provide comment via an electronic survey • Business community via Transportation Coordinator Meetings and outreach by Valley Metro Business Services Representatives
Public Transit Fare Policy Hearing Schedule and locations:
Tuesday, January 6 Avondale City Council Chambers 11465 W Civic Center Dr.
Wednesday, January 7 Tempe Transportation Center Community Room 200 E 5th Street
Thursday January 8 Webinar – Registration via ValleyMetro.org 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
7 Mesa Grace United Methodist Church Fellowship Hall 2024 E. University
Tuesday, January 13 North Phoenix Sunnyslope Community Center 802 E. Vogel Ave.
Wednesday, January 14 South Phoenix South Mountain Community College 7050 South 24th Street
* Thursday, January 15 12:15 PM to 2:30 PM Downtown Phoenix MAG Saguaro Room 302 N 1st Ave. 2nd Floor
Thursday, January 22 Glendale Glendale City Hall Council Chambers 5850 W Glendale Avenue
Fiscal Impact The investment to conduct the study and recommendations to implement a policy for large volume users (e.g., universities/colleges/technical schools, employers, and conventions) and a ticketing program for major sports/cultural events along the rail line is $49,999. The costs are to be paid evenly by METRO and RPTA. The cost to model and recommend fare pricing changes is not to exceed $22,900. RPTA budgeted funds will be transferred from the remaining consultant funds for the financial system to Regional Marketing. This will be funded with Regional Area Road Funds (RARF).
Considerations Due to large increases in operating costs and the significant reduction of sales tax revenue which fund transit services, Valley Metro service providers are evaluating service reductions and fare increases. Without the fare increase, Valley Metro service providers may be forced to continue to implement service reductions. Although a fare increase will reduce the level of service reductions, it may not eliminate the need to reduce service.
Committee Action Process • VMOCC tabled the original proposal – June 25, 2008 • VMOCC informational presentation – September 16, 2008 • Fare Policy Committee review and input – October 14, 2008 • VMOCC: On October 21, 2008, the VMOCC motioned to recommend the fare policy change scenario and to forward the item to the TMC. The motion failed with a vote of 5 in favor and 7 against. 8 • FOAC: On October 21, 2008, the FOAC motioned to recommend the fare policy change scenario and to forward the item to the TMC with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 in favor and 6 against. The changes were: o Exclude recommendations for ASU, Special Events and Conventions o Increase 31-day pass to $50 for local and $76 for express • TMC: On November 5, 2008 the TMC motioned to recommend the fare policy change scenario and to forward the item to the Board with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 in favor and 6 against. The changes were: o Implement the first phase adjustment July 2009 or earlier. Monitor conditions and implement the second phase if necessary. o ADA paratransit strategies remain within each jurisdiction. • Board: On November 20, 2008 the Board approved the recommended fare policy change scenario only for the purpose of authorizing the Executive Director to hold public hearings regarding the fare policy change. The public comments will be returned for Board consideration in advance of any approved fare change. • FOAC and VMOCC apprised of public input – January 27, 2009 • Fare Policy Committee finalizes the fare policy recommendation based on public input – January 29, 2009 • TMC for consideration – February 4, 2009 • Board for consideration – February 19, 2009 • Phoenix City Council for consideration – February 2009
Recommendation This item is for information. Staff will present a summary of the preliminary input from the public hearings.
Contact Person Mario Diaz Chief Marketing Officer 602-534-7391
Attachments None
9 Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary
Agenda Item #3
Date January 20, 2009
Subject 2007 Origins and Destinations Survey
Summary In the Fall of 2007, the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), with consultant support (Nustats Inc), conducted an Origins and Destinations (O/D) survey (also know as the Transit On-board Study) of Valley Metro transit riders. The self-administered surveys were conducted among riders of fixed-route bus service (i.e. Local, Circulator, Limited, Rural, Express, and RAPID bus routes) during weekdays in the morning, midday and evening. Data collection was performed from October 8 through December 18, 2007. A total of 7,600 completed and usable surveys, as included in the final data files, were collected.
The study project included survey instrument design; sampling plan development; collection, processing, and geocoding the acquired data; data weighting and expansion; data analysis; comparison with the results of the 2001 O/D survey data; and development of a final report.
Throughout the survey process, the 2007 Transit On-Board Survey was guided by a Technical Advisory Group that was chaired by the Valley Metro RPTA project manager and included representatives of MAG, METRO, the cities of Phoenix, Glendale, Scottsdale, Tempe, and other Valley Metro RPTA member agencies.
The objectives for this study were as follows: – Collect data on transit ridership and transit service levels for the Before and After Study as required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on New Starts Major Capital Investments (such as the METRO Rail project) – Update travel patterns for the Regional Travel Demand Model. – Target transit markets that have been underrepresented in the previous surveys. – Improve the quality of data collected for valid Origin and Destination Pairs
1 Fiscal Impact The cost for this study was $484,829, with 80 percent funded by the FTA and 20 percent funded by the Regional Area Road Fund (RARF).
Considerations The data from this study will be used to calibrate and validate the Regional Transportation Model. This recalibration will enhance the model’s ability to accurately predict mode splits and projected ridership on the region’s transit networks. Accurate ridership projections are a critical part of making the case when seeking New Starts or Small Starts federal funding of new transit investments. An O/D survey is typically conducted about every 5 years. The timing of this survey was altered to coincide with the timing needed for a “before” and “after” study connected with the opening of light rail. We will be doing another survey of this type (the “after” survey) in FY 2010.
The current Regional Transportation Model does not effectively capture drive to transit behavior. This weakness is the result of the current 2001 O/D Survey based calibration which occurred during a period when walk to transit was the predominate form of access. Subsequent to the 2001 survey, the City of Phoenix implemented the RAPID express bus system which represented a major departure from previous express service models. Where previous express service drew riders from curb side stops before entering the regional freeway system, RAPID draws its ridership from regional park and ride lots and then immediately accesses the freeway network. The benefits of this approach are shorter travel times than can be accomplished under the old express service format. New express services that are being implemented under Proposition 400 follow the RAPID model with riders collected from regional park and rides rather than curb side stops. The ability to model drive to transit behavior is critical to accurately projecting future transit ridership.
Committee Action Process VMOCC – January 27, 2009, for action TMC – February 4, 2009, for action Board – February 19, 2009, for action
Recommendation It is recommended the VMOCC accept the 2007 Origins and Destinations Study and forward it to the TMC for consideration.
Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Deputy Executive Director of Planning 602-534-0733
Attachments PowerPoint Presentation Draft Origins and Destinations Report
2 2007 Origins and Destinations Study VMOCC – January 27, 2009
Study Timeline Project Start: August 2007 Pilot Study: August 21- August 24, 2007 Main Study: October 8 - December 18, 2007 Process Survey Results w/Trip Tables: January - September 2008 Final Report: January 2009
2
1 Goals Collect data on transit ridership and transit service levels for the Before and After Study as required by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on New Starts Major Capital Investments (such as the METRO Rail project) Update travel patterns for the Regional Travel Demand Model Target transit markets that have been underrepresented in the previous surveys Improve the quality of data collected for valid Origin and Destination Pairs
3
Composition of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) RPTA Metro MAG City of Glendale City of Phoenix City of Tempe City of Scottsdale Other Member agencies 4
2 Study Details The study project involved: – Design of survey instrument – Development of sampling plan – Processing and geo-coding the acquired data – Data weighting and expansion – Data analysis – Comparison with the results of the 2001 O/D survey data – Development of final report The self-administered surveys were conducted among riders of fixed-route bus service: Local, Circulator, Limited, Rural, Express, and RAPID bus
5
Study Details
The initial sampling goal was to collect 9700 valid surveys A total of 7,600 valid surveys were collected The overall response rate for this study is 17.2% Express and RAPID bus routes have a higher response rate of 42.4% and 37.1% respectively Local bus routes have a lower response rate of 15.6%
6
3 Key Findings Transit Riders are more likely to be from low-income households. Almost three in four riders belong to households earning less than $35,000. About half of all transit riders are transit-dependent, i.e., they belong to households that do not own any vehicles. Two out of every three riders are employed. Riders are primarily in the 25 to 54 years of age; young riders in the age range of 18-24 form the second largest group. The majority of trips made by riders originate or end at home or work; 44% of riders make home-based work trips using transit, while 40% make home-based non- work trips. 7
Key Findings Walking is the dominant access and egress mode for all riders; more than three-fourths of the riders walk access and egress. Nearly two-third of riders make at least one transfer to complete their one-way trip. In the absence of transit service, almost one- third of the riders report that they would not make the trip. Bus Book is the primary source of bus schedule information used by two-third of the riders. 8
4 Questions?
9
5 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA)
2007 Origin and Destination Survey Draft Final Report
December 2008
206 Wild Basin Rd., Suite A-300 Austin, Texas 78746 Contact: Jesse Casas, Project Director (512) 306-9065 Fax (512) 306-9077 www.nustats.com
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1 Key Findings 1 1. Introduction 3 2. Survey Methods 5 Sampling Plan 5 Approach to Sampling Bus Trips 5 Bus Trip Selection 9 Surveyor Assignments 9 Survey Instrument 10 Survey Procedures 11 Overview 11 Labor Recruitment and Training 12 Survey Administration 12 In-Field Questionnaire Editing 13 Status Reporting 14 Pilot Test 14 Full-Scale Data Collection Challenges and Solutions 16 Response Rates 17 Data Weighting and Expansion 17 Sample Weighting 17 Sample Expansion 19 Expansion Weight 19 Linked Trip Factor 20 3. Survey Data Analysis 21 Demographics 21 Travel Characteristics 27 Summary 33 4. Survey Data Analysis by Service Type 35 Demographics 35 Travel Characteristics 38 Summary 45 5. Comparative Data Analysis 46 Demographics 46 Travel Characteristics 49 Summary 52 Appendix A: Survey Instruments 53 Appendix B: 2007 General Population Statistics 58 Appendix C: Snapshot of Zip Code O/D Flows 60 Appendix D: Service Types 63 Appendix E: February 2007 RAPID bus and 2007 O/D Survey RAPID bus Tables (Unlinked Trips) 70 Appendix F: Activity Center Analysis 74 Purpose at Activity Center 75 Activity Center Attraction Flows by District 100 Appendix G: Maps 108 Appendix H: Trip Tables 113
List of Tables and Figures
Table 2-1: Summary Sample Plan 6 Table 2-2: Weekday Sample Goals by Route Type 7 Table 2-3: Data Elements and Capture Method 11 Table 2-4: Response Rates by Service Type 17 Figure 3-1: Distribution of Household Size 22 Figure 3-2: Distribution of Household Income 22 Figure 3-3: Distribution of Vehicle Ownership 23 Table 3-1: Cross-Tabulation of Vehicle Ownership by Household Income 23 Figure 3-4: Distribution of Vehicle Availability 24 Table 3-2: Cross Tabulation of Vehicle Ownership by Vehicle Availability 24 Figure 3-5: Distribution of Employment Status 25 Figure 3-6: Distribution of Student Status 25 Figure 3-7: Distribution of Age 26 Figure 3-8: Distribution of Valid Driver’s License Status 26 Table 3-3: Distribution of Trip Origin 27 Table 3-4: Distribution of Trip Destination 28 Table 3-5: Distribution of Trip Purpose 29 Figure 3-9: Distribution by Time of Day 29 Table 3-6: Distribution of Trip Purpose by Time of Day 30 Figure 3-10: Distribution by Access Mode 31 Figure 3-11: Distribution by Egress Mode 31 Table 3-7: Distribution of Access Mode by Time of Day 31 Table 3-8: Distribution of Egress Mode by Time of day 31 Table 3-9: Cross-Tabulation of Access by Egress Mode 32 Table 3-10: Distribution of Number of Transfers 32 Figure 3-12: Distribution of Alternate Mode of Travel 33 Figure 3-13: Distribution of Source of Bus Schedule Information 33 Table 4-1: Distribution of Household Size by Service Type 35 Table 4-2: Distribution of Household Income by Service Type 36 Table 4-3: Distribution of Vehicle Ownership by Service Type 36 Table 4-4: Distribution of Vehicle Availability by Service Type 37 Table 4-5: Distribution of Employment Status by Service Type 37 Table 4-6: Distribution of Student Status by Service Type 37 Table 4-7: Distribution of Age by Service Type 38 Table 4-8: Distribution of Valid Driver’s License Status by Service Type 38 Table 4-9: Distribution of Time of Day by Service Type 39 Table 4-10: Distribution of Trip Purpose by Service Type – AM Peak Period 39 Table 4-11: Distribution of Trip Purpose by Service Type – PM Peak Period 40 Table 4-12: Distribution of Trip Purpose by Service Type 41 Table 4-13: Distribution of Access Mode by Service Type – AM Peak Period 41 Table 4-14: Distribution of Egress Mode by Service Type – AM Peak Period 42 Table 4-15: Distribution of Access Mode by Service Type – PM Peak Period 42 Table 4-16: Distribution of Egress Mode by Service Type – PM Peak Period 43 Table 4-17: Distribution of Access Mode – Mid-day and Evening Period 43 Table 4-18: Distribution of Egress Mode – Mid-day and Evening Period 44 Table 4-19: Distribution of Alternate Modes of Travel by Service Type 44
Table 4-20: Distribution of Source of Bus Schedule Information by Service Type 45 Table 5-1: Comparison of Household Size 46 Table 5-2: Distribution of Household Income – 2001 O/D Survey 47 Table 5-3: Distribution of Household Income – 2007 O/D Survey 47 Table 5-4: Distribution of Household Income – 2007 Census and 2007 ACS 47 Table 5-5: Comparison of Household Vehicle Ownership 48 Table 5-6: Comparison of Employment Status 49 Table 5-7: Comparison of Age 49 Table 5-8: Comparison of Trip Origin 50 Table 5-9: Comparison of Trip Destination 50 Table 5-10: Comparison of Number of Buses Used 51 Table 5-11: Comparison of Alternate Mode of Travel 52 Table 5-12: Comparison of Source of Bus Schedule Information 52 Figure A-1: Survey Instrument (English) 54 Figure A-2: Survey Instrument (Spanish) 56 Table B-1: Household Size (Total Households) 58 Table B-2: Household Income (Total Households) 58 Table B-3: Vehicle Ownership (Total Households) 58 Table B-4: Employment Status (Population Age 16 years or Older) 59 Table B-5: Age (Total Population) 59 Table C-1: Top 10 Origin/Destination Flows by Zip Code 60 Table C-2: Top 10 Origin/Destination Flows by Zip Code – AM Peak Period 60 Table C-3: Top 10 Origin/Destination Flows by Zip Code – Mid-Day 61 Table C-4: Top 10 Origin/Destination Flows by Zip Code – PM Peak Period 61 Table C-5: Top 10 Origin/Destination Flows by Zip Code – Evening 62 Table D-1: Local Bus Routes 63 Figure D-1: Local Bus Routes 66 Table D-2: Express Bus Routes 67 Figure D-2: Express Bus Routes 68 Table D-3: RAPID bus Routes 69 Table D-3: RAPID bus Routes 69 Table E-1: Comparison of Household Vehicle Ownership 70 Table E-2: Comparison of Household Income 70 Table E-3: Comparison of Age 71 Table E-4: Comparison of Trip Origin 71 Table E-5: Comparison of Trip Destination 72 Table E-6: Comparison of Access Mode 72 Table E-7: Comparison of Egress Mode 72 Table E-8: Comparison of Number of Buses Used 73 Table F-1: Purpose at Downtown Phoenix 75 Figure F-1: Downtown Phoenix – Trip Purpose at AM Peak 76 Figure F-2: Downtown Phoenix – Trip Purpose at Mid-Day 77 Figure F-3: Downtown Phoenix – Trip Purpose at PM Peak 78 Table F-2: Purpose at Uptown Phoenix 79 Figure F-4: Uptown Phoenix – Trip Purpose at AM Peak 80 Figure F-5: Uptown Phoenix – Trip Purpose at Mid-Day 81 Figure F-6: Uptown Phoenix – Trip Purpose at PM Peak 82 Table F-3: Purpose at Sky Harbor Airport 83
Table F-4: Purpose at ASU 84 Figure F-7: Arizona State University – Trip Purpose at AM Peak 85 Figure F-8: Arizona State University – Trip Purpose at Mid-Day 86 Figure F-9: Arizona State University – Trip Purpose at PM Peak 87 Table F-5: Purpose at Biltmore Area 88 Figure F-10: Biltmore Area – Trip Purpose at AM Peak 89 Figure F-11: Biltmore Area – Trip Purpose at Mid-Day 90 Figure F-12: Biltmore Area – Trip Purpose at PM Peak 91 Table F-6: Purpose at Metro Center 92 Figure F-13: Metro Center– Trip Purpose at AM Peak 93 Figure F-14: Metro Center – Trip Purpose at Mid-Day 94 Figure F-15: Metro Center – Trip Purpose at PM Peak 95 Table F-7: Purpose at Scottsdale Airpark 96 Figure F-16: Scottsdale Airpark – Trip Purpose at AM Peak 97 Figure F-17: Scottsdale Airpark – Trip Purpose at Mid-Day 98 Figure F-18: Scottsdale Airpark – Trip Purpose at PM Peak 99 Table F-8: Attraction Flow for Downtown Phoenix 101 Table F-9: Attraction Flow for Uptown Phoenix 102 Table F-10: Attraction Flow for Sky Harbor Airport 103 Table F-11: Attraction Flow for ASU 104 Table F-12: Attraction Flow for Biltmore Area 105 Table F-13: Attraction Flow for Metro Center 106 Table F-14: Attraction Flow for Scottsdale Airpark 107 Table H-1: List of Trip Tables 113
Map F-1: Service Area Districts 100 Map G-1: Unweighted Residential Locations of Unique Riders at Zip Code Level 109 Map G-2: Weighted Residential Locations of Unique Riders at Zip Code Level 110 Map G-3: Weighted Distribution of Trip Origins at Zip Code Level 111 Map G-4: Weighted Distribution of Trip Destinations at Zip Code Level 112
Executive Summary
In the Fall of 2007, the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), with consultant support, conducted an Origin/Destination (O/D) survey of the Valley Metro riders. The self- administered surveys were conducted among riders of fixed-route bus service: Local, Circulator, Limited, Rural, Express, and RAPID bus. Data collection was performed from October 8 through December 18, 2007. A total of 7,600 valid completed surveys, as included in the final data files, were collected. The study project involved designing the survey instrument; developing a sampling plan; collecting, processing, and geocoding the collected data; weighting and expanding the data; analyzing the data; comparing the results with 2001 O/D survey data; and reporting the results. This report documents these tasks.
Key Findings
The objectives of the 2007 O/D survey analysis were two-fold: (1) Examine the demographics, and (2) Examine the travel behavior characteristics of Valley Metro riders. The survey data used for this analysis was appropriately weighted and expanded to represent the unlinked trips made by Valley Metro riders. Some important findings from the analysis of the Valley Metro riders are summarized below: − Transit Riders are more likely to be from low-income households. Almost three in four riders belong to households earning less than $35,000. − About half of all transit riders are transit-dependent, i.e., they belong to households that do not own any vehicles. − Two out of every three riders are employed. − Riders are primarily in the 25 to 54 years of age; young riders in the age range of 18-24 form the second largest group. − The majority of trips made by riders originate or end at home or work; 44% of riders make home-based work trips using transit, while 40% make home-based non-work trips. − Walking is the dominant access and egress mode for all riders; more than three-fourths of the riders walk access and egress. − Nearly two-third of riders make at least one transfer to complete their one-way trip. − In the absence of transit service, almost one-third of the riders report that they would not make the trip. − Bus Book is the primary source of bus schedule information used by two-third of the riders.
Further, the demographic characteristics of Valley Metro riders were compared with the general population residing in the Maricopa County. The general population statistics were obtained from 2007 American Community Survey data. The important findings from this comparison are as follows: − Transit riders are more likely to be from larger, low-income, and zero-vehicle households. − Riders are more likely to be employed. − Riders are more likely to be 18 to 54 years of age.
In addition, the transit market was segmented by service type into three categories: Local, Express, and RAPID bus riders; and the demographics and travel behavior characteristics were compared across the three market segments. The key findings are summarized below: − Compared to RAPID and Express bus riders, Local bus riders are more likely to:
1 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
− Be from larger households with five or more members. − Be from lower income households, with an annual income less than $35,000. − Own fewer vehicles. − Be employed part-time or to not be in the labor force. − Be less than 25 years of age. − Use transit to travel to/from destinations other than work in the AM and PM Peak period. − Walk, rather than drive, to access the bus stop in the AM Peak period. − Either not make the trip; or walk/bicycle, or drive with someone else to make the trip, if transit service is unavailable. − Use the Bus Book, rather than the Valley Metro website, for schedule information.
Finally, the 2007 O/D survey data was compared with data collected on weekday trips during the first quarter of 2001. In order to compare the two surveys, only weekday trips from the 2007 O/D survey were selected for analysis. The 2001 data were appropriately weighted and expanded to represent “unlinked” trips. At the same time, the 2007 ACS data for the general population residing in Maricopa County were compared to 2000 Census to gain insights into the demographic shifts in the general population during this time period. Some important findings from the analysis of the Valley Metro riders are summarized below: − Riders are more transit-dependent in 2007 than in 2001 as indicated by: − Decline in vehicle ownership. − Use of transit to and from a wider variety of locations in addition to home and work. − Increase in number of transfers per trip. − Increase in the riders reporting that would not have made their trip if the bus had not been available. − Riders rely more on Valley Metro website; reliance on the Bus Book has decreased. − Contrary to the demographic shifts in the transit rider population, there has not been any significant shift in the distribution of household size, vehicle ownership, employment status and age of the general population residing in Maricopa County since 2000, with the exception of an increase in households with an annual income of $60,000 or higher.
The overall response rate for this study is 17.2%. Express and RAPID bus routes have a higher response rate of 42.4% and 37.1% respectively. Local bus routes, on the other hand, have a lower response rate of 15.6%.
2 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
1. Introduction
The Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), with consultant support, conducted an Origin/Destination (O/D) Survey of the Valley Metro riders in the Fall of 2007. These surveys provide information about transit passenger demographics and opinions about transit services. The data collected from origin-destination surveys are also used for computer modeling and network simulation for air quality forecasting and long range planning by MAG. In the past Origin and destination surveys were conducted in 1986, 1991, 1995 and 2001. Since the 2001 study there has been significant changes in the transit service in the valley. The 2007 origin-destination survey was a system-wide study to include appropriate level of sampling to reflect all services, including the new, expanded and revised routes
The self-administered surveys were conducted among riders of fixed-route bus service: Local, Circulator, Limited, Rural, Express, and RAPID bus. Data collection was conducted on weekdays (Mon- Fri) from October 8 through December 18, 2007. A total number of 7,600 completed and usable surveys, as included in the final data files, were collected.
Objectives of the 2007 Transit On-Board Survey
There are four objectives for this survey.
1. The first objective was to collect data on transit ridership for the Before Study as required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Final Rule on Major Capital Investment Projects. The Before study requires information on transit service levels and ridership before the implementation of the METRO Light Rail project. Data collection for “before” data must be compatible with the methodology required to gather data to reflect the “after” condition. These procedures must be consistent with FTA guidelines for a Before and After Study.
2. The second objective was to update travel pattern data to be used to calibrate the computer modeling to reflect the current transit system. To meet this objective, a system- wide random sample survey of the Valley Metro fixed route system was collected to get statistically valid data.
3. The third objective was to collect data to reflect target transit markets that may have been under represented in previous surveys. To meet the third objective, the 2007 sample sizes for certain market segments were increased to improve the level of confidence in the survey results. In addition, the guidelines for survey distribution were revised to improve the survey response rate to better represent transit travel patterns by time of day.
4. The fourth and final objective is to improve the quality of the data collected for valid origin and destination trip pairs. To meet this objective, the guidelines for survey editing, address verification and address geocoding were strengthened to include additional steps for quality control. Also, a revised methodology was used to record passenger boarding and alighting counts and locations
This report summarizes the survey methods, 2007 O/D survey findings, and comparative analysis results of 2001 and 2007 O/D surveys. Chapter 2 provides a description of the sampling approach, survey instrument and procedures, project challenges and solutions, and weighting and expansion methodology. Chapter 3 provides detailed information on demographics and travel behavior characteristics of Valley Metro riders. Chapter 4 examines demographics and travel behavior characteristics of Valley Metro riders by service type, i.e., Local, Express and RAPID riders. Chapter 5
3 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey provides a comparative analysis of comparable demographics and travel behavior characteristics of Valley Metro riders between 2001 and 2007.
Appendix A includes the English and Spanish survey instruments. Appendix B provides the overall population statistics for Maricopa County from the 2007 Census and the 2007 American Community Survey (ACS). Appendix C lists the top zip code to zip code flows. Appendix D presents the distribution of weighted boardings by route and service type. Appendix E contains weighted data frequencies of Valley Metro RAPID bus riders collected from the February 2007 RAPID bus Survey (that was conducted on February 6 and 7, 2007) and the 2007 O/D Survey. Appendix F includes analysis of major activity centers in the service area. Appendix G presents the maps indicating the residence, origin, and destination locations of the riders. Appendix H presents a list of trip tables that were generated for use in the Regional Transportation Model.
4 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
2. Survey Methods
Sampling Plan
A total of 97 Valley Metro routes were sampled on weekdays covering all fixed-route bus service: Local, Circulator, Limited, Rural, Express, and RAPID. A sampling plan was designed to be statistically significant at the route level and to provide a sample size adequate for analysis of weekday bus service. The sampling plan goal was to collect 9,700 valid completed surveys. The survey data collection resulted in 7,600 usable, valid surveys.
The Valley Metro on-board survey used a standard two-stage sampling approach that consisted of sampling passengers and sampling bus trips. Every passenger over the age of 11 (determined by visual estimation), who boarded the sampled bus, received a questionnaire. If the surveyor was not able to determine whether a rider’s age was over 11 by direct observation (which is the standard procedure), the surveyor asked the boarding passenger if they were over 11 years old.
Approach to Sampling Bus Trips
The RPTA consultant on this survey study, NuStats, prepared a plan to sample weekday bus trips that was statistically significant at the system and route levels. In addition, the statistical accuracy level was tiered to allow for a lower standard error level for the most productive lines, mid-level standard error level for mid-ridership level lines, and the highest standard error level for lines that do not carry enough daily riders to obtain a larger sample size and therefore a lower standard error level. The proposed sample plan was based on three main factors: First, the plan ensured that the sample adequately met data needs at the route level. Second, the plan ensured the collection of adequate samples at the various times of day. Times of the day (TOD) are defined as AM Peak (3:01 a.m.–9:00 a.m.), Mid-day (9:01 a.m.– 3:30 p.m.), PM Peak (3:31 p.m.–6:00 p.m.), and Night (6:01 p.m.–3:00 a.m.). Third, the plan ensured that the sample was segmented by direction.
