FINAL REPORT FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY … · · 2017-12-28FINAL REPORT FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY 2 This page intentionally left blank for printing

FINAL REPORT

FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY

1

FINAL REPORT


2

This page intentionally left blank for printing.

FINAL REPORT


3

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 7

2.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION DYNAMICS ....................................... 9

2.1 Demographic Profile .......................................................................................... 9

2.2 Community Destinations .................................................................................. 16

2.3 Regional Destinations ...................................................................................... 20

2.4 Existing Transit Characteristics ....................................................................... 21

2.5 Fountain Hills Travel Survey ............................................................................ 22

2.6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 26

3.0 TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS ......................................................................... 29

3.1 Transit Service Options ................................................................................... 29

3.2 Other Transportation Services ......................................................................... 39

3.3 Operating Cost Estimates ................................................................................ 41

3.4 Capital Cost Estimates .................................................................................... 47

4.0 DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS .................................................................... 49

4.1 Service Options to Consider ............................................................................ 51

Pre-Scheduled Shuttle ....................................................................................... 51

Valley Metro RideChoice Program ..................................................................... 53

4.2 Other Transit Improvement Options................................................................. 54

4.3 Future Initiatives .............................................................................................. 55

4.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 58

4.4 Funding Opportunities ..................................................................................... 58

APPENDICES............................................................................................................. 61

A.1 Review of Existing and On-going Plans and Studies ...................................... 63

A.2 Fountain Hills Bus Stop Inventory Memorandum ............................................ 71

FINAL REPORT


4


FINAL REPORT


5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study is intended to identify opportunities,

challenges, and overall demand for providing public transportation service and multi-

modal transportation investments in the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona. This study

began in January 2013 and concluded in December 2013.

Located in the northeastern portion of Maricopa County, Fountain Hills (the Town)

has experienced substantial population growth over the last few decades as the

Town’s scenic vistas, natural beauty, and relative proximity to large employment,

entertainment, and cultural centers have attracted residents and tourists alike.

Despite the Town’s significant growth, transportation options in Fountain Hills remain

limited. Through an analysis of existing and future development patterns,

demographic trends, and a community travel survey, this study identifies the Town’s

most pressing mobility needs and recommends transit service options that most

effectively satisfy these needs both for existing and future year trends.

To identify mobility needs and develop transport solutions, the following research

methods were employed: the assessment of demographic and employment trends,

an origin-destination and user preference survey, focus group discussions with town

staff and representatives from neighboring municipalities with public transportation

service, direct public outreach at major town events, and analysis of funding options.

From this process emerged a picture of future transit utilization and potential corridors

identified for service. It is important to note that ―transit‖ has many meanings and

service delivery options beyond a conventional city bus. A primary goal of this study

is providing increased mobility options – to both link people to necessary services as

well as improve quality-of-life – through innovative and flexible service options. These

include fixed route local bus service, enhanced express service, taxi voucher

programs, vanpools, and volunteer driver services.

Key Findings

The predominance of low density, single-family land use patterns in Fountain Hills

makes the provision of efficient transit service difficult, as evidenced by ridership

statistics on the Route 514, currently the only transit route serving the Town.

However, future development patterns in downtown Fountain Hills are expected to

be more compatible with transit service. The Town’s current land use planning

efforts emphasize increased densities in the downtown area, with a mixture of

FINAL REPORT


6

land uses. The higher density, mixed-use developments and bicycle/pedestrian

friendly infrastructure planned for the area will create a transit-conducive

environment, making downtown an ideal location to initiate transit service.

The growth in the population 65 years and older in Fountain Hills far outpaced

every other age cohort from 2000 to 2010. Over this period, the population 65

years and older grew by 48%, while the population 18-64 years of age increased

by just 7% and the population under 18 years of age decreased by 10%.

Approximately 25% of the Town’s population was 65 years of age or older in

2011.

The results of the community travel survey indicate transit service to regional

destinations is a primary concern for respondents. In response to a question

about the Town’s greatest transit needs, ―service to destinations around the

Valley‖ was the most frequent response. Similarly, when asked what destinations

they were very likely to access via transit, ―other destinations around the Valley‖

was the response most frequently selected.

Service Options and Next Steps

Successful transit service hinges upon appropriate concentrations of people, jobs,

and services that can be linked. Given the urban/rural setting of the town, coupled

with the population characteristics, it is important to focus on services that may be

tailored to the specialized mobility needs of the population, and be cognizant of the

costs public transportation services have. Based on the analyses performed

throughout the study, two service options emerged from the study that would be most

capable of satisfying the current and future travel needs of Fountain Hills’ residents.

These services include a pre-scheduled shuttle service or implementation of Valley

Metro’s RideChoice program. Both options offer affordable transportation service to

persons age 65 and older and those with disabilities. A pre-scheduled shuttle service,

similar to dial-a-ride service, could provide eligible Fountain Hills’ residents with a

flexible travel option that meets the varying mobility needs of different community

members. A second service option is the implementation of Valley Metro’s

RideChoice program, a form of demand-responsive service that provides vouchers to

eligible residents for subsidized taxi rides. The voucher may be used to help pay for

any portion of a traveler’s ride. In addition to the proposed service recommendations

detailed above, there are other transit improvements that could be made in Fountain

Hills, such as improvements to existing bus stops and pedestrian infrastructure. The

report also discusses a set of future initiatives that may be taken to improve transit

and transportation services in Fountain Hills.

FINAL REPORT


7

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona is situated

in the northeast portion of Maricopa County,

approximately 30 miles from downtown

Phoenix, the state’s capitol and most populated

city. Bordered by the City of Scottsdale to the

west, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Community to the south, the Fort McDowell

Yavapai Nation to the east, and the McDowell

Mountain Regional Park to the north, the Town

of Fountain Hills is renowned for its scenic

vistas and Upper Sonoran Desert beauty.

Incorporated by the Maricopa County Board of

Supervisors in 1989, the Town has witnessed

substantial growth over the last few decades.

Indeed, its population of 22,489 in 2010

represented a 124% growth from 1990. As the

Town’s population has grown, so have the

transportation needs of its residents. With just

one Valley Metro express bus route providing service to Fountains Hills, however,

residents are largely dependent on one mode — the private automobile — for their

transportation needs. With this in mind, the Town of Fountain Hills initiated a transit

needs assessment to determine the best course of action for ensuring the current

and future transportation needs of its residents are met.

1.1 Purpose of the Study

The Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study is a planning study designed to identify

opportunities, constraints, and overall demand for providing public transportation

services and multi-modal transportation investments in the Town of Fountain Hills.

Section 2 provides an analysis of the Town’s current socioeconomic characteristics

and identifies trends in the population dynamics that may affect future demand and

potential market for transit services. The results of a community travel survey—

conducted to determine current travel preferences and to collect valuable community

input on potential transit services - are also discussed in this section. Section 3

reviews several potential service options and presents approximate capital and

Figure 1. Fountain Park

FINAL REPORT


8

annual operating costs. Finally, the study concludes with Section 4 which discusses

the essential findings from each of the previous sections and makes

recommendations for the service options that best align with Town’s vision and most

effectively meet the community’s diverse transportation needs. A review of existing

and ongoing studies and a bus stop inventory are included as appendices to the

study.

FINAL REPORT


9

2.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION DYNAMICS

An analysis of the Town’s current socioeconomic characteristics was conducted to

identify trends in population dynamics that may affect future demand and potential

market for transit services. This chapter also identifies community and regional

destinations that warrant consideration as potential transit service options are

developed. Finally, the results of a community travel survey are also discussed.

2.1 Demographic Profile

Population demographics can serve as an important indicator of potential demand for

public transportation services. Nationally, the rapid growth in senior populations is

expected to increase the need for expanded public transportation services. As the

Town of Fountain Hills and the region continue to grow, understanding the population

trends will be important toward identifying a range of actions necessary to expand

mobility options. Thus, relevant demographic data for the Town of Fountain Hills was

collected and is summarized herein. This analysis principally uses U.S. Census

Bureau data, including decennial Census data from the 2010 Census and 2007-2011

American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates—a revolving survey of

households conducted annually—to identify current trends and population

characteristics.

2.1.1 Population Change

The last few decades have marked a period of immense growth in Maricopa County

(the County), and the Town of Fountain Hills (the Town). From 1980 to 2010, the

Town experienced a staggering growth rate of 712%, adding 19,718 new residents,

as compared to the County’s growth rate of 153% (2,307,942 new residents). While

substantial growth continued in the first five years of the new millennia, the national

and regional financial downturn of 2007-2009 tempered the pace of growth in

Fountain Hills and the County. The population growth trends exhibited over the past

10 years are fairly consistent with the growth trends over the past 30 years, although

the County’s population growth did outpace the Town’s growth during a shorter time

period. According to the 2010 Census, the population of Fountain Hills was 22,489,

an 11% increase from 2000. In this same period, Maricopa County witnessed a 24%

increase in population. Looking forward, population forecast data for planning horizon

year 2035 provided by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) projects that

FINAL REPORT


10

Fountain Hills will continue to grow to a population near 34,000, or an approximate

increase of 53% above the current 2010 population base.

2.1.2 Employment Characteristics

Consideration of the community’s existing employment characteristics can be an

indicator of the type of service that may be most attractive to the Town. Some jobs

require access to private transportation regularly, while other jobs often result in

persons traveling from one point to another for the duration of their work day. The

ability to offer a transit service that quickly transports persons who typically drive and

park at their destination for a work day creates an attractive and cost-efficient travel

option.

According to ACS data, the Town of Fountain Hills has a lower unemployment rate

than the regional average—6.8% as compared to the County’s unemployment

percentage of 8.3%. The greatest share of Fountain Hills’ residents are employed in

industries which include educational services, health care, and social assistance

(22.8%). While a majority of Fountain Hills’ residents are employed in social service

industries, the workforce also includes a strong number of persons employed in

business and scientific fields. Generally speaking, persons employed in these types

of industries may be more likely to drive to work, although depending on their specific

nature of their job (e.g., a position that requires minimal daily travel), transit may offer

an alternative transport option.

2.1.3 Commuting to Work

Due to the high rate of vehicle ownership and the lack of public transportation

options, over 78% of residents in Fountain Hills drive to work alone, according to

Census data on commuting to work travel patterns. This percentage is slightly higher

than the percentage for Maricopa County (75.8%). When considered in the context of

the employment characteristic data discussed above, the data for commuting

patterns is somewhat reflective of the types of jobs residents of Fountain Hills hold.

Interestingly, Fountain Hills does have a higher proportion of residents who work from

home (11.6%) as compared to the proportion of Maricopa County residents who work

from home (5.5%).

Unsurprisingly, only 0.3% of commuters indicated they used public transportation to

commute to work regularly. This is most likely due to the limited availability of transit

options currently serving the community. At present, the Route 514 makes only two

FINAL REPORT


11

morning and two evening trips to Fountain Hills. Interestingly, a relatively strong

percentage of residents indicated they carpooled (7.2%), while 0.8% walked to work.

The remaining 1.9% of residents chose some other method of transportation for

commuting purposes. The breakdown of commute modes in Fountain Hills is

presented in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Work Commute Mode Share in Fountain Hills

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

Residents of Fountain Hills also experienced greater average travel times when

commuting to employment centers in downtown Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa

and other locations throughout the Valley. The data indicate that the average

commute time for Fountain Hills’ residents was 27.8 minutes as compared to the

average commute time for all Maricopa County residents of 25.6 minutes. While a

difference of only 2.2 minutes may seem insignificant, as both the metropolitan region

and the Town of Fountain Hills continue to grow, it is likely that travel times will further

increase, particularly when travel options are overwhelmingly limited to a single

mode.

78%

12%

7%

2% 1% <1%

Drive Alone

Work from Home

Carpool

Other Means

Walk

Public Transportation

FINAL REPORT


12

2.1.4 Factors Contributing to Transit Dependency

Transit dependency is a term used in transit planning that refers to populations for

whom mobility may be limited, either by access to private transportation or the ability

to drive independently, and how transit service can help provide basic mobility needs.

