Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Final Report

Prepared for

Transit for Connecticut

Prepared by

Urbitran Associates, Inc.

April 2007

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Comparison with other Northeast States................................................................................ 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1: Connecticut’s Towns and Transit Districts ........................................................ 3 Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 2: Benefits of Bus Transit ......................................................................................... 6 Employees and Employers Benefit .......................................................................................... 6 Better Job Access, Healthcare, and Personal Mobility ......................................................... 7 Employment and Education .................................................................................................... 7 Health Care............................................................................................................................. 8 Access to Community .............................................................................................................. 8 Better for Our Environment .................................................................................................... 9 Supporting Responsible Growth ........................................................................................... 10 Clean Vehicles, Less Pollution ............................................................................................. 10 Chapter 3: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 11 Methodology for Determining Unmet Need ......................................................................... 11 Categorizing Unmet Need ...................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 4: Service Program.................................................................................................. 14 Chapter 5: Investment Program ........................................................................................... 17 Technical Appendix .................................................................................................................... 19 Existing Operators – Fixed Route Services .......................................................................... 19 Allocating Towns .................................................................................................................. 19 Allocating Service Areas....................................................................................................... 20 Need Curves .......................................................................................................................... 21 Identification of Need............................................................................................................ 26 Filling the Gap...................................................................................................................... 28 Paratransit Services ................................................................................................................ 34 Express Services ...................................................................................................................... 34 Service in Non-Member Towns and Towns without Local Fixed Route Service.............. 37 Capital Requirements............................................................................................................. 39

i

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

LIST OF FIGURES Figure I-1: Comparison in Investment between Connecticut and Peers......................................... 2 Figure 1-1: Connecticut Transit Districts and Fixed Route Services ............................................. 3 Figure 1-2: Bus Service Coverage for Connecticut Communities.................................................. 4 Figure 2-1: Top Employment Barriers............................................................................................ 7 Figure 2-2: Senior Citizen Transportation Choices ........................................................................ 9 Figure 4-1: Post-Program Bus Service Coverage and Current Route Structure........................... 15 Figure A-1: Major Urban Need Curve.......................................................................................... 22 Figure A-2: Medium/Large Urban Need Curve............................................................................ 23 Figure A-3: Small Urban Need Curve .......................................................................................... 24 Figure A-4: Rural Need Curve...................................................................................................... 25 Figure A-5: Express Service: Productivity by Peak Runs ............................................................ 35

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Service Frequency and Span Standards....................................................................... 13 Table 4-1: Unmet Service Needs by Type of Service and Estimated Additional Vehicles.......... 16 Table 5-1: Detailed Investment Program...................................................................................... 18 Table 5-2: Annual Staging of Investment Program ...................................................................... 18 Table A-1: Service Area Category Descriptions .......................................................................... 20 Table A-2: Total Need Values by Category of System ................................................................ 25 Table A-3: Need Calculation by District ...................................................................................... 27 Table A-4: Hours Needed to Bring Transit Providers up to Span and Frequency Standards....... 29 Table A-5: Total Additional Hours, Operating Costs, Vehicles and Capital Costs by Category of Service................................................................................................................................... 30 Table A-6: CACT Survey Results: Unmet Service Needs ........................................................... 31 Table A-7: CACT Survey Results: Expanded Service Needs ...................................................... 32 Table A-8: CACT Survey Results: Express/Commuter Service Needs ....................................... 33 Table A-9: Current Express Services............................................................................................ 36 Table A-10: Calculation of Need for Unallocated Towns ............................................................ 38

ii

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Introduction
This study is a plan for bus service investments that will support the economic development future of the State of Connecticut. Its mission is to identify the range of benefits which can accrue from investing in bus transit and to determine how investing in these improvements to today’s bus infrastructure will contribute to job access, emerging intra- and inter-state markets, smart growth, economic development, environmental quality, and congestion relief. Over the past fifteen years, service levels have stayed fundamentally the same or have even declined slightly due to inadequate funding streams. However, even as this was happening, initiatives for improved job access by the state and federal governments and economic development initiatives from the Transportation Strategy Board recognized changing and unmet travel needs throughout the state and added some new services. This study focuses on continuing and expanding upon these initiatives to build a strategic vision and bus service plan that will take us into the future. Comparison with other Northeast States One of the core comparisons that was examined to determine possible shortcomings in service levels was a comparison with other states on the eastern seaboard with similar operating environments. The comparison revealed that Connecticut invests less in transit per capita when compared to several other selected peer states. Figure I-1 shows that if the statistical relationship shown in other states between service hours and ridership held up here, Connecticut would be able to dramatically increase bus transit ridership by investing more in public transportation through increasing service hours. The likely shortfalls in service indicate that Connecticut needs more comprehensive coverage of the hours people travel and enhancements to the service area to serve those destinations they desire to access.

Introduction

1

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007
Figure I-1: Comparison in Investment between Connecticut and Peers
Investment in Transit Comparison CT with DE, NJ, RI, and MD
30.00 25.00 Passengers per Capita 20.00 15.00 CT 10.00 5.00
Sources: National Transit Database (NTD), Connecticut Departm ent of Transportation

DE

Increasing Investm ent

0.00 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

= Increased Ridership

MD RI

NJ

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

Revenue Hours per Capita

Project Description This project represents a unique opportunity to formally identify and present measurable transit service goals in Connecticut to guide near term investments in existing and new services as well as capital fleets and facilities. The project presents the case for enhanced bus transit funding and demonstrates the role that a robust bus network plays in economic development and vitality, job access, congestion mitigation and air quality improvements. Transit is an economic tool providing mobility that aids employment, helps reduce congestion and pollution, and allows communities to provide necessary connections. A strategic bus service plan, which includes a financial element that identifies the maximum operating and capital investment required for its implementation, will create a transit network that will provide service that matches local, regional and state growth, and that increases the desirability and use of transit service as a mobility option. Finally, the study addresses the stagnant service levels and sets the transit properties in Connecticut on a path towards progressive service provision for their respective communities.

