1. 1 HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY April 2003 MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Final Presentation

2. 2 HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Today’s presentation: Project Overview Conclusions & Recommendations

3. 3 HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Project Overview

4. 4 THE PROJECT Identify forms of effective high-capacity transit services

5. 5 PROJECT VISION Commuter Rail along freight corridors Light Rail alternatives in other corridors Bus Rapid Transit alternatives in other corridors

6. 6 PROJECT VISION Feeder bus networks serving rail stations and park & rides

7. 7 PROJECT OVERVIEW MILESTONE 1 – Feb 2002 Public & Agency Involvement Plan MILESTONE 2 – May 2002 Needs and Opportunities MILESTONE 3 – July 2002 Identification of Alternatives MILESTONE 4 – Oct 2002 Evaluation of Alternatives MILESTONE 5 – Jan 2003 Regional High Capacity Transit Plan MILESTONE 6 – Apr 2003 Final Report

8. 8 Agency/Stakeholder Interviews Evaluation of Peer Transit Systems Preliminary Corridors/Technologies Initial Corridor Assessment Definition of Alternative HCT Networks Preliminary Corridors Evaluation Cost Effectiveness Rankings Refined Costs and Ridership Benefit-Cost Analysis Specific Reappraisal of Commuter Rail Application of MAG Model Forecasts KEY TASKS UNDERTAKEN Jan 02 April 03

9. 9 ORIGINAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS

10. 10 Commuter Rail: –BNSF –UP Yuma –UP Southeast –Up Chandler Express Bus: –US-60 –I-10 West –Loop 101 W. Valley –Loop 101 E. Valley –Loop 202 –Loop 303 –I-17 North Light Rail/Dedicated BRT: –Baseline –Bell –Camelback –Chandler Boulevard –Glendale/Cactus –59 th Avenue –I-10 West –Main Street (Mesa) –Metrocenter –Northern –Power –SR-51 –Scottsdale/Rural –UP Chandler –UP Tempe THE STUDY CORRIDORS

11. 11 COMMUTER RAIL MODEL RESULTS : Peer Comparison Line Distance (miles)Boardings Boardings per Mile MAG COMMUTER RAIL SKETCH PLAN FORECASTS BNSF288,073291 UP Yuma336,017185 UP Southeast364,552126 EXISTING COMMUTER RAIL Los Angeles Metrolink IE-OC593,00351 San Diego Coaster435,000116 Dallas Trinity Railway Express375,900159 San Jose Altamont Commuter Express823,30040 Toronto Go Transit Lakeshore East4240,715969 Chicago NICTD Southshore Line9012,800142 MAG corridors broadly in line with peers

12. 12 HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Conclusions and Recommendations

13. 13 Arterial-based LRT/BRT Network –Densities generate grid-based network –Most corridor demand more BRT suited –Later growth may require LRT –Certain exceptions (e.g. Bell, Glendale) Commuter Rail –Can provide regional connectivity –Longer-haul trips for conventional commute –Contribution limited for non-commute tripsCONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

14. 14 RECOMMENDED NETWORK (BRT/LRT corridors not alignment-specific)

15. 15 COMMUTER RAIL Phase 1 Service –3 Peak Period Trains, inbound am, outbound pm Phase 3 Service –15 minute peak service inbound –30 minute peak service outbound –Off-peak service (30 to 60 min frequency) –Reverse commute Intermediate phasing will vary by corridor, ridership, funding

16. 16 COMMUTER RAIL: OVERVIEW Corridor & PhaseTotal Capital Cost ($ millions) Daily Ridership BNSF PH 1$353.486,391 BNSF PH 3$741.6416,145 UP Southeast PH 1$282.882,235 UP Southeast PH 3$608.846,471 UP Yuma PH 1$190.284,722 UP Yuma PH 3$471.6712,034

17. 17 BRT/LRT: OVERVIEW LRT CorridorCapital Costs ($M)Daily Ridership 59 th Avenue$727.8112,829 Bell Road$1,102.2419,750 Camelback Road$349.368,126 Central Avenue South$228.035,749 Chandler Boulevard$683.7512,226 Glendale Avenue$429.227,226 I-10 West$399.3413,765 Main Street$373.639,697 Metrocenter/I-17$337.658,848 Power Road$465.108,653 Scottsdale Road$1,010.8420,672 SR-51$823.2812,334 UP Chandler Branch$460.8612,534

