HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-03-AHTC-rpt-copyAd Hoc Transportation Committee
Lexpress
Lexington,MA
2023
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
Committee Charge,Challenges and the Process 6
The Select Board Charge:6
Members:6
Committee Process:7
Challenges faced by the Committee:7
Baseline Considerations:7
History of Lexpress 11
In the beginning:11
Ongoing challenges with funding:11
Ridership challenges:12
Current Funding 15
Revenue Sources 15
Transportation Demand Management 16
128 Business Council (128BC)/Rev Shuttle 18
School Transportation Expense 19
Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC)recommendation:20
New Revenue Concepts:21
Current Operations &Ridership 23
Affordable housing served within Lexington by Lexpress:25
Transportation Services for Disabled and the Elderly 26
Comparison with other transit systems 27
Changes in Lexington Demographics 28
Senior Residents needs and mass transport solution review:28
Lexpress and Lexington Public School Students 32
Outreach to school aged population 32
Lexington Public School Bus operations details 33
RECOMMENDATIONS 35
APPENDIX 39
Mass transport options in Lexington &comparisons:39
Case Study:Complexity of Route Creation -C Route change decision 44
Mobility Impaired Lexington’s residents 46
Do people want to ride Lexpress anymore?47
Possible current and unmet transportation needs for school students 49
Public Forums 53
1st Public Forum (July 26,2023)53
2nd Public Forum (September 13,2023)54
Slides of Presentation to the Select Board (September 2023)56
Demographic REMIX maps for Lexington 56
2
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In February 2023,the Select Board appointed the Ad Hoc Transportation Committee to
evaluate the current Lexpress transit system and make recommendations for its future.The
Committee held multiple weekly meetings,during which they met with transportation experts,
researched other transit systems,explored town demographics,and reviewed key Town goals
such as sustainability and increasing multi-family housing density to comply with the MBTA
Communities Act.Two public forums were held and the final recommendations were presented
to the Select Board in September.This is the final report of the committee.
The Committee believes that Lexpress has been,and is,an important and vital service for
many in town.However,a number of contributing factors have affected its ridership including
the COVID-19 shutdown;work-from-home reducing office travel;a more affluent population with
increasing car ownership;shift of student ridership to school buses from mass transport;and
other factors such as a constrained transportation budget,operational cost increases,and
reduced staff time.Town Expenses for this service will continue to increase,requiring longer
term commitment of operating revenue and/or successful receipt of repeated outside grant
funding to fund a successful shuttle system.
Many residents expressed their gratitude for the service during the public forums.Some
expressed their current unmet needs.These were:routes closer to their residence;more
frequent service;better coordination with after-school activities and with the rides needed home
after those activities;and Saturday service.We also heard dissatisfaction with the
MBTA-provided services for the disabled and older adults requiring mobility support who would
prefer curb-to-curb service from Lexpress.
The Committee recommends that Lexpress should continue,with the Select Board supporting
investments in improved service operations to meet residents’needs,and in efforts to increase
public awareness.Additional financial support will be needed for this work in FY 24-26.
These recommendations include annual funding for marketing,outreach,and education;
pursuing additional funding sources beyond the general funds and ticket revenues is
recommended for Lexpress.These include sponsorship funding from other commercial
interests in town,grant applications,possible appropriation from parking meter funds,and a
review with planning and legal counsel regarding reliable Transportation Demand Management
(TDM)funding streams,or from Transportation Overlay Management Districts (TMODs).It is
also recommended that funding for the REV should not be reduced and more active solicitation
for its funding from developers and corporations be pursued.
Additionally,it is recommended that some consideration of better balancing funding,and
coordination of services between school buses and Lexpress be given in decisions regarding
public transportation in Lexington.Ideally,no transportation reductions of any transit service be
considered until the impacts of recent multi-family residential zoning changes are better
understood.
4
The Committee acknowledges the increased budgetary pressure with upcoming major capital
initiatives and recognizes that the Town continues to call out Lexpress as a strategic resource
for accomplishing Town long-term climate action and Comprehensive Plan goals.
(Please note:Where possible members contributions to the report have been included as
given).
5
Committee Charge,Challenges and the
Process
The Select Board Charge:
The Ad Hoc Transportation Committee (AHTC)was established by the Select Board
together in February 2023.The Select Board charged the AHTC with having the
following mission:
‘To provide a recommendation to the Select Board no later than December
15,2023 on the future of the Lexpress bus service in time to be
incorporated into the FY25 budget.At least two public hearings;one to
obtain input and a second to obtain feedback on the recommendations.It
is intended that this Ad Hoc Committee will be disbanded in December
2023.‘
Reference Select Board and Town Manager):
(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FtOKq3BOH1pIxOei2Rod3q_F02KJAfsItXPZ52
HxpzE/edit?usp=sharing)
Members:
The AHTC is made up of seven voting members:
●Deepika Sawhney,(Chair),member of the School Committee;
●Bridger McGaw (Vice Chair),member of the Economic Development Advisory
Committee;
●Sally Castleman,member of the Transportation Advisory Committee;
●Howard Cloth,member of the Senior Community;
●Carolyn Kosnoff,Assistant Town Manager for Finance
●Varda Haimo,Lexington business representative;
●Sharon Gunda,Clinical &Community Outreach Manager,Human Services;
Non voting members:
●Joe Pato,Chair,Liaison Select Board
●Support from Susan Barrett,Transportation Services Manager
6
Committee Process:
The committee met weekly beginning in the spring of 2023.The initial meetings
primarily focused on supporting a number of Northeastern University graduate students
to research transportation policy insights that could be incorporated throughout the
AHTC’s work.Thereafter,the AHTC met with travel experts,read previous reports and
other research,surveyed the Lexington community,held two public forums and spoke
with individuals who represent current and past riders.The Committee would like to
acknowledge the important role that Town staff and volunteer members of the
Transportation Advisory Committee have played over the years in creating,managing,
and advocating for public transit that serves our community.
The interactions and data obtained from Lexpress and MBTA sources are drawn upon
throughout the report.In addition,the AHTC conducted one public forum to solicit
feedback on Lexpress and a second to collect additional insights on our draft
recommendations.There are links throughout this report based on this work,as well as
a references section at the end with links to general research that is meant to explain or
complement data presented in the body of this report.Please see the website for
details on the Select Board charter as well as agendas and minutes of the meetings.
Challenges faced by the Committee:
The Committee members are from a broad cross section of Lexington staff and
community members with a breadth of experiences with life in Lexington.However,not
being transportation experts there was a significant learning curve.In addition,many
are not the typical demographic of a Lexpress rider.With no prior industry experiences
the committee members leaned into their own backgrounds to try and arrive at common
sense recommendations.Having Sally Castleman,Bridger McGaw and Town staff was
very helpful in this process.
Another significant challenge is that due to privacy concerns identifying and reaching
out to specific demographics in town was difficult.Where possible either national
statistics or Census data were consulted.Survey results for other purposes like the
Comprehensive Plan were consulted and conversations with demographic
representatives were used to inform our research.
Baseline Considerations:
Through its discussions,the Committee identified a set of factors that continued to
inform and disrupt the ease at coming to a definitive answer on whether Lexpress
should or should not cease operations.The Committee includes these considerations
7
before our recommendations to better inform readers about public transportation
services,and specifically,Lexpress.Importantly,Lexpress of the past is not the
Lexpress of Lexington’s future.
The Committee acknowledges:
●Public transportation plays an important part in connecting Lexington residents to
critical services in and around Lexington,as well as connecting residents and
employees of Lexington businesses with their places of employment.
COVID-19 Impact:
●The COVID-19 Pandemic set back decades of community public transportation
initiatives as more workers are working from home or opting again to use their
cars for commuting.The change in employee work patterns continues to evolve
and shifting MBTA commitment to routes and timing have also impacted use of
public transit,including Lexpress.
●The COVID-19 lockdown reduced community awareness of Lexpress
significantly.New riders who would replenish ridership annually no longer
considered Lexpress as a transportation option.
●In addition,just before COVID-19,Lexpress routes were changed to optimize for
the known needs of 2019-March 2020.The data obtained from the new routes
post-COVID-19 lockdown makes longitudinal analysis difficult.Consequently,it is
unclear whether the new routes are a factor in the loss of ridership.
Public Transportation and Car Culture:
●Public transportation costs are expensive and require long-term investment to
ensure that consistent operations have time to build enough confidence in the
community that people can choose to commit to using a bus over their car.
Revenues will rarely cover expenses in any public transportation system.
●Lexington,like other suburbs,has a car-centric culture.And like other suburbs,it
is experiencing an increase in single occupancy vehicle (SOV)traffic.
●Lexington makes annual investments in roads,parking spaces which serve the
car owners.Research presents a view that investments in parking reduces mass
transportation ridership.
Lexington Resolutions and Strategic Plans:
●Lexington residents and town government,support various public good
initiatives and major resolutions or community-wide plans that directly or
indirectly reference the value of mass transportation systems such as Lexpress.
These resolutions are vital to driving cultural and policy change in our community
8
in support of initiatives beyond Lexington as well.These often unfunded
resolutions are important in that they stress the sense of the community on vital
issues such as climate change.But these resolutions are vision-setting,not
funding mechanisms.If Lexington is to realize the strategic intent of these
resolutions,funding is needed to move the issue forward towards actual change.
●Regional coordination remains lacking.Despite the Tri-City Study and other
anecdotal notes illustrating the value and benefits,there seems to be a lack of
direct interest -or shifting interest -in adjacent communities to partner in shared
mobility planning or operations with Lexington.
●Lexpress will need substantial multi-year funding levels to become more
financially sustainable,available to many more residents,and contribute to the
goals called out in the Comprehensive Plan (Lexington Next -Comprehensive
Plan),Resilient Lexington Plan (Resilient Lexington DRAFT),Mobility
Management Project and Town Wide Survey (2022),and the Age Friendly Plan
(https://www.lexingtonma.gov/358/Lexington-Age-Friendly-Report).
Increasing costs of operation:
●The current fleet of Lexpress buses are at the end of their useful life and need to
be replaced in June 2026 and funding will be needed in FY25 for their purchase.
There is an expected significant rise in the new 5-year contract price beginning
in FY26,as well.Meanwhile for the past two years costs in fuel increase have
resulted in additional Lexpress operational costs.
