Final Report - Pima Association of Governments

Final Report 

PAG High Capacity Transit System Plan 

September, 2009 

In Association With: PB Americas 

Gordley Design Group

Final Report 

PAG High Capacity Transit System Plan 

Tucson, Arizona 

Prepared For: 

Pima Association of Governments 

177 North Church Street, Suite 405 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

(520) 419-2500 

Prepared By: 

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 

33 North Stone Avenue, Suite 800 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

(520) 544-4067 

Project Principal: James Schoen, P.E., P.T.O.E. 

Project Manager: Kelly Blume, P.E. 

Project No. 9171.00 

September 2009

High Capacity Transit System Plan - Final Report September 2009 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Background and Context............................................................................................................1 

1.2 Purpose of this Report.................................................................................................................1 

1.3 Organization of This Report.......................................................................................................2 

2.0 Existing Conditions..........................................................................................................................3 

2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................3 

2.2 Demographics and Land Use.....................................................................................................3 

2.3 Transportation System ..............................................................................................................16 

3.0 Future Conditions ..........................................................................................................................30 

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................30 

3.2 Demographics and Land Use...................................................................................................30 

3.3 Transportation System ..............................................................................................................37 

4.0 Transit Technologies Analysis .....................................................................................................41 

4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................41 

4.2 Transit Technologies Assessed ................................................................................................41 

4.3 Additional transit technology comparison ............................................................................62 

4.4 Summary of Premium Transit Technology Review..............................................................67 

4.5 Trip/Development Density Related to Premium Transit Modes........................................67 

4.6 Premium Transit Corridors and Modes for Further Evaluation.........................................71 

5.0 Refined Corridor Assessment ......................................................................................................81 

5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................81 

5.2 Description of Corridors and Alternatives.............................................................................81 

5.3 Screening Evaluation.................................................................................................................83 

5.4 Alternative Assessment ............................................................................................................96 

5.5 Conclusions and Recommendations for Task 5 ..................................................................117 

6.0 Development of Updated HCT System Plan ...........................................................................120 

6.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................120 

6.2 Corridors Analyzed in Task 6 ................................................................................................120 

6.3 Description of System Alternatives.......................................................................................124 

6.4 Evaluation of System Alternatives ........................................................................................138 

6.5 Conclusions and Recommendations for Task 6 ..................................................................147 

7.0 HCT Funding................................................................................................................................150 

7.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................150 

7.2 Existing Revenue Sources.......................................................................................................150 

7.3 Potential Revenue Sources .....................................................................................................152 

7.4 Summary of Existing and Potential Revenue Sources Applicable to HCT .....................160 

7.5 Conclusions and Recommendations for Funding...............................................................161 

8.0 Corridor Implementation Plans .................................................................................................162 

i



8.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................162 

8.2 Monitoring for HCT Implementation ...................................................................................163 

8.3 Corridor Implementation Plans.............................................................................................163 

8.4 Regional HCT Implementation Plan Summary ..................................................................177 

8.5 Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation .................................................177 

9.0 Land Use Planning for HCT .......................................................................................................179 

9.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................179 

9.2 Transit‐Oriented Corridor and Station Models...................................................................183 

9.3 Review of Plans and Codes in the Region............................................................................194 

9.4 HCT Development Financial Incentives...............................................................................196 

9.5 Conclusions and Recommendations for Land Use Planning............................................198 

10.0 Next Steps......................................................................................................................................200 

Appendix A: Steps in HCT Implementation Monitoring Process 

Appendix B: Review of General Plans and Codes 

Appendix C: Public and Agency Involvement 

Appendix D: HCT Infrastructure Planning 

ii



LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 Existing Population Density ..................................................................................................5 

Figure 2 Existing Employment Density...............................................................................................6 

Figure 3 Existing Low‐Income Population Density ...........................................................................7 

Figure 4 Existing Zero‐Car Households ..............................................................................................9 

Figure 5 Existing Elderly/Youth Population .....................................................................................10 

Figure 6 Existing Land Use..................................................................................................................11 

Figure 7 Existing Major Trip Generators ........................................................................................... 12 

Figure 8 Existing Trip O‐D Patterns − Work Person‐Trips .............................................................14 

Figure 9 Existing Trip O‐D Patterns − Total Person‐Trips ..............................................................15 

Figure 10 Existing Traffic Level of Service ..........................................................................................17 

Figure 11 Fixed‐Route Transit Service Coverage in the PAG Region .............................................18 

Figure 12 SunTran Route Network ......................................................................................................20 

Figure 13 CatTran Route Network .......................................................................................................25 

Figure 14 Downtown Loop Route Network .......................................................................................27 

Figure 15 Year 2040 Population Density..............................................................................................32 

Figure 16 Year 2040 Employment Density ..........................................................................................33 

Figure 17 Year 2040 Land Use...............................................................................................................34 

Figure 18 Year 2040 Trip O‐D Patterns – Work Person‐Trips ..........................................................35 

Figure 19 Year 2040 Trip O‐D Patterns – Total Person‐Trips ...........................................................36 

Figure 20 Year 2040 Traffic Level of Service .......................................................................................38 

Figure 21 Figure 21 RTA Plan Transit Improvements.......................................................................38 

Figure 21 Figure 21 RTA Plan Transit Improvements.......................................................................39 

Figure 22 Premium Transit Mode Applicability ................................................................................40 

Figure 23 Example of Express Service Bus (Los Angeles).................................................................43 

Figure 24 Off‐Board BRT Fare Collection in Las Vegas.....................................................................46 

Figure 25 Using Bus Color to Convey Transit Information ..............................................................47 

Figure 26 BRT System Map in Los Angeles ........................................................................................48 

Figure 27 Example of Customized BRT Vehicle and Level‐Boarding Station (Eugene, OR).......49 

Figure 28 Example of LRT Vehicle (Portland, OR) ............................................................................52 

Figure 29 Example of LRT Vehicle with Wheelchair Ramp (San Diego)........................................53 

Figure 30 Example of On‐Board Passenger Information (Portland, OR)........................................54 

Figure 31 Example of Streetcar Vehicle (Portland, OR).....................................................................56 

Figure 32 Example of Streetcar in Mixed Traffic (Toronto ALRV) ..................................................57 

Figure 33 Examples of Commuter Rail (Salt Lake City and South Florida)...................................59 

Figure 34 Example of Commuter Rail Station with Modern Design Features (Dallas)................60 

Figure 35 High‐Capacity Transit Mode Operated vs. Urban Area Population .............................65 

Figure 36 High‐Capacity Transit Mode Operated vs. Operating Cost per Passenger Mile......... 65 

Figure 37 High‐Capacity Transit Mode Operated vs. Operating Cost per Revenue Hour.......... 66 

Figure 38 High‐Capacity Transit Mode Operated vs. Capital Cost per Mile................................. 66 

Figure 39 Person Capacity Ranges of U.S. and Canadian Transit Modes ......................................68 

Figure 40 TAZs Supportive of Express Bus Based on Existing Densities .......................................72 

iii



Figure 41 TAZs Supportive of Express Bus Based on 2040 Densities .............................................73 

Figure 42 TAZs Supportive of BRT Based on Existing Densities.....................................................74 

Figure 43 TAZs Supportive of BRT Based on 2040 Densities ...........................................................75 

Figure 44 TAZs Supportive of LRT Based on Existing Densities.....................................................76 

Figure 45 TAZs Supportive of LRT Based on 2040 Densities ...........................................................77 

Figure 46 TAZs Supportive of Commuter Rail Based on Existing Densities .................................78 

Figure 47 TAZs Supportive of Commuter Rail Based on 2040 Densities .......................................79 

Figure 48 Corridors Evaluated in the Refined Corridor Assessment.............................................82 

Figure 49 Representative HCT Stations...............................................................................................90 

Figure 50 Major Trip Generators within Walking Distance of BRT and Streetcar ......................106 

Figure 51 Major Trip Generators within Walking Distance of LRT and CRT..............................107 

Figure 52 Existing Minority Population ............................................................................................111 

Figure 53 Ronstadt Transit Center in Downtown Tucson ..............................................................121 

Figure 54 Eastbound Broadway Boulevard at Tucson Boulevard .................................................121 

Figure 55 Eastbound Broadway Boulevard at Dodge Boulevard (El Con Mall) .........................122 

Figure 56 Eastbound Broadway Boulevard at Columbus Boulevard ...........................................122 

Figure 57 Eastbound Broadway Boulevard West of Columbus Boulevard (with Bus Lane) ....122 

Figure 58 Northbound 6th Avenue at Pennsylvania Drive ............................................................123 

Figure 59 Northbound 6th Avenue at 29th Street ............................................................................123 

Figure 60 Northbound 6th Avenue at Stone Avenue and 18th Street...........................................123 

Figure 61 Conventional Sun Tran Bus ...............................................................................................126 

Figure 62 System Alternative A ‐ Broadway Boulevard Corridor.................................................127 

Figure 63 System Alternative A ‐ 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway Corridor ................................128 

Figure 64 System Alternative B ‐ Campbell Avenue North Corridor ...........................................135 

Figure 65 HCT Implementation Monitoring Process.......................................................................164 

Figure 66 3rd Street Promenade (Santa Monica, CA) ......................................................................179 

Figure 67 Del Mar Station TOD (Pasadena, CA)..............................................................................180 

Figure 68 The Round at Beaverton Central TOD (outside Portland, OR) ....................................180 

Figure 69 Portland Streetcar Station at Portland State University.................................................181 

Figure 70 LRT Station TOD (Charlotte) .............................................................................................181 

Figure 71 Streetcar Station TOD (Dallas)...........................................................................................182 

Figure 72 Fan Pier TOD Before and After along Silver Line BRT (Boston) ..................................182 

Figure 73 Transit Village Concept ......................................................................................................187 

Figure 74 Building with Upper Floors “Stepped Back” from the Street (Tucson).......................196 

Figure 75 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority TOD Financing Programs (Boston)...198 

iv



LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Existing SunTran Service Summary........................................................................................21 

Table 2 Existing Park‐and‐Ride Facilities in PAG Region .................................................................23 

Table 3 SunTran Operating Statistics (FY 2006‐2007).........................................................................24 

Table 4 CatTran Service Summary........................................................................................................26 

Table 5 Express Bus Peer Review Summary........................................................................................44 

Table 6 FTA BRT Characterization........................................................................................................47 

Table 7 BRT Peer Review Summary .....................................................................................................50 

Table 8 LRT Peer Review Summary .....................................................................................................55 

Table 9 Streetcar Peer Review Summary .............................................................................................58 

Table 10 Commuter Rail Peer Review Summary .............................................................................61 

Table 11 Additional LRT Cost Data....................................................................................................62 

Table 12 Additional Streetcar Cost Data............................................................................................63 

Table 13 Additional BRT Cost Data (Exclusive Right of Way Operations) ..................................63 

Table 14 Additional Commuter Rail Cost Data ................................................................................64 

Table 15 Summary of Premium Transit Technologies (Peer Review Systems)............................67 

Table 16 Development Density Thresholds for a Range of Transit Services................................69 

Table 17 Preliminary HCT Scenario in Pima County ......................................................................80 

Table 18 Task 5 Corridors and HCT Technology Alternatives.......................................................83 

Table 19 Features That Augment Transit Ridership ........................................................................86 

Table 20 Preliminary Ridership Estimates.........................................................................................96 

Table 21 ROW Availability Assessment ............................................................................................98 

Table 22 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates....................................................................................99 

Table 23 Preliminary Operating Cost Estimates.............................................................................101 

Table 24 Existing Major Trip Generators with Walking Distance of HCT Corridors ...............105 

Table 25 Roadway Segment Operations Assessment ....................................................................109 

Table 26 Corridor Assessment Summary ........................................................................................114 

Table 27 Ridership Benefit vs. Investment in Capital ....................................................................117 

Table 28 Existing Major Trip Generators with Walking Distance of HCT Corridors ...............141 

Table 29 2040 Roadway Segment Operations .................................................................................142 

Table 30 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates..................................................................................145 

Table 31 Preliminary Operating Cost Estimates.............................................................................147 

Table 32 RTA Funding for Transit Element ....................................................................................150 

Table 33 Sample Timeline for Implementation of BRT under Very Small Starts.......................168 

Table 34 HCT Implementation Plan .................................................................................................177 

v

High Capacity Transit System Plan - Final Report Septeber 2009 

Executive Summary 

PAG High Capacity Transit System Study 

PURPOSE 

As the population of eastern Pima County continues to grow from the current 1 million to some 1.8 million 

residents by 2040, expansion of the transportation system will be critical to maintain the high level of mobility 

that supports the quality of life and economic vitality of the region. With ever increasing fuel costs, 

skyrocketing costs to construct and maintain roads, and deepening concerns over climate change and other 

environmental issues, transit will serve an increasing role in achieving this goal. 

The Pima Association of Governments (PAG) has conducted this study to develop a High Capacity Transit 

(HCT) system plan for the region. HCT systems are intended to carry high volumes of passengers with fast 

and convenient service. The planning process for this study made use of the latest information related to 

existing and future population, employment, and transportation conditions in the region, assessed the 

applicability of different HCT transit modes and technologies, and gathered input from jurisdictions and 

agencies in the region, as well as the general public, on desirable HCT improvements. The resulting HCT 

System Plan defines incremental, sustainable, and cost‐effective steps for the implementation of HCT 

technologies to serve existing and future travel demand in the region. The HCT System Plan will be integrated 

into the transit element of the 2040 Regional Transportation System Plan now under development. 

RECENT TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 

Long‐range planning for the implementation of HCT was a component of the 2030 Regional Transportation 

Plan adopted in 2006. HCT elements included in this plan included express bus service, bus rapid transit 

(BRT), and streetcar. The Regional Transportation Authority’s (RTA) 20‐year transportation improvement 

program, funded by a voter‐approved ½ cent sales tax, includes the Tucson Modern Streetcar that is currently 

under design and scheduled to begin operation in 2011, as well as expansion of express bus service. The 

streetcar will run along a 4‐mile corridor providing circulation between the University of Arizona and 

downtown Tucson and will encourage transit‐supportive development/redevelopment along the route, 

illustrating the transportation and land‐use benefits of fixed‐rail HCT in the region. 

In response to increasing transit demand, SunTran recently expanded fixed route and express bus service. New 

routes have been added including circulator routes in Oro Valley, Green Valley, Marana and Sahuarita, bus 

frequency has increased, and hours of operation have been extended at night and on the weekends. To support 

the expanded transit system, SunTran has introduced new stylized express buses, has constructed new parkand‐ride 

lots as part of the increased express bus service, and is constructing a new maintenance facility to 

accommodate the expanded fleet. 

HCT MODES 

After completing an initial assessment of transit technologies, the HCT modes shown below were identified as 

the most likely to meet the study’s goals and objectives: 

vi

High Capacity Transit System Plan - Final Report June 2009 


Express Bus: 

• Faster than local bus service 

• Fewer stops than local bus service 

• Frequent service during peak periods 

• Point‐to‐point service 

Modern Streetcar: 

• Shorter trips served with more frequent 

stops 

• Encourages Transit Oriented Development 

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): 

• Fewer stops, more frequent service, and 

longer trips served compared to local bus 

service 


• Significantly lower implementation and 

operations cost compared to LRT 

Light Rail Transit (LRT): 

• Higher speed and capacity than Modern 

Streetcar 

• Versatility allows operation in central 

business district or suburban areas 


Commuter Rail Transit (CRT): 

• High capacity service between city centers 

and suburban areas 

• High operating speeds over long 

distances with few stops 

CORRIDOR SCREENING EVALUATION 

Based on input from local stakeholders, sixteen corridors were identified as possible locations for HCT 

implementation, as shown in the Regional HCT Routes map. Discussion with the project’s Technical Advisory 

Committee (TAC), which was composed of representatives of local governments and agencies, narrowed the 

list to eight corridors for further analysis. The primary screening criteria used to assess and rank the eight 

HCT corridors included potential ridership, right‐of‐way availability, capital and operating costs. 

vii



SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

The screening evaluation and TAC input led the project team to select two “priority” HCT corridors: Broadway 

Boulevard and 6th Avenue /Nogales Highway. No fatal flaws were identified for the other six HCT corridors, 

so these were addressed as part of a long‐term implementation plan. 

The project team developed three system alternatives for near‐term implementation based on the two priority 

HCT corridors. The system alternatives include multiple corridors and HCT technologies and address specific 

needs identified through the screening evaluation process. The recommended system alternatives are based on 

a plan that considers the fundamental factors of cost‐effective implementation and operation, consistency with 

land use, and service to major activity and employment centers. 

HCT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 

Funding the Implementation of HCT 

The project team identified existing revenue sources available to the region for development and operation of 

HCT and new revenue sources that can be investigated. Particular attention was paid to eligibility for federal 

funding since it is likely to be a very significant part of any HCT project and will influence the timeline of 

project development. Various federal funding sources are available to fund capital costs, however they are very 

competitive and require local matching funds. As such, local and innovative revenue sources will need to be 

considered. 

Federal Funding 

• New Starts 

• Small Starts 

• Very Small Starts 

• Large Urban Cities Grants 

• Bus and Bus Facilities Grants 

Coordinating HCT with Land Use Planning 

Local Funding Opportunities 

• Special Assessment Districts 

• Impact Fees 

• Sales Tax; including RTA extension 

• Rental Car Surcharge 

• Vehicle Registration Fees 

• Advertising Rights 

• Increased/Special Fares 

• Parking Fees and Fines 

Land use planning is a critical component of successful HCT systems and transit‐oriented planning is tied to 

livability, economic development, and community pride. The general plans, land use codes, and development 

standards of the cities and towns affected by HCT include HCT and TOD‐supportive components, but 

opportunities exist to refine these plans and target TOD focusing on the following principles: 

• Recognition of a variety of station types/environments 

• Pedestrian focus 

• Mix of uses 

• Densities and intensities that encourage transit ridership 

• Management of parking and access to promote alternative mode use 

viii



Corridor Implementation Plans 

An implementation scenario was developed with near‐term and long‐term staging of HCT for each potential 

corridor based on an assessment that identified opportunities and constraints for each case. As HCT is not an 

all‐or nothing investment, a monitoring methodology was described that can be used to guide the region in 

determining if, when, and how HCT can be implemented in a given corridor. The following map summarizes 

the development of individual corridor implementation plans including staging of HCT projects for near and 

long‐term. 

ix



x


Introduction 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 

The Pima Association of Governments (PAG) has conducted an updated High Capacity Transit 

(HCT) System Plan study with the intent of developing an updated HCT system plan for the 

Tucson region. The planning process built in the latest information related to existing and future 

conditions in the study area, the applicability of different transit modes and technologies, and 

input from agencies and the general public on desired premium transit improvements. The study 

builds on the work conducted in 2003 that assessed HCT system needs and options in preparing 

the Transit Element of PAG’s 2030 Regional Transportation System Plan. The new HCT System 

Plan will be integrated into an updated 2040 Regional Transportation System Plan. 

1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 

This report summarizes the work completed in developing the updated HCT System Plan. The 

work was organized in eight tasks: 

• Task 1: Project Management, Administration, and Coordination 

• Attend Technical Advisory Committee meetings. 

• Conduct interviews with key stakeholders as defined by PAG staff. 

• Task 2: Public Involvement 

• Participate in public meetings to obtain general public input on key issues applicable 

to HCT modes and corridors. 

• Task 3: Develop Building Quality for Arizona (BQAZ) Project Needs List 

• Develop a list of transportation improvement needs in the study area for inclusion in 

the BQAZ program. 

• Task 4: Initial Transit Technology/Conditions Assessment 

• Identify attributes of potential HCT modes, focusing on commuter rail, light rail, 

modern streetcar, bus rapid transit, and express bus service. 

• Identify land development, demographic, and trip pattern conditions that are 

conducive to HCT. 

• Identify existing and future (2040) conditions in the Tucson area related to land use, 

demographics, and trip patterns. 

• Identify corridors and subareas meeting transit mode warrants. 

• Task 5: Refined Corridor Assessment 

• Identify evaluation criteria to assess and compare HCT alternatives in designated 

corridors and subareas. 

1


Introduction 

• Conduct a corridor assessment by applying the criteria developed to each potential 

corridor. 

• Task 6: Develop Updated HCT System Plan 

• Conduct a system integration assessment by packaging one or more HCT system 

alternatives to assess the impact on an overall regional level. 

• Develop a refined HCT system plan. 

• Task 7: Develop HCT Implementation Strategy 

• Identify potential funding sources including federal, state, local, and innovative 

sources. 

• Develop an implementation program based on estimated capital and operating costs 

and available funding sources, with short‐term, mid‐term, and long‐term paths. 

• Develop recommendations for land use policies and practices that the jurisdictions 

in the area can use to support and promote HCT. 

• Task 8: Develop Final Report 

• Summarize the overall results of the PAG HCT System Plan process and include any 

additional TAC input. 

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT 

This report is organized around the project tasks as follows: 

• Sections 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 describe work accomplished under Task 4. 

• Section 5.0 describes work accomplished under Task 5. 

• Section 6.0 describes work accomplished under Task 6. 

• Sections 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0 describe work accomplished under Task 7. 

• Section 10.0 contains conclusions and recommendations for the entire project. 

2


Existing Conditions 

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 


Section 2.0 summarizes the existing conditions analysis that was conducted as part of Task 4 and 

consists of an assessment of existing demographic and transportation conditions. This analysis was 

conducted in June 2008, and the information presented is current as of that date. Some of the existing 

transit information has now changed as some of the transit improvements that were in the planning stages 

in June 2008 have now been implemented. 

2.2 DEMOGRAPHICS AND LAND USE 

Several demographic characteristics of the area can be potential indicators of propensity to use 

transit. Among these are population and employment density, income, car ownership, and age. 

Population Density 

The total population in Pima County has increased since 1980 with an average annual growth rate 

of approximately 2.4%. 1 All incorporated areas within Pima County have experienced population 

growth over the past decade, led by Sahuarita at 752% and Marana at 366%. Oro Valley had 

growth of 86%, and Tucson had growth of 18%. Growth in South Tucson at 6% is substantially 

lower than in other incorporated areas. 2 

Figure 1 presents existing population density by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) in the study area, 

expressed as persons per gross acre. Population density was categorized into five groups, with 

less than two households per gross acre representing the lowest density and greater than 15 

households per acre representing the highest density. 

Population density is lower on the west side of I‐10 and I‐19 than on the east side. Low 

population density is found in Marana, Oro Valley, Sahuarita, and the Santa Catalina Mountains 

foothills area. The highest population density is between 12th Avenue and 6th Avenue from 

1 University of Arizona Department of Urban Planning and Design 

2 Pima Association of Governments 

3



south of I‐10 to the Tucson city limits. High population density is also found in the vicinity of 

Stone Avenue from downtown Tucson to River Road. This high density is focused along Oracle 

Road, Stone Avenue, and 1 st Avenue. Along 22 nd Avenue and Golf Links Road‐36th Street, from 

Kolb Road to downtown Tucson, is an area of high population density. There are other TAZs 

with high population density; however, these are isolated and do not occur in large areas or 

corridors. 

Employment Density 

Figure 2 shows existing employment density by TAZ in the study area. Employment density was 

categorized into five groups, with 0 to 5 employees per gross acre representing the lowest density 

and greater than 50 employees per gross acre representing the highest density. 

Most areas of the county show a density of less than 5 employees per gross acre. Only a few 

isolated areas contain a density of greater than 50 employees per gross acre, and there are no 

large areas or corridors of high employment density. Although UA is one of the largest employers 

in the study area, it does not have high employment density. Small areas of high employment 

density can be found in downtown Tucson and in the areas around the Tucson International 

Airport (TIA). There is also high employment density in the Tanque Verde Triangle retail and 

office development area. 

Transit-Dependent Population 

Three demographic characteristics that have been identified as attributes of transit dependency 

are low‐income households, zero‐car households, and persons in the age groups of 5‐19 years and 

65+ years. 

Low-Income Population 

Figure 3 presents the existing density of low‐income households based on an income of $40,000 

per year or less. A large area in the southeast part of the study area between I‐19 and I‐10 is 

composed of TAZs with greater than 85% of households earning a median income of $40,000 or 

less. East of 6th Avenue between 29th Street and Ajo Highway is an area with a high density of 

low‐income households. Along Broadway Boulevard and Speedway Boulevard south and west of 

the University of Arizona (UA) is an area with a high density of low‐income households. Between 

Oracle Road and Stone Avenue from Speedway Boulevard to Prince Road is a corridor with a 

high density of low‐income households. Other areas with a high density of low‐income 

households are Alvernon Way between 5th Street and Prince Road and the north side of Drexel 

Road. Along Tangerine Road are TAZs with a high density of low income households. 

4



Figure 1 

Existing Population Density 

5



Figure 2 

Existing Employment Density 

6



Figure 3 

Existing Low-Income Population Density 

7



Zero-Car Households 

Figure 4 presents the percentage of households in each TAZ with zero cars available. More than 

50% of the households in most of the TAZs have at least one car available. The highest 

percentages of households with no cars available are in downtown Tucson and north of 

downtown Tucson on the west side of Oracle Road. On the east side of 6th Avenue is another 

area where a relatively large percentage of households have no car available. Also, along 6th 

Avenue from downtown Tucson to Irvington Road are areas with a relatively high percentage of 

zero‐car households. Along Grant Road and Country Club Road, between Swan Road and 

Craycroft Road, is an area with a moderately high percentage of zero‐car households. Other TAZs 

with a moderately high percentage of zero‐car households are generally isolated. 

Age 

Figure 5 presents persons in the age groups of 5 years to 19 years or 65 years and above by 

Census tract. The percentage of individuals in either of those age groups is displayed. For most of 

the study area, fewer than 35% of individuals fall into those age groups. Few areas have more 

than 50% of individuals falling into those age groups. Along La Cañada Drive north of River 

Road are two such areas, and southwest of Sahuarita is a large area with these age group 

characteristics. There is also an area with more than 50% of individuals falling into those age 

groups in the vicinity of UA. 

Land Use 

Transit service is influenced by land use and the location of major trip generators including large 

employers, regional shopping malls, community shopping centers, government facilities, 

colleges, and health care facilities. Figure 6 presents the land uses in the study area, and Figure 7 

identifies major trip generators. 

Most of the residential land use is located north and east of downtown Tucson. Between I‐10 and 

the Santa Catalina Mountains, the land use is primarily residential, although there are other uses 

in the area. Commercial areas are spread throughout the study area, mostly located among 

residential land use between I‐10 and the Santa Catalina Mountains. Major commercial 

developments are also located around TIA and north of I‐10 between Kino Parkway and Davis‐ 

Monthan Air Force Base. Institutional land use, which includes educational, medical, and other 

facilities, is located throughout the study area, as is office land use. There is a large Native 

American community generally located in the area between Ajo Highway and I‐19. A significant 

portion of the land use in the study area is parks and includes the Coronado National Forest in 

the northeast, Saguaro National park in the east, and Santa Rita Experimental Range in the 

southeast. Two large areas of mining land use are located in the southern part of the study area, 

west of I‐19. A large portion of the southeastern part of the study area between I‐10 and I‐19 is 

agricultural and vacant land, as is the southwest portion of the study area. In the northern part of 

the study area between I‐10 and the Santa Catalina Mountains are vacant and agricultural areas. 

8



Figure 4 

Existing Zero-Car Households 

9



Figure 5 

Existing Elderly/Youth Population 

10



Figure 6 

Existing Land Use 

11



Figure 7 

Existing Major Trip Generators 

12



The Rio Nuevo development is a major mixed‐use development and redevelopment effort in 

downtown Tucson. Over $800 million in investment in this area is planned over the next 20 years, 

including 600,000 square feet of new or improved cultural facilities, 1.5 million square feet of 

retail, and 1,000 new residential units. The complete development will total 4.6 million square feet 

Major Trip Generators 

The area southeast of downtown Tucson contains several of the largest employers in Pima 

County. Along Nogales Highway between Valencia Road and Hughes Access Road are two of the 

principal employers in the study area. Raytheon Missile Systems is the largest in the region with 

over 11,000 employees. TIA has a workforce of over 5,000 people, and the industrial and 

commercial developments around the airport employ thousands of additional workers. Davis‐ 

Monthan Air Force Base is also one of the region’s main employers, with over 9,000 personnel. 

Also located in the general vicinity is the UA Technology Park, which employs over 7,500 people. 

UA, located east of downtown Tucson, is one of the core employers, with a staff of over 10,000. 

Among the leading commercial employers is Tucson Mall, located in northern Tucson and 

employing more than 4,500 people. Two regional shopping centers are located along Broadway 

Boulevard east of downtown. Also located on Broadway Boulevard east of downtown is Williams 

Center, a retail area with 3,000 employees. The TAZs in the downtown area of Tucson reflect 

thousands of workers, although no single organization dominates the percentage of employees. 

Other major employers include Pima Community College with several campuses, the Veterans 

Administration Medical Center, and two major casinos located in Native American communities. 

Trip Patterns 

Travel assessment was conducted based on aggregating TAZs into larger super zones consistent 

with the Transit Element of the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The super zones that 

were used were the same as those in the previous study as identified by PAG. The super zones 

represent major travel destinations such as UA or the Town of Marana. Volumes used are from 

PAG’s regional travel forecasting model and are presented as origin‐to‐destination (O‐D) pairs in 

Figure 8 and Figure 9. 

Existing work person‐trips are most concentrated in the central areas of Tucson. The heaviest 

volume of trips occurs between outlying areas and central Tucson, with fewer work trips between 

outlying areas. There are a large number of work trips between the west Tucson area to the 

central area of Tucson (including downtown Tucson and UA). There are also a large number of 

trips between the east Tucson area and the central Tucson as well as eastern portions of the study 

area. Trips between the central Tucson area and northern portions of the study area (such as the 

Oro Valley area and the Cañada del Oro area) are high. Work trips between the central Tucson 

area and the Sahuarita/Green Valley area are low. Also low are trips between central Tucson and 

the Tucson Southeast area and between central Tucson and the Marana area. 

13



Figure 8 

Existing Trip O-D Patterns − Work Person-Trips 

14



Figure 9 

Existing Trip O-D Patterns − Total Person-Trips 

15



Total person‐trip patterns are generally similar to work person‐trip patterns. The heaviest 

volumes of total trips occur between the central Tucson area and western and eastern portions of 

the study area. Particularly heavy are trips between the Flowing Wells area and other areas 

including Cañada del Oro TAZ, west Tucson, central/north Tucson, and central/east Tucson. Total 

trips are low between the central Tucson areas and outlying areas such as Marana, southeast 

Tucson, and Sahuarita/Green Valley. 

2.3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

Traffic Volumes and Level of Service 

As shown in Figure 10, the most heavily congested corridor in the study area is the I‐10 corridor. 

Most areas experience some congestion, with heavy congestion along many parts of I‐10 heading 

northwest of downtown Tucson. The segment of I‐10 heading southeast of downtown Tucson is 

also congested, although not as severely. Nogales Highway in the area of TIA has congestion and 

areas that are over capacity from Valencia to Old Vail Connection Road. Oracle Road from 

downtown Tucson to the northern part of the study area is congested, with areas of moderate and 

heavy congestion. Valencia Road west of I‐19 has areas of heavy congestion and over‐capacity 

conditions. East of downtown Tucson, Grant Road has many areas of congestion, as do River 

Road and Ft. Lowell Road. Congestion occurs on Stone Avenue from downtown Tucson to Ft. 

Lowell Road, and Euclid Avenue‐1 st Avenue has areas of congestion from Broadway Boulevard to 

River Road. Congestion is light throughout the Broadway Boulevard corridor west of I‐10, but is 

heavy near downtown. Speedway Boulevard is lightly congested; some areas of moderate 

congestion exist. 

Public Transit System 

The PAG region is served by four fixed‐route systems: SunTran, CatTran, Downtown Loop, and 

Pima County Rural Services. Figure 11 shows the overall service coverage of these systems. Each 

system is described in more detail in the following sections. The information below regarding routes 

and facilities is current as of June 2008. Some modifications in service and route numbers have occurred 

since that time. 

SunTran 

SunTran is the City of Tucson−administered public transit provider and is the largest such 

provider in the study area. Routes are primarily in the City of Tucson but do extend into other 

incorporated and unincorporated areas in the region. 

16



Figure 10 

Existing Traffic Level of Service 

17



Figure 11 

Fixed-Route Transit Service Coverage in the PAG Region 

18



Routes 

The SunTran service comprises 40 fixed routes, 27 of which operate seven days a week and 13 of 

which operate on weekdays only. Thirteen of the routes operate as express service during 

weekdays. Figure 12 identifies the overall SunTran route system. Table 1 identifies the service 

frequency, span of service, and 2006‐2007 average daily ridership for each route. Hours of 

operation vary, beginning as early as 4:45 a.m. and extending past midnight for some routes. 

Headways also vary by route, with some as short as ten minutes during peak periods and some 

as long as one hour during non‐peak periods. Highlights of SunTran’s busiest routes are as 

follows: 

• Route #8 has the highest weekday and weekend ridership by a substantial margin over all 

other routes. The route has several thousand riders per weekday more than any other 

route, for a total of over 10,000 riders per day during the weekday. The route originates 

and terminates at Laos Transit Center, running along 6th Avenue through downtown 

Tucson and Ronstadt Transit Center, then along Broadway Boulevard. The route then 

travels north along Wilmot Road to Grant Road and returns to Broadway Boulevard, 

where it continues to Harrison Street. The route provides access to the Veteran’s 

Administration Hospital, the El Con Mall, and Park Place Mall. 

• Route #16 has the second highest weekday and weekend ridership, with an average 

weekday ridership of over 6,000. The route begins at Laos Transit Center and travels north 

along 10th Avenue to downtown Tucson and Ronstadt Transit Center. The route 

continues north along Stone Avenue to Drachman Street, where it then proceeds along 

Oracle Road to Tohono Transit Center. The route progresses further north to Ina Road and 

east to Regency Plaza Street. Notable points of service include Pueblo High School, Amphi 

High School, the Tucson Mall, and Casas Adobes Plaza. 

• Route# 4 has the third highest weekday and weekend ridership, exceeding 5,000 riders per 

day during weekdays. The route begins and terminates at Ronstadt Transit Center and 

travels through downtown Tucson and along 6th Avenue to Speedway Boulevard. The 

route travels east on Speedway Boulevard to Kolb Road and south along Kolb Road to 

Golf Links Road. Returning on Kolb Road to Speedway Boulevard, the route continues 

further east to Harrison Street. This route provides service to UA. 

• Routes #6 and 11 have the fourth and fifth highest weekday and weekend ridership, with 

an average of over 4,000 riders per weekday. Both routes are operated from Laos Transit 

Center and provide service to TIA. Both routes run primarily along Alvernon Way, 

including service to Randolph Recreation Center, Palo Verde Industrial Park, and 

University Physicians Hospital. 

19



Figure 12 

SunTran Route Network 

20



Route 

Table 1 

Existing SunTran Service Summary 

Service Frequency 

(minutes) 

Service Period (a.m./p.m.) 

Average Daily Ridership 

M-F SAT SUN M-F SAT SUN M-F SAT SUN 

1-Glenn Swan 30-60 60 60 6:00/11:00 6:30/9:30 7:30/8:30 1,836 826 467 

2-Cherrybell/Country Club 30-60 60 60 5:15/11:30 7:00/7:00 8:18/7:00 1,373 618 349 

3-6th St./Wilmot 30-60 60 60 5:00/11:45 5:00/10:00 6:30/8:30 3,060 1,376 778 

4-Speedway 20-60 20-60 20-60 5:03/12:15 6:10/9:50 7:15/8:45 5,139 2,312 1,306 

5-Pima St./W. Speedway 30-60 60 60 5:45/7:30 6:30/7:30 7:45/7:30 1,374 618 349 

6-S. Park Ave/N 1 st Ave 15-60 30-60 60 4:45/12:00 6:30/9:30 6:15/8:30 4,279 1,925 1,088 

7-22 nd Street 30-60 60 60 6:00/11:30 6:00/9:00 7:00/8:00 2,532 1,139 644 

8-Broadway/6th Ave 10-30 15-30 20 4:45/12:00 5:30/9:30 6:10/8:50 10,617 4,776 2,699 

9-Grant Road 30-60 60 60 4:30/11:30 6:15/9:00 7:15/8:45 2,272 1,022 577 

10-Flowing Wells 30-40 60 60 6:00/11:30 7:00/9:20 7:00/8:30 1,646 740 418 

11-Alvernon Way 30-60 60 60 5:50/11:00 6:35/9:20 6:30/8:25 4,095 1,842 1,041 

15-Campbell Ave 15-60 60 60 5:30/11:40 6:30/9:15 7:40/8:15 1,802 811 458 

16-Oracle/12th Ave 15-60 30-60 30-60 5:00/11:50 5:40/9:30 5:40/9:00 6,062 2,727 1,541 

17-Country Club/29th St 25-60 60 60 5:40/11:10 6:15/9:45 7:15/8:45 2,448 1,101 622 

19-Stone 30-60 30-60 60 5:45/11:00 7:15/9:30 6:45/8:45 1,639 737 417 

20-W Grant/Ironwood Hills 30-60 - - 6:00/6:30 - - 505 - - 

21-W Congress/Silverbell 30-60 30 60 6:00/11:15 6:20/7:30 7:20/4:30 694 312 176 

22-Grande 30-60 60 60 5:45/11:10 6:00/9:15 7:00/8:30 669 301 170 

23-Mission Rd 25-60 60 60 5:00/11:00 7:00/7:15 8:00/6:40 1,482 667 377 

24-South 12th Ave 60 60 60 4:45/9:30 5:00/9:00 7:45/8:45 905 407 230 

26-Benson Highway 30-60 60 60 5:40/11:10 6:30/7:30 8:30/6:30 1,222 550 311 

27-Midvale Park Rd 30-40 60 60 5:45/10:40 7:15/7:10 8:15/6:15 725 326 184 

29-Valencia 25-40 60 60 5:45/11:15 6:15/9:15 8:18/6:15 1,539 692 391 

34-Craycroft/Ft Lowell 20-60 60 60 6:00/11:30 6:30/9:20 7:30/8:20 1,981 891 504 

37-Pantano 30 - - 5:40/7:40 - - 699 - - 

50-Ajo Way 30-60 60 60 6:00/9:30 6:30/8:00 8:40/6:00 661 297 168 

61-La Cholla 30 60 60 5:50/8:10 6:00/6:50 6:00/5:50 533 240 136 

81-Tanque Verde(Express) 15-30 - - 6:40/6:00 - - 76 - - 

82-Broadway(Express) 10-20 - - 6:40/5:50 - - 160 - - 

83-Golf Links(Express) N/A - - 6:50/5:50 - - 73 - - 

102-Ina Rd(Express) 15-20 - - 6:30/6:00 - - 152 - - 

103-Oldfather(Express) 30 - - 6:30/6:00 - - 49 - - 

105-Sunrise(Express) N/A - - 6:20/6:30 - - 12 - - 

106-Swan(Express) N/A - - 7:00/6:00 - - 24 - - 

162-Oro Valley(Express) 30-60 - - 5:30/7:00 - - 53 - - 

180-Aero Park Speedway 

* 

(Express) 

15-60 - - 5:30/5:45 - - 66 - - 

186-Aero Park Ina (Express) 10-60 - - 5:30/6:45 - - 127 - - 

391-Marana (Express) 20-60 - - 6:40/6:10 - - 9 - - 

21



Facilities 

The SunTran fleet currently has 203 vehicles and serves three transit centers. Ronstadt Transit 

Center is located in downtown Tucson, Roy Laos Transit Center is on the south side of Tucson on 

Irvington Road west of 6th Avenue, and Tohono Tadai Transit Center is on the north side of 

Tucson on Stone Avenue. All vehicles in the fleet are wheelchair‐accessible and use biodiesel fuel 

or compressed natural gas. A network of 22 small park‐and‐ride lots is served by the system, 

some of which are owned by the City of Tucson and some of which are used through agreements 

with other organizations. Table 2 describes the SunTran park‐and‐ride facilities. 

Operating Performance 

Pertinent operating performance statistics for the different SunTran routes are presented in Table 

3. The table reveals that seven of the 13 current express routes (the #81, 103, 105, 106, 142, 180, and 

301) are considered substandard based on the three performance indicators in the table 

(passengers per mile, passengers per hour, and cost per passenger). The #83 express route is the 

only express route considered to have a superior performance based on all three indicators. Of the 

27 local routes, 14 have been rated superior. The #19 local route is the top performer in terms of 

passengers per mile and cost per passenger, and the #8 local route is the top performer in terms of 

passengers per hour. 

CatTran 

CatTran is the UA shuttle program. It operates Monday to Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., 

with a night service operating from 6:00 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. During university holidays and 

semester breaks, service is limited. Service is free on the UA campus; however, access from lots is 

restricted to permit‐holders and university‐affiliated area residents. Five park‐and‐ride lots (9005, 

9006, 9007, 9008, and 9009) are served by CatTran. 

Routes 

The CatTran service comprises six routes, as shown in Figure 13. Table 4 provides a service 

summary for the system, including service frequency, span of service, and average daily 

ridership. The CatTran routes are described as follows: 

• The USA Route serves Park‐and‐Ride Lot 9006 on Main Avenue and Fifth Street and stops 

at University Services Building, Maingate Garage, McClelland Hall, CCIT, Civil 

Engineering, University Boulevard/Euclid Avenue, 4th Avenue at 6th Street, and 

downtown Tucson. 

• The Purple Route provides service along 4th Street between Park Avenue and Cherry 

Avenue and along Cherry Avenue to the Arizona Health Sciences Center and 6th Street 

Garage. 

22



Table 2 

Location 

Existing Park-and-Ride Facilities in PAG Region 

Number of 

Spaces 

Route Service 

Owner 

Himmel Park- 1000 N Tucson Blvd; 1 st St/Forgeus 22 4 Private 

Reid Park- 22 nd Street & Randolph Way 37 7 Private 

Coronado Baptist Church- 2609 N Park at Copper n/a 1 Private 

South of Tohono Tadai Transit Center; Stone/Wetmore 18/20 

Laos Transit Center- 6th Ave & Irvington 39 

6, 10, 15, 16, 19, 

34, 61, 105, 162 

2, 6, 8, 11, 16, 23, 

24, 26, 27, 29, 50 

City of Tucson 


PCC Desert Vista Campus- Drexel & Calle Santa Cruz 105 27 PCC 

Irvington & Santa Cruz River 34 23 City of Tucson 

Safeway Center- 8740 E Broadway at Camino Saco n/a 8, 82 Private 

Golf Links & Kolb 75 4, 17, 83 City of Tucson 

PCC East Campus- Fred Enke Dr & Irvington n/a 3, 37 PCC 

Speedway & Harrison 50 4, 8, 180 City of Tucson 

Ft Lowell Park- 2900 N Craycroft at Glenn 60 34 Private 

Bear Canyon Plaza- Catalina Hwy/Tanque Verde 25+ 81 Private 

I-10 & Ruthrauff; Frontage Road 30 17 Private 

North Pima Center- Ina & Thornydale 16 16, 102, 103, 186 Private 

Ina & Via Ponte 16 16, 103 Private 

Oracle Plaza- Oracle & Orange Grove 20 16, 103 Private 

Victory Assembly of God Church- 2561 W Ruthrauff at Plane 

Ave 

22 17 Private 

PCC Northwest Campus- Shannon & Campus Park Way n/a 61 PCC 

Marana- SW Corner of Cortaro & AZ Pavilions Dr 50 391 Private 

PCC West Campus- Greasewood & Anklam 70 5, 3 PCC 

Archer Neighb. Center- 1665 S LaCholla Blvd at San Marcos 18 23 Private 

NOTE: CatTran park-and-ride lots are not included. 

• The Mauve Route serves the 9008 Park/Ride Lot and goes to the McKale area, Main 

Library, Arizona Health Sciences Center, and the Recreation Center. Service is also along 

6th Street between Campbell Avenue and Highland Avenue, and along Cherry Avenue to 

the Arizona Health Sciences Center and 6th Street Garage. 

• The Teal Route provides service to the Arizona Health Sciences Center, Maingate Garage, 

and Civil Engineering. 

• The Orange Route provides service to Park‐and‐Ride Lots 9005, 9007, and 9009. Service 

runs along Mountain Avenue to Ft. Lowell Road. 

• The NightCat route is the night service, which operates from 6:00 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. with 

no service between 8:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. Service is along 6th Street from Euclid Avenue 

to Highland Avenue and along Cherry Avenue to Arizona Health Sciences Center. Service 

is provided to the Highland Garage and along Mountain Avenue, Park Avenue, and 

University Boulevard to Euclid Avenue. 

23



Table 3 SunTran Operating Statistics (FY 2006-2007) 

24



Figure 13 

CatTran Route Network 

25



Route 

Table 4 


(minutes) 

CatTran Service Summary 

Hours of Service 

Average Weekday Daily 

Ridership 

USA Route Approx. 15 to 30 6:39 a.m. to 6:28 p.m. 195 

Purple Route 13 6:30 a.m. to 6:23 p.m. 374 

Mauve Route 14 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. 378 

Teal Route 13 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. 664 

Orange Route 16 6:40 a.m. to 6:26 p.m. 464 

NightCat Route 30 

6:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. 

(no service 8:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.) 

23 

Facilities 

The CatTran fleet comprises 18 buses. These include clean biodiesel engine vehicles and gasoperated 

vehicles. The CatTran service contains a network of six park‐and‐ride lots located near 

the main campus at the following locations: 

• 9005 is located on Mountain Avenue between Adelaide Drive and Glenn Street 

• 9006 is located at the intersection of Main Avenue and Fifth Street 

• 9007 is located on Mountain Avenue between Ft Lowell Road and Hedrick Drive 

• 9008 is located on the northeast quadrant of 13th Street and Plummer Avenue 

• 9009 is located at the St. Demetrious Greek Orthodox Church on the northwest quadrant 

of Mountain Avenue and Ft. Lowell Road 

Downtown Loop 

Downtown Loop is a service operated by ParkWise, the City of Tucson Department of 

Transportation parking division. The service operates Monday to Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 

p.m. at 30 minute intervals and includes 12 stops. The Downtown Loop consists of one route 

which begins on Toole Avenue and travels to Congress Street where it heads west and onto 

Bonita Avenue. The route then continues on Bonita Avenue and deviates onto Commerce Park 

Loop then turns onto St. Mary’s Road. The route travels along Granada Avenue and returns to 

Toole Avenue by going through downtown. The route is shown in Figure 14. 

26



Figure 14 

Downtown Loop Route Network 

27



Pima County Rural Transit 

Pima County Rural Transit is composed of wheelchair‐accessible vans with a capacity of 15 

passengers serving areas outside of the Tucson city limits. The service area is covered by six 

routes with varying fares and transfers to Sun Tran routes: 

• Ajo Dial‐A‐Ride Route provides service in the Ajo area. The service operates Monday to 

Friday, beginning at 8:00 a.m. and ending at 5:00 p.m. 

• Marana Service Area Route is a fixed‐route community service operator within the Town 

of Marana and unincorporated Pima County, providing access to commercial and 

business centers along Ina Road and Thornydale Road east of I‐10. 

• San Xavier Access Route is a service that provides residents of the San Xavier area with 

access to Tucson. The service makes ten round trips during the weekday and nine round 

trips on Saturday, with no service on Sunday. 

• Tucson Estates Service Area Route operates on Monday to Friday and makes eight trips 

per day between the Laos Transit Center and the Tucson Estates area along Irvington 

Road. 

• The Green Valley & Sahuarita Circulator Route operates on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 

and Saturday only. The service area includes the Madera Market and the Green Valley 

Mall. Service is also provided south to the Desert Hills Social Center. 

• Green Valley & Sahuarita Regional Connector Route operates on Monday to Friday 

between 5:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. as well as 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Service begins at the 

Laos Transit Center and travels to Sahuarita and Green Valley along I‐19, returning via 

Old Nogales Highway. 

Other Public Transit Providers 

Coyote Run 

Coyote Run is a transit service operated by the Town of Oro Valley that includes a door‐to‐door 

service requiring advance reservations. The service is restricted to transit‐dependent residents 

who are 62 years of age and older or residents who are eligible under the ADA. The service area 

includes Oro Valley as well as destinations such as St. Mary’s Hospital, University Medical 

Center, Tucson Medical Center, and the Tohono Tadai Transit Center. Hours of operation are 

Monday to Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 

28



Sun Van 

Sun Van is a paratransit service operated by the City of Tucson for eligible individuals under the 

ADA who are unable to use SunTran fixed‐route services. The service area is along SunTran 

routes and extends to an area ¾ of a mile on either side of a road served by the SunTran route. 

