NVCOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2019-2045

MET R OPOLITAN TRANSPORTA T ION PLAN 2019 – 2045 1 Title: Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Naugatuck Valley Planning Region: 2019 -2045 Author: Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Date: January 2019 Metropolitan Planning Organization: Central Naugatuck Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (CNVMPO) Sources of Copies: Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 49 Leavenworth Street, Suite 303 Waterbury, Connecticut Phone: (203) 757 -0535 Websi te: www.nvcogct.org Abstract: Federal regulations require any urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000 to designate a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to evaluate and assess its transportation systems, identify needed improvements to its transportation systems, and help decide how investments in the transportation systems will be made. The NVCOG, as the host agency for the Central Naugatuck Valley MPO, assessed and analyzed the ex isting transportation system, identified deficiencies and determined future transportation needs. Based on these analyses, a program of transportation improvement projects is recommended. Future transportation investments reflect reasonably expected fundin g resources. Acknowledgements: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Naugatuck Valley planning region and the Central Naugatuck Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (CNVMPO) was prepared by the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG ) in cooperation with member municipalities and the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT). It was completed in accordance with federal transportation planning requirements, stipulated in 23 CFR Part 450§324, and under the NVCOG’s FY 2018/2019 Un ified Planning Work Program for the Naugatuck Valley Planning Region . Funding was provided through the UPWP by the US Department of 2 Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the CTDOT and member municipalities. The findings and conclusions expressed in the report are those of the NVCOG and do not reflect the official views of CTDOT or the USDOT. For more information: For more information about the NVCOG’s transportation planning process and th e update of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, please visit the NVCOG’s website at: www.nvcogct.org NVCOG Board: David Cassetti, Mayor City of Ansonia Christopher Bielik, First Selectman Town of Beacon Falls Leonard Assard, First Selectman Town of Bethlehem Ellen Zoppo -Sassu, Mayor City of Bristol Rob Oris, Jr, Town Council Chair Town of Cheshire Richard Dziekan, Mayor City of Derby Edward St. John, First Selectman Town of Middlebury N. Warren “Pete” Hess, Mayor Borough of Naugatuck George Temple, First Selectman Town of Oxford David Merchant, Mayor Town of Plymouth Bob Chatfield, Mayor Town of Prospect W. Kurt Miller, First Selectman Town of Seymour Mark Lauretti, Mayor City of Shelton Jeff Manville, First Selectman Town of Southbury Ed Mone, First Selectman Town of Thomaston Neil O’Leary, Mayor City of Waterbury Thomas Winn, Town Council Chair Town of Watertown Thomas Dunn, Mayor Town of Wolcott Barbara Perkinson, First Selectman Town of Woodbury 3 Staff Rick Dunne, Executive Director Mark Nielsen, Director of Planning / Assistance Director Arthur Bogen, Environmental Planner -Brownfields Aaron Budris, Senior Regional Planner Richard Crowther Jr, GIS Planning Assistant John DiCarlo, Municipal Shared Services Director Christian Meyer, Supervising Transportation Planner Mark Pandolfi, Transit Capital Administrator / General Manager, VTD Glenda Prentiss, GIS Program Coordinator Joanna Rogalski, Senior Regional Planner / Emergency Management Karen Svetz, P.E., Regional Transportation Engineer Michael Szpryngel, Finance Director Trish Bauer, Office / Financial Manager Lauren Rizzo, Administrative Services Coordinator 4 Contents 1.0 Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 11 1.1 Central Naugatuc k Valley MPO ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 12 Unified Planning Work Program ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 13 Transportation Improvement Program ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… 13 Metropolitan Transportation Plan ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 13 Air Qu ality Conformity ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 13 1.2 MPO Coordination ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 15 1.3 MAP Forum ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 17 1.4 Mega -Regional Planning Context: The Four State Metropolitan Region …………………. 18 Geography and Environment ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 19 Economy ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 19 Demographics ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 20 Transportation Systems ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 20 Metropolitan Travelshed ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 21 Transportation Investments ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 23 1.5 Federal Planning Factors ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 24 1.6 Transportation Performance Measures and Targets ………………………….. ………………….. 27 Highway Safety ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 28 Transit ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 29 Pavement and Bridge Condition ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 31 System Reliability ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… 32 Freight Movement ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 33 Air Quality ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 33 1.7 Title VI and Environme ntal Justice ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 34 NVCOG Title VI Program Plan ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 34 Activities ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 34 Language Assistance Plan: ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 34 Title VI Com plaint Process: ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 35 Planned Activities ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 35 NVCOG Environmental Justice Policy ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 35 2.0 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 40 2.1 Population and Demographic Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 44 Population Projections ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 45 5 Population Density ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 46 Race and Ethnicity ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 48 Household and Family Structure ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 49 Income and Poverty ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 50 Economic Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 50 Labor Force ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 50 Employment ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 51 Unemployment ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 51 Jobs ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 52 3.0 Transportation Issues & Goals ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 54 3.1 Transportation Issues ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 54 Aging Infrastructure ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 54 Recurring Congestion and Travel Delay ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 55 Highway Safety ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 55 Under Investment in the Waterbury Branch Commuter Rail Line ………………………….. …….. 55 Fragmented Local Bus Service ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 55 ADA Paratransit Service Gaps ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 56 Expand and Maintain Multi -use Greenway and Trail Facilities ………………………….. ………… 56 Pedestrian Safety ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 56 3.2 Transportation Goals ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 56 Preserve, Maintain and Enhance the Highway System ………………………….. ……………………. 57 Congestion Management ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 57 Improve Safety ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 58 Ensure Transportation System Security ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 58 Advanced Technology ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 58 Preserve and Enhance Public Transportation Services ………………………….. …………………….. 58 Expand Multi -Modal Opportunities ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 59 Enhance the Efficient Movement of Freight and Goods ………………………….. ………………….. 59 Enhance Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 59 Environmental Mitigation ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 60 Sustainability ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 60 Promote Economic Development and Revitalization ………………………….. ………………………. 61 Environmental Justice ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 61 Ensure Transparency and Proactive Public Involvement ………………………….. …………………. 61 6 3.3 Air Quality Conformity Determination ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 61 Ozone ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 62 PM2.5 ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 62 Assessment ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 62 Greater CT Ozone Moderate No nattainment Area ………………………….. ………………………….. 63 CT Portion of NY -NJ -CT Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area ………………………….. ……… 64 CT Portion of NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Attainment -Maintenance Area ………………………….. ……. 66 4.0 Highway System ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 68 4.1 Existing Conditions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 68 Commuting Patterns ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 69 Safety ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 72 Congestion ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 75 System Preservation and Maintenance ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… 80 4.2 Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 81 Commuting ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 81 Safety ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 82 Congestion ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 82 Preservation & Maintenance ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 82 4.3 Actions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 82 5.0 Public Transit Systems ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 83 5.1 Fixed -Route Bus Systems ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 83 CT transit -Waterbury ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 85 CT transit -New Haven ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 91 CT transit -Bristol/New Britain ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 94 CTfastrak ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 97 CT transit Express Bus Services ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 98 Greater Bridgeport Transit (GBT) ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 98 Bus Ra pid Transit System ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 101 Intercity Private Buses ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 102 5.2 Dial -a-Ride and Paratransit Services ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 103 Complementary ADA Paratransit Service ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 103 Non -ADA Paratransit Service ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 104 Dial -A-Ride Service ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 104 Municipal Grant Program ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 104 7 Locally -Funded Municipal Programs ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… 106 Actions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 106 5.3 Commuter Rail ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 106 Service ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 107 Equipment ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 108 Infrastructure ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 109 Stations ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 109 Waterbury: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 110 Naugatuc k: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 110 Beacon Falls: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 111 Seymour: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 111 Ansonia: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 112 Derby -Shelton: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 112 Ridership ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 113 Passenger On -Board Survey ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 114 Programmed Improvements ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 117 Commuter Rail Actions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 119 Permanent Devon Transfer Station ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 121 6.0 Active Transportation Systems ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 124 6.1 Regional Pedestrian Plan ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 125 Pedestrian Safety ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 126 Pedestrian Demand an d Deficiencies in the Naugatuck Valley Planning Region ………….. 129 Pedestrian Safety Improvements ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 133 6.2 Regional Bicycle Plan ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 13 6 6.3 Multiuse Trail System ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 139 Naugatuck River Greenway Trail ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 141 Active Projects: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 142 Tier 1 Projects: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 143 Tier 2 Projects: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 143 Larkin State Bridle Trail ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 143 Action: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 143 Middlebury Greenway Trail ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 144 Action: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 144 Steele Brook Greenway Trail ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 144 8 Action: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 144 Shelton River Walk ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 145 Action: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 145 Oxford Main Street ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 145 Action: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 145 Farmington Canal Heritage Trail ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 145 Action: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 145 The Sue Grossman Still River G reenway Trail ………………………….. ………………………….. … 145 7.0 Freight and Goods Movement ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 146 7.1 Truck Borne Freight ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 146 Existing Conditions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 146 Volume ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 146 Trends and Deficiencies ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 149 Land use ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 151 Reliability ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 152 Trends and Deficiencies ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 152 Infrastructure Condition ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 153 Trends & Deficiencies ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 154 Safety ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 154 Trends & Deficiencies ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 154 Truck -Borne Freight Actions ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 154 7.2 Rail B orne Freight ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 155 Existing Conditions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 155 Trends and Deficiencies ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 158 Multimodal Facilities and Inland Ports ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 160 Rail -Borne Freight Actions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 160 7.3 Pipeline ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 160 Existing Conditions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 160 Trends and Deficiencies ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 162 Pipeline Actions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 163 7.4 Shipping and Air Freight ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 163 8 – Aviation ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 164 8.1 Existing Conditions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 165 General Aviation Airports ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 165 9 Heliports ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 166 8.2 Trends & Forecasts ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 167 8.3 System Deficiencies, Issues & Problems ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 168 Connecticut Airport System Challenges and Recommendations ………………………….. …….. 168 Waterbury -Oxford Airport Challenges and Re commendations ………………………….. ………. 169 8.4 Projects ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 169 9.0 Sustainable Transportation ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 171 9.1 Sustainable CT ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 172 Implement complete streets ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 172 Promote ef fective parking management ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 173 Encourage smart commuting ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 173 Support zero emissions vehicle deployment ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 173 Promote public transit and other mobility strategies ………………………….. ……………………… 173 Equity ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 174 9.2 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 174 9.3 Complete Streets Policy ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 180 9.4 Green Infrastructure/ Low Impact Development ………………………….. ……………………. 182 Actions: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 184 9.5 Tourism Travel ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 185 Current Tourism Opportunities ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 185 Improving Transportation Access for NVCOG Residents ………………………….. ……………… 188 Wayfinding ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 189 Long -Distance Trails ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 190 Improved Access ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 191 9.6 Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… 191 10.0 Transportation Security ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 195 10.1 Transit safety and security ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 195 Crashes ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 195 Crime Risk and Security ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 195 CTtransit ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 195 Grea ter Bridgeport Transit Authority ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… 196 Valley Transit District ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 196 Metro North ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 196 Transportation Emergency a nd Personal Security (TEPS) System ………………………….. ….. 196 10 Facility security ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 197 Safety and security actions: ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 197 10.2 Emergency Response Planning ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 197 Emergency Response Planning in the NVCOG region ………………………….. ………………….. 197 Regional Emergency Planning Teams (REPT) and Emergency Support Functions (ESF) ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 198 Traffic Inci dent Management Infrastructure and Diversion Routes ………………………….. 199 Actions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 200 10.3 Natural Hazards, Transportation Resiliency and Climate Change ……………………… 200 Actions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 207 11.0 Advanced Technologies ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 209 11.1 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ………………………….. ………………………….. . 209 11.2 Autonomous Vehicles ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 211 11.3 Connected Vehicles ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 215 11.4 Connected and Autonomous Trucks ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 218 Active Safety Systems ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 219 Automated Driving Systems (ADS) ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 219 Truck Platoons ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 220 11.5 State and Federal CAV Programs and Pilot Projects ………………………….. …………………. 221 12.0 Capital Improvement Program ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 226 12.1 Implementing the MTP ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 226 12.2 Financing the MTP ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 231 12.3 MTP Program of Projects ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 234 13.0 Pub lic Outreach ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 236 11 1.0 Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process Federal regulations require any urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000 to designate a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to evaluate and assess its transportation systems, identify needed improvements to its transportation systems, and help decide how investments in the transportation systems will be made. Federal regulations, as provided in Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 450, Subpart C and applicable federal acts, stipulate a planning process that is continuous, cooperative a nd comprehensive. The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) is a multi -discipline, regional planning organization for the Naugatuck Valley planning region and is the federally designated transportation planning agency for the Waterbury Urban Are a. It serves as the transportation planning agency for the Central Naugatuck Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (CNVMPO) and provides planning support to the Greater Bridgeport and Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (GBVMPO). The NVCOG is als o the designated FTA grant recipient for the Valley Transit District (VTD). As the host agency for the CNVMPO and the co -host of GBVMPO, the NVCOG coordinates planning activities and provides technical and support services to the region’s transportation policy -making and technical groups. The metropolitan transportation planning process is conducted in accordance with federal regulations. Oversight of the metropolitan transportation planning process is jointly provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in C T 12 1.1 Central Naugatuck Valley MPO The NVCOG was formed as of January 1, 2015, as a result of the state -mandated mergers and consolidations of regional planni ng organizations. The new organization consolidated the responsibilities of the former Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley and the Valley Council of Governments. In addition, the City of Bristol and Town of Plymouth opted to join the NVC OG after the dissolution of the former Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency. The merger was accomplished by municipal legislative action and legal assignment of the powers, assets and functions by the respective COGs to the NVCOG. As part of the me rger, the NVCOG is the legal successor to the COGCNV and VCOG and inherited all rights, roles and responsibilities of the predecessor agencies, including its designation as the federally -designated MPO. The consolidation of regional boundaries and merger of Councils of Governments resulted in a misalignment of MPO and RPO boundaries for both the GBVMPO and the CNVMPO. The four lower Naugatuck Valley municipalities of Ansonia, Derby, Seymour and Shelton remained members of the GBVMPO. In addition, Bristol a nd Plymouth continued as members of the Central Connecticut MPO, which was host by the Capitol Regional COG. To better conform planning functions in the region, the CNVMPO was formally re -designated to include Bristol and Plymouth as full members in July 2015. With re -designation, the CNVMPO consists of 15 of the 19 cities and towns of the Naugatuck Valley planning region. In 2017, efforts were undertaken to re -designate the GBVMPO by re -aligning the metropolitan planning area boundaries to coincide with t he state -defined planning region boundaries. The process to re – designate the MPOs complied with federal regulations. Despite efforts to re -designate the GBVMPO and CNVMPO, the resolution to separate the cities of Ansonia, Derby and Shelton and the town of Seymour from the GBVMPO failed to garner the requisite support of the GBVMPO’s largest city and affirmative vote by members representing at least 75% of the population. The CNVMPO comprises 15 municipalities with membership by the chief elected official o f each municipality in the MPA. The members are: • Beacon Falls • Naugatuck • Thomaston • Bethlehem • Oxford • Waterbury • Bristol • Plymouth • Watertown • Cheshire • Prospect • Wolcott • Middlebury • Southbury • Woodbury Representatives of the FHWA, FTA, Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT), and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) are included as “Ex Officio” members. The CNVMPO policy board oversees the regional transport ation planning and capital programs for the planning area, and prepares and maintains an unified planning work program (UPWP), a short range transportation improvement program (TIP), a metropolitan transportation Plan (MTP ) and determines the conformity of its transportation improvement projects, plans and program to attainment of air quality goals. 13 Unified Planning Work Program Prepared in accordance with Title 23 CFR Part 420 and Part 450 Section 308, t he Unified Planning Work Program documents the planning tasks and activities to be undertaken by the NVCOG over a two -year period in support of its transportation improvement program and budgets allocated planning funds needed to complete these tasks . The multi -task planning program includes: data collection and analysis; multi -modal transportation planning; program management and administration; technical assistance; and program implementation . The current NVCOG UPWP can be accessed here: https://nvcogct. org/content/work -program Transportation Improvement Program Required under 49 U.S.C. 5303(j), t he Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) lists all proposed highway and transit improvement projects within the Naugatuck Valley planning region programmed to receive federal assistance over a four -year time horizon . The TIP is incorporated into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and is collectively referred to as the TIP/STIP. The TIP/STIP is organized by federal funding program and must be ” financially constrained.” This means there must be a reasonable expectation of federal financial assistance to implement endorsed projects and that the funding sources must be identified for each project. Federal transportation planning regulations, as ame nded, also stipulate who selects projects under the various funding categories. The TIP/STIP is periodically amended to advance priority projects and maintain a financially constrained program. It is a goal of the TIP/STIP to ensure full obligation of avai lable federal funds in each fiscal year. The current NVCOG TIP can be accessed here: https://nvcogct.org/content/transportation – improvement -programs Metropolitan Transportation Plan In accordance with 49 USC 5303(i), each MPO is required to create a Metrop olitan Transportation Plan every 4 years. The MTP identifies transportation deficiencies, recommends improvements, and advances priority transportation projects in cooperation with the CTDOT, municipal officials, other state agencies, stakeholder organizat ions and interested residents. The MTP must consider the entire range of transportation choices and modes. As with the TIP/STIP, the MTP must be “financially constrained” and be consistent with the amount of funding that can be reasonably expected to be av ailable over its horizon year. Priority projects from the MTP are advanced for funding and implementation through the TIP/STIP process. Past MTPs are available for reference here: https://nvcogct.org/content/transportation -plan Air Quality Confor mity The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 and federal transportation regulations and legislation recognized the major contributions of transportation sources to the overall air quality problem evidenced throughout the country. To effectuate a reduction in tr ansportation -related emissions and a corresponding improvement in air quality, areas designated as non -attainment for a criterion pollutant were required to demonstrate that their transportation plans, programs and projects contributed to the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and would not cause a new violation or delay attainment of the NAAQS. This process is referred to as Air Quality Conformity. 14 The CTDOT is responsible for conducting the detailed transportation and air quality modeling required to demonstrate conformity. Projects recommendations in the TIP/STIP and MTP are incorporated into the statewide transportation network and analyzed for their potential impact on air quality. The results of the modeling are estimates of t ransportation -related emissions that are expected to be generated after constructing all regionally significant transportation improvements. The MTP is re quired under 49 USC 5303(i) to conform to the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Additionally, to be responsive to the goals of the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality, the TIP/STIP is required to contribute to annual reductions in transportation – related emissions. The air quality conformity analysis for this plan can be found in section 3. 3. The transportation planning and project implementation process conducted by the NVCOG is outlined in the diagram below. 15 The Naugatuck Valley planning region is not designated as a Transportation Management Area (TMA). Despite the region’s 2010 Census population of 448,708, well over the threshold needed for a TMA designation, the population of the Waterbury UZA, which defines a TMA, was 194,535, just under the 200,000 population requirement. Therefore, federal certification of its transportation planni ng process is not required. However, the transportation planning process is conducted in conformity with applicable metropolitan planning requirements and the CNVMPO self certifies that its planning process conforms to the Metropolitan Planning Rule, 23 CF R Part 450 Subpart C and 49 CFR Part 613. Also, the NVCOG participates in the federal certification process of adjacent MPOs, as several member municipalities are located in urbanized areas that are designated as a TMA, including the Bridgeport -Stamford UZ A and Hartford UZA. 1.2 MPO Coordination Federal regulations state that “If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an urbanized area there shall be a written agreement among the MPOs, the State(s), and the public transportation operator(s) describi ng how the metropolitan transportation planning processes will be coordinated to assure the development of consistent metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs across the MPA boundaries…” In order to comply with this requirement, the NVCOG has entered into several transportation planning agreements with partner MPOs. These agreements define mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan planning process. • Transportation Planning Process in the Greater Bridgeport and Valley Planning Regions This MOU consolidated the Transportation Planning Process in the Bridgeport Urbanized Area (as designated by the 1980 Census). It was executed in 1981 in response to the breakup of the Tri -State Planning Commission that had been the designated MPO for the New York metropolitan area. The MOU specifies transportation planning participants, roles, and responsibilities and designates the Greater Bridgeport Regional Council and the Valley Council of Governments as the transportation planning agencies for their respe ctive regions. It was updated and revised in 2006. • Transportation Planning Process in the Bridgeport -Stamford TMA Monitoring & Projections Identification of Needs Transportation Plan Special Studies Transportation Improvement Program Implementation ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS & NEEDS TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 16 This MOU was executed in 2002 and defines the responsibilities of each MPO for carrying out its region’s transportation planning program and f or coordinating with the other MPOs in the Bridgeport -Stamford UZA. The MPOs in the Bridgeport -Stamford Urbanized Area consist of: the Greater Bridgeport and Valley MPO (GBVMPO); the South Western Region MPO (SWRMPO); the Housatonic Valley Council of Elect ed Officials (HVCEO); the South Central Regional Council of Governments (SCRCOG); and, the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV). The transit operators consist of: the Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority (GBTA); the Housatonic Ar ea Regional Transit (HART); the Norwalk Transit District (NTD); the Milford Transit District (MTD); the Valley Transit District (VTD); and, the City of Stamford. An updated and revised MOU is being developed at the time of this MTP (February 201 9) and is expected to be executed by the adoption of the plan. • Transportation Planning Process in the Hartford TMA This MOU was established among the four Councils of Governments (COG) within the Hartford Urbanized Area, as well as the Connecticut Department of Tra nsportation (CTDOT). The COGs include the Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG), the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG), the Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments (RiverCOG), and the Northwest Hills Council of Governmen ts (NHCOG). The purpose of the MOU is to define the method for distributing metropolitan planning funds and the responsibilities of each COG for carrying out its respective transportation planning program and coordinating with the other partner COGs. The MOU was executed in May 2018. • Transportation Planning Process in the Multi -State New York -New Jersey -Connecticut – Pennsylvania Metropolitan Region This MOU is made and entered into by and among the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) and t he Orange County Transportation Council (OCTC) in the State of New York; the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) in the State of New Jersey; the Western Connecticut Council of Governments (WestCOG), Connecticut Metro Council of Governmen ts (METROCOG), Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG), South Central Regional Council of Governments (SCRCOG), and Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments (RiverCOG) in the State of Connecticut, and the Lehigh Valley Planning Commiss ion (LVPC) in the State of Pennsylvania. This group of agencies is collectively referred to as the Metropolitan Area Planning (MAP) Forum. It establishes a mechanism for voluntary coordination, cooperation and consultation among the organizations. The inte nt is to cooperate in efforts to achieve general consistency of planning products, analyses and tools through informal communication and document exchange. The original MOU was updated and revised in 2017 to expand the boundaries of the MAP Forum. It was executed in September 2017. • Air Quality Planning and Confor mity 17 Th e GBV MP O and the Conn ecticut Dep artment of E nergy a nd Environ mental Protection (DEE P) develop ed a l etter of und erstanding to define roles and respon sibilities for air qu ali ty plann ing, particularly as it pertains to the develop ment of transpo rtation control meas ures (TCM s) and the State Impleme ntatio n Plan for Ai r Qu ality (SIP). The MOU and letter of understanding w as signed in April idioms 1996. 1.3 MAP Forum The MAP Forum is a consortium of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania that have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the coordination of planning activities in the multi -state metropolit an region. The MAP Forum was established in 2008 to cooperate and coordinate transportation planning activities in the New York metropolitan area. The Valley COG, as co -host of the GBVMPO, was an original member of the MAP Forum , and NVCOG assumed the membership when the VCOG and COGCNV merged. Members are: • New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) • Orange County Transportation Council (OCTC) • North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) • Western Connecticut C ouncil of Governments (W estCOG) • Connecticut Metro Co uncil of Governments (METROCOG) • Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) • South Central Regional C ouncil of Governments (SCRCOG) • Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments (RiverCOG) • Lehigh Valley Planning Comm ission (LVPC) The MAP Forum provides organizational and strategic guidance to member MPOs in planning for and understanding mega -regional and boundary transportation projects. Because of the size, complexities and interdependence of the New York -New Jersey -Connecticut -Pennsylvania region, a major transportation investment in one part of the area can and will have implications throughout the region. It is imperative to be properly informed about these projects and fully understand how they will affect travel into, out of and through the component metropolitan planning areas. The networking capabilities of the MAP Forum as it relates to federally -mandated products and analyses is a critical function of the group. While the exchange of planning products is a ke y aspect of the MAP Forum’s work program, it is the access to expertise and resources of member organizations that provides the greatest benefits. Key accomplishments of the MAP Forum are: • Holds an annual meeting in the fall of each year and has added a s pring meeting in recent years. Agendas focus on critical mega -regional and boundary products. • Developed a work program that centers on m aintain the critical network ing capability of the MAP Forum. • Established a Multi -Freight Working Group to provide a bro ad perspective on goods movement in the multi -state metropolitan region and a dvis e the MAP Forum member s on critical freight issues, programs and projects impacting the multi -state metropolitan region . 18 • Coordinat ed on the development of a C ongestion M anagem ent Process for the metro area . • Coordinated on setting transportation performance measures and targets. 1.4 Mega -Regional Planning Context: The Four State Metropolitan Region The Four State Metropolitan Region that comprises the MAP Forum lies at the he art of the Northeast Mega -region, the most densely populated, urbanized land in the country. The Mega – region includes the metropolitan areas of Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City and Boston and is home to 49.5 million people. This tra nslate to nearly 18% of the nation’s total population. It is also a major contributor to the United States’ economy, producing one -fifth of the national GDP in 2010 ( The Regional Plan Association. November 2007. Northeast Megaregion 2050: A Common Future . http://www.rpa.org/pdf/Northeast_Report_sm.pdf ). 19 While the four -state region is centered on New York City, it also contains some of the largest cities in New Jersey (Newark, Jersey City, and Paterson) and Connecticut (Hartford, Stamford, Bridgeport, New Haven and Waterbury) as well as large suburban towns on Long Island (Brookhaven and Babylon) and in the lower Hudson Valley (Yonkers, Mount Vernon, Newburgh, New Rochelle, Poughkeepsie, and White Plains). It also includes the planning areas of the MPOs and COGs that are members of the MAP Forum (refer to Section 2.3 for a list of MAP Forum organizations). Geography and Environment The Four State Metropolitan Region is geographically center ed on New York City. The City possesses a well -used natural harbor and sits at the southern end of the Hudson River. East of Queens lie Nassau and Suffolk counties in suburban Long Island, known for its beach -lined coastline and barrier islands. Across the Hudson River to the west, lies northern New Jersey, an area which contains thirteen individual counties and several significant cities. North of the New Jersey -New York state border lies the Lower Hudson Valley, a hilly region comprised of seven counties (Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Ulster, Dutchess and Sullivan Counties) and dotted with suburban communities of varying size. Southwestern Connecticut is located to the east of these Hudson Valley counties and across Long Island Sound. This area of Connecticut is comprised of two counties (Fairfield and New Haven) and the six most populous cities in the state are located in the area (Bridgeport, Stamford, New Haven, Waterbury, Norwalk, and Danbury). It is characterized by a fairly dense, urban lands cape, interspersed by a number of wealthy suburban towns. The Pennsylvania portion of the four -state region lies at the foothills of the Poconos Mountains, and is characterized by the valleys formed by the Lehigh River and Delaware River, the latter of whi ch creates the border between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the Susquehanna River. The southernmost portion of the four -state region is made up of southern New Jersey in an area to the southeast of Philadelphia. Southern New Jersey’s coastline and barr ier islands also are included in this metropolitan region. Ec onom y The Four State Metropolitan Region’s economy is large, diverse, and international. In 2015, the region produced a gross metropolitan product of $1.6 trillion, the largest in the country am ong metropolitan regions. Its economic output is nearly twice that of the Los Angeles metropolitan area and second only to Tokyo globally, by a margin of only about 9% ( GDP of Tokyo 20 Metropolitan Area (Prefecture of Tokyo, Kanagawa, Saitama, and Chiba) , http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/jp/sna/sonota/kenmin/kenmin_top.html ). It is home to numerous Fortune 500 companies and foreign corporations, with one in ten private sector jobs being at a foreign company ( Wylde, Kathryn “Keeping the Economy Growing” . Gotham Gazette . January 23 rd, 2006) . Although significant numbers of workers who reside in the four state region commute to New York City, particularly Manhattan, suburban Long Island, the Lower Hudson Valley, northern New Jersey and southwestern Connecticut are all home to numerous industrie s and contribute substantially to the four state region’s economy. • Agriculture and tourism are important to the suburban Long Island and Lower Hudson Valley economies. • Northern New Jersey is home to the busiest port on the United States’ east coast, the New ark -Elizabeth Marine Terminal • The suburban areas close to New York City , for instance Westchester County in New York and Fairfield Count y in Connecticut, are home to major corporations. Areas further from the New York City core have varied demographic and economic profiles. Eastern Pennsylvania, for example, has historically been manufacturing -based, and is currently the site of a variety of industrial -related firms. In the City of Trenton, New Jersey’s capital, officials are attempting to incentivize m ore industrial and business development, as well as, looking to encourage more retail development within city limits. Dem ographics The Four State Metropolitan Region’s economy is large and diverse. The 2015 population estimate (ACS) for the area 23,723,696 . While New York City is famous for its diversity, the region as a whole is also quite ethnically and racially diverse, with large communities hailing from all over the world. Nearly 27% of the region’s population was born outside the United States (2015 A CS). The total work force in the region is 9,046,910, with the largest shares of jobs in the office and administrative support, sales, food, education, and financial sectors. Transportation Systems The transportation system of the Four State Metropolitan Region is large and complex, tied together by a network of highways, rail lines, bridges, tunnels, and other infrastructure. However, the system as a whole is aging and in need of renewal, As the largest metropolitan area in the nation, the four state regi on is traversed by numerous major limited access highways and rail lines. These include: • Interstate Highways : I-78, I -80 and I -280 which extend from New York City west into Pennsylvania; I -87, which becomes the New York Thruway between New York City and Al bany; I -95, a north -south highway that provides access to New England and of which a portion is the New Jersey Turnpike; and I -495, known as the Long Island Expressway. • Passenger Rail Lines : New Jersey Transit, MTA Metro -North Railroad, and MTA Long Islan d Rail Road commuter rail networks; the Shore Line East (Connecticut) commuter rail service; MTA New York City Transit’s subway network; the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey’s PATH rail rapid transit service; and New Jersey Transit’s Hudson – Bergen L ight Rail and Newark Light Rail systems. 21 • Intercity Rail : Amtrak along the North East Corridor from Washington, DC to Boston. • Maritime : freight facilities at the Port of New York & New Jersey and reliever ports in Bridgeport, New Haven and New London. • Majo r Commercial Airports : John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in southern Queens, Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) in Newark, and LaGuardia A irport (LGA) in northern Queens; • Smaller Commercial and General Aviation Airports : Lehigh Valley I nternational Airport (ABE) in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, Long Island MacArthur Airport (ISP) in Suffolk County, New York, Stewart International Airport (SWF) in Orange County, New York, Trenton -Mercer Airport (TTN) in Mercer County, New Jersey, and Tweed New Haven Regional Airport (HVN) in New Haven, Connecticut. • Bridges and Tunnels : Due to the large number of islands, rivers, and other geographic features, bridges and tunnels are common throughout the four state region, carrying both roadways and rail li nes across or under various topographical features. Metropolitan Travelshed Based on a four -step transportation demand model maintained by the NYMTC, an estimated 46.2 million trips are made each day within and between the sub -regional area made up of northern and central New Jersey, New York City, suburban Long Island, southwestern Connecticut, the lower Hudson valley and the mid -Hudson Valley. (Note: Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania was not included in the model). About 22% or 10.3 million trips are made using a form of public transit. The forecasted 2045 trip totals suggest a 12% growth with total trip amounting to nearly 52 million per day. The majority of trips are made within and are internal to the same area. The highest level of trip making occurs in the north and central New Jersey area, New York City and suburban Long Island . These three areas account for about 84% of the total trips. In terms of daily trips made between the subareas, the majority of these inter -area trips are made between New Yo rk City and northern and central New Jersey, between New York City and suburban Long Island, and between New York City and the lower Hudson Valley. These three sets of inter -area trips also feature significant proportions of transit trips. The core of the four state region is notable for its enormous mass transit system. It is estimated that about one in every three users of mass transit, and two out of three rail riders in the United States travel using this system ( Facts from Alan Pisarksi’s Commuting in America III Study.” Transportation Research Board. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/CIAIIIfacts.pdf ). New York City is served by an intensively used subway and bus sys tem, and its more immediate suburban neighbors are served by commuter rail and smaller state – and county -operated bus systems. Inter -city travel is provided by Amtrak, as well as long -haul buses and air travel facilities. The region is the busiest airspace in the United States, serving over 100 million passengers annually (Fleming, Susan. “ FAA Airspace Redesign: An Analysis of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Project, United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Congressional Requesters. ” Diane Publishing Company). 22 Four State Metropolitan Travelshed 23 Transportation Investments Due to the continued growth of the region and the aging state of many key pieces of infrastructure, a number of regionally -significant improvements to the trans portation infrastructure are either planned or moving forward in the Four State Metropolitan Region. Examples of these “boundary projects” whose impacts cut across planning areas and state lines include: • The Penn Station (New York) Access project that woul d provide direct access for the MTA Metro -North Railroad’s New Haven Line to Manhattan’s Penn Station, while redeveloping infill stations in the eastern Bronx. • Interstate 95 improvement projects from Stamford to Bridgeport and Old Lyme to New London, alon g with New Haven Line commuter rail service improvements. • Various improvement projects along Interstate 84 in both Connecticut and the Hudson Valley, including a complete replacement of the I -84/Route 8 interchange in Waterbury. • A Cross Long Island Sound Connection between suburban Long Island and either the Bronx, Westchester or Connecticut. • The New New York Bridge project to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge across the Hudson River be tween Westchester and Rockland c ounties, in tandem with the development of new bus rapid transit services in the Interstate 287/Tappan Zee Bridge corridor (under construction) . • West -of-Hudson transit improvements, including improvements to the Port Jervis Line in Orange County, New York. • The replacement of the aging Goethals Bridge between Elizabeth, New Jersey and Staten Island (under construction) . • The replacement of the Lincoln Tunnel Helix in Weehawken, New Jersey. • The Hudson Tunnel Project to create an additional rail tunnel that woul d preserve the current functionality and strengthen the resiliency of the Northeast Corridor’s Hudson River rail crossing between New Jersey and New York. • The Amtrak Gateway Program’s strategic rail infrastructure improvements designed to improve current s ervices and create new capacity that will allow the doubling of passenger trains running under the Hudson River. • The replacement of the Port Authority Bus Terminal, the redevelopment of Penn Station and the completion of Moynihan Station on Manhattan’s we st side. • The Cross Harbor Freight Program for rail freight across New York Harbor. • Airport access improvements, including the extension of the Port Authority Trans – Hudson rail service to Newark Liberty Airport, the extension of Air Train service to LaGuard ia Airport and transit and roadway improvement for John F. Kennedy International Airport. While passenger transport is critical, these important projects are not limited to the movement of people. In such a densely populated and economically active region , freight transportation is critical as well, and there are several major projects dedicated to freight in the region. For example, the Port Authority’s Cross Harbor Freight Program is seeking to address the difficulty of moving 24 freight from one side of Ne w York Harbor to the other by examining a wide range of alternatives, including railcar and truck floats, container barges, and a cross -harbor rail tunnel. After review, the enhanced railcar float and double -track rail tunnel emerged as the preferred alter natives (“Cross Harbor Freight Program.” http://www.panynj.gov/port/cross -harbor.html ). 1.5 Federal Planning Factors Federal metropolitan transportation regulations, specifically Title 23 CFR Par t 450.306, requires the MTP to consider projects and strategies that will address ten specific planning factors. The planning factors and how the MTP addresses each of the factors are as follows: 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency. • Revitalize and support the economic redevelopment of the urban core areas through the implementation of TOD projects and s tation area plans. • Reconstruct and moderniz e interchange areas on Route 8 to improve efficienc y and safety and provide better access to the urban core areas . • Expan d the incident management program and related ITS elements along the entire length of Route 8. • Construct a connector road between Route 42 in Beacon Falls and Route 67 in Seymour to spur economic development along the new corridor and provide access to potential development sites. • Construct a new rail spur and related infrastructure on the Waterb ury branch line in Naugatuck in support of plans to develop an inland port facility. • Maintain I -84 and Route 8 in a state -of-good repair to support efficient movement of freight and improve truck travel time reliability. • Improve track conditions along the Central Connecticut Rail Line to meet FRA class 3 standards. 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non -motorized users. • The MT P supports and is consistent with the CTDOT’s highway safety improvement program (HSIP) and integrates recommendations from the State Highway Safety Plan . • Construct Route 8 operational improvements and modernize interchange areas. • Construct intersection projects tha t address high hazard locations. • Ext en d the NRG Trail to provide a safe and attrac tive transportation corridor for bicyclists and pedestrians. • Expan d the incident management program and related ITS elements along the entire length of Route 8. • Address pedestrian safety by implementing a regionwide pedestrian safety program that will clos e gaps in the existing sidewalk network, construct new sidewalks, maintain pedestrian signals, and implement a “Complete Streets” policy to accommodate travel of all users. • Install advanced traffic signal systems. 3. Increase the security of the transportati on system for motorized and non -motorized users. • Support t ransportation emergency management activities as part of the Region al Emergency Planning Team – REPT1, REPT2 and REPT5 . 25 • Identif y critical transportation infrastructure in the Naugatuck Valley planni ng region vulnerable to natural and manmade disasters and implement resiliency and security measures . • Install security monitoring and response equipment at rail stations and on board transit vehicles. 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and f or freight. • Traffic signal modernization program – upgrade to include pedestrian signals, countdown signals, and accessible features (audible features). • Improve track conditions along the Central Connecticut Rail Line to meet FRA class 3 standards. • Redeve lop and revitalize urban core areas , including TOD and station area projects. • Enhance sidewalks and crosswalks with curb ramps, curb extensions and use of textured pavement material – “Complete Streets” program . • Enhance and facilitate multi -modal connections between local bus service and commuter rail service at commuter rail station s. • Enhance and facilitate multi -modal connections between rail, pipeline and highway -born e freight . • Consolidate local bus services and implement fixed bus route connections between Bristol, Waterbury and Shelton, including points in between. • Expan d the incident management program and related ITS elements along the entire length of Route 8. • Construct operational improvements Route 8 and moderniz e interchange areas. • Integrate g oods movement and freight planning with the State Freight Plan. • Support advancements and deployment of autonomous and connected technologies and vehicles. 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote ene rgy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns. • Consult with state and local land use managers and environmental protection ag encies. • Enhance and expand commuter rail service along the Waterbury branch line, including acquiring new locomotives and train sets to allow 30 -minute peak hour service, constructing new station buildings and installing high -level platforms, and construct ing a permanent transfer station at the Devon wye and instituting shuttle rail service along the WBL. • Complete the Naugatuck River Greenway Trail through the region. • Implement c ongestion management process and travel demand management actions. • Implement “ Complete Streets ” initiatives and green infrastructure/Low Impact Development projects . • Promote t ransit orient development (TOD) and station area plans to support downtown revitalization. • Implement a lternative modes of transportation projects along the Rout e 8 corridor , including Bus Rapid Transit and express bus service to complement commuter rail service . 26 • Construct pedestrian and bicycle connections and safety -related projects – Community Connectivity Program. • Participate in the Sustainable CT program and encourage development of walkable and livable downtown areas . 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight. • Enhance rail -bus transfer connections at commuter rail station s • Preserve and upgrade I -84 and Route 8, as principle freight corridors, to improve the efficient movement of g oods and freight. • Enhanced and expanded commuter rail service along the Waterbury branch line, including constructing a permanent transfer station at the De von wye and instituting shuttle rail service along the WBL. • Implement Bus Rapid Transit and express bus service in the Route 8 corridor to complement WBL rail service . 7. Promote efficient system management and operation. • Expan d the incident management program and related ITS elements along the entire length of Route 8. • Identify and assess intersections and corridors with recurring congestion and develop projects to reduce congestion and improve efficiency – Congestion Management System • Identify and assess high hazard intersections and corridors and develo p a safety improvement program – Safety Management System . • Develop a ten -year capital plan for VTD and CTDOT to ensure rolling stock and vehicles are rep laced on a life -cycle sch edule – Public Transit Management System . • Monito r highway system operations and performance through the acquisition of “Big Data” , analysis of travel patterns available from the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) , and assessment of highway, bicyclist and pedestrian safety based on the analysis of crash data available from the CTDOT crash repository. • Implement traffic signal system modernization and interconnection projects. 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation s yst em. • Rebuild and modify interchange areas on Route 8 to improve operations and efficiency and provide better access to the region’s urban core areas . • Upgrade commuter rail infrastructure – Positive Train Control, full signalization system and by -pass si dings. • Implement traffic signal system modernization and interconnection projects • Rehabilitate and maintain the existing highway and transit systems in a state -of- good -repair. • Implement low cost, intersection improvements designed to improve pedestrian safety and connections and enhance traffic flow . • Transportation management and operations projects. 9. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation. • Implement green infr astructure and Low Impact Development projects. 27 • Integrate road projects included in municipal and multi -jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation plans into the M TP. • Assess the vulnerability of critical transportation infrastructure to impacts of climate ch ange and extreme weather events. 10. Enhance travel and tourism. • Identified tourist attractions, including amusement parks, regional and local museums, state parks and forests, sports venues, regional performing arts theaters, and seasonal events, and develope d a GIS database to define location and attributes . • Assess t ravel and traf fic characteristics to key attractions to determine if operating problems exist. • Determine public transit access opportunities to main tourist attractions. 1.6 Transportation Perfor mance Measures and Targets Over the last two decades, states and MPOs, including the CNVMPO, have increasingly relied upon highway performance data to guide planning and programming, a process that has come to be referred to as performance management. The 2012 federal Moving Ahead f or Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP -21) integrated many of these practices into statute by putting requirements on states and MPOs to include performance management in their planning documents. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act re-emphasized the performance based approach to transportation planning. Specifically states and MPOs became required to establish performance targets and utilize a performance ‐based approach to transportation decision ‐making. The national policy as outline d in MAP -21 a nd the FAST Act is as follows: “ to improve the condition and performance of the national freight network to ensure that the national freight network provides the foundation for the United States to compete in the global economy and achieve eac h goal as described in the following goals. ” Federal targets have been or are being established in the following goal areas: • Highway Safety • Transit • Infrastructure Condition – Pavement and Bridge Condition • System Reliability • Freight Movement • Air Quality The US Department of Transportation published the final rule related to implementation of performance based transportation planning in May 2016. The rule r equir e the CTDOT, CNVMPO, and the operators of public transportation to use performance measu res to document expectations for future performance. Performance management and performance -based planning and programming increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal -aid Program and offers a framework to support improved investment decisi on -making by focusing on performance outcomes for national transportation goals. The FHWA and FTA established national performance measures in areas of safety, infrastructure condition, congestion, system reliability, pollution emissions, freight movement, transit safety and transit state of good repair. As part of this new performance -based approach, recipients of Federal -aid highway program funds and Federal transit funds are required to link the investment priorities contained in the TIP /S TIP to achievem ent of performance targets. 28 The MAP -21 performance -related provisions also require States, MPOs, and operators of public transportation to develop other performance -based plans and processes or add new requirements on existing performance -based plans and p rocesses. These performance -based plans and processes include the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program performance plan, the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the public transportation agency safety plan, the highway and transit as set management plans, and the State Freight Plan. A TIP /STIP shall include, to the maximum extent practicable, a discussion of the anticipated effect of the TIP/ STIP toward achieving the performance targets identified by the State in the statewide transportation plan or other State performance -based plan(s), linki ng investment priorities to those performance targets . The NVCOG has implemented performance measures that have been developed by CTDOT and will invest resources in projects to achieve adopted targets. Highway Safety Highway Safety is determined by the interaction be tween drivers, their behavior and the highway infrastructure. The five (5) performance measures for Highway Safety include: 1. The number of fatalities; 2. The rate of fatalities; 3. The number of serious injuries; 4. The rate of serious injuries; and, 5. The number of non -motorized fatalities and serious injuries. The CTDOT and the CNVMPO will collaborate to program appropriate Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) safety projects and the TIP /STIP will program projects to meet the targets set by the CT DOT and agreed upon by the CNVMPO. Projects will include : • Programmatic highway safety improvements : Projects or programs that are conducted regularly throughout the state such as signing and pavement marking programs. • Programmatic driver safety activities : Projects or programs that are conducted regularly on an ongoing basis. These include Highway Safety behavioral programs such as Impaired Driving, Occupant Protection, Distracted Driving, Speeding, Motorcycle Safety, and Teen Driving grants for State and Municipal Police Departments using National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) funds. • Location -specific highway safety projects : This includes roadway safety improvements selected to correct known safety problems at locations with a high freque ncy or severity of crashes. The Safety Performance Management Measures regulation supports the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and requires State Departments of Transportation and MPOs to set HSIP targets for the five safety performance measures that cover all public roadways regardless of ownership or functional classification. The CTDOT, upon review of the 5 -year rolling average for each measure, has determined that the targets will be to maintain the current five year moving average. 29 Safety Pe rformance Management Measure Target Summary Target Measures Number of fatalities 257 fatalities/year Rate of fatalities 0.823 fatalities/100 Million VMT Number of serious injuries 1,571 serious injuries/year Rate of serious injuries 5.033 serious injuries/100 Million VMT Number of non -motorized fatalities and non -motorized serious injuries 280 fatalities and serious injuries/year These targets were included in the CTDOT Highway Safety Plan sent to NHSTA and were approved on August 18, 2017 . The targets were also incorporated in the Highway Safety Improvement Program annual report . The HSIP was approved by FHWA on September 26, 2017 . The CNVMPO endorsed the state safety targets December 8, 2017. Transit The Transit Asset Management (TAM) rule r equires that recipients and sub -recipients of FTA funds to set annual performance targets for federally established State of Good Repair (SGR ) measures. Performance targets will be set for one or more asset classes for the following asset categories : Rolling Stock, Equipment, Facilities and Guideway Infrastructure. The CTDOT identified asset classes for its transit service providers specific to each of the four assets categories in the three public transportation modes of rail, bus and ferry. The percentage of assets beyond the useful life benchmark is the performance measure set for both the categories of Rolling Stock and Equipment . For the facilities category, the performance measure is based on a 5 -point condition rating scale derived from FTA’s Transit Economic Requirement Model (TERM). The performance measure is the percentage of facilities rated below 3 on the 5 -point scale, wi th a 3 rated as SGR. The category of facilities has two classes which are passenger and parking stations and administrative and maintenance buildings. Under FTA reporting requirements, the guideway Infrastructure category is specific only to rail. The perf ormance measure set by FTA is the percentage of guideway with a performance restriction , whic h is interpreted as slow zones. Under the FAST Act and MAP -21, “transit providers are required to submit an annual narrative report to the National Transit Databas e that provides a description of any change in the condition of its transit system from the previous year and describes the progress made during the year to meet the targets previously set for that year.” Beginning in October 2018, performance targets will be reported annually to the National Transit Database by the CTDOT for the transit system. A narrative report describing strategies for setting targets and progress on the targets will accompany targets starting 2019. To meet this requirement, the CTDOT coordinated with transit providers in Connecticut to develop SGR performance target in the four asset categories by the deadline of January 1, 2017, as set in the federal rules. The four asset categories are: 30 • Rolling Stock – Revenue Vehicles : The goal for this asset class is to maintain vehicles in a state of good repair and replace vehicles based on a Useful Life Benchmark (U LB). The target is the percentage of vehicles that meet or exceed their ULB. • Equipment – Service Vehicles : The goal for this asset c lass is to maintain vehicles in a state of good repair and replace vehicles based on a Useful Life Benchmark (U LB). The target is the percentage of vehicles that meet or exceed their ULB. • Facilities – Revenue Vehicles : The goal for this asset class is to m aintain facilities in a state of good repair. The target is the percentage of facilities that have a TERM (Transit Economic Requirements Model) condition rating of less than 3 on a 1 -to-5 scale, with 1 indicating a poor condition and 5 an excellent conditi on. • Infrastructure – Guideway : The goal for this asset class is to maintain transit guideway in a state of good repair. The target is the percentage of guideway operating under a speed restriction. The following tables provides a summary of the performance targets by asset class and lists the current percentage meeting or exceeding the metric and the anticipated percentage at the end of 2017 for Tier I systems. Tier I transit systems include those under the operating jurisdiction of the CTDOT, in cluding assets operated by Metro North Railroad on the New Haven main and branch lines and CT Transit, including the Waterbury division operated by North Eat Transportation. Transit Asset Management Performance Measure : Target Summary Asset Class Performan ce Metric Target Current Percentage 1 year Forecast Bus ULB 12 years 14% 46% 18% Articulated Bus ULB 12 years 14% 0% 0% Rail Locomotives ULB 39 years 0% 40% 40% Rail Coaches (Push/Pull) ULB 39 years 0% 0% 0% Rail Self Propelled Cars ULB 39 years 0% 12% 12% Service Vehicles -Trucks ULB 14 years 7% 30% 30% Service Vehicles – Automobiles ULB 4 years 20% 46% 0% Service Vehicles -SUV ULB 4 years 20% 62% 0% Rail -Guideway Slow Zone Miles 2% 6% 5% Facilities – Passenger/Parking TERM <3 0% 2% 0% Facilities – Admin/Maintenance TERM <3 0% 4% 4% 31 These targets were adopted by the CTDOT on January 1, 2017 and by the CNVMPO on June 9, 2017. The TIP/ STIP will program projects to meet the targets set by the CTDOT and agreed upon by the CNVMPO by utilizing the list of capital prioritized projects, based on projected asset conditions, included in the CTDOT TAM and Transit Group Plans to be completed by O ctober 1, 20 18 to be shared with the MPOs. This list of projects will be updated every four years along with the Plans. These prioritized projects will be developed with the aid of CTDOT’s analytical decision support tool, Transit Asset Prioritization Tool , better known as TAPT. Pavement and Bridge Condition The re are four performance measures for Pavement condition . These are: 1. The percentage of the pavement on the Interstate system in Good condition; 2. The percentage of the pavement on the Interstate syste m in Poor condition, with a maximum percentage of lane miles in poor condition at 5%; 3. The percentage of the pavement on the non -Interstate National Highway System (NHS) in Good condition; and 4. The percentage of the pavement on the non -Interstate NHS in Poo r condition. The two performance measur es for Bridge deck area condition include: 1. The percentage of NHS bridges by deck area in Good condition; and 2. The percent of NHS bridges by deck area in Poor condition. Pavement Condition Performance Measure : Target Summary Target Current Condition (State) 2-year targets (2020) 4-year targets (2022) Percent interstate in good condition 66.2 % 65.5 % 64.4% Percent interstate in poor condition 2.2 % 2.0% 2.6 % Percent Non -Interstate NHS in good condition 37.9% 36 .0% 31.9 % Percent Non -Interstate NHS in poor condition 8.6 % 6.8 % 7.6 % Bridge Condition Performance Measure : Target Summary Target Current Condition (State) 2-year targets (2020) 4-year targets (2022) Percent in good condition 18.1 % 22.1 % 26.9% Percent in poor condition 15.0 % 7.9 % 5.7 % These targets were adopted by the CTDOT on May 20, 2018 and by the CNVMPO on June 8, 2018. The CTDOT in collaboration with the CNVMPO will program projects to meet the targets using the Department’s Pavement Management System and the Bridge Management System , 32 which uses a systematic look at conditions to develop optimal strategies. These strategies are included in the CTDOT Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP). Transportation Asset Management Plan The TAMP acts as a focal point for information about the assets, their management strategies, long -term expenditure forecasts, and business management processes. The CTDOT is required to develop a risk -based TAMP for the NHS to improve or preserve th e condition of the assets and the performance of the system (Title 23 USC 119(e) (1), MAP -21 § 1106). MAP -21 defines asset management as a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets, with a focus on engineerin g and economic analysis based upon quality information, to identify a structured sequence of maintenance, preservation, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will achieve and sustain a desired state of good repair over the lifecycle of the a ssets at minimum practicable cost (Title 23 U.S.C. 101(a) (2), MAP -21 § 1103). Pavement and Bridge State of Good Repair needs are identified, quantified, and prioritized through the TAMP process. Projects to address SGR repair needs are selected from the T AMP for inclusion in the TIP/STIP. System Reliability Highway travel time reliability is closely related to congestion and is greatly influenced by the complex interactions of traffic demand, physical capacity, and roadway “events.” Travel time reliability is a significant aspect of tran sportation system performance. Operational -improvement, capacity -expansion, and to a certain degree highway road and bridge condition improvement projects, impact both congestion and system reliability . Demand – management ini tiatives a lso impact system reliability. The level of travel time reliability (LOTTR) is expressed as a ratio of the 80th percentile travel time of a reporting segment to the “normal” (50th percentile) travel time of a reporting segment occurring throughout a full calendar year. Segments that have a ratio less than 1.5 are considered “reliable.” The performance m easure, as defined in Title 23 CFR 490.507, is the percent of the person -miles traveled on the Interstate section and the non -Interstate NHS that are reliable. The following targets were adopted by the CTDOT on May 20, 2018 and by the CNVMPO on June 8, 201 8. System Reliability Performance Measure : Target Summary Target Current Condition (State) 2-year targets (2020) 4-year targets (2022) Percent Interstate that is “reliable” 78.3 % 75.2 % 72 .1% Percent non -Interstate NHS that is “reliable” 83.0 % 80.0 % 76.4 % The CTDOT and the CNVMPO will program projects in the TIP/ STIP to meet the targets by considering system reliability in the projects that are selected. Over time, and as quantifiable impacts begin to be observed and measured, the targets will become a formal part of the project selection process . 33 Freight Movement This measure considers factors that are unique to the trucking industry . The unusual characteristics of truck freight include: • Use of the system during all hours of the day; • High percentage of travel in off -peak periods; and • Need for shippers and receivers to factor in more ‘buffer’ time into their logistics planning for on -time arrivals. [23 CFR 490.607]. Freight movement will be assessed by the Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) index. This index is the regional average of the highest ratios of the 95 th percentile travel time for a road segment to the 50 th percentile travel time for fiv e statutorily defined time periods: • AM peak period • Mid -day period • PM peak period • Overnight • Weekends This is a measure of truck travel time reliability, not congestion. Segments of the highway that are regularly and predictably congested will not have a hi gh TTTR index number. Rather, those segments of highway where delays are unpredictable and severe are scored highest. Prioritizing reliability over congestion came from stakeholder outreach with the freight industry where predictability was deemed mo re imp ortant for scheduling. The TTTR index only applies to roads on the National Highway System. The CNVMPO has access to the data need ed to calculate the TTTR. T ruck travel times for the Interstate System is included in the FHWA’s National Performance Managem ent Research Data Set (NPMRDS) . The following targets were adopted by the CTDOT on May 20, 2018 and by the CNVMPO on June 8, 2018. Freight Movement Performance Measure : Target Summary Target Current Condition (State) 2-year targets (2020) 4-year targets (2022) Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) for Interstate 1.75 1.79 1.83 Air Quality The US DOT requires that sta tes and MPO s assess the impact of their transportation systems on air quality and specifically the imp acts from vehicle exhaust emissions. The performance measure for air quality is based on ly on an assessment of projects selected for funding under the FHWA’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program . The CMAQ program’s purpose is to fund transportation proje cts or programs that contribute to the attainment or maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The TIP/ STIP will program projects to meet the targets by selecting appropriate CMAQ eligible projects 34 including: congestion reduction and t raffic flow improvements; ridesharing; transit improvements; travel demand management; and, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The following targets were adopted by the CTDOT on May 20, 2018 and by the CNVMPO on June 8, 2018. Air Quality Performance Measure Target : Reductions Produced by CMAQ Projects Target Current Measure (2017) Targets Emissions Component 2-Year 4-Year 2-Year (2020) 4-Year (2022) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) cumulative kg/day 10.82 263.89 19.32 30.14 Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) cumulative kg/day 34.68 462.49 67.69 102.37 Particulate Matter PM2.5 cumulative kg/day 1.04 12.95 1.632 2.674 1.7 Title VI and Environmental Justice The NVCOG’s efforts under Title VI and Environmental Justice Executive Orders aim to make the transportation planning process accessible to all NVCOG residents and neighbors, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, income, or ability to speak English. NVCOG Title VI Program Plan Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that no person in the US shall be denied benefits or subjected to discrimination using Federal dollars on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The primary impact of Title VI for MPO activities is to require transportation planning and programming to p roactively consider the needs of ethnic and racial minority populations through inclusion in the transportation planning process, and evaluation of the equal availability of transportation opportunities to all residents. A primary means of compliance is th e provision of translated materials, on -demand interpreters, and formal discrimination complaint reviews. The NVCOG developed and adopted a formal Title VI Plan in April of 2016, with a subsequent update in May to address comments from FTA. This original T itle VI Plan primarily concerned the lower Valley portion of the N augatuck Valley planning region . The NVCOG is a direct recipient of FTA funds and is FTA grant recipient for the Valley Transit District’s capital program. The NVCOG is also required to foll ow Title VI rules with respect to its planning program for as the host agency of the CNVMPO and as a participating agency member of the GBV MPO. Activities Language Assistance Plan : As part of the development of the Title VI Plan, NVCOG completed a Langua ge Assistance Plan, following the “Four Factor Analysis” detailed in the FTA Title VI Circular. The process requires the NVCOG to determine the number and proportion of the population with Limited English 35 Proficiency. Based on the results of the analysis, it was determined that providing Spanish – language assistance is important to best serve the region’s target populations. The LEP analysis also determined if certain non -English speaking populations required special consideration under the Department of Justice’s Safe Harbor provision. Safe Harbor provisions apply if the eligible LEP popula tion in a given language exceeds 5% or 1 ,000 members of the eligible popula tion for transit district’s services. If these thresholds are attain, vital written material s will be translated to accommo date their nee ds. The language group that meets the Safe Harbor criteria is Spanish. Since adoption of the Title VI Program Plan , the NVCOG has begun offering translations of all newly -published documents, and offers interpretation at all public hearings and events. Th e numbers of relevant social organizations, religious groups, and interpreters are kept on -hand in case of immediate need for assistance. The NVCOG has also provided notices of the rights of residents in plain sight on NVCOG -owned transit vehicles operated by the Valley Transit District and in its offices. A small Polish -speaking population lives in the region. Through the above analysis, the NVCOG has concluded that this population group does not require the same level of language services that the Spanish -speaking population requires, primarily due to the a vailability of adult family mem bers who speak English fluently. A Polish translation of the Title VI notification was added to all transit vehicles operated by the VTD , and posted in the NVCOG and VTD of fices. The needs of the Polish -speaking population will continue to be monitored. Title VI Complaint Process : The NVCOG has developed a discrimination complaint process and a standard discrimination complaint form ( www.valleytransit.org/accessibility.htm ) Planned Activities In addition to providing additional translations and notices of translation availability, NVCOG staff plan to update the NVCOG Title VI Program Plan to cover the entirety of the Naugatuck Valley planning region in FFY 20 19. NVCOG Environ mental Justice Policy Environmental Justice (EJ) is the policy and practice that calls for an agency to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority pop ulations and low -income populations. The concept also calls for identifying strategies and techniques for meaningful engagement of affected populations. The NVCOG adopted the NVCOG Environmental Justice Policy in March 2017, with subsequent annual updates to incorporate updated data. This policy arose from a desire to create a comprehensive public outreach strategy for all nineteen towns in the Naugatuck Valley planning region , above and beyond the minimum requirements of state and federal regulation. The a dopted Policy uses the following guiding principles: • Avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low -income populations; • Ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the planning decision -making process; and 36 • Prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low -income populations. The adopted Environmental Justice provisions apply to every phase of NVCOG planning decision – making processes, regardless of funding source. This policy also applies to activities of entities using NVCOG funds or facilities and to all actions of the Central Na ugatuck Valley MPO (CNVMPO) as well as NVCOG activities on behalf of the Greater Bridgeport -Valley MPO. The Environmental Justice Policy wa s the first document published by the NVCOG to be fully translated into Spanish at the time of its publication. En vironmental justice (EJ) populations are described in Executive Order 12898, and consist of minority populations, low -income populations, or both. The NVCOG also considered the impacts of transit dependence and the location of elderly residents in its anal ysis, though these factors are considered separately in order to supplement the primary analysis on minority and low -income factors. The NVCOG EJ Policy uses the idea of EJ Communities to identify areas of particular concern in order to measure performance , and to identify neighborhoods where particular low -impact transportation improvements might have outsized benefit. EJ Communities also enable NVCOG staff to identify potential partners in the public outreach process who may be able to better inform and c onnect these communities with the transportation planning process. To identify the location of these populations, the NVCOG uses the most recent block group level survey data collected through the American Community Survey and published by the U.S. Census Bureau. Based on minority population, t he NVCOG found concentrations of racial and ethnic minority populations in the City of Waterbury (Map 3) with a few scattered throughout the region . Many census block groups region -wide have very high proportions of minority populations, with a mean proportion of 27.4%. Well over half of the census block groups in Waterbury are minority – majority, where the population is composed of less than fifty percent (50%) non -Hispanic whites. (Region -wide, racial and ethnic mino rities make up 25.8% of the population.) Of the region's population, 14.7% (66,054) identify as Hispanic or Latino, while 6.4% (28,869) identify as Black or African -American and 2.5% (11,265) identify as Asian. The NVCOG defines "low -income" residents for the purposes of Environmental Justice as members of households with a median household income less than 1.5 times the federally -defined poverty threshold, which is dependent upon the size of the household. For example, the most common household arrangement in the Naugatuck Valley COG is a married couple with a single child. The federal government defines this household as living at or below the poverty threshold if their annual earnings are equal to or less than $19,055. The NVCOG's low -income threshold wou ld multiply this federal income figure by 1.5, resulting in a low -income threshold of $28,583 annual household earnings. Low -income populations are concentrated in central Waterbury, however this concentration is not as pronounced as the concentration of t he minority population. There are also several census block groups in Ansonia and Bristol with a majority of their residents below the NVCOG's low -income threshold. 37 Of 441,042 individuals in the region, 78,156 (17.7%) fall below the NVCOG's low -income thre shold, 49,880 (11.3%) fall below the federal poverty threshold, and 24,322 (5.5%) fall below half of the federal poverty threshold. Median household income for the region is $66,989, while median family income is $88,444. Based on the demographic analysis, EJ communities are census block groups where disproportionately large populations of minorities and low -income residents reside. The NVCOG's planning and programming should consider all EJ populations regardless of their concentration to identify and rect ify adverse and disparate impacts on these populations; however, these EJ communities are areas of particular concern due to their concentrated need and have been identified for the location of beneficial projects and program activities. 38 NVCOG EJ Communit ies The key means of implementing the NVCOG Environmental Justice Policy is to incorporate EJ impact analyses into the agency’s projects and programs. The NVCOG has developed parallel analyses processes for physical projects (including proposed development s which fall under the NEPA process) and for NVCOG -led programs. This was done to ensure NVCOG’s NEPA process 39 was full -featured, and to measure more generalized impacts of NVCOG’s programs on sensitive populations. The NEPA Process is the overarching environmental analysis process required under Federal Law. Projects which may have environmental impacts must study potential impacts in great detail, and propose adjustments to the project or mitigating actions to reduce environmental impacts. Analyses for both programs and projects att empt to identify any population negatively or positively impacted, evaluate whether those populations include EJ populations, connect directly with impacted populations to determine the scope and severity, and id entify and document mitigating actions. The NVCOG Environmental Justice Policy requires that the MTP conform to the principles of environmental justice by proactively considering the needs of communities and populations of concern, and negative impacts on those communities by otherwise well -intended projects and programs. As such, an environmental justice analysis of proposed transportation projects in the M TP will be completed and inserted into the final document. Additionally, a review of the Transportation Improvement Program and related amendments is performed to identify beneficial impacts of federal transportation impacts on EJ communities, and to ensure that they are proportional with the population of these communities. 40 2.0 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile The Naugatuck Valley planning region is located in west -central Connecticut, covering about 422 square miles. The City of Waterbury is the largest city in the region and serves as its central city. The region lies mid -way between Hartford to the east, New Haven to the south, Bridgeport to the southwest and Danbury to the west. The Naugatuck Vall ey planning region includes the whole of the Census -defined Waterbury urbanized area, and parts of the Bridgeport -Stamford urbanized area, New Haven urbanized area and Hartford urbanized area. It has a combined population (201 6 ACS ) of 44 7,390 people. 41 The Naugatuck Valley planning region comprise s the following communities: • Ansonia • Naugatuck • Southbury • Beacon Falls • Oxford • Thomaston • Bethlehem • Plymouth • Waterbury • Bristol • Prospect • Watertown • Cheshire • Seymour • Wolcott • Derby • Shelton • Woodbury • Middlebury Historically, the region supported a robust manufacturing economy based on its location along the Naugatuck , Housatonic , and Pequabuck Rivers and access to water power and water borne transportation. The Naugatuck Valley was the center of American brass manufacturing, producing products such as clocks, buttons, munitions and machines. In the years following WWII, brass producers moved wes t, and eventually abroad, and plastics replaced brass in many products. At the economic zenith of manufacturing, communities invested the infrastructure needed to support the sector. This infrastructure included public water and sanitary sewers. In the dow ntowns, d ense residential developments provide d work force housing in proximity of the manufacturing plants. Businesses and manufacturing plants were located in town centers and the downtown areas became the focal points for residents and met all of their essential needs. The Naugatuck Valley economy has diversified significantly since its manufacturing heyday. Healthcare, educational services, retail, and professional and business services now dominate the economy. Fabricated metal production remains an im portant component of the economy. The second half of the 20th century saw extraordinary population and employment growth in the region’s suburban and rural communities. Despite suburbanization, Waterbury remains the social, cultural, institutional, and em ployment center of the region. The region is a mix of historic urban centers that once supported industrial activities, suburban communities and rural areas. These areas can be characterized and defined as the “urban core,” “inner ring” and “outer ring.” During the 19th century, the urban core emerged as a leading manufacturing center and has high levels of racial and income diversity, high population density, good access to public transit, and plentiful affordable housing. The character of the urban core varies significantly from neighborhood to neighborhood. Most of the region’s major institutions, such as hospitals and higher education, call the urban core home. The urban core is comprised of Ansonia, Bristol, Derby, Naugatuck and Waterbury. 42 Inner ring communities contain a mix of urban and suburban characteristics. Smaller manufacturing centers such as Oakville, Terryville, and Shelton emerged in the 19th century, forming the historic cores of the inner ring municipalities. Following World War II, thes e communities became more suburban in character as urban core residents and young families moved in. Today, the population is highly educated and moderately diverse. In the last decade, the inner ring has seen job growth as companies leave the urban core t o be closer to their workforce. The municipalities of Cheshire, Plymouth, Seymour, Shelton, Thomaston and Watertown make up the inner ring communities. The traditionally rural outer ring has become more suburban in character over the last two decades. Fro m 2000 to 201 6, the outer ring population grew at 12. 2%, far faster than the region, state, and nation. These towns have the lowest population densities, the highest incomes, and the highest proportion of elderly residents. With few local jobs, most outer ring residents commute to jobs in 43 neighboring towns an d cities. The out er ring includes Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Middlebury, Oxford, Prospect, Southbury, Wolcott and Woodbury. The Naugatuck Valley planning region has a long and rich history in transportation. As an early river port in lower Naugatuck Valley a nd a major manufacturing center of Connecticut, the area has capitalized on multi -modal opportunities for more than 100 years. The area benefits from the confluence of the Housatonic and Naugatuck Rivers. The Housatonic River, a navigable waterway from Lon g Island Sound to Derby, functioned as a means of goods transport. Cargo ships would travel up and down the river and meet the trains at the East Derby Transfer Point. Before the proliferation of the automobile and expansion of the road network following W orld War II , the Waterbury rail line was the dominant mode of transportation. The rail service provided intercity and inter -regional passenger, as well as freight, connections. The construction of Route 8 in the early 1960s and Interstate 84 during the mid – and late 1960s provided an efficient and convenient means to travel to other areas. As a result, manufacturing businesses began to relocate to areas with less expensive operating costs and residents also began to shift their travel to other communities f or shopping and social activities. The downtown s declined ; once vibrant communities became under -populated ; vacant factories and industrial sites lay dormant, too polluted to be redeveloped , what are now called b rownfield sites. The core region was further devastated by severe flooding of Naugatuck River in August of 1955 from the unusual occurrence of two named hurricanes, Connie and Diane, passing within proximity of Connecticut within nine days. While neither storm directly struck Connecticut, their com bined impact was immense. Hurricane Connie produced four -to-six inches of rain across southern New England. The rain saturated the ground and caused river and reservoir water levels to be well above normal. When Hurricane Diane hit the area later the same month, the ground was unable to absorb the additional rain and the rivers and lakes were already above flood stage. Over the two -day period, up to 20 inches of rain fell in parts of New England. This resulted in arguably the most devastating inland floods to ever hit the state. The heavily industrial and commercial areas bordering the Naugatuck River in Waterbury experienced flooding at the first or second story levels. The story was the same up and down the Naugatuck River valley from Torrington to Derby. In Bristol the Pequabuck breached its banks and inundated the downtown and Forestville neighborhood . The damage statewide was estimated to have exceeded 200 m illion dollars (1955 dollars) and many downtowns never fully recovered. Subsequent to this flood event, six flood control dams were built along the Naugatuck River by the Army Corps of Engineers, including the one in the town of Thomaston at the northern edge of the region, to protect flood prone town centers. In addition, a series of flood control wa lls and levees were constructed to help protect Ansonia and Derby ; channel improvements, a floodwall and a protective dike were built within Waterbury. The areas along the Housatonic River and other rivers in the region do not have the same level of protec tion and significant flooding continues to occur. 44 Despite the decline of manufacturing in the region and the urban exodus of the second half of the twentieth century , the region’s downtowns retain well -developed infrastructure and access to both bus and rail . Steep hillsides rising from the rivers ’ banks define the region and hav e confine d town centers to help create intimate , compact downtowns. These two factors make many of the region’s dow ntowns well positioned to accommodate transit -oriented and transit -supportive development . Today, residents of the Naugatuck Valley are more mobile than ever. The majority of residents work outside the region, many commuting to New Haven, Hartford, and Fai rfield County. Similarly, over 40 percent of the workforce lives outside the region. The increasing interplay between Connecticut’s regions suggests that recurring congestion on the region’s main thoroughfares will also continue to worsen and alternatives to the automobile need to be implemented. Just as in the past, transportation and how residents and commuters choose to transport themselves is a key component to the region’s future economic growth. 2.1 Population and Demographic Trends From 2000 to 2016, the region saw a modest 4.3% growth rate, adding 18,600 new residents, for a total population of 447,390. This was a faster growth rate than the 1990s, but much slower than the 1980s. About 60% of the population growth was due to natural increase (births minus deaths), while 40% was due to in -migration from outside the region. Demand for new single family homes in the early 2000s led to explosive growth in outer ring municipalities, which grew 12.2% between 45 2000 and 2016. The remainder of the region grew a t a slower rate, with a 4.5% increase in the inner ring and a 1.6% increase in the urban core. Since 2010, population growth has stagnated. From 2007 to 2015, the number of births dropped by 13.1%. A phenomenon often attribute d to m any families delay ing ha ving children due to economic uncertainty following the 2007 -2009 recession and rising student loan debt. Additionally, the rate of new home construction has not recovered to its pre -2008 levels, particularly in the urban core. Population Growth in the Nau gatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2016 Population Percent Change Geography 2016 2010 2000 2010 -2016 2000 -2010 Ansonia 18,950 19,249 18,554 -1.6% 3.7% Beacon Falls 6,075 6,049 5,246 0.4% 15.3% Bethlehem 3,492 3,607 3,422 -3.2% 5.4% Bristol 60,437 60,477 60,062 -0.1% 0.7% Cheshire 29,254 29,261 28,543 0.0% 2.5% Derby 12,755 12,902 12,391 -1.1% 4.1% Middlebury 7,606 7,575 6,451 0.4% 17.4% Naugatuck 31,625 31,862 30,989 -0.7% 2.8% Oxford 12,916 12,683 9,821 1.8% 29.1% Plymouth 11,926 12,213 11,634 -2.3% 5.0% Prospect 9,720 9,405 8,707 3.3% 8.0% Seymour 16,540 16,540 15,454 0.0% 7.0% Shelton 40,979 39,559 38,101 3.6% 3.8% Southbury 19,727 19,904 18,567 -0.9% 7.2% Thomaston 7,699 7,887 7,503 -2.4% 5.1% Waterbury 109,211 110,366 107,271 -1.0% 2.9% Watertown 22,048 22,514 21,661 -2.1% 3.9% Wolcott 16,707 16,680 15,215 0.2% 9.6% Woodbury 9,723 9,975 9,198 -2.5% 8.4% Region Total 447,390 448,708 428,790 -0.3% 4.6% Urban Core 232,978 234,856 229,267 -0.8% 2.4% Inner Ring 128,446 127,974 122,896 0.4% 4.1% Outer Ring 85,966 85,878 76,627 0.1% 12.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 (B01003), 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census Population Projections Population projections from the Connecticut State Data Center indicate that through 2025, the region’s population will continue to grow, but at a much slower rate than in the past. From 2025 to 2040, the region is projected to shrink by 1.2%, losing approx imately 5,355 residents. The urban core is projected to grow at the fastest rate, adding 7,856 residents between 2015 and 2040, a 3.3% increase. Waterbury, which has a much higher birth rate than the rest of the region, 46 is projected to grow by 7.3%. New h ome construction and in -migration will slow and limit population growth in the outer ring. Middlebury and Oxford are projected to be the two fastest – growing municipalities in the region. In the inner ring, shrinking household size and a decrease in the pop ulation under 15 will limit growth. The population in the inner ring is expected to decline by 9.7% between 2015 and 2040. Communities such as Cheshire and Shelton are close to being “built out” and have little developable land to support new housing units . Population Projections in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2015 -2040 Population Projections % Change Geography 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2015 – 2040 Ansonia 19,480 19,839 20,265 20,651 20,889 21,067 8.1% Beacon Falls 6,265 6,420 6,532 6,585 6,590 6,587 5.1% Bethlehem 3,605 3,595 3,596 3,576 3,483 3,342 -7.3% Bristol 59,918 59,535 59,359 59,006 58,205 57,129 -4.7% Cheshire 28,889 28,257 27,087 26,127 25,288 24,860 -13.9% Derby 13,035 13,250 13,553 13,803 13,959 14,081 8.0% Middlebury 7,948 8,233 8,412 8,522 8,662 8,828 11.1% Naugatuck 31,973 32,210 32,537 32,636 32,375 31,853 -0.4% Oxford 13,841 14,924 15,695 16,353 17,061 17,855 29.0% Plymouth 12,253 12,218 12,156 11,987 11,722 11,383 -7.1% Prospect 9,367 9,222 8,979 8,693 8,449 8,218 -12.3% Seymour 16,676 16,797 16,880 16,926 16,854 16,752 0.5% Shelton 39,101 38,374 37,508 36,568 35,565 34,544 -11.7% Southbury 19,661 19,357 19,164 18,984 18,957 18,760 -4.6% Thomaston 7,887 7,836 7,781 7,694 7,553 7,369 -6.6% Waterbury 111,081 112,571 114,896 117,113 118,46 3 119,213 7.3% Watertown 22,345 22,011 21,640 21,219 20,616 19,869 -11.1% Wolcott 16,906 16,921 16,885 16,770 16,629 16,511 -2.3% Woodbury 9,999 9,835 9,703 9,499 9,281 9,052 -9.5% Region Total 450,230 451,405 452,628 452,712 450,60 1 447,273 -0.7% Urban Core 235,487 237,405 240,610 243,209 243,89 1 243,343 3.3% Inner Ring 127,151 125,493 123,052 120,521 117,59 8 114,777 -9.7% Outer Ring 87,592 88,507 88,966 88,982 89,112 89,153 1.8% Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 -2040 Population Density The Naugatuck Valley region has a higher population density than the state as a whole. In 201 6, the region had an estimated 1061 persons per square mile (which in cludes non -residential land and roads), compared to 741 statewide . Waterbury, which is extensively developed and has the largest 47 proportion of multi -family units, had the highest population concentration in the region with 3,774 persons per square mile . Ansonia was a close second with 3,063 persons per square mile followed by Derby at 2,360. The towns in the eastern and central portions of the region are partially sewered, allowing greater densities. Prospect has only a limited number of properties connected to sewer systems through adjacent municipalities. In the western portion of the region, Bethlehem and Woodbury have no municipal sewer service of any kind, and service in Oxford and Southbury is limited although Oxford’s is p lanned to expand significantly through Naugatuck. Some new developments are using alternative treatment plants to serve increased densities in unsewered areas. This newer technology requires approval from the Department of Environmental Protection. Populat ion Density in the Naugatuck Valley Region: by Block Group, 2016 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -year Estimates: 2012 -2016 48 Race and Ethnicity Immigration, migration, and higher birth rates among minority groups have made the re gion’s population more diverse . As of 2016, 123,878 residents were of a minority race or ethnicity, making up 27.7% of the total. This is an increase from 2000, when just 16.9% of the population belonged to a minority group. From 2000 to 2016, the non -Hisp anic white population of urban core communities declined by over 33,000. This coincided with rapid growth among Hispanics, African Americans, and Asians. Waterbury is a minority -majority city, with 60.6% of its population belonging to a minority racial or ethnic group. Ansonia, Derby, Naugatuck, Seymour, and Bristol have the next highest minority populations. Outside of the urban core, less than 13% of the population belongs to a minority group, although this balance is changing. Between 2000 and 2016, inn er ring and outer ring communities saw their minority populations grow at rates of 80.9% and 165.9% respectively . This exceed ed the urban core minority population growth rate of 64.2%. It will remain important for the NVCOG to track these trends for their impacts on Environmental Justice reviews for transportation projects. 