Introduction

2

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Chapter 1:

Connecticut’s Towns and Transit Districts

This chapter includes information on Connecticut’s towns and transit districts and discusses how Connecticut’s regions vary by level of development and connectivity. This study uses transit service areas as units of study due to the variety of operating environments that exist throughout the State. Some of these transit service areas as transit districts, some are individual towns, and some are regions with service provided by CT Transit. Study Area This study considers all regions of Connecticut. Connecticut’s 169 towns are grouped by transit service area for ease of comparison and because the communities in each service area depend upon each other (and in general, a single large metropolitan center) and function regionally. Towns that do not belong to any transit district and towns that do not receive fixed route transit service are considered separately. Towns are listed by their transit service areas in the Technical Appendix and are shown on the map in Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1: Connecticut Transit Districts and Fixed Route Services

Connecticut’s Towns and Transit Districts

3

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Figure 1-2 shows current fixed route, express and inter-regional routes, and illustrates the large number of towns that do not have any of the traditional types of transit service.
Figure 1-2: Bus Service Coverage for Connecticut Communities

Transit service areas are further classified based by level of development and population, business and transportation density from a Connecticut standpoint. Each service area is classified as major urban, medium/large urban, small urban or rural, as follows: • Major Urban o Hartford (CT Transit) o New Haven (CT Transit) o Bridgeport (GBTA) Medium/Large Urban o Stamford (CT Transit) o Waterbury (CT Transit) o Danbury (HART) o New Britain (CT Transit) o Norwalk (NTD) o Norwich/New London (SEAT)

Connecticut’s Towns and Transit Districts

4

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

o Milford (MTD)* Small Urban o Middletown (MAT) o Wallingford (CT Transit) o Meriden (CT Transit) o Bristol (CT Transit) o Valley (VTD)* o Westport (NTD)* Rural o Northeastern CT TD o Northwestern CT TD o Estuary TD o Windham TD

The Technical Appendix provides more detailed information on transit service areas and town allocation.

*

Milford, Valley, and Westport are special cases and are discussed in detail in the Technical Appendix.

Connecticut’s Towns and Transit Districts

5

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Chapter 2:

Benefits of Bus Transit

Enhanced public bus transportation throughout Connecticut can lead to a number of economic, social, and environmental benefits that are complementary and interrelated. Public transportation provides an alternative to single-occupant automobile travel which is increasingly causing congestion on the roadway network. Bus transit can offer viable options for improved access to jobs and benefits to the environment and economy. Importantly, enhancements to bus transit are most often possible with significantly shorter implementation timeframes than capital-intensive transportation investments and can provide greater flexibility to adapt to changing demand. Employees and Employers Benefit Public transportation provides economic benefits both to individual users and to the economy as a whole. Employees benefit through better access to employment and educational opportunities, while employers benefit from a larger labor pool having access to their sites. Increased investment in Connecticut’s bus transit network will make the State more competitive in attracting new businesses and retaining existing employers. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) recently released a research report that stated that households that are likely to use public transportation on a given day save over $6,200 every year when compared to households with no access to transit2. When households are able to reduce commuting and travel expenses, these savings are typically spent on goods and services, further bolstering the local economy through additional tax revenue. For each dollar earned, the average household spends 18 cents on transportation, 98% of which is for buying, maintaining, and operating cars; the largest source of household debt after mortgages. When the overall transportation network is made more efficient, all users benefit, not only transit users. Businesses also benefit as deliveries can be made in more timely fashion due to reduced congestion, lowering shipping costs that are typically passed on to consumers. “Improved bus service linked to investments in rail will enhance the economic outlook for Connecticut by reducing congestion on our highways and encouraging employers to grow jobs in Connecticut.”
- Joseph McGee, Vice President, Public

Finally, several studies have shown that Policies and Programs investment in transit can yield up to three The Business Council of Fairfield County times that value in economic benefit. The investment in transit service is directly tied to financial savings and increased economic activity of transit users (both choice and dependent riders), increased spending on goods and services and

Public Transportation and Petroleum Savings in the U.S.: reducing Dependence on Oil. January 2007. American Public Transportation Association.

2

Benefits of Bus Transit

6

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

corresponding tax revenue generation by transit agencies, as well as job creation from both capital projects and ongoing transit operations. APTA has determined that every $10 million invested in transit capital projects yields $30 million in business sales, and the same $10 million investment in transit operations produces $32 million in economic activity in the community. Better Job Access, Healthcare, and Personal Mobility The mobility afforded by public transportation provides a number of direct benefits from a social perspective, including access to employment, education, medical, social and recreational activities. Employment and Education Studies by the Connecticut Department of Labor indicate that 68% of Jobs First Employment Services participants cite transportation as the most significant barrier to employment (see Figure 2-1). Access to transportation is also a barrier for certain segments of the population such as the elderly, disabled, and low-income households. Furthermore, increased use of transit can play a beneficial role in promoting public health and safety. “In a recent survey, 77% of riders reported that new bus and shuttle services enabled them to secure their jobs, and 41% reported that without their bus service, they would be unable to maintain employment.”
- Joseph M. Carbone, President and CEO The WorkPlace, Inc., Southwestern Connecticut’s Workforce Development Board

Figure 2-1: Top Employment Barriers

Benefits of Bus Transit

7

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Perhaps most importantly, public transportation provides increased opportunity for employment and community access. This mobility supports the spectrum of job access initiatives, whether through express bus service to urban cores, reverse commute services, or increasingly important suburb-to-suburb connections and flexible rural services. Health Care Mobility and access for all residents, senior citizens and the disabled in particular, represent a fundamental benefit of increased bus service throughout Connecticut. In the State of Connecticut, the senior population is expected to grow substantially, 46% between 2000 and 2025, with most of that growth occurring after 2010. For senior citizens, maintaining mobility goes hand in hand with the concept of “aging in place”, or aging at home and with communitybased health care as opposed to moving into nursing homes or other facilities. Increased public bus transportation, particularly in areas that currently do not have any transit service, furthers the goal of helping residents age in place, and in turn leads to substantial economic savings as more Medicaid clients are able to access community-based care making aging in place more practical and avoiding the need for institutionalization in nursing homes. To age in place, however, requires options for mobility for a segment of the population that is either unable or not inclined to rely on the personal automobile for transportation. States such as Oregon and Maine have been cited as model states, achieving an ‘optimal ratio’ of 75% of Medicaid long-term care clients receiving community-based care to 25% receiving care in institutions. Increased transit and new transit service areas in Connecticut would support this goal of reaching the optimal ratio and provide savings of up to $1.2 billion by 2025 by holding the number of individuals served constant and increasing the proportion of community-based care recipients to 75%.3 The Governor’s Budget Summary for FY2003-FY2005 shows that home health care and assisted living provide dramatic cost savings relative to nursing care. Average monthly costs for home health care are $1,180 and assisted living costs average $1,450, while nursing homes can cost clients an average of $5,177 per month. Access to Community As access to the community is increased through greater mobility, barriers that lead to social isolation among transportation-disadvantaged populations are removed. Mobility represents a quality of life issue for all Connecticut residents, and non-drivers lose the ability to participate in the community and the economy (see Figure 2-2). Compared with senior citizen drivers, non-driving senior citizens make: 15% fewer trips to the doctor 59% fewer shopping trips and restaurant visits 65% fewer trips for social and family activities
3

State of Connecticut, Governor’s Budget Summary FY2003-FY2005, February 2003, p. 73.

