Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Working Group Final ... · 31/12/2009 · Final Report -...

1

Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Working Group Final Report - Executive Summary

Overview The TLCP, for the bus program only, showed a deficit of approximately $1.3 billion to begin the working group process. This assumed implementation of the transit projects approved in the 2007 benchmark update. The Executive Director created a technical working group to review options and develop a new alternative for the TLCP update by December 31, 2009. Details regarding the process and final project list are in the final report. Working Group Final Project List The project list preserves the highest priority transit services in the program as determined by local jurisdictions and the sub-region groups. Transit capital projects are included that will support existing and future transit operations. Changes were made to the operating and capital programs to balance the TLCP financially.

• PTF funding reduced on 11 existing bus routes, some of which will continue to operate with local funding (e.g. RAPID routes)

• 15 new express routes postponed beyond 2026, while 11 new express routes are either delayed or reduced in scope

• 10 supergrid routes postponed beyond 2026; frequency improvements or extensions for 7 routes, 3 new routes

• 26 supergrid/local routes with adjusted service scope • Reduced ADA reimbursement funding in 3 jurisdictions • ADA funding for Phoenix, phased in over 5 years • An additional 5 holidays were assumed for low productivity weekdays, reducing

operating costs • All fleet required to provide existing and planned services. Fleet expenses

account for approximately 79 percent of all capital expenditures • 3 of the 14 programmed park-and-ride facilities are postponed beyond 2026; 1 is

complete, 3 are ARRA funded, 1 is advanced 5 years • 9 of the 13 programmed transit center projects are postponed beyond 2026; 1 is

ARRA funded, 1 is advanced, 1 is delayed • 2 of the 5 BRT corridor improvement projects are postponed beyond 2026; while

1 project is programmed to be delayed for two years and reduced in scope, 1 is near completion and 1 is beginning construction

• 8 of the 11 programmed transit vehicle operations and maintenance facilities are postponed beyond 2026, the remaining 3 are complete

• Funds for bus stop improvements and vehicle upgrades were eliminated, except that $19 million was retained to support the regional vehicle communications system upgrade (700 MHz system)

The following table and charts highlights the sources and uses of funds for the 2010 Update, with a comparison to the 2007 benchmark program. The totals are estimated for the full 20 year program.

Transit Life Cycle ProgramSummary of Revenues and Expenditures(millions of YOE dollars)

2010 Total 2007 Total Change % ChangeSources of Funds PTF Funds (including RARF) $2,205.5 $2,951.6 ($746.1) -25.3% Federal Revenues $1,142.0 $1,885.8 ($743.8) -39.4% Fare Revenues $234.4 $517.3 ($282.9) -54.7% Bond Proceeds $112.8 $341.7 ($228.9) -67.0% Other Revenues $25.2 $20.6 $4.6 22.4%Total Sources of Funds $3,719.9 $5,717.0 ($1,997.2) -34.9%

Uses of Funds Operations $1,230.0 $2,182.8 ($952.8) -43.7% ADA $528.8 $343.2 $185.6 54.1% RPTA Regional Expenses $276.0 $330.7 ($54.7) -16.6% Fleet $1,186.8 $1,521.4 ($334.6) -22.0% Facilities $317.9 $759.1 ($441.2) -58.1% Debt Service $154.0 $475.2 ($321.2) -67.6%

Total Uses of Funds $3,693.5 $5,612.4 ($1,918.8) -34.2%

Excess (Deficit) Sources over Uses $26.3 $104.7 ($78.3) -74.8% Reserved for minimum cash balance $20.1 $30.9 ($10.8) -35.0%End Balance $6.2 $73.7 ($67.5) -91.6%

2

59%

31%

6%

3% 1%

Sources of Funds

PTF Funds (including RARF)

Federal Revenues

Fare Revenues

Bond Proceeds

Other Revenues

33%

14%8%

32%

9%4%

Uses of FundsOperations

ADA

RPTA Regional Expenses

Fleet

Facilities

Debt Service

For clarity, the $1.1 billion represents the decline in sales tax revenues from the September 2007 forecast to the most recent forecast. The $1.3 billion represents the overall deficit if the 2007 benchmark program were implemented. The $1.9 billion figure in the table represents the total project expenditures that needed to be eliminated or deferred in order to make up the $1.3 billion deficit. Working Group Recommendation The project list is presented without a recommendation from the working group. It is recommended that the TLCP Working Group continue to meet throughout 2010 to discuss the following with specific Board guidance:

• Review TLCP Guiding Principles • Review TLCP Policies • Review TLCP Update process, including cost allocation methodologies

Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Working Group Final Report

Transit Life Cycle Program Overview The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) implements transit projects in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Program meets the requirements of state legislation calling on the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) to conduct a budget process that ensures the estimated cost of the regional public transportation system does not exceed the total amount of revenues expected to be available. The Transit Life Cycle Program receives major funding from the Proposition 400 half-cent sales tax extension, as well as federal transit funds and local sources. The half-cent sales tax extension started on January 1, 2006 and revenues from the tax were available beginning in March 2006. The RPTA maintains responsibility for administering revenues deposited in the Public Transportation Fund (PTF) for use on transit projects, including light rail transit (LRT) projects as identified in the MAG RTP. The RPTA Board must separately account for monies allocated to light rail transit costs and capital costs and operation and maintenance costs for other transit modes. This includes expenses such as bus purchases and operating costs, passenger facilities, maintenance facilities, park-and-ride lot construction, light rail construction and other transit projects. Although the RPTA maintains responsibility for the distribution of PTF revenues for light rail projects, Valley Metro Rail, Inc. (METRO), a public nonprofit corporation, was created to form a partnership among the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa and Glendale to implement the LRT system. Since the incorporation of METRO, the cities of Chandler and Peoria have become members. METRO is responsible for overseeing the design, construction and operation of the light rail starter segment, as well as future corridor extensions to the system. METRO updates the rail portion of the TLCP annually. The TLCP includes funding for operations, vehicle fleet and new capital facility improvements to the regional bus network. This includes Freeway Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/Express, Arterial BRT, Supergrid, ADA paratransit, and other bus service. Annual Update The TLCP covers FY 2006 through FY 2026. The primary goal of the life cycle program is to ensure the development and implementation of all transit projects by the end of FY 2006. A continuing requirement of the life cycle process is to

1

maintain a financial balance through effective financing and cash flow management and Plan or Program adjustments as may be necessary. The TLCP was originally adopted in June 2005. It has since been updated three times as part of the ongoing requirement to maintain a balanced program. The March 2007 update established the benchmark for project implementation for the transit portion of Proposition 400. The benchmark was necessary to properly define the operational parameters of the routes and to better link the timing of the capital needs with the operations implementation. Many funding, allocation and projects changes, some significant, were made in this update. The 2008 update included some minor changes, mainly to program contingencies, to eliminate a small deficit in revenues. Unfortunately, the 2009 update had an unprecedented decline in forecasted revenues due to the economic environment. Additionally, several other assumptions were revised, including federal revenues, inflation and fare revenues, which contributed to the growing deficit. The Board adopted a placeholder update, but with specific direction to staff to develop a long term program that better suited regional transit needs. At the June 19, 2009 RPTA Board of Directors meeting, the 2009 TLCP update was presented for approval of Alternative 5 as the placeholder and to require a comprehensive review of the TLCP by December 31, 2009 and to accept the rail life cycle program for inclusion in the Transit Life Cycle Program. Alternative 5 balanced annual cash flow by delaying operations and capital projects in chronological order to the earliest year possible in which all projects from the same base year could be implemented together. This approach ensures that linked operations and capital projects are implemented together and minimizes delays to the shortest amount of time possible. After a long discussion on the different alternatives that were presented, the following motion was approved by the Board of Directors with eight (8) “yes” votes and six (6) “no” votes. It was moved by Councilman Somers to approve option five as a place holder option recognizing that option five, in its current form, does not meet all cities' needs and priorities. A technical advisory committee shall be established consisting of city staff. The committee shall meet as often as necessary to develop additional options to address the budget shortfall and the RPTA executive director shall provide periodic updates on the technical committee's work to the Board beginning in September. During these updates the Board shall provide guidance and suggestions to the technical committee. The technical committee shall bring forward a final recommendation through the regular committee process for the Board's consideration by the end of the year. And that's to mean the calendar year

2

2009. I also move that the Rail Life Cycle program be adopted for inclusion in the TLCP. Chairman Ecton said he would like to ask Councilman Somers to give staff some guidance in the motion on what the starting point is the benchmark, what they work from. And based on what Mayor Scruggs has said and what Councilwoman Neely has said, certainly we need to work from something, to something and there is a lot of room for improvement in taking both sides of these issues. But I think I would request that the original motion maker give guidance that we do, in fact, start from the benchmark that was developed in 2007 and I think that gives us the advantage of looking at the things that had been mentioned today. Is that acceptable? Councilman Somers and Councilman Presmyk agreed to the amendment. Formation of a TLCP Working Group The Board directed the Executive Director to create a technical working group to review additional options and develop a new alternative for the TLCP update by December 31, 2009. Following the Board meeting on June 19, 2009, the Executive Director formed a working group made up of staff members from the different cities and towns. RPTA then hired Debra Drecksel to facilitate the working group to help bring organization to the process and sort through the issues and policies. Member agencies were involved in the selection process, and Debra began facilitating the working group meetings on September 29, 2009. The working group has met fifteen (15) times in addition to four (4) sub-region meetings to prioritize projects in their area.. Each month, beginning in September 2009, RPTA staff presented an update of the progress of the working group to the Board of Directors. Further sections of this document include the process that the working group followed to complete the project list and program for the 2010 TLCP update. Current Situation The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) develops the annual update to the Maricopa County Excise Tax revenue forecast. The forecast methodology was developed in the 1990s and has been refined numerous times. It is considered a reliable tool in the financial community. The forecast developed in September 2008 did not account for the severity of the downturn in the economy. As a result, the forecast was updated in January 2009, which was not typical. As the economy continued to deteriorate, the forecast grew increasingly more pessimistic. As a consequence, the most recent forecast, developed in

3

September 2009, is the lowest forecast in the history of the TLCP. Compared to the September 2007 forecast, the latest includes a decrease of nearly $1.1 billion in excise tax revenues for the life of the tax for transit’s portion, which is only a third of the tax. Since the bus and rail programs share the transit revenues proportionally by Board policy, the bus program’s share of the decrease is approximately $630 million. This represents a decrease in expected sales tax revenues of 26 percent compared to the amount assumed in the 2007 benchmark. Additionally, with the loss of tax revenues comes a loss in available federal revenues. Federal revenues must be matched, typically with 20 percent of the project cost covered with local or regional funds and the remaining 80 percent with federal funds. The TLCP can only assume federal revenues that can be appropriately matched with excise tax revenues. The federal funds are not necessarily lost to the region, but the local match for those funds must come from a source other than the PTF. After adjusting revenue and expenditure assumptions, the TLCP, for the bus program only, showed a deficit of approximately $1.3 billion. This assumed implementation of the transit projects approved in the 2007 benchmark update. Significant adjustments to the 2007 program would need to be made in order to balance the TLCP. In order to make up the deficit, more than 34 percent of the program expenses had to be eliminated or deferred. The following table summarizes the revenues and expenditures for the TLCP and compares the current program with the 2007 benchmark program.

Transit Life Cycle ProgramSummary of Revenues and Expenditures(millions of YOE dollars)

2010 Total 2007 Total Change % ChangeSources of Funds PTF Funds (including RARF) $2,205.5 $2,951.6 ($746.1) -25.3%

($740.8) -39.3%($282.9) -54.7%($226.4) -66.3%

7.0 ($1,992.6) -34.9%

($952.8) -43.7%

($54.7) -16.6%($330.8) -21.7%($441.1) -58.1%($317.9) -66.9%

.4 ($1,911.7) -34.1%

($80.9) -77.3%($10.8) -35.0%($70.1) -95.1%

Federal Revenues $1,145.0 $1,885.8 Fare Revenues $234.4 $517.3 Bond Proceeds $115.3 $341.7 Other Revenues $24.2 $20.6 $3.6 17.3%Total Sources of Funds $3,724.4 $5,71

Uses of Funds Operations $1,230.0 $2,182.8 ADA $528.8 $343.2 $185.6 54.1% RPTA Regional Expenses $276.0 $330.7 Fleet $1,190.6 $1,521.4 Facilities $318.0 $759.1 Debt Service $157.3 $475.2

Total Uses of Funds $3,700.7 $5,612

Excess (Deficit) Sources over Uses $23.7 $104.7 Reserved for minimum cash balance $20.1 $30.9End Balance $3.6 $73.7

4

The $1.1 billion represents the decline in sales tax revenues for both the bus and rail programs from the September 2007 to the current forecast. The $1.3 billion represents the overall deficit to implement the 2007 benchmark program. The $1.9 billion in the table represents the total project expenditures that needed to be eliminated or deferred in order to make up the $1.3 billion deficit, due to associated declines in fare and federal revenues in addition to the sales tax loss. Working Group Methodology The working group began with the 2007 benchmark and used it as a point of comparison throughout the process. Throughout the meetings, the evaluation criteria were used by the working group members. The working group discussed allocation methodologies extensively. Evaluation criteria The working group agreed to use the following evaluation criteria: EQUITY:

• Meets jurisdictional equity. (Note this criterion was narrowly defined at a subsequent meeting from the original criteria)

PERFORMANCE: • Existing services perform well. • Future services perform well. • Capital projects perform well. • Federal mandates are satisfied. • Users are satisfied.

BUDGET: • Balances the TLCP budget. • Respects city / town budgets.

VOTER / TAXPAYER SATISFACTION: • Builds as much of the Prop 400 plan as possible. • Provides good return on taxpayer investment. • Serves present and future business and job development and provides

access to job centers. (See agreement #20 in Appendix A. Also, for a more detailed description of the evaluation criteria, see Appendix B.) While it was agreed to use these criteria to evaluate alternatives, none were ever evaluated using the scoring matrix developed by the facilitator. Working Group Meeting Chronology During the summer of 2009, the working group reviewed all the financial assumptions, including revenue and expenditure assumptions that drove the cash flow model. Once the facilitator came on board at the end of September of 2009, the working group set the basic framework for its operation. This included guidelines for the meetings, a common goal, an interest-based negotiation approach, and a decision making structure. The working group’s common goal

5

and schedule was to achieve consensus on a quality preferred alternative by December 31, 2009 that meets as many needs as possible. (See agreement # 11 in Appendix A). The working group defined “consensus” as reaching an agreement that all parties can live with and will support. (See agreement #3 in Appendix A). The facilitator met individually with representatives from each member agency as well as RPTA, MAG, and METRO to understand each agency’s perspective and interests. The facilitator recorded this information in writing, compiled the information from all the individual meetings, and distributed the summary to the working group. This summary helped working group participants better understand each others’ points of view and became the basis for the criteria that was to be used by the working group to evaluate alternatives and model runs. (See Appendix B for additional information on evaluation criteria). During the discussion on assumptions, there was interest from the working group in having more information on the ADOT revenue forecast and methodology. An ADOT representative presented the updated revenue forecast to the working group and answered questions regarding the methodology. That information was then included in the TLCP budget used by the working group to develop its starting points and model runs. On October 14, 2009, RPTA staff suggested and working group participants agreed to use an initial starting point referred to as “Alternative A”,” which was to consist of existing service and RPTA’s currently committed capital projects. (See agreement #16 in Appendix A). This method of initial cuts protected existing services and required the working group members to negotiate to include any projects back in. For the October 19, 2009 working group meeting, RPTA and HDR staff generated a rough list of those projects. Under ADOT’s updated forecast, this list of projects did not exceed the TLCP budget; however, it used up most of the TLCP budget funds. The working group reviewed and discussed the project list. Alternative A was not balanced annually for cash flow. The resulting jurisdictional allocations deviated significantly from the policy percentages. Several cities expressed concern that it would be very difficult for those who were in a deficit to negotiate projects back in, since that meant that others would have to agree to eliminate funding for their projects. In an October 27, 2009 e-mail to the facilitator (copied to the working group)), a representative from one working group member city expressed concerns with Alternative A and opined that, instead, the working group should start from a jurisdictional equity calculation based on dollars for all the cities and build the plan from there. That same day, the facilitator e-mailed a reply to all suggesting that the working group continue to refine Alternative A.

6

At the October 29, 2009 working group meeting, it became apparent that many member agencies were unwilling to go forward on the basis of Alternative A and believed that consensus could not be reached given that starting point. Many in the group argued that existing service may need to be cut based on performance or other criteria to best serve the needs of the region. It also disproportionately distributed the cuts in expenditures to some jurisdictions, especially to those whose projects were scheduled later in the program and/or were capital facilities. One city in particular asked what process would be used to make reductions to address the large variations in jurisdictional allocations and no process was suggested. After exhaustive discussion at that meeting and consistent with prior discussion that members reserved the right to raise a concern with an agreement from the most recent prior meeting, the working group agreed to use an initial starting point that would be called “Alternative B.” (See agreement #23 in Appendix A.) Alternative B used a jurisdictional equity calculation to proportionately distribute the required $1.3 billion in reductions. While several member agencies expressed objections about using Alternative B as the starting point for developing model runs, since it was based on jurisdictional equity allocations, the group ultimately decided at the October 29 meeting to move forward with the process. At the next meeting or at no meeting prior to December 2, 2009 did anyone say that using Alternative B as the starting point would make it impossible for them to agree to the end product. The working group developed Alternative B through the following process. Within the TLCP budget amount (calculated to reflect the most recent ADOT forecast), each member was allocated a dollar amount based on each agency’s jurisdictional allocation in the adopted TLCP policies. Each member agency was asked to prioritize its projects up to a level no greater than 110 percent of its jurisdictional allocation. In prioritizing their projects, member agencies were asked to look at performance (for existing and future projects), local budget impacts, and voter/taxpayer satisfaction and may have included other criteria. RPTA and HDR staff compiled and the working group reviewed the list of projects received from all member agencies (model run 11/03/09). The group used real-time tools to see the impact on budget and jurisdictional equity. Based on the list, it was evident that the cities’ priorities were not all aligned. The working group then worked to refine this alternative. The process involved refining and negotiating changes to the model to align priorities and ensure that all of the criteria were being evaluated. On November 4 and 9, 2009, working group members met in two sub-region meetings (one with the West Valley and Phoenix and the other with the East Valley and Phoenix) to refine and negotiate the projects in their sub-region that were included in the 11/3/09 model run. Sub-regions discussed differences in priorities and cities were able to negotiate with their neighbors to modify projects, while still evaluating the projects for performance, local budget impacts, voter/taxpayer satisfaction and equity.

