Queen Creek Transit Study R

This page intentionally left blank for printing.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 Recommendations ...... 1

1. Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Purpose of the Study ...... 3 1.2 Project Study Area ...... 3 1.3 Overview of this Report ...... 3

2. Existing Conditions and Population Dynamics ...... 5 2.1 Demographic Profile ...... 5 2.2 Transit Propensity Analysis ...... 7 2.3 Primary Activity Centers ...... 10 2.4 Conclusions ...... 11

3. Existing Services and Alternatives Considered ...... 13 3.1 Existing Transit Services...... 13 3.2 Travel Survey ...... 14 3.3 Transit Service Options Considered ...... 16 3.4 Preliminary Cost Estimates for Transit Service Options ...... 22 3.5 Comparison of Preliminary Transit Service Options ...... 23

4. Transit Service Recommendations and Performance Criteria ...... 27 4.1 Service Recommendations ...... 27 4.2 Transit-Supportive Capital Improvements ...... 34 4.3 Performance Criteria ...... 36 4.4 Title VI Populations ...... 36 4.5 Future Funding Opportunities ...... 36

5. Future Transit Opportunities ...... 39 5.1 Planning for Rail Transit ...... 40

Appendicies ...... 43

This page intentionally left blank for printing.

Executive Summary attract additional passengers to the program and aid in the identification of key destinations and The Queen Creek Transit Study is intended to transportation patterns, thereby acting as an identify opportunities, challenges, and overall important intermediate step towards the demand for providing transit services and multi- implementation of more advanced transit modal transportation investments in the Town of services in the future. Queen Creek. Located in the southeast valley, If a traditional fixed-route service is desired, it is the Town of Queen Creek has experienced recommended that a community connector enormous growth over the last decade. Along service (Option 3) be implemented. This option with the Town’s growth, the southeast valley is designed to provide a basic level of service region has also experienced a significant volume between neighborhoods in Queen Creek and the of population and employment growth, resulting Superstition Springs Transit Center in in an increased number of daily trips through the neighboring Mesa. However, while establishing Town destined for locations across the Valley. a link to the regional transit network, the Despite the Town’s substantial growth, community connector service may not provide transportation options in Queen Creek remain sufficient incentive to current or potential transit limited. To identify the Town’s most pressing users in Queen Creek to justify the investment. mobility needs, an analysis of demographic and Still, available funds are sufficient to cover the employment trends, existing and future anticipated operating cost of this service. development patterns, and a community travel In addition to considering a variety of transit survey were conducted. A range of transit service options, the study also identified a options were developed for consideration critical need for supportive public infrastructure, including express bus service to several such as sidewalks, street furniture, bicycle destinations, the extension of existing local bus facilities, and street lighting (among other routes into Queen Creek, community connector streetscape investments). Underlying public service, pre-scheduled on demand shuttle infrastructure plays a significant role in the service, and expansion of Valley Metro’s establishment of successful transit services, and vanpool and carpool programs. can also set the stage for future transit- Recommendations supportive urban development, helping to guide growth and creating an incentive for developers In the short term, it is recommended that the if urban systems are already available. Town explore the expanded use of Valley Metro’s vanpool program as a cost-effective Recognizing the strong desire for some type of commuter mobility solution. This commuter-oriented fixed-rail service in the recommendation is made for several reasons, future, the Queen Creek Transit Study most notably the cost associated with providing concludes with a discussion of practical actions fixed-route service relative to expected the Town can take to prepare for potential utilization. Current data on trip patterns suggest commuter rail service. Along these lines, this a wide dispersion in the destinations Queen study also discusses future transit opportunities Creek residents are traveling to work locations. in order to help ensure that if a rail facility is The Valley Metro vanpool program allows for constructed, sufficient access is available more customized transportation service that may between other areas of the Town through public be tailored better around individual travel needs. transportation. Using available Arizona Lottery Fund (ALF) dollars, the Town could offset the costs for current and future vanpool participants by subsidizing a portion of their monthly/annual fare. A subsidized vanpool program would help

This page intentionally left blank for printing.

1. Introduction an increased number of daily trips through the Town destined for locations across the Valley. 1.1 Purpose of the Study Figure 1. Queen Creek Town Hall In response to continued growth, the Town of Queen Creek partnered with Valley Metro to sponsor the Queen Creek Transit Study. The goal of the study was to develop a well-informed understanding of public transportation investments that could ease the burden of congestion on roadways today, connect Queen Creek to the regional transit network, and set the stage for future investments in transit services. To achieve this goal, the study developed a series of different service options across a variety of service types and considered the benefits and drawbacks of each. Because Queen Creek is participating in the Southeast Photo credit: Town of Queen Creek, 2014 Valley Regional Transit Study currently, the recommendations discussed herein are focused 1.3 Overview of this Report on more immediate activities that may be Following the above introductory discussion, implemented within the study area to identify Section 2 presents the analysis of current reasonable, feasible and fiscally responsible socioeconomic characteristics and population transportation strategies, while allowing the dynamics that commonly influence the demand Southeast Valley study to provide the long-term for public transportation services. Additionally, service recommendations. Section 2 identifies community and regional destinations that warrant consideration for The need for this study is based on present and potential transit service. projected future land use and transportation deficiencies and opportunities, as well as Section 3 presents the preliminary transit service regional and local economic sustainability. The options developed for consideration and Town of Queen Creek is poised for significant provides operating and capital (where growth in most major forms of land use including applicable) cost estimates for each. Section 4 residential, commercial, industrial, and public identifies the initial transit service institutions. As such, providing a rich mixture of recommendations and discusses additional transportation options will help alleviate current actions that could be taken to foster the and anticipated future transportation issues. development of transit services in Queen Creek. The report concludes with Section 5 which 1.2 Project Study Area identifies future transit opportunities and Located in the southeast valley, the Town has discusses how the Town can best prepare for experienced enormous growth over the last potential future commuter rail service. decade. Where cotton fields, citrus groves, and native desert terrain once stretched for miles, housing subdivisions, shopping centers, and industrial parks now stand. Along with the Town’s growth, the southeast valley region has also experienced a significant volume of population and employment growth, resulting in

This page intentionally left blank for printing.

2. Existing Conditions and growth over the past two decades, along with the forecast population growth between 2010 Population Dynamics and 2035.

Figure 2. Population Growth, 1990-2010 in 2.1 Demographic Profile Queen Creek Population demographics serve as an important indicator of potential demand for public transportation services. Understanding current population characteristics and trends helps to inform the travel decisions people commonly make, and how a public transportation service can best be tailored to appropriately serve these travel markets. As the Town of Queen Creek and the region continue to grow, understanding population trends will be important toward identifying a range of forward-looking actions Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2014 necessary to expand mobility options. Looking to the future, population forecast data 2.1.1 Population Growth provided by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) projects that the Town of Relevant population growth data for the Town of Queen Creek will expand to a population of Queen Creek was compiled and summarized 77,799 by year 2035, an approximate rate of herein. This analysis principally used the latest growth of 195% from a base year of 2010. This data available from the U.S. Census Bureau, surge in population growth will result in including data from the 2010 Census and significant growth in trips made to, within, and American Community Survey (ACS) — a from the Town, resulting in greater congestion revolving survey of households conducted pressures on the existing surface transportation annually — to identify current trends and network. Currently, 42% of the Town’s population characteristics. population consists of residents under 18 years Over the last two decades, the Town of Queen of age or 65 years and older. Between 2000 and Creek and Maricopa County have both 2010, each of these age groups far outpaced the witnessed substantial population growth. From rate of growth for the population between the 1990 to 2000, the Town experienced a 62% ages of 18 to 64. Thus, the consideration of their growth rate, adding some 1,649 new residents. needs, as well as those of other transit This rate of growth was quicker than that dependent populations, will be essential to experienced by Maricopa County, which over planning the most appropriate service in Queen the same period saw a 44% growth in population Creek. (744,968 new residents). While the first half of However, in spite of the growth rates of youth the last decade marked some of the largest and senior populations, the commuter travel gains in population in the region, the recession market continues to be the market most apt to in 2008 and subsequent slow recovery use any service offered in Queen Creek. The significantly tempered further growth in many socioeconomic characteristics of the Town’s communities. Despite the economic conditions, population continues to demonstrate that the population in Queen Creek grew by an younger and older populations have access to astounding 511% (22,045) from 2000 to 2010. private automobiles, but that commuters Comparatively, Maricopa County’s population traveling to work are still traveling significant grew just 24% (744,968) over the same period. distances. Thus, it is this market that most Figure 2-1 illustrates the Town’s population warrants a review of available service options.

2.1.2 Emerging Growth Areas service. While some jobs require access to private transportation throughout the day, other The most important factor impacting transit jobs employ persons who typically travel from demand is the density of people who live or work their home location to their work destination and within walking distance to transit service. Since remain there for the duration of the workday. most people walk to or from transit for at least The provision of a quick and efficient transit one end of their trip, locating service within service creates an attractive and cost effective walking distance of high concentrations of travel option to those in the latter group. residences and employment is a key determinant of successful service. Densities also The greatest proportion of working residents in help determine the level of and type of service Queen Creek are employed in the educational that will best meet the demand. In densely services, health care/social assistance industries developed areas there will be large numbers of (21%), a slightly greater share than the county residents and employees who will be able to average same for the same industries (19.8%). easily access transit service, and demand is The workforce also includes a strong number of high. In less densely developed areas, fewer persons employed in business and scientific people will be able to easily use transit service; fields. Generally speaking, persons employed in consequently, demand and service levels will be these types of industries may be more likely to lower. Park-and-ride lots and feeder bus service drive to work, although depending on the can extend the “reach” of transit service, but specific nature of their job (e.g., a position that almost without exception, the more people living requires minimal daily travel) a transportation and working within close proximately of transit, option that is orchestrated around fixed travel the higher the demand will be for transit. schedules could offer an enticing alternative to driving. A list of the Town’s top ten employers is Current and future land use planning has provided in Table 1 below. Interestingly, nearly identified several emerging growth areas. all of the Town’s top ten employers are either Population and employment growth is retail businesses or educational facilities (the anticipated in all quadrants of the Town, U.S. Postal Service is the one exception). although current planning has tended to focus on the growth of downtown Queen Creek and Table 1. Top Ten Employers in Queen Creek along Rittenhouse Road in the northwest Employer Employees direction where Queen Creek shares a municipal border with the Town of Gilbert and Walmart 306 City of Mesa. Town of Queen Creek 216 Queen Creek Unified School District However, despite the Town’s rate of growth, a 150 challenge confronting the creation of regular 95 (District Center) fixed-route transit service is the current Target 137 development patterns of the community. The Home Depot 133 prevailing development patterns have resulted in Kohl’s Department Store 123 population and employment densities that are Higley Unified School District 60 104 too low to support regular local fixed-route United States Postal Service 85 Queen Creek Unified School District service meeting Valley Metro’s adopted service 84 95 (Queen Creek HS) standards at this time. However, other options Chandler Unified School District 80 82 exist that can connect the Town to the regional (Payne Jr High School) transit network efficiently and effectively. Source: MAG, 2012

2.1.3 Employment Characteristics 1.1.3 Commuting to Work Employment characteristics are an essential According to available Census data, a greater factor to consider when planning potential transit share of Queen Creek residents (77.8%) self-

identified themselves as driving to work alone as uses presents a challenge to provide cost- compared with the Maricopa County average for effective fixed-route service to the Town. Queen persons driving to work alone (75.8%). This is Creek’s location in the southeast corner of not an uncommon characteristic for communities Maricopa County (and partly in neighboring located on the urban fringe of major metropolitan Pinal County), residents of Queen Creek areas, including the Phoenix region. Figure 3 experienced an average commute time below summarizes the work commute mode approximately eight minutes greater than the share in Queen Creek. rest of the County (33.7 minutes versus 25.6 minutes for the County). Looking to the future, Figure 3. Work Commute Mode Share in the Town’s expected population growth may Queen Creek only exacerbate commute times as the street network in Queen Creek becomes increasingly congested, particularly if travel options are continually limited to a single mode. 2.2 Transit Propensity Analysis Like all growing towns and cities, Queen Creek is constantly changing. As evidenced by the growth in population over the past two decades, while the pace of change may vary over time, the overall rate of growth and change has been dramatic. In turn, the surging growth in the Town’s population, coupled with the growth of neighboring southeast Valley communities has resulted in the significant growth of trips, subsequently placing pressure on the existing surface transportation system to expand or Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year adapt. While opportunities exist to construct new Estimates roads or expand existing facilities, the solution of As a result, Queen Creek was below the County “building out of congestion” will become average for every other commute mode (e.g., increasingly difficult and costly as development. carpooling, transit usage, walking to work, or other means of transportation such as bicycling). The demographic characteristics of the study Just 0.2% of Queen Creek residents self- area serve an important role in identifying the identified themselves as regularly using public potential market for public transportation transportation services to commute to work. By services. When mapped spatially, demographic comparison, 2.4% of all trips made in Maricopa data can be a telling indicator of where transit County are made via public transportation. While services may be most productive. A tool transit the proportion of Maricopa County residents who planners often use is a Transit Propensity use public transportation regularly is fairly low, Analysis, a calculation used to determine the this amounts to over 75 million transit trips made relative propensity of a geographic area to use annually in the greater metropolitan region. The public transportation services relative to the limited number of persons using public demographic characteristics of the area in transportation services in Queen Creek is most question. likely attributable to the limited availability of Transit propensity is the measure of the transit service options currently serving the likelihood that a local population will use transit southeast Valley region. However, as noted service, where available. The end result of a earlier, the spatial distribution of developed land Transit Propensity Analysis is a general estimate

of the relative likelihood of the residents of a (9,861) and 5.2% (1,368) of the population specific geographic area (typically Census tracts respectively. Together these groups account for or block groups) to use transit services, if over 42% of the population of Queen Creek. available. This analysis should not be Furthermore, these age groups grew at a faster considered as a formal ridership estimate, but is rate than did the population of those 18-64 years intended to serve as a “pulse check” of market of age—545% for the under 18 population and potential that assists planners in identifying the 554% for the over 65 population versus 487% most appropriate type of service to initially serve for those 18-64. These trends may affect how an area. The elements considered in a common potential transit service would operate in Queen propensity analysis are outlined in the Transit Creek. Cooperative Research Program’s Report 27 – Although the median income in Queen Creek is “Building Transit Ridership: An Exploration of substantially higher than the county average Transit’s Market Share and Public Policies that ($83,601 versus $55,099), a portion of the Influence It,” and Report 28 – “Transit Markets of population remains below the poverty line. In the Future: The Challenge of Change.” 2011, this accounted for 5% of families and 6% Several factors are considered in a transit of all individuals in Queen Creek. While these propensity analysis, including: figures are well below the County averages of 10.9% (families) and 14.9% (individuals), it still . Access to private vehicles represents a population more likely to rely on . Population age cohorts (Persons 18 years transit than the general population. and younger or 65 years and over) . Poverty statistics Finally, disabilities are another factor that may . Persons with disabilities contribute to transit propensity. Disabilities are generally grouped into the following categories: As the mobility needs of these populations vary hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive more considerably when compared to the difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, transportation needs of the general population, and independent living difficulty. Approximately their consideration is essential when planning 1,842 (7%) of Queen Creek residents fell into public transportation service. An analysis of ACS one of these categories in 2011. While a data revealed that an overwhelming number of majority of those with disabilities were between households in Queen Creek have access to one the ages of 18 and 64, the share of those under or more vehicles, with just 0.7% lacking access 18 with disabilities was significantly higher in all together. This is well below the County Queen Creek than in Maricopa County (21% average of 6.5%. Nevertheless, these versus 9%). Although disabilities range in type households must rely on public transportation, and severity, this population may require carpools, car-sharing, or other non-motorized specialized transportation services to assist with modes for mobility. Further analysis indicates their mobility needs. The transit propensity that households in Queen Creek have greater factors discussed above are summarized in access to vehicles than average for the rest of Table 2 in the next page. the County with 51% of homes reporting 2 vehicles and 29% reporting 3 or more, compared to 39% and 16% respectively for the County.