49 Minority Population in the Naugatuck Valley by Block Group: 2012 -2016 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Community Sur vey 5 -year Estimates: 2012 -2016 Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing minority group in the region with a population of 71,097, a 103% increase from 2000. Hispanics now make up 15.9% of the population. A majority of Hispanics who live in the region are of Puerto Rican heritage, including nearly 25,000 who liv e in Waterbury. There was also sizable growth among African Americans, who make up 6.9% of the population. Asians, the second fastest growing minority group through 2000 to 2016 (88.4%), are more likely to live in the suburbs than the urban core. Household and Family Structure Household arrangements have changed as the average age of marriage increases, family sizes decrease, and life expectancy increases. For the first time in history, less than half of the region’s households are made up of married couple s. Persons living alone, cohabitating couples, married couples without children, and single parent households are becoming more prevalent. 50 Less than half of married couples have children age 18 and under. “Empty nesters” are becoming more common as the mi llennial generation ages, and many young couples are dela ying having children. Household structure in the urban core differs significantly from the inner and outer ring communities. Just 39.2% of urban core households are married couples compared to 56.8% in the inner ring and 59.0% in the outer ring. Income and Poverty There is a large income gap between the urban core and remainder of the region. From 2012 to 2016 estimates, median household income in the urban core was $49,691 compared to $85,859 in the inner ring and $89,592 in the outer ring. Over a quarter of househ olds in the urban core are low income (making less than $25,000 per year) compared to 11.1% in the inner ring and 11.7% in the outer ring. On the opposite end of the income spectrum, over 40% of households in the inner and outer ring are high income (makin g $100,000 or more per year) compared to less than 21% in the urban core. The Great Recession negatively impacted household and family income throughout the region. Since 1999, median household income declined in 16 out of 19 municipalities. The highest d rops in household income occurred in the urban core towns of Ansonia, Derby, and Naugatuck. The number of people in poverty increased by 66.8% from 2000 to 2016. In 2000, there were 31,412 persons living in poverty (7.5% of total). By 2016, it had increase d to 52,396 (11.9% of total). Poverty increased at a moderate rate in the inner ring and highest in outer ring municipalities and the urban core. Waterbury, which has a poverty rate of 25.4%, is home to over half of the region’s impoverished. Child povert y is a prevalent issue in the urban core, where 27.8% of children live below the poverty line. Ansonia, Derby and Waterbury have child poverty rates exceeding 20%. Child poverty is also strongly correlated with household structure. Children in single paren t households are 4.4 times more likely to live in poverty than households with both parents present. Economic Trends The Great Recession had lasting impacts on the economic structure of the region; impacts that are manifested in many of the following trend s that are shaping the region today: • Unemployment disproportionately affects young workers under the age of 25. • As of 2017, the region has only gained back 71% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. • Jobs are suburbanizing. During the last ten years the inner ring saw job growth while the urban core lost jobs. • Over half of Naugatuck Valley residents commute to jobs outside the region. Labor Force The labor force is made up of Naugatuck Valley residents over the age of 16 who are either employe d, or are unemployed and looking for work. As of 2017, the region’s labor force was 237,050, of which 224,546 were employed and 12,504 were unemployed. From 2010 to 2013 the state and region experienced a labor force contraction which can be attributed to stagnant job growth, unemployed workers dropping out of the labor force, and a growing number of residents hitting retirement age. In 2014 the labor force grew for the first time since 2009 and has remained 51 steady. People who had difficulty finding work following the Great Recession are reentering the labor force as the job market improves. Employment As of 2017 there were 224,546 employed residents living in the region. This is only 3,501 more than the 2007 number when there were 221,045 employed resident s. The number of employed residents decreased every year from 2008 to 2013 but has rebound ed from 2014 to 2017. The number of working aged residents is projected to remain stable up to 2020 and decline thereafter as the last of the baby boomers retire. Att racting and retaining young workers will be necessary to replace the growing number of retirees Unemployment From 2007 to 2010 the region saw the number of unemployed residents more than double from 11,954 to 24,656. The jump in unemployment was caused by both job losses and labor force growth. Unemployment has decreased each year since 2010. As of 2017, it stands at 12,504, or 5.3% of the labor force. The labor force contraction (unemployed persons that have stopped looking for work) is responsible for so me of the drop in unemployment. Despite improvements over the last three years, the unemployment rate remains slightly above state and national averages. Unemployment trends vary by location and age. As of 2017, unemployment is highest in the urban core c ommunities of Waterbury (7.4%), Ansonia (6.5%), and Derby (5.8%), and lowest in the inner ring community of Cheshire (3.3%) and the outer ring communities of Woodbury (3.6%), Thomaston (4.0%), and Prospect (4.0%). Due to the collapse of the stock market fr om 2007 to 2009, many older workers have continued to work into retirement age. This trend, combined with the lack of new job creation, has led to a disproportionately high unemployment rate among young people. The unemployment rate for residents under the age of 25 is 17.3% compared to 8.9% for middle aged workers (age 25 – 44) and 6.3% for older workers (age 45 and older) 1 1 Source: ACS 2012 -2016, B23001 52 Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment in the Naugatuck Valley: 1994 -2017 Jobs During the recession, the region experienced sharpe r job losses than the state and nation as a whole. From 2007 to 2011, 12,337 jobs were lost, a decline of 7.6%. The manufacturing, finance and insurance, and construction sectors experienced the sharpest job losses. Some sectors, such as health care and so cial assistance, and educational services, added jobs during the recession. These sectors have traditionally been “recession -proof.” Since 2011 the economy has improved, adding over 8,700 jobs. As of 2017, the region has gained back 71% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. Comparatively, the state has gained back 146% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. As of 2 017 there are 158,781 jobs in the region. Despite job losses during the last ten years, Waterbury remains the job center of the region followed by Shelton, Bristol, and Cheshire. As the population shifts to the suburbs, many employers have followed in ord er to be closer to their workforce. From 2004 to 2017, the urban core lost over 3,300 jobs while the inner ring gained over 4,700 jobs, mostly in Shelton, and Cheshire. Bristol was the only urban core municipality to gain jobs (1,032). Outer ring towns wit h good highway access (such as Oxford and Middlebury) also saw job growth. 53 Jobs in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2015 Source: U.S. Census Bureau , On the Map, LODES Dataset, 2015 Over the last half century, the region has shifted from a manu facturing -oriented economy to a service -oriented one. Health care and social assistance is now the largest job sector followed by government (which includes public school teachers). While much less prominent than in the past, manufacturing remains the thir d largest sector of the region’s economy, with over 20,000 jobs. A majority of manufacturing jobs are now located outside of the urban core. Employment projections from the Connecticut Department of Labor indicate that the health care and social assistance sector will drive job creation up to 2020, largely due to increased demand for health care by the baby boomers. Other sectors projected to add jobs up to 2020 are professional and business services, and construction, although the latter is largely depende nt on the housing market. To access more comprehensive demographic, economic, and housing data for the Naugatuck Valley Region see the Naugatuck Valley Regio nal Profile which is published yearly. 54 3.0 Transportation Issues & Goals Today, the Naugatuck Valley planning region is a region in motion. Each day, about 2 million trips occur within, into and out of the region. While most of these trips are made in a private vehicle, rail, bus and walking are important ways people move about. Over the next 20 years, as population continues to grow, congestion and delays on the region’s highways and roads will worsen. At the same time, the infrastructure is aging and in need of rehabilitation and replacement. However, there is expected to be i nsufficient funding to maintain the current and existing system in a state of good repair , let alone funds to enhance and expand infrastructure . Data trends also indicate that the r egion is not only growing but aging. Over the next 20 years, the number of people over age 65 is expected to increase 77% with about one -third having a mobility impairment that will prevent them from driving independently or being able to use public transi t. This suggests a need to strengthen the coordination of human and transportation services. How we buy goods and services is already changing and the pace of that change appears to be accelerating. More and more, people are relying on on -line shopping to purchase items. This trend is increasing home deliveries, made primarily by smaller trucks, and reducing deliveries to retail centers. Technology may provide some solutions to the transportation issues described above but how travel patterns will change or be affected by technological advances is less than certain. The advent and the future proliferation of autonomous and connected vehicles has the potential to drastically alter travel patterns and how trips are made. Autonomous vehicles may potentially inc rease road capacity and reduce recurring congestion, but they could also cause an increase in congestion as the number of shared vehicles on the road and the number of empty vehicles picking up riders increases. The benefits for residents who are older or those with a mobility disability include increased travel options, increased mobility and more access. For connected vehicles, deployment of advanced communications systems has the potential to improve safety, reduce crashes, improve driver behavior and re duce congestion. 3.1 Transportation Issues The transportation system of the Naugatuck Valley planning region is d iverse and includes a mature network of highways and roads , a commuter rail line, fixed -route, local bus services, general aviation airport, m ulti -use greenways and trails, and pedestrian facilities. The principle issues facing the region over the next 20 years are: Ag ing Infrastructure The key and critical elements of the highway system are I-84, I -691, Route 8, US Route 6, and Route 34. The I -84 and Route 8 interchange is commonly referred to as the “Mixmaster” because of its closely spaced ramps that connect the two expressways with downtown Waterbury streets. The interchange was b uilt in 1960s and needs replacement . It is o ne of the nation’ s top 100 most congested areas and a high crash location. Each day about 112,700 vehicles move between I -84, Route 8 and local streets . The Route 8 Expressway extends from I -95 in Bridgeport to its terminus in the Town of Winsted. Built over the course of twenty -five years from the late 1950’s to early 1980s, many of the older sections do not meet modern design standards , with interchange ramps closely spaced and poor ly design ed. Several areas have incidences of vehicle crashes. 55 Interstate 691 serves as an expressway connector between I -84 in Cheshire and I-91 in Meriden. Its interchange with I -84 provides an efficient, high speed connection, but operational problems occur where I -691 merges with I -91 and the Wilbur Cross Parkway (Route 15). This interchang e is outside the Naugatuck planning region but back -ups and delays caused by the awkward series of ramps impacts travel on the sections of I -691 passing through the region and effects travel to/from the Naugatuck Valley planning region and adjacent regions – South Central planning region, Capitol planning region and the Lower Connecticut River planning region. US Route 6 traverses the region from east to west along its northern tier. While it serves a main travel corridor, it lacks many of the design elements that allow traffic efficiently and provide sufficient capacity Recurring Congestion and Travel Delay Both I -84 and Route 8 experience severe peak hour congestion and excessive travel delay, especially through the interchange of the two highways. T ypical travel speeds on I -84 are 36 mph and 33 mph during the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. While congestion on Route 8 is less through the “Mixmaster,” it is more severe through the lower Valley, dropping to 32 mph in the morning and 25 mp h in evening at the crossing of the Housatonic River between Derby and Shelton. Congestion recurs daily along several arterials throughout the region. Highway Safety The number and severity of vehicle crashes throughout the region is a major concern and i ssue. Through the transportation planning process the location of crashes has been mapped to identify high hazard points. Analysis of the crash data clearly identifies critical safety needs and actions to address these safety needs. A 4 E’s approach – engi neering, education, enforcement and emergency medical services – is being used. Under Investment in the Waterbury Branch Commuter Rail Line The Waterbury Branch Line is a tremendous asset in the Naugatuck Valley planning region, providing connections to the New Haven main rail line and service to Bridgeport and Stamford. At Bridgeport and Stamford, passengers can transfer to trains to New York City. While the WBL is key transportation asset, it is underutilized. Currently, only eight inbound trains and seven outbound trains a day , with 2½ hour headways. This level of service i s not convenient or attractive for commuters . Ridership is only about 1,000 passengers a day based on a recent on -board ridership count conducted by the NVCOG, but passenger surveys suggest this level of ridership would increase with enhanced service and better connections. The CTDOT has plans to install a Central Traffic Control (CTC) signalization system that would have the ability to permit ten trains to operate per hour . Positive Train Control (PTC) would be deployed at the same time. As part of this project, passing sidings would constructed at four locations. The proj ect is scheduled to be fully implemented by the end of 2019. Despite these planned enhancements, there has not been a corresponding commitment to increase service and operate additional trains. In addition, the main issues remain: the lack and age of equi pment. Fragmented Local Bus Service The Naugatuck Valley planning region is well served by local bus operators. Four bus companies operate in the region, including three divisions of CT Transit. The region is also connected to 56 CT fastrak , although by expre ss bus routes and not the dedicated busway. However, the service is fragmented and routes do not connect urban core areas of the region . Currently, within the region, there is no direct local bus connections between Waterbury, Bristol, and the lower Valley towns. Given fiscal constraints, fares are likely to increase and many areas are unserved or underserved. ADA Paratransit Service Gaps The fixed -route bus operators are required by federal regulations to provide complementary services to the elderly and p ersons with a mobility impairment that prevents them from using a regular fixed -route bus. P lanning effort s have been conducted among MPOs and transit operators to develop a Locally Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan (LOCHSTP) . In the lower Val ley, the LOCHSTP has identified gaps in transportation services to the elderly and disabled. The Valley Transit District provides paratransit and dial -a-ride services to the elderly and disabled. However, f unding constraints prevent the VTD from expanding services to meet the identified gaps. In the Waterbury Urbanized Area of the region, paratransit services are provided by North East Transportation (NET) under contract with the Greater Waterbury Transit District. As is the case with VTD, NET provides the required complimentary ADA services. Paratransit services are also provided to other members of the GWTD that do not have fixed, local bus routes in their communities. The challenge facing the region is ensuring stabilized funding to maintain current AD A service levels and expand services to close the gaps in need and demand. Expand and Maintain Multi -use Greenway and Trail Facilities Active transportation corridors provide a valuable alternative to driving and help create livable communities by connect ing them via non -motorized means. Substantial economic and health benefits are derived from the construction of multi -use greenways and trails. While residents of the region benefit greatly from the development of active transportation facilities, completi on of the planned system of trails faces many challenges, including financial constraints, available rights -of-way, tight geographies, and understanding of potential benefits. Pedestrian Safety Walking is the most basic form of transportation. Most New E ngland towns and cities were initially developed around walking, and many New England towns and cities retain basic elements supportive to pedestrians. Nearly all people are pedestrians of some form during most trips, be it walking to the parking lot or wa lking a half -hour to work. Data indicate that more people walk and walk to work in the urban core areas of the region. However, these areas also tend to have disproportionately high numbers of pedestrian -related crashes. Despite the number of pedestrians, these urban areas often lack necessary pedestrian amenities such as clearly marked crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and functional sidewalks. 3.2 Transportation Goals Through the transportation planning process, transportation concerns and issues facing th e region have been identified . The primary goal s of the metropolitan transportation plan are to enhance mobility , provide and maintain an efficient multi -modal transportation system that facilitates the movement of people and goods, and minimizing adverse social, economic and environmental impacts. 57 From the assessment of the existing transportation systems and trends, a vision for future travel and mobility in the Naugatuck Valley planning region emerged: A New Vision… To invest in existing infrastructure to improve operations of existing capacity, revitalize our town centers and avoid costly highway expansion, and dev elop livable and sustainable downtowns with unique facilities and open space that leverage their existing infrastructure and assets. These actions will expand and increase transportation choice for all and create town centers with mixed -uses in proximity t o high quality transit nodes and link the centers via efficient, convenient transit, as well as, active transportation corridors. Future investment strategies and decisions will embrace advances in technology and plan, design and build stronger, more resil ient infrastructure systems that integrate climate change considerations into transportation plans and strengthen vulnerable infrastructure. The goals of the MTP remain consistent with past plans and provide a framework for making transportation investmen t decisions . Preserve, Maintain and Enhance the Highway System To develop and maintain an efficient transportation system that will provide the public with a high level of mobility; maintain the principal expressway and highway system in a state -of-good r epair through lane continuity, minor widening, rehabilitation and reconstruction; selectively and strategically expand the capacity of key highways to reduce delay and congestion. Objectives : a. Making better use of existing transportation facilities. b. Integrate Intelligent Transportation Systems and ensure ITS projects conform to the National and State ITS Architecture, standards and protocols. c. Encourage low -cost capital, transportation system management strategies to improve capacity and level of servi ce, by constructing missing segments of the street network, and by establishing management systems that seek to ensure the timely maintenance and rehabilitation of existing facilities. d. Upgrade the expressway system and selectively increase roadway capacity in major travel corridors. e. Initiate and emphasize the importance of accessibility in measuring transportation system performance. Congestion Management To alleviate congestion and reduce travel delay by maintain ing an efficient transportation system that will provide the public with a high level of mobility , maintain the principal expressway and highway system in a state -of-good repair through lane continuity, minor widening, rehabilitation and reconstruction , and selectively and strategically expand the capacity of key highways to reduce delay and congestion. Objectives : a. Make better use of existing transportation facilities. b. Construct intersection improvements and install turn lanes. c. Implement traffic signal modernization and coordination. 58 d. Consider Trans portation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) strategies and Travel Demand Management (TDM) actions, such as ridesharing, telecommuting and alternate work schedules. Improve Safety To improve safety and efficiency of the highway network and for both motorized and non – motorized users of the transportation system, with appropriate transportation improvement projects. Objectives : a. Reduce the number and rate of vehicle crashes, including fatalities and serious injuries. b. Implement safety -related countermea sures that enhance visibility and awareness and reduce roadway departures. c. Reduce the number and rate of non -motorized fatalities and serious injuries. d. Improve and enhance pedestrian and bicyclist related infrastructure. e. Address driver behavior. f. Implement an Incident Management System to improve response to an incident and reduce time to clear an incident. Ensure Transportation System Security To improve and expand overall security of transportation in frastructure for persons using transportation modes and services while on -board or waiting. Objectives : a. Install equipment on -board transit vehicles to monitor operations and activities. b. Install equipment at transit stations to monitor waiting areas and provide access to emergency response. c. Assess the vulnerability of critical transportation infrastructure. Advanced Technology To better manage transportation operations, enhance safety and mobility, ensure greater reliability in travel times and/or reduced travel delay, and provide more detailed and up -to-the -minute information to travelers and system opera – tors through the applic ation of various ITS action s. Objectives : a. Int egrate Intelligent Transportation Systems and ensure ITS projects conform to the National and State ITS Architecture, standards and protocol . b. Install Roadside Infrastructure to monitor road conditions and provi de real -time traveler information to motorists. c. Install advanced equipment to improve travel efficiency. Preserve and Enhance Public Transportation Services To maintain essential local bus, commuter rail and paratransit services by providing full funding for operations, replacing capital equipme nt on a life -cycle cost basis, renovating and rehabilitating facilities and infrastructure to a state -of-good -repair, and enhancing services by optimizing how resources are allocated and coordinating the delivery of paratransit service , and improve access to public transit for those who are dependent on public transportation services. Objectives : 59 a. Improve choice of travel modes, reduce highway congestion, improve efficiency, and provide mobility for people who are tr ansit dependent. b. Promote rail and bus transit as the preferred modal choice s in the region; c. Rehabilitate and modernize Waterbury branch line infrastructure; d. Replace aging and deteriorating rail equipment; e. Expand the public transit system within the area a nd beyond, by improving transportation access and mobility for the elderly and disabled population, marketing those services, and by developing transit services to suburban employment areas to persons without a vehicle available for use. f. Promote ridesharin g and paratransit options including demand response transit systems that increase vehicle occupancy and manage travel demand at activity centers. g. Improve awareness and coordination of public transportation options available in the region. Expand Multi -Moda l Opportunities To expand and enhance opportunities for linking and connecting multiple modes and facilitating the movement between various transportation modes by constructing new multi -modal facilities and coordinating transit services . Objectives : a. Iden tify, develop and enhance multi -modal transfer and connection points . b. Reduce truck -related congestion. c. Identify, evaluate and invest in essential freight corridors. Enhance the Efficient Movement of Freight and Goods To expand and enhance opportunities for linking and connecting multiple modes and facilitating the movement between various transportation modes by constructing new multi -modal facilities and coordinating transit services . Objectives : a. Improve the safety, environmental performance and economic efficiency of freight movement and truck deliveries throughout the Naugatuck Valley planning region. b. Identify freight movement bottlenecks and constraints to efficient freight movement. c. Reduce truck -related congestion . d. Identify, evaluate and invest in essential freight corridors. e. Improve truck safety. f. Promote development of intermodal freight centers. g. Deploy ITS elements to enhance the efficient movement of goods into, out of and through the region. Enhance Bicycle a nd Pedestrian Facilities To encourage and promote the increased use of bicycling and walking as a mode of transportation while enhancing safety by developing a network of shared -use trails and providing pedestrian walkways and features . Objectives : a. Increa se the number of “walkable” communities. b. Selectively develop bicycle paths and routes to provide a viable transportation alternative and an extension of the road network . 60 c. Promote the construction of the Naugatuck River Greenway, extension of the Middlebury Greenway, completion of the Steel Brooke Greenway and connection to the Larkin Trail. d. Provide adequate and safe walkways for pedestrians . e. Enhance the aesthetic quality of existing transportation facilities. f. Serve as the liaison to and administer the Naug atuck River Greenway Steering Committee. En vironmental Mitigation To implement actions to mitigate and alleviate natural and cultural environmental impacts of transportation project . Objectives : a. To maintain and improve the region’s highway system to redu ce energy consumpti on and motor vehicle emissions. b. Improve the area’s air quality to comply with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments . c. Support the Connecticut State Implementation Plan for Air Quality and assist in efforts t o achieve and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) . d. Promote and program the expeditious implementation of Transportation Control Measures. e. Ensure no goal , objective , directive, recommendation , or tra nsportation improvement project contradict s the attainment of the NAAQS or increase s the frequency or severity of existing violations of the NAAQS. f. To maintain and improve public transportation service to improve efficiency , reduce energy consumption and motor vehicle emissions. g. Encourage energy efficient transportation and minimize the adverse environmental effects of existing and future trans portation programs and systems. Sustainability To develop a metropolitan transportation plan consistent with the Regional Plan of Conserva tion and Development and state Plan of Conservation and Development that links local land use management, transportation improvements, sustainability and livability initiatives and principles . Objectives : a. Create , promote and s upport strong, sustai nable, a nd livable and walkable communities, connecting them with ac tive transportation corridors. b. Promote livability principles . c. Target development to areas with existing infrastructure and c oordinate the type, intensity, amount, location and timing of new develo pment to transportation system capacity . d. Integrate transportation planning and land use planning as part of a major re gional growth management policy to reduce the potential effects of urban sprawl. e. Promote rail and bus transit as the prefer red modal choic e in the region, and i mprove awareness and coordination of public transportation options available in the region. f. Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods. g. Promote transit oriented and supportive land use development plans (TOD). h. Identify alternative transit modes that facilitate travel to and from TOD areas. i. Develop and implement a “Complete Streets” policy and program that accommodates all travelers and modes. 61 Prom ote Economic Development and Revitalization To improve transportation infrastructure critical to the economic vitality of the Naugatuck Valley planning region and revitalization of the region’s urban core areas and expand employment opportunities , as well as, access to jobs . Objectives : a. Develop local transportation infrastructure that supports economic expansion while maintaining and protecting the environment. b. Provide transportation services to employment centers and expand employment opportunities. c. Provi de transit services to jobs located in suburban areas from urban core areas. Environmental Justice To identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its transportation programs, policies, and activities on minority and low -income populations , and identify strategies and techniques for meaningful engagem ent of populations meeting the needs for environmental justice. Objectives : a. Avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populati ons and low -inc ome populations. b. Ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the planning decision -making process . c. Prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low -income populat ions. Ensure Transparency and Proactive Public Involvement To fully engage residents and stakeholders in identifying planning priorities, developing programs and projects, and publishing final products, and ensure meaningful access to participation in planning and policy decision -making processes for disadvantaged populations in our planning region. Objectives : a. Carry out a proactive public involvement process that promotes region wide citizen participation, minority involvement and equal employment opportunity. b. Provide timely public notice, effective public involv ement in the development of transportation plans, programs and projects. c. Maintain and enhance the NVCOG’s website. d. Publish reports and documents in an electronic format. 3.3 Air Quality Conformity Determination The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 a nd federal transportation regulations and legislation recognized the major contributions of transportation sources to the overall air quality problem evidenced throughout the country. To effectuate a reduction in transportation -related emissions and a corr esponding improvement in air quality, areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance for a criterion pollutant were required to demonstrate that their transportation plans, programs and projects contributed to the attainment of National Ambient Air Quali ty Standards 62 (NAAQS) and would not cause a new violation or delay attainment of the NAAQS. This process is referred to as Air Quality Conformity. Portions of Connecticut are currently classified as nonattainment or maintenance for Ozone and fine particle mater (PM2.5). Ozone Connecticut is divided into two non -attainment areas for the 8 -hour ozone NAAQS, both are classified as “Moderate” non -attainment areas. Fairfield, New Haven and Middlesex counties are included as part of the New York -Northern New Jers ey -Long Island non -attainment area. The remainder of the state is designated as the Greater Connecticut non -attainment area. In June, 2004, the EPA finalized the 8 -hour conformity for Ozone non -attainment areas and the designated the Connecticut portion o f the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island non – attainment area as a “moderate” non -attainment areas for the 8 -hour Ozone standard. Subsequent decisions by the EPA and revisions to the approach for classifying non -attainment areas re – designated both of Connecticut’s non -attainment areas as a “marginal” non -attainment areas with an attainment date of December 31, 2015. Based on 2012 -2014 air quality data, the EPA determined that Connecticut’s non -attainment areas did not attain ozone standards by July20, 2015. Both the Greater Connecticut and the New York -New Jersey -Long Island areas were reclassified as “Moderate,” effective June 3, 2016. The new attainment date for these two areas is July 20, 2018. PM2.5 The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promu lgated national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter in 1997. Fine particulate matter is referred to as PM2.5 and is a mixture of microscopic solids and suspended liquid solids in the air. It is formed directly as a by -product of combustion, such as smoke or automobile exhaust, or indirectly from chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Fairfield and New Haven Counties are included in the New York -New Jersey -Connecticut (NY -NJ -CT) PM2.5 non -attainment area. On April 17, 2007 the Co nnecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) submitted a revision to the State Implementation Plan to establish interim progress for achieving the NAAQS for fine particulate matter and motor vehicle emission budgets. The annual emis sion budgets for the Connecticut portion of the NY -NJ -CT non -attainment area were determined to be adequate and are used in future analysis years. The EPA has also determined Connecticut’s PM2.5 attainment demonstration SIP to be administratively and techn ically complete as of January 8, 2009. Effective October 24, 2013, the Connecticut portion of the multi – state PM2.5 non -attainment area was re -designated as “attainment maintenance.” EPA’s guidance for maintenance plans calls for a demonstration of continu ed compliance by showing that future emissions during the maintenance period will not exceed the level of emission in the attainment inventory. The end of the maintenance period is 2025. Assessment The Connecticut Department of Transportation is responsibl e for conducting the air quality emissions assessments for the metropolitan planning organizations in Connecticut. The CTDOT uses the statewide travel demand model to estimate vehicle miles of travel for various classes of highways and during various time periods. The future transportation network includes all planned improvement projects and is based on the complete implementation of the transportation 63 improvement program (TIP) and the current draft metropolitan transportation plan(MTP) with a time horizon of 2019 to 2045. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) were developed jointly by CTDOT and CTDEEP and found to be adequate by the EPA. The MOVES2014a model is used to calculate emissions from transportation travel and establish emissions budgets. The conformity test requires the emissions from the estimated future transportation system to be less than the EPA -approved MVEBs for all analysis years. The emissions analyses were conducted for the following years: • 2018 – New attainment year and near term an alysis year • 2025 – Interim modeling year • 2035 – Interim modeling year • 204 5 – Metropolitan transportation plan horizon year The results of the quantitative emissions analysis conducted by CTDOT are shown in the following tables and the analysis year trend s are depicted in the charts following the tables. Greater CT Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area VOC Emission Analysis NO X Emission Analysis Year Estimated VOC emissions (Tons/Day) EPA VOC Budget (Tons/Day) Difference Year Estimated NOx Emissions (Tons/Day) EPA NOx Budget (Tons/Day) Difference 2018 14.96 15.9 -0.94 2018 21.18 22.20 -1.02 2025 11.18 15.9 -4.72 2025 12.53 22.20 -9.67 2035 6.49 15.9 -9.41 2035 7.53 22.20 -14.67 2045 5.76 15.9 -10.14 2045 7.01 22.20 -15.19 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2018 2025 2035 2045 Estimated VOC Emissions by Analysis Year Compared to Approved EPA Budget Greater CT Non -Attainment Area Estimated VOC emissions (Tons/Day) EPA VOC Budget (Tons/Day) 64 CT Portion of NY -NJ -CT Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area VOC Emission Analysis NO X Emission Analysis Year Estimated VOC emissions (Tons/Day) EPA VOC Budget (Tons/Day) Difference Year Estimated NOx Emissions (Tons/Day) EPA NOx Budget (Tons/Day) Difference 2018 16.61 24.60 -7.99 2018 23.74 24.60 -0.86 2025 12.39 24.60 -12.21 2025 13.94 24.60 -10.66 2035 7.27 24.60 -17.33 2035 8.45 24.60 -16.15 2045 6.41 24.60 -18.19 2045 7.85 24.60 -16.75 0 5 10 15 20 25 2018 2025 2035 2045 Estimated NOx Emissions by Analysis Year Compared to Approved EPA Budget Greater CT Non -Attainment Area Estimated NOx Emissions (Tons/Day) EPA NOx Budget (Tons/Day) 65 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2018 2025 2035 2045 Estimated VOC Emissions by Analysis Year Compared to Approved EPA Budget CT Portion of NY -NJ -LI-CT Non -Attainment Area Estimated VOC emissions (Tons/Day) EPA VOC Budget (Tons/Day) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2018 2025 2035 2045 Estimated NOx Emissions by Analysis Year Compared to Approved EPA Budget CT Portion of NY -NJ -LI-CT Non -Attainment Area Estimated NOx Emissions (Tons/Day) EPA NOx Budget (Tons/Day) 66 CT Portion of NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Attainment -Maintenance Area Direct PM 2.5 Emission Analysis NO X (indirect) Emissions Analysis Year Estimated PM 2.5 Emissions (Tons/Year) SIP Budget (Tons/Year) Difference Year Estimated NO X Emissions (Tons/Year) SIP Budget (Tons/Year) Difference 2018 318.10 575.80 -257.70 2018 7,837.50 12,791.80 -4,954.30 2025 221.60 516.00 -294.40 2025 4,707.90 9,728.10 -5,020.20 2035 169.20 516.00 -346.80 2035 2,987.40 9,728.10 -6,740.70 2045 152.40 516.00 -363.60 2045 2,803.50 9,728.10 -6,924.60 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 2018 2025 2035 2045 Estimated Direct PM 2.5 Emissions by Analysis Year Compared to Approved EPA Budget CT Portion of the NY -NJ -CT Attainment/Maintenance Area Estimated Direct PM 2.5 Emissions (Tons/Year) SIP Budget (Tons/Year) 67 As shown in this analysis, transportation emissions are declining and will continue to do so. This is primarily due to programs such as federal heavy -duty vehicle standards, reformulated fuels, enhanced inspection and maintenance programs, and Connecticut’s l ow emissions vehicle program. Additionally, based on this assessment, it is concluded that all elements of the CTDOT transportation program, the CNVMPO TIP and the CNVMPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan conform to the applicable SIP, 1990 CAA and the appr oved transportation conformity budgets. 0.00 2,000.00 4,000.00 6,000.00 8,000.00 10,000.00 12,000.00 14,000.00 2018 2025 2035 2045 Estimated NOx (Indirect) Emissions by Analysis Year Compared to Approved EPA Budget CT Portion of the NY -NJ -CT Attainment/Maintenance Area Estimated NOX Indirect Emissions (Tons/Year) SIP Budget (Tons/Year) 68 4.0 Highway System 4.1 Existing Conditions The regional highway system functions as the primary means of distributing people and goods within and beyond the region. Most of the highway traffic is accommodated by 60 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 metropolitan area. To the east, it connects to I-91 in Hartford and I – 90 in Massachusetts, which links to the Boston metropolitan area. Within the CNVR, traffic volumes on I -84 peak through Waterbury where average daily traffic (ADT) i n 2017 reached 13 3,700 vehicles and trucks constituted an estimated 4.25% of that traffic 2. Route 8 is the region’s north -south arterial . As a limited access expressway, i t connects Interstate 95 in Bridgeport to the Merritt Parkway in Trumbull and I-84 in Waterbury , before terminating in Winchester . North of the Town of W inchester in the northwest corner of the state, Route 8 continues as a two -lane arterial to the Massachusetts border. It was constructed in the early 1960s but was not completed until 1982. Through the Naugatuck Valley region, the expressway features an al ignment that closely follows the curves of the Naugatuck River, has elevated viaducts through the town centers and has poorly design ed on and off -ramps that lack adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes, provide partial access at some locations, and of ten direct vehicles onto residential streets. Traffic volumes peak over the Commodore Hull Bridge, between Derby and Shelton , where ADT in 2017 reached 84,100 vehicles. Similar traffic volumes are recorded at the interchange of Route 8 and I -84. Truck volu me peaked at an estimated 3.75% at the interchange of Route 8 and I -84. Interstate 691 serves as an interstate connector between I -84 in Cheshire and Interstate 91 in Meriden. In 2017 , ADT along I -691 in Cheshire was estimated to be 58,500 vehicles. Trucks constituted an estimated 3.85% of traffic on the highway in 2017 . The highway network includes 60 miles of Expressway and 360 miles of arterial roads, which facilitate the flow of traffic within and between municipalities. Some of the principal arterial routes in the planning area are State Routes 10, 34, 63, 68, 69, 70, 72, 113, 115, 188, 229, U.S. Route 6, Pershing Drive (SR 727), and South Main Street (SR 847) . The following map , shows the region’s major roads. 2 HPMS 2017 69 Major Highways and Roadways in the Naugatuck Valley Region: 2018 Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation, 2018 Commuting Patterns Commuting patterns in the NVCOG Region reflect national trends. The migration of the region’s urban population to the suburbs and rural areas is acco mpanied by decentralized travel. As people move farther away from city centers , they assume longer commutes and increased reliance on the automobile. NVCOG commuting data show diverse movements across the region with strong ties 70 between the major cities an d employment areas. The length of the average work trip of NVCOG residen ts increased from 21 minutes in 1990 to 25 minutes in 2010, and according to the most recent American Community Survey now stands at 28 minutes. With 52 % of the region’s jobs in subur ban towns, some low -income residents are cut off from many jobs and services because they c annot afford a car . Public transit cannot effectively serve low and medium density areas, but employment and shopping centers continue to be placed outside of the ci ty. More broadly, t here is a large mismatch between the number of employed residents living in the region and the number of jobs in the region. There are enough jobs to employ just 71% of employed residents. The result is a net export of over 65,000 worke rs each day to other regions, with many commuting to Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Danbury, and lower Fairfield County. Cheshire, Middlebury and Shelton are the only municipalities in the region that have more jobs than employed residents. The remaining municipalities have more employed residents than jobs and are net exporters of commuters. As of 2015, just 39.8% of employed Naugatuck Valley residents worked in the region. The remaining 60.2% commute to jobs outside of the region. Waterbury is the most popular commuting destination followed by Bristol, Cheshire and Shelton. Outside of the region, the most popular destinations are Hartford, New Haven, Stratford, Bridgeport, and Danbury. Similarly, nearly half of the people who work in the Naugatuck V alley live outside of the region. The following map illustrates those commuting patterns by linking municipality of residence with municipality of employment and vice versa. Broadly, this map demonstrates the idea that work and home are decentralized. It also outlines regional commuting patterns. Most prominent is the connection of the urbanized areas within and without the region. Bristol, Waterbury, Watertown, Shelton, and the lower valley all are strongly connected. Beyond the region, Danbury, Torringto n, the New Haven area, the Hartford area, the Bridgeport area, Fairfield County, and the New York metropolitan areas all receive or send workers to and from the region. Taken as a whole, the commuter patterns visibly reflect the role of the region’s major infrastructure, including expressways and commuter rail. There is clear north -south movement throughout the region, reflecting Route 8, East -West movements reflect I -84, and trips into Fairfield County and beyond reflect the highway system and Metro North service along the WBL. 71 Commuter flows to/from the region, by Municipality: 2015 Source: U. S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (2015). 72 Safety The NVCOG has adopted a regional approach to highway safety. The NVCOG follows a data driven planning process to first profile accidents throughout the region, assess risk, and prioritize location specific actions to maximize limited fiscal resources available for capital improvements. The NVCOG uses regional crash data from the UCONN Crash Repository. This is a powerful dataset that can shed light on high risk areas within the region. The following heat map s of crashes has been draw n to visualize and locate high hazard areas. High Frequency Crash Are as – Interstate Source: CT Crash Repository 73 High Frequency Crash Areas – Surface Streets Source: CT Crash Repository FHWA has codified its goals for safety in their transportation performance measures. Highway Safety is determined by the interaction be tween drivers, their behavior and the highway infrastructure. The five performance measures for Highway Safety include: (1) the number of fatalities; (2) the rate of fatalities; (3) the number of serious injuries; (4) the rate of serious injuries; and, (5) the number of non -motorized fatalities and serious injuries. The CTDOT and the CNVMPO will collaborate to program appropriate Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) safety projects. Projects will include: 1. Programmatic highway safety improvements : Proje cts or programs that are conducted regularly throughout the state such as signing and pavement marking programs. 74 2. Programmatic driver safety activities : Projects or programs that are conducted regularly on an ongoing basis. These include Highway Safety behavioral programs such as Impaired Driving, Occupant Protection, Distracted Driving, Speeding, Motorcycle Safety, and Teen Driving grants for State and Municipal Police Departments using National Highway Traffic Safety Admini stration (NHTSA) funds. 3. Location -specific highway safety projects : This includes roadway safety improvements selected to correct known safety problems at locations with a high frequency or severity of crashes. The Safety Performance Management Measures re gulation supports the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and requires State Departments of Transportation and MPOs to set HSIP targets for 5 safety performance measures that cover all public roadways regardless of ownership or functional classificat ion. 1. Number of fatalities 2. Rate of fatalities 3. Number of serious injuries 4. Rate of serious injuries 5. Number of non -motorized fatalities and non -motorized serious injuries. The CTDOT, upon review of the 5 -year rolling average for each measure, has determined that the targets will be to maintain the current five -year moving average. Safety Targets: CTDOT Five -Year Rolling Average Measure 2018 Target 2019 Target Number of fatalities 257 fatalities/year 274 fatalities/year Rate of fatalities .823 .873 fatalities/100 Million VMT Number of serious injuries 1,571 1,574 serious injuries/year Rate of serious injuries 5.033 serious injuries/100 Million VMT 5.02 serious injuries/100 Million VMT Number of non -motorized fatalities and no n-motorized serious injuries 280 fatalities and serious injuries/year 290 fatalities and serious injuries/year Within the NVCOG Region the numbers are as follows. NVCOG Safety Statistics Year Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Number of non -motorized fatalities and non -motorized serious injuries 2013 31 231 22 2014 20 175 26 2015 48 171 33 2016 40 210 37 2017 43 172 38 Total 182 959 156 75 Congestion Congestion impedes vehicles, causes motorist delays, decreases safety, and increases fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines congestion as “the level at which transportation system performance is no longer acceptable due to excessive travel times and delays.” Congestion has many causes, each of which impact how it can be alleviated. The following measures are meant to identify congestion and its causes. From these analyses, location specific projects and pro grams can be proposed. A common measure of highway congestion is the volume -to-capacity (v/c) ratio. The v/c ratio is defined as the peak hour traffic volume divided by a road segment’s hourly vehicle capacity. Road segments with v/c ratios over 1.00 hav e peak hour traffic volumes that exceed the road’s hourly capacity. Factors used in determining v/c ratios include: number of lanes, lane width, truck traffic, traffic signal timing, abutting land use, and terrain. The following map shows the current ratio of vehicle volume to roadway capacity based on 2011 network capacity. For capacity, the NVCOG used the CTDOT 20 12 Congestion Management System data . Average daily traffic(ADT) data was downloaded from the Highway Performance Management System (HPMS) datas et. The NVCOG used the CTDOT methodology whereby peak hour directional traffic volumes were estimated as a percentage of the ADT for each road segment . Nine percent of the ADT was assumed during the peak hour with a 55:45 directional split . Additionally, a peak hour factor of 0.9 was used. To project traffic growth for 2045 the NVCOG inferred a 1.5% growth rate. While this growth rate airs on the side of being high, as it was uniformly applied, it proves useful in identify areas where volume is most suscep tible to exceeding capacity. 76 Current V/C Raotio Source: CTDOT; NVCOG From the regional map certain potential problem areas jump out as areas where peak hour volume exceeds roadway capacity. When traffic volume is projected out to 2045, based on past traffic growth rates, these issues are only exacerbated. 77 Projected V/C Ratio 2045 Source: CTDOT; NVCOG The v/c ratio is a high -level test that indicates areas that may need further investigation. When combined with the following metrics, a clearer image begins to emerge; one that shows that even some areas with high V/C ratios are not experiencing high delays or reliability issues. A s econd measure of congestion is travel time reliability (TTR). The TTR is defined as the ratio of the longer travel times (80th percentile) to a “normal” travel time (50th percentile), using data from FHWA’s National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS). NVCOG analysis was used to identify the relevant portion s of the NHS that are reliable and unreliable. The reliability of a road segment has been found to be an important factor as to how drivers assess the congestion on their commute. Regular c ongestion is seen as less offensive than unpredictability. Nowhere is this truer than in the freight industry. 78 Travel Time Reliability 2017 Source: NPMRDS; NVCOG The level of travel time reliability (LOTTR) is an extension of the TTR; it is expressed a s a ratio, of the 80th percentile travel time of a reporting segment to the “normal” (50th percentile) travel time of a reporting segment occurring throughout a full calendar year. Segments that have a ratio less than 1.5 are considered “reliable.” The per formance measure, as defined in title 23 CFR 490.507, is the percent of the person -miles traveled on the Interstate and the non -Interstate NHS that are reliable. 79 Level of Travel Time Reliability Current Condition (State) 2-year targets (2020) 4-year targ ets (2022) Percent interstate that is “reliable” 78.30% 75.20% 72.10% Percent non -interstate NHS that is “reliable” 83.60% 80% 76.40% A final measure of congestion is Peak Hour Excessive Delay (PHED). PHED is an aggregation of the time road users actually spent on a given segment of roadway above and beyond what would be expected in free flow conditions (85 th percentile) . This additional time is then aggregated by the total number of roadway use rs to create a total excessive delay metric. The benefit of this measure is that it does not just look at the roadway congestion but also the number of users experiencing the congestion. For example, when calculating the excessive delay for a tractor trail er, it is assumed that only one occupant is present. However, when calculated for a car, it assumes that 1.7 occupants are present, and for a bus, 16.8 occupants are present and experiencing the delay. 80 Peak Hour Excessive Delay Source: NPMRDS; NVCOG System Preservation and Maintenance Preservation is essential to maintaining the smooth operation and reliability of the highway network. While this work does not add capacity, it does allow the infrastructure to continue functioning as designed. To help track the state of the highway networ k, FHWA developed pavement and bridge condition measures. The four performance measures for pavement condition include (1) the percent of the Interstate system in good condition , (2) the percent of the Interstate system in poor condition, (3) the percent o f the non -Interstate National Highway System (NHS) in good condition , and (4) the percent of the non -Interstate NHS in poor condition. The two performance measures for bridge condition include (1) the percent of NHS bridges in good condition , and (2) the p ercent of NHS bridges in poor condition. FHWA Measure for Pavement Condition: Percent of the Interstate System and the non -interstate National Highway System (NHS) pavement in lane miles that are in good and poor condition. 81 Current Condition (State) 2-year targets (2020) 4-year targets (2022) Percent interstate in good condition 66.20% 65.50% 64.40% Percent interstate in poor condition 2.20% 2% 2.60% Percent Non -Interstate NHS in good condition 37.90% 36% 31.90% Percent Non -Interstate NHS in poor condition 8.60% 6.80% 7.60% FHWA Measure for Bridge Condition: Bridges (deck area) on the National Highway System (NHS) that are rated as good and poor condition. Current Condition (State) 2-year targets (2020) 4-year targets (2022) Percent in good condition 18.10% 22.10% 26.90% Percent in poor condition 15% 7.90% 5.70% CTDOT in collaboration with the CNVMPO will program projects to meet the targets using the Department’s Pavement Management System and the Bridge Management System , which uses a systematic look at conditions to develop optimal strategies. The se strategies are included in the CTDOT Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP). Transportation Asset Management Plan : TAMP acts as a focal point for information about the assets, their management strategies, long -term expenditure forecasts, and busin ess management processes. CTDOT is required to develop a risk -based TAMP for the NHS to improve or preserve the condition of the assets and the performance of the system (23 U.S.C. 119). The federal code further define s asset management as a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets, with a focus on engineering and economic analysis based upon quality information, to identify a structured sequence of maintenance, preservation, repair, rehabilitation, and repla cement actions that will achieve and sustain a desired state of good repair over the lifecycle of the assets at minimum practicable cost. (23 U.S.C. 101(a) (2)). Pavement and Bridge State of Good Repair (SGR) needs are identified, quantified, and priori tiz ed through the TAMP process. Projects to address SGR repair needs are selected from the TAMP for inclusion in the STIP and TIPs. 4.2 Trends Commuting Decentralized commuting continues to define daily movements throughout the region and simultaneously, work er commutes continue to lengthen. 82 Safety At both the state and regional level, fatalities and injuries for non -motorized and motorized crashes alike are on the rise. Congestion Steady increases in traffic volume will lead to a greater number of highway miles being congested; coincidentally relia bility will decrease and delay will increase. When the above discussed indicators are looked at together, the section of Route 6 in Bristol approaching the Farmington town line, I -84 east of Waterbury, and Route 69 from south of Waterbury border to roughly Beach Road stand out across all three measures. Recent and ongoing projects in along Route 6 and I -84 may ameliorate these sections of roadway; however no major work is currently underway to address the issues along Route 69. Preservation & Maintenance The trends for pavement and bridge condition are mixed. Throughout the state , bridge condition is improving with indications that it will continue to improve into the future. However, the state of system’s pavement condition is expected to deteriorate in th e coming 4 years. 4.3 Actions By looking at a variety of metrics, the NVCOG can advocate for improve d reliability and safety, and reduced delay while not losing sight of system preservation and maintenance. Limited funding means that benefits must also be shared across a broad base of users . By embracing an assortment of measures NVCOG hopes to identify projects and problem areas that will benefit the greatest proportion of the community. • Continue to support Bridge Maintenance • Improve pavement condition across the region and state • Promote solutions to improve incident management and the transfer of real time traffic information to improve reliability • Where feasible and beneficial , consider increas ing roadway capacity • Promote rideshare, public tr ansit and telecommuting to reduce traffic volume and by extension delay • Study Route 69 corridor from Waterbury to Wolcott for opportunities to improve reliability and reduce delay. If needed add capacity • Encourage motorist to leave their cars at home and i mprove safety by p romot ing complete street elements in the streetscape to better integrate pedestrians and cyclists in the roadway and protect their safety • Improve safety with driver, pedestrian and cyclist safety training • Improve roadway safety by c oordin ating with CTDOT to address high hazard areas 83 5.0 Public Transit Systems The Naugatuck Valley planning region is well served by a range of public transportation options and choices, including local, fixed -route bus services, commuter rail, specialized para transit services for the elderly and mobility impaired resident, and express bus services oriented to downtown Hartford that operate primarily during peak hours. In addition, CT fastrak routes extend to Bristol, Cheshire and Waterbury from New Britain that provide a connection to Hartford via the dedicated busway. Local, fixed bus route services are operated by four primary operators: • Three divisions of CT transit – Waterbury, Bristol -New Britain, and New Haven • Greater Bridgeport Transit (GBT) Authority Four express bus routes extend from the region to downtown Hartford; two beginning in downtown Waterbury, one from downtown Bristol and one from Cheshire. These routes take advantage of high speed connections afforded on regional expressways. Before the opening of the CT fastrak busway, these express routes would follow the expressways directly into downtown Hartford. Today, they access the busway in New Britain to complete the trip to Hartford. In addition, a limited -stop bus route was initiated in 2017 between Torrington and Waterbury with stops in Thomaston. Paratransit services are offered to Waterbury area residents by the Greater Waterbury Transit District (GWTD). The Valley Transit District (VTD) provides the complimentary ADA service to the lower Valley c ommunities. Commuter rail services are operat ed along the Waterbury branch of the New Haven main rail line by the Metro North Railroad under contract to the State of Connecticut, which owns the r ail lines. 5.1 Fixed -Route Bus Systems Within the Naugatuck Valley planning region, there are four local bus system operators : • CT transit -Waterbury • CT transit -New Haven • CT transit -Bristol/ New Britain • Greater Bridgeport Transit (GBT) Three of these fixed -route bus systems are centered primarily outside of the region. Only the CT transit -Waterbury system provides coverage wholly within the region and is centered on Waterbury. CT transit -New Haven operates 21 local bus routes The system operates using a radial system with most routes begin ning and ending at the green in downtown New Haven, traveling outward from the city center on major roadways. Two routes extend into the region; one serving the lower Valley towns of Derby, Ansonia and Seymour and one connecting downtown New Haven to downt own Waterbury. CT transit -Bristol/New Britain operates 12 routes oriented toward downtown New Britain; however, three routes essentially provide local service within Bristol and one route connects downtown Bristol with downtown New Britain. The GBT system o perates primarily within greater Bridgeport area. Three routes extend in the lower Valley area, providing service to the corporate office districts in Shelton as well as the Derby -Shelton rail station. The express bus routes are operated by CT transit -Hartf ord. 84 Additionally, Waterbury and Southbury are served by private inter -city bus companies. Although a substantial portion of the region is covered by local bus service, the operations are fragmented with gaps between the urban core areas. This results in extensive unserved and under – served areas. There are currently no connections between Waterbury and the lower Valley towns nor between Waterbury and Bristol. Regional Local Bus Operations 85 CT transit -Waterbury The CT transit -Waterbury Division is the thir d-fastest -growing fixed route bus system in the state, with a 68.7% increase in annual boardings between 2007 and 2014. The Waterbury system provides the most service in the region with 22 routes, plus three commuter -oriented “tripper” routes providing acc ess to suburban employment opportunities. CT transit -Waterbury contracts with North East Transportation (NET) to operate the service. Service is provided seven days a week and generally operat es from 6:00 AM to midnight on weekdays, 9:30 AM to midnight on Saturdays, and 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM on Sundays. The tripper 3 routes operate during the peak hours only in Waterbury and the surrounding communities. 3 Tripper service means regularly scheduled mass transportation service which is open to the public, and which is designed or modified to accommo date the needs of school students and personnel, using various fare collections or subsidy systems. (49 CFR 605.3) 86 In 2015 the system carried 2,721,399 passengers. During peak service 36 vehicles are in operation. Annual re venue miles are 1,102,218 and hours are 92,214. The passengers per revenue mile in 2015 was 2.5 and has been increasing since 2012 due to an overall increase in passengers. Since 87 2012 Waterbury has implemented several service changes including the addition of late night service and holiday service. The system operates using a pulse (a timed transfer between multiple routes) at or near the Waterbury Green in downtown Waterbury. There are multiple bus stops located around and adjacent to the Waterbury Green on East Main Street for eastbound routes and on West Main Streets for westbound routes. Most routes pulse on the half hour or on the hour. CT transit -Waterbury Routes Route Service Span (Days of the Week/Hours per Weekday) Peak Headway (minutes) Towns Served End to End Travel Time (minutes) Average Daily Ridership 411 Overlook 7/18 30 Waterbury 15 532 412 Hill St 7/18 30 Waterbury 15 282 413 Oakville 7/18 60 Waterbury, Watertown 30 601 416 Bucks Hill/North Main St 7/18 30 Waterbury 30 846 418 Long Hill Rd 7/18.5 30 Waterbury 15 284 421 Walnut St 7/18 60 Waterbury 15 268 422 Wolcott St 7/18 60 Waterbury 30 856 425 Hitchcock Lake 7/18 60 Waterbury, Wolcott 30 527 426 East Main St – Fairlawn/Meriline 5/12.5 60 Waterbury 60 592 428 East Main St – Scott Rd 7/10 50 Waterbury 20 318 431 East Mountain 5/12 60 Waterbury 15 58 432 Hopeville/Sylvan Ave 5/12 60 Waterbury 15 81 433 Hopeville/Baldwin St 7/18.5 30 Waterbury 15 649 436 Town Plot/Congress Ave 7/18.5 30 Waterbury 15 363 441 Town Plot/Highland Ave 7/18 60 Waterbury 15 179 442 Chase Parkway 7/18 60 Waterbury, Middlebury 12-25 584 444 Bunker Hill Ave 7/18 60 Waterbury 15 383 445 Watertown Ave 7/13 60 Waterbury, Watertown 30 332 88 450X Torrington 5/14 90 Waterbury, Torrington, Thomaston 45-70 —- 471 Naugatuck/Millville 5/7.5 80 Naugatuck 40 7 472 Naugatuck/New Haven Rd 5/7 80 Naugatuck 40 22 473 Naugatuck/Spring St 5/ 80 Naugatuck 15 —- 479X Beacon Falls 5/9.5 2 trips Waterbury, Beacon Falls 25 127 417 Thomaston Ave 6/12 30 Waterbury, Waterville 15-20 284 447X Watertown/Straits Turnpike 5/9.5 2 trips Waterbury, Watertown 20 26 446X Watertown Industrial Park 5/9.5 2 trips Waterbury, Watertown 20 42 470X Naugatuck Industrial Park 5/9 3 trips Waterbury, Naugatuck 30 83 460X Cheshire Industrial Park 5/10.5 3.5 trips Waterbury, Cheshire 25 69 The CT transit -Waterbury network, despite its large coverage area, maintains excessive average headways of one hour on most non -tripper routes. The network also lacks rider amenities such as transit shelters and real -time bus tracking. The NVCOG is working closely with the City of Waterbury and N ET to provide funding for improved rider amenities. There have been several operational changes to service within the last five to six years including the addition of evening service and holiday service. In 2011 service was exte nded from 6:00 PM to midnight on many routes through a pilot program funded by area colleges with a UPass program. Holiday Service was implemented in 2015 with the introduction of CT fastrak on New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Than ksgiving, and Christmas. Recent capital improvements include a new maintenance facility and new fare system. The new maintenance facility is located at 761 Frost Bridge Road in Watertown, approximately a mile and a quarter away from the former facility. Th e new fareboxes include automatic vehicle location and automatic passenger counters. In 2017, the NVCOG completed the Waterbury Area Transit Study (WATS) . The study evaluat ed options for the location of the bus pulse point and opportunities for improved service within existing resources. The WATS also identified the costs of expan ding the system to fully meet the needs of the residents of the service area, particularly with re spect to providing high quality, acceptable frequency service. It developed recommendations for immediate, short -term, mid -term and long -term modifications. Some of the actions are stand -alone and do not rely on changes made to other routes. However, many of the recommendations build upon each other and are dependent on previous phase a ctions being implemented. Short -term recommendations include restructuring the Naugatuck tripper routes, providing all -day service between Naugatuck and Waterbury , improving on -time performances. Long -term recommendations included a potential commuter bus route from Waterbury to Shelton via Route 8. In order for the recommendations to be implemented, funding would need to be identified and CTDOT would be responsible for the im plementation of service changes. 89 Waterbury Service Improvements for Corridor Communities • New Route on Lakewood Road, Waterbury : Operate a new route along East Main Street, Wolcott Street and Lakewood Road, linking The Green to Waterbury Plaza on Chase Av enue via Walmart and the Naugatuck Valley Shopping Center. The Wolcott Street – Lakewood Road Business Association identified this route as their highest priority service improvement in the Waterbury area. In addition to providing new access to the businesse s on Lakewood Road as well as the Bergin Apartments , it would duplicate a substantial length of Route 422, solving the overcrowding problem on that route, and would help reduce strain on North Main Street routes. • Provide Regular Service to Naugatuck : Bus s ervice in Naugatuck consists of “Tripper” service between Waterbury and the Naugatuck Industrial Park and two local routes that remain within the town’s borders. The bus service in Naugatuck would be reworked to provide full -day routes between Waterbury an d Naugatuck. The existing local routes would be realigned to form the tail ends of a main trunk route that would serve and connect the Waterbury Green and Naugatuck Green. • Improve Service on North Main Street Routes and to Town Plot Area, Waterbury : The cu rrent operations on the routes servicing these areas of Waterbury are unreliable and have difficulty meeting the timed pulse -point in downtown Waterbury. In order to improve the reliability of these routes, the cycle time needs to be lengthened to allow fo r round -trip running times greater than 30 minutes at certain times of day and some degree of recovery time. Without additional resources, this would result in longer headways, fewer trips, and more crowding; therefore, additional equipment would be placed in service improve reliability, reduce overcrowding, and improve passenger convenience. • Improve Service on Route 428 East Main Street – Scott Road, Waterbury : This route has the reliability of any route in CTtransit -Waterbury system. Based on recent rid e-checks, •Restructure the Naugatuck Routes to provide all day service •Implement Lakewood Road (Waterbury) service •Combine routes •Reduce service on under -performing routes & eliminate low ridership deviations Immediate •Rationalize routes •Enhance weekend service Short •Extend regular route structure •Decrease headways •Expand span of service Mid •Improve frequency in Naugatuck •Add commuter routes •Connect Greater Waterbury bus service with lower Valley area •Consolidate CT transit -Waterbury with Valley Transit District Long 90 the average running time on the route was 49 minutes, compared to the schedule run time of 40 minutes. The route also offers poor level of service as much of its alignment is in a large loop, requiring passengers to ride in the opposite direction to return to their starting point. The proposed improvements would be convert Route 428 to a bidirectional route over most of its length and complement service by changings in other routes to more efficiently serve the area. • Rationalize Various Routes, Waterbury : To improve efficiency and address underperforming routes, several routes need to be modified. Actions include combining, converting, and discontinuing routes, reducing service on some routes and eliminating little -used deviations. • Enha nce Weekend Service : Suggested enhancements include: starting Saturday operations earlier in the day, adjusting headways that better coincide with actual running times, and allocating additional equipment to improve headways. • Improve Service Levels, Syst em -wide : The peer analysis conducted as part of WATS determined the CT transit -Waterbury system operates a relatively small amount of service relative to its population and ridership. Its annual revenue hours per capita was much lower than peer system s, whi le its productivity on was very high. The combination of poor levels of service and high productivity result in overcrowded routes and rider inconvenience. To rectify the situation, levels of service would be addressed in several ways: ➢ Extend regular route structure to cover all evening hours of service, instead operating a reduced version. ➢ Expand the span of service to start earlier in the morning and run later in the evening. The largest impacts would occur on Saturdays and Sundays. ➢ Reduce headways on the more critical routes from up to 60 minutes to the range of 15 -to-20 minutes. • Expand Local Commuter Routes : Several commuter -oriented routes are operated in the CT transit -Waterbury district. These commuter routes run between downtown Waterbury and area industrial parks and are intended to help people get to jobs located in more suburban areas. Service is limited to morning and evening peak hours and offer limited – stops along the route. Expanding on the concept of access -to-jobs, two new commuter routes a re suggested: ➢ Waterbury to Bristol via Wolcott – the route would be aligned primarily along Route 69 and connect with CT fastrak Route 102 and an express bus route to Hartford. ➢ Waterbury to Southington – the route would be aligned along Meriden Road, Route 322 and Route 10 to the center of Southington. This route could be operated as a limited stop or express route. • Consolidate Local Fixed -Route Bus Service in the Naugatuck Valley Planning Region : The current delivery of local fixed -route bus services in Nau gatuck Valley planning region is disconnected with multiple agencies and operators providing local bus services in different parts of the region. Despite the myriad transit services being provided, it is 91 not possible to travel from one end of the region to the other by bus. To address the fragmental and disconnected bus operations in the Naugatuck Valley planning region, the CT transit -Waterbury district would be expanded to provide service to the entire region and consolidated with the Valley Transit Distri ct. The consolidated service would provide connections to the CT transit -Bristol/New Britain system. CT transit -New Haven CT transit -New Haven contracts with HNS Management to operate 21 local bus routes and two commuter shuttles in New Haven and the surround ing communities. Service is provided seven days a week and generally operates from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM on weekdays and Saturdays, and 6:00 AM to midnight on Sundays. In 2014 the system carried 9,526,684 passengers. During peak service 97 vehicles are in ope ration. Annual revenue miles are 3,688,395 and hours are 333,660. The passenger per revenue mile statistic is 2.6. The system operates using a radial system with most routes beginning and ending at the green in downtown New Haven and traveling outward fro m the city center on major roadways. Several routes are interlined at the green to provide crosstown connections and reduce running times but eliminating the need to turn around. Several of the routes operate along a main corridor and then branch out in ou tlying areas creating several deviations. Two of these routes continue into the Naugatuck Valley planning region. Route 229 extends from Union Station in New Haven to downtown Waterbury via Hamden and Cheshire. It travels along Whitney Avenue, Route 10, R oute 68 and Route 70 to East Main Street in Waterbury before terminating at the Green. Route 229 operates Monday through Sunday, with 18 round trips daily. Peak hour headways are 30 minutes and a 60 -minute headway is provided in the off -peak hours on weekd ays. Saturday frequency is 60 minutes. Performance statistics show that Route 229 performs above the system average for the number of passengers per trip and the maximum load but below the system average for passengers per hour and passengers per mile. The se data indicate that the bus trips carry a substantial number of passengers but they are traveling longer distances. The first trip to Waterbury is at 5:15 AM and the last return trip is 8:05 PM. It travels through a mix of built up residential and commer cial land uses as well as rural areas. For most of its length, Route 255 does not experience vehicle traffic congestion. Route 255 extends from New Haven along Route 34 to serve downtown Shelton, Derby, Ansonia and Seymour. It has two deviations plus one e xpress route, and connects with bus routes operated by the Greater Bridgeport Transit (GBT) and Waterbury branch line commuter rail service at the Derby -Shelton rail station. It travels through the downtown areas of Shelton, Ansonia and Seymour and provide s connections with commuter rail stations in Ansonia and Seymour. The route operates Monday through Saturday; there is no Sunday service. On weekdays, there are 16 round trips daily to Seymour with 30 -minute headways during the peak periods and 60 -minute in the off -peak timeframe. The Saturday frequency is 60 minutes. Route 255 performs above the average for the system based on the number of passengers per trip and the maximum load, but it performs below the system average for passengers per hour and passen gers per mile. These measures indicate that passengers are traveling longer distances. It travels through a mix of built up residential and commercial land uses as well as more rural areas and experiences traffic congestion through downtown Shelton and alo ng Route 34 in Derby. 92 In addition to the two routes described above, the CT transit -New Haven operates a part -time extension of Route 243 to Seymour via Whaley Avenue, Route 63 and Route 67. It passes through Woodbridge before terminating east of downtown Seymour at the terminus of Route 255. Two trips are made in the morning time period from New Haven each day Monday through Friday and one return trip is offered in the evening. At other times, connections can be made to Route 255. The extension does not op erate on the weekend. CT transit -New Haven Routes Route Service Span (Days of the Week/Hours per Weekday) Peak Headway (minutes) Towns Served End to End Travel Time (minutes) Average Daily Ridership 229 Waterbury/Whitney Ave nue 7/16 30 New Haven, Hamden, Cheshire, Waterbury 73 2,139 255 Ansonia -Seymour 6/15.5 30 New Haven, West Haven, Orange, Shelton, Derby, Ansonia, Seymour 58 1,876 93 CT transit -New Haven conducted an alternatives analysis bus study called the “ Move New Haven Transit Mobility Study” to develop and evaluate transit improvements for the Greater New Haven Region. The study’s findings are still under review and are slated to be completed in 2018. 94 There have been very few capital improvements since the construction of the new maintenance and operations facility in 2010. The state is in the process of deploying technology upgrades to the entire CT transit fleet. In April 2017 real -time bus arrival information on the New Haven fleet was made available to smartphone holders. Ot her technologies being installed include automatic passenger counters, automatic annunciation, and centralized schedule data using Trapeze. CT transit is upgrading its fare system with contactless smartcard technology, fare capping, and mobile payments. New fareboxes have been installed on CT transit -New Haven buses. The new technology was deployed system wide and a mobile application is anticipated in the near future. CT transit in New Haven is a leader in the state with equipment. In 2011 they were the firs t in Connecticut to begin operating hybrid diesel vehicles. That same year they became the first to operate 60 -foot -articulated buses thereby increasing the capacity on core routes. CT transit -Bristol/New Britain CTtransit -Bristol/New Britain Division prov ides fixed -route transit service to the towns of New Britain, Bristol, Plainville, and Berlin. Only the City of Bristol is located in the Naugatuck Valley planning region; the other three municipalities are located in Capitol planning region. The system op erates 12 fixed bus routes. Some routes provide connections to CTtransit’s Hartford and Meriden Divisions, as well as CTfastrak services and CTtransit Commuter Express routes. Operations are contracted out by the CTDOT to the New Britain Transportation Com pany (NBT). Although the service is primarily oriented toward downtown New Britain, where riders can transfer to the CT fastrak service, three routes are basically local routes within Bristol. Route 541 connects downtown Bristol to the Tunxis Community Coll ege via Farmington Avenue. Transfers can be made at the college to Route 503, which continues through Plainville to downtown New Britain. The other two local Bristol routes are relatively short loop runs wholly within the city; one serves Bristol Hospital from downtown and the other connects a residential area (Gaylord Towers) just west of downtown. All three Bristol routes begin and end at the Bristol City Hall. In addition, Route 502 connects downtown Bristol directly with downtown New Britain via Route 7 2 through Bristol and Plainville and Black Rock Avenue in New Britain. 95 CT transit -Bristol/New Britain System Source: NVCOG CT transit -Bristol/New Britain Routes Route Service Span (Days of the Week/Hours per Weekday) Peak Headway (minutes) Towns Served End to End Travel Time (minutes) Average Daily Ridership 502 Black Rock Ave nue 7/19.5 60 Bristol , Plainville, New Britain 38 221 541 Bristol Local 7/16.5 60 Bristol 27-30 310 542 Bristol Hospital 5/18 60 Bristol 16 20 543 West Street 7/16.5 60 Bristol 7 63 The Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG), in cooperation with CTDOT, conducted a comprehensive service assessment of the CTtransit Bristol -New Britain fixed -route bus operations (“New Britain -Bristol Division Comprehensive Service Analysis,” prepared by Nelson Nygaard in association with AECOM, FHI and ASG Planning, May 2018). The assessment identified the strengths and weaknesses of existing services in the area and de veloped recommendations for improving transit services. It also addressed under -performing routes and service redundancies to make the system more efficient. 96 The key findings of the assessment related to service and fixed -routes in Bristol were: • Circuitous Route Alignments : Several routes operate along indirect and meandering alignments, or in large one -way loops, rather than traveling along the most direct path. This increases travel time for riders and makes service inconvenien t and difficult to understand. Route 541 operates primarily along Farmington Avenue with alternating service along Jerome Avenue, Stevens Street and Stafford Avenue to the north of Farmington Avenue and along Brook Street and Stafford Avenue south of Farmington Avenue. • Incon sistent Alignments : Route 502 operates along two different roads on inbound and outbound trips for a two -mile segment of the route, resulting in a walking distance between reciprocal stops of a third of a mile or more. • Duplicative Service : Route 502 opera tes along nearly the same alignment as Route 102 (part of the CT fastrak service) , but with much lower service frequency. In addition, on many trips, Route 502 departs soon before or after Route 102, creating additional redundancy along the same corridor wi thout effectively i ncreasing the level of service. • Poor Service Frequency : Route 541 operates hourly service, but serves each of the two variants (north and south of Farmington Avenue) on alternate trips, which means that riders on each variant only have two -hour service frequency. • Inconsistent Branding : Route 542 Bristol Hos pital is currently interlined with CT fastrak Route 102 , creating a situation where the route is served by both CT transit vehicles and CT fastrak vehicles depending upon the trip. Since different equipment is used on the route, riders may become confus ed by the service. It also dilutes the CT fastrak brand by using premium vehicles on a short, low -ridership route. To improve operations and service in Bristol, the CRCOG assessment study recommended the following actions: • Route 502 Black Rock Avenue : This route provides bi -directional service between New Britain and Bristol. However, the route has relatively low ridership and its productivity in terms of passengers per hour is below the average for the system. While the route alignment is fairly direct, there is split through the eastern side of Bristol where the route is aligned along East Main Street and Broad Street in the direction towards New Britain and along Pine Street heading toward Bristol. This pattern results in reciprocal stops to be offset a third of a mile or more. Action s: Relocate and realign the route along Farmington Avenue and operate between Bristol City Hall, the Tunxis Community College in Farmington and downtown New Britain. Its current service along South Street and Pine Street would be ac commodated by the Ct fastrak Route 102. • Route 5 41 Bristo l Loc al: This route provides service between Bristol City Hall and the Tunxis Community College in Farmington. The service operates with two route variants, one breaking off to the north of Farmington Avenue and one serving areas to the south of Farmington Avenue. The route performs slightly better than the system average carrying 18.4 passengers per revenue hour. It has strong terminus points at each end of the route 97 and serves several shopping centers along the route. However, the deviations add to the route length and travel time without generating substantial ridership. Action s: Simplify the route alignment and provide more direct service by eliminating the current southern deviation. To compensate for the elimination of the Brook Street deviation, the route would be extended along Stafford Avenue to the Bristol Senior Center. • Route 5 42 Bristo l Hospital : This route provides local circulation in Bristol between the downtown area and Bristol Hospital. It operates in one way, clockwise direction from City Hall. The route is poorest performing route in the system average carrying only 3.5 passengers per revenue hour, compared to the division average of 16.8 passengers per hour. Action s: Reconfigure the r oute alignment by eliminating the short loop service and extending the route into and through eastern Bristol via West Street and West Queen Street in Southington. The route would continue along Route 10 to provide service to Plainville and ending at the C onnecticut Commons retail center. • Route 5 43 Bristo l Loc al: This route provides local service in Bristol along a short alignment between City Hall and the Gaylord Towers, a subsidized senior housing complex in Bristol’s west end neighborhood. The route carries about 16.6 passengers per hour, slightly lower than t he system average of 16.8 passengers per revenue hour. The majority of riders board or get off the bus at either end of the route. Because of its short length, passengers need to connect and transfer to another bus in downtown Bristol to travel farther. Action s: Discontinue the route. Service would be accommodated by extending Route 541 to serve Gaylord Towers and providing direct service from Gaylord Towers to shopping centers along Farmington Avenue, as well as to the Bristol Senior Center. CT fastrak CT fastrak is the first bus rapid transit system in Connecticut. The service features a 9.4 -mile dedicated guideway for buses between the downtown New Britain bus station and Hartford, a heavily congested corridor in central Connecticut. In downtown Hartford, buses circulate through downtown on city streets. Several CT fastrak -branded bus routes extend from New Britain station and provided limited stop service. In addition, commuter express bus route use the CT fastrak busway between New Britain and Hartford. Th e dedicated busway has ten BRT stations that provide amenities more common with commuter rail stations. Buses are uniquely branded as CT fastrak service and stations are located along the busway. One CT fastrak -branded bus route operates within the Naugatuc k Valley planning region: Route 102 . This routes extends from the New Britain CT fastrak station to downtown Bristol. It operates from downtown Bristol along South Street, Pine Street and Route 72. Limited stops are provides and the route operates as a non -stop, express bus along the divided section of Route 72 through East Bristol and the expressway section of Route 72 from the Connecticut Commons in Plainville to New Britain. 98 CT tra nsit Express Bus Services CT tra nsit -Hartford Div ision operates 25 express bu s routes to Hartford from throughout the state. These routes operate primarily along interstate and other expressways and make limited number of stops, usually at state -designated park -and -ride lots. Four express bus routes operate from cities and towns in the Naugatuck Valley planning region: • Route 923 – Bristol Express : Operates from downtown Bristol along South Main Street and Pine Street with limited stops and then operates non -stop on Route 72 to the CT fastrak station in New Britain. It continues along the busway to downtown Hartford. • Route 924 – Southington/Cheshire Express : Operates from the commuter parking lot at I – 691 and Route 10 in Cheshire along Route 10 to I -84 in Southington. It continues non – stop on I -84 and Route 72 to the CT fastrak station in New Britain. From New Britain, the route operates on the busway to downtown Hartford. • Route 92 5 – Waterbury Express : Operates from the Waterbury rail station and through downtown Waterbury with limited stops and then operates non -stop on I -84 to the parking and ride lot at I -84 and Route 70 in Cheshire. It continues along I -84 and Route 72 to the CT fastrak station in New Britain. From New Britain, the route operates on the busway to downtown Hartford. • Route 92 8 – Southington/Cheshire /Waterbury Express : Operates from the Waterbury rail station and through downtown Waterbury with limited stops and then operates non -stop on I -84 to the parking and ride lot at I -691 and then along Route 10 to the park and ride lot at Route 10 and I -84. It continues along I -84 and Route 72 to the CT fastrak station in New Britain. From New Britain, the route operates on the busway to downtown Hartford. To provide additional commuter express service to Bristol, eit he r Route 925 or 928 would be adjusted to operate along Route 2 29 from I -84 to provide a connection to larger employers, especially Amazon and ESPN, in Bristol. The route would make limited stops along Route 29 and continue non -stop along Route 72 to the CT fastrak station in New Britain. Greater Bridgeport Transit (GBT) The Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority (GBT) operates 17 local bus routes, two express routes, and the interregional Coastal Link in Bridgeport and surrounding communities of Fairfield, Stratford and Trumbull . The system is radial with most routes beginning and ending at the Bridgeport Trans it Center. A time pulse -point is operated on the hour and the half hour to allow for transfers. Service is provided seven days a week and generally o perates 5:30 AM to 11:30 PM on weekdays, 5:00 AM to 11:30 PM on Saturdays, and 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Sundays . The downtown Bridgeport bus terminal has 17 bus bays, a 3,000 square foot in -door waiting area, heated shelters on the platform, and real time information signs. Real -time schedule information is available on -line through their bus tracker. 99 While not officially members of the GBT, t hree routes extend into and serve the cities of Derby and Shelton. Route 15 is aligned through the East Side of Bridgeport and Stratford to the Hawley Lane Mall in Trumbull. From the mall, it runs along Route 8 for a short distance and then along Bridgeport Avenue through Shelton. It terminates at the Derby -Shelton rail station, providing a connection to commuter rail service operated on the Waterbury branch line and CT transit -New Haven Route 255. Route 22X is an express bus route between downtown Bridgeport and the Shelton corporate office area. It operates along Route 8 to Shelton and then along Bridgeport Avenue. A loop is made through the corporate office parks lo cated on Trapp Falls Road, Research Drive and Commerce Drive. This route provides only three morning and three evening runs on a 60 -minute headway. Travel time between downtown Bridgeport and the Shelton Corporate Park is about 28 minutes. The route is ori ented towards downtown Bridgeport and does not continue to downtown Shelton, downtown Derby or the Derby -Shelton rail station. The third GBT route serving the lower Valley is Route 23. It traverses the Bridgeport South End and length of Stratford along Rou te 113 and Route 110. In Shelton it provides access to the corporate office parks located along Constitution Boulevard. It continues to the Derby -Shel ton rail station via Route 8. 100 GBTA Routes Route Service Span (Days of the Week/Hours per Weekday) Peak Headway (minutes) Towns Served End to End Travel Time (minutes) Average Daily Ridership Route 15 – Hawley Lane/Shelton/Derby 7/15.75 60 Bridgeport, Stratford, Trumbull, Shelton, Derby 54 1071 Route 22X – Downtown Shelton via Route 8 5/11.75 3.5 Trips/day Bridgeport, Trumbull, Shelton 37 N/A Route 23 – Shelton via Rt. 110 5/13.5 60 Derby, Shelton, Stratford, Bridgeport 45 393 The GBT has a long range transit plan that provides a blueprint for the next 10 years, but due to reduction of funding at the state level it may take longer for recommendations to be implemented. As a result of the reduction in state investment in bus operatio ns , the GBT has had to reduce service on service on several routes and may be forced to make additional scheduling and routing adjustments. The NVCOG is working on an assessment of possible alternate transportation modes to better serve the Route 8 and Wat erbury branch rail line corridors ( www.rt8corridorstudy.com ). A key focus area of the study is to investigate transit enhancements to the Bridgeport Avenue corporate corridor in Shelton. The corridor is home to a mix of corporate office parks, retail centers and higher density residential developments, including a recently completed high -rise complex. About 11,000 people work within the corridor, with roughly 17% traveling from the Naugatuck Valley area. Becau se of the limited transit options, commuters are auto -dependent. Currently, the GBT Route 22X provides express service between the Bridgeport Transit Center (BTC) in downtown Bridgeport and the Shelton Bus iness Park. The service currently operates only during the morning and afternoon peak periods, operating with three trips in the morning and four in the afternoon . The route is oriented toward downtown Bridgeport with service providing a connection from Bridgeport to the Shelton Corporate Park in the morning and the reverse commute in the evening. A 60 -minute headway is provided with the first morning trip leaving the BTC at 6:35 am. The route runs is aligned along the Route 8 Expressway from Downtown Bridgeport to exit 11, where it continues se rvice along Bridgeport Avenue. To improve connections and access along Bridgeport Avenue, service and operations on GBT Route 22X would be enhanced by continuing the current rout ing north to the Derby/ Shelton Station, thereby, providing a contiguous route between the BTC and the Derby/Shelton Station. The connection from the Shelton Corporate Park area would operate either along Bridgeport Avenue, through Downtown Shelton to the Derb y/Shelton Station or on Route 8. In either option, the buses would operate in general travel lanes. To attain good travel times and institute a service similar to a BRT system, the number of total stops would be limited. This service would facilitate both southbound and northbound trips. The current GBT Route 22X service is more conducive for those traveling north in the morning and south in the evening. Additional buses would be operated to permit the same levels of service in each direction. Separate sout hbound service 101 , . would be operated simultaneously with the northbound operations, instead of the current structure, whereby the northbound bus reverses its direction and operates as the southbound bus. Adding buses to the route will permit more frequent serv ice and shorter headways. The major advantage to this style of system is that it would only require route definition and asset allocation to implement. Bus Rapid Transit System As part of the alternate transportation assessment, a longer term vision for enhanced bus service along the Route 8 corridor is being considered. This option involves the development and implementation of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system between Derby/Shel ton rail station to the Bridgeport station. While commuter rail service is provided on the Waterbury branch line between these stations, the line is located on the east side of the Housatonic River and trains must merge onto the main New Haven rail line. T his alignment limits the number and frequency of trains that can be operated and increases travel times. A BRT would provide a more frequent and direct connection between the Naugatuck Valley and downtown Bridgeport, as well provide a high quality transit service to the office and industrial parks located along Route 8. The BRT system options address and focus on tr avel between the Derby/Shelton s tation and downtown Bridgeport and opportunities to provide better and more attractive public transit service a long the Bridgeport Avenue corporate, commercial, retail and residential corridor. The ex isting bus services are limited, operating at 60 -minute headway s and either provid ing only peak period service or operating all day with long travel times. The BRT con cepts would provide improved and extended service, shorter headways and shorter travel times. Two BRT systems are being considered: • Shoulder Running BRT : This type of BRT system would operate within and along the outside shoulder of Route 8 . In this case, the right hand shoulder would be designated as a bus only lane. The BRT would operate in an express fashion with a very limited number of stops located in close proximity to the bus lane. The intent is to maximize travel speeds and minimize delays caused by station stops and off -route diversions. The BRT would function similar to the GBT Route 22X Enhanced, as described above, except it would operate on dedicated bus only lanes, as opposed to operating in the general purpose travel lanes. The bus only lane , typically referred to as a “reserved bus lane” or “bus on shoulders,” would afford the buses an opportunity to by -pass congestion and maintain a free -flow speed. The major concern with a shoulder -running BRT is the shoulder width. Along some sections , the BRT might have to travel within the general purpose travel lanes, which would expose the buses to the same level of congestion as experienced by general traffic. When it exits Route 8, it would operate along Bridgeport Avenue and merge into general traffic and use more traditional bus stops. • Median R unning BRT : Th is type of BRT system is comprised of a wholly separated facility running down the center of Route 8 . The proposal is to construct a busway within the center right -of-way of Route 8. Unlike the shoulder running system, no adjustments would be made to the shoulder area of the highway. Instead, a new, dedicated busway would be constructed. This system will largely eliminate conflicts with merging traffic and road way congestion. Access to and from the busway would be via grade -separated ramps that connect to an adjacen t station stop or local roads. 