7

RPTA and HDR staff compiled the list of updated projects from the sub-region meetings to create the 11/16/09 model run. On November 16, 2009, working group members reviewed and discussed the model run. The working group continued ongoing discussions regarding allocation issues. On November 23, 2009, working group members met in a second round of sub-region meetings (one with the West Valley and Phoenix and the other with the East Valley and Phoenix) to refine and negotiate the 11/16/09 model run. RPTA staff emphasized that cities should begin thinking about what projects are missing that they must have included in order to support the alternative. RPTA and HDR staff compiled and the working group reviewed the list of projects from the second round of sub-region meetings (12/2/09 model run). The working group used real-time tools to see the impact on budget, services, capital projects and jurisdictional equity. On December 2, 2009, the working group further refined model run 12/2/09 to create the project list for the 12/9/09 model run. Further refinements were also requested by e-mail and were incorporated into the model run for 12/9/09. On December 2, 2009, representatives from one member city said that they would not agree to any final list of projects that was the end result of a process which was based on jurisdictional equity. Another city agreed, but stated they acquiesced to using jurisdictional equity to not stalemate the process. The working group determined after exhaustive discussion that total consensus was not going to be possible. Instead of recommending a consensus alternative, the working group agreed to recommend an alternative supported by the majority of members to the RPTA Executive Director to send forward to the Transit Management Committee (TMC) and the Valley Metro Board. (See agreement #32 in Appendix A.) On December 9, 2009, RPTA was copied on a letter dated December 8, 2009, from elected officials of nine (9) West Valley jurisdictions to the Chair of the Valley Metro Board regarding concerns about the starting point (Alternative B). At that meeting, the working group considered the following potential courses of action in reaction to that letter:

• Have the RPTA Executive Director send forward a final recommendation to the TMC and Valley Metro Board.

• Stop work until obtaining direction from the Valley Metro Board at the January 2010 Board meeting.

• Obtain emergency direction from the Valley Metro Board. • Allow the placeholder (Alternative 5) to continue through 2010. Previously,

there had been a close vote approving Alternative 5 as the placeholder. A letter similar to the December 9, 2009 letter had been sent to the Board regarding Alternative 5. Alternative 5 is the closest to the currently-adopted Board policies.

8

• Have the RPTA Executive Director send forward the 12/9/09 model run and project lists to the TMC and Valley Metro Board without a recommendation from the working group.

After exhaustive discussion, the working group decided that it could no longer move forward based on the letter received from the West Valley officials and determined that its work was complete. The group asked the RPTA Executive Director to send a final report to the TMC and Valley Metro Board containing the 12/9/09 model run and project list without a recommendation from the working group. (See agreement # 35 in Appendix A.) Further, the working group agreed that the Executive Director should ask the Valley Metro Board for action on the TLCP update in January 2010. Additionally, there should be a recommendation for Board guidance after January 2010 on the TLCP update process and a thorough review of TLCP policies. (See agreements #35 and #37 in Appendix A). Discussion of Board Input Throughout the process, the Executive Director, staff and the facilitator gave regular updates at the TMC, Budget & Finance Subcommittee, and the Valley Metro Board meetings. The input from the committees and particularly from the Board was taken seriously by staff and by the working group members, many of whom attended the Board meetings. The facilitator included Board input during the next working group meeting to ensure that comments from those Board meetings were discussed and incorporated appropriately. For instance, the working group revised its evaluation criteria based on comments made at the October Board meeting. Valley Metro Board Minutes from the Board’s June and October meetings, as well as draft Minutes from the Board’s November meeting, were transmitted to working group members to ensure that each member knew what discussion took place at the meetings. Role of the facilitator The facilitator was a neutral third party who facilitated the communication between working group participants as the working group developed agreements on process, issues, starting points, model runs, a final report, and informational updates on working group progress to the TMC, Budget & Finance Subcommittee, and Valley Metro Board. The facilitator also presented those informational updates. Review of cost allocations During the 2007 TLCP Update, it was identified that there were not defined methods for allocating individual TLCP project costs to jurisdictions. To help monitor jurisdictional equity over the life of the program, as required by the TLCP Policies, an allocation method for each project category was defined. All of the

9

allocation calculations were reviewed as part of the working group process; however, alternative allocation methods for six of the allocation categories were considered based on input from the working group. These include: • Operations Rates • Express Bus Service • Transit Fleet • Fixed Route Operations and Maintenance Facilities • Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Revenues • Other Federal Revenues The jurisdictional impacts associated with alternative allocation methods for each category were presented and reviewed with the TLCP working group. The working group agreed that a new method for allocating transit fleet expenditures should replace the current method. The new fleet allocation method proportionally allocates the cost of expansion fleet to jurisdictions directly benefiting from expanded transit service. Replacement fleet is allocated proportionally to jurisdictions based on last year’s distribution of fixed route revenue miles by jurisdiction. The working group discussed other methods but was unable to reach agreement on alternatives. Ultimately, the group agreed to seek Board guidance on the guidelines, policies and allocation issues in preparation for the FY 2011 Update. The alternative allocation methods were modeled and the group was able to look at the impact of the alternate methodologies on jurisdictional equity. Since the group did not have time to properly address and resolve the allocation issues, it was agreed that ranges of jurisdictional equity by sub-region would be shown to demonstrate the potential impacts of the alternate methodologies. That table is shown in Appendix C. Working Group Final Project List By the December 9 meeting, an alternative list of projects had been developed that attempted to meet as many needs as possible. Many refinements were made to the financial model to reduce expenditures and accommodate additional services to meet the cities’ needs. Although not all requests were able to be met fully, most were able to be incorporated into the model. These requests were made in many of the working group meetings, sub-region meetings and also through e-mail and phone requests between meetings. The list of projects and services presented to the working group on December 9 represents the culmination of the effort made by the working group to achieve consensus. Although consensus was not achieved, the following list of projects is forwarded as the result of the group’s work. The group failed to achieve consensus primarily because of the starting point and process from which the list was developed. The cash flow summary for the 12/09/09 model run and

10

geographic equity summary are included in Appendix C. Following are two charts that highlight the sources of funds and uses of funds for the projects.

59%

31%

6%

3% 1%

Sources of Funds

PTF Funds (including RARF)

Federal Revenues

Fare Revenues

Bond Proceeds

Other Revenues

33%

14%8%

32%

9%4%

Uses of FundsOperations

ADA

RPTA Regional Expenses

Fleet

Facilities

Debt Service

Impacts on Operations Projects The development of a financially balanced TLCP required the adjustment of planned transit operations including the reduction of funding for existing services; delaying future services; postponing future services beyond 2026; and adjusting transit service scope (frequency, route length, daily trips, etc.). Operating expenses, which includes operations, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and regional expenses, account for 55 percent of TLCP expenses, but require nearly 82 percent of the tax revenues. Operations project adjustments identified in the FY 2010 TLCP project list include:

• PTF funding reduced on 11 existing bus routes beginning in July 2010, some of which will continue to operate with local funding (i.e. RAPID routes)

• 15 express routes postponed beyond 2026, while 11 express routes are either delayed or reduced in scope

• 10 supergrid routes postponed beyond 2026 • 26 supergrid/local routes with adjusted service scope • Reduced ADA reimbursement funding in 3 jurisdictions • ADA funding for Phoenix, phased in over 5 years • An additional 5 holidays were assumed for low productivity weekdays,

reducing operating costs Existing PTF supported transit services programmed for funding reductions as early as July 2010 are described in Table 5-1. A list of all PTF funded transit services and identified route adjustments is provided in Table 5-2, while detailed route-by-route summaries, including frequency, span of service, trips, revenue miles and projected cost by jurisdiction are included in Appendix D. Finally, Table 5-3 identifies adjustments to local jurisdictions’ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) reimbursement funding.

11

The tables reflect changes in PTF funding for service. In some cases, local funding sources may be added or extended to ensure that existing service levels are not impacted. It is unknown which services may be funded locally and which may require reduced service levels. In addition, regional funding for some existing routes has been delayed which necessitates extending local funding to maintain services. Table C-4 in Appendix C shows estimates for the potential impacts to the local budgets for the affected cities. List of Impacts on Capital Projects Transit capital projects included in the TLCP are planned to support existing and future transit operations. The TLCP includes five primary capital project categories: fleet, park-and-ride facilities, transit centers, Bus Rapid Transit Right of Way Improvements, and transit vehicle operations and maintenance facilities. Capital expenses account for 45 percent of TLCP expenses but require only 18 percent of tax revenues. Capital project adjustments identified in the FY 2010 TLCP project list include:

• All fleet required to provide existing and planned services. Fleet expenses account for approximately 79 percent of all capital expenditures

• 3 of the 14 programmed park-and-ride facilities are postponed beyond 2026; 1 is complete, 3 are ARRA funded, 1 is advanced 5 years

• 9 of the 13 programmed transit center projects are postponed beyond 2026; 1 is ARRA funded, 1 is advanced, 1 is delayed

• 2 of the 5 BRT corridor improvement projects are postponed beyond 2026; 1 project is programmed to be delayed for two years and reduced in scope, 1 is near completion and 1 is beginning construction

• 8 of the 11 programmed transit vehicle operations and maintenance facilities are postponed beyond 2026; 3 are complete

• Funds for bus stop improvements and vehicle upgrades were eliminated, except that $19 million was retained to support the regional vehicle communications system upgrade (700 MHz system)

A list of the TLCP capital projects and associated adjustments is provided in Table 5-4. Working Group Recommendation It became evident as the working group discussed various assumptions and methodologies that further discussion would be necessary. There were significant disagreements, especially with regard to cost allocation methodologies, among the working group participants. While several significant policies were discussed, the group agreed that any modifications to the policies could not be resolved without reviewing the TLCP policies as a whole.

12

The original TLCP Policies were adopted in October 2005 prior to the tax effective date. Four years into the program, the adopted policies have had some practical application and the results have not always been satisfactory. This was especially evident during the 2009 TLCP Update, when the Board had significant concerns with using Alternative 5 as the placeholder, even though it most closely followed the adopted TLCP policies. Given that RPTA and its members now have some practical experience with the policies and implementation of TLCP projects, it would be useful to have a comprehensive review of all of the policies to ensure that they are still applicable. The project list is presented without a recommendation from the working group. It is recommended that the TLCP Working Group continue to meet throughout 2010 to discuss the following with specific Board guidance:

• Review TLCP Guiding Principles • Review TLCP Policies • Review TLCP Update process, including cost allocation methodologies

Tables with Summary Impacts on Projects

Table 5-1: Existing PTF Funded Transit Services with Reduced PTF Funding in July 2010

Route Description

Allocation Jurisdictions

Affected Priest Dr (RT 56) PTF funding suspended in Tempe Tempe McClintock Dr\Hayden Rd Local (RT 81)

PTF funding suspended in Tempe Tempe

Dobson Rd Supergrid (RT 96) Reduce peak headway from 15 min service to 30 min service

Chandler

I-10 West RAPID City of Phoenix to locally fund route Phoenix I-17 RAPID City of Phoenix to locally fund route Phoenix SR51 RAPID City of Phoenix to locally fund route Phoenix I-10 East RAPID City of Phoenix to locally fund route Phoenix North Loop 101 Connector (RT 572) PTF funding suspended in El Mirage, Glendale,

Peoria, and Surprise; allocation maintained in Scottsdale and Phoenix

El Mirage, Glendale, Peoria, and Surprise

East Loop 101 Connector (RT 511) South terminus of route moved to Price\Apache LRT Station, PTF funding suspended in Chandler and reduced in Tempe

Chandler and Tempe

Red Mountain Express - B Pattern (RT 536)

PTF funding suspended for entire route Mesa and Tempe

Northwest Valley Express - B Pattern (RT 576)

PTF funding suspended in Glendale, allocation maintained in Phoenix

Glendale

Table 5-2: PTF Funded Transit Services and Identified Route Adjustments

Route

Fiscal Year Start PTF Funding

Last Fiscal Year PTF

Funded Allocation

Jurisdictions Adjustments Rural

13

Route

Last Fiscal

Fiscal Year Year Start PTF Funding

PTF Allocation Funded Jurisdictions Adjustments

685 Gila Bend Connector

2006 2026 Avondale, Buckeye, Gila Bend, Goodyear, Phoenix, Tolleson

Adjustment – Full allocation assigned to Maricopa County

660 Wickenburg Connector

2007 2026 Maricopa County, Glendale, Peoria, Surprise, Wickenburg

Adjustment – Full allocation assigned to Maricopa County and eliminate additional trips (2) scheduled to begin in FY 2012

Express and BRT I-10 West RAPID 2006 2010 Phoenix Adjustment – Phoenix locally

fund begin FY11 I-17 RAPID 2006 2010 Phoenix Adjustment – Phoenix locally

fund begin FY11 SR51 RAPID 2006 2010 Phoenix Adjustment – Phoenix locally

fund begin FY11 I-10 East RAPID 2006 2010 Phoenix Adjustment – Phoenix locally

fund begin FY11 510 2006 2026 Phoenix, Scottsdale No Adjustments 512 2006 2026 Fountain Hills,

Phoenix, Scottsdale No Adjustments

520 2006 2026 Phoenix, Tempe No Adjustments 521 2006 2026 Phoenix, Tempe No Adjustments 531 2006 2026 Gilbert, Mesa,

Phoenix, Tempe* Adjustment – Tempe “pass-thru” miles (no stop in Tempe) allocated proportionally to Gilbert, Mesa and Phoenix

532 2006 2026 Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe

Adjustment – Extend through 2026 (see MCKELLIPS MCDOWELL Supergrid)

533 2006 2026 Mesa, Phoenix Adjustment – PTF funding applied to 10 trips each day (previously 8 trips PTF + 2 trips local. Mesa had previously funded the 2 additional trips locally, but will be funded with PTF beginning FY 2011.)

540 2006 2026 Chandler, Phoenix, Tempe

No Adjustments

541 2006 2026 Chandler, Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe*

Adjustment – Tempe “pass-thru” miles (no stop in Tempe) allocated proportionally to Chandler, Mesa and Phoenix

560 2006 2026 Avondale, Goodyear, Phoenix, Tolleson

No Adjustments

581 2006 2026 Glendale, Phoenix No Adjustments 582 2006 2026 Phoenix No Adjustments 590 2006 2026 Phoenix No Adjustments North Glendale Express (573)

2008 2026 Glendale, Phoenix Adjustment – Peoria allocation removed

North Loop 101 Connector (572)

2008 2026 Maricopa County, Glendale, Peoria Phoenix, Scottsdale, Surprise,

Adjustment – No Maricopa County, Glendale, Peoria, and Surprise allocation begin FY 2011

14

Route

Last Fiscal



East Loop 101 Connector (511)

2009 2026 Chandler, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe

Adjustment – No Chandler allocation begin FY 2011. Move south terminus to Price\Apache LRT Station.

Main St Dedicated BRT (LINK)

2009 2026 Mesa No Adjustments

Papago Freeway Connector - A Pattern (562)

2009 2026 Avondale, Goodyear, Phoenix,

No Adjustments

Papago Freeway Connector - B Pattern (563)

2011 2026 Avondale, Buckeye, Goodyear, Phoenix,

Adjustment – Postpone route 1 year to FY 2011

Red Mountain Express - A Pattern (535)

2009 2026 Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe

No Adjustments

Red Mountain Express - B Pattern (536)

2009 2010 Mesa, Tempe Adjustment – Terminate route at end of FY 2010

Northwest Valley Express - A Pattern (575)

2009 2026 Glendale, Peoria, Phoenix

Adjustment –Split Glendale share of route equally between Peoria and Glendale

Northwest Valley Express - B Pattern (576)

2009 2026 Glendale, Phoenix Adjustment – No Glendale allocation begin FY 2011

Arizona Ave Dedicated BRT

2011 2026 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa

No Adjustments

570 2006 2012 Glendale, Phoenix No Adjustments Grand Ave Limited 2006 2012 Glendale, Peoria,

Phoenix No Adjustments

Grand Ave Limited (expanded)

2013 2026 El Mirage, Glendale, Peoria, Phoenix, Surprise

Adjustment – Reduce funding from 24 daily trips to El Mirage\Surprise to 8 trips per day. Trips extended to El Mirage in 2011.

South Central Express 2015 2026 Phoenix No Adjustments Scottsdale/Rural Dedicated BRT

2016 2026 Chandler, Scottsdale, Tempe

Adjustment – Postpone route 2 years to 2016. Postpone segments in Chandler and Tempe beyond 2026.