Table 2 Transit Propensity Factors Considering all of the socioeconomic factors discussed above collectively, a picture of Queen Maricopa Factor aggregate transportation demand begins to Creek County emerge. The population demographics of Queen No vehicles available 0.7% 6.5% Creek were mapped spatially, along with the locations of primary community destinations Population 65 and (discussed in greater detail below), to illustrate 5.2% 12.1% Over where market demand for public transportation is potentially greatest. This approach will serve Population Under 18 37.4% 26.4% as an intuitive aide when considering potential routing options for transit services to maximize a Income below poverty 6.1% 14.9% return on investment and utilization. Figure 4 level (individuals) below overlays select community destinations in Queen Creek over population data to illustrate Population with 7.11% 9.74% Disability markets most amenable to potential transit Source: U.S. Census Bureau, service. 2013

Figure 4. Aggregate Need for Transit Service in Queen Creek

2.3 Primary Activity Centers Queen Creek is home to a number of facilities that provide medical care to the Town’s In addition to evaluating existing population residents. In addition to two urgent care demographics, the identification of major activity locations, the Banner Health Care Center offers centers is also an essential component in a wide range of services to children, determining a community’s primary corridors adolescents, adults, and seniors alike. More and travel patterns. Activity centers are sites that advanced services can be accessed at one of generate a significant amount of travel activity two nearby regional hospital facilities: Mercy within a community. These can include Gilbert Medical Center in Gilbert and Banner commercial shopping centers, community Ironwood Medical Center in San Tan Valley. facilities, schools, medical facilities, and Figure 5. Queen Creek Public Library employment centers. For the purpose of this analysis, both community and regional destinations were identified. A brief description of activity centers in Queen Creek is provided below. The full list of identified activity centers is provided in Appendix A. The Town of Queen Creek is home to several shopping centers that provide a wide range of retail, dining, and entertainment options. Several of these facilities are clustered in or near the Town Center, with the remaining shopping centers situated along the Power Road corridor. Shopping complexes including Cornerstone at Queen Creek and the Queen Creek Marketplace Photo credit: BACnet International, 2014 anchor downtown retail activities and Figure 6. Horseshoe Park employment. Also clustered in downtown Queen Creek are several community facilities and civic spaces. The Queen Creek Public Library (Figure 5), local post office, community center, and law enforcement and fire protection facilities are clustered in and around the Town Center. The Queen Creek Unified School District (QCUSD) educates approximately 5,200 students and consists of four elementary schools, one middle school, one junior high school, and one high school. In addition to its public schools, Queen Photo credit: AZCentral.com, 2014 Creek is also home to a number of charter In addition to destinations within Queen Creek, a schools. School locations are more number of regional destinations affect the travel decentralized as compared to other civic patterns of local residents. The Town of Queen spaces, but can act as trip attractors and Creek is located within relatively close proximity generators. Also, public open spaces, parks to the downtowns of several neighboring (Figure 6) and greenways are scattered across communities which feature cultural and the Town, but can be a means by which persons recreational attractions and serve as major access arterial streets. employment centers. Just north of the Town of Queen Creek lies the City of Mesa, whose downtown has seen a recent surge in small

businesses, higher education facilities, and new region’s roadway network. Without more civic spaces. The extension of light rail transit transportation choices than exist today, the into downtown will provide a regional connection proportion of drive alone auto trips will increase to Mesa’s burgeoning entertainment district, while the proportion of alternative mode use anchored by the new Mesa Arts Center. would decrease. Additionally, the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, Figure 7. Residential Housing Construction just minutes from the Town of Queen Creek, provides general aviation as well as some airline service to a number of destinations throughout the country. To the west of Queen Creek lies the Town of Gilbert whose historic Heritage District has been the site of significant revitalization efforts over the last several years and features a host of retail, dining, and entertainment opportunities. Further west of Queen Creek, downtown Chandler has emerged as a major entertainment center with a diverse array of boutique shops, galleries, local eateries, museums, and more in Photo credit: Town of Queen Creek, 2014 a walkable, pedestrian-friendly setting. However, the Town’s current development Located north of Queen Creek is Arizona State patterns present a critical challenge to providing University’s (ASU) Polytechnic campus located cost-effective transit service. The spatial on the grounds of the former Williams Air Force distribution of developed land areas creates long Base in southeast Mesa. An extension campus travel distances between residential locations of ASU, this facility is home to over 8,000 and job or shopping centers. Much of the land students enrolled in 40 degree-granting use in Queen Creek is devoted to single-family programs. Located on the campus grounds homes, open spaces, and other low-density are the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, developments. In the last decade, as the a United States Air Force research laboratory, residential population has grown, development a Veteran's Administration Clinic and the patterns have been dispersed across the Town’s Silvestre Herrera Army Reserve Center. The land area. Population and employment are campus serves as a major employer in the increasing outside of the downtown area, but the numbers – both in terms of absolute numbers southeast Valley region. and congregations (e.g. densities) of people – 2.4 Conclusions remain low. The development patterns in general are characteristic of suburban style A thorough analysis of the data presented above development rather than urban and as a result, reveals a number of opportunities and much less supportive of transit. Consequently challenges to consider when planning transit the potential transit market from a productivity service in the Town of Queen Creek. With basis using a fixed-route type of service is much limited financial resources, and in the face of more difficult to serve. A fixed-route transit greater demands being placed on the existing alignment would have to travel many miles in transportation system, determining the best revenue service with little to no ridership. means for improving the transportation system and meeting future demand is challenging. As the residential population and employment grow, The ease by which people can move between congestion will continue to rise, increasing the desired travel destinations such as home and cost of travel and reducing the efficiency of the school, work, medical services, and shopping

opportunities is dependent upon the efficiency towards creating such an environment in which and effectiveness of the region’s transportation transit will be a vital component. system. Land use plays an important role in the Community and regional destinations represent demand for travel within and across a region. In another important consideration in the planning general, transportation corridors that include of potential transit services. The shopping higher population and employment densities, centers, schools, employers, and other facilities along with a range of land use types, create an identified previously are locations that urban environment that supports the use of community members frequently travel to for multiple travel modes. This can spread the entertainment, employment, and goods and demand for travel across a variety of modes, services and thus may require access to now or reducing the stress and wear on roads and in the future. While providing residents with bridges, and decrease travel times between connections to these destinations ensures the destinations. At the same time, corridors that individual well-being of those with limited support integrated transportation systems mobility, it also yields the communal results of provide residents and employees greater access potential business stimulation, as patrons who to jobs, goods and services, and recreational may not have made the trip otherwise are opportunities, connecting people within and encouraged by the additional transportation beyond the corridor and study area. Land use options. The sites identified above may prove to and transportation are key contributors to the be ideal stop locations for future transit service, quality-of-life and economic vitality of the although further analysis of travel patterns and Arizona Avenue corridor, the three communities, demand is needed. and the southeast valley region. While the Town has expressed a desire to maintain its emphasis on open spaces, the land use patterns, streetscape improvements, and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations outlined in the Town Center Plan drafted in 2011 make it an ideal location in which to base future transit service. Higher density and mixed-use developments such as the sort planned for the Town Center provide a higher concentration of goods and services in a centralized location, reducing the dependency on private automobiles, and thus increasing the number of people walking, bicycling, and utilizing transit modes to get to their destinations. Such development can reap substantial benefits that include improved air quality as a result of fewer automobile trips, enhanced personal health due to increased levels of physical activity, and reduced public infrastructure costs. Furthermore, increasing the amount of people in a more concentrated area provides a consumer base that allows local business to thrive. With the efforts and actions outlined in both the General Plan and Town Center Plan, it is clear that the Town of Queen Creek has taken the first steps

3. Existing Services and ASU Polytechnic Campus in Mesa to Ahwatukee. Route 184 provides service along Alternatives Considered the Power Road corridor from the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport to the Power Road Park-and- 3.1 Existing Transit Services Ride facility. Finally, the Superstition Springs Transit Center at the US 60 and Power Road Although there is currently no transit service features a park-and-ride facility and access to within the Town of Queen Creek, there are a LINK service to the light rail line, express bus number of routes nearby that provide service to service to downtown Phoenix Monday through destinations valley wide. Route 156 provides Friday, and local routes 40, 45, 61, and 108. service to destinations and connecting routes Existing transit routes in the vicinity of Queen along the Chandler Boulevard corridor from the Creek are depicted in Figure 8 below.

Figure 8. Existing Transit Routes near Queen Creek

Source: Valley Metro System Map, 2014

A number of future transit service additions in results are also important toward informing the the area will also be beneficial to residents of type of service most likely to have the greatest Queen Creek. The MAG Regional return on investment for both the Town and Transportation Plan (RTP) identifies a number of Valley Metro. proposed bus routes to be implemented in the Although the survey was not statistically valid, planning horizon. These include: a route along the survey results provide a snapshot of transit Ray Road from 40th street to Phoenix-Mesa needs and desires in Queen Creek. This survey Gateway Airport (2015); a route along Queen was administered at key community locations Creek Road from Power Road to the I-10 and made available online via the websites of (2018); and a freeway BRT route to the Phoenix- Valley Metro and the Town. Participant Mesa Gateway Airport (2017). In addition to the interviews were conducted by Valley Metro improvements outlined in the RTP, the MAG representatives at community events. Commuter Rail Strategic Planning Study Substantial efforts were made to publicize the recommends the development of a high-capacity survey including a Valley Metro news release, commuter rail line that would utilize the existing articles published in the Arizona Republic, and Union Pacific tracks and provide service from an announcement included in residents’ utility Queen Creek to downtown Phoenix in just 46 bills. These efforts culminated in the collection of minutes. The addition of such high quality transit 262 surveys, the results of which are discussed service would significantly improve the Town’s at length below. connectivity to other Valley communities and could stimulate substantial economic 2.4.1 Survey Results development opportunities. Currently, the Arizona Department of Transportation is A majority of survey respondents (55%) conducting an alternatives analysis and identified themselves as residents of Queen Environmental Impact Statement that is also Creek, with the next highest share (24%) considering the use of this railway for intercity indicating they were from San Tan Valley. rail between the Phoenix metropolitan region Additionally, 5% of respondents indicated they and Tucson. were from Gilbert, and the same percentage of respondents was from unincorporated parts of 3.2 Travel Survey Maricopa County. A majority of the remaining respondents (5%) provided no response. Most Where the transit propensity analysis helps to survey respondents were at or under 50 years of identify geographic areas where transit may be age, with the two greatest shares indicating they productive, another important step in were between 41-50 (31%) and 31-40 (25%). In establishing a transit vision and program for total, over two-thirds of respondents were 50 or Queen Creek is to survey community members younger. The age breakdown of survey on their current travel characteristics and respondents is provided in Figure 9 below. preferences.

In the summer and fall of 2013, Valley Metro – in coordination with Queen Creek staff – conducted a travel survey in effort to determine community support and demand for transit services. Household travel surveys such as this are used to obtain information about work and non-work trip generation, trip distribution, and modal choice. In addition to understanding common travel patterns, demand, and desired travel destinations within Queen Creek and the greater Phoenix metropolitan region, the survey

Figure 9. Age of Survey Respondents share (59%) stated that availability of commuter rail was important. Frequency of bus service (58%) and the availability of park-and-ride facilities (47%) also rated highly.

Figure 10. The Most Important Transit Needs in Queen Creek

When asked how often they utilized Valley Metro transit services, the greatest share of respondents (47%) reported that they never had used them. This may be attributed to the fact that no transit service currently exists within the boundaries of Queen Creek. Despite the absence of local service, 18% of respondents reported daily transit use, with another 8% and 9% indicating transit use a few times a week and a few times a month, respectively. Furthermore, when asked whether they would use transit services were it more convenient, an * Residents could select more than one option overwhelming majority (89%) responded that To further define areas of need, a number of key they would. destinations were selected for inclusion in the survey to determine how likely respondents The costs associated with providing high-quality would be to access these sites via transit transit services are often a barrier to their services were they available. The option that implementation. Identifying funding sources can elicited the greatest number of responses was be difficult, and communities that lack transit the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, with 72.9% service may be resistant to the notion of a of respondents indicating they would likely dedicated transit tax. Yet a majority of survey access this site via transit service if it was respondents (58%) indicated they would be available. Superstition Springs Mall and other willing to pay for transit services in Queen destinations around the valley were also Creek. An additional 31% responded that they identified as likely destinations accessed by were not sure, with just 9% stating they would transit, with 67% and 65% of survey not be willing to pay for transit services. respondents selecting these locations. There Survey respondents were also asked to identify was also a significant demand for service to what they thought to be the most important regional employment centers, with 63% of transit needs for Queen Creek and the greater respondents indicating they would likely utilize Southeast Valley (Figure 10). The greatest transit to access work sites outside of Queen share of respondents (65%) identified service to Creek. Finally, respondents expressed a desire destinations around the valley as the most for service to local shopping centers, with 57% essential transit need, while nearly the same indicating they were likely to access these sites

via transit. Figure 11 provides a summary of Figure 12. Likelihood of Transit Use by Type these results below. of Service Figure 11. Top Five Transit Destinations

* Residents could select more than one option Transit services exist to ensure the mobility needs of a community are met. As the populations/demographic groups served can vary by mode or type of service, it is essential to 3.3 Transit Service Options consider both the needs and the wishes of the community for which transit services are being Considered planned. With this in mind, survey respondents The service options described herein were were asked to identify the types of transit service developed in accordance with the vision and they would likely utilize were they available. The trends identified in previous studies, the option that received the greatest support was expressed desires of community members light rail/commuter rail with 78% of respondents during meetings with the Town’s Transportation indicating they would use such a service. Advisory Committee (TAC), and the direct input Express bus service to downtown and park-and- received from town residents through the transit ride facilities were options that also fared well, needs survey. Additionally, the service options with 68% and 50% of respondents, respectively were developed in accordance with Valley replying they would likely use such services. Metro’s Board-adopted service standards. While Relatively strong support for local bus or the options vary by type, frequency, and cost, all neighborhood circulator service was also would improve connectivity to local/regional observed, as nearly half of respondents destinations across the Phoenix metropolitan indicated interest in these types of services. A region, and establish a direct link with the summary of responses is presented in Figure regional transit network. 12. Five potential transit service options were developed for consideration in the Town of Queen Creek. These include the establishment

of express bus service with four alternative route

alignments, the extension of Route 156 Four express service options with service to (Chandler Blvd), the extension of Route 184 different destinations were developed for (Power Rd), the development of a community consideration. In order to comply with Valley connector service with four alternative route Metro’s commuter express bus service alignments, commuter vanpool, and a pre- standards, each of the alternatives would scheduled on-demand shuttle service. Within provide four inbound trips in the morning and Queen Creek, these options are primarily four outbound trips in the afternoon on focused within the Town Center and immediate weekdays only. The express bus service options surrounding areas where land use patterns are include: most conducive to transit service. The fixed . Express Service Option 1 provides service route preliminary service options, excluding the from the Queen Creek Town Center to the community connector options, are depicted in Superstition Springs Transit Center in Figure 13 below. neighboring Mesa.

3.3.1 Express Bus Service Options . Express Service Option 2 provides service from the Queen Creek Town Center to the Express bus service is primarily commuter Superstition Springs Transit Center in based, and as such would cater to Queen Creek Mesa, with continued operations to residents who commute to jobs in the Valley’s Downtown Phoenix. largest employment centers. A limited-stop or . Express Service Option 3 provides service express bus service is a type of service that from the Queen Creek Town Center to stops less frequently than local service. Downtown Phoenix, but forgoes the stop

Figure 13. Fixed-Route Transit Service Options Considered: Local and Express

Source: Valley Metro, 2014 17

at the Superstition Springs Transit Center. south on Power Road from its eastern terminus at ASU Polytechnic Campus, east on . Express Service Option 4 provides service Rittenhouse Road, and south on Ellsworth Road from the Queen Creek Town Center to to the Queen Creek Town Hall. Extending the Downtown Mesa. Express Service Option Route 156 would provide a connection to the 4 would eventually provide a link to Valley greater transit network and thus to destinations Metro light rail service Valley-wide. In most metropolitan areas, express bus services are most often run at scheduled times Route 184 provides service along the Power Rd when more people are travelling, such as corridor from the park-and-ride at Power Rd and morning and afternoon rush hours. Valley Loop 202 to ASU’s Polytechnic Campus. Metro’s current service standard for express bus Additionally, the Route 184 diverts at McKellips service mandates a minimum of four inbound Road to serve the Mesa Community College and four outbound weekday (Monday-Friday) Red Mountain Campus and at the US 60 trips. Queen Creek was previously served by Freeway to serve the Superstition Springs express Route 534 with service to downtown Transit Center. This proposed service option Tempe between January 22 and August 24, extends the route south on Power Road from its 2007. For these eight months the average daily current terminus at ASU’s Polytechnic Campus, ridership was five (5). east on Rittenhouse Road, and south on Ellsworth Road to Queen Creek’s Town Hall. As 3.3.2 Extension of Local Bus Routes with the extension of Route 156, extending the Route 184 would provide a connection to the Valley Metro Routes 156 and 184 are the two Valley’s greater transit network and enable local routes providing service nearest to Queen riders in Queen Creek to get to destinations Creek. Route 156 operates on Chandler Valley wide. Boulevard, while Route 184 provides service on Power Road. Valley Metro’s service standard for Figure 14. ASU Polytechnic Campus local system routes requires a minimum of 30 minute peak and off-peak period service during weekdays and weekends, and a minimum of 16 service hours on weekdays, 14 hours on Saturdays, and 12 hours on Sundays. It is important to note that federal regulations require complementary paratransit service within ¾ mile of fixed route service. Thus, both of the service options discussed below would necessitate the provision of ADA-compliant paratransit services, such as those provided by the East Valley Dial- a-Ride service.

Valley Metro’s Route 156 provides service to destinations in Mesa, Gilbert, Chandler, and Source: Arizona State University, 2014 Phoenix along Chandler Boulevard and Williams Field Road. While Route 156’s primary corridor 3.3.3 Community Connector Service extends along Chandler Blvd from 48th Street in A community connector service is another transit Phoenix to Arizona State University’s option the Town of Queen Creek may consider. Polytechnic Campus in Mesa, the route also This type of service typically provides extends south on Val Vista Drive to serve the connections to regional fixed-route transit Mercy Gilbert Medical Center. This proposed services (local bus or rail) or local activity nodes. service option would extend the Route 156 A community connector would provide service to

various activity centers including community vehicle type decisions can be adjusted as travel facilities, commercial shopping centers, patterns and ridership warrant, four route employment centers, and medical facilities. alignment alternatives were initially developed Stops are generally spaced approximately ¼ for the purpose of this analysis. mile apart, but given the spatial distribution of The Community Connector Service Options current land uses in Queen Creek, stops may be developed for this study are illustrated in Figure spaced at greater distances. Valley Metro’s 15. Three of the four connector service options service standard for local system routes requires would connect downtown Queen Creek with the a minimum of 30 minute all-day service during Superstition Springs Transit Center in Mesa. weekdays, and a minimum service span of 12 The fourth option would circulate within Queen hours. Although specific routing, scheduling, and Creek exclusively

Figure 15. Community Connector Routes

Source: Valley Metro, 2014 19

. Community Connector Service Option 1 started, participants simply create an account on would provide service along Ellsworth, the ShareTheRide website, fill out a commuting Rittenhouse, and Ocotillo Roads. Service profile, and select a carpool that satisfies the trip Option 1 would also serve Hawes and parameters they specified. The logistics of the Queen Creek Roads, the most dense carpool, such as meeting/drop off locations, neighborhoods in Queen Creek, departure and arrival times, and payment eventually turning north on Power Road and providing closed door service to the arrangements are mutually agreed upon by the Superstition Springs Transit Center. participants. This service is most effective for participants with relatively consistent work . Community Connector Service Option 2 schedules. In addition to matching users up with mirrors the alignment of the first option reoccurring carpools, the service also provides until it reaches Ellsworth Road where it proceeds south to serve the Queen Creek single trip matching for users’ one time trip Marketplace. It would then continue to needs. Hawes and Queen Creek Roads before Vanpool Program proceeding north on Power Road and providing closed door service to the In addition to Valley Metro’s carpool program, Superstition Springs Transit Center. Valley Metro also offers a vanpool program . Community Connector Service Option 3 catering to a larger group of communal travelers would provide service along the same who cannot use a typical automobile to corridors as the first two options, but accommodate all travelers. The vanpool would eschew serving the neighborhood program is more structured than its carpool northeast of the Town Center. Instead, counterpart. Under the vanpool program, Valley Service Option 3 would serve the Metro provides a group of 6 to 15 people with a Rittenhouse, Hawes, and Queen Creek van to use for commuting purposes. One corridors before continuing on to the qualified participant volunteers to be the driver, Superstition Springs Transit Center and each rider pays a monthly fee that covers . Community Connector Service Option 4 the lease, fuel, maintenance, and insurance would provide internal circulation only, first costs of the van. To get started, a group of at serving the dense neighborhoods least six participants who live and work in the southeast of the Town Center, continuing same areas and have similar work schedules is on to the Ocotillo, Hawes, and Queen assembled. Participants then fill out vanpool Creek corridors, and looping back on Germann and Rittenhouse Roads to serve applications and select primary and reserve the Queen Creek Marketplace and the drivers, who must meet certain qualifications. If Town Center. establishing a new vanpool is not feasible, potential participants can also visit the 3.3.4 Commute Solution Services ShareTheRide website to find existing vanpools with matching route and schedule specifications. In addition to fixed-route transit services, Valley Once the applications are successfully Metro and regional partners offer a number of approved, a start date is established and an other transportation services capable of appropriate vehicle is selected and delivered. providing additional transportation options to Sample monthly user fees are presented in residents of Queen Creek at little or no cost to Table 3 below. the Town. These include Valley Metro’s carpool and vanpool programs, described below. Carpool Program Valley Metro’s carpool program, ShareTheRide, assists users in finding other program participants with similar commutes. To get

