1990 White Paper

In 1990, ARPA released the below white paper, “Regional Rail for Arizona.”

A Rail Systems Approach to Arizona Transportation Needs

April 10, 1990

A White Paper prepared for UTDC Corp., Detroit, Michigan by UTDC Corp. Rail Marketing Representative Byron A. Nordberg. The views expressed are those of the author as a function of marketing Bi-level rail passenger cars and operational systems on behalf of UTDC. This document is not a proposal but a basis for continuing rail systems discussions with authorities in Arizona at a variety of levels. Research for this paper has been accomplished by NHA, Inc., Surface Transportation Systems Consultants, Oceanside, California 92054 under contract to UTDC, Corp.

Background and Executive Summary

Introduction

During the 1980′s, the State of Arizona and its local jurisdictions have been experiencing dramatic changes in population densities and confronting major changes in transportation systems requirements. The escalating population has been concentrated for the most part in five southern counties with particular growth in the Phoenix Metroplex and the Tucson Metropolitan Area.

Arizona has enjoyed excellent freeways and other state highways for many years. Indeed, the arterial streets of Phoenix are a remarkable example of substantive planning for capacity growth within an urban area. Unfortunately, the urban area freeway systems surrounding Phoenix and Tucson respectively are beginning to experience increasing delays as population growth and automobile ownership and use continue. Even the Phoenix arterial system does not function as freely as in years past during crush periods. Indeed, even during the noon hour, traffic impacts on several of the major arterials is heavy.

Recognizing the problem, planners in Arizona have surfaced a variety of proposals for addressing future transportation needs on a timely basis. The growing transportation infrastructure deficit has resulted in specific legislation resulting in some shift in emphasis to new transit options, added revenues for freeway and highway additions and improvements as well as modest changes in institutional structures addressing transportation systems. A growing recognition that highways cannot be built to accommodate all the travelers that wish to use them all the time has emerged. Fortunately, the interest in public transportation systems as a supplement for the automobile (and with respect to rail systems as a supplement to air transportation as well) continues its emergence, as demonstrated by growing public use of bus transit in Phoenix and Tucson and the latent but persistent interest in using rail.

Emerging Interest In Rail Systems

During 1989, a major rail transit proposal, including a commuter rail component, was advanced by the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) in Phoenix. The ValTrans rapid transit proposal which eventually appeared as a ballot proposition would have eventually served much of metropolitan Phoenix. The commuter component addressed in the ‘East Valley Commuter Rail Study’ prepared during July 1989 by the RPTA Staff was only a small portion of the proposed plan. It was the portion that could be implemented relatively quickly and at rather low cost. Over 3000 trips per day were forecast for a minimal system.

The ValTrans rapid transit element would have served a large part of the Phoenix Metroplex, though by no means all of it. The cost was estimated to be at or greater than $10 billion. Its time frame for implementation was over a thirty year period with an initial line constructed and operational in a short time. Critical to the construction of the rapid transit system proposed was the acguisition of rights-of-way where public easements were not available, and considerable work to adapt and change neighborhood infrastructures to accommodate the system. Among other things, a considerable amount of disruption to selected thoroughfares could be forecast during construction. Finally, the additional tax levy required was not agreeable to many residents, despite the best efforts of local elected representatives, staff personnel at RPTA and others who supported the rapid transit concept and program.

Commuter Rail Interest

The ValTrans proposal did emphasize the need for coordinated bus, rail and auto capabilities. The rail proposal did cover the core area of the Phoenix Metroplex. It would have integrated with local bus transit operations. And, it did project substantial use of rail provided there were adequate parking lots at the various stations. The East Valley Commuter ridership estimate was even probably conservative. Since the service model was limited to a Phoenix, Chandler and Gilbert orientation, its ability to attract a wider ridership was limited. By extending commuter or regional services to other communities, it appears that a much greater ridership can be forecast for local rail services. Based on the data available from the RPTA study and a review of other demographic information commonly available, it appears that a local ridership component of an Arizona Regional Rail System using the available rail routes as shown on Annexes A and B would attract between 4000 and 6000 riders daily (Monday through Friday) with a different pattern of use emerging on weekends and holidays.

In addition to the local component, an additional 3000-5000 daily trips using a broadly based regional approach could be attracted. This is especially true if the service is linked to Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport and Tucson International Airport. At Sky Harbor, a ‘gate’ associated with Terminal Four could be constructed at the railroad tracks near 40th Street. At Tucson, a direct airport connection could be built with little or no disruption to the local community.

