DRAFT WORKING PAPER #5: Analytical Model for Considering Additional Transit Options

Transcription

1

2 DRAFT WORKING PAPER #5: Analytical Model for Considering Additional Transit Options Prepared for: Maricopa Association of Governments 302 North First Avenue, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ Contributions by: HDR Engineering, Inc. DMJM Harris URS Corporation September 24, 2008

3 WORKING PAPER #5: ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR CONSIDERING ADDITIONAL TRANSIT OPTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Summary of Planned Improvements INITIAL ANALYSIS CORRIDORS AND ACTIVTY CENTERS Existing and Future Transit Deficiencies General Transit Deficiencies Subareas with Deficiencies Previous Studies and Plans Analysis of Regional Growth Patterns and Transit Propensity Population and Employment Growth Transit Propensity Projected Travel Demand Roadway Travel Speed\Time Activity Centers Initial Analysis Corridors EVALUATION PROCESS Criteria Measurement Scale Process Steps Identify Appropriate Service Typology Prioritize Corridor Services Using Evaluation Criteria Identify Appropriate Service for the Transit Mobility Scenarios Evaluate in Travel Demand Model CONCEPTUAL TRANSIT MOBILITY SCENARIOS...36 i

4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Existing and Future Deficiencies... 4 Table 2: Regional Subarea Transit Deficiencies... 6 Table 3: Activity Centers...24 Table 4: Initial Analysis Corridors...26 Table 5: Menu of Potential Transit Service and Capital Improvements...33 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Subareas with Transit Deficiencies... 7 Figure 2: Potential Transit Corridors Identified in the RTP and HCTS... 9 Figure 3: Potential Transit Corridors Identified in the Hassyampa and Hidden Valley Framework Studies...10 Figure 4: 2030 Population Projections by RAZ...12 Figure 5: 2030 Employment Projections by RAZ...13 Figure 6: 2030 Jobs Per Person by RAZ (normalized by RAZ land area)...14 Figure 7: 2000 Transit Propensity...16 Figure 8: Significant Regional Trip Productions and Attractions Year Figure 9: Significant Emerging Travel Pattern Trends between Year 2006 and Year Figure 10: Significant Emerging Travel Pattern Trends Year Figure 11: Regional Subareas with Transit Deficiencies & Initial Analysis Corridors...28 Figure 12: Initial Analysis Corridors and Activity Centers...29 Figure 13: Evaluation Process Flow Chart...31 Figure 14: Conceptual Transit Mobility Scenarios...37 ii

5 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Summary of Planned Improvements This section, drawn from Working Paper #3 and the MAG 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update, summarizes the regionally programmed and funded improvements over the 20-year lifetime of the current RTP. Regional funding raised through the current half-cent countywide transportation excise tax will be used to improve local bus service on selected routes, express or freeway bus rapid transit (BRT) service, high-capacity service (e.g., light rail [LRT]), arterial BRT, demand response (paratransit) service, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and operations and maintenance facilities. The following list does not necessarily include all planned transit improvements, because local jurisdictions may fund additional services and facilities. MAG member jurisdictions will also contribute to many of the projects listed below. Supergrid Bus Service (Local) 34 routes Year of implementation: Days of service: daily Peak headway (minutes): range 15-60; average 22 Weekday base headway (minutes): range 20-60; average 31 Weekday span (hours): range 17-21; average 18 Weekend headway (minutes): 30 Weekend span (hours): range ; average 17 Approximate service area boundaries: Litchfield Road, Power Road, Bell Road and Queen Creek Road These boundaries represent the limits of Supergrid service only. As the RTP 2007 Update shows, additional locally funded service is expected to operate outside this area. Express/Freeway BRT Service* 26 routes Directionality: 13 one-way, 13 two-way Year of implementation: Days of service: Monday through Friday Weekday trips: range 6-48; average 16 Approximate service area boundaries: Loop 303 (west), Signal Butte Road (east), Loop 101 (north), and Loop 202/Santan (south) *Includes arterial limited stop service on Grand Avenue and South Central Avenue. The latter is also listed as arterial BRT. High-Capacity Transit Service 6 corridors (excluding Central Phoenix/East Valley starter LRT line) Year of implementation: Route miles: 38 (excluding Central Phoenix/East Valley line) Days of service: daily Peak headway (minutes): approximately 10 Off-peak and weekend headway (minutes): generally Daily span (hours): 20 Will use LRT, or rubber-tired technology offering similar speed and capacity 1

6 Arterial BRT Service 4 corridors (excluding Main Street BRT in Mesa, to be implemented with Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT) Year of implementation: Days of service: Monday through Friday Number of trips per day: range 40-48; average 44 Corresponds to an average headway of approximately 38 minutes, assuming service 14 hours a day with no extra peak period trips Actual spans and headways to be determined Demand Response Service Regional funding of mandatory Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) service Funding for purchase of 1,212 replacement and expansion vehicles through 2026 ADA service area will grow in tandem with growth of fixed route service area Transit Centers 12 new transit centers (some locally funded) in 7 communities 4 downtown locations and 8 other locations Each will serve 3 to 8 transit routes Publicly Owned Park-and-Ride Lots 19 new facilities (some locally funded) in 10 communities 15 will be adjacent to freeways Each will serve up to 6 transit routes HOV Freeway Lanes and Ramps 309 added HOV lane miles (approximately tripling the current 152 lane miles) 134 miles are under construction or to be constructed by miles will be constructed from 2011 through 2026 Will serve 6 regional freeways 6 system interchanges will have new direct ramps connecting HOV lanes Operations and Maintenance Facilities One new bus heavy maintenance facility is programmed for completion in 2014 One new fixed route bus facility is programmed for completion in 2026 Rehabilitation of two major facilities is programmed for Fleet Estimates for Fixed Route Service (2030) 1,306 buses 130 rail cars The above list represents a substantial investment in new transit services, equipment, and infrastructure, which will have a notable impact on the mobility of many Maricopa County residents. In addition, several of the largest cities in the region have enacted their own dedicated sales taxes to help fund these transit 2