Table 3. Sample Monthly Vanpool User Fees

Van Type One Way Mileage 8 Passenger 12 Passenger 14 Passenger 9 Passenger 15 Passenger Luxury Luxury Luxury 0 - 30 miles $73 $57 $81 $76 $56 31 - 60 miles $78 $62 $86 $80 $57 61 - 90 miles $83 $72 $91 $83 $59

Source: Valley Metro, 2014 Monthly passenger fares shown above are based on 80% occupancy. Costs for fuel, insurance, and vehicle maintenance are part of the monthly passenger costs. Parking costs are not included. No long term commitment is necessary to who may have limited mobility options, or the participate in the vanpool program; users must community at-large. A pre-scheduled shuttle simply give a 30 day notice to end participation. would operate similar to dial-a-ride service Similar to the carpool program, all the operating wherein passengers could schedule pick-up specifics of the vanpool—pick-up/drop-off points, times for transport between their residence and departing arrival times, van etiquette—are their final destination. The range the service mutually decided upon by the users. The driver would transport people within could be limited to is responsible for all of the upkeep and a certain geographic distance, and passengers administrative tasks associated with the vanpool could be charged a minimal fare, with the including fueling the vehicle, coordinating routine remaining portion of their trip being subsidized maintenance, collecting user fares, paying the by the Town. The price of the trip could be monthly bill, and submitting reports. In exchange structured similar to a taxi cab, where fares for performing these tasks, the driver receives a increase proportionally to distance traveled. This free commute. would help offset operating costs and lower the overall subsidy contributed by the Town, thereby The benefits of vanpooling are several. First, broadening the reach of the service. Passengers vanpoolers can save substantial money by would contact the driver directly to schedule joining the program—about $800 a year or pick-ups, helping to provide door-to-door service greater compared to driving alone. They can from origin to destination. Additionally, this type also enjoy faster commute times through the use of service enables a driver to build their own of the Valley’s High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) service schedule during operating hours. For lanes. Finally, vanpool users can take instance, based on trip patterns, the driver may advantage of tax savings, as federal tax laws realize that a regular number of trips at similar allow vanpool fares to be paid out of pre-tax times are being made to a common destination dollars. or destination (such as a health clinic or Pre-Scheduled, On-Demand Shuttle shopping center). The driver could subsequently work with passengers to arrange a pick-up The final service option considered is a demand schedule wherein multiple trips are made responsive pre-scheduled shuttle service, similar simultaneously, creating greater efficiencies of to dial-a-ride service. Although no such service scale. This type of service could operate on non- currently operates in the Valley, examples of this holiday weekdays only. type of service exist elsewhere in the United States. This service could provide Queen Creek While not a fixed-route service like the residents with a flexible travel option that meets Community Connector options listed above, this varying mobility needs. The service could be type of service has greater flexibility to respond tailored to serve specific demographic groups to varying passenger needs and travel such as seniors and persons with disabilities demands. However, it is important to note that

data on vehicle availability suggest that most Table 4. Summary of Estimated Annual residents of Queen Creek have access to Operating Costs private transportation already, or they live in community that offers this type of service Estimated Annual Net currently (such as an assisted living community Transit Service Options 1, Operating Cost with their own shuttle service). A challenge with 2, 4, 5 this type of service is productivity relative to cost given relatively low demand for service currently Express Service Option 1 $149,200 and the availability of other transportation Express Service Option 2 $483,000 options. Express Service Option 3 $480,600 3.4 Preliminary Cost Estimates for Express Service Option 4 $267,200 Transit Service Options Route 156 or 184 Extension3 $620,800 Community Connector $1,019,000 Initial capital and operating cost estimates for Service Option 1 the transit service options considered were Community Connector $1,086,200 developed. Expenditures represent the Service Option 2 Community Connector estimated costs associated with implementing, $921,400 Service Option 3 developing, purchasing, operating and Community Connector maintaining the transit system serving the study $665,100 Service Option 4 area. Because costs change over time, the costs Pre-Scheduled/On-Demand shown should be considered “order of $134,533 Shuttle Service magnitude” cost estimates, and not be considered as formal estimates of capital or Source: Valley Metro, 2014 operating costs until a service is selected to be 1 Estimated Annual Net Operating Costs based on Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate for the implemented. At that time, Valley Metro applicable service type (Express, Local, and Circulator – operations staff can provide a more detailed Connector – Services). Additional detail provided below. assessment of anticipated capital and operating 2 All costs shown reflect Valley Metro minimum service costs. standard. 3 Providing fixed-route local transit service would also require the Town of Queen Creek to provide ADA- 3.4.1 Operating Cost Estimates compliant paratransit service. 4 Costs shown do not include costs for ADA paratransit As the transit service options developed for the service. Town of Queen Creek prescribe various levels 5 Farebox recovery assumed at 10% of service and modes, annual operating costs range widely—from approximately $149,200 on 3.4.2 Capital Cost Estimates the low end to approximately $1,086,200 on the high end. Table 4 provides a summary of the Capital costs are an important consideration that annual operating costs associated with each must be accounted for prior to implementing a service option considered. Additionally, detailed new transit service. Capital costs are fixed cost estimates for each transit service option are expenses that may include vehicles, stops, and provided in Appendix B. any other construction necessary (e.g. sidewalks, transit-only street lanes, etc.). Several of the transit service options developed for consideration would contain capital elements. It is important to note that Queen Creek may not

be solely responsible for procuring all capital elements, such as vehicles, and there are ways to off-set costs for some capital elements (e.g. sheltered waiting areas or concrete bus pads).

Providing bus service may require the purchase identified for two principal categories: vehicles of additional vehicles. Typical vehicles for and passenger facilities. The unit costs are express service range in price from $400,000 to derived from past Valley Metro procurement $600,000 per vehicle, and local service vehicles practices and data from National Transit typically cost $400,000. Likewise, the extension Database. To illustrate the range of costs of local fixed-route service (either Route 156 or associated with transit vehicles and facilities, the Route 184) would use a standard 40 foot city costs shown range from shuttle buses cutaway bus, while a community connector service vehicles up to articulated bus vehicles to would require the purchase of ADA-compliant, illustrate the range in capital costs for vehicles, shuttle bus vehicles (typically called cutaways) and from basic bus stops to advanced which cost approximately $100,000 per vehicle. passenger facilities and park-and-rides. Typically, communities that purchase Valley Metro service pay a portion of the fleet costs 3.5 Comparison of Preliminary relative to the service level operated within their Transit Service Options jurisdiction, and therefore do not shoulder the burden of procuring fleet vehicles exclusively by In evaluating the preliminary alternative transit themselves. service options presented above, it is important to consider the advantages and drawbacks In addition to vehicle costs, providing fixed route inherent in each. Table 6 below provides a transit service in Queen Creek would require the summary of the pros and cons associated with development of bus stops. Depending on the each option described above. Choosing the scale of the stop and additional amenities most appropriate service depends on a number provided (benches, shelter, trash receptacle, or of factors including cost, desired travel bike rack), these facilities can range anywhere market(s), perceived benefit, and the from $250 for the simplest stop to $10,000 for assessment of existing conditions in the Town. the more complex—excluding right-of-way All of the preliminary transit service options acquisition. While these facilities may seem considered provide additional transportation costly, it is important to note that municipalities options to residents of Queen Creek yet vary by often have opportunities to enter into service type, level of service, and costs. With agreements with private advertising agencies these important considerations in mind, under which the agency covers a portion of the determining what market to serve and where the cost of providing a bus stop in exchange for greatest need exists become the essential advertising rights at the site. factors in selecting and implementing the most Lastly, providing express bus service or effective transit service option in Queen Creek extending Route 156 or Route 184 would require one additional capital element. As the excessive weight of buses can cause significant damage to roadway pavement, reinforced concrete pavement pads are recommended at bus layover locations. The dimensions of these concrete pads can vary based on the length of the bus and the number of buses anticipated to stop simultaneously.

Table 5 outlines general unit costs for capital elements that are important to consider when implementing public transportation service.

Capital investment unit costs have been

Table 5. Unit Capital Costs for Vehicles and Facilities

Capital Element Unit Cost1,2 Notes

Vehicles

Wheelchair-Ramp ADA-compliant wheelchair equipped 15- $40,000(+/-) Equipped Van passenger type vans.

Typically used for neighborhood circulator Shuttle Bus (Cutaway) $100,000(+/-) services or demand-responsive paratransit services.

The standard bus used for most fixed-route Standard City Bus (40-ft) $400,000-$600,000 local and commuter express bus services.

Sixty-foot (60-ft) articulated heavy duty Articulated Bus (60-ft) $600,000-$800,000 transit bus.

Stops3,4

Roadside stop with reflective sign and Roadside Bus Stop Sign $250-$500 steel pole fixture.

Basic bus stops typically include a sign, Roadside Sign and Bench $1,000-$2,000 bench, ADA-compliant sidewalk landing area, and minor sidewalk adjustments.

Includes the same passenger amenities as a basic bus stop, with a shelter, benches, Sheltered Stop with Bench Up to $10,000 and optional electrification for lighting and/or advertising, bus pull-out bays.

Includes the same passenger amenities as a basic bus stop, with a shelter, benches, Advanced Sheltered Stop $50,000(+/-) and optional electrification for lighting and/or advertising, bus pull-out bays

Cost assumption based on 500 stall facility. Includes basic passenger waiting amenities Park-and-Ride Lot Up to $10,000,000(+/-) such as shade structures, benches, fare vending machines, and bus bays.

Source: Valley Metro, 2014

Table 6. Summary of Transit Service Option

Service Pros Cons Option

Express Alternatives . Commuter based service only . Significant operating costs . Lacks connection to residential Service . Provides connection to regional transit network areas Option 1 via Superstition Springs Transit Center . Capital elements required . Requires transfer at Superstition Springs for access to other services

. Commuter based service only . Significant operating costs – most Service . Provides service to downtown Phoenix expensive service option Option 2 . Provides connection to regional transit network . Capital elements required via Superstition Springs Transit Center . Lacks connection to Queen Creek residential areas

. Commuter based service only . Significant operating costs . Lacks connection to Queen Creek Service . Provides direct service to downtown Phoenix residential areas Option 3 without stop at Superstition Springs . Capital elements required . Requires transfers to other services to access destinations beyond downtown Phoenix

. Commuter based service only . Significant operating costs . Provides connection to downtown Mesa . Lacks connection to Queen Creek Service . Provides connection to regional transit network residential areas Option 4 . Beginning in 2016, would provide connection to . Capital elements required Valley Metro Light Rail . Requires transfers to other services to access destinations beyond downtown Mesa

Local Route Extensions

. Significant operating costs . Capital elements required Route 156 . Lacks connection to Queen Creek Extension . Provides connection to regional transit network residential areas . Minimal ridership anticipated

. Significant operating costs . Capital elements required Route 184 . Lacks connection to Queen Creek Extension . Provides connection to regional transit network residential areas . Minimal ridership anticipated

Community Connector Alternatives . Significant operating costs Service . Provides service to highest density residential areas . Capital elements required Option 1 . Provides connection to regional transit network

Service . Provides service to highest density residential areas . Significant operating costs Option 2 . Provides connection to regional transit network . Capital elements required . Significant operating costs Service . Provides service to highest density residential areas . Capital elements required Option 3 . Provides connection to regional transit network

. Lacks connection to greater Service transit network Option 4 . Provides internal circulation service . Significant operating costs . Capital elements required

Commute Solution Transportation Services

. No guarantee users will find trips . Connects users to trips matching their unique matching their needs Carpool parameters . Less reliable than more . User funded structured service options

. Commuter based service only . Requires several participants . Provides custom, efficient service to participants with similar origins/destinations . Typically user funded, but if available ALF funds and work schedules used to start program in Queen Creek, stipend may . No guarantee users will find Vanpool help offset costs users typically pay, thus making established vanpools matching service more attractive to potential participants their unique needs – however, a . Enables use of HOV lanes for faster commute times subsidized vanpool program may . Fares can be paid with pre-tax dollars attract potential users to form their own vanpools to better match their travel needs

. Lacks connection to greater On- transit network Demand . Provides internal circulation service . Significant operating costs Shuttle . Capital elements required

Source: Valley Metro Rail and National Transit Database, 2014

4. Transit Service Figure 16. Desert Mountain Park Recommendations and Performance Criteria

4.1 Service Recommendations Based on the various analyses conducted as a part of this project, four service options emerged as viable starting points for public transportation service in Queen Creek. These include a subsidized vanpool program, implementation of an express bus route to the Superstition Springs Transit Center in Mesa, a community connector route circulating through Queen Creek and Photo Credit: J2 Engineering and Environmental Design providing service to the Superstition Springs Transit Center, and a pre-scheduled on-demand While there are several ways a subsidized shuttle. The rationale for these starter services vanpool program could work, one financing are discussed in greater detail below. model that may be applicable is similar to how certain businesses subsidize vanpools currently. 4.1.1 Vanpool Working with Valley Metro, the Town could set a subsidy percentage rate for vanpool participants The Valley Metro vanpool program could provide residing in Queen Creek, and subsequently a cost-saving and cost-effective commuting transfer ALF funds to Valley Metro to help cover option to Queen Creek residents traveling to and a portion of the operating costs for each from work destinations. Vanpool is a popular qualified participant. Through an program used by thousands of Valley intergovernmental agreement (IGA), Valley commuters and hundreds of businesses to Metro would oversee the administration of promote consolidated weekday commuting trips, vanpools in Queen Creek. This type of including trips from Queen Creek. Currently, arrangement could help offset the cost of fuel or there are seven organized vanpools in Queen routine maintenance for the vehicles, thus Creek, with most destined for businesses in lowering the overall monthly contribution made Phoenix and Tempe. As opposed to traditional by participants. In a vanpool program however, it fixed-route service, vanpool offers a group of is important that users contribute a portion of the travelers the flexibility to choose their own operating cost as this creates a sense of schedule and destination, essentially providing a ownership among vanpool participants that custom door-to-door service. encourages them to properly maintain the One option is to use available Town Arizona vehicle (e.g. routine maintenance, cleanliness, Lottery Fund (ALF) dollars to help subsidize the service consistency, etc.), and keeps the cost associated with vanpooling (e.g., a cooperative sense of vanpooling as a collective, reimbursement program to participants). A communal good. subsidized vanpool program could help attract While no community in the Valley currently additional vanpoolers and help identify key offers a subsidized vanpool program, Valley destinations and understanding of the Town’s Metro works with a number of regional still-evolving transportation patterns, thereby employers who organize vanpools for their acting as an important intermediate step towards employees and contribute to the costs of the the implementation of more advanced transit service, and there are examples of communities services in the future. elsewhere in the country that employ a

subsidized vanpool strategy successfully. In the Capital and Operating Costs, Fleet Minneapolis-St. Paul region, Metro Vanpool is a Requirements, and Service Characteristics regionally subsidized program offered by the The cost associated with developing a Metropolitan Council, where available funds help commuter vanpool program would be directly subsidize the overall cost of leasing a vanpool associated with the number of users. Using the vehicle from a third party provider (in this case financing model discussed above, the Town Enterprise Rideshare, a division of Enterprise would simply select a subsidy rate for users and Rent-a-Car). The subsidy helps to pay a portion transfer the funds directly to Valley Metro. No of the van rental, while vanpool participants additional capital or operating costs would be contribute their portion of the monthly operating required. Table 7 below displays both the cost that helps to cover the remaining vehicle current average user fee and the cost to the rental cost, vehicle fuel, washing/cleaning, Town of Queen Creek per rider for three sample roadside assistance, insurance costs, and any subsidy rates. Both monthly and annual totals parking expenses. Vanpoolers set up their are provided. individual monthly fares based on expenses, with an average cost of $110 per month for each Table 8 summarizes the estimated annual cost participant. Vanpool drivers are offered a stipend to the Town of Queen Creek based on a range to offset the cost of their trip as a courtesy for of vanpool participants for each subsidy rate. In serving as the vanpool driver. Similar subsidized essence, the cost to the Town is lower with programs exist in other communities fewer participants, but increases with additional geographically closer to Arizona, including San participants. Bernardino, California and Salt Lake City, Utah. Table 8 Estimated Vanpool Costs and While effectively serving the travel needs of Subsidy Rates commuters looking for mass transportation to and from work, a vanpool program would not Estimated Cost to Queen Creek serve the travel needs of non-commuting Number of based on Sample Subsidy Rate populations such as elderly residents or younger Vanpool Participants populations. These populations are more likely Subsidy Rate to complete their travel in town, while trips within 25% 35% 50% the greater region would likely be made through 20 $6,500 $9,100 $13,000 some type of private transportation. While the current demographic characteristics of the Town 40 $13,000 $18,200 $26,000 suggest that most residents (young, working 60 $19,500 $27,300 $39,000 ages, and elderly) have access to private 80 $26,000 $36,400 $52,000 transportation, if the desire exists to serve youth and elderly populations, a separate service 100 $32,500 $45,500 $65,000 should be considered to compliment a commuter 1 Estimated annual cost is based on Valley Metro average vanpool program. vanpool monthly user fee for 12 months

Table 7 Estimated Annual User Costs for Vanpool Service with Subsidy Contribution

Vanpool User Fee with 2 Queen Creek Contribution Average Monthly Subsidy and Annual Vanpool User Fee1 Subsidy Rate Subsidy Rate 25% 35% 50% 25% 35% 50% Monthly $108 $81 $70 $54 $27 $38 $54 Annually $1,300 $975 $845 $650 $325 $455 $650 1 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 2 Based on $108 average vanpool user fee.