The great strength of the East Valley Commuter Rail proposal as well as a critical component of this document is the development of a cost effective rail system utilizing existing rights of way on a shared basis with freight services. The public provision of rail transportation services could most likely be accomplished in a ‘landlord – tenant’ relationship on a railroad improved for passenger carrying purposes.

Analogues – The Experience of Others

Elsewhere, the experience of regional and intercity rail is one of growth and demand exceeding supply. In California, regional rail services provided by Amtrak are creating a demand for added frequencies and additional equipment. The business community is finding Amtrak particularly advantageous. The San Diegan trains, linking San Diego, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara are now approaching the two million rider per year threshold with every indication that 1990 will see that level of utilization achieved. Farebox recovery is at or over 100% of operating costs according to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). That level of productivity is expected to rise even further as additional services are extended to Santa Barbara. Recently, a third train frequency was added to the San Joaquin Valley services, immediately raising ridership by more than 50% and rapidly consuming the limited additional capacity gained by a few extra cars and one frequency.

Commuter rail in Toronto, Ontario, Canada has grown enormously during the 1980′s. Toronto has placed its fifth order for UTDC Bi-level cars to accommodate the growth. Toronto has also added frequencies on several routes, will be adding more on other routes and has even lengthened its trains at crush periods. The longer trains have twelve cars each and are carrying well over 2000 commuters per trip. Chicago is experiencing similar demands for increased service on routes that exist while seeking authority to operate over additional routes. San Francisco to San Jose Commuter services have been increased as well and a first route extension is about to be implemented.

Miami – The Most Recent Start

The most recent new regional rail start is Miami to West Palm Beach, Florida. Using UTDC Bi-levels similar to those that have contributed to the success of regional rail in Toronto, a ridership level of over 5000 per day has been achieved. A total of nine daily round trips are operated, concentrated in the morning and evening crush periods as well as providing one round-trip during the critical mid-day period. The mid-day service has been successful in creating a new market for the initial service and is illustrative of how regional rail is useful throughout the day instead of being limited to crush periods only. Growth continues on the Miami Tri-Rail system despite limitations on parking at many of its stations. The Tri-Rail System is operated under contract by UTDC. UTDC built the cars and commissioned the system as well.

Regional Rail For Arizona

Each area that supports regional rail has variable circumstances that are exploited in the public interest. In like fashion, capital costs and operating support requirements are variable. The trend today is toward increasing operating efficiencies that suggest a 90-100% goal for operating cost recovery is reasonable after a period of time during which patronage is built up. The farebox recovery ratio experience is variable from about 40% to nearly over 80% on commuter systems while exceeding 100% on regional applications such as the San Diegans. The need to limit capital investment and the necessity to build systems more quickly is also widely recognized, thus making rail development on existing rights-of-way a highly attractive process. Capital costs continue to be a function of government for the most part. But, there is an increasing amount of private sector cooperation in and around station sites, generating revenues to support the rail system, capital for some parts of stations and significant returns to private developers sharing in station site processes.

An overview of available data suggests that development of a Regional Rail System in Arizona, separate from but coordinated with current and possible added Amtrak service would be feasible, affordable and an effective long term strategy to supplement the freeway, state highway system and related arterials. The following data are relevant.

