Bus Transit Needs: Final Report Apr17 2007

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
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
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
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
MD
NJ
RI
Passengers per Capita
= Increased Ridership
20.00
15.00
CT
10.00
DE Increasing Investm ent
5.00
Sources: National Transit Database (NTD),
Connecticut Departm ent of Transportation
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 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
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

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)

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.

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

“Improved bus service linked to
made more efficient, all users benefit, not
investments in rail will enhance the
only transit users. Businesses also benefit as
economic outlook for Connecticut by
deliveries can be made in more timely
reducing congestion on our highways
fashion due to reduced congestion, lowering
and encouraging employers to grow
shipping costs that are typically passed on to
jobs in Connecticut.”
consumers.
- 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
2
Public Transportation and Petroleum Savings in the U.S.: reducing Dependence on Oil. January 2007. American
Public Transportation Association.
Benefits of Bus Transit 6

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 “In a recent survey, 77% of riders reported
Employment Services participants cite that new bus and shuttle services enabled
transportation as the most significant barrier them to secure their jobs, and 41% reported
to employment (see Figure 2-1). Access to that without their bus service, they would be
transportation is also a barrier for certain unable to maintain employment.”
segments of the population such as the
elderly, disabled, and low-income - Joseph M. Carbone, President and CEO
households. Furthermore, increased use of The WorkPlace, Inc., Southwestern
Connecticut’s Workforce Development Board
transit can play a beneficial role in
promoting public health and safety.
Figure 2-1: Top Employment Barriers

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 community-
based 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.

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.

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.
5
Linking Vision with Capital-Challenges and Opportunities in Financing Smart Growth. Research Institute for
Housing America. Institute Report #01-01.

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
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
Table 3-1: Service Frequency and Span Standards

Major Express
Measure Rural Small Urban Large Urban
Urban Corridors
Frequency
demand 20 core, 30 15 core, 30 maximum
Peak Headway 30 core, 60 other
driven other other 30
demand
Off-Peak Headway 30 core, 60 other 30 30 60-120
driven
Saturday Headway N/A 30 core, 60 other 30 30 N/A
Sunday Headway N/A N/A 30 30 N/A
Span
6 AM - 6 PM core,
6 AM - 6 6 PM - 10 PM 5 AM - 11 6 AM - 7
Weekday Span 5 AM - 11 PM
PM reduced evening PM PM
service
6 AM - 11
Saturday Span N/A 6 AM - 6 PM 6 AM - 11 PM N/A
PM
Sunday Span N/A N/A 8 AM - 6 PM 8 AM - 6 PM 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
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
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
Table 4-1: Unmet Service Needs by Type of Service and Estimated Additional Vehicles
Additional Additional
#
Annual Annual
Types of Services Additional
Hours of Passenger
Vehicles
Service Trips
Existing fixed route operations - total projected 1,170,000 24,090,000 252
Weekday peak period service frequency 135,600 54
Weekday off-peak period service frequency 218,300 0
Saturday service frequency 58,300 23
Sunday service frequency 34,700 0
Weekday hours of service 187,700 0
Saturday hours of service 52,600 0
24,090,000
Sunday hours of service 12,400 0
Expansion/improvements
New routes
BRT operating hours and expenses 472,600 175
Commuter connections
Other
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
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
Table 5-1: Detailed Investment Program
Table 5-2: Annual Staging of Investment Program
Investment Program 18
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
• 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 fixed-
route 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 Category of Service Area
2500 + up Major Urban
1800-2500 Medium/Large Urban
700-1800 Small Urban
under 700 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)
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
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
25.00
Hartford
20.00
New Haven
15.00
Bridgeport
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
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
25.00
20.00
15.00 Stamford
Norwalk
10.00
Milford
New Britain Waterbury
5.00
Danbury
Norwich (SEAT)
0.00 0
0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000 1.4000 1.6000
*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.
Figure A-3: Small Urban Need Curve
Small Urban Regions - Fixed Routes Only

Bristol, Meriden, Middletown, Wallingford, Valley*
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
Valley
3.00
Meriden Middletown
Wallingford
2.00
1.00
Bristol
0.00 0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
*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.
Figure A-4: Rural Need Curve
Rural Regions - Fixed Routes Only

Old Saybrook (Estuary), Northeastern, Northwestern, Windham
4.00
3.00
2.00
Northwestern
Windham
1.00
Northeastern
Old Saybrook
(Estuary)
0.00 0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
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