4.1.2 Express Service Option 1 Transit Center and use the facility to connect with regional bus routes.1 A second viable service option is express bus service operating from the Queen Creek Town Of the express service options considered, Hall (or other designated location) to the Express Service Option 1 has both the lowest Superstition Springs Transit Center in Mesa. operating cost and the greatest potential to Express service to the transit center would serve passengers with a variety of destinations provide an expedient connection to one of the in the southeast Valley region, whereas the Valley’s most popular transit centers, thereby other express service options would only serve connecting Queen Creek residents with transit one primary destination (i.e. Phoenix or Mesa). service to destinations Valley-wide. Current This option would directly connect Queen Creek routes that serve Superstition Springs Transit to a range of regional transit services. With Center include: limited stops along its direct route to the transit center, an express service could be an attractive . 40-Apache/Main St option to current and potential future transit . 45-Broadway system users as compared to the extension of a local bus route that would stop more frequently . 61-Southern Ave and thus operate at a slower speed. . 108-Elliot/48th St However, there are several challenges . 184-Power Rd associated with providing an express service . Main Street LINK service on Power Road option that should be noted. A primary concern and Main Street in Mesa is whether sufficient demand exists to justify four . 533-Mesa Express to downtown Phoenix morning inbound and four afternoon outbound trips as specified by Valley Metro service standards. Available park-and-ride data Figure 17. Superstition Springs Transit suggests that the number of daily travelers from Center Queen Creek parking at the Superstition Springs Transit Center is fairly minimal by comparison with other Southeast Valley communities. Further, data from the Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Household Employer Dynamics (LEHD) program suggests that while a strong proportion of daily work trips made from Queen Creek are destined for Phoenix, persons from Queen Creek are also traveling to other nearby communities such as Mesa and Chandler. The spreading of trips dilutes the effectiveness of transit to capture a sufficient share of the travel market to warrant the minimum level of service required for express service by Valley Metro Photo Source: Valley Metro, 2013 standards. Assuming 2% mode split, of 3,000 Current park-and-ride license plate survey trips between Queen Creek and Phoenix made information suggests that several users from daily, this equals 60 trips that may be made by Queen Creek travel to the Superstition Springs transit. However, given the distance needed to travel between Queen Creek and Phoenix, which would likely be a travel time of over 1

1 Valley Metro 2013 Park-and-Ride Survey Final Report, December, 2013

hour, it is unlikely that 60 persons would make reflect this service standard. There are no this trip, especially if their final destination service standards with respect to service required them to transfer to another transit line frequency for Commuter Express services, only in downtown. This is also evidenced by past the trip requirement. experience with express service between Queen In addition to the annual operating cost, an Creek and downtown Tempe. Previously, an estimation of the fleet needed for this type of express service between Queen Creek and service has also been developed (Table 10). downtown Tempe (Route 534) averaged five Allowing for a peak period travel time of 30 riders per day. This service operated from minutes2 one-way with a total cycle time of 60 January 22, 2007 to August 24, 2007, and made minutes (the total time to offer a revenue service one morning and one afternoon trip at an run and the time necessary for the vehicle’s approximate cost of $110,000. return to its starting point, referred to as Even though an express service between Queen deadhead time and mileage), at least two Creek and the Superstition Springs Transit vehicles would be necessary (one in-service Center would bring service closer to Queen vehicle and one spare). If two trips per hour Creek residents, the transfers required by were operated, two in-service vehicles would be passengers might make this service less needed, with one spare. It is assumed a smaller desirable. Passengers would need to drive to a vehicle, similar to a shuttle bus, would provide common parking facility in Queen Creek to sufficient capacity for this service, but express board the express service to the Superstition services are typically made using standard city Springs Transit Center, and subsequently buses. The Town of Queen Creek can transfer to a second transit service. Also, given coordinate with Valley Metro operations staff on the relatively short distance to the transit center fleet availability and needs, but it is important to currently, drivers may value this personal travel note the cost associated with fleet needs in the time. event vehicles must be purchased.

Capital and Operating Costs, Fleet Additionally, capital investments would also be Requirements, and Operating Characteristics necessary for bus layover locations in Queen Creek for boardings, alightings, and likely In order to satisfy current Valley Metro service parking. As discussed in section 3 of this report, standards for Commuter Express service, four it may be possible to negotiate with a land owner inbound morning trips and four outbound or developer to minimize these costs and use afternoon trips would be required. The annual available parking resources that are not being used during daytime hours. operating costs presented in Table 9 below

Table 9 Estimated Annual Operating Cost for Express Service Option 1

Annual Weekday Miles Per Rate Per Gross Estimated Estimated Direction Revenue 1 2 Trips Trip Mile Cost Revenue Annual Net Cost Miles Morning Inbound 4 12.8 12,800 $6.48 $82,900 $8,300 $74,600 Afternoon 4 12.8 12,800 $6.48 $82,900 $8,300 $74,600 Outbound TOTAL: $149,200

Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1. Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate 2 Buses may operate faster than this time, but speeds are influenced by factors 2. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 10% of gross cost including traffic conditions, acceleration and deceleration times, among other influencers.

4.1.3 Community Connector Service Of the three community connector services Option 3 developed, Community Connector Service Option 3 has the lowest annual operating cost If local circulation is a determined need for the for a service that would provide four inbound Town, of the four Community Connector service morning trips and four afternoon/early evening options considered, Service Option 3 may outbound trips between Queen Creek and the provide the most cost efficient service. While transit center. A service such as this could these types of services are typically defined provide door-to-door style service between within the Valley Metro Circulator service type, a home locations and the transit center as starter service in Queen Creek may be better compared to a commuter express service suited under the Rural Connector service leaving for a centralized location. The difference designation. While Queen Creek is part of a in operating cost between this service and growing metropolitan region, as an urban fringe commuter express service is in the additional community it fits the characteristic of other miles traveled within Queen Creek. communities (namely Buckeye and Goodyear) that receive Rural Connector service via Valley However, as with the commuter express service, Metro’s Rural Route 685. Figure 18 illustrates a challenge with this type of service is whether the proposed service routing of this service in sufficient demand currently exists to warrant Queen Creek, with service to the Superstition even a basic level of service, particularly if the Springs Transit Center via Power Road (perhaps service destinations are limited. While this also on the Loop 202 freeway depending on service would establish a link to regional and travel time). local transit services operated out of Superstition Springs, it may not provide sufficient incentive to

Figure 18 Community Connector Service Option 3

Source: Valley Metro, 2014 31

current or potential transit users in Queen Creek As with the Express Service Option 1 discussed to justify the investment. While this service previously, an estimation of the fleet needed for would bring service closer to the front doors of a community connector service has been where people in Queen Creek currently reside, developed (Table 11). Many of the the length of the trip before the service operates characteristics are similar, although given the as a closed-door service to the transit center will routing pattern through Queen Creek, the travel likely be seen as a dis-incentive to potential time would be greater. A peak period travel time users, in that the added time spent on the of 45 minutes3 one-way with a total cycle time of vehicle may be saved by driving to the 75 minutes4, at least three vehicles would be Superstition Springs Transit Center. necessary (two in-service vehicles and one spare, assuming serve operated once per hour). Similarly, the extra time in the evening to return For example, a trip leaving Queen Creek at 6:30 home may be viewed unfavorably. AM would get to the Superstition Springs Transit Capital and Operating Costs, Fleet Center at 7:15, but need to return to Queen Requirements, and Service Characteristics Creek in order to start a second service run with that vehicle. However, if the second trip was Current Valley Metro service standards for Rural scheduled to leave Queen Creek at 7:30, the Connector service specify four inbound morning vehicle used for the first trip would not be back trips and four outbound afternoon trips. The in time for the second service run, therefore annual operating costs detailed in Section 3 necessitating two vehicles. It is assumed a (and shown below in Table 10) for this option smaller vehicle, similar to a shuttle bus, would reflect this service standard. The rate per mile provide sufficient capacity for this service. The shown is the estimated FY15 Valley Metro Town of Queen Creek can coordinate with contractor rate for circulator services. It is Valley Metro operations staff on fleet availability assumed that Valley Metro would operate this and needs. service on behalf of Queen Creek. There are no service standards with respect to service frequency for Rural Connector services, only the trip requirement.

Table 10 Estimated Operating Cost for Community Connector Service Option 3

Miles Annual Estimated Weekday Rate Per Gross Estimated Direction Per Revenue 1 2 Annual Net Trips Mile Cost Revenue Trip Miles Cost

Morning 4 15.1 15,100 $5.65 $85,300 $8,500 $76,800 Inbound Afternoon 4 15.1 15,100 $5.65 $85,300 $8,500 $76,800 Outbound

TOTAL: $153,600 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1. Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate 2. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 10% of gross cost

3 Buses may operate faster than this time, but speeds are influenced by factors including traffic conditions, acceleration and deceleration times, etc. 4 Assumes 15 minutes for passenger pickup in the morning and drop-offs in the afternoon/evening, 30 minutes to travel between Queen Creek and the Superstition Springs Transit Center, and 30 minutes in return to Queen Creek.

Table 11. Estimated Net Vehicle Requirements and Costs

Estimated Peak Net Peak Total Unit Cost Vehicle Trips per Spare Total Cost 1 Period Cycle Vehicles 2 Vehicles per Type Hour Vehicles 3 ($2014) Time (min) Needed Needed Vehicle

Shuttle 1 45 1 1 2 $200,000 $100,000 Bus 2 30 2 1 3 $300,000 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1 Vehicle manufacturers produce a range of vehicle models that may be customized further to the needs of different transit agencies. For this exercise, a shuttle bus may be generally defined as a cutaway vehicle as used at airports or similar to the Tempe Orbit buses, and a standard bus refers to a typical 40-foot city bus. 2 Spare vehicles are necessary to cover occasions when vehicles breakdown or require extended maintenance periods. 3 Vehicle costs vary by vehicle type, size, and manufacturer. Additional capital costs would be necessary for service in the event they cannot drive nor have bus stop infrastructure such as signs, shelters, access to affordable transportation provided by ADA-compliant concrete pads, public seating, an assisted living care facility. Therefore, the trash receptacles, and right-of-way (if not success of this service relative to the annual currently in public ownership). cost is a potential concern. Also, a critical challenge facing this type of service is creating 4.1.4 Pre-Scheduled On Demand Shuttle an effective institutional structure under which this service can be implemented. While the A final viable service option for Queen Creek is premise of this service is fairly straight forward, a demand responsive pre-scheduled shuttle because this type of service is not offered in the service. A pre-scheduled shuttle would operate Valley currently, it would be necessary to identify similar to dial-a-ride service wherein passengers and implement policies and practices that could schedule pick-up times for transport govern the structure of the service, which can be between their residence and their destination. very time consuming. This type of service would provide door-to-door service that may be attractive to residents with Capital and Operating Costs, Fleet needs for short trips that stay in town or the Requirements, and Service Characteristics immediate surrounding town area. Once again, a challenge with this type of service is whether Whereas commuter vanpools could satisfy travel sufficient demand exists during the daytime for residents commuting from Queen Creek to hours to justify the capital and operating destinations across the Valley, a localized on- expense associated with the service. The demand shuttle could support trips that remain current characteristics of Queen Creek suggest within Queen Creek. Remaining available ALF that many Town residents leave Queen Creek monies (assuming they are not used for capital for work, shopping, recreation destinations improvements) could be contributed toward the during a typical day. These trips, especially creation of an on-demand shuttle, helping to pay discretionary non-work trips, may be made at for the vehicle, labor (including costs for different times, and the demographics of the administrative components such as a cellular Town suggest most persons have access to phone), fuel, and routine maintenance. While private transportation when needed. Student demand may change over time, it is likely that a populations also typically have access to school- service could start with one vehicle and based transportation services or private operator, and grow from there. Other costs that transportation, and are unlikely to use this type should be considered include local advertising of service. While senior populations reside in for the service, Town and Valley Metro Queen Creek, these populations may use this administrative costs (typically 5% for both entities) for such elements as hiring of drivers,

insurance requirements, and monitoring routine 4.2 Transit-Supportive Capital maintenance. Table 12 displays preliminary costs associated with starting and operating a Improvements pre-scheduled, on-demand type of service. In addition to the proposed service Currently there are no pre-schedule or on- recommendations detailed above, there are demand shuttle services operating in the Valley. several streetscape improvements that could be However, Valley Metro operations staff and made to support transit service in the future. contractors are familiar with services similar to Should the community opt to not implement any this that are provided in other metropolitan of the service options discussed above, or any regions, such as Denver, Colorado. The of the other service options considered to this administration and provision of this service could point, there are several other actions the Town be handled by Valley Metro through an IGA of Queen Creek could take to make built signed with Queen Creek, or the service could environment conditions more conducive to be administered and provided by Queen Creek. transit. These include sidewalk improvements with ADA-compliant features (including level

concrete landing pads or wheelchair ramps), bicycle improvements (such as striped lanes, bicycle racks or staples), and street furniture and pedestrian amenities (wide sidewalks, benches,

Table 12 Pre-Scheduled, On-Demand Shuttle Estimated Costs

Cost Element Cost/Unit Units Estimated Cost

Ramp-Equipped Accessible Van1 $40,000.00 1 $40,000.00 Direct Labor2 $15.00 2,875 $43,125.00 Expenses/Driver Benefits3 $4.50 2,875 $12,938.00 Vehicle Insurance $6,500.00 1 $6,500.00 Maintenance (cost per mile)4 $0.08 51,750 $4,140.00 Fuel5 $4.00 3,450 $13,800.00 Communication/Administration6 $150.00 12 $1,800.00 Subtotal – Direct Expenses $122,303.00 Overhead Expenses (10%)7 $12,230.30 Total $134,533.30

Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1 An ADA-compliant wheelchair equipped van generally costs approximately $40,000.00. Amortizing this cost over a 3-year period results in a cost per year of $13,333.33. 2 The units for direct labor are the hours of service provided by the driver. The hours estimate assumes 2,500 hours of revenue service and 375 hours of “deadhead” service (the additional time necessary for travel between the vehicle’s storage facility and the start of revenue service). 3 Expenses and driver benefits refer to fringe benefits (e.g., health insurance) and other benefits. 4 Maintenance costs cover parts, repairs, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, with 51,750 annual miles. 5 Assumes 15 miles per gallon. In summer months, a van running air conditioning and periodically idling will average 10-12 miles per gallon, subsequently increasing the fuel cost to between $18,000 and $21,000. 6 Units refer to 12 months for a cell phone and additional administrative expenses relating to scheduling trips. 7 Overhead expenses assumes 5% for Valley Metro administrative functions and 5% for Queen Creek administrative functions.

planters or trees for shade, sheltered waiting park-and-ride may be prohibitive at this time, areas, or lighting among other streetscape jurisdictions will sometimes negotiate with amenities). commercial property owners or developers for the shared use of parking stalls during the The streetscape improvements listed above are daytime hours that can serve as a park-and-ride not an exhaustive list of possible improvements, location. Typically, the capital cost incurred by a but serve as proven public investments that are municipality covers the cost of minor transit supportive and can help guide urban improvements to a parking lot facility (such as development, particularly as it relates to current concrete pads where buses will temporarily wait plans for the establishment of downtown Queen to board and alight passengers, as well as Creek as a community destination. For example, layover before the start of service operations). as part of the Gilbert Road Extension project in This prevents towns from having to develop new central Mesa, the City of Mesa has recently capital facilities and makes better use of existing procured a consultant to assist with the transportation infrastructure. All of these development of updated urban design guidelines improvements, together with the transformation for Main Street between Mesa Drive and Gilbert envisioned for the Town Center, would help Road. The goal of this effort is to specify basic create the type of environment in which transit pedestrian-scaled streetscape design guidelines would thrive. along with a menu of optional amenities developers can choose from that city leadership Figure 19. Downtown Mesa Streetscape and management can visually show to developers as part of future downtown building projects. The intent is to create a seamless, aesthetically pleasing pedestrian corridor along Main Street in downtown Mesa that fosters a mixture of land uses, encourages density, and enhances multi-modal connectivity, among other goals. This same strategy could be employed in Queen Creek to set the stage for multi-modal improvements that are transit supportive in design and function. In recent years, the state legislation governing the use of ALF funds for capital improvements has changed, however it may be possible to use these funds for transit- related improvements in the future. The question, however, is when public transportation service will begin in Queen Creek.

While a park-and-ride facility is also a possible transit investment, dedicated park-and-rides are Photo Credit: generally a multi-million dollar capital http://thegoodstreet.blogspot.com/2010/04/main-street- investment. The cost associated with developing mesa-arizona.html a park-and-ride includes costs for land acquisition, design, construction, water systems Given the Town’s interest in fixed-rail service in (stormwater management and site irrigation), the future, it will be important to monitor the among other costs. Demand is also a key progress of commuter rail and intercity rail element in developing a park-and-ride facility. proposals currently being considered. However, as the cost of constructing a new

4.3 Performance Criteria The costs associated with developing and operating transit services are often a primary Valley Metro is currently engaged in the barrier to implementation. Fortunately, several development of a comprehensive set of transit local, state, and federal funding programs exist performance measures by which all existing and that assist communities such as Queen Creek in future transit services will be evaluated. These the development of transit services. A summary will include performance indicators such as total of relevant local, state, and federal funds is boardings, vehicle revenue miles, boardings per provided below. revenue mile, and operating cost per revenue mile. While Valley Metro is currently developing 4.4.1 Local and State Funds policies and practices for the implementation of The Town of Queen Creek receives annual these new service standards and performance transit funding assistance through both the measures, it is expected that all new transit Public Transportation Fund, which is available to services adhere to the minimum service cities and towns in Maricopa County, and the standards. Arizona Lottery Fund, which is available to cities 4.4 Title VI Populations statewide. The details of these funds are discussed below. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has become increasingly important when planning Public Transportation Fund (PTF) new transit service or making modifications to Transit revenues from Prop 400, the half-cent existing services with respect to equity. Title VI county-wide sales tax originally authorized in prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, 1986 and extended for 20 years in 2004, are color, and national origin in programs and deposited into the Public Transportation Fund activities that receive federal funding. In 2012, (PTF) to support the projects programmed in the Valley Metro conducted a comprehensive Title Regional Transportation Plan. PTF funds can be VI analysis of all transit services in the Phoenix spent on regional projects, including local and metropolitan area. At the time of this analysis, express fixed route service and complementary Queen Creek was not part of the Valley Metro paratransit service as mandated by the service area, and therefore not included as part Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Local of the analysis. A Title VI analysis along with (non-ADA) dial-a-ride services and other federal compliance assessments will have circulator/connector fixed route services do not to be conducted before service implementation. qualify for PTF funds. Generally, the addition of service is viewed favorably by the Federal Transit Administration Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF) and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF) are revenues In response to new federal reporting generated by the Arizona State Lottery for the requirements for Title VI, Valley Metro has support of public transportation services within revised their Title VI policies with respect to fare Maricopa County. The transportation fund was and service adjustments to ensure protected created as a part of the state implementation populations are not adversely affected. Service plan to meet ambient air quality standards as adjustments can include the addition of new required by the Clean Air Act. Areas with a service to a community such as Queen Creek. population of 300,000 or more are required to Additional information on Valley Metro’s civil spend all of their ALF funds on public transit rights program is available online. services. These funds are available to the Town of Queen Creek each year and require an 4.5 Future Funding Opportunities annual application and accounting documentation to prove that funds were spent appropriately.