  • A system focused on Phoenix but linked regionally with Yuma on the west, Wickenburg to the north, Tucson and Tucson International Airport to the southeast and Nogales to the south at the international border is feasible. About 85% of Arizona’s population will have easy access to the regional system. Annexes A and B provide geographic orientation and depict system overlays.
  • Capital costs will be approximately $732 million. Annexes C and D pertain.
  • Rail building, except into the Tucson International Airport, will be within existing rights-of-way which will be upgraded to permit fast and frequent passenger services integrated with existing and projected freight services.
  • Initial operating costs would approximate $25 million per annum. Annexes E through H pertain. Depending on frequencies, the level of fares, number of station stops, ride distances and other variables, the initial operation could generate 65-75% of its operating costs from the farebox in its first several years. On a worst case basis, a not less than 50% recovery would be likely.
  • A fast-tracked planning, engineering, construction and commissioning timetable would permit service to begin in three years (or slightly less) from notice to proceed. A period of negotiations with Southern Pacific Transportation Company and Santa Fe Railway Company will come first. Trackage rights and liability issues will undoubtedly dominate negotiations. From the date of order, locomotives and cars can be obtained in about 12 to 18 months. Most stations, shops, other facilities and rail construction can be undertaken and completed within a three year period of time. Most work can be concurrent and thus carefully phased keeping construction management costs relatively low.
  • Coordinated regional efforts with New Mexico and E1 Paso are possible but not included in this analysis other than as being of tangential interest. Annex A depicts a developed regional, intercity and local system.
  • A collector-distributor service could be provided in conjunction with regional air carriers. By way of example, a San Diego to Wickenburg ticket using coordinated air and rail could permit access to Arizona at Sky Harbor, connecting to rail at a rail focused gate, probably linked to Terminal Four. A Similar scenario can be envisioned from Tucson International to a variety of points along the rail route. And, it is not impossible to envision linking Phoenix and Tucson by rail as a function of added airline frequencies, a practice now common in Germany where airline chartered trains operate daily.

In summary, a regional rail system for Arizona appears to be achievable at relatively low cost (less than 10% of the ValTrans proposal) and in a short period of time. The system could become part of a strategy to manage scarce transportation resources. And it could become a partner with private enterprises for development astride the rail route as well as a function of added airline services in the region.

The balance of this paper summarizes information contained in the attached Annexes.

Service Concept and Objectives

The service concept underlying this analysis is:

  • An Arizona Regional Rail System can be developed inexpensively and within a short time-frame. The system will exploit existing rights-of-way, gaining access through cooperative agreements with the Santa Fe Railway Company and Southern Pacific Transportation Company. The present railroad companies would generally continue to own the tracks and rights-of-way, excepting shops, yards and some terminal tracks.
  • The service would be focused on Phoenix and Tucson with local services operated in the Phoenix Metroplex and regional services operated throughout the region. Approximately 85% of all Arizona residents will live within easy driving distance of the regional rail system, thus increasing its utility greatly. Significant parking facilities would be required at all locations to assure maximum utility and close coordination between automobile use and rail services.
  • The service would seek to develop a major cooperative relationship with private sector interests. It would serve as a catalyst for commercial development. It would work cooperatively with the railroad companies, assuring mutual benefit. It would be aggressive about marketing itself as a collector-distributor system for regional airline carriers using Sky Harbor and Tucson International airports.

The objective of this service is:

  • to provide a regional rail spine-line system on existing rights-of-way improving mobility choices, exploiting airport connections and supplementing the automobile. The objective is to further serve economic interests throughout the region with a focus on the Phoenix Metroplex and Tucson Metropolitan Area. Both Phoenix and Tucson (as well as Tempe, Mesa and other cities) have major downtown facilities that are within easy walking distance of the proposed rail service. Transit and taxi services place even a greater portion of the respective downtowns within easy reach of the rail service. Both Phoenix and Tucson (as well as some others) have government complexes that are at or close to proposed station sites. Both Phoenix and Tucson have airport locations favorable to service by regional rail. Both Phoenix and Tucson have strategically located surrounding communities that are situated on the proposed rail system and susceptible to using the rail service.
  • Operationally, the regional rail system can be implemented based on a combination of services with 80 MPH maximum speeds (and related signal systems) as well as 90-100 MPH speeds and the more sophisticated signal system required for its operation. This paper uses costs based on 100 MPH speeds between Phoenix and Tucson and 80 MPH speeds elsewhere. A Phoenix to Tucson run with top speeds of 100 MPH would take about one hour forty minutes depending on stops. A schedule at 1:40 is automobile competitive.

MARKETS

The rail market potential in Arizona is estimated to be modest at the outset, with growing use coming quickly. The use of rail will be a function of where the stops are – the matrix; what the frequencies are; fare levels; parking lot size and security and air coordination.

The markets examined and considered viable are:

  • Local home to work trips, especially for downtown workers and some others. These trips would be generated from five routes radiating from Phoenix to Goodyear, Sun City, Gilbert, Chandler and West Chandler.
  • Regional trips for a variety of reasons including tourism and visitor and convention activities.
  • Excursion trips.
  • Intercity travel coordinated with air and Amtrak service.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT

Capital investment and what it purchases are noted in Annexes C and D. These costs are forecast on a conservative basis. The key to shaping the extant railroad into a much more capable part of the regional transportation infrastructure is development based on not having to purchase critical rights-of-way and compensate for massive neighborhood disruptions. A further advantage is the relatively short time it takes to rebuild and modify a railroad that already exists and is in fairly good condition.