102 The recommended width of the busway is 16 feet. The unobstructed vertical clearance over a busway is a minimum 15.5 f eet with a preferred clearance of 16.5 feet. For a bi – directional, two lane busway, a raised separator should be installed. This would result in typical cross section width of 34 feet. Route 8 south of the Commodore Hull Bridge is a combination of an old er section built in the 1960s and newer sections completed in the early 1980s. The advantage of the newer section, approximately from the underpass of Constitution Boulevard to the merge with Route 25, is that the median ranges between approximately 65 fee t and over 100 feet, more than sufficient space to accommodate a two -lane, bi -directional busway. The constrained section is from the Commodore Hull Bridge to the Constitution Boulevard underpass, a distance of just under one mile ( ±0.91 miles). The northb ound and southbound travel lanes are separated by a “Jersey” style b arrier; no median is provided. BRT bus es would travel along th e separated facility for about 6.5 miles where the facility would end and merge into the overlap section of Route 8/25. At th at point, BRT buses would use the general travel lanes and exit the expressway at exit 3 (Main Street ) in Bridgeport. Local streets would be used to travel to the Bridgeport Transit Center, the terminus of the BRT route and transfer point to local bus serv ice operated by the GBT and commuter rail service operated along the New Haven main line. The median running BRT system would function more similar to a rail system and stations would be located directly along the busway or in close proximity . Strategical ly located transit hubs could be built to provide a convenient station with circulator shuttles utilized to bring riders to and from their final destinations. • Derby to Waterbury Express Bus Service : While the goal of the alternate transit modes assessment is to promote increased operations along the Waterbury branch line , including minimum 30 -minute headways during the peak hours , and acquisition of new equipment , short term transit options within the corridor continue to be limited. To address the lack of service , an express bus service , operate d along Route 8 , could be implemented to serve the WBL trains stations. The service would supplement existing rail service and operate at times between scheduled rail times. Currently, the WBL trains operate at 2½ -hour headways. The new express buses would operate every 30 minutes during the gaps between train departures. The service would provide greater choice for travelers and greater confidence that a public transit mode would be available to make a trip at a desired time. Intercity Private Buses The privately operate d intercity bus operators and routes are listed below: • Peter Pan 2017: Boston -Hartford -New Haven -Waterbury -NYC • Peter Pan 2018: Greenfield -Amherst -Northampton -Springfield -Hartford -New Haven – Waterbury -New York • Peter Pan 2036: Providence -Mansfield -Storrs -Hart ford -Waterbury -NYC • Peter Pan 2042: Williamstown MA to NYC via Canaan, Winsted, Torrington, Waterbury, Southbury, Danbury 103 5.2 Dial -a-Ride and Paratransit Services The Naugatuck Valley planning region benefits from several transit districts operating through out the region. Transit districts may be formed at any time under Chapter 103a of the General Statues of Connecticut. Under state statute, a transit district is a civil division of the state for purposes of governmental administration and a legal entity. T ransit districts are formed to provide public transportation for a municipality or group of municipalities. Within this framework there is a great amount of flexibility as to where and what services the district choses to provide. Complementary ADA Paratransit Service The federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires operat ors of regular fixed – route bus services to provide complementary paratransit services to persons that are unable to use the regular bus services. This complimentary service is available to all certified ADA eligible residents that have origins and destinations within ¾ of a mile of a local fixed route. Within the region a number of transit services are available for individuals who, because of the ir disability, are unable to travel on the fixed route public transit service. This section reviews the complementary services provided for elderly and disabled rides for each of the region’s fixed route transit systems and transit districts. The Greater Waterbury Transit District (GWTD) was formed under Chapter 103a of the General Statues of Connecticut with the expressed purpose of providing service for elderly and disabled residents. The district comprises Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Sout hbury, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown, and Wolcott. The GWTD provides “non -ADA paratransit ” services and dial -a-ride services for its member communities. North East Transportation (NET) operates the complementary ADA paratransit program linked to the CTt ransit -Waterbury fixed -route service. Responsibilities include screening and interviewing ADA eligible clients, scheduling trips, filing complaints, and operating and maintaining the ADA fleet of vehicles. Capital stock is owned by CTtransit. Additionally, NET provides paratransit service to Gaylord Hospital in Wallingford with FTA New Freedom funding. The Valley Transit District (VTD) is one of the few transit districts in the state that was incorporated by special act (SA 71.71). It comprise s four communi ties: Ansonia, Derby, Seymour and Shelton. The special act grants the VTD all the same powers afforded under Chapter 103a of the general statutes. The GBT and CTtransit -New Haven operate fixed -route bus services in the lower Valley communities. The Distric t operates the complementary ADA services for these routes, mirroring the fixed route services, Monday through Friday. However, the Greater New Haven Transit District (GNHTD) and the GBTA must operate the complementary ADA service on the weekends to meet A DA requirements. The VTD r esponsibilities include interviewing and certifying ADA eligible clients, scheduling trips, filing complaints, and operating and maintaining the ADA f leet of vehicles. It also coordinates with GNHTD and NET to provide inter -distri ct trips. In both cases VTD will provide the outgoing trip and the rider must coordinate with the relevant partner district to schedule the return trip. The NVCOG is the direct recipient for funding from the Federal Transit Administration for capital and p lanning projects within the lower Valley area. As such, the NVCOG owns all the capital equipment and rolling stock for the VTD , while t he VTD is the operator for the transit district. VTD operates f ourteen handicap ped accessible minivans. 104 The VTD also oper ates free shuttle buses from Derby /Shelton rail station to job centers along Bridgeport Ave nue. This service is funded under the FTA’s Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program. The Greater Hartford Transit District (GHTD) is a quasi -municipal corporation operating under the authority of Chapter 103a of the Connecticut General Statutes. The District has broad powers to acquire, operate, finance, plan, develop, maintain and otherwise provide all forms of land transportation and related services including th e development or renewal of transportation centers and parking facilities. While not a member of the District, the city of Bristol is provided with the complimentary ADA service by the GHTD , under contract to the CTDOT . The GHT D contracts with First Transi t, a private operator , for the provision of its consolidated service. The service provides over 500,000 passenger trips annually. The fare for c omplementary ADA services is $3.50 per trip for all of the transit districts operating within the region . Rides must be scheduled one day in advance and the hours of operation mirror local fixed route service in order to comply with the ADA . Non -ADA Paratransit Service In addition to the required complimentary ADA paratransit services, expanded paratransit services are provided within the GWTD . Th ese s ervices are referred to as “non -ADA paratransit dial -a-ride service ” to differentiate it from the services required by the ADA. The GWTD provides the non -ADA service to all municipalities within its district regardless of local fixed route services. The same eligibility requirements as ADA -paratransit apply, but the services are available to riders who have origins and destinations beyond the ¾-mile service buffer sti pulated for the complimentary ADA service. While the service area is expanded, h ours of operation mirror the complementary ADA service. The NET operates the non -ADA paratransit dial -a-ride program for GWTD. Operation and certification for this program is c onducted jointly with the complimentary ADA service. Buses are also shared by clients of both programs. The fare paid by non -ADA riders depends on municipal and state subsidies. Municipalities have the option to contribute $1.75 per trip, triggering a $1. 75 state match. If the municipality makes the $1.75 contribution the rider will pay $3.50 a trip. However, if the municipality decides not to contribute $1.75 per trip , the cost for the passenger is $7.00 per trip . Rides must be scheduled one day in advanc e. Dial -A-Ride Service The VTD operates a dial -a-ride service Monday throug h Friday, 6:00 am to 5:30 pm . Th e program is o perated independently from the c omplementary ADA service , because the two programs have different funding sources. This service is avai lable for both the general public and elderly and disabled riders. However, the fare for the general public is $4.50 per trip. ADA -eligible riders and those using the service to commute to work or to travel to a medical appointment pay $3.50 per trip. Rese rvations must be made one day in advance. The town of Southbury operates a d ial -a-ride program that provides trips throughout the GWTD region. This service is funded through the FTA New Freedom (NFI) program. Municipal Grant Program The Municipal Grant Pr ogram (MGP) provides matching state funds to expand elderly and disabled transit services within a municipality. To receive funding a municipality must 105 demonstrate that it is either already providing services or contracting to provide services of or above the value of the grant allocation. Within the GWTD each municipality is operating a local bus for seniors and disabled residents. The municipality may or may not charge a fare to riders for this service. They use their expenditures on this local service a s a match for the grant, then assign their portion to the GWTD who contracts with NET to provide a district -wide dial -a-ride service. Riders are not charged a fare for the service provided by the GWTD. Under the MGP, NET operates two buses a day and provid es service to each municipality at least one day a week. The NET takes reservations for Naugatuck, Waterbury, Thomaston , and the local senior centers in Cheshire, Middlebury, Prospect, Watertown, and Wolcott take reservations for their residents and forwar d them onto NET for scheduling. While service is limited, this current set -up has been favored in the past for two reason: • Outside of the GWTD most towns limit this type of service to their municipal borders , whereas, the GWTD offers trips within an eight -town region. • There is flexibility to move unused resources around the region. If a member town does not fully book its designated service hours, riders from other towns are able to book rides for the unused hours. Waterbury residents often get hours on d ays beyond their official days. Reservations are first come first serve and can be made during the week prior the municipality’s day of service. GWTD Free Dial -a-Ride Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Bus 1 Waterbury Naugatuck Thomaston 4 Prospect Wolcott Bus 2 Waterbury Watertown Waterbury Middlebury Cheshire The VTD is the local provider of most elderly and disabled transit services . As such , member municipalities generally do not operate extensive municipal bus services. Member towns have allocated their respective MGP allocations to the VTD to expand its the existing service and provide certain rides free of charge during all hours of operat ion. Municipal dues are used as a match for the MGP. The remaining municipalities within the Naugatuck Valley planning region use the MGP funds to match existing local funding and expand the paratransit services they are able to offer. The following munic ipalities curr ently receive and use MGP funds directly: • Bethlehem • Bristol • Oxford • Plymouth • Southbury • Thomaston • Woodbury 4This bus will be discontinued January 1, 2019 106 Locally -Funded Municipal Program s Each municipality within the region provides a variety of services for their residents, often overseen by a local senior center. For an exhaustive list of services available, the Kennedy Center has compiled a guidebook available on their website ( www.thekennedycenterinc.org/what -we – do/programs -services/mobility -services/mobility -management -project.html ). Additionally, the Connecticut United Way operates a 211 number that residents throughout region may call for information about how they may be able to find transportation in their com munity. Actions While the region benefits from various levels of transit services available to residents who are not able to use the fixed route system, it also proves to be complicated for riders. The United Way and Kennedy Center have helped consolidate resources, but the opportunity to consolidate services provided into fewer transit districts should be explored in a regional transit consolidation study. 5.3 Commuter Rail Commuter rail service through the Naugatuck Valley region is operated over the Waterbury branch rail line (WBL) of the New Haven main rail line (NHML). The NHML and its branch lines are owned by the State of Connecticut. The Metro -North Railroad (MNR) oper ates commuter rail service alo ng the NHML and its branch lines under a service agreement with Connecticut Department of Transportation. The agreement also requires MNR to maintain the right -of-way, maintenance facilities and equipment. Passenger rail serv ice on the WBL dates back to 1849. Service was originally provided by the Naugatuck Railroad later purchased by the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (NYNH&H) in 1885. In 1969 the NYNH&H went bankrupt and merged into Penn Central Transportation. The new entity declared bankruptcy one year later and the New York Metropolitan Authority (MTA) and State of Connecticut began subsidizing the New Haven line and its branches. In 1976 Conrail was formed to operate the service, but by 1983 Conrail became a non -financially viable operation. With the passage of the Northeast Rail Service Act in 1981 , MTA and CTDOT formed the Metro -North Commuter Railroad. The NHML runs between New Haven and Grand Central Terminal in New York City . Three branch lines feed into th e NH ML: • New Canaan Branch Line between New Canaan and Stamford – four stations along its 7.9 mile section. • Danbury Branch between Danbury and the South Norwalk rail station in Norwalk – seven stations along its 24.2 mile section. • Waterbury Branch Line (WBL ) between Waterbury and Bridgeport – six stations along its 27.1 mile section. The WBL i s the longest of the three branch lines and connect s with the main line at the Devon wye. Connecting service to Stamford and New York City is available at the Bridgepor t s tation. While daily service is offered on the WBL, frequency and quality of service is constrained by the existing infrastructure. The WBL is maintained at FRA Class 3 track standards. This classification limits speeds on the line to a maximum of 59 mp h. The line consists of an unsignalized, non -electrified single track with no passing sidings. Because of the lack of signals, the WBL is considered “dark” territory. 107 These physical characteristics limit and constrain the level of service provided on the l ine as northbound and southbound trains are unable to pass one another, and, since the WBL is “dark ,” multiple trains and cannot operate simultaneously on the line. The most frequent service that can be operated on the WBL is about every two hours in each direction. While the Waterbury stop is the end of the passenger line, tracks extend beyond the WBL and are used by freight service. The Naugatuck Railroad Company operates sightseeing tourist trains over the Torrington Branch that extends from the end of the WBL to Torrington, as well as limited freight service. In addition, the Central Connecticut Line , the common collective name of the 24.3 – mile section freight rail line that runs between Waterbury and Berlin, splits from the Torrington Branch a short di stance north of the WBL. The line is owned and operated by the Pan Am Southern (PAS) Railway. The PAS also owns yard and tracks adjacent to the Waterbury commuter rail station. The CTDOT has committed to the design and installation of a Central Traffic Con trol (CTC) system along the WBL (in design) and construction of by -pass sidings along four s ections of track – north of the Devon wye, Derby, Beacon Falls and south of Waterbury . Full signalization , in conjunction with installing Positive Train Control , is expected to be implemented by the end of 2019 and will allow for communication to occur whereby opposing trains can safely divert and communicate with each other on the line. The signal system, which would be controlled by rail traffic controllers at t he existing Grand Central Terminal (GTC) Dispatch Center, would allow two trains heading in the same direction to operate on the branch at the same time. The passing sidings would be fully integrated with the signal system to allow trains to enter and exit the sidings seamlessly. These projects will permit more frequent service and allow trains to operate on the line simultaneously in opposite directions. Service In 1976 there were only eight trains daily (four in each direction), this increased to twelve by 1993. Today the WBL passenger train schedule consists of 15 weekday trains between Waterbury and 108 Bridgeport. There are eight northbound and seven southbound trains daily Monday through Friday. With the exception of one AM peak train, service to Stamford requires a transfer at the Bridgeport rail s tation . Travel to any other NHML stations, including anyone traveling east towards New Haven, also requires a transfer at Bridgeport . Three WBL trains stop at Stratford; one inbound morning train and tw o outboun d train s. One morning peak hour train provides through service to Stamford. The first train in the morning departs Waterbury at 5:44 am with a second trips scheduled to leave at 6:42 am. The se two southbound morning peak trains arrive at Stamford at 7:14 am and 8:21 am, and at GCT at 8:08 am and 9:12 am. The remaining service throughout the day operates on approximately two and a half headways. In the evening, northbound peak service consists of two WBL Bound trains: 4:42 pm and 6:53 pm departures from GCT with arrivals in Waterbury at 6:59 pm and 9:26 pm. The typical headway is two and a half hours. A missed connection in the evening causes a rider a substantial travel time delay. One fewer train in each direction is operated on Saturdays, Sundays and Holi days. The service starts later and ends earlier on the weekend. A weekday trip between Waterbury and GCT takes an average of two hours and 31 minutes in both directions. A trip between Waterbury and Bridgeport takes an average of 55 minutes. Since 1976 t he travel time has actually increased slightly as more service and stops were added to the main line. The one -way travel time between Waterbury and GCT has increased nine minutes since 1976. The transfer wait time in Bridgeport adds between three and ten m inutes on weekdays and five and seven minutes on weekends . If a transfer is missed heading towards Waterbury, there is a three hour wait for the next train. Because the WBL is currently unsignalized, the maximum speed allowed by FRA regulations is 59 mph. However, there are speed restrictions along several sections because of track condition and at -grade crossings. The lack of signals also limits the amount of service that can be provided as only one train set can be on the tracks at a time. The slowest sp eeds occur through the Devon wye. Trains can travel at only 10 mph. The segment with the greatest average speed is between the Devon Wye and Derby -Shelton station, because it is the lon gest segment, allowing the train to operate at maximum speeds over a longer length of Class 3 tracks. Equipment Since the WBL is not electrified, service is operated by diesel -powered locomotives. The train set also consists of three coaches. The equipment is shared with the Danbury branch line. Only three train sets are ava ilable for the two lines, with two operated on the WBL. The FRA regulations require diesel equipment to be inspected each day. The rail yards at Stamford and New Haven are the only ones available to inspect, fuel and maintain the equipment. Currently all W BL locomotives, coaches, and cab cars are stored at the Stamford yard. This necessitates the deadheading of trainsets between Stamford and Waterbury each morning before revenue service can start. The equipment returns to Stamford after the last train arrives at Waterbury. 109 In the event of equipment mechanical issues, planned outages or issues on the WBL, bussing is instituted. While the MTA relies on the CT Transit New Haven division to provide bus serv ice as needed, unplanned outages can strain their ability to meet service requirements. Communication issues have been reported between MTA and CT Transit New Haven resulting in last minute needs and/or unneeded busses . Alternate b us service is currently required on average between three and five times a month. However, there have been improvements to reduce the number of outages in rail service and need to provide bus service. Infrastructure The WBL consists of a single track over its 27 -mile stretch. There are numerous crossings, including 19 road over passes and 16 at grade crossings. The WBL crosses over 15 features: nine publi c roads and six river crossings. In addition, approximately 51 below -grade structures existing along the WBL. These include culverts, pipes and other underground structures. The at -grade crossings of public roads have signs, lights and gates to protect cro ssing traffic when activated. However, the private road crossings are either unprotected or only have signs installed. In either case, there are no active warning systems in place. There are 16 interlockings along the WBL that provide connections to rail s purs, sidings or other rail lines. S ix of these interlockings are active and the remaining ten are inactive. Of the six active interlocks , one provide a connection to a siding in Devon and three provide access to spurs to O&G Industries, Hubbard Hall, and Kerrite . WBL connects to two other rail lines using a wye. The Devon Wye provides access to the New Haven Main Line tracks and is operable in both the northbound and southbound directions. The Maybrook Line connects to the WBL at the Derby Wye . The line is currently inactive , but it could be reactivated at any time. The Maybrook Line is owned by the Housatonic Railroad Company with trackage rights granted to P&W. In 2010 the 12 -mile segment of track between Botsford and Derby was taken out of service. Stat ions In addition to Waterbury, the WBL has stops at Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Seymour, Ansonia, and Derby -Shelton. The condition of the stations is generally poor and passenger amenities are limited. There are no dedicated station buildings at any of the st ations for ticket offices or passenger waiting areas ; tickets must be purchased in advanced or on the trail . All stations feature only low -level platforms, lack canopies and have only small, three -sided, bus -style shelters to protect passengers from poor w eather conditions. The exception to these features is the Waterbury rail station, which has a short (about 125 feet) , high -level platform and canopy . The shelters are generally in poor condition, with evidence of attempts to remove graffiti. Platforms are in need of re -painting or re – staining, and there is evidence of rust on railings. 110 Waterbury : The Waterbury rail station is located near the City’s downtown area on the west side of Meadow Street. It consists of a short, high level platform, canopy, two shelters and a parking lot. Ramps provide accessibility from the parking area to the platform. It is adjacent to the old Union Station, which is now owned and occupied by the Republican -American newspaper. The station is easily accessible from I-84 and Route 8, as well as main city streets. Two express bus routes and two local bus routes connect at the Waterbury rail station. The express bus routes link to the CT fastrak in New Britain, while one of the local bus routes provides limited stop serv ice to Torrington. Parking is located adjacent to and south of the platform. There are no ticket vending machines installed at the station, but an information kiosk displays static bus and train information and trash and recyclable bins are in place at the station. Access and parking were improved several years ago with the demolition of the SNET building that essentially blocked the view of the platform and parking lot from Meadow Street. Despite this, passengers continue to experience frequent vehicle bre ak -ins and express concerns about security of the parking. Plans are in design to reconstruct the parking lot that will pave the area, define parking spaces, designate pedestrian paths and enhance security and visibility. The CTDOT is also exploring the po ssibility of converting a portion of the old Union Station into a climate -controlled, indoor passenger waiting area. Naugatuck : The Naugatuck rail station is located on Water Street and is two blocks from the downtown area and adjacent to the former Na ugatuck station building now being used as a restaurant. Route 8 is located on the opposite side of the Naugatuck River from the station, but provides good access to the area via the Maple Street Bridge. It consists of a small, low -level platform with a si ngle, open sided shelter. Parking is limited, not defined and sometimes in conflict with spaces designated for the restaurant. There are no defined walks or paths to the platform. Bus service is not provided to the station. The Borough of Naugatuck has bee n working with the CTDOT on plans to relocate the station a short distance to the south as part of a redevelopment effort. The new location would better accommodate commuter parking. 111 Beacon Falls: The Beacon Falls station is located on Railroad Avenue a cross the Naugatuck River from the downtown area, a relatively short distance (less than 1,000 feet). However, a walk over the Depot Street Bridge is required and there is a perception that the station is separate from the downtown. The station is easily a ccessible from Route 8. It consists of a low -level platform, a ramp, stairs and shelter. The parking lot is paved and spaces well marked. Three spaces are designated for handicapped parking. Amenities are few with only trash and recycle bins provided and b icycle racks installed; no ticket vending machines, information kiosk or benches are available. The station is not accessible by local bus service. Seymour : The Seymour rail station is located on Main Street (Route 115) in the heart of downtown Seymour. The station consists of a low -level platform and a shelter. The shelter is unique among the WBL stations in that it is a brick structure with windows and sufficient roof overhang to protect patrons from the elements. Parking for commuters is available in front of the station, but patrons to local businesses can also park in the area. Additional commuter parking can be found in nearby mixed – use parking lots. However, commuter rail parking is not readily identified and difficult to find. A two – hour time limi t is posted at the lot and the mixed use of spaces restricts parking supply. Access to the station is directly from Main Street , with connections to and from Route 8 nearby . However, wayfinding signage is limited and could easily be missed amid the normal sign clutter found in an urban environment. Passenger amenities are limited and no ticket vending machine is available. One local bus route serves the station; operated by the New Haven division of CTTransit. It connects the lower Valley towns with New Hav en. The Town of Seymour is working on a long term plan to relocate the station from its constrained downtown location to an area north of the downtown as part of a TOD development. 112 Ansonia: The Ansonia rail station is located on West Main Street in downt own Ansonia, one block from Main Street (Route 115) and along the east bank of the Naugatuck River. The station is not readily accessible from Route 8. Storefronts line the street east of the station and flood control walls line the opposite side of the tr acks. Between the flood control wall and the tracks is an abandoned roadway. Weeds have overtaken the old pavement. The boarding area consists of bituminous pavement and a low -level wooden platform. An old wooden canopy overs the boarding area. Three Plexi glas glass shelters line the boarding and provide some protection for passengers. Several shrubs are planted along the backside of the shelters and partially obscure them from the street. Sidewalks connect the downtown Ansonia area and the station. Commute r parking is available just south of the station. Passenger amenities are limited and no ticket vending machine is available. One local bus route passes through the Ansonia downtown area and serves the station. It is operated by the New Haven division of C TTransit and connects the low er Valley towns with New Haven. Derby -Shelton: The Derby -Shelton rail station is located on the eastern edge of downtown Derby and is within walking distance of downtown Shelton, which is about a quarter -mile from the station. It is easily accessible from Route 8 and Route 34. The station is also refer red to as the Derby – Shelton Multi -Modal Center (DSMMC) because of the local bus transfer point located at the station. Multi -modal connections are made to fixed -route bus service operated by the Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority – Route 15 and Route 23 – and CTTransit New Haven Division – Route 255. The administrative offices and maintenance facility of the Valley Transit District (VTD) are located on the same site as the station. A relatively large parking lot, with space for about 75 vehicles, is avail able at the station. No fee is required to park at the station. In addition, a canopy covers the low -level platform. The only passenger shelter is a small, unheated Plexiglas shelter. The station building was constructed in 1903 by the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (New Haven Railroad), necessitated by the relocation of tracks of the former New Haven & Derby Line through Derby, and subsequent effort to double -track the line. It is a rectangular -plan brick building capped by an asphalt shingle -clad hipped roof. The interior floor plan featured a large central waiting room with a ticket office, restrooms, and a fireplace. Although the building no longer functions as a train station, the building retains many of its unique historical features and qual ities and appears to be historically and architecturally significant as an example of an early -19th century New Haven Railroad station. The Derby Greenway section of the Naugatuck Valley River Greenway is located on the east side the WBL from the DSMMC. H owever, there is not a well -defined connection between the station and the greenway. Currently, travelers need to exit the station site and walk 113 along the existing sidewalk on the north side of Route 34, cross the on -ramp to Route 8 northbound and follow a short access driveway before reaching the greenway. While the station functions adequately, passenger amenities are minimal. The existing shelter provides only minimal protection from the elements, as it is open on one side. While a station gateway sign has been installed at the entrance to the area, signage directing users to the station and parking is minimal. No ticket -vending kiosk is available and train and bus information is limited. Although trash receptacles have been installed, there is track -lev el trash and litter. A standard bicycle rack has also been installed. Ridership The NVCOG conducted an on -board ridership count and intercept survey on all WBL trains over a three -day period in the fall of 2017 . A team of two staff rode every train and cou nted the number of people who boarded and alighted at each station stop. Based on the count, there were 511 riders who boarded a WBL train and 503 passengers who got off , resulting an estimated daily ridership of 1,114 passengers . An objective of the on -bo ard count was to determine where passengers were boarding a WBL train and at which station they were getting off the train. There are six stations along the WBL. Not unexpectedly, the majority of passengers get on in Waterbury. About 61% of all people usin g the WBL board a train in Waterbury. The next most frequent boarding station is Naugatuck with 13.5% of the total, followed by Ansonia with 9.0% of the boardings and Derby -Shelton at 8.8%. ON -BOARD RIDERSHIP COUNT : INBOUND TRAINS Station ON OFF Percent Bo arding Percent Alighting Waterbury 311 — 60.9% — Naugatuck 69 16 13.5% 3.1% Beacon Falls 17 4 3.3% 0.8% Seymour 23 16 4.5% 3.1% Ansonia 46 23 9.0% 4.5% Derby – Shelton 45 21 8.8% 4.1% Stratford — 23 — 4.5% Bridgeport — 408 — 79.8% Total 511 511 100.0% 100.0% In terms of where riders typical alight a WBL train, the expectation is that most riders use the train to make a longer distance trip, either getting off in Bridgeport, the defined end of the WBL, or making a connection with a NHML train at Bridgeport to t ravel farther west. Intermediate travel between Waterbury and Bridgeport is not viewed as a major component of WBL service. Nearly 80% of the riders travel to Bridgeport and an additional 4.5% get off in Stratford, where transfer to a main line train may be more convenient. Th e remaining passengers, about 15.7% , use the train to travel to points between the Waterbury and Bridgeport. 114 Most passengers returning to the area board the WBL train at Bridgeport and travel to Waterbury. Nearly 85% of all passengers board at Bridgeport or Stratford and over 60% travel all the way to Waterbury. Intermediate boardings are similar to inbound trends, accounting for the same 15.7% of the total. ON -BOARD RIDERSHIP COUNT: OUT BOUND TRAINS Station ON OFF Percent Boarding Percent Alighting Bridgeport 424 — 84 .3% — Stratford 3 1 0.6 % 0.2% Derby – Shelton 25 39 5.0 % 7.8% Ansonia 14 35 2.8 % 7.0% Seymour 15 34 3.0% 6.8 % Beacon Falls 4 10 0.8% 2.0 % Naugatuck 23 79 3.6% 15.7% Waterbury — 305 — 60.6 % Total 503 503 100.0% 100.0% Passenger On -Board Survey The NVCOG conducted an on -board passenger survey at the same time as the ridership count . The key objectives of the intercept survey were to confirm origins and destinations of riders and determine general opini on s about the service of WBL trains . A good response was achieved as overall 35.5% of the riders completed the survey. The vast majority of the WBL riders live in one of the station host communities or nearby. About 69.4% of the pas sengers indicated they live in a municipality along the WBL and another 7.1% live in another Naugatuck Valley planning region community. The remaining riders listed a wide range of municipalities. The most frequently listed city of those from outside the a rea was New York City; 8.7% of the respondents indicated they live in one of the boroughs of New York City. Bridgeport was listed by 5.2% of the riders. Unless a rider’s destination is at Bridgeport or Stamford, passengers are required to transfer to a main line train to reach their final destination. Of the total respondents, 55.2% indicated that they planned to transfer between a WBL and NHML train. Almo st all of the passengers who transfer make the transfer at Bridgeport (89.7%). T he two most common destination stations we re Stamford and GCT. About 42.7% of inbound passengers who transfer indicate d that their final destination wa s either Harlem 125 th Str eet (6.8%) or GCT 35.9% . Stamford was indicated as the final stop by 18.8% of the riders. The outbound statistics were similar as 47.3% indicated New York City (GCT Harlem 125 th Street ) as their starting point and 23.1% listed Stamford. It is interesting t o note that 16.2% of the inbound riders that made a transfer listed a station west of Stamford as the final destination . This trip requires a transfer to a local train at Stamford . Problems and issues with the WBL service have been well documented at vari ous public forums and news report. The on -board passenger survey intended to probe the issues and asked p assengers to identify the major problems they feel affect the quality and convenience of riding the train and may influence their decision to use it mo re often. 115 Almost all respondents (91.9%) chose to the answer this question and 77.0% indicated more than one problem or issue. Only 4.2% of the passenger indicated that they were satisfied with the current service and operation and stated they had no prob lems. A number of the identified problems and issues related to the frequency of service on the WBL. These included: • Poor connection to NHML trains • Insufficient number of trains available in either the morning or evening time periods • Concerns with missing a connection About 60% of the riders felt that there are not enough trains being operated in the morning and evening periods. While the lack of service is clearly an issue, concerns with making connections with NHML trains was less an issue . Only 14.8% listed poor connections to main line service as a problem and 19.9% indicated conc ern about missing a connection as an issue. Other concerns addressed the lack of amenities on -board the trains, on the platforms and in the parking lots, as well as the general cleanliness of the rail cars. The cleanliness on board the trains, especially the restroom facilities, was listed by 30.5% of the passengers. The lack of handicapped accessibility along the WBL was mentioned by several passengers. To address these problems, passengers overwhelmingly ( 82.4% ) support “improv ing service” by adding more trains. Some suggestions include providing express service to Bridgeport, extending more trains to Stamford and making more stops at Stratford. Along with adding more trains, passengers indicated a need to improve reliability (27.1%) and make better connections to NHML trains (18.2%). Providing more and better amenities at the WBL stations was the second most 116 listed improvement , listed by 32.4% of the riders . This category includes installing ticket machines, better shelters, benches and ADA ramps at the stations and providing Wi -fi and charging outlets on the trains. Cleaner rail cars was identified 30.1% of the passenger and b etter traveler information was identified as a service improvement by 18.8% of the passengers. Passengers were also polled about support or opposition of a transfer station at the. A temporary transfer was installed during on -going track work and this question assessed riders’ willing ness to accept a permanent transfer station to enhance and facilitate connections to NHML trains and service. One of the constraints limiting additional service on the WBL is the lack of capacity to accommodate additional trains on the main line. Even if additional trains were operated on the WBL, the number would be limited because of the limited number of additional slots available on the main line. As an alternative, additional service on the WBL could be in the form of a shuttle – type service with cross -platform connections to and from the WBL and NHML trains at Devon. This approach would allow expansion of the service on the WBL without the need to address the capacity issue on the main line. Previous rider comments have suggest ed there is dissatisfact ion with the need to make transfers from the WBL to main line trains to complete a trip. Passengers enjoy through or “ one seat ” ride ser vice to Bridgeport and Stamford and the “one seat” ride concept is attractive to commuters. Overall, 68.1% of the respon dents indicated that they would support the concept of a permanent transfer station located at the Devon wye. Of this group, about 39.4% indicated general support without any conditions, whereas 60.6% of the respondents con ditioned their support with the need 117 to provide more frequent service or continue to provide through service to Stamford . Of these two groups, providing more frequent service was the more desirable condition and selected by a higher proportion of passengers than the condition to continue to provide a through train to Stamford. Programmed Improvements The WBL is currently undergoing several capital improvements including signalization, passing sidings and improved railroad crossings. Signalization will be installed concurrently with posit ive train control and will allow up to 10 trains to safely operate along the branch line at the same time. In addit ion to the new signal system, four passing sidings will be installed and fully integrated into the line with interlocks at both ends . The sid ings are located in Devon, Derby, Beacon Falls and Waterbury. Crossings, both private and public, will either be closed or upgraded to receive full protection with active warning devices. Design of these improvements are currently at about 60% completion with construction anticipated to begin in the fall of 2018 and completed within two years. Routine maintenance such as rail and tie replacement and crossing upgrades are ongoing. The p reliminary cost estimate to con struct the WBL improvements is about $73 million 118 System wide programmed improvements to the Metro North service area , which will impact the WBL, include real -time information at the stations, a new fleet, and upgraded ticket vending machines. Real – time informa tion will be installed at all NH ML stations by the end of 2020. The CTDOT has estimated that $902 million will be needed to ramp up the entire fleet and has spent $10 million on designing and procuring the new M -8 rail fleet. Long term programmed improvem ents, as part of the 30 year plan for Let’s Go CT! , include improving service on the branch lines, providing feeder bus routes to rail stations, new diesel fleet equipment, fleet expansion, and maintenance facilities and yards on the branch lines. To impro ve service along the main line and branch lines the fleet of diesel equipment will be replaced and expanded at a cost of $530 million over the next 30 years. CTDOT is analyzing diesel hauled equipment purchases to replace the aging fleet and is planning to phase in purchases based on need and funding availability. Specifically for the Waterbury branch line service, the aging fleet of locomotives and coaches currently operating on the line require replacement. To take advantage of the new signalization syst em and passing sidings, at least three new train sets, consisting of a locomotive, a push -pull cab and two passenger coaches, are needed. Each new train set is estimated at $16 million. Recent capital improvements include creating a new passenger entranc e and off – street passenger drop zone at the Waterbury Station, improvements to the New Haven Storage Yard, upgrading of crossings, and the deployment of a mobile ticketing platform. In 2014 the SNET Building was demolished at the Waterbury Station and a ne w passenger entrance was added; also including increased parking. 119 Commuter Rail Actions The Waterbury branch rail line is a critical transportation asset of the Naugatuck Valley planning region that is currently underutilized because of the age of equipme nt operated on the line and limited service provided. Trainsets are old, lack amenities and are generally considered poorly cleaned and maintained. The limited service provided does not offer convenient and attractive connections to preferred destinations and requires long layovers if required transfers are missed. Station area features are meager with limited parking supply, low level platforms, basic shelters and few amenities. To increase ridership on the WBL and divert commuters from their vehicles, the infrastructure, equipment and facilities along the WBL need to be replaced, upgraded and enhanced. While the new signal system and by -pass sidings will permit more trains to operate on the WBL, additional trainsets are required to provide the increased se rvice. However, the critical limiting factor is the lack of equipment storage and servicing space. Currently, equipment operated on the WBL is serviced, fueled and stored at the Stamford yard, and there is no available capacity to accommodate an increase i n the fleet. Yard constraints are a systemwide problem and not limited to the Stamford yard. The p referred alternative would be construct a new storage and servicing yard along WBL . Recommended improvement projects include: Town Project Description Project Timeframe Program Cost Estimate Derby – Shelton [1] Renovate the existing station building and waiting area ; install high level platforms and passenger amenities ; and reconfigure parking area to include a bus transfer point and bus bays 2020 -2025 FTA 5309 $25,000,000 Ansonia [1] Construct new station building and waiting area with high level platforms and passenger amenities 2020 -2025 FTA 5309 $25,000,000 Seymour [1] Relocate station to north of Route 67 as part of TOD project; construct new building and waiting area with high level platforms and passenger amenities 2020 -2025 FTA 5309 $25,000,000 Beacon Falls Construct new station building and waiting area with high level platforms and passenger amenities 2020 -2025 FTA 5309 $25,000,000 Naugatuck Relocate station and construct new station building and waiting area with high level platforms and passenger amenities 2020 -2025 FTA 5309 $25,000,000 120 Waterbury Renovate old Waterbury rail station to provide an indoor passenger waiting area; lengthen and improve high level platforms and install amenities. Reconstruct and reconfigure parking area 2020 -2025 State; FTA 5309 $10,000,000 Waterbury WBL Storage Yard: Waterbury Branch Line – New Rail Storage Yard 2025 -2030 State; FTA 5309 $55,000,000 WBL Purchase three new locomotives and train sets (2 coaches + 1 push -pull cab) to operate on the WBL to expand service 2025 -2030 State; FTA 5309 $48,000,000 WBL Purchase four new locomotives and train sets (2 coaches + 1 push -pull cab) to operate on the WBL to replace old equipment 2025 -2030 State; FTA 5309 $64,000,000 WBL Operations: Expand service along the Waterbury branch line to provide 30 – minute headways during the AM & PM peak periods 2025 -2045 State $62,826,000 WBL Annual track modernization program – replace ties, install continuously welded rail, and maintain bed 202 0-2045 State $50 ,000 ,000 NHML [2] Rail yard improvements – system -wide 2030 -2045 State ; FTA 5309 $905 ,000 ,000 NHML [2] Maintain fixed rail bridges in a State of Good Repair (SOGR) – system -wide 202 0-2045 State ; FTA 5309 $1,375 ,000 ,000 NHML [2] Maintain communications and signal systems in a State of Good Repair (SOGR) and implement upgrades – system -wide 202 0-2045 State ; FTA 5309 $1,640 ,500 ,000 NHML [2] Annual track modernization program – State of Good repair – system -wide 202 0-2045 State ; FTA 5309 $580 ,000 ,000 NHML [2] Maintain Catenary and power systems in a State of Good Repair (SOGR) and implement upgrades – system -wide 202 0-2045 State ; FTA 5309 $45 ,000 ,000 NHML [2] System -wide technology upgrades 202 0-2045 State ; FTA 5309 $83 ,000 ,000 NHML [2] Station Improvement Program – system – wide 202 0-2045 State ; FTA 5309 $80 ,000 ,000 121 NHML [2] New rail maintenance facility and yard for intercity rail service 2030 -2045 State ; FTA 5309 $70 ,000 ,000 NHML [2] Full capacity for New Haven line service 20 30 -2045 State ; FTA 5309 $270 ,000 ,000 NHML [2] Future station improvements for more efficient express service to NYC 2030 -2045 State ; FTA 5309 $300 ,000 ,000 [1] GBVMPO project; included for information purposes only. [2] Statewide project; included for information purposes only. Permanent Devon Transfer Station A critical goal of the metropolitan transportation plan is to improve operations along the Waterbury branch line and provide services and schedules that would be attractive and convenient to commuters and provide a reliable alternative to driving. Enhanced service along the WBL is also critical to realizing rev italization of the downtowns located along the branch line and incentivizing transit supportive developments within the station areas. The planned installation of full centralized signal system and construction of four by -pass sidings will permit a substan tial increase in the number of trains that could operate on the WBL. The signal system would allow ten trains per hour to operate on the line. While that level of service is not being considered, it demonstrates the opportunity to provide service at headwa ys much better than the current 2½ headways. Despite the future ability to operate more trains, a limiting issue wi ll continue to be the number of available slots on the New Haven main line. While more trains could operate on the WBL after signals are inst alled, increasing the number of trains with direct service to Bridgeport or Stamford may not be possible . In addition, the existing interlocking at Devon between the NH -ML and the WBL does not allow service to New Haven. WBL passengers wishing to travel to New Haven must continue west to Bridgeport, and transfer to an outbound train and backtrack toward New Haven. The schedules are not setup to coordinate this inbound -to-outbound connection. To increase the frequency of service on the WBL and expand potent ial transfers and connections with NHML trains, construct ion of a new , permanent transfer station at the Devon junction is recommended. The new station would provide the ability to increase service to mainline destinations without taking up additional sche dule slots on the New Haven Line. Waterbury branch line service would be altered to operate more like a shuttle service. Operations would terminate trains at Devon and the schedule would be retooled to facilitate the transfers. Southbound WBL trains would arrive at De von several minutes before a NH ML train is due to arrive. Similarly, northbound trains would depart Devon after the arrival of a NH ML train. The new Devon station 122 would also allow WBL riders to a ccess out bound trains and travel to New Haven wi thout the need to travel in the opposite direction to Bridgeport . In addition to the expanded shuttle -type service, some WBL trains would continue as through trains on the main line to provide direct service to Bridgeport and Stamford. The proposed alte rnative would locate a new Devon station within the Devon “wye” between the WBL track and the inte rlocking with Track 3 (inbound, local track) of the NH ML. High level platforms would be installed along the WBL track and the inbound and outbound local track s on the NHML. The platforms would be connected to provide seamless transfers. The NHML platforms would be connected via an elevated up -and -over walkway . The connection will require the installation of elevators on both platforms to ensure it is fully accessible. Vehicle parking would be minimal and limited. While a vehicle drop -off and pick -up drive would be provided from Naugatuck Avenue, the intent is t o limited access to the station primarily to passengers transferring between the WBL and NHML trains. However, given the proximity of residential neighborhoods, pedestrian access would be accommodated. The bridge carrying Naugatuck Avenue over the NHML is scheduled to be replaced as part of the planned Devon draw bridge project. The design of this projects has not started. This presents an opportunity to incorporate the proposed Devon transfer station concept into the Naugatuck Avenue Bridge replacement pr oject to ensure access from Naugatuck Avenue into the site and assess the feasibility of using the bridge as the “up -and -over” between the two platforms. 123 124 6.0 Active Transportation Systems Streets are an integral part of our cities and towns, providing an d facilitating the movement of people and goods. The road network in the Naugatuck Valley planning region is extensive, totaling about 2 ,441 miles. It serves to connect neighborhoods and provides access to businesses, jobs, schools and a wide range of publ ic and private services. Connections to neighboring cities and towns, regions, as well as interstate travel are facilitated by an expressway system consisting of I – 84, I -691 and Route 8, and a network arterial streets . The goal of transportation improvemen t programs has usually been to make the highway and road networks operate more efficiently, with efficiency defined as making the flow of traffic better. Often the needs pedestrians, bicyclists and others who travel by non -traditional, motorized means have been ignored or minimally considered. Road design stan dards, with the emphasis on mov ing traffic and vehicular safety, have made the street environment an intimidating place for bicyclists and pedestrians. However, the focus of streets as the sole environ ment for motorized vehicles has changed over the past 10 -to-15 years, as federal transportation acts have provided dedicated funding active transportation projects and new Connecticut policies require transportation projects to consider the needs of bicycl ists and pedestrians. Specific changes to state policies and how transportation projects consider the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists include: • Connecticut Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board : The Board was established in 2009 by Public Act 09 -154 and codified in the General Statutes as Section 13b -13a. Its primary duties are to examine the need for pedestrian and bicycle transportation, promote pedestrian and bicycle programs and advise state agencies on policies, programs and facilities for bicyclist s and pedestrians. The CTDOT is required to assist the Board in carrying out its responsibilities. • Complete Streets Policy : In accordance with state General Statute Section 13a -153f (a)(d), the CTDOT prepared and executed a policy statement to consider all users of all abilities and ages in the planning, programming, design and construction of all road projects. The policy was signed in October, 2014. • Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel Needs Assessment Form : To demonstrate that the needs of all users of all ages and abilities are considered in the planning, design and construction of all road projects, in accordance of the Complete Streets Policy, the CTDOT is required the completion of this form. • Share the Road CT : Effective as of October, 2008, Connecticut requires motorists to allow at least three feet of separation when overtaking and passing cyclists. Failure to do so could cause motorists to receive a fine under the motor vehicle code “failure to grant the rig ht of way to a bicycle” (14 -242). The Share the Road program strives to improve the knowledge of all roadway users and promote safe travel and minimize the likelihood of crashes. • Bicycle Safety Bill : This law, enacted as Public Act 15 -41, requires bicycli sts to ride as close to the right side of the road “as is safe, as judged by the cyclist.” This supersedes the previous law that required cyclists to ride as far right “as practicable” , which could have included instances where a bicyclist is preparing to make a left turn at an intersection or onto a private road. Drivers are also allowed to cross double yellow lines to pass slower moving bicyclists when it’s safe to do so. Additionally, this law allows 125 two -way bicycle lanes, buffered bike lanes, and cycle tracks to be designed in Connecticut. • Community Connectivity Program : The CTDOT, as part of the Let’s Go CT! program, initiated the Community Connectivity Program. It focuses on improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety by implementing various low -cost roa d, sidewalk and intersection projects. The first step was the conduct of Road Safety Audits to identify problems and develop low – and high -cost actions to address safety deficiencies. Statewide, 80RSA’s were conducted, 15 in the Naugatuck Valley planning r egion. Subsequently, funding was provided to construct projects ranging in cost between $75,000 and $400,000. Statewide, funding was provided to 40 cities and towns, four in the Naugatuck Valley planning region. 6.1 Regional Pedestrian Plan Walking is the most basic form of transportation. Most New England towns and cities were initially developed around walking, and many New England towns and cities retain basic elements supportive to pedestrians. Nearly all people are pedestrians of some fo rm during most trips, whether it is walking to and from their car in a parking lot , walking a transit stop, or walking to and from work. Walking also tends to be the most accessible form of transportation: no special equipment is typically required, provid ed the built environment is supportive. Of course this does not apply to persons who are unable to walk. Special accommodations are needed to ensure people with a mobility impairment and are dependent upon wheelchairs or other means of physical assistance can travel safely. For that reason, these persons are also considered pedestrians in this plan. In addition to transportation, walking, jogging, and running are healthy habits one can incorporate into daily routines. The US Department of Health and Human S ervices (HSS) recommends all adult Americans maintain thirty minutes of physical activity each day (“PHYSICAL ACTIVITY GUIDELINES F OR AMERICANS ”, DHHS 2008 ) and adding a short walk into one’s day is for many the easiest way to accommodate this level of act ivity. Research shows that people walking in business districts are more likely to spend more time and spend more money in local establishments, (“CONSUMER BEHAVIOR AND TRAVEL M ODE CHOICES ,” Clifton et al ., 2012 ) partly because it is easier to make impulse buys at multiple stores and partly because they would need to change travel modes to reach destinations outside of the business district. Further, the mix of uses that walkable environments usually feature often improve property values and small business profitability. In the Naugatuck Valley planning region, only about 1.7% of commuters walk to work ( American Community Survey 5 -year estimates 2010 -2014, US Bureau of the Census). This is lowest walk rate of any region in the state, including the non -urbani zed regions. By comparison, about 4.5% of commuters living in the Southeast Connecticut planning region and about 4.3% living in the South Central Connecticut planning region walk to work. Of more concern is that the region, based on a calculated “Pedestr ian Danger Index (PDI)” is second most dangerous region for walkers in the state. With a PDI of 85.59, the region ranks just below the high PDI of 85.78 for the Northeast Connecticut planning region. (Note: The PDI is based on comparison of population, per centage of people who walk to work and the five -year average fatality rate). The goals of the pedestrian safety program and plan area: 126 • To increase the safety and well -being of residents of the Naugatuck Valley planning region who walk to work or for any ot her purpose by improving infrastructure and transportation policies. • To encourage more residents of the Naugatuck Valley planning region to walk to work or for any other reason by improving infrastructure and land use policies. • To build a more resilient, e quitable, and economically vibrant transportation system by providing more balanced modal choice. • To develop consistent policies for the future development and planning of pedestrian – related projects and programs. Pedestrian Safety Crash data involving ped estrians in motor vehicle crashes were extracted from the CTDOT Crash Data Repository hosted and maintained by the University of Connecticut. The most recent crash data indicate that over the last couple of years the number of crashes involving pedestrians has increased. In 2012, a total of 141 pedestrian -involved crashes occurred in the Naugatuck Valley planning region. For 2016, that number was 163 crashes, an increase of 15.6%. Over the past five years (2012 through 2016), an average of 146.8 vehicle cr ashes in the region involved a pedestrian. Not unexpectedly, the incident of pedestrian -involved crashes is correlated with urban density. Built -up areas, especially the downtowns of the region’s cities, tend to experience higher numbers of pedestrians and higher traffic volumes on the streets. Because of these characteristics, the pedestrian have greater exposure. The urban core areas of Waterbury and Bristol are a concern as these two cities accounted for over 70% of the pedestrian -involved crashes. This is particularly true of Waterbury as over 60% of these crashes occurred in Waterbury and has a widely outsized concentration of pedestrian crashes in key transportation corridors. Despite having pedestrian safety features, such as pedestrian signals, cros swalks and sidewalks, a disproportionately high number of pedestrian -related crashes are occurring in these areas. This suggests that the condition of pedestrian safety features may be poor – crosswalks that are no longer clearly marked or pedestrian signa ls that either are not functioning properly or do meet current standards. Further, many of the streets in these core areas are in a state of disrepair that generally makes the transportation experience, regard less of mode choice, stressful. 127 Pedestrian Involved Crashes : Naugatuck Valley Planning R egion: 2015 – 2018 Municipality 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Annual Average Ansonia 3 8 3 5 38 9.5 Beacon Falls 1 0 1 1 7 1.75 Bethlehem 0 1 0 0 2 0.5 Bristol 22 22 26 17 170 42.5 Cheshire 6 4 6 6 32 8 Derby 10 11 5 1 60 15 Middlebury 1 1 3 0 11 2.75 Naugatuck 14 10 8 4 69 17.25 Oxford 0 0 1 0 2 0.5 Plymouth 0 3 0 1 9 2.25 Prospect 1 0 1 0 11 2.75 Seymour 2 0 1 1 19 4.75 Shelton 4 10 10 1 52 13 Southbury 2 2 2 1 18 4.5 Thomaston 1 1 0 0 5 1.25 Waterbury 79 94 107 78 803 200.75 Watertown 2 4 2 0 25 6.25 Wolcott 0 1 2 0 9 2.25 Woodbury 1 2 0 0 8 2 Total 149 174 178 116 1350 337.5 The severity of pedestrian -involved vehicle crashes is a critical concern. Pedestrians hit by a vehicle exposed to severe injury and death, especially when vehicle speeds are high. This exposure is illustrated by the fact that pedestrians are overrepresented in fatal crashes, not only in Connecticut but nationally. Over the five -year timeframe for which the crash data were extracted, 33 pedestrians were killed in the region out of the 734 total number of pedestrian -involved cras hes. This represents 4.5% of the pedestrian -related crashes. In addition, nearly 85% of these crashes resulted in an injury. Only 10.9% of the pedestrian -involved crashes did not cause an injury. Again, the statistics indicate a critical problem in Waterbu ry. Eighteen of the 33 pedestrian fatalities were recorded in Waterbury. 128 Severity of Pedestrian Involved Crashes : Naugat uck Valley Planning Region: 2015 – 2018 Municipality PDO Injury Fatality Total Ansonia 3 15 1 19 Beacon Falls 0 3 0 3 Bethlehem 0 1 0 1 Bristol 8 75 4 87 Cheshire 4 17 1 22 Derby 6 20 1 27 Middlebury 0 5 0 5 Naugatuck 9 26 1 36 Oxford 0 1 0 1 Plymouth 0 4 0 4 Prospect 0 2 0 2 Seymour 1 3 0 4 Shelton 1 21 3 25 Southbury 0 7 0 7 Thomaston 0 2 0 2 Waterbury 43 302 13 358 Watertown 1 5 2 8 Wolcott 0 3 0 3 Woodbury 0 3 0 3 Total 76 515 27 617 Percent 12.3 % 83.5 % 4.2% 100.0% The crash records include contributing factors to the incident, as well as, which vehicle was determined to be at fault. In nearly half of the cases (47.8%), the pedestrian was cited as using the roadway in an unsafe manner, indicating they were at fault. The second most often cited contributing factor was fa ilure of the motorist to grant the right of way. Combined with other driver related citations, motorists were deemed to be at fault in 42.2% of the pedestrian -involved crashes. For the remaining pedestrian -related crashes (10.0%), the contributing factor w as unknown. 129 Contributing Factors of Pedestrian Involved Crashes Naugatuck Valley Planning Region: 201 5 – 201 8 Contributing Factor Percent Unsafe Use of Highway by Pedestrian 33.4 % Failed to Grant the Right of Way 8.4 % Violated traffic control 4.7 % Under the Influence 0.0 % Driving too Fast or Lost Control 0.0% Improper Turning Maneuver 0.7% Unsafe Right Turn on Red 0.0% Unsafe Backing 0.0 % Other Driver -related Factors 45.7 % Unknown 7.1 % There are two typical locations for a pedestrian crash in the region: suburban -style shopping streets and high -vehicle -traffic urban streets. Suburban -style shopping centers, particularly ones with transit access, contribute an outsize proportion of pedestrian crashes given their pedestrian ac tivity. These areas typically show poor access management onto primary roadways, a lack of sidewalks and safe crosswalks, and high automobile crash volumes. High -vehicle -traffic urban streets have high absolute numbers of pedestrian accidents, but also con tain the overwhelming majority of pedestrian activity in the region. Dangerous urban streets and their intersections typically have wide turning radii, confusing signalization, poorly marked transit stops, and poorly delineated road markings. The CTDOT is presently installing curb ramps on several of their roadways with pre -existing sidewalks in the region as part of their ADA12 Transition Plan (A final draft of the state ADA Transition Plan can be found at: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/ddbe/1 – 18_ada_transition_plan.pdf ). Implementation of the plan may be on hold due to the state budget. Several municipalities in the NVCOG region have ADA Transition Plans of t heir own, though implementation of these plans has been mixed with regards to pedestrian accessibility. While the NVCOG ha s not develop an ADA Transition Plan under federal law, the NVCOG is involved in funding capital projects that w ould trigger the need to ensure ADA compliance. Further, any pedestrian -related planning activity should be inclusive to all pedestrians, regardless of ability status. Pedestrian Demand and Deficiencies in the Naugatuck Valley Planning Region To determine pedestrian demand in the region and better understand which areas have the highest propensity for walking, the NVCOG used the methods adopted by the City or Portland, OR. Portland’s approach developed Pedestrian Potential and Pedestrian Deficiencies Indices for 130 identifying high pedestrian demand and safety -related barriers to walking. Under this framework, the NVCOG created two separate datasets: (1) a Pedestrian Demand Index to identify locations of high pedestrian demand or p otential demand, and (2) a Pedestrian Deficiencies Index to identify locations with poor, incomplete, or unsafe pedestrian infrastructure or environments. The Pedestrian Demand Index looks at various factors known to increase the likelihood of walking in o rder to identify roadways where there is a high demand for walking. The index will help NVCOG, municipal leaders, and local advocacy groups better understand where there are likely to be pedestrians currently, and where small improvements to the streetscap e or the zoning code may increase the number of pedestrians. Three factors are considered in the calculation of the Pedestrian Demand Index : • Policy factors : These relate to current state, municipal and regional policy that emphasizes pedestrian activity, such as local Plans of Conservation and Development. • Proximity factors : These relate to areas where there are walkable destinations and infrastructure to support pedestrian activity. • Environmental factors : These relate to areas where existing land use de nsities are above a threshold to support pedestrian activity. The NVCOG used its Geographic Information System (GIS) to map areas in the region relative to the above factors. The information was combined to create a regional map showing the Pedestrian Dema nd Index . The Pedestrian Demand Index indicates several high -priority pedestrian areas in the region, mostly in the historic downtown cores of NVCOG cities . Of particular note are the historic cores of Waterbury and Bristol, which score the highest and hav e multiple locations with a score of 100. Town -by -town maps were also created. 131 Pedestrian Demand Source: NVCOG The complement to the Pedestrian Demand Index is the Pedestrian Deficiencies Index . This latter index looks at factors known to increase the danger of serious injury or death for pedestrians and is used to locate areas where there is a demonstrated need for safety improvements. The map combines areas with a high probability of people walking and a demonstrated need for safety improvements. The Pedestrian Deficiency Index is based on three factors that are considered primary dangers to pedestrians: • Speed factors : Travel speeds are depicted for all roads in the region, with higher travel speeds receiving higher negative scores. 132 • Sidewalk factors : T hese relate to the availability and continuity of the sidewalk network, with areas with gaps in its sidewalk network receiving a higher negative score. • Safety factors : These factors are defined as proximity to pedestrian -related crashes. Unlike the Pedestr ian Demand Index , the Pedestrian Deficiencies Index is more difficult to measure because of the difficulty in measuring the quality of the pedestrian environment. For example, a 5 -foot sidewalk with a grass buffer may be safe in a suburban context, but may be too small for safe pedestrian use on a downtown street. Other factors, such as signal timing, visibility, snow plowing practices, or the availability of marked crossings also contribute to pedestrian crashes but are difficult to measure. Despite some l imitations, there are multiple locations with deficiencies scores that indicate a roadway of great danger to pedestrians. 133 Pedestrian Deficiencies Source: NVCOG Pedestrian Safety Improvements Typical road design, with an emphasis on moving traffic, have made the street environment an intimating place for pedestrians. They feel insecure walking along a high speed, multi -lane road and are reluctant to cross arterials even when crosswalks are prov ided. Well -designed pedestrian facilities can change the street setting and create a more walkable environment, where pedestrians feel safe and secure and adjacent traffic is not perceived as intimidating. Pedestrian facilities are separated areas specifi cally for pedestrian use and are intended to provide a safe area for people to travel between destinations. The most common pedestrian facility is a sidewalk; and the characteristics that most ensure use are continuity and interconnectedness. A 134 well design ed sidewalk network is one that provides continuous paths with no gaps that connect where walkers want to go. While sidewalks are the main thoroughfare for walkers, there are many other pedestrian features that enhance the safety and attractiveness of the area and encourage people to walk. These include: • Pedestrian acti vated signals to provide protec tion while cr ossing . Count -down indicators provide reinforcement that the signal is working and lets walkers know how much time remains to their protection. • Well marked and visible crosswalks. • Buffers between the street and the sidewalk. • Curb ramps. • Signing. • Audible tones to aid persons with vision impairments. Often the best approach to improving pedestrian access and safety is to expand the pedestrian network by building new sidewalks. In some areas, gaps in the sidewalk network exists forcing pedestrians to intrude into the road to complete their trip. Addressing sidewalk gaps is typically done ad hoc , but a methodical approach of identifying their locations and sourcing funding for construction would allow for quicker improvements. To function properly, sidewalks must be of an adequate size, have a smooth and stable surface and provide adequate space for pedestrians to move freely and easily without impediments. Of critical importance is for the sidewalks to be well maintained. Cracks in the pavement or heaves in t he surface creates trip hazards and can lead to falls and injuries. The design of a sidewalk depends on its location and function. In less urban and commercial areas, a three -foot wide sidewalk may be sufficient. However, where high pedestrian traffic is expected, a minimum width of five feet should be provided. Wider side -walks should be installed in areas near schools, transit stops or other areas with high a concentration of pedestrians. A 4 -to-6-foot buffer should be provided between the street and the sidewalk. In downtown areas, the sidewalk area needs to consider adjacent buildings and other amenities that may be placed in the area. In addition to a five -foot pedestrian zone, an additional three feet space should be provided as a frontage zone along the building -side -walk edge. This zone provides space for the opening of doors without intruding into the pedestrian zone. On the street side, a two – to-four -foot zone should be reserved for tree plantings, street furniture, sign posts and other items. This zone provides separation between where people are walking and fixed objects. Pedestrian signals are also a critical safety device. These signals are connected to traffic control signals and alert pedestrians to when it is appropriate to cross a street. In conjunction with the traffic control signal, the pedestrian signal provides either an exclusive crossing phase when all traffic is stopped or a concurrent phase. The latter situation allows pedestrians to cross while the opposing vehicle traffic has a gre en light and intersecting traffic is stopped by a red light. The pedestrian phase is timed to allow sufficient time for pedestrians to cross the street. Often the red phase is extended when the pedestrian signal is activated to ensure adequate crossing and clearance intervals. In areas where there is a heavy concentration of the elderly or children, more walk time should be provided. The installation of pedestrian signals must comply with the requirements and guidelines in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Cont rol Devices (MUTCD) . 135 Marked crosswalks are an effective method for improving safety and reducing accidents. Crosswalks indicate the preferred locations for pedestrians to cross a street and provide warning to motorists to expect pedestrians. Typically, cr osswalks are installed at intersections controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign. Mid -block locations are acceptable when warranted by high pedestrian activity. Advance stop lines, consisting of a series of white, triangular -shaped pavement markings sho uld be installed in combination with a mid -block crosswalk. Material needs to be visible, non -slippery and not cause a tripping hazard. As part of a complete streets concept, a tactile material should be used, such as concrete pavers or stamped concrete. I n either case, the markings must be well maintained to function properly. Embedding warning lighting in mid -block crosswalks can be used to enhance visibility and alert motorists of the presence of pedestrians. To address longer term needs, the entire stre etscape environment requires enhancement Road diets are projects where excessively -wide roads are reduced to accommodate sidewalks, bicycle elements, clearer lane markings, bus stops, traffic calming, or green infrastructure. Typically, road diets are deve loped with a s part of a “ Complete Streets ” vision . Road diets may be included as part of a resurfacing or rehabilitation proje ct within existing curb lines. Neckdowns a re smaller -scale projects where a roadway is modestly reduced in width as the roadway ap proaches an intersection, in order to provide shorter pedestrian crossings. These type of treatments include bu mp -outs, curb extensions and median barriers . Implementing pedestrian -related traffic calming projects help to reduce traffic speed and make an a rea more visible as a pedestrian space. These actions include raised cross walks, raised intersections and textured pavement . Both road diets and neckdowns can be accomplished through interim striping, paint, planters, and flexible delineators in situation s where the cost of moving curbs, drains, and other street infrastructure is prohibitive. These low -cost projects may be designed and executed in -house by municipalities in anticipation for more permanent improvements. In the Naugatuck Valley planning reg ion, a critical area of concern is pedestrian access to transit stops. Improving the bus stop environment and ensuring good access to bus stops serves to improve safety and accessibility for all bus riders. Examples of transit accessibility improvements in clude ADA -accessible shelters and bus stops; clear accessible pathways from popular destinations to transit locations; curb extensions, bus bays, and bus bulbs to improve boarding times and passenger visibility; and clearly marked crosswalks to transit sto ps. 136 6.2 Regional Bicycle Plan In Connecticut, bicycles are considered a form and type of vehicle and can be ridden on all roadways where they are legally permitted . Bicyclists must adhere to basic traffic laws as if they were a motorist. At the same time, motorists are required to share -the -road with bicyclists and provide sufficient space, mi nimum of three feet, when passing a bicyclist. Because of these responsibilities , the most common bi cycle facility is a shared roadway . And, therefore, all roads that are open to bicyclists should incorporate design treatments that will enhance bicycle rid ing safety and quality . It is not necessary to specifically designate roads as bicycle routes or provide bicycle lanes. Rather, all roadways should be maintained and upgraded to ensure bicycle travel can occur safely and conveniently. This allows bicyclist s to decide on which road they want to ride. The type of accommodation depends on the type of road and characteristics of traffic. On low volume, residential streets, bicyclists can easily become integrated with the few vehicles on the road and may not re quire any separation. The road is a s hared -space used by vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. At the other end of the road system, special treatments are necessary and greater separation is required to accommodate bicyclists on higher -volume, higher -speed arterials. Bicyclists can be group ed into one of three categories ranging from young children to the advanced bicyclist . In between are basic bicyclists who represent the average adult rider. Because of their abilities, advanced bicyclists can best be and more easily accommodated on existing roads with the proper accommodations. They are generally able to operate within the road’s right -of-way and under most traffic conditions; have confidence in riding with traffic and do not feel in danger or perceive a safety hazard. This group of riders prefers the freedom of choice to decide how to complete their bicycle trip , as well as , the directness and speed advantages of using higher class roads. Route choice is much more a function of where the bicyclist is goin g and less dependent on road characteristics. Their trip lengths also tend to be much longer than the basic bicyclist . Bike facilities need to accommodate a variety of users, from children to basic adult bicyclists to advanced riders. Source: www.Pedbikeimages.org/ Dan Burden 137 Because only about 5% of the bicycling public is considered an advanced bicyclist , special attention must be given to the needs of both basic bicyclists and children. The design treatments needed to enhance both groups' bicycling enjoyment are similar. Bicyclists classified in these groups are generally less confident of their ability to ride in traffic and feel unsafe riding on higher volume and higher speed roads. They prefer low volume, low speed roads or designated bicycle facilities with well -defined separation from motorized vehicles. Basic bicyclists tend to have trip lengths of between two and five miles, while children typically confine their riding to their home neighborhood and do not often venture beyond familiar areas. For these reasons, these riders are best served by a network of neighborhood streets and designated bicycle facilities. The adopted design approach reflects the design bicyclist , that is, what type of rider is the facility designed for, the type of facility and actions needed to make the roads more user friendly to bicyclists. The minimum operating space of a bicyclist, based on their profile, is assumed to be about 40 inches, resulting in a minimum width for a bicycle facility of four feet. The vertical clearance from any overhead obstructions should be at least 100 inches or a little more than eight feet. The need to implement specific design treatments depends on the traffic characteristics of the adjacent roadway. High traffic volumes and operating speeds represent greater potential risk from passing motorized vehicles and create an uncomfortable feeling. Ge nerally, the higher the traffic volume and speed, the greater need to implement more extensive design treatments to accommodate basic bicyclists . Children and young bicyclists should avoid these roads all together. There are basically three types of bicycl e facilities: shared roadway; bicycle lanes and shared -use paths. Shared roadway facilities and bicycle lanes are located on -the -road and either share space with motorized vehicles or provided an exclusive space along the edge of the road. Shared use paths are specialized, off -road facilities on a separate right -of-way that accommodate multiple users. • Shared Roadway Facilities : Provide the minimum level of route designation and separation from motorized vehicles. Bicyclists share the road with motorized tra ffic and are carried in the same direction of traffic. No special treatments are made at intersections or where there is on -street parking. These facilities are either unmarked or signed with a standard bicycle route sign along both sides of the road. More recently, it has become common to mark shared roadways where there is insufficient shoulder width with a “shared lane marking” or Sharrow. This marking assists bicyclists with lateral positioning and alerts motorists of the lateral location of bicyclists. • Bicycle Lanes : A bike lane is defined as the portion of the road specifically designated by striping and signing for preferential and/or exclusive use by bicyclists. They are always one -way facilities and carry bicycles in the same direction as adjacent traffic lanes. On two -way roads, bike lanes are installed along both sides and both directions. Because they provide a more predictable movement for bicycles and motorized vehicles, as well as, a greater degree of separation, bike lanes are more acceptable to basic bicyclists. The minimum width of a bicycle lane is four feet, but if guard rails or curbing are present, the width needs to be increased to at least five feet. Additional width is desirable in urban areas. Where on -street parking is permitted an d designated, the bike lane needs to be located between the travel lane and the designated parking spaces. Parking is prohibited in a designated bicycle lane, so a clear designation for each use must be installed. At 138 intersections, the striping and signage needs to encourage positioning bicyclists in the proper lane whether to go straight, turn left or turn right. The following diagram illustrates the typical layout of a road with a designated bike lane, with and without adjacent on -street parking. • Shared -use Path : These facilities are the highest form of facility and require special design considerations. They are referred to as shared -use paths because they are used by more than just bicyclists . Users include bicyclists, walkers, in -line skaters, persons in wheelchairs, and strollers. A shared use path is physically separated from the road and follows an independent right -of-way. Two -way flow is provided and one -way sections are typically not allowed, although short one -way section may be acceptable as long as they are clearly designated, strictly enforced and limited to areas where it is absolutely necessary. Although these paths provide a low s tress and safe area and a place where novice riders and children are separated from motorized vehicles, the mix and volume of users often creates a challenging environment with a variety of potential conflicts. Care and attention needs to be given to the d esign and user rules need to be established and enforced. Also, speed limits may need to be set to ensure that the speed differential between users is not excessive. Sidewalks a re not considered acceptable for use by most bicyclists and designating a sidew alk as a bicycle facility is not a satisfactory policy. Sidewalks are designed for pedestr ians and for their speed and ma neuverability. The higher speeds of bicycles cannot be safely accommodated on sidewalks. The commingling of pedestrians and bicyclists can result in conflicts; sudden changes in direction by pedestrians leave bicyclists little time to react and pedestrian are sometimes uncertain where on -coming bicyclists are going. Also bicyclists on sidewalks are not readily visible to motorists and whe n they enter the road -way right -of-way, they will be approaching traffic from an unexpected direction. Fixed objects located on sidewalks such as utility poles, sign posts, and newspaper vending machine also pose a hazard. The use of sidewalks for bicycle use is acceptable for short sections and in certain exceptional situations wher e no alternatives are feasible. Despite these inherent conflicts, state law does not specifically prohibit bicyclists from riding on sidewalks; instead, laws require bicyclists to yield to pedestrians on a sidewalk and emit an audible signal when overtaking them. Municipalities, however, do have the right to enact ordinances to prohibit the operation of bicycles on sidewalks. Many communities have done so, but the restriction is rarely enforced. The regional bicycle plan for the Naugatuck Valley planning, as presented herein, represents an initial planning effort to identify actions that need to be undertaken to enhance the safety of bicyclists. The suggested actions fal l into fo ur general categories: • Planning : These actions consist of endorsing and adopting r egulations, ordinances and poli cies by member communities to enhance the opportunities for implementing bicycle and ped estrian projects. Specific actions include: ➢ Update plan ning and zoning regulations to encourage the accommodation of bicyclists in new developments. ➢ Create and adopt a vision and goals statement that supports the bicycling and amendment municipal Plans of Conservation and Development to include. ➢ Adopt bicycle facility design guidelines. Source : Connecticut Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Toolbox. 139 • Infrastructure : These are actions to make improvements and enhancements to the physical infrastructure used by bicyclists, such as, designating bicycle routes, installing bicycle lanes and installing signs and pavement markings. Specific actions include: ➢ Include bicycle elements , such as pavement markings , signs, widened shoulder width, and use of a smooth, compacted asphalt material for road surfaces , in all road projects. ➢ Designate various roads that are less than 30 -feet wide as “Shared Road” bicycle routes and marked with Sharrows and share -the -road signs. ➢ Designate a network of bicycle routes to provide intra – and inter -town connections. Candidate routes are those with a minimum four -foot shoulder. ➢ Install bicycle racks at st rategic locations throughout the region and at the commuter rail stations. ➢ Implement a Bicycle Facilities Maintenance program to provide on -going maintenance and repair of bicycle facilities. • Education : These actions aim to in form ev eryone about the rules of the road for bicycling, as w ell as the laws to which motorists and bicyclists need to adhere . Specific actions include: ➢ Develop an information and education campaign to communicate the rules of the road and the importance of following all traffic laws. • Enforcement : These actions involve increased enforcement of t raffic laws to encourage travel ers to be aware of the street environment and attentive to the traveling characteristics of those bicycling. Enforcement of traffic laws is a critical and vi tal element of enhancing bicycle safety . Specific actions include: ➢ Focus speed monitoring along roads and in areas that have been identified as the most severe and where critical problems occur and effectively target driver behaviors that increase the poss ibility of bicycle -vehicle incidents. ➢ Ensure proper design and construction of bicycle facilities. ➢ Develop an information and education campaign to communicate the rules of the road and the importance of following all traffic laws. 6.3 Multiuse Trail Sys tem Multiuse trails, also referred to as shared -use paths, are paved or compacted off -road facilities separated from motor vehicle traffic designed to accommodate non -motorized users including pedestrians, bicyclists, joggers, skaters and others. They are typically designed to be accessible to users of all abilities where practicable . While m ultiuse trails are often viewed as “recreational ” facilities , well sited and designed paths can be a viable transportation option, serving as non – motorized “express wa ys” for those who do not have or would rather not use a motor vehicle. Multiuse trails , in conjunction with a well -connected network of sidewalks and on -road bicycle routes, can provide safe corridors linking residential areas , commercial areas, transit a nd other destinations. 140 Multi -use Trail System Source: NVCOG There are several existing and planned multiuse trails in the Naugatuck Valley planning region. The partially built Naugatuck River Greenway (NRG) Trail is envisioned as a main no n-motorized spine running north -to-south along the Naugatuck River and Route 8 corridor. There are plans to connect several other trails to the Naugatuck River Greenway , including the Larkin State Bridle Trail, the Middlebury Greenway, the Steele Brook Greenway, the Shelton Riverwalk, and the Sue Grossman Trail to the north of the region. The Farmington Canal Her itage Trail traverses Cheshire n orth -to-south, and will eventually connect Northampton, M assachusetts to New Haven, Connecticut . The overall goal is to cre ate connections between these trails and to sidewalk networks and on -road bicycle facilities , and creating a non -motorized transportation network, with the intent of safely connecting residents to destinations throughout the region. 141 Naugatuck River Gre enway Trail When complete, the Naugatuck River Greenway (NRG) Trail will follow the Naugatuck River for approximately 44 miles, and will link 11 municipalities, help reclaim the Naugatuck River for recreation, provide an alternate mode of transportation, s upport tourism and economic development in the region, and improve the quality of life of valley residents. The NRG will start in Torrington and follow the river south through Litchfield, Harwinton, Thomaston, Watertown, Waterbury, Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Seymour, Ansonia and Derby. As of 2018, there are six sections of NRG Trail open to the public in Watertown, Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Seymour, Ansonia and Derby representing approximately 11% of the total length of planned trail with additional sections i n various phases of design with plans for construction in the coming years. Long dismissed as a polluted and dead river due to a legacy of industrial abuse, the Naugatuck River has made a remarkable comeback over the last several decades, and is increasin gly a destination for anglers, paddlers and sightseers. The NRG Trail will provide access and reconnect communities to the river that have historically turned their backs on it, with waterfront promenades, overlooks, boat launches, and fishing access point s all figuring into greenway plans. The multiuse trail will provide a high quality and attractive corridor that will accommodate both walkers and cyclists safely. The NRG Trail is envisioned as one way to help communities reclaim the river as a driver of local economies and a way to improve local quality of life. The NRG will draw sightseers, cyclists and recreationalists to the valley, and will provide opportunities for local businesses to capitalize on this increased tourist traffic. At the same time, th e NRG Trail will give area residents a place closer to home to use for active transportation rather than travelling to trails elsewhere. Convenient access to the trail will encourage more use and will help improve the health and quality of life of those wh o use it. Since many of the communities along the planned route are in close proximity to each other, the trail will provide a viable safe and convenient non -motorized alternative for commuting in the valley for those who cannot or would rather not use a p ersonal motor vehicle or public transit. These benefits have already been borne out on open sections of NRG, as the trail has become a popular destination and meeting place among residents and non -residents alike, and as a means for transportation. These e conomic and quality of life benefits will increase as more trail sections are built. Automated trail user counts conducted by NVCOG and the CT Trail Census, a collaborative statewide volunteer data collection program ( https://cttrailcensus.uconn.edu/ ), have indicated annual estimated trips taken at several trail locations on the greenway. There have been over 300,000 trips recorded each year since 2015 in Derby near the Division Street trailhead making it the busiest NRG section and likely the busiest multiuse trail in the state. In 2015, an estimated 58,000 trips were taken in Naugatuck near the Pulaski pedestrian bridge, and 25,000 trips in Beacon Falls. Design and construction of the NRG Trail is being undertaken at the local level, with oversight and guidance by the NRG Steering Committee (NRGSC). The NRGSC is volunteer group consisting of members from all eleven NRG host communities, along with regional, state and federal representatives and stakehold ers. It serves to promote, support and help guide the development of the NRG Trail. The NVCOG hosts and administers the NRGSC. In 2015, the NRGSC commissioned a study to investigate the economic benefits that the completion of the trail would have on the host communities. The study, conducted in partnership with UConn Extension and the UConn Center for Economic Analysis (CCEA), concluded with the publication of 142 “Pathway to Revitalization: Economic Impacts of the Phased Completion of the Naugatuck River Gr eenway ” in March of 2017. The study detailed the substantial economic, health and quality of life benefits of constructing the NRG Trail, and that the cost of constructing the trail would be outweighed by the benefit. The NRGSC and NVCOG continue to diss eminate the findings, promoting the expansion of the NRG Trail by demonstrating the benefits of its development. The NV COG and NRGSC have also played a role in helping communities conduct routing studies. In 2010, the COGCNV, one of NVCOG’s predecessor ag encies, oversaw routing studies for Beacon Falls, Naugatuck, Watertown and Thomaston, and the Waterbury Development Corporation conducted one for Waterbury at the same time. These studies developed a stakeholder and publicly supported route for the greenw ay along with phasing recommendations and construction cost estimates. The NVCOG received a grant from C onnecticut Office of Policy and Management ( OPM ) in 2016 to conduct a routing study for the corridor between Torrington and Thomaston. The study, which is now underway, is being conducted in partnership with the Northwest Hills Council of Governments, the City of Torrington, and the Towns of Litchfield, Harwinton and Thomaston, and will be completed in spring of 2019. Since much of the planning and const ruction will be implemented at the local level, the materials, feel and look of the trail may undoubtedly vary from town -to-town based on local needs and desires. Regardless of these differences, it is important to emphasize that the NRG is a single entity that will traverse 11 communities. The NVCOG is working with communities to implement trail standards as they design and construct new sections of trail. Visitors to the completed trail should know that they are on a section of the NRG, and be met with a familiar and consistent system of signage and wayfinding no matter which town they are in. The NRGSC recognized that a well designed and implemented unified brand and signage program was critical to the continuity of the NRG. With support and assistance from the NRGSC, a uniform signage and wayfinding design manual was developed ( “Naugatuck River Greenway Uniform Signage and Wayfinding Design Manual ,” November 2016). The manual includes templates for a wide range trail head, route designation, directional , and informational signs. The family of signs is based on and is consistent with MUTCD standards and guidelines. The NVCOG is working with host communities to institute the recommended signage and branding on established sections of trail . A project is u nderway to design and purchase interpretive , trailhead and wayfinding signs for installation by NRG host communities. The goal of the MTP is to complete the construction of the entire length of the NRG. The NRGSC has endorsed priorities for construction going forward (“Naugatuck River Greenway Project Priorities ,” October 2015) . It highlights currently active design and construction projects, Tier 1 project s which include projects for which advanced planning and design have been either completed or is underway, and Tier 2 projects which include remaining trail sections for which a preliminary routing has been identified. Active Projects: 1. Waterbury: Phase 1 – Naugatuck TL at Pl atts Mill Road to Eagle Street. The project design is expect ed to be completed in June 2019 and funding for construction has been committed. 2. Ansonia: Riverwalk Segments 2a, 2b, 3 and 4. The project will extend the trail from the recently completed overpass of the Waterbury branch rail line to downtown Ansonia. Desi gn is underway with construction anticipated in 2020. 143 3. Derby -Shelton: Renovation of the Derby -Shelton Bridge. The project will implement bicycle and pedestrian enhancements along the bridge and make a connection between the Shelton RiverWalk and the Derby G reenway. Design is underway and construction is expected in June 2019. Tier 1 Projects: 1. Naugatuck: Pulaski Walk to Waterbury TL . This section will construct a road -separated multi -use trail from Platts Mill Road near the town line with Waterbury to Pulask i footbridge . The planned trail will connect with the programmed trail in Waterbury. 2. Beacon Falls: South Main Street at Route 42 to Toby’s Pond. The trail will be constructed as a road diet of South Main Street and will extend the existing section in down town to Toby’s Pond. 3. Waterbury: Phase 1 Extension – Eagle Street to Jackson Street. This section will extend the Phase 1 trail to just south of the downtown area. 4. Torrington: Franklin Street in d owntown Torrington to Bogue Road near the city’s southern border . (Note: This section is not located in the Naugatuck Valley planning region, but it is a segment of greater, interregional NRG project). Tier 2 Projects: 1. Torrington: Stillwater Pond to Franklin Street ; about 3.0 miles . 2. Litchfield/ Harwinton/ Thomast on: Bogue Road to Thomaston Dam; about 7 miles . Alignment to be determined by an on -going routing study. 3. Thomaston: Thomaston Dam (Vista Picnic Area; USACE property) to Old Waterbury Road; three identified sections at a total of 3.9 miles, ±$5,529,000 – pa sses through downtown Thomaston and connects with the town’s historic clock walk and the New England Railroad Museum. 4. Watertown: Frost Bridge Road t o Waterbury town line; about 0.7 miles . 5. Waterbury: Phase 3 – West Main Street and Thomaston Avenue to Wate rtown TL. 6. Naugatuck : Maple Street to Beacon Falls town line ; about 2.2 miles. 7. Beacon Falls: Naugatuck town line to Main Street; about 1.8 miles . 8. Beacon Falls -Seymour: Route 42 to Route 67 connector greenway; about 1.9 miles . Larkin State Bridle Trail The Larkin State Bridle Trail (LSBT) is a Connecticut State Park Trail that follows the historic route of the New York and New England Railroad for 10 miles from Naugatuck through Middlebury and Oxford to Southbury. It is a compact stone dust trail originally designated as a bridle path. While it remains popular with equestrians, it is a popular destination for bicyclists, walkers and joggers. The CT Trail Census estimated that over 37,000 trips were taken on the Larkin Trail near Riggs Street in 2017. As pa rt of a LOTCIP -funded reconstruction of Hawley Street, which crosses the Larkin Trail, improved parking and trail access is being included at the request of the NVCOG and in consultation with DEEP. At its terminus in Naugatuck at Route 63, the LSBT is wit hin ½ mile of the location of the Waterbury Phase 1 NRG Trail at Platts Mill Road. However, a route to connect the two trails has not been investigated. Action: 1. Conduct a preliminary engineering study to identify the preferred alignment for a multi – use tr ail to connect the LSBT to the NRG Trail. 144 Middlebury Greenway Trail The Middlebury Greenway follows the historic trolley bed that once connected Waterbury to Woodbury. Generally paralleling Route 64, the trail currently runs 4.5 miles from the intersection of Route 63 and Woodside Avenue near the Waterbury city line, west to the Woodbury town line near Lake Quassapaug. The trail is paved and 10 feet wide. It is popular among bicyclists, joggers and walkers. The CT Trail Census recorded over 55,000 trips taken on the Middlebury Greenway in 2017. There are long -term plans to extend the Middlebury Greenway in both directions. To the west, the town of Woodbury recently purchased a decommissioned water supply reservoir property that will be preserved as open space. The property, now called the Woodbury Trolley Bed Preserve, contains a substantial section of the historic Trolley bed that is passable as a trail, and the town is working to improve it. Woodbury has consulted with the NVCOG regarding the potential to connect downtown Woodbury through the Trolley Bed Preserve to the Middlebury Greenway. Some preliminary routing feasibility study and high level cost estimation has been completed. A section of the corridor between the Preserve property and the terminus of Middlebury Greenway presents some challenges, because the tr olley bed has been subsumed into Route 64. Despite some challenges, both towns have expressed interest in making the connection. At the east end of the Middlebury Greenway, conceptual plans have been developed to extend the trail along Route 63 to provid e access to Post University and the Hop Brook Lake Recreation Area. The extension would be built within the state right -of-way of Route 63 and proposes a road diet on Route 63. Action: 1. Conduct a preliminary engineering study to determine the feasibility of connecting the Woodbury Trolley Bed Preserve to the Middlebury Greenway and identify the preferred alignment. 2. Construct an extension of the Middlebury Greenway from its terminus at Woodside Avenue to the Hop Brook Lake Recreation Area, with a spur conne ction to Post University. Steele Brook Greenway Trail The Steele Brook Greenway (SBG) Trail is a planned 4.5 mile trail in Watertown, mostly following an old rail bed that once carried freight and passengers to Watertown from Waterbury. The town has con structed a short section of trail between Echo Lake Road and French Street, and recently installed a pedestrian bridge over Steele Brook connecting to the sidewalk network in the Oakville section of Watertown. The town is now working to construct the trai l between the bridge and French Street following the rail bed through Unico Field recreation area. Long term plans call for the trail to continue into downtown Oakville to the south and follow the rail bed into Waterbury where it could potentially connect to the NRG Trail. To the north, the trail will follow Steele Brook north through the Heminway Pond area once an ongoing dam removal project is complete. The town is also working to connect the SBG trail to the recently completed NRG Trail section at the new CT Transit bus maintenance facility via sidewalks and on -road accommodations on Echo Lake Road. Action: 1. Complete sections of the Steele Brook Greenway Trail and connect the SBG to the NRG Trail. 