4.4.2 Federal Funds purchase buses and to construct bus-related facilities. Section 5339 funds are limited to In addition to the local and state funding capital projects and thus cannot be used for sources, Queen Creek may be eligible for a operating assistance. Capital funds are under number of federal funding programs to assist in Section 5339 are programmed by MAG through the provision of transit services. As available the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) funds are limited, the process is extremely and follow MAG’s programming guidelines. competitive. Furthermore, there are strict stipulations that specify the types of projects the In the future, as population demographics and funds can be used for. A summary of applicable the built environment in Queen Creek continue federal funding programs is provided below. to evolve, further investments in transit services will likely be necessary to satisfy the Section 5307: Urbanized Area Formula community’s mobility needs. As the provision of Grants these services will exceed available local, state, and federal funding sources, the Town will need This federal program provides grants to to develop its own funding strategy. In addition Urbanized Areas (those with a population of to the funding sources reviewed above, several more than 50,000) for transit capital, planning, cities throughout Maricopa County have job access, and reverse commute projects. implemented their own dedicated sales tax to These funds can also be used for operating fund transit services. As the need for a diversity assistance for services that provide accessibility of transportation options continues to grow in to jobs or reverse commute options. Funding for Queen Creek, the Town may wish to pursue this these types of projects is discretionary and or similar measures at some point in the future. awarded through a competitive process managed by the City of Phoenix. Capital funds under Section 5307 are programmed by Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and follow MAG’s programming guidelines. Section 5310: Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities This federal program provides funding for services that improve the mobility of senior and disability populations. Services eligible for funding under this program are those beyond traditional transit and ADA paratransit services. Section 5310 funding is discretionary and awarded through a competitive process managed by the City of Phoenix. Funds may be used for capital improvements, but may also be flexed for operations public transportation that assist seniors and persons with disabilities. Section 5339: Bus and Bus Facilities This federal program provides eligible recipients with capital funding to replace, rehabilitate, and

This page intentionally left blank for printing.

5. Future Transit Southeast Valley. The study area includes portions of or the entirety of the following Opportunities communities: Apache Junction, Florence, Gila River Indian Community, Mesa, Chandler, For a number of reasons including livability, Gilbert, Guadalupe, Coolidge, Maricopa, cost, health, and the environment, a growing Phoenix, Queen Creek, Tempe, and number of Americans are interested in having a unincorporated portions of Maricopa and Pinal variety of transportation options available to Counties. In effort to help ensure transparency them. People make trips daily for a variety of and consistency between these two studies, the reasons; for work, school, shopping, or regional transit service recommendations will be recreation. The potential for people to use travel outlined and discussed in greater detail in the modes other than private automobiles generally SEVTSS document. relies on each person’s proximity to their desired destination, typically the distance between their At the time of this study, fixed-route transit home and work location. Beyond distance alone, service is unlikely to yield a return on investment land use density and urban form also play a role sufficient to offset the operating cost associated in influencing how people travel, and travel can with many of the fixed-route services also be influenced by individual circumstances, considered. As noted, a key challenge with the such as age or disabilities. study area is the large overall geographic size of the region, sparse road network, and low As demonstrated, the Town of Queen Creek has population densities. This is not to say the experienced tremendous growth in the past community cannot make this investment; that decade, and is poised for future growth. With choice is reserved for the citizens and communities such as Casa Grande, Florence, representatives of the Town. However, while the Eloy and other south and southeast region argument that travel demand from and through communities also growing, mounting pressure is Queen Creek is increasing (e.g. persons already being placed on Queen Creek’s traveling from Florence or other southeast Valley developed surface transportation system communities), available information suggests necessitating a review of potential transportation that there is insufficient demand to warrant solutions. In the past, the solution to congestion regular fixed-route local service currently, and it was to widen roads and intersections, helping to is also difficult to justify an investment in fixed- relieve bottlenecks and rush-hour traffic route express service given past and present volumes. However, as funds are increasingly demand, and available funding. limited, and with the Town poised to add thousands of new residents in the coming But this does not mean solutions are decades, transit and additional non-motorized unavailable. Public transportation options do transportation options will play an important role exist that can help set the stage for future in helping to relieve traffic congestion. Equally investments in fixed-route services, and help importantly, transit can also help create senses build a transit market in Queen Creek. Using the of place within a community, and foster vibrant, information collected as part of the existing sustainable development patterns. conditions analysis and combined with the assessment of potential transit markets, the This study represents the initial assessment of study team identified a series of services that potential public transportation solutions that may could be developed and implemented in the be considered as a means of managing future study area. A goal of this study was to chart a mobility challenges. Currently, the Southeast course of action the Town may take to Valley Transit System Study (SEVTSS) is being encourage transit utilization and promote developed to evaluate existing transit services connections to the regional transit system, along and potential demand in both transit-established with infrastructure activities that incrementally and transit-aspiring communities in the

build up to a transit network serving the Town in A second recommendation of this study is to use the future. available ALF dollars to pay for capital facilities such as sidewalks and streetscape In the short term, it is the recommendation of improvements, particularly in downtown Queen this study that the Town explore the expanded Creek. While available dollars are limited, use of Valley Metro’s vanpool program as a construction of sidewalks, lighting, or wayfinding cost-effective mobility solution. A key benefit signs are all activities that can set the stage for associated with commuter-oriented services the creation of successful transit services in the such as vanpool is their attraction of “choice future. Public infrastructure improvements can riders” to use the service and capability of also set the stage for future development, helping to expand the Town’s transportation helping to guide growth and creating an program. Choice riders are often more incentive for developers if urban systems are demanding with respect to expectations for a already available. higher level of service. Commuter-based solutions such as vanpool allow for more If a fixed-route service is desired, it may be customized service around individual travel appropriate to consider the Community needs (albeit determined by group consensus). Connector Service Option 3 discussed above. This service also requires greater buy-in on the This service was designed to provide a basic part of program participants, resulting in level of front door service between participants absorbing more of the operating neighborhoods in Queen Creek and the cost and building a sense of ownership to Superstition Springs Transit Center. A key maintain vehicle maintenance and cleanliness difference between this service and the vanpool standards they set. program is that the Community Connector service would require passengers to transfer to As a benefit that may be offered by the Town, it local or express fixed-route services at the may be possible to use available ALF dollars to transit center, whereas the vanpool program help offset the costs of current and future allows participants the flexibility in determining vanpool participants by providing a small their travel schedules and provides better door- subsidy per vanpool user. This would offset the to-door service without the need to transfer. annual cost for each participating resident from Queen Creek, and act as an incentive to As Queen Creek develops services and works potential participants. Funds not used for towards a full system of transit strategies in the reimbursements to vanpool users could be long-term, coordinating efforts and planning is invested in advertising of the program or for key to maintaining momentum and ensuring that capital infrastructure needs. resources are used most efficiently and effectively. Marketing the commuter services such as vanpool is essential to the program’s success. 5.1 Planning for Rail Transit The service is intended to appeal to a broader spectrum of the market, many persons of whom Several recent and on-going planning studies may or may not be familiar with public have identified the Union Pacific Rail Road transportation. Prior to implementation, a (UPRR) freight corridor that runs through Queen marketing program should be outlined and it is Creek as a potential alignment of future often recommended that Town and agency staff commuter/passenger rail service. In its 2010 hold on-site targeted marketing meetings or Commuter Rail Study, MAG evaluated five public events to create awareness about the existing freight rail corridors and found the service. Informational materials must also be Southeast Corridor—extending from downtown widely disseminated (in print and electronic Phoenix to Queen Creek—to be the strongest formats) and be easily understandable. individual corridor based on its projected ridership and relative cost effectiveness

(compared to other corridors). Additionally, the proximity would reduce travel distance and Arizona Department of Transportation’s (ADOT) reduce the number of automobile trips that must on-going Passenger Rail Study has identified be made for access to basic services or the corridor as one of three potential alignments activities. for passenger rail service between Phoenix and One approach that can help to guide growth is Tucson. Two of the three alignment alternatives implementing streamlined development would operate on the UPRR corridor, while the permitting processes that can make designated third corridor would parallel Interstate 10 into growth areas more attractive to developers and downtown Phoenix. A preferred alternative is also give Queen Creek a competitive edge over expected to be chosen in the future. It is neighboring municipalities when attracting new important to note that both studies remain in the development. conceptual stage as funding resources have not yet been identified to implement the Additional design criteria in the corridor could recommended projects. also help ensure transit-supportive developments. One method for implementing In light of the uncertain nature surrounding the such criteria is to establish a transportation future of these potential projects, the most overlay district with specific design guidelines for important issue for the Town of Queen Creek is pedestrian amenities, ground floor uses, building how to prepare for potential rail service without setbacks, or parking ratios among other overinvesting in a project with an unknown methods. Overlay districts are special zones that timeline for completion. The most immediate and can supplement or supersede existing zoning effective action is to focus higher density, human categories and can be used to help meet the scaled-development with a variety of housing goals of a community or address the special types and commercial uses in the areas needs of an area. Higher densities of adjacent to the existing rail corridor. While this development would increase opportunities for type of development is already planned for as transit service between growth areas. These specified in the Queen Creek Town Center Plan, types of districts can also encourage fewer much of the land use adjacent to the rail corridor automobile trips from existing commuter arterials on the south side of Rittenhouse Road is and town collector roads, as residents avail planned for commercial uses only. As such, it themselves of jobs and services closer to home. may be prudent to consider intensifying land uses adjacent to this corridor and provide a Implementing such criteria would allow the Town greater mixture of uses to facilitate population to foster development patterns conducive to high and employment densities necessary to support capacity transit. Perhaps most importantly, in the rail service. event commuter/passenger rail is never implemented, no resources would have gone to A key recommendation of this study is for the waste as the conditions resulting from such Town to designate future growth areas where policies would be in line with the Town Center the majority of future residential and commercial Land Use plan and could be supported by a growth can be directed. The Town of Queen variety of other transit modes. Creek has begun to take these steps with the Town Center Plan and other small area plans Other cities and towns in the Valley similarly adopted by Council previously. Focusing located by freight corridors have made (or are development can help create transit-supportive currently considering) more calculated markets by increasing density in these areas. investments in public facilities adjacent to rail. Focused growth and development would also For example, the Town of Gilbert developed a make these areas affordable and attractive to park-and-ride facility in its Downtown Heritage new residents, and from a transportation District on Page Avenue just west of Gilbert perspective, placing jobs and housing in closer Road. The park-and-ride facility is currently

served by Valley Metro Routes 136 (Gilbert be relocated to the east side of the airport. The Road) and 531 (Mesa/Gilbert Express) and reason these plans present a challenge to could easily be retrofitted to accommodate Queen Creek is that many regional and state commuter/passenger rail service in the event of agencies have noted that the location of the its implementation. Currently, the City of Peoria terminal will play a significant role in the location is evaluating locations for a transit center in its of a commuter or intercity rail station in this Old Town District. The preferred alternative region, given the increasing travel demand. identified in the City’s Multi-Modal As the Town of Queen Creek is only beginning Transportation Plan is located at 83rd Avenue to develop transit services, an investment in between Peoria and Grand Avenues adjacent to such a facility at this juncture may not be Burlington Northern Santa Fe’s (BNSF) freight prudent. As a mid-term objective, however, corridor. The City of Peoria is considering a developing a transit-dedicated facility adjacent to phased approach for the facility, with the transit the UPRR corridor could be an effective way to center initially served by select local routes and consolidate transit services to a central location the Grand Avenue Limited and providing park- and a practical approach to accommodating and-ride spaces for transit users and commuter rail service if and when it is car/vanpoolers. Over the long term however, the implemented. City expects to expand the facility to accommodate additional fixed-route bus service and commuter rail service and to incorporate transit-oriented joint development consistent with the Old Town Development Plan (note: the City of Peoria is currently working in coordination with Valley Metro to finalize a site recommendations for its Transit Center). The advantage in the case of both Gilbert and Peoria is that as each facility is or will be served by existing transit services, their success is not dependent on potential commuter rail service. Should commuter rail be implemented, however, both Gilbert and Peoria would be well positioned to incorporate rail service into their respective transit networks relatively seamlessly. Another challenge the Town should consider is the future location of the passenger terminal at the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. The growth of this airport and its strategic importance to the region for both passenger and air freight traffic has necessitated expansion of the passenger terminal. The City of Mesa and associated partners are eager to expand the passenger transport capabilities of this airport and are actively recruiting new airlines to consider flights to this facility. Additionally, extension of the region’s freeway system will provide a vital connection to the facility. According to adopted plans for the airport, the passenger terminal will

Appendicies

This page intentionally left blank for printing

Appendix A – Activity Centers

This page intentionally left blank for printing

To: Debbie Gomez, Town of Queen Creek

From: Valley Metro

Date: October 13, 2013

Re: Queen Creek Task 3: Review of Existing and Future Conditions

INTRODUCTION

The Queen Creek Transit Needs Assessment is a planning study designed to identify constraints and opportunities for public transportation services and multi-modal transportation investments in the Town of Queen Creek, Arizona. Previously, a review of existing plans and studies was conducted to evaluate the Town’s vision for the future and to identify planned developments that may present opportunities for coordinated investments. This memo provides an analysis of current socioeconomic characteristics and identifies trends in population dynamics that may influence the demand and potential market for transit services. Additionally, the results of a community travel survey which was conducted to determine current travel preferences and to collect valuable community input on potential transit services are discussed.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

An analysis of population demographics is an essential element of planning transit service as it enables the identification of trends and dependent populations that help determine the type of service most appropriate for a community. Relevant demographic data for the Town of Queen Creek was compiled and summarized herein. This analysis principally uses U.S. Census Bureau data, including data from the 2010 Census and American Community Survey (ACS)—a revolving survey of households conducted annually—to identify current trends and population characteristics.

POPULATION CHANGE

Over the last few decades, the Town of Queen Creek (the Town) and Maricopa County (the County) have witnessed substantial population growth. From 1990 to 2000, the Town experienced a 62% growth rate, adding some 1,649 new residents. This rate of growth was quicker than that experienced by the County, which over the same period saw a 44% growth in population (744,968 new residents). While the first half of the last decade marked some of the largest gains in population in the region, the recession in

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 2

2008 and subsequent slow recovery significantly tempered further growth in many communities. Despite the economic conditions, the population in Queen Creek grew by an astounding 511% (22,045) from 2000 to 2010. Comparatively, Maricopa County’s population grew just 24% (744,968) over the same period. As of the 2010 Census, Queen Creek’s population was 26,361. Looking to the future, population forecast data provided by the Maricopa Association of Figure 1. Queen Creek Population Growth

Governments (MAG) 30000 projects that Queen Creek will grow to a 2035 25000 population of 77,799, a 20000 195% growth from the 2010 15000 population base. As the Population population in Queen Creek 10000 Growth continues to grow, there will 5000 likely be an increasing need for a greater diversity of 0 1990 2000 2010 transportation options.

EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS

A community’s employment characteristics are an essential indicator to consider when planning potential transit service. While some jobs require access to private transportation throughout the day, others find persons traveling to one destination and remaining there for the duration of the workday. The provision of a quick and efficient transit service creates an attractive and cost effective travel option to those in the latter group.

According to ACS data, the unemployment rate was lower in Queen Creek than in the region—6.9% compared to the County’s 8.3%. The greatest proportion of workers in Queen Creek was employed in the educational services, health care and social assistance industries (21%), a slightly greater share than the county average (19.8%).

COMMUTING TO WORK

Queen Creek had a greater share of residents (77.8%) driving to work alone than the County average (75.8%). As a result, Queen Creek was below the County average for every other commute mode (carpool, transit, walking, other). Just 0.2% of Queen Creek residents were transit commuters, compared to 2.4% for the County. This is most likely due to the limited availability of transit options currently serving the community. Interestingly, the Town did have a larger share of residents who worked from home,

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 3

9.3% to the County’s 5.5%. Figure 2 below summarizes the work commute mode share in Queen Creek.

Figure 2. Work Commute Mode Share in Queen Creek

2% 1% 0% 9% Drove alone 10% Carpooled Public transportation 78% Walked Other means Worked at home

Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

As a result of its location in the southeast corner of Maricopa County (and partly in neighboring Pinal County), residents of Queen Creek experienced an average commute time approximately eight minutes greater than the rest of the County (33.7 minutes versus 25.6 minutes for the County). Looking to the future, the Town’s expected population growth may only exacerbate commute times as the street network in Queen Creek becomes increasingly congested, particularly if travel options are continually limited to a single mode.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO TRANSIT PROPENSITY

Transit dependency is a term used in transit planning that refers to populations for whom mobility may be limited, be it by access to private transportation or the ability to drive independently, and how inclined these populations are to use transit services. Several factors can contribute to transit dependency and usually include the following criteria:

 No access to private transportation  Elderly (65 and over)  Youths (under age 18)  Below the poverty level  Persons with disabilities

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 4

As the mobility needs of these populations vary more considerably as compared to the transportation needs of the general population, their consideration is essential when planning public transportation service. An analysis of ACS data revealed that an overwhelming number of households in Queen Creek have access to one or more vehicles, with just 0.7% lacking access all together. This is well below the County average of 6.5%. Nevertheless, these households must rely on public transportation, carpools, car-sharing, or other non-motorized modes for mobility. Further analysis indicates that households in Queen Creek have greater access to vehicles than average for the rest of the County with 51% of homes reporting 2 vehicles and 29% reporting 3 or more, compared to 39% and 16% respectively for the County.

Despite the above average access to private vehicles, a closer look at the Town’s age cohorts suggests a greater diversity in transportation modes may be necessary to satisfy future mobility. In 2011, residents under 18 years old and over 65 years old accounted for 37% (9,861) and 5.2% (1,368) of the population respectively. Together these groups account for over 42% of the population of Queen Creek. Furthermore, these age groups grew at a faster rate than did the population of those 18-64 years of age—545% for the under 18 population and 554% for the over 65 population versus 487% for those 18-64. These trends may affect how potential transit service would operate in Queen Creek.

Although the median income in Queen Creek is substantially higher than county average ($83,601 versus $55,099), a portion of the population remains below the poverty line. In 2011, this accounted for 5% of families and 6% of all individuals in Queen Creek. While these figures are well below the County averages of 10.9% (families) and 14.9% (individuals), it still represents a population more likely to rely on transit than the general population.