Avondale Express 2020 2026 Avondale, Goodyear, Phoenix,

No Adjustments

Ahwatukee Connector Beyond 2026

--- Phoenix, Tempe Adjustment – Postpone route beyond 2026

Anthem Express Beyond 2026

--- Phoenix, Scottsdale Adjustment – Postpone route beyond 2026

Apache Junction Express

Beyond 2026

--- Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe

Adjustment – Postpone route beyond 2026

Black Canyon Freeway Conn

Beyond 2026

--- Phoenix Adjustment – Postpone route beyond 2026

Buckeye Express Beyond 2026

--- Avondale, Buckeye, Goodyear, Phoenix


Chandler Blvd Dedicated BRT

Beyond 2026

--- Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa


Loop 303 Express Beyond 2026

--- Avondale, Maricopa County, Glendale, Goodyear, Phoenix, Surprise


15

Route

Last Fiscal



North I-17 Express Beyond 2026


Peoria Express Beyond 2026

--- Glendale, Peoria, Phoenix


Pima Express Beyond 2026

--- Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe


Red Mountain Freeway Conn

Beyond 2026

--- Mesa, Tempe Adjustment – Postpone route beyond 2026

San Tan Express Beyond 2026

--- Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe


South Central Dedicated BRT

Beyond 2026


Superstition Freeway Conn

Beyond 2026

--- Mesa, Tempe Adjustment – Postpone route beyond 2026

Superstition Springs Express

Beyond 2026

--- Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe


Supergrid and Local Red Line 2006 2008 Mesa, Tempe No Adjustments Rt. 56 2006 2010 Tempe Adjustment – Tempe locally

fund begin FY2011 Rt. 67 2006 2026 Glendale Adjustment – Increase funding

subsidy FY2011-FY2016 Rt. 92 2006 2026 Tempe No Adjustments SCOTTSDALE/RURAL (Rt 72)

2007 2026 Chandler, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe

No Adjustments

CHANDLER BLVD (Rt 156)


No Adjustments

Rt. 24 2006 2007 Glendale No Adjustments GLENDALE AVE (Rt 70)

2008 2026 Glendale No Adjustments

MAIN ST (Rt 40) 2009 2026 Mesa, Tempe No Adjustments Rt. 61 2006 2014 Mesa (through

2008), Tempe Adjustment – Tempe PTF allocation termination delayed four years to coincide with delay in Baseline Road Supergrid

SOUTHERN 2009 2026 Mesa No Adjustments DOBSON 2009 2026 Chandler, Mesa Adjustment – Reduce existing

peak headway to 30 minutes from 15 minutes in Chandler only

GILBERT RD 2010 2026 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa

Adjustment – Weekday thirty30-minute (30) all day service with current route alignment. Weekend sixty-minute (60) all day service with current route alignment. Total trips funded = 68 weekday/34 weekends.

POWER RD 2011 2026 Gilbert, Mesa Adjustment – Delayed 1 year to 2011. Reduced weekend headway to sixty60-minute (60) all day from thirty30-minute (30). . Total trips funded = 68 weekday/32 weekends.

Rt. 112 2006 2011 Chandler, Mesa No Adjustments

16

Route

Last Fiscal



ARIZONA AVE COUNTRY CLUB


Adjustment – Reduced weekday peak headway to thirty30-minute (30) from fifteen15-minute (15).

ELLIOT RD 2013 2026 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Tempe

Adjustment – No Mesa or Tempe allocation. Weekday thirty30-minute (30) all day service in Chandler and Gilbert. Weekend sixty-minute (60) all day service in Chandler and Gilbert. Total trips funded = 68 weekday/32 weekends.

Rt. 59 2006 2013 Glendale No Adjustments 59th AVE 2014 2026 Glendale Adjustment – Advance route 6

years to 2014. Operate current route alignment and service levels.

MCDOWELL MCKELLIPS

2014 2026 Avondale, Maricopa County, Goodyear, Mesa (not existing), Scottsdale, Tolleson

Adjustment – No Mesa allocation. Route miles adjusted (too high).

BASELINE RD 2015 2026 Guadalupe, Mesa, Tempe

Adjustment – Delayed route 4 years to 2015. Weekday thirty-minute (30) all day service with current route alignment. Total trips funded = 72 weekday/68 weekends.

UNIVERSITY 2016 2026 Mesa, Tempe Adjustment – Delayed route 4 years to 2016. Reduced weekend headway to sixty60-minute (60) all day from thirty30-minute (30).

BROADWAY 2018 2026 Mesa, Tempe Adjustment – Delayed route 5 years to 2018

Rt. 104 2006 2017 Chandler Adjustment – Allocation termination delayed four years to coincide with delay in Alma School Road Supergrid

ALMA SCHOOL RD 2018 2026 Chandler, Mesa Adjustment – Delayed route 4 years to 2018. Operate with current route alignment. Reduced weekday headway to thirty30-minute (30) all day. Reduced weekend headway to sixty60-minute (60) all day. Total trips funded = 68 weekday/32 weekends. Route miles adjusted (too high).

Rt. 81 2006 2020 Chandler, Tempe Adjustment – No Tempe allocation begin FY 2011. Extend PTF funding for Chandler until 2021 (see HAYDEN MCCLINTOCK Supergrid)

Rt. 81 SATURDAY 2006 2010 Tempe Adjustment – No Tempe allocation begin FY 2011.

17

Route

Last Fiscal



HAYDEN MCCLINTOCK

2021 2026 Chandler, Maricopa County, Scottsdale, Tempe

Adjustment – Delayed route 6 years to 2021. Reduced weekend headway to sixty60-minute (60) all day.

VAN BUREN 2021 2026 Avondale, Goodyear, Tolleson

Adjustment – Delayed route 1 years to 2021

GREENFIELD RD 2022 2026 Gilbert, Mesa Adjustment – No Mesa allocation. Reduced weekend headway to sixty60-minute (60) all day from thirty30-minute (30)..

RAY RD 2023 2026 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Tempe

Adjustment – Delayed route 7 years to 2023. No Chandler, Mesa or Tempe allocation. Reduced weekend headway to sixty60-minute (60) all day from thirty30-minute (30)..

83RD 75TH AVE 2023 2026 Glendale, Peoria Adjustment –Reduced weekend headway to sixty60-minute (60) all day from thirty30-minute (30). Route modified to reduce service redundancy. New Route alignment stays on 83rd Ave between Desert Sky Mall and Arrowhead Mall. Glendale portion of route included in model, but allocation to be assigned to Peoria.

BELL RD (VIA 303) 2024 2026 Maricopa County, Glendale, Peoria, Scottsdale, Surprise

Adjustment – Delayed route 5 years to 2024. No Phoenix PTF allocation (Phoenix locally fund).

WADELL THUNDERBIRD

2024 2026 Maricopa County, El Mirage, Glendale, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Surprise, Youngtown

Adjustment – Delayed route 4 years to 2024. No Scottsdale or Surprise allocation.

Rt. 50 2006 2024 Scottsdale Adjustment – Extend through 2024 (see CAMELBACK Supergrid)

Rt. 50 SATURDAY 2006 2024 Scottsdale Adjustment – Extend through 2024 (see CAMELBACK Supergrid)

CAMELBACK 2025 2026 Glendale, Litchfield Park, Scottsdale

Adjustment – Delayed route 12 years to 2025. Postpone segments in Glendale and Litchfield Park beyond 2026.

99TH AVE Beyond 2026

--- Avondale, Maricopa County, Glendale, Peoria, Phoenix, Tolleson


BUCKEYE RD Beyond 2026

--- Avondale, Goodyear, Phoenix, Tolleson


18

Route

Last Fiscal



DUNLAP OLIVE Beyond 2026

--- Maricopa County, El Mirage, Glendale, Peoria, Phoenix, Youngtown


DYSART Beyond 2026

--- Avondale, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Tolleson


INDIAN SCHOOL RD Beyond 2026

--- Avondale, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Scottsdale


LITCHFIELD RD Beyond 2026

--- Maricopa County, Glendale, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Surprise


QUEEN CREEK RD Beyond 2026

--- Chandler, Gilbert Adjustment – Postpone route beyond 2026

TATUM 44TH ST Beyond 2026

--- Paradise Valley, Tempe


THOMAS Beyond 2026

--- Avondale, Goodyear, Scottsdale


Rt. 106 2006 2026 Maricopa County, Glendale, Peoria, Scottsdale

Adjustment – Allocation termination delayed to coincide with postponement of Peoria/Shea Supergrid

PEORIA SHEA Beyond 2026

--- Maricopa County, Fountain Hills (not existing), Glendale, Peoria, Scottsdale, Youngtown


*Based on pre-TLCP allocation formula

Table 5-3: Local Jurisdiction ADA Reimbursement Funding Adjustments Jurisdiction TLCP Model Adjustment

Chandler 75% of formula value Gilbert 115% of formula value Peoria 50% of formula value Phoenix No previous formula value . Amount to be phased in over 5 years to

100% of expenses Tempe 80% of formula value

19

Table 5-4: TLCP Capital Project Adjustments

Capital Investment

Initial Service Year

Allocation Jurisdictions Adjustments

Park-and-Ride Facilities Price/202 2009 Chandler No Adjustments – Project is complete Grand/Surprise 2009 Surprise No Adjustments Happy Valley PNR (ARRA) 2010 Phoenix No Adjustments Scottsdale/101 PNR (ARRA) 2010 Scottsdale No Adjustments Country Club Dr/US 60 PNR (ARRA) 2010 Mesa No Adjustments East Buckeye 2011 Buckeye No Adjustments Glendale Grand (value transferred to Arrowhead PNR\TC)

2013 Glendale Adjustment – Reduction in value of PTF. TLCP includes assumptions for federal discretionary or other grants.

Loop 303 (value transferred to Arrowhead PNR\TC)

2013 Glendale Adjustment – Reduction in value of PTF

Peoria Grand 2018 Peoria Adjustment – Advanced facility 5 years to 2018.

Laveen/59th Ave 2016 Phoenix No Adjustments Phoenix Desert Sky 2013 Phoenix No Adjustments Elliot/-I-10 Beyond 2026 Phoenix Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond

2026. Camelback/101 Beyond 2026 Phoenix Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond

2026. Val Vista/202 Beyond 2026 Gilbert Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond

2026. Transit Centers Central Station Rehab (ARRA) 2010 Phoenix Adjustment – Scope of project reduced

from original plan Mesa Downtown 6-bay 2016 Mesa Adjustment – Delayed facility 5 years to

2016. Peoria 4-bay 2015 Peoria No Adjustments Bell-101 6-bay (part of Arrowhead PNR\TC)

2013 Glendale Adjustment – Advanced facility 6 years to 2013. Adjustment to value of PTF (reduced)

South Chandler (formerly Chan Mall TC)

Beyond 2026 Chandler Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

South Tempe 4-bay Beyond 2026 Tempe Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

19thAveCamelback 6-bay Beyond 2026 Phoenix Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

Downtown Chandler 4-bay Beyond 2026 Chandler Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

Metrocenter TC Rehab Beyond 2026 Phoenix Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

Glendale/Grand 4-bay Beyond 2026 Glendale Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

44th Cactus 6-bay Beyond 2026 Phoenix Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

Scottsdale 4-bay Beyond 2026 Scottsdale Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

College/ASU Expansion/Rehab Beyond 2026 Tempe Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

BRT ROW Improvements Main St 2009 Mesa No Adjustments Arizona Ave BRT (ARRA) 2011 Chandler,

Gilbert, Mesa No Adjustments

Scottsdale/Rural BRT 2016 Chandler, Scottsdale, Tempe

Adjustment – Delayed facility 2 years to 2016. No Chandler and Tempe allocation.

20

21

Capital Investment

Initial Service Year

Allocation Jurisdictions Adjustments

South Central BRT Beyond 2026 Phoenix Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

Chandler Blvd BRT Beyond 2026 Chandler, Mesa, Gilbert

Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

Operations & Maintenance Facilities Fixed Route Phoenix West 2009 Phoenix No Adjustments – Project is complete Fixed Tempe Route 2009 Tempe No Adjustments – Project is complete Mesa (purchase existing facility) 2008 Mesa No Adjustments – Project is complete Phoenix Heavy Beyond 2026 Phoenix Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond

2026. Rehab Mesa Fixed Route Beyond 2026 Mesa Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond

2026. Rehab Phoenix Fixed Route South Beyond 2026 Phoenix Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond

2026. Paratransit EVDAR Beyond 2026 Chandler,

Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe


New Phoenix Fixed Route Beyond 2026 Phoenix Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

Paratransit Phoenix Beyond 2026 Phoenix Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

Rural Facility Beyond 2026 Maricopa County


Vanpool Beyond 2026 Region Adjustment – Postpone facility beyond 2026.

A‐1

Appendix A – Summary of Agreements Appendix A includes all of the documented agreements made by the Working Group during the meetings.

A‐2

KEY AGREEMENTS TRANSIT LIFE CYCLE PROGRAM (TLCP) WORKING GROUP

December 9, 2009 Compiled by Debra Drecksel, Facilitator

Topic for January 4 Meeting:

• Finalize Final Report document for Executive Director to send to Transit Management Committee and Valley Metro Board

Topics for December 9 Meeting:

• Updated model run, charts, and separate analysis • Reach majority agreement on a preferred alternative • Future process

Topics for December 2 Meeting:

• Update on Model (Revised Run) • Pick Allocation Method • Finalize Preferred Alternative • Future Concepts / Model / Process • Process for Presenting TLCP Working Group Preferred Alternative Recommendation

(through channels to the Valley Metro Board) Topics for November 16 Meeting:

• Allocation Issues o RPTA Presentation on Federal / ARRA o Model Hybrid Operations Rate

RPTA Charges East Valley Rates o Dual Operations Rate o Other Allocation Issues (Express Operations and O&M Fixed Route Facilities)

• Model Date Run 11/16/09 o Internal Year-by-Year Balancing o Revised Model o Map

Topics for November 10 Meeting:

• Finalize Allocation Issues • Presentation on Results for West Valley and East Valley Route Meetings • Discuss Updating Jurisdictional Allocations to Zero

A‐3

• Discuss Alternative B Topics for November 3 Meeting:

• Discuss Remaining Allocation Issues • Review, Discuss, Rate, and Negotiate Jurisdictional Equity Alternative

Topics for October 29 Meeting:

• ADOT Presentation on Updated Revenue Forecasting • Look at Additional Ways to View Data on Alternatives • Rate Alternative A


• Allocations • Real Time Base Alternative • Alternative Evaluation • Prioritization / Timeline


• Equity History and Definition • Prioritization Issue • Timeline


• Results from Individual Meetings • Meeting Lengths

# Date Topic Agreement 1 9/29/09 Meeting Guidelines Meeting Guidelines are:

1. Be respectful. 2. No interruptions. 3. Turn off cell phones & BlackBerries. 4. Talk honestly & openly. 5. Working Group members are participants. 6. Focus on future actions rather than past events. 7. Facilitator will be neutral. 8. Facilitator will not judge. 9. Facilitator will direct the follow of the meeting.

A‐4

2 9/29/09 Individual Meetings The Facilitator will meet individually with each Working Group member agency (and other stakeholders who request a meeting) at least twice: once to gather broad interests (needs) and another time to gather more specific priorities.

3 9/29/09 Consensus 1. Consensus is defined as reaching an agreement that all parties can live with and will support.

2. Working Group members and stakeholders commit to reaching consensus on a preferred alternative by December 31, 2009. By the end of November, 2009, if it looks like consensus cannot be reached, members and stakeholders will consider another course of action, such as sending the Board one alternative with commentary about the unresolved concerns.

4 9/29/09 Participation Working Group members commit to participating in Working Group meetings. If they are unable to attend a particular meeting, they will brief someone and send that person in their place. At the meeting, the replacement will listen, contribute when appropriate, refrain from “turning previous work upside down,” and take information back to the members from their agency.

5 9/29/09 Process for Adjusting Future TLCP Budgets

The TLCP will develop a process for adjusting future TLCP budgets.

6 9/20/09 Executive Committee The proposed Executive Committee will not be instituted at this time. Its creation will be reconsidered later if it appears necessary. The Facilitator may contact whoever she needs to between meetings.

7 9/29/09 Use of Preferred Alternative

It is RPTA’s intent that the TLCP’s preferred alternative will be the model that goes to the Committees and then the Board for approval. The TLCP may consider whether they want to continue with the same Committee structure, such as the VMOCC and the FOAC (and the policy changes that would entail).

8 10/6/09 Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)

Our BATNA is that if we fail to reach consensus on a preferred alternative, the Board will decide for us.

9 10/14/09 Participation Enforcement

Facilitator will enforce meeting guideline that Working Group members are the participants. The audience will not participate in Working Group meetings. (See agreement #1 above.)

A‐5

10 10/14/09 Consensus Clarification

The words “all parties” in our definition of consensus refers to officially designated Working Group members. Those members have an asterisk next to their names on the Working Group Member List. When we reach the decision regarding consensus on the preferred alternative recommendation, each member agency will speak with one voice. So if a member agency has two official members, those two will give one input (either assent or dissent) on whether we have consensus. (See agreement #3 above.)

11 10/14/09 Common Goal / Direction

Our common goal is to achieve consensus on a quality preferred alternative that meets as many needs as possible by December 31, 2009.

12 10/14/09 Prioritization Within each jurisdiction, that jurisdiction will reprioritize its own projects and work with adjoining jurisdictions when necessary.

13 10/14/09 Objective Criteria • We will use evaluation criteria to help us assess how well each alternative meets our needs.

• Some evaluation criteria will be quantitative and some will be qualitative.

• We will use a “Consumer Reports” rating scale (with ratings of best, medium, worst).

• The evaluation criteria will be just a tool, not the deciding factor.

14 10/14/09 Initial Evaluation Criteria

Our initial evaluation criteria will be: EQUITY:

• Seems equitable based on my definition of equity. PERFORMANCE:

• Existing services perform well. • Future services perform well. • Capital projects perform well. • Federal mandates are satisfied.


VOTER / TAXPAYER SATISFACTION: • Builds as much of the Prop 400 plan as possible. • Provides good return on taxpayer investment. • Generates economic development.

A‐6

15 10/14/09 General Decision Making Structure

Our general decision making structure is: • Identify and share perspectives and interests. • Achieve a common direction. • Develop evaluation criteria. • Learn information relevant to decision making. • Member agencies prioritize their projects. • Assess alternatives based on how well they meet our

needs. • Develop a preferred alternative through interest-based

negotiation incorporating mutual / joint gains. • Achieve consensus.

16 10/14/09 Base Alternative We will start with a base alternative and refine that alternative using our evaluation criteria and interest-based negotiation. The base alternative will include existing services and RPTA’s currently committed capital projects. We may add to and subtract from the base alternative.

17 10/14/09 TLCP Budget We will use the figure $730 million in our financial model as the dollar amount that must be cut in order to balance the TLCP budget. That figure is comprised of the $550 million shortfall previously projected plus an estimated additional $180 million shortfall.

18 10/19/09 Evaluation Criteria Elaboration

When evaluating alternatives, a resource for evaluators is a document that elaborates on the evaluation criteria. That detailed evaluation criteria document includes bullet-pointed items from the facilitator’s individual meetings with agencies.

19 10/19/09 Alternative Rating Form

• Evaluators will complete and submit a written alternative rating form for each alternative presented.

• The form will be anonymous and include comments and a rating for each of the four core interests. (Ratings are: like, medium, or don’t like.)