145 Shelton River Walk The Shelton River Walk is a paved tr ail along the Housatonic River with two open sections, one adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park and another behind the residential buildings on Canal Street. There are plans to connect the two sections and expand the trail to the north as new development oc curs on the river side of Canal Street. The renovation of the Derby -Shelton Bridge will create a direct connection to the Shelton River Walk and connect downtown Shelton to downtown Derby. Action: 1. Complete sections of the Shelton River Walk. Oxford Main Street Unlike most communities in the region, Oxford does not have a traditional “walkable” downtown. Route 6 7, the town’s “Main Street” does not have accommodations for pedestrians, and its narrow width, high volume of traffic and high speed of traff ic make it unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians. Oxford is working to change that, and has initiated the “Oxford Main Street” project, aimed at improving non -motorized access in the corridor, connecting the Oxford municipal center to Seymour in the south , including the NRG Trail and Seymour train station, and the Larkin Trail to the north. The corridor would be enhanced with a series of sidewalks, multiuse trails and other non -motorized and traffic calming accommodations. Action: 1. Complete and develop an “Oxford Main Street Master Plan” to provide routing and treatment options along with phasing recommendations and construction cost estimates. Farmington Canal Heritage Trail The Farmington Canal Heritage Trail (FCHT) is an 84 mile multiuse trail from Ne w Haven , Connecticut to Northampton, M assachusetts , following the route of the historic Farmington Canal, and later the Canal Railroad. The FCHT is part of the East Coast Greenway (ECG), a bicycle/ pedestrian route stretching from Maine to Florida. The c ompletion of the trail in Connecticut has been a recent pr iority of the CT DOT . In 2017 and 2018, the CTDOT funded the construction of two sections in Cheshire to close gaps in the FCHT and completing the trail through the town. There is currently work und erway to design and build sections of the trail from Lazy Lane in Southington north through Plainville to meet the existing trail at Northwest Drive in northern Plainville. From there the trail runs uninterrupted to the M assachusetts border in Suffield. Cheshire is working to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the trail from residential and commercial areas, especially around the Jarvis Street trailhead. There are also plans to connect the FCHT in Cheshire to the Quinnipiac River Gorge Trail in Meri den, and potentially on to the Airline Trail via Middletown. Coordination and discussions with the Lower Connecticut River Council of Governments (RiverCOG) about these opportunities are underway. Action: 1. Implement pedestrian and bicyclist access and safet y enhancements along the FCHT. 2. Investigate the feasibility of connecting the FCHT to the NRG Trail The Sue Grossman Still River Greenway Trail While not in the Naugatuck Valley planning region, the Sue Grossman Trail is planned to connect to the NRG trail in Torrington, and it will ultimately connect to the village of Winsted in Winchester effectively extending the NRG’s reach. About three miles of the paved trail is currently complete between Harris Drive and Lanson Drive in Torrington and the City has funding to design the connections into Torrington and construct the already designed section into Winsted. 146 7.0 Freight and Goods Movement Economic development for the region is inextricable from the economic health of the nation , the Northeast Mega -Reg ion and Connecticut as a whole . Much of the economy relies on the reliable movement of goods over the nation’s major freight networks: highway, rail, pipeline, air freight, and nautical shipping. Like the regional economy, the efficiency of the local freig ht network is linked to the broader regional, state, and national network. Therefore, t he NVCOG works with the state, municipalities and regional stakeholders to identify and prioritize projects that will most effectively support the movement of freight wi thin the region and beyond. 7.1 Truck Borne Freight Existing Conditions The regional highway system functions as the primary means of distributing people and goods within and throughout the region. Most of the region’s freight traffic is accommodated by 60 miles of expressway. Volume Freight enters, exits and passes through Co nnecticut primarily on the States’ highway network. Trucks carry 93.7% of the tonnage and 92.4% of the value of freight moving throughout the state (2014). The State of Connecticut serves as a bridge state for freight passing through the Northeast Mega – Re gion, accommodating the movement of freight from the New York metropolitan area and Mid – Atlantic states into greater New England. As a result, only half of the States’ truck freight traffic (by weight or value) originates in or is destined to Connecticut. The principal freight corridor w ithin the Naugatuck Valley region is I -84. I-84 is an important corridor not only to local shippers but to shippers across New England and New York . The following graphics excerpted from the Statewide Freight Plan show curr ent highway freight density in tons. This map shows the critical importance of I -84 as an east -west alternative to the highly congested I -95. While I -91 and I -84 service statewide north -south freight traffic, Route 8 is the regional north – south freight co rridor. This following map also shows that the section of Route 8 between Naugatuck and Waterbury is the only section of non -interstate roadway in northwest Connecticut to carry a truck t onnage greater than 6 -million . 147 Freight Density 2014 Prepared by CDM Smith, Based on TRANSEARCH® data for 2014 Looking at the Highway Performance Monitoring System (NPM S) data, a map of the Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic for the regional highway network supports the conclusion that I -84 is the region’s primary east/west freight artery. 148 Freight Volume Source : Highway Performance Monitoring System To illustrate local freight demand, the following map excludes the Interstate System. In this map, Route 8 stands out as the trunk for freight moving north and south throughout the Naugatuck Valley, from Derby to Thomaston. Route 34, Route 73, and Route 6 appear as important branches, collecting and dispersing local traffic. In Cheshire, Route 10 also emerges as an important freight feeder to I -691. In Bristol, Route 6, Route 72, and Route 229 can be seen as primary intermunicipal freight connectors. 149 Freig ht Volume Surface Streets Source: Highway Performance Monitoring System Trends and Deficiencies Truck freight volume is forecast to grow substantially over the next 20 years. The following chart shows annual freight tonnage in Connecticut for 2014 and projected out to 2040. 150 Total Connecticut Freight Tonnage by Mode, 2014 and 2040 (in Millions) (CD M Smith and IHS -Transearch data ) Holding 2014 as the baseline, the statewide plan also projects percentage change in freight density by route by 2040. These projections are represented in the following map. Perhaps not surprisingly, I-84 and I -691 will cont inue to absorb significant freight traffic in coming decades. Of equal importance regionally, Route 8 will also see a similar rate of growth in freight traffic. 151 Freight Density: 2014 -2040 Percentage Growth for Trucks CT Statewide Freight Plan: Prepared by CDM Smith, based on TRANSEARCH® data for 2014 and 2040 These data sets all point to Route 8 as west ern Connecticut’s primary north -south freight corridor, connecting truck traffic from I -95 in Bridgeport, I -84 in Waterbury, and Massachusetts to the north. However, this corridor is not currently included in the Critical Urban/Rural Freight Network. Ongoi ng maintenance and improvements to deficient geometry and aging bridges are needed to accommodate projected growth in freight volume. Including Route 8 in the NHFN would allow access to federal freight funding for roadway improvements. Land use Additional ly, the junction of I -84 and Route 8 at the geographic center of the Naugatuck Valley planning region provides universal expressway access to the trucking industry . Demand for new distribution centers, locations where truckloads of goods are hauled into the region and broken down into smaller loads for further distribution or delivery, is on the rise. Some areas i n the region, including parts of Cheshire south of I -691, have used their geographic proximity to develop distribution center s to deliver g oods by truck for local retail. Also the number of these facilities is expected to increase as demand for home delivery continues to rise. Because these facilities are major local freight generators, it is necessary for the region to work closely with muni cipalities to ensure economic development is supported by regional infrastructure planning. 152 Reliability Regional freight reliability is a priority for freight dependent enterprises. Costs increase as shippers have to run additional or partially loaded truc ks. When enterprises cannot rely on just -in-time shipping, they must carry the additional inventory needed to maintain productivity. As a result, reliability directly impacts how enterprises within the region manage their supply chain and compete in the ma rket . For these reasons, federal rules have identified freight reliability as a national performance measure that all states and MPOs must monitor and target. This freight specific reliability measure considers factors that are unique to the trucking indus try. Some of these unique characteristics include: • use of the system during all hours of the day; • high percentage of travel in off -peak periods; • need for shippers and receivers to factor in more ‘buffer’ time to their logistics planning for on -time arrival s. [23 CFR 490.607]. The freight specific reliability measure is the Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) index. To calculate this ratio, the 95 th percentile travel time is divided by the to the 50 th percentile travel time for each road segment. The highes t value from five statutorily defined time periods (AM, mid -day, PM, overnight, and weekends) is then averaged for all road segments on the Interstate system. The TTTR is a measure of reliability, not congestion. Therefore, segments of the highway that ar e regularly and predictably congested might not have a high travel time reliability ratio. Rather, those segments of highway where delays are unpredictable and severe are scored highest. Prioritizing reliability over congestion came from stakeholder outrea ch with the freight industry where predictability was deemed most important for scheduling. The TTTR index only applies to roads in the Interstate System. To fulfill the requirements of Section 23 CFR 490 the CTDOT adopted the following targets in May 20, 2018. Using the FHWA’s National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS), the NVCOG reviewed and endorsed this statewide calculation for the TTTR and the accompanying targets for the metropolitan planning area June 8, 2018 for the CNVMPO. FHWA Me asure for Freight Movement: Statewide Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index. The TTTR index is calculated by dividing the 95th percentile truck travel time by 50th percentile truck travel time. NVCOG Current Condition Statewide Current Condition 2-year targets (2020) 4-year targets (2022) TTTR for interstate 1.74 1.75 1.79 1.83 Source: National Performance Management Research Data Set Trends and Deficiencies The TTTR index shows irregular truck congestion is expected to increase in the coming years. As a result, the reliability of freight movement through the state and region is expected to decrease. Reliability is best addressed by changing how roads are mana ged and operated, rather than by expanding the system. Increasingly, highway management involves data, communications, and technologies that help system managers optimize traffic flow, and detect and respo nd to situations as they arise. 153 Infrastructure Cond ition The state of region’s highways is perhaps the most visible element of the freight network. Poor highway conditions increase wear and operating costs on vehicles, increase congestion by reducing highway speeds, and reduce safety. In more extreme cases , deteriorated roadways or bridges can lead to road closures or weight restrictions. It is therefore of great importance to the freight industry that the highway network remains in a state of good repair. Additionally, the NVCOG catalogues height and weig ht restricted bridges throughout the region. Improvement of these facilities should be a priority where they coincide with truck corridors or urban areas. Source: NVCOG 154 Trends & Deficiencies While bridge condition is expected to improve statewide in the coming years, the CTDOT foresees pavement condition deteriorating slightly over the next four years. This trend holds true for both the Interstate System and the non -Interstate NHS. Safety The NVCOG has adopted a regional approach to highway safety. The NVCOG follows a data driven planning process to first profile accidents throughout the region, assess risk, and prioritize location specific actions to maximize limited fiscal resources availabl e for capital improvements. The NVCOG uses regional crash data from the UCONN Crash Repository. This powerful dataset shed s light on high risk areas within the region. For heavy duty trucks, that is vehicles with a maximum weight limit greater than 26,000 lbs., this freight plan uses the following safety measures to monitor safety performance: • Total number of crashes involving heavy duty trucks • Crashes involving fatalities involving heavy duty trucks • Crashes involving injuries involving heavy duty trucks • Number of non -motorized fatalities and non -motorized serious injuries involving heavy duty trucks Year Fatalities Serious Injuries Bike and Ped Serious Injury/Fatality 2015 3 1 0 2016 6 5 0 2017 2 5 0 Source: Connecticut Crash Data Repository Trends & Deficiencies Nationally, fatal crashes involving heavy duty trucks have been on the rise since 2009. Within the state, fatalities and fatality rates are expected to hold constant or increase in the near future. Efforts by operators to f it trucks with new technologies to reduce reaction time and remove blind spots are making the roads safer . Truck -Borne Freight Actions • Use data driven process to prioritize improvements where demand is strongest • Implement ITS infrastructure • Designate Route 8 as critical urban and rural freight miles • Explore emerging technologies • Endorse the following FHWA operational strategies to improve reliability: • Incident Management – Identifying incidents more quickly, improving response times, and managing incident scenes more effectively; • Work Zone Management – Reducing the amount of time work zones need to be used and moving traffic more effectively through work zones, particularly at peak times; 155 • Road Weather Management – Prediction of weather events (such as rain, snow, ice, and fog) in specific areas and on specific roadways, allowing for more effective road surface treatment; • Planned Special Events Traffic Management – Pre -event planning and coordination and traffic control plans; • Freeway, Arterial, and Corridor Management – Advanced computerized control of traffic signals, ramp meters, and lane usage (lanes that can be reversible, truck – restricted, or exclusively for high occupancy vehicles); • Traveler Information – Providing travelers with real -time info rmation on roadway conditions, where congestion has formed, how bad it is, and advice on alternative routes; and • Value Pricing Strategies – Proactively managing demand and available highway capacity by dynamically adjusting the toll paid by users. • Continue to prioritize the maintenance of the existing network at a state of good repair. • Limit Heavy duty vehicle speeds. The vulnerability of occupants in passenger vehicles involved in crashes with heavy duty vehicles is a large contributor to fatalities. Reduc ing the kinetic energy of the trucks with stricter limits on speeds would save lives. • Pursue safe roadway designs on freight routes to reduce risk of front -to-front crashes. • Enforce seatbelt regulations • Connecticut should continue to develop and implement pilot programs to test connected and autonomous vehicles. 7.2 Rail Borne Freight Existing Conditions Rail is among the most efficient modes to move goods around the United States. Over the last two decades, due to improved training, technology , and an up dated fleet, efficiency has improved 61 percent. Nationwide the fuel efficiency for a ton of grain moved by rail, adjusted for circuity, is on average between 3.3 and 4.4 times more fuel efficient than the movement of the same bulk materials by five -axle t ruck. Greater fuel efficiency translates into fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The CNVMPO is mandated to maintain a program of transportation projects that do not have adverse impacts on regional air quality. Moving additional freight f rom the highway to ra il offers potential advantages towards achieving air quality conformity with the Clean Air Act. Because of these reasons and the advantage of reduced congestion on the federal highway system, the movement of freight by rail should be prioritized where poss ible. Rail is best suited for commodities that are bulky, heavy and not time sensitive. Given this, the State’s primary imports via rail include chemicals, pulp and paper, lumber and wood, sand, and iron and steel and primary rail exports include waste, sc rap, stone, gravel, and sand. The 2013 Central Connecticut Rail Study identified the following barriers that inhibit rail -borne freight statewide. • The dearth of Hudson River rail crossings makes through shipping of freight west of Connecticut challenging; 156 • Overhead clearances below 22ft 8in limits the size of freight cars that can be used, including double stacked containers; • Many freight railroads in Connecticut operate at low speeds, between 10 and 25 MPH, due to rail weight and age; • Car weight restriction s of below 286,000 -pound axle loading on many lines do not meet current industry standards. These restrictions limit the amount of commodities carried per car and hurts rail’s economic advantage; • Freight railroads are required to pay track fees for operati ng over Amtrak rights -of-way; • The strong competitive position of the trucking industry due to the short distances involved in movement into and through the state; and • The state increasingly is oriented to business and service activities, which do not gene rate large volumes of freight. However, despite these limitations and disadvantages, within the Naugatuck Valley, past investment in the rail network offers a great opportunity for industry. The following maps show the rail, highway and pipeline network f or the region, offering opportunities for access for most regional municipalities. While, the region has good rail connectivity, each line is maintained to a different standard and has a variety of restrictions. The following is a brief description of the current operating capacity on the major rail lines that pass through the region. 157 Rail Network Source: NVCOG CSX, the State’s sole Class I Carrier, operates on the New Haven Main Line (NHML) , which intersects the Waterbury Branch Line (WBL) in Milford, giving the region access to this freight asset. The WBL is the Region’s most active rail line with Metro North Railroad operating commuter services throughout the day. This 27.1 -mile rail line connect s the NHML in Milford to Waterbury. Work is currently underway to add four new or reconstructed sidings, signalization, and positive train control to allow multiple trains to operate on the line at one time. The track is rated to FRA Class 3 standards and has clearance for Plate F. Currently it carries heavy commuter traffic with plans to expand service. PanAm Southern has trackage rights north of the junction of the Maybrook Line in Derby . Despite the limitations of working around heavy commuter traffic, new freight opportunities are being explored north and south along the line. In Naugatuck discussions are underway to develop 158 a new multimodal facility. Elsewhere, freight stakeholders have pointed to the benefits of rehabilitating the yard in Waterbury an d the track in Derby -Shelton to allow interchanging. In Derby the WBL intersects the Maybrook Line, operated by the Housatonic Rail Road Company (HRRC). The HRRC operates freight from Derby to Danbury where trains can either continue west into New York Sta te or go north to interchange with CSX in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and connect to the national rail system. The Maybrook Line runs 33.5 miles from Derby to Danbury. The HRRC is not currently operating any trains between Danbury and Derby. If the Maybrook corridor were reactivated there would be opportunities for direct connections from Derby to Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Because of the opportunity to connect western Connecticut to the national network, this line should be an important piece of future rail growth within the region and State. This potential is further supported the 2014 data that show substantial freight tonnage being moved over this line. Until the line became inactive, it was maintained to FRA class 2 standards, limiting freight speeds to a maximum of 25 mph. The line is compliant with the 286,000 pound axel loading standards and has a clearance for Plate F (up to 17ft 8in). Pan Am Railroad operates on the Central CT Line (Terryville secondary, New Britain Secondary, and the Berlin Secondar y), connecting Waterbury east to Plymouth, Bristol, and the Plainfield Yard before connecting to the New Haven -Hartford -Springfield line in Berlin. The Central CT line is currently operating regular freight service and growing its market. The FRA currently rates the Central CT line as a class 2 track, with speeds restricted to 25 mph . However, due to track conditions in certain locations, much of the line functions as a class 1 track with speeds limited to 10 mph. Rail axel loading is limited to 263,000 pounds. Clearance is limited to 17 ft (Plate F). In the 2016 Central CT Railroad Study, CTDOT recommends improving this rail line to meet FRA track class 3 standards, allowing freight to travel at up to 40 mph. The study estimates the cost of these upgrades to be $170 million. From the terminus of the WBL in Waterbury, the Railroad Museum of New England operates seasonally north along the Torrington Branch. While, service along this 19.5 -mile segment from Waterbury to Torrington is mainly limited to the museum’s seasonal tourist train, the line can accommodate a 263,000 -pound axel loading and has a clearance for Plate C. The track meets FRA track class 1 standards, limiting freight operating speeds to 10 mph. Freight currently operates regularly in t he southern portion of the track from Waterbury through Watertown, but there is discussion of additional freight operations further north. Trends and Deficiencies Rail tonnage is forecast to increase from 3.1 million tons in 2014 to 5.5 million tons in 204 0, an increase of 78.3 percent (2.2 percent annually). Rail commodity value is forecast to increase from $2.2 billion in 2014 to $3.4 billion by 2040, or 54.7 percent(1.7 percent annually). Rail freight growth is projected to occur on the rail -equivalent c orridors of the most heavily traveled truck routes, generally following I -95 and I -91. In percentage terms, the largest growth in rail traffic is projected for the south we stern portion of the state. 159 Connecticut Freight Rail Tonnage, 2014 Source: CDM Smith and I HS-Transearch data Forecast of Truck Freight Growth (by tonnage), 2014 -2040 Source: CDM Smith and IHS -Transearch data While rail will see greater traffic in future years it still remains a l ess congested alternative to the highway network. The rail network will need increased attention and maintenance if it is to remain a viable freight alternative. Currently speeds are highly restricted on the Central CT Line. The Millbrook line is not activ e. The Thomaston Branch line is mostly inactive except for a tourist train run out of Thomaston . The prioritization of freight oriented land uses along the rail lines might serve as an effective strategy to revitalize these assets and encourage private inv estment in rail line maintenance. Shifting modal choice from the highway to the rail will help preserve the system as a whole and postpone expensive highway investments that will be needed to handle expected freight growth. 160 Multimodal Facilities and Inland Ports The NVCOG seeks to work effectively with its municipalities and CTDOT to maximize the efficiency and productivity of existing infrastructure. Given the uncertainty and variability of highway funding for capital improvements, the NVCOG prioritizes ma intenance and works to promote projects that can improved the complementary nature of existing assets. Improving the ease of choice among the region ’s freight modes offers the region benefits that are not available in many parts of the country. Intermodal transfer between rail, pipeline, and truck offers opportunities to reduce highway volumes while improving reliability. In Naugatuck, an inland port and intermodal transportation hub is being proposed for a mostly – vacant 86.5 -acre parcel of land along Elm Street . The port would be used to transport consumer goods for warehousing and distribution. It would also allow international goods to go through customs in the borough rather than when crossing the border . The proposed site of the port on the WBL connects to the Pan Am Railways network stretch ing from southern Connecticut to Canada. State departments are collaborating on the project to ensure the environmental remediation to fill and cap the property to the east of the train tracks at the site of the port can be completed and fund are available to build a needed railroad spur to allow trains to pull off the main line and unload their cargo . Indeed, t he CTDOT 2012 Connecticut State Rail Plan recognizes the imp ortance of intermodal facilities and calls for the revitalization of intermodal facilities and inland ports to help remove long -haul trucks from the road as well as increase shipping speed. Rail -Borne Freight Actions • Increase capacity of Amtrak -owned rail bridge over the Connecticut River (Windsor Locks) to accommodate a 286,000 lbs standard car size • Improve Central CT Railroad to FRA Track Class 3 • Maintain Maybrook Line to FRA Track Class 2 • Support the ongoing development of intermodal freight facilities within the region . Specifically, develop intermodal freight facility in the Borough of Naugatuck along the WBL, south of Route 63 on 86.6 acre former industrial – Uniroyal Chemical site • Prioritize freight intensive land uses adjacent to the regi on’s rail lines 7.3 Pipeline Existing Conditions Pipeline transmission is a very efficient method to ship fuels and can decrease the number of delivery trucks needed on the highway system. These large transmission pipe lines for natural gas and petroleum pr oducts can be compared to the nation's interstate highway system. They move large amounts of fuel thousands of miles from the producing regions to loc al distribution companies . There are many interconnections with other pipelines and other utility systems, which offer system operators a great deal of flexibility in moving gas. The top priority listed in the State of CTDOT freight plan is to incentivize fuel delivery companies to utilize the pipeline infrastructure to its fullest capacity. 161 Freight Assets Source: NVCOG Almost 100 % pipeline -related movements are crude petroleum and natural gas, with natural gas accounting for 88% . According to the CTDOT Statewide Freight Plan, in 2014, pipeline transmission has moved 287.9 thousand tons of crude pe troleum and natural gas products in Connecticut valued at $62 million. Four companies operate pipeline s in or near the Naugatuck Valley region. The Buckeye Pipe Line Company operates an approximately 100 -mile refined petroleum fuel pipeline that transports jet fuel from the Port of New Haven t hrough Middletown and Hartford to Bradley International Airport and Westover Air Force Base , just north of Springfield, Massachusetts. The Buckeye transmission pipeline also carries other petroleum products to a pipeli ne terminal in Wethersfield. The Iroquois Gas Corp natural gas pipeline traverses the Naugatuck Valley region and interconnect s with the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Kinder Morgan, Inc.) in Shelton . The Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company ’s natural gas tra nsmission pipeline also interconnects and pipeline owned by Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC (Spectra Energy Partners ) in Cheshire. The 162 Algonquin Gas Transmission Company has several transmission pipelines traversing the region: one crosses east to west thro ugh Southbury, Oxford, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Waterbury, Prospect, and connects to the another in Cheshire that runs north to south. Many of the pipelines in Connecticut are looped, that is there are two or more lines running parallel to each other in the same right of way. This provides maximum capacity during periods of peak demand. The U.S. Energy Information Administration publishes the current capacity rates for the four major pipelines for transmitting natural gas in the state. The following table d isplays the entity managing the natural gas pipeline transmission , county of origin, county of destination, and the capacity of each transmission pipeline in 2017. Pipeline County From County To Capacity (MMcf/d) Algonquin Gas Trans. Co. Fairfield, CT Putnam, NY 275 Algonquin Gas Trans. Co. Windham, CT Providence, RI 1,102 Iroquois Pipeline Corp New Haven, CT Suffolk, NY 620 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. Hartford, CT Hampden, MA 80 MMcf/d = million cubic feet per day Trends and Deficiencies While pipeline provides benefits for freight movement and has enjoy growing demand in the last decade, as a freight mode it has also faced resistance from communities in the Northeast. Connecticut has approximately 590 miles of transmission pipelines currently in operation within the state . In its Statewide Freight Plan the CTDOT states that the system is limited in its capacity to meet the growing demand. Some projects to expand capacity have recently been completed or are under development in or near the region . T he Algonquin Incremental Market expansion project , which added thirty -seven miles and 342 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) of capacity , was completed in 2016 ; t he Co nnecticut Expansion Project by t he Tennessee Pipeline Company , 150000 170000 190000 210000 230000 250000 270000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Natural Gas Consumed in CT (MMcf) 163 which added sixteen miles and 72 MMcf/d of capacity, was completed in 2017 ; Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC is constructing the Atlantic Bridge Project, currently in its second phase. Additionally, in June 2018, Competitive Power Ventures, in conjunction with General Electric, began operations of CPV Towantic Energy Center, a natural gas -fired electric generating facility, in Oxford and is supplying power to more than 800,000 home s. This project clearly benefits from its location along the Algo nquin Gas Transmission Pipeline and the Connecticut Light & Power electricity transmission lines and illustrates the importance of pipeline to the freight network. Ongoing planning includes the Access Northeast , a project currently under review by Enbridge Inc., Eversource Energy, and National Grid . This n atural gas pipeline will have a peak capacity up to 900,000 dekatherms (approximately 900 MMcf) per day. Pipeline Actions Leverage the existing pipeline network to reduce the vehicle miles traveled by heav y trailer trucks on the highway system Where feasible, encourage land use to support multi -modal facilities along exiting pipeline. 7.4 Shipping and Air Freight Shipping and air freight have important effects on the regional economy. However, no facilitie s currently lie within the limits of the planning region. The region is landlocked and while Waterbury -Oxford airport is an important piece of the local economy, the limited size of its run way will not accommodate the needs of bigger, heavier freight airp lanes. For more information about freight planning especially how it affects the states ports and airports, please refer to the statewide freight plan. 164 8 – Aviation The NVCOG region hosts o ne general aviation (GA) airport, four small aircraft facilities, and six Federal Airport Administration (FAA) registered heliports. The GA Airports and Heliports are managed by the Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA). The region’s publicly owned and operated GA service level airport is located in both Oxford and Middlebu ry and named the Waterbury – Oxford Airport (OXC). The MTP will consider only general aviation airports. General Aviation Airports and Heliports Source: NVCOG 165 8.1 Existing Conditions General Aviation Airports The OXC primarily services corporate, business and recreational flight operations, and does not serve commercial airlines. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has categorized OXC as a “national asset” based on existing aviation activity such as the n umber and types of based aircraft. The “national asset” group includes general aviation airports which serve national and global markets. In 20 17, OXF handled an average of 119 fl ights a day, approximately 43,500 operations a year. Situated seven miles sou thwest of Waterbury, it is accessible from Route 1 88 and I -84. The airport offers fa cilities for corporate, frei ght, and recreational fl ights. It is owned and operated by the Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA) , and has provided general aviation services s ince its completion in 1971. It occupies 424 acres within a 3,000 acre zone of i ndustrial land. The airport’ s runway is 5,800 feet long by 100 feet wide. In 201 8, there we re 2 helicopters and 106 aircraft based at the Wa terbury -Oxford Airport, of which 17 were medium and large corporate jets, 3 were multi -engine, and 84 were single -engine aircraft. Atlantic Aviation offers servicing and mainte nance as well as charter passenger service and air freight. Tradewind Aviation LLC, Clay Lacy and Richmor Aviation offer charter pas senger service. Image Aviation Services, Clay Lacy provides medium and small jet servicing. Image Aviation Service , Oxford Flight Training, and Richmor Aviation provide fl ight school training. Executive Aircraft Interiors, Inc. offers com plete refurbishment of single engine to large cabins. An air traffi c control tower became operational in 2001. Th e State of Connecticu t has implemented various infra structure improvements such as additional taxiways, gas mains, electrical service, and a se wer system. A rear access road, entrance improvements including a gateway, and additional signage are also planned for the airport. In 2010, the airport contributed 1,670 direct and in -direct jobs to the local economy and had an economic impact of about $235 million. In 2013 the Waterbury -Oxford Development Zone was designated by the state of Con necticut. Companies that move into the Development Zone may be eligible for property tax abatements and state corporation business tax credits. 166 Source: Federal Aviation Administration website https://aeronav.faa.gov/d -tpp/1813/05785AD.PDF Heliports Heliports are managed by the Connecticut Airport Authority, however takings of property are under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Transportation (CGS §13b -39) . There are currently 167 six (6) operational FAA registered heliports in the NVCOG region (see table below for details). This MTP will not include or consider Heliport projects. Heliport name Location Type Operational? # of Runways Bristol Hospital Heliport Bristol, Connecticut Heliport Operational 1 Ultimate Heliport Bristol, Connecticut Heliport Operational 1 St Mary's Heliport Waterbury, Connecticut Heliport Operational 1 Rondo Heliport Naugatuck, Connecticut Heliport Operational 1 Miry Dam Heliport Middlebury, Connecticut Heliport Operational 1 Itt Heliport Shelton, Connecticut Heliport Operational 1 Source: http://www.city -data.com/airports/Connecticut.html accessed 11 -7-2018 . 8.2 Trends & Forecasts As per the Connecticut Statewide Airport System Plan (CSASP) (2016), betwe en the years 2006 and 2016, the following factors affected demand for air carriers and general aviation transportation services at airports within Connecticut: • Economic conditions, employment/unemployment, and income/debt levels • Changes in population • Chang es in air service patterns due to consolidation • Aviation fuel prices • Changes in airline and general aviation fleets • Competing services in nearby states • Fares and the cost of inputs • Corporate profits Between 2003 and 2016, a series of one -time events (terrorism, recessions, fuel spikes, and industry consolidation) have depressed the demand for aviation nationally and in CT. But since 2016, the aviation industry is generally viewed as being in a state of recovery. For general aviation operations, recove ry has differed between high -end and light GA markets. High -end GA includes turbojet and turboprop aircraft (8+ seat) and fractional operations. Large corporate operators dominate the turbojet market. Turbojet operations are expected to grow at a rate grea ter than the general economy. Light GA operations include single or twin engine piston aircraft (6 or fewer seats) and are expected to decline. Retirement of aging aircraft is the main contributor to light GA decline. Turbojet operations have been on the i ncrease at OXC and development plans call for greater support of high -end GA activity. 168 8.3 System Deficiencies, Issues & Problems Connecticut Airport System Challenges and Recommendations Airport infrastructure generally serves higher -end economic contrib utors than other transportation infrastructure, and thus infrastructure challenges may affect economic conditions at regional and state scales. Key CT airport system challenges are outlined in the table below. Connecticut Airport System Challenges (2016) Category Challenges or Influences Aviation Industry Trends • Aircraft Size and Performance • Cargo Growth • Viability of General Aviation • Airport Traffic Control Tower Closures • Socioeconomic Conditions In-State Dynamics • Airport Development Restrictions and Incentives • Airport Roles & Closures • Governance Structures Neighboring State Influences • Commercial Airport Proximity • Destinations Served • Competition for Cargo • Vying for Business Aircraft Capacity/Development Constraints • System Capacity • Physical Constraints • Environmental Regulations • Varying Political/Municipal Viewpoints • Community Perception Source: Connecticut Statewide Airport System Plan (CSASP) (2016) Based on the airport system analysis completed as part of the 2016 CSASP, recommendations for CT GA system infrastructure include the following: • Attract the high -end operator growth market that help to drive economic development and enhance the State’s competitive position. • Undertake long -term efforts to reduce airport de velopment constraints: legislative, environmental, physical, and community • Support development and expansion of economic incentive zones near airports and establish airport land use compatibility guidelines • Pursue runway extensions to achieve more than 5,0 00 feet takeoff length • Prepare hangar and service development areas at target high -end airports • Undertake pavement and improvements to comply with FAA design standards 169 • Advocacy and aviation technical contribution Waterbury -Oxford Airport Challenges and Rec ommendations In December 2010, a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis workshop was conducted at the Waterbury -Oxford Airport. The SWOT results led to identification of OXC advantages, challenges and priorities which subsequently informed the 2012 OXC Business Plan. OXC advantages included: • Proximity to Metropolitan New York area and ability to attract corporate activity. • Favorable tax structure • Cooperation and support from surrounding communities • Airport and its on -site business es perceived as valued employers within the community. OXC challenges and recommendations included: • Airport maintenance at current levels. • Overregulation and involvement by many levels of government. This has been somewhat mitigated with the 2012 transitio n of airport operation from the State of CT to the Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA). • Infrastructure improvements such as installing radar in the control tower, installing a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System (MALS) and adding a deicing facility. • Expand the amount of developable land trough a “clean fill” program to reduce sloped terrain. • Create a Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) at OXC which would allow US customs processing services and facilities to be located at the airport. The development of an FTZ i n the vicinity of the Airport would provide an opportunity for businesses to take advantage of both the Airport and the FTZ, and compete with other businesses on an international level. • Develop high -end GA hangar facilities. 8.4 Projects Development of th e OXC and heliports is managed by the CAA. Documents which guide OXC development include the following: • Waterbury -Oxford Master Plan (2007) • Waterbury -Oxford Business Plan (2012) • Connecticut Statewide Airport System Plan (CSASP) (2016) • Waterbury -Oxford Airport Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Evaluation for Obstructions (2017) The following OXC airport projects are underway or planned over the next few years: Increased Hangar Space 170 The lack of adequate hangar space limits gr owth. Additional hangars and tie -down areas are recommended in CTDOT’s Waterbury -Oxford Airport Master Plan, and Keystone, the fixed -base operator, is proposing the construction of a hangar and office space with a 206,000 square -foot footprint at the airpo rt. Safety Improvements The Waterbury -Oxford Airport Master Plan calls for safety improvements including expanded taxiways, new lighting, and obstruction removal. Concurrent with the latest master plan update, an airport noise study was completed by the F ederal Aviation Administration to understand the noise impacts of the airport and to identify the areas around the airport that are eligible for noise abatement. The study found that some residences in Middlebury experience noise levels considered incompat ible with residential uses. CTDOT has initiated a voluntary buyout program for the Triangle Hills subdivision in Middlebury. The study also recommends that undeveloped, land near the airport be rezoned for non -residential uses. Runway Reconstruction In the Fall of 2017, the yearlong Runway Reconstruction Construction Project commenced. This project addressed non -conforming runway safety areas at each end of the runway to bring the airport into safety conformance for its general aviation designation. Additio nal improvements included new runway and taxiway lighting in the work areas, replacement of drainage and structures, removal of runway taxiway “A” and two connector taxiways to eliminate direct runway access. 171 9.0 Sustainable Transportation Sustainable tran sportation looks beyond infrastructure investments in highway improvements to consider how transportation decisions made today will affect the health and wealth of communities in the future. When transportation investments take into consideration economic, environmental and social issues, opportunities to improve all travelers’ quality of life or livability are created. Since 2009, the federal government has used an interdisciplinary approach to foster sustainable communities and improve peoples’ livability . T he US Department of Transportation (USDOT) , the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formed the Partnership for Sustainable Communities to improve access to affordable housing, provide more transportation options, and lower transportation costs. The partnership established six livability principles which describe the multidisciplinary nature of sustainable development : • Provide more transp ortation choices : Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and pro – mote public health. • Promote equitable, affordable housing : Expand location -and energy -efficient housing choices for people of all ages, in – comes, races, and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation. • Enhance economic competiti veness : Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access 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 recycling, to increase community revitalization and the efficiency of public works investments and safeguard rural landscapes. • Coordinate and leverage Federal policies and investment : Align Federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding, and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, including maki ng smart energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy. • Value communities and neighborhoods : Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods. In response to the HUD Sustainable C ommunities Regional Planning Grant Program , a partnership of seventeen cities, counties and MPOs in Long Island, the Hudson Valley, and southern Connecticut was formed to develop a regional plan of sustainability . It was known as the New York -Connecticut M etropolitan Region Sustainable Communities Planning Consortium . The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments , by its membership in the Greater Bridgeport and Valley MPO, participated in the project. The Consortium, over a three -year period, developed a regi onal plan for sustainable development to leverage the region’s robust transit network to promote and achieve more sustainable growth. The primary goal of the plan is to foster sustainable development and transportation. (http://www.sustainablenyct.org/SCIImplementationPlan20140602Final.pdf ) While the NVCOG support s sustainable transportation and the six livability principles, the region continues to experience obstacles to sustainable development through past reliance on highways 172 and roadways and current limited commuter rail service provided on the Waterbury branch rail line. Residents, municipal leaders and officials, and other stakeholders of the Naugatuck Valley region recognize the finite limit on land and natural resources and the implications when reliable and efficient transportation for commuters to travel to job centers is not provided. To adhere to the l ivability principles , the NVCOG has developed a metropolitan transportation plan for the Naugatuck Valley planning region and the Central Naugatuck Valley MPO that promotes a shift to an increased emphasis on mode choice, public transit opportunities, sustainable development, housing, and interconnectedness of tran sportation planning and transit supportive land uses. The key focus of the plan is to effectuate a fundamental change in how city centers are perceived and construct transformative improvements that will be the catalysts for economic revitalization, livabl e communities and sustainable transportation choices. 9.1 Sustainable CT Sustainable CT is a voluntary municipal certification program to recognize thriving and resilient Connecticut municipalities taking local actions toward sustainability. One of the program’s goals is to broaden the understanding of sustainability, looking beyond the envi ronmental to includ e the economy, housing, transportation, culture, equity and public services and events. This perspective on sustainability echoes the six livability principles identified by the Partnership for Sustainable Communities . Sustainable CT is an independently funded, grassroots, municipal effort, which has identified a broad range of sustainable best practices. Municipalities choose Sustainable CT actions, implement them, and earn points toward certification. Every Sustainable CT action can produce multiple community benefits , demonstrating how local action can have a statewide impact. Transportation is one of the nine Sustainable CT action categories. More specifically, the “ Clean and Diverse Transportation Systems and Choices” category includ es many sub -categories and actions which municipalities and the NVCOG may collaborate to improve the sustainability of the transportation system regionwide. This category includes actions taken to implement complete streets, promote effective parking manag ement, encourage smart commuting, support zero emissions vehicle deployment, and promote public transit and other mobility strategies. The following section discusses these transportation related sustainable actions and how the region may collaborate with municipalities to support and help them achieve Sustainable CT certification and realize the intended benefits. Implement complete stre ets The goal of these actions is to reward steps taken toward a municipality building more complete street facilities. From training and planning to project construction, this sub categories affords municipalities opportunities to score points where ever t hey are in the process of adding completes streets to their community. The NVCOG plays a supportive role in this process by developing regional planning documents and templates which may be locally implemented. Additionally, where funding is regionally dis tributed, the NVCOG will continue to encourage project sponsors to take steps that would support these goals by “allow(ing) safer access for all roadway users — including motor vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users — regardless of age, ability, income or ethnicity.” 173 Promote effective parking management In this action, Sustainable CT recognizes the importance of parking to support the vitality of a commercial district. However, effective parking management can also mitigate environmental impacts, including excessive land consumption, degraded water quality, and exacerbated heat island effects and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging alternative modes of transit. At the regional level the NVCOG conducts commuter parking lot counts. The NVC OG can conduct parking studies for the region’s communities and disseminate information about commuter lots and adjacent facilities with differing time parking demand. Encourage smart commuting To meet the goals of this action, communities must show that t hey are making efforts and providing options to their employees to use alternative modes of transportation for their commutes. The NVCOG continues to undertake studies aimed at promoting alternative modes of transportation for the region’s commuters and h as hosted presentations on the subject. Going forward, in addition to the NVCOG attempting to implement these actions in -house as a public entity, it can also amass resources on region wide opportunities for transit, vanpool, and other alternative modes of transportation which may benefit the residents and workers of individual municipalities. Support zero emissions vehicle deployment Under this action, Sustainable CT is encouraging communities to transition their municipal vehicle fleet, and create infrast ructure for zero emission vehicles (ZEV) that city officials, residents, businesses, and travelers may use. While the goal is increased deployment of ZEVs within the municipal fleet, there are many intermediate steps municipalities can take including inven torying existing infrastructure. For example, the municipality of Plymouth, working with the region, acquired hybrid vehicles to reduce fuel consumption. Additionally, the NVCOG is actively developing data and publishing information about existing ZEV infr astructure. The Region will continue to act in this supportive manner while promoting regional grant funding for the expansion of infrastructure. Promote public transit and other mobility strategies For most travelers, public transportation is the best alt ernative to single occupancy vehicle commuting. Sustainable CT will reward actions taken to promote and enhance public transportation, including steps taken to better coordinate public transportation with walking and bicycling. 174 The NVCOG plays a significa nt role in the public transportation discussion region wide. The NVCOG regularly works with CT transit to gather data and analyze ridership trends and advocate for new connections where there is a documented demand. Active public engagement is the crux of t his work, which includes inviting regional stakeholders to take part in NVCOG Board meetings and partnering with complementary organizations to ensure information regarding existing services is widely promulgated. By continuing to participate in these publ ic engagement events, and creating opportunities for further engagement in their communities, municipalities may earn credit for this action category. Equity Equity is about fairness and the ability of everyone to get what they need in order to improve their quality of life. It is a practice which underlies the six livability principles and , as such, is a component and benefit of a su stainable action. Sustainable CT views equity benefits as new, improved, and valued relationships between different members of the community. In the context of transportation systems and planning, the Title VI regulations prescribe equity policy for more inclusive decision -making and improved access to services and sharing of benefits with all residents , both current and future , regardless of race, income, ability, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Sustainable CT attempts to advance equity by aski ng municipalities to demonstrate its application in municipal decision -making processes. The NVCOG is committed to applying the practice and pursuit of equity to all transportation planning work, and partnering with its municipalities toward more inclusive and meaningful participation in planning processes. 9.2 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) The freedom and movement associated with individual automobile ownership have always come with tradeoffs. As suburban development chases low real estate prices f arther and f arther from our downtowns, problems like congestion, deteriorated air quality, national dependence on foreign oil, and the high costs associated with automobile ownership are only worsened. In the early and mid – 1990s many residents and several mun icipalities began to seek out alternatives to promote increased use of public transportation. This movement has continued to grow and expand over the years. New principles have emerged aimed at reducing dependency on the automobile by encouraging land uses that are supportive of public transit. Communities have increasingly recognized the problems with continuing to develop in the same way and are more often promoting new development s that provide more choices for reliable transportation, more socially mixe d and affordable housing, and expanded business and economic opportunities. The y are seeking development s that reinforce the existing character of their Source: Interaction Institute for Social Change | Artist: Angus Maguire . interactioninstitute. org and madewithangus.com 175 communities and historical downtowns and enhance the opportunities for healthy, walkable and safe neigh borhoods to flourish. These are the “Livability Principles of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities ” that many municipalities want to see succeed locally. Transit oriented development (TOD) has become a prominent strategy for building communities that meet these goals. TOD is a proven economic growth strategy that integrates land use, transportation, and the environment and results in new housing, jobs, and more sustainable and walkable communities. TOD is an essential component of any transportation plan, as it is a form of infill development that encourages use of mass transit such as trains and buses, as well as non – motorized travel such as walking and bicycling. Successful TODs include: • Compact, mixed -use development, including a range of housi ng choices, within a 10 – minute walk of a transit station or transportation hub. • A network of streets, ideally in a traditional street grid with short blocks, that allow for safe walking and bicycling and access to transit stations or transportation hubs. • Intermodal improvements that facilitate travel mode shift away from single -occup ancy cars to train and bus transit, shared vehicles, walking, or bicycling . Transit -oriented development touches upon nearly all aspects of urban centers and downtowns, including zoning, architecture, infill development, parking, streets, utilities, demogr aphics, and market conditions. Accordingly, the consideration of TOD needs to be a collaborative community process. Public involvement i s critical to promoting TOD s and defining the scale, density, style, architectural character and street environment uni que to each community. There are common building elements and design strategies for all communities to consider: • Complementary Mixed Uses : New infill development should be comprised of mixed uses with retail uses located on the ground floor of primary stre ets with commercial offices or quality, market -priced residential units located on the floors above retail uses. This proximity and densit y of uses contribute greatly to ”walkability” and allow people to visit multiple destinations without having to drive from one place to another. • Building Height : Buildings in a TOD should be at least two stories. However, the optimal height and spacing of buildings varies by block and by lot depending on the 176 width of street, rhythm and intensity of development in the downtown. • Continuous “Street Wall :” All new bui ldings are situated close to the back of the sidewalk to create a direct relationship and connection between the public right -of-way and new buildings. It is also important to minimize gaps between buildings to enclose the street with active uses. • Archite cture : Buildings should reflect the character of the existing historical setting of downtown. Well -proportioned windows interesting and varied roof -lines, articulated cornices, ornate building entries and special details at gateway corners will result in finely detailed, contextual buildings. The architecture should complement the form and materials of existing buildings and look like it belongs in the community. • Off -Street Parking : Any surface parking for new infill development should be discretely locat ed to the rear of lots and accessed from driveways located on secondary or side streets. Currently, the neighborhoods best suited for a TOD are those located along the Waterbury branch rail line and in proximity to a rail station, generally considered with in ½ -mile of the station. While opportunities for TOD should not be limited to areas near a rail station, these areas provide direct access to employment centers in Bridgeport and Stamford, as well as, New York City. The Naugatuck Valley communities that a re located along the WBL and host a commuter rail station are prime candidates for transit -supportive development. In a north -to-south orientation, the cities and towns on the WBL are: • Waterbury • Naugatuck • Beacon Falls • Seymour • Ansonia • Derby -Shelton 177 TOD Oppo rtunity Areas Source: NVCOG The t owns and cities in the Naugatuck Valley are prime candidates for TOD development because they already have compact historic urban centers that developed along the Naugatuck River and around access to the Waterbury rail li ne and have a rich historic quality to their downtowns. The y have the infrastructure , such as public water and sanitary sewer lines, needed to support mixed – use and higher density developments. Also, the key component of Transit -Oriented Development, that is “transit,” already exists within the corridor. The Naugatuck Valley is served by commuter rail operated on the Waterbury Branch Line commuter rail and fixed -route bus networks operated by the CT transit and Greater Bridgeport Transit . These transit servi ces provide the Naugatuck Valley a significant advantage because new infrastructure and s ervices do not need to be built . TOD can help position these community for a revitalization and retrofit their central business districts to recapture an urban form an d character that helped the Naugatuck Valley achieve national status during the industrial revolution, but in ways that position it to benefit from the 178 digital revolution. TOD can also improve access to jobs because, in a compact, mixed -use district, peopl e can live close to where they work, or they can walk to a transit station to access jobs or educational opportunities in other nearby cities. While the goals of TOD, such as increasing economic development opportunities, reducing travel demand by single -occupant automobile travel, optimizing infrastructure, making cities more walkable and connected, and reducing environmental impacts , may be similar from community to community, the way TOD looks and feels sh ould be unique to each community. It is very important that TOD respect and complement the form, density, character, and even community values of each station area and downtown. Customization of TOD projects is critical to ensure that the new development i s appropriate for their urban context and accepted and supported by elected officials and the public while achieving a suitable level of building or critical mass to attract private investors. As part of the alternate modes assessment, the NVCOG is identifying opportunity sites in proximity to the rail stations that could become TODs. In addition, “Model Blocks” were developed for each comm unity based on the results of public input and visual p reference surveys. The “Model Block” concept is not intended to impose a design on any one site, rather, it is an approach that helps towns visualize a form of mixed -use, compact development that optimizes use of valuable downtown infrastructure, complemen ts existing downtown development, builds a customer base for downtown merchants, builds transit ridership by bringing people closer to transit stations, and enables people to live closer to where they work. The “Model Block ” represents a development strate gy that can be applied to underutilized parcels . Land development is only one aspect of TOD. To realize the full potential of this type of development it is imperative to have the complementary transit services. While the Naugatuck Valley benefits by havin g the rail infrastructure in place, it suffers from the lack of service and poor condition of equipment. In order for TODs to capture the residents, jobs and businesses, enhancements and improvements along the WBL are essential. The alternate transit modes assessment identified several rail projects that would be catalysts for economic redevelopment and transform the corridor’s urban centers. Investments are being made in the WBL, including full signalization, passing sidings, and Positive Train Control. T o leverage the se planned improvements, the following projects need to be implemented: Source: NVCOG Alt Modes Study Model Block concept. 179 • Purchase new rolling stock : The existing equipment operated on the WBL is old and experiences frequent breakdowns. Coaches are not clean and lack passenger amenities. Thi s action involves the purchase of four locomotives and train sets consisting of one push -pull cab and two coaches to replace the existing equipment and the purchase of three additional locomotives and train sets to expand service. • Expand service : Provide 3 0-minute headways during the morning and evening peak hours. • Construct station improvements : The existing rail station are not much more than a small platform and plexi -glass bus -type shelters. New station buildings need to be built at Naugatuck, Beacon Fa lls, Seymour, and Ansonia, and the stations at Derby -Shelton and Waterbury need to be rehabilitated. At Naugatuck, the station needs to be relocated to a vacant parcel just south of the current stop to position it on a prime TOD opportunity site. Similarly , the Seymour station would be relocated to a site north of the downtown area on site adjacent to a prime redevelopment site. As part of the new station buildings, high level platforms would be installed and various passenger amenities, such as traveler information and ticket vending machines, would be added. An option t o providing more through service from the WBL onto the New Haven main line is constructing a transfer station at the Devon wye . Capacity on the NHML is limited and it may not be possible to add more WBL through trains . To increase the frequency on the WBL and enhance connections between WBL and NHML service, the Devon transfer station would provide the ability for Waterbury branch line riders to transfer to main line trains . New platforms would be built along the WBL a nd on both inbound and outbound NHML tracks to allow a cross -platform connection. An ADA -compliant access would be built to connect the platforms. Service on the WBL would be converted to operate more similar to a shuttle with schedules timed to meet most NHML trains. This service would also be set to permit WBL passengers to access outbound train service to New Haven. This would also allow connections directly to New Haven without the need to travel to Bridgeport to transfer to an eastbound train. In addit ion to the downtown revitalization potential of TOD , the alternate transit assessment investigated opportunities to enhance transit services to the Bridgeport Avenue corridor of Shelton. The c ity has enjoyed significant corporate and industrial development in several areas outside the downtown core , with the Bridgeport Avenue corridor a prime area . With ready access to the Route 8 expressway and proximity to corporate and financial markets in Fairfield County and New York City, large tracts of open land wer e prime and attractive for commercial and corporate development. In the past 40 years, mid -sized retail centers, condominiums, hotels and corporate office parks, including the recently constructed mixed -use development, have been constructed. There is pote ntial for more development in the Bridgeport Avenue corridor, but residents’ concerns about traffic and other growth impacts are refocusing efforts to non -automobile modes to accommodate new growth. While a traditional TOD node may not be feasible along th e corridor, the concept of a “Neighborhood Transit Hub” or NTH was explored. A NTH is a highly interactive transit stop with multi -modal connections, where transit vehicles (public buses, private shuttles, taxis, and shared vehicles) enable passengers to c hange mode of travel (from car or taxi to bus, from bus to shuttle, from bicycle to bus or shuttle, or from bus to bus). A NTH can also be a pulse -point where transit vehicles from different routes converge and time their stops to enable easy and immediate 180 Source: NVCOG Alt Modes Study transfer of passengers to another route or service. A “village green ” could be built in conjunction with a NTH to add place -making value. T he provision of effective and predictable transit encourages surrounding development, which, in turn, supports trans it. Private uses such as coffee shops, book stores, restaurants and convenience stores provide services of value to transit riders and area workers alike. The activity levels associated with transit hubs provides new customers for private development and t he activity levels in shops, cafes, and service establishments provides more “eyes on the street” that improves the security of people waiting for buses. The development of a NTH would require the implementation of new and expanded transit services to the area. While the proposed enhancement of GBT Route 22X might be sufficient to promote and support the development of a NTH , it is more likely necessary to implement high quality BRT system that uses the NTH as its primary stops. Overview of Neighborhood Tr ansit Hub concept. 9.3 Complete Streets Policy Streets are an integral part of our cities and towns, providing and facilitating the movement of people and goods. The road network serves to connect neighborhoods and provides access to businesses, jobs, schools and a wide range of public and private serv ices. Connections to neighboring cities and towns, regions as well as interstate travel are facilitated by the highway system. The goal of transportation improvement programs has usually been to make the highway system as efficient as possible, with effici ency defined as making the flow of traffic better. This has resulted in overbuilt roadways, exclusive turn lanes that increase the walk distance across an intersection, additional travel lanes that reduce shoulder area available to bicyclists and traffic signal timing and phasing that favors vehicle movements. The needs of pedestrians and bicyclists have often been either ignored or only considered minimally. However, streets are an important part of a community’s livability and help define it as a special place. The emphasis on vehicle movement has resulted in street environments unfriendly to bicyclists and pedestrians and land uses dependent on the automobile. 181 The concept of “Complete Streets” is to effectuate a change in how the street environment is planned, designed and built and, as a consequence, change how it is used. In essence, the street environment is altered from one where vehicles dominate to one where all users are accommodated. It also encompasses not just the area between the curbs but ext ends beyond the pavement to include space along the roadway as well. Implementation of “Complete Streets” make s the street environment more livable , and will reduce energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and driving, while enhancing mobility and saf ety for all and encouraging walking and bicycling for transportation, recreation, exercise and quality of life. It is essentially a paradigm shift in how the street environment is perceived and used. Instead of continuous strip of hardscape to move automob iles as quickly as possible, a “complete street” employs variable paving material, street trees, rain gardens, and various traffic calming features to create a more comfortable environment for all users and one that is more visually interesting. While a co mplete street embraces many common elements, each application is unique and the features selected reflect the land use, needs and characteristics of the area. Key elements of “ Complete Streets” include: • Bicycle facilities – bicycle routes and lanes, signage, bicycle racks, appropriat e pavement markings and symbols. • Bus features and amenities – bus pull -outs, shelters, clear and accessible pat hs. • Pedestrian enhancements – crosswalks, pedestrian signal enhancem ents, curb ramps, and sidewalks. • Traffic ca lming actions – using textured material, intersection bump -outs, curb extensions, center refuge islands, and raised intersection tables. • Streetscape environment and Green Infrastructure – appropriate urban trees, landscaping, bio -swales and rain gardens, p ermeable paving material, and buffers between the street and sidewalk to dramatically alter the “atmosph ere” of the street environment. • ADA compliant features – curb ramps, detectable tactile cues and warnings, accessible pedestrian sig nals, and longer wal k intervals. • On -street parking treatments – delineated parking spaces and curb/sidewalk bump -outs . • Access management actions – driveway consolidations, modifications and closures. 182 The image at the left illustrates an open street design that does not cons ider the needs of any other traveler than a motor vehicle. On -street parking and access is uncontrolled, and there is no safe place for pedestrian to cross. The following photo shows how the same street environment can look by converting it to a complete s treet. Variable pavement materials, designated crosswalks, defined on -street parking, street trees and striped bicycle lane are used to make the street inviting to all users and creates a much more visually interesting place. 9.4 Green Infrastructure/ Low Impact Development Hard surfaces in urban and suburban environments are a major source of surface water pollution. As rainwater falls on these impervious surfaces, it runs off, usually to a system of gutters, ditches, storm drains and conveyances to be di sch arged directly into streams, rivers and wetlands. With it, the rainwater carries pollutants including dust, lubricants, tire rubber, animal waste, traction sand, salt, and anything else that may have built up since the last rainfall, depositing it dire ctly into the receiving water. This typical method of dealing with storm water also causes much heavier than natural peak flows during and shortly after rain events, causes drastic water temperature spikes, and may cause erosion of streambanks and washouts or damage to culverts and bridges, impacting the reliability of the transportation network. Green infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development (LID) are alternative planning, design and construction best management practices (BMPs) that aim to more cl osely mimic the pre – construction hydrology of a site. The goal of their implementation is to slow, filter, store, evaporate and/or infiltrate stormwater close to its source. These methods include non -structural planning and design techniques as well as s tructural features designed to minimize stormwater impacts. Non -structural techniques begin with good land use planning and design aimed at minimizing the amount of impervious surface associated with a d evelopment, and properly siting development with su rface water impacts in mind. This can be accomplished through a number of techniques including: • Clustering development – by minimizing the amount of area that is disturbed by development, natural stormwater infiltration functions can be preserved. Cluster ed 183 development also minimizes the amount of roadway and other infrastructure needed to serve a development. • Prioritizing infill de velopment and redevelopment of vacant or under -utilized previously developed properties over development of forest or farmland . • Minimizing lawn areas in favor of more natural vegetation cover. • Avoidance of steep grades. • Designing roads that are not excessively wide and better relate to the service and function they provide. This would allow narrower street widths and less imprev ious pavement . • Smart design of appropriately sized parking lots, promoting shared parking, and incorporating covered garages in order to reduce the amount of impervious parking lot cover . • Designing with proper materials in mind including natural materials and native plants. On -site structural green stormwater infrastructure can also greatly reduce the amount of runoff entering traditional storm water systems and surface receiving waters. These GI features are typically built to treat a specific amount of r unoff, with overflows built in to default to traditional stormwater systems when overloaded during more extreme events. In some cases, the need for traditional stormwater infrastructure can be eliminated. Some structural GI BMPs include: • Bioswales/ Biore tention – shallow vegetated depressions that infiltrate or temporarily store runoff. • Rain Gardens – landscaped areas designed to receive and infiltrate stormwater, typically include native plants and are designed to infiltrate water quickly. • Permeable Pave ment – By eliminating fines in asphalt or concrete, or using pavers with spaces in between, water can flow through the pavement and properly prepared sub -base and into the ground below. • Tree boxes – similar in appearance to traditional street tree planters, but designed to retain, filter and infiltrate stormwater. These are often connected to a stormwater system to handle excess flows. • Storm water planter – a small, contained vegetated area that collects and treats storm water using bioretention. Th ey typically contain native, hydrophilic flowers, grasses, shrubs and trees. Treated storm water is either infiltrated into the ground or discharged into a traditional storm water drainage system. The planters are relatively small and do not require a larg e amount of space. However, they need periodic maintenance, including weeding, plant replacement, cleaning inflow and outflow pipes, watering during dry periods and removing litter. • Rainwater storage and repurposing – Cisterns and rain barrels can be used to collect and store runoff so that it can be used at a later date, typically for irrigation. Using rainwater for irrigation has the added benefit of reducing demands on drinking water supplies, and reducing the energy used to treat and deliver drinking w ater. 184 • Vegetated roof – lightweight planter systems can be integrated into rooftops to slow rainwater which is taken up by low maintenance plants. These roofs help insulate buildings and help mitigate the heat – island effect in urban areas. The new Connec ticut “Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit ” that went into effect in 2017 applies to all NVCOG municipalities with the exception of Bethlehem. An MS4 is the municipally owned system of drains, conveyances, pipes, outfalls, etc. that transmits runoff to surface waters. As a condition of the permit, municipalities are required to “disconnect” directly connected impervious area (DClA). Impervious surfaces are considered disconnected if runoff from the impervious surface does not enter the MS4, or if the volume of runoff generated from one inch of rai nfall on a site is infiltrated or treated. Since municipalities do not have direct control of privately owned parking lots, driveways, rooftops and other impervious surfaces, they are left with town owned facilities and roads from which they can directly disconnect DCIA. Retrofitting existing facilities or designing new facilities with GI BMPs is one way in which towns can reach compliance with the permit. Implementing GI BMPs during roadway reconstruction wherever possible will help towns meet the requi rements of the MS4 permit, and will help restore and preserve surface water quality. The MS4 permit also requires that municipalities eliminate all obstacles to the implementation of LID in local regulations. In 2017, NVCOG produced municipal MS4 and LID Local Regulations Assessments for all 19 towns in the NV Region. The assessments identified local regulation that might need to be altered in response to the new MS4 requirements, and suggested ways to make LID principles easier to implement. The assessm ents looked at procedural barriers to LID implementation, including those related to transportation infrastructure. Regulations relatin g to street width, c ul-de -sac design, road drainage, parking sizing and runoff, sidewalks and driveways were looked at a nd the ability to implement LID and GI BMPs under those regulations was assessed. By changing local regulations to meet the MS4 permit requirements, municipalities will be in a better position to encourage private developers to implement LID BMPs during n ew development and re -development, helping towns reach their DCIA disconnection goals. UConn’s Center for Land Use Education and Outreach (CLEAR) provides tools, information and assistance to help municipalities with MS4 compliance and GI implementation. GI and LID techniques are a proven way to protect surface water quality when implemented in new construction, and to improve water quality when traditional stormwater systems are retrofitted. As such, they are promoted by watershed groups and environmen talists. Several watershed protection groups in the N augatuck Valley planning region have recently completed Watershed Based Plans in the region. The Mill River Watershed Plan was completed in 2018 and includes parts of Cheshire and Prospect. The Pomper aug River Watershed Plan was also completed in 2018 covering parts of Woodbury, Southbury, Bethlehem and Watertown. The Pequabuck River Watershed Plan is currently in development, and includes parts of Bristol and Plymouth. These plans include examples o f GI retrofits that can be implemented to help improve water quality. Many of the examples are within public ROW along roadways and public parking lots, and were intended to give municipalities options to retrofit portions of the storm water system under their control. These examples are a good place for municipalities to start minimizing the impacts of stormwater from the transportation network. Actions : • For projects under purview of NVCOG, encourage the use of LID and GI BMPs wherever practical. 185 • Promot e LID and GI practices during planning or corridor studies. • Assist municipalities in MS4 compliance. • Provide training to municipal staff regarding BMP implementation and maintenance. 9.5 Tourism Travel Tourism and its related travel are an economic engin e for many areas and how well visitors can access destinations is an important factor in influencing the extent of the economic impact. Generally, tourism encompasses a wide range of industrial sectors, such as hotels, restaurants, recreation, wineries/bre weries and entertainment, and it is difficult to separate local visitors from tourists who may travel longer distances. Surveys by the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) indicate that the majority of visitors to tourist des tinations in Connecticut are from Connecticut. Only about 35% of groups surveyed included someone from out -of-state. And, about 46% of those came from New York or New Jersey. Because of these trends, transportation to the region’s tourist attractions needs to focus on local access and accommodations. Tourism in the Naugatuck Valley planning region is often overshadowed by tourism opportunities in nearby regions and communities. Litchfield County is a popular to tourist destination for New York and Boston re sidents looking to get away from their home cities, and Hartford and New Haven offer a breadth of cultural institutions for locals and for tourists to learn and grow. The Naugatuck River, a primary recreational attraction in the region, is often overshadow ed by its parent the Housatonic River, which also partially flows through the region, and its neighbor the Connecticut River. In fact, the official state tourism resources list much of the Naugatuck Valley region as “Litchfield Hills,” despite this moniker applying more accurately to an area farther north and west of the region. 5 Despite this, the Naugatuck Valley region has a wealth of opportunities for out -of-town tourists and local residents to explore the beauty and history of the region, offering a bl end of outdoor options, cultural experiences and urban amenities, and often at lower cost and with more freedom for visitors. There are eleven state parks, forests and scenic preserves that allow residents to stretch their legs and numerous museums and cul ture sites to allow them to expand their minds. A unique characteristic of the Naugatuck Valley is its small, compact town centers and walkable urban neighborhoods that offer a plethora of ethnic restaurants and foods. Another advantage is that much of th e Naugatuck Valley is easily accessible via I -84, Route 8, a network of state routes, local and inter -city buses, and the Waterbury branch rail line, which connects the region by rail to the larger New York metropolitan area. Accessibility via bicyce is also increasing and becoming a more viable mode of transportation, most notably in Cheshire and in the lower Valley communities. Current Tourism Opportunities The Naugatuck Valley’s current tourism opportunities are heavily con centrated in hiking and outdoor activities , and in its collection of unique, regional museums and cultural festivals. There are also a wealth of heritage attractions , spread across the region. 5 http://www.ctvisit.com/litchfield 186 The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) operates and maint ains ten state parks, forests and scenic reserve in the region. The areas offer a wide range of activities throughout the year, such as hiking, mountain biking, swimming areas, and cross country skiing. Most state forests and many state parks allow seasona l hunting for specific game, ranging from small game and birds to deer. Restrictions apply and hunters must obtain a permit. In response to the devastating floods of 1955, the US Army Corps of Engineer constructed and operates flood risk management reserv oirs throughout New England. Five such projects are located in the Naugatuck Valley planning region. A multitude of outdoor recreational activities are offered within these areas, including fishing, hiking, canoeing, picnic areas, cross country skiing, sn owshoeing, and hunting. The Thomaston Dam Recreational Area allows the use of two wheeled motorized trail bikes, the only public area that these bikes can be legally ridden. Snowmobiles are permitted during the winter. Campgrounds have been created in seve ral of these areas. Annual visitation reaches 150,000 people. The region is also the home to several multi -use trails and greenways. The Naugatuck River Greenway Trail runs along the Naugatuck River from Torrington to Derby. It is a planned 44 -mile trail. Currently about five miles are open to the public with about another five miles expected to be opened in the next couple of years. The Larkin State Park Trail stretches 10 miles through four towns. It was originally designated for horse trail riding but is now open to bikers and hikers. The Middlebury Greenway was built on an old trolley bed that once connected the residential towns of Woodbury and Middlebury and the Lake Quassapaug Amusement Park to the city of Waterbury. Als o , a section of the 84 -mile Far mington Canal Heritage Trail runs through the town of Cheshire. These trails are important tourist attractions in the region. User counts indicate that they are well utilized, with over 450,000 visits annually. As the NRG Trail is extended and completed, i t is likely to become a more attractive destination for out -of-state travelers. It will be critical to ensure convenient access to trailheads and provide wayfinding. Visitors can also enjoy the outdoors at a number of “pick your own” fruits and vegetable farms and explore the quaint shops and restaurants in the downtowns of the region. Downtown Seymour has become an antique district and Woodbury has an established antiques trail. Two amusement parks are located in the region: the 322 -acre Lake Compounce a nd the smaller, 20 -acre Quassay Amusement Park and Waterpark. Both feature various rides and attractions for all ages and beach and water park along a lake. Lake Compounce, located in Bristol, is the oldest, continuously operated amusement park in the US. Quassay Amusement park is located in Middlebury and is one of only a small number of parks built along a trolley line still operating. Cultural and historical museums abound throughout the region, ranging from fine art exhibits to museums focused on the re gion’s industrial past. The Mattatuck Museum in Waterbury is the region’s flagship, displaying American art and cultural history with a focus on the Naugatuck Valley. Visitors to the region can also learn about the art and history of the carousel, clocks, watches and locks, as well as, ride in a vintage railroad car. Sports venues are also located in the region. At one time, minor league baseball teams played at stadiums in Bristol (Muzzy Field) and Waterbury (Municipal Stadium). While neither stadium hosts professional baseball, amateur sporting events are held in both stadiums throughout the year. Downhill skiing, snowboarding and snow tubing can be done at Woodbury Ski Area during the winter months and summer tubing and zip lining are offered during the summer. 187 Vibrant nightlife is also available throughout the region ranging from several craft breweries to Broadway shows at the Palace Theater in Waterbury. Standout concentrations of tourism activities also include ballooning opportunities in Woodbury and Southbury, history and house museums in up -and -down the Naugatuck Valley, cultural amenities and festivals in Waterbury, and agri -tourism throughout the area. Amusements Parks, Fairs and Arts Source: NVCOG 188 Recreation and sports Source: NVCOG Improving Transportation Access for NVCOG Residents Despite this wealth of opportunities, the region lags behind its neighbors in tourism as a means of economic growth. The region’s tourism opportunities often are overshadowed by better known neighboring destinations with greater institutional support or easier transportation a ccess, based on d ata on tourism as a proportion of employment, average tourism wages, etc. In most instances, access and travel to the region’s tourist attractions are v ia private automobile. Except for the venues in or nearby downtown Waterbury or downtown Bristol, local bus service is not generally a viable option. Access to the region’s wealth of outdoor activities is almost exclusively by car. While the system of mult i-use trails encourages non -motorized options, visitors 189 tend to travel to the trails by car. A survey conducted by the NVCOG on usage of the open sections of the NRG Trail found that 71% of visitors traveled to the trail by car, either alone or as a passen ger. While the regional tourism destinations are relatively easy to access from out of the region, they remain just as difficult to reach by Naugatuck Valley region residents as out -of-region destinations . This incentivizes residents of the region to ch oose more distant, more well -known tourism destinations over local options. By providing easier transportation access to local destinations, the NVCOG region can develop more sustainable tourism habits, and keep more tourism dollars within the regional eco nomy. This can be done through: • Improved wayfinding • Completion of long -distance trails • Improving parking • Enhancing access by public transit • Reducing conflicts between tourism trips and daily commuter transportation • Improving walkability in tourism hot spo ts Wayfinding With a few exceptions, the major transit hubs in the region, consisting of the Waterbury Branch Line stations, the downtown Waterbury bus pulse point, and the Bristol bus hub, are more than a quarter -mile walk from population centers and tou rism destinations. Highlighting available tourism destinations within walking distance of major transit hubs through directional signage, 45 -degree wayside informational displays, and public event posting boards is an easy and inexpensive way to encourage existing riders to visit nearby destinations. The Seymour and Ansonia train stations are in the center of busier neighborhoods within their respective towns, and provide easier opportunities for immediate rail -based tourism. The Waterbury bus pulse point is conveniently located near several of the larger tourism destinations downtown. Source: Pannier Graphics 190 Source: Walk [Your City] Press Kit More broadly, improving the visibility of the region’s tourism assets is an economic development priority. The NVCOG region lags behind the state in tourism -related employment, with 7% of the state’s Leisure & Hospitality jobs, or just under 12,500 positions. 6 Roughly 500 of those jobs are municipally -funded positions. State -funded tourism resources t end to overlook tourism destinations in the region. Developing a standalone website and campaign highlighting tourism opportunities in the region could improve the visibility of our industry, and expand it to create additional jobs for residents. The key t o improving access to the region’s tourism attractions is installing a coordinated system of wayfinding signs that clearly direct travelers to destinations, especially from the region’s interstate and expressway systems. Wayfinding signage will help visito rs find their intended attractions and guide them to the preferred and appropriate parking facilities. Wayfinding signage will also help raise the visibility of tourist attractions throughout the region. Long -Distance Trails The NVCOG is assisting with t he development of several, long -distance multi -use trails, including the Naugatuck River Greenway Trail which spans the region. A recent analysis by the NVCOG has shown that long -distance trails generate substantial economic benefits, including increased tourism spending. 7 To realize benefits, these trails need to be promoted and wayfinding signs need to be installed to enhance access. The NVCOG is working with the CTDOT to install wayfinding 6 CT DOL QCEW 2017, retr. July 12 th, 2018 7 Naugatuck Rive r Greenway Economic Benefits Study 191 signs on state highways and at the ends of exit ramps from Route 8 to direct travelers to NRG Trail trailheads. The NVCOG will continue to support the development of trails regionally, particularly trails that connect current and potential tourist destinations and services with population centers. Additionally, future phases of NVCOG trail development efforts will incorporate additional services at trailheads, including adequate bicycle parking and repair stations, zoning and development that expands services and destinations, and pedestrian and bicycle connections to o ff- trail amenities. Improved Access Many current and potential tourism opportunities in the region are lacking in transportation access, especially with respect to adequate parking and alternative travel mode access. Because there is a wide variety of tourist attractions throughout the region, it may not be practical to provide public transit options to all. However, many are located in the urban core areas, especially downtown Waterbury and Bristol, and both areas ar e well served by fixed route bus service. Attractions easily accessible by public transit need to be better marketed. The Naugatuck Valley region benefits from the many small, compact downtown areas that offer a wide range of cultural activities and ethni c restaurants. To leverage these attractions, actions are needed to ensure and enhance walkability in these areas. Complete streets and sustainability initiatives will help make these downtowns more attractive and desirable as destinations. The goal will b e to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motorized vehicles 9.6 Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure According to the EPA, transportation was responsible for 28.5% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2016, representing the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation. Over 90 % of the fuels used in transportation are petroleum based, mainly gasoline and diesel being burned in internal combustion engines (ICEs). ICEs emit carbon dioxide (CO 2), a major greenhouse gas, along with particulat e matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NO x) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that serve to impair air quality and can have negative health impacts to humans. Electric Vehicles (EVs) are widely seen as a way to curb these impacts by shifting away from the use of fossil fuels in motor vehicles to those that will be less impactful. 8 EVs represent several different technologies. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) have both ICEs and electric motors that provide power for locomotion. These vehicles use energy produce d by the IC engine and/or through regenerative braking systems to charge batteries that drive the electric motor. Plug -in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) have larger batteries that can be charged by plugging into the electric grid to extend range or to r educe ICE use. Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) only have electric motors powered by a battery that must be charged by plugging into the electric grid. Less established than other types of EVs are fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) which produce electri city using a chemical process that combines hydrogen and oxygen in the air 8US Environmental Protection Agency. “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, accessed 12/4/2018 at https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources -greenhouse -gas -emissions 192 in a fuel cell stack. FCEVs do not rely on combustion and produce no harmful emissions ; however, they require hydrogen fuel to operate. 9 HEVs require no spe cial infrastructure to o perate and return much better fuel efficiency compared to similar IC vehicles. PHEVs do not necessarily need special infrastructure since they have IC engines to rely on if its battery is depleted, and they can fuel up at any gas station. BEVs and FCEVs, however, do need a network of special fueling stations to operate. While BEVs can be charged at a home charging station for routine trips or commuting, publicly available electric charging stations are necessary for longer trips. There are three general t ypes of EV chargers. Level 1 chargers use a standard 120 volt AC outlet and 3 -prong plug to deliver approximately 2 -5 miles of range per hour of charging. Level 1 is good for overnight home charging and requires no special equipment or investment. Level 2 chargers deliver a charge to batteries more qui ckly, about 10 -to-20 miles of range per hour of charging, but require special 240 volt equipment and a dedicated circuit. Level 3 or DC fast charging stations can add 60 -to-80 miles of range in 20 minutes of charging; however, the se charging units are expensive and require substantial investment. 10 In order to avoid “range anxiety” or the worry that a BEV driver will be stranded with a depleted battery and no recharging option, there needs to be a robust net work of publicly available charging stations. There has been substantial work done to encourage the development and deployment of this network in Connecticut. EVConnecticut , a Department of Energy and Environmental Protection ( CT DEEP) program focusing on the expansion of EV technology in the state , has provided funding to expand the network of charging stations. The Electric Vehicle Charging Station Incentive Program has provided several rounds of funding to businesses and municipalities for the install ation of publically accessible charging stations. The program offered full reimbursement of charging equipment and installation , as long as the charger was made available to the public and was available free of charge for a period of time. The NVCOG promot ed these programs to its members, and offered assistance with grant application and installation . Despite these efforts, there were barriers to implementation. The main issue was that while the program would in most cases cover installation and equipment fees, there is substantial work involved in grant application, siting, procurement, and oversight that many municipalities simply do not have the capacity to handle. There were also questions about ongoing electric and maintenance costs associated with th e chargers, and many municipalities were uneasy with the uncertainty. The NVCOG pursued the potential for the NVCOG to request funds from DEEP for the install ation of charging stations at Waterbury b ranch line train stations . However, the proposal failed to advance because of questions about whether the host community or CTDOT would supply the electricity. The CT DOT voiced reluctan ce to be responsible for supplying electricity to the charging stations even though electrical service is currently being supplied to state -owned rail station platforms. A review of EV charger location lists compiled by CTDEEP and EPA, as well as those included on EV charger crowdsource web application SharePoint, indicate that there are currently 25 EV charging stations located in the Naugatuck Valley planning region, although not all may be accessible to all EV users because some stations are reserved for use by specific vehicle type owners. 9CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, “EVConnecticut: Electric Vehicles 101”accessed 11/14/2018 at https://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/ view.asp?a=2684&q=562482&deepNav_GID=2183 10National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US Department of Energy (2015) “Plug In Electric Vehicle Handbook for Consumers” accessed 11/30/2018 at https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/pev_consumer_handbook.pdf 193 With respect to FCEVs, t here are no known public hydr ogen fueling stations in the region or in Connecticut . FCEVs are an emerging technology with some limited adoption in southern California , where a network of hydrogen fueling stations is developing . In 2018, CTDEEP solicited applications for funding to de velop a retail hydrogen refueling station in the greater New Haven area with the goal of beginning to establish supportive infrastructure for FCEVs. Additional hydrogen fueling s tations will be needed for FCEV adoption in the region. There are additional incentives encouraging consumers to purchase EVs. The Connecticut Hydrogen and Electric Automobile Purchase Rebate (CHEAPR) offers a rebate to help offset additional costs associated with EV purchase, and there are also federal rebates available for hydrog en and EV consumers. The CT DEEP provided funding to offset the additional cost of EVs purchased for municipal fleet vehicles as well. Improving technology, extended ranges, and an expanding charging network and purchase incentives are all driving the in creased popularity of EVs in general and BEVs more specifically. Electric vehicles are increasing as a percentage of the American motor vehicle market. As battery capacity increases and longer range BEV vehicles become available and affordable, a larger portion of these vehicles will be predominantly charged at home since consumers will likely “right – size” their vehicle to confidently accommodate their daily driving needs. As more PHEVs and BEVs enter the market, however, there will be more long distance trips taken using these vehicles. There will be increased demand for additional charging infrastructure, and for that infrastructure to be located in convenient locations and have adequate capacity. More Level 3 or DC fast charge infrastructure will be needed along interstate and long -distance highway corridors, and more Level 2 or Level 3 infrastructure will be needed at destinations of long distance travel. 411 As more EVs replace IC vehicles, there will also be a shift in demand away from fossil fuel s toward the electricity grid to fuel transportation. The state of the electricity generation and delivery system in Connecticut and the Northeast has serious implications for the “cleanliness” of EVs, since EVs are only as “clean” as the electricity used to produce the electricity in the grid. It also raises questions about the overall ability to meet the increased electricity demand. The Independent System Operator (ISO) New England, Inc. operates the region’s electric power system, reporting that in 20 17, natural gas provided 48% of New England’s electric power, followed by nuclear (31%), renewables (10%), hydro (7%) and coal (<2%). 