Specifically, NuStats sampled all major Valley Metro bus routes as directed by RPTA at the 95% confidence level shown in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. The sample plan was based on the average daily ridership from October 2006. The overall sampling criteria are listed in Table 2-1, followed by individual route goals in Table 2-2.
5 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 2-1: Summary Sample Plan
Average Weekday Sample Confidence Route Category Riders Size Level
Fixed-Route Local 185,347 7,300 95% +/ 1.5% Local
10,000+ riders 95% +/- 5% 32,006 1,200 (Rts Green, Red, 41) 400 each route
7,500–9,999 riders 95% +/- 5% 26,753 1,200 (Rts 19,17,3) 400 each route
5,000–7,499 90% +/- 5% 42,948 2,100 (Rts 00, 07, 16, 24, 35, 50, 72) 300 each route
2,500–4,999 95% +/- 10% 50,287 1,400 (Rts 08, Blue, 10, 27, 30, 43, 44, 45, 59, 61, 100 each route 81, 90, 106, 170)
2,000–2,499 90% +/- 10% 9,057 300 (Rts 56, 60, 67, 77) 75 each route
Routes that change with LRT but 90% +/- 10% not included in previous strata 4,898 300 75 each route (Rts 104, 15, 13, 96)
West Valley route group 90% +/ 5% 6,354 300 (Rts 51, 70, 80, 131, 138, 186) 300 route group
Phoenix route group 95% +/ 10% 2,661 100 (Rts 12, 32, 52, 122) 100 route group
Tempe/East Valley route group 90% +/ 5% 7,048 300 (Rts 01, 62, 65, 66, 76, 92, 108) 300 route group
East Valley route group 95% +/ 10% 3,335 100 (Rts 84, 112, 114, 120, 128, 136, 156) 100 route group
Circulators 11,723 575 95% +/- 5% Circulator
10,000+ riders 90% +/- 5% 5,852 300 FLASH Tempe each route
2,500–7,500 riders 95% +/ 10% 2,877 100 FLASH Escalante each route
1,000–2,000 riders 90% +/- 10% 2,666 150 ALEX and DASH 75 each route
Less than 1,000 riders 328 25 Best efforts GUS
Limited Service Best efforts 355 25 Rts 7th Street, 371 Limited
Rural Route Best efforts 36 10 Rts 660, 685 Rural
Rapid and Express 95% +/- 2.5% Rts 400, 450, 460, 480, 510, 512, 520, 521, 531, 5,841 1,600 Express 532, 533, 540, 541, 560, 570, 571, 581, 582, 590
Contingency— New routes introduced 2007 (Rts 154, 534, 572, 573, DUR, MARY, MERC, 190 Best efforts SNCN, SSCR, STRL)
TOTAL SYSTEM 203,302 9,700 95% +/ 1%
Note: Route Category does not correspond with Table 2-2 Route Name.
6 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 2-2: Weekday Sample Goals by Route Type
Average Retrieval Actual Route Route Name Daily % of Goal Goal Retrieval Ridership
Fixed-Route Local
Green Avondale/Scottsdale/Phx 11,706 400 264 66%
Red Tempe/Mesa/Phx 10,077 400 308 77%
41 Avondale/Scottsdale/Phx 10,223 400 242 61%
19 Phoenix 9,079 400 341 85%
17 Scottsdale/Phx 9,106 400 204 51%
3 Avondale/Phx/Tolleson 8,568 400 258 65%
35 Phoenix 7,457 300 332 111%
241 Glendale/Phx 6,956 300 0 --
0 Phoenix 5,899 300 132 44%
50 Scottsdale/Phx 5,842 300 184 61%
16 Phoenix 5,865 300 286 95%
7 Phoenix 5,706 300 269 90%
72 Tempe/Scottsdale/Chandler 5,223 300 373 124%
61 Tempe/Mesa/Phx 4,952 100 82 82%
45 Tempe/Mesa/Phx 4,385 100 74 74%
Blue Phoenix 4,049 100 89 89%
27 Phoenix 4,719 100 135 135%
106 Scottsdale/Glendale/Peoria/Shea 3,812 100 91 91%
30 Tempe/Mesa/Phx 3,584 100 107 107%
10 Phoenix 2,891 100 79 79%
8 Phoenix 3,284 100 86 86%
170 Scottsdale/Glendale/Phx 3,294 100 101 101%
43 Phoenix 3,228 100 94 94%
81 Tempe/Scottsdale/Chandler 2,995 100 122 122%
44 Tempe/ParadiseValley/Phx 3,151 100 81 81%
90 Glendale/Phx 2,973 100 101 101%
59 Glendale/Phx 2,970 100 48 48%
56 Tempe/Phx/Guadalupe 2,047 75 90 120%
77 Tempe/Mesa/Phx 2,273 75 156 208%
67 Glendale/Phx 2,419 75 47 63%
60 Glendale/Phx 2,318 75 65 87%
1 This route was discontinued.
7 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Average Retrieval Actual Route Route Name Daily % of Goal Goal Retrieval Ridership
104 Mesa/Chandler 1,553 75 98 131%
15 Phoenix 1,242 75 132 176%
13 Phoenix 1,286 75 53 71%
96 Mesa 817 75 74 99%
51, 70, 80, 131, 138, 186 Glendale/Phx/Avondale/Goodyear 6,354 300 417 139%
12, 32, 52, 122 Phoenix 2,661 100 101 101%
Tempe/Scottsdale/Phx/Mesa/ 01, 62, 65, 66, 76, 92, 108 Chandler/Gilbert 7,048 300 284 95%
84, 112, 114, 120, 128, 136, Mesa/Chandler/Gilbert/Phx/ 156 Scottsdale 3,335 100 151 151%
Circulators
ALEX Phoenix 1,154 75 28 37%
DASH Phoenix 1,512 75 24 32%
FLASH Tempe 5,852 300 122 41%
Escalante Tempe 2,877 100 0 --
GUS Glendale 328 25 19 76%
Limited Service
7th St, Grand Ave Phoenix/Glendale/Peoria/Phx 355 25 29 116%
7th St, Grand Ave Phoenix/Glendale/Peoria/Phx 355 25 29 116%
Rural Routes
Wickenburg/Ajo/Gila Bend 660, 685 Connector 36 10 4 40%
Express Routes
510 Scottsdale/Phx 86 22 22 100%
512 Scottsdale/FountainValley/Phx 89 23 14 61%
520 Tempe/Phx 112 29 16 55%
521 Tempe/Phx 247 63 69 110%
531 Tempe/Mesa/Phx/Gilbert 241 61 64 105%
532 Tempe/Mesa/Phx 161 41 36 88%
533 Mesa/Phx 261 67 65 97%
540 Tempe/Chandler/Phx 132 34 40 118%
541 Mesa/Chandler/Phx/Tempe 330 84 91 108%
560 Avondale/Phx/Tolleson 95 24 26 108%
570 Glendale/Phx 60 15 5 33%
571 Phoenix/Surprise 103 26 22 85%
581 Glendale/Phx 114 29 16 55%
8 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Average Retrieval Actual Route Route Name Daily % of Goal Goal Retrieval Ridership
582 Phoenix 114 29 20 69%
590 Phoenix 131 33 22 67%
I-10 East RAPID Phoenix 987 252 170 67%
I-10 West RAPID Phoenix 681 174 136 78%
I-17 RAPID Phoenix 1,206 308 138 45%
SR-51 RAPID Phoenix 691 176 106 60%
Adjusted for Express (50%+ response) 110 Contingency
Allocation for New Routes 2007 190 145 76%
TOTAL: 203,302 9,700 7,600 78% Note: Route Name does not correspond with Table 2-1 Route Category.
Bus Trip Selection
The number of sampled bus trips was calculated by assuming an average response rate of 20% (depending on service type and service period) of typical rider loads by trip. Thus, a route that had an average load of 500 riders and made 10 trips a day was determined to have an average rider load of 50 riders per trip. Assuming the route had a sample goal of 50 valid completed surveys, it Deleted: questionnaires was determined that five bus trips would need to be sampled to meet the requirements at an estimated 20% response rate (500/10 = 50 x .20 = 10; 50/10 = 5). The number of trips sampled was rounded up to the nearest whole number for trip selection purposes if a decimal arose in the calculation. It should be noted that Express and RAPID routes were sampled with an expected response rate of 40%, so the number of trips needed for these types of routes were calculated using 40% rather than 20%.
Bus trips were clustered by block for the purpose of efficient use of surveyor labor. The use of clusters had the further advantage of de facto stratification by direction (i.e., most runs consist of bus trips alternately traveling inbound, outbound, etc.), as well as stratification by time of day, and also by route if multiple routes were contained in a block.
Surveyor Assignments
The final sampling task was the uploading of sampled bus trips to a Web-based field management system to create surveyor assignment sheets. The selected clusters of trips were drawn based on the following parameters to produce surveyor assignments: Consecutive trips within the same block/run The cluster of trips starting and ending at the same location Trips within the cluster were unique to the cluster
Surveyor assignment sheets were printed from the Web-based management system and included the organized bus trips to be sampled, along with necessary information for getting to and from the assignment. The assignment sheets were also bar-coded to link them to the field management system. A sample assignment sheet is presented in Figure 2-1.
9 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure 2-1: Sample Assignment Sheet
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument was designed as a self-completion questionnaire with 18 self-coded questions. The set of data items is presented in Table 2-3. Prior to data collection, returned surveys were defined as “complete” and “usable” if applicable questions were answered up to and including the question regarding reasons for taking the routes listed in the route sequence question (Question 9). These items were: origin, destination, trip purpose, access mode, egress mode, transfers, bus routes used, and vehicle availability (see sample questionnaire in Appendix A.)
Questionnaires were attractively designed in a two-sided double letter-size format and printed on heavy card stock for easy distribution and completion. Each survey contained a business reply mail permit for off-bus completion and mail-back. The form was pre-printed with a unique serial number and bar code, which linked each questionnaire to distribution on a specific trip. Text on the questionnaire invited passengers to register to win a monetary prize, of $100, by providing their name, telephone number, and home address. This technique captured accurate information for home address, which for a majority of trips was either the trip origin or the trip destination. The questionnaire was designed to obtain information in three major categories: origin/destination travel patterns, access and egress modes, and rider demographics. As noted in Table 2-3, some of the required data elements were captured by means other than a question on the questionnaire. This approach had multiple benefits: (1) the questionnaire was shorter to enhance response rates, and (2) data quality was improved by circumventing respondent-provided information. The questionnaire was available in two languages, English and Spanish.
10 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 2-3: Data Elements and Capture Method
Data Elements Capture Method
Day of Travel GPS-enhanced Palm device
Time of Travel GPS-enhanced Palm device
Route GPS-enhanced Palm device
Questionnaire Language Field Code by editor
Home Address Questionnaire
Origin Address Questionnaire
Destination Address Questionnaire
Bus Stop On GPS-enhanced Palm device
Imputed using information from other sources: Destination, Egress Mode, Bus Stop Off Distance, and GPS data on bus stops for the sampled trip
Trip Purpose Questionnaire
Access Mode Questionnaire
Egress Mode Questionnaire
Previous transfer information Questionnaire
Future transfer information Questionnaire
Vehicle Availability Questionnaire
List of buses used for trip Questionnaire
Alternative Travel Mode Questionnaire
Number of Vehicles in HH Questionnaire
Household Size Questionnaire
Passenger Age Questionnaire
Valid Driver’s License Questionnaire
Student Status Questionnaire
Employment Status Questionnaire
Source of Bus Schedule Questionnaire Information
Household Income Questionnaire
Survey Procedures
Overview
At each stop, questionnaires were distributed by the surveyor to all boarding passengers over the age of 11. Concurrently, a “counter” counted each boarding and alighting passenger. The counters used a GPS-enhanced Palm device (see Figure 2-2).
11 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure 2-2: GPS-Enhanced Palm Device for On-Board Counts
The Palm device recorded the location and time (arrival and departure) at each bus stop, and counters entered the number of passengers boarding and alighting. By entering the top questionnaire number into the unit prior to arrival at a bus stop, this process linked a sequence of questionnaires directly to a bus stop (using Valley Metro digitized bus stop list). The data were uploaded daily into a Web-based field management system designed to manage surveyor assignments, provide progress reports and data summary tables, and monitor field staff performance.
Labor Recruitment and Training
Surveyors were required to have lived in the service area and were screened to ensure they had good work habits, were personable, honest, mature, had reliable personal transportation, and paid attention to details. Surveyors were trained to read and understand assignment sheets and were taught basic survey procedures, etiquette, and how to approach riders. The training included two hours of role-playing and intensive tutoring. Counters were trained in the use of the hand-held Palm devices, the ride count program, and on-board etiquette. Following completion of initial assignments, surveyor teams were required to return to the survey command center where supervisors verified the accuracy of the surveyors’ work. Assignments were then handed out for the next day.
Survey Administration
The full survey was managed by an in-field survey team comprising 1) a field manager to oversee the entire field team, 2) a surveyor assistant to manage surveyors, and 3) a counter assistant to manage the counters and provide ridership count quality assurance for uploads/downloads to the Web-based field management system. Initial trainings were conducted on October 8 and 9, 2007, prior to the start of data collection. Subsequent to these initial trainings, three additional training sessions were held on an as-needed basis to maintain sufficient surveyor levels. A surveyor manager was on site for the entire field period.
On-board data collection was conducted by teams that consisted of a surveyor and a counter. The surveyor handed out questionnaires, persuaded passengers to complete the questionnaires, assisted with questions, collected questionnaires, and distributed one free-ride ticket to each person who completed the questionnaire. The counter entered the questionnaire numbers into the hand- held unit to link questionnaires to a bus stop, counted the passengers boarding and alighting, ensured the unit had picked up accurate GPS location coordinates, collected questionnaires, and validated passenger loads after each stop. Daily surveyor assignments were distributed by the
12 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey surveyor manager or by the assistants. See Figure 2-3 for a sample of the Web-based assignment screen.
Figure 2-3: Sample Assignment Management Screen
As assignments were handed out, information was updated in the Web-based field management system. When surveyors and counters returned from an assignment, the surveyor manager or assistant checked the assignment results (i.e., quickly reviewed the questionnaires to spot any glaring performance issues) and downloaded the passenger count data from the Palm devices. If the surveyor managers or assistants noticed errors with the assignment results (i.e., incomplete data on the surveys), those specific surveys were then pulled for in-field questionnaire editing, and surveyors and counters were reminded to look for errors while in the field. The surveyor manager updated the assignment status in the Web-based field management system and then handed out the next assignment. Once the completed assignments were reviewed, the questionnaires were sent to the local editing team, Westgroup Research, for inspection and coding prior to being sent to Austin, the location of NuStats’ headquarters, for scanning and verification.
In-Field Questionnaire Editing Following the surveyor check-in, completed questionnaires were presented to on-site data editors for editing and correction. As previously mentioned, the data editors were local employees of Westgroup Research who were familiar with the geography of the transit service area and also with Survey Research. Data editors reviewed each completed questionnaire and used geographic resources to complete or correct address information. Because the origin and destination questions are the most difficult to collect, using these geographic resources to “clean” addresses provided a means to “save/salvage” as many questionnaires as possible. After each questionnaire had been reviewed, the bar codes were scanned on the questionnaire using a procedure that identified the
13 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey questionnaire as a “complete.” This information was uploaded to the field management system as one data input for the status reports. “Complete” questionnaires were sent to Austin for scanning and verification. Data editors were also employed to call back riders who turned in questionnaires that were less than complete. The phone number came from the questionnaire and allowed for more partially filled out questionnaires to be converted to completed questionnaires. Status Reporting The surveyor manager prepared status reports from the Web-based field management system. This automated application conducted consistency checks, flagged problem records, and cleaned and purged flagged records. The surveyor manager reviewed this information for accuracy in the status, response, and performance reports to the Web-based field management system. A sample report is shown in Figure 2-4.
Figure 2-4: Sample On-Board Completes Report
Pilot Test
A pilot was conducted from August 21 through August 24 prior to the implementation of the full data collection effort to begin in October. The purpose of the pilot was to assess the training procedures and response to the survey (both from data item response and respondent participation).
Surveyor and counter training occurred on Tuesday August 21 with eight team members. The Consultant had originally planned on training twelve members, six from each temp agency, but due to the remote training location without bus access, four members from one temp agency dropped out at the last minute. Each attendee was trained on both the surveying and counting tasks to allow for optimal and efficient resource allocation for the data collection effort.
14 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
The following routes were recommended and surveyed for the pilot: 8, 77, Blue, Green, and DASH. These routes were chosen because of their unique ridership characteristics and potential difficulties (heavy and low ridership, heavily Spanish-speaking only, free service, long and short routes). These routes did prove to be difficult, resulting in a minimal response rate of only 13%. Based on previous surveys, it was expected that a lower than typical response rate would be experienced during the pilot because of the short timeframe for data collection and the limited amount of time surveying teams could adjust to the surveying process, and because of the purposeful selection of heavy ridership and other difficult-to-survey routes. During pilot data collection, security issues were encountered (for instance, a passenger threatened a surveyor with a knife, and a fight broke out causing a counter to drop his PDA). Because of these incidences, distributed surveys and counts could not be collected and recorded respectively.
Overall, the pilot data completeness and quality appeared to be a bit low for a self-administered on-board survey. Of the surveys identified as incomplete, the following were the typical problems found: Origin and Destination address information given by the respondent was the same physical address, usually home to home, but there were other incidences of the same address listed twice. Either the Origin or the Destination was missing.
As previously stated, the pilot was a limited success with regards to the surveyor and counter training, passenger participation, and data completeness and quality. This implied that a few changes were needed before beginning the full-scale data collection in order to improve upon our pilot success: 1. In reviewing the completed questionnaires, the Consultant, in consultation with the RPTA project manager, decided it would be more efficient to move the intersecting streets option for the origin and destination variables directly after the full address option (after number and street and before the city variable). In several instances, intersecting streets were provided in the full address spacing only to be crossed out and rewritten later in the intersecting street section. Moving this part of the address will provide better direction for the respondent to record intersecting streets if they do not know the exact address. 2. It was decided to remove the question regarding future light rail use for the full-scale data collection. In addition, there were slight changes in question order. This allowed for additional white space and a larger font. It was thought that doing so would decrease the initial intimidation factor of the questionnaire. 3. The Consultant attempted to increase participation from the Spanish-speaking-only riders because only two riders completed questionnaires. It is understood that this market is typically underrepresented due to many issues beyond the control of data collection techniques and methods. The Consultant provided surveyors with a “cheat sheet” written in Spanish containing a basic explanation of the importance of the survey. 4. Another recommendation enacted to increase Spanish-speaking-only participation was to reach out to Hispanic communities and stress the importance of this study. It was also important to recruit directly from these communities in order to minimize the intimidation factor. One idea used by the employment agencies was to advertise for surveyors in the Hispanic newspaper “La Voz” and its sub-publications. 5. It was determined that wearing purple Valley Metro purple T-shirts would also reduce potential intimidation from the surveyors, making them look more closely associated with Valley Metro rather than a random survey company.
15 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Full-Scale Data Collection Challenges and Solutions
In any on-board survey, there will to be challenges to overcome during data collection. While the pilot test identified some issues, NuStats encountered additional challenges in the field, and the Consultant attempted to make improvements to their data collection methods in response. The Consultant worked with RPTA on these issues during the course of the data collection effort.
The majority of the challenges were related to the attrition rate of the employees hired as surveyors and counters. Many steps were taken to maintain a sufficient labor pool. The original project plan was to train 40–45 people to start data collection. The Consultant secured the services of two employment agencies to reach this number of people, with each being responsible for providing 20–25 people. Although, each agency had over 30 people confirmed to attend, at the end of both trainings, the Consultant had a total of 40 employees set to go on their first assignment. The Consultant ultimately required three additional trainings of 10 people each and a third temp agency to provide a different pool of employees. This provided us with over 70 people trained for this data collection effort, far more than the Consultant has previously trained for an on-board survey project of this size.
A bonus structure was put in place as a means to retain employees. This structure was introduced with subsequent training sessions. All people from the original training sessions became eligible for the bonus as well. With three weeks remaining in the original data collection period, the Consultant offered a $100 bonus for any employee that successfully completed 10 assignments in that period. If they successfully completed 15 assignments in that time (essentially working every day), they would receive an additional $150 bonus. When data collection was extended to after Thanksgiving, these same parameters were extended through the first week of data collection after Thanksgiving, allowing 19 days of data collection in order to reach the bonus levels. Going into the second and third weeks after Thanksgiving, the Consultant began a weekly bonus structure paying $100 to anyone who worked the full week, and $50 to those who worked four days in the week.
Another challenge in the data collection process involved the basic set-up of the Valley Metro system for the purposes of surveying. Because geographical coverage includes a large number of square miles, the transit system is set up as a grid. This, combined with the lack of a true single Central Business District in the region, means that routes begin and end at the four geographic corners of the region. Originally, the plan to address this was to institute a “moving” command center that would start in Tempe, then move to West Phoenix, and then to North Scottsdale. As it became apparent that employees came from different parts of the region, it made more sense to keep the command center in a single location and allow the employees to work primarily in their geographic comfort zone. This method created long travel distances when checking in after an assignment for those who did not live near the command center.
Another by-product of the vast geographic spread was that owning a vehicle became almost mandatory to work on the project, unless the employee lived relatively close to the command center. The Consultant generally likes their employee pool to have a good mixture of those who rely primarily on public transit and auto ownership to staff a project of this type. It is desirable to have bus riders because of their general comfort with the bus system and familiarity with the types of people riding. In addition, there are often starting and ending locations where parking is difficult. These assignments are handled by those who use public transit as their primary means of travel. Long travel times contributed to employee attrition.
Another data collection challenge was the nature of trips for the RAPID/Express type routes. When the original planning was conducted, it was thought that collection on these route types would not necessitate the number of assignments that were inevitably conducted. The length and peak hour nature of these trips resulted in short work assignments. The Consultant gave the employees extra time for them as an incentive in addition to bonus potential.
16 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Response Rates
The response rate was calculated as follows. It is the number of valid surveys as a percent of the total number of adult boarding passengers. Overall, 44,261 adults boarded the surveyed routes and 7,600 valid surveys were collected resulting in a response rate of 17.2% for the study. Table 2-4 presents the response rates by service type. Express and RAPID bus routes have a higher response rate of 42.4% and 37.1% respectively. Local bus routes, on the other hand, have a lower response rate of 15.6%.
Table 2-4: Response Rates by Service Type
Adult Valid Response Service Type Boarding Completed Rate Passengers Surveys
Local 41,451 6,487 15.6%
Express 1,327 563 42.4%
RAPID 1,483 550 37.1%
Overall 44,261 7,600 17.2%
Data Weighting and Expansion
From a finite population sampling theory perspective, analytic weights are needed to develop estimates of population parameters and, more generally, to draw inferences about the population that was sampled. Without the use of analytic weights, population estimates are subject to biases of unknown (possibly large) magnitude.
In on-board surveys, the universe of trips operated by transit routes cannot be sampled. At the same time, all the riders who board the sampled routes cannot be surveyed due to non-response. All these factors lead to biases in the survey data. Consequently, sample weighting and expansion is critical to account and correct for these biases. In particular, sample weighting adjusts for non- response at the bus stop level and accounts for sampling trips at the route, time, and direction level (RTD). Sample expansion on the other hand, expands the weighted sample to reflect the population ridership at the system-wide level. The next section describes the sample weighting procedure followed by the sample expansion procedure, calculation of the final analytic weights, and calculation of linked trip factor that translates boardings (i.e., unlinked trips) to linked trips.
Sample Weighting
Sample weighting is a critical consideration to account and correct for biases in the survey data. As a simple example, one route may have 1,000 passengers per day and another, 100 passengers. If 50 questionnaires were collected on each route, the percentage collected would be 5 and 50%, respectively. Without weighting, the data collected on the route with 100 passengers would be over-represented in the results. Thus, weighting balances these differences and aligns the weighted sample to the known distribution of population ridership.
The sample weighting process includes calculation of two weights: (1) Response factor that corrects for non-response at the bus stop level, and (2) Vehicle factor that corrects for sampling trips at the route, time of day, and direction (RTD) level. The Boarding factor, or weight, is the product of the Response factor and Vehicle factor. Each of these factors is discussed below in detail.
17 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Response Factor
Response factor adjusts for non-response associated with boarding passengers that do not return usable questionnaires2 at each bus stop where a passenger boards. In order to capture all the non- responding boarding passengers, the Response factor is calculated at the bus stop level.
In an ideal world, the Consultant would expect to get completed surveys from every bus stop where one or more adult passengers boarded the bus. However, because of the complexity of the data collection process and non-response issues, the Consultant was faced with three scenarios that had implications on the calculation of the bus stop response factor for weighting. These include (1) no completed surveys at bus stops where at least one adult boarded the bus (response issue), (2) fewer adult boardings than the number of completed surveys collected at the bus stop (counter error), and (3) unidentified bus stops.
Bus Stops with Non-Zero Boardings and Zero Completes
Of the 25,067 bus stops along surveyed routes (i.e., sampled trips in which a passenger boarded at a stop), 11,137 bus stops have non-zero boardings and zero completes. The Consultant applied a bus stop grouping methodology to these 11,137 bus stops. This bus stop grouping method was applied to the unique trips that include these bus stops of interest. Specifically, based on the sequence of the bus stops in the unique trip and the distance between bus stops, the bus stops of interest (with non-zero boardings and zero completes) were grouped with either the subsequent or the previous stop. In particular, the bus stop of interest was grouped with the closest bus stop. However, if the previous and the subsequent stops have zero boardings and zero completes, the bus stop of interest was grouped with the second previous and subsequent stop, and so on.
Bus Stops with Fewer Boardings than Completes
Of the 25,067 bus stops on surveyed routes, 1,095 bus stops have fewer boardings than completes, including 750 bus stops with zero boardings and non-zero completes. These stops were addressed in the following way: based on the sequence of the bus stops in the unique trip that includes these bus stops of interest, the Consultant grouped the bus stop of interest (with boardings less than completes) with the subsequent stops (i.e., bus stops in the direction of the trip). If a resolution was not reached by grouping with subsequent bus stops in the direction of the unique trip (i.e., total boardings were not equal or greater than the completed surveys at the group level), the bus stop of interest was grouped with previous ungrouped bus stops (i.e., bus stops in the opposite direction of the trip). The regrouping was carried out until a resolution was reached (i.e., the boardings were at least equal to the total number of completed surveys at the group level). Following the application of this method (i.e., after grouping the bus stop of interest with all other bus stops in the unique trip), if the total boardings were less than the total completed surveys at the group level, a response factor of 1 was assigned to all the bus stops in the unique trip.