Trips must be scheduled in advance within the hours of operation, which are 4:30 a.m. to 11:50 

p.m. Monday through Friday, 5:00 a.m. to 9:45 p.m. on Saturday, and 5:30 a.m. to 9:45 p.m. on 

Sunday. Sun Van evening service hours do not extend past 6:00 p.m. if the SunTran fixed‐route 

service does not. 

Pima County Special Needs 

Pima Transit is a deviate fixed route paratransit service provided by Pima County to persons with 

disabilities living outside the Tucson city limits, but within the Tucson metro area. Americans 

with Disabilities (ADA) compliant paratransit service is provided through a private provider: 

Pima Transit, also known as HandiCar. In fiscal year 2005‐06, HandiCar provided over 72,400 

passenger trips throughout the Tucson region. 

29


Future Conditions 

3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS 


Section 3.0 summarizes the assessment of future demographic and transportation conditions 

based on a forecast horizon of 2040. This analysis was conducted in June 2008 and the information 

presented is current as of that date. Some of the existing transit information has now changed, as some of 

the transit improvements that were in the planning stages in June 2008 have now been implemented. 

3.2 DEMOGRAPHICS AND LAND USE 

Population Density 

Figure 15 illustrates population density projections for the year 2040. These projections indicate 

there will be increases in overall population, and much of the increase will occur in the outlying 

portions of the study area. Major increases in population density in the central areas of Tucson 

are not expected to occur. It is not anticipated that there will be a significant increase in the 

number of TAZs with a population density of greater than 15 households per gross acre. 

Projections indicate that density is expected to increase along the I‐10 corridor both northwest 

and southeast of the city. Marana is projected to have an increase in population density, and this 

increase is expected to occur around the I‐10 corridor. Sahuarita and areas south of Sahuarita are 

estimated to have an increase in population density around the I‐19 corridor. Population density 

is forecast to increase in the southeastern part of the study area between I‐10 and I‐19. Along 6th 

Avenue south of Tucson the density is currently high, and this is expected to continue, with the 

high density becoming more prevalent along this corridor as well as south of Tucson overall. 

Houghton Road is projected to have increases in density; however, these increases will only be 

moderate, and density around the corridor is not expected to be high. 

Employment Density 

Figure 16 illustrates employment density projections for the year 2040. Employment density is 

expected to increase along the I‐10 corridor, both northwest and southeast of Tucson. The 

Speedway Boulevard and Broadway Boulevard corridors are estimated to have an increase in 

employment density east of Campbell Avenue. The area along Alvernon Way and Tucson 

Boulevard between 36th Street and Valencia Road is estimated to experience considerable 

increases in employment density. Some of the most significant increases in employment density 

are projected along Stone Avenue and Euclid Avenue in the area between downtown Tucson and 

River Road. 

30



Land Use/Economic Development 

Figure 17 identifies projected land use in the PAG region by year 2040 reflective of current land 

use designations. Based on existing conditions and identified areas of potential economic growth 

or reduction, there are no imminent major changes anticipated in land use in the region, as a 

comparison of Figure 6 and Figure 17 shows. 

Recent UA economic projections indicate that the Tucson region is expected to experience an 

increase in jobs in the foreseeable future. Professional services, health care services, transportation 

and warehousing services, and tourism services are expected to lead economic growth in the 

region. Sectors that are also expected to grow—although not as rapidly—include mining, 

manufacturing, information services, and financial services. Aerospace and defense sectors will 

continue to be important to the regional economy. Two emerging sectors that have the potential 

to play a role in the future of the region’s economic development are the biosciences sector and 

the environmental technology sector. 

Economic development initiatives identify the need for a highly educated and highly skilled 

workforce in the region. Raising educational attainment rates at all levels of formal education are 

considered a priority for the region. Strategies are being developed to involve UA to a greater 

extent in reaching the educational and overall economic development goals. 

Trip Patterns 

Year 2040 person‐trip patterns are based on PAG’s regional travel forecasting model and are 

shown in Figure 18 and Figure 19 for both work and total person‐trips for the 22 aggregated 

TAZs. 

The southeast Tucson area is projected to experience the largest overall increase in work trips 

between it and all other areas. Also expected to increase significantly are work trips between 

Sahuarita/Green Valley and all other areas. The Marana area is also estimated to have a 

significant increase in trips between it and all other areas. Work trips between the eastern and 

central portions of the study area are expected to remain high. 

Total trip projections show that total trips will continue to be heavy between the central and 

eastern portions of the study area. The same applies to trips between the central and northern 

portions of the study area. It is estimated that the largest overall increase in total trips will be 

between the Tucson Southeast area and all other areas, which is what is expected for work trips. 

Also similar to the work trip pattern expectations, it is anticipated that the Sahuarita/Green Valley 

area will be a leader in increased trips between it and all other areas. The Marana area is also 

expected to have large increases in trips between it and all other areas. The southeast Tucson area 

is expected to experience a major increase in trips towards the Central Tucson area. Total trips 

between central zones and western as well as eastern zones are expected to continue to be high in 

the year 2040. 

31



Figure 15 

Year 2040 Population Density 

32



Figure 16 

Year 2040 Employment Density 

33



Figure 17 

Year 2040 Land Use 

34



Figure 18 

Year 2040 Trip O-D Patterns – Work Person-Trips 

35



Figure 19 

Year 2040 Trip O-D Patterns – Total Person-Trips 

36



3.3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

Traffic Volumes and Level of Service 

Figure 20 illustrates the roadway network volume‐to‐capacity ratios in 2040. The most heavily 

congested corridor in the study area is expected to continue to be the I‐10 corridor. Most 

segments of I‐10 are expected to exceed capacity by 2040. A large portion of I‐19 is also expected 

to exceed capacity by 2040. 

Major congestion is expected in the vicinity of TIA (especially on Old Vail Connection Road), 

Broadway Boulevard, Speedway Boulevard, and Grand Road, which are expected to have more 

segments exceeding capacity. River Road and Oracle Road are expected to see an increase in the 

number of segments that exceed capacity. Road segments throughout downtown Tucson are 

expected to see an increase in over‐capacity conditions. Valencia Road is projected to have a 

reduction in congestion west of I‐19, as this segment will no longer exceed capacity likely due to 

planned improvements. However, heavy congestion is projected to occur on Valencia Road east 

of I‐19 in 2040. 

Planned and Programmed Improvements 

Figure 21 and Figure 22 show the transit and roadway improvements identified in the 20‐year 

plan prepared by the Tucson Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) and approved by voters 

in 2006. 

Identified transit improvements include: 

• New express bus routes serving Sahuarita/Green Valley, Ajo, Marana, and Oro Valley, 

and enhancements to existing express bus routes. 

• Development of modern streetcar line connecting Rio Nuevo with U of A. 

• New park‐n‐rides serving Rita Ranch, West Valencia Road, East Broadway Boulevard, 

Marana, Oro Valley, and Green Valley. 

• New transit circulators in Marana, Oro Valley/Catalina, and Sahuarita/Green Valley. 

Roadway capacity improvements are planned along several arterial roadways including 

Houghton Road, Tangerine Road, Valencia Road, Grant Road, Silverbell Road, North Oracle 

Road, and La Cholla Boulevard, which are targeted for widening. 

37



Figure 20 

Year 2040 Traffic Level of Service 

Figure 21 

38



Figure 21 

RTA Plan Transit Improvements 

39



Figure 22 

Premium Transit Mode Applicability 

40


Transit Technologies Analysis 

4.0 TRANSIT TECHNOLOGIES 

ANALYSIS 


Section 4.0 summarizes the transit technology assessment that was conducted as part of Task 4 

and illustrates the pros and cons of various transit technologies applicable to the PAG region. 

Information from several “peer” urban areas is included in the assessment, as is information 

about transit‐supportive densities associated with each transit technology. 

4.2 TRANSIT TECHNOLOGIES ASSESSED 

After completing an initial assessment of a wide range of transit technologies, the following 

technologies were identified as the most likely to meet the study’s goals and objectives: 

• Express bus service 

• Bus rapid transit (BRT) 

• Light rail transit (LRT) 

• Streetcar 

• Commuter rail transit (CRT) 

Each of these technologies is described in greater detail in the following sections. The following 

characteristics were identified for each technology: 

• Basic description of operation 

• Number of corridors 

• Total corridor length 

• Average station spacing 

• Service frequency 

• Daily ridership 

• Type of vehicle 

• Typical capital cost per mile 

• Typical annual operating cost 

• Impact on land development 

41



4.2.1 Express Bus 

Basic Description of Operation 

Express buses typically provide service to and from the outer suburban areas to the central 

business districts and other employment centers in a city. Express service is faster than local bus 

service because the express buses serve fewer stops. Express buses can be operated on a variety of 

types of roadway, ranging from streets with mixed traffic to exclusive busways and highoccupancy 

vehicle (HOV) lane service. Generally, service is more frequent during the morning 

and evening peak commute periods, and express routes are almost always connected to parkand‐ride 

facilities. The type of vehicles used for express service ranges from standard buses to 

more customized, “modern” buses. 

For the peer review of express bus systems, the systems in Phoenix, Seattle, and Miami were 

considered. 

Number of Corridors 

The number of express bus routes can greatly vary from city to city depending on urban area size 

and the distribution of population density through the metropolitan area. The peer review 

conducted covered a range of two corridors (Miami, FL) to 20 corridors (King County, WA) for 

the selected urban areas. 

Corridor Length 

The total length of the express bus corridors in the peer review ranged from 64 miles in Miami to 

more than 800 planned miles in Phoenix. Average corridor length for express bus ranges from 

11.6 to 32 miles. Corridor length can vary greatly pending the distance of suburban residential 

areas to the central city downtown. The availability of HOV lanes and right‐of‐way also promote 

the applicability of express bus service. 

Average Station Spacing 

Express bus service is typically intended to carry passengers from outer suburban areas to the 

central business district or other employment centers. Therefore, the average stop/station spacing 

varies greatly depending on what part of the route the bus services. In downtown areas, express 

buses can serve every one or two blocks, while they may not serve any stops as long as 30 miles 

in the mid sections of the route. At the residential end of the route, key transfer locations or parkand‐ride 

facilities can be served within shorter distances. 


The peer review indicated a range of one to 15 express buses during the morning and afternoon 

peak hours and up to one bus every hour during off‐peak hours. 

42



Corridor Ridership 

Corridor ridership depends largely on urban area characteristics as well as the characteristics of 

the express bus service. The peer review showed a range in average corridor ridership from 205 

to 1,380 riders per day for express bus service. 

Type of Vehicles 

The peer review indicated that transit agencies use a number of different vehicle types for their 

express bus service. The vehicles ranged from standard buses to more customized 45’ to 60’ 

articulated, low‐floor, clean diesel or compressed natural gas (CNG) buses. An example of an 

express service bus is shown in Figure 23. 

Photo courtesy of www.mta.net 

Figure 23 

Example of Express Service Bus (Los Angeles) 

Capital Cost Per Mile 

Transit agencies do not typically separate the capital cost for express buses from local service 

buses. There are instances where specific improvements need to be made to allow the bus 

operations on a freeway or a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. However, no specific 

information was available for express bus service as it varies significantly from application to 

application. 

Operating Costs 

Operating costs in the peer review range from $5.90 to $6.40 per passenger. In King County, WA, 

operating costs per passenger mile range from $0.28 (a 32.2‐mile route) to $8.93 (an 8.0‐mile 

route). 

Summary of Express Bus Characteristics 

Table 5 summarizes the different characteristics of express bus service for the selected peer urban 

areas. 

43



Table 5 

Express Bus Peer Review Summary 

Measure Phoenix Seattle (KCM) Miami 

Population of Urban Area 

Number/Location of Corridors 

1.55M city 

4.2M metro 

21 existing 

24 planned 

582,000 city 

3.3M metro 

404,000 city 

5.5M metro 

20 lines 2 lines 

Total / Avg. Corridor Length (Mi) Planned: 809 / 17.9 233 / 11.6 64 / 32 

Average Station Spacing 2 blocks to 30 miles N/A 1.3 miles average 

Service Frequency Every 10 min – 1 hr peak Every 4 to 10 min peak Every 5-12 min 

Total / Avg. Daily Corridor Ridership 4,300 / 205 18,800 / 940 2,700 / 1,350 

Type of Vehicle 

60’ articulated NABI & New 

Flyers, 45’ NABI Compo 

buses, standard 40’ buses 

40’ standard/articulated 

MCI Over the Road 

Coach/Standard 40’ 

buses 

Capital Cost Per Mile N/A N/A N/A 

Operating Cost Per Passenger $6.4 $0.67 per passenger mile $5.9 

Impact on Land Development 

Express bus systems typically do not have much impact on stimulating major urban development 

around their stations because the service tends to be peak period−oriented with limited or no 

midday and evening service and a limited number of stops. At most express bus stops in outlying 

areas, park‐and‐ride facilities are provided to accommodate a predominance of transit riders 

driving to these stops and transferring to express bus. Some systems have attracted convenience 

uses oriented to peak period riders within or adjacent to express bus stops, such as espresso and 

dry cleaning shops. 

4.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 


There are several key concepts involved in translating ordinary bus service into BRT. Each 

concept can be realized by taking advantage of one or more BRT features. These features can be 

summarized in the following way: 

• Increased speed through one or more of the following: 

• Signal priority treatments/queue jump 

• Bus lanes 

• Off‐board fare collection and/or use of smart cards or other advanced fare payment 

media 

44



• Greater stop spacing 

• Improved information at stations and/or on board 

• Vehicles with enhanced design and capacity 

• An enhanced image (reflected in vehicles, stations, and other components of the service) 

Reducing Travel Time 

One of the main goals of BRT is to improve service by reducing travel times. The components of 

travel time include time getting to and from the transit stop, time waiting for the transit vehicle, 

and time in the vehicle. If a transfer is needed, there is also additional walking and waiting time. 

A central concept in BRT planning is to give priority to transit vehicles in order to make them an 

attractive choice of transportation. Such techniques can greatly reduce in‐vehicle travel times and 

improve service reliability. 

One form of priority is to run service on exclusive rights‐of‐way such as busways and exclusive 

lanes on expressways. Another form of priority is to designate bus lanes on arterial streets. 

Providing transit signal priority (TSP) to transit vehicles can also speed operation on streets. 

Reducing the number of stops, providing limited‐stop service, or relocating stops to areas where 

there is less congestion can also increase service speeds, although potentially with the 

disadvantage of increasing walk time. 

These techniques not only reduce the overall travel time, but, by improving the reliability of 

service, they can increase the quality of service and help develop BRT as a distinct mode of 

transportation. Furthermore, automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems can be used to manage the 

BRT service to provide more regular intervals between buses, thereby minimizing passenger 

waiting time and improving reliability. 

Changing fare collection policies to reduce or eliminate on‐vehicle fare purchase can also reduce 

boarding times. An example of an off‐board fare collection application is shown in Figure 24. 

Using vehicle designs that feature fewer steps and more or wider doors can also reduce dwell 

times. 

45



Photo courtesy of Paul Ryus 

Figure 24 

Off-Board BRT Fare Collection in Las Vegas 

User-Friendly Service 

Although faster travel is a key element to improving service and attracting more transit trips, 

transit will not be attractive to many potential riders unless it is user‐friendly. Better passenger 

information can make transit service easier to use. Providing real‐time bus status information (a 

by‐product of AVL) can reduce customer anxiety while waiting. A unified system design, with 

colors and images coordinated between stops, vehicles, and print materials, can simplify the 

experience of using public transit; an example of color‐coded buses is shown in Figure 25. Using 

marketing techniques can make the public aware of service improvements and also help to 

improve the public image of buses. 

Modifying land use policy to further develop and maintain pedestrian‐friendly areas will 

improve the attractiveness of transit. In the long‐run, land use policy coordinated with transit 

investments will help to make transit trips convenient by locating land development adjacent to 

transit corridors and stations. 

46



Los Angeles uses a color-coded system of buses throughout the service area. The BRT vehicles and stops are coded in 

red, and the local bus is coded in orange. This is a practical and effective way of distinguishing the different services. 

Photo Courtesy of Paul Ryus 

Figure 25 

Using Bus Color to Convey Transit Information 

Types of BRT Service 

Several levels of BRT service have been characterized by the Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA). Table 6 summarizes the FTA classification, which is based on various levels of structural, 

technological, and operational attributes. 

Table 6 FTA BRT Characterization 

BRT 

Basic 

Intermediate 

Attribute 

Implementation 


Right-Of-Way Mixed Traffic Designated/HOV/Barrier- 

Separated Lanes 

Stations 

Improved Passenger Enhanced Passenger 

Amenities 

Information & Fare 

Service 

Route Structure 

Intelligent Transportation 

System 

Improved Service 

Frequency 

Single Route with 

Transfers, Color Coding 

Signal Priority 

Collection 

Skip Stop & Express 

Service Options 

High Frequency & 

Reliability 

Multiple Route Operations 

with Transfer Facilities 

Integration with Regional 

Transit 

Automated Passenger 

Information 

Full-Featured 


Exclusive/Grade 

Separation 

Enhanced Loading 

Convenient Transfers 

One Seat Rides 

Transfer Reduction 

Vehicle Location and 

System Surveillance 

For the peer review of BRT systems, the systems in Eugene, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, 

and Vancouver were considered. 


The number of express bus routes greatly varies from city to city depending on the urban area 

size and the distribution of population density through the metropolitan areas. The peer review 

study showed a range of 28 existing BRT corridors (Los Angeles) to a single corridor (multiple 

47



urban areas). Figure 26 shows the LOS Angeles BRT system. The successful applications of BRT 

have led the transit agencies throughout the nation develop more BRT corridors. Therefore, there 

are numerous on‐going planning studies for BRT. 

Figure 26 

BRT System Map in Los Angeles 


The total length of the BRT corridors in the peer review ranged from 4 miles to 450 miles 

depending on the size of the urban area as well as the location and proximity of the employment 

centers to residential areas. Average corridor length ranges from 4 to 16 miles. The availability of 

HOV lanes and right‐of‐way also promote the applicability of BRT service. 


BRT service provides less frequent stops than local bus service and, in the peer urban areas, has a 

range of 0.40 mile/station to 1.2 miles/station. Spacing may be closer in dense downtown 

environments (e.g., every three to five blocks). BRT stations may include features such as offboard 

fare collection to speed up the boarding process. 

48




The peer review study indicated a service frequency range of every 2.5 minutes to 12 minutes 

during the morning and afternoon peak hours, and up to one bus every half hour during the offpeak 

hours. 


The ridership is also depended largely on the urban area characteristics as well as the service 

characteristics. The peer review study showed a range in average corridor of ridership of 4,400 to 

20,000 riders per day for BRT service. 


The peer review study indicated that transit agencies use a number of different vehicle types for 

their BRT service. The vehicles ranged from standard 40’ low‐floor buses to more customized 60’ 

articulated low floor buses with advanced on‐board technological features. An example BRT 

vehicle is shown in Figure 27. 


Figure 27 

Example of Customized BRT Vehicle and Level-Boarding Station (Eugene, OR) 


The cost per mile to implement BRT service includes the cost of purchasing buses, developing 

bus‐lane facilities and developing land‐side amenities including fare collection systems and 

boarding platforms, information systems and an enhanced marketing system. These costs can 

vary widely, but range for the peer review systems between $200,000 per mile to $6.25 million per 

mile. 

49




Operating costs for the peer review systems ranged from $160,000 to $810,000 per mile annually, 

covering driver salaries, vehicle maintenance and operations costs, and land‐side facility 

operating costs such as ticket machines and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 

communication needs. 

Summary of BRT Characteristics 

Table 7 summarizes the different characteristics of BRT service for the selected peer urban areas. 

Table 7 

BRT Peer Review Summary 

Measure Eugene, OR Kansas City Las Vegas Los Angeles Vancouver 

Size of Urban 

Area 

Number/ 

Location of 

Corridors 

Total / Avg. 


(Mi) 

Average Station 

Spacing (Mi) 

Service 

Frequency 

Total / Avg. 

Daily Corridor 

Ridership 


Capital Cost Per 

Mile 

Operating Cost 

Per Mile 

154,000 city 

340,000 metro 

1 operational, 2 

more planned 

447,000 city 

1.9M metro 


more planned 

522,000 city 

1.78M metro 


more planned 

3.8M city 

12.3M metro 

28 operational 

612,000 city 

2.2 M metro 


more planned 

4 9 7.8 450 / 16 32.7 / 10.9 

0.45 0.43 0.78 0.48 0.78 

Every 10-20 

minutes 

Every 9-30 minutes 

Every 12-15 

minutes 

Every 5-10 minutes 

Every 2.5 to 15 

minutes 

4,700 4,450 4,400 163,000 / 5,820 60,000 / 20,000 

63’ articulated low 

floor – New Flyer 

41’ standard low 

floor - Gillig 


emission dieselelectric 

Iris Civis 


floor 


floor 

$6.25M $2.33M $2.8M $200,000 $5.04M (98-B Line) 

$160,000 annual N/A $400,000 annual $500,000 annual $810,000 annual 

50




There have been some examples where BRT service with rail‐like attributes has attracted land 

development around certain stations. This has particularly been the case where separate busways 

or exclusive bus lanes on arterials have been developed. In Brisbane, Australia, and Ottawa, 

Cañada, millions of dollars of new investments in residential, office, and retail projects have 

occurred along their busway systems. In Boston, over $600 million in new development along the 

Washington Street corridor has been realized, much of it attracted by the new Silver Line BRT 

service that operates in exclusive bus lanes. Investments in facilities associated with BRT are 

almost always greater than investments in facilities associated with local and express bus service, 

and this greater investment conveys a sense of permanence that is more attractive to developers. 

4.2.3 Light Rail Transit (LRT) 


LRT began as a development of the streetcar to allow higher speeds and increased capacity. LRT 

is characterized by its versatility of operation, as it can operate separated from other traffic below 

grade, at‐grade, or on an elevated structure, or it can operate together with motor vehicles on the 

surface. Service can be operated with single cars or multiple‐car trains. An example LRT train is 

shown in Figure 28. 

Electric traction power is obtained from an overhead wire, thus eliminating the restrictions 

imposed by having a live third rail at ground level. This flexibility helps to keep construction 

costs relatively low and explains the popularity this mode has experienced since 1978, when the 

first of 14 new North American LRT systems was opened in Edmonton. These newer LRT 

systems have adopted a much higher level of segregation from other traffic than earlier systems 

enjoyed. 

NOTE: Portland LRT operates with one- to two-car trains due to short downtown block lengths. 


51



Figure 28 

Example of LRT Vehicle (Portland, OR) 

52



Operator cabs are generally provided at both ends of the vehicle to allow bi‐directional operation. 

Trains can operate as a single or multi‐car train. The LRT stations may have high‐ or low‐level 

platforms. Depending on the train characteristics, ramps may be required for ADA compliance, as 


For the peer review of LRT systems, the current systems in Portland, San Diego, Dallas, 

Baltimore, and San Jose were considered. 

Figure 29 

Example of LRT Vehicle with Wheelchair Ramp (San Diego) 

Average revenue speed for the peer review systems is 5‐10 mph in central business district 

operation and 30‐40 mph in express operation on dedicated right‐of‐way. Maximum operating 

speed is 55 to 65 mph. 


The number of LRT routes greatly varies from city to city depending on the urban area size and 

the distribution of population density through the metropolitan areas. The peer review study 

showed a range of one to three LRT routes for the selected urban areas. 


The total length of the LRT corridors in the systems reviewed ranged from 30 miles to 66 miles 

depending on the size of the urban area as well as the location and proximity of the employment 

centers to residential areas. Average corridor length ranges from 16 to 22.6 miles. 


LRT service provides less frequent stops than the bus service and the peer review systems have a 

range of a stop every 0.70 mile to 1.3 miles. LRT stations typically require advanced facilities to 

make the boarding process faster and easier. Station spacing may range from three to five blocks 

in dense downtown environments. 


53



The peer review indicated a service frequency range for LRT of every 6 minutes to 15 minutes 

during the morning and afternoon peak hours, and up to one train every half hour during the offpeak 

hours. 


The ridership is also largely dependant on the urban area characteristics as well as the service 

characteristics. The peer review showed a range in average corridor ridership of 10,150 to 36,700 

riders per day for LRT service. 


The peer review study indicated that transit agencies use a number of different trains including 

Siemens, Bombardier, Kinki‐Sharyo and ABB Traction. Typically, each agency develops their own 

vehicle specifications to fit local constraints. Agencies use both low and high floor trains. Vehicles 

may or may not include ITS features such as the on‐board passenger information display shown 

in Figure 30. 

. 

Figure 30 

Example of On-Board Passenger Information (Portland, OR) 


Capital costs for LRT for the peer review systems ranged from $17 million to $62 million per mile, 

depending on local conditions. The need for substantial structures to cross water, other 

transportation corridors or to negotiate terrain would clearly add significant cost to a project. The 

type of terminals provided would also have a large impact on cost. 


Operating costs for LRT vehicles for the peer review systems were higher than bus‐based systems 

and ranged from $0.24 to $1.29 per passenger mile. 

54



Summary of LRT Characteristics 

Table 8 summarizes the different characteristics of LRT service for the selected peer urban areas. 

Table 8 

LRT Peer Review Summary 

Measure Portland San Diego Dallas Baltimore San Jose 

Size of Urban 

Area 

Number/ 


Corridors 

Total / Avg. 


(Mi) 


Spacing 

Service 

Frequency 

Total / Avg. 

Daily Corridor 

Ridership 



Mile 


Per Passenger 

Mile 

568,000 city 

2M metro 


under 

construction 

1.2M city 

2.8M metro 

1.2M city 

6M metro 

640,000 city 

2.6M metro 

1M city 

7M metro 

3 operational 2 operational 1 operational 3 lines 

66 / 22 51 / 17 45 / 22.5 30 42 / 16 

0.7 miles 1 mile 1.3 miles 1 mile 0.7 miles 

Every 10-15 

minutes 

Every 6 – 15 

minutes 

Every 10 – 20 

minutes 

Every 20-30 

minutes 

Every 15 minutes 

110,300 / 36,700 108,900 / 36,300 60,600 / 30,300 24,500 30,400 / 10,150 

Bombardier/ Siemens 

Siemens two-car 

low floor trains 

$37.5 million $33.2 million – 

blue line 

$24.9 million - 

orange line 

Kinki – Sharyo 

articulated trains 

$33.2 million – 

DART S Oak 

Cliff 

$62.2 – DART 

North to Park Ln 

ABB Traction 

articulated trains 

Low floor Kinki 

Sharyo 

$16.9 million $27.8 million 

$0.39 $0.24 $0.59 $1.06 $1.29 


With the permanence associated with rail facilities, the greater number of stops, and all‐day 

service, LRT has been able to attract major new development and redevelopment along corridors 

throughout North America. This has included attracting higher density residential in outlying 

areas, as well as office and retail development. All five peer review systems have achieved 

success in attracting urban development around stations. 

4.2.4 Streetcar 


Streetcar is a variation of LRT. It operates along mostly shared or segregated rights‐of‐way, with 

one‐car (or rarely, two‐car) trains. Streetcar vehicle types and ages can vary greatly. Modern 

streetcar is typically designed to fit the scale and traffic patterns of the neighborhoods it travels 

through. An example of a modern streetcar is shown in Figure 31. 

55



With slightly smaller (shorter) vehicles than LRT, streetcars can achieve capacities of up to 1,920 

people per hour per direction (pphpd) depending on the configuration of the vehicle. Streetcars in 

the USA are typically configured for either tourist travel (with higher level of service and lower 

capacities) or for regular transit operation. The streetcar stops may employ advanced passenger 

information systems that show the next car arrival times. 

For the peer review of streetcar systems, the current systems in Portland, San Francisco, and 

Toronto were considered. 


The peer review study showed a range of one to 11 streetcar routes for the selected urban areas. 


The total length of the streetcar corridors ranged from 5 miles to 95 miles in the peer review 

comparison. Average corridor length ranges from 5.1 to 9.1 miles. 

NOTE: This streetcar line provides a convenient transfer to an aerial tram. 


Figure 31 

Example of Streetcar Vehicle (Portland, OR) 


Streetcar service provides more frequent stops that for the peer review systems are spaced every 

0.15 to 0.18 miles, similar to the local bus service. 

56




The peer review study indicated a streetcar service frequency range of every 5 minutes to 12 

minutes during the morning and afternoon peak hours. 


Corridor ridership is also depended largely on the urban area characteristics as well as the service 

characteristics. The peer review study showed average corridor ridership ranging from 3,300 to 

11,900 riders per day for streetcar service. 


The peer review study indicated that transit agencies use a number of different vehicles including 

Skoda‐Inekon vehicles, vintage Presidents Conference Committee (PCC) vehicles, Canadian Light 

Rail Vehicles (CLRVs), and Articulated Light Rail Vehicles (ALRVs). Typically, each agency 

develops their own vehicle specifications to fit local constraints. An example streetcar vehicle is 



Figure 32 

Example of Streetcar in Mixed Traffic (Toronto ALRV) 


Capital costs for streetcar for the peer review systems ranged from $23 million to $30 million per 

mile, depending on local conditions, and the technology needs of the service. 


Operating costs for streetcar service in the peer review systems range from $63,000 to $1.12 

million per mile annually. 

57



Summary of Streetcar Characteristics 

Table 9 summarizes the different characteristics of streetcar service for the selected peer urban 

areas. 

Table 9 

Streetcar Peer Review Summary 

Measure Portland San Francisco Toronto 

Size of Urban Area 

Number/ 

Location of Corridors 

Total / Avg. Corridor Length 

(Mi) 


(Mi) 

568,000 city 

2M metro 

765,000 city 

4.1M metro 

2.5M city 

5M metro 

1 operational 1 operational 11 operational 

8-mile loop 5.1 95 / 9.1 

0.18 0.15 

Every 1-2 blocks in 

downtown 

Service Frequency Every 12 min Every 8 min Every 5-10 min 

Total / Avg. Daily Corridor 

Ridership 


11,900 20,500 330,000 / 30,000 

Double 66’ cars 

Skoda-Inekon 

Vintage PCC Cars 

CLRV/ALRV 

Capital Cost Per Mile $23 million $30 million N/A 

Operating Cost Per Mile 

$630,000 annual 

$5.34 per 

passenger/$4.73 

per passenger mile 

$1.12 million annual 


The streetcar mode is typically applied as a “city builder” tool, which can attract new urban 

development and redevelopment due to its permanence, numerous stops, and all‐day service. 

Streetcars are typically applied in central city areas in this role. The best example of where a new 

streetcar line has had an impact on development in the U.S. is in Portland, OR, where over $2.2 

billion in development investment, including 7,200 new residential units and 4.6 million square 

feet of new office and retail development, has occurred within two blocks of the street car line just 

prior to and after opening of the line. 

4.2.5 Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) 


CRT provides high capacity rail service between city centers and outer suburban areas or 

commuter towns. The service is generally accompanied with park and ride facilities at stations. 

Most commuter trains are built to heavy rail standards, and can operate over relatively long 

distances with high operating speeds (over 60 mph), and less frequent stops. The power source is 

frequently diesel‐electric or electric with overhead catenary. A new propulsion innovation is the 

modern Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU). DMUs are rail cars that are individually self‐propelled; they 

58



can be used in single‐car or multiple‐car trains. Two existing commuter rail trains are shown in 

Figure 33; the photo on the right shows a DMU. 

For the peer review of CRT systems, the current systems in Seattle, San Diego, Dallas, Salt Lake 

City, and Albuquerque were considered. 


The peer review study showed one or two CRT lines for the selected urban areas. 


The average length of the CRT corridors ranges from 30 miles to 98 miles in the peer review 

comparison. 

NOTE: Salt Lake City’s commuter rail service (depicted on the left), includes two corridors, is 89 miles long, and has 

850-foot platforms that accommodate 10-car trains. South Florida’s Tri-Rail (depicted on the right) recently introduced 

DMUs such as this one. 

Salt Lake City photo courtesy of www.ksl.com; Tri-Rail courtesy of www.coloradorailcar.com 

Figure 33 

Examples of Commuter Rail (Salt Lake City and South Florida) 


An example CRT station is shown in Figure 34. CRT service provides the least frequent stops for 

premium rail modes: approximately every 3.3 to 10.0 miles for the peer review systems. This long 

spacing helps keep transit travel times competitive with automobile travel times. 


CRT service is typically intended for home‐to‐work and work‐to‐home trips, and, therefore, is 

mostly provided during the morning and evening peak hours. The peer review indicated a CRT 

service frequency range of every 15 minutes to an hour during the morning and afternoon peak 

hours. 

59




Corridor ridership on CRT is also depended largely on the urban area characteristics as well as 

the service characteristics. The peer review study showed a range of about 2,500 to 8,700 riders 

per day. 

Photo courtesy of www.trinityrailwayexpress.org 

Figure 34 

Example of Commuter Rail Station with Modern Design Features (Dallas) 


The peer review indicated that transit agencies use a number of different vehicle types for their 

CRT service. The vehicles ranged from standard locomotives and single/bi‐level coaches to 

DMU’s, which have their own power. 


The cost per mile to implement CRT service includes the cost of trackwork, station and signal 

improvements, and vehicles. For the peer review systems, these costs range between $5 million 

and $10 million per mile. 


Operating costs for CRT service for the peer review systems range from $0.54 to $1.24 per 

passenger mile; covering driver salaries, vehicle maintenance and operations costs, and land‐side 

facility operating costs such as ticket machines and ITS communication needs. 

60



Summary of Commuter Rail Characteristics 

Table 10 summarizes the different characteristics of CRT service for the selected peer urban areas. 

Measure 

Size of Urban Area 

Number/ 


Corridors 

Total / Avg. 


(Mi) 


Spacing (Mi) 


Total / Avg. Daily 




Mile 


Table 10 

Seattle 

(Sounder) 

3.2 million metro 

area 

Commuter Rail Peer Review Summary 

San Diego 

(Coaster) 

2.8 million metro 

area 

2 routes 1 route 1 route 

Dallas 

(Trinity Railway 

Express) 

1.2 million 

central city/6 

million metro 

area 

Salt Lake City 

(FrontRunner) 

180,000 city/1 

million metro 

1 under 

construction, 1 

planned 

62 / 31 82 30 89 / 44.5 98 

7.8 10.3 3.3 6 7 

Total of 8 trips 

morning/evening 

N/A 

8,300 / 4,150 N/A 8,700 

EMD F59PH 

locomotives/ 

Bombardier bilevel 

coaches 

N/A 

Every 40 min 

peak hours 

EMD F59PH 

locomotives/ 


coaches 

15-30 min 

35,000 (2030 

estimate) 

Diesel/electric, 


cars 

Albuquerque 

(Rail Runner) 

523,000 

city/841,000 

metro 

1 operational 

Every hour 

during peak 

2,500 

MPI 

diesel/electric, 


coach 

N/A N/A N/A $10 million $5 million 

$0.54 per 

passenger mile 

$0.38 per 


$1.24 per 


N/A 

$350,000/mile 

annual 


CRT typically has less impact on land development than rail modes such as LRT and streetcar 

because the latter are characterized by more‐frequent stops and all‐day service. Like express bus 

service stops, most CRT stations have park‐and‐ride facilities adjacent to the station, with urban 

development beyond. Many CRT stations serve the downtown areas of suburban cities, with few 

stations in inner city areas; these inner‐city stations are typically supported by local bus, innercity 

streetcar, or LRT service. 

61



4.3 ADDITIONAL TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY 

COMPARISON 

Table 11 through Table 14 and Figure 35 through Figure 38 were prepared for a recent study in 

Ottawa, Ontario. These tables and figures provide representative urban area population 

information as well as additional cost information for potential transit technologies. The 

information in the tables and figures comes primarily from the National Transit Database. 

Table 11 

Additional LRT Cost Data 

Urban Area 

2006 Urban Area 

Population 

Operating Expense 

per Passenger Mile 


per Revenue Mile 

Capital Cost per 

Mile 

St. Louis 1,006,570 $0.34 $240.98 $35,650,000 

Sacramento 1,087,671 $0.65 $244.76 $24,610,000 

Buffalo 1,182,165 $1.51 $297.40 N/A 

Cleveland 1,412,140 $0.59 $213.83 N/A 

Pittsburgh 1,415,244 $1.24 $281.77 $59,640,000 

Minneapolis-St. Paul 1,707,328 $0.36 $154.39 $69,145,667 

Salt Lake City 1,744,417 $0.27 $91.45 $52,430,000 

San Jose 1,759,585 $1.29 $316.02 N/A 

Baltimore 2,077,667 $1.06 $324.67 N/A 

Dallas 2,297,000 $0.59 $337.78 $73,000,000 

Denver 2,619,000 $0.59 $139.11 $47,452,892 

Tacoma, WA 2,670,000 $2.95 $291.02 $56,695,000 

Houston 2,796,994 $0.50 $218.68 N/A 

Los Angeles 8,493,281 $0.44 $383.41 N/A 

San Diego 2,102,396 $0.26 $117.34 N/A 

62



Table 12 

Additional Streetcar Cost Data 

Urban Area 


Population 






Mile 

Galveston, TX 33,491 $8.97 $82.32 $3,580,000 

Charlotte 681,310 $6.92 $366.07 $19,047,619 

Kenosha, WI 91,500 $5.06 $99.81 $3,676,470 

Little Rock 166,974 $2.22 $68.13 $10,710,000 

New Orleans 484,674 $0.82 $117.44 N/A 

Tampa 578,252 $2.05 $95.28 $16,297,826 

Memphis 888,627 $3.99 $73.75 $19,110,000 

Urban Area 

Table 13 

Additional BRT Cost Data (Exclusive Right of Way Operations) 


Population 






Mile 

Brisbane, Australia 1,670,961 N/A N/A $33,980,583 

Adelaide, Australia 1,146,208 N/A N/A $24,891,892 

Vancouver, BC 2,249,725 N/A N/A $5,387,200 

Eugene, OR 272,272 N/A N/A $6,000,000 

Cleveland 1,412,140 N/A N/A $30,618,182 

Orlando 1,536,900 N/A $9.28 $7,000,000 

Kansas City 781,159 N/A N/A $2,333,333 

Los Angeles 8,493,281 $0.56 $238.96 $21,931,034 

York Region, ON 973,000 N/A $75.71 $2,681,667 

Boston 4,510,400 N/A N/A $11,865,217 

Miami 2,379,818 N/A $96.21 $2,918,000 

Albany, NY 794,293 N/A N/A $1,562,500 

San Francisco 798,680 N/A N/A $25,000,000 

Pittsburgh 1,415,244 $0.75 $95.00 $26,304,348 

63



Urban Area 

Table 14 


Population 

Additional Commuter Rail Cost Data 






Mile 

Northern Indiana 958,644 $0.28 $354.64 N/A 

Chicago 7,261,176 $0.29 $355.85 N/A 

Boston 4,510,400 $0.30 $314.53 $28,444,444 

San Francisco 3,690,367 $0.30 $393.23 N/A 

Los Angeles 8,341,002 $0.30 $507.58 N/A 

Baltimore 2,077,667 $0.33 $576.51 N/A 

Philadelphia 3,315,543 $0.37 $306.75 N/A 

Washington, D.C. 680,400 $0.37 $719.89 N/A 

San Diego 842,000 $0.38 $526.13 N/A 

South Florida 5,448,962 $0.40 $558.68 N/A 

Salt Lake City 1,744,417 N/A N/A $19,000,000 

Sacramento 4,094,704 $0.41 $655.30 N/A 

NYC 6,503,894 $0.42 $479.35 N/A 

Portland, ME 1,431,087 $0.44 $199.09 N/A 

New York City 11,720,000 $0.44 $477.91 N/A 

Fort Worth 628,650 $0.53 $375.09 N/A 

Seattle and Tacoma 2,670,000 $0.54 $1,403.80 $14,698,795 

Harrisburg, PA 3,100,000 $0.54 $657.10 N/A 

New Haven, CT 375,000 $1.11 $823.82 $14,610,000 

Dallas 2,297,000 $1.24 $825.61 $22,900,000 

64



14,000,000 

12,000,000 

URBAN AREA POPULATION 

10,000,000 

8,000,000 

6,000,000 

4,000,000 

Range 

Average 

2,000,000 

0 

LRT Streetcar Commuter Rail BRT 

MODE 

NOTE: BRT operates in exclusive right of way. 

Figure 35 

High-Capacity Transit Mode Operated vs. Urban Area Population 

$10.0 

$9.0 

OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER MILE 

$8.0 

$7.0 

$6.0 

$5.0 

$4.0 

$3.0 

$2.0 

$1.0 

Range 

Average 

$0.0 


MODE 


Figure 36 

High-Capacity Transit Mode Operated vs. Operating Cost per Passenger Mile 

65



$1,600.0 

$1,400.0 

OPERATING COST PER REVENUE HOUR 

$1,200.0 

$1,000.0 

$800.0 

$600.0 

$400.0 

$200.0 

Range 

Average 

$0.0 


MODE 


Figure 37 

High-Capacity Transit Mode Operated vs. Operating Cost per Revenue Hour 

$80.0 

CAPITAL COST PER MILE ($MILLION) 

$70.0 

$60.0 

$50.0 

$40.0 

$30.0 

$20.0 

$10.0 

Range 

Average 

$0.0 


MODE 


Figure 38 

High-Capacity Transit Mode Operated vs. Capital Cost per Mile 

66



4.4 SUMMARY OF PREMIUM TRANSIT 

TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 

The initial assessment of premium transit technologies consisted of express bus, BRT, LRT, 

streetcar, and commuter rail. The peer review study included several urban areas in order to 

assess a broad range of systems and service characteristics. Table 15 provides a summary of the 

range of service characteristics for each of the premium transit technologies. The data in the table 

come from the peer review and other sources. 

Table 15 

Summary of Premium Transit Technologies (Peer Review Systems) 

Measure Express Bus BRT LRT Streetcar Commuter Rail 

Average Corridor 

Length 

Station Spacing 


Average Daily 




18 to 34 miles 4 to 16 miles 14 to 30 miles 5 to 9 miles 30 to 98 miles 

2 blocks to 30 

miles 

Every 4-60 min 

(mostly peak) 

0.37-1.19 miles 0.7-1.3 miles 

1-2 blocks to 

0.15 mile 

Every 2.5-30 min Every 6-30 min Every 5-12 min 

3.3-10.3 miles 

Every 15-60 min 

during peak 

205 to 1,350 4,450-20,000 10,150-36,750 11,900-30,000 2,500-8,700 

N/A 

$5.90-$6.40 per 

passenger 

$200,000 to 

$6.25M 

$160,000 to 

$810,000 per 

mile annual 

$16.9M to 

$62.2M 

$0.24 to $1.29 

per passenger 

mile 

$23M to $30M $5M to $10M 

$630,000 to 

$1.12M per mile 

annual 

$190,000 to 

$350,000 per 

mile annual 

4.5 TRIP/DEVELOPMENT DENSITY RELATED TO 

PREMIUM TRANSIT MODES 

Trip Thresholds 

Typical capacity (and, thus, potential ridership) ranges for various transit modes are summarized 

in Figure 39. The thresholds in this figure should be compared to 2040 O‐D trip volumes, existing 

corridor ridership, and corridor ridership forecasts. The potential to generate ridership levels that 

result in well‐used and cost‐effective HCT services is a criterion that will be used to evaluate and 

prioritize specific corridors. 

67



Heavy Rail: Moving Block Signals 

Heavy Rail: Fixed Block Signals 

Light Rail: Exclusive ROW, MB Signals 

Light Rail: Exclusive ROW, FB Signals 

Light Rail: On-Street Section 

Commuter Rail: Owned ROW 

Commuter Rail: Leased ROW 

Streetcar 

Bus: Shared HOV Lane, No Stops 

Busway: Local/Express 

Busway: All Stops 

Bus: Dual Bus Lane, CBD 

Bus: Bus Lane, CBD 

Bus: Mixed Traffic, non-CBD 

Typical capacity range 

Highest observed in North America 

Bus: Mixed Traffic, CBD 

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 

Person Capacity (peak direction passengers/hour) 

NOTES: MB = moving block train signaling, FB = fixed-block train signaling, ROW = right of way, and CBD = central 

business district. Ranges reflect differing assumptions for dwell time and number of cars per train. Peak hour factor 

and passenger loading assumptions reflect TCQSM recommendations. “Highest observed” values beyond the ranges 

shown reflect non-typical conditions. BRT person capacity depends on the features provided (e.g., exclusive ROW and 

station spacing). 

SOURCE: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) 

Figure 39 

Person Capacity Ranges of U.S. and Canadian Transit Modes 

Development Density Thresholds 

Table 16 summarizes population and employment densities used to identify areas where new 

transit service may be warranted, from past studies. Separate density thresholds are provided for 

various types of transit service ranging from extended local bus service to LRT to CRT. If a TAZ’s 

population or employment density exceeds the thresholds shown in the table, that TAZ is 

considered to be transit‐supportive for the particular mode. 

Note that Table 16 does not consider the demographics of a particular TAZ. Demographic 

characteristics associated with captive transit markets typically indicate a greater propensity for 

transit use. The evaluation and prioritization of specific corridors will consider such 

characteristics. 

68



Table 16 

Development Density Thresholds for a Range of Transit Services 

Service 

Minimum 

Residential 

Density 

(units/gross 

acre) 

Minimum 

Employment 

Density 

(jobs/gross 

acre) 

Comments 

Minimum Bus (60-minute headways) 3.0 4.0 1/2-mi route spacing 

Intermediate Bus (30-minute headways) 4.5 13.5 1/2-mi route spacing 

Frequent Bus (10-minute headways) 10.0 33.5 1/2-mi route spacing 

HCT 

Express Bus 10.0 50.5 for 2 sq mi tributary area 

Light Rail Transit 6.0 84.0 for corridor of 25-100 sq. mi. 

Heavy Rail 8.0 112.0 for corridor of 100-150 sq. mi. 

Commuter Rail 1.3 N/A for 20 sq. mi. tributary area 

SOURCE 1: Pushkarev and Zupan, 1987 

SOURCE 2: Urban Land Institute, Developing Around Transit, 2004 

Relationship to PAG Region 

Premium Transit Corridors from 2030 Transit Element 

In the Transit Element of the 2030 PAG Transportation System Plan, nine premium transit 

corridors were identified. The corridors include: 

• UA/Rio Nuevo via 4th Avenue and University Boulevard 

• Broadway/Speedway/6th Street (Houghton Road to Downtown) 

• Campbell Avenue (Tucson Mall to UA) 

• Oracle/Stone (Oro Valley to Downtown Tucson) 

• 6th Avenue (Downtown Tucson to Irvington) 

• I‐19 (Sahuarita to Downtown Tucson) 

• I‐10 (Marana to Houghton Road) 

• Houghton Road (Irvington to Broadway/Speedway Corridor) 

• Anklam/6th Street (Speedway to UA) 

The plan identified top priority premium transit investments focused on the Oracle/Stone/6th 

Avenue and Broadway/Speedway corridors, with either LRT or BRT service. These investments 

would be supplemented by express bus service and enhanced local bus service in other corridors. 

This is the starting point for consideration of premium transit corridors and modes in the current 

PAG HCT System Plan Study. 

Added Potential Premium Transit Corridors from Stakeholder Interviews 

At the outset of the current PAG HCT Study, a series of interviews were conducted with key 

stakeholders in the PAG region to identify what corridors and modes they thought could be 

applicable for premium transit. The stakeholders interviewed were the following: 

69



• City of Tucson 

• City of South Tucson 

• Town of Marana 

• Town of Oro Valley 

• Town of Sahuarita 

• Pima County 

• PAG 

• UA 

• Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (TREO) 

• SunTran 

• Pasqua Yaqui Tribe 

• State Representative Steve Farley 

The stakeholders all confirmed that the corridors identified for premium transit in the 2030 PAG 

Plan could still be applicable. In addition, the stakeholders identified some added potential 

corridors which should be considered: 

• Campbell Avenue/Kino Parkway to TIA 

• Valencia Road 

• Kolb Road 

• Grant Road 

• Ajo Way 

• Tangerine Road 

Development Density Assessment in Premium Transit Corridors 

To initially look at the potential applicability of certain corridors and modes for premium transit 

investment, the minimum population and employment density thresholds that would support 

certain premium transit modes now vs. in Year 2040 were assessed. The minimum thresholds for 

express bus, LRT, and CRT as identified in Table 16 were used and mapped against the premium 

transit corridors from the 2030 PAG Transportation Plan as well as added corridors identified 

from the stakeholder interviews. Based on the relative span of service and service frequency, 

degree of exclusive running way, and other passenger amenities applied, the midpoints of the 

population and employment densities between express bus and LRT were used for the BRT 

thresholds (4 residential units per gross acre, and 67 employees per gross acre). It was also 

assumed that the development density thresholds associated with LRT would also be applicable 

for streetcar (which is a configuration within the LRT mode). 

