NORTH GLENDALE PARK-AND-RIDE STUDY Final Report

Final ReportNORTH GLENDALE PARK-AND-RIDE STUDY

MAY 2018

NORTH GLENDALE PARK-AND-RIDE STUDY

Final Report Page I MAY 2018

Table of Contents1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 PARK-AND-RIDE REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 4

3.0 SITE EVALUATION ......................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Initial Site Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 5

3.2 Tier 1 Evaluation .................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Tier 2 Evaluation .................................................................................................................................................. 10

4.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...............................................................................................18

5.0 NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................... 20

FiguresFigure 1: Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................1

Figure 2: Existing Express Bus Service ........................................................................................................................................3

Figure 3: Site Evaluation Process ..................................................................................................................................................4

Figure 4: Initial Site Locations ........................................................................................................................................................5

Figure 5: Tier 1 Site Locations .........................................................................................................................................................7

Figure 7: Site A (55th Avenue and Loop 101) Conceptual Layout .............................................................................. 14

Figure 8: Site B (67th Avenue and Union Hills) Conceptual Layout .......................................................................... 15

Figure 9: Site C (75th Avenue and Loop 101) Conceptual Layout .............................................................................. 16

Figure 10: Site D (51st Avenue and Loop 101) Conceptual Layout .............................................................................17

Figure 11: First Choice for Park-and-Ride Location........................................................................................................... 19

Figure 12: Top Rankings for Park-and-Ride Amenities .................................................................................................... 19

TablesTable 1: Existing Express Bus Service ..........................................................................................................................................2

Table 2: Existing Park-and-Ride Utilization .............................................................................................................................2

Table 3: Park-and-Ride Requirements ........................................................................................................................................4

Table 4: Initial Site Locations and Results .................................................................................................................................6

Table 5: Tier 1 Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................................................................................8

Table 6: Tier 2 Evaluation Matrix ................................................................................................................................................ 12


Final Report Page 1 MAY 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTIONThe cities of Glendale and Peoria are re-evaluating the site location for the North Glendale Park-and-Ride. The previous site was located on the west side of the Loop 101 north of Union Hills Drive as identified in the North Glendale Park-and-Ride/Transit Center Study (2013). The previous site, while viable, became unavailable due to an economic development opportunity by the City of Glendale. The new site will also be located in the Northwest Valley and serve the Loop 101 corridor. The facility will be re-programmed in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to open by 2023.

The study area map for the North Glendale Park-and-Ride Study is shown in Figure 1. The study area was defined by locating the geographic center of the combined Valley Metro Routes 573 and 575 rider’s home locations, which were identified in the 2015 Origin and Destination Survey (OD2015).

Figure 1: Study Area

Happy Valley Rd

Deer Valley Rd

PHOENIX

GLENDALE

PEORIAGrand Ave

Lake Pleasant Pkwy

Union Hills Dr

Bell Rd

Greenway Rd

Thunderbird Rd

Cactus Rd

Peoria Ave

43rd

Ave

35th

Ave

51st

Ave

91st

Ave

59th

Ave

99th

Ave

111t

h Av

e

115t

h Av

e

El M

irage

Rd

Dys

art R

d

67th

Ave

75th

Ave

83rd

Ave

Pinnacle Peak Rd

101

Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center

Arrowhead TC

Peoria Park-and-Ride

Surprise Park-and-Ride

El Mirage Walmart

LEGEND

Existing Transit CenterExisting Park-and-RidePotential Park-and-Ride573 Northwest Valley Express575 Northwest Valley ExpressCity Boundaries5-mile Access Shed from Center5-mile Center Buffer of 573/575 Users’ Home Location (OD2015)

3 Miles2 Miles1 Mile



1.1 BackgroundThere is currently no permanent regional park-and-ride facility in north Glendale. There are shared use park-and-ride facilities located at Arrowhead Towne Center and the Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center (FRAC). These park-and-rides are served by Valley Metro Northwest Valley Express Routes 573 and 575, which provide express bus service between Glendale and Downtown Phoenix via Loop 101/I-10 and Loop 101/I-17.

