DOCSLIB.ORG

Route 8 & Waterbury Branch Line Corridor Transit-Oriented

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Route 8 & Waterbury Branch Line Corridor Transit-Oriented Route 8 & Waterbury Branch Line Corridor Transit-Oriented Development & Alternate Transit Modes Assessment Project May 24, 2017 AGENDA – Introductions – Project Background – Existing Conditions – Public Outreach – TOD Scenarios – Other Tasks – Next Steps Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 2 PROJECT STUDY TEAM – Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments – Liaison, Administrator – AECOM – Prime Consultant – CDM Smith – TOD Scenarios, Forecasting – Harriman – TOD Scenarios, Urban Design – Planning4Places DBE – Planning Support, Build Out Scenarios – Zuvic & Carr Associates SBE – Data Collection, Parking Inventory Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 3 Project Background PROJECT AREA – Waterbury Branch Rail Line (WBL) – Waterbury to Devon Wye – Route 8 Expressway – Waterbury to Downtown Bridgeport – Bridgeport Avenue Corridor – Derby-Shelton Station Area – Ansonia Station Area – Seymour Station Area – Beacon Falls Station Area – Naugatuck Station Area Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 5 PROJECT GOALS Route 8 Corridor – Identify new, enhanced and alternate public transit Bus Rapid Transit facilities and services, including local bus service, bus rapid transit routes and commuter rail, to transform town centers into vibrant, high-density communities that have access to efficient and high quality transit services. Commuter Rail Line: Waterbury Branch – Provide built environment densities that meet transit Improvements supportive standards for land uses and walkability, in order to facilitate and encourage the use of enhanced transit services. Transit Oriented Development – Enhance transit connectivity, reliability and attractiveness. Lower Naugatuck Valley Urban Centers – Develop an implementation plan for incentivizing transit oriented and supported developments in the lower Naugatuck Valley Region. Station Area Enhancements – Advance HUD’s livability principles and extend WBL Stations sustainable communities. Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 6 OBJECTIVES Open discussion on Project Goals… Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 7 Existing Conditions EXISTING CONDITIONS – Previous Studies – Passenger Rail – Road Network – Local Bus – Parking – Environmental – Connecting Services – Travel Patterns Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 9 PREVIOUS STUDIES – CTDOT Waterbury Branch Line Improvement Study – MetroCOG Long Range Transportation Plan – Greater Bridgeport Alternate Modes Study – CNVR Long Range Transportation Plan – Valley Long Range Transportation Plan – Naugatuck River Greenway Project – CTDOT Capital Projects Report – GBT Transit Master Plan – Let’s Go CT – Waterbury Bus Study – Waterbury Area Transit Study – Connecticut Statewide Bus Study Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 10 PASSENGER RAIL - WBL – Meetings with CTDOT and MNRR – Existing operations – Travel times – Infrastructure – Ridership counts – Programmed improvements – Constraints Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 11 ROAD NETWORK – Route 8 travel times/speeds – Traffic analysis Route 8 and connecting rail station corridors – Crash assessment – Commodore Hull Bridge future operations Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 12 LOCAL BUS – Meetings with providers: • CT Transit Waterbury & New Haven, GBT – Examined • Route characteristics, ridership, funding/fares, fleet, programmed improvements, travel times – Ridership counts, and route surveys on key corridor routes • Waterbury Routes: 40, 42, T74, T114, N1, N2, 928/925 • New Haven Routes: J4,F5 • Bridgeport Routes: 15, 22x, 23 Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 13 PARKING – ½ mile rail station – 10+ hour parking only – Capacity, type, utilization, cost, ownership Station ½ Mile Total % Increase % % Station Capacity Occupied Utilized from 2002 Capacity Occupied Utilized Capacity Utilized Utilization Waterbury 248 45 18.1% Yes 3,253 1,195 36.7% 3,451 1,240 35.9% Naugatuck 125 28 22.4% Yes 382 51 13.3% 507 79 15.6% Beacon Falls 54 8 14.8% Yes 314 23 7.3% 368 31 8.4% Seymour 23 14 60.9 No 328 79 24.8% 351 93 26.5% Ansonia 80 33 41.3% No 357 147 41.2% 437 180 41.2% Derby/Shelton 77 73 94.8% Yes 661 253 38.3% 738 326 44.2% Total 557 201 36.1% -- 5,259 1,748 33.0% 5,825 1,949 33.3% Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 14 ENVIRONMENTAL – Waterbury Branch Line, Stations, Bridgeport Avenue (Shelton) and the Route 8 centerline and primary connecting roadway(s) and ramps to the rail stations. – Land use, open space, zoning, flood zones, wetlands, farmland soils, brownfields, endangered