Finally, the presence of a disability is another factor that may contribute to transit propensity. Disabilities are generally grouped into the following categories: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. Approximately 1,842 (7%) of Queen Creek residents fell into one of these categories in 2011. While a majority of those with disabilities were between the ages of 18 and 64, the share of those under 18 with disabilities was significantly higher in Queen Creek than in Maricopa County (21% versus 9%). Although disabilities range in type and severity, this population may require specialized transportation services to assist with their mobility needs. The transit propensity factors discussed above are summarized in Table 1 below.

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 5

Table 1. Transit Propensity Factors: Queen Creek and Maricopa County

Queen Maricopa Creek County No vehicles available 0.7% 6.5% Population 65 and Over 5.2% 12.1% Population Under 18 37.4% 26.4% Income below poverty level 6.1% 14.9% (individuals) Population with Disability 7.11% 9.74%

The demographic characteristics of the study area serve an important role in identifying the potential market for public transportation services. When mapped spatially, this data can be a telling indicator of where transit services may be most productive toward achieving a satisfactory cost-benefit ratio. Specifically, a tool transit planners often use is a propensity test, a calculation used to determine the relative propensity of a geographic area to use public transportation services relative to the demographic characteristics of the area in question. Transit propensity is the measure of the likelihood that a local population will use transit service, were they available. The end result is an estimate of the relative propensity for transit utilization by Census tract or block group (depending on the geographic analysis level the test was conducted for).

Considering all of the socioeconomic factors discussed above collectively, a picture of aggregate transportation demand begins to emerge. The population demographics of Queen Creek were mapped spatially, along with the locations of primary community destinations (discussed in greater detail below), to illustrate where market demand for public transportation is potentially greatest. This approach will serve as an intuitive aide when considering potential routing options for transit services to maximize a return on investment and utilization. Figure 3 below overlays select community destinations in Queen Creek over population data to illustrate markets most amenable to potential transit service.

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 6

Figure 3. Aggregate Need for Transit Service in Queen Creek

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 7

COMMUNITY DESTINATIONS

In addition to identifying existing population demographics, the identification of major commercial destinations and job or activity centers is also an essential component in determining a community’s primary corridors and travel patterns. For the purpose of this analysis, major destinations include shopping centers, community facilities, schools, medical centers, and key employers.

COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTERS

The Town of Queen Creek is home to several shopping centers that provide a wide range of retail, dining, and entertainment options. Several of these facilities are clustered in or near the Town Center, with the remaining shopping centers situated along the Power Rd corridor. A full list of commercial shopping centers in Queen Creek is provided in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Commercial Shopping Centers in Queen Creek

SHOPPING LOCATION CENTER/ANCHOR Queen Creek Southwest corner of E. Rittenhouse Road Marketplace/Target and S. Ellsworth Loop Road Cornerstone at Queen Creek Northwest corner of E. Rittenhouse Road and E. Ocotillo Road Power Marketplace at Queen Southeast corner of E. Rittenhouse Road Creek/Home Depot and S. Power Road Safeway Shopping Center Southeast corner of E. Queen Creek Road and S. Power Road Basha's Shopping Center Southwest corner of E. Chandler Heights Road and S. Power Road Queen Creek Fiesta Southeast corner of S. Ellsworth Loop and E. Maya Road

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

A number of community and municipal facilities are provided to residents of Queen Creek including a library, a post office, a community center, and law enforcement and fire protection facilities. Many of these facilities are located in the Town Center. The full list of community facilities is provided in Table 3 below.

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 8

Table 3. Community Facilities in Queen Creek

FACILITY ADDRESS Town Hall 22350 S. Ellsworth Road Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 22626 S. Ellsworth Road Community Center 22407 S. Ellsworth Road Fire Station #411 22407 S. Ellsworth Road Fire Station #412 24786 S. Sossaman Road Library 21802 S. Ellsworth Road Post Office 22424 S. Ellsworth Loop

SCHOOLS

The Queen Creek Unified School District (QCUSD) educates approximately 5,200 students and consists of four elementary schools, one middle school, one junior high school, and one high school. In addition to its public schools, Queen Creek is also home to a number of charter schools. A full listing of these facilities is provided in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Schools in Queen Creek

SCHOOL ADDRESS Cortina Elementary School 19680 S. 188th Street Desert Mountain Elementary School 22301 S. Hawes Road Jack Barnes Elementary School 20750 S. 214th Street Queen Creek Elementary School 23636 S. 204th Street Frances Brandon Pickett Elementary School 22076 E. Village Loop Road Sossaman Middle School 18655 E. Jacaranda Blvd Queen Creek Middle School 20435 S. Old Ellsworth Road Newell Barney Middle School 24937 S. Sossaman Road Queen Creek High School 22149 E. Ocotillo Road American Leadership Academy: Elementary 19843 E. Chandler Heights Rd American Leadership Academy: High School 23908 S. Hawes Rd Canyon State Academy 20061 E. Rittenhouse Rd Cambridge Academy 20365 E. Ocotillo Rd 21151 S. Crismon Road 22951 S. Power Rd Benjamin Franklin Charter School 18864 E. Germann Rd 22120 E. Queen Creek Rd

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 9

MEDICAL FACILITIES

Queen Creek is home to a number of facilities that provide medical care to the Town’s residents. In addition to two urgent care locations, the Banner Health Care Center offers a wide range of services to children, adolescents, adults, and seniors alike. More advanced services can be accessed at one of two nearby regional hospital facilities: Mercy Gilbert Medical Center in Gilbert and Banner Ironwood Medical Center in San Tan Valley. A full list of medical facilities in Queen Creek is provided in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Medical Facilities in Queen Creek

MEDICAL FACILITIES ADDRESS Banner Health Care 21772 S. Ellsworth Loop Road CHW Urgent Care 7205 S. Power Road #100 San Tan Urgent Care 21321 E. Ocotillo Rd Ste 118 One Health Urgent Care 21582 S. Ellsworth Loop Rd Ste 100

EMPLOYERS

With 306 employees, Walmart is the Town of Queen Creek’s largest employer by a fairly wide margin. The District Center of Queen Creek Unified School District 95 ranks second with 150 employees. Interestingly, nearly all of the Town’s top ten employers are either retail businesses or educational facilities (the U.S. Postal Service is the one exception). A list of the Town’s top ten employers is provided in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Top Ten Employers in Queen Creek

EMPLOYER ADDRESS EMPLOYEES Walmart 21055 S. Rittenhouse Rd 306 Town of Queen Creek 22350 S. Ellsworth Road 216 Queen Creek Unified School District 20740 S. Ellsworth Rd 150 95 (District Center) Target 21398 S. Ellsworth Loop Rd 137 Home Depot 7400 S. Power Rd 133 Kohls Department Store 21058 S. Ellsworth Loop Rd 123 Higley Unified School District 60 19680 S. 188th St 104 United States Postal Service 22424 S. Ellsworth Loop Rd 85 Queen Creek Unified School District 22149 E. Ocotillo Rd 84 95 (Queen Creek HS) Chandler Unified School District 80 7655 S. Higley Rd 82 (Payne Jr HS)

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 10

REGIONAL DESTINATIONS

In addition to destinations within Queen Creek, a number of regional destinations affect the travel patterns of local residents. The Town of Queen Creek is located within relatively close proximity to the downtowns of several neighboring communities which feature cultural and recreational attractions and serve as major employment centers. Just north of the Town of Queen Creek lies the City of Mesa, whose downtown has seen a recent surge in small businesses, higher education facilities, and new civic spaces. The extension of light rail transit into downtown will provide a regional connection to Mesa’s burgeoning entertainment district, anchored by the new Mesa Arts Center. Additionally, the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, just minutes from the Town of Queen Creek, provides general aviation as well as some airline service to a number of destinations throughout the country. To the west of Queen Creek lies the Town of Gilbert, whose historic Heritage District has been the site of significant revitalization efforts over the last several years and features a host of retail, dining, and entertainment opportunities. Further west of Queen Creek, downtown Chandler has emerged as a major entertainment center with a diverse array of boutique shops, galleries, local eateries, museums, and more in a walkable, pedestrian-friendly setting. Located northwest of Queen Creek, downtown Tempe is home to Arizona State University’s (ASU) main campus with a student body of approximately 60,000. In addition to ASU, downtown Tempe is home to the famed Mill Avenue District and Tempe Beach Park, the site of some of the Valley’s largest special events. Finally, further northwest of Queen Creek lies downtown Phoenix, a major employment center and home to state and regional government facilities, world-class sports and entertainment stadiums, and countless museums, shops, and restaurants. All of these urban areas are well connected to the transit network, with bus and/or light rail service providing linkages between each.

EXISTING TRANSIT CHARACTERISTICS

Although there is currently no transit service within the Town of Queen Creek, there are a number of routes nearby that provide service to destinations valley wide. Route 156 provides service to destinations and connecting routes along the Chandler Boulevard corridor from the ASU Polytechnic Campus in Mesa to Ahwatukee. Route 184 provides service along the Power Road corridor from the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport to the Power Road Park-and-Ride facility. Finally, the Superstition Springs Transit Center at the US 60 and Power Road features a park-and-ride facility and access to LINK service to the light rail line, express bus service to downtown Phoenix Monday through Friday, and local routes 40, 45, 61, and 108. Existing transit routes in the vicinity of Queen Creek are depicted in Figure 4 below.

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 11

Figure 4. Existing Transit Routes in the Vicinity of Queen Creek

QUEEN CREEK

Source: Valley Metro System Map, 2013

A number of future transit service additions in the area will also be beneficial to residents of Queen Creek. The MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) identifies a number of proposed bus routes to be implemented in the planning horizon. These include: a route along Ray Road from 40th street to Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (2015); a route along Queen Creek Road from Power Road to the I-10 (2018); and a freeway BRT route to the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (2017). In addition to the improvements outlined in the RTP, the MAG Commuter Rail Strategic Planning Study recommends the development of a high-capacity commuter rail line that would utilize the existing Union Pacific tracks and provide service from Queen Creek to downtown Phoenix in just 46 minutes. The addition of such high quality transit service would significantly improve the Town’s connectivity to other Valley communities and could stimulate substantial economic development opportunities.

QUEEN CREEK TRAVEL SURVEY

In an effort to determine community support and demand for transit services, a brief travel survey was developed to understand the travel preferences and desired

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 12 destinations within Queen Creek and the greater Phoenix metropolitan region. Travel surveys are often used to obtain information about work and non-work trip generation, trip distribution, and modal choice. The Queen Creek travel survey was administered at key community locations within the Town and made available online (via the websites of Valley Metro and the Queen Creek). Participant interviews were conducted by Valley Metro representatives at several community events including the Town’s Ice Cream Social in May. Additionally, substantial efforts were made to publicize the survey including a Valley Metro news release and a write-up included in the Town residents’ utility bills. These efforts culminated in the collection of 262 surveys, the results of which are discussed at length below.

TRAVEL SURVEY RESULTS

A majority of survey respondents (55%) identified themselves as residents of Queen Creek, with the next highest share (24%) indicating they were from San Tan Valley. Additionally, 5% of respondents indicated they were from Gilbert, and the same percentage of respondents were from unincorporated parts of Maricopa County. A majority of the remaining respondents (5%) provided no response. Most survey respondents were at or under 50 years of age, with the two greatest shares indicating they were between 41-50 (31%) and 31-40 (25%). In total, over two-thirds of respondents were 50 or younger. The age breakdown of survey respondents is provided in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5. Age of Survey Respondents

1% 0.8%

3% 11% Under 18 10% 18-30 31-40 18% 41-50 25% 51-60 61-70 Over 70 No response 31%

When asked how often they utilized Valley Metro transit services, the greatest share of respondents (47%) reported that they never had used them. This may be attributed to

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 13 the fact that no transit service currently exists within the boundaries of Queen Creek. Despite the absence of local service, 18% of respondents reported daily transit use, with another 8% and 9% indicating transit use a few times a week and a few times a month, respectively. Furthermore, when asked whether they would use transit services were it more convenient, an overwhelming majority (89%) responded that they would.

The costs associated with providing high-quality transit services are often a barrier to their implementation. Identifying funding sources can be difficult, and communities that lack transit service may be resistant to the notion of a dedicated transit tax. Yet a majority of survey respondents (58%) indicated they would be willing to pay for transit services in Queen Creek. An additional 31% responded that they were not sure, with just 9% stating they would not be willing to pay for transit services.

Survey respondents were also asked to identify what they thought to be the most important transit needs for Queen Creek and the greater Southeast Valley (Figure 6). The greatest share of respondents (65%) identified service to destinations around the valley as the most essential transit need, while nearly the same share (59%) stated that availability of commuter rail was important. Frequency of bus service (58%) and the availability of park-and-ride facilities (47%) also rated highly.

Figure 6. The Most Important Transit Needs in Queen Creek

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

58% 33% 59% 47% 42% 65% 45% 6%

* Residents could select more than one option To further define areas of need, a number of key destinations were selected for inclusion in the survey to determine how likely respondents would be to access these sites via transit services were they available. The option that elicited the greatest number of responses was the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, with 72.9% of

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 14 respondents indicating they would likely access this site via transit service if it was available. Superstition Springs Mall and other destinations around the valley were also identified as likely destinations accessed by transit, with 67% and 65% of survey respondents selecting these locations. There was also a significant demand for service to regional employment centers, with 63% of respondents indicating they would likely utilize transit to access work sites outside of Queen Creek. Finally, respondents expressed a desire for service to local shopping centers, with 57% indicating they were likely to access these sites via transit. Figure 7 provides a summary of these results below.

Figure 7. Top Five Likely Transit Destinations

Local Shopping Centers 57%

Work Outside Queen Creek 63%

Other Destinations Around the Valley 65%

Superstition Springs Mall 67%

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport 73%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 15

Figure 8. Likelihood of Transit Use by Type of Service

Light Rail/Commuter Rail 78%

Express Bus/Downtown Service 68%

Park-and-Ride 50%

Local Bus/Neighborhood Circulator 47%

Carpool/Vanpool Program 19%

Taxi Voucher Program 14%

Dial-a-Ride Program 11%

None 4%

Other 4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CONCLUSIONS

A thorough analysis of the data presented above reveals a number of opportunities and challenges to consider when planning transit service in the Town of Queen Creek. As the Town continues its rapid growth, residents with a variety of mobility needs will likely require a greater diversity of transportation options. Currently, 42% of the Town’s population consists of residents under 18 years of age or 65 years and older. Furthermore, between 2000 and 2010 each of these age groups far outpaced the rate of growth for the population between the ages of 18 to 64. These trends are important to note as both youth and senior populations tend to have reduced access to or the physical ability to operate private automobiles and must rely on other means of transportation. Thus, the consideration of their needs, as well as those of other transit dependent populations, will be essential to planning the most appropriate service in Queen Creek.

Current land use patterns present another challenge. Much of the land use in Queen Creek is devoted to single-family homes, open spaces, and other low-density developments. While the Town has expressed a desire to maintain its emphasis on open spaces, the land use patterns, streetscape improvements, and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in the Town Center (as outlined in the 2011 Town Center Plan) make it an ideal location in which to base future transit service. Higher density and mixed-use developments such as the sort planned for the Town Center provide a higher concentration of goods and services in a centralized location, reducing the dependency on private automobiles, and thus increasing the number of people walking, bicycling, and utilizing transit modes to get to their destinations. Such development can

Review of Existing and Future Conditions September 17, 2013 Page 16 reap substantial benefits that include improved air quality as a result of fewer automobile trips, enhanced personal health due to increased levels of physical activity, and reduced public infrastructure costs. Furthermore, increasing the amount of people in a more concentrated area provides a consumer base that allows local business to thrive. With the efforts and actions outlined in both the General Plan and Town Center Plan, it is clear that the Town of Queen Creek has taken the first steps towards creating such an environment in which transit will be a vital component.

Community and regional destinations represent another important consideration in the planning of potential transit services. The shopping centers, schools, employers, and other facilities identified previously are locations that community members frequently travel to for entertainment, employment, and goods and services and thus may require access to now or in the future. While providing residents with connections to these destinations ensures the individual well being of those with limited mobility, it also yields the communal results of potential business stimulation, as patrons who may not have made the trip otherwise are encouraged by the additional transportation options. The sites identified above may prove to be ideal stop locations for future transit service, although further analysis of travel patterns and demand is needed.

The purpose of the travel survey discussed above was to understand the basic travel patterns of Queen Creek residents and to identify areas where transit service may be most effective. Most significantly, respondents expressed an overwhelming desire for transit services, with nearly 90% stating they would use such services were they available. Furthermore, the responses to several questions—including those on mode preference, ideal destinations, and areas of greatest need—indicate a strong desire for service to regional destinations. The results of the travel survey coupled with the demographic profile and other information presented in this memo provide an overview of the transportation needs of the community which decision makers can use in developing transit service options that are most appropriate for the residents and businesses of the Town of Queen Creek.

Appendix B – Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

This page intentionally left blank for printing

To: Debbie Gomez, Town of Queen Creek

From: Valley Metro

Date: August 18, 2014

Re: Queen Creek Task 4: Preliminary Transit Service Options

INTRODUCTION

This memorandum discusses the transit service options and estimated annual operating costs associated with the development and implementation of enhanced public transportation services in the Town of Queen Creek (the Town). The service options described herein were developed in accordance with the vision and trends identified in previous studies, and the expressed desires of community members during meetings with the Town’s Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), and direct input received from town residents through the transit needs survey administered in 2013. Further, the service options considered have been developed in accordance with Valley Metro’s Board-adopted service standards. While the options vary by type, frequency, and cost, all would improve connectivity to local/regional destinations across the Phoenix metropolitan region, and establish a direct link with the regional transit network.

TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS

Five potential transit service options were developed for consideration in the Town of Queen Creek. These include the establishment of express bus service with four alternative route alignments, the extension of Route 156 (Chandler Blvd), the extension of Route 184 (Power Rd), the development of a community connector service with four alternative route alignments, commuter vanpool, and a pre-scheduled on-demand shuttle service. Within Queen Creek, these options are primarily focused within the Town Center and immediate surrounding areas where land use patterns are most conducive to transit service. The preliminary service options, excluding the community connector options, are depicted in Figure 1 below.

It is important to note that Valley Metro’s Board of Directors has recently established new service standards for each type of service offered. The service options developed and considered in this working paper have all been designed to the meet the applicable standards by their respective service type.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 2

Figure 1. Queen Creek Fixed-Route Transit Service Options Considered

ALTERNATIVE 1: EXPRESS BUS SERVICE

The first proposed service option involves the provision of express bus service in the Town of Queen Creek. Express service is primarily commuter based, and as such would cater to Queen Creek residents who commute to jobs in the Valley’s largest employment centers. Four service options with service to different destinations have been developed and are included herein for consideration. In order to comply with Valley Metro’s Commuter Express bus service standards, each of the alternatives described below would provide four inbound trips in the morning and four outbound trips in the afternoon on weekdays only.