Unidentified Bus Stops
The unidentified bus stops include stops that could not be geocoded (and hence could not be identified) with missing information on either the boardings or the completed surveys. Of the 25,067 bus stops on the surveyed routes, 176 bus stops were unidentified. These stops were grouped in the following way: the boardings on the unidentified bus stops with missing information on the completed surveys were distributed to all the other bus stops and/or bus stop groups in the unique trip. For example, for a given unique trip, if the identified bus stops/bus stop groups had a total of 40 boardings, and an unidentified bus stop had 10 boardings, the response factors on all the identified
2 Each record in the database represents a usable questionnaire (i.e., one that has passed all quality assurance procedures).
18 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey bus stops/bus stop groups in this trip were multiplied by a factor of 1.25. On the other hand, unidentified bus stops with missing boarding information were assigned a response factor of 1.
Following the grouping of the bus stops of interest using the aforementioned methodology, the bus stop response factor was calculated (see formula below for Bus Stop Response Factor).
Response Factor = Total Adult Boardings3 by Bus Stop / Usable Questionnaires by Bus Stop
Vehicle Factor
Vehicle factor accounts for the non-surveyed trips at the RTD level. The times of days used in the weighting process are: AM Peak and PM Peak for Express routes; and AM Peak, Mid-day, PM Peak, and Evening for all other routes.
The total one-way trips and total sampled trips will be calculated for each RTD based on this population run cut file. For example, if Route 1 has a total of 11 trips in the AM Peak that are northbound, but only two were surveyed, its Vehicle factor is 11 divided by 2, or 5.5.
Vehicle Factor = Total Trips per RTD / Sampled Trips per RTD
Boarding Factor
Following the calculation of the three weighting factors, the Boarding factor is calculated by multiplying the Response and Vehicle factors.
Boarding Factor = Response Factor * Vehicle Factor
Sample Expansion
Sample expansion factors increase the weighted sample to the total boardings at the system-wide level. In particular, the survey data is expanded to represent 2007 average daily ridership at the route level. This information was provided by RPTA. The calculation of the Expansion factor is described below.
Expansion Factor
The Expansion factor is calculated at the route level using the formula below. As an example, assume that the weighted sample ridership for Route 731 is 7,270 and the population average daily weekday ridership for this route is 7,742. This produces an expansion factor of 1.06 (7,742 divided by 7,270).
Expansion Factor = Population Average Daily Ridership / Ridership Weighted by Boarding Factors
Expansion Weight
The final sample ‘weighing and expansion’ weight is referred to as the Expansion weight. In particular, the Expansion weight is calculated by multiplying the Boarding factor (i.e., weighting
3 Adult Boardings are defined as boardings made by individuals over 11 years of age that qualify them for taking the survey.
19 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey factor) by the Expansion factor. Following the application of the Expansion weight, the weighted data represents the population boardings (i.e., unlinked trips).
Expansion Weight = Boarding Factor * Expansion Factor
Linked Trip Factor
Linked trip factor translates boardings (i.e., unlinked trips) to linked trips. This factor accounts for the rider’s transfer before or after the surveyed bus. A rider who did not transfer during the completion of a one-way transit trip would carry a linked trip factor of 1.0. A rider who transferred from another route before boarding the surveyed bus, but did not intend to transfer again, would have a weight of 0.5, as would a rider who did not transfer before boarding the surveyed bus, but who intended to transfer in order to get to the ultimate destination. A rider who transferred to and from the surveyed bus would have a weight of 0.333. The linked trip factor is calculated for every rider who completed the questionnaire. This weight will be provided as a stand-alone weight. Following the application of this factor to the weighted data (i.e., data weighted by the Expansion weight), the information can be expressed as ‘linked’ trips instead of individual boardings.
Based on the methodology outlined in this section, the survey data was appropriately weighted and expanded to be representative of all the unlinked trips, i.e., individual boardings. Different trip tables were generated for use in the Regional Transportation Model. Appendix H presents a list of the trip tables.
20 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
3. Survey Data Analysis
This chapter provides detailed information on the demographics and travel behavior characteristics of the Valley Metro riders and concludes with a summary of key findings. The survey data used for analysis was appropriately weighted and expanded to be representative of all the unlinked trips, i.e., individual boardings.
Demographics
This section describes the demographics of Valley Metro riders including household size, household income, vehicle ownership, vehicle availability, employment status, student status, age, and valid driver’s license status. It should be noted that the statistics vary depending on type of transit service i.e., Local, RAPID, or Express bus service, and have been discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
In addition, this section compares the demographic characteristics of Valley Metro riders with the general population residing in the Maricopa County.4 Specifically, the 2007 O/D survey data was compared with 2007 American Community Survey data that includes all residents of Maricopa County (refer to Appendix B). It should be noted that the comparative analysis was limited to those variables that were available from the 2007 ACS data.
Household Size
The household size results (Figure 3-1) indicate that 80% of riders have a household size of four or fewer individuals. In particular, about 43% of riders live in one- or two-person households, while 37% live in three- or four- person households. The remaining 20% have a household size of five or more individuals.
Compared to the general population, transit riders are more likely to live in larger households (as indicated by comparison of 2007 O/D survey data with 2007 ACS data). Specifically, the general population statistics indicate that 27% of the households are single-person households, 34% are two- person households, while 39% are three or more person households (refer to Table B-1 in Appendix B).
4 It is important to note that due to the lack of adequate information on the general population in the transit service area (that includes Maricopa County and parts of Pinal and Yavapai County), 2007 O/D survey data was compared to the residents of Maricopa County.
21 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure 3-1: Distribution of Household Size
30% 25%
20% 20% 20% 18% 17%
10%
0% 12345 or more
Household Income
The distribution of annual household income (Figure 3-2) shows that 71% of rider households have an annual income of less than $35,000, with 27% earning less than $10,000. About 22% of rider households have an income in the middle range between $35,000 and $70,000, while 7% have an income of $70,000 or higher.
As expected, transit riders are more likely to be from low-income households as compared to the general population. In particular, only 31% of the households in Maricopa County have an annual income of less than $35,000; with 6% earning less than $10,000 (refer to Table B-2 in Appendix B). More than half of households have an annual income of $50,000 or higher, with 38% earning $70,000 or higher.
Figure 3-2: Distribution of Household Income
30% 27% 24% 20% 20% 15%
10% 7% 7%
0% Less than $10,000- $20,000- $35,000- $50,000- $70,000 or $10,000 $19,999 $34,999 $49,999 $69,999 More
22 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Vehicle Ownership
The vehicle ownership statistics (Figure 3-3) indicate that about 49% of rider households own at least one automobile, with 27% that own one vehicle, 15% that own two vehicles, and 7% that own three or more vehicles. More than half of riders (about 51%) are transit-dependent, i.e. they do not own any vehicles. Of these transit-dependent rider households that do not own any vehicles, 87% have an annual income of less than $35,000.
As expected, transit riders are more likely to be from zero-vehicle households compared to the general population (refer to Table B-3 in Appendix B). Specifically, only 6% of households residing in Maricopa County do not own any vehicles. The remaining 94% households own at least one vehicle, with 37% that own one vehicle, 40% that own two vehicles, and 17% that own three or more vehicles.
Figure 3-3: Distribution of Vehicle Ownership
60%
51% 50%
40%
30% 27%
20% 15%
10% 5% 2% 0% None 1 2 3 4 or more
Table 3-1 presents the cross-tabulation of vehicle ownership by household income. The table indicates that nearly 70% of riders from low-income households (with income less than $20,000) are transit-dependent, i.e., they belong to households that do not own any vehicles. In addition, the table shows an increase in vehicle ownership as the household income of rider increases.
Table 3-1: Cross-Tabulation of Vehicle Ownership by Household Income
Household Income
Less than $10,000- $20,000- $35,000- $50,000- $70,000 or $10,000 $19,999 $34,999 $49,999 $69,999 more None 69% 67% 56% 33% 18% 7%
1 20% 22% 29% 38% 40% 25%
2 7% 8% 12% 22% 28% 35%
3 2% 3% 3% 5% 14% 20% Vehicle Ownership
4 or more 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 13%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
23 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Vehicle Availability
Vehicle availability statistics (Figure 3-4) indicate that only 14% of rider households have a vehicle available to make the one-way trip. The remaining 86% do not have any vehicle available for the same. It should be noted that the vehicle availability varies depending on type of transit service i.e., Local, RAPID, or Express bus service, and has been discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
Figure 3-4: Distribution of Vehicle Availability
Yes, 14%
No, 86%
A cross-tabulation of vehicle ownership with vehicle availability (Table 3-2) indicates that more than half (60%) of riders who did not have a vehicle available to make the one-way trip are transit- dependent, i.e., from zero-vehicle households. The remaining 40% of riders have at least one vehicle available to make the one-way trip, with 24% from one-vehicle households, 11% from two- vehicle households, and 5% with three-or-more vehicle households.
Table 3-2: Cross Tabulation of Vehicle Ownership by Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability
Yes No
None 0% 60%
1 46% 24%
2 32% 11%
3 15% 4%
Vehicle Ownership 4 or more 7% 1%
Total 100% 100%
24 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Employment Status
The survey data reveals that nearly 71% of riders are employed, with 52% working full-time and 19% working part-time (Figure 3-5). Further, 25% of riders are neither employed nor retired, while 4% are retired.
Compared to the general population, transit riders are more likely to be employed and less likely to not be in the labor force. Specifically, 63% of the general population are employed, 3% unemployed, and 34% are not in the labor force (refer to Table B-4 in Appendix B; questions are not directly comparable between 2007 O/D survey and 2007 ACS survey).
Figure 3-5: Distribution of Employment Status
60% 52% 50%
40%
30% 25% 19% 20%
10% 4%
0% Employed Full-time Employed Part-time Not Employed, Not Retired Retired
Student Status
The survey data reveals that about 73% of riders are not students (Figure 3-6). The remaining 27% are students, with 11% enrolled in Kindergarten through high school and 16% studying mostly in universities or colleges. In particular, of the 16% ‘other’ students, 32% study in universities, 22% in community colleges, and 34% in some other college.
Figure 3-6: Distribution of Student Status
80% 73%
60%
40%
20% 16% 11%
0% Kindergarten through Other Type of Student Not a Student High Scho ol
25 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Age
Figure 3-7 provides the distribution of riders by age. The figure indicates that a majority of transit riders are between 25 to 54 years of age (57%). Young riders are the second largest group comprising about one-third of riders. Older riders (i.e., 55 years or age or older) make up about 10% of riders.
Compared to the general population, transit riders are more likely be 18 to 54 years of age. Specifically, individuals aged 18 to 54 years constitute 52% of the general population as compared to 80% of the transit rider population (refer to Table B-5 in Appendix B).
Figure 3-7: Distribution of Age
60% 57%
50%
40%
30% 23%
20%
8% 10% 10% 2% 0% 17 yrs and under 18-24 yrs 25-54 yrs 55-64 yrs 65+ yrs
Valid Driver’s License Status
Figure 3-8 provides the distribution of riders by possession of a valid driver’s license. The figure indicates that nearly 48% of riders have a valid driver’s license.
Figure 3-8: Distribution of Valid Driver’s License Status
Yes, 48%
No, 52%
26 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Travel Characteristics
This section describes the trip-making characteristics of Valley Metro riders including trip origin, trip destination, trip purpose, access and egress mode characteristics, alternate mode of travel if transit service was not available, and source of bus schedule information. It should be noted that the statistics vary depending on type of transit service i.e., Local, RAPID, or Express bus service, and have been discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
Trip Origin
The distribution of riders by trip origin indicates that the most common trip origins are home and work (Table 3-3). In particular, about 47% of riders have trips originating from home, while 25% have trips originating from work. Other trip origins include college/university (6%), K-12 school (5%), social/personal places or church (4%), shopping places (4%), recreation/sightseeing places or restaurants (2%), places for medical appointments or hospital (2%), and airport (less than 1%). About 4% of the trip origins fall in the ‘other’ category. Overall, nearly three-fourth of the transit trips originate at home or work.
Table 3-3: Distribution of Trip Origin
Average Trip Origin Weekday Percent Ridership
Home 90,826 47%
Work 48,916 25%
College/University (Student Only) 11,922 6%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 9,335 5%
Social/Personal Places or Church 7,939 4%
Shopping Places 7,802 4%
Recreation/Sightseeing Places or Restaurants 4,723 2%
Places for Medical Appointment/Hospital 4,547 2%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 40 <1%
Other 7,752 4%
Total 193,803 100%
All percentages greater than 0% and less than 0.5% were categorized as ‘<1%’.
Trip Destination
The distribution of riders by trip destination indicates that the most common trip destinations are home or work (Table 3-4). In particular, about 37% riders have trips ending at home, while 27% have trips ending at work. This is similar to the results obtained for trip origin. Other trip destinations are shopping places (7%), social/personal places or church (6%), college/university (6%), places for medical appointment/hospital (4%), K-12 school (3%), and recreational/sightseeing places or restaurants (3%). Remaining riders have their trips ending at other places.
27 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 3-4: Distribution of Trip Destination
Average Trip Destination Weekday Percent Ridership
Home 71,738 37%
Work 52,936 27%
Shopping Places 13,242 7%
Social/Personal Places or Church 12,376 6%
College/University (Student Only) 12,330 6%
Places for Medical Appointment/Hospital 8,314 4%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 6,708 3%
Recreation/Sightseeing Places or Restaurants 4,904 3%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 272 <1%
Other 10,982 6%
Total 193,803 100%
All percentages greater than 0% and less than 0.5% were categorized as ‘<1%’.
Trip Purpose
Trip purpose is an important trip-making characteristic. One way of defining trip purpose is based on the origin and destination of trips. In particular, trips defined by origin and destination can be classified into (1) Home-based Work trips (2) Home-based University trips, (3) Home-based Non-Work trips, (4) Non Home-based Work trips, and (5) Non Home-based Other trips. Table 3-5 presents the distribution of riders by trip purpose.
The table indicates that 44% of riders make home-based work trips, while 40% make home-based non-work trips. This finding indicates that a significant proportion of transit trips are for non- commuting purposes. About 16% of riders make non home-based trips, with 7% non home-based work trips, and 9% non home-based other trips.
28 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 3-5: Distribution of Trip Purpose5
Trip Purpose Average Weekday Percent Ridership
Home to Work 46,014 24% Home-based Work Trips Work to Home 39,111 20%
Home to University 7,213 4% Home-based University Trips University to Home 6,354 3%
Home to Other 37,599 19% Home-based Other Trips Other to Home 26,274 14%
Work to Work 2,811 1%
Non Home-based Work Trips Work to Other 6,995 4%
Other to Work 4,111 2%
Non Home-based Other Trips Other to Other 17,323 9%
Total 193,803 100%
Time of Day
The distribution of riders by time of day indicates that close to half of the riders make their trip during Mid-day, while about one-third make their trip during the AM Peak period (Figure 3-9). Remaining riders make their trip during the PM Peak period (16%) and Evening (8%).
Figure 3-9: Distribution by Time of Day
50% 46%
40%
31% 30%
20% 16%
10% 8%
0% AM Peak Mid day PM Peak Evening
A distribution of trip purpose by time of day indicates that more than three-fourths of riders make home-to-work and home-to-other trips in the AM Peak period (Table 3-6). It is reasonable to expect
5 Since home-based medical trips make up only 5% of all trip purposes, a separate category for home-based medical trips was not included in the table.
29 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey that the riders who commute from home to work or home to ‘other destination’ in the AM peak period are more likely to reverse commute during the PM Peak period. This is indicated by the distribution of riders in the PM Peak period. In particular, nearly three-fourths of riders reverse commute, i.e., make work-to-home and other-to-home, in the PM Peak period. Similar to riders in the PM Peak period, close to three-fourths of Evening riders make work-to-home and other-to-home trips.
Table 3-6: Distribution of Trip Purpose by Time of Day
Time of Day Trip Purpose AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening Total
Home-based Work Home to Work 53% 15% 3% 4% 24% Trips Work to Home 6% 15% 51% 46% 20%
Home-based Home to University 7% 3% 1% 0% 4% University Trips University to Home 0% 5% 3% 6% 3%
Home-based Other Home to Other 24% 21% 10% 9% 19% Trips Other to Home 3% 16% 21% 24% 14%
Work to Work 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% Non Home-based Work Trips Work to Other 1% 5% 4% 1% 4% Other to Work 1% 3% 1% 0% 2%
Non Home-based Other to Other 3% 14% 5% 9% 9% Other Trips
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Access and Egress Mode
Figure 3-10 and 3-11 present the access mode and egress mode characteristics respectively. Statistics indicate that walk is the most dominant mode of access and egress. About 85% of riders walk to access transit. Of the riders that walk to transit, about 75% walk a maximum of two user- defined blocks, while only 1% walk more than 10 user-defined blocks to access transit. Similarly, about 90% of riders walk to their final destination after they egress transit. Of these riders that walk egress from transit, 74% walk a maximum of two user-defined blocks, while less than 1% walk more than 10 user-defined blocks to reach their final destination. In addition to walk, the commonly used access and egress modes include bicycle and riding as a passenger (i.e., getting dropped off/picked up). Overall, walk is the dominant mode of access and egress irrespective of the time period (Table 3-7 and 3-8). It should be noted that this varies based on type of transit with walk to transit being the dominant mode for local bus and drive to transit being the dominant mode for express bus.
30 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure 3-10: Distribution by Access Mode Figure 3-11: Distribution by Egress Mode
Carpool, Carpool, Bicycle, Bicycle, 4% Picked Up, 2% 2% 3% Dropped 4% Off, 6% Drive Alone, 1%
Drove Alone, 3%
Walk, 85% Walk, 90%
Table 3-7: Distribution of Access Mode by Time of Day
Time of Day Access Mode AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening Total Bicycle 3% 4% 3% 6% 4% Carpool 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% Walk 80% 86% 89% 88% 85% Dropped off 8% 5% 4% 3% 6% Drove alone 7% 2% 1% 0% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 3-8: Distribution of Egress Mode by Time of day
Time of Day Egress Mode AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening Total Bicycle 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% Carpool 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% Walk 94% 90% 85% 91% 90% Picked up 2% 4% 5% 3% 4% Drove alone 0% 1% 5% 1% 1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
As expected, the vast majority of the riders (80%) walk to access and egress transit (Table 3-9). Other common combinations of access and egress modes used by riders are accessing the bus stop by being dropped off with walk egress (4%), drive and park to access the bus stop with walk egress (3%), and bicycle access and egress (3%).
31 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 3-9: Cross-Tabulation of Access by Egress Mode
Egress Mode
Drive and Ride With Walk Picked Up Bicycle Total Park Others
Walk 80% 1% 2% 1% <1% 85%
Drive and Park 3% <1% <1% <1% <1% 3%
Dropped Off 4% <1% 1% <1% <1% 6%
Ride With Others 2% <1% <1% 1% <1% 2% Access Mode Bicycle 1% <1% <1% <1% 3% 4%
Total 90% 1% 4% 2% 3% 100%
All percentages greater than 0% and less than 0.5% were categorized as ‘<1%’; All percentages in the range of 0.5 – 1% were categorized as 1%.
Number of Transfers
The survey results (Table 3-10) show that about 63% of riders make at least one transfer to complete their one-way trip, with 44% that make one transfer, 14% that make two transfers, and 5% that make three or more transfers. More than a third of riders (about 37%) do not make any transfers to complete their one-way trip.
Table 3-10: Distribution of Number of Transfers
Average Number of Transfers Weekday Percent
Ridership
Zero 71,674 37%
One 86,145 44%
Two 26,704 14%
Three or More 9,280 5%
Total 193,803 100%
Alternate Mode of Travel
The survey results (Figure 3-12) show that in the absence of transit service to make the one-way trip, 26% of riders report that they will drive with someone else, while 8% of riders will drive themselves to make this trip. Interestingly, 30% of riders report that they will not make the trip. This is clear evidence that transit serves the important role of providing mobility in the region. Of these riders that would not make the trip, more than two-thirds of riders do not own vehicles and, hence, are completely dependent on transit to meet their mobility needs. The figure further shows that 25% of riders report that they will use non-motorized modes of transportation (i.e., walk, bicycle) to complete the trip. Finally, 9% of riders report that they will use a taxi, while the remaining 2% will use another mode to complete the trip.
32 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure 3-12: Distribution of Alternate Mode of Travel
40%
30% 30% 26% 25%
20%
9% 10% 8% 2%
0% Not make this Drive with Drive myself Walk/Bicycle Taxi Other trip someone else
Source of Bus Schedule Information
The survey results indicate that the primary source of bus schedule information is the Bus Book, which is used by 65% of riders (Figure 3-13). About 17% of riders use the Valley Metro website, while 13% use the customer service phone line. The remaining 5% use bus schedule information posted at the bus stop or use other sources for this.
Figure 3-13: Distribution of Source of Bus Schedule Information
70% 65% 60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 13% 17% 10% 3% 2% 0% Bus Book Customer Valley Metro Posted Schedule Other Service Phone Website at Bus Stop Number
Summary
This chapter presents the demographic and travel behavior characteristics of Valley Metro riders. Below are some important findings about these riders:
The demographics indicate that riders are more likely to be from low-income households; 71% of riders have an annual household income less than $35,000. About half of all riders are transit- dependent, i.e., they are from households that do not own any vehicles. Of these transit- dependent riders, 87% are from households with an annual income less than $35,000. Further, more than two-thirds of riders are employed, with nearly half employed full-time. In addition, the majority
33 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey of riders are between 25 years and 54 years of age, while younger riders comprise the second largest group. It should be noted that the demographic characteristics of riders vary depending on type of transit service i.e., Local, RAPID, or Express bus service. Compared to the general population residing in Maricopa County, transit riders are more likely to be from larger, low-income, and zero-vehicle households. In addition, transit riders are more likely to be employed. Further, they are more likely to be 18 to 54 years of age, as compared to the general population. The travel behavior characteristics of riders indicate that home and work are the most common trip origins and destinations; 44% of riders make home-based work trips using transit, while 40% make home-based non-work trips. Walk is the dominant access and egress mode for all riders. In particular, more than three-fourths of riders walk to access and egress transit, irrespective of the time period. Also, nearly two-third of riders make at least one transfer to complete their one-way trip. Furthermore, in the absence of transit service to make the one-way trip, close to one-third of riders report that they will not make the trip. Finally, the primary source of bus schedule information is the Bus Book, used by two-thirds of riders.
34 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
4. Survey Data Analysis by Service Type
This chapter provides a comparative analysis of demographics and travel behavior characteristics of Local, Express, and RAPID bus riders of Valley Metro. Appendix D presents the distribution of weighted boardings by route and service type and concludes with a summary of key findings. The survey data used for analysis were appropriately weighted and expanded to be representative of all the unlinked trips, i.e., individual boardings.
Overall, of the 193,803 Valley Metro riders (i.e., individual boardings), 96.9% are Local bus riders, 1.2% are Express bus riders, while 1.8% are RAPID bus riders. Considering the vast majority of the Local bus riders, it is reasonable to expect that the general population reflects the characteristics of Local bus riders. Hence, this chapter compares the demographics and travel characteristics of Express and RAPID bus riders to Local bus riders.
Demographics
This section compares the demographics of Valley Metro riders across the three service types. The demographics include household size, household income, vehicle ownership, vehicle availability, employment status, student status, age, and valid driver’s license status.
Household Size
The household size results indicate that Express and RAPID bus riders are more likely to be from two- person households (Table 4-1). Local bus riders, on the other hand, are more likely to be from two- or-more person households.
Table 4-1: Distribution of Household Size by Service Type
Local Express RAPID Total
Household Size Average Average Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
One 31,909 18% 403 17% 569 16% 32,882 18%
Two 46,272 26% 897 38% 1,325 37% 48,494 26%
Three 35,459 20% 377 16% 715 20% 36,550 20%
Four 31,159 17% 476 20% 601 17% 32,235 17%
Five or More 36,354 20% 239 10% 333 9% 36,925 20%
Total 181,152 100% 2,391 100% 3,542 100% 187,086 100%
Household Income
Table 4-2 presents the distribution of household income by transit service types. The table indicates that Express and RAPID bus riders are more likely to be from households with an annual income of $50,000 or higher, particularly from high-income households ($70,000 or more). In comparison, Local bus riders are more likely to be from households with an annual income less than $35,000.
35 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 4-2: Distribution of Household Income by Service Type
Local Express RAPID Total
Household Average Average Average Average Income Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Less than $10,000 47,910 28% 32 1% 17 1% 47,959 27%
$10,000–$19,999 34,222 20% 21 1% 25 1% 34,268 19%
$20,000–$34,999 42,247 25% 266 12% 416 12% 42,928 24%
$35,000–$49,999 25,338 15% 429 19% 483 14% 26,250 15%
$50,000–$69,999 10,359 6% 501 22% 921 28% 11,781 7%
$70,000 or More 10,485 6% 1,021 45% 1,479 44% 12,986 7%
Total 170,560 100% 2,271 100% 3,341 100% 176,172 100%
Vehicle Ownership
Table 4-3 provides the distribution of vehicle ownership by transit service types. The table indicates that Local bus riders are more likely to be transit dependent, with more than half of riders from zero- vehicle households, as compared to Express and RAPID bus riders. Furthermore, amongst the transit service types, RAPID bus riders are more likely to own two-or-more vehicles.
Table 4-3: Distribution of Vehicle Ownership by Service Type
Local Express RAPID Total
Vehicle Average Average Average Average Ownership Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
None 96,524 53% 148 6% 90 3% 96,762 51%
One 48,806 27% 787 33% 1,085 30% 50,678 27%
Two 24,858 14% 884 37% 1,621 45% 27,364 15%
Three 8,618 5% 477 20% 652 18% 9,746 5%
Four or More 3,820 2% 99 4% 117 3% 4,036 2%
Total 182,625 100% 2,395 100% 3,565 100% 188,585 100%
Vehicle Availability
The vehicle availability statistics indicate that Express and RAPID bus riders are more likely to have a vehicle available to make their one-way trip (Table 4-4). This is expected as these riders are more likely to own at least one vehicle, as compared to Local bus riders.
36 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 4-4: Distribution of Vehicle Availability by Service Type
Local Express RAPID Total
Vehicle Average Average Average Average Availability Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Yes 21,602 12% 1,732 77% 3,005 87% 26,339 14%
No 156,436 88% 529 23% 432 13% 157,398 86%
Total 178,038 100% 2,261 100% 3,437 100% 183,736 100%
Employment Status
The employment status distribution of Local bus riders is significantly different from Express or RAPID bus riders (Table 4-5). In particular, Express and RAPID bus riders are significantly more likely to be employed full-time as compared to Local bus riders. Local bus riders, on the other hand, are more likely to be employed part-time or to not be in the labor force (i.e., not employed or retired).