The existing express bus routes are shown in Figure 2 and summarized in Table 1. Ridership data is provided by the Valley Metro Monthly Ridership Report and includes average daily boardings, daily revenue miles, and boardings per trip. It should be noted that while the ridership is similar between the Routes 573 and 575, the majority of the ridership for the Route 573 is from the Glendale/99th Avenue Park-and-Ride and the route carries relatively few riders in north Glendale.

Table 1: Existing Express Bus Service

ROUTE DESCRIPTION TRIPSAVERAGE

DAILY BOARDINGS

DAILY REVENUE

MILES

BOARDINGS PER TRIP

Route 573 (Northwest Valley Express)

• FRAC • Arrowhead Towne Center• Glendale Park-and-Ride

(99th Avenue/Glendale Avenue)• Downtown Phoenix• State Capitolvia Loop 101/I-10

4 trips (inbound)

4 trips(outbound)

131 260.2 16.4

Route 575 (Northwest Valley Express)

• Arrowhead Towne Center• FRAC• State Capitol• Downtown Phoenixvia Loop 101/I-17

3 trips (inbound)

3 trips(outbound)

06 162.3 17.7

Source: Valley Metro, March 2018

Information on the existing park-and-rides in north Glendale at Arrowhead Towne Center and the FRAC is provided in Table 2. Park-and-ride utilization data is available from the City of Glendale and includes average weekday use in terms of parking spaces. The total parking spaces available are undefined at each location because they are shared-use parking lots. Both park-and-rides have relatively low utilization, primarily because of their location. Parking at Arrowhead Towne Center is relegated to the south side of the mall near Forever 21 and not on the north side near the Arrowhead Transit Center.

Table 2: Existing Park-and-Ride Utilization

PARK-AND-RIDE EXPRESS ROUTESAVERAGE WEEKDAY

PARKING SPACE UTILIZATION

Arrowhead Towne Center Route 573, 575 17

Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center (FRAC) Route 573, 575 28

Source: City of Glendale, April/May 2018



Figure 2: Existing Express Bus Service

101

10

17

PHOENIX

PEORIA35

th A

ve

43rd

Ave

67th

Ave

59th

Ave

83rd

Ave

99th

Ave

107t

h Av

e

Avon

dlae

Blv

d

Dys

art R

d

91st

Ave

75th

Ave

51st

Ave

27th

Ave

19th

Ave

7th

Ave

Cen

tral

Ave

Dunlap Ave

Camelback Rd

Indian School Rd

Bethany Home Rd

Thomas Rd

McDowell Rd

Van Buren St

Buckeye Rd

Glendale Ave

Northern Ave

Peoria Ave

Cactus Rd

Greenway Rd

Bell Rd

Pinnacle Peak Rd

Deer Valley Rd

Union Hills Dr

Happy Valley Rd

Thunderbird Rd

PHOENIX

GLENDALE

Foothills Recreation& Aquatic Center

Arrowhead TC

Peoria Park-and-Ride

Surprise Park-and-Ride

El Mirage Walmart

GlendalePark-and-Ride

LEGEND

Existing Transit CenterExisting Park-and-Ride573 Northwest Valley Express575 Northwest Valley Express

2 Miles 3 Miles1 Mile



2.0 PARK-AND-RIDE REQUIREMENTSValley Metro and the cities of Glendale and Peoria worked collaboratively to identify the North Glendale Park-and-Ride facility requirements. The park-and-ride requirements identified by the project team are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Park-and-Ride Requirements

REQUIREMENT DESCRIPTION

Catchment area (radius) 5 miles

Site access (freeway/arterial) 1 mile to freeway/adjacent to arterial

Parking capacity (spaces), buildout and minimum for initial phase 300-500 spaces (200-300 minimum)

Approximate size (acres) 3-5 acres (assumes 100 spaces per acre)

Bus loading Interior or perimeter

Shade canopies Preferable but not required

Expansion needs Preferable but not required

Bicycle storage Required

Security (on-site or closed circuit television) Preferable but not required

3.0 SITE EVALUATIONThe North Glendale Park-and-Ride Study identified and evaluated potential site locations in the study area and selected a preferred site location based on a multiple step evaluation process. The park-and-ride site evaluation process is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Site Evaluation Process

Initial Steps

Tier 1(9 Sites)

Preferred Site

Tier 2(4 Sites)

The Initial Site evaluation screened the initial site options based on the park-and-ride requirements and input from the project team. The site options were rated pass/fail with those passing advancing to the Tier 1 evaluation.

The Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations screened the remaining site options using specific evaluation criteria. The site options are rated High , Medium and Low , with high indicating optimal performance and low indicating substandard performance.



3.1 Initial Site EvaluationInitial site locations were identified using GIS and queried using the park-and-ride requirements identified by the project team. This included sites within the catchment area that met minimum requirements for location/size and which are vacant parcels. The initial sites locations included 22 sites in the Northwest Valley, as shown in Figure 4 and summarized in Table 4.

Most of the initial sites are within one mile of the Loop 101 and many are adjacent to an arterial. Site 3 (Dream City Church) was previously a shared use park-and-ride facility when it was Church of Joy. The park-and-ride at Church of Joy was used between 2007 and 2014, but was relocated in 2014 at the request of the Church of Joy. Site 22 is the current location of the shared use park-and-ride at the Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center (FRAC). Both of these sites are being considered as a long term regional park-and-ride facilities as part of the initial site evaluation.

The project team reviewed the initial sites in comparison to the park-and-ride requirements shown in Table 3. The initial site evaluation included a field tour organized by the City of Glendale in October 2017.

Figure 4: Initial Site Locations

101

57th

AVe

47th

AVe

59th

Ave

51st

Ave

43rd

Ave

63rd

Ave

67th

Ave

75th

Ave

Bell Rd

Paradise Ln

Union Hills Dr

Beardsley Rd

Grovers Ave

Utopia Rd

PHOENIX

GLENDALE

PEORIA

1

5

1410

7

6

15

16178

9

2

1820

21

4

13

1222

3

19

11

1 Mile1/2 MileLEGEND

Initial Sites for Park-and-Ride City Boundaries



Table 4: Initial Site Locations and Results

SITE LOCATION CITY OWNERSHIP ACRESADVANCE (YES/NO)

1 73rd Ave N of Bell Rd Glendale Private 2 No

2 73rd Ave N of Bell Rd Glendale Private 7 No

3 75th Ave N of Loop 101 Glendale Private 9 Yes

4 75th Ave N of Loop 101 Glendale Private 1 No

5 75th Ave N of Loop 101 Glendale Private 18 Yes

6 59th Ave S of Loop 101 Glendale Private 1 No

7 55th Ave and Loop 101 Glendale Private 6 Yes

8 55th Ave and Loop 101 Glendale Public 3 Yes

9 51st Ave N of Loop 101 Glendale Public 9 Yes

10 67th Ave N of Union Hills Glendale Private 20 Yes

11 Arrowhead Mall Glendale Private 10 Yes

12 Union Hills W of 51st Ave Glendale Private 7 No

13 Union Hills W of 51st Ave Glendale Private 5 No

14 43rd Ave S of Loop 101 Phoenix Private 4 No

15 57th Ave N of Union Hills Glendale Private 12 No

16 43rd Ave S of Loop 101 Phoenix Private 4 No

17 55th Ave and Loop 101 Glendale Private 6 No

18 51st Ave N of Loop 101 Phoenix Private 8 Yes

19 47th Ave N of Loop 101 Phoenix Public 8 No

20 47th Ave N of Loop 101 Phoenix Public 8 No

21 54th Ave N or Union Hills Glendale Public 3 No

22 Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center (FRAC) Glendale Public 4 Yes

Results of the Initial Site EvaluationSites 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18 and 22 passed the initial site evaluation and these sites were advanced to Tier 1 as shown in Table 4.



3.2 Tier 1 EvaluationThe Tier 1 evaluation screened the 9 sites that advanced from the Initial Site evaluation. The Tier 1 evaluation used the following criteria:

• Approximate size

• Parking capacity

• Freeway access

• Arterial access

• Physical constraints

• Parcels

• Land use (site)

• Land use (surrounding)

• Expansion

The Tier 1 site locations are shown in Figure 5 and the Tier 1 evaluation matrix is shown in Table 5. The Tier 1 evaluation includes the evaluation criteria and assumptions and the rating for each of the site options.

