Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) Strategic Plan Update

Transcription

Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA)
Strategic Plan Update 2016 - 2026
November 2015
The preperation of this plan has been funded in part through a technical assistance grant from
the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 2 - Current CATA Operations
Chapter 3 - Local Inventory of Surface Transportation Services
Chapter 4 - Service Area Characteristics
Chapter 5 - Key Stakeholders
Chapter 6 - Rider and Non-Rider Involvement
Chapter 7 - Projections
Chapter 8 - Institutional, Regulatory, and Public Funding Environment
Chapter 9 - Determination of Strategic Actions
Chapter 10 - The CATA Strategic Plan
Appendix A - Rider & Non-Rider Surveys
Appendix B - Public Comment Period Summary
Table of Contents
CATA Strategic Plan Update 2016 - 2026
Chapter 1
Overview of the Project Area,
Scope of Work, and Schedule
The Centre Area Public Transportation Plan was completed in 1998, and CATA’s most recent Strategic Plan Update
was finalized in 2004. Since the latter occurred, a number of key changes have taken place with respect to CATA’s
service offering, staffing, technology, facility, travel patterns and residential/commercial development within the
current and planned service area, and in public transportation funding at the federal and state level. Moreover,
the Assessment of Public Transportation Services in Centre County has resulted in increased coordination with
the Centre County Office of Transportation Services, the Moshannon Valley Park and Ride Lot Study has been
completed (and commuter bus service implemented between Clearfield and Centre Counties), a new fleet
replacement plan has recently been finalized, and the State College Area Universal Transit Access Study is on
target for completion during 2013. These recent focused studies suggest that continued changes are in store for
CATA.
To ensure that CATA is oriented in a clear direction over a horizon of 5-10 years, the agency proposes to work
cooperatively with the Centre Regional Planning Agency (CRPA) and Centre County Metropolitan Planning
Organization (CCMPO) to draft a new update to the strategic / development plan beginning in 2013 for
completion in early 2015. Working through a Senior Transportation Planner position shared by CATA, the CRPA,
and the CCMPO, and making the most efficient use of the resources of all three agencies, this effort will be
completed in-house, with the opportunity for limited consultant support as appropriate.
The completed plan will serve as an asset to guide staff and the Board in daily decision-making, by providing
clear data on current operations, as well as guiding principles used in managing changes and opportunities in
both the internal and external environments.
Project Management and Oversight
Both the Centre Area Public Transportation Plan (1998) and CATA’s most recent Strategic Plan Update (2004)
were completed by outside consulting firms. This project will differ in that it will be managed on a day-to-day
basis by the joint CRPA / CCMPO / CATA Senior Transportation Planner, in close consultation with the staff and
leadership of the two agencies.
As a vehicle for obtaining more broad, policy-level involvement by which to guide this effort, a project
management team will be established, consisting of the following membership:
• CATA Board of Directors (Richard Kipp as the lead representative, with Joe Davidson serving as an
alternate)
• Senior CATA staff (including both the retiring and incoming General Manager, as well as those responsible
for finance, operations, service development, maintenance, and marketing)
• CCMPO (Principal Transportation Planner and Senior Transportation Planner – Centre County)
• Penn State University (with involvement coordinated through Teresa Davis)
• PennDOT Bureau of Public Transportation
• Community member (with staff suggesting a short list of potential representatives for refinement and
selection by the CATA Board)
4
Moreover, regular project status updates will be provided at meetings of the following governing bodies of
elected and appointed officials:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CATA Board of Directors
CCMPO Technical Committee
CCMPO Coordinating Committee
COG Transportation and Land Use Committee
COG General Forum
PennDOT Bureau of Public Transportation
Penn State University (perhaps through their Intermodal Transportation Plan Update Committee)
CATA front-line personnel, as well as other “key stakeholders” – as specified in Task IV of the scope of work – will
be asked for input during the course of the study and provided with the final results.
Work Program Summary
In careful consultation with the staff and leadership of CATA, CRPA, and the CCMPO, the work program has been
divided and organized into the following nine tasks:
• Task 0 – Basic / Administrative Tasks – This task will set the foundation for all subsequent project tasks,
including execution of a grant agreement with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, completion of an
interagency agreement between CATA and the CRPA (which will govern the flow of project funding
between agencies), assembly of the project management team, and final drafting of the project scope of
work, schedule, and budget.
• Task I – Current CATA Operations – This task will deliver a succinct written description of all services
provided by CATA. Key operating and capital indicators for fixed route, paratransit, and ridesharing
services will be generated and analyzed by route, time of day, and day of week. These indicators will
include routes, ridership, service span and frequency, fares, performance and financial data, physical
plant, and human resources, with performance data specifically to include ridership, cost per revenue
hour, cost per unlinked trip, cost recovery ratio, ridership per revenue hour, average vehicle speed, fare
payment method, vehicle capacity, on-time performance, service interruptions, and maintenance costs.
Route- and mode-specific data will be presented in a simple, easy to understand “dashboard” format.
Moreover, for the purposes of peer comparison, CATA’s operating data will be measured against transit
systems within the following jurisdictions:
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
Ames, Iowa
Ithaca, New York
Gainesville, Florida
Lafayette, Indiana
Lubbock, Texas
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Blacksburg, Virginia
Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
Lexington, Kentucky
Lincoln, Nebraska
South Bend, Indiana
Fort Collins, Colorado
Athens, Georgia
5
• Task II – Local Inventory of Transportation Services – This task will describe fixed route, paratransit,
ridesharing, intercity bus, taxi, human service, and university transportation services (available to the
general public or selected subsets thereof) provided by entities other than CATA for Centre County in
general, and the current CATA service area in particular. The audience will develop a clear understanding
of the geographic and temporal areas that are covered by these transportation services. In this manner,
critical gaps in service within the project area will be identified. Based on the closer level of coordination
between CATA and the Centre County Office of Transportation, the offerings of this latter agency will be
described in a much higher level of detail than other local transportation providers.
• Task III – Service Area Characteristics – This task will define Centre County in general, and the current
CATA service area in particular, in terms of demographics, target populations, major and minor trip
generators, planning and zoning, and travel patterns. Tools such as the 2010 United States Census, 200711 American Community Survey (ACS), and Local Employment – Housing Dynamics (LEHD) model will be
utilized. For demographic data, a census tract level of detail will be utilized, except in cases where it is
possible to extract a finer level of detail. Journey-to-Work data only will be utilized to estimate demand
from outside Centre County.
• Task IV – Key Stakeholder Involvement – This task will identify what CATA does well, and what it needs
to improve upon, in consultation with representatives from a number of key public transportation
constituencies. The project team will personally engage an appropriate mix of elected, appointed,
employee, and board representatives from CATA, CRPA/CCMPO, Penn State University (including
transportation officials, faculty, staff, and students), municipal and county government, the human
service and business communities, and neighboring transit systems, as well as other key partners. A
critical element of this work task will be to involve CATA leadership (senior staff and board members) in
a half-day Strengths / Weaknesses / Opportunities / Threats (SWOT) analysis and visioning exercise to
discuss organizational attributes and potential.
• Task V – Rider and Non-Rider Involvement – This task will identify what CATA does well, and what
it needs to improve upon, in consultation with those who use CATA fixed route, paratransit, and
ridesharing services, as well as those members of the community who do not utilize these services for
their travel needs. The project team will engage via written survey instruments, as well as in-person
interviews, a portion of the population of Centre County in general, and the current CATA service area in
particular, with special attention paid to regular riders. The surveyed rider population will be sufficiently
large and stratified to include all services, routes, and user groups. To the greatest extent possible, this
task will be coordinated with PennDOT-mandated customer satisfaction surveys, as well as outreach
tasks undertaken by local municipalities.
• Task VI – Institutional and Regulatory Climate – This task will involve researching and describing how
CATA’s relationships with collective bargaining units, local, state, and federal governments, Penn State
University, primary service clients, the CCMPO, professional affiliations, other transportation providers,
etc. impact the agency’s current scope of services provided, as well as prospects for future service. It will
also assess the potential impact of statewide transit consolidation and ridesharing initiatives on current
and possible future services.
• Task VII – Projections – This task will describe how the transportation needs of Centre County in
general, and the current CATA service area in particular, are likely to change over the next 10 years. It
will include data describing demographics, expected funding and finance trends (at the federal, state,
and local levels), local development, planning and zoning, roadway network, employment, Penn State
University trends, and housing. An assessment of performance based on the 1998 Centre Area Public
6
Transportation Plan and 2004 Strategic Plan Update will also be included.
• Task VIII – Strategic and Development Recommendations – Over the short (1-3 years), medium (3-5
years), and long (5-10 years) term, this task will describe actions that can be taken to better align
CATA administration and operations with its mission, vision, organizational strengths, community
needs, available resources, and projected changes within the service area and Centre County.
Recommendations will include the following:
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
Summary of key findings
Needs assessment
Strategies to address needs in order of priority
Implementation schedule
Cost and revenue estimates
Capital needs
Growth plan for staffing needs
Potential funding sources
Schedule for future plan updates
A cross-functional team of CATA staff will be assembled to convene on an ongoing basis and facilitate
implementation of recommendations. This team will be able to respond to shorter-term and ongoing changes
in CATA’s operating environment. A variety of performance measures generated in Task I will be used to track
implementation progress.
Given that the current CATA General Manager’s tenure is expected to end in June 2014 by virtue of retirement,
it is recognized that the project would benefit from his intensive involvement in Tasks IV (Key Stakeholder
Involvement), VI (Institutional and Regulatory Climate), and VIII (Strategic and Development Recommendations).
The project schedule and sequencing of tasks will therefore be drafted and implemented accordingly.
Project Area Description
The project area is generally defined as Centre County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1-1). Centre County lies in the
geographic center of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Its area is 1,112 square miles, which makes it, in
terms of land area, one of the largest counties in the Commonwealth. According to estimates from the 2007-11
American Community Survey (ACS), the population of the county is 152,689.
Figure 1-1 (Location of Centre County Within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania)
7
Figure 1-2 (Municipalities Within Centre County, Pennsylvania)
Centre County is comprised of 35 municipalities (Figure 1-2). Ten of these municipalities are boroughs,
and 25 are townships.
For community, land use, and transportation planning purposes, Centre County has been divided into 7
“planning regions” (Figure 1-3), including the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mountaintop
Lower Bald Eagle Valley
Moshannon Valley
Upper Bald Eagle Valley
Nittany Valley
Penns Valley
Centre
CATA generally provides fixed route and paratransit services within the Centre Region, including the Patton, College, Harris, and Ferguson Townships, as well as the Borough of State College. These services
are also provided on a contract basis, however, to Benner and Spring Townships, and the Borough of
Bellefonte, within the Nittany Valley planning region, as well as Halfmoon Township within the Centre
Region. Going forward, there exists the possibility of including additional municipalities and planning
regions in CATA’s fixed route and paratransit service offerings.
8
Figure 1-3 (Planning Regions Within Centre County, Pennsylvania)
Through its ridesharing services, CATA also plays a strong, and ever-growing, role in meeting the demand for public transportation between Centre County and surrounding areas of Central Pennsylvania.
These ridesharing services currently operate within an 11-county region of Central Pennsylvania (Figure
1-4), including the following counties:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Centre
Clinton
Lycoming
Mifflin
Juniata
Blair
Clearfield
Somerset
Bedford
Indiana
Cambria
Figure 1-4 (CATA Ridesharing Service Area)
As part of this project, it will be critical to examine the travel patterns within Centre County and this larger
region, so as to identify areas of current and possible future demand.
9
Project Schedule
It is expected that this project – while being managed by the joint CRPA / CATA Senior Transportation
Planner, who will also perform the majority of the tasks necessary for plan completion – will also involve a number of other key CATA, CCMPO, and CRPA staff to support various elements. In this manner,
expert knowledge and project buy-in will be obtained as the project is ongoing.
The following is an estimate of the number of staff hours and calendar months expected to be involved
in each phase of the project:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Task I – Current CATA Operations: 250 staff hours, 2 months elapsed time
Task II – Local Inventory of Transportation Services: 200 staff hours, 2 months elapsed time
Task III – Service Area Characteristics: 250 staff hours, 1 month elapsed time
Task IV – Key Stakeholder Involvement: 150 staff hours, 2 months elapsed time
Task V – Rider and Non-Rider Involvement: 150 staff hours, 2 months elapsed time
Task VI – Institutional and Regulatory Climate: 150 staff hours, 2 months elapsed time
Task VII – Projections: 350 staff hours, 3 months elapsed time
Task VIII – Strategic and Development Recommendations: 350 staff hours, 3 months elapsed time
This proposed schedule yields a total of 1,850 staff hours spanning a period of about 17 months, carrying
the project from late 2013 to early 2015. To the greatest extent possible, the CRPA / CCMPO / CATA Senior
Transportation Planner and project management team will continually re-evaluate the project schedule, in an
effort to perform tasks and subtasks simultaneously, while delivering the project on-time or decreasing the total
elapsed time, as practical.
Project Budget
Based upon CATA’s successful application for Technical Assistance Program funds, the PennDOT Bureau of
Public Transportation has approved a grant award in the amount of $132,275 – with $127,872 coming from the
Commonwealth and $4,403 expected as local matching funds – to defray the staff time, materials, and other
costs involved in completing the project. This grant award should not only offset CATA’s contribution to the
CCMPO for the joint Senior Transportation Planner position, but also offset the salary and benefits of other
CATA staff and management involved in the project. Given the nature of the Technical Assistance Program, it is
expected that this project – including the unique partnership between CATA, the CRPA, and the CCMPO – will
serve as an example to other transit properties throughout the Commonwealth.
10
11
Chapter 2
Current CATA Operations
This chapter is intended to deliver a written description of CATA at the overall agency level, as well as of all
services provided. Key operating and capital indicators for fixed route, paratransit, and ridesharing services will
be presented and analyzed against 12 like transit systems with similar characteristics from across the United
States. 10-year trends in operating performance measures will also be presented and analyzed. Definition of
the agency’s current operations provides a foundation for adjusting these operations as needed to meet funding
developments, new technologies, or changing community demographics.
The Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA)
The Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) is a joint municipal authority first incorporated in May 1974
under the Municipality Authorities Act of 1945, as amended. The Authority was reorganized into its current
format in February 1982. CATA is comprised of the Borough of State College and the four surrounding townships
of College, Ferguson, Harris, and Patton. Each member municipality appoints a single member to a five-member
Board of Directors. Board meetings are held monthly, and generally begin at 4:00pm on the fourth Monday of
every month at the State College Borough Building. The current Board of Directors includes:
•
•
•
•
•
John C. Spychalski, Chairman – Ferguson Township
Joseph L. Davidson, Vice Chairman – College Township
Richard Kipp, Treasurer – Harris Township
Tammy Gentzel – State College Borough
Tom Kurtz – Patton Township
Service is provided to the University Park campus of The Pennsylvania State University, which lies completely
within the boundaries of State College Borough and College Township.
CATA was formed for the sole purpose of conducting “public transportation operations within the boundaries
of the participating municipalities,” with one exception. A majority of the Board of Directors may vote to
extend public transportation “to municipalities outside of the Centre Region on a contract basis.” The contract
must provide for “full cost recovery of both capital and operating expenses, less any applicable user revenue,
state, and federal assistance.” Currently, such agreements are in place with the Borough of Bellefonte, and
the Townships of Benner, Halfmoon, and Spring to provide for service to the Bellefonte, Pleasant Gap, and
Stormstown areas.
The Authority’s budget year runs concurrent with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT)
fiscal year: July 1 – June 30. The budget document includes agency background information, a recap of the
previous year, policy considerations, a work plan with goals for the upcoming year, and a long-term outlook that
includes five-year operating budget projections. The 2014-15 fiscal year budget includes anticipated operating
expenses of $15,408,306, balanced against anticipated receipts, including farebox revenue; federal, state, local,
and private funding; and other miscellaneous income. That same budget document provides for $20,373,000
in capital expenditures, owing to a large replacement vehicle purchase, as well as the building expansion and
renovation project. FY 2014-15 local municipal shares for operating expenses total $515,558, and for capital
expenses total $100,000.
12
CATA operates service directly (CATABUS fixed route service), purchases services from a subcontractor (CATARIDE
shared ride/demand responsive service), and administers some services using a more decentralized, volunteer
driver model (CATACOMMUTE ridesharing services).
CATABUS Fixed Route Service
Supported by farebox revenue, as well as federal, state, local, and private funding, during FY 2014-15 CATA is able
to maintain service along a total of 27 fixed routes within the service area, using a total of 58 vehicles in peak
service. All fixed route service is directly operated by the agency.
CATABUS fixed route service is distinguished by two distinct offerings:
• Community Service (rebranded from Centre Line in 2009) consists of 23 different community bus routes
that provide service to Downtown State College, the Penn State campus, the Borough of Bellefonte,
the Village of Pleasant Gap, suburban shopping centers, apartment complexes, residential areas,
governmental offices, and many other special points of interest. Service is primarily characterized
by a “hub-and-spoke” model that connects outlying points of origin and destination with transfer
opportunities in Downtown State College and on the Penn State University campus.
• Campus Service (otherwise known as LOOP and LINK) provides fare-free campus/downtown circulator
and cross-campus shuttle service. The service consists of four integrated routes, including the Blue LOOP,
White LOOP, Red LINK, and Green LINK. The service area is limited to the Penn State campus and the
immediate downtown State College area.
For the 2013-14 fiscal year, Community Service carried a total of about 3.6 million passengers, with Campus
Service carrying a total of about 3.7 million passengers. This yields a total of about 7.3 million CATABUS
passengers.
Both Community Service and Campus Service operate according to three different levels of service: full service,
reduced service, and no service. Community Service generally operates on a full service schedule whenever
Penn State classes are in session, and then in reduced service the rest of the year. No service is provided on
major holidays including New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.
Campus Service generally operates on a full service schedule whenever Penn State classes are in session, and
then in reduced service when classes are not in session but campus is still open (most employees still working).
There is no service whenever classes are not in session and campus is not open (most employees not working);
this includes the major holidays named above, as well as spring and winter breaks.
Fare-free Campus Service is made possible by an operational and financial partnership between The
Pennsylvania State University and CATA, facilitated by Penn State Transportation Services.
For Community Service in FY 2014-15, the following fare options are offered:
• Cash – $1.75 per trip, exact change only
• Tokens – One used per trip, available for $1.75 apiece, or 20 for $34
• Transfers – Free of charge, and valid for one hour for any continuing trip on a second Community Service
route. Not valid for return trips.
• OnePass – Valid for unlimited travel along all Community Service routes for a period of one month
($69), four months ($268), or any combination thereof (up to 12 months) may be purchased for a
corresponding price. The pass is valid on the date selected by the purchaser.
CATA Strategic Plan Plan Update 2016 - 2026
13
• Ride for Five – Full-time employees and graduate students of Penn State (except those living in an
apartment complex that offers a bus pass as part of rent) are eligible to obtain a bus pass for just $5 per
month, in exchange for waiving their on-campus parking privileges. Penn State purchases Ride for Five
passes for this program from CATA at a discount, and then buys down all but $5 of that wholesale cost,
passing the reduced price on to the employee through payroll deduction. The program was expanded to
include graduate students in September 2014.
• Free – Children under 40” tall, as well as individuals aged 65 and older with a Senior Citizen Transit
Identification Card.
• Reduced Fare – $.85 per trip, for individuals with disabilities with a Reduced Fare Photo Identification
Card, as well as individuals with disabilities and individuals aged 65 and older with a Medicare card and
another form of photo identification.
• Apartment Pass – CATA has agreements with the following local apartment complexes that allow
authorized tenants to receive a special bus pass valid for unlimited free access to the Community Service
route(s) serving each complex; such passes are generally valid for the term of the lease:
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
−−
Copper Beech I
Copper Beech II
Copper Beech – Oakwood
The Grove – State College
The Heights at State College
Lion’s Crossing
The Lofts
Nittany Crossing
Northbrook Greens
Oak Hill
The Park at State College
Parkway Plaza
The Pointe
The Retreat at State College
Towneview
University Terrace
Vairo Village
The Villas at Happy Valley
Waupelani Lofts
CATABUS fixed route service includes all of the following, described in further detail:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
14
A – Park Forest Village
B – Boalsburg
C – Houserville
F – Pine Grove
G – Stormstown
HP – Toftrees / Scenery Park
K – Cato Park
M – Nittany Mall
N – Martin Street / Aaron Drive
NE – Martin Street / Aaron Drive Express
NV – Martin Street / Vairo Boulevard / Toftrees Avenue
R – Waupelani Drive
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RC – Waupelani Drive / Campus
RP – Waupelani Drive / Downtown
S – Science Park
UT – University Terrace
V – Vairo Boulevard
VE – Vairo Boulevard Express
VN – Toftrees Avenue / Vairo Boulevard / Martin Street
W – Valley Vista
WE – Havershire Boulevard Express
XB – Bellefonte
XG – Pleasant Gap
Blue LOOP
White LOOP
Red LINK
Green LINK
15
A – Park Forest Village
The A route (Figure 2-1) connects Park Forest Village with the Penn State campus and downtown State College
via Park Hills, West Aaron Drive, Copper Beech I and II, Park Forest Apartments, and Overlook Heights. The route
operates Monday through Friday only, with four inbound trips and four outbound trips per day, beginning at
7:24 am and ending at 6:32 pm. A commuter level of service frequency is offered. No changes are made to the
schedule during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-1 (A Route – Park Forest Village)
16
B – Boalsburg
The B route (Figure 2-2) connects Tussey Mountain and Boalsburg with the Penn State campus and downtown
State College via Centre Estates, Willowbrook, Kaywood, Country Place, Boal Mansion and Museum, The
Pennsylvania Military Museum, Hills Plaza, University Drive, The Lofts, and University Terrace. The route
operates Monday through Saturday. Monday through Friday, there are six inbound trips and five outbound
trips per day, beginning at 6:56 am and ending at 6:46 pm; during ski season, an additional three inbound and
five outbound trips are offered, beginning at 5:50 pm and ending at 10:42 pm. On Saturday, three inbound and
three outbound trips are provided, beginning at 10:20 am and ending at 6:40 pm. A commuter level of service
frequency is offered both on weekdays and on Saturdays. No changes are made to the schedule during periods
of reduced service.
Figure 2-2 (B Route – Boalsburg)
17
C – Houserville
The C route (Figure 2-3) connects Penn Hills with the Penn State campus and downtown State College via Spring
Creek Estates, Houserville, Clover Highlands, and East College Avenue. The route operates Monday through
Friday only, with five inbound trips and six outbound trips per day, beginning at 7:02 am and ending at 6:06
pm. A commuter level of service frequency is offered. No changes are made to the schedule during periods of
reduced service.
Figure 2-3 (C Route – Houserville)
18
F – Pine Grove
The F route (Figure 2-4) connects Pine Grove Mills and the Meadows with the Penn State campus and downtown
State College via Fairbrook, Ramblewood, Piney Ridge, Stonebridge, Greentree, and Westside Village. The route
operates Monday through Friday only, with five inbound trips and five outbound trips per day, beginning at
7:11 am and ending at 5:46 pm. A commuter level of service frequency is offered. No changes are made to the
Figure 2-4 (F Route – Pine Grove)
19
G – Stormstown
The G route (Figure 2-5) connects Stormstown and Halfmoon Township with the Penn State campus and
downtown State College via Halfmoon Valley Road, Graysdale, Geisinger Grays Woods, Vista Woods, Valley Vista
Park, and North Atherton Street. The route operates Monday through Friday only, with five inbound trips and
four outbound trips per day, beginning at 6:53 am and ending at 6:46 pm. A commuter level of service frequency
is offered. No changes are made to the schedule during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-5 (G Route – Stormstown)
20
HP – Toftrees / Scenery Park
The HP route (Figure 2-6) connects Geisinger Grays Woods and Scenery Park with the Penn State campus and
downtown State College via The Colonnade, Woodycrest, Toftrees, Cricklewood Drive, The Grove, The Village at
Penn State, the Centre County/Penn State Visitor Center, Pugh Street, Towneview Apartments, Foxdale Village,
Mount Nittany Residences, and Windmere Park. The route operates Monday through Saturday. Monday
through Friday, about 20 trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 6:24 am and ending at 10:13
pm. On Saturday, about 13 trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 9:43 am and ending at
10:13 pm. Hourly service frequency is generally offered both on weekdays and on Saturdays. No changes are
made to the schedule during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-6 (HP Route – Toftrees / Scenery Park)
21
K – Cato Park
The K route (Figure 2-7) connects Cato Park and the CATA administrative offices with the Penn State campus
and downtown State College via CareerLink, the Centre County Assistance Office, Bristol Park, Science Park, Old
Gatesburg Road, Blue Course Drive, West College Avenue, and Westside Village. The route operates Monday
through Saturday. Monday through Friday, 17 trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 7:14 am
and ending at 9:17 pm. On Saturday, seven trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 7:14 am
and ending at 5:57 pm. Hourly service frequency is generally offered on weekdays, with commuter level service
offered on Saturdays. No changes are made to the schedule during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-7 (K Route – Cato Park)
22
M – Nittany Mall
The M route (Figure 2-8) connects the Nittany Mall area with the Penn State campus and downtown State
College via Independence Place, the Villas at Happy Valley, Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club, East College Avenue,
Nittany Commons, and Lemont. The route operates seven days per week. Monday through Friday, 32 trips
per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 6:21 am and ending at 12:30 am. On Saturday, about 16
trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 6:40am and ending at 12:30 am. On Sunday, about
13 trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 9:57 am and ending at 12:30 am. A small amount
of additional late-night service is offered on Friday and Saturday during full service. 25- to 35-minute service
frequency is generally offered on weekdays, with 70-minute service frequency generally offered on Saturdays
and Sundays. About one-quarter of the weekday trips are curtailed during periods of reduced service, resulting
in longer headways. No changes are made to the weekend schedule during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-8 (M Route – Nittany Mall)
23
N – Martin Street / Aaron Drive
The N route (Figure 2-9) connects The Colonnade and Trader Joe’s Plaza with the Penn State campus and
downtown State College via Northbrook Greens, Park Forest Village, West Aaron Drive, Copper Beech I and II,
Park Forest Apartments, Martin Street, Park Crest Terrace, The Park at State College, Northland Center, and
North Atherton Street. The route operates seven days per week. Monday through Saturday, about 28 trips per
day are provided in each direction, beginning at 6:45 am and ending at 12:59 am. On Sunday, about 17 trips per
day are provided in each direction, beginning at 7:44 am and ending at 12:37 am. 40-minute service frequency
is generally offered Monday through Saturday, with hourly service frequency generally offered on Sundays. No
changes are made to the schedule during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-9 (N Route – Martin Street / Aaron Drive)
24
NE – Martin Street / Aaron Drive Express
The NE route (Figure 2-10) connects Trader Joe’s Plaza with the Penn State campus on an express basis via
Northbrook Greens, Park Forest Village, West Aaron Drive, Copper Beech I and II, Park Forest Apartments, Martin
Street, Park Crest Terrace, The Park at State College, Northland Center, and North Atherton Street. The route
operates Monday through Friday, with about 40 trips per day provided in each direction, beginning at 7:24 am
and ending at 9:56 pm. 20- to 40-minute service frequency is generally offered. The NE does not operate during
periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-10 (NE Route – Martin Street / Aaron Drive Express)
25
NV – Havershire Drive / Martin Street / Vairo Boulevard / Toftrees Avenue
The NV route (Figure 2-11) is a circular route connecting downtown State College with West College Avenue, The
Heights at State College, Blue Course Drive, Martin Street, The Park at State College, Wal-Mart, Vairo Boulevard,
Nittany Crossing, The Pointe, Lion’s Crossing, Pennwood North, Vairo Village, Copper Beech – Oakwood,
Williamsburg Square, Toftrees Avenue, The Grove, the Bryce Jordan Center, Beaver Stadium, and Pegula Ice
Arena. The route operates seven days per week. Monday through Friday, 21 trips per day are provided,
beginning at 2:30 pm and ending at 1:15 am. On Saturday, 18 trips per day are provided, beginning at 7:30 pm
and ending at 3:24 am. On Sunday, 11 trips per day are provided, beginning at 10:00 am and ending at 8:50
pm. A small amount of additional late-night service is offered on Friday during full service. 30-minute service
frequency is generally offered Monday through Saturday, with hourly service frequency generally offered on
Sundays. The NV does not operate during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-11 (NV Route – Martin Street / Vairo Boulevard / Toftrees Avenue)
26
R – Waupelani Drive
The R route (Figure 2-12) connects the Stratford Drive and Southgate Drive corridors with the Penn State
campus and downtown State College via South Atherton Street, Parkway Plaza Apartments, Westerly Parkway
Plaza, State College Area High School, Waupelani Drive, The Retreat at State College, Executive House, Imperial
Towers, Nittany Garden Apartments, Briarwood Apartments, the State College YMCA, South Hills School of
Business and Technology, Hearthside Nursing Center, Lion’s Gate Apartments, Waupelani Lofts, and Hamilton
Square. The route operates seven days per week. Monday through Friday, about 37 trips per day are provided
in each direction, beginning at 6:09 am and ending at 12:44 am. On Saturday, 28 trips per day are provided in
each direction, beginning at 6:09 am and ending at 12:44 am. On Sunday, 24 trips per day are provided in each
direction, beginning at 8:49 am and ending at 12:44 am. 20- to 40-minute service frequency is generally offered
Monday through Friday, with 40-minute service frequency generally offered on Saturdays and Sundays. No
Figure 2-12 (R Route – Waupelani Drive)
27
RC – Waupelani Drive / Campus
The RC route (Figure 2-13) connects the Waupelani Drive corridor with the Penn State campus via South
Atherton Street, Parkway Plaza Apartments, Westerly Parkway Plaza, State College Area High School, The Retreat
at State College, Executive House, Imperial Towers, Nittany Garden Apartments, Briarwood Apartments, the
State College YMCA, South Hills School of Business and Technology, Hearthside Nursing Center, Lion’s Gate
Apartments, Waupelani Lofts, and Hamilton Square. The route operates Monday through Friday, with 38 trips
per day provided in each direction, beginning at 7:09 am and ending at 7:53 pm. 20-minute service frequency is
generally offered. The RC does not operate during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-13 (RC Route – Waupelani Drive / Campus)
28
RP – Waupelani Drive / Downtown
The RP route (Figure 2-14) connects the Stratford Drive and Southgate Drive corridors with downtown State
College via South Atherton Street, Parkway Plaza Apartments, Westerly Parkway Plaza, State College Area
High School, Waupelani Drive, The Retreat at State College, Executive House, Imperial Towers, Nittany Garden
Apartments, Briarwood Apartments, the State College YMCA, South Hills School of Business and Technology,
Hearthside Nursing Center, Lion’s Gate Apartments, Waupelani Lofts, and South Pugh Street. The route operates
Monday through Saturday. Monday through Friday, 25 trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning
at 11:55 am and ending at 12:16 am. On Saturday, 16 trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at
6:55 pm and ending at 2:46 am. A small amount of additional late-night service is offered on Friday during full
service. 30-minute service frequency is generally offered Monday through Saturday. The RP does not operate
during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-14 (RP Route – Waupelani Drive / Downtown)
29
S – Science Park
The S route (Figure 2-15) connects Science Park with the Penn State campus and downtown State College via
Science Park Road. The route operates Monday through Friday only, with six inbound trips and four outbound
trips per day, beginning at 6:33am and ending at 6:05pm. A commuter level of service frequency is offered. No
Figure 2-15 (S Route – Science Park)
30
UT – University Terrace
The UT route (Figure 2-16) is a largely circular route connecting University Terrace with the Penn State campus
and downtown State College via The Lofts and Bellaire Avenue. The route operates Monday through Friday,
with 20 trips per day provided in each direction, beginning at 7:05 am and ending at 6:16 pm. 30- to 35-minute
service frequency is generally offered. The UT does not operate during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-16 (UT Route – University Terrace)
31
V – Vairo Boulevard
The V route (Figure 2-17) connects The Colonnade with the Penn State campus and downtown State College via
Williamsburg Square, Copper Beech – Oakwood, Vairo Boulevard, Vairo Village, Pennwood North, Lion’s Crossing,
The Pointe, Nittany Crossing, Wal-Mart, and North Atherton Street. The route operates seven days per week.
Monday through Saturday, 27 trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 6:25 am and ending at
12:38 am. On Sunday, 17 trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 7:45 am and ending at 12:39
am. 40-minute service frequency is generally offered Monday through Saturday, with hourly service frequency
generally offered on Sundays. No changes are made to the schedule during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-17 (V Route – Vairo Boulevard)
32
VE – Vairo Boulevard Express
The VE route (Figure 2-18) connects Williamsburg Square with the Penn State campus on an express basis via
Copper Beech – Oakwood, Vairo Boulevard, Vairo Village, Pennwood North, Lion’s Crossing, The Point, Nittany
Crossing, and North Atherton Street. The route operates Monday through Friday, with about 81 trips per day
provided in each direction, beginning at 7:05 am and ending at 10:13 pm. 2- to 18-minute service frequency is
generally offered. The VE does not operate during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-18 (VE Route – Vairo Boulevard Express)
33
VN – Toftrees Avenue / Vairo Boulevard / Martin Street
The VN route (Figure 2-19) is a circular route connecting downtown State College with West College Avenue, The
Heights at State College, Blue Course Drive, Martin Street, The Park at State College, Wal-Mart, Vairo Boulevard,
Nittany Crossing, The Pointe, Lion’s Crossing, Pennwood North, Vairo Village, Copper Beech – Oakwood,
Williamsburg Square, Toftrees Avenue, The Grove, the Bryce Jordan Center, Beaver Stadium, and Pegula Ice
Arena. It is essentially the reverse of the NV route. The route operates seven days per week. Monday through
Friday, 21 trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 2:30 pm and ending at 1:25 am. On Saturday,
18 trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 7:30 pm and ending at 3:30 am. On Sunday, 11
trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 9:45 am and ending at 8:45 pm. A small amount
of additional late-night service is offered on Friday during full service. 20- to 30-minute service frequency is
generally offered Monday through Saturday, with hourly service frequency generally offered on Sundays. The VN
does not operate during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-19 (VN Route – Toftrees Avenue / Vairo Boulevard / Martin Street)
34
W – Valley Vista
The W route (Figure 2-20) connects Centre Volunteers in Medicine (CVIM) and Patton Forest Park with the Penn
State campus and downtown State College via Home Depot, Lowe’s Center, Valley Vista Drive, Park Forest Village,
Oak Hill Apartments, Elmcroft, Circleville Road, The Heights at State College, Blue Course Drive, The Park at State
College, and Northland Center. The route operates Monday through Saturday. Monday through Friday, 26 trips
per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 6:02 am and ending at 12:34 am. On Saturday, about 12
trips per day are provided in each direction, beginning at 9:20 am and ending at 12:34 am. 40- to 70-minute
service frequency is generally offered both on weekdays and on Saturdays. No changes are made to the
Figure 2-20 (W Route – Valley Vista)
35
WE – Havershire Boulevard Express
The WE route (Figure 2-21) connects Oak Hill Apartments with the Penn State campus on an express basis via
Elmcroft, Circleville Road, The Heights at State College, Blue Course Drive, The Park at State College, and North
Atherton Street. The route operates Monday through Friday, with 23 trips per day provided in each direction,
beginning at 7:19 am and ending at 6:42 pm. 30-minute service frequency is generally offered. The WE does not
operate during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-21 (WE Route – Havershire Boulevard Express)
36
XB – Bellefonte
The XB route (Figure 2-22) connects Bellefonte and Spring Township with the Penn State campus and downtown
State College via Parkview Heights, Centre Crest, the Centre County Courthouse, the Bellefonte YMCA, the
Willowbank Building, Centre County Correctional Facility, Benner Pike, Nittany Mall, Nittany Commons, and East
College Avenue. The route operates Monday through Saturday. Monday through Friday, there are about eight
trips per day in each direction, beginning at 6:07 am and ending at 10:52 pm. On Saturday, about three trips in
each direction are provided, beginning at 6:42 am and ending at 6:06 pm. A commuter level of service frequency
is offered both on weekdays and on Saturdays. No changes are made to the schedule during periods of reduced
service.
Figure 2-22 (XB Route – Bellefonte)
37
XG – Pleasant Gap
The XG route (Figure 2-23) connects Bellefonte, Pleasant Gap, and Spring Township with the Penn State
campus and downtown State College via Governor’s Gate Apartments, Bishop Street, Bellefonte Area High
School, Blanchard Street, Central Pennsylvania Institute of Science and Technology (CPI), Supelco, The Oaks,
Steeplechase, HealthSouth, PennDOT Driver License Center, Summit Park, Nittany Mall, Nittany Commons, and
East College Avenue. The route operates Monday through Saturday. Monday through Friday, there are about
six trips in each direction per day, beginning at 6:49 am and ending at 9:53 pm. On Saturday, three trips in each
direction are provided, beginning at 7:42 am and ending at 6:50 pm. A commuter level of service frequency is
offered both on weekdays and on Saturdays. No changes are made to the schedule during periods of reduced
service.
Figure 2-23 (XG Route – Pleasant Gap)
38
Blue LOOP
The Blue LOOP (Figure 2-24) is a circular route connecting points in downtown State College and on the Penn
State campus in a clockwise direction, generally utilizing College Avenue, Atherton Street, Curtin Road, Porter
Road, Hastings Road, and Shortlidge Road. The route operates seven days per week. Monday through Friday,
service begins at 4:45 am and ends at 12:30 am, with 6- to 20-minute service frequency offered, depending upon
the time of day. On Saturday and Sunday, service begins at 9:00 am and ends at 12:30 am, with 11- to 22-minute
service frequency offered, depending upon time of day. A small amount of additional late-night service is offered
Thursday through Saturday during full service. All weekend Blue LOOP trips are eliminated during periods of
reduced service, while weekday service frequency is scaled back to 8- to 22-minutes, and service is ended at
10pm.
Figure 2-24 (Blue LOOP)
39
White LOOP
The White LOOP (Figure 2-25) is a circular route connecting points in downtown State College and on the Penn
State campus in a counterclockwise direction, generally utilizing Beaver Avenue, University Drive, Curtin Road,
and Burrowes Street. The route operates seven days per week. Monday through Friday, service begins at 7:30
am and ends at 12:30 am, with 7- to 10-minute service frequency offered. On Saturday and Sunday, service
begins at 9:00 am and ends at 12:30 am, with 10- to 22-minute service frequency offered, depending upon time
of day. A significant amount of additional late-night service is offered Thursday through Saturday during full
service. The White Loop does not operate during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-25 (White LOOP)
40
Red LINK
The Red LINK (Figures 2-26 and 2-27) connects the western edge of the Penn State campus with Innovation
Park, generally utilizing White Course Drive, Curtin Road, Porter Road, and Park Avenue. The route operates
seven days per week. Monday through Friday, service begins at 4:45 am and ends at 12:30 am, with 17- to
45-minute service frequency offered, depending upon time of day. On Saturday, service begins at 9:00 am and
ends at 12:30 am, with 45-minute service frequency offered. On Sunday, service begins at 12:00 pm and ends
at 10:00 pm, with 45-minute service frequency offered. Weekend Red LINK trips do not operate during periods
of reduced service, while weekday service frequency is scaled back to 20- to 25-minutes, and service is ended at
7:00 pm.
Figure 2-26 (Red LINK to Innovation Park)
41
Figure 2-27 (Red LINK to West Campus)
42
Green LINK
The Green LINK (Figures 2-28 and 2-29) connects the core of the Penn State campus with commuter parking
lots in the vicinity of the Bryce Jordan Center, Beaver Stadium, and Medlar Field, generally utilizing Curtin Road,
Burrowes Street, and North Atherton Street. The route operates Monday through Friday. Service begins at
7:30 am and ends at 6:30 pm, with 8- to 24-minute service frequency offered, depending upon time of day. The
Green LINK does not operate during periods of reduced service.
Figure 2-28 (Green LINK to Commuter Lots)
43
Figure 2-29 (Green LINK to Core Campus)
44
CATARIDE Shared Ride / ADA Paratransit / Demand Responsive Service
Supported by farebox revenue, as well as federal, state, and local funding, CATA is able to offer demand
responsive service within its service area, using a total of nine vehicles. All CATARIDE demand responsive service
is operated by a subcontractor (Ride Right, LLC of St. Louis, MO) on behalf of the agency. This subcontractor
is able to supplement the base fleet of CATA-owned vehicles with its own vehicles on an as-needed basis to
accommodate spikes in demand or other special needs.
CATARIDE demand responsive service is characterized by three distinct offerings:
• Shared Ride Program is provided at a reduced fare to eligible individuals aged 65 and older, with
financial support from the Pennsylvania Lottery via the PennDOT Bureau of Public Transportation.
• Complementary Paratransit is provided at a reduced fare to eligible individuals with disabilities, as
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. By law and regulation, the fare charged
may be no more than twice the comparable fixed route fare (fare-free in the CATABUS Campus service
area). Eligible individuals are not able to use CATABUS fixed route services as a result of their disability.
• General Public Service is provided at full fare to individuals who wish to use CATARIDE, but do not fall
into either of the above two categories.
For FY 2013-14, CATARIDE carried a total of about 39,000 passengers.
Pursuant to the ADA, complementary service operates up to three-quarters of a mile in any direction from any
CATABUS fixed route. The service area is subject to change whenever CATABUS fixed routes are revised.
Service currently operates from 4:45 am until 1:00 am, Monday through Friday, from 7:45am until 1am on
Saturdays and Sundays. A significant amount of additional late-night service is offered Thursday through
Saturday during CATABUS full service. There is no service between the Centre Region and Bellefonte / Pleasant
Gap or within Bellefonte or Pleasant Gap on Sundays, and no service between the Centre Region and Halfmoon
Township or within Halfmoon Township on Saturdays or Sundays. No service is provided on major holidays
including New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. Hours and days of
CATARIDE service are subject to change whenever CATABUS schedules are revised.
Fare-free demand responsive service is available for all trips that take place entirely within the CATABUS Campus
Service area. For all other trips, the following two fare options are offered:
• Cash – $3 per trip for Shared Ride and Complementary Paratransit Program passengers, $20 per trip for
General Public passengers, exact change only
• Coupons – One used per trip for Shared Ride and Complementary Paratransit Program passengers,
available for $3 apiece, or 20 for $60
An advance reservation is required for each trip, including return trips and any stops along the way; this is
accomplished by telephone contact with the CATARIDE dispatch office. Passengers may make reservations up to
14 days prior to the day of travel, but must, at a minimum, make a reservation the day prior to travel. Individual
trips are grouped into shared rides whenever possible by scheduling pick-up times up to 60 minutes earlier or
later than the requested time, with special accommodations made to meet work shift start times and medical
appointment times. Passengers are notified of the scheduled pick-up time when the advance reservation is
made.
45
CATARIDE demand responsive service provides a somewhat higher level of personal assistance than CATABUS
fixed route service. Drivers may assist passengers to and from the vehicle, generally at the curb, but at the door
on a case-by-case basis. Support with packages is also provided while a CATARIDE rider boards or alights the
vehicle. Drivers are not permitted to enter residences or other buildings at any time. Passengers requiring a
higher level of assistance are permitted to bring along an escort (who rides at the same fare as the passenger),
or personal care attendants (who ride free when deemed medically necessary through the program application
process).
CATACOMMUTE Ridesharing Services
Supported by passenger fares, as well as federal, state, local, and private funding, CATA is able to offer
ridesharing services to individuals whose trip either begins or ends in Centre County. As a result, individuals
from an 11-county region within Central Pennsylvania (Figure 2-30) use a total of 45 CATA-owned vehicles
as part of a vanpool program, as well as a number of private vehicles engaged in carpooling activities. All
CATACOMMUTE ridesharing services employ a unique worker-driver concept on behalf of the agency, with all
CATA-owned and private vehicles operated by program participants.
Ridesharing services (including carpooling and vanpooling) currently operate within the following Central
Pennsylvania counties:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Centre
Clinton
Lycoming
Mifflin
Juniata
Blair
Clearfield
Somerset
Bedford
Indiana
Cambria
Huntingdon
Figure 2-30 (CATA Ridesharing Service Area)
CATACOMMUTE ridesharing services are characterized by four distinct offerings:
• The Vanpool Program was launched in October 2007 with six vanpool groups, and has subsequently
grown to 43 vanpool groups with roughly 556 total participants.
A vanpool group generally consists of 7-12 people who share a very similar commute. For every group of
seven or more people who express an interest an initiating a vanpool, the Commuter Services Manager
asks for a volunteer driver to help organize the group. The vanpool travels from home (or a pre-arranged
meeting place) to work, school, or other destinations. To be cost-effective, the vanpool group should
generally travel at least 40 miles round trip each day.
46
CATA provides the van, insurance coverage, maintenance, and a fleet fueling card. The fleet fueling card
provides tax-free, volume discounted fuel for the vanpool. The vanpool group shares the total cost of
the operation, which is determined by a base price plus a per-mile charge. Total fares vary according to
distance and the number of participants, and are billed to the driver/coordinator of the group monthly,
with payment due on the first of each month. This driver/coordinator typically rides for free in exchange
for driving, collecting the money, and completing the daily log. The group also receives a credit for
washing and cleaning the van monthly.
• The Carpool Program operates on a smaller and more decentralized scale, via a web-based,
computerized program that matches individuals from the surrounding communities who share a similar
commute. When participants register online, they are asked to provide information to create a match
list personalized to their schedule. Participants receive this free, custom list instantly. The participants
can then create or join a carpool and/or contact other participants with questions.
A carpool is simply two or more people riding together in one vehicle to their destination. Carpooling
is flexible and can usually accommodate everyone’s needs. It is up to the individuals in the group to
determine whether cash will be exchanged or whether members share the driving.
During FY 2014-15, carpool participation is projected to grow to about 230 individuals.
• The Emergency Ride Home Program helps carpool and vanpool participants to avoid being stranded in
the event of certain emergency and/or unanticipated occurrences. An annual fee of $15 covers eligible
individuals up to four times per year (for up to a 50-mile one-way trip in each event). Full-time Penn
State employees are automatically registered for free, as the fee is paid by the University to CATA.
Use of the program is strictly limited to emergencies, and monitored by CATA. Qualifying emergencies
include:
−−
−−
−−
−−
Illness or medical emergencies (participants and/or family members)
Catastrophic personal emergencies (flood, fire, etc.)
Work-related emergencies such as company shut-down or unscheduled, mandatory overtime
Participants whose carpool or vanpool driver cannot provide a ride home because of a qualifying
emergency
When using this service, the participant contacts the Commuter Services Manager and is provided with
taxi service or other transportation to a hospital, home, or relative’s home, as required. Arrangements
to pick up a child from day care or school, and then proceed to the appropriate destination, are also
permitted.
During FY 2014-15, Emergency Ride Home utilization is projected to remain steady at about 90 trips
provided.
• Park and Ride Program makes the campus commuter parking lots at Jordan East, Stadium West, and
Medlar Field available to eligible individuals who work in Downtown State College. There are some
restrictions such as no overnight parking, cars must be removed by midnight on Friday nights prior to
home PSU football games, and during any State College Spikes game day. Park and Ride monthly tags
may be purchased from CATA for $15 each. Fare-free LOOP and LINK service is available for travel into
Downtown State College.
47
Peer Communities
CATA is generally compared to a consistent group of 12 peers, both internally and by the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Bureau of Public Transportation. CATA and its counterparts generally
operate robust systems in large university towns, with most systems qualifying for the federal Small Transit
Intensive Cities (STIC) program. A few of CATA’s peers serve more than one institution of higher education.
Besides CATA, the list of 12 agencies examined for fixed route and paratransit services includes the following:
• Ames, Iowa (“CyRide”, serving Iowa State University)
• Athens, Georgia (“Athens Transit” or “The Bus”, serving the University of Georgia)
• Blacksburg, Virginia (“Blacksburg Transit” or “The BT”, serving Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University)
• Champaign-Urbana, Illinois (“Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District” or “MTD”, serving the University
of Illinois)
• Chapel Hill, North Carolina (“Chapel Hill Transit”, serving the University of North Carolina)
• Fort Collins, Colorado (“Transfort”, serving Colorado State University)
• Gainesville, Florida (“Regional Transit System” or “RTS”, serving the University of Florida and Santa Fe
Community College)
• Ithaca, New York (“Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit” or “TCAT”, serving Cornell University and Ithaca
College)
• Lafayette, Indiana (“CityBus”, serving Purdue University)
• Lexington, Kentucky (“Lextran”, serving the University of Kentucky, Transylvania University, and Sullivan
University)
• Lubbock, Texas (“Citibus”, serving Texas Tech University and Lubbock Christian University)
• South Bend, Indiana (“TRANSPO”, serving the University of Notre Dame, Saint Mary’s College, and
Indiana University – South Bend)
Because vanpool programs are less common in the United States, a different peer group was assembled. These
peers exhibit roughly the same fleet size and number of passengers carried as CATA, and include the following
agencies:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bellingham, Washington (“Whatcom Transportation Authority” or “WTA”)
Birmingham, Alabama (“Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority” or “BJCTA”)
Burlington, Washington (“Skagit Transit”)
Cocoa, Florida (“Space Coast Area Transit” or “SCAT”)
Colorado Springs, Colorado (“Mountain Metro Transit”)
Daytona, Florida (“Volusia County Transit” or “Votran”)
Douglasville, Georgia (“Georgia Regional Transportation Authority” or “GRTA”)
Grand Rapids, Michigan (“Interurban Transit Partnership” or “The Rapid”)
Gulfport, Mississippi (“Coast Transit Authority” or “CTA”)
Lebanon, Kentucky (“Transit Authority of Central Kentucky” or “TACK”)
Reno, Nevada (“Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County” or “RTC”)
Yakima, Washington (“Yakima Transit”)
Performance Measures
To compare the operations of CATA and all peer agencies, a variety of performance measures were generated.
Both CATA staff and the Board of Directors expressed a preference for measures that were readily available
(for example, from the National Transit Database [NTD]) and could be used to reliably draw comparison across
systems.
48
The following performance measures are used to compare each agency’s overall operations:
• Service area size
• Service area population
• Service area population density
More detailed performance measures are used to compare the operations of each agency by mode, including
the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Annual passenger miles
Annual unlinked trips
Annual revenue miles
Annual revenue hours
Maximum number of vehicles in operation
Maximum number of vehicles available for service
Annual operating expenses
Annual fare revenues
Operating cost recovery ratio
Percentage of spare vehicles available
Operating expense per revenue mile
Operating expense per revenue hour
Operating expense per unlinked trip
Unlinked trips per revenue mile
Unlinked trips per revenue hour
All data was obtained from the Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), maintained by
the Lehman Center for Transportation Research at Florida International University and the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT). INTDAS combines the individual NTD data files from multiple properties and years into
a single, standardized database, and provides customized tools for quick and easy data retrieval, visualization,
and analysis. Accordingly, it not only allows users to perform trend analyses quickly, but also to run peer
comparisons and other general database inquiries with relative ease.
At the time data was gathered, INTDAS had been updated as of the 2013 NTD reporting year. Fort Collins, CO
had not yet reported paratransit operating and performance data for the reporting year.
49
Service Area Size
Measuring service area size in square miles yields valuable information about how extensive a transit agency’s
services are. Service area size can influence many other performance measures related to service supplied,
service consumed, costs, and productivity.
CATA’s peer group covers service areas ranging from 15 to 476 square miles, with the peer group average being
about 109 square miles.
CATABUS fixed route services and CATARIDE paratransit services operate within one of the largest service areas
(135 square miles) of its peer group, about 24% higher than the peer group average. It should be noted that the
CATACOMMUTE service area is even larger still, covering the entire commutershed of CATA’s core service area.
Historically, CATA has reported an artificially large value for service area size to the NTD. Drawing the ¾-mile
ADA boundary around our current fixed route network, then measuring the area within those collective buffers,
brings our service area size down to about 89 square miles. This would have the effect on increasing our service
area population density, and therefore the figure shown in this analysis should be viewed with some skepticism.
Figure 2-31 (Service Area Size – in Square Miles)
50
Service Area Population
Measuring service area population yields valuable information about the size of a transit agency’s potential
market. Service area population can influence many other performance measures related to service supplied,
service consumed, costs, and productivity. Other factors being equal, transit agencies with larger service area
populations tend to offer services that are more efficient, effective, and productive.
CATA’s peer group serves populations ranging from about 57,000 to about 296,000, with the peer group average
being about 138,000.
CATABUS fixed route services and CATARIDE paratransit services are provided to a somewhat smaller population
than many of its peers. The service area population of about 112,000 is roughly 19% lower than the peer group
average.
Figure 2-32 (Service Area Population)
51
Service Area Population Density
Computed by dividing the agency’s total service area population by its total service area size, the service
area population density can influence many other performance measures related to service supplied, service
consumed, costs, and productivity. Other factors being equal, transit agencies with larger service area
population density tend to offer services that are more efficient, effective, and productive.
CATA’s peer group serves population densities ranging from about 215 persons per square mile to about 4,715
persons per square mile, with the peer group average being about 2,218 persons per square mile.
CATABUS fixed route services and CATARIDE paratransit services are provided to a significantly less dense than
average population compared to its peers. Its service area population density of about 830 persons per square
mile is about 63% lower than the peer group average. As noted on page 43, assuming a more practical service
area size of 89 square miles increases CATA’s service area population density to about 1,258.43 persons per
square mile, which places the agency somewhat closer to the peer group average.
Figure 2-33 (Service Area Population Density – in Persons per Square Mile)
52
Annual Passenger Miles – Fixed Route
Total passenger miles traveled represents the cumulative sum of the distances ridden by each passenger while a
vehicle is in revenue service. For example, one passenger mile is the equivalent of a single one-mile trip taken by
a single passenger. Passenger miles are a basic unit of production that a transit agency creates, and are useful in