Table 4-5: Distribution of Employment Status by Service Type
Local Express RAPID Total
Employment Status Average Average Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Employed Full-time 88,365 50% 2,335 97% 3,474 98% 94,174 52%
Employed Part-time 33,914 19% 28 1% 48 1% 33,990 19%
Not Employed, Not 46,247 26% 18 1% 10 0% 46,275 26% Retired
Retired 6,745 4% 14 1% 3 0% 6,762 4%
Total 175,271 100% 2,395 100% 3,535 100% 181,201 100%
Student Status
Local bus riders are more likely to be students than Express and RAPID bus riders (Table 4-6). A closer examination of “other type of student” category indicates that RAPID bus riders are more likely to be studying in universities as compared to Local or Express bus riders.
Table 4-6: Distribution of Student Status by Service Type
Local Express RAPID Total
Student Status Average Average Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Kindergarten - High 20,383 12% 7 0% 10 0% 20,400 11% School
Other type of student 28,781 16% 113 5% 140 4% 29,034 16%
Not a student 126,583 72% 2,241 95% 3,360 96% 132,184 73%
Total 175,747 100% 2,360 100% 3,510 100% 181,617 100%
37 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Age
Table 4-7 provides the distribution of age by service types. The table indicates that Local bus riders are more likely to be less than 25 years of age, as compared to Express and RAPID bus riders. Furthermore, compared to Local bus riders, RAPID and Express bus riders are more likely to be between 25 to 64 years of age; however, RAPID bus riders are more likely to be 25 to 54 years of age, while Express bus riders are more likely to be older, i.e., 55 to 64 years of age.
Table 4-7: Distribution of Age by Service Type
Local Express RAPID Total
Age Average Average Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
17 years and under 18,936 10% 14 1% 7 0% 18,958 10%
18–24 years 43,111 24% 66 3% 104 3% 43,281 23%
25–54 years 103,212 57% 1,620 68% 2,651 74% 107,483 57%
55–64 years 13,106 7% 642 27% 696 20% 14,444 8%
65+ years 3,197 2% 40 2% 106 3% 3,343 2%
Total 181,563 100% 2,381 100% 3,564 100% 187,509 100%
Valid Driver’s License Status
Express and RAPID bus riders are more likely to have a valid driver’s license, as compared to Local bus riders (Table 4-8). This is supported by the vehicle ownership statistics, which indicate that Express and RAPID bus rider are more likely than Local bus riders to own at least one vehicle.
Table 4-8: Distribution of Valid Driver’s License Status by Service Type
Local Express RAPID Total
Valid Driver’s Average Average Average Average License Status Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Yes 84,443 47% 2,255 94% 3,404 95% 90,102 48%
No 96,975 53% 134 6% 161 5% 97,270 52%
Total 181,418 100% 2,389 100% 3,565 100% 187,372 100%
Travel Characteristics
This section compares the demographics of Valley Metro riders across the three service types. The travel characteristics include time of day, trip purpose, access mode, egress mode, alternate mode of travel if transit service was not available, and source of bus schedule information.
Time of Day
The distribution of time of day by service type indicates that more than three-fourths of Local bus riders make their trips during the AM Peak period and Mid-day (Table 4-9). The table further indicates that Express and RAPID riders make more than half of their trips during the AM Peak period.
38 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 4-9: Distribution of Time of Day by Service Type
Local Express RAPID Total
Time of Day Average Average Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
AM Peak 55,752 30% 1,442 60% 1,971 55% 59,165 31%
Mid-day 89,400 48% 0 0% 0 0% 89,400 46%
PM Peak 28,087 15% 953 40% 1,594 45% 30,634 16%
Evening 14,604 8% 0 0% 0 0% 14,604 8%
Total 187,843 100% 2,395 100% 3,565 100% 193,803 100%
Trip Purpose
AM Peak Period
Table 4-10 presents the distribution of riders that make trips during the AM Peak period by trip purpose and service types. The table indicates that Express and RAPID bus riders primarily use transit for commuting to work from home in the AM Peak period (with 93% of Express bus riders and 87% of RAPID bus riders making these trips). In comparison, Local bus riders commonly use transit to also commute from home to destinations other than work. Specifically, half of the Local bus riders make home-to-work trips, while one-fourth make home-to-other trips in the AM Peak period. Furthermore, all the home-based university and non-home-based other trips in the AM Peak period are made by Local bus riders.
Table 4-10: Distribution of Trip Purpose by Service Type – AM Peak Period
Local Express RAPID Total
Trip Purpose Average Average Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Home-based Home to Work 28,205 51% 1,343 93% 1,721 87% 31,270 53% Work Trips Work to Home 3,007 5% 60 4% 225 11% 3,291 6%
Home-based Home to University 3,976 7% 0 0% 0 0% 3,976 7% University Trips University to Home 116 0% 0 0% 0 0% 116 0%
Home-based Home to Other 14,193 25% 32 2% 14 1% 14,239 24% Other Trips Other to Home 2,034 4% 2 0% 2 0% 2,037 3%
Work to Work 773 1% 2 0% 0 0% 775 1% Non Home- based Work Work to Other 727 1% 1 0% 6 0% 734 1% Trips Other to Work 752 1% 2 0% 3 0% 758 1%
Non Home- based Other Other to Other 1,969 4% 0 0% 0 0% 1,969 3% Trips
Total 55,752 100% 1,442 100% 1,971 100% 59,165 100%
39 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
PM Peak Period
Table 4-11 presents the distribution of riders that make their trip in the PM Peak period by trip purpose and service types. The table indicates that Express and RAPID bus riders primarily use transit to commute from work to home in the PM peak period (with more than 90% of Express and RAPID bus riders making these trips). In comparison, Local bus riders commonly use transit to also commute from other non-work places to home. Specifically, nearly half of the Local bus riders make work-to- home trips, while close to one-fourth make other-to-home trips in the PM Peak period.
Table 4-11: Distribution of Trip Purpose by Service Type – PM Peak Period
Local Express RAPID Total
Trip Purpose Average Average Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Home-based Home to Work 714 3% 41 4% 63 4% 818 3% Work Trips Work to Home 13,365 48% 879 92% 1,452 91% 15,696 51%
Home-based Home to University 267 1% 0 0% 0 0% 267 1% University Trips University to Home 865 3% 0 0% 11 1% 876 3%
Home-based Home to Other 3,135 11% 0 0% 2 0% 3,138 10% Other Trips Other to Home 6,455 23% 25 3% 3 0% 6,483 21%
Work to Work 130 0% 0 0% 0 0% 130 0% Non Home- based Work Work to Other 1,303 5% 8 1% 63 4% 1,374 4% Trips Other to Work 241 1% 0 0% 0 0% 241 1%
Non Home- based Other Other to Other 1,614 6% 0 0% 0 0% 1,614 5% Trips
Total 28,087 100% 953 100% 1,594 100% 30,634 100%
Other Time Periods
Table 4-12 presents the distribution of Local bus riders that make their trip during the Mid-day and Evening time periods. The table indicates that the most common trips made by Local bus riders during Mid-day are home-based other trips (37%), including home-to-other (21%) and other-to-home (16%) trips, while the most common trips made by Local bus riders during Evening are work-to-home (46%) and other-to-home (24%) trips.
40 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 4-12: Distribution of Trip Purpose by Service Type
Mid-day Evening
Trip Purpose Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Home to Work 13,272 15% 655 4% Home-based Work Trips Work to Home 13,394 15% 6,730 46%
Home to University 2,909 3% 61 0% Home-based University Trips University to Home 4,467 5% 894 6%
Home to Other 18,929 21% 1,293 9% Home-based Other Trips Other to Home 14,289 16% 3,466 24%
Work to Work 1,897 2% 9 0%
Non Home-based Work Trips Work to Other 4,721 5% 167 1%
Other to Work 3,108 3% 5 0%
Non Home-based Other Trips Other to Other 12,416 14% 1,325 9%
Total 89,400 100% 14,604 100%
Access and Egress Mode
AM Peak
Walk is the dominant mode of access for Local bus riders in the AM Peak period with 84% of Local bus riders walking to access the bus stop (Table 4-13). Contrary to Local bus riders, Express and RAPID bus riders are more likely to drive, i.e., ‘drive alone,’ to access the bus stop in the AM Peak period. In particular, nearly half of the Express bus riders and close to three-fourths of the RAPID bus riders drive to access transit. Furthermore, Express and RAPID bus riders are more likely to be dropped off to access the bus stop than Local bus riders. This is expected as Express and RAPID bus riders are more likely to own vehicles or have vehicles available to make the one-way trip.
Table 4-13: Distribution of Access Mode by Service Type – AM Peak Period
Local Express RAPID Total
Access Mode Average Average Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Walk 46,760 84% 359 25% 295 15% 47,414 80%
Bicycle 1,655 3% 28 2% 12 1% 1,696 3%
Carpool 1,588 3% 42 3% 45 2% 1,674 3%
Dropped off 3,948 7% 323 22% 224 11% 4,495 8%
Drove Alone 1,801 3% 690 48% 1,395 71% 3,886 7%
Total 55,752 100% 1,442 100% 1,971 100% 59,165 100%
41 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Walk is the dominant mode of egress for all riders, irrespective of their service type, in the AM Peak period (Table 4-14). Considering that the vast majority of the riders ‘walk,’ ‘drive alone,’ or ‘get dropped off’’ to access the bus, it is reasonable to expect that most of these riders walk to egress the bus stop.
Table 4-14: Distribution of Egress Mode by Service Type – AM Peak Period
Local Express RAPID Total
Egress Mode Average Average Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Walk 52,289 94% 1,349 94% 1,769 90% 55,407 94%
Bicycle 1,281 2% 29 2% 12 1% 1,322 2%
Carpool 695 1% 13 1% 15 1% 723 1%
Picked up 1,419 3% 21 1% 32 2% 1,473 2%
Drove Alone 68 0% 30 2% 143 7% 240 0%
Total 55,752 100% 1,442 100% 1,971 100% 59,165 100%
PM Peak
Walk is the dominant mode of access for all riders, irrespective of their service type, in the PM Peak period as well (Table 4-15). The table further indicates that Express and RAPID bus riders are more likely to drive to access transit as compared to Local riders.
Table 4-15: Distribution of Access Mode by Service Type – PM Peak Period
Local Express RAPID Total
Access Mode Average Average Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Walk 25,028 89% 836 88% 1,377 86% 27,241 89%
Bicycle 970 3% 19 2% 9 1% 998 3%
Carpool 822 3% 24 2% 23 1% 869 3%
Dropped off 1,182 4% 49 5% 68 4% 1,300 4%
Drove Alone 84 0% 26 3% 118 7% 228 1%
Total 28,087 100% 953 100% 1,594 100% 30,634 100%
Similar to access mode statistics, walk is the dominant mode of egress of Local bus riders from bus stops to reach their final destination (Table 4-16). Compared to Local bus riders, Express bus riders are more likely to drive to reach their final destination. This is more pronounced for RAPID bus riders. This is expected because the vast majority of Express and RAPID bus riders that drove and parked to access the bus stop in the AM Peak period are likely to be riders who drive to egress in the PM Peak period.
42 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 4-16: Distribution of Egress Mode by Service Type – PM Peak Period
Local Express RAPID Total
Egress Mode Average Average Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Walk 25,149 90% 457 48% 381 24% 25,987 85%
Bicycle 940 3% 24 3% 0 0% 964 3%
Carpool 588 2% 20 2% 103 6% 711 2%
Picked up 1,210 4% 129 14% 159 10% 1,498 5%
Drove Alone 201 1% 322 34% 952 60% 1,474 5%
Total 28,087 100% 953 100% 1,594 100% 30,634 100%
Other Time Periods
Tables 4-17 and 4-18 present the distribution of the Local bus riders by access and egress modes for Mid-day and Evening time periods respectively. The table indicates that walk is the most commonly used mode of access and egress in both time periods for Local bus riders. Overall, the access/egress mode characteristics of Local bus riders that ride during the Mid-day are similar to the Evening riders. This is evident from the similarity in the distribution of Local bus riders by access/egress modes who make their trip during Mid-day and Evening.
Table 4-17: Distribution of Access Mode – Mid-day and Evening Period
Mid-day Evening
Access Mode Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Walk 77,165 86% 12,894 88%
Bicycle 3,844 4% 864 6%
Carpool 1,785 2% 411 3%
Dropped off 4,646 5% 420 3%
Drove Alone 1,959 2% 15 0%
Total 89,400 100% 14,604 100%
43 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 4-18: Distribution of Egress Mode – Mid-day and Evening Period
Mid-day Evening
Egress Mode Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Walk 80,584 90% 13,225 91%
Bicycle 3,270 4% 510 3%
Carpool 1,283 1% 229 2%
Picked up 3,678 4% 429 3%
Drove Alone 586 1% 210 1%
Total 89,400 100% 14,604 100%
Alternate Mode of Travel
In the absence of transit service to make the one-way trip, Local bus riders are more likely to not make the trip, walk/bicycle, or drive with someone else to make the trip (Table 4-19). Express and RAPID bus riders, on the other hand, are more likely to drive to make their trip. This is expected considering the fact that the vast majority of the Express and RAPID bus riders have a vehicle available to make their trip.
Table 4-19: Distribution of Alternate Modes of Travel by Service Type
Local Express RAPID Total
Alternate Mode of Average Average Average Average Travel Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Not make this trip 54,023 31% 82 4% 71 2% 54,176 30%
Drive with someone else 44,698 26% 392 18% 578 18% 45,668 26%
Taxi 15,169 9% 31 1% 5 0% 15,205 9%
Walk/Bicycle 44,576 26% 14 1% 14 0% 44,604 25%
Drive myself 10,377 6% 1,545 71% 2,588 79% 14,510 8%
Other 3,739 2% 103 5% 36 1% 3,878 2%
Total 172,581 100% 2,167 100% 3,291 100% 178,040 100%
Source of Bus Schedule Information
Local bus riders are more likely to use the Bus Book as their source of bus schedule information (Table 4-20). Express and RAPID bus riders, on the other hand, are more likely to use the Valley Metro website. In particular, more than half of the Express bus riders use the website, while nearly three- fourths of RAPID bus riders use the website as a source of bus schedule information.
44 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 4-20: Distribution of Source of Bus Schedule Information by Service Type
Local Express RAPID Total
Bus Schedule Information Average Average Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Bus Book 117,296 66% 1,011 42% 607 17% 118,913 65%
Customer Service Phone Number 23,862 13% 82 3% 77 2% 24,021 13%
Valley Metro Website 26,881 15% 1,257 53% 2,635 74% 30,773 17%
Posted Schedule at Bus Stop 6,087 3% 22 1% 169 5% 6,278 3%
Other 3,995 2% 22 1% 71 2% 4,087 2%
Total 178,121 100% 2,392 100% 3,559 100% 184,072 100%
Summary
Overall, it appears that Local bus riders are more transit-dependent than Express and RAPID bus riders. This is reflected by their socio-demographic characteristics. Specifically, Local bus riders are more likely to be from low-income (less than $35,000), zero-vehicle households, and who will not make the trip or walk/bicycle to make the trip in the absence of transit. Their employment status indicates that they are more likely to not be in the labor force (i.e., not employed or retired); additionally, Local bus riders are more likely to be students. The other difference is that while Express and RAPID bus riders primarily make use of transit to commute to and from work, Local bus riders also use transit for commuting to and from places other than work. Furthermore, Local bus riders are more likely to walk to access or egress from bus stops; Express and RAPID bus riders, on the other hand, are more likely to drive to access in the AM Peak period and walk from egress in the PM peak period. Finally, the other notable difference is that Express and RAPID bus riders rely on the Valley Metro website more than the Bus Book for bus schedule information, as compared to Local bus riders.
45 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
5. Comparative Data Analysis
This section of the report presents a comparative analysis of the data collected in the 2007 survey with data collected in the on-board study conducted during the first quarter of 2001 by LKC Consulting Services, Inc. and WestGroup Research. The survey identified travel patterns, demographics, and opinions on the transit services provided.
In 2001, a selection of trips was chosen from the population of all bus trips to meet confidence, accuracy, and distribution requirements as defined in the 2001 sampling plan. In all, 1,025 bus trips were surveyed (853 Weekday, 90 Saturday, and 82 Sunday). However, only weekday routes were surveyed in 2007, therefore the 2001 data were re-run to reflect only weekday trips to allow for the comparative analysis presented below. In addition, the frequencies presented reflect weighted “unlinked” trips.
Demographics
This section compares the demographic characteristics of the Valley Metro riders in 2001 and 2007, including household size, household income, vehicle ownership, employment status, and age. In addition, the section compares the demographic shifts in the general population from 2001 to 2007. Due to the unavailability of 2007 census data on the general population for the transit service area, the analysis was limited to Maricopa County. In particular, 2007 ACS data and 2000 Census data was used to analyze the demographic shifts in the general population.
Household Size
Trend data regarding household size shows that the percentage of one-person households among Valley Metro riders have stayed almost the same since 2001 (Table 5-1); however, there was a shift among multiple-resident rider households. Two- to three-person households increased from 42% to 45%, while the percentage of households including four or more people decreased from 40% to 37%. In comparison, there has not been any significant change in the household size of the general population since 2000.
Table 5-1: Comparison of Household Size
2001 Survey 2007 Survey 2000 Census 2007 ACS
Household Size Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Count Percent Count Percent Ridership Ridership
One 22,073 18% 32,882 18% 277,967 25% 355,247 27%
Two or Three 51,919 42% 85,044 45% 557,617 49% 642,843 48%
Four or More 48,254 40% 69,160 37% 297,302 26% 340,464 25%
Total 122,246 100% 187,086 100% 1,132,886 100% 1,338,554 100%
Household Income
Since the response categories used for income in 2007 were slightly different than those used in 2001, a direct comparison is not possible (Table 5-2 and 5-3). However, it appears that the distribution is fairly comparable, but may skew slightly lower in 2007 (46% under $20K vs. 45% $20K
46 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey and under in 2001). In comparison, there has been an increase in households residing in the Maricopa County with an annual income of $60,000 or higher (Table 5-4).
Table 5-2: Distribution of Household Income – 2001 O/D Survey
2001 Survey
Household Income Average Weekday Percent Ridership
Less than $10,000 21,125 20%
$10,000–$15,000 13,776 13%
$15,000–$20,000 13,091 12%
$20,000–$30,000 18,583 17%
$30,000–$40,000 13,153 12%
$40,000–$60,000 15,960 15%
$60,000 or More 12,079 11%
Total 107,767 100%
Table 5-3: Distribution of Household Income – 2007 O/D Survey
2007 Survey
Household Income Average Weekday Percent Ridership
Less than $10,000 47,959 27%
$10,000–$19,999 34,268 19%
$20,000–$34,999 42,928 24%
$35,000–$49,999 26,250 15%
$50,000 or more 24,767 14%
Total 176,172 100%
Table 5-4: Distribution of Household Income – 2007 Census and 2007 ACS
2000 Census 2007 ACS Household Income Count Percent Count Percent
Less than $10,000 77,072 7% 77,704 6%
$10,000–$15,000 59,431 5% 59,028 4%
$15,000–$20,000 65,917 6% 64,395 5%
$20,000–$30,000 146,441 13% 135,077 10%
$30,000–$40,000 146,280 13% 142,934 11%
$40,000–$60,000 235,334 21% 252,420 19%
$60,000 or More 402,573 36% 606,996 45%
47 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
2000 Census 2007 ACS Household Income Count Percent Count Percent
Total 1,133,048 100% 1,338,554 100%
Vehicle Ownership
Vehicle ownership of transit riders has declined since 2001 (Table 5-5). Almost one-half of Valley Metro riders (49%) own at least one vehicle in their household in 2007, compared to 58% who reported owning at least one vehicle in 2001. In comparison, there has not been any significant change in vehicle ownership of the general population since 2000.
Table 5-5: Comparison of Household Vehicle Ownership
2001 Survey1 2007 Survey 2000 Census 2007 ACS
Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Count Percent Count Percent Ridership Ridership
None 51,967 42% 96,762 51% 78,758 7% 83,609 6%
One 39,186 32% 50,678 27% 438,513 39% 491,326 37%
Two 21,928 18% 27,364 15% 454,034 40% 532,299 40%
Three 7,551 6% 9,746 5% 122,162 11% 164,986 12%
Four or More 2,941 2% 4,036 2% 39,419 3% 66,334 5%
Total 123,573 100% 188,585 100% 1,132,886 100% 1,338,554 100%
12001 Survey used “Running Vehicles Available to Household”
Employment Status
Full-time employment among riders declined from 55% in 2001 to 52% in 2007 (Table 5-6). As full-time employment drops, however, there was a significant increase in part-time employment, rising by eight percentage points. A comparison of the non-employed population is not possible because of differences in classifications used in the two questionnaires. In comparison, there has not been any significant change in the employment status of the general population since 2000.
48 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 5-6: Comparison of Employment Status
2001 Survey 2007 Survey 2000 Census 2007 ACS
Employment Average Average Status Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Count Percent Count Percent Ridership Ridership
Employed Full-Time 66,526 55% 94,174 52% (35+ Hours/Week) 1,504,252 65% 1,914,770 66% Employed Part-Time 13,967 11% 33,990 19% (<35 Hour/Week)
Not Currently Employed and Not 6,173 5% 46,275 26% Retired 823,423 35% 975,372 34%
Other 35,000 29% 6,762 4%
Total 121,666 100% 181,201 100% 2,327,675 100% 2,890,142 100%
2000 and 2007 Census data has been aggregated to compare it to the survey data.
Age
The age distribution of Valley riders in 2007 was similar to 2001 (Table 5-7). The primary transit user was between 25 and 54 years old (57%). Younger riders were the second largest group to ride the bus (33% of those of age 24 or younger). Older residents were least likely to ride the bus (10% of those 55+). The table further indicates that there has been no shift in the age distribution of the general population since 2000.
Table 5-7: Comparison of Age
2001 Survey 2007 Survey 2000 Census 2007 ACS
Age Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Count Percent Count Percent Ridership Ridership
Under 25 Years 41,504 35% 62,238 33% 1,141,368 37% 1,388,650 36%
25–54 Years 67,271 56% 107,483 57% 1,330,700 43% 1,637,767 43%
55–64 Years 7,384 6% 14,444 8% 241,102 8% 380,991 10%
65+ Years 3,097 3% 3,343 2% 358,979 12% 427,973 11%
Total 119,256 100% 187,509 100% 3,072,149 100% 3,835,381 100%
Travel Characteristics
This section compares the travel characteristics of the Valley Metro riders in 2001 and 2007, including trip origin, trip destination, number of buses used, alternate mode of travel, and source of bus schedule information.
Trip Origin
As in 2001, the most common trip origin continues to be home; however, there was a shift from 2001 to 2007 (Table 5-8). Fewer Valley riders reported to start their bus trip from their home, and increasingly more reported their bus trips originated from other locations, particularly from work, but
49 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey also from recreational sites, school, and from shopping. The percentages in 2007 more closely reflect the percentages reported in Origin and Destination studies conducted prior to 2001.6
Table 5-8: Comparison of Trip Origin
2001 Survey 1 2007 Survey
Trip Origin Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Home 95,948 69% 90,826 47%
Work 20,412 15% 48,916 25%
Recreation/Sightseeing/ Restaurant/ 3,613 3% 12,662 7% Social /Personal places/Church
College/University (Student Only) 4,441 3% 11,922 6%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 5,982 4% 9,335 5%
Shopping Places 2,557 2% 7,802 4%
Places for Medical Appointment/Hospital 1,241 1% 4,547 2%
Other 5,709 4% 7,793 4%
Total 139,903 100% 193,803 100%
1For 2001 Survey Data, “School (K-12)” was defined as “Middle/High School”
Trip Destination
In 2007, Valley riders were more likely to report using transit to get home than in 2001, but they also were less likely to report work as a final destination (Table 5-9). Once again, data from 2007 more closely mirrors data reported in Origin and Destination studies conducted prior to 2001.7
Table 5-9: Comparison of Trip Destination
2001 Survey 1 2007 Survey
Trip Destination Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Home 34,736 25% 71,738 37%
Work 55,987 40% 52,936 27%
Recreation/Sightseeing/ Restaurant/ 10,524 8% 17,280 9% Social /Personal places/Church
Shopping Places 6,221 4% 13,242 7%
College/University (Student Only) 8,472 6% 12,330 6%
Other 8,988 6% 11,254 6%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 11,361 8% 6,708 3%
6 Refer to “2001 On Board Origin and Destination Survey Report, Valley Metro, July 2001.” 7 Refer to “2001 On Board Origin and Destination Survey Report, Valley Metro, July 2001.”
50 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
2001 Survey 1 2007 Survey
Trip Destination Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Places for Medical 3,613 3% 8,314 4% Appointment/Hospital
Total 139,902 100% 193,803 100%
1For 2001 Survey Data, “School (K-12)” was defined as “Middle/High School”
Access and Egress Mode
The 2001 survey collected information on access and egress mode to the ‘surveyed’ bus. On the other hand, the 2007 O/D survey collected information on access and egress mode to the ‘first’ and the ‘last’ bus used to make the trip respectively. Due to the difference in type of information collected, these variables cannot be compared across the two surveys.
Number of Buses Used
Valley riders appear to be taking more buses to complete their trip (Table 5-10). Specifically, in 2007, there was a decrease in the percentage of riders using two buses and an increase in the percentage of those riders reporting to take three or more buses to get to their destination. (Reflects in part the growth of the transit system which can now meet more trip needs, but also requires more transfers for trips covering multiple jurisdictions.)
Table 5-10: Comparison of Number of Buses Used
2001 Survey 2007 Survey
Number of Buses Average Average Used Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
1 47,045 37% 71,674 37%
2 61,773 48% 86,145 44%
3 13,738 11% 26,704 14%
4 or More 5,540 4% 9,280 5%
Total 128,056 100% 193,803 100%
Alternate Mode of Travel
In 2007, it appears that there are more transit dependent riders than in 2001 (Table 5-11). There was a 14-point increase in the percentage of riders who indicated they would not be able to make the trip if the bus were not available (30%). There was also an increase in those reporting that they would walk, use a bicycle, or drive with someone else. Valley transit users were less likely to indicate they would take a taxi and/or drive themselves compared to 2001.
51 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table 5-11: Comparison of Alternate Mode of Travel
2001 Survey 2007 Survey
Alternate Mode of Travel Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Not Make This Trip 1,479 16% 54,176 30%
Drive With Someone Else 2,206 24% 45,668 26%
Walk/Bicycle 2,375 25% 44,604 25%
Taxi 1,390 15% 15,205 9%
Drive Myself 1,211 13% 14,510 8%
Other 703 7% 3,878 2%
Total 9,364 100% 178,040 100%
Source of Bus Schedule Information
In 2007 and 2001, the Valley Metro Bus Book was the primary source for bus schedule information (Table 5-12). However, in 2007 the percentage of Valley riders using the Bus Book declined from 79% to 65%. Riders were significantly more likely to report using the Valley Metro website for bus information than they were in 2001 (17% vs. 2%).