Benefits of Bus Transit

8

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007
Figure 2-2: Senior Citizen Transportation Choices

Nationwide, more than 20% of Americans age 65 and older do not drive, whether due to declining health, concerns about safety, lack of access to a car, or personal preference. Furthermore, just as public transportation promotes responsible growth and transit-oriented development, a safe and inviting walking environment encourages transit use, particularly among older residents. More than half of older non-drivers use public transportation occasionally in denser, more livable communities, as opposed to 1 in 20 using transit in more spread out areas4. Better for Our Environment Public transportation has long been recognized as an efficient, environmentally sound means of travel, particularly in relation to the single-occupant automobile. In addition to the efficiency offered by bus transit on a per-trip basis, multi-modal connections such as those between rail and bus enhance the use of transportation modes other than the automobile. Public transit can enhance the efficiency of the entire transportation network as more individual person trips are combined in fewer vehicles. This increased efficiency and connectivity can help manage overall traffic congestion and by extension lessen environmental impacts. Reduced traffic congestion and fewer vehicle trips reduce pollution. Similarly, clean diesel engine technology will further reduce particulate and greenhouse emissions and increased ridership encourages alternatives to the single occupant automobile.

4

Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options. Surface Transportation Policy Project. 2004.

Benefits of Bus Transit

9

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Supporting Responsible Growth Transit supports Responsible Growth and Transit Oriented Development initiatives designed to reduce sprawl. Reducing infrastructure costs and lowering vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are possible through targeted growth in developed areas rather than unmitigated sprawl. According to the Research Institute for Housing America, the potential savings in development costs through smart growth measures nationally can approach $250 billion over 25 years. Tailoring this nationwide estimate to Connecticut’s population, savings in the State could reach $2.7 billion by 2025, with 20% ($540 million) of those savings stemming from road and land use savings to state and local governments.5 Clean Vehicles, Less Pollution Increased provision of transit service also supports the goals of the Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan, including the goal of doubling ridership levels statewide by 2020 and a corresponding reduction in VMT below the 2020 baseline. Connecticut transit systems are already in the process of replacing conventional diesel buses with clean “Doubling bus transit use in a cost-effective diesel models, and this investment manner is one of the goals of our State program furthers the goal of a Climate Action Plan and will reduce global comprehensively clean vehicle fleet warming pollution by hundreds of thousands statewide. Each clean diesel bus of tons each year.” provides a decrease in pollution - Curt Johnson, Program Director and Senior Attorney relative to older buses and individual Connecticut Fund for the Environment automobiles. The efficiency of high-occupancy public transit relative to single occupant automobile use leads to broad savings in energy consumption, particularly the demand for gasoline. Current public transportation usage nationwide reduces gasoline consumption in the United States by 1.4 billion gallons each year, according to a 2007 ICF International/APTA study. The savings represent the efficiencies gained by carrying multiple passengers in each vehicle, reducing traffic congestion by removing automobiles from the roads, and the varied sources of energy used for public transportation. At both the national and the local level, this means fewer cars filling up at the gas pump and fewer truck deliveries to service stations, which leads to an overall reduction in congestion and corresponding increase in efficiency of the transportation network.

Linking Vision with Capital-Challenges and Opportunities in Financing Smart Growth. Research Institute for Housing America. Institute Report #01-01.

5

Benefits of Bus Transit

10

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Chapter 3:

Methodology

Transportation, by any mode, provides mobility. Transportation is thus a means to an end and not the end itself; it provides the link between individuals and the places and services to which they want to go. A transportation system’s output is measured by the number of trips provided for individuals to reach these places and services. The success of the system is therefore measured in how well it provides mobility and access. The greater the number of choices provided and destinations served, the better the network will be in meeting the needs of its residents. Bus transit is an important element of a comprehensive transportation system. It provides mobility for those who do not have a car or access to a car, to those with limited incomes who may have car but find it expensive to use and maintain, and to those who choose to use the bus in lieu of their car to save money, to avoid contributing to congestion, or to reduce energy consumption and environmental pollution. Bus transit services in Connecticut, as presently configured and funded, do not meet all of the needs identified in local planning processes. An examination of information supplied from the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CDOT) Statewide Bus Study (2000), local transit studies, and surveys of Connecticut Association for Community Transportation (CACT) members identify a range of service needs – more frequent peak hour services, evening hours, Sunday services, additional capacity on overcrowded routes, services to decentralized job locations, etc., which cannot be met within existing budgets. The purpose of this project is to quantify the extent of the unmet needs for bus transit service in the State and to translate these needs into estimates of operating and capital expenditures required to address them efficiently. Methodology for Determining Unmet Need Determining the magnitude of unmet need for bus service in Connecticut requires three steps: 1. Identification of the existing use of bus transit in Connecticut, which is readily available from operator and CDOT statistics. 2. Identification of total need for bus transit service, which requires the development of a modeling tool. 3. Determination of the gap between current use and total need, which is identified as the unmet need for bus transit service. The total need for bus transit is based upon the relationship of ridership to the amount of bus service currently provided in each system in the state, with the systems stratified into groups representing similar sized systems and communities.