measuring the volume of passenger traffic.
CATA’s peer group provides anywhere from about 5.4 million to about 26.5 million passenger miles of fixed route
service per year, with the peer group average being about 13 million annual passenger miles.
CATABUS fixed route services compare quite favorably within this peer group. An annual total of about 16.3
million passenger miles of service provided is lower than only three other peers, and is about 26% higher than
the peer group average.
Figure 2-34 (Annual Passenger Miles – Fixed Route)
53
Annual Unlinked Trips – Fixed Route
Total unlinked trips represent the number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles. Passengers
are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to
their destination. For example, a passenger who uses a transfer between routes to reach their destination has
taken one “linked” trip, but two “unlinked” trips.
CATA’s peer group provides anywhere from about 1.7 million to about 11.9 million unlinked fixed route trips per
year, with the peer group average being about 5.4 million annual unlinked trips.
CATABUS fixed route services perform better-than-average within this peer group. An annual total of about 7.1
million unlinked trips is lower than only two other peers, and about 30% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-35 (Annual Unlinked Trips – Fixed Route)
54
Annual Revenue Miles – Fixed Route
Revenue miles are provided anytime a vehicle is available to the general public and there is an expectation
of carrying passengers. These passengers either: directly pay fares, are subsidized by public policy, or have
payment provided for them through some contractual arrangement. Vehicles operated in fare-free service are
considered in revenue service. Revenue service includes layover / recovery time. It does not include deadhead,
vehicle maintenance testing, or training.
CATA’s peer group provides anywhere from about 757,500 to about 3.3 million revenue miles of fixed route
service per year, with the peer group average being about 1.7 million annual revenue miles.
CATABUS fixed route services are slightly below average within this peer group. An annual total of about 1.6
million revenue miles places the agency at about the middle of the group, about 11% lower than the peer group
average.
Figure 2-36 (Annual Revenue Miles – Fixed Route)
55
Annual Revenue Hours – Fixed Route
Revenue hours are also provided anytime a vehicle is available to the general public and there is an expectation
CATA’s peer group provides anywhere from about 65,900 to about 290,800 revenue hours of fixed route service
per year, with the peer group average being about 142,300 annual revenue hours.
CATABUS fixed route services are slightly below average within this peer group. An annual total of about 123,300
revenue hours places the agency at about the middle of the group, about 13% lower than the peer group
average.
Figure 2-37 (Annual Revenue Hours – Fixed Route)
56
Maximum Number of Vehicles in Operation – Fixed Route
The maximum number of vehicles used in operation of service represents the peak number of vehicles employed
by an agency to meet its daily service needs. This measure does not include spare or back-up vehicles not
consistently used, nor does it include personal vehicles, or any other vehicle not used in the provision of revenue
service.
CATA’s peer group utilizes a peak fleet of anywhere from 22 to 103 fixed route vehicles, with the peer group
average being 56 fixed route vehicles.
The CATABUS fixed route fleet is slightly larger than average within this peer group. A peak fleet of 58 revenue
vehicles places the agency just above the middle of the group, about 3.5% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-38 (Maximum Number of Vehicles in Operation – Fixed Route)
57
Maximum Number of Vehicles Available for Service – Fixed Route
The maximum number of vehicles available for operation of service essentially represents the total fleet size of
an agency. This measure includes spare and back-up vehicles, but does not include personal vehicles, or any
other vehicle not used in the provision of revenue service.
CATA’s peer group utilizes a total fleet of anywhere from 31 to 123 fixed route vehicles, with the peer group
average being 71 fixed route vehicles.
The CATABUS fixed route fleet is somewhat below average within this peer group. A total fleet of 66 revenue
vehicles places the agency in the lower half of the group, about 7% lower than the peer group average.
Figure 2-39 (Maximum Number of Vehicles Available for Service – Fixed Route)
58
Annual Operating Expenses – Fixed Route
Operating expenses are those expenses associated with the operation of the transit agency, classified by function
or activity, and related goods and services purchased. The basic functions and object classes are defined in
Section 5.2 and 6.2 of the Uniform System of Accounts (USOA). These are consumable items with a useful life
of less than one year or an acquisition cost which equals the lesser of the capitalization level established by the
government unit for financial statement purposes, or $5,000. By contrast, capital expenses tend to be more
costly fixed or movable assets with a longer service life.
CATA’s peer group has fixed route operating budgets ranging from about $5.2 million to about $29.4 million per
year, with the peer group average being about $12.4 million.
CATABUS fixed route services are about average within this peer group. An annual operating budget of about
$11.7 million places the agency at about the middle of the group, about 5% lower than the peer group average.
Figure 2-40 (Annual Operating Expenses – Fixed Route)
59
Annual Fare Revenues – Fixed Route
Fare revenues include all income received directly from passengers, paid either in cash or through pre-paid
tickets, passes, etc. They include overages from those passengers who deposit more money than necessary on
a vehicle that is not equipped to dispense change. They also include the reduced fares paid by passengers in a
user-side subsidy arrangement.
CATA’s peer group collects fixed route fares ranging from about $1 million to about $13.5 million per year, with
the peer group average being about $4.6 million.
CATABUS fixed route services generate an above-average level of fare revenues relative to this peer group.
Annual fixed route fares collected of about $5.8 million places the agency lower than only 3 of its peers, about
34% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-41 (Annual Fare Revenues – Fixed Route)
60
Operating Cost Recovery Ratio – Fixed Route
The operating cost recovery ratio (also called the farebox recovery ratio) of a transit agency is the percentage of
operating expenses which are met by the fares paid by passengers. Computed by dividing the agency’s total fare
revenue by its total operating expenses, the operating cost recovery ratio is a measure of how well services can
support themselves through fare revenue generated, exclusive of federal, state, local, and private subsidies.
CATA’s peer group exhibits a fixed route operating cost recovery ratio ranging from about 13.7% to about 63.1%,
with the peer group average being about 38.3%.
CATABUS fixed route services support themselves through fare revenue at an above-average level relative to this
peer group. A fixed route operating cost recovery ratio of about 49.7% places the agency in about the middle of
the group, about 29.8% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-42 (Operating Cost Recovery Ratio – Fixed Route)
61
Percentage Spare Vehicles Available – Fixed Route
The percentage of spare vehicles available (also called the spare ratio) refers to the percentage of total vehicles
that are not needed in peak service out of all the vehicles that are used in peak service. For example, suppose
a transit agency has 200 buses, of which 160 are needed in peak service. The remaining 40 buses can be used in
case there is a problem with the first 160 buses, thus, the spare ratio is 40 / 160 or 25%. Too high a percentage
increases costs, while too low a percentage may jeopardize the operation of peak service. The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) specifies a maximum spare ratio of 20%.
CATA’s peer group carries fixed route spare ratios ranging from about 9.7% to about 76.5%, with the peer group
average being about 28.1%.
The CATABUS fixed route spare ratio is quite low relative to this peer group. A fixed route spare ratio of about
13.8% places the agency near the bottom of its peer group, about 51% lower than the peer group average, as
well as below FTA recommendations.
Figure 2-43 (Percentage Spare Vehicles Available – Fixed Route)
62
Operating Expense per Revenue Mile – Fixed Route
Operating expense per revenue mile is computed by dividing a transit agency’s total operating expenses by the
total number of revenue miles of service provided. It is a measure of how costly services are to operate on a permile basis.
CATA’s peer group exhibits a fixed route operating expense per revenue mile ranging from $4.40 to $9.77, with
the peer group average being about $7.19.
CATABUS fixed route services are slightly more expensive to operate on a per-mile basis than the comparable
services of its peers. An operating expense per revenue mile of $7.78 places the agency higher than all but three
of its peers, about 8.2% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-44 (Operating Expense per Revenue Mile – Fixed Route)
63
Operating Expense per Revenue Hour – Fixed Route
Operating expense per revenue hour is computed by dividing a transit agency’s total operating expenses by the
total number of revenue hours of service provided. It is a measure of how costly services are to operate on a
per-hour basis.
CATA’s peer group exhibits a fixed route operating expense per revenue hour ranging from $55.70 to $114.65,
with the peer group average being about $85.58.
CATABUS fixed route services are somewhat more expensive to operate on a per-hour basis than the comparable
services of its peers. An operating expense per revenue hour of $95.24 places the agency at about the middle of
the group, about 11.3% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-45 (Operating Expense per Revenue Hour – Fixed Route)
64
Operating Expense per Unlinked Trip – Fixed Route
Operating expense per unlinked trip is computed by dividing a transit agency’s total operating expenses by the
total number of unlinked trips provided. It is a measure of how costly services are to operate on a per-trip basis.
CATA’s peer group exhibits a fixed route operating expense per unlinked trip ranging from $1.37 to $4.06, with
CATABUS fixed route services are significantly less expensive to operate on a per-trip basis than the comparable
services of its peers. An operating expense per unlinked trip of $1.66 is higher than just 2 of its peers, and about
32.5% lower than the peer group average.
Figure 2-46 (Operating Expense per Unlinked Trip – Fixed Route)
65
Unlinked Trips per Revenue Mile – Fixed Route
Unlinked trips per revenue mile is computed by dividing a transit agency’s unlinked trips by the total number of
revenue miles of service provided. It is a measure of how productive services are on a per-mile basis.
CATA’s peer group exhibits a productivity rate of unlinked trips per revenue mile ranging from 1.8 to 5.07, with
the peer group average being about 3.22.
CATABUS fixed route services are significantly more productive to operate on a per-mile basis than the
comparable services of its peers. A number of unlinked trips per revenue mile of 4.68 is lower than just one of
its peers, and about 45.3% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-47 (Unlinked Trips per Revenue Mile – Fixed Route)
66
Unlinked Trips per Revenue Hour – Fixed Route
Unlinked trips per revenue hour is computed by dividing a transit agency’s unlinked trips by the total number of
revenue hours of service provided. It is a measure of how productive services are on a per-hour basis.
CATA’s peer group exhibits a productivity rate of unlinked trips per revenue hour ranging from 24.42 to 57.37,
with the peer group average being about 37.55.
CATABUS fixed route services are significantly more productive to operate on a per-hour basis than the
comparable services of its peers. A number of unlinked trips per revenue mile of 57.37 leads the group of CATA’s
peers, and is about 52.8% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-48 (Unlinked Trips per Revenue Hour – Fixed Route)
67
Annual Passenger Miles – Paratransit
Total passenger miles traveled represents the cumulative sum of the distances ridden by each passenger on a
vehicle in revenue service. For example, one passenger mile is the equivalent of a single one-mile trip taken by
CATA’s peer group provides anywhere from about 35,600 to about 1.36 million passenger miles of paratransit
service per year, with the peer group average being about 398,200 annual passenger miles.
CATARIDE paratransit services are somewhat below average within this peer group. An annual total of about
214,600 passenger miles of service provided places the agency just below the middle of the peer group, but
about 46.1% lower than the peer group average.
Figure 2-49 (Annual Passenger Miles – Paratransit)
68
Annual Unlinked Trips – Paratransit
CATA’s peer group provides anywhere from about 9,500 to about 173,100 unlinked fixed route trips per year,
with the peer group average being about 61,600 annual unlinked trips.
34,500 unlinked trips is lower than all but four other peers, and also about 43.9% lower than the peer group
average.
Figure 2-50 (Annual Unlinked Trips – Paratransit)
69
Annual Revenue Miles – Paratransit
CATA’s peer group provides anywhere from about 35,500 to about 1.36 million revenue miles of fixed route
service per year, with the peer group average being about 369,300 annual revenue miles.
141,800 revenue miles places the agency just below the middle of the group, but about 61.6% lower than the
peer group average.
Figure 2-51 (Annual Revenue Miles – Paratransit)
70
Annual Revenue Hours – Paratransit
CATA’s peer group provides anywhere from about 3,100 to about 97,800 revenue hours of fixed route service per
year, with the peer group average being about 26,900 annual revenue hours.
CATARIDE paratransit services are significantly below average within this peer group. An annual total of about
8,400 revenue hours places the agency near the bottom of the group, about 68.8% lower than the peer group
average.
Figure 2-52 (Annual Revenue Hours – Paratransit)
71
Maximum Number of Vehicles in Operation – Paratransit
service.
CATA’s peer group utilizes a peak fleet of anywhere from 3 to 38 paratransit vehicles, with the peer group
average being 16 paratransit vehicles.
The CATARIDE paratransit route fleet is below average within this peer group. A peak fleet of 9 revenue vehicles
places the agency below the middle of the group, about 43.8% lower than the peer group average.
Figure 2-53 (Maximum Number of Vehicles in Operation – Paratransit)
72
Maximum Number of Vehicles Available for Service – Paratransit
CATA’s peer group utilizes a total fleet of anywhere from 4 to 45 paratransit vehicles, with the peer group average
being 21 paratransit vehicles.
The CATARIDE paratransit fleet is below average within this peer group. A total fleet of 10 revenue vehicles
places the agency lower than all but two of its peers, about 52.4% lower than the peer group average.
Figure 2-54 (Maximum Number of Vehicles Available for Service – Paratransit)
73
Annual Operating Expenses – Paratransit
CATA’s peer group has paratransit operating budgets ranging from about $151,100 to about $4.83 million per
year, with the peer group average being about $1.51 million.
CATARIDE paratransit services are somewhat below average within this peer group. An annual operating budget
of about $1 million places the agency at about the middle of the group, but about 33% lower than the peer
group average.
Figure 2-55 (Annual Operating Expenses – Paratransit)
74
Annual Fare Revenues – Paratransit
tickets, passes, etc. They include overages from those passengers who deposit more money than is necessary on
a vehicle not equipped to dispense change. They also include the reduced fares paid by passengers in a user-side
subsidy arrangement.
CATA’s peer group collects paratransit fares ranging from $0 to about $280,900 per year, with the peer group
average being about $111,600. One agency – Chapel Hill, NC – does not collect paratransit fares.
CATARIDE paratransit services generate an about average level of fare revenues relative to this peer group.
Annual paratransit fares collected of about $106,300 place the agency lower than five of its peers, and about
4.8% lower than the peer group average.
Figure 2-56 (Annual Fare Revenues – Paratransit)
75
Operating Cost Recovery Ratio – Paratransit
CATA’s peer group exhibits a paratransit operating cost recovery ratio ranging from 0% to about 16.7%, with the
peer group average being about 8.1%.
CATARIDE paratransit services support themselves through fare revenue at an above-average level relative to this
peer group. A paratransit operating cost recovery ratio of about 10.5% places the agency lower than only three
of its peers, about 30.8% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-57 (Operating Cost Recovery Ratio – Paratransit)
76
Percentage Spare Vehicles Available – Paratransit
CATA’s peer group carries paratransit spare ratios ranging from about 10.3% to about 300%, with the peer group
The CATARIDE paratransit spare ratio is quite low relative to this peer group. A paratransit spare ratio of about
11.1% places the agency lower than all but one of its peers, about 79.1% lower than the peer group average. It
should be noted, however, that the spare ratio carried in Ames, IA raises the peer group average considerably.
Figure 2-58 (Percentage Spare Vehicles Available – Paratransit)
77
Operating Expense per Revenue Mile – Paratransit
CATA’s peer group exhibits a paratransit operating expense per revenue mile ranging from $2.40 to $7.65, with
CATARIDE paratransit services are significantly more expensive to operate on a per-mile basis than the
comparable services of its peers. An operating expense per revenue mile of $7.12 places the agency lower than
just one of its peers, and about 47.1% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-59 (Operating Expense per Revenue Mile – Paratransit)
78
Operating Expense per Revenue Hour – Paratransit
per-hour basis.
CATA’s peer group exhibits a paratransit operating expense per revenue hour ranging from $36.94 to $120.36,
with the peer group average being about $63.13.
CATARIDE paratransit services are significantly more expensive to operate on a per-hour basis than the
comparable services of its peers. An operating expense per revenue hour of $120.36 is the highest of its peers,
and about 90.7% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-60 (Operating Expense per Revenue Hour – Paratransit)
79
Operating Expense per Unlinked Trip – Paratransit
CATA’s peer group exhibits a paratransit operating expense per unlinked trip ranging from $12.59 to $52.68, with
CATARIDE paratransit services are somewhat more expensive to operate on a per-trip basis than the comparable
services of its peers. An operating expense per unlinked trip of $29.24 places the agency lower than only two of
Figure 2-61 (Operating Expense per Unlinked Trip – Paratransit)
80
Unlinked Trips per Revenue Mile – Paratransit
Unlinked trips per revenue mile are computed by dividing a transit agency’s unlinked trips by the total number of
CATA’s peer group exhibits a productivity rate of unlinked trips per revenue mile ranging from 0.10 to 0.32, with
CATARIDE paratransit services are of somewhat above-average productivity to operate on a per-mile basis when
compared to the services of its peers. A number of unlinked trips per revenue mile of 0.24 places the agency
lower than only three of its peers, and about 20% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-62 (Unlinked Trips per Revenue Mile – Paratransit)
81
Unlinked Trips per Revenue Hour – Paratransit
Unlinked trips per revenue hour are computed by dividing a transit agency’s unlinked trips by the total number
of revenue hours of service provided. It is a measure of how productive services are on a per-hour basis.
CATA’s peer group exhibits a productivity rate of unlinked trips per revenue hour ranging from 1.47 to 4.12, with
CATARIDE paratransit services are significantly more productive to operate on a per-hour basis than the
comparable services of its peers. A number of unlinked trips per revenue mile of 4.12 is highest in the group,
and is about 62.8% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-63 (Unlinked Trips per Revenue Hour – Paratransit)
82
Annual Passenger Miles – Vanpool
Total passenger miles traveled represents the cumulative sum of the distances ridden by each passenger on
vehicles in revenue service. For example, one passenger mile is the equivalent of a single one-mile trip taken by
CATA’s peer group provides anywhere from about 1.0 million to about 7.9 million passenger miles of vanpool
service per year, with the peer group average being about 4.61 million annual passenger miles.
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services are slightly above average within this peer group. An annual total of about
4.96 million passenger miles of service provided places the agency at about the middle of the group, and about
7.6% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-64 (Annual Passenger Miles – Vanpool)
83
Annual Unlinked Trips – Vanpool
CATA’s peer group provides anywhere from about 20,600 to about 180,000 unlinked vanpool trips per year, with
the peer group average being about 99,300 annual unlinked trips.
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services are somewhat above average within this peer group. An annual total of about
142,700 unlinked trips is lower than only three other peers, and also about 43.8% higher than the peer group
average.
Figure 2-65 (Annual Unlinked Trips – Vanpool)
84
Annual Revenue Miles – Vanpool
CATA’s peer group provides anywhere from about 156,600 to about 1.17 million revenue miles of vanpool service
per year, with the peer group average being about 745,000 annual revenue miles.
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services are somewhat below average within this peer group. An annual total of about
659,800 revenue miles places the agency higher than four of its peers, and about 11.4% lower than the peer
group average.
Figure 2-66 (Annual Revenue Miles – Vanpool)
85
Annual Revenue Hours – Vanpool
CATA’s peer group provides anywhere from about 3,600 to about 29,300 revenue hours of vanpool service per
year, with the peer group average being about 16,400 annual revenue hours.
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services are slightly above average within this peer group. An annual total of about
16,900 revenue hours places the agency above the middle of the group, and about 3.3% higher than the peer
group average.
Figure 2-67 (Annual Revenue Hours – Vanpool)
86
Maximum Number of Vehicles in Operation – Vanpool
service.
CATA’s peer group utilizes a peak fleet of anywhere from 9 to 65 vanpool vehicles, with the peer group average
being 35 vanpool vehicles.
The CATACOMMUTE vanpool route fleet is somewhat above average within this peer group. A peak fleet of 40
revenue vehicles places the agency just above the middle of the group, but about 14.3% higher than the peer
group average.
Figure 2-68 (Maximum Number of Vehicles in Operation – Vanpool)
87
Maximum Number of Vehicles Available for Service – Vanpool
CATA’s peer group utilizes a total fleet of anywhere from 17 to 74 vanpool vehicles, with the peer group average
being 43 vanpool vehicles.
The CATACOMMUTE vanpool fleet is slightly above average within this peer group. A total fleet of 45 revenue
vehicles places the agency at about the middle of the group, and about 4.7% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-69 (Maximum Number of Vehicles Available for Service – Vanpool)
88
Annual Operating Expenses – Vanpool
CATA’s peer group has vanpool program operating budgets ranging from about $172,600 to about $797,400 per
year, with the peer group average being about $480,600.
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services are significantly below average within this peer group. An annual operating
budget of about $351,100 places the agency at about the middle of the group, but about 26.9% lower than the
peer group average.
Figure 2-70 (Annual Operating Expenses – Vanpool)
89
Annual Fare Revenues – Vanpool
tickets, passes, etc. They include overages received from those passengers who deposit more money than is
necessary on a vehicle not equipped to dispense change. They also include the reduced fares paid by passengers
in a user-side subsidy arrangement.
CATA’s peer group collects vanpool fares ranging from $0 to about $492,800 per year, with the peer group
average being about $288,900. One agency – Lebanon, KY – does not collect vanpool fares.
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services generate a somewhat above average level of fare revenues relative to this peer
group. Annual vanpool fares collected of about $351,900 places the agency lower than only four of its peers,
and about 21.8% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-71 (Annual Fare Revenues – Vanpool)
90
Operating Cost Recovery Ratio – Vanpool
CATA’s peer group exhibits a vanpool operating cost recovery ratio ranging from 0% to about 100.23%, with the
peer group average being about 58%.
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services support themselves through fare revenue at a significantly above-average level
relative to this peer group. A vanpool operating cost recovery ratio of about 100.23% places the agency at the
top of its peer group, about 72.8% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-72 (Operating Cost Recovery Ratio – Vanpool)
91
Percentage Spare Vehicles Available – Vanpool
CATA’s peer group carries paratransit spare ratios ranging from about 3.3% to about 144.4%, with the peer group
The CATACOMMUTE vanpool spare ratio is very low relative to this peer group. A vanpool spare ratio of about
12.5% places the agency lower than all but one of its peers, about 59.2% lower than the peer group average, and
lower than FTA recommendations.
Figure 2-73 (Percentage Spare Vehicles Available – Vanpool)
92
Operating Expense per Revenue Mile – Vanpool
CATA’s peer group exhibits a vanpool operating expense per revenue mile ranging from $0.48 to $1.10, with the
peer group average being about $0.67.
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services are somewhat less expensive to operate on a per-mile basis than the
comparable services of its peers. An operating expense per revenue mile of $0.53 places the agency near the
lower end of the group, and about 20.9% lower than the peer group average.
Figure 2-74 (Operating Expense per Revenue Mile – Vanpool)
93
Operating Expense per Revenue Hour – Vanpool
per-hour basis.
CATA’s peer group exhibits a vanpool operating expense per revenue hour ranging from $16.33 to $57.26, with
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services are significantly less expensive to operate on a per-hour basis than the
comparable services of its peers. An operating expense per revenue hour of $20.74 is higher than just two of its
peers, and about 33.7% lower than the peer group average.
Figure 2-75 (Operating Expense per Revenue Hour – Vanpool)
94
Operating Expense per Unlinked Trip – Vanpool
CATA’s peer group exhibits a vanpool operating expense per unlinked trip ranging from $2.46 to $14.58, with the
peer group average being about $5.65.
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services are significantly less expensive to operate on a per-trip basis than the
comparable services of its peers. An operating expense per unlinked trip of $2.46 is the lowest in its peer group,
and about 56.5% lower than the peer group average.
Figure 2-76 (Operating Expense per Unlinked Trip – Vanpool)
95
Unlinked Trips per Revenue Mile – Vanpool
CATA’s peer group exhibits a productivity rate of unlinked vanpool trips per revenue mile ranging from 0.07 to
0.22, with the peer group average being about 0.13.
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services are significantly more productive to operate on a per-mile basis than the
comparable services of its peers. A number of unlinked trips per revenue mile of 0.22 is the highest of its peer
group, and about 69.2% higher than the peer group average.
Figure 2-77 (Unlinked Trips per Revenue Mile – Vanpool)
96
Unlinked Trips per Revenue Hour – Vanpool
CATA’s peer group exhibits a productivity rate of unlinked vanpool trips per revenue hour ranging from 3.8 to
8.81, with the peer group average being about 5.97.
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services are significantly more productive to operate on a per-hour basis than the
comparable services of its peers. A number of unlinked trips per revenue hour of 8.43 is lower than just one of
Figure 2-78 (Unlinked Trips per Revenue Hour – Vanpool)
97
Trends in CATA Performance Measures
To compare the operations of CATA over a period of time, in order to gauge the effects of growth in and changes
to the services offered, a variety of performance measures were again generated. Both CATA staff and the Board
of Directors expressed a preference for measures that were readily available (for example, from the National
Transit Database [NTD]) and could be used to reliably draw comparisons over time. Using the internal data from
the peer comparisons as a starting point, performance measures were calculated for a ten-year period. For
vanpool services, given the relatively young age of the program, these measures were calculated for a five-year
period.
The performance measures calculated include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Operating cost recovery ratio
Percentage of spare vehicles available
Operating expense per revenue mile
Operating expense per revenue hour
Operating expense per unlinked trip
Unlinked trips per revenue mile
Unlinked trips per revenue hour
All data was obtained from the Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), maintained by
the Lehman Center for Transportation Research at Florida International University and the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT). INTDAS combines the individual NTD data files from multiple properties and years into
a single, standardized database, and provides customized tools for quick and easy data retrieval, visualization,
and analysis. Accordingly, it not only allows users to perform trend analyses quickly, but also to run peer
comparisons and other general database inquiries with relative ease.
At the time data was gathered, INTDAS had been updated as of the 2013 NTD reporting year. Therefore, data
is presented from the 2004 NTD reporting year onward. For vanpool services, data is presented from the 2008
NTD reporting year onward.
98
Operating Cost Recovery Ratio – Fixed Route
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the operating cost recovery ratio of CATABUS fixed route services has
remained relatively flat at about 50%. Over the last several years, however, the trend has shown a moderate
rebound from a low point of about 46.21%.
Figure 2-79 (Operating Cost Recovery Ratio – Fixed Route)
99
Percentage Spare Vehicles Available – Fixed Route
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the percentage spare vehicles available of CATABUS fixed route services has
fallen from about 14.58% to about 13.79%, and the general trend over that time period is moderately declining,
with some periods of exception, likely as new vehicles are purchased and placed into service.
Figure 2-80 (Percentage Spare Vehicles Available – Fixed Route)
100
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the operating expense per revenue mile of CATABUS fixed route services
has risen from about $6.12 to about $7.78, and the general trend over that time period is very consistently
increasing, with two notable periods of exception.
Figure 2-81 (Operating Expense per Revenue Mile – Fixed Route)
101
per-hour basis.
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the operating expense per revenue hour of CATABUS fixed route services
has risen from about $60.21 to about $95.24, and the general trend over that time period is increasing, though
the trend has reversed slightly within the last several years.
Figure 2-82 (Operating Expense per Revenue Hour – Fixed Route)
102
Operating Expense per Unlinked Trip – Fixed Route
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the operating expense per unlinked trip of CATABUS fixed route services has
risen from about $1.01 to about $1.66, and the general trend over that time period is very steadily increasing,
with no periods of exception.
Figure 2-83 (Operating Expense per Unlinked Trip – Fixed Route)
103
Unlinked Trips per Revenue Mile – Fixed Route
Unlinked trips per revenue mile is computed by dividing a transit agency’s unlinked trips by the total number of
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the unlinked trips per revenue mile of CATABUS fixed route services has
fallen from about 6.05 to about 4.68, and the general trend over that time period is very steadily decreasing,
with two periods of exception. Moreover, the trend seems to have leveled out somewhat over the last several
years, and increased within the last year. This trend seems to match the trend toward more community-based
ridership as opposed to campus ridership.
Figure 2-84 (Unlinked Trips per Revenue Mile – Fixed Route)
104
Unlinked Trips per Revenue Hour – Fixed Route
Unlinked trips per revenue hour is computed by dividing a transit agency’s unlinked trips by the total number of
revenue hours of service provided. It is a measure of how productive services are on a per-hour basis.
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the unlinked trips per revenue hour of CATABUS fixed route services has
fallen from about 59.47 to about 57.37, though the general trend over that time period is generally flat at just
under 60 unlinked trips per revenue hour. Of particular note is that this performance measure fell markedly
within the last several years following a period of consistent increase, although that shorter trend is beginning to
reverse.
Figure 2-85 (Unlinked Trips per Revenue Hour – Fixed Route)
105
Operating Cost Recovery Ratio – Paratransit
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the operating cost recovery ratio of CATARIDE paratransit services has fallen
from about 18.87% to about 10.53%, and the general trend over that time period is decreasing, with two periods
of exception. Over the last seven-year period, this decline has become much more consistent.
Figure 2-86 (Operating Cost Recovery Ratio – Paratransit)
106
Percentage Spare Vehicles Available – Paratransit
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the percentage spare vehicles of CATARIDE paratransit services has fallen
from about 14.29% to about 11.11%, and the general trend over that time period is mostly flat to decreasing. In
fact, no decline is evident until the most recent years.
Figure 2-87 (Percentage Spare Vehicles Available – Paratransit)
107
Operating Expense per Revenue Mile – Paratransit
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the operating expense per revenue mile of CATARIDE paratransit services
has risen from about $3.63 to about $7.12, and the general trend over that time period is increasing, with two
periods of exception. The increase within the last several years has been significant.
Figure 2-88 (Operating Expense per Revenue Mile – Paratransit)
108
Operating Expense per Revenue Hour – Paratransit
per-hour basis.
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the operating expense per revenue hour of CATARIDE paratransit services
has risen from about $75.47 to about $120.36, and the general trend over that time period is increasing, with
three periods of exception. Of particular note is a somewhat sharp increase in this performance measure for the
most recent reporting year.
Figure 2-89 (Operating Expense per Revenue Hour – Paratransit)
109
Operating Expense per Unlinked Trip – Paratransit
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the operating expense per unlinked trip of CATARIDE paratransit services
has risen from about $12.56 to about $29.24, and the general trend over that time period is increasing, with
only one period of slight exception. Of particular note is a very sharp and accelerating rise in this performance
measure over the last four years, after years of much more modest increases. This is likely attributable, at least
in part, to the recent award of the paratransit contract to a new firm – Ride Right, LLC.
Figure 2-90 (Operating Expense per Unlinked Trip – Paratransit)
110
Unlinked Trips per Revenue Mile – Paratransit
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the unlinked trips per revenue mile of CATARIDE paratransit services has
fallen from about 0.29 to about 0.24, and the general trend over that time period is decreasing, with only two
periods of exception. Of particular note is a very sharp and accelerating rise in this performance measure over
the last reporting year, following several years of equally sharp decreases.
Figure 2-91 (Unlinked Trips per Revenue Mile – Paratransit)
111
Unlinked Trips per Revenue Hour – Paratransit
Over the ten-year period 2004-2013, the unlinked trips per revenue hour of CATARIDE paratransit services has
fallen from about 6.01 to about 4.12, and the general trend over that time period is decreasing, with three
periods of exception. Of particular note is a very sharp and accelerating rise in this performance measure over
the last reporting year, following several years of equally sharp decreases.
Figure 2-92 (Unlinked Trips per Revenue Hour – Paratransit)
112
Operating Cost Recovery Ratio – Vanpool
Over the six-year period 2008-2013, the operating cost recovery ratio of CATACOMMUTE vanpool services has
risen from about 55.54% to about 100.23%, and the general trend over that time period is increasing, with
one period of exception. The data is somewhat inconsistent and variable given the relative young age of the
program. Of particular note is the sharp increase in this performance measure in the most recent time period,
to the point where it appears that CATACOMMUTE vanpool services are recovery all of their operating costs
through passenger fares.
Figure 2-93 (Operating Cost Recovery Ratio – Vanpool)
113
Percentage Spare Vehicles Available – Vanpool
Over the six-year period 2008-2013, the percentage spare vehicles available of CATACOMMUTE vanpool services
has fallen from about 20% to about 12.5%, and the general trend over that time period is decreasing, with two
periods of exception, one of them quite notable. The data is somewhat inconsistent and variable given the
relative young age of the program. The spare ratio spikes in the 2010 reporting year as new vans are purchased
for program expansion, then generally falls again as these vans are allocated to newly-formed groups.
Figure 2-94 (Percentage Spare Vehicles Available – Vanpool)
114
Operating Expense per Revenue Mile – Vanpool
Over the six-year period 2008-2013, the operating expense per revenue mile of CATACOMMUTE vanpool services
has fallen from about $1.04 to about $0.53, and the general trend over that time period is decreasing, with one
period of slight exception. As the program matures, the decline in this performance measure started out very
sharp, but has leveled out somewhat in recent years.
Figure 2-95 (Operating Expense per Revenue Mile – Vanpool)
115
Operating Expense per Revenue Hour – Vanpool
per-hour basis.
Over the six-year period 2008-2013, the operating expense per revenue hour of CATACOMMUTE vanpool
services has fallen from about $32.59 to about $20.74, and the general trend over that time period is decreasing,
with one period of notable exception. As the program matures, the decline in this performance measure started
out very sharp, spiked back up, and has leveled out somewhat in recent years.
Figure 2-96 (Operating Expense per Revenue Hour – Vanpool)
116
Operating Expense per Unlinked Trip – Vanpool
Over the six-year period 2008-2013, the operating expense per unlinked trip of CATACOMMUTE vanpool services
has fallen from about $3.56 to about $2.46, and the general trend over that time period is decreasing, with one
period of notable exception. As the program matures, the decline in this performance measure started out very
sharp, spiked back up, and has leveled out somewhat in recent years.
Figure 2-97 (Operating Expense per Unlinked Trip – Vanpool)
117
Unlinked Trips per Revenue Mile – Vanpool
Over the six-year period 2008-2013, the unlinked trips per revenue mile of CATACOMMUTE vanpool services
has fallen from about 0.29 to about 0.22, and the general trend over that time period is decreasing, with very
consistent performance over time. The decline in this performance measure has leveled out somewhat in recent
years.
Figure 2-98 (Unlinked Trips per Revenue Mile – Vanpool)
118
Unlinked Trips per Revenue Hour – Vanpool
Over the six-year period 2008-2013, the unlinked trips per revenue hour of CATACOMMUTE vanpool services has
fallen from about 9.16 to about 8.43, though the general trend over that time period is flat at roughly 9 unlinked
trips per revenue hour, with some data fluctuation early in the period. As the program matures, the decline in
this performance measure started out very sharp, spiked back up, and has declined again in recent years.
Figure 2-99 (Unlinked Trips per Revenue Hour – Vanpool)
119
Key Findings and Questions – Current CATA Operations
As this data was compiled, analyzed, and discussed both at a staff level and with the project management team (PMT), a number of key findings and questions became apparent that may have implications
for future strategic initiatives and/or provide other valuable supporting data. These include the following, in order of discussion rather than particular order of importance or priority:
• CATA’s low and generally declining spare ratio is the primary determining factor in many service planning
and operational decisions. This is particularly apparent as it relates to CATABUS fixed route services; in
the case of CATARIDE paratransit services, for example, the subcontractor must, by contract supplement
the fleet with its own vehicles to meet demand and avoid denials. As a result, the numbers listed in the
NTD may not be completely accurate as it doesn’t always take this fact into consideration. Raising the
spare ratio to a level more closely matched to industry peers, as well as to the maximum specified by
FTA, is presumed to carry numerous service planning and operational benefits, and will be of primary
importance in the coming years.
• CATA’s operational costs per unit of service (revenue mile, revenue hour, and unlinked trip) are rising
for both CATABUS fixed route services and CATARIDE paratransit services. For CATACOMMUTE vanpool
services, these costs are in decline as the program matures and economies of scale are gained. In the
case of fixed route and paratransit services, these cost increases are likely contingent upon a wide variety
of both internal and external factors. What internal factors are within CATA’s scope of control, and what
measures can be taken to slow or reverse cost increases going forward?
• CATA’s ability to capture true and accurate cost information for the CATACOMMUTE vanpool program
have greatly improved since the program’s inception. This should enhance the agency’s ability to charge
a passenger fare that is more reflective of these true and accurate costs, and seems to suggest that a
higher and more consistent level of cost recovery can be achieved in the coming years.
• CATA has long held an “unspoken” target of 50% operating cost recovery ratio for CATABUS fixed route
services. If we determine that we want to keep this performance metric, we will need to consider
the implications on service decisions on routes outside of the student corridors, as well as service
growth into areas not currently served. It should be noted that CATA’s lower-than-average service area
population density may have negative implications with respect to this performance target, should
service be expanded outside of existing corridors.
• If we determine that cost recovery is important, should we set metrics based on service categories?
Fixed route services have somewhat naturally split themselves into four tiers of intensity, including
commuter (low frequency), community (low-medium frequency), student (medium-high frequency), and
campus (high frequency). Should there be a unique and tailored operating cost recovery target for each
of these four tiers of service? As an alternative, what trade-offs are optimum between a 50% operating
cost recovery target and “lifeline” service that necessarily conveys a lower level of productivity and cost
effectiveness?
• Under the relatively new subcontractor (Ride Right, LLC of St. Louis, MO), operating statistics and
performance measures for CATARIDE paratransit services are being more accurately captured and
broken out according to specific program (ADA paratransit, shared ride for senior citizens, and general
public). Historically, the level of accuracy for these statistics and performance measures was not as
high, with much of the information being recorded using a pen-and-paper system. Therefore, the
older figures shown in this analysis should be viewed with some skepticism. With the deployment of
Ecolane paratransit management software in late 2014 to early 2015, data capture will be real-time, and
presumably extremely accurate. This should allow for more efficient use of data in decision making.
120
• CATACOMMUTE vanpool services generally seem to exhibit an opposing trend when compared to fixed
route and paratransit services in terms of cost per unit of service provided. This is likely as a result
of certain economies of scale being achieved as the program matures. At this current level of data
analyzed, however, the specific factors behind these economies of scale, as well as implications for
future trends, are unclear and must be looked at in further detail:
−− Why is cost effectiveness increasing?
−− What are the specific impacts of increased long-distance service between Cambria County and SCI
Rockview and SCI Benner, where multiple and varied shifts of workers have been added in recent
years?
−− Where do we reach a “tipping point” between participant recruitment and retention, and day-today management of the program? At what point will additional staff be required to operate the
program?
−− How does van size impact program performance and customer satisfaction?
−− How does in-house maintenance of vans impact spare ratio and other performance measures?
• For all modes of service (CATABUS fixed route services, CATARIDE paratransit services, and
CATACOMMUTE vanpool services), it would be beneficial to more closely examine the benefits of a
standardized fleet against those of one more finely tailored to the specific characteristics of the service
being offered.
121
Chapter 3
Local Inventory of
Surface Transportation Services
Reflecting the diverse nature of Centre County, there are multiple public, private, and human service
transportation offerings available. This mix of services is an important consideration in coordinated
planning efforts.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe fixed route, paratransit, ridesharing, intercity bus, taxi, human service, and university transportation services (available to the general public or selected subsets
thereof) provided for Centre County in general, and the current CATA service area in particular. From
there, decision-makers can develop a clear understanding of the geographic and temporal areas that
are covered/not covered by these transportation services.
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. Group trips – consisting of 8 passengers or more – can be scheduled to an out-of-county
destination, and in these cases service is provided directly by the CCOT. If less than 8 passengers, the CCOT may
otherwise coordinate with the transportation provider in the neighboring county to cross county lines. Currently,
about 6% of CCOT trips are estimated to 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 in extreme northern Centre County. 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 / intellectual
disabilities / early intervention – drug and alcohol (MH/ID/EI) 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.
122
Service for CCOT riders generally operates Monday through Friday, from about 7:30 a.m. until about
5:30 p.m.
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 1:00 p.m. 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 8:30 a.m.
– 5:00 p.m., 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. Drivers 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 the trip must
be reserved at the same time as the escorted passenger reserves his or hers.
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 delivery 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 – J.Maggi Motors, Inc. in College
Township. This maintenance contract was awarded by competitive bid, and will be up for re-bid during
summer 2015.
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 total allocated cost of the service.
123
The fare structure is based on a zone system, with Centre County split into the following eight 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 $11.25 for an intra-zone trip, $18.90 for a one-zone trip, $23.00 for a two-zone
trip, $31.50 for a three-zone trip, and $36.75 for a four-zone trip. Although Centre County is comprised of a
total of eight fare zones, any in-county trip can be completed by touching a maximum of four zones. The general
public cash fare to participate in an out-of-county group trip is $15.25, although this is currently being reevaluated in an effort to improve operating cost recovery.
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/ID/EI 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 their 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 12¢ per mile.
Penn State University Transportation Services
Paratransit
The Paratransit Shuttle provides transportation for students, faculty, and staff with mobility impairments to areas
on campus that the Campus Shuttle and the LOOP and LINK buses do not service. The shuttle includes a wheel
chair lift. It is important to note that while these transit options will get close to certain destinations, they do not
directly serve all campus destinations.
Riders with temporary and permanent impairments are eligible to ride, and an identification card is required.
There is no fee to ride the shuttle.
During the work week, the Paratransit Shuttle serves each of its stops every 20 minutes (7:15 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.):
•
•
•
•
•
•
124
Intramural Building at 00; 20; and 40 minutes past the hour
East Halls at 01; 21; and 41 minutes past the hour
Computer Building at 02; 22; and 42 minutes past the hour
Redifer Commons at 05; 25; and 45 minutes past the hour
Nittany Apartments at 06; 26 and 46 minutes past the hour
Millenium Sciences Building at 07; 27 and 47 minutes past the hour
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thomas Building at 08; 28; and 48 minutes past the hour
Boucke Building at 09; 29; and 49 minutes past the hour
Chandlee Lab at 10; 30; and 50 minutes past the hour
Carnegie/Willard at 11; 31; and 51 minutes past the hour
Hosler Building / IST Building at 12; 32; and 52 minutes past the hour
Rec Hall at 13; 33; and 53 minutes past the hour
Pattee Transit Center at 14; 34; and 54 minutes past the hour
Palmer Museum at 14; 34; and 54 minutes past the hour
Pavilion Theatre at 15; 35; and 55 minutes past the hour
Business Building at 16; 36 and 56 minutes past the hour\
Campus Shuttle
The Campus Shuttle provides no-fare transportation around campus for faculty/staff, students, and visitors. The
Shuttle operates from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, with service every 15 minutes. It does not operate
on weekends or holidays. The schedule is as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Physical Plant Office at 00; 15; 30; and 45 minutes past the hour
Intramural Building at 02; 17; 32; and 47 minutes past the hour
East Halls at 03; 18; 33; and 48 minutes past the hour
Computer Building at 03; 18; 33; and 48 minutes past the hour
Pollock Road / Bigler Road at 04; 19; 34; and 49 minutes past the hour
Thomas Building at 05; 20; 35; and 50 minutes past the hour
College Avenue / Heister Street at 07; 22; 37; and 52 minutes past the hour
College Avenue / Allen Street at 12; 27; 42; and 57 minutes past the hour
Reber Building at 14; 29; 44; and 59 minutes past the hour
IST Building / Hosler Building at 14; 29; 44; and 59 minutes past the hour
Rec Hall at 15; 30; 45; and 00 minutes past the hour
Pattee Transit Center at 16; 31; 46; and 01 minutes past the hour
Palmer Museum at 17; 32; 47; and 02 minutes past the hour
Pavilion Theatre at 18; 33; 48; and 03 minutes past the hour
Smeal Business Building at 19; 34; 49; and 04 minutes past the hour
Katz Law School Building at 20; 35; 50; and 05 minutes past the hour
Business Services Building at 20; 35; 50; and 05 minutes past the hour
Big Hollow at 21; 36; 51; and 06 minutes past the hour
Hazmat Building at 21; 36; 51; and 06 minutes past the hour
Ag Research Building at 22; 37; 52; and 07 minutes past the hour
Support Buildings 1 & 2 at 22; 37; 52; and 07 minutes past the hour
Blue Band Building at 23; 38; 53; and 08 minutes past the hour
Dairy Barns at 23; 38; 53; and 08 minutes past the hour
Hershey Shuttle
Shuttle service is provided between Penn State University Park and the College of Medicine at Hershey to
enable students, faculty, and staff in residence at one campus to participate in official University research,
administrative, or teaching and learning activities at another campus. It is not available for personal
transportation or medical appointments. The Hershey Shuttle service operates Monday through Friday on a
year-round basis, excluding holidays and during campus closures. Two daily trips are provided in each direction.
Eastbound trips depart the Nittany Lion Inn at 6:50am and 4:20pm, Old Main at 6:55am and 4:25pm, and the
Penn Stater Hotel and Conference Center at 7:00am and 4:30pm before arriving in Hershey approximately two
hours later. Westbound trips depart the South BMR Entrance at 6:45am and 4:15pm before arriving on the
University Park Campus approximately two hours later.
125
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 vehicles;
• 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 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 1/7-mile: $2.35 plus the current PA fuel surcharge
Each additional 1/7-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 six 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.
126
AA Transit’s taxi rates are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Flag drop and first 1/7-mile: $1.90
Each additional 1/7-mile: 25¢
Each additional passenger over 2: 50¢
Each minute of wait time: 25¢
Trips beginning/ending more than 10 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 since October
2002. 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
• Additional passenger surcharge: 20¢ per mile for additional passengers over 3
Credit cards are accepted as fare payment.
Happy Valley Ride
State College-based Happy Valley Ride has been providing taxi services within Centre County since 2013. These
services operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Happy Valley Ride identifies their service area as all of
Centre County.
Happy Valley Ride’s taxi rates are as follows:
• Flag drop and first 1/5-mile: $1.70
• Each additional 1/5-mile: 40¢
• Each minute of wait time: 40¢
Credit cards are accepted as fare payment. There is no extra charge for additional passengers.
Vamos! Lion Chariot
Vamos! Lion Chariot is a locally-owned and operated pedal cab operation with a primary service area of
downtown State College and the Penn State University campus. The service is hailable, or reservations can
be made in advance via phone or email. A mobile-phone application allows a potential customer to view the
current location of pedal cabs within the service area. Rates start at about $1 per minute of use. Credit cards
are accepted as fare payment.
127
Uber / Lyft
Uber is a ridesharing (non-hailable cab) service based in San Francisco, CA. The company receives requests for
a ride through their app, and then dispatches these trips to drivers via the app as well. Customers use the app
to request rides and track their reserved vehicle’s location. As of August 2014, the service was available in 45
countries and more than 200 cities worldwide.
Upon its inception, Uber only offered full-size luxury cars for hire, and the “UberBlack” title was adopted for
the company’s main service (named after the “black cars” private transportation services in New York City). In
2012, the company launched its “UberX” program, which made available to consumers smaller vehicles. Due to
the lower fees that accompanied the program, the service became extremely competitive with traditional taxi
services, expanding Uber’s appeal to a broader cross-section of the market.
Similar to Uber, Lyft is an American transportation network company, also based in San Francisco, CA. The
company’s mobile-phone application facilitates peer-to-peer ridesharing by connecting passengers who need a
ride to drivers who have a car. Lyft offers three ride options: Lyft, Lyft Line, and Lyft Plus. Lyft currently operates
in over 65 U.S. cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York City, with plans to expand both
domestically and internationally.
Although both companies have signaled a desired expansion into the State College area and Centre County,
regulatory issues under the jurisdiction of the PUC have delayed that expansion somewhat. Uber launched
service within the State College area during February 2015, with Lyft expected to follow shortly.
Rental Car Services
A variety of rental car agencies operate within the State College area for the use of Centre County residents.
These agencies primarily operate from the University Park Airport, but some local outlets exist as well.
Companies offering rental cars within Centre County – beyond a variety of local automobile dealerships – include
the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Alamo Car Rental
Avis Rent-A-Car
Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Hertz Rent-A-Car
National Car Rental
Typical daily rates for car rental range from about $22 to about $135, depending on the specific agency utilized,
class of vehicle, and age of renter. They do not include any discount or reward programs, nor available options
such as prepaid fuel, GPS, or insurance coverage. Insurance, age, and driver licensing requirements vary by
agency.
Car-Sharing Services
Zipcar
Zipcar is a US car rental company, a subsidiary of Avis Budget Group. The company provides automobile
reservations to its members, billable by the hour or day. Zipcar members pay a monthly or annual membership
fee in addition to car rental charges. The company was founded in 2000 in Cambridge, MA, and currently
operates as a subsidiary of Avis Budget Group.
As of July 2013, the company had more than 810,000 members and offers nearly 10,000 vehicles throughout the
128
United States and worldwide.
Members can reserve cars online or by phone at any time, immediately or up to a year in advance. Zipcar
members have automated access to their rental car using an access card which works with the car’s technology
to unlock the door, where the keys are already located inside. Zipcar also offers an iPhone or Android application
that allows members to honk the horn to locate a nearby rental car and unlock the doors. Zipcar charges a onetime application fee, an annual fee, and a reservation charge. Fuel, parking, insurance, and maintenance are
included in the price.
Recent years have seen the creation of many similar car-sharing services. Traditional car rental companies have
replicated Zipcar’s short-term car rentals with programs including Hertz on Demand, Enterprise’s WeCar, UHaul’s
Uhaul Car Share, and Daimler’s Car2Go. Regional competitors exist as well. Currently, Zipcar is the only such
service operating in the State College area and Centre County, having debuted in 2014. Membership rates start
at $6 per month.
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 in providing 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.
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.
Two additional intercity bus companies connect Centre County with a variety of destinations throughout the east
coast and Midwest, but do not utilize the local bus terminal, instead opting to employ other State College area
locations in their operations.
129
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 / Long Island
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 to additional 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, PA or Vandergrift, PA. Express service is offered to selected destinations during fall and spring semesters
at Penn State University, and the fare is typically assessed at a slight premium.
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.
130
Trip availability varies, is subject to change, and can be identified by contacting Greyhound directly or via their
website at: http://www.greyhound.com.
specific final destination. Connections are available to several local intercity bus systems, including Fullington
Trailways.
One-way fares between State College and other destinations along Greyhound routes are generally between
16.9¢ and 39.9¢ 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, the 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, Chicago, Cleveland, Toledo, 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.
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.
One-way fares between State College and other destinations along Megabus routes are generally between 17.5¢
and 40.6¢ per mile, depending on how early tickets are purchased.
A Top Bus
Although A Top 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 Bloomsburg, PA; Newark, NJ;
and New York City.
Trip availability varies, is subject to change, and can be identified by contacting A Top Bus directly or via their
website at: http://www.gotobus.com/a-top-bus/.
specific final destination. Connections are available to several local intercity bus systems as well as Greyhound
Lines, Inc.
One-way fares between State College and New York City are $41. At a trip distance of 237 miles, this equates to
a per-mile rate of 17.3¢ per mile.
A Top 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.
131
Human Service Providers
A number of human service agencies and public service providers furnish transportation services for applicable
groups throughout Centre County. Typically, certain eligibility criteria must be met for an individual to take
advantage of these services.
Bellefonte Emergency Medical Services – Non-Emergency Transport
Bellefonte EMS currently has 3 paratransit vans, licensed by the PUC, that provide non-emergency transportation
for both wheelchair and stretcher patients who are not in need of medical evaluation, monitoring or treatment
during transportation. This service provides cost-effective transportation to persons that do not need an
ambulance but need assistance, use a wheelchair, or are unable to sit and need a stretcher. Paratransit vans
are used for scheduled medical appointments, rehab therapy, or outpatient appointments, or when a patient is
discharged from the hospital.
Centre LifeLink Emergency Medical Services – Non-Emergency Transport
Centre LifeLink EMS currently offers both wheelchair and stretcher van transportation, and provides door-todoor service. Clients may have a driver wait during their appointment until they are ready to return home.
The van service is a scheduled service, with time slots available on a first-come, first-served basis. Therefore,
potential clients are advised to schedule their trips as far in advance as possible. The fee for van service is
typically not covered by medical insurance, nor is it covered under Centre LifeLink EMS membership fees, the
latter of which only applies to emergency transportation services.
Houck Home Care and Cleaning
Licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Houck Home Care and Cleaning can transport nonemergency clients to and from medical appointments, or other destinations such as shopping, church, or
restaurants. Staff can aid in transferring a client from car to wheelchair, or aid a client in walking. In the case of
medical appointments, staff are available to wait and stay at the appointment in the waiting room or go into the
appointment with the client. For shopping trips, staff will load and unload groceries, and can even stock them in
the client’s house. Such services are available throughout Centre County, although additional fees may apply to
transportation outside of the immediate State College and Bellefonte areas.
In-Home Services of Central Pennsylvania, LLC
In-Home Services of Central PA will transport clients to medical appointments, and will also assist with such
services grocery shopping, personal shopping, social activities, and other errands. Based in Burnham, the
organization serves all areas of Centre, Mifflin, and Juniata Counties, and will provide cross-county transportation
upon request.
Centre County Veterans’ Affairs Office
The Centre County VA Office will provide transportation for veterans of the armed services who reside in
Centre County. Transportation is provided to and from the James E. Van Zandt VA Medical Center in Altoona.
Reservations for transportation must be made at least three business days in advance. The Centre County VA
Office also frequently collaborates with the Centre County Office of Transportation Services (CCOT) on other
transportation needs for veterans who are county residents.
132
Community Help Centre
In addition to their 24 hours per day, 365 days per year “drop-in” center, Community Help Centre also operates
a significant transportation program within Centre County. When contacted by a potential client with
transportation needs, Community Help Centre staff will attempt to make a referral to the CCOT, CATA, or one
of the taxi or intercity bus services operating within the area. If an individual does not qualify for one of these
services, cannot pay for the cost of the service, or faces some other impediment to using the services available
– frequently in terms of time or geography – Community Help Centre will provide the transportation necessary
through a well-developed network of volunteer drivers.
Community Help Centre describes their transportation as a “service of last resort”, meaning that a volunteer
driver provides the trip only after all other options have been exhausted. Because of limited agency resources,
only “intermittent” needs are met; the program cannot provide for ongoing needs, such as those related to
employment. Advance notice of two days is required for an individual to use the service, so that the appropriate
referrals and other arrangements can be made. On the other hand, transportation cannot be requested or
scheduled more than two weeks in advance; this allows the agency the capacity to respond to acute or emerging
needs.
If for some reason Community Help Centre cannot meet a need using their network of volunteers, they will
provide advocacy services to the client. For example, agency staff will work with medical offices to reschedule
appointments for a day and time when transportation can be provided. More often than not, however, the need
can be met from within the volunteer network. Community Help Centre volunteers have transported clients to
destinations as far away as Columbus, OH, and provide for many of the out-of-county medical trips that cannot
be provided by the CCOT.
Although there are no firm eligibility guidelines for this program, Community Help Centre typically serves lowincome individuals, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities with this program.
Pennsylvania CareerLink
Because transportation is such a vital component of seeking, competing for, and retaining employment, the
PA CareerLink provides transportation services to its clients. They will work with existing public transportation
providers to find a solution for each individual, but will provide transportation services directly where needs
cannot reasonably be met otherwise. The individual’s case manager provides these services using an agency
vehicle or a private vehicle.
To take advantage of this service, a client of the PA CareerLink must be enrolled in one of several job search or
remediation programs, meet all eligibility requirements of the appropriate program, and be making satisfactory
progress in the program. Transportation may be provided in a single instance – for example, in the event of a job
interview – or may be provided on an ongoing basis, such as to a series of job interviews, remediation classes, or
workshops.
PA CareerLink places geographic constraints on their transportation services to allow as many clients as possible
to make use of the resources available. Generally, transportation is provided within Centre County only.
Centre County United Way
As an umbrella agency for a collection of local human service providers, the Centre County United Way deals
with member agencies that may provide transportation services to clients. One example of this is the Local Help
and Transient Fund, which provides an intercity bus solution to individuals who are traveling through and/or
stranded in Centre County. Upon demonstration of need, one of the ministers working within this program has
the discretion to issue a voucher for intercity bus travel to an individual; this voucher is provided at no cost to the
133
individual.
Another member agency of the Centre County United Way provides van service to young children between their
home and child care facilities. This service is provided by volunteer drivers, and is available at no cost to the
family.
Skills of Central Pennsylvania, Inc.
Skills of Central Pennsylvania, Inc. maintains a fleet of vehicles that are used to provide transportation services
for individuals who live in one of their homes. For these individuals, a Skills driver will take them wherever they
need to go, including day programs and employment. This service includes transportation to and from out-ofcounty destinations.
For individuals who do not live in a Skills home, the agency will work with local transportation providers such as
the CCOT and CATA to determine how travel needs can best be met.
Strawberry Fields, Inc.
Most of the major programs operated by Strawberry Fields, Inc. have vehicles available to transport clients.
This includes transportation to day programs, medical appointments, and other human service appointments.
In urgent or emergency situations, individual case managers will transport clients using an agency or private
vehicle. Before this happens, however, an attempt is made to transport the client using services provided by the
CCOT or CATA.
Centre County Women’s Resource Center
Transportation is very important to women attempting to recover from domestic violence or sexual assault,
particularly where an individual has left home – and in many cases, available vehicles – to escape a violent
situation. The Centre County Women’s Resource Center helps these women and their children access court
dates, employment, transitional housing, medical appointments, and other needs.
Where possible, the agency attempts to meet the needs of its clients through referrals to CCOT and CATA
services. Individuals will donate bus tokens to the agency, which can then be passed along to clients in need; the
agency’s budget does not support the purchase of tokens or other types of prepaid transit fare media. Residents
of the agency’s shelter are the most frequent user of tokens.
The Centre County Women’s Resource Center also has a standing contract with Handy Delivery Taxi. A client of
the agency can utilize taxi services, which are then billed back to the agency. Though Handy Delivery does not
offer a discount on these services, the contract streamlines the billing and payment processes; it also ensures
that a client of the Center will have transportation available when needed, without concern for ability to pay.
In certain limited cases, staff of the Centre County Women’s Resource Center will provide transportation directly
to clients using their own personal vehicles. Their ability to do this is not guaranteed, however.
Child Care Information Services of Centre County
Low-income individuals with children may find it difficult to sustain or advance a career without available child
care. Accordingly, Child Care Information Services of Centre County is a key player in transitioning low-income
individuals from public assistance to gainful, sustained employment. The agency assists its clients in this
endeavor by making referrals to CCOT and CATA services. They also help clients apply for fare subsidy programs,
such as the PwD Program. If the individual is receiving public assistance, and taking the necessary steps to train
134
for or hold a job, the County Assistance Office will often reimburse transportation costs.
For children of clients, individual child care facilities and school districts often provide transportation between
home and the facility.
Housing Transitions, Inc.
For its clients, Housing Transitions, Inc. will make referrals to CCOT and CATA services, as well as area taxi
services. Like Child Care Information Services, staff at Housing Transitions will help clients navigate the eligibility
process for fare subsidy programs such as PwD and MATP. They note, however, that not everyone qualifies
for these programs. Where an individual is not eligible, transportation can be a problem, as the agency does
not directly provide transportation to its clients. In these cases, staff at Housing Transitions may call upon the
volunteer program at Community Help Centre to provide the service.
Senior Citizen Communities
Various public, private, and non-profit communities for senior citizens often maintain a fleet of vehicles and a
pool of drivers to provide transportation services directly to residents. These communities include the Village at
Penn State and Foxdale Village in State College, and Windy Hill Village in Philipsburg.
Lions Club
Lions Club International – well-known and highly-regarded for its work on behalf of persons with visual
impairments – often provides volunteer transportation services for members of the Sight Loss Support Group of
Central Pennsylvania. These members make use of available CATA and CCOT services as well.
Intermodal Accommodations
Although no formal pricing and/or transfer arrangements exist between any of the providers listed in the
preceding sections of this chapter, there are a number of physical locations at which transfers are made between
providers. These include – but are not limited to – the following:
• College Avenue / Allen Street – This is arguably the most critical intermodal transfer hub within Centre
County. Primarily served by CATABUS, this location is also reasonably accessible – either directly or via
a short distance – to most other providers as well, with the exception of intercity bus carriers. More
recently, vehicle overcrowding has become a concern at this location. Potential improvements to this
location have been included in the State College Borough Downtown Master Plan.
• Pattee Transit Center – If the College / Allen location is the most critical intermodal transfer hub within
Centre County, the bi-directional transit center near Pattee Library is likely the second most critical.
Again, this location is primarily served by CATABUS, but is also reasonably accessible – either directly
or via a short distance – to most other providers as well, with the exception of intercity bus carriers.
Although vehicle overcrowding is not as much of a concern as it is at College / Allen, limitations on space
cannot be ignored.
• State College Intercity Bus Terminal – Both Fullington and Greyhound serve this terminal directly, while
Megabus and A Top Bus do not. The terminal is accessible to nearly all other providers, either directly or
via a short distance, including taxi providers. CATABUS services primarily connect to this location utilizing
the North Atherton Street / Walker Building stop, which has long been a target for improvement but is
constrained by a number of natural and architectural features.
135
• North Atherton Place – The primary point of operations for Megabus and A Top Bus, North Atherton
Place is directly accessible to most other modes as well, including a number of CATABUS routes and taxi
providers. Although the CATABUS stops in both directions are accompanied by shelters, the Megabus
stop specifically could potentially be improved in terms of passenger amenities.
• University Park Airport – The primary point of operations for most rental car agencies, as well as for all
flights in and out of State College, University Park Airport is primarily accessible via taxi providers, the
CCOT, and various other services. It is not accessible via either CATABUS or CATARIDE, nor to intercity
bus providers.
• North Atherton Street / Blue Course Drive – The primary point of operations for Enterprise Rent-A-Car,
this intersection is accessible by nearly all providers, with the exception of intercity bus companies.
The nearest CATABUS stops are located at North Atherton Street / East Clinton Avenue, 1224 North
Atherton Street, and Northland Center. The first two stop locations could benefit from a great deal of
improvement in terms of passenger amenities.
Connections between individual sets of providers are available at a virtually limitless selection of other locations
throughout Centre County.
Key Findings and Questions – Local Inventory of Transportation Services
As data and information regarding non-CATA transportation sources was compiled, analyzed, and discussed
both at a staff level and with the project management team (PMT), several key findings and questions became
apparent that may have implications for future strategic initiatives and/or provide other valuable supporting
data. These include the following, in order of discussion rather than particular order of importance or priority:
• In recent years, the number of ground transportation alternatives in Centre County has increased, with
the introduction and expansion of Megabus service in the State College area, the debut of Zipcar, and
the potential expansions of Uber and Lyft.
• At the same time, PennDOT is making a strong effort to consolidate state-supported alternatives (such as
the CCOT and CATA) throughout various regions of Pennsylvania.
• With Penn State University students, faculty, and staff comprising a majority component of CATABUS
fixed route services, CATA’s partnership with the University’s Transportation Services Department will
continue to be an important part of both service planning and coordination.
136
137
Chapter 4
Service Area Characteristics
The purpose of this chapter is to describe Centre County in general, and the current CATA service area in
particular, in terms of demographics, target populations, major and minor trip generators, planning and zoning,
and travel patterns.
In examining such attributes, it is critically important to understand the distribution of the target populations for
public transportation services, or “transit-dependent” populations – 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 strategic planning process by
highlighting specific areas that present the greatest need for transportation improvements.
It is also important to note the large land area of Centre County (almost 1,100 square miles), as well as
to acknowledge the impact that the county’s mountain ridges and valleys have on the physical layout of
transportation infrastructure. Moreover, a large proportion of Centre County is publicly-owned in the form of
State Forests and State Game Lands, which would generate little to no transit ridership. Demographic indicators
should be considered within the context of these geographic attributes.
Within this section, socioeconomic data at the census tract level from the 2010 US Census, 2008-12 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
A map of census tracts within Centre County is presented on the following page.
138
Figure 4-1 (Centre County 2010 US Census Tracts)
A map of Centre County planning regions is presented on the following page, to assist the reader in identifying
groups of municipalities within the county. This map includes the following regions:
• Mountaintop Region – Burnside Township, Snow Shoe Township and Borough
• Lower Bald Eagle Valley – Boggs, Curtin, Liberty, and Howard Townships, Milesburg and Howard
Boroughs
• Moshannon Valley – Rush Township and Philipsburg Borough
• Upper Bald Eagle Valley – Taylor, Worth, Huston, and Union Townships, Port Matilda and Unionville
Boroughs
• Nittany Valley – Benner, Spring, Marion, and Walker Townships, Bellefonte Borough
• Centre Region – Halfmoon, Ferguson, Patton, College, and Harris Townships, State College Borough
• Penns Valley – Potter, Gregg, Penn, Miles, and Haines Townships, Centre Hall and Millheim Boroughs
139
Figure 4-2 (Centre County Planning Regions)
140
Population and Density
Centre County is very diverse 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 attributes of each tract can vary widely. Accordingly, Centre County – with
both its vast rural lands and a significant urban center – includes areas of very high and very low population
density. The overall population density of Centre County is almost 137 residents per square mile. This is about
51% of the Pennsylvania average of 266.5 residents per square mile.
A table of Centre County population, land area, and population density is presented below. Of the census tracts
with a higher-than-average population density, most are located within the current CATA service area; however,
significant population density also exists in Philipsburg Borough as well.
High population density implies a potential for efficient, effective, and successful transit operations. Conversely,
serving sparsely populated areas with transit presents more of a challenge.
Figure 4-3 (Centre County Population Density)
141
Housing Density
Centre County is very diverse in terms of housing 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 attributes of each tract can vary widely. Accordingly, Centre County – with both its vast
rural lands and a significant urban center – includes areas of very high and very low housing density. The
overall housing density of Centre County is almost 57 housing units per square mile. This is about 47% of the
Pennsylvania average of 120.8 housing units per square mile.
A table of Centre County housing units, land area, and housing density is presented below. Of the census tracts
with a higher-than-average housing density, most are located within the current CATA service area; however,
significant housing density also exists in Philipsburg Borough as well.
High housing density implies a potential for efficient, effective, and successful transit operations. Conversely,
serving sparsely populated areas with transit presents more of a challenge.
Figure 4-4 (Centre County Housing Density)
142
Households with No Available Motor Vehicles
Centre County also features a wide disparity in terms of motor vehicle availability. Countywide, nearly 10%
of occupied households do not have a motor vehicle available for use. This is roughly twice the Pennsylvania
average of 4.97%
A table of Centre County occupied housing units with no available motor vehicles is presented below. Of the
census tracts with lower-than-average motor vehicle ownership, most are located within the current CATA
service area; however, significant numbers of occupied housing units without an available motor vehicle also
exist in Philipsburg Borough and the Penns Valley. It should be noted that – particularly in the Penns Valley – the
presence of a significant Amish population may account for relatively low motor vehicle ownership rates
Though a lack of motor vehicle ownership may seem to suggest that a given community is developed in such a
way that motor vehicle ownership is not critical, or may even be discouraged (such as in State College Borough
and on the Penn State Campus), it can also imply a high level of transit dependence, especially when this is
validated by other socioeconomic indicators.
Figure 4-5 (Centre County Occupied Housing Units with No Available Motor Vehicles)
143
Households with 2 or More Available Motor Vehicles
In contrast to the information presented in the preceding section, about 57% of occupied Centre County housing
units have access to multiple (2 or more) motor vehicles. This is only about 77% of the Pennsylvania average of
73.9%.
A table of Centre County occupied housing units with multiple available motor vehicles is presented below. Of
the census tracts with lower-than-average motor vehicle ownership, most are located within the current CATA
service area; however, significant numbers of occupied housing units without multiple available motor vehicles
also exist in Philipsburg Borough and Rush Township.
Though ownership of multiple motor vehicles implies a certain level of economic prosperity, looking at this
indicator can also help to identify households with multiple wage earners who need these motor vehicles to
access opportunities. In these instances, it may be possible to use public transit services to relieve some of
the costs of motor vehicle ownership and commuting. Moreover, it should be noted that residents of student
households may not share motor vehicles in the same way that family members would. For example, a
household with 4 students and 2 motor vehicles may still generate significant demand for public transportation
services.
Figure 4-6 (Centre County Occupied Housing Units with Two or More Available Motor Vehicles)
144
Median Household Income
Centre County median household income stands at almost $50,000. This is about even with the Pennsylvania
average of $52,267. 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. As such, a significant disparity
is present within the County in terms of income.
A table of Centre County median household income is presented below. Of the census tracts with lower-thanaverage income, most are located within the current CATA service area; however, significant numbers of lowerincome families also exist in Philipsburg Borough and Rush Township, the Penns Valley, Boggs Township and
Milesburg Borough, and the Bald Eagle Valley.
Households with a lower median 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 commerce opportunities.
Figure 4-7 (Centre County Median Household Income)
145
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 annual income
of $23,850 for a family of four. Almost 18% of the Centre County population has 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. This poverty rate is about 37.4% higher than the Pennsylvania
average of 13.1%
A table of Centre County poverty rates is presented below. Of the census tracts with higher-than-average
poverty, all are located within the current CATA service area; however, significant concentrations of poverty also
exist in the Penns Valley, Philipsburg Borough, Boggs Township and Milesburg Borough, and the Mountaintop
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.
Figure 4-8 (Centre County Population in Poverty)
146
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, almost 60% 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. This rate of participation in the labor force is only slightly lower than the Pennsylvania
average of 63.2%.
A table of the Centre County labor force is presented below. Of the census tracts with lower-than-average
participation in the labor force, all are located within the current CATA service area; however, significant
concentrations of lower participation in the labor force also exist in Philipsburg Borough, Boggs Township and
Milesburg Borough, and the Penns Valley.
Those individuals not in the labor force may be permanently disabled, retired, acting as a stay-at-home parent,
or experiencing an extended period of unemployment during which 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 such as education, job placement, medical appointments, and shopping.
Figure 4-9 (Centre County Labor Force)
147
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. This unemployment rate is only slightly
higher than the Pennsylvania average of 5.34%.
A table of Centre County unemployment is presented below. Of the census tracts with a higher-than-average
unemployment rate, many are located within the current CATA service area; however, significant concentrations
of high unemployment also exist in Philipsburg Borough, the Penns Valley, Boggs Township and Milesburg
Borough, and the Bald Eagle Valley.
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. As of the 5-Year
estimates for the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS), the average unemployment rate in Centre County
was about 5.93%, with this rate skewed upward by a student population with members often between lowerlevel job opportunities. This unemployment rate is only slightly higher than the Pennsylvania average of 5.34%.
Figure 4-10 (Centre County Unemployment Rate)
148
Public Assistance
Public assistance – or welfare payments – includes cash payments to low-income individuals, such as Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), general assistance,
and emergency assistance. Currently, about 1.7% of Centre County households receive public assistance. This is
about half the Pennsylvania average of 3.5%.
A table of Centre County public assistance income is presented below. Of the census tracts with a higher-thanaverage level of public assistance income, many are located within the current CATA service area; however,
significant concentrations of public assistance income also exist in Philipsburg Borough, the Bald Eagle Valley,
Boggs Township and Milesburg Borough, and Rush Township.
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.
Figure 4-11 (Centre County Public Assistance Income)
149
Supplemental Security Income (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, almost 3% of
Centre County households receive SSI income. This is about 59% of the Pennsylvania average of 5.1%. As with
public assistance income, this indicator is likely to be skewed downward 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 of Centre County SSI income is presented below. Of the census tracts with a higher-than-average level of
SSI income, a few are located within the current CATA service area; however, significant concentrations of public
assistance income also exist in Philipsburg Borough, the Bald Eagle Valley, Rush Township, the Mountaintop
Region, Boggs Township and Milesburg Borough, and the Penns Valley.
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.
Figure 4-12 (Centre County SSI Income)
150
High School Graduation and GED
As a university community, Centre County features a fairly wide disparity in terms of educational attainment.
Countywide, just over 29% of the population report their highest level of educational attainment as high school
graduation or a general educational development diploma (GED). This is about 19% lower than the Pennsylvania
average of 36%.
A table of Centre County residents reporting a highest educational attainment of high school graduation or
GED is presented below. Generally, significant proportions of the population in Boggs Township and Milesburg
Borough, the Mountaintop Region, the Bald Eagle and Penns Valleys, Philipsburg Borough, Rush Township,
Marion and Walker Townships, and a few portions of the CATA service area have no post-secondary education.
It should be noted that – particularly in the Penns and Nittany Valleys – the presence of a significant Amish
population may account for under-reporting of formal educational attainment.
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.
Figure 4-13 (Centre County Educational Attainment – High School / GED)
151
College Degree
As a university community, Centre County features a fairly wide disparity in terms of educational attainment.
Countywide, just under 24% of the population report their highest level of educational attainment as a college
degree. This is about 38% lower than the Pennsylvania average of 38.7%. 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 of Centre County residents reporting a highest educational attainment of a college degree is presented
below. Generally, significant proportions of the population in the Mountaintop Region, the Penns Valley, Boggs
Township and Milesburg Borough, the Bald Eagle Valley, Rush Township, Philipsburg Borough, and a few portions
of the CATA service area are less likely to report completion of post-secondary education. It should be noted
that – particularly in the Penns Valley – the presence of a significant Amish population may account for underreporting of formal educational attainment.
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, although in the Centre Region specifically, a number of higher-income individuals are, in fact,
using public transit in increasing numbers.
Figure 4-14 (Centre County Educational Attainment – College Degree)
152
Distribution of Jobs
Within Centre County, the Centre Region – and more specifically, State College Borough and the Penn State
University campus – is home to a dominant share of major employers and jobs.
A table of Centre County’s 25 leading employers is presented below. Not surprisingly, Penn State University is
by far the County’s largest job center, employing a workforce almost four times larger than the County’s secondlargest employer, state government. Most of the County’s other large employers – such as the Mount Nittany
Health System, State College Area School District, and county government – are located within the CATA service
area. Major employers not located within the CATA service area include The Meadows Psychiatric Center in
Centre Hall, Philipsburg-Osceola School District in Philipsburg, and Bald Eagle Area School District in Wingate.
Together, Centre County’s 25 leading employers provide just under 30,000 jobs; this is about 38% of the
total positions needed to support the entire Centre County labor force. 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 between other portions of Centre County and the Centre Region.
Figure 4-15 (Centre County Top 25 Employers)
153
Distribution of Age 65 and Older Population
Centre County is home to 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.
This is about 25.8% lower than the Pennsylvania average. Moreover, these senior Centre County residents are
widely distributed in terms of geography, though most tend to live outside of the State College urban core.
A table of the distribution of age 65 and older residents within Centre County is presented below. Larger-than
average proportions of residents age 65 and older are present within some portions of the CATA service area,
as well as the Penns Valley, the Bald Eagle Valley, Boggs Township and Milesburg Borough, Marion and Walker
Township, Rush Township, and Philipsburg Borough. It should be noted that – particularly in Philipsburg and
Bellefonte Boroughs, and Rush Township – the presence of senior housing as well as a relatively small population
may influence the proportional population of age 65 and older residents.
Persons age 65 and older are an important target population of the federal Section 5310 program as well as
services funded with assistance from the Pennsylvania Lottery. It is critically important that residents age 65 and
older be connected with medical and other essential services.
Figure 4-16 (Centre County Age 65 and Older Population)
154
Social Security Income
Social Security includes Social Security pensions and survivors’ benefits, as well as permanent disability insurance
payments made by the Social Security Administration. Currently, just under 25% of Centre County households
receive Social Security income. This is about 22% lower than the Pennsylvania average of 32.2%.
A table of Centre County Social Security income is presented below. Higher-than-average rates of Social Security
payments are noted in portions of the CATA service area, as well as in the Bald Eagle Valley, Philipsburg Borough,
the Penns Valley, the Mountaintop Region, Boggs Township and Milesburg Borough, Rush Township, and Marion
and Walker Townships. It should be noted that – particularly in Philipsburg and Bellefonte Boroughs, and Rush
Township – the presence of senior housing as well as a relatively small population may influence the proportional
distribution of Social Security income.
Though Social Security is widely viewed as a proxy for the distribution of the aging population within a given
area, this is not entirely the case. Social Security income may reach surviving spouses and young families, as well
as individuals who have been permanently disabled. As such, Social Security income tends to imply a certain
level of transit dependence, as well as a need for transportation linkages between home and employment,
educational, and medical opportunities.
Figure 4-17 (Centre County Social Security Income)
155
Distribution of Disabled Population
Centre County is home to a diverse mix of young children and families, college students, young professionals,
and older, more established residents. Currently, about 9% of Centre County residents report having a disability.
This is about 31.8% lower than the Pennsylvania average of 13.2%. Moreover, these disabled Centre County
residents are widely distributed in terms of geography, though most tend to live outside of the State College
urban core.
A table of the distribution of disabled residents within Centre County is presented below. Larger-than-average
proportions of disabled residents are present within some portions of the CATA service area, as well as the
Mountaintop Region, the Bald Eagle Valley, Boggs Township and Milesburg Borough, Philipsburg Borough, Rush
Township, and the Penns Valley.
Disabled individuals are an important target population of public transit services, as many may have difficulty
driving. It is critically important that disabled residents be connected with employment, medical, and other
essential services.
Figure 4-18 (Centre County Disabled Population)
156
Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Centre County features a wide 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 number 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 as well as in outlying counties. Currently, the average value of a Centre
County owner-occupied housing unit is about $198,000. This is about 20.1% higher than the Pennsylvania
average of $164,900.
A table of Centre County housing values is presented below. Excluding non-owner-occupied units on the Penn
State Campus, census tracts with the most affordable housing include some portions of the CATA service area, as
well as Philipsburg Borough, Rush Township, the Mountaintop Region, Boggs Township and Milesburg Borough,
the Bald Eagle and Penns Valleys, and Marion and Walker Townships. By contrast, housing units within the
Centre Region appear to be the least affordable for the average worker.
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.
Figure 4-19 (Centre County Housing Values)
157
Housing Unit Occupancy
Centre County features a wide disparity in terms of housing occupancy. While the overwhelming number of
Centre County jobs are located within the Centre Region, much of the available housing stock is located in more
distant portions of the County as well as in outlying counties. Currently, the average housing unit occupancy rate
in Centre County is about 90%. This is about even with the Pennsylvania average of 89.1%.
A table of Centre County housing occupancy is presented below. Census tracts with the most available housing
include some portions of the CATA service area, as well as the Mountaintop Region, the Penns Valley, Rush
Township, the Bald Eagle Valley, and Philipsburg Borough. It should be noted that – particularly in the
Mountaintop Region, Rush Township, and the Bald Eagle Valley – the presence of seasonal housing may account
for relatively low housing occupancy rates.
The distribution of housing availability 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.
Figure 4-20 (Centre County Housing Occupancy)
158
Single-Occupant Vehicle Commuters
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. Currently, about 66% of the Centre County workforce
commutes via single-occupant vehicle. This is much lower than the Pennsylvania average of 76.5%, suggesting
that Centre County workers make better use of alternative modes of transportation than do their counterparts
elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
A table of the number of Centre County workers commuting via single-occupant vehicle is presented below.
Census tracts with a higher-than-average rate of commuting via single-occupant vehicle include some portions of
the CATA service area, as well as the Bald Eagle Valley, Boggs Township and Milesburg Borough, Rush Township,
Marion and Walker Townships, the Mountaintop Region, the Penns Valley, and Philipsburg 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 can often suggest a deficiency
of these alternative modes, in terms of availability, routing, scheduling, and span of service.
Figure 4-21 (Centre County Commute Method – Single-Occupant Vehicle)
159
Carpool Commuters
Carpooling, or ridesharing, is a fairly popular method of commuting for Centre County workers. Currently, just
under 11% of the Centre County workforce shares their trip to work with another individual. This is slightly
higher than the Pennsylvania average of about 9.2%.
A table of the number of Centre County workers commuting via carpool is presented below. Census tracts with
a higher-than-average rate of carpool commuting include some portions of the CATA service area, as well as
Philipsburg Borough, the Mountaintop Region, the Penns and Bald Eagle Valleys, Marion and Walker Townships,
and Rush Township.
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.
Figure 4-22 (Centre County Commute Method – Carpool)
160
Public Transit Commuters
Transit usage, though a less popular method of commuting for Centre County workers than driving alone or
ridesharing, still carries a significant mode share. Currently, about 4.4% of the Centre County labor force uses
transit to get to their workplace. This is just a bit lower than the Pennsylvania average of about 5.4%.
A table of the number of Centre County workers commuting via transit is presented below. Census tracts with
a lower-than-average rate of transit commuting include some portions of the CATA service area, as well as the
Bald Eagle Valley, Philipsburg Borough, Marion and Walker Townships, the Penns Valley, Boggs Township and
Milesburg Borough, the Mountaintop Region, and Rush Township.
From the data contained within the American Community Survey (ACS), it is clear that the disparity between the
Centre Region and the outlying portions of Centre County, with respect to transit access and usage, is quite large.
It should be noted, however, that a significant portion of CATA ridership is student-based, and therefore not
necessarily captured by journey-to-work data.
Figure 4-23 (Centre County Commute Method – Transit)
161
Walking Commuters
Walking seems to be a very popular method of commuting for Centre County workers. Currently, about 9.3% of
the Centre County labor force walks to work. This is roughly 2.5 times higher than the Pennsylvania average of
about 3.9%, and indicative of the significant urbanization of the area, especially within the Centre Region.
A table of the number of Centre County workers commuting via walking is presented below. Census tracts with
a lower-than-average rate of on-foot commuting include some portions of the CATA service area, as well as the
Bald Eagle Valley, Rush Township, Boggs Township and Milesburg Borough, the Mountaintop Region, Marion and
Walker Townships, the Penns Valley, and Philipsburg Borough.
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.
Figure 4-24 (Centre County Commute Method – Walking)
162
Other Commuters
Other commuting methods – including bicycling – are not a widely popular method of commuting for Centre
County workers. Currently, just over 3% of the Centre County labor force uses another commuting method
beyond a motor vehicle, public transit, or walking. This is, however, roughly double the Pennsylvania average
of about 1.3%, which may be indicative of the high number of bicycle facilities relative to other locations,
particularly within the Centre Region.
A table of the number of Centre County workers commuting via other methods is presented below. Census
tracts with a lower-than-average rate of other types of commuting include some portions of the CATA service
area, as well as Philipsburg Borough, the Penns Valley, Rush Township, the Bald Eagle Valley, Boggs Township and
Milesburg Borough, the Mountaintop Region, and Marion and Walker Townships.
As with walking, high rates of bicycling to work and other commute methods 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.
Figure 4-25 (Centre County Commute Method – Other)
163
Working at Home
Currently, just under 6.5% of the Centre County labor force work from their home. This is nearly double the
Pennsylvania average of about 3.7%.
A table of the number of Centre County workers working at home is presented below. Census tracts with a
lower-than-average rate of working at home include some portions of the CATA service area, as well as the
Mountaintop Region, Marion and Walker Townships, Rush Township, the Bald Eagle Valley, and Boggs Township
and Milesburg Borough.
Though the data contained within the American Community Survey (ACS) 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.
Figure 4-26 (Centre County Commute Method – Work at Home)
164
Mean Travel Time to Work
With most of the Centre County job opportunities located within the Centre Region and Bellefonte, commute
times can vary somewhat widely by census tract. Currently, the average commute time for a Centre County
worker is about 20 minutes. This is roughly 22.5% lower than the Pennsylvania average of about 25.8 minutes.
A table of the average commute time for Centre County workers is presented below. As one might expect,
commute times generally tend to rise with distance from the Centre Region and Bellefonte. Census tracts with
higher-than-average commute times include some portions of the CATA service area, as well as the Penns Valley,
the Mountaintop Region, Rush Township, the Bald Eagle Valley, Marion and Walker Townships, Philipsburg
Borough, and Boggs Township and Milesburg Borough.
Though not always the case, areas with longer-than-average commute times generally imply potential success of
public transit services (including ridesharing), if these services can be operated with a comparable travel time to
the private automobile.
Figure 4-27 (Centre County Commute Time)
165
Summary
Summary tables of socioeconomic data at the census tract level from the 2010 US Census and 2008-12 American
Community Survey (ACS) are presented below.
Figure 4-28 (Centre County Demographic Summary Tables)
166
Key Findings and Questions – Service Area Characteristics
As data and information regarding service area characteristics was compiled, analyzed, and discussed both at a
staff level and with the project management team (PMT), several key findings and questions became apparent
that may have implications for future strategic initiatives and/or provide other valuable supporting data. These
include the following, in order of discussion rather than particular order of importance or priority:
• CATA must determine what key values or “cut-offs”, relative to these types of census data, are useful in
determining future service areas. For example, is there a generally-accepted measure for population
density or housing density relative to the provision of fixed route service? For other modes of service?
CATA must also determine how these measures can and should be adapted to the CATA service area,
which can be characterized by a number of unique attributes.
• Considering the peer service areas discussed in Chapter 2 – for fixed route, paratransit, and ridesharing
modes – CATA should determine which types of census data would be most worth comparing with the
CATA service area. In developing such a comparison, the agency should also attempt to uncover the
unique elements of transit services provided in a large college town.
• CATA should attempt to determine how much of an impact the CATACOMMUTE program has on the
carpooling numbers presented in this chapter, as opposed to independent ridesharing arrangements.
• Census data relative to distribution of age 65+ and disabled populations should be used to help identify
underserved areas within the existing fixed-route service area.
• More data should be gathered to determine the impact of working from home and/or shared office
space might have on the current and future construction of more “traditional” office space. Local data
sources should be identified to validate these trends.
• CATA should attempt to project the ways in which an aging Centre County population might impact the
services offered by the agency. Particular attention should be paid, for example, to whether the age 65+
population will become a larger market for the services provided, or whether the relative affluence seen
in the Centre Region might hold the demand for transit service down.
• The median home value within the Centre Region has climbed markedly in recent years, while vacancy
rates remain high in areas outside the urban core. This suggests an affordable housing problem within
Centre County. Moreover, where compared with employment locations, the data also suggests a jobhousing imbalance within the county. CATA should examine how to best play a role in meeting these
challenges.
• Commute times in Centre County remain relatively low when compared to statewide data. This
suggests that – while time can play a role in the selection of public transit for a commute – CATA must
also compete with the private automobile and other modes using a different strategy, for example,
convenience, frequency, etc.
• Despite a slight increase in options for commuters, particularly through the CATACOMMUTE program,
the same transportation-disadvantaged census tracts present in the first draft of the 2008 Coordinated
Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan remain largely disadvantaged today. Traditional
fixed route service, for example, has been unsuccessfully attempted in an effort to connect the
Moshannon Valley with State College. CATA should examine what can be learned from that effort, and
applied to future service expansions.
167
• CATA should project what a future customer of the organization and the more outlying portions of Centre
County, perhaps 5-10 years into the future, might look like for the purposes of developing appropriate
service offerings.
168
169
Chapter 5
Key Stakeholder Involvement
This chapter is intended to examine what CATA does well, and what it needs to improve, from the perspective of a number of key public transportation constituencies. Critical to this effort was to engage
an appropriate mix of elected, appointed, employee, and board representatives from CATA, CRPA/CCMPO, Penn State University (including transportation officials, faculty, staff, and students), municipal and
county government, and the human service and business communities. To further engage CATA leadership (senior staff and board members), a half-day visioning exercise was conducted to discuss organizational strengths and weaknesses, as well as to answer a set of very broad, policy-level questions about
the future of CATA’s operations.
Strengths / Weaknesses / Opportunities / Threats (SWOT) Analysis
A SWOT analysis is a structured planning method used to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats involved in a project or in a business venture. Such an analysis can be carried out for a product, place,
industry or person. It involves specifying the objective of the business venture or project and identifying the
internal and external factors that are favorable and unfavorable to achieving that objective.
Most commonly, strategic objectives are set for the project, venture, or organization after a SWOT analysis has
been performed. This allows achievable goals and objectives to be set for the organization. Simply put, such an
analysis is vital to inform the strategic planning process currently being undertaken by CATA, as well as to guide
the outcomes from that process.
A SWOT analysis deals with four key elements:
• Strengths: characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over others. Internal,
positive factors.
• Weaknesses: characteristics that place the business or project at a disadvantage relative to others.
Internal, negative factors.
• Opportunities: elements in the external environment that the business or project could exploit to its
advantage. External, positive factors.
• Threats: elements in the external environment that could cause trouble for the business or project.
External, negative factors.
In February 2014, CATA staff and the CATA Board of Directors conducted a SWOT exercise. To prepare for this
exercise, the staff circulated an agenda packet including a written worksheet that featured sample questions
to generate thought and discussion between Board and staff members. A sample SWOT analysis worksheet
completed by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) was also included in the agenda materials. The goal
of the session was to spend adequate time considering each of the four key elements (strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats) individually, and to reach consensus among session participants for each element.
170
Chapter 5 - Key Stakeholder Involvement
STRENGTHS (internal / positive factors)
•
•
•
What are the unique skills and resources available through CATA?
What do our member municipalities and customers view as our expertise?
What emerging issues and trends do we have the tools to address?
WEAKNESSES (internal / negative factors)
•
•
•
OPPORTUNITIES (external / positive factors)
•
•
What do our member municipalities and customers need to face emerging and future transportation challenges?
How are other transportation and / or public organizations addressing their future needs?
What are the issues we are not addressing?
What skills and resources is CATA missing?
What does CATA lack that other transportation and / or public organizations can provide?
THREATS (external / negative factors)
•
•
To what threats do any weaknesses in CATA’s public transportation program expose us?
What expertise does CATA lack to address future trends within the community?
Figure 5-1 (CATA Board SWOT Questions Worksheet)
Figure 5-2 (Sample Completed SWOT Worksheet – Bay Area Rapid Transit District [BART])
171
The following strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats were identified by CATA staff and the Board of
Directors, refined and compiled into an acceptable list, and subsequently reviewed by the project management
team (PMT):
Strengths (Internal, Positive Factors)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Involved board and dedicated, skilled employees
Perceived high level of corporate ethics
Increase in service and ridership over time
Relationships with municipalities (including agreed-upon cost sharing, Miller Formula)
Productivity (riders per revenue hour)
Farebox recovery
Apartment pass program, partnership
Proactive innovators (apartment passes, CNG, APTS, vanpools, rideshare, mobile apps)
Grantsmanship (competitive funding), political relationships and technical ability
Strong, stable labor relations
Positive image within community, state, nationally, brand identity
Relationship with planning agencies, MPO (multimodal connections)
Acquired funding for new facility, new buses
Selection of good vendors and contractors
Employee development and training
Employee retirement plan
Strong customer service (front desk)
Improved hiring processes (newer emphasis on interpersonal skill)
Ability to implement ridesharing when fixed route doesn’t work
Technology that allows CATA to better match capacity to demand (through service that can be increased or decreased easily with trippers, etc.)
Weaknesses (Internal, Negative Factors)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
172
Aging fleet (revenue vehicles and service vehicles), tanks, parts availability
Limitations of current physical plant, constrained site
Long-range planning (reactionary)
Overreaching organizational capacity, shoestring operations
Shortages of qualified labor
Insufficient critical examination of current practices
Longer-term succession planning
Lack of documentation for current processes
Percentage increases under Miller Formula can hinder effort to seek increased overall funding
Miller Formula can drive service planning
Need to improve internal IT (payroll, scheduling, requisitions, filing)
Legacy systems (including labor contract) have not kept pace with growth
Need to improve customer service culture
Lack of emergency fueling arrangements (offsite)
Need to penetrate non-student markets to greater extent
Lack of capacity in student housing corridors – overcrowding can deter non-student riders
Need to develop and use a wider range of formal data analysis for system optimization
Opportunities (External, Positive Factors)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Relationship with PSU, partnership to mitigate traffic congestion, need for parking structures (including programs such as Ride for Five)
Supportive community, land-use practices conducive to fixed route transit service
Support for including transit in land-use decisions
Population density compared to similarly-sized communities (conducive to high level of productivity)
CATA’s internal strengths are generally well-integrated and reciprocal with its external opportunities
More potential community growth (Grays Woods, Toftrees, etc.)
Relatively inexpensive access to fuel
Availability of good vendors and contractors
Student base allows CATA to offer more service to community at large
Statewide consolidation initiative might enable better coordination with adjacent properties
Positive reputation provides opportunity to take the lead on statewide initiatives, potential for discretionary funds (collaboration with PennDOT)
High degree of support at the state level (including Ecolane project)
Well-developed paratransit system in aging community/retirement destination
Some support within the community for universal access
Threats (External, Negative Factors)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of stable, continuous, fully adequate funding
Reliance on students, and current structure in serving PSU and apartment complexes
Competition with private auto in relatively affluent community with average to lower than average commute times
Lack of safe, comfortable access to transit facilities (including adverse weather events), who is responsible for maintenance?
Layout of highway infrastructure connecting neighborhoods and downtown
Operation in extreme weather conditions
Statewide consolidation initiative? May decrease local control, productivity
Workforce housing in areas not as easy to serve efficiently or effectively
Reliant upon and sensitive to federal, state, local funding
PennDOT move toward a higher degree of statewide control
Reporting requirements (sometimes retroactive, unfunded mandates)
Some lack of transit emphasis, knowledge, innovation on part of local PennDOT district
Complementary paratransit requirement
Potential demands of universal access (capital, operating)
173
Condensed Strengths / Weaknesses / Opportunities / Threats (SWOT) Analysis
Following the completion of a final list of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats by the CATA Board of
Directors, staff, and the project management team (PMT), the staff was encouraged to further consolidate and
refine the list down into just a small handful of broad, essential points per element. The following points yield
very valuable clues to the session participants’ aggregated perspective on the future strategic direction of CATA:
Strengths (Internal, Positive Factors)
•
•
•
•
•
Skilled, dedicated, well-trained workforce
A culture of leadership and innovation
Priority placed on relationships and partnerships
Consistent emphasis on, and orientation toward, efficiency
Outstanding corporate reputation and ethics
Weaknesses (Internal, Negative Factors)
•
•
•
•
•
Outdated and/or insufficient capital facilities and equipment
Tendency to be more reactive and retentive than proactive
Many legacy systems not reflective of system size or growth
Unforeseen or collateral consequence of the Miller Formula
Insufficient use of data and documentation in current and planned processes
Opportunities (External, Positive Factors)
•
•
•
•
•
Supportive geography, demographics, and land use practices (critical mass)
Relatively inexpensive access to natural gas fuel
Strong standing among funding partners (PSU, PennDOT, etc.)
Positive relationships with contractors and vendors
Community growth in population and density
Threats (External, Negative Factors)
•
•
•
•
•
174
Potential shift in control from local, to regional or statewide
Capital and operating demands of community and system growth
Total reliance on federal, state, and local funding (no ability to generate own sources or plan)
Workforce housing and other key markets in areas not easily served
Weather conditions often inhospitable to operations and vehicle maintenance
Policy-Level Visioning Exercise
Another useful exercise intended to inform the strategic planning process, as well as to assist in the development
of goals and objectives for CATA, was to consider broad, policy-level, future-oriented questions specific to a
variety of elements of CATA’s service offering. In February 2014, CATA staff participated in such an exercise
with the CATA Board of Directors, allowing participants the opportunity to express preferences, new ideas, and
concerns with respect to these important elements of the service offering.
To prepare for this exercise, the staff circulated an agenda packet including a written list of strategic visioning
questions intended to generate additional thought and discussion among session participants. This list took into
account the following elements: overall vision and corporate philosophy, competing needs, balance of service,
operational issues, pricing, finances, fueling, sustainability, and new service delivery models.
As with the SWOT analysis, the goal of the session was to spend adequate time considering each of the key
elements of service individually, and to reach consensus among session participants for each element.
The basic list of questions for the session was as follows:
Corporate Philosophy
• For its entire existence CATA has been pretty much a shoestring operation. That has allowed CATA to be
super-efficient, but at the same time there are things that CATA has either not done, or not done well.
Going forward, what/who should CATA be? Should CATA try to hang onto a legacy as a small, low-budget
system, or is it time to grow up and act like a mid-sized system, with all that doing so entails?
• Over the past two decades, CATA has spent a lot of organizational energy on the external environment,
which in hindsight may have come at the expense of internal management. Looking ahead, should
CATA continue on the same path, or dial back the external focus to put more emphasis on internal
management? What’s the right balance – can CATA do it all?
• For twenty years, perhaps longer, CATA has been very risk-tolerant in the area of capital planning. CATA
essentially assumed that in spite of the lack of dedicated funding, if cards were played right, the money
would come. In retrospect, the feeling is that has been the case. Going forward, is CATA still willing to
assume that level of risk? If not, is CATA willing to possibly curtail service or staffing to set aside money
for capital or operating reserves?
• CATA operates three distinct services – CATABUS, CATARIDE and CATACOMMUTE. Taking the long view,
should CATA continue to be in all three of these businesses? Can CATA be nimble in meeting new needs?
Consolidation with the County could take CATA out of state-sponsored shared ride services. Statemandated regionalization of carpooling and vanpooling could eliminate CATA’s services for long-distance
commuters. Should CATA embrace these opportunities to divest, or fight to hang onto some or all of its
brands?
Balance of Service
• CATA devotes a significant share of transit service to the Penn State campus, where the alternative
is walking, and in the student housing corridors, where it is perceived that almost everyone has an
automobile. At the same time, CATA provides relatively little service to other areas of the community,
including those where transit needs are greater. While efficient and productive, is CATA meeting the
overall needs of the community?
175
• In Centre County, much of the workforce housing and many of the people who would be considered
“transportation disadvantaged” live in areas currently unserved by CATA. Should CATA consider
expanding service to these areas – like the Moshannon Valley – with populations that could benefit from
public transportation? What are the institutional and financial implications of this concept?
• Current growth in student housing is locating beyond a reasonable walking distance from campus.
Should CATA continue to serve this demand for student-oriented transit service if it limits the ability to
meet other emerging needs? Can CATA continue saying “yes” to every new complex and what are the
implications if they don’t?
Competing Needs
• The CATA board and staff perceive that there are four distinct areas in which additional investment
is needed: additional transit service, capital reinvestment, operating reserves, and staffing. As a
chronically-underfunded agency, available resources were focused on service, sometimes to the
detriment of the other needs. Going forward, how should CATA balance these needs?
• What is an adequate reserve for an agency of CATA’s size and budget? The only reserve that CATA has
had in the past 20+ years is whatever unspent federal assistance could be carried forward from the prior
year. CATA will need to decide what sacrifices they may be willing to make, including the possibility of
controlling service growth or delaying needed capital reinvestments, in order to build these reserves.
• The same questions apply to the concept of building a capital reserve. In the past CATA has not had
an actual capital reserve, other than for the local share to match federal and state funding and a
“paper” set-aside for vanpool replacement. Over the years CATA has been very successful in securing
discretionary funding, possibly in part because of the desperate need at the time of application.
In today’s culture of more effective asset management, does cutting service, or declining needed
expansions, in order to fund a capital reserve risk CATA becoming less successful in the competition for
discretionary dollars?
• How does CATA view the need for additional staffing? Historically CATA has remained a very lean
organization. Over the past decade CATA has gradually increased the number of behind the scenes
employees, but still lacks adequate coverage in key areas. PennDOT has recommended additional street
and maintenance supervision, and there are other areas where additional staffing may be warranted as
well. Should CATA defer investment in other areas in order to increase staffing?
CATABUS
• CATA has long had an understood goal of capturing 50% of operating costs from riders through the
farebox, contractual agreements, and all other revenue sources. How does this goal impact growth in
unserved areas or innovation? What should factor into this goal? How strongly does the board feel the
agency should strive to maintain this recovery ratio?
• What performance metrics are important to CATA’s success in the future? CATA currently tracks
productivity on a route-by-route basis, and reports it using four different categories. Should productivity
be reported by route type? Should it be used to adjust or curtail service if thresholds are not met?
Should CATA provide some amount of “policy level” service regardless of productivity? If so, how might
this be accomplished?
176
• The apartment complex program now produces more than half of CATA’s community based riders.
Even though revenue per rider has grown over the past decade, it is still considerably lower than other
segments of community service. Should CATA pursue strategies to gradually increase ridership in this
segment? Alternatively, should CATA consider tying fare levels to the required subsidies for the service,
which are relatively low?
• As more student housing is built farther from the core of service, CATA is getting requests for higher
frequencies and longer spans of service. If CATA continues to meet these demands, some of which are
expensive to satisfy, should they continue to price the apartment passes at one standard level? What
are the implications of raising rates, and what levels would be palatable?
• The rate CATA charges Penn State for LOOP and LINK service is driven largely by historical precedent. It
is felt that at current rates CATA covers most direct costs, but only about 60% of fully allocated costs.
CATA’s fare recovery ratio for campus service is higher than that of community service. During a 2014
PennDOT review, there was pressure to capture a higher percentage. Can and should this be done?
What are the repercussions?
CATARIDE
• Currently, CATA has a low threshold for certifying an individual with disabilities for use of ADA paratransit
services. As a result, passengers who are clearly able to use fixed route service have been certified to
use CATARIDE. Should CATA reconsider recertification? What are the trade-offs of forcing people who
prefer paratransit to use fixed route service when possible?
• If CATA tightens ADA paratransit eligibility, how would that happen? Can/should CATA grandfather
existing customers, while becoming more restrictive with new applicants? Should CATA consider a
recertification of all passengers? Should CATA adopt a functional assessment process?
• CATA rarely considers cost recovery on CATARIDE. Shared Ride service for seniors is largely – but not
totally – underwritten by PA Lottery funds. ADA complementary paratransit is heavily subsidized by
CATA. Are there ways to reduce the cost of ADA paratransit service? How do these questions intertwine
with questions of consolidation?
CATACOMMUTE
• In CATACOMMUTE, carpool matching and the vanpool program have historically been supported by a
contribution from Penn State. When starting the vanpool program, fares were set at a level which was
thought to cover the direct operating cost of the vans, plus a little bit for capital reinvestment. Should
CATA adopt policy that expects the vanpool program to be fully self-supporting? If not, at what level
should it be subsidized?
The two-part visioning session with CATA staff and the Board of Directors yielded the following results, in terms
of policies and further questions, categorized by basic area of operations:
Agency Vision
• CATA has a need to quantify what “success” means and would look like for the organization
177
Corporate Philosophy
• Regardless of local preferences and funding, CATA is – and will likely continue to be – constrained by
funding at the state and federal levels, in terms of services operated
• The type of data collected, as well as how that data can be quantified, should be determined in order to
make policy-level decisions
• CATA should consider determining a level of sustainability that can be applied to both current and future
services
• CATA has grown from a small system into a medium system. CATA is experiencing some growing pains,
and as a result, there is a need to determine what the future composition of the agency will be
• Participants agreed that with respect to the balance of known need against available resources, “if this
process isn’t a struggle, we’re wasting money”
• Participants agreed that an external focus has been essential to the development of the current system,
but questioned whether that should remain the critical focus
Competing Needs
• Historically, service on the street has trumped other areas of the operation, but it may be time to
reconsider this practice
• It is a critical time for rolling stock upgrades and capital improvements, with an eye to future
sustainability
• The ability to build a small capital reserve is an encouraging development, but more work is needed to
build reserve policies as well adequate cash reserves
• The shift to the use of express and tripper service in high-density corridors has helped to maintain a high
level of service that is both efficient, as well as effective for the customer
• We’re not selling a service so much as the community is now buying it; in other words, CATA’s reputation
for efficient, effective transit services has grown within the community such that even as the agency
attempts to manage growth, it is facing an increasing level of unsolicited demand for these services
• There is a need for CATA to convey to local decision makers the competing financial demands on its
ability to meet new service needs, particularly with respect to local match
• There is a need to determine a balance between the cost or service level threshold for apartment
complex pass programs, and the tipping point at which it becomes more viable for an apartment
complex to offer their own service. This has an impact on CATA service to the larger community
• CATA may find it beneficial and desirable to investigate creative approaches to supplementing capital
funding
• CATA should determine an optimal balance between fleet age and an ability to compete for discretionary
funds in what may be a new “state of good repair” approach to awarding these funds
Balance of Service
• Both PennDOT and Centre County will certainly exert influence on whether and how CATA’s brands
continue to operate, particularly with respect to paratransit and ridesharing
• CATA must take input from a number of constituencies in determining an appropriate mix of services
• A key question for CATA to consider is if CATABUS is its primary service offering; how do the other modes
of service fit into the overall picture?
• The decision whether to keep or divest each of the three brands (CATABUS, CATARIDE, and
CATACOMMUTE) needs to be made by the end of the strategic planning process
• CATA should determine the level of subsidy required for services provided outside of its core service
area; should this level of subsidy differ by type of service?
• CATA must determine its willingness to act as the state-designated regional provider for ridesharing
178
services; going forward, this decision may apply to other types of services as well
• CATA’s Articles of Agreement seem to be clear on how services provided outside of member
municipalities should be handled, but may need to be revisited for additional clarification, and/or as
service evolves. As a practical matter, services outside of CATA’s member municipalities are currently
assessed at the level of the unsubsidized local match required to operate the service.
• Internal data on the use of bike racks, as well as on use in comparison to other systems, should be
considered
Fixed Route Services
• The prevailing Board opinion seems to support a policy level of service to several different areas within
the community, while continuing to seek more efficient ways to provide that service
• Addressing the political concerns of elected officials (including through a policy level of service) helps to
secure local funding, which in turn helps to secure state and federal funding
• A number of constituents don’t use CATA service, or rarely use it, but are willing to pay to support it in
the event they need it at some future point; in other words, there is value to CATA services as a “safety
net”
• Productivity targets should be implemented – and progress tracked – but these targets must be set
within context and reason
• The cost to provide pass program-based service to some apartment complexes is much higher than that
required for others, causing a disconnect between pricing and cost
• Conditions seem to be favorable for more closely linking the rate assessed for campus services to the
cost required to provide those services
• CATA should build awareness with relevant audiences in terms of the benefit campus services provide
beyond just the immediate campus area
• A need exists to better examine and understand PennDOT’s request for campus services to recover
100% of fully allocated costs relative to both CATA’s and Penn State’s current and expected operating
conditions, and, if this target cannot be met, to accurately and articulately convey operating conditions
to PennDOT
Paratransit Services
• CATA must carefully balance paratransit eligibility against fixed route productivity and capacity
• The shared ride component of our paratransit services complicates understanding of cost and
performance of overall paratransit service, which also includes the ADA component; the effect
of mirroring the two service components, rather than operating distinctly according to differing
requirements and eligibility guidelines, must be considered
• CATA tends to go well beyond minimum requirements in terms of paratransit service to outlying areas,
and the cost and impact of these practices should be monitored
Ridesharing Services
• CATA should transition to an attempt to recover close to 100% of operating and capital costs through a
change in fare and pricing structure
• The ridesharing program essentially increases access from affordable housing to employment
opportunities within the Centre Region, and is of high value to the public and individual communities.
179
Financial
• CATA should consider the significance of a 50% operating cost recovery ratio within an overall operating
policy; the prevailing Board opinion was that this target is achievable, and has historical support
• The strategic plan should make a well-founded recommendation to maintain, raise, or lower the target
operating cost recovery ratio; with a reduction being made in favor of capital needs, more service to
outlying areas, and/or building reserves
• The General Manager transition would make an ideal time to investigate a potential successor to the
Miller Formula
• The prevailing sentiment was that member municipalities support at least the basic concepts
underpinning the Miller Formula, if not every element of its practical application
Fuels
• CATA enjoyed some level of success with the natural gas hybrid project, although PSU project funding
was exhausted before the concept could be fully tested
• CATA will need to keep a close eye on the emerging direction manufacturers take with respect to
propulsion and fueling, including fuel cell or electric vehicle technology as a future “clean” solution
• Although the shift to a new form of propulsion would be costly, CATA shouldn’t necessarily become
complacent with CNG at the to the neglect of a better option
• Long-range capital decisions should consider all vehicle fleets (not just fixed route)
• There are real challenges associated with managing several different fleets with different propulsion
systems, as well as the associated infrastructure
• Any shift in fuel technology would likely require a varied fleet and multiple skill sets, at least in the
shorter term
• Going forward, the CATA Board should commit to re-evaluate fuel technology decisions every several
years; the strategic plan should recommend an interval for doing so (perhaps in advance of major bus
purchase projects)
• To best possible extent, CATA should keep all options open in the reconstructed and expanded facility, so
as not to preclude a shift to new fueling technology in the future
• The type of fueling technology adopted must be balanced against both operating and capital costs
Sustainability
• Any CATA efforts to become a “greener” organization must fall within financial constraints, as well as the
core mission of public service
• It should be noted that existing municipal investments in CATA are already “green” investments
• The perception of CATA as a “green” organization may be, in part, a function of marketing existing
initiatives and benefits to municipalities
Service Models
• It should be noted that many new, emerging service models (such as ZipCar and Uber) may not directly
compete with CATA, but rather, may be complementary to existing services
• CATA should consider what its role may be in regards to new and emerging service models – it could be a
continuum of potential involvement from “aggressive” to “creatively out of the way”
• CATA must acknowledge that these new and emerging service models may actually offer better returns
than some of our “safety net” service (midday trips, etc.); therefore, it may be wise to be involved at
some level – this may not necessarily take the form of operating the services directly, but rather helping
to foster their development
180
Stakeholder Interview Sessions
As part of the strategic planning process, CATA prioritized an effort to engage an appropriate mix of elected,
appointed, employee, and board representatives from CATA, CRPA/CCMPO, Penn State University (including
transportation officials, faculty, staff, and students), municipal and county government, and the human service
and business communities in a series of personal interviews. These interviews were designed to draw out some
level of strengths / weaknesses / opportunities / threats (SWOT) information, but also to facilitate discussion
around a number of visioning questions, and to gauge general awareness of CATA services. Though CATA staff
used the following stakeholder interview script as a starting point for each interview, the staff quickly found that
more organic discussion about CATA’s operations, without use of a script, elicited more useful information:
• Are there any particular elements of CATA’s operation you’d like us to consider as part of the strategic
planning process?
• What do you feel is CATA’s greatest strength as an organization? Why? (“internal” audiences only)
• What do you feel is CATA’s greatest weakness as an organization? Why? (“internal” audiences only)
• What do you feel is the greatest opportunity that exists in CATA’s external environment? Why?
(“external” audiences only)
• What do you feel is the greatest threat that exists in CATA’s external environment? Why? (“external”
audiences only)
• If you could change one thing about CATA, as an organization or in terms of how it provides service, what
would it be? Why?
• In what ways could CATA better coordinate with other public and private entities who provide
transportation services within the Centre Region and Centre County?
• Which, if any, destinations (businesses, stores, activities) do you feel are unserved, or underserved?
• Ten years from now, the utilization of public transportation services has risen to levels never before seen.
What has changed, and what “big ideas” have been implemented, to allow this to happen?
• Do you feel there are obstacles to change in CATA’s operations? If so, what are these obstacles?
• Do you think that awareness of CATA is high, average, or low among your constituents, clients, and
community? Why? If applicable, what actions do you propose to increase awareness?
• What do you think CATA’s biggest challenge will be over the next ten years?
• Are you optimistic about the future of public transit within the area? Why or why not?
• What is the primary benefit of public transit to your constituents, clients, and community?
• In cases of imbalance between public transit’s target populations and concentration of service, how do
you propose to fund and address critical gaps in service?
• Finally, is/are there an element(s) of CATA’s operation that you would like to discuss that has not already
been covered?
Summary of Stakeholder Interviews
The following is a summary of stakeholder interview sessions, presented in chronological order. Input has been
grouped by type of stakeholder for the sake of efficiency, as well as for the purposes of comparison and contrast.
State and Federal Elected Officials
Separate interviews were conducted with: US Representative Glenn Thompson, 5th Congressional District; Kim
Bierly, staff member for US Senator Bob Casey, Jr; State Senator Jake Corman, 34th Senatorial District; State
Representative Mike Hanna, Sr., 76th Legislative District; State Representative Scott Conklin, 77th Legislative
District; and State Representative Kerry Benninghoff, 171st legislative district.
181
All elected officials were generally very knowledgeable of CATA’s services, and equally as complimentary.
They exhibited a high level of awareness with respect to CATA’s compressed natural gas fueling program, and
acknowledged that complaints from constituents regarding the agency were few. Nearly every official noted the
benefits resulting from the relationship that CATA has built with Penn State University. While CATA is generally
viewed as well-managed across this group, interviewees were somewhat concerned that increasing existing and
future demands could put a strain on the agency’s resources if not effectively managed. While some elected
officials referenced the perception of empty buses along certain CATA routes, others focused on the number of
standees on high-volume routes.
All interviewees noted that some expansion to meet the growing demand outside of the Centre Region was
needed. State Representative Benninghoff observed additional opportunities to coordinate or consolidate with
the Centre County Office of Transportation Services (CCOT), adding that these opportunities could possibly
bring about greater efficiency of service for both CATA and the CCOT. With respect to the governance of the
CCOT, State Representative Benninghoff called attention to the current structure of the Centre County Board of
Commissioners, who may, he reasoned, lend support to closer coordination or consolidation with CATA.
State Representative Mike Hanna described CATA’s vanpool program as an innovative approach to serve longdistance commuters, and questioned whether a similar approach could prove to be both workable and beneficial
to Clinton County commuters. Both State Representative Hanna – as well as staff from US Senator Casey’s office
– perceived a need for CATABUS service to extend past Bellefonte into other areas of Centre County.
Both State Representative Hanna and US Representative Glenn Thompson focused on the transportation needs
of older adults. State Representative Hanna emphatically noted the role played by the Shared Ride program in
providing essential mobility to older adults from both rural and urban areas in Centre County.
State Representative Conklin noted Penn State University students as a critical segment of CATA’s market, as well
as their need to have a positive experience when using CATA services. He further suggested a need to market
CATA as an innovative and friendly agency. State Representative Conklin added that he receives the largest
number of transit service requests from armed forces veterans and associated groups. US Senator Casey’s staff
perceived a need to make the website more intuitive by calling out major trip generators within the service area,
as well as by providing directions on how to access these generators using CATA services.
Real Estate Developers
Interviews were conducted with: Tom Songer, Torron Group; Bob Poole, S&A Homes; Heidi Nicholas, Nicholas
Enterprises; and Ara Kervandjian, Progress Development Group, LLC.
Mr. Songer noted the employment stability of the State College area. He added that while there has been a loss
of manufacturing positions within the area, overall employment remains both steady and strong. Mr. Songer
did, however, cite the need for both Penn State University and the Chamber of Business and Industry in Centre
County (CBICC) to coordinate efforts to continue to diversify the local economy.
Mr. Songer further expressed mixed opinions on the recent increasing trend of student housing development
within the area, noting that this increasing trend seems to be outpacing demand. He generally views the State
College area as over-building in terms of housing development, but observes that such over-building may push
housing prices down, and thus may be part of the solution to the region’s affordable housing challenges.
With respect to future development, Mr. Songer generally anticipates new housing construction at a much
slower rate than might typically be expected within the region. He further noted that the market for commercial
and office property is soft, with a number of vacancies. Mr. Songer expects these markets to remain soft for a
variety of reasons, among them being the aforementioned challenges related to affordable housing within the
region.
182
Mr. Songer observed that residents of Torron Group developments seem to use CATA services at a rate lower
than the average user, and that perhaps awareness of services could be better developed in an effort to mitigate
this trend. He noted that the generally lower level of service offered to outlying residential areas may also
account for a smaller mode share within Torron Group developments. Mr. Songer explained his willingness
to work cooperatively with CATA on reasonable public transportation amenities within new residential or
commercial developments, as well as to educate potential clients with respect to CATA services. Last, he noted
potential value in surveying local employers so that CATA can better meet their transportation needs.
Mr. Poole focused on both the need to build more employment opportunities within the region, as well as the
need for more affordable housing for working individuals and families. He noted, through his knowledge of
both national and local trends, an increasing tendency for younger professionals to rent housing, or to purchase
homes with a smaller footprint and a one-car garage in an effort to reduce housing and transportation costs.
Mr. Poole regards nearby transit service as important to marketing new housing developments. In terms of
future housing and commercial trends, he expects to see growth in the Gray’s Woods, Benner Commerce Park,
and Toftrees area; however, each of these are developments in which he owns a significant stake. Mr. Poole
observed what is known as the “Amazon Effect” in that the market for office and commercial space continues
to be soft, given a slower pace of “brick and mortar” business development. He is generally very supportive of
the services provided by CATA, and notes a high level of need for these services by older adults, and to access
workforce housing.
Ms. Nicholas did not have a strong awareness of the specific services provided by CATA, as most of her
experience with the agency comes through use of the football shuttle services. She noted the challenges in
assembling individual downtown properties for larger-scale residential and/or commercial development, and
noted that planned future developments, such as the Toll Brothers property in Ferguson Township, could
transition from multi-family to single-family residential.
Mr. Kervandjian generally holds a favorable opinion of CATA’s services. He noted specific challenges in
constructing bus stop locations near the Limerock Terrace development, many of which are closely related to
the grade and layout of the surrounding street network. Mr. Kervandjian’s organization owns properties that
will be developed within the next five years both in downtown Bellefonte, as well as in the Shiloh Road corridor.
He noted a particular need for public transit services in downtown Bellefonte, given both the lack of parking
accommodated by his planned residential development, as well as its marketing as workforce housing.
Several interviewees noted the potential for redevelopment at both Westerly Parkway Plaza and Hills Plaza.
Centre Region Council of Governments (COG) / Centre Regional Planning Agency (CRPA) / Centre County
Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) Officials
Participants in a group interview session included: Jim Steff, COG Executive Director; Jim May, CRPA Director;
Tom Zilla, CRPA Principal Transportation Planner; Jeff Luck, representing Patton Township as Chair of both the
COG Transportation and Land Use Committee and the CCMPO Coordinating Committee; and Bud Graham,
representing Harris Township as Chair of the COG Finance Committee.
Participants in this group session were generally concerned that CATA’s schedules are too closely tied to the
university timetable. This makes reduced service periods problematic, as local workers who want to use CATA
service can face additional challenges during these time periods. On the other hand, session participants did
acknowledge the value of the express service models used by CATA in high density corridors – with very targeted,
efficient service transporting relatively large numbers of riders – and expressed a desire to have CATA investigate
further application of these models.
183
Session participants noted a recent route change that shifted the operational concept from one of geographic
route coverage to one of increasing trip frequency and speed. The consensus seemed to be that having
riders walk an additional block or two in order to access more frequent, faster service was a positive tradeoff. Further discussion included the size of vehicles, both the potential for larger, articulated vehicles in highvolume corridors, as well as smaller vehicles in more outlying communities like Boalsburg, Pine Grove Mills, and
Stormstown. Participants also questioned how vanpools could be better integrated with the service planning
process, particularly how they could be used to build a market for traditional fixed route services.
A number of session participants noted CATA’s role in land use and development decisions. While the prevailing
opinion was that CATA plays an effective and important role in these decisions, it was tempered by a feeling
that this role could be expanded somewhat. Increased involvement for the agency with respect to ongoing and
future development along the North Atherton Street corridor, for example, was generally viewed as positive.
Moreover, given the recent closure of a number of local mobile home parks, participants expressed great
concern about the displacement of low-income individuals, as well as a desire to have CATA assume a role in
connecting these individuals with employment opportunities.
Within the ranks of local elected officials, there exists some concern that the ongoing statewide push for
consolidation could be a threat to CATA’s successful operating model, as well as a threat to the existing level of
service within the Centre Region. While these officials accepted the need for a higher level of transit service
in outlying areas, they were also concerned about how this service might be funded in a fair and sustainable
manner.
At the completion of the State College Area Universal Transit Access Study, two municipalities expressed
potential interest in participating in a pilot project. Session participants questioned to what extent this interest
will be pursued and developed. Moreover, participants expressed an ongoing desire to explore the concept of
an intermodal transportation center, while acknowledging that location issues are the major obstacle to such a
development. COG, CRPA, and CCMPO officials questioned CATA’s future plans in terms of bus propulsion, noting
that compressed natural gas (CNG) is seen as the “best of the worst” options as it is still a fossil fuel; the agency
was urged to thoughtfully consider its future options. Last, session participants observed a need to pursue bus
pass programs with major employers to increase mobility, efficiency, and transit mode share.
PennDOT Bureau of Public Transportation
Participants in a group interview session – conducted via telephone – included LaVerne Collins, Director,
PennDOT Bureau of Public Transportation (BPT); and Eileen Ogan, BPT Chief, Specialized Transportation.
BPT officials expressed a strong desire to see a consolidation of shared ride service providers within Centre
County, as the county is now the last remaining area with two providers. Moreover, there is a growing
awareness at the state level that the shared ride program is not sustainable as currently configured, hence the
upcoming launch of a new shared ride pilot program, as well as the ongoing emphasis on increased coordination
and consolidation. For this reason, future changes to both service delivery guidelines and funding methods
should be expected. Moving the Medical Assistance Transportation Program (MATP) from the oversight of the
Department of Human Services (DHS) to that of PennDOT, for example, is currently under consideration.
Ms. Collins observed the need for CATA to build cash reserves to buffer against not only future cash flow
issues, but also any funding uncertainties that may arise. She acknowledged that for the time being, CATA
must effectively balance this need for cash reserves against pressing capital needs, particularly as they relate to
building renovation and expansion, as well as the purchase of replacement and expansion vehicles. To further
assist in building these reserves, as well as to comply with Pennsylvania Act 89 of 2013, Ms. Collins also noted
the need to index fares to inflation.
184
Coordination and regionalization were consistent themes throughout the interview session. At a statewide
level, CATA is viewed as a leader in terms of positive best practices that can be shared with other agencies.
Transitioning the successful CATACOMMUTE program to the PACommutes model, and standardizing fixed route
technology were two key points raised during the session. CATA remains part of North Central Pennsylvania
Regional Transit Consolidation Study, administered by PennDOT. While BPT officials acknowledged that CATA
may not be the best fit for the North Central study region, they stressed that there could be coordination or
consolidation opportunities with other areas or regions. Interviewees noted that PennDOT’s goals in pursuing
regional consolidation are to promote operational efficiency, professional development, and cross-county
transportation options.
In general, BPT officials noted that CATA is very different from other Pennsylvania transit agencies by virtue of
its service to students, faculty, staff, and visitors of Penn State University, as well as the relatively high levels of
ridership and revenue generated by that service.
Penn State University Officials
Participants in a group interview session included: David Gray, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business
/ Treasurer; Ryan Givens, Assistant Director of Transportation Services; Gail Hurley, Associate Vice President for
Auxiliary and Business Services; Ford Stryker, Associate Vice President for the Office of Physical Plant; Gordon
Turow, Director – Campus Planning and Design; Rob Cooper, Director – Energy and Engineering; and Steve
Watson, University Planner.
The central theme of this interview session was improved coordination and planning between CATA and Penn
State. This included a perceived need to better align CATA’s strategic initiatives with Penn State’s Intermodal
Transportation Plan for the University Park campus.
Session participants noted that on-campus housing remains the focal point of an aggressive renovation and
upgrade effort. The current student body has expressed a preference for larger, more modern housing units
with a higher level of amenities. This move to more upscale housing on campus could lead to more heated
competition between the University and off-campus housing complexes for potential residents; such competition
may result in increased demand for on-campus housing at the expense of some of the aging off-campus
locations; for example, along Vairo Boulevard and Waupelani Drive. Interviewees did not rule out the future
construction of one or two additional residence halls for this reason, even though enrollment at the University
Park campus was not projected to grow significantly.
Interviewees noted that on the academic side of University operations, there is an increased focus on Penn
State’s World Campus, and enrollment in on-line learning opportunities was expected to triple over the next
seven years. Session participants, however, agreed that this growth is not intended to come at the expense
of residential enrollment. Moreover, this maintenance of residential instruction is to be accompanied by a
renewed commitment to the core mission of educating in-state students. Going forward, interviewees expected
international student enrollment to level off at approximately 12% of total University Park student enrollment.
This suggests that Penn State-generated demand for CATA services will hold steady or increase.
Penn State’s capital plan is focused on renovation of existing structures, as well as core campus infill
development. Session participants from the Office of the Physical Plant expressed a desire to enhance the
on-campus CATA experience with upgraded shelters and improved technology. Further, these representatives
perceive a pressing need for improvements to College Avenue stop locations that will need to happen through a
strong partnership with CATA, State College Borough and PennDOT.
The master plan for the University Park campus calls for the combination of an intermodal transportation center
with a future West Campus parking deck in the vicinity of the intersection of White Course Drive and North
185
Atherton Street. While session participants acknowledged that these on-campus improvements would not come
to fruition over the short term, they did express a desire to more closely consider the establishment of park-andride lots within the University’s employment capture area.
Session participants further noted three areas of opportunity for CATA and Penn State University to work
cooperatively. First, much like COG, CRPA, and CCMPO officials, Penn State officials would like to see CATA
consider its future bus propulsion options beyond CNG. Second, interviewees would like to help CATA to
increase its commitment to sustainability and “green” operations. Last, session participants expressed a
willingness to partner with CATA on cooperative marketing and awareness-building strategies, including those
for special events such as Dump the Pump Day and home football weekends; with respect to the latter, Penn
State officials acknowledged the important role the football shuttle plays in improving mobility and mitigating
congestion.
Centre County Officials
Participants in a group interview session included: Michael Pipe, County Commissioner; Tim Boyde, County
Administrator; Bob Jacobs, Director – Planning and Community Development Office; Mike Bloom, Senior
Transportation Planner; Linda Marshall, Senior Planner / Housing Coordinator; Dave Lomison, Director –
Transportation Office; Clayton Reed, Jr., Director – Office of Aging; and Brian Querry Director – Veterans’ Affairs
Office.
Session participants noted service to the Centre Hall, Milesburg, and Philipsburg area as specific needs.
Moreover, the Penns Valley Regional Planning Commission (PVRPC) has identified public transit service as a key
element in its 2006 Comprehensive Plan update, however, local municipal budgets in the region are lacking the
funds to adequately support this service.
The interviewees also cited transportation connections between Centre County and other counties as a
challenge. The CCOT is attempting to serve this need for out-of-county medical trips through contracted service
to Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, the Penn State Hershey Medical Center, and the Altoona Veterans’ Affairs
Medical Center.
Session participants noted additional opportunities to educate customers, build awareness of programs, and
make services more intuitive for the user. Differences in regulations governing the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) paratransit service and the Rural Transportation Program for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) were
seen as a source of potential confusion. This confusion was further evidenced by some discussion on how ADA
paratransit services might fill a transportation void for veterans under age 65. Commissioner Pipe questioned
whether there was an opportunity to develop a single consolidated website and phone number for all
transportation options, no matter the source of funding or governing regulations. Moreover, interviewees noted
a perceived need for additional customer outreach with respect to the Senior Citizen Free Transit Program. Last,
it was noted that the location of only two of Centre County’s six senior centers within the existing CATA service
area leads to a disconnect with respect to trip subsidy from the Office of Aging, as well as additional confusion
for customers. Mr. Lomison and Mr. Mose discussed the possibility of the Office of Aging standardizing this
subsidy between CATA and the CCOT in order to promote trip sharing between the two agencies.
Interviewees discussed the issue of access to the new Veterans’ Affairs Outpatient Clinic being constructed
in Carolean Industrial Park near the Nittany Mall. There was no coordination between the US Department of
Veterans’ Affairs and the Centre County Veterans’ Affairs Office in siting or designing the facility. Given the
clinic’s distance from East College Avenue, as well as the surrounding topography, access by way of traditional
fixed route service will present a number of challenges. Moreover, a van used by the Centre County Veterans’
Affairs Office is not wheelchair-accessible.
186
Mr. Lomison noted that changes in the way psychiatric services are offered through the Centre County Mental
Health / Intellectual Disabilities / Early Intervention and Drug and Alcohol Office could have an impact on travel
demand with respect to the Summit Park location near the Nittany Mall. Future plans involve these psychiatric
services being dispersed throughout the community, rather than being provided at a single location.
Municipal Managers
Participants in a group interview session included: Ralph Stewart, Bellefonte Borough; Adam Brumbaugh,
College Township; Mark Kunkle, Ferguson Township; Susan Steele, Halfmoon Township; Amy Farkas, Harris
Township; Doug Erickson, Patton Township; Bill MacMath, Spring Township; and Tom Fountaine, State College
Borough.
Session participants generally noted that at some point, CATA will need to consider expansion outside of the
Centre Region, Bellefonte Borough, and Benner and Spring Townships. Moreover, although Pennsylvania Act
89 of 2013 was recently passed, interviewees had some doubts that the funding level promised would meet
expectations. Accordingly, the group generally predicted a future struggle between funding for public transit and
funding for highway and bridge infrastructure.
Those session participants whose home municipalities were already fueling CNG-powered vehicles at CATA
facilities noted an expectation to expand their fleets of CNG-powered vehicles, based in large measure upon the
success of the pilot program.
Mr. Fountaine noted a willingness to build increased coordination with CATA staff during the land development
review process. Moreover, he expressed a desire to see CATA conduct a pilot test of universal transit access
within part or all of the service area.
The interviewees generally noted an ongoing desire to see location, design, and construction of a downtown
State College bus terminal or intermodal transportation facility. Though these plans were raised in the Penn
State University session relative to the West Campus location, participants in this particular session did not
seem to have a high level of awareness of the status of those efforts. This seems to suggest that a higher level
of coordination between CATA, local municipalities, and Penn State University may be warranted on this specific
issue.
Two municipal managers expressed a desire to enact local ordinances as they related to the placement of
transit amenities during the land development and re-development processes. Though Ms. Farkas noted a
willingness to move forward with this in Harris Township, she noted that there would likely be little to no support
for shelters and similar amenities within the Boalsburg Historic District. Though College Township already has
limited ordinances related to transit amenities on the books, Mr. Brumbaugh also mentioned a willingness
to expand these provisions in certain areas. Interviewees generally agreed that transit amenities need to be
upgraded throughout the region, citing a need for more and better lighting, and specifically inquiring about the
potential of solar-powered lighting. Several session participants noted the orientation of bus shelters, which, in
their current configuration, can expose passengers to slush and rain from passing vehicles.
Session participants generally noted that some of the new development planned for Bellefonte Borough might
be a way to increase ridership in the area, but also stressed that services must be effectively marketed to both
existing and new residents and businesses.
Much like the COG, CRPA, and CCMPO officials, interviewees in this particular session noted the problematic
nature of reduced service periods, specifically citing the challenges faced by full-time residents in accessing
employment and other opportunities during reduced service.
187
Local School District Officials
Separate interviews were conducted with both the State College Area School District and the Bellefonte Area
School District. Attendees for the State College Area District included: Van Swauger, Director of Transportation;
and Ed Poprik, Director of Physical Plant. Attendees for the Bellefonte Area School District included: Patti Hillard,
Director of Transportation; and Aaron Barto, Director of Physical Plant.
Interviewees from both school districts questioned their ability to work more closely with CATA by virtue of the
unique background check requirements that apply to those who work in or with a public school system.
Though State College Area School District personnel noted a number of competing needs for special
transportation services within the District, short of a dedicated bus stop located on the high school campus,
they observed that they would be unable to take advantage of CATA services, given the liability associated with
sending students unaccompanied to the nearest bus stop.
Bellefonte Area School District transports children into the State College area to attend charter schools,
and interviewees noted that parents often complain about the length of these trips. Though these session
participants had reservations with respect to required background checks, they did question whether the
parents of older children might consider CATA’s XB or XG service, assuming the timing was appropriate.
Representatives of the State College Area School District noted challenges in constructing enough parking
at each building to accommodate faculty, staff, and students. Recent regulatory changes have increased the
number of staff in each classroom, and the district cannot build parking lots large enough to meet this increased
demand. Accordingly, these interviewees expressed an interest in both the CATACOMUTE program for faculty
and staff who live in further reaches of Centre County and beyond, as well as the potential for a pass program to
accommodate faculty and staff who live within the CATA service area.
Representatives of the Bellefonte Area School District noted a shared substitute teacher clearinghouse that is
mutually used by a number of area school districts. This clearinghouse operates on the premise that a substitute
teacher may fill an absence in a different school district each day. These interviewees questioned whether the
CATACOMMUTE program could be adapted in such a way that was agile enough to meet the daily, changing
needs of local substitute teachers.
Representatives of the Bellefonte Area School District further suggested that a representative of the
CATACOMMUTE program speak with a human resources representative for the district in an effort to build
awareness for the program in terms of use by teachers who commute from outside the Bellefonte area.
Richard Makin, Ph.D. – President / Executive Director, Central PA Institute of Science and Technology
Dr. Makin praised CATA’s reputation among CPI’s students and alumni as being a good place to work; however,
he noted that CPI faculty and staff have limited knowledge of CATA’s different routes and services. Therefore, an
increased cooperative effort to build awareness of these services among faculty and staff may be warranted.
He further noted that students now travel from a 14-county area to attend CPI, which could represent an
additional opportunity for the CATACOMMUTE program to gain market share and build ridership. CPI enrollment
is heavily tied to the enrollment of the referring school districts. Moreover, many of these students are adult
learners in the 18-24 age range who participate in evening classes.
CPI and CATA have partnered on a number of efforts over the years, including the donation of the CNG-powered
bus for educational purposes. Dr. Makin noted that CPI will be one of four locations nationwide accredited to
confer certificates in heavy equipment maintenance – an 8-10 month program for approximately 18-20 students
188
at a time – and the school is seeking to increase their emphasis on CNG propulsion. Accordingly, he expressed
an interest in exploring the possibility of a vehicle maintenance apprenticeship program when CATA’s facility
renovation and expansion project is completed.
Business Development Community
Participants in a group interview session included: Betsey Howell, Executive Director – Central PA Convention
and Visitors Bureau; George Arnold, Executive Director – Downtown State College Improvement District); Lesley
Kistner, Communications Director – Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County; Gary Hoover, Executive
Director – Bellefonte Intervalley Area Chamber of Commerce; Cheryl Johnson, Executive Director – Private
Industry Council of the Central Corridor; and Stan LaFuria, Executive Director – Moshannon Valley Economic
Development Partnership.
Session participants in general expressed a concern regarding the lack of passenger amenities within the system;
more opportunities for shelters throughout the system would be helpful. There was a specific concern with
respect to the lack of passenger amenities at College Avenue and Allen Street – one of CATA’s busiest stops.
Interviewees questioned whether the time is right to establish an additional bus stop in front of the Hammond
Building.
Interviewees also expressed a desire to work cooperatively with CATA to build awareness of the service
among both visitors to the area, as well as those new to the community in an effort to help both groups better
understand how to use the services available.
Session participants expressed a concern that the parking lot bounded by Beaver Avenue, Garner Street, Calder
Way, and Heister Street would at some future point be taken for additional development – although this is not a
decision process in which CATA is anticipated to play any significant role. Moreover, they expressed a desire for
a more compact LOOP route traveling along College and Beaver Avenues.
Interviewees observed that the Friday during homecoming weekend tends to be the worst day of the year
relative to parking issues in downtown State College. They expressed a desire to partner with CATA, Penn State
University, and State College Borough to improve conditions. They further noted that the homecoming parade
set-up begins early in the day, generally before the workforce leaves town for the weekend. Session participants
were in agreement that the community sends the wrong message to visitors by the timing of closing off metered
parking spaces; pushing people out to find remote, legal parking; and by fining and towing practices.
Session participants expressed a number of other suggestions for improvements to service and marketing,
including:
Human Service Agency Officials
• Routes directly connecting area hotels with downtown State College;
• Expansion of football shuttle service to the Friday preceding each home game;
• A cooperative effort between CATA and the Central PA Convention and Visitors Bureau to better educate
local hotel staff (particularly front desk staff) with respect to use of CATA services, including navigation of
the CATA smartphone app;
• Enhanced services to destinations like Penn’s Cave and the Centre County Grange Fair, and to a
lesser extent, areas within the existing service area such as Boalsburg and Bellefonte. The Central PA
Convention and Visitors Bureau experiences difficulty in bringing large groups and conventions to the
area, because there are few or no transportation options once visitors arrive in State College;
• Links from the CATA website to the Downtown State College Improvement District website;
189
• Regular presentations to the young professionals group within the Chamber of Business and Industry of
Centre County, with the goal of building awareness of CATA services;
• A CATA outreach program targeted toward international visitors;
• The implementation of LionCash+ as a fare payment method on board CATA vehicles; and
• The construction of a monorail connecting I-99 to downtown State College.
Human Service Agency Officials
Participants in a group interview session included: Cynthia Pasquinelli, Executive Director – Strawberry Fields,
Inc.; and Rebekah Cunningham, Chief Executive Officer – The ARC of Centre County.
Interviewees universally regard public transportation as an important offering, noting that many of their clients
would be homebound without it. These agency clients, however, face a number of challenges with respect to
use of CATA services, including the following:
• Learning to use the service with confidence and independence, particularly as these challenges relate to
fixed route service and the reading of bus schedules;
• Days and hours of service availability may not match the needs of the client very well;
• A reduced level of service to outlying areas like Bellefonte, Boalsburg (including Centre Estates), and
Science Park Road;
• A reduced level of service during certain times of year for agency clients employed full time, much like
the challenges noted by other full-time area residents;
• Differences in funding and fare guidelines – as well as days and hours of service – between CATA and
CCOT service. Moreover, Strawberry Fields clients use the county-provided service, while ARC clients
generally do not;
• Many essential client services are located outside of Centre County in areas like Danville, Houtzdale, and
Pittsburgh;
• Due to the recent closure of a number of area mobile home parks, agency clients have found it necessary
to move further out into Centre County – areas not served by CATA – to find affordable housing. This
includes clients who earn too much to qualify for housing assistance; and
• Clients are confused by the difference between pink and blue CATARIDE coupons.
Staff of both agencies – many of them Penn State University students, for whom awareness and understanding
of CATA services is high – tends to use fixed route service, while agency clients tend to use CATARIDE. Many
clients ride transit because they enjoy it, with the largest share of agency clients using transit being supported
employment clients. Interviewees agreed that CATARIDE service is often used by clients because it allows for the
presence of an escort. There can, however, be issues with schedule adherence on the CATARIDE service.
In terms of travel training for fixed route service, session participants agreed that a CATA-provided pass for
trainers would be helpful in facilitating the transition from CATARIDE. Representatives of ARC further noted that
a gradual transition from CATARIDE to fixed route service may work well. To streamline eligibility applications
and trip reservations, interviewees also suggested a one-stop / one-call approach to transportation services.
All interviewees also expressed interest in participating in an advisory committee to help CATA vet policies and
service issues.
Real Estate Sales Community
Participants in a group interview session included: Ellen Kline, RE/MAX; Nancy Ring, RE/MAX; Janet Sulzer, RE/
MAX; Nancy VanLandingham, RE/MAX; and Kris Hanahan, RE/MAX.
190
Like the development community, the real estate sales community notes a renewed and increased importance
placed upon access to transit, particularly among millennials and other young professionals. Session participants
noted that this particular demographic desires urban housing, but the costs in State College push them further
out into Centre County and beyond, and that the large student population throws off all of the usual models.
Moreover, interviewees also view State College as a desirable retirement location.
Session participants noted that community amenities such as sidewalks, bike paths and park-and-ride lots are
important to buyers when considering a location. They also stressed the need for better passenger amenities in
the public transit system, including covered bike parking near bus stops to promote multimodalism.
This group of interviewees noted the following as potential growth areas: Bellefonte; Gray’s Woods; Toftrees;
Spring, Benner, and Walker Townships; and the area surrounding University Park Airport. They also observe
additional capacity for development in the Foxpointe and Saybrook neighborhoods. Moreover, they cited a more
recent trend of adding on to or improving existing homes, rather than moving. Other factors being equal, houses
located further out from the Centre Region are not selling as quickly as they once did, and people are much more
conscious of the cost of gas and other commuting costs.
Session participants cited workforce housing as another important issue within the local industry, but they could
not provide a great deal of anecdotal information on commute patterns from further out in Centre County, and
beyond.
Session participants expressed a number of other suggestions for improvements to service and marketing,
including:
• Interviewees observed the Houserville / Lemont area as underserved, particularly on the weekends;
• Participants questioned whether it would be possible to use smaller vehicles in less populated areas, to
promote both efficiency and navigability;
• The group cited the Graystone Court senior citizen development, currently under construction in Benner
Township, as a potential area of emerging transportation need. Moreover, they also observed that
activity at the Mount Nittany Medical Center is increasing as the complex expands;
• Interviewees observed that the football shuttle serves as a great way to introduce CATA services to new
or infrequent riders;
• Session participants suggested that the availability of CATA’s app be better promoted, and reliability
improved;
• On a seasonal basis, the group suggested that a higher level of service to the Nittany Mall area may be
warranted;
• Wireless internet coverage may make for an attractive rider amenity, particularly on longer and/or
commuter routes; and
• Interviewees stressed the importance of buses with shallow steps and kneeling capability, due to the
reputation of the area as a retirement destination, as well as an aging population.
CATA Bus Operators and Shop Employees
Participants in a group interview session included: Jeff Barto, maintenance; Bob Beck, operator; Steve Cohen,
operator; Ken Morder, operator; and Jim Chiaverini, operator.
This group cited a prevailing community perception that CATA’s services are primarily for students, stressing
the need to maintain a balance with community service so as to not alienate core ridership who utilize the
service every day. Accordingly, they perceive a problem with Saturday service during reduced service periods,
particularly for those who use commuter-level routes such as the B, the F, the S and the XB/XG. Moreover, they
expressed a desire to see the HP split into two separate routes.
191
Operators expressed a number of suggestions for improvements in terms of passenger convenience and policy
changes, including:
• Development of an automated trip planner – either separate from, or consisting of improvements to –
Google Transit;
• A refined pass pricing structure, in an effort to encourage people to move away from the use of cash;
• The implementation of LionCash+ as a fare payment method on board CATA vehicles; and
• Defining a set policy with respect to transfer wait time, as holding buses to wait for people who need to
transfer can cause a cascade of problems.
Moreover, interviewees made a number of suggestions pertaining to Penn State-focused services. For example,
past efforts to build awareness among incoming students during the orientation process have not always been
successful, but nevertheless, orientation remains one of the best opportunities to reach a large audience, and
the practice should probably be continued. The group also noted a need for increased coordination with Penn
State transportation services such as the staff shuttle; frequently, shuttle layovers reduce the space available for
peak bus layovers at the stop at College Avenue and Allen Street. Further, a change in campus bus stop signage
may also be beneficial, for several reasons. First, due to the proprietary bus stop signs on campus, people are
often confused; this is especially evident at the Thomas Building, where the similarities between fixed route and
staff shuttle signage lead riders to believe CATA buses are passing them by. Second, there are issues with respect
to stop placement. The group expressed a desire for Penn State to revisit siting of stops at intersections, as they
believe this reduces safety.
In terms of maintenance, service growth has increased difficulty in keeping up with vehicle repairs and cleaning
of the fleet. An aging fleet further aggravates this problem; for example, frame corrosion is creating the need
for a great deal of additional work not easily accommodated within the schedule of preventive maintenance and
cleaning. Moreover, the ventilation grilles inside the buses require more regular cleaning, as they are very visible
to the passenger.
Also with respect to maintenance, session participants cited the potential benefit of lifts designed for smaller
vehicles, as well as of additional training opportunities, particularly in the areas of electrical and fuel systems.
There is ongoing difficulty in staffing maintenance positions – particularly for second and third shifts – despite
the perception that the jobs offer good pay, benefits, a tool allowance, and a retirement plan.
Last, interviewees noted recent advancements made in the area of run cutting. They praised the use of two bus
operators to work on the project, adding that this helped to produce the best run cut in years, if ever; the run
cut includes good pieces of five-day work, and this is very beneficial to employees who commute long distances,
having the effect of reducing total commuting time and cost.
192
Key Findings and Questions – Stakeholder Involvement
As data and information regarding both Board and other stakeholder involvement was compiled, analyzed,
and discussed at a staff level and with the project management team (PMT), several key findings and questions
became apparent that may have implications for future strategic initiatives and/or provide other valuable
supporting data. These include the following, in order of discussion rather than particular order of importance or
priority:
General
• CATA is at a very significant crossroads in terms of future orientation. The agency is being pulled in
multiple directions with respect to a variety of issues, and in a variety of areas. This chapter, combined
with data from other strategic plan chapters, suggests that key stakeholders are expecting a number of
significant decisions to be made about the agency’s future.
Operations
• CATA has been both innovative and responsive when called upon in the past, in such areas as its
relationship with Penn State and the apartment complex program. The agency has successfully changed
direction when needed, with notable examples including the transition to a per-ride billing model for the
apartment pass program, as well as the growth of the CATACOMMUTE program. But this history has led
to a fragmented overall approach to program management. Such an approach may have worked when
CATA was smaller, but is showing signs of stress as CATA grows.
• CATA is in an envious position of being largely supported by the community it serves. As a result, there
is also strong support for making pedestrian and transit amenities part of the land use planning process,
as well as a desire for additional passenger amenities along already-existing routes, and a multi-modal
transportation center in the downtown State College area.
• There is also strong community support for CATA to adopt policies, purchase equipment, and build
facilities that reflect a regional desire to enhance environmental sustainability. This desire often
competes with the requirement to absolutely maximize the use of tax revenues, the mission to provide
as much service on the street as possible, and other needs within the community.
• Stakeholders, both internal and external to the organization, expressed a desire to have CATA carefully
evaluate the future of vehicle fueling and propulsion on a regular basis, either at regular time intervals,
or as larger batches of vehicles are funded and purchased.
• CATA is no different than other transit systems across the country in that its workforce is aging. There
has been a fair amount of recent turnover within the management ranks; in most of these cases, the
departures were planned for in advance, and/or carried out according to a succession plan that allowed
the agency to promote and train from within. An emerging workforce development focus must be on
the maintenance function, as CATA will need to bring in new skilled staff in an era where hands-on,
technical work is not viewed as desirable. Senior staff acknowledges that they will need to be creative in
order to meet these emerging needs.
193
Financial
• There is an effort, both locally and at the state level, to ensure that all groups are making a fair financial
contribution to the operation of CATA services. Accordingly, it is time for the agency to really look at all
of its revenue-producing programs, discounts, and fare media so that program sustainability and growth
can be appropriately funded. Moreover, a comprehensive look at CATA’s approach to local share funding
may also be needed.
• Agencies at all levels of government are under ongoing pressure to stretch existing budgets, and
do as much as they can within funding constraints. This includes CATA’s member and contracting
municipalities. Stakeholder interviews show a fracture between the perceived need to expand regionally,
and a fear that, given both operating and capital funding limitations, this expansion could be detrimental
to existing and future needs within the core service area.
• There is a common perception that some CATA bus routes actually earn a profit relative to operating
expenses. A realistic community expectation of how public transportation works, and how it is funded,
must be strengthened through increased education and outreach, and/or some other methods.
• There is strong pressure at both the state and federal levels for more regulation and oversight of transit
systems. The need to meet these pressures, in an effort to avoid financial and operational penalties, has
led CATA to hire additional staff, and incur other extra costs, that can further reduce the agency’s ability
to meet community needs. While there is a consensus that regulation can be beneficial, the amount
of staff time needed to meet additional regulatory requirements, and associated audits, represents an
important and growing share of human resources.
• Recent challenges associated with financing major bus purchases seem to suggest a need to closely
follow the fleet plan which calls for regularly space vehicle replacements in smaller batches. This would
lessen the obstacles faced in terms of vehicle maintenance and repair, financing, and procurement.
• CATA should develop an incremental fare step plan so that the agency has logical amounts for each
increase tied to levels of growth in inflation, as mandated by PennDOT and Pennsylvania Act 89 of 2013.
CATA can always reserve the right to advance or delay the index increase if other factors mitigate against
such a change in a given fiscal year.
Service Philosophy
• PennDOT is currently examining a variety of service delivery models that involve increased
regionalization and coordination, in an effort to improve efficiency and control costs. Pennsylvania
transit agencies and PennDOT share an understanding that programs such as shared ride are not
sustainable within current funding structures. At the same time, there is an expectation that transit
agencies will meet a variety of important social needs. The use of performance metrics to assess transit
systems, and to make service decisions, can be in opposition to philosophical arguments for service in
areas with low passenger density, but high social need. Moreover, increased regionalization of services
can stand in opposition to the desire for local control.
• CATA recently adopted a higher level of reduced services, operated when the Penn State University is
not in session. While this decision was made based on an assessment of operating data, and within the
constraints of available funding, multiple stakeholders mentioned reduced service levels as problematic
for those who use the service to access employment or other essential services. The struggle to identify
CATA’s future balance between service to Penn State University, and service to the community, as well
as the potential choice to reduce service in highly-productive corridors in order to serve a philosophical
community need (identified in the SWOT analysis) further highlights this dilemma.
194
• At an internal level, the CATA staff and Board of Directors also noted a perceived struggle between the
need to continue growth according to community need, the future direction of the agency, and the
need to proactively articulate who and what the agency is going to become. This struggle is expressed
through a prevailing opinion that the agency has become largely reactionary, with no time set aside to
examine current practices, including those that drive service, funding, and overall operational capacity;
plan for the future; and develop technical areas such as human resources, equipment, and technology.
The ongoing struggle has led to plan with a crisis focus, rather than a one based on long-term planning –
such as those related to the condition and age of the fleet, the inadequacy of CATA’s facilities, and unmet
mandates – this can lead to less focus on the agency’s daily service and processes.
• In terms of technology, there is a realization that while the agency has been ahead of the curve in
meeting customer wants and needs, it is well behind with respect to technology that would improve
efficiency in areas such as scheduling, run cutting, payroll, inventory control, and customer information
systems. A technology plan could help to better provide for some of these needs.
• Relatively new senior staff and Board members desire a different planned approach to determine how
CATA will operate and grow within what appears to be an era of inadequate and unstable funding. This
desired approach includes an examination of how the agency considers operational and capital funding,
the growth of emergency reserves, and where possible, a move to greater self-sufficiency. More tenured
senior staff and Board members argue that external threats come and go, and funding ebbs and flows;
but overall there is a concern that a lack of stable, predictable funding makes it difficult to implement
strong long-term planning processes.
• Current CATA management is diligently looking for options by which all three of CATA’s major programs –
CATABUS, CATARIDE, and CATACOMMUTE – can be strengthened and sustained. Some of these potential
solutions could be a major departure from current operational practices, and may be challenging for the
community to accept. Further, management staff shares concerns that unexpected external forces could
harm CATA if the agency is not nimble enough to respond quickly.
• When compared to other systems nationwide, the CATA staff and Board of Directors feel fortunate to
have the level of community support the agency enjoys. Pressures to meet the needs of a growing and
thriving community would generally be a welcome dilemma for some systems across the country.
• The vitality of the State College area, the collective opinion of external stakeholders, and recent ridership
data all seem to suggest the need for system preservation, at a minimum, with perhaps some growth
warranted. Moreover, the demand related to Penn State University – the single largest consumer of
CATA services – is anticipated to hold steady or increase.
Communications / Education
• Stakeholders generally expressed that CATA could do a better job of communication in a number of
different areas. Some of these include specialized program requirements and eligibility; working with
large employers and agencies to better explain services offered, and increase understanding of how we
can meet community needs; robust marketing of technology advances, as well as underutilized services;
reaching out to newly-arriving Penn State University students; and maximizing partnerships with other
organizations for the pursuit of projects and grant opportunities that benefit the community.
• An effort should be made to educate stakeholders in cases where operational or organizational
suggestions made may not be practical. Moreover, additional outreach is needed to convey that CATA
does not only serve the student population, but rather, meets a wide variety needs of a community
whose economy is largely driven by a university environment. In fact, affiliation with Penn State
University affords a much greater level of service to the local community in general.
195
Chapter 6
Rider and Non-Rider Involvement
The purpose of this chapter is to learn what CATA does well, and what it needs to improve, directly from those
who use CATA fixed route, paratransit, and ridesharing services, as well as those members of the community who
do not utilize these services for their travel needs. CATA’s intent was to engage via electronic and written survey
instruments, as well as in-person interviews, a portion of the population of Centre County in general, and the
current CATA service area in particular, with special attention paid to regular riders.
Research America, a market research firm based in Newtown Square, PA, was contracted by CATA to develop,
disseminate and analyze a set of rider and non-rider behavioral, demographic and satisfaction surveys focused
on the Authority’s CATABUS fixed-route service. The full report from Research America is contained in Appendix
A – Rider and Non-Rider Surveys.
Moreover, in-house print and email surveys were distributed to participants in the CATARIDE and
CATACOMMUTE programs by CATA staff in an effort to determine similar information for those groups.
This chapter provides a summary of the results of this research. A complete copy of all research documents can
be found in the appendix of this document.
Background and Purpose
For this project, CATA was interested in evaluating its services by assessing both rider and non-rider perceptions
of the Authority, as well as attaining relevant demographics and ridership behaviors specific to each group
by mode of service. Results are to be used in the development of this strategic plan, and to gauge customer
satisfaction and public perception of the Authority for service planning, marketing, and public relations purposes.
The development of consistent CATARIDE and CATACOMMUTE surveys complement these interests.
The questionnaires were developed to cover the following primary objectives:
•
•
•
•
Determine the demographics and travel behaviors and patterns for each group surveyed;
Determine the existing perceptions and awareness of CATA and its services within each group;
Determine the reasons behind existing travel behaviors and use or non-use of CATA’s services; and
Identify what CATA is doing well, and where there is room for improvement.
CATABUS Rider Surveys
A total of 1,034 on-board surveys were administered on various days, and at various times of day, to current
CATABUS riders across the Authority’s 23 community routes and four campus routes, between April 9 and May 5,
2014. In total, the sample of riders included in the study reflected 97.2% of CATA’s total ridership, and data was
weighted to reflect the distribution of ridership by routes based on January 2014 CATA data.
196
CATABUS Rider Characteristics
All results noted are inclusive of both community and campus service ridership, unless noted otherwise.
Responses may not total 100% where survey participants refused to answer certain questions.
CATABUS Rider Demographics
Community & Campus Routes
Community Routes Only
Gender
Male
Female
52%
48%
51%
49%
Age
Under 18
18 – 29
30 – 44
45 – 64
65+
1%
94%
4%
1%
<1%
1%
93%
4%
2%
<1%
Race
White
Asian
African American
Hispanic
Other
65%
13%
9%
7%
6%
53%
21%
10%
6%
10%
Employment Status
Student
Employed Full-Time
Employed Part-Time
Unemployed
Retired
78%
7%
17%
3%
<1%
75%
9%
18%
2%
<1%
Highest Level of Education
Less than a BA Degree
BA Degree
Master’s/Doctorate
73%
17%
8%
68%
22%
9%
Household Income
Less Than $50,000
$50,000 or Higher
33%
12%
36%
10%
Affiliation with Penn State
Student
Faculty/Staff
Visitor/Other Affiliation
No Affiliation
95%
2%
1%
2%
92%
3%
1%
4%
197
Reasons for Using CATABUS Service
• Riders take the bus most often because they consider it to be convenient (73%). Other reasons include
having no other transportation alternative (31%), the cost of transit versus other transportation options
(30%) and lack of parking/expensive parking at their destination (23%).
• Most riders (97%) walk to the bus stop, and for most the closest stop is typically less than a half-mile
away. Likely the short distance of bus stops from riders’ trip origins and destinations feed into the
perception of convenience.
• Since the overwhelming majority of trips taken are taken by Penn State students, most respondents
mention University activities (78%) as a primary reason for using the bus. Other reasons include work
(18%), recreation, and visiting friends and relatives (18%), shopping (13%), elementary and secondary
school (11%), and medical appointments (3%).
CATABUS Travel Behavior and Patterns
• The vast majority of trips taken (95%) are taken by Penn State students who use the CATABUS service
mainly for traveling to and from the University Park Campus.
• Most riders (85%) have a valid driver’s license and, on average, one car available for their use.
• Illustrating the transient nature of the student population in State College, the majority of riders (97%)
have used the CATABUS service for less than five years, and 37% have used it for less than one year.
• Riders are most likely to make 1 – 4 one-way trips (37%) or 5 – 8 one-way trips (27%) per week, which
take approximately 10 – 19 minutes (48%) or 5 – 9 (34%) minutes.
• Transfers are required for only 5% of all trips taken.
• The majority of riders taking the survey did not pay a fare for service (53% were riders of the fare-free
LOOP and LINK) or possessed a pass provided by their apartment complex (26%). Those paying fares
included cash (8%), OnePasses (7%), tokens (3%), Ride for Five passes (1%) and complimentary ride
passes (1%).
Perceptions of CATABUS Services
• Overall, riders have very positive perceptions of the CATABUS service.
• A total of 83% of respondents noted that they were very (30%) or somewhat (53%) satisfied with CATA’s
performance and approximately 97% of respondents noted that they would definitely (77%), or were
likely to (20%), continue using CATA’s bus service.
• A large majority of respondents (93%) noted that they would definitely (60%), or were likely to (33%),
recommend the CATABUS service to others.
• Almost all CATABUS riders (98%) feel that transit is very important to the community.
• The highest satisfaction with CATA on specific elements of service involved vehicle cleanliness, safety
at bus stops and on vehicles, the availability and accessibility of bus stops, the frequency of weekday
service, and driver appearance.
198
• The following elements were found to be lowest with regard to satisfaction: the availability of late-night
service, weekend service frequency, convenience of CATA’s office hours, seat availability during peak
commute times, communication with passengers, and the dependability of the CATA mobile apps.
Awareness, Use and Perceptions of CATABUS Route and Schedule Information
• Riders are particularly satisfied with the website, LOOP/LINK brochures and the Ride Guide. Ratings for
the real-time mobile apps and communicating with passengers, while still fairly positive, were weaker.
• The use of CATA’s Ride Guide (16%) and bus stop info signs (13%) for finding schedule and route
information has been largely surpassed by the use of CATA’s mobile iPhone and Android apps (71%) and
the CATA website (34%).
CATABUS Non-Rider Surveys
A total of 413 telephone interviews were conducted between May 2 and May 22, 2014, among qualified nonriders, defined as being men and women 18 years of age or older, who are residents of Centre County and had
not ridden any CATABUS route during the 12 months prior to being interviewed.
CATABUS Non-Rider Characteristics
CATABUS Non-Rider Demographics
Non-Riders
Non-Riders
Gender
Male
Female
45%
55%
BA Degree
48%
27%
25%
Age
18 – 29
30 – 44
45 – 64
65+
2%
14%
48%
35%
Household Income
Less Than $50,000
$50,000 - $99,000
$100,000 or Higher
25%
32%
18%
Race
White
Asian
African American
96%
1%
1%
Affiliation with Penn State
Alumni
Faculty/Staff
Student
No Affiliation
27%
14%
1%
61%
Employment Status
Student
Employed Full-Time
Employed Part-Time
Homemaker
Unemployed
Retired
1%
44%
11%
4%
3%
36%
Ridership History
Never Ridden
Past Riders
50%
50%
199
Reasons for Not Using CATABUS Service
• The primary reasons given by non-riders for not utilizing the CATABUS service were the availability of a
car (39%), no need for the service (26%), and no service in the area where they are traveling (20%).
• Some respondents (24%) would consider riding. Of these, 38% said they feel it would be more
convenient, and 20% said they may ride if they don’t have a car for their use. Some (15%) think they
may ride over the next 12 months, which correlates to those who have used CATA services previously.
• Factors that would encourage someone to consider riding the bus include: providing service in additional
areas, making stops more convenient, more frequent service, faster travel time with express service,
more accessible information, and lower fares. 44% of respondents noted that nothing would cause them
to consider public transportation as an alternative.
CATABUS Non-Rider Travel Behavior and Patterns
• Non-riders most commonly travel around/into the following areas of Centre County: State College
(95%), the Nittany Mall/Benner Pike area on College Avenue (89%), and Bellefonte (83%).
• Perceptions and Awareness of CATABUS Services
• Non-riders are aware of CATA and have a very favorable impression of CATA’s services (86%), which is
especially true of those who have previously used CATA services.
• Almost all respondents (99%) were aware of CATA’s fixed-route services (93% of those did not need to be
prompted by the persona administering the survey).
• While awareness is very high, familiarity with the services CATA provides is lower (63%), specifically with
regard to the CATARIDE (53% aware) and CATACOMMUTE (48% aware) programs.
• The highest satisfaction with CATA on specific elements of service involved safety at bus stops and on
vehicles and driver courteousness.
• The following elements were found to be lowest with regard to satisfaction among non-riders: travel
time from origin to destination (many think it would take longer to get to their destination using CATA
than by their current means of transportation), availability and accessibility of bus stops, seating
availability during peak travel times, CATA’s use of technology to communicate with riders, helpfulness
and responsiveness of CATA staff, the frequency of weekend service, the convenience of CATA office
hours, and the availability of late night service.
CATARIDE Participant Surveys
A written survey instrument was developed in-house by CATA staff, and a total of 51 printed surveys were
distributed to CATARIDE participants who used the service during the month of May 2014 by Ride Right LLC, the
contracted vendor that provides service on behalf of the Authority. These 51 surveys represent approximately
52.3% of the average daily ridership during May 2014.
200
CATARIDE Rider Characteristics
CATARIDE Participant Demographics
Non-Riders
Gender
Male
Female
Age
18 – 29
30 – 44
45 – 64
65+
Non-Riders
18.40%
81.60%
BA Degree
68.10%
17.00%
14.90%
8.50%
4.30%
25.50%
61.70%
Household Income
Less Than $50,000
$50,000 - $99,000
$100,000 or Higher
88.20%
11.80%
0.00%
Race
White
Asian
African American
Other
84.40%
2.20%
6.70%
4.40%
Eligibility Category
Person 65 or Over
Person Eligible Under ADA
Aide/Escort
General Public Passenger
62.00%
32.00%
4.00%
2.00%
Employment Status
Student
Employed Full-Time
Employed Part-Time
Unemployed
Retired
0%
8%
20%
4%
30%
Reasons for Using the CATARIDE Service
• Riders use CATARIDE paratransit service most often because they consider it to be convenient (45.1%).
Other reasons include not driving (62.7%), having no other transportation alternative (25.5%), and cost
savings (23.5%). Approximately 41% of participants have a valid driver’s license.
CATARIDE Travel Behavior and Patterns
• Riders are most likely to make 1 to 4 trips (47.5%) or 9 to 12 trips (27.5%) per week using the service.
• Of the participants being surveyed, the majority (55.1%) has been using the service for 1 – 5 years.
Those using the service for ten or more years accounted for 22.4% of respondents.
• The majority of riders pay cash for their rides (43.1%), rather than using coupons.
201
Perceptions of CATARIDE Services
• Overall, riders have very positive perceptions of the CATARIDE service.
• A total of 96.1% of respondents noted that they would definitely (86.3%), or were likely to (9.8%),
continue using CATA’s paratransit service.
• A total of 98.1% of respondents noted that they would definitely (86.3%), or were likely to (11.8%)
recommend the CATARIDE service to others.
• The highest satisfaction with CATARIDE on specific elements of service involved driver courtesy,
appearance, and driver and trip safety.
• The following elements were found to be lowest with regard to satisfaction: ability to get trips at
requested times, drivers arriving when the passenger had been told he/she would arrive, and ability to
get through to the switchboard at CATARIDE.
202
CATACOMMUTE Participant Surveys
A written survey instrument was developed in-house by CATA staff, and a total of 143 emailed electronic surveys
were collected from those participants registered with the CATACOMMUTE program during the month of May
2014. These 143 surveys represent approximately 24.2% of the total number of vanpool participants during May
2014.
CATACOMMUTE Rider Characteristics
CATACOMMUTE Participant Demographics
Non-Riders
Gender
Male
Female
Age
18 – 29
30 – 44
45 – 64
65+
Non-Riders
28.90%
71.10%
BA Degree
58.60%
29.30%
12.00%
2.60%
30.80%
63.20%
3.40%
Household Income
Less Than $50,000
$50,000 - $99,000
$100,000 or Higher
35.40%
50.70%
13.90%
Participant Status
Carpool Participant
Vanpool Participant
19.00%
68.50%
Race
White
Asian Indian
African American
Hispanic
Other
92.70%
0.90%
0.90%
2.80%
2.80%
Employment Status
Student
Employed Full-Time
1.70%
98.30%
Reasons for Using the CATACOMMUTE Service
• The primary reason cited by riders for taking advantage of the CATACOMMUTE service is the cost savings
(41.1%). Other reasons include: convenience (23.2%) and environmental considerations (16.5%). Just
4.1% had no other transportation options available, and almost all of the respondents have a valid
driver’s license (99.2%).
203
CATACOMMUTE Travel Behavior and Patterns
• Participants are most likely to make 5 to 12 trips (7.6%) per week using the service and most (71.0%)
have been participating for 1 – 5 years. Approximately 23.0% have been using the service for less than
one year and 6.0% have been using the service for ten years or more.
• The majority of one-way trips are taken for a duration of 30 – 40 minutes (44.2%) or 40 – 60 minutes
(34.7%).
• About three-quarters (76.2%) of the participants are enrolled in the Emergency Ride Home program.
Perceptions of CATACOMMUTE Service
• Overall, riders have very positive perceptions of the CATACOMMUTE service.
continue using CATA’s commuter services.
recommend the CATACOMMUTE service to others.
• The highest satisfaction with CATACOMMUTE on specific elements of service included the sharing of cost
within the group, the convenience of CATA office hours (both with a mean rating of 4.9 out of 5), and
safety (with a mean rating of 4.8 out of 5).
• The following elements were found to be lowest with regard to satisfaction: staff helpfulness/
responsiveness at the office and over the phone (both with a mean rating of 4.6 out of 5) and the overall
condition of vanpool vans (with mean rating of 4.5 out of 5).
Key Findings and Questions – Rider and Non-Rider Involvement
As rider and non-rider survey data was compiled, analyzed, and discussed both at a staff level and with the
project management team (PMT), a number of key findings and questions became apparent that may have
implications for future strategic initiatives and/or provide other valuable supporting data. These include the
following, in order of discussion rather than particular order of importance or priority:
• CATA will soon be required to administer a customer satisfaction survey at least once every three
years. Going forward, survey results may be more useful with the following modifications to the survey
instrument and resulting report(s):
−− Excluding non-riders who do not reside within the service area, defined as an area ¾-mile in any
direction from CATA’s fixed routes.
−− Further segmenting results of non-riders who would consider using CATA services from those who
would not consider using the service.
−− Additional segmentation of community service from campus service, as these are two separate and
distinct groups with very different riding habits. For example, campus service riders are more likely
to just walk or bike to their destination if service is not available.
−− Further segmentation of different levels of community service (from commuter-level service to highintensity core service).
−− Inclusion of all community routes in the rider survey sampling plan; the current survey excluded
several of these routes, and this exclusion is viewed as a shortcoming.
204
−− In terms of reasons for riding, “no parking available” should be split from “parking too expensive” or
“parking too far from final destination”.
• A high percentage of riders cited convenience as a primary factor in their decision to ride. The precise
elements of that convenience, however, are not fully understood. These results may warrant further
follow-up with riders, through focus groups, additional survey questioning, or some other method.
• Moreover, how is this perception of convenience impacted by CATA’s “hub-and-spoke” system, as well as
the agency’s emphasis on providing “one seat” rides? This may be a specific service element that also
warrants further follow-up.
• A status of rider / non-rider, as well as age group, appear to be highly correlated to media sources,
with older non-riders relying heavily on “traditional” media sources such as radio, television, and print
media, and younger riders increasingly using online sources, including social media. Moreover, a rider or
non-rider may rely on different sources for general news versus news about CATA. This suggests market
segmentation based on the audience CATA is attempting to reach.
• At the time the rider and non-rider surveys were administered, CATA was experiencing technical
difficulties with its mobile applications. As so many current and potential customers rely on these “apps”
for information – and use of these “apps” is growing – the results of these difficulties is clearly reflected
in survey results.
• An ability to refuse answers to certain survey questions – especially those related to household
income and employment status – suggests that the results from these questions should be interpreted
cautiously.
• The results of the CATARIDE survey reflect a dedicated, longer-term customer base.
• The relatively high level of turnover in CATABUS ridership seems to reflect the weighting of both survey
sampling and actual ridership toward student corridors, and suggests that a high level of emphasis
should be placed on customer service, awareness building, and rider education and information.
• The Penn State University system of branch campuses transfers a high number of students to the main
University Park campus in a manner where students may not be on the main campus for four years. This
may contribute to the higher than expected turnover cited above. This assumption may warrant some
form of additional follow-up with newly-transferred students.
• The CATABUS survey results seem to be skewed toward perceptions of full service because the survey
was administered during full service. Perceptions of reduced service, which is much less robust, may be
quite different. These latter perceptions may warrant additional follow-up with full-time residents of the
community, or other riders who primarily use community services.
• CATABUS survey results, as well as ridership trends, suggest that “late night” service is a very important
offering, as well as one that continues to grow in importance.
• CATABUS frequency of use results are somewhat surprising. Given CATA’s strong apartment pass,
OnePass, and “Ride for Five” programs, one might reasonably conclude that frequency of use seems a bit
low.
205
• A relatively small percentage of CATABUS ridership uses printed sources of information such as the Ride
Guide and informational signs at bus stops. To those who use them, these sources of information are
important, but this finding also suggests that CATA’s mobile applications are of critical and increasing
importance, and should be better supported with financial and technical resources.
• Validating survey results for all three modes against complaint data could possibly yield a wealth of
additional information regarding the behavior of riders.
• To what should CATA attribute low satisfaction ratings in terms of “helpfulness and responsiveness of
staff”? This is one particular area that may warrant additional follow-up through focus groups or a
different survey instrument.
• Why do non-riders indicate that they have “no need to ride”? Is this due to available vehicles,
deficiencies in service, or some other reason(s)? Segregating non-rider responses into corridors could be
helpful in determining the effect of living in core service areas versus commuter-level service areas. This
specific area may warrant additional follow-up.
• For all three modes, survey results suggest that CATA may be better served by satisfying and retaining
existing customers rather than efforts to attract new customers. Non-rider survey results, with a
comparative few indicating a willingness to ride, seem to validate this finding.
• Many riders, particularly CATABUS riders, indicate a desire for “more frequent” service, but it should
be noted that frequency is in direct conflict to “access” in terms of stop spacing. Moreover, satisfaction
with “access” as measured through survey results is not defined quantitatively, but rather as a matter of
perception.
• The need to refine service on a continuous, ongoing basis suggests that CATA may be best served by
administering more targeted – but briefer – satisfaction surveys more often than once every three years.
• The high, and growing, level of importance of CATA’s mobile applications may suggest that additional
information, such as time-sensitive service alerts, should be provided through this medium.
• A high level of awareness of CATA services, opinion of the agency, and perception of safety appears to
exist among both riders and non-riders alike.
• Given practical experience with new routes and services, there is a significant disconnect between
expressed willingness to use CATA services, and actual use of these services, as measured in ridership.
• With the vast majority of CATABUS service supporting student-related transportation, the current
circumstances (funding and rolling stock constraints) prevent sufficient additional service from
being provided to corridors with less of a student population, such as Bellefonte and Pleasant
Gap. The greatest likelihood of serving more non-student ridership appears to be in CATARIDE and
CATACOMMUTE services. Can the excellence in CATABUS services be maintained while promoting
development of CATARIDE and CATACOMMUTE services?
• Student-related routes and trips increase the transportation options available for the entire community.
206
207
Chapter 7
Projections
The purpose of this chapter is to describe how the transportation needs of Centre County in general, and
the current CATA service area in particular, are likely to change within the next 10 years. The chapter will
include data describing demographics, expected funding and finance trends (federal, state, and local), local
development, planning and zoning, roadway network, employment, Penn State University trends, and housing.
Expected Demographic Trends – US Census and American Community Survey (ACS)
The demographic characteristics of Centre County (discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 – Service Area
Characteristics) are dependent upon myriad social and economic factors and can be difficult to accurately
predict going forward. It is possible, however, to examine recent trends in certain characteristics, and make
reasonable assumptions as to whether these trends will continue into the future. Using data from the 2000 and
2010 US Census, and the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS), a summary of straight-line projections of key
demographic indicators is presented below:
• Total Population – Between 2000 and 2010, the total population of Centre County grew from 135,758
to 153,990, for a total increase of 18,232 people (13.43%), or an average annual increase of about 1,823
people (1.34%). Assuming this trend continues along a similar trajectory, by the 2020 US Census, Centre
County can be expected to have about 172,000 residents. By 2025, Centre County would be expected to
have about 181,000 residents. Estimates from the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS), however,
seem to suggest that this population growth may occur more slowly than the straight-line projection
would indicate. This is consistent with anecdotal information suggesting that most of the population
growth between 2000 and 2010 occurred earlier in the decade, with an economic recession slowing
population growth from the mid-point of the decade onward.
• Age 65 and Older Population – Between 2000 and 2010, the total number of Centre County residents
age 65 and older grew from 14,077 to 17,366, for a total increase of 3,289 residents (23.36%), or an
average annual increase of about 329 residents (2.34%). Assuming this trend continues along a similar
trajectory, by the 2020 US Census, Centre County can be expected to have about 20,700 residents age 65
and older. By 2025, Centre County would be expected to have about 22,300 residents age 65 and older.
Estimates from the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS), however, seem to suggest that this growth
in age 65 and older population may occur more slowly than the straight-line projection would indicate.
It is worth noting that the segment of the population aged 65 and older is growing much faster in Centre
County than the total population; this would seem to support the reputation of the area as a destination
for individuals reaching retirement age.
• Age 55-64 Population – Between 2000 and 2010, the total number of Centre County residents age
55-64 grew from 9,824 to 14,970, for a total increase of 5,146 residents (52.38%), or an average annual
increase of about 515 residents (5.24%). Assuming this trend continues along a similar trajectory, by the
2020 US Census, Centre County can be expected to have about 20,100 residents age 55-64. By 2025,
Centre County would be expected to have about 22,700 residents age 55-64. Estimates from the 2012
American Community Survey (ACS), however, seem to suggest that this growth in age 55-64 and older
population may occur more slowly than the straight-line projection would indicate. It is worth noting
that the segment of the population aged 55-64 and older is growing much faster in Centre County than
208
both the total population and the age 65 and older population; this would seem to further support the
reputation of the area as a destination for individuals reaching retirement age.
• Total Housing Units – Between 2000 and 2010, the total number of Centre County housing units grew
from 53,161 to 63,297, for a total increase of 10,136 units (19.07%), or an average annual increase of
about 1,014 units (1.91%). Assuming this trend continues along a similar trajectory, by the 2020 US
Census, Centre County can be expected to have about 73,400 units. By 2025, Centre County would be
expected to have about 78,500 housing units. Estimates from the 2012 American Community Survey
(ACS), however, seem to suggest that this growth in housing units may occur more slowly than the
straight-line projection would indicate. This is consistent with anecdotal information suggesting that
most of the housing growth between 2000 and 2010 occurred earlier in the decade, with an economic
recession slowing housing growth from the mid-point of the decade onward. On the other hand, a
number of recent planned and constructed large-scale developments – particularly within the Centre
Region – would suggest that the local housing market has recovered well, and that the straight-line
projections may not be unreasonable.
• Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units – Between 2000 and 2010, the median value of a
Centre County owner-occupied housing unit grew from $109,400 to $175,800, for a total increase
of $66,400 (60.69%), or an average annual increase of about $6,640 (6.07%). Assuming this trend
continues along a similar trajectory, by the 2020 US Census, Centre County can be expected to have a
median value of an owner-occupied housing unit of about $242,200. By 2025, Centre County would
be expected to have a median value of an owner-occupied housing unit of about $275,400. Estimates
from the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS), however, seem to suggest that this growth in housing
unit value may occur more quickly than the straight-line projection would indicate. The specific type of
housing stock currently being planned and constructed within Centre County – and particularly within
the Centre Region – would seem to further support these projections, as well as deepen concerns
related to affordable housing challenges. Moreover, Centre County’s 2010 housing unit value far exceeds
the statewide average of $159,300, though the statewide growth rate in housing unit value between
2000 and 2010 slightly exceeds that of Centre County.
• Public Transit Commuters – Between 2000 and 2010, the number of Centre County workers commuting
via public transportation remained almost perfectly flat, from 2,465 workers to 2,466 workers (.04%).
Assuming this trend continues along a similar trajectory, there would be no appreciable increase in
the number of Centre County workers commuting via public transportation for the 2020 US Census, or
by 2025. Moreover, by virtue of an increasing population, the percentage of Centre County workers
commuting via public transportation has dropped, and on a straight-line basis, will continue to do so.
Estimates from the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS), however, seem to suggest that both the
number and percentage of Centre County workers commuting via public transportation is rising markedly
from 2010 levels, and will continue to do so. Increasing trends in CATA ridership as well as hours and
miles of service provided would seem to support this conclusion. Moreover, population growth between
2000 and 2010 outside of CATA’s core service area would serve to offset some of CATA’s advances in
mode share over the past 10-15 years.
• Mean Travel Time to Work – Between 2000 and 2010, the mean travel time to work of Centre County
workers decreased slightly, from 19.6 minutes to 19.3 minutes, for a total decrease of .30 minutes
(1.53%), or an average annual decrease of about .03 minutes (.15%). Assuming this trend continues
along a similar trajectory, by the 2020 US Census, Centre County workers can be expected to have a
mean travel time to work of about 19 minutes. By 2025, Centre County workers would be expected to
have a mean travel time to work of about 18.9 minutes. Estimates from the 2012 American Community
Survey (ACS), however, seem to suggest that mean travel time to work may actually be increasing
slightly. Current development trends both within and outside the Centre Region, as well as the larger
quantities of low-cost, available housing stock outside of the Centre Region would seem to support an
209
increasing trend. On the other hand, improvements in highway infrastructure – as well as increased
speed limits – between the Centre Region and outlying portions of Centre County, particularly the
completion of Interstate 99 between Port Matilda and North Atherton Street, may help to account for
the slight decrease in commute times. Mean commute times just within the current CATA service area
are significantly lower, but are decreasing as well, from 16.47 minutes in 2000, to 16.23 minutes in 2010.
Financial Outlook – CATA Annual Budget Process
Based upon CATA’s annual budget process – including actual revenues and expenditures from prior years,
budgeted revenues and expenses for the current year, reasonable projections for future years, and financial
guidance received from PennDOT – the financial outlook for this strategic / development plan update might look
as illustrated in the following chart. It is worth noting that while operating revenues and expenses are expected
to climb steadily over time, the effects of the building expansion and renovation project on capital expenditures
are clearly evident in the early years of the plan:
Figure 7-1 (2015-24 Conceptual Funding Outlook)
The projections contained in the conceptual financial outlook presented above are based on a number of
assumptions, as follows:
• Total operating expenditures are projected to grow at 5% annually. This assumes no overall system
growth, but increased utility costs as a result of completion of the building expansion and renovation
project, and increased CNG costs as a result of the construction of the third-party fueling station.
• Total operating revenues are projected to grow at 4% annually.
• Local operating assistance, in terms of funding shares from member municipalities, is projected to
grow at the minimum level of 1.69% for FY 2015/16, then at 5% thereafter to track the local funding
requirements of Pennsylvania Act 89 of 2013.
• Local operating assistance, in terms of Penn State University support of the CATACOMMUTE program, is
projected to grow at 3.5% annually.
• Federal formula allocation funds (Section 5307) are assumed to remain constant following the FY
210
2013/14 actual apportionment. This is based on recent historical federal transit funding trends, and is
consistent with financial guidance received from PennDOT. Section 5307 funds can be used for both
operating and capital projects. Accordingly, $750,000 of these funds – representing 1.5 buses – are
programmed annually for vehicle replacement.
• State operating assistance (Section 1513) is projected to grow at 3% annually. This is based on recent
historical state transit funding trends, and is consistent with financial guidance received from PennDOT.
• Federal discretionary funds (Section 5309) from the State of Good Repair program are based on the
amounts actually received for the building expansion and renovation project.
• Federal discretionary funds (Section 5339) from the Bus and Bus Facilities program are based on the
amounts expected to be allocated through PennDOT for the building expansion and renovation project.
• Federal Section 5310 funding for paratransit vehicles is allocated on a competitive basis. For this
analysis, funds are assumed to be allocated for the purchase of new vehicles as existing vehicles reach
the end of their estimated useful life. This is consistent with local historical trends.
• Job Access / Reverse Commute (JARC) funds were eliminated under the most recent federal
transportation legislation – Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21).
• State capital assistance (Section 1514) are expected at a level to match federal funds for the building
expansion and renovation project, plus an additional $1,000,000 annually for routine capital needs.
This is based on recent historical state transit funding trends, and is consistent with financial guidance
received from PennDOT.
• Local capital assistance, in terms of funding shares from member municipalities, are expected at a level
to match federal and state funds for the building expansion and renovation project, then are reduced to
$100,000 annually following project completion.
These assumptions are also presented in graph format as part of Figure 7-2 on the following page.
211
Figure 7-2 (2015-24 Conceptual Funding Outlook)
Short-Term Development Outlook
On an annual basis, regional planning staff at the Centre Regional Planning Agency (CRPA) prepares
a comprehensive listing of anticipated developments for the upcoming year, including the number
of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) for each anticipated development. This listing includes both already-approved land development plans, as well as land development plans that are expected to be
approved during the upcoming year. For the purposes of determining which location(s) may provide a
source of significant new or additional public transportation demand within the upcoming year, a listing
of all developments anticipated to exceed five EDUs – by Centre Region municipality – is presented as
follows.
College Township
• Village at Canterbury Crossing – Brandywine Drive – 6 dwelling units – 6 EDUs
• Homewood Suites – Dreibelbis Street – 109-room extended stay hotel – 55 EDUs
• Country Inn and Suites – East College Avenue – 6,500-square foot restaurant on outparcel pad site – 88
EDUs
• Centre County Refuse and Recycling Authority – Transfer Road – 15,750-square foot building expansion –
5 EDUs
212
•
•
•
•
•
Benner Park – Premiere Drive – 4,000 to 7,000-square foot restaurant – 57 EDUs
1225 Benner Pike – Benner Pike – 18,000-square foot retail or office space – 6 EDUs
331 Innovation Boulevard – Innovation Boulevard – 87,324-square foot office space – 29 EDUs
Stearns Crossing – Trout Road and Houserville Road – 10-12 dwelling units – 11 EDUs
Fieldstone – Brandywine Drive – 10-12 dwelling units – 11 EDUs
Anticipated significant 2015 developments in College Township total about 268 EDUs, with most of the
activity slated to take place along Dreibelbis Street, East College Avenue, Premiere Drive, and Innovation Boulevard. These developments could have some impact on current CATA operations.
Ferguson Township
• 1000 West College Avenue – 2,997-square foot commercial space and 18 dwelling units – 19 EDUs
• Foxpointe Phase 1B – Saratoga Drive – 30-40 dwelling units – 35 EDUs
• Cottages at State College (Toll Brothers) – Blue Course Drive Extension – 268 dwelling units (1,093 beds)
– 268 EDUs
• Turnberry Phase 2B and 3A - Havershire Boulevard – 92 dwelling units – 92 EDUs
• Saybrook Phase 10 – Barnstable Lane – 10 dwelling units – 10 EDUs
• Centre Area Transportation Authority – Research Drive – 36,000-square foot office and industrial space –
12 EDUs
Anticipated significant 2015 developments in Ferguson Township total about 436 EDUs, with most of
the activity slated to take place along Blue Course Drive Extension, Havershire Boulevard, and Saratoga Drive. The Toll Brothers and Turnberry developments especially have the potential for a significant
impact on current CATA operations.
Harris Township
•
•
•
•
Liberty Hill – Settlers Way – 15-20 dwelling units – 17 EDUs
Rockey Ridge – Rockey Ridge Road – 5-6 dwelling units – 5 EDUs
The Gates Townhomes – Discovery Drive – 8-12 dwelling units – 10 EDUs
Boalsburg Investment Group – Discovery Drive – 25,000-square foot commercial or industrial space – 8
EDUs
Anticipated significant 2015 developments in Harris Township total only about 40 EDUs, with most of
the activity slated to take place along Settlers Way. These developments are not expected to have a
significant impact on current CATA operations.
Patton Township
•
•
•
•
•
Village at Penn State Phase 12 – Woodledge Drive – 8-10 dwelling units – 9 EDUs
The Reserve – Gray’s Woods Boulevard – 10 dwelling units – 10 EDUs
Nittany Valley Sports Centre – Bernel Road – 75,000-square foot indoor sports facilities – 25 EDUs
Highwoods at Toftrees – Toftrees Avenue – 96 dwelling units – 96 EDUs
1910 North Atherton Street – North Atherton Street – 12,856-square foot retail or restaurant space – 85
EDUs
Anticipated significant 2015 developments in Patton Township total about 225 EDUs, with most of the
activity slated to take place along Toftrees Avenue, North Atherton Street, and Bernel Road. These
developments could have some impact on current CATA operations.
213
State College Borough
• Fraser Centre – West Beaver Avenue – 26 dwelling units, 158 hotel rooms, and 63,000-square foot
commercial space – 126 EDUs
• Metropolitan – West College Avenue – 119 dwelling units and 50,000-square foot commercial space –
136 EDUs
• 117 Nittany Avenue – Nittany Avenue – 5 dwelling units – 5 EDUs
Anticipated significant 2015 developments in State College Borough total about 267 EDUs, with most of
the activity slated to take place along West College Avenue and West Beaver Avenue. This is the most
notable development outlook for State College Borough in recent years. Although all three of these
developments are located within walking distance of the Penn State University campus, the manner in
which the included commercial space draws business from other portions of the community will largely
determine the impact on current CATA operations.
For 2015, anticipated significant developments within the Centre Region will total about 1,236 EDUs,
with the overwhelming majority of this activity taking place in the Centre Region municipalities outside
of Halfmoon and Harris Townships. Ferguson Township accounts for about 35% of this development activity in terms of EDUs. The anticipated major developments most likely to impact current CATA operations include The Cottages at State College (Ferguson Township), The Metropolitan and Fraser Centre
(State College Borough), Highwoods at Toftrees (Patton Township), and Turnberry (Ferguson Township).
A map of the above-described short-term development locations – relative to the current CATA fixed
route network, is presented below.
Figure 7-3 (Centre Region Short-Term Development Locations and CATA Fixed Route Network)
214
Long-Term Development Outlook – Centre Regional Development Capacity Report
(REDCAP)
The 2012 Regional Development Capacity Report (REDCAP) is an estimate of the total amount of development
potential within the existing Regional Growth Boundary/Sewer Service Area (RGB/SSA). The estimates in this
report identify the development potential of vacant properties within the RGB/SSA using approved development
plans, current subdivision ordinances, and current zoning ordinances. The major findings, detailed later in the
REDCAP, conclude that there is sufficient development capacity inside the RGB/SSA to accommodate forecasted
growth for a planning horizon of at least 2040 without the need to expand the RGB/SSA. The horizon of 2040
provides consistency with future Comprehensive Plan Update cycles and with the growth forecasting project
completed for the Centre County Long Range Transportation Plan.
The following is a summary of the regional development capacity of vacant land inside the Regional Growth
Boundary/Sewer Service Area in 2012:
• Vacant Land Summary (not including PSU Campus, Mount Nittany Medical Center, or Innovation Park)
−− Total Vacant Land: The RGB/SSA contains approximately 4,033 acres of vacant land.
−− Vacant Land with Approved Plans: Approximately 2,596 acres of vacant land inside the RGB/SSA
have an approved development project that has not yet been constructed.
−− Vacant Land: Approximately 1,438 acres of vacant land inside the RGB/SSA are not currently
associated with an approved land development plan.
• Dwelling Units
−− Total Dwelling Units: There is an estimated development potential of 12,979 dwelling units inside
the RGB/SSA.
−− Approved Dwelling Units: There are approximately 9,183 dwelling units approved but not
constructed in existing projects inside the RGB/SSA.
−− Potential Dwelling Units: Based upon existing zoning, there is the potential to develop 3,796
dwelling units inside the RGB/SSA on vacant lands that do not have approved development projects.
• Non-Residential Development Summary
−− Total Non-residential Development: There is approximately 6,817,757 square feet of non-residential
development potential inside the RGB/SSA.
−− Approved Non-residential Development: There is approximately 2,574,744 square feet of nonresidential development approved but not constructed inside the RGB/SSA. This estimate does not
include University Park Campus or other Penn State University property.
−− Potential Non-residential Development: Based upon existing zoning, there is the potential to
develop approximately 4,243,013 square feet of non-residential square footage inside the RGB/SSA
on vacant lands that do not have approved development projects.
• University Park Campus and Penn State University Property Summary
−− Proposed Non-residential Development: There is approximately 6,192,395 square feet of nonresidential development, which includes 1,243 beds in dorm facilities, identified on the PSU
University Park Campus Master Plan and other Penn State University property, including master
plans for the Mount Nittany Medical Center and Innovation Park.
215
• Adequacy of Land Inside the RGB/SSA to Accommodate Growth to the Year 2040
−− Forecast Dwelling Units and Potential Development Capacity: Growth forecasts prepared in 2009
and 2010 indicate the Centre Region could add approximately 9,278 dwelling units by the year 2040.
The REDCAP report estimates that there is total development potential of 12,979 dwelling units
inside the RGB/SSA. Currently there are 9,183 approved dwelling units inside the RGB/SSA, which
have at least preliminary approval for development. These approved dwelling units can satisfy the
anticipated need for new dwelling units over the next 28 years.
−− Forecast Non-residential Development and Potential Development Capacity: The Centre Region is
forecast to add approximately 5,784,193 square feet of non-residential development by the year
2040. There is approximately 6,817,757 square feet of non-residential development potential inside
the RGB/SSA.
These findings are critical to CATA, as they suggest that ample development capacity for residential, nonresidential and campus uses exists within the Regional Growth Boundary to the Year 2040. Nearly all of CATA’s
current fixed route and paratransit services are provided within this boundary. As vacant lands are developed,
and existing uses are redeveloped, this suggests that one of CATA’s primary challenges will be to provide an
adequate level of service, meeting the needs of both current and new customers, within its existing core service
area.
The maps presented on the following pages summarize the findings of the REDCAP.
Figure 7-4 (REDCAP Existing Conditions)
216
Figure 7-5 (REDCAP Vacant Land by Type)
Figure 7-6 (REDCAP Vacant Land Total)
217
Long-Term Development Outlook – Centre County Growth Forecasting Project
The Centre County Growth Forecasting project was initiated by the CCMPO in 2009, as part of the 2010 update of
the Centre County Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) 2040. The purpose of this exercise was to determine
when, how much, and what type of growth was likely to occur in each Centre County municipality through the
year 2040, for local, regional, and transportation planning purposes.
• Bellefonte Borough
A summary of anticipated growth in Bellefonte Borough is presented below. For the period 2009-2020,
an increase of 104 residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of almost 61,000 square feet
of retail space and 40,500 square feet of office space. For the period 2021-2030, an increase of 128
residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of 45,000 square feet of retail space and 10,000
square feet of office space.
Figure 7-7 (Growth Forecasting – Bellefonte Borough Fact Sheet)
Maps of the expected timing and type of future development in Bellefonte Borough are presented on the
following pages. Much of this future development is anticipated to be clustered within an area bounded by
Bishop Street, Airport Road, and Governor’s Park Road. Additional development is anticipated for the waterfront
area.
218
Figure 7-8 (Growth Forecasting – Bellefonte Borough Timing)
Figure 7-9 (Growth Forecasting – Bellefonte Borough Type)
219
• Benner Township
A summary of anticipated growth in Benner Township is presented below. For the period 2009-2020, an
increase of 312 residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of 116,000 square feet of retail
space, almost 325,000 square feet of office space, about 530,000 square feet of Rockview facilities, and
about 53,000 square feet of airport facilities. For the period 2021-2030, an increase of 255 residential
dwelling units is expected, with the addition of 200,000 square feet of retail space, about 302,000
square feet of office space, and almost 74,000 square feet of airport facilities.
Figure 7-10 (Growth Forecasting – Benner Township Fact Sheet)
Maps of the expected timing and type of future development in Benner Township are presented on the
following pages. Much of this future development is anticipated to be clustered within Benner Commerce Park.
Additional development is anticipated for the Shiloh Road, Fox Hill Road, and Buffalo Run Road corridors.
220
Figure 7-11 (Growth Forecasting – Benner Township Timing)
Figure 7-12 (Growth Forecasting – Benner Township Type)
221
• College Township
A summary of anticipated growth in College Township is presented below. For the period 2009-2020, an
increase of 507 residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of about 206,000 square feet of
retail space, almost 176,500 square feet of retail-hotel space, almost 591,000 square feet of office space,
290,000 square feet of industrial space, and about 83,000 square feet of public/semi-public space. For
the period 2021-2030, an increase of 494 residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of
177,000 square feet of retail space, almost 194,000 square feet of retail-hotel space, 680,000 square
feet of office space, 110,000 square feet of industrial space, and almost 26,000 square feet of public/
semi-public space.
Figure 7-13 (Growth Forecasting – College Township Fact Sheet)
Maps of the expected timing and type of future development in College Township are presented on the following
pages. Much of this future development is anticipated to be clustered within Innovation Park, Mount Nittany
Medical Center, Summit Park, and adjacent to Spring Creek Estates. Additional development is anticipated for
the Benner Pike and College Avenue corridors.
222
Figure 7-14 (Growth Forecasting – College Township Timing)
Figure 7-15 (Growth Forecasting – College Township Type)
223
• Ferguson Township
A summary of anticipated growth in Ferguson Township is presented below. For the period 2009-2020,
an increase of 745 residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of about 222,000 square feet
of retail space and almost 203,000 square feet of office space. For the period 2021-2030, an increase
of 1,097 residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of about 105,000 square feet of retail
space and about 60,000 square feet of office space.
Figure 7-16 (Growth Forecasting – Ferguson Township Fact Sheet)
Maps of the expected timing and type of future development in Ferguson Township are presented on the
following pages. Much of this future development is anticipated to be clustered within Turnberry, and the Pine
Hall, Landings, and Foxpointe planned residential developments (PRDs). Additional development is anticipated
for the Whitehall Road and College Avenue corridors.
224
Figure 7-17 (Growth Forecasting – Ferguson Township Timing)
Figure 7-18 (Growth Forecasting – Ferguson Township Type)
225
• Halfmoon Township
A summary of anticipated growth in Halfmoon Township is presented below. For the period 2009-2020,
an increase of 165 residential dwelling units is expected. For the period 2021-2030, an increase of 135
residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of 9,000 square feet of retail space.
Figure 7-19 (Growth Forecasting – Halfmoon Township Fact Sheet)
Maps of the expected timing and type of future development in Halfmoon Township are presented on the
following pages. Much of this future development is anticipated to be clustered near the Patton Township line,
and along the State Route 550 corridor.
226
Figure 7-20 (Growth Forecasting – Halfmoon Township Timing)
Figure 7-21 (Growth Forecasting – Halfmoon Township Type)
227
• Harris Township
A summary of anticipated growth in Harris Township is presented below. For the period 2009-2020, an
increase of 328 residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of 21,000 square feet of public/
semi-public space, 5,000 square feet of retail space, and 83,000 square feet of office/industrial space.
For the period 2021-2030, an increase of 418 residential dwelling units is expected.
Figure 7-22 (Growth Forecasting – Harris Township Fact Sheet)
Maps of the expected timing and type of future development in Harris Township are presented on the following
pages. Much of this future development is anticipated to be clustered within the Rockey Ridge, Liberty Hill, and
Gates developments. Additional development is anticipated for the Shingletown Road, Discovery Drive, and US322 corridors.
228
Figure 7-23 (Growth Forecasting – Harris Township Timing)
Figure 7-24 (Growth Forecasting – Harris Township Type)
229
• Patton Township
A summary of anticipated growth in Patton Township is presented below. For the period 2009-2020, an
increase of 853 residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of almost 205,000 square feet of
retail space, almost 194,000 square feet of retail-hotel space, almost 105,000 square feet of office space,
and about 91,000 square feet of public/semi-public space. For the period 2021-2030, an increase of 775
residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of almost 205,000 square feet of retail space,
about 114,000 square feet of office space, and about 65,000 square feet of public/semi-public space.
Figure 7-25 (Growth Forecasting – Patton Township Fact Sheet)
Maps of the expected timing and type of future development in Patton Township are presented on the following
pages. Much of this future development is anticipated to be clustered within the Toftrees and Gray’s Woods
developments. Additional development is anticipated for the Bernel Road corridor. Since the completion of the
Centre County Growth Forecasting Project, the possibility now also exists for redevelopment of the former Penn
State and Franklin mobile home parks along the North Atherton Street corridor.
230
Figure 7-26 (Growth Forecasting – Patton Township Timing)
Figure 7-27 (Growth Forecasting – Patton Township Type)
231
• Spring Township
A summary of anticipated growth in Spring Township is presented below. For the period 2009-2020,
an increase of 594 residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of 186,000 square feet of
retail space, about 160,000 square feet of office space, and 130,000 square feet of industrial space. For
the period 2021-2030, an increase of 550 residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of
40,000 square feet of retail space, about 96,000 square feet of office space, and 100,000 square feet of
industrial space.
Figure 7-28 (Growth Forecasting – Spring Township Fact Sheet)
Maps of the expected timing and type of future development in Spring Township are presented on the following
pages. Much of this future development is anticipated to be clustered within the Penn Eagle Industrial Park.
Additional development is anticipated for the Zion Road and I-99 corridors.
232
Figure 7-29 (Growth Forecasting – Spring Township Timing)
Figure 7-30 (Growth Forecasting – Spring Township Type)
233
• State College Borough
A summary of anticipated growth in State College Borough is presented below. For the period 20092020, an increase of 329 residential dwelling units is expected, with the addition of 78,500 square
feet of retail space, about 89,000 square feet of office space, and about 345,000 square feet of public/
semi-public space. For the period 2021-2030, an increase of 311 residential dwelling units is expected,
with the addition of almost 90,000 square feet of retail space, 125,000 square feet of retail-hotel space,
about 74,000 square feet of office space, and about 220,000 square feet of public/semi-public space.
Figure 7-31 (Growth Forecasting – State College Borough Fact Sheet)
Maps of the expected timing and type of future development in State College Borough are presented on the
following pages. Much of this future development is anticipated within the Metropolitan and Fraser Centre
developments and the Penn State University campus, as well as for the Westerly Parkway and College Avenue
corridors.
234
Figure 7-32 (Growth Forecasting – State College Borough Timing)
Figure 7-33 (Growth Forecasting – State College Borough Type)
235
Centre Region Comprehensive Plan – Transit Goals, Objectives, and Policies
The Centre Region Comprehensive Plan – updated and adopted in 2013 – takes a long-range perspective and
provides an opportunity for the six Centre Region municipalities to continue a coordinated approach to land
use and transportation decision-making in the region. The Comprehensive Plan is one of the primary tools the
Centre Regional Planning Commission (CRPC) and municipal planning commissions will use to guide decisions
and make recommendations regarding growth and development to the municipal governing bodies in the region.
Municipalities, in turn, are the primary unit of government responsible for implementing the recommendations
of the Comprehensive Plan through their regulatory authority.
Included in the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan are a number of public transit-related goals,
objectives, and policies that yield valuable insights with respect to the role regional decision-makers envision
CATA taking within the Centre Region over the coming ten years. Particularly salient goals, objectives, and
policies include the following:
• Goal 1 – Mobility for people and goods in a safe and efficient manner
−− Objective 1.1 – Collect and evaluate data about the purpose and function of the transportation
system
* Policy 1.1.3 – Evaluate public transit ridership data, public input, land use patterns, and financial
capacity to implement changes in the level and frequency of public transportation service and
conditions affecting access to CATABUS service
−− Objective 1.2 – Work proactively with public and private stakeholders to facilitate improvements to
the transportation system
* Policy 1.2.4 – Work with the Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO),
PennDOT, and operators of transit, rail, and air modes of travel to advance transportation
improvement projects and programs for all modes through the CCMPO’s Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and other federal,
state, and local implementation programs
−− Objective 1.3 – Maintain and improve existing transportation infrastructure to preserve the system
for the foreseeable future, consistent with PennDOT’s “maintenance forever” policy
* Policy 1.3.3 – Update CATA’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to guide investments in
rehabilitating and replacing public transportation vehicles and to make improvements in CATA’s
operations facility and infrastructure
• Goal 2 – Multiple, interconnected modes of transportation that afford choices for all users
−− Objective 2.1 – Deliver transportation projects and programs that support a broad range of
transportation options
* Policy 2.1.1 – Continue implementing and expanding CATABUS and CATACOMMUTE services
that provide benefits relative to shared travel and reductions in peak-hour commuter trips
being made by single-occupant vehicles
* Policy 2.1.2 – Provide transit and paratransit service through CATARIDE and the Centre County
Office of Transportation (CCOT) to meet the demand by citizens for access to employment
centers, medical services, retail and other commercial services, and recreation areas.
236
−− Objective 2.2 – Improve connections between roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit
routes, and intercity bus connection locations.
* Policy 2.2.2 – Establish, maintain, and improve facilities at locations where connections
between modes of travel are made, including material loading/unloading infrastructure,
crosswalks and sidewalks, bus shelters, bicycle racks, and storage lockers
* Policy 2.2.5 – Work with CATA, the private sector, the Pennsylvania State University, and
providers of intercity bus service to provide safe and accessible locations that provide
connections between intercity buses, local buses, and taxi service
−− Objective 2.3 – Design the alignment and profile of streets to be consistent with PennDOT’s Smart
Transportation Guidebook and Complete Streets fundamentals to provide access for pedestrian,
transit, and vehicular traffic
* Policy 2.3.2 – Adopt ordinances stipulating that bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit facilities
be required in land development plans where appropriate
−− Objective 2.4 – Utilize aggregated and real-time data to optimize the operations of the
transportation network, and to inform users about choices of route and mode of travel
* Policy 2.4.1 – Continue development of CATA’s Advanced Public Transportation System (APTS)
to enhance the accuracy and usability of information available to the public about operations
of the bus system, and to assist in making operational and management decisions regarding
transit service
• Goal 3 – Transportation system that supports the Region’s good air and water quality, minimizes impacts
to natural features, and complements the built environment
−− Objective 3.1 – Facilitate use of alternative fuels and energy conservation practices that help to
minimize the Region’s carbon footprint when planning and implementing transportation system
improvements
* Policy 3.1.1 – Maintain and expand CATA’s Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) bus fleet and fueling
infrastructure through periodic rehabilitation and replacement of rolling stock, purchase of
additional vehicles when warranted by an increase in demand for transit services, and upgrades
to fixed infrastructure elements
* Policy 3.1.2 – Maximize the fuel efficiency of vehicles, for both conventional and alternative
fuels, when considering purchase of CATA, CCOT, COG, municipal, State College Area School
District, Pennsylvania State University, and other fleet vehicles
−− Objective 3.2 – Promote the improvement of air quality in the Region
* Policy 3.2.2 – Encourage the expansion of transit services, ridesharing, and modes of
transportation other than single-occupant automobiles to reduce the impact of greenhouse
gases
237
• Goal 4 – Consistency between transportation projects and programs and the Region’s future land use
plan
−− Objective 4.1 – Plan and implement transportation improvements and investments in all modes that
are appropriate to accommodate future land uses identified by the municipalities
* Policy 4.1.1 – Utilize tools such as PennDOT’s statewide travel demand model, the CCMPO’s
LRTP travel demand model, and travel demand models developed for multi-municipal and
municipal projects; traffic operations modeling; data from CATA and the CCOT about public
transportation demand; and projections of air travel and freight movements from operators of
these modes to identify where additional capacity in the transportation system may be needed
and to evaluate whether potential improvements will improve deficient and/or declining levels
of service
−− Objective 4.2 – Consider the transportation system’s capacity to accommodate changes in travel
demand when considering land use, zoning, and proposed land development activities
* Policy 4.2.3 – Promote the positive impact of mixed-use development on traffic congestion
by providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit service where supported by the
appropriate land use densities, and as promoted by a Complete Streets policy and the Smart
Transportation Guidebook
* Policy 4.2.5 – Consider non-traditional methods of mitigating the impact of development and
redevelopment activities on the transportation network (e.g. reduction in vehicle trips by the
provision of transit, reducing on-site parking requirements, enhancing pedestrian facilities, and
making interconnections between modes, etc.)
• Goal 5 – Sustainable funding sources for transportation improvements
−− Objective 5.1 – Investigate alternative strategies for funding and implementing transportation
improvement projects and programs
* Policy 5.1.2 – Evaluate tools available to municipalities, CATA, and the Pennsylvania
State University for generating funds or using cooperative services that can be allocated
to transportation improvement projects (e.g. public/ private partnerships, partnership
opportunities with PennDOT and other public agencies, impact fees, tax policies, etc.)
The transit-related goals, objectives, and policies outlined above clearly demonstrate a strong role for CATA –
envisioned by regional decision-makers – in the areas of congestion mitigation, environmental stewardship,
multimodalism, and improvements to traffic operations.
238
Key Findings and Questions – Projections
As data and information regarding projections was compiled, analyzed, and discussed both at a staff level and
with the project management team (PMT), several key findings and questions became apparent that may have
implications for future strategic initiatives and/or provide other valuable supporting data. These include the
following, in order of discussion rather than particular order of importance or priority:
• A relatively low mean travel time to work within Centre County – and one even lower within CATA’s
current service area – seems to suggest that CATA services may have difficulty competing with other
modes of transportation on the basis of travel time or the level of traffic congestion within the region.
Moreover, the cost of parking within downtown State College – the primary employment center within
central Pennsylvania – is relatively low, and the availability of parking reasonably plentiful. CATA’s ability
to serve major destinations on the University Park Campus of Penn State University in close proximity,
however, coupled with a relative lack of parking availability within the core areas of this campus, suggest
that CATA can be very competitive with other modes of transportation in terms of this very critical local
market.
• Relatively low mean travel times to work within Centre County further suggest a smaller potential
market area for traditional fixed route services than that which may exist in other larger, more densely
populated urban areas.
• Both the short-term development outlook as well as the Centre Regional Development Capacity Report
(REDCAP) suggest ample opportunities for future system and ridership growth within CATA’s alreadyexisting service area, but, given constraints in terms of the availability of rolling stock, also suggest a
number of challenges in meeting future needs within this core service area. To this end, CATA must
determine what emerging service delivery techniques can be employed to ensure the agency is able to
meet most or all of the new demand coming within the next ten years.
• Moreover, there exists the possibility that the current PennDOT North Central Pennsylvania Transit
Regionalization Study may result in the expectation that CATA serve a larger portion of Centre County,
and perhaps even areas beyond Centre County. CATA may need to balance these possible expectations,
and any associated system growth, against needs within the current fixed route service area.
• That the short-term growth areas are well-served by the existing CATA fixed route structure – particularly
the H, M, W, and R routes – is encouraging. It is possible, however, that additional resources may
be required to serve these developments based not upon proximity, but upon the magnitude of the
developments. It is important to note that a significant level of additional resources were required to
serve a number of recently-constructed student apartment complexes, including The Retreat at State
College, The Heights at State College, The Grove, and The Villas at Happy Valley. It is expected that the
opening of the proposed Cottages at State College (Toll Brothers) development – consisting of nearly
1,100 bedrooms near the intersection of West Whitehall Road and a future Blue Course Drive Extension
– will exhaust the remaining rolling stock CATA has in its current fixed route fleet.
• CATA must consider how the the well-intentioned goals, objectives, and policies of the Centre Region
Comprehensive Plan will impact growth within the Centre Region and the allocation of CATA’s alreadystrained resources.
• While many of the expected demographic trends were inconclusive, or exhibited a contradiction
between decennial Census and ACS data, it seems clear that both the age 55-64 and 65+ segments of the
population will continue to grow at a faster rate than the population at large. As the regional population
continues to age, CATA must identify the unique implications for its operations across all three modes of
service.
239
• Findings from the Centre Regional Development Capacity Report (REDCAP) suggest that one of CATA’s
primary challenges will be to provide an adequate level of service, meeting the needs of both current
and new customers, within its existing core service area.
• As CATA continues its collaboration with Penn State University to support student and employee
transportation needs, the agency might find new opportunities to work with Penn State's Office of
Sustainability, which is focused on energy and environmental sustainability.
• One trend that may impact the growth potential of CATA’s customer base is that, from 2000 to 2010,
the highest population growth has been among people 55 and older. Unless new industries in the future
change the balance, the Centre Region's retirees and pre-retirees is projected to continue to be the
largest growth segment. CATABUS ridership among this age group has been very low, and there is little
evidence that this will change over the next decade.
• The numbers in Figures 7-1 and 7-2 show CATA’s operating deficit growing from $6.4 million (45% of
expenditures) in Fiscal Year 2013/14 to $20.2 million (64% of expenditures) in Fiscal Year 2023/24. And,
unlike Fiscal Year 2013/14, where subsidies covered the deficit, the projections for Fiscal Year 2023/24
show an $11.4 million uncovered deficit. This suggests a strong need for CATA to take actions in the
short- and medium-term to increase its financial sustainability. In addition to development patterns and
rolling stock, operating funds seem to provide a critical limitation on future service as well.
240
241
Chapter 8
Institutional, Regulatory, and
Public Funding Environment
The purpose of this chapter is to research and describe how CATA’s relationships with federal, state and local
governments, and other community stakeholders such as the Pennsylvania State University impact the agency’s
current services, as well as prospects for future service. Each of these relationships are currently in a state of
significant and consistent change, and as such only a current snapshot can be offered.
Federal Funding and Regulation
There are two distinct steps to creating and funding programs and agencies in the federal budget. Most
programs must be established through periodic authorizing legislation, which permits funds to be expended
through the federal budget process. Funds are then allocated to authorized programs through the annual
appropriations legislation process.
Reauthorization
At the time of this writing, the federal authorizing legislation for transportation, Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century (MAP-21) has been extended from its original expiration of September 30, 2014 to July 31,
2015. A third extension beyond July 31 is anticipated, with some federal officials indicating that an extension
to December 31, 2015 is a likely outcome of ongoing discussions by the U.S. Congress and the administration of
President Barack Obama.
The federal political climate continues to make the development of reauthorization legislation a challenging
process. With a Democratic President and a Republican majority in both the U.S. House of Representatives
and U.S. Senate, the prospect of reaching an agreement on a long-term reauthorization bill prior to the next
Presidential election in 2016 is uncertain.
In an appearance before a roundtable of corporate executives on December 3, 2014, President Obama stated
that he felt a reauthorization bill would not happen without corresponding tax reform that could generate a
revenue stream for transportation investments. Many in the transportation industry had hoped that falling gas
prices might bring a greater willingness to increase the federal excise tax on gasoline, which was last increased
in 1993. The federal gas tax provides the funding source for the Highway Trust Fund, which in turn provides
funds for public transportation projects and programs. Transportation industry leaders were disappointed when
President Obama publicly opined that a vote to increase the gas tax would be too tough to accomplish. Although
Republican leaders in both the House and Senate have indicated that a transportation bill would be a priority in
the 114th Congress, President Obama has stated that a corresponding overhaul of the tax structure to produce
revenue would take time to assemble – “probably a full six to nine months before we could really solidify
something.”
Along with the uncertainty about passage of a reauthorization bill, the short, two-year length of MAP-21 and its
two extensions to date have meant that portions of the law’s provisions applicable to public transportation have
not yet made it completely through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rulemaking process. The rulemaking
process is crucial to providing details of how the legislation will be implemented. Still outstanding for transit
systems in terms of rulemaking are the areas of safety, planning, environmental impacts, and asset management,
as well as disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) and Buy America requirements. The lack of rulemaking for
242
these key areas severely hampers transit operators’ abilities to plan for the future.
Appropriations
The two extensions of MAP-21 have maintained the same funding levels originally authorized in 2012. These
extensions have been approved for such short time periods that funds for transit projects and programs
approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have been appropriated for very short periods of time,
often less than three months.
In December 2014, Congress agreed to a negotiated plan to avoid a government shutdown, and fund the
federal government through the end of federal fiscal year (FFY) 2015. This agreement approved funding for
11 of the 12 appropriations accounts for the balance of FFY 2015, including funding for the U.S. Department of
Transportation, but excluding the Department of Homeland Security.
Most recently, in June 2015 the House approved a FFY 2016 transportation appropriations bill that provides
funding for many transit programs at the FFY 2015 funding level. At the time of this writing, the Senate is
considering a FFY 2016 appropriations bill that includes transit funding at a level slightly less than in FFY 2015.
The uncertainty in appropriations legislation for FFY 2016 is another factor that currently hampers transit
operators’ abilities to plan for the future.
Discretionary Bus and Bus Facility Funding
From CATA’s perspective, one of the most troubling provisions of MAP-21 was the loss of discretionary capital
funding for small and mid-size bus systems. Rather than being allocated directly to each transportation provider,
the reduced pool of bus capital funding was directed to the state departments of transportation (DOTs) for
distribution to each transit operator.
MAP-21 eliminated the $984 million competitive Bus and Bus Facilities Program, and moved just $422 million to
a formularized bus replacement program under the provisions of Section 5339. This represented a 57% decrease
in dedicated bus and bus facility funding, reducing mode-specific funding for bus transportation providers from
20% of all dedicated transit capital funds to just 9.5% of these funds, at a time when bus systems carry 52% of
all transit riders. Accordingly, these provisions were of a corresponding benefit to passenger rail systems. The
changes caused a rift between the bus and rail properties within the American Public Transportation Association
(APTA), making negotiations for a suggested solution very difficult. The Community Transportation Association of
America (CTAA), which represents primarily community transportation providers and smaller transit systems, did
not have the same internal conflicts, and has taken the lead in pushing for a workable solution.
In cooperation with APTA and CTAA, a coalition of bus systems is currently advocating for a change in the
reauthorization bill that would establish a competitive Bus State of Good Repair program under Section 5337
to supplement the formula program established under MAP-21. The working draft of this proposal suggests
funding such a State of Good Repair program to the level of $562 million, and structuring it so that no one
system can be awarded a majority of the funds in any given grant year, thereby establishing a certain level of
balance between bus systems and capital-intensive rail providers.
Although restoration of a portion of discretionary capital funding for small and mid-sized bus operations is a
component of President Obama’s draft budget, there is no guarantee that this proposal will be included in the
reauthorization bill or FFY 2016 appropriations legislation.
243
Other Legislative and Regulatory Issues
• On December 3, 2014, the House passed H.R. 5771, the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, by a
vote of 378 to 46. This bill included a retroactive extension of federal excise tax credits for alternative
fuels during calendar year 2014. Transit agencies, including CATA, utilizing alternative fuels such as
compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) were eligible for these credits to offset
operating costs.
• APTA and other transit industry partners continue to advocate for permanent parity between employerprovided mass transit and parking pre-tax/tax-free benefits, or at least the extension of parity for 2015.
However, a House bill merely provided retroactive extension of parity for 2014 and, given the nature of
how the mass transit benefit is administered, transit commuters or employers were not able to actually
realize reduced commuting costs or tax liability for 2014. Even though the 2014 retroactive parity
provision offers no immediate or practical benefit for transit commuters or employers, its inclusion in a
final bill will be helpful in future discussions about making parity permanent.
• During APTA legislative meetings in 2014, the use and application of FTA circulars and triennial reviews as
mechanisms by which the FTA can make regulatory changes outside of the legislative process was a key
discussion topic. APTA and FTA leadership met in an attempt to address this perception. Accordingly,
APTA members were asked to document examples of such instances from within the circular and
triennial review processes, and the APTA Small Operations Committee has made the issue a critical part
of its 2015 work plan.
For example, in December 2014, the FTA issued a draft Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Circular for
public review and comment. Shortly thereafter, more than 100 APTA members participated in a conference
call to discuss portions of the circular where documented “best practices” were construed as mandatory for
implementation. APTA requested that members forward them any perceived regulatory issues found in the
document, and comment to the public docket on behalf of their agency. Similar concerns surfaced concerning
safety- and security-related rulemaking.
Staffing Changes within FTA Region III Offices
In the past, CATA experienced a high degree of stability with key staff contacts at FTA Region III. This stability
was accompanied by a high level of communication between the CATA and its Region III FTA representative,
with expectations generally well-known, and generous assistance provided in confusing or ambiguous areas.
Recently, FTA Region III reorganized its staff, and CATA’s long-time regional FTA contact was moved to another
region. Moreover, a new regional director was appointed. Although CATA staff attempted to visit Region III
offices in Philadelphia to become better acquainted with the new staff, meetings were not able to be scheduled.
However, CATA has had some level of success in getting to know new Region III FTA staff through “Chat with
Staff” sessions facilitated by PPTA.
Over the last several years, and in part due to CATA’s own staffing changes, there has been a lesser degree of
understanding of FTA processes, and some FTA funding application procedures have been greatly delayed.
Though Region III FTA staff members seem eager to assist CATA, in some cases confusion seems to result from
process changes at the upper staff levels of Region III, or possibly higher. As a result, there has been an increased
level of communication between CATA and FTA Region III representatives for operating and capital projects.
Moreover, FTA staff attended CATA’s triennial review, and handled most necessary follow-up. Coordination
between CATA and FTA Region III continues to improve because of the combined effort of both entities.
244
Triennial Review Process
In 2014, for the first time in many years, CATA staff members participated in an FTA-sponsored triennial review
learning session. Although these sessions are offered each year, attendance priority is given to systems having
their review during that fiscal year. Information provided at the learning session indicated that the level of
change required of transit agencies is nearly insurmountable. For example, in the past, if a transit agency
could demonstrate that they had written or implemented a new policy or practice before the reviewers left the
property, it was not shown as a deficiency on the review. Going forward, the deficiency is only omitted if the
policy or practice is changed prior to the review team arriving. Any new or revised process or policy introduced
during the review is cited as a deficiency, but can also be shown as closed in the report.
Following attendance at the learning session, CATA staff put forth a high level of effort to correct as many
deficiencies as possible, but were unable to correct some issues due to time constraints. Although some
deficiencies appeared in CATA’s 2014 triennial review report, the FTA reviewers assisted CATA staff through
the use of sample policies and practices, which served as a framework for making the required remedies. All
deficiencies noted in the triennial review report were satisfactorily closed within the required deadlines.
As a result of changes to the triennial review process, CATA staff members have set a goal to either attend the
periodic learning sessions, or review the triennial review handbook each year, as appropriate. Monitoring of the
triennial review handbook, as well as CATA’s specific triennial review report, are assigned to management staff by
section and by functional responsibility.
State Funding and Regulation
This section will describe the transition of a funding framework from Pennsylvania Act 44 of 2007 to
Pennsylvania Act 89 of 2013, PennDOT-led efforts at regional consolidation and coordination, recent changes in
staffing at the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), and centralized, state-level management
of certain elements of public transportation services.
Pennsylvania Act 44 of 2007
The General Assembly approved Pennsylvania Act 44 in July 2007, and it was signed into law by Governor
Edward G. Rendell shortly thereafter. Act 44 expanded the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission’s mandate from
one focused entirely on constructing, operating, and improving the Pennsylvania Turnpike system, to one that
also provides annual funding contributions for broader Commonwealth transportation needs, including public
transportation. As of January 2015, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission had provided a total of $4.637 billion
in payments to PennDOT through a Lease and Funding Agreement, as amended in April 2014.
Pennsylvania Act 89 of 2013 substantially altered the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission’s funding obligations
to PennDOT. While the Commission’s payment obligation remains at $450 million annually through Fiscal Year
2022, no payments are provided for highways and bridges. Instead, all $450 million is allocated to support
transit capital, operating, multi-modal, and other non-highway programs. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2023, the
annual payment obligation decreases to $50 million until the payment obligation ends in 2057.
Pennsylvania Act 89 of 2013
Governor Tom Corbett signed Pennsylvania Act 89 of 2013 into law on November 25, 2013. The law, which
eliminated a $0.12 retail gas tax, increased transportation and infrastructure funds through a number of revenue
sources, including lifting the cap on the existing wholesale Oil Company Franchise Tax and mandating that this
tax be indexed to inflation, and by increasing existing user fees and adding new fees. Under Act 89, funding for
transit and highway infrastructure is expected to increase by an estimated $2.3 billion per year by 2018. At the
245
time of this writing, there is still much uncertainty with respect to how the funds will be allocated and used.
Act 89 is expected to result in an increase of funding for transit capital investments and operating expenses. The
PennDOT Bureau of Public Transportation (BPT) has instructed CATA to expect an approximate 3% increase in
transit operating funds each year, for future planning purposes. BPT is also developing a Capital Planning Tool to
guide future capital planning decisions.
The Capital Planning Tool will help meet future federal State of Good Repair requirements, and guide future
capital funding and fleet replacement decisions for individual transit agencies. Because the Capital Planning Tool
is being developed, BPT directed that the Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization not complete a
previously-approved planning study that was intended to prepare a financial plan for replacing the transit fleets
operated by CATA and the Centre County Office of Transportation Services (CCOT).
The increase in state funding from Act 89 enabled BPT to provide CATA with approval to purchase the last ten 40foot bus options on a contract with New Flyer that was set to expire. This purchase of new replacement vehicles
allowed CATA to avoid putting new CNG tanks on existing vehicles that were approaching 18 and 19 years of age.
In addition, BPT committed $20 million dollars to the renovation and expansion of CATA’s primary operations,
maintenance, and administrative facilities. BPT assigned Gannett-Fleming – one of its contractors retained under
an open-ended agreement – to serve as construction managers for the facility improvement project.
While procedures have yet to be fully implemented for smaller purchases such as office, shop, and maintenance
equipment, Act 89 has clearly facilitated the advancement of a number of major CATA capital investments, and
has generally been beneficial in terms of both capital and operating funding.
Staffing Changes within PennDOT BPT
Even through changes in political affiliation within the Governor’s office dating back nearly 15 years, CATA and
public transit agencies across Pennsylvania benefitted from stability in staffing and leadership at PennDOT.
During this time period, PennDOT management remained effectively unchanged from the Deputy Secretary level
downward. In 2014, however, PennDOT underwent a significant level of reorganization due to both the passage
of Act 89 and the retirement of long-tenured PennDOT managers, particularly within the BPT.
For example, Toby Fauver, long-time BPT Director, was recently named Deputy Secretary for Multimodal
Transportation, with greatly expanded responsibilities. Fauver started his career with PennDOT under thenGovernor Edward G. Rendell, and was retained when Governor Tom Corbett took office. It appears that Deputy
Secretary Fauver will remain with PennDOT under the new administration of Governor Tom Wolf.
With the retirements of Laverne Collins (BPT Director), Eileen Ogan (Chief – Specialized Transportation Division)
and John Dockendorf (Chief – Urban Transportation Division), there has been a major reorganization of staff
responsibilities at BPT. Although most of the current BPT staff have had prior careers within PennDOT, several
persons will be assigned new job duties. Danielle Spila is currently Acting BPT Director.
Focus on Regional Consolidation and Coordination
Over the past several years, BPT has conducted a series of regional consolidation studies to facilitate the
consolidation of or coordination between transit agencies. BPT has also initiated a state-level process for
procurement of equipment and technology that has (or could) result in changes to local policy.
Currently, CATA is one of a number of participants in a study of possible regionalization of transit agencies within
north-central Pennsylvania. CATA and the CCOT provided operating and performance data for the study, and the
CATA General Manager participated in a two-day work session for the study’s multiple transit operators. While
this study has not yet generated a final set of recommendations, at the time of this writing it appears that CATA
246
and the CCOT do not fit the model for coordination with other systems within the north-central region due to
location and size. There is the possibility, however, that Centre County may be a better fit with transit operators
from Clearfield, Blair, and/or Cambria Counties for regional consolidation and coordination – should these
counties be included in a similar study.
CATA’s maintenance and operations facility, as well as the ability to develop a call center, have been discussed
as potential focal points for a larger regional effort. For all systems that may become part of the regional
consolidation and coordination process, discussion topics included dissolving current board structures and
articles of agreement in order to form one management entity, as well as the focus on realizing cost savings
rather than accommodating growth.
Since 2011, there has been a concerted effort by BPT to shift to a statewide vanpool program, contracted to an
outside vendor. Discussions have been on-going through the Pennsylvania Public Transportation Association
(PPTA) Rideshare Committee. Currently, the York County Transportation Authority (operating as “rabbittransit”)
is providing ridesharing services through an entity called Commuter Services of PA, and the organization
has reached out to contiguous counties to extend the offer of membership. Services are offered through a
contract with URS Corporation – an engineering, construction, and technical services consulting firm – with
a sub-contractor purchasing and maintaining the vans. There has been little movement on a state-managed
ridesharing system for approximately one year, although CATA continues to monitor recently-developing
legislation.
Ecolane Software and Other Technology
In 2014, BPT bought the rights to the Ecolane software package for use in the scheduling and dispatching of
shared ride and other paratransit services, subsequently making the software available to transit systems across
the state at no cost. Ecolane transitions all scheduling and dispatching processes to a paper-free model, with an
algorithm that assigns passengers to vehicles, and moves passengers between vehicles for pick-up, by constantly
reviewing vehicle locations and timing of previous pick-ups. CATA deployed the software in January 2015, with
no real interruption to service or customers. As part of Ecolane deployment, BPT is requiring all shared ride
systems to move to a mileage-based fare structure. This process could bring about new fares, and even some
fare increases for CATARIDE customers. BPT extended the deadline for CATA to make these changes until July
2015 in order to more closely coordinate implementation with CATA’s fare change public input process, and to
address issues with current fare media.
The BPT is also moving to standardize the types of advanced technology programs that CATA has implemented
through its contract with Avail Technologies over the past 10 years. CATA was a leader among its peers in
introducing real-time transit information to the customer through the use of smart phones. Given a more
standardized, regional approach, a “one size fits all” method imposed on all systems could be detrimental to
CATA’s current programs. CATA has made major investments through Avail, and is satisfied with the product and
support received from the Pennsylvania-based company. Avail Technologies currently contracts with 57% of
the Class 3 transit properties in Pennsylvania, and 36% of the Class 4 properties. Seventy percent (70%) of the
Class 3 buses are equipped with an Avail system, along with 47% of the Class 4 buses. CATA is represented on a
statewide PPTA technology committee to both share its experience and to offer a perspective on why one standalone system may not be as optimal as using chosen providers like Avail to serve as technology integrators.
According to BPT, Centre County is one of the last remaining counties in Pennsylvania to have two stand-alone
shared ride providers. As a result, there has been increasing pressure for CATA and the CCOT to coordinate
or consolidate the delivery of services. However, CATA only operates ADA paratransit and senior shared ride
transportation, while the CCOT operates shared ride as well as number of social service related transportation
programs. The provision of different services results in various sets of operating procedures and fares
between the two entities. Moreover, CATA operates only within the boundaries of its member and contracted
municipalities, while the CCOT provides services throughout all of Centre County, and in some cases outside the
247
county. The CCOT offers fewer hours than the hours provided by CATA.
While coordination between the two agencies has been focused on using the Ecolane software and
implementing a shared call center BPT may wish to see a closer level of coordination or consolidation, in keeping
with their desire to form multi-county regional systems.
Public – Private Partnerships
Through Act 89, and other state legislation that encourages public-private partnerships (P3), BPT is working to
implement a statewide P3 to build and maintain CNG compressor stations on transit properties that will, in most
cases, include a public fueling station. Fuel purchases may also be consolidated in bulk at the PennDOT level, for
systems throughout Pennsylvania.
When this P3 was first introduced, CATA was not considered as a partner, as the CATA system is 100% CNGpowered with an existing compressor station. However, because portions of CATA’s fueling infrastructure
are well past the end of their useful life, fuel facility upgrades were included in the scope of CATA’s building
expansion and renovation. Project bids exceeded estimates, and there were no bids received on the fueling
station improvements. For this reason, CATA was then included in the fueling P3 in order to replace the
aging equipment. While the P3 project will be beneficial to CATA in terms of replacing the existing fueling
infrastructure with newer, more efficient equipment, CATA and other funding partners will experience a neardoubling of fuel cost per diesel gallon equivalent, due to the pricing structure of the project. Part of the reason
for the significant increase in fuel cost is because CATA does not include utility and recapitalization costs in the
current CNG pricing model.
Another intent of this P3 is to offer “outside the fence” public fueling. However, based upon safety and
operational considerations, public fueling on CATA property would be extremely difficult to implement, without
incorporating additional land to the existing facility. Additional land adjacent to the current site is currently not
available. Local zoning was changed to allow CATA to stay on the existing parcel and to complete its renovation
and expansion project by building multi-story buildings and reducing overall total building coverage, but does not
allow for public fueling on this parcel.
For nearly 20 years, CATA has assisted in the provision of public fueling through a CNG fuel line connection to
a private pump at an adjacent gas station and convenience store complex. An agreement between CATA and
the gas station covered the cost of the CNG and a small administrative fee. Nearly three years ago, the station
changed ownership, and CATA has struggled to secure a similar agreement with the new owners.
Just prior to bid opening for the CATA facility renovation and expansion project, a company called Clean Energy
contacted CATA. Clean Energy had been contracted by the new owner of the gas station to maintain the CNG
pump, and agreed to replace the infrastructure between the pump and CATA’s compressor at their own cost.
CATA and Clean Energy were working towards a possible agreement, but because Clean Energy became a “shortlisted” firm for the statewide P3, CATA was instructed to discontinue all work on the agreements, and cease
all communication with Clean Energy. As a result, Clean Energy will not be making any improvements to the
gas station and related infrastructure. Until these fueling issues are resolved, CATA has limited ability to sign
agreements with its municipal fueling partners, and also limited ability to purchase CNG past December 2016.
Statewide Bus Procurement
BPT is working with PPTA to facilitate a statewide bus procurement. In the past, CATA was unable to participate
in such procurements, as there were no CNG buses in the specifications. With the move by BPT to increase
the number of systems using CNG through the P3 project, CNG buses will be included within the upcoming
procurement specifications.
248
At the completion of its building renovation and expansion project, CATA will have the ability to add articulated
buses to its fleet. The statewide procurement, at this point, does not include articulated buses. CATA will have
to consider whether to join the statewide procurement for standard buses, while acquiring the articulated buses
on its own at a possible cost disadvantage, or to conduct an entire procurement separate from the rest of the
state if BPT will allow it. A possible remedy is to request that BPT include articulated buses as an option for the
statewide procurement, but currently only one bus manufacturer offers a CNG-powered articulated bus.
CATA must be forward-looking and adaptable in addressing the direction provided by BPT, while meeting growing
local customer needs and the desires of its member municipalities. In order to accomplish this, CATA must more
closely analyze its infrastructure, rolling stock needs, and funding mechanisms.
Local Funding and Community Relationships
This section will describe funding levels and allocation at the local / municipal level.
Local Match Funding
Since its beginning, CATA has been supported by funding provided by municipalities – also known as local match.
At the time of CATA’s formation, there was no federal transit funding, and any operating deficit was covered by
a split of one-third local funds and two-thirds state funds. Since that time, federal funding has been provided for
public transportation, and local match funding has continued to evolve.
Currently, under the provisions of Pennsylvania Act 44 of 2007, the amount of local funding contributed annually
to support transit service must equal 15% of the total state funding provided to the transit operators for that
fiscal year. For most transit systems in Pennsylvania, this level of contribution represented a significant increase
in local match when Act 44 was first approved, and would not be feasible in the short term future. Thus, the
law capped any increase in required local match at 5% per year until the total amount of the local contribution
reaches the 15% level. Because state funding is expected to increase going forward, it may take many years for
the local funding amount to reach this 15% threshold.
The state requirement for local match is aimed at ensuring that local entities pay a financial share for services
funded primarily with state revenues. Only certain types of local funding are permitted to be used for this
match, and any variation must be approved by PennDOT. If a transit system’s local match is more than required
in a given year, those funds have to be expended in that year.
In many transit systems across Pennsylvania, the local match comes from county government, because the
systems are county-wide or more regional in nature. Because CATA’s service serves only the urbanized portion
of Centre County around State College and Bellefonte, the local match is contributed by several municipalities in
this area. Contributing municipalities currently include five member-municipalities that comprise the CATA Board
of Directors (College, Ferguson, Harris and Patton Townships; and State College Borough), and four municipalities
that contract for transit services (Benner, Halfmoon, Spring Townships; and Bellefonte Borough).
Allocation of Local Match Shares and the Miller Formula
The determination of how the required local match is allocated among CATA’s municipal funding partners is
accomplished through the Centre Region Council of Governments (COG), which provides regional delivery
of services to six municipalities, including the five member-municipalities that comprise the CATA Board of
Directors. Each year, COG and the member municipalities review the proposed CATA Budget, with a focus on the
municipal shares that comprise CATA’s local match.
Local match allocation among municipalities is determined by an existing formula known as the Miller Formula
249
– named for its creator, former CATA Board chair Dr. James H. Miller. Although many indices were considered in
an effort to determine how costs could be spread among member municipalities, the CATA Board settled on a
formula that includes miles of service on routes in each of the municipalities, and then applying a layer of factors
crediting the municipality for the productivity of the route and destinations of regional significance served by
the route. Cost allocation is never an easy task, and although the Miller Formula has been questioned over the
years, it currently remains as the most accepted method of dividing the local match funds. For the four nonmember municipalities that contribute to the CATA Budget through contracted services, the percentage share is
applied only to the miles operated outside the Centre Region, without adjustments to reflect regional factors.
Because the Centre Region COG’s budget review process is detailed and time-intensive, the discussions keep the
local municipalities closely involved and knowledgeable of CATA’s performance standards and track record for
delivering transit service. This approach historically resulted in municipal partners supporting CATA at higherthan-required local match levels. For example, during periods when service cuts were probable due to funding
deficits at the state and federal level, the local municipalities supporting CATA agreed to pay a higher share in an
effort to smooth year-to-year funding requests, and to help preserve a high level of service in the community.
Recently, local match has hovered at approximately $500,000, or 3.78% of CATA’s total budget.
Over the past three years, the COG Finance Committee and the municipalities have limited CATA to a 3% annual
increase limit, as established for all the COG agencies. Due to each municipality’s past contributions at higherthan-required levels, CATA was able to accommodate this limit. However, each year CATA inches closer to
needing the maximum 5% annual increase permitted by state legislation. For example, if the municipalities
contribute only the minimum local match required in the FY 2015/16 budget year, each year thereafter a 5%
annual increase in local share will be needed to match state funding, or CATA would not be able to leverage the
full state funding amount and may be forced to implement service cuts. In FY 2014/15, every dollar of local
match paid by the municipalities leveraged $9.82 in state funds plus $5.29 in federal funds.
Recently, CATA and the municipal funding partners implemented a specific approach to plan for a needed
increase in local match for CATA’s facility renovation and expansion project, and for the replacement of portions
of the aging bus fleet. Working through the COG Finance Committee, the municipalities agreed to a five-year
plan to increase local capital match by $25,000 in each year. In the sixth year, the capital match is expected
to drop back closer to pre-2013 levels. However, the impacts of the loss of federal capital funding, as well as
pending changes in legislation, may have unforeseen consequences on the level of local capital match needed in
future years
The current local match allocation process can have negative connotations for service planning. In the recent
tight financial environment, the anticipated change in local match funding has had the effect of driving service
planning decisions. For example, in municipalities where proposed increases in local match are viewed as too
high, service changes can, in effect, be based on reducing local match, rather than a response to actual service
needs. In some cases, service reductions may be made in the areas where the need of the riding public may be
highest, especially given Centre County’s affordable housing issues. Routes serving areas of high community
need may not be as productive and efficient as routes focused on serving corridors with a heavy concentration of
residents who are Penn State University students. Accordingly, reductions in service made due to a municipality
limiting its contribution can have proportionally larger negative effects on regional mobility and access to
employment and other supportive services.
This approach can conflict with the premise of using the Miller Formula to allocate local shares. The Miller
Formula is based on the concept that public transportation is a regional service, and should be funded in a way
that means service decisions are made for regional benefit, not based upon impact to individual municipalities.
A municipality such as the Borough of State College, where CATA’s two main transfer points are located,
experiences service growth as every route travels through the area. Moreover, a municipality with an important
trip generator – such as the area’s medical or retail facilities – has a correspondingly higher level of trips to serve
that generator. Areas with a greater transit mode share result in more miles needed to meet demand, but also
250
greater mitigation of traffic congestion. The Miller Formula captures route productivity and reflects important
regional destinations as it allocates local match shares on a more collective basis, which has a positive effect on
the overall service planning and budgeting processes.
Conversely, a substantial portion of CATA staff and COG Finance Committee time is spent in the validation of the
Miller Formula, and development of the formula is sometimes seen as a confusing process that is impossible for
those outside of CATA to understand. CATA staff has started to invest more time in streamlining the local match
process, educating municipal staff and elected officials about the Miller Formula, and inviting the municipalities’
finance officers to observe how local match shares are calculated.
Under CATA’s Articles of Agreement, service can be provided to areas outside the boundaries of the five
member-municipalities, but those contracted municipalities must pay the local match share based on the miles
operated in their municipality, without adjustments to reflect the regional factors represented by the Miller
Formula. This concept works best where there are contracted municipalities that connect the service to the
Centre Region. As mentioned previously, these routes may not be the most productive, as they tend to be longer
and cross through areas of lower population density. As CATA continues to evaluate a more regional approach
due to needed community services being located beyond the five member-municipalities, and to connect Centre
County residents with the Centre Region, this approach to allocating local match shares will continue to be
strained, and may prove to be unsustainable in the long-term future.
Pennsylvania State University
Since taking over the operation of Penn State’s Campus Loop service in 1998, CATA has worked with the
University in a successful partnership that meets the needs of both entities. Through a contract between CATA
and Penn State, the LOOP and LINK transit services provide frequent transit service in and around the University
Park Campus.
In CATA’s FY 2014/15 budget, 27% of CATA’s ridership and 16.4% of revenue comes from the service provided
through CATA’s contract for services with Penn State. As such, a disruption in this contractual relationship could
be extremely detrimental to both CATA and the local community. Each year, CATA re-evaluates the campusoriented bus service looking for efficiencies, and shares data regarding ridership with Penn State in an effort
to control costs and better serve the University community. Recent studies by the Chamber of Business and
Industry of Centre County (CBICC) showed that Penn State University is by far the largest economic engine for
the State College area. Because Penn State’s University Park Campus is located in the core of the community,
service supported by Penn State assists in moving community residents to shopping and other opportunities in
the downtown State College area, and reduces traffic congestion as well. The relationship between CATA and
Penn State pays dividends to the community as a whole.
Because CATA’s LOOP and LINK services are financed in part with funding provided by Penn State’s Office of
Transportation Services, there is a keen awareness that as CATA successfully assists the University in reducing
the number of vehicles parking on campus, revenues to Penn State also decrease. As Penn State continues to
evaluate the balance between transit service, parking, and other transportation and larger University needs, the
relationship with CATA will remain critically important.
CATA’s relationship with Penn State has also realized benefits regarding ways that CATA can become more
environmentally friendly. Penn State representatives have shown a willingness to assist CATA in becoming more
environmentally-friendly, and these efforts ultimately bolster the University’s own environmental initiatives.
As in any long-term corporate relationship, key individuals in each organization retire or move on to other
endeavors. Penn State’s presidency has changed 5 times over the life of the CATA/University contractual
relationship. Often this change in leadership changes overarching focus, but continuity at other high levels of
251
management at the University has allowed agreements between CATA and Penn State to mature, and a high level
of trust to be formed. Over the years, regular meetings have been conducted to discuss issues, communicate
changes or growth in programs, and to negotiate changes in the basic contract every three years. Key CATA staff
meet with Penn State administrators each year, and these ongoing activities have produced a sustainable and
mutually beneficial relationship.
At the time of this writing, the relationship between CATA and Penn State remains strong despite ongoing staffing
changes. Both sides see the service offered by CATA to be a partnership that assists the University in meeting
key organizational objectives such as reducing the amount of cars on campus, and reducing the need to build
parking structures, allowing for core campus property to be used to serve the mission of education. Negotiations
are currently underway between CATA and Penn State on a new three-year contract to continue this important
relationship.
Community Partnerships
At the local level, CATA enjoys a number of productive, cooperative relationships with governmental entities.
In particular, close partnerships have been established with the municipalities served by CATA, the Centre
Region COG, the Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO), and the Centre County Office
of Transportation Services (CCOT). The partnerships and cooperative relationships with these entities are
often cited by federal and state officials as examples of best practices that could implemented by other public
transportation providers.
The relationships take many different forms. For example, municipal police departments assist CATA in dealing
with behavioral issues of passengers riding the bus or at bus stops, and press charges seeking restitution when
damage is done. Recently, officers trained to diffuse situations due to mental health issues have also been
deployed to assist CATA when needed. CATA frequently works with the police, emergency responders, and
municipal public works departments to plan for changes in service made necessary by road closures and other
special events take affect transit routes.
Another example of a beneficial community partnership is the municipalities’ solicitation of input from CATA
about proposed subdivision and land development plans, specifically related to the provision of transit service
and inclusion of amenities that facilitate that service. Over the past 15 years, CATA staff, working with the
Centre Regional Planning Agency (CRPA) and the Centre County Planning and Community Development Office
(CCPCDO), has reviewed numerous site plans. The review team looks for opportunities to include multi-modal
amenities that allow for increased bus, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to new or improved developments.
This “complete streets” concept benefits the entire community, and has recently been used by municipalities
as a method to reduce parking requirements for developers who enter into a pass agreement with CATA for
residential construction. These pass agreements use a capacity pricing model, and provide funding to improve
service for all community residents living along the applicable route.
Another unique relationship that exists between CATA and the CRPA is the sharing of a transportation planner,
using funding provided by the CCMPO and CATA. This practice allows for closer alignment in long range planning
processes, grant writing, and the review of site plans. The CATA/CRPA partnership facilitates better local
understanding of public transportation needs and projects in the CCMPO’s long range transportation planning
process, and has produced project prioritization processes that allow transit projects to be competitive with
highway and bridge projects. Lack of equal weight and priority for transit projects is often cited as an issue by
both transit systems and metropolitan planning organizations across the country, but is less of an impediment in
Centre County.
The services provided through the shared transportation planning position have enabled CATA and the CCMPO
to successfully compete for supplemental planning funds to prepare several specialized transit planning
studies. The results and recommendations included in the State College Area Universal Transit Access Study,
252
the Moshannon Valley Park and Ride Lot Study, Intermodal Transportation Center Site Location Study, and an
assessment of demand-responsive transit services provided by CATA and the CCOT have all helped local officials
plan for current and future transit needs in the community.
In 2014, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and PennDOT conducted a review of the CCMPO’s
transportation planning process. One of the recommendations of the review is that CATA, the CRPA and the
CCMPO update the cooperative planning agreements that currently provide the framework for the shared
transportation planning position, and detail the respective responsibilities for conducting public transportation
planning activities. The update is intended to accurately document the collaborative planning processes,
adequately reflect the various respective and mutual roles, responsibilities, and procedures needed to carry out
the required federal and state transportation planning processes.
Stability in CATA’s management team and the team’s leadership has helped to build and grow the cooperative
relationships that help the community make decisions about the provision of public transportation service.
Downtown Customer Service Center
In 2005, CATA began operating a portion of its customer service function from a location near the College
Avenue/Allen Street transfer point in downtown State College. This customer service center was constructed
with federal grant funds as part of the Schlow-Centre Region Library renovation and expansion project.
Because of construction activities at CATA’s Operations and Maintenance facility, this office currently provides
all customer interface outside of the daily interactions between CATA’s passengers and bus operators. The
downtown office space allows for the purchase of fare media, retrieval of lost and found items, and passenger
education. The downtown office’s hours of operation have increased because of the consolidation of all
customer service staff at this location.
CATA and Schlow-Centre Region Library staff also continue to work on joint projects, such as an art installation
near the corner of the building. The statue of an older individual reading a bus schedule on a smart phone
while listening to earphones has been used to promote the success of both agencies’ ability to implement joint
community projects.
Key Findings and Questions – Institutional and Regulatory Environment
As data and information regarding CATA’s institutional and regulatory environment was compiled, analyzed, and
discussed both at a staff level and with the project management team (PMT), several key findings and questions
became apparent that may have implications for future strategic initiatives and/or provide other valuable
supporting data. These include the following, in order of discussion rather than particular order of importance
or priority:
• CATA enjoys a level of trust and stability with its partners that has allowed it to be creative in meeting
community needs. This stability faces a number of hurdles over the next few years, including
fundamental changes in funding sources, balancing the needs for community growth against capital
and funding resources, and changes in long-term relationships due to staffing changes and retirements.
Going forward, CATA will need to maintain existing relationships, and build new ones with legislators,
managers, and rank-and-file staff.
• The challenges of a changing funding landscape underscore the need for CATA to become more
financially self-sustaining and productive.
• Given the trend toward more specialized funding sources at both the federal and state level, grant
writing is going to be even more important in the future. A focused and defined team approach
253
should be developed, even further beyond the current process, to build increased competency and
competitiveness, particularly at the national level.
•
A key in dealing with ongoing, cyclical uncertainty at the federal and state levels – particularly with
respect to funding and oversight – may be to develop a well-defined set of “if-then” actions for a number
of contingencies as part of the strategic actions.
• The current trend points to a greater level of oversight at the state level, including in the areas of
procurement and service delivery. How can CATA satisfy increasing regulatory and operational
expectations from PennDOT, while preserving the unique and cutting edge business practices that
have yielded its success? Staff already holds a brainstorming retreat annually to evaluate and generate
creative solutions to both ongoing and emerging challenges. Additionally, the Board meets annually to
apply a policy level of oversight to these proposed solutions. The long-term strategic initiatives should be
revisited on a regular basis to adjust to quickly changing environments.
• Current trends at the state level also point to increasing coordination (and perhaps consolidation) with
neighboring transit providers. How can CATA get and stay ahead of this trend through voluntary actions,
in a way that preserves CATA’s successful business practices?
• The loss of discretionary and competitive capital funds under MAP-21 was to CATA’s detriment, as the
difference cannot be made up through state sources of capital funding, and CATA’s federal formula
funding has historically been used for operating expenses.
• Increasing regulatory requirements are consuming increasing amounts of management and staff
time, impact agency policy decisions, and have even necessitated the hiring of several additional staff
personnel. It is anticipated that these trends will continue.
• It seems clear that a greater and sustained effort in education and outreach will need to take place with
local elected officials as it relates to the local match requirements, the Miller Formula, and the annual
service planning process.
• The cooperative approach to planning activities between CATA, the CRPA, and the CCMPO must be
periodically re-evaluated to ensure that the needs of all three organizations are being met effectively.
• The goal of CATA’s ongoing relationship with Penn State University will be to meet the key organizational
objectives of reducing the amount of cars on campus, and reducing the need to build parking structures,
in a manner that is mutually beneficial to both parties.
254
255
Chapter 9
Determination of Strategic Actions
Based on the presentation and analysis of information contained in Chapters 1 through 8, the key findings
summarized at the end of each chapter, discussion by the project management team, and a thorough ranking
process of criteria and potential strategic action by key staff members as well as the CATA Board of Directors
using paired comparison software, the purpose of this chapter is to describe the process taken to better align
CATA administration and operations with its organizational strengths, community needs, available resources, and
projected changes within the service area and Centre County in general.
The Decision Lens Process
With nearly 30 potential strategic actions identified through the development of the previous eight chapters,
balanced against limited resources, CATA needed some method to determine which actions were the most
critical. Decision Lens is a prioritization and resource optimization software solution that utilizes an automated
series of paired comparisons (“A” against “B”, “B” against “C”, “A” against “C”, etc. until all alternatives have been
compared against each other) to enable organizations to make critical decisions. The software is based upon a
structured framework that allows users to put their goals and objectives at the center of the decision process.
The criteria are then prioritized in order to assess the people, projects, resources or ideas that are being
evaluated.
While members of the CATA Board of Directors were brought together to evaluate and rank rating criteria,
key CATA staff members were able to evaluate potential strategic objectives on their own timeline, from the
convenience of their own office or home. In CATA’s case, Decision Lens staff members provided facilitation and
analytical services for both the Board and staff processes.
Decision Lens team assisted a number of government entities through strategic planning initiatives. In addition
to CATA, Decision Lens strategic government clients have included such agencies as the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the United States Army – Installation Management Command, the United States Navy – Navy Installations
Command, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Amtrak, the State
of Washington, and the City of Houston. CATA’s Decision Lens services were provided through the CCMPO’s
contacts in PennDOT Central Office in Harrisburg. For several years, PennDOT has maintained an open-end
Decision Lens contract on their own behalf as well as that of partner agencies.
Evaluation Criteria
The first step in building the Decision Lens model was to agree upon and rank, in order of priority, the evaluation
criteria by which all potential strategic initiatives would later be judged. The following evaluation criteria and
sub-criteria (“parent” and “child” criteria, as referred to by Decision Lens personnel), come directly from the
annual list of priorities generated by the CATA Board of Directors, and were agreed upon by key CATA staff
members, generally those in director-level positions within the organization:
256
• Strengthen financial health
−− Reduce operating costs
−− Generate revenue
−− Ensure stability of funding
• Deliver superior transit service
−− Meet future demand with service that is sustainable
−− Improve reliability of service
−− Enhance regional mobility
−− Relieve overcrowding
• Increase CATA operating efficiency and effectiveness
−− Improve employee safety
−− Enhance productivity of CATA organization
−− Manage agency and assets efficiently
−− Reduce environmental impacts
• Make CATA an outstanding employer
−− Attract qualified candidates
−− Develop CATA workforce
−− Nurture a positive work environment
• Deliver a positive customer experience
−− Improve communication with customers
−− Maximize value of customer service facilities
−− Enhance customer safety
−− Impact to image and branding
The next step was for key CATA staff to establish firm definitions for, and assign rating scales and values to, each
“child” criterion. The priority values given to each “child” criterion would then make up the aggregate priority
value of each “parent” criterion. Some of the criteria definitions were pulled directly from other projects
involving the Decision Lens software, while others were customized to CATA. Definitions, values, and ratings
scales were assigned in the following manner:
• Reduce operating costs – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action reduces
operating costs.
Rating
Major impact
Strong impact
Moderate
impact
Marginal impact
No impact
Value
1
0.5
0.25
Scale Definition
Major reduction in operating costs (10%)
Significant reduction in operating costs (5-10%)
Moderate reduction in operating costs (<5%)
0.13
0
Marginal reduction in operating costs
No reduction in operating costs
257
• Generate revenue – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action generates
incremental net revenue.
Rating
Major impact
Strong impact
Moderate impact
Marginal impact
No impact
Value
1
0.5
0.25
0.13
0
Scale Definition
High level of additional revenue
Significant level of additional revenue
Moderate level of additional revenue
Marginal level of additional revenue
No increase in revenue
• Ensure stability of funding – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action ensures a
more stable funding outlook for the agency.
Rating
Very high
High
Moderate
Very low
Low
Value
1
0.5
0.25
0.13
0
Scale Definition
Ensures funding that is both significant and continuing
Ensures funding that is significant, but may be time limited
Ensures funding that is moderate and continuing
Ensures funding that is moderate, but may be time limited
No effect on the stability of funding for the agency
• Meet future demand with service that is sustainable – This criterion assesses the extent to which the
strategic action can meet demand with service that has long-term viability.
Rating
Exceptional
Value
1
Very good
0.5
Acceptable
0.25
Marginal
0.13
Unacceptable
0
Scale Definition
Meets the needs identified, and can be expected to be sustainable for 5 or
more years
Meets the needs identified in a manner that can be sustained until a better
solution can be developed
Meets the needs identified, and can be expected to be sustainable for 2 or
more years
Meets the needs identified as a demonstration or research project, and
may need to be re-tooled in order to be sustainable
Doesn’t meet the needs identified, and sustainability is not expected
• Improve reliability of service – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action provides
maintenance and replacement of capital assets to minimize service disruptions and subsequent delays,
for example, bus rehabilitation programs and equipment upgrades.
258
Rating
Major impact
Value
1
Strong impact
Moderate impact
Minimal impact
No impact
0.5
0.25
0.13
0
Scale Definition
Directly improves reliability in a consistent and sustained manner for all
affected riders
Directly improves reliability for a majority of riders
Moderately improves reliability for a subset of riders
Minimal impact on service reliability
No impact on service reliability
• Relieve overcrowding – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action relieves
overcrowding on existing service, for example, through fleet expansion, station capacity expansion, and
additional service frequency.
Rating
Major impact
Strong impact
Moderate impact
Value
1
0.5
0.25
No impact
0
Scale Definition
Addresses areas where current capacity routinely doesn’t meet demand
Addresses areas where current capacity frequently doesn’t meet demand
Addresses areas where current capacity occasionally doesn’t meet
demand
No impact on overcrowding
• Improve employee safety – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action can improve
safety for CATA employees.
Rating
Exceptional
Very good
Acceptable
Marginal
Unacceptable
Value Scale Definition
1
Proactive safety system promoting continuous exceptional improvements
in employee safety
0.5
Proactive safety system promoting continuous very good improvements in
employee safety
0.25 Acceptable continuous improvements in employee safety
0.13 Marginal increases in the safety of employees
0
No impact on employee safety
• Enhance productivity of CATA organization – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic
action enhances the productivity of CATA employees and offices.
Rating
Major impact
Strong impact
Moderate impact
Marginal impact
Value
1
0.5
0.25
0.13
Unacceptable
0
Scale Definition
Could have a major impact on productivity
Could have a strong impact on productivity
Could have a moderate impact on productivity
May have a negative impact on productivity in this area, but is still seen as
a favorable action
May have a negative impact on productivity in this area, and could be seen
as an unfavorable action
259
• Manage agency and assets efficiently – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action
rehabilitates, reconstructs, or replaces assets based on life cycle data, conditions, and usage. Includes
application of asset management techniques to efficiently run the organization. Assets include facilities,
structures, vehicles, operational systems, equipment, and technology infrastructure. Activities may
include, for example, mid-life rehabilitation of fleet vehicles, rehabilitation of elevators/escalators,
parking lot maintenance, etc.
Rating
Major impact
Strong impact
Moderate impact
No impact
Negative impact
1
Could have a major impact on improving asset life, productivity /
utilization, and safety
0.5
Could have a strong impact on improving asset life, productivity /
0.25 Could have a moderate impact on improving asset life, productivity /
0.13 Does not improve asset life, productivity / utilization, and safety, but is
seen as a necessary action
0
Reduces asset life, productivity / utilization, and safety
• Reduce environmental impact – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action employs
technologies and assets that reduce pollution and the consumption of natural resources, for example,
hybrid buses, LEED-certified construction, and regenerative braking.
Rating
Major impact
Strong impact
Moderate impact
Minimal/no impact
Value
1
0.5
0.25
0
Scale Definition
Major reduction in environmental threats or liabilities
Significant reduction in environmental threats or liabilities
Moderate reduction in environmental threats or liabilities
Minimal or no reduction in environmental threats or liabilities
• Attract qualified candidates – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action helps CATA
attract qualified candidates to its workforce.
Rating
Exceptional
Very good
Acceptable
Neutral/no impact
Negative impact
Value
1
0.5
0.25
0.13
0
Scale Definition
Strongly increases CATA’s image as an employer of choice
Moderately increases CATA’s image as an employer of choice
Minimally increases CATA’s image as an employer of choice
Does not increase CATA’s image as an employer of choice
Decreases CATA’s image as an employer of choice
• Develop CATA workforce – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action supports
workforce development through improving assets and providing opportunities for career growth and
professional excellence. This includes state-of-the-art facilities, vehicles, systems, and equipment (see
follwoing page).
260
Rating
Major impact
Strong impact
Moderate impact
Marginal impact
No impact
Value
1
0.5
0.25
0.13
0
Scale Definition
Major impact on workforce development
Strong impact on workforce development
Moderate impact on workforce development
Marginal impact on workforce development
No impact on workforce development
• Nurture a positive work environment – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action
creates and maintains a positive work environment for CATA employees.
Rating
Strong positive impact
1
Significantly benefits the employee’s work environment, and
significantly reduces employee turnover
Moderate positive impact 0.5
Mildly benefits the employee’s work environment, and mildly
reduces employee turnover
Minimal positive impact 0.25 May have some benefit to the employee’s work environment, and
may slightly reduce employee turnover
Neutral / no impact
0.13 No impact on the employee’s work environment, or in reducing
employee turnover
Negative impact
0
Negative impact on the employee’s work environment, and may
increase employee turnover
• Improve communication with customers – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic
action helps to deliver convenient access to timely and accurate information regarding travel modes,
schedules, facilities, and service disruptions.
Rating
Major impact
Strong impact
Moderate impact
Neutral / no impact
Negative impact
Value
1
0.5
0.25
0.13
0
Scale Definition
Major impact on improved communication with customers
Strong impact on improved communication with customers
Moderate impact on improved communication with customers
Is neutral or has no impact on improved communication with customers
Negative impact on communication with customers
• Maximize value of customer service facilities – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic
action helps to create facility and vehicle improvements that ease the use of services, and improve asset
condition and ride quality.
Rating
Strong impact
Moderate impact
Marginal impact
Neutral / no impact
Value
1
0.5
0.25
0.13
Negative impact
0
Scale Definition
Strong impact leading to increased reliability, capacity, and use
Moderate impact leading to increased reliability, capacity, and use
Marginal impact leading to slightly increased reliability, capacity, and use
Is neutral or has no impact on customer service or rider facilities leading
to increased reliability, capacity, and use
Has a negative impact on customer service or rider facilities leading to
decreased reliability, capacity, and use
261
• Enhance customer safety – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action enhances the
physical safety of CATA customers.
Rating
Moderate positive impact
Minimal positive impact
Neutral / no impact
Negative impact
Value
1
0.5
0.25
0.13
0
Scale Definition
Significantly increases customer safety
Moderately increases customer safety
Minimally increases customer safety
Is neutral or has no impact on customer safety
Has a negative impact on customer safety
• Impact to image and branding – This criterion assesses the extent to which the strategic action has a
positive impact on the CATA image or brand.
Rating
Moderate positive impact
Minimal positive impact
Neutral / no impact
Negative impact
Value
1
0.5
0.25
0.13
0
Scale Definition
Strong positive impact on CATA image or brand
Moderate positive impact on CATA image or brand
Minimal positive impact on CATA image or brand
Is neutral or has no impact on CATA image or brand
Has a negative impact on CATA image or brand
Once the evaluation criteria were agreed upon – along with the rating scales, definitions, and values – Decision
Lens personnel were able to build this information into CATA’s model for relative ranking by the CATA Board of
Directors.
On March 31, 2015, all five members of CATA’s Board of Directors were present for a special work session to
complete their collective rating of the evaluation criteria. Board members spent about half an hour receiving
instruction from Decision Lens personnel on the use of the automated model, and the remaining two and a half
hours of the session applying individual ratings to each of the “child” criteria, assisted by collective discussion
among themselves, with Decision Lens personnel, and with CATA staff. This discussion proved to be invaluable,
as it assisted with the learning curve associated with the software – questions about rating scales and values –
and allowed Board members to explain to one another their own justification for the ratings assigned. In short,
it allowed for greater understanding between participants.
At the end of the session, “child” evaluation criteria were ranked accordingly by the collective opinion of the
CATA Board of Directors, with the “parent” criteria rankings being aggregated from the rankings of the “child”
criteria falling under each:
• Strengthen financial health (.335)
−− Ensure stability of funding (.541)
−− Generate revenue (.353)
−− Reduce operating costs (.106)
• Deliver superior transit service (.240)
−− Meet future demand with service that is sustainable (.507)
−− Enhance regional mobility (.265)
−− Improve reliability of service (.147)
−− Relieve overcrowding (.081)
262
• Increase CATA operating efficiency and effectiveness (.160)
−− Improve employee safety (.332)
−− Enhance productivity of CATA organization (.294)
−− Manage agency and assets efficiently (.259)
−− Reduce environmental impacts (.115)
• Make CATA an outstanding employer (.146)
−− Attract qualified candidates (.435)
−− Nurture a positive work environment (.310)
−− Develop CATA workforce (.254)
• Deliver a positive customer experience (.118)
−− Improve communication with customers (.399)
−− Maximize value of customer service facilities (.224)
−− Enhance customer safety (.216)
−− Impact to image and branding (.160)
“Strengthen financial health” was ranked as the most important criterion, with “ensure stability of funding”
being the most significant component of that criterion. This was followed by “deliver superior transit service”,
of which “meet future demand with service that is sustainable” was the most significant component. “Increase
CATA operating efficiency and effectiveness” was assigned about half of the weight as the most important
criterion, with other criteria ranking lower on the overall scale. The ranking of all “parent” and “child” criteria
would determine the appropriate weighting given during the ranking of all potential strategic initiatives by key
CATA staff, as described in the following section.
Potential Strategic Initiatives
The next step in building the Decision Lens model was to rank, according to the perceived effectiveness with
respect to each of the evaluation criteria, a number of potential strategic initiatives for CATA. These potential
initiatives were culled from the “key findings and questions” section at the end of each previous chapter of the
strategic plan update, as well as from the initiatives suggested during the key stakeholder interview process.
They were agreed upon by key CATA staff members, generally those in director-level positions within the
organization. These potential strategic initiatives include the following, in no particular order of priority:
• Meeting the growing need outside the current service area – Determine desire to meet unmet needs
outside the current CATA service area / region – Operational strategy
• Meeting the unmet need within the current service area – Determine process by which to evaluate
service requests and service growth within CATA’s current service area – Operational strategy
• Study how to set fares and contract rates (inside and outside the region) – Conduct a study to examine
how CATA sets rates and grows the apartment complex program, determines hourly rates for programs
such as the Penn State service, strategically test universal access where desired, as well as the fare media
and pricing used across the system – Financial strategy
• Evaluate local match shares process – Consider local match process if growth continues outside the
current member municipalities – Financial strategy
• Building reserves (capital) – Determine importance of building a capital reserve – Financial strategy
263
• Building reserves (operational) – Determine importance of building an operating reserve – Financial
strategy
• Determine adequacy of fleet to support plans (capital) – CATA has worked hard over the last five years
to replace 40 aging buses, and add five cutaways to the fleet. Spare ratios have been as low as six
percent and currently hover at about 12 percent. CATACOMMUTE is in a holding pattern due to a lack of
rolling stock, and CATA doesn’t have enough service vehicles to meet need. How does CATA determine
adequate fleet levels to meet current and future need? – Capital strategy
• Determine adequacy of personnel to support plans (operating) – CATA has always been considered a
lean organization when it comes to staffing. How does CATA determine adequate staffing levels to meet
growing service needs in the community? What and how much is CATA willing to sacrifice? – Operational
strategy
• Identify resources to pursue grant opportunities – As federal funding resources wane, how do we
pursue non-traditional funding sources through grants outside of the FTA and PennDOT – are there ways
to partner with others in the community to meet these needs? – Financial strategy
• Revisit ADA eligibility – Where possible, move individuals off of paratransit to fixed route service by
revisiting ADA eligibility now that CATA’s fleet is 100% accessible. This could be done by examining other
activities such as functional capacity exams, travel training, working with the area’s human services
agencies to move people to the highest level of independence – Operational strategy
• Determine accessibility of service – Study the system’s fleet and passenger amenities in order to make it
highly possible for individuals of all abilities to utilize fixed route services – Capital / operational strategy
• Separation of ADA and shared ride – Determine model to provide CATARIDE service. Possible outcomes
could be separating ADA paratransit and shared ride policies and procedures, considering whether or not
to continue in our current contractual model, evaluate strongly pursuing coordination or consolidation
with the county system – Operational strategy
• Determine service model (CATACOMMUTE) – Develop long-range plan for the growth and sustainability
of the CATACOMMUTE program as it pertains to CATA’s overall mission, including possible outsourcing of
some or all program elements – Operational strategy
• Determine process for service growth – Develop policy and process to roll out service growth.
Determine comfort level with pilot projects, service sustainability over a set period of time, cost to
provide the service, performance metrics and time period by which a new service must meet those
measures – Operational strategy
• Determine and prioritize internal technologies – Focus inwardly to improve technology use for internal
staff functions such as run cutting, payroll, fleet and inventory management and website and social
media management to increase productivity and efficiency – Technology
• Determine commitment to customer-focused technologies – Reduce priority focus on customer-based
technology in order to update on the automation of internal processes – Technology
264
• Determine proper balance between university and community service – Determine CATA’s future
mission to answer this question. Under consideration would be: Do we reduce service that makes sense
financially in order to serve passengers and communities based on our philosophical identity? Can these
communities be served without the financial stimulus of serving the university community? How do we
make decisions in lean times regarding service levels? To what extent should service be driven by the
university calendar? – Operational strategy
• Determine need for downtown intermodal center – Lack of a downtown intermodal center can affect
the customer experience, and system effectiveness in the areas of route connections and operational
efficiencies for breaks and transition of the bus between shifts. In addition, such a center could serve as
a connection with other modes of transportation such as intercity bus and taxi. Board and staff should
determine to what level they are comfortable in operating without a center, or in pursuing one. Such
a center could both increase efficiency, and cost of running the service based on location and size –
Operational strategy
• Assess (scope, impact) responsiveness to growing needs – CATA is entering an era of increased external
demands. Growth continues within the current region’s boundaries, but affordable housing issues mean
increasing requests to grow to better serve the entire county, and pressure is building to serve a regional
model across the state. Can the system be nimble to change service models, cost and funding models
and organizational governance in order to operate and capitalize new models of service and structure? –
Capital / operational strategy
• Study models for service outside core service area – Conduct a study to determine service models for
use in areas of lower population densities, and challenging service environments. This could include
areas currently served by fixed route with lower than adequate performance metrics – Operational
strategy
• Maintain clean buses, shelters, and facilities as we grow – Currently CATA cleans its fleet interiors and
passenger amenities by campaigning the system twice a year during reduced service. Capital funding
to replace passenger amenities has been limited, and the system moves and retains these assets well
beyond useful life. In some instances, this results in increased staff time and image issues. Is this
adequate now, and will it continue to be adequate as the system grows? – Operational strategy
• Determine direction of passenger amenities – Develop a policy on amenity levels and design for
cohesive system-wide approach when it comes to bus stops, shelters, and technology. Investigate
amenities such as park and ride lots, solar lighting and other concepts not currently in use – Operational
strategy
• Develop local service metrics policies – Develop service metrics to determine organizational success
and drive organizational improvement. In some cases, these metrics could be used to determine service
levels and areas served, as well as where to make additional investments – Operational strategy
• Improve public input process – Once a year, CATA holds a meeting to ask for input from the public.
There is a national move to improve the quality and quantity of the public input process to better
design and implement service. Should CATA consider a stepped-up public input model for use in service
planning, placing amenities, developing policies and practices, etc.? – Operational strategy
• Position CATA as partner across the state for training – With its central location, and a soon to be
completed training area, CATA could position itself as the training center for PPTA and PennDOT for
transit across the state. This could also position CATA for eligibility for workforce development grants –
Capital/operational strategy
265
• Determine if we move beyond CNG (‘cutting edge’ or ‘bleeding edge’?) – Determine policy-level
commitment to greener fleet models and structures, balanced against cost and efficiencies – Capital/
operational strategy
• Develop succession planning for front line employees – Over the next 10 years, CATA will see a number
of long-time employees retire in areas such as maintenance, operations supervision, and the driver core.
Should CATA develop programs to train and or transition employees to make them ready to fill those
vacancies? – Capital/operational strategy
The overwhelming majority of the proposed strategic initiatives (14 out of 27) centered around transit
operations, followed to a much lesser extent by financial strategies (5 out of 27), combined capital and
operations strategies (5 out of 27), technology strategies (2 out of 27), and pure capital strategies (1 out of 27).
This reflects the need for strategic priorities to guide CATA’s daily operational decision-making, though not at the
expense of decision-making in other areas.
Key CATA staff – mainly at the manager and director level of the organization – were given several weeks in late
March into mid-April, 2015 to rate each of the proposed strategic initiatives against the weighted evaluation
criteria. The goal was to produce a ranked, weighted list of the most vital proposed strategic initiatives to pursue
over the coming 10 years. CATA staff participating in the rating exercise included the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
General Manager
Director of Information Services
Director of Finance
Director of Transportation
Director of Human Resources and Compliance
Maintenance Manager
Public Relations Manager
Operations Manager
Following the end of the rating period, CATA staff participating in the rating exercise were brought into a
validation meeting with Decision Lens and PennDOT personnel on April 16, 2015. The purposes of this session
were to review the aggregate ratings, discuss the aggregate ratings with the largest degree of variance – starting
at the top 10% and moving on to the next 10% - modify individual ratings as each rater felt to be appropriate,
and review the final results.
One of the chief concerns raised during this session was a potential phrasing issue in some of the proposed
strategic initiatives. The source of the confusion was the use of the words “evaluate” or “study” a given issue as
this evaluation or study might relate to assuming an outcome. The consensus of the group of raters seemed to
be that assumption of an outcome of study or evaluation was most appropriate to the exercise. As such, CATA
gained some valuable insight that can be used in constructing any subsequent Decision Lens models.
Moreover, individual raters had the opportunity to discuss and potentially change their assessment of proposed
strategic initiatives. This resulting discussion among staff members proved to be quite dynamic, revealing much
about the thought process of individual raters, and served to more finely hone a set of organizational priorities.
This discussion resulted in the modification of some, but not most, of the individual ratings, and thus preserved
the individual thought process rather than devolving into “groupthink”.
Following this validation session and discussion, the ranked, weighted list of potential strategic initiatives – in
order of aggregate score – was as follows:
266
SCORE
.538
.434
.393
.376
.372
.366
.360
.346
.342
.341
.331
.327
.276
.275
.272
.264
.262
.247
.247
.233
.224
.221
.212
.186
.182
.163
.157
POTENTIAL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Determine process for service growth
Determine adequacy of fleet to support plans (capital)
Determine proper balance between university and community service
Building reserves (capital)
Study how to set fares and contract rates (inside and outside the region)
Determine need for downtown intermodal center
Building reserves (operational)
Identify resources to pursue grant opportunities
Determine and prioritize internal technologies
Develop local service metrics policies
Determine service model (CATACOMMUTE)
Determine adequacy of personnel to support plans (operating)
Determine commitment to customer-focused technologies
Develop succession planning for front line employees
Evaluate local match shares process
Meeting the unmet need within the service area
Position CATA as partner across the state for training
Determine accessibility of service
Revisit ADA eligibility
Assess (scope, impact) responsiveness to growing needs
Meeting the growing need outside the current service area
Separation of ADA and shared ride
Study models for service outside core service area
Determine direction of passenger amenities
Maintain clean buses, shelters, and facilities as we grow
Improve public input process
Determine if we move beyond CNG ('cutting edge' or 'bleeding edge'?)
An examination of the aggregate scores for each of the potential strategic initiatives reveals significant natural
breaks after “determine process for service growth”, “determine adequacy of fleet to support plans (capital)”,
and “determine adequacy of personnel to support plans (operating)”. This would seem to underscore the
consensus importance of the first two potential strategic initiatives, and, to a lesser extent, that of the
subsequent 10 initiatives.
267
Chapter 10
The CATA Strategic Plan
Based on the Decision Lens process (described in Chapter 9) intended to better align CATA administration and
operations with its organizational strengths, community needs, available resources, and projected changes
within the service area and Centre County in general, this chapter summarizes the results of the previous
chapters, and provides a list of five overarching strategic actions to guide decision-making at CATA over the next
ten years.
Packaging of Potential Strategic Initiatives and Board Validation
Building upon the ranking of potential strategic initiatives, as well as the natural breaks between rankings, and
the interconnectedness of several groups of initiatives, key CATA staff grouped the ranked potential strategic
initiatives as follows. These groupings were formed in advance of a validation session with the CATA Board of
Directors:
268
GROUP
SCORE
1
.469
.449
.366
.319
.305
.209
.195
2
.386
.308
Determine and prioritize internal technologies
Determine commitment to customer-focused technologies
3
.362
Develop local service metrics policies
4
.335
Develop succession planning for front line employees
5
.325
.315
Building reserves (operational)
Building reserves (capital)
6
.293
7
.291
8
.281
9
.262
10
.360
.232
11
.227
12
.225
13
.215
.211
14
.179
Determine if we move beyond CNG ('cutting edge' or 'bleeding edge’?)
A Board validation session was held on May 7, 2015. Most members of the CATA Board of Directors were in
attendance. At this session, Board members had the opportunity to review and comment upon the ranking
of potential strategic initiatives conducted by key CATA staff. Though the Board members had no material
objection to the ranking of potential strategic initiatives – as presented above – they did suggest that three
initiatives (“position CATA as partner across the state for training”, “maintain clean buses, shelters, and facilities
as we grow”, and “improve public input process”) be taken out of the list of strategic initiatives and be classified
as “best practices”, that is, efforts that should be continued and advanced for the good of the organization,
regardless of strategic direction. Moreover, Board members suggested that staff separate out the top five groups
for pursuit over the coming ten-year period, leaving the remainder of the items for such time as higher priorities
are completed, and/or funds are made available.
The CATA Strategic Plan
At the June 1, 2015 regular CATA Board of Directors meeting, Board members in attendance were successful in
distilling the top tier of ranked and bundled potential strategic initiatives, identified through the key findings
of each chapter and prioritized through the Decision Lens process, into a concise list of overarching strategic
directions to summarize the strategic plan update, as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Address growth prudently;
Advance technologically;
Plan for succession;
Build reserves; and
Enhance the use of metrics.
An explanation of how each of these overarching strategic directions ties back to the ranked and bundled
potential strategic initiatives and the key findings and questions from each chapter is presented on the following
pages. Also presented is a description of necessary implementation tasks, the time period for the initiative, the
lead entity for implementation, potential funding sources, and other comments.
269
Address Growth Prudently
Strategic Initiative
This strategic direction summarizes how CATA will adapt to a growing service area
population and increasing demand for service in the face of financial and equipment
challenges. It includes the following ranked and bundled strategic initiatives:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Description of
Implementation
Task(s)
Initiate a study that answers the questions outlined in this strategic initiative, and
provides options for changes in assumptions and conditions.
Accommodate scenario planning principles (“what if?” and “if-then”) where possible.
Develop a service development and implementation process based upon the study
results.
Evaluate the implementation over time and make continuous process improvements.
Time Period
Years 1-4
Lead Entity
Consultant-led, CATA-managed, with participation from CCMPO
Potential Funding
BPT, MPO, CATA, Other possible grant sources
Comments
This is probably the most critical initiative in terms of guiding strategy and decisionmaking, and is expected to take the longest to complete, use the most resources, and
involve the most stakeholders.
This effort is needed to inform the implementation of other initiatives.
This strategic initiative is tied directly to key findings and questions from Chapters 2
(“Current CATA Operations”), 3 (“Local Inventory of Surface Transportation Services”),
4 (“Service Area Characteristics”), 5 (“Key Stakeholder Involvement”), 6 (“Rider and
Non-Rider Involvement”), 7 (“Projections”), and 8 (“Institutional and Regulatory
Environment”). It is also most closely tied to the “strengthen financial health”, “deliver
superior transit service”, “increase CATA operating efficiency and effectiveness”, and
“deliver a positive customer experience” criteria.
270
Advance Technologically
This strategic direction summarizes how CATA will use both internal and customerfocused technologies to improve management, operations, and customer relations. It
includes the following ranked and bundled strategic initiatives:
• Determine and prioritize internal technologies
• Determine commitment to customer-focused technologies
Description of
Implementation
Task(s)
Develop, update, and, where needed, implement the recently-updated technology
plan, and develop an information technology (IT) / advanced public transportation
systems (APTS) capital improvement plan to provide a funding approach for
technology changes.
Time Period
Years 2-8
Lead Entity
CATA, with support from Avail Technologies
Potential Funding
CATA
Comments
This is probably a standalone task that could be completed at the same time as the
“Address Growth Prudently” group of initiatives.
(“Current CATA Operations”), 5 (“Key Stakeholder Involvement”), and 6 (“Rider and
Non-Rider Involvement”). It is also most closely tied to the “deliver superior transit
service”, “increase CATA operating efficiency and effectiveness”, and “deliver a positive
customer experience” criteria.
Plan for Succession
This strategic direction summarizes how CATA will prepare to replace skilled, trained,
employees as they move up through the organization, or retire. In particular, this
focuses on replacing front line employees. It includes the following ranked and
bundled strategic initiatives:
• Develop succession planning for front line employees
Description of
Implementation
Task(s)
Evaluate CATA staff to determine areas where upcoming retirements will have most
impact.
Develop timelines and plan for recruitment, training, advancement and succession.
This may include external training and continuing education programs.
Particularly within the maintenance function, a mentorship, apprenticeship, and
internship programs may be necessary to transfer knowledge and recruit new
individuals into the industry.
271
Time Period
Years 2-10
Lead Entity
CATA, with HR consultant support
Potential Funding
BPT, CATA
Comments
Should follow the “Address Growth Prudently” group of initiatives so employee
structure needed to support the service approach is known.
This strategic initiative is tied directly to key findings and questions from Chapters
5 (“Key Stakeholder Involvement”), 6 (“Rider and Non-Rider Involvement”), and
8 (“Institutional and Regulatory Environment”). It is also most closely tied to
the “deliver superior transit service”, “increase CATA operating efficiency and
effectiveness”, make CATA an outstanding employer”, and “deliver a positive customer
experience” criteria.
Build Reserves
This strategic direction summarizes how CATA will construct a “rainy day fund” of both
capital and operating dollars to buffer against funding uncertainties and programmatic
changes at the federal, state, and local levels. It includes the following ranked and
bundled strategic initiatives:
• Building reserves (operational)
• Building reserves (capital)
Description of
Implementation
Task(s)
From the results of the service plan process – defined as part of the “Address Growth
Prudently” initiative – analyze the level of reserves necessary to meet organizational
goals.
Survey the level of reserves suggested by similar agencies as defined in the peer
comparison section of Chapter 2.
Develop a plan and an implementation process to build to necessary level of reserves.
Set policies for use of these reserves.
Evaluate the implementation over time and make continuous process improvements.
272
Time Period
Years 2-10
Lead Entity
CATA
Potential Funding
CATA
Comments
The “Address Growth Prudently” group of initiatives must be given lead time on
this initiative to adequately inform this process through the development of various
service models.
Though funding can start to be set aside on an incremental basis almost immediately,
well thought out service models will be critical to developing a target level of reserves.
(“Key Stakeholder Involvement”) and 8 (“Institutional and Regulatory Environment”).
It is also most closely tied to the “strengthen financial health”, “deliver superior transit
service”, “increase CATA operating efficiency and effectiveness”, and “deliver a positive
customer experience” criteria.
Any possible need for a consultant has yet to be determined.
Enhance the Use of Metrics
This strategic direction summarizes how CATA will use identification and ongoing
tracking of performance measures and other key indicators to make management,
planning, and operational decisions. It includes the following ranked and bundled
strategic initiatives:
• Develop local service metrics policies
Description of
Implementation
Task(s)
Cull existing data to determine what metrics can be used to enhance performance
and decision making processes within the agency, with input from the CATA Board of
Directors.
Include guidance provided from FTA and FHWA, measures adopted by the CCMPO,
and metrics used by similar agencies defined in the peer comparison section.
Make appropriate distinctions between management- and policy-level indicators.
Test and validate selected metrics over time and make ongoing process improvements,
not only to operational practices, but also to the metrics themselves.
Time Period
Years 3-10
Lead Entity
CATA, with CCMPO participation
Potential Funding
CCMPO, CATA
273
Comments
Federal guidance on performance measures to augment state standards is expected
from MAP21 rulemaking.
This strategic initiative is tied directly to key findings and questions from Chapters
2 (“Current CATA Operations”), 4 (“Service Area Characteristics”), 6 (“Rider and
Non-Rider Involvement”), and 7 (“Projections”). It is also most closely tied to the
“strengthen financial health”, “deliver superior transit service”, “increase CATA
operating efficiency and effectiveness”, and “deliver a positive customer experience”
criteria.
Further Strategic Initiatives
As noted earlier in this chapter, Board members suggested that staff separate out the top five groups of strategic
initiatives for pursuit over the coming ten-year period, leaving several groups of strategic initiatives that – while
still very important to CATA’s continued success as an organization – were viewed as somewhat less time- and
resource-critical by both staff and the Board of Directors.
The CATA Board of Directors and staff will continue to monitor the additional strategic initiatives to determine if
changing conditions require that action be taken to advance work on these initiatives. In addition, at such time
as work is completed on higher priority initiatives and funds are made available, CATA may elect to advance work
on these initiatives. CATA will continue to monitor progress and direction on the high-priority initiatives, and is
committed to revising and updating the Strategic Plan on a consistent and regular basis.
274
GROUP
SCORE
6
.293
7
.291
8
.281
9
.262
10
.360
.232
11
.227
12
.225
13
.215
.211
14
.179
Determine if we move beyond CNG ('cutting edge' or 'bleeding edge’?)
Public and Municipal Involvement Process
Upon completion of the draft strategic plan update, CATA embarked on a robust public and municipal
involvement process to gather community input on the work completed to date. This process included the
following initiatives:
• An open public comment period, conducted for 30 days through October 8, 2015
• Presentations on the plan process, key findings, and results to the COG Transportation and Land Use
(T-LU) Committee, both the Technical and Coordinating committees of the Centre County Metropolitan
Planning Organization (CCMPO), all of CATA’s member municipalities, and Bellefonte Borough.
• An open house, held September 10, 2015 at CATA’s Customer Service Center to directly solicit input from
interested parties.
• Printed and on-line copies of the draft plan, made available to the public through a number of different
outlets.
By October 8, 2015, formal comments were received from all of CATA’s member municipalities, Bellefonte
Borough, Penn State University, and one local appointed planning commission member. A summary of those
comments – as well as the proposed response to each comment, and relevant page citations – is contained in
Appendix B – DRAFT Public Comment Period Summary.
Ongoing Strategic Plan Updates
CATA’s last strategic planning document was adopted in 2005, and followed another strategic plan, the “Centre
Area Public Transportation Plan”, that was adopted in 1998. Gaps of seven and ten years such as those between
previous strategic plans, do not allow CATA to adapt to changes in operations, capital, planning, funding, the
institutional and regulatory environment – or some combination of these – in an efficient and responsive
manner. If the strategic direction of the organization is not consistently and regularly refreshed, opportunities
can be missed.
Moreover, strategic planning is a very costly and labor-intensive effort. In order to make the most effective use
of the investments that are made in such an effort, as well as to streamline the process of performing updates,
continued monitoring and revision are critical.
With all of the above in mind, the following schedule of activities is proposed to keep this document a vital
component of how CATA approaches its organizational mission:
CHAPTER
General
UPDATE
PERIOD
Annual
NOTES
A strategic planning progress report should be prepared by CATA, for
review at both the staff and Board level. This report should detail any
advances made toward the top five groups of strategic initiatives, including
any needed changes to scope and/or timeline. Moreover, this report
should list any changes in conditions that may warrant a rise in status
for any of the remaining groups of strategic initiatives. Individual staff
members should note how their work objectives have impacted the
strategic actions, and vice versa. This report can be produced as a standalone item, or may be included with, for example, the annual report.
275
2 (“Current CATA
Operations”)
At least every
two years
These updates should include a description of the services CATA provides,
as well as peer agency comparisons and internal operating trends. Regular
updating and analysis of this information will be especially important as
the CATACOMMUTE program grows and matures, and as the CATARIDE
program changes under the operation of a somewhat new contractor, and
possibly by virtue of regional consolidation.
3 (“Local
Inventory
of Surface
Transportation
Services
At least every
two years
Should perhaps be updated more frequently if significant new surface
transportation options establish a presence within the CATA service area.
4 (“Service Area
Characteristics”)
At least every
three years
Or upon the release of information from a new decennial US Census,
whichever comes first. Trends in census data tend to evolve slowly enough
to make more frequent updates less valuable.
5 (“Key
Stakeholder
Involvement”)
At least every
three years
Or as new stakeholder groups (developers, human service agencies,
and the like) establish a presence in the CATA service area, whichever
comes first. Regular contact is vital to maintenance of these important
relationships with the community.
6 (“Rider and
Non-Rider
Involvement”)
At least every
three years
In accordance with PennDOT guidelines for conducting ongoing customer
satisfaction surveys.
7 (“Projections”)
At least every
three years
Or upon the release of new planning documents (LRTP, TIP, growth
forecasting, comprehensive planning, and the like), whichever comes first.
Trends in these documents tend to evolve slowly enough to make more
frequent updates less valuable. Financial projections should be monitored
and updated annually.
8 (“Institutional
and Regulatory
Environment”)
At least every
two years
Particularly as the impacts of Pennsylvania Act 89 of 2013 are still being
assessed, as plans for regional coordination and consolidation unfold, and
as successor legislation to MAP-21 is being developed.
The above schedule suggests a more comprehensive update to the strategic plan document, including the use
of Decision Lens to evaluate rating criteria and potential strategic initiatives, as well as a public input process, at
least once every three years. This should allow CATA ample opportunity to assess progress, note any significant
changes in the many elements of both its internal and external environments, and make changes and corrections
as appropriate.
276
277
Appendix A
Rider and Non-Rider Surveys
CATA/Centre County Area Transit Authority
Rider and Non-Rider Surveys:
Final Report
Prepared by:
Date: Updated October 21, 2014
278
Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3
Objectives……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5
Methodology: Rider Survey…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
6
Methodology: Non-Rider Survey…………………………………………………………………………………………….
10
Rider Survey: Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………
12
Non-Rider Survey: Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………
16
Rider Survey Findings……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
21
Riders: Who They Are and What Are Their Ridership Habits……………………………………………...
22
Riders: Perceptions of Public Transit/CATA and Reasons for Use………………………………………..
28
Riders: Best Ways to Reach………………………………………………………………………………………………..
38
Non-Rider Survey Findings………………………………………………………………………………………………………
40
Non-Riders: Who They Are and Their Centre County Travel Habits…………………………………….
41
Non-Riders: Perceptions of Public Transit and Awareness/Perceptions of CATA………………….
46
Non-Riders: Main Reason for Not Riding and Future Potential…………………………………………..
51
Non-Riders: Best Way to Reach………………………………………………………………………………………….
61
Appendix 1: Community Service Route Riders: Executive Summary and Survey Findings……….
66
Appendix 2: Centre County Municipalities/CATA Service Area Map/Survey Questions…………..
91
2
Introduction
•
The Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) is the mass transit agency that
provides bus transportation within State College, Pennsylvania and the
surrounding areas, including the main campus of The Pennsylvania State
University.
•
CATABUS service includes two groups of routes:
– CATABUS Community Service consists of 23 different community bus routes which
provide service between downtown State College, the Penn State Campus, the Borough
of Bellefonte, the Village of Pleasant Gap, suburban shopping centers, apartment
complexes, residential areas, governmental offices, and many other special points of
interest.
– The Campus Service consists of four integrated routes (two LOOP and two LINK routes)
that provide fare-free campus/downtown circulator and cross-campus shuttle service.
•
Additional CATA service offerings include:
– CATACOMMUTE - services that includes RideShare, Vanpool, Emergency Ride Home,
and Park & Ride programs.
– CATARIDE - a service that provides curb-to-curb transportation for senior citizens and
people whose disabilities prevent their use of the CATABUS buses.
3
279
Introduction (continued)
•
CATA had an expressed need to conduct primary quantitative market research to
assess the relevant behaviors and perceptions of and satisfaction with its CATABUS
service among its current riders as well as behaviors, perceptions of and barriers to
using its bus service among non-riders.
•
CATA commissioned Research America Incorporated of Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania to design and conduct independent surveys among CATABUS riders
and non-riders and to analyze the study findings.
1
Introduction (continued)
•
CATA had an expressed need to conduct primary quantitative market research to
assess the relevant behaviors and perceptions of and satisfaction with its CATABUS
service among its current riders as well as behaviors, perceptions of and barriers to
using its bus service among non-riders.
•
CATA commissioned Research America Incorporated of Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania to design and conduct independent surveys among CATABUS riders
and non-riders and to analyze the study findings.
1
280
Methodology: Rider Survey (Riders include both Campus Service and Community Service route riders)
•
A total of 1,034 self-administered surveys were conducted among current CATABUS riders
across CATA routes throughout Centre County from April 9-May 5, 2014.
–
Interviews were distributed and conducted on those CATA routes with >1% ridership. In total, the
sample of riders included in the study reflects 97.2% of CATA’s total ridership and reflects the
following routes:
•
•
•
Off-campus routes: WE, UT, RP, M, NV, HP, W, N, RC, NE, R, V, VE
On-campus routes (see map): WL, BL, RL, GL
In an effort to attain a representative cross section of riders, interviews were collected on the
different bus routes during different day parts*:
CATA Service Area Map (taken from CATA website)
–
Weekday
•
•
•
–
Weekend**
•
•
•
•
AM
Midday
PM
AM
Midday
PM
On-campus
Routes
Data was weighted to reflect the distribution of ridership
by routes based on January, 2014 CATA data.
*Interviewers randomly handed out self-administered surveys to riders while on the bus and collected them upon completion/when respondent left the bus.
**Routes with no weekend service include: UT,RC,GL,NE and VE. Interviews were collected on weekdays only for these routes.
**Routes with no Sunday service include: HP and W. For these routes, interviews were collected on weekdays and Saturdays only.
6
Methodology: Rider Survey (continued)
•
For reference, below is the distribution of surveys by type of route and day-part ridership.
LOOP/LINK vs. Other Routes (%)
Loop/link routes
Weekday vs. Weekend
/Time of Day (%)
Weekday midday
40
Other routes
58
Weekday am
27
Weekday pm
42
Weekend pm
Weekday: 91%
24
5
Weekend midday
3
Weekend am
<1
Weekend: 9%
Base: Total Riders (1034)
7
281
Final Rider Surveys by Route:
Route
VN Toftrees/Vairo/Martin
C Houserville
G Stormstown
S Science Park
A Park Forest Village
F Pine Grove
XG Pleasant Gap
B Boalsburg
K Cato Park
XB Bellefonte
WE Havershire Blvd Express
UT University Terrace
RP Waupelani/Downtown
M Nittany Mall18
NV Martin/Vairo/Toftrees
HP Toftrees/Scenery Park
W Valley Vista
N Martin St./Aaron Dr.
RC Waupelani/Campus
GL Green Link (PSU Campus)
NE Martin/Aaron Express
R Waupelani Dr.
V Vairo Blvd.
RL Red Link (PSU Campus)
VE Vairo Blvd. Express
BL Blue Loop (PSU Campus)
WL White Loop (PSU Campus)
Total
Overall ridership*
(%)
Total weighted
interviews per route
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.6%
1.4%
1.7%
1.8%
1.9%
2.0%
2.3%
3.6%
3.9%
4.4%
4.7%
5.2%
5.5%
6.7%
9.3%
20.0%
22.8%
100%
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
13
20
19
18
17
18
37
39
54
52
54
83
82
104
201
216
1034
* Based on CATA’s January 2014 ridership statistics
8
Methodology: Rider Survey (continued)
Analytic Note
•
In addition to the total sample, data were reviewed by various segments (see
below) and noteworthy differences are called out where relevant:
– Key demographics (gender, age, employment status, education and income)
– CATA usage (years used, trips taken, length of trip, weekday vs. weekend)
– Route (LOOP/LINK vs. Other Routes)
9
282
Methodology: Non-Rider Survey
•
A total of 413 telephone interviews were conducted among qualified non-riders of
CATABUS defined as:
– Men and women 18 years of age or older
– Who are residents of Centre County (see appendix for list of Centre County
municipalities)
– Who have not ridden on any of the 27 CATABUS routes during the 12 months prior to
being interviewed
•
A random probability sample of landline telephone households located in the
Centre County region was used to contact, qualify residents as non-riders and to
interview qualified respondents.
– An additional random sample of cell phone numbers was included to give all
residents of the Centre County region the opportunity to be included in the
final sample.
10
Methodology: Non-Rider Survey (continued)
– Each telephone/cell phone number received up to four call attempts following a
differential call-rule (that is, calls were made on weekdays and weekends at varying
times during the day)
•
82% of households contacted included a non-rider.
•
Non-Rider interviewing was conducted from a centralized call center from May 222, 2014.
Analytic Note
In addition to the total sample, data were reviewed by various segments (see below)
and noteworthy differences are called out where relevant:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Key demographics (gender, age, employment status, education and income)
Perception of CATA service area (in CATA service area vs. not in CATA service area)
Use of CATA (Past Rider [Rode but not in the past 12 months] vs. Never Ridden)
Familiarity with CATA (somewhat/very vs. not/not very familiar)
Likelihood to ride CATA in the future (somewhat/very vs. not very/not at all likely)
Ever considered using CATA bus (yes vs. no)
Penn State affiliation (affiliated vs. not affiliated)
11
283
RIDER SURVEY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
12
RIDERS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RIDERS PROFILE
MAIN REASONS FOR RIDING
By far, riders take the bus because it is “Convenient” (73%).
Other reasons are:
“No other transportation” (31%)
“Cost” (30%)
“No/expensive parking at destination” (23%)
•
•
•
Note: Supporting the
convenience of taking the bus,
virtually all Riders walk to their
bus stops which are typically
close from Rider’s home/origin
and final destination (less than
½ mile).
Weighted responses largely consist
of Penn State students (95%) who
use CATA mainly for going to
school.
Most make 1-4 (37%) or 5-8 (27%)
trips per week with lengths
clustering mainly in the ranges of
10-19 (48%) or 5-9 (34%) minutes.
Regarding payment on the survey
day, most did not pay a fare (53% primarily LOOP/LINK Riders) or had
an apartment pass (26%).
PERCEPTIONS OF CATABUS
Overall, riders are very positive about CATABUS:
97%
93%
Definitely (77%)/Likely (20%) will continue using CATA
Definitely (60%)/Likely (33%) will recommend CATA
83% Very (30%)/Somewhat (53%) satisfied with CATA performance.
Yet, since not everyone is “Very satisfied” there is
opportunity for improvement (see next slide)
13
284
RIDERS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT’D)
Based on satisfaction with specific CATA elements, consider the following as key
strengths to leverage vs. areas of opportunity for improvement:
Strengths to
Leverage
• These items do well (highest satisfaction
– Top 2 Box) and can be leveraged as
strengths:
Areas of
Opportunity
• Key areas for improvement (lowest satisfaction –
Top 2 Box) include:
 Late-night service availability (55%)
 Vehicle cleanliness (91%)
 Availability/Accessibility of stops
nearby (83%)
 Frequency of weekday service (80%)
 Driver appearance (80%)
Public
Information
•
Helpful/easy to understand (Top 2 Box)
 Website (80% agree)
 LOOP/LINK schedule (78% agree)
 Ride Guide/Bus schedules (77%
agree)
Performance
Performance
 Safety on buses (87%)
 Weekend service frequency (52%) (especially
Non-LOOP/LINK Riders)
 Convenience of CATA office hours (51%)
 Peak hours - seat availability (41%)
(particularly LOOP/LINK Riders)
• Helpful/easy to understand (Top 2 Box)
Public
Information
 Safety at stops (89%)
 Communicating with passengers (69%)
 Mobile apps (66%)*
*Further support for improving the app is that 16%
spontaneously suggest fixing it and it is the primary way of
getting CATA information (71%). Riders mainly want it to be
updated/have accurate information, and secondarily to be
faster/load easily/not crash.
14
RIDERS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT’D)
Since riders mainly get local news/information from the Internet, this is the best
medium to reach them:
TOP SOURCES OF LOCAL
NEWS/INFORMATION
Internet (60%)
BEST WAY FOR CATA TO SHARE
INFORMATION
Facebook
41%
Twitter
38%
Email
Newsletter
28%
Internet Ad
27%
Social Media (Net) = 51%
Includes Facebook and Twitter
TV (34%)
Newspaper (21%)
TV Ads
21%
Newspaper
Ads
14%
15
285
NON-RIDER SURVEY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
16
NON-RIDERS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NON-RIDER PROFILE
INFLUENCE OF AWARENESS/PERECPTIONS
OF CATA ON RIDERSHIP
Non-riders are aware of CATA and have a favorable impression
of it – especially past riders, suggesting that these items can be
ruled out as major reasons for not riding. Familiarity, however,
is not quite as strong.
Non-riders are older (45-64: 48%; 65+:
35%), employed (55%) or retired (36%) and
their incomes cluster in the $50-90K range
(32% vs. <$50K - 25% and $100K+ - 18%).
99% Total Awareness (93% Unaided)
86%
Most have no affiliation with Penn State
(61% vs. 27% alumni and 14% faculty/staff).
Half have “never ridden” CATA and half are
“past riders” (over 12 months ago). Past
riders are more likely to be affiliated with
Penn State, have a higher education level
and live in a CATA service area.
Non-riders most commonly travel
around/into the following areas of Centre
County: State College (95%), the Nittany
Mall Area (89%) and Bellefonte (83%).
Very/somewhat favorable opinion of CATA
63% Somewhat/very familiar with CATA and its services
Awareness of specific services is somewhat low and could
use boosting especially since these services would likely
apply to Non-Riders (most are either employed or retired).
17
48% Aware of
CATACOMMUTE
CATARIDE
53% Aware of
CATARIDE
17
286
NON-RIDERS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT’D)
MAIN REASONS FOR NOT RIDING:
Have a Car
(39%)
No Need
(26%)
No Service in
Area (20%)
Areas of
Opportunity
• Based on Non-Rider suggestions, boost
ridership by:
 Providing service in areas not
currently served (18% mention and
also has low satisfaction ratings)
 Having closer/more convenient stops
(8%) (two-fifths say the nearest stop
is more than a mile from their home)
 Offering more frequent service (8%)
Note: It is the minority (23%) who would consider
riding mainly because they feel it would be “more
convenient” and/or they “don’t have a car” (more so
“past riders” than “never ridden”). Even fewer think
they might ride in the next 12 months (15%). Those
with greater receptivity are more apt to be past riders.
 Yet, consider that 44% say there is
“Nothing/Not interested in public
transportation” that would get them
to ride and realize that they may be
very difficult to convert.
Note: The 44% are more apt to have car (47%
vs. 33% others) and have a higher income
($100K+ 23% vs. 14% others).
*T2B = Top 2 Box
18
While most give CATA bus service a strong rating overall (Top 2 Box: 69%), not all do. Based on
these ratings, strengths and other areas of opportunity are called out below.
Strengths to
Leverage
• Keep in mind that over half of Non-Riders
give positive overall ratings to (Top 2 Box):
 Safety on the bus (54%)
 Driver courtesy (53%)
Others Areas of
Opportunity
 Based on relatively low overall ratings (Top 2
Box), consider improvements in the following:
 Travel time from origin to destination
(38%)*
 Availability/Accessibility of nearby stops
(37%)
 Peak hours – seat availability (36%)
 CATA’s use of technology to communicate
with riders (33%)
 Helpfulness/responsiveness of CATA’s
office staff (28%)
 Frequency of weekend service (27%)
 Availability of late-night service (20%)
*Many think it will take longer to get to their main Centre County
destination by CATA than their current means of transportation.
19
287
•
The best ways to share CATA information with Non-Riders (i.e., service changes,
promotions, events) are via the newspaper and TV:
INFORMATION
Newspaper (51%)
TV (45%)
Internet (34%)
Radio (32%)
TOP SOURCES OF LOCAL/COUNTY NEWS
AND INFORMATION
Centre Daily
Times 91%
CBS 81%
Centredaily.
com 59%
WRSC
25%
Direct Mail (31%)
20
RIDER SURVEY FINDINGS
21
288
Detailed Findings
RIDERS: WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT ARE
THEIR RIDERSHIP HABITS
22
By far, the weighting represents riders who are Penn State students (95%) and, as such,
most classify themselves as “student commuters” (83%). One-quarter are employed and
just over 10% consider themselves “work commuters.” There is a fairly even split by gender.
Rider Profile
Gender
Male
Female
Age
Under 18
18-29
30-44
45-64
65+
Race
White
Asian
African American
Hispanic
Other
%
52
48
%
1
94
4
1
<1
%
65
13
9
7
6
Employment Status*
Student
Employed
Part-time
Full-time
Unemployed
Retired
Highest Level Education*
Less than BA degree
BA degree
Income*
Less than $50K
$50K or higher
Affiliation With Penn State
Student
Faculty/Staff
No affiliation
Visitor/Other affiliate
%
78
24
17
7
3
<1
%
73
17
8
%
33
12
%
95
2
2
1
Type of Rider*
Student commuter
Apartment complex
resident
Work commuter
Monthly OnePass holder
%
83
17
11
3
Q 1, Q 25, Q 26
*Not all categories will sum to 100% due to refused responses and multiple responses given.
23
289
Not surprisingly, since almost all are Penn students, most mention “College/
university/technical” as a primary reason for using the bus.
Primary Reason(s) to Use Bus
%
College/university/technical
78
Work
18
Recreational/visiting friends or relatives
18
Shopping
13
School (K-12)
11
Medical/dental appointment
3
Q9
*Does not sum to 100% due to multiple responses given.
24
Also reflecting that almost all are Penn State students, the majority (97%) have used CATA
for less than 5 years.
Length of CATA Service Use (%)
Less than 1 year
1-2 years
3-5 years
6-9 years
10+ years
27
2
1
33
37
Q2
25
290
Frequency of use is clustered most heavily in the range of 1-4 (37%) or 5-8 one-way trips
per week (27%). The remainder are more avid Riders (36%).
Total One-Way Trips per Week (%)
1-4
5-8
9-12
13-16
17-20
21+
18
3
5
10
27
37
Q3
26
Trip time is typically either from 10-19 (48%) or 5-9 (34%) minutes. About half do not pay a
fare (53%) and just over a quarter use an apartment pass (26%) to pay.
Current Trip Profile
Current Trip: Expected Length (%)
30+ minutes
3
Current Trip: How Paid for Fare (%)
No fare
53
Apartment Pass
20-29 minutes
8
10-19 minutes
48
Cash
8
Monthly One Pass
7
Token
5-9 minutes
1-4 minutes
Q 6, Q 7, Q 11
34
7
26
3
Penn State Ride for Five Pass
1
Cash with Reduced Fare ID Card
1
Complimentary Ride Pass
1
95% of trips did not
involve a transfer
27
291
Detailed Findings
RIDERS: PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC
TRANSIT/CATA AND REASONS FOR USE
28
Most Riders feel that transit is very important to their community.
Importance of Transit to Community (%)
Very important
Somewhat important
Not too important
Not at all important
98
84
14
2
Q 22
29
292
Riders use CATABUS mainly for the “convenience” followed by “no other transportation”
(70% did not have a vehicle available as an alternative on the day of the survey), “cost” and
“unavailable or expensive parking.”
Reasons to Use Bus vs. Other Transportation (%)
73
31
Convenience
30
No other
transportation
available
Cost
23
Unavailable parking
at destination/
expensive parking
12
8
3
Do
not drive
Environmental
considerations
Allows someone
else in household/
family to use car
Note: 85% of riders have a valid driver’s
license and, on average, riders have 1 car at
their home that is available for use. Yet, on the
day of the survey, 70% did not have a vehicle
as an alternative to CATA.
Q 10, Q 18, Q 19, Q 20
30
There is a correlation between distance of the bus stops (typically less than ½ mile) from
rider’s home/origin and final destination, and their perception that they are riding mainly
for the “convenience.”
Convenience of Bus Stops
From Home/Origin (%)
1 Mile+
Less than 1 mile
Less than 1/2 mile
Less than 1/4 mile
From Destination (%)
1 mile+
Less than 1 mile
Lessthan 1/2 mile
Less than 1/4 mile
50
69
9
11
11
15
16
19
97% walk to the bus stop.
Q 4, Q 5, Q 8
31
293
Encouragingly, virtually all riders expect to continue using CATA. Also, riders are quite
positive about CATA – a sizeable number would “definitely” recommend CATA to others.
Likelihood to Continue Using CATA (%)
Likelihood to Recommend CATA to Others (%)
93
97
20
Likely will continue using services
Likely would recommend
Definitely will continue using services
33
Definitely would recommend
77
60
Q 16
32
Consistent with other key measures, overall satisfaction with CATA’s performance is quite
good (83% “Somewhat/very satisfied”). Yet, given that not everyone is “Very satisfied”
there is some opportunity for improvement.
CATA Performance: Overall Satisfaction
(%)
Very satisfied
30
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
83
53
Very dissatisfied
14
3
Q 12
33
294
Top strengths of CATA’s performance have to do with cleanliness, safety, accessibility of
stops, frequency of weekday service and driver appearance. Main weaknesses/areas of
opportunity are lack of seating during peak hours, the convenience of CATA office hours, the
frequency of weekend service and availability of late-night service.
CATA Performance: Satisfaction With
Specific Elements
Top 2 Box
(%)
Vehicle cleanliness
Safety at stops
Safety on buses
Availability/accessibility of stops nearby
Frequency of weekday service
Driver appearance
Availability of route and schedule information
Travel time from origin to destination
Driver courtesy
Reasonableness of fares
Bus stop amenities (shelter, benches, etc.)
CATA’s use of technology to communicate with riders
On-time arrivals and departures
Helpfulness/responsiveness of CATA’s office staff
Availability of late-night service
Frequency of weekend service
Convenience of CATA office hours
Availability of seats on the bus during peak hours
91
89
87
83
80
80
77
76
74
70
70
67
65
63
55
52
51
41
Noteworthy segment differences are that of the
bottom ranked items, low ratings are more apt
to be driven by LOOP/LINK Riders for seat
availability and other route riders for frequency
of weekend service.
Route:
Loop/ Other
Link Routes
Top 2 Box
(A)
(B)
Frequency of weekend service 60B
40
Availability of seats on the bus
during peak hours
37
47A
Q 12
34
Regarding CATA’s public information, riders are most likely to agree that the website,
LOOP/LINK schedule and Ride Guide are helpful/easy to use/understand. Ratings for the
real-time mobile apps and communicating with passengers, while still fairly positive, are
relatively weaker suggesting they may be worth improving.
Perceptions of CATA Public Information Material (%)
% Answering
CATA
CATA
CATA
CATA
CATA
CATA
Website
is helpful
and easy to
navigate
LOOP/LINK
schedule
brochure & map
is helpful/easy to
understand
Ride Guide and
bus schedules are
helpful & easy to
read/understand
Tutorial Videos
are helpful &
provide
important
information
Does a good
job
communicating
with passengers
Real-time mobile
apps are
helpful/easy to
navigate
85
92
95
61
97
92
80
78
39
37
38
41
41
Mean
4.17
Base: Total
answering
(882)
Agree
77
69
69
66
35
41
28
39
34
28
4.15
4.12
3.97
3.90
3.85
(954)
(987)
(632)
(1000)
(956)
Strongly agree
Q 21
38
Note: This item had the largest number of people who felt
it was “N/A” suggesting that this is not a top priority.
35
295
When asked what they would change about CATA service, “Adding more buses/services” is
the top mention, which further underscores these items as areas of opportunity. “Fixing the
App” also receives a noteworthy number of mentions.
Suggested Changes to CATA Service
%
Add More Buses/Services (Net)
25
Later bus services (sub-net)
6
Later weeknight services/hours
Again it is other route
riders who are more apt
to suggest the need for a
greater number of
weekend buses (9% vs.
3% LOOP/LINK route
riders).
4
More weekend buses
6
More routes/stops
5
More buses during peak hours
4
Update/Fix CATA App (Net)
16
Update/needs accurate information
13
App is too slow/crashes/won’t load
5
Arrive on time/scheduled times
5
Make Driver Improvements (Net)
3
Improve attitude of drivers
2
No comment
43
Note: 81% do not offer any “Additional comments” (data not
shown) regarding CATA services and/or service information.
Consistent with other findings, of those who do, “Improve the app”
rises to the top (5% in total).
Q 23, Q 24
36
Further emphasizing the importance of refining the app is that it is the top means of getting
route and fare information and is used by the majority of riders.
Current Trip
Source of Schedule, Route and Fare Information (%)
CATA mobile iPhone and Android apps
71
CATA website
34
Ride guide
16
Info signs posted below bus stop signs
13
CATA real-time website
7
Text message, real-time information at bus stop
2
Bus drivers
2
Telephone, CATA offices
1
In person, CATA offices
1
Those using Other Routes are more apt
to use items at right. In contrast, those
taking LOOP/LINK routes tend to use
the CATA mobile apps more
(directional).
Q 13
Base: Total Answering (1029, LOOP/LINK (597), Other Routes (432)
Route:
CATA website
Ride guide
Info signs
Confidential - Internal use
296
LOOP/LINK
(A)
26
11
9
Other Routes
(B)
45A
23A
19A
Riders
37
Detailed Findings
RIDERS: BEST WAYS TO REACH
38
Riders mostly get local news/information from the Internet - correspondingly, riders
primarily suggest the Internet as the best way of sharing information (e.g., Facebook,
Twitter).
Riders Get Local News/Information from…
(%)
Internet
60
Best Ways for CATA to Share Information
(%)
Note: Social
Media (Net) is
51%.
Facebook
41
Twitter
TV
34
Newspaper
21
38
Email newsletter
28
Internet ads
27
TV ads
21
Newspaper ads
Radio
Other
9
3
14
Radio ads
8
Directmail
7
Phone/mobile apps/text alerts
3
Q 14, Base: Total Riders (1034)
Q 15, Base: Total Answering (1008)
39
297
NON-RIDER SURVEY FINDINGS
40
Detailed Findings
NON-RIDERS: WHO THEY ARE AND THEIR
CENTRE COUNTY TRAVEL HABITS
41
298
Non-riders skew female, are older (45+), mainly white, employed (55%) or retired (36%) and
are roughly split between having less than a BA or BA or greater. Three-fifths have no
affiliation with Penn State. Incomes cluster more heavily in the $50-99K range.
Non-Rider Profile
Gender
Male
Female
Age
18-29
30-44
45-64
65+
Race*
White
Asian
African American
Refused
Employment Status*
Employed
Full-time
Part-time
Retired
Homemaker
Unemployed
Student
Highest Level Education
Less than BA degree
BA degree
Income*
Less than $50K
$50K – 99K
$100K or more
Affiliation With Penn State*
Alumni
Faculty/Staff
Student
No affiliation
%
45
55
%
2
14
48
35
%
96
1
1
2
%
55
44
11
36
4
3
1
%
48
27
25
%
25
32
18
%
27
14
1
61
Extent of Ridership
Never Ridden
Past Riders
%
50
50
(over 12 months ago)
Note: The extent of ridership is evenly
split between those who never rode
and those who rode in past.
Key profile differences between these
two segments are that past riders are
more apt to:
(1) Be affiliated with Penn State (53%
vs. 26% Never Ridden)
(2) Have graduated college (32% vs.
22% Never Ridden) or have a
Master’s/Doctorate (31% vs. 19%
Never Ridden).
Worth noting is that 70% of past riders
are in a CATA service area (vs. 47%
Never Ridden).
Q 36, Q 37, Q 38, Q 39, Q 40, Q 41, Q 42
Base: Total Non-Riders (413)
*Not all categories will add to 100% due to refused responses and multiple responses given.
42
Of non-riders who used to ride in the past, they were less frequent patrons (over half rode
“Less than once a month” or “Only once/a few times”). The main reasons they rode were to
“Commute,” to get to “Entertainment/event” to “Run errands” and/or “Shop.”
Non-Riders Who Are Past Riders
Past Ridership Frequency
Monthly+ (Net)
Weekly+ (Sub-net)
%
37
Past Primary Reason(s) to Use
Bus
Commute (Net)
%
36
27
To commute to/from work
23
Daily+
11
To commute to/from school
15
Several times a week
12
Entertainment/Event (Net)
Sporting event
20
Several times a month
5
9
Less than once a month
17
To run errands
17
Only once/couple/few times
45
To go shopping
16
To get to medical appointments
8
To visit friends/family
6
Q 9, Q 10
Base: Non-Riders who last rode over 12 months ago (203)
43
299
Most mention “Work” and/or “Shopping” as their primary reasons for travel around Centre
County. Virtually all (98%) use a “Car/Truck/Van” when traveling in and around Centre
County.
Primary Reason Travel Around Centre County
%
Work
47
Shopping (groceries, mall, etc.)
27
Medical/dental appointments
10
Run errands
9
Recreational (visiting friends, relatives, etc.)
4
School student (Net)
1
Drop children off at school
1
Entertainment (movies, out to eat, etc.)
1
98% of Non-Riders use a car/van/truck
when traveling in and around Centre County.
The remainder walk, run or bike.
Q 22, Q 24
44
Non-riders most commonly travel around/into the State College, Nittany Mall area and
Bellefonte. Those traveling to these locations frequent State College most often, followed
by Bellefonte and then the Nittany Mall area.
Centre County Location Travel Practice (%)
Frequency of Travel to Center County Locations:**
Ever
Travel
Around
/Into*
State College
95
The Nittany Mall area
Daily+
Several
times a
week
Once
a
Week
Several
times a
Month
Once
a
Month
Less than
Once a
Month
40
31
12
9
5
3
89
9
22
20
25
14
10
Bellefonte
83
24
19
13
14
17
12
Boalsburg
62
15
10
15
20
19
19
Pleasant Gap
61
13
16
12
16
22
19
Centre Hall
58
8
13
11
21
19
27
Pine Grove Mills
38
5
10
10
14
21
39
Philipsburg
32
20
11
5
7
22
34
Stormstown
30
8
7
5
17
22
40
Q 30, Q 30a
*Base: Total Non-Riders (413)
**Base: Non-Riders Who Travel Around/Into Location (Varies) – State College (394), Nittany Mall Area (366), Bellefonte (342), Boalsburg (254), Pleasant Gap (251), Centre Hall (238),
Pine Grove Mills (155), Philipsburg (133), Stormstown (123)
300
Non-Riders
45
Detailed Findings
NON-RIDERS: PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC
TRANSIT AND AWARENESS/PERCEPTIONS OF
CATA
46
The vast majority of non-riders think that public transportation service in Centre County is a
“Very important” public service to provide to the residents, workers and students.
Importance of Public Transportation in
Centre County (%)
Very important
Somewhat important
Not too important
72
Don't know
95
23
3
5
Mean
2
<1
3.64
Q1
47
301
Although public transportation is considered important, usage is not being limited by lack of
overall awareness of CATA given that virtually everyone knows of it. Yet, awareness of the
ancillary services, i.e., CATACOMMUTE and CATARIDE, is more moderate.
Awareness of Centre County Public Transportation Services
Total Awareness of CATA (%)
99
Aided
6
Unaided Awareness
Unaided
% Mentions
CATA (NET)
CATA (Centre Area Transportation Authority)
CATABUS
CATARIDE*
CATACOMMUTE*
CATA LOOP/LINK
Center County Office of Transportation
93
Unaided
Awareness
93
82
14
5
2
2
3
*Total Awareness of Specific Services
48% Aware of
CATACOMMUTE
Awareness of special services,
i.e., CATACOMMUTE and
CATARIDE, is moderate.
53% Aware of
CATARIDE
CATARIDE
Q3
48
Reflecting the awareness measures, familiarity with CATA as well as its services is quite good
and therefore does not appear to be a major reason for lack of ridership.
Familiarity With CATA and Services it Offers (%)
Very familiar
12
Somewhat familiar
Not very familiar
Just know name
Not familiar at all
63
51
Not surprisingly, those more
familiar with CATA are those who
have ridden the CATABUS in the
past, i.e., over 12 months ago
(Top 2 Box: 78% vs. 47% Never
Ridden).
19
37
9
9
Q8
49
302
Likewise, opinions of CATA are largely favorable.
Opinion of CATA (%)
Very favorable
Somewhat favorable
Somewhat unfavorable
47
Very unfavorable
Don't know
As expected, Past Riders hold a
more favorable opinion of CATA
(“Very Favorable”: 55% vs. 39%
Never Ridden).
86
39
4
2
10
2
Q7
50
Detailed Findings
NON-RIDERS: MAIN REASONS FOR NOT
RIDING AND FUTURE POTENTIAL
51
303
The main barriers for not riding stem largely from specific consumer needs or lack thereof,
i.e.,: “Have a car,” “Not convenient/Too far” (namely, “No service in area”) and “Have no
need to.”
Top Reasons for Not Riding (%)
I have a car/drive myself
Not Convenient/Too Far/Takes Too Long (Net)
No service in my area/too far to walk to bus
It’s not convenient for me/stops are too far away
Haven’t needed to/no need to
I am retired now/no longer work
I don’t need bus transportation/can walk to work/bike
Routes are too limited/doesn’t go to where I need
Total
Past Riders
Never
Ridden
39
29
20
8
26
3
3
2
38
25
15
8
25
6
5
3
40
32
26
7
27
1
1
1
Those who have never
ridden CATABUS are more
likely to cite “No service
provided in my area”
(26%) as a key reason (vs.
Past Riders - 15%).
Q 11
Base: Total Non-Riders (413), Non-Riders who last rode over 12 months ago (205), Non-Riders who have never ridden (208)
52
Yet, some (24%) say they would consider riding a CATA bus mainly because they perceive it
would be “More convenient” and/or they “Don’t have a car.”
Consider CATA For Places Travel Most Often (%)*
Yes
No
76
Don't
know
23
1
Those who would consider CATA
are more likely to be Past Riders
(28% vs. 18% Never Ridden).
Primary Reasons For Considering CATA Bus**
%
More convenient
38
No Ability to Drive/No Car (Net)
23
No car available
20
Do not own a car
4
Parking issues (cost, parking not available)
18
Environmental considerations
17
Cost of Owning a Car/Gas (Net)
17
Bad weather
16
To save time
3
Don’t know
1
Far more Past Riders cite “No ability to drive/no
car” as a primary reason for considering CATA
(32% vs. 11% Never Ridden).
Q 28, Q 29
* Base: Total Non-Riders (413)
**Base: Non-Riders who have considered riding CATA bus from places travel most often (95)
53
304
Also, a few (15%) say they are likely to ride a CATA Bus in the next 12 months.
Likelihood to Ride CATA Bus in Next 12 months (%)
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
Undecided
15
13
2
Again, those who are likely to ride
CATA in the next 12 months are
more apt to be Past Riders (Top 2
Box: Past Riders 25% vs. Never
Ridden 4%).
30
84
54
1
Q 12
54
The main things to change in order to boost ridership relate to offering “More/faster
services” especially “Providing service in area.” Yet, almost half of non-riders say there is
“Nothing” that would get them to ride.
Most Important Changes to CATA service to
Increase Future Ridership
Offer More/Faster Services (Net)
%
38
Provide service in my area
18
Make stops closer/more convenient (sub-net)
8
Stops closer/more convenience to home/origin
5
Stops closer/more convenient in general
2
More frequent service
8
Faster travel time – express service
2
More accessible information (schedules, stops, services, etc.)
Those who are “Very/somewhat” likely
to ride in the future are more apt to
want “More frequent service” (18% vs.
6% those who are “Not very/Not” at
all likely to ride in the future).
2
Less expensive/lower fares
2
Nothing, not interested in public transportation
44
Q 14, Q 14a
55
305
Further confirming that accessibility is an issue, two-fifths say that the nearest CATA Bus
stop is more than a mile from their home. In contrast, most Riders (80%) say that the
nearest stop is less than a ½ mile from their home (refer to “Rider” section of report).
Distance From Home to Nearest CATA Bus Stop (%)
More than a mile
42
Within 1/4 mile
Within 1/2 mile
Within 1 mile
Unsure/undecided
36
8
6
8
Past Riders are closer to a CATA stop
(Within 1 Mile: 61% vs. 39% Non-Riders)
(More than 1 mile: 35% vs. 50% Non-Rider).
Q 32
56
Additionally, one-quarter give accessibility a low rating which leaves some room for
improvement.
Access to Public Transportation (%)
21
Excellent
Good
Fair
Past Riders rate access to public
transportation higher (Top 2 Box:
71% vs. 60% Never Ridden).
65
Poor
44
Don't know
25
18
7
10
Mean
2.88
Q2
57
306
While most give CATA bus service a strong overall rating (Top 2 Box: 69%), not everyone
does and not everyone feels it is “Excellent.” Therefore, there is opportunity for
improvement.
CATA Bus Service: Overall Rating
(%)
5 - Excellent
24
4
3
2
Consistent with other measures,
past riders feel more positively
about CATA overall (Top 2 Box: 82%
vs. 56% Never Ridden).
69
1 - Poor
45
Not sure/not
enough info
Don't know
17
3
9
2
1
2
Q 15
58
Regarding specific elements of CATABUS service, ratings are strongest for safety and driver
courtesy. Weaknesses include travel time, accessibility to stops, seat availability, use of
technology to reach riders, office staff helpfulness/convenience of office hours, frequency of
weekend service and availability of late-night service.
CATA Bus Service: Ratings of Specific Elements
Safety at stops
Safety on buses
Driver courtesy
Vehicle cleanliness
Driver appearance
Q 16
Top 2 Box (%)
62
54
53
49
49
48
47
45
44
44
38
37
36
33
28
27
26
20
Past Riders react more favorably on
most items above compared to
those who have never ridden.
59
307
Further underscoring issues with travel time is that non-riders tend to think the trip would
be far longer using CATA than their current mode of transportation (see brackets) – even
though the destination is typically within 10 miles from home.
Location in Centre County Travel to Most Often ...
Miles From Home (%)
Minutes from Home (%)
With Current Mode of Transportation
0-4 miles
1-9 minutes
27
5-10 miles
37
If Used CATA*
16
5
10-19 minutes
12
42
68%
11-20 miles
24
20-29 minutes
26
19
67%
21+ miles
12
30+ minutes
16
48
*Assuming CATA Bus service is in a convenient location
Note: “If used CATA” does not sum to 100%, because 14%
don’t know and the remaining 2% refused.
Q 25, Q 26, Q 27
60
Detailed Findings
NON-RIDERS: BEST WAY TO REACH
61
308
Non-riders think the best way to share CATA information (i.e., service changes, promotions,
events) with them is via the newspaper or TV followed by the Internet, radio or direct mail.
Best Way to Share Service Changes, Promotions or Events (%)
Newspaper
51
TV
45
Internet
34
Radio
32
Direct mail
31
E-mail
15
Q 20
62
The best way to share CATA information, largely reflects where non-riders get general county
and local news information, i.e., mainly from the newspaper and TV.
Sources Get General County
and Local News Information
%
Newspaper
63
TV
55
Radio
26
Internet
26
Other
1
Q 33
Non-Riders
63
309
The newspaper and TV station that would have the best reach overall among Non-Riders
include the Centre Daily Times and CBS.
Source of County/Local News And Information
Newspapers Read*
TV Stations Watched**
%
Centre Daily Times
91
Centre County Gazette
10
Lock Haven Express
7
Clearfield Progress
5
The Daily Collegian
2
Philipsburg Journal
2
Don’t know/don’t read newspapers
3
Major Networks (Net)
%
94
CBS
81
NBC
37
ABC Networks (sub-net)
6
ABC (Altoona/Johnstown)
5
ABC (Wilkes-Barre/Scranton)
3
Fox
3
PBS
4
Don’t know/Don’t watch TV
1
Q 34a, Q 34d
*Base: Non-Riders who get news/info from newspaper (261)
**Base: Non-Riders who get news/info from TV (228)
64
Regarding Internet sites and radio stations, Centredaily.com and WSRC are the more
popular ones and would therefore have the broadest reach.
Source of County/Local News And Information
Internet Sites visited*
%
Centredaily.com
59
Statecollege.com
21
WeAreCentralPA.com
Social Media Sites (Net)
Facebook.com
11
5
5
Radio Stations Listened to**
%
WRSC – 103.1 FM Newsradio 103
25
WPSU – 91.5 FM NPR/Public Radio
17
WBUS – 93.7 FM The Bus
11
WZWW – 95.3 FM 3WZ
11
WOWY – 97.1 FM Wowie 97
9
WMAJ – 99.5 FM Majic 99.5
7
WBHV – 94.5 FM B-94.5
6
WBLF – 970 AM Newstalk 970
6
Wpsu.org
5
Wherever the search engine takes
me/Google/IE/AOL/Yahoo
5
Other
5
WRSC – 1390 AM Newsradio 1390
4
Don’t Know/don’t use internet
9
WQWK – 1450 AM ESPN Radio
4
WTLR – 89.9 FM Way, Truth, Life, Radio
4
WKPS – 90.7 FM The Lion
3
Don’t know/don’t listen to radio
5
Q 34c, Q 34b
*Base: Non-Riders who get news/info from Internet (106)
**Base: Non-Riders who get news/info from radio (108)
310
Non-Riders
65
APPENDIX 1: Community Service Route Rider
Survey Methodology/Executive Summary/Survey
Findings
66
Methodology: Community Service Route Rider Survey
•
A total of 434 self-administered surveys were conducted among current CATABUS riders
across CATA Community Service Routes throughout Centre County from April 9-May 5, 2014.
–
Interviews were distributed and conducted on those CATA Community Service Routes with >1%
Ridership. The sample of Community route riders included in the study reflects the following routes:
•
•
In an effort to attain a representative cross section of Community Service route riders,
interviews were collected on the different Community Service bus routes during different day
parts*:
–
Weekday
•
•
•
–
CATA Service Area Map (taken from CATA website)
AM
Midday
PM
Weekend**
•
•
•
•
•
Off-campus routes: WE, UT, RP, M, NV, HP, W, N, RC, NE, R, V, VE
AM
Midday
PM
On-campus
Routes
Data was weighted to reflect the distribution of total
ridership by routes based on January, 2014 CATA data.
*Interviewers randomly handed out self-administered surveys to riders while on the bus and collected them upon completion/when respondent left the bus.
**Routes with no weekend service include: UT,RC,GL,NE and VE. Interviews were collected on weekdays only for these routes.
**Routes with no Sunday service include: HP and W. For these routes, interviews were collected on weekdays and Saturdays only.
67
311
COMMUNITY SERVICE ROUTE RIDERS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
68
COMMUNITY SERVICE ROUTE RIDERS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COMMUNITY SERVICE
ROUTE
RIDERS PROFILE
MAIN REASONS FOR RIDING
By far, Community Service route riders take the bus
because it is “Convenient” (65%). Other reasons are:
•
•
•
Note: Supporting the
convenience of taking the bus,
virtually all Community Service
route riders walk to their bus
stops which are typically close
from rider’s home/origin and
final destination (less than ¼
mile).
Community Service route trips are
largely taken by Penn State
students (92%) who use CATA
mainly for going to school.
Most make 1-4 (30%) or 5-8 (24%)
trips per week with lengths
clustering mainly in the ranges of
10-19 (54%) or 5-9 (26%) minutes.
Regarding payment on the survey
day, most had an apartment pass
(53%).
“No other transportation” (38%)
“Cost” (36%)
“No/expensive parking at destination” (27%)
PERCEPTIONS OF CATA BUS
Overall, Community Service route riders are very positive about CATABUS:
97%
93%
Definitely (70%)/Likely (26%) will continue using CATA
Definitely (54%)/Likely (38%) will recommend CATA
83% Very (25%)/Somewhat (58%) satisfied with CATA performance.
Yet, since not everyone is “Very satisfied” there is
opportunity for improvement (see next slide).
69
312
COMMUNITY SERVICE ROUTE RIDERS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT’D)
Based on satisfaction with specific CATA elements, consider the following as key
strengths to leverage vs. areas of opportunity for improvement:
Strengths to
Leverage
• These items do well (highest satisfaction –
Top 2 Box) and can be leveraged as
strengths:
Areas of
Opportunity
• Key areas for improvement (lowest satisfaction – Top
2 Box) include:
 Driver appearance (86%)
 Availability/Accessibility of stops
nearby (84%)
 Frequency of weekday service (82%)
Public
Information
• Helpful/easy to understand (Top 2 Box):
 Ride Guide (84% agree)
 Website (83% agree)
 LOOP/LINK schedule (78% agree)
Performance
 Safety on buses (89%)
 Late-night service availability (48%)
 Peak hours - seat availability (47%)
 Weekend service frequency (40%)
• Helpful/easy to understand (Top 2 Box):
 Communicating with passengers (73%)
Public
Information
Performance
 Vehicle cleanliness (90%)
 Mobile apps (67%)*
*Further support for improving the app is that 12%
spontaneously suggest fixing it and it is the primary way of
getting CATA information (67%). Riders mainly want it to be
updated/have accurate information, and secondarily to be
faster/load easily/not crash.
70
COMMUNITY SERVICE ROUTE RIDERS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT’D)
Since Community Service route riders mainly get local news/information from the
Internet, this is the best medium to reach them:
TOP SOURCES OF LOCAL
NEWS/INFORMATION
Internet (61%)
INFORMATION
Facebook
40%
Email
Newsletter
36%
Internet Ad
29%
Twitter
27%
Social Media (Net) = 47%
Includes Facebook and Twitter
TV (29%)
Newspaper (19%)
TV Ads
17%
Newspaper
Ads
12%
71
313
COMMUNITY SERVICE ROUTE
RIDER SURVEY FINDINGS
72
Detailed Findings
COMMUNITY SERVICE ROUTE RIDERS: WHO THEY
ARE AND WHAT ARE THEIR RIDERSHIP HABITS
73
314
Community Service route trips are taken by Penn State students (92%) and, most riders
classify themselves as “Student commuters” (77%). Just over one-quarter are employed
and just 15% consider themselves “Work commuters.” There is a fairly even split by gender.
Community Service Route Rider Profile
Gender
Male
Female
Age
Under 18
18-29
30-44
45-64
65+
Race
White
Asian
African American
Hispanic
Other
Employment Status*
Student
Employed
Part-time
Full-time
Unemployed
Retired
Highest Level Education*
Less than BA degree
BA degree
Income*
Less than $50K
$50K or higher
Affiliation With Penn State
Student
No affiliation
Faculty/Staff
Visitor/Other affiliate
%
51
49
%
1
93
4
2
<1
%
53
21
10
6
10
%
75
27
18
9
2
<1
%
68
22
9
%
36
10
%
92
4
3
1
Type of Rider*
Student commuter
Apartment complex
resident
Work commuter
Monthly OnePass holder
%
77
30
15
5
Q 1, Q 25, Q 26
Base: Community Service route riders(434)
*Not all categories will sum to 100% due to refused responses and multiple responses given.
74
As expected, since almost all are Penn State students, most Community Service route riders
mention “College/university/technical” as a primary reason for using the bus.
Primary Reason(s) to Use Bus
%
College/university/technical
76
Work
22
Recreational/visiting friends or relatives
21
Shopping
16
School (K-12)
12
Medical/dental appointment
5
Q9
Base: Community Service route riders (434)
*Does not sum to 100% due to multiple responses given.
75
315
Also reflecting that almost all trips are taken by Penn State students, virtually all (97%) have
used CATA for less than 5 years.
Length of CATA Service Use (%)
Less than 1 year
1-2 years
3-5 years
6-9 years
10+ years
20
2
38
1
39
Q2
76
Community Service route riders are generally more frequent users (72% take from 1-12
trips/week).
Total One-Way Trips per Week (%)
1-4
5-8
9-12
13-16
17-20
21+
6
18
24
18
4
30
Q3
77
316
Trip time is most commonly 10-19 (54%) minutes. Typically Community Service route riders
use an apartment pass for their fare.
Current Trip Profile
Current Trip: Expected Length (%)
30+ minutes
5
Current Trip: How Paid for Fare (%)
Apartment Pass
53
Monthly One Pass
20-29 minutes
12
10-19 minutes
54
14
Cash
12
No fare
11
Token
5-9 minutes
1-4 minutes
26
3
Q 6, Q 7, Q 11
5
Penn State Ride for Five Pass
3
Cash with Reduced Fare ID Card
2
Complimentary Ride Pass
1
94% of trips did not
involve a transfer
78
Detailed Findings
COMMUNITY SERVICE ROUTE RIDERS:
PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC TRANSIT/CATA AND
REASONS FOR USE
79
317
The majority of Community Service route riders say transit is very important to their
community.
Importance of Transit to Community (%)
Very important
Somewhat important
Not too important
83
99
16
1
Q 22
80
Community Service route riders tend to use CATABUS primarily for the “Convenience”
followed by “No other transportation” (62% did not have a vehicle available as an
alternative on the day of the survey), the “Cost” and/or “Unavailable/expensive parking.”
Reasons to Use Bus vs. Other Transportation (%)
65
38
Convenience
No other
transportation
available
36
Cost
27
Unavailable parking
at destination/
expensive parking
14
Do
not drive
7
3
Environmental
considerations
Allows someone
else in household/
family to use car
Note: 78% of Community Service route riders
have a valid driver’s license and, on average,
Community Service route riders have 1 car at
their home that is available for use. Yet, on the
day of the survey, 62% did not have a vehicle
as an alternative to CATA.
Q 10, Q 18, Q 19, Q 20
81
318
The short distance of the bus stops (often less than ¼ mile) from a Community Service route
rider’s home/origin and final destination correlate to their perception that they are taking
the bus mainly for the “Convenience.”
Convenience of Bus Stops
From Home/Origin (%)
1 Mile+
Less than 1 mile
Less than 1/2 mile
Less than 1/4 mile
From Destination (%)
1 mile+
Less than 1 mile
Less than 1/2 mile
Less than 1/4 mile
57
68
11
8
13
14
13
16
98% walk to the bus stop.
Q 4, Q 5, Q 8
82
Promisingly, virtually all Community Service route riders expect to continue using CATA
(96%) and are likely to recommend CATA to others (92%).
Likelihood to Continue Using CATA (%)
Likelihood to Recommend CATA to Others (%)
92
96
Likely will continue using services
26
Definitely will continue using services
Likely would recommend
38
Definitely would recommend
70
54
Q 16, Q 17
83
319
As with other key measures, overall satisfaction with CATA’s performance is quite good (83%
“Somewhat/very satisfied”). Yet, there is some opportunity for improvement, given that
not everyone is “Very satisfied.”
CATA Performance: Overall Satisfaction
(%)
25
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
83
58
Very dissatisfied
15
2
Q 12
84
Top strengths of CATA’s performance have to do with safety, cleanliness, driver appearance
accessibility of stops, frequency of weekday service and availability of route and schedule
information. Main weaknesses/areas of opportunity are the frequency of weekend service,
seat availability during peak hours, the availability of late-night service and the convenience
of CATA office hours.
CATA Performance: Satisfaction With
Specific Elements
Safety at stops
Vehicle cleanliness
Safety on buses
Driver appearance
Driver courtesy
Top 2 Box
(%)
91
90
89
86
84
82
81
76
74
70
70
68
67
64
51
48
47
40
Q 12
85
320
Regarding CATA’s public information, Community Service route riders are most likely to
agree that the Ride Guide, website and the LOOP/LINK schedule are helpful/easy to
use/understand. Ratings for the real-time mobile apps and communicating with passengers,
while still quite positive, are relatively weaker suggesting they may be worth improving.
Perceptions of CATA Public Information Material (%)
% Answering
Agree
CATA
CATA
CATA
CATA
CATA
CATA
Ride Guide and
bus schedules
are
helpful & easy to
read/understand
Website
is helpful
and easy to
navigate
LOOP/LINK
schedule
brochure & map
is helpful/easy to
understand
Does a good
job
communicating
with passengers
Tutorial Videos
are helpful &
provide
important
information
Real-time
mobile apps are
helpful/easy to
navigate
98
91
93
84
83
78
39
41
37
Strongly agree
98
79
92
67
67
45
35
29
28
32
38
73
45
42
41
Mean
4.27
4.22
4.16
3.96
3.94
3.86
Base: Community
Service Route
Riders
(424)
(396)
(405)
(424)
(272)
(397)
Note: This item had the largest number of people who felt
it was “N/A” suggesting that this is not a top priority.
Q 21
86
When asked what they would change about CATA service, “Adding more buses/services”
(particularly on the weekend, later in the day and more routes/stops overall) is the top
mention, which further underscores this item as an area of opportunity. Also, “Fixing the
CATA App” receives a noteworthy number of mentions.
Suggested Changes to CATA Service
Add More Buses/Services (Net)
%
28
More weekend buses
9
Later bus services (sub-net)
7
Later weeknight services/hours
More routes/stops
More buses during peak hours
Update/Fix CATA App (Net)
5
6
5
12
Update/needs accurate information
9
App is too slow/crashes/won’t load
3
Arrive on time/scheduled times
7
Make Driver Improvements (Net)
3
Improve attitude of drivers
No comment
Q 23, Q 24
2
41
Note: 78% do not offer any “Additional comments” (data not
shown) regarding CATA services and/or service information.
Consistent with other findings, of those who do, “Improve the app”
rises to the top (6% in total).
87
321
Further emphasizing the importance of refining the app is that it is the primary way
Community Service route riders get route and fare information (67%).
Current Trip
Source of Schedule, Route and Fare Information (%)
CATA mobile iPhone and Android apps
67
CATA website
45
Ride guide
23
Info signs posted below bus stop signs
19
CATA real-time website
7
Text message, real-time information at bus stop
3
Bus drivers
2
Telephone, CATA offices
2
In person, CATA offices
1
Q 13
88
Detailed Findings
COMMUNITY SERVICE ROUTE RIDERS: BEST
WAYS TO REACH
89
322
Community Service route riders mostly get local news/information from the Internet correspondingly, riders primarily suggest the Internet – particularly social media – as the
best way of sharing information.
Riders Get Local News/Information from…
(%)
Internet
61
Best Ways for CATA to Share Information
(%)
Note: Social
Media (Net) is
47%.
Facebook
40
Email newsletter
TV
29
36
Internet ads
29
Twitter
Newspaper
19
Radio
9
27
TV ads
17
Newspaper ads
12
Radio ads
12
Directmail
Other
2
Phone/mobile apps/text alerts
9
2
Q 14, Q15
90
APPENDIX 2: Centre County Municipalities/CATA
Service Area Map/Survey Questions
91
323
Centre County Municipalities
Bellefonte
Benner
Boggs
Burnside
Centre Hall
College
Curtin
Ferguson
Gregg
Haines
Halfmoon
Harris
Howard
Huston
Liberty
Marion
Miles
Milesburg
Millheim
Patton
Penn
Philipsburg
Port Matilda
Potter
Rush
Snow Shoe
Spring
State College
Taylor
Union
Unionville
Walker
Worth
92
CATA Service Area Map (from CATA website)
93
324
Rider/Community Service Route Rider Survey Question Wording
Q1. Into which of the following categories do you fit?
Q2. How long have you been using CATA’s services?
Q3. How many one-way trips per week do you typically take on CATA buses?
Q4. How far from your home/origin is the closest bus stop?
Q5. How do you generally get to and from the bus stop?
Q6. How long do you expect your full one-way bus trip to take today from origin to destination?
Q7. Does your current trip involve a transfer to another bus?
Q8. How far from your final bus stop is your destination
Q9. In general, what is/are the primary reason(s) you use the bus? (select all that apply)
Q10. Why do you ride the bus as opposed to using some other form of transportation? (select all that apply)
Q11. What did you use to pay for your fare on this trip?
Q13. How do you get your CATA schedule, route and fare information? (select all that apply)
Q14. How do you get your general county and local news and information? (please note specific stations, sites,
publications)
Q15. What is/are the best way(s) for CATA staff to share information about services, changes, promotions, and other
events with its riders? (select all that apply)
Q16 How likely are you to continue the CATABUS services?
Q17. How likely are you to recommend the CATABUS service to others?
Q18. Do you have a valid driver’s license?
Q19. How many working motor vehicles (registered cars, trucks, SUV’s, vans or motorcycles are at your residence and
available for your use?
Q20. For this trip, was a motor vehicle available as an alternative?
Q22. How important do you feel transit is to our community?
Q25. What is your affiliation with Penn State?
94
Non-Rider Survey Question Wording
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
Q5.
Q6.
Q7.
Q8.
Q9.
Q10.
Q11.
Q12.
Q14.
Q15.
Q16.
Q17.
Q18.
Thinking about the available public transportation options in Centre County such as bus, dial-a-ride, carpool, and vanpool,
whether or not you, yourself, use public transportation, in general, how important do you feel that public transportation service is to
the residents, workers and students in Centre County? Do you feel it is (READ)?
Even though you may or may not use public transportation, based on anything you know or have heard, in general, how would you
rate access to public transportation in the Centre Region and other areas served by CATA? Would you say it is (READ)?
Even though you may or may not use public transportation, when you think of public transportation services or companies in your
area, what specific names come to mind?
Just to check, have you ever heard of the Centre Area Transportation Authority or CATA as it is known?
As you may or may not know, the Centre Area Transportation Authority or CATA is a public transportation organization established by
local municipalities and serves the Centre Region with its CATA bus service and by providing additional services to such as dial-a-ride,
carpool and vanpool options to residents of the Centre County region.
Have you ridden a CATA bus within the past 12 months?
Based on anything you know or may have heard, what is your opinion of the Centre Area Transportation Authority or CATA as it is
known? Would you say you opinion is (READ)?
How familiar are you with the CATA and the services it offers, would you say you are (READ)?
When you rode a CATA bus in the past, how frequently did you ride?
Thinking back to when you did ride the CATA bus, was it (READ)?
Why have you not ridden a CATA bus [READ WHEN APPROPRIATE: within the past 12 months]?
How likely are you to ride a CATA bus in the next 12 months - (READ)?
What are some things CATA could change about its current bus services to make you more likely to ride a CATA bus in the future?
For the following questions, I’d like you to rate CATA bus service on a scale from 1 to 5 where “1” is poor and “5” is excellent. Based
on what, if anything, you know about CATA bus service, how would you rate its bus service overall?
Although you indicated you have not ridden the CATA bus (recently/ever), we would still like your opinion on the services CATA
provides. Using the same scale from 1 to 5 where “1” is poor and “5” is excellent, based on what, if anything you know, how would
you rate CATA bus service on [INSERT ITEM]?
Turning briefly to some other services CATA provides, prior to this interview, were you aware that CATA offers a carpool and vanpool
matching service through its CATACOMMUTE program?
Prior to this interview, were you aware that CATA offers a curb-to-curb para-transit service to persons age 65 and over and persons
with disabilities through its CATARIDE program?
95
325
Non-Rider Survey Question Wording (Cont’d)
Q20. Occasionally CATA staff shares information about its services with local residents. What are the best ways for CATA staff to share
information about service changes, promotions and other events with local residents? (READ CHOICES, SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)
Q22. Now, thinking about your personal travel habits, what method of transportation would you say you use most often when traveling in
and around Centre County?
Q24. For what purpose would you say you travel most often around Centre County?
Q25. Thinking of the one location around Centre County you travel to most often, about how many miles is your home from this location?
Your best estimate is fine.
Q26. And about how many minutes does it usually take you to travel to this location? Your best estimate is fine.
Q27. Assuming CATA bus service was convenient to your home and to the location you travel to most often, about how long do you think it
would take to make this same trip on a CATA bus? Your best estimate is fine.
Q28. Have you ever considered riding a CATA bus to or from the places you travel most often?
Q29. What were the primary reasons you considered taking a CATA bus?
Q30. Regardless of mode of travel, do you ever travel into or around (READ LOCATION)?
Q30a. How often do you travel into or around (READ LOCATION)?
Q32. To the best of your knowledge, how far away from your home is the nearest CATA bus stop? Just your best estimate is fine.
Q33. From which of the following sources do you get your general county and local news and information (READ)?
Q34a. What television stations do you watch for county and local news and information?
Q34b. What radio stations do you listen to for county and local news and information?
Q34c. What Internet sites do you go to for county and local news and information?
Q34d. What newspapers do you read for county and local news and information?
96
326
327
Appendix B
Public Comment Period Summary
Commenter
Bellefonte Borough
Bellefonte Borough
328
Date
Received
Comment
Proposed Response
10/7/2015
This is addressed as part of Strategic Direction
#11 (“Evaluate local match shares process”).
Although not included as part of the five focus
areas, CATA acknowledges both the advantages
and challenges presented by allocating local
The CATA Board should
shares according to the Miller Formula. There
consider doing away with is not, however, consensus among CATA
or revising the Miller
member and contract municipalities regarding
Formula to ensure that
a solution. It should be noted that any future
the cost of service is
departure from the Miller Formula will likely
distributed in a fair and
result in its own unique set of advantages
equitable manner.
and challenges. Addressing this issue at the
COG level may move action independent of
the five focus areas. Because this comment is
addressed as part of the existing list of strategic
directions, it is designated as a future action,
and no changes to the plan text will be made.
10/7/2015
CATA acknowledges the need to strengthen
communication methods with contract
municipalities wherever it is possible to do
so, and has taken a number of important
steps in that direction. Because this comment
deals with an element of day-to-day business
operations rather than strategy, it is designated
as an ongoing action, and no changes to the
plan text will be made.
Communication
regarding proposed cost
increases or service
changes should be
improved as much as
possible.
Page
Citation(s)
12, 172, 174,
180, 210-211,
249-251, 254,
263, 267, 269,
274
Not
Applicable
Commenter
College Township
College Township
Date
Received
Comment
Proposed Response
Page
Citation(s)
10/8/2015
Regarding Key Findings
and Questions – Current
CATA Operations,
Chapter 2, second
bullet, on CATA’s rising
operational costs per
unit of service for fixedroute and paratransit
services: Council
expressed concern over
how to offset the loss
of federal discretionary
funding, which is
further complicated by
rising operational and
maintenance costs.
Federal discretionary funding was typically
utilized for capital purchases, whereas federal
formula funding has been used for operating
expenses. The loss of federal discretionary
funding, therefore, can best be described as
complicating the scheduled replacement of
needed capital equipment. That noted, federal
formula funding is currently flat to decreasing
over the last two years, and is expected to
remain so for the foreseeable future. No
changes to either program are expected until
Congress passes successor legislation to MAP21, at the earliest. CATA continues to educate
our federal delegation on the impacts of these
funding trends. For these reasons, CATA is
addressing funding uncertainty and rising
operational costs through Strategic Direction
#4 (“Build reserves”). These operating and
capital reserves, as noted in the plan, will help
to buffer against rising costs and periods of
funding uncertainty. Moreover, less “flexing”
of federal funds away from capital expenses to
operating expenses will help as well. Because
this comment is intended to be addressed
through one of the five focus areas, no changes
to the plan text will be made.
120, 175-176,
178, 180, 184,
195, 263-264,
267-269, 272273
10/8/2015
Over the past several years, CATA has
transitioned to the overlay of express service
in heavily-utilized student corridors. These
changes have resulted in base-line service
to the community where, with few minor
exceptions, service frequency and operating
Concern expressed
hours are maintained year-round. CATA
regarding the impacts
acknowledges the challenges presented by
of CATA’s reduction in
a significant number of seasonal residents,
the frequency of service and its ability to balance the needs of these
during the summer, and residents against the efficiency, productivity,
other non-peak times, on and cost-effectiveness of operations. CATA
the region’s permanent
further acknowledges the need to address
residents trying to get
perceptions of service within the community.
to work, especially to
For these reasons, CATA is addressing these
workplaces other than
challenges through Strategic Direction #1
the university.
(“Address growth prudently”), specifically the
“Determine proper balance between university
and community service” element of that
strategic direction. Because this comment is
intended to be addressed through one of the
five focus areas, no changes to the plan text will
be made.
136, 175, 181,
183, 191, 194195, 198, 250,
265, 267-270
329
Commenter
College Township
College Township
Ferguson Township
330
Date
Received
10/8/2015
10/8/2015
9/28/2015
Comment
Proposed Response
Page
Citation(s)
CATA acknowledges the need for multi-modal
connections between transit and bicycle,
pedestrian, and highway facilities. The “first
mile” and “last mile” elements of a transit trip
are important considerations in both the transit
Understanding that the
planning and land development processes.
Centre Region is working CATA has emphasized, and will continue to
on a regional bike path
emphasize, the importance of multi-modal
plan, Ms. Stilson stressed connections through the installation of bike
the need for multi-modal racks on fixed route vehicles, its participation
transit connections,
in the land development review process, and
putting bus stops at
179, 191, 237other methods as appropriate. That noted,
though the construction of a bicycle facility may 238, 252
key bike path locations,
adding that it might also be cost-favorable to ongoing transit operations
in a given area, the relationship between the
be less costly to put in
two modes is not necessarily one-to-one. It
a bike lane, as opposed
may be easier to attract a bicycle rider to
to running buses to the
occasional or consistent transit use than it
less-utilized areas year
would to attract a daily transit patron to bicycle
round.
use, depending on a number of other factors.
Because this comment deals with an element
of day-to-day business operations rather than
strategy, it is designated as an ongoing action,
Mr. Francke expressed a
belief that one of the key
focus points should be
increasing ridership on
existing routes.
CATA acknowledges the importance of
increasing ridership - and therefore costeffectiveness, efficiency, and productivity
- on its existing routes. Strategic Direction
#1 (“Address growth prudently”), through
recognition of the challenges inherent in
meeting growing community needs with
limited financial, vehicle, and human resources,
implies the “maintenance first” philosophy
that underlies CATA’s day-to-day business
operations. This philosophy is demonstrated
on an ongoing basis through CATA’s service
planning and marketing processes, as well as
other agency functions. Because this comment
deals with an element of day-to-day business
operations rather than strategy, it is designated
as an ongoing action, and no changes to the
172, 191, 195,
209, 236, 239,
269-270
Should the Authority
consider a light rail
option in its plan? This
may be particularly
beneficial in the North
Atherton Street corridor.
CATA acknowledges the high volume of transit,
general vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic
within the North Atherton Street corridor.
These needs are being addressed through
intensive base-line and express service within
the corridor. That noted, the corridor’s
population, density, right-of-way, and traffic
volume - as well as CATA’s available funding are insufficient to support the construction and
ongoing operations and maintenance of a light
rail corridor at this time. These circumstances
are not expected to change significantly over
the 10-year horizon of the Strategic Plan, and
light rail is not expected to be a viable option
in the CATA service area until such time as it is
supported by a robust feasibility study effort.
Because this comment falls outside the scope
of the 10-year horizon of the Strategic Plan, no
changes to the plan text will be made.
Not
Applicable
Commenter
Ferguson Township
Ferguson Township
Ferguson Township
Harris Township
Date
Received
Proposed Response
Page
Citation(s)
9/28/2015
Further clarification
is needed to identify
the metric to be used
to address growth
prudently. Will the
metrics be driven by
ridership, or by the
financial viability of
expanded routes?
CATA notes that ridership and financial
viability of routes are not mutually exclusive;
in fact, the two considerations go hand-inhand. As existing or potential ridership grows,
financial viability improves, and the service
becomes more attractive to operate and
maintain. The specific metrics by which any
potential expanded service will be evaluated
for implementation and ongoing maintenance
are unknown at this time, though they will
begin to take shape as the agency moves
through Strategic Directions #1 (“Address
growth prudently”) and #5 (“Enhance the use
of metrics”). That noted, these evaluation
metrics will likely include potential ridership
and financial viability, as well as a number of
other factors and considerations. Because this
comment is intended to be addressed through
two of the five focus areas, no changes to the
120, 176, 194,
264-265, 267270
9/28/2015
Building reserves may
be a challenge given the
current funding provided
by federal, state, and
local governments.
Having a reserve is
prudent, establishing
the reserve based on
revenues matching
expenses under the
current funding scenarios
will require increased
efficiencies to achieve
cost savings, resulting in
reserves being built over
time.
CATA acknowledges the challenges inherent in
building and maintaining both operating and
capital reserves, including limited financial
resources, rising operational and maintenance
costs, and the need to an increasing level of
cost-effectiveness and efficiency. That noted,
we agree that establishing and maintaining
these reserves is prudent to buffer against
funding uncertainties and rising costs. This
is addressed as part of Strategic Direction #4
(“Build reserves”). Because this comment is
be made.
175-176, 178,
180, 184, 195,
263-264, 267269, 272-273
9/28/2015
CATA should include
exploring a subscription
service for each route to
provide stabilized route
ridership and revenue.
Subscription service - where minimum levels of
ridership and revenue are maintained through
a target number of annual pass sales and
similar actions - is one potential viable model
that could be used to provide future service
to the community. For this reasons, CATA is
addressing these challenges through Strategic
Direction #1 (“Address growth prudently”).
Because this comment is intended to be
addressed through one of the five focus areas,
no changes to the plan text will be made.
187, 206, 236,
238, 269-270
9/17/2015
The Board asked if
CATA could provide
information from
the phone survey on
why Harris Township
residents are not using
CATA’s services.
CATA acknowledges this request. The
information was compiled and provided to the
Harris Township Manager, who acknowledged
its receipt. A copy of the information was also
provided to the CRPA Senior Planner for Harris
Township.
Not
Applicable
Comment
331
Commenter
Harris Township
Harris Township
Jon Eich
332
Date
Received
9/17/2015
Comment
Proposed Response
Page
Citation(s)
CATA notes the 2013 completion of the State
College Area Universal Transit Access Study,
and acknowledges some limited interest among
municipal and other entities within the CATA
The Board encouraged
service area in implementing some form of
CATA to look at
universal access. CATA stands ready to discuss
alternative funding
the prospect of universal access with any willing
methods, including a
partner, and intends to address this comment
173, 263
model that would allow
through Strategic Direction #1 (“Address growth
riders in Harris Township
prudently”), specifically the “Study how to set
to ride without paying an
fares and contract rates (inside and outside the
individual fare.
region)” element of that strategic direction.
Because this comment is intended to be
addressed through one of the five focus areas,
no changes to the plan text will be made.
9/17/2015
The Board felt the
strategic plan should
address public education
and the benefits to the
passenger of using the
CATA system.
CATA acknowledges the importance of building
community awareness of transit services and
their related benefits. That noted, both the
non-rider survey as well as the stakeholder
interviews conducted as part of the strategic
planning process suggest a very high level of
awareness of CATA services. Through these
same methods, the single largest challenge
in terms of public outreach was identified (as
a result of population turnover) as building
awareness of services among new area
residents. CATA intends to continue addressing
this issue through a variety of marketing
and public relations activities. Because this
comment deals with an element of day-today business operations rather than strategy,
it is designated as an ongoing action, and no
179, 182-183,
186, 188-190,
192, 195, 205206
9/10/2015
Pages 66-80: Why
is CATA’s paratransit
component not as robust
as its peers’ paratransit
systems? Is the fee
per trip too high? Is
the pool of riders too
small? Is there an
impact from overlap
with Centre County
Transportation Office’s
Shared Ride, MATP, and
home delivered meals
programs? Could CATA
and CCOT programs
find efficiencies from a
unified dispatch system?
CATA acknowledges this insight, but has not
conducted a thorough review of how its peer
systems operate paratransit services. CATA
plans to address this issue through a small
study or informal conversations with peer
agencies. With respect to potential efficiencies
to be gained through coordination with the
CCOT, these efficiencies almost certainly exist.
We expect that the North-Central PA Regional
Transit Consolidation Study - commissioned by
PennDOT and noted in the Strategic Plan - will
begin to define the extent of these potential
efficiencies. Moreover, the focus of a recentlyinitiated travel training program is to transition
individuals from paratransit to fixed route
service where possible to do so, thus expanding
travel options, reducing paratransit use, and
lowering operating costs. Clarifying language
will be considered for a future plan update.
68-82, 129,
136, 182, 186,
190, 246-247,
253
Commenter
Jon Eich
Jon Eich
Jon Eich
Date
Received
Page
Citation(s)
Comment
Proposed Response
9/10/2015
Page 136: Because a
large amount of land in
Centre County is publicly
owned as State Forest
and State Gamelands,
the plan should include
a map of these areas.
These lands buffer parts
of Centre County from
CATA’s existing service
area and present a
barrier to extending
service because there is
no potential to generate
riders from these state
lands.
CATA acknowledges this insight. Clarifying
language will be added to the plan text. A map
of public lands will be considered for a future
plan update.
138
9/10/2015
Pages 141 and 142: The
narrative should indicate
that there is an Amish
population in portions
of the Penns and (to a
lesser extent) Nittany
Valley Regions of Centre
County. While these
households do not have
motor vehicles, they
do have vehicles that
operate on public roads.
The Amish are also users
of transit, often PUC
licensed vans operated
by “the English”.
Lancaster County, PA
may provide insight
about the use of transit
by the Amish population.
language will be added to the plan text.
143-144
9/10/2015
Page 146, line
4: It doesn’t seem
appropriate to use
the term “currently”
when referring to
unemployment rates that
change monthly. The
data cited is from 2012.
It would be important
to show a timeline
and explanation of
unemployment rates for
Centre County, PA, and
the US. Typically Centre
County’s unemployment
rate is among the lowest
in PA, and a point or two
below state and national
averages.
language will be added to the plan text. A
timeline of unemployment rates for Centre
County and the US will be considered for a
future plan update.
148
333
Commenter
Jon Eich
Jon Eich
Jon Eich
334
Date
Received
Comment
Proposed Response
Page
Citation(s)
9/10/2015
Page 149: The narrative
should indicate that
educational attainment
in portions of the Penns
and (to a lesser extent)
Nittany Valley Regions
is impacted by the
presence of an Amish
population.
151
9/10/2015
Pages 152 to 154:
Elderly housing
and nursing home
populations are likely to
impact the age profile
in municipalities with
smaller populations
(including Philipsburg
Borough, Rush Township,
and to a lesser degree
Bellefonte Borough).
Would it be useful to
include a map of these
facilities, accompanied
by the number of
residents as well as the
number of employees?
language will be added to the plan text. A map
of facilities, as well as a table indicating the
number of residents and employees for each
facility, will be considered for a future plan
update.
154-156
9/10/2015
Pages 156: Consider
modifying the types of
housing units in the table
from total units to yearround housing units.
There are a significant
number of seasonal
units (hunting cabins) in
the Moshannon Valley,
Mountaintop, and Penns
Valley Regions. These
units will not generate
transit riders, and their
inclusion drives up the
vacancy rate.
language will be added to the plan text. A subtable of seasonal and recreational housing will
be considered for a future plan update.
158
Commenter
Jon Eich
Jon Eich
Date
Received
Comment
Proposed Response
Page
Citation(s)
9/10/2015
Pages 159-161 and page
207 bullet 3: These
tables focus on the
means of transportation
to work, reporting the
use of transit, walking,
and other means
(bicycling) respectively.
These tables underreport the use of these
modes of transportation
by focusing on the
labor force. In Centre
County (and perhaps a
number of CATA’s peers)
a significant amount of
transit use comes from
individuals who are not
in the labor force (in
particular, students). See
discussion on CATA users
on pages 195 and 207.
It seems very difficult to
believe that 2,465 riders
commuting to work
generated the 7.3 million
trips provided by CATA.
While the tables can’t be
changed, the narrative
should be revised to note
the use of these modes
by people not part of the
labor force.
Journey-to-work or commute data is included in 161-163, 209
the ACS, while general travel mode data - being
much more difficult to quantify - is not.
9/10/2015
Page 176 – Competing
needs – bullet 7: In the
discussion of balancing
cost of service to
apartment units and
when a complex may
decide to operate its
own service, is there a
possibility of a number of
neighboring complexes
to go together to provide
service? And if so, does
this impact the tipping
point?
CATA acknowledges this insight. Certainly
the possibility exists for complexes to work
together to provide service, and this would
likely impact the tipping point. That noted, the
nature of these potential impacts is speculative
at this point in time. CATA intends to address
14, 173, 176this comment through Strategic Direction #1
179, 239, 263,
267-270
“Study how to set fares and contract rates
(inside and outside the region)” element of that
be made.
335
Commenter
Jon Eich
Jon Eich
Jon Eich
336
Date
Received
Page
Citation(s)
Comment
Proposed Response
9/10/2015
Page 224 – Halfmoon
Township profile: 1)
paragraph at bottom of
page is about Ferguson
Township; 2) Halfmoon
Township is going
through a process based
on the Halfmoon/Patton
Land Area Plan to create
a higher density mixed
use zoning district
adjacent to the boundary
of Patton Township (at
Grays Woods) that may
be suitable for transit
service at some point in
the future.
CATA acknowledges point #1 as a cut-and-paste
error that will be corrected in the plan text.
CATA also acknowledges point #2, however, this
area is not expected to be re-zoned, planned,
and developed over the 10-year horizon of
the Strategic Plan. Because this comment falls
outside the scope of the 10-year horizon of the
Strategic Plan, no changes to the plan text will
be made.
9/10/2015
Page 228 – Patton
Township profile – last
paragraph: Additional
fairly high residential and
commercial development
is also expected along
North Atherton Street
on the grounds of the
former Penn State and
Franklin mobile home
parks.
230
9/10/2015
Page 274 – The
Plan suggests a
comprehensive update
be prepared every three
years. That seems
intense – combined with
the periodic updates,
it seems like CATA
will be continuously
updating the plan. Is
that what peers do?
While 10 years seems
too long a time period
between updates, I
wonder if 5-6 years (two
cycles of the periodic
updates) might give
CATA time to implement
recommendations from
this plan and digest the
impacts of those changes
before preparing another
document of this scope
and intensity.
275-276
CATA acknowledges this insight. An informal
polling of nationwide transit CEOs has
revealed that three years is not an uncommon
update cycle for similar plans. This proposal
for updating the plan on a regular basis
will be brought to CATA staff and the Board
of Directors, and, if appropriate, clarifying
226
Commenter
Patton Township
Patton Township
Patton Township
Patton Township
Patton Township
Date
Received
Comment
Proposed Response
Page
Citation(s)
There are concerns
regarding CATA’s
conservative funding
estimates, specifically
that the Strategic Plan
appears to anticipate the
“worst-case” scenario,
and that a 5% annual
increase for local shares
may be too low.
CATA generates its funding estimates based
upon guidance received from federal and state
governments - who supply the overwhelming
majority of external funding - as well as
historical trends. CATA acknowledges an
obligation not to paint an overly bleak picture
in terms of funding. That noted, we can neither
project funding levels, nor set plans based on
those funding levels, without some reasonable
expectation that they will be received. To date,
CATA has received no indication of federal
successor legislation to MAP-21, and the
agency is awaiting more defined guidance from
the Commonwealth regarding the impact of Act
89 of 2013 on available funding.
178-179, 210212, 249-250,
254, 263, 267,
269, 274
10/7/2015
Relative to maintenance
succession, can training
be conducted locally
that would benefit not
only CATA, but other
operators throughout
the Commonwealth?
This is addressed as one of three “best
practices” within the plan (“position CATA as
partner across the state for training”). CATA
has already discussed with PennDOT the
prospect of utilizing its new state-of-the-art
maintenance facility as a statewide training
hub, and this concept has garnered a favorable
response. The central location of State College
only adds to the desirability of this concept.
Because this comment deals with a best
practice already covered in the document, no
265, 267, 269
10/7/2015
The offering of
internships and other
short-term training
activities may be a good
path to developing a full
training program.
172, 189, 193,
266-269, 271272
10/7/2015
In terms of fueling,
what’s CATA’s next step
after CNG? Possibly
electric or hybrid?
If certain fueling
technologies are not
available for buses, can
they be adopted for
service or other fleet
vehicles?
#14 (“Determine if we move beyond CNG
[‘cutting edge’ or ‘bleeding edge’?]”). There
may be no short-term next step beyond CNG, at 180, 184, 186,
least for revenue vehicles. If funding becomes
248-249, 266available, however, CATA will move the study
267, 269, 274
of this issue up in priority. Clarifying language
regarding service and other fleet vehicles will
be added to the plan text.
10/7/2015
When considering the
importance of outside
funding opportunities
to advance strategic
initiatives, is there
an opportunity for
a position shared
between CATA and other
agencies to identify
non-traditional, nongovernmental grant
programs?
#6 (“Identify resources to pursue grant
opportunities”). Clarifying language will be
added to the plan text.
10/7/2015
172, 195,
252-253, 264,
267-268, 274
337
Commenter
Penn State University
Penn State University
338
Date
Received
Proposed Response
Page
Citation(s)
10/2/2015
Expansion of CATA
services in key areas,
whether in frequency
or routing, will further
the effort to free the
tight capacity on our
shared roadways and
provide residents a
transportation choice
beyond their own
vehicle. That expansion
is highlighted within
Strategy 1: Address
Growth Prudently, and
is linked to Strategy 4:
Build Reserves, within
CATA’s Strategic Plan.
Realizing that expansion,
significant or otherwise,
comes at a cost in the
form of vehicles, drivers,
and operations, we offer
our support in writing
or representation, for
significant growth, when
CATA applies for funding
to meet this challenge.
CATA acknowledges this insight and appreciates
this offer.
175-176, 178,
180, 184, 195,
263-264, 267,
269-270, 272273
10/2/2015
Our team in OPP
would welcome an
interaction to assist
CATA in determining
the best way to develop
a Climate Action Plan,
or start the discussion.
This sort of vision
setting can cut across
future planning for a
number of aspects of
CATA’s operations, from
fuel type forecasting
to sustainable office
planning. OPP has a
significant amount of
experience and success
in identifying these
opportunities along with
potential funding, and
as a research institution,
Penn State often times is
the trail blazer in these
areas.
CATA acknowledges this insight and appreciates
this offer.
Not
Applicable
Comment
Commenter
Date
Received
Comment
Proposed Response
Page
Citation(s)
9/25/2015
There should be more
publicity of route and
bus information for
senior citizens who are
not able to access route
information on their cell
phones.
CATA acknowledges the importance of building
community awareness of transit services and
their related benefits, particularly for senior
citizens and people with disabilities. That
noted, both the non-rider survey as well as
the stakeholder interviews conducted as part
of the strategic planning process suggest a
very high level of awareness of CATA services.
Through these same methods, the single largest
challenge in terms of public outreach was
identified (as a result of population turnover) as
building awareness of services among new area 199, 206
residents. CATA intends to continue addressing
this issue through a variety of marketing and
public relations activities. With the transition
to preferences for electronic information,
however, CATA has been adjusting the number
of paper copies printed downward to avoid
waste. Because this comment deals with an
element of day-to-day business operations
rather than strategy, it is designated as an
ongoing action, and no changes to the plan text
will be made.
9/25/2015
Students enrolled at
CPI or through the
SCASD technical school
curriculum should
be considered for
apprenticeships for
mechanics.
CATA acknowledges this insight. Though CPI is
already noted in the plan, clarifying language
with respect to the SCASD technical school
curriculum will be added to the plan text.
Smaller buses should
be used on routes
with lower ridership,
and for the CATARIDE
and CATACOMMUTE
programs.
CATA acknowledges the community’s
perception that smaller vehicles are desirable
on fixed routes with low ridership. They
are already used on several of these fixed
routes, as a demonstration project, as well
as on all CATARIDE and CATACOMMUTE
services. That noted, increasing the number of
vehicle types does have the effect of limiting
vehicle assignment options and complicating
maintenance practices. Moreover, the
Not
decrease in operating costs afforded by smaller Applicable
vehicles does not change significantly, and labor
costs remain constant regardless of the type
of vehicle used. Further, the response from
the community has been negative in terms
of visibility, noise levels, and ride comfort.
Because this comment deals with an element
of day-to-day business operations rather than
strategy, it is designated as an ongoing action,
9/25/2015
172, 189, 193,
266-269, 271272
339
Commenter
340
Date
Received
9/25/2015
Comment
Proposed Response
Page
Citation(s)
Alternative services
for riders should be
developed for times
when CATA’s service is
cut back when Penn
State University is not
in session, especially for
those who work on the
north end of town.
Over the past several years, CATA has
transitioned to the overlay of express service
in heavily-utilized student corridors. These
changes have resulted in base-line service
to the community where, with few minor
exceptions, service frequency and operating
hours are maintained year-round. CATA
acknowledges the challenges presented by
a significant number of seasonal residents,
and its ability to balance the needs of these
residents against the efficiency, productivity,
and cost-effectiveness of operations. CATA
further acknowledges the need to address
perceptions of service within the community.
For these reasons, CATA is addressing these
challenges through Strategic Direction #1
“Determine proper balance between university
and community service” element of that
be made.
136, 175, 181,
183, 191, 194195, 198, 250,
265, 267-270
341

Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) Strategic Plan Update

Transcription

Similar documents

Food Justice For All

Cougar Chronicle - Union County Public Schools

October 1, 2015 Issue 8 - Union County Public Schools

Color added to newsletter Sales tax sought on dealer cash

Froggy Drawing handout2 - Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority

june 4 : fado irish pub

IndyGo Proposed and 2015 Route Changes

44887 CL saddle club

c O n TA c T jiM SPEROS

available - RK Centers