Express Service Option 1 provides service from the Queen Creek Town Center to the Superstition Springs Transit Center in neighboring Mesa. Initiating service at the Queen Creek Town Hall, Express Alternative 1 would continue northbound on S. Ellsworth Rd, turn west onto E. Elliot Rd, merge onto Loop 202 San Tan Freeway northbound, merge onto US 60 westbound, and exit at Power Rd where it would continue on the park-and- ride access road to the Superstition Springs Transit Center (Figure 2). By providing

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 3 service to the Superstition Springs Transit Center, Express Service Option 1 would connect riders to the region’s greater transit network and thus to destinations Valley wide. The Superstition Springs Transit Center is currently served by local Routes 40 (Apache/Main St), 45 (Broadway), 61 (Southern), 108 (Elliot/48th St), 184 (Power Rd), the Main Street LINK, and Express Route 533 (Mesa Express).

Figure 2. Express Service Option 1

Express Service Option 2 provides service from the Queen Creek Town Center to the Superstition Springs Transit Center in Mesa, with continued operations to Downtown Phoenix (Figure 3). Initiating service at the Queen Creek Town Hall, Express Alternative 2 would continue northbound on S. Ellsworth Rd, turn west onto E. Elliot Rd, merge onto Loop 202 San Tan Freeway northbound, merge onto US 60 westbound, and exit at Power Rd where it would continue on the park-and-ride access road to the Superstition Springs Transit Center. After a brief stop at the transit center, Express Service Option 2 would continue westbound on the park-and-ride access road, merge onto US 60 westbound at Superstition Springs Blvd, merge onto I-10 westbound, and exit at 3rd St. Upon entering downtown Phoenix, Express Service Option 2 would continue south on 3rd St, west on Van Buren St, south on 1st Ave, west on Washington St, and proceed south on 17th Ave to the route terminus at the State Capital. By offering connections to

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 4 both the Superstition Springs Transit Center and downtown Phoenix, Express Service Option 2 would satisfy the needs of commuters with destinations throughout the region.

Figure 3. Express Service Option 2

Similar to the previous alternative, Express Service Option 3 provides service from the Queen Creek Town Center to Downtown Phoenix, but forgoes the stop at the Superstition Springs Transit Center. Initiating service at the Queen Creek Town Hall, Express Service Option 2 would continue northbound on S. Ellsworth Rd, turn west onto E. Elliot Rd, merge onto Loop 202 San Tan Freeway northbound, merge onto US 60 westbound, and continue onto I-10 westbound, exiting at 3rd St. Upon entering downtown Phoenix, Express Service Option 2 would continue south on 3rd St, west on Van Buren St, south on 1st Ave, west on Washington St, and proceed south on 17th Ave to the route terminus at the State Capital (Figure 4). Though similar to the previous alternative, Express Service Option 3 offers Queen Creek residents a direct route to Downtown Phoenix, resulting in travel time savings. The tradeoff, however, is that this alternative does little to improve the transportation options of residents with destinations other than downtown Phoenix.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 5

Figure 4. Express Service Option 3

The final express service option, Express Service Option 4, provides service from the Queen Creek Town Center to Downtown Mesa. Initiating service at Queen Creek Town Hall, Express Service Option 4 would continue northbound on S. Ellsworth Rd, turn west onto E. Elliot Rd, merge onto Loop 202 San Tan Freeway northbound, and west onto US 60 to Mesa Dr. Upon exiting at Mesa Dr, Express Service Option 4 would proceed north to Main St, and continue west on Main St to the route terminus at Center St (Figure 5). By providing service to downtown Mesa, Express Service Option 4 would connect Queen Creek residents to one of the East Valley’s largest employment centers. Additionally, Express Service Option 4 would eventually provide a link to Valley Metro light rail service, as the Central Mesa Extension is currently under construction and scheduled to begin operations in 2015.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 6

Figure 5. Express Service Option 4

ALTERNATIVE 2: EXTENSION OF LOCAL ROUTES 156 AND 184

Valley Metro Routes 156 and 184 are the two local routes providing service in the Southeast Valley region nearest to Queen Creek. Route 156 operates on Chandler Boulevard, while Route 184 provides service on Power Road. Valley Metro’s service standard for local system routes requires a minimum of 30 minute peak and off-peak period service during weekdays and weekends, and a minimum of 16 service hours on weekdays, 14 hours on Saturdays, and 12 hours on Sundays.

Valley Metro’s Route 156 provides service to destinations in Mesa, Gilbert, Chandler, and Phoenix along Chandler Boulevard. While Route 156’s primary corridor extends along Chandler Blvd from 48th St in Phoenix to Arizona State University’s Polytechnic Campus in Mesa, the route also extends south on Val Vista Dr to serve the Mercy Gilbert Medical Center. This proposed service option would extend the Route 156 south on Power Rd from its eastern terminus at ASU Polytechnic Campus, east on Rittenhouse Rd, and south on Ellsworth Rd to the Queen Creek Town Hall (Figure 6).

Extending the Route 156 would provide a connection to the greater transit network and thus to destinations Valley-wide. It is important to note that federal regulations require

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 7 complementary paratransit service with the provision of local fixed-route service. Thus, in addition to extending the Route 156, this option would require the Town to provide ADA-compliant paratransit service, such as those provided by the East Valley Dial-a- Ride service.

Figure 6. Route 156 Extension

A second local service option involves the extension of Route 184. Route 184 provides service along the Power Rd corridor from the park-and-ride at Power Rd and Loop 202 to ASU’s Polytechnic Campus. Additionally, the Route 184 diverts at McKellips Rd to serve the Mesa Community College Red Mountain Campus and at the US 60 Freeway to serve the Superstition Springs Transit Center. This proposed service option extends the route south on Power Rd from its current terminus at ASU’s Polytechnic Campus, east on Rittenhouse Rd, and south on Ellsworth Rd to Queen Creek’s Town Hall (Figure 7).

As with the previous service option, extending the Route 184 would provide a connection to the Valley’s greater transit network and enable riders in Queek Creek to get to destinations Valley wide. Again, federal regulations require a complementary paratransit service with the provision of local fixed-route service, so the Town would also need to provide ADA-compliant paratransit services under this option.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 8

Figure 7. Route 184 Extension

ALTERNATIVE 3: COMMUNITY CONNECTOR SERVICE

A community connector service is another transit option the Town of Queen Creek may consider. This type of service typically provides connections to regional fixed-route transit services (local bus or rail) or local activity nodes. Stops are generally spaced approximately ¼ mile apart, a community connector would provide service to various activity centers including community facilities, commercial shopping centers, employment centers, and medical facilities. Given the spatial distribution of current land uses in Queen Creek, stops may be spaced at greater distances. Valley Metro’s service standard for local system routes requires a minimum of 30 minute all-day service during weekdays, and a minimum of 12 service hours. Although specific routing, scheduling, and vehicle type decisions can be adjusted as travel patterns and ridership warrant, four route alignment alternatives were initially developed for the purpose of this analysis. These alternatives are presented in Figure 8 below.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 9

Figure 8. Community Connector Service Options

The route alignments displayed in Figure 8 are based on a variety of criteria used when planning transit services. As with other forms of transit planning, population and employment density are a key consideration, as are the locations of activity centers that attract and/or generate trips. As the site of the Town’s highest density developments and greatest mixture of uses, the downtown area is a preferred location to provide service. Three of the service options developed would provide a connection to the Superstition Springs Transit Center in East Mesa, while the fourth option would stay within Queen Creek.

Service Option 1 would provide four trips each weekday (two inbound and two outbound) from the Queen Creek Town Hall to the Superstition Springs Transit Center in neighboring Mesa. Initiating operations at Town Hall, Service Option 1 would continue south on Ellsworth Rd, turn east onto E. Sierra Park Blvd, northeast onto E. Village Loop Road, northwest onto E. Rittenhouse Rd, east on Ocotillo Rd, north on Crismon Rd, west on E. Barnes Pkwy, north on Ellsworth Rd, southwest on Ellsworth Loop, and northwest on Rittenhouse Rd. In effort to effectively serve the more dense residential developments in the northwest portion of the Town, Service Option 1 would proceed

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 10 south on Hawes Rd, west on Queen Creek Rd, north on 188th St, west on Germann Rd, and finally north on Power Rd to the Superstition Springs Transit Center. Figure 9 below displays the route alignment initially considered for Service Option 1. The figures for all community connector service options include population density information. Population density is a key ingredient in transit service productivity, and given the refined scale of these service options in comparison with other service alternatives described above, it is important to illustrate how the community connector service options shown interact with the more dense regions of Queen Creek.

Figure 9. Community Connector Service Option 1

The second community circulator option, Service Option 2, mirrors the alignment of Service Option 1 until it reaches Ellsworth Rd. At this point, it would proceed south on Ellsworth Rd to serve the commercial shopping center on the southwest corner of Ellsworth and Rittenhouse Rd. From here, Service Option 2 would turn west onto Victoria Blvd, where future medium-high density residential and mixed use developments will be located. Upon reaching Ocotillo Rd, Service Option 2 would continue west, turn north onto Hawes Rd, west onto Queen Creek Rd, north onto 188th St, west on Germann Rd, and north on Power Rd to its terminus at the Superstition Springs Transit Center. In comparison to the first option, Service Option 2 serves the

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 11 downtown activity centers more directly, while still providing a link to the regional transit network at Superstition Springs Transit Center. Service Option 2 is depicted in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10. Community Connector Service Option 2

Similar to the first two options, Service Option 3 would travel from Town Hall to the Superstition Springs Transit Center, with stops in downtown Queen Creek. As in the initial two alternatives, Service Option 3 would first serve the dense residential community just southeast of the Town Center. Instead of turning east on Ocotillo Rd to serve the communities northeast of the Town Center however, Service Option 3 would continue southwest on Rittenhouse Rd to Hawes Rd, where the remainder of the route to Superstition Springs would be identical to Service Option 1. By eschewing the route divergence to the residential development northeast of the Town Center as in the previous two alternatives, Service Option 3 offers a quicker and more direct route to its terminus at the Superstition Springs Transit Center. The tradeoff, of course, is the potential ridership missed by not serving this portion of the Town. Service Option 3 is depicted in Figure 11 below.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 12

Figure 11. Community Connector Service Option 3

The fourth alternative is depicted in Figure 12 below. In contrast to the previous options, the final community connector service option focuses more on internal circulation within the Town. Whereas each of the previous alternatives featured continued service to the Superstition Springs Transit Center, Service Option 4 would operate in a loop around the Town, essentially connecting residents from surrounding residential areas to the various activity centers within the Town Center. Initiating service at Town Hall, Service Option 4 would follow the same alignment as the previous three alternatives to serve the dense residential area southeast of the Town Center. Upon reaching Ocotillo Rd however, Service Option 4 would proceed west, turn north on Hawes Rd, west on Queen Creek Rd, north on 188th St, east on Germann Rd, southeast on Rittenhouse Rd, south on Ellsworth Loop Rd, east on Victoria Ln, and south on Ellsworth to complete the loop. While this alternative would improve transportation options within Queen Creek, it fails to provide a connection to the regional transit network and thus to destinations beyond the Town boundaries.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 13

Figure 12. Community Connector Service Option 4

COMMUTE SOLUTION TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

A number of other services exist that provide additional transportation options to residents of Queen Creek at no cost to the Town. These include Valley Metro’s carpool and vanpool programs. The carpool program assists users in finding other program participants with similar commutes. To get started, participants simply create an account on the ShareTheRide website (www.sharetheride.com), fill out a commuting profile, and select a carpool that satisfies the trip parameters they specified. The logistics of the carpool—meeting/drop off locations, departing/arrival times, payment arrangements— are mutually agreed upon by the participants. This service is most effective for participants with relatively consistent work schedules. In addition to matching users up with reoccurring carpools, the service also provides single trip matching for users’ one time trip needs. More information on Valley Metro’s carpooling program can be found here: http://www.valleymetro.org/carpool.

Though providing a similar service, the vanpool program is more structured than its carpool counterpart. Under the vanpool program, Valley Metro provides a group of 6 to 15 people with a van to use for commuting purposes. One qualified participant volunteers to be the driver, and each rider pays a monthly fee that covers the lease,

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 14 fuel, maintenance, and insurance costs of the van. To get started, a group of at least six participants who live and work in the same areas and have similar work schedules is assembled. Participants then fill out vanpool applications and select primary and reserve drivers, who must meet certain qualifications. If establishing a new vanpool is not feasible, potential participants can also visit the ShareTheRide website to find existing vanpools with matching route and schedule specifications. Once the applications are successfully approved, a start date is established and an appropriate vehicle is selected and delivered. Sample monthly user fees are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Monthly Vanpool Sample User Fees

Van Type One Way Mileage 8 9 12 14 15 Passenger Passenger Passenger Passenger Passenger Luxury Luxury Luxury 0 - 30 miles $73 $57 $81 $76 $56 31 - 60 miles $78 $62 $86 $80 $57 61 - 90 miles $83 $72 $91 $83 $59 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 *Monthly passenger fares shown above are based on 80% occupancy and do not include fuel or parking costs. No long term commitment is necessary to participate in the vanpool program; users must simply give a 30 day notice to end participation. Similar to the carpool program, all the operating specifics of the vanpool—pick-up/drop-off points, departing arrival times, van etiquette—are mutually decided upon by the users. The driver is responsible for all of the upkeep/administrative tasks associated with the vanpool including fueling the vehicle, coordinating routine maintenance, collecting user fares, paying the monthly bill, and submitting reports. In exchange for performing these tasks, the driver receives a free commute.

The benefits of vanpooling are several. First, vanpoolers can save substantial money by joining the program—about $800 a year or greater compared to driving alone. They can also enjoy faster commute times through the use of the Valley’s High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Finally, vanpool users can take advantage of tax savings, as federal tax laws allow vanpool fares to be paid out of pre-tax dollars.

PRE-SCHEDULED, ON-DEMAND SHUTTLE

A final service option that could be considered is a demand responsive pre-scheduled shuttle service, similar to dial-a-ride service. This service could provide Queen Creek residents with a flexible travel option that meets varying mobility needs. The service could be tailored to serve specific demographic groups such as seniors and persons

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 15 with disabilities who may have limited mobility options, or the community at-large. A pre- scheduled shuttle would operate similar to dial-a-ride service wherein passengers could schedule pick-up times for transport between their residence and their final destination. The range the service would transport people within could be limited to a certain geographic distance, and passengers could be charged a minimal fare, with the remaining portion of their trip being subsidized by the Town’s ALF funds. The price of the trip could be structured similar to a taxi cab, where fares increase proportionally to distance traveled. This would help offset operating costs and lower the overall subsidy contributed by the Town, thereby broadening the reach of the service. Passengers would contact the driver directly to schedule pick-ups, helping to provide door-to-door service from origin to destination. Additionally, this type of service enables a driver to build their own service schedule during operating hours. For instance, based on trip patterns, the driver may realize that a regular number of trips at similar times are being made to a common destination or destination (such as a health clinic or shopping center). The driver could subsequently work with passengers to arrange a pick-up schedule wherein multiple trips are made simultaneously, creating greater efficiencies of scale. This type of service could operate on non-holiday weekdays only.

While not a fixed-route service like the Community Connector options listed above, this type of service has greater flexibility to respond to varying passenger needs and travel demands. However, it is important to note that data on vehicle availability suggest that most residents of Queen Creek have access to private transportation already, or they live in community that offers this type of service currently (such as an assisted living community with their own shuttle service). A challenge with this type of service is productivity relative to cost given relatively low demand for service currently and the availability of other transportation options.

Ultimately however, the decision on any future transit service will be dictated by the wishes of Queen Creek residents.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 16

INITIAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATES

As the transit service options developed for the Town of Queen Creek prescribe various levels of service and modes, annual operating costs range widely—from approximately $149,200 on the low end to approximately $1,086,200 on the high end. Table 2 provides a summary of the annual operating costs associated with each service option considered. Breakdowns of the estimated costs for each option are presented in Tables 3 – 11.