• Ratings and comments will serve as a basis for interest-based negotiation. They will not be used as the deciding factor for which alternative will be recommended to the Board.

• The information from the rating forms also will be compiled for future reference as the Working Group moves through various alternatives.

A‐7

20 10/29/09 Evaluation Criteria (revised)

The TLCP Working Group revised their Evaluation Criteria as follows: EQUITY:

• Meets jurisdictional equity. PERFORMANCE:

• Existing services perform well. • Future services perform well. • Capital projects perform well. • Federal mandates are satisfied. • Users are satisfied.


VOTER / TAXPAYER SATISFACTION: • Builds as much of the Prop 400 plan as possible. • Provides good return on taxpayer investment. • Serves present and future business and job

development and provides access to job centers. 21 10/29/09 Board Presentations Presentations on TLCP Working Group progress to the Valley

Metro Board of Directors will contain information that has been previously discussed with the TLCP Working Group.

22 10/29/09 Jurisdictional Equity The starting point for determining jurisdictional equity will be members’ original percent of bus (“total allocation” which includes ADA, operations, and capital) with the “Glendale correction.” The TLCP Working Group will discuss remaining allocation issues and may decide to recommend changes to how jurisdictional equity will be calculated.

A‐8

23 10/29/09 Alternative for Starting Point

We will begin with a different alternative for our starting point than the one mentioned in agreement #16 above. The alternative for our starting point (Alternative B) will be compiled through the following process:

1. On October 29 Paul Hodgins will e-mail all TLCP Working Group members a list of each jurisdiction’s: (a) jurisdictional equity amounts calculated on the program level and (b) ADA numbers.

2. On October 29 Scott Miller will e-mail all TLCP Working Group members a spreadsheet to put their priorities in.

3. Each TLCP Working Group member agency will: (a) prioritize its projects up to about its jurisdictional equity amount plus 10%, (b) put their priorities in the spreadsheet format received from Scott, and (c) e-mail its list of priorities in the spreadsheet to Scott by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, November 2.

4. At the November 3 TLCP Working Group Meeting, Scott will: (a) present Alternative B based on the priorities received from the member agencies and (b) show the consequences of Alternative B to jurisdictional equity.

5. At the November 3 meeting, the group will: (a) discuss the remaining allocation issues and (b) discuss, rate, and begin negotiation on Alternative B.

24 11/3/09 TLCP Budget Based on the recently updated forecast by ADOT, we revise Agreement #17 above as follows: We will use the figure $631 million in our financial model as the dollar amount that must be cut in order to balance the TLCP budget. (Note: $631 million is the amount from sales tax that must be cut in order to reduce the whole budget by $1.3 billion.)

25 11/3/09 Allocation Issue: Fleet Purchase Expense

For fleet purchase expense, we will use the following allocation method: Allocate through current regional percent of revenue miles by jurisdiction. (Note: This will be based on the last fiscal year’s year-end revenue miles.)

26 11/3/09 Allocation Issues to be Considered in 2010

In 2010, we will discuss the following allocation issues: (1) Federal revenues (including stimulus) and (2) Relook at the rates method for fleet purchase expense.

27 11/10/09 Indication of Agreement

We agree that when the facilitator asks, “Does anyone disagree with X?” (or a similar question), failure to express disagreement indicates agreement.

28 11/10/09 Federal Revenues Agreement # 26 regarding Federal Revenues is modified: The TLCP Working Group will look at the stimulus portion at its 11/16/09 meeting and discuss the rest of the Federal Revenues issue in 2010.

A‐9

29 11/16/09 Model Run For clarity and ease of identification, we will refer to the model run we are refining/evaluating by its date.

30 11/16/09 Sub-Region Meetings Sub-Region meetings were held on November 4 (West Valley and Phoenix) and November 9 (East Valley and Phoenix) to refine/evaluate the 11/3 Model Run. Sub-Region meetings will be held on November 23 (each Sub-Region separately) to refine/evaluate the 11/16 Model Run.

31 11/16/09 Presentation to Subcommittee and Board

Participants reviewed, revised, and agreed upon the slide presentation to be given on November 19 to the Budget & Finance Subcommittee and the Valley Metro Board.

32 12/2/09 Majority Agreement It appears that complete consensus (as consensus was defined by this group) may not be possible. If that is the case, we agree that we will finalize and send forward an alternative that is preferred by the majority of the Working Group members. (Each member agency will speak with one voice on its preference.) Our goal is to reach consensus (or majority) agreement on the preferred alternative at our December 9 meeting.

33 12/2/09 Documentation of Preferred Alternative

We reviewed and gave input on an outline for the preferred alternative document. RPTA will continue to revise and draft this document as well as prepare an accompanying PowerPoint slide presentation. (RPTA will send this draft document and slide presentation to Working Group members prior to the December 14 Working Group Meeting.) The Working Group will continue to review this document and slide presentation and give additional input to RTPA.

34 12/2/09 Committee Process We agree that our preferred alternative does not need to go to either the Valley Metro Operating and Capital Committee (VMOCC) or the Finance Oversight Committee (FOAC) because the participants on those two committees are substantially the same people as the participants on the Working Group. Rather the preferred alternative will go (through Valley Metro’s Executive Director) from the Working Group to the Transit Management Committee (TMC) and then the Valley Metro Board.

A‐10

35 12/9/09 Final Report Document

We agree that we will have the Executive Director send the 12/9/09 model run (project list) to the TMC and Valley Metro Board. RPTA will create a draft Final Report document to transmit the 12/9/09 model run. TLCP Working Group members will have input into this document. The document will contain the 12/9/09 model run:

• Without a recommendation for or against • With an explanation • With a summary of the way allocation issues were

analyzed • With the designation “For Action” at the Valley Metro

Board’s January 2010 meeting • With a request for specific Valley Metro Board

guidance after January 2010 on the future working group process, policy, and practice

Along with the topics in the Final Report Document Outline, the explanation in the document will include:

• Alternative 5 updated with the ADOT updated forecast • That at one point in time, Alternative A was going to

be the Working Group’s starting point. A project list for Alternative A was developed in rough form including existing services and committed capital projects.

• Local funding • All 6 TLCP policy provisions

We determine that this completes our work.

A‐11

36 12/9/09 Schedule for Finalizing the Final Report Document

RPTA proposed the following schedule for finalizing the Final Report document:

• By Monday, December 14: RPTA send draft Document to Working Group for review.

• By Friday, December 18: Working Group send input on Document to RPTA (Paul).

• By Wednesday, December 23: RPTA issue final draft Document to Working Group.

• On Monday, December 28: Working Group meeting to approve final draft Document.

• By Wednesday, December 30: RPTA mail final Document to Board.

A Working Group member indicated that no one from its jurisdiction could attend a meeting during the week of December 28 to 31. Because the Working Group did not want to meet without representatives from all member agencies, they agreed that they would meet at the beginning of 2010 to finalize the Final Report document and that RPTA would send the Working Group a revised input/meeting schedule.

37 12/9/09 Future TLCP Process We will ask the Valley Metro Board for input in February/March 2010 on the process, policy, and practice for future TLCP updates.

B‐1

Appendix B – Evaluation Criteria Appendix B provides details regarding the final evaluation criteria developed and used by the Working Group, which may have been amended throughout the process.

B‐2

DETAILED EVALUATION CRITERIA REVISED TRANSIT LIFE CYCLE PROGRAM WORKING GROUP

December 2, 2009 CORE INTEREST: EQUITY Evaluation criterion:

• Meets jurisdictional equity.

For example: measures might include some of the following: • The starting point for determining jurisdictional equity will be members’ original percent

of bus (“total allocation” which includes ADA, operations, and capital) with the “Glendale correction.”

• The TLCP Working Group will discuss remaining allocation issues and may decide to recommend changes to how jurisdictional equity will be calculated.

CORE INTEREST: PERFORMANCE Evaluation criteria:

• Existing services perform well. • Future services would perform well. • Capital projects perform well. • Federal mandates are satisfied. • Users are satisfied

For example: types of measures might include some of the following:

• Some basic service within the 20 year plan • Support a true regional system with service standards • Follow service standards established in the TLCP • Performance based system (put the service where the needs are and provide frequent

service) • Existing Level of service (based on density and outlying land use) • Future Level of service (based on density and outlying land use) • Usage • Inter-Community Connectivity • Dial-A-Ride Inter-Community Connectivity • Work/Home Connectivity • Density

B‐3

• Functional, regional system • Comprehensive regional system (that provides services throughout the whole valley) • Preservation of existing services • Quality level of service • Regional functionality • Regional connectivity • Put the service where there is the most ridership regardless of miles • In this new economic reality, transit cannot be all things to all people • Maintain ADA PTF (Dial-A-Ride) allocations • More discussion of ADA PTF (Dial-A-Ride) allocations and service • Overall efficiency • Ridership potential • System interconnectivity • Address current overcrowding • Minimum service frequency • Maintain existing system • Meet current users’ expectations • Efficient system • Regional system that performs well • Transit that is integrated, cohesive, and makes sense as a system • Ensure high quality service (less than 60 minutes) • Provide some level of new services • Service productivity balanced against jurisdictional equity • Connectivity • Recognize needs of recent rapid growth cities in the Plan • Service (maintain existing services that cities are currently funding) • Regionalism (we are all working together for all the region) • Realistic, functional program • Level of service

CORE INTEREST: BUDGET Evaluation criteria:

• Balances TLCP budget. • Respects city / town budgets.

For example: types of measures might include some of the following: • Budget (no impact to city budgets) • Flexibility

B‐4

• Incentives to save • Return on investment • Incentive to reinvest • Cost efficiency

CORE INTEREST: VOTER / TAXPAYER SATISFACTION Evaluation criteria:

• Builds as much of the Prop 400 plan as possible. • Provides good return on taxpayer investment. • Serves present and future business and job development and provides

access to job centers. For example: types of measures might include some of the following:

• Future revenue depends on taxpayer satisfaction with use of Prop 400 funds • Some return on taxpayer investment • Level of contribution per taxpayer • Build as much of the plan as we can • Return on investment

C‐1

Appendix C – Financial Summary Appendix C includes four tables that summarize the financial impacts of the project list.

• Table C‐1 is the 20 year cash flow for the bus operating component • Table C‐2 is the 20 year cash flow for the bus capital component • Table C‐3 is a summary of geographic equity results for the various cost allocation

methodologies • Table C‐4 is an estimate of the potential impacts to local budgets

TABLE C-1Bus Operating Cash Flow

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Revenues for OperatingTotal Sources of Operating Funds PTF Funds Available for Bus 29,030,547 73,894,520 71,701,282 61,879,981 59,598,000 60,846,720 65,614,560 71,631,120 82,245,240 93,029,640 99,046,200 RARF Revenues 3,938,570 4,047,593 4,167,168 4,277,292 4,255,384 4,340,492 4,449,004 4,582,474 4,719,948 4,861,547 5,007,393 5307 Associated Capital Cost of Maintenance Federal 5311 0 0 259,597 259,597 Federal JARC (3037) 91,600 125,000 31,250 31,250 Federal Planning (5303) 0 0 224,700 224,700 224,700 Fare Revenues 1,667,004 4,347,450 7,480,855 6,533,154 6,196,142 6,841,468 7,849,735 8,411,010 9,272,210 9,812,032 11,087,977 Local Agency Sources 162,809 58,000 98,023Total Sources of Operating Funds 34,890,530 82,472,563 83,962,875 73,205,974 70,274,226 72,028,680 77,913,299 84,624,604 96,237,398 107,703,219 115,141,570Expenditures for OperatingUses of Funds - Operating Gross Costs Existing Express 1,540,404 3,875,311 3,692,220 3,961,033 4,625,785 4,887,905 5,107,855 4,977,539 5,126,864 5,112,205 5,265,565 Existing Local 2,950,129 5,691,551 5,550,841 5,214,734 4,679,948 4,946,538 4,404,077 4,536,206 3,909,744 3,466,402 3,570,399 Existing (Interim) RAPID 1,088,209 2,954,709 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interim Rural 0 311,938 755,997 868,504 894,562 921,395 949,036 977,506 1,006,831 1,037,042 1,068,148 BRT/Express/RAPID 0 0 5,207,614 7,626,312 11,020,589 5,855,102 6,118,572 6,745,301 6,947,676 8,001,397 8,926,034 Rural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Supergrid 0 5,607,704 12,560,423 17,701,806 19,975,900 22,401,360 26,568,170 29,085,935 33,385,235 35,676,644 40,178,935 Safety and Security 56,067 203,076 236,020 346,649 617,951 585,186 647,216 694,837 755,647 799,404 885,136 Contingency 0 0 0 0 1,029,920 975,307 0 0 0 0 0 ADA 2,348,159 6,624,259 7,857,149 8,494,945 7,256,199 14,773,903 17,905,902 23,011,972 24,666,084 28,096,232 29,306,358 SCAT (County) 83,333 258,632 199,240 199,240 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 RPTA Planning and Administration 2,625,081 4,687,079 4,975,221 4,561,453 4,582,377 4,174,025 4,278,376 4,406,727 4,538,929 4,675,097 4,815,350 Regional Services 2,049,454 7,105,818 8,003,693 7,759,826 7,607,429 7,259,578 7,441,067 7,664,299 7,894,228 8,131,055 8,374,987

Total Uses of Operating Funds for Operations 12,740,836 37,320,077 49,038,418 56,734,503 62,490,661 66,980,298 73,620,271 82,300,322 88,431,237 95,195,478 102,590,912 Operating Reserve target 12% 1,528,900 4,478,409 5,884,610 6,808,140 7,498,879 8,037,636 8,834,433 9,876,039 10,611,748 11,423,457 12,310,909 Actual Operating Reserve Fund Balance (minimum 12%) 1,528,900 4,478,409 5,884,610 6,808,140 7,498,879 8,037,636 8,834,433 9,876,039 10,611,748 11,423,457 12,310,909 Annual Contribution to Operating Reserve 1 528 900 2 949 509 1 406 201 923 530 690 739 538 757 796 797 1 041 606 735 710 811 709 887 452 Annual Contribution to Operating Reserve 1,528,900 2,949,509 1,406,201 923,530 690,739 538,757 796,797 1,041,606 735,710 811,709 887,452Total Uses, Including Contribution to Reserve 14,269,736 40,269,586 50,444,619 57,658,033 63,181,400 67,519,055 74,417,068 83,341,928 89,166,946 96,007,187 103,478,364Operating Fund BalanceYear End Operating Surplus/Deficit - Transferred to Fund Capital Program 20,620,794 42,202,977 33,518,256 15,547,941 7,092,826 4,509,625 3,496,231 1,282,676 7,070,452 11,696,032 11,663,206Annual Interest Earned on 12 % Operating Reserve 0.03714 28,392 111,556 192,441 235,704 265,681 288,513 313,314 347,453 380,458 409,194 440,747

mailto:=D7+@sum(D9:D13)�











TABLE C-1Bus Operating Cash Flow

Revenues for OperatingTotal Sources of Operating Funds PTF Funds Available for Bus RARF Revenues 5307 Associated Capital Cost of Maintenance Federal 5311 Federal JARC (3037) Federal Planning (5303) Fare Revenues Local Agency SourcesTotal Sources of Operating Funds Expenditures for OperatingUses of Funds - Operating Gross Costs Existing Express Existing Local Existing (Interim) RAPID Interim Rural BRT/Express/RAPID Rural Supergrid Safety and Security Contingency ADA SCAT (County) RPTA Planning and Administration Regional Services

Total Uses of Operating Funds for Operations Operating Reserve target 12% Actual Operating Reserve Fund Balance (minimum 12%) Annual Contribution to Operating Reserve

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 20-Year TOTAL

105,346,560 112,441,560 119,650,080 126,858,600 134,407,680 143,546,040 151,889,760 161,028,120 171,074,640 105,800,640 2,100,561,4905,157,615 5,312,344 5,471,714 5,635,865 5,804,941 5,979,089 6,158,462 6,343,216 6,533,512 3,925,552 104,969,176

0519,194279,100674,100

11,555,302 12,557,868 13,193,568 13,892,590 15,683,039 16,407,179 17,704,599 20,379,343 20,937,692 12,580,053 234,390,269318,832

122,059,477 130,311,772 138,315,362 146,387,055 155,895,660 165,932,308 175,752,821 187,750,679 198,545,844 122,306,245 2,441,712,162

5,423,534 5,586,217 5,753,821 5,656,948 5,826,671 6,001,458 6,181,486 6,366,923 6,557,911 3,940,199 105,467,8572,894,595 2,636,792 2,715,907 2,797,380 2,609,161 2,687,439 2,768,071 2,851,112 2,754,739 1,655,141 75,290,905

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,042,9181,100,194 1,133,193 1,167,191 1,202,202 1,238,270 1,275,424 1,313,682 1,353,096 1,393,688 837,376 20,805,2759,193,809 9,469,590 9,753,664 10,708,416 11,029,697 11,737,815 12,089,975 12,452,654 12,826,254 7,706,439 173,416,911

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 041,384,302 47,851,632 49,287,165 50,765,725 59,516,514 62,679,256 67,694,244 78,299,497 82,028,887 49,285,683 831,935,019

899,947 1,000,159 346,649 1,066,960 1,203,302 1,265,720 1,350,714 1,519,850 1,583,422 951,373 17,015,2850 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,594 1,642 986 2,009,449

30,564,548 31,929,435 33,323,960 34,735,700 36,203,944 37,871,390 39,467,178 41,172,811 43,001,794 26,179,972 524,791,892200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 116,667 4,057,112

4,959,811 5,108,605 5,261,863 5,419,719 5,582,311 5,749,780 5,922,273 6,099,941 6,282,939 3,774,999 102,481,9568,626,237 8,885,024 9,151,575 9,426,122 9,708,906 10,000,173 10,300,178 10,609,183 10,927,458 6,565,581 173,491,871

105,246,977 113,800,647 116,961,796 121,979,172 133,118,777 139,468,455 147,287,800 160,926,662 167,558,735 101,014,416 2,034,806,45012,629,637 13,656,078 14,035,415 14,637,501 15,974,253 16,736,215 17,674,536 19,311,199 20,107,048 12,121,730 12,121,73012,629,637 13,656,078 14,035,415 14,637,501 15,974,253 16,736,215 17,674,536 19,311,199 20,107,048 20,107,048 20,107,048