7 improvements and provide additional services for their residents. As the next section demonstrates, however, the funded improvements will only partially address many deficiencies in the region s transit system. The Peer Regions Report showed that the Maricopa County RTP started from a much lower baseline of established transit services than exists in similar metropolitan areas. It is also important to keep in mind that the RTP is a revenue-driven plan. That is, total resources available for all transportation modes are limited by the revenue obtainable from the half-cent sales tax. Once the MAG Regional Council established the transit share of the proceeds, MAG and its member jurisdictions were required to develop a fiscally constrained plan. It was never expected that the available funding would suffice to meet the public transportation needs of the region. 3

8 2.0 INITIAL ANALYSIS CORRIDORS AND ACTIVTY CENTERS This section presents the initial list of analysis corridors and activity centers identified for possible inclusion in the Regional Transit Framework Study Transit Mobility Scenarios. Activity centers, which will be considered as potential connection nodes for regional transit services were identified through projected concentrations of employment, population and overall travel demand attractiveness. The analysis corridors were identified through three levels of analysis. The first level included the identification of regional transit deficiencies and subareas with transit deficiencies. The second level included a review of existing plans and studies, which included both planned and funded transit corridors. Finally, the third level included an analysis of regional growth patterns and transit propensity (census demographics). 2.1 Existing and Future Transit Deficiencies General Transit Deficiencies Table 1 summarizes the principal existing and expected future regional transit deficiencies identified in working papers 3 (Existing Transit Services and Deficiencies) and 4 (Problem Definition) of this study. For each deficiency, the table shows the types of services or facilities affected and the locations in which the deficiency exists or will exist. Deficiencies are not listed in order of importance. Table 1: Summary of Existing and Future Deficiencies Deficiency Limited geographic coverage; many areas with substantial population & employment are not served Insufficient spans: many routes do not operate late evenings or weekends, especially Sunday Excessive headways: more than 30 minutes on many routes, especially on weekends Service spans & headways are inconsistent between communities, limiting access across jurisdictional boundaries Few daily trips & even fewer (or no) weekend trips Relatively few weekday trips (especially offpeak) & no weekend trips Inconsistent fares, payment media & eligibility requirements, especially for non-ada service (which some communities do not offer at all) Most services do not cross community boundaries, requiring inconvenient transfers Inconsistent operating standards; riders may not know how to use the service or what to expect Overcrowding (demand exceeds capacity) Services or Facilities Affected Location Existing or Future? All fixed route & demand response services Fixed route--local bus Fixed route--local bus Fixed route; demand response (span of service) Regional connector bus service Primarily outlying & recently developed areas Regionwide, especially outside the core cities Regionwide, but mainly outside the core cities Regionwide Both; RTP will expand coverage, but still lag behind regional growth Both; RTP will partially mitigate through Supergrid Both; RTP will partially mitigate through Supergrid Both; RTP will partially mitigate through Supergrid Wickenburg & Gila Both Bend routes Arterial BRT Regionwide Future, as routes begin service Demand response Regionwide Both; RTP will have minimal impact Demand response Fixed route circulator service Fixed route--local & express; highcapacity service Regionwide, with partial exception of East Valley Cities with circulator service Regionwide; local routes primarily in central, north central, east central & south subareas Both; RTP will have minimal impact Both; these services are locally funded Both, but worse in future; continued growth in demand will likely swamp RTP improvements 4

9 Very limited service in emerging high-demand corridors far from the regional core Little or no service in many high growth areas Service focusing on only a few regional activity centers Only a few daily trips, restricting travel flexibility & discouraging potential riders Fixed route--local & express bus Fixed route-- express bus Fixed route-- express bus/freeway BRT Fixed route-- express bus West Valley & East Valley areas identified in Working Paper 4 Outlying areas with rapid growth Outside regional core/phoenix CBD Regionwide Future Both, although RTP will introduce new services Both Both; some routes will continue to offer as few as 3 trips per peak period Not enough vehicles to meet demand Vanpool Regionwide Both; some new vehicles will be acquired, but growth in demand will outstrip supply Lack of passenger amenities or visible security Available parking probably insufficient to meet long-term demand Low speeds causing excessive travel time; a deterrent to medium & long transit trips Low freeway travel speeds in congested general traffic lanes Difficulty accessing HOV lanes from general purpose interchanges, & vice versa Lack of real-time travel information (e.g., arrival of next vehicle at transit stop) Insufficient funded operations & maintenance facilities to service all vehicles Transit passenger facilities--park-&- rides, transit centers, bus stops Park-&-ride lots All services operating in mixed traffic, including HOV lanes Express bus Regionwide LRT & freeway BRT stations Local service most affected in central, north central, east central, west central, south & southeast subareas Freeways without HOV lanes Freeways with HOV lanes Regionwide Both, although the RTP funds some improvements Future but two lots are already approaching capacity Both, but worse in future as VMT increases, HOV lane use rises & traffic congestion grows Existing; RTP funds HOV lanes on most regional freeways Both Express bus/freeway BRT All, except at LRT & Both RAPID stations equipped with electronic displays All Regionwide Future; fleet will contain more vehicles than planned facilities can accommodate RTP provides insufficient regional transit funding to comprehensively address the above deficiencies All Regionwide Both Source: MAG Regional Transit Framework Study, Draft Working Papers #3 and # Subareas with Deficiencies Based on the analysis summarized in Working Paper #4 (Problem Definition) developed for this study, several areas within the region have or will have some level of transit deficiencies. The identification of these regional subareas is an important initial step in a systematic approach to identify regional travel corridors (existing and projected) that may warrant further examination. Table 2 identifies the regional transit deficient areas and the deficiencies associated with each, while Figure 1 illustrates the location of the areas with transit deficiencies. 5