Methodology

11

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

An examination of the services in Connecticut compared to research conducted for other states confirms that the number of trips taken per capita in areas of similar size is related to the amount of service provided, as measured by hours of service per capita. In other words, if an area has a low level of service for the size of its community, it will likely result in low levels of ridership, simply because the system is not large enough for the area, doesn’t get close enough to residents’ homes, or doesn’t serve enough places or hours in the day. As the service gets better – e.g., as more hours are provided per capita – it serves more people and places, and therefore carries more riders. At some point, however, enough hours will be provided such that any additional hours of service will not result in significant increase in riders. It is at this point that the system has reached its logical full development and saturated the market, theoretically reaching all unmet needs. By plotting the relationship between supply (service hours per capita) and demand (trips per capita) for each group of systems (major urban, medium/large urban, small urban, rural), the methodology defines the total need for bus services in each area of the state. By subtracting the trips currently being taken from the total unmet need, an estimate of unmet need for each area can be calculated. The methodology is described in more detail in the Technical Appendix. Other needs were also estimated including unmet needs for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit services, express services, and services to currently unserved towns. Methods for calculating these unmet needs are also discussed in detail in the Technical Appendix. Categorizing Unmet Need A total figure for unmet need by transit district was determined using the methodology described in the previous section. After determining the total amount of need, the types of needs were then evaluated by transit district. In general, types of need identified included longer operating hours and more frequent service, service expansion to new locations, more inter-regional and express services, and more rural dial-a-ride service to underserved towns. Transit need was categorized using two methods. The first involved using the updated service frequency and span standards identified in the 2000 Connecticut Statewide Bus System Study to bring all transit agencies up to the standard level of service. Table 3-1 presents frequency and span standards updated from the original 2000 Connecticut Statewide Bus System Study. In some cases, bus routes are referred to as ‘core’ or ‘other.’ Core bus routes are generally the most popular bus routes serving the destinations with highest demand and operating along major corridors. The other routes service secondary roads and carry fewer passengers.

Methodology

12

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Table 3-1: Service Frequency and Span Standards Measure Rural demand driven demand driven N/A N/A Small Urban Frequency Peak Headway Off-Peak Headway Saturday Headway Sunday Headway 30 core, 60 other 30 core, 60 other 30 core, 60 other N/A Span 6 AM - 6 PM core, 6 PM - 10 PM reduced evening service 6 AM - 6 PM N/A 20 core, 30 other 30 30 30 15 core, 30 other 30 30 30 maximum 30 60-120 N/A N/A Large Urban Major Urban Express Corridors

Weekday Span Saturday Span Sunday Span

6 AM - 6 PM N/A N/A

5 AM - 11 PM 6 AM - 11 PM 8 AM - 6 PM

5 AM - 11 PM 6 AM - 11 PM 8 AM - 6 PM

6 AM - 7 PM N/A N/A

Each transit provider was evaluated separately and the number of hours of service needed to bring the operator up to the appropriate standard of service was estimated using the operator’s current (2007) schedule of services. The methodology and results are discussed in detail in the Technical Appendix. For the second portion of the need categorization, transit providers in Connecticut also participated in a survey prior to this study to address how increased investments could be directed in their districts. The survey was conducted by the Connecticut Association for Community Transportation (CACT). The survey identified areas for fixed route expansion, new express and inter-regional services, capital requirements, and new demand responsive services in addition to frequency and service span increases. In order to avoid double-counting need, frequency and span increases were only quantified based on schedules as described above and were removed from the CACT survey responses. Capital needs from the CACT survey also include new facilities, technology upgrades and rolling stock. The Technical Appendix includes the results from the CACT survey. After the needs were calculated and categorized, operating and capital costs were calculated based on need level and types of needs. Operating costs were determined using each transit provider’s operating cost per hour, calculated from 2005 annual figures provided to the Connecticut Department of Transportation. Capital costs were determined based on whether or not service was being expanded during peak or off-peak hours and whether or not there were facility requirements for the increased level of service. The calculation of these costs is discussed in greater detail in the Technical Appendix.

Methodology

13

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Chapter 4:

Service Program

This program proposes 1.8 million more annual hours of service statewide, phased in over five years and has the potential to increase bus ridership by 81%. Connecticut can best achieve improved access and mobility through the following enhancements: • • • • • • • • • • More frequent service so that bus transit is more convenient for commuters, reduces overcrowding during peak periods, and reduces waiting time for all riders, including seniors and persons with disabilities Later evening hours, which open up a new pool of jobs for employees and a new labor force for employers Weekend services that allow patrons to make social, recreation, and shopping trips, while allowing employees to find jobs that require weekend work hours Service in towns where little or no service is currently provided, expanding mobility options for seniors and people with disabilities, and providing links to inter-regional and express services for all residents, including commuters New/expanded services to provide access to decentralized job locations, retail establishments, and other destinations More frequent express services operating longer spans of service to give commuters more flexibility New express bus routes to serve additional markets and provide job access for an expanded labor pool Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along major corridors to improve the speed of bus services and provide more attractive mobility options for commuters New Commuter Connection options to provide bus/rail connections that enhance the investment in rail service and provide options for commuters between their residence and the rail station and between the rail station and their place of employment Increased inter-regional services, both in geographic extent and in frequency of service, to provide mobility options for Connecticut residents and greater access to jobs

These services will be phased in over five years and have the potential to nearly double bus ridership by the end of the implementation period. These services are presented in detail in the following section. The associated costs of implementation are discussed in the following chapter. After the five years of the implementation period are complete, all Connecticut towns will have bus service of some type and the coverage will look like the map in Figure 4-1. Current fixed route, interregional, express, commuter, and deviated fixed routes are included on the map but will be evaluated and new services will be implemented on a local basis, so the route structure may change throughout the implementation period.

Service Program

14

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007
Figure 4-1: Post-Program Bus Service Coverage and Current Route Structure

The types of services that are needed in Connecticut are described in Table 4-1 along with the estimated number of vehicles needed to provide the service. The hours needed to bring all agencies up to service frequency and span standards are listed in the first seven lines of the table. Hours to be used for expansion of service, Commuter Connections, BRT applications, and other services (including non-ADA paratransit services) are grouped into one box at the bottom of the table. The exact distribution of the hours was not determined as part of this project as the decisions on how to divide the hours by agency, regionally, and among all the other services will be made based on plans and comparative needs analyses completed at the local level after this study. For local fixed route service augmentation and expansion, Commuter Connections, BRT, and non-ADA paratransit services, there is the equivalent of 1.17 million service hours of unmet need in the State. Meeting these needs would require an additional 252 vehicles be purchased and put into service. Of these totals, the need for expansion and other improvements (not including frequency and span upgrades) total 472,600 hours and 175 vehicles.

