Central Naugatuck Valley Long Range Regional Transportation Plan 2011-2040 COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY July 2011 TITLE: Long Range Regional Transportation Plan 2011-2040 AUTHOR: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley SUBJECT: A long range plan for the Central Naugatuck Valley Region’s transportation system DATE: July 2011 LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley SOURCE OF COPIES: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 60 North Main Street, 3 rd Floor Waterbury, CT 06702 SERIES NO: N/A NUMBER OF PAGES: 105 ABSTRACT: An analysis of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region’s existing transportation system as well as projections of future transportation needs and recommendations for improvement of the transportation system. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Th e material contained herein may be quoted or reproduced without special permission, although source citation is appreciated as a professional courtesy. Th e preparation of this report was fi nanced through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration; a grant from the Connecticut Department of Transportation; a grant from the Connecticut Offi ce of Policy and Management; and by contributions from member municipalities of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 i T ABLE OF C ONTENTS . Introdbction ……………………………………………………………..s………………………………………………………. 1 The Central Naugatuck Valley Region ………………………………………………………………s……………………… 1 The Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley ……………………………………………………… 1 Transportation Planning Process ………………………………………………………………s…………………………….. 1 Transportation Strategy Board/Transportation Investment Areas ……………………………………………………. 4 Goal and Objectives of the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley ………………………… 4 . Lfnd Use ……………………………………………………………..s……………………………………………………………… 5 Demographics ……………………………………………………s………………………………………………………………. 5 Residential……………………………………………………..s…………………………………………………………………. 6 Employment …………………………………………………………s…………………………………………………………… 8 Commuting Patterns ………………………………………………………………s…………………………………………… 8 Commercial and Industrial Base ………………………………………………………………s…………………………….. 8 Downtown Waterbury ………………………………………………………………s……………………………….8 Commercial Centers ………………………………………………………………s……………………………….. 11 Industrial Parks ………………………………………………………………s……………………………………… 11 Other Significant Traffic Generators ………………………………………………………………s……………………… 11 Educational Institutions ………………………………………………………………s………………………….. 11 Medical Facilities ………………………………………………………………s…………………………………… 11 . Existing Trfnsportftion System in the Centrfl Nfbgftbck Vflley Region ………………. 13 Highways and Roadways ………………………………………………………………s…………………………………….. 13 Existing Highway Network ………………………………………………………………s………………………. 13 Highway Congestion ………………………………………………………………s……………………………….15 Highway Safety ………………………………………………………………s……………………………………… 18 Bridge Conditions ………………………………………………………………s………………………………….. 22 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ………………………………………………………………s……… 23 Commuter Parking Facilities ………………………………………………………………s…………………….. 25 Carpooling and Vanpooling ………………………………………………………………s……………………… 26 Bus Transit ………………………………………………………………s……………………………………………………… 27 Local Bus Service ………………………………………………………………s…………………………………… 27 Intercity Bus Service ………………………………………………………………s……………………………….. 34 Paratransit …………………………………………………….s………………………………………………………………… 34 Regional Minibus Service for the Disabled ………………………………………………………………s…… 34 Local Minibus Services ………………………………………………………………s……………………………. 37 Joblinks ……………………………………………………….s…………………………………………………………………. 38 Taxis and Livery ………………………………………………………………s……………………………………………….. 38 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley ii Rail ………………………………………………………….m………………………………………………. …………………… 39 Passenger Service ………………………………………………………………m……………………………………. 39 Freight Service ………………………………………………………………m………………………………………. 40 Airport Facilities ………………………………………………………………m……………………………………………… 42 Walkways, Bikeways, and Greenways ………………………………………………………………m…………………….. 42 . Projecbed Trends ……………………………………………………………..m………………………………………………. 43 Projected Trends and Impacts on Transportation Needs ………………………………………………………………m 43 Population ……………………………………………………..m…………………………………………………….. 43 Transportation Challenges ………………………………………………………………m……………………….. 43 Travel Demand Projections ………………………………………………………………m…………………………………. 44 f. Recommended Plan ……………………………………………………………..m…………………………………………… 49 Highways ……………………………………………………….m……………………………………………… ………………. 49 Expressways ……………………………………………………….m…………………………………………………. 49 Major State Highways ………………………………………………………………m……………………………… 50 Urban Highway Projects ………………………………………………………………m………………………….. 51 Bridges ………………………………………………………..m………………………………………………………. 53 Commuter Services ………………………………………………………………m………………………………… 53 Local Bus Service ………………………………………………………………m……………………………………………… 53 Specialized Transportation – Minibus Services ………………………………………………………………m………….. 54 Rail ………………………………………………………….m………………………………………………. …………………… 54 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program ………………………………………………………………m……………… 54 Airport Facilities ………………………………………………………………m………………………………………………. 54 Walkways, Bikeways, and Greenways ………………………………………………………………m…………………….. 54 Other Recommendations ………………………………………………………………m……………………………………. 55 Access Management ………………………………………………………………m………………………………… 55 Intelligent Transportation Systems ………………………………………………………………m……………… 55 Transportation Security ………………………………………………………………m…………………………… 55 Community Circulation and Road Connectivity ……………………………………………………………. 55 Appendix A- Local Prioribiesm for Transporbabion Projecbs …………………………………………….. 57 Appendix B – Transporbabion Funding Sources ……………………………………………………………..m….. 61 Federal Funding ………………………………………………………………m……………………………………………….. 61 Federal Highway Administration Programs ………………………………………………………………m…… 61 Federal Transit Administration ………………………………………………………………m………………….. 6 5 State of Connecticut Funding…………………………………………………………m……………………………………. 66 Local Funding ………………………………………………………………m………………………………………………….. 66 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 iii Appendix C – Metropolitfn Plfnning Ffctors fnd Six Livfbility Principles …………………. 67 Metropolitan Planning Factors ……………………………………………………………..s…………………………………… 67 The Partnership for Sustainable Communities’ Six Livability Principles ………………………………………………. 69 Appendix D – Finfncifl Constrfints ……………………………………………………………..s…………………… 71 Appendix E – Strftegic Highwfy Sffety Plfn ……………………………………………………………..s……… 75 Appendix F – Environmentfl Anflysis ……………………………………………………………..s…………………. 77 Environmental Justice ……………………………………………………………..s………………………………………………. 77 Identification of Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Region ………………………………………….. 77 Identifying the Needs of Minority and Low-Income Populations ………………………………………………….. 84 Evaluating Public Outreach Efforts ………………………………………………………………s……………………….. 84 Other COGCNV Efforts in Support of TITLE VI ………………………………………………………………s……. 85 Evaluating the Distribution of the Benefits and Burdens of Transportation Projects on Minority and Low-Income Populations ………………………………………………………………s…… 86 Environmental Mitigation ……………………………………………………………..s………………………………………… 89 Appendix G – Record of Pbblic Obtrefch ……………………………………………………………..s………….. 99 Public Review Comments ………………………………………………………………s…………………………………… 99 References ……………………………………………………………..s…………………………………………………………… 103 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley iv L IST OF F IGURES Figure 1.1 Regional Location ………………………………………………………………s……………………………………….. vi Figure 1.2 Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut ………………………………………………………………s…. 2 Figure 2.1 Population Density in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region, by Block Group, Census 2010 ………………………………………………………………s…………………………….. 7 Figure 2.2 Major Employers in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2010 ……………………………………………… 9 Figure 2.3 Place of Employment of CNVR Residents – Top Fifty Municipalities: 2009 ……………………………… 10 Figure 2.4 Place of Residence of CNVR Employees – Top Fifty Municipalities: 2009 ……………………………….. 10 Figure 2.5 Major Commercial and Industrial Sites in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2010 ………………………………………………………………s………….. 12 Figure 3.1 Major Highways and Roadways in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2010 ………………………… 14 Figure 3.2 Highway Congestion in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2008 ……………………………………… 17 Figure 3.3 High Hazard Accident Locations on State Roads in the CNVR: 2005-2007 …………………………….. 19 L IST OF T ABLES Table 2.1 CNVR Total Population, by Municipality: 1980-2010 …………………………………………………………… 5 Table 2.2 CNVR Population Density, by Municipality: 1970-2010 ……………………………………………………….. 6 Table 3.1 Congested State Highway Segments in the CNVR Ranked by Route and Municipality: 2008 ………………………………………………………………s……………………………….. 16 Table 3.2 High Hazard Accident Locations on State Roads in the CNVR: 2005-2007 ………………………………. 18 Table 3.3 High Hazard Accident Locations for Pedestrians in the CNVR: 2003 – 2007 ……………………………… 20 Table 3.4 High Hazard Accident Locations for Bicycles in the CNVR: 2003-2007 …………………………………… 20 Table 3.5 CNVR Commuter Parking Lots: 2009, Average and Maximum Occupancy ……………………………….. 26 Table 3.6 Waterbury Local Bus Routes: 2010 ………………………………………………………………s………………….. 29 Table 3.7 Waterbury Local Bus Route Ridership and Performance: 2009 ………………………………………………..31 Table 3.8 Waterbury Local Bus System Financial and Ridership Trends ………………………………………………….. 32 Table 3.9 Waterbury Regional Paratransit Financial and Ridership Trends ………………………………………………. 37 Table 4.1 Severely Congested State Highway Segments in the CNVR, By Volume to Capacity Ratios: 2030 ………………………………………………………………s……………….. 46 Table D.1 Allocation of Anticipated Transportation Funds for the CNVR 2011-2040 ………………………………… 72 Table D.2 Anticipated Highway Expenditures for the CNVR 2011-2040 ………………………………………………… 72 Table D.3 Anticipated Transit Expenditures for the CNVR 2011-2040 ……………………………………………………74 Table F.1 Estimates of 150% of Poverty Level ………………………………………………………………s………………….. 80 Table F.2 COGCNV’s use of Media to target Low-Income and Minority Populations ……………………………….. 85 Table G.1 Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan Schedule……………………………………………………s………. 101 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 v Figure 3.4 Contributing Factors in Tractor Trailer Accidents in the CNVR: 2004-2008 ……………………………. 21 Figure 3.5 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2010 …………….. 24 Figure 3.6 Central Naugatuck Valley Region Commuter Parking Lots: 2010 ………………………………………….. 25 Figure 3.7 Waterbury Local Bus Routes: 2010 ……………………………………………………………… ………………… 28 Figure 3.8 Greater Waterbury Transit District Service Area: 2010 ………………………………………………………… 35 Figure 3.9 Rail System in Western Connecticut: 2010 ……………………………………………………………… ………. 41 Figure 4.1 Highway Congestion in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2030 ……………………………………… 48 Figure 5.1 Surface Transportation Program Projects in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2010 ……………………………………………………………… …………… 52 Figure B.1 Urbanized Area Boundaries: 2000 ……………………………………………………………… ………………….. 63 Figure F.1 Minority Population ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………. 78 Figure F.2 Persons Below 150% of Poverty Level ……………………………………………………………… ………………. 79 Figure F.3 Minority and Low-Income Target Area ……………………………………………………………… …………….. 79 Figure F.4 Elderly Population ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………. 81 Figure F.5 Occupied Housing Units Without Access to a Car ……………………………………………………………… . 81 Figure F.6 Per Capita Income ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………. 82 Figure F.7 Public Assistance ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………… 82 Figure F.8 Bus as Means to Work ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………….. 83 Figure F.9 Linguistically Isolated Households ……………………………………………………………… ………………….. 83 Figure F.10 Local Bus Routes Near or Within the Minority and Low-Income Target Area …………………………….. 87 Figure F.11 Current and Potential Transportation Projects Near or Within the Minority and Low-Income Target Area ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………. 88 Figure F.12 Connecticut’s Recommended 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Non-attainment Area Boundaries ……………………………………………………………… … ……………….. 90 Figure F.13 Elevation in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region ……………………………………………………………… 91 Figure F.14 Wetland Soils, Aquifer Protection Areas, Floodplains, and Natural Diversity Database Areas ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 92 Figure F.15 Waterbodies Not Meeting Water Quality Standards, Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2011 ……………………………………………………………… ………….. 93 Figure F.16 Historic and Archaeologic Sites ……………………………………………………………… ……………………… 94 Figure F.17 Committed Open Space and Open Space Action Areas ………………………………………………………… 95 Figure F.18 Brownfield Locations in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region ………………………………………………. 96 Figure F.19 Change in Developed Area 1985-2006 ……………………………………………………………… …………….. 97 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 ” ¥ ” ¥ § ¨ ¦684 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦91 NEW YORK Bridgeport New Haven Hartford Danbury CONNECTICUT CAPITAL REGION LITCHFIELD HILLS MIDSTATE SOUTH CENTRAL HOUSATONIC VALLEYNORTHWEST SOUTHWEST VALLEY C CENTRAL CONNECTICUT GREATER BRIDGEPORT Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Naugatuck Middlebury Prospect Thomaston BeaconFalls 0510 2.5 Miles vi Figure 1.1 Regional Location 1 -Introduction Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 1 1. I NTRODUCTION Th e Central Naugatuck Valley Regional Planning Agency (CNVRPA), the predecessor of the Council of Govern- ments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV), fi rst became involved in transportation planning in the early 1960s with the Waterbury Area Transportation Study. Th e study analyzed land use, population, and employ- ment, projected traffi c volumes, and recommended im- provements to the region’s highway system. At the time, transportation planning focused on the construction and improvement of highways necessary to accommodate the growing preference of automobiles for transportation. Since then, COGCNV’s involvement in transportation planning has expanded to include public transportation, transit services linking low-income families and welfare recipients to workplaces, transportation for elderly and disabled persons, energy effi cient and cleaner modes of transportation, highway safety, pedestrian, bicycle, and greenway planning, and the environmental and economic impacts of highway projects. COGCNV is challenged to address these issues with limited fi nancial resources for transportation services and facilities. Th is update of the regional transportation plan examines the existing highway network and the region’s transit ser- vices, projects future needs, and recommends improve- ments to the region’s transportation system. Planning rec- ommendations are primarily for 2011 to 2016. Analysis of the region’s major highway needs extends to the year 2040. Th e plan is intended to meet the requirements of Title 23 of the United States Code, Section 134–135, which requires each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to carry out a transportation planning process for its designated region. COGCNV is the state-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Central Naugatuck Valley Region. Th e previous regional transportation plan was approved by COGCNV in 2007. Title 23 of the Federal Code of Regulations, Part 450, Section 322 specifi es the requirements for the plan. THE CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY REGION Th e Central Naugatuck Valley Region (CNVR) encom- passes a total of 311 square miles in west central Con- necticut. Th irteen municipalities form the CNVR: Bea- con Falls, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Oxford, Prospect, Southbury, Th omaston, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, and Woodbury (see Figure 1.1). THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS OF THE CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY Th e Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley is one of the 15 regional planning organizations in Connecticut (see Figure 1.2). Th e chief elected offi – cials (CEOs) of the region’s 13 municipalities constitute COGCNV’s policy board. At monthly meetings COGC- NV members discuss issues of common concern and re- ceive staff reports. Th e Regional Planning Commission (RPC), whose members are appointed by the CEOs and local planning commissions, serves as the planning group within COGCNV. Th e RPC’s recommendations are pre- sented to COGCNV. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS Th e Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fund the region’s transportation planning program. Funding comes from the federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Effi cient Transpor- tation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 1. 1 Congress is working on a new federal transportation bill. In the meantime, Congress has extended SAFETEA-LU through continu- ing resolutions. 1 – Introduction 2 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley Figure 1.2 Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut CAPITOL REGION WINDHAM MIDSTATE SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT LITCHFIELD HILLSNORTH EASTERN CONNECTICUT SOUTH CENTRAL CONNECTICUT HOUSATONIC VALLEYCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY VALLEYCONNECTICUT RIVER ESTUARY NORTH- WESTERN CONNECTICUT SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUTCENTRAL CONNECTICUT GREATER BRIDGEPORT KentSharonStafford Salisbury Lit chfiel dKillingly NewtownNorfol k Lebanon GuilfordLymeWood stock GoshenSuf field New MilfordGranby HaddamTolland Cornwall DanburyPomfret Ashford Montvill e Heb ron Ledyar d Enfiel d MansfieldUnion OxfordPla infield ColchesterThompson GreenwichGroton Glastonbury Sal em Berlin East Haddam Coventry Griswold Avon WiltonCanaan SheltonBristol Prest on Har tland TorringtonEllington Southbury Eas ton ReddingStonington FairfieldWindsor Canter bury Wallingf ord Simsbury Woodbury WarrenSomers WaterfordNorwic h RidgefieldNorth Stonington Monroe WashingtonCanton Brooklyn Colebrook Harwinton Rox bury Winche ster Burlington Barkhamsted New Hartf ord Windham Portland Durham Meriden Waterbu ry Morris Bozra h Wol cottFarmingtonPut nam Bet hany Branford BethelManche ster Vernon OrangeCheste r Madiso n StamfordHamdenVoluntown Mid dletown CheshireSte rling WillingtonEastford East Lyme MilfordKilling- worth Sou thington WatertownHampton Nor walkEast Hampton Tru mbull WestonOld Lyme ShermanBlo omfield Chaplin Fra nklin Lisbon PlymouthColumbia Clinton Wes tportBolton Hartford Strat- fordScotland East Windsor Brookf ieldSouth Windsor New Fairfield Marlborough Nor th Branfor d BethlehemAndover DarienEssex New CanaanNorth Haven MiddleburyWes t Hartford New Haven Seymour Wood bridge Prospe ct BridgeportSprague Naugatuck West- brook BridgewaterEast Hartford North Canaan East Granby Rocky Hill Cromwell Deep River New ington Mid dlefield Old Sayb rook New Britain East Hav en Plainville ThomastonWet hersfield West Hav en DerbyBeacon Falls Anso niaWindsor Locks New London 010205 Miles ³ 1 -Introduction Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 3 Th e regional planning grant is administered by the Con- necticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT). SAF- ETEA-LU contains a number of transportation funding programs (see Appendix B for a listing of funding sourc- es). Each funding program has specifi c eligibility require- ments, funding ratios, and other limitations. SAFETEA- LU requires each metropolitan planning organization to develop and implement an intermodal regional transpor- tation planning process. As the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Val- ley is responsible for this regional transportation planning process for the greater Waterbury area. SAFETEA-LU re- quires COGCNV to have a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process, resulting in plans and programs that consider all transportation modes and support metropolitan community develop- ment and social goals. Th e Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley is responsible for two pri- mary transportation planning documents required under SAFETEA-LU: the Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan (LRP) and the Transportation Improvement Pro- gram (TIP). Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan Th e Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan (LRP) identifi es transportation defi ciencies, recommends im- provements, and advances priority transportation proj- ects, in cooperation with CTDOT, municipal offi cials, and other organizations and interested citizens. Th e plan must consider the entire range of transportation choices and be fi nancially constrained. All proposed projects must be consistent with the amount of funding that can be rea- sonably expected to be available. Priority projects from the plan are advanced for funding and implementation. CTDOT analyzes recommendations in the plan for con- formity with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality. Th e analysis of the March 2011 Air Quality Con- formity Report concludes that CTDOT’s transportation program and regional long-range transportation plans are in conformity with requirements of the State Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP) and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Transportation Improvement Program Th e Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a four-year funding schedule for highway and transit proj- ects receiving federal funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Admin- istration (FTA). (Appendix B describes the funding pro- grams.) Th e regional TIP is integrated into a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Th e TIP document with a project list can be viewed online at www.cogcnv.org/publications.htm. Th e transportation planning and project implemention process is outlined in the diagram below. ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS AND NEEDS TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Monitoring and ProjectionsMonitoring and Projections Identification of  NeedsIdentification of  Needs Transportation  PlanTransportation  Plan Transportation  Improvement  ProgramTransportation  Improvement  Program ImplementationImplementation Special StudiesSpecial Studies 1 – Introduction 4 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY BOARD/TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT AREAS In September 2000, state leaders convened a Transporta- tion Summit to discuss the state’s major transportation problems and possible strategies. An important outgrowth of the summit was state legislation creating the Connecti- cut Transportation Strategy Board (TSB), charged with developing a state transportation strategy plan. Th e TSB completed its latest state plan on January 6, 2003. To assist the Connecticut Transportation Strategy Board (TSB) in developing a statewide strategic plan, Trans- portation Investment Areas (TIAs) were created for fi ve major transportation corridors in Connecticut. Th e Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) are the TIAs’ building blocks because of the RPOs’ role in transporta- tion planning. Th e TIAs are responsible for corridor-level strategic transportation plans for the TSB. COGCNV is in the I-84 TIA as well as the Coastal (Western I-95) TIA. Without funding, most TIAs are no longer active. GOAL To develop and maintain an effi cient transportation system that will provide the public with a high level of mobility, safety, and choice, while also addressing social, economic, and environmental needs and concerns. OBJECTIVES 1. To provide a transportation system that reinforces and compliments the regional plan of conservation and development and the land use planning objectives of the region’s 13 municipalities. 2. To maintain and improve the region’s highway system with an emphasis on making better use of existing transportation facilities while seeking to improve safe- ty and security and reducing traffi c congestion, energy consumption, and motor vehicle emissions. 3. To maintain and improve public transportation service to provide a choice of travel modes, reduce highway congestion, improve effi ciency, and provide mobility for people who are transit dependent. 4. To provide transportation services to expand employ- ment opportunities. 5. To provide transportation services responsive to the elderly and persons with disabilities. 6. To plan and program transportation improvements according to existing and realistic future funding. 7. To support strong, sustainable, and livable communi- ties. 8. To provide “walkable communities,” especially in downtown centers and in congested areas, connecting these areas with commuter parking lots, residential ar- eas, schools, commercial and industrial corridors, and recreation areas. 9. To increase the safety and security of the transporta- tion system for motorized and non-motorized users. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS OF THE CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY SAFETEA-LU’s programs and initiatives seek to increase accessibility and mobility, protect the environment, ad- vance economic growth, enhance modal integration, pro- mote effi cient management, preserve the existing system, and improve safety and security. Th e goals and objectives of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region’s Regional Trans- portation Plan refl ect the goals of SAFETEA-LU: Gov. Rell unveils one of the new CT Transit buses Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 5 2 -Land Use 2. L AND U SE DEMOGRAPHICS In 2010 the total population of the CNVR was 287,768, an increase of 5.6% from 2000 (see Table 2.1). Th e re- gion grew faster than the state as a whole over the pe- riod. From 2000 to 2010, the state’s population increased 4.9%. Regional population growth continues to be greater in the rural and suburban areas outside of Waterbury, although the rate of suburban growth has slowed over the last three decades. Th e city’s population rose 2.9% between 2000 and 2010. Th e three fastest growing municipalities over the period were Oxford (29.1%), Middlebury (17.4%), and Beacon Falls (15.3%). Th e outward movement of population to the region’s ru- ral and suburban communities and away from the central city–experienced since the 1950s–is expected to continue in the CNVR but at a slower pace. Waterbury’s popula- tion is anticipated to remain fairly stable. Geographic AreaTotal Population Percent Change 2010 2000 1990 1980 2000-2010 1990-2000 1980-1990 CNVR 287,768 272,594 261,081 237,382 5.6% 4.4% 10.0% Waterbury 110,366 107,271 108,961 103,266 2.9% -1.6% 5.5% Remainder of Region 177,402 165,323 152,120 134,116 7.3% 8.7% 13.4% Region Beacon Falls 6,049 5,246 5,083 3,995 15.3% 3.2% 27.2% Bethlehem 3,607 3,422 3,071 2,573 5.4% 11.4% 19.4% Cheshire 29,261 28,543 25,684 21,788 2.5% 11.1% 17.9% Middlebury 7,575 6,451 6,145 5,995 17.4% 5.0% 2.5% Naugatuck 31,862 30,989 30,625 26,456 2.8% 1.2% 15.8% Oxford 12,683 9,821 8,685 6,631 29.1% 13.1% 31.0% Prospect 9,405 8,707 7,775 6,807 8.0% 12.0% 14.2% Southbury 19,904 18,567 15,818 14,156 7.2% 17.4% 11.7% Thomaston 7,887 7,503 6,947 6,276 5.1% 8.0% 10.7% Watertown 22,514 21,661 20,456 19,489 3.9% 5.9% 5.0% Wolcott 16,680 15,215 13,700 13,008 9.6% 11.1% 5.3% Woodbury 9,975 9,198 8,131 6,942 8.4% 13.1% 17.1% Connecticut 3,574,097 3,405,565 3,287,116 3,107,576 4.9% 3.6% 5.8% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1980, 1990, 2000 Table 2.1 CNVR Total Population, by Municipality: 1980-2010 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 6 2 – Land Use Table 2.2 CNVR Population Density, by Municipality: 1970-2010 Geographic AreaLand Area (Sq Mi)Population per Sq. Mile 2010 2000 1990 1980 1970 CNVR 309.02 931 882 845 768 722 Waterbury 28.55 3,866 3,757 3,816 3,617 3,784 Remainder of Region 280.47 633 589 542 478 411 Region Beacon Falls 9.77 619 537 520 409 363 Bethlehem 19.36 186 171 159 133 99 Cheshire 32.90 889 868 781 662 579 Middlebury 17.75 427 363 346 338 312 Naugatuck 16.39 1,944 1,891 1,869 1,614 1,405 Oxford 32.88 386 299 264 202 136 Prospect 14.32 657 608 543 475 457 Southbury 39.05 510 475 405 363 201 Thomaston 12.01 657 625 578 523 519 Watertown 29.15 772 743 702 669 638 Wolcott 20.43 816 745 671 637 612 Woodbury 36.46 274 252 223 190 161 Connecticut 4,844.13 738 703 679 642 626 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population, Number of Inhabitants, Final Report (PC91-A8), CT., U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population and Housing Final Population and Housing Unit Counts, Connecticut (PHC 80-V-8). U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Population Counts., U.S.Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1)., U.S. Bureau of the Census, July 1, 2009 Population Estimates for Incorporated Places and Minor Civil Divisions, Vintage 2009 Whites, the largest racial group in the region (79.4%), did not increase over the last decade, and Waterbury saw a -9.9% decline in the white population between 2000 and 2010. Th e region’s population is 20.6% non-white, with a little over three-quarters living in Waterbury. Af- rican-Americans are the largest racial group, followed by Other Races, most likely residents who listed their race as Hispanic. Hispanics (of all races) make up 15% of the region’s population. 1 To assess whether minority and low-income populations may be disproportionately aff ected by transportation plans and projects, a civil rights/environmental analysis is included in the regional transportation plan (See Appen- dix F). 2 Waterbury has the only block groups with both 50% or greater minority populations and 20% or more of the population below 150% of the poverty level. Th ere were 40 block groups meeting both criteria. RESIDENTIAL Th e CNVR has a higher population density than the state as a whole. In 2010, the region had an estimated 931 persons per square mile (which includes non-residential 1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File 2 Appendix F: Environmental Analysis presents detailed maps showing the location of the region’s minority, low income, elderly populations, households without access to a vehicle, households using a bus as a means to work, and households that are linguistically isolated. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 7 2 -Land Use Figure 2.1 Population Density in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: by Block Group, Census 2010 land and roads), compared to 738 statewide. From 2000 to 2010, the population density of the CNVR increased slightly both in the suburban areas and in Waterbury, the region’s central city. Waterbury, which is extensively developed and has the largest proportion of multi-fam- ily units, had the highest population concentration in the region (See Figure 2.1). In 2010, Waterbury had 3,866 persons per square mile. Naugatuck was a distant second with 1,944 persons per square mile. Th e remaining towns in the central (Watertown, Th omaston, and Beacon Falls) and in the eastern (Wolcott, Cheshire, and Prospect) por-tions of the region had densities between 619 and 889 persons per square mile. Th e municipalities to the west (Bethlehem, Middlebury, Oxford, Southbury, and Wood- bury) had densities ranging from 186 to 510. Th e towns in the eastern and central portions of the re- gion are partially sewered, allowing greater densities. Pros- pect has only a limited number of properties connected to sewer systems through adjacent municipalities. In the western portion of the region, Bethlehem and Woodbury Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Wolcott Waterbury Watertown Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls ³ 0241Miles Persons per square mile Block Group Boundary 700 – 1,999 2000 – 5,999 150 – 699 6,000 – 26,000 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 8 2 – Land Use have no municipal sewer service of any kind, and service in Oxford and Southbury is limited although Oxford’s is planned to expand signifi cantly through Naugatuck. Some new developments are using alternative treatment plants to serve increased densities in unsewered areas. Th is newer technology requires approval from the De- partment of Environmental Protection. EMPLOYMENT Historically, the CNVR’s employment and business cen- ters have been in the core of the region — Waterbury, Naugatuck, and the Oakville section of Watertown. Em- ployment has been shifting away from Waterbury to the suburban areas of the region. According to the Connecti- cut Department of Labor, 41% of the jobs were outside the city in 1970, 51% by 1990, and 65% by 2009. Despite Waterbury’s declining percentage of the region’s employment base, the central city is still, by far, the largest employment center in the region (Figure 2.2). Cheshire, Watertown, Southbury, and Naugatuck are the major sub- urban employment locations. Manufacturing, especially fabricated metals, remains a strong part of the region’s economy at 13% of employment, both in Waterbury and other CNVR towns, but education and health services; trade, transportation, and utilities; and government each have higher percentages of employment regionally. COMMUTING PATTERNS Commuting patterns in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region refl ect national trends. Movement of the region’s population from the central city to the suburbs and rural areas is accompanied by decentralized travel. As people move farther away from urban areas, they assume lon- ger commutes and increased reliance on the automobile. CNVR commuting data indicate that the region’s center is becoming less of a destination for work. Th e length of the average work trip of CNVR residents increased from 21 minutes in 1990 to 24 minutes in 2000. In 2009, 42% of CNVR residents worked in the region. Another 13% traveled to the South Central (New Ha- ven) Region, 10% to the Capitol Region, and 6% to the Housatonic Valley (Danbury) Region. (See Figure 2.3.) Almost 56% of those working in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region also resided in the region. Th e remaining workers in the region travel here from the South Central Region (9%), Central Connecticut (8%), Capitol (6%), elsewhere in Connecticut (18%), or out of state (3%). (See Figure 2.4.) With 59% of the region’s jobs in suburban towns, low- income residents are cut off from many jobs and services because they cannot aff ord a car. According to the 2005- 2009 American Community Survey, 17% of Waterbury’s households were without a vehicle. 