70



Express Bus 

Figure 40 and Figure 41 show the TAZs where sufficient population and employment density 

exist to warrant consideration of express bus service or basic BRT service today and in Year 2040. 

Today, there is sufficient population density to justify express bus service in the 6th Avenue, 

Broadway/Speedway Boulevard, Grant Road, and Campbell Road corridors. There are also small 

pockets of density in Marana and Sahuarita/Green Valley to justify some express service on I‐10 

to the northwest and I‐19. By Year 2040, Oracle Road and Houghton Road show sufficient density 

to warrant express bus service, including more concentrated development along I‐10 which could 

warrant a broader application of express bus service on I‐10. 

Bus Rapid Transit 


exist to warrant consideration of BRT today and in Year 2040. The areas which could warrant BRT 

service are similar to the areas which could warrant express bus both today and in Year 2040; a 

longer section along Oracle Road could warrant BRT in 2040. 

Light Rail Transit 


exist to warrant consideration of LRT today and in Year 2040. Other than in the downtown 

Tucson to the UA area, where a streetcar line is planned, there is no continuous corridor today or 

in Year 2040 that is likely to have sufficient development density to support LRT. 

Commuter Rail 

Figure 46 and Figure 47 show the TAZs where population and employment density would be 

sufficient to warrant consideration of CRT. Today, there is not sufficient development density to 

support CRT in the Union Pacific Railroad corridors along either I‐10 or I‐19. However, by Year 

2040, a sufficient string of density could emerge along the I‐10 corridor to warrant consideration 

of CRT in that corridor. 

4.6 PREMIUM TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND MODES 

FOR FURTHER EVALUATION 

Based on the assessment of existing and 2040 population and employment densities, traffic 

densities (i.e., volume‐to‐capacity ratios), and other demographic factors, implementation of HCT 

within the original nine corridors can be considered. Given the development densities within 

each of these corridors, express bus service or BRT, as well as a possible extension of the modern 

streetcar and CRT on I‐10, are the most feasible premium transit alternatives to be considered 

through year 2040. Given these results, Table 17 presents a potential HCT scenario for each of the 

sixteen identified corridors. 

71



Figure 40 

TAZs Supportive of Express Bus Based on Existing Densities 

72



Figure 41 

TAZs Supportive of Express Bus Based on 2040 Densities 

73



Figure 42 

TAZs Supportive of BRT Based on Existing Densities 

74



Figure 43 

TAZs Supportive of BRT Based on 2040 Densities 

75



Figure 44 

TAZs Supportive of LRT Based on Existing Densities 

76



Figure 45 

TAZs Supportive of LRT Based on 2040 Densities 

77



Figure 46 

TAZs Supportive of Commuter Rail Based on Existing Densities 

78



Figure 47 

TAZs Supportive of Commuter Rail Based on 2040 Densities 

79



Table 17 

Preliminary HCT Scenario in Pima County 

Corridor 

Possible Implementation Period 

Near (2030) Future (2040) Reserve (>2040) 

1. U of A/Rio Nuevo SC SC SC 

2. Broadway/Speedway BRT/LRT BRT, LRT LRT 

3. Campbell Ave. EB SC SC 

4. Oracle Rd/Stone Ave. BRT/LRT BRT, LRT LRT 

5. 6th Ave. BRT BRT SC 

6. I-19 EB EB CR 

7. I-10 EB, CR CR CR 

8. Houghton Rd. EB EB BRT 

9. Anklam Rd./6th St. EB BRT BRT 

10. Tangerine Rd. FR EB EB 

11. Grant Rd. BRT/LRT BRT, LRT BRT, LRT 

12. S. Campbell/Kino Pkwy BRT/LRT BRT/LRT SC 

13. S. 6th to Airport BRT BRT SC 

14. Valencia Rd. EB EB BRT 

15. Ajo Way FR EB EB 

16. Kolb Rd. EB EB BRT 

NOTE: FR = fixed route transit, EB = express bus, BRT = bus rapid transit, SC = street car, LRT = 

light rail transit, and CR = commuter rail 

Section 5.0 contains a more detailed analysis of potential alignments for one or more premium 

transit modes in certain corridors, where reasonable alignment and mode options appear to exist. 

Further assessment of existing and prospective land use along corridors is included, along with 

identification of potential station locations and mode operating characteristics. Also identified are 

major right‐of‐way and traffic operating constraints on development of dedicated lanes. Given 

the limited study budget, the following corridors were initially proposed to be assessed in the 

work summarized in Section 5.0 (i.e., Task 5): 

• Extension of streetcar to South Tucson and north of UA 

• CRT in the I‐10 corridor 

• BRT and/or LRT along Oracle Road/Stone Avenue 

• BRT along 6th Avenue 

• BRT and/or LRT along Broadway Boulevard vs. Speedway Boulevard vs. Grant Road 

• BRT and/or LRT along Campbell Avenue/Kino Parkway to TIA 

80


Refined Corridor Assessment 

5.0 REFINED CORRIDOR 

ASSESSMENT 


Section 5.0 provides a summary of work completed under Task 5 of the PAG HCT Study, which 

involved data collection and analysis to determine if one or more premium transit modes in each 

HCT corridor are best suited for inclusion into the updated HCT System Plan. Section 5.0 

includes the development of several evaluation criteria for comparing modal alternatives in the 

HCT corridors and an objective, high‐level summary that helped PAG, the TAC, and the project 

team screen out any fatally flawed alternatives or alternatives that are not likely to have a 

measurable benefit. Section 5.0 concludes by identifying top‐ranked alternatives for more‐refined 

analysis in terms of preferred transit technology, routing, station locations, general service 

characteristics, detailed costs, and benefits. 

5.2 DESCRIPTION OF CORRIDORS AND 

ALTERNATIVES 

Figure 48 depicts the corridors and HCT technology alternatives that were identified in Section 

4.0 for analysis. Table 18 describes the corridors and alternatives in more detail. These corridors 

and alternatives were selected from 16 preliminary corridors in an initial screening of near and 

long‐term population and employment densities, low‐income population density, density of 

households with zero cars, land uses, location of major trip generators, trip patterns, local transit 

service use, and roadway operations. 

The HCT modes considered in Task 5 are BRT, LRT, streetcar, and CRT. Express bus may be 

implemented in any corridor where ridership and other factors do not justify an HCT mode or as 

an interim step in the implementation of an HCT mode. 

81



Figure 48 

Corridors Evaluated in the Refined Corridor Assessment 

82



Table 18 

Task 5 Corridors and HCT Technology Alternatives 

Corridor 

Number 

2A 

2B 

Corridor Name 

Speedway Boulevard 

Broadway Boulevard 

HCT 

Alternative 

North/West Endpoint 

South/East Endpoint 

BRT Campbell Avenue (UA) Houghton Road 

LRT Campbell Avenue (UA) Houghton Road 

BRT Ronstadt Transit Center Houghton Road 

LRT Ronstadt Transit Center Houghton Road 

3 Campbell Avenue North SC River Road Speedway Boulevard (UA) 

4 Oracle Road 

7 I-10/I-19 CRT 

11 Grant Road 

BRT Tangerine Road Ronstadt Transit Center 

LRT Tangerine Road Ronstadt Transit Center 

Town of Marana 

Downtown Tucson 

Downtown Tucson 

Town of Sahuarita 

BRT Oracle Road Tanque Verde Road 

LRT Oracle Road Tanque Verde Road 

12 

Campbell Avenue 

BRT Speedway Blvd (UA) TIA* 

South/Kino Parkway LRT Speedway Blvd (UA) TIA 

13 

6th Avenue South/ 

SC Ronstadt Transit Center TIA 

Nogales Highway BRT Ronstadt Transit Center TIA 

*TIA = Tucson International Airport 

5.3 SCREENING EVALUATION 

The project team identified screening evaluation criteria for assessing the HCT alternatives listed 

in Table 18 from a high‐level planning perspective so that alternatives with little measurable 

benefit and/or fatal flaws could be eliminated from additional analysis. Four of the criteria were 

determined to be the most important and were designated as “primary” evaluation criteria. The 

primary evaluation criteria are: 

• Potential ridership (per mile) 

• Right‐of‐way (ROW) availability 

• Capital costs (per mile) 

• Operating costs (per mile) 

The remaining, secondary evaluation criteria are: 

• Consistency with regional plans and programs 

• Impacts on other transit services (the local bus system and planned Tucson Modern 

Streetcar) 

• Land use compatibility/Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) potential 

• Access to major attractors and generators 

• Impacts on roadway mobility and congestion 

• Possible environmental impacts 

• Rail owner/operator cooperation (willingness to coordinate if a rail corridor is involved) 

83



• Impacts on Title VI communities and transit‐dependent populations 

• Impact on pedestrians and bicyclists 

• Infrastructure needs (e.g., garages and park‐and‐ride lots) 

• Image 

The remainder of Section 5.3 defines the criteria and describes the assumptions and data sources 

used by the project team in evaluating the criteria. The results of the evaluation are detailed in 

Section 5.4.3. 

5.3.1 Primary Evaluation Criteria 

Potential Ridership 

Ridership forecasts were developed from the PAG regional travel demand model and ridership 

increases associated with the provision of specific service characteristics. 

Detailed Methodology 

To study the effectiveness of these HCT corridors, the PAG regional travel demand model was 

used to forecast 2040 route‐level ridership for each alternative. Each HCT route was coded in the 

PAG model as if it were local bus, as the PAG model does not distinguish between bus, BRT, or 

fixed‐guideway transit (i.e., LRT, streetcar, and CRT). To account for ridership differences 

between local bus and HCT modes, an incremental logit model was then applied to the PAG 

model−forecasted ridership, which accounts for travel time and other qualitative differences 

between local bus and HCT. 

For each alternative, duplicate transit service was removed from the baseline 2040 transit 

network. The PAG regional travel demand model was then run for the alternative, and transit 

trips were assigned to the transit network to determine route‐level ridership. These forecasts were 

generated based on two key assumptions: 

1. The in‐vehicle travel time for each of the HCT alternatives is based on local bus travel 

times (equal to auto travel time plus some delay due to stops and acceleration and 

deceleration of transit vehicles). 

2. None of the HCT alternatives is complemented with features that attract the commuters to 

choose HCT service (e.g., real‐time passenger information at bus stops and service 

branding). 

To account for these assumptions, the initial forecasts were post‐processed to take into account 

differences in travel time and other HCT‐specific features that would increase ridership over local 

bus patronage. The post‐processing analysis was carried out using an incremental logit model. 

Incremental logit generates the future (HCT) share of an alternative given the base (local bus) 

share and the change in utility of that alternative, as shown in the following equation: 

84



P ' = 

ot 

1+ 

e 

−Δut 

1 

⎛ 1 

⎜ 

⎝ Pot 

⎞ 

−1 

⎟ 

⎠ 

where P0t = initial transit mode share 

P0t’ = future transit mode share 

Δut = change in transit utility 

Once the future HCT shares are obtained from the incremental logit model, they are multiplied 

by the preliminary HCT ridership forecasts to obtain the final HCT ridership forecasts. 

The initial share for each HCT alternative is based on a geographic analysis of the trip tables for 

each alternative. The base share is calculated as the ratio of transit trips to total trips for all zone 

pairs that fall within 2/3 mile of the HCT route. The base transit shares range from between 4% 

and 6%. 

There are two components to utility. First, the utility takes into account the difference between 

the travel time of the route operating as a local bus versus if the route were to operate as HCT. 

The change in utility associated with travel time is estimated as the product of a coefficient on invehicle 

travel time (‐0.025) and travel time savings expressed as a negative number. 

The second part of the utility difference is due to the qualitative features of HCT that differentiate 

it from local bus service. The list of features that augment ridership, along with their value are 

shown below in Table 19. This table was derived from the Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide 

(TCRP Report 118). The total maximum equivalent minutes of in‐vehicle time that these features 

are worth was set to 10 minutes, as per the recommendations in TCRP Report 118. The 

contribution of the qualitative HCT features was then equal to the in‐vehicle time coefficient (‐ 

0.025), multiplied by the sum of the applicable features for each alternative, times ‐10 minutes. 

The HCT ridership for each route is then equal to the baseline ridership times the ratio of the 

future share to the base share. 

85



Table 19 

Features That Augment Transit Ridership 

Feature 

Running Way (choose applicable features) 

Value 

Grade separated (Choose if LRT) 20% 

At grade busway 15% 

Arterial median 10% 

All-day bus lane 5% 

Shared lane 0% 

Stations (choose applicable features) 

Unique shelter 2% 

Lighting 2% 

Phone or security phone 3% 

Climate control 3% 

Passenger amenities 3% 

Passenger services 2% 

Vehicles (choose applicable features) 

Unique vehicle 5% 

Wide, multiple doors 5% 

Level boarding 5% 

Service Patterns (choose applicable features) 

All-day service 4% 

Headways 10 min. or less 4% 

Simple, clear routing 4% 

Off-vehicle fare collection 3% 

ITS Applications (choose applicable features) 

Passenger information at stops 7% 

Passenger information in vehicles 3% 

Branding 

Vehicles and stations 7% 

Brochures and schedules 3% 

Synergism (e.g., the sum of the above percentages is greater than 60%) 15% 

SOURCE: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide (TCRP Report 118) and PB 

CRT Ridership 

Ridership for Alternative 7 (CRT) conservatively reflects ridership on the New Mexico Rail 

Runner CRT service. 

Other Assumptions 

The following preliminary station locations were assumed for each HCT corridor: 

86



• Corridor 2A (Speedway Boulevard). Campbell Avenue (UA), Country Club Road, Alvernon 

Way, Swan Road, Craycroft Road, Wilmot Road, Finance Center Drive, Huntington Park, 

Harrison Road, Houghton Road 

• Corridor 2B (Broadway Boulevard). Ronstadt Transit Center, Euclid Avenue, Campbell 

Avenue, Randolph Way, Alvernon Way, Swan Road, Williams Center Boulevard, Park 

Mall (0.45 mile W of Wilmot), Pantano Road, Camino Seco, Houghton Road 

• Corridor 3 (Campbell Avenue (North)). River Road, Allen Street, Fort Lowell Road, Grant 

Road , Elm Street (Arizona Health Sciences Center), Speedway Boulevard 

• Corridor 4 (Oracle Road). Tangerine Road, First Avenue, Calle Concordia, Magee Road, Ina 

Road, Orange Grove Road, River Road, Auto Mall Drive (Tucson Mall), Prince Road, 

Miracle Mile, Grant Road, Drachman Street, 6th Street/St. Maryʹs Road, Congress Street, 

Ronstadt Transit Center 

• Corridor 7 (I‐10/I‐19). Town of Marana, Downtown Tucson Depot, TIA, Town of Sahuarita, 

• Corridor 11 (Grant Road). Oracle Road, First Avenue, Campbell Avenue, Alvernon Way, 

Swan Road, Craycroft Road, Tanque Verde Road 

• Corridor 12 (Campbell Avenue/Kino Parkway (South). Speedway Boulevard (UA), Fred Enke 

Drive (UA), Broadway Boulevard, Aviation Parkway, 36th Street, I‐10, Irvington Road, 

Drexel Road, TIA 

• Corridor 13 (6th Avenue /Nogales Highway). Ronstadt Transit Center, 14th Street, 18th Street, 

22nd Street, 29th Street, 36th Street, Veterans Boulevard (Veterans Administration (VA) 

Hospital), Pennsylvania Street, Irvington Road, Olive Street, Bilby Road, Valencia Road, 

TIA 

All stations are one‐way stations except the endpoint stations, which are two‐way stations. That 

is, there may be a separate platform and shelter for each direction of travel at a two‐way station. 

Preliminary station locations were identified based on connections to other HCT corridors, 

proximity to major trip generators, station‐area demographics (e.g., a high density of transitdependent 

populations), and desired station spacing. Station amenities were assumed to include 

unique shelters, benches, trash receptacles, and real‐time passenger information for consistency 

with the amenities identified for the planned Tucson Modern Streetcar. 

In developing the ridership forecasts, the following changes were assumed for existing local bus 

service in each corridor: 

• 2A – Speedway Boulevard 

• Split Route 180 into two parts and remove the section on Speedway Boulevard. The 

first part will start at Hughes Access Road and end at Alvernon Way/Speedway 

Boulevard. The second part will start at Harrison Road/Speedway Boulevard and 

end at Golf Links Road/Harrison Road. 

• Truncate Route 4 so that it runs between Speedway Boulevard/Kolb Road and Golf 

Links Road/Kolb Road. 

87



• Add a feeder service between Ronstadt Transit Center and Campbell Avenue. For 

ridership forecasting purposes, a 7.5‐minute peak headway and a 15‐minute offpeak 

headway were modeled. 

• 2B – Broadway Boulevard 

• Eliminate Route 82. 

• Split Route 8 into two parts and remove the section on Broadway Boulevard. The 

first part will start at Irvington Road and end at Ronstadt Transit Center. The second 

part will start at Broadway Boulevard/Wilmot Road and end at Bear Canyon 

Road/Tanque Verde Road. 

• Truncate Route 8 so that it runs between Irvington Road and Ronstadt Transit 

Center. 

• 3 – Campbell Avenue North 

• Truncate Route 15 so that service is provided between Campbell Avenue/Speedway 

Boulevard and Stone Avenue. 

• 4 – Oracle Road 

• Eliminate Route 162. 

• Truncate Route 16 so that it runs between Oracle Road/Ina Road and Ina Road. 

• 7 – I‐10/I‐19 

• No changes. 

• 11 – Grant Road 

• Truncate Route 9 so that it runs between Ronstadt Transit Center and Grant 

Road/Campbell Avenue. 

• 12 – Campbell Avenue South/Kino Parkway 

• See the changes to Route 15 described above. 

• 13 – 6th Avenue South/Nogales Highway 

• No changes. 

Right-of-Way Availability 

Existing ROW in each corridor was assessed to determine whether dedicated HCT lanes could be 

implemented within the available ROW. ROW information was gathered from the Pima County 

Map Guide. It was assumed that 10‐foot wide curbside HCT lanes would need to be added in 

each direction of travel to provide a dedicated lane for LRT and BRT, and that existing medians 

and/or center turn lanes would remain. It was also assumed that 4‐foot bike lanes and 8‐foot 

pedestrian parkways (i.e., sidewalks plus landscaping/buffer strip) would be provided in each 

direction if they currently exist or are proposed as part of a planned transportation improvement 

project. Converting a general‐purpose lane to a dedicated HCT lane is assumed to be infeasible on 

four‐ and five‐lane major arterials since only two through lanes would remain for a relatively 

high volume of automobile traffic. 

88



Capital Costs 

The capital cost estimates are planning‐level estimates based on typical unit costs obtained from 

existing HCT services, planned HCT projects in other cities, and reports such as the Bus Rapid 

Transit Practitioner’s Guide (TCRP Report 118). The capital cost estimates include the following 

components: 

• Running Way. Running way costs include track, new pavement, power delivery system 

infrastructure, signing and striping, and TSP installations. 

• Stations. Station costs assume a unique shelter, benches, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, 

real‐time passenger information, and branding. 

• Vehicles. Vehicles are either streetcar cars, LRT cars, or standard‐length (40‐foot) stylized 

buses. Stylized buses typically look more streamlined and “rail car−like” than 

conventional buses, and they typically have advanced features such as Automated 

Passenger Counters (APC), TSP emitters, and on‐board real‐time passenger information 

displays. 

• Garage/Storage Facility. This cost is assumed for rail alternatives only. SunTran is currently 

constructing a bus garage/storage facility capable of accommodating articulated (60‐foot) 

buses used for BRT. 

• Soft Costs. Soft costs include design, engineering, and administration costs and 

contingencies. 

Figure 49 illustrates the scale of station that has been assumed in the capital costs assessment. 

These representative stations are designed for low‐floor boarding and include a unique shelter 

(designed with input from the community), lighting, a real‐time passenger information display, 

static information displays, a bicycle rack, benches, trash receptacles, and a unique route marker. 

The representative stations are built within existing ROW by converting existing on‐street 

parking to curb extensions (also called bus bulbs). The shelters are modular, so modules can be 

added or removed to reflect the volume of station users. One or more ticket vending machines 

may also be part of the station, along with features such as security cameras and emergency callboxes. 

Public art and landscaping opportunities would allow local neighborhood and business 

associations to customize the station to reflect the surrounding community. Similar stations have 

been constructed in Kansas City, MO, and the York Region of Ontario (near Toronto). 

89



SOURCE: Developed by Otak, Inc., for the proposed Central Avenue BRT service in St. Petersburg, FL, in 2007 

Figure 49 

Representative HCT Stations 


The operating costs estimates are planning‐level estimates based on Sun Tran’s operating cost per 

revenue hour (which represents driver wages, fuel, and administrative costs) as reported in the 

2006 National Transit Database (NTD). Operating costs for LRT were estimated based on a ratio 

obtained through a comparison of NTD data for transit agencies in areas similar to Tucson and 

currently operating both fixed‐bus service and LRT service. Operating costs for the HCT 

alternatives were estimated for each alternative as follows: 

• The service span duration for the peak period was assumed to be 6 hours, and the service 

span duration for the off‐peak period was assumed to be 12 hours. CRT is assumed to 

operate only during the peak period and only on weekdays. 

• The headways for weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays were assumed to be 10 

minutes during peak hours and 15 minutes during off‐peak hours. 

• The two‐way length of the alternative was determined based on Figure 48. 

• An average travel speed was assumed for the alternative by adjusting the existing average 

local bus speed from the NTD to reflect increased station spacing, implementation of TSP, 

and/or operation in a dedicated lane as appropriate. The basis for the adjustments is the 

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM). The TCQSM procedures also 

require assumptions about the number of stations per mile, dwell time at each stop, the 

environment in which the transit service operates (e.g., central business district), and the 

general operation of the traffic signal system. The project team assumed two stations per 

mile, a dwell time of 30 seconds per station, non‐central business district operation, and 

use of TSP. 

• The two‐way length of the alternative was divided by the corresponding average travel 

speed to calculate the average round‐trip travel time for each alternative. To this average 

round‐trip travel time, the project team added a five‐minute layover. 

• Given the average round‐trip travel time and the planned weekday headways, the 

number of vehicles needed to provide peak period service on a typical weekday was 

90



calculated. The number of daily vehicle‐hours needed to maintain planned headways 

throughout a typical weekday was also calculated. 

• For all modes but CRT, the weekday daily vehicle‐hours were annualized to reflect a full 

year of vehicle‐hours using an annualization factor of 310. An annualization factor of 310 

was used instead of a factor of 365 days per year because less transit service is typically 

provided on weekends and holidays than on weekdays. The transit service provided on 

Saturdays was assumed to be 65% of that provided on weekdays, and the transit service 

provided on Sundays and holidays was assumed to be 20% of that provided on weekdays. 

(The annual vehicle‐hours estimate calculated in this manner reflects only the vehiclehours 

needed to provide service at the planned headways.) 

• For CRT, the annualization factor is 255. 

• The number of annual revenue hours was multiplied by the assumed operating cost per 

revenue hour to estimate annual operating costs for the alternative. 

• For all modes but CRT, Sun Tran’s 2006 operating cost per revenue hour was increased by 

5% per year for two years to account for increased costs and thus calculate the 2008 

operating cost per revenue hour. The CRT operating cost per revenue hour is the average 

cost for several CRT systems in North America as obtained from the 2006 NTD. 

5.3.2 Secondary Evaluation Criteria 

Consistency with Regional Plans and Programs 

RTA plans were reviewed to identify planned roadway improvements that may impact the HCT 

alternatives. These improvements were accounted for in the ROW availability assessment. The 

planned Tucson Modern Streetcar project connecting downtown Tucson with UA and relevant 

planned transit improvements included in the RTA plan were also reviewed so that the HCT 

system can be implemented in concert. 

Impacts on Other Transit Services 

The project team identified the existing and planned transit services that run in or intersect the 

HCT corridors. These services include multiple local bus routes and one planned streetcar route. 

The project team also identified the transit centers, park‐and‐ride lots, and transfer points that are 

in the HCT corridors. 

The HCT alternatives impact existing and other planned transit services in multiple ways. One 

type of impact is the result of the decision about what to do with underlying local bus service in 

the HCT corridor. (Section 5.3.1 identified changes to local bus routes that were assumed for 

ridership forecasting purposes.) If underlying local bus service is maintained at existing or 

planned levels, it benefits riders because they will be able to choose local bus or HCT depending 

on their destination. If underlying local bus service is reduced or eliminated, however, origins 

and destinations located between HCT stations may not be as accessible by transit as they once 

were, so riders may have to walk farther to access transit after HCT is implemented. At the same 

time, reduced or eliminated local bus service in an HCT corridor can allow Sun Tran to increase 

91



service elsewhere, possibly providing transit service in areas where it was not provided before. 

This type of impact is assessed in this section. 

Another type of impact involves the coordination of one HCT corridor with other HCT corridors 

and with the planned Tucson Modern Streetcar. If Corridor 3 (Campbell North) is selected for 

implementation, it makes sense to implement streetcar in the corridor because the corridor is a 

natural extension of the planned Tucson Urban Corridor Streetcar route. Implementing BRT or 

LRT instead of streetcar may force riders traveling between downtown Tucson and points north 

of Speedway Boulevard to transfer at the northern end of the Tucson Urban Corridor Streetcar 

route, and this transfer could dissuade potential riders from using either service. This type of 

impact will be assessed in Section 6.0. 

A third type of impact is the interaction of local bus and HCT in a dedicated transit lane. If local 

buses are allowed to use the dedicated lane, their more‐frequent stops are likely to hold up HCT 

vehicles. Ensuring that HCT provides delay‐free service may mean eliminating the local bus 

service, changing the local bus service pattern to skip‐stop or another limited‐stop arrangement, 

relocating local bus service to a parallel street in the corridor, and/or constructing bus pullouts so 

that HCT vehicles can bypass stopped local buses. Another potential solution is implementing 

HCT on a parallel street‐‐in two‐way operation or as part of a one‐way couplet. This type of 

impact is assessed in this section to a limited extent; Section 6.0 will address it further. 

Land Use Compatibility/Transit-Oriented Development Potential 

In addition to reviewing the transit‐supportive densities analysis conducted in Section 3.0, the 

project team assessed the areas that could support the densities necessary to generate significant 

transit ridership in terms of several recent plans for growth in the region: 

• Oracle Area Revitalization Plan 

• Miramonte Neighborhood Plan 

• Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan 

• 12th Avenue‐Valencia Road Area Plan 

• Alvernon‐Broadway Area Plan 

• El Encanto‐Colonia Solana Neighborhood Plan 

• Grant‐Alvernon Area Plan 

• The Bridges Plan 

• Tucson Medical Center Plan 

• University Medical Center North Plan 

• Williams Addition Plan 

Access to Major Attractors and Generators 

The project team determined which of the major trip attractors and generators shown in Figure 7 

of Section 2.0 are within walking distance of the HCT alternatives. Typical walk access distance 

92



for a rail stop (i.e., LRT and CRT) is 0.50 mile. Typical walk access distance for a bus stop is 0.25 

mile. (Walk access distance for a full‐featured BRT service may approach 0.50 mile.) The project 

team assumed that a walk access distance of 0.25 mile is also appropriate for streetcar because 

streetcar typically serves a circulator function in which access to the service is more critical than 

mobility over long distances and stops are more closely spaced. 

Impacts on Roadway Mobility and Congestion 

The project team obtained 2040 volume and capacity data from the PAG travel demand model for 

each corridor and calculated volume‐to‐capacity (v/c) ratios to determine if adequate unused 

capacity exists to assess (1) whether or not addition of an HCT mode to the corridor would have a 

significant impact on automobile traffic in terms of delays to automobile traffic and queues, (2) 

whether or not a general‐purpose lane could be dedicated to HCT service, and (3) whether or not 

transit preferential treatments such as TSP could be effective. The thresholds that the project team 

used for this assessment are as follows: 

• 0.00 ≤ v/c ≤ 0.70: The segment operates at Level of Service (LOS) C or better. HCT is not 

likely to have a significant impact on automobile traffic. A general‐purpose lane likely 

could be dedicated to HCT. Transit preferential treatments are not likely to be effective 

(unless there is a policy that transit should be favored over automobile traffic). 

• 0.70 < v/c ≤ 0.90: The segment operates at LOS D. HCT may have a significant impact on 

automobile traffic. A general‐purpose lane could perhaps be dedicated to HCT, but 

detailed study is required. Transit preferential treatments may be effective. 

• 0.90 < v/c ≤ 1.00: The segment operates at LOS E (at capacity). HCT is likely to have a 

significant impact on automobile traffic. A general‐purpose lane likely could not be 

dedicated to HCT, but detailed study is required. Transit preferential treatments may be 

effective. 

• v/c > 1.00: The segment operates at LOS F (over capacity). HCT is likely to have a 

significant impact on automobile traffic. A general‐purpose lane likely could not be 

dedicated to HCT. Transit preferential treatments may not be effective (unless there is a 

policy that transit should be favored over automobile traffic). 

The project team notes two other factors that may influence the decision to convert a generalpurpose 

lane to a dedicated HCT lane: public perception and the competitive value of transit. 

The public (i.e., the driving public) may resist conversion of a general‐purpose lane to a dedicated 

transit lane because of real or perceived impacts on automobile level of service. On the other 

hand, if HCT operates in mixed traffic flow or the dedicated lane provides no travel time savings 

because the corridor is not congested to begin with, HCT is less likely to be competitive with 

driving in terms of travel time and less likely to generate ridership. Thus, there are policy 

implications associated with converting general‐purpose lanes to dedicated HCT lanes. 

If policy support is not adequate in the near term, it may grow in the long term as a result of 

increasing congestion in the region. For example, several urban areas in Florida are beginning to 

implement tools such as Multimodal Transportation Districts (MMTDs) as a means of promoting 

93



infill and redevelopment while managing congestion; these MMTDs place secondary priority on 

automobiles and primary priority on alternative modes such as transit. Other potential means of 

building support for converting general‐purpose lanes to dedicated HCT lanes are incremental 

implementation of the conversion and pilot studies. 

The project team also notes that transit preferential treatments may improve transit reliability 

even if they do not reduce the potential for delay. Additionally, transit preferential treatments 

that are not effective during the peak hour may be effective during less‐congested hours. More 

detailed assessment of transit preferential treatments is therefore necessary as project 

development moves forward. 

Possible Environmental Impacts 

Environmental impacts (including impacts on endangered species habitats, water quality, and 

floodplains) may occur if new roadways are constructed or if sizeable new HCT‐related facilities 

such as a maintenance garage or park‐and‐ride lots are constructed. The project team identified 

where such impacts might be likely in the corridors. Environmental impacts are not likely where 

HCT will operate on existing streets or where facilities such as park‐and‐ride lots are integrated 

into existing developments. HCT may positively affect the environment in terms of air quality 

and energy use. 

Rail Owner/Operator Cooperation 

This criterion is applicable to CRT only. Detailed study by the Arizona Department of 

Transportation (ADOT) is underway related to a potential high‐speed passenger rail corridor that 

connects Tucson and Phoenix. The project team assessed relevant findings from this effort, as 

high‐speed rail and CRT are likely to use the same tracks and stations in the Tucson region. The 

high‐speed rail study does not analyze any passenger rail services south or east of downtown 

Tucson. 

Impacts on Title VI Communities and Transit-Dependent Populations 

This criterion addresses the impact of HCT on specific demographic groups. These are groups 

with the highest propensity to use transit (“transit‐dependent populations”) and the groups that 

are the focus of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Input data for this assessment is Census tract data 

from the PAG model. 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act requires that “no person shall on the grounds of race, color, sex, 

age, disability, or national origin, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the 

Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259), be excluded from participation in, be denied 

the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity.” The 

United States Department of Transportation (DOT) requires involving the public at all stages of 

the project in an effort to ensure that every transportation project nationwide considers the 

human and physical environment. There are three fundamental justice principles: 

94



• To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and 

environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and 

low‐income populations. 

• To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the 

transportation decision making process. 

• To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipts of benefits by 

minority and low‐income populations. 

Impacts on Pedestrians and Bicyclists 

For the purposes of this study, assessment of impacts on pedestrians and bicycles focused on 

maintaining and/or providing bicycle lanes and sidewalks in conjunction with potential HCT 

route development. As stated previously in the ROW availability discussion, the project team 

assumed that all alignments that currently have or are proposed to have bicycles lanes and 

pedestrian parkways will have 4‐foot bike lanes and 8‐foot pedestrian parkways for sidewalk and 

landscaping if HCT is implemented. Bicycle accommodation is an important consideration 

because bicycles are a means of access to HCT service, particularly in the long run if mode usage 

shifts away from vehicles, and because of the strong regional commitment to bicycle safety and 

creation of a bicycle‐friendly community. 

Future planning and implementation of HCT should consider accommodation of bicycles at 

stations and on board vehicles. Bicycle accommodation, for example, should be a criterion in the 

purchase of HCT vehicles. 

Infrastructure Needs 

The project team included most of the infrastructure needed to support the HCT alternatives in 

the capital costs assessment. Such infrastructure includes required items that are common to all of 

the HCT alternatives (e.g., running way, stations, vehicles, and passenger amenities) and required 

items that are unique to specific HCT modes or alternatives (e.g., garage facilities). The other 

infrastructure items include park‐and‐ride lots, new transit centers, and new or reconstructed 

overpasses and underpasses. 

Image 

This criterion considers that LRT and streetcar are generally perceived more favorably than bus 

services, and it was added to reflect the public’s views of potential HCT modes. The project team 

notes that studies indicate that the land development impacts and ridership of BRT can achieve 

LRT levels if the investment in the BRT service is similar (e.g., unique stations, dedicated running 

way, and high‐frequency service). 

95



5.4 ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT 

5.4.1 Primary Evaluation Criteria 

Potential Ridership 

Table 20 summarizes the preliminary ridership forecasts for the HCT alternatives. The alternative 

that generates the most daily ridership is Alternative 2B with LRT. The alternative that generates 

the most daily ridership per mile is Alternative 13 with streetcar. The alternative that generates the 

least daily ridership is Alternative 3 with streetcar. The alternative that generates the least daily 

ridership per mile is Alternative 7 (CRT). 

The project team notes that the existing Sun Tran bus routes with the most ridership in August 

2008 were, in descending order, Route 8 (Broadway Boulevard‐South 6th Avenue), Route 16 (Ina 

Road‐Oracle Road‐South 12th Avenue), Route 4 (Speedway Boulevard‐Kolb Road), Route 11 

(Alvernon Way‐Palo Verde Road), and Route 3 (East 6th Street‐East 5th Street‐Wilmot Road‐Stella 

Road). Corridors 2A, 2B, 4, and 13 include portions of these existing bus routes. 

Corridor 

2A - Speedway 

Boulevard 

2B - Broadway Boulevard 

3 - Campbell Avenue 

North 

Table 20 

Route 

Length 

10 miles 

11.5 miles 

4 - Oracle Road 16 miles 

Preliminary Ridership Estimates 

HCT Scenario 

Daily 

Ridership 

Annual 

Ridership 

Daily 

Riders/Mile 

BRT - Mixed Traffic 3,279 1,016,490 328 

BRT - Exclusive Lane 3,615 1,120,650 362 

LRT - Exclusive Lane 3,855 1,195,050 386 



3.5 miles SC - Mixed Traffic 721 223,510 206 

BRT - Mixed Traffic 3,140 973,400 196 



7 - I-10/I-19 40 miles CRT 2,500 637,500 63 

11 - Grant Road 7.5 miles 


South/Kino Parkway 

13 - 6th Avenue/ Nogales 

Highway 

8.5 miles 

9 miles 

NOTE: Park-and-ride lot costs are not included. 


BRT - Exclusive Lane 1,404 435,240 187 

LRT - Exclusive Lane 1,500 465,000 200 


BRT - Exclusive Lane 1,404 435,240 165 

LRT - Exclusive Lane 1,500 465,000 176 



SC - Mixed Traffic 3,626 1,124,060 403 

96



Right-of-Way Availability 

The results of the ROW assessment are summarized in Table 21. The ROW required to add 

dedicated HCT lanes includes additional lanes/medians that will be constructed with planned 

roadway improvements included in the 2030 RTP. While available ROW varies, a combination of 

existing ROW and new ROW is needed to develop dedicated HCT lanes in all corridors. 

Assessments of each corridor are as follows: 

• Corridor 2A (Speedway Boulevard). Significant ROW will be needed from Campbell Avenue 

to Wilmot Road, the cost of which will be high as nearly all property is commercial and 

could require total property takes. 

• Corridor 2B (Broadway Boulevard). Dedicated transit lanes exist between Columbus 

Boulevard and Camino Seco. Transit lanes will be added between Euclid Avenue and 

Country Club Road as part of an RTA roadway project. Adding lanes between Country 

Club Road and Columbus Boulevard will require property acquisition, particularly 

between Alvernon Way and Columbus Boulevard. 

• Corridor 3 (Campbell Avenue (North). ROW will be required along the entire length of this 

route, including total property takes between Grant Road and Prince Road. 

• Corridor 4 (Oracle). North of Ina Road, sufficient ROW is available to add HCT lanes. 

Significant ROW acquisition, possibly including total takes, will be required between 

Limberlost Drive and Drachman Street and on Main Street/Granada Avenue. A gradeseparated 

crossing of the UP railroad mainline between Speedway Boulevard and St. 

Mary’s Road will likely be required for an LRT alternative. 

• Corridor 11 (Grant Road). Significant ROW, which could be acquired as part of the RTA 

Grant Road widening project, will be needed between Oracle Road and Swan Road and 

between Swan Road and Tanque Verde Road. 

• Corridor 12 (Campbell Avenue South/Kino Parkway). ROW, including residences and UA 

property, will be needed between Speedway Boulevard and Broadway Boulevard. The 

existing bridges over the Aviation Parkway and I‐10 have limiting widths. 

• Corridor 13 (6th Avenue/Nogales Highway). Significant ROW takes between Congress Street 

and Irvington Road, including total takes of residential and commercial properties, will be 

required. 

97



Corridor 

Corridor Segment 

Roadway From To 

Table 21 

ROW Availability Assessment 

Existing 

Lanes 

Future 

Lanes 

Median 

(ft) 

Existing 

ROW (ft) 

ROW 

Required to 

Add HCT 

Lanes (ft) 

Additional 

ROW 

Required? 

Comments 

Campbell Ave Wilmot Rd 6 6 22 90-120 134 Yes 

2A Speedway Blvd Wilmot Rd Bedford Dr 6 6 22 130-170 134 Yes* 

Bedford Dr Houghton Rd 3 4 20 100-150 108 Yes* 

Euclid Ave Country Club Rd 5 8 20 70-80 158 Yes Add as part of Broadway project 

Country Club Rd Columbus Blvd 6 6 20 100-130 156 Yes 

2B Broadway Blvd Columbus Blvd Prudence Rd 8 8 20 140 156 No Bus lanes in place 

Prudence Rd Camino Seco 8 8 20 160 156 No Bus lanes in place 

Camino Seco Houghton Rd 5 4 20 100-160 108 Yes* 

3 Campbell Ave 

River Rd Grant Rd 5 5 0 70-95 100 Yes 

Grant Rd Speedway Blvd 6 6 22 120 134 Yes 

Tangerine Rd Calle Concordia 4 6 20 180-240 132 No 

Oracle Rd 

Calle Concordia Ina Rd 6 6 20 190-230 132 No 

Ina Rd Limberlost Dr 6 6 18-60 130-200 130-182 No 

4 

Limberlost Dr Ventura St 6 6 18-28 110-140 130-140 Yes* 

Main St 

Ventura St University Blvd 5 5 0 70-130 100 Yes* 

University Blvd Alameda St 4 4 0 60 88 Yes UP railroad mainline crossing 

Granada Ave Alameda St Congress St 5 5 12 130 112 Yes 

7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A UP railroad 

11 Grant Rd 

Oracle Rd Belvedere Rd 5 6 20 65-120 132 Yes Add as part of Grant project 

Belvedere Rd Tanque Verde Rd 6 6 22 100-130 134 Yes 

Campbell Ave Speedway Blvd 10th St 6 6 22 110 134 Yes 

12 Kino Pkwy 

10th St Ajo Way 6 6 22 145-160 134-142 Yes Bridge over Aviation Pkwy, 100’ 

Ajo Way Benson Hwy 4 4 24 155 112 No Bridge over I-10, 84’ 

Campbell Ave Benson Hwy Valencia Rd 5 5 0 110-145 100 No 

6th Ave 

Congress St 21st St 3 3 0 75 76 Yes On-street parking 8’ both sides 

21st St Irvington Rd 5 4 12 75 100 Yes Bridge over I-10, 84’ wide 

13 Nogales Hwy Irvington Rd Valencia Rd 5 4 12 150-200 100 No 

Valencia Rd Nogales Hwy Tucson Blvd 6 6 22 110-120 134 Yes 

Tucson Blvd Valencia Rd TIA 6 6 22 115 134 Yes 

*Only need additional ROW for portions of this segment 

98



5.4.2 Capital Costs 

Table 22 summarizes the capital cost estimates for the HCT alternatives. It is evident from the 

table that the mixed‐traffic BRT alternatives are the least costly. BRT in dedicated lanes on 

Broadway Boulevard is also among the least costly alternatives because dedicated lanes already 

exist in most of the corridor or will be constructed as part of a programmed widening project. 

LRT and streetcar alternatives have the highest cost because of the trackwork, power delivery 

infrastructure, vehicles that cost significantly more than buses, and the need for special 

garage/storage facilities. 

Table 22 

Corridor Route Length HCT Scenario 

2A - Speedway 

Boulevard 

2B - Broadway 

Boulevard 


North 

10 miles 

11.5 miles 

4 - Oracle Road 16 miles 

Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates 

Total Capital Cost 

(2008 dollars) 

Capital Cost per Mile 

BRT - Mixed Traffic $14,200,000 $1,420,000 

BRT - Exclusive Lane $54,500,000 $5,450,000 

LRT - Exclusive Lane $589,600,000 $58,960,000 



3.5 miles SC - Mixed Traffic $218,540,000 $62,440,000 




7 - I-10/I-19 40 miles CRT $607,300,000 $15,180,000 

11 - Grant Road 7.5 miles 



13 - 6th Avenue/ 

Nogales Highway 

8.5 miles 

9 miles 

NOTE: Park-and-ride lot costs are not included. 









SC - Mixed Traffic $518,490,000 $57,610,000 


Table 23 provides a summary of the preliminary operating costs assessment. The Campbell 

Avenue South streetcar alternative has the highest annual operating cost and is significantly 

higher than the other alternatives. BRT in mixed traffic on the Oracle Road Corridor has the next 

highest annual operating cost, followed closely by Grant Road BRT in mixed traffic. The lowest in 

annual operating cost is LRT in the Oracle Road Corridor, and the next lowest is LRT on the 

99



Broadway Boulevard Corridor. BRT in an exclusive lane in the Broadway Boulevard corridor has 

a slightly higher annual operating cost than LRT in the Broadway Boulevard corridor. 

In general, operation in mixed‐traffic has the highest annual operating cost. This is because transit 

vehicles achieve the slowest speed in mixed traffic due to interaction with automobiles. Slower 

speed means that more vehicles are needed to provide service at the desired headway, so more 

fuel is used, more vehicle maintenance is necessary, and more operators must be paid. 

5.4.3 Secondary Evaluation Criteria 

Consistency with Regional Plans and Programs 

The planned roadway improvements that may impact streets in the HCT corridors according to 

RTA plans and as of October 2008 are as follows: 

• Grant Road. Oracle Road to Swan Road will be widened from a five‐lane to a six‐lane 

divided roadway. Construction is expected to begin in 2011/2012, and the widening is 

projected to be completed by 2025. This project positively impacts mixed‐traffic operations 

in the HCT corridor because it should reduce congestion. However, less public ROW may 

be available for constructing new dedicated transit lanes. 

• Speedway Boulevard. Camino Seco to Houghton Road will be widened from a two‐ and 

three‐lane road to a four‐lane divided roadway. Construction is expected to be completed 

by 2010. This project positively impacts mixed‐traffic operations in the HCT corridor 

because it should reduce congestion. However, less public ROW may be available for 

constructing new dedicated transit lanes. 

• Broadway Boulevard. Euclid Avenue to Columbus Boulevard will be widened from five and 

six lanes to eight lanes (including transit lanes) with a raised median. The roadway 

widening is expected to be completed by 2015. This project positively impacts traffic 

operations in the HCT corridor because it should reduce congestion and it extends the 

existing dedicated transit lanes. 

100



Table 23 

Corridor Route Length HCT Scenario Speed 

Preliminary Operating Cost Estimates 


Per Hour 

Weekday Daily 


Annual 


Annual 


Per Mile (Two- 

Way) 

BRT - Mixed Traffic 16 mph $83.20 $10,000 $3,095,040 $309,504 

2A - Speedway 

Boulevard 

10 miles BRT - Exclusive Lane 20 mph $83.20 $8,500 $2,630,784 $263,078 

LRT - Exclusive Lane 20 mph $78.04 $8,000 $2,467,625 $246,762 

2B - Broadway 

BRT - Exclusive Lane 20 mph $83.20 $9,000 $2,785,536 $242,221 

11.5 miles 

Boulevard 



North 

3.5 miles SC - Mixed Traffic 12 mph $78.04 $4,700 $1,741,853 $497,672 


4 - Oracle Road 16 miles BRT - Exclusive Lane 20 mph $83.20 $12,500 $3,868,800 $241,800 


7 - I-10/I-19 40 miles CRT 50 mph $500.00 $24,000 $3,060,000 $76,500 


11 - Grant Road 7.5 miles BRT - Exclusive Lane 20 mph $83.20 $6,500 $2,011,776 $268,237 





8.5 miles BRT - Exclusive Lane 20 mph $83.20 $7,000 $2,166,528 $254,886 


BRT - Mixed Traffic 16 mph $83.20 $9,000 

$2,785,536 $309,504 



9 miles 

BRT - Exclusive Lane 20 mph $83.20 $7,000 

$2,166,528 $240,725 

SC - Mixed Traffic 12 mph $78.04 $11,200 

$2,612,779 $290,309 

101



• Broadway Boulevard. Camino Seco to Houghton Road will be widened from three and five 

lanes to a four‐lane divided roadway. The widening is expected to be complete by 2020. 

This project positively impacts mixed‐traffic operations in the HCT corridor because it 

should reduce congestion. However, less public ROW may be available for constructing 

new dedicated transit lanes. 

The planned transit improvements that may impact the HCT alternatives are as follows: 

• New Tucson Modern Streetcar service running from the University Medical Center to downtown 

Tucson. The Tucson Modern Streetcar is scheduled for completion by 2011/2012. This 

project is effectively the first component of a future HCT network. Several of the potential 

HCT alternatives can connect to or extend the Tucson Modern Streetcar. 

• New express bus service on Oracle Road from Tangerine Road to River Road. This service is 

expected to start by 2011/2012. Express service in this corridor may build a market for 

future HCT service. 

• New express bus service on 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway from downtown Tucson to Valencia 

Road. This service is expected to start by 2011/2012. Express service in this corridor may 

build a market for future HCT service. 

Impacts on Other Transit Services 

Section 5.3.1 identifies changes to local bus routes that were assumed for ridership forecasting 

purposes. 

For the purposes of this screening analysis, HCT alternatives that operate in a dedicated lane 

were assumed to displace or eliminate local bus services as described in Section 5.3.2. These 

alternatives are: 

• 2A (Speedway Boulevard) BRT in dedicated lanes 

• 2A (Speedway Boulevard) LRT 

• 2B (Broadway Boulevard) BRT in dedicated lanes 

• 2B (Broadway Boulevard) LRT 

• 4 (Oracle Road) BRT in dedicated lanes 

• 4 (Oracle Road) LRT 

• 11 (Grant Road) BRT in dedicated lanes 

• 11 (Grant Road) LRT 

• 13 (6th Avenue South/Nogales Highway) BRT in dedicated lanes 

Land Use Compatibility/Transit-Oriented Development Potential 

Corridors that have high‐density residential development or provide opportunities for 

redevelopment of properties that promote use of transit, biking, and walking are corridors that 

support HCT systems. The land use and development potential within each of the candidate 

routes was evaluated, and the results are summarized below. 