Equipment is available that provides high capacity with very high customer satisfaction. In fact to both customers – the purchaser and the passenger. The UTDC Bilevel coaches are attracting more and more riders in Miami and have generated extremely high demand for commuter rail in Toronto and its environs.

Passenger facilities are envisioned as simple yet gracious. Passengers need shade facilities at all stops. Some locations are easily satisfied with simple bus shelter facilities. Others will require more sophisticated approaches depending on the type(s) of services provided. In any case, the major consideration is to provide sufficient, safe and otherwise acceptable parking facilities, included covered parking in some circumstances.

A critical component of any capital investment program is to gain participation of the private sector at station sites and in support of the system as it serves employment and commercial interests. It may be useful to work with the private sector to establish improvement districts around stations to encourage concentrations of activity.

OPERATIONS

Operations have been detailed above and further depicted in Annexes A and B. In summary, three kinds of operation are possible simultaneously. These are:

  • Local services primarily focused at crush periods and at mid-day.
  • Regional services focused on longer distance trips and provided throughout the day.
  • Intercity trips primarily using Amtrak connecting service as it grows in frequency through Arizona.

FUNDING

Annex I depicts funding possibilities. A thorough analysis of funding sources and options is required. However denominated, it appears that the State of Arizona must take a lead role in orchestrating a Regional Rail System, including financing.

As a broad generalization, funding sources are:

  • Federal sources for capital and operations, primarily using UMTA resources.
  • State sources using bonds, direct grants and special assessments.
  • Local sources for supporting infrastructure.
  • Private sources based on surrounding development.
  • Benefit districts.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

UTDC Corporation as a major manufacturer and operator of regional rail systems is capable of assembling a team to provide a ‘turn-key’ project approach to building and operating regional rail in Arizona.

ANNEX A.

Regional Rail Systems Overlay

[Attached to original report. Shows existing Intercity rail (Amtrak) and proposed regional passenger systems (the later-implemented Metrolink and Coaster, as well as a New Mexico system. -- Ed.]

ANNEX B.

Regional Passenger Rail System

ANNEX C.

Physical Plant Components (Summary)

NEW TRACK CONSTRUCTION

  • Passing tracks
  • Double tracks – Coolidge to Tucson
  • Double tracks – Phoenix terminal area
  • Terminal tracks
  • Passenger train yard tracks
  • Tucson International Airport tracks
  • Freight yard track modifications

UPGRADING OF PRESENT TRACKS

  • Rerailing some main tracks
  • Ballast undercutting and cleaning
  • Crosstie replacements as required
  • Tightening standards to FRA Class V
  • Tightening standards to FRA Class VI

SURFACE AND LINING OF CURRENT TRACKS

  • A part of routine maintenance
  • Required after building/rebuilding

SWITCHES AND OTHER SPECIAL TRACKWORK

  • 50 MPH main track turnouts/crossovers
  • 20 MPH turnouts/crossovers as needed
  • 10 MPH turnouts/crossovers as needed
  • Special crossings – rail over rail
  • Special yard tracks

SIGNALS AND CONTROL SYSTEMS

  • Basic Centralized Traffic Control
  • Interlockings
  • Automatic Block Signals/CTC – 80 MPH
  • Cab Signals/CTC (or ARES/ATCS): 90 – 100 MPH
  • Grade crossing warning devices/CWT

GRADE CROSSING AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

  • Improved warning devices
  • Improved crossing surfaces as needed
  • Signage
  • Grade separation candidate crossings
  • (not costed in this paper)

    • YARDS, SHOPS AND OPERATING FACILITIES

    • Maintenance facilities
    • Maintenance equipment – shop/field
    • Fuel, sand and water facilities
    • Equipment cleaning and washing line
    • Commissary facilities as required
    • Offices (lease or build)
    • Equipment storage facilities

    EQUIPMENT – LOCOMOTIVES AND BILEVEL CARS

    • Diesel locomotives/HEP equipped (New preferred/rebuilt acceptable)
    • UTDC Bi-Level coaches
    • UTDC Bi-Level cab control cars
    • UTDC Bi-level feature cars

    URBAN, SUBURBAN AND RURAL STATION FACILITIES

    • 500′ initial platforms (rural and suburban stops)
    • 800′ – 1500′ initial platforms (urban stops and terminals)
    • Adequate parking (100 – 1000 spaces each)
    • Simple bus-type shelters (most suburban; all rural)
    • Ticketing machines
    • Detailed signage and information
    • Multi-modal where appropriate (small to large facility)

    JOINT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

    • Commercial developments at stations
    • Developer participation at stations (Benefit assessment districts)
    • Maximizing Aviation interface (Sky Harbor and Tucson International

    ANNEX D.