Figure 5: Tier 1 Site Locations

101

57th

AVe

47th

AVe

59th

Ave

51st

Ave

43rd

Ave

63rd

Ave

67th

Ave

75th

Ave

Bell Rd

Paradise Ln

Union Hills Dr

Beardsley Rd

Grovers Ave

Utopia Rd

PHOENIX

GLENDALE

PEORIA

5

11

10

7

8

918

22

3


Tier 1 Analysis Sites for Park-and-Ride City Boundaries



Table 5: Tier 1 Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Criteria Description Assumptions

EvaluationCriteriaWeight

375th Ave & L101

575th Ave & L101

755th Ave & L101

855th Ave & L101

Rating Detail Rating Detail Rating Detail Rating Detail

Approximate size

3-5 acres (3 minimum) 5+ acres is 3, 3-4 acres is 2, <3 acres is 1

1 3 6 acres 3 18 acres 3 6 acres 2 3 acres

Parking capacity

300-500 vehicles (200-300 minimum)

500+ spaces is 3, 300-400 spaces is 2, <300 spaces is 1

1 3 500+ vehicles 3 500+ vehicles 3 500+ vehicles 2 300 vehicles

Freeway access

Proximity to nearest freeway interchange

Drive distance; <0.7 mile = 3, 0.7 - 1.0 mile = 2, >1.0 mile = 1

1 3 0.6 mile 3 0.6 mile 2 0.7 mile 2 0.8 mile

Arterial access

Adjacency to arterial street network

Adjacent (3) or not adjacent (1)

1 3 Yes, 75th Ave 1 No 3 Yes, Beardsley Rd 3 Yes, Beardsley Rd

Physical constraints

On or adjacent to site List specific issues on or near site

2 3 Shared parking 2 One-way frontage road, culvert, cemetery

3 One-way frontage road

1 Retention basin, narrow frontage, one-way

frontage road

Parcels Vacant/public; compatibility with economic development

1 parcel is 3, 2 parcels is 2, 3+ parcels is 1

1 2 2, with retention parcel to north

3 1 parcel 3 1 parcel 2 2 parcels

Land use (site)

Future land use of site Industrial, Commercial, Public and Other Employment

1 2 Religious 2 Office 2 Office 3 Public

Land use (surrounding)

Existing land use(ELU) and future land use (FLU) surrounding sites

Industrial, Commercial, Public and Other Employment

1 2 ELU: Commercial, SF and MF Residential. FLU: Same as ELU

3 ELU: Vacant, MF Residential, Transportation, Cemetery,

Commercial, Public FLU: Medical, Commercial, MF

Residential, Transportation, Industrial, Public

2 ELU: Vacant, SF Residential, Public,

Transportation, Education, Office FLU: Same as ELU

2 ELU: Vacant, SF Residential, Public,

Transportation, Education FLU: Same as ELU, Office

Expansion Percentage 25%+ is 3, <25% is 2, None is 1

1 3 25% 3 100% 3 25% 1 0%

Total 27 25 27 19

Rank 1 5 1 9

3 = Optimal Performance, 2 = Moderate Performance, 1 = Substandard Performance



Table 5: Tier 1 Evaluation Matrix (continue)



951st Ave & L101

1067th Ave & Union Hills

11Arrowhead Mall

1851st Ave & L101

22FRAC

Rating Detail Rating Detail Rating Detail Rating Detail Rating Detail

Approximate size

3-5 acres (3 minimum)

5+ acres is 3, 3-4 acres is 2, <3 acres is 1

1 3 9 acres 3 20 acres 3 5 acres 3 8 acres 2 4 acres

Parking capacity

300-500 vehicles (200-300 minimum)