102



2A – Speedway Boulevard 

Land use within the Speedway Boulevard corridor, particularly between Oracle Road and Wilmot 

Road includes primarily high‐density residential neighborhoods buffered by strip retail and office 

developments along the arterial and larger shopping center development at major intersections. 

This section of Speedway Boulevard is fully developed. The section between Wilmot Road and 

Houghton Road is also fully developed and includes medium‐and high‐density residential 

development; however, commercial land uses are primarily located at major intersections. Some 

additional development can occur at the Houghton Road intersection. While opportunities to 

implement TOD that combines high‐density residential with supporting commercial land uses 

exist, no specific areas where this type of development might occur have been identified in 

planning efforts. The Miramonte Neighborhood Plan, which includes the section of Speedway 

Boulevard from Alvernon Way to Country Club Road, generally supports this type of 

development. 

UA/UA Health Sciences Center is the only major employer/activity center served by Speedway 

Boulevard. However, this corridor is also used by downtown commuters. 

2B – Broadway Boulevard 

The Broadway Boulevard corridor is fully developed with a combination of medium‐ and highdensity 

residential neighborhoods, strip retail and office development, and high‐density 

shopping and employment destinations. These destinations include Park Mall, El Con Mall, 

Williams Center, and downtown Tucson. Broadway Boulevard also serves as a primary route for 

UA traffic. Opportunities for TOD include the Williams Center/Park Mall area and the section of 

Broadway Boulevard from Country Club Road to Columbus Boulevard, which is consistent with 

the goals of the Alvernon/Broadway Area and El Encanto‐Colonia Solana Neighborhood Plans. 

Multimodal‐oriented redevelopment is also a primary component of the soon‐to‐start roadway 

widening project for Broadway Boulevard from Country Club Road to Euclid Avenue. 

3 – Campbell Avenue North 

Campbell Avenue from Speedway Boulevard to River Road is essentially fully developed with 

medium‐ and high‐density residential buffered by strip retail and office developments. Key 

employment/activity centers include UA/UA Health Sciences Center. Campbell Avenue is a 

primary route for commuters to UA. Potential TOD/redevelopment opportunities include the 

area between Prince Road and River Road and the area between Grant Road and Ft. Lowell Road. 

103



4 – Oracle Road 

Land use and development within the Oracle Road corridor is essentially divided into three 

distinct sections. From downtown to River Road, land use can be characterized as predominantly 

a mix of retail, office, and industrial land use, with medium‐ and high‐density residential further 

away from the roadway. North of River Road to Ina Road, low‐ to medium‐ density residential 

development is predominant, with retail and office development providing a buffer. North of Ina 

Road to Tangerine Road, development is primarily low‐ to medium‐density residential with some 

commercial development, although there are large parcels of undeveloped property. Oracle Road 

is a primary route for commuters heading to downtown Tucson and UA. Tucson Mall and 

downtown Tucson are major activity/employment centers. Potential TOD opportunities include 

undeveloped properties north of Ina Road and the area between Speedway Boulevard and 

Miracle Mile Road, as noted in the Oracle Area Revitalization Plan. 

11 – Grant Road 

The Grant Road corridor is fully developed and consists primarily of high‐density residential 

neighborhoods with strip retail and office developments. The Tucson Medical Center is a primary 

employment destination within the corridor. Opportunities for redevelopment or TOD include 

much of the corridor from Oracle Road to Swan Road in conjunction with the Grant Road 

improvement project. The Grant‐Alvernon Area Plan has high‐density residential and 

commercial redevelopment as a primary objective from Country Club Road to Swan Road. 

12 – Campbell Avenue South/Kino Parkway 

Land use along Campbell Avenue consists of medium‐ to high‐density residential and light 

industrial from Speedway Boulevard to 22nd Street and high‐density residential from 22nd Street 

to Valencia Road. Large undeveloped parcels, zoned for both commercial and residential, are 

located between 36th Street and Benson Highway and in the vicinity of Valencia Road. The Kino 

Area Plan supports large residential, commercial, and industrial development along Kino 

Parkway, including the Bridges Development between 36th Street and I‐10, which will include a 

UA Biotechnology Park, residential neighborhoods, and a large commercial center at I‐10. 

13 – 6th Avenue South/Nogales Highway 

Land use along 6th Avenue is primarily high‐density residential with some strip retail, 

transitioning to medium density with some light industrial development approaching Valencia 

Road and the TIA. Primary activity/employment centers along this route include downtown, the 

VA Hospital, the TIA, and Raytheon’s main plant. No specific plans have identified transitoriented 

redevelopment opportunities; however, the El Pueblo neighborhood area would be a 

good candidate. 

Summary 

The existing land use and development along each corridor, generally supports transit, however 

there are no areas that can be characterized as TOD. While creation of TOD is certainly possible 

104



within each of the seven corridors, the best candidates for this type of development include 

Broadway Boulevard, Oracle Road, and Grant Road. On these routes, TOD is supported by 

neighborhood or area plans, and programmed roadway improvement projects on Broadway 

Boulevard and Grant Road provide an opportunity to redevelop adjacent properties to more fully 

integrate transit and other modes of transportation. 

Access to Major Attractors and Generators 

Figure 50 and Figure 51 show the existing major attractors and generators located within walking 

distance of the HCT corridors. Table 24 provides additional detail. 

Table 24 

Existing Major Trip Generators with Walking Distance of HCT Corridors 

Route 

2A - Speedway Boulevard 

By BRT and SC 

University of Arizona 

Trip Generators Reached 

By LRT and CRT 


University Medical Center 

2B - Broadway Boulevard 

3 - Campbell Avenue North 

4 - Oracle Road 

El Con Mall 

Park Mall 


Williams Center 

Downtown Tucson - Government Center 



Arizona Cancer Center 

Tucson Mall 

Pima College Downtown 

Ventana Medical Systems 

Honeywell 


El Con Mall 

Park Mall 


St. Joseph’s Hospital 






Tucson Mall 

Pima College Downtown 

Ventana Medical Systems 

Honeywell 


7 - I-10/I-19 Downtown Tucson - Government Center 

11 - Grant Road Tucson Medical Center Tucson Medical Center 

12 - Campbell Ave 

Tucson International Airport 



VA Medical Center 


13 - 6th Avenue/Nogales Tucson International Airport 


Highway 

Downtown Tucson - Government Center Downtown Tucson - Government Center 

105



Figure 50 

Major Trip Generators within Walking Distance of BRT and Streetcar 

106



Figure 51 

Major Trip Generators within Walking Distance of LRT and CRT 

107



The Broadway Boulevard corridor reaches a substantial number of the major trip generators that 

are also some of the largest employers in Tucson. Downtown Tucson has the highest employment 

density in the region and UA is a primary activity center. The corridor also serves three major 

retail employers and destinations: El Con Mall, Park Mall, and Williams Center. 

The Oracle Road Corridor also serves a substantial number of major trip generators, including 

Downtown Tucson. Pima Community College and the Tucson Mall are also major trip generators 

reached by this corridor. Honeywell and Ventana Medical Systems are also served by this 

corridor, although they are not as large as other generators. 

The 6th Avenue South/Nogales Highway Corridor serves downtown Tucson and TIA and 

surrounding areas. Including the employment located around the TIA, the area has one of the 

highest employment densities in the region. 

The Grant Road corridor serves the Tucson Medical Center. It is the corridor reaching the fewest 

major trip generators. 

Impacts on Roadway Mobility and Congestion 

Table 25 summarizes the planning‐level assessment of future roadway operations. As discussed 

in Section 5.3.2, a general‐purpose lane cannot likely be converted to a dedicated transit lane if the 

corridor is projected to operate near capacity or under congested conditions, and transit 

preferential treatments are not likely to be effective if there is either too much congestion or too 

little congestion. Figure 20 depicts 2040 LOS by segment graphically. 

Possible Environmental Impacts 

There will likely be no significant environmental impacts due to implementing HCT in the 

proposed corridors because the proposed corridors are all existing, developed corridors. A more 

detailed environmental study will need to be conducted to further assess the costs of HCT on 

specific corridors. Such a study will be applicable where new lanes or running ways are 

constructed or where stations, park‐and‐ride lots, and/or vehicle maintenance facilities are 

constructed. 

108



Table 25 

Roadway Segment Operations Assessment 

Corridor Segment Future (2040) 

Can General- Will Transit 

Corridor 

Purpose Lane Preferential 

Roadway From To LOS 

Be Dedicated Treatments be 

to HCT?* Effective? 

Campbell Ave Swan Rd E Not Likely Maybe 

Swan Rd Rosemont Blvd F Not Likely Not Likely 

2A Speedway Blvd Rosemont Blvd Kolb Rd D-E Not Likely Maybe 

Kolb Rd Pantano Rd F Not Likely Not Likely 

Pantano Rd Houghton Rd D-E Maybe Maybe 

4th Ave Norris Ave E Not Likely Maybe 

Norris Ave Camino Espanol F Not Likely Not Likely 

2B Broadway Blvd 

Camino Espanol Swan Rd E Not Likely Maybe 

Swan Rd Pantano Rd E-F Not Likely Not Likely 

Pantano Rd Sarnoff Dr D Maybe Maybe 

Sarnoff Dr Houghton Rd C Likely Not Likely 

River Rd Roger Rd F Not Likely Not Likely 

Roger Rd Glenn St E Not Likely Maybe 

3 Campbell Ave Glenn St Grant Rd F Not Likely Not Likely 

Grant Rd Elm St C Likely Not Likely 

4 

Oracle Rd/ 

Min St/ 

Granada Ave 

11 Grant Rd 

12 

13 

Campbell Ave/ 

Kino Pkwy/ 

Campbell Ave 

6th Ave/ 

Nogales Hwy/ 

Valencia Rd/ 

Tucson Blvd 

*Based on roadway LOS only 

Elm St Speedway Blvd D Maybe Maybe 

Tangerine Rd Auto Mall Dr E-F Not Likely Maybe 

AutoMall Dr Jacinto St F Not Likely Not Likely 

Jacinto St Mabel St E Not Likely Maybe 

Mabel St University Blvd F Not Likely Not Likely 

University Blvd Alameda St D Maybe Maybe 

Alameda St Congress St F Not Likely Not Likely 

Oracle Rd Wilson Ave C-D Maybe Maybe 

Wilson Ave Arcadia Ave D-E Not Likely Maybe 

Arcadia Ave Tanque Verde Rd F Not Likely Not Likely 

Speedway Blvd 5th St E Not Likely Maybe 

5th St 10th St D Maybe Maybe 

10th St Silverlake Rd F Not Likely Not Likely 

Silverlake Rd Benson Hwy D Maybe Maybe 

Benson Hwy Valencia Rd C Likely Not Likely 

Congress St 16th St C Likely Not Likely 

16th St Benson Hwy D Maybe Maybe 

Benson Hwy District St E Not Likely Maybe 

District St Valencia Rd D-E Maybe Maybe 

Valencia Rd TIA F Not Likely Not Likely 

Rail Owner/Operator Cooperation 

Studies conducted for ADOT to date suggest that Union Pacific is not in favor of introducing 

passenger rail in its corridor. This reluctance may make it challenging to implement CRT in the I‐ 

10/I‐19 corridor (Corridor 7). 

109



Impacts on Title VI Communities and Transit-Dependent Populations 

Transit‐dependent populations are typically characterized by age (i.e., youth and the elderly), low 

household income, and low household car ownership. Such data are available from the PAG 

model for existing conditions at the Census tract level, and the corresponding densities for the 

first data items are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 3. The thresholds used to stratify density of 

younger and older residents and density of households earning less than $40,000 annually are 

stated in Figure 5 and Figure 3. 

The project team assessed Title VI impacts by looking at minority and low‐income household 

population density. The former is also available at the Census tract level from the PAG model. 

Figure 52 shows the minority population densities as well as the thresholds used to stratify this 

group. 

As shown in Figure 52, the 6th Avenue South and South Campbell/Kino corridors serve an area 

with a high percentage of minority populations (60% to 80% minorities). Similarly, the western 

section of the Grant Road corridor and the southern section of the Oracle Road corridor serve 

high minority populations. All the other corridors, for the majority, serve areas that have 20% to 

40% minorities. 

Similar to the minority population distribution, and as seen in Figure 3, the 6th Avenue South and 

Campbell South/Kino Parkway corridors serve areas where 60% or more of households earn less 

than $40,000 a year. The southern half of the Oracle Road corridor, the Grant Road corridor, and 

the Speedway corridor also serve significant low‐income populations. The middle section of the 

Broadway Boulevard corridor and northern half of the Oracle Road corridor serve relatively 

higher‐income populations. 

The distribution of populations with age between 5 and 19 or 65 and over increases as the 

distance from the city core/downtown increases, with the exception of the UA area. The 6th 

Avenue South and Campbell Avenue South/Kino Parkway corridors serve a significant 

concentration of these age groups. The outer sections of the Oracle Road, Broadway Boulevard, 

and Speedway Boulevard corridors also serve significant youth and elderly populations. 

Campbell Avenue and Speedway Boulevard provide service to the UA area, which has a 

significant youth population. 

The assessment of the impacts of Title VI communities showed all of the potential HCT corridors 

serve significant populations of the relevant communities. The 6th Avenue South, Campbell 

Avenue South/Kino Parkway, and Oracle Road corridors serve the highest concentration of these 

communities. 

110



Figure 52 

Existing Minority Population 

111



Impact on Pedestrians and Bicyclists 

There are existing bicycle lanes and sidewalks on all routes, with the exception of a portion of 6th 

Avenue South (Corridor 13). There will be costs associated with preserving these bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities with HCT implementation, as well as potential operational impacts on bicycle 

lanes due to placement of streetcar and LRT tracks. These are issues to be resolved during design. 

Infrastructure Needs 

As noted previously, the costs of much of the infrastructure needed to support the HCT modes 

was included in the capital cost estimates. Additional infrastructure includes the cost of 

implementing park‐and‐ride lots (which may be part of existing developments or brand‐new 

facilities) and potential new or reconstructed overpasses and underpasses. Potential new and 

reconstructed overpasses are associated with the Corridors 4 and 12, as Section 5.4.1 details. 

At this time, it appears that Alternative 7 (CRT in the I‐10 and I‐19 corridors) is likely to have 

significant infrastructure costs outside of running way, stations, and vehicles. This is because CRT 

trains are long (which affects rail car storage facilities and platform lengths), CRT park‐and‐ride 

lots are typically large, a more direct connection between the I‐10 and I‐19 corridors may be 

needed, and there may be a need for grade separations or new tracks to make CRT more 

accessible at some proposed station locations (e.g., a direct connection to the TIA). 

Park‐and‐ride lots are necessary to support the other alternatives. Some corridors serve existing 

park‐and‐ride lots and transit centers. New park‐and‐ride lots may be provided as part of existing 

or new developments (such as malls and churches) or may be constructed on newly acquired 

ROW. 

The project team notes that the existing park‐and‐ride lot near Speedway Boulevard/Tucson 

Boulevard is not likely to be used by HCT riders unless the Tucson Modern Streetcar is connected 

to this location. This park‐and‐ride lot is simply too close to the western terminus of Corridor 2A 

to be attractive to potential HCT riders. If alternatives for Corridor 2A are carried forward, this 

issue will be evaluated in more detail. 

Image 

For the purposes of this criterion, LRT and streetcar modes were considered to have the best 

image of the HCT modes under consideration. BRT operating in a dedicated lane was considered 

to have a better image than buses operating in mixed‐traffic; this is borne out in studies showing 

that BRT can have ridership and land development impacts comparable to those of LRT when the 

infrastructure and service characteristics are similar. 

5.4.4 Corridor Assessment Summary 

Table 26 summarizes the screening evaluation. As noted in the table, weights of 1 to 10 are 

assigned to the evaluation criteria for the purpose of giving more importance to the primary and 

112



most critical criteria. Ridership was given the highest weight of all because it is the only measure 

of project benefits among the primary criteria. 

A score of 1 to 3 has also been given to each alternative for each evaluation criterion. A score of 3 

means a given alternative scores high with respect to the criterion in comparison to other 

alternatives, so the alternative is more favorable for HCT. A score of 1 means a given alternative 

scores low with respect to the criterion in comparison to other alternatives, so the alternative is 

less favorable for HCT. These scores are intended to represent average conditions along the entire 

route. The total weighted score is calculated by multiplying the score by the weight for each 

criterion and summing the products. Rankings indicate the highest‐scoring alternatives. 

The scores were determined as follows: 

• Daily Ridership per Mile. A plot of daily ridership per mile data showed three very distinct 

groupings of alternatives. The highest grouping received a score of 3, the middle grouping 

received a score of 2, and the lowest grouping received a score of 1. 

• ROW Availability. Mixed traffic alternatives were scored a 3 since no additional right‐ofway 

is needed. Dedicated lane alternatives were scored a 2 if minimal right‐of‐way is 

required (Broadway Boulevard only) and a 1 if significant additional right‐of‐way is 

needed. 

• Capital Cost per Mile. A plot of capital cost per mile data showed three very distinct 

groupings of alternatives. LRT and streetcar alternatives are associated with a very high 

capital cost per mile and thus received a score of 1. BRT alternatives in which dedicated 

lanes must be constructed received a score of 2. Alternatives with BRT operating in mixedtraffic 

or on existing dedicated lanes received a score of 3. 

• Operating Cost per Mile. A plot of operating cost per mile data showed three distinct 

groupings of alternatives. The highest grouping received a score of 1, the middle grouping 

received a score of 2, and the lowest grouping received a score of 3. 

• Consistency with Regional Plans & Programs. All of the alternatives are consistent with 

regional plans and programs, so all were given a score of 3. 

• Impacts on Other Transit Services. HCT alternatives that will operate in a dedicated lane 

were given a score of 2 because existing local bus services may be displaced or eliminated 

in order to maximize the travel speed of the HCT mode. Alternatives operating in mixed 

traffic were given a score of 3 because local buses can continue to use the same 

lanes/routes that they currently do. 

113



Evaluation Criterion 

Weight 

Alt 

2A 

BRT 

D 

Alt 

2A 

BRT 

M 

Alt 

2A 

LRT 

Table 26 

Alt 

2B 

BRT 

D 

Alt 

2B 

LRT 

Corridor Assessment Summary 

Score by Alternative* 

Alt Alt 

Alt 4 Alt 4 

Alt 3 

Alt 4 Alt 7 11 11 

BRT BRT 

SC 

LRT CRT BRT BRT 

D M 

D M 

Daily Ridership/Mile 10 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 

ROW Availability 5 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 

Capital Cost/Mile 5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 

Operating Cost/Mile 5 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 

Consistency with 

Regional Plans & 

1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Programs 

Impacts on Other Transit 

Services 

1 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 

Land Use 

Compatibility/TOD 

1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 

Potential 

Access to Major 

Attractors/Generators 

1 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 

Roadway Mobility/ 

Congestion Impact 

1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Environmental Impact 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 

Rail Owner/Operator 

Cooperation 

1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Impact on Title VI & 

Transit-Dependent 

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Populations 

Pedestrian & Bicyclist 

Impact 

1 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 

Infrastructure Needs 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 

Image 1 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 

Total Score 86 96 81 100 90 74 78 89 73 76 75 86 70 77 87 72 91 88 98 

Rank 9 3 11 1 5 16 12 6 17 14 15 9 19 13 8 18 4 7 2 

* 3 = High Rating, 2 = Medium Rating, and 1 = Low Rating in comparison to other alternatives. BRT = bus rapid transit, LRT = light rail transit, SC = 

streetcar, CRT = commuter rail transit, D = dedicated lane operation, and M = mixed-traffic operation. 

Alt 

11 

LRT 

Alt 

12 

BRT 

D 

Alt 

12 

BRT 

M 

Alt 

12 

LRT 

Alt 

13 

SC 

Alt 

13 

BRT 

D 

Alt 

13 

BRT 

M 

114



• Land Use Compatibility/TOD Potential. Corridors 2B, 4, and 11 were determined to have the 

most TOD potential. Rail modes and BRT operating in a dedicated lane in these corridors 

were given a score of 3. Alternatives with BRT operating in mixed traffic in these corridors 

were given a score of 2. In other corridors, rail modes and BRT operating in a dedicated 

lane were given a score of 3 while BRT in mixed‐traffic was given a score of 1. CRT was 

given a score of 3. 

• Access to Major Attractors/Generators. The alternatives that served the most major attractors 

and generators and/or larger major attractors and generators received a score of 3. 

Alternatives serving only one or two major attractors and generators received a score of 1. 

• Roadway Mobility/Congestion Impact. Scores were assigned based on 2040 LOS in each 

corridor. If most segments operate at LOS C or better, a score of 3 was given to indicate 

that HCT would not significantly impact roadway mobility and congestion. A score of 2 

was given if most segments operate at LOS D. A score of 1 was given if most segments 

operate at LOS E or F. 

• Environmental Impact. Any alternative that adds dedicated transit lanes to a corridor was 

assigned a score of 2 because of the new construction needed. Alternatives that operate on 

existing pavement or existing tracks were assigned a score of 3. (The project team notes 

that new transit centers, new park‐and‐ride lots, and/or specific station sites may have 

environmental impacts that cannot be determined at this level of analysis.) 

• Rail Owner/Operator Cooperation. This is not an issue for any alternative but Alternative 7, 

but the issue is very critical for Alternative 7. Therefore, all alternatives but Alternative 7 

received a score of 3 and Alternative 7 received a score of 1. 

• Impact on Title VI & Transit‐Dependent Populations. All of the potential HCT corridors serve 

significant populations of these communities, so no corridor was given a score of less than 

2. The 6th Avenue South, Campbell Avenue South/Kino Parkway, and Oracle Road 

corridors serve the highest concentrations of these communities, so these corridors were 

given a score of 3. 

• Pedestrian & Bicyclist Impact. Any alternative that adds dedicated transit lanes to a corridor 

was assigned a score of 2 because pedestrian crossing distances will be increased as a 

result. Other alternatives are not anticipated to negatively impact pedestrians or bicyclists 

and were thus given a score of 3. (The project team notes that tracks can present a hazard 

to bicyclists, and this must be addressed in the design of the service.) 

• Infrastructure Needs. Streetcar and LRT alternatives were assigned a score of 1 because of 

the need for a rail garage, rail maintenance facilities, and electric power delivery 

infrastructure. Bus alternatives received a score of 3 because this analysis assumes 

standard‐length BRT vehicles; 60‐foot BRT vehicles may require special storage and 

maintenance facilities. CRT was assigned a score of 1 because CRT may require special 

storage and maintenance facilities, larger park‐and‐ride lots, and a more direct connection 

between the I‐10 and I‐19 corridors. 

• Image. LRT, streetcar, and CRT were given a score of 3 to reflect the perception that rail is 

better than bus. BRT alternatives running in dedicated ROW were given a score of 2 

because such a service can be operate similar to LRT and can have similar ridership and 

115



land development impacts. BRT alternatives operating in mixed‐traffic were given a score 

of 1. 

Table 26 shows that the top‐ranked alternative is Alternative 2B with BRT operating in a 

dedicated lane on Broadway Boulevard. It is reasonable that this alternative would score high 

because a dedicated lane already exists on Broadway Boulevard. 

The other alternatives in the top four (i.e., those scoring higher than 90) are as follows: 

• Alternative 13 with BRT operating in mixed traffic on 6th Avenue South and Nogales 

Highway 

• Alternative 2A with BRT operating in mixed traffic on Speedway Boulevard 

• Alternative 13 with streetcar operating on 6th Avenue South and Nogales Highway 

The top four alternatives are the most favorable HCT alternatives because they have high scores 

for nearly every evaluation criterion. Alternative 2A with BRT operating in mixed traffic and 

Alternative 13 with BRT operating in mixed traffic have a score of 1 only for land use 

compatibility/TOD potential and image. Alternative 2B with BRT operating in a dedicated lane 

has no scores of 1. Alternative 13 with streetcar has a score of 1 only for capital cost per mile. All 

four alternatives have scores of 3 for ridership potential. 

The three lowest‐scoring alternatives are: 

• Alternative 11 with LRT operating on Grant Road 

• Alternative 12 with LRT operating on Campbell Avenue South/Kino Parkway 

• Alternative 4 with LRT operating on Oracle Road 

The three lowest‐scoring alternatives are the least favorable HCT alternatives primarily because 

of a combination of high capital costs and medium ridership. 

The project team notes that many of the alternatives in Table 26 have scores that differ by less 

than three points. This means that a small change in score for a given alternative or a change in 

weights could impact the rankings. Because of this sensitivity, the project team added another 

analysis to the screening evaluation: a comparison of capital costs per annual rider. The project 

team divided estimated total capital cost for each alternative by the projected annual ridership 

and ranked the alternatives. The results of this comparison are summarized in Table 27. Table 27 

shows that the alternatives offering the most ridership benefit for the investment in capital are the 

BRT alternatives. The top four alternatives according to this measure (i.e., those with the lowest 

capital cost per annual rider) are as follows: 

• Alternative 2B with BRT operating in a dedicated lane on Broadway Boulevard 

• Alternative 2A with BRT operating in mixed traffic on Speedway Boulevard 

• Alternative 13 with BRT operating in mixed traffic on 6th Avenue and Nogales Highway 

• Alternative 4 with BRT operating in mixed traffic on Oracle Road 

116



Of these top four alternatives, three are also part of the top four based on Table 26, which is 

further evidence that these three should be considered for further study. The fourth alternative, 

Alternative 13 with streetcar operating on 6th Avenue and Nogales Highway, has been replaced 

by Alternative 4 with BRT operating in mixed traffic on Oracle Road. This replacement occurs 

because the capital costs for streetcar are significantly higher than the capital costs for the BRT 

alternatives, even though Alternative 13 with streetcar has the lowest capital cost per rider of the 

rail alternatives. 

Table 27 

Ridership Benefit vs. Investment in Capital 

Corridor 

2A - Speedway 

Boulevard 

HCT Scenario 



Forecast Annual 

Ridership 


Annual Rider 

BRT - Mixed Traffic $14,200,000 1,016,490 $14 2 

BRT - Exclusive Lane $54,500,000 1,120,650 $49 8 

LRT - Exclusive Lane $589,600,000 1,195,050 $493 14 

2B - Broadway BRT - Exclusive Lane $12,765,000 1,204,970 $11 1 

Boulevard LRT - Exclusive Lane $607,085,000 1,285,880 $472 13 


North 

4 - Oracle Road 

SC - Mixed Traffic $218,540,000 223,510 $978 18 

BRT - Mixed Traffic $23,040,000 973,400 $24 4 


LRT - Exclusive Lane $972,160,000 1,172,420 $829 15 

7 - I-10/I-19 CRT $607,300,000 637,500 $953 16 

11 - Grant Road 





NOTE: Park-and-ride lot costs not included. 


BRT - Exclusive Lane $40,350,000 435,240 $93 10 

LRT - Exclusive Lane $445,950,000 465,000 $959 17 


BRT - Exclusive Lane $46,240,000 435,240 $106 11 

LRT - Exclusive Lane $497,080,000 465,000 $1,069 19 



SC - Mixed Traffic $518,490,000 1,124,060 $461 12 

Rank 

5.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

TASK 5 

5.5.1 Conclusions for Task 5 

Of the eight HCT corridors and 19 modal alternatives evaluated in Section 5.0 technical 

memorandum, none were identified as fatally flawed through the screening evaluation. Several, 

however, are more promising than others in terms of potential ridership and the other evaluation 

criteria. The project team observed the following: 

117



• Table 26 shows that BRT alternatives rank higher than the LRT alternative in any given 

corridor. 

• Table 26 shows that BRT operating in mixed traffic ranks higher than BRT operating in a 

dedicated lane in any corridor but Corridor 2B (Broadway Boulevard). The key difference 

between Corridor 2B and the other corridors where BRT is an alternative is the existing 

dedicated transit lanes on Broadway Boulevard. The other corridors do not have existing 

ROW for dedicated lanes, and this explains the difference in rankings in every case. 

• The rankings in Table 27 emphasize the higher capital costs of the HCT rail alternatives. 

As implementation of HCT moves forward, it is critical to take advantage of the strengths 

of rail technology so that the higher capital costs can be offset. 

• Corridor 11 is the least favorable corridor for development of any HCT mode. The 

corridor is not fatally flawed, but the analysis suggests that development of HCT in this 

corridor should not be prioritized. 

• Corridors 2A, 2B, and 13 have strong scores (greater than 80) regardless of which HCT 

technology will eventually operate in them. This means that these corridors have multiple 

characteristics that are likely to contribute to the success of HCT. 

• There is a great deal of uncertainty about development of CRT in the I‐10 and I‐19 

corridors (Corridor 7) due to ongoing efforts to implement high‐speed passenger rail in 

the I‐10 corridor and the willingness of Union Pacific to support high‐speed passenger rail 

or CRT on its tracks. The Rail Owner/Operator Cooperation evaluation criterion perhaps 

underestimates the challenge that this uncertainty presents. 

5.5.2 Recommendations for Task 5 

At the conclusion of Task 5, the project team recommended carrying forward the following 

alternatives to Task 6: 

• Alternative 2B ‐ Broadway Boulevard ‐ BRT in dedicated lanes 

• Alternative 13 ‐ 6th Avenue South/Nogales Parkway ‐ streetcar 

Alternative 2B takes advantage of existing dedicated transit lanes on Broadway Boulevard to 

provide a high quality of transit service for a relatively low cost. The development pattern in the 

corridor is conducive to TOD, with medium‐ to high‐density development, a mix of uses, several 

major trip generators/attractors, and an existing park‐and‐ride lot. The corridor also serves 

reasonable densities of transit‐dependent populations and Title VI communities. 

The analysis summarized in Sections 5.4.3 shows that Corridor 13 is clearly a strong corridor for 

any HCT mode. Corridor 13 serves major trip generators (e.g., TIA), on‐street parking in the 

Stone Avenue and 6th Avenue couplet presents opportunities for station development and transit 

preferential treatments, the corridor serves relatively dense concentrations of lower‐income 

households and minority populations, and the corridor serves an existing transit center and parkand‐ride 

lot south of Irvington Road. The project team’s Task 5 recommendation for streetcar in 

Corridor 13 considers that some of the investments associated with the Tucson Modern Streetcar 

118



(e.g., streetcar maintenance facility) can offset the costs of developing a streetcar service in 

Corridor 13. Additionally, Corridor 13 intersects the Tucson Modern Streetcar route, and the 

refined routing of Corridor 13 carried out in Task 6 addresses in more detail how the two 

streetcar lines could function in tandem. 

The other corridors do not appear to be fatally flawed, although several of them will be very 

expensive to construct given the necessary investment in infrastructure and/or the amount of 

ROW that must be acquired. The project team addressed the other corridors as part of the 

implementation plan in Section 8.0. Section 8.0 also addresses HCT project phasing, which may 

include implementing express bus or other “interim” modes and/or implementing corridors in 

sections. 

119

Highway Capacity Transit System Plan - Final Report June 2009 

Development of Updated HCT System Plan 

6.0 DEVELOPMENT OF UPDATED HCT 

SYSTEM PLAN 


Section 6.0 of the HCT System Plan Final Report summarizes the following activities conducted 

under Task 6: 

• Defining a baseline system alternative 

• Defining a system alternative that includes and refines the two corridors that were 

recommended in Section 5.0 for more detailed study 

• Defining a second system alternative to explore hybrid corridors or other options 

• Assessing potential changes in regional transit ridership, redevelopment opportunities, 

accessibility to transit‐dependent populations and Title VI communities, the extent to 

which existing and future population and employment is served, roadway level of service, 

roadway vehicle‐miles traveled (VMT), roadway travel time, and redevelopment potential 

6.2 CORRIDORS ANALYZED IN TASK 6 

The alternatives that were recommended in Task 5 (Section 5.0) for more detailed analysis in Task 

6 are the following: 

• Alternative 2B, which features BRT operating in a dedicated lane on Broadway Boulevard 

between the Ronstadt Transit Center (shown in Figure 53) in downtown Tucson and a 

proposed new park‐and‐ride lot on Houghton Road 

• Alternative 13, which features streetcar service operating on 6th Avenue in mixed traffic 

between the Ronstadt Transit Center in downtown Tucson and TIA 

Figure 54 though Figure 57 illustrate the cross section and typical land uses of Alternative 2B. 

Figure 58 though Figure 60 illustrate the cross section and typical land uses of Alternative 13. 

Refinements to the alternatives that were recommended in Section 5.0 include determining more 

detailed alignments (e.g., including route deviations to serve specific major trip generators), 

identifying transit center and park‐and‐ride alternatives, locating HCT stations at the intersection 

level, and identifying changes to the local bus network and coordination with the planned 

Modern Streetcar (with input from Sun Tran). 

120



Figure 53 

Ronstadt Transit Center in Downtown Tucson 

Figure 54 

Eastbound Broadway Boulevard at Tucson Boulevard 

121



Figure 55 

Eastbound Broadway Boulevard at Dodge Boulevard (El Con Mall) 

Figure 56 

Eastbound Broadway Boulevard at Columbus Boulevard 

Figure 57 

Eastbound Broadway Boulevard West of Columbus Boulevard (with Bus Lane) 

122



Figure 58 

Northbound 6th Avenue at Pennsylvania Drive 

Figure 59 

Northbound 6th Avenue at 29th Street 

Figure 60 

Northbound 6th Avenue at Stone Avenue and 18th Street 

123



6.3 DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

Section 6.3 defines a baseline alternative and analyzes two system alternatives. The two system 

alternatives are based on the HCT alternatives that were recommended in Task 5 (Section 5.0) for 

more detailed analysis. 

The project team notes that the alignments, station locations, ridership forecasts, vehicles, and 

other characteristics of the system alternatives described in this section are anticipated to be 

finalized during the preparation of an FTA Alternatives Analysis and/or during project 

development (preliminary engineering and final design). The Alternatives Analysis and project 

development processes will address specific issues such as whether or not streetcar tracks will be 

placed in curbside lanes, medians, or other locations; how HCT vehicles will turn around at 

endpoints; and how new BRT and streetcar services will interface with the Tucson Modern 

Streetcar. More information about the FTA Alternatives Analysis and project development can be 

found in Section 7.0. 

6.3.1 Baseline System Alternative 

The baseline system alternative includes transit improvements and transit‐related roadway 

improvements that are already planned or programmed in the region. A baseline alternative 

evaluation will be required should the project apply for FTA funding. At the time that the system 

alternatives analysis was conducted in January of 2009, planned and programmed improvements 

for the baseline alternative were identified. Since that time, all of these improvements have been 

implemented with the exception of the High Capacity Modern Streetcar System. 

The planned and programmed improvements in the baseline alternative as of January 2009 are the 

following: 

• Broadway Boulevard. Euclid Avenue to Country Club Road will be widened from five lanes 

to six lanes plus two dedicated transit lanes with a raised median. The roadway widening 

is expected to be completed by 2015. 

• Broadway Boulevard. Camino Seco to Houghton Road will be widened from three and five 

lanes to a four‐lane divided roadway. The widening is expected to be complete by 2020. 

• Weekday evening bus service expansion. Sun Tran service will be extended to 11 p.m. on 

Routes 1‐3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21‐23, 26, 27, 29, and 34 to midnight on Routes 4, 8, and 

16. 

• Weekend bus service expansion. Buses will operate from approximately 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. on 

Saturday and from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sunday on Routes 1‐4, 6‐11, 15‐17, 19‐23, 26, 27, 29, 

34, and 37. 

• Bus service frequency and service area expansion. Frequencies will be improved from 15 

minutes to 10 minutes on Routes 4, 6 (Park Avenue/1st Avenue leg), 11, 15, and 16 (Oracle 

Road/12th Avenue leg). Frequencies will be improved from 30 minutes to 15 minutes on 

Routes 6 (Park Avenue/Bilby Road leg), 7, 9, 10, and 16 (Ina Road leg). Routes 4, 8, 9, 11, 

124



16, and 27 will be extended. A new route will be introduced on Houghton Road. A new 

northwest‐area bus maintenance facility will be constructed to accommodate the 

expanded fleet. 

• Enhancement of existing express bus service. Existing Sun Tran express bus routes (Routes 81 

(Tanque Verde), 83 (Golf Links), 103 (Old Father), 105 (Sunrise), 106 (Swan), and 180 (Aero 

Park) will be upgraded to a minimum of six trips. 

• New express bus service. From 2009‐2010, six new express routes will be added during 

weekday peak hours. Stylized buses (which look more futuristic than the current Sun Tran 

bus shown in Figure 61 and may incorporate additional advanced technology features) 

will be used for all routes. New express routes will include: 

• On Oracle Road, from Tangerine Road in Oro Valley to Downtown Tucson/UA. 

Express service in this corridor may build a market for future HCT service. 

• From Tangerine Road in Oro Valley to the Raytheon plant at Nogales Highway and 

Valencia Road. 

• On I‐10, from Cortaro Road in Marana to Downtown Tucson. 

• On I‐19/Nogales Highway/6th Avenue, from Green Valley/Sahuarita to Raytheon 

and Downtown Tucson. 

• On I‐10, from Rita Ranch (UA Science and Technology Park) to Downtown Tucson. 

• On 6th Avenue, from Laos Transit Center to Downtown Tucson/Ronstadt Transit 

Center. Express service in this corridor may build a market for future HCT service. 

• New park‐and‐rides. Local and express bus service will be supported by new park‐and‐ride 

centers located in Oro Valley (Tangerine Road near Oracle Road), in Marana (Cortaro 

Road near I‐10), in Green Valley (Continental Road near I‐10), in the Valencia 

Road/Casino del Sol area, in the Rita Ranch area, in the Houghton Road/Broadway 

Boulevard area, and at Sahuarita Town Hall. 

• New community circulator service. New transit circulator services will be provided in Oro 

Valley, Marana, Green Valley, and Ajo. 

• Expansion of special needs transit service. Tucson’s Sun Van and Pima County’s Pima Transit 

paratransit services will be expanded. 

• High‐Capacity Modern Streetcar System. A new fixed‐guideway transit system will link 

densely populated activity centers along a 4‐mile corridor in central Tucson between UA 

and downtown Tucson. The system is intended to serve an existing weekday population 

of 100,000 within the corridor as well as encourage future transit‐supportive development 

and economic investment for future urban residents and workers. Over 1.4 million trips 

are estimated annually. The modern streetcar will make use of a new 4th Avenue 

underpass at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). The streetcar will generally operate onstreet 

and will be double‐tracked. This project is currently under design. 

125



Figure 61 

Conventional Sun Tran Bus 

6.3.2 System Alternative A 

System Alternative A is shown in Figure 62 and Figure 63. System Alternative A is a phased 

implementation of HCT that includes the following features: 

• BRT service on Broadway Boulevard from downtown Tucson to Houghton Road, with 

service to UA (Phase 1) 

• BRT or express bus service on 6th Avenue and Nogales Highway from downtown Tucson 

to TIA (Phase 1) 

• Streetcar on Broadway Boulevard from downtown Tucson to El Con Mall (Phase 2) 

• Streetcar on 6th Avenue South from downtown Tucson to Laos Transit Center (Phase 2) 

The motivation for System Alternative A is identifying a combination of HCT alternatives that 

takes advantage of the economic development potential and accessibility of streetcar—as well as 

committed investments in the Tucson Modern Streetcar—and the mobility and relatively low 

implementation cost offered by BRT. 

126



Figure 62 

System Alternative A - Broadway Boulevard Corridor 

127



Figure 63 

System Alternative A - 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway Corridor 

128



Refined Alignments 

Broadway Boulevard Corridor 

There are two significant changes to the Broadway Boulevard alternative that the project team 

recommended for further study at the end of Task 5 (Section 5.0). The first significant change is 

the extension of the modern streetcar between downtown Tucson and El Con Mall in a second 

phase; BRT running from downtown Tucson to Houghton Road (the alternative recommended in 

Task 5) would be the first HCT phase. This two‐phased HCT project for Broadway Boulevard has 

several advantages: 

• BRT can be implemented relatively quickly in curbside lanes for the length of Broadway 

Boulevard and can be operated independently of streetcar. Design and implementation of 

the BRT service is not likely to limit development of streetcar. 

• BRT can provide travel times that are competitive with automobile travel, thus addressing 

mobility needs in the corridor and operating as a “line‐haul” service. BRT travel time 

benefits result from dedicated transit lanes, wide station spacing, and transit preferential 

treatments (e.g., TSP). 

• Streetcar can tie in with and extend the Tucson Modern Streetcar project. 

• Streetcar can provide circulation in the densest part of the corridor (i.e., downtown 

Tucson to El Con Mall) and support promising TOD opportunities at sites such as El Con 

Mall. Streetcar is well‐suited to address accessibility needs because streetcar services 

typically have short station spacing. 

• The combination of BRT and streetcar provides mobility where it is most needed (the 

length of the corridor) and accessibility/circulation where it is most needed (central 

Tucson). 

• Both BRT and streetcar can positively impact redevelopment along the Broadway 

corridor. 

A potential limitation associated with this two‐phased implementation is the interaction between 

BRT vehicles and streetcar vehicles, as the latter are likely to serve more stops and travel slower 

than the former. This is not unlike the issue of BRT and local bus service operating in the same 

corridor, which is an issue that was discussed in Section 5.0. Where local buses or streetcar would 

impede BRT, more detailed operational analysis may identify solutions such as providing pullouts, 

providing bypass lanes, or re‐routing the slower service. Such detailed operational analysis 

may consider factors such as segment level of service, intersection turning volumes, driveway 

locations, and availability of right‐of‐way (including medians) at specific sites. 

The second change to the Broadway Boulevard system alternative is diversion of HCT service 

from Broadway Boulevard to serve UA. UA is a major regional trip generator and attractor, with 

relatively high population and employment densities; it is also a special events destination. The 

cost of serving UA with HCT is increased travel times for riders who originate in or are destined 

for downtown Tucson, but these increased travel times may be minimized by implementation of 

transit preferential treatments (e.g., queue jump lanes) along the diverted portion of the 

129



alignment. Another option for minimizing this increase in travel time is keeping BRT on 

Broadway Boulevard and diverting only streetcar off Broadway Boulevard to UA. 

6th Avenue/Nogales Highway Corridor 

The project team also proposes a two‐phased BRT and streetcar HCT service (operating in mixed 

traffic with transit preferential treatments) for the 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway corridor. No 

alignment changes are proposed. 

BRT would serve mobility needs between downtown Tucson and TIA, while streetcar would 

serve accessibility needs between downtown Tucson and Laos Transit Center (the densest section 

of the corridor). The two‐phased HCT project for 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway offers the same 

advantages as the two‐phased HCT project for Broadway Boulevard. In addition, the BRT 

connection to TIA is likely to have less impact on airport ground operations than a streetcar 

connection would. 

Refined Station Locations 

Figure 62 and Figure 63 show the proposed station locations for System Alternative A. These 

station locations are intended to identify major intersections or major attractions/destinations that 

should be served by HCT. Specific station sites (e.g., near‐side or far‐side location) will reflect 

available right‐of‐way, utility and driveway conflicts, traffic volumes, coordination with other 

transit services, and transit preferential treatment opportunities and will be finalized when 

conceptual station plans are developed through an alternatives analysis. 

The figures show that BRT does not serve all the streetcar stations. This is in keeping with the 

mobility focus of BRT and the accessibility focus of streetcar. Compared to the alternatives 

defined in Section 5.0, System Alternative A has an increased number of stations and modified 

station locations. 

The proposed stations for the Broadway Boulevard corridor in System Alternative A are as 

follows: 

• Ronstadt Transit Center (BRT and streetcar) 

• Broadway Boulevard and Euclid Avenue (streetcar) 

• 6th Street and Park Avenue (BRT and streetcar) 

• 6th Street and Cherry Avenue (streetcar) 

• Broadway Boulevard and Campbell Avenue (BRT and streetcar) 

• Broadway Boulevard and Tucson Boulevard(streetcar) 

• Broadway Boulevard and Country Club Road (streetcar) 

• Broadway Boulevard and El Con Mall (BRT and streetcar) 

• Broadway Boulevard and Swan Road (BRT) 

• Broadway Boulevard and Craycroft Road (BRT) 

130



• Broadway Boulevard and Wilmot Road (BRT) 

• Broadway Boulevard and Kolb Road (BRT) 

• Broadway Boulevard and Pantano Road (BRT) 

• Broadway Boulevard and Camino Seco (BRT) 

• Broadway Boulevard and Harrison Road (BRT) 

• Broadway Boulevard and Houghton Road (BRT) 

The proposed stations for the 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway corridor in System Alternative A are 

as follows: 

• Ronstadt Transit Center (BRT and streetcar) 

• Stone Avenue and 14th Street (one‐way, streetcar) 

• 6th Avenue and 14th Street (one‐way, streetcar) 

• 6th Avenue and 18th Street (streetcar) 

• 6th Avenue and 22nd Street (BRT and streetcar) 


• 6th Avenue and 29th Street (BRT and streetcar) 


• 6th Avenue and I‐10 (BRT and streetcar) 

• 6th Avenue and Veterans Boulevard (streetcar) 

• 6th Avenue and Ajo Way (BRT and streetcar) 

• 6th Avenue and Illinois Street (streetcar) 

• Laos Transit Center (BRT and streetcar) 

• Nogales Highway and Valencia Road (BRT) 

• Valencia Road and Campbell Avenue (BRT) 

• TIA (BRT) 

Transit Center and Park-and-Ride Lot Locations 

Existing park‐and‐ride lots and transit centers in the Broadway Boulevard and 6th 

Avenue/Nogales Highway corridors are Ronstadt Transit Center (in downtown Tucson), Laos 

Transit Center (at 6th Avenue and Irvington Road), and on Broadway Boulevard at Camino Seco 

(Safeway Shopping Center). Figure 62 and Figure 63 show potential new park‐and‐ride lot 

locations for System Alternative A. These sites were selected based on the availability of land or 

an existing parking lot with excess capacity. Certainly, other park‐and‐ride locations within close 

vicinity of a BRT station can be considered. Ultimately, it would be desirable to locate a park‐andride 

lot at each BRT station that is 5 to 6 miles away from Downtown. On Broadway, this would 

include stations east of Craycroft Road, while on 6th Avenue; this would include stations south of 

Irvington Road. Potential sites are as follows: 

131



• Broadway Boulevard at Park Mall (northeast corner of parking lot) 

• Broadway Boulevard at Wilmot Road (northeast corner of intersection) 

• Broadway Boulevard at Kolb Road (northwest corner of intersection) 

• Broadway Boulevard at Pantano Road (southeast corner of intersection) 

• Broadway Boulevard at Harrison Road (southwest corner of intersection) 

• Broadway Boulevard at Houghton Road (northwest corner of intersection) 

• Nogales Highway at Drexel Road (northwest corner of intersection) 

• Nogales Highway at Valencia Road (northwest corner of intersection) 

The project team notes that, as of January 2009, the City of Tucson was in the process of acquiring 

the land for the Broadway Boulevard/Houghton Road park‐and‐ride lot. The potential for the 

other sites to become park‐and‐ride lots depends on the willingness of the current property 

owners to sell or lease land. 

Changes to Local Bus Network 

Possible changes to local bus service in the Broadway Boulevard corridor are as follows: 

• Route 8 currently provides local bus service on Broadway Boulevard between downtown 

and Harrison Road. The route jogs north on Harrison Road to serve a park‐and‐ride lot at 

Speedway Boulevard. Route 8 is likely to continue providing local service along Broadway 

Boulevard in Phase 1 to maintain accessibility to the origins and destinations along the 

corridor given that BRT service overlaid on Route 8 will have substantially wider station 

spacing and the BRT service will divert to 6th Street to serve UA. In Phase 2, local bus 

service need not serve every stop where Route 8 overlaps with streetcar, so Route 8 could 

be cut back (e.g., truncated or operated as skip‐stop) when and where streetcar is 

implemented. With a new park‐and‐ride lot at Broadway Boulevard/Houghton Road, 

Route 8 is planned to be realigned to serve the new lot rather than the existing park‐andride 

lot at Speedway Boulevard/Harrison Road. The existing park‐and‐ride lot could 

continue to be served by Route 4 and Route 201X on Speedway. 

• Route 108X currently provides express bus service on Broadway between downtown and 

Harrison Road and terminates at the park‐and‐ride lot at Speedway Boulevard/Harrison 

Road. This route could be discontinued if BRT is implemented in the corridor. 

Possible changes to local bus service in the 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway corridor are as follows: 

• Route 8 currently provides local bus service on 6th Avenue between downtown and Laos 

Transit Center. This route could be discontinued if streetcar is implemented in the 

corridor in Phase 2. 