species, water quality, historic sites, community resources Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 15 CONNECTING SERVICES – At Stations and within corridor communities – Modes: • Paratransit • Commuter bus • Intercity • Ferry Service • Taxi/TNC Services • Rideshare services Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 16 TRAVEL PATTERNS – 77.7% drive alone – Average commute time = 25.4 minutes – 30.1% of corridor residents work in the corridor and 23% work in New Haven County – The corridor is a net exporter of workers – 3.69% of Bridgeport residents work in the corridor Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 17 Public Outreach STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT – 3 Study Advisory Committee GOALS OF THE PI PROCESS meetings – Create meaningful Two-way Channels of Communication – 1 Public Information meeting – Manage a Resonant Message – Five Charrettes – Build Consensus – Meetings with transit providers and CT DOT – Identify Champions – WBL site investigations – Work with communities to understand issues and opportunities related to transportation and land use Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 1919 PROJECT WEBSITE – URL: http://rt8corridorstudy.com/ Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 20 PROJECT SCHEDULE Route 8 & Waterbury Branch line Corridor Transit-Oriented Development and Alternative Transit Modes Assessment Project Project Timeline Months Tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Task 1 - Advisory Committee Task 2 - Public Outreach Task 3 - Definition of Study Area Task 4 - Data Collection/Existing Conditions Task 5 - TOD Scenarios Task 6 - Alt. Modes Assessment Task 7 - Corridor Alignment Task 8 - WBL Action Plan Task 9 - Preferred Alternatives Plan Task 10 - Administration Committee Meeting Deliverable Public Meeting Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 21 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Opportunities TOD PROCESS Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 23 CHARRETTES TOWNS – Two workshops per town – Workshop 1: Visioning for stations and TOD Ansonia visual preferences Seymour Naugatuck – Workshop 2: Model block Beacon Falls Shelton/Derby Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 24 TOD DISCUSSION TOPICS – TOD Development in Flood Plain – Brownfields Development – Density and Service Frequency – Coordination with Ongoing TOD in Corridor – Other Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 25 FUTURE TASKS – Conduct Alternative TransportationVCOG/SAC Modes – Needs Assessment • Discussion with local officials/stakeholders – Develop Corridor Alignments • Three possible alignments • Bike and pedestrian connectivity – Create Waterbury Branch Line Improvements Action Plan – Finalize Preferred Alternatives Plan Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 26 Next Steps NEXT STEPS – Complete existing conditions report – Finalize goals and objectives – Schedule and conduct charrettes (Fall 2017) – Quantify transportation need in the region – Begin developing multimodal alternatives Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 28 Thank You .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Beacon Falls URBITRANR EPORT
    Individual Station Report Beacon Falls URBITRANR EPORT CONTENTS: Stakeholder Interview Customer Opinion Survey Parking Inventory & Utilization Station Condition Inspection Lease Narrative and Synopsis Station Operations Review Station Financial Review URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. July 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 Stakeholder Interview URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. Waterbury Branch All communities except for Naugatuck were represented during the stakeholder process, although Waterbury was represented by the Chamber of Commerce and Ansonia by the Valley Regional Planning Agency. Waterbury The Chamber of Commerce was designated by the Mayor as the representative for these discussions. The first issue that was raised concerned the parking lot, and the lack of clear directions regarding what is city parking for the station and what is SNET parking. The lot itself is unpaved and poorly marked. There is no lease between the City and CDOT for the station or parking lot, and the City has no responsibilities regarding them. The Chamber representatives stated that they could not speak to policy issues and the City’s attitude towards the station or rail service except in general terms. In that regard, the basic desire is to have more service on the Waterbury branch, and to construct a new intermodal terminal for buses and rail in the city. There is a study underway for such a facility, and site locations as they impact on local businesses and the transit network are currently under review.