500+ spaces is 3, 300-400 spaces is 2, <300 spaces is 1

1 3 500+ vehicles 3 500+ vehicles 3 500+ vehicles 3 500+ vehicles 2 400 vehicles

Freeway access

Proximity to nearest freeway interchange

Drive distance; <0.7 mile = 3, 0.7 - 1.0 mile = 2, >1.0 mile = 1

1 3 0.5 mile 1 1.2 miles 2 0.8 mile 3 0.5 mile 1 1.5 miles

Arterial access Adjacency to arterial street network

Adjacent (3) or not adjacent (1)

1 3 Yes, Loop 101 Access Rd

3 Yes, 67th Ave 1 No 3 Yes, 51st Ave 3 Yes, Union Hills Dr

Physical constraints

On or adjacent to site

List specific issues on or near site

2 1 Retention basin, one-way frontage road, requires left

turns without signal

3 Hospital, orchard 3 Shared parking, internal driveway/

ring road

2 Requires left turns without

signal

2 Bus circulation, shared parking

Parcels Vacant/public; compatibility with economic development

1 parcel is 3, 2 parcels is 2, 3+ parcels is 1

1 2 2 parcels 3 1 parcel 3 1 parcel 3 1 parcel 3 1 parcel

Land use (site) Future land use of site


1 1 SF Residential 2 Medical 2 Commercial 2 Religious 3 Public

Land use (surrounding)

Existing land use (ELU) and future land use (FLU) surrounding sites


1 3 ELU: Vacant, Transportation,

Office, Religious, SF Residential

FLU: Same as ELU

2 ELU: Medical, SF Residential, Commercial,

Industrial FLU: Same as ELU

3 ELU: Commercial, Hotel, Office, SF

and MF Residential FLU: Same as ELU

3 ELU: Vacant, Religious, Office, Transportation, SF Residential

3 ELU: Public, SF Residential, Active

Open Space FLU: Same as ELU

Expansion Percentage 25%+ is 3, <25% is 2, None is 1

1 3 40% 3 100% 2 10% 3 40% 1 0%

Total 23 26 25 27 22

Rank 7 4 5 1 8




Results of the Tier 1 EvaluationSites 7, 10, 3, and 18 scored the highest in the Tier 1 evaluation and were advanced to Tier 2. These sites shared similar attributes in that they have adequate size, good freeway access, minimal physical constraints, compatible land uses, and potential for expansion.

Following the completion of Tier 1 evaluation, the site numbers were relabeled as site letters (A, B, C, and D) for the Tier 2 evaluation.

3.3 Tier 2 EvaluationThe Tier 2 evaluation screened the 4 sites (A, B, C, and D) that advanced from the Tier 1 evaluation. The Tier 2 evaluation used the following criteria:

• Parking spaces

• Size

• Bus driveway

• Valuation

• Capital cost

• Operations and maintenance cost

• Bus access and circulation

• Auto access and circulation

• Physical constraints

• Compatibility with bus operation and service

• Rider preference input

• Economic development

• Environmental issues

• Expansion

The Tier 2 site locations are shown in Figure 6 and the Tier 2 evaluation matrix is shown in Table 7. The Tier 2 evaluation includes the evaluation criteria and assumptions and the rating for each of the site

options. In addition, conceptual site layouts were developed for each of the Tier 2 site options and are shown in Figures 7 thru 10.

The following is a brief description of each site option:

• Site A: Located on a vacant parcel on the south side of the Loop 101 at 55th Avenue along the one-way eastbound frontage road (Beardsley Road). The site requires one-way circulation and out-of-direction travel for buses and vehicles using the frontage road. Ingress/egress is restricted to right-in/right-out. Access control would need to be coordinated with ADOT.

• Site B: Located on a former orchard site on the northeast corner of 67th Avenue and Sack Drive across from the Abrazo Arrowhead Hospital. The site is located approximately one mile south of the Loop 101. Bus access would be from Sack Drive while auto access would be from both 67th Avenue and Sack Drive. Some on-street parking on the north side of Sack Drive would need to be eliminated for the bus and vehicle driveways. In addition, the existing speed hump on Sack Drive would need to be removed because of bus operations.