3 Public transit cannot eff ectively serve low and medium density areas, but em- ployment and shopping are growing outside of the city. Waterbury has, however, been able to retain a majority of the region’s retail. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BASE D OWNTOWN W ATERBURY Downtown Waterbury has been the region’s historical business, government, and cultural center. Waterbury is situated at the interchange of an interstate highway (I-84) and an expressway (Route 8), although access to downtown from the interchange requires improvement. Th e mixmaster, as the interchange of I-84 and Route 8 is commonly called, does not provide easy access for either local or through traffi c. Truck traffi c through Waterbury is hampered by the interchange. Traffi c circulation, park- ing, and security are concerns of commuters and visitors to the city. Th e downtown Waterbury redevelopment projects of the past decade have the potential to maintain downtown Waterbury as a major business and cultural center. Th e initiative has resulted in the construction of an arts mag- net school, renovation of the Palace Th eater, and the re- location of the University of Connecticut at Waterbury to East Main Street. Th e initiative established a 42-block area of downtown Waterbury as an Information Tech- nology Zone (ITZ). Th e Waterbury Development Cor- 3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey See Appendix G – Environmental Analysis Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 9 2 -Land Use Figure 2.2 Major Employers in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 201 0 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 t u6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 t u6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 t u6 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 § ¨ ¦84 Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls ³ 024 1 Miles ” )8 § ¨ ¦84 Downtown Waterbury inset Number of Employees 1,000 to 2,499 Main highways Hwy 8 & 84 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 50 to 99 Source: CERC (Connecticut Economic Resource Center) with updates by C OGCNV, 2010 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 10 2 – Land Use Figure 2.3. Place of Employment of CNVR Residents – Top Fifty Municipali ties: 2009 Source: U. S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Desti nation Employment Statistics (Beginning of quarter employment, 2n d Quarter, 2009). Figure 2.4. Place of Residence of CNVR Employees – Top Fifty Municipalit ies: 2009 CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VA L L E Y LITCHFIELD HILLS CAPITOL REGION WINDHAM SOUTHEAS T CONNECTI C MIDSTATE CONNECTICUT RIVER ESTUARY SOUTH CENTRALCONNECTICUT VA L L E Y GREATER BRIDGEPORT SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT HOUSATONIC VALLEY CENTRAL CONNECTICUT NORTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT Kent Sharon Stafford Salisbury Litchfield Newtown Lebanon Lyme Guilford Goshen Granby HaddamTolland New Milford Cornwall Danbury Ashfor d Hebron Mont v Oxford Mansfield Berlin Salem Colchester Avon Greenwich Wilton MadisonGlastonbury Bristol Coventry Canaan Stamford Shelton East Haddam Easton Ellington Torrington Hamden Southbury Redding Fairfield Windsor Middletown Warren CheshireSimsbury Woodbury Wallingford Wa Ridgefield Canton Monroe Willington Milford East Lyme Washington Roxbury Killingworth Harwinton Southington Winchester Burlington Morris Durham Meriden Wind Barkhamsted Portland New Hartford Bozr a Wolcott Norwalk Waterbury Watertown Weston Trumbull Bethel East Hampton Bethany Old Lyme Sherman Branford Farmington Bloomfield Vernon Plymouth Manchester Clinton Orange Bolton Columbia Westport Hartford Strat- ford Chester Brookfield East Windsor South Windsor Essex Darien New Fairfield Andover Marlborough Bethlehem North Branford New Canaan Middlebury North Haven Seymour New Haven Prospect West Hartford Bridgeport Woodbridge Naugatuck West- brook Bridgewater East Hartford East Granby Cromwell Rocky Hill Deep River Newington Middlefield Old Saybrook New Britain Plainville East Haven Thomaston Wethersfield West Haven Derby Ansonia Beacon Falls Windsor Locks Number of Residents that work in CNVR 296 – 999 1,000 – 1,999 2,000 – 2,999 3,000 – 5,999 6,000 – 20,906 Planning Regions CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY LITCHFIELD HILLS CAPITOL REGION WINDHAM SOUTHEAS T CONNECTI C MIDSTATE CONNECTICUT RIVER ESTUARY SOUTH CENTRALCONNECTICUT VA L L E Y GREATER BRIDGEPORT SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT HOUSATONIC VALLEY CENTRAL CONNECTICUT NORTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT Manhattan Kent Sharon Stafford Litchfield Newtown Lebanon Lyme Guilford Goshen Granby HaddamTolland New Milford Cornwall Danbury Ashfor d Hebron Mont v Oxford Mansfield Berlin Salem Colchester Avon Greenwich Wilton MadisonGlastonbury Bristol Coventry Canaan Stamford Shelton East Haddam Easton Ellington Torrington Hamden Southbury Redding Fairfield Windsor Middletown Warren CheshireSimsbury Woodbury Wallingford Wa Ridgefield Canton Monroe Willington Milford East Lyme Washington Roxbury Killingworth Harwinton Southington Winchester Burlington Morris Durham Meriden Wind Barkhamsted Portland New Hartford Bozr a Wolcott NorwalkWaterbury Watertown Weston Trumbull Bethel East Hampton Bethany Old Lyme Sherman Branford Farmington Bloomfield Vernon Plymouth Manchester Clinton Orange Bolton Columbia Westport Hartford Strat- ford Chester Brookfield East Windsor South Windsor Essex Darien New Fairfield Andover Marlborough Bethlehem North Branford New Canaan Middlebury North Haven Seymour New Haven Prospect West Hartford Bridgeport Woodbridge Naugatuck West- brook Bridgewater East Hartford East Granby Cromwell Rocky Hill Deep River Newington Middlefield Old Saybrook New Britain Plainville East Haven Thomaston Wethersfield West Haven Derby Ansonia Beacon Falls Windsor Locks Number Employed from CNVR 455 – 999 1,000 – 1,999 2,000 – 2,999 3,000 – 6,000 6,001 – 22,342 Planning Regions Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 11 2 -Land Use poration, in cooperation with the City of Waterbury, is working with Renaissance Downtown LLC to develop a master plan to revitalize the City’s downtown. Th e na- tional economic downturn has slowed progress on down- town revitalization. COMMERCIAL C ENTERS Th e Brass Mill Center and Commons, located northwest of the I-84 and Route 69 interchange, is the region’s larg- est retail center. Waterbury, Cheshire, Watertown, Nau- gatuck, and Southbury are the major commercial areas. Figure 2.5 is a map showing CNVR’s thirty-one major commercial centers. Not surprisingly, they are located along major roads with high traffi c volumes. Th e Borough of Naugatuck is working with Conroy De- velopment of Fairfi eld, CT on a mixed-use, transit-ori- ented downtown revitalization project called Renaissance Place. Th e borough has submitted development plans to the Department of Economic and Community Develop- ment for state assistance with the fi rst phase of the proj- ect. INDUSTRIAL P ARKS Because of a limited supply of suitable land for industrial development in Waterbury, a majority of the region’s in- dustrial growth is expected to continue in suburban ar- eas. Th ere are thirty two industrial parks located in seven towns in the region (see Figure 2.5). Cheshire and Oxford each have eight industrial parks. Waterbury has eleven which are dispersed and at the city limits with Prospect, Cheshire, Watertown, and Middlebury. Commerce Park has been proposed as a joint venture between the City of Waterbury and the Borough of Naugatuck on land abutting the Naugatuck Industrial Park. Oxford’s rapidly developing industrial parks are concentrated around the Waterbury-Oxford Airport. Cheshire’s industrial parks are generally near the I-84 and I-691 Interchange. Th e Watertown Industrial Park is near Echo Lake Road and Route 262. Beacon Falls has two industrial parks, Pines- bridge Industrial Park and Murtha Industrial Park, west of the Naugatuck River. Prospect Industrial Park is on the north side of Route 68 in the vicinity of Gramar Av- enue. Other communities are marketing signifi cant acre-age of industrially zoned land which has not yet been de- veloped, such as the proposed Southbury Corporate Park in Southbury between I-84 Exits 13 and 14. OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC GENERATORS E DUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Th e region’s higher educational facilities are concentrated in Waterbury. Post University, located in southwestern Waterbury, is the only college in the region with on-cam- pus student housing. Approximately 465 students live on-campus while total daytime on-campus enrollment is approximately 780 students. Additionally, the university also has evening, weekend, and on-line enrollment for a total of about 4,000. Naugatuck Valley Community College (NVCC), located in western Waterbury, has an enrollment of close to 6,660 students. Th e Waterbury campus of the University of Connecticut, located on East Main Street in downtown Waterbury, serves more than 1,000 students, both undergraduate and graduate. All students attending these two institutions are commuters. MEDICAL F ACILITIES Th e region’s two hospitals, Waterbury Hospital and Saint Mary’s Hospital, are located in the city. Waterbury Hospi- tal is northwest of the interchange of I-84 and the Route 8 expressway, and Saint Mary’s Hospital is east of down- town Waterbury. Th e hospitals are two of the largest em- ployers in the region. Together, they constructed a 36,000 square foot health care facility, the Harold Leever Cancer Center, in western Waterbury. Some medical services are moving out of the city. South- bury, for example, has the 40,500 sq. ft. Southbury Medi- cal Building on Old Waterbury Road as well as an urgent care facility on Main Street South and Diagnostic Imag- ing at Union Square. Th ese facilities include doctors and hospital support from Waterbury, St. Mary’s, and Dan- bury Hospitals. An additional150,000 sq. ft. of space is either approved or in the planning process in Southbury. Similar medical offi ce and laboratory space has been pro- posed in Watertown and Naugatuck. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 12 2 – Land Use Figure 2.5. Major Commercial and Industrial Sites in the Central Naugatu ck Valley Region: 2010 ” ð &25 !1 !2 !4 !9!10 !12 !11 !13 !21 !22 !23 !24 !25 !32 !26 !20 !28 !14 !15 !29 !3 !6!7 !8 !27 !16 !19 !17!18 !5 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 £ ¤6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 £ ¤6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 £ ¤6 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 !30 !31 &7 &3 &9 &1 &4 &5 &8 &6 &2&10 &17 &20 &21 &11 &12 &19 &18 &27 &23 &14 &13 &15 &16 &28 &29 &31 &30 &26 &24 &22 Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Wate rbu ry Wate rtown Wo lc ott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls ³ 024 1 Mi les INDUSTRIAL SITES !18!17 !19 !20 Morse Road Industrial Park Hurley Farms Industrial Park Commerce Park Industrial Park Prospect Industrial Park and Center Brookside Park Captain Neville Industrial Park Reidville Industrial Park Waterbury Industrial Commons Avenue of Industry Mattoon Road Industrial Park Commerce Campus Industrial Park Pierpont Park Great Brook Industrial Park South Common Industrial Area Roundhouse Industrial Park Watertown Industrial Park !29!28 !26 !27 !24!23!22!21 !25 !30 !31 !32 United Industrial Park Highland Park East 691 Business Park Commerce Park Highland Park West Grandview Court Industrial Park Commerce Court Industrial Park Cheshire Industrial Park Pinesbridge Industrial Park Murtha Industrial Park Naugatuck Industrial Park Willenbrock Industrial Park Technology Park Woodruff Hill Industrial Park Jacks Brook Industrial Park Fox Hollow Industrial Park !16 !14 !12 !13 !15 !11 !5 !9!8 !6 !4!3!2!1 !7 !10 COMMERCIAL SITES & Waterbury Plaza Waterbury Downtown Waterbury Crossing Naugatuck Valley Shopping Center Mattatuck Plaza Lombard Plaza K-Mart Plaza East Gate Plaza Colonial Plaza Brass Mill Commons Brass Mill Center Mall Maple Croft Plaza Cheshire Shopping Center Ten South Prospect Country Plaza Mountview Shopping Plaza Big Y Plaza Naugatuck Downtown Cross Point Plaza Wal-Mart &11 &16 &14 &12 &13 &5 &9&8 &6 &4&3&2&1 &7 &15 &10 &18&17 &19 &20 Lombard Commons Watertown Downtown Watertown Shopping Plaza TenAcreMall Watertown Commercial Area Middlebury Hamlet Southbury Green Union Square Southbury Shopping Plaza Middle Quarter Woodbury Downtown &30&29&28 &26 &27 &24&23&22&21 &25 &31 Source: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, 2010 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 13 3 -Existing Transportation System 3. E XISTING T RANSPORTATION S YSTEM IN THE C ENTRAL N AUGATUCK V ALLEY R EGION Th e region’s highway network is the mainstay of its trans- portation system. Although most households have at least one car for transportation, some people remain transit de- pendent. Local bus service, as well as a minibus service for the disabled and elderly residents, is provided in the more urban, densely populated areas of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region. In addition, all of the region’s communi- ties provide minibus service for the elderly. Th e Job Access and Reverse Commute program provides rides to work or to job training for low-income and welfare-to-work cli- ents. Intercity bus service links the region to Hartford, New Haven, Boston, Springfi eld, Providence, Danbury, and New York City. Limited service is available to Tor- rington and Pittsfi eld, MA. Taxi service is also available in the region. Passenger rail service links the region to cities in southern Connecticut and to New York City. Although trucks han- dle most of the region’s freight shipments, rail service is available along the Naugatuck River. Th e region’s aviation facility, the Waterbury-Oxford Airport, provides general aviation service as well as charter passenger and airfreight service. Walkways, bikeways, greenways, and other trans- portation enhancements off er alternatives to motorized transportation and help provide a seamless trip for the user. Th is section describes the region’s transportation fa- cilities and services. HIGHWAYS AND ROADWAYS E XISTING H IGHWAY N ETWORK Th e regional highway system functions as the primary means of distributing people and goods within and through the region. Most of the highway traffi c is accom- modated by 46 miles of expressways. Interstate 84 is the region’s principal east-west expressway. To the west, I-84 provides access to Danbury and the New York metropoli-tan area. To the east, it connects to I-91 in Hartford and I-90 in Massachusetts, which links to the Boston met- ropolitan area. Within the CNVR, traffi c volumes on I-84 peak through Waterbury where average daily traffi c (ADT) in 2009 reached 126,800 vehicles. Trucks consti- tute 13.6% of traffi c on the highway. 1 Route 8 is the region’s north-south limited access express- way. It connects Interstate 95 to I-84, linking Bridgeport and Waterbury, and intersects the Merritt Parkway in Trumbull. To the north, Route 8 provides access to Tor- rington, Greater Litchfi eld County, and southwest Massa- chusetts. Traffi c volumes peak in Waterbury, where ADT in 2009 reached 79,400 vehicles. Interstate 691 serves as an expressway connector between I-84 in Cheshire and Interstate 91 in Meriden. In 2009, ADT along I-691 in Cheshire was estimated to be 54,800 vehicles. Trucks constitute 13.9% of traffi c on the high- way. 1 Th e highway network includes 200 miles of arterial roads, which facilitate the fl ow of traffi c within and between municipalities. Some of the principal arterial routes in the CNVR are State Routes 10, 63, 68, 69, 70, and 188, and U.S. Route 6. To the southeast, Routes 10, 63, and 69 link the CNVR with the New Haven metropolitan area. To the north and the east, Route 6 and Route 69 provide access to Bristol, with Route 6 rejoining I-84 in Farmington. Figure 3.1, located on the next page, shows the region’s major roads. 1Connecticut Department of Transportation, 2009 Traffi c Volumes: State Maintained Highway Network. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 14 3 – Existing Transportation System l BR I D G E W ATE R § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 t u6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 t u6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 t u6 S EYM OU R BE TH AN Y HAM DEN S O UTH I N G T O N W ALL IN G F O R D M E R I D E N BR I S T O L P LY M OUT H LI T C HF IE LD MO R R I S ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 ” )8 M ON R O E RO XBU R Y N EW T O W N W A S H IN G T O N Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls ³ 024 1 Miles l Airport Municipal Boundary Functional Classification Principal Arterial — Interstate and Expressway Principal Arterial — Other Minor Arterial Major and Minor Collector Figure 3.1 Major Highways and Roadways in the Central Naugatuck Valley R egion: 2010 Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Cartographic Transpor tation Data, 2007 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 15 3 -Existing Transportation System HIGHWAY C ONGESTION Highway traffi c congestion impedes the fl ow of vehicles, causing motorist delays, decreased safety, and increased fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. Th e Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defi nes congestion as “the level at which transportation system performance is no longer acceptable due to excessive travel times and delays.” 2 FHWA reports that forty percent of all delay is caused by insuffi cient capacity, which is evidenced by “bottlenecks.” Incidents such as crashes and disabled ve- hicles account for twenty-fi ve percent of all delay. Inclem- ent weather, construction work zones, special events, and poor signal timing are also causes of delay. 3 A common measure of highway congestion is the volume- to-capacity (v/c) ratio. Th e v/c ratio is defi ned as the peak hour traffi c volume divided by a road segment’s hourly vehicle capacity. Road segments with v/c ratios over 1.00 have peak hour traffi c volumes that exceed the road’s hourly capacity. Factors used in determining v/c ratios include: number of lanes, lane width, truck traffi c, traffi c signal timing, abutting land use, and terrain. In addition, COGCNV collects and analyzes travel speed data for cor- ridors identifi ed as congested in its updates to the CNVR Congestion Management System Report. Both measures for identifying congestion bottlenecks are presented below: Volume to Capacity Ratios Th e v/c ratios and projections in this plan are obtained from the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s 2009 Congestion Screening and Monitoring Report. State roads carry a majority of the region’s passenger and com- mercial traffi c. Th e volume-to-capacity analysis serves as a “fi rst cut planning method,” or fi rst round of congestion analysis, to identify corridors for further study. A summary of the region’s most congested locations in 2008 is listed below, organized by route. A comprehen- sive list of congested locations (with v/c ratios at or above 1.0) is listed in Table 3.1. Th ese same segments are shown in Figure 3.2. Route 10 in Cheshire • Route 42 to Elmwood Dr. • Chipman Dr. to Wallingford Rd • Fieldstone Ct. to E. Johnson Ave. • I-691 to Cheshire-Southington Town Line Route 70 in Cheshire • Winslow St. to Moss Farm Rd • Mountain Rd. to Route 10 (Highland Ave.) Route 69 in Waterbury • East of Union St. • Frost Rd. to South Circle • Harpers Ferry Rd. to Edgewood Ave. Interstate 84 in Waterbury • In the vicinity of Route 8 • East of Washington St. overpass to Austin Rd. Route 42 in Beacon Falls • At Cook Ln. Travel Speed Delay COGCNV staff performed a traffi c delay study in 2008. Th e study evaluated congestion within the region by es- timating travel speeds for selected major corridors with high v/c ratios. A GPS receiver was used to collect travel speeds along the study corridors during peak periods. Be- low is a list of congested locations identifi ed in the CNVR Congestion Management System Report: 2008 Route 10 in Cheshire • Near the Route 42 junction • Near the Route 68/70 junction • Near the I-691 interchange Route 63 in Naugatuck, Middlebury, and Watertown • At Route 8/S. Main St (SR 709) in Naugatuck • At Route 64 in Middlebury • At Bunker Hill Road in Watertown Route 69 in Waterbury and Prospect • Harper’s Ferry Road to I-84 overpass in Waterbury • At Union Street/Washington Street in Waterbury • At E. Main Street in Waterbury 2 Management Systems. 23 CFR 500.109. 2010.3 Tr a ffi c Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Advanced Stra- tegies for Congestion Mitigation, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. for FHWA Resource Center, 2004. www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 16 3 – Existing Transportation System Table 3.1 Congested State Highway Segments in the CNVR, Ranked by Route and Municipality: 2008 Rte Town DescriptionV/C ratio 2008 Volume to capacity ratio of 1.0 or greater (Traffi c volumes at or above capacity) 6 Southbury At Pine Hill Rd 1.06 6 Thomaston Route 222 to Prospect St 1.08 8 Waterbury At Rte 73 junction 1.13 10 Cheshire At Cook Hill Rd 1.02 10 Cheshire N of Cook Hill Rd to Rte 42 (EB) 1.02 10 Cheshire At Rte 42 (No Brooksvale Rd) 1.75 10 Cheshire Rte 42 (No Brooksvale Rd) to .1 Miles N of Elmwood Dr 1.57 10 Cheshire S of Chipman Dr to Cornwall Ave 1.57 10 Cheshire Cornwall Ave to N of Wallingford Rd 1.48 10 Cheshire .12 Miles N of Rte 68/70 Junction to Creamery Rd 1.02 10 Cheshire Creamery Rd to Sandbank Rd 1.11 10 Cheshire .13 Mi N of Fieldstone Ct to .09 Mi S of East Johnson Ave 1.43 10 Cheshire Exit from WB I-691 to Southington TL 1.30 42 Beacon Falls At Cook Ln 1.35 63 Naugatuck Hazel Ave to .17 Mi N of Warren Ave 1.08 63 Naugatuck Bland St to Cherry St 1.14 63 Naugatuck Cherry St to Rubber Ave 1.00 63 Naugatuck Water St to Route 68 1.04 63 Naugatuck Rte 68 to Field St 1.02 63 Middlebury .10 Mi N of Country Club Rd to Wooster Brook Overpass 1.05 63 Middlebury Park Rd to Middlebury-Watertown TL 1.06 63 Watertown Middlebury-Watertown TL to State St 1.14 63 Watertown State St to Bunker Hill Rd 1.15 63 Watertown French St to Echo Lake Rd 1.01 64 Waterbury Chase Parkway to Interchange 17 on I-84 1.09 68 Naugatuck Spring St to Greenwood St 1.12 68 Naugatuck Union & Golden St to Lines Hill St 1.04 68 Naugatuck Lines Hill St to Union City Rd 1.09 69 Waterbury East Mountain Rd to N Junction of Hamilton Ave 1.02 69 Waterbury Harpers Ferry Rd to Edgewood Ave 1.26 69 Waterbury Edgewood Ave to Access to EB I-84 1.07 69 Waterbury E of Union St 1.83 69 Waterbury Near Frost Rd 1.15 69 Waterbury N of Frost Rd to South Cir 1.23 69 Waterbury At South Cir 1.15 69 Wolcott N Junction of Potuccos Ring Rd to Rte 322 1.05 70 Cheshire Winslow St to .13 Miles West of Marion Rd 1.25 70 Cheshire .08 Miles West of Marion Rd to Marion Rd 1.25 70 Cheshire Marion Rd to Moss Farms Rd 1.35 70 Cheshire Quarry Village Rd to .04 Miles West of Peck Ln 1.76 70 Cheshire Carter Lane to Willow St 1.28 70 Cheshire Willow St to Maple Ave 1.39 70 Cheshire Maple Ave to Rte 10 (Highland Ave) 1.31 73 Waterbury Deerfi eld Ave to Gertrude Ave #1 1.10 73 Waterbury Gertrude Ave #1 to Irvington Ave 1.10 73 Waterbury East Aurora St to Junction with Rte 8 1.08 84 Waterbury EB Access From SB Rte 8 to W of EB Access from NB Rte 8 1.32 84 Waterbury EB Access From NB Rte 8 to EB Exit to Meadow St #1 1.04 84 Waterbury .19 Miles E of Washington St Overpass to EB Access from Rte 69 1.22 84 Waterbury EB Access from Rte 69 to EB Exit to Harpers Ferry Rd 1.18 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 17 3 -Existing Transportation System Rte Town DescriptionV/C ratio 2008 84 Waterbury EB Exit to Harpers Ferry Rd to Harpers Ferry Rd Underpass 1.29 84 Waterbury Harpers Ferry Rd to underpass to Scott Rd 1.28 84 Waterbury Scott Rd Underpass to EB Access from Scott Rd 1.29 84 Waterbury EB Access From Scott Rd to EB Exit to Austin Rd 1.22 84 Waterbury EB Exit to Austin Rd to .04 Miles E of EB Exit to Austin Rd 1.12 84 Waterbury .04 Mi E of EB Exit to Austin Rd to .1 Mile W of Austin Rd Underpass 1.18 845 Waterbury West Main St to Country Club Rd 1.17 846 Waterbury Riverside St NB to start of one way access to NB Route 8 1.15 847 Waterbury Judd St to .04 Mi N of Sperry St 1.24 Source: ConnDOT, Congestion Management System: 2009 Congestion Screening and Monitoring Report (2009) Table 3.1 Congested State Highway Segments in the CNVR, Ranked by Route and Municipality: 2008 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 t u6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 t u6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 t u6 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 ” )8 Oxford SouthburyCheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls ³ 0241Miles Volume-to-capacity ratios: 2008 1.00 (at capacity) to 1.19 1.20 and higher Figure 3.2 Highway Congestion in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2008 Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Congestion, Management System: 2009 Congestion Screening and Monitoring Report, September (2009). *See Table 3.1 for a detailed description of the congested locations. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 18 3 – Existing Transportation System Table 3.2 High Hazard Accident Locations on State Roads in the CNVR: 2 005-2007 • Near the Route 63 junction in Watertown Interstate 84 in Waterbury • Washington Street overpass in Waterbury to the Route 70 exit in Cheshire. HIGHWAY S AFETY High Hazard Accident Locations High hazard accident locations consist of state highway segments and intersections with a higher frequency of ac- cidents than would be expected for that type of roadway. To be classifi ed as hazardous by CTDOT, a location must have experienced 15 or more accidents during a three- • Manor Avenue to Meriden Road • Woodtick Road to South Circle Road • Wolcott Road to Lakewood Road in Waterbury • At the Route 68 junction in Prospect Route 70 in Cheshire At the I-84 interchange  At the west junction with Route 68  At the Route 10 junction Route 73 in Waterbury and Watertown • Near Steele Brook Shopping Center and Falls Ave. in Waterbury • Buckingham St. to Davis St. in Watertown ID Number Town Route Description 1 Middlebury 63 At Rt. 64 2 Naugatuck 63 At Church St 3 Naugatuck 63 Between Rt. 8 Ramp 058A & S. Main St. (SR 709) 4 Prospect 42 Between Candee Rd. & Inverness Ct. 5 Prospect 69 Between Orchard Dr. & Knapp Dr. 6 Waterbury 69 Between Lakewood Rd. & Shopping Center Dr. 7 Waterbury 69 At Washington St & Hamilton Ave. 8 Waterbury 69 0.09 Mi North of Lakewood Rd. (4 lane) 9 Waterbury 69 At Academy Ave. & Southmayd Rd. 10 Waterbury 69 Between E. Main St. & Eastwood Ave. 11 Waterbury 69 At Richard Terrace & South Circle #1 12 Waterbury 84 Between Rt. 69 & Harpers Ferry Interchange 13 Waterbury 801 E. Main St. between Bryan St & Scott Rd. 14 Waterbury 844 Meriden Rd. at Frost Rd. 15 Waterbury 845 Chase Pkwy. at Highland Ave. 16 Waterbury 847 Grand St. between Cottage Pl. & Leavenworth St. 17 Waterbury 847 W. Main St. between Commercial St. & Thomaston Ave. 18 Waterbury 847 Thomaston Ave. at Huntingdon Ave. 19 Waterbury 849 Watertown Ave. at West Main St #1 20 Watertown 63 Between Knight St. & Belden St. 21 Watertown 63 Between State St & Bunker Hill Rd. 22 Watertown 73 Between Hillside Ave. & Buckingham St (SR 855) 23 Watertown 73 Between Candee Hill Rd. & Rockdale 24 Wolcott 69 At Woodtick Rd. 25 Wolcott 844 Meriden Rd. at Byam Rd. Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Traffic Accident Surveillance Report (TASR), 2005-2007 . Suggested List of Surveillance Study Sites (SLOSSS) are l ocations that experienced 15 or more accidents from 2005-2007 Data on this map is privileged information and not admissib le in court, pursuant to Title 23 USC Section 409. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 19 3 -Existing Transportation System Figure 3.3 High Hazard Accident Locations on State Roads in the CNVR: 2005-2007 § ¨¦84 § ¨¦84 § ¨¦691 ” )42 ” )18 8 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )18 8 £ ¤6 ” )22 2 ” )26 2 ” )32 2 ” )25 4 ” )73 ” )31 7 ” )61 ” )42 ” )10 9 ” )70 ” )10 ” )18 8 ” )68 ” )64 ” )17 2 ” )69 ” )67 £ ¤6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )13 2 ” )13 2 ” )61 £ ¤6 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 ” )8 !1 !2 !3 !15 !9 !18 !22 !21 !20 !19!17 !7 !4 !25 !13 !12 !14 !6 !10 !8 !16 !24 !5 !23 !11 Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Wa te rb u r y Wa te rto w n Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls ³ 024 1 Miles * See Table 3.2 for detailed description of the high hazard accident locations. Locations are unranked Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Traffic Accident Surveillance Report (TASR), 2005-2007. Data on this map is privileged information and not admissible in court, pursuant to Title 23 USC Section 409. year period and have an actual accident rate greater than a statistically derived improbable accident rate. From 2005 to 2007, there were 109 hazardous locations in the Cen- tral Naugatuck Valley Region (see Table 3.2 for the 25 worst sites, illustrated in Figure 3.3). All municipalities in the region, except for Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, and Oxford, had at least one hazardous state highway location. Fifty percent of the locations were in Waterbury. Watertown accounted for another 14% of ac- cident locations. Route 69 and Route 63 were the most accident-prone locations, along with SR 847, which runs through the center of Waterbury from S. Main Street to Th omaston Avenue. Forty-fi ve percent of the hazardous accident locations were along these three roads. Seventy- fi ve percent of the locations for Route 69 were in Water- bury (15 of 20). For Route 63, 80% of the locations were in Naugatuck and Watertown (12 of 15). Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 20 3 – Existing Transportation System High Hazard Accident Locations for Pedestrians and Bicyclists In the 2009 report, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in the CNVR 4, staff reviewed accidents in the region from 2003–2007 to identify areas where there were high frequencies of motor vehicle accidents involving pedestrians or bicycles. A list of these locations appears in Tables 3.3 and 3.4. Table 3.3. High Hazard Accident Locations for Pedestrians in the CNVR: 2003 – 2007 Town Description Beacon Falls N. Main Street from Route 42 to Church Street Cheshire South Main Street in the vicinity of Highland Avenue (Route 10) Naugatuck Meadow Street from Hillside to Rubber Avenue Naugatuck Rubber Avenue from Meadow to Aetna Street Naugatuck Maple Street from High to Church Street Prospect Route 68 in the vicinity of Route 69 Thomaston Route 6 in the vicinity of Route 109 Thomaston Main Street from Route 254 to E. Main Street Waterbury Downtown between Grand, Meadow, Grove, and N. Elm Street Waterbury E. Main Street from the Green to Wolcott Road Waterbury W. Main Street from the Green to Thomaston Avenue Waterbury N. Main Street in the vicinity of East Farm Street Waterbury S. Main Street in the vicinity of East & West Liberty Street Waterbury Willow Street in the vicinity of Ridgewood Street Watertown Main Street (Route 63) from Route 6 to Woodruff Avenue Watertown Main Street, Oakville, (Route 73) from Davis to Buckingham Street Woodbury Main Street (U.S. Route. 6) from Middle Quarter to Sherman Hill Road Table 3.4 High Hazard Accident Locations for Bicycles in the CNVR: 2003-2007 Town Description Waterbury E. Main Street in the vicinity of Wolcott Street Waterbury W. Main Street in the vicinity of Holmes Avenue Waterbury N. Main Street in the vicinity of Division Street Waterbury S. Main Street from East & West Dover to Washington Street Waterbury Lounsbury Avenue in the vicinity of South Street Waterbury Willow Street in the vicinity of Hillside Avenue Waterbury Cherry Street from High to E. Main Street Waterbury Walnut Street in the vicinity of Dikeman Street Waterbury Bishop Street from Hawkins to Elizabeth Street Waterbury Meadow Street at Freight Street Cheshire Highland Avenue from Weeks Road to Cheshire High School Naugatuck Spring Street between Anderson Street and Route 68 Source: COGCNV, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in the CNVR: An Assessment of Existing Conditions, 2010. Data on this map is privileged information and not admissible in court, pursuant to Title 23 USC Section 409. 