Several factors can contribute to transit dependency and usually include the following

criteria:

No access to private transportation

Elderly (65 and over)

Youths (under age 18)

Below the poverty level

Persons with disabilities

As the mobility needs of these populations vary considerably more as compared to

the transportation needs of the general population, consideration of potential transit

dependent populations is essential when planning public transportation service.

According to 2007-2011 ACS 5-year estimate data, nearly 238 (2.4%) of the 10,030

occupied housing units in Fountain Hills had no available vehicles, which is below the

6.5% County average. Lacking a private transportation option, these residents may

rely on public transportation, carpools, car sharing, or non-motorized modes for

mobility. Nearly half of the housing units surveyed indicated access to at least 2

vehicles (48.1%), well above the 2-vehicle average of 39.4% for Maricopa County.

Those that had access to one vehicle accounted for 31.7% of housing units, while

17.7% had access to 3 or more vehicles.

In spite of the vehicle availability statistics, a closer look at the Town’s age cohorts

suggests that rapid population changes are occurring in the Town that will likely

require the incorporation of multiple transportation modes to satisfy basic mobility in

the future. In 2011, ACS data estimates that residents 65 and over would account for

roughly 25% (5,766) of the Town’s total population, while residents under 18

accounted for 15% (3,379) of the Town’s total population, respectively. Together,

these two age groups comprised 40% of the Town’s total population. Analysis of

decennial Census data reveals that the population 65 and over experienced a 48%

growth from 2000 to 2010, far greater than the 7% increase in the 18 - 64 population.

Perhaps most telling was the 10% decrease in the Town’s 18 and under population.

Figure 3 depicts that population age cohort data and the population change

experienced by the Town. The observed trends in population age suggest that the

FINAL REPORT


13

Town of Fountain Hills will continue to grow, but the average age of the Town’s

population will continue to trend toward the 65 and over population, nearing or at

retirement ages. These trends may affect how potential transit service would operate

in Fountain Hills.

Figure 3. Percent Growth by Age Cohort in Fountain Hills: 2000 - 2010

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census

Those with income below the poverty level are also more likely to be dependent on

transit. In 2011, this population accounted for 3% (208) of families and 5.3% (1,199)

of all residents in Fountain Hills. While these figures are well below the county

averages of 10.9% (families) and 14.9% (individuals), they still highlight a population

in Fountain Hills more likely to rely on transit than the general population.

A final factor known to contribute to transit dependency is the prevalence of persons

with disabilities living in a community. The Census Bureau breaks disabilities down

into the following categories: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty,

ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. In Fountain

Hills in 2011, 1,951 fell into one of these categories, which accounted for 8.6% of the

population. A majority of these, 1,213 (62%), were 65 and over. These citizens may

require more specialized transportation services to assist them with their mobility

needs.

-10%

7%

48%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Under 18 18-64 65 and over

FINAL REPORT


14

2.1.4 Title VI Populations

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has become increasingly important when

planning new transit service or making modifications to existing services with respect

to equity. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national

origin in programs and activities that receive federal funding. In 2012, Valley Metro

conducted a comprehensive Title VI analysis of all transit services in the Phoenix

metropolitan area, including Fountain Hills. Based on this analysis, no Title VI issues

were identified with regard to transit services in Fountain Hills. In response to new

federal reporting requirements for Title VI, Valley Metro has revised their Title VI

policies with respect to fare and service adjustments to ensure protected populations

are not adversely affected. More information about Valley Metro’s civil rights program

can be found here: http://www.valleymetro.org/accessibility/customer_rights

2.1.5 Transit Propensity

The demographic characteristics of the study area serve an important role in

identifying the potential market for public transportation services. When mapped

spatially, demographic data can be a telling indicator of where transit services may be

most productive toward achieving a satisfactory cost-benefit ratio. Specifically, a tool

transit planners often use is a propensity test, a calculation used to determine the

relative propensity of a geographic area to use public transportation services relative

to the demographic characteristics of the area in question. Transit propensity is the

measure of the likelihood that a local population will use transit service, were they

available. The end result is an estimate of the relative propensity for transit utilization

by Census tract or block group (depending on the geographic analysis level the test

was conducted for).

Considering all of the socioeconomic factors discussed above collectively, a picture

of aggregate transportation demand begins to emerge. The population density was

mapped spatially, along with the locations of primary community destinations

(discussed in greater detail below), to illustrate where market demand for public

transportation is potentially greatest. This approach will serve as an intuitive aide

when considering potential routing options for transit services to maximize a return on

investment and utilization. Figure 4 illustrates the location of select activity centers

mapped over population demographic data to illustrate potential markets transit could

best serve.

http://www.valleymetro.org/accessibility/customer_rights

FINAL REPORT


15

Figure 4. Aggregate Need for Transit Service in Fountain Hills

FINAL REPORT


16

2.2 Community Destinations

In addition to identifying existing population demographics, the identification of major

commercial destinations and job or activity centers is also an essential component in

determining a community’s primary corridors and travel patterns. As the facilities

identified below represent destinations frequently accessed by Town residents,

understanding their geographic distribution helps in the development of transit

services most beneficial to the Town. For the purpose of this analysis, major

destinations include shopping centers, community facilities, schools, medical centers,

senior living facilities, and key employers.

2.2.1 Commercial Shopping Centers

The Town of Fountain Hills is home to a number of shopping centers that house a

variety of retail, dining, and entertainment options. These centers are primarily

focused in the downtown area and along Shea Boulevard. A list of the major

shopping centers is provided below in Table 1.

Table 1. Commercial Shopping Centers in Fountain Hills

SHOPPING CENTER/ANCHOR LOCATION

Palisades Plaza / Safeway Fountain Hills and Palisades Boulevards

Town Center I Includes all businesses bordered by Palisades Blvd, Fountain Hills Blvd, Avendia Vida Buena, and Avenue of the Fountains

Fountain Hills Plaza / Bashas’ Palisades Blvd and La Montana Drive

Downtown Fountain Hills Includes all businesses bordered by Saguaro Blvd, Palisades Blvd, La Montana Dr, and Avenue of the Fountains

Four Peaks Plaza / Target Located on Shea Blvd just west of Saguaro Blvd

Eagle Mountain Village Plaza / Fry’s On Shea Blvd at the southwest edge of Fountain Hills

FINAL REPORT


17

2.2.2 Community Facilities

A number of municipal and community services are available to residents of Fountain

Hills. These include law enforcement, fire protection, a community center, a library,

and a post office, which are primarily located in the downtown area. A full list of these

facilities is provided below in Table 2.

Table 2. Community Facilities in Fountain Hills

Facility Address

Community Center 13001 N La Montana Dr

Library 12901 N. La Montana Dr

Post Office 16605 E. Avenue of the Fountains

Town Hall 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains

Fire Station 1 16246 E. Palisades Blvd

Fire Station 2 16821 E. Saguaro Blvd

2.2.3 Schools

The Fountain Hills Unified School District (FHUSD) consists of four public schools

with a total enrollment of over 2,200 students. Morning and afternoon bus

transportation is provided to each of these schools. In addition to its public schools,

the Town is also home to one charter school and one vocational center. A full list of

schools and enrollment figures (where available) is provided in Table 3 below.

FINAL REPORT


18

Table 3. Schools in Fountain Hills

Public Schools Address Enrollment

Fountain Hills High School 16100 E. Palisades Blvd 756

Fountain Hills Middle School 16000 E. Palisades Blvd 511

Four Peaks Elementary 15414 North McDowell Mountain Road

458

McDowell Mountain Elementary School 14825 N. Fayette Drive 482

Charter Schools

Fountain Hills Charter School 16811 E. El Pueblo Blvd Not available

Vocational Schools

East Valley Institute of Technology Vocational Center

14615 N. Del Cambre Avenue Not available

2.2.4 Medical Centers

A wide variety of medical facilities and services are available to residents of Fountain

Hills. Two well renowned regional hospitals, the Mayo Clinic and Scottsdale

Healthcare Shea Medical Center, are located in neighboring Scottsdale. In addition to

these hospitals, the Town offers a number of family practices, specialty clinics, and

senior living facilities to fulfill the medical and home care needs of its residents. A

listing of these facilities is provided in Table 4 below.

FINAL REPORT


19

Table 4. Medical Facilities in Fountain Hills

Hospitals/Medical Centers Address

Mayo Clinic 13400 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ

Scottsdale Healthcare Shea Medical Center 9003 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ

Medical Clinics

Fountain Hills Medical Campus 16605 E. Palisades Blvd, Suite 150

Fountain Hills Family Practice, P.C. 16838 E. Palisades Blvd, Building C, Suite 153

Fountain Hills Pediatrics & Internal Medicine 13620 N. Saguaro Blvd, #50

Desert Community Medical Associates 13215 N. Verde River Dr, Suite 6

StatClinix Fountain Hills Urgent Care 17225 E. Shea Blvd, Suite 105

Senior Living Facilities

Arizona Fountain Terrace 14654 del Cambre Ave

Fountain View Village 16455 E. Avenue of the Fountains

Desert Paradise Assisted Home 17409 E. San Marcos

2.2.5 Employers

The Fountain Hills Unified School District (FHUSD) is the Town’s largest employer

with 651 full and part-time employees. In addition to the FHUSD, there are a number

of businesses and organizations that boast a substantial number of employees

including Safeway, R.E. Monk Construction, and MCO Realty. A list of the top ten

employers in Fountain Hills is provided in Table 5 below.

FINAL REPORT


20

Table 5. Major Employers in Fountain Hills

Employer Address Approximate Number of Employees

Fountain Hills Unified School District 16100 E. Palisades Blvd 651

Safeway 13733 N. Fountain Hills Blvd 150

R.E. Monk Construction 16646 E. Laser Dr 110

MCO Realty 9617 N. Saguaro Blvd 103

Fry's 14845 E. Shea Blvd 96

Eagle Mountain Golf Course 14915 E. Eagle Mountain Pkwy 69

Town of Fountain Hills 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains 61

Bashas’ 16605 E. Palisades Blvd 66

SunRidge Canyon Golf Club 13100 N. Sunridge Dr 58

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains 33

2.3 Regional Destinations

In addition to local community destinations and facilities, several regional destinations

also influence the travel patterns of local residents. The Town of Fountain Hills is

located within relative proximity to numerous downtowns of neighboring communities

that feature cultural and recreational attractions in addition to serving as major

employment centers. Downtown Scottsdale is home to a myriad of unique shops,

restaurants, galleries, museums, theaters, and resorts that attract Valley residents

and tourists alike. The Scottsdale Airport is a single runway facility that provides air

transport services to vacationers and business travelers. The airport and surrounding

Commerce Airpark is a major employment center, with over 30 regional and national

headquarters, 2,500 small and moderate-sized businesses, and over 48,000 jobs.

Located southwest of Fountain Hills, downtown Tempe is the site of Arizona State

University’s main campus with a student body of approximately 60,000. In addition to

ASU, downtown Tempe features the famed Mill Avenue District and Tempe Beach

Park, home to some of the Valley’s largest special events. In the City of Mesa, the

downtown area has experienced a recent renaissance with the growth of several

small businesses, higher education campuses, and new civic spaces that have

helped to establish downtown Mesa as a regional destination. The Mesa Arts Center

FINAL REPORT


21

anchors the emerging downtown entertainment district, and the extension of light rail

transit will provide a direct connection to other major regional activity centers and

destinations. Lastly, further southwest of Fountain Hills is downtown Phoenix, an

enormous employment center and home to state and regional governmental facilities,

the Phoenix Suns and Arizona Diamondbacks stadiums, and several theaters,

museums, shops, and restaurants. All of these urban areas are well connected to the

transit network, with bus and/or light rail service providing direct linkages between

each.