• Site C: Located in the parking lot of Dream City Church at the southwest corner of 75th Avenue and Rose Garden Lane approximately a quarter-mile north of the Loop 101. There is an existing bus bay on 75th Avenue and buses would use a one-way clockwise loop through the church with ingress at Aspera Boulevard and egress at Rose Garden Lane. Auto access would be from either Aspera Boulevard or Rose Garden Lane.

• Site D: Located on a vacant parcel on the northeast corner of 51st Avenue and Tonopah Drive approximately a quarter-mile north of the Loop 101. Buses would use a one-way clock-wise loop through the site with ingress from 51st Avenue and egress at Tonopah Drive. Auto access would be provided from both 51st Avenue and Tonopah Drive. The unprotected left turn from Tonopah Drive at 51st Avenue would need to be reevaluated.

Figure 6: Tier 2 Site Locations

10157

th A

Ve

47th

AVe

59th

Ave

51st

Ave

43rd

Ave

63rd

Ave

67th

Ave

75th

Ave

Bell Rd

Paradise Ln

Union Hills Dr

Beardsley Rd

Grovers Ave

Utopia Rd

PHOENIX

GLENDALE

PEORIA

B

A

DC


Tier 2 Sites for Park-and-Ride City Boundaries



Table 5: Tier 2 Evaluation Matrix



A55th Ave & L101

B67th Ave & Union Hills

Rating Detail Rating Detail

Parking spaces Number of spaces 500+ spaces is 3, 300-400 spaces is 2, <300 spaces is 1 1 2 347 2 365

Size Acres 5+ acres is 3, 3-4 acres is 2, <3 acres is 11 3 6.6 3 7.1

Bus driveway Sq/Ft <5,000 sq/ft is 3, 5,000-15,000 sq/ft is 2, 15,000+ sq/ft is 1 1 2 11,425 1 27,580

Valuation Assessed value for parcel $0 is 3, $1-750,000 is 2, >$750,000 is 1 1 2 458,592 1 2,393,060

Capital cost Order of magnitude <$3m is 3, $3m-$10m is 2, >$10m is 12 2 $7,144,252 1 $10,743,610

Operations and maintenance cost

Based on 99th Ave/Glendale PNR costs

Lump sum for each site1 $150,000 $150,000

Bus access and circulation Ingress/egress List specific issues on or near site 2 2 Direct access from Beardsley Rd (frontage road); requires one-way circulation and out of direction travel

2 Ingress: 67th Ave then Sack Dr (2 left turns)Egress: Sack Dr then 67th Ave (2 right turns)

Auto access and circulation Ingress/egress List specific issues on or near site 1 2 Right in/out at 2 locations on frontageOnly 4 parking rows with 2 driveway lanes

2 Right in/out at 67th AveLeft or right at Sack DrTraffic signal at 67th Ave and Sack Dr

Physical constraints On or adjacent to site List specific issues on or near site 2 2 One-way frontage road which requires one-way circulation and out of direction travel

2 Hospital access and overflow parking on Sack Dr. Requires unprotected left turn on Sack Dr.

Compatibility with bus operation and service

Current and future service plans List specific issues 1 2 Compatible with current/future 575 routing with direct access to EB L101; adds distance and out-of-direction circulation for 573

2 Can serve both 573/575 current/future routing; out-of-direction (NB) to access freeway; could serve as EOL for Route 67

Rider preference input Input from Community Relations survey effort

Preference Rating of each site 1 1 Second lowest rated site for first and second preference.

2 Top rated site for second preference

Economic development Input from City of Glendale on known development plans

List specific issues 1 3 Little or no known issues 1 Potential hospital expansion

Environmental issues High level screening List specific issues on or near site 1 1 Drainage, access control, adjacent residential 3 None

Expansion Percentage 25%+ is 3, <25% is 2, None is 1 1 1 None 3 %100

Total 31 30

Rank 2 3




Table 5: Tier 2 Evaluation Matrix (continue)



C75th Ave & L101

D51st Ave & L101

Rating Detail Rating Detail

Parking spaces Number of spaces 500+ spaces is 3, 300-400 spaces is 2, <300 spaces is 1 1 2 274 2 333