10 Sub Area Table 2: Regional Subarea Transit Deficiencies Subarea Transit Deficiencies Transit Service Levels\Availability Population & Employment Growth Transit Service Performance (overcrowding) Regional Travel Demand Existing Travel Speeds A Northwest B West C Southwest D West Central E North F North Central G Central H South Central I Northeast J East K East Central L Southeast I M Southeast II N South Source: HDR Engineering, Inc.,

11 Draft Working Paper #5: Analytical Model for Considering Additional Transit Options Figure 1: Regional Subareas with Transit Deficiencies 7

12 2.2 Previous Studies and Plans Two primary documents were reviewed to catalog previously identified regional transit corridors (planned and funded). These documents include the MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the MAG High Capacity Transit Study (HCTS). Corridors in the RTP considered for inclusion in the initial list of analysis corridors are those corridors designated as light rail/high capacity extensions and eligible high capacity corridors. Supergrid, express, and freeway/arterial BRT route corridors are not included in the list unless there were other criteria (population, employment, travel demand, etc.) that warranted inclusion. Likewise, designated express bus corridors in the HCTS are not necessarily included in the initial analysis corridors list. Finally, documentation from the I-10 Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study and the I-8/I-10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study were reviewed to identify potential regional transit connections. Figure 2 illustrates potential transit corridors identified in the RTP and HCTS, while Figure 3 illustrates potential transit corridors identified through the draft Hassayampa and Hidden Valley framework studies. 8

13 Draft Working Paper #5: Analytical Model for Considering Additional Transit Options Figure 2: Potential Transit Corridors Identified in the RTP and HCTS 9

14 Draft Working Paper #5: Analytical Model for Considering Additional Transit Options Figure 3: Potential Transit Corridors Identified in the Hassyampa and Hidden Valley Framework Studies 10

15 2.3 Analysis of Regional Growth Patterns and Transit Propensity Regional growth patterns (population and employment, projected travel demand and current roadway travel speeds\travel time) and current transit propensity (census demographics) were studied to assist in identifying the initial analysis corridors and activity centers Population and Employment Growth Population and employment density by MAG Regional Analysis Zone (RAZ) was reviewed for year 2010, 2020 and The RAZ population growth patterns indicate that population will continue to grow at the edge of the region, but the core will also intensify in population density. By 2030, the following population development patterns will emerge: High Capacity Transit (HCT) services planned in the RTP will primarily serve RAZs that have a population density greater than 4,000 The area north of I-10 between the Loop 101 (Price Freeway) and I-17 will have the most intense population density with many RAZs estimated to exceed 8,000 persons per square mile The intensity of population in the southeast valley will continue to grow, with some RAZs exceeding 4,000 persons per square mile A majority of the RAZs between the Loop 101 and Loop 303 will have 2,000+ persons per square mile Most RAZs immediately south of I-10 and west of Loop 202 (51 st Ave alignment) are projected to have 2,000+ persons per square mile Similar to projected population growth patterns, employment growth will occur at the edge of the urbanized area while the central part of the region will continue to intensify. However, the employment market is not projected to spread as far into the undeveloped parts of the region as population is projected to, resulting in an imbalance of jobs to people. By 2030, the following employment patterns will emerge: Employment density is projected to be focused along and between the regional freeway corridors HCT services planned in the RTP will primarily serve RAZs that have an employment density greater than 4,000 The area east of the Loop 101 (Price\Pima Freeway) and West of I-10, bound by the San Tan Freeway and Red Mountain Freeway will continue to intensify with all RAZs exceeding 4,000 jobs per square mile Employment in the area east of the Loop 101 (Agua Fria Freeway) and West of I-17 will continue to intensify with many RAZs having 2,000+ jobs per square mile Employment density is projected to increase west of Loop 101 (Agua Fria Freeway) along the I- 10 corridor. Projected jobs per square mile will exceed 2,000 in this area High employment density is projected to be maintained in the corridor adjacent to the Loop 101 (Pima Freeway) north of the Loop 202 (Red Mountain Freeway) and south of Bell Rd The north Loop 101 (Agua Fria\Pima Freeway) corridor is projected to have increased employment density (2,000+) along the corridor, including where the corridor intersects with I- 17 and east of SR51 Population and employment development patterns for year 2030 are illustrated in Figures 4, 5 and 6. 11

16 Draft Working Paper #5: Analytical Model for Considering Additional Transit Options Figure 4: 2030 Population Projections by RAZ 12

17 Draft Working Paper #5: Analytical Model for Considering Additional Transit Options Figure 5: 2030 Employment Projections by RAZ 13

18 Draft Working Paper #5: Analytical Model for Considering Additional Transit Options Figure 6: 2030 Jobs Per Person by RAZ (normalized by RAZ land area) 14