2.4 Existing Transit Characteristics

Transit service in the Town of Fountain Hills is currently limited to Route 514, an

express route that travels through Scottsdale with continued service to downtown

Phoenix. Providing service in Fountain Hills along Shea and Palisades Boulevards,

the Route 514 offers two inbound and two outbound trips Monday through Friday.

The Route 514 currently serves nearly 300 riders per month in Fountain Hills, with the

entire route (including Fountain Hills, Scottsdale, and Phoenix) boasting a monthly

ridership of 1,600.

Although transit service within the Town of Fountain Hills is currently limited to Route

514, there are a number of routes nearby that provide service to various destinations

throughout the Valley. Route 80 provides service from Scottsdale to Paradise Valley

Transit Center along Shea Blvd. There is also another express route, the 511, which

provides service from the Scottsdale Airpark in north Scottsdale to downtown Tempe.

Routes 72 and 81 run along Scottsdale/Rural and Hayden/McClintock Roads

respectively and provide service to a number of key destinations in Scottsdale,

Tempe, and Chandler. Finally, Route 170 provides service along Bell Rd to

destinations in Scottsdale, Phoenix, Glendale, and Peoria.

Future transit services and facilities in the area may also be beneficial to residents of

Fountain Hills. One such facility is the Thunderbird Park-and-Ride on the southeast

corner of Scottsdale Rd and Thunderbird. Featuring 275 spaces—173 of which are

covered—this new facility is served by Route 72 and Express Route 511.

Additionally, the Thunderbird Park-and-Ride will eventually be serviced by a new

LINK route, Valley Metro’s arterial bus rapid transit service. The planned route will

provide limited stop service along the Scottsdale/Rural Rd corridor between the

Thunderbird Park-and-Ride and the University Drive/Rural Road light rail station in

Tempe it its first phase, with eventual service to Downtown Chandler. The new LINK

FINAL REPORT


22

route will offer enhanced passenger amenities and facilities, improved travel times,

and increased accessibility to the Valley Metro light rail system.

2.5 Fountain Hills Travel Survey

In effort to determine community support and demand for transit services, a brief

travel survey was developed to understand the travel preferences and desired

destinations within Fountain Hills and the greater Phoenix metropolitan region.

Household travel surveys such as this are used to obtain information about work and

non-work trip generation, trip distribution, and modal choice. Although the survey was

not statistically valid, the survey results provide a snapshot of transit needs and

desires in Fountain Hills. This survey was administered at key community locations

within Fountain Hills and made available online (via the websites of Valley Metro and

the Town of Fountain Hills). Participant interviews were conducted by Valley Metro

representatives at several community events including the Great Fair, along with

interviews conducted at community facilities such as the Community Center and

Bashas’ supermarket. Substantial efforts were made to publicize the survey including

a Valley Metro news release, articles published in the Arizona Republic and the

Fountain Hills Times, and recurring advertisements on Channel 11 in Fountain Hills.

These efforts culminated in the collection of 469 surveys, the results of which are

discussed at length below.

2.5.1 Travel Survey Results

The majority of respondents (84%) identified themselves as residents of Fountain

Hills, with the next greatest share (3%) indicating they were from Scottsdale.

Additionally, 1% of respondents identified themselves as residents of Rio Verde, as

did residents of Phoenix. Most of the remaining respondents (8.7%) provided no

response, with additional Valley locations accounting for less than 1% each. Initially,

there was concern that placing the survey on the Valley Metro website would result in

a majority of respondents being non-Fountain Hills residents. While this proved not to

be the case, the survey did not differentiate between permanent residents and part-

time residents. In general, survey respondents tended to be older, with 14% between

the ages of 51 and 60, 28% between the ages of 61 and 70, and 26% over the age of

70 (see Figure 5 below). Together, those over the age of 50 accounted for 69% of

respondents.

FINAL REPORT


23

Figure 5. Age of Respondents

Source: Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study Travel Survey, 2013

Most respondents (63%) indicated that they had never used any of Valley Metro’s

transit service options in the past. Of those who replied that they had used transit

services previously, 38% indicated they had used Express Route 514 with service to

downtown Phoenix, 36% said they had used Route 106 on Shea Blvd (which Route

80 replaced in Scottsdale in July of 2013), and 42% said they had used some other

route. While the number of respondents who indicated they were transit users may

seem high for a community with limited transit options, the frequency with which

these services are utilized is minimal. When asked how frequently transit services

were used, most respondents indicated they used transit a few times a year (19%).

Just 4% replied that they were daily transit users, with weekly and monthly riders

accounting for another 3% and 4% of respondents respectively.

Understanding the barriers to greater transit use is an important component when

assessing the public transportation needs of a community. These can range from

issues pertaining to the quality of the service (e.g. infrequent service, lack of options)

to those pertaining to the user (perception of transit, lack of need). When asked why

transit service hadn’t been utilized in the past, the greatest share of respondents (41

%) indicated a simple preference for driving (Figure 6). But respondents also cited the

quality of service as reasons for not using transit services previously. A significant

share (34%) of respondents cited the lack of bus service, 23% said available transit

options fail to take riders to desired destinations, 16% said transit commute times

0.2% 2%

7%

12%

14%

28%

26%

10% Under 18

18-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

Over 70

No Response

FINAL REPORT


24

were too long, and 14% said bus stops were too far to walk to. While each of these

issues is complex, a full 51% of respondents indicated that they would consider using

transit were it more convenient.

Figure 6. Reasons for Not Using Transit


Survey respondents were also asked to identify what they believed to be the most

important transit needs in Fountain Hills. The greatest share of respondents (57%)

identified service to destinations around the Valley as the most essential transit need,

while 45% said service to destinations within Fountain Hills was most important. Fifty-

four percent said that the greatest transit need was to assist residents with limited or

no other means of mobility, an issue that may become more pressing considering the

Town’s demographic trends. Finally, 45% of respondents identified the frequency of

bus service as the most important transit need, with an additional 28% citing the need

for more bus stops.

To further define areas of need, a number of key destinations were selected for

inclusion in the survey to determine how likely respondents would be to use transit

services, were they available, to access these sites. The results further demonstrated

respondents’ desire for service to destinations outside of Fountain Hills. As shown in

Table 6 below, the option that elicited the greatest share of ―very likely‖ responses

was ―other destinations around the Valley‖ with 29%. Downtown Fountain Hills was

16%

16%

23%

14%

34%

41%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Other

Takes too long to get where I want to go

Doesn't go where I want it to

Too far to walk to bus stop

There is no bus service in my area

I prefer to drive

FINAL REPORT


25

the next most likely destination accessed by potential transit service with 27%. Local

shopping centers and grocery stores were also identified as appropriate destinations,

with 26% and 25% of respondents indicating they would be very likely to use transit

to access these sites. Finally, respondents indicated that medical facilities outside of

the Town of Fountain Hills were necessary destinations for any potential transit

service. Considering the demographic trends of the community, this is a need that

may grow exponentially as older residents with limited mobility seek required medical

care.

Table 6. Destinations Very Likely to be Accessed by Transit

Destination % Respondents

Other Valley Destinations 29%

Downtown Fountain Hills 27%

Local Shopping Centers 26%

Local Grocery Stores 25%

Medical Appointments outside of Fountain Hills 25%


Transit services exist to serve the mobility needs of a range of populations and

demographic groups, which often vary by mode/type of service. Thus, when

considering transit service in an area, it is essential to understand not only the

demographic trends of the community, but also its needs and wishes. With this in

mind, survey respondents were presented with a list of transit modes and services

and asked to select those they would use were they available in Fountain Hills. The

most popular response was light rail/commuter rail, with nearly half (49%) of

respondents indicating they would use such a service were it available. Similar

support was voiced for express bus/downtown service and local bus/neighborhood

circulator, with 47% and 45% of respondents indicating they would utilize these

services. Twenty-six percent of respondents said they would utilize a park-and-ride

facility, which lends further support for express service as most park-and-rides are

served by express routes. Lastly, 17% of respondents indicated they would use a taxi

voucher program, a service option that can be effective when fixed route service is

simply not feasible. The full listing of responses is summarized in Figure 7 below.

FINAL REPORT


26

Figure 7. Likelihood of Transit Use by Type of Service


2.6 Conclusions

An analysis of the demographic data presented above highlights a number of unique

challenges and opportunities in planning future transit service for the Town of

Fountain Hills. One challenge is the Town’s aging population. In the last decade, the

residential population of persons over the age of 65 grew dramatically, the largest

population segment growth within the town. The increasing age of the Town’s

population will likely require more specialized transportation services in the future.

The needs of this and other transit dependent populations warrant strong

consideration when planning future service. Existing land use patterns present

another challenge. With the predominance of single family developments and the

absence of a core activity center, developing effective transit services may prove to

be difficult. However, with the development envisioned in the Downtown Vision Plan,

the concentration of numerous amenities and facilities in a centralized area may

induce travel demand and help shape future transit service.

In addition to the demographic data, the presence of activity centers or primary

destinations within the Town and immediate metropolitan region are also important to

consider as places community members may wish to go or may need access to now

or in the future. Connecting residents with community activity centers and facilities,

46%

45%

49%

17%

26%

16%

14%

12%

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

Express Bus/Downtown Service

Local Bus/Neighborhood Circulator

Light Rail/Commuter Rail

Taxi Voucher Program

Park-and-Ride

Dial-a-Ride Program

Paid/Unpaid Volunteer Driver Program

Carpool/Vanpool Program

FINAL REPORT


27

particularly those residents who may have limited mobility means, is important toward

their individual well-being but also yield communal benefits.

Results of the travel survey suggest a need for more travel options serving Fountain

Hills. Considering the aging population base, providing a mixture of services will be

essential to sustaining the local quality-of-life, as driving private automobiles may not

always be feasible. Furthermore, there is an economic component to transit service

that may be unrealized at this time. Survey respondents indicated a desire for access

to community facilities and shopping centers. Providing service to these and other

key locations may stimulate business as new patrons who may not have made the

trip otherwise take advantage of new transportation options.

FINAL REPORT


28


FINAL REPORT


29

3.0 TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS

Based on the findings summarized in the previous section, a series of potential transit

service options, ranging from fixed-route local bus service to demand-responsive

services, were developed for consideration. The proposed service options were

based in part on the anticipated demand for transit service, and in consideration of

the projected capital and operating costs associated with each service option and

available funding. Each of these components is explored below.

3.1 Transit Service Options

Seven potential transit service options were developed for consideration. The options

include:

1. Doubling the number of trips made by Express Route 514 (the only Valley

Metro route currently serving the Town of Fountain Hills)

2. Extending the Route 80 from its current peak period stop at the Mayo Clinic to

the Target shopping plaza in Fountain Hills

3. Implementation of a new community connector shuttle service (three options

were developed)

4. Joining the Valley Metro RideChoice program

5. Purchasing vans for the Fountain Hills Activity Center to use for transporting

community members locally as available

6. Enhancing Park-and-Ride as a commuting option

7. On-demand transit Option

The options that would operate on a fixed-route alignment are illustrated in Figure 8.

FINAL REPORT


30

Figure 8. Potential Transit Service Options

FINAL REPORT


31

3.1.1 Option 1: Increase the Number of Trips on Express Route 514

Transit service in Fountain Hills is currently limited to Route 514, an express route

that features two morning and two afternoon trips from Palisades Blvd and La

Montana Drive in Fountain Hills to Downtown Phoenix. After a decrease in ridership

in 2009, annual passenger boardings for the Fountain Hills portion of the route have

risen steadily (though ridership for the entire route has fallen), suggesting a growing

transit population base of weekday commuters in Fountain Hills. Annual ridership in

Fountain Hills for the 2012 fiscal year was 2,656, accounting for 16% of the ridership

for the entire route.