Service Program

15

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Table 4-1: Unmet Service Needs by Type of Service and Estimated Additional Vehicles Additional Annual Hours of Service 1,170,000 135,600 218,300 58,300 34,700 187,700 52,600 12,400 Additional Annual Passenger Trips 24,090,000 # Additional Vehicles 252 54 0 23 0 0 0 0

Types of Services Existing fixed route operations - total projected Weekday peak period service frequency Weekday off-peak period service frequency Saturday service frequency Sunday service frequency Weekday hours of service Saturday hours of service Sunday hours of service Expansion/improvements New routes BRT operating hours and expenses Commuter connections Other

24,090,000

472,600

175

Other types of services are also needed in Connecticut. Many towns do not have bus service of any kind. These towns need at a minimum dial-a-ride service for seniors and persons with disabilities, but more ideally general public dial-a-ride service or even deviated fixed route service depending on demand. This analysis looked at each town in Connecticut that currently does not have local fixed route bus service. Transit need was calculated for each town based on its type – rural or small urban. Statewide, unmet annual transit need in the form of service to areas currently without service is 403,700 hours and is estimated to serve 1.9 million passenger trips. This service could be provided in a variety of ways, ranging from existing transit districts expanding to serve these towns, to towns operating the service on their own, creating new transit districts, or using private operators contracted by the State. When the fixed route service around the state is augmented, corresponding ADA paratransit service must also be expanded based on federal regulations. ADA service must be provided during the same operating hours as the fixed routes and must provide service to all eligible persons within ¾ mile of a fixed route. Based on the proposed increases in fixed route service, it is estimated that ADA service would need to grow by 18% per year during the five year implementation period, adding a total of 72,500 hours of service and potentially serving 125,000 passengers. Express services also warrant expansion. Based on the unmet needs calculation, express services need to be expanded by 110,800 hours annually. This could potentially increase ridership by 1.1 million passenger trips. The following chapter describes the investments required to implement the services included in this program.

Service Program

16

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Chapter 5:

Investment Program

The funding needed for implementation of the program falls into two categories: operating and capital. Operating funds are used to subsidize that portion of the cost to operate the service (including the cost of drivers, fuel, dispatching, administration, maintenance, etc.) that is not covered by farebox revenues. Capital funds are used to purchase equipment such as vehicles, facilities, shelters, communications equipment, etc. In order to fund the Transit for Connecticut program, the State would need to invest an additional $12.7 million annually for 5 years, building to a total of $63.6 million per year above the current 2005 operational budget for subsidizing the services. Over the 5-year period, the State would need to spend a total of $215.4 million in capital expenses in order to purchase the necessary equipment to operate the new services and to purchase new equipment necessary to provide the amenities and technology needed to support the safety, security, and customer needs of a twenty-first century bus system. Table 5-1 details the amount of operating and capital investment needed for each new type of service. Assuming a conservative 20% farebox return, fixed route operators would require an investment of $38.6 million in operating funds by the end of the five-year implementation period, ADA services would require $2.6 million, services to currently unserved towns would require $19.3 million, and express services would require $3.1 million. For capital purchases to implement the proposed services, fixed route operators would need $96.7 million, ADA services would need $1.9 million, new service to currently unserved communities would need $11.2 million, and express services would need $14.8 million. Other capital investments would also be required to implement the services and include $5 million for parking for the new express services, $10 million for non-vehicle related BRT capital (vehicles are included in the fixed route capital investment), $5.9 million for additional vehicles, $38.1 for infrastructure including expanded maintenance facilities, more bus stop shelters and more bus stop signs, and $31.8 million for technology infrastructure including communications, fareboxes, etc. Table 5-2 is a proposed staging of operating and capital costs for the five-year implementation period. The $63.6 million in operating costs and $215.4 million in capital costs are simply divided into five equal increments over 2005 dollars building to the total request after five years. The operating investment would increase by $12.7 million every year for 5 years and the capital investment would be a straight investment of $43.1 million per year. These service proposals and costs build upon the existing level of service as of fiscal year 2007. They are independent of the elements of the Governor’s 2008 budget proposal, not adjusting for increased expenses due to inflation and potential policy changes, and do not account for any proposed fare increases or other changes in policy such as free fares for seniors.

Investment Program

17

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007
Table 5-1: Detailed Investment Program

Table 5-2: Annual Staging of Investment Program

Investment Program

18

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Technical Appendix
The technical appendix provides background documentation for the study methodology and provides more detailed results including information by transit service area and town (for those communities that currently do not have service). Existing Operators – Fixed Route Services Connecticut has 20 fixed route service areas. The amount and type of service varies greatly between the service areas based on relative geographic location, population density and level of development. The service areas are as follows: Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority (GBTA), CTTransit Bristol, Housatonic Area Transit (HART), Estuary, CTTransit Hartford, CTTransit Meriden, Middletown Area Transit (MAT), Milford Transit District (MTD), CTTransit New Britain, CTTransit New Haven, Northeastern CT Transit District, Northwestern CT Transit District, Norwalk Transit District (NTD), Southeast Area Transit District (SEAT), CTTransit Stamford, Valley Transit District (VTD), CTTransit Wallingford, CTTransit Waterbury, Westport (operated by NTD), and Windham Region Transit District (WRTD). For this project, transit service areas are discussed both by transit district name and by the name of the main city that serves as the center of the service area. Allocating Towns Connecticut is home to 169 towns. Towns were allocated to transit service areas as follows: • • • • • • • • • • • • • Bridgeport: Bridgeport, Stratford, Fairfield, Trumbull Bristol Danbury (HART): Danbury, Bethel, Brookfield, New Milford, Ridgefield Estuary TD: Old Saybrook, Essex, Deep River, Chester, Westbrook, Clinton, Madison Hartford: Hartford, East Hartford, West Hartford, Manchester, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Newington, Glastonbury, Farmington, Bloomfield, Windsor, Windsor Locks, South Windsor Meriden Middletown (MAT): Middletown, Portland, East Hampton, Cromwell, Durham, Haddam Milford (MTD) New Britain: New Britain, Plainville, Southington, Berlin New Haven: New Haven, West Haven, East Haven, Hamden, North Haven, Chesire, Orange, Branford, North Branford, Woodbridge, Guilford, Madison Northeastern CT TD: Brooklyn, Putnam, Killingly, Thompson Northwestern CT TD: Torrington, Litchfield, Winchester, Barkhamsted, Canaan, Colebrook, Cornwall, Goshen, Harwinton, Kent, Morris, New Hartford, Norfolk, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon Norwalk (NTD): Norwalk, Wilton