Size Acres 5+ acres is 3, 3-4 acres is 2, <3 acres is 11 3 N/A 3 5.98

Bus driveway Sq/Ft <5,000 sq/ft is 3, 5,000-15,000 sq/ft is 2, 15,000+ sq/ft is 1 1 3 1,950 1 23,980

Valuation Assessed value for parcel $0 is 3, $1-750,000 is 2, >$750,000 is 1 1 3 N/A 2 571,679

Capital cost Order of magnitude <$3m is 3, $3m-$10m is 2, >$10m is 12 3 $935,975 2 $8,104,429

Operations and maintenance cost

Based on 99th Ave/Glendale PNR costs

Lump sum for each site1 $45.000 $150,000

Bus access and circulation Ingress/egress List specific issues on or near site 2 3 One-way clockwise loop thru church using 75th Ave, Aspera Blvd, and Rose Garden Ln

1 Ingress: 51st AveEgress: Tonopah Dr then 51st Ave (1 right turn, 1 unprotected left turn)

Auto access and circulation Ingress/egress List specific issues on or near site 1 3 Aspera Blvd or Rose Garden Ln (both are traffic signals)

1 Left or right at 51st Ave or Tonopah DrNo traffic signal at 51st Ave and Tonopah Dr

Physical constraints On or adjacent to site List specific issues on or near site 2 2 Shared parking with church 1 Requires unprotected left turn

Compatibility with bus operation and service

Current and future service plans List specific issues 1 3 Can serve both 573/575 current/future routing

1 Works for current/future 575 routing; adds distance and out-of-direction circulation for 573

Rider preference input Input from Community Relations survey effort

Preference Rating of each site 1 3 Top rated site for first preference. 1 Lowest rated site for first and second preference.

Economic development Input from City of Glendale on known development plans

List specific issues 1 3 Little or no known issues 2 Possible religious expansion

Environmental issues High level screening List specific issues on or near site 1 3 None 2 Adjacent residential

Expansion Percentage 25%+ is 3, <25% is 2, None is 1 1 1 None 2 %15

Total 43 25

Rank 1 4




Figure 7: Site A (55th Avenue and Loop 101) Conceptual Layout

55th

AVE

NUE

LOOP 101 (AGUA FRIAFREEWAY)

BEARDSLEY ROAD

ESCUDA DRIVE

53rd

AVE

NUE

APPROX. ROW LINEBUS DROP AT EDGE OFFRONTAGE ROAD

RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT

RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT

EXPRESS BUS ROUTE

RETENTION

RETENTION337 - 10X20 STALLS8 - ADA STALLS2 - ADA VAN STALLS347

EXPRESS BUS ROUTE

Glendale Park-and-Ride Options, Glendale, AZ

north February 28, 2018no scaleSite A



Figure 8: Site B (67th Avenue and Union Hills) Conceptual Layout

APPROX. ROW LINE

EXPRESS BUS ROUTE

RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT

67th

AVE

NUE

SACKDRIVE

ABRAZO ARROWHEAD HOSPITAL

RETENTION

355 - 10X20 STALLS8 - ADA STALLS2 - ADA VAN STALLS365

EXPRESS BUS ROUTE

RETENTION

NO EXISTING SIGNAL

EXISITINGSPEED BUMPEXISTING

SIGNAL


north February 28, 2018no scaleSite B



Figure 9: Site C (75th Avenue and Loop 101) Conceptual Layout

75th AVENUE

ROSE

GAR

DEN

LANE

ASPE

RA B

OULE

VARD

IRMA

LANE

DREAM CITY CHURCH

KNEADERS

STARBUCKS FIREDPIE

FUNERALCENTER

JOY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL

166 STALLS

108 STALLS

EXISTING BUS STOP EXPRESS BUS ROUTE

EXISTING SIGNAL

EXISTING SIGNAL

44 STALLS

EXPRESS BUS ROUTE


north February 28, 2018no scaleSite C



Figure 10: Site D (51st Avenue and Loop 101) Conceptual Layout

TONOPAH DRIVE

APPROX. ROW LINE

51st

AVEN

UE

NISHKAM SEVA GURDWARA SAHIB

15' EASEMENT

EXPRESS BUS ROUTE

RETENTION

323 - 10X20 STALLS8 - ADA STALLS2 - ADA VAN STALLS333

EXPRESS BUS ROUTE

RETENTION

NO EXISTING SIGNAL


north February 28, 2018no scaleSite D



Results of the Tier 2 EvaluationSite C was recommended as the preferred site location based on the Tier 2 evaluation. It scored substantially higher than the other site options for the following reasons:

• Site C was the overwhelming favorite from the park-and-ride passenger and online survey (see further detail in Section 4.0).