19 2.3.2 Transit Propensity Year 2000 US Census data serves as a baseline to identify historic transit propensity throughout the county for developing some assumptions about future service need. Year 2000 census data was used as a base, as all of the variables required for the propensity analysis were not collected as part of the middecade census. While this data is approximately 8 years old, it represents a pattern confirming the importance of population density to transit demand. The areas of the region indicated as having high or very high transit propensity (see Figure 7) are the areas where existing transit service performed the highest in year These areas primarily include the central area of the region and locations along or near the planned LRT starter line. The variables included in the analysis represent attributes that national studies identify as having a relationship to transit patronage. Research that supports the variables selected for the analysis includes: Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 28: Transit Markets of the Future TCRP Report 3: Workbook for Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger Transportation TCRP Report 27: Building Transit Ridership The following variables were used for the propensity analysis: 1) Population Density; 2) Percent of Population w/ Mobility Limitations; 3) Percent of Population w/ Employment Disability; 4) Percent of Population that is NOT "White, Non-Hispanic"; 5) Percent of Population that is Female; 6) Percent of Households w/ Income under $20,000; 7) Percent of Occupied Housing Units w/o an Auto Available: 8) Percent of Workforce Age 30 or Younger; and 9) Percent of Workforce Age 65 or Older. The weights assigned to each category are primarily based upon findings in TCRP Report 28. Weighted variables are used to develop a composite score for each census tract. It is important to understand that the analysis assumes that transit propensity is realized by providing the average level of transit service. From an analysis of 2000 National Transit Database (NTD) data, the median hours per capita is from 0.56 hours to 1.17 hours per capita annually, depending upon the size of the urban area; larger have more. Propensity is calculated as an index; as such it shows the relative propensity of one census tract to the county as a whole. Based on the transit propensity analysis shown in Figure 7, three areas stand out as having the greatest propensity or need for public transit services. These areas include: Corridor containing the light rail starter line Area west of I-17, between I-10 West and Glendale Ave East-west corridor approximately between Bell Rd and Loop

20 Figure 7: 2000 Transit Propensity Source: US Census,

21 2.3.3 Projected Travel Demand Working Paper #1 (Analysis of Travel Demand) identified the overall travel demand in the region regardless of travel mode. The travel demand analysis included dividing the region into 26 transit influence zones (TIZ) with 2 of the zones located outside of Maricopa County. Estimated person trips were identified for 2006, 2019 and 2030 through the MAG travel demand model based on aggregating households and employment to the transit influence zones. Significant travel patterns identified for year 2006 include: The region generated approximately 13,300,000 person trips: 2,960,000 (or 22%) during peak period and 10,330,000 (or 78%) during the off-peak period TIZs 12, 14, 17 and 21 were importers of work trips since these TIZs have substantially more jobs than housing units (see Figure K) From the TIZs within the TFS, TIZ 18 had the highest peak period productions, followed by TIZs 4 and 7 (see Figure K) From the TIZs within the TFS, TIZ 7 had the highest peak period attractions, followed by TIZs 22 and 18 About 10 to 15 percent of intra-tiz total person trips occurred in the peak period; the remaining 85 to 90 percent of these trips occurred during the off-peak period. At least 50 percent of the total person trips between the following TIZ pairs ( with at least 25,000 trips) occurred during the peak period: 4 to 5 4 to 9 7 to 6 7 to to to 6 26 to 22 Most of the high volume (> 50,000) off-peak period trips of TIZ pairs occurred either within the TIZ or between a neighboring TIZ because these trips are generally short. Figure 8 identifies the TIZ districts with the largest trip attractions (districts that import workers) and peak period productions. 17

22 Figure 8: Significant Regional Trip Productions and Attractions Year

23 Significant travel patterns identified for year 2019 include: The number of peak-period trips would increase from 2,960,000 to 4,211,000. This represents an increase of 42% Peak period productions of TIZ s 3, 9, and 26 would increase by at least 100,000 trips Peak period attractions of TIZ s 9, 19, and 26 would increase by at least 100,000 trips Peak trips to/from the central area (TIZ s 11 through 15) would not increase much The number of off peak-period trips would increase from 10,332,000 to 14,630,000. This represents an increase of 42% Off-Peak period productions of TIZ s 1,3,8,16,19, and 26 would increase by at least 250,000 trips Off-Peak period attractions of TIZ s 1,2,4,9,16,18,19, and 26 would increase by at least 250,000 trips Most intra-tiz s off peak trips would increase by at least 20,000 Most of the increase in total person trips would be within the TIZ s, indicating increased intra zone travel Trips from TIZ 1 and TIZ 4 to TIZ 9 would increase by at least 50,000 Trips from TIZ 19 to TIZ 22 would increase by almost 80,000 Intra-district demand and demand to\from established employment centers will continue to remain high in 2019, but new travel demand trends will emerge between 2006 and 2019 as shown in Figure 9. 19

24 Figure 9: Significant Emerging Travel Pattern Trends between Year 2006 and Year

25 Significant travel patterns identified for year 2030 include: The number of peak-period trips would increase from 4,211,000 to 5,136,000. This represents an increase of 22% Peak period productions of TIZs 1 would increase by at least 100,000 trips Peak period attractions of TIZs 1 would increase by at least 100,000 trips Peak trips from TIZ 1 to TIZ 9 and from TIZ 9 to TIZ 1 would increase by at least 20,000 More growth in traffic would occur at TIZ 1 and TIZ 2 between 2019 and 2030 compared to the period between 2006 to 2019 The number of off peak-period trips would increase from 14,630,000 to 17,882,000. This represents an increase of 22% Off-Peak period productions of TIZs 1,9, and 26 would increase by at least 250,000 trips Off-Peak period attractions of TIZs 1,2,9, and 26 would increase by at least 250,000 trips Off-Peak period trips between TIZ 9 and TIZ 1 would increase by more than 45,000 Most of the increase in total person trips would be within the TIZs, indicating increased intra zone travel Because of the size of TIZ 24, by far most of the trips would be internal Building upon the existing and emerging travel demand trends between 2006 and 2019, general transportation demand will continue to grow between 2019 and Figure 10 illustrates the increasing demand between Districts 1 and 9 (within and outside of the Loop 303 corridor) during this time period. 21