The proposed service option involves doubling the number of trips on Route 514 to

four inbound (AM) and four outbound (PM) trips. Increasing the number of trips would

serve two purposes. First, expanding the hours of service and adding two morning

and two afternoon trips would provide additional opportunities for users to take transit

to destinations in Scottsdale and Phoenix. The last inbound trip currently departs

from downtown Fountain Hills at 6:04 AM, with a 7:40 arrival time in downtown

Phoenix. Providing two later trips may attract new transit users who wish to arrive in

Phoenix between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and return home later in the evening.

Second, the proposed Valley Metro service standard for limited stop express service

requires four inbound and four outbound trips. Thus, the proposed addition of two

trips would bring the Route 514 into compliance with the proposed standards.

With regards to expected ridership with this service option, doubling the trips on

Route 514 is unlikely to provide an equal growth in ridership. While the additional

trips may entice new riders who currently use some other form of transportation, the

added service could also have the effect of spreading existing ridership. An analysis

of prior service improvements to express routes in communities with similar

characteristics as Fountain Hills and their effect on ridership volumes (as reported in

annual Valley Metro Ridership Reports) suggest that doubling the trips on Route 514

would increase ridership by approximately 10%. Considering existing ridership, this

equates to an increase of between 510 and 1,020 trips per year.

FINAL REPORT


32

Figure 9. Route 80 Extension

3.1.2 Option 2: Extend the Route 80

Valley Metro’s Route 80

provides service to

destinations in Glendale,

Phoenix, and Scottsdale

along the Northern and Shea

corridors. Although Route

80’s primary corridor

stretches from 59th Ave and

Northern in Glendale to 90th

St and Shea Blvd in

Scottsdale, it also provides

weekday peak service to the

Mayo Clinic (four morning

trips and four afternoon trips). This proposed service option would extend these peak

trips from the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale to the Target store in Fountain Hills at the

intersection of Shea and Saguaro Boulevards (illustrated in yellow in Figure 9). The

extension would also provide eight trips to Fountain Hills on Saturdays and Sundays,

although this would require extending the route from 90th St and Shea Blvd, as it

currently offers no weekend service to the Mayo Clinic. It is important to note that

federal regulations require complementary paratransit service with the provision of

local fixed-route service. Thus, in addition to extending the Route 80, this option

would require the Town to provide ADA-compliant paratransit services, such as those

provided by the East Valley Dial-a-Ride service.

Providing local bus service in Fountain Hills via an extension of Route 80 would

connect the community to the greater transit network and a thus to destinations

Valley-wide. Although offering just eight trips per day (seven on weekends) initially,

more could be added should sufficient ridership or demand exist.

However, the lack of pedestrian infrastructure connecting residential areas to Shea

Boulevard, coupled with the vehicle speeds and slopes of the road, do not provide

safe or convenient places for potential passengers to wait for the bus, or locations for

the bus to temporarily stop. Given that the service would only operate during the peak

period, it is anticipated that a minimal number of passengers would use this type of

service. Riders using Route 80 would most likely come from points outside of

Fountain Hills, destined for service industry jobs, with boardings at night taking these

FINAL REPORT


33

Figure 10. Community Connector Alternative 1

riders home, likely to points outside of Fountain Hills. Valley Metro service planning

staff recommend that extension of the Route 80 along Shea Boulevard should also

include an extension north along Saguaro Boulevard with service to downtown

Fountain Hills (shown in Figure 9 as the dotted black line). Saguaro Boulevard is an

emerging transit market, with clusters of dense residential developments, several of

which are multi-unit developments. A transit service along this road could capitalize

on the residential density, and link origins and destinations within the community

more effectively.

3.1.3 Option 3: Community Connectors

A community connector

service may also be an

effective transit option for the

Town of Fountain Hills. This

type of service is typically

used to provide connections

to regional fixed route transit

services (local bus or rail) or

local activity nodes. Although

specific routing, scheduling,

and vehicle type decisions

can be adjusted as travel

patterns and ridership

warrant, three route alignment alternatives were developed for the purpose of this

analysis. As the site of the Town’s highest density developments and greatest

mixture of uses, the downtown area seems an appropriate location in which to

provide service. Thus, Alternative 1 would provide four daily peak period round trips

from Downtown Fountain Hills to the Mayo Clinic in neighboring Scottsdale.

Beginning at La Montana Drive and Avenue of the Fountains, the connector would

travel east to Saguaro Blvd, South to Shea Blvd, and continue west to the Mayo

Clinic (Figure 10). As the Mayo Clinic is closed on Saturday and Sunday, weekend

trips would extend to 90th St and Shea to connect users to the greater transit network.

With stops spaced approximately ¼ mile to ½ mile apart, this route would provide

service to community facilities, residential areas, commercial shopping centers,

employers, and medical facilities. Furthermore, service to the Mayo Clinic would

enable transfer opportunities to the Valley Metro Route 80 and the greater regional

transit network at large. As previously mentioned, modifications to the schedule (e.g.

FINAL REPORT


34

spreading trips throughout the day as opposed to focusing them in peak periods, etc.)

could be made as dictated by travel patterns and demand.

A second, shorter connector option was developed for comparison and analysis.

Alternative 2 would provide

service along the Shea Blvd

corridor from Saguaro Blvd in

the east to the Mayo Clinic in

the West (Figure 11). As with

the previous option,

Alternative 2 would provide

four daily peak period round

trips, with weekend trips

extending to 90th St and

Shea. While still providing

linkages between a few

commercial centers and

employers, Alternative 2 lacks the connections to the residential areas and

community facilities serviced in Alternative 1. However, the shorter trip length would

result in comparatively lower operating costs, potentially enabling more frequent

service and/or longer hours of operation than in Alternative 1. These issues are

further discussed in the cost estimate section of this report.

Whereas the first two connector options are designed to primarily provide service to

local destinations, Alternative 3 is designed to serve as a connection to the regional

light rail and bus transit network and thus to destinations Valley wide. Similar to

Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would initiate service at La Montana Drive and Avenue of

the Fountains, travel east to Saguaro Blvd, south to Shea Blvd, southeast to SR 87,

southwest to Main St. in Mesa, and west to the transit center at Sycamore and Main

St (Figure 12). Alternative 3 would offer four morning inbound and four afternoon

outbound trips, Monday through Sunday. This route would connect riders to METRO

light rail, LINK arterial bus rapid transit service, and numerous local bus routes that

provide service to destinations throughout the region. Although the route is currently

planned to terminate at the transit center at Sycamore and Main St. (the end of the

line station), it could eventually be re-routed to the Country Club or Gilbert Rd.

stations upon completion of the Central Mesa and Gilbert Rd. light rail extensions.

This route modification would reduce trip distance, resulting in lower operating costs.


FINAL REPORT


35

An analysis of the operating

characteristics of limited service

routes in the existing transit

system provides the best

indication of potential ridership

for the connector alternatives

discussed above. While the

characteristics of the

communities they serve differ

from Fountain Hills, these routes

remain the most applicable to

the proposed connector service

and thus provide the most

accurate estimates. Annual

ridership estimates were

developed by applying the

observed rate of boardings per

revenue mile (0.05 – 0.15) for

the limited service routes to each

connector alternative’s annual

revenue miles.

Estimated annual ridership for

each connector alternative is as

follows:

Alternative 1 – 1,150 to 3,450

Alternative 2 – 750 to 2,250

Alternative 3A (Main/Sycamore LRT Station) – 2,000 to 6,000

Alternative 3B (Country Club LRT Station) – 1,900 to 5,700


FINAL REPORT


36

Figure 13. Valley Metro RideChoice Vehicle

3.1.4 Option 4: Valley Metro RideChoice Program

Another service option available

to the Town is Valley Metro’s

RideChoice program. The

RideChoice program offers

affordable taxi service to

persons age 65 and older and

those with disabilities. Qualified

participants are provided with a

reloadable fare card that may

then be used to pay for cab

fares and tips with authorized cab companies. Upon approval of application, users

can add value to their fare card (up to $100 per month), with a portion of the amount

subsidized by their city of residence. For example, Tempe, Chandler, and Gilbert

have a 75% subsidy rate (Mesa’s subsidy rate is 70%), so users pay just $25 ($30 in

Mesa) to add $100 value to their fare cards.

Table 7 below depicts a range of fares and subsidies for the cities enrolled in the

RideChoice program. Although currently limited to just four East Valley cities, the

RideChoice program is open to all cities that wish to join. Furthermore, there is no set

subsidy rate for cities. Thus, each city determines the subsidy rate and what portion

the user will be responsible for independently. The RideChoice program provides

affordable, on-demand transportation service to populations with limited mobility

(seniors and persons with disabilities). Unfortunately, this service leaves potential

transit users who aren’t qualified for the program without a public transportation

option. This is the primary drawback to this service option.

FINAL REPORT


37

Table 7. Valley Metro RideChoice Fare and Subsidy Chart

Chandler, Gilbert, Tempe (75% Subsidy Rate)

User Payment

$2.50 $5.00 $7.50 $10.00 $12.50 $15.00 $17.50 $20.00 $22.50 $25.00

Subsidy $7.50 $15.00 $22.50 $30.00 $37.50 $45.00 $52.50 $60.00 $67.50 $75.00

Value on Card

$10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $100.00

Mesa (70% Subsidy Rate)

User Payment

$3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $15.00 $18.00 $21.00 $24.00 $27.00 $30.00

Subsidy $7.00 $14.00 $21.00 $28.00 $35.00 $42.00 $49.00 $56.00 $63.00 $70.00

Value on Card

$10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $100.00

Assuming the full allocation of the Town’s Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF), it is estimated

that the RideChoice program would provide an estimated 4,800 to 5,400 annual trips

to seniors and persons with disabilities in Fountain Hills. At the current rate of

funding, this would enable 50 – 55 eligible Fountain Hills residents to participate in

the RideChoice program each month (assuming the $100 maximum value for each

participant). The actual number of people utilizing this program has the potential to be

much greater as participants may require cab service one month but not the next, or

purchase below the maximum coupon allotment, enabling the participation of even

more qualified residents.

3.1.5 Option 5: Van Purchase

Another transit service option for the Town of Fountain Hills is to provide the Fountain

Hills Activity Center with a commuter van for transporting community members locally

as available. Under this option, the Town would purchase a van or similar vehicle and

would be responsible for all operating and maintenance costs, program

administration, and the recruitment and retention of volunteer vehicle operators and

schedulers. The operational decisions including whether to provide regularly

scheduled service, hours of operation, destinations to serve, eligibility, etc. would be

determined by the Town. With this option, the Town would be able to offer an in-

house local transit service alternative. Initial start up costs would include the

purchase of a vehicle, insurance, and administrative costs. Ongoing annual operating

FINAL REPORT


38

Figure 14. Standard 15-Passenger Van

costs could be minimized through the use of community volunteers to operate

vehicles and schedule trips.

Funding options for this alternative include applying for a federal transit administration

competitive 5310 grant to help fund the initial capital costs of the vehicle and

subsequent vehicle replacements. Ongoing operating and administrative costs can

potentially be funded through the Town of Fountain Hills annual ALF allotment.

Due to the amount of variables involved

in this service option — including

administrative considerations and

operating parameters — a reliable

methodology for estimating ridership

does not exist. Therefore, potential

ridership for this option is unknown at

this time. The long term viability of this

option is dependent upon maintaining a

reliable base of volunteer vehicle

operators and schedulers. Local and

national experience has shown that

maintaining reliable and qualified

volunteers can be challenging.

3.1.6 Option 6: Enhanced Park-and-Ride Commuting

As a community on the urban fringe of the Phoenix metropolitan region, Fountain

Hills is strategically positioned for park-and-ride commuting service. Park-and-ride

lots are available for commuters and general travelers to use when traveling to work,

school, or for shopping trips. Commuters, particularly long-distance commuters, park

their vehicles at a convenient location and then transfer to an alternative

transportation mode to finish their trip – usually carpool, vanpool, bus, or train. An

essential service park-and-ride lots offer is a centralized location where commuters

can congregate to facilitate ridesharing.