    [Show full text]
  • Ansonia Train Station
    ANSONIA TRAIN STATION VISUAL INSPECTION REPORT January 2007 Prepared by the Bureau of Public Transportation Connecticut Department of Transportation Ansonia Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Overview: The Ansonia Train Station is a small rail stop located on West Main Street in downtown Ansonia, one block from Main Street (Route 334). Storefronts line the street opposite the station. Across the track is the Naugatuck River floodwall and floodgate, which are pleasantly clear of graffiti. Between the wall and the tracks is an abandoned roadway with an old wooden post guide rail. Weeds have overtaken the old pavement. The platform area consists of a wooden box and an old wooden canopy on bituminous pavement. A Plexiglas glass shelter sits nearby on a concrete pad. Shrubs obscure the shelter from the street. Several large trees shade the adjacent street. Paths to and from the station use city sidewalks and are illuminated by streetlights. This is small station whose ridership is less than 100 commuters per weekday. Weekend numbers may equal or exceed the average weekday ridership. While only a minor facelift to the canopy and immediate area will make this a more attractive rail stop, ridership numbers will likely not increase until commuter service is perceived to be more reliable. Maintenance Responsibilities: Owner: CDOT Operator: CDOT Platform Lights: Metro-North Power Department Trash: Metro-North Operations Services (Stations) Snow Removal: Metro-North Track Department Shelter Glazing: CDOT Platform Canopy: CDOT Platform Structure: CDOT Parking: Municipality Page 2 Ansonia Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Station Layout: Aerial Photo by Aero-Metric, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut State Rail Plan, 2012
    DRAFT 2012 CONNECTICUT STATE RAIL PLAN __________________________________________________________________ THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK Page 1 DRAFT 2012 CONNECTICUT STATE RAIL PLAN __________________________________________________________________ State of Connecticut Department of Transportation 2012-2016 Connecticut State Rail Plan Prepared by: BUREAU OF PUBLIC TRANSPORATION, OFFICE OF RAIL CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 50 UNION AVENUE, FOURTH FLOOR WEST NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06519 Page 2 DRAFT 2012 CONNECTICUT STATE RAIL PLAN __________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 7 CHAPTER 1 – STATE RAIL VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES .............................. 9 1.1 MISSION STATEMENT, VISION, AND VALUES ........................................................................ 9 1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR RAIL SERVICE IN CONNECTICUT ..................................... 10 CHAPTER 2 – FEDERAL AND STATE MANDATES .................................................. 13 2.1 FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND PLANNING REQUIREMENTS ................................................ 14 2.2 STATE LEGISLATION AND PLANNING REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 15 CHAPTER 3 – DESCRIPTION OF RAIL SYSTEM IN CONNECTICUT ....................... 18
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Transportation Infrastructure Priorities Naugatuck Valley Planning Region – February 2019
    Federal Transportation Infrastructure Priorities Naugatuck Valley Planning Region – February 2019 Federal Transportation Infrastructure Priorities: Naugatuck Valley Planning Region – February 2019 National Policy Initiatives: • Continue to use performance-based criteria for discretionary grant program decisions. • Ensure Highway Trust Fund solvency. Near-term solvency can be achieved by increasing and indexing existing federal fuel taxes, but a • Directly allocate STBG Program funds to MPOs of all sizes. Enhance long term solution needs to be studied and implemented. authority of MPOs to set regional spending priorities. • Remove the federal tolling prohibition. Tolling can raise funds to improve • Directly allocate all STBGP set-aside funds (formerly the Transportation and rebuild the aging Interstate and non-interstate expressway system. Alternative Program) to MPOs of all sizes and end the ability of state States, in consultation with impacted metropolitan areas, should decide DOTs to transfer set-aside funds to other programs. whether tolling is appropriate, • Permit MPOs in Connecticut to be designated based on Council of • Increase funding for transportation planning. Effective planning crafts Government boundaries and be considered Urban Area equivalents for solutions that address a variety of needs within the transportation transportation funding and programs. This would not cause any increase system. MPOs need sufficient funding to assess an increasingly in funding, but it would generate greater efficiencies in the way that complex array of activities, including more planning based on funding is programmed and distributed in the state. performance-based criteria. State Policy Initiatives: • Increase funding for the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP). • Maintain and provide full annual funding for the Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program (LOTCIP) • Increase funding for all forms of transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Mta Property Listing for Nys Reporting