4 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in the CNVR: An Assessment of Existing Conditions, 2010. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 21 3 -Existing Transportation System Figure 3.4 Contributing Factors in Tractor Trailer Accidents in the CNV R: 2004-2008 Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Traffic Accident View ing System (TAVS) v.2.1. Updated 2009. Waterbury experienced the highest frequency of accidents – 81% of pedestrian and 68% of bicycle accidents. As the region’s urban core, Waterbury has a much higher population density than surrounding towns, and therefore, a higher volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffi c. Locations throughout the rest of the region exhibited a signifi cant number of accidents as well, though not on the same scale as Waterbury. High Hazard Accident Locations for Tractor Trailers Accidents involving tractor trailers were compiled for state roads from 2004-2008. 5 Th e majority of the accidents oc- curred on I-84 and the other two expressways. A few locations along arterial routes also experienced frequent heavy vehicle accidents. Among factors that contributed to tractor trailer accidents, the most co mmon were improper lane changes (38%) and following too closely (15%). Th e most common accident type were sideswipes-same direction (53%), which is much more common on expressways. Th is could refl ect the impact of weaving. 5 Connecticut Department of Transportation, Traffic Accident Viewing System (TAVS) v.2.1. Updated 2009. 38% 15% 8% 7% 6% 5% 5% 16% Improp er Lan e C hange F ollo wing Too Clos ely Dr iv er Los t C ontr ol Failed to Grant ROW Speed Too Fast for Conditions Animal/Object in Road Im prop er Tu rning Maneuv er Other Fact ors Improper Lane Change Following Too Closely Driver Lost Control Failed to Grant ROW Speed Too Fast for Conditions Animal/Object in Road Improper Turning Maneuver Other Factors Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 22 3 – Existing Transportation System Locations with a high number of truck accidents are list- ed below by route. Th e most common location was on I-84 near the Route 70 interchange in Cheshire. Th is was likely due to conditions when I-84 was under construc- tion. In fact, the accident rate in that area dropped from 81 in 2004 to just 5 in 2008. I-84 • Cheshire –Route 70 (Exit 26) to Marion Road • Waterbury –Scott Rd to Austin Rd • Waterbury –Route 69 to Scott Rd • Southbury –Route 172 to Routes 6 & 67 Route 8 • Waterbury –Washington Ave (Exit 30) to I-84 I-691 • Cheshire – Route 10 to I-84 Route 6 • Southbury – At off -ramp from westbound I-84 Route 10 • Cheshire – East Johnson Avenue to I-691 Route 68 • Naugatuck – Route 63 (Church St) to Greenwood Street #2 Route 847 (W. Main Street) • Waterbury – Sperry Street to Th omaston Avenue BRIDGE C ONDITIONS All bridges on state highways and local bridges over 20 feet in length are inspected biannually and rated by CT- DOT. Bridges in poor condition are inspected more fre- quently. Th e state gives each bridge a suffi ciency rating for setting priorities for its bridge funding programs. Bridges are qualifi ed if the physical condition of the deck, superstructure, or substructure (piers and abutments and surrounding areas), or culverts are rated “poor” or worse (“serious,” “critical,” or in “imminent failure”). Th e car- rying capacity of the bridge and its structural integrity are the most heavily weighted factors in calculating the bridge’s suffi ciency rating. Serviceability, functional ob- solescence, and vital importance for public use are also considered in CTDOT’s numerical formula. Under federal guidelines, bridges with suffi ciency ratings below 50 are eligible for replacement or rehabilitation under the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. In the CNVR, 14 bridges had suffi ciency rat- ings below 50 in 2009. Five of these bridges carry over 10,000 vehicles per day. 1. Naugatuck – Maple Street over the Naugatuck River 2. Waterbury – I-84 EB over I-84WB, Route 8, and the Naugatuck River 3. Waterbury – East Main Street over the Mad River 4. Oxford/Monroe – Route 34 over the Housatonic Riv- er (Stevenson Dam) 5. Naugatuck – Route 63 over the Metro North RR and the Naugatuck River (under construction) Municipally-owned bridges under 20 feet in length are funded by the Local Bridge Program. To qualify for the Local Bridge Program, a bridge must carry a certi- fi ed local road and be structurally defi cient according to Federal Highway Administration criteria. Bridges must be located on roads functionally classifi ed as “rural local roads,” “rural minor collectors,” or “urban local roads.” (See Appendix B for more information about funding bridge repairs.) Truck on I-84 westbound Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 23 3 -Existing Transportation System INTELLIGENT T RANSPORTATION S YSTEMS (ITS) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) are technologies to improve the safety and effi ciency of the transportation network. Typical ITS projects include variable message signs on highways, embedded roadway sensors that ac- tively control traffi c signals or report traffi c congestion, and technologies to better inform transportation system users. Major elements of ITS in the CNVR are variable mes- sage signs (VMS) and traffi c cameras on I-84 and the Route 8 expressway. As of November 2010, CTDOT op- erates three VMSs along I-84 (one permanent and two portable) and four along Route 8 (two permanent and two portable) (see fi gure 3.5). Th e Connecticut Depart- ment of Emergency Management and Homeland Secu- rity (DEMHS) has three portable variable message signs staged in Waterbury for emergency use. CTDOT has additional portable variable message signs outside of the CNVR that can be deployed if needed. CTDOT operates eight traffi c cameras along I-84 and eleven along Route 8 (see fi gure 3.5), which are monitored at the CTDOT Traffi c Operations Center. Th e public can view traffi c conditions from the cameras through the CT- DOT website. CTDOT has completed design for the installation of nine additional CCTV traffi c cameras and four perma- nent variable message signs (replacing the two portable signs currently in use) along I-84 between Austin Road in Waterbury and Marion Road in Southington. As of November 2010, funding for this project has not yet been allocated. Th e CNVR is served by highway advisory radio trans- mitters located in Waterbury and Southington. A sign on I-84 eastbound in Middlebury, Route 8 southbound in Waterbury north of I-84, and Route 8 northbound in Naugatuck advise drivers of the highway advisory radio frequency (AM 1670). When hazardous condition advi- sories are broadcast or Amber Alerts for abducted children are issued, yellow beacons fl ash on the highway advisory radio signs. On the municipal level, traffi c signals in downtown Wa- terbury and several arterial roads in the city are computer- controlled. Th e system, however, is no longer fully func- tioning and needs a major upgrade. Increasingly, traffi c and transit information is becoming available to transportation system users through the in- ternet, mobile phones, and GPS navigation systems. CT- DOT provides access to incidents and traffi c cameras on its website. Live traffi c information is also available on many internet mapping websites such as Google Maps. CT Transit off ers online bus trip planning for the CNVR on its website (tripplan.cttransit.com). Metro North trips can be planned on the MTA’s website (mta.info). Various smartphone applications provide mobile Metro North schedule information. New York State’s 511 web- site (511ny.org) provides transit trip planning to and within the New York Metropolitan Area. United Way of Connecticut’s 2-1-1 social services hotline now includes transportation service information. CTDOT seeks to establish a statewide 511 travel and transit hotline and website by December 2011, depen- dent on funding. For rail passenger service, a variable message sign for train information has been installed at the Waterbury train sta- tion, but as of November 2010 it has not been activated. Loudspeakers at each train station allow for automated broadcasts of train service information. Waterbury Train Station Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 24 3 – Existing Transportation System Figure 3.5 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) in the Central Na ugatuck Valley Region: 2010 ” ) ” ) ” ) ” ) ” ) ” ) ” ) # * # * # * X Y X Y X Y ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 t u6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 t u6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 t u6 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 Southington ” )322 ” )229 § ¨ ¦84 Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls ³ 024 1 Miles ” ) ” ) ” ) ” ) X Y ” )8 § ¨ ¦84 Downtown Waterbury inset Traffic Cameras ” ) Variable Message Signs # * Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) Beacons X Y Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) Transmitter Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 25 3 -Existing Transportation System COMMUTER P ARKING F ACILITIES State Designated Commuter Parking Facilities in the CNVR Th e Central Naugatuck Valley Region has thirteen state- designated commuter parking lots — three less than in 2007 — with a combined capacity of 1,009 vehicles. Most are in the vicinity of I-84 and Route 8 interchanges. Eight of these lots are located along Interstate 84, three along the Route 8 expressway, one along Interstate 691, and one at the intersection of Route 69 and Route 68 in Prospect. Figure 3.6, shows the approximate location of each lot. Figure 3.6 Central Naugatuck Valley Region Commuter Parking Lots: 2010 I 2I 2I 2 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 t u6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 t u6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 t u6 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 ” )8 Oxford SouthburyCheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P ³ 0241Miles Commuter Parking Lots – approximate location I 2 Rail Station !P Source: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Annual Commuter Parking Lot Survey, 2009. COGCNV conducts quarterly fi eld surveys of commuter parking lot use. Th e results of the 2009 surveys are sum- marized in Table 3.5. Commuter lots with 75 percent or greater occupancy are considered candidates for expan- sion. Six commuter lots had maximum occupancy of 75 percent or more in 2009: 1. Naugatuck, Route 8 at Cotton Hollow Road 90% 2. Southbury, Interstate 84 at Route 67 88% 4. Waterbury, Route 8 at South Main Street 87% 3. Southbury, Route 172 at Main Street South 86% 5. Th omaston, Route 8 at Route 6 85% 6. Middlebury, Interstate 84 at Route 63 77% Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 26 3 – Existing Transportation System Table 3.5 CNVR Commuter Parking Lots: 2009 Average and Maximum Occupancy Average Percent Maximum Percent Municipality Location of Lot Capacity Occupancy Occupied Occupancy Occupied Cheshire I-84 @ Route 70 146 61 42% 81 55% Middlebury I-84 @ Route 63 61 46 75% 47 77% Naugatuck Route 8 @ Cotton Hollow Rd. 50 40 79% 45 90% Prospect Route 68 & 69 @ St. Anthony’s 75 8 10% 9 12% Southbury I-84 @ Route 188 42 20 48% 27 64% Southbury I-84 @ Route 67 25 15 59% 22 88% Southbury Route 172 @ Main Street South 84 67 79% 72 86% Thomaston Route 8 @ Route 6 48 34 70% 41 85% Waterbury I-84 @ Chase Parkway 118 64 54% 87 74% Waterbury I-84 @ Route 69 (Exit 23) 178 84 47% 113 63% Waterbury I-84 @ Scott Rd. & East Main St. 19 4 18% 4 21% Waterbury Route 8 @ South Main Street 45 34 76% 39 87% Total 1,009 525 52% 646 64% Rail Stations Beacon Falls RR Station – Railroad Avenue 28 10 36% 12 43% Naugatuck Water St @ RR Station 125 41 33% 44 35% Waterbury Meadow St @ RR Station 156 38 25% 44 28% Total 309 90 29% 100 32% Source: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Quarterly Commuter Parking Survey: 2009 Use of these lots has declined in recent years as unem- ployment has reduced the number of commuters. For example, staff observed empty spaces at the Route 63 lot in Middlebury, where cars had parked in unmarked spots for several years prior to 2009. As the employment situa- tion improves, these near-capacity lots will continue to be monitored and should be considered for expansion. CARPOOLING AND V ANPOOLING In 2009, 8% of CNVR workers carpooled to work, com- pared to 10% in 2000 and 12% in 1990 6. Th e Connecti- cut Department of Transportation monitors vehicle occu- pancy rates (VOR) to measure progress with ridesharing 7. Th e 2007 a.m. peak VOR was 1.26 occupants per vehicle, and the p.m. peak VOR was 1.42 for the CNVR. Th e statewide vehicle occupancy rates are slightly lower. Th e New Haven-based Rideworks, a ridesharing broker- age, serves the greater Waterbury area. Rideworks assists employers and commuters with carpooling, vanpooling, and information on transit services. Hartford area des- tinations are served by the Rideshare Company in Hart- ford, which also oversees the Easy Street vanpool program. Metropool, serving Fairfi eld County destinations, has a vanpool program as well. In October 2010, the CNVR had twelve Easy Street vanpools, carrying 104 commut- ers, a dramatic 43% drop from 2006 when gasoline prices were soaring. Eight of the vanpools travel to Hartford. Danbury is the destination for another two, and one each goes to Oxford and Windsor Locks. Th ere are no longer any Easy Street vanpools traveling to the CNVR. 6 US Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, B08301 7 CTDOT extracts vehicle occupancy data for each planning region and the stats from the state’s traffi c accident database. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 27 3 -Existing Transportation System BUS TRANSIT L OCAL B US S ERVICE Th e Waterbury division of CT Transit provides local bus service in the Waterbury area. North East Transportation Company (NETCO), under contract to the Connecticut Department of Transportation, operates the service. Th e bus operation is based out of an old foundry building at 1717 Th omaston Avenue in Waterbury. A new bus main- tenance garage is planned in Watertown on Route 262 east of Route 8 at the old Watertown drive-in site. CT- DOT allocated funds to complete the design of the garage in 2010. Service Area and Routes Th e local bus routes are primarily in Waterbury, with lim- ited service from Waterbury to Middlebury, Naugatuck, Watertown, and Wolcott. Th e buses operate on 22 desig- nated routes, radiating outward from downtown Water- bury, with two additional bus routes serving Naugatuck (see Figure 3.7, Table 3.6). Th e CT Transit New Haven division operates a bus route (J) between Waterbury and New Haven via Routes 70 and 10 in Cheshire. Th is route provides the only fi xed bus route service to Cheshire. On the weekends fewer CT Transit Waterbury routes operate (17 on Saturday and 16 on Sunday), and several routes are combined (27/28 and 40/42). Route J to New Haven also operates on the weekends. In addition to CT Transit’s regular routes, there are runs (known as trippers) serving industrial parks, schools, and other destinations in Beacon Falls, Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Waterbury, and Watertown. JobLinks, fund- ed by the Job Access and Reverse Commute program, operates some of these special runs. JobLinks service is described later in this chapter. Hours of Operation Nineteen of CT Transit’s regular bus routes operate Mon- day through Sunday, while one route operates Monday through Saturday, and the four remaining routes oper- ate on weekdays only. Regular service operates between 5:45 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and between 9:15 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on Sundays. Th ere are no fi xed route services operating during evening hours or on major holidays. Th e New Haven bus (route J) oper- ates from Waterbury between 5:30 a.m. and 8:05 p.m. on weekdays, between 6:50 a.m. and 7:25 p.m. on Saturdays, and between 9:35 a.m. and 4:40 p.m. on Sundays. Al- most all of CT Transit’s fi xed route buses run either every half hour or every hour from Exchange Place at the Wa- terbury Green. Headways, the time period between bus runs, are gener- ally 30 or 60 minutes during weekdays and 60 minutes on weekends. Th e two Naugatuck routes are exceptions, with regular headways of 80 minutes. Th e tripper routes run once or twice per day. Th e New Haven bus (route J) runs every 60 minutes on weekdays and every 120 min- utes on Saturdays. Fares As of December 2010, the base fare is $1.25 per bus ride throughout the service area. Th e fare for senior citizens and persons with disabilities is 60¢. Th e youth fare for children aged 5-18 is $1.00. Children aged four years and younger ride for free. Transfers on the system are free. An all-day pass can be purchased on the bus for $3.25. Monthly, weekly, 3 and 5 day, and 10-ride passes are also available for purchase online, by phone, at the Travel Cen- ter in downtown Waterbury, and at some grocery stores (Stop and Shop). In 2009 the Governor proposed fare increases, but the proposal was later withdrawn. Considering the decline in the percentage of operating costs covered by fares, an increase in bus fare is likely. New hybrid-electric bus, Waterbury Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 28 3 – Existing Transportation System Figure 3.7 Waterbury Local Bus Routes: 2010 ” Ð Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Middlebury Watertown Waterbury 18 T49 T47 T81 T4 T74 T114 ” )69 ” )69 ” )322 ” )70 ” )70″ )68 ” )68 ” )68 ” )69 ” )69 ” )42 ” )8 ” )8 ” )8 ” )64 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 t u6 ” )63 Beacon Falls Oxford 15 16 45 45 44 42 40 40 N2 N1 N1 N2 3635 36 35 31 33 32 3332 28 2726 28 26 27 25 25 20 22 15/16 11 18 13 12 17 13 F CT Transit – Waterbury 012 Miles 11 Overlook12 Hill Street13 Oakville15 Bucks Hill / Farmcrest16 Bucks Hill / Montoe17 Waterville18 Long Hill20 Walnut Street22 Wolcott Street / Brass Mill Ctr25 Hitchcock Lake26 East Main / Fairlawn27 East Main / Merlin28 East Main / Scott Road31 East Mountain32 Hopeville / Sylvan33 Hopeville / Baldwin35 Town Plot 36 Town Plot / Bradley40 Town Plot / Highland42 Chase Parkway44 Bunker Hill45 WatertownN1 Naugatuck / MillvilleN2 Naugatuck / New Haven Rd Naugatuck Shuttle Watertown / Straits Turnpike Watertown Industrial Park Naugatuck Industrial Park Cheshire Industrial Park Beacon Falls T4 T47 T49 T74 T 81 T114 Fixed Routes Limited Service Source: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 29 3 -Existing Transportation System Table 3.6 Waterbury Local Bus Routes: 2010 Source: CT Transit website accessed on 10/29/10 a Bus service does not operate on the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Th anksgiving Day, or Christmas Day. b Weekend route combination Route NumberRoute NameFrequency of ServiceDays of Operation a Municipalities Served CT Transit-Waterbury (North East Transportation) 11 Overlook/Willow 30 min. / 60 min. Sundays all Waterbury 12 Hill Street 30 min. / 60 min. weekends all Waterbury 13 Oakville/Fairmount 60 min. all Waterbury, Watertown 15 Bucks Hill/Farmcrest 60 min. all Waterbury 16 Bucks Hill/Montoe 60 min. all Waterbury T17 Thomaston Ave 12.5 times daily Weekdays, Sat. Waterbury 18 Long Hill/Berkeley 30 min. / 60 min. weekends all Waterbury 20 Walnut Street 60 min. all Waterbury 22 Wolcott 60 min. all Waterbury 25 Hitchcock Lake 60 min. all Waterbury, Wolcott 26 Fairlawn/East Main 60 min. Weekdays Waterbury 27 Reidville/East Main 60 min. Weekdays Waterbury 28 Scott Road 60 min. Weekdays Waterbury 27/28 b Scott Road / East Main Combo 60 min. Weekends Waterbury 31 East Mountain 60 min. Weekdays Waterbury 32 Hopeville/Sylvan 60 min. Weekdays Waterbury 33 Hopeville/Baldwin 30 min. / 60 min. weekends all Waterbury 35 Town Plot/New Haven Ave 60 min. all Waterbury 36 Town Plot/Bradley 60 min. all Waterbury 40 Town Plot/Highland 60 min. Weekdays Waterbury 42 Chase Parkway 60 min. Weekdays Waterbury, Middlebury 40/42 b Highland / Chase Pkwy Combo 60 min. Weekends Waterbury 44 Bunker Hill 60 min. all Waterbury 45 Watertown 60 min. all Waterbury, Watertown N1 Naugatuck 6 times daily Weekdays Naugatuck N2 Naugatuck/New Haven Rd 6 times daily Weekdays Naugatuck CT Transit-New Haven J Waterbury-New Haven Bus 60 min. Weekdays and Sundays / 120 min. Saturdaysall Waterbury, Cheshire, Hamden, New Haven Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 30 3 – Existing Transportation System Bus Fleet As of May 2011, the CT Transit Waterbury operator, North East Transportation, had a fl eet of 39 buses: Quantity YearMake/ ModelLength (in feet)Capacity (pas- sengers) 5 2004New Flyer40 38 34 2010New Flyer35 30 In 2011, North East Transportation received 34 New Flyer buses to replace its fl eet of 1996 buses. Half of the new bus fl eet have effi cient hybrid electric engines. Both hybrid and conventional buses run on diesel fuel. Th irty-four buses in the fl eet serve Waterbury fi xed bus routes and tripper runs, or serve as spares. North East Transportation uses the other fi ve buses for service in Me- riden and Wallingford. Ridership In recent years bus ridership has increased, although bus ridership is still less than in previous decades. Between fi s- cal years 2005 and 2010, bus ridership increased 16.6% from 1,137,613 to 1,326,923 trips. Average weekday rid- ership was 6,181 trips in 2009, up 10.8% from 2001(see Table 3.7). Average Saturday ridership was 3,001 trips and Sunday ridership was 1,467 trips. Saturday bus rid- ership increased 31.2% since 1997. Sunday service was started in 2007. Th e average number of passengers per hour of bus service was 28. Th e peak hour for bus use is between 3 and 4 pm on weekdays, when an average total of 693 people are using the bus system. Increases in bus ridership have been linked to the rise in gasoline prices. However, decreasing employment has damped ridership, especially for trippers. Th e bus system experiences its heaviest ridership during the fi rst week of the month. Most users of the bus system are lower in- come and transit dependent. In 2009, the most heavily used bus routes, as measured by passengers per hour of bus service on weekdays, were: • 44 Bunker Hill – 50.8 passengers per hour • 22 Wolcott – 50.3 passengers per hour • 36 Town Plot /Bradley – 44.5 passengers per hour • 35 Town Plot/New Haven – 39.5 passengers per hour • 33 Hopeville/Baldwin – 39.5 passengers per hour • 28 Scott Road – 37.4 passengers per hour Th e bus routes with the least use, as measured by passen- gers per hour of bus service on weekdays, were: • N2 Naugatuck/New Haven – 1.8 passengers per hour • N1 Naugatuck/Millville – 4.0 passengers per hour • 31 East Mountain – 5.4 passengers per hour • 26 Fairlawn/East Main – 11.7 passengers per hour • 32 Hopeville/Sylvan – 12.8 passengers per hour Bus Stops Popular trip destinations include Exchange Place (Th e Green), Brass Mill Center, Walmart, Stop & Shop, and Naugatuck Valley Community College. In the fall of 2009, uniform CT Transit bus stop signs were installed at all bus stops along fi xed bus routes. Th e bus stop signs include a phone number for information and a unique number on the back of the sign to identify a caller’s loca- tion if unknown. On-Time Performance 13 – Oakville/Fairmont and 20 – Walnut were observed to be 100% on-time during passenger counts in the spring of 2009. 16 – Bucks Hill/Montoe, 27 – Reidville/East Main, and 15 – Bucks Hill/Farmcrest were late the most. On these routes, over 30% of the runs arrived after their scheduled departure from Exchange Place. Most buses arrive at Exchange Place in time for transfers, but the transfer time is tight. Th e median total layover time was two minutes at Exchange Place. Seating Capacity Most bus trips have ample seating capacity for riders. Standing room only was observed on buses to the mall and Wolcott Rd (Route 22), Naugatuck Valley Commu- nity College (Route 42), North Main Street (Route 16), and Oakville – Fairmont (Route 13). Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 31 3 -Existing Transportation System Table 3.7 Waterbury Local Bus Route Ridership and Performance: 2009 Source: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, 2009 Ridership Survey Route Number Route NameDaily RidershipRound Trips Per DayPassengers Per HourPassengers Per MilePassengers Per Run Local Bus Routes 11 Overlook/Willow 345 21.0 32.9 5.0 16.4 12 Hill Street 260 18.5 28.1 2.4 14.1 13 Oakville/Fairmount* 402 12.0 33.5 3.0 33.5 15 Bucks Hill/Farmcrest* 396 13.0 31.7 4.5 30.5 16 Bucks Hill/Montoe 364 12.5 29.7 3.7 29.1 T17 Thomaston Ave/Waterville* 130 12.0 16.8 1.6 10.8 18 Long Hill/Berkeley* 368 25.0 29.4 7.0 14.7 20 Walnut Street 249 13.0 19.9 6.0 19.2 22 Wolcott* 603 12.5 50.3 5.1 48.2 25 Hitchcock Lake* 355 13.5 29.6 1.9 26.3 26 Fairlawn/East Main 146 13.0 11.7 2.1 11.2 27 Reidville/East Main* 199 12.5 16.2 2.4 15.9 28 Scott Road* 198 8.0 37.4 2.8 24.8 31 East Mountain 23 8.5 5.4 0.4 2.7 32 Hopeville/Sylvan 64 10.0 12.8 1.1 6.4 33 Hopeville/Baldwin 503 25.5 39.5 3.4 19.7 35 Town Plot/New Haven* 247 12.5 39.5 2.4 19.8 36 Town Plot/Bradley* 289 13.0 44.5 3.9 22.2 40 Town Plot/Highland 167 12.5 26.7 2.3 13.4 42 Chase Parkway* 270 17.0 28.5 1.9 15.9 44 Bunker Hill 322 12.5 50.8 3.9 25.8 45 Watertown* 258 14.0 20.1 1.5 18.4 N1 Naugatuck* 16 6.0 4.0 0.3 2.7 N2 Naugatuck/New Haven 7 4.0 1.8 0.2 1.8 Fixed Route Totals 6,181 322.0 28.0 2.8 19.2 Tripper Routes 4 Naugatuck Shuttle 8 1.0 6.4 0.5 8.0 47 Watertown/Straits Turnpike 31 2.0 17.7 3.0 15.5 49 Watertown Industrial Park 33 2.0 14.2 2.5 16.5 81 Cheshire Industrial Park 42 3.5 11.5 1.9 12.0 74 Naugatuck Industrial Park 52 3.0 29.7 2.9 17.3 114 Beacon Falls Industrial Park 32 2.0 17.8 1.4 16.0 Totals / Averages 198 13.5 15.8 0.8 14.7 * All route variations included in totals. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 32 3 – Existing Transportation System Table 3.8 Waterbury Local Bus System Financial and Ridership Trends Year Expenses Revenues Defi cit PassengersRecovery Rate YR 1990 $ 2,830,934 $ 1,019,153 $ 1,811,781 1,570,907 36.0% YR 1991 $ 2,940,544 $ 961,104 $ 1,979,440 1,495,773 32.7% FY 1992 a $ 2,904,601 $ 931,953 $ 1,972,648 1,439,411 32.1% FY 1993 $ 2,903,830 $ 1,000,087 $ 1,903,743 1,383,259 34.4% FY 1994 $ 3,235,530 $ 1,073,056 $ 2,162,474 1,235,031 33.2% FY 1995 $ 3,254,458 $ 1,151,372 $ 2,103,086 1,298,399 35.4% FY 1996 $ 3,403,840 $ 1,151,119 $ 2,252,721 1,236,225 33.8% FY 1997 $ 3,373,380 $ 1,201,618 $ 2,171,762 1,264,210 35.6% FY 1998 $ 3,493,478 $ 1,204,251 $ 2,289,227 1,261,712 34.5% FY 1999 $ 3,477,196 $ 1,173,044 $ 2,304,152 1,253,122 33.7% FY 2000 $ 3,608,140 $ 1,186,874 $ 2,421,266 1,253,408 32.9% FY 2001 $ 3,886,002 $ 1,205,026 $ 2,680,976 1,255,959 31.0% FY 2002 $ 3,992,712 $ 1,168,545 $ 2,825,167 1,184,380 29.3% FY 2003 $ 3,936,678 $ 1,124,702 $ 2,811,976 1,125,922 28.6% FY 2004 $ 4,190,844 $ 1,208,508 $ 2,982,336 1,141,591 28.8% FY 2005 $ 4,668,703 $ 1,291,464 $ 3,377,239 1,137,613 27.7% FY 2006 $ 4,809,224 $ 1,416,074 $ 3,393,149 1,184,561 29.4% FY 2007 $ 4,966,245 $ 1,391,339 $ 3,574,905 1,261,740 28.0% FY 2008 $ 5,512,882 $ 1,480,073 $ 4,032,809 1,391,994 26.8% FY 2009 $ 6,015,027 $ 1,435,287 $ 4,579,740 1,411,312 23.9% FY 2010 $ 6,240,781 $ 1,323,298 $ 4,917,483 1,326,923 21.2% aFY 1992 (includes half of 1991) Source: ConnDOT, Transit Operations, “Comparison of Bus Systems” , ConnDOT, Transit Operations, “Annual Operating Reports” North East Transportation Co. operating budget, COGCNV calculations Financial Trends Th e Waterbury local bus system has operated under a growing defi cit nearly every year since 1975, when the state began subsidizing the service. In FY 2010 the bus system’s expenses were $6,240,781 and revenue was $1,323,298. Th e percentage of bus service costs cov- ered by bus fares dropped from 52% in 1980, to 36% in 1990, 33% in 2000, and 21% in 2010 (Table 3.8). Statewide, revenue only covered 19.7% of fi xed-route bus operations costs. In Waterbury, increased fuel costs, an aging bus fl eet, additional service hours (Sunday bus service) and a lack of bus fare increases were responsible for the decline in cost recovery. Improvements Th e Federal Transit Administration considers twelve years to be the useful life for a fi xed route bus. A fl eet of new buses were delivered in early 2011 to replace the 1996 RTS fl eet of buses. Th e existing fi ve 2004 New Flier bus- es will be due for replacement in 2016, and the 2011 fl eet of buses is expected to need replacement in 2023. CTDOT is designing a new state-owned bus garage and maintenance facility in Watertown on Route 262 (Frost Bridge Road) east of Route 8 and west of the Naugatuck River. Th e planned route of the Naugatuck River Green- way will cross the grounds of the facility. Th e new garage Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 33 3 -Existing Transportation System will replace the present one, a cramped industrial build- ing ill-suited for use as a bus garage. Th e following conditions and defi ciencies were identifi ed in COGCNV and State bus studies: 1. Improvements to Existing Service Th e routes should be modifi ed to better serve residents in the region. Th ese recommendations include alter- ing lightly used routes to free up resources for addi- tional services. One major recommendation is to alter routes N1 and N2 in Naugatuck to create one route that would meet the pulse at Exchange Place in Wa- terbury. Also, routes with poor on-time performance should be shortened or modifi ed. ConnDOT’s State- wide Bus System Study (1999) and Central Naugatuck Valley Region Bus Route Study, completed in 2004, recommended further route refi nements and schedule changes. 2. Bus Stop Shelter Improvements In 1982, the existing bus shelters were installed at major boarding points along North East Transporta- tion’s routes by a private company, Bus-stop Shelters, Inc. Th e present owners (Colbert and Amherst, Inc.) maintain them, free of charge, in return for the right to display advertising on them. Th e shelters, how- ever, contain no transit information and need repairs or replacement. Additional shelters are needed. Some shelters block wheelchair access, and these shelters should be moved. Curb cuts and crosswalks should compliment the placement of shelters for improved access and pedestrian safety. 3. Public Information Th e Connecticut Department of Transportation State wide Bus System Study recommends expanding the dissemination of bus route and schedule informa- tion. Th e study suggests displaying and distributing bus route maps in bus shelters and on public infor- mation kiosks to inform the public about the system and how to use it. Marketing and improved infor- mation dissemination could help to increase ridership and complement suggested route changes. Better use of the internet and mobile phone applications to dis-seminate transit information and plan transit trips is also recommended. 4. Additional Service Needs Surveys conducted by NETCO and Naugatuck Valley Community College show a signifi cant unmet need for evening bus service in Waterbury. Waterbury is the only major city in Connecticut without evening bus service. Evening bus service would provide access to educational and employment opportunities that are currently unavailable to Waterbury’s transit dependent population. Th e Statewide Bus System Study proposes several cross- town connections to improve service. Th e study recommends expanding regular bus service to other major employment areas that were identifi ed and are served under the federally funded Job Access and Re- verse Commute program. A circulator bus that would serve the Green, train station, mall, and hospitals in downtown Waterbury is recommended as an early implementation project for the I-84/Route 8 inter- change replacement project. Financial resources may need to come from eliminat- ing unproductive bus runs. For example, many early- morning Saturday runs have little or no ridership and could be eliminated. Th e need for public transit services in the outlying sub- urban towns in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region continues to grow. As employment and professional offi ces, particularly doctor’s offi ces, relocate to outly- ing towns such as Southbury and Prospect, transit de- pendent residents and the elderly are unable to easily access jobs or their doctors. As residents of suburban towns age, there will be greater demand for public transportation, especially in towns with large numbers of age-restricted housing units. Th is will prove dif- fi cult in towns like Oxford that have no public transit services and lack transit-supporting densities. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 34 3 – Existing Transportation System INTERCITY B US S ERVICE Peter Pan Bus Lines is the only intercity bus company serving the Central Naugatuck Valley Region (CNVR). Peter Pan provides service from Waterbury to Southbury, Danbury, Hartford, New York City, Boston, Providence, and points on Cape Cod. It also has limited service to Torrington, Winsted, and Western Massachusetts. Not all Peter Pan coaches are wheelchair accessible. An acces- sible coach can be requested at least 48 hours in advance of a scheduled trip. CTDOT operates a commuter express bus from Cheshire and Southington into downtown Hartford. Th e bus stops at commuter parking lots on Route 70 (I-84 exit 26) and Route 10 (north of I-691) in Cheshire. Express bus service between Waterbury and Hartford will extend the bus rapid transit (BRT) service planned for a New Britain−Hartford Busway. Airport Shuttles Connecticut Limousine off ers six regularly scheduled trips from Waterbury and Southbury to John F. Kennedy (JFK) and LaGuardia Airports in New York, a 25% re- duction from the eight daily trips several years ago. It has dropped service to Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks and Newark Liberty International Air- port in Newark, NJ, and no other transportation services provide scheduled trips to those airports. PARATRANSIT Paratransit services provide specialized transportation, in- cluding taxis, livery, and chair-car services, for the elderly and people with disabilities. REGIONAL M INIBUS S ERVICE FOR THE D ISABLED North East Transportation (NETCO) operates, under contract to CTDOT, a demand-response, paratransit minibus service for persons with disabilities, as defi ned by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the el- derly in the Greater Waterbury Transit District (GWTD) service area. Th e Greater Waterbury Transit District Board is an organization comprised of representatives of the eight municipalities in the CNVR that receive paratransit services (see Figure 3.8). Th e GWTD provides advisory guidance to NETCO on the operation of its paratransit services and runs a regional Dial-A-Ride program that is operated under contract by NETCO. COGCNV staff off ers technical assistance to GWTD and NETCO. ADA Paratransit ADA paratransit service is available to any individual with a temporary or permanent disability who is unable to board or exit a fi xed route bus or who is unable to under- stand how to navigate or use the fi xed route bus system. ADA paratransit is available only from and to locations that are within three-quarters of a mile from a fi xed route bus line. A fi xed route bus is defi ned as having service at least once every two hours. Requests for ADA paratransit trips cannot be denied. Disabled people throughout Wa- terbury and in portions of Cheshire, Middlebury, Nau- gatuck, Prospect, Th omaston, Watertown, and Wolcott are eligible for ADA Paratransit service. ADA paratransit service is also provided between Waterbury and New Ha- ven, in cooperation with the Greater New Haven Transit District. Non-ADA Paratransit Non-ADA Paratransit service is available to disabled peo- ple living more than three quarters of a mile from a fi xed route bus living within the municipalities of the GWTD. Reservations for trips are made based on vehicle availabil- ity. Non-ADA paratransit trips are kept to about 30% of total paratransit trips. GWTD municipalities pay a por- tion of the cost of residents’ non-ADA paratransit trips. Dial-A-Ride Th e Dial-A-Ride program, funded by the State of Con- necticut under the Municipal Grant Program for Elderly and Disabled Demand Responsive Transportation (13b- 28bb), provides rides to people with disabilities and to people aged 60 years and older. Funding is allocated to each municipality based upon municipal land area and elderly population. Dial-A-Ride funds require a 100% match that can come in the form of existing municipal disabled and senior transportation spending. Acceptance of a Dial-A-Ride grant requires the municipality to agree to maintain at least level funding of municipal disabled and senior transportation service. Any reduction of mu- nicipal funding will result in a commensurate cut in the Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 35 3 -Existing Transportation System Figure 3.8 Greater Waterbury Transit District Service Area: 2010 Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck MiddleburyWatertown Waterbury ” )70 ” )10 ” )8 ” )8 ” )64 § ¨ ¦84 Beacon Falls Oxford ” )8 Thomaston SouthburyWoodbury Bethlehem § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ³ 024 Miles CT Transit – New Haven ConnectionNortheast Transportation Fixed Routes (Limited Service) Northeast Transportation Fixed Routes Americans with Disabilities Act 3/4 mile Service AreaGreater Waterbury Transit District Member Municipalities and Service Area Source: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Bus Route Study 2010 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 36 3 – Existing Transportation System municipality’s Dial-A-Ride grant. State funding for the program was cut 25% in FY 2012. GWTD administers a regional Dial-A-Ride program on the behalf of its eight member municipalities. NETCO operates the service under contract with the GWTD us- ing state-owned paratransit vehicles. Each municipality receives at least one weekday of service and one Saturday a month. Municipalities with light reservations are paired together, to optimize the service. No fare is collected by the GWTD for Dial-A-Ride trips. Advanced reservations are required for GWTD Dial-A-Ride trips. Depending on the municipality reservations are made through either NETCO or the municipal senior center. Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Oxford, and Southbury have used their Dial-A-Ride grants to expand existing mu- nicipal transportation for senior and disabled residents. Vehicles used for this service are generally wheelchair ac- cessible. New Freedom Initiative Th e federal New Freedom Initiative (NFI) program funds expansions of or improvements to transportation services for people with disabilities. Th ough the LOCHSTP (Lo- cally Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan) planning process, a number of service expansions were identifi ed and implemented in the CNVR. Using federal New Freedom Initiative funds, matched 50% with state funds, the state has expanded non-ADA paratransit in the GWTD to include evening service from 6 to 9 p.m. Mon- day – Saturday, Sunday trips outside of ADA paratransit boundaries, and trips to Gaylord Rehabilitation Hospital in Cheshire. Funding for trips to Southbury for medical appointments has also been allocated under NFI, and is expected to start in July 2011. NFI also funded an expan- sion of United Way’s 2-1-1 social services hotline to in- clude transportation referral information for the CNVR. Vehicle Fleet North East Transportation (NETCO) operates 36 para- transit vehicles for ADA paratransit, non-ADA paratran- sit, and Dial-A-Ride services in the eight towns of the GWTD. Th e vehicles are 15 passenger minibuses with wheelchair lifts. Paratransit vehicles have a usable life of four years or 100,000 miles. Eligibility and General Policies According to ADA defi nitions, to be eligible for the para- transit service, an individual must have a disability that prevents him or her from accessing or navigating the reg- ular fi xed-route bus system. Individuals are required to fi ll out an application stating the nature of their disability and why they are unable to travel independently. North East Transportation certifi es each applicant’s suitability for paratransit services. Certifi cation is required to reserve ADA or non-ADA paratransit trips. As of October 2010, North East paratransit has approximately 2,216 certifi ed riders, up 19% from January 2007. A rider’s ADA certifi – cation is valid on any transit system in the United States. Th e Dial-A-Ride service can be used by anyone with a disability or aged 60 years or older. ADA certifi cation is not required for the Dial-A-Ride service, but riders must apply and receive an identifi cation card to use the service. Dial-A-Ride trips are coordinated and in some towns scheduled by the senior centers in the eight towns of the Greater Waterbury Transit District. Hours of Operation In accordance with ADA guidelines, ADA paratransit ser- vice operates during the same time period as NETCO’s fi xed route service. Th e service day runs from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. Non-ADA paratransit is operated from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. Th e Dial-A-Ride program operates from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on weekdays and from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Satur- days. Ridership In fi scal year 2010, the paratransit service operated by NETCO provided 63,591 ADA trips and 31,831 non- ADA trips, a total of 95,422 trips. Ridership has steadily increased since the GWTD began operations in 1991. GWTD’s Dial-A-Ride program operated for ten months in fi scal year 2010 and provided 5,479 trips. In fi scal year 2009 the program operated for a full twelve months and provided 9,218 trips. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 37 3 -Existing Transportation System Financial In fi scal year 2010, NETCO paratransit expenses totaled $2,941,292 with an average cost per passenger of $27.52. With FY10 revenues of $245,867, the fare recovery rate was 8.4%. As of May 2011, the fare is $2.50 per one-way trip. Ten-ride coupon books are also available. Paratransit fares are twice the fi xed route bus fare. Expenses have steadily increased for the paratransit service. (See Table 3.9). Funding for the minibus service for the disabled comes primarily from CTDOT and the eight GWTD munici- palities. A small portion of the funding also comes from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Minibus ex- penditures from GWTD’s member municipalities are used as a local in-kind match to leverage FTA Section 5307 funds. In addition, because of state transit fund- ing shortfalls, most GWTD municipalities have agreed to pay a fee for non-ADA paratransit trips to keep the fare to the passenger at $2.50. Th e Dial-A-Ride program is funded by a $250,648 state grant. Th e state grant was delayed in the summer of 2009, forcing the GWTD to suspend operations for two months. Expenses have steadily increased since the program started in 2006, requiring a reduction in ser- vice hours. Th e GWTD collects no fare for Dial-A-Ride trips. LOCAL M INIBUS S ERVICES All CNVR municipalities operate their own minibus service for elderly residents. Private, non-profi t agencies in the region also provide specialized transportation for their clients. Th ese local agencies receive operating funds from various sources. For example, the Waterbury Senior Shuttle receives money from a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and from the Western Connecticut Area Agency on Aging (WCAAA). In 2009, the WCAAA also helped fund New Opportunities Inc.’s Senior Com- panion Program and the Borough of Naugatuck and Town of Beacon Falls minibus service. Some local, non-profi t agencies that own and operate their own vehicles also obtain them through the federal Section 5310 vehicle grant program. Eighty percent of the cost of vehicles is covered by the federal grant for a vehicle costing up to a maximum of $40,000. Grants applications for the 5310 program are administered by COGCNV staff , and COGCNV-approved recommendations are submitted to Year Expenses Revenues Deficit PassengersRecovery Rate FY 2001 $ 1,528,920 $ 148,325 $ 1,380,595 76,317 9.7% FY 2002 $ 1,635,631 $ 158,069 $ 1,477,563 73,210 9.7% FY 2003 $ 1,709,594 $ 180,534 $ 1,529,010 79,515 10.6% FY 2004 $ 1,705,150 $ 195,066 $ 1,510,084 80,950 11.4% FY 2005 $ 1,893,958 $ 219,196 $ 1,674,761 83,910 11.6% F Y 2006 $ 2,013,744 $ 212,319 $ 1,801,425 80,735 10.5% FY 2007 $ 2,086,210 $ 223,206 $ 1,863,004 78,854 10.7% FY 2008 $ 2,388,452 $ 225,587 $ 2,162,866 88,059 9.4% FY 2009 $ 2,729,999 $ 241,631 $ 2,488,368 95,785 8.9% FY 2010 $ 2,957,897 $ 245,867 $ 2,712,031 97,927 8.3% * Combined ADA and non-ADA paratransit service Table 3.9 Waterbury Regional Paratransit Financial and Ridership Trends Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 38 3 – Existing Transportation System CTDOT for consideration and funding. Applicants are required to demonstrate their eff orts to coordinate trans- portation services with other organizations and providers. Since 2000, 36 buses have been granted to municipalities and non-profi ts in the region including all municipalities except Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Th omaston, and Water- bury. JOBLINKS Th e Northwest Region Access to Jobs program, referred to as JobLinks, provides low-income people and welfare- to-work clients with aff ordable and accessible transporta- tion to and from work in the greater Waterbury, Danbury, and Torrington areas. Eligible individuals can register for work-related transportation assistance through job devel- opers, temporary agencies, and other referral sources, as well as directly through the JobLinks program. Routes have been established from cities to targeted em- ployment areas with growing job opportunities. Custom- ized rides home for second-shift positions have aff orded entry-level job opportunities to workers transitioning off of public assistance. Employer fl exibility and creativity with work-hour schedules has been important for devel- oping JobLinks service to targeted employment sites such as industrial parks with clusters of employers. Ridership Between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010, JobLinks, through North East Transportation and Managed Trans- portation Services, provided 58,836 trips. Service Area In the CNVR, JobLinks serves employment areas in Wa- tertown, Cheshire, Naugatuck, Southbury, Beacon Falls, and Waterbury, including evening service to the Brass Mill Center. In addition, JobLinks provides transporta- tion to Waterbury childcare facilities (by reservation). JobLinks Administration A JobLinks Coordinator, hired through Rideworks and stationed at WorkForce Connection, has assumed the role of transportation broker, as well as acting as an infor- mation clearinghouse. Th e JobLinks Coordinator works closely with job developers, employers, and transporta- tion providers. Th e JobLinks Policy Committee, which includes trans- portation service providers, job placement and training providers, educational institutions, regional planning or- ganizations, the regional workforce development board, and state agencies — provides guidance on service op- erations and policies. Most of the participating agencies work directly with the targeted JobLinks consumer (low- income people and welfare-to-work clients) in Northwest Connecticut and represent their needs. Funding JobLinks services are funded by the CTDOT, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the CT Department of Social Services (DSS). TAXIS AND LIVERY Yellow Cab is the primary cab company in the CNVR. Yellow Cab maintains 17 cars and runs approximately eight taxis a day. Th e vehicles are kept on call in Waterbury and dispatched as needed. 8 In addition to Waterbury, Yellow Cab is authorized to serve Naugatuck, Southbury, and Watertown. Other taxi companies located outside the region serve Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Ox- ford, and Th omaston. No company is licensed to serve Middlebury, Prospect, Wolcott, and Woodbury. 9 For these communities service authority depends on the taxi ride’s destination. Taxi service has been in a decline, with companies going out of business or cutting back on ve- hicles in service. Illegal gypsy taxis are fl ourishing in Wa- terbury, often serving areas where the regular cab drivers refuse to go. 10 Th ere are also numerous liveries that provide individu- ally scheduled service. Several ambulance companies off er wheelchair van livery service. 8 Waterbury Yellow Cab Co.9 CTDOT taxi company certifi cates listing. Discussion with Sheldon Lubin, Utilities Examiner, Regulatory and Compliance Unit, Bu- reau of Public Transportation, CTDOT 10 Discussion with Gene Morris, Transit Investigator, CTDOT (9/28/2010) Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 39 3 -Existing Transportation System RAIL P ASSENGER S ERVICE Since 2005, ridership on the Waterbury Branch rail line has risen dramatically. Th e branch carried 290,140 pas- sengers in 2009, up 47% since 2005 11. Increased gasoline prices, more frequent rail service, better promotion, and reasonable fares have all supported branch line ridership growth. Th e Waterbury Branch Line commuter rail service is oper- ated by Metro-North and stops in Waterbury, Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Seymour, Ansonia, Derby, and Bridgeport. Th e train runs seven daily round trips between Waterbury and Bridgeport, plus a single weekday trip from Water- bury to Stamford. One Bridgeport bound train stops at Stratford in the morning and one Waterbury bound train stops at Stratford in the afternoon. Th e fi rst weekday morning train departing Waterbury to Bridgeport con- tinues express to Stamford. Th ere is no return through train from Stamford to Waterbury in the evening. At Bridgeport and Stamford, passengers can transfer to New Haven mainline commuter trains bound for New York City or New Haven. Connections to Amtrak can also be made at Bridgeport and Stamford. Connections to Shoreline East service to New London can be made at New Haven and Bridgeport (limited service). Of the three commuter train stations in the region, the Waterbury Station is the most used with an average of 237 weekday inbound passenger boardings in 2009, Naugatuck an average of 84 boardings, and Beacon Falls an average of 7 boardings 12. Average weekday inbound boardings for the entire line was 411 passengers in 2009. Ridership is heaviest on weekends. Th e average rider- ship at the Waterbury Station in 2007 was 26% higher on Sundays than on an average weekday. Th e Waterbury Branch line cost $8.1 million to oper- ate in 2009. With revenue from ticket and pass sales of $714,651, the average subsidy per passenger trip was $25.78 13. As ridership on the line has grown, so has rev- enue and the average subsidy per trip has declined. In 2006 the average subsidy per passenger was $30.47. Th e Waterbury branch rail line has the lowest fare recovery rate among all rail services supported by the State. In 2010 the one-way fare between Waterbury and Bridgeport cost $2.25. Th e last fare increase was in January 2005. Th e Waterbury branch line has a single track without passing siding or signals, limiting rail operations to a sin- gle train at a time. When maintenance or repairs are nec- essary, the branch line passenger service is replaced with buses. A signifi cant amount of reconstruction of aging railroad bridges and culverts is needed on the Waterbury branch. Much of this work will require suspension of rail service. Replacement of rail service with buses can be inconve- nient to passengers. At the Waterbury, Naugatuck, and Bridgeport stations, replacement buses pick up passen- gers a distance from the train platform, causing confusion and delays. Some of the replacement buses run express from Bridgeport to Waterbury which can also be confus- ing to passengers. In 2010, CTDOT completed the Waterbury and New Ca- naan Branch Lines Needs and Feasibility Study. Th e study investigated options for the Waterbury branch line and recommended improvements. Some of the recommend- ed improvements include passing siding, train station improvements, a new transfer station at the Devon Junc- tion with the New Haven mainline, and supplemental express bus service between Bridgeport and Waterbury. As of September 2010, no funding has been allocated for an environmental study, although not all recommended improvements, such as the express bus service, require an environmental review. Th e Naugatuck Railroad operates train service between Waterbury and Torrington. Passengers board at the Th omaston train station (Railroad Museum of New Eng- land) for scenic excursion trips. Th e railroad provides local freight service along the corridor. Train Stations Waterbury Station is the largest and most used train sta- tion in the CNVR. Th e station consists of a sheltered, 11, 12, 13 Information from CT Department of Transportation, Rail Section Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 40 3 – Existing Transportation System handicapped accessible, high level platform adjacent to the former Waterbury train station building, currently owned by the Republican-American newspaper. Although ample free parking is available at the station, a majority of passengers arrive or depart the station by other means. An abandoned SNET offi ce building and parking garage block views of the station platform and parking lot from Meadow Street, facilitating vehicle break-ins and deter- ring passenger use. A new passenger entrance to the facil- ity and off -street passenger drop off space was built at the station in late 2010. In 2010, the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development completed an environmental assessment and environmental impact evaluation (EA/ EIE) for a proposed Waterbury Transportation Center (WTC) at the Waterbury Train Station. Th e transporta- tion center was conceived as an intermodal facility that would become the passenger transfer point for the lo- cal bus system. Due to traffi c and bus operations issues caused by the proposed WTC, site constraints, and a lack of capital and operational funding, the project is not ex- pected to move forward as originally envisioned. Th e City of Waterbury is proposing smaller scale im- provements at the train station, including the demolition of the SNET building and garage, redesign of passenger and vehicle access, and the eventual provision of a small train station facility with a waiting area and restrooms. Other than the Merritt 7 station on the Danbury branch, the Waterbury branch has the only low platform stations in the state. Th e Waterbury station has a high platform, but none of the other Waterbury branch line stations are handicapped accessible. Additionally, the platforms along the Waterbury branch are short, limiting the length of trains that operate on the branch. Th e Naugatuck Station has the second highest boardings on the Waterbury branch with 91 on an average weekday in 2008. Naugatuck Station has ample free, safe parking. More cars have been observed parked at the Naugatuck Station than the Waterbury Station (41 cars verses 38 cars in 2009). Th e Waterbury and New Canaan Branch Lines Needs and Feasibility Study proposes moving the Nau- gatuck Station south to the railroad overpass over Maple Street. Th is location would allow for a longer platform, which could be integrated into the proposed Renaissance Place transit-oriented development. Th e Beacon Falls Station has the lightest use on the Wa- terbury Branch with 8 boardings on an average weekday in 2008. On average, 10 cars were parked at the station on weekdays in 2009. FREIGHT S ERVICE While most commercial goods are transported over the region’s highways, some freight is shipped to the CNVR by rail. PanAm Southern Railway (PAS) transports freight into the region over the Plainville-Waterbury line (the Terryville Line) to customers in Plainville, Bristol, South- ington, Waterbury, Beacon Falls, and Seymour. Freight is typically oversized and overweight: chemicals, materi- als, construction and demolition debris, and equipment. PanAm runs a weekly train from E. Deerfi eld, MA, the railroad’s main connection to the North American rail network, to Plainville. On alternate days, PAS runs out of Plainville to customers as demand warrants. Car load- ings have increased in recent years from local business ex- pansions. A second train and crew will be needed as new customers in the state begin operations. 14 Th e Naugatuck Railroad Company, primarily a scenic passenger rail ser- vice operating from Waterbury to Torrington, carries some freight brought to Waterbury by PanAm. 15 Figure 3.9 presents a map of western Connecticut’s rail system. Rail accounts for 3.6% of freight shipped to Connecticut and 2.8% from the state. 16 Th e decline of heavy manufac- turing and the lack of a direct rail route into Connecticut has taken its toll. Connecticut is isolated for rail freight transport. Freight enters the state from Springfi eld, MA on the Amtrak mainline, which has costly track use fees. For CNVR customers, freight comes from the mainline in Berlin, to Plainville, and on to Waterbury. Out-dated, underweight track —except on the state’s mainlines— cannot handle full loads of the high capacity freight cars now standard in North America. Fees charged by the diff erent rail companies for trackage rights also deter rail use. 14, 15 Information from CT Department of Transportation, Rail Sec- tion, and CTDOT, Connecticut State Rail Plan: 2010-2030 16 FHWA, Freight Analysis Framework, Freight Shipments to, from, and within Connecticut: 2007 ( www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight) Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 41 3 -Existing Transportation System Figure 3.9 Rail System in Western Connecticut: 2010 Source: Connecticut Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Public Transport ation, Office of Rail, as of October 2006 ManchesterEast Hampton W at e rb u r y B r a nc h ( MetroN or th ) ( M e tr oN ort h ) EssexSteamT rain Coventr y Stafford New Londo n NewCana anB ran c h DanburyB ranch Shor eLi n eEa st (M etr o N or th ) Te rryv ille Lin e T orringtonLine NewHa venMainL ine ( Met roNorth) NewH aven- Spr in g f ie l dL i n e Kent Sharon Norfolk Salisbury Litchfield Newtown Guilford Goshen Suffield Granby HaddamTolland New Milford Cornwall Danbury Hebron Enfield Oxford Berlin Colchester Avon Greenwich Wilton MadisonGlastonbury Bristol Canaan Stamford Shelton East Haddam Easton Hartland Ellington Torrington Hamden Southbury Redding Fairfield Windsor Middletown Warren Somers Cheshire Simsbury Woodbury Wallingford Ridgefield Canton Monroe Milford Washington Colebrook Roxbury Killingworth Harwinton Southington Winchester Burlington Morris Durham Meriden Barkhamsted Portland New Hartford Wolcott Norwalk Waterbury Watertown Weston Trumbull Bethel Bethany Sherman Branford Farmington Bloomfield Vernon Plymouth Orange Bolton Westport Hartford Strat- ford Chester Brook- field East Windsor South Windsor Essex Darien New Fairfield Andover Marl- borough Bethlehem North Branford New Canaan Middlebury North Haven Seymour New Haven Prospect West Hartford Bridgeport Woodbridge Naugatuck West- brook Bridge- water East Hartford East Granby North Canaan CromwellRocky Hill Deep River NewingtonMiddle- field Old Saybrook New Britain Plainville East Haven Thomaston Wethersfield West Haven Derby Ansonia Beacon Falls Windsor Locks 051 0 2.5 Miles ³ Rail Service Passenger and Freight Service Freight Service Passenger Service Owner CTDOT Amtrak Housatonic Railroad Company PAN AM Railroad CDEP Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. Branford Steam Railroad CSX Corp Connecticut Southern Railroad Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 42 3 – Existing Transportation System AIRPORT FACILITIES Th e Waterbury-Oxford Airport (OXC) is a state owned and operated general aviation airport located in both Ox- ford and Middlebury. In 2007, it handled an average of 205 fl ights a day, approximately 75,000 fl ights a year. Situated seven miles southwest of Waterbury, it is acces- sible from Route 188 and I-84. 17 Th e airport off ers facilities for corporate, freight, and rec- reational fl ights. It is owned and operated by CTDOT, and has provided general aviation services since its com- pletion in 1971. It occupies 424 acres within a 3,000 acre zone of industrial land. Th e airport’s runway is 5,800 feet long by 100 feet wide. In 2010, there were 174 air- craft based at the Waterbury-Oxford Airport, of which 36 were medium and large corporate jets, 9 were multi- engine, and 129 were single-engine aircraft. Although the number of planes based at the airport has been in- creasing, the lack of adequate hangar space limits growth. Additional hangars and tie-down areas are recommended in CTDOT’s Waterbury-Oxford Airport Master Plan, and Keystone, the fi xed-base operator, is proposing the construction of a hangar and offi ce space with a 206,000 square-foot footprint at the airport. 18 Keystone Aviation Service off ers servicing and mainte- nance as well as charter passenger service and air freight. Double Diamond/Richmor Aviation off ers charter pas- senger service. Business Air Service provides medium and small jet servicing and aircraft charter. Classic Air Service, Oxford Flight Training, and Executive Flight Services provide fl ight school training. An air traffi c control tower became operational in 2001. Th e State of Connecticut has implemented various infra- structure improvements such as additional taxiways, gas mains, electrical service, and a sewer system. A rear access road, entrance improvements including a gateway, and additional signage are also planned for the airport. Th e Waterbury-Oxford Airport Master Plan calls for safe- ty improvements including expanded taxiways, new light- ing, and obstruction removal. Concurrent with the latest master plan update, an airport noise study was completed by the Federal Aviation Administration to understand the noise impacts of the airport and to identify the areas around the airport that are eligible for noise abatement. Th e study found that some residences in Middlebury ex- perience noise levels considered incompatible with resi- dential uses. CTDOT has initiated a voluntary buyout program for the Triangle Hills subdivision in Middle- bury. Th e study also recommends that undeveloped, resi- dentially-zoned land near the airport be rezoned for other uses. In 2004, the airport provided approximately 320 jobs to the local economy and had an economic impact of $54 million. WALKWAYS, BIKEWAYS, AND GREENWAYS CTDOT’s 2009 Connecticut Statewide Bicycle and Pedes- trian Transportation Plan, COGCNV’s 1994 Regional Bi- cycle Plan, and COGCNV’s 2010 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in the CNVR Assessment propose improvements to promote bicycle and pedestrian transportation opportu- nities and safety. Th e state bicycle and pedestrian plan as- sesses the suitability of state highways for bicycling, lead- ing to the creation of a new state bike route map. Th e assessment and map can be useful in identifying priority locations for on-road bicycle improvements. Th e Farmington Canal recreation trail in Cheshire and the Trolley Line recreation trail in Middlebury are the region’s two main bike paths. With assistance from COGCNV’s regional transportation planning work, funding for the bike paths came through the federal Surface Transporta- tion Program—Enhancements (STP-E). COGCNV is working with municipalities on the plan- ning of a Naugatuck River Greenway and connecting loop trails. In 2010, COGCNV completed the Regional Naugatuck River Greenway Routing Study, which recom- mends a routing for the 22 mile CNVR section of the Naugatuck River Greenway. Th e study also recommends construction phasing and estimates costs. In addition to transportation and recreational uses, the Naugatuck River Greenway is seen as important to economic development for the fi ve municipalities in the region along the river. 17 FAA Airport Master Record for OXC (Form 5010-1) Eff ective Date 2011-01-13 18 CTDOT “Public Hearing October 13 on New Hangar at Oxford Airport Draft Environmental Document Now Available” 2010-09- 08 Accessed 2010-11-02 http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A= 1373&Q=465390 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 43 4 -Projected Trends and Impacts POPULATION Population projections are important in projecting future travel demand. For Connecticut very little growth is fore- cast for the next two decades. 