Table 2. Summary of Estimated Annual Operating Costs

Estimated Annual Net Transit Service Options Operating Cost1, 2, 4, 5 Express Service Option 1 $149,200

Express Service Option 2 $483,000

Express Service Option 3 $480,600

Express Service Option 4 $267,200

Route 156 or 184 Extension3 $620,800

Community Connector Service Option 1 $1,019,000

Community Connector Service Option 2 $1,086,200

Community Connector Service Option 3 $921,400

Community Connector Service Option 4 $665,100

Pre-Scheduled/On-Demand Shuttle Service $134,533 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1. Estimated Annual Net Operating Costs based on Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate for the applicable service type (Express, Local, and Circulator – Connector – Services). Additional detail provided below. 2. All costs shown reflect Valley Metro minimum service standard. 3. Providing fixed-route local transit service would also require the Town of Queen Creek to provide ADA- compliant paratransit service. 4. Costs shown do not include costs for ADA paratransit service. 5. Farebox recovery assumed at 10%

ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS BY TRANSIT SERVICE OPTION

EXPRESS ALTERNATIVES

As summarized in Table 3 below, the annual operating cost for Express Service Option 1, which provides four morning inbound and four afternoon outbound trips between Queen Creek and the Superstition Springs Transit Center in Mesa each weekday.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 17

Table 3. Estimated Operating Costs for Express Alternative 1

Miles Annual Rate Estimated Weekday Gross Estimated Direction Per Revenue Per Annual Net Trips Cost Revenue2 Trip Miles Mile1 Cost Morning 4 12.8 12,800 $6.48 $82,900 $8,300 $74,600 Inbound Afternoon 4 12.8 12,800 $6.48 $82,900 $8,300 $74,600 Outbound TOTAL: $149,200 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1. Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate 2. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 10% of gross cost

Similar to the first option, Express Service Option 2 provides service from Queen Creek to Superstition Springs Transit Center each weekday, but offers continued service to downtown Phoenix. This additional trip mileage leads to a substantially greater annual operating cost, as summarized in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Estimated Operating Costs for Express Alternative 2

Miles Annual Rate Estimated Weekday Gross Estimated Direction Per Revenue Per Annual Net Trips Cost Revenue2 Trip Miles Mile1 Cost Morning 4 41.4 41,400 $6.48 $268,300 $26,800 $241,500 Inbound Afternoon 4 41.4 41,400 $6.48 $268,300 $26,800 $241,500 Outbound TOTAL: $483,000 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1. Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate 2. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 10% of gross cost

Similar to the previous option, Express Service Option 3 provides weekday service from Queen Creek to downtown Phoenix but without the stop at the Superstition Springs Transit Center. This slightly shorter trip length results in a reduction of annual operating costs, albeit small. As summarized in Table 5 below, the estimated cost of operating Express Service Option 3 is approximately $480,600.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 18

Table 5. Estimated Operating Costs for Express Alternative 3

Miles Annual Rate Estimated Weekday Gross Estimated Direction Per Revenue Per Annual Net Trips Cost Revenue2 Trip Miles Mile1 Cost Morning 4 41.2 41,200 $6.48 $267,000 $26,700 $240,300 Inbound Afternoon 4 41.2 41,200 $6.48 $267,000 $26,700 $240,300 Outbound TOTAL: $480,600 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1. Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate 2. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 10% of gross cost

Express Service Option 4 provides weekday service from Queen Creek to downtown Mesa, with an eventual connection to the Valley Metro light rail service, slated to begin operating in central Mesa in 2015. The estimated annual cost of providing this service is approximately $267,200 as summarized in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Estimated Operating Costs for Express Alternative 4

Miles Annual Rate Estimated Weekday Gross Estimated Direction Per Revenue Per Annual Net Trips Cost Revenue2 Trip Miles Mile1 Cost Morning 22.9 4 22,900 $6.48 $148,400 $14,800 $133,600 Inbound Afternoon 22.9 4 22,900 $6.48 $148,400 $14,800 $133,600 Outbound TOTAL: $267,200 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1. Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate 2. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 10% of gross cost

EXTENSION OF ROUTES 156 OR 184

The costs for extending either Route 156 or Route 184 into Queen Creek are identical, as each route currently terminates at ASU’s Polytechnic Campus. As presented in Table 7 below, extending either route into Queen Creek would result in approximately $620,800 in annual operating costs, assuming the routes were operated to the Valley Metro minimum service standard for local fixed-route services. A city’s financial contribution to a transit route is typically determined on the proportion of the annual revenue miles in that city. However it is expected that Queen Creek would pay for the entirety of the operating costs of extending either route, including the additional revenue miles in other jurisdictions.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 19

Table 7. Operating Costs for Route 156 or 184 Extension

Miles Annual Rate Estimated Weekday Gross Estimated Direction Per Revenue Per Annual Net Trips1 Cost Revenue3 Trip Miles Mile2 Cost Northbound 7.3 30 54,750 $6.30 $344,900 $34,500 $310,400 Southbound 7.3 30 54,750 $6.30 $344,900 $34,500 $310,400 TOTAL: $620,800 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1. Costs shown are for weekday’s only; Valley Metro service standards require minimum service levels on Saturdays and Sundays 2. Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate 3. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 10% of gross cost

COMMUNITY CONNECTOR SERVICE OPTIONS

As discussed in the previous section, four community connector alternatives were developed for consideration. The estimated annual cost to operate Service Option 1 is detailed in Table 8.

Table 8. Community Connector Service Option 1

Miles Annual Rate Estimated Gross Estimated Direction Trips Per Revenue Per Annual Cost Revenue2 Trip Miles Mile1 Net Cost3 Morning Inbound 24 16.7 102,000 $5.65 $566,100 $56,600 $509,500 Afternoon Outbound 24 16.7 102,000 $5.65 $566,100 $56,600 $509,500 TOTAL: $1,019 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1. Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate 2. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 10% of gross cost 3. Total estimated annual net operating cost shown in thousands

The estimated annual operating cost for community connector Service Option 2 are detailed in Table 9 below.

Table 9. Community Connector Service Option 2

Miles Annual Rate Estimated Gross Estimated Direction Trips Per Revenue Per Annual Cost Revenue2 Trip Miles Mile1 Net Cost3 Morning Inbound 24 17.8 106,800 $5.65 $603,400 $60,300 $543,100 Afternoon Outbound 24 17.8 106,800 $5.65 $603,400 $60,300 $543,100 TOTAL: $1,086 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1. Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate 2. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 10% of gross cost

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 20

3. Total estimated annual net operating cost shown in thousands

As community connector Service Option 3 eschews serving the residential area northeast of the Town Center, the trip length and thus the annual operating costs are substantially less than the previous alternatives. These costs are further detailed in Table 10 below.

Table 10. Community Connector Service Option 3

Miles Annual Rate Estimated Gross Estimated Direction Trips Per Revenue Per Annual Cost Revenue2 Trip Miles Mile1 Net Cost3 Morning Inbound 24 15.1 90,600 $5.65 $511,900 $51,200 $460,700 Afternoon Outbound 24 15.1 90,600 $5.65 $511,900 $51,200 $460,700 TOTAL: $921,400 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1. Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate 2. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 10% of gross cost 3. Total estimated annual net operating cost shown in thousands

Service Option 4 operates in a loop within Town limits, the operating costs are broken down by roundtrip and not inbound/outbound as in the previous options. The estimated annual operating costs are summarized in Table 11 below.

Table 11. Community Connector Service Option 4

Annual Rate Estimated Miles Per Gross Estimated Trips1 Revenue Per Annual Net Round Trip Cost Revenue3 Miles Mile2 Cost 48 10.9 130,400 $5.65 $739,000 $73,900 $665,100 1. Bi-directional trips 2. Estimated FY15 Valley Metro Contractor Rate 3. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 10% of gross cost

PRE-SCHEDULED, ON-DEMAND SHUTTLE

Finally, a preliminary assessment of costs associated with a pre-scheduled on-demand shuttle service were developed. There are a number of ways this type of service could be altered for cost purposes. Table 12 reflects a “fully-loaded” service operating for 250 non-holiday weekdays for 10 hours of service on operating days. These costs do not reflect fare revenues that may be recovered as a fare structure has not been developed for this type of service, nor has any travel forecasting work been completed to estimate demand. Services operating for fewer daily hours would reduce costs, for example.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 21

Table 12. Pre-Scheduled, On-Demand Shuttle Option

Cost Element Cost/Unit Units Estimated Cost Ramp-Equipped Accessible Van1 $40,000.00 1 $40,000.00 Direct Labor2 $15.00 2,875 $43,125.00 Expenses/Driver Benefits3 $4.50 2,875 $12,938.00 Vehicle Insurance $6,500.00 1 $6,500.00 Maintenance (cost per mile)4 $0.08 51,750 $4,140.00 Fuel5 $4.00 3,450 $13,800.00 Communication/Administration6 $150.00 12 $1,800.00 Subtotal – Direct Expenses $122,303.00 Overhead Expenses (10%) $12,230.00 Total $134,533.00 Source: Valley Metro, 2014 1 An ADA-compliant wheelchair equipped van generally costs approximately $40,000.00. Amortizing this cost over a 3-year period results in a cost per year of $13,333.33. 2 The units for direct labor are the hours of service provided by the driver. The hours estimate assumes 2,500 hours of revenue service and 375 hours of “deadhead” service (the additional time necessary for travel between the vehicle’s storage facility and the start of revenue service). 3 Expenses and driver benefits refer to fringe benefits (e.g., health insurance) and other benefits. 4 Maintenance costs cover parts, repairs, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, with 51,750 annual miles. 5 Assumes 15 miles per gallon. In summer months, a van running air conditioning and periodically idling will average 10-12 miles per gallon, subsequently increasing the fuel cost to between $18,000 and $21,000. 6 Units refer to 12 months for a cell phone and additional administrative expenses relating to scheduling trips.

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES

Capital costs are an important consideration that must be accounted for prior to implementing a new transit service. Capital costs are fixed expenses that may include vehicles, stops, and any other construction necessary (e.g. sidewalks, transit-only street lanes). Several of the service options above would contain capital elements. It is important to note that Queen Creek may not be solely responsible for procuring all capital elements, such as vehicles, and there are ways to off-set costs for some capital elements (e.g. sheltered waiting areas or concrete bus pads).

Providing bus service would require the purchase of additional vehicles. Typical vehicles for express service range in price from $400,000 to $600,000 per vehicle, and local service vehicles typically cost $400,000. Likewise, the extension of local fixed- route service (either Route 156 or Route 184) would use a standard 40 foot city bus, while a community connector service would require the purchase of ADA-compliant, shuttle bus vehicles (typically called cutaways) which cost approximately $100,000 per vehicle. Typically, communities that purchase Valley Metro service pay a portion of the fleet costs relative to the service level operated within their jurisdiction, and therefore do not shoulder the burden of procuring fleet vehicles exclusively by themselves.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 22

In addition to vehicle costs, providing fixed route transit service in Queen Creek would require the development of bus stops. Depending on the scale of the stop and additional amenities provided (signs, public benches, shelter, trash receptacle, bike rack etc.), these facilities can range anywhere from $250 for the simplest stop to $10,000 for the more complex—excluding right-of-way acquisition. While these facilities may seem costly, it is important to note that municipalities often have opportunities to enter into agreements with private advertising agencies under which the agency covers a portion of the cost of providing a bus stop in exchange for advertising rights at the site.

Lastly, providing express bus service or extending Route 156 or Route 184 would require one additional capital element. As the excessive weight of buses can cause significant damage to roadway pavement, reinforced concrete pavement pads are recommended at bus layover locations. The dimensions of these concrete pads can vary based on the length of the bus and the number of buses anticipated to stop simultaneously.

Table 13 outlines general unit costs for capital elements that are important to consider when implementing public transportation service. Capital investment unit costs have been identified for two principal categories: vehicles and passenger facilities. The unit costs are derived from past Valley Metro procurement practices and data from National Transit Database. To illustrate the range of costs associated with transit vehicles and facilities, the costs shown range from shuttle buses cutaway vehicles up to articulated bus vehicles to illustrate the range in capital costs for vehicles, and from basic bus stops to advanced passenger facilities and park-and-rides.

Table 13. Unit Capital Costs for Transit Vehicles and Passenger Facilities

Capital Element Unit Cost1,2 Notes Vehicles Wheelchair-Ramp Equipped Van $40,000(+/-) ADA-compliant wheelchair equipped 15-passenger type vans. Shuttle Bus (Cutaway) $100,000(+/-) Typically used for neighborhood circulator services or demand- responsive paratransit services. Standard City Bus (40-ft) $400,000-$600,000 The standard bus used for most fixed-route local and commuter express bus services. Articulated Bus (60-ft) $600,000-$800,000 Sixty-foot (60-ft) articulated heavy duty transit bus.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 23

Stops3,4 Roadside Bus Stop Sign $250-$500 Roadside stop with reflective sign and steel pole fixture. Roadside Sign and Bench $1,000-$2,000 Basic bus stops typically include a sign, bench, ADA- compliant sidewalk landing area, and minor sidewalk adjustments. Sheltered Stop with Bench Up to $10,000 Includes the same passenger amenities as a basic bus stop, with a shelter, benches, and optional electrification for lighting and/or advertising, bus pull-out bays. Advanced Sheltered Stop $50,000(+/-) Includes the same passenger amenities as a basic bus stop, with a shelter, benches, and optional electrification for lighting and/or advertising, bus pull-out bays Cost assumption based on 500 stall facility. Includes basic Park-and-Ride Lot Up to $10,000,000(+/-) passenger waiting amenities such as shade structures, benches, fare vending machines, and bus bays. Sources: Valley Metro Rail and National Transit Database, 2014 1 Typically, manufacturers have several different vehicle models, which can influence vehicle prices, similar to purchasing a car from a dealership. Vehicle costs typically include contingency costs, and depending on the type of system and vehicle, may require engineering costs. Bulk ordering of vehicles typically reduces the per vehicle purchase price. 2 All costs subject to inflation. 3 Typically, eight bus stops are assumed per corridor mile. This assumption includes 4 sheltered bus stops (2 stops with new bus bays and 2 stops without bus bays) at the intersections of arterial streets, and 4 basic bus stops at quarter-mile and half- mile locations (2 stops on either side of the street). 4 Actual facility costs will vary depending upon size of the facility, materials, design, construction, and land acquisition costs.

Additional detail on capital and operating costs for recommended transit services and facilities will be discussed in Working Paper #5.

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

The costs associated with developing and operating transit services are often a primary barrier to implementation. Fortunately, several local, state, and federal funding programs exist that assist communities such as Queen Creek in the development of transit services. A summary of relevant local, state, and federal funds is provided below.

LOCAL AND STATE FUNDS

The Town of Queen Creek receives annual transit funding assistance through both the Public Transportation Fund, which is available to cities and towns in Maricopa County,

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 24 and the Arizona Lottery Fund, which is available to cities statewide. The details of these funds are discussed below.

Public Transportation Fund (PTF)

Transit revenues from Prop 400, the half-cent county-wide sales tax originally authorized in 1986 and extended for 20 years in 2004, are deposited into the Public Transportation Fund (PTF) to support the projects programmed in the Regional Transportation Plan. PTF funds can be spent on regional projects, including local and express fixed route service and complementary paratransit service as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Local (non-ADA) dial-a-ride services and circulator/connector fixed route services do not qualify for PTF funds.

Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF)

Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF) are revenues generated by the Arizona State Lottery for the support of public transportation services within Maricopa County. The transportation fund was created as a part of the state implementation plan to meet ambient air quality standards as required by the Clean Air Act. Areas with a population of 300,000 or more are required to spend all of their ALF funds on public transit services. These funds are available to the Town of Queen Creek each year and require an annual application and accounting documentation to prove that funds were spent appropriately.

FEDERAL FUNDS

In addition to the local and state funding sources, Queen Creek may be eligible for a number of federal funding programs to assist in the provision of transit services. As available funds are limited, the process is extremely competitive. Furthermore, there are strict stipulations that specify the types of projects the funds can be used for. A summary of applicable federal funding programs is provided below.

Section 5307: Urbanized Area Formula Grants

This federal program provides grants to Urbanized Areas (those with a population of more than 50,000) for transit capital, planning, job access, and reverse commute projects. These funds can also be used for operating assistance for services that provide accessibility to jobs or reverse commute options. Funding for these types of projects is discretionary and awarded through a competitive process managed by the City of Phoenix. Capital funds under Section 5307 are programmed by Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and follow MAG’s programming guidelines.

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 25

Section 5310: Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities

This federal program provides funding for services that improve the mobility of senior and disability populations. Services eligible for funding under this program are those beyond traditional transit and ADA paratransit services. Section 5310 funding is discretionary and awarded through a competitive process managed by the City of Phoenix. Funds may be used for capital improvements, but may also be flexed for operations public transportation that assist seniors and persons with disabilities.

Section 5339: Bus and Bus Facilities

This federal program provides eligible recipients with capital funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and to construct bus-related facilities. Section 5339 funds are limited to capital projects and thus cannot be used for operating assistance. Capital funds are under Section 5339 are programmed by MAG through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and follow MAG’s programming guidelines.

In the future, as population demographics and the built environment in Queen Creek continue to evolve, further investments in transit services will likely be necessary to satisfy the community’s mobility needs. As the provision of these services will exceed available local, state, and federal funding sources, the Town will need to develop its own funding strategy. In addition to the funding sources reviewed above, several cities throughout Maricopa County have implemented their own dedicated sales tax to fund transit services. As the need for a diversity of transportation options continues to grow in Queen Creek, the Town may wish to pursue this or similar measures at some point in the future.

DISCUSSION

In evaluating the preliminary alternative transit service options presented above, it is important to consider the advantages and drawbacks inherent in each alternative service type. Table 14 below provides a summary of the pros and cons associated with each option described above. Choosing the most appropriate service depends on a number of factors including cost, desired travel market(s), perceived benefit, and the assessment of existing conditions in the Town. All of the preliminary transit service options considered provide additional transportation options to residents of Queen Creek yet vary by service type, level of service, and costs. However, different service types cater to different travel markets, with the express service options serving primarily work commute trips while the Route 156/184 extensions and the community connectors serving more localized trips. With these important considerations in mind, determining

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 26 what market to serve and where the greatest need exists become the essential factors in selecting and implementing the most effective transit service option in Queen Creek.

Table 14. Summary of Alternative Transit Service Options: Pros and Cons

Service Option Pros Cons

Express Alternatives  Commuter based service only  Significant operating costs  Lacks connection to residential  Provides connection to regional areas Service Option 1 transit network via Superstition  Capital elements required Springs Transit Center  Requires transfer at Superstition Springs for access to other services  Commuter based service only  Provides service to downtown  Significant operating costs – most Phoenix expensive service option Service Option 2  Provides connection to regional  Capital elements required transit network via Superstition  Lacks connection to Queen Creek Springs Transit Center residential areas  Commuter based service only  Significant operating costs  Lacks connection to Queen Creek  Provides direct service to downtown residential areas Service Option 3 Phoenix without stop at Superstition  Capital elements required Springs  Requires transfers to other services to access destinations beyond downtown Phoenix  Commuter based service only  Provides connection to downtown  Significant operating costs Mesa  Lacks connection to Queen Creek  Provides connection to regional residential areas Service Option 4 transit network  Capital elements required  Beginning in 2016, would provide  Requires transfers to other connection to Valley Metro Light Rail services to access destinations beyond downtown Mesa Local Route Extensions  Significant operating costs  Capital elements required Route 156  Provides connection to regional  Lacks connection to Queen Creek Extension transit network residential areas  Minimal ridership anticipated

Preliminary Transit Service Options August 2014 Page 27

 Significant operating costs  Capital elements required  Lacks connection to Queen Creek Route 184  Provides connection to regional residential areas Extension transit network  Minimal ridership anticipated

Community Connector Alternatives  Provides service to highest density  Significant operating costs residential areas Service Option 1  Capital elements required  Provides connection to regional

transit network  Provides service to highest density residential areas  Significant operating costs Service Option 2  Provides connection to regional  Capital elements required transit network  Provides service to highest density  Significant operating costs residential areas Service Option 3  Capital elements required  Provides connection to regional

transit network  Lacks connection to greater transit network Service Option 4  Provides internal circulation service  Significant operating costs  Capital elements required Commute Solution Transportation Services  No guarantee users will find trips  Connects users to trips matching matching their needs Carpool their unique parameters  Less reliable than more structured  User funded service options  Provides custom, efficient service to  Commuter based service only participants  Requires several participants with  Typically user funded, but if similar origins/destinations and available ALF funds used to start work schedules program in Queen Creek, stipend may help offset costs users typically  No guarantee users will find Vanpool pay, thus making service more established vanpools matching attractive to potential participants their unique needs – however, a subsidized vanpool program may  Enables use of HOV lanes for faster attract potential users to form their commute times own vanpools to better match their  Fares can be paid with pre-tax travel needs dollars  Lacks connection to greater transit On-Demand network  Provides internal circulation service Shuttle  Significant operating costs  Capital elements required

Initial service recommendations and implementation strategies will be identified in the next phase of the project, as will several short, medium, and long-term goals designed to assist in the continued evolution of transit services in the Town of Queen Creek.