318 728 1 026 440 379 338 602 085 1 336 753 761 961 938 321 1 636 663 795 849 0 20 107 048 Annual Contribution to Operating ReserveTotal Uses, Including Contribution to ReserveOperating Fund BalanceYear End Operating Surplus/Deficit - Transferred to Fund Capital Program Annual Interest Earned on 12 % Operating Reserve 0.03714

318,728 1,026,440 379,338 602,085 1,336,753 761,961 938,321 1,636,663 795,849 0 20,107,048105,565,705 114,827,088 117,341,133 122,581,257 134,455,529 140,230,416 148,226,122 162,563,326 168,354,584 101,014,416 2,054,913,498

16,493,772 15,484,684 20,974,228 23,805,798 21,440,131 25,701,892 27,526,699 25,187,353 30,191,261 21,291,829 386,798,663463,146 488,126 514,231 532,456 568,460 607,433 639,008 686,825 731,997 435,619 8,680,756











TABLE C-2Bus Capital Cash Flow

Bus Capital RevenuesSources of Funds Federal 5309 Bus Federal 5307 STP CMAQ Federal ARRA Local Funds Transfer of PTF Funds from Operations to Capital Annual Interest Earned on 12% Operating ReserveTotal Sources of FundsBus Capital ExpendituresUses of Funds - Capital Fund Local/SuperGrid - 40-ft and minibus - Replace Local/SuperGrid - 40-ft and minibus - Expand Local/SuperGrid - 60-ft- Replace Local/SuperGrid - 60-ft- Expand BRT/Express - 40-ft. Replace BRT/Express - 40-ft. Expand BRT/Express - 45 and 60-ft. Replace BRT/Express - 45 and 60-ft. Expand Fixed Route Vehicle Mid-Life Rehabilitation Paratransit - Replace Paratransit - Expand Rural - Replace Rural - Expand Vanpool - Replace Vanpool - Expand Vehicle Upgrades includes ITS/VMS, Fareboxes, Eng Rebuild

Capital Contingency on Vehicles Park & Ride Facilities - New

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

- 3,976,450 7,380,774 41,421,172 1,712,188 36,222,971 18,710,517 20,007,782 4,959,438 12,691,111 24,934,592 12,490,745 9,097,809 33,802,191 34,576,697 35,095,347 35,621,777 36,156,104 36,698,445 37,248,922 37,807,656 38,374,771 38,950,392 39,534,648 1,678,923 - 271,893 2,925,235 - - - - - - - - 2,014,708 4,254,814 1,840,500 - - - - - - - - -

- - - - 39,900,000 - - - - - - - - - 310,898 - - - - 8,530,625 - - - -

20,620,794 42,202,977 33,518,256 15,547,941 7,092,826 4,509,625 3,496,231 1,282,676 7,070,452 11,696,032 11,663,206 16,493,772 28,392 111,556 192,441 235,704 265,681 288,513 313,314 347,453 380,458 409,194 440,747 463,146

33,440,625 84,347,987 78,091,459 95,225,399 84,592,472 77,177,213 59,218,508 67,417,458 50,218,004 63,171,107 75,988,938 68,982,311

6,304,687 17,696,468 38,959,750 6,542,895 4,044,835 56,989,709 46,870,587 26,629,731 39,117,204 25,376,210 12,025,278 18,895,003 5,017,518 10,200,000 13,132,500 3,967,320 2,516,769 2,567,104 - 5,962,484 1,116,611 7,475,708 - 7,930,979

- - - - - 12,104,592 - - - - 16,428,730 - 3,623,695 8,625,000 - - 3,490,367 - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,825,000 9,192,750 - 4,026,830 - 1,052,513 - 1,674,916 1,725,163 - - - - - - - - - - - - 26,285,968 27,074,547 - - 5,922,500 - - - 1,459,671 - 2,322,848 2,392,534 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

175,432 4,290,000 4,820,400 6,537,266 1,343,863 1,970,439 4,127,214 4,884,163 4,937,527 5,565,431 2,273,191 4,784,572 - - - - 83,991 - - - - - - - - - - - - 514,028 - - - - 296,503 712,596

392,521 - 80,340 - - - 351,252 - - - - - - 3,540,000 927,000 1,145,772 1,615,220 823,762 1,519,841 1,565,437 1,612,400 1,660,772 1,710,595 1,761,913 - 930,000 772,500 1,018,464 - - - - 895,778 922,651 950,331 978,840

39,865 2,543,727 2,034,830 2,029,743 0 3,500,000 7,000,000 8,500,000 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 342,438 1,499,393 1,107,622 780,836 1,033,546 902,369 1,199,412 1,242,7690 0 0 4,683,219 26,415,048 3,491,641 7,467,910 33,323,508 122,129 2,370,705 3,819,266 2,515,081

Passenger Facilities Transit Centers Bus Stop Improvements O&M Facilities Arterial BRT ROW Capital Contingency on Facilities Total Uses of Funds, Bus Capital Program

Net Yearly Surplus/Deficit Prior to Bonding

Bond Proceeds

Debt Service

Net Yearly Capital Surplus/Deficit with Bonding

Ending Cumulative Cash Balance, Bus Capital Program with Bonding Annual Interest on Cash Balance after Bonding 0.04 Ending Cumulative Cash Balance, Bus Capital Program with Bonding and interest on Cumulative Cash Balance

0 0 0 0 4,855,033 71,106 1,328,284 2,102,364 1,017,739 3,010,957 2,242,494 00 0 0 5,803,947 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 8,450,058 24,836,153 63,890,054 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 1,225,000 13,953,896 11,991,389 12,444,592 0 0 0 21,759,693 22,412,484 00 0 0 0 2,163,073 800,367 439,810 1,771,294 56,993 1,357,068 1,423,712 125,754

15,553,718 60,100,252 101,903,722 109,572,576 62,888,855 96,776,734 72,724,705 85,519,817 53,907,690 74,519,262 91,067,963 66,022,055

17,886,907 24,247,735 (23,812,264) (14,347,177) 21,703,617 (19,599,521) (13,506,197) (18,102,359) (3,689,686) (11,348,154) (15,079,026) 2,960,256

8,285,000 50,000,000 12,000,000 30,500,000

(171,845) (8,588,231) 0 0 (2,503,933) (3,575,234) (4,874,546) (4,875,307) (5,549,845) (6,225,215) (8,190,913) (10,158,718)

26,000,062 15,659,504 (23,812,264) 35,652,823 19,199,684 (23,174,755) (18,380,744) (22,977,666) 2,760,470 (17,573,369) 7,230,062 (7,198,462)

26,000,062 41,755,486 19,496,022 55,529,006 75,759,864 53,991,970 36,613,858 14,316,111 17,342,431 91,110 7,322,864 260,38795,920 1,552,800 380,162 1,031,174 1,406,861 1,002,631 679,919 265,850 322,049 1,692 135,986 4,835

$26,095,982 $43,308,286 $19,876,184 $56,560,180 $77,166,725 $54,994,601 $37,293,777 $14,581,961 $17,664,480 $92,802 $7,458,849 $265,223

1/12/2010 11:25 AM page 3

mailto:=@sum(E30:E38*.2)�




TABLE C-2Bus Capital Cash Flow

Bus Capital RevenuesSources of Funds Federal 5309 Bus Federal 5307 STP CMAQ Federal ARRA Local Funds Transfer of PTF Funds from Operations to Capital Annual Interest Earned on 12% Operating ReserveTotal Sources of FundsBus Capital ExpendituresUses of Funds - Capital Fund Local/SuperGrid - 40-ft and minibus - Replace Local/SuperGrid - 40-ft and minibus - Expand Local/SuperGrid - 60-ft- Replace Local/SuperGrid - 60-ft- Expand BRT/Express - 40-ft. Replace BRT/Express - 40-ft. Expand BRT/Express - 45 and 60-ft. Replace BRT/Express - 45 and 60-ft. Expand Fixed Route Vehicle Mid-Life Rehabilitation Paratransit - Replace Paratransit - Expand Rural - Replace Rural - Expand Vanpool - Replace Vanpool - Expand Vehicle Upgrades includes ITS/VMS, Fareboxes, Eng Rebuild

Capital Contingency on Vehicles Park & Ride Facilities - New

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 20-Year TOTAL

1,095,602 5,903,942 49,770,330 15,455,278 5,953,505 30,188,701 22,908,673 3,580,552 15,520,950 334,885,27215,127,668 40,729,583 41,340,527 41,960,635 42,590,044 43,228,895 43,877,328 44,535,488 26,368,720 752,723,646

- - - - - - - - - 4,876,051- - - - - - - - - 8,110,022- - - - - - - - - 39,900,000- - - - - - - - - 8,841,523

15,484,684 20,974,228 23,805,798 21,440,131 25,701,892 27,526,699 25,187,353 30,191,261 21,291,829 386,798,663488,126 514,231 532,456 568,460 607,433 639,008 686,825 731,997 435,619 8,680,756

32,196,079 68,121,984 115,449,111 79,424,504 74,852,874 101,583,303 92,660,180 79,039,298 63,617,119 1,544,815,932

8,877,942 16,869,489 68,083,436 43,945,289 33,285,881 45,478,475 67,507,096 48,014,356 33,432,416 664,946,736- 3,236,144 9,333,041 4,806,516 9,901,423 17,483,084 750,316 - 5,572,069 110,969,585- 8,976,058 - 4,761,350 - 17,174,476 - - - 59,445,207- - - - - - - - - 15,739,062- 5,825,060 9,999,686 4,119,871 2,828,978 - 1,500,631 - 2,388,030 26,662,256- 1,941,687 - - - - - - - 23,438,859- 8,976,058 14,792,544 6,665,890 3,923,353 - 2,081,142 - 3,311,826 93,111,329- 2,692,818 - - - - - - - 14,790,370- - - - - - - - - 0

5,662,083 5,723,947 6,451,860 2,635,251 5,546,631 6,563,906 6,635,623 7,479,474 2,656,503 95,064,774- - - - - - - - - 83,991- - - 343,728 826,094 - - - 398,475 3,091,424- - - - - - - - - 824,114

1,814,770 1,869,213 1,925,290 1,983,048 2,042,540 2,103,816 2,166,931 2,231,938 2,298,897 36,319,1561,008,206 1,038,452 1,069,605 1,101,694 1,134,744 1,168,787 1,203,850 1,239,966 1,277,165 16,711,032

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 025,648,166

347,260 1,142,979 2,233,109 1,407,253 1,189,793 1,799,451 1,636,912 1,179,315 1,026,708 20,071,1653,914,402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88,122,910

Passenger Facilities Transit Centers Bus Stop Improvements O&M Facilities Arterial BRT ROW Capital Contingency on Facilities Total Uses of Funds, Bus Capital Program

Net Yearly Surplus/Deficit Prior to Bonding

Bond Proceeds

Debt Service

Net Yearly Capital Surplus/Deficit with Bonding

Ending Cumulative Cash Balance, Bus Capital Program with Bonding Annual Interest on Cash Balance after Bonding 0.04 Ending Cumulative Cash Balance, Bus Capital Program with Bonding and interest on Cumulative Cash Balance

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,627,9780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,803,9470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97,176,2640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83,787,055

195,720 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,333,79121,820,384 58,291,906 113,888,571 71,769,890 60,679,436 91,771,994 83,482,501 60,145,049 52,362,088 1,504,769,170

10,375,696 9,830,079 1,560,539 7,654,614 14,173,439 9,811,309 9,177,679 18,894,248 11,255,030 40,046,763

12,000,000 0 0 112,785,000

(10,158,837) (10,159,076) (10,456,030) (10,754,176) (10,753,104) (10,668,368) (10,669,200) (10,571,948) (15,059,511) (153,964,036)

216,859 (328,997) 3,104,509 (3,099,562) 3,420,335 (857,059) (1,491,522) 8,322,300 (3,804,481) (1,132,274)

482,081 162,036 3,269,554 230,708 3,655,327 2,866,148 1,427,850 9,776,666 6,153,737 6,153,7378,952 3,009 60,716 4,284 67,879 53,224 26,515 181,553 66,660 7,352,671

$491,033 $165,045 $3,330,270 $234,992 $3,723,206 $2,919,372 $1,454,365 $9,958,218 $6,220,398 $6,220,398

1/12/2010 11:25 AM page 4

TABLE C‐3Geographic Equity SummaryRanges based on alternative allocation methods(millions of YOE dollars)

Sub‐Region Range2010

Minimum 2010 Policy2010

Maximum2007

Calculated 2007 PolicyEast 100 ‐ 104% $1,054.4 $1,057.0 $1,102.8 $1,506.1 $1,491.7Phoenix 97 ‐ 100% $574.7 $591.0 $593.4 $654.6 $786.7West 93 ‐ 107% $199.5 $214.2 $230.1 $424.7 $307.0

* Range percentages reflect calculated geographic allocation compared to policy* 2007 figures reflect calculated and policy dollar values in 2007 benchmark program* 2007 policy values were calculated using policy percenteages by category, whereas 2010 policy values used the sum of the categories

Estimated Potential Impacts to Local BudgetsServices Proposed to be Eliminated or Delayed(Year of Expenditure dollars)

Route Number Jurisdiction

Net Cost to Jurisdiction to Continue Services

Proposed to be Terminated †

Net Cost to Jurisdiction to Continue Local Funding

Until PTF Assumes Funding ‡ Total

Dysart 131 Avondale $4,202,065 $4,202,065Thomas 29A Avondale $1,723,559 $1,723,559Van Buren 3A Avondale $289,896 $289,896Indian School 41A Avondale $1,839,697 $1,839,697Total $0 $8,055,217 $8,055,217

Dobson 96 Chandler $3,629,523 $3,629,523Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express 511 Chandler $1,783,147 $1,783,147Total $5,412,669 $0 $5,412,669

Dunlap/Olive 90 Glendale $2,964,867 $2,964,867Peoria/Shea 106 Glendale $3,055,973 $3,055,973Waddell/Thunderbird 138 Glendale $1,710,657 $1,710,657Bell 170 Glendale $2,916,185 $2,916,185Surprise/Scottsdale Express 572 Glendale $6,234,557 $6,234,557NW Valley/Montebello Express 576 Glendale $2,404,807 $2,404,807Total $8,639,363 $10,647,682 $19,287,046

Dysart 131 Goodyear $957,060 $957,060

University 30 Mesa $6,406,661 $6,406,661Broadway 45 Mesa $7,425,250 $7,425,250Baseline 77 Mesa $473,943 $473,943Alma School 104 Mesa $2,032,836 $2,032,836Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU 536 Mesa $1,929,587 $1,929,587Total $1,929,587 $16,338,690 $18,268,277

Buckeye 13 Phoenix $13,200,652 $13,200,652Dunlap/Olive 90 Phoenix $15,763,562 $15,763,562Waddell/Thunderbird 138 Phoenix $7,816,630 $7,816,630Bell 170 Phoenix $11 882 769 $11 882 769Bell 170 Phoenix $11,882,769 $11,882,769SR-51 RAPID * Phoenix $22,642,812 $22,642,812I-10 East RAPID * Phoenix $28,375,169 $28,375,169I-10 West RAPID * Phoenix $16,174,143 $16,174,143I-17 RAPID * Phoenix $33,489,816 $33,489,816Total $100,681,940 $48,663,613 $149,345,554

Thomas 29 Scottsdale $5,039,887 $5,039,887Indian School 41 Scottsdale $5,757,634 $5,757,634Camelback 50 Scottsdale $5,978,293 $5,978,293Hayden/McClintock 81 Scottsdale $15,761,210 $15,761,210Peoria/Shea 106 Scottsdale $802,608 $802,608Bell 170 Scottsdale $2,579,917 $2,579,917Total $0 $35,919,549 $35,919,549

University 30 Tempe $3,189,805 $3,189,805Tatum/44th 44 Tempe $3,180,523 $3,180,523Broadway 45 Tempe $8,169,025 $8,169,025Baseline 77 Tempe $3,594,998 $3,594,998Hayden/McClintock 81 Tempe $2,181,766 $7,199,051 $9,380,817Priest 56 Tempe $3,155,011 $3,155,011Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express 511 Tempe $991,728 $991,728Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU 536 Tempe $465,823 $465,823Total $6,794,327 $25,333,402 $32,127,730

Dysart 131 Tolleson $1,336,077 $1,336,077Van Buren 3A Tolleson $138,460 $138,460Total $0 $1,474,537 $1,474,537

NOTES: * City of Phoenix indicates that RAPID will be absorbed locally to facilitate moving Phoenix' ADA costs to the TLCP † Represents net cost to maintain existing PTF funded service from FY 2011 through FY 2026 ‡ Represents the net cost to continue existing local funding for the number of years that PTF funding is delayed

D‐1

Appendix D ‐ Operations Characteristics by Route Appendix D provides detailed TLCP service and allocation characteristics for PTF funded fixed route bus service.