1 Th e post-World War II baby boom population, people between the ages of 50 and 64, will increase substantially. A noticeable increase will be seen in the very frail elderly, those 85 and over, while the proportion of adults under the age of 50 will decrease. Similar trends are anticipated for the CNVR. Th e state and the region’s population will continue to age, which is likely to damper traffi c growth but raise the de- mand for public transportation. Waterbury’s population is anticipated to remain fairly stable, judging from past trends. Th e greatest population growth is expected in the southwestern section of the region, whereas the slowest growth is likely for the older mill communities along the Naugatuck River. TRANSPORTATION C HALLENGES Land Use Waterbury has the region’s highest population density (3,866 persons per square mile). With exceptions mostly in Naugatuck and Watertown, the population in the rest of the region tends to be spread outward (with an average suburban town density of 633 persons per square mile). Over the long term, the location of businesses, services, and other employment has been gradually shifting from the region’s central core to surrounding suburban towns, although there has been a pause in the past few years. Moreover, employment has not been increasing in the re- gion, and consequently where residents live and work is becoming more spread out, placing a greater stress on the region’s transportation system. Th e trend also aff ects the approximately seventeen percent of Waterbury households without access to an automo- bile. Th ese city households face increased transportation barriers as jobs, stores, and services locate to areas in the suburbs inaccessible by public transit. Th e increase in older residents will aff ect transportation services. While the baby-boom generation of older Amer- icans is expected to be more independent and active than past generations, many seniors cannot or choose not to drive, relying on public or private transportation. Land use decisions and institutional developments will refl ect this as well. Elderly housing developments, as well as ac- tive adult, age-restricted housing developments should consider locating on bus routes or close to town servic- es to ensure that residents are not isolated from needed services. Th e U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Transportation are jointly encourag- ing planning for sustainable communities — places that increase access by being close to transportation hubs, lo- cal shopping areas, and government and social services, and thereby minimizing transportation and infrastructure costs and reducing the use of natural resources (see the six livability principles in Appendix C). Mode of Travel Cars are still the most common and convenient way to travel in the CNVR, and greatest growth in the region is anticipated in areas lacking transit supporting densities. Not everyone drives, and the transit-dependent popula- tion is growing — the elderly, the disabled, and low-in- come households unable to aff ord a car. For the foresee- able future, fi xed-route bus service will be primarily in the region’s urban core. Ridesharing can benefi t commuters in low density areas, especially those with long distance commutes. Th e role of the Waterbury passenger rail line could increase as congestion on Route 8 in the lower Nau- 4. P ROJECTED T RENDS AND I MPACTS PROJECTED TRENDS AND IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 1 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 2005. Internet Release Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 44 4 – Projected Trends and Impacts gatuck Valley worsens, and rail improvements are imple- mented to enable greater train frequency. Financial Financial defi cits will restrain federal and state funding budgets, hampering needed transportation maintenance and limiting improvements unless new revenue sources are found. Slower economic growth and rising elderly populations complicate the fi nancial situation, and lack of transportation investments can hamper the economic health of the state and region. Implementing relatively inexpensive programs can lead to signifi cant improve- ments in certain areas. Some examples include: traffi c signal timing to ensure smooth and effi cient traffi c op- erations; pavement management programs that help towns allocate money for road improvements by assess- ing pavement deterioration rates and the cost of major reconstruction; local bus studies to determine the best bus routes for serving people effi ciently; and access man- agement techniques to control curb cuts and driveways. Electronic tolls and congestion pricing will be studied by CTDOT as strategies for raising funds to pay for express- way improvements. Fuel Prices and Supplies In 2011 gasoline prices shot well past $4.00 a gallon 2, refl ecting the uncertainties over petroleum supplies in light of uprisings in northern Africa and the Mid-East. High gasoline prices, coupled with high unemployment have reduced highway travel and increased bus and rail ridership. Petroleum prices are likely to decline if stability returns to these areas 3; but for the long term the United States may face more periods of disruption in supply and high prices. Over the long haul this could favor higher density land use development and closeness to work and services. New Technology Th e gasoline-powered internal combustion engine has been with us for over a century, and the private vehicle as the primary means of transportation since the 1950s. A plan that looks over a quarter of a century into the future has to consider new technology. Within the time frame of this plan, it is possible that new vehicle technologies will emerge, replacing the internal combustion engine. Hybrid gas/electric vehicles have gained in popularity. Strides are being made with battery-powered electric cars. Bus rapid transit can combine the characteristics of pas- senger rail with the route fl exibility of a bus. Intercon- nected electronic road and intersection management and control systems, coupled with real-time electronic travel information — intelligent technology systems — can in- crease effi ciency and safety of transportation systems and vehicles, and convenience for the traveler. TRAVEL DEMAND PROJECTIONS COGCNV uses the traffi c projections and road capac- ity estimates from the 2009 Congestion Screening and Monitoring Report, prepared by CTDOT, to pinpoint future traffi c bottlenecks. Th e report identifi es congested segments of the state highway system, by calculating the ratio of traffi c volume to road capacity (v/c) for each road segment. Th e future traffi c volumes are derived from CT- DOT’s statewide travel demand forecasting model. 2American Automobile Association, AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report – Connecticut (as of 6/1/2011) 3 Other factors that could aff ect petroleum supply and price include refi nery production levels, the global economic climate, and stabil ity of the U.S. currency. Electric Vehicle charging station, , GE Plant, Plainville Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 45 4 -Projected Trends and Impacts CTDOT uses the Highway Capacity Manual to estimate the road capacity of state highways. Th e concept of ca- pacity is defi ned as the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can be reasonably expected to pass a point or uniform segment of roadway during a specifi ed time period under prevailing road, traffi c, and traffi c con- trol conditions. Th e capacity values are based on system- wide planning assumptions, and serve as a fi rst-cut plan- ning analysis. Using the capacity values and traffi c volumes projected for each segment, the CTDOT report calculates v/c ra- tios. Segments with v/c ratios above 1.00 are defi ned as over capacity, where traffi c signals, signal timing, road ge- ometry, or a combination of these factors, are inadequate for projected peak hour traffi c volumes. 4 Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 present the state-maintained road segments in the CNVR expected to be at or over ca- pacity by 2030. Th e region’s most congested segments in 2030 are listed below. All of these locations are projected to have severe congestion (v/c ratios over 1.2) in 2030. Route 6 in Southbury • At Pine Hill Rd. Route 6 in Th omaston • Route 222 to Prospect St. Route 8 in Waterbury • At Route 73 Junction Route 10 in Cheshire • Cook Hill Road to Sandbank Rd. • Fieldstone Ct. to E. Johnson Ave. • WB Exit from I-691 to Southington TL Route 42 in Beacon Falls • At Cook Ln. Route 63 in Naugatuck • Hazel Ave. to Cross Pointe Plaza Driveway • Bland St. to Cherry St. • Water St to Field St.Route 63 in Middlebury and Watertown • Country Club Rd. to Wooster Brook Overpass • Park Rd. to Bunker Hill Rd. in Watertown • French St. to Echo Lake Rd. in Watertown Route 64 in Waterbury • Chase Pkwy. to Access to I-84 Route 68 in Naugatuck • Spring St. to Greenwood St. • Union & Golden St. to Union City Rd. Route 69 in Waterbury • East Mountain Rd. to Access to EB I-84 • Near Union St. • Frost Road to South Cir. Route 69 in Wolcott • Potuccos Ring Rd. to Route 322 Route 70 in Cheshire • Winslow St. to Moss Farms Rd. • Quarry Village Rd. to Route 10 (Highland Ave.) Route 73 in Waterbury • Deerfi eld Ave. to Irvington Ave. • E. Aurora St. to Route 8 Junction Interstate 84 in Waterbury • EB Access from SB Rte. 8 to EB Exit to Meadow St. • EB Access from Meadow St. to EB Exit to Route 69 Chase Parkway (SR 845) in Waterbury • At the I-84 overpass Riverside St. (SR 846) in Waterbury • W. Main St. to Access to NB Route 8 West Main St. (SR 847) in Waterbury • Judd St. to Sperry St. 4 TransportaŸ on Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209, 1997, pg. 9-31. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 46 4 – Projected Trends and Impacts Table 4.1 Severely Congested State Highway Segments in the CNVR, by Volume to Capacity Ratios: 2030 Rte Town DescriptionV/C ratio 2030V/C ratio 2008Percent Change 6 Southbury At Pine Hill Rd 1.32 1.06 25% 6 Thomaston Route 222 to Prospect St 1.36 1.08 26% 8 Waterbury At Rte 73 Junction 1.47 1.13 30% 10 Cheshire Cook Hill Rd to .02 Mi N of Cook Hill Rd 1.24 1.02 22% 10 Cheshire Cook Hill Rd to Rte 42 1.24 1.02 22% 10 Cheshire At Rte 42 (No Brooksvale Rd) 2.14 1.75 22% 10 Cheshire Rte 42 (No Brooksvale Rd) to .1 Miles N of Elmwood Dr 1.91 1.57 22% 10 Cheshire .04 Miles S of Chipman Dr to Cornwall Ave 1.91 1.57 22% 10 Cheshire Cornwall Ave to .03 Mi N of Wallingford Rd 1.80 1.48 22% 10 Cheshire .12 Miles N of Rte 68/70 Junction to Creamery Rd 1.24 1.02 22% 10 Cheshire Creamery Rd to Sandbank Rd 1.36 1.11 23% 10 Cheshire .13 Mi N of Fieldstone Ct (WB) to .09 Mi S of East Johnson Ave1.74 1.43 22% 10 Cheshire Exit from WB I-691 to Southington TL 1.58 1.30 22% 42 Beacon Falls At Cook Ln 1.69 1.35 25% 63 Naugatuck Hazel Ave to .17 Mi N of Warren Ave 1.29 1.08 19% 63 Naugatuck Bland St to Cherry St 1.35 1.14 18% 63 Naugatuck Water St to Rte 68 1.24 1.04 19% 63 Naugatuck Rte 68 to Field St 1.21 1.02 19% 63 Middlebury Country Club Rd to Exit from EB I-84 1.24 0.99 25% 63 Middlebury .10 Mi N of Country Club Rd East to Wooster Brook Overpass1.33 1.05 27% 63 Middlebury Park Rd to Middlebury-Watertown TL 1.34 1.06 26% 63 Watertown Middlebury-Watertown TL to State St 1.39 1.14 22% 63 Watertown State St to Bunker Hill Rd 1.40 1.15 22% 63 Watertown French St to Echo Lake Rd 1.23 1.01 22% 64 Waterbury Chase Parkway to Interchange 17 on I-84 1.29 1.09 18% 68 Naugatuck Spring St to Greenwood St 1.33 1.12 19% 68 Naugatuck Union & Golden St to Lines Hill St 1.23 1.04 18% 68 Naugatuck Lines Hill St to Union City Rd 1.30 1.09 19% 69 Waterbury East Mountain Rd to N Junction of Hamilton Ave 1.21 1.02 19% 69 Waterbury Harpers Ferry Rd to Edgewood Ave 1.50 1.26 19% 69 Waterbury Edgewood Ave to Access to EB I-84 1.27 1.07 19% 69 Waterbury .02 Miles E of Union St 2.18 1.83 19% 69 Waterbury N of Frost Rd 1.37 1.15 19% Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 47 4 -Projected Trends and Impacts Source: ConnDOT, Congestion Management System: 2009 Congestion Screening and Monitoring Report (2009) Rte Town DescriptionV/C ratio 2030V/C ratio 2008Percent Change 69 Waterbury Frost Rd to South Cir 1.47 1.23 20% 69 Waterbury At South Cir 1.37 1.15 19% 69 Wolcott Potuccos Ring Rd to Rte 322 1.24 1.05 18% 70 Cheshire Winslow St to .13 Miles West of Marion Rd 1.53 1.25 22% 70 Cheshire .08 Miles West of Marion Rd to Marion Rd 1.53 1.25 22% 70 Cheshire Marion Rd to Moss Farms Rd 1.64 1.35 21% 70 Cheshire Quarry Village Rd to Peck Ln 2.14 1.76 22% 70 Cheshire Carter Lane to Willow St 1.57 1.28 23% 70 Cheshire Willow St to Maple Ave 1.70 1.39 22% 70 Cheshire Maple Ave to Rte 10 (Highland Ave) 1.60 1.31 22% 73 Waterbury Deerfi eld Ave to Gertrude Ave #1 1.31 1.10 19% 73 Waterbury Gertrude Ave #1 to Irvington Ave 1.31 1.10 19% 73 Waterbury East Aurora St to Junction with Rte 8 1.29 1.08 19% 84 Waterbury EB Access From SB Rte 8 to .03 Miles W of EB Access from NB Rte 81.64 1.32 24% 84 Waterbury EB Access From NB Rte 8 to EB Exit to Meadow St #1 1.29 1.04 24% 84 Waterbury EB Access From Meadow St #1 to .05 Mi E of S. Main St Overpass1.23 0.99 24% 84 Waterbury .05 Miles E of S. Main St Overpass to EB Exit to Rte 69 1.23 0.99 24% 845 Waterbury West Main St to Country Club Rd 1.40 1.17 20% 846 Waterbury Riverside St NB to start of one way access to NB Route 8 1.37 1.15 19% 847 Waterbury Judd St to .04 Mi N of Sperry St 1.48 1.24 19% Table 4.1 Severely Congested State Highway Segments in the CNVR, by Volume to Capacity Ratios: 2030 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 48 4 – Projected Trends and Impacts Figure 4.1 Highway Congestion in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2030 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 t u6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 t u6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 t u6 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 ” )8 Oxford SouthburyCheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls ³ 0241Miles Volume-to-capacity ratios: 2030 1.00 (at capacity) to 1.19 1.20 and higher Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Congestion Management System: 2008 Congestion Screening and Monitoring Report, September 2008. *See Table 4.1 for a detailed description of the congested locations. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 49 5 -Recommended Plan 5. R ECOMMENDED P LAN Th e highway and transit recommendations presented in this plan are intended as guidelines for programming fed- eral and state funds for regional transportation improve- ments, and identifying locations for further study. Th e recommendations are based on the severity of the defi – ciencies, the Transportation Plan’s goals and objectives, the previous work and scheduling of projects by the State and COGCNV, and discussions with local offi cials (see Appendix A for local transportation priorities). Th e Plan emphasizes maintaining and improving the existing trans- portation system rather than constructing new facilities. Also, while the region’s highways will remain the focal point of its transportation system, the plan seeks to en- hance the role of public transportation services and ride- sharing. Appendix D contains the estimated costs and funding years related to these recommendations. HIGHWAYS Th e primary objective of this section is to maintain and improve the region’s highway system with an emphasis on making better use of existing transportation facilities, while seeking to improve safety and reduce traffi c conges- tion, energy consumption, and motor vehicle emissions. For both expressways and other highways, the mainte- nance of roads and bridges is the highest priority. Highway recommendations are divided into the follow- ing categories: Expressways, Major State Highways, Urban Highway Projects, Bridges, and Commuter Services. EXPRESSWAYS Interstate 84 in Eastern Waterbury — Widen I-84 to three lanes in each direction and modify interchanges between Hamilton Avenue (Route 69) and Pierpont Road in Wa- terbury (the fi nal phase of the I-84 upgrade). Projects 151- 273 & 151-285. Interstate 84 West of Waterbury — Complete early imple- mentation projects at defi cient interchanges as recom- mended in the CTDOT report, I-84 West of Waterbury Needs and Defi ciencies Study (November 2001). Project 130-173 Interstate 84/Route 8 Interchange — Complete early imple- mentation projects as recommended in the I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study (June 2010), including downtown circulation improvements and a new bridge across the Naugatuck River. Initiate design for the pre- ferred long-term alternative for the interchange Interstate 84/Route 8 Interchange — Upgrade the inter- change as recommended in the CTDOT interchange study. Interstate 84 West of Waterbury — Widen I-84 to three lanes in each direction from Route 8 in Waterbury to the New York state line, as recommended in the CTDOT re- port, I-84 West of Waterbury Needs and Defi ciencies Study (November 2001) and a comparable study for the Housa- tonic Valley Region. I-84/Rte 8 Interchange, Waterbury, COGCNV Aerial Flight April 2007 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 50 5 – Recommended Plan MAJOR S TATE H IGHWAYS A high priority is given to state highway corridors with current or anticipated traffi c congestion and high hazard accident locations. Th e fi ndings and recommendations of previously studied corridors are also considered. Route 69 in Waterbury — Recommendations for Route 69 from the COGCNV Study, Route 69 Traffi c Opera- tions Study: Final Report (2000). • Route 69 at Southmayd Road — Realign the South- mayd Road approach to Route 69 (Meriden Road). • Route 69 from East Main Street to Manor Avenue — Widen and improve lane confi guration at Route 69 and East Main Street intersection. Minor wid- ening at Manor Avenue intersection. • Route 69 and Wolcott Street from Long Hill Road to Lakewood Road — Major upgrade including street widening for additional lanes, double turn lanes, and raised median dividers. • Route 69 near Orchard Drive — Minor widening to allow motorists to bypass left-turning vehicles. Route 64 at Route 63 in Middlebury • Reconfi gure the Route 64/Route 63 intersection as recommended in the I-84 West of Waterbury Needs and Defi ciencies Study including a new connector road between the Route 64 and Route 63 inter- changes. Project 174-309. E. Main Street (SR 801) in Waterbury • Implement improvements at Scott Road and E. Main Street (SR 801) as planned for the I-84 Wa- terbury to Southington upgrade project. Route 73 in Watertown • Realign Route 73 in the vicinity of old railroad bridge abutment (near Rockdale Avenue) as recom- mended in the COGCNV Route 73 Corridor Study Waterbury to Watertown (1997). Project 153-118 Other Locations to be considered for further evaluation: Route 69 in Waterbury • Evaluate traffi c operations at Washington Avenue/ Union Street• Evaluate safety improvements between Frost Road and Richard Terrace, including the marking of ad- ditional travel lanes as recommended in the Route 69 Traffi c Operations Study. • Improve traffi c operations on Route 69 from Harp- ers Ferry Road to I-84. Route 63 in Naugatuck • Widen Route 63 near the intersection of interchange 26, Route 63, and S. Main Street (SR709) and per- form geometric improvements as recommended in the Route 8 Defi ciencies/Needs Study (Interchanges 22-30). • Study traffi c at major intersections between S. Main Street (SR 709) and Route 68 (Bridge Street) in Naugatuck. Route 10 in Cheshire • In southern Cheshire, investigate improvements at Route 42 and sections north to the Route 70/68 junctions. Also evaluate operations between Cook Hill Road and Route 42. • In northern Cheshire, investigate improvements in the vicinity of I-691 as well as between Maple Av- enue and Sandbank Road. West Main Street (SR 846/847) in Waterbury • Evaluate safety and congestion on W. Main from Route 8 to railroad bridge over W. Main (SR 847) east of Th omaston Ave. • Coordinate signals to improve traffi c fl ow on Grand Street and Meadow Street • Evaluate safety issues on Grand Street between Cot- tage Place and Leavenworth Street. Route 63 in Watertown • Evaluate area between Davis Street and French Street in Watertown. • Evaluate traffi c operations from Middlebury town line to Bunker Hill Road in Watertown. • Evaluate downtown area between French Street and Echo Lake Road in Watertown. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 51 5 -Recommended Plan Route 70 in Cheshire • Evaluate traffi c operations between Winslow Street and Route 10. Route 73 in Watertown • Improve signal timing at Buckingham Street, Hill-side Avenue, and Riverside Street/Davis Street. Route 6 in Th omaston • Evaluate traffi c and safety at E. Main Street and the Route 8 NB onramp. Route 42 in Prospect and Cheshire • Evaluate safety issues between Candee Road and In-verness Court. Meriden Road (SR 844) in Waterbury • Evaluate safety and congestion on Meriden Road at Frost Road. Chase Parkway (SR 845) in Waterbury • Evaluate safety issues on Chase Parkway at the I-84 overpass and at the intersection with Highland Av- enue. Route 68 in Naugatuck • Evaluate traffi c operations between Route 8 and Union City Road. URBAN H IGHWAY P ROJECTS Urban highway projects consist of high priority highway improvements for major roads in the urbanized portion of the CNVR. Projects were proposed by local offi cials for the Federal Highway Administration’s Surface Transporta- tion Program for urban areas (STP-Urban). COGCNV ranked the projects based on the importance of the road, its condition, its safety, the amount of use it received, and the proposed project’s impact on surrounding land uses. COGCNV’s prioritized list of projects also refl ects a funding balance between Waterbury and the rest of the urban area, each town’s proportional share of the region’s STP-U allocation, and the amount of STP-U funding a town has already received. Th e following set of priorities, grouped by urbanized area, are COGCNV’s approved project rankings. Projects that have been completed, moved to another funding pro- gram, or cancelled are excluded from the list. Figure 5.1 shows the location of the urban highway projects. Waterbury Urbanized Area (Beacon Falls, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, Woodbury) 1. Waterbury, Homer Street/Chase Avenue – Recon- struct and widen from Waterville Street to North Main Street 2. Waterbury, Aurora Street – Widen from Bunker Hill Road to Watertown Avenue. 3. Prospect, Scott Road II – Reconstruct and widen from Nicholas Court to Maria Hotchkiss Road. 4. Naugatuck, Cross Street – Reconstruct and widen from Route 8 to Route 63. 5. Waterbury, Boyden Street Extension – Construct new road east to Bucks Hill Road. 6. Prospect, Scott Road III – Reconstruct and widen Maria Hotchkiss Road to Route 69. Scott Road Construction, Prospect Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 52 5 – Recommended Plan § ¨¦84 § ¨¦84 § ¨¦691 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 t u6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 t u6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 t u6 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 $1 !8 !10 !7 “3 “4 “5 “6 !11 $2 !14 !15 !16 !17 !9 !12 !13 Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls ³ 024 1 Miles Urban – Proposed: Widening of Aurora St from Bunker Hill Rd to Watertown Ave, Waterbury Construct new road from Boyden St Ext. to Bucks Hill Rd, Waterbury Reconstruct and Widen Maria Hotchkiss Rd to Route 69, Prospect Reconstruct and widen Cross St from Route 8 to Route 63, Naugatuck !14 !17 !15 !16 Urban: Minor Widening of Scott Rd from Nicholas Ct to Maria Hotchkiss Rd, Prospect Major Widening of Chase Ave, Nottingham Terr. to N. Main St, Waterbury Widening of Homer St, Waterville St to Nottingham Terrace Reconstruction of Christian St, Oxford Realignment/Drainage Improvements CT 42 at King Rd, Cheshire !7 !10 !8 !9 !11 Surface Transportation Program Enhancement: Naugatuck River Pedestrian & Bicycle Greenway, Naugatuck Naugatuck River Pedestrian & Bicycle Greenway, Beacon Falls $1 $2 FHWA Safety Programs Intersection Improvements, Maple/Firehouse Rd, Naugatuck Install Signal, Washington St @ Sylvan Ave, Waterbury Realignment of Main St, Watertown Improvements and Traffic Signal, Woodtick Rd, Wolcott “3 “4 “5 “6 Urban – Anywhere: Rehab bridge over Lindley Brook, Wolcott Route 6 Pavement Preservation, Southbury-Woodbury !12 !13 Figure 5.1 Surface Transportation Program Projects in the Central Nauga tuck Valley Region: 2011 Source: Transportation Improvement Program 2010-2013, Council of Govern ments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 2010-2013, Connecticut Department of T ransportation, 2011 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 53 5 -Recommended Plan Bridgeport-Stamford Urbanized Area (Beacon Falls, Ox- ford, Southbury, Woodbury) 1. Oxford, Christian Street – Reconstruct and widen from Towner Lane to Robinson Lane. New Haven UA (Cheshire) 1. Cheshire, Route 42 – Reconstruct and realign from Rosemary Lane to Broadview Road. Hartford Urbanized Area (Th omaston) Th ere are currently no submitted or programmed CNVR projects. BRIDGES Four bridges in the CNVR that carry over 10,000 vehicles per day had suffi ciency ratings below 50 as of 2009. All will require rehabilitation or replacement in the near- term. 1. Naugatuck — Maple Street over the Naugatuck Riv- er 2. Waterbury — I-84 EB over I-84WB, Route 8, and the Naugatuck River 3. Waterbury — East Main Street over the Mad River 4. Oxford-Monroe — Route 34 over the Housatonic River COMMUTER S ERVICES 1. Install “Park and Ride” signs along Interstate 84 and Route 8, and at other lot sites in the region, to increase driver awareness of the region’s commuter lot facili- ties. 2. Install directional signs from expressway exits to the region’s commuter railroad stations. 3. Expand the commuter parking lot located at Route 63 and Interstate 84 in Middlebury to accommodate demand. 4. Continue monitoring the region’s commuter parking lots to determine lots warranting expansion or clos- ing. 5. Support construction of the New Britain – Hartford Busway and the extension of commuter express bus service from the busway to Waterbury. LOCAL BUS SERVICE 1. Ensure continued and stable funding to cover operat- ing expenses for the local bus service. 2. Modify bus routes and schedules based on the recom- mendations of CTDOT and COGCNV bus route studies. 3. Encourage replacement of damaged bus shelters and installation of additional shelters at heavily used boarding points. 4. Promote the CTTransit-Waterbury bus service, in- cluding up-to-date route schedules and maps and other marketing materials at key bus stops, on buses, and on the internet (CTTransit.com) 5. Construct a new bus maintenance facility for CT- Transit-Waterbury. 6. Replace the local bus fl eet in 2023, and 2035. 7. Work with North East Transportation, City of Water- bury, CTDOT, and major stakeholders on initiating evening bus service. 8. Initiate a circulator bus that would directly connect destinations in downtown Waterbury including the train station, hospitals, mall, and the Green. Commuter parking lot, Route 70 at I-84 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 54 5 – Recommended Plan SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION MINIBUS SERVICES 1. Provide stable funding for the regional minibus ser-vice for the disabled, including non-ADA transporta- tion services and dial-a-ride. 2. Continue to provide human services transportation information through United Way of Connecticut’s 2- 1-1 hotline. 3. Encourage and facilitate coordination among local transportation service providers to increase effi ciency and service capacities. 4. Provide technical assistance to the Greater Waterbury minibus service for the disabled. RAIL 1. Implement recommendations of the Waterbury Branch Line Study, including new passing sidings, signalization, and supplemental express buses. 2. Promote use of the Waterbury Branch line through marketing. 3. Improve maintenance, pedestrian and automobile cir- culation, security, and attractiveness of the Waterbury Train Station. a. Demolish the abandoned SNET building and parking garage to improve visibility of the station parking lot and platform from Meadow Street b. Construct a new surface parking lot. c. Investigate the reopening of the old train station baggage offi ce for use as a passenger waiting area and public restrooms. 4. Support eff orts for transit-oriented development in the region such as the Renaissance Place development in Naugatuck. JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE PROGRAM 1. Provide stable funding for JobLinks, the access-to-jobs transportation service for the four planning regions in Northwestern Connecticut. AIRPORT FACILITIES 1. Continue the Waterbury-Oxford Airport expansion plan and associated infrastructure improvements.a. Construction of a new hangar to increase capac- ity and improve aircraft operations. b. Construction of airport service roads. c. Obstruction removal and approach lighting sys- tem for Runway 36. 2. Expedite the process of acquiring properties in the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) under the voluntary property acquisition program. WALKWAYS, BIKEWAYS, AND GREENWAYS 1. Extend the multi-use Farmington Canal Trail from Cheshire to Southington. 2. Construct the proposed multi-use Naugatuck River Greenway Trail along the Naugatuck River, as recom- mended in the NRG routing study 3. Establish streetscapes, walkways, bike paths, and gre- enways in the region, especially connecting downtown areas with train stations, commuter parking facilities, bus stops, schools, residential areas, open spaces, and recreation areas. 4. Implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in the CNVR: 2010 and the 2009 State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan .a. Perform safety audits and implement low-cost improvements at high-hazard corridors and “hot spots” in the region as recommended in the Pe- destrian and Bicycle Safety study. b. Develop bike paths and shared use facilities along state routes as shown on the 2009 Connecticut Bicycle Map. FL-9 Train pulling into Naugatuck Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 55 5 -Recommended Plan 1 Pre-disaster miŸ gaŸ on plans have been completed for the enŸ re region and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These plans will be updated over the next three years if funding is approved. c. Direct funds from STP–Enhancement and the state Complete Streets set aside law to major bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities in the re- gion including the Farmington Canal Trail, Nau- gatuck River Greenway, and on-road state bicycle routes. 5. Upgrade sidewalks, curbs, and crosswalks to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 6. Support the planning of the Housatonic Riverbelt Greenway Trail in Oxford and Southbury. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS A CCESS M ANAGEMENT 1. Work to implement the recommendations of the Route 69 Traffi c Operations Study: Access Management (2002) for Waterbury, Prospect and Wolcott. 2. Encourage amendments to plans of conservation and development to reference the Route 69 Traffi c Opera- tions Study and other access management resources. 3. Encourage revisions to zoning and subdivision regula- tions and a strengthening of town road ordinances to refl ect the need for access management and to give specifi c guidance on its implementation based on the Route 69 Traffi c Operations Study. Such amendments would include sections pertaining to the purpose of the regulation, defi nitions, site plan approval process, required traffi c impact report with developments of a certain size, and other relevant requirements for a complete integration of access management require- ments. INTELLIGENT T RANSPORTATION S YSTEMS 1. Complete the installation of traffi c cameras and per- manent variable message signs along I-84 and Rte. 8. 2. Optimize traffi c signals in Waterbury to better facili- tate traffi c fl ow. 3. Initiate a 5-1-1 transportation information hotline. 4. Provide transit status and trip planning through the internet and mobile applications. TRANSPORTATION S ECURITY 1. In cooperation with the state police, DEMHS and its successor agency, and local municipalities, continue participating in traffi c diversion planning and exer- cises related to the approved Traffi c Diversion Plans for I-84 and Routes 7 and 8 and as well as other emer- gency management activities. 2. Include transportation security, as appropriate, in the activities of COGCNV’s Central Naugatuck Valley Emergency Planning Committee. 3. Assist in the development of municipal plans for pre- paredness, mitigation, response and recovery as it re- lates to transportation emergencies. 1 4. Participate on the Statewide Incident Management Task Force with other regional planning organiza- tions, state agencies, and local emergency responders to develop and promote incident management proj- ects. COMMUNITY C IRCULATION AND R OAD C ONNECTIVITY Connecting roads within communities is an important means of enhancing future traffi c circulation. While cul- de-sac streets are often favored by developers and residents, numerous unconnected roads concentrate traffi c on a few main roads in a municipality. Local street connections, in addition to pedestrian paths between neighborhoods, help bind communities together, increase social opportu- nities for children, and reduce parental “chauff euring” of children. Moreover, a lack of alternate traffi c circulation routes can create problems for emergency services. Each community should develop an overall traffi c circulation plan to meet future needs and establish policies that em- phasize connectivity and minimize cul-de-sacs. 1. Emphasize connectivity in developing local roads. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 56 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 57 APPENDIX A A PPENDIX A – L OCAL P RIORITIES F OR T RANSPORTATION P ROJECTS A priority list of local transportation projects was devel- oped from narrative reports provided by chief elected of- fi cials, municipal planning and zoning staff , and munici- pal engineers. Projects include state and local roads and bridges, bus service, paratransit services for the disabled and elderly, rail, multi-use paths, and streetscapes. COGCNV cannot guarantee that local priorities will match regional or state priorities, although inclusion of these projects in the plan was vital to the public comment process. COGCNV will assist municipalities with their priorities whenever possible. Each of these projects will be prioritized, evaluated, and, if deemed to be a regional and/or state priority, it will be moved into the “Recom- mended Plan” (section V of the Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan). Funding has been included for road projects that are moved into the “Recommended Plan” in the cost estimates, under item “Future road improve- ments in member towns.” Beacon Falls 1. Complete the corridor study for a connector road between Route 42 in Beacon Falls and Route 67 in Seymour. Continue participating in the study process with Beacon Falls, Seymour, and Valley Council of Governments 2. Straighten and widen the intersection of Lopus Road and Pines Bridge Road (Route 42). Th is intersection will see increased activity with the development of Pines Bridge Industrial Park. 3. Continue work to implement the Naugatuck River Greenway Routing Study as part of a regional and in- terregional proposal. Bethlehem 1. Improve sight lines and grading along Route 132 including intersections with Hard Hill Road; Non- newaug Road and Magnolia Hill Road; Carmel Hill Road; and Judge Lane.2. Improve sight lines at Route 61 intersection with Flanders Road. 3. Implement traffi c calming and access management along Main Street (Route 61) or evaluate traffi c con- gestion for other alternatives. 4. Improve sight lines at Double Hill and Munger Lane intersection. Cheshire 1. Continue development of the Farmington Canal Trail. 2. Implement traffi c calming techniques along Peck Lane and Cheshire Street. 