Currently, Fountain Hills is served by the express Route 514, with designated bus

stops sporadically spaced along Palisades Boulevard at intersecting cross streets.

According to available data, those travelers who use the Route 514 regularly in

Fountain Hills typically board the bus at the stop in downtown Fountain Hills, adjacent

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/parkride/transportation_options.asp

FINAL REPORT


39

to a current parking lot facility. An inexpensive option that could attract greater transit

usage would be to enhance the signage, parking area treatments (pavement marking

delineations), and public advertising to promote the use of the facility and taking

transit to work. Furthermore, a centralized location where all transit trips start and

finish may entice persons from outside Fountain Hills to travel via transit. A simple

facility (100 spaces) could be established based on anticipated demand that could

also be expanded in the future, should demand warrant.

3.1.7 Option 7: Pre-Scheduled Shuttle Service

Pre-scheduled transit shuttle service represents a hybrid approach to some of the

options listed above. This type of service is a form of user-based transportation that

caters to both individual and community transportation needs. Generally, pre-

scheduled shuttle services may be characterized by flexible routing and scheduling

with the use of small to mid-sized vehicles. Unlike a dial-a-ride service, which offers

passengers scheduled pick-ups and door-to-door service, pre-scheduled services

may be structured to operate as a fixed-route service to designated stop locations

during specific times of day, and as an on-demand service at other times of day,

providing passengers flexibility to travel as needed or when it is most convenient for

them. During unscheduled time periods, passengers may contact the driver for door-

to-door rides, and do not need to call a dispatching service. This type of service also

provides flexibility to the municipality in structuring the service. For example,

municipalities may restrict the service to a defined operating area, or limit the use of

the service to specific users groups, such as those persons or households who

qualify based on age, income, or disability. Pre-scheduled shuttle services likely

require additional policy guidance on behalf of the governing authority responsible for

the program’s implementation to set service standards and participatory

requirements.

3.2 Other Transportation Services

A number of other services exist that provide additional transportation options to

residents of Fountain Hills at no cost to the Town. These include Valley Metro’s

carpool and vanpool programs. The carpool program assists users in finding other

program participants with similar commutes. To get started, participants simply create

an account on the ShareTheRide website (www.sharetheride.com), fill out a

commuting profile, and select a carpool that satisfies the trip parameters they

specified. The logistics of the carpool—meeting/drop off locations, departing/arrival

http://www.sharetheride.com/

FINAL REPORT


40

times, payment arrangements—are mutually agreed upon by the participants. This

service is most effective for participants with relatively consistent work schedules. In

addition to matching users up with reoccurring carpools, the service also provides

single trip matching for users’ one time trip needs. More information on Valley Metro’s

carpooling program can be found here: http://www.valleymetro.org/carpool.

Though providing a similar service, the vanpool program is more structured than its

carpool counterpart. Under the vanpool program, Valley Metro provides a group of 6

to 15 people with a van to use for commuting purposes. One qualified participant

volunteers to be the driver, and each rider pays a monthly fare that covers the lease,

fuel, maintenance, and insurance costs of the van. To get started, a group of at least

six participants who live and work in the same areas and have similar work schedules

is assembled. Participants then fill out vanpool applications and select primary and

reserve drivers, who must meet certain qualifications. If establishing a new vanpool is

not feasible, potential participants can also visit the ShareTheRide website to find

existing vanpools with matching route and schedule specifications. Once the

applications are successfully approved, a start date is established and an appropriate

vehicle is selected and delivered. Sample monthly fares are presented in Table 8

below.

Table 8. Vanpool Sample Monthly Fares

One Way Mileage

Van Type

8 Passenger

Luxury

9 Passenger

12 Passenger

Luxury

14 Passenger

Luxury

15 Passenger

0 - 30 miles $73 $57 $81 $76 $56

31 - 60 miles $78 $62 $86 $80 $57

61 - 90 miles $83 $72 $91 $83 $59

* Monthly passenger fares shown above are based on 80% occupancy and do not include fuel or parking costs.

No long term commitment is necessary to participate in the vanpool program; users

must simply give a 30 day notice to end participation. Similar to the carpool program,

all the operating specifics of the vanpool—pick-up/drop-off points, departing arrival

times, van etiquette—are mutually decided upon by the users. The driver is

responsible for all of the upkeep/administrative tasks associated with the vanpool

including fueling the vehicle, coordinating routine maintenance, collecting user fares,

http://www.valleymetro.org/carpool

FINAL REPORT


41

paying the monthly bill, and submitting reports. In exchange for performing these

tasks, the driver receives a free commute.

The benefits of vanpooling are several. First, vanpoolers can save substantial money

by joining the program—about $800 a year or greater compared to driving alone.

They can also enjoy faster commute times through the use of the Valley’s High

Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Finally, vanpool user can take advantage of tax

savings, as federal tax laws allow vanpool fares to be paid out of pre-tax dollars.

While Valley Metro’s carpool and vanpool programs alone are unlikely to satisfy Fountain Hills’ growing transportation needs, they would provide additional transportation options to residents by linking them up with others who have similar commutes. As these programs are entirely user-funded, the Town would not need to provide any funding for implementation and could simply promote use of the programs through advertising campaigns.

3.3 Operating Cost Estimates

The cost estimates for the transit options discussed above vary as each provides a

different level of service. For the first option, doubling the trips on the Route 514, the

operating costs for providing two additional trips in the morning and afternoon total

approximately $222,300 (Table 9). When combined with the costs of the existing

service (two trips each in the morning and afternoon—also $222,300), the total

operating cost rises to $444,600. It is important to note that Fountain Hills may not be

responsible for the entirety of these costs, as both the cities of Scottsdale and

Phoenix could potentially contribute a portion of the total. However, as they are

contributing partners to the operational costs of Route 514 and may not wish to add

trips, the Town could be faced with funding the additional service itself.

Table 9. Operating Costs for Additional Route 514 Trips

Trip Direction Miles Per Trip

Weekday Trips

Annual Miles

Rate Per

Mile1

Gross Cost

Estimated Revenue

2 Estimated

Annual Net Cost

Morning Inbound 37.6 2 19,000 $6.18 $117,000 $5,850 $111,150

Afternoon Outbound 37.6 2 19,000 $6.18 $117,000 $5,850 $111,150

Total $222,300

1. Estimated Valley Metro Contractor Rate

2. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 5% of gross cost

FINAL REPORT


42

The second potential transit service option, extending the Route 80 into Fountain

Hills, is significantly more expensive, as demonstrated in Table 10 below. The cost

for providing eight peak-hour trips Monday through Sunday is approximately

$302,844. Although a city’s financial contribution to a transit route is typically

determined on the basis of proportion (i.e. proportion of the route’s annual revenue

miles in that city), it is expected that Fountain Hills would pay for the entirety of the

operating costs of extending the Route 80, including the additional revenue miles in

Scottsdale.

Table 10. Operating Costs for Route 80 Extension

Day of Week

Miles Per Day

Weekday Trips

Annual Miles

Rate Per

Mile2

Gross Cost

Estimated Revenue

3

Estimated Annual Net

Cost

Weekday 82.4

8 20,602 $7.33 $150,939 $7,547 $143,392

Saturday 199.21

8 10,359 $7.33 $75,895 $3,795 $72,100

Sunday 199.21

8 12,550 $7.33 $91,950 $4,597 $87,352

Total $302,844

1. Increased mileage is due to weekend extension of route to 90th

St & Shea Blvd

2. Estimated City of Phoenix Contractor Rate


As the connector option features a number of routing and operational scenarios, a

range of cost estimates were generated. For Alternative 1, which runs from Avenue of

the Fountains and La Montana Drive to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, the annual cost

for operating four round trips on weekdays only is approximately $93,100. Saturday

and Sunday/holiday service (four round trips per day) could also be provided for an

additional $23,200 and $29,100 respectively. In total, providing four round trips,

seven days per week would cost approximately $145,400. These figures are

summarized in Table 11 below.

FINAL REPORT


43

Table 11. Operating Costs for Community Connector Alternative 1

Day of Week Round Trips

Miles Per

Round Trip

Annual Miles

Rate Per

Mile2

Gross Cost

Estimated Revenue

3


Cost

Weekday 4 16.4 16,000 $6.11 $98,000 $4,900 $93,100

Saturday 4 21.31

4,000 $6.11 $24,400 $1,200 $23,200

Sunday 4 21.31

5,000 $6.11 $30,600 $1,500 $29,100

1. Increased mileage is due to weekend extension of route to 90th

St & Shea Blvd

2. RPTA contractor Veolia RPTA estimated FY 2013 rate


With Alternative 2, which travels along Shea Blvd from Saguaro Blvd to the Mayo

Clinic, the annual cost for operating four round trips on weekdays is approximately

$57,900. The significantly lower annual cost, as compared to Alternative 1, is due to

the shorter round trip length (10.4 miles round trip vs. 16.4 miles in Alternative 1).

Thus, the frequency of service in Alternative 2 could potentially be increased and still

fall within the same price range as Alternative 1. For example, the number of

weekday round trips could be increased to 8 for a total of $121,600. Furthermore,

weekend service (four round trips each day) could be provided for an additional

$17,400 on Saturdays and $23,200 on Sundays/holidays. In total, providing four

round trips, seven days per week would cost approximately $98,500. These figures

are summarized in Table 12 below.


Day of Week

Round Trips

Miles Per

Round Trip

Annual Miles

Rate Per

Mile2

Gross Cost

Estimated Revenue

3


Cost

Weekday

4 10.4 10,000 $6.11 $61,000 $3,100 $57,900

8 10.4 21,000 $6.11 $128,000 $6,400 $121,600

16 10.4 42,000 $6.11 $257,000 $12,900 $244,100

Saturday 4 15.31

3,000 $6.11 $18,300 $900 $17,400

Sunday 4 15.31

4,000 $6.11 $24,400 $1,200 $23,200 1. Increased mileage is due to weekend extension of route to 90

th St & Shea Blvd



FINAL REPORT


44

The final community connector option, Alternative 3, provides service between

downtown Fountain Hills and the Sycamore and Main St. Transit Center in Mesa. As

the trip distance is significantly greater, the costs for operating Alternative 3 are

substantially higher. As summarized in Table 13, the annual cost for operating four

morning and four afternoon trips seven days a week is approximately $336,300.

Upon completion of the Central Mesa light rail extension (2016), the service could be

re-routed to the Country Club light rail station for a reduction in mileage and an

annual cost savings of $11,400.

FINAL REPORT


45


Direction Trips Miles Per Trip

Annual Miles

Rate Per

Mile1

Gross Cost

Estimated Revenue

2 Estimated Annual Net

Cost

FOUNTAIN HILLS TO SYCAMORE/MAIN STREET TRANSIT CENTER

Weekday

Morning Inbound 4 20.3 20,000 $6.11 $122,000 $6,100 $115,900

Afternoon Outbound 4 20.3 20,000 $6.11 $122,000 $6,100 $115,900

Saturday

Morning Inbound 4 20.3 4,000 $6.11 $24,000 $1,200 $22,800


Sunday

Morning Inbound 4 20.3 5,000 $6.11 $31,000 $1,550 $29,450


Total $336,300

FOUNTAIN HILLS TO MAIN STREET/COUNTRY CLUB LRT STATION (2015)

Weekday

Morning Inbound 4 18.5 19,000 $6.11 $116,000 $5,800 $110,200


Saturday

Morning Inbound 4 18.5 4,000 $6.11 $24,000 $1,200 $22,800


Sunday

Morning Inbound 4 18.5 5,000 $6.11 $31,000 $1,550 $29,450


Total $324,900



Unlike the previous transit service options considered, Valley Metro’s RideChoice

program is driven largely by the volume of users. As an on-demand taxi

transportation option, voucher holders pay a portion of the operating cost, and this

portion is directly related to the subsidy rate established by the Town. A user’s trip

FINAL REPORT


46

length is the key determinant in the expense – longer trips lengths will result in fewer

voucher dollars being available to that person, while shorter trip lengths will mean a

user can take more trips. Table 14 illustrates how trip length affects the number of

trips a passenger can take through the RideChoice Program.