512 In the past decade, natural gas has replaced coal and oil as major contributors to electric generation and renewable en ergy production has increased, making electric generation cleaner from an emissions and greenhouse gas perspective, and EVs cleaner than ICEs. States across New England have set goals for greenhouse gas reduction by 75 -90% by 2050, including a Connecticut legislative mandate for 80% reduction from 2001 levels by 2050. These goals and Connecticut’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) carbon dioxide cap and trade program, suggest that this trend toward cleaner generation will cont inue, especially as renewable energy costs decline. 613 Large scale EV adoption will increase demand on the electric grid which may lead to supply problems or the need for increased generation capacity. “Smart charging” or “vehicle grid 11Wood, E., C. Rames, M. Muratori, S. Raghavan, M. Melania (2017) “National Plug -in Electric Vehicle Analysis”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US Department of Ene rgy. Accessed at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/69031.pdf 12ISO New England “Resource Mix” accessed 12/27/2018 at https:/ /www.iso -ne.com/about/key -stats/resource -mix/ 13CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection “Connecticut 2018 Comprehensive Energy Strategy – Electric Power Sector” accessed 12/27 at https://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/energy/ces/electric_power_sector.pdf 194 integration” (VGI) refers to a range of technologies intended to optimize charging to help minimize negative impacts that increased demand from EV charging could have on the grid. These technologies are aimed at avoidance of charging at peak demand times, and shifting to l ow demand, off -peak times. By “talking” to one another, the grid can indicate when there is more or less demand, and the EV can pause charging when it is likely to create a supply problem. Charging at off -peak times can be further encouraged by pricing incentives, with higher charges for peak charging. The overall effect will be a leveling of the electricity demand profile and a reduction in the need for more peak supply. Vehicle -to-grid (V2G) services takes this a step further by making stored energy in EV batteries available to be tapped by the grid to assist with demand spikes. V2G could be especially helpful when paired with renewable generation, since power stored in batteries is more predictably available than some forms of renewables, and renewa ble energy could be stored in EV batteries when it is available. Technology and smart planning has the potential to mitigate many of the demand issues that large scale EV adoption presents, and could actually serve to strengthen the grid. 714 Following a re commendation in Connecticut’s Comprehensive Energy Strategy that was issued in 2018, the CTDEEP is working to develop an “Electric Vehicle Roadmap for Connecticut”. This planning document will identify policies, programs and strategies that the state can use to guide future EV infrastructure development. It will also investigate the added demand that EV adoption will place on the electric grid and potential mitigation factors. DEEP will be developing the roadmap in early 2019 with an expected rollout in May of 2009. NVCOG staff will be involved by attending meetings, reviewing drafts and providing comments. The trend toward the greater use of EVs and the increased deployment and demand for charging stations will continue to be monitored as part the NVCOG ’s transportation planning process. Specifically: • Monitor the need for EV charging stations along I-84 , I-691, and Route 8. • Work with municipalities to fully utilize funding opportunities for the installation of EV Charging infrastructure and purchase of EV fleet vehicles . • Work with CT DEEP to improve grant funding delivery to better reach communities with less capacity to site and install chargers needed. • Work with CT DEEP and municipalities to properly site EV charging infrastructure. • On proj ects under the purview of NVCOG, consider the inclusion of EV charging infrastructure to any roadside or lot parking as appropriate. • Encourage the installation of EV chargers at train stations and commuter parking lots. CT DEEP recommends that 3% of all new commuter parking spaces should be EV -ready. 147Pamela MacDougall (2018) “EVs Can Do More Than Just Drive, They Can Help the Grid Too”, National Resources Defense Council. Accessed 12/27/2018 at https://www.nrdc.org/experts/pamela -macdougall/evs -can -do – more -just -drive -they -can -help -grid -too 195 10.0 Transportation Security 10.1 Transit safety and security A major concern for users and would -be -users of public transportation is their security and safety. When approached from the perspective of availab le data (FHWA, BTS, FBI) for both the risk of crashes (injury and fatality) and crime, transit is the safer choice. Crashes Looking nationwide, transit is a significantly safer mode of transportation than passenger vehicles. If only considering passengers , rail is roughly 20 times safer than passenger vehicles and a bus is nearly 60 times safer. However, buses are also responsible for a significant number of pedestrian fatalities, even so, transit as a transportation mode remains nearly twice as safe as pa ssenger cars. Additionally, empirical evidence shows that these safety statistics improve (for users and non – users alike) the higher the proportion of the population that uses transit. As has been noted elsewhere in this plan, the rate of transportation re lated fatalities is on the rise nationwide. But, in cities where public transit has been on the rise, the trend has been mitigated or reversed. Crime Risk and Security The security of passengers waiting at a rail station or walking between the station and parking area is an important issue. Broadly, transit has lower overall associated crime risk than the use of passenger vehicles. While it is true that transit serves low income communities, which are correlated with increased risk of certain crimes, crime statistics indicate that overall, transit users have lower exposure to risk. At transit stations, regardless of neighborhood, the large number of people circulating in the vicinity leads to better security for the individual. The risk of crime when using t ransit comes from the solitary journey to and from the station or while waiting at a deserted location. However, these risks are outweighed by risks of vandalism or assault operators of passenger vehicles experience in parking facilities. Studies suggest t hat better access to quality transit can also lower crime rates. Because public transportation improves access to economic activities and jobs, especially for low -income residents who are unable to drive, it therefore lowers the chance of offending for ind ividuals who may be at risk of criminal activity. To ensure the security of their riders, each transit operator within the region is taking steps to prevent or mitigate risk on their vehicles and stations. CTtransit promotes the See Something, Say Somethi ng campaign, a program meant to benefit from many daily users being able to recognize something that is suspicious. The slogan was created by an advertising agency hired by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. CTtransit On their web site, CTtransit urges ride rs: Stay alert around buses, trains, bridges and roadways. If something doesn't look right, tell the nearest authority or transit employee. Bags, boxes or other packages left unattended on buses and trains, in stations or on train tracks. • People entering unauthorized areas at train or bus stations. 196 • Exposed wiring, leaks, strange smells or other signs of potential tampering on buses and trains. • People videotaping, sketching or taking notes on transit equipment or facilities. • Placing a package or luggage in a different compartment than the one being occupied. • People who stay at bus or train stations for long periods without getting on. For security on the buses, the CTtransit has video recording devises onboard all of its full sized buses and para -transit vans in case of an incident. Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority The Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority provides security information on their web site, including an entire section on Safety and Secu rity . Like CTtransit, the site includes information about See Something, Say Something , but also includes safety information for riders regarding safe behavior traveling to and from a bus stop. For security on the buses, the GBT has video recording devises onboard in case of an incident. Valley Transit District The Valley Transit District is currently in the process of upgrading its fleets of paratransit vehicles. The new vehicles will all be equipped with security cameras. Metro North On their web site, t he MTA provides information regarding on -board train emergencies, including emergency and evacuation instructions and safety information regarding at grade crossings. To ensure rider security, there are currently many monitoring and security features employed along the passenger rail line. Security officers are present at the major stations. Video cameras are installed along the platforms and parking lot at the Waterbur y station to monitor activity. While o ngoing work to improve security include the installation of cameras at stations and bridges along the New Haven Line, these systems need to be installed at the rail stations along the branch lines in the region. Looki ng to the future, additional steps can be taken to ensure the security of transit users. Transportation Emergency and Personal Security (TEPS) System The proposed TEPS system supports development of enhanced emergency and law enforcement response activit ies to provide increased safety for transit patrons, both while on -board vehicles and at waiting areas. The system involves installation of security surveillance and monitoring equipment (CCTV video cameras) and emergency phones and aid call boxes on rail station platforms, at commuter parking facilities, and along pedestrian walkways. On -board vehicle systems include video surveillance and silent alarms. It would integrate various security and surveillance equipment into a seamless emergency detection and response system for transit travelers. The proposed TEPS system would be integrated with other emergency management and homeland security projects. Several components have been implemented at the Bridgeport bus terminal and rail station, including emergenc y aid call boxes and video surveillance. TEPS elements include: • Security offices – On -site offices in the bus terminal and rail station for enhanced incident and emergency detection and response; 197 • Institutional agreements – Agreements to establish the rol es and responsibilities of each participating transit operator and law enforcement agency; • Closed -circuit television, video cameras – Video cameras at critical areas; • Emergency phones and aid call -boxes – Call boxes located at critical areas and along primary walkways; • On -board transit vehicle surveillance – Silent alarms and video monitoring to allow transit security personnel to assess the incident, determine appropriate response and acknowledge the incident. Facility security Facility security address es surveillance and sensor monitoring of transit stations, stops, facilities, infrastructure, and vehicles. The surveillance includes both video and audio surveillance. The sensor monitoring includes threat sensors, such as chemical agent, toxic industrial chemical, biological, explosives, thermal, acoustic and radiological sensors, object detection sensors, motion or intrusion detection sensors, and infrastructure integrity sensors. It also includes analysis of sensor or surveillance outputs for possible t hreats and need for response. Interfaces with the appropriate security agency, either in -house or public safety agency, are specified. These ITS systems support traveler or transit vehicle operator initiated alarms and allow the transit agency to respond t o an on -board incident. The systems are also capable of providing emergency information to travelers using the transit system by visual (signs) or audio messages on -board the transit vehicle, at transit stops, or in transit facilities. Several of these dev ices have been deployed in the Greater Bridgeport planning region, primarily at the downtown Bridgeport bus terminal and rail station. These devices include emergency aid call boxes, security video cameras, voice annunciating systems and variable message s igns. Safety and security actions: • Continue to promote public transit and dense transit supported development to improve safety and security. • Continue to fund the installation and upgrading of current infrastructure to meet safety and security needs. 10.2 Emergency Response Planning Emergency Response Planning in the NVCOG region In the scope of this plan, a discussion of transportation security extends to minimizing and responding to disruptions of the regional transportation system, and more specific ally the quick, safe and efficient response to emergency situations (i.e. traffic incidents ) on major expressways. The NVCOG role in the State of Connecticut emergency management is to foster collaborative planning by providing resource information between local communities and State agencies. The State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) partners with State agencies and Non -Governmental organizations to coordinate emergency preparedness and response activities. T he purpose of this collaboration is to support local governments and their residents in responding to disasters and emergencies. The NVCOG is one such DEMHS regional emergency management partner. Documents which guide emergency response coordination in the State of Connecticut include: • State of Connecticut State Response Framework Version 4.1 198 • Traffic Diversion Plan for I -84 and Parts of US Route 7 and CT Route 8 (2011) • Unified Response Manual (2008) • REPT Regional Emergency Support Plan (RESP) for regions 2, 3 and 5 As a partner of both CTDOT and DEMHS, the NVCOG has contributed to traffic incident management in the following ways: • Collaborated with regional agencies to develop emergency diversion plans for major expressways in DEMHS Region 5 and portions of Regions 2 and 3 (link to NVCOG website) to equip and guide state and local emergency responders before, during and after emergency situations. • Trained on the Regional Evacuation and Shelter Plan activation and implementation. • Trained on National Incident Management system (NIMS)/Incident Command System (ICS) protocols. • Participated, as determined, in disaster exercise drills. • Trained on the Regional Response Coordination Center (RCC) setup, on the regional emergency communications system setup, and on the coordination function of Transportation, RESF 1 procedures. Regional Emergency Planning Teams (REPT) and Emergency Support Functions (ESF) Regional emergency partners are organized into Regional Emergency Planning Teams (REPT). There are five REPT emergen cy planning regions in the State of Connecticut which are overseen by The State of Connecticut Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP). Within each REPT regional r esource coordination is developed through regional emergency support functions. Emergency support functions (ESF) are discipline oriented working groups standardized across the CT emergency management community. Each REPT has ESF’s and a Regional E mergency Support Plan (RESP) which assist all levels of government to work in a coordinated and standardized manner. 199 REPT Regions The NVCOG members are located across three regions of DEMHS’ Regional Emergency Planning Teams (REPT), namely regions 2, 3 and 5. Th e NVCOG participates in these REPT regions and the ESF 1 working group which addresses transportation issues. The purpose of Transportation, ESF 1 is to develop and implement a system of resources and response capabilities that facilitates communication an d coordination among regional jurisdictions and agencies concerning transportation issues and activities during a major disaster, including natural and human -made, in the Region 5 area. Traffic incident management is one such transportation issue. Traffic Incident Management Infrastructure and Diversion Routes The State of CT DEMHS and CT DOT collaborate on traffic incident management. Traffic Incident Management Infrastructure is maintained by CT DOT and includes traffic cameras, Variable Message Signs (VM S), and a Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) system that can be employed during emergency situations. In addition, the Connecticut Highway Assistance Monitoring Patrol (CHAMP), which is a road service patrol operated by the CTDOT, offers emergency service to mot orists along major highways in the state. Within the NVCOG region, there are four (4) VMS located on I -84, and another four (4) located along Route 8. The DEMHS has provided a framework for agencies to respond to traffic incidents, which is described in the Unified Response Manual (URM) last published in 2008. As per the URM, the NVCOG’s role in incident management is the dissemination of information regarding diversion routes and lessons learned from past traffic incidents. Through the ESF 1 Transportation group , NV COG has overseen the development of diversion and evacuation routes. The most recent diversion routes for REPT 5 were devised in 2011 by the 200 Central Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (COGCNV). The NVCOG will collaborate with REPT regions 2, 3 and 5 and their associated COG’s to review and revise the 2011 diversion routes. Actions • Expand state Incident Management Systems to include entire length of Route 8; includes 24 -hour monitoring, video surveillance, variable message signs & incident detection, Source: NHPP, Amount: $7,200,000 in Years 1 to 4 10.3 Natural Hazards, Transportation Resiliency and Climate Change The FHWA defines resilience or resiliency as "the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to chan ging conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions." 115 Following passage of the FAST Act, the FHWA and FTA updated the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning regulations to reflect new requirements regarding resilie nce planning. The transportation planning rule includes: • A new planning factor for states and MPOs to consider and implement as part of the transportation planning process. The new planning factor reads: “ improve the resiliency and reliability of the trans portation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation ” (23 CFR 450.206(a)(9) and 23 CFR 450.306(b)(9)). • A recommendation for MPOs to consult with agencies and officials responsible for natural disaster risk reduction when dev eloping a metropolitan transportation plan and the transportation improvement program (23 CFR 450.316(b)). • A requirement that the metropolitan transportation plan assess capital investment and other strategies that reduce the vulnerability of the existing transportation infrastructure to natural disasters (23 CFR 450.324(g)(7)). 16 To address these requirements, the metropolitan transportation plan for the NVCOG planning region and the Central Naugatuck Valley metropolitan planning area includes an assessment of the vulnerability of the region’s transportation facilities and systems to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather. The MTP recommend ways to improve transportation system resiliency in the future. Natural hazard mitigation plans have been prepared for all of municipalities in the region and the CT DEEP has developed the Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. These plans explain that the region may potentially be impacted by flooding, hurricanes and tropical storms, summer storms and to rnadoes, winter storms and nor’easters, earthquakes, dam failures, wildfires, and landslides. All of these natural hazards have the potential to adversely impact transportation networks, transit reliability, and safety. The largest and most frequently occ urring threats to the transportation system are likely from flooding due to heavy rainfall and/or snowmelt, heavy snowfall or icing conditions associated with winter storms, fallen trees from high winds, and long term power outages. The Naugatuck Valley p lanning region is most vulnerable to the impacts from inland flooding. Flooding impacts transportation networks in the short term, by disrupting traffic flow in inundated 15 Federal Highway Administration. January 2017. “Resilience and Transportation Planning”. Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/. 16Federal H ighway Administration. December 2014. "FHWA Order 5520." Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/5520.cfm#par6 . 201 areas, and in the long term when flooding causes damage to infrastructure through ero sion or washouts. The area was devastated by severe flooding of Naugatuck River in August of 1955 from the unusual occurrence of two named hurricanes, Connie and Diane, passing within proximity of Connecticut within nine days. While neither storm directly struck Connecticut, their combined impact was immense. Hurricane Connie produced four -to-six inches of rain across southern New England. The rain saturated the ground and caused river and reservoir water levels to be well above normal. When Hurricane Dian e hit the area later the same month, the ground was unable to absorb the additional rain and the rivers and lakes were already above flood stage. Over the two -day period, up to 20 inches of rain fell in parts of New England. This resulted in arguably the m ost devastating inland floods to ever hit the state. The heavily industrial and commercial areas bordering the Naugatuck River in Waterbury experienced flooding at the first or second story levels. The damage was estimated to have exceeded 1.5 billion doll ars (1955 dollars). Subsequent to this flood event, six flood control dams were built in the region along the Naugatuck River and tributaries by the Army Corps of Engineers. These dams include Northfield Brook, Black Rock and Thomaston Dams in the town of Thomaston, Hop Brook Lake Dam in Middlebury and Hancock Brook Lake Dam in Plymouth, to protect flood prone town centers. In addition, a series of flood control walls and levees were constructed to help protect Ansonia and Derby, and channel improvements, floodwall and protective dike were built within Waterbury. The areas along the Housatonic River do not have the same level of protection and significant flooding has not occurred in recent years. There are two major types of flooding that can impact the r egion: • Coastal flooding as a result of a storm surge, • Inland flooding as a result of heavy precipitation or snowmelt. The Naugatuck Valley region is located in west -central Connecticut with its southern most point about 7.5 miles from Long Island Sound. This location makes the region less vulnerable to a damaging storm surge and coastal flooding. There is only one area in the region where coastal flooding could potentially be an issue. Parts of the Housatonic and Naugatuck Rivers in Shelton and Derby are tidal and could be impacted by storm surge from coastal storms. During a Category 1 Hurricane, the storm surge could impact the southern tip of Derby along the Naugatuck River. O’Sullivan’s Island is located in this area and would be inundated by three -to-nine feet of water. Two transportation facilities pass through the area impacted by a potential Category 1 storm surge: • The Waterbury branch rail line, including a rail bridge over the Naugatuck River. • Route 34 Bridge over the Naugatuck River. In both i nstances, the facilities are elevated above the maximum flood stage. During a Category 2 Hurricane, the storm surge would spread to inundate the area south of Downtown Derby and low lying areas between the Naugatuck River and Route 8 and west of Route 8. I n this scenario, narrow strips of land along the west bank of the Housatonic River in Shelton would be affected. While Route 8 passes through the storm surge area, it is elevated above the peak surge height. However, it is likely that a short section of Ro ute 34 would be flooded by this event. In addition, it is likely that the WBL would be flooded along its stretch from Route 34 and Division Street. The Derby -Shelton rail station and the Valley Transit District administrative offices, garage and maintenanc e facility are located in the area. 202 Under the Category 3 and 4 Hurricane conditions, the impacted areas spread farther inland and have the potential for more extensive flooding. Either strength storm would cause greater impact to the WBL and various state and local roads. The Ansonia rail station could potentially be flooded by these events. While the storm surge maps indicate that the transportation facilities mentioned above could be vulnerable to flooding from intense hurricanes, flood control walls have been installed to protect low lying areas. The surge produced by these events would not be high enough to over -top the walls that are in place. Inland flooding is more widespread and has a greater potential to impact transportation facilities in the regio n. A review of the municipal hazard mitigation plans found several instances in the region where state routes or regional transportation infrastructure would be impacted in the case of a natural disaster, see the following table . Most of the areas of repe ated local flooding are a result of low lying roadways or undersized storm drainage systems or culverts. Town Road/ Route Location Hazard Comments Recommendations Beacon Falls Route 42 At Blackberry Hill Road Flooding Closed due to flooding twice since 2007 Increase the conveyance capacity of the culvert for Hockanum Brook near Route 42 & Blackberry Hill Road Beacon Falls Route 42 Near Oxford and Bethany Town Lines Wind Trees down and blocking traffic during wind events Develop a plan to address potential wind damage due to excessive pine trees located along Route 42 Beacon Falls Beacon Valley Road Bridges Flooding Town considering armoring Evaluate the feasibility of armoring the bridge on Beacon Valley Road to limit structural damage during storm events. Bethlehem Route 132 Near Long Horizon Road and Sky Meadow Road Flooding Occasional Flooding from Fire Pond Encourage the State DOT to elevate Route 132 between Lakes Road and Sky Meadow Lane, or to widen the stream a nd install a box culvert Cheshire Blacks Road Bridge over Honeypot Brook Flooding Undersized Culvert Increase the conveyance capacity of the bridge over Honeypot Brook at Blacks Road Naugatuck Route 68 Multiple Flooding Fulling Mill Brook has flooded Route 203 68 during heavy rain Naugatuck Route 68 Bridge over Hop Brook Flooding "Crown Spring Bridge" has recurring problems with flooding If necessary, increase conveyance of Crown Spring Bridge over Hop Brook at Bridge Stree t Naugatuck Beacon Valley Road Beacon Falls Town Line Flooding Becomes flooded during major rainfall events Oxford Route 67 Various Flooding Flooding has occurred at various places along Route 67 from Little River and tributaries Pursue funding to complete flood mitigation projects along the Little River Oxford Route 34 Vicinity of "under the Rocks Park" Flooding Housatonic River Prospect Clark Hill Road Rt 68 at Clark Hill Road Flooding Raudis Pond overtopped, causing stormwater back -up downstream along Rt 68 Prospect Route 68 Rt 68 at Plank Road Flooding Flooding occurs 2 -3 times per year due to undersized culvert Prospect Plank Road Plank Road at Mountain Brook Flooding Culvert for Mountain Brook is undersized Prospect Salem Road Salem Road at Pondview Drive Flooding Flooding reachese four septic fields near CT Water 204 Company Lands Prospect Route 68 Rt 68 at Chatfield Road Dam Failure Cheshire Reservoir dam a high hazard dam, failure would inundate Rt 68 to Plank Rd, could cause additional failure at Mixville Pond Dam, with possible damage to critical facilities Prospect Route 69 Rt. 69 at Turkey Hill Brook Dam Failure Waterbury Reservoir Dam #2 a high hazard dam, failure would inundate Rt. 69 to depth of 8 feet, could impact Reidville Drive in Waterbury downstream Southbury Route 172 Route 172 at Horse Fence Hill Rd Flooding Extensive flooding has occured causing road closure along Pomperaug River Southbury Flood Bridge Road Flood Bridge Road at Pomperaug River Flooding Extensive flooding has occured causing road closure along 205 Pomperaug River Southbury East Flat Hill Road East Flat Hill Road at Pomperaug River Flooding Extensive flooding has occured causing road closure along Pomperaug River Southbury River Road River Road along Housatonic River Dam Failure Shepaug Dam would inundate River Road, Manor Drive, and Pomperaug Trail Thomaston Hickory Hill Road Hickory Hill Road at Peck Hollow Flooding Flooding has occured at west end of Peck Hollow due to poor drainage Implement road reconstruction through LOTCIP program Thomaston Route 6 Branch Brook Flooding Water backs up at an undersized culvert toward Stumpf Avenue Continue working with DOT to install appropriate culvert Waterbury Bank Street Near Fifth Ave and Congress St Flooding High slopes, one -way streets, and multiple flooding occurrences per year Waterbury East Main Street Near Fairlawn Ave Flooding Catch basins insufficient to handle parking lot runoff Waterbury Grandview Ave Throughout Flooding Insufficient drainage causes 206 overflows and erosion Waterbury Grove Street at Little River culvert Flooding washed out due to clogging of Little River Culvert Waterbury West Main Street near Douglas Ave and Park Road Flooding Insufficient drainage cuasing repeptitive flooding at St. Mary's Medicine Watertown Route 6 Intersection at Route 63 Flooding Poor drainage Watertown Sylvan Lake Road Steele Brook Corridor Flooding Water overtops dam, causing road closure and inundation of private properties Wolcott Mad River Road at Route 69 Flooding Bridge is undersized, multiple flooding events documented Still needed, lack of funding Woodbury Transylvan ia Road length of Transylvania Road from Rt 317 to Rt 67 Flooding Road is low in elevation and may be sinking Identified as high priority, not carried out due to lack of funding Much of the existing infrastructure in the region was built during the post -war era. Stormwater systems and waterway conveyances were in most cases designed using now outdated rainfall data. Until 2015, the US Weather Bureau’s Technical Paper Number 40, p ublished in 1961, was cited in the CT DOT Drainage Manual as the required rainfall event figures to use in the design of drainage systems and conveyances. Technical Paper 40 used rainfall data collected between 1938 and 1958, and assumed that rainfall amo unts and the rate of extreme rainfall events, in particular, do not change over time. It is now understood that rainfall amounts and rates have increased and will continue to change as a result of climate change. In the future, the northeast region is li kely 207 to witness more frequent h eat waves, coastal flooding, and river and stream flooding that will pose a growing challenge to the region’s infrastructure. Between 1958 and 2010, the amount of precipitation delivered in very heavy events (the heaviest 1% of all daily events) rose by 70%. This trend is expected to continue, with precipitation delivered in more frequent intense precipitation events 317. Rainfall amounts overall are also changing, with annual rainfall increasing nearly one inch per decade since the turn of the 20 th century 18. In response to these trends, the Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS) released updated precipitation frequency estimates for the Northeastern States including Connecticut, the NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation frequency estimates. CT DOT adopted these new estimates into the Drainage Design Manual in November of 2015. Increased rainfall and rainfall intensity likely represent th e greatest climate threat to the region’s transportation infrastructure. Thousands of culverts in the region carry waterways under roads and rails. Since many of them were designed to handle lesser historic flows, they may be undersized to handle current and future flows. Overwhelmed culverts and bridges can cause flooding, erosion, and roadway and rail washouts, directly impacting the transportation network. Ideally, as infrastructure is improved or replaced, replacement infrastructure will be properly sized to handle additional expected flows. Properly sized and designed culverts provide the added benefit of allowing fish and animal passage, and may reduce road casualties of amphibians and other small animals. Common recommendations in many of the regi on’s municipal Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans are to assess the adequacy of stormwater infrastructure and culverts in context of new rainfall figures to determine locations of potential hazards and to prioritize future replacement and upgrades. Some towns have begun doing so. For example, the Housatonic Valley Association (HVA) has been assessing culverts in several towns across the Housatonic River watershed, including two; Seymour and Oxford, within the Region. The HVA is a nonprofit organization working on natural resources issues and conservation in the Housatonic River Watershed including much of the NVCOG region. Initial results from their study indicate that of the structures studied to date, over a quarter (27% ) of non –bridge structures would fail (water would flow over roadway) in a 25 -year recurrence interval flood. These assessments will be used to help communities identify their highest priority culvert replacement projects based on flood risk and conserva tion value and encourage adoption of culvert design best management practices. Actions • Assess existing infrastructure for risk using the new rainfall NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation frequency estimates. • Continually assess impact from changing flood risk areas. • Encourage municipalities to prioritize replacement of deficient structures. 17 Horton, R., G. Yohe, W. East erling, R. Kates, M. Ruth, E. Sussman, A. Whelchel, D. Wolfe, and F. Lipschultz, 2014: Ch. 16: Northeast. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 16 -1-nn. 18 Miller, D. R., Warner, G. S., Ogden, F. L., & DeGaetano, A. T. (2002). Precipitation in Connecticut. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 208 • Ensure that projects under purview of NVCOG use the most up to date rainfall frequency figures when designing structures ( NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation frequency estimates ). • Ensure that new transportation investment is not made in areas that may be at risk of flooding or other natural hazards. 209 11.0 Advanced Technologies Advanced technologies have the potential to make the region’s transportation system operate more efficiently and safely and provide more information to travelers. In the previous MTP , the consideration of advanced systems focus exclusively on Intelligent T ransportation Systems (ITS) . There was no mention of the advent of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies and what effect their introduction would have on how people and goods are moved. In recent years, most automobile manufacturers offer a range of driver assistance devices that help drivers avoid collisions. The key feature of these systems is the driver remains in control. The evolution of technology to operate a vehicle and take control from the driver is accelerating. Fully automated cars and trucks that drive themselves is likely to be a reality over the timeframe of this transportation plan. At the same time, wireless communication is increasing the ability to exchange information between vehicles and to and from road side devices. As inter -vehicle communication advances, drivers will become better informed about their surroundings and the position of nearby vehicles. The goals of these advanced technologies are to make travel safer and reduce the number of crashes. They also have the potenti al of reducing congestion. 11 .1 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ITS refers to using advanced technologies to better manage and operate transportation systems. It is defined as: “the application of advanced sensor, computer, electronics, and comm unication technologies and management strategies — in an integrated manner — to improve the safety and efficiency of the surface transportation system”. These advanced systems include computer hardware or software, traffic control devices, communicati ons links , and remote detectors. The intent is to realize a more seamless transportation system with reduced delays and conflicts and increased systems integration, interoperability and c ommunication. ITS projects need to be consistent with the National ITS Archite cture and must satisfy a defined set of user services defined by FHWA. The National ITS Architecture defines eight broad service areas: • Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS): These systems include: CCTV cameras, computerized traffic signal systems, d ynamic message signs, highway advisory radio, and traffic incident management systems. • Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS): These systems include: Computer aided dispatch (CAD), automatic vehicle location (AVL), automated payment systems, transit signal priority, and fare technology. • Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS): These systems include: Traveler information websites, 511 travel information call centers. • Emergency Management (EM): These systems include: Service patrols, infrastructu re protection, and disaster response and recovery. • Maintenance and Construction Management (CM): These systems include: Vehicle and equipment GPS, route deployment, road weather information systems (RWIS), work zone management and safety management. 210 • Archived Data Management (ADM): These systems include: Data warehouses and ITS databases. • Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO): These systems include: Roadside enforcement, automated roadside safety inspection, weigh -in-motion technology, vehicle electronic clearance, and on -board safety and security monitoring. • Advanced Vehicle Safety Systems (AVSS): The se systems include: Intersection, longitudinal and lateral collision avoidance, vehicle safety monitoring, automated vehicle operations, and vision enhancement systems. Through the application of ITS , travel conditions can be determined more quickly, traf fic controls can automatically respond to changing traffic conditions, and real -time information can be disseminated. In order to realize these benefits, ITS must be fully incorporated into the surface transportation network and work together to deliver tr ansportation services. In other words, ITS must be “mainstreamed” into the overall transportation planning and project development processes that exist in the state and region. To accomplish this “mainstreaming” the development and deployment of ITS actio ns must be advanced through the existing transportation planning process in the region. The transportation planning process is an ongoing, iterative process, with the goal to make quality, informed decisions pertaining to the investment of public funds for regional transportation systems and services. The National ITS Architecture provides a common structure for the design of intelligent transportation systems and a framework around which multiple design approaches can be developed, each one specifically tailored to meet the individual needs of the user, while maintaining the benefits of a common architecture. It is a mature product that reflects the contributions of a broad cross -section of the ITS community (transportation practitioners, systems engineer s, system developers, technology specialists, consultants, etc.). The architecture is functionally oriented not technology specific. It defines what needs to done (functions) as opposed to how it will be done (technology). In this way, the architecture can remain valid and current even as technology changes The architecture defines the following elements : • The functions – gather traffic information or request a route – that are required for ITS . • The physical entities or subsystems where these functions res ide – the field , roadside or vehicle. • The information flows and data flows that connect these functions and physical subsystems together into an integrated system. The intent of developing and deploying intelligent transportation systems is to realize a more “seamless” transportation system with reduced traveler delays , quicker response to highway incidents, better traveler information, enhanced and more efficient transit operations, and improved safety and reduced number of crashes. Integration of these services and seamless communication among operators offers the opportunity of increased traveler efficiency and better management of transportation resources. In the Naugatuck Valley planning region, ITS projects conform to the state architecture and focus on three broad areas: 211 • Freeway Incident Management : The CTDOT operates 24 -hour incident management centers in Bridgeport and Newington. The program includes monitoring of traffic and detection of incidents along I-95, I -91 and I -84. The program needs to be expanded to include coverage along Route 8 through the region. The project would include the installation of video cameras along the highway and speed detectors to monitoring operations and identify incidents. Including Route 8 in the state’s incident m anagement system will reduce response time when an incident occur and reduce congestion and delay caused by an incident. • Enhanced Highway Corridor Operations : The proposed program would integrate existing and planned traffic control devices to enhance and coordinate arterial traffic control systems. The intent will be to monitor traffic operations and institute timing changes in response to traffic conditions in real time. The system may also provide transit signal priority. • Real Time Traveler Information System : The proposed system would provide information to transit travelers on vehicle location, schedule adherence, and delays. The project would install and interactive information kiosks dynamic message signs at the region’s commuter rail stations. Thr ough the transportation planning process, transportation concerns and issues facing the region have been identified. The primary goals of the metropolitan transportation plan are to enhance mobility, provide and maintain an efficient multi -modal transporta tion system that facilitates the movement of people and goods, and minimizing adverse social, economic and environmental impacts. The goals of the MTP remain consistent with past 11 .2 Autonom ous V ehicles Autonomous vehicles or AVs refer to vehicles that have been mounted with a variety of sensors, cameras and other sensing devices to allow the vehicle operate with varying degrees of autonomy and driver control. The deployment of AVs is increasing in popularity and many communities are lookin g at operating AVs. However, since they rely on the ability of sensors and cameras to detect and recognize the road environment, weather, poor road condition and lines of sight have impacted AVs capabilities to move safely and correctly. The transition fro m driver control to vehicle control has been defined by six levels of automation by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), ranging from no automation (Level 0) to full automation (Level 5): 212 SAE Levels of Automation Level 0 The human driver does all t he driving Level 1 An advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) on the vehicle can sometimes assist the human driver with either steering or braking/accelerating, but not both simultaneously. Level 2 An advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) on the vehicle can itself actually control both steering and braking/accelerating simultaneously under some circumstances. The human driver must continue to pay full attention (“monitor the driving environment”) at all times and perform the rest of the driving t ask. Level 3 An Automated Driving System (ADS) on the vehicle can itself perform all aspects of the driving task under some circumstances. In those circumstances, the human driver must be ready to take back control at any time when the ADS requests the human driver to do so. In all other circumstances, the human driver performs the driving task. Level 4 An Automated Driving System (ADS) on the vehicle can itself perform all driving tasks and monitor the driving environment – essentially, do all the driving – in certain circumstances. The human need not pay attention in those circumstances. Level 5 An Automated Driving System (ADS) on the vehicle can do all the driving in all circumstances. The human occupants are just passe ngers and need never be involved in driving. Source: National Highway Safety Traffic Safety Administration, https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology -innovation/automated -vehicles -safety#issue – road -self -driving While the AV technology is advancing, acceptance of US drivers will be critical to deployment. A recent survey by the American Automobile Association (December 2017) indicated 63% of US drivers would be afraid to ride in a fully automated vehicle . T his is down from the 78% mark for 213 the same question from an earl ier survey, but it suggests acceptance has a ways to go. The AAA survey also determined that safety and reliability are the greatest concern about AVs . Education will be critical to increasing AV acc eptance. Motorists, passengers and those sharing the road with an autonomous vehicle must be confident that the technology works and is not prone to errors. In order to achieve the level of trustworthiness needed to ensure acceptance, there must be truth i n advertising – the sensors must work according to manufacturer claims, transparency and standardization of terminology. Currently, AV technology is being developed along two, somewhat, separate paths: • Private ownership • Shared mobility The approach based o n private vehicle ownership is being driven by the auto industry. These companies are developing and offering driver assistance equipment as options on generally higher end vehicles. Examples include: • Crossing traffic warning rear and front • Night vision • La teral parking aid • Distance information • Land departure warning • Wrong way assist • Lane changing warning • Approach control warning with braking function • Speed limit and No Pass information • Parking assistant – Active park distance control and remote control park ing • Steering and lane control assistant • Active cruise control with Stop&Go function • Rear collision prevention These features are intended to aid the driver and are based on the assumption that the driver remains in control. The other AV development and de ployment path involves technology companies and “ride hailing companies” (also referred to as Transportation Network Companies or TNCs). Technology companies, such as Google, and TNCs, such as Uber and Lyft, are working towards developing driverless vehicl es that enhance their businesses. Instead of a private person owning the AV, a company owns a fleet of autonomous vehicles that are shared by many. They would provide on -demand service. 214 Regardless of which path AV advancement and deployment follows, there are likely to be impacts to the transportation system and how transportation improvement plans are developed. There are numerous benefits to AV technology. Improving road safety is the paramount expected benefit from AV technology. Roughly 94% of serious c rashes (NHTSA) are due to human error. Driver assistance features that warn drivers about the vehicles position relative to other vehicles have the potential to greatly reduce human error from the crash equation and, thereby, greatly reducing the number an d severity of vehicle collisions. Other often cited benefits are: • Enhanced mobility – increased deployment of fully automated vehicles will provide new mobility options to persons that are unable to drive, either due to age or disability. • Economic – vehic le crashes cost billions of dollars in economic activity, productivity, loss of life and decreased quality of life due to injuries. • Congestion – vehicles equipped with AV features will result in smoother traffic flows, thereby, reducing impedance and conge stion. Conversely, the potential exists for consequences from the proliferation of AVs. While reduced congestion is perceived as a possible benefit, d eployment of AV fleets could potentially clog streets travelling while waiting for a call for a ride, espe cially in urban/downtown areas. A concern of AVs is the potential impact on transit services. As AVs deployed by TNCs increases, bus ridership may decline. The TNC AV fleet would provide on -demand, point -to-point service, as opposed to fixed -route service offered by public transit. Riders would no longer be captive to a bus schedule, long headway and set route. In this scenario, one bus would be replaced by multiple vehicles with disperse boarding and alighting stops. As shown in the illustrations below, the photo on the left depicts a typical urban street served by a bus route, whereas the one on the right illustrates the AV fleet deployment 215 However, in the future public transit and TNCs may be able to partner for mutual benefit. The AV fleets could help solve the “first mile/last mile” problem and fill gaps in regular bus service, especially on weekends and late night hours. In addition, advancements in autonomous technology could result in driverless buses that co uld help reduce costs to operate services or encourage smaller transit vehicles, operated more frequently. The potential impact on land use decisions is also uncertain at this time. The deployment of fully automated vehicles may spur interest in denser, mi xed use urban centers where a substantial portion of the fleet will be shared. Or, because of the ease of driving and ability to perform other activities instead of driving, interest in development in auto -dependent suburban areas may increase. To help det ermine which outcome is more likely, many cities and states, including Connecticut, are developing and implementing pilot programs to test AVs. Some of these pilots are testing multi -passenger vehicles or shuttles, while others are requesting vendor propos als to demonstrate the capabilities of individual vehicles. These pilot projects are demonstrating that AV technology can perform as expected, even under more adverse weather conditions. However, these systems rely on sensors, radar and cameras to keep the AV in the correct alignment and path. A key factor to success is the maintenance of pavement markings (line striping), signage, road surface and signals. 11.3 Connected Vehicles Connected vehicles or CVs rely on wireless communications between vehicles o r to and from a vehicle and roadside infrastructure. The communication links provide valuable and timely information to the vehicle regarding the position of other vehicles as well as the status of road 216 devices, such as traffic signals, or roadway conditio ns. Whereas an AV operates in isolation from other vehicles using its internal sensors, CVs communicate with nearby vehicles and infrastructure. For AVs, it is what the vehicle can see, for CVs, it is what the vehicle can hear. When discussing connected v ehicle technologies, how the vehicles communicate with the world around them is fundamental. Vehicle communications fall under five categories: • Vehicle -to-Vehicle – V2V • Vehicle -to-Cloud – V2C • Vehicle -to-Infrastructure – V2I • Vehicle -to-Anything – V2X • Vehic le-to-Pedestrian – V2P When connected to other vehicles, the communications is referred to as “Vehicle -to-Vehicle” or V2V. This type of connectivity works whenever similarly equipped vehicles encounter one another and is currently being experimented on hi ghways throughout the nation . An advantage of V2V technologies is that they can be implemented with no change to the current roadway. Vehicle -to-Cloud or V2C involves the transmission of information from a vehicle to a cloud -based server that then communi cates the information to another vehicle. Coordinated Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) offers a good example of a V2C technology. Currently, this technology is only being tested in good weather on expressways with minimal vertical and horizontal curves. This systems involves t wo or more vehicles connect ed to a cloud -based server and allow s the vehicles to find each other on the highway and connect i n route. The CACC technologies then help the vehicles synchronize their speeds to create a platoon. The lead veh icle broadcasts its actions to all trailing vehicles using V2V communications. Similarly, trailing vehicles broadcast their information to the other vehicles in the platoon. Communications with roadside devices is referred to as “Vehicle -to-Infrastructure ” or V2I. These systems work where roadside units have been installed. The flow of information is bi -direction al and is typically handled by Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) frequency. DSRC is a broadcast mode on a dedicated frequency or channel. The range is short, typically about 900 feet, but provides fast and reliable communications with minimal delay. DSRC can be deployed relatively easily; it is a mature, proven and stable technology. However, the installation of devices to receive and transmit information to and from the vehicle is the responsibility of auto manufacturers and state and local agencies are responsible for installing the road side infrastructure. An example of V2I systems that is being deployed and tested involves communications between vehicles and traffic signal systems. The status of the signal is transmitted to vehicles and allows the vehicle to adjust speed as it approaches the intersection. The intent is to reduce the number of complete stops and improve the traffic flow along the interconnected corridor. Road side infrastructure can also be installed that provide weather and road condition reports. This permits the vehicle to adjust its movemen t accordingly. 217 Wireless communications, currently via 4G, are also being developed that rely on smartphone apps to connect roadside units and on board units to pedestrians; Vehicle -to-Pedestrian or V2P communication. It is a non -broadcast mode with unlimi ted range, with communications processed through a server. These systems can inform vehicles of the pedestrian’s presence and location, as well as, transmit a request to activate the pedestrian phase and signal as the pedestrian approaches the intersection . As with AVs, the primary goal of CV deployment is improved road safety and driver behavior: • V2V Safety Applications: o Communicating Radar Cruise Control o Forward Collision Warning o Emergency Electronic Brake Light o Blind Spot Warning o Lane Change Warning/As sist o Intersection Movement Assist o Vehicle Turning Right in Front of Bus Warning • V2I Safety Applications: o Traffic Signal Change Advisory o Right Turn Collision Caution o Red Light Violation Warning o Speed Compliance o Curve Speed Compliance o Speed Compliance in Work Zone 218 o Oversize Vehicle Compliance – Prohibited Facilities (Parkways); Over Height warning o Pedestrian in Crosswalk o Pedestrian Signal o Emergency Communications and Evacuation Information As more and more vehicles will become connected to eac h other and with road side units, congestion relief is expected through the smoothing of the traffic flow. Inter -vehicle communication will help fill gaps in the road and allow cars to seamlessly merge and maintain relative speeds and spacing. The princip le challenges facing CV deployment are: • M arket penetration – need to get devices installed in vehicles . • Security – need to encrypt systems to prevent cyber vulnerabilities • Privacy – need to scrub data to eliminate identity and personal information. • Mainstr eam acceptance • Budget for implementing roadside infrastructure. The integration of AV and CV systems and technologies has the potential to enhance the performance of both. Communication of data from roadside infrastructure to an AV would permit the vehicle to operate more efficiently and it would not have to rely solely on on -board sensors. The use of CV technology would transmit information about surrounding vehicles, location and road environment and has the potential to ameliorate weather, poor road mai ntenance and lines of sight problems that impede the operation of AVs. 11 .4 Connected and Autonomous Trucks While the prospects for widespread acceptance of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies and systems loom large on the horizon of transportati on planning, the potential implication these systems could have on motor carrier freight transportation is enormous. The trucking industry is a $700 billion industry and truck borne freight has the potential to be revolutionized by the introduction of conn ected and autonomous trucks. High fuel costs (about 34% of operating expenses), vehicle crashes (represent about a $90 billion loss annually), and vehicle emissions (accounting for about 6% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States) contribut e to the trucking industry’s low profit margin (about 3%). In addition, federal regulations limit the number of hours that drivers can operate a heavy truck, and with truck borne shipping expected to grow at a high rate, there will be demand to hire and train more and more drivers. These market forces and environmental concerns make the industry a prime candidate for any advanced technology that can improve operations and performance and reduce costs. Demonstrated benefits include: • Safety – reduce the freq uency and severity of commercial vehicle crashes. • Fuel savings – reduced air drag and wind resistance from platooned vehicles improves fuel efficiencies about 10.0% for the rear vehicle and 4.5% for the front vehicle. • Air quality – reduced fuel consumptions reduces the diesel emissions. 219 • Mobility – improved information for drivers and fleet managers will increase freight throughput and efficiency. As an intermediate step to fully automated commercial vehicles, many companies are working to deploy level 1 automation in the freight industry. These technologies rely on the driver remaining in control of the vehicle with cameras (video optics), sensors (RADAR and LIDAR) and communications (DSRC and wireless 4G or 5G) equipment to allow information to b e broadcast to and from the vehicles. These technologies generally provide for the vehicles to be connected but also afford a certain level of automation. Active Safety Systems Currently, many commercial vehicles and fleets are being install with a wide r ange of active monitoring systems to improve safety and reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. Examples of systems: • Electronic stability control to control speed and traction over curves and poor weather conditions • Forward collision avoidance and wa rning, with automated braking system – RADAR systems can sense and identify obstacles farther in front of a vehicle than the driver and can automated braking systems can respond and react faster than the driver • Adaptive cruise control – automatically adjus ts speed to adjust speed and maintain distance from a vehicle in front of the truck • Lane change assist – sensors identify the presence of vehicles in the adjacent lane and warn the driver • Lane keeping system – sensors help maintain the vehicle within the travel lane Automated Driving Systems (ADS) Over the next 20 years, full automation of both heavy duty and light weight vehicles may become a reality. Proponents claim that self -driving trucks will be safer and less costly to operate. While currently private companies are working on ADS units, standardization of communications, backed by new regulations or regulatory buy -in, will likely be required to realize widespread deployment. In 2016, Otto, a company purchased by Uber, and Volvo teamed up to haul a delivery over 120 miles along I -25 in Colorado. Because the ADS units do not operate in cities and along small rural roads, a driver operated the vehicle from the origin to the interstate and from the interstate to the destination. However, while the truck was traveling along I -25, the ADS was activated and the driver stepped away from the driver’s seat to o bserve from the back of the truck. This was just one trial and the technology is not currently deployed for commercial use. In fact, during the test, escort vehicles travelled in front of and with the truck, and the truck did not attain highway speeds. How ever, to all watching the industry, it is only a matter of time , perhaps ten years, before this 220 level of automation is broadly deployed, if only in carefully designated regions of the country and only under ideal weather conditions. Truck Platoons Connec ted and autonomous trucks can closely coordinate their movements to platoon over long stretches of highway. Currently available systems control truck platoons via DSRC communications. With the driver manually steering the truck, the lead vehicle controls l ongitudinal movement of the platoon via the throttle and brakes. The systems can be disengaged from the trailing vehicles at any time and video is provided to the trailing trucks to allow drivers to see what the lead driver sees. Truck platoons operate alm ost exclusively on multi -lane, divided limited access highways and interstates and when traffic and weather conditions are acceptable. 221 Truck platoons cut wind resistance and air drag by setting and maintained a constant gap between trucks. This reduces f uel consumption for all vehicles by roughly 10.0% and 4.5% for the trailing trucks and lead truck respectively. Traffic flow also improves as the truck platoon maintains spacing and pace. These systems can also detect a vehicle crossing in between platoone d vehicles and automatically adjusts speeds to maintain a safe following distance. Front mounted radar can “see” farther than the driver and can react faster and apply brakes quicker to obstacles in front of the truck. These systems improve safety and help prevent crashes. Once these technologies have been thoroughly vetted, in order to employ them on the state highway network, laws pertaining to following distance will need to be set to ensure safety and the driving experience for other road users is not eroded. These regulatory adjustments can be made with no new costs. To coordinate the connected technologies outlined above, the industry is currently working diligently to standardize the frequencies for the DSRC on which they broadcast V2V. A federal rec ommendation from FHWA to states might help this process. V2I technologies will benefit from the planned 2020 launch of a 5G cellular network and the setting of standards for V2I broadcasting is of equal importance and seems necessary for projects that may, realistically, start receiving federal funding for design and construction in the coming three -to-five years. 11 .5 State and Federal CAV Programs and Pilot Projects A number of TNCs, such as Uber and Lyft, auto manufacturers, such as Toyota, GM and Ford, and technology companies, such as Google and Panasonic, are investing in the design and development of CAV systems and technologies, as well as, purchasing vehicle fleets to deploy their ADS. The commonality of these efforts is that they are being made by the private sector with low public involvement. However, a successful path to safe testing and deployment of ADS requires government oversight, engagement of key stakeholders, and development of uniform, consistent and reciprocal polices, regulations and s tandards. In addition the deployment of V2I road side units will require the investment of public funds. 222 Nevada was the first state to authorize the operation of autonomous vehicles in 2011. Since then, 20 other states and the District of Columbia have pa ssed legislation related to autonomous vehicles. Governors in five other states have issued executive orders authorizing the safe development, testing and operation of AVs. These state actions typically establish committees, commissions or work groups to develop guidelines for the testing of AVs on public roads and support deployment of AVs. Some legislation requires the presence of an operator while other states allow fully automated vehicles. Despite differences the goal of the legislation is to encourag e partnerships with the private sector to ensure safe testing and ultimate deployment of AVs. Several cities and states have initiated efforts to test connected and autonomous vehicle systems and technologies, as have a number of transportation coalitions. The following are brief overviews of some these efforts: Connecticut In 2017, the State of Connecticut enacted legislation (Public Act 17 -69) that authorized the state to establish and implement a pilot program for testing fully autonomous vehicles, as defined as either Level 4 or Level 5 on the SAE classification scale. Under the program, the Office of Policy and Management will solicit AV proposals and select up to four municipalities to participate in the program. Two of the s elected participants need to meet set population thresholds and targets. The program is being initiated in consultation with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) and the Connecticut Insurance Department (CID). 223 The pilot program aims to encourage and allow for the testing of fully autonomous vehicles on local highways in Connecticut. The municipalities must outline the location and routes where AVs may oper ate, hours of operation for vehicle testing, as well as record the make, year, and model of the test vehicles. Partnerships with an automated vehicle manufacturer, university and service provider (Lyft, Uber, etc.) are encouraged for purposes of providing shuttle services and other programs. The legislation requires a tester to be seat in the driver’s seat and be capable of taking immediate control of the AV, and prohibits testing on limited access highways. The legislation also established a task force to study fully autonomous vehicles, evaluate the pilot program, and develop recommendations on how Connecticut should promote and regulate AVs in the state. OPM expects to approve its first application by late 2018. Rhode Island The State of Rhode Island co nvened a Policy and Innovation Team within the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT). The goal of the Team is to implement a pilot program to test multi -passenger AVs on Providence streets. A Transportation Innovation Partnership was establishe d in July 2017 to guide and oversee the pilot program. The focus is on integration of AV technologies into public transit. The initial phase will test vehicles within the Quonset Business Park, a relatively controlled environment. Tests will be conducted d uring daytime and nighttime, as well as under adverse weather conditions. Boston, Massachusetts The City of Boston initiated a pilot project to test AVs with the goal of deploying fleets of autonomous vehicles that are electric and shared. The testing are a is within the 1,000 -acres Innovation District located in South Boston waterfront. The intent of the project is to reduce crashes, especially ones resulting in severe injuries, improve access and enhance mobility for those who most need it. The focus is o n autonomous shared taxis and autonomous minibuses. Minnesota The State of Minnesota initiated a pilot project to test the performance of AVs under more adverse weather conditions. Prior to this effort, testing of AVs was conducted under almost ideal weath er condition. To determine how well AVs operate under various weather conditions, multi -passenger shuttles (capacity of 12 passengers) were operated at the Minnesota road test facility, owned and operated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The shuttle vehicles were operated at the Level 4 level of autonomy (highly automated). The closed -loop circuit allowed testing at various speeds (15 -to-25 mph) and permitted testers to create varying test conditions. The AVs were also placed in operation and open to the public during Super Bowl in 2018. 224 The AVs performed well under bare pavement and clear weather conditions and were able to navigate stops, starts, turns, curves and had good obstruction interaction. With one inch snow on the road, performance was similar to bare pavement test, but some wheel wander was noted. Slippage and localization issues occurred and loose and blowing snow became obstructions as the weather and road conditions worsened. Automated trucks and truck platooning are other concep ts being considered for testing at the road test facility. Minnesota is also considering testing connected vehicle corridors by implementing a “Smart” corridor with road side units that can transmit information to vehicles. Maryland The State of Maryland i nitiated a project within its Department of Transportation to design and deploy road side devices to provide information to connected vehicles. The first application will be installed along an eight -mile section of US Route 1. It will include closed -circui t TV to support incident and traffic management and DSRC at intersections to communicate traffic signal timing and phasing information. DSRC is also being considered for installation at tunnels. Other activities include testing self -parking vehicles at Bal timore Washington International Airport parking lots and examining autonomous vessels by the Maryland Port Authority. I-95 Corridor Coalition The I -95 Corridor Coalition is a 16 -state plus the District of Columbia association tasked with monitoring travel along I -95. Evolving autonomous and connected vehicle technologies have become a focus of the Coalition. Although the Coalition is not sponsoring or testing CAV technology, it has determined that there is a strong need for a dialogue among partners regardi ng interoperability of these systems across state borders. within the corridor. A workshop was to allow members to share CAV related activities, identify challenges and potential solutions, and define implementation steps for member agencies. New England Transportation Consortium The New England Transportation Consortium is comprised of state Departments of Transportation from the six New England states. Its mission is to conduct shared transportation research initiatives. In the area of CAV systems, the Consortium is working to identify multi -state issues related to the testing and deployment of CAVs in New England, document opportunities and challenges and prepare an action plan to minimize challenges and pursues opportunities. A key focus is developing a roadmap to address and overcome cross -border issues and challenges. New York City The New York City is participating in a connected vehicle pilot deployment project to improve safety and mobility of travelers, install V2V technology in up 10,000 vehicles in Mid -town Manhattan, and put in place V2I devices along targeted high accident arterials in Manhattan and Brooklyn. The V2V applications include forward collision warning, blind spot warning, lane 225 change warning, and intersection movement assist. The V2 I applications provide red light violation warning, speed compliance, oversize vehicle compliance on prohibited facilities, over height warning, and pedestrian in crosswalk warning. Effectiveness of this project is dependent on mainstream acceptance and ab ility to ensure security and privacy of data exchanged between vehicles and between vehicles and road side units. Colorado The State of Colorado initiated a project within its Department of Transportation to design and deploy a platform for connected vehi cles. It is a V2X concept to provide communications between vehicles (V2V), between vehicles and road side devices (V2I and I2V), and between infrastructure (I2I). The project is targeted at a 90 -mile section I -70 from Golden to Vail. 226 12.0 Capital Improve ment Program The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Naugatuck Valley planning and the Central Naugatuck Valley MPO is intended to address the issues and deficiencies of the area’s transportation systems. The critical transportation problems facing th e region are: • Aging Infrastructure • Roadway Congestion • Highway and Pedestrian Safety • Under Investment in Public Transit • Incomplete and Gaps in Active Transportation Facilities Capital improvement program will effectively meet the goals and objectives discussed throughout this MTP over its timeframe. These goals involve: • Maintaining and preserving critical systems in a State -of-Good -Repair • Promote better and more efficient operation and management of the transportation system • Enhance transpor tation systems to meet the traveling needs of all residents and travelers • Support economic revitalization • Support s ustainable communities initiatives that link land development with investments in transportation infrastructure and support the development o f transit oriented districts 12 .1 Implementing the MT P Implementation of the capital improvement program presented in the MTP will require a substantial investment in federal, state and local fun ds. Federal regulations require the MTP to be “financially constrained” (Title 23 CFR 450.324) and develop a financial plan based on reasonably expected available and projected sources of federal, State, and local revenues and the costs of implementing pro posed transportation system improvements. The principal sources of funds are the various federal -aid transportation programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The federal aid programs a re authorized by federal act and typically provide 80% of the project costs, with state and local funds covering the remaining 20% non -federal share. The current federal transportation act, known as the FAST Act , was signed into law on December 4, 2015. It is five – year legislation. While many of the programs and provisions included in the previous federal act (MAP -21 ), the FAST Act reformed and strengthened the transportation programs and refocused federal -aid on national priorities . Key elements of the new act were provid ing long -term certainty and more flexibility for st ates and local governments . Most federal transportation programs apportion funds by formula using program -specific factors. Some transportation funding is provided through discretionary pro grams, with states required to compete on a project -by -project basis. In Connecticut, the Special Transportation Fund (STF) finances transportation improvement projects and is accessed to provide the non -federal match of funds under the FAST Act . The prim ary use of the STF is to pay debt service on Special Tax Obligation Bonds issued for transportation infrastructure purposes. A small portion of the STF is used for “pay -as -you -go” 227 projects, including on -going maintenance. The major sources of STF dollars a re the motor fuels tax and motor vehicle receipts, which combined account for about 80% of the total STF revenues. The core federal aid transportation programs administered by FHWA and FTA are as follows: • Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Developme nt (BUILD) Program: In addition to the federal programs provided in the FAST Act , Congress has continued to provide discretionary grant funds to stimulate the nation’s economy. These discretionary grant funds were first provided in 2009 by the American Rec overy and Reinvestment Act under the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program. Since its inception, nine rounds of TIGER grants have been offered, totaling nearly $5.6 billion. In FFY 2018, the TIGER program was renamed the BUILD program: Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development. The purpose and intent of the BUILD grants remain the same as the TIGER program: to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve economic recovery and growt h. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis for capital investments in surface transportation projects that have a significant national, regional, and local impact. Project selection criteria includes safety, economic competitiveness, quality of life, environmenta l protection, state of good repair, innovation, partnership, and additional non -Federal revenue for infrastructure investments. • National Highway Performance Program – NHPP (FHWA): The NHHP “provides support for the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS), for the construction of new facilities on the NHS, and to ensure that investments of Federal -aid funds in highway construction are directed to support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State's as set management plan for the NHS .” Under MAP -21, the NHS was expanded to include all principle arterials, not just those designated as an NHS facility. The NHS includes: • Interstates: I -84 and I691 • Other limited access expressways: Route 8 • Other Principle Ar terials: about 95 miles of the roads in the Naugatuck Valley planning region classified as principle arterials The NHPP consolidated funding from previously separate programs: • National Highway System (NHS) • Interstate Maintenance (IM) • Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR) • National Highway Freight Program – NHFP (FHWA): The FAST Act established a new program to improve the efficient movement of freight on the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) and invest in projects that str engthen economic competitiveness, reduce congestion, improve safety, improve freight reliability and reduce the cost of freight transportation. Funds are distributed to States by formula for eligible activities, such as construction, operational improvemen ts, freight planning, and performance measurement. Although the program is highway -focused, each State may use up to 10 percent of its NFRP funds for each fiscal year for public or private freight rail, water facilities 228 (including ports), and intermodal fa cilities. To be eligible for receiving NHFP, a USDOT – compliant State freight plan needs to have been approved. In the Naugatuck Valley planning region, I -84 is the only facility on the Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS). • Highway Safety Improvement Progr am – HSIP (FHWA): Th e HSIP program provides funds to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The SIPH requires a data -drive, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that foc uses on performance. Projects funded under this program need to improve highway safety and be consistent with the State’s strategic highway safety plan (SHSP). • Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (FHWA): The STBG program provides the most flexibilit y in allocating funds to transportation improvement projects. It essentially replaced and renamed the long -standing Surface Transportation Program included in previous federal transportation legislation. The State’s STBG apportionment is sub -allocated to t hree sub -programs: • Urbanized areas with a population greater than 200,000 – STBG: Urban. These funds are divided among the large urban areas based on their relative share of population. • Areas with a population greater than 5,000 but less than 200,000 – STB G: Anywhere. • Areas with a population less than 5,000 – STBG: Rural. STBG funds can be used to implement a wide variety of transportation improvement projects located on the federal highway system. • Surface Transportation Block Grant Program – Transportation Alternatives Set -Aside (FHWA): Under MAP -21 , a separate program was established to implement various small scale projects, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe -routes -to-schools and community improvements. The FAST Act elim inated the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and replaced it with a set -aside of STBG funds. The Transportation Alternative set – aside program maintains the eligibility criteria previously included in MAP -21 . A portion of the funding is sub -allocate d based on population and states are allowed to transfer up to 50% of the TA funds not sub -allocated by population to another federal aid program. The TA apportionment includes funds that had been previously allocated under the federal Recreational Trails Program, unless the state had decided to opt out of the program. The CNVMPO area is not designated as a TMA; therefore, it does not receive a dedicated allocation of TA set -aside funds and must compete with other small urban areas in Connecticut. • Congesti on Mitigation and Air Quality Program – CMAQ (FHWA): The CMAQ program is a flexible funding source to state and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce co ngestion and improve air quality in areas designated as non – attainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. CMAQ funds can also be used in areas designated as a “maintenance area.” To be eligible under the CMAQ program, a project must demonstrate a reduction in air 229 pollution and contribute to attainment of the NAAQS. An air quality assessment needs to be performed for all CMAQ -funded projects and programs. • Off -System Bridges (FHWA): The FAST Act continues the MAP -21 set -aside of a percentage of a State’s STBG apportionment for the replacement and rehabilitation of bridges not on the federal aid highway system, referred to as “off -system bridges.” The allocation must not be less than 15% of the Sta te’s federal Highway Bridge Program apportionment in FFY 2009. Since almost all bridges on the state highway system are on the federal aid system, the majority of projects funded under this program are owned by municipalities. • National Highway Traffic Safe ty (NHTS) / Section 154 Penalty Funds (FHWA): Connecticut is currently assessed a 2.5% annual penalty from its NHPP and STBG programs because it does not meet Federal Open Container Legislation Requirements under 23 USC 154. These funds are transferred to the State’s Section 402 Safety Program and are used for Impaired Driving and Hazard Elimination Programs. Through education, research, and roadway safety improvements, these programs are intended to change behaviors, save lives, prevent injuries and reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes. • Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program – Section 5307 (FTA): This program provides grants to Urbanized Areas (population over 50,000) for public transportation capital, planning, job access and reverse commute pr ojects, as well as operating expenses in certain circumstances. These funds constitute a core investment in the enhancement and revitalization of public transportation systems in the nation’s urbanized areas, which depend on public transportation to improv e mobility and reduce congestion. The NVCOG is designated as a direct recipient of FTA grant funds for the Valley Transit District and its four member communities of Ansonia, Derby, Seymour and Shelton. Funding is apportioned on the basis of legislative fo rmulas. • Capital Investment Grants – Section 5309 Discretionary Capital Program (FTA): The Capital Investment Grant program is FTA’s primary program for funding major transit capital investments, including heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, st reetcars, and bus rapid transit. While it is a discretionary grant program , it is different from other federal discretionary programs in that instead of an annual call for applications and selection of awardees, the law requires that projects seeking CIG f unding complete a series of steps over several years to be eligible for funding. Program funds can be used for major fixed guideway capital projects, including new starts and extensions, bus rapid transit (BRT) projects, and projects that improve capacity on an existing fixed -guideway system. There are four categories of eligible projects: • New Starts • Small Starts • Core Capacity • Programs of Interrelated Projects • Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabili ties – Section 5310 (FTA): This program provides f ormula funding to states for the purpose of assisting private nonprofit groups in meeting the transportation needs of older adults and people with disabilities beyond 230 traditional public transportation serv ices and ADA complementary paratransit services . Funds are apportioned to states based on their share of the population for these two groups. The program aims to improve mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities by removing barriers to transpo rtation service and expanding transportation mobility options. Eligible projects include both “traditional” capital investment and “nontraditional” investment beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services. Under MAP -21 and forward in the FAST Act, the Section 5310 program was consolidated with the New Freedom Program (Section 5317) , described as capital and operating expenses for new public transportation services and alternatives beyond those required by the ADA . • Emer gency Relief Program – Section 5324 (FTA): Th is program helps states and public transportation systems pay for protecting, repairing, and/or replacing equipment and facilities that may suffer or have suffered serious damage as a result of an emergency, in cluding natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. The program also improves coordination between U SDOT and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expedite assistance to public transit providers in times of disasters and emergencies . • State of Good Repair Grant Program – Section 5337 (FTA): The S tate of Good Repair program provides capital assistance for maintenance, replacement and rehabilitation projects of high -intensity fixed guideway and bus system. The program is dedicated to repairing and upgrading the nation’s high -intensity rail and bus systems to ensure that public transit operates safely, efficiently, reliably, and sustainably so that communities can offer balanced transportation choices that help to improve mobility, redu ce congestion, and encourage economic development. Funds are apportioned by statutory formula. • Bus and Bus Facilities Infrastructure Investment Program – Section 5339 (FTA): This program provides funding through formula allocation and competitive grants to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus -related facilities. The competitive allocation provides funding for major improvements to bus transit systems that would not be achievable through formula allocations. A sub -program provides competitive grants for bus and bus facility projects that support low and zero -emission vehicles. In recent years, several 100% state -funded programs have been established. The most transformative program has been the Local Transporta tion Capital Improvement Program, referred to as LOTCIP. This program is intended to address regional transportation priorities through capital improvement projects selected, prioritized and endorsed by the Councils of Governments. The program essentially mirrors the federal STBG: Urban program and preserves the eligibility requirements and purposes and needs criteria of the federal program. The COGs and its municipal members do have more flexibility in advancing and designing LOTCIP programs, b ut the main goals of improving safety, preserving the road system and ensuring long useful life times of the road improvement projects are retained. Project sponsors are responsible for 100% of all design costs and the state provides for 100% of the const ruction costs. The LOTCIP program allows the COGs to streamline the implementation process and advance projects more quickly from design to construction. Annually, the Naugatuck Valley planning region is allocated about $8.5 million. The NVCOG maintains a financial plan that tracks available funds and expenditures. The intent of the financial 231 plan is to ensure optimal allocation of funds and attempts to minimize the unprogrammed balance. This approach endeavors to allocate 100% of available LOTCIP funds ea ch year. Since its inception in 2014, the NVCOG has been allocated about $49.0 million and received applications for 33 projects from 16 of its 19 municipalities. Eight projects have been completed at a construction cost of $16.0 million and two additiona l projects have received qualified bids to construct that will increase the construction expenditures to $19.9 million. Design activities are underway on seven projects with an estimated construction value of $24.8 million. The remaining projects are still in the pre -application/approval process. The Community Connectivity Program was developed to provide funding for targeted infrastructure improvements that are commonly identified through R oad Safety Audits (RSAs) or other transportation planning initiati ves. The purpose of the program is to provide funding directly to m unicipalities to implement smaller scale infrastructure improvements that will improve safety and connections for pedestrians. Municipalities are responsible for all design costs and the s tate provides 100% of construction costs. Unlike the LOTCIP program, the Community Connectivity Program is not administered through the COGs and regional priorities are not established. Connecticut established the Local Bridge Program to provide grant fu nds to municipalities to rehabilitate or replace locally -owned bridges under 20 feet in length. Bridges that carry a certified local road and are structurally deficient, based on FHWA criteria, are eligible under the program. Connecticut decided to opt ou t of the federal Recreational Trails Program. The federal program was replaced, and enhanced, by a state -funded recreational trails program administered through the CTDEEP. This program provides funds to a variety of entities for the following activities: • Planning, design and construction of new trails (motorized and non -motorized). • Maintenance and restoration of existing trails (motorized and non -motorized). • Access to trails by persons with disabilities. • Purchase and lease of trail construction and mainten ance equipment. • Acquisition of land or easements for a trail, or for trail corridors. • Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection as related to recreational trails. While the state program mirrors much of the activities and eligibility criteria of the federal program, it provides greater flexibility in the use of grant funds and expanded the types of actions that could be funded, including the maintenance and restoration of existing trails. The state Recreation al Trails Program also has appropriated more funds than would have been available under the federal program. Despite these benefits, the appropriations to fund the program need to be authorized by the state legislature and approved the state Bond Commissio n, making the funding of the program less consistent year -to-year. 12.2 Financing the MT P The CTDOT, as part of its financial planning responsibili ties, calculated the total estimated funds reasonably anticipated to be available from the FHWA over the tim eframe of the MTP. The state and federal aid funds apportioned to Connecticut for highway projects in FFY 2018 was used as a base, and compounded at 3% per year over the life of the MTP. This total was then sub -allocated to each metropolitan and rural plan ning area based on a formula that considered vehicle miles of travel, volume -to-capacity ratios and lane miles. Funds needed to construct major projects of statewide significance were extracted from the total before apportioning funds to the metropolitan 232 and rural areas. Each area was allocated minimum funding level. The sub -allocated totals was divided into two categories: • System Improvements – 40% of the total • System Preservation – 60% of the total For the public transportation funding sources , current FT A apportionments to the Waterbury urbanized area were extr apolated over the life of the M TP inflated by 3% per year. The state has committed to providing funds to cover 100% of the operating sub sidies for local bus services. Funds operate complementary ADA transit services were expected to be continued over the life of the M TP. Rail capital projects proposed and planned for the Naugatuck Valley planning region represent major statewide investments and integrated with the capital program for the state -owned New Haven rail line and its related branch lines . The funding for these projects were assumed to be included in the CTDOT’s rail plan. The C TDOT estimates that, over the next 27 years, about $ 2.5 b illion will be available to implement the highway improveme nts in the metropolitan planning area under the jurisdiction of the CNVMPO (Note: transportation improvement projects located in the four Naugatuck Valley planning region municipalities that are in the Greater Bridgeport and Valley metropolitan planning area are included in the MT P for the GBVMPO). Included in this total are funds allocated to major state projects in the region, estimated at $64 .4 million . Resources for the highway system are fur ther broken -down by funds to preserve and maintain the system in a state of good repair (Highway System Preservation) and those available for system enhancements Highway System Improvements). About $ 790 .67 million are earmarked for sys tem improvements (enha nce safety, improve mobility, incr ease system productivity or pro mo te economic growth) and about $1 .5 billion for system preservation (resurfacing, bridge rehabilitation and rep lacement, and reconstruction). Based on current appropriations, it is expected that about $ 1.2 billion will be available through FTA programs for rail modernization projects on state -owned fixed guideway (New Haven main rail line and the Danbury, New Canaan and Waterbury branch rail lines). Funds projected to be available for region al bus and bus facilities projects are estimated at about $588.6 million. About $188 .9 million will be allocated to the CT transit Waterbury and Bristol divisions to support bus operations . While the total allocation for bus operating assistance is expected to meet exist ing needs and demand, it does not factor in or allow for any new services or route enhancements and expansions. 233 The breakdown by funding source is shown in the following chart. The funding needed to implement the transportation improvements recommended in the MTP is substantial. Over the timeframe of the MTP, an investment of over $2.8 billion is recommended. This cost includes a substantial investment in modernizing the infrastructure of the Waterbury branch rail line, preserving and maintai ning I -84 and Route 8 in state s-of-good -repair, providing dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities to ensure safe travel, including completing the Naugatuck River Greenway Trail, and supporting and enhancing public transit operation. The M TP has also id entified opportunities to provide new , alternate modes of transportation , such as Bus Rapid Transit , and create transit -supportive land development in the vicinity of WBL rail station. Project and program estimates represent or der of magnitude costs base d on unit prices supplied by CTDOT and illustrative project concepts. Projects with known schedules were inflated to the expected year of imple mentation. Over 70% of the total funding needs are attributable to highway preservation and enhancement project and less than 25% of the funds are allocated to public transit improvements. The Highway System Preservation category includes active transportation projects and improvements to support and expand transportation of freight by rail. 234 Estimated Funding Revenues and Project Implementation Costs 2019 – 2045 Funding Category Estimated Revenues Percent Estimated Costs Percent System Improvements $902,216,700 20.5% $790,556,302 28.7% System Preservation [1] $1,525,205,994 34.7% $1,225,226,707 44.5% Transportation Alternatives $137,020,500 5.0% Rail Freight $40,000,000 1.5% Bus & Bus Facilities $588,604,542 13.4% $82,286,000 3.0% Bus Operating Assistance $188,856,875 4.3% $188,856,875 6.9% Rail Modernization [2] $1,190,487,318 27.1% $290,106,000 10.5% Total: $4,395,371,429 $2,754,052,384 [1] Transportation Alternative projects and actions to support and expand rail freight are included in the System Preservation category. [2] Estimated Revenues for Rail Modernization includes the entire state -owned fixed guideway system. 