26 Figure 10: Significant Emerging Travel Pattern Trends Year

27 2.3.4 Roadway Travel Speed\Time Current roadway travel speed and travel time was taken into consideration in the identifying potential transit corridors. Data was derived from the MAG 2007 MAG Regional Travel Time & Travel Speed Study. The following corridors were identified as having significant travel speed\time loses during the AM peak period: Loop rd Ave to Scottsdale Rd Loop 101 Loop 202 (Red Mountain) to Indian School Rd SR51 Loop 101 (Pima) to I-10 I-17 Carefree Hwy to I-10 I-17 Durango Curve to I-10 I-10 Cotton Ln to Dysart Rd I rd Ave to Central Ave I-10 Loop 202 (Red Mountain) to Broadway Curve US60 Gilbert Rd to I-10 Loop 202 (Red Mountain) Country Club Dr to I-10 In general, the arterial streets adjacent to or in near proximity of the impacted freeway corridors also experience reduced speeds and travel times during peak periods. 2.4 Activity Centers Activity centers were indentified throughout the region based on 2030 projected population and employment density and attractiveness of the area in terms of travel demand. The activity centers will assist in the identification of potential connection points within the region for the service recommendations that will be developed for the three transit mobility scenarios. For the purposes of this study, activity centers were defined as an intersection node; detailed activity center boundaries have not been defined. Population and employment density data were analyzed at the MAG Regional Analysis Zone (RAZ) level. Travel demand was derived from the number of trips destined for the Transit Influence Zone (TIZ) that the potential activity center is located within. Travel demand was also normalized by the area (trips per square mile) of the associated TIZ. Activity centers with at least double the average population density, employment density or travel demand than the regional average (by unit of analysis) in two of the three categories are classified as regional activity centers. Activity centers with at least double the average density or travel demand than the regional average (by unit of analysis) in one of the three categories considered are classified as sub-area activity centers while any activity center that is above average in at least one of the three categories is classified as a community activity center. Finally, the activity centers have been identified for further evaluation and analysis, and should not be considered a recommendation for future service as the detailed evaluation has not been completed yet. Additional activity centers could be identified in the next phase of evaluation. Table 3 lists the initial activity centers and Figures 11 and 12 illustrate the location of each. 23

28 Activity Center General Description 1 Table 3: Activity Centers Type 2030 Population Density 2030 Employment Density 2030 Travel Demand (Attractions) Central Ave. Corridor I-10 to Camelback Rd. Regional 7,407 7,501 46,905 Metrocenter Regional 6,632 4,664 14,301 Indian School Rd. & Scottsdale Rd. Regional 5,975 4,446 11,906 Arizona State University Regional 5,910 9,512 20,247 Regional CBD Regional 1,902 7,155 22,671 Loop 101 (Pima) & Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd. Regional 1,391 4,248 2,416^ 75th Ave. & Thomas Rd. Sub-Area 8,365 2,904 12,674 59th Ave. & Glendale Ave. Sub-Area 7,015 2,451 12,674 Country Club Dr. & Main St. Sub-Area 8,129 2,838 10,783 Loop 101 (Price) & Chandler Blvd. Sub-Area 6,395 3,233 10,538 Chandler Blvd. & Arizona Ave. Sub-Area 6,482 1,919 10,538 Camelback & 24th St Sub-Area 4,978 3,394 13,440 Loop 101 (Agua Fria) & Glendale Ave Sub-Area 3,466 3,842 12,674 Central Ave. & Broadway Rd. Sub-Area 4,852 4,387 3,959 Sky Harbor Airport Sub-Area 2,607 7,894 9,512 Happy Valley Rd. & I-17 Sub-Area 1,652 4,572 4,275 Loop 101 (Agua Fria) & I-17 Community 5,642 2,103 14,301 Loop 101 (Agua Fria) & I-10 West Community 4,830 2,690 12,674 US 60 & Power Rd. Community 4,732 2,726 10,783 Gilbert Rd. & Elliot Rd. Community 4,685 2,421 10,783 Tatum Blvd. & Thunderbird Rd. Community 4,271 1,741 11,371 Loop 101 (Pima) & Tatum Blvd. Community 3,765 2,194 11,371 Loop 101 (Agua Fria) & Bell Rd Community 4,676 1,785 7,981 I-10 East & Chandler Blvd. Community 5,573 2,099 3,242 SR 303 & Bell Rd. Community 4,069 1,325 7,981 Williams Field Rd. & Power Rd. Community 4,383 1,175 7,108 SR 303 & I-10 West Community 3,155 1,457 4,022 1 Boundaries not defined Average Population Density by RAZ = 2,979 Average Employment Density by RAZ = 1,640 Average Trip Production Density by TIZ = 9,724 ^ TIZ district size and significant undevelopable land area within the TIZ result in a lower than expected trip production density statistic for this activity center 24