Table 5-12: Comparison of Source of Bus Schedule Information
2001 Survey 2007 Survey
Source of Bus Schedule Average Average Information Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Bus Book 8,208 79% 118,913 65%
Valley Metro Website 218 2% 30,773 17%
Customer Service Telephone Number 1,300 12% 24,021 13%
Posted Schedule/Signs at Bus 79 1% 6,278 3% Stop/Transit Center
Other 642 6% 4,087 2%
Total 10,477 100% 184,072 100%
Summary
Overall, it appears Valley Metro weekday riders in 2007 are more transit dependent than they were in 2001. This is reflected in several trip attributes including: a decline in vehicle ownership, increased use of transit to and from a wider variety of locations in addition to home and work, an increase in the number of buses used per trip, and an increase in the percent of riders indicating they would not have made their trip if the bus had not been available. The demographics of the general population residing in Maricopa County indicate that, except for an increase in households with an annual income of $60,000 or higher, there has not been any significant (This seems counter intuitive since national trends have shown a growth in older population as baby boomers age.) shift in the distribution of household size, vehicle ownership, employment status, and age since 2000. The other notable shift from 2001 is the decreased reliance on the Bus Book for bus schedule information and the increased reliance on the Valley Metro website.
52 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Appendix A: Survey Instruments
53 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure A-1: Survey Instrument (English)
54 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
55 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure A-2: Survey Instrument (Spanish)
56 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
57 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Appendix B: 2007 General Population Statistics
2007 American Community Survey – Maricopa County
Table B-1: Household Size (Total Households)
2007 ACS Household Size Count Percent
One 355,247 27%
Two 454,634 34%
Three 188,209 14%
Four 176,287 13%
Five or more 164,177 12%
Total 1,338,554 100%
Table B-2: Household Income (Total Households)
2007 ACS Household Income Count Percent
Less than $10,000 77,704 6%
$10,000-$19,999 123,423 9%
$20,000-$34,999 210,844 16%
$35,000-$49,999 199,168 15%
$50,000-$69,999 221,964 17%
$70,000 or more 505,451 38%
Total 1,338,554 100%
Table B-3: Vehicle Ownership (Total Households)
2007 ACS Vehicle Ownership Count Percent
None 83,609 6%
One 491,326 37%
Two 532,299 40%
Three or more 231,320 17%
Total 1,338,554 100%
58 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table B-4: Employment Status (Population Age 16 years or Older)
2007 ACS Employment Status Count Percent
Employed 1,815,702 63%
Unemployed 99,068 3%
Not in the Labor Force 975,372 34%
Total 2,890,142 100%
Table B-5: Age (Total Population)
2007 ACS Age Count Percent
17 yrs and under 1,052,778 27%
18–24 yrs 335,872 9%
25–54 yrs 1,637,767 43%
55–64 yrs 380,991 10%
65+ yrs 427,973 11%
Total 3,835,381 100%
59 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Appendix C: Snapshot of Zip Code O/D Flows
The following tables provide a snapshot of the top zip code origin-destination flows. Not all possible combinations are presented in this Appendix. A complete Origin/Destination table with all zip codes for AM Peak, PM Peak, Midday and Evening are provided as an Excel worksheet.
Table C-1: Top 10 Origin/Destination Flows by Zip Code
Origin Zip – Destination Zip Count Percent
85281-85281 6,674 3%
85282-85281 1,468 1%
85281-85282 1,346 1%
85281-85201 1,022 1%
85281-85283 897 0%
85008-85009 858 0%
85016-85008 848 0%
85008-85016 819 0%
85028-85022 815 0%
85015-85014 767 0%
Total Trips 193,803 100%
Note: Not all O/D flows are listed in this table. Thus, the sum is less than the total trips.
Table C-2: Top 10 Origin/Destination Flows by Zip Code – AM Peak Period
Origin Zip – Destination Zip Count Percent
85281-85281 966 2%
85282-85281 598 1%
85017-85284 581 1%
85008-85016 513 1%
85281-85201 453 1%
85007-85034 444 1%
85009-85003 412 1%
85283-85041 406 1%
85017-85013 391 1%
85304-85392 364 1%
Total Trips 59,165 100%
Note: Not all O/D flows are listed in this table. Thus, the sum is less than the total trips.
60 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table C-3: Top 10 Origin/Destination Flows by Zip Code – Mid-Day
Origin Zip – Destination Zip Count Percent
85281-85281 5,136 6%
85028-85022 815 1%
85013-85015 663 1%
85008-85009 654 1%
85004-85015 554 1%
85034-85042 549 1%
85034-85015 533 1%
85282-85281 518 1%
85281-85282 495 1%
85016-85008 491 1%
Total Trips 89,400 100%
Note: Not all O/D flows are listed in this table. Thus, the sum is less than the total trips.
Table C-4: Top 10 Origin/Destination Flows by Zip Code – PM Peak Period
Origin Zip – Destination Zip Count Percent
85281-85281 462 2%
85206-85205 317 1%
85015-85014 305 1%
85008-85035 304 1%
85282-85282 296 1%
85282-85281 279 1%
85031-85017 264 1%
85007-85018 257 1%
85013-85014 250 1%
85009-85016 250 1%
Total Trips 30,634 100%
Note: Not all O/D flows are listed in this table. Thus, the sum is less than the total trips.
61 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table C-5: Top 10 Origin/Destination Flows by Zip Code – Evening
Origin Zip – Destination Zip Count Percent
85251-85204 479 3%
85040-85041 424 3%
85283-85007 346 2%
85202-85041 346 2%
85281-85282 318 2%
85034-85302 263 2%
85033-85035 249 2%
85033-85043 229 2%
85210-85204 213 1%
85016-85208 210 1%
Total Trips 14,604 100%
Note: Not all O/D flows are listed in this table. Thus, the sum is less than the total trips.
62 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Appendix D: Service Types
This section presents the weighted distribution of unlinked trips by routes that fall in each service type.
Table D-1: Local Bus Routes
Average Weekday Local Routes Route Name Ridership
PHX-0000 Central 5899
PHX-0001 Washington/Jefferson/ASU 1000
PHX-0003 Van Buren/Avondale 8568
PHX-0007 7th Street 5706
PHX-0008 7th Avenue 3284
PHX-000B Blue Line 4049
PHX-000G Green Line - Thomas Road/Avondale 11706
PHX-000R Red Line 10077
PHX-0010 Roosevelt/Grant 2891
PHX-0012 12th Street 1330
PHX-0013 Buckeye 1286
PHX-0015 15th Avenue 1242
PHX-0016 16th Street 5865
PHX-0017 McDowell/Avondale 9106
PHX-0019 19th Avenue 9079
PHX-0027 27th Avenue 4719
PHX-0030 University 3584
PHX-0032 32nd Street 25
PHX-0035 35th Avenue 7457
PHX-0041 Indian School/Avondale 10223
PHX-0043 43rd Avenue 3228
PHX-0044 44th St/Tatum 3151
PHX-0045 Broadway 4385
PHX-0050 Camelback 5842
PHX-0051 51st Avenue 1280
PHX-0056 Priest Drive 2047
PHX-0059 59th Avenue 2970
PHX-0060 Bethany Home 2318
PHX-0061 Southern 4952
PHX-0062 Hardy 1422
63 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Average Weekday Local Routes Route Name Ridership
PHX-0065 Mill/Kyrene 849
PHX-0066 Mill/68th Street 1188
PHX-0067 67th Avenue 2419
PHX-0070 Glendale/24th Street 442
PHX-0072 Scottsdale/Rural 5223
PHX-0076 Miller 590
PHX-0077 Baseline 2273
PHX-0080 Northern 1619
PHX-0081 Hayden/McClintock 2995
PHX-0084 Granite Reef 84
PHX-0090 Dunlap/Cave Creek 2973
PHX-0092 48th St/Guadalupe Rd 1300
PHX-0096 Dobson 817
PHX-0104 Alma School 1553
PHX-0106 Peoria/Shea 3812
PHX-0108 Elliot Rd 699
PHX-0114 Via Linda 79
PHX-0120 Mesa Dr 342
PHX-0122 Cactus/39th Ave 390
PHX-0128 Stapley 296
PHX-0131 START 344
PHX-0136 Gilbert Road 669
PHX-0138 Thunderbird 1415
PHX-0154 Greenway 844
PHX-0156 Chandler Blvd/Williams Field Road 604
PHX-0170 Bell 3294
PHX-0186 Union Hills 1254
PHX-0371 Grand Avenue Limited 142
PHX-0DUR Durango Shuttle 3
PHX-ALX1 Phoenix Neighborhood Circulator (ALEX) 1154
PHX-DASH Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH) 1512
PHX-FSHB Free Local Area Shuttle (FLASH) 5852
PHX-GUS1 Glendale Urban Shuttle (GUS) 328
PHX-MARY Phoenix Neighborhood Circulator (MARY) 750
PHX-MERC Tempe Orbit 340
PHX-SNCN Scottsdale Neighborhood Circulator 31
64 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Average Weekday Local Routes Route Name Ridership
PHX-SSCR Phoenix Neighborhood Circulator (SMART) 673 Total 187,843
65 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure D-1: Local Bus Routes
Green 41 Red 17 19 3 35 0 16 FLASH 50 7 72 61 27 45 Blue 106 30 170 8 43 44 81 90 59 10 67 60 77 56 80 104 DASH 62 138 12 92 13 51 186 15 66 ALEX 1 65 154 96 MARY 108 SMART 136 156 76 70 122 131 120 MERC GUS 128 371 84 114 SNCN 32 Durango
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 Av erage Weekday Ridership
66 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table D-2: Express Bus Routes
Average Weekday Express Routes Route Name Ridership
PHX-0510 Scottsdale 86
PHX-0512 Scottsdale 89
PHX-0520 Tempe 112
PHX-0521 Tempe 247
PHX-0531 Mesa/Gilbert 241
PHX-0532 Mesa 161
PHX-0533 Mesa 261
PHX-0540 Chandler 132
PHX-0541 Chandler 330
PHX-0560 Avondale 95
PHX-0570 Glendale 60
PHX-0571 Surprise 103
PHX-0572 Surprise/Scottsdale 42
PHX-0573 Northwest Valley/Downtown 70
PHX-0581 N. Mountain 114
PHX-0582 N. Mountain 114
PHX-0590 Deer Valley 131
PHX-0660 Wickenburg Connector 7
Total 2,395
67 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure D-2: Express Bus Routes
541
533
521
531
532
540
590
582
581
520
571
560
512
510
573
570
572
660
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Av erage Weekday Ridership
68 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table D-3: RAPID bus Routes
Average Weekday RAPID Routes Route Name Ridership
PHX-0400 SR-51 RAPID 691
PHX-0450 I-10 East 987
PHX-0460 I-10 West 681
PHX-0480 I-17 RAPID 1206
Total 3,565
Table D-3: RAPID bus Routes
480
450
400
460
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Av erage Weekday Ridership
69 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Appendix E: February 2007 RAPID bus and 2007 O/D Survey RAPID bus Tables (Unlinked Trips)
This section presents the weighted distribution of unlinked trips for the comparable variables between February 2007 RAPID bus survey and 2007 Origin/Destination survey.
Table E-1: Comparison of Household Vehicle Ownership
2007 RAPID bus Survey1 2007 O/D Survey
Vehicle Ownership Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
None 56 1.6% 90 2.5%
One 876 24.7% 1,085 30.4%
Two 1,797 50.6% 1,621 45.5%
Three 560 15.8% 652 18.3%
Four or More 261 7.4% 117 3.3%
Total 3,551 100.0% 3,565 100.0%
12007 RAPID bus Survey defined vehicle ownership in terms of “Working Vehicles Available to Household”.
Table E-2: Comparison of Household Income
2007 RAPID bus Survey 2007 O/D Survey
Annual Household Income Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
<$20,000 29 0.9% 43 1.3%
$20,000–$49,999 539 16.8% 898 26.9%
$50,000–$69,999 673 21.0% 921 27.6%
$70,000 and Above 1,963 61.2% 1,479 44.3%
Total 3,204 100.0% 3,341 100.0%
70 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table E-3: Comparison of Age
2007 RAPID bus Survey 2007 O/D Survey
Age Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Under 25 Years 91 2.7% 111 3.1%
25–54 Years 2,496 74.8% 2,651 74.4%
55–64 Years 676 20.3% 696 19.5%
65+ Years 75 2.3% 106 3.0%
Total 3,339 100.0% 3,564 100.0%
Table E-4: Comparison of Trip Origin
2007 RAPID bus Survey 2007 O/D Survey
Trip Origin Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Work 1,824 51.2% 1,746 49.0%
College/University (Student Only) 33 0.9% 11 .3%
School (K-12) (Student Only)1 13 0.4% 2 .0%
Home 1,689 47.5% 1,801 50.5%
Other2 0 0.0% 6 .2%
Total 3,559 100.0% 3,565 100.0%
1For 2007 Survey Data, “School (K-12)” was defined as “Middle/High School”. 2For 2007 O/D Survey Data, Other includes Other, Shopping, Medical, Recreation, Sightseeing, Personal, Church and Social places.
71 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table E-5: Comparison of Trip Destination
2007 RAPID bus Survey 2007 O/D Survey
Trip Destination Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Work 1,718 48.3% 1,787 50.1%
College/University (Student Only) 35 1.0% 4 .1%
School (K-12) (Student Only)1 2 0.1% 5 .1%
Home 1,782 50.0% 1,693 47.5%
Recreation/Sightseeing/ 21 0.6% 20 .6% Restaurant/Personal/Social Visit/Church
Medical Appointment/Hospital Visit 0 0.0% 0 .0%
Shopping 3 0.1% 9 .2%
Other 0 0.0% 48 1.3%
Total 3,561 100.0% 3,565 100.0%
1For 2007 Survey Data, “School (K-12)” was defined as “Middle/High School”.
Table E-6: Comparison of Access Mode
2007 RAPID bus Survey 2007 O/D Survey
Access Mode Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Walk 1,645 46.4% 1,672 46.9%
Drive (Includes Drive Alone and Carpool) 1,736 48.9% 1,580 44.3%
Dropped Off 155 4.4% 292 8.2%
Bicycle 12 0.3% 21 .6%
Total 3,548 100.0% 3,565 100.0%
Table E-7: Comparison of Egress Mode
2007 RAPID bus Survey 2007 O/D Survey
Egress Mode Average Average Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
Walk 1,753 49.8% 2,150 60.3%
Drove Alone and Parked 1,582 44.9% 1,094 30.7%
Picked Up or Carpool 174 4.9% 309 8.7%
Bicycle 12 0.3% 12 .3%
Total 3,520 100.0% 3,565 100.0%
72 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table E-8: Comparison of Number of Buses Used
2007 RAPID bus Survey 2007 O/D Survey
Number of Buses Average Average Used Weekday Percent Weekday Percent Ridership Ridership
1 3,258 91.3% 3,232 90.6%
2 281 7.9% 274 7.7%
3 27 0.8% 54 1.5%
4 or More 0 0.0% 6 .2%
Total 3,566 100.0% 3,565 100.0%
73 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Appendix F: Activity Center Analysis
This section presents summary tables and maps for different trip purposes by Time of the Day within a mile radius of the activity centers listed below. These activity centers have been identified in the MAG Regional Framework Study. The maps in this section show buffers for 1mile, 1.5 miles and 2 miles radius. However, for the purpose of this report the data is summarized for only a mile radius.
1. Downtown Phoenix (Mile Radius of Central Station)
2. Uptown Phoenix (Mile Radius of Park Central Complex)
3. Sky Harbor Airport (3400 E Sky Harbor Blvd and 3800 E Sky Harbor Blvd)
4. Arizona State University (Mile radius of Student Health Services)
5. Biltmore Area (Mile Radius of Camelback Esplanade Mall)
6. Metro Center (Mile Radius of Metro Center Transit Station)
7. Scottsdale Airpark (Mile Radius of Scottsdale Municipal Airport)
The MAG Regional Frame Work Study grouped the Traffic Analysis Zones in the region in to 26 districts Map F-1 shows the service area by districts. Summary tables were generated to show the attraction flow from each of the districts to the activity centers listed above.
74 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Purpose at Activity Center
Downtown Phoenix
Table F-1: Purpose at Downtown Phoenix
Downtown Phoenix as Origin
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 2,664 24% 1,294 62% 1,133 23% 154 4% 83 16%
Work 4,765 43% 445 21% 1,350 27% 2,768 77% 203 38%
College/University (Student Only) 335 3% 0 0% 328 7% 7 0% 0 0%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 430 4% 41 2% 276 6% 40 1% 73 14%
Shopping Places 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Social/Personal Places or Church 693 6% 137 7% 500 10% 47 1% 10 2%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 641 6% 0 0% 162 3% 314 9% 165 31%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 123 1% 9 0% 114 2% 0 0% 0 0%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 1,544 14% 174 8% 1,122 23% 248 7% 0 0%
Total Trips 11,196 100% 2,099 100% 4,986 100% 3,578 100% 533 100%
Downtown Phoenix as Destination
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 2,132 17% 28 0% 1,347 25% 382 60% 374 95%
Work 5,884 47% 4,753 77% 1,043 19% 83 13% 5 1%
College/University (Student Only) 124 1% 0 0% 124 2% 0 0% 0 0%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 130 1% 130 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Shopping Places 368 3% 68 1% 299 6% 0 0% 0 0%
Social/Personal Places or Church 421 3% 82 1% 333 6% 6 1% 0 0%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 974 8% 144 2% 682 13% 148 23% 0 0%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 187 1% 85 1% 102 2% 0 0% 0 0%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 2,346 19% 864 14% 1,446 27% 22 3% 13 3%
Total Trips 12,564 100% 6,155 100% 5,376 100% 641 100% 392 100%
75 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-1: Downtown Phoenix – Trip Purpose at AM Peak
76 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-2: Downtown Phoenix – Trip Purpose at Mid-Day
77 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-3: Downtown Phoenix – Trip Purpose at PM Peak
78 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Uptown Phoenix
Table F-2: Purpose at Uptown Phoenix
Uptown Phoenix as Origin
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 1,799 25% 665 67% 1,023 23% 111 8% 0 0%
Work 2,879 40% 148 15% 1,361 31% 1,075 75% 294 73%
College/University (Student Only) 678 9% 8 1% 650 15% 12 1% 8 2%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 425 6% 2 0% 284 6% 53 4% 87 21%
Shopping Places 153 2% 0 0% 153 3% 0 0% 0 0%
Social/Personal Places or Church 206 3% 0 0% 124 3% 82 6% 0 0%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 150 2% 0 0% 150 3% 0 0% 0 0%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 545 8% 165 17% 263 6% 101 7% 16 4%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 414 6% 0 0% 414 9% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 7,248 100% 988 100% 4,423 100% 1,434 100% 404 100%
Uptown Phoenix as Destination
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 924 12% 22 1% 612 17% 147 38% 143 70%
Work 3,584 45% 2,305 63% 1,272 34% 7 2% 0 0%
College/University (Student Only) 823 10% 314 9% 418 11% 91 24% 0 0%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 480 6% 469 13% 11 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Shopping Places 48 1% 4 0% 44 1% 0 0% 0 0%
Social/Personal Places or Church 665 8% 174 5% 404 11% 41 11% 46 23%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 894 11% 249 7% 560 15% 71 18% 15 7%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 532 7% 132 4% 371 10% 28 7% 0 0%
Total Trips 7,950 100% 3,669 100% 3,692 100% 385 100% 204 100%
79 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-4: Uptown Phoenix – Trip Purpose at AM Peak
80 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-5: Uptown Phoenix – Trip Purpose at Mid-Day
81 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-6: Uptown Phoenix – Trip Purpose at PM Peak
82 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Sky Harbor Airport
Sky Harbor Airport activity center is based on trips originating or ending at specific address of airport (3400 E Sky Harbor Blvd and 3800 E Sky Harbor Blvd). Thus, no maps were produced.
Table F-3: Purpose at Sky Harbor Airport
Sky Harbor Airport as Origin
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Work 528 90% 188 100% 238 80% 6 100% 96 100%
College/University (Student Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Shopping Places 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Social/Personal Places or Church 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 6 1% 0 0% 6 2% 0 0% 0 0%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 40 7% 0 0% 40 14% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 14 2% 0 0% 14 5% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 588 100% 188 100% 298 100% 6 100% 96 100%
Sky Harbor Airport as Destination
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Work 586 68% 336 70% 250 67% 0 0% 0 0%
College/University (Student Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Shopping Places 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Social/Personal Places or Church 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 272 32% 147 30% 124 33% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 858 100% 484 100% 374 100% 0 0% 0 0%
83 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Arizona State University (ASU)
Table F-4: Purpose at ASU
ASU as Origin
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 1,256 13% 587 43% 480 7% 189 22% 0 0%
Work 1,222 13% 60 4% 710 10% 284 33% 168 23%
College/University (Student Only) 6,289 64% 619 46% 4,848 71% 334 38% 487 67%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 132 1% 0 0% 132 2% 0 0% 0 0%
Shopping Places 82 1% 0 0% 82 1% 0 0% 0 0%
Social/Personal Places or Church 199 2% 0 0% 181 3% 0 0% 18 3%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 420 4% 0 0% 351 5% 16 2% 53 7%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 13 0% 0 0% 13 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 156 2% 83 6% 23 0% 50 6% 0 0%
Total Trips 9,769 100% 1,349 100% 6,820 100% 873 100% 727 100%
ASU as Destination
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 567 5% 0 0% 331 5% 223 63% 12 31%
Work 1,675 16% 894 26% 767 11% 0 0% 13 34%
College/University (Student Only) 7,227 67% 2,516 72% 4,625 67% 87 24% 0 0%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 48 0% 19 1% 30 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Shopping Places 240 2% 6 0% 234 3% 0 0% 0 0%
Social/Personal Places or Church 276 3% 26 1% 237 3% 12 3% 0 0%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 344 3% 16 0% 281 4% 33 9% 13 34%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 16 0% 16 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 404 4% 0 0% 404 6% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 10,797 100% 3,493 100% 6,909 100% 355 100% 39 100%
84 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-7: Arizona State University – Trip Purpose at AM Peak
85 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-8: Arizona State University – Trip Purpose at Mid-Day
86 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-9: Arizona State University – Trip Purpose at PM Peak
87 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Biltmore Area
Table F-5: Purpose at Biltmore Area
Biltmore Area as Origin
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 383 19% 173 28% 210 33% 0 0% 0 0%
Work 923 45% 127 21% 141 22% 122 60% 533 90%
College/University (Student Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 279 14% 186 30% 93 15% 0 0% 0 0%
Shopping Places 187 9% 0 0% 96 15% 48 24% 44 7%
Social/Personal Places or Church 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 80 4% 8 1% 55 9% 0 0% 17 3%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 128 6% 117 19% 0 0% 11 5% 0 0%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 66 3% 8 1% 36 6% 22 11% 0 0%
Total Trips 2,046 100% 619 100% 631 100% 202 100% 594 100%
Biltmore Area as Destination
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 570 15% 43 3% 210 11% 300 66% 17 21%
Work 1,678 45% 677 51% 938 50% 0 0% 63 79%
College/University (Student Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 674 18% 528 40% 146 8% 0 0% 0 0%
Shopping Places 628 17% 3 0% 473 25% 152 34% 0 0%
Social/Personal Places or Church 22 1% 0 0% 22 1% 0 0% 0 0%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 80 2% 68 5% 12 1% 0 0% 0 0%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 76 2% 0 0% 76 4% 0 0% 0 0%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 13 0% 0 0% 13 1% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 3,742 100% 1,320 100% 1,890 100% 452 100% 80 100%
88 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-10: Biltmore Area – Trip Purpose at AM Peak
89 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-11: Biltmore Area – Trip Purpose at Mid-Day
90 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-12: Biltmore Area – Trip Purpose at PM Peak
91 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Metro Center
Table F-6: Purpose at Metro Center
Metro Center as Origin
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 855 22% 467 72% 282 12% 30 6% 77 20%
Work 819 21% 75 12% 319 14% 282 55% 142 36%
College/University (Student Only) 574 15% 0 0% 538 24% 36 7% 0 0%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 170 4% 0 0% 170 7% 0 0% 0 0%
Shopping Places 851 22% 13 2% 667 29% 9 2% 162 41%
Social/Personal Places or Church 293 8% 53 8% 191 8% 48 9% 0 0%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 97 3% 0 0% 10 0% 87 17% 0 0%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 15 0% 0 0% 5 0% 0 0% 10 2%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 152 4% 43 7% 86 4% 24 5% 0 0%
Total Trips 3,826 100% 651 100% 2,268 100% 516 100% 391 100%
Metro Center as Destination
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 766 20% 92 8% 282 14% 368 58% 25 100%
Work 1,425 37% 765 67% 654 32% 6 1% 0 0%
College/University (Student Only) 574 15% 202 18% 310 15% 62 10% 0 0%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 47 1% 24 2% 23 1% 0 0% 0 0%
Shopping Places 661 17% 0 0% 491 24% 170 27% 0 0%
Social/Personal Places or Church 25 1% 0 0% 25 1% 0 0% 0 0%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 103 3% 26 2% 59 3% 18 3% 0 0%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 32 1% 32 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 189 5% 0 0% 179 9% 10 2% 0 0%
Total Trips 3,824 100% 1,142 100% 2,023 100% 634 100% 25 100%
92 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-13: Metro Center– Trip Purpose at AM Peak
93 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-14: Metro Center – Trip Purpose at Mid-Day
94 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-15: Metro Center – Trip Purpose at PM Peak
95 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Scottsdale Airpark
Table F-7: Purpose at Scottsdale Airpark
Scottsdale Airpark as Origin
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Work 427 89% 20 100% 66 56% 164 100% 177 100%
College/University (Student Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Shopping Places 28 6% 0 0% 28 24% 0 0% 0 0%
Social/Personal Places or Church 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 24 5% 0 0% 24 20% 0 0% 0 0%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 479 100% 20 100% 118 100% 164 100% 177 100%
Scottsdale Airpark as Destination
Purpose at Activity Center Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Home 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Work 617 96% 501 100% 106 79% 0 0% 9 100%
College/University (Student Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
School (K-12) (Student Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Shopping Places 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Social/Personal Places or Church 4 1% 0 0% 4 3% 0 0% 0 0%
Recreation/Sightseeing/Restaurant 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Medical Appointment/Hospital 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Airport (Air Passenger Only) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 24 4% 0 0% 24 18% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 645 100% 501 100% 134 100% 0 0% 9 100%
96 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-16: Scottsdale Airpark – Trip Purpose at AM Peak
97 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-17: Scottsdale Airpark – Trip Purpose at Mid-Day
98 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Figure F-18: Scottsdale Airpark – Trip Purpose at PM Peak
99 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Activity Center Attraction Flows by District
Map F-1: Service Area Districts
100 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table F-8: Attraction Flow for Downtown Phoenix
Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening Origin District Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
District 1 15 0% 15 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 2 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 3 4 0% 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 4 474 4% 412 7% 62 1% 0 0% 0 0%
District 5 86 1% 86 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 6 66 1% 45 1% 0 0% 2 0% 19 5%
District 7 2,087 17% 868 14% 1,081 20% 44 7% 94 24%
District 8 143 1% 121 2% 0 0% 22 3% 0 0%
District 9 220 2% 211 3% 0 0% 9 1% 0 0%
District 10 1,225 10% 622 10% 510 9% 71 11% 22 6%
District 11* 2,084 17% 978 16% 965 18% 141 22% 0 0%
District 12 251 2% 188 3% 63 1% 0 0% 0 0%
District 13 228 2% 41 1% 38 1% 18 3% 131 33%
District 14 697 6% 343 6% 354 7% 0 0% 0 0%
District 15 1,098 9% 737 12% 234 4% 67 10% 60 15%
District 16 1,539 12% 506 8% 954 18% 22 3% 57 15%
District 17 144 1% 72 1% 42 1% 30 5% 0 0%
District 18 278 2% 238 4% 40 1% 0 0% 0 0%
District 19 72 1% 72 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 20 209 2% 205 3% 0 0% 4 1% 0 0%
District 21* 1,107 9% 45 1% 884 16% 168 26% 10 3%
District 22 529 4% 337 5% 148 3% 43 7% 0 0%
District 23 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 24 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 25 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 26 7 0% 7 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 12,564 100% 6,155 100% 5,376 100% 641 100% 392 100%
* District includes activity center (Central Station) buffer zone of 1-mile radius.