12.3 MT P Program of Projects The Program of Projects that comprises the M TP is grouped by the following categories: 235 • Highway System Preservation Projects • Highway System Improvement Projects • Tran sportation Alternative Projects • Rail Capital Improvement Projects • Bus Transit Capital Improvement & Operating Projects There are a total of 126 specifically defined regional projects, listed by municipality and expected implementation timeframe. For illustrative purposes, generic projects have been included as place holders to account for system improvements and enhancements that have not been identified. These types of projects are generally in the later years of the MTP. Examples include: • Regional bridge program • Regional pavement program • Regional road reconstruction program • Regional bicycle program • Regional pedestrian safety program • Regional community connectivity program In addition the MTP inc ludes various state -wide and system -wide projects that the CT DOT plans to implement over the timeframe of the MTP to extend beyond the region’s jurisdiction. These projects are listed for information purposes and the costs of these improvements are not ref lected in the financial for the CNVMPO. Examples include: • Widening of I -84 to three lanes west of Waterbury • Traffic signal modernization program • Expand truck parking • New Haven main line infrastructure improvements • CT rail infrastructure and rolling stock im provements • State -wide bus and bus facilities projects The list of projects is included as Appendix A. 236 13.0 Public Outreach The MTP is the product of collaboration between NVCOG, its members, and the public. (The NVCOG Public Participation Plan details the public involvement process the MPO follows in the development of this Plan.) This Plan is informed by research and analysis as well as consultation with stakeholders throughout the region. NVCOG gathers input from the diverse groups that make up the region via a variety of means. To develop this plan, the NVCOG is surveying the region’s communities on long range transportation deficiencies and goals, has developed an online story map to inform stakeholders of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning process , uses a public access online reporter app that allows residents to geographically mark locations that they believe need further considerations, has made formal presentations to the NVCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, NVCOG Regional Planning Commission, and the NVCOG Board of Directors, posts updates to the NVCOG Web site and social media, and holds staff meetings fortnightly with the MetroCOG to coordinate documents. Preparation of the Plan is step one in the comprehensive, continuing, and c oordinated transportation planning program practiced by NVCOG. Additional public meetings and presentations will be held once air quality modeling has been completed. Appendix A-1System Preservation Page 1 Route Number or Street Project Description Funding Source* Years 1 to 4 Years 5 to 10 Years 11 to 27 Beacon Valley Road Reconstruct Beacon Valley Bridge #05364 on new alignment over the Beacon Hill Brook LOTCIP $1,500,000 Burton Road & Maple Avenue Realign intersection into a "T" intersection & clear sight line issues STBG $1,500,000 Route 42 Intersection safety improvements at Lopus Road & Pines Bridge Road; straighten & widen Intersection STBG $1,500,000 Nonnewaug Road Replace Bridge 06121 over East Spring Brook BRZ $2,700,000 Flanders Road Reconstruct 1.5 mile section of Flanders Road STP-R $3,500,000 Route 61 Intersection and geometric improvements at various locations along Route 61, including at Flanders Road & Green Hill Road STBG $1,500,000 Route 132 Intersection improvements at various locations Route 132: Improve sight lines, grade, and vertical and horizonal geometry. STBG $6,000,000 Route 61 Realign intersection at Town Green to address skew and align stop sign and stop bar STBG $350,000 Maddox Road Reconstruction of Bridge #05172 on Maddox Road Local Bridge $1,500,000 Route 72 Intersection Improvements along Route 72 to Memorial Avenue, including improving 5-way intersection of Downs St, Blakeslee St, Riverside Ave & Memorial Blvd and replacing bridge 04205 and realigning Riverside Ave to create a four-way intersection NHPP $3,000,000 Louisiana Avenue Replace Bridge 04480 over Coppermine Brook BRZ $4,110,000 Highway System Preservation Projects Beacon Falls Bethlehem Bristol Appendix A-1System Preservation Page 2 Various Bristol Roundabout Study: Evaluate feasibility of installing roundabouts at various locations STBG $200,000 US 6 & Route 229 Intersection improvements to eliminate triangle NHPP $3,000,000 Route 229 Route 229 Corridor Study : Develop strategies to address pedestrian, bike & driver safety along corridor and opportunities to improve access control STBG $200,000 Woodland & King Street Realign intersection to improve geometry & sight lines. STBG; LOTCIP $3,500,000 Various Traffic Signal Replacements to Accommodate Pedestrians Ramp Up $966,000 Route 10 Intersection improvements at Cook Hill Rd and at South Brooksvale Rd & Harrison Rd STBG $3,750,000 Jarvis Street Intersection realignment at Lancaster Way & Guinevere Ridge STBG; LOTCIP $600,000 Route 70 Intersection improvements at Maple St and lengthen dedicated left turn signal on to Route 70 STBG $150,000 Route 10 Coordinate signals on Route 10 and install Adaptive Traffic Control Systems STBG $2,000,000 Benson Road Rehabilitate bridge 01160 over I-84 BRZ $5,500,000 Tucker Hill Road Improve geometry at Tucker Hill Road & Regan Road STBG; LOTCIP $2,500,000 Rubber Avenue Intersection Improvement at Hoadley St & Melbourne St SIPH $800,000 Route 63 Replace Traffic Control Signal at Rubber Avenue SIPH $335,000 North Main Street Reconstruction & roadway improvements from Calvin St to Union St LOTCIP $3,000,000 Cross Street Roadway improvements along 3300 LF of Cross Street STBG; LOTCIP $3,000,000 Field Street & Jones Road Intersection Improvements to Improve sight lines and geometry STBG; LOTCIP $1,000,000 Naugatuck Cheshire Middlebury Appendix A-1System Preservation Page 3 Route 63 Intersection improvements at Rubber Ave and Meadow St to improve pedestrian safety NHPP $2,500,000 Mulberry Street Realign and traighten curves on Mulberry St LRARP; LOTCIP $3,250,000 Rubber Ave Reconstruct Rubber Avenue, including roadway, sidewalk, drainage, from Old Fire House Rd to Melbourne St LOTCIP $4,000,000 Route 63 Construct roundabout at Route 63, Church St & Millville Ave to improve function and safety STBG $3,000,000 Dutton Road : Replace Bridge 04913 over Little River BRZ $2,160,000 Route 42 Geometry improvements to soften major curve at Old Litchfield Turnpike STBG $2,000,000 Route 67 Intersection safety improvements along Route 67 to improve geometry and sght lines at 8 skewed intersections from Chestnut Tree Hill Rd to Hawley Rd STBG $6,000,000 US Route 6 Intersection improvements at North Main St to realign intersection and widen US Route 6 to provide left-turn lanes NHPP $3,770,000 Greystone Road Reconstruct to mprove vertical and horizontal geometry, clear sight lines, and add shoulder STBG $9,000,000 Harwinton Avenue Reconstruct from Schroback Rd to Armbruster Rd and improve drainage and deficient geometry STBG; LOTCIP $2,700,000 Harwinton Avenue Reconstruct from US Route 6 to Schroback Rd and improve drainage and deficient geometry STBG; LOTCIP $4,000,000 US Route 6 Intersection improvements at Harwinton Ave to realign intersection into a "T" NHPP $1,500,000 South Main Street Improve geometry at South Main St, add sidewalk barrier (curb), clear sight lines and add advanced warning signs of curve STBG $3,000,000 Tory Crossing Reconstruct and realign at East Plymouth Road and Matthews St to improve geometry LOTCIP $2,000,000 Oxford Plymouth Appendix A-1System Preservation Page 4 Route 69; Route 68 Corridor Improvements: Reassess signal timing and implement access management along Route 69 and Route 68 NHPP $750,000 Scott Road Reconstruct from Maria Hotchkiss Road to the intersection with Route 69 LOTCIP $4,000,000 Route 68 Site Line Improvements at Talmadge Rd & Matthew St STBG $750,000 Buck Hill Road Rehabilitate bridge 01157 over I-84 BRZ $5,900,000 Various Signal Coordination Study: Study and coordinate signals throughout town to reduce congestion STBG $250,000 Route 8 SB Rehabilitate bridge 01729 over Reynolds Bridge FIF-Bridge $800,000 Carter Road Repair bridge 140003 over Nibbling Brook $750,000 Route 109 Realign Intersection at Watertown Rd and implement geometry improvements STBG $1,500,000 US Route 6 Implement Main Street Safety Improvements along US Route at Route 8 NB exit 39 on- and off-ramps and at Prospect St & Pleasant St NHPP $1,250,000 I-84 EB Rehabilitate bridge 03191A over I-84 WB, Route 8 & Naugatuck River NHBR $52,627,966 I-84 WB Rehabilitate bridge 03191B over I-84 WB, Route 8 & Naugatuck River NHBR $39,025,587 Various Downtown Signal Improvements: Traffic signal upgrade at 15 location in downtown Waterbury CMAQ $2,780,000 I-84 & Route 8 Rehabilitate 8 bridges at the I-84 & Route 8 interchange; bridges 03190 A, B, C, D, E, F & 03191 D, E NHBR $124,183,766 I-84 Rehabilitate bridge 03191F (ramp 197) over ramp 202 (Meadow Street) NHBR $5,000,000 Route 8 Rehabilitate bridges 03176 & 03177 over Naugatuck River & local roads NHBR $10,200,000 Prospect Southbury Thomaston Waterbury Appendix A-1System Preservation Page 5 Route 8 Rehabilitate bridges 03178 & 03179 over WBL NHBR $10,200,000 Aurora Street Widen to provide 28-foot cross section from Bunker Hill Road to Watertown Ave NHPP $5,940,000 Cooke Street & Rosebud St Install new traffic signal STBG $500,000 Eagle Street Reconstruct bridge over Naugatuck River Local Bridge $8,000,000 East Main Street Reconstruct from North Main Street to Elm St and provide additional on street parking and dedicated bus lane LOTCIP $3,000,000 SR 801 Construct spot improvements and lane configurations to provide a uniform road width and number of lanes STBG $6,000,000 Route 69 Improve traffic operations at the signalized intersection with Edgewood Avenue NHPP $500,000 Route 69 Intersection improvements at Southmayd Rd & Meriden Rd and realign to make "T" Intersection NHPP $3,000,000 North Main Street Install new traffic signals at Tudor St and Griggs St LOTCIP $1,500,000 North Main Street Construct traffic calming & intersection improvements STBG $1,500,000 SR 801 Construct safety improvments and remove 1 through lane in EB direction between Cherry Street and Brass Mill Dr LRARP $380,656 Walnut Street Construct safety improvments to mprove geometry LRARP $224,332 Washington Street Reconstruct bridge over Mad River Local Bridge $8,000,000 Guernseytown Road Reconstructfrom Eastwood Hall Rd to Crest View Rd to soften horizontal and vertical geometry and improve intersection with West Road by improving sightlines LOTCIP $3,416,400 Route 73 Improve signal timing at Buckingham St, Hillside Ave and Riverside St/Davies St NHPP $1,000,000 Middlebury Road Construct safety Improvements to improve geometry and sight lines STBG $1,500,000 Route 63 Add left turn lane to mitigate congestion from Middlebury TL to Bunker Hill Rd STBG $1,500,000 Watertown Appendix A-1System Preservation Page 6 Lake Winnemaug Rd Construct safety improvements and adjust curvature to align Sperry Rd at a 90 degree angle STBG $750,000 Route 69 Replace bridge 03240 over Mad River FIF-Bridge $3,000,000 Wolcott Tank Replacements ENV Comp $1,300,000 SR 844 Improve sight lines at various intersections through tree trimming and minor widening STBG $650,000 Hazel Plain Road : Replace bridge 05849 over Sprain Brook BRZ $2,700,000 US Route 6, Route 317 Construct intersection Improvements at Main St & Sycamore Ave and upgrade ADA compliance and traffic signals STBG $1,500,000 US Route 6 Construct intersection improvements by reducing turning radius at Old Sherman Hill Road STBG $1,000,000 Total: $367,179,707 $56,190,000 $0 NVCOG Regional Bridge Program: Rehabilitate, widen and repair various bridges in the metropolitan planning area to achieve Bridge Condition performance measures targets. Locations to be determined Various $30,000,000 $50,000,000 NVCOG Regional Pavement Program: Resurface various state and local roads and highways in the metropolitan planning area to achieve Pavement Condition performance measures targets. Locations to be determined Various $30,000,000 $50,000,000 NVCOG Regional Reconstruction Program: Reconsturct various state and local roads and highways in the metropolitan planning area to maintain State of Good Repair. Locations to be determined Various $25,000,000 $45,000,000 Route 8 Route 8 Incident Reporting: Expand state Incident Management Systems to include entire length of Route 8; includes 24-hour monitoring, video surveillance, variable message signs & incident detection NHPP $7,200,000 I-84 Wide I-84 west of Waterbury from two lanes to three in both the east and westbound directions NHPP $475,200,000 Various Wolcott Woodbury Appendix A-1System Preservation Page 7 WBL Develop in-land port in Naugatuck along the WBL; construct a new rail spur from the WBL to service areas; and construct warehouse facilities. Located on the former Chemtura site 5309; State $40,000,000 Interstate Construct/Create additional truck parking along I-84 and I-691 NHPP $75,000,000 Various Install, replace and upgrade traffic control signals in District 1, 3 and 4. Locations to be determined based on condition and need STPA $3,657,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Various Replace Salt Shed Roofs, Cornwall, Bethlehem & Danbury ENV Comp $800,000 Total: $11,657,000 $205,000,000 $625,200,000 Appendix A-2 System Improvement Page 1 Route Number or Street Project Description Funding Source* Years 1 to 4 Years 5 to 10 Years 11 to 27 Route 8 Interchange 23 NB Deceleration Lane: Minor widening of shoulder area at Interchange 23 to extend NB off- ramp deceleration lane NHPP $8,500,000 Route 72 Intersection improvements at Route 72 and Route 69: Construct intersection improvements at Route 72, Route 69 and Divinity St. Includes realignment of the intersection. NHPP; STBG $8,100,000 I-84, Route 63 & Route 64 Improvements on Route 63, Route 64 & I-84 WB Interchange 17: Build new connector road and realign existing state routes NHPP $22,400,000 $6,600,000 Route 8 Interchange 26 improvements: Minor widening of shoulder area at Interchange 26 to extend NB off-ramp deceleration lane; relocate NB off-ramp south along Route 63 to form a T-intersection to eliminate awkward intersection; and install new traffic signal and modify existing signal at Route 63 NHPP $11,117,000 Route 8 Interchange 27 Improvements: Widening SB off-ramp on structure at Interchange 27 to provide right turn lane and construct section of Naugatuck River Greenway; close NB off-ramp to North Main St to eliminate the short weave section with NB on-ramp from South Main St and extend the on-ramp; close SB on-ramp from North Main St; and construct segment of the NGR on west side of Route 8 to Linden Park NHPP $51,000,000 Route 8 Interchange 28 Improvements: Minor widening of shoulder area at Interchange 28 to extend NB off-ramp deceleration lane and realign and minor widening of several roads and intersections at Route 68 and NB off- ramp. NHPP $9,464,000 Highway System Improvement Projects Beacon Falls Bristol Middlebury Naugatuck Appendix A-2 System Improvement Page 2 Route 8 Interchange 28/29 Improvements: Close SB on-ramp from Platts Mill Road (Exit 29) and SB off-ramp to North Main St to eliminate short weave section; install barrier to provide local access between Platts Mill Road and North Main St; and construct new SB on- ramp from local connector NHPP $26,942,000 Route 63 Realign NB Route 8 off-ramp and perform geometric improvements at Roue 63 NHPP $5,500,000 Route 68 Construct intersection improvements and realignment at Golden Court & at Church Street (Route 63) STBG $4,000,000 Scott Road Widen from Route 63 to Elm Street and construct radius improvements at Elm Street to accommodate large heavy-duty vehicles as part of the Borough’s plan to develop an In-land Port BUILD $20,000,000 Route 34 Relocate bridge 01843 on the Stevenson Dam and rebuild crossing over the Housatonic River on new alignment downstream from Stevenson Dam NHPP $10,500,000 $124,000,000 Route 69 Minor widening near Orchard Dr to allow motorists to bypass left-turning vehicles in NB direction NHPP $750,000 I-84 I-84 Improvements at Exit 14 FIF-Roadway $3,500,000 I-84 Upgrade Expressway – Phase 3 (80%) NFRP $342,883,302 I-84/Route 8 Placeholder – I-84/Rt 8 Interchange (PE) Ramp Up $31,000,000 I-84/Route 8 Placeholder – Phase 1 of I-84/Rt 8 Interchange (CN) FIF-Roadway $50,000,000 RTE 69 Realign intersection at East Main St NHPP $3,000,000 Huntingdon Avenue Reconstruct and widen bridge 03729 over the Naugatuck River and add EB left turn lane and WB right turn lane, widen NB Route 8 off-ramp by adding additional right turn lane, and widen Colonial Avenue by adding additional left turn lane STBG $18,000,000 Waterbury Oxford Prospect Southbury Appendix A-2 System Improvement Page 3 Route 69 Increase capacity at Wolcott Road & Lakewood Road by adding dual left turn lanes on NB Route 69 at Lakewood Road and widen Lakewood Road to accommodate double lefts NHPP $6,500,000 Lakeside Boulevard East Reconstruct to meet FHWA standards & installat storm drainage STBG $5,000,000 SR 844 Construct intersection improvements at Route 69, Frost Road and Alexander Avenue in Waterbury and at Route 322 in Wolcott, including signal timing adjustments STBG $6,500,000 Route 8 Add second right turn lane on Route 8 NB off-ramp at Exit 36 and add a dedicated left-turn lane over Huntington Ave and over the Naugatuck River NHPP $15,300,000 Total: $477,133,302 $313,423,000 $0 Appendix A-3 Transportation Alternatives Page 1 Route Number or Street Project Description Funding Source* Years 1 to 4 Years 5 to 10 Years 11 to 27 NRG Phase II: Extend the road diet along South Main Street and install a multi-use trail from about Route 42 to Riverbend Park and provide a connection from Riverbend Park to the access to Toby's Pond TAP $3,300,000 NRG Phase III: Extend the road diet along North Main Street and install a multi-use trail from about Depot Street to Church Street TAP $1,700,000 NRG Phase IV: Construct a multi-use trail from about Church Street to the Naugatuck town line at Cross Streetalong the old Route 8 road bed TAP $2,744,000 Route 61 Construct 2,700 LF of sidewalk from Town Hall to Jackson Ln to serve town center and commercial corridor TAP $300,000 RTE 229 Connect pedestrian facilities around recreation area and 760 LF of sidewalk along Route 229 to close gap in existing sidewalk near Lake Ave Intersection TAP $3,000,000 Trail Develop and construct Forestville multi-use trail to connect Bristol to existing regional and statewide network in Plainville TAP $3,500,000 Memorial Avenue Insatll striped bike lanes on two roads and provide bike facilities and accommodations along Route 72 and West St TAP $200,000 Route 10 FCHT Connector: Construct a multi-use trail link to Airline Trail creating bike and pedestrian access to the FCHT and replace aging sidewalks along Route 10 in front of state correctional facility TAP/LOTCIP $1,500,000 FCHT FCHT Crossing Realignment: Realign the Jarvis St Trail crossing near the trail head parking lot TAP $300,000 Transportation Alternative Projects Beacon Falls Bethlehem Bristol Cheshire Appendix A-3 Transportation Alternatives Page 2 Jarvis Street Jarvis Street Sidewalks: Relocate utility poles and catch basins and construct 2,350 LF of sidewalk on Jarvis St STBG; LOTCIP;TAP $540,500 Peck Lane Install traffic calming measures along Peck Lane STBG; LOTCIP $150,000 Middlebury Greenway Extend Middlebury Greenway south, from Woodside Ave to Country Club Road, install visual and protective barrier between Route 63 and Greenway, and install lighting TAP $5,500,000 Route 63 Implement various improvements along Route 63 to accommodate bicyclists, including re-striping Route 63 north of Water St with 11 ft travel lanes to provide a wider shoulder for bikes STBG $200,000 Various Implement various ADA accessibility and pedestrian Improvements in the downtown and construct additional sidewalks, crosswalks, ADA compliant ramps, and detectable warning strips Community Connectivity $400,000 Maple Street Reconfigure the Maple St Bridge to include bike lane LOTCIP $2,000,000 NRG Construct 2 miles of NRG south from Breen Field's near Maple Street to Beacon Falls town line; requires crossing the Naugatuck River TAP $7,600,000 NRG Build section of NRG connecting Maple Street and downtown with Breen Fields LOTCIP $2,000,000 NRG Build 0.9 miles of NRG from Pulaski Walk to Waterbury town line TAP $3,000,000 Route 63 Install various pedestrian Improvements along Route 63, including audible pushbuttons, detectable warning strips, ADA compliant ramps, retro-reflective signage, countdown type pedestrian signals at signalized intersections Community Connectivity $800,000 Larkey Road Construct connecter trail to close gaps along Larkey Road to connect Larkin Bridle Trail to Main St TAP; LOTCIP $1,500,000 Trail Construct greenway trail to connect Naugatuck State Forest with the Larkin State Bridle Trail in Oxford Community Connectivity $1,400,000 Middlebury Naugatuck Oxford Appendix A-3 Transportation Alternatives Page 3 Various Construct sidewalks in downtown areas of Plymouth & Terryville Community Connectivity $1,000,000 US Route 6 Implement streetscape enhancement/beautification on Main St (US Route 6) STBG $500,000 Route 69 Implement various pedestrian improvements, including handicap ramps and detectable warning strips at crosswalks on Route 69, and optimize signal timing and phasing with an exclusive pedestrian buttons Community Connectivity $750,000 Old Field Road Construct 4,500 LF of sidewalk from Main St to Heritage Road along Old Field Road TAP $1,000,000 High Street Extend existing sidewalk onto High St and repair sidewalks in adjacent neighborhood TAP $375,000 SR 807 Construct a sidewalk on west side of Main St; complete the missing sections on the east side including crosswalks, ramps; and replace sidewalks throughout downtown area where needed STBG $375,000 NRG Construct section of NRG trail from Old Waterbury Road to Branch Brook at Watertown TL; includes new bridge over Branch Brook TAP $500,000 NRG Construct sections of trail through downtown Thomaston to Old Waterbury Road; connects with the town’s historic clock walk, the New England Railroad Museum and Vista Park at the Thomaston Dam TAP $5,529,000 NRG Waterbury Phase 1: Construct multi-use trail within the existing right of way of South Main Street by reducing the number of travel lanes from Naugatuck TL to Eagle St HPPS; REP;TAPO $7,860,000 Lakewood Road Construct new sidewalks along north side of road LOTCIP $1,900,000 NRG Waterbury Phase 2: Construct multi-use trail within the existing right of way of South Main Street to Glen Street and then with a separate corridor to Jackson Street TAP $8,600,000 Waterbury Plymouth Prospect Southbury Thomaston Appendix A-3 Transportation Alternatives Page 4 NRG Waterbury Phase 3: Extend multi-use trail from West Main St along Thomaston Ave, Chase River Rd and through the Waterbury Industrial Commons to Watertown TL TAP $11,900,000 Route 63 Implement various capital projects to improve geometry and pedestrian safety of Main Street as recommended in RSA Community Connectivity $1,500,000 NRG Watertown Phase 1: Construct section of multi-use trail along the alignment of the Waterbury water main line from Frost Bridge Road to Branch Brook and build facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians to safely use road creating connection to Thomaston TAP $1,847,000 NRG Watertown Phase 2: Construct section of multi-use trail from the Waterbury TL to Frost Bridge Road TAP $1,500,000 Steele Brook Trail Steele Brook Trail: Construct 4.6 mile stone-dust trail along Steele Brook and link to the NRG Trail TAP $2,000,000 $1,500,000 Route 73 Implement streetscape improvements along Route 73 between Waterbury TL and Route 63, and provide streetscape improvements along this commercial corridor to improve pedestrian experience STBG $300,000 Bunker Hill Road/Avenue Implement various capital projects, including closing gaps in the sidewalk network and creating new pedestrian crosswalks, to improve geometry and pedestrian safety of Main Street as recommended in RSA Community Connectivity $500,000 US Route 6 Implement various pedestrian friendly enhancements along Main Street by providing crosswalks, benches, and tourist conveniences. Community Connectivity $300,000 US Route 6 Implement various traffic calming measures along Main St to reduce traffic speeds and conduct an access management study STBG $650,000 Total: $41,997,500 $33,879,000 $16,144,000 Watertown Woodbury Appendix A-3 Transportation Alternatives Page 5 NVCOG Regional Bicycle Program: Implement regional bicycle route netwrok. Locations to be determined Various $5,000,000 $10,000,000 NVCOG Regional Pedestrian Safety Program: Implement regional pedestrian safety program, including new sidewalks, pedestrian actuated signals, crosswalks, and curb extensions. Locations to be determined Various $5,000,000 $10,000,000 NVCOG Regional Community Connectivity Program: Implement various bicycle and pedestrian safety projects and connections as recommended in Road Safety Audits. Locations to be determined Various $5,000,000 $10,000,000 Total: $0 $15,000,000 $30,000,000 Various Apendix A-4 Bus Capital Operations Page 1 Route Number or Street Project Description Funding Source* Years 1 to 4 Years 5 to 10 Years 11 to 27 NETCO NETCO – Facility Improvements – Fuel Tanks State $100,000 CT transit – Waterbury Develop and implement Real Time Bus Tracking to track vehicle location and transmit bus arrival times to riders 5307; 5339 $5,000,000 CT transit – Waterbury CTtransit Waterbury Capital 5307; 5339 $8,000,000 $12,000,000 $54,000,000 CT transit – Waterbury CTtransit Waterbury Operating Subsidy State $19,408,348 $33,773,964 $135,674,563 CT transit – Waterbury Implement new fixed-route bus service along Lakewood Road and provide 60-minute headway with stagger service with Route 422 State $472,000 $708,000 $2,006,000 Total: $32,980,348 $46,481,964 $191,680,563 Statewide Bus Fleet Expansion in Urban Areas, Including Real- Time Scheduling and Smart Card Fare Boxes State $0 $16,500,000 $66,000,000 Statewide Bus Fleet Overhauls & Replacements – All Other Buses 307; 5339; Stat $65,000,000 $40,000,000 $140,000,000 Statewide Bus Maintenance Facility Improvements – All Other Bus Facilities SOGR 307; 5339; Sta $35,000,000 $45,000,000 $100,000,000 Statewide Multimodal Fare Technology Improvements State $0 $45,000,000 $150,000,000 Statewide Systemwide Technology Upgrades for Buses State $0 $30,000,000 $60,000,000 Total: $100,000,000 $176,500,000 $516,000,000 CTtrans it Projects Bus Transit Capital Improvement & Operating Projects CT transit -Waterbury Appendix A-5 Rail Capital Page 1 Route Number or Street Project Description Funding Source* Years 1 to 4 Years 5 to 10 Years 11 to 27 WBL Construct new station building and waiting area with high level platforms and passenger amenities 5309 $25,000,000 WBL Relocate station to southern side of Maple Streetand, about 950 feet south of its current location, and construct new station building and waiting area with high level platforms 5309 $25,000,000 WBL Renovate old Waterbury rail station to provide an indoor passenger waiting area; lengthen and improve high level platforms and install amenities. Reconstruct and reconfigure parking area 5309; State $10,000,000 WBL WBL Storage Yard: Construct new Waterbury Branch Line rail storage yard. Location to be determined 5309; State $55,000,000 Route 262 Upgrade Active Railroad Devices at Frost Bridge Road (FRA #503937W) STPX $280,000 WBL Expand service along the Waterbury branch line to provide 30-minute headways during the AM & PM peak periods State $10,500,000 $52,326,000 WBL Purchase four new locomotives and train sets (2 coaches + 1 push-pull) to operate on the WBL to replace old equipment 5309; State $64,000,000 WBL Purchase three new locomotives and train sets (2 coaches + 1 push-pull) to operate on the WBL to expand service 5309; State $48,000,000 Total: $10,280,000 $227,500,000 $52,326,000 Naugatuck Rail Capital Improvement Projects Beacon Falls Waterbury Watertown Waterbury Branch Line Projects Appendix A-5 Rail Capital Page 2 NHL NHL – Rail Yard Improvements Statewide FTA $0 $0 $905,000,000 NHL NHL – Catenary SOGR / Power Upgrades FTA $15,000,000 $0 $30,000,000 NHL NHL – Communications / Signal Upgrades SOGR FTA $130,000,000 $280,500,000 $1,200,000,000 NHL NHL – Electric Fleet Mid-Life Overhauls & Replacements State $0 $0 $1,400,000,000 NHL NHL – Fixed Bridge SOGR FTA $0 $650,000,000 $725,000,000 NHL NHL – Full Capacity New Haven Line Service FTA $0 $0 $270,000,000 NHL NHL – Future Station Improvements for More Efficient Express Service to NYC FTA $0 $0 $300,000,000 NHL NHL – New Rail Maintenance Facility and Yard for Intercity Rail Service FTA $0 $50,000,000 $20,000,000 NHL NHL – Stations/Parking – Station Improvement Program FTA $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $50,000,000 NHL NHL – Stations/Parking – Systemwide Technology Upgrades for Rail at Stations FTA $73,000,000 $0 $10,000,000 NHL NHL – Track Improvements SOGR FTA $70,000,000 $145,000,000 $365,000,000 NHL Waterbury Branch Line – High Level Platforms FTA $150,000,000 $50,000,000 NHL Waterbury Branch Line – New Rail Storage Yard Location TBD FTA $5,000,000 $50,000,000 Total: $308,280,000 $1,755,500,000 $5,479,652,000 Statewide Rail Freight Network Annual Funding Program (SOGR) State $20,000,000 $20,000,000 Total: $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 Freight Rail Projects New Haven Line Projects Appendix A-5 Rail Capital Page 3 CTRAIL Rail Fleet – Coaches State $0 $300,000,000 $135,000,000 CTRAIL Rail Fleet – Locomotives State $150,000,000 $1,350,000,000 $884,000,000 CTRAIL Systemwide – New Rail Shop for Diesel / Dual Power Locomotives & Coach Repairs State $0 $0 $87,500,000 Total: $150,000,000 $1,650,000,000 $1,106,500,000 CT Rail Projects

NVCOG MTP 2019-2045 Executive Summary

DRAFT Metropolitan Transportation Plan: 2019 ~ 2045 For the Naugatuck Valley Planning Region & Central Naugatuck Valley Metropolitan Planning Area February 2019 Title: Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Naugatuck Valley Planning Region: 2019 – 2045 Author: Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Date: Febr uary 2019 Metropolitan Planning Organization: Central Naugatuck Valley Metropol itan Planning Organization (CNVMPO) Sources of Copies: Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 49 Leavenworth Street, Suite 303 Waterbury, Connecticut Phone: (203) 757 – 0535 Website: www.nvcogct.org Abstract: Feder al regulations require any urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000 to designate a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to evaluate and assess its transportation systems, identify needed improvements to its transportation systems, and help decide how investments in the transportation systems will be made , including identifying the funding program allocations, project timing and schedule, and which projects to program . The NVCOG, as the host agency for the Central Naugatuck Valley MPO, assess ed and analyzed the existing transportation system, identified deficiencies and determined future transportation needs. Based on these analyses, a program of transportation improvement projects is recommended. Future transportation investments reflect reas onably expected funding resources. Acknowledgements: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Naugatuck Valley planning region and the Central Naugatuck Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (CNVMPO) was prepared by the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) in cooperation with member municipalities and the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT). It was completed in accordance with federal transportation planning requirements, stipulated in 23 CFR Part 450§324, and under the NVCO G’s FY 2018/2019 Unified Planning Work Program for the Naugatuck Valley Planning Region . Funding was provided through the UPWP by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), t he CTDOT and member municipalities. The findings and conclusions expressed in the report are those of the NVCOG and do not reflect the official views of CTDOT or the USDOT. For more information: For more information about the NVCOG’s transportation planni ng process and the update of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, please visit the NVCOG’s website at: www.nvcogct.org NVCOG Board: David Cassetti, Mayor, City of Ansonia Christopher Bielik, First Selectman Town of Beacon Falls Leonard Assard, First Selectman Town of Bethlehem Ellen Zoppo – Sassu, Mayor City of Bristol Rob Oris, Jr, Town Council Chair Town of Cheshire Richard Dziekan, Mayor City of Derby Edward St. John, First Selectman Town of Middlebury N. Warren “P ete” Hess, Mayor Borough of Naugatuck George Temple, First Selectman Town of Oxford David Merchant, Mayor Town of Plymouth Bob Chatfield, Mayor Town of Prospect W. Kurt Miller, First Selectman Town of Seymour Mark Lauretti , Mayor City of Shelton Jeff Manvi lle, First Selectman Town of Southbury Ed Mone, First Selectman Town of Thomaston Neil O’Leary, Mayor City of Waterbury Thomas Winn, Town Council Chair Town of Watertown Thomas Dunn, Mayor Town of Wolcott Barbara Perkinson, First Selectman Town of Woodbury NVCOG Staff Rick Dunne Executive Director Mark Nielsen Director of Planning / Assistance Director Trish Bauer Office / Financial Manager Arthur Bogen Environmental Planner – Brownfields Aaron Budris Senior Regional Planner Richard Crowther Jr GIS Planning Assistant John DiCarlo Municipal Shared Services Director Christian Meyer Supervising Transportation Planner Mark Pandolfi Transit Capital Administrator / General Manager, VTD Glenda Prentiss GIS Program Coordinator Lauren Rizzo Administrative Services C oordinator Joanna Rogalski Senior Regional Planner / Emergency Management Karen Svetz, P.E. Regional Transportation Engineer Michael Szpryngel Finance Director Table of Contents 1.0 Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process ………………………………………………….. 1 2.0 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile ………………………………………………………. ………….. 4 3.0 Transportation Issues & Goals ………………………………………………………. ……………….. 8 4.0 Highway System …………………………………………………………………………………… ……… 9 5.0 Public Transit Systems ………………………………………………………. ………………………… 20 6.0 Active Transportation Systems ………………………………………………………. …………….. 25 7.0 Freight and Goods Movement ………………………………………………………. ……………… 31 8.0 Aviation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 35 9.0 Sustainable Transportation ………………………………………………………………………….. 35 10.0 Transportation Security ………………………………………………………. ………………………. 38 11.0 Advanced Technologies ………………………………………………………. ………………………. 40 12.0 Capital Improvement Program ………………………………………………………. …………….. 42 13.0 Public Outreach …………………………………………………………………………………… …….. 47 1 | P a g e 1 .0 Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) is a multi-discipline, regional planning organization for the Naugatuck Valley planning region. It commenced operations on January 1, 2015, as a result of the state-mandated mergers and consolidations of regional planning organizations. The NVCOG is the federally designated transportation planning agency for the Waterbury Urban Area and the Central Naugatuck Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (CNVMPO). It also provides transportation planning support to its four communities that are members of the Greater Bridgeport and Valley MPO (GBVMPO). The transportation planning process is conducted in accordance with federal transportation planning regulations, as stipulated in Title 23 of the US Code of Federal Regulations. As the transportation planning agency for the Waterbury Urban Area, the NVCOG conducts transportation planning tasks listed and described in an annual Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), adopts and maintains the short-range Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), prepares a long range Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and ensures its transportation projects, plans and programs contribute to attainment of national air quality standards (Air Quality Conformity). The transportation planning process is depicted in the following illustration: Federal regulations state that “If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an urbanized area there shall be a written agreement among the MPOs, the State(s), and the public transportation operator(s) describing how the metropolitan transportation planning processes will be coordinated to assure the development of consistent metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs across the MPA (metropolitan planning area) boundaries…” In order to comply with this Monitoring & Projections Identification of Needs Transportation Plan Special Studies Transportation Improvement Program Implementation ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS & NEEDS TRANS PORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 2 | P a g e requirement, the NVCOG has entered into several transportation planning agreements with partner MPOs. These agreements define mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan planning process. The Naugatuck Valley planning region is not designated as a Transportation Management Area (TMA). Despite th e region’s 2010 Census population of 448,708, the population of the Waterbury UZA, which defines a TMA, was 194,535, just under the 200,000 population requirement. Therefore, federal certification of its transportation planning process is not required. However, the transportation planning process is conducted in conformity with applicable metropolitan planning requirements and the CNVMPO self certifies that its planning process conforms to the Metropolitan Planning Rule, 23 CFR Part 450 Subpart C and 49 CFR Part 613. Also, the NVCOG participates in the federal certification review of adjacent MPOs, as several member municipalities are located in urbanized areas that are designated as a TMA, including the Bridgeport-Stamford UZA and Hartford UZA. The NVCOG is also a member of the multi-state Metropolitan Area Planning (MAP) Forum, a consortium of MPOs in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. The MAP Forum was established in 2008 to cooperate and coordinate transportation planning activities in the New York metropolitan area. An MOU has been signed by the nine members of the MAP Forum for the voluntary coordination of planning activities in the multi-state metropolitan region. Federal planning regulations require the MTP to consider projects and strategies that will address ten specific planning factors. The MTP addresses each of the factors:  Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.  Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.  Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.  Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight. MAP Forum Members 3 | P a g e  Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality -of -life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns.  Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight.  Promote efficient system management and operation.  Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.  Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation.  Enhance travel and tourism. Over the last two decades, states and MPOs have increasingly relied upon highway performance data to guide planning and programming, a process that has come to be referred to as performance management. The 2012 federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) integrated many of these practices into statute by putting requirements on states and MPOs to include performance management in their planning documents. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act re -emphasized the performance based approach to transportation planning. Federal targets have been or are being established in the following goal areas:  Highway Safety: number of fatalities, rate of fatalities, number of serious injuries, rate of serious injuries, and number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries.  Transit Asset Management: State of Good Repair measures and targets for rolling stock, equipment, facilities, and infrastructure.  Infrastructure Condition: Pavement and Bridge Condition: percentage of road miles and bridge decks on the National Highway System in good or poor condition.  System Reliability: system travel time reliability.  Freight Movement: truck travel time reliability.  Air Quality : reduction of poor air emissions from CMAQ projects. Several federal acts and executive orders require the transportation planning process conducted by MPOs to make the process accessible to all residents, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, income, or ability to speak English. The NVCOG adheres to and complies with these principles through the following activities:  Developed and adopted a formal Title VI Plan in April of 2016.  Determined the number and proportion of the population with Limited English Proficiency and completed a Language Assistance Plan.  Identified areas with a disproportionally high concentration of minority and low-income populations and adopted an Environmental Justice Policy.  Developed and adopted a proactive Public Involvement Program and policy. 4 | P a g e 2 .0 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile The Naugatuck Valley planning region is located in west-central Connecticut, covering about 422 square miles. The City of Waterbury is the largest city in the region and serves as its central city. The region lies mid-way between Hartford to the east, New Haven to the south, Bridgeport to the southwest and Danbury to the west. The Naugatuck Valley planning region includes the whole of the Census-defined Waterbury urbanized area, and parts of the Bridgeport-Stamford urbanized area, New Haven urbanized area and Hartford urbanized area. It has a combined population of 447,390 people (2016 ACS). Naugatuck Valley Planning Region Urbanized Areas 5 | P a g e The region includes a mix of historic urban centers that once supported industrial activities, suburban communities and rural areas. These areas can be characterized and defined as the “urban core,” “inner ring” and “outer ring.” The urban core areas feature high levels of racial and economic diversity, high population density, good access to public transit, and plentiful affordable housing. Despite these common features, the character of the urban core varies significantly from neighborhood to neighborhood. Inner ring communities contain a mix of urban and suburban characteristics, with a number of smaller manufacturing centers. The traditionally rural outer ring has become more suburban over last two decades, but many of these areas still retain much of their small town character. Naugatuck Valley Planning Region Land Composition 6 | P a g e From 2000 to 2016, the region saw a modest 4.3% growth rate, adding 18,600 new residents, increasing its total population of 447,390 people. This was a faster growth rate than the 1990s, but much slower than the 1980s. Population projections from the Connecticut State Data Center indicate that the region’s population will continue to grow until 2025, but at a much slower rate than in the past. From 2025 to 2040, the region is projected to shrink by 1.2%, losing approximately 5,355 residents. Population & Population Projections Naugatuck Valley Planning Reg ion 2000 428,790 2010 448,708 2016 447,390 2020 451,405 2025 452,628 2030 452,712 2035 450,601 2040 447,273 The Naugatuck Valley region has a higher population density than the state as a whole. In 2016, the region had an estimated 1,061 persons per square mile (which includes non-residential land and roads), compared to 741 statewide. Immigration, migration, and higher birth rates among minority groups have made the region’s population more diverse than ever before. As of 2016, 123,878 residents were of a minority race or ethnicity, making up 27.7% of the total. During the 2008 recession, the region experienced sharper job losses than the state and nation as a whole. Between years 2007 and 2011, 12,337 jobs were lost, a decline of 7.6%. Since 2011 the economy has improved, adding over 8,700 jobs. By 2017, the region regained 71% of the jobs lost during the recession. Comparatively, the state gained back 146% of those lost jobs. As of 2017 there were 158,781 jobs in the region. Despite job losses during the last ten years, Waterbury remains the job center of the region followed by Shelton, Bristol, and Cheshire . As the suburbs gain population, many employers have followed to be closer to their workforce. From 2004 to 2017, the urban core lost over 3,300 jobs while the inner ring gained over 4,700 jobs, mostly in Shelton, and Cheshire. Bristol was the only urban core municipality to gain jobs Percentage Change in Population Naugatuck Valley Planning Region 2000 – 2010 4.6% 2010 – 2016 – 0.3% 201 6 – 20 20 0. 9 % 2020 – 2040 – 0.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 – 2016 (B01003), 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Pop ulation Projections: 2015 – 2040 7 | P a g e (1,032). Outer ring towns with good highway access (such as Oxford and Middlebury) also saw job growth. Over the last half century, the regional economy has shifted from a manufacturing based economy to one oriented to service sector industries. Health care and social assistance is now the largest job sector followed by government (which includes public school teachers). While much less prominent than in the past, manufacturing remains the third largest sector of the regio n’s economy, with over 20,000 jobs. Naugatuck Valley Planning Region Location of Jobs 8 | P a g e 3.0 Transportation Issues & Goals The Naugatuck Valley planning region is a region in motion, with about 2 million trips occurring within the region each day . Private vehicles are used for most of these trips; howev er, public transit modes (rail and local bus) and active transportation (walking and bicycling) are becoming increasingly important and more frequently ways for people travel. Over the next 20 years, as the population continues to grow, congestion and dela ys on the region’s highways and roads will worsen and further burden an aging infrastructure in need of rehabilitation and replacement. Despite these needs, there is expected to be insufficient funding to maintain the current system in a state of good repair, let alone resources to enhance and expand infrastructure. Also, trends suggest that the region’s population is not only growing but aging, which will require a shift in how transportation is provided to individuals with mobility impairments. Technology may offer some solutions to the transportation issues facing the region, but much uncertainty remains as to the extent technology will affect peoples’ travel patterns . The transportation system of the Naugatuck Valley planning region is diverse and includes a mature network of highways and roads, a commuter rail line, fixed-route, local bus services, general aviation airport, multi-use greenways and trails, and pedestrian facilities. Through the transportation planning process, transportation concerns and issues facing the region have been identified. Over the next twenty years, the principal transportation issues facing the region include:  Aging Infrastructure  Recurring Congestion and Travel Delay  Highway Safety  Under Investment in the Waterbury Branch Commuter Rail Line  Fragmented Local Bus Service  ADA Paratransit Service Gaps  Expand and Maintain Multi-use Greenway and Trail Facilities  Pedestrian Safety These issues led to the identification of common values, opportunities and challenges encapsulated in the following vision statement for the region’s transportation system: The NVCOG region will be home to an efficient multi-modal transportation system which will enhance the mobility of its residents and visitors, facilitate movement of people and goods and minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts. The transportation system will include pedestrian- related infrastructure, features and amenities to support the safety and well- 9 | P a g e being of pedestrians, as well as infrastructure to promote and encourage bicycling and other forms of active transportation. To achieve this vision, the NVCOG transportation planning will focus on investing in existing infrastructure to improve operations of existing capacity, revitalizing our town centers to avoid co stly highway expansion, and developing livable and sustainable downtowns with unique facilities and open space that leverage their existing infrastructure and assets. The primary goals to help achieve this vision are organized as chapters within the MTP:  Preserve, Maintain and Enhance the Highway System  Congestion Management  Improve Safety  Ensure Transportation System Security  Advanced Technology  Preserve and Enhance Public Transportation Services  Expand Multi-Modal Opportunities  Enhance the Efficient Movement of Freight and Goods Enhance  Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities  Environmental Mitigation and Air Quality Conformity  Sustainably Promote Economic Development and Revitalization  Environmental Justice  Ensure Transparency and Proactive Public Involvement 4 .0 Highway System The regional highway system functions as the primary means of distributing people and goods within and throughout the region. Most of the highway travel is accommodated by the nearly 59 miles of interstate and other expressways that traverse the region. While these high function highways account for only 2.4% of the road mileage in the region, over 40% of total daily travel takes place on these facilities. Two interstate highways serve the region. Interstate 84 is the region’s principal east-west expressway, providing access to Danbury and the New York metropolitan area to the west and Hartford and Massachusetts to the east. Interstate 691 serves as an interstate connector between I-84 in Cheshire and Interstate 91 in Meriden. Route 8 is the region’s north-south limited access expressway, connecting Interstate 95 in Bridgeport to I-84 in Waterbury. 10 | P a g e The highway network also includes about 350 miles of arterial roads, which facilitate the flow of traffic within and between municipalities, 340 miles of collector streets, which link local streets and neighborhoods to the arterial routes, and 1,689 miles of local roads. Naugatuck Valley Planning Region Highway Network 11 | P a g e Commuting patterns in the Naugatuck Valley planning region reflect national trends. The migration of the regi on’s population from the central city to the suburbs and rural areas is accompanied by decentralized travel. As people move farther away from urban core areas, they assume longer commutes and increased reliance on the automobile. Commuting data for the region show diverse movements across the region with strong ties between the major cities and employment areas. The length of the average work trip of people living in the region is about 28 minutes. The NVCOG has adopted a regional approach to highway safety. The NVCOG follows a data driven planning process to first profile vehicle crashes throughout the region, assess risk, and prioritize location specific actions to maximize limited fiscal resources available for capital improvements. The NVCOG uses regional crash data from the UCONN Crash Repository. The following heat maps visualize and locate high hazard areas on expressway and non-expressway highway and roads. Naugatuck Valley Planning Region Commuting Patte rns 12 | P a g e Naugatuck Valley Planning Region Crash Heat Map: Expressways 13 | P a g e Naugatuck Valley Planning Region Crash Heat Map: Non – Expressways 14 | P a g e Congestion impedes vehicles, causes motorist delays, decreases safety, and increases fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. The FHWA defines congestion as “the level at which transportation system performance is no longer acceptable due to excessive travel times and delays.” Congestion has many causes, each of which impact how it can be alleviated. Recurring congestion is predictable and is often mitigated by implementing projects to increase the throughput of vehicles. Recurring congestion can also be addressed by changing driver behavior and offering convenient and attractive alternative means of transportation that lessen reliance on a private auto mobile. Congestion on the region’s highways was measured using three criteria:  Voulme- to-Capacity (v/c) ratio: The v/c ratio is defined as the peak hour traffic volume in the p eak direction of flow divided by a road segment’s capacity.  Travel Time Reliability (TTR): The TTR is defined as the ratio of the longer travel times (80th percentile) to a “normal” travel time (50th percentile).  Excessive peak hour delay: This measure is an aggregation of the time road users spent on a given segment of roadway above and beyond what would be expected in free flow conditions. The most common measure of highway congestion is the volume- to-capacity (v/c) ratio. A v/c ratio just over 1.00 implies the traffic volume exceeds the road’s capacity and is indicative of moderate peak hour congestion. The higher the ratio, the worst the congestion. Factors used in determining v/c ratios include: number of lanes, lane width, truck traffic, traffic signal timing, abutting land use, and terrain. Based on this measure, peak hour congestion occurs along most sections of I-84 through Waterbury, Middlebury and Southbury and at several points on Route 8, especially in the lower Valley area and in the vicinity of the interchange with I-84. Travel on most non-expressway roads is fairly good with congestion noted on only limited number of sections. While the congestion depicted on this map is limited and manageable, future conditions suggest a worsening problem. Based on anticipated growth rates, traffic demand will exceed roadway capacity on an increasing number of highways and roads, and the recurring congestion will become more prevelent on non-expressway routes. In addition to identifying congestion based on a v/c ratio, travel time reliability was considered. This measure attempts to determine road sections where travel is unreliable. The reliability of a road segment has been found to be an important factor as to how drivers assess the congestion on their commute. Regular congestion is seen as less offensive than unpredictability. Many of the same facilities that were identified as congest ed based on the v/c ratio measure had poor travel time reliability indices. The Peak Hour Excessive Delay measure is an aggregation of the time road users spent on a given segment of roadway above and beyond what would be expected in free flow conditions. This 15 | P a g e additional time is then aggregated by the total number of roadway users to create a total excessive delay metric. It does not just consider vehicle delay but the total delay experienced by all travelers on that roadway section. Steady increases in traffic volume will lead to a greater number of highway miles being congested; coincidentally reliability will decrease and delay will increase. When the above discussed indicators are considered in combination, the sections of US Route 6 in Bristol approaching the Farmington town line, I-84 east of Waterbury, and Route 69 from south of the Waterbury border to roughly Beach Road in Wolcott experience recurring congestion and excessive travel delay. However, recent and ongoing projects along US Route 6 and I-84 will ameliorate congestion on these sections of roadway. At the time of MTP writing, no major work wa s underway to address the issues along Route 69. Congestion of the region’s highways based on these measures are depicted on t he following map s. To improve system reliability and safety and reduce congestion and delay, a large number of roadway projects have been identified and included in the MTP. These projects also are intended to preserve and maintain the essential highway system. Specific highway projects are listed in the capital improvement program chapter. 16 | P a g e Naugatuck Valley Planning Region Highway Congestion: 2018 17 | P a g e Naugatuck Valley Planning Region Highway Congestion: 2045 18 | P a g e Naugatuck Valley Planning Region Travel Time Reliability: 2017 19 | P a g e Naugatuck Valley Planning Region Peak Hour Excessive Delay: 2017 20 | P a g e 5.0 Public Transit Systems The Naugatuck Valley planning region is well served by a range of public transportation options and choices, including local, fixed-route bus services, commuter rail, specialized paratransit services for the elderly and mobility impaired residents, and express bus services oriented to downtown Hartford that operate primarily during peak hours. In addition, CT fastrak routes extend to Bristol, Cheshire and Waterbury from New Britain that provide a connection to Hartford via the dedicated busway. Local, fixed bus route services are operated by four primary operators:  Three divisions of CT transit – Waterbury, Bristol-New Britain, and New Haven  Greater Bridgeport Transit (GBT) Authority Four express bus routes extend from the region to downtown Hartford; two beginning in downtown Waterbury, one from downtown Bristol and one from Cheshire. These routes take advantage of high speed connections afforded on regional expressways. Before the opening of the CT fastrak busway, these express routes would follow the expressways directly into downtown Hartford. Today, they access the busway in New Britain to complete the trip to Hartford. In addition, a limited-stop bus route was initiated in 2017 between Torrington and Waterbury with stops in Thomaston. Within the Naugatuck Valley planning region, there are four local bus system operators:  CTtransit -Waterbury  CTtransit -New Haven  CTtransit -Bristol/New Britain  Greater Bridgeport Transit (GBT) Three of the fixed-route bus systems are centered primarily outside of the region. Only the CT transit -Waterbury system provides coverage wholly within the region. The system is centered on downtown Waterbury with all routes passing through or connecting at the Waterbury Green . The CT transit-Bristol/New Britain system is oriented to downtown New Britain, but three routes are operated primarily within Bristol. The routes operated by CT transit-New Haven serve to connect downtown Waterbury and the lower Valley communities to New Haven, while the GBT routes extend from downtown Bridgeport through Shelton and terminating at the Derby/Shelton train station. Although a substantial portion of the region is covered by local bus service, the operations are fragmented with gaps between the urban core areas. This results in extensive 21 | P a g e unserved and under-served areas. There are currently no connections between Waterbury and the lower Valley towns nor between Waterbury and Bristol. Several transit studies have been completed or are underway to assess current local bus operations and develop a program of projects to address deficiencies and provide a more integrated system. Key recommendations from these studies are included in the MTP: 22 | P a g e  CTtransit -Waterbury: o Restructure the Naugatuck routes to provide all day service. o Implement Lakewood Road (Waterbury) service. o Rationalize and combine routes and reduce service on underperforming routes and eliminate low ridership deviations. o Enhance weekend service. o Decrease headways and improve frequency. o Connect greater Waterbury bus service with the lower Valley area and consolidate the CT transit -Waterbury and Valley Transit District systems.  CTtransit -Bristol/New Britain: o Realign circuitous routes in Bristol and extend local routes directly to Plainville and New Britain. o Provide new service to eastern Bristol to serve major employment centers.  CTfastrak : o Adjust service for Route 925 or 928 to operate along Route 229 from I-84 to serve large employers in eastern Bristol and continue non-stop to the CT fastrak station in New Britain.  Greater Bridgeport Transit: o Enhance Route 22X by continuing the current routing north to the Derby/Shelton rail station and providing a contiguous route between the Bridgeport Transportation Center and the Derby/Shelton Station. o Institute and operate a Derby- to-Waterbury express bus service along Route 8 to serve the rail stations along the WBL and provide service between schedule rail times. o Implement a Bus Rapid Transit route within and along the Route 8 corridor between the Derby/Shelton rail station and the Bridgeport Transportation Center. The BRT would consist either of a shoulder running or median running facility. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires transit districts that operate regular fixed-route bus services to provide complementary paratransit services to persons that are unable to use the regular bus services. This complementary service is available to all certified ADA eligible residents that have origins and destinations within ¾ of a mile of a local fixed route. Within the region a number of transit services are available for individuals who, because of their disability, are unable to travel on the fixed route public transit service operated. Paratransit services are offered to Waterbury area residents by CTtransit -Waterbury and Bristol residents receive service from the Greater Hartford Transit District (GHTD). The Valley Transit District (VTD) 23 | P a g e provides the complementary ADA service to the lower Valley communities. In addition to the required complementary ADA paratransit services, expanded paratransit services are provided within the region. These services are referred to as “non -ADA paratransit dial-a-ride service” to differentiate it from the services required by the ADA. The MTP recommends continuing paratransit services and filling gaps currently existing in ADA, non-ADA and dial-a-ride services. Commuter rail services are operated along the Waterbury branch line (WBL) of the New Haven main rail line by the Metro North Railroad under contract to the State of Connecticut, which owns the rail lines. The WBL is the longest of the three branch lines and connects with the main line at the Devon wye. Connecting service to Stamford and New York City is available at the Bridgeport station. While daily service is offered on the WBL, the frequency and quality of service is constrained by the existing infrastructure. The WBL passenger train schedule consists of 15 weekday trips between Waterbury and Bridgeport. There are eight northbound and seven southbound trains daily, Monday through Friday. With the exception of one morning peak train, service to Stamford requires a transfer at the Bridgeport rail station. Service along the WBL is limited because it is currently unsignalized , referred to as “dark” territory. A project is underway to implement full signa lization and Positive Train Control along the line. Currently, about 1,000 riders use the WBL service each day. The majority, over 60%, board at the Waterbury rail station. About 80% of the riders heading 24 | P a g e southbound, exit the train at Bridgeport, where over half transfer to another New Haven line train to reach their final destination. The most common final destinations are Stamford and New York City. The equipment operating on the WBL is old, outdated and in poor condition. Passenger interview surveys indicate that the condition of the equipment and lack of service are critical problems. Recommended projects to enhance commuter rail service along the WBL include:  Renovate existing rail station buildings at Waterbury and Derby/Shelton and construct new station buildings at Ansonia, Seymour (relocated), Beacon Falls and Naugatuck (relocated).  Install high level platforms and passenger amenities at all stations.  Purchase four new locomotives and trains sets (2 coaches + 1 push-pull cab) to replace existing rolling stock and three locomotives and trains sets to expand service to operate at 30-minute headways during peak hours.  Construct a new rail storage and maintenance yard along the WBL to accommodate new rolling stock.  Maintain and preserve New Haven main line (NHML) and branch line infrastructure at a State- of-Good-Repair, including annual track and maintenance of way programs, catenary and power system upgrades, and system-wide technology and communications upgrades. A critical goal of the MTP is to improve operations along the WBL and provide services and schedules that would be attractive and convenient to commuters and provide a reliable alternative to driving. Enhanced service along the WBL is also critical to revitalizing the downtowns located along the branch line and incentivizing transit supportive developments within the station areas. The planned installation of a full centralized signal system and construction of four by-pass sidings will permit a substantial increase in the number of trains that could operate on the WBL. Despite the future ability to operate more trains, a limiting issue will continue to be the number of available slots on the New Haven main line. While more trains could operate on the WBL after signals are installed, increasing the number of trains with direct service to Bridgeport or Stamford may not be possible. In addition, the existing interlocking at Devon between the NHML and the WBL does not allow service to New Haven. To increase the frequency of rail service on the WBL and expand potential transfers and connections with NHML trains, construction of a new, permanent transfer station at the Devon junction is recommended. The new station would provide the ability to increase service to 25 | P a g e mainline destinations without taking up additional schedule slots on the New Haven Line. Waterbury branch line service would be altered to operate more like a shuttle service. Operations would terminate trains at Devon and the schedule would be retooled to facilitate the transfers. The propos ed Devon station would be located within the Devon “wye”. High level platforms would be installed and connected to provide seamless transfers. 6.0 Active Transportation Systems Streets are an integral part of our cities and towns, providing a network for all the dynamic activities that contribute to our quality of life, including the movement of people and goods. The road network in the Naugatuck Valley planning region is extensive, totaling about 2,441 miles. It serves to connect neighborhoods and provides access to businesses, jobs, schools and a wide range of public and private services. The goal of transportation improvement programs has usually been to make the highway and road networks operate more efficiently, with efficiency defined as making the flow of traffic better. Often the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and others who travel by non-traditional, non-motorized means, also known as active transportation, have been ignored or minimally considered. Road design standards, with the emphasis on moving traffic and vehicular safety, have made the street environment an intimidating place for bicyclists and pedestrians. However, the focus of streets as the sole environment for motorized vehicles has changed over the past 10- to-15 years, as federal transportation acts have provided dedicated funding active transportation projects and new Connecticut policies require transportation projects to consider the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. Walking is the most basic form of transportation, and those who walk, including those using wheelchairs, are considered pedestrians in the scope of this plan. Nearly all people are pedestrians during some part of most trips, whether it is walking to and from their car in a parking lot, walking a transit stop, or walking to and from work. In the Naugatuck Valley planning region, only about 1.7% of commuters walk to work ( American Community Survey 5-year estimates 2010- 2014, US Bureau of the Census). This is the lowest walk rate of any region in the state, including the non-urbanized regions. By comparison, about 4.5% of commuters living in the Southeast Connecticut planning region and about 4.3% living in the South Central Connecticut planning region walk to work. Of more concern is that the NVCOG planning region is the second most dangerous region for walkers in the state , based on a calculated “Pedestrian Danger Index (PDI)” of 85.59 (2016). The urban core areas of Waterbury and Bristol are of particular concern because these two cities accounted for over 70% of the pedestrian -involved crashes. The severity of pedestrian-involved 26 | P a g e vehicle crashes is a critical concern. Pedestrians hit by a vehicle are exposed to severe injury and death, especially when vehicle speeds are high. This exposure is illustrated by the fact that pedestrians are overrepresented in fatal crashes, not only in Connecticut but nationally. Typical road design, with an emphasis on moving traffic, has made the street environment an intimidating place for pedestrians. They feel insecure walking along a high speed, multi-lane road and are reluctant to cross arterials even when crosswalks are provided. Well-designed pedestrian facilities can change the street setting and help create a more walkable street environment, where pedestrians feel safe and secure and adjacent traffic is not perceived as intimidating. To help realize the vision of a transportation system that supports and increases pedestrian safety and well-being, the MTP recommends the following specific actions:  Pedestrian activated signals to provide protection while crossing. Count-down indicators provide reinforcement that the signal is working and lets walkers know how much time remains to their protection.  Well marked and visible crosswalks.  Interconnected and continuous sidewalks.  Buffers between the street and the sidewalk.  Curb ramps.  Signing.  Audible tones to aid persons with vision impairments.  Implement road diets on excessively wide roads.  Implement “complete” streets policies that require improving the street environment to accommodate all travelers, not just motorized vehicles. 27 | P a g e Naugatuck Valley Planning Regio n Pedestrian Deficiencies 28 | P a g e In Connecticut, bicycles are considered a form and type of vehicle and can be ridden on all roadways where they are legally permitted. It is not necessary to specifically designate roads as bicycle routes or provide bicycle lanes. Rather, all roadways should be maintained and upgraded to ensure bicycle travel can occur safely and conveniently. This allows bicyclists to decide which road they want to ride. Bicycle use and travel can be accommodated and encouraged by implementing the following actions:  Adopt bicycle facility guidelines.  Include bicycle elements, such as pavement markings, signs, widened shoulder width, and use of a smooth, compacted asphalt material for road surfaces, in all road projects.  Designate various roads that are less than 30- feet wide as “Shared Road” bicycle routes and marked with “Sharrows” and share -the-road signs.  Designate a network of bicycle routes to provide intra- and inter-town connections. Candidate routes are those with a minimum four-foot shoulder.  Install bicycle racks at strategic locations throughout the region and at the commuter rail stations.  Develop an information and education campaign to communicate the rules of the road and the importance of following all traffic laws Multiuse trails, also referred to as shared-use paths, both paved or compacted, are off-road facilities separated from motor vehicle traffic and designed to accommodate non-motorized users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, joggers, in-line skaters and others. They are typically designed, where practical, to be accessible to users of all abilities. While multiuse trails are often viewed as “recreational” facilities, well sited and designed paths can be a viable transportation option, serving as non- motorized “expressways” for those who do not have or would rather not use a motor vehicle. Multiuse trails, in conjunction with a well-connected network of sidewalks and on-road bicycle routes, can provide safe corridors linking residential areas, commercial areas, transit and other destinations. There are several existing and planned multiuse trails in the Naugatuck Valley planning region. The partially built Naugatuck River Greenway (NRG) Trail is envisioned as the main non-motorized travel spine running north- to-south along the Naugatuck River and Route 8 corridor. There are plans to connect several other trails to the Naugatuck River Greenway Trail, including the Larkin State Bridle Trail, the Middlebury Greenway, the Steele Brook Greenway, the Shelton Riverwalk, and the Sue Grossman Trail to the north of the region. The Farmington Canal Heritage Trail traverses Cheshire north- to-south, and will eventually connect Northampton, Massachusetts to New Haven, Connecticut. 29 | P a g e Naugatuck Valley Planning Region Multiuse Trail Network 30 | P a g e The overall goal of the MTP is to create an active transportation network, with the intent of safely connecting residents to destinations throughout the region via non-motorized means. A critical actions are the completion of the 44-mile NRG Trail and creating connections between the NRG Trail and the other multiuse trails in the region, as well as in neighboring regions, and to sidewalk networks and on-road bicycle facilities. The MTP recommends the following actions:  Construct the Waterbury Phase I project (scheduled for 2019).  Construct a section of trail in Thomaston from Old Waterbury Road to the Branch Brook, including installing a new bridge over the brook (scheduled for 2019).  Construct the Ansonia Riverwalk segments 2a, 2b, 3 and 4 (scheduled for 2020).  Renovate the Derby-Shelton Bridge to include a dedicated cycle-track (scheduled for 2020).  Construct a section of the NRG Trail in Naugatuck to connect the Pulaski Walk and the Waterbury Phase I project.  Construct a section of the NRG Trail in Naugatuck to extend the trail from Maple Street to the Beacon Falls town line.  Construct the NRG Trail from the Thomaston Dam (Vista Picnic Area; USACE property) to Old Waterbury Road.  Construct the NRG Trail in Watertown from Frost Bridge Road to the new bridge over the Branch Brook and extend the trail south to Waterbury town line.  Construct the Waterbury Phase 2 section from Eagle Street to West Main Street and Phase 3 from West Main Street and Thomaston Avenue to the Watertown town line.  Extend the road diet of Route 42 in Beacon Falls from its current terminus t o Toby’s Pond  Construct a section of the NRG Trail to connect from Naugatuck town line to Main Street in Beacon Falls.  Construct a greenway between Route 42 in Beacon Falls and Route 67 in Seymour as part of the proposed connector road project.  Conduct a preliminary engineering study to identify the preferred alignment for a multi- use trail to connect the Larkin State Bridal Trail in Oxford to the NRG Trail in Seymour.  Conduct a preliminary engineering study to determine the feasibility of connecting the Woodbury Trolley Bed Preserve to the Middlebury Greenway and identify the preferred alignment.  Construct an extension of the Middlebury Greenway from its terminus at Woodside Avenue to the Hop Brook Lake Recreation Area, with a spur connection to Post University.  Complete sections of the Steele Brook Greenway Trail in Watertown and connect the SBG to the NRG Trail.  Complete sections of the Shelton River Walk.  Complete and develop an “Oxford Main Street Master Plan” to provide routing and treatment options along with phasing recommendations and construction cost estimates. 31 | P a g e  Implement pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety enhancements along the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail in Cheshire.  Investigate the feasibility of connecting the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail to the NRG Trail. 7 .0 Freight and Goods Movement The economic success of the region is inextricable from the economic health of the nation, the Northeast Mega-Region and Connecticut as a whole. Much of the national, state and regional economies depend upon the reliable movement goods over the nation’s major freight networks: highway, rail, pipeline, air, and waterborne shipping. The MTP will focus on highway and rail freight networks, which are critical to the economic success of the region . The NVCOG works with the state, municipalities and regional stakeholders to identify and prioritize projects that will most effectively support the reliable movement of freight within the region and beyond. Highway Networks The regional highway system functions as the primary means of distributing people and goods within and throughout the region. Most of the highway traffic is accommodated by 59 miles of expressways. Trucks carry 93.7% of the tonnage and 92.4% of the value of freight moving throughout the state (2014). Interstate 84 is the principal freight corridor within the Naugatuck Valley region. The I-84 corridor is important to local shippers and those across New England and New York. While I-91 and I-84 service statewide north-south freight traffic, Route 8 is the regional north-south freight corridor. Truck freight volume is forecast to grow substantially over the next 20 years. Not unexpect edly, I-84 and I- 691 are predicted to continue to carry significant amounts of this expected freight traffic. Of equal importance regionally, Route 8 is also predicted to experience a similar rate of growth in freight traffic. Regional freight reliability is a priority for freight dependent enterprises. Costs to move goods increase as shippers have to run additional or partially loaded trucks. When enterprises cannot rely on just-in-time shipping, they must carry the additional inventory needed to maintain productivity. As a result, reliability directly impacts how enterprises within the region manage their supply chain and compete in the market. The truck travel time reliability index shows irregular truck congestion is expected to increase in the coming years. As a result, the reliability of freight movement through the state and region is expected to decrease. 32 | P a g e Regional freight reliability is best improved by changing how roads are managed and operated, rather than by expanding the system. The key recommendations are:  Incident Management – Identifying incidents more quickly, improving response times, and managing incident scenes more effectively.  Work Zone Management – Reducing the amount of time work zones need to be used and moving traffic more effectively through work zones, particularly at peak times.  Road Weather Management – Prediction of weather events (such as rain, snow, ice, and fog) in specific areas and on specific roadways, allowing for more effective road surface treatment.  Planned Special Events Traffic Management – Pre-event planning and coordination and tr affic control plans.  Freeway, Arterial, and Corridor Management – Advanced computerized control of traffic signals, ramp meters, and lane usage.  Traveler Information – Providing travelers with real-time information on roadway conditions, where congestion has formed, how bad it is, and advice on alternative routes.  Value Pricing Strategies – Proactively managing demand and available highway capacity by dynamically adjusting the toll paid by users.  Continue to prioritize the maintenance of the existing network at a state of good repair.  Limit Heavy duty vehicle speeds.  Pursue safe roadway designs on freight routes to reduce risk of front- to-front crashes.  Connecticut should continue to develop and implement pilot programs to test connected and autonomous vehicles. Rail Networks Rail is among the most efficient modes to move goods around the United States; however, it is best suited for commodities that are bulky, heavy and not time sensitive. Over the last two decades, due to improved training, technology, and an updated fleet, efficiency has improved 61 percent. Moving additional freight from the highway to rail offers potential advantages towards better fuel efficiency, associated air quality benefits, and reduc ed congestion on the federal highway system. Th e state’s primary imports via rail include chemicals, pulp and paper, lumber and wood, sand, and iron and steel. Primary rail exports include waste, scrap, stone, gravel, and sand. Despite these advantages there are barriers that inhibit the increased use of rail-borne freight statewide:  The lack of a convenient Hudson River rail crossings makes through shipping of freight west of Connecticut challenging. 33 | P a g e  Overhead clearances below 22 feet, 8 inches limit the size of freight cars that can be used, including double stacked containers.  Many freight railroads in Connecticut operate at low speeds, between 10 and 25 MPH, due to rail weight and age.  Car weight restrictions of below 286,000-pound axle loading on many lines do not meet current industry standards. These restrictions limit the weight of commodities carried per car and hurts rail’s economic advantage.  Freight railroads are required to pay track fees for operating over Amtrak ’s rights- of- way.  The strong competitive position of the trucking industry due to the short distances involved in movement into and through the state.  The state increasingly is oriented to business and service activities, which do not generate large volumes of freight. However, despite these limitations and disadvantages, within the Naugatuck Valley planning region, past investment in the rail network offers a great opportunity for the industry. The existing freight rail network offers opportunities to access most regional municipalities. While, the region has good rail connectivity, each line is maintained to a different standard and has a variety of restrictions. Three freight rail lines traverse the region:  The Maybrook Line runs 33.5 miles from Danbury to Derby, where it intersects with the Waterbury Branch Line. It is operated by the Housatonic Rail Road Company (HRRC). From Danbury, trains can either continue west into New York State or go north to interchange with CSX in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and connect to the national rail system.  The Central CT Line (Terryville S econdary, New Britain Secondary, and the Berlin Secondary) extends 23.9 miles from Waterbury to Berlin, where it connects to the Amtrak New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield line. The Pan Am Railroad owns and regularly operates freight on the line. The FRA currently rates the Central CT line as a Class 2 track, with speeds restricted to 25 mph. However, due to track conditions in certain locations, much of the line functions as a Class 1 track with speeds limited to 10 mph. Rail axel loading is limited to 263,000 pounds. Clearance is limited to 17 feet (Plate F).  The Torrington Branch extends 19.5 miles from the terminus of the Waterbury Branch Line in Waterbury to Torrington. The line is owned by the state and leased to the Naugatuck Railroad. From the Railroad Museum of New England, the railroad operates seasonal tourist trains. Limited freight, up to a 263,000-pound axel loading, operates regularly in the southern portion of the track from Waterbury through Watertown. The track meets FRA track Class 1 standards, limiting freight operating speeds to 10 mph. 34 | P a g e The following map shows the freight rail lines in the western part of the state. While the existing rail freight infrastructure limits the movement of freight by rail, the MTP recommends expanding the opportunities for rail freight, not only in the region but statewide as well. The key actions to maximize the efficiency and productivity of rail-borne freight include investing in the rehabilitation of the existing rail lines. Specific recommended actions include: Naugatuck Valley Planning Region : Rail & Pipeline Network 35 | P a g e  Increase capacity of Amtrak-owned rail bridge over the Connecticut River (Windsor Locks) to accommodate a 286,000-pound standard car size.  Improve Central CT Railroad to FRA Track Class 3.  Improve Maybrook Line to FRA Track Class 2. Inland Port The MTP also supports efforts by the Borough of Naugatuck to develop an intermodal, inland port on the site of the former Chemtura plant. The parcel is about 86.6 acres and located along the Waterbury Branch Line. The Pan Am Railways has trackage rights to the site and owns freight rail lines that connect to northern New England. The inland port would be used to transport consumer goods for warehousing and distribution at the inland port. It would also allow international goods to pass through customs in the borough. The project involves the construction of a rail spur from the WBL to serve new warehousing and distribution centers. 8.0 Aviation The NVCOG region hosts one general aviation (GA) airport, four small aircraft facilities, and six Federal Airport Administration (FAA) registered heliports. The GA Airports and Heliports are managed by the Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA). The region’s publicly owned and operated GA service level airport is located in both Oxford and Middlebury and named the Waterbury- Oxford Airport (OXC). The OXC primarily services corporate, business and recreational flight operations, and does not serve commercial airlines. The MTP will consider only general aviation airports and supports the recommendations in the Connecticut Statewide Airport System Plan (2016), as well as the Waterbury-Oxford Master and Business Plans (2007 and 2012). The main recommended actions are:  Increase hangar space.  Implement various safety improvements, including expanded taxiways, new lighting and obstruction removal.  Maintain the condition of the runway, taxiway and safety areas. 9 .0 Sustainable Transportation Sustainable transportation looks beyond infrastructure investments in highway improvements to consider how transportation decisions made today will affect the health and wealth of 36 | P a g e communities in the future. When transportation investments take into consideration economic, environmental and social issues, opportunities to improve all travelers’ quality -of -life or livability are created. Since 2009, the federal government has used an interdisciplinary approach to foster sustainable communities and improve peoples’ livability. The US Department of Transportation (USDOT), the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formed the Partnership for Sustainable Communities to improve access to affordable housing, provide more transportation options, and lower transportation costs. The partnership established six livability principles, which describe the multidisciplinary nature of sustainable development:  Provide more transportation choices.  Promote equitable, affordable housing.  Enhance economic competitiveness.  Support existing communities.  Coordinate and leverage Federal policies and investment.  Value communities and neighborhoods. The MTP focuses attention on and supports the consideration and implementation of sustainable transportation elements in all projects and has identified key stand-along actions.  Implement “Complete Streets ” Policies and Actions : The intent of “Complete Streets” is to effectuate a change in how the street environment is planned, designed and built and, as a consequence, change how it is used. In essence, the street environment is altered from one where vehicles dominate to one where all users are accommodated. Actions that comprise a “Complete Streets” project include: bicycle facilities, bus features, pedestrian enhancements, green infrastructure, and on-street parking treatments.  Transit-Oriented Developments: The key principle of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is to leverage the availability of transit services to reinforce the existing character of communities and historical downtowns and enhance the opportunities for healthy, walkable and safe neighborhoods to flourish. TODs focus on compact, mixed land uses in proximity to a major transit stop, such as a train station. In the Naugatuck Valley planning region, the MTP targets transit oriented and supportive development in the downtowns that have stations on the Waterbury Branch Line. 37 | P a g e  Promote Public Transit and Other Mobility Strategies: Public transportation is the best alternative to single-occupancy vehicle commuting. The MTP includes actions to expand and enhance commuter rail service of the Waterbury Branch Line by recommending the purchase of new locomotives and rolling stock to replace the existing outdate equipment and permit 30-minute headways. In addition, various improvements to the existing local bus service are recommended in the MTP, including extending route coverage to encompass the entire region. New express bus service is also recommended, especially along the Waterbury Branch Line corridor and between urban core areas and CT fastrack service.  Ensure Access to Tourist Attractions: The MTP located regional tourist attractions in the region and assessed current transportation access. The key finding was the need to provide adequate wayfinding to sites. Naugatuck Valley Planning Region TOD Opportunity Sites 38 | P a g e  Promote Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure: According to the EPA, transportation was responsible for 28.5% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2016, representing the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation. Electric Vehicles (EVs) are widely seen as a way to curb these impacts by shifting away from the use of fossil fuels in motor vehicles to those that will be less impactful. The MTP supports the deployment of EV and encourages the installation of charging stations, especially along I-84, I-691 and Route 8. 10.0 Transportation Security A major concern for users and would- be-users of public transportation is their security and safety. The security of passengers waiting at a rail station or walking between the station and parking area is an important issue. Broadly, transit has lower overall associated crime risk than the use of passenger vehicles. Generally, crime statistics indicate that overall, transit users have lower exposure to risk. At transit stations, regardless of neighborhood, the large number of people circulating in the vicinity leads to better security for the individual. To ensure the security of their riders, each transit operator within the region is taking steps to prevent or mitigate risk on their vehicles and stations. CT transit promotes the See Something, Say Something campaign, a program meant to benefit from many daily users being able to recognize something that is suspicious. For security on the buses, the CT transit has video recording devises onboard all of its full sized buses and para-transit vans in case of an incident. The Valley Transit District is currently in the process of upgrading its fleets of paratransit vehicles. The new vehicles will all be equipped with security cameras. While Metro North Railroad provides monitoring and security features along the New Haven rail line, including security officers at the major stations, there are very few monitoring devices located along the Waterbury Branch Line and at stations and platforms. Video cameras have only been installed along the platforms and parking lot at the Waterbury station to monitor activity. To enhance the security of transit users waiting at a station or a stop or on-board a vehicle, the following actions are recommended:  Install Closed-circuit television, video cameras at critical areas, including rail station platforms and waiting areas.  Install on-board transit vehicle surveillance, including silent alarms and video monitoring to allow transit security personnel to assess the incident, determine appropriate response and acknowledge the incident. 39 | P a g e In the scope of the MTP, transportation security extends to minimizing and responding to disruptions of the regional transportation system, and more specifically the quick, safe and efficient response to emergency situations on major expressways. The NVCOG participates in the state-defined Regional Emergency Planning Teams (REPT). The intent of the REPTs is to foster collaborative planning by providing resource information between local communities and state agencies. Recommended actions to improve transportation security include:  Prepare and maintain the Traffic Diversion Plan for I -84 and parts of US Route 7 and Route 8. The diversion routes were developed in 2011, but need to be updated to reflect the recently completed widening of I- 84.  Expand and extend traffic incident management infrastructure to Route 8. The system includes traffic cameras, Variable Message Signs (VMS), and a Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) system. Transportation resilience or resiliency is defined by FHWA as “the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions.” As part of the MTP, an assessment of the vulnerability of the region’s transportation facilities and systems to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather was conducted. The MTP recommends ways to improve transportation system resiliency in the future. Much of the existing infrastructure in the region was built during the post-war era. Stormwater systems and waterway conveyances were in most cases designed using now outdated rainfall data. More recent trends indicate that precipitation is increasing and will be delivered in more frequent intense events. Because of these trends, infrastructure that is not currently in danger from a storm event, may become more vulnerable in the future. Because of its location about 7.5 miles from Long Island Sound, the Naugatuck Valley region is less vulnerable to a damaging storm surge and coastal flooding. During a Category 1 Hurricane, the storm surge could impact sections of the Waterbury Branch Line and the Route 34 Bridge over the Naugatuck River. However, in both instances, the facilities are elevated above the maximum flood stage. A Category 2 Hurricane would create a larger storm surge and inundate the area south of downtown Derby . While Route 8 passes through the storm surge area, it is elevated above the peak surge height. However, it is likely that the WBL would be flooded. In addition, the Derby-Shelton rail station and the Valley Transit District administrative offices, garage and maintenance facility are located in the area. Under the Category 3 and 4 Hurricane conditions, the impacted areas spread farther inland and have the potential for more extensive 40 | P a g e flooding. Either strength storm would cause greater impact to the WBL and various state and local roads. Inland flooding, caused by hurricanes and tropical storms, summer storms and tornadoes, winter storms and nor’easters, is more widespread and has a greater potential to impact transportation facilities in the region. Natural hazard mitigation plans have been prepared for all municipalities in the region . These plans have assessed the region’s vulnerability to a wide range of natural storm events and disasters and have identified locations where periodic flooding may occur. The most common threat is from undersized culverts and low lying roads. The plans recommend increasing the conveyance of bridges and culverts and elevating roads and bridges above flood levels. 11.0 Advanced Technologies Advanced technologies have the potential to make the region’s transportation system operate more efficiently and safely and provide more information to travelers. These technologies focus on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and connected and autonomous vehicle (CAV) technologies. ITS refers to using advanced technologies to better manage and operate transportation systems. It is defined as: “the application of advanced sensor, computer, electronics, and communication technologies and management strategies— in an integrated manner —to improve the safety and efficiency of the surface transportation system.” These advanced systems include computer hardware or software, traffic control devices, communications links, and remote detectors. ITS projects need to be consistent with the National ITS Architecture and must satisfy a set of user services defined by FHWA. In the Naugatuck Valley planning region, ITS projects conform to the state architecture and focus on three broad areas:  Freeway Incident Management: Expand the CTDOT 24-hour incident management program to include coverage along Route 8 through the region. The project would include the installation of video cameras along the highway and speed detectors to monitoring operations and identify incidents.  Enhanced Highway Corridor Operations : Integrate existing and planned traffic control devices to enhance and coordinate arterial traffic control systems.  Real Time Traveler Information System : Provide real-time traveler information to transit travelers on vehicle location, schedule adherence, and delays. The project would install 41 | P a g e interactive information kiosks and dynamic message signs at the region’s commuter rail stations. In recent years, most automobile manufacturers have begun offering a range of driver assistance devices that help drivers avoid collisions. The key feature of these systems is that the driver remains in control. However, the evolution of technology to operate a vehicle and take control from the driver is accelerating. Fully automated cars and trucks that drive themselves is likely to be a reality over the timeframe of this transportation plan. Concurrently, wireless communication innovations are increasing the ability to exchange information between vehicles and to and from road side devices. As inter-vehicle communication advances, drivers will become better informed about their surroundings and the position of nearby vehicles. Regardless of which path CAV advancement and deployment follows, there are likely to be impacts to the transportation system and how transportation improvement plans are developed. There are numerous benefits to CAV technology, with improving road safety the paramount benefit from CAV technology. Other often cited benefits are:  Enhanced mobility: CAV will provide new mobility options to persons that are unable to drive, either due to age or disability.  Economic: Reduction of vehicle crashes will avoid billions of dollars in lost economic activity and productivity, save lives and improve quality- of-life due to fewer injuries.  Congestion: CAV will result in smoother traffic flows, thereby, reducing impedance and congestion. While the prospects for widespread acceptance of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies and systems loom large on the horizon of transportation planning, the potential implication these systems could have on motor carrier freight transportation is enormous. The trucking industry is a $700 billion business and truck borne freight has the potential to be revolutionized by the introduction of connected and autonomous trucks. Demonstrated benefits from connected and automated truck include: safety, fuel savings, air quality and mobility. A number of Transportation Network Companies (TNC), auto manufacturers, and technology companies are investing in the design and development of CAV systems and technologies, as well as, purchasing vehicle fleets to deploy their Automated Driving Systems (ADS). However, a successful path to safe testing and deployment of ADS requires government oversight, en gagement of key stakeholders, and development of uniform, consistent and reciprocal polices, regulations and standards. 42 | P a g e In Connecticut, the legislature enacted legislation (Public Act 17-69) that authorized the state to establish and implement a pilot program for testing fully autonomous vehicles (AV). Under the program, the Office of Policy and Management will solicit AV proposals and select up to four municipalities to participate in the program. The pilot program aims to encourage and allow for the testing of fully autonomous vehicles on local highways in Connecticut. The municipalities must outline the location and routes where AVs may operate, hours of operation for vehicle testing, as well as record the make, year, and model of the test vehicles. Partnerships with an automated vehicle manufacturer, university and service provider (Lyft, Uber, etc.) are encouraged for the purposes of providing shuttle services and other programs. The legislation requires a tester to be seat ed in the driver’s seat and b e capable of taking immediate control of the AV, and prohibits testing on limited access highways. 12.0 Capital Improvement Program The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Naugatuck Valley planning and the Central Naugatuck Valley MPO is intended t o address the issues and deficiencies of the area’s transportation systems. The critical transportation problems facing the region are:  Aging Infrastructure  Roadway Congestion  Highway and Pedestrian Safety  Under Investment in Public Transit  Incomplete and Gaps in Active Transportation Facilities Federal regulations require the MTP to be “financially constrained” (Title 23 CFR 450.324) and develop a financial plan based on reasonably expected available and projected sources of federal, state, and local revenues and the costs of implementing proposed transportation system improvements. The Capital improvement program (CIP) is this financial plan which will help the region to effectively meet the goals and objectives discussed throughout this MTP over its timeframe . More specifically, the CIP goals involve:  Maintaining and preserving critical systems in a State- of-Good-Repair  Promote better and more efficient operation and management of the transportation system  Enhance transportation systems to meet the traveling needs of all reside nts and travelers  Support economic revitalization 43 | P a g e  Support sustainable communities initiatives that link land development with investments in transportation infrastructure and support the development of transit- oriented districts The principal sources of funds are the various federal-aid transportation programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The federal aid programs are authorized by federal act and typically provide 80% of the project costs, with state and local funds covering the remaining 20% non-federal share. The current federal transportation act, known as the FAST Act, was signed into law on December 4, 2015. It is a five – year legislation. While many of the programs and provisions were included in the previous federal act ( MAP- 21), the FAST Act reformed and strengthened the transportation programs and refocused federal-aid on national priorities. Key elements of the new act were providing long- term certainty and more flexibility for states and local governments. Most federal transportation programs apportion funds by formula using program-specific factors. Some transportation funding is provided through discretionary programs, with states required to compete on a project- by-project basis. In Connecticut, the Special Transportation Fund (STF) finances transportation improvement projects and is accessed to provide the non-federal match of funds under the FAST Act. The primary use of the STF is to pay debt service on Special Tax Obligation Bonds issued for transportation infrastructure purposes. A small portion of the STF is used for “pay -as -you- go” projects, including ongoing maintenance. The major sources of STF dollars are the motor fuels tax and motor vehicle receipts, which combined account for about 80% of the total STF revenues. The core federal aid transportation programs administered by FHWA and FTA are as follows:  Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development Program – BUILD (USDOT)  National Highway Performance Program – NHPP (FHWA)  National Highway Freight Program – NHFP (FHWA)  Highway Safety Improvement Program – HSIP (FHWA)  Surface Transportation Block Grant Program – STBG (FHWA)  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program – CMAQ (FHW A)  Off-System Bridges – (FHWA)  National Highway Traffic Safety (NHTS) / Section 154 Penalty Funds (FHWA)  Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program – Section 5307 (FTA)  Capital Investment Grants – Section 5309 Discretionary Capital Program (FTA)  Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities – Section 5310 (FTA)  Emergency Relief Program – Section 5324 (FTA)  State of Good Repair Grant Program – Section 5337 (FTA) 44 | P a g e  Bus and Bus Facilities Infrastructure Investment Program – Section 5339 (FTA) In recent years, several 100% state-funded programs have been established.  Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program (LOTCIP)  Community Connectivity Program  State Recreational Trails Program The CTDOT, as part of its financial planning responsibilities, calculated the total estimated funds reasonably anticipated to be available from the FHWA over the timeframe of the MTP. The state and federal aid funds apportioned to Connecticut for highway projects in FFY 2018 was used as a base, and compounded at 3% per year over the life of the MTP. The CTDOT estimates that, over the next 27 years, about $2.5 billion will be available to implement the highway improvements in the metropolitan planning area under the jurisdiction of the CNVMPO. For the public transportation funding sources, current FTA apportionments to the Waterbury urbanized area were extrapolated over the life of the MTP inflated by 3% per year. The state has committed to providing funds to cover 100% of the operating subsidies for local bus services. Funds to operate complementary ADA transit services were expected to be continued over the life of the MTP. Rail capital projects proposed and planned for the Naugatuck Valley planning region represent major statewide investments and integrated with the capital program for the state-owned New Haven rail line and its related branch lines. The funding for these projects is assumed to be included in the CTDOT’s rail plan. Based on current appropriations, it is expected that about $1.2 billion will be available through FTA programs for rail modernization projects on state-owned fixed guideway (New Haven main rail line and the Danbury, New Canaan and Waterbury branch rail lines). Funds projected to be available for regional bus and bus facilities projects are estimated at about $588.6 million. About $188.9 million will be allocated to the CT transit Waterbury and Bristol divisions to support bus operations. While the total allocation for bus operating assistance is expected to meet existing needs and demand, it does not factor in or allow for any new services or route enhancements and expansions. The breakdown by funding source is shown in the following chart. 45 | P a g e The funding needed to implement the transportation improvements recommended in the MTP is substantial. Over the timeframe of the MTP, an investment of over $2.8 billion is recommended. This cost includes a substantial investment in modernizing the infrastructure of the Waterbury branch rail line, preserving and maintaining I-84 and Route 8 in states- of-good- repair, providing dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities to ensure safe travel, including completing the Naugatuck River Greenway Trail, and supporting and enhancing public transit operation. The MTP has also identified opportunities to provide new, alternate modes of transportation, such as Bus Rapid Transit, and create transit-supportive land development in the vicinity of WBL rail station. Over 70% of the total funding needs are attributable to highway preservation and enhancement projects and less than 25% of the funds are allocated to public transit improvements. The Highway System Preservation category includes active transportation projects and improvements to support and expand transportation of freight by rail. 46 | P a g e There are a total of 126 specifically defined regional projects, listed by municipality and their expected implementation timeframe. For illustrative purposes, generic projects have been included as place holders to account for system improvements and enhancements that have not be en identified. These types of projects are generally programmed in the later years of the MTP and include the following types of projects:  Regional bridge program  Regional pavement program  Regional road reconstruction program  Regional bicycle program  Regional pedestrian safety program  Regional community connectivity program 47 | P a g e 13.0 Public Outreach The MTP is the product of collaboration between NVCOG, its members, and the public, and has been informed by consultation with stakeholders throughout the region. To develop the MTP, the NVCOG gather ed input from the diverse groups that make up the region using a variety of methods and means .  Mobility Project Reporter: This is an online application developed on a GIS platform that allows the public to submit problems or observations related to local mobility and transportation for consideration in future planning projects. Users can submit new suggestions or review and vote on existing suggestions submitted by other users.  Online Survey : A survey was developed and posted online to solicit information and comments from the public regarding their opinions on the transportation systems of the Naugatuck Valley planning region. A Spanish-language version of the survey was developed and posted on the NVCOG website.  MTP Update Webpage: A separate webpage was created on the NVCOG website to inform visitors to the site that the long range transportation plan for the region was being updated. The webpage provides links to the transportation survey and the Mobility Project Reporter.  Social Media: The NVCOG posts notices on the progress of updating the MTP on its Facebook page.  NVCOG Board, CNVMPO, Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) and Regional Planning Commission (RPC) Meetings: Progress on updating the MTP was presented at monthly meetings of the NVCOG Board and the CNVMPO, as well as at the bi -monthly meetings of the RPC and TTAC . The chief elected officials of the NVCOG member municipalities comprise the Board and CNVMPO. The RPC is made up of planners and/or planning officials of NVCOG member cities and towns and the TTAC members are the local municipal engineers and/or public works officials. All meetings are open to the public. Members of these boards and committees collaborated with NVCOG staff to finalize the proposed program of projects. In addition to the above listed methods, the NVCOG will conduct a minimum 30-day public review and comment period. During that period, the NVCOG website will include access to the draft MTP and a summary of the draft MTP, an online story map describing the M TP, and updates about the MTP planning process. A public information meeting will be held on March 27, 2019 during the comment period to present the transportation vision for the region, review recommended actions to realize the vision, and solicit comments. The CNV MPO will consider adoption of the 48 | P a g e MTP at its April 12, 2019 meeting. The public will be afforded an opportunity to address the MPO before a vote on the MTP is taken.

Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2018

November 2018 A Report by T h e N a u g a t u c k Va l l e y Council of Governments Naugatuck Valley R e g i o n a l P r o f i l e 2 0 1 8 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Several tables and figures in this report compare data from the 2012 -2016 American Community Survey (ACS) five -year estimates to the 2000 Census. Beginning in 2005, the ACS replaced the long – form census as the source for detailed socioeconomic and housing data. The first complete ACS data set covered the years 2005 -2009. The 2012 -2016 ACS is a five -year estimate where a small percent- age of all households are sampled each year. ACS estimates repre- sent an average over the course of five years and are not equiva- lent to the 100 percent count data from the 2010 census. The ACS five -year estimates are not optimal for analyzing year to year trends because four of the five years of samples are reused in the next year ’s estimates. One -year and three -year ACS data are only available for larger municipalities. The ACS surveys approximately 3 million households per year (roughly 2.5% of households) and aggregates the data on multi – year intervals. The long -form 2000 Census was given to approxi- mately 16% of households. Both data sets used samples to calcu- late estimates for the entire population. The differences in meth- odology between the long -form 2000 Census and the 2012 -2016 ACS make their comparisons difficult. However, because of the lack of related data sets, they were compared in several tables and maps. Readers should take note that these comparisons can help show general trends, but may be inaccurate in providing specific numbers. Front Cover: Naugatuck River Greenway in Seymour/Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments All other photos were taken by NVCOG staff The material contained herein may be quoted or reproduced with- out special permission, although mention of the source is appreci- ated. The preparation of this report was financed through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin- istration, and the Federal Transit Administration, and by contribu- tions from member municipalities of the Naugatuck Valley Region. Data Disclaimer Photo Credits Attribution Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table of Contents Chapter Page 1. Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 1 2. Population and Demographic Trends ………………………….. ……………….. 5 3. Economic Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 11 4. Housing Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 15 Appendices Page Appendix A: Population and Demographic Trends: Tables and Maps .. 19 Appendix B: Economic Trends: Tables and Maps ………………………….. … 49 Appendix C: Housing Trends: Tables and Maps ………………………….. ….. 61 Appendix D: Other Regional Information ………………………….. …………… 81 Depot Street Bridge, Beacon Falls Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 1 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile The following chapters present demo- graphic, economic, and housing data for the Naugatuck Valley Region, a 19 -town region in West Central Connecticut. Data comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 Decennial Census, the 2012 -2016 American Community Survey (ACS), the Connecticut Department of Labor (DOL), and the Connecticut Department of Eco- nomic and Community Development (DECD). Summary of Findings This report examines past trends and pro- vides an outlook for the future. The re- gion ’s economic, housing, and population trends have been on the upswing since the 2007‐2009 Great Recession. The Naugatuck Valley has long benefitted from strong local and regional leadership, effective economic development organiza- tions and a well -trained workforce. As of 2017, the unemployment rate has moved down to 5.3 %. Other positive factors not- ed in this report include the fact that de- spite volatility in the housing market over the last few years, the region remains more affordable than the state as a whole. Also, it has maintained steady population growth of about 4.3%, with all municipali- ties becoming more ethnically diverse dur- ing the past 16 years. In addition, it is important to note that the region is positioning itself well for years ahead. Local officials recognize that cre- ating the conditions for sustainable, transit -dependent communities is key to stimu- lating greater private investment. Such transportation improvements and creating sustainable growth around transit, as well as a Naugatuck River area revitalization, are in the works. The 27 miles of the Wa- terbury Branch Rail Line is a priority under the state ’s 30 -year “Let ’s Go CT! ” transpor- tation initiative and key changes are under- way to increase capacity and service offer- ings. These projects are designed to bring numerous quality of life and future eco- nomic development benefits. In the near future, the region will be shaped by the retirement of the baby boomers. A surge in the elderly population will require a shift in the provision of ser- vices and access to affordable housing to meet this demand. 1. Introduction Economy Population Housing This report will examine the relationship between population, economic, and housing trends Lock 12 Historic Park, Cheshire Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2 Methodology is based on Data Haven ’s Community Well Being Index 3 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Composition of the Region While overall regional trends are in- formative, they fail to account for the differences that exist between munici- palities, or even neighborhoods within a municipality. Each scale of analysis tells a different story, and this report will show data in a variety of scales in order to provide as complete an over- view as possible. This report presents data at regional, subregional, municipal, and neighbor- hood scales. In order to highlight key trends among similar municipalities, a three -level subregional classification was developed (Figure 1b). Municipali- ties were classified as urban core, inner ring, or outer ring based on current and historic population, economic, and housing trends. Table 1a below high- lights some of the differences that exist between the urban core, inner ring, and outer ring communities. To supplement the regional and sub – regional scales, tables in the text and appendices present data for each mu- nicipality. Where applicable, neighbor- hood (block -group) level maps were created to highlight the differences that exist from neighborhood to neigh- borhood. Region Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Population 2016 447,390 232,978 128,446 85,966 Population Density per sq. mi. 1,061 2,782 890 444 Population Growth 2000 -2016 + 4.3% + 1.6% +4.5% +12.2% Percent Minority 2016 27.7% 42.3% 13.0% 10.0% Percent Foreign Born 2015 11.2% 13.2% 9.6% 7.4% Percent Over Age 65 2016 15.9% 13.8% 17.1% 19.6% Median Age 2016 43.4 37.7 44.0 46.3 Median Household Income $67,541 $49,691 $85,859 $89,592 Poverty Rate 2016 11.9% 18.3% 4.6% 5.5% Percent with Bachelors Degree 29.8% 20.4% 38.3% 41.0% Unemployment Rate 2017 5.3% 6.3% 4.3% 4.2% Jobs 2017 158,781 76,532 57,991 24,258 Job Growth 2004 -2017 0.9% -4.1% 8.9% -0.2% Housing Growth 2000 -2016 +5.6% +0.4% +10.5% +15.3% Average Household Size 2016 2.61 2.60 2.60 2.67 Percent Single -Family Homes 64.2% 49.7% 79.3% 83.8% Homeownership Rate 2016 67.9% 54.6% 80.9% 85.4% Median Home Value 2016 $242,145 $169,869 $288,057 $305,301 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 4 Urban Core During the 19th century, the urban core emerged as a leading manufactur- ing center for brass, copper, clocks, watches, and rubber products. The urban core has high levels of racial and income diversity, high population den- sity, good access to public transit, and plentiful affordable housing. The char- acter of the urban core varies signifi- cantly from neighborhood to neighbor- hood. Most of the region ’s major insti- tutions, such as hospitals and higher education, call the urban core home. Inner Ring Inner ring communities contain a mix of urban and suburban characteristics. Smaller manufacturing centers such as Oakville, Terryville, and Shelton emerged in the 19th century, forming the historic cores of the inner ring mu- nicipalities. In the post World War II years, these communities became more suburban in character as urban core residents and young families moved in. Today, the population is highly educated and moderately di- verse. In the last decade, the inner ring has seen job growth as companies leave the urban core to be closer to their workforce. Outer Ring The traditionally rural outer ring has become more suburban in character over the last two decades. From 2000 to 2016, the outer ring population grew at 12.1%, far faster than the re- gion, state, and nation. These towns have the lowest population densities, the highest incomes, and the highest proportion of elderly residents. With few local jobs, most outer ring resi- dents commute to jobs in neighboring towns and cities. 5 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile This chapter summarizes regional demographic trends such as population change, race and ethnicity, age, house- hold structure, education, and income. The major population and demograph- ic trends shaping the region are:  Population growth in the outer ring outpaced the rest of the region through 2010 but has since slowed and shifted to the inner ring.  All municipalities are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse.  In the next ten years, the region will see a large increase in retirees and a decline in school -aged population.  Non -traditional households (non – married couples) are becoming more common.  There is a large education and in- come gap between the urban core and surrounding municipalities. Population Growth From 2000 to 2016, the region saw a modest 4.3% growth rate, adding 18,600 new residents. This was a faster growth rate than the 1990s, but much slower than the 1980s. About 60% of the population growth was due to nat- ural increase (births minus deaths), while 40% was due to in -migration from outside the region. Demand for new single family homes in the early 2000s led to explosive growth in outer ring municipalities, which grew 12.2% between 2000 and 2016. The remain- der of the region grew at a slower rate, with a 4.5% increase in the inner ring and a 1.6% increase in the urban core. Since 2010, population growth has stagnated as a result of the 2007 to 2009 recession. From 2007 to 2015, the number of births dropped by 13.1%. Many families have delayed having children due to economic un- certainty and rising student loan debt. The drop in new home construction since 2008 has prevented new resi- dents from moving to the region, par- ticularly in the urban core. 2. Population and Demographic Trends The Gathering, Waterbury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 6 Immigration and Migration While birth rates have fallen, immigra- tion and migration have allowed the region ’s population to continue to grow at a modest rate. Just over 11% of the region ’s population is foreign born, with the largest groups hailing from Portugal, Poland, Italy, the Do- minican Republic, and Jamaica. The region is also home to a large migrant population from Puerto Rico. From 2000 to 2015, the region had a net gain of 7,119 residents through in – migration. While the outer ring experi- enced a natural decrease in population (more deaths than births), they added 10,984 residents through in -migration (people moving into the region). At the other end of the spectrum, the urban core had a large natural increase (more births than deaths) offset by a loss of nearly 9,006 residents through out -migration. The inner ring saw a small natural increase and gained 5,228 residents through in -migration. Population Projections Population projections from the Con- necticut State Data Center indicate that up to 2025, the region ’s popula- tion will continue to grow, but at a much slower rate than in the past. From 2025 to 2040, the region is pro- jected to shrink by 1.2%, losing approx- imately 5,355 residents. The urban core is projected to grow at the fastest rate, adding 7,856 residents between 2015 and 2040, a 3.3% in- crease. Waterbury, which has a much higher birth rate than the rest of the region, is projected to grow by 7.3%. New home construction and in – migration will slow and limit popula- tion growth in the outer ring. Middle- bury and Oxford are projected to be the two fastest -growing municipalities in the region. In the inner ring, shrinking household size and a decrease in the population under 15 will limit growth. The popula- tion in the inner ring is expected to decline by 9.7% between 2015 and 2040. Communities such as Cheshire and Shelton are close to being “built out ” and have little developable land to support new housing units. While population projections are use- ful, they are unable to predict changes in the housing market and economy. The housing market will dictate where growth will occur, particularly for the inner and outer ring. Similarly, birth rates, migration, and immigration are closely tied to the economy. A growing economy generally sees higher popula- tion growth than a stagnant economy. Sources: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections by Municipality: 2015 –2040 7 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile B l a c k 6.9% A s i a n 2.6% B l a c k 5.4% W h i t e 83.1% H i s p a n i c 8.2% A s i a n 1.5% O t h e r 1.8% O t h e r 2.3% “Other ” includes American =ndian/Alaska Natives, Pacific =slanders, Some Other Race, and Multiracial persons. Black, Asian, Other, and White populations only include non -:ispanic persons. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5– Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 DP5 . Race and Ethnicity Immigration, migration, and higher birth rates among minority groups have made the region ’s population more diverse than ever before. As of 2016, 123,878 residents were of a minority race or ethnicity, making up 27.7% of the total. This is an increase from 2000, when just 16.9% of the population be- longed to a minority group. From 2000 to 2016, the urban core experienced “white flight ” as their non -Hispanic white populations declined by over 33,000. This coincided with rapid growth among Hispanics, African Amer- icans, and Asians. Waterbury is a minority -majority city, with 60.6% of its population belonging to a minority racial or ethnic group. Ansonia, Derby, Naugatuck, Seymour, and Bristol have the next highest mi- nority populations. Outside of the ur- ban core, less than 13% of the popula- tion belongs to a minority group, alt- hough this trend is changing. Between 2000 and 2016, inner ring and outer ring communities saw their minority populations grow at rates of 80.9% and 165.9% respectively, exceeding the ur- ban core growth rate of 64.2%. Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing minority group in the region with a population of 71,097, a 103% increase from 2000. Hispanics now make up 15.9% of the population. A majority of Hispanics who live in the region are of Puerto Rican heritage, including nearly 25,000 who live in Wa- terbury. There was also sizable growth among African Americans, who make up 6.9% of the population. Asians, the second fastest growing minority group through 2000 to 2016 (88.4%), are more likely to live in the suburbs than the urban core. Figure 2c compares the racial and ethnic composition of the Naugatuck Valley in 2000 and 2016. H i s p a n i c 15.9% W h i t e 72.3% Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 8 Age The region ’s population is aging. In 1990, the median age was 34.3. By 2000 it increased to 37.6, and by 2016 reached 43.4 years old. The urban core has the youngest median age at 37.7 years old while the outer ring is the oldest at 46.3 years old. From 2000 to 2016, the number of residents over the age of 65 increased by 13.6%, with the fastest growth in the inner ring (29.8%) and outer ring (39.7%). The urban core saw a decrease in elderly residents (-4.0%). The aging trend will accelerate as baby boomers reach retirement age. The population over the age of 65 is pro- jected to balloon from 70,934 in 2015 to over 89,451 by 2040. The working -aged (age 15 to 64) popu- lation is expected to stay stable up to 2020 and then decline slightly through 2040. As the baby boomers age into retirement, millennials (born between 1980 and 2000) will make up a greater portion of the region ’s workforce. As of 2015, there are 79,727 children under the age of 15, making up 17.7% of the total. This age group is expected to decline to 75,456 by 2040. Inner ring and outer ring communities are projected to see their population un- der age 15 decrease by over 11.4%. The changing age structure of the re- gion will shift the financial burdens of municipalities. Budgets will shift away from education and youth services to- wards elderly services such as health care, transportation, and recreation. This is particularly true in inner and outer ring communities, where a dra- matic increase in elderly population will correspond with a decrease in school -aged population. Greater finan- cial burdens will be placed on the working aged population, who will have to support the growing number of retirees. Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 –2030 Male Male Female Female 9 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Household and Family Structure Household arrangements have changed as the average age of mar- riage increases, family sizes decrease, and life expectancy increases. For the first time in history, less than half of the region ’s households are made up of married couples. Persons living alone, cohabitating couples, married couples without children, and single parent households are becoming more prevalent. Less than half of married couples have children age 18 and under. “Empty nesters ” are becoming more common as the millennial generation ages, and many young couples have delayed hav- ing children in the last few years due to economic uncertainty. Household structure in the urban core differs significantly from the inner and outer ring communities. Just 39.2% of urban core households are married couples compared to 56.8% in the in- ner ring and 59.0% in the outer ring. A disproportionate number of single – parent households are found in the urban core. Education As of 2016, 29.8% of the region ’s adults age 25 and over have a Bache- lor ’s degree or higher. This compares to 30.3% of adults nationwide, and 38% statewide. There is a large dis- crepancy in educational attainment between the urban core and the re- mainder of the region. In the urban core, just 20.4% of the population age 25 and older has a Bachelor ’s degree or higher, compared to 38.3% in the inner ring, and 41.0% in the outer ring. Since 2000, educational attainment has improved across all municipalities. The number of residents with at least a Bachelor ’s degree increased by 38.0%, with the fastest increase occurring in the outer ring. During the same period, the number of residents without a high school diploma dropped by over 33%. Education is strongly correlated with income. Persons with a college degree have much higher incomes than high school graduates. Municipalities with a higher proportion of college gradu- ates have higher incomes than less educated municipalities. Figure 2e be- low illustrates the relationship be- tween education and income. Urban Core Region Outer Ring Inner Ring Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 10 Income and Poverty There is a large income gap between the urban core and remainder of the region. From 2012 to 2016 estimates, median household income in the urban core was $49,691 compared to $85,859 in the inner ring and $89,592 in the outer ring. Over a quarter of households in the urban core are low income (making less than $25,000 per year) compared to 11.1% in the inner ring and 11.7% in the outer ring. On the opposite end of the income spec- trum, over 40% of households in the inner and outer ring are high income (making $100,000 or more per year) compared to less than 21% in the ur- ban core. The Great Recession negatively im- pacted household and family income throughout the region. In addition, the growing number of elderly persons puts additional financial strain on households (retirees have less income than working -aged persons). Since 1999, median household income de- clined in 16 out of 19 municipalities. The highest drops in household income occurred in the urban core towns of Ansonia, Derby, and Naugatuck. These three towns have a high percentage of single parent households. The number of people in poverty in- creased by 66.8% from 2000 to 2016. In 2000, there were 31,412 persons living in poverty (7.5% of total). By 2016, it had increased to 52,396 (11.9% of total). Poverty increased at a moderate rate in the inner ring and highest in outer ring municipalities and the urban core. Waterbury, which has a poverty rate of 25.4%, is home to over half of the region ’s impoverished. Child poverty is a prevalent issue in the urban core, where 27.8% of chil- dren live below the poverty line. Anso- nia, Derby and Waterbury have child poverty rates exceeding 20%. Child poverty is also strongly correlated with household structure. Children in single parent households are 4.4 times more likely to live in poverty than house- holds with both parents present. 11 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile The Naugatuck Valley economy was hit hard by the 2007 to 2009 recession. The major economic trends shaping the region are:  Unemployment disproportionately affects young workers under the age of 25.  As of 2017, the region has gained back 71% of the jobs that were lost during the recession.  Jobs are suburbanizing. During the last ten years the inner ring saw job growth while the urban core lost jobs.  Over half of Naugatuck Valley resi- dents commute to jobs outside the region. Labor Force The labor force is made up of Nau- gatuck Valley residents over the age of 16 who are either employed, or are unemployed and looking for work. As of 2017, the region ’s labor force was 237,050, of which 224,546 were em- ployed and 12,504 were unemployed. From 2010 to 2013 the state and re- gion experienced a labor force contrac- tion, meaning that there were fewer residents who were employed or look- ing for work. The labor force contrac- tion can be attributed to stagnant job growth, unemployed workers dropping out of the labor force, and a growing number of residents hitting retirement age. In 2014 the labor force grew for the first time since 2009 and has re- mained steady. People who had diffi- culty finding work during the last few years are reentering the labor force as the job market improves. Employment As of 2017 there were 224,546 em- ployed residents living in the region. This is only 3,501 more than the 2007 number when there were 221,045 em- ployed residents. The number of em- ployed residents decreased every year from 2008 to 2013 but has continued to rebound from 2014 to 2017. Population projections indicate that a significant number of baby boomers are nearing retirement age. The num- ber of working aged residents is pro- jected to remain stable up to 2020 and decline thereafter as the last of the baby boomers retire. Attracting and retaining young workers will be neces- sary to replace the growing number of retirees. 3. Economic Trends Shelton Corporate Park, Shelton Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 12 Unemployment From 2007 to 2010 the region saw the number of unemployed residents more than double from 11,954 to 24,656. The jump in unemployment was caused by both job losses and labor force growth. Unemployment has de- creased each year since 2010. As of 2017, it stands at 12,504, or 5.3% of the labor force. The labor force con- traction (unemployed persons that have stopped looking for work) is re- sponsible for some of the drop in un- employment. Despite improvements over the last three years, the unem- ployment rate remains slightly above state and national averages. Figure 3a summarizes labor force, employment, and unemployment trends over the last 23 years. Unemployment trends vary by location and age. As of 2017, unemployment is highest in the urban core communities of Waterbury (7.4%), Ansonia (6.5%), and Derby (5.8%), and lowest in the inner ring community of Cheshire (3.3%) and the outer ring communities of Woodbury (3.6%), Thomaston (4.0%), and Prospect (4.0%). Due to the collapse of the stock market from 2007 to 2009, many older work- ers have continued to work into retire- ment age. This trend, combined with the lack of new job creation, has led to a disproportionately high unemploy- ment rate among young people. The unemployment rate for residents un- der the age of 25 is 17.3% compared to 8.9% for middle aged workers (age 25 – 44) and 6.3% for older workers (age 45 and older)* *Source: ACS 2012 -2016, B23001 13 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Jobs During the recession, the region expe- rienced sharper job losses than the state and nation as a whole. From 2007 to 2011, 12,337 jobs were lost, a decline of 7.6%. The manufacturing, finance and insurance, and construc- tion sectors experienced the sharpest job losses. Some sectors, such as health care and social assistance, and educational services, added jobs during the recession. These sectors have tra- ditionally been “recession -proof. ” Since 2011 the economy has improved, adding over 8,700 jobs. As of 2017, the region has gained back 71% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. Comparatively, the state has gained back 146% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. As of 2017 there are 158,781 jobs in the region. Despite job losses during the last ten years, Waterbury remains the job center of the region followed by Shelton, Bristol, and Cheshire. As the population shifts to the suburbs, many employers have followed in or- der to be closer to their workforce. From 2004 to 2017, the urban core lost over 3,300 jobs while the inner ring gained over 4,700 jobs, mostly in Shel- ton, and Cheshire. Bristol was the only urban core municipality to gain jobs (1032). Outer ring towns with good highway access (such as Oxford and Middlebury) also saw job growth. Over the last half century, the region has shifted from a manufacturing – oriented economy to a service – oriented one. Health care and social assistance is now the largest job sector followed by government (which in- cludes public school teachers). While much less prominent than in the past, manufacturing remains the third larg- est sector of the region ’s economy, with over 20,000 jobs. A majority of manufacturing jobs are now located outside of the urban core. Employment projections from the Con- necticut Department of Labor indicate that the health care and social assis- tance sector will drive job creation up to 2020, largely due to increased de- mand for health care by the baby boomers. Other sectors projected to add jobs up to 2020 are professional and business services, and construc- tion, although the latter is largely de- pendent on the housing market. Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 14 Commuting There is a large mismatch between the number of employed residents living in the region and the number of jobs in the region. There are enough jobs to employ just 71% of working residents. The result is a net export of over 65,000 workers each day to other re- gions, with many commuting to Hart- ford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Danbury, and lower Fairfield County. Cheshire, Middlebury and Shelton are the only municipalities in the region that have more jobs than employed residents. The remaining municipalities have more employed residents than jobs and are net exporters of commut- ers. As of 2015, when the most recent com- muting data was available, just 39.8% of employed Naugatuck Valley resi- dents worked in the region. The re- maining 60.2% commute to jobs out- side of the region. Waterbury is the most popular commuting destination followed by Bristol, Cheshire and Shel- ton. Outside of the region, the most popular destinations are Hartford, New Haven, Stratford, Bridgeport, and Dan- bury. Similarly, nearly half of the peo- ple who work in the Naugatuck Valley live outside of the region. Wages The average wage of workers in the region is $56,323 which is above the national average of $50,620, but below the state average of $66,648. Since 2007, the region has seen wages in- crease slightly (1.2%) compared to the state, which declined by –1.1%. Average wages vary significantly from sector to sector. The Management of Companies and Enterprises has an av- erage wage of over $148,999, while the Accommodation and Food Services Sector has an average wage of just $19,178. Table 3a below shows the highest and lowest wage sectors in the region. Sector Average Wage Management of Companies and Enterprises $148,999 Information $123,962 Finance and Insurance $99,816 Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services $89,437 Utilities $89,189 Sector Average Wage Accommodation and Food Services $19,178 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $23,497 Other Services $26,719 Retail Trade $30,874 Administrative & Waste Management $35,795 15 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile In recent years, the housing market has been shaped by the Great Reces- sion and preceding housing bubble. The major housing trends shaping the region are:  Multi family homes account for 42.4% of the total new construction in the region since 2011.  Since peaking in 2005, new con- struction decreased 80% by 2016.  Home prices grew rapidly from 2003 to 2007, but have declined each year since 2007.  Homes in the region are more af- fordable than the state as a whole.  Most of the affordable housing in the region is found in the urban core. New Construction During the early 2000s the region ex- perienced a building boom. New con- struction peaked from 2002 to 2005 when over 5,000 housing units were built. The vast majority (85%) of new homes were single -family homes. Shel- ton and Oxford led the region in new construction. In 2005 new home construction to- taled 1,676 units, but fell to just 298 units in 2011 as the national housing bubble burst. New construction has remained well below its historic levels since then. The multi family market picked up pace in 2012 and 2013 due to apartment and condominium con- struction in Shelton and Bristol. In 2015 the inner ring added 224 multi family units with 152 in Shelton, 72 in Seymour, and 11 in Thomaston. In 2016 the multi family housing market stalled with only 17 units built in the region. Construction of new single family homes has remained stagnant. Due to shrinking household sizes, housing has grown at a faster rate than the number of households. 4. Housing Trends Oxford Greens, Oxford Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 16 Housing Stock As of 2016, the region has 184,984 housing units. Single -family homes comprise 64.2% of units. Outer ring communities such as Oxford, Bethle- hem, and Middlebury are made up al- most entirely of single -family homes. By contrast, a vast majority of the region ’s multi -family housing units are found in the urban core. However, in the last decade, a majority of the new multi – family units were built in the inner ring. Homes in the inner and outer ring are larger and newer than their urban core counterparts. The median year of con- struction for the region is 1965. The urban core has the oldest housing stock (1962) followed by the inner ring (1969) and outer ring (1974). Suburban homes are also larger. Over 60% of housing units in the inner and outer rings have six or more rooms compared to 40.5% in the urban core. Home Ownership As of 2016, 67.5% of households in the region live in an owner -occupied home. This is slightly higher than the 66.5% homeownership rate statewide. Out- side the urban core, over 80% of house- holds live in owner -occupied homes. Three -quarters of all rental units are located in the urban core. Homeownership trends also vary by type of housing unit and income. Single family units are much more likely to be owner occupied (90.0%) than multi – family units (23.1%). High income households are more likely to own a home than low income households. Less than 32% of households that make under $25,000 live in an owner – occupied unit compared to approxi- mately 90% for households that make over $100,000. 17 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Home Values In keeping with national and state trends, the region saw rapid home val- ue appreciation in the early 2000s. From 2003 to 2007, the equalized net grand list, or ENGL, (the total market value of all properties in the region) increased by 38.6%, or nearly $17 bil- lion. While the bulk of the increase was due to overvalued real estate, some of the increase was due to new construc- tion. After peaking in 2007, the hous- ing market began its subsequent col- lapse. From 2007 to 2015, the ENGL dropped by –37.8%, a loss of more than $23 billion. The urban core saw the highest ENGL growth from 2003 to 2007 (41.2%) followed by the sharpest decline from 2007 to 2015 ( -43.6%). Figure 4b shows changes in inflation adjusted ENGL from 2002 to 2015. The drop in property values and mu- nicipal grand list value has led to fiscal challenges for municipalities, who have been forced to either raise property tax rates, cut services, or both. In addi- tion, many homeowners have negative equity (their home is worth less than their mortgage) leading to increases in foreclosure and home vacancy. Despite volatility in the housing market over the last few years, the region re- mains more affordable than the state as a whole. The median home value for owner occupied units in the region is $242,145, compared to $269,300 statewide. Eleven of the 19 municipali- ties in the region are more affordable than the statewide median. Homes are most affordable in the urban core ($169,869) while the inner ($288,057) and outer ($305,301) rings have the most expensive homes. Source: Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2003 -2015 All values are in 2015 dollars Outer Ring Inner Ring Urban Core Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 18 Housing Costs Monthly homeowner costs and month- ly rent also provide insight into the re- gion ’s affordability. Median monthly homeowner costs range from a low of $1,367 in Water- bury to $2,097 in Oxford. Homeowners with a mortgage pay more than twice as much per month as homeowners without a mortgage. From 2000 to 2016, median monthly homeowner costs for homes with a mortgage have risen between 1% and 18% depending on the municipality. Non -mortgaged homeowner costs increased at a faster rate than mortgage costs, suggesting that fuel prices, electricity rates, taxes, and insurance are increasing . Renters pay less per month than home- owners. Median gross rents (lease amount plus utilities) range from a low of $832 in Thomaston to $1,499 in Southbury. Rent has not increased as fast as homeowner costs. In five outer ring towns and three inner ring towns, inflation -adjusted rents actually de- creased from 2000 to 2016 . Affordable Housing The U.S. Census Bureau uses 30% of household income as a standard for measuring housing affordability. In or- der to be considered affordable, home- owners should pay 30% or less of their income towards housing. As of 2016, 36.8% of households pay 30% or more of their income towards housing. Renters (48.6%) are more likely to pay 30% or more of their income towards housing than homeowners (31.2%). More than half of urban core renters pay 30% or more of their income for housing. Low income households may qualify for publicly assisted housing programs such as Section 8 vouchers, deed re- strictions, and Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) or Farmer ’s Home Administration (FmHA) mortgag- es. Over 84% of publicly assisted hous- ing units are found in the urban core, including more than half in the City of Waterbury. Municipalities that have less than 10% affordable housing are subject to Con- necticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 8-30g, which limits the conditions un- der which towns may deny applications for such developments. Ansonia (14.4%), Bristol (14.0%), Derby (11.6%), and Waterbury (21.6%) are the only municipalities that meet the 10% af- fordable housing threshold. The re- maining municipalities have less than 10% affordable housing and are subject to CGS Section 8 -30g. 19 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix A Population and Demographic Trends Tables and Maps Topic Page Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 20 Population Density ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 22 Race and Ethnicity ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 24 Hispanic Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 26 Age Distribution ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 28 Elderly Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 30 Median Age ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 32 Income Distribution ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 34 Income ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 36 Poverty ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 38 Household Structure ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 40 Educational Attainment ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 44 Population Projections ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 46 Waterbury on Wheels Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 20 Population Percent Change Geography 2016 2010 2000 2010 -2016 2000 -2010 Ansonia 18,950 19,249 18,554 -1.6% 3.7% Beacon Falls 6,075 6,049 5,246 0.4% 15.3% Bethlehem 3,492 3,607 3,422 -3.2% 5.4% Bristol 60,437 60,477 60,062 -0.1% 0.7% Cheshire 29,254 29,261 28,543 0.0% 2.5% Derby 12,755 12,902 12,391 -1.1% 4.1% Middlebury 7,606 7,575 6,451 0.4% 17.4% Naugatuck 31,625 31,862 30,989 -0.7% 2.8% Oxford 12,916 12,683 9,821 1.8% 29.1% Plymouth 11,926 12,213 11,634 -2.3% 5.0% Prospect 9,720 9,405 8,707 3.3% 8.0% Seymour 16,540 16,540 15,454 0.0% 7.0% Shelton 40,979 39,559 38,101 3.6% 3.8% Southbury 19,727 19,904 18,567 -0.9% 7.2% Thomaston 7,699 7,887 7,503 -2.4% 5.1% Waterbury 109,211 110,366 107,271 -1.0% 2.9% Watertown 22,048 22,514 21,661 -2.1% 3.9% Wolcott 16,707 16,680 15,215 0.2% 9.6% Woodbury 9,723 9,975 9,198 -2.5% 8.4% Region Total 447,390 448,708 428,790 -0.3% 4.6% Urban Core 232,978 234,856 229,267 -0.8% 2.4% Inner Ring 128,446 127,974 122,896 0.4% 4.1% Outer Ring 85,966 85,878 76,627 0.1% 12.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 (B01003), 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 21 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, SF1 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 22 Land Area % Change Geography (Sq. Mi.) 2016 2010 2000 2000 -2016 Ansonia 6.2 3,063 3,111 2,999 2.1% Beacon Falls 9.8 621 618 536 15.8% Bethlehem 19.7 178 183 174 2.0% Bristol 26.8 2,254 2,255 2,240 0.6% Cheshire 33.4 877 877 856 2.5% Derby 5.4 2,360 2,387 2,292 2.9% Middlebury 18.4 412 411 350 17.9% Naugatuck 16.4 1,928 1,943 1,890 2.1% Oxford 33.3 387 380 295 31.5% Plymouth 22.3 534 547 521 2.5% Prospect 14.5 672 650 602 11.6% Seymour 15.0 1,104 1,104 1,032 7.0% Shelton 31.9 1,285 1,240 1,194 7.6% Southbury 40.1 492 497 463 6.2% Thomaston 12.2 631 646 615 2.6% Waterbury 28.9 3,774 3,813 3,706 1.8% Watertown 29.5 747 763 734 1.8% Wolcott 21.1 792 791 721 9.8% Woodbury 36.6 265 272 251 5.7% Region Total 421.5 1,061 1,064 1,017 4.3% Urban Core 83.7 2,782 2,804 2,738 1.6% Inner Ring 144.3 890 887 852 4.5% Outer Ring 193.5 444 444 396 12.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 (B01003), 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 23 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 24 Non Hispanic Hispanic or Latino Percent Minority Geography White Black Asian Other Ansonia 11,681 1,953 490 284 4,542 38.4% Beacon Falls 5,568 87 37 62 321 8.3% Bethlehem 3,415 55 2 2 18 2.2% Bristol 47,376 1,855 1,191 1,835 8,180 21.6% Cheshire 23,722 1,245 2,018 732 1,537 18.9% Derby 7,973 743 480 315 3,244 37.5% Middlebury 6,642 81 463 110 310 12.7% Naugatuck 24,265 1,927 910 1,092 3,431 23.3% Oxford 11,717 324 129 170 576 9.3% Plymouth 11,022 170 11 206 517 7.6% Prospect 8,585 532 95 134 374 11.7% Seymour 12,919 562 364 325 2,370 21.9% Shelton 36,182 495 1,515 301 2,486 11.7% Southbury 17,606 123 693 279 1,026 10.8% Thomaston 7,373 2 61 64 199 4.2% Waterbury 43,056 19,879 2,501 3,741 40,034 60.6% Watertown 20,558 405 253 158 674 6.8% Wolcott 15,132 500 266 105 704 9.4% Woodbury 8,720 39 359 51 554 10.3% Region Total 323,512 30,977 11,838 9,966 71,097 27.7% Urban Core 134,351 26,357 5,572 7,267 59,431 42.3% Inner Ring 111,776 2,879 4,222 1,786 7,783 13.0% Outer Ring 77,385 1,741 2,044 913 3,883 10.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau , American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, DP5 Note: “Other ” category includes Pacific =slander, American =ndian/Alaska Natives, Other, or 2 or more aces Minority population includes Black, Asian, Other, and :ispanic populations 25 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B03002 Note: Minority population includes Black, Asian, Other, and :ispanic populations Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 26 Number Percent of Total % Change 2000 -2016 Geography 2016 2010 2000 2016 2010 2000 Ansonia 4,542 3,212 1,376 24.0% 16.7% 7.4% 230.1% Beacon Falls 321 300 112 5.3% 5.0% 2.1% 186.6% Bethlehem 18 61 22 0.5% 1.7% 0.6% -18.2% Bristol 8,180 5,829 3,166 13.5% 9.6% 5.3% 158.4% Cheshire 1,537 1,375 1,097 5.3% 4.7% 3.8% 40.1% Derby 3,244 1,830 950 25.4% 14.2% 7.7% 241.5% Middlebury 310 208 79 4.1% 2.7% 1.2% 292.4% Naugatuck 3,431 2,929 1,386 10.8% 9.2% 4.5% 147.5% Oxford 576 468 180 4.5% 3.7% 1.8% 220.0% Plymouth 517 370 147 4.3% 3.0% 1.3% 251.7% Prospect 374 312 168 3.8% 3.3% 1.9% 122.6% Seymour 2,370 1,064 470 14.3% 6.4% 3.0% 404.3% Shelton 2,486 2,353 1,326 6.1% 5.9% 3.5% 87.5% Southbury 1,026 523 296 5.2% 2.6% 1.6% 246.6% Thomaston 199 202 109 2.6% 2.6% 1.5% 82.6% Waterbury 40,034 34,446 23,354 36.7% 31.2% 21.8% 71.4% Watertown 674 838 406 3.1% 3.7% 1.9% 66.0% Wolcott 704 611 273 4.2% 3.7% 1.8% 157.9% Woodbury 554 245 152 5.7% 2.5% 1.7% 264.5% Region Total 71,097 57,176 35,069 15.9% 12.7% 8.2% 102.7% Urban Core 59,431 48,246 30,232 25.5% 20.5% 13.2% 96.6% Inner Ring 7,783 6,202 3,555 6.1% 4.8% 2.9% 118.9% Outer Ring 3,883 2,728 1,282 4.5% 3.2% 1.7% 202.9% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, DP5; U.S. Census, 2000 , 2010 27 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B03002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 28 Total Population Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5-17 Years 18 -24 Years 25 -34 Years 35 -44 Years 45 -64 Years > 64 Years Ansonia 18,950 921 3,309 2,002 2,293 2,451 5,206 2,768 Beacon Falls 6,075 156 1,194 582 462 778 2,027 876 Bethlehem 3,492 91 642 290 206 424 1,297 542 Bristol 60,437 2,791 9,516 4,999 8,509 7,646 17,345 9,631 Cheshire 29,254 1,028 5,183 2,422 2,583 3,381 9,836 4,821 Derby 12,755 746 2,112 752 2,144 1,404 3,722 1,875 Middlebury 7,606 273 1,389 539 575 979 2,371 1,480 Naugatuck 31,625 2,373 4,699 2,574 4,240 4,344 8,791 4,604 Oxford 12,916 675 2,581 929 812 1,644 4,273 2,002 Plymouth 11,926 651 1,658 1,342 1,627 1,160 3,694 1,794 Prospect 9,720 307 1,559 725 1,161 1,119 3,085 1,764 Seymour 16,540 954 2,965 1,526 1,597 2,482 4,896 2,120 Shelton 40,979 1,486 6,269 3,419 3,626 4,634 13,337 8,208 Southbury 19,727 1,007 3,278 967 1,138 1,829 5,998 5,510 Thomaston 7,699 268 1,301 590 972 875 2,504 1,189 Waterbury 109,211 7,901 20,218 11,574 15,289 14,448 26,472 13,309 Watertown 22,048 995 3,632 1,819 2,309 2,280 7,193 3,820 Wolcott 16,707 566 2,825 1,407 1,590 1,885 5,641 2,793 Woodbury 9,723 543 1,533 287 920 1,140 3,433 1,867 Region Total 447,390 23,732 75,863 38,745 52,053 54,903 131,121 70,973 Urban Core 232,978 14,732 39,854 21,901 32,475 30,293 61,536 32,187 Inner Ring 128,446 5,382 21,008 11,118 12,714 14,812 41,460 21,952 Outer Ring 85,966 3,618 15,001 5,726 6,864 9,798 28,125 16,834 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01001 29 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5-17 Years 18 -24 Years 25 -34 Years 35 -44 Years 45 -64 Years Over 64 Years Ansonia 4.9% 17.5% 10.6% 12.1% 12.9% 27.5% 14.6% Beacon Falls 2.6% 19.7% 9.6% 7.6% 12.8% 33.4% 14.4% Bethlehem 2.6% 18.4% 8.3% 5.9% 12.1% 37.1% 15.5% Bristol 4.6% 15.7% 8.3% 14.1% 12.7% 28.7% 15.9% Cheshire 3.5% 17.7% 8.3% 8.8% 11.6% 33.6% 16.5% Derby 5.8% 16.6% 5.9% 16.8% 11.0% 29.2% 14.7% Middlebury 3.6% 18.3% 7.1% 7.6% 12.9% 31.2% 19.5% Naugatuck 7.5% 14.9% 8.1% 13.4% 13.7% 27.8% 14.6% Oxford 5.2% 20.0% 7.2% 6.3% 12.7% 33.1% 15.5% Plymouth 5.5% 13.9% 11.3% 13.6% 9.7% 31.0% 15.0% Prospect 3.2% 16.0% 7.5% 11.9% 11.5% 31.7% 18.1% Seymour 5.8% 17.9% 9.2% 9.7% 15.0% 29.6% 12.8% Shelton 3.6% 15.3% 8.3% 8.8% 11.3% 32.5% 20.0% Southbury 5.1% 16.6% 4.9% 5.8% 9.3% 30.4% 27.9% Thomaston 3.5% 16.9% 7.7% 12.6% 11.4% 32.5% 15.4% Waterbury 7.2% 18.5% 10.6% 14.0% 13.2% 24.2% 12.2% Watertown 4.5% 16.5% 8.3% 10.5% 10.3% 32.6% 17.3% Wolcott 3.4% 16.9% 8.4% 9.5% 11.3% 33.8% 16.7% Woodbury 5.6% 15.8% 3.0% 9.5% 11.7% 35.3% 19.2% Region Total 5.3% 17.0% 8.7% 11.6% 12.3% 29.3% 15.9% Urban Core 6.3% 17.1% 9.4% 13.9% 13.0% 26.4% 13.8% Inner Ring 4.2% 16.4% 8.7% 9.9% 11.5% 32.3% 17.1% Outer Ring 4.2% 17.4% 6.7% 8.0% 11.4% 32.7% 19.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 30 2016 2000 % Change Geography Number Percent Number Percent 2000 -2016 Ansonia 2,768 14.6% 2,871 15.5% -3.6% Beacon Falls 876 14.4% 506 9.6% 73.1% Bethlehem 542 15.5% 440 12.9% 23.2% Bristol 9,631 15.9% 8,925 14.9% 7.9% Cheshire 4,821 16.5% 3,592 12.6% 34.2% Derby 1,875 14.7% 2,059 16.6% -8.9% Middlebury 1,480 19.5% 1,067 16.5% 38.7% Naugatuck 4,604 14.6% 3,633 11.7% 26.7% Oxford 2,002 15.5% 857 8.7% 133.6% Plymouth 1,794 15.0% 1,473 12.7% 21.8% Prospect 1,764 18.1% 1,153 13.2% 53.0% Seymour 2,120 12.8% 2,221 14.4% -4.5% Shelton 8,208 20.0% 5,672 14.9% 44.7% Southbury 5,510 27.9% 4,841 26.1% 13.8% Thomaston 1,189 15.4% 909 12.1% 30.8% Waterbury 13,309 12.2% 16,045 15.0% -17.1% Watertown 3,820 17.3% 3,050 14.1% 25.2% Wolcott 2,793 16.7% 1,992 13.1% 40.2% Woodbury 1,867 19.2% 1,193 13.0% 56.5% Region Total 70,973 15.9% 62,499 14.6% 13.6% Urban Core 32,187 13.8% 33,533 14.6% -4.0% Inner Ring 21,952 17.1% 16,917 13.8% 29.8% Outer Ring 16,834 19.6% 12,049 15.7% 39.7% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01001, U.S. Census, 2000 31 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 32 Median Age Median Age Median Age Median Age % Change Geography 2016 2010 2000 1990 1990 -2016 Ansonia 39.1 38.4 36.8 34.0 15.0% Beacon Falls 43.3 41.5 36.7 32.6 32.8% Bethlehem 47.9 47.1 42.2 36.2 32.3% Bristol 41.2 40.3 37.6 33.7 22.3% Cheshire 45.1 42.2 38.4 35.5 27.0% Derby 39.0 40.3 37.7 35.6 9.6% Middlebury 45.5 43.9 42.8 40.1 13.5% Naugatuck 39.5 38.2 35.5 32.2 22.7% Oxford 44.0 43.4 38.4 34.0 29.4% Plymouth 40.3 41.9 37.5 33.9 18.9% Prospect 44.9 43.8 39.4 36.3 23.7% Seymour 40.9 41.6 38.5 34.7 17.9% Shelton 46.7 44.4 39.8 35.3 32.3% Southbury 51.0 49.9 45.7 42.9 18.9% Thomaston 44.0 42.5 37.8 34.1 29.0% Waterbury 34.7 35.2 34.9 33.3 4.2% Watertown 45.0 44.0 39.0 35.6 26.4% Wolcott 45.3 42.7 38.1 35.5 27.6% Woodbury 47.7 46.9 41.0 37.0 28.9% Region Total 43.4 40.1 37.6 34.3 26.6% Urban Core 37.7 37.3 35.9 33.2 13.6% Inner Ring 44.0 42.9 38.7 35.0 25.7% Outer Ring 46.3 45.1 40.6 37.4 23.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01002, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census, 1990 U.S. Census 33 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 34 Total Households Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 6,897 2,122 1,621 984 648 1,522 Beacon Falls 2,404 323 343 385 318 1,035 Bethlehem 1,277 164 177 216 158 562 Bristol 24,985 4,769 5,261 4,927 3,506 6,522 Cheshire 10,045 696 1,263 1,245 1,421 5,420 Derby 4,949 949 1,293 1,035 583 1,089 Middlebury 2,690 278 317 339 358 1,398 Naugatuck 11,910 2,064 2,953 1,898 1,291 3,704 Oxford 4,390 345 482 663 732 2,168 Plymouth 4,733 624 920 1,026 737 1,426 Prospect 3,288 261 364 511 454 1,698 Seymour 6,063 713 1,049 1,124 920 2,257 Shelton 15,803 1,820 2,602 2,438 2,195 6,748 Southbury 7,782 1,177 1,153 1,196 1,097 3,159 Thomaston 3,027 384 608 720 421 894 Waterbury 39,735 13,727 9,690 6,646 4,284 5,388 Watertown 8,344 1,079 1,516 1,506 1,138 3,105 Wolcott 5,844 670 896 1,044 925 2,309 Woodbury 4,059 492 646 786 538 1,597 Region Total 168,225 32,657 33,154 28,689 21,724 52,001 Urban Core 88,476 23,631 20,818 15,490 10,312 18,225 Inner Ring 48,015 5,316 7,958 8,059 6,832 19,850 Outer Ring 31,734 3,710 4,378 5,140 4,580 13,926 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B19001 35 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 30.8% 23.5% 14.3% 9.4% 22.1% Beacon Falls 13.4% 14.3% 16.0% 13.2% 43.1% Bethlehem 12.8% 13.9% 16.9% 12.4% 44.0% Bristol 19.1% 21.1% 19.7% 14.0% 26.1% Cheshire 6.9% 12.6% 12.4% 14.1% 54.0% Derby 19.2% 26.1% 20.9% 11.8% 22.0% Middlebury 10.3% 11.8% 12.6% 13.3% 52.0% Naugatuck 17.3% 24.8% 15.9% 10.8% 31.1% Oxford 7.9% 11.0% 15.1% 16.7% 49.4% Plymouth 13.2% 19.4% 21.7% 15.6% 30.1% Prospect 7.9% 11.1% 15.5% 13.8% 51.6% Seymour 11.8% 17.3% 18.5% 15.2% 37.2% Shelton 11.5% 16.5% 15.4% 13.9% 42.7% Southbury 15.1% 14.8% 15.4% 14.1% 40.6% Thomaston 12.7% 20.1% 23.8% 13.9% 29.5% Waterbury 34.5% 24.4% 16.7% 10.8% 13.6% Watertown 12.9% 18.2% 18.0% 13.6% 37.2% Wolcott 11.5% 15.3% 17.9% 15.8% 39.5% Woodbury 12.1% 15.9% 19.4% 13.3% 39.3% Region Total 19.4% 19.7% 17.1% 12.9% 30.9% Urban Core 26.7% 23.5% 17.5% 11.7% 20.6% Inner Ring 11.1% 16.6% 16.8% 14.2% 41.3% Outer Ring 11.7% 13.8% 16.2% 14.4% 43.9% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B19001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 36 Median Household Income Median Family Income Geography 2016 1999 % Change 2016 1999 % Change Ansonia $43,386 $63,248 -31.4% $65,134 $78,965 -17.5% Beacon Falls $84,570 $83,190 1.7% $119,591 $91,818 30.2% Bethlehem $87,056 $100,757 -13.6% $110,000 $115,929 -5.1% Bristol $61,551 $69,710 -11.7% $76,991 $85,641 -10.1% Cheshire $108,559 $118,285 -8.2% $127,913 $133,438 -4.1% Derby $55,316 $67,135 -17.6% $66,087 $80,431 -17.8% Middlebury $103,235 $103,589 -0.3% $120,645 $119,614 0.9% Naugatuck $59,522 $75,333 -21.0% $78,137 $87,048 -10.2% Oxford $99,311 $113,375 -12.4% $110,147 $118,220 -6.8% Plymouth $70,635 $79,013 -10.6% $82,329 $92,037 -10.5% Prospect $103,659 $99,313 4.4% $111,979 $108,836 2.9% Seymour $79,734 $77,040 3.5% $103,359 $95,568 8.2% Shelton $87,277 $98,919 -11.8% $102,108 $111,019 -8.0% Southbury $85,068 $91,021 -6.5% $111,489 $119,230 -6.5% Thomaston $65,901 $79,817 -17.4% $82,250 $93,613 -12.1% Waterbury $39,681 $50,399 -21.3% $48,822 $62,181 -21.5% Watertown $76,175 $87,347 -12.8% $99,375 $101,079 -1.7% Wolcott $83,828 $90,223 -7.1% $93,938 $99,346 -5.4% Woodbury $79,387 $100,433 -21.0% $97,070 $121,482 -20.1% Region Total $67,541 $73,563 -8.2% $84,531 $88,444 -4.4% Urban Core $49,691 $58,749 -15.4% $62,960 $71,866 -12.4% Inner Ring $85,859 $91,418 -6.1% $104,502 $105,498 -0.9% Outer Ring $89,592 $93,268 -3.9% $107,301 $108,375 -1.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B19113, S1903 2000 U.S. Census, DP003 [ CP= =nflation Rate 1999 -2016: 1.47] 37 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B19013 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 38 2016 2000 Change 2000 -2016 Geography Number Percent Number Percent Net Percent Ansonia 3,896 20.7% 1,394 7.6% 2,502 179.5% Beacon Falls 311 5.1% 309 5.9% 2 0.6% Bethlehem 300 8.6% 89 2.6% 211 237.1% Bristol 6,144 10.3% 3,921 6.6% 2,223 56.7% Cheshire 639 2.4% 750 3.0% -111 -14.8% Derby 1,593 12.7% 1,014 8.3% 579 57.1% Middlebury 315 4.2% 174 2.7% 141 81.0% Naugatuck 3,022 9.6% 1,977 6.4% 1,045 52.9% Oxford 430 3.3% 206 2.1% 224 108.7% Plymouth 760 6.4% 470 4.1% 290 61.7% Prospect 365 3.8% 89 1.0% 276 310.1% Seymour 925 5.7% 573 3.7% 352 61.4% Shelton 2,037 5.0% 1,208 3.2% 829 68.6% Southbury 1,786 9.2% 878 4.9% 908 103.4% Thomaston 470 6.1% 311 4.2% 159 51.1% Waterbury 27,291 25.4% 16,774 16.0% 10,517 62.7% Watertown 893 4.1% 471 2.2% 422 89.6% Wolcott 726 4.4% 392 2.6% 334 85.2% Woodbury 493 5.1% 412 4.5% 81 19.7% Region Total 52,396 11.9% 31,412 7.5% 20,984 66.8% Urban Core 41,946 18.3% 25,080 11.1% 16,866 67.2% Inner Ring 5,724 4.6% 3,783 3.2% 1,941 51.3% Outer Ring 4,726 5.5% 2,549 3.4% 2,177 85.4% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, S1701 2000 U.S. Census 39 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, C17002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 40 Total House- holds Family Households Non -Family Households Geography Single Parent Married Couple Ansonia 6,897 22.4% 42.2% 35.4% Beacon Falls 2,404 10.9% 49.7% 39.5% Bethlehem 1,277 13.7% 59.9% 26.4% Bristol 24,985 17.4% 42.7% 39.9% Cheshire 10,045 11.3% 63.9% 24.8% Derby 4,949 18.3% 38.3% 43.5% Middlebury 2,690 9.3% 66.1% 24.6% Naugatuck 11,910 18.4% 49.8% 31.8% Oxford 4,390 12.8% 70.4% 16.9% Plymouth 4,733 17.4% 49.3% 33.3% Prospect 3,288 13.2% 59.1% 27.7% Seymour 6,063 12.6% 55.5% 31.9% Shelton 15,803 13.7% 56.5% 29.8% Southbury 7,782 10.9% 53.1% 36.0% Thomaston 3,027 15.6% 53.2% 31.2% Waterbury 39,735 29.3% 33.4% 37.3% Watertown 8,344 13.1% 55.3% 31.7% Wolcott 5,844 19.1% 58.9% 22.0% Woodbury 4,059 10.8% 59.0% 30.3% Region Total 168,225 18.5% 48.0% 33.5% Urban Core 88,476 23.3% 39.2% 37.5% Inner Ring 48,015 13.4% 56.8% 29.8% Outer Ring 31,734 12.9% 59.0% 28.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B11001 41 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B11001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 42 Average Household Size % Change 1980 -2016 Geography 2016 2010 2000 1990 1980 Ansonia 2.74 2.55 2.46 2.57 2.71 1.1% Beacon Falls 2.53 2.56 2.58 2.69 2.98 -15.1% Bethlehem 2.67 2.49 2.69 2.73 2.86 -6.6% Bristol 2.39 2.35 2.38 2.51 2.77 -13.7% Cheshire 2.65 2.66 2.71 2.82 3.06 -13.4% Derby 2.53 2.35 2.32 2.40 2.65 -4.5% Middlebury 2.78 2.72 2.66 2.73 2.94 -5.4% Naugatuck 2.63 2.56 2.60 2.69 2.80 -6.1% Oxford 2.94 2.81 2.94 3.09 3.18 -7.5% Plymouth 2.50 2.53 2.60 2.72 2.92 -14.4% Prospect 2.91 2.76 2.83 2.97 3.24 -10.2% Seymour 2.70 2.46 2.49 2.55 2.73 -1.1% Shelton 2.56 2.55 2.65 2.79 3.05 -16.1% Southbury 2.45 2.33 2.41 2.34 2.39 2.5% Thomaston 2.54 2.53 2.57 2.64 2.86 -11.2% Waterbury 2.70 2.54 2.46 2.48 2.67 1.1% Watertown 2.61 2.57 2.67 2.80 3.00 -13.0% Wolcott 2.83 2.75 2.79 2.93 3.30 -14.2% Woodbury 2.39 2.36 2.48 2.51 2.61 -8.4% Region Total 2.61 2.53 2.54 2.62 2.81 -7.2% Urban Core 2.60 2.48 2.45 2.52 2.71 -4.3% Inner Ring 2.60 2.56 2.64 2.75 2.97 -12.7% Outer Ring 2.67 2.59 2.65 2.72 2.91 -8.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 B25010, Census 2010 Table P17, Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 43 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25010 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 44 Population Age 25 and Over Less than High School High School Graduate Some College Associates Degree Bachelor's Degree or Higher Geography Ansonia 12,718 13.0% 42.9% 19.3% 8.4% 16.4% Beacon Falls 4,143 8.6% 33.3% 16.8% 10.2% 31.0% Bethlehem 2,469 6.5% 27.1% 19.6% 7.6% 39.3% Bristol 43,131 11.0% 35.3% 19.0% 8.3% 26.5% Cheshire 20,621 4.9% 20.6% 14.3% 6.3% 53.8% Derby 9,145 13.6% 33.0% 18.7% 8.9% 25.7% Middlebury 5,405 4.2% 16.6% 17.4% 7.9% 54.0% Naugatuck 21,979 11.1% 33.7% 19.4% 9.9% 25.8% Oxford 8,731 4.9% 27.7% 19.7% 8.2% 39.5% Plymouth 8,275 9.7% 38.2% 17.9% 11.4% 22.9% Prospect 7,129 7.6% 31.4% 14.3% 9.2% 37.5% Seymour 11,095 5.8% 31.1% 22.7% 7.2% 33.1% Shelton 29,805 6.5% 28.4% 16.6% 8.2% 40.2% Southbury 14,475 6.9% 21.8% 13.4% 8.2% 49.7% Thomaston 5,540 9.0% 37.1% 21.6% 9.4% 22.9% Waterbury 69,518 20.9% 36.1% 20.3% 7.6% 15.1% Watertown 15,602 7.6% 29.7% 20.1% 11.1% 31.4% Wolcott 11,909 8.3% 36.0% 17.5% 9.7% 28.4% Woodbury 7,360 6.2% 22.6% 18.7% 6.4% 46.1% Region Total 309,050 11.3% 32.0% 18.5% 8.4% 29.8% Urban Core 156,491 15.7% 35.9% 19.6% 8.3% 20.4% Inner Ring 90,938 6.7% 28.6% 17.9% 8.5% 38.3% Outer Ring 61,621 6.8% 27.1% 16.7% 8.5% 41.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B15003 45 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 —2016, B15003, B15011 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 46 % Change Population Projections Geography 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2015 -2040 Ansonia 19,480 19,839 20,265 20,651 20,889 21,067 8.1% Beacon Falls 6,265 6,420 6,532 6,585 6,590 6,587 5.1% Bethlehem 3,605 3,595 3,596 3,576 3,483 3,342 -7.3% Bristol 59,918 59,535 59,359 59,006 58,205 57,129 -4.7% Cheshire 28,889 28,257 27,087 26,127 25,288 24,860 -13.9% Derby 13,035 13,250 13,553 13,803 13,959 14,081 8.0% Middlebury 7,948 8,233 8,412 8,522 8,662 8,828 11.1% Naugatuck 31,973 32,210 32,537 32,636 32,375 31,853 -0.4% Oxford 13,841 14,924 15,695 16,353 17,061 17,855 29.0% Plymouth 12,253 12,218 12,156 11,987 11,722 11,383 -7.1% Prospect 9,367 9,222 8,979 8,693 8,449 8,218 -12.3% Seymour 16,676 16,797 16,880 16,926 16,854 16,752 0.5% Shelton 39,101 38,374 37,508 36,568 35,565 34,544 -11.7% Southbury 19,661 19,357 19,164 18,984 18,957 18,760 -4.6% Thomaston 7,887 7,836 7,781 7,694 7,553 7,369 -6.6% Waterbury 111,081 112,571 114,896 117,113 118,463 119,213 7.3% Watertown 22,345 22,011 21,640 21,219 20,616 19,869 -11.1% Wolcott 16,906 16,921 16,885 16,770 16,629 16,511 -2.3% Woodbury 9,999 9,835 9,703 9,499 9,281 9,052 -9.5% Region Total 450,230 451,405 452,628 452,712 450,601 447,273 -0.7% Urban Core 235,487 237,405 240,610 243,209 243,891 243,343 3.3% Inner Ring 127,151 125,493 123,052 120,521 117,598 114,777 -9.7% Outer Ring 87,592 88,507 88,966 88,982 89,112 89,153 1.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 -2040 47 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Population Under Age 15 Population Age 65 and Over Geography 2015 2040 % Change 2015 2040 % Change Ansonia 3,609 3,754 4.0% 2,617 3,209 22.6% Beacon Falls 1,032 909 -11.9% 988 1,624 64.4% Bethlehem 478 453 -5.2% 680 876 28.8% Bristol 10,269 9,583 -6.7% 9,278 9,995 7.7% Cheshire 4,951 4,343 -12.3% 4,641 5,045 8.7% Derby 2,157 2,306 6.9% 2,066 2,476 19.8% Middlebury 1,540 1,702 10.5% 1,425 1,553 9.0% Naugatuck 5,806 5,494 -5.4% 4,181 5,039 20.5% Oxford 2,567 2,132 -16.9% 2,493 7,189 188.4% Plymouth 1,951 1,623 -16.8% 1,717 2,488 44.9% Prospect 1,582 1,384 -12.5% 1,590 1,834 15.3% Seymour 2,820 2,674 -5.2% 2,518 3,343 32.8% Shelton 6,223 5,471 -12.1% 7,531 8,282 10.0% Southbury 2,855 2,341 -18.0% 5,560 7,671 38.0% Thomaston 1,292 1,176 -9.0% 1,146 1,711 49.3% Waterbury 22,825 23,241 1.8% 13,529 14,799 9.4% Watertown 3,528 2,940 -16.7% 4,127 5,331 29.2% Wolcott 2,803 2,685 -4.2% 2,806 4,141 47.6% Woodbury 1,439 1,245 -13.5% 2,041 2,845 39.4% Region Total 79,727 75,456 -5.4% 70,934 89,451 26.1% Urban Core 44,666 44,378 -0.6% 31,671 35,518 12.1% Inner Ring 20,765 18,227 -12.2% 21,680 26,200 20.8% Outer Ring 14,296 12,851 -10.1% 17,583 27,733 57.7% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 -2040. Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 48 49 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix B Tables and Maps Topic Page Labor Force and Employment ………………………….. ………………………….. … 50 Unemployment Rate ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 51 Total Jobs (Nonfarm Employment) ………………………….. ……………………… 52 Jobs by Sector (Nonfarm Employment) ………………………….. ……………….. 54 Commuting Patterns ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 56 Jobs Vs. Employment ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 58 Wages ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 59 Economic data presented in Appendix B comes from a variety of sources including the US Census Bureau, and the Connecticut Department of Labor. Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. Derby Green, Derby Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 50 Geography Labor Force Employed Unemployed Percent Unemployed Ansonia 9,420 8,809 611 6.5% Beacon Falls 3,503 3,350 153 4.4% Bethlehem 1,986 1,887 80 5.0% Bristol 33,349 31,612 1,737 5.2% Cheshire 15,910 15,385 525 3.3% Derby 6,887 6,486 401 5.8% Middlebury 3,944 3,777 167 4.2% Naugatuck 17,475 16,529 946 5.4% Oxford 7,275 6,971 304 4.2% Plymouth 6,725 6,374 351 5.2% Prospect 5,671 5,444 227 4.0% Seymour 9,113 8,678 435 4.8% Shelton 22,476 21,435 1,041 4.6% Southbury 8,822 8,441 381 4.3% Thomaston 4,762 4,573 189 4.0% Waterbury 51,045 47,275 3,770 7.4% Watertown 13,095 12,559 536 4.1% Wolcott 10,007 9,577 430 4.3% Woodbury 5,585 5,384 201 3.6% Region Total 237,050 224,546 12,504 5.3% Urban Core 118,176 110,711 7,465 6.3% Inner Ring 72,081 69,004 3,077 4.3% Outer Ring 46,793 44,831 1,962 4.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), by Town 2017 51 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Unemployment Rate Geography 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Ansonia 6.5% 7.0% 8.7% 9.2% 10.8% 11.4% 11.8% 11.7% Beacon Falls 4.4% 4.6% 5.4% 6.1% 6.5% 7.4% 8.3% 9.2% Bethlehem 5.0% 4.4% 4.8% 5.4% 5.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.7% Bristol 5.2% 5.7% 6.9% 7.3% 8.4% 9.1% 9.8% 10.3% Cheshire 3.3% 3.5% 3.9% 4.6% 5.2% 5.6% 6.2% 6.4% Derby 5.8% 6.4% 7.3% 7.9% 9.0% 9.7% 10.5% 10.8% Middlebury 4.2% 3.9% 4.5% 5.1% 5.8% 6.7% 7.1% 7.2% Naugatuck 5.4% 5.8% 7.0% 7.6% 8.9% 9.4% 10.2% 10.8% Oxford 4.2% 4.2% 4.9% 5.4% 6.1% 6.5% 7.0% 7.5% Plymouth 5.2% 6.0% 7.2% 7.8% 9.1% 9.7% 10.6% 11.3% Prospect 4.0% 4.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.9% 6.9% 7.6% 8.4% Seymour 4.8% 5.5% 6.3% 7.0% 7.8% 8.4% 9.2% 9.6% Shelton 4.6% 4.9% 5.7% 6.2% 7.2% 7.8% 8.5% 8.6% Southbury 4.3% 4.8% 5.4% 5.7% 6.7% 7.0% 7.8% 8.1% Thomaston 4.0% 4.3% 5.2% 6.1% 7.2% 7.6% 8.0% 9.0% Waterbury 7.4% 8.1% 10.3% 10.7% 12.2% 12.9% 13.6% 14.2% Watertown 4.1% 4.4% 5.1% 5.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.6% 8.2% Wolcott 4.3% 4.3% 4.9% 5.5% 6.8% 7.6% 8.3% 8.9% Woodbury 3.6% 3.9% 4.5% 5.1% 6.0% 6.2% 6.6% 7.4% Region Total 5.3% 5.7% 6.4% 7.4% 8.5% 9.2% 9.8% 10.3% Urban Core 6.3% 6.9% 7.9% 9.0% 10.4% 11.0% 11.7% 12.2% Inner Ring 4.3% 4.6% 5.1% 6.0% 6.9% 7.5% 8.1% 8.5% Outer Ring 4.2% 4.3% 4.7% 5.5% 6.3% 6.9% 7.6% 8.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), by Town 2010 -2017 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 52 Jobs % Change Geography 2015 2013 2011 2009 2013 -2017 2009 -2013 2017 Ansonia 3,399 3,359 3,910 3,623 -0.9% -7.3% 3,328 Beacon Falls 912 843 929 887 7.2% -5.0% 903 Bethlehem 723 696 711 656 13.1% 6.0% 787 Bristol 22,307 21,592 20,597 20,286 3.4% 6.4% 22,317 Cheshire 15,961 15,431 14,428 15,209 5.3% 1.5% 16,254 Derby 4,776 4,872 4,643 4,929 -5.2% -1.1% 4,618 Middlebury 3,787 3,940 3,665 3,321 -0.2% 18.6% 3,931 Naugatuck 7,521 7,767 7,039 7,245 -9.0% 7.2% 7,065 Oxford 3,050 3,173 2,776 2,637 11.2% 20.3% 3,528 Plymouth 2,196 2,061 2,001 2,112 6.9% -2.5% 2,202 Prospect 1,982 1,980 1,983 1,946 7.3% 1.8% 2,125 Seymour 4,471 4,412 4,170 4,160 -2.2% 6.1% 4,317 Shelton 22,969 22,050 21,005 22,340 7.8% -1.3% 23,774 Southbury 8,218 8,396 8,573 8,829 -7.2% -4.9% 7,790 Thomaston 2,802 2,724 2,643 2,612 10.6% 4.3% 3,014 Waterbury 38,885 38,890 38,378 39,071 0.8% -0.5% 39,205 Watertown 8,265 8,011 7,731 7,873 5.2% 1.8% 8,431 Wolcott 2,955 2,966 2,821 3,009 6.2% -1.4% 3,149 Woodbury 2,082 2,020 2,028 2,101 1.3% -3.9% 2,045 Region Total 157,259 155,182 150,030 152,845 2.3% 1.5% 158,781 Urban Core 76,888 76,481 74,566 75,153 0.1% 1.8% 76,532 Inner Ring 56,663 54,689 51,979 54,307 6.0% 0.7% 57,991 Outer Ring 23,708 24,012 23,485 23,386 1.0% 2.7% 24,258 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2009 -2017 53 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset, 2015 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 54 Location Total Jobs Sector Urban Core Inner Outer Region % of Total Agriculture 0 333 0 333 0.2% Utilities 200 76 0 276 0.2% Construction 1,297 1,989 1,710 4,996 3.1% Manufacturing 7,942 10,926 1,697 20,565 13.0% Wholesale Trade 1,857 3,943 716 6,516 4.1% Retail Trade 11,941 4,162 2,371 18,474 11.6% Transportation and Ware- housing 861 1,570 441 2,872 1.8% Information 4,426 682 173 5,281 3.3% Finance and Insurance 1,726 2,323 866 4,915 3.1% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 608 484 395 1,487 0.9% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1,483 3,483 1,791 6,757 4.3% Management of Companies and Enterprises 620 808 363 1,791 1.1% Administrative & Support and Waste Management 3,592 3,802 900 8,294 5.2% Educational Services 1,205 825 152 2,182 1.4% Health Care and Social Assis- tance 18,130 7,006 4,174 29,310 18.5% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 392 532 86 1,010 0.6% Accommodation and Food Services 5,379 3,524 2,042 10,945 6.9% Other Services (except Public Administration) 3,314 1,700 1,122 6,136 3.9% Total Government 10,878 5,407 3,815 20,100 12.7% Total All Jobs 76,533 57,992 24,258 158,783 100.0% Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2017 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government ” category 55 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Number of Jobs Job Change 2007 -2017 Sector 2017 2007 Net Percent Agriculture 333 316 17 5.3% Utilities 276 288 -12 -4.2% Construction 4,996 6,809 -1,813 -26.6% Manufacturing 20,565 26,107 -5,542 -21.2% Wholesale Trade 6,516 6,031 485 8.0% Retail Trade 18,474 20,513 -2,039 -9.9% Transportation and Warehous- ing 2,872 2,431 441 18.1% Information 5,281 4,850 431 8.9% Finance and Insurance 4,915 7,310 -2,395 -32.8% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,487 1,548 -61 -3.9% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 6,757 5,182 1,576 30.4% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,791 1,746 45 2.6% Administrative & Support and Waste Management 8,294 7,951 344 4.3% Educational Services 2,182 991 1,191 120.2% Health Care and Social Assis- tance 29,310 25,146 4,164 16.6% Arts, Entertainment, and Rec- reation 1,010 838 172 20.6% Accommodation and Food Services 10,945 9,592 1,353 14.1% Other Services (except Public Administration) 6,136 5,332 804 15.1% Total Government 20,100 22,041 -1,941 -8.8% Total All Jobs 158,783 162,368 -3,585 -2.2% Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2007 -2017 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government ” category Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 56 Work Within Town of Residence Work Within Other Town in Region Work Outside of Re- gion Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 541 6.1% 2,222 25.3% 6,035 68.6% Beacon Falls 87 2.6% 1,202 36.5% 2,003 60.8% Bethlehem 170 9.4% 737 40.6% 910 50.1% Bristol 7,459 22.9% 2,818 8.6% 22,333 68.5% Cheshire 2,105 14.7% 1,742 12.2% 10,436 73.1% Derby 417 7.4% 1,252 22.1% 4,000 70.6% Middlebury 302 7.6% 1,540 38.7% 2,140 53.7% Naugatuck 1,805 11.0% 5,168 31.5% 9,443 57.5% Oxford 493 7.8% 1,780 28.3% 4,025 63.9% Plymouth 542 7.9% 2,323 33.7% 4,018 58.4% Prospect 323 6.1% 1,953 37.0% 3,000 56.9% Seymour 850 10.7% 2,025 25.5% 5,077 63.8% Shelton 3,326 16.0% 1,358 6.5% 16,154 77.5% Southbury 1,099 12.7% 1,909 22.1% 5,628 65.2% Thomaston 502 11.5% 1,637 37.4% 2,238 51.1% Waterbury 13,901 30.5% 10,569 23.2% 21,067 46.3% Watertown 1,743 14.6% 4,689 39.2% 5,516 46.2% Wolcott 787 8.4% 3,593 38.2% 5,022 53.4% Woodbury 542 11.9% 1,433 31.6% 2,564 56.5% Region Total 36,994 16.9% 49,950 22.9% 131,605 60.2% Urban Core 24,123 22.1% 22,029 20.2% 62,878 57.7% Inner Ring 9,068 13.7% 13,774 20.8% 43,439 65.5% Outer Ring 3,803 8.8% 14,147 32.7% 25,292 58.5% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2015 Area Profile for Residents 57 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Live Within Town of Employment Live Within Other Town in Region Live Outside of Re- gion Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 541 17.1% 1,018 32.1% 1,610 50.8% Beacon Falls 87 13.5% 362 56.1% 196 30.4% Bethlehem 170 23.3% 318 43.6% 242 33.2% Bristol 7,457 31.1% 3,485 14.5% 13,061 54.4% Cheshire 2,105 13.2% 4,660 29.1% 9,225 57.7% Derby 417 8.8% 1,891 40.0% 2,414 51.1% Middlebury 302 8.3% 2,097 57.5% 1,248 34.2% Naugatuck 1,805 23.2% 3,366 43.3% 2,600 33.5% Oxford 493 16.5% 1,305 43.7% 1,185 39.7% Plymouth 542 24.4% 848 38.2% 827 37.3% Prospect 323 18.7% 881 51.1% 519 30.1% Seymour 850 19.5% 1,831 41.9% 1,688 38.6% Shelton 3,326 13.3% 4,774 19.1% 16,949 67.7% Southbury 1,099 14.2% 2,865 37.1% 3,754 48.6% Thomaston 502 17.6% 1,343 47.1% 1,007 35.3% Waterbury 13,901 33.4% 12,792 30.7% 14,927 35.9% Watertown 1,743 20.4% 3,937 46.0% 2,880 33.6% Wolcott 787 28.2% 1,232 44.2% 769 27.6% Woodbury 542 26.2% 944 45.7% 580 28.1% Region Total 36,992 22.7% 49,949 30.7% 75,681 46.5% Urban Core 24,121 29.7% 22,552 27.7% 34,612 42.6% Inner Ring 9,068 15.4% 17,393 29.5% 32,576 55.2% Outer Ring 3,803 17.1% 10,004 44.9% 8,493 38.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2015, Area Profile for Workers Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 58 Geography Jobs Employed Residents Ratio Commuter Im- port/Export Ansonia 3,328 8,809 0.38 -5,481 Beacon Falls 903 3,350 0.27 -2,447 Bethlehem 787 1,887 0.42 -1,100 Bristol 22,317 31,612 0.71 -9,295 Cheshire 16,254 15,385 1.06 869 Derby 4,618 6,486 0.71 -1,868 Middlebury 3,931 3,777 1.04 154 Naugatuck 7,065 16,529 0.43 -9,464 Oxford 3,528 6,971 0.51 -3,443 Plymouth 2,202 6,374 0.35 -4,172 Prospect 2,125 5,444 0.39 -3,319 Seymour 4,317 8,678 0.50 -4,361 Shelton 23,774 21,435 1.11 2,339 Southbury 7,790 8,441 0.92 -651 Thomaston 3,014 4,573 0.66 -1,559 Waterbury 39,205 47,275 0.83 -8,070 Watertown 8,431 12,559 0.67 -4,128 Wolcott 3,149 9,577 0.33 -6,428 Woodbury 2,045 5,384 0.38 -3,339 Region Total 158,783 224,546 0.71 -65,763 Urban Core 76,533 110,711 0.69 -34,178 Inner Ring 57,992 69,004 0.84 -11,012 Outer Ring 24,258 44,831 0.54 -20,573 Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics: 2017. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW): 2017 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 59 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 2017 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government ” category Average Annual Wages 2017 Sector Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Region Agric., Forestry, Fishing & Hunting – $36,009 – $36,009 Utilities $85,558 $98,735 – $89,189 Construction $59,241 $71,622 $60,278 $63,858 Manufacturing $61,942 $73,903 $61,806 $68,285 Wholesale Trade $62,337 $86,570 $92,642 $80,329 Retail Trade $29,197 $36,681 $28,419 $30,874 Transportation & Warehous- ing $49,403 $52,785 $70,585 $54,506 Information $130,758 $95,017 $64,251 $123,962 Finance & Insurance $89,643 $112,002 $80,832 $99,816 Real Estate and Rental & Leas- ing $42,339 $70,317 $44,270 $51,973 Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services $68,732 $80,057 $124,847 $89,437 Management of Companies & Enterprises $126,969 $158,793 $164,854 $148,999 Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & Remed. Services $29,985 $38,700 $46,697 $35,795 Educational Services $46,058 $45,793 $23,477 $44,388 Health Care & Social Assis- tance $49,037 $42,995 $42,646 $46,682 Arts, Entertainment, & Recre- ation $24,117 $23,496 $20,650 $23,497 Accommodation & Food Ser- vices $18,347 $20,402 $19,257 $19,178 Other Services (except Public Administration) $23,468 $28,806 $33,161 $26,719 Total Government $60,340 $57,808 $61,099 $59,803 Total – All Industries $51,776 $62,211 $56,592 $56,323 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 60 61 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix C Tables and Maps Topic Page Housing Units ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 62 Housing Permits ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 63 Number of Units ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 64 Housing Age ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 66 Tenure ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 68 Housing Vacancy ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 70 Housing Costs ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 72 Home Values ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 76 Affordable Housing ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 78 Housing data presented in Appendix C comes from a variety of sources including the 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 US Census, 2012 -2016 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), and the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM). Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. David Sherman House, W oodbury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 62 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2012 -2016, B25024, Census 2010, :001; Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 Total Housing Units % Change Geography 2016 2010 2000 1990 1980 2010 – 2016 2000 – 2010 1990 – 2000 Ansonia 7,486 8,148 7,937 7,503 7,267 -8.1% 2.7% 5.8% Beacon Falls 2,678 2,509 2,104 1,990 1,380 6.7% 19.2% 5.7% Bethlehem 1,547 1,575 1,388 1,262 1,074 -1.8% 13.5% 10.0% Bristol 26,917 27,011 26,125 24,989 21,004 -0.3% 3.4% 4.5% Cheshire 10,623 10,424 9,588 8,590 6,996 1.9% 8.7% 11.6% Derby 5,479 5,849 5,568 5,269 4,828 -6.3% 5.0% 5.7% Middlebury 2,898 2,892 2,494 2,365 2,168 0.2% 16.0% 5.5% Naugatuck 12,808 13,061 12,341 11,930 9,728 -1.9% 5.8% 3.4% Oxford 4,620 4,746 3,420 2,930 2,197 -2.7% 38.8% 16.7% Plymouth 5,204 5,109 4,646 4,556 3,811 1.9% 10.0% 2.0% Prospect 3,409 3,474 3,094 2,625 2,063 -1.9% 12.3% 17.9% Seymour 6,619 6,968 6,356 5,877 5,081 -5.0% 9.6% 8.2% Shelton 17,041 16,146 14,707 12,981 10,385 5.5% 9.8% 13.3% Southbury 8,529 9,091 7,799 6,826 5,838 -6.2% 16.6% 14.3% Thomaston 3,175 3,276 3,014 2,736 2,248 -3.1% 8.7% 10.2% Waterbury 46,525 47,991 46,827 47,205 40,854 -3.1% 2.5% -0.8% Watertown 8,842 9,096 8,298 7,522 6,618 -2.8% 9.6% 10.3% Wolcott 6,070 6,276 5,544 4,870 4,071 -3.3% 13.2% 13.8% Woodbury 4,514 4,564 3,869 2,924 2,924 -1.1% 18.0% 32.3% Region Total 184,984 188,206 175,119 164,950 140,535 -1.7% 7.5% 6.2% Urban Core 99,215 102,060 98,798 96,896 83,681 -2.8% 3.3% 2.0% Inner Ring 51,504 51,019 46,609 42,262 35,139 1.0% 9.5% 10.3% Outer Ring 34,265 35,127 29,712 25,792 21,715 -2.5% 18.2% 15.2% 63 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile New Housing Units by Year % Change 2009 -2016 Geography 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2009 2010 Ansonia 0 0 0 3 4 2 2 -100.0% 5 Beacon Falls 23 21 25 11 5 3 28 -17.9% 9 Bethlehem 2 2 2 2 2 1 7 -71.4% 2 Bristol 37 30 61 92 28 21 19 94.7% 37 Cheshire 29 41 41 48 24 58 17 70.6% 39 Derby 2 5 5 3 2 2 7 -71.4% 5 Middlebury 27 21 33 19 7 4 6 350.0% 7 Naugatuck 8 18 19 12 21 10 9 -11.1% 8 Oxford 23 16 61 33 30 13 31 -25.8% 45 Plymouth 5 5 6 5 5 9 6 -16.7% 11 Prospect 22 29 27 20 23 49 36 -38.9% 48 Seymour 3 78 6 14 23 17 15 -80.0% 22 Shelton 46 191 47 129 299 35 17 170.6% 31 Southbury 12 16 20 42 14 6 6 100.0% 7 Thomaston 14 11 4 6 3 5 6 133.3% 7 Waterbury 40 71 44 34 62 28 37 8.1% 32 Watertown 20 9 31 33 21 16 25 -20.0% 21 Wolcott 17 27 20 16 13 13 18 -5.6% 22 Woodbury 8 6 2 9 5 6 10 -20.0% 4 Region Total 338 597 454 531 591 298 302 11.9% 362 Urban Core 87 124 129 144 117 63 74 17.6% 87 Inner Ring 117 335 135 235 375 140 86 36.0% 131 Outer Ring 134 138 190 152 99 95 142 -5.6% 144 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Annual :ousing Permit Data by Town: 2009 -2016 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 64 Geography Total 1 Unit 2 Units 3-4 Units 5+ Units Mobile Ansonia 7,486 3,793 1,928 998 757 10 Beacon Falls 2,678 1,889 106 257 210 216 Bethlehem 1,547 1,416 79 29 15 8 Bristol 26,917 16,194 2,986 2,553 4,993 191 Cheshire 10,623 8,904 142 437 1,127 13 Derby 5,479 2,740 901 590 1,205 43 Middlebury 2,898 2,696 9 59 126 8 Naugatuck 12,808 7,971 1,660 934 1,941 302 Oxford 4,620 4,465 59 54 42 0 Plymouth 5,204 4,059 265 315 477 88 Prospect 3,409 2,947 108 88 44 222 Seymour 6,619 4,580 678 299 1,038 24 Shelton 17,041 13,710 662 944 1,443 282 Southbury 8,529 6,381 841 631 634 42 Thomaston 3,175 2,363 205 195 387 25 Waterbury 46,525 18,574 5,103 9,887 12,803 158 Watertown 8,842 7,217 613 437 564 11 Wolcott 6,070 5,422 196 115 337 0 Woodbury 4,514 3,481 147 291 579 16 Region Total 184,984 118,802 16,688 19,113 28,722 1,659 Urban Core 99,215 49,272 12,578 14,962 21,699 704 Inner Ring 51,504 40,833 2,565 2,627 5,036 443 Outer Ring 34,265 28,697 1,545 1,524 1,987 512 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25024 65 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25024 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 66 Housing Units Year Built Median Year Built Geography After 1999 1980 to 1999 1960 to 1979 1940 to 1959 Before 1940 Ansonia 7,486 180 664 1,796 1,704 3,142 1952 Beacon Falls 2,678 383 804 592 502 397 1976 Bethlehem 1,547 268 521 330 244 184 1981 Bristol 26,917 1,148 6,025 7,456 6,366 5,922 1963 Cheshire 10,623 855 2,868 3,488 2,631 781 1970 Derby 5,479 241 992 1,241 1,352 1,653 1958 Middlebury 2,898 461 560 650 808 419 1966 Naugatuck 12,808 781 2,761 3,806 2,588 2,872 1966 Oxford 4,620 1,039 1,356 1,039 757 429 1981 Plymouth 5,204 547 1,158 1,201 1,174 1,124 1965 Prospect 3,409 541 1,071 765 866 166 1977 Seymour 6,619 590 1,220 1,896 1,311 1,602 1965 Shelton 17,041 1,835 5,252 5,399 2,588 1,967 1975 Southbury 8,529 621 2,838 3,872 614 584 1977 Thomaston 3,175 287 825 643 618 802 1965 Waterbury 46,525 1,387 8,490 11,302 10,770 14,576 1957 Watertown 8,842 576 1,771 2,682 2,164 1,649 1965 Wolcott 6,070 633 1,475 1,563 1,832 567 1966 Woodbury 4,514 260 1,255 1,462 656 881 1972 Region Total 184,984 12,633 41,906 51,183 39,545 39,717 1965 Urban Core 99,215 3,737 18,932 25,601 22,780 28,165 1962 Inner Ring 51,504 4,690 13,094 15,309 10,486 7,925 1969 Outer Ring 34,265 4,206 9,880 10,273 6,279 3,627 1974 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25034, B25035 67 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25035 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 68 Occupied Housing Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Geography Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 6,897 4,006 58.1% 2,891 41.9% Beacon Falls 2,404 2,054 85.4% 350 14.6% Bethlehem 1,277 1,055 82.6% 222 17.4% Bristol 24,985 16,351 65.4% 8,634 34.6% Cheshire 10,045 8,864 88.2% 1,181 11.8% Derby 4,949 2,727 55.1% 2,222 44.9% Middlebury 2,690 2,397 89.1% 293 10.9% Naugatuck 11,910 7,898 66.3% 4,012 33.7% Oxford 4,390 3,847 87.6% 543 12.4% Plymouth 4,733 3,758 79.4% 975 20.6% Prospect 3,288 2,908 88.4% 380 11.6% Seymour 6,063 4,332 71.4% 1,731 28.6% Shelton 15,803 12,846 81.3% 2,957 18.7% Southbury 7,782 6,772 87.0% 1,010 13.0% Thomaston 3,027 2,352 77.7% 675 22.3% Waterbury 39,735 17,367 43.7% 22,368 56.3% Watertown 8,344 6,682 80.1% 1,662 19.9% Wolcott 5,844 5,056 86.5% 788 13.5% Woodbury 4,059 3,011 74.2% 1,048 25.8% Region Total 168,225 114,283 67.9% 53,942 32.1% Urban Core 88,476 48,349 54.6% 40,127 45.4% Inner Ring 48,015 38,834 80.9% 9,181 19.1% Outer Ring 31,734 27,100 85.4% 4,634 14.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, 25003 69 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 70 Vacant Units Vacancy Status Geography Number Percent of Total For Sale or Sold For Rent or Rented Seasonal Other Vacant Ansonia 589 7.9% 118 297 13 161 Beacon Falls 274 10.2% 0 0 51 223 Bethlehem 270 17.5% 7 0 204 59 Bristol 1,932 7.2% 247 777 78 830 Cheshire 578 5.4% 66 113 61 338 Derby 530 9.7% 40 395 14 81 Middlebury 208 7.2% 48 69 30 61 Naugatuck 898 7.0% 207 172 69 450 Oxford 230 5.0% 15 0 109 106 Plymouth 471 9.1% 107 52 83 229 Prospect 121 3.5% 44 0 10 67 Seymour 556 8.4% 83 98 91 284 Shelton 1,238 7.3% 372 438 227 201 Southbury 747 8.8% 164 51 212 320 Thomaston 148 4.7% 37 0 9 102 Waterbury 6,790 14.6% 828 2,383 292 3,287 Watertown 498 5.6% 168 0 78 252 Wolcott 226 3.7% 0 0 0 226 Woodbury 455 10.1% 117 0 99 239 Region Total 16,759 9.1% 2,668 4,845 1,730 7,516 Urban Core 10,739 10.8% 1,440 4,024 466 4,809 Inner Ring 3,489 6.8% 833 701 549 1,406 Outer Ring 2,531 7.4% 395 120 715 1,301 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25004 71 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 72 Gross Rent % Change 2000 -2016 Contract Rent % Change 2000 -2016 Geography 2016 2000 2016 2000 Ansonia $1,031 $1,002 2.9% $827 $815 1.5% Beacon Falls $1,147 $1,256 -8.7% $979 $1,056 -7.3% Bethlehem $945 $1,425 -33.7% $808 $1,114 -27.4% Bristol $895 $861 3.9% $782 $748 4.5% Cheshire $1,148 $1,157 -0.8% $1,012 $1,027 -1.4% Derby $1,069 $1,002 6.7% $865 $858 0.8% Middlebury $1,339 $969 38.2% $1,092 $824 32.6% Naugatuck $954 $915 4.3% $834 $776 7.5% Oxford $1,295 $998 29.8% $952 $777 22.5% Plymouth $1,037 $885 17.2% $856 $742 15.3% Prospect $1,024 $1,025 -0.1% $830 $834 -0.4% Seymour $996 $983 1.3% $860 $860 0.0% Shelton $1,195 $1,146 4.3% $973 $963 1.1% Southbury $1,499 $1,543 -2.8% $1,374 $1,338 2.7% Thomaston $832 $941 -11.6% $747 $770 -3.0% Waterbury $912 $815 11.9% $746 $684 9.0% Watertown $913 $937 -2.5% $777 $818 -5.0% Wolcott $1,086 $1,066 1.9% $895 $945 -5.3% Woodbury $1,115 $1,135 -1.8% $971 $1,022 -5.0% Region Median $976 $913 7.0% $817 $775 5.4% Urban Core $930 $860 8.1% $775 $728 6.5% Inner Ring $1,057 $1,031 2.5% $892 $885 0.8% Outer Ring $1,216 $1,204 1.0% $1,033 $1,036 -0.3% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25064, B25058, 2000 Census. NVCOG Staff Calculations [=nflation Rate 2000 -2016: 1.40] 73 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25064 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 74 Median Home Value % Change 2000 -2016 Geography 2016 2000 Ansonia $214,800 $196,490 9.3% Beacon Falls $231,800 $216,981 6.8% Bethlehem $351,200 $300,068 17.0% Bristol $192,500 $181,473 6.1% Cheshire $330,600 $297,542 11.1% Derby $199,400 $191,718 4.0% Middlebury $353,800 $278,735 26.9% Naugatuck $178,800 $186,666 -4.2% Oxford $346,500 $291,647 18.8% Plymouth $188,900 $174,034 8.5% Prospect $295,300 $253,612 16.4% Seymour $255,800 $221,332 15.6% Shelton $338,200 $304,981 10.9% Southbury $318,600 $293,472 8.6% Thomaston $205,100 $190,595 7.6% Waterbury $129,500 $142,175 -8.9% Watertown $241,100 $208,139 15.8% Wolcott $243,400 $201,262 20.9% Woodbury $331,800 $329,823 0.6% Region Total $242,145 $219,170 10.5% Urban Core $169,869 $168,427 0.9% Inner Ring $288,057 $256,515 12.3% Outer Ring $305,301 $269,063 13.5% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25077 NVCOG Staff Calculations. [=nflation Rate 2000 -2016: 1.40] 75 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25077 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 76 Owner Occupied Units Home Value Geography Less than $100,000 $100,000 – $199,999 $200,000 – $299,999 $300,000 – $399,999 $400,000 or Higher Ansonia 4,006 165 1,516 1,854 366 105 Beacon Falls 2,054 224 580 701 332 217 Bethlehem 1,055 7 137 231 298 382 Bristol 16,351 1,116 7,675 5,520 1,441 599 Cheshire 8,864 273 761 2,555 2,755 2,520 Derby 2,727 93 1,278 833 306 217 Middlebury 2,397 62 119 621 737 858 Naugatuck 7,898 933 4,130 2,064 522 249 Oxford 3,847 98 277 811 1,585 1,076 Plymouth 3,758 313 1,858 1,125 291 171 Prospect 2,908 222 266 1,019 869 532 Seymour 4,332 186 1,030 1,624 830 662 Shelton 12,846 516 936 3,261 4,476 3,657 Southbury 6,772 567 1,386 1,183 1,347 2,289 Thomaston 2,352 249 891 744 366 102 Waterbury 17,367 4,629 10,485 1,668 324 261 Watertown 6,682 297 1,877 2,387 1,246 875 Wolcott 5,056 234 1,260 2,119 719 724 Woodbury 3,011 99 582 573 790 967 Region Total 114,283 10,283 37,044 30,893 19,600 16,463 Urban Core 48,349 6,936 25,084 11,939 2,959 1,431 Inner Ring 38,834 1,834 7,353 11,696 9,964 7,987 Outer Ring 27,100 1,513 4,607 7,258 6,677 7,045 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25075 77 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Equalized Net Grand List ($ Millions) Percent Change Geography 2015 2007 2003 2007 -2015 2003 -2007 Ansonia $1,170.3 $1,975.2 $1,434.6 -40.8% 37.7% Beacon Falls $580.0 $892.0 $534.1 -35.0% 67.0% Bethlehem $430.0 $725.4 $503.4 -40.7% 44.1% Bristol $4,645.7 $7,396.0 $5,439.5 -37.2% 36.0% Cheshire $3,466.1 $5,084.2 $4,270.5 -31.8% 19.1% Derby $867.7 $1,457.3 $1,123.9 -40.5% 29.7% Middlebury $1,191.6 $1,787.1 $1,169.8 -33.3% 52.8% Naugatuck $1,913.7 $3,511.7 $2,532.8 -45.5% 38.6% Oxford $1,761.7 $2,075.3 $1,524.4 -15.1% 36.1% Plymouth $880.1 $1,356.1 $948.9 -35.1% 42.9% Prospect $1,028.9 $1,269.6 $1,101.7 -19.0% 15.2% Seymour $1,468.5 $2,142.8 $1,614.1 -31.5% 32.8% Shelton $5,820.0 $9,314.4 $5,753.2 -37.5% 61.9% Southbury $2,724.2 $4,452.6 $3,755.3 -38.8% 18.6% Thomaston $626.5 $1,155.1 $864.7 -45.8% 33.6% Waterbury $4,614.0 $9,064.6 $6,045.2 -49.1% 49.9% Watertown $2,211.1 $3,548.4 $2,695.3 -37.7% 31.6% Wolcott $1,636.1 $2,391.4 $1,511.5 -31.6% 58.2% Woodbury $1,381.8 $2,187.6 $1,759.5 -36.8% 24.3% Region Total $38,417.8 $61,786.6 $44,582.5 -37.8% 38.6% Urban Core $13,211.3 $23,404.7 $16,576.0 -43.6% 41.2% Inner Ring $14,472.3 $22,601.0 $16,146.8 -36.0% 40.0% Outer Ring $10,734.2 $15,780.9 $11,859.8 -32.0% 33.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2003 -2015 All values are in 2015 dollars [=nflation Rate 2003 -2015: 1.2575] [=nflation Rate 2007 -2015: 1.1359] 2015 is for FY 2016 -2017 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 78 Total >30% Owner -Occupied >30% Renter -Occupied >30% Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 3,464 50.2% 1,764 44.0% 1,700 58.8% Beacon Falls 534 22.2% 427 20.8% 107 30.6% Bethlehem 421 33.0% 309 29.3% 112 50.5% Bristol 8,400 33.6% 4,619 28.2% 3,781 43.8% Cheshire 2,209 22.0% 1,871 21.1% 338 28.6% Derby 2,251 45.5% 1,107 40.6% 1,144 51.5% Middlebury 794 29.5% 693 28.9% 101 34.5% Naugatuck 4,159 34.9% 2,400 30.4% 1,759 43.8% Oxford 1,274 29.0% 1,146 29.8% 128 23.6% Plymouth 1,627 34.4% 1,156 30.8% 471 48.3% Prospect 663 20.2% 567 19.5% 96 25.3% Seymour 2,008 33.1% 1,244 28.7% 764 44.1% Shelton 5,240 33.2% 4,117 32.0% 1,123 38.0% Southbury 3,174 40.8% 2,586 38.2% 588 58.2% Thomaston 966 31.9% 721 30.7% 245 36.3% Waterbury 19,218 48.4% 6,887 39.7% 12,331 55.1% Watertown 2,396 28.7% 1,860 27.8% 536 32.3% Wolcott 1,647 28.2% 1,208 23.9% 439 55.7% Woodbury 1,430 35.2% 998 33.1% 432 41.2% Region Total 61,875 36.8% 35,680 31.2% 26,195 48.6% Urban Core 37,492 42.4% 16,777 34.7% 20,715 51.6% Inner Ring 14,446 30.1% 10,969 28.2% 3,477 37.9% Outer Ring 9,937 31.3% 7,934 29.3% 2,003 43.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25106 79 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Govt. Assisted Tenant Rental As- sistance CHFA/ USDA Mortgage Deed Re- stricted Total Affordable Geography Total Percent Ansonia 347 696 118 9 1,170 14.4% Beacon Falls 0 3 37 0 40 1.6% Bethlehem 24 0 5 0 29 1.8% Bristol 1,908 868 996 0 3,772 14.0% Cheshire 258 20 76 17 371 3.6% Derby 274 315 88 0 677 11.6% Middlebury 76 4 22 20 122 4.2% Naugatuck 493 299 317 0 1,109 8.5% Oxford 36 5 30 0 71 1.5% Plymouth 178 13 192 0 383 7.5% Prospect 0 6 39 0 45 1.3% Seymour 262 27 109 0 398 5.7% Shelton 253 45 103 82 483 3.0% Southbury 89 7 30 0 126 1.4% Thomaston 104 6 86 0 196 6.0% Waterbury 5,272 3,143 1,761 172 10,348 21.6% Watertown 205 25 184 0 414 4.6% Wolcott 312 9 133 0 454 7.2% Woodbury 59 3 24 0 86 1.9% Region Total 10,150 5,494 4,350 300 20,294 10.8% Urban Core 8,294 5,321 3,280 181 17,076 16.7% Inner Ring 1,260 136 750 99 2,245 4.4% Outer Ring 596 37 320 20 973 2.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. Affordable :ousing Appeals List: 2017 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 80 81 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix D Tables and Maps Topic Page Urbanized Areas: 2010 ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 82 Labor Market Areas: 2018. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 83 Income Limits for Select HUD Programs: 2018 ………………………….. ……… 84 Naugatuck River Greenway, Ansonia Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 82 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 83 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Labor Market Areas: 2018 * Bethlehem and Woodbury were added to the Water-bury LMA in 2015. Each mid -decade, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) updates statistical area definitions (geographical composition) or labor market areas based on population and commuter patterns from the most recent decennial Census (2010). Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 84 Source: U.S. Department of :ousing and Urban Development (:UD), =ncome Limits: 2018 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Southbury, Waterbury, and Wolcott Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Derby, Oxford, and Seymour Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes Bethlehem, Plymouth, Thomaston, Watertown, and Woodbury 85 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Department of :ousing and Urban Development (:UD), =ncome Limits: 2018 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes Town of Cheshire Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes City of Bristol Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes City of Shelton Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Council Members Municipality Representative Title Ansonia David Cassetti Mayor Beacon Falls Christopher Bielik First Selectman Bethlehem Leonard Assard First Selectman Bristol Ellen Zoppo -Sassu Mayor Cheshire Rob Oris Jr. Town Council Chairman Derby Richard Dziekan Mayor Middlebury Edward St. John First Selectman Naugatuck N. Warren “Pete ” Hess Mayor Oxford George Temple First Selectman Plymouth David Merchant Mayor Prospect Robert Chatfield Mayor Seymour W. Kurt Miller First Selectman Shelton Mark Lauretti Mayor Southbury Jeffrey Manville First Selectman Thomaston Edmond Mone First Selectman Waterbury Neil O'Leary Mayor Watertown Thomas Winn Town Council Chairman Wolcott Thomas Dunn Mayor Woodbury William Butterly, Jr. First Selectman

NVCOG Annual Report 2017 – 2018

1 | Page Report to the Connecticut General Assembly Committees on Planning & Development Co -Chair s: Senator Steve Cassano, Senator George S. Logan Representative Roland J. Lemar and Finance, Revenue & Bonding Co -Chair s: Senator John W. Fonfara , Senator Scott L. Frantz Representative Jason Rojas and The Secretary of the Office of Policy & Management Benjamin Barnes October 1, 2018 Regional Service Grant Annual Progress Report (CGS Section 4 -66r – 2018 Supplement) Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments State Fiscal Year 2018 Ju ly 1, 2017 through June 30 , 201 8 2 | Page Table of Content s 1 Summary & Report Approach 2 Introduction 3 Mission of the NVCOG 4 Summary of the RSG Expenditures by NVCOG 5 Regional Programs, Projects and Initiatives 6 Potential New Regional Initiatives 7 Potential Impediments to Regionalization 3 | Page 1 Summary and Report Approach Program Funding and Composition The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) is a regional planning organization (RPO) for the 19- town planning region centered on the City of Waterbury. The primary planning functions of the NVCOG are transportation, land use, environmental, and emergency management for the Naugatuck Valley planning region. The NVCOG provides a range of regional shared services to its municipal members and other municipalities under our Municipal Shared Services Program. For State Fiscal Year 2018 (July 1, 2017 thr ough June 30, 2018), the NVCOG received and expended $220,060 in state – provided Regional Service Grant funds. These funds were insufficient to support the p lanning functions and services t hat the NVCOG provides to its member municipalities. The value of the services and technical assistance the NVCOG provides is far above and beyond the actual cost of providing those services. To fulfill its mission, the NVCOG supplements and leverages RSG funds by allocating planning assistance funds provided by the US Department of Transportation to regional planning activities . Local membership dues are also used to support NVCOG efforts. In accordance with Connecticut General Statutes Section 4 -66r (2018 Supplemental), regional councils of governments need to prepare and submit an annual report to the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management and to the joint standing committee s of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to municipalities. The Annual Report needs to include the following: (1) Summar y of the expenditure of such grant funds (Section 4 of this report ), (2) Description of any regional program, project or initiative currently provided or planned by the council (Section 5 of this report ), (3) Review of the performance of any existing regional program, project or initiative relative to its initial goals and objectives (Section 5 of this report ), (4) A naly sis of the existing services provided by member municipalities or by the state that, in the opinion of the council, could be more effect ively or efficiently provided on a regional basis (Section 6 of this report ), and (5) Recommendations for legislative action concerning potential impediments to the regionalization of services (Section 7 of this report ). This Annual Report describes the activities and accomplishments of the NVCOG during SFY 2018, as well as, ongoing planning tasks and actions planned for the coming year. The Annual Report relates to the revised RSG work program and spending plan submitted to OPM in December 2017. The SFY 2018 work program lists fourteen primary tasks, ranging from activities funded exclusively by the state -provided Regional Service Grant and those supported by the US Department of Transportation metropolitan planning progra m. Major accomplishments during SFY 2018 were: • Work Program Task 1: Regional Policy Coordination Program (Section 5.3) : o Program administration o Policy board oversight o Policy compliance 4 | Page • Work Program Task 2: Municipal Shared Services Program (Section 5.2) : o Policy compliance o Regional Wastewater Treatment Consolidation project o Municipal Shared Planner program (Oxford and Seymour) o Household Hazardous Waste program o Naugatuck Valley Rail Summit o Municipal Health Insurance • Work Program Task 5 & 7: Regional Enviro nmental Program (Section 5.4) : o Revised MS4 Permit Assistance o Naugatuck River Greenway (NRG) project development and administration, and NRG website o Naugatuck River Greenway Steering Committee (NRGSC) administration o Multi -use trail development technical assistance o Water Planning Council, Water Planning Council Advisory Group (WPCAG) and the WPCAG Drought and Land Use Advisory Groups meetings and participation o Western CT Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) meetings and participation o Sustainable CT program and climate resiliency planning • Work Program Task 3: Regional GIS Program (Section 5.5) : o GIS technical assistance to member municipalities o Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) in advance of the 2020 Census o Mobility Project Reporter online crowdsourcing application to solicit public opinion on transportation projects o Regional map viewer to show data on a regional scale o Regional Trails Database • Work Program Task 8: Plans of Conservation and Development (Section 5.6) : o Ansonia POCD – prepared and assisted city in public outreach and adoption o Oxford POCD – prepared maps o Woodbury POCD – facilitator of public workshops o Regional POCD – initiated work on consolidating the CNV and Valley plans • Work Program Task 8: Land Use and Regional Planning Program ( Section 5.7) : o Regional Planning Commission – quarterly meetings o Regional referrals o Regional Profile • Work Program Task 12: NVCOG Website (Section 5.8) : o Maintained and updated content and information to provide a medium for public education 5 | Page • Work Program T ask 14: Transportation Planning Program (Section 5.9) : o LOTCIP o CNVMPO, GBVMPO, and TTAC o Project design administration – Route 34, Route 67, Derby -Shelton Bridge, Thomaston – Watertown trail and bridge o TOD Pilot Program Project and Alternative Transportation Modes Assessment • Work Program Task 6: R egional Brownfields Partnership (Section 5.10) : o NVCOG serves as the host of the Partnership Report Format & Methodology The components of th is Annual Report are listed in the Table of Contents shown above and focus o n the description of the primary NVCOG regional services. Accomplishments and activities are organized by category and relate to the tasks listed in the RSG Work Program. The “performance” of the NVCOG’s regional services is based on an assessment of expenditures to complete the task in relation to benefits derived , with benefits defined for these purposes as “municipal avoidance costs .” While i t is difficult to calculate the actual municipal avoidance cost, it is based on an assumed cost that the NVCO G municipalities did not have to pay for a service provided through the regional organization or saved on the cost of an expense by joining together to provide that service jointly . Historically, t he services provided by the NVCOG typically include d projec ts that the municipalities do not have sufficient staff time and/or expertise to undertake and are beneficial to the communities. More recently our member municipalities have begun to investigate joint provision of services that have become to o expensive t o justify the continuation of a go -it -alone strategy. The NVCOG also performs services that make up for the loss of the state employee workforce and improve the delivery of state program services to municipalities through regional delivery of services thro ugh contract arrangement with various state agencies . Th e performance assessment is shown in a “ Benefit/Cost Analysis,” or BCA, table located at the end of each subsection. The benefit- cost ratio is calculated by dividing the “ Municipal Avoidance Cost ” by the “ Total Expenses” incurred by the NVCOG in delivering the service. A B/C ratio greater than one (“1”) indicates that the regional service was provide d more efficiently and at a lower cost tha n if it were provided by individual municipalities. NVCOG’s municipal Chief Elected Officials (CEO s) have been highly supportive of efforts to explore opportunities for regional savings and efficiencies. To that end, the agency continues to expand its programming serving member municipalities in a variety o f areas. Following up on the very successful “ Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program” (LOT CIP) model implemented by the Legislature in 2014, there is significant opportunity to make up for the loss of the state employee workforce and improve the delivery of state program services to municipalities by contracting with COGs to implement both state and federal pass -through programs at the regional level. Virtually every state administered program from Housing to Transportation to Social Services could be evaluated for devolution to the 6 | Page regional COG level for administration under the guidance of m unicipal CEOs, and NVCOG is committed to following the direction of its member municipalities in evaluating and pursuing such opportunities. However, numerous obstacles to increased regional efficiency remain at both the state and local level, including a lack of consensus to refocus diminishing state subsidies to municipalities at the regional level where they can be more effectively deployed under the guidanc e of municipal CEOs to gain the advantage of efficiencies of scale . This also includes the need to take a hard look at how the state provides for its constitutional obligation to public education and how Connecticut’s RESCs might play a key role in more ef fectively deploying those resources to provide a more consistent product at a lower cost using a more regional model. *NOTE – This Report is the work product of the NVCOG staff and has not been previously endorsed by the Council. Due to statutory time const raints, it has been submitted to the Council simultaneous ly with its filing with the General Assembly. 7 | Page 2 Introduction The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) is a regional planning organization for the 19- town planning region centered on the City of Waterbury. It was established as of January 1, 2015 as the result of the merger of the Valley Council of Governments (VCOG) and the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) , and the addition of the City of Bristol and the T own of Plymouth , formerly of the Central Connecticut planning region. The NVCOG serves a s a forum for chief elected officials to discuss issues of common concern and to develop programs to address them on a regional level. The Naugatuck Valley planning regio n is comprise d of the following 19 municipalities: Ansonia Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls Oxford Waterbury Bethlehem Plymouth Watertown Bristol Prospect Wolcott Cheshire Seymour Woodbury Derby Shelton Middlebury Southbury The Naugatuck Valley planning region is approximately 415 square miles in size and home to 448,708 people (2010 Census). It contains a wide range of land uses and diversity of population and income. T hree general development categories comp rise the region: urban core , inner ring and outer ring. The urban core s are home to the historic al manufacturing centers of the region, and today feature high levels of racial and income diversity, have good access to public transit, high population density, and v ariable housing stock. Inner ring communities contain a mix of urban and suburban characteristics, with smaller manufacturing centers and more prominent suburban characteristics. The population is typically highly educated and moderately diverse. The out er ring represents the more suburban and rural communities. These communities have the lowest population density and few er local jobs. As a result, out er ring resident s most often commute to jobs outside their town of residen ce. The primary planning functio ns of the NVCOG are transportation, land use, environmental and emergency management for the Naugatuck Valley planning region. The NVCOG sets regional priorities for a variety of federal and state funding programs, oversees regional programs for member mun icipalities, and provides technical assistance to municipalities, state and federal agencies, local organizations, and the general public . The NVCOG has established a Municipal Shared Services program to work toward increasing the sh aring of resources between its towns. The Municipal Shared Services program is funded to a large extent by the Regional Services Grant provided by the Office of Policy and Management. The RSG funds are also used to leverage federal funds provided by the US Department of Transportation. The regional transportation program derives substantial municipal benefits through programming local transportation improvement projects, development of public outreach applications, maintenance of an informative website , and provision of technical assistance. 8 | Page 9 | Page 3 Mission of the NVCOG The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) is dedicated to expanding the voluntary cooperation among its member communities . It exists a s a resource f o r its member municipalities, providing skills, knowledge, and technology to members. It is committed to encourag ing municipal and regional economic growth across the Naugatuck Valley, supporting state and federal efforts, and aligning the region’s potential and its residents’ real needs. The NVCOG is committed to improving the lives of Naugatuck Valley residents by collective action and affirming the N augatuck Valley’s position as a key economic engine of Connecticut. It is the mission of the NVCOG to: • Help its members improve governmental efficiency and save tax dollars through shared services and other direct service initiatives; • Promote efficient transportation systems, sustainable land use and preservation of land and natural resources, and effective economic development; • Strengthen the City of Waterbury as the core of a strong region, and strengthen the economic vitality of other historic urban centers within the Route 8, I -84 and Route 6 corridors; • Advocat e for the region and its towns with the State and Federal governments; • Strengthen our regional community by helping coordinate regional agencies and programs; and • Assist local governments and citizens in articulating, advocating and implementing the vision, needs, and values of their regional community. Since the consolidation of the VCOG and COGCNV, the NVCOG has decreased operating costs while enhancing staff capabilities and programming, as will be detailed further in this report. The agency is committed to continuing this mission and ensuring effect ive and efficient use of Regional Services Grant funds made available to the NVCOG. A primary goal of the NVCOG, as approved by its governing board of municipal CEOs, is to provide municipal efficiencies by expanding the delivery of regional shared servic es. The Municipal Shared Services director works with municipalities to catalog specific needs and staffs the Municipal Shared Services Committee (MSSC) consisting of municipal CEOs and/or top municipal finance/purchasing staff. The NVCOG continues to work to identify and assess possible programs that could be completed regionally and determine the efficiencies associated with such transfer to the NVCOG. Under its annual unified planning work program, t he NVCOG also administers, manages and provides a rang e of regional programs, projects and initiatives serving its municipal members . Funding of these planning tasks comes from federal, state and local sources, including the US Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit A dministration), US Environmental Protection Agency, and local municipal dues. The NVCOG provide s planning services and technical assistance above and beyond the actual cost of providing those services. In addition, existing services provided by member muni cipalities or by the state that could possibly be transferred to the NVCOG continue to be identified by the MSSC and its subcommittees. 10 | Page 4 Summary of the RSG Expenditures by NVCOG The NVCOG provides planning services and technical assistance above and beyond the actual cost of providing those services. While it is difficult to calculate a benefit -cost index for the services provided by NVCOG staff to member municipalities , they typically include projects that the municipalities do not have sufficient staff ti me and/or expertise to undertake and are beneficial to the communities. The following table outlines the revenues and expenditures for the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) f or the Regional Services Grant of the State Fiscal Year 201 8. Category Activities RSG Budget RSG Allocation Task 1: Regional Policy Coordination NVCOG Administration & Direction Financial Tracking & Budget Development $0 $5,290 Task 2: Municipal Shared Services Municipal Shared Services Program RPIP Grant Household Hazardous Waste Crowdsourcing App lication Legislative Development Oversight Policy & Program Development $ 78 ,120 $167, 789 Task 3: Regional GIS Program Regional Profile Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Regional Trails Database Local Mapping Technical Assistance NVCOG Website $4,738 $480 Task 4: Archived Data Management GIS License $17,760 $480 Task 5: Sustainable and Livable Communities Initiatives Program Sustainable CT Low Impact Development Council on Climate Change $0 $0 Task 6: Regional Brownfields Program Regional Brownfields Program Brownfield assessment & remediation partnership $ 0 $1,635 11 | Page Task 7: Environmental Planning State Water Plan Western CT Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) MS4 Environmental Legislation $8,1 38 $1 1,507 Task 8: POCDs Regional Plan of Conservation & Development Municipal Plans of Conservation & Development $ 14,648 $16,7160 Task 9: Regional Emergency Planning REPT – Regions 2, 3 &5 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans updates $0 $ 0 Task 10: Regional Economic Planning Annual CEDS status report Economic resiliency study Regional Economic Profile $16, 275 $10 ,929 Task 11: LUCA Local Update of Census Addresses Operation (LUCA) for the U.S. Census 2020 $59,241 $2,369 Task 12: Public Outreach & Information Sharing NVCOG Website. Annual Report $6,510 $0 Task 13: Land Use Education Training $0 $0 Task 14: Metropolitan Transportation Planning (USDOT) Non -federal share $4,55 9 $975 Total $220, 060 $2 20,0 60 12 | Page 5 Regional Programs, Projects and Initiatives The following is a description of the regional planning programs and the accomplishments achieved under each program by the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments. 5.1 Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Consolidation 5.1.1 Narrative & Activity: The recently completed state fiscal year marked the third full year of operation as the consolidated Council of Governments for the Naugatuck Valley planning region . All tasks and activities required to effectuate the merger and consolidation were completed in 2016. Work also continued on efforts to re-designat e the Greater Bridgeport and Valley MPO to separate the four Lower Valley communities and integrate them into the Central Naugatuck Valley Region MPO . The NVCOG coordinated efforts with the CT Metro COG. This is an on-going activity. 5.2 Municipal Shared Service Programming 5.2.1 Narrative & Activity: The NVCOG’s municipal shared service programming began in mid-2015 with the hiring of a Municipal Shared Services D irector. The Municipal Shared Services Committe e (MSSC) was created to provide direction on opportunities for evaluation. Regional Law Enforcement/PSAP consolidation In 2017, the MSSC directed NVCOG staff to explore opportunities for regional law enforcement, as well as consolidation of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). While the hiring of a consultant to conduct a formal study on such opportunities was under consideration following an MSSC meeting, the uncertainty of RSG funding and the subsequent, significant reduction of the RSG, prevented any law enforcement department consolidation initiative from going forward. Staff conducted research on potential PSAP consolidation and held a meeting with three municipalities that represent a fit for such consolidation . The meeting included several representatives from the state Division of Emergency Telecommunications (DSET) to assess opportunities. It was determined that there is i nsufficient political will and/or incentive to move forward with such consolidation at this time. Municipal Health Insurance NVCOG staff began a dialogue with the state Department of Insurance and the Capitol Region Education Council in late 2017 concerning opportunities for NVCOG munici palities to join a captive stop-loss insurance entity. In April 2018, CT Prime, which administers the CREC program, conducted a meeting with several NVCOG municipalities to determine interest. Four municipalities subse quently provided data necessary for the preparation of illustrative quotes to determine the cost effectiveness of joining the captive or starting a separate cell within the existing structure. CREC/CT Prime provided a follow up 13 | Page presentation to the full NVC OG board in September 2018 and is continuing to work with the City of Waterbury and other NVCOG municipalities to provide options for joining the captive stop loss entity. Shared Municipal Staff NVCOG staff began to craft a Municipal Shared Planner position with two member towns in the s pring of 2018. Oxford and Seymour have committed to supporting this position, which is designed with the capability to serve up to two additional municipalities. The primary goal of this programming is to reduce individ ual municipal costs and to expand and improve the range of services a municipality may provide by the use of a full- time planner housed at the NVCOG. Towns will receive the benefit of having full- time attention by sharing these services via a full time reg ional position while paying only part time costs. B ecause the employee is available to the town on a full time basis, a shared position has the potential to provide higher quality services, while also saving money for the participating towns. The person in the position would interface with existing town staff as if they were also municipal employees , but most importantly, would not duplicate or supplant existing municipal functions. The NVCOG has drafted a detailed job description and service agreements bet ween the NVCOG and the participating communities. Advertisements for the position have been posted and t he shared planner is expected to begin serving towns in fall 2018. NVCOG plans to continue to pursue the shared position concept for additional, specialized municipal services, including engineering. RPIP Regional Wastewater Treatment Consolidation Study Grant In an effort to promote regionally shar ed public works and utilities, OPM approved NVCOG’s application for $1.35 million to conduct a regional was tewater treatment consolidation study. The project is reviewing existing planning documents, assessing existing wastewater treatment facilities, estimating 20- year wastewater flows and developing potential alternatives for wastewater treatment consolidatio n. The consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities has the potential to avoid substantial upgrade costs and stabilize sewer use fees for users by expanding the service base . In July 2017, The Wastewater Treatment Consolidation Study Selection Committe e recommended Black and Veatch, Inc. as the selected vendor for negotiations. Negotiations with Black and Veatch, as well as OPM and DEEP staff on project scope contin ued throughout late 2017 and early 2018. Following legal negotiations, NVCOG entered into a contract with Black and Veatch in April 2018. Upon execution of the agreement, Black and Veatch immediately began compiling data from the wastewater plants under evaluation in the study . RPIP Regional School District Consolidation Study Grant During the 2018 Legislative Session, the General Assembly approved legislation making NVCOG the grant recipient of $168,000 for a school district consolidation study for the Cities of Ansonia and Derby. NVCOG is serving as the fiduciary and conducting procurement o n behalf of the Temporary Regional School Study Committee (TRSSC) serving the towns. The TRSSC conducted consultant interviews in September 2018 and is expected to have a firm under contract in the early fall. The goal of the project is to determine the potential savings and other operational efficiencies that could be derived from either 14 | Page consolidation of the school districts or the joint delivery or sharing of services among two school districts. Public Works Database The NVCOG maintains a public works e quipment sharing database that is accessible by all member municipalities. More than 120 pieces of equipment, ranging from small handheld pieces to large dump trucks, are currently available through this program. Towns can see what pieces are available alo ng with their respective model year prior to contacting the town that owns the equipment to arrange a lend ing agreement. By using this tool, m unicipalities have the opportunity to realize substantial savings by avoiding commercial rental agreements or leas es. Mobility Project Reporter The Mobility Project Reporter is an online crowdsourcing application made with ESRI’s Crowdsource Reporter template. It is being crafted to provide the region and individual municipal ities crowdsourcing similar to a 311, non -emergency government system. It is designed to solicit public opinion on transportation projects in the Naugatuck Valley region and collect votes on previously suggested projects. The application contains themed maps f or pedestrian- and bicycle -related projects, rail and bus transit, and for projects on roads and streets, however, not on expressways. The application also has a map to gather the public opinion on the use of autonomous vehicles in the region. The Mobili ty Project Reporter is available for both English and Spanish speakers. When the application opens, a list of project themes sits right of a map that centers on the user’s location. Click ing on a transportation theme allows the user to view related inform ation and icons showing where submitted ideas are located. After a user clicks on a theme, the right -hand list will display a list of submitted project ideas above a button to submit a new project idea. Clicking this button will change the right -hand lis t to a form to collect the user’s thoughts on a project and add it to the map. The information collected is based on a list of preset topics, an explanation for the topic chosen, the user’s name and email (which will not be displayed), and any images or d ocuments to support the suggestion. Additionally , users can click on an icon on the map that represents a previously suggested project and click on a “Like” button to agree with that project. This helps to limit duplicate ideas and crowding on the map. Th e Mobility Project Reporter application has a partner manager application which is only available to the NVCOG staff to maintain the appropriateness of submitted data. The manager application also helps translate topic explanations into English or Spanish. Enterprise Corridor Zone NVCOG serves as the Route 8 Corridor Enterprise Corridor Zone Coordinator to DECD and resource for the program for seven municipalities – Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Derby, N augatuck, Seymour, Torrington and Winchester . The agency provides advice , as well as , GIS and mapping support regarding project eligibility. Naugatuck Valley Rail Summit The NVCOG Municipal Shared Services Director organized and facilitated a Naugatuck Valley Rail Summit held in the Borough of Naugatuck. The Chief Elected Officials of municipalities with Waterbury Branch Line (WBL) stations (Waterbury , Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Seymour, Ansonia, Derby and Shelton), 15 | Page requested this summit to promote enhancement of commuter rail service along the WBL. The intent w as to focus on on -going operating problems, the need for investment in new equipment and to highlight the potential economic value of increased rail services to the host communities. The summit was held in February and was attended by the CEOs of WBL host communities, as well as a number of CEOs from neighboring municipalities. The rail summit was viewed by the CEOs as a municipal shared service as they share a strong interest in transit -oriented -development as part of their economic development strategies. The summit subsequently led state legislators to promote the need for increased WBL service. The event garnered statewide news coverage from multiple broadcast outlets and provided a timely, productive dialog ue with the region’s state legislative delega tion at the start of the 2018 Legislative Session . Regional Economic Development Outreach, Promotion & Initiatives In promoting the region’s economic development, NVCOG serves as the primary contact point for the Connecticut Economic Resource Center ’s (CERC’s) regional economic development programming, including supplying data and nominees for its annual Celebrate Connecticut event. It also serves as a partner in the region’s federal Economic Development District , which crafts its Comprehensive Econom ic Development Strategy (CEDS) utilized in seeking federal Economic Development Administration funds for projects benefitting municipalities. The NVCOG assists the NVEDD in updating economic data and maps for the EDD, as part of the annual CEDS update. Qualified Opportunity Zones NVCOG staff provided its municipalities eligible for federal Qualified Opportunity Zone (QOZ) assistance in applying to the state for designation of eligible census tracts. A QOZ becomes eligible for investment by federally -appr oved Opportunity Funds, which serve as vehicles to reduce taxes on capital gains by using unrealized gains to fund investments in low -income communities. If investments are held for 10 years, gains on the Opportunity Fund investment also have a permanent t ax exclusion. NVCOG assisted municipalities by providing mapping and data, as well as sample letters to seek state QOZ designation. QOZs were subsequently approved in four NVCOG municipalities. BCA : Municipal Shared Services Program a. Total RSG All ocation – SF Y 201 8 $109 ,290 b. Other $0 c. Total Expenses $109,290 d. Municipal Avoidance Cost (say $ 10 ,000 per town) $190 ,000 e. Regional Shared Service Savings (d. – c.) $47 ,710 f. B/C Ratio (d. / c.) 1.7 Funding Source s: RSG 16 | Page Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Programming The NVCOG manages a regional household hazardous waste contract for 13 of the region’s 19 municipalities. Staff worked with the Town of Cheshire to provide HHW management programming, beginning in July 2018, bringing the t otal number towns in this program to 14. Staff began to craft a bid for vendor services that will begin in Fiscal Year 2019 that will serve additional NVCOG municipalities. 5.3 Regional Policy Coordinat ion Program 5.3.1 Narrative & Activity: The NVCOG maintains a Regional Policy Coordination Program overseen by the Executive Director and Municipal S hared Service Director to monitor legislative developments and federal and state policy proposals and to inform municipalities of potential implications of proposed actions. In 2018 staff: • Updated compliance policies with state and federal law s and regulations, including the Equal Employment Opportunity , Title VI, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise and Enviro nmental Justice programs. • Monitor ed legislative developments on the state and federal levels and reported on potential policy impacts on municipal and regional efforts. • Develop ed and maintained organizational and financial policies . • Provided advic e to public officials on policy and program requirements and opportunities. • Collect ed, analyzed , and reported on data concerning NVCOG policies and procedures . • Coordinated and prepared materials for regular NVCOG Board of Directors meetings and its committees. BCA : Household Hazardous Waste a. Total RSG Allocation – SF Y 201 8 $0 b. Other Local $12,0 00 c. Total Expenses $12, 000 d. Municipal Avoidance Cost Program administration $28,918 e. Regional Shared Service Savings (d. – c.) $16,918 f. B/C Ratio (d. / c.) 2.4 Funding Sources: Local BCA : Regional Policy Coordination a. Total RSG Allocation – SFY 2018 $68,092 b. Other $0 c. Total Expenses $68,092.52 d. Municipal Avoidance Cost (say $5,000 per town) $95,000.00 e. Regional Shared Service Savings (d. – c.) $26,907.48 f. B/C Ratio (d. / c.) 1.4 Funding Sources: RSG 17 | Page 5.4 Regional Environmental Program 5.4.1 Narrative & Activity: The NVCOG supports an environmental stewardship program that monitors federal and state environmental programs and policies and provides technical assistance and advice to member communities. The NVCOG assists in the conduct of regional environmental projects and studies to ensure understanding of potential impacts to the environment and promote sustainable development. Programs areas include: • Trails and green ways planning • Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan • Water supply planning – Western Connecticut Water Utility Coordinating Committee • Con servation and watershed planning • Resource Conservation & Development Area (RC&D) activities • Sustainability and c limate resiliency planning The RSG funds provide a portion of the non -federal share of the metropolitan planning program and leverage grant funds provided by community foundation grants; thereby , reducing the commitment of local funds needed f or a planning study or project. Specific activities in FY 201 7 include d: 5.4.2 Environmental Legislation, Policy Tracking and Local Assistance with DEEP Programs : The NVCOG monitors and tracks environmental legislation in the state legislature and policy changes at the Connecticu t Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) that may have an impact on towns. CEOs and municipal staff are kept apprised of changes and potential impacts through memos, e -mails and presentations at COG, RPC and TTAC meetings, and municipal o fficial and commissioner training programs. Staff prepare s regional comments, as necessary and appropriate, at the request of the NVCOG Board , and may institute programs to assist towns with implementation or compliance with regulations. CEOs are encourage d to contact NVCOG staff if they learn of potential issues or need information about environmental regulations. Activities during the year include : MS4 Permit Assistance : The NVCOG has monitored the re- issuance of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Syste m (MS4) permit by CT DEEP: providing guidance and services to municipalities to assist in compliance with the more stringent ru les going into effect in 2017. NVCOG staff has worked on the following initiatives to assist member municipalities with MS4 compliance: • Provided guidance to member municipalities • Coordinating regional municipal training opportunities to take place in the spring of 2019 18 | Page • Compiled examples of LID/GI best practices, and provided reviews and suggestions for regional transportation p rojects • Maintains and update s a webpage with MS4 information an d links to resources: http://nvcogct.org/content/ms4 DEEP Pl an Review and I nput: The NVCOG staff regularly review drafts of DEEP policy documents and offer input by submitting comments or participating in hearings or advisory committees. Local Assistance: The NVCOG offers assistance with DEEP grant programs to member municipalities, providing maps, data, and grant application assistance for Open Sp ace and Watershed Acquisition (OSWA), Recreational Trails, EV Charger Incentive, and other grant programs. Deliverables created for Municipalities: • MS4 local regulation assessments for each MS4 community. • MS4 webpage: http://nvcogct.org/content/ms4 • Consultant short list for Stormwater Management Plan development and MS4 program registration: http://nvcogct.or g/content/ms4-consultant -call- list 5.4.3 Naugatuck River Greenway : The NVCOG staff provides an administrative role and function for the NRG Steering Committee, a collaborative of the eleven municipalities along the Naugatuck River Greenway corridor. The NRG Steering Committee includes representatives of three communities outside the NVCOG planning region: Harwinton, Litchfield and Torrington. The NRG is a planned 44- mile, multi- use trail and greenway along the Naugatuck River , extending from Torrington to Derby . In addition to scheduling meetings, preparing meeting agendas and arranging speakers, NVCOG staff work includes: Economic Impact Study : This study , completed in March 2017, investigated the economic and health benefits accruing from the construction of the Naugatuck River Greenway trail and determined the effects that the NRG trail will BCA : Environmental Policy a. Total RSG Allocation – SF Y 201 8 $2 ,771 b. Other $0 c. Total Expenses $2 ,771 d. Municipal Avoidance Cost (say $1 ,500 per town) $28 ,500 e. Regional Shared Service Savings (d. – c.) $27 ,729 f. B/C Ratio (d. / c.) 10 .3 Funding Source s: RSG 19 | Page have on quality of life , health and local spending habits. The stud y was funded in part through several community foundation grants and supported by state and federal planning funds. During SFY 2018, t own-based brochures were prepared that describe d and present ed the study’s results for individual communities and were di sseminated to host communities. The NVCOG prepared a presentation on the economic impact study and made the presentation to the following groups: • Connecticut Greenways Council Trail Symposium • Northwest Hills Council of Governments • Connecticut Department of Transportation RPO Coordination Meeting • Rails with Trails & Economic Benefits of the Naugatuck Valley Greenway Seminar sponsored by the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area • International Trails Symposium, Dayton, Ohio • Several NRG host communitie s – Beacon Falls, Derby, Naugatuck, Harwinton, Litchfield and Torrington The NVCOG will continue promotion of the economic benefits of completing the NRG trail in SFY 2019 and is planning to host a summit with legislators to advocate for funding. Torring ton to Thomaston Routing Study : The NVCOG , through an OPM Responsible Growth planning grant , is conducting a study to determine the preferred alignment of the NRG from Torrington to Thomaston. A preliminary route passes through the US Army Corps of Engineer’s property north of the Thomaston Dam. Substantial coordination with USACE is o ngoing. The routing analysis will be completed in SFY 2019 upon conclusion of publ ic and stakeholder outreach and coordination. The project will identify the agreed -to preferred alignment for the trail through these towns. Engineering Services for the Design of NRG in Thomaston and Watertown: The NVCOG is serving as the fiduciary for a Recreational Trails grant awarded to the towns of Thomaston and Watertown. The NVCOG is providing technical assistance and overseeing the design of a short trail section and trailhead in Thomaston and critical drainage elements in Watertown. The desi gn is in the final design phase. A public information meeting was held on the preliminary design plans , and the NVCOG is preparing an application to construct the trail section and a new bridge crossing the Branch Brook. Construction of the trail and installation of the bridge is scheduled for spring 2019. NRG Website: The NVCOG staff maintain s the NRG website and NRG webpage on the NVCOG website. 20 | Page BCA : Naugatuck River Greenway a. Total RSG Allocation – SF Y 201 8 $0 b. Other Trans. PL $20,000 c. Total Expenses $20,000 d. Municipal Avoidance Cost (say $2,500 per town) $47,500 e. Regional Shared Service Savings (d. – c.) $27 ,500 f. B/C Ratio (d. / c.) 4.4 Funding Source s: FHWA Metropolitan Planning Funds 5.4.4 Multi -use Trails : The NVCOG is active in promoting, developing, and assessing existing trails, as well as, th e planning of new multi -use trails in the region. In addition to assisting member municipalities, this work also represents services provide d to state agencies , including CT DEEP and CT DOT, in regard to greenways, trails, and other programs. Because of reductions in state workforce, the NVCOG has assumed a greater role in the region and across the state related to these projects . The loss of state involvement is the primary driver for th e shift from state responsibility to the COGs. The NVCOG received a Rec reational Trails grant to develop and oversee a statewide data collection program on multiuse trails. Staff has partnered with the Connecticut Greenways Council, UConn Extension, and The Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR) to undertake the “CT Trail Census .” The project is volunteer based and is designed to collect information about trail users across the state. Infrared pedestrian counters have been deployed at 15 permanent locations statewide with the assistance of local trail group volunteers and municipal officials. Intercept surveys a re conducted on trails to obtain information about trail users . Results are available to the public, and are being dissemin ated to participating communities. Program staff is providing guidance on how best to utilize the information collected. http://clear.uconn.edu/projects/ct_trail_census/index.htm The NVCOG provides planning services to towns to develop concept plans for pedestrian and multiuse trail improvements including construction cost estimates to assist in grant requests for design and construction funds. Work accomplishments include: • Assi stance was provided to Oxford relating to improved access to the Larkin Trail as part of the town’s road improvement project funded under LOTCIP . • Assistance was provided to the Town of Middlebury in developing an application for federal Transportation Alte rnatives funds to extend the Middlebury Greenway. Staff also worked with CTDOT to integrate the project into the reconstruction of Exit 17 on I -84 project. • Assistance was provided to the Town of Beacon F alls in developing an application for federal Transpo rtation Alternatives funds to extend the road -diet o n South Main Street along Route 42 to Riverbend Park. 21 | Page • Provided assistance to the Town of Cheshire in developing an application for state Community Connectivity funds to address access and safety concerns along the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail. In SFY 2019, t he NVCOG will continue its multi -use trail activities related to the CT Trail Census project and will serve as the project administrator for a proposed e nvironment assessment of a new section of trail in Waterbury. Staff is also working on the development of a regional trails online application that will show all trails in the region and provide information describing the trail, parking and access. The pro ject has the strong support of the CT DEEP . CT DEEP has stated that it is a project that the state does no t have the resources to pursue. 5.4.5 Water Planning : Both surface and groundwater quality are important regional considerations. NVCOG works with the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), the Department of Public Health (DPH), public water suppliers, municipalities and land trusts to maintain and improve these resources for the health , safety , and enjoyment of its residents. Guidelines we re developed in the regional plan for water use and disposal through zoning guidelines. Local land use commissioners are provided with education on minimizing impervious s urfaces, developing interconnections for water supplies, maintenance of septic systems, and other related topics. Specific activities include: • Attending and participating in meetings of the Water Planning Council, Water Planning Council Advisory Group (WPCAG) and the WPCAG Drought and Land Use Advisory Groups, providing input to the drafting of a new Statewide Drought Management Plan and to the pla nning of the State Water Plan . Staff has been appointed to the Water Planning Council Advisory Group and is assisting with the rollout and implementation of the State Water Plan . • The NVCOG has a voting seat on the Western CT Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC). Staff regularly attends meetings of the WUCC, and has been an active member throughout the WUCC process. Staff continues to provide input in the WUCC process, relay information back to towns, and be a voice for towns that may not have voting membership on the WUCC. • Staff assisted the Town of Southbury in preparing a framework for a municipal water supply ordinance, and is working on developing a regional approach to water supply/ drought ordinance adoption. BCA : Multi -use Trail Program a. Total RSG Allocation – SF Y 201 8 $0 b. Other Trans. PL $10,000 c. Total Expenses $10,000 d. Municipal Avoidance Cost (say $1,500 per town) $2 8,500 e. Regional Shared Service Savings (d. – c.) $1 8,500 f. B/C Ratio (d. / c.) 2.9 Funding Source s: FHWA Metropolitan Planning Funds 22 | Page • The NVCOG staff served on the committee overseeing the consu ltant that is preparing a 319 grant -funded plan of development for the Pomperaug River Watershed . GIS land use and open space data in Southbury, Woodbury, Middlebury, Bethlehem and Watertown was compiled and provided to the committee. The draft plan was re viewed and feedback was provided. • The NVCOG staff is also serving on the committee overseeing the consultant preparing a 319 grant -funded plan of development for the Mill River Watershed . GIS land use and open space data in Prospect and Cheshire was compiled and provided to the committee. The draft plan was reviewed and feedback was provided . 5.4.6 Sustainability and Climate Resiliency Planning : In order to help municipalities become more sustainable and minimize the impact of extreme weather and the changing climate in the future, the NVCOG provides guidance, training, and assistance to promote smart growth, low impact development and sustainable practices. Activities include : • Promoted CT DEEP clean energy initiatives to NVCOG municipalities, informing towns about municipal opportunities to acquire clean vehicles, install EV c harging stations and retrofit diesel equipment. Staff has a lso been in discussions with CT DOT to install EV facilities at stations on the Waterbury line. • Regular attendance and participation in meetings and webinars of the Governors’ Council on Climate Change (GC3). • Hosted a Sustainable CT F ellow during the summer of 2018. Th e Fellow worked with the City of Bristol on its certification of sustainability and other member towns that were interested in registering for the Sustainable CT program. (Note: The Sustainable CT Fellow was funded through the Eastern CT State University; NVCOG provided office space). • As part of the Sustainable CT initiative, NVCOG assisted in the develop ment of an op en space classification system/ template and served as a review er of the updated version of the application. • Staff serves on the CT Community Foundation’s Environment Committee. BCA : Water Planning Program a. Total RSG Allocation – SF Y 201 8 $6,095 b. Other $0 c. Total Expenses $6 ,095 d. Municipal Avoidance Cost (say $1,500 per town) $28,500 e. Regional Shared Service Savings (d. – c.) $22 ,40 5 f. B/C Ratio (d. / c.) 4.7 Funding Source s: FHWA Metropolitan Planning Funds 23 | Page 5.4.7 CT Resource Conservation & Development and Environmental Review Team : The NVCOG serves on the board of the CT Resource Conservation & Development Council . The CT RC&D is a program of t he US Department of Agriculture to help communities protect natural resources while improving the local economy, environment and living standards. The NVCOG staff participated in an environmental review of the Dug Road properties open space opportunities in Thomaston , providing recommendations about the access, land use, and management of the property that was included in a report submitted to the town. 5.5 Regional GIS Program 5.5.1 Narrative & Activity: Parcel mapping data, produced via g eographic information systems (GIS) is the foundation upon which all other locational data is built. By combining this data with planimetric (building footprints, edge of pavement, etc.), environmental, administrative, and demographic data, we are able to support a variety of municipal applications. GIS software integrates spatial data (maps) and tabular data (inform ational databases) through computer technology. Every feature in a GIS map is linked to a record in a table that contains details about that feature. Using GIS tools, the NVCOG can display this geographic data on maps and perform spatial analyses. BCA : Sustainability and Climate Resiliency Planning a. Total RSG Allocation – SF Y 201 8 $0 b. Other Trans. PL $11,935 c. Total Expenses $11,935 d. Municipal Avoidance Cost (say $1,500 per town) $28,500 e. Regional Shared Service Savings (d. – c.) $16,565 f. B/C Ratio (d. / c.) 1.7 Funding Source s: FHWA Metropolitan Planning Funds BCA : Andrew Mountain a. Total RSG Allocation – SF Y 201 8 $2 ,771 b. Other $0 c. Total Expenses $2,771 d. Municipal Avoidance Cost Program admin $7,500 e. Regional Shared Service Savings (d. – c.) $4,729 f. B/C Ratio (d. / c.) 2.7 Funding Source s: RSG 24 | Page These “intelligent maps” provide information such as where people live and work, where growth and development occur, locations of utilities and public facilities, and much more. The NVCOG produces maps and conducts geographic analysis to support a host of plannin g projects, including transportation, land use and natural resources planning, emergency planning, and commu nity and economic development. The NVCOG maintains a comprehensive database of local and regional GIS data to support these planning efforts. Most publications produced by the NVCOG include GIS maps and GIS plays a crucial role in almost all NVCOG programs. GIS services are provided to NVCOG member municipalities. Specific program tasks and activities include: • Maintena nce of a standardized regional GI S database that includes spatial information on zoning, land use, open space, parcel boundaries, historic resources, environmental features and infrastructure. • Maint en ance of a spatially accurate employer database to use for transportation planning and eco nomic development. • Installation of ArcGIS 10.5.1 software upgrades on the NVCOG server, laptops, desktop computers , and a ssessment of the organization ’s needs moving forward. • Attended and participated on the Statewide GIS Coordinating Committee and GIS User-to -User group. • Attended various conferences and seminars: Northeast Arc User (NEARC) fall c onference in Newport; NEARC spring conference at UC onn and GIS Workshop at Yale University. • Preparat io n of maps by request for public meetings, presentations, and for publications such as municipal Plans o f Conservation and Development. • Working with local open space commissions and land trusts to map potential and existing lands for preservation. Updating Ope n Space and Land Use data with new data schema and classification systems. • Locational analysis – buffers, travel time, suitability, site selection. • Staff attend ed the Statewide GIS Coordinating Committee meetings to stay up -to -date on GIS issues related to state, regional, and local government and to discuss initiatives to institute ongoing triennial aerial flights of the entire state. Staff also participated in the Parcel Standards Sub -Committee whose goal is to establish a consistency in cadastral data st atewide. • Working with Data Haven to produce a m ap showing community resources for the V alley I ndicators report. • Preparation of a profile of the r egion, which includes detailed c ensus and other demographic data . • Preparat io n of an economic profile of the region, which includes detailed economic indicators and data. • Support ed the update of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for the Naugatuck Valley Economic Development District and work ed with the Shelton Economic Development Corporation . • Collect ed and maintain ed GIS databases – various NVCOG cities and towns. 25 | Page • Staff m et with CT DEEP and CLEAR to discuss how to assist towns with MS4 mapping requirements . • Preparat io n and transmission of data to various consultants working on projects in reg ional municipalities • Provid ed trainin g and assistance to municipalities in use of GIS, GPS, and the Collector app lication . 5.5.2 Local Update of Census Address