29 2.5 Initial Analysis Corridors The initial analysis corridors have been identified through the elements summarized in sections 2.1 through 2.3. The elements include: (1) analysis of existing and future transit deficiencies; (2) review of previous studies and plans; and, (3) analysis of regional growth patterns and transit propensity. The analysis corridors are identified with either a roadway or railway designation for general orientation purposes only. A corridor may actually extend up to several miles on either side of the roadway\railway centerline. A general description of each corridor and the considerations given to the corridors for inclusion in the initial analysis is provided in Table 4. Figure 11 illustrates the initial analysis corridors and activity centers in relation to the previously identified sub-areas with deficiencies, while Figure 12 shows the corridors and activity centers without the areas of deficiency. The classifications assigned to each corridor (community, sub-area and regional) are based upon corridor length and type of activity centers served. Community corridors are the shortest, while regional corridors are generally the longest and potentially directly serve a regional corridor. Finally, not all initially identified corridors and activity centers will be included in one of the transit mobility scenarios. In addition, some new corridors and activity centers net yet identified may emerge through the evaluation process. 25

30 Table 4: Initial Analysis Corridors Previous Plan or Study 1 Other Corridor Considerations Corridor From To Type MAG RTP or HCTS Other Framework Study Projected Travel Demand Population or Employment Existing Transit Demand Bell Rd SR303 Loop 101 (Pima) Regional Glendale Ave 59th Ave 19th Ave Sub-Area SR51 PV Mall Central Ave & Indian School Rd Regional SR51 PV Mall Deer Valley Rd Community 19th Ave Bethany Home Rd Mountain View Rd & I-17 Community I-10 West Central Ave 79th Ave Regional I-10 West 79th Ave Avondale Blvd Community Rural Rd University Dr Southern Ave Community Rural Rd Southern Ave Chandler Blvd Community Scottsdale Rd University Dr Loop 101 (Pima) Regional Main St Sycamore Mesa Dr Community UP Chandler Branch Main St Chandler Blvd Sub-Area Rittenhouse Rd UP Chandler Branch Town of Queen Creek Sub-Area Chandler Blvd Phoenix Williams Gateway Airport 19 th Ave Sub-Area I-10 East Chandler Blvd Sky Harbor Airport Sub-Area Baseline Rd I-10 Loop 202 (51st Ave) Community Central Ave Washington St Baseline Rd Sub-Area Buckeye Rd\Hwy 85 I-17 Town of Buckeye Regional I-17 Metrocenter Anthem Regional Grand Ave Phoenix CBD SR303 Regional Camelback Rd Central Ave Scottsdale Rd Sub-Area UP Tempe Branch Pecos Rd Elliot Rd & Rural Rd Community UP Chandler Branch Chandler Blvd Pecos Rd (Sun Lakes) Community Power Rd Chandler Heights Rd McDowell Rd Community Main St Mesa Dr Power Rd Community Loop 101 (Agua Fria) Glendale Ave I-10 Sub-Area Loop 101 (Agua Fria) Glendale Ave I-17 Sub-Area Loop 101 (Pima) I-17 Bell Rd\Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd Sub-Area Loop 101 (Pima\Price) Bell Rd\Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd Chandler Blvd Regional US 60 (Superstition) Pinal County I-10 Regional SR303 I-17 SR801 Regional Tatum Blvd\Cave Creek Rd Deer Valley Rd Carefree Hwy Community 51st Ave/59 th Ave Baseline Rd Bell Rd Regional Peoria Ave Saguaro Blvd SR303 Regional Grand Ave SR303 Wickenburg Regional I-10 West Avondale Blvd Wintersburg Rd Regional Palo Verde Rd\Sun Valley Pkwy Baseline Rd SR303 Regional Thomas Rd Loop 101 (Price Frwy) Verado Way Regional Rittenhouse Rd Pinal County Town of Queen Creek Sub-Area I-10 Pinal County Pecos Rd Sub-Area Glendale Ave 59th Ave Loop 101 Sub-Area Estrella I-10 & SR303 Pinal County Regional Travel Speeds 26

31 Corridor From To Type Previous Plan or Study 1 MAG RTP or HCTS Other Framework Study Projected Travel Demand SR85 I-0 I-8 Regional Loop 202 (Red Mountain) Loop 101 (Price) Power Rd Sub-Area Northwest Corridor Sun Valley Pkwy Grand Ave Sub-Area Other Corridor Considerations Population or Employment 44 th St\Tatum Blvd Washington St Loop 101 Sub-area Existing Transit Demand Light Rail Starter Line Sycamore & Main St 19th Ave & Montebello Regional 1 Includes corridors that are identified to have new all day high capacity service or significant service level enhancements Travel Speeds 27

32 Draft Working Paper #5: Analytical Model for Considering Additional Transit Options Figure 11: Regional Subareas with Transit Deficiencies & Initial Analysis Corridors 28

33 Figure 12: Initial Analysis Corridors and Activity Centers 29

34 3.0 EVALUATION PROCESS The goals of the study are to identify transit improvements that can attract significant numbers of new passengers that aren t using transit today while also improving transit service for existing passengers. This approach will result in high leverage transit investments that are more competitive with other modes in terms of capturing mode share. The evaluation criteria were developed with this goal in mind. 3.1 Criteria Evaluation criteria identified in Working Paper 2 (Transit Performance Standards and Indicators) have been refined into measures that will be used for evaluating the transit mobility scenarios and the analysis corridors identified in Chapter 2.0 of this working paper. The measures have been organized into three categories: primary mode choice factors, rider perception characteristics, policy compatibility. Primary Mode Choice Factors - Flexibility and Speed/Travel Time o Measures Estimated travel speed Estimated travel time savings Percent of miles with transit preferential treatment or exclusive guideway - Accessibility/Availability o Measures Total population and employment within one-fourth mile of a local bus or onehalf mile of HCT/Express Total population within 5.0 miles of a park-n-ride Ability to sustain high levels of service Rider Perception Characteristics - Existing Ridership - Comfort & Convenience o Measures Potential load factor on express bus/freeway BRT services Direct connections to regional activity centers - Safety and Security o Measures Potential off peak average passenger loads Policy Compatibility - Land Use Synergies o Measures Number and type of activity centers served Transit friendly land use policies or zoning in place along routes - Community Values and Sustainability o Measures Service characteristic compatibility with local plans Service supports sustainability goals - FTA New Starts and Small Starts, ARS , and BQAZ o Measures Likelihood to score well among funding criteria 30