Table 14. Example Operating Costs for the Valley Metro RideChoice Program

Trip Length (Mi)

Estimated Trip Cost

25% Rider Fee

75% Subsidy Rate

Trips Provided Per Year

Trips per Month

One-way Trips1

Round Trips2

6 $16.00 $4.00 $12.00 4,875 406 10 5

8 $20.50 $5.13 $15.38 3,805 317 8 4

10 $25.00 $6.25 $18.75 3,120 260 7 3

12 $29.50 $7.38 $22.13 2,644 220 6 3

1 One-way trips per rider per month

2 Round trips per rider per month

For the van purchase option, comprehensive operating cost estimates are not

necessary. It is assumed the Town would allocate its full ALF funding to this program,

which would provide a certain number of vans (dependent on amount of ALF funds—

approximately $65,000 in 2013) to assist those in need. After the initial van purchase,

the remainder of the ALF funds could be used for administration, operations, and

maintenance of the program and vehicle. As the specifics of the program remain

undefined, precise operating costs cannot be developed at this time.

Finally, a preliminary estimate of operating costs was developed for the pre-

scheduled shuttle service option defined above. Valley Metro contracts with a variety

of local service providers to provide on-demand transport services when fixed-route

service is not applicable or desired. Passengers pay a small fare for each trip to off-

set the subsidy contributed by the Town, therefore assuming a portion of the services

operating cost. With the available ALF funds Fountain Hills receives, a preliminary

estimate of service hours suggests a pre-scheduled shuttle could provide five and

one-half hours of non-holiday weekday service at a cost of approximately $64,800.

This estimate includes costs for administration, labor, vehicle fuel, routine vehicle

maintenance, and insurance. The vehicle would be equipped to handle mobility aides

such as walkers and wheelchairs. Table 15 provides an estimate of the number of

FINAL REPORT


47

rides and estimated annual net cost for an on-demand service using a reputable

contracting serving provider. This preliminary estimate is subject to adjustment based

on current pricing for elements such as fleet maintenance, fuel, and fare revenues. A

formal estimate from the contracting provider is necessary.

Table 15. Estimated Operating Costs for Pre-Scheduled Shuttle Service

Estimated

Annual Trips Cost per

Trip

Estimated

Annual

Operating Cost1

Fare Revenue

Estimated

Annual Net

Operating Cost

2,000 $4.00 $72,700 $7,900 $64,800

1 The estimated annual operating cost includes all anticipated costs, labor, and administrative costs. Costs

shown are for five and one-half hours of service.

3.4 Capital Cost Estimates

It is important to note the capital costs that must be accounted for prior to

implementing a new transit service. Capital costs are fixed, one-time expenses they

may include vehicles, stops/stations, and construction. Several of the service options

reviewed above contain capital elements. Depending on fleet availability, doubling the

number of trips on the Route 514 and extending the Route 80 may require the

purchase of additional vehicles. Vehicles for express service range in price from

$400,000 to $600,000 per vehicle, and local service vehicles typically cost $400,000.

Likewise, a community connector service would require the purchase of ADA-

compliant, airport shuttle bus style vehicles which cost approximately $100,000 per

vehicle. Lastly, the van purchase alternative would require the purchase of an ADA-

compliant van(s), which cost approximately $42,000 per vehicle.

In addition to vehicle costs, providing fixed route transit service in Fountain Hills

would require the development of further bus stops. Depending on the scale of

amenities provided (signs, bench, shelter, trash receptacle, bike rack etc.), these

facilities can range anywhere from $250 for the simplest to $10,000 for the more

complex—not including right of way acquisition. While these facilities may seem

costly, it is important to note that municipalities often have opportunities to enter into

agreements with private advertising agencies under which the agency covers a

portion of the cost of providing a bus stop in exchange for advertising rights at the

site.

FINAL REPORT


48

Finally, the Route 80 alternative would require one additional capital element. As the

excessive weight of buses can cause significant damage to roadway pavement,

reinforced concrete pavement pads are recommended at bus layover locations. While

the dimensions of these concrete pads can vary based on the length of the bus and

the number of buses anticipated to queue simultaneously, a standard concrete pad

typically costs $10,000.

All of the capital costs reviewed above must be taken into consideration when

evaluating potential transit service options in Fountain Hills.

FINAL REPORT


49

Figure 15. Fountain Hills Town Hall

4.0 DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS

The recommendations described herein are based on the technical planning work

conducted for the study, feedback received from Town management and participating

stakeholders on the transit service options considered, and the financial feasibility for

the lead agency to implement and operate any of the proposed services. These

recommendations are also made relative to the transportation benefits that may be

accrued with the implementation of transit service in Fountain Hills.

In evaluating the preliminary transit service options discussed previously and

determining which best serves the travel needs of residents in Fountain Hills, it is

important to consider the advantages and drawbacks inherent in each (Table 15). All

of the preliminary transit service options considered provide additional transportation

options to residents of Fountain Hills yet vary by service type, projected ridership, and

costs. Annual operating costs range from $65,000 (or full allocation of ALF funds) to

over $230,000, with some options requiring additional capital elements prior to

implementation. With regards to ridership, the various service options are projected to

provide anywhere from a few

hundred trips to over 15,000 per

year. Furthermore, each service

type caters to a slightly different

travel market, with Route 514

serving primarily work commute

trips to downtown Phoenix, Route

80 and the community connectors

serving standard localized trips,

and the Valley Metro RideChoice

program, on-demand shuttle

service, and van purchase

programs serving senior and

disabled populations.

With these important considerations in mind, determining what market to serve and

where the greatest need exists become the essential factors in selecting and

implementing the most effective transit service option in Fountain Hills.

FINAL REPORT


50

Table 16. Summary of Alternatives: Pros and Cons

Alternative Pros Cons

Double Trips on Route 514

Provides additional opportunities for users to take transit

Satisfies proposed Valley Metro service standards

Significant costs

Scottsdale/Phoenix may be unwilling to fund additional trips

Not expected to attract many new riders, may spread existing ridership

Extend the Route 80

Provides connection to regional transit network

Significant operating costs

Capital elements required

Lacks connection to residential areas

Minimal projected ridership

Community Connector Alternatives

Alternative 1 Provides service to downtown

Fountain Hills and residential areas along Saguaro Blvd

Provides connection to Mayo Clinic and the regional transit network



Alternative 2 Provides connection to regional

transit network Lacks connection to residential

areas



Alternative 3 Provides service to downtown

Fountain Hills and residential areas along Saguaro Blvd

Provides direct connection to light rail service



RideChoice Program

Provides flexible, on-demand service to senior and disabled populations

Town sets subsidy rate; can be tailored to available funds/user demand

Users contribute greater share of operating costs

Minimal administrative responsibilities

Risk is shouldered by users

Only serves senior and disabled populations

Availability of service depends on contracting taxi provider and willingness to serve community based on anticipated demand

Van Purchase Provides in-house local transit

service operation with full administration guided by the Town

To maintain low operating costs, the program must rely on volunteer community members to operate vehicles and schedule trips.

Pre-Scheduled Shuttle Service

Provides flexible, on-demand service to senior and disabled populations

No capital elements required

Only serves senior and disabled populations

Operating costs are higher

Risk is in fare revenue collected

FINAL REPORT


51

Based on the analysis of relevant studies, demographic trends, and results from the

transit needs survey, the growing mobility needs of Fountain Hills’ senior population

has been identified as the Town’s most pressing transit issue. As discussed above,

the Town’s population of persons over 64 years old has risen dramatically over the

last decade. Coupled with a decrease in the population under 18 years old and

modest growth of the population 18 - 64 years old over the same period, the data

suggest the aging population trend in Fountain Hills is likely to continue. As the

mobility needs of senior populations are more specialized then the general

population, an infrequent, fixed-route transit service with limited range is unlikely to

satisfy these needs. Instead, the complex needs of Fountain Hills’ senior population

would more effectively be served by a flexible, demand-responsive service that could

deliver riders to destinations Valley-wide.

4.1 Service Options to Consider

Two service options emerged from the study that would be most capable of satisfying

the current and future travel needs of Fountain Hills’ residents. These services

include a pre-scheduled shuttle service or implementation of Valley Metro’s

RideChoice program.

Pre-Scheduled Shuttle

A pre-scheduled shuttle service, similar to dial-a-ride service, could provide eligible

Fountain Hills’ residents with a flexible travel option that meets the varying mobility

needs of different community members. This type of service may be easily tailored to

serve key demographic groups such as seniors and persons with disabilities,

precisely the populations with the greatest need for transport services in the

immediate future. A pre-scheduled shuttle would operate similar to dial-a-ride service

wherein passengers could schedule pick-up times for transport between their

residence and their destination. A key difference between this type of service and

traditional dial-a-ride service is in the passenger’s capability to contact the driver

directly, rather than using a dispatch service. This helps reduce the administrative

costs, and keeps service more personal between the driver and passengers. This

service would also enable the driver to build their own service schedule during

operating hours. For instance, based on trip patterns, the driver may realize that a

regular number of trips at similar times are being made to a common destination or

destinations. The driver could subsequently work with passengers to arrange a pick-

FINAL REPORT


52

up schedule wherein multiple trips are made simultaneously, creating greater

efficiencies of scale.

An analysis of the costs for a pre-scheduled shuttle service suggests that costs vary

depending on the operating plan for this type of service. In general, a pre-scheduled

service is anticipated to cost more than the Town’s annual ALF allocation. The Town

would work with Valley Metro and a third party contractor to provide the service.

Table 17 provides a general outline of the estimated annual costs associated with a

pre-scheduled service for four different shuttle service options. The primary difference

between each of the options is the operating schedule, as follows:

Shuttle Option 1: Provides 5.5 hours of non-holiday weekday service, with no

weekend service, for a total of 240 operating days.

Shuttle Option 2: Provides 6 hours of non-holiday weekday service, with no






FINAL REPORT


53

Table 17. Overview of Typical Costs for Pre-Scheduled Shuttle Service Options

Cost Element Shuttle Option

1 Shuttle Option

2 Shuttle Option

3 Shuttle Option

4

Vehicle1 $13,300 $13,300 $13,300 $13,300

Driver2 $29,600 $33,400 $44,900 $56,000

Maintenance3 $2,200 $2,500 $3,300 $4,100

Fuel3 $7,300 $8,200 $11,000 $13,800

Insurance $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500

Expenses4 $7,900 $8,400 $9,900 $11,400

Administrative5 $5,900 $6,300 $7,700 $9,000

Fare Revenue $7,900 $8,900 $12,000 $15,000

Totals $64,800 $69,700 $84,600 $99,100

1 The vehicle will be provided by the contractor operating the service

2 Driver costs include direct labor based on the operating hours of the service, and benefits (medical/dental)

3 Costs for maintenance and fuel vary based on operating hours and miles of revenue service

4 Expenses include a cellular phone for the driver, and 10% for combined overhead and profit to the contractor

operating the service 5 Administrative costs include 5% for Valley Metro and 5% for Fountain Hills

Valley Metro RideChoice Program

A second service option is the implementation of Valley Metro’s RideChoice program,

a form of demand-responsive service that provides vouchers to eligible residents for

subsidized taxi rides. The RideChoice program is limited to qualifying individuals such

as seniors and persons with disabilities. Under the program, the Town would allocate

available ALF and/or any other funds they wish to Valley Metro to administer the

program. After administrative costs are covered, the remaining funds are sold to

qualifying individuals in the form of a travel voucher at a discounted rate. The voucher

may be used to help pay for any portion of a traveler’s ride. Valley Metro utilizes a

stored value fare card, eliminating the need for paper voucher transfers, and allowing

program participants to ―reload‖ value to their fare cards periodically. Qualifying

individuals can only purchase up to $100 in vouchers once a month, in order to help

ensure a maximum number of participants.