% Total Need
100% 90% 80%
Trips / Hours / Trips / Hours / Trips / Hours /
Type of System
Capita Capita Capita Capita Capita Capita
Major Urban
31 1.43 27.9 1.17 24.8 0.96
Systems
Large Urban
22 1.24 19.8 0.96 17.6 0.82
Systems
Small Urban
5.5 0.66 4.95 0.5 4.4 0.43
Systems
Rural Systems 3 0.96 2.7 0.67 2.4 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
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 small-
scale 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.
Table A-3: Need Calculation by District
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.
Table A-4: Hours Needed to Bring Transit Providers up to Span and Frequency Standards
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 Additional
# Additional
Annual Annual
Types of Services Additional Capital
Hours of Operational
Vehicles Expenses
Service Expenses
Existing fixed route operations - total
1,170,000 $48.3 252 $96.7
projected
$ in millions
Weekday peak period service frequency 135,600 $5.6 54 $21.7
Weekday off-peak period service frequency 218,300 $9.0 0 $0.0
Saturday service frequency 58,300 $2.4 23 $9.3
Sunday service frequency 34,700 $1.4 0 $0.0
Weekday hours of service 187,700 $7.9 0 $0.0
Saturday hours of service 52,600 $2.3 0 $0.0
Sunday hours of service 12,400 $0.4 0 $0.0
Expansion/improvements
New routes
BRT operating hours and expenses 472,600 $19.3 175 $65.7
Commuter connections
Other
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.
Table A-6: CACT Survey Results: Unmet Service Needs
Table A-7: CACT Survey Results: Expanded Service Needs
Table A-8: CACT Survey Results: Express/Commuter Service Needs
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 Dial-
a-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 mid-
day 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
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
Productivity (Passengers/Hour)
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Peak # Runs
Table A-9: Current Express Services
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.
Table A-10: Calculation of Need for Unallocated Towns
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 non-
vehicle 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
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.

Bus Transit Needs: Final Report Apr17 2007

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bus Transit Needs: Final Report Apr17 2007

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bus Transit Needs Analysis –

Connecticut 2007 Final Report

Transit for Connecticut

Urbitran Associates, Inc.

Figure I-1: Comparison in Investment between Connecticut and Peers......................................... 2

Table 3-1: Service Frequency and Span Standards....................................................................... 13

Comparison with other Northeast States

Figure I-1: Comparison in Investment between Connecticut and Peers

Investment in Transit Comparison

Chapter 1: Connecticut’s Towns and Transit Districts

Figure 1-1: Connecticut Transit Districts and Fixed Route Services

Connecticut’s Towns and Transit Districts 3

Figure 1-2: Bus Service Coverage for Connecticut Communities

Connecticut’s Towns and Transit Districts 4

Connecticut’s Towns and Transit Districts 5

Chapter 2: Benefits of Bus Transit

Employees and Employers Benefit

When the overall transportation network is

Benefits of Bus Transit 6

Better Job Access, Healthcare, and Personal Mobility

Employment and Education

Studies by the Connecticut Department of

Figure 2-1: Top Employment Barriers

Benefits of Bus Transit 7

Compared with senior citizen drivers, non-driving senior citizens make:

 15% fewer trips to the doctor

Benefits of Bus Transit 8

Figure 2-2: Senior Citizen Transportation Choices

Better for Our Environment

Benefits of Bus Transit 9

Supporting Responsible Growth

Clean Vehicles, Less Pollution

Benefits of Bus Transit 10

Bus transit is an important element of a comprehensive transportation system. It provides

Methodology for Determining Unmet Need

Categorizing Unmet Need

Table 3-1: Service Frequency and Span Standards

Chapter 4: Service Program

Chapter 5: Investment Program

Table 5-1: Detailed Investment Program

Table 5-2: Annual Staging of Investment Program

Existing Operators – Fixed Route Services

• Bridgeport: Bridgeport, Stratford, Fairfield, Trumbull

Allocating Service Areas

Table A-1: Service Area Category Descriptions

Service areas were categorized as follows:

Figure A-1: Major Urban Need Curve

Major Urban Regions - Fixed Routes Only

Figure A-2: Medium/Large Urban Need Curve

Medium/Large Urban Regions - Fixed Routes Only

Figure A-3: Small Urban Need Curve

Small Urban Regions - Fixed Routes Only

Figure A-4: Rural Need Curve

Rural Regions - Fixed Routes Only

Table A-2: Total Need Values by Category of System

Table A-3: Need Calculation by District

Filling the Gap

Frequency and Hours of Service

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

Table A-7: CACT Survey Results: Expanded Service Needs

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

Figure A-5: Express Service: Productivity by Peak Runs

FY2005 Express Services

Table A-9: Current Express Services

15% fewer trips to the doctor