• Route 50 and Route 11 currently operate along a short segment of 6th Avenue between 

Ajo Way and Irvington Road in order to provide service to Laos Transit Center. These 

routes could continue with no changes. 

132



• Route 202X currently provides express service along Nogales Highway between Laos 

Transit Center, and Raytheon. BRT would provide express service between downtown 

and TIA via Laos Transit Center, but would not serve the Raytheon area. To maintain 

service to the Raytheon area, Route 202X could be continued. Likewise, Route 201X (which 

currently provides express service along Valencia Road to serve Raytheon and the Palo 

Verde corridor) could be continued. 

Coordination with Tucson Modern Streetcar 

There are several options for connecting to or extending the Tucson Modern Streetcar route with 

respect to the corridors in System Alternative A, and none of the options appear at this time to be 

fatally flawed. The issues to be addressed in project development include the following: 

• What alignment options exist for the new streetcar services? 

• Should the new streetcar lines serve Ronstadt Transit Center? 

• Where will the new streetcar lines cross the UPRR into downtown? Are there any grade 

issues? 

• Will turning radius requirements limit where and how the connections may be made? 

• How will streetcar service be operated? Will the modern streetcar and the extended 

streetcar lines be operated as one service or as separate services? 

At this level of planning, it appears that connecting a new streetcar service on 6th Avenue to the 

Tucson Modern Streetcar may present the most substantial challenge in System Alternative A. 

This is because the 6th Avenue line is likely to overlap the modern streetcar downtown, with the 

overlap occurring in the mid‐route portion of the downtown streetcar line. Operating the new 

streetcar service as an extension of the modern streetcar (e.g., offering a transfer‐free service 

between points north and south of downtown Tucson) may not be desirable given that the 

overlap will limit the amount of service that can be provided on the western half of the modern 

streetcar alignment and the entirety of the 6th Avenue streetcar alignment. 

Streetcar service on Broadway Boulevard is not likely to be operated in conjunction with the 

modern streetcar because the lines do not overlap and because both run roughly east‐west and 

provide parallel service just east of downtown Tucson and at UA. They will intersect at or near 

Ronstadt Transit Center. 

6.3.3 System Alternative B 

System Alternative B is shown in Figure 62 and Figure 64. System Alternative B is a phased 

implementation of HCT that includes the following features: 

• BRT service on Broadway Boulevard from downtown Tucson to Houghton Road, with 

service to UA (Phase 1) 

• Streetcar on Broadway Boulevard from downtown Tucson to El Con Mall (Phase 2) 

133



• Streetcar on Campbell Avenue from the UA Health Sciences Center to Tucson Mall (Phase 

2) 

As with System Alternative A, the phased approach blends the economic development potential 

and accessibility of streetcar with the mobility and relatively low implementation cost offered by 

BRT. However, instead of serving TIA via 6th Avenue and Nogales Highway, System Alternative 

B includes extension of streetcar service in mixed‐traffic operations from the UA Health Sciences 

Center north to Tucson Mall via Campbell Avenue, Limberlost Drive, and Stone Avenue. 

Streetcar service on Campbell Avenue North was analyzed in the screening evaluation conducted 

in Section 5.0. The alternative did not score well as presented in Section 5.0, primarily because the 

alternative was too short for its benefits to offset its costs. Based on the support for this alternative 

voiced by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the potential for streetcar on Campbell 

Avenue North to serve as a natural extension of the modern streetcar, and the opportunity to 

ultimately connect Tucson Mall to UA and downtown Tucson via streetcar, the project team 

elected to consider an expanded streetcar alternative on Campbell Avenue North as part of 

System Alternative B. 

Refined Alignments 

Broadway Boulevard Corridor 

The proposed HCT service in the Broadway Boulevard corridor is the same in System 

Alternatives A and B. 

Campbell Avenue North Corridor 

The proposed HCT service in the Campbell Avenue North corridor is a streetcar service. The 

service would function as a natural extension of the modern streetcar and is appropriate for the 

population and employment densities in the corridor. The purposes of streetcar service on 

Campbell Avenue, connecting to Tucson Mall, are circulation and economic development. 

Properties on the proposed route alignment, particularly at the UA Agricultural Farms, may offer 

promise for TOD. 

The refined alignment for the Campbell Avenue North corridor is significantly longer than that 

analyzed in Section 5.0. As shown in Figure 64, the refined alignment analyzed in Section 6.0 

begins west of Campbell Avenue on Helen Street, where the modern streetcar terminates. 

Streetcars would travel through the Health Sciences Center to Elm Street and then north on 

Campbell Avenue, west on Limberlost Drive, and north on Stone Avenue to the east side of 

Tucson Mall (near Tohono Transit Center). Alternatively, streetcar service could terminate at 

Tohono Transit Center; this is an issue to be resolved during a detailed route analysis or project 

development. The line could eventually be extended west through the Mall to Oracle Road. 

134



Figure 64 

System Alternative B - Campbell Avenue North Corridor 

135



Refined Station Locations 

As discussed in Section 6.3.2, the station locations shown in this section are intended to identify 

major intersections or major attractions/destinations that should be served by HCT. Specific 

station sites will be finalized when conceptual station plans are developed through an 

Alternatives Analysis. 

The proposed HCT stations in the Broadway Boulevard corridor are the same in System 


Figure 64 shows the proposed stations in the Campbell Avenue North corridor. These proposed 

stations are as follows: 

• Campbell Avenue and Helen Street (streetcar) 

• Campbell Avenue and Elm Street (streetcar) 

• Campbell Avenue and Grant Road (streetcar) 

• Campbell Avenue and Copper Street (streetcar) 

• Campbell Avenue and Glenn Street (streetcar) 

• Campbell Avenue and Blacklidge Drive (streetcar) 

• Campbell Avenue and Ft. Lowell Road (streetcar) 

• Campbell Avenue and Kleindale Road (streetcar) 

• Campbell Avenue and Prince Road (streetcar) 

• Campbell Avenue and Allen Road (streetcar) 

• Campbell Avenue and Limberlost Drive (streetcar) 

• Limberlost Drive and Mountain Avenue (streetcar) 

• Limberlost Drive and west of Fremont Avenue (streetcar) 

• Limberlost Drive and 1st Avenue (streetcar) 

• Limberlost Drive and west of 4th Avenue (streetcar) 

• Stone Avenue and south of Mills Drive(streetcar) 

• West of Tohono Transit Center (streetcar) 

Transit Center and Park-and-Ride Lot Locations 

The existing and proposed park‐and‐ride lots and transit centers in the Broadway Boulevard 

corridor are the same in System Alternatives A and B. 

The only existing park‐and‐ride lot or transit center in the Campbell Avenue North corridor is 

south of the Tohono Transit Center at Tucson Mall. No potential new park‐and‐ride lot locations 

for the Campbell Avenue North corridor are proposed at this time because the densities along the 

corridor are anticipated to generate significant walk‐up ridership and this streetcar route is 

considered a circulator as opposed to a line haul route. 

136



Changes to Local Bus Network 

Possible changes to local bus service in the Broadway Boulevard corridor are the same in System 


Possible changes to local bus service in the Campbell Avenue corridor are as follows: 

• Route 15 currently provides local bus service along Campbell Avenue between UA and 

Roger Road. The route travels east‐west on Roger Road to Stone Avenue and Tohono 

Transit Center at Tucson Mall. This route could be discontinued if streetcar is 

implemented in the corridor. Accordingly, Route 7 could be extended north to UA along 

Campbell Avenue to replace the southern part of Route 15. 

• Route 103X currently provides express service between Ina Road and downtown Tucson 

via Campbell Avenue and Speedway Boulevard. This route could continue with no 

changes because it should provide higher‐speed service than streetcar. 

• Route 9 and Route 20 currently provide local bus service along Campbell Avenue between 

UA and Grant Road in order to provide service to UA. These routes could continue with 

no changes (assuming that Route 9 is truncated as part of the Modern Streetcar project). 

• Tohono Transit Center may need to be reconfigured to accommodate streetcar unless the 

streetcar line is terminated on or adjacent to Tucson Mall property. The Tohono Transit 

Center park‐and‐ride lot may also need to be expanded if the streetcar line attracts 

commuter traffic destined to/from UA and downtown Tucson. 

Coordination with Tucson Modern Streetcar 

As with System Alternative A, there are several options for connecting to or extending the 

modern streetcar route with respect to the corridors in System Alternative B. None of these 

options appear at this time to be fatally flawed. The issues to be addressed in project 

development are those presented in the Coordination with Tucson Modern Streetcar discussion 

of Section 6.3.2. 

New streetcar service on Campbell Avenue North is a natural extension of the modern streetcar. 

The modern streetcar terminus at the UA Health Sciences Center is, in fact, planned to be 

“stubbed out” to allow for such an extension. As a result, questions about alignment of a 

Campbell Avenue North streetcar simply address the future extension of the modern streetcar. 

Success of the initial modern streetcar line is undoubtedly a prerequisite for the Campbell Avenue 

North extension. 

137



6.4 EVALUATION OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

6.4.1 Impact on Regional Ridership 

The PAG model is not calibrated to a level that allows screen line comparison of ridership before 

and after implementation of the HCT system alternatives. However, reviewing the ridership 

forecasts presented in Section 5.0 shows the following: 

• Transit ridership in the Broadway Boulevard would increase by approximately 34% with 

implementation of HCT. 

• Transit ridership in the 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway corridor would increase by 

approximately 52% with implementation of HCT. 

The percentages above reflect the changes to local bus service that were assumed for the purpose 

of estimating ridership for Section 5.0. The estimates do not reflect the route adjustments reflected 

in the system alternatives or a more optimized local service plan (i.e., one that would maximize 

ridership in concert with HCT). 

6.4.2 Redevelopment Potential 

This section describes specific sites with promising TOD potential. Such sites are typically underdeveloped 

or are characterized by aging development. Such sites are also sizable enough to 

generate significant levels of transit ridership and investment. 

System Alternative A 


As described in Section 5.0, the Broadway Boulevard corridor is developed with medium‐ and 

high‐density residential neighborhoods, strip retail and office development, and high‐density 

shopping and employment destinations (including Park Mall, El Con Mall, Williams Center, and 

downtown Tucson). The alignment shown in Figure 62 also includes UA. 

There are two potential TOD opportunities along Broadway Boulevard. One of these 

opportunities is El Con Mall. El Con Mall is a major potential TOD site because it is an aging 

retail center that is already undergoing redevelopment. While redevelopment to date has 

included a multiplex theater complex, Home Depot and Target Stores, and several fast food 

shops, nearly the entire mall is empty. Considering the proximity of this property to downtown 

Tucson, UA, and the recreation facilities at Reid Park, inclusion of mixed‐use 

residential/office/retail would have a high probability of success with the addition of HCT along 

Broadway Boulevard. 

Another excellent opportunity for TOD exists along the section of Broadway Boulevard from 

Euclid Avenue to Country Club Road, which will be widened within the next five years. The 

widening will require a significant amount of right‐of‐way and will likely result in total takes of 

138



several commercial properties. The residual properties can be combined to provide parcels of 

suitable size for TOD. Surrounding neighborhoods have already voiced their support of mixeduse 

redevelopment that provides a much stronger multimodal component. 

6th Avenue/Nogales Highway 

Major activity centers in the 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway corridor are downtown Tucson, the 

VA Hospital, the TIA, and Raytheon’s main plant. North of Irvington Road, the 6th 

Avenue/Nogales Highway corridor is primarily high‐density residential with some strip retail. 

South of Irvington Road, the corridor transitions to medium‐density residential and light 

industrial development. 

Unlike Broadway Boulevard, there are no major TOD development opportunities along 6th 

Avenue. However, smaller parcels could be combined to create mixed‐use residential/commercial 

redevelopment opportunities that would benefit from a BRT or streetcar line. Several large 

undeveloped parcels on Nogales Highway near Drexel Road are zoned industrial or are reserved 

for a future school by the Sunnyside School District. 

System Alternative B 


Redevelopment potential in the Broadway Boulevard corridor is the same in System Alternatives 

A and B. 

Campbell Avenue North 

Campbell Avenue from Speedway Boulevard to River Road is developed with medium‐ and 

high‐density residential as well as strip retail and office developments. Limberlost Drive from 

Campbell Avenue to Stone Avenue is developed with residential and runs adjacent to the U of A 

Agricultural Farm. Stone Avenue from Limberlost Drive to Tucson Mall is developed with 

residential. Major activity centers in the corridor are UA, the UA Health Sciences Center, and 

Tucson Mall. 

A major potential TOD site in this corridor is the UA Agricultural Farm, which offers a range of 

development opportunities that would be significantly enhanced with direct access to a streetcar 

line. These opportunities could include UA‐related office and educational facilities in conjunction 

with high‐density residential and supporting commercial development. 

6.4.3 Impact on Transit-Dependent Population & Title VI 

Communities 

In Section 5.0, the project team assessed Title VI impacts by looking at minority and low‐income 

household population density. The project team assessed transit‐dependent populations by 

looking at density of age groups most likely to be transit‐dependent (i.e., youth and the elderly), 

low household income, and low household car ownership. 

139



The highlights of the evaluation presented in Section 5.0 are as follows: 

• The 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway corridor serves an area with a high percentage of 

minority residents (60% to 80% minorities). All the other corridors considered in Section 

5.0 typically serve areas that have 20% to 40% minorities. 

• The 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway corridor serves areas where 60% or more of 

households earn less than $40,000 a year. The middle section of the Broadway Boulevard 

corridor serves relatively higher‐income populations (i.e., 0% to 35% of households 

earning less than $40,000 a year). 

• In general, 36% to 50% of the population in the 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway corridor is 

between 5 and 19 years old or 65 years and older. The outer segment of the Broadway 

Boulevard corridor also serves comparable youth and elderly populations (i.e., 36% to 50% 

of population with age between 5 and 19 or 65 and over). 

• All of the potential HCT corridors considered in Section 5.0 serve significant populations 

of the relevant communities. The 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway corridor is one of three 

corridors serving the highest concentration of the relevant communities. 

The southern portion of the Campbell Avenue North alignment was also assessed in Section 5.0. 

The northern portion (shown in Figure 64) was not. The northern portion of the Campbell 

Avenue North alignment is characterized by 20% to 40% minorities, 60% to 80% of households 

earning less than $40,000 a year, and 21% to 30% of population with age between 5 and 19 or 65 

and over. Overall, the Campbell Avenue North corridor does not serve transit‐dependent 

populations and Title VI communities to the level that the 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway corridor 

does. Campbell Avenue North is generally more favorable than the Broadway Boulevard corridor 

with respect to household income but less favorable with respect to youth and elderly 

populations (excepting UA). 

6.4.4 Extent to Which Future Population & Employment are 

Served 

Table 28 lists the major trip generators within walking distance (1/4 mile) of the proposed 

corridors. These major trip generators are major employers and major destinations. 

140



Table 28 

Existing Major Trip Generators with Walking Distance of HCT Corridors 

Corridor 

Trip Generators Reached 

El Con Mall 

Park Mall 






Downtown Tucson - Government Center, Convention 

Center 




Tucson Mall 



TIA 

In addition to serving several major retail employment centers/destinations, the Broadway 

Boulevard corridor serves two areas with the highest employment densities in the region: UA 

and downtown Tucson. 

The 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway Corridor serves downtown Tucson, TIA, and surrounding 

areas. Including surrounding employment, TIA has one of the highest employment densities in 

the region. 

Like the Broadway Boulevard corridor, the Campbell Avenue North corridor serves the high 

employment densities associated with the U of A. The Campbell Avenue North corridor also 

serves Tucson Mall—a major retail employment center/destination. 

6.4.5 Impact on Roadway Level of Service 

Table 29 shows forecast level of service (LOS) on the roadway segments that the HCT system 

alternative routes traverse. LOS is based on volume‐to‐capacity ratios from the PAG model. The 

table provides a preliminary assessment of the potential to convert general‐purpose lanes to 

dedicated transit lanes and the potential effectiveness of transit preferential treatments. The 

following sections discuss these issues with respect to each corridor in the HCT system 

alternatives. 


Most of the Broadway Boulevard route will have dedicated transit lanes by 2040, but three 

sections will not. The first section is the portion of the route that runs on Euclid Avenue, 6th 

Street, and Campbell Avenue to provide service directly to UA. The second section extends from 

141



Country Club Road to Columbus Boulevard. The third section extends from Camino Seco to 

Houghton Road. There currently are no plans to add transit lanes to the third section. 

Corridor 

Broadway 

Blvd 

Route 

6th Ave/ 

Nogales 

Hwy Route 

Campbell 

Ave North 

Route 

Table 29 

2040 Roadway Segment Operations 

Corridor Segment Future (2040) 

Can General- Will Transit 

Roadway From To LOS 

Purpose Lane Preferential 

Be Dedicated Treatments be 

to HCT?* Effective?** 

Broadway Blvd 4th Ave Euclid Ave E N/A Maybe 

Euclid Ave Broadway Blvd 6th St F Not Likely Not Likely 

6th St 

Euclid Ave Highland Ave D Not Likely Maybe 

Highland Ave Campbell Ave C Not Likely Not Likely 

Campbell Ave 6th St Broadway Blvd D Maybe Maybe 

Campbell Ave Country Club Dr. E NA Maybe 

Country Club Dr. Swan Rd E-F Not Likely Not Likely 

Broadway Blvd Swan Rd Pantano Rd E-F N/A Not Likely 

Pantano Rd Camino Seco D N/A Maybe 

6th Ave/ 

Nogales Hwy 

Camino Seco Houghton Rd C Not Likely Maybe 

Congress St 16th St C Likely Not Likely 

16th St Benson Hwy D Not Likely Maybe 

Benson Hwy Valencia Road D-E Not Likely Maybe 

Valencia Rd Nogales Hwy TIA E-F Not Likely Not Likely 

Stone Ave 

Tucson Mall Wetmore Rd D Not Likely Maybe 

Wetmore Rd Limberlost Rd D Not Likely Maybe 

Limberlost Rd 

Stone Ave 1st Ave C Not Likely Not Likely 

1st Ave Campbell Ave N/A Not Likely N/A 

Limberlost Rd Roger Rd F Not Likely Not Likely 

Roger Rd Glenn St E Not Likely Maybe 

Campbell Ave 

Glenn St Grant Rd F Not Likely Not Likely 

North 

Grant Rd Elm St C Not Likely Not Likely 

Elm St Speedway Blvd D Not Likely Maybe 

*This assessment is based on roadway segment LOS and cross section. If there are not at least four general-purpose 

lanes, the answer is Not Likely. If the roadway segment operates near, at, or over capacity, the answer is Not Likely. 

**This assessment is based on roadway segment LOS. If the roadway segment operates at or over capacity, there may 

not be enough surplus capacity for transit vehicles, so the answer is Not Likely. If the roadway operates well below 

capacity, transit preferential treatments are Not Likely to result in a significant improvement. A detailed analysis of 

intersection operations is needed to more definitively assess the impact of transit preferential treatments. 

Running BRT on the proposed Broadway Boulevard route should have minimal impact on LOS 

since the BRT vehicles essentially operate as express buses. The presence of bus lanes along much 

of this route reduces the impact of BRT on traffic conditions, although some additional overall 

delay may occur with the implementation of TSP. 

The forecast LOS on Euclid Avenue, however, suggests that BRT will be delayed by generalpurpose 

traffic on Euclid Avenue. Conversely, BRT may have an adverse impact on generalpurpose 

traffic. Since it is highly unlikely that an existing general‐purpose lane can be dedicated 

to BRT on Euclid Avenue or 6th Street and transit preferential treatments may not be effective, 

future evaluation of this route should consider using Park Avenue or and perhaps 7th Street as 

alternative to Euclid Avenue and 6th Street. (The only potential north‐south alternative to Euclid 

142



Avenue in the PAG model and for which operational forecasts are available is Highland Avenue, 

which is forecasted to operate at LOS C.) 

The easternmost part of the route is forecasted to operate at LOS C or better, which is good 

enough that, east of Camino Seco, HCT should be able to operate in mixed traffic with minimal 

adverse impact on general‐purpose traffic and with minimal delay due to general‐purpose traffic. 

Widening of the bridge over the Pantano Wash is not proposed as it is not likely to be a congested 

section of Broadway Boulevard. 

Similar to BRT, extension of the streetcar line should not have a significant impact on LOS since 

dedicated transit lanes will be available on Broadway Boulevard between downtown and 

Country Club Road. Implementation of transit priority signal timing could impact overall traffic 

delay. The primary impact will be on 6th Street and on Broadway Boulevard between Country 

Club Road and El Con Mall where the streetcar will need to run in general‐purpose travel lanes. 

Dedication of a general‐purpose travel lane for transit use is highly unlikely on these roadway 

sections and there is insufficient right‐of‐way to add lanes. The proposed route for the streetcar 

from downtown to the U of A could utilize 7th Street to eliminate traffic impacts on 6th Street. 


The forecasted LOS on 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway is good enough that HCT (BRT or streetcar) 

should be able to operate in mixed traffic with minimal adverse impact on general‐purpose traffic 

and with minimal delay due to general‐purpose traffic. Implementation of transit priority signal 

timing would benefit BRT and streetcar operation. 

Heavy traffic demand and projected congestion on Valencia Road will impact BRT travel times, 

and conversely, BRT operation will likely impact overall traffic conditions. Neither generalpurpose 

lane conversion nor transit preferential treatments appear to be feasible on the Valencia 

Road portion of the route. Future evaluation of this route should consider using Bilby Road or 

another east‐west route as an alternative to Valencia Road. Use of Campbell Avenue South/Kino 

Parkway instead of 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway could be reconsidered if detailed operational 

analysis indicates a need, although conversations with City of Tucson staff affirm that 6th 

Avenue/Nogales Highway is preferred considering the high transit ridership. Right‐of‐way may 

need to be acquired to construct dedicated HCT lanes otherwise. 


The forecasted LOS on Campbell Avenue between Limberlost Road and Grant Road suggests that 

streetcar will be delayed by general‐purpose traffic, may have an adverse impact on generalpurpose 

traffic, and may not benefit from transit preferential treatments. With the exception of 

widening Campbell Avenue to provide a dedicated street‐car right‐of‐way, implementation of 

streetcar on this route will be difficult. Using Roger Road or Prince Road instead of Limberlost 

Road as a means of avoiding the segments of Campbell Avenue that are more likely to operate at 

capacity (i.e., those segments north of Prince Road) can also be considered. 

143



The forecasted LOS on Stone Avenue suggests that the streetcar should be able to operate in 

mixed traffic with minimal adverse impact on general‐purpose traffic and with minimal delay 

due to general‐purpose traffic. The cross section of Limberlost Drive is not planned to be wide 

enough to dedicate a lane to streetcar, but LOS in the segment is anticipated to be good enough to 

allow mixed‐traffic operation. 

6.4.6 Impact on Roadway Vehicle-Miles Traveled and 

Roadway Travel Time 

The PAG model is not calibrated to a level that allows screen line comparison of vehicle‐miles 

traveled (VMT) and travel time before and after implementation of the system alternatives. 

However, the project team anticipates that a single HCT service will not result in a substantial 

reduction in VMT and travel time given that transit services in Tucson and comparable areas 

typically do not have a substantial modal share. If HCT is implemented as a regional network and 

is supported by programs or structures that strongly encourage the use of alternative modes (e.g., 

employer‐based travel demand management programs or higher downtown parking prices), a 

significant reduction in VMT and travel time is more likely to result. 

6.4.7 Refined Capital & Operating Costs 

Refined Capital Costs 

The capital costs previously estimated for Section 5.0 were planning‐level estimates based on 

typical unit costs obtained from existing HCT services, planned HCT projects in other cities, and 

reports such as the Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide (TCRP Report 118). The capital cost 

estimates for the system alternatives in Section 6.0 reflect refined route alignments, fleet sizes, 

number and location of stations, and number and location of park‐and‐ride facilities. The 

elements included in the refined capital costs elements are the following: 

• Running Way. Running way costs include track, new pavement, power delivery system 

infrastructure, signing and striping, and TSP installations. 

• Stations. Station costs assume a unique shelter, benches, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, 

real‐time passenger information, and branding. Station features are the same as those 

assumed in Section 5.0, but some station locations have been changed. 

• Vehicles. For cost estimation purposes, vehicles are assumed to be either streetcar cars or 

standard‐length (40‐foot) stylized buses. (Longer articulated buses could be used for BRT 

if ridership forecasts or community preference dictates the need.) Stylized buses typically 

look more streamlined and “rail car−like” than conventional buses, and they typically 

have advanced features such as APCs, TSP emitters, and on‐board real‐time passenger 

information displays. Streetcars may have these features, too. Sun Tran has recently 

acquired stylized Gillig buses for use in express service. Other cities have used the stylized 

Gillig buses in regular service and BRT service. 

144



• Garage/Storage Facilities. No costs were included for construction or expansion of the 

streetcar garage and storage facilities because it was assumed that the planned modern 

streetcar facilities will be adequate to store and maintain the added streetcar vehicle fleet 

for both system alternatives. Similarly, it was assumed that the new BRT fleet will be 

accommodated at Sun Tran’s existing and new bus facilities. (The new Sun Tran bus 

maintenance facility, which is currently under construction, will include bays for 60‐foot 

buses, should articulated BRT vehicles be procured.) 

• Soft Costs. Soft costs include design, engineering, and administration costs and 

contingencies. 

• Park‐and‐Ride Facilities: The only cost associated with the park‐and‐ride facilities is 

assumed to be right‐of‐way. It is difficult to determine exact locations of these facilities for 

this planning‐level study. Therefore, reasonable future locations were determined along 

the HCT routes in the system alternatives based on where the future stations will be and 

field observations. The cost of right‐of‐way was assumed to be $20 per square foot based 

on property appraiser records; this is a rough, planning‐level estimate. Several potential 

park‐and‐ride locations are existing parking lots that are serving some other, compatible 

use. As noted previously, the potential for a given site to become a park‐and‐ride lot 

depends on the willingness of the current property owner to sell or lease the land. Parkand‐ride 

lot construction costs are not included. 

Table 30 summarizes the refined capital costs. 

Table 30 

Corridor Phase Route Miles 

Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates 



Capital Cost per Route 

Mile 


Phase 1 (BRT) 12.5 miles $29,000,000 $2,300,000 

Phase 2 (Streetcar) 3.9 miles $138,000,000 $35,400,000 

6th Avenue/Nogales Phase 1 (BRT) 8.5 miles $17,500,000 $2,100,000 

Highway Phase 2 (Streetcar) 4.2 miles $155,000,000 $36,900,000 

Campbell Avenue Phase 1 (No HCT*) N/A N/A N/A 

North Phase 2 (Streetcar) 5.3 miles $198,500,000 $37,500,000 



Phase 1 21 miles $46,500,000 $2,200,000 

Phase 2 8.1 miles $293,000,000 $36,200,000 

Phases 1 & 2 29.1 miles $339,500,000 $11,700,000 

Phase 1 12.5 miles $29,000,000 $2,300,000 

Phase 2 9.2 miles $336,500,000 $36,600,000 

Phases 1 & 2 21.7 miles $365,500,000 $16,800,000 

*Development of the Tucson Modern Streetcar should be completed first. 

The park‐and‐ride lot right‐of‐way costs included in Table 30 are as follows: 

• Five BRT park‐and‐ride lots on Broadway Boulevard: $7,030,000 

• Two BRT park‐and‐ride lots on 6th Avenue: $1,810,000 

145



• One streetcar park‐and‐ride lot on Broadway Boulevard: $300,000 

• No streetcar park‐and‐ride lots on 6th Avenue and Campbell Avenue North 

Refined Operating Costs 

The operating costs estimation methodology from Section 5.0 was also used for Section 6.0. The 

BRT operating cost estimates for are based on Sun Tran’s bus operating cost per revenue hour 

(which represents driver wages, fuel, and administrative costs) as reported in the 2006 National 

Transit Database (NTD). Operating costs for streetcar were estimated based on a ratio obtained 

through a comparison of NTD data for transit agencies in areas similar to Tucson and currently 

operating both fixed‐route bus service and LRT/streetcar service. Other relevant assumptions for 

the operating cost estimates are as follows: 

• The service span duration for the peak period was assumed to be 6 hours, and the service 

span duration for the off‐peak period was assumed to be 12 hours. 

• The headways for weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays were assumed to be 10 

minutes during peak hours and 15 minutes during off‐peak hours. 

• An average travel speed was assumed for each alternative by adjusting the existing 

average local bus speed from the NTD to reflect BRT or streetcar station spacing, 

implementation of TSP, and/or operation in a dedicated lane as appropriate. The basis for 

the adjustments is the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM). 

• For the routes that partially have exclusive transit lanes, a weighted average speed (with 

and without exclusive lanes) was calculated to estimate the running times. 

• The two‐way length of the alternative (i.e., “track miles”) was divided by the 

corresponding average travel speed to calculate the average round‐trip travel time for 

each alternative. To this average round‐trip travel time, the project team added a fiveminute 

layover. 

• Given the average round‐trip travel time and the planned weekday headways, the 

number of vehicles needed to provide peak period service on a typical weekday was 

calculated. The number of daily vehicle‐hours needed to maintain planned headways 

throughout a typical weekday was also calculated. 

• Weekday daily vehicle‐hours were annualized to reflect a full year of vehicle‐hours using 

an annualization factor of 310, which reflects less transit service on weekends and 

holidays than on weekdays. The transit service provided on Saturdays was assumed to be 

65% of that provided on weekdays, and the transit service provided on Sundays and 

holidays was assumed to be 20% of that provided on weekdays. (The annual vehiclehours 

estimate calculated in this manner reflects only the vehicle‐hours needed to provide 

service at the planned headways.) 

• The number of annual revenue hours was multiplied by the assumed operating cost per 

revenue hour to estimate annual operating costs for the alternative. 

146



• Sun Tran’s 2006 operating cost per revenue hour was increased by 5% per year for two 

years to account for increased costs and thus calculate the 2008 operating cost per revenue 

hour. 

Table 31 summarizes the refined operating costs. 

Table 31 

Corridor Phase Route Miles 


Preliminary Operating Cost Estimates 

Annual Operating Cost 


Annual Operating Cost 

per Route Mile 

Phase 1 (BRT) 12.5 miles $3,710,000 $300,000 

Phase 2 (Streetcar) 3.9 miles $1,890,000 $480,000 

6th Avenue/Nogales Phase 1 (BRT) 8.5 miles $3,250,000 $380,000 

Highway Phase 2 (Streetcar) 4.2 miles $1,450,000 $340,000 

Campbell Avenue Phase 1 (No HCT*) N/A N/A N/A 

North Phase 2 (Streetcar) 5.3 miles $2,030,000 $380,000 



Phase 1 21 $6,960,000 $330,000 

Phase 2 8.1 $3,340,000 $400,000 

Phases 1 & 2 29.1 $10,300,000 $350,000 

Phase 1 12.5 $3,710,000 $300,000 

Phase 2 9.2 $3,920,000 $400,000 

Phases 1 & 2 21.7 $7,630,000 $350,000 

*Development of the Tucson Modern Streetcar should be completed first. 


TASK 6 

6.5.1 Conclusions for Task 6 

The project team concluded the following for Task 6: 

• There do not appear to be any constraints to implementing BRT service on Broadway 

Boulevard in the near term. In fact, the existing transit facilities within this corridor, 

including dedicated transit lanes and the upcoming transit priority signal timing upgrade, 

make implementation of BRT relatively straightforward. Clear TOD opportunities are also 

present along Broadway Boulevard. Except for the potential need for additional right‐ofway 

for stations and park‐and‐ride facilities, BRT on Broadway Boulevard is a very costeffective 

HCT option. 

• The main constraint to implementing streetcar service on Broadway Boulevard is the 

timing of the Tucson Modern Streetcar development. Streetcar garage facilities must be in 

place and adequate to serve both streetcar lines. Regional stakeholders will likely wish to 

assess the success of the Tucson Modern Streetcar before committing to a second streetcar 

line. 

147



• BRT service in mixed traffic on 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway can be implemented in the 

near term, but consideration must be given to how BRT stations will be located and 

designed given the potential for streetcar north of Laos Transit Center. 

• Streetcar on South 6th Avenue does not appear to be an ideal extension of the Tucson 

Modern Streetcar because a mid‐route overlap of the two streetcar lines will limit the 

amount of service that can be provided on both lines. This is not a fatal flaw but an issue 

that must be considered in planning and designing both services. Additionally, there 

appears to be limited potential for TOD in the corridor. 

• Interactions between BRT, streetcar, and/or local bus in a corridor should be addressed 

through detailed operational analysis. 

• Similar to both Broadway Boulevard and 6th Avenue, support for the Campbell Avenue 

streetcar extension is likely to depend on the success of the Tucson Modern Streetcar. This 

suggests that implementation of streetcar on Campbell Avenue North is not a near‐term 

project. The UA Agricultural Farm provides an excellent TOD opportunity. 

• Corridor ridership is likely to increase significantly with any of the HCT system 

alternatives. 

• Significant populations of Title VI and/or transit‐dependent communities will be served 

by the HCT system alternatives. 

• Park‐and‐ride lot right‐of‐way cost is likely to be a significant part of the capital cost of 

implementing BRT in the Broadway Boulevard and 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway 

corridors. 

• Several options exist in each HCT system alternative corridor for maximizing HCT travel 

speed. These options include dedicated HCT lanes, transit preferential treatments, and 

additional realignments. These options should be addressed further using detailed 

operational analysis if the HCT system alternatives move forward. 

6.5.2 Recommendations for Task 6 

Given the constraints associated with streetcar on 6th Avenue South and Campbell Avenue 

North, the project team recommended at the close of Task 6 the following combination of System 

Alternatives A and B for near‐ and long‐term action and detailed focus in Task 7: 

• Move forward with near‐term Broadway Boulevard BRT development. If federal funding is 

desired for the project, coordination with FTA and preparation of an alternatives analysis 

will be a necessary next step. Inclusion of the project in the regional plan is also necessary, 

as is coordination with the Broadway Boulevard widening project. 

• Move forward with near‐term 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway BRT development. A mobilityfocused 

BRT service can be implemented in this corridor relatively quickly if it 

commences with mixed‐traffic operation. Stations can be designed to allow future 

streetcar service or a future rubber‐tired circulator service (which may operate more 

cooperatively with the Tucson Modern Streetcar because of greater operating flexibility). 

As with the BRT project on Broadway Boulevard, inclusion of the project in the regional 

148



plan is necessary, and coordination with FTA and preparation of an alternatives analysis 

are necessary if federal funding is sought. 

• Move forward with long‐term Broadway Boulevard streetcar development. The timing of this 

implementation may depend on the timing of the Tucson Modern Streetcar project, but 

PAG and other local governments can begin addressing specific planning and design 

issues (as well as funding) soon. Section 7.0 will provide more insights. 

• Defer consideration of streetcar on Campbell Avenue North and 6th Avenue/Nogales 

Highway until the success of the Tucson Modern Streetcar project can be evaluated. 

149


HCT Implementation Strategy 

7.0 HCT FUNDING 


Section 7.0 summarizes the identification of potential funding sources that was conducted as part 

of Task 7. The assessment includes existing revenue sources that may be applied to HCT, 

potential revenue sources that are typically used for HCT, and non‐traditional revenue sources. 

The discussion of each revenue source includes information on the feasibility of accessing the 

source and ensuring that the region preserves its eligibility to do so. 

7.2 EXISTING REVENUE SOURCES 

This section describes existing revenue sources available to the region for development and 

operation of HCT and new revenue sources that can be investigated. The section provides 

particular focus on eligibility for federal funding because federal funding is likely to be a very 

significant part of any HCT project and will influence the timeline of project development. 

Financial incentives for TOD are discussed in Section 9.4. 

7.2.1 Capital Improvements Funding 

Regional Transportation Authority 

The RTA 20‐year plan includes funding for transit capital improvement projects as well as 

operations and maintenance. The RTA plan is administered by PAG and is funded by a ½‐cent 

sales tax along with other regional and local dollars, such as development impact fees and the 

Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). The RTA program includes dedicated funding for the 

Tucson Modern Streetcar, park‐and‐ride lots and transit centers, bus pull‐outs on major arterials, 

and signal system improvements that could include TSP. The transit‐associated RTA funding is 

summarized in Table 32. 

Table 32 RTA Funding for Transit Element 

Project 

Total Allocated Funding 

Tucson Modern Streetcar 

$75 million 

Park-and-Ride Lots/Transit Centers 

$14.7 million 

Transit Corridor Bus Pull-outs 

$30 million 

Signal Technology Upgrades 

$15 million 


Grants from the FTA accounted for $4 million dollars of capital improvements for 2008, with an 

additional $5 million dollars received through Congressional earmarks. At this time, it is 

150



anticipated that this funding will continue at current levels during 2009. Reauthorization of the 

federal transportation funding bill (SAFETEA‐LU), due to expire at the end of FY 2009, may result in 

changes to transit funding levels and/or the application process for such grants, but FTA staff were not 

aware of any specific changes as of April 2009. 

7.2.2 Operations and Maintenance Funding 

Sun Tran operations and maintenance funding in 2008 was $45.5 million, and projected 2009 

funding is $49 million. This operations and maintenance budget is funded from the following 

revenue sources. 


Federal funding accounted for approximately 7% of the existing Sun Tran system’s total 

operating expenses in 2008. This included federal operating grants, federal capitalized 

maintenance grants, and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) rebates. It is projected that, for 2009, 

the level of federal funding will increase slightly over 2008 due to an increase in total federal 

operating grants. 

State Funding 

Funding from state sources contributed to 7% of Sun Tran’s operating expenses for 2008, and this 

level is expected to continue for 2009. This funding includes Local Transportation Assistance 

Funds (LTAF), which are derived from Vehicle License Taxes (VLT), as well as State Lottery 

Taxes and can only be used for the purposes of public transportation. Additionally, LTAF II funds 

are included, which also can only be used for public transportation and are derived from the State 

General Fund and State Lottery Taxes. A third contributor of existing state funding is the Arizona 

Department of Transportation (ADOT). 

Local Funding 

In 2008, the majority of Sun Tran’s operating expenses (58%) were paid from Local Agency 

General Funds. The largest contributor was the City of Tucson; other contributors included Pima 

County, Oro Valley, and South Tucson. The percentage of funding to be paid from Local Public 

Agency General funds is expected to decline to 54% as a result of a decrease in the level of 

funding from the City of Tucson due to budget cuts. 

Regional Transportation Authority 

The RTA provided approximately 9% of Sun Tran’s operating expenses in 2008, and this level of 

funding is expected to increase to 12% in 2009. 

151



Passenger Revenue 

Passenger revenue accounted for 19% of Sun Tran’s total operating costs in 2008, and this level is 

expected to remain relatively consistent for 2009. However, the City is considering increasing 

fares based on recommendations from a City Council–appointed task force. 

7.3 POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES 

7.3.1 Capital Improvements Funding 

New Starts 

New Starts is the federal government’s primary financial resource for supporting locally planned, 

implemented, and operated transit guideway capital investments. The program is discretionary 

and is administered by the FTA. Reauthorization of the federal transportation funding bill (SAFETEA‐ 

LU), due to expire at the end of 2009, may result in changes to transit funding levels and/or the application 

process for New Starts; but FTA staff were not aware of any specific changes as of April 2009. 

Eligibility Requirements 

Any fixed‐guideway system that utilizes and occupies a separate right‐of‐way or rail line for the 

exclusive use of mass transportation and other high‐occupancy vehicles, or uses a fixed catenary 

system and a right‐of‐way usable by other forms of transportation is eligible for New Starts 

funding. This includes, but is not limited to, rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, automated 

guideway transit, people movers, and exclusive facilities for buses (such as BRT) and other highoccupancy 

vehicles. 

Three key phases in the planning and project development process must be adhered to in order 

for a project to be eligible for New Starts funding: 

• Phase I ‐ Alternatives Analysis is performed to evaluate mode and alignment options for a 

particular corridor. Benefits, costs, and impacts of transportation options along this 

corridor are analyzed; and local and regional decision‐makers identify a locally preferred 

alternative. 

• Phase II ‐ Preliminary Engineering is conducted to consider design options, refine the locally 

preferred alternative, and complete the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process. Project costs, benefits, and impacts are further developed, and local sponsors 

finalize management plans, demonstrate technical capabilities, and commit local funding 

sources. 

• Phase III ‐ Final Design is completed to produce construction plans, detailed specifications, 

estimates, and bid documents. 

152



Evaluation Criteria 

Evaluation of New Starts candidate projects is an ongoing process and occurs annually. Ratings 

for projects requesting funding to enter into preliminary engineering or final design are updated 

as the project progresses through the process. Ratings are assigned as “High,” “Medium‐High,” 

“Medium,” “Medium‐Low,” or “Low.” 

A project is evaluated using the following criteria: 

Project Justification 

• Mobility improvements measured by travel time benefits per project passenger mile, lowincome 

households served, and employment near stations. 

• Environmental benefits measured by change in regional air pollutant emissions, change in 

any regional energy consumption, and EPA air quality designation. 

• Cost‐effectiveness measured as the cost per hour of travel time saved. 

• Operating efficiencies measured by system operating cost per passenger mile. 

• Transit‐supportive land use and future patterns measured by existing land use; transitsupportive 

plans, policies, and performance; and the impacts of those policies. 

• Other factors such as projected economic impact. 

Local Financial Commitment 

• Proposed share of total project costs from sources other than New Starts and including 

local match. 

• Stability and reliability of the proposed capital financing plan. 

• Ability of the sponsoring agency to fund operations and maintenance of the entire transit 

system (including existing service) as planned, once the project is built. 

Project Development Process 

• Complete Systems Planning. 

• Complete Alternatives Analysis. 

• Select Locally Preferred Alternative. 

• Include Locally Preferred Alternative in Long Range Plan. 

• Perform Preliminary Engineering and complete NEPA process. 

• Update Project Management Plans and commit local funding sources. 

• Complete Final Design including construction plans, right‐of‐way acquisition, and utility 

relocation. 

• Complete Financial Plan. 

• Complete plan to conduct Before‐and‐After Study. 

153



Recommendation for Funding 

A proposed project can only be considered eligible for funding if it has been rated as “High”, 

“Medium‐High”, or “Medium” and has demonstrated significant potential benefits. Project 

ratings do not translate directly into a funding recommendation or commitment, and the amount 

of New Starts funding available is considered annually relative to the phase of project 

development of the candidate project. Projects may receive up to 80% of capital costs through 

New Starts; however, typically only 50% of the capital cost is requested as it is otherwise difficult 

to achieve a high rating. The Tucson Modern Streetcar is currently estimated to receive federal 

funding from New Starts in the amount of $25 million dollars. 

Small Starts 

Small Starts is part of the FTA’s Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant Program designed to 

provide capital funds for low‐cost transit investment projects through a highly simplified project 

evaluation and rating process (compared to the New Starts process). The Small Starts program 

may award funding for up to 80% of total capital costs and the amount is negotiated during 

Project Development. Reauthorization of the federal transportation funding bill (SAFETEA‐LU), due to 

expire at the end of 2009, may result in changes to transit funding levels and/or the application process for 

Small Starts; but FTA staff were not aware of any specific changes as of April 2009. 


To be eligible for funding under the Small Starts program, the total project cost must be less than 

$250 million, and no more than $75 million may be requested from this grant. Additionally, the 

guideway must be a fixed guideway for at least 50% of the project length in the peak period 

and/or be a corridor‐based bus project with the following minimum elements: 

• Substantial transit stations 

• Signal priority/preemption (for bus/LRT) 

• Low‐floor/level‐boarding vehicles 

• Special branding of service 

• Frequent service (10‐minute peak service and 15‐minute off‐peak service) 

• Service offered at least 14 hours per day 


The project will be evaluated based on the following criteria: 

• Cost‐effectiveness 

• Showing incremental cost per hour of transportation system user benefits compared 

to the baseline alternative (using opening year forecasts) 

• Land Use 

• Existing land use patterns 

154



• Transit‐supportive plans and policies 

• Performance and impact of transit‐supportive policies 

• Other Factors 

• Economic development benefits 

The local financial commitment to the project is also considered, including: 

• Availability of sufficient funds for local share or a reasonable plan to secure funding for 

the local share 

• Additional operating and maintenance costs of the project should be no more than 5% of 

the agency’s operating budget. 

• Agency is in reasonably good financial condition. 


• Complete Alternatives Analysis. 

• Adopt Locally Preferred Alternative. 


• Complete NEPA process. 

• Receive a “Medium” rating or better from FTA. 

• Develop a Project Management Plan with a fair and reasonable project budget and 

schedule. 


In order to receive a recommendation for funding, the project must have been approved to enter 

into Project Development and must be ready to be implemented within the fiscal year the project 

is proposed for funding. A project that is recommended for funding is not guaranteed to actually 

receive funding. The Tucson Modern Streetcar is currently estimated to receive federal funding 

from Small Starts in the amount of $50 million dollars. 

Very Small Starts 

Very Small Starts is a category of the Section 5309 Capital Investment Grants program 

administered by the FTA. This category provides funding for transit investment projects that are 

simple, low‐risk projects through a highly simplified and streamlined project evaluation and 

rating process. The Very Small Starts program may award funding for up to 80% of total capital 

costs, and the amount is negotiated during project development. Typical amounts of funding 

recently awarded for BRT projects range from 56% to 80%, with total project costs ranging 

between $25 million and $37 million. Reauthorization of the federal transportation funding bill 

(SAFETEA‐LU), due to expire at the end of 2009, may result in changes to transit funding levels and/or 

the application process for Very Small Starts; but FTA staff were not aware of any specific changes as of 

April 2009. 

155




To be eligible for funding under the Very Small Starts program, the capital cost must be no more 

than $3 million per mile, exclusive of rolling stock, and the total capital cost must be less than $50 

million. Additionally, the project must be a bus, rail, or ferry project and contain the following 

features: 

• Substantial transit stations 

• Signal priority/preemption (for bus/LRT) 

• Low‐floor/level boarding vehicles 

• Special branding of service 

• Frequent service (10‐minute peak and 15‐minute off‐peak) 

• Service offered at least 14 hours per day 

• Existing corridor ridership exceeding 3,000 riders per day 


Project justification criteria including cost‐effectiveness and economic development are 

automatically assigned a “Medium” rating because these Very Small Starts projects are, by their 

nature, cost‐effective and small in scale. 

The project will receive a “Medium” rating for local financial commitment if it can demonstrate 

the following: 

• Funds are available for local share. 

• Additional operating and maintenance costs of the project are no more than 5% of the 

agency’s operating budget. 

• Agency is in reasonably good financial condition. 


• Complete simplified Alternatives Analysis process. 

• Adopt Locally Preferred Alternative. 


• Complete NEPA process. 

• Receive a “Medium” rating or better from FTA. 

• Develop a Project Management Plan with a fair and reasonable project budget and 

schedule. 


In order to receive a recommendation for funding, the project must have been approved to enter 

into Project Development and must be ready to be implemented. The project must be rated at 

least “Medium” to be recommended for funding. However, a project that is recommended for 

funding is not guaranteed to actually receive funding. 

156



Large Urban Cities Program 

This program provides funding for transit capital costs for urbanized areas with a population 

exceeding 50,000. Funding from this program is secured through Congressional earmarks by state 

governments, local governments, or transit agencies and typically requires a 20% local match. 

This program also allows funds to be used for planning expenses such as system planning, 

engineering, and design. 

Bus and Bus Facilities Program 

This program provides a large number of small grants for bus‐related capital projects, which BRT 

projects can use for bus procurement, bus maintenance facilities, passenger amenities including 

shelters and signage, transportation centers, intermodal terminals, and park‐and‐ride facilities. 

This program requires a 20% local match and is secured by transit and other public entities 

through Congressional earmarks. Grants typically range from approximately $50,000 to $15 

million. 

7.3.2 Operations and Maintenance Funding 

Two common sources of operations and maintenance funding for many agencies are Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) grants and Large Urban Cities 

(Section 5307) grants. CMAQ grants are only available to regions that have been designated as 

non‐attainment areas and as Pima County does not fall within a non‐attainment area, it does not 

receive CMAQ funds. Tucson does not qualify for the Large Urban Cities program because only 

urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000 are eligible under this program. Because 

two of the most common operations and maintenance funding sources are not available, it is 

important to consider non‐traditional funding sources such as those noted in Section 7.3.3. 