One unique aspect of the program is that the Town sets the subsidy rate. Therefore,

users contribute a portion of their trip cost. For example, if the subsidy rate is set at

FINAL REPORT


54

75%, and a passenger’s ride costs $4.00, the passenger is responsible for 25% (or

$1.00), and the voucher helps pay for the remaining portion of the trip. It is important

to note that the RideChoice program is designed to serve persons making shorter

trips. Thus, the longer the trip length, the more quickly an individual’s voucher is used

up. Table 18 below provides examples of various trip lengths, the number of trips that

may be provided, and the associated cost and subsidy.

Table 18. Example RideChoice Trip Lengths and Costs

Trip Length (Mi)

Estimated Trip Cost

25% Rider Fee

75% Subsidy Rate

Trips Provided Per Year

Trips per Month

One-way Trips1

Round Trips2

6 $16.00 $4.00 $12.00 4,875 406 10 5

8 $20.50 $5.13 $15.38 3,805 317 8 4

10 $25.00 $6.25 $18.75 3,120 260 7 3

12 $29.50 $7.38 $22.13 2,644 220 6 3

1 One-way trips per rider per month

2 Round Trips per rider per month

4.2 Other Transit Improvement Options

In addition to the proposed service recommendations detailed above, there are other

transit improvements that could be made using the available ALF funds in Fountain

Hills. Currently, many of the bus stops served by the Route 514 on Palisades

Boulevard lack quality pedestrian connections and basic passenger amenities. A bus

stop inventory (Appendix A.2) was completed to document the existing conditions of

transit infrastructure in the Town. This inventory determined that lack of sidewalk

connections to bus stops, lack of passenger amenities (e.g. seating, shelters, and

lighting), and a lack of ADA-compliant features (level concrete landing pads and

wheelchair ramps) make taking transit less desirable and less accessible.

Furthermore, travel speeds along Palisades Boulevard are often high, and several

blind spots were documented at existing transit stops.

In addition to passenger amenity and pedestrian improvements, another option is to

consolidate bus stops in Fountain Hills to a singular location where passengers could

congregate and board/alight safely. An example of this might be the establishment of

FINAL REPORT


55

a shared-use parking facility in downtown Fountain Hills at a shopping center. When

the cost of constructing a park-and-ride is prohibitive, towns typically negotiate with

commercial property owners for the use of a small number of parking stalls during the

day as a park-and-ride location. This prevents towns from having to develop new

capital facilities and makes better use of existing transportation infrastructure.

Additionally, property owners benefit both through the rental fees paid by the town

and the economic activity generated by passengers arriving at both ends of their trip.

Passengers benefit from faster boarding speeds and quicker travel times, a result of

fewer stops being made along a transit route’s travel path.

4.3 Future Initiatives

A number of short, medium, and long-term initiatives are suggested to assist the

continued evolution of transit services in Fountain Hills. These initiatives are

summarized in Table 19.

Table 19. Summary of Future Initiatives

Future Initiative Short Term

Mid Term

Long Term

Use Available ALF Monies to Improve Transportation Services within Fountain Hills

X X X

Market New Service(s) within Fountain Hills X

Conduct Evaluation of Senior Mobility Needs and Options

X

Evaluate Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Needs X X

Consider Bus Stop Improvements X

Initiate Planning and Conceptual Design for Future Fixed-Route Transit Service

X

4.2.1 Market New Transit Services within Fountain Hills

The development of marketing materials and promotional campaigns to increase

awareness and use of any new transit services is also critical toward achieving a

successful service. A rider guide that focuses on the transit services specifically for

the Town is an example of a printed education and marketing piece that could help

publicize the available services. This guide would include an area map and schedules

FINAL REPORT


56

showing local services and highlight connections to regional services, fares, and

contact information. The Town could also work with local chambers of commerce and

businesses to encourage use of the services. Opportunities to integrate transit

program information into wayfinding or other public kiosks in strategic locations

should also be considered.

4.2.2 Conduct Evaluation of Senior Mobility Needs and Options

As the residential base of the Town of Fountain Hills continues to age, mobility

options should be considered that expand both the range of destinations served and

the level of service necessary to satisfy demand. Evaluating the mobility needs of an

aging population is necessary to keep pace with the travel needs of these

populations. In Fountain Hills, the natural topography creates a challenging

environment for development, and restricts many of the Agency’s buses and vans

from safely serving the hills and narrow, winding streets in the Town.

Two types of senior markets generally exist in Fountain Hills. The first is comprised of

very active and able-bodied individuals who can walk short to moderate distances

with ease to access local shops and services, or who walk for recreation and physical

health. The second market are those persons with more restricted mobility who may

require some form of mobility assistance, and generally would be unable walk to a

transit stop. The intent of the service recommendation discussed above is to provide

increased mobility, especially during the mid-day period, for all seniors and persons

with mobility limitations to connect with local and regional services at a reasonable

fare rate and at a time when it is either necessary or convenient for them to travel. A

smaller vehicle operating at increased frequencies and a longer service span is

anticipated to be more attractive for seniors and persons with mobility limitations as

compared to a fixed-route service operating principally during the peak periods on a

timed schedule. An on-demand service could be designed to require proof of

eligibility for persons to use this service, and while this would preclude some

segments of the community population, it would serve those most in need.

FINAL REPORT


57

4.2.3 Evaluate Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Needs

The development of safe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is an important

precursor to the implementation of transit services. All travelers are pedestrians at

some point during the course of their trip; whether walking to and from a personal

automobile, or walking to a bus stop, the need for adequate pedestrian infrastructure

is a vital component to all of our trips. As most users access transit service by

walking to stops, ensuring safe passage to these sites via a connected network of

ADA-compliant sidewalks can help encourage transit use. While the cost to

implement sidewalks is not insignificant, it may be prudent to plan for future sidewalk

extensions through a phased approach. A plan for sidewalks will help identify and

prioritize locations within the community where investments in non-motorized

transportation facilities are most needed. Furthermore, as walking becomes an

increasingly popular activity, especially among aging populations who derive exercise

and social benefits from walking-related activities, investing in pedestrian facilities will

help encourage walking as a means of accessing local destinations, connecting

neighbors and neighborhoods, and enhance safety. Finally, given the apparent

popularity of bicycling in Fountain Hills, consideration of striped bicycle lanes on

neighborhood collector streets that also establish connections with the local trail

system can provide added comfort and separation between bicyclists and cars,

especially for novice or occasional bicycle riders.

4.2.4 Consider Bus Stop Improvements

Improved bus stop accessibility is necessary to support use of the proposed transit

services. Along with sidewalk improvements, the Town of Fountain Hills may wish to

plan for programmed improvements in bus stop infrastructure that can encourage

transit patronage. As part of this study, a bus stop inventory (Appendix A.2) was

conducted to identify existing conditions at current stop locations, potential

improvements that could be made, and areas where future stops could be located to

attract greater ridership.

4.2.5 Initiate Planning and Conceptual Design for Future Fixed-Route Transit

Service

As the Town’s population continues to grow, and in light of the current and forecasted

demographic characteristics, it will be important for Town leaders to consider future

mobility options that connect people with community destinations and essential

FINAL REPORT


58

services. Planning for the future now can also help forecast costs, allowing Town

leaders to plan financially for expanded service. With an understanding of existing

community activity centers, along with an understanding of future development plans

and targeted growth areas of the Town, planning for an enhanced fixed-route service

should be considered as a long-range activity.

4.3 Conclusion

The Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study has yielded several findings and

established a wide array of future activities that may be undertaken to improve

transportation and mobility within the Town, all of which are intended to have a high

return-on-investment. Central to the discussion of future transportation services are

the demographics of the Town. Unlike other communities on the edge of the Phoenix

metropolitan region, residents of Fountain Hills are more likely to make trips within

the community, or to specific destinations immediately outside the community.

Commuting-based travel to work destinations is relatively small as compared to other

communities similarly sized to Fountain Hills. As demonstrated by the available

population data, the growth of the senior and retirement-age population will likely

necessitate investments in multimodal transportation systems and services to

account for different mobility needs. Public transportation services, particularly on-

demand services, are well positioned to serve the emerging needs of senior

populations and persons with mobility limitations. It will be important for Fountain Hills

to continue to monitor the mobility needs of the Town’s population to ensure

appropriate transportation services are in place to serve diverse needs.

4.4 Funding Opportunities

Public transit systems across the United States are often funded through a

combination of programs and revenue sources, such as state grants, passenger

fares, advertisement revenues and local contributions, and most systems typically

rely on federal grants to help cover a significant portion of a system capital costs.

Several local, state, and federal funding programs exist that assist communities such

as Fountain Hills in the development of transit services. A summary of relevant local,

state and federal funds is provided below.

FINAL REPORT


59

Local and State Funds

The Town of Fountain Hills receives annual transit funding assistance through both

the Public Transportation Fund, which is available to cities and towns in Maricopa

County, and the Arizona Lottery Fund, which is available to cities statewide. The

details of these funds are discussed below.

Public Transportation Fund (PTF)

Transit revenues from Prop 400, the half-cent county-wide sales tax originally

authorized in 1986 and extended for 20 years in 2004, are deposited into the Public

Transportation Fund (PTF) to support the projects programmed in the Regional

Transportation Plan. PTF funds can be spent on regional projects, including local and

express fixed route service and complementary paratransit service as mandated by

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Local (non-ADA) dial-a-ride services and

circulator/connector fixed route services do not qualify for PTF funds.

Currently, all of the Town’s PTF dollars are used to fund existing service on Route

514. As the RPTA/Valley Metro Board of Directors is responsible for the PTF, project

funding requests or changes would need to meet the adopted Valley Metro service

standards and pass through the committee process for Board approval.

Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF)

Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF) are revenues generated by the Arizona State Lottery for

the support of public transportation services. The transportation fund was created as

a part of the state implementation plan to meet ambient air quality standards as

required by the Clean Air Act. Areas with a population of 300,000 or more are

required to spend all of their ALF funds on public transit services. These funds are

available to the Town of Fountain Hills each year and require an annual application

and accounting documentation to prove that funds were spent appropriately.

Federal Funds

In addition to the local and state funding sources, Fountain Hills may be eligible for a

number of federal funding programs to assist in the provision of transit services. As

available funds are limited, the process is extremely competitive. Furthermore, there

are strict stipulations that specify the types of projects the funds can be used for. A

summary of applicable federal funding programs is provided below.

FINAL REPORT


60

Section 5307: Urbanized Area Formula Grants

This federal program provides grants to Urbanized Areas (those with a population of

more than 50,000) for transit capital, planning, job access, and reverses commute

projects. These funds can also be used for operating assistance for services that

provide accessibility to jobs or reverse commute options. Funding for these types of

projects is discretionary and awarded through a competitive process managed by the

City of Phoenix. Capital funds under Section 5307 are programmed by Maricopa

Association of Governments (MAG) through the Transportation Improvement

Program (TIP) and follow MAG’s programming guidelines.

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

with Disabilities

This federal program provides funding for services that improve the mobility of senior

and disability populations. Services eligible for funding under this program are those

beyond traditional transit and ADA paratransit services. Section 5310 funding is

discretionary and awarded through a competitive process managed by the City of

Phoenix.

Section 5339: Bus and Bus Facilities

This federal program provides eligible recipients with capital funding to replace,

rehabilitate, and purchase buses and to construct bus-related facilities. Section 5339

funds are limited to capital projects and thus cannot be used for operating assistance.

Capital funds are under Section 5339 are programmed by MAG through the

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and follow MAG’s programming

guidelines.

In the future, as population demographics and the built environment in Fountain Hills

continue to evolve, further investments in transit services will likely be necessary to

satisfy the community’s mobility needs. As the provision of these services will exceed

available local, state, and federal funding sources, the Town will need to develop its

own funding strategy. In addition to the funding sources reviewed above, several

cities throughout Maricopa County have implemented their own dedicated sales tax

to fund transit services. As the need for a diversity of transportation options continues

to grow in Fountain Hills, the Town may wish to pursue this or similar measures at

some point in the future.