Technical Appendix

19

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

• • • • • • •

Norwich/New London (SEAT): Norwich, New London, Groton, Waterford, East Lyme, Montville, Preston, Lisbon, Griswold, Ledyard, Stonington, North Stonington Stamford: Stamford, Greenwich, Darien Valley (VTD): Ansonia, Derby, Seymour, Shelton Wallingford Waterbury: Waterbury, Wolcott, Watertown, Naugatuck, Middlebury Westport (NTD) Windham (WRTD): Windham, Willimantic, Mansfield, Storrs, Franklin

Towns were then further separated based on whether or not they had local fixed route service available. Towns with local fixed route service were included in the overall calculation of need as a transit district. Towns without local fixed route service were moved to the calculation of need for individual towns using the non-member town methodology. Non-member towns (towns that are not members of transit districts and that do no have fixedroute service) included: East Haddam, East Granby, Easton, Hartland, Oxford, New Canaan, Plainfield, Plymouth, Roxbury, Salem, Sherman, Southbury, Sprague, Stafford, Sterling, Union, Voluntown, Warren, Washington, Weston, and Woodbury Allocating Service Areas Using population density as a simple way of distinguishing between categories of service area (major urban, medium/large urban, small urban and rural), transit service areas and towns were split into categories for analysis. Table A-1 lists the overall population density ranges used to distinguish between the categories of systems.
Table A-1: Service Area Category Descriptions Population Density 2500 + up 1800-2500 700-1800 under 700 Category of Service Area Major Urban Medium/Large Urban Small Urban Rural

Service areas were categorized as follows: • Major Urban o Hartford (CT Transit) o New Haven (CT Transit) o Bridgeport (GBTA) Medium/Large Urban o Stamford (CT Transit) o Waterbury (CT Transit) o Danbury (HART) o New Britain (CT Transit) o Norwalk (NTD) o Norwich/New London (SEAT)
20

Technical Appendix

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

o Milford (MTD)* Small Urban o Middletown (MAT) o Wallingford (CT Transit) o Meriden (CT Transit) o Bristol (CT Transit) o Valley (VTD)* o Westport (NTD)* Rural o Northeastern CT TD o Northwestern CT TD o Estuary TD o Windham TD

Milford, Valley and Westport are special cases and are discussed in more detail in the following section. Need Curves The total need for bus transit is based upon the relationship of ridership to the amount of bus service provided currently in each system in the State, with the systems stratified into groups representing similar sized communities. An examination of the services in Connecticut compares to research conducted for other states and confirms that the number of trips taken per capita in areas of similar size is related to the amount of service provided, as measured by hours of service per capita. If an area has a low level of service for the size of its community, it will likely result in low levels of ridership, simply because the system is not large enough for the area, doesn’t get close enough to residents’ homes, or doesn’t serve enough places or hours in the day. As the service gets better – e.g., as more hours are provided per capita – the service becomes better, serves more people and places, and therefore carries more riders and is more efficient. At some point, however, enough hours will be provided, so that any additional hours of service will not result in significant increase in riders. It is at this point that the system has reached its logical full development and saturated the market, theoretically reaching all unmet needs. By plotting the relationship between supply (service hours per capita) and demand (trips per capita) for each group of systems (major urban, medium/large urban, small urban, rural), the methodology defines the total need for bus services in each area of the state. By subtracting the trips currently being taken from the total unmet need, an estimate of unmet need for each area can be calculated. Figures A-1 through A-4 are the total need curves for major urban, medium/large urban, small urban and rural systems. As hours of service are added to the system, the number of passengers using the service increases. This relationship exists linearly for a range of service hours, but the number of new riders gained per additional hour of service begins to taper off once the market
Technical Appendix 21

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

approaches saturation. When the curve flattens the market is saturated and every additional hour of service added yields no new passengers. This is 100% of total need. It is not reasonable to think that every system in Connecticut would be able to meet 100% of the transit needs of the community. Thus, other levels of service were examined to determine which level of service would be the most cost-effective. After looking at several levels of service, the study panel decided that meeting 90% of total need would be the most cost effective – with only a 46% increase in operating cost, both hours of service and potential ridership could be increased by 81%. On the charts in Figures A-1 to A-4, red lines represent 100% of transit need. The blue lines represent 90% of total need and the green lines represent 80%.
Figure A-1: Major Urban Need Curve

Major Urban Regions - Fixed Routes Only Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport
35.00 30.00 Passengers per Capita 25.00 Hartford 20.00 15.00 Bridgeport 10.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 New Haven

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

Revenue Hours per Capita

Technical Appendix

22

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007
Figure A-2: Medium/Large Urban Need Curve

Medium/Large Urban Regions - Fixed Routes Only Stamford, Waterbury, Danbury, New Britain, Norwalk, Norwich (SEAT), Milford*
35.00 30.00 Passengers per Capita 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 0 0.0000 New Britain Milford Waterbury Danbury Norwich (SEAT) 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000 1.4000 1.6000 Stamford Norwalk

0.2000

Revenue Hours per Capita

*Milford does not fit into the profile of the medium/large systems based on its population density; rather it belongs in the small urban category. However, Milford is located inside a major densely packed metropolitan region between New Haven and Bridgeport which makes its transit needs more like a medium/large urban area than a small urban area.

Technical Appendix

23

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007
Figure A-3: Small Urban Need Curve

Small Urban Regions - Fixed Routes Only Bristol, Meriden, Middletown, Wallingford, Valley*
10.00 9.00 8.00 Passengers per Capita 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0 0.00 Wallingford Meriden Middletown Valley

Bristol 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

Revenue Hours per Capita

*Valley Transit District is actually categorized as a rural service area. However, it is treated as a small urban area for this analysis because of its central location in the triangle that is created by Waterbury, New Haven and Bridgeport and its larger more densely packed downtowns that make it function more like a small urban area than a rural area. Its transit needs would be underestimated if it was categorized as rural.