D‐2

Route Information Route: 685 Gila Bend Connector Service: Interim Rural Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Gila Bend to Desert Sky Mall Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles

Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total

Daily: 0 454 454 321 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 113,400 113,400 16,692 130,092 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $13,853,136 Total Program Fare Revenues: $711,335 Total Program Net Cost: $13,141,801 Jurisdictions

Percent of Miles Total Net Cost1

FY 2009 Boardings per

MileC Maricopa County 100.0% $13,068,612 NA

Avondale2 0.0% $5,709 NA

Buckeye2 0.0% $30,007 NA

Gila Bend2 0.0% $18,297 NA

Goodyear2 0.0% $12,954 NA

Phoenix2 0.0% $2,854 NA

Tolleson2 0.0% $3,367 NA Total 100.0% $13,141,801 0.1 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. 2 Allocation prior to FY 2010 TLCP Update C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐3

Route Information Route: 660 Wickenburg Connector Service: Interim Rural Fiscal Year Start: 2007 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Wickenburg to Arrowhead Mall Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 269 269 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 67,200 67,200 0 67,200 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $6,952,139 Total Program Fare Revenues: $347,891 Total Program Net Cost: $6,604,248 Jurisdictions



MileC Maricopa County 100.0% $6,410,146 NA

Glendale2 0.0% $6,207 NA

Peoria2 0.0% $7,401 NA

Surprise2 0.0% $131,073 NA

Wickenburg2 0.0% $49,421 NA Total 100.0% $6,604,248 0.1 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. 2 Allocation prior to FY 2010 TLCP Update C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐4

Route Information Route: 510

Service: Existing Express

Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: McCormick Pkwy to Downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way

Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐

Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol

Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles


Peak Weekday

Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total

Daily: 0 74 74 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 18,475 18,475 0 18,475 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $2,709,966 Total Program Fare Revenues: $556,626 Total Program Net Cost: $2,153,340 Jurisdictions



MileC Phoenix 58.1% $1,303,805 1.2 Scottsdale 41.9% $849,536 0.9 Total 100.0% $2,153,340 1.1 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐5



Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Fountain Hills to Downtown Phoenix via SR51 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way





Peak Weekday

Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 134 134 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 33,525 33,525 0 33,525 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $4,917,604 Total Program Fare Revenues: $532,734 Total Program Net Cost: $4,384,870 Jurisdictions



MileC Fountain Hills 13.9% $636,966 0.4 Phoenix 51.2% $2,203,106 0.5 Scottsdale 34.9% $1,544,798 0.7 Total 100.0% $4,384,870 0.6 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐6



Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Price and Broadway to Downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way





Peak Weekday

Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 169 169 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 42,286 42,286 0 42,286 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $6,137,826 Total Program Fare Revenues: $786,698 Total Program Net Cost: $5,351,128 Jurisdictions



MileC Phoenix 57.1% $3,162,160 1.2 Tempe 42.9% $2,188,968 0.6 Total 100.0% $5,351,128 0.9 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐7

Route Information Route: 521 Service: Existing Express Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Price and Broadway to Downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 234 234 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 58,461 58,461 0 58,461 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $8,487,881 Total Program Fare Revenues: $1,116,556 Total Program Net Cost: $7,371,325 Jurisdictions



MileC Phoenix 57.1% $4,196,552 0.7 Tempe 42.9% $3,174,773 1.1 Total 100.0% $7,371,325 0.9 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐8

Route Information Route: 531 Service: Existing Express Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Gilbert PNR to Downtown Phoenix via US60 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 424 424 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 105,875 105,875 0 105,875 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $13,997,369 Total Program Fare Revenues: $2,637,512 Total Program Net Cost: $11,359,856 Jurisdictions



MileC Gilbert 8.2% $448,711 3.3 Mesa 30.5% $3,586,701 0.7 Phoenix 61.3% $7,280,649 1.0

Tempe2 ‐‐‐ $43,795 0.0 Total 100.0% $11,359,856 0.8 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. 2 Allocation prior to FY 2010 TLCP Update C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐9

Route Information Route: 532 Service: Existing Express Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Power and Decatur to Downtown Phoenix via McKellips Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 231 231 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 57,850 57,850 0 57,850 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $7,645,929 Total Program Fare Revenues: $1,373,907 Total Program Net Cost: $6,272,022 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 46.5% $2,866,614 0.8 Phoenix 38.3% $2,371,126 0.9 Tempe 15.2% $1,034,282 0.3 Total 100.0% $6,272,022 0.7 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐10

Route Information Route: 533 Service: Existing Express Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Price and Decatur to Downtown Phoenix via US60 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 321 321 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 80,250 80,250 0 80,250 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $10,255,224 Total Program Fare Revenues: $2,976,658 Total Program Net Cost: $7,278,566 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 56.5% $4,186,127 1,5 Phoenix 43.5% $3,088,211 1.8 Tempe ‐‐‐ $4,228 0.0 Total 100.0% $7,278,566 1.3 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. 2 Allocation prior to FY 2010 TLCP Update C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐11

Route Information Route: 540 Service: Existing Express Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Price and Decatur to Downtown Phoenix via US60 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 228 228 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 57,100 57,100 0 57,100 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $7,546,833 Total Program Fare Revenues: $1,576,196 Total Program Net Cost: $5,970,638 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 18.6% $1,063,243 0.8 Phoenix 42.2% $2,203,980 1.0 Tempe 39.2% $2,703,414 0.7 Total 100.0% $5,970,638 0.9 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐12

Route Information Route: 541 Service: Existing Express Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Chandler PNR to Downtown Phoenix via US60 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 417 417 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 104,200 104,200 0 104,200 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $13,771,975 Total Program Fare Revenues: $3,106,362 Total Program Net Cost: $10,665,613 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 24.7% $2,211,469 1.7 Mesa 16.5% $1,862,842 1.3 Phoenix 58.8% $6,544,587 1.3

Tempe2 ‐‐‐ $46,715 0.0 Total 100.0% $10,665,613 1.0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. 2 Allocation prior to FY 2010 TLCP Update C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐13

Route Information Route: 560 Service: Existing Express Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2020 Route Description: Lower Buckeye and 4th St to Downtown Phoenix via I‐10 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 102 102 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 25,600 25,600 0 25,600 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $2,809,532 Total Program Fare Revenues: $466,263 Total Program Net Cost: $2,343,269 Jurisdictions



MileC Avondale 23.9% $537,974 0.5 Goodyear 0.3% $5,841 0.0 Phoenix 63.7% $1,510,265 0.7 Tolleson 12.1% $289,189 0.8 Total 100.0% $2,343,269 0.7 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐14

Route Information Route: 570 Service: Existing Express Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2013 Route Description: Downtown Glendale to Downtown Phoenix via Northern\Central Ave Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 74 74 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 18,550 18,550 0 18,550 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $825,854 Total Program Fare Revenues: $122,912 Total Program Net Cost: $702,942 Jurisdictions



MileC Glendale 16.8% $102,883 1.1 Phoenix 83.2% $600,059 0.5 Total 100.0% $702,942 0.6 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐15

Route Information Route: 581 Service: Existing Express Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Thunderbird and 59th Ave to Downtown Phoenix via I‐17 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 110 110 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 27,600 27,600 0 27,600 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $6,658,536 Total Program Fare Revenues: $1,405,664 Total Program Net Cost: $5,252,872 Jurisdictions



MileC Glendale 8.8% $336,790 2.0 Phoenix 91.2% $4,916,082 0.9 Total 100.0% $5,252,872 1.0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐16

Route Information Route: 582 Service: Existing Express Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Bell/I‐17 PNR to Downtown Phoenix via I‐17 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 146 146 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 36,400 36,400 0 36,400 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $8,795,581 Total Program Fare Revenues: $1,576,610 Total Program Net Cost: $7,218,971 Jurisdictions



MileC Phoenix 100.0% $7,218,971 0.7 Total 100.0% $7,218,971 0.7 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐17

Route Information Route: 590 Service: Existing Express Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: 35th Ave/Union Hills to Downtown Phoenix via I‐17 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 160 160 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 40,100 40,100 0 40,100 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $9,689,642 Total Program Fare Revenues: $2,019,997 Total Program Net Cost: $7,669,645 Jurisdictions




D‐18

Route Information

Route:2 Rt. 400 SR 51 Service: Interim RAPID Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2008 Route Description: Bell/SR51 PNR to Downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 445 445 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 111,175 111,175 0 111,175 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $1,092,985 Total Program Fare Revenues: $359,674 Total Program Net Cost: $733,311 Jurisdictions



MileC Phoenix 100.0% $733,311 1.5 Total 100.0% $733,311 1.5 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. 2 Interim service level C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐19

Route Information Route: SR51 Express 400 SR51 RAPID Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2008 Fiscal Year End: 2011 Route Description: Bell\I‐17 PNR to Downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 5 5 0 Daily Trips: 0 25 25 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 458 458 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 114,575 114,575 0 114,575 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $4,587,724 Total Program Fare Revenues: $1,180,600 Total Program Net Cost: $3,407,124 Jurisdictions




D‐20

Route Information

Route:2 Rt. 450 I‐10 East Service: Interim RAPID Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2008

Route Description: 44th St/Pecos PNR to Downtown Phoenix

Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 524 524 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 131,075 131,075 0 131,075 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $1,290,066 Total Program Fare Revenues: $486,604 Total Program Net Cost: $803,462 Jurisdictions




D‐21

Route Information Route: Ahwatukee Express 450 I‐10 East RAPID Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2008 Fiscal Year End: 2011 Route Description: Pecos PNR to Downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 4 4 0 Daily Trips: 0 28 28 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 574 574 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 143,575 143,575 0 143,575 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $3,460,836 Total Program Fare Revenues: $822,359 Total Program Net Cost: $2,638,477 Jurisdictions




D‐22

Route Information

Route:2 Rt. 460 I‐10 West Service: Interim RAPID Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2008 Route Description: Desert Sky Mall to Downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA 60 Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA 12 Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 199 199 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 49,675 49,675 0 49,675 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $488,111 Total Program Fare Revenues: $221,008 Total Program Net Cost: $267,103 Jurisdictions




D‐23

Route Information Route: Desert Sky Express 460 I‐10 West RAPID Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2008 Fiscal Year End: 2011 Route Description: Desert Sky Mall to Downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 5 5 0 Daily Trips: 0 25 25 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 327 327 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 81,825 81,825 0 81,825 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $1,478,573 Total Program Fare Revenues: $329,421 Total Program Net Cost: $1,149,152 Jurisdictions




D‐24

Route Information

Route:2 Rt. 480 I‐17 Service: Interim RAPID Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2008 Route Description: Deer Valley Community Center to Downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 477 477 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 119,250 119,250 0 119,250 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $1,171,757 Total Program Fare Revenues: $435,098 Total Program Net Cost: $736,659 Jurisdictions




D‐25

Route Information Route: Deer Valley Express 480 I‐17 RAPID Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2008 Fiscal Year End: 2011 Route Description: Deer Valley Community Center to Downtown Phoenix via I‐17 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 3.25 3.25 0 Daily Trips: 0 39 39 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 678 678 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 169,450 169,450 0 169,450 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $4,604,573 Total Program Fare Revenues: $994,395 Total Program Net Cost: $3,610,178 Jurisdictions




D‐26

Route Information Route: East Loop 101 Connector (RT 511) Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2009 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Apache/Price PNR to Scottsdale Airpark Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 2.5 2.5 0 Daily Trips: 0 10 10 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 219 219 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 54,625 54,625 0 54,625 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $6,935,604 Total Program Fare Revenues: $409,921 Total Program Net Cost: $6,525,683 Jurisdictions



MileC

Chandler2 0.0% $205,102 0.3 Phoenix 2.5% $155,579 0.0 Scottsdale 81.7% $5,090,877 0.1 Tempe 15.8% $1,074,124 0.1 Total 100.0% $6,525,683 0.1 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. 2 Allocation prior to FY 2010 TLCP Update C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐27

Route Information Route: Red Mountain Express ‐ A Pattern (535) Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2009 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Power Rd and McDowell Rd to Downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 2 2 0 Daily Trips: 0 6 6 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 170 170 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 42,450 42,450 0 42,450 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $5,147,454 Total Program Fare Revenues: $1,052,643 Total Program Net Cost: $4,094,811 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 50.3% $2,020,761 0.9 Phoenix 35.4% $1,335,391 0.9 Tempe 14.4% $738,660 0.0 Total 100.0% $4,094,811 0.9 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐28

Route Information Route: Red Mountain Express ‐ B Pattern (536) Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2009 Fiscal Year End: 2011 Route Description: Power Rd and McDowell Rd to Downtown Tempe\ASU Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 1.25 1.25 0 Daily Trips: 0 5 5 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 105 105 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 26,250 26,250 0 26,250 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $205,368 Total Program Fare Revenues: $2,984 Total Program Net Cost: $202,384 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 67.8% $137,332 0.1 Tempe 32.2% $65,053 0.3 Total 100.0% $202,384 0.2 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐29

Route Information Route: Papago Freeway Connector ‐ A Pattern (562) Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2009 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Dysart/I‐10 PNR to Downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 2 2 0 Daily Trips: 0 4 4 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 76 76 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 19,025 19,025 0 19,025 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $3,702,225 Total Program Fare Revenues: $755,371 Total Program Net Cost: $2,946,854 Jurisdictions



MileC Avondale 38.5% $1,424,987 0.0 Goodyear 23.6% $432,969 1.6 Phoenix 38.0% $1,088,899 0.8 Total 100.0% $2,946,854 1.1 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐30

Route Information Route: Papago Freeway Connector ‐ B Pattern (563) Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2011 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Airport Rd\I‐10 to Downtown Phoenix via I‐10 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 2 2 0 Daily Trips: 0 4 4 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 152 152 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 38,100 38,100 0 38,100 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $6,763,954 Total Program Fare Revenues: $1,019,236 Total Program Net Cost: $5,744,718 Jurisdictions



MileC Avondale 10.6% $611,276 NA Buckeye 42.7% $2,452,959 NA Goodyear 17.9% $1,025,770 NA Phoenix 28.8% $1,654,713 NA Total 100.0% $5,744,718 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐31

Route Information Route: North Loop 101 Connector (Rt 572) Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2008 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Phoenix west border and Scottsdale Airpark Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 3 3 0 Daily Trips: 0 12 12 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 211 211 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 52,800 52,800 0 52,800 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $12,152,293 Total Program Fare Revenues: $848,437 Total Program Net Cost: $11,303,856 Jurisdictions



MileC

Maricopa County2 0.0% $255,123 0.0

Glendale2 0.0% $604,115 0.1 Phoenix 88.4% $8,805,615 0.0

Peoria2 0.0% $99,831 0.0 Scottsdale 11.6% $1,137,670 0.4 Surprise 0.0% $401,502 0.3 Total 100.0% $11,303,856 0.3 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. 2 Allocation prior to FY 2010 TLCP Update C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐32

Route Information Route: North Glendale Express (Rt 573) Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2008 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: 75th Ave and Rose Garden Ln to Downtown Phoenix via Loop 101 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 3 3 0 Daily Trips: 0 12 12 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 389 389 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 97,150 97,150 0 97,150 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $19,825,229 Total Program Fare Revenues: $2,557,408 Total Program Net Cost: $17,267,821 Jurisdictions



MileC Glendale 47.9% $7,799,307 0.4 Phoenix 52.1% $8,899,284 1.0

Peoria2 0.0% $569,230 Total 100.0% $17,267,821 0.6 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. 2 Allocation prior to FY 2010 TLCP Update C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐33

Route Information Route: Northwest Valley Express ‐ A Pattern (575) Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2009 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Arrowhead Mall to Downtown Phoenix via I‐17 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 1.5 1.5 0 Daily Trips: 0 6 6 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 148 148 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 36,875 36,875 0 36,875 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $7,254,098 Total Program Fare Revenues: $895,562 Total Program Net Cost: $6,358,536 Jurisdictions



MileC Glendale 11.5% $273,484 1.2 Peoria 11.5% $749,572 0.0 Phoenix 77.1% $5,335,481 0.6 Total 100.0% $6,358,536 0.9 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐34

Route Information Route: Northwest Valley Express ‐ B Pattern (576) Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2009 Fiscal Year End: 2026

Route Description: Northwest Phoenix to Montebello/19th Ave Transit Center

Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 1.25 1.25 0 Daily Trips: 0 10 10 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 100 100 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 25,000 25,000 0 25,000 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $5,143,229 Total Program Fare Revenues: $118,528 Total Program Net Cost: $5,024,701 Jurisdictions



MileC

Glendale2 0.0% $123,407 0.2 Phoenix 100.0% $4,901,295 0.1 Total 100.0% $5,024,701 0.1 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. 2 Allocation prior to FY 2010 TLCP Update C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐35

Route Information Route: Main St Dedicated BRT Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2009 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Main St LINK ‐ Superstition Springs Mall to Main/Sycamore PNR Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 5 12.5 17.5 15 Daily Trips: 40 50 150 60 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 524 655 1,179 786 ‐‐‐ Annual: 131,000 163,750 294,750 90,390 385,140 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $44,171,313 Total Program Fare Revenues: $7,769,732 Total Program Net Cost: $36,401,581 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 100.0% $36,401,581 0.7 Total 100.0% $36,401,581 0.7 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐36

Route Information Route: Apache Junction Express Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐

Route Description: Northwest Phoenix to Montebello/19th Ave Transit Center

Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 0.0% $0 NA Phoenix 0.0% $0 NA Tempe 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐37

Route Information Route: Arizona Ave Dedicated BRT Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2011 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Sycamore\Main St PNR to Alma School Rd and Ocotillo Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 0/30 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 10 10 0 Daily Trips: 0 40 40 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 600 600 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 149,875 149,875 0 149,875 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $16,044,931 Total Program Fare Revenues: $3,054,888 Total Program Net Cost: $12,990,043 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 62.5% $8,118,662 NA Gilbert 4.1% $531,416 NA Mesa 33.4% $4,339,965 NA Total 100.0% $12,990,043 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐38

Route Information Route: Buckeye Express Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: West Buckeye (approx Johnson Rd) to Downtown Phoenix via I‐10 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Avondale 0.0% $0 NA Buckeye 0.0% $0 NA Goodyear 0.0% $0 NA Phoenix 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐39

Route Information Route: Superstition Freeway Connector Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Superstition Springs PNR to Arizona Mills Mall Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 0.0% $0 NA Tempe 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐40

Route Information Route: 471 Grand Ave Limited (371) Service: Existing Express Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2013 Route Description: Peoria to Downtown Phoenix via Grand Ave Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 133 133 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 33,125 33,125 0 33,125 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $1,354,391 Total Program Fare Revenues: $165,998 Total Program Net Cost: $1,188,393 Jurisdictions



MileC Glendale 41.1% $525,576 0.2 Peoria 15.1% $153,795 1.0 Phoenix 43.9% $510,660 1.0 Surprise 0.0% ‐$1,639 0.0 Total 100.0% $1,188,393 1.0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐41

Route Information

Route: Grand Ave Limited

Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2013 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Surprise PNR to Downtown Phoenix via Grand Ave Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 2 2 0 Daily Trips: 0 8 8 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 207 207 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 51,775 51,775 0 51,775 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $7,301,099 Total Program Fare Revenues: $626,509 Total Program Net Cost: $6,674,590 Jurisdictions



MileC El Mirage 9.7% $647,760 NA Glendale 23.4% $1,563,441 NA Peoria 20.9% $1,395,368 NA Phoenix 33.0% $2,201,260 NA Surprise 13.0% $866,762 NA Total 100.0% $6,674,590 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐42