157



7.3.3 Other Funding Sources 

The following funding sources are non‐traditional methods of generating revenue for capital 

and/or operating costs of HCT. These sources are considered to be plausible as they have been 

used by one or more jurisdictions throughout the nation. Other sources that have been used by 

certain jurisdictions were investigated but excluded because it was determined that they were not 

applicable due to existing regulations that would require major state‐level action to remove. 

Although some of the sources discussed would require state‐level initiatives, they are not in 

direct conflict with any existing state laws. Additional information is available from a recent 

ADOT study on innovative funding sources. 3 

Special Assessment Districts/Tax Incremental Finance Districts 

Districts with special tax rates can be developed to capture the additional property taxes 

generated by private development projects in the vicinity of HCT corridors. HCT infrastructure 

can often increase the value of nearby property and result in additional development. The 

additional property tax revenue that would result can be directed towards HCT investments such 

as operating costs through the use of such districts. 

Impact Fees 

Transportation impact fees on new development could be used to generate funding for HCT. 

Existing impact fees could be increased from current levels with the additional revenue being 

specifically directed towards HCT costs. Alternatively, impact fees could be assessed on new 

development within a specific HCT corridor, with the revenues being used for HCT costs. 

Rental Car Surcharge 

Arizona does not currently dedicate any portion of rental car surcharges and fees to public 

transportation. Some states have used such a surcharge to fund transit services. This includes 

Florida which applies an eight cent per day charge, and Arkansas which applies a three and 

three‐fourths percent charge per day. With Arizona growing in popularity as a tourist 

destination, such a fee could generate significant revenue. 

3 

K. Ernzen and J. Ernzen. Developing a Stabilized Public Transportation Revenue Source. Final Report 620. 

Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ, January 2007. 

158



Sales Tax 

The current sales tax of one‐half percent in the City of Tucson could be extended beyond 2026 or a 

new sales tax could be implemented upon expiration of the current sales tax. A portion of the 

extended sales tax, or the entirety of a new sales tax could be dedicated to transit. The City of Fort 

Worth, Texas, serves as an example where a specific sales tax dedicated to transit is in effect. A 

sales tax of one‐fourth percent was approved in 1983 through a referendum and generates 

approximately $25 million per year dedicated to transit. Additional examples include the City of 

Tempe which implemented a one‐half percent sales tax in 1996 to fund transit, and the City of 

Phoenix which currently has a two‐fifths percent sales tax that began in 2000 to fund transit for 20 

years. 

An increase in the sales tax on fuel specifically could be considered to generate revenue for 

transit. Several states apply a portion of the sales tax on fuel towards public transportation. An 

increase could be specifically dedicated towards funding transit projects, however; it should be 

noted that an increase in fuel tax could only occur on a state‐wide basis. On a local level, a tax 

could be applied to other specific items such as certain construction materials, with the revenue 

being dedicated to transit. (This would be similar to the Town of Sahuarita 3% construction sales 

tax). 

Vehicle Registration Fee 

Arizona currently has a relatively low vehicle registration fee compared to the national average. 

This could allow for an increase which could be dedicated to funding transit services while 

remaining well below the national average. A vehicle registration fee dedicated to funding public 

transportation is used by North Dakota in the amount of three dollars per vehicle. Other states 

are increasingly considering the use of higher vehicle registration fees to fund transportation 

projects. It should be noted that the ability to increase vehicle registration fees for the purpose of 

transportation/transit projects would require state‐wide legislative action. 

Advertising 

Public‐private partnerships in the form of leasing naming or sponsorship rights of HCT facilities 

could be used to generate funding. Private companies may pay a fee as a sponsor of a particular 

station and receive advertising exposure in exchange. It is also possible to lease the naming rights 

of a particular HCT system or corridor within a system to a private company, similar to what is 

done with public stadiums. 

Increased Fare 

The general fare for use of HCT services could be structured to be greater than that for use of the 

existing fixed‐route service. The additional revenue generated could be used to fund future 

expansion or addition of HCT routes. 

159



Parking Fees and Parking Violation Fines 

A portion of parking fees and parking violation fines could be used to fund HCT. Despite a recent 

increase in parking fees and violation fines in the downtown area, it is possible that an additional 

increase could also be implemented at some time in the future. This could also have the effect of 

deterring commuters from driving personal vehicles to avoid paying for parking, which could in 

turn encourage increased transit ridership and thus greater fare recovery. 

7.4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL 

REVENUE SOURCES APPLICABLE TO HCT 

7.4.1 Capital Improvements 

Existing capital improvement revenue sources that can be applied to HCT are limited. LTAF II 

dollars could be used, and RTA categorical funding designated for construction of bus pull‐outs 

and ITS/signal timing could potentially be used (particularly for BRT implementation). 

There are several comparatively new potential sources of funding that could be sought for capital 

improvements for streetcar and BRT, one of which is New Starts. New Starts can only be used for 

BRT service operating in exclusive right‐of‐way and a significant local match is required. Small 

Starts and Very Small starts could also be used to fund capital improvements and are not limited 

to transit services operating within exclusive right‐of‐way. These funding sources would also 

require significant local match but could be more suitable for some projects depending on the cost 

range. Some supplementary funding could potentially be obtained through Large Urban Cities 

Program. Bus and Bus Facilities Programs funding is applicable for BRT projects. 

In addition to traditional grant programs to cover capital costs, other less conventional forms of 

securing funding for HCT may be considered. These include bonds, tax increment financing (TIF) 

districts, and public‐private partnerships. The concept of transit “value capture” has been 

explored in some areas as a means of funding transit improvements by capitalizing on the 

increases in property values and rents that might be associated with transit investments. 

7.4.2 Operations and Maintenance 

Sources of funding that can be applied to operations and maintenance costs are more limited than 

those available for capital improvement costs. Passenger revenue would be the primary 

component of funding operating and maintenance expenses, as it is currently. Other funding 

sources currently being used that could be continued for HCT are LTAF II funds. New sources of 

funding include value capture. 

160




FUNDING 

7.5.1 Conclusions 

The project team concludes the following: 

• Broadway Boulevard BRT and 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway BRT projects appear to 

qualify for Very Small Starts federal funding. 

7.5.2 Recommendations 

The project team recommends the following actions for HCT implementation: 

• Move forward with near‐term Broadway Boulevard BRT development as previously 

recommended. 

• Identify an agency or local government to take the lead in implementation. 

• Establish coordination with FTA Region IX staff. 

• Begin the process of conducting an Alternatives Analysis. 

• Begin the process of including the projects in the RTP. 

• Begin lining up the local match for Very Small Starts. 

• If trolley bus—a technology lately introduced by TAC members—is considered for 

implementation as an alternative to streetcar, the region should communicate with FTA 

Region IX staff in advance to determine the funding programs for which trolley buses are 

eligible. Provision of the overhead catenary suggests that trolley bus service might be 

eligible for New Starts funding, but this must be verified as early as possible. 

161



8.0 CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 


Section 8.0 summarizes the development of individual corridor implementation plans including 

staging of HCT projects for the near term and long term. The following questions are answered: 

• How and when do we phase in HCT in the study corridors? 

• What steps can be taken to implement HCT in the near term? 

• Is incremental implementation possible? 

With respect to the individual corridor implementation plans, Section 8.0 summarizes the 

assessments conducted to date for each HCT corridor, identifies the opportunities and constraints 

for each corridor, and lays out the likely implementation scenario for each corridor. The 

implementation plan laid out for the system alternative recommended in Section 6.0 is the most 

detailed because its components are the most suitable for near‐term implementation. 

Section 8.0 also describes a monitoring methodology that can be used to guide the region in 

determining if, when, and how HCT can be implemented in a given corridor. This methodology 

does not look at HCT implementation as an all‐or‐nothing investment but as a series of steps that 

phase in HCT components over time and as needed. The advantages of the monitoring 

methodology are as follows: 

• It is quantitative, so it can be used to provide support for funding recommendations. 

• It is based on research and guidance in the second edition of the Transit Capacity and 

Quality of Service Manual, a manual published by the Transit Cooperative Research 

Program (TCRP) as TCRP Report 100 in 2004. 

• It uses data that is relatively easy to collect. 

• It identifies incremental investments in HCT components. These incremental investments 

could be corridor‐wide investments such as TSP or spot improvements such as queue 

jump lanes at key signalized intersections. 

162



8.2 MONITORING FOR HCT IMPLEMENTATION 

8.2.1 Overview of HCT Implementation Monitoring Process 

The flowchart in Figure 65 illustrates the proposed HCT implementation monitoring process. The 

flowchart identifies quality of service (QOS) measures, data sources, and potential improvements. 

Appendix A describes the steps in the flowchart and provides the supporting information that is 

referenced in the flowchart. 

The above monitoring process is generalized so that it can apply to all of the potential HCT 

corridors. The project team notes that corridor‐specific goals (e.g., revitalization of a specific 

corridor) may influence HCT decision‐making as well. 

8.3 CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

Each of the following sections focuses on a specific HCT corridor. 

8.3.1 Broadway Boulevard 

Proposed HCT Service 

The proposed HCT service within the Broadway corridor includes both BRT and streetcar. It is 

envisioned that implementation of these HCT modes will be phased, beginning with BRT. 

BRT Service 

The proposed BRT system would extend from downtown Tucson out to Houghton Road, 

approximately 11.5 miles, and would connect major employment and activity centers, including 

the downtown area, UA, El Con Mall, Williams Center, and Park Mall. This service is intended to 

serve longer trips and provide comparable travel times with auto travel. As such, the spacing of 

stops would be no closer than one mile and TSP is required. An initial proposed route, as shown 

in Section 6.0, would operate along Broadway Boulevard, deviating to 6th Street and UA via 

Campbell Avenue and Euclid Avenue. Alternative routes to serve UA include Cherry Avenue, 

Highland Avenue, or Park Avenue. 

163



Figure 65 

HCT Implementation Monitoring Process 

Figure 65 HCT Implementation Monitoring Process 

164



Park‐and‐ride lots would be provided along the corridor, particularly east of Craycroft Road, to 

serve commuters. A park‐and‐ride lot at Campbell Avenue might also be considered to serve 

potential future BRT service on Campbell Avenue/Kino Parkway between UA and TIA. It is 

anticipated that BRT stops would be able to accommodate both 40‐foot buses and 60‐foot 

articulated vehicles and would include real‐time traveler information displays. 

Streetcar Service 

The proposed streetcar service could extend from downtown Tucson to El Con Mall, with a 

diversion to the south side of UA (approximately 4 miles). The streetcar could be a separate line 

or a spur off of the initial Modern Streetcar line. An alternatives analysis will be required to 

determine the best route for the streetcar extension. This service is intended to serve short trips 

and support higher‐density TOD opportunities, including El Con Mall, the area south 6th Street 

and University, and the section of Broadway Boulevard between Euclid Avenue and Country 

Club Road (which will be widened). As such, stops would be 1/4‐ to 1/2‐mile apart. The extension 

of streetcar service along Broadway Boulevard will be heavily dependent upon the success of the 

initial Modern Streetcar line. 

Existing and Programmed/Planned Transit Service 

Fixed‐route bus and express bus service are currently provided along Broadway Boulevard. The 

Route 8 fixed‐route service, which runs from the Laos Transit Center along 6th Avenue to the 

Ronstadt Transit Center and then out Broadway Boulevard to Wilmot Road, has a weekday 

ridership of over 10,000 passengers. Route 8 service during both weekdays and weekends was 

recently extended. Existing express bus service includes the Broadway/Downtown Express 

(108X), which runs three buses during the morning and evening commute periods. The route 

begins at the park‐and‐ride lot at Speedway Boulevard/Harrison Road and includes three stops 

on Broadway Boulevard at Pantano Road, Wilmot Road, and Alvernon Way. Downtown stops 

include the Ronstadt Transit Center and a stop on the west side of the downtown area. Park‐andride 

lots include an existing lot at Camino Seco and a new lot at Houghton Road that is under 

development. No additional transit service within the corridor is currently planned or 

programmed. 

HCT Implementation Constraints 

Implementation of BRT service on Broadway Boulevard is essentially unconstrained; however, 

implementation of effective transit preferential treatments may be difficult considering the heavy 

traffic volumes that this roadway carries, particularly during peak commute periods. BRT 

vehicles could operate in the dedicated transit lanes for much of the route but will need to operate 

in mixed traffic from Country Club Road to Columbus Boulevard (1.5 miles) and Camino Seco to 

Houghton Road (2 miles). The operational impacts of running BRT in the dedicated transit lanes 

will need to be carefully assessed since these lanes also function as deceleration lanes for rightturns 

accessing the frequent driveways along this route and as bicycle lanes. It may be faster to 

run BRT within the general purpose lanes, pulling into the transit lanes only at stations. 

Acquiring additional right‐of‐way for stations and park‐and‐ride lots should not be problematic. 

165



Implementation of a streetcar line on Broadway Boulevard could be constrained by the lack of a 

dedicated transit lane between Country Club Road and El Con Mall. Within this section, the 

streetcar line could be placed within the existing median. Dedicated transit lanes currently exist 

from downtown Tucson, under the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), to Euclid Avenue and are 

planned to be included in the widening between Euclid Avenue and Country Club Road. 

Streetcar and BRT service are not anticipated to conflict because BRT will have few stops where 

the services overlap. 

Implementation Plan 

BRT Service 

The estimated capital cost of $29 million for BRT service on Broadway Boulevard indicates that 

the project is eligible to qualify for Very Small Starts funding. As such, it is recommended that the 

implementation plan follow the Project Development process associated with Very Small Starts. 

FTA strongly recommends that the sponsoring agency closely coordinate with FTA early in the 

project process and throughout development. FTA Region IX staff are already familiar with the 

Tucson region as a result of the Tucson Modern Streetcar project. 

The first step in the Very Small Starts process is to notify FTA of intent to initiate an Alternatives 

Analysis for Broadway Boulevard BRT. The sponsoring agency (or agencies) should then proceed 

with an Alternatives Analysis, using the simplified process appropriate for Very Small Starts 

projects. The Alternatives Analysis would draw on the results of this study and should 

accomplish the following: 

• Define the purpose and need of Broadway Boulevard BRT. Describe the problem that must be 

addressed and develop project goals, objectives, and evaluation measures for the various 

alternatives. 

• Identify alternatives that consist of high‐ and low‐cost capital improvements, including a 

“baseline” alternative. The alternatives to be considered are BRT, LRT, and a baseline 

alternative that includes only transit improvements already planned and programmed. 

The alternatives should address the range of costs and ridership and assess financial 

feasibility. BRT and LRT options were addressed in Section 5.0. 

• Identify measures for evaluating the alternatives and methodologies for generating data 

to perform evaluations (e.g., the ridership forecasting methodology). Common measures 

include: 

• Effectiveness ‐ The extent to which the stated transportation problem is solved in the 

corridor. 

• Impacts ‐ The extent of positive and negative impacts. 

• Cost‐effectiveness ‐ The extent to which costs are commensurate with benefits. 

• Financial feasibility ‐ The likely availability of funds. 

• Equity ‐ The fair distribution of costs and benefits. 

To the extent possible, methodologies should be reviewed with FTA Region IX staff in advance. 

166



• Conduct evaluation and screening of the alternatives to narrow the range of viable 

alternatives and carry those forward into detailed analysis to develop a more thorough 

definition of alternatives. The evaluation measures previously identified should be used to 

analyze each alternative. (Previously completed HCT technical memoranda will provide 

information for this task.) The alternatives carried forward will be BRT and the baseline 

alternative. As part of the BRT evaluation, ridership forecasts should be documented per 

FTA requirements and specific BRT service features should be identified. Identification of 

specific BRT features (e.g., alignment, station architecture concept, type of vehicle, and 

provision of amenities such as real‐time passenger information) will require more detailed 

analysis as well as stakeholder and public input. Cost estimates should be updated to 

reflect these refinements. 

• Develop funding strategies. Various financial documents will be needed to provide 

supporting information. FTA worksheets and forms will need to be filled out. 

• Select a proposed mode and general alignment as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The 

LPA should be adopted in the long‐range plan. Other evidence of regional support (e.g., 

board resolutions) is desired. 

• Send documentation to FTA and request approval to begin Project Development. Project 

development includes final design and preliminary engineering. 

Prior to advancing into Project Development, the project should: 

1. Demonstrate cost‐effectiveness by demonstrating benefit to 3,000 existing transit riders 

using FTA procedures for documenting the benefit. 

2. Demonstrate local financial commitment by showing availability of funds for local share, 

demonstrating that the additional operations and maintenance costs will not exceed 5% of 

the agency’s operating budget, and demonstrating that the agency is in reasonably good 

financial condition. 

3. Demonstrate land use and economic development benefit. 

Upon approval of the Alternatives Analysis by FTA, the next step in the process is Project 

Development, which, in the case of Very Small Starts projects, incorporates Preliminary 

Engineering and Final Design. The goal of Project Development is to produce a specific project 

with definitive scope elements, alignment, and design features such as project cost and 

implementation schedule. It should also demonstrate to FTA that the project will continue to 

meet Very Small Starts criteria and that the amount of funding needed will not change. Following 

are tasks to be completed as part of Preliminary Engineering: 

• Refine definition of the LPA’s scope, schedule, and budget to produce a final scope, a 

highly accurate cost estimate, and a detailed implementation schedule. 

• Produce a thorough Project Management Plan which establishes the engineering 

approach, procedures, and roles and responsibilities for undertaking the project. The 

Project Management Plan is a tool used by FTA to assess technical capacity and capability 

of the project sponsor to undertake further project development (i.e., capacity and 

capability to undertake the remaining tasks in this list). 

167



• Review on‐board technology and determine necessary integration for transit ITS elements 

such as real‐time passenger information and TSP. This will also include a review of City 

ITS plans to determine the need for modification to accommodate traffic signal system 

upgrades that will enable TSP. 

• Produce a financial plan including proposed local funding committed to the project. 

• Produce a real estate acquisition plan. 

• Produce quality control and assurance plans for construction. 

• Produce project safety and security plans. 

• Produce bus/rail fleet management plans. 

• Prepare any documentation needed for NEPA compliance, including environmental, 

transportation, cultural, and social impact identification and mitigation strategies. 

Broadway Boulevard BRT is not likely to require substantial NEPA documentation. 

The Final Design component of Project Development involves the strategic execution of the plans 

and project elements that are a part of Preliminary Engineering, in accordance with the defined 

methods. Following are the components of Final Design: 

• Utility relocation 

• Right‐of‐way acquisition 

• Development of detailed specifications 

• Preparation of final construction plans 

• Development of construction cost estimates 

• Development of bid documents 

• Addressing of any remaining minor uncertainties 

• Reallocation of project contingencies within the total budget 

• Preparation of a before‐and‐after study plan for the collection and analysis of information 

related to the performance of the project as well as the reliability of the methods used to 

estimate the project’s costs, benefits, and other impacts. 

Negotiation of specific terms and conditions for the award of a funding grant agreement is only 

done once acceptable progress is made and demonstrated towards execution of the strategies in 

Project Development and only if the project continues to rate “Medium” or higher. 

Table 33 is a sample timeline showing the expected duration of each of the components of the 

implementation plan. The timeline can be shortened if BRT is implemented in phases, but 

phasing the implementation by, say, using existing buses instead of procuring stylized BRT 

vehicles may dilute the BRT “brand” and reduce BRT ridership. 

Table 33 

Sample Timeline for Implementation of BRT under Very Small Starts 

Task 

Estimated Duration 

FTA Alternatives Analysis* 

12 months 

168



Development and release of Request for Proposals (RFP) for Project Development 

Project Development (Final Design and Preliminary Engineering) 

FTA Funding Agreement 

Development and release of an RFP for construction of stations, systems, and transit 

preferential treatments** 

Permitting and Construction 

3 months 

15 to 30 months 

3 months 

3 months 

12 months 

*Requires adoption of a Locally Preferred Alternative 

**Vehicle procurement should begin early, as procurement may take 18 months or more depending on the type of 

vehicle selected. 


• Monitor land use activity and demand in the streetcar portion of the corridor. 

• The success of the initial phase of the Tucson Modern Streetcar, measured by ridership 

and resulting redevelopment, will influence the viability of streetcar on Broadway 

Boulevard. 

• Preserve right‐of‐way for future streetcar stations. Ensure that new development and 

redevelopment in the interim is “transit‐ready.” (See Section 9.0.) 

8.3.2 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway 


The proposed HCT service within the 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway Corridor includes both BRT 

and streetcar. It is envisioned that implementation of these HCT modes will be phased, with both 

modes operating in mixed traffic. 

BRT Service 

The proposed BRT system would extend from Downtown out to TIA, approximately 8.5 miles, 

and would connect major employment and activity centers, including the downtown area, the 

Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center, and the TIA. Since the service is intended to 

provide travel times comparable with auto travel, the spacing of stops would typically be 

approximately one mile and TSP will be required. An initial proposed route is shown in Section 

6.0. 

Park‐and‐ride lots would be provided along the corridor to serve commuters, including the 

existing park‐and‐ride lot at the Laos Transit Center. It is anticipated that BRT stops would be 

able to accommodate both 40‐foot buses and 60‐foot long articulated vehicles, and would include 

real‐time traveler information displays. 


The proposed streetcar service would extend from downtown Tucson to the Laos Transit Center, 

approximately 4 miles. This service is intended to serve short trips in an area with both high 

population density and high transit usage. Stops would be ¼ to ½‐mile apart. The streetcar could 

be a separate line or a spur off of the initial Tucson Modern Streetcar line. Connecting a new 

169



streetcar service on 6th Avenue to the initial streetcar line may be a challenge because there is 

likely to be some overlap in the downtown area. 


Fixed‐route bus service is currently provided along 6th Avenue. Route 8, which runs from the 

Laos Transit Center along 6th Avenue to the Ronstadt Transit Center and then out Broadway 

Boulevard to Wilmot Road, has a weekday ridership of over 10,000 passengers. Route 8 service 

during both weekdays and weekends was recently extended. Existing express bus service for the 

Northwest/Aero Park Express (202X) and the Oro Valley/Aero Park Express (203X) both stop at 

the Laos Transit Center and then continue on Nogales Highway to the Raytheon plant. Each of 

these routes runs three buses during the morning and evening commute periods. An additional 

express route will be added, which will travel on 6th Avenue from the Laos Transit Center to 

downtown Tucson, stopping at the Ronstadt Transit Center. 


For the portion of the corridor operating along 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway, forecasted level of 

service is good enough that HCT (BRT or streetcar) should be able to operate in mixed traffic with 

minimal adverse impact on general‐purpose traffic and with minimal delay due to general 

purpose traffic. General‐purpose lane conversion is not feasible along this route. TSP can be 

implemented and would benefit BRT and streetcar operation along this corridor. Implementation 

of HCT stations, particularly on the 6th Avenue segment could be difficult considering the lack of 

right‐of‐way and potential resistance of neighborhoods to adding HCT along this route. 

The primarily constraint for streetcar on 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway is that it does not appear 

to be an ideal extension of the initial downtown route of the modern streetcar. A mid‐route 

overlap of the two streetcar lines will limit the amount of service that can be provided on both 

lines. 

A mobility‐focused BRT service can be implemented in this corridor relatively quickly if it 

commences with mixed‐traffic operation. Stations should be designed to allow for future streetcar 

service or a future rubber‐tired circulator service. 


BRT Service 

The estimated capital cost of $17.5 million for BRT service in the 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway 

corridor indicates that the project is eligible to qualify for Very Small Starts funding. As such, it is 

recommended that the implementation plan follow the Project Development process associated 

with Very Small Starts. The specifics of the implementation are, accordingly, analogous to the 

plan described above for Broadway Boulevard BRT, but the 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway BRT 

implementation plan differs from the Broadway Boulevard BRT implementation plan in one key 

respect: The alternatives are streetcar, BRT operating in mixed traffic, BRT operating in a 

dedicated lane, and the baseline alternative. 

170



Separate Very Small Starts applications should be submitted for Broadway Boulevard BRT and 

6th Avenue South BRT. 


• Monitor land use activity and demand in the streetcar portion of the corridor. 

• The success of the initial phase of the Tucson Modern Streetcar, measured by ridership 

and resulting redevelopment, will influence the viability of streetcar on 6th 

Avenue/Nogales Highway. 

• Preserve right‐of‐way for future streetcar stations. Ensure that new development and 

redevelopment in the interim is “transit‐ready.” (See Section 9.0.) 

8.3.3 Oracle Road 


The proposed long‐term HCT service within the Oracle Corridor is envisioned to be BRT 

operating primarily in general purpose lanes. 

The BRT service would extend from downtown Tucson to Rancho Vistoso Boulevard in Oro 

Valley, approximately 17 miles, and would connect major employment and activity centers, 

including the downtown Tucson area, Tucson Mall, Pima College Downtown, Ventana Medical 

Systems, and Honeywell. This service is intended to serve longer trips and provide comparable 

travel times with auto travel. The spacing of stops would be no closer than one mile, and TSP will 

be required. Park‐and‐ride lots would be provided at key locations along the corridor to serve 

potential BRT users. It is anticipated that BRT stops would be able to accommodate both 40‐foot 

buses and 60‐foot articulated vehicles and would include real‐time traveler information displays. 


Fixed‐route and express transit service is currently provided along Oracle Road. Route 16, which 

runs along Oracle Road from Ina Road to downtown Tucson, has a weekday ridership of over 

6,000 passengers. Route 16 service during both weekdays and weekends was recently extended. 

Existing express bus service includes the Oro Valley/Downtown Express (107X) and the Oro 

Valley/Tohono Express (312X). Both routes run three buses during the morning and evening 

commute periods. Route 107X begins in Oro Valley at the park‐and‐ride lot on Rancho Vistoso 

Boulevard and runs along Oracle Road from Magee Road to downtown Tucson. Route 312X runs 

from the Honeywell plant in Oro Valley to the Tohono Tadai Transit Center at the Tucson Mall. 

An existing park‐and‐ride lot is located in the Oracle Plaza shopping center at Orange Grove 

Road. No additional transit service within the corridor is currently planned or programmed. 


BRT service within a general use lane is envisioned along this corridor. Acquiring additional 

right‐of‐way for dedicated lanes south of Ina Road will be prohibitively expensive. North of Ina 

171



Road, dedicated lanes could be installed within the existing right‐of‐way; however, this also 

would have a high cost. Implementation of effective transit preferential treatments such as TSP 

may be difficult considering the heavy traffic volumes that this roadway carries, particularly 

during peak commute periods. As a state highway, ADOT will require that a detailed engineering 

study be performed at each proposed transit stop location. On segments that have a posted speed 

limit above 45 mph, ADOT prohibits bus pullouts at transit stops. 

Another challenge for implementation of BRT on this corridor is the low population and 

employment density along this corridor, particularly north of River Road. This low density 

applies to current conditions as well as projected 2040 densities. With these low densities, it may 

be difficult to generate the transit demand throughout the day that will support BRT service. 


• Monitor existing express bus service that connects Oro Valley with Tucson Mall and 

downtown Tucson. As demand increases—including off‐peak demand—reassess the 

viability of providing a BRT service on Oracle Road. Expansion of express bus service may 

be a more cost‐effective option. 

• Preserve right‐of‐way north of Ina Road, extending to Pinal County, for future dedicated 

HCT lanes. 

• Ensure that new development and redevelopment in the interim is “transit‐ready.” (See 

Section 9.0.) 

8.3.4 Campbell Avenue/Kino Parkway 


The proposed long‐term HCT service on Campbell Avenue includes both streetcar (Tucson Mall 

to Speedway Boulevard) and BRT (UA to TIA) service. 


The proposed streetcar line would function as an extension of the currently planned Tucson 

Modern Streetcar, which is due to begin operation in 2011/2012 and connects downtown Tucson 

with UA and the Arizona Health Sciences Center. The Tucson Modern Streetcar terminates at the 

Arizona Health Sciences Center just north of Speedway Boulevard on Helen Street and will be 

“stubbed out” to allow for such an extension north on Campbell Avenue. A potential route 

extension to the Tucson Mall was included in Section 6.0. 

The purpose of this streetcar service is to provide circulation and support economic development 

in an area where population and employment densities, as well as land use, offer promise for 

TOD. The spacing of stops would typically be 1/4‐mile and no more than 1/2‐mile. TSP would be 

required. 

BRT Service 

172



BRT service would extend from UA to TIA. It would share a station at the university with the 

Broadway Boulevard BRT route to allow easy transfers. Placement of a park‐and‐ride lot adjacent 

to the university station would provide a central location for travelers destined for TIA; 

management of long‐term parking would be required. Stops would be spaced one mile or farther 

apart, and TSP will be required. 


Fixed‐route bus service is currently provided along Campbell Avenue, but no express bus service 

currently exists. Route 15 has a weekday ridership of approximately 1,800 passengers. The route, 

which runs between the Tohono Tadai Transit Center and Reid Park with a primary stop at UA, 

travels on Campbell Avenue from Roger Road to just south of 22nd Street. South of 22nd Street, 

there is no continuous transit service. Route 15 service during both weekdays and weekends was 

recently extended. No additional transit service within the corridor is currently planned or 

programmed. 


Running an extension of the streetcar between the Health Sciences Center and Tucson Mall along 

Campbell Avenue could be problematic considering the lack of right‐of‐way to add dedicated 

HCT lanes and the heavy traffic volumes that the roadway carries. Widening Campbell Avenue 

would be cost‐prohibitive. If streetcar runs in the general purpose lanes, the forecasted level of 

service on Campbell Avenue suggests that the streetcar will experience delays from general 

purpose traffic and may have an adverse impact on general purpose traffic as well. Unless 

dedicated streetcar right‐of‐way can be provided, implementation of this route will be difficult. 

Implementation of BRT service between UA and TIA is essentially unconstrained, assuming that 

BRT would run in general purpose lanes. 

An additional constraint is existing corridor ridership not being high enough for Very Small 

Starts eligibility. 


• The success of the initial phase of the Tucson Modern Streetcar, measured by ridership as 

well as resulting redevelopment, will determine the viability of an extension between UA 

and Tucson Mall. To qualify for Very Small Starts funding, BRT should benefit at least 

3,000 riders. 

• As transit demand between UA and TIA increases, implementation of express bus should 

be considered prior to BRT. 


Section 9.0.) 

173



8.3.5 Grant Road 


The proposed HCT service within the Grant Corridor is envisioned to be BRT in general purpose 

lanes. The proposed BRT system would extend from Oracle Road to Tanque Verde Road, 

approximately 7.5 miles, and would serve the Tucson Medical Center and residential areas along 

Grant Road. The spacing of stops would be no closer than one mile, and TSP will be required. 

Park‐and‐ride lots would be provided at key locations along the corridor to serve potential future 

BRT users. 


Fixed‐route bus service is currently provided along Grant Road; there is no express service. Route 

9, which runs between Tanque Verde Road and Campbell Avenue, has a weekday ridership of 

approximately 2,300 passengers. Route 20 runs from Campbell Avenue to approximately 

Silverbell Road. Route 9 service during both weekdays and weekends was recently extended. 

Weekend service was recently added to Route 20. No additional transit service within the 

corridor is currently planned or programmed. 


With the exception of the Tucson Medical Center, this corridor does not have major trip 

generators, and employment density is at low levels currently and is not projected to increase 

significantly in 2040. These conditions will make it difficult to generate the transit demand 

throughout the day that will support BRT service. Additionally, employing effective transit 

preferential treatments may be difficult considering the heavy traffic volumes that this roadway 

carries, particularly during peak commute periods. 

An additional constraint is existing corridor ridership not being high enough for Very Small 

Starts eligibility. 


• Monitor transit ridership demand along Grant Road to determine if and when express bus 

service or a BRT system will be justified. To qualify for Very Small Starts funding, BRT 

should benefit at least 3,000 riders. 


Section 9.0.) 

8.3.6 Speedway Boulevard 


The proposed HCT service within the Speedway Corridor is envisioned to be BRT operating in 

general purpose lanes. 

174



The proposed BRT system would extend from Campbell Avenue to Houghton Road, 

approximately 10 miles, and would connect UA with residential and employment areas along 

Speedway Boulevard. The spacing of stops would be no closer than one mile, and TSP will be 

required. Park‐and‐ride lots would be provided along the corridor, particularly west of Craycroft 

Road. As HCT service along Broadway Boulevard expands, implementation of a parallel BRT 

system along Speedway Boulevard may need to be considered. 


Fixed‐route and express bus service are currently provided along Speedway Boulevard. Route 4, 

which runs from the Harrison Road park‐and‐ride lot to Stone Avenue, has a weekday ridership 

of over 5,000 passengers. Route 4 service during both weekdays and weekends was recently 

extended. Existing express bus service includes three routes: Foothills/Downtown Express (105X), 

Catalina Highway/Downtown Express (109X), and Eastside/Aero Park Express (201X). Route 

105X runs on Speedway Boulevard between Swan Road and Downtown; however, the only stop 

on Speedway Boulevard is at Campbell Avenue. Route 109X runs on Speedway Boulevard 

between Columbus Avenue and downtown Tucson, with one stop at Highland Avenue. Route 

201X runs on Speedway Boulevard between Harrison Road and Alvernon Way with three stops 

(Harrison Road, Kolb Road, and Alvernon Way). No additional transit service within the corridor 

is currently planned or programmed. 


Considering the lack of available right‐of‐way and the prohibitively high cost of adding 

designated HCT lanes, particularly since most adjacent property is commercial, BRT service on 

Speedway Boulevard will have to run in general purpose lanes. Implementation of BRT service in 

general purpose lanes will be constrained primarily by land use compatibility and lack of 

potential for TOD. Employment density along this corridor is currently at levels lower than those 

desired for TOD and is not projected to increase significantly in 2040. With these low densities, it 

will be difficult to generate the transit demand throughout the day that will support a BRT 

service. Additionally, employing effective transit preferential treatments will be difficult 

considering the heavy traffic volumes that this roadway carries, particularly during peak 

commute periods. 


• Monitor transit ridership demand along Speedway Boulevard to determine if additional 

express bus service, particularly from Harrison Road or Houghton Road, serving UA and 

downtown Tucson is needed. Expansion of express bus service is likely a precursor to 

implementation of BRT service. 


Section 9.0) 

175



8.3.7 I-10 (Marana to Downtown and Vail to Downtown); 

I-19 (Sahuarita to Downtown) 


CRT is envisioned as the long‐term HCT service connecting the Towns of Marana, Sahuarita, and 

Vail with Tucson. Planning for this service is being carried out by ADOT as part of a larger rail 

planning effort that is looking at CRT between Tucson, Phoenix, and Flagstaff. As a precursor to 

rail, implementation of a BRT line between Marana and Downtown Tucson, running on I‐10, has 

been proposed. Similarly, BRT service between Sahuarita, Raytheon, and downtown Tucson, and 

between Vail and downtown Tucson would likely be implemented before rail. 

BRT service between Marana and Downtown Tucson would provide an efficient and cost 

effective HCT service, particularly running on the interstate. Stations would likely be at 2‐mile or 

greater spacing. The line would likely begin at Marana Road with stops at Twin Peaks, Cortaro 

Road, Tangerine Road, and Ina Road. A Sahuarita/Tucson BRT line would likely begin at 

Continental Road in Green Valley and could either run on I‐19 or Old Nogales Highway. An Old 

Nogales Highway route would have a longer travel time but would allow for better service to 

Raytheon, TIA, and downtown Tucson. A Vail/Tucson BRT line could begin at Vail Road or 

Houghton Road, depending upon demand. 


Currently, Route 104X, Marana‐Downtown Express, provides direct service from a park‐and‐ride 

lot in the Arizona Pavilions at Cortaro Road to downtown Tucson. Three buses run during both 

morning and evening commute periods. Route 110X, Rita Ranch/Downtown Express, provides 

three buses during the morning and evening commute period, connecting the Rita Ranch, 

including the UA Science and Technology Park, with downtown Tucson. Route 110X runs on I‐ 

10. A new express route will be added in 2009/2010 connecting Green Valley and Sahuarita with 

Raytheon and downtown Tucson. This route will begin at a park‐and‐ride lot near the I‐ 

19/Continental Road interchange, run on I‐19 to Sahuarita Road with a stop in Sahuarita, and 

then run on Nogales Highway to Raytheon and on to Downtown Tucson. 


There are no apparent constraints with the implementation of BRT on any of these three lines. 

Park‐and‐ride facilities would need to be acquired in close proximity to interchanges. BRT service 

along Old Nogales Highway will likely run in general purpose lanes with TSP provided. 


• Monitor express route service demand within each corridor to determine when 

implementation of BRT service will be justified. 

• Look for opportunities to generate express bus ridership, including higher density 

residential development within each corridor and particularly near interchanges. As 

176



demand increases, expand express transit service to provide shorter headways during 

peak commute periods as well as service during off‐peak periods. 

8.4 REGIONAL HCT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

SUMMARY 

Table 34 summarizes the proposed implementation plan for HCT within the region. The time 

frames used are Near Term (0‐10 years), Mid Term (10‐20 years), and Long Term (>20 years). 

Table 34 HCT Implementation Plan 

Route 

HCT Mode 

Near Term Mid Term Long Term 

(0-10 yrs) (10-20 yrs) (>20 yrs) 

Speedway Blvd, Oracle Rd to Houghton Rd 

Express Bus X 

BRT 

X 

Broadway Blvd, Downtown to Houghton Rd BRT X 

Broadway Blvd, Downtown to El Con Mall Streetcar X 

Campbell Ave, U of A to Tucson Mall Streetcar X 

Campbell Ave/Kino Pkwy, U of A to TIA 

Express Bus X 

BRT 

X 

Oracle Rd, Congress St to Rancho Vistoso Blvd 

Express Bus X 

BRT 

X 

Express Bus X 

I-10, Marana to Downtown 

BRT 

X 

CRT 

X 

Express Bus X 

I-10, Vail to Downtown 

BRT 

X 

CRT 

X 

Express Bus X 

I-19, Sahuarita to Downtown 

BRT 

X 

CRT 

X 

Grant Rd, Oracle Rd to Tanque Verde Rd 

Express Bus X 

BRT 

X 

6th Ave/Nogales Hwy, Downtown to TIA BRT X 

6th Ave/Nogales Hwy, Downtown to Laos Transit Ctr Streetcar X 

Tucson Modern Street Car, Downtown to UAHSC Streetcar X 


IMPLEMENTATION 



• Monitoring of other potential HCT corridors is needed to determine if and when the 

proposed HCT modes should be considered for implementation. This monitoring could 

occur in conjunction with the update of the RTP. Several factors (including ridership 

potential) should be tracked. 

177





• Implement HCT according to Table 34, making use of the monitoring process described in 

Section 8.2 and Appendix A. 

178



9.0 LAND USE PLANNING FOR HCT 


Section 9.0 includes a review of land use policies and design standards and identification of 

potential areas of change to local plans and codes. Land use planning activities that can be 

undertaken in the region to support HCT are addressed. The section presents relevant 

information by describing various transit‐oriented “models” for HCT corridors and station areas. 

The project team believes that these models include elements relevant to development of HCT in 

Tucson. Another advantage of the models is that they are either based on existing development or 

are currently being used to guide TOD and planning. This section also overviews existing city 

and town codes from the perspective of HCT‐supportive land use and development and provides 

information on financing of TOD. 

Section 9.0 answers the following questions: 

• What land use planning activities need to occur to support HCT? 

• What have other regions done to encourage land use that supports HCT? 

• How HCT‐supportive are the plans and codes of cities and towns in the region? 

Examples of transit‐supportive land use planning and development are contained in Figure 66 

through Figure 72. 

SOURCE: http://www.gonctd.com/pdf_dep_development/carlsbadppt.pdf 

Figure 66 

3rd Street Promenade (Santa Monica, CA) 

179



SOURCE: Elizabeth Moule and Stefanos Polyzoides through http://www.cnu.org 

Figure 67 

Del Mar Station TOD (Pasadena, CA) 

SOURCE: www.beavertonround.com 

Figure 68 

The Round at Beaverton Central TOD (outside Portland, OR) 

180



Figure 69 

Portland Streetcar Station at Portland State University 

SOURCE: Reconnecting America/CTOD 

Figure 70 

LRT Station TOD (Charlotte) 

181



SOURCE: Reconnecting America/CTOD 

Figure 71 

Streetcar Station TOD (Dallas) 

Before 

After 

SOURCE: www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org and siteresources.worldbank.org 

Figure 72 

Fan Pier TOD Before and After along Silver Line BRT (Boston) 

182



9.2 TRANSIT-ORIENTED CORRIDOR AND STATION 

MODELS 

9.2.1 Selected HCT Station Models 

Transit-Oriented Development “Place Types” 

In Station Area Planning: How to Make Great Transit‐Oriented Places, 4 the Center for Transit‐ 

Oriented Development (CTOD) defines a hierarchy of TOD “place types.” These are: 

• Regional Center. Primary centers of activity in any region. Characterized by a dense mix of 

housing, employment, regional retail, and entertainment. Typical residential density is 75‐ 

300 units per acre, and typical employment floor area ratio (FAR) is 5.0. Served by mix of 

transit modes, including HCT. Typical peak transit frequency is less than 5 minutes. 

Examples are downtown San Francisco, Boston, and Denver. 

• Urban Center. Mix of housing, employment, retail, and entertainment. Usually slightly less 

dense than Regional Centers. Commuter hubs. Historic character preserved. Typical 

residential density is 50‐150 units per acre, and typical employment FAR is 2.5. Multiple 

transit options, including HCT. Typical peak transit frequency is 5‐15 minutes. Examples 

are downtown Baltimore, Pasadena (CA), and the Texas Medical Center in Houston. 

• Suburban Center. Mix of housing, employment, retail, and entertainment with densities 

similar to those of Urban Centers. Can be both an origin and a destination for commuters. 

Development tends to be newer than in Urban Centers. Less mix of uses than in Urban 

Centers. Typical residential density is 35‐100 units per acre, and typical employment FAR 

is 4.0. May be served by HCT. Typical peak transit frequency is 5‐15 minutes. Examples 

are Evanston (IL), Stamford (CT), and Silver Spring (MD). 

• Transit Town Center. Local‐serving centers of economic and community activity. Less mix 

of uses than in Suburban Centers. Typical residential density is 20‐75 units per acre, and 

typical employment FAR is 2.0. Variety of transit modes, including commuter service to 

regional jobs. Less secondary transit service and lower housing density than in Regional 

4 

Station Area Planning: How to Make Great Transit‐Oriented Places. Sponsored by the Federal Transit 

Administration. Reconnecting America’s Center for Transit‐Oriented Development, Oakland, CA, February 

2008. Available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/tod202. 

183



Centers, Urban Centers, and Suburban Centers. Typical peak transit frequency is 15‐30 

minutes. Examples are Winchester, MA (outside of Boston), and Hillsboro, OR (outside of 

Portland). 

• Urban Neighborhood. Primarily residential neighborhoods. Well‐connected to Regional 

Centers and Urban Centers. Moderate to high densities. Housing usually mixed with 

local‐serving retail. Commercial uses limited to small businesses and some industry. 

Typical residential density is 40‐100 units per acre, and typical employment FAR is 1.0. 

Transit may or may not be a focal point as in Regional Centers, Urban Centers, Suburban 

Centers, and Transit Town Centers. Typical peak transit frequency is 5‐15 minutes. 

Examples are Portland’s Pearl District, Greenwich Village in New York City, and 

University City in Philadelphia. 

• Transit Neighborhood. Primarily residential neighborhoods. Served by HCT at one location. 

Low to moderate densities. Economic activity not concentrated around transit stations. 

May include retail nodes but residential density often is not high enough to support much 

local‐serving retail. May offer significant development opportunities. Secondary transit 

service is less frequent and less well‐connected. Typical residential density is 20‐50 units 

per acre, and typical employment FAR is 1.0. Typical peak transit frequency is 15‐30 

minutes. Examples are Plano, TX (outside of Dallas), Barrio Logan in San Diego, and 

Ohlone‐Chynoweth, CA (outside San Jose). 

• Special Use/Employment District. Often single‐use. May be low‐ to moderate‐density 

employment centers or focused around an institution or entertainment venue. Economic 

activity not concentrated around transit stations. Development is typically more recent. 

May be significant opportunities for mixed‐use development and regional connections. 

Secondary transit service is infrequent and focused on stations. Typical residential density 

is 50‐150 units per acre, and typical employment FAR is 2.5. Typical peak transit 

frequency is 15‐30 minutes. Examples are South of Market in San Francisco, Camden 

Station in Baltimore, and Portland’s South Waterfront. 

• Mixed‐Use Corridor. Have no distinct center but are a focus of economic and community 

activity. Mix of moderate‐density uses. Housing is typically more recent along the 

corridor, with older housing just outside. Good opportunities for infill and mixed‐use 

development. Typical residential density is 25‐60 units per acre, and typical employment 

FAR is 2.0. May be developed along streetcar, BRT, or premium bus lines with closely 

spaced stops. Typical peak transit frequency is 5‐15 minutes. Examples are International 

Boulevard in Oakland, Washington Street in Boston, and University Avenue in St. Paul. 

For each of these place types, CTOD identifies retail characteristics, describes major planning and 

development challenges, and discusses the typical housing mix for new development. Target 

densities and intensities are provided for different kinds of development (included mixed‐use). 

Open spaces (e.g., Plazas and Small Parks) are discussed. A detailed TOD planning checklist is 

also provided, as are many photos of existing TODs. 

184



Transit-Oriented Development “Typology” 

CTOD presents a “typology” of TODs in The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit‐Oriented 

Development. 5 The typology consists of the follow TOD types: 

• Urban Downtown. Primary office center with urban entertainment and mix of uses. 

Minimum housing density is typically 60 units per acre. Housing types include 

multifamily and lofts. Regional connectivity is high. Typically a transportation hub. Any 

transit mode may be found. Transit frequencies typically less than 10 minutes. 

• Urban Neighborhood. Residential area with retail and commercial. Minimum housing 

density is typically 20 units per acre. Housing types include multifamily, loft, townhome, 

and single‐family. Medium access to downtown, with sub‐regional circulation. Typical 

transit modes are LRT, streetcar, rapid bus (BRT and/or express bus), and local bus. 

Transit frequencies typically 10 minutes during peak and 15 minutes during off‐peak. 

• Suburban Center. Primary office center with urban entertainment and mix of uses. 

Minimum housing density is typically 50 units per acre. Housing types include multifamily, 

loft, and townhome. High access to downtown. Sub‐regional hub. Typical transit 

modes are rail, streetcar, rapid bus, local bus, and paratransit. Transit frequencies typically 

10 minutes during peak and 10‐15 minutes during off‐peak. 

• Suburban Neighborhood. Residential area with neighborhood retail and local office. 

Minimum housing density is typically 12 units per acre. Housing types include 

multifamily, townhome, and single family. Medium access to suburban center. Access to 

downtown. Typical transit modes are LRT, rapid bus, local bus, and paratransit. Transit 

frequencies typically 20 minutes during peak and 30 minutes during off‐peak. 

• Neighborhood Transit Zone. Residential area with neighborhood retail. Minimum housing 

density is typically 7 units per acre. Housing types include townhome and single family. 

Low regional connectivity. Typical transit modes are local bus and paratransit. Transit 

frequencies typically 25‐30 minutes. 

• Commuter Town Center. Retail center with residential. Minimum housing density is 

typically 12 units per acre. Housing types include multifamily, townhome, and single 

5 

Dittmar, H., and G. Ohland, Eds. The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit‐Oriented Development. 

Sponsored by Reconnecting America’s Center for Transit‐Oriented Development. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C., 2004. Available by purchase only. 

185



family. Low regional connectivity. Typical transit modes are commuter rail and rapid bus. 

Transit typically provided during peak only. 

“Transit District” and “Transit Village” 

In Developing Around Transit: Strategies and Solutions That Work, 6 the Urban Land Institute (ULI) 

devotes a chapter to “transit district” planning. A transit district is defined as an area that extends 

at least 1/4 mile (a five‐ to 10‐minute walk) from a transit station. Accordingly, a major focus of 

the transit district is on areas beyond the immediate station area. ULI identifies the following 

elements of transit district planning: 

• The arrangement of land uses (mix and density) concentrates activity near transit. 

• The arrangement of land uses both generates ridership and supports transit users. 

• The design and mix of uses within walking distance of stations must promote walking. 

• The design and mix of uses within cycling distance of stations must promote cycling. 

ULI references Peter Calthorpe’s “transit village” concept, which reflects the following principles: 

• Growth should be compact and transit‐supportive. 

• Commercial, residential, employment, open space, and civic uses should be placed within 

walking distance of transit stops. 

• Street networks should be pedestrian‐friendly and connect local destinations. 

• A mix of housing types and densities should be provided. 

• Habitats and open space should be preserved. 