Lack of accurate demographic data in Lexington:
●Lexington does not have an accurate database of who its senior population is
and its characteristics.Town senior services department relies on more
aggregate information such as the Census or population data maps from the
MBTA.This prevents them and us from accurately identifying current and future
needs of Lexington residents.
●Lexington also does not have an accurate database of its population that is
neuro diverse and could avail themselves of mass transportation services.Some
of this population graduates from Lexington Public Schools,so with school
collaboration it is feasible to obtain some of this data.
●While Lexpress serves some areas in town well,the interior roads of most
neighborhoods are not served hence older adults,especially those with mobility
impairments are not served.
Public input through forums:
●Input from the public was through a mini survey,some interviews with residents
and school staff,receipt of emails and two public forums.Through these means
9
it became clear that Lexpress has become an accepted part of the town –but
not a service that has been prioritized in recent years to enhance resident
adoption and impact.Our notes and meeting minutes are provided in the
Appendix.
10
History of Lexpress
In the beginning:
A direct product of community activism and a volunteer spirit,Lexpress first rolled onto
the streets of Lexington on Saturday,September 20,1979.In its inaugural form,
Lexpress ran four buses spread across eight ½-hour routes,with service Monday
through Saturday.Fares were 25¢for adults,10¢for seniors and students,as well as
10c for transfers.One route serviced the Burlington Mall,and a surcharge of 25¢was
charged into or out of Burlington.The service was designed so that between Lexpress
and the MBTA routes serving Lexington,almost every Lexington residence was within
¼mile of an hourly route to or from the town center.All routes came through the center
once an hour,enabling easy transfers.
A well-organized marketing campaign generated a great deal of excitement and very
quickly Lexpress proved that indeed it filled a large need in the community.Lexpress
exceeded all records for ridership and fare receipts compared to similar systems at the
time.As “the most successful minibus system in the country,”the Transportation
Coordinator received calls from cities and towns all over the country wanting to learn
from our success.
Students comprised the highest ridership,although seniors gradually increased their
usage of the system.Many of Lexington’s disabled citizens who could not drive found
new freedom and the means to find and keep jobs.Some Lexpress riders used the
service to get to work within Lexington,and others for one leg of their commutes,
transferring to or from the MBTA.Ahead of its time,Lexington also offered “chair car”
service to wheelchair-bound residents twice a week.
Ongoing challenges with funding:
Unfortunately,despite its wide usage,multiple budget cuts forced service reductions
numerous times.For example,the last run of the day was eliminated,then the Saturday
route was eliminated even though it had very high ridership,and this was followed by
the elimination of a bus,reducing the service from 8 to 6 routes.This last reduction
resulted in most residences no longer being within ¼mile of a public transit route.
Several other programs in Lexington were eliminated or reduced at those times as well,
but most program budgetary reductions have gradually been reinstated over
subsequent years;this has not been true of the Lexpress reductions.
Lexpress still exists in part because of the continued activism and volunteerism that
created it.Because of a bundled failed override vote in 2004,funding for Lexpress
11
service was completely canceled.It was only through the efforts of the Transportation
Advisory Committee,which quickly turned to local fund-raising,that the hiatus lasted
only two months.Concerned and supportive residents of all ages made donations such
that the MBTA grant could be retained and a much-reduced service could be resumed
for the remainder of the year.A few years later,another override was not “bundled”and
each item,again including Lexpress,stood alone on the ballot.Lexpress was one of the
few things that were approved by the voters!
To help reduce reliance on the tax levy,the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC)
constantly looked for new sources of funding,especially as money from the parking
meter funds were withdrawn and the annual grant from the MBTA started shrinking.In
1997,with Planning Board support,the committee introduced Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)requirements into the permitting process.Contractors seeking
variances for projects which would bring increased traffic into the town,would be
required to offset that traffic in a variety of ways,including paying a particular amount to
support Lexpress and thus,ideally,reduce the use of cars in town.It was reasoned that
TDM funding from commercial endeavors that added traffic was appropriate and
necessary whether served by Lexpress or not.With this mechanism in place,TDM
funds were thought to be a reliable source of funding to reduce the tax levy demand
and to help the Town maintain public transportation that serves our neighborhoods and
a broad range of public and private entities.Over time,however,the assessment
process,the required dollar amounts,some legal constraints,as well as the use of the
funds for additional projects,have changed –all contributing to the instability of
Lexpress funding.
Gradually,the part-time Transportation Coordinator position evolved to include many
additional responsibilities.The Town currently employs one staff member who spends
about 35%of her time as Transportation Manager to manage the Lexpress program,
and one part-time assistant.
Ridership challenges:
A significant change in Lexpress ridership occurred when the school bus system
increased its reach and service.In the early 2010s,the School Committee asked the
Town to increase their budget in order to increase the number of school buses and
increase the subsidy for school bus passes.Reducing the drop off and pickup car traffic
to and from school were one of the major benefits sought through this process.At the
time there were 13 school buses;the increase brought that to 35.Each school bus pass
was about $600;the new program charged only $300.As a consequence,more
parents purchased the subsidized school bus passes --and Lexpress’student ridership
and fare revenues dropped dramatically.The impact on cars dropping off and picking
12
up students was not evaluated.Excess traffic remains at the start and end times of
school.School buses now include in their routes students within easy reach of schools
by walking or biking.
At the time of the vast expansion of school bus routes,the School Committee asked
Lexpress to provide a “FlexPass''to allow students to use Lexpress beginning at 3:10 to
reach after-school activities not held at the school,(e.g.,appointments,jobs,religious
and other kinds of schooling)and to provide rides home from such activities,whether at
school or elsewhere.The FlexPass cost was only $50,which further subsidized the
student ridership and lost Lexpress significant revenue.
Lexpress,nevertheless,continued to serve the school-aged population for after school
and summer activities,as well as the special education program,but less for regular
school transportation.Some grievance is felt at the imbalance of funds expended on
the school buses in comparison to the funds used for public transportation that is
available to all residents,as this results in a less stable and viable service for
non-school-aged residents.Lexington spends $5.8 million on transportation annually
and less than 1/7th supports the system available to all residents.
Meanwhile,demands for other Lexpress services increased,especially as more
housing and industry were built,especially on the edges of the town.For example,
adding service to the Community Center,the two Avalon residential areas,Lahey
Lexington,and commercial areas on Hayden Avenue and Spring Street,continue to
challenge delivery of consistent and reliable service within the same budget.Some of
these locations are not near major arteries and require navigating narrow roads or slow
speed zones which can delay route completions.
Additionally,with considerably more traffic in town generally,Lexpress travel times
increased,and routes could no longer adhere to their schedules.This created rider
inconvenience further reducing ridership as people switched to other,more reliable
means.In efforts to maintain a reliable schedule,some routes were changed to serve
new populations only by taking service away from other areas.Both impacts further
reduced the stability of the system.Without additional revenue to add vehicles to the
Lexpress fleet,there is currently no way to bring service to all the people in town who
wish to use it.Yet,more dense residential developments and commercial areas want
service,and it seems more important than ever to get people out of single-occupancy
vehicles (SOV).Automobiles are the second highest contributor to greenhouse gasses
in Massachusetts.
13
COVID-19 impact:
The COVID-19 lockdown had a significant detrimental impact on Lexpress ridership,as
it did to all transit systems nationwide.It changed user behavior with some reliable
transportation needs completely reduced or eliminated,as employees continued to
work from home (WFH).Trips that would have been made formerly for groceries or
other purchases could be fulfilled by Instacart or Amazon.Delivery trucks for these
online services continue to be seen,as some residents have learned to prefer online
purchasing.
For students,it was akin to breaking a habit or institutional knowledge being lost.Earlier
older students would introduce younger students to the convenience of Lexpress (e.g.
once after school club activities had ended for the day),but now it was not an option.In
addition,reducing COVID exposure may have also made parent pickups the preferred
choice.
Shortly before the COVID pandemic,the Lexpress routes had been redesigned in an
effort to once again enable consistent and reliable schedules:instead of six ½-hour
neighborhood loops,three 45-50 minute out-and-back more main-street routes were
introduced.As with all route changes,some riders lost access to service being nearby
and some gained it,but overall the new configuration put more residences well beyond
½mile from an hourly route.
The pandemic lockdown derailed the most recent route change metrics as the two
years substantially changed the context in which they had been made.Now the nature
of commuting for work,of transfer of knowledge in the student population in terms of
the utility of Lexpress,the advisability of being in shared spaces with strangers,and the
occasions in which the community of all ages used to come together were all upended.
While there has been slow growth in ridership post COVID,it is far too early to judge.
14
Current Funding
Lexington’s transportation budget is primarily financed in the General Fund (from tax
levy),and is supplemented by smaller amounts of fare revenue,MBTA grant funding,
and transfers from available TDM funds.The staff spends a portion (about 35%)of
their time on Lexpress.Five years of actual budgets,plus the FY2024 budget are
presented below.
This table was shared during the Committee’s Select Board Presentation:
Revenue Sources
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted Lexpress fare revenue which can be
seen in the dramatic drop-off in FY2021.Fare revenues continue to lag through
FY2023,but have seen an uptick in FY2024,probably due to the new fare structure that
was approved beginning on July 1,2023.
MBTA revenues have increased approximately 4%per year over the last 5 year period
and are expected to remain steady.
15
Transfers from the Transportation Demand Management Stabilization Fund (TDM)have
also been steady during this time period,except for an additional $30,000 in FY2024 to
help cover the 21.7%increase in the Lexpress contract that began on July 1,2023.
Transportation Demand Management
TDM funds are transferred from a Stabilization Fund to the General Fund each year to
help support the Lexpress and the Rev Shuttle service (Lexington Center to Alewife).
TDM revenue is received from multiple sources and deposited directly into the TDM
Stabilization Fund.Currently the town has 5 active agreements with developers for
annual payments into the TDM Stabilization Fund (Avalon Bay,Watertown Savings
Bank,Shire,Lex Place Condo and 1050 Waltham St.)In FY2023 these agreements
generated approximately $94K in revenue and will increase annually according to the
Consumer Price Index.A trend of actual and projected TDM receipts are presented
below.
The current balance of the TDM Stabilization fund is approximately $1M and,when
coupled with ongoing TDM revenue,can maintain the current annual level of
contribution of $95,000 to Lexpress for now,but it should be noted that increases in
TDM revenue are not keeping pace with the increase in the annual operating expenses
for Lexpress.In fact,an additional $30,000 of TDM funds was used in this current FY to
cover that increase.Increasing transfers from TDM to support Lexpress without
generating new revenue will deplete the TDM fund earlier than projected.Furthermore,
there is no guarantee of even the $95,000 being transferred to Lexpress from year to
year.It would help Lexpress’stability if there were a known consistent TDM (minimum)
annual amount for Lexpress operation.TDM funds are also being used annually to fund
one stop in Lexington center by the REV shuttle.
The Town’s existing TDM policy was established in 1998 with the multiple objectives for
reducing single occupancy vehicle trips and ensuring mobility for all residents,workers
16
and visitors to Lexington.This policy originally applied widely to new construction
throughout town that required zoning board approvals and was successful in securing
the ongoing payments noted above,as well as several of the one-time payments noted
above.The rationale was that new developments that would bring more traffic into town
had to “contribute”to programs that were meant to reduce or mitigate traffic impacts on
the Town,even if the reductions were not in the exact same parts of town.
Due to recent zoning changes in the Hartwell area and the new MBTA zoning districts,
development in most areas of Lexington is now allowed by-right,and therefore the TDM
policy will only apply to Special Permits and Planned Development Districts.The Town
cannot legally require mitigation payments for new developments that are allowed by
zoning unless they are part of a zoning Overlay District.Lexington has approved three
TMO Districts in commercial corridors.The Planning Department has recently
proposed a TMOD plan and point system for the Hartwell area where developers can
make traffic improvements,provide transportation,or make payments in lieu of these
improvements.Mitigation payments collected from TMO Districts,however,are to be
used to make improvements to those specific districts only.
There is a general expectation that recent MBTA zoning will increase the volume and
density of residential development throughout Lexington.This increase in development
and population is expected to increase the need for public transportation,though the
extent of this need cannot currently be quantified.
The contractual expense for the Lexpress Bus service accounts for approximately 80%
of the Transportation Department’s expenses.An additional 14%of the budget covers
the Transportation staff who support multiple transportation initiatives and provide
customer service,professional and administrative support.
Over the last two decades the Town has generally entered into 5-year contracts for the
Lexpress Service,with an option to extend.Typically the purchase of new buses,by the
vendor,is part of the beginning of each new contract (the vendor ’s investment is
recouped through the hourly rate charged by the vendor to the town).The most recent
contract is for one year,ending on June 30,2024,with an option to extend for one
additional year to June 30,2025.This current contract does not include the capital of
new buses which are now running on their 6th year.A new contract (5 years or longer)
will require the purchase of new buses.
A history of the Town’s Lexpress contract service prices are below.
17
The recent increase in the one-year contract for FY2024 was a 21.7%increase over the
previous year contract which reflects the increase in wages,fuel,maintenance and
other costs of service that have been impacted by inflation.As noted above,a new
contract will require the purchase of new buses and is expected to result in another
significant increase over the current contract (an additional 20%or more).These
increases are in-line with other recent contract bids with transportation components
including refuse and recycling collection and the Liberty Ride trolley service,but are
challenging to absorb in a municipal budget that is restrained by tax levy increases of
2.5%each year,large capital projects,and unknown operational costs of a new LHS.
128 Business Council (128BC)/Rev Shuttle
The Town is a paid member of the 128 Business Council (128BC)which operates an
additional public transportation resource,the REV Shuttle in collaboration with some
developers,land owners and businesses in Lexington.The REV provides
transportation from the Town’s commercial districts and from Lexington Center to
Alewife Station for connection to the MBTA’s Red Line.This service is funded directly
by businesses in Lexington’s TMO Districts when they purchase a membership or pay
for a dedicated shuttle stop at their business.(The Town’s TDM policy requires many
businesses to participate in the 128BC’s program,and some others participate on a
voluntary basis).The Town of Lexington pays $50,000/year to support the shuttle
service from Lexington Center to and from Alewife.The Town’s REV Shuttle expense
18
lives in the Economic Development Budget and is partly covered by a transfer from the
TDM Stabilization Fund.
The Committee explored whether or not the 128BC could replace/run the current
Lexpress service with comparable or improved local transportation,and ultimately
determined this was not feasible.128BC’s business model centers around commuting
and business participation and they have higher overhead costs including insurance
that would not allow for an equal or improved service at or near the Town’s current
funding level.
School Transportation Expense
In addition to the municipal Transportation Budget,the School Department maintains a
budget for School transportation needs.This includes a base contract for students to
be transported to and from school,plus several additional services such as Special
Education transportation,METCO transportation,and transportation to athletic events.
School Department transportation is funded from the School Department’s allocated
portion of General Fund revenues and is supplemented by school bus transportation
fees.The following table summarizes fee revenue collected for school bus
transportation (Revolving Fund),and the total expenses for regular school bus
transportation paid from the General and Revolving funds.This summary does not
include Special Education Transportation,transportation for METCO,athletics,field
trips or other miscellaneous needs.In FY2023 those specialty transportation costs
approximated $3M,in addition to the expense below.
The current school bus contract is a 5-year agreement that began in FY2023 and ends
in FY2027 as presented in the following table.
The Transportation Department and 128BC have advocated to the School
Superintendent for a more integrated system however,the policy has not been revisited.
While increasing student ridership will not reduce the cost of Lexpress,it could
generate new revenue to support the service,and such an increase in student (and
overall)ridership may make the cost of running the Lexpress service more palatable in
future years.
19
Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC)recommendation:
In March 2023,recognizing the challenges of increasing ridership,especially following
COVID,TAC put forward the recommendation to the Select Board to sell $20 passes
for unlimited rides on Lexpress for a year,combined with a robust marketing program.
The Committee was in agreement with the ‘Limitless Pass’idea,and supported the
TAC recommendation while also advocating to the Select Board to also put in
marketing and outreach funding to ensure its success.
TAC report:
(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bJhBUSgaIclMszA5IOo_0fqM9uX2Ih0YglWb9kq
ljJU/edit?usp=sharing )
The new Limitless Pass has been successful,with the sales exceeding the desired goal
of at least a hundred more than the previous year.In four months,more than 4x the
number of passes were purchased than last year.Additionally,July ridership was up
21%over June ridership.In just two months,Lexpress reached 76%of the funds that
were generated in FY23 for pass/ticket sales,and sales Farebox revenue is also up.
The passes also allow the Transportation Department to gather data on where people
live.While the overwhelming majority of passholders live in Lexington,some live in
Billerica,Burlington,Waltham,Arlington,Somerville,Cambridge,and even Lynn.This
data is useful for grant applications because it shows that Lexpress is not only serving
local needs,but it is filling transit gaps in the region.It may be easier to get more
external funding support with such metrics.The Committee acknowledges that
Lexpress is not funded to “close a regional transit gap”and that the targeted ridership is
Lexington residents.However,having the town service enables nonresidents to come in
for work or transit through.The town has successfully obtained certain external grant
funding on the basis of providing these conveniences to nonresidents too.
20
New Revenue Concepts:
Municipalities fund their public transportation systems from a variety of sources,in
addition to using property tax revenues.The following table shows MA sources and
how they apply to Lexpress.
Funding Category Funding Source Applied to Lexpress?
Government Grants MBTA Town staff applied for MBTA three year
grants and has received them each year
since 1979.For FY 2024 we are expecting
to receive $65K based on past
appropriations.
Government Grants MASS DOT Town staff can apply in the fall for a grant
that can be applied for up to 80%of
vehicle costs.
Government Grants MASS DOT Town staff has successfully applied twice
for annual grants that can be applied
towards operating costs (200k in 2022 and
2023 each).The current grant is to be
expended by June 30th 2025.
Public Private
Partnership
Local businesses
and individuals
The town has not fully explored the
possibility of seeking business and
individual sponsors to support the
Lexpress system.This Committee
recommends doing so through increased
marketing,possible advert sales,and other
direct funding sponsorship opportunities.
User Fees System users Lexpress issues passes and also collects
fares on board.At present,this covers an
insignificant percentage of operating costs.
Development Fees Private developers
who are developing
commercial
property in
Lexington
The town has a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)program which
involves continuing or one-time payments
from private developers who are active in
developing commercial property in
Lexington.The revenue from this is
currently used to support Lexpress,but is
declining,as arrangements with new
projects are not consistently being made,
are not in perpetuity,and are not in scale
with what they should be
Public Improvement
Districts
Businesses in these
districts
Lexington has several Transportation
Overlay Management Districts (TMOD).
TMOD Funds are not being applied to the
Lexpress system.
We recommend that in order to strengthen Lexpress system finances,funding sources
beyond tax revenues,user fees,grants,and TDM be pursued.In particular,the town
should seek donations and sponsorships for the system.
21
Three possible sponsorship groups should be approached.First are Burlington
organizations who already benefit from having Lexpress stop at or near their
businesses.This group includes Market Basket,Lahey Clinic,and stores at the
Burlington Mall.Second are Lexington businesses,who benefit from reduced
congestion in town due to people being able to use public transportation.Third are
Lexington individuals who are committed to public transportation and would like to
ensure that fellow citizens who are unable to drive,due to age,financial situation,or
disability,still have access to transportation.The Committee is not recommending
creating a “Friends of Lexpress”committee and instead encourages more
straightforward partnerships with local businesses for marketing and sponsorships of
the Lexpress buses and services.
In the interest of exploring this recommendation,we have contacted or spoken with
several organizations to get their reactions to this idea including Beth Sager of the Beth
Sager Group,Jerry Michelson of Michelson’s Shoes,the Community Relations group at
Lahey Hospital and Medical Center,HMart,the Donations Group at Market Basket,and
Avid Technologies in Burlington.This was preliminary work,and although not everyone
showed interest,we believe a concerted and focused effort to reach out could very well
be successful,especially if part of a formal marketing and outreach effort.
22
Current Operations &Ridership
Bus routes have always been designed with the goal of matching service to needs.
Lexpress has three buses,all ADA-compliant wheelchair equipped,which operate
across three routes (A,B,and C).The routes originate and end at The Depot Square in
Lexington Center.The buses run mostly within Lexington,however Route B bus also
accesses the Market Basket,Burlington Mall and Lahey Hospital in Burlington,with
deviations to Wegman’s,etc.Route C goes to Arlington Heights before turning back
into Lexington.
Route maps,schedules can be obtained here:click here.
A real-time bus tracker is available online and through an App.This allows riders to
track where the bus is and flag it down anywhere along the route to be picked up.
Similarly,the bus can be stopped anywhere along the route to drop off a passenger.
Route B which serves the Market Basket and Burlington Mall destinations has the most
riders,with the two routes A (a,b)and Route C with least ridership.
Since the introduction of the $20 Unlimited Pass in July,the average daily ridership is
39%higher than FY 2023.See table below.
23
The usage pattern in Summer and Fall is similar.The two graphs given below show
Lexpress ridership usage by route,time and age for July to October,2023.
Each bar shows the total riders at a given time on the three routes over four months.
For instance,972 riders were carried across all 3 shuttle routes at 7:30am pickups from
July 1st to October 31,2023 The older adults tend to ride Lexpress mostly during the
morning to mid afternoon period.The youth ridership peaks around 3.30pm which
coincides with the school day ending (see graph below).
24
Affordable housing served within Lexington by Lexpress:
Lexington has multiple affordable housing units maintained by the Lexington Housing
Authority.These three sites are all directly served by Lexpress:
Greeley Village (Rt.A)
Vinebrooke Village (Rt.A)
Countryside Village (Rt.B)
Lexington also has a number of multifamily residential complexes served by Lexpress:
●Avalons (both)(Rt.A)
●Captain Parker Arms,(Rt.A),and within walking distance of the Depot
Square where all Lexpress and MBTA buses can be accessed
●The condominiums at Emerson Gardens,(Rt.C)
●Minuteman Village,(Rt.A)
●Lexington Place Condominiums,in Center with access to all Lexpress and
MBTA routes
The Drummer Boy Condominiums are served by MBTA #62 and MBTA #62/76.
Lexpress does not serve Drummer Boy,though residents may walk to the junction of
John Benson and Skyview Roads about 0.6 miles to access Lexpress.
25
Transportation Services for Disabled and the Elderly
Lexington is fortunate to have several transportation services specifically for our
disabled and elderly population.For additional information please see (Transit Services
Lexington Comprehensive Plan background briefing and the final recommendations).
The Ride –a Demand-Response system provided by the MBTA for disabled
(ADA-certified)and elderly residents unable to use public transportation due to
physical,mental,or cognitive limitations.RIDE users can go to 58 cities and
Towns,and can get assistance in and out of the vehicle.
Ride Flex --a Demand-Response (D-R)system provided by the MBTA for
RIDE-qualified residents who do not use a wheelchair and can ride in a sedan:it
allows such riders to use Uber and Lyft under the MBTA RideFlex contract for
real-time service.
Lex-Connect –a subsidized taxi voucher program for older adults to travel
within Lexington and to 17 surrounding cities and towns,funded mostly by a
grant and some from the Friends of the Council on Aging (FCOA).
FISH –a volunteer service that provides free rides for seniors to and from
medical appointments within the greater-Boston area,with reservations made
prior to the date of service.
Free Center Parking –the vast majority of Lexington seniors drive,and they are
even granted free parking in the Center (as initiated by the FCOA)
In addition every Lexpress vehicle is wheelchair equipped,and all drivers are
trained to assist wheelchair-bound riders as needed.
For many years,almost all of Lexington’s elderly were within walking distance of a
Lexpress or MBTA route.Both MBTA and Lexpress routes meet in the Center,where
all riders can transfer if necessary,in order to reach markets,the Community Center,
restaurants,hair salons,various classes,farmer's market,religious institutions,Lahey
Lexington and other medical offices,Lahey Hospital the Burlington Mall,and more.
With the recent Lexpress service changes,the routes currently cover some of the major
roads /arteries of Lexington,but this makes it difficult for seniors or mobility impaired
who live in the interiors of the neighborhoods to easily access the buses.This in large
part is responsible for the increased interest in more curb-to-curb and “first mile/last
mile”service.In addition,lack of a marketing budget has undoubtedly resulted in some
eligible residents not even aware of the specialized services listed above.Lastly,some
residents who are familiar with The RIDE,find it too inefficient or unreliable,and instead
ask for demand response (D-R)service from Lexpress.This highlights the need for a
review of the quality of user experience and how that can be improved.
26
Comparison with other transit systems
The Committee compared Lexpress costs with seven other small systems,(states:CT,
AR,SD,CO,NM,CA),the MBTA Bus system,The REV and Lexington’s annual
expenditure on School Bus services.See spread-sheet for details on findings:Transit
Options in US cities comparison
Comparison of Direct-Response systems table:
A key difference between Lexington and all the other services studied is that each of
the other cities is qualified to purchase vehicles with 80%Federal reimbursement,as
well as being eligible to receive 50 -80%reimbursement for operating costs.Some also
receive state and even county or other local government reimbursements for
administration,mechanics,maintenance shops,and more.Due to these possible
subsidies,of Lodi CA’s $3.6 million transit budget,the city of Lodi itself does not have
any associated costs with its operations.Another comparison difference is that
reported budgets from most of the other sites do not include the amortization costs of
the vehicle purchases.
27
Regional transit authorities can get funding to subsidize much of their costs,including
capital,but this does not apply to Lexpress.Therefore the Lexpress budget includes the
full expense of vehicle purchase,plus insurance,maintenance,as well as all other
operating costs.The contractor who bears all those expenses passes those costs
through to the town.(There is one vehicle that Lexington could apply for with some
Federal reimbursement;application for the grant needs town office approval to apply.)
In comparison with other town/city bus transit systems,Lexpress is still within the range
of key benchmarks of other small fixed-route transit systems studied.Details are given
in the appendix.Overall,Lexpress compares favorably with the other small transit
systems studied in other US cities.Public transportation is expensive,and Lexpress’
early post-COVID ridership is in line with others.
Changes in Lexington Demographics
As mentioned in a previous section,the town was unable to provide us with specific
data regarding residences of seniors,the mobility impaired,etc.The staff has access to
some data from the MBTA in the form of REMIX maps which graphically show some
demographic data.The current Lexpress routes do serve the more densely populated,
lesser income areas in Lexington,but only those on or near the major roads,not in the
interiors of neighborhoods.(see Appendix)
In the two public forums,a number of current and past riders provided the committee
with feedback and testimonials.These were generally positive.
Senior Residents needs and mass transport solution review:
The senior demographic representative on the Committee shared their understanding
of the needs,the various mass transportation options available and whether they were
convenient,or had key gaps in their service for the senior residents of Lexington.
For seniors who have had to give up driving,either by choice or involuntarily,
transportation is a need that remains unaddressed.This segment of Town’s senior age
demographic is especially affected by the so-called "1st mile/last mile"issue:
o Getting to and from a T stop or a Lexpress route is problematic,especially
in inclement weather and/or if carrying packages.
o Social isolation has been found to have a huge health impact,especially
for seniors who no longer drive.So,in addition to needing transportation
to appointments or for running errands,there is a transportation need to
maintain or resurrect one’s social connections:the freedom to go to the
Community Center or out for lunch or just socialize with friends,
spontaneously.
28
o Uber and Lyft are expensive.Moreover seniors have had issues with
wrong destination drop offs and anxiety over “no-shows”and poorly or
unmarked vehicles,especially when being picked up at a remote location
for a trip home.
Currently available alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle (SOV)
●The MBTA:
o The Greater Boston Area is fortunate to be served by a mixture of
commuter rail,subway and light rail,and bus options.Unfortunately,the
Town is served only by two T bus routes.Therefore,if the departure and
destination choices are not within reasonable proximity of their routes,or
the hours of travel are outside their operating schedules,the T is not a
viable option.
o While the subway/light rail is available at Alewife Station and Harvard Sq.
and the Commuter Rail in Belmont,Concord,etc.but in order to utilize
those services the senior resident still has to get there from Lexington.
●Sponsored regional vans like The Rev:These are helpful for a limited clientele
and a limited schedule.These are not relevant as currently constituted,for the
broad swath of Town residents including the seniors.
●LexConnect taxi service:The reservations need to be made 24 hrs in advance,
therefore it is of limited effectiveness as most senior residents may not
‘schedule’their intra-Lexington travel.
o In the past the discounted coupon payment options for seniors appears to
have been a disincentive for the taxi service from having available drivers
when service is requested and coupons are mentioned as a form of
payment.(Staff clarification:Due to Covid hiring additional drivers was a
challenge for multiple reasons.At present if the demand is unable to be
managed by the primary vendor,two back-up vendors are available.
Committee comment:perceptions need to be changed that service has
improved)
●Lexpress:While it has been a very critical service for Lexington it is not currently
serving the senior demographic adequately.
o Many residents have never tried to use it because of its constrained
routes,time taken,or actual need.It may be more useful for residents
who live at the Town’s extremities.
o Some of the points of possible improvement are
▪Because of how the routes are structured,it takes a long time to go
and come;
▪With only a couple of exceptions,there are no scheduled stops and
the person needs to “hail”it.This makes it not ‘senior friendly’;
perhaps not ‘youth friendly (under 12)’either;
▪Because of how the routes are structured,it gets caught up in the
school traffic congestion;
29
▪The older adult needs to get to an applicable route (the so-called
“1st mile”problem).If used for shopping,there’s likely several
streets between ‘drop-off’and home that require walking with
packages (the so-called “last mile”problem)…even more
problematic in rain/cold/snow;
▪Doesn’t operate 7 days/week;
▪Doesn’t have scheduled stops at obvious large multiple housing
developments (though some are on demand e.g.,Brookhaven);
▪There seems to be a difference of opinion whether it should cater
to school-age customers (Staff clarification:in order to have high
utilization ideally a mix of ridership is needed,such as students
riding more during the AM/PM shoulder hours and older adults
during the mid day).
●The Ride/RideFlex:While it may seem to be the best solution for those who are
unable to drive and/or negotiate the various public transportation options.
o However,some of the concerns with the RIDE have been mentioned in
“Long a sore spot for riders with disabilities,service on the RIDE has
gotten worse because of staffing shortages”in the July 28,2023 issue of
The Boston Globe.
▪One needs to pre-qualify to access the service.
▪Even for those who do qualify,the “customer service”is not the
best quality.
o For those with serious ambulatory issues/disabilities,that’s all they have.But for
those who are just unable to drive because they are frail or seniors with cognitive
issues,they may not be able to use the service (Staff Clarification:One qualifies
for The Ride by not being able to use transit some or all of the time due to a
physical,mental or cognitive impairment.If someone is too frail for transit,then
they would qualify).
●FISH:A volunteer service that is limited both in clientele (seniors)and scope
(medical appointments).
An Ideal solution:That would be the availability of an on-demand,micro-transit ride –
like Uber or Lyft but Town-operated –to provide a valuable,safe and appealing solution
to a clearly apparent need.Initially for seniors for a 2-year pilot;then,let’s see…
o Although no such transportation option is currently available for Lexington,
one was recently piloted by the MBTA for its RIDE customers during
COVID.Called RideFlex,discounted rides can be booked with Uber and
Lyft from a smartphone.Unfortunately,as described above in the Boston
Globe article I referenced,the rollout has proved problematic (Staff
Clarification:RIDE Flex is an MBTA provided service now as the pilot
phase has ended).
o Another option could mirror the service established a few years ago by
the City of Newton.Named “NewMo”,it is an on-demand transportation
30
service,providing affordable rides for Newton residents with a special
program for seniors,subsidized by the City of Newton.It is out-sourced to
Via.(Staff clarification:Newton has had to reduce NewMo service
because of the cost increasing.)
31
Lexpress and Lexington Public School Students
Lexpress has been used by Lexington Public School (LPS)students over its long
history.Pre-COVID-19 with the old six routes Lexpress was used a lot more by the
middle school and highschool students to get around town.The LPS bus pass used to
be about $600 therefore many students used Lexpress to get to school and back home.
However,once the school bus service became subsidized,the school bus passes
almost halved in price making it the transport of choice and thus reducing Lexpress
ridership and revenue from students.
The Special Education (SPED)Programs at the middle schools and at the transition
program at the high school,including the LABBB program,also use Lexpress.The
summer program at LHS for SPED uses Lexpress extensively to impart life skills.
However,during the academic year it's harder to incorporate travel via Lexpress into
the day for the SPED programs.There isn't enough time to get the students to the
Depot Square,travel,get to the destination for a purpose,complete the purpose and
get back in time for the next class block.However,the Special Education department is
very appreciative of the real life skills that can be imparted through Lexpress and its
supportive staff and drivers.
COVID-19 lockdown drastically reduced all Lexpress ridership when it restarted.There
has been a slow growth in all demographics though the few high school students who
attended the AHTC public forum asked about improving service so that students could
get home after school and also how Lexpress services were not well known or
understood by LHS students.
Outreach to school aged population
There are many scheduled outreach opportunities to make school children aware of the
Lexpress services.Some can be undertaken by the town Transportation Department
(TD),or school PTO/PTA or school administration.These included:
●Lexington Bike Walk Bus week in mid-May (TD)
●Middle School Learn Lexpress event:one weekday in May after school wherein
town staff brought Clarke and Diamond students to the Community Center with
fun activities,food and an opportunity to visit the Community Center.
Preregistrations required.(TD)
●Lexpress Open house:An event for students to get acquainted with a Lexpress
bus and how to use it.(TD)
●Safe Routes to School:Which emphasize non car means of getting to school
and encourage an active form of transportation such as biking or walking.(TD,
PTO/PTAs)
●Easy access to bus passes and Charlie cards etc at the High School (TD,school
administration)
32
Some additional outreach ideas are:
●Widely share the safe routes to school maps at the start of school (safe route
maps).Update LPS website to reflect all transportation options and not only
school buses.(school administration)
●Educate and train students on how to use the services.Flag down,bus pass or
exact change needed,route app use etc.Do students understand that it is a ‘flag
down’system?I.e.Can any student flag it down anywhere along the bus route or
only at bus stops?For example:for South Asians,buses can only be boarded at
bus stops in India.So this would be a new practice and past assumptions have
to be corrected.
●Work with school administration on other opportunities to highlight available
Lexpress services for students and staff
Lexington Public School Bus operations details
The AHTC requested the help of the LPS transportation department to understand the
current bus system as well as how Lexpress could better serve the students.Mr.
Coelho,Assistant Superintendent of Finance and his staff answered the following
questions and provided some interesting statistics that bear further review.
Lexington Public Schools (LPS)contracts with C&W Transportation to run the local
school buses within town.The total number of routes:97 routes across three tiers
(High-Middle-Elementary).For the actual riders/route (actual riders,not enrollment)
LPS serves 3906 registered riders;1450 elementary school,1216 middle school and
1240 high school.Individual routes run from 16 to 67 registered riders on a route,raw
average is 40 per route.Ridership is based on registrations for a pass to ride.Some
students ride every day,some ride only a few days a year.
Registrations/hour:3906 riders/48.5 trip hours for AM runs -80.53 riders/hour
Cost/ride:Based on FY24 budget projections cost per seat to operate is $989 for the
school year,or about $5.43 per rider per day or $2.72 per ride (AM or PM).Each bus
costs $569/day to operate.
LPS charges the following bus fees.$330/student if registered before July 1st;$550
after July 1st if student was enrolled in prior year;for any new students the fee is $330.
The family cap is $825 for multiple students from the same family.
LPS runs bus counts at the end of September,and then early October after routes,and
the students are settled into their routines.Rider usage can vary significantly on any
given day based on absenteeism,family schedule,school schedule,weather,etc.
33
The LPS bus vendor C&W owns and operates their own buses under contract to the
Town.These are all C2's /Thomas buses.The Town uses a total of 45,44 of which
carry 71-passengers.In addition,the vendor runs one Wheelchair equipped bus with 64
passengers.LPS uses 35 buses for its daily runs.
34
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee had weekly dialogue and debates around these recommendations and
overall voted to support these recommendations being part of the final report.These
recommendations were shared with the Select Board during the Committees
presentation in September.They are listed out here fully for future reference.The
listing is not by priority as we believe as a Committee that the Town must begin tackling
the recommendations holistically in the near term as the service contract is up for
renewal.
Recommendation:The Committee recommends continuing Lexpress services
and increasing funding of its operations as the Town-provided service referenced
in numerous Town Strategies that can both continue to support our seniors and
vulnerable residents as well as achieve our climate and sustainability goals by
reducing reliance on cars.Lexington has done significant work in articulating its
plans for the future of our community,which include aspirational and pragmatic goals
documented in various Town-wide strategies and plans.Specific to Lexpress,these
include climate action and sustainability,traffic mitigation,serving residents’needs,
providing an equitable balance in town’s resources’use,and economic development,
etc.Public Transportation is expensive to deliver well.Lexpress is a valued and
important Public Service whose operations suffered due to underfunding as well as
further impact by the pandemic.Barring a large infusion of additional funding,providing
Lexpress services will not be recouped by the service fees and grants alone and will
require long-term commitment of tax revenues supplemented by any grant funding
Lexington can secure.
Recommendation:The Committee recommends that if additional funding is
committed for the next two years,that the Town’s strategic partner,the RT128
Business Council,review with Town Staff a more focused fixed route system that
better addresses the concerns identified about the current system within that
new set budget.Another “committee”is not needed to study this.Routes should aim
to be within a quarter to one half-mile of targeted riders;frequency between pickups
should be increased;no deviations from the routes should be made at ‘rider ’s request.”
Once routes are reestablished to best provide services to the public,including senior
and most vulnerable residents within the Town,this information can be provided to the
recommended marketing team to develop the appropriate marketing campaign.A
transportation expert that operates buses,like the Rt128 Business Council,can provide
this revised route analysis and plan.
Recommendation: Lexington should not reduce Town funding for existing public
transportation options including Lexpress and the REV,until the impact of recent
multi-family residential zoning changes is understood.The Committee
acknowledges the newly adopted zoning changes in Lexington as well as questions
around additional State funding to support education and transportation (MBTA;The
Ride)necessitate ensuring our existing transportation services are maintained even as
the Town pursues additional transportation funding.
35
Recommendation:The Select Board should direct Town Staff to apply for State
Grants –both operational and capital –to support Lexpress services –including
piloting an inside-Lexington On-Demand responsive Senior shuttle.If grant
funding is received,the Committee recommends piloting an inside-Lexington-only
demand responsive service.Transportation costs will continue to increase in the years
ahead and locking in any additional state funds will be essential to piloting new services
or firming up existing operations.Focusing on State grants that support transportation
services for our seniors and vulnerable populations should remain a priority for this
funding,while also acknowledging no additional transport funds can be required of
developers of future multi-family residential projects under the recently adopted zoning
changes.
Recommendation:The Select Board should consult with the Planning Director
and Legal Counsel regarding the applicability of the TDM Policy to improve
Lexpress funding streams and legal avenues for securing additional TDM
revenue from current and future development in town. The Committee
recommends a deeper review to confirm TDM payments from development in TMOD’s
can only legally be used for improvements in the related TMO Districts,or can it be
used more holistically for TDM improvements that benefit the overall Town (including
the TMOD area).Other communities have much higher fees on developers to fund
shuttle systems and transportation mitigation payments than those approved in
Lexington.
Recommendation: The Town should annually fund a formal marketing and
outreach program for transportation programs –especially Lexpress. As noted,
there is no dedicated funding for TDM programs,specifically for Lexpress.If metrics
related to the performance of Lexpress are to improve,then dedicated funding that is
directed at increasing ridership,rider awareness,and tools and messages that ensure
those messaging and information reach the intended audiences needs to be specifically
included.This funding will allow the Transportation Manager the necessary resources
to develop appropriate materials with expert consulting help that can market these
services throughout Lexington and the many diverse audiences that may seek to use
any transportation services the Town supports. This does not at all stop the Town from
utilizing grassroots tactics to market these services to specific communities within
Lexington,but it does ensure that these are professional materials that are produced to
engage potential riders accurately and directly.Reallocating parking meter revenue
back to Transportation Programs could assist here –but should not be the only revenue
source. In addition,wherever appropriate,marketing/promotional materials should
publicize all Lexington’s transit options,not only Lexpress.
Recommendation:Set specific operational goals and metrics for Lexpress that
the Transportation Manager can manage the service towards.Those goals may be
in lowering the cost/ride for this 3-bus system.When considering the last 5 years of
multiple changes in routes,service models,pandemic,and now a new fare structure,
isolating the drivers of increasing ridership is not limited to just one variable.But if
routes continue to change,or if the goal is reducing carbon emissions by removing cars
36
through increasing Lexpress Riders,the metrics will change.Throughout our
discussions it was clear that too frequently the Lexpress program had to adapt its
service model to meet funding levels thus making measuring the effectiveness of
routes,ridership,or cost/ride difficult due to the number of ‘caveats.’Instead,we
recommend setting goals that can be measured consistently for the next at least two
years to inform future service contract designs.The current year metrics can help
inform the process.
Recommendation:Preserve funding for current REV Services from Lexington to
Alewife. While our primary focus was on the Lexpress services,it was clear from
reviewing Tri-Town Study,Select Board goals,and various sustainability and other
Economic Development Goals,that this service continues to be a direct benefit to
residents and commuters. Ridership on these two direct routes to Alewife Red Line
station is increasing and providing reliable,direct links from Lexington into Boston.
Additional focus on raising funds from developers to maintain these specific services
should continue.
Recommendation:Ensure amenities that support riders are functioning and
communicated around Depot Square specifically.The Committee acknowledges
the “hub”role that the Depot Square area continues to play for Lexpress and that new
public amenities may need to be installed or better communicated as riders wait for
buses.Specifically,how to access Lexpress schedules in the app,places to shelter
from adverse weather,and access to public restrooms.Exterior restrooms at the Visitor
Center could play this role and ensuring they remain accessible during the hours of
Lexpress operations would be valuable.Directional signage could help.
Recommendation:Annually review the School Bus Contract for Routing and
Utilization Efficiencies. It was clear from our review of Lexpress’s history that the
growth of the school bus program had an adverse impact on the funding for Lexpress
and its subsequent loss of student riders. The Committee acknowledges that returning
to a time when Lexpress served students mobility needs to school each day may not be
likely.However,it is worth reviewing the existing school bus policy and contract each
year to see where the Town may be contracting for significantly under-utilized school
bus routes/times.
Recommendation:Explore new funding streams from beneficiaries of Lexpress
including local businesses.We recommend strengthening Lexpress system finances
by pursuing funding sources beyond tax revenues,user fees,grants,and TDM
developer payments. Adding advert frames to the sides of the buses creates new
monthly revenue opportunities for the Service.With publicly visible advertising,local
health care facilities,retailers,and other PSA type opportunities are possible.
Recommendation:The Transportation Manager ’s time should be weighted more
heavily to supporting the Town’s Transportation services vs other Human Service
Department activities.The Committee recommends reviewing the workload of the
Transportation Manager as too much of their time seems to be supporting other human
37
services department activities instead of advancing the impact,value,and effectiveness
of the Lexpress specifically and other contracted transportation services.Their role is
vital to the successful implementation of Lexpress service goals,especially as we
continue to move into a post-pandemic service environment.
Recommendation:Improve operational effectiveness of the Lex-Connect contract
and increase resident awareness of this additional Town-funded service. The
Committee acknowledges we were not charged with reviewing this service,however,
the needs of the senior community who may need this subsidized-taxi service to access
services beyond Lexington is clearly frustrated by the complexity of accessing this
demand-responsive service vs more traditional subsidized models via Uber/Lyft.The
committee recommends increasing Town staff focus on investigating closing gaps in
rider education,scheduling and use of this service.
Recommendation:Include the future of Lexpress in any planning about
Lexington High School and the future parking plans for students,teachers,and
residents.The Committee acknowledges that the size of the new high school and the
years of construction may adversely impact the traffic and parking in the area.As such,
Lexpress operations may assist in mitigating parking needs in the nearer term,but
mostly,the Committee urges the Select Board review of how reducing student reliance
on driving to campus can continue to be mitigated using Lexpress as well as through
creating future parking permit fees.
38
APPENDIX
Mass transport options in Lexington &comparisons:
Besides the MBTA,Lexington has School Buses operated by a local vendor,special
education vans and transportation operated by multiple vendors,private shuttles
operated by companies within Lexington for their employees and private shuttle vans
for the elderly residents of some of the senior housing complexes.
The REV operated by the 128 Business Council operates a shuttle service to Alewife.
Additional details here:REV Bus –Lexington Center Schedule.
According to Sheila Page,Assistant Planning Director for town the following shuttles
are operated by companies in Lexington.
From Takeda’s reporting:
●Takeda-Operated Shuttle Services.Takeda operates their own
intra-campus shuttle service among their Lexington facilities.In addition to
the intra-campus and 128 Business Council shuttles,Takeda provides
additional regional shuttle service connecting their Lexington facilities with
their Cambridge facilities and Alewife MBTA Station.This service is
operated by Local Motion and serves approximately 43 Takeda
employees daily.
●Shuttle Route schedule information and ridership statistics are available
from the company.
Boston Properties plans to start their own shuttle,however,no additional information is
available yet.
The Mobility Management Study report authored by the 128 Business Council has
detailed information about the types of mass transportation services available.See
excerpt from their report below:
39
Benchmarks comparison with transit options in other towns and cities:
Key metrics of Lexpress are compared here with mass bus transit options in other cities
and towns in the US.
*Rides/hour
Carlsbad NM 1.12
Loveland CO 5.27
Camarillo CA ~3
Fort Smith AR 1.63
Lodi CA 8.5
LEXINGTON 2.82
40
MBTA all buses 20.1
*Cost/ride (not fare/ride)
Loveland CO $37
Camarillo CA $49
Fort Smith AR $9
Lodi CA $14
LEXINGTON $28
The REV $29
MBTA all buses $10
*Total Budget for Fixed-Route System
Total Costs were reported as $686,000;$1,775,000;$2,198,000;$3,043,000;
Lexington $740,000.NB:only Lexington includes capital costs,and all others
have partial operational costs covered by grants as well;it was very difficult to
understand which budgets included the subsidies and which did not,or if any
included the amortization costs for the 20%purchase price borne by the
municipality.
*Adult Fares
Average fare for all other systems was $1.05,with 3 being $1.25.Lexington’s
adult fare at $2 is the highest.
*Empty Runs
All fixed-route systems have times that routes run empty.“It is the nature of the
beast.”Some see patterns,others not.Universally,the last run of the day,
whatever time that is,has low ridership.
*Service contracted out or run in-house
While all the other places own their own vehicles,they were split between
running their own operation in-house or contracting out the operation.TAC,over
the years,has researched the pros and cons of the Town running Lexpress and
the latter has never costed-out as beneficial.In addition,the Lexington DPW has
let us know that the cost would be too high for them to handle even the
maintenance of Lexpress buses.
41
*(Seniors-Only Service
TAC has also investigated advantages for running a seniors-only service,and
that too has never proven to save much money and certainly loses all the
advantages of being a service for everyone.)
Although the highest ridership and most efficient of all transit modes is a fixed-route
bus,by law,a transit system must provide equitable service for ADA riders.Thus,cities
that run a Fixed-Route (F-R)system must also run a Demand-Response (D-R)system
for ADA riders.In this study,6 of the cities have both services.
Lexpress does not include a D-R system because the MBTA provides ADA service
with The RIDE and with RIDE Flex,discussed above.In this report,the budgets and all
other metrics reported,compare only the fixed-route systems.
Microtransit (demand responsive vs.fixed route):
Pros:
Riders can get a ride from any origin point within town to any destination
Rides can be organized as required
Cons:
serves fewer riders,a max of 3 rides per hour on average
expensive for a town
Requires an internet enabled interface and staff for managing call and ride
volumes.
‘Micro-transit’has always existed,but it was referred to as Demand-Response or
Dial-a-Ride.It is what all Paratransit systems (for disabled and "frail elderly")use.As
such,it is most often run within a transit system,not by an outside for-profit company
(e.g.,VIA).It requires someone,usually with special software,to do the scheduling,and
almost always requires day-ahead requests,sometimes with same-day exceptions that
usually entail a surcharge.In Massachusetts,only the company called VIA offers
micro-transit.Several companies offer software to use in-house to manage a DR
system.
Micro-Transit =Demand-Response =Dial-a-Ride,usually =Paratransit.
In Newton VIA has been very successful in that it has a large ridership demand which
has therefore required more vehicles,and more cost to the city.Newton has been
finding the increasing costs unsustainable.The curb-to-curb ride is very desirable for
the people of Newton.
42
Therefore,who is allowed to use a DR system is usually limited,usually to
ADA-certified individuals,and sometimes elderly as well.Otherwise every system
would have demand problems like Newton who are now having to limit eligibility.
The table below gives details and comparison about paratransit systems in other cities
and towns.
43
Case Study:Complexity of Route Creation -C Route change decision
The Committee discussed the viability of the three routes and implications of cutting the
lowest ridership route or redeploying it for greater saturation of services in other
neighborhoods.In an effort to explain the complexity of decision making involved,the
following section covers the background behind one of the neighborhood interiors being
served in East Lexington by route C currently.
Route C has a section which travels through a dense neighborhood in East Lexington
(see dotted lines).The roads are narrow.This area is a good example to be studied if
the town decides to return to increasing service within residential neighborhoods and
not only confine Lexpress to the main roads,as is currently done.
Some of the reasoning for the inclusion of this section in route C as per transportation
department staff is given here.This is a good example of the complexity of designing
routes and the decision points involved:
1)The area of dashed lines is the neighborhoods of Liberty Heights and Peacock
Farm.Those areas have had a route through there since 1979.
2)At one point the transportation department tried to re-route by cutting this section
but the route required a place for the bus to turn around.When Lexpress did a mini-turn
44
around at the height of the Heights,the neighbors complained because visibility around
corners had foliage obstruction,so the loop seemed better and not only did it appease
the neighbors,but it allowed the service to serve the seniors who ask for rides to Wilson
Farm (the bus goes right by Wilsons).
3)Additionally,when neighbors asked the department to adjust the turn-around,it
was still at the height of COVID and the MBTA had cut 76 service,which used to run all
day (now only at peak times),so that led to even less service in the Wilson Farm area.
4)This area is a good example of the service going into a “residential”area and thus
providing a better coverage service.Redesigning routes for serving the interiors of
neighborhoods will help connect people to things.
Route A,has a very similar neighborhood with Turning Mill.The Northwest section of
route A is mostly residential and therefore Lexpress is able to serve those residents.
This section of A was historically a stronger student ridership than the Liberty
Heights/Peacock Farm area and that is due to the fact that with the old schedules only
half or the routes could get high school students to school at a reasonable hour.This
part of town had one of those routes (even numbered)and had built up youth ridership.
Liberty Heights/Peacock Farm (now Route C)was an odd numbered route,so it had a
stream of students taking the service home.Although Liberty Heights is one of
Lexington’s more dense communities,its ridership is lower than the Turning Mill area.It
takes time to build back a mass transportation culture,and pass sales continue to
increase for this area.
5)When the transportation department was looking to change routes in order to cut
back on services,some of the areas in East Lexington were considered:(especially for
designing the now Route C (formerly 1 &2)).Some of the design decisions were
decided based on the topography such as the hill which would make it harder for
seniors to walk down,as well as the average number of passengers.
6)The Route C bus also has some staff from Pine Knoll Nursing Center,the seniors
who go to Wilson Farm,the youth who have bought passes,and it might accommodate
a future route change for Waterstone.
45
Mobility Impaired Lexington’s residents
According to 2022 census data,Lexington has approximately 34,074 residents of which
3.3%(1,124)identify as having a disability and being under the age of 65.The
American Community Survey defines disability as having “serious difficulty with four
basic areas of functioning –hearing,vision,cognition,and ambulation.”Due to privacy
issues we were unable to collect specific location information such as the addresses of
the 3.3%of Lexington residents with disabilities so as to focus route development or
service level engagement with alternatives to existing Lexpress services.Gathering
that information would have informed the committee about their proximity to Lexpress
routes.However,what we know is more than half of the Lexpress ridership consists of
seniors and people with disabilities.This includes youth with special needs from
LABBB Collaborative,ILP and other local programs.
In June,the Transportation Department started selling the new Limitless $20.00 pass.
In the first month,over ⅓of the passes were purchased by persons 65 plus or having
some limitation that precludes their car driving.This population is faced with unique
travel challenges that are often overlooked by the general population.According to a
2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS),an estimated 25.5 million Americans
have disabilities that make traveling outside the home difficult.This population
accounted for 8.5 percent of those aged 5 and older.
Approximately 13.4 million of these Americans (more than half)are adults between the
ages of 18 and 64 which is typically the age group with high labor force participation.
Those with disabilities in this group are less likely to own or have access to a vehicle
and/or are less likely to drive if they own a vehicle than people without disabilities.
Moreover,this group uses local transit (buses,subways and commuter rails)more often
than people without disabilities at a rate of 4.3 versus 2.7 percent for workers and 5.9
versus 3.3 percent for non-workers.
The survey also revealed that the percentage of people reporting travel-limiting
disabilities increases with age.Before age 50,the percentage is less than 10 and it
increases to 18.4 percent by age 70 and to more than 31.9 percent by age 80.
Furthermore,most of these disabilities are long-term,with 79.1 percent reporting having
a disability for more than 6 months and another 13.8 percent reporting having a life-long
disability.
Another important variable to consider regarding people with disabilities are the
assistive devices they may use.According to the survey,over half (57.8 percent)of all
respondents with disabilities use one or more medical devices such as walking canes,
46
walkers,wheelchairs,motorized scooters and wheelchairs,crutches,white canes for
visual impairments and seeing eye dogs.
While we don’t have data specific to Lexington,we can conclude that we need to
ensure that our residents with disabilities are able to travel outside the home with ease.
We acknowledge that people move in and out of town too,so knowing the specific
needs of every household remains a dynamic challenge.This group faces additional
mobility challenges because they have lower levels of vehicle ownership/access.As a
result,they often rely on others for mobility and that translates to less trips therefore
missing out on employment opportunities as well as social connections.It must be
noted that every Lexpress vehicle is ADA-compliant wheelchair equipped,
In addition to Lexpress,The RIDE,RIDEFlex,and LEX-Connect,and FISH,some of
our residents with disabilities might benefit from a dedicated,direct route,wheelchair
accessible,on-demand vehicle to fill the gaps that the other modes of transportation
don’t provide.On the other hand,with additional Lexpress routes,more disabled (and
senior)residents could be close enough to routes to use Lexpress.
Source:U.S.Department of Transportation,Bureau of Transportation Statistics,January 3,
2022,Travel Patterns of Adults with Disabilities.
Do people want to ride Lexpress anymore?
Lexington residents have become more affluent as real estate prices have increased.
For most families at or below the Massachusetts median income,a home in Lexington
is unaffordable.In addition,there has been a demographic shift with the proportion of
Asian American residents increasing substantially in the last two decades.
The attitudes and cultural context regarding travel by mass transportation has changed,
especially post pandemic.Most new home owners may work in jobs outside of
Lexington and depend on the ease and convenience of cars to navigate jobs,family
obligations and chores.In addition,for many senior South Asian residents:groceries,
clinical visits and even most optional trips may be done with the help of the adult
children they live with.A paucity of culturally relevant activities during the daytime within
town,hesitation around language difficulties,or understanding new systems means
there are fewer reasons to go out.Uber and Lyft type services are more attractive.Age
and infirmity may decide the boundaries of how far senior residents venture if there is
no urgent need to do so.
While a number of other senior residents continue to use Lexpress for their basic
shopping needs,the “last mile”problem is difficult for many,and more so,during bad or
cold weather.
47
Amongst the student age group,with family affluence,there is less of a need to seek
summer jobs with the focus instead shifted to internships or volunteer work.These
opportunities,especially for high schoolers are largely elsewhere,outside of the routes
serviced by Lexpress.Time is important to the students and their families,hence an
hour spent commuting without actually getting to the destination (if Lexpress can only
partially take the student where they want)is too much.Notwithstanding,there is
increased Lexpress ridership in the summer months,with youth going to the center or
to work or internships close to routes,e.g.,Lahey Clinic.
Increasing affluence of Lexington families also enables them to invest in making their
children independent through providing them with cars.On average every Lexington
household has 2.5 cars.Ultimately,learning to drive is an essential skill,and the
driver ’s license an important document for many reasons.The young adults therefore
practice driving skills as they go to and from schools and other activities.They are not
necessarily going to switch to using Lexpress unless it offers more convenience,or until
there are serious efforts to change the “car culture.”
All of these changes mean that Lexpress is serving a very different Lexington
from when it was established in 1979.However,there are still many in Lexington who
due to age,income level,commitment to climate action,or physical restrictions,do not
or cannot drive.Therefore the AHTC tried to identify how many such current and
potential passengers are in Lexington.
While we are unable to actually define the total number of possible Lexington
resident/nonresident riders,according to Susan Barrett (Transportation Department
Staff)our core Lexpress riders are some of the most vulnerable people.They are
people who work at jobs such as Stop &Shop,HMart,Market Basket,Old Navy,etc.or
people who work in childcare facilities or homes,and sometimes as home health aides.
These are low-income service jobs.Lexpress riders also include senior citizens who
use it to go shopping,meet friends for coffee,come to the Community Center,etc.
Lexpress ridership also includes students in multiple special education programs who
use the service as part of their important life skills curriculum.
The town does have some resources which if accessed and managed could give
accurate data about where our senior residents live and their age.The voter records
and the car excise tax data can be used to come up with a verifiable database of
names,residents ages and whether they own a car.In addition,Lexington Public
Schools graduate neuro diverse students who may stay with their families well into
adulthood.Gathering such data with consent would also allow the town to know where
mass transport is needed.(Staff Clarification:Data about town demographics is
available through REMIX transit planning software,courtesy of MBTA and other town
sources.However specific details about residents and their home locations are not
available.As residents and their life circumstances change this level of data may not be
useful.Aggregated data is likely more helpful for planning.)
Such data collection was beyond the capability of the Ad Hoc Transportation
Committee,as data storage and data privacy is best managed by the town staff.
48
The Committee stresses that with new zoning regulations involving future multi-family
residential housing developments likely to be built in Lexington,it is likely that before
long new populations will be in need of public transit within town.
Possible current and unmet transportation needs for school students
The following additional questions were posed to the School Transportation Department
to try and identify how Lexpress could better serve students.The answers to our
questions are provided in full,though opportunities to further explore opportunities with
the School Department could be revisited.
1)Are students currently using Lexpress?For example:do our special education
programs rely on Lexpress for teaching life experiences?Is it a part of
curriculum for any class or subject such as the KG class trips to the police
station and town center.
We have used Lexpress for some of our high school Special Ed classes (ILP).They
use it as part of the skill building curriculum,using a bus pass,riding the bus,getting off
at the correct destination and navigating the town in general.
2)Do students rely on it for after school transportation?
No,not currently as the use and offering of the Flex Pass ended during COVID 19
pandemic,and the very limited route offerings for students to use effectively as a form
of regular transit or Late Bus.We have no data if any students use Lexpress currently
outside of any ad hoc use by the Special Ed program.The first collaboration with the
Lexpress/Flex Pass was in 2012,and from the information I have seen at one time
students could access it both morning and afternoon but it seems to have become
limited to the afternoons,3:15 pm to 6:00 pm.There were approximately 8 years where
we offered the purchase of the Flex Pass,in addition to their regular bus pass.The Flex
pass was $50 and allowed them to ride Lexpress.Purchases of Flex Pass have ranged
from about 133 students to a peak year of in FY20 of 480 amounting to about $24K.
Funds raised from those Flex Pass sales were sent to the town as revenue for the
Lexpress program,and we have sent approximately $143K over the 12 years.
3)Does LPS depend on it for student transportation during summer months (for
GenEd or SPED children)
We do not rely on Lexpress as daily transportation for any of our summer programs and
do not know if any students use it to commute to school during the summer.Summer
49
special ed programs do use both Lexpress and the MBTA buses to build and expand
their skills.
4)What transportation needs of our students are currently unmet by the school
bus system and could possibly be met by Lexpress?(i.e.for special education
students,after school sports and clubs,chorus and music etc.)
The only real unmet need might be an afternoon late bus for students after school
activities,but it's hard to quantify the need at the moment.However,late buses are
highly inefficient for riders as they need to operate on very long circuit routes,so a
student may ride for 30 minutes and still have to walk for an additional 15 mins to 20
mins,possibly more.Also our activities and athletic teams are on varied schedules so
students might need to wait an hour or more to get a bus or they might miss it by 5
minutes.It also could be very expensive as I believe we would probably need a
minimum of four to six buses to cover the town geographic area and keep potential
routes in the 30 minute range.
5)Any future anticipated needs such as transportation for internships,or a
greater emphasis in our SPED programs,or when Worthen Street parking is used
up for high school construction staging during school construction?
There are always new needs to consider if you have programs such as high
school/LCP interns,or other high school student internship programs.If we start
expanding these programs,maybe a Lexpress type route could work,but a more
efficient option might be to purchase or lease Multi-Function School Activity Buses
(MFSAB).These could also be used to transport smaller athletic teams,or other school
teams (Robotics,Debate),but that entails "being in the bus ownership business"and is
something completely new to the district.
6)Once our special education students graduate,how important is Lexpress in
making them mobile and independent?
It certainly helps after they graduate,but is highly dependent on the individual user and
their circumstances.Teaching them how to use this type of service,as a tool,would be
valuable for potential employment opportunities as well as life skills (going to the market
or a doctor's appointment)and social skills (going to dinner or other social events).
Right now Lexpress has such a limited reach that they would learn using it,but have to
rely on other services and transit providers to enhance their own mobility and
independence
50
Please Identify any missed opportunities:
7)Do LPS students know how to use Lexpress?
I believe students could easily learn or re-learn how to use Lexpress services.We
would obviously work with our students to help them understand the expectations of
ridership,proper use of the service and their responsibility to other riders and the staff
operating the bus,as well as the routes and times the service is available for their use.
8)Are there any concerns why LPS students may not be using Lexpress?
Lexpress has a limited service area,limited routes and route timing.If it's going where
they want at the time that is convenient,it would work,otherwise LPS students will find
alternate transport that works for them
The same questions were also posed to the Special Education Department staff,
answers were received courtesy of the Director Ms.Sugita and Mr.Mike Law (former
transition coordinator,now ETS at Hastings):
Identify current use:
1)Are students currently using Lexpress.For example:do our special education
programs rely on Lexpress for teaching life experiences?Is it a part of
curriculum for any class or subject such as the KG class trips to the police
station and town center.
Yes,our DLP (Developmental Learning Program)students at LHS use Lexpress when
schedules permit.The scheduling is hard due to the rotation of the schedule.There are
not many opportunities to combine several blocks to have more than a 45 minute
window,which is not enough time.In that case,it is better to plan for walking.
2)Do students rely on it for after school transportation
Yes,general education students take Lexpress to and from school.
3)Does LPS depend on it for student transportation during summer months (for
GenEd or SPED children)
Lexpress is used more during the summer months because there is more flexibility in
students'schedules.We can spend an entire day in community instruction,unlike
during the regular school year where the rotating schedule makes planning for more
than 45 minutes at a time difficult.
51
Identify unmet needs:
1)What transportation needs of our students are currently unmet by the school
bus system and could possibly be met by Lexpress (i.e.for special education
students,after school sports and clubs,chorus and music etc.)
It would be more accessible if it was 'on demand'instead of a fixed route system.
MWRTA (MetroWest Regional Transit Authority)resembles the world our students are
in -it's like using an Uber.
2)Any future anticipated needs such as transportation for internships,or a
greater emphasis in our SPED programs,or when Worthen Street parking is used
up for high school construction staging.
Again,an on demand system would be beneficial.Just know it is for a small cohort.
Because of this lack of flexible/accessible transportation,we rely on local internships
rather than expanding our options,which limits opportunities for our students.
3)If possible:Once our special education students graduate,how important is
Lexpress in making them mobile and independent.
It is essential.For some it is the only option for independent transportation.
Identify any missed opportunities:
1)Do LPS students know how to use Lexpress (Covid impact)
Yes,students use it for transportation to LHS.
2)Are there any concerns why LPS students may not be using Lexpress.
For travel training and community outings,the LHS schedule restricts our use for our
most disabled students.
52
Public Forums
1st Public Forum (July 26,2023)
The Select Board required at least two public hearings;one to obtain input and a
second to obtain feedback on the recommendations.The first public forum was an
online webinar held on the evening of July 26th
(a)Slides of the meeting
(https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12YfLXgPmsALaAZdtBD7iZuN6zdkET1
5BxPQJW10XSK0/edit?usp=sharing)
(b)Minutes of the meeting
(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lKvom18ldvBPdugSW_4238VvlK58GbPG
/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106106275678882487224&rtpof=true&sd=true)
Nineteen individuals spoke at the 1.5 hour meeting,5 contributing thoughts more than
once.While several people talked about their own specific needs that were not being
met,relating to route or schedule,the overall feeling was one of gratitude for the
service,overwhelming support,and please not to reduce service.One woman said she
used Lexpress while she was growing up and that as much as she appreciated it then,
she appreciates it even more now because it is of such value to her elderly father who
still resides in Lexington.
Suggestions included better coordination with students’schedules at LHS and at the
middle schools;more publicity and education about how to use it;students especially
need it for after-school activities;need to get more kids using it,not only because it’s
efficient but also because so many parents are idling in their cars waiting for their kids
--which is terrible for the environment;earlier start time could help get more people to
work.It was also pointed out that as Town Meeting continues to pass high density
bylaws,and as we’ve all seen traffic increase dramatically,much more public
transportation is needed,probably including weekend service.One speaker
encouraged additional routes so that it would attract and build a larger pool of riders.
Another pointed out that if Lexpress service were reduced it would result in more
students using cars.
Thirty-four residents responded to an online survey.Their responses were very similar
to the input received at the Forum.Some were users,some former users who had lost
their nearby routes or useful schedule.Many made similar suggestions to the ones
above.One family said they had moved to Lexington because of Lexpress,as they
were a one-car family by choice!
53
2nd Public Forum (September 13,2023)
The Ad Hoc Transportation Advisory Committee for the Town of Lexington held its
second public forum on September 13,2013.Members of the public participated both
in person and remotely.
The committee presented slides [include here]on its charter,background
considerations,transportation options currently available,Lexpress deficiencies,and
the newly instituted Lexpress fare structure.Then they reviewed four possible options
for moving forward.
1.Lexpress 2.0 which would beef up the current system with more and more
frequent routes to better serve Lexington residents and lead to greater system
utilization
2.Cease Lexpress operations at the end of the fiscal years –June 30,2024,and
add curb-to-curb service for some
3.Lexpress 2.0 plus a curb-to-curb service for the most vulnerable residents in
town
4.Maintain the system in its current form.
The committee then invited participants to comment.
Many people who spoke supported the first option above.They commented on their
own experiences with Lexpress and expressed the hope that the system could continue
with more extensive and frequent service.Eight people actually specifically said they
were voting for #1.The only other specific vote was someone deciding between #1 and
#4,based on the finances.
Many people expressed extreme gratitude to the Town for providing Lexpress service,
as it has enhanced their lives immeasurably.Most gave their experiences and their
hopes for a more robust system.No one wanted service to end.One called Lexpress “a
real value,a community value.”
There were many comments about too many people who do not know about any of the
transportation options available to residents,and that much more publicity and
“marketing”is necessary.Several used the word “advertise.”
Although some spoke about how the service we currently have is not doing a good job
of meeting the Town’s sustainability goals,many referred to the hope that Lexpress
would be part of the solution to reducing both traffic and emissions in Lexington.They
cautioned against dropping the system in the face of the current climate emergency.
One person talked about teaching (conservation)values to future generations too.
Another expressed the thought that Lexington would be more liveable with less traffic.
Several people commented that Lexpress has been very helpful to them personally
when for health reasons they are no longer able to drive and gave suggestions for how
it could be improved.One rider commented that he was unable to go out at all during
54
the period when Lexpress was closed due to COVID and had to stay at home.One
man said he’s been using Lexpress with great success and comfort,but noted that with
more routes,more seniors would be helped.He thinks the system should include side
street routes as well as main-street routes.Another said Lexpress has allowed him to
work full-time;he has been using it for 4 decades,5 days a week.
Several LHS students talked about the value of having Lexpress,and hoped more
information would get to more students.There was also talk about the gap between
after-school activities that end at 5:15 or 5:30 and a bus that did not leave Depot
Square until 6:00.Another student pointed out that he,like many others,did not carry
cash and wished the buses had appropriate software to take non-cash fares as many
other systems do.Both parents and students expressed concern that Lexpress
schedules are not coordinated well with after-school activities (outside of school)and
for returning home after such activities,from both school and other activity sites.
Some who spoke have lost routes and feel the distance they must walk to access
services is now too far and are upset that they can no longer use Lexpress.A few noted
that Lexpress is not suitable for some,not only because of the longer walking
distances,but also waiting in inclement weather.They suggested that an additional
curb-to-curb service might be warranted,though some attendees were aware of their
options for this level of service and others were not.ADA and frail elders do not like
depending on The RIDE because they find it unreliable,and would prefer door-to-door
service from Lexpress.Some seniors either do not know about LEX-Connect or even
some who are aware would prefer door-to-door service from Lexpress.Someone else
noted,however,that curb-to-curb service by design has much lower utilization than a
fixed route service and that increased ridership leads to consequently greater and
greater costs,because such an operation doesn’t scale.
The wish for Saturday service was brought up,especially by seniors,students and the
transit-dependent (those unable to drive or do not own a car).
Town Meeting members present mentioned the recent approval of new zoning changes
allowing more multifamily residential housing in Town,and consequently,likely future
needs for even more public transit.
Many people commented that if Lexpress utilization were to increase significantly due
to enhancing routes and frequency that there would be less budget pressure brought to
bear on the system,and expressed the hope that the town could move in that direction.
Some noted that the committee should seek efficiencies with the school bus system.
One person said that a single school bus route costs $100K annually,and that if that
could go to Lexpress operations instead,that would be a cost savings for the town.
55
Slides of Presentation to the Select Board (September 2023)
The ADTC presented their draft recommendations and this report to the Select Board
prior to the completion of this report.Slides can be found here:Select Board
Presentation_The Future of Lexpress.pdf
Demographic REMIX maps for Lexington
Susan Barrett from the Lexington Transportation Department provided the following maps to
add additional context to the review of potential riders and service areas in Lexington.These
maps can be revised and provided from the Town’s “REMIX”system.
People living per square mile in Lexington and surrounding communities
56
People per square mile who are 65 years or older
MAP:People per square mile who are non-White or of Hispanic/Latino origin
57
People per square mile falling below the poverty threshold
Households per square mile with no vehicle available by census tract
58