Westport, which has service operated by Norwalk Transit District, is also a unique case in the statewide analysis. Westport with its wealthy residents and mix of mostly suburban and rural residences and small commercial centers is unlike any other town in Connecticut that has its own transit district. Thus, its needs were estimated separately using data from a previously completed project for the State of Minnesota. Towns averaging 25,000 residents (with a range in population from 8,000 to 39,000) were used to approximate the conditions in Westport with their average 0.89 hours per capita and 6.4 passengers per capita. Total transit need in those systems was projected at 1 hour per capita and 11 passengers per capita. When curve representing these systems is dropped to the Westport level, total transit need for the community was estimated at 0.85 hours per capita and 5.5 passengers per capita.

Technical Appendix

24

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007
Figure A-4: Rural Need Curve

Rural Regions - Fixed Routes Only Old Saybrook (Estuary), Northeastern, Northwestern, Windham
4.00

3.00 Passengers per Capita

2.00 Windham 1.00 Old Saybrook (Estuary) 0.00 0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 Northeastern

Northwestern

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

Revenue Hours per Capita

After the need curves were fit to the data, they were read to provide optimal level of service numbers in terms of trips per capita and hours per capita. Table A-2 lists the optimal level of service per capita for the four categories of transit providers and for the 100%, 90% and 80% of total need levels.
Table A-2: Total Need Values by Category of System 100% Type of System Major Urban Systems Large Urban Systems Small Urban Systems Rural Systems Trips / Capita 31 22 5.5 3 Hours / Capita 1.43 1.24 0.66 0.96 % Total Need 90% Trips / Hours / Capita Capita 27.9 19.8 4.95 2.7 1.17 0.96 0.5 0.67 80% Trips / Capita 24.8 17.6 4.4 2.4 Hours / Capita 0.96 0.82 0.43 0.59

The optimal level of service numbers (90% of total need) were then used to calculate total need given population size in each transit service area. Existing service was subtracted from the

Technical Appendix

25

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

calculated total need of the region in order to give an indication of unmet need in an area. Identification of need is discussed further in the following section. Identification of Need Need values were calculated using the optimal level of service numbers shown in Table A-2 and derived from the need curves. Total need is the amount of service and number of passengers that a given region can support based on its population size and density. Other factors such as business and development, major employers, and percentage of seniors and disabled persons living in an area also impact the amount and type of service used in a local area; but for a smallscale analysis such as this one, where the study area is the State of Connecticut, local characteristics have less of an impact on the overall demonstration of transit need. Thus, hours of service per capita and passengers per capita were used to calculate need statewide based on service area type (major urban, medium/large urban, small urban, and rural). Table A-3 lists fiscal year 2005 operating expenses by transit district and unmet need in hours and passenger trips at the optimal level of service for Connecticut (90% of total transit need). Unmet service hours total 1.17 million and potential unmet passenger trips amount to 24.1 million. Operating costs were estimated based on transit operator’s hourly rate of service provision – their fiscal year 2005 operating expenses divided by the total hours of service provided. Some districts are providing service at only a slightly lower level than optimal and others have numerous unmet needs. Westport and Northwestern Connecticut Transit District are close to meeting the transit needs of their residents. However, service areas like Bristol, Wallingford, Estuary Transit District, HART, SEAT, Meriden and New Britain have unmet needs so great that service levels need to more than double in order to be providing an appropriate level of service. Transit needs in these areas are both local needs and interregional needs.

Technical Appendix

26

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Table A-3: Need Calculation by District

Technical Appendix

27

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Filling the Gap The calculated need gap can be filled in a variety of ways and the manner in which the gap will be filled will be determined later based on studies of individual transit agencies. However, the services used to meet the needs of Connecticut stakeholders can be estimated and discussed in general terms based on two approaches. First, as mentioned in the main body of the report, Connecticut transit providers do not meet all of the service frequency and span standards set forth in the 2000 Connecticut Statewide Bus System Study. Thus, the first step in filling the gap would be to bring all transit providers up to the updated service standards for service frequency and span. Each agency was evaluated separately based on their level of service as of February 2007. This evaluation is described in detail in the following section. Second, unmet needs were also identified in a general manner prior to the initiation of this project through a survey. The results of this survey are provided in the section following the discussion of frequency and span of service standards. Frequency and Hours of Service Schedules were obtained from each transit agency in February 2007. Most schedules were available on the transit providers’ websites. Each provider’s level of service was then compared to the updated standards laid out in the 2000 statewide bus study. Level of service was compared to the standards on a route-by-route basis. The number of service hours required to meet the service standards were estimated for weekday peak and off-peak hours, Saturdays, and Sundays. Table A-4 lists the number of hours and vehicles necessary to bring all operators up to standard as well as the hours available for service expansion, the details of which will be developed based on local plans completed after this study.

Technical Appendix

28

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007
Table A-4: Hours Needed to Bring Transit Providers up to Span and Frequency Standards

Technical Appendix

29

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

In order to calculate operational expenses, each agency’s additional hours were multiplied by their hourly operating rate. Additional vehicles were estimated based on when the additional service would be provided. Peak service, for example, requires additional vehicles while extended service into the evening hours does not. Using an industry average of 3,000 revenue miles per year per vehicle, the number of requisite additional vehicles was calculated. Also using an industry average as of March 2007, full size buses were assumed to cost $400,000 and paratransit vehicles were assumed to cost $75,000. Table A-5 provides the totals for each category of service.
Table A-5: Total Additional Hours, Operating Costs, Vehicles and Capital Costs by Category of Service Additional Annual Hours of Service 1,170,000 Additional Annual Operational Expenses $48.3 $5.6 $9.0 $2.4 $1.4 $7.9 $2.3 $0.4 # Additional Vehicles 252 54 0 23 0 0 0 0 Additional Capital Expenses $96.7 $21.7 $0.0 $9.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Types of Services Existing fixed route operations - total projected

$ in millions Weekday peak period service frequency 135,600 Weekday off-peak period service frequency 218,300 Saturday service frequency 58,300 Sunday service frequency 34,700 Weekday hours of service 187,700 Saturday hours of service 52,600 Sunday hours of service 12,400 Expansion/improvements New routes 472,600 BRT operating hours and expenses Commuter connections Other

$19.3

175

$65.7

CACT Survey Prior to the initiation of this study, transit providers in Connecticut were asked to quantify their unmet needs by CACT (2006). Not all transit providers responded to the survey. Tables A-6 through A-8 describe the responses to the survey. The first table lists unmet service needs, the second lists expanded service needs, and the third lists express/commuter service needs. Transit providers were also asked as part of this study to submit unmet needs/service plans. Only a few operators responded. Their needs are as follows: locally expanded routes to serve new major trip generators; service frequency and span improvements (included separately in this analysis); express, inter-regional, shuttle and Commuter Connection services; funding for ADA services; new facilities; and other infrastructure improvements and technology upgrades such as communications, fareboxes, and Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) systems.

Technical Appendix

30

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Table A-6: CACT Survey Results: Unmet Service Needs

Technical Appendix

31

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007
Table A-7: CACT Survey Results: Expanded Service Needs

Technical Appendix

32

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Table A-8: CACT Survey Results: Express/Commuter Service Needs

Technical Appendix

33

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Paratransit Services Paratransit services include both the ADA service required by federal law to match fixed route service coverage and hours of operation and the Dial-a-Ride services (Non-ADA paratransit services) provided for the general public in rural areas, and seniors and disabled persons in all areas. For this study, paratransit services need is estimated separately from fixed route service need. ADA service hours were projected to increase 4% per year over the 5-year period, which is equal to the 3% increase in service hours statewide over the past 5-year period and another 1% increase in service to cover the geographic and service span expansions recommended for fixed routes. The total need would then be 20% over the 5-year implementation, but is included as 18% because the “90% of total need” threshold was determined to be the most cost-effective in the fixed route analysis. Dial-a-Ride service need is accounted for in two ways. First, for towns that currently have no service or have only limited service, transit need in those areas was calculated by category – small urban or rural regions - just as was done for the fixed route methodology. Thus, for each town not presently receiving local fixed route service, transit need was calculated. This need will probably be covered either by using deviated fixed route service in the more urban areas or Diala-Ride service in the less densely populated areas. Second, for existing Dial-a-Ride services, the need was estimated as part of the fixed route calculation. The need is included in the hours allotted for service expansion, BRT, and other uses category. Express Services Express services are used by many Connecticut residents to access their places of employment in Hartford, New Haven, and other major employment centers. Table A-9 describes currently operating express services including hours of operation, frequency of service, productivity and peak number of runs. Productivity presently ranges from around 6 passengers per hour on midday and smaller routes to around 30 passengers per hour on the popular Buckland Hills-Hartford peak route. The average is around 12 passengers per hour. Using the same supply and demand theory as was used for fixed route service, Figure A-5 plots peak number of runs on the X-axis and productivity in passengers per hour on the Y-axis. As the amount of service increases, the ridership also increases. As with fixed routes, there is a saturation point where additional service does not equate to additional riders. For express services, the saturation level is estimated to be 24 passengers per hour. However, the express services cannot be expected to serve 100% of need, as was discussed with the fixed route services, and the optimal level of service provision was determined to be 90% of total need. Thus, a figure of 21.6 passengers per hour was used in the calculation of the optimal level of express service. Then the amount of additional service needed to bring existing express service up to the optimal level was calculated. The additional hours of express service needed to meet

Technical Appendix

34

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Connecticut’s needs was estimated at 110,800, which has the potential to provide an additional 1.1 million passenger trips annually.
Figure A-5: Express Service: Productivity by Peak Runs

FY2005 Express Services
30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Peak # Runs

Productivity (Passengers/Hour)

Technical Appendix

35

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Table A-9: Current Express Services

Technical Appendix

36

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Service in Non-Member Towns and Towns without Local Fixed Route Service Unmet transit service need in towns not currently belonging to a transit district was also calculated. Towns located within a transit district but without local fixed route service were also included in this estimation of need. Using the total need calculation from the rural curve in the fixed route analysis, optimum passenger trips per capita of 2.7 and optimum operating hours per capita of 0.67 were applied to the rural and low density suburban towns currently with no service. There were also three towns that currently are unserved yet do not fit the ‘rural’ profile, but rather fit the small urban profile. Their need was calculated using the optimal trips per capita of 4.95 and optimal hours per capita of 0.5. Table A-10 provides detailed information on each of towns currently without local fixed route service.

Technical Appendix

37

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007
Table A-10: Calculation of Need for Unallocated Towns

Technical Appendix

38

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Capital Requirements The capital requirements necessary to implement the services proposed to meet Connecticut’s transit needs and to assist in turning Connecticut’s fleet and facilities into a 21st century clean bus system were determined in two ways. First, for the hours estimated from the unmet needs analysis for the fixed route, express, and unserved town service, the hours were divided by an average of 3,000 hours operated annually per vehicle (industry standard) in order to calculate total number of vehicles necessary to operate the service. Only certain types of service require additional vehicles including peak service on weekdays, service frequency expansion, and new service areas. Other types of service improvements such as expansion of span and off-peak frequency increases do not require additional vehicles. Thus, for the service improvements and new service that required additional vehicles, capital investments were calculated using an average cost of $400,000 for a full-size transit bus and $75,000 for paratransit vehicles (industry average for 2007). For fixed route improvements and expansions, capital requirements total $96.7 million over 5 years. For ADA services needed to correspond to fixed route increase, capital requirements total $1.9 million over 5 years. New service to unserved towns requires an additional $11.2 million and express service requires an additional $14.8 million in capital purchase over the 5 year implementation period. Related capital expenses include an estimated $5 million investment in parking for the new/expanded express services and $10 million for nonvehicle BRT infrastructure. The second way that capital requirements were identified was through the CACT survey of Connecticut bus service providers. Capital requests for service span and frequency increases and local service expansion were included as part of the previous estimation of capital requirements from the unmet needs analysis and the filling of the gap between existing service and optimal service level. Other capital requirements listed by operators in the CACT survey included
Technical Appendix 39

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

technology and communication infrastructure, maintenance facilities, rolling stock, and other smaller infrastructure requests for shelters and signs. These capital requirements are listed in detail by transit provider and statewide in Tables A-6 to A-8. Totals by category are listed in Table 5-1 with the investment program.

Technical Appendix

40

Bus Transit Needs Analysis – Connecticut 2007

Technical Appendix

41