18. 18 PHASING SUMMARY Potential Near-term CorridorsPotential Medium-term CorridorsPotential Long-term Corridors BNSF Commuter Rail (startup) BNSF Commuter Rail (startup to Loop 303, ultimate to Bell) BNSF Commuter Rail (ultimate to Loop 303) UP Southeast Commuter Rail (startup) UP Southeast Commuter Rail (startup + reverse to Williams Gateway) UP Southeast Commuter Rail (ultimate) UP Yuma Commuter Rail (startup) UP Yuma Commuter Rail (ultimate) UP Chandler Branch (BRT/LRT) 59 th Avenue (Glendale to I-10 West) 59 th Ave (Bell-Glendale, I-10 W to Baseline) Bell Road (Scottsdale to 59 th )Bell Road (59 th to Loop 303) Camelback Road Central Avenue South Chandler Boulevard Glendale Avenue I-10 West Main Street Metrocenter/I-17 Power Road Scottsdale Rd (Camelback to CP-EV LRT) Scottsdale Rd (N downtown, S of CP-EV LRT) SR-51 (Central to Cactus) SR-51 (Cactus to Loop 101)

19. 19 Corridor-Specific MIS/AA Packages for BRT/LRT Opportunities: –Alignment/technology alternatives e.g. Bell,59 th,Glendale, I-10 West –(existing MIS/EIR outputs: Scottsdale, Mesa, CPEV) –CP/EV Connections: Glendale, Metrocenter/I-17, SR-51, Scottsdale, Camelback RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS

20. 20 Progress Commuter Rail Opportunities: –BNSF Grand Avenue/El Mirage relocation package –Develop specification for demonstration service –UP Yuma and SE: detailed ridership, revenue and cost appraisal of service, negotiations with UP RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS

21. 21 Regional Management and Funding –Focus on positives for Regional funding: Market & corridor segments (peak commute, campus trips One-fifth of zones have 10%+ transit share –RTP corridors: refine prioritization of corridors RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS

22. 22 Good case for High Capacity Transit Strong BRT and LRT grid substantially enhances: –Local mobility –Regional connectivity Commuter Rail on a par or better than many recent new startsFINALLYFINALLY

23. 23 HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY April 2003 MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Final Presentation

24. 24 HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

25. 25 HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TRC Issues Resolution

26. 26 Commuter Rail was ‘out but now ‘in’? –a perception from Oct 2002 Milestone 4 –some cities concerns addressed –Alternative technology review, reduced costs –New population/employment major factor Baseline Corridor? –Ridership review, but lower than dedicated BRT –Could be served by skip-stop service ISSUES RESOLUTION

27. 27 Grand Avenue BRT explored? –Cost estimates prepared at Glendale request –Best addressed in upcoming MIS Time to Review Results needed –Agreed: Final Report available mid-April (milestones compendium) –Mgt Committee, TRC, Regional Council, information/discussion ISSUES RESOLUTION

28. 28 How was modeling addressed? –two stages alternatives analysis recommended Network –sketch Planning and MAG models used –MAG results 30% higher, expected –sketch plan results more realistic in NW Valley with limited arterials ISSUES RESOLUTION

29. 29 Plan not financially constrained? –Study intended to be unconstrained –Recommendations carried forward to RTP Why 2040 as planning horizon? –Similar to Phase 1 RTP –In line with Draft 2 Socioeconomic Projections ISSUES RESOLUTION

30. 30 PHASING SUMMARY

31. 31 NETWORK: HEADWAYS

32. 32 CORRIDOR EVALUATION

33. 33 MODELED RIDERSHIP VOLUMES

34. 34 Commuter Rail-LRT-BRT Modeled Boardings Surprise/Loop 303 Sta. Bell & Grand Sta. Buckeye Sta. Queen Creek Sta.

35. 35 West Valley Growth: –address in future MAG model development Connectivity boosts existing transit –esp. CPEV LRT ridership Guides implementation priorities: –Incremental BRT development USING RIDERSHIP RESULTS