FINAL REPORT


61

APPENDICES

FINAL REPORT


62


FINAL REPORT


63

A.1 Review of Existing and On-going Plans and Studies

A review of relevant plans and studies was conducted by the study team to consider

the current and future plans for transportation within the Town and neighboring

communities. This review was necessary in order to determine the Town’s vision for

future development, and whether opportunities exist to coordinate public

transportation services with neighboring communities. A summary of each study is

provided in Table A1 at the end of this chapter.

Fountain Hills General Plan 2010

Updated in 2010, The Fountain Hills General Plan

serves as the Town’s comprehensive vision for future

growth and development. The plan outlines a vision

for capitalizing on the projected population and

employment growth of the Town, while maintaining its

serene, rustic, and natural character. In the eight

years since the Town’s previous comprehensive plan,

Fountain Hills has experienced dramatic population

growth, resulting in the need to annex over 1,300

acres of State Trust Land to accommodate the

immediate needs for new housing and to ensure

adequate land for projected future population growth.

Drawing heavily upon the Town’s original 1970

Master Plan, the General Plan envisions a balanced

mix of land uses that seek harmony between the Town’s developed character and

surrounding natural environment. The rapid population and employment growth over

the last two decades has resulted in Fountain Hills nearing build-out conditions.

Because the Town is land-locked, the remaining development opportunities lie

primarily within the recently annexed State Trust Land and existing subdivisions. The

small-town character of Fountain Hills is an attribute that makes the Town an

attractive place to live and work, and a review of existing land use patterns

demonstrates this. Of the Town’s residential uses, those designated single family

account for a large majority (85%). Looking to the future, the predominance of single

family land use patterns is expected to continue, with additional multi-family housing

and commercial developments concentrated in the downtown area. It is this area, the

Town Center (as it’s referred to in the General Plan), that has been identified as the

FINAL REPORT


64

greatest opportunity to provide smart growth and multi-modal transportation options

to residents of Fountain Hills.

The Circulation Element of the General Plan details the actions necessary to meet

the Town’s future transportation needs. In addition to a number of street and

intersection improvements aimed at increasing safety and efficiency, the plan

emphasizes the Town’s desire to provide alternative transportation modes,

envisioning the expansion of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems to provide

enhanced mobility to a population base with a diversity of needs. Options for transit in

Fountain Hills are currently limited to one express route, the Route 514. This route

provides express service to downtown Phoenix and provides two morning inbound

and two afternoon outbound trips. While there are no current local transit options in

Fountain Hills, the General Plan states the intention of the Town to reassess inter-

community and regional transit needs.

Fountain Hills Downtown Vision Plan/Area Specific Plan

In addition to the General Plan, Fountain Hills has established a bold vision for the

future of their downtown which includes mixed-use districts, multi-family housing, a

performance venue, and the enhancement of Fountain Park. Developed in 2009, The

Downtown Vision Plan provides a framework for the creation of a bustling, lively

downtown. After months of intense research and community outreach efforts, the

resulting plan divided the downtown area into nine distinct districts as detailed below:

Business District – The center of downtown commerce, the Business District

envisions a range of commercial uses from small scale office suites, to service

oriented businesses, to traditional retail.

Avenue District – Envisioned as the downtown core, the Avenue District will be

the premier shopping destination and feature a range of pleasant pedestrian

amenities. In addition to the shopping opportunities, the Avenue District will

also accommodate second story office space and condominiums.

South End District – The South End District is envisioned as a mixed-use

residential neighborhood anchored by a prominent village square park.

Residential District – An existing site of fully developed multi-family housing,

the Residential District provides a population base for the downtown area.

West Side District – Envisioned as a true mixed-use district where residential,

retail, and office infill are encouraged. The West Side District may also serve

as a future entertainment anchor.

FINAL REPORT


65

Civic/Cultural District – The current location of the Town Hall, Community

Center, Library, and Museum, the Civic/Cultural District will be enhanced with

future infill developments that provide a range of services to the community.

Service District – The existing commercial area and location of Fountain Hills

Plaza, the Service District will be maintained as a vital community component

serving the downtown.

Lakeside District – Encompassing a portion of Fountain Park, the Lakeside

District is envisioned as a unique open space area rich with amenities

including a performing arts venue and retail shops.

Park District – Comprising the rest of Fountain Park, the Park District will retain

much of its current form and feature numerous enhancements including

additional trees, lighting, seating, and park furnishings.

Figure A16 illustrates the downtown area plan for Fountain Hills.

Figure A16. Fountain Hills Downtown Vision Plan Districts

Although the Downtown Vision Plan does not specifically address public

transportation or transit-oriented development, the envisioned attributes and land use

patterns are compatible with greater transit utilization. The concentration of different

FINAL REPORT


66

uses and amenities encourages alternative modes of transportation, reducing the

dependency on automobiles to access local destinations, and may create a greater

demand for public transportation options.

Scottsdale Transportation Master Plan 2008

In its 2008 Transportation Master Plan, the City of

Scottsdale identified several strategies to enhance

its multi-modal transportation system. Divided into

five elements—policy, streets, transit, bicycle, and

pedestrian—the plan demonstrates a dedication to

providing competitive mode choices intended to

improve the City’s transportation system. A

renewed focus on transit and non-motorized

transportation improvements is further evident in

the City’s mode split and Vehicle Miles Travelled

(VMT) targets, emphasis on complete streets, and

dedication of a higher percentage of capital funds

to transit, bicycle, trail, and pedestrian

improvements.

As Fountain Hills’ neighbor to the west and primary passage to the rest of the Valley,

the City of Scottsdale’s development decisions and policies can influence

transportation to Fountain Hills. The portion of Scottsdale that borders Fountain Hills

is the least populated area of Scottsdale and consists primarily of low-density, single

family residential land uses with commercial centers at arterial intersections. Despite

a forecasted population increase of 150% from 2000 to 2030, this area is expected to

remain the city’s least populated area.

Although the demographics and low densities in north Scottsdale suggest this area

may be less likely to use public transportation, the City of Scottsdale has identified

some future transit improvements that may affect Fountain Hills. This includes the

consideration of a new express route on Shea Boulevard that would offer higher

frequencies of service and replace the existing Route 514.

Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan

The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Regional Transportation Plan

(RTP) serves as the guiding transportation investment plans and program for the

FINAL REPORT


67

greater Phoenix metropolitan region. The plan outlines a series of mobility goals and

actions the region intends to take over the next 20 years to improve transportation

systems, facilities, and movement of people and freight within and through the region.

Improvements to transit service are a signature element of the plan. Among the

transit service improvements, the RTP specifies Scottsdale Road as a candidate

corridor for high-capacity transit service. Following completion of several planning

studies, Valley Metro plans to expand

LINK arterial bus rapid transit (BRT)

(Figure A2) service along the

Scottsdale/Rural Road corridor. The

planned service would provide limited

stop service between the University

Drive/Rural Road light rail station in

Tempe to the forthcoming Thunderbird

Park-and-Ride in north Scottsdale. The

new LINK route will provide enhanced

passenger amenities and facilities,

improved travel times, and increased

accessibility to the Valley Metro light rail system. Transit connections from Fountain

Hills through Scottsdale could enhance future regional travel opportunities for the

Town’s residents.

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Long Range Transportation Plan

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) Long Range

Transportation Plan evaluates the existing conditions of the community’s multi-modal

transportation options and identifies the improvements necessary to meet future

demands. After a series of community outreach efforts, the SRPMIC identified the

following six transportation related issues to be addressed: growth, cut-through traffic,

traffic safety, Salt River bridge crossings, public transit, and bicycle and pedestrian

routes.

According to population and employment projections developed using the City of

Scottsdale Travel Demand Model (STDM), the SRPMIC estimates that population will

rise by 23% from 2009 to 2030, for a total 2030 population of 8,900. Likewise,

employment is projected to spike 300% from 2009 levels to 50,399 in 2030. Based on

the forecasted growth in population and employment, the SRPMIC developed an

implementation plan to both accommodate such growth and address the issues

Figure A2. Valley Metro LINK Bus

FINAL REPORT


68

identified through community outreach efforts. Actions include traffic calming

measures, the development of a community non-motorized trail system, various road

improvements, and the expansion of the Salt River Transit System. The existing

transit system is demand-responsive and features limited hours of service. With

demand for transit services expected to increase by 50% by 2030, the SRPMIC plan

recommends two circulator routes with more frequent service and expanded hours of

operation.

Although the SRPMIC is expecting significant population and employment growth

over the next twenty years, the areas directly adjacent to Fountain Hills are not

expected to make significant contributions. Indeed, in the Traffic Analysis Zones

bordering Fountain Hills, population densities of less than 100 people per square mile

and employment densities of less than 50 per square mile are projected.

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Multi-Modal Long Range Transportation Study

The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Multi-Modal Long

Range Transportation Study identifies numerous

improvements to the Yavapai Nation’s multi-modal

transportation system and outlines the necessary

actions to implement said improvements. As a

sovereign Native American tribe with just 971

members, 600 of which live within the reservation’s

24,680 acres, the Nation expects little development

within the planning horizon. Residential development

will follow the existing single-family residential

pattern, and any new Fort McDowell Casino facilities

will be developed on the existing site.

One major improvement identified in the study as a mid/long term priority is the

development of a connecting route between the Bush Highway and the Beeline

Highway. This route would serve as a major connection point between the East

Valley, the Nation, and the Town of Fountain Hills. Three alternatives are currently

under consideration. Each connects Power Road in the south to SR-87 in the north at

one of the following three locations: Shea Boulevard, 300 feet north of Central

Arizona Project Canal, or at the Center Gate of Goldfield Ranch. A number of other

road improvements are also planned in an effort to improve the efficiency of the

Nation’s street system.

FINAL REPORT


69

The Yavapai Nation does not currently have fixed-route transit service. Thus, transit

options are limited to van and bus service operated by various community

departments and specialty clinics like the Wassaja Family Services Clinic. Because

community members identified transit as a necessary improvement during community

outreach efforts, a number of possible services were reviewed for feasibility. The

recommended service for the community as identified in the Plan is an infrequent,

regularly scheduled service with connections to Fountain Hills. Though expected

ridership is low, the high demand to a small number of destinations warrants an

infrequent (twice daily) service on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Funding

sources for the proposed transit service are currently being reviewed. Partnering with

the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation on this proposed transits service may provide the

Town with financial and operating efficiencies.

FINAL REPORT


70

Table A20. Summary of Reports

Study or Report Date Finding, Recommendation, or Action

Fountain Hills General Plan 2010 Recommends the expansion of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems to meet the transportation needs of a diverse and growing population.

Fountain Hills Downtown Vision Plan/Area Specific Plan

2009 Recommends the division of the downtown area into nine distinct transit and pedestrian-friendly districts that feature an array of uses and provide a multitude of goods and services.

Scottsdale Transportation Plan

2008 Recommends increased service frequency for Route 106, a new express route on Shea Boulevard, and a possible neighborhood circulator near Shea Boulevard and 132nd St.

Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan

2010 Details the expansion of Valley Metro’s LINK arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) service to the Scottsdale/Rural Rd corridor.

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Long Range Transportation Plan

2010 Recommends the expansion of the Salt River Transit system to include two circulator routes with more frequent service and extended hours of operation.

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Multi-Modal Long Range Transportation Study

2012 Identifies a connecting route between the Bush and Beeline Highways as a long term priority and recommends the development of an infrequent, regularly scheduled transit service with connections to Fountain Hills.

FINAL REPORT


71

A.2 Fountain Hills Bus Stop Inventory Memorandum

FINAL REPORT


72


FINAL REPORT


73


FINAL REPORT


74

Documents

FINAL REPORT FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY … · · 2017-12-28FINAL REPORT FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY 2 This page intentionally left blank for printing