3. Secure a shuttle to transport visitors to the prison. Middlebury 1. Evaluate traffi c congestion and safety concerns at Ab- botts Pond where the existing bridge crosses a pond. Preliminary designs have been completed. Environ- mental issues should be addressed with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 2. Implement traffi c calming strategies to deter non-lo- cal traffi c from using Tucker Hill and Regan Road as bypass roads. Naugatuck 1. Widen Cross Street, reconstruct retaining walls where necessary, and improve the intersection with Cotton Hollow Road. 2. Improve the intersection of Jones Road, Field Street, and Neumann Street. Th e intersection is dangerous; mirrors are used to create site lines. 3. Rubber Avenue Bridge, Maple Street Bridge, and Par- son’s Bridge (on Rubber Avenue) are listed as being in “poor” condition by the Connecticut Department of Transportation. Th ese bridges must be repaired. 4. Conduct a corridor study of Route 63, Route 68, and Rubber Avenue. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 58 APPENDIX A 5. A regional greenway is proposed along the Naugatuck River, and part of the conceptual plan is to link down- town Naugatuck with the train station commuter parking facilities, schools, recreation and open space areas, and the commercial and industrial zone. 6. Encourage economic development along Route 63, Rubber Avenue, and downtown Naugatuck by imple- menting transportation strategies. 7. Incorporate sidewalk repairs into road projects. 8. Widen Gunntown Road to provide safe access to rec- reational areas. 9. Straighten the curves on Mulberry Street between Simsberry and Hopkins Hill. 10. Install sidewalk on City Hill Street from John Street to City Brook Road. 11. Improve the intersection of Bridge Street (Rte. 68) and Spring Street. 12. Improve the intersection of Andrew Mt. Road and Andrew Avenue. 13. Improve the s-curve and grade on Hunters’ Mountain Road between Old Highway Road and Perock Lane. Oxford 1. Evaluate traffi c operations on Routes 42, 188, and 34 for possible improvements. 2. Construct a rear access road from Julianno Drive on the Waterbury-Oxford airport, connecting Christian Street with Woodruff Hill Road. Th is would provide access to the Towantic Energy Site and the Woodruff Hill Industrial Park and provide through traffi c ac- cess from Riggs Street via Prokop Road east of the airport. 3. Secure a shuttle for elderly residents. 4. Improve drainage along Quaker Farms Road (Route 188) north of Edmunds Road. 5. Th ere are eight skewed intersections along Route 67, remaining from where the old highway was located approximately seventy years ago. Sight lines should be improved on spurs along Route 67, from Chestnut Tree Hill Road to Hawley Road. Spurs demanding attention include Old State Road 67, Old State Road #3, Old State Road #2, and Old State Road #1. 6. Improve the intersection of Chestnut Tree Hill Road (Route 42), Oxford Road (Route 67), and Riggs Street. 7. Straighten Chestnut Tree Hill Road (Route 42) at its intersection with Oxford Road. Th e spur (Old State Route #3) should be eliminated, and the intersection should be at a 90 degree angle. 8. Widen Christian Street to accommodate additional traffi c to the airport and to a new school along the road. Curves along Christian Street, from Jacks Hill Road to Oxford Road, should be straightened and sight lines improved. 9. In conjunction with Oxford Greens, an elderly resi- dential and golf course complex, construct a planned greenway to connect the Naugatuck State Forest with the Larkin State Bridle Trail in Oxford. 10. Soften a major curve on Pines Bridge Road (Rte 42) at the intersection with Old Litchfi eld Turnpike (now a gravel road). Th is road is a heavily used route into and out of Beacon Falls. 11. Consider the impact on Oxford of construction on the Stevenson Dam and widening of Route 34 in Monroe and Shelton. Prospect 1. Conduct a corridor study of Route 68 through Pros- pect and Naugatuck, focusing on the intersection with Routes 69. Routes 68 and 69 are being used as an I-84 bypass, a situation that will worsen when construction begins on I-84 in eastern Waterbury. 2. Prepare for commercial development along Route 69 by implementing access management methods. 3. Determine the feasibility of JobLinks shuttle and fi xed route bus stops in Prospect (at industrial parks, downtown, and along the Route 69 corridor). 4. Determine and analyze commuting patterns through Prospect. Examine and deter use of bypass roads such as Clark Hill Road from Naugatuck to Waterbury. 5. Reassess signal timing along Route 69 in Prospect and Waterbury, and Route 68 (at the intersections with Straitsville Rd and Old Schoolhouse Road). Southbury 1. Secure funding for Pomperaug River Bridge repairs. 2. Improve the Route 188 and Old Waterbury Road in- tersection with addition of right turn. 3. Reconstruct River Road. 4. Install sidewalk on the south side of East Hill Road from one lane bridge to Hillhouse Road. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 59 APPENDIX A 5. Improve intersection of Burma Rd. and Rte 67. 6. Reconstruct Old Field Road and include sidewalks from Main St to Heritage Road. 7. Implement recommendations of the Interstate 84 West of Waterbury Needs and Defi ciencies Transpor- tation Study. 8. Realign Tuttle Road to reduce horizontal curve. 9. Implement the recommendations of the Route 67 Traffi c Operations Study. 10 Conduct a corridor study of Route 6 from Interstate 84 to Woodbury. Thomaston 1. Participate in a Route 6 corridor study. 2. Monitor any high volume-capacity major routes. 3. Monitor existing bus and JobLinks services. 4. Participate in planning a regional greenway along the Naugatuck River. Waterbury 1. Demolish Prospect Street ramp-garage and replace as a regional surface lot serving the downtown central business district. 2. Implement improvements to the rail station, includ- ing the demolition of the former SNET building. 3. Improve Aurora Street from CT Route 73 to Bunker Hill Avenue. 4. Improve Pearl Lake Road as defi ned in the currently proposed design. 5. Identify and acquire properties necessary for the con- struction of the Naugatuck River Greenway project. 6. Improve arterial and collector roads operating at or below acceptable service levels. Th ese include: Homer St, Boyden St., Huntingdon Ave., North Main Street, and East Main Street. 7. Provide evening and week-end bus service to the Nau- gatuck Valley Community College. 8. Improve community safety and transportation circula- tion by connecting existing fragmented roads includ- ing the following: Academy Ave., Arden Rd., Belmont Ave., Bristol St., Columbia Blvd., Farrington Ave., Filmore St., Gertrude Ave., Geddes Terrace, Grassy Hill Rd., Hauser St., Hotchkiss St., Hull St., Inman Ave., Jackson St., Lucille St., Maple St., Mason Ave., Warren Ave., Waverly Ave., and Westwood Ave. Watertown 1. Evaluate traffi c congestion on Straits Turnpike (Route 63) in the vicinity of the Stop and Shop plaza for traf- fi c operation improvements. 2. Alleviate congestion along Main Street (Route 63) with a bypass along the former railroad track, or by creating a new road adjacent to Steele Brook. 3. Construct sidewalks along Main Street connecting the public library and town hall; connecting elderly housing and a school on Buckingham Street with downtown Watertown and Main Street (Route 63); connecting residential housing on Davis Street with Straits Turnpike (Route 63). Link sidewalk projects with the regional Naugatuck River greenway (pro- posed). 4. Improve existing bus shelters, and install new shelters (without advertising). 5. Add access management techniques to zoning regula- tions, such as a provision for sharing driveways along primary arterials. 6. Request an easement for the Naugatuck River green- way at the site of the new North East Transportation bus garage. 7. Continue eff orts to make town sidewalks wheelchair accessible. 8. Develop Steele Brook Greenway. 9. Improve Bunker Hill Road between Straits Turnpike and Quassapaug Road to address safety concerns. 10. Alleviate congestion on Main Street in Oakville (Rte 73) between Pin Shop Road and Route 73. 11. Construct improvements to Sunnyside Avenue and Sylvan Lake Road projects. Wolcott 1. Analyze traffi c operations on the bridge on Wolcott Road (Route 69) at Center Street (Route 322) for pos- sible improvement. 2. Redesign the intersection of Woodtick Road, Todd Road, and Scovill Road to improve sight lines. 3. Improve sight lines at the intersection of Wolcott Road (Route 69) and Charles Drive. 4. Improve sight lines at the intersection of Wolcott Road (Route 69) and MacCormack Drive. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 60 APPENDIX A 5. Improve the intersection of Todd Road and Meriden Road (State Road 844), by tree trimming and minor widening. 6. Consider a greenway along Route 69 in the town cen- ter as highlighted in the draft Village Center Study done by the University of Connecticut, Program of Landscape Architecture. 7. Monitor the intersection of Woodtick Road and Lind- sley Drive. Woodbury 1. Conduct a corridor study along Route 6 through Th omaston, Woodbury, and Southbury to examine the following intersections: Main Street (Route 6) and Sherman Hill Road (Route 64); Main Street (Route 6), Judson Avenue, and Old Middle Road Turnpike; Main Street (Route 6) and Sycamore Avenue (State Road 317). Th e study should include the impact of traffi c from Bethlehem along Flanders Road. 2. Implement traffi c calming mechanisms, rather than impose traffi c lights or street widening, along Main Street. 3. Conduct an access management study along Rte 6 to connect commercial parking lots and consolidate curb cuts. Include recommendations in land use reg- ulations.4. Create a pedestrian friendly Main Street by improving crosswalks, providing amenities such as benches and providing tourist conveniences. Encourage greater walking to schools by Woodbury youth. 5. Secure a shuttle for weekend use along Main Street to transport tourists and shoppers and alleviate conges- tion. 6. Evaluate safety improvements at: Old Town Farm Rd.; Rte. 6 intersection with Quonopaug Trail, Flanders Rd., Middle Road Turnpike, and South Pomperaug Ave. & Old Sherman Hill Rd.; Rte. 64 intersection with Old Sherman Hill Rd. & Middle Quarter Rd., and Heritage Dr.; Rte. 317 intersection with Hol- low Rd; Old Sherman Hill Rd intersection with Judd Hill Rd; White Deer Rocks Rd intersection with Old Middle Road Turnpike; and the single lane bridge on Middle Quarter Rd. 7. Conduct inspections of all bridges with a span of less than 20 feet, with particular attention to those that are structurally defi cient or functionally obsolete. Ap- ply for state funds to repair those that pose a serious safety risk. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 61 APPENDIX B Federal funding is determined by authorizations estab- lished under SAFETEA-LU. As of December 2010, Congress has extended the federal transportation act while it drafts a new federal tranportation bill. Most fed- eral transportation program funds are apportioned by for- mula using factors relevant to the specifi c program. Some are discretionary programs. Explanations of each highway and transit funding programs, including eligible uses of funds, limitations, federal and state funding ratios, and availability are presented below. FEDERAL H IGHWAY A DMINISTRATION P ROGRAMS Th e Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the fed- eral funding source for highway projects: High Priority Projects (HPP) (80/20) High Priority Project funds are made available for spe- cifi c projects identifi ed by Congress. Th ese projects are referred to as demonstration projects. Section 330, 115, & 117 (100/0) Th e program provides 100% federal funding to projects designated by Congress. Th ey are commonly referred to as earmark funds. FHWA Interstate Maintenance (I-M) (90/10) Th e Interstate Maintenance Program provides funding to rehabilitate, restore, and resurface the interstate high- way system. Th e program will not fund projects that add new travel lanes unless the lanes are designated as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Eligible projects include reconstruction of bridges, interchanges, and overpasses, and acquisition of right-of-way along existing interstates. Funding can only be used on interstate highways. Federal funds can be used to pay up to 90 percent of a project’s cost. A State match of 10 percent is required. FHWA National Highway System (NHS) (80/20) National Highway System (NHS) funds can be used for any type of improvement on roadways designated as part of the National Highway System. Th ese include all inter- state routes, strategic highway connectors, and specially designated “principal arterial” roadways. Funds can be used for transit projects, ridesharing projects, or any other type of project on an NHS road, as long as the project im- proves travel in the corridor. Funding for the NHS pro- gram comes from federal funds (80%) matched by state funds (20%). National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) (100) Th e State of Connecticut is annually assessed a 3% penal- ty from its NHS, STP, and IM program to the State’s 402 Safety Program because it does not meet Federal Open Container Legislation Requirements under 23.U.S.C. 154. CTDOT programs these funds towards hazard elimination eligible projects. Th e program is designed to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce economic costs due to road traffi c crashes, through education, research, safety standards and enforcement activities. Th e funding ration is 100 percent Federal. Surface Transportation Program (STP) (80/20) Th e Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds proj- ects for roads classifi ed below the Interstate system or the NHS, but functionally classifi ed above local roads. Th e STP is further divided into six subprograms: FHWA Surface Transportation Program – Anywhere (STPA) Th irty percent of STP funds are allocated to the Surface Transportation Program-Anywhere (STP-A) program. Th ese funds can be used anywhere in the state, regardless of rural or urban designation and for any type of trans- portation project. CTDOT determines where the funds will be spent. Th e funding ratio for the STP-Anywhere A PPENDIX B – T RANSPORTATION F UNDING S OURCES FEDERAL FUNDING Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 62 APPENDIX B Program is 80% federal funds to be matched by 20% state funds or 20% local funds for rural minor collector roads. FHWA Safety Program, HSIP Rural & Other (HSIP) (90/10) Th e program authorizes a new Federal-aid funding pro- gram to achieve a signifi cant reduction in traffi c fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. FHWA Surface Transportation Program – Reinvestment and Recovery (STRR) (100) Th e program provides MPOs federal funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Funds are al- located to the MPOs according to a formula that is based on the population of the urban area. Th ese funds may be used by states and municipalities for roadway improve- ments on roads that are functionally classifi ed as rural major collector or above. Functional classifi cation of ru- ral minor collector or local road is not eligible. Funds can be used for a wide range of projects, such as roadway widening, roadway reconstruction, transit projects, and ridesharing projects. FHWA Surface Transportation Program Th e Surface Transportation Program is intended to ben- efi t collector and minor arterial roads, rather than the principal arterials funded by the Interstate Maintenance and National Highway System Programs. In order to be eligible for funding, a road must be classifi ed as a col- lector or arterial; local roads are not eligible. Fifty per- cent of all STP funds are reserved for the Urban Surface Transportation Program (STP-U), the largest of all the STP programs. Funds are allocated to states and regions according to a formula based on the population of the ur- ban area. Funds can be used for a wide range of projects, such as road widening, reconstruction, transit projects, and ridesharing projects. Funding for STP-U projects comes from federal funds (80%) matched by state and/or local funds (20%). Th e FHWA distinguishes between large urban areas (with populations of over 200,000 people) and small urban ar- eas (with populations between 50,000 and 200,000 peo- ple). Th e Waterbury Urbanized Area, the major urban area in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region (CNVR) is considered a small urban area. Th e STP-Other Urban is the subcategory of the STP-U Program for small urban areas. All other program guidelines are the same as for the STP-U program. Th e CNVR also has portions of the Bridgeport-Stamford, New Haven, and Hartford Urban- ized Areas (See Figure B.1). Each of these has its own STP-U allocation. After the 2010 US Census is released, the federal Offi ce of Management and Budget will redraw urbanized area boundaries based on urban population. COGCNV ranks projects based on the functional clas- sifi cation of the road, its condition, its accident history, the amount of use, and the proposed project’s impact on surrounding land uses. COGCNV’s prioritized list of projects also refl ects each town’s proportional share of the region’s STP-Other Urban allocation and the amount of funding a town has already received. In order to be eligible for STP-Other Urban funds, roadways must be classifi ed as minor collectors or higher in urban areas and major collectors or higher in rural areas. Local roads are not eligible. FHWA Surface Transportation Program – Rural (STP-R) Th e Surface Transportation Program-Rural is a subcat- egory of the STP-A program. A certain proportion of the STP-A funds must be spent in rural areas with a popula- tion of less than 5,000 people. Th e amount of funding allocated for rural areas is based on miles of roadway that were part of a previous federal program known as the ru- ral secondary program. STP-Rural program funds can be used for any type of transportation project. FHWA Surface Transportation Program – Transportation Enhancement (STPT) Ten percent of all STP funds must be spent on Surface Transportation Program-Enhancement (STP-Enhance- ment) projects. Transportation enhancement projects must relate to the intermodal transportation system by reason, function, proximity, or impact and must fall un- der one of the following twelve federally-eligible enhance- ment project areas: 1. Provides facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. 2. Acquires scenic easements and scenic or historic sites. 3. Provides scenic or historic highway programs includ- ing tourist and welcome center facilities. 4. Provides landscaping or scenic beautifi cation. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 63 APPENDIX B Figure B.1 Urbanized Area Boundaries: 2000 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 t u6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 t u6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 t u6 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 ” )8 Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls ³ 0241Miles Federal Highway Administration Urbanized Area Boundaries Bridgeport – Stamford Hartford New Haven Waterbury Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2000 Expanded Urbanized Area Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 64 APPENDIX B 5. Provides historic preservation. 6. Rehabilitates and allows for the operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities (in- cluding historic railroad facilities and canals). 7. Preserves abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails). 8. Removes (or regulates) the use of outdoor advertis- ing. 9. Provides for archaeological planning and research. 10. Mitigates water pollution due to highway runoff or reduces wildlife mortality caused by motor vehicles while maintaining habitat connectivity. 11. Provides safety and educational activities for pedestri- ans and bicyclists. 12. Establishes transportation museums. Each Regional Planning Organization (RPO) submits its highest priority STP-Enhancement projects to CTDOT for consideration. CTDOT evaluates and ranks the pri- ority regional projects. Funding for STP-Enhancement projects comes from federal funds (80%) matched by lo- cal funds (20%). FHWA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) (80/20) Th e Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program directs funds toward transportation projects in Clean Air Act non-attainment areas for ozone and carbon monoxide. Th ese projects will contribute to meeting the attainment of national ambient air quality standards. In determining project eligibility, priority is given to proj- ects and programs included in an approved State Imple- mentation Plan (SIP). Each state is guaranteed at least 0.5% of the annual nationwide CMAQ apportionment. Th e remaining CMAQ funds are apportioned to states in ozone and carbon monoxide non-attainment zones. Th e CNVR is within a non-attainment zone for Ozone and Particulate Matter (PM 2.5). Many CMAQ projects qualify for 100% federal funding, while other projects qualify for a split (80% federal, 20% state). All CMAQ funded projects require an assessment and documenta- tion of air quality benefi ts by the State of Connecticut. FHWA Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program Bridge On/Off System (BRXZ) (80/20) Th e program provides funds to assist States in their pro- grams to rehabilitate defi cient highway bridges and retro- fi t bridges on public roads. It has two subcategories: Bridge Program: On System Th e FHWA On-System Bridge Program is the primary federal bridge program. Funds may be used to replace or rehabilitate bridges on the federal aid road system that are classifi ed as a collector or higher. CTDOT regularly inspects and rates the condition of bridges. Projects are selected from the list of bridges with “poor” or “fair” con- dition ratings. Municipal bridges are not typically consid- ered in the selection process. Funding comes from federal sources (80%) matched by state sources (20%). Bridge Program: Off System Th e FHWA Off -System Bridge Program provides funds to replace or rehabilitate bridges that are not on the fed- eral-aid road system. CTDOT inspects and rates the con- dition of local as well as state bridges. Projects are selected the same way as in the On-System Bridge Program. Since most state roads are on the federal aid road system, they usually do not qualify for the program. Many of the fund- Bridge over Naugatuck River on Route 63, Naugatuck Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 65 APPENDIX B ed projects are municipal bridges. Funding comes from federal sources (80%) matched by state sources (20%). Th e Local Bridge Program is a subset of the FHWA Off – System Bridge Program. To qualify for the Local Bridge Program, a bridge must carry a certifi ed local road and be structurally defi cient according to Federal Highway Ad- ministration criteria. Bridges must be located on roads functionally classifi ed as “rural local roads,” “rural minor collectors,” or “urban local roads.” Bridges are qualifi ed if the physical condition of the deck, superstructure or sub- structure (piers and abutments and surrounding areas), or culverts are rated “poor” or worse (“serious,” “criti- cal,” or in “imminent failure”). Th e carrying capacity of the bridge and structural integrity are the most heavily weighted factors in calculating the bridge’s suffi ciency rating. Serviceability, functional obsolescence, and es- sentiality for public use are also considered in CTDOT’s numerical formula. Bridges over 20 feet in length are in- spected biannually. When a local bridge is included in the program, the municipality retains responsibility for sur- vey studies, preliminary and fi nal design, material testing, right-of-way activities, and construction supervision and inspection. Grants are available based on an assessment of a town’s ability to pay. Th e town’s contribution ranges from 10 to 33% of the total cost of the project depending on the ranking of the bridge. Funding is available at the construction phase, with reimbursement of preliminary studies, engineering, and property acquisition costs. FHWA Recreational Trails Program (RT) (80/20) Th e program provides funding to the Department of En- vironmental Protection (DEP) to develop and maintain recreational trails for motorized and nonmotorized recre- ational trail users. Th e DEP will forward applications to park and recreation directors or chief elected offi cials in each municipality. Safe Routes to School (SRSN) (100/0) Th e program is designed to enable and encourage chil- dren, including those with disabilities, to walk and bi- cycle to school, and to help plan, develop, and imple- ment projects that will improve safety, reduce traffi c, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools. Funds will be administered by CTDOT, and state, lo- cal, and regional agencies, including non-profi t organiza-tions, will be eligible to apply for funding for proposed projects. FEDERAL T RANSIT A DMINISTRATION Th e Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the federal funding source for transit projects: FTA Section 5307 Transit Capital and Operating FTA Section 5307 funds are primarily for capital assis- tance projects, such as the purchase of new buses. A small portion of the funds are reserved for operating assistance; federal regulations restrict the amount that can be used for operating assistance. Section 5307 funds are pooled and applied fi rst to the highest priority bus needs as iden- tifi ed in regional TIPs and the STIP. Th e FTA provides 80% of Section 5307 funds, and CTDOT provides the non-federal share for all local bus systems in Connecti- cut. FTA Section 5309 Capital (5309) (80/20) With Section 5309 funds, the FTA provides capital fund- ing to establish new rail projects (“New Starts”), improve and maintain existing rail and other fi xed guideway sys- tems, and rehabilitate bus systems. New Start funds are awarded on a discretionary basis. Proposed new rail ser- vices must compete against proposals from other areas of the country. Section 5310 Capital (5310) Under Section 5310, the FTA provides capital assistance to non-profi t organizations that provide specialized trans- portation for elderly people and persons with disabilities and certain public organizations. Th e program provides cash grants from the federal government of up to 80% or a maximum of $40,000 towards the purchase of wheel- chair-accessible vehicles. Many CNVR municipalities and non-profi t agencies have used Section 5310 grants to purchase or replace vehicles FTA Section 5311 Non-Urbanized and Small Urban Areas Th e program provides funds to assist in the development, improvement, and use of public transportation systems in non-urbanized and small urban areas. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 66 APPENDIX B FTA Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (5316G) (50/50) Th e Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program funds transportation services designed to transport wel- fare recipients to and from jobs and activities related to their employment. Th e Department of Social Services (DSS) also provides funding for the program through the Temporary Family Assistance program. JobLinks is the CNVR’s Job Access and Reverse Commute program, providing transportation services through North East Transportation (NET) and Managed Transportation Ser- vices (MTS), an NET subcontractor. FTA Section 5317 New Freedom Initiative (5317J) (50/50 operations, 80/20 capital) Th e program funds projects that provide transportation assistance to individuals with disabilities. Eligible proj- ects include new public transportation services and pub- lic transportation alternatives beyond those required by the ADA. STATE OF CONNECTICUT FUNDING Th e Special Transportation Fund (STF) supports debt service on state bonds issued to pay for transportation projects (including matching federal funds), and it sup- ports a small program of pay-as-you-go activities. Th e major sources of STF dollars are the motor fuels tax and motor vehicle receipts. LOCAL FUNDING Some funding programs require a local match from the municipality where a project is located to match federal and/or state funds. Local funding may include bonding, LOCIP, or other sources. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 67 APPENDIX C A PPENDIX C – M ETROPOLITAN P LANNING F ACTORS AND S IX L IVABILITY P RINCIPLES Metropolitan Planning Factors Under SAFETEA-LU, the metropolitan planning pro- cess should consider projects and strategies that will ad- dress eight planning factors. Th e eight factors and how the transportation plan addresses them are summarized below: 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and effi ciency. Th e “Recommended Plan” in Chapter 5 addresses this factor through its focus on the improvement of major expressways, arterials, and bridges. Operational improvements to the interchanges on I-84 and Route 8, including a major upgrade of the “mixmaster,” will also support the economic vitality of the region. Sup- port for improvements at Waterbury-Oxford Airport (OXC) will also foster economic growth, create jobs, and enable the region to increase its global competi- tiveness. In addition, a great deal of attention is given to the support and promotion of commuter and transit services, including the Job Access and Reverse Com- mute program. Continued funding of these services, as suggested in Chapter 5, is crucial to the region’s economic vitality. Transportation enhancements, such as the greenways and bikeways recommended in the Plan, will also foster economic activity. 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users. COGCNV supports the program areas of emphasis that have been developed by the CTDOT and are summarized in Appendix E. High hazard accident lo- cations, where safety improvements should be target- ed, are discussed specifi cally in Chapter 3, “Existing Transportation System,” and Appendix A of the Plan. Th ere is also regional support for the installment of intelligent transportation systems which is discussed in the Plan. In addition, COGCNV requests applications annu- ally for the Local Road Accident Reduction Program, funding hazardous locations on local roads that are not part of the federal aid road system. 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users. COGCNV works actively with its municipalities as staff of the Central Naugatuck Valley Emergency Planning Committee (CNVEPC), which includes area police and fi re departments, Northwest Public Safety, EMS, Red Cross and others. Th e CNVEPC was made a standing committee of the COGCNV in 2007, and it works closely with the Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) Region 5. Under the guidance of the Re- gion 5 Coordinator, a Regional Emergency Operations Plan has been adopted and other Region 5 planning activities, training, and equipment needs organized. In 2010, Region 5 hired Wilbur Smith to develop di- version plans for Interstate 84 and CT Route 7 and 8 with the assistance of CTDOT, DEMHS, state police, and municipalities. Th is project was administered by COGCNV staff . A functional exercise, including of- fi cials from CNVR municipalities was conducted in April 2011. COGCNV staff also participates on the Statewide Incident Management Task Force with other RPOs, state agencies, and local emergency responders to de- velop and promote incident management projects. 68 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley APPENDIX C 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight. Accessibility and mobility of people and freight are discussed extensively in Chapter 3. Within Chap- ter 3, the variety of transportation options in the region are described in detail, including highways, buses, commuter services, para-transit services, and rail. With most of the goods being transported on the region’s highway network, alleviating congestion on the expressways remains a high priority to ensure the mobility of goods. Multi-modal transportation, transportation enhancements, and specialized trans- portation are discussed in Chapters 3 and 5 as ways to improve accessibility and mobility of people. 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation im- provements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns. Th rough COGCNV’s eff orts to support and devel- op walkways, bikeways, and greenways, alternatives to motorized modes of transportation are fostered. Cleaner air and cleaner water are products of reduced dependence on motorized vehicles. Th rough these initiatives, the quality of life for CNVR residents is also improved. As a result of the integration of walkways, bikeways, and greenways into the transportation system, energy consumption should decrease. Increased use of pas- senger train, local bus, and car and vanpools will also improve air quality. Th ese transportation options are discussed in detail in Chapters 3 and 5. Th e State and Regional Plans of Conservation and Development, which also link transportation and land use planning, are considered in various land use referrals, environ- mental reviews, and other staff reports on land use. 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight. Multi-modal transportation, transportation enhance- ments, and specialized transportation are discussed in Chapters 3 and 5 as an opportunity to improve the transfer between modes of transportation (for exam- ple: from train to bus, from intercity bus to local bus). Moving people, rather than moving vehicles, provides walking and bicycling as transportation alternatives. Off ering seamless travel — from foot to train, from bike to bus, from car to vanpool — increases the over- all effi ciency and reliability of the transportation net- work. Chapter 5 also includes a recommendation to con- sider community circulation and road connectivity in land use planning and development. 