• Buildings and neighborhoods should be oriented to public spaces. 

• Infill and redevelopment along transit corridors should be encouraged. 

6 

Dunphy, R.T., R. Cervero, F.C. Dock, M. McAvey, D.R. Porter, and C. J. Swenson. Developing Around 

Transit: Strategies and Solutions That Work. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 2004. Available by 

purchase only. 

186



Figure 73, developed by the City of Austin, 7 illustrates Calthorpe’s transit village concept by 

comparing a preferred development form to a discouraged development form. 

SOURCE: City of Austin 

Figure 73 

Transit Village Concept 

7 

Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) Guidebook. City of Austin Neighborhood Planning and Zoning 

Department, Austin, TX, April 2006. Available at 

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/planning/tod/tod_documents.htm. 

187



“Transit Station Communities” 

“Transit station communities” is the Puget Sound Regional Council’s term for development 

around transit that combines walkability with livability. 8 Walkability focuses on convenient walk 

access to and from transit service, while livability focuses on providing a variety of job, housing, 

and recreation opportunities. The principles behind a transit station community are as follows: 

• Compact, mixed‐use development 

• Site and design the station to maximize development opportunities. 

• Establish a compact mix of land uses within a defined station area. 

• Establish a range of complementary land uses within the station area. 

• Concentrate commercial retail close to the station facility. 

• Establish an employment base close to the station facility. 

• Promote residential development opportunities near transit facilities. 

• Encourage infill and/or redevelopment of under‐developed land. 

• Encourage the mix of uses both within buildings and on adjacent sites. 

• Encourage pedestrian‐oriented land uses in the station area. 

• Locate public buildings within the station area. 

• Establish adequate park space in a station area. 

• Consider the importance of land uses outside of the defined station area. 

• Protect and preserve important natural features. 

• Protect and preserve historic character. 

• Pedestrian‐friendly design 

• Identify and enhance “pedestrian streets” within the station area. 

• Design street right‐of‐way for pedestrian travel. 

• Establish continuous and uninterrupted walking routes. 

• Ensure safe, convenient, and frequent street crossings. 

• Design intersections that balance pedestrian and auto movements. 

• Locate building entrances close to public walkways. 

8 

http://www.psrc.org/projects/tod/index.htm 

188



• Orient commercial establishments based on their different needs. 

• Design parking areas for pedestrian movement. 

• Establish a coordinated system of bikeways. 

• Provide attractive, safe, and convenient transit stops. 

• Provide pedestrian amenities within the station area. 

• Parking and access management 

• Carefully control the total supply of parking. 

• Use parking charges to control demand for parking. 

• Keep the size of surface lots small. 

• Design and plan surface lots to convert to other uses over time. 

• Encourage the development of parking structures. 

• Encourage development on street‐side edges of parking structures. 

• Carefully plan and design park‐and‐ride lots. 

• Locate parking lots behind buildings or in the interior of a block. 

• Design parking lots and garages with pedestrians in mind. 

• Provide adequate bicycle parking. 

• Encourage joint use of parking spaces. 

• Support the creation of public community parking lots. 

• Provide on‐street parking on pedestrian streets. 

• Ensure convenient access for transit vehicles. 

“Transit-Oriented Development” vs. “Transit-Ready Development” 

The Charlottesville‐Albemarle (Virginia) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) contrasts 

TOD and “transit‐ready development” to distinguish areas that already have premium transit 

from those that will have it in the future. 

The MPO’s definition of a TOD is: 

“...a mixed‐use residential and commercial area focused around a major transit station. It is 

designed to maximize access by transit, walking, and bicycling. A TOD has a center with a 

bus or rail station surrounded by relatively high‐density development for a few blocks 

around each station or along the route. 

“...As part of a coordinated land use and transportation program, a TOD encourages transit 

ridership. But, in addition to shifting car trips to transit, a TOD increases accessibility and 

transportation options by mixing residential and commercial buildings, reduces the need for 

automobile use and excessive parking lots, encourages walking and cycling (both for single 

trips and as part of a transit trip), and allows some households to reduce their car 

ownership by providing real options for getting around.” 

189



The MPO’s definition of a “transit‐ready development” is: 

“While transit‐oriented development is built around existing transit stations, transit‐ready 

development prepares for future transit expansion with neighborhoods and road networks 

designed for maximum efficiency of all transportation modes. Elements of transit‐ready 

communities include a mix of land uses, pedestrian‐friendly layout with sidewalks buffered 

from traffic by planting strips with street trees, appropriate locations and routes for transit 

(either incorporated into current development or factored into future plans), an ʺurbanʺ 

street grid (providing plenty of connections instead of cul‐de‐sacs), public facilities designed 

as transit targets, and appropriate housing densities to support transit. 

“Working with area transit providers, transit‐ready developers could also help subsidize 

peak‐hour commuter express buses in the early years in order to provide a competitive 

market advantage and allow families to reduce the number of cars required.” 

Additional, detailed information about transit‐ready development is available in Capital Metro’s 

Transit‐Ready Development Guide. 9 

9.2.2 Selected Transit Corridor Models 

“Main Streets” 

There are multiple uses of the designation “Main Streets.” Metro (Portland, OR) 10 defines a Main 

Street as an area type that provides neighborhood retail and services, sometimes offers a 

specialized market (like antiques) that draws regional trips, and is characterized by a strong 

business and civic community. The Maryland State Highway Administration’s usage is not 

accompanied by a formal definition, but the suggested definition is that a Main Street is a central 

road through a community. 11 In general the designation has primarily an economic development 

9 

Transit‐Ready Development Guide. Capital Metro, Austin, TX, 2008. Available at 

http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/downloads/Transit%20Ready%20Development%20Guide%202008.pdf. 

10 

Regional Mainstreets: An Implementation Strategy to Promote Main Street and Corridor Development. Metro, 

Portland, OR, July 1995. 

190



focus. PAG’s MainStreet Program, for example, is intended to manage the impacts of construction 

on small businesses. 

“Great Streets” 

The Great Streets Initiative 12 in Washington, D.C., is a corridor improvement program based on 

the book Great Streets by Allan Jacobs. A “Great Street” is defined by the District Department of 

Transportation (DDOT) as follows: 

“Great Streets are vital to great cities. A Great Street promotes both community and 

commerce. It is an inviting place where people want to visit, shop, walk, and enjoy. A Great 

Street supports and strengthens existing local businesses while attracting improved and 

expanded retail services. A Great Street is unique and memorable—it tells a story about its 

adjacent communities. A Great Street is safe and comfortable to walk along and provides 

many different ways of movement of accessibility—by foot, bike, bus, streetcar, subway, or 

car.” 

The guiding principles of the Great Streets Initiative are as follows: 

• Energize. Change the public and market perceptions of the corridors through streetscape 

and transportation improvements and reposition them as one of the best places to live and 

work, consequently expanding the cityʹs tax base. 

• Refresh. Transform roadways and intersections into environmentally friendly and usable 

community open spaces. 

• Move. Change the existing ʺcorridorsʺ function from major vehicular arterials into streets 

that sustain healthy pedestrian and transit based activities and consequently support the 

cityʹs air quality and transportation agendas. 

• Distinguish. Transform each corridor into a place that is memorable, compelling, and 

desirable to visit again and again. 

11 

When Main Street is a State Highway: Blending Function, Beauty, and Identity: A Handbook for Communities 

and Designers. Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration, Annapolis, MD, 

2001. 

12 

www.greatstreetsdc.com 

191



• Care. Reposition the street as a vital neighborhood asset, and thus increase the 

communityʹs stake in its design, upkeep, and stewardship. 

The Great Streets Initiative includes several performance measures tied to the above principles. 

“Complete Streets” 

Complete Streets 13 is a movement that emphasizes use of streets by multiple transportation 

modes and types of travelers. Members of the Complete Streets coalition’s steering committee 

include the American Planning Association, the American Public Transportation Association, the 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the National Center for Bicycling and Walking. The 

definition of “complete streets” is as follows: 

“Complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, 

bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move 

along and across a complete street. 

“Creating complete streets means transportation agencies must change their orientation 

toward building primarily for cars. Instituting a complete streets policy ensures that 

transportation agencies routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe 

access for all users. Places with complete streets policies are making sure that their streets 

and roads work for drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists, as well as for older 

people, children, and people with disabilities. 

“Since each complete street is unique, it is impossible to give a single description. But 

ingredients that may be found on a complete street include sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide 

paved shoulders), special bus lanes, comfortable and accessible transit stops, frequent 

crossing opportunities, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, and 

more. A complete street in a rural area will look quite different from a complete street in a 

highly urban area. But both are designed to balance safety and convenience for everyone 

using the road.” 

13 

www.completestreets.org 

192



“World Class Streets” 

World Class Streets: Remaking New York’s Public Realm 14 is a 2008 report by the New York City 

Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) that outlines a strategy for improving and managing 

public places (including streets and plazas) in the city. The vision behind the World Class Streets 

initiative is to create streets that are “world class” on the scale of the Champs‐Élysées in Paris. 

The World Class Street strategies take inspiration globally and include the following: 

• A plaza program 

• World‐class boulevards 

• Complete streets projects and design standards 

• A public art program 

• Use of new streetscape materials 

• A coordinated street furniture program 

• Weekend pedestrian and cycling streets 

Features of the city that enable NYCDOT’s vision to be achieved consist of high densities, a welldeveloped 

public transportation network, high volumes of pedestrians, and a street grid that is 

efficient and includes streets with space to accommodate many different users. 

9.2.3 Summary of Station and Corridor Models 

What is evident in reviewing the above descriptions of transit corridor and station models are the 

commonalities. The common elements of the models are: 

• Recognition of a variety of station types and station environments (often presented as a 

hierarchy) 

• Walkability and pedestrian focus 

• Mix of uses 

• Densities and intensities that encourage transit ridership 

• Management of parking and access to promote alternative mode use 

14 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/World_Class_Streets_Gehl_08.pdf 

193



The models also recognize that TOD and transit‐oriented planning are tied to livability, economic 

development, and community pride. These concepts can be expressed through investments in 

sustainability (such as solar‐powered bus stop lighting), public art, landscaping, and 

streetscaping. 

9.3 REVIEW OF PLANS AND CODES IN THE 

REGION 

The following sections summarize a high‐level review of general plans, land development codes, 

and other planning documents to identify elements that support HCT. Areas for potential HCTsupportive 

amendments to these documents are also suggested. Detailed review comments can 

be found in Appendix B. 

9.3.1 Summary of Plan and Code Review 

Local governments in the region are HCT‐ and TOD‐supportive to a varying degree. Specific HCT 

modes are not identified, but characteristics of HCT‐ and TOD‐supportive development (such as 

mix of uses and increased densities and intensities) are identified. 

The project team believes that there is a need for a regional HCT station classification scheme to 

ensure consistent HCT “branding” and equitable investment system‐wide while allowing 

individual HCT stations to be compatible with city and town goals, constraints, and identity. 

Section 9.2.1 provided examples of station classification schemes that have been developed 

elsewhere and could serve as models for the Tucson region. Some of these models accounted for 

typical densities and intensities, market area or scale, amount of transit service provided, and 

regional connectivity. Some evoked a sense of place by describing TODs as “districts,” “villages,” 

or “communities.” A simple regional HCT station classification scheme that accounts for both 

facets is as follows: 

• Downtown TOD District. An example is downtown Tucson. HCT stations may be closely 

spaced in the Downtown TOD District, so more than one HCT station area may be 

included. Densities, intensities, and building heights are the highest in the region. HCT 

stations can include a wide‐range of amenities and may be the largest in the system. One 

of the HCT stations in a given district may be a transit center. 

• Urban TOD District. Examples are 6th Avenue South at the VA Hospital and Broadway 

Boulevard at El Con Mall. The HCT station may be tied to a transit center or park‐and‐ride 

lot. Densities, intensities, and building heights could be as high as those in portions of the 

Downtown TOD District. 

• Suburban TOD District. Examples are Broadway Boulevard/Houghton Road and Oracle 

Road/Tangerine Road. The HCT station may be tied to a transit center and/or park‐andride 

lot. 

194



• Special Use TOD District. An example is UA. This category of HCT station is for unique 

generators with unique characteristics. 

These classifications should be sensitive to HCT mode. On one end of the spectrum, CRT stations 

are widely spaced and likely to include significant parking areas, so CRT station areas may be 

relatively large. On the other end of the spectrum, streetcar stations are closely spaced and likely 

to experience significant walk access, so station areas may be relatively small. Recommended 

HCT station area sizes are a 1/2‐mile radius for CRT and LRT, a 1/4‐mile radius for BRT, and a 

1/8‐mile radius for streetcar. 

The above classifications are not land use designations or zoning designations. Each city and town can 

add one or more new land use or zoning designations to support the regional HCT station 

classification scheme. Specific densities, intensities, design requirements, and neighborhood 

buffer requirements can be specified in the general plan and/or land use code. 

Earlier discussion in Section 9.2 suggests that cities and towns have several options for 

implementing land use and/or zoning designations associated with the regional HCT station 

classification scheme. These options include the following: 

• Applying existing or amended land use and zoning designations inside HCT station areas 

• Developing one or more new land use designations expressly for TODs 

• Developing one or more new zoning designations or overlays expressly for TODs 

• Developing one or more land use designations for mixed‐use developments and applying 

the designations inside HCT station areas 

• Developing one or more zoning designations or overlays for mixed‐use developments and 

applying the designations inside HCT station areas 

• Various combinations of the above options 

As stated earlier, the benefit of implementing a TOD‐specific land use or zoning designation and a 

mixed‐use land use or zoning designation is the ability to clearly distinguish sites that are within 

walking distance of HCT stations from those that are not. A site within walking distance of an 

HCT station (and thus receiving the TOD‐specific designation) may receive additional incentives 

or take advantage of a mode split reduction when traffic impact studies are prepared, transit 

infrastructure is provided, transportation demand management (TDM) programs are 

implemented, and so forth. 

Other observations about local cities’ and towns’ plans and codes are as follows: 

• The conflict between increasing building heights (i.e., increasing densities and intensities) 

and preserving scenic views is a consideration for all of the reviewed cities and towns. 

While higher densities and intensities around HCT corridors is important for generating 

HCT ridership and successful TODs, managing design elements such as massing (see the 

“stepped back” building floors shown in Figure 74) and parking supply and configuration 

may result in TOD that is sensitive to preserving scenic views. 

195



• Cost estimates for HCT stations include the basic station components (e.g., the shelter 

structure and real‐time passenger information displays). It would be up to local 

governments to select public art or otherwise tailor the stations to reflect the local 

community. This could present an opportunity for local governments to enhance 

community aesthetics, develop TODs, explore solar power applications, or explore 

activities that support local goals. 

• The positive environmental benefits of increased transit use via TOD and HCT can be 

enhanced by tying TOD to green building initiatives 

• An appropriate perspective to take for long‐term HCT projects is that of implementing 

“transit‐ready development.” 

Figure 74 

Building with Upper Floors “Stepped Back” from the Street (Tucson) 

9.4 HCT DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 

In addition to zoning and development codes, several methods of encouraging TOD from a 

financial perspective may be applied. These methods have been used in other jurisdictions and 

the project team believes that they may be effective in Tucson as well. However, it should be 

noted that, if such a measures were implemented, a detailed analysis on the impact to HCT 

196



capital and operating funding would be required as property taxes are considered as a possible 

revenue source. 

Tax incentive zones for transit may be formed where a permanent reduction in property tax rates 

would be applied to mixed‐use developments in HCT corridors or around transit stations. This 

could result in a greater number of people having immediate access to HCT facilities and thus an 

increase in ridership. 

Tax abatements could be applied to mixed‐use developments in HCT corridors or around 

transition stations. These could be structured to eliminate property taxes in these areas for a 

period of time; or could be structured to have reduced property taxes initially with a return to full 

property tax rates being applied gradually over a period of time. It should be noted that if such a 

measure were implemented, a detailed analysis on the impact to HCT capital and operating 

funding would be required as property taxes are considered as a revenue source. 

Figure 75 illustrates components of one transit agency’s TOD assistance program. 

197



TOD Infrastructure & Housing Support Program 

The TOD Infrastructure and Housing Support Program—or TOD Bond Program—will provide financial assistance 

for pedestrian improvements, bicycle facilities, housing projects, and parking facilities within 1/4 mile of transit 

stations. Specific features of this program include: 

• Multi-year funding to finance pedestrian improvements, bicycle facilities, housing projects, and parking 

facilities in mixed use developments located within 1/4 mile of a transit station. 

• At least 25% of the units in housing projects must be affordable to households earning up to 80% of the 

area median income. 

• Priority will be given to projects that are part of, or proximate to, an existing or proposed high quality TOD. 

Commercial Area Transit Node Housing Program 

• Will provide $10M over 5 years to finance housing in commercial areas within 1/4 mile of transit. 

• At least 51% of the housing units must be affordable @ 80% of the area median income. 

Chapter 40R: Smart Growth Incentive Zoning 

Will provide direct payments to municipalities that adopt smart growth overlay zoning districts in downtowns, 

commercial centers, and around transit stations and issue building permits in these areas to create new 

opportunities for housing. Chapter 40R [state legislation] essentially provides an incentive for rezoning around 

transit stations for higher densities, mixed use, reduced parking, and other changes to facilitate TOD. 

SOURCE: www.mbta.com 

Figure 75 

Priority Development Fund 

MassHousing, the state's affordable housing bank, lends money at rates below the conventional market to support 

housing opportunities for low-and moderate-income residents of the Commonwealth. Recently, MassHousing has 

established two important funds to help spur transit-oriented development: 

• Financing for Affordable Rental Housing: Funded by MassHousing and administered by the Department of 

Housing and Community Development (DHCD), this program has earmarked $22 million to fund the 

development of new affordable rental housing located near transit stations. 

• Planning Assistance for Housing Production: Also funded by MassHousing and administered by the DHCD, 

this program provides grants of up to $50,000 per project for financial assistance for planning, education, 

outreach, financial feasibility analyses and other planning activities related to increasing housing production 

through planning and zoning changes. 

• MassHousing is also working with the MBTA to provide construction and permanent financing for housing 

development on MBTA-owned or controlled sites. 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority TOD Financing Programs (Boston) 


LAND USE PLANNING 



198



• Many sources of information about HCT‐supportive land use planning exist and are 

available to local governments in the Tucson region. Some of these sources are referenced 

in this report. 

• The general plans, land use codes, and development standards of the cities and towns 

affected by HCT include HCT‐ and TOD‐supportive components, but opportunities exist 

to refine and target the components and requirements. One such opportunity is 

development of a regional HCT station classification scheme. 



• The local governments in the region should consider revising their general plans, land use 

codes, and design standards to add or enhance HCT‐ and TOD‐supportive components as 

described in Section 9.2. To maximize FTA project ratings, the region must have transitsupportive 

land use policies and, ideally, land use patterns in place at the time an 

application for federal funding is submitted. The most urgent need for revisions is in the 

Broadway Boulevard and 6th Avenue/Nogales Highway corridors, where HCT may be 

implemented in the near term. 

• The region should develop an HCT station classification scheme as discussed in Section 

9.2.1. Station‐area overlay zoning tied to the station classifications is a means of locally 

implementing HCT‐ and TOD‐supportive densities, intensities, and design standards and 

ensuring that new developments near potential HCT stations are “HCT‐ready” to the 

extent possible. The classification scheme suggested in Section 9.2.1 is simple enough to be 

used as a starting point. Regional coordination will be needed to determine which 

classifications are appropriate for specific HCT station areas, and regional cooperation will 

be needed to ensure that station areas are “HCT‐ready.” 

199



10.0 NEXT STEPS 

Recommended next steps for the Tucson region are as follows: 

• The near term projects identified in Table 34 should be added to the RTP as part of the 

2009 RTP update. 

• PAG should incorporate the recommended HCT monitoring process into the RTP update 

process beginning with the next update of the RTP. Monitoring could begin the year 

before the update is drafted so that HCT projects can be incorporated into the updated 

RTP. 

• Local governments in the region should form a task force to develop a regional HCT 

classification scheme. 

• Local governments in the region should review general plans, land use codes, and design 

standards to add or enhance HCT‐ and TOD‐supportive components. Affected 

components include future land use designations, zoning designations, and funding 

sources. 

• Move forward with near‐term Broadway Boulevard BRT development as the first HCT 

route. 

• Identify an agency or local government to take the lead in implementation. 

• Establish coordination with FTA Region IX staff. 

• Begin the process of conducting an Alternatives Analysis. 

• Begin the process of including the project in the RTP. 

• Begin lining up the local match for Very Small Starts. 

200

APPENDIX A: 

Steps in HCT 


Monitoring Process


Appendix A 

Steps in HCT Implementation Monitoring Process 

The following tables are referenced in Section 8.2 and are based on the transit quality of service 

(QOS) framework recommended in the second edition of the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service 

Manual (TCQSM). The tables provide QOS thresholds that serve as triggers for potential 

investment in HCT or features associated with HCT. The project team notes that the term ʺquality of 

serviceʺ in the tables is intended to represent the rider perspective rather than the transit agency 

perspective, so the use of letter grades from A to F connotes what is ʺacceptableʺ and 

ʺunacceptableʺ to a rider but not necessarily what is an appropriate public investment given 

available funding, regional priorities, and Title VI concerns. Part 3 of the TCQSM provides more 

detail about the data and assumptions upon which the tables are based. 

Step 1: Scale of Application 

The proposed monitoring process applies to one‐way travel from one end of each potential HCT 

corridor to the other. Evaluation should occur on a regular basis as budget permits or more 

frequently in response to agency or public interest in a particular corridor. Each QOS measure in 

the flowchart should be evaluated. 

Step 2: Transit-Auto Travel Time QOS 

Table A‐1 provides information to assess how competitive transit travel time is with respect to 

auto travel time by associating QOS thresholds with the difference between transit and auto 

travel times for a given trip (i.e., a one‐way trip along the length of a potential HCT corridor). If 

transit service is not competitive with auto travel in terms of travel time, transit service may not 

be seen as a desired option. Transit travel times can be taken from schedules and should include 

walk access time to and from transit. Auto travel times can be based on travel time runs, which 

are currently part of PAG’s regional traffic monitoring program, and should also include walk 

access time to and from parking. The TCQSM uses a default walk access time of three minutes for 

both transit and auto travel. Travel times can reflect a peak period and/or the off‐peak period, and 

it may be appropriate to establish a different QOS standard for each period. 

A-1


Appendix A 

QOS 

Travel Time Difference 

(minutes)* 

Table A-1 Transit-Auto Travel Time QOS 

Comments 

A 60 Unacceptable to most riders 

*Should be considered in the context of overall travel time 

Transit service speed can be increased by investments in transit preferential treatments, dedicated 

lanes, operation in exclusive right‐of‐way, increased stop spacing, and reduced dwell times—all 

of which are associated with HCT. 

QOS D is the project team’s recommended Transit‐Auto Travel Time QOS standard for determining if 

investments in HCT features, an HCT mode, or an upgraded HCT mode should be studied. If Transit‐ 

Auto Travel Time QOS is D or worse according to Table A‐1, investment in HCT or HCT features 

is desired. If Transit‐Auto Travel Time QOS is C, investment in HCT or HCT features may be 

desired, depending on the length of the route and other features of existing transit service that 

impact ridership (e.g., number of transfers and stop/station amenities). If Transit‐Auto Travel 

Time QOS is A or B, no investment in HCT or HCT features is needed. 

Step 3: Reliability QOS 

Table A‐2 and Table A‐3 are two measures of Reliability QOS. Reliability reflects the 

predictability or regularity of transit vehicle arrivals at a transit stop. Poor reliability can be an 

indicator of congestion delays, traffic signal delays, variations in boarding volumes, and/or 

variations in fare collection times. If a transit service’s reliability is poor, riders may choose not to 

use transit. On‐Time Performance QOS is appropriate for services with headways greater than 10 

minutes (like express bus) because riders typically plan their arrival at the stop to coincide with 

the printed schedule. Headway Adherence QOS is appropriate for services with headways less 

than or equal to 10 minutes (like HCT) because riders tend to arrive randomly, knowing that the 

next bus will be along shortly. 

A-2


Appendix A 

Table A-2 On-Time Performance QOS 

QOS On-Time Percentage Comments* 

A 95.0-100.0% No more than 1 late transit vehicle every 2 weeks 

B 90.0-94.9% 1 late transit vehicle every week 

C 85.0-89.9% 3 late transit vehicles every 2 weeks 

D 80.0-84.9% 2 late transit vehicles every week 

E 75.0-79.9% 1 late transit vehicle every day 

F 0.75 Most vehicles bunched 

NOTE: This table differs from the corresponding table in the TCQSM. 

On‐Time Performance QOS reflects predictability: whether or not vehicles arrive at the scheduled 

time or within an acceptable window of time around the scheduled time (e.g., no more than five 

minutes after the scheduled time). On‐Time Performance QOS is calculated as the percentage of 

arrivals that are “on time” within a certain span of time. The TCQSM suggests that the span is a 

minimum of 20 observations at a given stop. On‐time performance data can be obtained using 

automatic vehicle location (AVL) data or by manual ride‐checks. 

Headway Adherence QOS reflects the coefficient of variation of headways. The coefficient of 

variation of headways represents the regularity of headways. It is calculated as follows: 

coefficient of variation 

of headways 

= 

standard deviation of headway deviations 

average scheduled headway 

In the above equation, headway deviation is the difference between the scheduled headway and 

the actual headway. 

A-3


Appendix A 

Transit reliability can be increased by investments in TSP, queue jump lanes, bypass lanes, 

dedicated lanes, operation in exclusive right‐of‐way, advanced on‐board fare collection 

technology, and off‐board fare collection because such improvements can reduce congestion and 

variability in travel times. Such investments may be associated with HCT. 

QOS D is the project team’s recommended Reliability QOS standard for determining if investments in 

HCT features, an HCT mode, or an upgraded HCT mode should be studied. If either Reliability QOS 

measure is QOS D or worse, investment in HCT or HCT features is desired. If either Reliability 

QOS measure is QOS C, investment in HCT or HCT features may be desired, depending on other 

features of existing transit service that impact ridership (e.g., number of transfers and stop/station 

amenities). If either Reliability QOS measure is QOS A or B, no investment in HCT or HCT 

features is needed. 

Step 4: Passenger Load QOS 

Table A‐4 provides information to assess how crowded buses are and if additional buses are 

needed in the corridor. Crowded buses may result from poor reliability, so Passenger Load QOS 

should be evaluated in tandem with Reliability QOS. Passenger Load QOS is based on the 

average load factor during a peak period or the off‐peak period. Load factor is calculated as 

follows: 

load factor = 

number of passengers on board 

vehicle seating capacity + vehicle standing capacity 

Standing capacity may differ by the type of service under evaluation. Commuter services like 

express bus, for example, typically operate over longer distances and at higher speeds, so rider 

safety may dictate that all riders should have a seat. As a result, the standing capacity in the 

equation above may be very low—even zero. A streetcar circulator, on the other hand, serves 

shorter trips, so a significant number of standing passengers may be acceptable. The number of 

passengers on board can be determined through ride‐checks or by using APC’s. 

Table A-4 Passenger Load QOS 

QOS Load Factor Comments 

A 0.00-0.50 No passenger need sit next to another 

B 0.51-0.75 Passengers can choose where to sit 

C 0.76-1.00 All passengers can sit 

D 1.01-1.25 Comfortable standee load for design 

E 1.26-1.50 Maximum schedule load 

F >1.50 Crush load 

NOTE: This table differs from the corresponding table in the TCQSM. 

QOS E is the project team’s recommended peak period Reliability QOS standard for determining if 

investments in HCT features, an HCT mode, or an upgraded HCT mode should be studied. The project 

team recommends QOS D for off‐peak periods. If the peak period Passenger Load QOS is QOS E, then 

planning for improvements to ease bus crowding may be warranted. These improvements may 

A-4


Appendix A 

be larger buses, increased frequency, or, if increased frequency cannot be achieved because there 

is too much congestion to maintain reliable service, transit preferential treatments, dedicated 

lanes, or exclusive transit right‐of‐way. Larger buses, short headways, transit preferential 

treatments, dedicated lanes, and exclusive transit right‐of‐way can all be associated with HCT. 

Step 5: HCT-Supportive Densities QOS 

Section 4.5 includes a series of figures that show where population and employment densities 

meet HCT‐supportive thresholds. Table A‐5 below summarizes the HCT‐supportive thresholds 

used to produce the series of figures. When the RTP is updated, the land uses shown in Tucsonarea 

governments’ General Plans can be compared against the HCT‐supportive densities in Table 

A‐5 to determine if HCT‐supportive densities are being planned within walking distance of the 

potential HCT corridors (or within a park‐and‐ride “catchment area” associated with the 

potential HCT corridors). If HCT‐supportive densities are planned, implementation of HCT or 

HCT features in the corridors may be warranted. 

HCT Service 

Table A-5 Development Density Thresholds for HCT 

Minimum 

Residential Density 

(households/gross acre) 

Minimum 

E mployment Density 

(jobs/ gross acre) 

Comments 

Express bus 2.0 50.5 for 2 square mile tributary area 

Bus rapid transit 4.0 67.2 for corridor of 100-150 square miles 

Light rail transit/ 

streetcar 

6.0 84.0 for corridor of 25-100 square miles 

Commuter rail 1.3 N/A for 20 square mile tributary area 

SOURCES: Pushkarev and Zupan (1987) and Developing Around Transit (Urban Land Institute, 2004) 

0 translates the information in Table A‐5 to HCT‐Supportive Densities QOS thresholds. 0 should 

be applied for each HCT mode under consideration in a given corridor (i.e., HCT modes that are 

upgrades of existing transit service). The degree to which the corridor meets a given HCTsupportive 

density threshold is calculated as follows: 

% of corridor meeting HCTsupportive 

threshold 

= 

HCT‐supportive area within walking 

distance of corridor 

total area within walking distance of 

corridor 

A-5


Appendix A 

Table A-6 HCT-Supportive Densities QOS 

QOS 

% of Corridor Meeting 

HCT-Supportive 

Comments 

Threshold 

A

APPENDIX B: 

Review of General Plans 

and Codes


Appendix B 


General Plan 

The adopted version of the City of Tucson’s General Plan is dated 2001 and is currently 

undergoing an update that is anticipated to conclude in 2011. Review of the General Plan in this 

section focuses on the 2001 version of the General Plan. Relevant General Plan elements reviewed 

are the Land Use element, the Circulation element, and the Community Character and Design 

element. 

Table B-1 City of Tucson General Plan Review 

HCT-Supportive Component 

Do the purposes, goals, and 

objectives of the General Plan 

place importance on the use of 

alternative transportation modes? 

Are HCT modes in particular a part 

of the local government’s vision? 



place importance on TOD? 

Are there any purposes and goals 

that conflict with HCT and TOD? 

Are there HCT-supportive land use 

designations? 

Are densities, intensities, and land 

use mix requirements under 

existing mixed-use land use 

designations HCT-supportive? 

Can HCT-supportive land use 

designations be applied in the HCT 

corridors? 

Is housing mix addressed in the 

General Plan? 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Maybe 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Comments 

“Development and redevelopment should ... promote more efficient 

use of land and public infrastructure, reduce automobile dependence, 

[and] better support alternative modes of transportation....” Land Use 

Sub-Policy 3.8 indicates that pedestrian-oriented development and 

TOD should be located along major streets and in or adjacent to 

centers and nodes. Land Use Policy 4 indicates that development in 

future growth areas should be transit-supportive and have maximal 

multimodal connectivity. 

Express bus, BRT, streetcar, LRT, and commuter rail are not 

specifically identified, but a “regional circulation system” is mentioned. 

According to the Land Use Vision, mixed-use activity centers are “ the 

centerpiece for the land use vision in the urbanized area.” “Greater 

integration of land uses will be encouraged in the urbanized area.” 

Land Use Policy 5 states that “proposed commercial and office 

development will be evaluated with regard to ... the potential for 

pedestrian- and transit-oriented development....” TOD is linked to 

livability and sustainability. Policies such as Land Use Policy 8 identify 

potential redevelopment sites. 

Neighborhood preservation is an important goal of the Land Use 

element; it is the “critical residential land use theme.” Neighborhood 

preservation efforts may limit the ability to achieve an HCT-supportive 

land use mix, for example, in a given neighborhood. 

HCT-supportive residential designations are primarily Mid-Urban 

Character and Urban Character. HCT-supportive nonresidential 

designations include Mixed Use Character, Activity Centers, Existing 

Master Planned Communities, and several master planning 

designations. (The residential land use designations allow nonresidential 

uses to a varying degree.) “Grouping commercial uses in 

nodes or mixed-use activity centers” is an important nonresidential 

theme. Land Use Sub-Policy 5.10 suggests zoning overlay districts for 

TOD and mixed-use projects. 

These are found in the Land Use Code. Densities are specified in the 

General Plan only for residential land use designations. The densest, 

Urban Character, allows a minimum of 15 units/acre. 

Mid-Urban Character and Urban Character residential development 

should be located along arterials and/or adjacent to activity centers 

per Land Use Policy 3. Mixed-use development should be located 

along or at intersections of major streets or adjacent to 

commercial/employment centers per Land Use Policy 3. 

Land Use Policy 2 encourages a mix of housing types. 

B-1


Appendix B 


Does the General Plan identify infill 

and redevelopment as methods for 

increasing densities and improving 

land use patterns? 

Is coordination with other regional 

governments and agencies on HCT 

and TOD matters a part of the 

General Plan? 

Yes 

Yes 

Comments 

“New growth will be accommodated primarily through compatible infill, 

higher density activity centers, and redevelopment corridors rather 

than peripheral sprawl.” The General Plan acknowledges that, “In 

many cases, the opportunities for higher-density infill will be limited to 

large vacant or underdeveloped sites on major arterials or adjacent to 

activity centers.” Land Use Sub-Policy 3.6 discusses redevelopment 

of underutilized areas. Future growth areas are addressed in Land 

Use Policy 4. 

The introduction to the Land Use Element acknowledges the 1989 

Tucson Vision document and a “regional effort to encourage growth in 

appropriate areas.” Land Use Policy 9 addresses regional 

coordination. 

Observations and suggested amendments to the General Plan to enhance support for HCT are as 

follows: 

• Overall, the Tucson General Plan is supportive of HCT and TOD. It acknowledges the 

value of activity center−focused development and other land use attributes that are 

characteristic of TOD. 

• The Vision in the Land Use element states that industries will be encouraged to locate near 

major transportation corridors such as the interstates and the Southern Pacific Railroad. 

Proximity to regional transportation is a very desirable characteristic of industrial sites 

but, because these corridors are potential HCT corridors, the City could add clarifying 

language to address how TOD can be provided in a manner that is compatible with 

industrial development (e.g., by requiring buffers). 

• Land Use Sub‐Policy 2.4 states that the City will “investigate ways to apply density 

bonuses and other development incentives for residential development or redevelopment 

projects that preserve significant cultural or natural features and provide enhanced open 

space areas.” Land Use Sub‐Policy 6.13 mentions incentives for development in or near 

existing activity centers. Bonuses and incentives (which may include increased building 

heights and reduced parking requirements) could also be allowed for projects that are 

HCT‐supportive. Criteria for receiving the HCT‐supportive development density bonus 

may include one or more of the following (some of which are stated in Land Use Sub‐ 

Policy 6.13 for Activity Centers): 

• Location of project within ¼‐ mile of an HCT station 

• Both residential and non‐residential uses provided on the site 

• A mix of housing types and prices provided on the site 

• Minimum residential density of X units per acre achieved and/or minimum job 

density of Y per acre achieved (densities per Appendix A) 

• Provision of multimodal infrastructure (e.g., pedestrian connections to HCT stations) 

• The C ity could add a new land use designation to the Land Use element, perhaps called 

“TO D District.” The new land use designation could be tiered to reflect different HCT 

station environments. These tiers should be coordinated on a regional level with other local 

B-2


Appendix B 

governments. Specific densities, intensities, design requirements, and neighborhood buffer 

requirements can be specified in the General Plan or in the Land Use Code. 

• As an alternative to creating a “TOD District” designation, the Mixed Use Character, 

Activity Centers, Mid‐Urban Character, and Urban Character land use designations 

could be applied to (or required in) HCT station areas. These land use designations 

may require revisions to specify additional requirements or provide incentives for 

mix of uses, mix of housing types, minimum densities and intensities, and design 

standards. 

• Another alternative is implementing specific TOD zoning designations or overlays, 

as suggested in Land Use Sub‐Policy 5.10. 

• Care should be taken when implementing any HCT‐ or TOD‐related amendments to 

ensure that neighborhoods are protected because neighborhood preservation is an 

important goal of the Land Use element. Neighborhood preservation efforts may, for 

example, limit the City’s ability to achieve HCT‐supportive densities in a given 

neighborhood. Public involvement efforts should accompany designation of TOD Districts 

(if pursued) to ensure that neighborhoods understand the value of TOD and have an 

opportunity to contribute to implementation of TOD. 

Zoning and Development Standards 

The City of Tucson’s Zoning Code and Development Standards are in Article II of the Land Use 

Code. Parking requirements are in Article III Division 3. 

Observations and suggested amendments to the Zoning Code and Development Standards are as 

follows: 

• Division 6 of Article II is set aside for Mixed Use Zones. The mixed‐use zoning 

designations relevant to HCT are Office/Commercial/ Residential Zone 1 and 2, Planned 

Area Development Zone, and Planned Community Development District. 

• The Rio Nuevo and Downtown Zone addresses the downtown pedestrian environment, 

promotion of public‐private partnerships, and downtown revitalization. 

• Broadway Boulevard, Campbell Avenue, Valencia Road, and part of Oracle Road are 

“Gateway Arterial” roadways. The Gateway Corridor Overlay Zone addresses visual 

improvements to key corridors. The visual improvements are intended to present a 

favorable impression to visitors to the city, and they include pedestrian improvements 

along major transit routes. The visual improvements are also linked to private investment 

and buffers. Implementation of HCT can support Gateway Corridor improvements. 

B-3


Appendix B 

Table B-2 City of Tucson Zoning and Development Standards Review 


Are there TOD-specific zoning 

designations? 

Are there mixed-use zoning 

designations? 

Are densities and intensities 

specified for zoning designations? 

Are building heights specified for 

zoning designations? 

Do zoning designations promote 

use of non-auto modes, infill, 

redevelopment, mixed uses, and 

TOD? 

Do development standards 

promote use of non-auto modes, 

infill, redevelopment, mixed uses, 

and TOD? 

Do parking standards promote use 

of non-auto modes, infill, 

redevelopment, mixed uses, and 

TOD? 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Maybe 

Yes 

Comments 

The mixed-use zoning designations relevant to HCT are 

Office/Commercial/ Residential Zone 1 and 2, Planned Area 

Development Zone, and Planned Community Development District. 

Residential uses are allowed in some nonresidential zoning 

designations and vice versa. 

These are specified in the Summary of Zoning Classifications and 

Development Designators table. 

Building heights are important components of the overlay zones. 

Language for the mixed-use zoning designations locates such 

developments “in major activity centers or at transit centers” and 

requires multimodal assessments in traffic impact studies. Some of 

the overlay zones address transit and pedestrian improvements. The 

Rio Nuevo and Downtown Zone addresses the downtown pedestrian 

environment, promotion of public-private partnerships, and downtown 

revitalization. Tucson also has a downtown Infill Incentive District, 

which includes portions of some HCT corridors. 

Design criteria address walkability. 

The Purpose Statement in Article III, Division 3, states parking 

regulations are intended to “reduce excessive off-street parking by 

encouraging the shared use of vehicular use areas and the use of 

public transit.” Section 3.3.5 focuses on mixed-use parking 

requirements; mixed-use developments are allowed to share parking if 

certain conditions are met. Parking requirements can also be reduced 

under conditions such as provision of a shaded transit stop within 400 

feet of a mall entrance. 

• The Major Streets and Routes Setback Overlay Zone affects several HCT corridors. This 

overlay addresses land use from a post–roadway widening perspective. One of the 

provisions is “establishing regulations which ensure availability of land for street 

widening purposes, including alternate modes of transportation such as bicycle, 

pedestrian, and mass transit.” 

• Building heights may need to be reviewed in combination with minimum lot size and 

maximum lot coverage to ensure that densities and intensities are HCT‐supportive. 

• 

The Purpose Statement in the parking regulations states that the City’s parking 

regulations are intended to “reduce excessive off‐street parking by encouraging the shared 

use of vehicular use areas and the use of public transit.” Parking requirements can be 

reduced in mixed‐use developments or under conditions such as provision of a shaded 

transit stop within 400 feet of a mall entrance. 

• The City’s perspective appears to be one of giving developers an incentive to mix 

uses and provide multimodal infrastructure. 

• An alternate perspective is strictly limiting parking as a means of encouraging 

transit use. This is the de facto situation in many large downtowns, where limited 

parking supply and/or high parking costs encourage travelers to choose non‐auto 

modes. 

B-4


Appendix B 

• Section 3.3.7 requires off‐site parking in most locations to be provided within 600 feet of a 

development’s principal use. This is less than half the maximum walking distance to a bus 

stop (1,320 feet) assumed in the regional HCT study analyses. To promote HCT, walking 

distance to/from transit and walking distance to/from parking should be competitive for 

the same type of trips (e.g., work trips or shopping trips). Walk access time is a critical 

part of the HCT monitoring methodology described in Section 8.2.1. 

• In the Downtown Redevelopment District, parking may be 1,500 feet away. This is 

compatible with employee parking and typical walking distance to a bus stop. 

• On‐street parking can count toward required parking in some cases. 

City of South Tucson 

Comprehe nsive Plan 

The City of South Tucson’s Comprehensive Plan is dated 1999. Relevant Comprehensive Plan 

elements reviewed are the Land Use element, the Transportation element, and the Housing 

element. 

Observations and suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are as follows: 

• Overall, the City of South Tucson Comprehensive Plan is supportive of HCT and TOD. It 

acknowledges that 6th Avenue South is a key transportation corridor and is appropriate 

for denser development and mixed‐use development. 

• Several of the City’s goals could be advanced using HCT and TOD. These goals include 

providing local employment opportunities, promoting infill and redevelopment, 

improving streetscapes, creating public art opportunities, and providing opportunities for 

affordable housing. One of the Housing strategies is encouraging non‐profit agencies to 

buy and develop City‐owned land; Boston is an example of a city in which non‐profit 

agencies are involved in TOD. 

• When developed, strategies related to parking on South 6th Avenue should be reviewed 

to ensure compatibility with HCT. 

• One of the Land Use strategies encourages community groups to adopt street segments 

for upkeep. HCT stations could be similarly adopted. Benefits may include improved 

station safety and maintenance. 

B-5


Appendix B 

Table B-3 City of South Tucson General Plan Review 














designations? 







corridors? 


General Plan? 








General Plan? 

Yes 

No 

No 

Maybe 

Yes 

N/A 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Maybe 

Comments 

The General Plan’s overall purpose statement is brief and does not 

identify specific issues, but various goals and strategies identify 

potential investments in alternative modes. One of these investments 

is use of abandoned UPRR right-of-way as a park and multi-use path. 

HCT stations have been tentatively located within a few blocks of this 

site. 

Bus service is acknowledged as a significant component of the South 

Tucson transportation system. The General Plan states that “the 

majority of residential South Tucson is within two blocks of bus 

service” and “the City of South Tucson has a significant number of 

people who ride buses.” Relevant Transportation strategies include 

establishing bus, trolley, and shuttle services and improving bus stops. 

The General Plan’s purpose statement is brief and does not identify 

specific issues, but the South Tucson Five-Year Economic 

Development Strategic Plan referenced in the General Plan identifies 

mixing land uses as a strategy. 

The discussion of vacant lands in the General Plan states, “One of the 

strategies in the Economic Development Strategic Plan is to continue 

current patterns of housing...” where the current pattern is 

predominantly single-family residential. The discussion of land use 

conflicts states that such conflicts may exist where there is a change 

in development density. Both of statements suggest a potential conflict 

with HCT-supportive development. 

The Residential land use designation allows multi-family development. 

One of the Land Use objectives is adopting a mixed-use zoning 

category. This zoning will be applicable along South 6th Avenue. It will 

be characterized by a mix of commercial and residential uses and 

efforts to encourage the growth of small businesses. This zoning--and 

an equivalent land use designation--should be adopted. 

Densities and intensities are not specified in the General Plan. 

The General Plan states that infill and redevelopment are desirable 

(e.g., in one of the Land Use objectives). Specific redevelopment sites 

are identified. 

The importance of regional coordination on transportation issues is 

acknowledged. 

B-6


Appendix B 

• Major traffic generators identified in the General Plan have also been recognized in the 

HCT study. These include the VA Hospital and the rodeo grounds. 

• The South 6th Avenue streetscaping project lends itself to implementation of HCT. 


The City of South Tucson’s Zoning Code and Development Standards are in Chapter 24 of the 

City Code. 

Table B-4 City of South Tucson Zoning and Development Standards Review 



designations? 


designations? 







redevelopment, mixed uses, TOD, 

and HCT? 




TOD, and HCT? 




and HCT? 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Maybe 

Maybe 

Comments 

Some zoning designations could be considered HCT-supportive in 

terms of densities and intensities. 

Residential uses are allowed in some nonresidential zoning 

designations and vice versa, but there is no true mixed-use zoning. 

The General Plan states that mixed-use zoning should be developed. 

Densities and intensities are not specified for all zoning designations. 

Minimum lot sizes and maximum lot coverage are specified for some 

zoning designations. 

Building heights may need to be reviewed in combination with 

minimum lot size and maximum lot coverage to ensure that densities 

and intensities are HCT-supportive. 

While some zoning designations are single-use but could be 

considered HCT-supportive due to their densities/intensities, there do 

not appear to be any unique requirements or incentives that otherwise 

distinguish HCT-supportive development from conventional 

development. 

See the preceding comment. Also, current buffer requirements may 

need to be reviewed when mixed-use zoning is developed. 

Section 24-525(a) restricts parking garage construction; structured 

parking can be a component of TOD because it makes more efficient 

use of land. Section 24-615(a) does not allow shared parking; shared 

parking enables more efficient use of land. Section 24-617 states that 

off-site parking must be provided within 600 feet of a development’s 

principal use; this is half the maximum walking distance to a bus stop 

assumed in the regional HCT study. 

Observations and suggested amendments to the Zoning Code and Development Standards are as 

follows: 

• Residential uses are allowed in some nonresidential zoning designations and vice versa, 

but there is no true mixed‐use zoning (i.e., zoning that allows a mix of uses on a single 

site). The General Plan states that mixed‐use zoning should be developed. 

• Building heights may need to be reviewed in combination with minimum lot size and 

maximum lot coverage to ensure that densities and intensities are HCT‐supportive. 

• Buffer requirements and parking garage locational restrictions may need to be reviewed 

when the mixed‐use zoning designation is developed. 

• Calculation of parking requirements for mixed uses in Section 24‐615(a) does not currently 

allow shared parking. The project team recommends that parking supply requirements 

reflect opportunities to share parking because shared parking can result in more efficient 

B-7


Appendix B 

use of land, less run‐off, and opportunities to provide amenities such as landscaping 

instead of parking stalls. Parking can be shared when the parking demand generated by 

uses in the same area peaks at different times. The Urban Land Institute recently updated 

its Shared Parking handbook, which provides detailed procedures and data for 

determining shared parking supply. 

• Section 24‐617 requires off‐site parking to be provided within 600 feet of a development’s 

principal use, which is less than half the maximum walking distance to a bus stop (1,320 

feet) assumed in the regional HCT study analyses. To promote HCT ridership, walking 

distance to/from transit and walking distance to/from parking should be competitive for 

the same type of trips (e.g., work trips or shopping trips). The project team notes that walk 

access time to/from transit and parking is a critical part of the HCT monitoring 

methodology described in Section 8.2.1. 

Town of Sahuarita 

General Plan 

The Town of Sahuarita’s General Plan is dated 2003. Relevant General Plan elements reviewed are 

the Land Use element, the Circulation element, the Growth Areas element, the Public Facilities 

and Services element, the Environmental Planning element, and the Cost of Development 

element. 

Observations and suggested amendments to the General Plan are as follows: 

• Overall, the Town of Sahuarita General Plan is supportive of HCT and TOD, despite the 

Circulation element acknowledgment that non‐auto modes are not a significant part of the 

existing transportation system. The Plan’s Vision Statement acknowledges many potential 

outcomes of HCT and TOD, including positive environmental benefits, economic 

development, and increased mobility choices. 