101 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table F-9: Attraction Flow for Uptown Phoenix
Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening Origin District Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
District 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 2 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 3 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 4 45 1% 27 1% 18 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 5 22 0% 22 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 6 44 1% 44 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 7 2,000 25% 694 19% 1,061 29% 199 52% 46 23%
District 8 173 2% 108 3% 5 0% 60 16% 0 0%
District 9 63 1% 62 2% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 10 1,084 14% 454 12% 630 17% 0 0% 0 0%
District 11* 951 12% 463 13% 485 13% 3 1% 0 0%
District 12 276 3% 102 3% 151 4% 23 6% 0 0%
District 13 77 1% 59 2% 0 0% 0 0% 19 9%
District 14* 212 3% 132 4% 80 2% 0 0% 0 0%
District 15* 695 9% 339 9% 348 9% 8 2% 0 0%
District 16 765 10% 288 8% 457 12% 20 5% 0 0%
District 17 315 4% 192 5% 67 2% 0 0% 56 27%
District 18 139 2% 39 1% 101 3% 0 0% 0 0%
District 19 106 1% 106 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 20 155 2% 155 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 21 616 8% 174 5% 288 8% 70 18% 84 41%
District 22 207 3% 206 6% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0%
District 23 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 24 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 25 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 26 4 0% 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 7,950 100% 3,669 100% 3,692 100% 385 100% 204 100%
* District includes activity center (Park Central Complex) buffer zone of 1-mile radius.
102 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table F-10: Attraction Flow for Sky Harbor Airport
Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening Origin District Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
District 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 2 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 3 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 4 32 4% 32 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 5 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 6 2 0% 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0%
District 7 186 22% 172 36% 14 4% 0 0% 0 0%
District 8 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 9 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 10 3 0% 3 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 11 117 14% 30 6% 87 23% 0 0% 0 0%
District 12* 3 0% 3 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 13 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 14 18 2% 18 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 15 140 16% 29 6% 111 30% 0 0% 0 0%
District 16 120 14% 9 2% 112 30% 0 0% 0 0%
District 17 150 17% 150 31% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 18 39 5% 39 8% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 19 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 20 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 21 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 22 48 6% 0 0% 48 13% 0 0% 0 0%
District 23 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 24 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 25 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 26 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 858 100% 484 100% 374 100% 0 0% 0 0%
* District includes activity center (3400 E Sky Harbor Blvd and 3800 E Sky Harbor Blvd).
103 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table F-11: Attraction Flow for ASU
Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening Origin District Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
District 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 2 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 3 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 4 9 0% 9 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 5 31 0% 31 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 6 179 2% 49 1% 93 1% 37 10% 0 0%
District 7 281 3% 65 2% 210 3% 6 2% 0 0%
District 8 27 0% 27 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 9 29 0% 0 0% 29 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 10 106 1% 64 2% 43 1% 0 0% 0 0%
District 11 355 3% 60 2% 279 4% 16 4% 0 0%
District 12 100 1% 78 2% 23 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 13 308 3% 154 4% 68 1% 86 24% 0 0%
District 14 36 0% 26 1% 10 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 15 677 6% 548 16% 120 2% 10 3% 0 0%
District 16 257 2% 82 2% 174 3% 0 0% 0 0%
District 17* 6,214 58% 1,344 38% 4,840 70% 15 4% 13 34%
District 18 500 5% 121 3% 359 5% 8 2% 12 31%
District 19 245 2% 12 0% 233 3% 0 0% 0 0%
District 20 255 2% 238 7% 17 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 21 119 1% 0 0% 112 2% 7 2% 0 0%
District 22 1,068 10% 583 17% 301 4% 171 48% 13 34%
District 23 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 24 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 25 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 26 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 10,797 100% 3,493 100% 6,909 100% 355 100% 39 100%
* District includes activity center (Student Health Center) buffer zone of 1-mile radius.
104 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table F-12: Attraction Flow for Biltmore Area
Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening Origin District Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
District 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 2 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 3 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 4 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 5 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 6 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 7* 663 18% 202 15% 448 24% 14 3% 0 0%
District 8 20 1% 0 0% 14 1% 6 1% 0 0%
District 9 50 1% 0 0% 0 0% 50 11% 0 0%
District 10 666 18% 222 17% 444 23% 0 0% 0 0%
District 11 103 3% 9 1% 94 5% 0 0% 0 0%
District 12 205 5% 47 4% 6 0% 153 34% 0 0%
District 13 165 4% 43 3% 19 1% 55 12% 48 60%
District 14 133 4% 0 0% 133 7% 0 0% 0 0%
District 15* 1,160 31% 513 39% 478 25% 169 37% 0 0%
District 16 148 4% 72 5% 76 4% 0 0% 0 0%
District 17 26 1% 0 0% 26 1% 0 0% 0 0%
District 18 154 4% 139 11% 0 0% 0 0% 15 19%
District 19 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 20 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 21 196 5% 60 5% 130 7% 6 1% 0 0%
District 22 52 1% 12 1% 22 1% 0 0% 17 21%
District 23 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 24 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 25 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 26 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 3,742 100% 1,320 100% 1,890 100% 452 100% 80 100%
* District includes activity center (Camelback Esplanade Mall) buffer zone of 1-mile radius.
105 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table F-13: Attraction Flow for Metro Center
Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening Origin District Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
District 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 2 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 3 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 4 217 6% 0 0% 154 8% 63 10% 0 0%
District 5 5 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 1% 0 0%
District 6 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 7* 1,392 36% 389 34% 773 38% 230 36% 0 0%
District 8 77 2% 0 0% 22 1% 30 5% 25 100%
District 9 18 0% 18 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 10 738 19% 385 34% 294 15% 60 9% 0 0%
District 11 500 13% 97 8% 181 9% 223 35% 0 0%
District 12 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 13 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 14 86 2% 15 1% 65 3% 5 1% 0 0%
District 15 418 11% 129 11% 282 14% 7 1% 0 0%
District 16 242 6% 34 3% 208 10% 0 0% 0 0%
District 17 21 1% 0 0% 21 1% 0 0% 0 0%
District 18 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 19 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 20 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 21 110 3% 75 7% 24 1% 11 2% 0 0%
District 22 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 23 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 24 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 25 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 26 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 3,824 100% 1,142 100% 2,023 100% 634 100% 25 100%
* District includes activity center (Metro Center Transit Station) buffer zone of 1-mile radius.
106 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table F-14: Attraction Flow for Scottsdale Airpark
Total AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Evening Origin District Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
District 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 2 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 3 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 4 23 4% 23 5% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 5 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 6* 9 1% 0 0% 9 6% 0 0% 0 0%
District 7 195 30% 175 35% 10 8% 0 0% 9 100%
District 8* 46 7% 46 9% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 9 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 10 13 2% 13 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 11 18 3% 18 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 12 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 13 90 14% 83 17% 8 6% 0 0% 0 0%
District 14 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 15 101 16% 0 0% 101 75% 0 0% 0 0%
District 16 56 9% 56 11% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 17 81 13% 75 15% 7 5% 0 0% 0 0%
District 18 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 19 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 20 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 21 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 22 12 2% 12 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 23 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 24 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 25 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
District 26 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Trips 645 100% 501 100% 134 100% 0 0% 9 100%
* District includes activity center (Scottsdale Municipal Airport) buffer zone of 1-mile radius
107 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Appendix G: Maps
This section presents the residential location, trip origin, and trip destination maps. Maps G-1 and G- 2 present the un-weighted and weighted distribution of residential locations of “unique riders” at the zip code level. It should be noted that the definition of unique riders differs from boarding passengers (also denoted as ‘riders’ for ease of use and clarity throughout this report). For instance, if a transit user rode two buses on his one-way trip, he made two unlinked trips (that translates to two boarding passengers), and one linked trip (that translates to one unique rider).
The riders were stratified into five segments to generate the maps. The cut offs for these five segments were defined by using a quintile distribution of riders such that each segment includes 20% of the riders and the top segment includes zip codes with the highest concentration of residential locations. Similar stratification based on quintile distribution of weighted trips by zip code was used to generate Maps G-3 and G-4, which present the weighted distribution of trip origins and trip destinations at the zip code level.
108 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Map G-1: Unweighted Residential Locations of Unique Riders at Zip Code Level
109 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Map G-2: Weighted Residential Locations of Unique Riders at Zip Code Level
110 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Map G-3: Weighted Distribution of Trip Origins at Zip Code Level
111 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Map G-4: Weighted Distribution of Trip Destinations at Zip Code Level
112 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Appendix H: Trip Tables
Table H-1: List of Trip Tables
Table No. Trip Type Service Type Access Mode
001 Home-Based Work LOCAL ROUTE Bike
002 Walk
003 Kiss and Ride
004 Park and Ride
005 EXPRESS ROUTE Bike
006 Walk
007 Kiss and Ride
008 Park and Ride
009 RAPID SERVICE Bike
010 Walk
011 Kiss and Ride
012 Park and Ride
013 Home-Based University LOCAL ROUTE Bike
014 Walk
015 Kiss and Ride
016 Park and Ride
017 EXPRESS ROUTE Bike
018 Walk
019 Kiss and Ride
020 Park and Ride
021 RAPID SERVICE Bike
022 Walk
023 Kiss and Ride
024 Park and Ride
025 Home-Based Other LOCAL ROUTE Bike
026 Walk
027 Kiss and Ride
028 Park and Ride
029 EXPRESS ROUTE Bike
030 Walk
031 Kiss and Ride
032 Park and Ride
033 RAPID SERVICE Bike
034 Walk
113 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Table No. Trip Type Service Type Access Mode
035 Kiss and Ride
036 Park and Ride
037 Non-Home-Based LOCAL ROUTE Bike Work 038 Walk
039 Kiss and Ride
040 Park and Ride
041 EXPRESS ROUTE Bike
042 Walk
043 Kiss and Ride
044 Park and Ride
045 RAPID SERVICE Bike
046 Walk
047 Kiss and Ride
048 Park and Ride
049 Non-Home-Based LOCAL ROUTE Bike Other 050 Walk
051 Kiss and Ride
052 Park and Ride
053 EXPRESS ROUTE Bike
054 Walk
055 Kiss and Ride
056 Park and Ride
057 RAPID SERVICE Bike
058 Walk
059 Kiss and Ride
060 Park and Ride
114 2007 Valley Metro Origin-Destination Survey
Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary
Agenda Item #4
Date January 20, 2009
Subject Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System for East Valley Dial-a-Ride Contract Award
Summary An IVR System will provide East Valley Dial-a-Ride users with communication access 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The IVR will reduce phone hold and wait times by enabling the caller to confirm, cancel and check on pick-up times using any touchtone phone. During call center hours, the caller may be transferred to a reservationist with one keypad entry. Outbound reminder calls can be made the night before a planned trip. Additional reminders can be made just before the van arrives to pick-up the passenger.
In response to a solicitation for an IVR System, RPTA received three proposals. The companies that submitted proposals included Logic Tree, Ontira and Trapeze. A proposal review team consisting of representatives from RPTA, Veolia Transportation, and the cities of Mesa and Scottsdale was formed to evaluate the proposals. Based on the initial evaluation, all three proposers were invited for presentations/interviews that were held on December 18, 2008. Following the presentations/interviews, the panel deliberated and unanimously recommended that Trapeze be awarded the IVR contract.
Fiscal Impact The IVR System cost for the base year is $142,616 which will be paid with 80 percent ($114,093) federal funds from a 2007 New Freedom Grant. The local match of 20 percent ($28,523) will be paid by the RPTA and the municipalities of Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale and Tempe.
It is the intent of RPTA to enter into a one (1) year agreement with four (4) one (1) year options. Option years provide for maintenance and upgrades of the software, which is critical for utilizing the software beyond the initial year of the agreement and the corresponding New Freedom Grant. The FTA requires the analysis and consideration
1
of option pricing during the proposal evaluation stage. Options can not be exercised, per FTA Circular 4220.1F, if they are not evaluated and considered prior to award.
Trapeze offered the best value as a measure of lowest dollars per evaluation point. In essence, this can be considered as “getting the biggest bang for the buck”. Additionally, Trapeze received the highest number of points and submitted the lowest overall price. The potential total price of the contract that is recommended to be awarded to Trapeze, over a five year term is $208,319. Table I below details the points received, purchase and five-year maintenance cost, and cost per point for each proposer.
TABLE I Points Price $/pt Trapeze 6006.00 $208,319 $34.685 Ontira 4995.70 $288,663 $57.782 Logic Tree 4583.20 $228,298 $49.811
The total maintenance fees for years two through five will be $65,703. Therefore, an annual cost of $16,425.75 will be included in the East Valley Dial-a-Ride’s budget for IVR maintenance.
Considerations IVR Systems have been shown to improve overall productivity and on-time service performance through better passenger communication. Passenger no-shows are decreased and customer satisfaction is improved with 24/7 access. In addition to improved system productivity, several paratransit systems reported the ability to maintain level call center staffing while passenger demand for service grew.
Committee Action Process VMOCC: January 20, 2009 – for action TMC: February 4, 2009 – for action Board of Directors: February 19, 2009 – for action
Recommendation It is recommended the VMOCC forward to the TMC the recommendation to award a contract to Trapeze for an IVR System in an amount not to exceed $142,616.
Contact Person Jim Wright Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations 480-287-5980
Attachments None
2
Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary
Agenda Item #5
Date January 20, 2009
Subject Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Policy Issues and Recommendations
Summary Attached are the six white papers currently being discussed along with recommendations for policy changes and guidance.
Considerations The white papers all have recommendations, which may include policy changes, policy guidance or additional work needed. The Budget and Finance Subcommittee may approve the recommendations for policy changes and forward them to the Board of Directors for approval in February. Alternately, the Subcommittee may wait for the staff committees to review the impacts of the recommendations prior to approving them on February 5.
Committee Action Process Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee – January 27, 2009 Finance Oversight Advisory Committee – January 27, 2009 Transit Management Committee – February 4, 2009 Budget and Finance Subcommittee – February 5, 2009 for action Board of Directors – February 19, 2009 for action
Recommendation This item is for information and discussion.
Contact Person Paul Hodgins Manager of Capital Programming 602-262-7433
1
Attachments Inflation white paper Contract Rates white paper Regional Services white paper Revenue Shortfalls white paper Federal Revenues white paper Financing white paper TLCP PowerPoint presentation
2 TLCP Issues and Policy Discussions
Inflation
Priority This issue is of importance to the TLCP financial model and should be resolved prior to the next TLCP Update.
Policy Issue The Board may be asked to approve a set of inflation indexes for variables such as labor, fuel and construction materials to use for various programs and projects in the TLCP, rather than a single average inflation rate as used in the current adopted financial model.
Background Inflation in the TLCP has been assumed at 3% per year over the life of the plan. This was based on historical inflation rates. Generally, in the 20 years preceding the TLCP, the average annual general inflation rate (CPI) was about 3%. Therefore, this was used as the annual average rate moving forward. Given some of the instability in the economy and some of the drastic changes in pricing, especially in energy, and also that the TLCP represents projects of different types (operations and construction), it makes sense to take a closer look at how inflation affects the different types of projects in the TLCP. Inflation rates are especially critical when every route and capital project, with the exception of park and ride lots and transit passenger facilities, is 100% funded by the Public Transportation Fund (PTF).
Analysis Staff will take a look at historical rates of inflation using various indexes, such as Consumer Price Index (CPI), Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflator, and the Producer Price Index (PPI). We will also look at historical experience (especially for contract rates) to see if any particular index mirrors the local experiences. The goal is to find an index, or several indexes, that closely match our experience that can be forecast to better predict future costs. We may end up with a different inflation rate assumption for contract rates than for construction projects or bus purchases.
Results HDR was asked to conduct the research on inflation indexes for this task. Attached is an initial draft of the research conducted. Consistent with the other issues, no recommendation is offered at this time. However, it is clear that there are differences in the indexes that would impact the expenditure assumptions in the TLCP model. Many of the indexes cited have average changes that are above the three percent assumed in the TLCP. Moving to higher inflation rates for certain components of the TLCP will increase expenditures in the cash flow model, which may require program changes in order to balance the model.
Additionally, operating costs for the region were analyzed to determine if any trends exist. The attached table uses data from the Performance Management Analysis System (PMAS) which has been used to collect regional data for nearly 20 years. The data now feeds the annual Transit Performance Report. The total operating costs reported by the agencies and revenue miles operated were used to calculate and average operating costs per mile for the region. This softens any variations that result from changes in individual contract rates. Page 1
Average Operating Cost per Revenue Mile
Fiscal Revenue Operating Cost per Year miles costs mile % Change (millions) (millions) 1994 12.43 $47.28 $3.80 1995 13.47 $51.20 $3.80 -0.09% 1996 13.66 $52.77 $3.86 1.58% 1997 14.33 $51.43 $3.59 -7.08% 1998 14.74 $61.58 $4.18 16.42% 1999 16.23 $65.86 $4.06 -2.84% 2000 18.04 $74.74 $4.14 2.08% 2001 20.63 $93.81 $4.55 9.73% 2002 23.05 $106.21 $4.61 1.37% 2003 25.20 $120.71 $4.79 3.94% 2004 25.89 $126.96 $4.90 2.39% 2005 25.74 $121.95 $4.74 -3.39% 2006 26.13 $129.64 $4.96 4.70% 2007 28.81 $152.23 $5.28 6.53% 2008 32.76 $183.81 $5.61 6.19%
Average growth for period (1994-2008) 2.81% Average growth for past 10 years (1999-2008) 3.66% Average growth for past 5 years (2004-2008) 3.42%
The following chart shows the average cost per mile along with a trend line. This shows clearly that costs rose more rapidly than the trend line in the past 3 or 4 years. However, this trend may not continue over the long term, especially given that fuel prices have reduced dramatically in the past few months and economists are currently worried about deflation.
Page 2 Average Cost per Revenue Mile
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
st $3.00 Co
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Cost per Mile Cost trend line
Committee Input All committees have agreed that an appropriate inflation rate should be used. They all agreed that using separate rates was a good idea in concept, but there was some concern among staff. The concern is that specific indexes may differ greatly from the inflation assumption used in generating the revenue forecast. A significantly higher inflation rate on the expense side would result in much higher expenditures due to the compounding effect. A compromise was suggested and well received by both staff committees; to use separate inflation rates in the short term, perhaps up to five years, but use the long term average rate through the end of the program.
Recommendation Staff recommends that the inflation policy be modified as follows:
Inflation will occur throughout the TLCP. The original project budgets listed in the 2003 approved RTP were expressed in 2002 dollars. The annual update of the TLCP will require that the project budgets be adjusted to account for the past year’s inflation. 1. The regional funding specified in the original RTP for a project will be adjusted annually for inflation based on the All Goods United States Consumer Price Index (CPI) except for the following categories. a. Transit vehicle costs will be adjusted using the Producer Price Index, Total Manufacturing Industries b. Capital facilities costs will be adjusted using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index Page 3 2. Forecasted inflation for future costs will be differentiated between short term (3 years) and long term rates. a. Short term rates will use the following categories and be based on recent experience and/or published forecasts: i. Transit vehicles ii. Capital facilities construction iii. Operating costs iv. Other costs b. Long term rates will be used for all categories beginning in the fourth year of planned expenditures and will be based on Consumer Price Index history.
Page 4 TLCP Issues and Policy Discussions
Contract Rates
Priority This issue is of importance to the TLCP financial model and should be resolved prior to the next TLCP Update.
Policy Issue The Board may be asked to modify the cost allocation model used by RPTA to charge members (and the PTF) for services, based on the review of the allocation models used in the region, and/or discuss new contracting strategies.
Background There has been much discussion about the differences in the various contract rates. The Budget and Finance Subcommittee has asked RPTA staff to review and analyze the rates and to make some recommendations regarding how to best address the issue. An audit has been conducted of the various rates and some analysis has been done to better understand what makes up each agency’s rate. Based on this analysis, staff may make some recommendations as to how to modify the rate structure to ensure that the rates are comparable.
Analysis RPTA tasked its auditor, Cronstrom Osuch and Company, with reviewing the contract rates charged by RPTA, Phoenix and Tempe. Most of the data collection is complete; however a final report has not been submitted.
In the absence of the detailed comparison of rates, a discussion of RPTA’s rate will be included. Specifically, the items included in RPTA’s rate will be identified along with options for other items which could be included.
In addition, a discussion of methodologies will be provided. The region uses revenue miles to allocate costs and charge for service. Historically, each contract has had a single rate regardless of the type of service operated. More recently, and to account for the higher deadhead on express services, Phoenix and Tempe have bid their contracts with separate rates for local and express services. RPTA still uses one rate, despite operating both local and express services.
Results Philosophically, RPTA includes in its rates only costs that are directly attributable to operations, contract oversight and associated overhead. Programs that are funded by other means, such as regional services, are not included as charges in the contract rates. Some administrative functions are in the rate, including some operations planning and financial analysis, however most of the administrative functions in the agency, such as accountants, accounts payable clerks and payroll clerks, are charged to the project as part of the administrative overhead. However, other salaries for staff not directly involved in operations, such as the Executive Director and Chief of Staff, are not included in the rate. The impact of adding more staff time and associated overhead would be to increase the contract rate and Page 1 decrease the planning and administrative expense charged directly to the PTF or RARF. However, the costs that are moved into the rate would be borne by all service purchasers and not just PTF funded service.
RPTA does not include any charges for capital used in the operation of service, such as buses, maintenance facility depreciation or associated tools and equipment. Many systems charge depreciation as a service cost and set those funds aside to pay for future capital. RPTA currently pays for replacement for all fleets through the TLCP. Facility capital and associated equipment expenses are charged in the contract rate in the year in which they occur. A large capital expense in a particular year would have a significant impact on the rate charged that year. Charging depreciation would smooth out the rate changes, as significant expenses would be paid from the reserved funds.
Adding fleet depreciation to the contract rate and reserving those funds would ensure that funds would always be available to purchase the fleet needed to maintain the existing system. This would remove fleet replacement costs from the TLCP. This would also ensure that capital used in providing service is paid by those who have requested and pay for the services. Services funded by the PTF would pay their share of capital through the contract rate.
Express services operate with much higher deadhead than do local services. Deadhead refers to the time and miles used to move buses from the operating base to the beginning of revenue service and back to the operating base at the conclusion of revenue service. For instance, if a bus travels 5 miles to its starting point, operates 200 revenue miles, then travels 5 miles back from its end point, then the 10 miles of total deadhead represents 5% of revenue service. In contrast, an express bus that travels 5 miles to its starting point might then operate only one trip of 30 miles then travel back to its base an additional 25 miles. This represents a deadhead of 100% of revenue miles.
When contract rates are allocated based solely on revenue miles, such as RPTA’s rates do, then the costs for express service are under-estimated and local services are over-estimated. This is because revenue miles do not account for the discrepancy in deadhead. An alternative would be to calculate two separate rates, using total miles (revenue plus deadhead) to allocate costs between local and express. This would result in a higher rate per revenue mile for express services and a lower rate for local services. If RPTA were to implement this system, then the TLCP would be negatively impacted, since all of the express services that RPTA operates are funded through the PTF. The full increase in the express rates would be borne by the PTF, but the decrease in the local rates would be shared among all service purchasers and not only the PTF. Using this methodology, the Veolia RPTA rate estimated at $5.62 for FY 2010 would be split into two separate rates estimated at $8.98 for express services and $5.21 for local services. This split increases the cost to the TLCP by approximately $1 million for FY 2010.
Another alternative would be to allocate rates on total miles. This would take into account not just the difference in deadhead between local and express, but the difference in deadhead among all routes operated. The result would be differing costs per revenue mile for each route operated due to the different deadhead for each route.
Some agencies argue that the majority of operating costs are related more to time (e.g. labor costs) than to miles. Hours could certainly be used to allocate costs for service. Again, either
Page 2 revenue hours or total hours (revenue plus deadhead) could be used for this calculation. This method would decrease costs for faster services such as express, which operate a significant portion of their time on freeways, relative to the miles methodology.
Finally, some agencies use a mix of methodologies to allocate costs. Expenses that are time related, such as labor, are allocated using hours and expenses that are distance related, such as fuel, are allocated using miles. This mixed methodology would be difficult for RPTA to implement as most of the costs are paid through its contract and are not itemized. The fees paid to its contractor would need to be broken down by type in order to be allocated by time or distance and the effort to detail that information may not be worth the time.
Some have suggested capping the rates for services which are funded by the PTF. This would effectively force a local match for regionally funded service. The concept of a local match for transit was debated at the MAG Transportation Policy Committee during plan development and the TPC decided that there should be no local match. Given that, the only way to cap what the PTF funds would be to limit the service levels for routes that are provided by contracts with high rates. This is an option, but may be considered as contrary to the voter approved plan. This would also suggest that services might need to be cut if a particular service procurement resulted in a significantly higher rate.