Route Information Route: Pima Express Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Scottsdale Airpark area to downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Phoenix 0.0% $0 NA Scottsdale 0.0% $0 NA Tempe 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐43

Route Information Route: Peoria Express Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Peoria Ave & 101 to downtown Phoenix Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Glendale 0.0% $0 NA Peoria 0.0% $0 NA Phoenix 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐44

Route Information Route: Scottsdale/Rural Rd Dedicated BRT Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2016 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Shea Blvd to Tempe\Scottsdale Border via Scottsdale Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 0/30 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 12 12 0 Daily Trips: 0 48 48 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 405 405 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 101,275 101,275 0 101,275 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $8,385,183 Total Program Fare Revenues: $1,574,321 Total Program Net Cost: $6,810,862 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 0.0% $0 NA Scottsdale 100.0% $6,810,862 NA Tempe 0.0% $0 NA Total 100.0% $6,810,862 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Postpone segments in Chandler and Tempe beyond 2026 (Tempe\Scottsdale border to Chandler Fashion Mall). C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐45

Route Information Route: South Central Express Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2015 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: South Mtn Community College to State Capitol Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 12 12 0 Daily Trips: 0 48 48 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 450 450 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 112,550 112,550 0 112,550 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $11,509,014 Total Program Fare Revenues: $2,132,741 Total Program Net Cost: $9,376,273 Jurisdictions



MileC Phoenix 100.0% $9,376,273 NA Total 100.0% $9,376,273 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐46

Route Information Route: Black Canyon Freeway Connector Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: I‐17 and Carefree Hwy to Metrocenter PNR\TC Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Phoenix 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐47

Route Information Route: South Central Dedicated BRT A Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐

Route Description: 59th Ave & Baseline Rd to Central Station

Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions




D‐48

Route Information Route: South Central Dedicated BRT B Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Arizona Mills Mall to Central Station Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Phoenix 0.0% $0 NA Tempe 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐49

Route Information Route: Ahwatukee Connector Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Pecos PNR to Arizona State University\Downtown Tempe Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Phoenix 0.0% $0 NA Tempe 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐50

Route Information Route: Anthem Express Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Anthem to Scottsdale Airpark via I‐17 and Loop 101 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Phoenix 0.0% $0 NA Scottsdale 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐51

Route Information Route: San Tan Express Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: ASU Polytechnic\Phoenix Gateway Airport to Downtown Phoenix via Loop 202 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 0.0% $0 NA Gilbert 0.0% $0 NA Mesa 0.0% $0 NA Phoenix 0.0% $0 NA Tempe 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐52

Route Information Route: Red Mountain Freeway Connector Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: ASU Polytechnic\Phoenix Gateway Airport to Downtown Phoenix via Loop 202 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 0.0% $0 NA Tempe 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐53

Route Information Route: Superstition Springs Express Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Superstition Springs PNR to Downtown Phoenix via US60 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 0.0% $0 NA Phoenix 0.0% $0 NA Tempe 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐54

Route Information Route: Avondale Express Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: 2020 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Dysart and McDowell Rd to Downtown Phoenix via I‐10 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 4 4 0 Daily Trips: 0 16 16 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 304 304 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 76,050 76,050 0 76,050 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $4,744,208 Total Program Fare Revenues: $809,277 Total Program Net Cost: $3,934,931 Jurisdictions



MileC Avondale 24.9% $978,789 NA Goodyear 1.4% $56,843 NA Phoenix 73.7% $2,899,300 NA Total 100.0% $3,934,931 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐55

Route Information

Route: North I‐17 Express

Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Anthem to Downtown Phoenix via I‐17 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions




D‐56

Route Information Route: Loop 303 Express Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Arrowhead Mall to Desert Sky Mall TC via Loop 303 and I‐10 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Avondale 0.0% $0 NA Maricopa County 0.0% $0 NA Glendale 0.0% $0 NA Goodyear 0.0% $0 NA Phoenix 0.0% $0 NA Surprise 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐57

Route Information Route: Chandler Blvd Dedicated BRT Service: New Express Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: ASU Polytechnic\Phoenix Gateway Airport to 54th St via Chandler Blvd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 0.0% $0 NA Gilbert 0.0% $0 NA Mesa 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐58

Route Information Route: Rt. 50 Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2025 Route Description: Revenue miles in Scottsdale on Camelback Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 66 66 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 16,500 16,500 0 16,500 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $2,465,850 Total Program Fare Revenues: $698,850 Total Program Net Cost: $1,767,000 Jurisdictions



MileC Scottsdale 100.0% $1,767,000 2.2 Total 100.0% $1,767,000 2.2 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. Revenue miles in Scottsdale only, balance of route funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐59

Route Information Route: Rt. 50 SATURDAY Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2025 Route Description: Revenue miles on RT 106 (Peoria\Shea Blvd) Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 12 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 634 634 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $94,731 Total Program Fare Revenues: $31,565 Total Program Net Cost: $63,166 Jurisdictions



MileC Scottsdale 100.0% $63,166 5.8 Total 100.0% $63,166 5.8 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. Revenue miles in Scottsdale only, balance of route funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐60

Route Information Route: Rt. 56 Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2011 Route Description: Revenue miles in Tempe on RT 56 (Priest Dr) Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 115 115 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 28,688 28,688 0 28,688 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $672,451 Total Program Fare Revenues: $91,649 Total Program Net Cost: $580,802 Jurisdictions



MileC Guadalupe 0.0% ‐$17,134 1.0 Tempe 100.0% $597,936 2.0 Total 100.0% $580,802 1.9 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐61

Route Information Route: Rt. 59 Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2014 Route Description: Revenue miles in Glendale on RT 59 (59th Ave) Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 491 491 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 122,800 122,800 0 122,800 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $4,798,321 Total Program Fare Revenues: $1,356,416 Total Program Net Cost: $3,441,905 Jurisdictions



MileC Glendale 100.0% $3,441,905 2.2 Total 100.0% $3,441,905 2.2 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. Revenue miles in Glendale only, balance of route funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐62

Route Information Route: 59th AVE Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2014 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Buckeye Rd to Utopia Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 30 60 Service Span (Hrs): 0 17 17 16 Daily Trips: 0 68 68 32 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 1,100 1,100 518 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 274,900 274,900 59,513 334,413 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $30,316,274 Total Program Fare Revenues: $4,315,936 Total Program Net Cost: $26,000,338 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $17,958,622 Jurisdictions



MileC Glendale 69.1% $17,958,622 2.2 Phoenix 30.9% $8,041,717 3.5 Total 100.0% $26,000,338 2.6 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $17,958,622 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐63

Route Information Route: Rt. 61 Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2015

Route Description: Revenue miles in Mesa and Tempe on RT 61 (Southern Ave)

Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 363 363 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 90,700 90,700 0 90,700 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $3,976,384 Total Program Fare Revenues: $284,016 Total Program Net Cost: $3,692,368 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 27.7% $1,021,857 2.1 Tempe 72.3% $2,670,511 2.0 Total 100.0% $3,692,368 2.0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. Revenue miles in Mesa replaced in FY 2009 with implementation of Southern Supergrid Revenue miles in Mesa and Tempe only, balance of route funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐64

Route Information Route: Rt. 61 Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2015

Route Description: Revenue miles in Mesa and Tempe on RT 61 (Southern Ave)

Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 363 363 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 90,700 90,700 0 90,700 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $3,976,384 Total Program Fare Revenues: $284,016 Total Program Net Cost: $3,692,368 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 27.7% $1,021,857 2.1 Tempe 72.3% $2,670,511 2.0 Total 100.0% $3,692,368 2.0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. Revenue miles in Mesa replaced in FY 2009 with implementation of Southern Supergrid Revenue miles in Mesa and Tempe only, balance of route funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐65

Route Information Route: Rt. 67 Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Revenue miles in Glendale on RT 6 (67th Ave) Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 294 294 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 73,500 73,500 0 73,500 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $13,960,874 Total Program Fare Revenues: $2,839,944 Total Program Net Cost: $11,120,930 Jurisdictions



MileC Glendale 100.0% $11,120,930 1.8 Total 100.0% $11,120,930 1.8 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Increased service levels are programmed for FY 2011 through FY 2016 Revenue miles in Glendale only, balance of route funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐66

Route Information Route: Rt. 81 Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2021 Route Description: Revenue miles in Chandler and Tempe on RT 81 (McClintock Dr) Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 139 139 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 34,725 34,725 0 34,725 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $4,624,009 Total Program Fare Revenues: $737,049 Total Program Net Cost: $3,886,960 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 100.0% $2,829,799 1.0

Tempe2 0.0% $1,057,161 1.6 Total 100.0% $3,886,960 1.5 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. 2 Tempe miles reduced to 0% beginning July 2010 Revenue miles in Chandler only, balance of route funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐67

Route Information Route: Rt. 81 SATURDAY Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2011 Route Description: Revenue miles on RT 81 Saturdays (McClintock Dr\Hayden Rd) Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 126 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 6,557 6,557 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $136,830 Total Program Fare Revenues: $18,825 Total Program Net Cost: $118,005 Jurisdictions



MileC Tempe 100.0% $118,005 1.8 Total 100.0% $118,005 1.8 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. Revenue miles in Tempe only, balance of route funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐68

Route Information Route: HAYDEN MCCLINTOCK Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2021 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Scottsdale Airpark to Chandler Fashion Mall Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 60 Service Span (Hrs): 3 14 17 17 Daily Trips: 24 56 80 34 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 712 1,661 2,373 1,009 ‐‐‐ Annual: 177,975 415,275 593,250 115,978 709,228 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $33,267,226 Total Program Fare Revenues: $5,988,100 Total Program Net Cost: $27,279,126 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $27,279,126 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 9.1% $2,494,644 1.0 Scottsdale 48.1% $13,130,850 0.7 Tempe 38.2% $10,424,179 1.6 Maricopa County 4.5% $1,229,452 0.0 Total 100.0% $27,279,126 1.1 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $27,279,126 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐69

Route Information Route: Rt. 92 Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Revenue miles in Tempe on RT 92 (Guadalupe Rd) Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 71 71 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 17,745 17,745 0 17,745 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $2,431,230 Total Program Fare Revenues: $312,572 Total Program Net Cost: $2,118,658 Jurisdictions



MileC Tempe 100.0% $2,385,699 1.2 Phoenix 0.0% ‐$267,041 0.0 Total 100.0% $2,118,658 1.2 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐70

Route Information Route: Rt. 104 Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2018 Route Description: Revenue miles in Chandler on RT 104 (Alma School Rd) Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 204 204 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 51,025 51,025 0 51,025 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $3,245,963 Total Program Fare Revenues: $534,548 Total Program Net Cost: $2,711,415 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 100.0% $2,711,415 1.3 Total 100.0% $2,711,415 1.3 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. Revenue miles in Chandler only, balance of route funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐71

Route Information Route: Rt. 106 Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Revenue miles on RT 106 (Peoria\Shea Blvd) Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 741 741 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 185,225 185,225 0 185,225 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $30,672,758 Total Program Fare Revenues: $6,773,507 Total Program Net Cost: $23,899,251 Jurisdictions



MileC Maricopa County 25.8% $7,262,165 0.0 Glendale 16.2% $3,301,487 2.4 Peoria 22.2% $4,550,802 2.8 Scottsdale 35.8% $8,784,797 1.3 Total 100.0% $23,899,251 2.1 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. Revenue miles in Maricopa County, Glendale, Peoria and Scottsdale only, balance of route funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐72

Route Information Route: Rt. 112 Service: Existing Local Fiscal Year Start: 2006 Fiscal Year End: 2012 Route Description: Revenue miles in Mesa and Chandler on RT 112 (AZ Ave\Country Club Dr) Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): NA NA NA/NA NA Service Span (Hrs): NA NA NA NA Daily Trips: NA NA NA NA Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 541 541 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 135,250 135,250 0 135,250 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $3,557,582 Total Program Fare Revenues: $1,132,158 Total Program Net Cost: $2,425,424 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 31.2% $802,835 2.0 Mesa 68.8% $1,622,589 3.1 Total 100.0% $2,425,424 2.7 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐73

Route Information Route: SCOTTSDALE/RURAL (Rt 72) Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2007 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: ASU Polytechnic\Phoenix Gateway Airport to 54th St via Chandler Blvd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 12.5 8.5 21 19.75 Daily Trips: 100 34 134 79 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 2,753 936 3,689 2,175 ‐‐‐ Annual: 688,250 234,000 922,250 250,114 1,172,364 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $158,456,165 Total Program Fare Revenues: $29,807,249 Total Program Net Cost: $128,648,916 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 11.5% $15,224,891 1.3 Phoenix 8.2% $12,858,475 0.0 Scottsdale 42.0% $54,523,364 1.1 Tempe 38.3% $46,042,187 1.8 Total 100.0% $128,648,916 1.4 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐74

Route Information Route: CHANDLER BLVD (Rt 156) Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2008 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: ASU Polytechnic\Phoenix Gateway Airport to Desert Foothills Pkwy Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 0 18.25 18.25 16.5 Daily Trips: 0 73 73 66 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 2,267 2,267 2,050 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 566,850 566,850 235,750 802,600 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $111,402,780 Total Program Fare Revenues: $16,612,842 Total Program Net Cost: $94,789,938 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $75,721,074 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 47.2% $39,952,069 0.9 Gilbert 34.4% $35,497,769 0.2 Mesa 1.2% $271,236 2.4 Phoenix 17.3% $19,068,864 0.7 Total 100.0% $94,789,938 0.6 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $75,721,074 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix (service currently suspended on Phoenix segment) C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐75

Route Information Route: GLENDALE AVE (Rt 70) Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2008 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: ASU Polytechnic\Phoenix Gateway Airport to Desert Foothills Pkwy Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 4.5 15.75 20.25 16 Daily Trips: 36 63 99 64 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 1,112 1,945 3,057 1,976 ‐‐‐ Annual: 277,925 486,350 764,275 227,275 991,550 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $155,598,863 Total Program Fare Revenues: $44,526,970 Total Program Net Cost: $111,071,893 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $20,238,966 Jurisdictions



MileC Glendale 41.0% $20,238,966 1.6 Phoenix 59.0% $90,832,927 3.3 Total 100.0% $111,071,893 2.7 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $20,238,966 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Weekday frequency between 91st Ave and Luke AFB 30 minutes all day. B. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐76

Route Information Route: MAIN ST (Rt 40) Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2009 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Superstition Springs TC to Tempe Transit Center Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 0 20.75 20.75 19.5 Daily Trips: 0 83 83 78 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 1,136 1,136 1,067 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 283,925 283,925 122,740 406,665 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $46,639,936 Total Program Fare Revenues: $9,193,847 Total Program Net Cost: $37,446,089 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $37,446,089 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 73.4% $26,928,919 1.5 Tempe 26.7% $10,517,170 1.2 Total 100.0% $37,446,089 1.3 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $37,446,089 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Late night and early morning trips not operated in Mesa C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐77

Route Information Route: ARIZONA AVE COUNTRY CLUB Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2012 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Center and McKellips to Alma School Rd and Ocotillo Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 0 18 18 16 Daily Trips: 0 72 72 64 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 1,170 1,170 1,040 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 292,450 292,450 119,577 412,027 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $41,879,379 Total Program Fare Revenues: $10,004,435 Total Program Net Cost: $31,874,944 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $31,874,944 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 57.7% $18,388,400 2.0 Gilbert 3.7% $1,191,464 0.0 Mesa 38.6% $12,295,079 3.1 Total 100.0% $31,874,944 2.7 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $31,874,944 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐78

Route Information Route: GILBERT RD Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2010 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: McKellips Rd and Gilbert Rd to CGCC near Pecos Rd and Gilbert Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 30 60 Service Span (Hrs): 0 17 17 17 Daily Trips: 0 68 68 34 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 915 915 457 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 228,650 228,650 52,590 281,240 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $31,202,214 Total Program Fare Revenues: $4,582,608 Total Program Net Cost: $26,619,606 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $26,619,606 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 8.6% $2,289,283 0.0 Gilbert 46.0% $12,245,020 0.7 Mesa 45.4% $12,085,302 1.4 Total 100.0% $26,619,606 1.1 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $26,619,606 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Route segment south of CGCC to Val Vista and Riggs postponed beyond 2026 C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐79

Route Information Route: BASELINE SOUTHERN DOBSON (Baseline Rd) Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2015 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: 59th Ave to Dobson Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 0 18 18 17 Daily Trips: 0 72 72 68 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 1,410 1,410 1,332 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 352,600 352,600 153,180 505,780 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $45,196,138 Total Program Fare Revenues: $9,039,232 Total Program Net Cost: $36,156,906 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $14,049,867 Jurisdictions



MileC Guadalupe 0.7% $257,361 0.0 Mesa 6.9% $2,491,390 2.2 Tempe 31.3% $11,301,116 2.0 Phoenix 61.1% $22,107,039 1.6 Total 100.0% $36,156,906 1.8 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $14,049,867 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐80

Route Information Route: BASELINE SOUTHERN DOBSON (Southern Ave) Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2009 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: 43rd Ave to Superstition Springs TC Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 6 14 20 18 Daily Trips: 48 56 104 72 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 1,351 1,576 2,926 2,026 ‐‐‐ Annual: 337,650 393,900 731,550 232,967 964,517 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $112,985,970 Total Program Fare Revenues: $27,603,902 Total Program Net Cost: $85,382,068 Total Less Phoenix and Tempe Supergrid: $35,853,756 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 42.3% $35,853,756 2.1 Tempe 20.2% $17,264,968 2.0 Phoenix 37.5% $32,263,345 2.3 Total 100.0% $85,382,068 2.1 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix & Tempe Supergrid Service) $35,853,756 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix and Tempe miles funded locally by Phoenix and Tempe C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐81

Route Information Route: BASELINE SOUTHERN DOBSON (Dobson Rd) Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2009 Fiscal Year End: 2026

Route Description: Riverview to Ocotillo Rd and Basha Rd

Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 4 14 18 17 Daily Trips: 32 56 88 68 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 357 881 1,238 1,070 ‐‐‐ Annual: 89,125 220,300 309,425 123,050 432,475 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $51,047,793 Total Program Fare Revenues: $10,363,733 Total Program Net Cost: $40,684,060 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $40,684,060 Jurisdictions