• The location has a history of success as the site was formerly the location of a shared-use park-and-ride and had much higher park-and-ride utilization than the current park-and-rides at Arrowhead Towne Center or FRAC.

• The site has an excellent location on 75th Avenue just north of the Loop 101 that provides operational flexibility for express bus service on Loop 101/I-17 or Loop 101/I-17.

• The site does not require property acquisition and would instead require a long term lease with the property owner (Dream City Church).

• The existing parking lot is well maintained and there is an existing bus bay on 75th Avenue.

• Additional passenger amenities such as shade canopies could be added with minimal cost.

• The site has adjacent uses such as a coffee shop that are desirable for park-and-ride users.

4.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTAs part of the North Glendale Park-and-Ride Study, targeted stakeholders were engaged to identify a new park-and-ride location. The primary targeted stakeholders identified for outreach were riders of Routes 573 and 575 from the Arrowhead Towne Center and the Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center (FRAC). The first purpose of engaging these stakeholders was to solicit their preference on the four sites identified for the Tier 2 Evaluation. The second purpose was to obtain information from stakeholders on the relative importance of certain amenities for the proposed new site including:

• Landscaping and trees,

• Shade canopy,

• Closed circuit security (CCTV),

• Security patrolled lot, and

• Walking distance from parked car location to the bus stop.

Engagement efforts included a field survey conducted over two days in February 2018 at the Arrowhead Towne Center and the FRAC. The same survey was also available on the study’s webpage for a period of two weeks, commencing on the first day of the field survey. Additional study materials available to the public on the webpage included fact sheets updated quarterly and posted on the study’s existing webpage.

The results of the first choice preference for the park-and-ride location is indicated in Figure 11. Out of a total of 84 responses, 77 percent chose Site C as the first choice. The top rankings for park-and-ride amenities are indicated in Figure 12. Shade canopy was indicated as the most important feature, with 41 percent of responses choosing it as the number one feature.



Figure 11: First Choice for Park-and-Ride Location

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Site A 6%

15%

77%

1%

Site B

Site C

Site D

Figure 12: Top Rankings for Park-and-Ride Amenities

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

Walkability fromcar to bus stop

22%

11%

41%

19%

20%

27%

2%

7%

9%

26%

Shade Canopy

SecurityPatrolled Lot

First Choice

Second Choice

Landscaping

CCTV Monitor



5.0 NEXT STEPS The next step for the North Glendale Park-and-Ride is to develop and negotiate a long term lease agreement for Site C, which is an existing parking lot owned by Dream City Church. This lease agreement would be between Dream City Church and the City of Glendale. The terms of the lease agreement would be dependent on whether the project uses Federal funding for the park-and-ride.

Given the relatively low capital cost of Site C, it may be possible for the park-and-ride to be constructed with regional funding instead of Federal funding. This may allow for more flexibility in the terms of lease agreement, and could allow the park-and-ride to open sooner. If the park-and-ride uses Federal funding, the facility will be re-programmed in the MAG Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to open by 2023.

Valley Metro and the City of Glendale would also need to develop an operating agreement for bus operations and maintenance at Site C. This agreement would be similar to what is used for the existing Glendale/99th Avenue Park-and-Ride.

Sites A and B remain viable site options for the North Glendale Park-and-Ride and could be further advanced if Site C is not used. Both of these sites would require property acquisition and the use of Federal funding. It is not recommended that Site D be considered further given its low rating in the Tier 2 evaluation.

NORTH GLENDALE PARK-AND-RIDE STUDY Final Report

Documents