DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Transportation Needs in New Hampshire

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Transportation Needs in New Hampshire A snapshot of how public transportation is funded and structured throughout the state. MOBILITY NEEDS in THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Introduction Public transit is a lifeline to many New Hampshire residents of all ages and demographics. In FTA Mandated ADA Service ADA Paratransit Cost Growth order to maintain the public transit services available in New Hampshire today, signicant Transit agencies throughout the state have been facing Cooperative Alliance for Seacoast Transportation (COAST) increases in public funding are critically needed. The federal funding that New Hampshire’s an increasing need for federally mandated Americans public transit systems rely heavily upon is not keeping pace with the growing demand and with Disabilities Act (ADA) service, especially for dialysis rising service costs. With adequate ongoing support, transit agencies can focus on providing trips. This on-demand service is for people with disabili- reliable transportation service to the region and ensure access for NH’s future generations. ties that keep them from riding the regular xed route bus. COAST, the public transit agency serving the New Hampshire Seacoast, has seen demand for mandated ADA services grow 880% from 2008-2018, and their cost to provide those services increase 744%. Federal alloca- tions of transit funds have not risen accordingly, leaving public transit agencies to bear the burden of these costs. Economic Development & Land Use In order for economic development to continue to thrive in NH, businesses need to be able to oer public transit to potential employees. Employment sites with transit access can leverage this to attract additional workers and address parking needs. Even for communities with xed route bus service, budget limitations often result in Supporting Seniors & Disabled Adults hourly bus service. Some NH transit systems operate Across the country, older adults make up a large and growing buses on 30 minute intervals on certain routes or during 1 in 5 Americans age 65+ portion of the non-driving population, along with individuals peak commuting periods. Having to plan your schedule does not drive with disabilities. The American Association of Retired People around 30 or 60 minute routes can be a barrier to attract- That’s 75,000 non-driving seniors in NH by 2040! (AARP) estimates that one in ve Americans over the age of 65 ing more riders, especially if they have a choice to drive doesn’t drive. The number of people over age 65 in New or rideshare. In most cities with robust public transit, a Hampshire is projected to almost double in the next 20 years, service frequency of every 15-20 minutes is expected. growing from 220,672 in 2015 to 373,209 in 2030 to 408,522 in 2040. That’s nearly 75,000 non-driving seniors in NH by 2031! Only 34 of 244 communities in NH have regular xed route bus service. Some that lack xed route public transit have special PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE MODELS: services for seniors run by non-prot groups using vans or volunteer drivers. Over 40 communities lack any transporta- Fixed Route – service that operates on a predictable (timed) Demand Response/Paratransit – service where you are picked-up tion services at all. Demand for improved public transit schedule, along a set route and stops at designated stops. and dropped o anywhere within a designated service area, and options, and particularly basic mobility services for older that is arranged by calling ahead by a minimum number of hours/ adults and individuals with disabilities, is a common theme at Commuter Bus – similar to xed route bus service, but with days to schedule your ride. (e.g., ADA-based services) public input sessions, survey results by the UNH Survey Center a commuter focus, and typically operated in a coach bus. Deviated Fixed Route – Route deviation is ¼ of a mile o of any of and feedback from local hospitals. Improving transportation Intercity Bus – typically xed route based and over longer xed routes. With this type of service, a bus or van stops at xed access will enable seniors to age in place with dignity, and is a distances between multiple communities. points and keeps to a timetable but can deviate its course between key recommendation in the 2019 NH Plan on Aging. two stops to go to a specic location for a pre-scheduled request. A PICTURE OF TRANSIT FUNDING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE A Summary of the Funding Problem: NH FUNDING SOURCES FIGURE A: FEDERAL & STATE FUNDING OF PUBLIC TRANSIT A central problem for New Hampshire’s transportation Source: National Transit Database (NTD), 2019 Funding Sources system as a whole, including the highway and bridge How does NH compare to other States? network as well as transit, is lack of federal and state FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION investment. The federal gas tax hasn’t been increased (FTA) Each year the American Association of State Highway Transportation Ocials (AASHTO) & since 1993 and is not indexed to ination. The Federal (2019) Competitive Grants National Transit Database (NTD) collect data on Highway Trust Fund is structurally insolvent. The Annual Allocations