• Increasing live/work unit opportunities as stated in Policy LU‐5.2.2 is a good strategy 

town‐wide for mixing uses and reducing traffic congestion. While live/work units may 

eliminate potential transit trips, they are more likely to eliminate auto trips. Live/work 

units can be part of TOD. 

• The Cost of Development Element describes a unique Town funding source in the 3% 

construction sales tax. 

• 

Several of the City’s goals could be advanced using HCT and TOD. These goals include 

revitalization and VMT reduction. 

• Policy GA‐1.1.3 states that barriers to mixed‐use development in zoning and development 

standards should be removed. Implementation of this policy is encouraged. 

B-8


Appendix B 














designations? 







corridors? 


General Plan? 








General Plan? 

Table B-5 Town of Sahuarita General Plan Review 

Yes 

No 

Maybe 

No 

Yes 

N/A 

Yes 

Yes 

Comments 

The Vision Statement recognizes mobility choices. Goal GA-1 states 

that the Town will “promote balanced, efficient development to areas 

that ... encourage multimodal transportation.” Circulation Goal CIR-1 

states that the Town will “improve the mobility of people and goods by 

providing effective, convenient, accessible, and safe transportation 

options....” The Introduction to the Circulation Element also 

acknowledges the importance of alternative transportation modes. 

Express bus, BRT, streetcar, LRT, and commuter rail are not 

specifically identified, but Policy ENV-1.7.3 advocates a regional bus 

system. 

TOD is not expressly mentioned, but components of TOD are 

discussed. Goal LU-3 and its objectives and policies, for example, 

address increased densities in major corridors and mixed-use 

development. Some developable areas are identified. 

HCT-supportive residential land use designations are Low-Medium 

Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and High Density 

Residential. HCT-supportive nonresidential land use designations 

include Commercial and Mixed Use. Commercial allows high-density 

residential. Mixed Use allows Medium Density Residential, High 

Density Residential, and various nonresidential uses. 

Such requirements are not specified in the General Plan. 

The Special Planning Areas map dated October 4, 2002, shows that 

these designations have been applied in the Highway 19B corridor. 

The General Plan Land Use Map shows these areas as part of the 

100-year floodplain, however, so HCT stations may have to be located 

outside the Highway 19B corridor. A CRT station may have to be 

located along a spur line. 

Goal LU-4 addresses housing diversity. 

Yes Infill is acknowledged in Objectives PSF-2.5 and PSF-2.6. 

Yes 

Coordination with Sun Tran and the County about transit is part of 

Policy CIR-1.3.1. 

• The Land Use Element notes that the Town’s General Plan assumes a higher rate of 

growth than PAG does. 

• Like the Commercial land use designation, the Employment land use designation could 

allow high‐density residential development. 

• A new land use designation such as “TOD District” could be developed if existing land 

use designations are determined to be inadequate (which does not appear to be the case). 

This should be coordinated on a regional level with other local governments. 

• A precedent for TOD joint development is arguably found in Objective GA‐1.4, which 

addresses coordination of public infrastructure funding with the private sector. 

B-9


Appendix B 

• Policy CIR‐1.6.6 acknowledges that parking standards are “flexible tools to achieve other 

overall transportation policies.” Parking management is an important tool in the success 

of TOD. 

• The Implementation Element recommendation regarding creation of a mixed‐use zone 

should be implemented. The mixed‐use zone may allow development incentives for TOD 

at HCT stations. 


The Town of Sahuarita’s Zoning Code and Development Standards are in Chapter 18 of the City 

Cod e. 

Table B-6 Town of Sahuarita Zoning and Development Standards Review 


Comments 


designations? 


designations? 








and HCT? 




TOD, and HCT? 




and HCT? 

No 

Yes 

Maybe 

Yes 

Maybe 

Maybe 

Maybe 

These are Mixed-Dwelling Type Zone, Multiple Residence Zone, and 

Multiple Use Zone. Residential uses are allowed in some 

nonresidential zoning designations and vice versa. 

Densities tend to be expressed in terms of minimum lot area per 

dwelling unit. Intensities tend to be expressed in terms of setbacks, 

buffers, and building height restrictions. 

Building heights may need to be reviewed in combination with 

minimum lot size, setbacks, and buffers to ensure that densities and 

intensities are HCT-supportive. 

Mixed-use zoning designations exist. There are no TOD-specific or 

HCT-specific zoning designations or overlays. 

Development standards address walkability issues but there are no 

TOD-specific or HCT-specific requirements in the zoning designations. 

However, Chapter 18.89 (“Comprehensive Plan”) includes land use 

categories that are not in the General Plan. Some of these land use 

categories may be supportive of HCT and/or TOD; they reference 

“special design standards,” direct access to transit, etc. 

Parking standards allow shared parking. 

Observations and suggested amend ments to the Zoning Code and Development Standards are as 

follows: 

• The mixed‐use zoning designations are Mixed‐Dwelling Type Zone, Multiple Residence 

Zone, and Multiple Use Zone. There are no TOD‐specific or HCT‐specific zoning 

designations or overlays. 

• Building heights may need to be reviewed in combination with minimum lot size, 

setbacks, and buffers to ensure that densities and intensities are HCT‐supportive. 

• The project team notes that Chapter 18.89 (“Comprehensive Plan”) includes land use 

categories that are not in the General Plan. Some of these land use categories (which 

consist of Regional Activity Center, Community Activity Center, Neighborhood Activity 

Center, Multifunctional Corridor, High Intensity Urban, Medium/High Intensity Urban, 

B-10


Appendix B 

and Medium Intensity Urban) may be supportive of HCT and/or TOD. For example, some 

of these categories require direct access to transit. 

Tow n of Oro Valley 

General Plan 

The Town of Oro Valley’s General Plan is dated 2005. Relevant General Plan elements reviewed 

are the Land Use element, the Community Design element, the Economic Development element, 

the Cost of Development element, and the Circulation element. 


• Overall, the Town of Oro Valley General Plan is supportive of HCT and TOD to a limited 

degree, even though Oracle Road is identified as the “priority north‐south transit 

corridor” in Circulation Policy 5.6.2. The Land Use Element purpose statement and Land 

Use Policy 1.2.1 focus on maintaining a low‐density residential development pattern, 

which may not be HCT‐ or TOD‐supportive. One of the Key Policy Issues in the Element 

acknowledges that, “In some cases, this development pattern could result in increased 

environmental impacts, traffic congestion, monotony in residential subdivision design, 

and strip development that is oriented to the automobile,” but Land Use Policy 1.4.9 

introduces another challenge to TOD by suggesting that massing and visibility of higherintensity 

uses along arterials is not desirable. (Such higher‐intensity uses may be needed 

for successful TOD and HCT.) 

• Medium‐Density Residential and High‐Density Residential could be HCT‐supportive; the 

minimum density for the latter may be too low in immediate HCT station areas. However, 

while several Land Use policies recognize placing compatible uses in close proximity to 

each other, only the Master Planned Community designation recognizes mixing uses on 

one site. Buffers can be provided between uses on a single site so that compatibility can be 

achieved even as walkability is maximized. A new land use designation such as “TOD 

District” could be developed if HCT‐supportive revisions to existing land use 

designations are not practicable. This should be coordinated on a regional level with other local 

governments. 

B-11


Appendix B 

Table B-7 Town of Oro Valley General Plan Review 


Comments 


Policies such as Land Use Policies 1.3.6 and 1.5.5 mention nonmotorized 

travel and transit. The most significant discussion is in the 


Yes 


Circulation Element’s purpose statement, Key Policy Issues, and 


Objectives 5.5 and 5.6. 


However, Oracle Road is identified as the “priority north-south transit 

No 


corridor” in Circulation Policy 5.6.2. 


objectives of the General Plan Maybe 

TOD is expressly mentioned in Circulation Policy 5.6.3 with respect to 

design standards and zoning, but this does not appear to be a 


component of the Land Use Element. 

The Land Use Element purpose statement and Land Use Policy 1.2.1 

focus on maintaining a low-density residential development pattern, 

which may not be HCT- or TOD-supportive. One of the Key Policy 

Issues in the Element acknowledges that, “In some cases, this 


development pattern could result in increased environmental impacts, 

Maybe 


traffic congestion, monotony in residential subdivision design, and 

strip development that is oriented to the automobile.” Land Use Policy 

1.4.9 addresses massing and visibility of higher-intensity uses along 

arterials; such higher-intensity uses may be needed for successful 

TOD and HCT. 

Medium-Density Residential and High-Density Residential could be 

HCT-supportive; the minimum density for the latter may be too low in 

immediate HCT station areas. However, while several Land Use 


designations? 







corridors? 


General Plan? 








General Plan? 

Yes 

N/A 

Yes 

M aybe 

Yes 

Yes 

policies recognize placing compatible uses in close proximity, only the 

Master Planned Community designation recognizes mixing uses on 

one site. Buffers can be provided between uses on a single site, so 

that compatibility can be maximized even as walkability is maximized. 

Such requirements are not specified in the General Plan. There does 

not appear to be a formal mixed-use land use designation. 

The Planned Land Use - 2020 map indicates that some HCTsupportive 

designations have been applied adjacent to Oracle Road. 

Housing mix is addressed under the land use designation descriptions 

and in the Housing Element. However, with the possible exception of 

encouraging a mix of densities in Master Planned Communities, 

mixing housing types on a single site does not appear to be the focus 

of the language. 

Cost of Development Policy 4.1.9 refers to infill incentive areas. This 

appears to be the only mention of infill. 

Coordination with Sun Tran and the County about transit is part of 

Circulation Policy 5.5.3. 

B-12


Appendix B 

• Land Use Policy 1.4.3 states, “The Town reasonably wishes to be satisfied that sufficient 

demand exists before authorizing a higher land use intensity than present zoning 

permits.” While TOD should only be developed where there is a market for it, the policy 

may be a TOD deterrent if TOD‐supportive development must complete analyses that 

conventional development does not or meet more rigorous tests than conventional 

development. 

• Growth in three of the four “growth areas” in the Land Use Element may have an 

opportunity to be coordinated with HCT. 

• TOD/HCT can be a tool for addressing various Town aims (e.g., air quality improvements, 

public art opportunities, and increased professional employment opportunities). 

• Regarding Circulation Policy 5.5.1, HCT can be viable for choice riders as well as transitdependent 

riders. 

• A precedent for TOD joint development is arguably found in Parks and Recreation 

Objective 8.6. 

• The Master Planned Community land use designation appears to be intended for large 

sites only. Uses could be mixed on smaller sites. It is recommended that the Town revise 

its land use designations to allow compatible mixed‐use development on sites of all sizes. 


The Town of Oro Valley’s zoning regulations and development standards are in Chapters 23‐27 of 

the Zoning Code. 

Observations and suggested amendments to the Zoning Code are as follows: 

• Planned Area Development is the zoning designation that appears to be the most 

applicable to HCT and TOD. It could be modified for application to HCT station areas 

(e.g., by allowing sites less than 20 acres in size or by adding TOD incentives) or it could 

serve as a model for a new, HCT station–oriented zoning designation or zoning overlay. 

• While high‐intensity development may not be desired along Oracle Road, this need not 

preclude higher densities and intensities around HCT stations. 

• HCT must be coordinated with the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor District. The detailed 

view analysis methodology presented in Addendum A to the Town’s Zoning Code 

suggests that express bus and BRT are the HCT modes least likely to impact the Oracle 

Road Scenic Corridor because these modes do not have overhead power infrastructure. 

• HCT presents an opportunity to provide public artwork per the provisions in the 

development standards. 

• Zoning Code Section 27.7 H presents a unique methodology for allowing development 

incentives in exchange for structured parking. 

• Zoning Code Section 27.7 (Off‐Street Parking) should tie off‐street parking to transit. 

Parking management is a tool for encouraging transit use. 

B-13


Appendix B 

Table B-8 Town of Oro Valley Zoning and Development Standards Review 



designations? 


designations? 








and HCT? 




TOD, and HCT? 




and HCT? 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Maybe 

Maybe 

Maybe 

Comments 

Planned Area Development appears to be the most applicable zoning 

designation; Neighborhood Commercial District is not encouraged 

along Oracle Road. Residential uses are allowed in some 

nonresidential zoning designations and vice versa. 

Building heights and buffers may need to be reviewed to ensure that 

densities and intensities are HCT-supportive. 

A mixed-use zoning designation that could be applied ( with 

modifications for TOD incentives) in HCT station areas exists, but “the 

Oracle Road corridor is de-emphasized for high intensity 

development.” In addition, the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor District 

may limit HCT modes and TOD along Oracle Road. While there are 

no TOD-specific or HCT-specific zoning designations or overlays, 

pedestrian connections are addressed under relevant zoning 

designations. Transit and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is not 

addressed in the subdivision regulations. 

Pedestrian connections and infill design standards are addressed. 

The Purpose Statement in Section 27.7 states that parking regulations 

are intended to “reduce excessive off-street parking by encouraging 

the shared use of vehicular use areas” and notes that vehicle parking 

spaces can be beneficially converted to bicycle parking spaces. 

Parking standards allow shared parking, and Section 27.7 H presents 

a unique methodology for allowing development incentives in 

exchange for structured parking, but transit is not part of Section 27.7. 

Town of Marana 

General Plan 

The Town of Marana’s General Plan is dated 2007. Relevant General Plan elements reviewed are 

the Land Use element, Cost of Development element, and the Circulation element. 

B-14


Appendix B 

Table B-9 Town of Marana General Plan 














designations? 







corridors? 


General Plan? 








General Plan? 

Yes 

Yes 

Maybe 

Maybe 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

N/A 

Yes 

Comments 

This is addressed significantly only in the Circulation element. The 

Land Use goals do not specifically address alternative transportation 

modes; they address sustainability, natural and cultural resources, 

open space, development diversity, and quality design. TOD is 

mentioned in a sub-policy of Land Use Goal 3 as a tool for promoting 

compact urban form, but specific actions to promote TOD are not 

listed. The Circulation element acknowledges that the town is currently 

auto-oriented and “planning for future transit improvements is 

challenging due to Marana’s large land area, rural nature, low density 

of development, and diverse transportation needs.” The Circulation 

element also states that “transit improvements will be needed to 

provide safe, convenient, and accessible transit choices within and 

beyond the community” and “Public transit must be developed as a 

convenient, accessible alternative to vehicles, particularly for 

commuting to work.” Circulation Goals 1 and 2 discuss a long-term, 

full-service circulation system that includes multiple transportation 

modes. Circulation Goal 3 is about bicycle-friendliness. 

Intercity rail between Tucson and Phoenix is mentioned. CRT 

evaluation will be part of intercity rail planning. 

Development of a Town Center with higher-density housing and mix of 

uses is desired. However, “residential communities will remain the 

dominant type of land development over the next two decades.” 

These communities may include a mix of uses, but they are a 

consequence of residential growth, not a generator of residential 

growth. 

“Areas along I-10 are particularly appropriate for commerce parks, 

industry, tourist services, and warehousing.” 

Medium Density Residential allows up to 8 units per acre; High 

Density Residential requires at least 8 units per acre. All residential 

designations appear to allow supportive non-residential development. 

Commercial allows mixed uses. Town Center Planning Area allows 

mixed uses and requires pedestrian-oriented circulation. Mixed Rural 

does not allow HCT-supportive densities. Master Plan Area allows 

mixed uses but may or may not be HCT-supportive. Transit is not 

specifically mentioned. 

However, the General Plan states, “Areas along I-10 are particularly 

appropriate for commerce parks, industry, tourist services, and 

warehousing.” 

Housing mix is addressed in the context of residential subdivisions. 

Land Use Goal 3 also discusses it. 

Much of the existing land in the town is vacant, so infill and 

redevelopment do not appear to be significant issues. 

Coordination with Sun Tran about transit is part of the Circulation 

element. Coordination regarding intergovernmental services and 

facilities is addressed in Cost of Development Goal 5. 

B-15


Appendix B 


• Overall, the Town of Marana General Plan contains much that is supportive of HCT and 

TOD. Zoning regulations and development standards are not so supportive. 

• The Circulation element discusses in detail the value of future investments in alternative 

modes (including transit). This perspective is not reflected in other General Plan elements. 

• The Cost of Development element lists a construction sales tax and improvement districts 

among current funding sources. 

• The project team notes that commercial uses are often considered in the General Plan as a 

consequence of residential growth, not a generator of residential growth. 

• To support HCT, consideration should be given to creating opportunities for mixed 

residential and non‐residential uses in HCT station areas along I‐10. 

• Much of the existing land in the town is vacant, so infill and redevelopment do not appear 

to be significant issues at this time. 


Relevant Town of Marana zoning regulations and development standards are in Titles 5, 7, 8, 22, 

and 28 of the Land Development Code. 

Table B-10 



designations? 


designations? 


specified for zoning 

designations? 

Town of Marana Zoning and Development Standards 

No 

Maybe 

Maybe 

Comments 

Pre-1993 Designations 

Transportation Corridor Zone does not allow residential uses, but 

non-residential uses are permitted. The Specific Plan Zone may 

or may not be applicable. 

Post-1993 Designations 

There is one mixed-use designation—MU-1 Mixed-Use—but it is 

intended for “low density mixed uses in areas of the Town where 

public facilities and utilities may be limited.” This definition is 

not the definition used in this report. The Commercial 

designations allow commercial, office, public, and multi-family 

uses. The only non-residential uses allowed under the 

Residential zoning designations appear to be those that support 

the proximate residential uses. 


Densities and intensities are not specified for all but one of the 

designations. Densities and intensities are controlled by 

setbacks, lot size, and other regulations. Small Lot Zone is likely 

the densest designation. Large Lot Zone requires one dwelling 

unit or one non-residential establishment per 25 acres. 


Densities and intensities are specified in terms of minimum lot 

sizes and maximum allowable lot coverage. R-12 Residential is 

likely the least dense Residential zoning that could support HCT. 

Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Village Commercial, 

and Campus Building Center could support HCT; FAR and 

building height may be limiting Commercial factors. 

B-16


Appendix B 


Are building heights specified 

for zoning designations? 



redevelopment, mixed uses, 

TOD, and HCT? 



infill, redevelopment, mixed 

uses, TOD, and HCT? 

Do parking standards promote 


redevelopment, mixed uses, 

TOD, and HCT? 

Maybe 

Maybe 

Maybe 

No 

Comments 


Buildings heights are not specified. 


Buildings heights are specified. Upper floor setbacks are part of 

some of the residential zoning designations. 


There is no promotion of these outcomes. 


Promotion of these outcomes is very limited and is not detailed. 

Access requirements for Neighborhood Commercial, Village 

Commercial, and Campus Business Center are auto-oriented. 

The multi-family Residential designations are intended to 

“provide a housing type needed within the community when 

public and private facilities are available to serve the higher 

residential, such as public and private transportation systems....” 

Pedestrian circulation must be addressed according to the 

Regional Commercial zoning designation. 

There is promotion of outcomes that are not transit-specific. 

Residential building heights, setbacks, and lot coverage limits 

can be increased with Council approval and under certain 

conditions. “All subdivisions shall contribute to the Town’s 

regional park and trail system....” “Paths or trails within 

subdivisions shall be designed to link neighborhood 

components and amenities and connect to adjacent 

subdivisions.” An Alternative Neighborhood Design Plan allows 

flexibility consistent with TOD. Commercial design standards 

require “safe, efficient, and convenient vehicular and pedestrian 

access and circulation patterns within and between 

developments.” Plazas and other gathering spaces are 

encouraged; TOD presents and opportunity for this. 

Shared parking and parking-related incentives are not addressed 

in Title 22 of the Land Development Code. 

Observations and suggested amendments to the Land Development Code are as follows: 

• The Town has two sets of zoning designations. The first applies to properties that have not 

been re‐designated since April 1993. The second applies to properties that were 

designated or re‐designated after April 1993. 

• Transportation Corridor Zone (pre‐1993) does not allow residential development and 

likely applies to I‐10, in which case the zoning designation does not support HCT and 

TOD. Allowing residential in this zone should be considered. 

• The only official “mixed‐use” zoning designation is MU‐1 Mixed‐Use, but it is intended 

for “low density mixed uses in areas of the Town where public facilities and utilities may 

be limited.” A mixed‐use designation that is HCT‐supportive or a new land use 

designation such as “TOD District” should be developed. This should be coordinated on a 

regional level with other local governments. 

• Densities and intensities are specified in terms of minimum lot sizes and maximum 

allowable lot coverage. R‐12 Residential is likely the least dense Residential zoning that 

could support HCT. Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Village Commercial, and 

B-17


Appendix B 

Campus Building Center could support HCT; FAR and building height may be limiting 

Commercial factors. 

• Access requirements under the zoning designations should address non‐auto mode 

connectivity. Pedestrian connectivity is already assessed in the development standards, 

but transit and bicycle connectivity should also be addressed in the development 

standards. 

• The land development code encourages plazas and other public gathering spaces. TOD 

and HCT present an opportunity to develop such spaces. 

• Shared parking and parking‐related incentives are not addressed in Title 22 of the Land 

Development Code. 

B-18

High Capacity Transit System Plan September 2009 

Appendix C 

APPENDIX C: 

Public and Agency 

Involvement 

C-1


Appendix C 

SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #2 ‐ DRAFT 

PAG HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY 

Date: June 24, 2008 

Participants: Cheri Campbell, PAG 

Jeremy Papuga, PAG 

Ann Chanecka, PAG 

Jim Schoen, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 

Kelly Blume, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 

Ramzi Awwad, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 

Aimee Ramsey – Town of Oro Valley Transit Administrator 

Pat McGowan – Pima County Public Transportation Program Manager 

Tom Fisher – City of Tucson Department of Transportation, Transit 

Artemio Hoyos – Pascua Yaqui Tribe Planner 

Dennis Cady – Tucson Airport Authority 

Summary: 

The meeting opened with an introduction of those present. 

C-2


Appendix C 

Kelly Blume conducted a presentation reviewing Technical Memorandum #1, 

introducing the next steps for Technical Memorandum #2, and reviewing the project 

schedule. 

Subsequent to the review of Technical Memorandum #1, comments were sought and 

those that were made are highlighted as follows: 

• The proposed Oracle Road Corridor should connect to the proposed Tangerine 

Road Corridor. 

• For the Tucson Airport property, consider using the terminal portion of the 

property only when analyzing the employment density. Also consider the hotels 

nearby with high employment. 

• Consider obtaining the passenger per day information for the Tucson Airport as 

a better indicator of travel demand. 

• Consider an East/West route along Valencia Road providing service to the 

airport 

• Providing Commuter Rail from Tucson to Phoenix without extending the service 

to the Tucson Airport would have a negative impact on the airport. Consider 

extending commuter rail to the Tucson Airport as this would have a positive 

impact. 

• It is premature to screen out Light Rail Transit (LRT) at this point. Consider how 

installing such a system would affect and change densities as well as the possible 

changes in travel behavior caused by the dramatic increases of fuel prices. 

Kittelson & Associates Response: LRT is now being considered as an option for the Broadway 

Boulevard Corridor. It is also now being considered as a near term (2030) option for the 

Oracle Road Corridor and the South Campbell Avenue/Kino Parkway Corridor. 

• Consider the effect of Commuter Rail on the neighboring county to the north. 

C-3


Appendix C 

• A figure showing all bus stops with a dot representing the stops, scaled 

according to the number of boardings per day would be useful. The data for the 

number of boardings at each stop is available. 

• Near term (2030) does not show LRT for any corridors. Could this change based 

on the application of additional criteria? 

Kittelson & Associates Response: Application of additional criteria would change the 

potential high capacity transit mode and LRT would be included as a possibility for some 

corridors in the near term (2030). 

• For the 6 th Avenue Corridor and the Campbell Avenue Corridor, Street Car (SC) 

is shown as a possible mode; however, LRT is not shown as a possible mode. 

Why is this the case? 

Kittelson & Associates Response: For these corridors, it is expected that the trips will be 

shorter in length and the number of stops are expected to be greater. This is more conducive 

to SC and less desirable for LRT. 

• Various examples of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) have been discussed; will the study 

recommend a particular type? 

Kittelson & Associates Response: Yes, this will be based on types that are available as well as 

community development. 

• Consider options that would be applicable in a time frame that is nearer than 

2030. 

• Consider studying the existing LOS of the current local bus service as an 

indicator of the possible success of the proposed high capacity transit solutions. 

• Consider a way to provide high capacity transit connecting the Tucson Airport 

and the Raytheon complex. 

• Consider the location of existing Transit Centers and Park/Ride lots as part of the 

evaluation of possible corridors as well as the impacts of relocating these 

facilities. 

C-4


Appendix C 

• Is the price of fuel considered in the corridor ridership estimation methodology? 

Kittelson & Associates Response: Although the details of the corridor ridership estimation 

methodology are not available to present at this time, “economic incentive” will be included 

in the methodology. 

• Consider discussions with City of Tucson Planners and with Pima County 

Planners. 

• Consider obtaining more information on the progress of the City of Phoenix LRT 

system. 

Kittelson & Associates Response: A day trip to Phoenix to collect information would be 

beneficial and September is suggested as a suitable time. (PAG staff indicated that they would 

take the lead in organizing the group of TAC members that would be interested in this event) 

C-5


Appendix C 


SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #3 ‐ 

DRAFT 

Date: October 14, 2008 

Participants: Cherie Campbell, PAG 


Gabe Thum, PAG 

Ann Chanecka, PAG 

Dick Davis, PAG 

Paul Casertano, PAG 

Tom Fisher, City of Tucson Department of Transportation, Transit 

Pat McGowan, Pima County Public Transportation Program Manager 

Tom Amparano, University of Arizona 

Jim Schoen, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (KAI) 

Kelly Blume, KAI 

Summary: 

The meeting opened with introductions. 

Kelly Blume then gave a presentation reviewing Technical Memorandum #2 (Task 5), 

introducing next steps for Technical Memorandum #3 (Task 6), and reviewing the 

project schedule. 

Highlights of the subsequent discussion (with KAI responses and follow‐up information 

in italics) are as follows: 

• The project team’s two recommended alternatives for more detailed study in 

Task 6 are BRT on Broadway Boulevard (Corridor 2B) and streetcar on 6th 

Avenue South/Kino Parkway (Corridor 13). 

The project team intends to move forward into Task 6 and complete more detailed 

analysis of these two alternatives. Task 6 will be focused on implementing HCT in the 

near and mid term. It will produce refined alignments and station locations for the two 

alternatives recommended in Task 5, compare an HCT system with the two alternatives 

to a baseline condition, and discuss systemwide strategies to support development of the 

two alternatives in the near and mid term as well as the other alternatives in the long 

term. (The other alternatives will be addressed again in Task 7.) The product of Task 6 

C-6


Appendix C 

may be hybrid HCT alternatives that consider interconnections with other transit 

services (including the initial streetcar project). 

• Corridor 3 (Campbell Avenue North) ridership projections seem low. Route 15 

buses are often full. Buses on Broadway Boulevard are over‐crowded now. 

The project team will review the ridership projections to ensure that the projections’ 

relationship to ridership on local bus services is understood. HCT ridership consists of 

riders who previously made the trip by local bus, riders who previously drove, and riders 

who are making new trips. Where local bus service is maintained after implementation of 

HCT, some riders will continue to use local bus service for reasons such as the local bus 

serving a stop that is closer to the rider’s origin or destination. 

• All of the projects in the 2030 RTP are assumed to be built out in 2040. 

• The new Sun Tran maintenance facility will include two bays for 60’ buses. It 

will be finished within three years. 

• Add corridor names to the scoring matrix. Alternative numbers alone is a little 

confusing. 

The project team will be clearer in Technical Memorandum 3. 

• We need to eliminate adding another streetcar garage facility for the streetcar 

alternatives (e.g., Campbell Avenue North) since one will be constructed with the 

initial streetcar phase. The garage that will be constructed with the initial 

streetcar project is large and may have enough capacity for more vehicles. 

The project team will ensure that refined capital costs account for the opportunity to use 

the initial streetcar service’s garage if the garage has adequate capacity or can be 

expanded. 

• Make sure the high costs of fuel right now are included in operating costs. 

The project team will use unit operating cost data that reflect increasing fuel costs. 

• “Evolution” is a key word for development of the HCT system. 

• Can we adjust the land use and zoning in the model to reflect TOD, particularly 

on Broadway? Check with the City’s urban planning department. 

The project team has relied on the 2040 model to date, but, if PAG agrees and the project 

budget permits, we can look at alternative land use scenarios. We would like to note, 

however, that FTA is not likely to award funding to a project if transit‐supportive land 

uses and development standards have not already been incorporated into a comprehensive 

plan or land development code. 

• There will be an Urban Land Institute conference on December 3 at the Tucson 

Convention Center. 

C-7


Appendix C 

This event is entitled “ULI Arizona ‐ Crafting Tomorrowʹs Built Environment.” There 

is currently little detail about this event at www.uli.org. 

• Combine the Campbell Avenue North and South corridors. Consider serving 

Tucson Mall with the combined route. 

This may be an excellent alternative for longer term implementation. 

• Campbell Avenue North might be re‐constructed as a “transit street” with only 

two lanes for autos. 

This is an excellent idea, and it can be implemented in concert with HCT, as a precursor 

to HCT, or as a separate investment. 

• Projects such as BRT on Broadway Boulevard can be implemented in the near 

term for relatively low cost. 

• Sun Tran has Gillig BRT vehicles are on order. 

A low‐floor Gillig BRT vehicle is shown below for the TAC’s information. This vehicle is 

increasingly popular for BRT and non‐BRT applications because of its enhanced styling. 

C-8


Appendix C 

SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #4 


Date: April 23, 2009 

Participants: Cheri Campbell, PAG 


Aimee Ramsey – Town of Oro Valley Transit Administrator 

T. Van Hook – Town of Marana Director of Community Development 

Tom Fisher – City of Tucson Department of Transportation, Transit 

Jim Schoen, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 

Kelly Blume, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 

Ramzi Awwad, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 

Summary: 

The meeting opened with an introduction of those present. 

Kelly Blume, Jim Schoen, and Ramzi Awwad conducted a presentation reviewing 

Technical Memorandum #4. 

During and subsequent to the presentation, comments were sought and those that were 

made are highlighted as follows: 

C-9


Appendix C 

• Consider providing design guidelines for bus pullouts and other HCT 

components of roadway projects. A document providing guidelines for bus 

pullouts is currently under development. 

• The Tucson Modern Streetcar has a public‐private partnership component. A 

development company is building the last segment of the streetcar.The proposed 

Oracle Road Corridor should connect to the proposed Tangerine Road Corridor. 

• Note that the Town of Marana currently uses a “Facility Improvement District” 

fee on Tangerine Road. This fee is $600 and is paid upon the sale of the property. 

• Consider providing guidance for local initiatives/process that could serve as an 

alternative to federal funding or as a match for federal funding. 

• Consider providing a map that suggests locations of TOD appropriate 

areas/districts, or transit supportive areas. 

• Consider providing cost estimates under various scenarios. For example, provide 

a cost with minimal amenities, and a cost with various levels of amenities. 

• Consider seeking input from the ADOT TAC member. 

C-10

Pima Association of Governments 

High Capacity Transit 

Public Open House 

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 

Meeting Summary Information 

Kittelson & Associates 

Gordley Design Group

Transportation Public Meetings 

High Capacity Transit Project 

March 18 through Match 24, 2009 

Presented to: 

Kittelson and Associates, Inc. 

Gordley Design Group 

2009


Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 

Transportation Improvement Program Public Meetings 

High Capacity Transit Project 

March 2009 

Date, Location and Time 

o Joyner-Green Valley Library – Green Valley 

o Wednesday, March 18, 2009 

o 11 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. 

o Randolph Clubhouse – Tucson Metropolitan Area 

o Thursday, March 19, 2009 

o 4:30p.m. 

o Foothills Mall, Food Court – Northwest Pima County 

o Friday, March 20, 2009 

o 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. 

o Desert Sky Middle School – Southeast Pima County 

o Tuesday, March 24 

o 4:30 p.m. 

Format 

• Open house with displays and one-on-one interaction 

All public notification was handled by PAG 

Governmental Notification 

• Official letter announcing meeting e-mailed: 

o Week of Jan. 5, 2009 

o E-mailed notifications to government officials in multiple jurisdictions 

Public Notification 

• Flier invitation e-mailed: 

o Week of March 9, 2009 

o E-mailed to approximately 137 neighborhood associations and 12 bicycle shops in Tucson 

vicinity. 

• Newspaper notification: 

o Arizona Daily Star Sunday Edition – March 15, 2009 

• Press Release: 

o Arizona Daily Star 

o Green Valley News 

• Web site: 

o Meeting date and time was posted on the PAG Web site 

Team Attendance 

• PAG: Jeremy Papuga representing High Capacity Transit Project 

• Kittelson and Associates, Inc.: Jim Schoen 

• Gordley Design Group: Jan Gordley, Susan Parcells 

• 

Total Public Attendance 

• 61 

1


Comments 

• 15 comments were received during public open houses 

Materials 

• Comment forms for High Capacity Transit Project 

• Sign-in sheets 

Web site materials 

• Meeting notification 

Displays 

• High Capacity Transit Project display 

• Arizona Department of Transportation Building a quality Arizona (BqAZ) display 

• Marana Development display 

• Pima County Bike Advisory Coalition (BAC) Bike and Pedestrian display 

Room Set-up 

• Sign-in table 

• Display areas set up around the rooms or in the public locations 

Signs 

• A-frame signs to direct the public to the display’s within the mall food court. 

2

Pima Association of Governement Transportation Planning Open House - Hign Capacity Transit 

March 18 through March 24, 2009 

1. Do you agree with the corridors that were recommended as priority capacity transit corridors in the 

plan? If not, what three corridors should be given the highest priority? 

Green Valley 

Yes 

Yes 

Randolf Clubhouse Foothills Mall 

These corridors look reasonable Yes 

Since the corridors do not No we have bigger problems to 

encompass my needed fix in government, Them roads, 

transportation I cannot comment transit and busses 

on the usage level for these 

corridors. If it is where a good 

study says ridership is, that's 

where the corridor should be. 

Desert Sky Middle School 

University-Downtown 

Broadway-Downtown, 

Speedway-Downtown and , 

Grant Road 

I agree 

We really need a north/south 

and an east/west corridor and 

maybe high speed loop. 

Adequate for now if the water Yes I agree with the corridors 

supply is available to support the also I think that Oracle Rd.- Ina 

projected population growth. Rd., Skyline/Sunrise and Swan 

Road should be considered as 

strongly. 

Agree somewhat, 6th Ave. is a 

good location. Not sure about 

Broadway. Stops need to be 

strategically located. Citizens 

need to start reconfiguring land 

they have purchased. 

2. Is there a particular high capacity transit system mode that is more attractive that others (Bus Rapid 

Transit, light rail, etc. Would you be more likely to use one over the other? 

Green Valley 

Randolf Clubhouse 

Foothills Mall 


Bus from Green Valley 

The mode would have to be 

wheelchair accessible. They 

should use a mode that is 

flexible- a bus can be moved 

from one route to another. Trains 

that use cables or rails cold not 

move as easily. 

Light rail and a train to Phoenix. 

Light rail in more attractive, I 

would be more likely to use. 

Light rail 

Light rail unless some future 

technology creates an 

environmentally friendly bus. 

Maybe and electric bus. 

No 

Page 1 of 3

Bus- Flexible 

Light rail 

Express bus service on an 

hourly basis. 

Most light rail, Bus 

I am in favor of electric rail like in 

Europe. Like the system in 

London. We could use a 

combination of ground and 

elevated. 

I think Rapid Bus Transit would 

be more feasible for the space. 

Need to examine 

Monorail/raised elevation. More 

of a long term solution, unless 

you going to use UPRR rails. 

3. If high capacity transit were available in a corridor, how likely would you use it? 

Green Valley 

Somewhat likely 

Very likely 


Somewhat unlikely, due to 

Depends on whether the 

corridors were where I needed 

to go. None of the proposed one 

meet that criteria. 

Very likely 

Very likely 

Somewhat likely, depending on 

the destination 


I think you need to look 

Very likely if it were cost 

effective and went where I need 

to go. And reliable. 

Very likely 

No 

Very likely 


Very likely if there were 

4. If you would use the high capacity transit, how often would you ride it? 

Green Valley 

A few times a month 

Once a week 


Less than a few times a month 

Everyday if the corridor were 

close enough to walk and where 

I need it to go. Not all of the 

proposed corridors meet that 

requirement. 


Few times a month 

If possible 3-4 times a week, 

during my work week. To save 

money, gas, vehicle wear and 

our environment, I currently 

commute 4 times a week. 


2-3 times a week 

Everyday 

Once a week 

No 

4 times a week 

Every available opportunity. 

2-3 times a week 

5. Would you consider moving closer to a high capacity transit route or line if it were available? 

Green Valley 

No 

Randolf Clubhouse Foothills Mall 

No not at this time 

If the routes went where I need 

to go. 


No, I just bought a house and 

will not move. 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 


No, not at this time I already live 

near the proposed line. 

Depends on the rent/housing 

and crime in the area. 

No 

That depends on the 

affordability and flexibility to 

move. We currently live in the 

city, yet mass transit focuses 

moving people from suburban 

sprawl to a few centers. Transit 

in this city is inefficient and 

difficult. 

Yes 

6. Should high capacity transit have a higher priority than currently planned roadway improvements? 

Green Valley 

Yes 



They are both priorities 

No, I think more people will use 

the roadway, including bicyclists 

and pedestrians. 


No, roads need improvement 

now, but mass transit 

improvements need to continue, 

it will take longer to implement. 

No 

Yes 

6th Ave- Yes, Broadway No. 

Infrastructure not set the City 

seems to be lagging. 

No 

Yes, Current roads are not 

sustainable from wage point of 

view. The number of cars keeps 

increasing, inefficient. 

No, high capacity transit has too 

limited focus in a few corridors. 

Personal transportation will 

remain the important overall 

mode, and require considerable 

improvement. 

I am on the fence on this. We 

need this system. However 

something has to be done about 

these roadways. The 

construction should be out of 

state companies that can 

complete contracts in a timely 

manner. 

The current planned roadway 

improvements are necessary, 

and offer a more timely 

completion to ease congestion. 

Also most of planned roadways 

enhance bike paths. 



Appendix D 

APPENDIX D: 

HCT Infrastructure 

Planning 

D-1


Appendix D 

HCT Infrastructure Planning 

Infrastructure requirements for HCT systems depend heavily on the technology that is 

to be implemented. Express bus service simply requires park‐&‐ride facilities located at 

appropriate points along a route, while BRT and rail‐based technologies (street car or 

LRT) can require significant and costly infrastructure improvements, including exclusive 

lanes or running ways, new or widened structures (bridges, culverts, etc.), and transit 

stations/park & ride facilities. In order to reduce the overall cost of HCT 

implementation as well as secure needed right‐of‐way, including HCT system 

infrastructure requirements in regional and local long range plans is necessary. Based 

on the HCT system implementation plan defined in this study, the following 

infrastructure planning is recommended. 


Refer to Section 6.3 and Figure 62 for infrastructure recommendations 

6 th Avenue/Nogales Highway 


Campbell Avenue (North) 


Speedway Boulevard 

Planned HCT service includes express bus initially, with potential longer term 

implementation of BRT in general purpose lanes. Park & ride lots should be planned in 

the vicinity of the Craycroft Road or Kolb Road intersections. BRT stations, which could 

be associated with park & ride facilities or transit oriented development should be 

planned at approximately 1‐mile spacing, preferably at major intersections. 

Campbell Avenue/Kino Parkway 

Planned HCT service between the U of A and TIA includes express bus service, 

potentially evolving to BRT operating in general purpose lanes. Park & ride lots are 

envisioned south of the U of A between Broadway Boulevard and 6 th Street, between 

Valencia Road and Irvington Road, and north of I‐10 at the planned biotechnology park. 

BRT stations, located at major intersections or transit oriented developments should be 

spaced one‐mile or more apart. 

Oracle Road 

Proposed long term service within the Oracle Road corridor is envisioned to be BRT 

operating in general purpose lanes south of Ina Road and potentially exclusive lanes to 

the north. Expansion of existing express bus service on Oracle Road is recommended in 

the near term. HCT infrastructure planning would include preserving right‐of‐way 

along both sides of Oracle Road from Ina Road to the Pinal County line. Park & ride 

D-2


Appendix D 

facilities along Oracle Road should be planned in the vicinity of Tangerine Road, First 

Avenue and either Magee or Ina Road. BRT station planning should focus on major 

intersections or destinations (Honeywell, Tucson Mall, PCC Downtown Campus), major 

intersections, and transit oriented developments. BRT stations should be located at onemile 

spacing or greater. 

I-10, Marana to Downtown; Vail to Downtown 

I-19, Sahuarita to Downtown 

Planning for HCT includes expanding express bus service with BRT and potentially 

commuter rail service (CRT) as the ultimate transit service. Expanded express bus 

service would require provision of additional park & ride facilities. On I‐10 park & ride 

lots should be planned in the vicinity of the Marana Road, Tangerine Road, Twin Peaks, 

and possibly Ina Road interchanges. Park & ride lots should also be planned in the 

vicinity of the Vail Road and Kolb Road interchanges. On I‐19, park & ride should be 

planned in the vicinity of the Sahuarita Road and the Valencia Road interchanges. 

BRT planning should focus on identifying station locations at interchanges along each 

route. Since BRT service within the I‐19 corridor could run along Old Nogales Highway, 

planning should include preserving right‐of‐way for an exclusive running way and 

providing BRT stations at key destinations (e.g. Raytheon), major intersections, and 

transit oriented developments with stations spaced no closer than one mile. 

Grant Road 

Near term HCT includes express bus service with the potential of BRT running in 

general use lanes in the long‐term. A park & ride lot should be considered in the 

vicinity of Kolb Road or Craycroft Road. BRT stations would occur at major 

intersections or at transit oriented development with minimum spacing of one mile. As 

part of the Grant Road improvement project, identifying locations for future BRT 

stations should be considered. 

Valencia Road 

Express bus service could potentially grow into a BRT line along Valencia Road from 

Ajo Way to Houghton Road. While existing park & ride facilities at Casino del Sol and 

on Houghton Road south of Valencia Road will serve initial demand, additional 

facilities should be considered at Kolb Road and I‐10. S 

Houghton Road 

Existing park & ride lots at Broadway Boulevard and Old Vail Road will serve express 

bus service along Houghton Road, which would likely be tied into service running on I‐ 

10, Broadway Boulevard, or Speedway Boulevard. 

D-3


Appendix D 

Transit Stations 

Figure D‐1 presents existing and potential future locations for park & ride lots which 

would initially serve express bus service and could be tied into a BRT or LRT station in 

the future. Note that while general HCT infrastructure requirements are identified, 

specific requirements can only be determined based on more detailed evaluation of each 

of the HCT corridors. This was carried out for three of the HCT corridors – Broadway 

Boulevard, 6 th Avenue/Nogales Highway, and Campbell Avenue (North), and is 

described in Section 6.3 of this report. 

A discussion of potential station models that might be appropriate in the PAG region is 

provided in Section 9.2 of this report. While there is no typical model, stations should be 

located where residential and commercial densities encourage transit ridership, there is 

a mix of land uses, and there is a pedestrian focus. Station area options include: 

• Regional Center. Primary centers of activity in any region. Characterized by a 

dense mix of housing, employment, regional retail, and entertainment. Typical 

residential density is 75‐300 units per acre, and typical employment floor area 

ratio (FAR) is 5.0. Served by mix of transit modes, including HCT. Typical peak 

transit frequency is less than 5 minutes. Examples are downtown San Francisco, 

Boston, and Denver. 

• Urban Center. Mix of housing, employment, retail, and entertainment. Usually 

slightly less dense than Regional Centers. Commuter hubs. Historic character 

preserved. Typical residential density is 50‐150 units per acre, and typical 

employment FAR is 2.5. Multiple transit options, including HCT. Typical peak 

transit frequency is 5‐15 minutes. Examples are downtown Baltimore, Pasadena 

(CA), and the Texas Medical Center in Houston. 

• Suburban Center. Mix of housing, employment, retail, and entertainment with 

densities similar to those of Urban Centers. Can be both an origin and a 

destination for commuters. Development tends to be newer than in Urban 

Centers. Less mix of uses than in Urban Centers. Typical residential density is 35‐ 

100 units per acre, and typical employment FAR is 4.0. May be served by HCT. 

Typical peak transit frequency is 5‐15 minutes. Examples are Evanston (IL), 

Stamford (CT), and Silver Spring (MD). 

• Transit Town Center. Local‐serving centers of economic and community activity. 

Less mix of uses than in Suburban Centers. Typical residential density is 20‐75 

units per acre, and typical employment FAR is 2.0. Variety of transit modes, 

including commuter service to regional jobs. Less secondary transit service and 

lower housing density than in Regional Centers, Urban Centers, and Suburban 

Centers. Typical peak transit frequency is 15‐30 minutes. Examples are 

Winchester, MA (outside of Boston), and Hillsboro, OR (outside of Portland). 

• Urban Neighborhood. Primarily residential neighborhoods. Well‐connected to 

Regional Centers and Urban Centers. Moderate to high densities. Housing 

D-4


Appendix D 

usually mixed with local‐serving retail. Commercial uses limited to small 

businesses and some industry. Typical residential density is 40‐100 units per 

acre, and typical employment FAR is 1.0. Transit may or may not be a focal point 

as in Regional Centers, Urban Centers, Suburban Centers, and Transit Town 

Centers. Typical peak transit frequency is 5‐15 minutes. Examples are Portland’s 

Pearl District, Greenwich Village in New York City, and University City in 

Philadelphia. 

• Transit Neighborhood. Primarily residential neighborhoods. Served by HCT at one 

location. Low to moderate densities. Economic activity not concentrated around 

transit stations. May include retail nodes but residential density often is not high 

enough to support much local‐serving retail. May offer significant development 

opportunities. Secondary transit service is less frequent and less well‐connected. 

Typical residential density is 20‐50 units per acre, and typical employment FAR 

is 1.0. Typical peak transit frequency is 15‐30 minutes. Examples are Plano, TX 

(outside of Dallas), Barrio Logan in San Diego, and Ohlone‐Chynoweth, CA 

(outside San Jose). 

• Special Use/Employment District. Often single‐use. May be low‐ to moderatedensity 

employment centers or focused around an institution or entertainment 

venue. Economic activity not concentrated around transit stations. Development 

is typically more recent. May be significant opportunities for mixed‐use 

development and regional connections. Secondary transit service is infrequent 

and focused on stations. Typical residential density is 50‐150 units per acre, and 

typical employment FAR is 2.5. Typical peak transit frequency is 15‐30 minutes. 

Examples are South of Market in San Francisco, Camden Station in Baltimore, 

and Portland’s South Waterfront. 

• Mixed‐Use Corridor. Have no distinct center but are a focus of economic and 

community activity. Mix of moderate‐density uses. Housing is typically more 

recent along the corridor, with older housing just outside. Good opportunities for 

infill and mixed‐use development. Typical residential density is 25‐60 units per 

acre, and typical employment FAR is 2.0. May be developed along streetcar, BRT, 

or premium bus lines with closely spaced stops. Typical peak transit frequency is 

5‐15 minutes. Examples are International Boulevard in Oakland, Washington 

Street in Boston, and University Avenue in St. Paul. 

Of these options and considering the characteristics of the HCT corridors identified in 

the PAG region, suburban center and mixed‐use corridor models may be most 

appropriate. Suburban center type stations might be located in Oro Valley in the 

vicinity of Tangerine Road or Rancho Vistoso Boulevard at Oracle Road, in Marana at 

the Tangerine Road, Marana Road, and Cortaro Road interchanges, in Sahuarita at the 

Sahuarita Road interchange, and on I‐10 at the Vail Road and Kolb Road interchanges. A 

D-5


Appendix D 

smaller scale version of the mixed use corridor model would be appropriate at other 

locations along the HCT corridors. 

Transit stations should be incorporated into local land use planning. The locations 

shown in Figure D‐1 are intended to provide general guidance where these stations 

might be located. Transit districts can be designated in at these locations. Within these 

districts, developments or redevelopments would be required to support transit 

ridership and would include a mix of high density residential and commercial 

development, pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and park and ride facilities, akin to the 

transit village concept, as described in Section 9.2. Note that in Figure D‐1, the potential 

future HCT stations are anticipated to initially include park‐and‐ride facilities to support 

express bus service, eventually becoming full stations as other HCT technologies become 

viable. Existing park‐and‐ride facilities could also transform to full HCT transit stations. 

D-6


Appendix D 

D-7

Final Report - Pima Association of Governments

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?