Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Plan

COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT HUMAN SERVICES PLAN

PREPARED BY: NORTHERN MIDDLESEX COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

PREPARED FOR: NORTHERN MIDDLESEX METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

JANUARY 2015

The Northern Middlesex Metropolitan Planning Organization (NMMPO) complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and other federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. The MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, English proficiency, income, religious creed, ancestry, disability, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or military service. Any person who believes herself / himself or any specific class of persons to have been subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI, ADA, or other nondiscrimination statute or regulation may, herself/himself or via a representative, file a written complaint with the MPO. A complaint must be filed no later than 30 calendar days after the date on which the person believes the discrimination occurred. A complaint form and additional information can be obtained by contacting the MPO as outlined below.

For additional copies of this document or to request a copy in an accessible format, please contact MPO staff by mail, phone, fax, or email.

Mail: Northern Middlesex Council of Governments 40 Church Street, Suite 200 Lowell, MA 01852 Phone: (978) 454-8021 Fax: (978) 454-8023

Email: [email protected]

The document is also available for download on our website at www.nmcog.org

______Preparation of this document was funded through a contract with MassDOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Its contents do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of U.S. DOT.

Table of Contents

Page Number

I. Introduction 1 II. Plan Goals 2 III. Statewide Coordinating Council on Community Transportation and the Regional Coordinating Councils 3 IV. Merrimack Valley Regional Coordinating Council 4 V. Coordinated Plan Development Process 5 VI. Regional Context 5 A. Population Characteristics 5 B. Age and Sex 6 C. Disabilities in the Northern Middlesex Region 9 D. Income 12 1. Per Capita Income 12 2. Median Household Income 12 3. Median Family Income 13 E. Poverty in the Region 14 F. Regional Transit Needs 15 VII. Inventory of Current Transportation Resources 17 A. Fixed Route Bus Service 17 B. Paratransit Service 19 1. Road Runner Demand Response Transportation Service 19 2. Road Runner Complementary ADA Demand Response Service 22 3. Councils on Aging Senior Demand Response Service 23 C. MBTA Commuter Rail Service 26 D. MVRTA Bus Service 26 E. MRTA HHS Brokerage Service 26 F. Peter Pan Bus Lines 27 G. Boston Express Bus Lines 27 H. UMass Lowell Student Bus Service 27 I. Middlesex Community College Inter-campus Shuttle 27 J. Commercial Wheelchair and Ambulance Service Providers 27 K. Other Private Service Providers 28 VIII. Identifying Gaps in Service 30 IX. Service Improvements Undertaken to Address Identified Gaps 32 X. Identifying Strategies and Projects for Addressing Regional Gaps 33

List of Tables

Table 1: Population Change in the Northern Middlesex Region (2000-2010) 6 Table 2: 2008-2012 ACS Population Estimates by Age and Sex 8 Table 3: Population with Disability which Limits Transit Use 9 Table 4: 2008-2012 ACS Population Estimates by Disability 10 Table 5: Per Capita Income by Community, 2000 and 2008- 2012 12

Table 6: Median Income by Community, 2000 and 2008-2012 13 Table 7: Median Family Income by Community, 2000 and 2008-2012 14 Table 8: Number and Percent age of Residents Living Below Poverty, 2000 and 2008-2012 15 Table 9: Elderly Persons in the Northern Middlesex Region 16 Table 10: Population Ten to Fifteen Years of Age in the Northern Middlesex Region 16 Table 11: Vehicle Availability per Household 17 Table 12: Communities Served by Lowell Based Road Runner 21 Table 13: Communities Served by LRTA Complementary ADA Service 22 Table 14: Communities Served by Councils on Aging Transportation 24 Table 15: Coordinated Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Projects and Performance Measures 34

List of Maps

Map 1: Coordinated Public Service Transit-Human Service Plan Map 18 Map 2: Lowell Regional Transit Authority Service Area-Fixed Route and Road Runner Paratransit 20

Appendices

Appendix 1: Meeting Attendance List and Meeting Notes Appendix 2: NMCOG Survey Questions Appendix 3: Merrimack Valley RCC Survey Results

iii

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 24, 2004, President Bush signed Executive Order 13330 to: “enhance access to transportation to improve mobility, employment opportunities, and access to community services for persons who are transportation-disadvantaged”. The Executive Order also established the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) to:  Promote interagency cooperation and the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to minimize duplication and overlap of Federal programs and services so that transportation-disadvantaged persons have access to more transportation services;  Facilitate access to the most appropriate, cost-effective transportation services within existing resources;  Encourage enhanced customer access to a variety of transportation and resources available;  Formulate and implement administrative, policy, and procedural mechanisms that enhance transportation services at all levels, and  Develop and implement a method for monitoring progress on achieving the goals of the Order.

The CCAM developed United We Ride, a federal interagency initiative aimed at improving the availability, quality and efficient delivery of transportation services for older adults, people with disabilities, and low income individuals, by advancing the following goals:  Simplify customer access to transportation;  Reduce duplication of transportation services;  Streamline federal rules and regulation that may impede the coordinated delivery of services; and  Improve the efficiency of services using existing resources.

United We Ride’s mission was strengthened through the federal surface transportation legislation known as SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), which was signed into law in 2005. This legislation included a requirement that programs funded under Section 5310 (Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities), Section 5316 (Job Access and Reverse Commute), and Section 5317 (New Freedom) be derived from locally developed, coordinated human services transportation plans.

On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed into law, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), which replaced SAFETEA-LU as the federal legislation that funds surface transportation. Sections 5316 and 5317 were eliminated under Map-21. Activities eligible under Section 5316 were moved to the Urbanized Area formula program (Section 5307) or the Rural Area formula program (Section 5311) and activities funded by Section 5317 were folded into Section 5310.

MassDOT administers the Section 5310 program in accordance with State Management Plans. Forty-five percent (45%) of the funds may be spent on operating, while fifty-five (55%) percent must be spent on capital projects. As with the previous 5316 and 5317 programs, there is a 50

percent match required for operating funds, while capital project match requirements retained the 80% - 20% (federal- local) funding split. Prior to MAP-21, Section 5310 funding was reserved for demand response types of service and mobility management programs. Under MAP-21, Section 5310 funds may be used to expand service beyond the mandatory ADA service area, and for fixed route service that aids in the transition from demand response.

In addition, MAP-21 required a review and update of the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan, and maintained the requirement that all funded projects be included in and derived from a coordinated human services transportation plan. The Plan must be “developed and approved through a process that included participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representative of public, private and non-profit transportation and human service providers and other members of the public”.

This document serves as an update to the region’s 2010 Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. The Plan serves as a framework for improved coordination of transportation services among both public and private providers in order to enhance transportation services for disadvantaged, disabled and senior populations. The document has been developed to meet the federal requirements outlined in FTA Circular 9070.1G for “a locally developed, coordinated human services transportation plan” that includes the following elements:

 “An assessment of available services that identifies current public, private and non-profit providers;  An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities and older adults;  Strategies, activities and/or projects to address identified gaps in current services and needs, as well as opportunities to achieve efficiencies in service delivery; and  Priorities for implementation based on available resources (from multiple program sources), time, and feasibility for implementing specific strategies and/or activities identified.”

II. Plan Goals

For some segments of the population, such as those with disabilities, older adults, and low income individuals, maintaining a basic level of mobility can be challenging. Transportation services for disadvantaged populations are often fragmented, underutilized, duplicative, and costly. Improved coordination of such services can lead to greater efficiencies, better and enhanced services, reduced costs, and a higher level of mobility for all segments of the population. This Plan strives to address these issues through the following goals:

Goal 1: Improve mobility for all segments of the population;

Goal 2: Increase the efficiency of public transit services operated by public, private and non-profit providers; and

Goal 3: Close existing gaps in service and eliminate duplication of service.

A coordinated community transportation system enables people to age in place while keeping their independence, and connects low-income individuals and people with disabilities to employment, educational, social, and other opportunities.

III. Statewide Coordinating Council on Community Transportation and the Regional Coordinating Councils

In 2011, Governor Patrick issued Executive Order 530 (EO530) forming the Statewide Coordination Council on Community Transportation (SCCCT) to improve community, social service, and paratransit services in the Commonwealth. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) have worked with SCCCT members and many stakeholders throughout the state to implement key recommendations of the EO530 Commission.

When EO530 was issued, community transportation services appeared fragmented, duplicative, underutilized or difficult to navigate. Nineteen members of the SCCCT now meet three times a year, establish priorities in the implementation of recommendations of the EO530 Commission, and advise the Secretaries of Transportation and Health and Human Services in matters of policy.

The SCCCT identified the following areas of focus in the first year:

Theme1:  Addressing community transportation service gaps;  Expanding travel training;  Providing information on paratransit services to the public. Theme 2:  Facilitating ADA paratransit transfer between transit authorities;  Simplifying the eligibility process. Theme 3:  Facilitating efficient utilization and commingling;  Creating sponsorship and partnerships with other stakeholders.

Addressing community transportation service gaps, identified in the SCCCT Theme 1 is the role of the MPO’s Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan. The MPO’s Coordinated Plans identifies unmet needs and outlines methods of addressing those needs. The MPO is working closely with the RCCs to identify service gaps and strategies to address the gaps. The coordinated plan contains both broad goals for addressing the service gaps, and when available, a list of proposed projects for future funding.

Expanding travel training and providing information on paratransit services to the public were issues identified in previous coordinated plans. The Executive Office of Health and Human Service Transportation Office has taken the lead role in travel training by offering “how to” sessions to interested parties in transit and social services. Additionally, the Transportation Office has developed an online site that identifies paratransit options by community throughout the State.

Theme 2, “Facilitating ADA transfer between transit authorities” and “simplifying the eligibility process”, is currently being reviewed and options for improvement are being formulated by MassDOT. The regional transit authorities, including the LRTA, are directly involved in the process.

The SCCCT Theme 3, “facilitating efficient utilization and commingling” and “creating sponsorship partnerships with other stakeholders”, is the role of the regional coordinating councils. The cooperation and partnerships established through the RCCs provide the foundation for efficient utilization and commingling of paratransit resources.

IV. Merrimack Valley Regional Coordinating Council

The Merrimack Valley Regional Coordinating Council is one of thirteen RCCs established throughout Massachusetts to identify transportation service gaps and make recommendations for closing the gaps and generally improving transportation service. The Regional Coordinating Councils are made up of a diverse array of stakeholders in the community transportation system, including regional transit authorities; regional planning agencies; staff from EOHHS agencies, including Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission (MRC), Department of Developmental Services (DDS), Massachusetts Commission for the Blind (MCB) and Department of Mental Health (DMH); elder services providers; community-based nonprofit organizations; transportation providers; employers; labor and workforce development organizations; transportation management associations; consumers and others.

The Regional Coordinating Councils are locally formed and led. In general, one or two organizations assume the role of champion, or co-chair. Participants who have stepped up to assume leadership roles include Council on Aging directors, MCB staff, transit authority staff and planning agency personnel. Many SCCCT members actively participate in their local RCCs, which helps to strengthen the link between regional stakeholders and the SCCCT. MassDOT and EOHHS provide technical assistance to the RCCs on an as-needed basis, as well as help to plan and facilitate meetings.

The Merrimack Valley Regional Coordinating Council encompasses two MPO regions: Northern Middlesex and the Merrimack Valley. The MVRCC meets monthly to discuss transportation issues that are unique to the Merrimack Valley, as well as issues that are common across the State and the New England region as a whole.

The MVRCC, in cooperation with the above mentioned partners, developed a survey to identify transportation issues within the Merrimack Valley RCC area. The survey was distributed to a broad array of organizations including: community ADA coordinators; housing authorities; councils on aging; elder services; elder care facilities; transportation providers; disabled community advocates; employers; human service agencies; veterans organizations; colleges and universities.

The survey results indicated that top transportation challenges for customers who could use public transportation are lack of weekend service, lack of night service, or that no public transit

services are available in certain areas. The survey also indicated that consumers within Northern Middlesex region had the greatest difficulty in finding long-distance medical transportation, including transportation to the Boston area hospitals, the Jamaica Plain VA Hospital and to the Burlington Lahey Clinic. (A complete copy of the Merrimack Valley RCC survey is included in the appendix.) The results from the MVRCC survey, along with the results from the NMCOG region survey, were used as a guide in the development of the Coordinated Plan.

V. Coordinated Plan Development Process

The Northern Middlesex Metropolitan Planning Organization (NMMPO) has primary responsibility for developing the Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan. This Plan update will be adopted by vote of the signatories to the NMMPO. As required under MAP-21, the Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan is updated every four years, at a minimum. During interim years an abbreviated update or amendment is provided to address the following:  Changes in coordination approach, strategies, or priorities;  To update information on transportation providers in the region; and  To add new projects or to delete projects which are no longer relevant or viable.

These changes are intended to strengthen the Coordinated Plan’s purpose by documenting the planning process, identifying goals and priorities, and guiding resource allocation. In this way the Coordinated Plan becomes a working document for the Merrimack Valley Regional Coordinating Council and the MPO.

VI. Regional Context

The NMCOG region covers 195.82 square miles and includes the following communities: Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, Dunstable, Pepperell, Lowell, Tewksbury, Tyngsborough and Westford. The Lowell Regional Transit Authority’s service area encompasses 312.18 square miles and includes all nine NMCOG communities, as well as the towns of Acton, Carlisle, Groton, Maynard and Townsend. Map 1 on page 15, depicts the NMCOG regional boundaries, and delineates the LRTA bus routes and service area.

A. Population Characteristics The population in the Northern Middlesex region increased by 2.02% between 2000 and 2010, which was less than the growth rate of Middlesex County (2.6%) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (3.1%). As outlined in Table 1 on the following page, the population in every community, with the exception of Chelmsford (-0.17%), increased between 2000 and 2010. The population in the City of Lowell increased by 1.29% to 106,519, while its share of the total population in the region decreased slightly, from 37.4% in 2000 to 37.1% in 2010. The greatest percentage growth was experienced in Dunstable (12.37%) and Westford (5.77%), while Tewksbury (0.38%) had the smallest percentage growth in the region. Billerica (3.24%), Pepperell (3.19%) and Dracut (3.13%) exceeded the regional growth rate by at least one per cent.

Table 1: Population Change in the Northern Middlesex Region (2000 and 2010) Community 2000 Population 2010 Population Percent Change Billerica 38,981 40,243 3.24 Chelmsford 33,858 33,802 -0.17 Dracut 28,562 29,457 3.13 Dunstable 2,829 3,179 12.37 Lowell 105,167 106,519 1.29 Pepperell 11,142 11,497 3.19 Tewksbury 28,851 28,961 0.38 Tyngsborough 11,081 11,292 1.90 Westford 20,754 21,951 5.77 Northern Middlesex Region 281,225 286,901 2.02 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 U.S. Census and 2010 U.S. Census

B. Age and Sex

Population estimates by age and sex provided by the American Community Survey reflect a region with a maturing population. The median ages in the NMCOG region’s suburban communities range from 39.9 years in Dracut to 43.2 years in Chelmsford. The median ages of males range from 38.6 years in Dracut to 42.2 years in Dunstable, while females ranging in age from a median of 41.0 years in Tyngsborough to 44.4 years in Chelmsford.

The population of the City of Lowell is significantly younger than the population in the rest of the region. The median ages of the male and female populations are 31.6 and 33.7 respectively. Furthermore, the median age of the total Lowell population is 32.6. Since the City of Lowell represents over 37% of the regional population, it has a large impact on the median age statistics of the overall regional population. This can be seen in Table 2, where the median age of the region is 37.1 years for males, and 39.2 years for females.

In general age and sex statistics by community reflect the regional and State statistics, as a whole. The median ages for Massachusetts are slightly higher than the regional averages, with an overall median age of 40.6 years and 40.2 years and 41.0 years for males and females, respectively.

Table 2: 2008 – 2012 ACS Population Estimates by Age and Sex in the Northern Middlesex Region Billerica Chelmsford Dracut Age Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Number Percent Number Percent Total 40,243 20,293 50.4% 19,950 49.6% 33,802 16,367 48.4% 17,435 51.6% 29,457 14,430 49.0% 15,027 51.0% population Under 5 2,218 1,118 50.4% 1,100 49.6% 1,767 953 53.9% 814 46.1% 1,670 855 51.2% 815 48.8% 5 to 17 7123 3779 53.1% 3344 46.9% 6033 3081 51.1% 2952 48.9% 5127 2688 52.4% 2439 47.6% 18 to 64 26,000 13,239 50.9% 12,761 49.1% 20,535 10,061 49.0% 10,474 51.0% 18,970 9,295 49.0% 9,675 51.0% years 65 years 4,902 2,157 44.0% 2,745 56.0% 5,467 2,272 41.6% 3,195 58.4% 3,690 1,592 43.1% 2,098 56.9% and over Median 40.1 39.1 NA 41.1 NA 43.2 41.6 NA 44.4 NA 39.9 38.6 NA 41.1 NA age (yrs)

Dunstable Lowell Pepperell Age Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Number Percent Number Percent Total 3,179 1,598 50.3% 1,581 49.7% 106,519 52,871 49.6% 53,648 50.4% 11,497 5,703 49.6% 5,794 50.4% population Under 5 126 67 53.2% 59 46.8% 7,828 3,934 50.3% 3,894 49.7% 594 320 53.9% 274 46.1% 5 to 17 788 426 54.1% 362 45.9% 17432 8802 50.5% 8630 49.5% 2298 1180 51.3% 1118 48.7% 18 to 64 1,949 953 48.9% 996 51.1% 70,541 35,777 50.7% 34,764 49.3% 7,482 3,704 49.5% 3,778 50.5% years 65 years 316 152 48.1% 164 51.9% 10,718 4,358 40.7% 6,360 59.3% 1,123 499 44.4% 624 55.6% and over Median age (yrs) 42.9 42.2 NA 43.5 NA 32.6 31.6 NA 33.7 NA 41.6 40.9 NA 42.3 NA

Table 2 (cont’d): 2008 – 2012 ACS Population Estimates by Age and Sex in the Northern Middlesex Region

Tewksbury Tyngsborough Westford Age Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Number Percent Number Percent Total 28,961 14,046 48.5% 14,915 51.5% 11,292 5,516 48.8% 5,776 51.2% 21,951 10,901 49.7% 11,050 50.3% population Under 5 1,480 770 52.0% 710 48.0% 580 290 50.0% 290 50.0% 1,113 576 51.8% 537 48.2% 5 to 17 5055 2566 50.8% 2489 49.2% 2275 1142 50.2% 1133 49.8% 5397 2774 51.4% 2623 48.6% 18 to 64 18,226 8,879 48.7% 9,347 51.3% 7,432 3,648 49.1% 3,784 50.9% 13,263 6,561 49.5% 6,702 50.5% years 65 years 4,200 1,831 43.6% 2,369 56.4% 1,005 436 43.4% 569 56.6% 2,178 990 45.5% 1,188 54.5% and over Median age (yrs) 42.8 41.6 43.9 40.6 40.2 41.0 42.0 41.5 42.3

Northern Middlesex Region Massachusetts Age Total Male Female Total Male Female Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Number Percent Number Percent Total population 286,901 141,725 49.4% 145,176 50.6% 6,605,468 3,197,570 48.4% 3,407,898 51.6% Under 5 17,376 8,883 51.1% 8,493 48.9% 366,551 187,331 51.1% 179,220 48.9% 5 to 17 51,528 26,438 51.3% 25,090 48.7% 1,044,585 533,837 51.1% 510,748 48.9% 18 to 64 years 184,398 92,117 50.0% 92,281 50.0% 4,264,404 2,085,506 48.9% 2,178,898 51.1% 65 years and over 33,599 14,287 42.5% 19,312 57.5% 929,928 390,896 42.0% 539,032 58.0%

Median age (years) 38.19 37.1 39.2 40.6 40.2 41.0

Source: 2008 - 2012 American Community Survey

C. Disabilities in the Northern Middlesex Region

Disabilities have an enormous impact on an individual’s ability to utilize transportation. Many disabilities come with aging. A review of the America Community Survey estimates for 2008 – 2012 confirmed that the highest rate of disabilities was in the 65 and older age group. In this group, ambulatory difficulty, hearing difficulty and independent living difficulty were the disabilities most often reported. The 18 to 64 year cohorts reported cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty and independent living difficulty most often. Cognitive difficulty was by far the largest disability reported for the 5 to 17 year old age groups.

It is difficult to determine with precision the number of area residents who find it difficult to use regular transit service due to disabilities. However, using the results of the Handicapped and Elderly Market for Mass Transit survey conducted by the Federal Transit Administration, it is possible to estimate the number of disabled residents in the region. The FTA study indicated that nationally 6.4% of the population exhibited some form of impairment, which made use of transit facilities or equipment difficult. In addition, 1.4% of the population is totally unable to use regular transit service. Assuming the Northern Middlesex area population approximates the national percentages, the following estimates can be derived as shown in Table 3.

At the community level, the 65 and over age group with disability as a percentage of population within that age cohort ranged from 20.4% in Dunstable to 38.4% in Lowell. The percentage of those in the 18 to 64 age group with a disability ranged from 3.3% in Westford to 12% in Lowell, and the percentage of population in the 5 to 17 age group ranged from 2.8% in Chelmsford to 7.7% in Lowell. The under 5 age grouping with a disability was less than 1% in most communities, with the exception of Tyngsborough where 3.6% of the children within that age group were reported to have hearing difficulties. Table 4 on the following pages details the estimated population within each community by disability type.

Table 3: Population with a Disability which Limits Transit Use

Community Difficult Use of Transit Cannot Use Regular Transit Billerica 2,576 563 Chelmsford 2,163 473 Dracut 1,885 412 Dunstable 203 45 Lowell 6,817 1,491 Pepperell 736 161 Tewksbury 1,854 405 Tyngsborough 723 158 Westford 1,405 307 TOTAL 18,362 4,017 Source: 2010 U.S. Census and FTA Survey Factor

Table 4: 2008-2012 ACS Population Estimates by Disability for Communities in the Northern Middlesex Region

Billerica Chelmsford Dracut Dunstable Lowell Total With a Percent Total With a Percent Total With a Percent Total With a Percent Total With a Percent Disability Estimate disability with a Estimate disability with a Estimate disability with a Estimate disability with a Estimate disability with a disability disability disability disability disability Total civilian noninstitutionalized 39,736 3,682 9.3% 33,756 2,892 8.6% 29,559 2,900 9.80% 3,190 163 5.1% 105,616 13,892 13.2% population

Population under 5 years 2,423 11 0.5% 1,963 0 0.0% 1,881 0 0.0% 134 0 0.0% 7,710 103 1.3% With a hearing difficulty (X) 11 0.5% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 54 0.7% With a vision difficulty (X) 0 0.0% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 49 0.6%

Population 5 to 17 years 7,166 278 3.9% 6,009 169 2.8% 5,325 219 4.1% 719 27 3.8% 16,259 1,260 7.7% With a hearing difficulty (X) 97 1.4% (X) 42 0.7% (X) 37 0.7% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 96 0.6% With a vision difficulty (X) 23 0.3% (X) 11 0.2% (X) 12 0.2% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 351 2.2% With a cognitive difficulty (X) 233 3.3% (X) 131 2.2% (X) 194 3.6% (X) 27 3.8% (X) 954 5.9% With an ambulatory difficulty (X) 31 0.4% (X) 46 0.8% (X) 12 0.2% (X) 5 0.7% (X) 97 0.6% With a self-care difficulty (X) 31 0.4% (X) 24 0.4% (X) 27 0.5% (X) 5 0.7% (X) 195 1.2%

Population 18 to 64 years 25,517 1,886 7.4% 20,442 1,091 5.3% 18,599 1,390 7.5% 2,009 69 3.4% 71,371 8,586 12.0% With a hearing difficulty (X) 465 1.8% (X) 226 1.1% (X) 364 2.0% (X) 5 0.2% (X) 1,571 2.2% With a vision difficulty (X) 371 1.5% (X) 166 0.8% (X) 315 1.7% (X) 7 0.3% (X) 1,903 2.7% With a cognitive difficulty (X) 629 2.5% (X) 491 2.4% (X) 755 4.1% (X) 33 1.6% (X) 4,463 6.3% With an ambulatory difficulty (X) 992 3.9% (X) 551 2.7% (X) 719 3.9% (X) 38 1.9% (X) 3,806 5.3% With a self-care difficulty (X) 319 1.3% (X) 281 1.4% (X) 335 1.8% (X) 12 0.6% (X) 1,319 1.8% With an independent living difficulty (X) 670 2.6% (X) 419 2.0% (X) 534 2.9% (X) 18 0.9% (X) 2,632 3.7%

Population 65 years and over 4,630 1,507 32.5% 5,342 1,632 30.6% 3,754 1,291 34.4% 328 67 20.4% 10,276 3,943 38.4% With a hearing difficulty (X) 674 14.6% (X) 669 12.5% (X) 503 13.4% (X) 27 8.2% (X) 1,532 14.9% With a vision difficulty (X) 300 6.5% (X) 197 3.7% (X) 261 7.0% (X) 4 1.2% (X) 766 7.5% With a cognitive difficulty (X) 462 10.0% (X) 404 7.6% (X) 300 8.0% (X) 22 6.7% (X) 1,156 11.2% With an ambulatory difficulty (X) 741 16.0% (X) 895 16.8% (X) 786 20.9% (X) 40 12.2% (X) 2,666 25.9% With a self-care difficulty (X) 188 4.1% (X) 418 7.8% (X) 310 8.3% (X) 15 4.6% (X) 887 8.6% With an independent living difficulty (X) 693 15.0% (X) 778 14.6% (X) 576 15.3% (X) 31 9.5% (X) 2,061 20.1%

SEX Male 19,283 1,770 9.2% 16,483 1,418 8.6% 14,850 1,593 10.7% 1,536 77 5.0% 51,190 6,315 12.3% Female 20,453 1,912 9.3% 17,273 1,474 8.5% 14,709 1,307 8.9% 1,654 86 5.2% 54,426 7,577 13.9%

RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO One Race 39,354 3,682 9.4% 33,427 2,813 8.4% 29,103 2,819 9.7% 3,115 158 5.1% 102,501 13,693 13.4% White alone 36,600 3,538 9.7% 30,108 2,671 8.9% 27,046 2,644 9.8% 3,060 158 5.2% 62,220 9,406 15.1% Black or African American alone 468 35 7.5% 101 30 29.7% 564 38 6.7% 0 0 - 7,417 500 6.7% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 24 0 0.0% 0 0 - 9 9 100.0% 0 0 - 286 47 16.4% Asian alone 1,952 41 2.1% 2,440 45 1.8% 943 17 1.8% 44 0 0.0% 21,482 1,747 8.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 146 34 23.3% Some other race alone 310 68 21.9% 778 67 8.6% 541 111 20.5% 11 0 0.0% 10,950 1,959 17.9% Two or more races 382 0 0.0% 329 79 24.0% 456 81 17.8% 75 5 6.7% 3,115 199 6.4%

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 36,057 3,459 9.6% 29,419 2,649 9.0% 26,405 2,616 9.9% 3,036 158 5.2% 55,499 8,248 14.9% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 871 164 18.8% 1,261 80 6.3% 1,416 139 9.8% 24 0 0.0% 17,358 3,170 18.3% Table 4: 2008-2012 ACS Population Estimates by Disability for Communities in the Northern Middlesex Region Continued…

Pepperell Tewksbury Tyngsborough Westford Regional Total Total With a Percent Total With a Percent Total With a Percent Total With a Percent Total With a Percent Disability Estimate disability with a Estimate disability with a Estimate disability with a Estimate disability with a Estimate disability with a disability disability disability disability disability Total civilian noninstitutionalized 11,537 1,019 8.8% 28,808 3,008 10.4% 11,484 1,164 10.1% 22,027 1,174 5.3% 285,713 29,894 10.5% population

Population under 5 years 413 0 0.0% 1,549 0 0.0% 447 16 3.6% 1,016 10 1.0% 17,536 140 0.8% With a hearing difficulty (X) 0 0.0% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 16 3.6% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 81 0.5% With a vision difficulty (X) 0 0.0% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 10 1.0% (X) 59 0.3%

Population 5 to 17 years 2,327 136 5.8% 4,705 231 4.9% 2,211 135 6.1% 5,663 182 3.2% 50,384 2,637 5.2% With a hearing difficulty (X) 12 0.5% (X) 35 0.7% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 21 0.4% (X) 340 0.7% With a vision difficulty (X) 15 0.6% (X) 3 0.1% (X) 24 1.1% (X) 9 0.2% (X) 448 0.9% With a cognitive difficulty (X) 124 5.3% (X) 178 3.8% (X) 111 5.0% (X) 134 2.4% (X) 2,086 4.1% With an ambulatory difficulty (X) 15 0.6% (X) 6 0.1% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 15 0.3% (X) 227 0.5% With a self-care difficulty (X) 25 1.1% (X) 75 1.6% (X) 0 0.0% (X) 51 0.9% (X) 433 0.9%

Population 18 to 64 years 7,709 627 8.1% 18,510 1,358 7.3% 7,616 579 7.6% 13,249 436 3.3% 185,022 16,022 8.7% With a hearing difficulty (X) 152 2.0% (X) 415 2.2% (X) 145 1.9% (X) 99 0.7% (X) 3,442 1.9% With a vision difficulty (X) 85 1.1% (X) 143 0.8% (X) 36 0.5% (X) 72 0.5% (X) 3,098 1.7% With a cognitive difficulty (X) 276 3.6% (X) 580 3.1% (X) 172 2.3% (X) 181 1.4% (X) 7,580 4.1% With an ambulatory difficulty (X) 261 3.4% (X) 726 3.9% (X) 271 3.6% (X) 129 1.0% (X) 7,493 4.0% With a self-care difficulty (X) 58 0.8% (X) 320 1.7% (X) 100 1.3% (X) 34 0.3% (X) 2,778 1.5% With an independent living difficulty (X) 167 2.2% (X) 519 2.8% (X) 265 3.5% (X) 80 0.6% (X) 5,304 2.9%

Population 65 years and over 1,088 256 23.5% 4,044 1,419 35.1% 1,210 434 35.9% 2,099 546 26.0% 32,771 11,095 33.9% With a hearing difficulty (X) 85 7.8% (X) 591 14.6% (X) 125 10.3% (X) 268 12.8% (X) 4,474 13.7% With a vision difficulty (X) 40 3.7% (X) 221 5.5% (X) 57 4.7% (X) 137 6.5% (X) 1,983 6.1% With a cognitive difficulty (X) 25 2.3% (X) 399 9.9% (X) 43 3.6% (X) 65 3.1% (X) 2,876 8.8% With an ambulatory difficulty (X) 138 12.7% (X) 859 21.2% (X) 298 24.6% (X) 258 12.3% (X) 6,681 20.4% With a self-care difficulty (X) 102 9.4% (X) 358 8.9% (X) 62 5.1% (X) 112 5.3% (X) 2,452 7.5% With an independent living difficulty (X) 72 6.6% (X) 638 15.8% (X) 160 13.2% (X) 224 10.7% (X) 5,233 16.0%

SEX Male 5,744 475 8.3% 13,796 1,187 8.6% 5,866 577 9.8% 11,026 601 5.5% 139,774 14,013 10.0% Female 5,793 544 9.4% 15,012 1,821 12.1% 5,618 587 10.4% 11,001 573 5.2% 145,939 15,881 10.9%

RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO One Race 11,384 1,007 8.8% 28,467 2,981 10.5% 11,342 1,164 10.3% 21,570 1,136 5.3% 280,263 29,453 10.5% White alone 11,076 971 8.8% 26,971 2,865 10.6% 10,668 1,128 10.6% 18,746 1,066 5.7% 226,495 24,447 10.8% Black or African American alone 23 0 0.0% 491 41 8.4% 75 0 0.0% 99 0 0.0% 9,238 644 7.0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 6 6 100.0% 47 0 0.0% 0 0 - 16 0 0.0% 388 62 16.0% Asian alone 272 27 9.9% 852 67 7.9% 536 36 6.7% 2,417 56 2.3% 30,938 2,036 6.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 20 0 0.0% 166 34 20.5% Some other race alone 7 3 42.9% 106 8 7.5% 63 0 0.0% 272 14 5.1% 13,038 2,230 17.1% Two or more races 153 12 7.8% 341 27 7.9% 142 0 0.0% 457 38 8.3% 5,450 441 8.1%

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 10,903 941 8.6% 26,422 2,789 10.6% 10,516 1,108 10.5% 18,452 1,039 5.6% 216,709 23,007 10.6% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 189 33 17.5% 643 76 11.8% 300 20 6.7% 387 41 10.6% 22,449 3,723 16.6% D. Income

In comparing the income figures in the Greater Lowell region, the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2008-2012 American Community Survey have been utilized. Income information is not available through the 2010 U.S. Census. Three major income indices were examined: Per Capita Income, Median Household Income and Median Family Income, as well as poverty data. This data was used to compare the Greater Lowell region with the nation, state and county. In addition, these income figures, and racial and ethnic data has been used to identify specific Environmental Justice Areas as part of the Regional Equity Policy.

1. Per Capita Income

Table 5 below summarizes the per capita income figures for 2000 and 2008-2012 for the Greater Lowell region, the United States, Massachusetts and Middlesex County, as reported by the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2008-2012 American Community Survey. The percentage change between 2000 and 2008-2012 for the region, individual communities, Middlesex County, the State and the United States are also provided below.

The Per Capita Income for the region increased from $ 24,081 in 2000 to $ 38,025 in 2008-2012, which represented an increase of 58%. Per capita income in the Greater Lowell region increased at a higher rate than that for the United States (29.94%), Commonwealth of Massachusetts (36.73%) and Middlesex County (35.55%). While, the per capita income in the Greater Lowell region exceeds the per capita income at the national level ($28,051) and the State ($35,485), it still lags behind the per capita income for Middlesex County ($42,289).

Table 5: Per Capita Income by Community, 2000 and 2008-2012 Community/Region 2000 2008-2012 Percentage Change

Billerica $ 24,953 $ 33,839 35.61 Chelmsford $ 30,465 $ 43,121 41.54 Dracut $ 23,750 $ 31,540 32.80 Dunstable $ 30,608 $ 44,213 44.45 Lowell $ 17,557 $ 23,793 35.52 Pepperell $ 25,722 $ 37,286 44.96 Tewksbury $ 27,031 $ 37,620 39.17 Tyngsborough $ 27,249 $ 41,862 53.63 Westford $ 37,979 $ 48,951 28.89 NMCOG Region $ 24,081 $ 38,025 57.90 Middlesex County $ 31,199 $ 42,289 35.55 Massachusetts $ 25,952 $ 35,485 36.73 United States $ 21,587 $ 28,051 29.94 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 U.S. Census and 2008-2012 American Community Survey

2. Median Household Income The Median Household Income for the region increased by 31.56% from $58,472 in 2000 to $76,925 in 2008-2012. This increase in the median household income surpassed that experienced at the national level (26.32%), but was slightly less that for the state 12

(31.99%) and the county (33.87%) levels. The median household income for the region ($76,925) in 2008-2012 was less than that for the County ($81,420), but greater than both the State ($66,658) and the nation ($53,046).

The greatest percentage changes in median household income between 2000 and 2008- 2012 occurred in Tyngsborough (50.23%), Billerica (32.68%) and Lowell (31.95%). Westford (23.27%), Dunstable (26.06%) and Dracut (27.14%) experienced the least growth in their median household incomes. Westford ($212,136) had the highest median income in 2008-2012 within the region, replacing Dunstable ($109,205), which had the highest median household income in 2000. The City of Lowell had the lowest median household income in 2000 ($39,192) and in 2008-2012 ($51,714). Within the City of Lowell, the median household income for 2008-2012 ranged from $32,958 in Census Tract 3111.00 to $82,386 in Census Tract 3125.02.

In assessing levels of distress in the region, the current figure from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a family of four at 60% of median income is $55,740. The census tracts with median household incomes below this figure are all in the City of Lowell in Census Tracts 3101.00, 3103.00, 3104.00, 3107.00, 3111.00, 3112.00, 3133.00, 3114.00, 3118.00, 3119.00, 3120.00, 3123.00, 3124.00 and 3883.00. The following table summarizes the median household income information for the region.

Table 6: Median Household Income by Community, 2000 and 2008-2012 Community/Region 2000 2008-2012 Percentage Change (%) Billerica $ 67,799 $ 89,957 32.68 Chelmsford $ 70,207 $ 92,549 31.82 Dracut $ 57,676 $ 73,331 27.14 Dunstable $ 86,633 $ 109,211 26.06 Lowell $ 39,192 $ 51,714 31.95 Pepperell $ 65,163 $ 85,150 30.67 Tewksbury $ 68,800 $ 87,488 27.16 Tyngsborough $ 69,818 $104,888 50.23 Westford $ 98,272 $ 121,136 23.27 NMCOG Region $ 58,472 $ 76,925 31.56 Middlesex County $ 60,821 $ 81,420 33.87 Massachusetts $ 50,502 $ 66,658 31.99 United States $ 41,994 $ 53,046 26.32 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 U.S. Census and 2008-2012 American Community Survey

3. Median Family Income

The Median Family Income in the region increased by 36.74%, from $67,583 in 2000 to $92,411 in 2008-2012. This increase in the region’s median family income outpaced the 29.15% increase at the national level, however, the State of Massachusetts experienced an increase of 36.84% and there was a 38.12% increase in Middlesex County.

Table 7 below summarizes the median family income for the communities within the region in 2000 and 2008-2012, as well as the percentage change between each time

period. The greatest percentage change between 2000 and 2008-2018 was experienced by Tyngsborough (53.65%), Pepperell (49.37%) and Billerica (39.87%). Dunstable had the smallest percentage change in median family income at 29.15%. Similar to the median household income, Westford ($137,230) and Tyngsborough ($120,893) had the highest median family income in the region, while the City of Lowell had the lowest median family income in 2008-2012 at $59,410. Within the City of Lowell, the median family income ranged from $29,107 in Census Tract 3110.00 to $103,789 in Census Tract 3125.01.

Table 7: Median Family Income by Community, 2000 and 2008-2012

Community/Region 2000 2008-2012 Percentage Change

Billerica $ 72,102 $ 100,852 39.87

Chelmsford $ 82,676 $ 112,400 35.95

Dracut $ 65,633 $ 89,258 36.00

Dunstable $ 92,270 $ 119,167 29.15

Lowell $ 45,901 $ 59,410 29.43

Pepperell $ 73,967 $ 110,486 49.37

Tewksbury $ 76,443 $ 105,119 37.51

Tyngsborough $ 78,680 $ 120,780 53.65

Westford $ 104,029 $ 137,230 31.92

NMCOG Region $ 67,583 $ 92,411 36.74

Middlesex County $ 74,194 $ 102,480 38.12

Massachusetts $ 61,664 $ 84,380 36.84

United States $ 50,046 $ 64,585 29.05 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 U.S. Census and 2008-2012 American Community Survey

E. Poverty in the Region Between 2000 and 2008-2012, the number of residents living below the poverty line in the Greater Lowell region increased from 24,877 to 25,320, or by 1.78%, while the percentage of residents below the poverty line increased from 8.31% to 10.71%. As expected, the City of Lowell has experienced the greatest poverty levels within the region and its share of residents living in poverty declined slightly (74.6% in 2000 to 70.56% in 2008-2012). This small decline in regional share was due to the relatively low increase in residents below the poverty line living in Lowell (17,066 in 2000 to 17,865 in 2008- 2012), as shown on Table 8 below.

The number of residents below the poverty line increased in all the region’s communities, with the exception of Tewksbury which saw a 31.66% decrease for the period between 2000 and 2008-2012. Dunstable (69.09%), Billerica (65.13%) and Chelmsford (45.63%) experienced the greatest increases in the number of residents living below the poverty line between 2000 and 2008-2012.

Table 8: Number and Percentage of Residents Living Below Poverty, 2000 and 2008-2012 2000 2000 2008-2012 2008-2012 Number Percentage Number Percentage Percentage Community Below Below Below Below Change 2000 to Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty 2008-2012 Billerica 1,414 3.75 2,335 5.77 65.13 Chelmsford 938 2.81 1,366 4.03 45.63 Dracut 1,055 3.70 1,516 9.92 43.70 Dunstable 55 1.95 93 5.93 69.09 Lowell 17,066 16.78 17,865 16.74 4.68 Pepperell 411 3.69 481 8.14 17.03 Tewksbury 1,074 3.77 734 4.70 -31.66 Tyngsborough 519 4.69 572 9.64 10.21 Westford 345 1.67 358 3.29 3.77 NMCOG 22,877 8.31 25,320 10.71 1.78 Region Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 U.S. Census and 2008-2012 American Community Survey

F. Regional Transit Needs

It is difficult to quantify the transit needs of the region. Existing data sources and statistical analyses do not accurately indicate the level of dependence certain socioeconomic groups have on public transportation. As such, many of the NMMPO's policies and programs deal with larger groups, such as low-income families, families without automobile access, and the elderly and disabled. A large percentage of the region's minority population often falls into one or more of these larger groups. In addition, much of the region's minority population resides in the central area of the City of Lowell.

As discussed in the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan, the transit dependent population in the Northern Middlesex region may be defined as elderly, disabled, minority and lower income households with no automobile available, as well as the population in the ten to fifteen year old age group. Table 9 on the following page provides statistics on the population over 60 years of age in each community. There are over 49,000 elderly persons residing within the Northern Middlesex region, and nearly a third of these individuals reside within the City of Lowell. Chelmsford and Tewksbury have the highest percentage of seniors, with 22.3% and 21.1% of the residents, respectively, falling within the over sixty age group.

Table 9: Elderly Persons in the Northern Middlesex Region

Community Residents 60+ Years % of Residents Billerica 7,262 18.1 Chelmsford 7,552 22.3 Dracut 5,387 18.3 Dunstable 509 16.0 Lowell 15,200 14.3 Pepperell 1,864 16.2 Tewksbury 6,128 21.1 Tyngsborough 1,629 14.4 Westford 3,536 16.1 TOTAL 49,067 17.1 Source: 2010 U.S. Census

Table 10 below provides statistics on the population 10 to 15 years of age in each community. Nearly 20,000 individuals or 6.9% of the region’s population fall within the 10 to 15 year age group. The towns of Dunstable and Westford have the highest populations in this age group (as a percent of overall population) relative to other communities within the region.

Table 10: Population Ten to Fifteen Years of Age in the Northern Middlesex Region

Community 10 to 15 Years Old Percentage of Total Billerica 2,810 7.0 Chelmsford 2,345 6.9 Dracut 1,991 6.8 Dunstable 335 10.5 Lowell 6,325 5.9 Pepperell 914 7.9 Tewksbury 2,020 7.0 Tyngsborough 951 8.4 Westford 2,153 9.8 TOTAL 19,843 6.9 Source: 2010 U.S. Census

Table 11 on the following page outlines number of vehicle available to households within each community and the Northern Middlesex Region. There are over eight thousand households that do not have a vehicle available, representing 7.8% of the household units in the region. Nearly 74% of these households are located within the City of Lowell.

Table 11: Vehicle Availability per Household

Number of Vehicles Per Household Community None One Two Three or More Billerica 369 2.7% 3,490 25.2% 6,650 48.0% 3,350 24.2% Chelmsford 608 4.6% 7,083 53.2% 2,186 16.4% 2,438 18.3% Dracut 534 4.8% 3,514 31.5% 4,755 42.6% 2,370 21.2% Dunstable 9 0.8% 152 14.0% 539 49.6% 387 35.6% Lowell 6,034 15.3% 15,899 40.4% 12,871 32.7% 4,595 11.7% Pepperell 49 1.2% 993 24.1% 1,878 45.5% 1,205 29.2% Tewksbury 408 3.8% 3,053 28.6% 4,685 43.9% 2,524 23.7% Tyngsborough 72 1.9% 752 19.8% 1,852 48.8% 1,121 29.5% Westford 81 1.1% 1,251 17.1% 4,186 57.3% 1,790 24.5% TOTAL 8,164 7.8% 36,187 34.6% 39,602 37.8% 19,780 18.9% Source: ACS 2008 - 2012

VII. Inventory of Current Transportation Resources

A. Fixed Route Bus Service

Transportation services within the Northern Middlesex Region are available through a variety of public, non-profit and for-profit providers. The Lowell Regional Transit Authority is the primary transit service provider for the region and operates fixed route bus service in seven (7) communities within the Northern Middlesex region: Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, Lowell, Tewksbury, Tyngsborough and Westford (see Map 1 on the following page). The City of Lowell is the central hub for the Lowell Regional Transit Authority bus route system, with ten bus routes exclusively serving the residents of Lowell. Additionally, all of the bus routes travel through the City, bringing the total number of bus routes for the overall system to eighteen.

Billerica is served by two bus routes that operate Monday through Saturday (#13 and #14). Chelmsford is served by three routes that operate Monday through Saturday, two (#16 and #17) of which operate between Chelmsford and Lowell. The # 15 route continues along Route 110, through the Town of Westford, terminating at the Littleton IBM facility. The towns of Tyngsborough and Dracut are served by one connecting bus route operating Monday through Saturday. Tewksbury is served by two routes, the #11 route which operates Monday through Friday, and the #12 route which operates Monday through Saturday.

Ridership on the LRTA fixed route bus system has been steadily growing over the last couple of years. In Fiscal Year 2014 (July 2013 – June 2014), the LRTA had a total fixed route ridership of 1,496.175 unlinked passenger trips. This translates into a 7% increase from fiscal year 2013, when ridership totaled 1,402,258.

S A L E M , N H Map 1: Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation !( Planning Map !(

!( ®v !( METHUEN !( !( !( !( !( M A S O N , N H BROOKLINE, NH !( BROOKLINE, NH H O L L I S , N H !( N A S H U A , N H P E L H A M , N H !( ® H U D S O N , N H !( ®v !( LAWRENCE!( !( !( ! é !( !( !(î !( UV113 !( !(

!( !( !( 3A UV !( C DRACUT DUNSTABLE !( 111 DUNSTABLE !( !( UV !( V !( PEPPERELL !( 93 !( !( §¨¦ 113 !( UV !(!(! 110 !( !(! !( UV TOWNSEND TYNGSBOROUGH !( !( ANDOVER !( !( é !( !( 3 !( !(î ¤£ !( C ! CC 13 119 113 !( C C !( 133 UV UV UV C ! UV !( ®!( !( LOWELL !(!( !( $!( ® !( ®v! !( !(® 110 !( !( !( !( C ®v®®$ UV !(!( !( ! C !(® CCCC $ 113 CC !( $ !(!!( UV !( !( $ $ !( V é !( !( !( !( î ! !( !( 3A !( 495 !( UV !( ! !( §¨¦ !(!(!( 110 é

$ UV î ® ® !(

C !( !( !( TEWKSBURY$ $ !( ! !( LRTA Bus Routes - Weekdays Elder Care Facilities and Housing!( GROTON C ! !( !( ® LRTA Bus Routes - Saturdays Only Assisted Living Facility UV40 !( !( é $ !( Elderly!( Housing 38 î ! 111 UV V !( !( MBTA Rail Station !( UV $ ! ! Nursing225 Home UV !( 129 $ $ !( UV® !(®$ MBTA Rail Line Residential Care !( $ é !( !( 4 !( î ! UV $ !(! !( LUNENBURGBurlington B Line Bus RouteUV2A VA Facilities $ !( Lexington Lexpress Bus Route ® VA Medical Center CHELMSFORD UV119 $ WESTFORD CHELMSFORD UV129 MBTA Bus Route Outpatient Clinic !( 495 Vet Center ®v! 225 §¨¦ MVRTA Bus Route UV !( ® 129 $ !( UV !(!( LRTA Service Area V ! SHIRLEY ®$$ é !( Nashua Transit Bus Route !(î NMCOG Communities AYER $ Major Employer $ $ !( Town Boundary !( ®v é !( Hospital !(î State Boundary !( BILLERICA 13 ® $ !( 62 UV Medical Clinic $ $ ! UV 110 $ $ C LITTLETON UV $ é College or University $ !(î é 4 !( !(î UV ®v é UV2A WILMINGTON !(î !( $ !( Sources: UV225 3 V CARLISLE $¤£ $ LRTA (bus routes); NMCOG/CTPS (2013 LexExpress bus routes, 2009 Burlington B Line, $ !( $ MVRTA routes to Kennedy Ctr); MBTA/CTPS/BRMPO (2014 MBTA bus routes); NMCOG CC 110 UV27 (2007 major employers, NERAC 2012 hospitals and clinics, colleges/universities,2 and elderUV é V UV !(

V î care facilities); NTAD (selected airports); MassDOT/NMCOG (2013 roads); MassGIS !( é (MBTA Commuter Rail, town and state boundaries); NH GRANIT (NH town boundaries); UV3A !(î USGS (water).§¨¦190 MASSACHUSETTS BURLINGTON LEOMINSTERData provided on this map is not sufficient for either boundary determination or regulatory é UV110 ® !(î !( interpretation. LANCASTER ACTON ! UV12Produced by NMCOG 11/24/2014UV70 BEDFORD BOXBOROUGH UV3A UV117 ® The Northern Middlesex Council of Governments ®v UV38!( CONCORD !(! 40 Church Street, Suite 200 62 Lowell, Massachusetts 01852-2686 UV 3 WOBURN

(978) 454-8021 nmcog.org 0 2 Miles º C ¤£ !(! STERLING o STERLING BOLTON !( B. Paratransit Service

The LRTA operates three distinct paratransit service programs within the region through its “Road Runner” service. The greatest numbers of passengers are carried under the Road Runner senior service (60 years plus) program. The second most popular service program is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complimentary paratransit service. In addition, the Council on Aging service, which is operated by each community’s COA with funds provided by the LRTA, is also available in a number of communities. Map 2 on the following page depicts the services available in each community.

The fare for Road Runner services is $1.00 each way in-town, and $1.50 each way between two or more communities. On Wednesdays, Road Runner offers transportation to the Bedford VA, Burlington Lahey Clinic and Boston area hospitals. The non-ADA fare for the Wednesday hospital bus is $12.50 round trip to Bedford VA and Lahey Clinic, and $25.00 round trip for the Boston hospitals.

1. Road Runner Demand Response Transportation Service

Through agreements with private transportation carriers, the LRTA currently provides paratransit services for the elderly and disabled individuals in six communities. The LRTA furnishes demand responsive and prescheduled van service, known as “Road Runner”, to eligible clients in Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, Lowell, Tewksbury and Tyngsborough, under a contract with Lowell Transit Management Corp., Inc.

Trips are booked by calling Road Runner at (978) 459-0152 two days in advance. The service is available for shopping, social and recreational trips, however the trip may be denied on busy days due to limited seating availability. Individuals with disabilities and medical trips take priority over all other trip requests.

Table 12 on page 21 shows those communities served by the Lowell-based senior Road Runner service. Each community has established policies that meet the needs of their senior population. The weekday service operates from 8:00 am – 4:00 pm, and where Saturday service is available, it operates from 9:00 am – 4:00 pm.

Lowell Regional Transit Authority Service Area Fixed Route and Road Runner Paratransit

DRACUT DUNSTABLE PEPPERELL TYNGSBOROUGH TOWNSEND

LOWELL

GROTON TEWKSBURY

WESTFORD CHELMSFORD

BILLERICA Lowell and COA Based Demand Response Lowell Based Demand Response Only CARLISLE COA Based Demand Response Only No Paratransit Service

LRTA ADA Service Area

NMCOG Community ACTON

Sources: LRTA; MassGIS (town boundaries)

Data provided on this map is not sufficient for either boundary determination or regulatory interpretation. MAYNARD

Produced by NMCOG 10/24/2014

The Northern Middlesex Council of Governments 40 Church Street, Suite 200 Lowell, Massachusetts 01852-2686 (978) 454-8021 nmcog.org 0 2 Miles º Table 12: Communities Served by Lowell Based Road Runner Communities Served

Senior Demand Response (Lowell Based) Lowell Dracut Billerica Westford Burlington Tewksbury Chelmsford Wilmington Tyngsborough Billerica X X X X X Chelmsford X X X Dracut X X X X Lowell X X X Tewksbury X X X X X Tyngsborough X X

The following is a description of the LRTA senior Road Runner service provided in each community:

 Billerica seniors can utilize the service Monday through Saturday within the Town of Billerica. Service is available to Chelmsford on Mondays for medical purposes only. Service to Lowell is offered on Tuesdays and is open for all trip purposes. Transportation service to Tewksbury for medical purposes is available on Wednesday, and on Friday trips from Billerica to Burlington Lahey Clinic and the mall are offered.

 Chelmsford senior service is available Monday through Friday for any purpose, within Chelmsford and to Lowell. On Wednesdays, medical trips are offered to Tewksbury.

 Dracut senior service is available Monday through Friday for any purpose within Dracut and to Lowell. Service to Chelmsford for medical purposes is also available on weekdays. Medical trips to Tewksbury are available on Wednesdays.

 Lowell seniors can utilize the senior service Monday through Friday, within the City of Lowell and to and from Chelmsford. Medical transportation is also available to Tewksbury on weekdays.

 Tewksbury senior service operates Monday through Saturday for in-town trips. Out of town trips to Chelmsford, Lowell and Billerica are available Monday through Friday. Medical trips to Wilmington are available on weekdays.

 Tyngsborough senior service is available on Monday and Wednesday, within the Town and to the City of Lowell.

2. Road Runner Complementary ADA Demand Response Service

The Road Runner ADA service consists of two or more (depending upon the daily demand) wheelchair lift-equipped minibuses. Service operates throughout the LRTA fixed route ADA service area, Monday through Friday from approximately 6:00 A.M to 8:30 P.M. (8:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. on Saturdays). Trips can be scheduled one-day in advance by calling the Road Runner office in Lowell at (978) 453-0152.

The service is reserved for ADA certified passengers who are not able to access a fixed route bus as a result of their disability. In general, the ADA complementary service area is defined as a three-quarter mile radius surrounding existing fixed routes. The service area is smaller on Saturdays, as the # 11 Tewksbury Route 133 bus route does not operate.

Table 13 below displays the communities served by the Lowell Regional Transit Authority ADA complementary Road Runner service. As indicated above, service is available within a ¾ mile radius of any fixed route to ADA customers. There is no limitation on trip purpose or community, as long as the trip’s origin and destination are within ¾ miles of an LRTA bus route. For example, a resident of Billerica who is within the ¾ mile fixed route buffer can travel to another location within the ¾ mile buffer in Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, Lowell, Tewksbury, Tyngsborough or Westford. The same rules apply to other communities. Depending on the type of disability, a passenger may be transferred onto the fixed route bus or another paratransit vehicle for a single trip between communities.

Table 13: Communities Served by LRTA Complementary ADA Service Communities Served

ADA Demand Response Lowell Dracut Billerica Westford Tewksbury Chelmsford Tyngsborough Billerica X X X X X X X Chelmsford X X X X X X X Dracut X X X X X X X Lowell X X X X X X X Tewksbury X X X X X X X Tyngsborough X X X X X X X

3. Councils on Aging Senior Demand Response Service

As described above, the LRTA funds the demand response service operations of ten Councils on Aging in the communities of Acton, Carlisle, Chelmsford, Dracut, Groton, Maynard, Pepperell, Townsend, Tyngsborough and Westford. Trips are booked by calling the Councils on Aging generally two days in advance. Transportation is available for shopping, social and recreational trips. Service is provided for trips not only within each town but also to contiguous towns. Most of the transportation from suburban communities also includes trips to Lowell. Those towns that do not include Lowell in their service (Acton, Groton and Townsend) are located in the western section of the LRTA district and gravitate, economically and socially, toward Fitchburg and Leominster rather than Lowell.

Most recently, the LRTA contracted with the Town of Acton to operate two demand response vehicles within the Town and to surrounding communities under CrossTown Connect branding. The vehicles provide service to the Acton COA, and serve as an on- call shuttle between area parking locations and the MBTA commuter rail station.

CrossTown Connect is a Transportation Management Association (TMA) that has been formed in the participating communities of Acton, Boxborough, Concord, Littleton, Maynard, Stow, and Westford. The goals of the organization include: maximizing mobility within and access to the communities and businesses in the region, coordinating a network of transportation resources to move people and enhance the area’s economic vitality while minimizing the impact of development, and making the most efficient use of nearby public transportation services.

The Lowell Council on Aging operates three vehicles used to transport customers to services at the Lowell Senior Center. The vehicles were procured through the Lowell Regional Transit Authority, however operating funds are provided by the City of Lowell.

Table 14 on the following page graphically outlines the communities served by the Councils on Aging Senior Road Runner service in each municipality. As with the Lowell Based Road Runner service, each community has established policies for the transportation service that meets the needs of their senior population. Generally, the Council on Aging service is more flexible than the Lowell Based Road Runner as a result of lighter demand. The COAs often accommodate travel to neighboring communities, as indicated with by the black Xs in the table. Additionally, volunteer driver programs extend options for several of the local Councils on Aging. These volunteer operated services that extend into additional communities are identified in Table 14 with a red X.

Table 14: Communities Served by Councils on Aging Transportation

Communities Served

COA Senior Demand Ayer Acton Lowell Dracut Groton Carlisle Nashua Billerica Response Bedford Concord Littleton Maynard Westford Fitchburg Pepperell Townsend Burlington Lunenburg Tewksbury Chelmsford Wilmington Tyngsborough Acton COA X X X X Billerica COA X X X X X X Carlisle COA X X X X X X Chelmsford X X COA Dracut COA Groton COA X X X X X Maynard COA X X X Pepperell COA X X X Townsend COA XX X X X Tyngsborough X XX COA Westford COA X X X X XX XX X

The following is a description of the Senior Road Runner service available in each community:

 Acton Council on Aging service is available 8:00 AM – 11:00 AM and 1:15 – 6:15 AM, Monday through Friday, and may be accessed for all purposes. Service is available to Acton, Concord, Maynard and Westford. The Acton COA offers a volunteer driver program that is generally utilized for long distance medical trips.

 Billerica Council on Aging service is available 8:30 AM – 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday, for all purposes. The council van is most often used for in-town trips. Trips are available through the volunteer driver program to Bedford, Burlington, Chelmsford, Tewksbury and Wilmington.

 Carlisle Council on Aging service is available 8:30 AM – 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday, for all purposes. The council van service is offered to Carlisle, Acton, Bedford, Chelmsford and Westford. Trips are also available through the volunteer driver program to Burlington and Concord. Volunteers are used to transport return trips when the COA van is being utilized elsewhere.

 Chelmsford Council on Aging service is available 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, for all purposes. The van is generally utilized for the Senior Center Day Program in the mornings and afternoons and is available for

appointments from between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. A second van is being made available for the “Social Day” program, with the anticipation that it will free up the first vehicle for additional trips within Chelmsford and Lowell. The COA has acquired a third van for additional service and is currently reviewing options for additional operating funds.

 Dracut Council on Aging operates two vehicles from 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday. One vehicle is available for all trip purposes, while the second is restricted to medical transportation. The vehicles operate in Dracut, Lowell, Chelmsford, Tewksbury and Tyngsborough. The Dracut COA does not offer a volunteer driver program.

 Groton Council on Aging service is available 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM, Monday through Friday, for all purposes, using one vehicle. A second vehicle will be added by the end of 2014 for medical trips to Burlington Lahey, Bedford VA and Boston area hospitals. This new service will operate on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and will be open to customers of neighboring COAs. The Groton COA offers a volunteer driver program that currently is utilized for long distance medical trips.

 Maynard Council on Aging senior transportation service is available 7:30 AM – 3:30 PM, Monday through Friday, for all purposes. The van operates within the town of Maynard, as well as in the neighboring communities of Acton, Concord, Littleton and Stow. Trips are available on Thursdays to the Acton Stop and Shop, and on Fridays to the Acton Stop and Shop and the Shaw’s Market in Stow. The Maynard COA does not offer a volunteer driver program.

 Pepperell Council on Aging service is available 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM, Monday through Thursday, and from 8:00 AM – 1:00 PM on Fridays. All trip purposes are available Tuesday through Thursday. On Mondays, the vehicle is utilized for medical trips to the Fitchburg / Leominster area, and on Fridays the vehicle is utilized for both shopping and medical trips in the Nashua area. The Pepperell COA does not offer a volunteer driver program.

 Townsend Council on Aging senior transportation service is available 8:00 AM – 3:30 PM, Monday through Friday, for all purposes. On Mondays and Wednesdays the vehicle is used for in-town transportation services. On Tuesdays the vehicle provides service to Fitchburg, and on Thursdays the vehicle is used for trips to Pepperell, Groton and Ayer. Medical transportation service is provided on Fridays to Fitchburg, Leominster and Lunenburg. The Townsend COA does not offer a volunteer driver program.

 Tyngsborough Council on Aging senior transportation service is available 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM, Monday through Wednesday and on Friday, for in-town trips. Medical transportation is provided to Chelmsford, Dracut, Lowell and Nashua on Thursday. The Tyngsborough COA does not offer a volunteer driver program.

 Westford Council on Aging operates two vehicles from 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM Monday through Friday, with evening service on Thursdays from 6:00 PM– 10:00 PM. One vehicle is available for all trip purposes, while the second is most often used for medical transportation to Burlington and Concord. Service is provided to Ayer, Billerica, Carlisle, Chelmsford, Littleton and Lowell. Shopping trips to Market Basket in Westford are provided on Wednesday. The Westford Council on Aging maintains a third vehicle that is operated on high volume days. The Westford COA does not offer a volunteer driver program.

C. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Commuter Rail Service

The MBTA operates twenty-two (22) round trip commuter trains to Boston’s North Station during the weekdays, and 8 round trip trains on both Saturday and Sunday. All of the commuter trains pass through the North Billerica Station, further increasing the availability for residents of the region to get to Boston.

The Gallagher Intermodal Center in Lowell is an MBTA Zone 6 location with a one-way fare to Boston of $9.25. North Billerica Station is in Zone 5, with a one-way fare to Boston of $8.50. Monthly passes are available at the price of $289.00 for Zone 6 and $265.00 for Zone 5. Suburban travel is also available via inter-zone fares that vary from $2.75 to $6.25, depending on the number of stops between the trip origin and destination, and provided the trip does not contain a Boston terminal stop.

D. Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (MVRTA) Bus Service

The MVRTA operates one fixed route bus between Lawrence and Lowell, on Monday through Sunday. There are twenty-nine (29) round trips on Monday through Friday, and twelve (12) round trips on Saturday and Sunday. Passengers of the MVRTA #41 Lowell- Lawrence bus pay $1.25 cash or $1.00 on the Charlie Card. Free transfer is available onto the LRTA Downtown Shuttle. All other transfers are required to pay the appropriate fare.

E. Montachusett Regional Transit Authority HHS Brokerage Service

The Montachusett Regional Transit Authority (MART) operates the Health and Human Service demand response brokerage transportation within the Northern Middlesex region. The transportation is provided under four State social service programs: MassHealth, Department of Health Early Intervention Program, Department of Developmental

Services, and Special Education Transportation Services. The MART brokerage negotiates a price for these transportation services with the State agencies and then offers the trip to other public, non-profit and private transportation providers serving within the area of the desired trip. The MART service operates many trips, not only within the Northern Middlesex region, but throughout the State.

F. Peter Pan Bus Lines

Peter Pan Bus lines offer regular daily intercity service between Lowell and Boston via Worcester. Additionally, they also provide service to Concord, Merrimack and Nashua, New Hampshire, Lowell, Leominster, and Foxwoods. The Peter Pan bus departs the Gallagher Intermodal Transportation Center to Worcester and point south (including Foxwoods) at 7:20 AM, returns to Lowell at 6:40 pm, and then continues on to points north.

G. Boston Express Bus Lines

Boston Express offers regular intercity service between Manchester, New Hampshire and Boston. The service makes fourteen southbound stops and thirteen northbound stops on Monday through Friday, at the Tyngsborough Park & Ride lot. The Boston Express stops at the Tyngsborough Park & Ride lot on nine southbound and northbound stops on Saturday and Sunday. The service has been so successful that the July and October 2014 NMCOG Parking Utilization Survey indicated 100% occupancy at the Tyngsborough Park & Ride lot.

H. UMass Lowell Student Bus Service

UMass Lowell operates seven fixed route shuttles that circulate between the University campuses and other locations within the City of Lowell. During the school year, the shuttles run on ten minute headways, from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Evening and weekend demand response transportation is available to students by calling the University Dispatch Office. The University shuttles are free of charge for students, faculty and staff.

I. Middlesex Community College Inter-campus Shuttle

Middlesex Community College operates a shuttle service between the Lowell and Bedford campuses. During the school year, the weekday shuttle operates on 60 to 90 minute headways, from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm. The service continues into the evenings on Monday through Thursday, ending at 9:30 PM.

J. Commercial Wheelchair Service and Ambulance Service Providers

There are several wheelchair and ambulance service providers operating throughout the Northern Middlesex region. The wheelchair services generally operate on a 24-hour

27 advance notice, and pickup and deliver senior and disabled customers both within the region and beyond. Many of these services transport customers to adult daycare in the mornings and afternoons, and therefore, the vehicles are underutilized during the midday.

Ambulance services are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Often these ambulance services establish exclusive contracts with area nursing homes for all transportation. The exclusive transportation contracts result in very high priced service for non-emergency transportation.

The following is a list of the wheelchair and ambulance providers:

Wheelchair/Ambulance Providers Address Telephone

Alter-Ride Van Service 68 Hall Street, Dunstable (978)758-9490 American Medical Response Lowell (978)458-6321 Gentle Arms Daily Transport Chelmsford (978)809-0033 Guardian Ambulance Lowell (978)323-0135 Heart to Heart Transportation 82 Middlesex Street, Lowell (978)455-5966 Maxiride Inc 96 Frederick Street, Dracut (978)601-0208 Medicoach Transportation 1201 Westford Street, Lowell (885)682-6224 Patriot Ambulance 248 Mill Road, Chelmsford (978)367-5000 PrideSTAR EMS 229 Steadman Street, Lowell (978)441-0911 Trinity E.M.S. 1221 Westford Street, Lowell (978)441-9999 Wendo Transportation Serv. 626 Nashua Road, Dracut (978)319-4114

K. Other Private Service Providers:

There are a number of non-profit organizations and private carriers operating charter, rental, livery and other special transportation services within the region, including the following:

Bus Line Providers Address Telephone

First Student Bus Ward Way, North Chelmsford (978)251-4901 R.C. Herrmann Bus Co. 250 Littleton Road, Westford (978)692-3143 Tewksbury Transit, Inc. 555 Whipple Road, Tewksbury (978)851-9863 Vermont Transit 101 Thorndike Street, Lowell (978)459-7101 A&F Bus Company, Inc. 16 Wyman Road, Billerica (978)663-8145 Bedford Charter Service 11 Railroad Avenue, Bedford (978)257-9524 Fiore Bus Service Plank Street, Billerica (978)667-1114 Dunbar Bus Company 33 Middlesex Road, Tyngsborough (978)649-7401 Plaza Transportation 410 Woburn Street, Tewksbury (978)459-9600 Buckingham Bus Company 40 Station Avenue, Groton (978)448-6057 Dee Bus Service, Inc. 30 Town Farm Road, Westford (978)392-8639 Lessard Bus Company, Inc. Nashua, NH (978)897-1244

Taxi Service:

Diamond Yellow Cab 50 Payne Street, Lowell (978)458-6861 Broadway Cab Company 50 Payne Street, Lowell (978)458-4769 City Cab Company 50 Payne Street, Lowell (978)454-7748 Wilmington Taxi Wilmington (978)658-3859

Town Taxi 1040 Gorham Street, Lowell (978)970-0202 A&M Taxi Merrimack Ave, Dracut (978)944-0674 Luna Cab Company 11 White Street, Lowell (978)421-6321 Acre Cab Company 50 Payne Street, Lowell (978)454-7748 A-1 Taxi Lowell (978)970-2909 Dave’s Taxi Lowell (978)446-8787 Family Taxi Lowell (978)453-0778 Hoey’s Taxi and Delivery 17 Diamond Drive, Dracut (978)569-7883 J&N Taxi Lowell (978)454-5661 Lowell Taxi 12 Bridge Street, Lowell (978)441-0011 Carib Tour Taxi 239 Lincoln Street, Lowell (978)458-1155 Checker Taxi 12 Bridge Street, Lowell (978)441-9700 First Class Taxi 115 Appleton Street, Lowell (978)459-6000

Not-For-Profit Organizations:

Community Team Work Lowell (978)459-0551 Elder Services of the Merrimack Valley Lawrence (978)683-7747 Cambodian Mutual Asst. Assoc Lowell (978)454-6400 Coalition for a Better Acre Lowell (978)970-0600

VIII. IDENTIFYING GAPS IN SERVICE

On October 16, 2014, the NMCOG staff conducted a public meeting at the LRTA facility on Hale Street in Lowell to solicit public input for this plan. The purpose of the meeting was to:

1. Review current transportation services; 2. Identify gaps in service and duplication; and 3. Identify possible solutions.

Invitations were mailed to individuals and organizations, including human service providers, health care providers, transportation providers, employers and government agencies. In addition, participants were provided with a survey and asked to bring their responses to the meeting, or to send the survey to NMCOG.

Based on the input received at the public meeting and through the survey, the following represents the primary feedback provided, which largely reflects recommendations from previous plans that have not yet been implemented:

1. Do you or your clients currently use the LRTA or other public transit services? o LRTA fixed route and Roadrunner service o Councils on Aging van service o Lowell Veterans Administration Shuttle

2. Where do people need to be able to go, such as major employment areas, training providers, childcare or health care? Try to be specific. o Nashua N.H. / Nashua Transit System connection o Tyngsborough Rte 3A (PLS Electronics employment) o Health Care in Concord, Littleton, Bedford o Chelmsford (Village Square, Meeting House Square, Courthouse Square, Research Place) o Hudson N.H. Rte 3A (employment) o Clients are CNAs and work in Nursing Homes (Billerica & Tewksbury) o Hanscom Air Force Base o D’Youville Adult Daycare o V.A. on Marshall Rd, Lowell o V.A. in Jamaica Plain

3. What transportation services do they use to get there? o Councils on Aging van service o LRTA Roadrunner o LRTA fixed route buses o Commuter Rail o Taxis o Volunteer drivers

4. Is there any duplication of transportation services? o Lowell Based Road Runner versus COA van Service o COA Friends vans versus LRTA funded COA van service

5. Are there any gaps that you can identify or new services that would be helpful in accessing the places mentioned above?

o LRTA paratransit service to Emerson Hospital, Concord o LRTA Connection to Nashua N.H. Via Rte 3A / Middlesex Road o Later service for LRTA fixed route and Roadrunner service o Sunday service and more frequency for LRTA fixed route o Later Roadrunner service/Weekend service o Door-to-door rather than curb-to-curb. o LRTA Bus route expansion. o Reduced headway/more frequent service. o LRTA Connection to Bedford VA, Middlesex Community College, Hanscom AFB and MBTA Routes #62 & #76 o LRTA Connection to business in Hudson N.H. Via Rte 3A

6. What new transportation service or transportation alternatives are needed? o Concord Medical bus similar to the Road Runner Boston Medical Bus o LRTA / Community outreach for travel training o Expanded hours for LRTA fixed route bus and Roadrunner o Regional Mobility Manager o Need door to door instead of curb to curb o Possible outside / outsourced service o Expanded V.A. service to Boston o LRTA Outreach to businesses that offer entry level jobs.

IX. SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTED SINCE THE PREVIOUS COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES PLANS

Since 2008 the LRTA has implemented seven service improvements to address service gaps identified in the previous Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans. The projects have expanded access to service sector employment sites by increasing service days, hours or area served. The following summarizes the improvements already implemented through past plans:

Holiday Fixed Route Service: The LRTA like many regional transit authorities did not previously offer any service on holidays. In 2008, the LRTA received a Job Access / Reverse Commute (JARC) grant to initiate a “Saturday level” of service on five holidays when many service sector employees are required to work: Martin Luther King Day, President’s Day, Patriots Day, Columbus Day and Veterans’ Day. Following the first year, the #15 Chelmsford bus route was included in this program at the request of a group of Chelmsford business employees. Overall, this service has proven to be quite successful.

Tewksbury Bus Route 12 Saturday Service: The #12 Tewksbury route ran on a weekday only schedule. The route ran along Route 38, from Lowell through Tewksbury, to the Wilmington town line. Route 38 is a densely developed state road with a large number of retail and service employment opportunities. In 2009, the LRTA was awarded a JARC grant to extend the bus route to the Wilmington MBTA commuter rail station and to operate service on Saturdays. The #12 route expansion has proven to be very successful, growing to one of the busiest bus routes on Saturday. The Saturday service expansion greatly increased access for the disabled within the town of Tewksbury.

Westford Bus Route 15 Extension: With the help of a 2009 JARC grant, the LRTA extended the #15 bus route along State Route 110, from Chelmsford, through Westford, to the IBM facility on the Littleton/Westford line. The Route 110 corridor is filled with high tech businesses, retail establishments and service industries. The #15 route has experienced steady growth in ridership since the route extension was implemented. Furthermore, the service expansion greatly increased access for the disabled community within the Town of Westford.

Tyngsborough Holiday Service: In order to address the lack of access to seasonal employment opportunities, the LRTA was awarded a 2010 JARC grant to run seasonal service along State Route 3A and Middlesex Road in Tyngsborough, to the southern end Pheasant Lane Mall which lies within Massachusetts, adjacent to the New Hampshire border. The route not only reaches job opportunities along the corridor and at the mall, it also connects with the Nashua Transit system, enabling access to the entire Nashua area. The route has proven to be one of the most successful services offered by the LRTA, and as

indicated in this report, a key location of interest to be reached by bus on a daily basis.

Expanded Saturday Service: The LRTA expanded Saturday service in January 2013. The service change increased the number of individual bus trips by 53, by running hourly headways on routes that had previously had 90 to 120 minute headways. As a direct result of this service improvement, the Saturday LRTA ridership has increased by approximately 80%.

Expanded Weekday Service Hours: The LRTA received a JARC grant to extend service hours on fourteen of the eighteen bus routes. The service, which began in August 2013, enabled greater connectivity between the suburban routes and the Lowell city routes. Since this service expansion was implemented, the LRTA has seen an overall increase in ridership throughout the system, and is currently reviewing the successes of each route separately.

Westford Bus Route 15 Saturday Service: In April 2014, the LRTA began operating the #15 Westford bus route on Saturdays, enabling access to the bustling State Route 110 area. As a result, Saturday service is now available to all of the LRTA fixed route service area communities, increasing access to the disabled community.

X. IDENTIFYING STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS FOR ADDRESSING REGIONAL SERVICE GAPS

Based on the information gathered at the information meetings and the survey results, the following table was developed identifying the Northern Middlesex regional priorities. Table 15 is divided into three sections based upon the goals identified in Section II of this report:

Goal 1: Improve mobility for all segments of the population;

Goal 2: Increase the efficiency of public transit services operated by public, private and non-profit providers; and

Goal 3: Close existing gaps in service and eliminate duplication of service.

Strategies and projects are identified for achieving each of the priority goals. A performance measures list is included for reviewing the effectiveness of the proposed projects.

Table 15: Coordination goals, objectives, strategies, projects and performance measures

Outcomes Objectives Strategies and Projects Performance Measurement Goal 1: Improve Mobility for all Segments of the Population Transit service linking 1.1 Improve access to jobs, education  Increase transit frequencies  Increasing passenger trips. common origins and key and services used by target group in core areas.  Increasing service in new destinations with convenient members by supporting core areas,  Target expansion of service areas including: mobility improvements and a high to identified and under- Middlesex Rd, Tyngsborough & levels of service level of LRTA service, as funding served neighborhoods. Nashua, NH allows.  Increase coordination of Middlesex Community College existing public transit & Bedford VA services. Walkable transit service 1.2 Improve access to residents by  Strengthen pedestrian  Number of pedestrian access promoting basic transit services network around key improvements within ¾ within a walkable ¾ mile for destinations and ensure mile envelope of LRTA everyone in the LRTA service area, paths of access to LRTA service network. as funding allows. services. Educate consumers: 1.3 Continue to focus attention on  Develop marketing materials  Number and type of stakeholder agencies, LRTA and EOHHS public that show LRTA routes and available information tools information tools and strategies. existing riders, and stops, in relation to key used. destinations of the target  Number of travel training prospective riders populations. agency contacts and  Expand travel training for training events. riders and prospective riders,  Number of travel training using both individual and consumer contacts and group familiarization training events. methods  Promote appropriate travel training to numerous audiences, to introduce new and prospective riders to transit

Outcomes Objectives Strategies and Projects Performance Measurement Demonstrated effectiveness 1.4 Ensure LRTA Road Runner  Review operational  Meeting the LRTA and efficiency of the LRTA operations provide the most efficient, procedures periodically to established performance cost-effective and responsive service complementary paratransit ensure maximum efficiency measures such as: cost per possible to ADA riders, in and effectiveness, including revenue hour; cost per program compliance with ADA regulations compliance with law. revenue mile; fare box and within available resources.  Ensure routine recovery ratio; and cost per communication with ADA passenger trip. riders to promote  Increase in trips taken by appropriate use of the ADA riders on LRTA fixed service and continued route services. understanding of rider  Increased number of guidelines. mobility choices and new  Review subscription and service options, for Road recurring trip scheduling Runner customers. practices to promote  Number of travel training efficiency and equity. contacts/ training events  Actively promote travel with Road Runner training to ADA certified customers. riders, to enable more trips on fixed-route service.

Safe, efficient specialized 1.5 Continue to promote vehicle  Promote application for  Miles between mechanical transportation fleet replacement program for specialized Section 5310 capital failures. transportation services. requests by local agencies,  Average age of vehicle fleet. to replace vehicles and  Average mileage of vehicle develop lift-equipped fleet. capabilities.  Number of 5310 vehicle replacement applications submitted.  Number of 5310 vehicle applications approved.

Outcomes Objectives Strategies and Projects Performance Measurement Goal 2: Increase the efficiency of public transit services operated by public, private and non-profit providers New partnerships to address 2.1 Develop new partner  Implement annual MVRCC /  Number of contacts with “hard to serve” trips relationships with key stakeholder NMCOG survey, sample existing and prospective organizations, to focus on defining agency inventory to identify partners. and implementing new mobility contacts at key agencies and  Number of potential project project solutions. to update agency identified with partners. transportation program  Number of projects information. scheduled for implementation. New partnerships with 2.2 Encourage new coordinated  Develop pilot partnership  Number of trips provided entities providing ADA trips partnerships projects, focused on shuttles to help connect by partner projects. 5310 vehicle grantees serving hard- LRTA bus stops with public  Number of persons to-serve trips. services and employment transported by partner areas. projects.  Number of new persons transported or new trips provided by partner projects. New Partnerships with 2.3 Explore partnerships with  Open dialogue with the  Potential trips provided that medical providers Lowell General Hospital, Lowell VA, many medical centers within may now represent missed Lowell Community Health Center the Northern Middlesex medical appointments. and other health care providers to region regarding trips not  New service provision address needs of their employees and currently. projects. customers. 2.4 Explore partnerships with area Dialysis facilities to address needs of their customers.

Outcomes Objectives Strategies and Projects Performance Measurement Goal 3: Close Existing Gaps in Service and Eliminate Duplication of Service Close existing gaps in service 3.1 Support transportation efforts by  Expand dialogue with the  Number of contacts with within the Northern the Councils on Aging and identify COA directors and staff. and meetings with Councils opportunities for service Middlesex Region  Establish (at a minimum) a on Aging improvements. bi-annual meeting of the  Number of trips carried by COAs for greater neighboring Council on cooperation between local Aging vans. communities. 3.2 Support transportation efforts by  Maintain involvement in area human service organizations and ongoing efforts of the identify opportunities for service MVRCC and the LRTA to improvements and coordination. identify overlaps in service.  Provide technical assistance to area agencies with respect to service operations.

Eliminate duplication within 3.3 Implement information  Review technologies  Number of electronic the Northern Middlesex technology that allows service currently in use by the dispatching systems in providers to know what the needs are Region various agencies within the service by providers. of those requesting service. Utilize Northern Middlesex region.  Number of trips provided mobility manager tools to promote  Make recommendations for by each system. targeted awareness of alternative combined dispatch, when transportation modes. possible. 3.4 Coordinate services to reduce  Develop a regional mobility  Applications written and duplication of services. manager position to promote submitted for position coordination and customer funding outreach.  Implementation of regional mobility manager position.

APPENDIX

MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST OCTOBER 16, 2014

Ruairi O’Mahoney UMass Lowell Maureen Kriff Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission Jeff Wilson Lowell Commission on Disabilities David Ellingson LRTA Advisory Board (ADA Member) Jeanne Teehen Billerica Council on Aging Kathy Shelp Groton Council on Aging Elizabeth Goodrich Merrimack Valley Planning Commission Debra Siriani Chelmsford Council on Aging Laura Mitchell Westford Council on Aging David Klein Carlisle Council on Aging Dick Garrett Lowell Regional Transit Authority Chris Curry Northern Middlesex Council of Governments Justin Howard Northern Middlesex Council of Governments

MEETING NOTES OCTOBER 16, 2014

Notes from Coordinated Plan Meeting: 10/16/14

Question 1 Remarks:  Maureen Kriff (MRC) – MRC clients use both the Ride and the Roadrunner service. Her area runs from Pepperell to Wilmington. The issues include access to employment centers, cost for services and availability of services.

Question 2 Remarks:  Boston hospitals  Getting to Nashua is a priority. Demand seems to be large demanding regular fixed route service.  Work to get connections to Manchester and Concord NH  Improvement of outreach to let people know of available services  Education of services is key. UMass Lowell, Middlesex Community College, and a new satellite campus in Haverhill for UMass Lowell.  Getting to Emerson Hospital in Concord and Lahey Clinic in Burlington  There is a scheduling/time issue for Adult Daycare at Lahey  The VA in Bedford has 3 buses right now.  Trips to Peabody are unavailable from both NMCOG and MVPC regions.  Right now there is no ADA services to Concord, also no bus service and commuter rail is available  Trips to Mass Eye and Ear in Waltham and Stoneham are requested but are not able to be served  Ruouri O’Mahoney of UMass Lowell, mentioned looking at Nashua’s Coordinated Plan for crossover service ideas

Question 3 Remarks:  UMass Lowell has a network of shuttle buses for students accounting for 8,000 trips per day  Bridges in Lowell are an issue, currently both Broadway Street and Pawtucket Street bridges are weight restricted.  How about more collaboration between LRTA, Road Runner and the Ride? Services at the Community College Campus in Bedford  Booklet/Informational Brochure with options for transportation in each community. Take a look at what the Newton COA has done (website). Ruori will send Chris a link to a brochure from NH.

Question 5 Remarks:  COAs have mostly Door to Door Service while Road Runner is Curb to Curb.  Issue of going north to NH  Carlisle has limited service. They would like a fixed route stop on the way to/from Concord.  Better coordination between LRTA and UMass Lowell.  Discussion of Volunteer Driver Programs – some COAs have them, some don’t. There is a 5310 program funding a Regional Volunteer Driver Program operating on the North Shore. There is the need to CORY drivers and there are liability issues. Carlisle has a program for 10-20% of total trips. It seems to work.  Gloucester has a network of volunteer driver options that seem to works well.  More service to Concord with a possible stop in Carlisle.  Groton has trips to Boston area hospitals. Emerson Hospital, and Lahey in Burlington beginning winter 2014.  Connecting commuter rail and UMass Lowell shuttles – is this possible?

NMCOG SURVEY QUESTIONS 2014

Coordinated Public Transit- Human Services Plan

PUBLIC TRANSIT SURVEY

1. Do you or your clients current use the LRTA or other public transit service?

2. Where do people need to be able to go, such as major employment areas, training providers, childcare or health care? Try to be specific.

3. What transportation services do they use to get there?

4. Is there any duplication of transportation services?

5. Are there any gaps that you can identify or new services that would be helpful in accessing the places mentioned above?

6. What new transportation service or transportation alternatives are needed?

MERRIMACK VALLEY REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL SURVEY RESULTS 2014

Greater Merrimack Valley Transportation Survey

Results as of Sept. 9, 2014

Compiled by Theadora Fisher for the Merrimack Valley RCC

[email protected] Powered by Q3: Please indicate your organization type. (check all that apply)

Respondents mostly represent: • Organizations serving people with disabilities • Councils on aging and senior‐ serving agencies • Non‐profit organizations • Organizations serving pppeople with low incomes

12 yes, 7 no

Reasons why not: • Budgetary issues • Not enough funding for drivers • The van is shared with another organization • Consumer destinations/needs vary

} Many people drive themselves or get rides with family/friends

} Public transportation, fixed route & paratransit

Taxis

} Council on Aging vans and volunteer drivers

 Walking

• Town funding • LRTA • MVRTA • Executive Office of Elder Affairs • Donations • We only reimburse mileage • State funding through agency line‐item budget

Powered by Q14: In the past 12 months, approximately how many people has your organization worked with who have unmet transportation needs?

Each organization had a different way of measuring this, but the results showed that there are hundreds of people in the Merrimack Valley region that have trouble getting transportation to jobs and medical appointments.

Powered by Q15: In what parts of the greater Merrimack Valley region do your consumers have unmet transportation needs? (check all that apply)

NMCoG Region Respondents’ top towns: • Billerica • Chelmsford • Lowell • Tyngsborough

MVPC Region Respondent’s top towns: • Amesbury • Andover • Georgetown • Methuen • Newburyport • North Andover

• Lack of night service • lack of weekend service } • few or no services availabl e

 Difficulty ceasing driving  Consumers do not know how to use public transit

Powered by Q17: Are there any specific kinds of trips that your consumers find challenging to arrange? (check all that apply)

Long‐distance medical transportation i s th e top response, followed by employment transportation

Powered by Q17: Are there any specific kinds of trips that your consumers find challenging to arrange? (open ended responses)

NMCoG Region • Trips to Boston for medical appointments (Jamaica Plain VA) and in general • Trips to the Lahey Clinic in Burlington

MVPC Region • Long‐distance medical appointments to Lowell, Boston, Lahey (Burlington & Peabody), and the North Shore • Cancer treatment appointments in Boston

A few towns away is the top response, followed by Boston/ Burlington /New HhiHampshire

NMCoG Region • Out of town medical appointments!

MVPC Region • Transfers between RTAs, particularly for paratransit customers traveling between MVRTA and LRTA or MBTA • It is difficult to get from Rowley to anywhere unless the person has a car; all destinations are a challenge • Many jobs are available in nearby New Hampshire, but there is no public transportation available • Employers are not on public transportation

Many respondents are not collaborating with others, which means there are many opportunities for new partnerships and collaborations

Powered by List of people who are interested in the RCC Name OitiOrganization EilEmail Address annmary connor amesbury coa [email protected] Ashley Stuart, MS, LSW Tewksbury Council on Aging astuart@tewksbury‐ma.gov Buzz Stapczynski Town of Andover [email protected] Colleen Ranshaw‐Fiorello Georgetown Council on Aging [email protected] David Ellingson Lowell Commission On Disablities [email protected] David Souza ValleyWorks Career Center [email protected] Dooanna Popkin Billeecarica Coun cil on Aggging Dpopkin @t own. bill eri ca.m a. us Grace Cummings Mass Commission for the Blind [email protected],USA Jeff Wilson Lowell Commission on Disabilities [email protected] Jo Lee Vinfen/Haverhill Clubhouse [email protected] Kathy Urquh art Town of And over Elder SSiervices kh@[email protected] Kristen Tarsia Career Resources Corporation ktarsia@crc‐mass.org Laura Mitchell Westford Council on Aging [email protected] Maura Callahan Vinfen [email protected] Michael karakaya NRS [email protected] Ron Fanion American Training [email protected]

PoweredTheresa by Woodbury West Newbury Council on Aging [email protected]