35 Likelihood to perform well with effectiveness criteria Consistency with program goals 3.2 Measurement Scale An un-weighted measurement scale will be used to evaluate the corridors and mobility scenarios. The scale will be based upon three levels of performance: High, Medium, Low. A corridor or scenario will be assigned a high, medium or low rating based upon its individual characteristics. 3.3 Process Steps The evaluation process will initiate after the initial analysis corridors are identified. The process includes several steps before the draft transit mobility scenarios are developed. Figure 13 provides a flow chart of the analysis process. Figure 13: Evaluation Process Flow Chart 31

36 3.3.1 Identify Appropriate Service Typology The first step of the evaluation process as shown in the diagram is to identify appropriate service typologies for the analysis corridors. Service typologies will be identified through matching the characteristics within a corridor to the list of options provided in Table 5. The list is intended to stimulate creative thinking as the MAG Framework Study Team develops three long-range transit mobility scenarios based on different possible levels of operating and capital funds. All modes in the RTP (local fixed route, demand response, high-capacity transit, express bus/freeway BRT, arterial BRT, regional connector and vanpool) are represented. Commuter rail is not listed because MAG is studying this mode separately. Most transit service improvements imply capital expenditures as well: i.e., expanding service would require more vehicles as well as additional vehicle storage and maintenance facilities. Therefore, the Capital Improvement Options section of Table 2 focuses on projects that could be implemented independently of service upgrades. The table also has a section on local improvements that would be funded by individual jurisdictions belonging to MAG Each general service or capital improvement concept identified in Table 5 has been assigned a relative rating with respect to the following considerations: How much would the improvement benefit regional mobility for transit customers? How much potential does the improvement have to attract new markets to public transit? What is the likely capital cost? What is the likely operating and maintenance cost? What is the estimated lead time for implementation, based on the following scale?: Long: More than six years Substantial: Four to six years Moderate: Two to four years Short: Less than two years The ratings for regional mobility benefit, attractiveness to new riders/markets, capital cost, and operating cost are subjective and range from Low to Very High, with the intermediate ratings of Moderate and High. It is also recognized that the cost of (and benefit from) any option will depend on how widely it is implemented throughout the region. Further, some service improvements work best when coupled with particular capital improvements: e.g., new express bus routes with new park-and-ride lots. The assessments are intended to show only the order of magnitude of relative costs and benefits, which will be refined during subsequent analysis. It should be clear that the most beneficial projects to the region as measured by mobility enhancement and attractiveness to new markets tend to be the most costly and to require the longest lead time for implementation. Table 5 is intended as a menu of options for further consideration. Listing in this table does not guarantee inclusion in any of the transit mobility scenarios to be developed and evaluated in the next phase of the study. Similarly, the list is not necessarily all-inclusive. Additional ideas may emerge as the three transit service and capital improvement scenarios are formulated. 32

37 Table 5: Menu of Potential Transit Service and Capital Improvements Service Improvement Options Regional Description of Improvement Mobility Benefit Ability to Attract New Markets Capital Cost Operating & Maintenance Cost Implementation Lead Time* Expand service area coverage Very High High High Very High Substantial for local bus (& ADA service in tandem) Expand high-capacity transit coverage High Very High Very High (with fixed guideway) High Long (with fixed guideway) Expand freeway BRT/express Moderate Very High Moderate to High Moderate Substantial bus coverage with new routes Implement recommendations of Regional Paratransit Study 1 Moderate to High Low to Moderate Moderate High Short for centralized customer service; Moderate for regional service integration Reduce paratransit response Moderate Low to Moderate Moderate to High High Substantial times and expand coverage Improve local bus headways High High High Very High Substantial to regional standard Lengthen local bus service spans to regional standard High Moderate to High Moderate High to Very High Moderate Add freeway BRT/express bus trips to pre-existing routes (including reverse commute ) Lengthen freeway BRT/express bus spans (longer peaks &/or off-peak service) Institute timed transfers at selected locations (e.g., highcapacity transit termini) Add trips to regional connector routes Provide additional shuttle service between activity centers and high-capacity transit stations Provide special event service (e.g., major sports) Corridor-specific strategies Add service in unserved highdemand corridors Enhance more local routes to Supergrid status Overlay additional limited stop service on the grid Add local or limited routes that deviate from the grid to stress point-to-point service between regional centers Add or extend arterial BRT corridors Improve arterial BRT headways Improve arterial BRT spans (evening, weekend, etc.) Moderate Moderate to High Moderate Moderate Moderate to Substantial Moderate to High High Low to Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low to Moderate Low Low to Moderate Short to Moderate Moderate Low to Moderate Moderate Moderate to High Moderate to Substantial Moderate Moderate Dependent on funding Dependent on funding Short to Moderate from private sector from private sector partners partners Low High (specialized market) Low to Moderate (for events in off-peak hours) Low (if fares can be set to recover most of the cost) Short to Moderate High High Moderate to High High Substantial High Low to Moderate Moderate to High High Substantial Moderate Low to Moderate Moderate to High Moderate to High Moderate to Substantial Moderate Moderate Moderate to High High Substantial Moderate Moderate to High Moderate to High (depends on infrastructure) High Substantial Moderate High Moderate to High High Substantial Moderate Moderate Low to Moderate High Moderate 33