    Representative Capital Costs

    (Summary initial estimate)

    TRACK AND SIGNAL COSTS $ 400,000,000
    LOCOMOTIVES AND CARS
    (possible to lease)    		 $ 100,000,000
    YARDS, SHOPS AND OPERATING FACILITIES $ 25,000,000
    MAJOR URBAN AND AIRPORT JOINT STATIONS $ 35,000,000
    SUBURBAN AND RURAL STATIONS $ 50,000,000
    PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY $ 122,000,000
    INITIAL COST ASSESSMENT TOTAL: $ 732,000,000

    Notes:

    1. Estimates are conservative
    2. Leased equipment would become operating cost
    3. $732 million is capital cost of about $1.664 million per mile assuming 440 route miles Wickenburg/Yuma to Phoenix; Phoenix local (West Chandler/Chandler line) and Phoenix to Tucson Airport and Nogales
    4. Minimum car requirement is 50 cars
    5. Minimum locomotive requirement is 17 units

    ANNEX E.

    Regional System Segment Components

    WICKENBURG-PHOENIX-TUCSON-NOGALES

    • North-south axis
    • Regional rail

    YUMA-PHOENIX-TUCSON-NOGALES

    • East-west axis
    • Regional rail and Amtrak intercity

    PHOENIX-TUCSON-EL PASO

    • East-west axis
    • Regional rail and Amtrak intercity

    PHOENIX LOCAL

    • Sun City – Phoenix
    • Goodyear – Phoenix
    • Gilbert – Phoenix
    • Chandler – Phoenix
    • West Chandler – Phoenix

    REPRESENTATIVE MILEAGES*

    Yuma-Goodyear-Phoenix 175 miles
    Wickenburg-Sun City-Phoenix 58 miles
    Phoenix-Tucson-Nogales 186 miles
    Phoenix-Chandler 35 miles
    Phoenix-West Chandler 16 miles
    Phoenix-Goodyear 17 miles

    *Mileages not additive. Approximate route miles are 440

    ANNEX F.

    Potential Service Points

    LOCATION

    		LOCAL REGIONAL INTERCITY
    Wickenburg x
    Sun City x x
    Peoria x x
    Glendale x x
    Phoenix (McDowell Road) x
    Yuma x x
    Wellton x
    Buckeye x
    Goodyear (Litchfield Road) x x x
    107th Avenue x
    91st Avenue x
    67th Avenue x
    35th Avenue x
    Phoenix (State Capitol) x x
    Phoenix (Union Station) x
    Phoenix (Civic Plaza) x x x
    Phoenix (Sky Harbor) x x x
    Phoenix (Papago Park) x
    Tempe x x x
    West Chandler Line:
    …Southern Avenue x
    …Guadalupe Road x
    …Warner Road x
    …Chandler Boulevard x
    McClintock Drive x
    Dobson Road x
    Mesa x x
    McQueen (Superstition Park&Ride) x x
    Chandler Line:
    …Guadalupe Road x
    …Warner Road x
    …Chandler Boulevard x
    …Queen Creek Road x
    …Sun Lakes (Riggs Road) x
    Gilbert x x x
    Coolidge (Casa Grande) x x
    Tucson (Orange Grove) x x
    Tucson x x
    Nogales Line:
    …Tucson (Irvington Road) x
    …Tucson International Airport x
    …Green Valley x x(1)
    …Tubac x
    …Nogales x x(1)
    El Paso Line (with New Mexico?)
    …Benson x(2,3) x
    …Willcox x(2,3) x
    …Lordsburg, NM x(2,3) x
    …Deming, NM x(2,3) x
    …El Paso, Tx x(2,3) x

    Notes:

    1. Nogales intercity service could be Amtrak Los Angeles to Tucson-Nogales services suggested by some rail market analysts
    2. Regional rail service to New Mexico and El Paso would require added cars and locomotives and is not costed
    3. The possibility of New Mexico and E1 Paso service into Arizona is a function of economic development interest at Las Cruces and El Paso where local commuter service is being discussed

    ANNEX G.