Committee Input Most of the discussion focused on the option of including a capital charge in RPTA’s operating rate. Most agreed that it would be a good policy, but there were some concerns about the consequences.
There was some concern that costs were being shifted from the PTF to the cities’ budgets. Most replacement buses are currently programmed in the TLCP for PTF funding. If the funding were to come from the capital charge, then a portion of the funding would be borne by the cities. There was also some concern about how that shift would affect the jurisdictional equity positions.
There was also some concern that this is simply not the time to add costs to the program. There was a suggestion to set this aside and revisit when revenues begin rising.
There was agreement among staff committees that splitting contract rates between local and express was equitable, although that does push additional costs into the TLCP. It was suggested that this issue also be set aside until revenues begin rising again.
Recommendation Staff recommends that the RPTA split its operating contract rate between express and local to remain consistent with other regional service providers. No other changes are recommended until the audit of contract rates has been completed.
Page 3 TLCP Issues and Policy Discussions
Regional Services
Priority This issue is of importance to the TLCP financial model and should be resolved prior to the next TLCP Update.
Policy Issue The Board may be asked to review the current policy that requires the Public Transportation Fund to pay for all regional services, even if increases in those services are a direct result of transit improvements funded wholly by member cities. Staff will present the cost implications of the current policy, given the established plans for increased transit services.
Should the Board change the policy and require cities to pay for a portion of regional services costs, the timing of the policy change should allow for the cities to properly budget the expense and/or should allow for alternatives such as utilizing jurisdictional savings from other RTP projects.
Background The Regional Services area provides services for the system such as Bus Book production, printing and distribution, Customer Service call center and regional marketing. Historically, the regional services functions were funded by all agencies that funded fixed route bus service. An accounting of how many revenue miles of service was funded by each agency was kept and at the end of each year the costs were allocated and reconciled to the amounts paid (based on budget estimates). Included in the Regional Transportation Plan and Proposition 400 were allowances for the incremental costs for regional services attributed to the increased services in the plan. However, one of the first decisions made during the development of the TLCP was to eliminate this cost allocation method and simply have the PTF fund all regional services. As a result, any increases in regional services, whether attributable to PTF funded services or not, are paid with PTF. The one exception is the increase in costs attributable to new rail service. METRO will be charged a portion of the regional services costs based on the increase in staffing required to meet the anticipated call volume in the customer service call center.
Analysis The TLCP bases its cost estimates on current budget with inflationary increases. There is no provision for additional staff even though there are large increases in service planned in the TLCP, not to mention additional service increases funded wholly by the cities. Staff will estimate the impact of the additional planned services and incorporate additional regional services costs into the TLCP model to better reflect what will happen in the future. This will have a negative impact on the model. If the impact is large, an option may be to revert to the cost allocation methodology of the past and have all agencies share in the costs or share in costs above some base level of PTF funding.
Results Customer Service is the single largest program within Regional Services and will be used as a proxy for all Regional Services costs. This is one method that could be used and is illustrative Page 1 only. As more services are provided, the regional services budget needs to increase to account for additional customer service, additional Transit Book production, additional web site costs, etc. Rather than calculating each item separately, growth in customer service staff is the proxy used for growth in all programs, since it accounts for more than 40% of the regional services budget. Using this method does not guarantee that staffing would be automatically increased in the annual budget.
It is estimated that 29 staff will be needed, in addition to the current staff of 54, in the Customer Service area in order to meet the future needs. Of the 29 new positions, 9 are intended to support rail operations and will be funded through the rail operations budget. The remaining 20 are intended to support bus operations and represent an increase of 37% of current staffing levels. These will be phased in over time through the end of the TLCP planning horizon, with 1 new position each year.
Using these new staffing levels as a ratio of current levels gives a multiplier which is applied to the costs in the adopted model. For instance, in FY 2010 it is assumed there will be one additional staff member. The ratio is then 55/54, or 1.0185, which is applied against the adopted Regional Services costs of $8.60 million to give a new cost of $8.76 million. This calculation is done each year through the end of the program. The additional costs that are attributable to increased service levels total approximately $38.2 million.
A table that summarizes these calculations is provided as Attachment 1. Additional positions for rail are based on planned openings of the extensions and are shown for information, but are not included in the calculations for regional services costs.
Committee Input Nobody was in favor of changing the current policy. However, there was much concern regarding raising the funding level for regional services. Some members felt that the time was not right and that the issue should re re-visited when revenues begin rising again. Others were concerned that regional services could become very expensive if not kept in check and that the program should remain constrained.
There were questions about how staffing levels are determined, especially for the call center. Some information on the performance measures used in the call center to help determine staffing levels will be provided.
Recommendation Staff recommends that the policy not be changed. However, a detailed analysis of customer service staffing will be conducted and brought back to the Subcommittee for their review.
Page 2 Attachment 1
Regional Services Costs (millions of YOE dollars)
Staff New for New for Fiscal year Adopted Modified Difference (CS) Bus Rail 2010 $8.60 $8.76 $0.16 55 1 2011 $8.86 $9.19 $0.33 56 1 2012 $9.12 $9.63 $0.51 57 1 1 2013 $9.40 $10.27 $0.87 59 2 2014 $9.68 $10.93 $1.25 61 2 2015 $9.97 $11.45 $1.48 62 1 2 2016 $10.27 $11.98 $1.71 63 1 2017 $10.58 $12.54 $1.96 64 1 2 2018 $10.89 $13.11 $2.22 65 1 2019 $11.22 $13.92 $2.70 67 2 2 2020 $11.56 $14.55 $3.00 68 1 2021 $11.44 $14.62 $3.18 69 1 2022 $11.78 $15.27 $3.49 70 1 2023 $12.13 $15.95 $3.82 71 1 2024 $12.50 $16.66 $4.17 72 1 2025 $12.87 $17.40 $4.53 73 1 2 2026 $7.73 $10.60 $2.86 74 1
Total $178.61 $216.84 $38.23 20 9
Page 3 TLCP Issues and Policy Discussions
Revenue Shortfalls
Priority This issue is of importance to the TLCP financial model and the RPTA Budget and should be resolved prior to budget approval and the next TLCP Update.
Policy Issue The Board may be asked to approve strategies to reduce costs, including considering hiring freezes/other methods in use by member agencies.
The Board may also be asked to approve a fare increase to help offset the rising cost of providing service. A fare study currently underway will make a recommendation on whether an increase is warranted.
Background FY 2008 has seen a decline in sales tax revenues from the previous year which has not happened in Arizona in decades. During past economic downturns, population growth has been strong enough such that total revenues collected have still increased. This decrease in revenues will have a negative impact on the model. In combination with other decreases in revenues, it is highly likely that the next TLCP update will be as difficult, if not more difficult, than the FY 2008 Update. RPTA staff will need to look more aggressively at existing projects, existing services, and administrative costs and make some recommendations on how to make up the revenue shortfalls to ensure a balanced TLCP.
Discussion The Executive Director has taken steps to reduce expenses in the current budget. The cuts total approximately $3.5 million for the current fiscal year. The projected shortfall is approximately $10 million. There is likely $24 million to $26 million in the capital budget that will be deferred to next fiscal year. The deferments are sufficient to resolve the remaining $6.5 million deficit in the current budget. However, deferring expenses only push the pain out to the next year. The updated forecast for the Transportation Excise tax is significantly lower; therefore the remaining years of the TLCP will likely all need to be adjusted in order to balance the plan.
In the FY 2008 TLCP Update, contingencies were cut and some smaller capital facilities were eliminated in order to balance the TLCP. However, there was a heavy emphasis on financing in order to ensure that schedules are met. It is unlikely that such small changes will be sufficient to balance the TLCP this year and additional financing will only exacerbate the shortfall in revenues. Projects will need to be scaled back, either by delaying implementation or construction, or by limiting the scope and service levels.
The 2008 update to the transportation excise tax revenue forecast was approved by the State Transportation Board on November 14. The forecast reduced anticipated revenues for the tax by more than $1.2 billion through the end of the tax. For transit, which receives 33.3% of the revenues, this represents a decline of $377.6 million. Based on TLCP policies, this shortfall is further allocated between the bus and rail programs: $214.3 million for the bus program and Page 1 $163.3 million for the rail program. Attachment 1 has a comparison of ADOT’s revenue forecasts, beginning with the assumption in the Regional Transportation Plan, for transit’s share of the revenues.
Inserting the updated forecast results in the bus cash flow model, the operating model is able to be funded each year with current revenues; however the capital model shows a deficit in every year until the final year of the plan. The ending cash balance is positive by less than $5 million before any financing costs and without any adjustments to expenditures. With such a small positive balance at the end of the program, it is clear that financing cannot be used to resolve the interim deficits. Reductions in projects will be needed to balance the program in this update.
Analysis The costs for the Regional Office Center, which had been programmed in the 2008 TLCP Update, will be removed and replaced with lease costs. For purposes of the initial analysis, the lease costs will be increased by an additional 20% beginning in FY 2011 to reflect a new lease and potentially additional space. This results in savings of approximately $30 million in the program. This issue will be further refined in the next year or so as RPTA examines its options with regards to office space.
There is a proposal to increase fares for the system. One option would increase the average fare recovery for the system above the target of 25 percent. The financial model currently assumes an average recovery for fixed route services of 25 percent. The model could be adjusted to increase the average fare recovery.
Staff will look at options for reducing operating costs. Fixed route bus operations accounts for approximately 73% of costs in the bus operations program. Options will include delaying implementation by one, two and three years; reducing the peak headways on all supergrid service to 30 minutes all day, rather than 15 minutes in the peak hours and 30 minutes during off-peak hours; and eliminating all reverse commute express trips. Reducing service will have an associated reduction in fleet needs, which will be included as part of the analysis.
ADA reimbursements account for nearly 11% of costs in the operating program. Since the reimbursement amounts are tied to the revenues by policy, the amounts allocated to ADA decrease commensurate with the decrease in revenues. The reimbursements have a direct impact on member city budgets, as they help offset the cities’ ADA costs. Any further reduction in ADA reimbursement allocations would directly impact several cities which are already drawing 100% of their ADA allocations. Because of the direct relationship to cities’ budgets, staff will not recommend changing the policy for ADA reimbursements.
Regional services costs are the next largest component of bus operations, accounting for over 7% of costs. Regional services are discussed in a separate white paper and will not be part of this specific analysis.
RPTA planning and administration costs, excluding office space, account for just under 4% of bus operations costs. This category is also the subject of a separate white paper, although of a lesser priority and will not be resolved prior to the model update. This update will continue to include status quo plus inflation for planning and administration costs.
Page 2 Safety and security allocations account for just over 2% and contingency just under 2% of costs. Staff will not look at reducing the amounts allocated to these programs. Both are based on formulas tied to service costs and so will be reduced as changes to service are made in the model.
For the bus capital model, the single largest expense is for fleet; almost 70% of the future capital program expenditures. Of that amount, almost 61% is for fixed route fleet, 6% for paratransit fleet, less than 3% for vanpool fleet and less than 1% for rural fleet. The paratransit and rural fleets are almost exclusively replacement vehicles for existing fleets and do not represent expansions. Eliminating these costs would result in those services operating vehicles past their useful life or providing less service. The vanpool fleet includes expansion of 25 vehicles per year along with replacement vans.
The fixed route buses include replacement buses and expansion to meet the needs of the Regional Transportation Plan. As planned services are modified, the fleet requirements change and impact the costs associated with fleet acquisition. The impacts of those changes will be determined as the service change analysis is completed.
The remaining 30% of the bus capital program is for facilities and includes, in order of magnitude, operations and maintenance facilities, Bus Rapid Transit capital improvements, contingencies, park and rides, transit centers, Intelligent Transportation Systems costs and bus stop improvements and amenities. It is assumed, however, that both the bus stop program and the ITS program are paid with 100% Public Transportation Fund dollars, whereas the other programs may receive up to 80% federal assistance.
Results The adopted model currently estimates a total of $532.6 million in fare revenues on $2,125.5 million of operating expenditures, for an average recovery of 25.06 percent over the program. Without accounting for adjustments in operating costs, each increase of one percent (e.g. from 25 to 26 percent) in the fare recovery would add approximately $21.2 million in fare revenue to the program.
Delaying supergrid and BRT/express services by one year decreases expenditures by approximately $113 million. This total includes the decrease in service costs and associated costs, such as safety and security and contingencies. This assumes no changes to other programs or assumptions and only delays services which have not yet been implemented. Delaying services for 2 years results in a decrease of $223 million, all inclusive; and delaying for 3 years decreases costs by $323 million. It should be noted that by delaying services for 3 years, one supergrid (Litchfield Road) and one BRT (Chandler Boulevard) would not be implemented by the end of the program.
The savings in operations costs would be partially offset by the loss of fare revenues. The decrease in fare revenues under each scenario is $27 million, $53 million and $77 million. The net savings by delaying services then would be $86 million, $170 million and $246 million.
The delay in service implementation would result in a delay in fleet acquisition and subsequently fleet replacement. The need to replace buses would be deferred beyond the plan and would save approximately $24 million for a one year delay, $103 million for a 2 year
Page 3 delay and $195 million for a 3 year delay. Assuming that fleet is acquired with 80% federal participation, the savings in PTF would be only 20% of those amounts.
The other option for reducing service costs would be to eliminate peak service. Again, only future services have been eliminated. Any supergrid routes already implemented with peak service would not be affected. The reduction in costs by limiting all supergrid services to 30 minute headways all day would be approximately $91 million.
Committee Input There was an overall concern with making any changes that shift the burden to the cities. Some of the alternatives presented do shift costs and it is evident that viable alternatives will be ones that increase revenues or decrease expenditures without affecting the members’ budgets.
The preference for making changes to operations seemed to be first to limit the implementation of new services, perhaps by phasing the implementation. This could include not implementing any peak level service on supergrid routes or any reverse commute trips on new express routes. Additional peak service could be added after a set time period or when certain productivity measures were met. The preference seemed to be for time based, rather than performance based, increases.
Delaying services were less preferable and the main concern was that cities would be forced to continue funding existing routes, effectively shifting costs to the cities. An option discussed would be for the PTF to begin funding existing service according to the original schedule and only service increases would be delayed.
All staff committee members were opposed to making any changes to the ADA Paratransit policy. And all were supportive of reducing or holding steady the costs for RPTA planning and administration.
There was little discussion on options for reducing capital facility expenditures. The BFS asked staff to consider the impact of extending the useful life of buses to 14 or 15 years, rather than the planned 12 years.
Recommendation Staff recommends that the following measures be implemented in the financial model in priority, as needed:
Fares - Adjust the average fare recovery up, the amount depending on the result of the fare increase process
Limit administrative costs – Limit RPTA’s planning and administration costs to inflationary increases based on the current reduced budget amount.
Limit scope of service improvements – Service improvements should be phased in. New routes should be implemented at 30 minute headways and improved only after demand is demonstrated. Existing routes should be implemented at existing headways unless demand is high enough to warrant better headways, up to the maximum revenue miles allocated in the TLCP.
Page 4
Eliminate regional funding for certain capital projects – Regional funds should only be provided for capital projects that are integral to providing service and/or directly serve passengers.
Delay service improvements – Assume funding of existing service according to the original schedule, but delay any improvements to the service. Delay implementation of new routes.
Page 5 TLCP Issues and Policy Discussions
Federal Revenues
Priority The issue of estimating federal revenues is of importance to the TLCP financial model and should be resolved prior to the next TLCP Update. The potential new policy regarding regional support for federal discretionary funds is not critical to the update and may be discussed concurrently with or subsequent to the update. However, it is important as the Board will soon consider FY 2010 regional transit federal discretionary funding requests and the reauthorization of the national surface transportation program.
Policy Issue The Board may be asked to approve a reduction in estimated federal revenues in the TLCP financial model as part of the TLCP Update for 2009. The Board may be asked to adopt a policy that all TLCP capital projects should proceed with federal funds and that if federal funds are not available, then capital projects would be delayed until federal matching funds are available.
The Board may be asked to consider a new policy regarding which projects should be endorsed by the region and moved forward for consideration by the Arizona Congressional delegation for Federal Transit Administration Section 5309 discretionary funding.
The Board may also be asked to direct staff to expand legislative efforts to improve the level of transit funding that flows into the region.
Background Federal revenues are a significant part of funding the capital program and are very uncertain; in fact, 72% of the capital program is premised on federal formula and discretionary funding. The urban area formula funds have been fairly consistent in the past and there is no reason to believe that Congress will greatly reduce or eliminate this program. The discretionary program, however, has been inconsistent in terms of the funds coming back to the Valley. The earmarks depend greatly on support from Arizona’s Congressional delegation.
Discussion It is likely that the estimates for federal discretionary funds have been overly aggressive in the TLCP financial model. To date, the discretionary grants have not been received at the level that was estimated in the plan. For the next update, it may be prudent to reduce the estimated federal discretionary revenues. At the same time, staff will ensure that the formula program funds are still considered reasonable.
Complicating the discretionary program is the fact that local jurisdictions can also submit projects for discretionary funding which may not be part of the Regional Transportation Plan or the Transit Life Cycle Program. Funding non-RTP projects has the potential to take away from potential federal funding for RTP projects, which may impact completion of the capital program.
Page 1 A further complication is that the capital schedule is very aggressive; so much so that in the next five years not all of the projects will receive federal funds. This means that the remaining projects must get a higher percentage of federal funds in order to meet the overall federal participation percentage. After revising, or confirming, the estimates for federal funds, those funds will be allocated to individual projects in the next update. Revised allocations may affect the timing of transit service that directly relies on the availability of the capital investments.
Analysis Staff will look at the historical receipts for both major federal programs to determine if there are trends that could be useful in predicting future revenues. Staff will assign federal revenues to projects within the TLCP financial model to further ensure that estimates are not overly optimistic and that matching funds are reasonable.
Staff will look at what discretionary program funds have been earmarked for Arizona, and specifically the Phoenix urban area, and compare that to what peer cities receive.
Results In the past four years’ federal appropriations, the Phoenix area has received an average of $7.2 million in Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facility funds. The TLCP model assumes that for FY 2011, TLCP projects will receive $8.2 million from that fund category which is then increased by inflation each year. Considering that projects that are funded may not all be in the TLCP, the assumptions in the model are likely too aggressive.
Overall, the region averaged approximately $140 million in federal assistance in the past four years for all categories. This represents approximately 1.1% of FTA assistance nationwide and the percentage is fairly consistent from year to year. More than half of the funds have been from the Section 5309 New Starts program for light rail construction. A quick analysis by RPTA’s federal lobbyist indicates that the amount received by the Phoenix area in the Bus and Bus Facility program is fairly consistent with other urban areas of similar size.
The TLCP model currently has a high ratio of federal assistance assumed. Some of the projects early on have been programmed with all PTF and no federal assistance in order to keep the projects on schedule. The consequence of this is that projects later on will need to have an even greater federal participation in order to meet the overall assumption in the TLCP. It may be advantageous to only move ahead with projects if federal assistance has been identified at a reasonable level. This may result in delays to capital projects but would help protect the long term finances for the program. This must be weighed against the additional time, effort and costs associated with following the federal process.
Additional detail is included in the research report by HDR.
Committee Input There was general support for modifying the capital facilities schedule to ensure that all projects have a minimum of federal funds. There was no consensus on what that minimum level would be, but all understood that projects built with only PTF money would make it more difficult later in the program to ensure that all projects can be completed.
There was general agreement that the region should make a more concerted effort to obtain additional federal discretionary funds. The region should present a more unified case to the
Page 2 Arizona Congressional delegation to try and maximize the amount of funding available not only for TLCP projects, but for transit projects regionwide.
Recommendation Staff recommends that the following policy change be considered:
Capital projects in the TLCP shall be matched with federal funds in order to be eligible for regional funding. The minimum amount of federal funds shall be 50% of estimated costs for all projects more than $1 million and less than $20 million. Projects estimated at more than $20 million shall have a minimum of 25% federal funds. Projects under $1 million are exempt from this requirement, but may still seek federal funding.
Page 3 TLCP Issues and Policy Discussions
Financing
Priority This issue is of importance to the TLCP financial model and should be resolved prior to the next TLCP Update.
Policy Issue The Board may be asked to consider a new policy that requires a pay-as-you-go strategy to pay for capital projects to minimize or eliminate the need for bond financing. Further, the Board may be asked to consider a new policy that provides greater encouragement for creating joint-use facilities or using other methods to reduce capital costs.
Background The Regional Transportation Plan assumed that a certain amount of financing would be necessary to complete the plan. During preliminary planning, $500 million of the estimated $9.0 billion (in 2002 dollars) was set aside and not used for project planning, but was essentially reserved for future financing costs. Using CPI as the index, that $500 million would be equivalent to $576 million in 2007 dollars. Since transit receives 33.3% of the transportation excise tax, it is reasonable to assume that 33.3% of the financing costs would be for transit, which would equal approximately $192 million.
The TLCP contains estimates for financing costs as a result of the aggressive schedule for capital projects. Financing cannot be used to pay operating expenses. The current adopted model has approximately $200 million in financing costs for the bus program and approximately $180 million for the rail program. This far exceeds the amount anticipated in the original RTP, but the financing is needed in order to meet the schedule in the TLCP. Although RPTA must legally issue the bonds for METRO, the METRO Board of Directors should be consulted for guidance on rail related financing.
The transportation excise tax revenues have been decreasing recently and the updated forecast for the remainder of the plan shows a continued decline in revenues compared to previous forecasts. It is unlikely that RPTA will maintain the existing schedule for service implementation and for capital acquisition and construction.
Discussion In order to decrease the financing costs and minimize the impact on delivery of projects, changes to the program schedule will need to be made. Options include delaying service implementation which would also result in delaying bus purchases, and delaying or eliminating capital projects.
Delaying service implementation would reduce the planned operating expenses leaving more PTF funds each year to be spent on capital, which in turn reduces the need to bond. It also means that expansion bus purchases would be delayed which in turn delays the purchase of their replacements 12 years later. Eventually, some replacements would drop off the plan resulting in decreased costs overall.
Page 1 Fleet acquisition is integral to service provision. In order to provide service, an adequate number of buses must be available. Since financing cannot be used to pay for operations, it may make sense to extend that to fleet acquisition. The service implementation schedule and associated fleet needs could be re-visited and adjusted each year to ensure that the cost of acquiring fleet and funding service is paid from current revenues.
Delaying capital projects, such as park-and-ride construction, could come in two forms. First, the actual project could be delayed. This means that passenger facilities needed to support expanded services might not be built and might not be ready when needed. The second is to delay reimbursement to the cities, assuming that the cities are the Lead Agencies on the projects. The cities, then, would bear a carrying cost for building the project on time, while waiting perhaps years for reimbursement. The MAG arterial program, for cities that front the costs and receive delayed reimbursement, allows for interest expenses that accrue to be reimbursable to the cities. A similar policy could be adopted by the RPTA.
Analysis Staff will look at three options for financing: no change to the implementation schedules; adjusting service implementation and associated fleet acquisition and financing for facilities only; and adjusting all schedules to eliminate any financing. The Budget and Finance Subcommittee asked that leasing be considered as an alternative for fleet.
Results Given the updated ADOT revenue forecast, and after modifying the model to remove the Regional Office Center costs, the model shows a surplus at the end of the program of approximately $50 million. However, the program is in deficit every year until the final year. In order to cover the early deficits, significant bonding would be required and the financing costs would be such that the program would run out of funds to pay for projects likely by 2021. Essentially at that point all services and facilities construction would cease because all of the sales tax revenues would be needed to repay outstanding debt.
HDR has completed a detailed analysis of these alternatives is included in the research document.
Committee Input There was no clear preference shown for a particular policy alternative. There was concern that financing costs could use up a disproportionate share of the tax proceeds. Rather than change the policy, the financing needs should be evaluated with each TLCP Update and a particular strategy adopted to meet the needs at the time.
Recommendation Staff recommends that the current policy not be changed, but that with each update the amount of financing needed should be evaluated and project changes made if financing costs are determined to outweigh the benefits.
Page 2 TLCP Policy Issues January 27, 2009
TLCP Process Review
2
1 TLCP Policy Issues Recommendations 3 Categories of Recommendations – Changes to adopted TLCP policies – Guidance in implementing policies – Additional research work needed
3
Policy Changes
4
2 Recommendation for Policy Change
Inflation – Inflation will occur throughout the TLCP. The original project budgets listed in the 2003 approved RTP were expressed in 2002 dollars. The annual update of the TLCP will require that the project budgets be adjusted to account for the past year’s inflation. – The regional funding specified in the original RTP for a project will be adjusted annually for inflation based on the All Goods United States Consumer Price Index (CPI) except for the following categories. Transit vehicle costs will be adjusted using the Producer Price Index, Total Manufacturing Industries Capital facilities costs will be adjusted using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index – Forecasted inflation for future costs will be differentiated between short term (3 years) and long term rates. Short term rates will use the following categories and be based on recent experience and/or published forecasts: – Transit vehicles – Capital facilities construction – Operating costs – Other costs Long term rates will be used for all categories beginning in the fourth year of planned expenditures and will be based on Consumer Price Index history. 5
Recommendation for Policy Change Federal Revenues – Capital projects in the TLCP shall be matched with federal funds in order to be eligible for regional funding. The minimum amount of federal funds shall be 50% of estimated costs for all projects more than $1 million and less than $20 million. Projects estimated at more than $20 million shall have a minimum of 25% federal funds. Projects under $1 million are exempt from this requirement, but may still seek
federal funding. 6
3 Guidance
7
Guidance for Model Update
Contract Rates – RPTA to differentiate its operating contract rate between express and local to remain consistent with other regional service providers .
8
4 Guidance for Model Update Revenue Shortfalls – The following measures may be implemented in the financial model in priority, as needed: Fares - Adjust the average fare recovery up, the amount depending on the result of the fare increase process Limit administrative costs – Limit RPTA’s planning and administration costs and regional services costs to inflationary increases based on the current reduced budget amount. Limit scope of service improvements – Service improvements should be phased in. New routes should be implemented at 30 minute headways and improved only after demand is demonstrated. Existing routes should be implemented at existing headways unless demand is high enough to warrant better headways, up to the maximum revenue miles allocated in the TLCP. 9
Guidance for Model Update Revenue Shortfalls – The following measures may be implemented in the financial model in priority, as needed: Eliminate regional funding for certain capital projects – Regional funds should only be provided for capital projects that are integral to providing service and/or directly serve passengers. Delay service improvements – Assume funding of existing service according to the original schedule, but delay any improvements to the service. Delay implementation of new routes. 10
5 Guidance for Model Update
Financing – Include bond financing with minimal project changes, then evaluate – If costs outweigh benefits, change project schedules to reduce financing costs
11
Additional Work
12
6 Regional Services
Customer Service Staffing – A detailed analysis of customer service staffing will be conducted and brought back to the Subcommittee for their review .