    3/31/2021 3:48 PM MTA PROPERTY LISTING FOR NYS REPORTING COUNTY SECTN BLOCKNO LOTNO Property_Code PROPERTYNAME PROPERTYADDDRESS AGENCY LINE PROPERTYTYPE limaster LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIR Main Line Station Bronx bbl05200 Bronx Whitestone Bridge Hutchson River parkway BT Block/Lot Bridge Bronx 9 mha04650 ROW b 125th & Melrose XXX St MN Harlem ROW Bronx 9 mha06600 ROW b 125th & Melrose Milepost 5,Sta-Mon# 31.5 MN Harlem ROW Bronx 12 mha09500 FORDHAM STATION Fordham Rd (Fordham U) MN Harlem Station Bronx mhu00343 Perm E'ment at Yankee Stadium Sta-mon 30.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx mhu06251 Spuyten Duyvil Substation Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx 19 mhu06301 Parking at Riverdale Milepost 12 , Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Parking Bronx tbl03600 Unionport Shop Unionport Rd. NYCT White Plains Road Shop Bronx tbl65340 Con Edison Ducts East 174 St NYCT Block/Lot Ducts Bronx tbw32500 231ST 231 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32600 238 ST 238 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32700 242 ST 242 St-Van Cortlandt Pk NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tco21000 161 ST Yankee Stadium 161 St/River Ave NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21100 167 ST 167 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21200 170 ST 170 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21300 174 175 STs 174-175 Sts/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21400 TREMONT AVE Tremont Ave/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21500 182 183 STs 183 St/Grand
    [Show full text]
  • Combined with a New Devon Station from Alternative W-13, the Passing
    Waterbury and New Canaan Branch Lines Needs and Feasibility Study Phase II Report Combined with a new Devon Station from Alternative W-13, the passing siding located south of Beacon Falls Station could also support hourly shuttles in both directions between Waterbury and the New Haven Line via a transfer at Devon Station. The northern location for the siding would not support hourly shuttles in this instance because it would shift the meet location three to four minutes closer to Waterbury in each direction, resulting in turn times at Devon that are operationally infeasible. The conceptual capital cost for constructing this alternative (without CTC) would be $6 million (2008 dollars). 2.3.6 Four Passing Sidings (W-11) This alternative would add four passing sidings on the Waterbury Branch, one north or south of Beacon Falls Station (described above and shown in Figures 3-7 and 3-8); one north of Derby- Shelton Station, from 74+640 to 782+261 (approximately MP 9 to 9.7); one two miles north of the Devon wye; and one two miles south of Waterbury Station (see Appendix B – Waterbury Passing Siding Drawings). The proposed locations would not require any station platform modifications, as trains would pass outside of station limits. All passing sidings would be of sufficient length that, with CTC, trains could enter and leave the sidings at 30 MPH. A RAILSIM TPC run was performed to determine the capacity (minimum headway) improvement achieved by adding both passing sidings. Adding four passing sidings would allow one more non-revenue train to be sent northbound to Waterbury (for an early morning double berth), which would allow an extra southbound morning peak period train to operate.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbury Station
    TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES IN SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT KNOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO KNOWfor HOW TO GOSENIORS, PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO GO WITH KNDISABILITIESOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO and VETERANS www.knowhowtogoct.org Waterbury Station Naugatuck Station Beacon Falls Danbury Station Station Seymour Station Seymour Danbury Bethel Station Ansonia Station Ansonia Monroe Derby Shelton Redding Station Station Derby Redding Ridgefield Branchville Station Shelton Trumbull Milford Easton Cannondale Station Weston Bridgeport Wilton Wilton Station Milford New Merritt 7 Station Canaan Station Fairfield BridgeportStratford Station Stratford Station New Canaan Westport Station Fairfield Metro Station Fairfield Station Stamford Norwalk Southport Station Talmadge Hill SERVICE SERVICE AREA Station Green’s Farms Station Springdale Westport Station Station Darien E. Norwalk Station Glenbrook S. Norwalk Station Greenwich Station Rowayton Station Darien Station Noroton Heights Station Long Island Sound Stamford Station Old Greenwich Station Riverside Station Cos Cob Station Greenwich Station 1 Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Ferry ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • 2018-2021 Public Transportation Transit Asset Management Plan
    2018-2021 Public Transportation Transit Asset Management Plan Tier I Plan in accordance with 49 CFR §625.5 September 2018 This page intentionally left blank CTDOT PT-TAMP This page intentionally left blank CTDOT PT-TAMP Message from the Commissioner It is my pleasure, as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT), to present the State’s initial Public Transportation Transit Asset Management Plan (TAMP). This plan goes beyond federal mandates and demonstrates a strong commitment to achieving a State of Good Repair for our transportation system. Connecticut’s transportation system is multimodal and supports the economy by enabling the efficient movement of people, goods, and services. Connecticut is a vital transportation link between northern New England and New York, New Jersey and the Mid- Atlantic states. The transportation system also links our communities; helping connect neighborhoods, towns, and cities. In order for Connecticut’s economy to function properly and grow, the transportation system must be maintained and updated. This document presents a plan developed in partnership with CTDOT Public Transportations’ statewide service providers, to achieve a systematic and comprehensive asset management system for the State’s public transportation assets to provide safe and reliable service for the citizens of Connecticut. Implementation of this plan will align with the Department’s priority to maintain and preserve the transportation system. James P. Redeker Commissioner CTDOT PT-TAMP This page intentionally left blank CTDOT PT-TAMP Disclaimer The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) has prepared this Transit Asset Management Plan (TAMP) in accordance with 49 CFR 625.5 and pursuant to the further guidance and direction of the Federal Transit Administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Valley MPO Long Range Regional Transportation Plan 2015-2040