Federal Funding State Funding State Spending for Public Transportation. Aver- buying power of gas tax revenues has decreased over age per capita state spending (not including 40% in the decades since 1993 and the USDOT budget NH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION federal pass-through) on transit across the 50 has had to be propped up with tens of billions in gen- (NH DOT) states in 2018 was $58.69. The median state eral fund revenues in recent years. North Dakota (a rural state with little over Pass-thru of FTA Funds Partial match on capital projects half New Hampshire’s population) spent In New Hampshire our state Constitution prohibits the $5.04/capita, much of it on senior transpor- use of gas tax revenues for non-highway expenses and tation. New Hampshire in comparison spent we lack revenue mechanisms used in other states to MUNICIPALITIES & OTHER PARTNERS $1.00/capita. More than half that amount was support transit. Figures A & B show New Hampshire for short term mitigation for a turnpike Towns & Cities construction project that concluded in 2020. trailing far behind other New England states in per Private Partners capita state spending on public transportation; and Figure B shows New Hampshire in comparison ranked 49th out of 50 in combined federal and state to our New England peer states and breaks out transit investment. transit operating assistance from overall spend- FAREBOX REVENUE ing. The $200,000 in annual operating assis- This situation is compounded by the COVID-19 pan- Nominal fee paid by riders tance provided in the State’s SFY2020-2021 demic. While federal aid has temporarily increased biennial budget would equate to $0.15/capita, under the CARES Act, the economic disruption of the though these funds are currently not being pandemic threatens municipal funding in the coming released due to COVID related state revenue years as well as critical advertising revenue that has OTHER REVENUE shortfalls. Figure A shows combined state and According to the US DOT federal spending on public transportation by traditionally backlled shortfalls in public funding. In Bus Advertising Bureau of Transportation 2020 the state legislature approved a small amount of statistics, NH ranks 49th in state in 2019, with New Hampshire ranking Contracts Total Public Transportation 49th out of 50. general funding for transit operating assistance Charitable Donations Funding for all states, including federal & state ($200,000 statewide) though this too has been with- allocations. held due to COVID-induced revenue shortfalls. FIGURE B: STATE FUNDING IN NEW ENGLAND FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS STATE OF NH Source: 2020 AASHTO Report Using FY2018 Data 2018 State Per Capita 2018 State 2018 Per Capita In recent years, New Hampshire has not State 2018 Population Funding for Funding for Funding Funding Urbanized Area Formula provided guaranteed transit operating Operating Operating funds to small and large urbanized transit Massachusetts 6,902,149 $2,105,381,276 $305.03 $1,493,586,393 $216.39 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors & systems, or has only provided a nominal Connecticut 3,572,665 $651,477,883 $182.35 $376,188,456 $105.30 Individuals with Disabilities amount. Rhode Island 1,057,315 $58,441,037 $55.27 $52,182,561 $49.35 The only New England state to allocate Vermont 626,299 $7,955,199 $12.70 $6,638,732 $10.60 NO state funds for general public transit Rural Area Formula operating support. Public Transit funds The NH DOT has historically Maine 1,338404 $1,540,322 $1.15 $1,147,845 $0.86 that are allocated by the State of NH provided half of the local match New Hampshire* 1,336,458 $570,941 $0.42 $0 $0 amounts to only $0.42 per capita, the lowest of the 6 New England states. * Does not include turnpike toll revenues used for short-term Bus & Bus Facilities on Rolling Stock (vehicle) Per Capita Funding National Average: $58.69 Spaulding Turnpike construction mitigation projects. purchases. Per Capita Funding National Median: $5.04 With $200,000 state match for SFY2020 (in budget but not distributed due to COVID-19: $0.15/capita CHALLENGE: Federal infrastructure funding has not kept pace with ination; New Hampshire is disadvantaged in federal apportionment formulas; and match rules for transit are stricter than for highway funding. SOLUTIONS: FEDERAL Work with the Congressional delegation to: CHALLENGE: Increase and index the federal gas tax to at least equal 1991 buying power in real terms. Adjust USDOT apportionment formulas for fairness (so NH doesn’t lag behind other states with The cost of mandated ADA service has far exceeded fewer road miles and lower populations). the expected 10% of a system’s operating budget.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vermont Public Transit Policy Plan