13
TLCP Process
Review model impacts with staff committees, based on policy changes and guidance Finalize program changes based on input Bring program changes to Subcommittee Subcommittee to make policy recommendations to Board
14
7 Questions
Staff Contacts
Mike Taylor [email protected] Deputy Executive Director, Acting 602-256-4302
Paul Hodgins [email protected] Manager, Capital Programming 602-262-4069
15
8 Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary
Agenda Item #6
Date January 20, 2009
Subject Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Fund Utilization
Summary The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) has had an allocation since its inception in 2005 for ITS. There was an understanding that there were a number of projects that would be eligible to use these ITS funds but a specific program and a listing of those projects was not developed until now.
Staff members of the RPTA developed a list of potential projects to be considered for funding through the ITS Fund. This listing was discussed at an Operators Roundtable meeting held December 8, 2008. All members of the VMOCC were invited to participate in this meeting. The list was subsequently modified and a glossary was prepared to include a brief description of each of the projects. Both the list (Table 1) and the Glossary are attached to this memo.
Originally the ITS Fund was established at $56 million over the 20 year TLCP life. During the TLCP annual update in 2008, the budget was reduced $12 million to $46 million. At that time other programs were reduced as well including the percentage allowances for contingency. The RPTA Board stated that if the shortfall funds were restored, the contingency percentages should be restored. However, there was no mention of restoring the other funds including the ITS Fund.
The budget shortfalls are even more severe this year than last year. Staff wanted to provide a list of ITS projects so it would be known what specific projects may be deleted if this fund is further eroded.
At the present time the list is the based on the best available information. Since this is a high technology area, many of today’s known systems will be considerably different or replaced and the funding allocations may more properly be thought of as placeholders. Also several of the items could be partially completed depending on available funding.
1 One example would be that the number of new Fare Vending Machines could be reduced. Items on the list that are not funded in the current TLCP 20 year cycle could and should be considered for inclusion in the renewal of the funding.
Even though an item may be included on the ITS Fund Allocation list, each major project will require individual review through the committee process and receive Board approval prior to implementation.
Since most of the ITS Fund Allocation projects are regional, high technology, capital projects; the potential for matching federal funds is extremely good. One of the determinants as to which projects should be included and the corresponding priority may be the availability of matching federal funds.
Fiscal Impact A majority of the funds are programmed in the TLCP.
Considerations This information, if approved by the Board, will be forwarded to the Capital Programming Manager for incorporation into the TLCP annual update.
Committee Action Process This information will be reviewed as a part of the TLCP Annual Update at the following meetings: VMOCC – January 27, 2009 for information and discussion VMOCC – March 17, 2009 as part of the TLCP Annual Update Approval FOAC – March 18, 2009 TMC – April 1, 2009 Budget and Finance Subcommittee – April 2, 2009 Board of Directors – April 16, 2009
Recommendation This item is for information and discussion only. The prioritized ITS projects could be brought forward to the Board of Directors for approval and programming into the TLCP.
Contact Person Jim Book Project Manager 602-495-0586
Attachments Table 1 – ITS Fund Utilization Attachment A - Glossary
2 Table 1
ITS Fund Utilization January 2009
Item Estimated Cost Year Priority Type Comment 700 MHz Communications Study $725,000 2009 1 6 Currently underway AZTech RADS connection study $50,000 2009 2 5 Currently underway 700 MHz Communications Implementation $13,000,000 2010-13 3 6 4 years to pay total Paratransit Call Center $2,000,000 2010 4 4 Earliest year Bus Stops Labeling and Next Bus Software interface with VMS $240,000 2010,15,20,25 5 5 $60,000 needed every 5 years Citrix connectivity to VMS workstations $240,000 2010 6 2 Intial $200,000 and maintenance Centerline File Mapping $700,000 2010 7 2 One time cost Fare Vending Machine Installations (100) $10,000,000 2010-20 8 3 Spread over 10 years VMS Replacements (ACS/Orbital) $19,200,000 2015-26 9 1 12 year life Trip Planning Software Replacement $600,000 2018 10 1 Typical Replacement Hastus Upgrade/Replacement $3,000,000 2016 11 1 $1M upgrade every 6 yrs Customer Service Telephone Software/Hardware $3,400,000 2010-26 12 1 $200,000 annually OCC Replace/Upgrade $6,000,000 2016 13 1 $2-4M every 7 years Separate ITS system for paratransit $400,000 2016 14 2 Currently an issue Fareboxes System Software upgrades $600,000 2023 15 1 Fare and fare structure changes Trapeze Systems upgrade/replace $500,000 2014 16 1 Paratransit typical upgrade AZTech RADS connection implementation $550,000 2010 17 3 Under study Total $61,205,000
Type 1. Keep or replace existing systems 2. Enhance existing systems 3. Improve Customer Experience 4. Regional Implementation 5. New Innovation 6. Mandated
Original budget for life cycle was $58M In 2009 budget was reduced to $46M Glossary
Intelligent Transportation Systems for the Transit Life Cycle Program January 7, 2009
The following items are proposed for inclusion in the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) under the heading of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). These are brief descriptions to accompany Table 1 ITS Fund Utilization.
700 MHz Communications Study This is the initial study to refine the costs of implementing the conversion to a 700 Megahertz communications system region wide. This is a Federal mandate required by the redistribution of radio frequencies nationwide. The RPTA Board has already approved this study.
700 MHz Communications Implementation This item is the actual implementation of the radio conversion to the 700 MHz system.
Fare Vending Machine Installations (100) With the recent implementation of Light Rail Service Fare Vending Machines (FVM) are installed at all stations. These FVMs issue fares for the whole regional transit system. It is anticipated there will be a need for additional fare vending machine installations throughout the Valley. Initially 100 new FVMs are anticipated for location throughout the Valley.
Paratransit Call Center The RPTA Board of Directors has directed the staff to explore steps to implement a regional Paratransit System. One the first needs of a regional system would be the establishment of a regional call center.
Bus Stops Labeling This project will enhance the user experience of the Integrated Voice Response system and the Web site trip planner tools. Project includes hardware (printers), software, ribbons, and reflective decals needed to put unique labels on each bus stop or shelter throughout the region.
Citrix connectivity to VMS workstations This project would allow all customer service personnel to access real time bus and rail data for the purposes of providing customers with accurate and reliable estimates for the whereabouts of buses and rail cars.
Centerline File Mapping and Transit Stop Inventory A need was identified for an on street inventory of all transit routes and transit stops. The centerline map will fill in address gaps or inaccuracies in the current base map used by the customer service trip planning and scheduling programs.
1 This project will geocode all bus stops, routes, park and ride lots, and transit centers throughout the valley. A demonstration was arranged and it was determined that this inventory would enhance the existing systems.
VMS Replacements (ACS/Orbital) It is anticipated the existing VMS system will require replacement or a major upgrade to a new version within the 20 year cycle of the TLCP. Even though new buses will be equipped with whatever VMS system is required the support base and all equipment that needs to be replaced will have to be done immediately rather than staged.
Trip Planning Software Replacement Currently, upgrades for the Trapeze Trip Planner are included in the cost for annual maintenance. This project assumes the software will need to be replaced once within the next 15 years.
Hastus Upgrade/Replacement The Hastus Software is used for transit scheduling. It is estimated that a major upgrade is required every 6 years and the anticipated cost is $1,000,000.
Customer Service Telephone Software/Hardware This project would ensure the call center telephony equipment and software remains current and is supported by our infrastructure vendor. This includes phone switch hardware and software releases or platform changes, application support software releases or platform changes, and Integrated Voice Response upgrades or changes.
OCC Replace/Upgrade The Operations Communications Center is programmed for a major upgrade every 7 years. It is estimated there will be 2 major upgrades during the current 20 year TLCP.
Separate ITS system for Paratransit The East Valley Paratransit operation currently shares the same VMS/ITS system with the fixed route operations. When that system malfunctions the Paratransit operation totally loses automated scheduling capabilities. Providing a separate system would enhance customer service and minimize scheduling disruption.
Fareboxes System Software upgrades The farebox system needs to be reprogrammed or modified to incorporate new fare schedules. Also, during the remainder of the TLCP it is anticipated the fare structure itself could change (i.e. zones) and this would require a major reprogramming.
2 Trapeeze Systems upgrade/replace During the remainder of the current TLCP it is anticipated that a new version, or perhaps even different software, will be implemented for Paratransit scheduling.
AZTech RADS connection study This is an initial study to determine the use of the regional RADS system to provide enhanced and additional traveler information to transit passengers. The RPTA Board has already approved this study.
AZTech RADS connection implementation This is for the actual implementation of the AZTech RADS traveler information system.
3 Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary
Agenda Item #7
Date January 20, 2009
Subject Regional Operations Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Summary Chairman Greg Jordan will lead a discussion on the potential formation of a TAC of the VMOCC to address Regional Operations.
Fiscal Impact None
Considerations None
Committee Action Process None
Recommendation This item is for information and possible action.
Contact Person Bryan Jungwirth Chief of Staff 602-534-1803
Attachments None
1 Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary
Agenda Item #8
Date January 20, 2009
Subject Valley Metro Planning Studies Overview Update, 4th Quarter 2008.
Summary This report is intended to give a brief status update for ongoing studies in the Planning department of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA).
Fiscal Impact None
Considerations None
Committee Action Process None
Recommendation For Information only.
Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Deputy Executive Director of Planning 602-534-0733
Attachments 4th Quarter 2008 update
1 Valley Metro Planning Studies 4th Quarter Project Update October - December 2008
INTRODUCTION This report provides a brief status update for ongoing studies in the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) Planning Department. For more information on any of the listed projects, please contact:
Carol Ketcherside Deputy Executive Director, Planning 602-534-0733 [email protected]
PLANNING PROJECTS
1. Comprehensive Arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)Study Study Objective—Define the operational parameters of the arterial BRT lines identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and funded under Proposition 400. Work includes reviewing existing and ongoing planning documents to identify demand for and recommend operational characteristics of the arterial BRT system. Recommendations of the study will address operational characteristics, performance measurements, administrative/managerial characteristics, and identification of transit supportive land use and development. o The scope of work has been changed to add Design Guidelines and to revise corridor modeling requirements. o A change order is being developed to address the adjustments to the scope of work.
Relationship to Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) and RTP—Takes the arterial BRT routes that are conceptually identified in the RTP and provides the operational assumptions that will provide the basis for five BRT routes operating schedules. Study is being undertaken concurrently with Arizona Avenue Design Concept Report which will provide the design for a BRT line in this corridor. The Arizona Avenue BRT is scheduled to enter service in July 2010.
2. Mesa Main Street Metro Link (Bus Rapid Transit) Implementation Project Objective—The project has moved into the final design/construction phase with construction related tasks beginning January 5, 2009. The LINK bus service began service on December 27, 2008 concurrent with the start of METRO Light Rail Transit (LRT) service. LINK buses are currently using temporary stops and will do so until the construction project is complete
and the new stations are put into service. LINK bus service is supplemented by Route 40 Supergrid service which operates in the same corridor. The LINK only stops every mile and more closely resembles express service. Route 40 stops every 1/4 mile and is considered local service. It is anticipated all LINK stations will be in service by September 2009. • The RPTA Board approved the two contracts for construction administration and project management and the two construction contracts on November 20, 2008. • SDB Inc. is under contract to construct the 26 stations along Main Street and Power Road. • SDB will begin construction at Power Rd and will proceed west. • Ry-Tan Inc. is under contract to constructing the Superstition Springs Mall Transit Center. • Staff is continuing to work with the Orbital division of ACS to integrate the Next Bus data feeds and software for the stations. • Researching the incorporation of fare vending machines at three station locations.
Relationship to TLCP and RTP—Preliminary and final design for capital improvements associated with Main Street BRT. The Main Street BRT entered service on December 27, 2008 concurrent with the start of METRO Light Rail service on the Central Phoenix—East Valley Light Rail initial operating segment.
3. Arizona Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Design Concept Report (DCR) Study Objective—Define the operational characteristics and associated capital requirements for the Arizona Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line that will operate in the cities of Mesa, Chandler and the Town of Gilbert. The DCR will include 30% design plans for the infrastructure improvements in the corridor. Optional project tasks include development of 65% and 100% design plans and associated construction bid documents.
• The Arizona Ave BRT line connects Sycamore station (end of line for METRO Light Rail) to the Tumbleweed Park and Ride (Germann and Ocotillo Road) via Main Street, Arizona Ave/ Country Club, and Germann Road. • Table Top Meetings were held with City of Chandler, City of Mesa and the Town of Gilbert to get preliminary input on the BRT station locations. Further meetings were held with each of the individual cities to finalize the location of the BRT stations along the corridor. The stations in Gilbert have not yet been finalized and still under review. • Two public meetings were held for the study in the month of November. o November 5th—Dobson High School, City of Mesa o November 6th—Chandler High School, City of Chandler
• A draft DCR with 30% design plans was prepared by TranSystems and reviewed by RPTA. o The draft DCR will be sent to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members on January 5th, 2009 for review and comments. o A combined TAC/SAC (Stakeholders’ Advisory Committee) meeting will be held on January 12, 2009 to discuss the draft DCR.
Relationship to TLCP and RTP —Preliminary and final design for capital improvements associated with Arizona Avenue BRT. The Arizona BRT is scheduled to enter service in 2010.
4. Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study Study Objective—Determine overall performance of current bus service offerings through a detailed analysis of performance factors. Outcomes include strategies to improve, eliminate or modify lowest performance-related services, development of recurring evaluation strategy and methodology that can be applied to a regular rating process, and target goals for each performance factor. • 18-month testing of the performance measurement parameters has been completed. • In November 2008, Phase II was begun to evaluate the recommendations from the first Phase. • The consultant has submitted a draft of the recommendations.
Relationship to TLCP and RTP—Proposition 400 requires that Regional Area Road Funds (RARF) and PTF funded transportation investments be subjected to a performance audit every five years. The Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study defined the performance measures that will be used to determine the effectiveness of regionally funded transit investments implemented under Proposition 400. The first performance audit is scheduled for 2010.
5. Database Development Services for Web-Based reporting and monitoring of Valley Metro Performance Indices Project Objective—Timely and consistent reporting of performance data by all of Valley Metro members who operate service is crucial to implementation of the Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study, and to preparedness for State Performance Audits required under Proposition 400. A software vendor is developing a web-based reporting tool that will be accessible to RPTA staff and to RPTA member agencies. • The Web based application is almost complete as of December 2008.
• The next step is testing of the beta version of the web based application and development of an administration list of those who authorized to enter and approve data.
Relationship to TLCP and RTP—See “relationship text” for Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study project above. The web based data reporting tool being developed as part of this overall effort will allow for the efficient and timely collection of transit performance data in readiness for future audits.
6. Park-and-Ride Environmental Assessment and Site Selection Project Objective—Park-and-Ride Environmental Assessment and Site Selection is to assist local municipalities that are developing a park-and-ride lots to a) identify potential locations; b) determining site selection criteria; c) recommend a preferred site; d) determine the appropriate level of environmental analysis required; e) perform environmental research and technical studies appropriate; f) assist with presentation of materials and gathering of input from the public, as well as municipal staff, local councils, and elected officials; and g) prepare environmental documents for submittal to the regional designated recipient of federal funds and the Federal Transit Administration. • Project on hold because of current agency wide budget constraints. • Some of this work is being completed through individual city funded projects including the Surprise Park-and-Ride study.
Relationship to TLCP and RTP—The regional capital program assumes a significant use of Federal funds. In order for a park-and-ride to be eligible for Federal matching funds the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process must be followed. This means that categorical exclusions (CEs) must be developed for each project. RPTA, in partnership with the host community, will undertake site selections and CEs for the regional park-and-rides identified in the RTP and the TLCP which will support the regional express bus program.
7. Origin and Destination Survey (O&D Survey) Study Objective—Origin and destination survey of passenger on-board Valley Metro fixed transit routes to collect data about passenger travel patterns. The data collected from this study will update travel pattern data to calibrate and validate the Regional Travel Demand Model, and also for air quality forecasting and long range planning by the Maricopa Association of Governments. The on-board survey was conducted in fall 2007. The O&D Survey also serves as the “before” survey for the Central Phoenix-East Valley Light Rail Transit Line which is partially funded through a New Starts capital grant from the Federal Transit Administration. An “after” survey will be
conducted within 18 months of LRT start of service to validate initial LRT ridership forecasts. • The final dataset and trip tables are available for use. • The final report is in the draft stage. • The final report will be presented to committees in January 2009 and will be on the February 2009 RPTA Board agenda for action.
Relationship to TLCP and RTP—The O&D Survey calibrates the MAG regional travel model that is used to determine the effectiveness of proposed transit investments. Maricopa County is an air quality non-attainment area and all transportation investments are subjected to an annual air quality conformity analysis. Calibrating the travel model ensures that it accurately captures potential ridership generated by proposed transit investments which have a direct bearing on air quality in the region. The O&D Survey also functions as the “before” survey required under New Starts for the Light Rail Transit project. A follow up “after” survey will take place within two years of start of LRT service.
8. Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) Study Objective—This project will develop a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for Valley Metro/RPTA for the years 2008/09 through 2013/14. The SRTP will provide the blueprint for implementation of efficient, cost effective, and coordinated public transit service in Maricopa County within the Plan’s five-year horizon. • A draft plan was completed in November 2008. • SRTP findings were discussed at the November VMOCC meeting. • As per VMOCC recommendation, the consultant and RPTA staff will meet with the cities that requested clarification to gather input and address concerns.
Relationship to TLCP and RTP—While the RTP provides a 20 year blueprint for implementing transit operating and capital improvements in Maricopa County, the RTP found that it does not provide the level of detail needed to implement individual transit investment. The planning study will define and refine the specific transit improvements to be implemented.
Local Support Projects
9. Peoria Transit Planning Study (Inter-Governmental Agreement) Study Objective—Develop a transit plan for the City of Peoria. The study will develop recommendations for transit routes and associated infrastructure with an action plan that will guide implementation of the Plan’s recommendations. • The final report is being developed and the City of Peoria has requested the project be closed out.
Relationship to TLCP and RTP—No direct relationship. Study is being done at the request of and the expense of the City of Peoria as part of our planning support to our members. Study assumptions included regional service assumptions from the TLCP and the RTP.
10. Surprise Short Range Transit Study (Inter-Governmental Agreement) Study Objective—The project will review existing Park-and-Ride facilities and ensure they conform to the transit service phasing identified in the 2003 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP.) The study will develop recommendations for new Park-and-Ride facilities to coincide with proposed transit routes and associated infrastructure, with an action plan that will guide implementation of the Plan’s recommendations. • Planning scope and schedule altered from short-term to long-term study. • IGA has been amended to reflect the change. • The study is almost complete and is pending City Council approval.
Relationship to TLCP and RTP—No direct relationship. Study is being done at the request of, and the expense of the City of Surprise as part of our planning support to our members. Study assumptions included regional service assumptions from the TLCP and the RTP.
11. Scottsdale Mustang Center The study is a follow-on to a previous design study for the Mustang Transit Center. The current effort is in response to recent discussions between the City and Scottsdale Healthcare regarding a possible public/private development of a parking structure that would both serve the parking needs of the hospital as well as those of the transit center. • Study is currently on hold while City staff explores partnering opportunities with Scottsdale Healthcare.
Relationship to TLCP and RTP—TLCP includes funding for a transit center and park-and-ride in this vicinity. While capital funding in the TLCP assumes construction of a surface park-and-ride, these funds can be used as a match to private sector funds for the development of a parking structure. Study is being done at the request and expense of the City of Scottsdale as part of our planning support to our members.
12. Scottsdale Loop 101 Park and Ride This project will construct a park and ride near the loop 101. • Scope of work has been prepared and approved by the City of Scottsdale.
• A cost and staffing plan has been solicited from one of RPTA’s on-call consultants. • An IGA with the City of Scottsdale is being prepared for this project.
Relationship to TLCP and RTP—This project is not one of the PTF funded facilities identified in the TLCP implementation schedule. Study is being done at the request of the City of Scottsdale as part of our planning support to our members. Funding for the Study is being provided by the City of Scottsdale. This facility will support operational investments that are identified in the TLCP.
Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary
Agenda Item #9
Date January 20, 2009
Subject Future VMOCC Agenda Items
Summary Chairman Greg Jordan will request future VMOCC agenda items from the committee members. The attached matrix illustrates past and pending agenda items of the VMOCC.
Fiscal Impact None
Considerations None
Prior Committee Action None
Recommendation None
Contact Person Bryan Jungwirth Chief of Staff 602-534-1803
Attachments Spreadsheet Matrix – VMOCC Past and Pending Agenda Items
1 VMOCC Past and Pending Agenda Items (as of January 2009)
Meeting Date Agenda Item Status of Agenda Item
27-Jan-09 Summary Minutes (from meeting on December 16, 2008) Action Fare Policy Program Information 2007 Origins and Destinations Study Action IVR Software for East Valley Dial-a-Ride Contract Award Action TLCP Policy Issues and Recommendations Information & Possible Action Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Fund Utilization Information & Discussion Regional Operations TAC Information & Discussion Valley Metro Planning Studies Overview Update, 4th Quarter 2008 Information
Upcoming Agenda Items Feb. 2009 Procurement System RFP Approval Action Feb. 2009 TLCP Financial Model Update and Approval Action Feb. 2009 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) Action Feb. 2009 Vanpool Vans Purchase Contract Award Action Feb. 2009 MAG Transit Framework Study Update Information Feb. 2009 Customer Relations Performance Report Information March 2009 Maintenance Bay Award Action March 2009 Bus Wash Award Action March 2009 Draft FY 09/10 Operating and Capital Budget Information April 2009 FY 09/10 Operating and Capital Budget Approval Information May 2009 Procurement System Contract Award Action July 2009 Volunteer Driver Mileage Reimbursement Update Information
Pending Agenda Items (month of action not yet determined) Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive BRT Design Concept Report Comprehensive Arterial BRT Study Farebox Update Information Valley Metro Identity Launch Information Fuel Management System Contract Award Action Arizona Avenue Design Concept Report (DCR) Action Volunteer Mileage Reimbursement Contract Award Action Project Agreements/Assessment/Design Concept Reports for TLCP Action Bus Bridging Information Web Development RFP Action United We Ride Grant Opportunity for Call Center Funding Information
Recurring Items December Annual Transit Performance Report Action December Congressional Appropriations Request Approval Action February TLCP Financial Model Update and Approval Action February FY 2009-10 Operating and Capital Budget Action February Communications and Marketing Plan (part of budget document) Information April/May Operating and Capital Budget, including acceptance of the Communications Information and Marketing Plan
Page 1 of 2 VMOCC Past and Pending Agenda Items (as of January 2009)
Past Agenda Items 16-Dec-08 Summary VMOCC/FOAC Minutes (from joint meeting on October 21, 2008) 12/16/08 – Approved Summary Minutes (from meeting on October 21, 2008) 12/16/08 – Approved Annual Transit Performance Report 12/16/08 – Approved, with changes Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) 11/18/08 – Postponed for more info Regional Congressional Appropriations Request for 2010 12/16/08 – Approved Authorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Program Policy Issues 12/16/08 – Approved, with additions Bus Stop Improvement Program Funding Allocation 12/16/08 – Approved Development of Revenue Enhancing Programs for the TLCP 12/16/08 – Presented and Discussed TLCP Process and Annual Schedule of the TLCP 12/16/08 – Presented and Discussed Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Policy Issues 12/16/08 – Presented and Discussed 18-Nov-08 Summary Minutes (from joint meeting on October 21, 2008) 11/18/08 – Approved Farebox Update 11/18/08 – Presented and Discussed ADA Paratransit Eligibility Determination Program Recommendations 11/18/08 – Approved Short Range Transit Plan 11/18/08 – Presented and Discussed ADOT Revenue Forecast Update 11/18/08 – Presented and Discussed Past and Future VMOCC Agenda Items 11/18/08 – Presented and Discussed Future VMOCC Agenda Items 11/18/08 – Presented and Discussed - VMOCC Structure (requested by Reed Caldwell) - TLCP Process and Annual Schedule - Development of a Regional Fixed Route Policies TAC - Discussion regarding the SRTP formal process 19-Aug-08 Bus Stop Improvement Workshop 9/10/08 – Bus Stop Workshop Outstanding agenda item requests Management Audit Services Recommendation 9/16/08 – Presented and Discussed City of Phoenix RFP for Bus Stop Management System 9/16/08 – Presented and Discussed 25-Jun-08 AzTech Proposal – more information 8/19/08 – Approved Fare Policy Enhancement Program 9/16/08 – Presented and Discussed Ridership Data Update 8/19/08 – Presented and Discussed Regional Bus Stop Database (management functions and current status) 8/19/08 – Presented and Discussed 23-Apr-08 Smartcard Presentation AzTECH Proposal 6/25/08 – Tabled Rail Bus Bridging 6/25/08 – Presented and Discussed Farebox update 6/25/08 – Presented and Discussed Service promotions 6/25/08 – Presented and Discussed RTP Brochure development 6/25/08 – Presented and Discussed 12-Mar-08 Farebox Data Update 6/25/08 – Presented and Discussed 700 MHz Communications System 4/23/08 – Approved Vehicles for Mesa Main Street Bus Procurement Contract Award 4/23/08 – Approved Park-and-Ride Reprioritization Study 4/23/08 – Approved New Service Promotions 6/25/08 – Presented and Discussed Construction Manager at Risk Contract Award 4/23/08 – Approved Bus Bridging 6/25/08 – Presented and Discussed Capital Development Policy 4/23/08 – Approved (joint meeting) RTP Brochure – how it's developed 6/25/08 – Presented and Discussed 13-Feb-08 Suggested that the farebox item be moved to the Operator’s Roundtable 9-Jan-08 Farebox implementation update 2/13/08 – Presented and Discussed Planning Studies Update 2/13/08 – Presented and Discussed TLCP Parking Lot Items Mesa Main Street Project Assessment Report 3/12/08 – Presented and Discussed 12-Dec-07 Farebox rollout 1/09/08 – Presented and Discussed Joint Development Policy 4/23/08 – Approved (joint meeting)
Page 2 of 2 Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary
Agenda Item #10
Date January 20, 2009
Subject Member Agency Updates
Summary An opportunity will be provided for VMOCC members to provide an update on projects in their jurisdictions.
Fiscal Impact None
Considerations None
Prior Committee Action None
Recommendation None
Contact Person None
Attachments None
1 Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary
Agenda Item #11
Date January 20, 2009
Subject Public Comment
Summary An opportunity for general public comment on issues related to Valley Metro RPTA. Up to three (3) minutes will be provided for each speaker.
Fiscal Impact None
Considerations None
Prior Committee Action None
Recommendation None
Contact Person None
Attachments None
1