    Regional Transportation Plan for the Valley Planning Region: 2015 - 2040 Prepared by: Valley Council of Governments April 2015 Acknowledgements Valley Council of Governments Board The long range transportation plan for the Valley planning region The Honorable David Cassetti, Mayor, City of Ansonia was prepared by the Valley Council of Governments in cooperation The Honorable Anita Dugatto, Mayor, City of Derby with member municipalities and the Valley Transit District. It was The Honorable W. Kurt Miller, First Selectman, Town of Seymour completed under the VCOG’s FY 2015 Unified Planning Work The Honorable Mark Lauretti, Mayor, City of Shelton Program and funded through the UPWP by the US Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration), Connecticut Department of Transportation and Staff member municipalities. The findings and conclusions expressed in the report are those of the VCOG and do not reflect the official views Rick Dunne, Executive Director of CTDOT or the USDOT. Mark Nielsen, Director of Planning Mark Pandolfi, Transit Capital Adminsitrator/ General Manager, VTD Yi Ding, Transportation Planner Sources of copies Clare Falcha, Finance Director Jan Jadach, Administrative Assistant Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 49 Leavenworth Street, Suite 303 Waterbury, Connecticut Phone: (203) 757-0535 Website: www.nvcogct.org Date May 1, 2015 For more information For more information about the VCOG’s transportation planning process and the update of the long range transportation plan, please visit the VCOG’s website at: www.nvcogct.org Page | i Abstract for the region needs to be approved and in place by May 1, 2015. The new LRTP covers a timeframe beginning in 2015 and ending in The Valley Council of Governments (VCOG) is a multi-discipline, 2040, a 25-year planning horizon.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Conditions Report Is Part of the Broader Subsequent Reports
    [Type the document title] [Type the document subtitle] [Pick the date] Oldread, Krystal Existing Conditions TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i Transit and Commuter Rail Services ........................................................................................... i Transit Services.................................................................................................................... i Commuter Rail.................................................................................................................... ii Parking .................................................................................................................................iii Travel Patterns.......................................................................................................................iii Existing Road Network ............................................................................................................iii 1.Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.Existing Transit Services ........................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Local Fixed Route Bus Transit .............................................................................................. 3 2.1.1 CTtransit Waterbury ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seymour URBITRANR EPORT
    Individual Station Report Seymour URBITRANR EPORT CONTENTS: Stakeholder Interview Customer Opinion Survey Parking Inventory & Utilization Station Condition Inspection Lease Narrative and Synopsis Station Operations Review Station Financial Review URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. July 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 Stakeholder Interview URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. Seymour Seymour has a small facility and a lease for just the parking facility and not the station structure or platform. Also, in lieu of a lease payment to the State, they administer the parking program. They also do not have to reinvest any surplus in improvements. The town had not been not aware that they had to keep up the parking area but once they found out they have done so. They feel that the station contributes little to the community and therefore the station should be kept up by CDOT. They thought that the parking was all on town property, but the lease shows otherwise. The signage for parking says two hours, but people can get a pass either for a day or for a year for a nominal fee. This is not widely known. There are few complaints about the station; the only significant one was about a vagrant who has since passed away. CDOT agreed to paint and clean the building, and the town has agreed to maintain the area, do landscaping, and keep the pavement in good condition. Over the next five years, the town would like to have more service, but otherwise they have no plans for the station.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Station Report
    Individual Station Report Ansonia URBITRANR EPORT CONTENTS: Stakeholder Interview Customer Opinion Survey Parking Inventory & Utilization Station Condition Inspection Lease Narrative and Synopsis Station Operations Review Station Financial Review URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. July 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 Stakeholder Interview URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. Seymour Seymour has a small facility and a lease for just the parking facility and not the station structure or platform. Also, in lieu of a lease payment to the State, they administer the parking program. They also do not have to reinvest any surplus in improvements. The town had not been not aware that they had to keep up the parking area but once they found out they have done so. They feel that the station contributes little to the community and therefore the station should be kept up by CDOT. They thought that the parking was all on town property, but the lease shows otherwise. The signage for parking says two hours, but people can get a pass either for a day or for a year for a nominal fee. This is not widely known. There are few complaints about the station; the only significant one was about a vagrant who has since passed away. CDOT agreed to paint and clean the building, and the town has agreed to maintain the area, do landscaping, and keep the pavement in good condition. Over the next five years, the town would like to have more service, but otherwise they have no plans for the station.
    [Show full text]