Percent of

Miles Total Net Cost1


MileC Chandler 55.0% $26,133,419 0.5 Mesa 45.0% $14,550,641 2.2 Total 100.0% $40,684,060 1.2 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $40,684,060 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Fifteen‐minute (15) peak period frequency in Mesa only begin July 2010. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐82

Route Information Route: CAMELBACK Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2025 Fiscal Year End: 2026

Route Description: Scottsdale Community College to 67th Ave & Camelback Rd

Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 3 16 19 17 Daily Trips: 24 64 88 68 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 552 1,472 2,024 1,564 ‐‐‐ Annual: 137,975 367,925 505,900 179,826 685,726 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $11,653,968 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $11,653,968 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $2,209,592 Jurisdictions



MileC Glendale 0.0% $0 NA Litchfield Park 0.0% $0 NA Scottsdale 19.0% $2,209,592 2.2 Phoenix 81.0% $9,444,375 4.0 Total 100.0% $11,653,968 3.8 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $2,209,592 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Route segment west of 67th to Litchfield Rd postponed beyond 2026 B. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐83

Route Information

Route: ALMA SCHOOL RD

Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2018 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Riverview to Alma School Rd and Ocotillo Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 30 30 30/30 60 Service Span (Hrs): 3 14 17 16 Daily Trips: 12 56 68 32 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 144 672 816 384 ‐‐‐ Annual: 36,000 168,000 204,000 44,160 248,160 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $16,143,457 Total Program Fare Revenues: $2,170,098 Total Program Net Cost: $13,973,359 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $13,973,359 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 38.3% $5,351,798 1.3 Mesa 61.7% $8,621,561 2.0 Total 100.0% $13,973,359 1.8 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $13,973,359 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐84

Route Information Route: ELLIOT RD Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2013 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Arizona Mills Mall to Superstition Springs Mall Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 30 60 Service Span (Hrs): 0 17 17 16 Daily Trips: 0 68 68 32 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 915 915 430 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 228,650 228,650 49,496 278,146 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $28,347,940 Total Program Fare Revenues: $3,257,346 Total Program Net Cost: $25,090,594 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $25,090,594 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 26.0% $6,523,555 0.9 Gilbert 74.0% $18,567,039 0.4 Mesa 0.0% $0 1.1 Tempe 0.0% $0 1.0 Total 100.0% $25,090,594 0.8 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $25,090,594 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Tempe and Mesa segments to be funded locally by Tempe and Mesa C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐85

Route Information Route: UNIVERSITY Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2016 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Ellsworth Rd\University Dr to S. Mtn Community College Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 60 Service Span (Hrs): 3 15 18 17 Daily Trips: 24 60 84 34 Revenue Miles

Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total

Daily: 666 1,666 2,332 944 ‐‐‐ Annual: 166,550 416,375 582,925 108,537 691,462 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $53,918,006 Total Program Fare Revenues: $10,514,011 Total Program Net Cost: $43,403,995 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $33,838,480 Jurisdictions

Percent of Miles Total Net Cost1 FY 2009 Boardings

per MileC Mesa 57.6% $24,986,460 1.5 Tempe 20.4% $8,852,020 1.9 Phoenix 22.0% $9,565,515 1.1 Total 100.0% $43,403,995 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $33,838,480 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐86

Route Information Route: DYSART Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Desert Sky Mall TC to Litchfield Park (similar to START Route ‐ 131) Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way Two‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Avondale 0.0% $0 0.5 Goodyear 0.0% $0 0.4 Litchfield Park 0.0% $0 0.1 Tolleson 0.0% $0 0.5 Phoenix 0.0% $0 2.1 Total 0.0% $0 0.7 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐87

Route Information Route: BROADWAY Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2018 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Superstition Springs TC to 35th Ave and Broadway Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 3 14 17 17 Daily Trips: 24 56 80 68 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 668 1,559 2,227 1,893 ‐‐‐ Annual: 167,050 389,800 556,850 217,730 774,580 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $50,388,423 Total Program Fare Revenues: $10,077,686 Total Program Net Cost: $40,310,737 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $27,350,797 Jurisdictions



MileC Mesa 48.9% $19,729,027 1.6 Tempe 18.9% $7,621,770 2.4 Phoenix 32.2% $12,959,941 2.1 Total 100.0% $40,310,737 2.0 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $27,350,797 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐88

Route Information Route: POWER RD Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2011 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Thomas Rd to Rittenhouse Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 30 60 Service Span (Hrs): 0 17 17 16 Daily Trips: 0 68 68 32 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 963 963 453 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 240,675 240,675 52,095 292,770 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $30,550,218 Total Program Fare Revenues: $4,525,295 Total Program Net Cost: $26,024,923 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $26,024,923 Jurisdictions



MileC Gilbert 22.4% $5,840,217 NA Mesa 77.6% $20,184,706 NA Total 100.0% $26,024,923 NA TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $26,024,923 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐89

Route Information Route: RAY RD Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2023 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: ASU Polytechnic\Phoenix Gateway Airport to I‐10 Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 30 60 Service Span (Hrs): 0 17 17 16 Daily Trips: 0 68 68 32 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 507 507 239 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 126,825 126,825 27,451 154,276 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $4,765,461 Total Program Fare Revenues: $476,546 Total Program Net Cost: $4,288,915 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $4,288,915 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 0.0% $0 NA Gilbert 100.0% $4,288,915 NA Mesa 0.0% $0 NA Tempe 0.0% $0 NA Total 100.0% $4,288,915 NA TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $4,288,915 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Tempe, Mesa and Chandler segments to be postponed beyond 2026 or funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐90

Route Information Route: TATUM 44TH ST Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Deer Valley Rd to University Dr Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Paradise Valley 0.0% $0 0.5 Phoenix 0.0% $0 2.0 Total 0.0% $0 1.9 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐91

Route Information Route: MCDOWELL MCKELLIPS Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2015 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Power Rd and McKellips Dr to Litchfield Rd and McDowell Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 4 14 18 17 Daily Trips: 32 56 88 68 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 867 1,518 2,385 1,843 ‐‐‐ Annual: 216,800 379,400 596,200 211,922 808,122 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $86,917,717 Total Program Fare Revenues: $22,712,319 Total Program Net Cost: $64,205,398 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $21,059,369 Jurisdictions



MileC Avondale 15.1% $9,695,014 0.0 Maricopa County 0.0% $0 NA Goodyear 3.7% $2,375,599 NA Mesa 0.0% $0 NA Scottsdale 10.3% $6,613,158 3.1 Tolleson 3.7% $2,375,599 NA Phoenix 67.2% $43,146,029 3.3 Total 100.0% $64,205,398 3.3 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $21,059,369 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Mesa and Maricopa County (Salt River) segments to be postponed beyond 2026 or funded locally B. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐92

Route Information Route: PEORIA SHEA Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Fountain Hills to Grand Ave and 111th Ave Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Maricopa County 0.0% $0 0.0 Fountain Hills 0.0% $0 NA Glendale 0.0% $0 2.4 Peoria 0.0% $0 2.8 Scottsdale 0.0% $0 1.3 Youngtown 0.0% $0 NA Phoenix 0.0% $0 2.3 Total 0.0% $0 2.1 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐93

Route Information Route: VAN BUREN Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2021 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Phoenix Zoo to Litchfield Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 3 16 19 18 Daily Trips: 24 64 88 72 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 562 1,500 2,062 1,687 ‐‐‐ Annual: 140,600 374,950 515,550 194,040 709,590 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $33,167,910 Total Program Fare Revenues: $8,291,979 Total Program Net Cost: $24,875,931 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $7,350,182 Jurisdictions



MileC Avondale 16.4% $4,070,110 0.4 Goodyear 2.6% $652,347 NA Tolleson 10.6% $2,627,725 0.3 Phoenix 70.5% $17,525,749 3.2 Total 100.0% $24,875,931 3.2 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $7,350,182 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐94

Route Information Route: BELL RD Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2022 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Loop 303 and Bell Rd to Shea Blvd and Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 4 14 18 17 Daily Trips: 32 56 88 68 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 1,218 2,131 3,348 2,587 ‐‐‐ Annual: 304,400 532,700 837,100 297,551 1,134,651 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $44,175,358 Total Program Fare Revenues: $11,043,838 Total Program Net Cost: $33,131,520 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $20,872,857 Jurisdictions



MileC Maricopa County 8.4% $2,783,047 0.0 Glendale 10.7% $3,545,072 2.5 Peoria 4.7% $1,557,182 NA Scottsdale 23.2% $7,686,513 1.0 Surprise 16.0% $5,301,043 NA Phoenix 37.0% $12,258,662 2.4 Total 100.0% $33,131,520 2.2 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $20,872,857 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐95

Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 15 30 15/30 30 Service Span (Hrs): 0 17 17 17 Daily Trips: 0 68 68 68 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 1,761 1,761 1,761 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 440,225 440,225 202,504 642,729 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $19,853,428 Total Program Fare Revenues: $4,963,356 Total Program Net Cost: $14,890,072 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $6,268,721 Jurisdictions



MileC Maricopa County 11.6% $1,727,249 0.0 Glendale 7.7% $1,146,536 1.4 Peoria 11.6% $1,727,249 NA Scottsdale 0.0% $0 NA Surprise 0.0% $0 NA El Mirage 9.3% $1,384,777 NA Youngtown 1.9% $282,911 NA Phoenix 57.9% $8,621,351 1.5 Total 100.0% $14,890,072 1.5 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $6,268,721 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix B. Scottsdale and Surprise segments to be postponed beyond 2026 or funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐96

Route Information Route: 99TH AVE Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Bell Rd to Buckeye Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Maricopa County 0.0% $0 NA Avondale 0.0% $0 NA Glendale 0.0% $0 NA Peoria 0.0% $0 NA Tolleson 0.0% $0 NA Phoenix 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐97

Route Information Route: BUCKEYE RD Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐

Route Description: Buckeye Rd and Litchfield RD to 44th St and Washington St

Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Avondale 0.0% $0 NA Goodyear 0.0% $0 NA Tolleson 0.0% $0 NA Phoenix 0.0% $0 1.2 Total 0.0% $0 NA TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐98

Route Information Route: DUNLAP OLIVE Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Dunlap\Olive Ave between Metrocenter and Litchfield Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way One‐way Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0/0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Maricopa County 0.0% $0 0.0 El Mirage 0.0% $0 NA Glendale 0.0% $0 2.9 Peoria 0.0% $0 NA Phoenix 0.0% $0 2.8 Youngtown 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 2.8 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐99

Route Information Route: INDIAN SCHOOL RD Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Bell Rd to Buckeye Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Avondale 0.0% $0 0.7 Goodyear 0.0% $0 NA Tolleson 0.0% $0 NA Litchfield Park 0.0% $0 NA Phoenix 0.0% $0 3.6 Scottsddale 0.0% $0 2.0 Total 0.0% $0 3.4 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐100

Route Information Route: QUEEN CREEK RD Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Price Rd to Power Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Chandler 0.0% $0 NA Gilbert 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐101

Route Information Route: THOMAS Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Dysart Rd (EMCC) to Pima Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Avondale 0.0% $0 0.5 Goodyear 0.0% $0 NA Scottsdale 0.0% $0 2.4 Phoenix 0.0% $0 4.2 Total 0.0% $0 4.0 TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐102

Route Information Route: LITCHFIELD RD Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: Beyond 2026 Fiscal Year End: ‐‐‐ Route Description: Litchfield Rd and Main St to R.H. Johnson Blvd (Sun City West) Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 0 0 0 Service Span (Hrs): 0 0 0 0 Daily Trips: 0 0 0 0 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $0 Total Program Fare Revenues: $0 Total Program Net Cost: $0 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $0 Jurisdictions



MileC Maricopa County 0.0% $0 NA Goodyear 0.0% $0 NA Glendale 0.0% $0 NA Litchfield Park 0.0% $0 NA Surprise 0.0% $0 NA Total 0.0% $0 NA TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $0 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐103

Route Information Route: 83RD 75TH AVE Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2023 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Arrowhead Mall to Desert Sky Mall via 83rd Ave Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 30 60 Service Span (Hrs): 0 18 18 16 Daily Trips: 0 72 72 32 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 936 936 416 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 234,000 234,000 47,840 281,840 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $8,705,838 Total Program Fare Revenues: $2,176,459 Total Program Net Cost: $6,529,379 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $5,021,092 Jurisdictions



MileC Glendale 23.1% $1,508,287 NA Peoria 53.8% $3,512,806 NA Phoenix 23.1% $1,508,287 NA Total 100.0% $6,529,379 NA TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $5,021,092 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Phoenix miles funded locally by Phoenix C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

D‐104

Route Information Route: GREENFIELD RD Service: Supergrid Fiscal Year Start: 2022 Fiscal Year End: 2026 Route Description: Thomas Rd and Greenfield Rd to Val Vista Dr South of Pecos Rd Service Levels One‐way or Two‐way ‐‐‐ Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Frequency (minutes): 0 30 30 60 Service Span (Hrs): 0 17 17 16 Daily Trips: 0 68 68 32 Revenue Miles Weekday Peak Weekday Off‐Peak Weekday Total Sat‐Sun‐Hol Annual Total Daily: 0 552 552 260 ‐‐‐ Annual: 0 138,050 138,050 29,877 167,927 Estimated Cost Total Program Gross Costs: $6,537,900 Total Program Fare Revenues: $653,790 Total Program Net Cost: $5,884,110 Total Less Phoenix Supergrid Service: $5,884,110 Jurisdictions



MileC Gilbert 100.0% $5,884,110 NA Mesa 0.0% $0 NA Total 100.0% $5,884,110 NA TLCP Total Value (Less Phoenix Supergrid Service) $5,884,110 Route Comments 1 Percent of Total Net Cost per jurisdiction may not match Percent of Miles due to variance in fare recovery rates and trip patterns by year and jurisdiction. A. Mesa segment to be postponed beyond 2026 or funded locally C. FY 2008‐2009 RPTA Annual Ridership Report

60

10

17

303

51101

101

202

202

PH

CO

SC

ME

GC

GO

PE

SU

AVGI

GL

SA

CH

TE

QC

BU

FH

PA

CO

CO

EL

TO

CO

LP

CO

COYO

CC

GU

CA REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONAUTHORITY

TLCP Modifications

Regionally FundedSupergrid Service

Legend

Regionally FundedSupergrid Service*

No PTF Reductions

Delayed or Reduced PTF Funding - Future Route

**Delayed or Reduced PTF Funding - Existing Route

**PTF Delayed Beyond 2026

December 5, 2009

**Some routes are programmed to receive regional funding atpre-Proposition 400 funding levels until PTF funding isprogrammed.

60

10

17

303

51101

101

202

202

PH

CO

SC

ME

GC

GO

PE

SU

AVGI

GL

SA

CH

TE

QC

BU

FH

PA

CO

CO

EL

TO

CO

LP

CO

COYO

CC

GU


TLCP Modifications

Locally FundedSupergrid Service

Legend

Supergrid Service*Locally Funded Supergrid Service

December 5, 2009

*Map includes routes 7, 8, 16, 19 & 35, which aredesignated as Supergird routes in the RegionalTransportation Plan, but are not included in the TLCP.

60

10

17

303

51101

101

202

202

PH

CO

SC

ME

GC

GO

PE

SU

AVGI

GL

SA

CH

TE

QC

BU

FH

PA

CO

CO

EL

TO

CO

LP

CO

COYO

CC

GU


TLCP Modifications

Existing Regionally FundedSupergrid Service

Legend

Existing RegionallyFunded Supergrid Service*

PTF Funding Advanced

PTF Funding Reduced

**PTF Funding Delayed

**PTF Funding Delayed Beyond 2026

December 5, 2009

**Some routes are programmed to receive regional funding atpre-Proposition 400 funding levels until PTF funding isprogrammed.

10

60

10

17

303

51101

101

202

202

PH

BU

CO

SU PE

SC

ME

GC

GOAV

GI

GLSA

CH

CO

TE

CC

CO

QC

WI

CO

FH

CO

PA

CO

CO

CA

EL

CO

CO

TO

CO

LP

CO

YO

GU

REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONAUTHORITY

TLCP Modifications

Existing Express Service*

Legend

Existing Express Service*No PTF Reductions

Shifted to Local Funding Begin FY 2011

Delayed or Reduced PTF Funding - Existing Route

December 5, 2009

*Map identifies all PTF funded Express\BRT Routes, includingPTF funded routes not identified in the 2003 Regional Transportation Plan.

10

60

10

17

303

51101

101

202

202

PH

BU

CO

SU PE

SC

ME

GC

GOAV

GI

GLSA

CH

CO

TE

CC

CO

QC

WI

CO

FH

CO

PA

CO

CO

CA

EL

CO

CO

TO

CO

LP

CO

YO

GU


TLCP Modifications

Future Express Routes*

Legend

Express RoutesNo PTF Reductions

Delayed or Reduced PTF Funding - Future Route

PTF Delayed Beyond 2026

December 5, 2009

*Map identifies all PTF funded Express\BRT Routes, includingPTF funded routes not identified in the 2003 Regional Transportation Plan.

60

10

17

303

51101

101

202

202

PH

CO

ME

SC

GC

GO

PE

AVGI

GL

SU

SA

CH

TE

QC

FH

PA

CO

CO

EL

TO

LP

CO

BU

YOCO

GU

CO


TLCP Modifications

Capital Facilities

Legend

BRT ROW ImprovementsNo PTF Funding Reductions

PTF Funding Delayed Beyond 2026

December 5, 2009

PTF dollar value for Glendale Grand and Loop 303 PNR facilities is programmed to be reduced. Newvalue shifted to Arrowhead PNR\TC.

* Two additional O&M facilities are programmed tobe delayed beyond 2026 (Rural facility and vanpool facility). Locations for these facilities have not beendetermined and are not illustrated on the map.

PTF Funding Advanced but Value Reduced

No PTF Funding Reductions

PTF Funding Reduced

TLCP Status

PTF Funding Delayed

PTF Funding Delayed Beyond 2026

Transit Center

Park-and-Ride Facility

Operations & Maintenance Facility

Transit Facility Type*

Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Working Group Final ... · 31/12/2009 · Final Report -...

Documents

Transcript of Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Working Group Final ... · 31/12/2009 · Final Report -...