7. Promote effi cient system management and opera- tion. Th e development of the Long Range Regional Trans- portation Plan promotes effi cient system management and operation. All of the transportation modes in the region are considered in developing the Plan and rec- ommendations with consideration given to existing and future transportation needs and a reasonable ex- pectation of funding availability. In the Introduction section, COGCNV states: “Th e plan must consider the entire range of transportation choices and be fi nancially con- strained. All proposed projects must be consis- tent with the amount of funding that can be rea- sonably expected to be available.” I-84 westbound, Waterbury Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 69 APPENDIX C 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transpor-tation system. As part of COGCNV’s goals and objectives in Chap- ter 1, the preservation of the existing transportation system is highlighted as follows: GOAL: To develop and maintain an effi cient transportation system that will provide the public with a high level of mobility, safety, and choice, while also addressing social, economic, and environmental needs and concerns Objective 2: To maintain and improve the region’s highway system with an emphasis on making better use of existing transportation facilities while seeking to improve safety and security and reducing traffi c congestion, energy consumption, and motor vehicle emissions. (emphasis added). The Partnership for Sustainable Communities’ Six Livability Principles In June 2009, the U.S. Department of Housing and Ur- ban Development (HUD), U.S. Department of Transpor- tation (USDOT), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formed the Partnership for Sustainable Communi- ties in order to help all communities gain better access to aff ordable housing, more transportation options, and support economic growth. Th e Partnership agreed on Six Livability Principles to support these eff orts. Th ese liva- bility principles will be considered as part of COGCNV’s transportation planning process. • Provide more transportation choices. Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to de- crease household transportation costs, reduce our na- tion’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health. • Promote equitable, aff ordable housing. Expand loca- tion-and energy-effi cient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation. • Enhance economic competitiveness. Improve eco- nomic competitiveness through reliable and timely ac- cess to employment centers, educational opportunities, services, and other basic needs by workers, as well as expanded business access to markets. • Support existing communities. Target Federal funding toward existing communities—through strategies like transit oriented, mixed-use development, and land re- cycling—to increase community revitalization and the effi ciency of public works investments and safeguard rural landscapes. • Coordinate and leverage Federal policies and invest- ment. Align Federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding, and increase the accountability and eff ectiveness of all levels of gov- ernment to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such as locally generated renew- able energy. • Value communities and neighborhoods. Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walk able neighborhoods—rural, urban, or suburban. S Main St. (Route 10), Cheshire Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 70 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 71 APPENDIX D A PPENDIX D – F INANCIAL C ONSTRAINTS Th e Central Naugatuck Valley Region (CNVR) can antic- ipate $2.9 billion dollars in road project funding between 2011 and 2040, according to Connecticut Department of Transportation projections. Th is is 11.5% of the pro- jected statewide spending on roads. Additional money will be spent on rail and bus capital improvement and operating subsidies in the CNVR. Th e majority of the CNVR’s future road project funding will be spent on widening I-84 from Waterbury to South- ington and replacing the “mixmaster” interchange at I-84 and Route 8 in Waterbury. Th e remaining money will be required for system preservation and improvement proj- ects. System preservation projects maintain existing roads and include road repaving, bridge repair or replacement, and any other form of reconstruction in place. System improvement projects build new road infrastructure and include such projects that enhance safety, improve mo- bility, increase system productivity, or promote economic growth. (See Tables D.1 and D.2). Th e largest transit projects anticipated in the CNVR between 2011 and 2040 are the construction of a bus maintenance garage in Watertown for CT Transit-Wa- terbury and improvements to the Waterbury branch rail line (passing sidings and signalization). Other major ex- penditures include fi xed route and paratransit bus fl eet replacements. Several complete fl eet replacements will be required between 2011 and 2040. Th e rail coaches serv- ing the Waterbury branch will need rehabilitation and re- placement during the planning period. Annual operating subsidies for fi xed route bus, paratransit, and commuter rail (Waterbury branch line) services in the CNVR are also expected to continue between 2011 and 2040. (See Table D.3) Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 72 APPENDIX D D.1 Allocation of Anticipated Transportation Funds for the CNVR 2011-2040 RoadsEstimated Year of ExpenditureEstimated Expenditures CNVR System Preservation (details in Table D.2)2011-2040 $580,238,962 CNVR System Improvements (details in Table D.2)2011-2040 $434,576,855 Major Projects of Statewide Signifi cance $1,904,200,000 Waterbury I-84 Replace Sanitary Sewer Station at Harpers Ferry Rd (151-285) $18,000,000 2012 Waterbury I-84 Widening I-84 ito three lanes in each direction and modify interchanges between Rte. 69 and Pierpont Rd. (151-273) $450,000,000 2018 Waterbury I-84 Upgrade the interchange and nearby ramps as recommended in the I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs and Defi ciencies Study (151-TBD) $1,600,000,000 2035 Southbury, Middlebury, Waterbury I-84 Complet early implementaŸ on projects at defi cient interchanges as recommended in the I-84 West of Waterbury study (130-173)$17,828,000 unfunded Southbury, Middlebury, Waterbury I-84 Widen to three lanes from interchanges 13-18$1,101,478,000 unfunded Total Road Project Funding for the CNVR 2011-2040 $2,919,015,817 D.2 Anticipated Highway Expenditures for the CNVR 2011-2040 RoadsEstimated Year of ExpenditureEstimated Expenditures CNVR System Preservation 2011-2040 $580,238,962 Naugatuck Maple St. Bridge Rehabilitation over Naugatuck River, Project (9087-4214)$3,800,000 2012 Waterbury E. Main St. Bridge Rehab over Mad River (9151-3741) $450,000 2012 Waterbury I-84 WB Bridge Rehab near Rte 8, (0151-0312) $12,200,000 2015 Waterbury I-84 EB Bridge Rehab near Rte 8 , (0151-0313) $17,000,000 2015 Balance remaining for unscheduled projects$546,788,962 CNVR System Improvements 2011-2040 $434,576,855 Watertown Rte. 73 Realign at RR abutment (153-118) $2,300,000 2010-2013 TIP Waterbury Homer St./ Chase Ave.Reconstruct and widen from Waterville Rd. to North Main St. (151-296, 151-297)$18,000,000 2010-2013 TIP Prospect Scott Rd. Reconstruct and widen Nicholas Ct. to Maria Hotchkiss Rd. (114-081)$2,500,000 2010-2013 TIP Oxford Christian St.Reconstruct and widen from Towner Ln. to Robinson Ln. (107-166)$2,500,000 2010-2013 TIP Cheshire Rte. 42 Reconstruct and realign from Rosemary Lane to Broadview Rd. (025-138)$1,870,000 2010=2013 TIP Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 73 APPENDIX D D.2 Anticipated Highway Expenditures for the CNVR 2011-2040 continued CNVR System Improvements continued2011-2040 Waterbury Rte. 69 Improve traffi c operations on Rte. 69 from Harpers Ferry Road to I-84 partially includ- ed in project 151-273 2015 Waterbury Scott Rd. Implement improvements at Scott Road and E. Main. included in project 151-73 2015 Cheshire Rte. 10 Various intersection improvements and signal coordination.TBD TBD Waterbury Rte. 69 Widen and improve lane confi gurations at Rte. 69 and E. Main St. Minor widening at Rte. 69 and Manor Ave.$1,516,000 2020 Waterbury Rte. 69 Major upgrade from Long Hill at Wolcott St. to Wolcott Rd. (Rte 69) at Lakewood Rd.$24,400,000 2020 Waterbury Aurora St. Widen from Bunker Hill Rd. to Watertown Ave. $4,887,000 2020 Naugatuck Cross St. Reconstruct and widen from Rte. 8 to Rte 63 $4,000,000 2020 Prospect Scott Rd. Reconstruct and widen Maria Hotchkiss Rd. to Rte. 69$4,584,000 2020 Waterbury New Boyden Street Extension $18,000,000 2020 Waterbury New New local connection from Sunnyside Av- enue to Field Street as recommended in the I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs and Defi ciencies Study (151-TBD)$85,124,000 2020 Waterbury New New local connection from West Main Street to Bank Street as recommended in the I-84/ Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs and Defi ciencies Study (151-TBD )$32,146,000 2020 Waterbury New New local connection from Bank Street to South Main Street as recommended in the I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs and Defi ciencies Study (151-TBD)$23,526,000 2020 Waterbury Downtown WaterburySignal timing and coordination and traffi c sign improvements as recommended in the I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs and Defi ciencies Study (151-TBD)$2,394,000 2020 Middlebury, WaterburyNew Construct a new two-way connector road- way (Chase Parkway Extension) between Route 63 and Route 64 (174-309)$8,300 2020 Waterbury Rte. 69 Realign the Southmayd Road approach to Rte. 69 (Meriden Road).$288,000 2030 Prospect Rte. 69 Minor widening to allow motorists to bypass left-turning vehicles.$1,749,000 2030 Middlebury, WaterburyRte. 64 Lower the vertical curve and widen Route 64 to 4-lanes from Exit 17 to the Route 63 intersection. $5,700 2020 Naugatuck Rte. 63 At intersection with Rte. 8 Interchange 26 and S. Main Street (SR 709)$11,725,000 2030 Balance remaining for unscheduled projects$231,948,855 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 74 APPENDIX D D.3 Anticipated Transit Expenditures for the CNVR 2011-2040 Transit (capital)Estimated Year of ExpenditureEstimated Expenditures CT Transit – Waterbury Bus Garage 2013 $70,000,000 Bus Fleet Replacements (assuming constant fl eet and vehicle size) 34 hybrid buses 2023 $28,761,253 34 hybrid buses 2035 $41,006,669 Para-Transit Fleet Replacements (assuming constant fl eet and vehicle size) 19 paratransit vans 2011 $1,121,000 36 paratransit vans 2015 $2,390,581 36 paratransit vans 2019 $2,690,620 36 paratransit vans 2023 $3,028,316 36 paratransit vans 2027 $3,408,396 36 paratransit vans 2031 $3,836,180 36 paratransit vans 2035 $4,317,655 36 paratransit vans 2039 $4,859,558 Waterbury Branch Line Improvements Passing Siding$32,000,000 Signalization$128,000,000 Transit (operating subsidies for current services) Waterbury Area Fixed Route Bus Service (cost in FY10) $4,917,483 GWTD Paratransit Service (cost in FY10) $2,712,031 Waterbury Branch Line Commuter Rail (cost in CY09) $7,479,491 75 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 75 APPENDIX E Th e general goals of the State of Connecticut Highway Safe- ty Plan: Federal Fiscal Year 2011 are: • To increase safety belt use rates and remain at a level that is consistently above the national average. • To continue to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes occurring in construction/work zone ar- eas. • To develop a delivery system to provide timely, com- plete, accurate, uniform, integrated, and accessible traf- fi c records to manage highway and traffi c safety pro- grams. • To improve safety and highway operations of the State’s roadways by reducing traffi c congestion, and crashes due to diminished signage and pavement markings. Th e fi rst two goals, seat belt use and construction zone safety, apply to State of Connecticut eff orts. Th e last two goals apply to COGCNV transportation planning tasks and long range regional transportation plan. • Tr a ffi c records delivery system: COGCNV staff par- ticipates in the statewide Traffi c Records Coordinat- ing Committee, which seeks to develop an integrated electronic traffi c records system for state agencies, mu- nicipalities, regional planning organizations, and other interested groups. Electronic accident and citation re- ports tied to GPS coordinates are beginning to be used by state and municipal police with notebook computers in cruisers. Th e University of Connecticut Civil Engi- neering Department is testing a statewide repository for highway accident data. Previously, COGCNV coordi- nated a regional mobile data communication system for municipal police departments. • Highway safety operations: A major focus of the high- way portion of the regional transportation plan is on reducing traffi c congestion and improving safety at high hazard locations on the region’s state highways. A PPENDIX E – S TRATEGIC H IGHWAY S AFETY P LAN I-84 Westbound Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 76 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 77 APPENDIX F A PPENDIX F – E NVIRONMENTAL A NALYSIS As part of the regional planning organization’s responsi- bilities, transportation projects must be reviewed for im- pacts on both environmental justice – the eff ect on com- munities – and environmental mitigation – the eff ect on the natural environment. Environmental Justice Th is section describes federal goals and requirements of Environmental Justice and the analysis of the COGCNV to meet those requirements. Th e Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin that can limit the opportunity of minorities to gain equal access to services and programs. Recipients of federally assisted programs cannot, on the basis of race, color, or national origin, either directly or through contractual means: • Deny program services, aids, or benefi ts; • Provide a diff erent service, aid, or benefi t, or provide them in a manner diff erent than they are provided to others; or • Segregate or separately treat individuals in any manner related to the receipt of any service, aid, or benefi t. Eff ective transportation planning and decision-making depends on understanding and properly addressing the unique needs of diff erent socioeconomic groups. Th e Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration have specifi ed three principles of environ- mental justice which must be addressed: 1. To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental ef- fects on minority populations and low-income popu- lations.2. To ensure the full and fair participation by all poten- tially aff ected communities in the transportation deci- sion-making process. 3. To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or signifi cant delay in the receipt of benefi ts for minority and low- income populations. For its Regional Transportation Plan, COGCNV has four measures to reach these goals: 1) Identifi cation of minor- ity and low-income populations in the region; 2) Meth- ods for identifying the needs of minority and low-income populations; 3) Development of a process to evaluate the eff ectiveness of public outreach eff orts; and 4) Preliminary analysis of the distribution of the benefi ts and burdens of transportation investments in the region. Th is chapter updates these objectives. IDENTIFICATION OF MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS IN THE REGION COGCNV staff bases its approach on the Environmental Justice Challenge Grant Final Report, prepared by the Cap- ital Region Council of Governments, using the goals of ease of data collection, analysis, and comprehension and usefulness to decision-makers 1. COGCNV sought to identify the eff ects of all programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations and develop tasks and activities to mitigate those eff ects. Staff deter- mined the census block groups from the American Com- munity Survey 2005-2009 and the 2010 Census which would be the target population as the fi rst step to reach these objectives. 1 Environmental Justice Challenge Grant Final Report, Capital Region Council of Governments, 2002 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 78 APPENDIX F MINORITY T ARGET A REAS Following the lead of the Capital Region, COGCNV clas- sifi ed a census block group as a “minority district” where the percentage of population was in excess of 50% His- panic or Non-White. Th is area is a smaller, more focused one to compare the distribution of transportation invest- ments. COGCNV identifi ed forty-seven block groups which met the criterion. Th ese groups represent 55% of the region’s minority population. Th e fi gures are shown in Figure F.1. Th e only block group outside of Waterbury meeting this criteria is in Cheshire and includes the cor- rectional facility. Nonwhites and Hispanics were 28% of the entire regional population and 55% of the population of the City of Waterbury. LOW INCOME T ARGET A REAS Th e Census measures poverty level by income in relation to the number of people in the household. See Figure F.2. Th e plan uses a standard of 150% of the poverty level as the Environmental Justice standard as it includes more people for whom car ownership is extremely diffi cult. COGCNV staff decided to use tracts where 20% or more of the population was below the 150% standard since 20% includes a reasonable proportion of all low income persons. COMBINED T ARGET A REAS Using these two criteria, minority (50% or more) and 20% of population below 150% of the Poverty Level, staff determined that, in 2010, 40 block groups within the City of Waterbury met both criteria. Th is is an in- crease from 31 in the 2007 plan. See Figure F.3. Th is area included 13% of the regional total population and 49% of the regional minority population. No block groups outside Waterbury met both criteria. Figure F.1 Minority Population Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File Data based on Census 2010 block group geography. Includes any person who con- sidered him or herself Hispanic, Asian- American/Pacifi c Islander, African-Ameri- can/Black and/or American Indian/Alaskan Native on their 2010 Census form. Per- centages include prison populations in Cheshire. Central Naugatuck Valley Region Average = 28% Woodbury Bethlehem Thomaston Watertown WolcottCheshire Prospect Beacon Falls Naugatuck Middlebury Southbury Oxford Woodbury Waterbury 024 1 Miles ³ Block Group Boundary Percentage of Population that is Non-White or is Hispanic Town Boundary 50.0 – 100% 30.0 – 49.9% 10.0 – 29.9% 0.0 – 9.9 % Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 79 APPENDIX F Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Wa terbury Waterto wn Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls ³ 0241 Miles Block Group BoundaryTown Boundary Minority and Low-Income Block Groups Figure F.3 Minority and Low-Income Target Area Figure F.2 Persons Below 150% of Poverty Level Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, C17002 Data based on Census 2000 block group geography. Includes any per- son who was part of a household that reported having a median household income 150% or below the Census poverty threshold, by family size, on their 2005-2009 American Com- munity Survey forms. Th e poverty statistics do not include institutional- ized people, people in military group quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old. Woodbury Bethlehem Thomaston Watertown WolcottCheshire Prospect Beacon Falls Naugatuck Middlebury Southbury Oxford Woodbury Waterbury 024 1 Miles Block Group Boundary Percentage of Persons Below 150% of Poverty Level Town Boundary 30.0 – 100% 20.0 – 29.9% 10.0 – 19.9% 0.0 – 9.9 % ³ Central Naugatuck Valley Region Average = 17% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File and 2005-2009 American Community Survey. Data based on Census 2010 block group geography. Includes block groups having greater than 50% mi- norities and 20% of the population below 150% of the Poverty level. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 80 APPENDIX F Source: American FactFinder, American Community Survey, 2005-2009 5-year Estimates, Municipality Number of Individuals Below 150% of the Poverty LevelEstimated 2009 Population Percent of Individuals Below 150% of the Pov- erty Level Based on Estimated 2009 Population Cheshire 1,228 25,746 4.8% Naugatuck 4,140 31,331 12.8% Waterbury 32,965 104,588 31.5% Watertown 1,404 22,003 6.4% Table F.1 Estimates of 150% of Poverty Level Th e American Community Survey for 2005-2009 pro- vides a 5-year average for individuals below 150% of the poverty level for Cheshire, Naugatuck, Waterbury and Watertown. Of these four largest CNVR municipalities, Waterbury remains the only municipality with more that 20% of its population below the 150% criteria. See Table F.1. OTHER D EMOGRAPHIC G ROUPS OF INTEREST Figure F.4 shows the percentage of elderly in census block groups in the CNVR in 2009. Regionally, 14%, or 39,983 persons, were age 65 or older, and 14 block groups had more than 30% elderly — 8 in Waterbury, 3 in Southbury, 2 in Naugatuck, and 1 in Cheshire. Every municipality has census block groups with 10% or more elderly, including block groups covering the entire mu- nicipalities of Bethlehem, and Middlebury. In Figure F.5, fi ve block groups within the City of Water- bury are the only households where 50% or more of the units have no access to an automobile. Th ese households all fall within the target area established by the minority and low income criteria in 2009 and are generally located in the downtown area. Per Capita Income is shown on Figure F.6. Waterbury contained the only block groups with per capita incomes under $12,000, which were 5.1% of the region’s house- holds. Th ese seventeen block groups are also within the target area. Figure F.7 shows those block groups where the households in 2009 received public assistance. Seven municipalities — Naugatuck, Waterbury, and Water- town, Th omaston, Wolcott, and Cheshire — had block groups where more than 5% of households met this crite- ria. Only Waterbury had block groups where more than 15% of the households received public assistance. Th ose who use the bus as a means to work are shown by block group in Figure F.8. Cheshire, Wolcott, and Waterbury all had some workers meeting this criterion, but Waterbury was the only municipality with block groups where more than 5% of the workers use the bus as a means to work. Waterbury also has the most extensive bus service. Figure F.9 shows the distribution of the 4.5% of the re- gion which is “linguistically isolated” in 2009. Block groups with more than 5% of these households fell in 65 block groups which are concentrated in the Regional Core (Waterbury, Naugatuck and Watertown), Cheshire and Prospect. A linguistically isolated household is one in which no member 14 years and older speaks only Eng- lish or another language and English “very well” , mean- ing all members 14 years old and over have at least some diffi culty with English. In the CNVR, Bethlehem was the only municipality which had no households in this category. When surveying bus riders, COGCNV distributes forms in Spanish as well as English to mitigate this issue. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 81 APPENDIX F Figure F.4 Elderly Population Woodbury Bethlehem Thomaston Watertown Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Beacon Falls Naugatuck Middlebury Southbury Oxford Wat erbury 0241Miles ³ Percentage of Occupied Housing Units with Zero Vehicles Block Group Boundary Town Boundary 50.1 – 100% 30.1 – 50.0% 10.1 – 30.0% 0.0 – 10.0 % Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, B25044Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, B01001 Central Naugatuck Valley Region Average = 14% Data based on Census 2000 block group geography. Includes any person who reported being age 65 or over on their 2005-2009 American Community Sur- vey forms Woodbury Bethlehem Thomaston Watertown Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Beacon Falls Naugatuck Middlebury Southbury Oxford Waterbury 0241Miles ³ Block Group Boundary Percentage of Persons Aged 65 or older Town Boundary 30.0 – 100% 20.0 – 29.9% 10.0 – 19.9% 0.0 – 9.9 % Figure F.5 Occupied Housing Units without Access to a Car Central Naugatuck Valley Region Average = 9% Data based on Census 2000 block group geography. Includes any occupied housing unit that reported having zero vehicles on their 2005-2009 American Community Survey forms. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 82 APPENDIX F Figure F.7 Public Assistance Woodbury Bethlehem Thomaston Watertown Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Beacon Falls Naugatuck Middlebury Southbury Oxford Wat erbury 0241Miles ³ Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance Block Group BoundaryTown Boundary more than 15% 10.0 – 14.9% 5.0 – 9.9% 0 – 4.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, B19057Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, B19301 Data based on Census 2000 block group geography. Includes income re- ported by persons on their 2005-2009 American Community Survey forms. Woodbury Bethlehem Thomaston Watertown Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Beacon Falls Naugatuck Middlebury Southbury Oxford Wat erbury 0241Miles ³ Per Capita Income Block Group BoundaryTown Boundary under $12,000 $12,000 – 24,999 $25,000 – 39,999 over $40,000 Figure F.6 Per Capita Income Data based on Census 2000 block group geography. Includes any house- hold that reported public assistance income for 2009 on their 2005-2009 American Community Survey forms. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 83 APPENDIX F Woodbury Bethlehem Thomaston Watertown Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Beacon Falls Naugatuck Middlebury Southbury Oxford Waterbury 0241Miles ³ Percentage of Households Linguistically Isolated Block Group BoundaryTown Boundary more than 15.0% 10.0 – 14.9% 5.0 – 9.9% 0 – 4.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, B16002Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, B08301 Central Naugatuck Valley Region Average = 1.3% Data based on block group geography. Includes workers 16 years of age or older who reported bus or trolley bus as the means of transportation to work on their 2005-2009 American Com- munity Survey forms.. Woodbury Bethlehem Thomaston Watertown Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Beacon Falls Naugatuck Middlebury Southbury Oxford Waterbury 0241Miles ³ Percentage of Workers using the bus as a means of transportation to work Block Group BoundaryTown Boundary more than 7.5% 5.1 – 7.5% 2.6 – 5.0% 0 – 2.5% Figure F.8 Bus as Means to Work Figure F.9 Linguistically Isolated Households Data based on Census 2000 block group geography. A linguistically isolated household is one in which no member 14 years old and over (1) speaks only English or (2) speaks a non-English language and speaks English “very well.” In other words, all members 14 years old and over have at least some diffi culty with English. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 84 APPENDIX F IDENTIFYING THE NEEDS OF LOW-INCOME AND MINORITY POPULATIONS COGCNV keeps an updated “interested and aff ected organizations” mail list, which includes neighborhood groups in the target area. Th e mail list is a starting point for community outreach and has been used by COGCNV to seek input on signifi cant issues such as the Naugatuck River Greenway project. COGCNV takes other actions to identify needs of minority and low-income groups: • Demographic information is used to focus COGCNV public involvement process in the regional core, where minority and low-income populations are concentrat- ed. • Attention is paid to the location of meetings to coincide with bus services. • COGCNV offi ces are located in downtown Waterbury, the most convenient location to local bus routes. • Meeting notices are mailed to minority and commu- nity organizations, and the mail list database is updated annually. • Regular monitoring of the needs of low-income and minority populations are refl ected in the following ac- tions: review of and recommended improvements to public transit service delivery and participation in the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program and Greater Waterbury Transit District Board meetings and activi- ties. EVALUATING PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS Public outreach eff orts are evaluated by COGCNV staff for their eff ectiveness so that improvements can be made to other meetings. Some issues that are considered when evaluating the public participation process include: 1. Are meeting or workshop locations in the target ar- eas? 2. Is the time convenient for neighborhood residents? 3. Was notifi cation of the meeting/workshop eff ective? How can it be improved? Were local community groups (in the target areas) used to advertise? 4. Is the purpose of the meeting or workshop clearly identifi ed on advertisements? 5. Are informational materials on transportation plan- ning issues easy to understand for the “layman”? How can they be improved? 6. Do workshop attendees have a previous affi liation with COGCNV? 7 What was the attendance? 8. How were public comments incorporated into fi nal plans? 9. How did the public participation process aff ect fi nal outcomes of major transportation projects? 10. Were transportation plans and TIPs available for viewing in advance of meetings where adoption was discussed? 11. What visualization techniques were incorporated? Was electronic means utilized? Waterbury Green Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 85 APPENDIX F OTHER COGCNV EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF TITLE VI COGCNV has engaged in an ongoing set of activities to insure the participation of minority and low income groups in the regional transportation planning process: USING L OCAL M EDIA T O T ARGET L OW -INCOME AND M INORITY P OPULATIONS • Staff sends legal notices to local newspapers; the Re- publican-American for the annual TIP update, and La Voz Hispana de Connecticut for the region’s longe- range transportation plan. Staff at La Voz Hispana de Connecticut newspaper are bilingual in Spanish and provide translation services. • News releases are sent to local newspapers including the Republican-American, Voices, Prime Publishers, Cheshire Herald, Citizens News, as well as other news- papers when appropriate. • Staff has been interviewed by Republican-American, Voices, and Citizens News about transportation plan- ning activities. • WATR, a local radio station, and area television stations are also sent news releases for major TIP, long-range plan, and TIA activities. Staff has been interviewed for specifi c transportation projects such as the Naugatuck River Greenway. • A summary of COGCNV eff orts is shown below in Table F.2. Number Total Type of Outreach GreenwayPed- BicycleMulti- ModalBus Route Diversion Other Press release/report 18 11 4 70 103 Public notice 44 Solicited municipal 2 3 1 1 9 16 Staff meetings in offi ce 13 9 1 15 7 11 56 out of offi ce 24 7 6 3 5 33 78 COG/RPC Agenda Item 39 7 3 18 11 32 110 Website Postings (periodically updated)11 1115 Table F.2 COGCNV’s use of Media to target Low-Income and Minority Populations Source: CNVCOG January 2007 to October 2010 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 86 APPENDIX F ENGAGING M INORITY AND L OW -INCOME P OPULATIONS • COGCNV holds public informational meetings for the long-range plan and the annual TIP update. • Transportation planning documents are available for review by the public, and ample time is provided for public comment. • Staff responds to comments and provides a summary in the fi nal transportation planning documents. • COGCNV encourages involvement by a diversity of groups and communities as part of public participation process. • Staff assists and participates in the activities of the Greater Waterbury Transit District. All COGCNV meetings and Regional Planning Com- mission meetings include an agenda item for public com- ment. Public comment is also welcomed at committee meetings. COGCNV’s annual UPWP includes a pro- vision for monitoring the eff ectiveness of the public in- volvement process. EVALUATING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BENEFITS AND BURDENS OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ON MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS Each RPO is charged with developing a framework for assessing civil rights concerns, which includes an exami- nation of the distribution of the benefi ts and burdens of the transportation investments in the region, and those proposed in this plan. Because the target areas have sig- nifi cantly lower rates of automobile ownership, COGC- NV staff concluded these areas are more heavily transit dependent, and transit investment would have a positive eff ect on the population. In fi ve block groups of the target area, over 50% of the population does not have access to a vehicle. For the COGCNV analysis, accessibility is defi ned as either lying directly on a bus route or within three-quarter of a mile of a bus route. 