    Vermont Agency of Transportation Vermont Public Transit Policy Plan Final Report Submitted by: KFH Group, Inc. January 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Study Advisory Committee /Vermont Public Transit Advisory Committee Joss Besse, DHCA Director of Community Planning and Revitalization, Secretary Designee representing the Agency of Commerce and Community Development Meredith Birkett, Acting General Manager, Chittenden County Transportation Authority Mollie Burke, Vermont House of Representatives Lee Cattaneo, Community of Vermont Elders Bill Clark, DVHA Provider and Member Relations Director, Secretary Designee representing Vermont Agency of Human Services Mary Grant, Rural Community Transportation, representing VPTA Jim Moulton, Addison County Transit Resources, representing VPTA Randy Schoonmaker, Deerfield Valley Transit Association, representing VPTA Matt Mann, Windham Regional Commission, representing VT Association of Planning and Development Agencies John Sharrow, Mountain Transit, representing private bus operators and taxis Bob Young, Premier Coach, representing Intercity Bus Vermont Agency of Transportation Executive Staff Brian Searles, Secretary of Transportation Sue Minter, Deputy Secretary of Transportation Chris Cole, Director of Policy, Planning and Intermodal Development Lenny LeBlanc, Director of Finance and Administration John Dunleavy, Assistant Attorney General Scott Rogers, Director of Operations Robert Ide, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles Richard Tetreault, Director of Program Development VTrans Working Group Scott Bascom,
    [Show full text]
  • Concord Coach (NH) O Dartmouth Coach (NH) O Peter Pan Bus Lines (MA)
    KFH GROUP, INC. 2012 Vermont Public Transit Policy Plan INTERCITY BUS NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND POLICY OPTIONS White Paper January, 2012 Prepared for the: State of Vermont Agency of Transportation 4920 Elm Street, Suite 350 —Bethesda, MD 20814 —(301) 951-8660—FAX (301) 951-0026 Table of Contents Page Chapter 1: Background and Policy Context......................................................................... 1-1 Policy Context...................................................................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2: Inventory of Existing Intercity Passenger Services.......................................... 2-1 Intercity Bus......................................................................................................................... 2-1 Impacts of the Loss of Rural Intercity Bus Service......................................................... 2-8 Intercity Passenger Rail.................................................................................................... 2-11 Regional Transit Connections ......................................................................................... 2-11 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 2-13 Chapter 3: Analysis of Intercity Bus Service Needs............................................................ 3-1 Demographic Analysis of Intercity Bus Needs............................................................... 3-1 Public Input on Transit Needs .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • I-89 Commuter Transit Service Study FINAL REPORT April 2017
    I-89 Commuter Transit Service Feasibility Study FINAL REPORT Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission April 2017 I-89 Commuter Transit Service Feasibility Study AECOM Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 1 3. Previous Studies .......................................................................................................................................... 1 4. Existing Transit Services .............................................................................................................................. 3 4.1 Local Bus Transit ............................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Commuter Bus Transit ....................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Intercity Transit .................................................................................................................................. 6 4.4 Rideshare Services ........................................................................................................................... 6 4.5 Park-and-Ride Lots ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Involvement Report – December 2014
    New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail & Transit Alternatives Analysis (Parts A & B) Task 1: Public Involvement Report – December 2014 New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail & Transit Alternatives Analysis (Parts A & B) Task 1: Public Involvement Report – December 2014 Table of Contents 1 Project Purpose and Need Summary .................................................................................................... 1 2 Task Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 1 3 Agency and Stakeholder Coordination ................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Project Advisory Committee (PAC) ............................................................................................... 2 3.2 Other Stakeholders ....................................................................................................................... 3 3.3 Public Involvement........................................................................................................................ 6 3.4 Website ......................................................................................................................................... 9 3.5 Media Outreach .......................................................................................................................... 10 3.6 Project Electronic Mailing List ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Location Database Technical Documentation and User Guide