38 Capital Improvement Options Description of Regional Improvement Mobility Benefit Expand fixed guideway network Add park-&-ride lots at strategic locations Expand park-&-ride lots where demand warrants Add transit centers Low to Moderate Improved amenities at transit passenger facilities, e.g.: --Shade (parking & waiting) --Water --Bicycle storage --Enhanced security elements Real-time travel information (e.g., electronic arrival times) Construct additional freewayto-street HOV ramps Moderate Low to Construct additional freewayto-freeway direct HOV ramps Provide additional TSM 2 measures to speed arterial BRT (signal priorities, queue jumpers, etc.) Implement a phased program of exclusive transit lanes for arterial BRT routes Provide additional vans to meet rising commuter demand for vanpool service. Locally Funded Improvements Description of Regional Improvement Mobility Benefit Improve circulator services Low to Moderate Local bus stop improvements (passenger amenities) * Long = more than six years Substantial = four to six years Moderate = two to four years Short = less than two years 1 See Table 3 below for details 2 TSM = Transportation System Management Ability to Attract New Markets Capital Cost Operating & Maintenance Cost See Expand high-capacity transit coverage under Service Improvement Options Implementation Lead Time Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate Low to Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Short to Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Short Moderate Very High Low (if ADOT has primary responsibility) Long Moderate Moderate Very High Low (if ADOT has Long primary responsibility) Low Moderate Low Low to Moderate Short to Moderate High Very High Very High Low (may yield longrun savings) Moderate Moderate Moderate Low (responsibility of vanpool operators) Ability to Attract New Markets Capital Cost Operating & Maintenance Cost Long Short to Moderate Implementatio n Lead Time Moderate (Locally funded) (Locally funded) Moderate to Substantial Low Low (Locally funded) (Locally funded) Short Source: MAG Regional Transit Framework Study Team 34

39 3.3.2 Prioritize Corridor Services Using Evaluation Criteria The second step in the process is to prioritize corridor services using the evaluation criteria. The measures previously described will be applied to all analysis corridors to develop a score (high, medium, low) for each category. Based on the scores, the analysis corridors will be prioritized and potentially assigned to one or more of the transit mobility scenarios. Depending upon the results of the evaluation, some analysis corridors may not be assigned to a transit mobility scenario Identify Appropriate Service for the Transit Mobility Scenarios Three transit mobility scenarios will be developed based upon the evaluation of the analysis corridors. The analysis corridors will serve as the framework for creating each scenario. Additional regional transit services such as supergrid and express bus and capital infrastructure investments will be included in each mobility scenario. These additional services will provide regional connections between the service planned within the analysis corridors and to activity centers and population nodes throughout the region. See Chapter 4 for additional information about the transit mobility scenarios Evaluate in Travel Demand Model Upon developing the draft transit mobility scenarios, each scenario will be tested in the MAG regional travel demand model. The travel demand model will be used to identity potential benefits (passengers, mode split, etc.) or constraints (service levels, service type, etc.) associated with each scenario. This information will then be used to refine the transit mobility scenarios to optimize them as best as possible within the criteria established for each. 35

40 4.0 CONCEPTUAL TRANSIT MOBILITY SCENARIOS Three transit mobility scenarios will be developed for this framework study. Each transit mobility scenario will be based on specified criteria including transit service structure and investment level. The scenarios are briefly described in this section as an introductory overview of the scenario concepts. Scenario I: A basic plan that builds on the current regional transit service levels. This is a low-cost limited expansion plan that includes a limited number of new routes, services and capital investments. Scenario 1 may also include a limited number of extensions to existing regional routes to serve growing areas within the region and provide enhanced service levels on existing regional routes with high demand. This plan keeps operating and capital costs to a minimum, expands service to new areas and improves service levels in areas of the region with regional transit service deficiencies. Scenario II: An intermediate plan that may include some of the transit investment options from Scenario 1, but focuses on providing options for faster regional transit services in the highest demand corridors. Regional transit investments will address regional transit service levels, passenger capacity issues and travel speeds in a limited number of corridors. An emphasis will be placed on developing transfer hubs at key locations in the region to provide sub-regional access points for higher travel speed alternatives. This plan will have moderate costs to build and operate and will provide premium transit services in a limited number of corridors that connect population and employment nodes with activity centers throughout the region. Scenario III: This plan may include transit investment options identified in Scenarios I and II. In addition, more areas with high transit demand potential will be served with new or expanded regional transit service options providing for a more comprehensive regional transit system. Because there are more options in more areas, travel on transit throughout the region will be easier, but will also have the highest cost to build and operate. Figure 14 illustrates the differences between the conceptual transit mobility scenarios based on a conceptual existing transit system. The illustration shows an existing transit system that has a mixture of express, supergrid and high capacity services, but there are gaps at the edge of the system. Scenario I, provides some limited expansion of high capacity transit (HCT), some existing routes with increased service levels and extension of express and supergrid routes into new areas. Scenario II provides more HCT and more routes with increased service levels, but not as much new supergrid or express bus service as provided in Scenario I. However, Scenario II will provide more high speed options (HCT) and more park-and-ride options to connect people to the regional transit system. Finally, Scenario III provides the greatest service area coverage, expands the HCT network to serve more regional corridors and increases the level of service on more existing routes than either Scenario I or II. 36