John Wood, acting deputy director of transportation, presented an update on Buckeye’s transit master plan at the Oct. 7 council workshop, saying the city will post the draft plan for a 30‑day public review period and pursue a one‑year pilot of on‑demand service while collecting ridership data.

The pilot is intended to test microtransit and other service options, gather a year of trip data to support future grants, and expand short‑term services for older residents, people with disabilities, veterans and low‑income residents, Wood said.

The plan matters because Buckeye’s development pattern is low‑density and spread out, which limits the usefulness of traditional fixed routes and makes on‑demand solutions more feasible, Wood said. He told the council the pilot will let staff “start monitoring what this is and find out, is it working?”

Staff said work already completed includes an inventory of current services, a resident survey with 644 responses, and identification of potential short‑ and long‑term strategies. The survey results cited in the presentation found about 92% of lower‑income respondents indicated they need transit service and about 80% of higher‑income respondents said they would use a service if available. Wood described microtransit as “like Uber transit”: on‑demand vans operating within a geofenced area.

Short‑term actions described by staff include hiring a full‑time transit coordinator (already in process), adding 2.5 full‑time equivalent driver positions by January, transitioning one existing 12‑passenger van to the pilot and purchasing two wheelchair‑accessible vans. Staff said the vans are small shuttles that seat roughly three to four passengers and are intended to serve medical, work and shopping trips.

The pilot will require advance reservations. Wood said the software being procured will initially require a minimum 48‑hour booking window; staff explained the 48‑hour requirement is to allow scheduling and driver staffing while demand patterns are established. Council member Kelsey asked whether the 48‑hour rule is a technology or policy limit; staff replied it is currently a limitation of the software under evaluation and that vendors will be asked whether the window can be adapted.

Funding and service scope were raised as constraints. Staff said the initial expansion is funded with Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF) from a 2016 allocation, but those funds are insufficient for long‑term operation. Wood noted federal and regional partners may contribute but cautioned Valley Metro’s recent route reevaluation (referred to in the presentation as Prop 47479) has led to cancellation of underperforming routes, which could make it hard to secure a new permanent fixed route from that agency. Staff estimated Valley Metro participation in operating costs could be roughly in the 20–30% range but did not provide a firm commitment.

The council heard that service will open citywide during the pilot so staff can use trip data to identify geographic demand and adjust service. Initial hours will be Monday–Friday with longer hours than a standard 8–5 schedule; staff cited examples such as 6:30 a.m. starts but did not provide a final service window. Cost‑per‑ride was not determined; staff said that figure will depend on trip origin/destination patterns and will be reported after the pilot year.

Wood framed the pilot as primarily a data‑collection effort: “It allows us to start something. We can start monitoring what this is and find out, is it working?” He also cautioned about transit economics, saying, “There is only one transit system in the entire world that makes money, and it's in Hong Kong,” to underscore that most transit requires ongoing public subsidy.

Next steps staff listed were: post the transit master plan for public comment the morning after the workshop, run a 30‑day comment period, incorporate feedback, return the plan to council for approval targeted in December, and implement the one‑year pilot to build the performance data needed to pursue further funding.

Council members asked clarifying questions about reservation windows, service area, priority rider groups, potential weekend or school service, and how the city would avoid turning away requests during the pilot. Staff said a dedicated transit coordinator and scheduling software will be used to manage capacity and track unmet demand.

The presentation closed with staff saying the pilot is intended to be flexible and scalable: data from the year‑long test will inform whether to expand hours, increase vehicle size, add vehicles, or pursue alternative delivery models such as public‑private partnerships or contracted services used by neighboring cities.

Public comment was not part of this workshop item. The council did not take formal action on the plan during the workshop; staff will return a revised plan for council approval after the public comment period and further internal review.