2 ACCESSIBILITY TO E MPLOYMENT Residents in the target area can access a majority of the major employers in the region via transit services. Th e 2010 major employer list at the COGCNV shows 166 employers with over 100 employees in the region. Of these, 138 or 83% are accessible to a CT Transit-Water- bury bus or a Joblinks route. Th irty two industrial parks were identifi ed, and 68% are in proximity to a bus route. All residents in the target area fall within three-quarters of a mile to a bus route, and have access to the transit services described below. Waterbury Local Bus Services A description of the fi xed route bus service can be found in Chapter 3. Th e service, operated by Northeast Trans- portation, runs weekdays and Saturdays, from 5:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. and on Sunday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. Bus service is provided primarily to Waterbury, with limited service from Waterbury to Middlebury, Naugatuck, and Watertown. Th e buses operate on 22 designated routes, radiating outward from downtown Waterbury (see Figure F.10). In addition to North East Transportation Compa- ny’s regular routes, there are special runs (trippers) serv- ing industrial parks, schools, and other destinations in Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Waterbury, and Wa- tertown. JobLinks As discussed in Chapter 3, JobLinks is a transit service which connects passengers to employment and training opportunities in the region. JobLinks connects people to employers and training previously unaccessible by tran- sit, or after regular bus service ends for the day. Routes have been established from Waterbury to targeted em- ployment areas with growing job opportunities. In the CNVR, JobLinks serves employment areas in Beacon Falls, Cheshire, Naugatuck, Southbury, Waterbury, and Watertown. It has an evening service to the Brass Mill Center which includes a “Customized Ride Home” (CRH) that will provide a passenger with door-to-door service to their home from a job. In addition, JobLinks provides transportation to Waterbury childcare facilities by reservation. 2Staff participated extensively in discussions around the Waterbury Transit Center, advocating about the impact on the downtown resi- dents of moving the bus “pulse point” from the Waterbury Green to the proposed facilities. A modifi ed plan is currently being devel- oped. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 87 APPENDIX F MetroNorth Rail Service Limited rail service is provided by MetroNorth from the Waterbury train station, which lies within the target area. Waterbury residents who seek employment opportunities in Southwestern Connecticut have one early morning train to Stamford, but no similarly direct train in the eve- ning. Passengers on other trips transfer to another train at the Bridgeport train station for mainline rail service. A Waterbury local bus route serves the Waterbury train station directly. ACCESSIBILITY TO O THER K EY S ERVICES Major Commercial Sites Th e bus system serves major retail areas. Major commer- cial sites in the region are illustrated in Figure 2.5. Th ere are thirty-one commercial sites in the region, and 26, or 84% of these sites are accessible to transit or Tripper routes. Th ese sites include large grocery stores and ma- jor retail stores such K-Mart and Wal-Mart. Th e largest shopping mall in the region, the Brass Mill Center Mall in Waterbury, is directly served by both a local bus route and JobLinks services. Locations not served include the center of Woodbury and the north end of Prospect. Hospitals Both hospitals in the region, St. Mary’s and Waterbury hospitals, are located in Waterbury and are directly served by NET bus routes. Higher Education Facilities Higher education facilities in the region are discussed in Chapter 2. Th e downtown UConn Waterbury campus and Naugatuck Valley Community College are located on local bus routes. ¾ À845 ¾ À847 ¾ À847 ¾ À844 ¾ À801 ” )8 ” )8 ” )73 ” )69 ” )69 ” )64 ¥84 ¥84 ³ 00.51 Miles *See Figure 3.7 for route numbers. Limited Service Fixed Route Minority and Low Income Target Area * Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File and 2005-2009 American Community Survey, TIGER Line files, 2010 and CNVR Bus Route Study 2010 F.10 Local Bus Routes Near or Within the Minority and Low Income Target Area Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 88 APPENDIX F ¾ À845 ¾ À847 ¾ À847 ¾ À844 ¾ À801 ” )8 ” )8 ” )73 ” )69 ” )69 ” )64 ¥84 ¥84 123 4 ³ 0 0.5 1 Miles 1 2 Major widening of Chase Ave, Nottingham Terr. to N. Main St 3 4 Proposed widening of Aurora St from Bunker Hill Rd to Watertown Ave Signal Installation, Washington St at Sylvan Ave Proposed construction of new road from Boyden St Ext. to Bucks Hill Rd Minority and Low Income Target Area Interstate highway priorities State highway priorities Local Road Improvements F.11 Current and Potential Transportation Projects Near or Within the Minority and Low Income Target Area Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File and 2005-2009 American Community Survey, TIGER Line files, 2010 and CNVR SHORT -T ERM T RANSPORTATION P ROJECTS IN THE T ARGET A REA It is important to note the limitations of an analysis of a 4 year (short term) TIP. Th e TIP provides a “snap shot” of the current status and costs of projects in the region. Some projects will be delayed, cost estimates adjusted, and major projects may be excluded from the analysis be- cause they fall outside of the 4 year program. To identify projects in the target area, projects in the TIP were mapped using GIS. Th ese projects are illustrated in Figure F.11. As a next step in this analysis, a more detailed study using GIS and fi nancial analysis of past and present TIPs should be considered to examine the distribution of highway and transit investments in the region. MEDIUM AND L ONG -T ERM T RANSPORTATION P ROJ – ECTS AFFECTING L OW -INCOME AND M INORITY P OPULATIONS Th e two major long term transportation projects that could aff ect low-income and minority populations in the CNVR are the replacement of the I-84 and Route 8 In- terchange in Waterbury and the widening of I-84. Th e planning studies for both projects have been completed. During these studies COGCNV helped the State and planning consultant contact and involve minority and neighborhood groups. COGCNV will continue pro- moting public involvement in the environmental, design, and construction phases of these major projects. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 89 APPENDIX F Environmental Mitigation Th e metropolitan planning organization is responsible for considering the eff ect of projects on the natural environment. Th e Regional Transportation Plan recommends minimizing areas of environmental concern through consultation with state and local offi cials, educating decision-makers about such areas as soon as possible, and assisting in determining mitigation activities as necessary. Today, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and up-to-date parcel data for all CNVR municipalities have improved the eff ectiveness of this process. Two projects of regional signifi cance have been identifi ed which will increase highway capacity and require rights-of-way acquisition: I-84 West of Waterbury and the I-84/ Route 8 Interchange. Both will require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). DETERMINING THE ISSUE (S) COGCNV has the following maps available to municipalities and regional and state agencies for preliminary environ- mental input to these studies and other transportation work: Figure F.12. Ambient Air Pollution Attainment —All of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region is in 8-hour non- attainment for ozone levels as determined by the Department of Public Health. Figure F.13. Elevation in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region — Th is map highlights the basis for the settlement patterns in the Region and the diffi culty and potential scenic loss of developing steep slopes in a river valley region. Figure F.14. Wetland soils, Aquifer Protection Areas (APA), Floodplains, and Natural Diversity Data base — Wetland soils, Aquifer Protection Areas (both fi nal Level A and draft Level B), and the Natural Diversity Database, an annual listing of fl ora and fauna sites of endangered species, are shown from the Department of Environmental Protection as well as fl oodplain data from FEMA. Figure F.15. Waterbodies Not Meeting Water Quality Standards — Th is listing is required by the Federal Clean Water Act for the state to monitor, assess and report on the quality of its water relative to designated uses. Figure F.16. Historic and Archaeologic Sites — Sites are shown from the National Register as well as those identifi ed by the State Archaeologist. Figure F.17. Committed Open Space and Open Space Action Areas — Areas of regional signifi cance as open space areas which were identifi ed in 1967 by COGCNV’s predecessor, the CNVRPA, and continue to be viable. Properties that continue to be viable, and committed federal, state and local open space have been mapped by COGCNV staff . Figure F.18. Brownfi elds — Staff has a preliminary listing of 42 possible brownfi elds sites in the region. Figure F.19. Land Use — Th e Center for Land Use Education and Research at the University of Connecticut provides LandSAT data showing the change in developed land from 1985 to 2006. No known mapped data is available for noise, acquisition and displacements, and accessibility at this time. Mitigation goals would be in keeping with the 2008 Regional Plan of Conservation and Development. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 90 APPENDIX F Litchfield LitchfieldHartford Hartford Fairfield FairfieldWindham Windham Tolland Tolland New London New London New Haven New HavenMiddlesex Middlesex CT Portion of NY-NJ-CT 8-Hour Non-Attainment Area Greater CT 8-Hour Non-Attainment Area Central Naugatuck Valley Region Figure F.12 Connecticut’s Recommended 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Non-attainment Area Boundaries Source: DEP, 2010 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 91 APPENDIX F Figure F.13. Elevation in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region Source: CLEAR, Connecticut LIDAR-based Digital Elevation Data 2000 §¨ ¦84 §¨ ¦84 “)8 “)8 ³ 0241 Miles Elevation High : 1133 Low : 0 Feet Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Wolcott Waterbury Watertown Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 92 APPENDIX F Figure F.14 Wetland Soils, Aquifer Protection Areas (APA), Floodplain s, and Natural Diversity Database Areas Source: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 2010. § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 t u6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 t u6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 t u6 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 ” )8 ³ 0241 Miles Aquifer Protection Areas Natural Diversity Database Areas Wetland Soils 100-year Floodplain Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Wolcott Waterbury Watertown Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 93 APPENDIX F Figure F.15 Waterbodies Not Meeting Water Quality Standards, Central Na ugatuck Valley Region: 2011 Source: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 303d, 2011. NaugatuckRiver Mad River Lake Zoar Great Brook Branch Brook Steele Brook Lake Lillinonah Hitchcock Lake Hop Brook Lake Transylvania Brook Northfield Brook Lake Quinnipiac River Housatonic River MixvillePond Tenmile River Long Meadow Pond Brook Mill River Hockanum Brook HancockBrook Pomperaug River South Brook Stiles Brook ³ 024 1 Miles Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Wolcott Waterbury Watertown Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 94 APPENDIX F Figure F.16 Historic and Archaeologic Sites Source: National Register of Historic Places, CT State Archaeology Center, 2010. ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³² ³² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³² ³ ² ³ ² ³² ³² ³ ² ³² ³² ³ ² ³ ² ³² ³² ³² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ ² ³ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿ [ ¿[ ¿§ ¨ ¦ 691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 £ ¤6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 £ ¤6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 £ ¤6 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 ” )8 ³ 0241Miles [ ¿ Archaeology Sites ² ³ Historic Buildings Historic Districts Oxford SouthburyCheshire WoodburyWolcott Waterbury Watertown Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 95 APPENDIX F Figure F.17 Committed Open Space and Open Space Action Areas Source: COGCNV 2010. § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )188 t u6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 t u6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 t u6 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 ” )8 ³ 0241 Miles Town Boundaries Main Highways Open Space Action Areas Existing Committed Open Space Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Wolcott Waterbury Watertown Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 96 APPENDIX F Figure F.18 Brownfi eld Locations in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region Source: Valley Council of Governments, Waterbury Development Corporation, DEP, EPA. Brownfi eld Defi nition With certain legal exclusions and additions, the term ‘brownfi eld site means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Defi nition Source: Public Law 107-118 (H.R. 2869) – “Small Business. Liability Relief and Brownfi elds Revitalization Act” signed into law January 11, 2002. & M& M & M & M & M & M & M & M & M & M & M& M & M & M & M & M& M & M & M & M & M & M& M & M & M & M& M & M & M & M & M& M & M & M & M & M & M & M & M & M & M § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )188 t u6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 t u6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 t u6 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 ” )8 ³ 0241Miles & M Brownfield Locations Main Highways Town Boundaries Oxford SouthburyCheshire WoodburyWolcott Waterbury Watertown Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 97 APPENDIX F Figure F.19 Change in Developed Area 1985 to 2006 Source: Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR), 2006 § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 t u6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 t u6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ” )61 t u6 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )64 ” )69 ” )8 ³ 0241 Miles Existing Developed Areas up to 1985 Additional Developed Areas from 1985 to 2006 Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Wolcott Waterbury Watertown Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 98 APPENDIX F MITIGATION A CTIVITIES For each of the issues discussed in this appendix, the following table identifi es the organizations with primary responsi- bility and lists suggested mitigation measures. Issue Involved Agencies Possible Mitigation Air Quality Due to its small size, the state has the primary responsibility of improving air quality in Connecticut. Principle agencies are the Department of Envi- ronmental Protection (DEP) and CTDOT. DEP prepares the state air quality implementation plan (SIP).A range of transportation control mea- sures required in the SIP are recom- mended in the LRTP: improved bus and rail service, traffi c fl ow improvements, ride-sharing, bicycle & pedestrian im- provements. Elevation Local land use commissions are responsible for implementation.The Regional Plan calls for prohibit- ing development on slopes in excess of 25%. The RPO can provide education on mitigation measures such as screening, buffers, and berms. Wetland soils, Aquifer Protection Areas (APA), Floodplains, and Natural Diversity Data baseWetlands soils are regulated by municipal Inland Wetlands Agencies, Level A Aquifer area by munici- pal Aquifer Protection Agencies through a permit- ting and registration process, Floodplains through a zoning process using FEMA data, and the Natural Diversity Database by local land use commissions and the Department of Environmental Protection.Maintain up-to-date materials, maps and training. Work with local commissions as they implement regulations. State guide- lines on erosion and sedimentation con- trols and stormwater should be followed. Waterbodies not Meeting Water Quality StandardsMonitored by the Department of Environmental ProtectionEncourage watershed protection and provide information. Historic and Archaeology SitesArchaeology sites maintained by the state archaeol- ogist. Historic sites are maintained by the Commis- sion on Culture and Tourism.Document sites; assist town efforts to relocate facilities; modify designs to avoid or mitigate impact; and develop educa- tional material Open Space Using the GIS parcel data layers, COGCNV staff works with municipalities and land trusts to keep up- to-date information on open space holdings.Discourage fragmentation. Encourage cluster subdivisions and land preserva- tion. Brownfi elds The Regional Brownfi elds Partnership of West Cen- tral Connecticut operates through the Valley Council of Governments and manages the brownfi elds areas in the Central Naugatuck Valley.Participate on advisory board and encour- age municipalities to join. Climate Change The Governor’s Steering Committee, consisting of leaders from key state agencies including the Department of Environmental Protection, Public Utility Commission, Transportation, Administrative Services, Offi ce of Policy and Management, and Connecticut Clean Energy Fund, led a collaborative effort that developed a Climate Change Action Plan for Connecticut in 2010.Continue work with the Department of Environmental Protection, the CTDOT, and other state, local, and professional initiatives to ensure that climate change is taken into consideration. Land Use Land use is determined by aerial photography with fi eld checking as necessary. COGCNV maps are used by a variety of public and private, municipal, regional, and state organizations and agencies. Organizations sharing information include the COGCNV, the Center for Land Use Education and Research of the University of Connecticut, the Con- necticut Offi ce of Policy and Management, and the municipalities.Provide training on latest guidelines and other information; encourage an active public review process; encourage farm- land, watershed, and open space protec- tion. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 99 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 99 APPENDIX G A PPENDIX G – R ECORD OF P UBLIC O UTREACH Th e appendix summarizes the public outreach during the preparation of the long range regional transportation plan. Th e summary consists of: • Comments received on the plan and COGCNV re- sponses. • A schedule of major events in the preparation of the plan, including the public review period Th e draft Long Range Regional Transportation Plan was initially presented to the Central Naugatuck Valley Re- gional Planning Commission (RPC) at its March meet- ing. Th e commission consists of 26 members, two from each of the CNVR municipalities, one selected by the chief elected offi cial and one selected by the municipal planning commission. COGCNV also presented the draft Plan to municipal engineers and planners at separate meetings for their review and comment. Th e draft plan was sent to libraries in member munici- palities and posted on the COGCNV website for a 30- day public review period, beginning on April 6, 2011. A legal notice was submitted to the Waterbury Republican- American announcing the start of the public comment period and the scheduling of a public hearing in May. A request for comments and invitation to the public hearing was sent to state and local offi cials and other interested groups. Th e Regional Planning Commission held a public hear- ing on the draft plan at 7 p.m. on May 3, 2011 at the Middlebury Library. A press release was sent out to local media and the local Spanish-language newspaper. Com- ments from that meeting are included in the following pages. Th e fi nal plan was presented to the COGCNV and ap- proved by the Council at their meeting on May 13, 2011.All comments were responded to and considered for the fi nal revised plan presented to COGCNV. PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Th e following comments were received at the public meet- ing on May 3, 2011. Comments regarding specifi c text changes were incorporated into the fi nal document. • Are fi nancial fi gures included in the Plan? Appendix D includes funding based on CTDOT’s estimates. • Traffi c on expressways has declined due to the price of fuel. • When will work begin on the I-84 projects? According to CTDOT offi cials, the last phase of the I-84 upgrade in eastern Waterbury is very high on CTDOT’s priority list. Other projects on I-84 have no projected completion dates. Interchange improvements on I-84 west of Waterbury have been designed, but are not funded. • Southbury is lacking in taxi service. • Greenways along the Housatonic and Pomperaug Riv- ers should be mentioned in the Plan. • Southbury’s elderly population needs more transporta- tion than is provided by the Town and Heritage Vil- lage. • Th e demise of the travel center in Southbury has limited residents’ transportation options. Southbury should get public transit service. • For the legend on the map on page 12, Southbury Shopping Center should be labeled Southbury Plaza. • Pine Hill Road at Route 6 does not pose a traffi c prob- lem. Th is intersection marks the point where Route 6 nar- rows. It is identifi ed by CTDOT as having a high volume- to-capacity ratio. • Th e description of the “ring road” around Waterbury- Oxford Airport in Appendix A needs to be corrected. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 100 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 100 APPENDIX G Th e following written comments were received during the public comment period: • Th e Waterbury Development Corporation, the Water- bury Regional Chamber, and Main Street Waterbury wrote a joint letter on May 4, 2011 disagreeing with the plan’s assessment of the proposed transportation cen- ter and expressing their commitment to establishing a transportation center at the Metro North station. Th ey also stated their support for transit-oriented develop- ment, particularly in the area along Freight Street to the west of the railroad tracks. Th ey view these projects as important for the economic development of Water- bury and the surrounding region. COGCNV staff sent a response letter on May 10 to Waterbury Development Cor- poration, Waterbury Regional Chamber, and Main Street Waterbury stating that the transportation plan’s conclu- sions on the transportation center come from the project’s feasibility and environmental studies, coupled with the state and city’s fi nancial situation. • In a May 6, 2011 letter, the City of Waterbury recom- mended that the Long Range Plan be revised to add the phrase “as originally envisioned” to the sentence “Due to traffi c and bus operations issues caused by the proposed center and a lack of capital and operational funding, this project is not expected to move forward” (page 40). (Th is suggestion was incorporated into the fi nal document.) Th e letter also referred to the City’s posi- tion on the transportation center from a May 10, 2010 document. • Carla Iezzi, CTDOT, submitted a checklist review of the draft plan with suggestions relative to meeting met- ropolitan transportation planning requirements of the federal transportation regulations: drawing connections between diff erent sections and adding details on recommended projects to improve readability, incorporating discussion on how the plan addresses requirements to consider air quality and emergency management, and incorporating discussion on how the plan addresses other federal guidance. Staff responded to these comments. • • •• Email from Eric Bachmann of Naugatuck comment- ing on the need to move forward with upgrades for the fi nal phase of I-84 in eastern Waterbury, the I-84/ Route 8 interchange, and I-84 west of Waterbury. He also presented recommendations for improving Route 8 in Naugatuck, Route 69 in Waterbury, Route 63 in Watertown and Naugatuck, and Rubber Ave. in Nau- gatuck. • Fred Riese, CT DEP, recommended several text chang- es in Chapter 3 and Appendix F to improve readability, and noted a few typographical errors. Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 101 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 101 APPENDIX G Plan Preparation 1/14/2011 Draft Plan completed Draft regional tranportation plan transmitted to CTDOT for air quality modeling. CTDOT Air Quality Modeling 1/21/2011 AQ Conformity Analysis start CTDOT air quality modeling is based on the recommendations of all eleven draft regional transportation plans for the 2040 model year. 3/18/2011 AQ Conformity Analysis completedCTDOT completion of conformity analysis. 3/25/2011 Transmittal of Conformity DocumentsCTDOT emailed air quality analysis. The documentation is needed prior to the start of MPO public review process. Preliminary Plan Review 3/1/2011 RPC Meeting Review of preliminary plan prior to wider circulation 3/16/2011 Municipal Engineers Meeting Review of preliminary plan with public works directors and enginners 3/24/2011 Municipal Planners Meeting Review of preliminary plan with municipal planners Public Review 4/6/2011 Public Review Start Beginning date of the thirty-day public review of the fi nal plan and the air quality conformity determinations. Legal notices for all of these docu- ments were published in the Waterbury Republican-American. A request for comments and invitation to the May 3 public hearing emailed to a broad range of groups and offi cials. 4/27/2011 Press Releases Sent Press releases were sent to local newspapers, inviting the public to the hearing on May 3. A Spanish translation of the press release was pub- lished in La Voz Hispana on April 28. 5/3/2011 RPC Public Hearing Public hearing held at Middlebury Public Library 5/9/2011 End of Public Review Written comments received up to May 9. Final Review and Endorsement 5/11/2011 RPC Recommendation Special meeting to review comments on the draft transportation plan and to make a recommendation to MPO (COGCNV) 5/13/2011 MPO Endorsement COGCNV approval of the fi nal plan and the air quality conformity resolu- tion for transmittal to FHWA. 6/29/2011 Federal Review Complete Latest possible date for Federal conformity fi nding, including a forty-fi ve- day review period. Table G.1 Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan Schedule Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 102 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 103 R EFERENCES Cambridge Systematics, Inc. for Federal Highway Administration, Tr a ffi c Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Ad- vanced Strategies for Congestion Mitigation (September 2005). Capitol Region Council of Governments, Environmental Justice and CRCOG’s Transportation Planning Program (2002) COGCNV, A Profi le of the CNVR: 2010 (December 2010) COGCNV, Bus Passenger Destination Survey – Final Report (May 2003) COGCNV, CNVR Bus Route Study (June 2004) COGCNV, CNVR Bus Stop Study (2007) COGCNV, CNVR Congestion Management System Report: 2006 (February 2007) COGCNV, Draft CNVR Bus Route Ridership Study (2011) COGCNV, Memorandum 102309, “COGCNV Regional Roundtable Recommendations” (October 2009) COGCNV, Memorandum 06012010, “Commuter Parking Lot Facilities in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2009, Occupancy Analysis and Recommendations” (June 2010) COGCNV, Memorandum 062310: Waterbury Transportation Center (WTC) Project Next Steps (June 23, 2010) COGCNV, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in the CNVR: An Assessment of Existing Conditions (February 2010) COGCNV, Regional Bicycle Plan: 1994 (October 1994) COGCNV, Regional Naugatuck River Greenway Routing Study (December 2010) COGCNV, Central Naugatuck Valley Regional Plan of Conservation and Development: 2008 (June 2008) COGCNV, Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2007-2035 (July 2007) COGCNV, Route 73 Corridor Study – Waterbury to Watertown (1997) COGCNV, Transportation Improvement Program: 2010–2011 COGCNV, Transportation Trends and Characteristics of the CNVR: 2000 (March 2004) Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 104 Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Waterbury Transportation Center Record of Decision and Business Plan (2010) Connecticut Department of Transportation, Cartographic/Transportation Data : 2007 Connecticut Department of Transportation, 2009 Traffi c Volumes: State Maintained Highway Network (Traffi c Log) (October 2009) Connecticut Department of Transportation, Congestion Management Process: 2009 Congestion Screening and Moni- toring Report (October 2009) Connecticut Department of Transportation, Tr a ffi c Accident Surveillance Report: 2005-2007 (2010) Connecticut Department of Transportation, Tr a ffi c Accident Viewing System v 2.1 (updated 2009). Connecticut Department of Transportation, License and Regulatory and Compliance Unit, Taxi and livery informa- tion (as of September 2010) Connecticut Department of Transportation, Offi ce of Policy and Planning, “Allocation of Anticipated Funds to Con- necticut Planning Regions (2011-2040) for Long-Range Planning Purposes” (September 10, 2010) Connecticut Department of Transportation, “Public Hearing October 13 on New Hangar at Oxford Airport Draft Environmental Document Now Available” (September 2010). Connecticut Department of Transportaion, Connecticut on the Move, Strategic Long-Range Transportation Plan: 2009- 2035, June 2009 Connecticut Department of Transportation, Connecticut State Rail Plan: 2010-2030 Connecticut Department of Transportation, Waterbury and New Canaan Branch Lines Needs and Feasibility Study – Phase II (May 2010) Clough Harbor & Associates, Airport Master Plan Update: Waterbury-Oxford Airport (September 2007) DeLeuw, Cather, and Co., Needs Defi ciency Analysis in the I-84 Corridor: Waterbury to Southington – Final Report (May 1995) FHWA environmental justice website (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/facts/index.htm) FHWA, Freight Analysis Framework Version 3.0, Connecticut data Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Master Record (Form 5010-1) for OXC, January 2011. Milone & MacBroom, Inc., in association with Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc., Analysis of Alternatives, Connecticut Route 10 Traffi c and Land Use Study, Towns of Hamden and Cheshire (1996) Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 105 North East Transportation Co., Fixed route and paratransit fi nancial and ridership data – CT-Transit Waterbury United States Bureau of the Census, Profi les of General Demographic Characteristics, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Connecticut, Table DP-3. Profi le of Selected Economic Characteristics (2002) United States Bureau of the Census, Profi les of General Demographic Characteristics, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Connecticut, Table DP-4. Profi le of Selected Housing Characteristics (2002) United States Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Residence MCD/County to Workplace, MCD/County fl ows for Connecticut: 2000 (2003) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005-2009 American Community Survey United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, Transportation and Environmental Justice Case Studies (2000) University of Connecticut, Connecticut State Data Center website — Population Projections (May 16, 2007) Urbitran, in association with Connecticut Department of Transportation, Connecticut Department of Transportation Statewide Bus System Study 2000 (2000) URS Corporation, in association with Fitzgerald & Halliday, Route 69 Traffi c Operations Study: Prospect, Waterbury, and Wolcott (2002) Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., Route 8 Interchanges 22-30 Defi ciencies/Needs Study: Seymour, Beacon Falls, Naugatuck, & Waterbury – Final Report (January 2011) Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., Route 67 Traffi c Operations – Southbury/Oxford/Seymour Connecticut (1991) Wilbur-Smith Associates, I-84 West of Waterbury Needs and Defi ciencies Study – Final Report (November 2001) Wilbur-Smith Associates, I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study – Final Report (June 2010) (COGCNV staff also used comments from meetings and discussions with municipal staff and CTDOT) Municipality Chief Elected Official Alternate Regional Planning Commission Beacon FallsSusan Cable, First SelectmanKaren Wilson Richard Minnick Kevin McDuffie BethlehemJeff Hamel, First SelectmanEllen Samoska Ellen Samoska Maria Hill CheshireTimothy Slocum Chairman, Town CouncilMichael Milone Martin Cobern Vacant MiddleburyThomas Gormley, First SelectmanJoseph Salvini Ken Long Mary Barton NaugatuckRobert Mezzo, MayorTamath Rossi Anthony Malone Joseph McEvoy OxfordMary Ann Drayton-Rogers, First SelectmanMargaret Potts Harold Cosgrove Herman Schuler ProspectRobert Chatfield, MayorTom Galvin Gil Graveline Gene McCarthey SouthburyH. William Davis, First SelectmanJennifer Naylor Harmon Andrews Nancy Clark ThomastonEdmond Mone, First SelectmanVacant Bill Guerrera Robert Flanagan WaterburyMichael Jarjura, MayorTheresa Caldarone James Sequin Geoffrey Green WatertownRaymond Primini, Chairman, Town CouncilCharles Frigon Ruth Mulcahy Rosalie Loughran WolcottThomas Dunn, MayorVacant Val Bernardoni Cathe Sherman WoodburyGerald Stomski, First SelectmanVacant Martin Overton Vacant COUNCIL MEMBERS, ALTERNATES, & REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION COGCNV Staff Peter Dorpalen, Executive Director Glenda Prentiss, GIS Coordinator Virginia Mason, Assistant Director Mark Berube, Planning Assistant-GIS Samuel Gold, Senior Planner Patricia Bauer, Financial Manager Joseph Perrelli, Regional Planner Lauren Rizzo, Administrative Assistant Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040 COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS OF THE CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY