Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO)

2012 Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan

Incorporating Requirements for: • Job Access and Reverse Commute Program • New Freedom Program • Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Program

Adopted September 25, 2012

Introduction

Federal law and regulations require that in all urbanized areas with a population of over 50,000 persons, local and state officials work cooperatively to maintain a continuous and comprehensive long-range transportation planning program. A formal group called a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) carries out this federal mandate.

The Centre Region MPO (CRMPO) was formed in 1982, and succeeded the Centre Region Area Transportation Study (CRATS), which had previously been responsible for conducting long-range transportation planning in the State College, PA area. By 2003, the CRMPO coordinated transportation planning efforts in the geographic area comprised of Benner, College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, Harris, Patton, and Spring Townships, Bellefonte Borough, and State College Borough in Centre County, PA. In November 2003, the Centre Region MPO Coordinating Committee expanded the MPO to a countywide organization, effective January 2004. The boundary of the Centre County MPO (CCMPO) now includes all of Centre County.

The CCMPO works closely with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), the Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA), and the Centre County Office of Transportation Services (CCOT) to identify and prioritize transportation improvement projects within Centre County.

MPO Structure

The policy-making body of the CCMPO is the Coordinating Committee, which is ultimately responsible for the transportation planning activities mandated in federal laws and regulations. The Coordinating Committee includes nineteen voting members from county and local government, public agencies, and PennDOT.

Voting members include:

Centre County (2 members) Benner Township College Township Ferguson Township Halfmoon Township Harris Township Patton Township Spring Township State College Borough Penns Valley Planning Region Lower Bald Eagle Valley Planning Region Moshannon Valley Planning Region Upper Bald Eagle Valley Planning Region Mountaintop Planning Region Nittany Valley Planning Region Centre Area Transportation Authority Centre Regional Planning Commission PennDOT Central Office (Harrisburg) PennDOT District 2-0 Office (Clearfield)

Non-voting members include:

Pennsylvania State University Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration

A Technical Committee provides advisory comments and recommendations to the Coordinating Committee. The Technical Committee is composed of members from the same organizations represented on the Coordinating Committee.

As noted above, some voting members of the MPO represent a planning region, rather than an individual municipality or organization. There are seven planning regions in Centre County.

MPO Responsibilities

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) outlines the primary roles and responsibilities of MPOs, including development of a long-range transportation plan (LRTP), development of the short-range Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and public involvement efforts. SAFETEA-LU also specifies MPO planning activities, and establishes the required processes for these activities.

One of the CCMPO’s primary responsibilities is to approve the use of federal funds for highway and mass transit projects within Centre County. This responsibility is fulfilled through the development and adoption of the short-range TIP. The TIP details the proposed

3 expenditure of federal funds and some state capital funds for specific projects in a four-year period, within specified limits of financial constraint. The TIP is updated every two years. The list of projects on the TIP is identical to the First Four Year segment of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Twelve Year Program (TYP), which is developed at the same time as the TIP, and adopted by the State Transportation Commission.

In order to be included on the short-range TIP, projects must also be included on the MPO's adopted long-range (twenty-year) transportation plan. The adoption of a long-range plan is another primary responsibility of the CCMPO.

In addition to SAFETEA-LU, the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 specifies planning activities for MPO's, in particular for areas exhibiting air quality that is not in attainment with acceptable standards. Prior to 2004, Centre County was in attainment with the air quality standards in the CAAA, and there were no special planning activities or processes required of the CCMPO. However, new air quality standards that became effective in June 2004 designated Centre County as a non-attainment area for ozone.

To facilitate citizen involvement in the planning process used to develop the long-range plan and the TIP, the CCMPO adopted Public Participation Plan (PPP) in 2010, pursuant to SAFETEA-LU. Proposed plans and programs, such as the LRTP and the TIP, must be made available for public review during a 30-day comment period. The MPO is also required to hold a public meeting during this comment period.

The CCMPO is required to maintain and update a program of activities to address Environmental Justice and Title VI regulations, to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts to areas with concentrations of low income and minority populations. Concentrations of low income and minority households have been identified and mapped based on U.S. Census data, and this mapping is being updated using Census 2010 data and other information provided by local agencies and organizations. A program of activities to communicate with citizens in those areas about plans and programs must also be maintained. Existing techniques will be refined, and new techniques developed on an ongoing basis to improve communication between citizens, agencies and organizations, and the CCMPO.

The Job Access / Reverse Commute (JARC), New Freedom, and Section 5310 Programs

Consistent with an MPO’s charge, the CCMPO is preparing this document to pursue – together with local public transportation providers such as CATA and the CCOT – federal transit funding under the following three programs:

. Job Access – Reverse Commute (JARC), codified under 49 USC §5316; . New Freedom, codified under 49 USC §5317; and . Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, codified under 49 USC §5310.

Before the advent of SAFETEA-LU, only Section 5310 program grants were awarded on a competitive basis. The New Freedom program did not exist, and funds under the JARC program were distributed on a discretionary basis to larger urbanized areas. Under SAFETEA-LU, all three programs now feature a competitive selection process. The preparation of a Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan

(hereinafter referred to as a “Coordinated Plan”) will allow CATA, the CCOT, and other local transportation providers to participate in this competitive selection process and potentially secure new sources of funding with which to better serve the target population(s) of each program. Moreover, it will serve as a robust addition to both CCMPO’s countywide transportation planning and CATA’s service development programs, and will present a vital opportunity to better coordinate planning and operations across all Centre County transportation providers.

Because Centre County is home to a smaller urbanized area and many non-urbanized areas, CATA, the CCOT, and other local transportation providers will not receive any JARC, New Freedom, or Section 5310 funds directly from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will receive the entire State apportionment of program funds for all small urbanized and non-urbanized areas, and the agency designated by the Governor of each State has the principal authority and responsibility for administering the JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 programs in urbanized areas under 200,000 in population and non-urbanized areas. In Pennsylvania, this agency is PennDOT. According to FTA, designated recipients such as PennDOT:

. Notify potentially eligible local entities of funding availability; . Develop JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 project selection criteria; . Determine applicant eligibility; . Accept applications for JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 program funding from eligible sub-recipients such as CATA, the CCOT, and other local transportation providers; . Conduct a competitive selection process and award JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 grants; . Certify a fair and equitable distribution of funds; . Ensure that all sub-recipients comply with applicable Federal requirements; . Monitor coordination between projects under the JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 programs and projects assisted by other Federal sources, and certify that each selected project was derived from a locally developed Coordinated Plan, whose development process includes representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human service providers and members of the public; . Present the selected projects for inclusion in the LRTP for Centre County. Similarly, these projects must be included in the applicable Transportation Improvement Program; . Oversee project audits and closeouts; and . Submit reports and statistics as required by FTA.

The specifics of each program to be covered in this document are described as follows:

Job Access – Reverse Commute (JARC) Program

Program Goals. The JARC program includes two distinct components. The goal of the “job access” component is to improve access to transportation services to employment and employment-related activities (training, child care, etc.) for welfare recipients and eligible low- income individuals. The goal of the “reverse commute” component is to transport residents of urbanized and non-urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities.

Target Populations. Each of the two distinct components of the JARC program has a defined target population. “Job access” projects are those designed to serve individuals whose family income is at or below 150% of the poverty level for a family of the size involved, and/or individuals who have received public assistance at any time during the 3-year period before the date on which CATA, the CCOT, or another local transportation provider applies for a grant under the JARC program. “Reverse commute” projects should be targeted at those individuals who live in urbanized and non-urbanized areas who are employed or seeking employment in suburban areas.

Program Funds. For small urbanized areas, such as the Centre Region, 20% of total JARC program funds shall be distributed among the States, in the ratio that the number of eligible low-income individuals and welfare recipients in urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000 in each State bears to the number of eligible low-income individuals and welfare recipients in urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000 in all States.

For non-urbanized areas, such as the outlying portions of Centre County, an additional 20% of total JARC program funds shall be distributed among the States, in the ratio that the number of eligible low-income individuals and welfare recipients in non-urbanized areas in each State bears to the number of eligible low-income individuals and welfare recipients in non-urbanized areas in all States.

Awarded funds are available to a grantee during the fiscal year of apportionment, plus two additional years. Therefore, it is critically important that prospective JARC projects be ready for implementation within three years of the initial proposal, as any unused JARC funds are added to the following year's apportionment and reapportioned among all areas.

Federal JARC funds come with local matching requirements. For eligible capital and planning projects, the Federal share of costs may not exceed 80% of the net cost of the activity, with a local share of no less than 20%. For eligible operating projects, the Federal share of costs may not exceed 50% of the net cost of the activity, with a local share of no less than 50%. Up to 10% of the apportionment may be used to support program administrative costs, and these funds require no local match. Sources of local matching funds include the following:

. State or local appropriations; . Other non-DOT Federal funds (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, employment training programs, Rehabilitation Services, and Administration on Aging), so long as these are directly used for activities included in the total net project costs of the JARC grant. . Dedicated tax revenues; . Private donations; . Revenue from human service contracts; . Toll revenue credits; . Net income generated from advertising and concessions; and . Non-cash sources such as donations, volunteered services, and in-kind contributions so long as the value of each is documented and represents a cost that would otherwise be eligible for funding under the program.

Eligible Activities. JARC program funds are available for capital, operating, and planning expenses for activities consistent with the program goals, including, but not limited to:

. Late-night and weekend service to transport eligible individuals with non-traditional work schedules; . Guaranteed ride home services; . Shuttle services; . Expanding fixed public transit routes; . Demand-responsive van services; . Ridesharing and carpooling activities; . Transit-related aspects of bicycling, including adding bike racks to vehicles or providing storage at stations; . Local car loan programs that assist individuals in purchasing and maintaining vehicles for shared rides; . Promotion, through marketing efforts, of the: o Use of transit by workers with non-traditional work schedules; o Use of transit voucher programs by appropriate agencies for welfare recipients and other low-income individuals; o Development of employer-provided transportation such as shuttles, ridesharing, and/or carpooling; and o Use of transit pass programs and benefits under Section 132 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; . Supporting the administration and expenses related to voucher programs; . Applying geographic information systems (GIS) tools; . Implementing intelligent transportation systems (ITS), including customer trip information technology; . Integrating automated regional public transit and human service transportation information, scheduling, and dispatch functions; . Establishing regional mobility managers or transportation brokerage activities, including: o The promotion, enhancement, and facilitation of access to transportation services by eligible individuals; o Support for short term management activities to plan and implement coordinated services; o Support of State and local coordination policy bodies and councils; o Operation of transportation brokerages; o Provision of coordination services; o Development and operation of one-stop transportation call centers to coordinate traveler information; and o Operational planning for the acquisition of intelligent transportation systems technologies to help plan and operate coordinated systems.

New Freedom Program

Program Goals. The stated goal of the New Freedom program is to provide additional transportation options to help Americans with disabilities overcome existing barriers to full integration with the workforce and participation in society. Dating back to the time period preceding passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), lack of adequate transportation has long been identified as the primary barrier between persons with 7 disabilities and stable employment. The New Freedom program is intended to support fully accessible mobility options beyond those prescribed by the ADA.

Target Populations. New Freedom projects are designed to assist individuals with disabilities in accessing transportation services, including transportation to and from jobs and employment support services (training, child care, etc.). An “individual with a disability” is defined in 49 USC § 5302(a) (5) as an individual who, because of illness, injury, age, congenital malfunction, or other incapacity or temporary or permanent disability (including an individual who is a wheelchair user and has semi-ambulatory capability), cannot use effectively, without special facilities, planning, or design, public transportation service or a public transportation facility.

Program Funds. For small urbanized areas, such as the Centre Region, 20% of total New Freedom program funds shall be distributed among the States, in the ratio that the number of individuals with disabilities in urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000 in each State bears to the number of individuals with disabilities in urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000 in all States.

For non-urbanized areas, such as the outlying portions of Centre County, an additional 20% of total New Freedom program funds shall be distributed among the States, in the ratio that the number of individuals with disabilities in non-urbanized areas in each State bears to the number of individuals with disabilities in non-urbanized areas in all States.

Awarded funds are available to a grantee during the fiscal year of apportionment, plus two additional years. Therefore, it is critically important that prospective New Freedom projects be ready for implementation within three years of the initial proposal, as any unused New Freedom funds are added to the following year's apportionment and reapportioned among all areas.

Federal New Freedom funds come with local matching requirements. For eligible capital and planning projects, the Federal share of costs may not exceed 80% of the net cost of the activity, with a local share of no less than 20%. For eligible operating projects, the Federal share of costs may not exceed 50% of the net cost of the activity, with a local share of no less than 50%. Up to 10% of the apportionment may be used to support program administrative costs, and these funds require no local match. Sources of local matching funds include the following:

. State or local appropriations; . Other non-DOT Federal funds (TANF, Medicaid, employment training programs, Rehabilitation Services, and Administration on Aging), so long as these are directly used for activities included in the total net project costs of the New Freedom grant. . Dedicated tax revenues; . Private donations; . Revenue from human service contracts; . Toll revenue credits; . Net income generated from advertising and concessions; and . Non-cash sources such as donations, volunteered services, and in-kind contributions so long as the value of each is documented and represents a cost that would otherwise be eligible for funding under the program. 8

Eligible Activities. New Freedom program funds are available for capital, operating, and planning expenses for activities consistent with the program goals, including, but not limited to:

. Enhancing the delivery of paratransit service beyond the provisions of the ADA through: o Expansion of the paratransit service area beyond the ¾-mile corridor around fixed routes prescribed by the ADA; o Expansion of paratransit service hours beyond fixed route service hours; o Provision of “same-day” paratransit service; o Enhancement of the level of service by providing escorts or assisting riders through the door of their origin and/or destination. . Acquisition of vehicles and equipment designed to accommodate mobility aids that exceed the dimensions and weight ratings established for “common wheelchairs” under the ADA, and labor costs of aides to help drivers assist passengers with over- sized wheelchairs; . Installation of additional mobility aid securement locations in transit vehicles beyond what is required by the ADA; . Implementing new “feeder” service (transit service that provides access) to commuter bus and intercity bus stations, for which complementary paratransit service is not required under the ADA; . Making accessibility improvements to transit and intermodal stations not designated as “key stations” under the ADA, including: o Building an accessible path to a bus stop that is currently inaccessible, including the construction of curb cuts, sidewalks, accessible pedestrian signals, or other accessible features; o Adding an elevator or ramps, detectable warnings, or other accessibility improvements that are not otherwise required under the ADA to a non-key station; o Improving signage, or wayfinding technology; and o Implementation of other technology improvements that enhance accessibility for persons with disabilities. . Designing and implementing new travel training and instruction programs for individual users on awareness, knowledge, and use of public and alternative transportation options available in their communities; . Purchasing vehicles to support new accessible taxi, ridesharing, and/or vanpooling programs; . Supporting the administration and expenses related to new voucher programs for transportation services offered by human service providers; . Supporting new volunteer driver and aide programs; . Supporting new mobility management and coordination programs among public transportation providers and other human service agencies providing transportation; including: o Promotion, enhancement, and facilitation of access to transportation services; o Support for short-term management activities to plan and implement coordinated services; o Support of State and local coordination policy bodies and councils; o Operation of transportation brokerages; 9

o Provision of coordination services; o Development and operation of one-stop transportation traveler call centers; and o Operational planning for the acquisition of ITS.

For the purpose of the New Freedom program, eligible activities must not have been operational or have an identified funding source before August 10, 2005, as evidenced by inclusion in the Centre County TIP or the state transportation improvement plan (STIP). In other words, if not for the New Freedom program, these projects would not have consideration for funding and proposed service enhancements would not be available for individuals with disabilities. Paratransit or other services funded as of August 10, 2005 may not be terminated in an effort to reintroduce the services as “new” and therefore receive New Freedom funds.

Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) Program

Program Goals. The stated goal of the Section 5310 program is to improve mobility for elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities. A Section 5310 project is one designed to meet these special transportation needs.

Target Populations. As stated in the preceding paragraph, the Section 5310 program has two distinct target populations – elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities. Elderly individuals are those age 65 and older. As with the New Freedom program, an “individual with a disability” is defined in 49 USC § 5302(a) (5) as an individual who, because of illness, injury, age, congenital malfunction, or other incapacity or temporary or permanent disability (including an individual who is a wheelchair user and has semi-ambulatory capability), cannot use effectively, without special facilities, planning, or design, public transportation service or a public transportation facility.

Program Funds. Section 5310 funds are apportioned among the States by a formula which is based on the number of elderly persons and persons with disabilities in each State according to the latest available U.S. Census data. The annual apportionment for each State is published in the Federal Register following the enactment of the annual Department of Transportation (DOT) appropriations act.

Awarded funds are available to a grantee during the fiscal year of apportionment, plus two additional years. Therefore, it is critically important that prospective Section 5310 projects be ready for implementation within three years of the initial proposal, as any unused Section 5310 funds are added to the following year's apportionment and reapportioned among all States.

Federal Section 5310 funds come with local matching requirements. For eligible capital projects, the Federal share of costs may not exceed 80% of the net cost of the activity, with a local share of no less than 20%. Up to 10% of the apportionment may be used to support program administrative costs, and these funds require no local match. Sources of local matching funds include the following:

. State or local appropriations;

. Other non-DOT Federal funds (TANF, Medicaid, employment training programs, Rehabilitation Services, and Administration on Aging), so long as these are directly used for activities included in the total net project costs of the Section 5310 grant. . Dedicated tax revenues; . Private donations; . Revenue from human service contracts; . Toll revenue credits; . Net income generated from advertising and concessions; and . Non-cash sources such as donations, volunteered services, and in-kind contributions so long as the value of each is documented and represents a cost that would otherwise be eligible for funding under the program.

Eligible Activities. Section 5310 program funds are available for capital expenses for activities consistent with the program goals, including, but not limited to:

. Purchases of additional equipment, including: o Buses; o Vans; o Radios and communication equipment; o Vehicle shelters; o Wheelchair lifts and restraints; o Computer hardware and software; and o Extended warranties that do not exceed the industry standard; . Vehicle rehabilitation, manufacture, or overhaul; . Preventive maintenance, as defined in the National Transit Database (NTD); . Initial component installation costs; . Vehicle procurement, testing, inspection, and acceptance costs; . Lease of equipment, when leasing is more cost-effective than purchase (relative cost- effectiveness must be determined by PennDOT); . Acquisition of transportation services under a contract, lease, or other arrangement, again subject to an eligibility determination by PennDOT; . Introduction of new technology, through innovative and improved products, into transit service delivery; . Implementing ITS; . Supporting new mobility management and coordination programs among public transportation providers and other human service agencies providing transportation; including: o Promotion, enhancement, and facilitation of access to transportation services; o Support for short-term management activities to plan and implement coordinated services; o Support of State and local coordination policy bodies and councils; o Operation of transportation brokerages; o Provision of coordination services; o Development and operation of one-stop transportation traveler call centers; and o Operational planning for the acquisition of ITS.

What is the Coordinated Plan?

As stated earlier in this document, projects selected for funding under the JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 programs must be derived from a locally developed Coordinated Plan. This plan must be developed through a process that includes representatives of public, private, and non-profit human services and transportation providers as well as members of the general public. To the extent feasible, other transportation providers, advocacy groups, human service agencies, and passengers are to be encouraged to participate in coordination and planning efforts.

Essentially, the Coordinated Plan will identify the transportation needs of individuals in the target population(s), provide strategies for meeting these local needs, and prioritize potential solutions for funding and implementation. In this case, “local” refers to an area within the boundaries of Centre County, Pennsylvania.

Guidance from FTA Circulars C 9045.1, C 9050.1, and C 9070.1F

At a minimum, the Coordinated Plan must include the following elements, consistent with available resources and the complexity of the local environment:

. An assessment of available transportation and human services that identifies current providers (public, private, and non-profit) within Centre County; . An assessment of transportation needs for the each of the programs’ target populations. According to FTA, this assessment can be based on the experiences and perceptions of the planning partners or on more sophisticated data collection efforts, and should include an identification of any gaps in existing service based on these needs; . Strategies and/or activities to address the identified gaps in service, and achieve efficiencies in service delivery; and . Relative priorities for project implementation based on available resources, time, and feasibility.

It is anticipated that there will be at least a moderate level of overlap in the unmet transportation needs across each of the programs’ target populations (low-income individuals, reverse commuters, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens). Accordingly, the Coordinated Plan must maximize the collective coverage of the JARC, Section 5310, and New Freedom programs by minimizing duplication of services and identifying projects that will increase the overall efficiency of the Centre County public and human service transportation network. Moreover, the Coordinated Plan should incorporate existing and planned activities offered under other programs sponsored by Federal, state, and local agencies to greatly strengthen its impact.

Throughout the SAFETEA-LU rulemaking process, FTA has repeatedly held that a completed Coordinated Plan that meets the elements listed above is required before JARC, New Freedom, or Section 5310 project funding can be awarded. Over the life of the SAFETEA-LU

12 legislation, it is perfectly acceptable to build upon and modify existing Coordinated Plans, so long as all of the required elements are still met.

FTA offers the following strategies for developing a Coordinated Plan that meets all of the required elements:

. A community planning session or sessions with a diverse group of community stakeholders within Centre County to identify needs and strategies and set priorities, perhaps in cooperation or coordination with an already-existing planning process; . Use of the self-assessment tool contained in FTA’s publication The Framework for Action: Building the Fully Coordinated Transportation System to assess progress toward transportation coordination, and the included Facilitator's Guide to assemble an appropriate stakeholder group; . A series of focus groups within various Centre County communities to provide opportunity for greater input from a larger number of representatives; . Distribution and analysis of a survey instrument to evaluate unmet transportation needs and/or available resources. Any surveys should be statistically valid and take accessibility considerations into account; . Completion of a detailed study and analysis using inventories, interviews, GIS mapping, and other research strategies; or . Some appropriate combination of the above methods.

Based on the complexity of existing transportation and human service networks within Centre County, as well as the anticipated breadth of unmet transportation needs with respect to target populations within the County, it is expected that the methods listed above will need to be successfully combined to yield the best possible results.

Beginning with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and continuing through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and into the life cycle of SAFETEA-LU, all transportation planning processes must include a strong public participation component. The planning process that will yield Centre County’s Coordinated Plan is no exception. This public participation requirement underscores the need for a balanced and comprehensive array of plan development strategies as described in the preceding paragraph.

A Coordinated Plan for JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 projects will require consultation with an extensive list of Centre County stakeholders, possibly including, but not limited to:

. Transportation partners: o Area transportation planning agencies; o Public transportation providers; o Private transportation providers; o Non-profit transportation providers; o Past organizations funded under the JARC and Section 5310 programs; and o Human service agencies funding, operating, and/or providing access to transportation services. . Passengers and advocates:

o Existing and potential riders, including both general and targeted population passengers; o Protection and advocacy organizations; o Representatives from independent living centers; and o Advocacy organizations working on behalf of targeted populations. . Human service partners: o Agencies that administer health, employment, or other support programs for targeted populations; o Non-profit human service provider organizations that serve the targeted populations; o Job training and placement agencies; o Health care facilities; and o Mental health care providers. . Other: o Security and emergency management agencies; o Economic development organizations; o Faith- and community-based organizations; o Representatives of the business community; o Appropriate local and/or State officials and elected officials; o School districts; and o Other groups and individuals as appropriate.

It is expected that planning participants will have an active role in the development, adoption, and implementation of the Coordinated Plan, and should help to identify the process for adoption of the plan. Along with the completed plan, CCMPO must have at its disposal a thorough documentation of the efforts utilized to solicit public involvement, as well as the results of these efforts.

With the requirement for public participation comes the need to employ a wide range of public outreach techniques, both to inform members of the community that a new planning process has commenced, and to solicit input and advice from these members. FTA recommends a mix of the following public outreach approaches:

. Notices or flyers in centers of community activity; . Newspaper and/or radio announcements; . E-mail list distribution; . Website postings; and . Invitation letters to government agencies, transportation providers, human service agencies, and advocacy groups;

Recognizing that not every potential participant will have internet access, outreach methods should include a variety of electronic and non-electronic media. Moreover, participation and comment should be accepted using a variety of methods (in-person, mail, e-mail, phone, etc.), and interpreters and accessible materials should be available at meetings and upon request as appropriate.

Although the process to develop a Coordinated Plan will be a complex one, there is ample opportunity to draw statistics, findings, and recommendations from existing statewide, metropolitan, and agency-level plans and reports. In fact, there should be appropriate 14 consistency between the coordinated planning process and metropolitan or statewide planning processes. Potential areas of overlap may include, but are not limited to:

. Needs assessments based on the distribution of targeted populations and locations of employment centers, employment-related activities, community services and activities, medical centers, housing, and other destinations; . Inventories of transportation providers and resources, levels of service utilization, duplication of service and unused capacity; . Gap analysis; . Any grant or program eligibility restrictions; and . Any already-existing, identified, and/or potential opportunities for increased coordination of transportation services.

Moreover, the coordinated planning process and metropolitan and statewide planning processes are free to utilize coordinated or common schedules, agendas, and strategies to minimize duplication of time, effort, and cost.

Once the Coordinated Plan is completed, any JARC, New Freedom, or Section 5310 projects identified in the coordinated planning process and selected for FTA funding through the competitive selection process must be incorporated into both the TIP and STIP by the CCMPO. Moreover, projects must be included in the LRTP prepared and adopted by the CCMPO. Therefore, the Coordinated Plan will, at a minimum, follow the update cycles for the Centre County LRTP.

Additional Guidance from PennDOT

Based on the likely modest amount of any grant awards, as well as the anticipated strong competition for program funds across the Commonwealth, PennDOT advised CCMPO staff that JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 funds could be applied to capital projects, or could be applied to operating projects for a maximum of three years; this will allow other candidate projects to advance. Therefore, long-term sustainability of projects is an important issue that must be dealt with both at the lead agency level, and by members of the stakeholder committee.

With respect to the Section 5310 program, PennDOT will receive and review completed program applications (expected to come from both CATA and the CCOT), ensure that these applications are derived from the Coordinated Plan, and award program funds as appropriate.

For the JARC and New Freedom programs, PennDOT directs CCMPO staff to solicit program applications from eligible transportation providers (again, to include both CATA and the CCOT), ensure the accuracy and completeness of each application, rank applications in priority order, and forward this information to PennDOT; included in this submission will be documentation of the process used to solicit, review, and rank applications.

Plan Objectives

Based on CCMPO staff’s understanding of the information contained in FTA’s final circulars for the JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 programs, as well as additional guidance received from PennDOT and the CCMPO Technical and Coordinating Committees, CCMPO’s Coordinated Planning process is designed to accomplish the following objectives:

. Enhance public awareness of the role of the CCMPO in transportation planning and programming; . Present the goals, target populations, anticipated funding levels, and eligible activities of the JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 programs so as to ensure the consistency of all projects considered and put forward for funding; . Adhere to all federal and state requirements; . Conform to the generally-accepted planning practices of the CCMPO; . Ensure that the public, stakeholder committee members, and CCMPO Technical and Coordinating Committee members have the information needed for sound analysis and decision making through the following: o Use reliable and verifiable data sources to establish a basic demographic and socioeconomic profile of Centre County relative to the target populations o Use data sources of comparable reliability to establish a profile of travel demand for Centre County o Present existing knowledge and data relative to unmet transportation needs and critical gaps in the transportation network . Establish a comprehensive inventory of transportation services available within Centre County; . Allow ample opportunity for the general public to comment on the information contained herein; . Convene a Human Services Transportation Stakeholder Committee that is: o Knowledgeable in the needs of their clientele o Representative of the target populations o Geographically diverse . Allow the CCMPO staff to act as an independent facilitator of stakeholder discussion and public comment; . Build lasting and productive relationships between the CCMPO, local transportation providers, and human service agencies; and . Accurately synthesize the results of the stakeholder committee meetings and public comment period, and make recommendations accordingly.

Centre County Socioeconomic Characteristics

In examining the coordination of public transit and human services transportation in Centre County, it is critically important to understand the distribution of the target populations for the JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 programs – particularly low-income persons, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens – within the County. This information, when considered relative to the inventory of available transportation services in Centre County, helps to refine the Coordinated Planning process by highlighting specific areas that present the greatest need for transportation improvements.

Within this section, socioeconomic data from the 2010 US Census, 2005-09 American Community Survey (ACS), and the Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County (CBICC) is presented relative to the following categories:

. Population and Density . Vehicle Availability . Income and Poverty . Labor Force and Unemployment . Public Assistance and SSI Income . Educational Attainment . Distribution of Jobs . Distribution of Age 65 and Older Population and Social Security Income . Distribution of Disabled Population . Housing

Population and Density

Centre County is a very diverse area in terms of population and density. Although each census tract nationwide is drawn to include a standard number of residents (generally between 2,500 and 8,000) sharing similar socioeconomic characteristics, the size of each tract can vary widely. Accordingly, Centre County – with both its vast rural lands and a significant urban center – includes both areas of very high and very low population density.

A table and map of Centre County population, land area, and population density – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. Of the census tracts with a higher-than-average population density, most are located in the immediate areas surrounding State College and Bellefonte Boroughs; however, significant population density also exists in Philipsburg Borough as well. By contrast, areas that are very sparsely populated include Burnside, Snow Shoe, and Rush Townships, Snow Shoe Borough, the eastern portions of the Lower Bald Eagle and Penns Valleys, and the Upper Bald Eagle Valley.

High population density implies a high potential for efficient, effective, and successful transit operations. Conversely, serving sparsely populated areas with transit presents more of a challenge. Accordingly, many of the most densely populated areas within Centre County fall directly within the core CATABUS service area.

The density of the County as a whole grew by 11.83% between 2000 and 2010. The most significant increases in population density occurred in the Centre Region and in the

Marion/Walker tract, while density declined significantly in the Benner and Philipsburg tracts. The relative ranking of tracts remained fairly constant from 2000 to 2010.

Centre County Population Density by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Number of Residents per Square Mile

Population Land Density Census Area (Persons Tract Total (Square per Square Number Census Tract Description Population Miles) Mile)

125 State College Downtown 4,417 0.13 33,976.92 121 University Park East 6,908 0.36 19,188.89 126 State College Highlands South 3,454 0.21 16,447.62 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 6,917 0.54 12,809.26 122 University Park West 6,180 0.56 11,035.71 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 4,779 0.48 9,956.25 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 4,886 0.67 7,292.54 123 State College - College Heights 1,839 0.53 3,469.81 111 Bellefonte 6,187 1.85 3,344.32 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 3,180 1.13 2,814.16 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 3,106 1.21 2,566.94 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 7,867 3.14 2,505.41 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 2,654 1.07 2,480.37 114 Patton East 6,881 9.58 718.27 116 College North 4,089 7.23 565.56 113 Patton West 8,430 14.95 563.88 117 College South 5,432 11.00 493.82 110 Spring 7,470 27.13 275.34 118 Harris 4,873 31.21 156.14 119.02 Ferguson South 6,717 43.30 155.13 112 Benner 4,189 27.53 152.16 119.01 Halfmoon 2,667 23.60 113.01 107 Marion - Walker 5,657 60.41 93.64 106 Boggs - Milesburg 4,108 51.91 79.14 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 7,187 106.23 67.66 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 4,420 85.60 51.64 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 5,317 125.55 42.35 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 5,632 149.62 37.64 104 Rush 3,598 147.81 24.34 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 2,950 174.22 16.93

TOTALS 151,991 1,108.76 137.08

= Tracts with population density greater than countywide average

Vehicle Availability

Households with No Available Vehicles

Centre County also features a wide disparity in terms of vehicle availability. Countywide, just over 8% of households do not have a vehicle available for use.

A table and map of Centre County households with no available vehicles – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. Though census tracts with a higher-than-average lack of vehicle availability generally fall close to State College Borough and the Penn State Campus, significant numbers of households without an available vehicle also exist in Philipsburg and Bellefonte Boroughs, as well as the eastern portion of Penns Valley. By contrast, households in Halfmoon, Benner, and Harris Townships, as well as portions of College and Ferguson Townships, seem more likely to have at least one vehicle at their disposal.

Though a lack of vehicle ownership may seem to suggest that a given community is developed in such a way that vehicle ownership is not critical (such as in State College Borough and the Penn State Campus), it can also imply a high level of transit dependence, especially when this is validated by other socioeconomic indicators.

The percentage of households without an available vehicle fell from 9% to 8.1% between 2000 and 2010. This reduction in carless rates was led by significant declines in the number of carless families in University Park and the Tusseyview tracts.

Centre County Occupied Housing Units with No Available Vehicles by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Occupied Housing Units With No Available Vehicles Occupied Number of Housing Units Occupied Without an Housing Available Units Vehicle - Census Without an Percentage of Tract Available Total Occupied Number Census Tract Description Vehicle Housing Units

125 State College Downtown 741 40.96% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 874 37.40% 126 State College Highlands South 263 18.39% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 336 16.54% 121 University Park East 24 14.91% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 209 10.60% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 157 10.49% 110 Spring 287 9.09% 111 Bellefonte 238 8.39% 117 College South 190 7.90% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 86 6.55% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 217 6.52% 107 Marion - Walker 124 5.97% 104 Rush 87 5.84% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 108 5.02% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 131 4.44% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 107 4.41% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 51 4.31% 113 Patton West 144 3.53% 114 Patton East 87 3.12% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 43 2.59% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 23 1.87% 116 College North 22 1.76% 118 Harris 32 1.61% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 25 1.43% 123 State College - College Heights 11 1.40% 119.01 Halfmoon 10 1.10% 119.02 Ferguson South 20 0.78% 112 Benner 10 0.62% 122 University Park West 0 0.00%

TOTALS 4,657 8.09% = Tracts with percentage of households not having a vehicle greater than countywide average 19

Households with 2 or More Available Vehicles

In contrast to the information presented in the preceding section, just over 62% of Centre County households have access to multiple (2 or more) vehicles.

A table and map of Centre County households with 2 or more available vehicles – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. Consistent with the information from the preceding section, lower-than-average instances of multiple available vehicles generally fall close to State College Borough and the Penn State Campus, with Philipsburg and Bellefonte Boroughs also having a rate of households with multiple available vehicles lower than the countywide average. By contrast, households in Halfmoon, Benner, Marion, and Walker Townships, as well as portions of Ferguson Township and the Upper Bald Eagle Valley, seem more likely to have multiple vehicles at their disposal.

Though ownership of multiple vehicles implies a certain level of economic prosperity, looking at this indicator can also help to identify households with multiple wage earners and/or students who need these vehicles to access opportunities. In these instances, it may be possible to use public transit services to relieve some of the costs of vehicle ownership and commuting.

Countywide, the percentage of households with 2 or more vehicles available rose from 55.5% to 62% between 2000 and 2010. This 12% increase was led by rapid growth in multicar families in University Park, Tusseyview, and Holmes Foster.

Centre County Occupied Housing Units with 2 or More Available Vehicles by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Ascending Order by Percentage of Occupied Housing Units With 2 or More Available Vehicles Number of Occupied Housing Occupied Units With 2 or Housing More Available Units With 2 Vehicles - Census or More Percentage of Tract Available Total Occupied Number Census Tract Description Vehicles Housing Units

120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 456 19.51% 125 State College Downtown 429 23.71% 126 State College Highlands South 348 24.34% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 1,063 43.82% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 913 44.93% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 808 53.97% 111 Bellefonte 1,551 54.67% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 771 58.72% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 1,959 58.83% 104 Rush 904 60.63% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 750 60.83% 117 College South 1,495 62.16% 113 Patton West 2,631 64.45% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 808 68.24% 116 College North 865 69.26% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 1,366 69.27% 110 Spring 2,193 69.42% 114 Patton East 1,942 69.56% 123 State College - College Heights 563 71.54% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 1,559 72.41% 119.02 Ferguson South 1,857 72.77% 107 Marion - Walker 1,520 73.15% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 1,228 73.98% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 2,224 75.36% 121 University Park East 126 78.26% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 1,376 78.72% 118 Harris 1,600 80.60% 112 Benner 1,322 82.06% 119.01 Halfmoon 781 85.54% 122 University Park West 384 97.22%

TOTALS 35,792 62.17% = Tracts with percentage of households having 2 or more vehicles less than countywide average 20

Income and Poverty

Median Family Income

Throughout Centre County, median family income stands at about $48,400. It is, however, important to note that this median is skewed downward somewhat by the large, generally low-earning student population in and around the Centre Region. Median family income is presented here – as opposed to median per-capita income – in an attempt to minimize this effect. Nevertheless, a significant disparity is present within the County in terms of income.

A table and map of Centre County median family income – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. Excluding the student population, for which a high level of transit service is already provided, significant proportions of lower-income families are present in Burnside, Snow Shoe, and Rush Townships, Philipsburg and Snow Shoe Boroughs, and the eastern portions of the Lower Bald Eagle and Penns Valleys.

Households with a lower median family income represent an important target population of public transit and human services transportation. Such households generally tend to be more transit-dependent than average, and a well-developed transportation network can help these populations access essential employment, educational, medical, and shopping opportunities.

Countywide, median income fell by just over 4% between 2000 and 2010, led by income declines in the much of the Borough of State College along with the northern portion of Ferguson Township and the western portion of Patton Township.

Centre County Median Family Income by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Ascending Order by Median Family Income

Census Tract Median Family Number Census Tract Description Income

122 University Park West $ 2,500 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont $ 9,648 125 State College Downtown $ 10,642 126 State College Highlands South $ 17,460 121 University Park East $ 19,375 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster $ 26,205 128 State College Southwest - Greentree $ 30,069 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg $ 35,241 104 Rush $ 42,545 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn $ 43,917 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty $ 44,306 113 Patton West $ 44,381 106 Boggs - Milesburg $ 47,230 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe $ 48,073 111 Bellefonte $ 48,750 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth $ 50,205 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter $ 50,694 110 Spring $ 50,861 115.01 Ferguson Northeast $ 51,087 115.02 Ferguson Northwest $ 51,087 112 Benner $ 53,605 107 Marion - Walker $ 55,143 116 College North $ 62,250 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview $ 63,125 114 Patton East $ 65,938 119.02 Ferguson South $ 68,227 117 College South $ 74,341 118 Harris $ 75,656 123 State College - College Heights $ 87,813 119.01 Halfmoon $ 96,512

TOTALS $ 48,437 = Tracts with median family income less than countywide average 21

Poverty Rate

Poverty is a condition in which a person or community is deprived of, or lacks the essentials for, a minimum standard of well-being and life. Current government poverty guidelines specify a maximum income of $20,000 for a family of 4. About 15% of the Centre County population have an income falling below this standard, however, this rate is again skewed upward somewhat by the large, generally low-earning student population in and around the Centre Region.

A table and map of Centre County poverty rates – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. Excluding the student population, for which a high level of transit service is already provided, significant poverty rates exist in Boggs Township, Philipsburg, Bellefonte, and Milesburg Boroughs, the eastern portions of Penns Valleys, and the Upper Bald Eagle Valley. By contrast, poverty is generally much less prevalent in the suburban municipalities within and just outside of the Centre Region.

As with low-income populations, persons in poverty represent an important target population of public transit and human services transportation. Such persons generally tend to be more transit-dependent than average. In fact, individuals and families in poverty represent the people in most dire need of all manner of essential human services, including transportation.

The countywide poverty rate fell from 16.8% to 15.2% between 2000 and 2010. University Park posted the largest reductions in poverty rates. Poverty rates increased significantly in Benner Township and the Lower Bald Eagle Valley Region.

Centre County Population in Poverty by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Population in Poverty

Residents Below Number of Poverty Residents Level - Census Below Percentage Tract Poverty of Total Number Census Tract Description Level Population

125 State College Downtown 3,055 69.16% 126 State College Highlands South 2,151 62.28% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 3,775 54.58% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 1,415 28.96% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 1,345 28.14% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 1,822 23.16% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 719 23.15% 113 Patton West 1,893 22.46% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 480 15.09% 123 State College - College Heights 236 12.83% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 635 11.27% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 284 10.70% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 435 9.84% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 497 9.35% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 250 8.47% 111 Bellefonte 512 8.28% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 551 7.67% 114 Patton East 525 7.63% 112 Benner 267 6.37% 117 College South 337 6.20% 110 Spring 421 5.64% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 229 5.57% 107 Marion - Walker 311 5.50% 104 Rush 181 5.03% 119.01 Halfmoon 119 4.46% 118 Harris 188 3.86% 116 College North 140 3.42% 119.02 Ferguson South 183 2.72% 121 University Park East 188 2.72% 122 University Park West 11 0.18%

TOTALS 23,155 15.23% = Tracts with poverty rate greater than countywide average 22

Labor Force and Unemployment

Percentage of Residents in the Labor Force

The civilian labor force is comprised of all individuals age 16 and older who are employed, are temporarily absent from a job for a variety of reasons, furloughed, or are unemployed but available for work and making specific efforts to find employment during the preceding four- week period. Currently, just over half of the persons in Centre County age 16 and older are considered part of the labor force, with this rate skewed downward by the student population.

A table and map of the Centre County labor force – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. Excluding the student population, for which a high level of transit service is already provided, there is relatively low participation in the labor force in Rush, Burnside, and Snow Shoe Townships, Philipsburg and Snow Shoe Boroughs, and the eastern portion of Penns Valley.

Those individuals not in the labor force may be permanently disabled, or experiencing an extended period of unemployment where they have abandoned the search for a job. Areas with low participation in the labor force represent specific areas where a certain level of need may exist to connect individuals to essential services.

Countywide, participation in the labor force fell from 50.5% to 47.6% between 2000 and 2010. The largest decreases in labor force participation were in the Highlands and University Park West. Benner Township and the Borough of Philipsburg both experienced significant gains in labor force participation.

Centre County Labor Force Age 16 and Older by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Ascending Order by Percentage of Population Age 16 and Older in the Labor Force

Number of Age 16 and Age 16 and Older Older Residents in the Census Residents in Labor Force - Tract the Labor Percentage of Number Census Tract Description Force Total Population

122 University Park West 1,383 22.38% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 2,099 30.35% 121 University Park East 2,231 32.30% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 1,033 38.92% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 2,235 39.68% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 1,989 41.62% 114 Patton East 3,113 45.24% 117 College South 2,486 45.77% 126 State College Highlands South 1,614 46.73% 125 State College Downtown 2,086 47.23% 119.02 Ferguson South 3,196 47.58% 104 Rush 1,732 48.14% 118 Harris 2,375 48.74% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 2,164 48.96% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 3,565 49.60% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 1,489 50.47% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 1,604 51.64% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 4,065 51.67% 112 Benner 2,174 51.90% 123 State College - College Heights 956 51.98% 107 Marion - Walker 3,018 53.35% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 2,850 53.60% 110 Spring 4,007 53.64% 116 College North 2,197 53.73% 111 Bellefonte 3,389 54.78% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 2,270 55.26% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 1,776 55.85% 113 Patton West 4,800 56.94% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 2,817 57.65% 119.01 Halfmoon 1,624 60.89%

TOTALS 72,337 47.59%

= Tracts with a labor force proportionally smaller than countywide average 23

Unemployment Rate

Unemployed persons are all persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed. Currently, the average unemployment rate in Centre County is about 6.15%, with this rate skewed upward by a student population with members often between lower-level job opportunities.

A table and map of Centre County unemployment – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. Excluding the student population, for which a high level of transit service is already provided, significant unemployment rates exist in Snow Shoe and Bellefonte Boroughs.

Unemployed individuals represent a population with a critical need for access to employment sites and related services. Where these people cannot provide transportation for themselves – as indicated by other socioeconomic measures – public transit and human services transportation become more essential.

The unemployment rate in Centre County rose from 5.5% to 6.1% between 2000 and 2010. This 12% increase was led by large increases in unemployment in Ferguson Township, Halfmoon Township, the eastern portion of the Penns Valley Region, and the College Heights, Highlands South, and Greentree neighborhoods within the Borough of State College.

Centre County Unemployment Rate by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Unemployment Rate

Number of Age 16 and Unemployed Older Age 16 and Residents in Older the Labor Census Residents in Force - Tract the Labor Unemployment Number Census Tract Description Force Rate

121 University Park East 376 16.85% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 317 15.10% 125 State College Downtown 314 15.05% 122 University Park West 157 11.35% 126 State College Highlands South 162 10.04% 116 College North 199 9.06% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 125 8.39% 111 Bellefonte 280 8.26% 113 Patton West 353 7.35% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 135 6.04% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 93 5.80% 119.01 Halfmoon 94 5.79% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 235 5.78% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 131 5.77% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 159 5.64% 112.01 Benner 121 5.57% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 96 5.41% 104 Rush 84 4.85% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 96 4.44% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 149 4.18% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 115 4.04% 110 Spring 149 3.72% 107 Marion - Walker 101 3.35% 117.02 College South 79 3.18% 114 Patton East 84 2.70% 118 Harris 62 2.61% 119.02 Ferguson South 75 2.35% 123 State College - College Heights 22 2.30% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 22 2.13% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 39 1.96%

TOTALS 4,424 6.12% = Tracts with an unemployment rate higher than countywide average 24

Public Assistance and SSI Income

Households Receiving Public Assistance

Public assistance – or welfare payments – includes cash payments to low-income individuals, such as aid to families with dependent children (AFDC), TANF, general assistance, and emergency assistance. Currently, about 1.5% of Centre County households receive public assistance. This indicator is not as likely to be skewed by the student population, as students on low incomes are more likely to rely on family members, grants, and loans for living expenses.

A table and map of Centre County public assistance income – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. The percent of county households receiving public assistance rose from 1.24% to 1.51% between 2000 and 2010. This is an increase of just under 22%. University Park East experienced the largest rise in percent of households receiving public assistance with an increase of more than 1000%.

University Park East has the highest rate of public assistance with 12.4% of households receiving public assistance income. The Borough of Philipsburg and the Greentree tract both have relatively high public assistance rates as well as well. The lowest rates of public assistance are found in College Heights, University Park West, Rush Township, the western portion of Patton Township, the northern portion of College Township, Bellefonte, and the western portion of the Penns Valley Region.

With the advent of welfare reform in the mid-1990s, individuals are subject to a lifetime limit in terms of the amount of time they are eligible to receive public assistance. Therefore, it is more important than ever to connect those receiving public assistance to employment and supportive services so as to enhance prospects for financial self-sufficiency.

Centre County Households Receiving Public Assistance by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance Households with Public Number of Assistance Households Income - Census with Public Percentage Tract Assistance of Total Number Census Tract Description Income Households

121 University Park East 20 12.42% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 70 4.68% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 107 4.41% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 34 2.87% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 46 2.77% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 90 2.70% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 35 2.67% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 47 2.18% 125 State College Downtown 35 1.93% 117 College South 44 1.83% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 30 1.72% 112 Benner 27 1.68% 119.02 Ferguson South 40 1.57% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 36 1.54% 110 Spring 43 1.36% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 14 1.14% 107 Marion - Walker 22 1.06% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 20 1.01% 118 Harris 17 0.86% 119.01 Halfmoon 7 0.77% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 15 0.74% 126 State College Highlands South 9 0.63% 114 Patton East 15 0.54% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 14 0.47% 111 Bellefonte 13 0.46% 116 College North 5 0.40% 113 Patton West 13 0.32% 104 Rush 0 0.00% 122 University Park West 0 0.00% 123 State College - College Heights 0 0.00%

TOTALS 868 1.51% = Tracts with rate of public assistance recipients greater than countywide average

Households Receiving SSI

Supplemental security income (SSI) includes federal, state, and local welfare agency payments to low-income people who are 65 years old and over, or people of any age who are blind or disabled. Currently, just over 2% of Centre County households receive SSI income. As with public assistance income, this indicator is not as likely to be skewed by the student population, as students on low incomes are more likely to rely on family members, grants, and loans for living expenses.

A table and map of Centre County SSI income – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. There seems to be a higher-than-average rate of SSI payments in Spring, Burnside, and Snow Shoe Townships, Philipsburg and Snow Shoe Boroughs, and the eastern portion of the Lower Bald Eagle Valley.

As SSI payments reach low-income individuals, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens, populations receiving SSI income are relevant to all three federal programs – JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 – discussed in this document. SSI income implies a certain level of transit dependence, as well as a need for transportation linkages between home and employment, educational, and medical opportunities.

From 2000 to 2010, the percentage of county households receiving SSI decreased by almost 9% from 2.2% to 2.0%. This decrease was led by significant reductions in SSI in much of the Centre Region.

Centre County Households Receiving SSI by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Households Receiving SSI

Households with SSI Number of Income - Census Households Percentage Tract with SSI of Total Number Census Tract Description Income Households

103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 169 11.29% 111 Bellefonte 160 5.64% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 104 4.83% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 46 3.89% 117 College South 67 2.79% 110 Spring 83 2.63% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 39 2.35% 104 Rush 30 2.01% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 59 2.00% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 25 1.90% 118 Harris 37 1.86% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 62 1.86% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 31 1.77% 112 Benner 28 1.74% 107 Marion - Walker 33 1.59% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 36 1.54% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 28 1.42% 125 State College Downtown 20 1.11% 119.02 Ferguson South 28 1.10% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 24 0.99% 114 Patton East 25 0.90% 119.01 Halfmoon 6 0.66% 126 State College Highlands South 8 0.56% 113 Patton West 12 0.29% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 0 0.00% 116 College North 0 0.00% 123 State College - College Heights 0 0.00% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 0 0.00% 121 University Park East 0 0.00% 122 University Park West 0 0.00%

TOTALS 1,160 2.01%

= Tracts with rate of SSI recipients greater than countywide average

Educational Attainment

High School Graduation and GED

As a university community, Centre County features a fairly wide disparity in terms of educational attainment. Countywide, just over 27% of the population lists their highest level of educational attainment as high school graduation or a general educational development diploma (GED).

A table and map of Centre County residents listing a highest educational attainment of high school graduation or GED – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. Generally, significant proportions of the population in Burnside, Snow Shoe, Rush, and Boggs Townships, Snow Shoe and Milesburg Boroughs, the Upper Bald Eagle Valley, and the eastern portion of the Lower Bald Eagle Valley have no post-secondary education.

Though one must take care when considering data relative to educational attainment, it can generally be stated that individuals with a lower educational attainment have lower earning potential. This may indicate, especially when taking into account other socioeconomic indicators, some level of need for connections to employment sites, and especially job development and educational opportunities.

Countywide, the percent of residents with a highest educational attainment of high school graduation has remained about the same from 2000 to 2010. University Park, State College Highlands, and Downtown State College have posted significant gains in percent of residents with only a high school diploma while College Heights, Halfmoon Township, and Penfield/Tusseyview have experienced a decline.

Centre County Educational Attainment by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Residents Age 18 and Older with a Highest Educational Attainment of High School Graduation (Including GED) Age 18+ # of Age 18+ Residents w/ a Residents Highest w/ a Highest Educational Educational Attainment of HS Census Attainment Graduation - % of Tract of HS Total Population Number Census Tract Description Graduation Age 18+

112 Benner 2,367 70.28% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 1,919 58.43% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 1,225 53.38% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 1,350 52.82% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 2,060 48.24% 104 Rush 1,350 46.26% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 2,584 45.92% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 1,489 43.20% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 1,608 41.35% 107 Marion - Walker 1,745 41.04% 110 Spring 2,116 36.10% 111 Bellefonte 1,749 34.64% 116 College North 1,027 30.09% 119.02 Ferguson South 1,270 25.27% 122 University Park West 1,512 24.88% 121 University Park East 1,457 21.11% 119.01 Halfmoon 401 21.01% 118 Harris 767 20.30% 117 College South 769 17.62% 113 Patton West 1,350 17.41% 126 State College Highlands South 514 15.46% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 653 14.97% 125 State College Downtown 629 14.59% 115.02 Ferguson Northeast 342 13.74% 114 Patton East 715 13.45% 115.01 Ferguson Northwest 868 12.94% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 841 12.81% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 283 12.40% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 284 6.31% 123 State College - College Heights 62 3.92%

TOTALS 35,306 27.70% = Tracts with rate of highest educational attainment being high school graduation greater than countywide average 27

College Degree

As a university community, Centre County features a fairly wide disparity in terms of educational attainment. Countywide, just under 31% of the population lists their highest level of educational attainment as a college degree. Certainly, Penn State University attracts not only highly educated faculty and staff members, but also many people from across the County, Commonwealth, and nation who are seeking to further their education.

A table and map of Centre County residents listing a highest educational attainment of a college degree – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. Generally, relatively low proportions of the population in Burnside, Snow Shoe, Rush, and Boggs Townships, Snow Shoe and Milesburg Boroughs, and the eastern portion of the Lower Bald Eagle Valley have attained a college degree.

Though one must take care when considering data relative to educational attainment, by contrast to individuals with a lower educational attainment, it can generally be stated that individuals with a college degree have a higher earning potential. This may indicate a lower level of need for public transit and human services transportation.

Countywide, the percentage of residents with a highest educational attainment of a college degree decreased slightly between 2000 and 2010. Gains occurred in Benner Township, the Borough of Bellefonte, the Lower Bald Eagle Valley Region, the Moshannon Valley Region, and Halfmoon Township. The percent of residents with a highest educational attainment of a college degree decreased significantly in University Park and Downtown State College.

Centre County Educational Attainment by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Ascending Order by Percentage of Residents Age 18 and Older with a Highest Educational Attainment of a College Degree Age 18+ Residents # of Age 18+ w/ a Highest Residents Educational w/ a Highest Attainment of a Educational College Degree - Census Attainment % of Total Tract of a College Population Age Number Census Tract Description Degree 18+

121 University Park East 11 0.16% 122 University Park West 30 0.49% 125 State College Downtown 408 9.47% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 256 11.15% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 506 15.41% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 1,032 15.71% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 633 16.28% 104 Rush 593 20.32% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 721 20.92% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 912 21.36% 126 State College Highlands South 853 25.66% 107 Marion - Walker 1,095 25.75% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 1,487 26.43% 110 Spring 1,559 26.60% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 772 30.20% 112 Benner 1,025 30.43% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 1,501 33.36% 113 Patton West 2,753 35.50% 116 College North 1,225 35.89% 111 Bellefonte 2,071 41.02% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 1,868 42.83% 119.02 Ferguson South 2,366 47.08% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 3,399 50.68% 118 Harris 1,931 51.11% 114 Patton East 2,851 53.63% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 1,342 53.92% 117 College South 2,382 54.57% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 1,364 59.75% 119.01 Halfmoon 1,215 63.65% 123 State College - College Heights 1,020 64.56%

TOTALS 39,181 30.74% = Tracts with rate of highest educational attainment being a college degree less than countywide average 28

Distribution of Jobs

Within Centre County, the Centre Region – and more specifically, State College Borough and the Penn State University campus – are home to a dominant share of major employers and jobs.

A table of Centre County’s 25 leading employers is presented on the following page. Not surprisingly, Penn State University is by far the County’s largest job center, employing a workforce almost 7 times larger than the County’s second-largest employer, state government. Most of the County’s other large employers – such as the State College Area School District, Mount Nittany Medical Center, and Wal-Mart – are located either within or adjacent to State College Borough. A second significant concentration of jobs exists in Bellefonte Borough, which is the seat of government of Centre County.

Together, Centre County’s 25 leading employers provide over 28,000 jobs; this is a little over 40% of the total positions needed to support the entire Centre County workforce. It should also be noted that smaller businesses – both in the immediate State College area and throughout Centre County – are an important source of employment as well. Nevertheless, this information underscores the importance of transportation networks within the Centre Region, and from other portions of the County into the Centre Region.

Centre County Top 25 employers Listed in Descending Order by Number of Employees Number of Rank Employer Location Employees 1 The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 15,298 2 State College Area School District State College, PA 2,155 3 Mount Nittany Health System State College, PA 1,951 4 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Various 1,148 5 County of Centre Various 849 6 Wal-Mart / Sam's Club State College, PA 776 7 Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. State College, PA 750 8 Bellefonte Area School District Bellefonte, PA 480 9 United States Government Various 468 10 HRI, Inc. State College, PA 450 10 Weis Markets Various 450 12 Geisinger Medical Group Various 437 13 Wegmans State College, PA 420 14 Dante's Restaurants State College, PA 367 15 Raytheon Systems, Inc. State College, PA 350 16 The Meadows Psychiatric Center Centre Hall, PA 326 17 Shaner Group State College, PA 323 18 YMCA of Centre County State College, PA 320 19 Philipsburg-Osceola School District Philipsburg, PA 293 20 Hotel State College and Company State College, PA 289 21 Giant Food Stores State College, PA 270 21 Minitab State College, PA 270 23 Supelco, Inc. Bellefonte, PA 263 24 Accuweather, Inc. State College, PA 255 24 Bald Eagle Area School District Milesburg, PA 255 24 Brookline Village State College, PA 255 TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 29,468

Distribution of Age 65 and Older Population and Social Security Income

Distribution of Age 65 and Older Population

Centre County features a diverse mix of young children and families, college students, young professionals, and older, more established residents. Currently, about 11.5% of Centre County residents are age 65 and older. Moreover, these senior Centre County residents are widely distributed in terms of geography.

A table and map of the distribution of age 65 and older residents within Centre County – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. Populations in Rush Township, portions of College Township, Philipsburg and Bellefonte Boroughs, and portions of State College Borough seem to host a larger-than-average proportion of residents age 65 and older. By contrast, and not unexpectedly, the tracts including and immediately adjacent to the Penn State University campus are home to the lowest proportions of older residents.

The countywide percentage of residents over the age of 65 increased from 10.4% to 11.4% between 2000 and 2010.

Persons age 65 and older are an important target population of the federal Section 5310 program. It is critically important that Section 5310 projects, as well as transit services funded with assistance from the Pennsylvania Lottery, further the connections between these populations and essential services.

Centre County Age 65 and Older Population by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Population Age 65 and Older

Age 65 and Older Number of Residents - Census Age 65 and Percentage Tract Older of Total Number Census Tract Description Residents Population

127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 608 22.91% 117.02 College South 1,218 22.42% 104 Rush 743 20.65% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 651 20.47% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 562 18.09% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 1,265 17.60% 123 State College - College Heights 317 17.24% 111 Bellefonte 1,055 17.05% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 492 16.68% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 648 15.77% 118 Harris 747 15.33% 110 Spring 1,117 14.95% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 657 14.86% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 744 13.99% 112.01 Benner 574 13.70% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 761 13.51% 119.02 Ferguson South 862 12.83% 107 Marion - Walker 703 12.43% 114 Patton East 692 10.06% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 463 9.48% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 691 8.78% 113 Patton West 667 7.91% 116 College North 314 7.68% 119.01 Halfmoon 179 6.71% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 212 4.44% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 222 3.21% 126 State College Highlands South 80 2.32% 125 State College Downtown 82 1.86% 121 University Park East 0 0.00% 122 University Park West 0 0.00%

TOTALS 17,326 11.40% = Tracts with percentage of age 65+ population greater than countywide average

Social Security Income

Social security includes social security pensions and survivors' benefits and permanent disability insurance payments made by the Social Security Administration. Currently, just about 22% of Centre County households receive Social Security income.

A table and map of Centre County Social Security income – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. There seems to be a higher-than-average rate of Social Security payments in Rush, Burnside, and Snow Shoe Townships, Philipsburg and Snow Shoe Boroughs, and portions of State College Borough and College Township.

The percentage of Centre County residents receiving Social Security income rose very modestly between 2000 and 2010.

Though social security is widely viewed as following the distribution of the aging population within a given area, this is not necessarily the case. Social Security income may reach surviving spouses and young families, as well as individuals who have been permanently disabled. As such, populations receiving Social Security income are particularly relevant to the New Freedom and Section 5310 programs. Social Security income tends to imply a certain level of transit dependence – particularly where very old populations are concerned – as well as a need for transportation linkages between home and employment, educational, and medical opportunities.

Centre County Households Receiving Social Security by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Households Receiving Social Security Households with Social Number of Security Households Income - Census with Social Percentage Tract Security of Total Number Census Tract Description Income Households

103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 705 47.09% 104 Rush 647 43.39% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 962 32.60% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 376 31.76% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 380 30.82% 111 Bellefonte 847 29.86% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 486 29.28% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 627 29.12% 112 Benner 458 28.43% 117 College South 665 27.65% 110 Spring 864 27.35% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 465 26.60% 118 Harris 528 26.60% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 514 26.06% 107 Marion - Walker 541 26.03% 116 College North 260 20.82% 119.02 Ferguson South 514 20.14% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 264 20.11% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 669 20.09% 123 State College - College Heights 158 20.08% 114 Patton East 496 17.77% 119.01 Halfmoon 151 16.54% 113 Patton West 414 10.14% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 242 9.98% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 168 8.27% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 180 7.70% 126 State College Highlands South 85 5.94% 125 State College Downtown 81 4.48% 121 University Park East 0 0.00% 122 University Park West 0 0.00%

TOTALS 12,747 22.14% = Tracts with rate of Social Security recipients greater than countywide average 31

Housing

Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units

Centre County features a great disparity in terms of housing values. Of late, much discussion has been taking place within Centre County with respect to an affordable housing crisis. That is, the overwhelming numbers of Centre County jobs are located within the Centre Region, but much of the affordable housing stock is located in more distant portions of the County. Currently, the average value of a Centre County housing unit is about $174,000.

A table and map of Centre County housing values – by census tract – is presented on the following pages. Excluding non owner-occupied units on the Penn State Campus, census tracts with the most affordable housing fall within Philipsburg and Snow Shoe Boroughs, Burnside, Snow Shoe, Rush, and Benner Townships, and the eastern portion of the Lower Bald Eagle Valley. By contrast, housing units within the Centre Region appear to be the least affordable for the average worker.

The countywide median price for owner-occupied housing units rose by nearly 60% from $109,400 to $173,968 between 2000 and 2010. Gains were led by significant price increases in State College’s College Heights and Greentree neighborhoods.

The distribution of housing values within Centre County suggest relatively long commutes for some members of the workforce, and a real barrier between the most needy portions of the population and sustaining employment.

Centre County Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Ascending Order by Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units

Median Value of Census Tract Owner-Occupied Number Census Tract Description Housing Units

121 University Park East $ - 122 University Park West $ - 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg $ 85,800 104 Rush $ 96,000 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe $ 100,000 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty $ 112,400 106 Boggs - Milesburg $ 118,900 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth $ 123,600 112.01 Benner $ 127,600 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn $ 143,200 110 Spring $ 149,700 113 Patton West $ 157,800 111 Bellefonte $ 158,800 107 Marion - Walker $ 164,200 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter $ 164,600 116 College North $ 168,200 126 State College Highlands South $ 169,000 125 State College Downtown $ 179,500 128 State College Southwest - Greentree $ 200,600 114 Patton East $ 206,100 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview $ 215,400 118 Harris $ 221,600 119.02 Ferguson South $ 221,800 115.01 Ferguson Northeast $ 223,900 115.02 Ferguson Northwest $ 223,900 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont $ 230,100 119.01 Halfmoon $ 233,800 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster $ 243,400 117.02 College South $ 246,000 123 State College - College Heights $ 302,700

TOTALS $ 173,968 = Tracts with median housing unit value less than countywide average 32

Centre County Travel Patterns and Demand

In examining the coordination of public transit and human services transportation in Centre County, it is critically important to understand the travel habits – particularly those pertaining to travel to and from work – within the County. This information serves several purposes. First, it presents a picture as to the modes that currently work best within any given location. Second, it yields clues as to the locations in which modes not currently operating may hold the potential for success; for example, in identifying areas where public transportation may capture a significant market share. Third, it can imply very basic information with respect to origin-destination patterns, particularly in an area such as Centre County, where the overwhelming majority of employment opportunities and services are located in a contiguous, relatively compact area. Last, it can also imply very general information concerning the overall development of an area; for example, areas that are developed in such a way that people can easily walk or bike to work.

Within this section, four basic sources are used to present information on travel patterns and demand:

. means of transportation to work data from the 2010 US Census; . travel time to work data from the 2010 US Census; . other data from existing CCMPO planning documents, such as the LRTP; and . current trends within the “Centre Commute” program offered by CATA.

Means of Transportation to Work

Single-Occupant Vehicle

Driving to work alone is – by far – the most prominent method of commuting for Centre County workers, as it is in most other areas of Pennsylvania and the United States. According to the 2010 Census, about 65% of the Centre County workforce commutes via single-occupant vehicle. This is much lower than the Pennsylvania average of about 77%, suggesting that Centre County workers make better use of alternative modes of transportation than do their counterparts elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

A table and map of the proportion of Centre County workers commuting via single-occupant vehicle, by census tract, is presented on the following pages. Of the census tracts with a lower-than-average instance of driving to work alone, all but one are located within State College Borough and the Penn State Campus. Census tracts falling above the countywide average feature proportions of single-occupant vehicle commuters ranging from just above 65% all the way up to 83%. Driving to work alone seems to be most prevalent among workers in Benner, Spring, Halfmoon, Boggs, and Rush Townships, as well as Milesburg Borough.

It is important to note that, although workers in Centre County generally seem receptive to alternative commuting methods, a high prevalence of commuting via single-occupant vehicle often suggests a deficiency of these alternative modes, in terms of availability, routing, scheduling, and span of service. Those tracts with the highest rate of driving to work alone generally fall outside of the CATA fixed route service area.

Centre County Commuting Method by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Workers Age 16 and Older Commuting by Single-Occupant Vehicle (SOV) Number of Workers Age 16 Workers and Older Age 16 and Commuting via Older Single-Occupant Commuting Vehicle - Census via Single- Percentage of Tract Occupant Total Workers Age Number Census Tract Description Vehicle 16 and Older

112.01 Benner 1,711 83.34% 119.01 Halfmoon 1,274 83.27% 119.02 Ferguson South 2,535 81.22% 111 Bellefonte 2,498 80.35% 110 Spring 3,089 80.07% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 2,727 79.83% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 1,644 79.50% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 1,081 79.25% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 1,693 79.15% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 2,100 76.78% 107 Marion - Walker 2,217 76.00% 104 Rush 1,248 75.73% 118 Harris 1,728 74.71% 114 Patton East 2,165 71.48% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 1,138 67.74% 113 Patton West 3,011 67.71% 116 College North 1,352 67.67% 117.02 College South 1,624 67.47% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 1,365 65.00% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 885 58.57% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 2,242 58.54% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 1,433 53.91% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 504 49.85% 123 State College - College Heights 434 46.47% 125 State College Downtown 617 34.82% 126 State College Highlands South 490 33.75% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 601 30.82% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 451 25.31% 121 University Park East 350 18.87% 122 University Park West 196 15.99%

TOTALS 44,403 65.38%

= Tracts with a rate of SOV commuting higher than countywide average 34

Carpool

Carpooling, or ridesharing, is a fairly popular method of commuting for Centre County workers. According to the 2010 Census, about 11% of the Centre County workforce shares their trip to work with another. This is slightly higher than the Pennsylvania average of about 10.4%.

A table and map of the proportion of Centre County workers commuting via carpool, by census tract, is presented on the following pages. Of the census tracts with a lower-than- average rate of carpooling, most fall within or adjacent to the Centre Region; this implies that ridesharing is generally more beneficial over longer distances. Census tracts falling above the countywide average feature carpooling rates ranging from about 11.25% to just over 20%. Ridesharing seems to be most prevalent among workers in Philipsburg, the eastern portions of Penns Valley, the eastern portions of the Lower Bald Eagle Valley, and portions of Patton and Ferguson Township.

Countywide, the percentage of workers commuting via carpool declined slightly from 11.3% to 10.7% between 2000 and 2010, led by declines in carpooling in southern Ferguson Township, eastern Patton Township, and the western portion of the Penns Valley Region.

High carpooling rates point not only to areas where commuting costs and traffic congestion can be mitigated through mass transit use, but also to areas where such transit service might be expected to capture a sustaining market share.

Centre County Commuting Method by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Workers Age 16 and Older Commuting by Carpool Workers Age 16 Number of and Older Workers Commuting via Age 16 and Carpool - Census Older Percentage of Tract Commuting Total Workers Age Number Census Tract Description via Carpool 16 and Older

103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 340 20.24% 104 Rush 331 20.08% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 497 18.70% 107 Marion - Walker 450 15.43% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 387 14.15% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 302 14.12% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 296 14.10% 117.02 College South 339 14.08% 118 Harris 307 13.27% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 270 13.06% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 174 12.76% 110 Spring 450 11.66% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 432 11.28% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 170 11.25% 119.01 Halfmoon 154 10.07% 116 College North 189 9.46% 114 Patton East 282 9.31% 112.01 Benner 187 9.11% 126 State College Highlands South 130 8.95% 123 State College - College Heights 80 8.57% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 279 8.17% 113 Patton West 357 8.03% 111 Bellefonte 237 7.62% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 77 7.62% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 105 5.89% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 98 5.03% 121 University Park East 81 4.37% 119.02 Ferguson South 136 4.36% 125 State College Downtown 73 4.12% 122 University Park West 37 3.02%

TOTALS 7,247 10.67% = Tracts with a rate of carpool commuting higher than countywide average 35

Public Transit

Transit usage, though a less popular method of commuting for Centre County workers than driving alone or ridesharing, still carries a significant mode share. According to the 2010 Census, about 3% of the Centre County workforce uses transit to get to their workplace. This is just a bit lower than the Pennsylvania average of about 5%.

A table and map of the proportion of Centre County workers commuting via transit, by census tract, is presented on the following pages. Of the census tracts with a higher-than-average rate of transit usage, most fall, as one might expect, within the core CATA Centre Line service area, with some tracts approaching the transit utilization rates of a much larger city; this demonstrates the high level of transit service available within the service area. Census tracts falling below the countywide average feature transit utilization rates ranging from 0% to just over 2.5%. No transit commutes are taken in Burnside, Snow Shoe, Rush, Boggs, and Benner Townships, and Philipsburg, Snow Shoe, and Milesburg Boroughs.

The percentage of workers commuting via public transit fell from 3.8% to 3.1% between 2000 and 2010.

From the data contained within the US Census, it is clear that the disparity between the Centre Region and the outlying portions of Centre County, with respect to transit access, is quite large.

Centre County Commuting Method by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Ascending Order by Percentage of Workers Age 16 and Older Commuting by Public Transit Number of Workers Age 16 Workers and Older Age 16 and Commuting via Older Public Transit - Census Commuting Percentage of Tract via Public Total Workers Age Number Census Tract Description Transit 16 and Older

101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 0 0.00% 104 Rush 0 0.00% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 0 0.00% 107 Marion - Walker 0 0.00% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 0 0.00% 111 Bellefonte 0 0.00% 112.01 Benner 0 0.00% 119.01 Halfmoon 0 0.00% 121 University Park East 0 0.00% 123 State College - College Heights 0 0.00% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 2 0.07% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 3 0.18% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 8 0.38% 119.02 Ferguson South 13 0.42% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 17 0.95% 116 College North 23 1.15% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 16 1.17% 125 State College Downtown 22 1.24% 118 Harris 31 1.34% 126 State College Highlands South 21 1.45% 117.02 College South 67 2.78% 110 Spring 137 3.55% 122 University Park West 61 4.98% 114 Patton East 179 5.91% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 61 6.03% 113 Patton West 347 7.80% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 126 8.34% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 320 8.36% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 318 11.96% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 300 15.38%

TOTALS 2,072 3.05% = Tracts with a rate of transit commuting lower than countywide average 36

Walking

Walking seems to be a very popular method of commuting for Centre County workers. According to the 2010 Census, about 11% of the Centre County workforce walks to work. This is three times higher than the Pennsylvania average of about 4%, and indicative of the significant urbanization of the area, most especially the Centre Region.

A table and map of the proportion of Centre County workers commuting on foot, by census tract, is presented on the following pages. Of the census tracts with a higher-than-average rate of walking to work, all fall within State College Borough and the Penn State Campus; these are locations where both jobs and housing are relatively plentiful and in close proximity to one another. The percentage of workers commuting on foot fell from 12.1% to 11.1% between 2000 and 2010. This shift was led by a reduction in the number of people walking to work in Bellefonte, Highlands South, Holmes Foster, and University Park. Walking rates are highest in the State College Borough. Halfmoon Township, Spring Township, the Lower Bald Eagle Region, the southern portion of Ferguson Township, and Rush Township have the lowest rates of workers commuting on foot.

As suggested in the preceding paragraph, high rates of walking to work generally imply a favorable balance between jobs and housing. Workers in areas with low walking rates would generally tend to work in other areas and face longer commutes.

Centre County Commuting Method by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Ascending Order by Percentage of Workers Age 16 and Older Commuting by Walking Workers Age 16 Number of and Older Workers Commuting via Age 16 and Walking - Census Older Percentage of Tract Commuting Total Workers Age Number Census Tract Description via Walking 16 and Older

119.01 Halfmoon 0 0.00% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 9 0.42% 110 Spring 49 1.27% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 29 1.40% 119.02 Ferguson South 44 1.41% 104 Rush 24 1.46% 114 Patton East 50 1.65% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 50 1.83% 117.02 College South 49 2.04% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 30 2.20% 112.01 Benner 50 2.44% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 90 2.63% 111 Bellefonte 85 2.73% 118 Harris 72 3.11% 107 Marion - Walker 98 3.36% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 71 3.38% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 96 5.71% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 164 6.17% 113 Patton West 291 6.54% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 109 7.21% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 277 7.23% 116 College North 227 11.36% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 208 20.57% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 634 32.51% 126 State College Highlands South 538 37.05% 123 State College - College Heights 360 38.54% 125 State College Downtown 836 47.18% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 1,006 56.45% 121 University Park East 1,174 63.29% 122 University Park West 794 64.76%

TOTALS 7,514 11.06% = Tracts with a rate of commuting on foot lower than countywide average 37

Bicycling

Riding a bicycle is not a widely popular method of commuting for Centre County workers. According to the 2010 Census, just less than 2% of the Centre County workforce bicycles to work. This is, however, almost three times as high as the Pennsylvania average of about .5%, which may be indicative of the high number of bicycle facilities relative to other locations, particularly within the Centre Region.

A table and map of the proportion of Centre County workers commuting via bicycle, by census tract, is presented on the following pages. Bicycle commuting rates in Centre County more than doubled from .8% to 1.7% between 2000 and 2010, led by gains in bicycle mode share in Bellefonte, the Centre Hall area, and much of the Centre Region. Census tracts with the highest percentage of workers commuting via bicycle are all located in the Centre Region. The Lower and Upper Bald Eagle Valley Regions, the Mountaintop Region, the Nittany Valley Region, Rush Township, Harris Township, University Park East, and Downtown State College all have very low rates of bicycle commuting.

As with walking, high rates of bicycling to work generally imply a favorable balance between jobs and housing, although bicycling enables commutes of longer distances when compared to walking. Workers in areas with low bicycling rates would generally tend to work in other areas and face longer commutes. It should be noted that a low prevalence of bicycling to work might also indicate a lack of available or safe facilities on which to ride, or a lack of storage and/or locker room and shower facilities at the workplace.

Centre County Commuting Method by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Ascending Order by Percentage of Workers Age 16 and Older Commuting by Bicycle Workers Age 16 Number of and Older Workers Commuting via Age 16 and Bicycle - Census Older Percentage of Tract Commuting Total Workers Age Number Census Tract Description via Bicycle 16 and Older

101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 0 0.00% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 0 0.00% 104 Rush 0 0.00% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 0 0.00% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 0 0.00% 107 Marion - Walker 0 0.00% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 0 0.00% 110 Spring 0 0.00% 112.01 Benner 0 0.00% 118 Harris 0 0.00% 121 University Park East 0 0.00% 125 State College Downtown 0 0.00% 119.01 Halfmoon 5 0.33% 111 Bellefonte 14 0.45% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 8 0.48% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 17 0.50% 114 Patton East 25 0.83% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 16 0.90% 119.02 Ferguson South 35 1.12% 123 State College - College Heights 12 1.28% 116 College North 35 1.75% 117.02 College South 59 2.45% 113 Patton West 112 2.52% 122 University Park West 37 3.02% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 101 3.80% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 39 3.86% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 102 5.23% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 100 6.62% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 254 6.63% 126 State College Highlands South 163 11.23%

TOTALS 1,134 1.67% = Tracts with a rate of bicycle commuting lower than countywide average 38

Working at Home

According to the 2000 Census, about4% of the Centre County workforce is employed from their home. This is slightly higher than the Pennsylvania average of about 3%.

A table and map of the proportion of Centre County workers working at home, by census tract, is presented on the following pages. The census tracts with a higher-than-average rate of working from home not only imply some presence of home-based offices and telecommuting, but also are indicative of the farming that takes place within Centre County. The percent of Centre County workers working at home increased from 3.9% in 2000 to 4.1% in 2010. This slight increase was led by large home employment gains in the Borough of Philipsburg and the Holmes Foster neighborhood in State College.

High prevalence of home-based employment is found in the eastern portion of the Penns Valley Region, the southern portion of Ferguson Township, and the eastern portion of Patton Township. The lowest rates exist in University Park West, the Highlands South and Greentree tracts in State College, the Mountaintop Region, and Spring Township.

Though the data contained within the US Census with respect to home-based employment is indicative both of Centre County’s agricultural heritage and increasing prevalence of telecommuting, it also suggests some potential for economic development, as successful home-based enterprises can grow into larger established companies that provide both employment to others and a tax base for the community.

Centre County Commuting Method by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Ascending Order by Percentage of Workers Age 16 and Older Working at Home Number of Workers Age 16 Workers and Older Working Age 16 and at Home - Census Older Percentage of Tract Working at Total Workers Age Number Census Tract Description Home 16 and Older

122 University Park West 0 0.00% 126 State College Highlands South 12 0.83% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 14 1.03% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 36 1.35% 110 Spring 75 1.94% 113 Patton West 91 2.05% 121 University Park East 39 2.10% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 62 2.27% 104 Rush 38 2.31% 107 Marion - Walker 98 3.36% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 63 3.54% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 138 3.60% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 75 3.63% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 55 3.64% 111 Bellefonte 117 3.76% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 81 3.79% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 71 4.23% 118 Harris 107 4.63% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 49 4.85% 125 State College Downtown 86 4.85% 112.01 Benner 105 5.11% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 100 5.13% 123 State College - College Heights 48 5.14% 116 College North 119 5.96% 117.02 College South 149 6.19% 119.01 Halfmoon 97 6.34% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 217 6.35% 114 Patton East 215 7.10% 119.02 Ferguson South 225 7.21% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 187 8.90% TOTALS 2,769 4.08%

Travel Time to Work

Less Than 15 Minutes

Centre County workers tend to reflect a relatively large proportion of very short commute times. According to the 2000 Census, about 40% of the Centre County workforce is able to reach their workplace in less than 15 minutes. This is much higher than the Pennsylvania average of about 28.5%.

A table and map of the proportion of Centre County workers commuting in less than 15 minutes, by census tract, is presented on the following pages. The percentage of Centre County workers with a commute of less than 15 minutes has remained fairly constant since 2000 at 40%. Very short commutes are common in the Centre Region. The Upper Bald Eagle Valley Region, the eastern portion of the Lower Bald Eagle Valley Region, the eastern portion of the Nittany Valley Region, the western portion of the Penns Valley Region, and Halfmoon Township have the lowest percentages of residents with very short commutes.

A relatively high rate of very short commutes within Centre County is indicative of a more favorable balance between jobs and housing in the Centre Region, and comparatively low traffic congestion for an urbanized area.

Centre County Commuting Time by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Ascending Order by Percentage of Workers Age 16 and Older Working Outside the Home with a Commuting Time of Less Than 15 Minutes # of Workers Workers Age 16+ Age 16+ Not with a Commute Working at Time of < 15 Home with a Minutes - % of Census Commute Total Workers Age Tract Time of < 15 16+ Not Working Number Census Tract Description Minutes at Home

105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 225 8.80% 119.01 Halfmoon 139 9.70% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 281 14.40% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 610 19.24% 107 Marion - Walker 541 19.43% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 271 20.56% 104 Rush 375 23.39% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 491 24.48% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 492 26.14% 110 Spring 1,048 28.13% 112.01 Benner 607 31.16% 111 Bellefonte 976 34.25% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 642 39.95% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 690 43.42% 119.02 Ferguson South 1,307 46.18% 114 Patton East 1,278 47.07% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 1,187 47.23% 118 Harris 1,123 51.97% 125 State College Downtown 829 53.11% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 1,955 54.87% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 771 54.88% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 515 55.38% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 1,040 58.13% 126 State College Highlands South 781 58.20% 123 State College - College Heights 524 59.14% 122 University Park West 669 59.47% 113 Patton West 2,601 63.16% 116 College North 1,239 66.58% 117.02 College South 1,505 69.07% 121 University Park East 1,175 73.21%

TOTALS 25,887 39.74% = Tracts with a proportion of workers commuting less than 15 minutes lower than countywide average

15 – 29 Minutes

Centre County workers also tend to reflect a relatively high proportion of “slightly shorter than average” commute times. According to the 2000 Census, about 38.5% of the Centre County workforce is able to reach their workplace in 15 to 29 minutes. This is slightly higher than the Pennsylvania average of 35%.

A table and map of the proportion of Centre County workers commuting in 15 to 29 minutes, by census tract, is presented on the following pages. According to the 2010 Census, 38.5% of Centre County residents have a commute of 15-29 minutes. This represents a slight increase from 2000. This increase was driven by significant growth in the 15-29 minute commutes in the University Park West, Vallamont, and Greentree tracts.

There is a low prevalence of shorter than average commutes in the Mountaintop Region, the Moshannon Valley Region, the eastern portion of the Penns Valley Region, and University Park East. Shorter than average commutes are most common Halfmoon Township, Benner Township, and the Marion/Walker tract.

A relatively high rate of slightly shorter than average commutes within Centre County is again indicative of a more favorable balance between jobs and housing in the Centre Region, and comparatively low traffic congestion for an urbanized area.

Centre County Commuting Time by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Ascending Order by Percentage of Workers Age 16 and Older Working Outside the Home with a Commuting Time of 15-29 Minutes # of Workers Workers Age 16+ Age 16+ Not with a Commute Working at Time of 15-29 Home with a Minutes - % of Census Commute Total Workers Age Tract Time of 15- 16+ Not Working Number Census Tract Description 29 Minutes at Home

102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 243 18.44% 104 Rush 304 18.96% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 303 19.07% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 381 20.24% 121 University Park East 336 20.93% 117.02 College South 486 22.30% 116 College North 524 28.16% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 264 28.39% 113 Patton West 1,260 30.60% 125 State College Downtown 494 31.65% 123 State College - College Heights 300 33.86% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 629 35.16% 126 State College Highlands South 485 36.14% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 1,333 37.41% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 526 37.44% 122 University Park West 456 40.53% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 795 40.75% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 1,026 40.83% 118 Harris 886 41.00% 114 Patton East 1,115 41.07% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 850 42.37% 119.02 Ferguson South 1,228 43.39% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 783 48.72% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 1,595 50.32% 111 Bellefonte 1,437 50.42% 110 Spring 2,004 53.80% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 1,379 53.93% 107 Marion - Walker 1,551 55.71% 112.01 Benner 1,186 60.88% 119.01 Halfmoon 921 64.27%

TOTALS 25,080 38.50% = Tracts with a proportion of workers commuting 15-29 minutes lower than countywide average 41

30 – 44 Minutes

Centre County workers exhibit a relatively low proportion of “slightly longer than average” commute times. According to the 2000 Census, about 12.5% of the Centre County workforce is able to reach their workplace in 30 to 44 minutes. This is significantly lower than the Pennsylvania average of almost 18%.

A table and map of the proportion of Centre County workers commuting in 30 to 44 minutes, by census tract, is presented on the following pages. The percentage of Centre County residents experiencing “slightly longer than average” commute times remained unchanged from 2000 to 2010 at just over 12%. Significant increases in 30-44 minute commutes in much of the Borough of State College were offset by large decreases in the University Park West, Highlands South, Harris, Marion/Walker, and Bellefonte tracts.

Prevalence of slightly longer than average commutes is low in the Centre Region. The Mountaintop Region, eastern portion of the Penns Valley Region, Rush Township, and Lower Bald Eagle Valley Region have the highest rates of 30-44 minute commutes.

Based on point-to-point distances – as well as current point-to-point travel times within Centre County, this information is perhaps the most revealing with respect to the prevalence of commuting into the Centre Region from the more outlying portions of Centre County.

Centre County Commuting Time by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Workers Age 16 and Older Working Outside the Home with a Commuting Time of 30-44 Minutes # of Workers Workers Age 16+ Age 16+ Not with a Commute Working at Time of 30-44 Home with a Minutes - % of Census Commute Total Workers Age Tract Time of 30- 16+ Not Working Number Census Tract Description 44 Minutes at Home

102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 515 39.07% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 724 38.47% 104 Rush 514 32.06% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 612 31.37% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 748 29.25% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 450 28.32% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 525 26.17% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 820 25.87% 107 Marion - Walker 463 16.63% 119.01 Halfmoon 237 16.54% 125 State College Downtown 187 11.98% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 110 11.83% 111 Bellefonte 303 10.63% 110 Spring 390 10.47% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 248 9.87% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 111 6.20% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 98 6.10% 123 State College - College Heights 51 5.76% 119.02 Ferguson South 159 5.62% 112.01 Benner 108 5.54% 114 Patton East 150 5.52% 116 College North 89 4.78% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 62 4.41% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 157 4.41% 113 Patton West 141 3.42% 117.02 College South 74 3.40% 118 Harris 36 1.67% 121 University Park East 21 1.31% 126 State College Highlands South 11 0.82% 122 University Park West 0 0.00%

TOTALS 8,114 12.46% = Tracts with a proportion of workers commuting 30-44 minutes higher than countywide average 42

45 – 59 Minutes

Centre County workers exhibit a relatively low proportion of “significantly longer than average” commute times. According to the 2000 Census, about 3% of the Centre County workforce is able to reach their workplace in 45 to 59 minutes. This is significantly lower than the Pennsylvania average of about 7%.

A table and map of the proportion of Centre County workers commuting in 45 to 59 minutes, by census tract, is presented on the following pages. The percentage of Centre County workers experiencing “significantly longer than average” commute times fell from over 4% in 2000 to just over 3% in 2010. This shift was led by reductions in the number of 45-59 minute commutes in Philipsburg, the western portion of the Penns Valley Region, the Nittany Valley Region, western Patton Township, and the Mountaintop Region.

Currently, residents in the Centre Region, Bellefonte, and Centre Hall area experience the lowest rates of 44-59 minute commutes. Significantly longer than average commutes are most common in Rush Township, the Mountaintop Region, and the eastern portion of the Penns Valley Region.

Although this data still implies a high prevalence of commuting into the Centre Region, it also seems to suggest some commuting into neighboring counties; for example, from the Philipsburg area into Clearfield County, and from the Lower Bald Eagle and Penns Valleys into Clinton and Union Counties.

Centre County Commuting Time by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Workers Age 16 and Older Working Outside the Home with a Commuting Time of 45-59 Minutes # of Workers Workers Age 16+ Age 16+ Not with a Commute Working at Time of 45-59 Home with a Minutes - % of Census Commute Total Workers Age Tract Time of 45- 16+ Not Working Number Census Tract Description 59 Minutes at Home

102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 184 13.96% 104 Rush 212 13.23% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 204 10.84% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 171 8.76% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 133 5.20% 126 State College Highlands South 53 3.95% 114 Patton East 102 3.76% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 56 3.48% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 32 3.44% 117.02 College South 74 3.40% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 66 3.29% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 45 3.20% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 114 3.20% 107 Marion - Walker 89 3.20% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 50 3.15% 110 Spring 112 3.01% 119.02 Ferguson South 80 2.83% 118 Harris 53 2.45% 119.01 Halfmoon 34 2.37% 111 Bellefonte 43 1.51% 113 Patton West 55 1.34% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 41 1.29% 123 State College - College Heights 11 1.24% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 30 1.19% 121 University Park East 19 1.18% 112.01 Benner 7 0.36% 116 College North 0 0.00% 122 University Park West 0 0.00% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 0 0.00% 125 State College Downtown 0 0.00%

TOTALS 2,070 3.18% = Tracts with a proportion of workers commuting 45-59 minutes higher than countywide average 43

60 – 89 Minutes

Centre County workers tend to reflect a very small proportion of “very long” commute times. According to the 2000 Census, almost 1.5% of the Centre County workforce is able to reach their workplace in 60 to 89 minutes. This is less than half the Pennsylvania average of almost 5%.

A table and map of the proportion of Centre County workers commuting in 60 to 89 minutes, by census tract, is presented on the following pages. The proportion of Centre County workers experiencing “very long” commutes remains very small. According to the 2010 Census, just over 1% of commuters in the county have travel times of 60-89 minutes.

In most census tracts in the Centre Region, less than 1% of workers experience very long commutes. Relatively high levels of very long commutes are found in the Moshannon Valley Region, the Mountaintop Region, and Halfmoon Township.

These long commutes seem to be increasingly less indicative of travel to and from the Centre Region, and more indicative of out-of-county travel.

Centre County Commuting Time by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Workers Age 16 and Older Working Outside the Home with a Commuting Time of 60-89 Minutes # of Workers Workers Age 16+ Age 16+ Not with a Commute Working at Time of 60-89 Home with a Minutes - % of Census Commute Total Workers Age Tract Time of 60- 16+ Not Working Number Census Tract Description 89 Minutes at Home

104 Rush 126 7.86% 103 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 80 5.03% 119.01 Halfmoon 70 4.88% 102 Burnside - Snow Shoe 61 4.63% 125 State College Downtown 30 1.92% 109 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 56 1.77% 108 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 32 1.70% 111 Bellefonte 46 1.61% 105 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 41 1.60% 112.01 Benner 31 1.59% 110 Spring 58 1.56% 106 Boggs - Milesburg 29 1.45% 119.02 Ferguson South 35 1.24% 121 University Park East 19 1.18% 118 Harris 25 1.16% 101 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 21 1.08% 107 Marion - Walker 28 1.01% 120 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 16 1.00% 127 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 9 0.97% 114 Patton East 23 0.85% 117.02 College South 14 0.64% 124 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 9 0.50% 116 College North 9 0.48% 128 State College Southwest - Greentree 11 0.44% 113 Patton West 0 0.00% 115.01 Ferguson Northeast 0 0.00% 115.02 Ferguson Northwest 0 0.00% 122 University Park West 0 0.00% 123 State College - College Heights 0 0.00% 126 State College Highlands South 0 0.00%

TOTALS 879 1.35% = Tracts with a proportion of workers commuting 60-89 minutes higher than countywide average

Greater Than 90 Minutes

Again, Centre County workers tend to reflect a very small proportion of “extremely long” commute times. According to the 2000 Census, almost 1.5% of the Centre County workforce is able to reach their workplace in greater than 90 minutes. This is almost half the Pennsylvania average of 2.6%.

A table and map of the proportion of Centre County workers commuting in 90 or more minutes, by census tract, is presented on the following pages. The proportion of Centre County workers experiencing “extremely long” commutes remains very small. According to the 2010 Census, 1.5% of commuters in the county have travel times of more than 90 minutes.

In most census tracts in the Centre Region, less than 1% of commuters experience extremely long commutes. Relatively high levels of extremely long commutes are found in Rush Township, the eastern portion of the Nittany Valley Region, the Eastern portion of the Lower Bald Eagle Valley Region, and the Mountaintop Region.

These extremely long commutes are almost certainly indicative of out-of-county travel.

Centre County Commuting Time by Census Tract Tracts Listed in Descending Order by Percentage of Workers Age 16 and Older Working Outside the Home with a Commuting Time of Greater Than 90 Minutes # of Workers Workers Age 16+ Age 16+ Not with a Commute Working at Time of 90+ Home with a Minutes - % of Census Commute Total Workers Age Tract Time of 90+ 16+ Not Working Number Census Tract Description Minutes at Home

101 Rush 72 4.49% 102 Marion - Walker 112 4.02% 103 Curtin - Howard - Liberty 71 3.64% 104 Burnside - Snow Shoe 44 3.34% 105 Spring 113 3.03% 106 Haines - Miles - Millheim - Penn 49 2.60% 107 Boggs - Milesburg 45 2.24% 108 Halfmoon 32 2.23% 109 University Park East 35 2.18% 110 Harris 38 1.76% 111 Patton East 47 1.73% 112.01 Bellefonte 45 1.58% 113 Centre Hall - Gregg - Potter 48 1.51% 114 Patton West 61 1.48% 115.01 State College Downtown 21 1.35% 115.02 Huston - Port Matilda - Taylor - Union - Worth 31 1.21% 116 College South 26 1.19% 117.02 Philipsburg - South Philipsburg 16 1.01% 118 State College Highlands South 12 0.89% 119.01 State College Highlands North - Vallamont 12 0.75% 119.02 Ferguson South 21 0.74% 120 Benner 9 0.46% 121 State College Southwest - Greentree 11 0.44% 122 Ferguson Northwest 4 0.11% 123 Ferguson Northeast 1 0.07% 124 College North 0 0.00% 125 University Park West 0 0.00% 126 State College - College Heights 0 0.00% 127 State College Urban Village - Holmes Foster 0 0.00% 128 State College South - Penfield - Tusseyview 0 0.00%

TOTALS 976 1.50% = Tracts with a proportion of workers commuting more than 90 minutes higher than countywide average 45

Centre County Census Tracts by Need Index

Considering the extent of the socioeconomic and travel demand data presented in previous chapters of this document, one may be challenged to aggregate the sum of these indicators into an overall expression of need for public transit and human services transportation for the different areas of Centre County. Accordingly, CCMPO staff has attempted to meet this challenge by developing a “human service need index” for each census tract within the County. In essence, this index overlays the most salient socioeconomic and travel demand indicators on top of one another, thereby offering stakeholders and the general public one possible method for determining where the greatest needs exist, and helping to focus the Coordinated Planning effort.

To develop this need index, each census tract within Centre County was assigned a relative ranking in the following key areas:

. Population density (high to low) . Age 65 and older population (high proportion to low proportion) . Poverty rate (high to low) . Disabled population (high proportion to low proportion) . Households without an available vehicle (high proportion to low proportion) . Unemployment rate (high to low) . Commute time (high to low)

These individual relative rankings were then assembled into an average ranking, and then further assembled into a relative ranking. This approach – which, for lack of clear consensus on a method for weighing indicators relative to one another, assumes that each key indicator carries an equal weight – attempts to define the census tracts that exhibit high and low need for public transit and human services transportation, on average, across all areas.

A table depicting this need index, and the process used to develop it – by census tract – is presented on the following pages.

As discussed previously in this document, CATABUS service is provided primarily within the Centre Region and Bellefonte areas. CCOT service is provided throughout Centre County, but on a limited basis. Thus it would appear, at least by this method of analysis, that the greatest concentration of current transit services is provided in areas where the need is not as great. This is not to say that the current services provided are not valuable to the community; with about 7,000,000 trips provided annually by CATA, and an additional 100,000 provided by the CCOT, it would seem that quite the opposite is true.

What this analysis does seem to underscore, however, is the role of public transit – together with employment opportunities, housing, educational institutions, medical facilities, social services, and commercial development – in contributing to an area’s overall economic health and well-being. One might make the argument that the Centre Region appears to be in good shape because of the services and options available, including public transportation.

While other portions of Centre County do present many opportunities for residents to work, learn, shop, and recreate, these opportunities yield a lower level of benefit if they are not accessible. Lower-than-average vehicle ownership, lower incomes with which to support the costs of vehicle ownership, and higher-than average proportions of disabled and aging residents in high-need areas – including areas of the Moshannon Valley, Mountaintop Region, Bald Eagle Valley, Nittany Valley, and Penns Valley – suggest that transportation linkages may be an important, but largely missing, component of overall economic health and vitality in these areas. This implores area decision-makers to take a closer look at establishing these important linkages, for the good of Centre County as a whole. 47

Transportation Providers

Reflecting the diverse nature of Centre County, there are multiple public, private, and human service transportation offerings available. This mix of transit services is an important consideration in coordinated planning efforts.

Centre County Office of Transportation Services (CCOT)

Service Area and Characteristics

CCOT operates a demand responsive bus system providing door-to-door transportation, primarily serving senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and those without other transportation options.

All trips must have both an origin and destination within the CCOT service area. Generally, this includes all of Centre County, as well as selected out-of-county destinations. Out-of- county destinations include Altoona, Clearfield, Lewisburg, Lewistown, the northern portion of the Lake Raystown area in Huntingdon County, and DuBois Mall. If a group trip – consisting of 8 passengers or more – can be scheduled to an out-of-county destination, service is provided directly by the CCOT. If not, the CCOT may otherwise coordinate with the transportation provider in the neighboring county to cross county lines. Currently, about 3% of CCOT trips cross county lines.

The predominant origin-destination pattern for CCOT services is within the Bellefonte area, and between the Bellefonte area and the Centre Region. A secondary pattern exists within the Centre Region, and between the Centre Region and the Bellefonte area. These first two patterns suggest significant overlap of CCOT and CATA services. Smaller, tertiary patterns exist within the western portion of Penns Valley, and between this area and the Centre Region; within the Philipsburg area, and between this area and the Centre Region and Bellefonte areas; and within the Mountaintop area. CCOT trips generally both begin and end in a relatively compact geographic area. Currently, 56% of these trips are “intra-zone”, and an additional 25% of these trips only cross one zone boundary. Fare zones are discussed in more detail in the next section.

CCOT service is available to anyone with travel needs within the service area, but only those age 65 or over, or those eligible under the medical assistance transportation program (MATP), mental health / mental retardation (MH/MR) program, or Rural Transportation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) program may use CCOT services at reduced fares. An application must be completed and approved before a customer is eligible for these reduced fares.

Service for CCOT riders generally operates Monday through Friday, from about 7:30am until about 5:30pm.

An advance reservation is required for each one-way CCOT trip, including return trips and any stops along the way. Passengers must make this reservation by 1:00pm the business day before transportation is desired, but can schedule trips as far in advance as they’d like.

Automatic, “standing” reservations are available for customers repeatedly making the same trip. Reservations are accepted from 8:30am – 5:00pm, Monday through Friday.

Trip reservations are grouped into more practical vehicle runs whenever possible by scheduling pick-up times up to sixty minutes earlier or later than the requested time. Each rider is notified of his or her scheduled pick-up time when the trip reservation is made, and every effort is made to pick up each passenger within 60 minutes of his or her scheduled pick-up time. In turn, CCOT vehicles will wait for a customer for a reasonable amount of time (typically 10 or 15 minutes maximum) and will make attempts to knock on the door or make a phone call when a customer does not report for their pick-up.

Once a trip reservation has been made, the passenger is expected to use the service as scheduled. If a customer fails to show within the period described in the preceding paragraph, or fails to otherwise cancel an individual or standing reservation at least 24 hours in advance of the scheduled pick-up time, that customer is assessed a “no-show”. Repeated “no-shows”, particularly over a short period of time, may result in suspension of service and/or punitive fees.

CCOT drivers not only transport passengers from the door at their point of origin to the door at their point of destination, but also provide limited assistance as well. They will assist with a reasonable number of bags and/or packages. In very limited cases, they are permitted to enter a facility to assist a passenger. They are not permitted to enter private residences. Passengers requiring further assistance may be permitted to bring along escorts or personal care attendants. In all but the most exceptional cases, the escort must pay the same fare as the passenger, and must be reserved a trip at the same time the passenger reserves theirs.

CCOT services do not operate on weekends, nor do they operate on selected holidays. Moreover, service is often cancelled on at least several days during the winter months due to inclement weather.

Generally, the CCOT directly operates their services, accepting reservations, grouping these reservations into vehicle trips, recruiting and retaining drivers, and housing all revenue and staff vehicles. Further, they provide Meals on Wheels service using their own staff and vehicles. They do, however, subcontract out-of-county trips for individual MATP clients to one of several private entities. They also purchase vehicle maintenance services from a subcontractor – Jabco-Maggi in College Township. This maintenance contract was awarded by competitive bid.

Fares

CCOT services are priced so as to provide a reasonable transportation alternative for senior citizens and persons with disabilities, while assuring a sound level of operating cost recovery. General public fares are often cost-prohibitive as they more fully reflect the very vehicle- and labor-intensive – and therefore very expensive – nature of the service.

The fare structure is based on a zone system, with Centre County split into the following 8 fare zones:

. Philipsburg (Philipsburg Borough, Taylor and Worth Townships, and portions of Rush and Huston Townships) . Snow Shoe (Snow Shoe Borough, Burnside Township, and portions of Snow Shoe and Curtin Townships) . West Bellefonte (Union Township and portions of Huston, Snow shoe, and Boggs Townships) . Centre Region (State College Borough and Halfmoon, Patton, Ferguson, Harris, College, and Benner Townships) . Bellefonte (Bellefonte and Milesburg Boroughs, Spring Township, and portions of Boggs Township) . East Bellefonte (Howard, Liberty, and Marion Townships, and portions of Boggs, Curtin, and Walker Townships) . West Penns Valley (Potter and Gregg Townships, and portions of Walker, Miles, and Penn Townships) . East Penns Valley (Haines Township, portions of Miles and Penn Townships)

The general public cash fare is $10.50 for an intra-zone trip, $18.00 for a one-zone trip, $22.00 for a two-zone trip, $30.00 for a three-zone trip, and $35.00 for a four-zone trip. Although Centre County is comprised of a total of 8 fare zones, any in-county trip can be completed by touching a maximum of 4 zones. The general public cash fare to participate in an out-of-county group trip is $15.25.

Persons with disabilities eligible for the PwD program are able to ride at 15% of the general public cash fare, with a minimum fare of $2.50. Persons age 65 and older, MATP clients, and MH/MR clients ride free, with the cost of service subsidized by the Pennsylvania Lottery, the Centre County Office of Aging, the Department of Public Welfare, or the Centre County MH/MR program, as appropriate.

Because the CCOT is the designated MATP Coordinator for Centre County, the agency also facilitates transportation to and from approved medical destinations for clients eligible for Medical Assistance (MA). They may provide such trips on the own demand-responsive services free of charge, make a referral to another transportation provider better equipped to handle the demand, or offer mileage-based reimbursement to MA clients providing their own transportation, or receiving transportation through a friend or family member. For the latter, the current reimbursement rate is 20¢ per mile, although the CCOT is currently proposing, with the endorsement of the Centre County Board of Commissioners, to raise this rate to 32¢ per mile to bring it current and better reflect higher fuel costs. This request is being considered by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW).

Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA)

CATA operates three types of public transportation services throughout the Centre Region and surrounding areas of Centre County. These services include fixed-route bus service, demand responsive service, and CATACOMMUTE.

Fixed Route Bus Service – CATABUS

Service Area and Characteristics. CATA operates a fixed-route bus system – referred to as CATABUS – that consists of 20 routes focused on downtown State College and the Penn State campus. These routes radiate from the downtown area and extend to neighboring communities. Moreover, CATA operates 4 shuttle routes within the Penn State University Campus and downtown State College, including the Blue Loop, the White Loop, the Red Link, and the Green Link. All buses are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities, and are powered by clean natural gas.

The service area for CATABUS community service routes is depicted on the following map:

The service areas for CATABUS campus service routes are depicted on the following maps:

Characteristics of CATABUS community service and campus service routes are displayed in the following table:

Route Name Corridors / Areas Served Span of Service Headway (in Minutes) A Park Forest . Park Forest Village . 7:24am – 6:24pm . 50 (AM and PM Village . Overlook Heights (weekday) peaks) . College Heights . No weekend . North Atherton Street service . Downtown State College B Boalsburg . Tussey Mountain . 7:00am – 6:42pm . 76-240 . Centre Estates / Willowbrook (weekday) (weekdays) . Kaywood . 10:25am – 6:00pm . 180-240 . South Atherton Street (Saturday) (Saturdays) . Boalsburg . No Sunday service . Scenery Park . University Drive . Downtown State College C Houserville . Nittany Mall . 7:21am – 5:50pm . 65-275 . Penn Hills (weekday) . Spring Creek Estates . No weekend . East College Avenue service . Downtown State College F Pine Grove . The Meadows . 7:13am – 5:43pm . 65-275 . Fairbrook (weekday) . Ramblewood . No weekend . Pine Grove Mills service . West College Avenue . Stonebridge . Greentree . Downtown State College G Stormstown . Stormstown . 6:53am – 6:46pm . 60-240 . Halfmoon Valley Road (weekday) . Graysdale . No weekend . Gray’s Woods service . North Atherton Street . Downtown State College HP Toftrees / . Gray’s Woods . 6:26am – 10:24pm . 30-100 Scenery Park . North Atherton Street (weekday) (weekdays) . The Colonnade . 9:05am – 8:44pm . 120-160 . Toftrees (Saturday) (Saturdays) . Downtown State College . No Sunday service . South Atherton Street . Scenery Park K Cato Park . Cato Park . 7:01am – 9:27pm . 30-120 . West College Avenue (weekday) . Urban Village . No weekend . Downtown State College service M Nittany Mall . Nittany Mall . 6:15am – 11:45pm . 58-60 . Lemont (weekday) (weekdays) . East College Avenue . 7:45am – 11:45pm . 58-60 (Saturday) . Penn State Campus (Saturday) . 60 (Sunday) . Downtown State College . 9:45am – 7:45pm (Sunday)

Route Name Corridors / Areas Served Span of Service Headway (in Minutes) N Martin Street . The Colonnade . 6:44am – 3:19am . 35-40 / Aaron Drive . Park Forest Village (weekdays and (weekdays and . College Heights Saturday) Saturday) . North Atherton Street . 7:44am – 12:37am . 60 (Sunday) . Downtown State College (Sunday) NE Martin / . Park Forest Village . 7:25am – 9:54pm . 20-40 Aaron . College Heights (weekday) Express . North Atherton Street . No weekend . Downtown State College service NV Martin Street . Vairo Boulevard . 11:50am – 7:51pm . 20 / Vairo . Martin Street (weekday) Boulevard . North Atherton Street . No inbound or . Downtown State College weekend service R Waupelani . Stratford Drive . 6:09am – 2:44am . 20-40 (weekday) Drive . Southgate Drive (weekday) . 40 (weekend) . Waupelani Drive . 6:49am – 2:44am . Westerly Parkway Plaza (Saturday) . South Atherton Street . 8:49am – 12:44am . Downtown State College (Sunday) RE Westerly . Waupelani Drive . 7:25am – 7:12pm . 10 Parkway . Westerly Parkway Plaza (weekday) Plaza . South Atherton Street . No weekend . Downtown State College service S Science Park . Science Park Road . 6:33am – 6:05pm . 45-50 (AM and . West College Avenue (weekday) PM peaks) . Westerly Parkway . No weekend . Downtown State College service UT University . University Terrace . 7:05am – 6:17pm . 30-35 (weekday) Terrace . Bellaire Avenue (weekday) . University Drive . No weekend . Downtown State College service V Vairo . The Colonnade . 6:25am – 3:01am . 35-40 Boulevard . Vairo Boulevard (weekdays and (weekdays and . College Heights Saturday) Saturday) . North Atherton Street . 7:45am – 12:39am . 60 (Sunday) . Downtown State College (Sunday) VE Vairo . Oakwood Avenue . 7:05am-10:16pm . 20 Boulevard . Vairo Boulevard (weekday) Express . Downtown State College . No weekend service W Valley Vista . North Atherton Street . 6:35am – 11:55pm . 30-97 . Park Forest Village (weekday) (weekdays) . Circleville Road . 9:14am – 8:10pm . 70-110 . College Heights (Saturday) (Saturdays) . North Atherton Street . No Sunday service . Downtown State College XB Bellefonte . Nittany Mall . 6:07am – 11:26pm . 55-260 . Benner Pike (weekday) (weekday) . Downtown Bellefonte . 12:06pm – 8:02pm . 240 (Saturdays) . East College Avenue (Saturday) . Downtown State College . No Sunday service

Route Name Corridors / Areas Served Span of Service Headway (in Minutes) XG Pleasant Gap . Nittany Mall . 6:54am – 10:22pm . 50-329 . Benner Pike (weekday) (weekday) . Pleasant Gap . 12:59pm – 6:58pm . 240 (Saturdays) . East College Avenue (Saturday) . Downtown State College . No Sunday service Blue Loop Blue Loop . Curtin Road . 4:45am – 12:30am . 6-20 (weekday) . Porter Road (weekday) . 11-22 (weekend) . Hastings Road . 9:00am – 12:30am . East College Avenue (weekend) . North Atherton Street . Late night service . Downtown State College until 2:30am Thursday - Saturday White White Loop . Curtin Road . 7:30am – 12:30am . 5-10 (weekday) Loop . University Drive (weekday) . 5-20 (weekend) . East Beaver Avenue . 9:00am – 12:30am . Burrowes Road (weekend) . Downtown State College . Late night service until 2:30am Thursday - Saturday Red Link Red Link . Innovation Park . 4:45am – 12:30am . 17-23 . East Park Avenue (weekday) . Porter Road . 9:00am – 12:30am . Curtin Road (Saturday) . White Course Drive . 12:00pm – 7:00pm (Sunday) Green Green Link . Curtin Road . 7:30am – 6:30pm . 8-24 (weekday) Link . Porter Road (weekday) . Allen Road . No weekend service

Because CATA operates within and around a university community, some CATABUS services are scaled back in terms of routing and/or headway when classes are not in session, most notably, during spring, summer, and holiday breaks. Moreover, CATABUS services do not operate on selected major holidays.

Fares. CATABUS community services are priced so as to provide value to the customer, while assuring a high level of operating cost recovery. The cash fare for any CATABUS community services trip is $1.50. Persons with disabilities holding proper identification are able to ride at half fare (75¢). Children under 40 inches tall, and persons age 65 and older holding proper identification ride free. Tokens are sold to full fare riders who cannot or choose not to carry cash; they offer a small discount when purchased in lots of 20.

Riders using cash or tokens as fare who need to take more than one Centre Line bus to complete a one-way trip may request a transfer. Transfers are free and serve as a substitute fare for the second bus ride needed to continue a one-way trip. They cannot be used for return trips. Connections between CATABUS routes can be made at any stop in the system where two or more routes converge.

CATABUS campus services are free to all riders at all times. This is made possible with financial support from Penn State University. Accordingly, Loop and Link services are periodically expanded for special events, including Dance Marathon and Finals Weeks.

Multimodal Connections. CATABUS community and campus services are generally very well connected to the transportation providers described elsewhere in this chapter, either directly or via a short walk. Moreover, all CATA fixed route vehicles are outfitted with bicycle racks. These racks are both easily and widely used, and benefit CATA riders by expanding recreational bicycling opportunities and adding flexibility to the transit commute. All multimodal connections also benefit the community at large by helping to further reduce traffic congestion.

Demand Responsive Bus Service – CATARIDE

Service Area and Characteristics. CATA administers a demand responsive bus system – known as CATARIDE – providing curb-to-curb transportation for senior citizens and people whose disabilities prevent their use of CATABUS services. On campus, Penn State University works with CATA to provide a similar service.

All trips must have both an origin and destination within the CATARIDE service area. This is generally the same as the CATABUS service area. CATARIDE service operates up to ¾- mile in any direction from CATA’s CATABUS community service routes, and in small contiguous areas completely surrounded by these ¾-mile corridors. The service area is subject to change whenever CATABUS community service routes are revised.

CATARIDE service is available to anyone with travel needs within the service area, but only those age 65 or over, or those eligible for paratransit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, may use Centre Ride services at reduced fares. An application must be completed and approved before a customer is eligible for these reduced fares. Once a CATARIDE application is approved, a program identification card is issued to the customer.

Disabled applicants under the age of 65 are eligible for CATARIDE service at reduced fares only if a mobility, visual, or cognitive impairment prevents the use of fixed route buses or navigation through the fixed route system; in most cases, a physician’s certification is required. Eligibility may also be approved if a specific disability-related condition interacts with architectural or environmental barriers to prevent travel to and from bus stops, but such barriers in themselves do not automatically result in eligibility. The impairment must make it impossible to use fixed route buses, rather than more difficult than for those without the impairment. Eligibility is not granted if an applicant is able to use fixed route service, but wishes to travel in locations or at times when fixed route service is not available. Applicants who are able to use the fixed route system under certain conditions may be approved only for CATARIDE trips that cannot be made using the fixed route system. Those who can use fixed route buses with accessibility features, such as lifts or ramps for passengers with mobility impairments, and stop announcements for those with visual or cognitive impairments, are not eligible for CATARIDE unless accessible buses are not available for a specific trip, or unless a specific, medically-certified disability-related condition exists to prevent use of accessible fixed route buses. If eligibility is limited to certain trips, applicants will be notified of these limitations upon approval for CATARIDE services. For applicants with temporary impairments, eligibility will be approved for a limited time. 57

Service for disabled riders generally operates on the same days and at the same times as CATABUS community service routes, while senior citizen and general public service hours are as follows:

. Monday through Friday: 4:45am – 4:00am . Saturday: 7:45am – 4:00am . Sunday: 7:45am – 1:00am

An advance reservation is required for each one-way CATARIDE trip, including return trips and any stops along the way. Disabled passengers may make reservations between 1 and 14 days prior to the day of travel. Other users may only make a reservation on the day prior to travel. Automatic, “standing” reservations are available for customers making the same trip at least one day per week. Reservations are accepted from 8:00am – 7:00pm, seven days per week.

Trip reservations are grouped into logical vehicle runs whenever possible by scheduling pick- up times up to sixty minutes earlier or later than the requested time, pursuant to ADA requirements. Each rider is notified of his or her scheduled pick-up time when the trip reservation is made, and every effort is made to pick up each passenger within 15 minutes of his or her scheduled pick-up time. In turn, CATARIDE vehicles will wait up to 5 minutes beyond the scheduled pick-up time, or beyond the time the vehicle arrives, whichever is later.

Once a trip reservation has been made, the passenger is expected to use the service as scheduled. If a customer fails to show within the 5-minute period described in the preceding paragraph, or fails to otherwise cancel an individual or standing reservation at least 30 minutes in advance of the scheduled pick-up time, that customer is assessed a “no-show”. Repeated “no-shows”, particularly over a short period of time, may result in suspension of service.

CATARIDE drivers not only transport passengers from their point of origin to their point of destination, but also provide limited assistance as well. Drivers may only assist passengers to and from the vehicle at the curb and with packages while getting on or off the vehicle. In limited cases, they are permitted to assist passengers between the vehicle and the door of their point of origin or destination. They are not permitted to enter residences or other buildings to assist passengers at any time. Passengers requiring further assistance may be permitted to bring along escorts or personal care attendants. In all but the most exceptional cases, the escort must pay the same fare as the passenger, and must be reserved a trip at the same time the passenger reserves theirs.

As with CATABUS community services, CATARIDE services do not operate on selected major holidays. Moreover, because CATA operates within and around a university community, some CATABUS services are scaled back in terms of routing and/or headway when classes are not in session, most notably, during spring, summer, and holiday breaks. Therefore, CATARIDE services are subject to corresponding changes with respect to days and hours of operation.

As mentioned earlier in this section, CATA only administers CATARIDE services, purchasing the actual operations from a subcontractor. This subcontractor – Ride Right, LLC – accepts 58

CATARIDE reservations, groups these reservations into vehicle trips, recruits and retains drivers, and houses all CATARIDE vehicles.

Fares. CATARIDE services are priced so as to provide a reasonable transportation alternative for senior citizens and persons with disabilities, while assuring a respectable level of operating cost recovery. General public fares are often cost-prohibitive as they more fully reflect the very vehicle- and labor-intensive – and therefore very expensive – nature of the service. The general public cash fare for any CATARIDE trip is $16.65. Persons with disabilities holding proper identification are able to ride at $3.00, or twice the comparable fixed route fare, pursuant to the ADA. Persons age 65 and older holding proper identification ride at $2.50, with the balance of the general public fare covered by funding from the Pennsylvania Lottery. Coupons are sold to disabled and senior citizen riders who cannot or choose not to carry cash; they offer no discount.

CATACOMMUTE

For those residents of Centre County and central Pennsylvania, including those within the CATA service area, who cannot or choose not to utilize fixed route or demand responsive transit services, CATA administers the CATACOMMUTE program – an offering designed to facilitate “matchmaking” between people with similar points of origin, points of destination, and schedules. The CATACOMMUTE program website is located at http://rideshare.nextinsight.com/.

At the CATACOMMUTE website, CATA uses an automated program to match individuals from surrounding communities who share the same commute. A prospective participant is asked to provide key information needed to make a car- or vanpool match list personalized to the individual’s schedule. Participants receive a free, customized list of potential matches. This list provides the participant with the opportunity to contact other registered commuters who live in or commute through the same area at or around the same times. The participant is then able to contact these people and make their own arrangements to share a ride. A participant is under absolutely no obligation to use the information provided; they may remain inactive if they prefer, and their information will not be provided to others without their consent.

This service is completely free to the individual; CATA does not charge any fees to use the matching service. Financial support is provided by both CATA and Penn State University. Once an active participant, however, an individual may choose to share the costs of commuting by sharing driving duties and/or the use of vehicles with another participant, or may elect to make payments to another participant to defray the costs of fuel, insurance, and vehicle wear and tear. Any such payments are completely at the discretion of the individuals involved.

CATA is aware of the possible emergency or unanticipated travel needs faced by ridesharing commuters. In an effort to mitigate these concerns, CATA has established a Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program. All members of the CATACOMMUTE program who are active in established car- or vanpools have the option to participate in the GRH program for an annual fee of $10. No fee is required for full-time employees of Penn State University, as the University subsidizes these costs. The GRH program offers a free ride home of up to 50 miles in emergency situations. This includes up to four trips per calendar year for illness 59 and/or medical emergencies, workplace shutdown, family disasters (flood, fire, medical, etc.), and work-related emergencies that require unscheduled overtime. In such instances, participants are provided with a taxi ride or rental car (provided the participant meets all other requirements for car rental) to the appropriate destination at no charge. Arrangements to pick up a child from daycare or school, and then proceed to the proper destination are allowable. The GRH program will also provide these services to registered riders whose appointed driver has an emergency and cannot provide the ride home.

Effective October 1, 2007, CATA expanded its array of public transportation services by introducing vanpools to the CATACOMMUTE program. As the first step in the creation of CATA’s new community-wide vanpool service, Penn State University and CATA agreed to transition six existing faculty/staff vanpools to the initiative; for almost twenty years, Penn State made vans available to groups of University employees commuting long distances. Currently, vanpool groups originate in the Moshannon Valley, Lewistown, Altoona and Tyrone areas. Under the vanpool program, commuters traveling in or out of the Centre Region will be able to participate as long as there is a sufficient base of similar commuting patterns in their area, subject to vehicle constraints. Additional vanpools will be added as rider interest develops and funding becomes available.

Taxi Services

Centre County is served by several taxi companies, which provide service both within and outside areas where transit service is available. Where and when transit is not available, these taxi companies provide a vital service to those needing transportation to work, school, or medical appointments, but the cost to the user is often much higher when compared to transit services.

Taxicabs operating within Pennsylvania must be licensed by the Public Utility Commission (PUC), maintain adequate insurance coverage, charge fees approved by the PUC and adhere to the Commission’s driver and vehicle safety regulations. Taxi companies must also comply with certain standards regarding service set by the commission such as:

. providing service upon demand, regardless of the distance of the trip; . taking the shortest route to the requested destination; . charging a fare based on an approved flat rate, odometer mileage, a meter reading or in accordance with zones; . posting rates inside vehicle; . providing a receipt upon request; . ensuring passenger area and trunk are clean and sanitary; . ensuring vehicle meets all Pennsylvania equipment and inspection standards; . marking each vehicle with the name of the company, the PUC number (PUC A-#), and a vehicle number; and . ensuring the meter is sealed.

PUC Enforcement Officers conduct taxicab inspections throughout the year to ensure taxicabs are safe and clean, drivers are properly licensed, and companies are providing reasonable service. Insurance coverage is also monitored to ensure it remains in effect. A

60 taxicab company failing to meet the commission’s driver, vehicle and service standards may be subject to fines and/or loss of its operating license.

Handy Delivery, Inc.

State College-based Handy Delivery, Inc. (PUC #A107326) has been providing taxi services within Centre County for over 25 years. These services operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Handy Delivery, Inc. identifies their service area as State College and Bellefonte.

Handy Delivery’s taxi rates are as follows:

. Flag drop and first 1/6-mile: $1.75 plus the current PA fuel surcharge . Each additional 1/6-mile: 30¢ . Each additional passenger over 2: 50¢ . Each minute of wait time: 30¢

Credit cards are accepted as fare payment. Handy Delivery, Inc. taxis will hold a maximum of 4 passengers. There are no exceptions to this policy.

AA Transit, Inc.

State College-based AA Transit, Inc. has been providing taxi services within the Centre Region for about 10 years. These services operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. AA Transit, Inc. identifies their service area as the Centre Region and vicinity, including the University Park Airport, Penn State University, Bellefonte, Boalsburg, and Lemont.

AA Transit’s taxi rates are as follows:

. Flag drop: $1.90 . Each additional mile: $1.75 . Each minute of wait time: 25¢ . Each additional passenger over 2: 50¢ . Trips beginning/ending more than 5 miles outside of State College: $5 surcharge

Credit cards are accepted as fare payment.

Nittany Express, Inc.

State College-based Nittany Express, Inc. has been providing shuttle services within Centre County for about 10 years. These services operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Nittany Express, Inc. identifies their service area as all of Centre County; according to their staff, vehicles will travel “most anywhere”. Their services, however, are primarily geared toward trips traveling to and coming from University Park Airport.

Nittany Express’ shuttle rates are as follows:

. Per-trip surcharge: $2.30 . Each additional mile: $2.30 61

. Additional passenger surcharge: 20¢ per mile for additional passengers over 3

Credit cards are accepted as fare payment.

Intercity Bus Services

Two intercity bus companies serve destinations within Centre County, and connect Centre County with other areas of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as other states. PennDOT contracts with these two companies to provide scheduled, fixed route service along routes which are considered essential links in the regional/statewide network of intercity bus services, but which cannot be financially supported solely from user fares. Intermodal terminals that are publicly owned may receive capital funding under this program, supported by federal funding and state general funds.

The Intercity Bus Operating Assistance Program helps finance the portion of deficit, created by the provision of intercity bus services, which cannot be recovered from either fare box revenue – including state Senior Citizen grants – package express, freight or other revenue (e.g. advertising, etc.). The Intercity Bus Capital Assistance Program is intended to assist intercity carriers to provide accessible transportation to persons with disabilities by granting funds to finance the incremental costs associated with ADA-related improvements – specifically lifts and mobile seating devices – and fund the costs of making improvements to intercity and intermodal terminals owned by public entities.

Three additional intercity bus companies – and another separate operation that contracts with Fullington Bus Company – connect Centre County with New York City.

The two intercity bus companies participating in PennDOT’s Intercity Bus Capital and Operating Assistance Programs serve Centre County primarily by way of a bus terminal located in State College Borough. This terminal is located along North Atherton Street, in close proximity to downtown State College and the campus of Penn State University. The arrangement by which this terminal is owned and operated is a complex one. Penn State University owns the terminal location, and leases it to State College Borough for $1 per year. State College Borough, in turn, sub-leases the facility to Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Fullington Bus Company. Fullington employees staff the facility.

In recent years, local stakeholders have entered into discussions to replace the current bus terminal with a new facility. This new facility would likely be located in the same general area as the existing terminal, and would accommodate intercity bus companies, CATA, the CCOT, local taxi companies, and ridesharing vehicles, as well as public parking facilities. Accordingly, it would be a key node in intermodal transportation operations within Centre County.

Fullington Bus Company

Intercity bus routes provided by Fullington Trailways serve Centre County and 14 additional Pennsylvania counties. Accordingly, Fullington’s route network provides Centre County residents with opportunities to travel both within and outside the County and state.

Centre County is directly included on the following 6 Fullington Trailways routes, with other points on the network accessible from Centre County via transfers in DuBois or Philipsburg:

. State College to King of Prussia / Philadelphia . State College to East Stroudsburg / Rockaway Mall / New York City . State College to Altoona / Monroeville / Pittsburgh . State College to York / Baltimore / Washington . State College to Reading / Allentown / Newark . Pittsburgh / DuBois / Harrisburg

Trip availability varies, is subject to change, and can be identified by contacting Fullington directly or via their website at: http://tickets.fullingtontours.com/.

Transfer scenarios and travel time for passengers traveling on to further destinations is dependent upon the specific final destination. Connections are available to several local intercity bus systems, as well as Greyhound Lines, Inc. With respect to persons with disabilities, if a customer provides 4-hour advance notice to Fullington that an accessible vehicle is needed, Fullington will provide that vehicle. Moreover, if that customer needs to transfer to another intercity bus system to complete their trip, Fullington will also contact the other system(s) to ensure that they provide accessible vehicles.

One-way fares between State College and other destinations along Fullington routes are generally between 13.0¢ and 37.5¢ per mile, providing good value for vital service to the long-distance and/or occasional traveler, but would likely be cost-prohibitive at full fare to the majority of everyday travelers commuting between State College and Lewistown, Mifflintown, Harrisburg, Port Matilda, Philipsburg, or Clearfield. Nevertheless, fares to and from Port Matilda, Philipsburg, and Bellefonte do compare very favorably to taxi fares. Their fare structure is designed to be competitive with Greyhound Lines, Inc., and as such encourages long-haul travel between major cities along their route network – as evidenced by the fact that travel between Pittsburgh and State College is much less expensive, both in total costs and cost per mile, than travel, for example, between State College and Indiana or Vandergrift.

It should be noted that Fullington offers discounted ten-trip passes and monthly passes to its regular riders. Moreover, discounts are provided to two-way travelers (Fullington’s round trip fares are 190% of the one-way fare), children, students, and senior citizens. With financial assistance from the Pennsylvania Lottery, Fullington offers free off-peak travel to senior citizens on any point-to-point trip of 35 miles or less in their system. This means that seniors can travel on Fullington between State College and Bellefonte, Port Matilda, Philipsburg, and possibly Lewistown at no cost.

Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Intercity bus routes provided by Greyhound Lines, Inc. serve Centre County and 15 additional Pennsylvania counties. Accordingly, Greyhound’s route network also provides Centre County residents with opportunities to travel both within and outside the County and state.

Centre County is directly included on only 1 Greyhound route (Pittsburgh to Harrisburg), with other points on the network accessible from Centre County via transfers in Pittsburgh or Harrisburg. 63

Trip availability varies, is subject to change, and can be identified by contacting Greyhound directly or via their website at: http://www.greyhound.com/.

One-way fares between State College and other destinations along Greyhound routes are generally between 14.3¢ and 41.7¢ per mile, providing good value for vital service to the long-distance and/or occasional traveler, but would likely be cost-prohibitive at full fare to the majority of everyday travelers commuting between State College and Lewistown, Harrisburg, Tyrone, or Altoona. Ostensibly, their fare structure is designed to encourage long-haul travel between major cities along their route network – as evidenced by the fact that travel between Pittsburgh and State College is much less expensive, both in total costs and cost per mile, than travel, for example, between State College and Greensburg or Latrobe. Greyhound offers discounted fares to US military service members, veterans, students, and companions.

Megabus

Although Megabus falls outside of the purview of PennDOT’s Intercity Bus Operating Assistance and Capital Assistance programs, service provided by the company connects Centre County to New York City, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh.

Trip availability varies, is subject to change, and can be identified by contacting Megabus directly or via their website at: http://us.megabus.com/Default.aspx.

One-way fares between State College and other destinations along Megabus routes are generally between 2.1¢ and 14.0¢ per mile, depending on how early tickets are purchased. These fares could potentially provide exceptional value to the everyday traveler.

All State Bus

Although All State Bus falls outside of the purview of PennDOT’s Intercity Bus Operating Assistance and Capital Assistance programs, service provided by the company connects Centre County to New York City.

Trip availability varies, is subject to change, and can be identified by contacting All State Bus directly or via their website at: http://www.allstatebus.com/.

One-way fares between State College and New York City are $28. At a trip distance of 237 miles, this equates to a per-mile rate of 11.8¢ per mile.

All State Bus fares provide good value for vital service to the long-distance and/or occasional traveler, and it is unlikely that there is much – if any – demand for everyday travel between State College and New York City.

KK Bus

Although KK Bus falls outside of the purview of PennDOT’s Intercity Bus Operating Assistance and Capital Assistance programs, service provided by the company connects Centre County to New York City.

Trip availability varies, is subject to change, and can be identified by contacting KK Bus directly or via their website at: http://www.kkbus.com/.

One-way fares between State College and New York City are $35. At a trip distance of 237 miles, this equates to a per-mile rate of 14.8¢ per mile.

KK Bus fares provide good value for vital service to the long-distance and/or occasional traveler, and it is unlikely that there is much – if any – demand for everyday travel between State College and New York City.

Candidate Transportation Projects

As mentioned earlier in this document, PennDOT advised CCMPO staff to draw potential candidate projects for the JARC and New Freedom programs from existing planning documents – including the LRTP, the TIP, and CATA and CCTO strategic plans. Section 5310 projects should be drawn from program applications submitted to the CCMPO by way of PennDOT. Each candidate project must meet the intent of each respective funding program, be oriented toward target populations in the areas of greatest need, and be assigned a relative priority through coordination with stakeholders and input from the general public.

Accordingly, CCMPO presents the following candidate projects, which are described below:

2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)

. Penns Valley Commuter Bus Service – This project will establish commuter bus service linking the Penns Valley to the State College area.

. Altoona / Tyrone Commuter Bus Service – This project will establish commuter bus service linking the Altoona and Tyrone areas to the State College area.

. Local Service Expansion to Milesburg / Buffalo Run Valley – This project will establish local bus service linking the Milesburg area to the State College area.

. Regional Park and Ride Study – This project will compile commuter shed data from Centre County and adjacent counties, pinpoint prevailing commute patterns, identify potential park and ride lot sites within the study area, examine the feasibility of each potential site, identify general site issues that may promote or preclude construction activities, coordinate with municipal officials and other key stakeholders to prioritize potential sites, and discuss right(s)-of-way with property owner(s).

. Moshannon Valley Park and Ride Lot – Construct a single (or series of) park and ride lot(s) in the Moshannon Valley to provide an asset to the community by accommodating an expanding population of those who commute via alternative mode, including a large number of residents who are expected to utilize commuter bus service.

. Lower Bald Eagle Valley Commuter Bus Service – This project will establish commuter bus service linking the Lock Haven area and the Lower Bald Eagle Valley to the State College area.

. Mountaintop Region Commuter Bus Service – This project will establish commuter bus service linking the Snow Shoe area and the Mountaintop region to the State College area.

. Regional Bus Service in Moshannon Valley – Low cost public transportation option within the Moshannon Valley, which will improve access to businesses and services available throughout the region.

. Existing Vanpool Vehicle Replacement – annual line item.

. Existing Bus Rehabilitation / Replacement – annual line item.

. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) / Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS) Deployment – annual line item.

2013-16 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

. Replace Buses – This project will fund the Centre Area Transportation Authority’s acquisition of multiple fixed route buses to replace vehicles that have reached the end of their estimated useful life.

. Purchase Vans for Vanpool Expansion – This project will fund the Centre Area Transportation Authority’s acquisition of multiple vanpool vans to expand the existing fleet and allow the agency to accommodate increasing demand for vanpool services.

. Replace Paratransit Vans (CATA) – This project will fund the Centre Area Transportation Authority’s acquisition of multiple paratransit vans to replace vehicles that have reached the end of their estimated useful life.

. Advanced Public Transportation Systems – This project will be fund the purchase and installation of hardware, software, and equipment to expand the capabilities of the Centre Area Transportation Authority’s existing advanced public transportation system, as required in TIP year 2013. Examples of technologies to be considered include additional wayside signage at key stops, security camera and real-time video recording capability, electronic fare collection, and vehicle monitoring and engine diagnostics.

. Paratransit Fleet Expansion (CATA) – This project will fund the Centre Area Transportation Authority’s acquisition of multiple paratransit vans to expand the existing fleet and allow the agency to accommodate increasing demand for paratransit services.

Public and Stakeholder Involvement

30-Day Public Comment Period

The Coordinated Plan was advertised on May 6, 2012 for a 30-day public comment period which concluded on June 7, 2012. No public comments were received.

Public Meeting

In conjunction with the 2013-16 Transportation Improvement Program, a public meeting for the Coordinated Plan was held May 23, 2012 at the state College Borough Municipal Building. Relative to the Coordinated Plan, one request was received for commuter bus service linking the Nittany Valley with the State College area.

Human Service Transportation Stakeholder Committee

FTA guidance with respect to the JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 Programs specifies that all projects selected for funding under these programs must be derived from a locally developed Coordinated Plan. This plan must be developed through a process that includes representatives of public, private, and non-profit human services and transportation providers as well as members of the general public. To the extent feasible, other transportation providers, advocacy groups, human service agencies, and passengers shall be encouraged to participate in coordination and planning efforts.

Moreover, PennDOT’s established project selection process specifies that each Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) – including the CCMPO – must:

“establish, unless already in existence, a public transit-human services transportation coordinating committee which will include the participation of representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human service providers and members of the public.”

According to PennDOT, the charge of this coordinating committee (hereinafter referred to as a “stakeholder committee”, to avoid confusing this body with CCMPO’s already-existing Coordinating Committee) is as follows:

. Review all Section 5310 and JARC applications received from the TPO jurisdiction to provide an assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with low incomes within the TPO jurisdiction; and . Through its comprehensive review of Section 5310 and JARC applications […] identify strategies and/or activities to address identified service gaps and set relative priorities for implementation by determining the priority order of Section 5310 and JARC applicants within its jurisdiction.

Along with the background information contained in the preceding sections, documentation of the actions described immediately above will form the core of CCMPO’s final Coordinated Plan.

Accordingly, CCMPO has developed a list of potential stakeholder committee members that includes members of the CCOT local advisory committee as well as members of the CCMPO’s environmental justice mailing list and list of interested parties. The potential membership also takes into account suggestions from the CCMPO Technical and Coordinating Committees.

Membership was designed to be as knowledgeable, diverse, and inclusive as possible. Prospective members represent the following types of organizations:

. Transportation service providers . Labor unions . Human service agencies and advocacy groups . Regional planning agencies . Faith-based organizations . Economic development agencies . Employers and educational institutions

The final list of prospective stakeholder committee members is listed in the table below:

Name Title Agency Agency Type Location Transportation Service Benson Lichtig Owner AA Transit, Inc. State College Provider Association for Human Service Agency Effie Jenks Executive Director Retarded Citizens of State College / Advocate Centre County Bellefonte Senior Human Service Agency Wendy Wells Center Manager Bellefonte Community Center / Advocate Faith-Based Paula Raynar Office Coordinator Catholic Charities State College Organization Cen-Clear Child Human Service Agency Eugene Kephart Executive Director Philipsburg Services, Inc. / Advocate Central Pennsylvania Human Service Agency Judy Kennedy Center Coordinator Bellefonte Community Action / Advocate Centre Area Transportation Service Hugh Mose General Manager Transportation State College Provider Authority Centre County Human Service Agency Timothy Maggs Manager State College Assistance Office / Advocate Centre County Housing Human Service Agency Randy Holderman Director Bellefonte Authority / Advocate Centre County Mental Human Service Agency Carol Waltz Administrator Health / Mental Bellefonte / Advocate Retardation Centre County Office of Human Service Agency Robert Ott Director Bellefonte Adult Services / Advocate Centre County Office of Human Service Agency Jane Taylor Director Bellefonte Aging / Advocate Centre County Office of Transportation Service Keith Hamilton Director Milesburg Transportation Services Provider Centre County Office of Human Service Agency Stanley Adams Director Bellefonte Veterans' Affairs / Advocate Centre County United Human Service Agency Tammy Gentzel Executive Director State College Way / Advocate

Name Title Agency Agency Type Location Centre County Human Service Agency Anne Ard Executive Director Women's Resource State College / Advocate Center Centre Hall Senior Human Service Agency Virginia Shawley Center Manager Centre Hall Community Center / Advocate Barbara Senior Center Centre Region Senior Human Service Agency State College Lindenbaum Director Center / Advocate Senior Centre County Gregory Kausch Transportation Metropolitan Planning Facilitator State College Planner Organization Child Care Information Executive Human Service Agency Ann Walker Services of Centre State College Administrator / Advocate County Community Clinton/Centre USDA Economic Development Dorothy Gates Development Mill Hall Service Center Agency Manager Community Help Human Service Agency Executive Director State College Centre / Advocate Easter Seals Central Human Service Agency Nancy Turow Director State College Pennsylvania / Advocate Faith-Based David Dimmick Chairman FaithCentre, Inc. Bellefonte Organization Vice President / Fullington Bus Transportation Service Michael Fullington State College COO Company Provider Transportation Service Noreen Byers Owner Handy Delivery Taxi State College Provider Hearing Loss Nancy Stanley Association of America Human Service Agency President State College Maso - Central Pennsylvania / Advocate Chapter Housing Transitions, Human Service Agency Ron Quinn Executive Director Inc. and State College State College / Advocate Community Land Trust Faith-Based Matt Hall Executive Director Interfaith Mission State College Organization Mid-State Literacy Human Service Agency Monica Mathews Director State College Council / Advocate Moshannon Valley Economic Development Stan LaFluria Executive Director Economic Development Philipsburg Agency Partnership Mountaintop Senior Human Service Agency Doris Shaw Center Manager Snow Shoe Community Center / Advocate Transportation Service Carol Ahmed President Nittany Express, Inc. State College Provider PA CareerLink Centre Economic Development Susan Shields Site Administrator State College County Agency Director of Major Employer / Teresa Davis Penn State University University Park Transportation Educational Institution Penns Valley Senior Human Service Agency Jane Rudy Center Manager Rebersburg Community Center / Advocate Philipsburg Senior Human Service Agency Vickey Confer Center Manager Philipsburg Community Center / Advocate Private Industry Council Economic Development Cheryl Johnson Executive Director State College of Centre County, Inc. Agency

Name Title Agency Agency Type Location Retired and Senior Human Service Agency Bonnie Wick Coordinator Volunteer Program of Bellefonte / Advocate Centre County Charles Salvation Army of State Faith-Based Corps Officer State College Niedermyer College Organization Sight Loss Support Human Service Agency Rana Arnold President Group of Central State College / Advocate Pennsylvania, Inc. Skills of Central Human Service Agency David Rice President / CEO State College Pennsylvania, Inc. / Advocate Cynthia Human Service Agency Executive Director Strawberry Fields, Inc. State College Pasquinelli / Advocate

Survey Instrument

Each stakeholder was forwarded a copy of the draft Coordinated Plan, and asked the following four questions:

1) What do your agency and your clients consider to be the most critical transportation gaps to, from, and within Centre County, and why?

2) How have transportation services to, from, and within Centre County improved for your agency and clients over the last 5 years? How have they worsened?

3) Does your agency currently provide transportation services directly to clients? If so, please describe.

4) Which of the candidate projects presented from the Centre County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) 2040 and 2013-2016 Centre County TIP would be most beneficial to your agency and clients, and why?

Key Findings

. Population density of Centre County as a whole grew substantially between 2000- 2010, and the Philipsburg area remains the only area above the countrywide average for density not currently served by fixed route transit.

. Household vehicle ownership is growing within Centre County.

. Median family income has fallen somewhat within Centre County, but so too has the poverty rate.

. Unemployment rate with Centre County rose somewhat, while participation in the labor force fell.

. Trends in receipt of public assistance vary according to the type of public assistance received.

. The Centre County population is becoming slightly less educated in terms of highest educational attainment.

. Centre County population is aging, and receipt of Social Security income rose slightly.

. Median value of owner-occupied housing units has skyrocketed, suggesting an affordable housing crisis.

. Single-occupant vehicles outpaced the growth rate of all other modes of transportation except bicycling; still, Centre County uses more alternative modes than do comparable Pennsylvania counties.

. Commute times remain largely unchanged.

. Despite a slight increase in options for commuters, the same transportation- disadvantaged census tracts largely remain disadvantaged today.

. Transportation options, including both the private auto as well as alternative modes, are becoming more expensive.

. Transportation options seem to have increased in terms of ridesharing options, transit options close in to the Centre Region, and intercity bus options. Coordination efforts between the CCOT and CATA have produced very slight but beneficial effects.

. No consensus could be reached on the candidate projects, many constituencies assigned importance to each of the projects.

. Direct transportation services to agency clients are becoming more cost-prohibitive; agencies would rather make use of existing services.