    SMART LOCATION DATABASE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION AND USER GUIDE Version 3.0 Updated: June 2021 Authors: Jim Chapman, MSCE, Managing Principal, Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. (UD4H) Eric H. Fox, MScP, Senior Planner, UD4H William Bachman, Ph.D., Senior Analyst, UD4H Lawrence D. Frank, Ph.D., President, UD4H John Thomas, Ph.D., U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization Alexis Rourk Reyes, MSCRP, U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization About This Report The Smart Location Database is a publicly available data product and service provided by the U.S. EPA Smart Growth Program. This version 3.0 documentation builds on, and updates where needed, the version 2.0 document.1 Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. updated this guide for the project called Updating the EPA GSA Smart Location Database. Acknowledgements Urban Design 4 Health was contracted by the U.S. EPA with support from the General Services Administration’s Center for Urban Development to update the Smart Location Database and this User Guide. As the Project Manager for this study, Jim Chapman supervised the data development and authored this updated user guide. Mr. Eric Fox and Dr. William Bachman led all data acquisition, geoprocessing, and spatial analyses undertaken in the development of version 3.0 of the Smart Location Database and co- authored the user guide through substantive contributions to the methods and information provided. Dr. Larry Frank provided data development input and reviewed the report providing critical input and feedback. The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance, review, and support provided by: • Ruth Kroeger, U.S. General Services Administration • Frank Giblin, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Resource Guide
    NEW HAMPSHIRE COMMUNITY RESOURCE GUIDE The Epilepsy Foundation New England (EFNE) Resource Room partners with the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Epilepsy Center to provide support and resources for people with epilepsy throughout New Hampshire. The Epilepsy Resource Room is staffed by EFNE Epilepsy Resource Room Coordinators, who are trained AmeriCorps members dedicated to serving the epilepsy community. Contact us via phone at (617) 506-6041 ext. 151 or via email at [email protected] or [email protected]. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Alphabetical - by county) STATEWIDE 3 Employment | Food Security | Housing | Medical Services | Mental Health Services| Misc. Services Recreation & Wellness | Self-Management Services | Senior Services | Transportation BELKNAP COUNTY 4 Employment | Food Security | Housing | Medical Services | Mental Health Services | Misc. Services Recreation & Wellness | Senior Services |Transportation CARROLL COUNTY 5 Employment | Food Security | Housing | Medical Services | Mental Health Services | Misc. Services Recreation & Wellness | Senior Services |Transportation CHESHIRE COUNTY 6 Employment | Food Security | Housing | Medical Services | Mental Health Services | Misc. Services Recreation & Wellness | Senior Services |Transportation COOS COUNTY 7 Employment | Food Security | Housing | Medical Services | Mental Health Services | Misc. Services Recreation & Wellness | Senior Services |Transportation GRAFTON COUNTY 8 Employment | Food Security | Housing | Medical Services | Mental Health Services | Misc. Services
    [Show full text]
  • LOCALLY COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION PLAN for the Greater Nashua and Milford Region
    LOCALLY COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION PLAN For the Greater Nashua and Milford Region Locally Coordinated Transportation Plan For the Greater Nashua and Milford Region 2020-2024 Adopted: April 15, 2020 LOCALLY COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION PLAN For the Greater Nashua and Milford Region ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Community Input Participants Bridges: Domestic & Sexual Violence Support Servicelink City of Nashua Welfare/Human Services Department Souhegan Valley Transportation Collaborative Front Door Agency Southern NH HIV/AIDS Task Force Gentle Car Rides, LLC Southern NH Services Granite State Independent Living St. John Neumann Day Away Harbor Homes, Inc St. Joseph’s Community Services, Inc. Interested Public Toward Independent Living and Learning, Inc. Keystone Hall Town of Amherst Welfare/Human Services Department Milford Taxi Town of Brookline Welfare/Human Services Department Nashua Center Town of Hollis Welfare/Human Services Department Nashua Soup Kitchen & Shelter, Inc. Town of Hudson Welfare/Human Services Department Nashua Transit System Town of Litchfield Welfare/Human Services Department Opportunity Networks Town of Mason Welfare/Human Services Department Partnership for Successful Living Town of Merrimack Welfare/Human Services Department Pelham Senior Center Town of Milford Welfare/Human Services Department PLUS Company, Inc. Town of Pelham Welfare/Human Services Department SHARE Outreach Town of Wilton Welfare/Human Services Department Steering Committee Nashua Regional Planning Commission Steve Genest, Southern New Hampshire Services Jay
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Campus Transportation Toolkit
    Sustainable Campus Transportation Toolkit A Toolkit for Best Practices in Sustainable Transportation on Vermont College and University Campuses February 2016 1 Vermont Clean Cities Coalition c/o UVM Transportation Research Center University of Vermont, Farrell Hall 210 Colchester Ave., Burlington, VT 05405 Abby Mattera, VTCCC Coordinator (802) 656-9123 [email protected] [email protected] Images on cover page sourced from (starting with top left, clockwise): www.sierraclub.org readme.readmedia.com www.vtc.edu www.uvm.edu/vtccc i About Vermont Clean Cities ABOUT VERMONT CLEAN CITIES The mission of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Clean Cities program is to advance the economic, environmental, and energy security of the U.S. by supporting local decisions to adopt practices that contribute to reduced petroleum consumption in the transportation sector. The Vermont Clean Cities Coalition (VTCCC) brings together stakeholders in the public and private sectors to deploy alternative and renewable fuels, idle-reduction measures, fuel-economy improvements, and emerging transportation technologies. You can visit our website at www.uvm.edu/vtccc. TOOLKIT OVERVIEW This toolkit provides Vermont colleges, universities, and institutions with a set of strategies, case studies, and supporting information that may be utilized to improve the sustainability of campus transportation systems. It highlights alternative and renewable vehicle fuels by offering overviews and case studies for each type of fuel. It also describes methods of transportation demand management and fuel-economy improvements, as well as idle-reduction efforts. The information provided in this toolkit will give Vermont colleges a simple yet comprehensive foundation on which to address sustainable transportation practices on and around their campuses.
    [Show full text]
  • Final 2012 Coordinated Public Transit & Human Services Transportation
    Coordinated Public Transit & Human Services Transportation Plan for Southeast NH Region Approved by Strafford Regional Planning Commission on 3/16/12 Celebration of the Startup of the North Bus Service in Wakefield, NH Prepared by Rockingham Planning Commission 156 Water Street Exeter, NH 03833 (603)778-0885 Strafford Regional Planning Commission 150 Wakefield Street, Suite 12 Rochester, NH 03867 (603) 004-3500 This report was funded in part through grant(s) from the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The views and opinions of the agencies expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U. S. Department of Transportation. COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT & HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN SOUTHEAST NH REGION 2012 UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 OVERVIEW/BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Introduction/Purpose ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Plan Structure .......................................................................................................................... 1-2 2.0 STATE AND FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES .......................................... 2-1 2.1 Statewide Coordination Plan ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Citizens Advisory Committee & New Hampshire Long Range Transportation Plan ............
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation 4
    TRANSPORTATION 4 Taftsville Bridge| © John Knox A. Vision for Our Regional • Greater concentration of development in Transportation System previously built areas • Improved infrastructure to accommodate Our vision for our transportation system is one local accessibility to daily needs that efficiently and effectively moves people and commerce, is resilient to natural hazards, and • Minimal impacts to the natural environment is funded sufficiently to maintain and grow the • More resilient infrastructure that can system throughout the TRO Region. withstand climate change The purpose of this chapter is to identify goals, • A pattern and form of land use that is more policies, and recommendations that will achieve efficient, affordable, safe, and healthy a more sustainable transportation system in While strategies in this chapter speak directly line with the desired outcomes of the East to our transportation goals, we recognize that Central Vermont HUD Sustainable Communities similar polices may exist in other chapters, planning efforts, including, but not limited to: creating an interactive and supportive set of plan- wide strategies. • More local, state, and federal budgeting for infrastructure needs B. Introduction • Highway design built around context sensitive solutions, multi-modal uses, and When we plan for “transportation,” or even transparent and open planning, design, and “mobility,” the word used in transportation circles project management to generally signify movement along roads, the primary goal is actually access: access to desired • A more integrated transportation network goods and services at an affordable price and a with lower fuel consumption and emissions it includes the wider built system outside the 17 5 Region that connects us to other areas, as well as Veterans Affairs Hospital River Route a whole slew of support services, from gasoline Fares 1-Way = $3.50 Between Wells River, White River Jct.
    [Show full text]
  • Funding Transportation in Vermont
    Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College Policy Research Shop The Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences Funding Transportation in Vermont An Assessment of Applicable Funding Options PRS Policy Brief 0809-04 May 12, 2009 Prepared by: Christine Souffrant Alexandra Mahler-Haug This report was written by undergraduate students at Dartmouth College under the direction of professors in the Rockefeller Center. Support for the Policy Research Shop is provided by the Ford Foundation. Contact: Nelson A. Rockefeller Center, 6082 Rockefeller Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/shop/ • Email: [email protected] Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College Policy Research Shop The Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 3 I. CURRENT VERMONT PROGRAMS 4 1.1 AT Advanced Transit (Fare Free System: Revenue through contribution and Government Support) 1.2 Addison County Transit (limited fare system: revenue through Contracts) 4 1.3 Chittenden County Transportation Authority (Typical Fare System) 5 1.4 Funding Challenges of Vermont 5 II. CURRENT PROGRAMS IN OTHER STATES 7 2.1 Manchester Transit Authority: School funding contract) 7 2.2 Concord Area Transit (CAT): Funding due to community economic demographics 7 2.3 Cooperative Alliance for Seacoast Transportation (COAST): Funding without State Aid 8 III.COMPARISON & EVALUATIONS OF PROBABLE PROGRAMS FOR VT 8 3.1. Connections between Services & Funding of New England Area 8 3.2 The Use of Institutions for Funding 10 3.3 The Use of Demographics; An advantage for Funding 12 3.4 Funding without the State 12 3.5 2009 Federal Stimulus Package 12 CONCLUSION 13 REFERENCES 15 Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College Policy Research Shop The Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Due to the lack of cohesion amongst Vermont’s local transportation systems, coordination is an endeavor that is currently being considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transportation in Vermont
    Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College Policy Research Shop The Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences Public Transportation in Vermont An Assessment of Applicable Methods of Improvement and Funding for Vermont Transportation PRS Policy Brief 0809-03 March 1, 2009 Prepared by: Kahlie Dufresne Chase R. Raines Christine Souffrant Tara K. Wohlgemuth This report was written by undergraduate students at Dartmouth College under the direction of professors in the Rockefeller Center. Support for the Policy Research Shop is provided by the Ford Foundation. Contact: Nelson A. Rockefeller Center, 6082 Rockefeller Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/shop/ • Email: [email protected] Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College Policy Research Shop The Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION VARIES THROUGHOUT VERMONT 4 1.2 VERMONT: A PREDOMINANTLY RURAL STATE/ISSUE FOR TRANSPORTATION 4 1.3 ISSUE WITH COORDINATING VT TRANSPORTATION AND FUNDING METHODS 2. THE CURRENT STATE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN VERMONT 5 2.1 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION VARIES THROUGHOUT VERMONT 5 2.2 LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES 7 2.2.1 Addison County Transit Resources 7 2.2.2 Advance Transit Inc. 8 2.2.3 Chittenden County Transportation Authority 8 2.3 FUNDING OF VERMONT’S LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEMS 9 2.3.1 Fare free systems: Advanced Transit 10 2.3.2 Limited fare systems: Addison Country Transit Resources 10 2.3.3 Typical fare systems: Chittenden Country Transportation Authority 10 2.4 INTERSTATE AND LONG-DISTANCE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS 11 2.4.1 Greyhound Line 11 2.4.2 Rail 11 2.4 GO VERMONT 122 2.4.1 Carpooling 12 2.4.2 Vanpooling 12 2.4.3 Park-and-Ride 13 2.5 ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IN VERMONT 13 2.5.1 Funding Challenges of Vermont 14 3.
    [Show full text]