    Service Level and Ridership Estimates

    (Based on limited frequencies and daily one-way trips)

    LOCAL PHOENIX COMMUTER AND MID-DAY SERVICES

    • Morning and evening plus one mid-day
    • 4000-6000 trips (2000-3000 riders)
    • Average one-way fare is $3.00

    REGIONAL INTERCITY SERVICES

    • Varied schedules and partially integrated with local services
    • Maximum use of equipment sought
    • 3000-5000 trips (1500-2500 riders)
    • Average one-way fare is $18

    INTERCITY SERVICES

    • Current Amtrak transcontinental
    • Added daily Los Angeles to Tucson/Nogales
    • Unknown prognosis

    INITIAL FREQUENCY SCHEDULE

    (Regional services)

    • Schedules designed to maximize equipment utilization
    • Wickenburg-Phoenix-Tucson International: 1 round trip daily
    • Yuma-Phoenix-Tucson International-Nogales 1 round trip daily
    • Phoenix-Tucson International-Nogales 1 round trip daily
    • Phoenix-Tucson International 3 round trips daily

    INITIAL FREQUENCY SCHEDULE

    (Local services)

    One-way trips between:* AM PM MD
    Phoenix-Gilbert 1 1 0
    Phoenix-Chandler 2 2 1
    Phoenix-W.Chandler 2 2 0
    Phoenix-Goodyear 1 1 1
    Phoenix-Sun City 2 2 1

    *To downtown Phoenix and State Capitol AM/return PM and some Mid- Day (MD) services

    ANNEX H.

    Representative Travel Distances and Revenues

    STATION PAIRS MILES
    ONE-WAY    		 ROUND-TRIP x
    REV/MILE    		 REVENUE
    Phoenix-Tucson 110 220 .15 $33
    Phoenix-Nogales 180 360 .15 $54
    Phoenix-Yuma 160 320 .15 $48
    Phoenix-Wickenburg 60 120 .10 $12
    Tucson-Nogales 70 140 .10 $21
    Tucson-Sun City 209 418 .15 $63
    Tucson-Wickenburg 180 360 .15 $54
    Tucson-Yuma 280 560 .15 $84
    Phoenix local 20 40 .10 $4

    Representative Capacities

    Local trains 3 cars (360 seats) 1 locomotive
    Regional trains 4 cars (410 seats) 1 locomotive

    Notes:

    1. Regional trains have lower net densities due to the need for food services and special accommodations
    2. Local trains can accommodate about 200 standees

    ANNEX I.

    Representative Sources of
    Funding and Allocation

    SOURCE OF FUNDS CAPITAL OPERATIONS
  • State of Arizona
    		•  70% 11%
  • Local governments
    		•  5% 5%
  • Federal government
    		•  20% 10%
  • Private sector
    		•  5% 1%
  • Fare box recovery
    		• 73%

    Notes:

    1. Federal participation may not be achieved
    2. Fare box recovery may vary by +/- 5-10% at outset
    3. In kind contributions of government held land and ‘in house’ contributions can be considered
    4. Railroad contributions to capital may be higher if an agreement can be reached that the railroad benefits from track improvements for freight are significant

    REPRESENTATIVE COST AND REVENUE

    Estimated Capital Cost: $ 732,000,000
    Estimated Annual Initial Operating Cost: $ 25,000,000
    Estimated Initial Farebox Recovery: $ 18,000,000
    Estimated Initial Annual Subsidy is: $ 7,000,000
    Farebox Recovery Ratio Is: 73%

    Notes:

    1. Farebox recovery should increase to 80-85% and will exceed 85 % with a large number of longer trips
    2. Added local frequencies will tend to erode the FBR unless trains are very full or ticket prices/passes can be quite high
    3. Airline participation could have a major impact on the FBR, especially if numbers of connecting passengers ride over longer distances, i.e. Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to Wickenburg or Coolidge etc.
    4. Profitable excursion operations should be possible on weekends and holidays as is the experience elsewhere
    5. Purchase of services contracts for operations and maintenance should reduce operating costs