HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11062007 - C.49 1
TO: Board of Supervisors
Contra
Water and Infrastructure Committee j
FROM: Trans p
Co$taortation, -=
(Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair) .
County
DATE: October 22, 2007
SUBJECT: Draft Coordinated Public Transit/ Human Services Transportation Plan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECEIVE report on the Draft Coordinated Public Transit/Human ServiceF,Transportation Plan
and AUTHORIZE the Chair to sign the attached letter to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT
NONE to the General Fund. If the plan is adopted with the County's suggestions included, it
could increase the chances of funding for specific.transportation services provided by the
County, its bus transit operators, and community-based organizations for low-income persons,
elderly persons and disabled persons.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATUR S : upervisor Gayle B. Uilkema Supervisor Federal D. Glover
ACTION OF BOARD ON d,,d7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
�C UNANIMOUS (ABSENT yw) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: John Greitzer (925/335-1201) , /
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED //V cl ve.nh��
.S. Goetz, CDD JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF
P. Branson, EHSD THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
C. Dahlgren, County Connection AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
B , DEPUTY
O
G:\Transportation\TWIC\2007\Board Orders\MTC Coord Plan Nov6 2007.doc
MTC Coordinated Plan
October 22, 2007
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)has published its Draft Coordinated Public
.Transit/ Human Services Transportation Plan. MTC will accept comments until November 9.
MTC developed the plan to comply with federal policy that requires coordinated planning for
transportation services that are provided at the local level for elderly persons, disabled persons
and low-income persons.
The draft plan was developed with substantial input from Contra Costa County participants
including the County's Employment and Human Services Department, the County Connection
and Tri Delta Transit bus systems, and several non-profits who provide such services within the
Cou nty.
The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee received a presentation from MTC
staff and reviewed the draft plan at its Committee meeting on October 22. The Committee
expressed support for the effort to coordinate these transportation services and developed
several requests and suggestions for inclusion in the final plan.
The Committee recommends the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chair to sign the letter
shown in Exhibit A, which reflects the comments made at the Committee meeting.
Exhibit B includes portions of the draft plan (the entire plan is lengthy, so only the most relevant
portions are attached here).
Transportation services and programs must be included in MTC's plan to be eligible for three
federal funding programs—the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC), the New
Freedom Program, and the Formula Program for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities.
The Board of Supervisors Contra John Cullen
County Administration BuildingCosta Clerk of the Board
651 Pine Street,Room 106 and
Martinez,California 94553-1293 County County Administrator
John Gioia,1st District (925)335-1900
Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District dL`���
Mary N.Piepho,3rd District
Susan A.Bonilla,4th District
Federal D.Glover,5th District
November 6,2007 \ =
The Honorable Bill Dodd
Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Dear Chair Dodd:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors today authorized me to sign this letter offering some comments
regarding the Draft Coordinated Public Transit / Human Services Transportation Plan. We understand the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission is accepting comments on the draft until November 9.
We strongly support MTC's efforts in this regard. By improving coordination of the various transportation services
that are provided to elderly persons, disabled persons and those on low-incomes, we can help share resources and
information, which will make our overall service delivery more efficient. We wish MTC success in its effort to
achieve this level of coordination.
We are pleased to note the draft plan was developed with substantial input from Contra Costa County service
providers, who already are engaged in some groundbreaking coordination and service delivery programs.
Following are some additional suggestions and comments on the plan. We believe the additional information
suggested here would help make MTC's strong plan even stronger. The first four continents were developed by the
Transportation Alliance, which is Contra Costa County's voluntary group of transportation service providers,
including transit operators and social service agencies. The Board of Supervisors supports these comments and
offers a couple of additional points as well.
1) The table shown in Figure 8-1 on page 8-12 is helpful because it compiles the amount of transit service funding
from all federal sources — including social services, veterans' programs, education and labor programs, etc. This
information is useful in helping us assess ]low much public funding is used for these transportation purposes. It
would be even more helpful if this funding information could be matched to specific transportation services
provided by non-governmental service providers, such as non-profits and community-based organizations, in
Contra Costa and elsewhere. This would better enable the transit community to coordinate efforts and perhaps
pursue joint funding opportunities for pooling resources with other organizations.
2) It would be helpful to have a comprehensive list of all the non-governmental organizations, such as non-profits
and community-based organizations that provide transportation services for this segment of the population. The
draft plan includes a list of some community-based service providers in Contra Costa County in Chapter 4, but
there are additional private services operating in Contra Costa County not listed in the document. Providers who
should be added include the San Ramon Senior Center, Lamorinda Spirit service, and Walnut Creek Senior Van,
among others. Our staff will provide a more complete list to MTC staff under separate cover.
3) One of the recommended additional services is "wheelchair breakdown service" that would provide"rides for
wheelchair users who experience mechanical problems with their wheelchairs. This recommendation is listed on
page 7-9, and in a table on page 7-5. It would be helpful for MTC to clarify or suggest the types of agencies who
would provide this type of service.
The Honorable Bill Dodd
November 6,2007
PaiTe 2 of 2'
4) Page 1-3 of the draft plan lists the types of programs and services that can be funded from specific federal
funding programs. The Transportation Alliance requests MTC add "mobility management centers" as eligible uses
for these funds. Staffs of the County and the transit operators have been discussing the potential for establishincy a
mobility management center in Contra Costa County that would serve as a "one-stop" call center for disabled,
elderly, or low-income persons who need a ride, and for the operators of these services to coordinate on resources,
available vehicles and other matters.
5. We urge MTC and the service providers to work for even more cooperation and coordination between
govermnental and non-governmental transportation providers. Governmental providers include public transit
operators and social services agencies (such as Contra Costa County's own Employment and Human Services
Department). Non-governmental service providers include the many non-profits and community-based
organizations which provide services to their clients or members. There are many of these non-governmental
providers in operation here in Contra Costa County and elsewhere. By improving coordination between these two
groups, we can increase the chances for sharing resources and information, providing joint or coordinated services,
and achieve other economies of scale.
6. On page 8-2, one of the bullet-point strategies for enhancing coordination of service delivery is to `Promote
enhanced pedestrian access to public transit and other alternative modes of travel." We suggest more is needed
than just enhancing pedestrian access. There needs to be more creative access to public transit, not just enhancing
the current system. There are services and programs in Contra Costa County which are aimed at fostering
independent living rather than institutional living. To accomplish this goal there needs to be much more pedestrian
access to public transit, beyond just enhancements to the existing system.
7. We suggest an additional goal for the plan, namely the removal of legislative barriers to funding eligibility for
transportation services. As an example, Medi-Cal will not reimburse expenses for non-emergency medical
transportation (such as transport to and from a dialysis clinic). Medicare programs in other states allow such
reimbursements. The restriction under Medi-Cal leads some people to use other, more costly methods of transport,
including ambulances, which results in far greater cost to the public. If we can eliminate regulatory and legislative
barriers such.as these; it would provide an opportunity for more services being available to more people who need them.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft plan and offer our comments. Please let me know if you have
questions )ut our comments.
Sinc e ,
iepho, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
MNP`JG
G:`,1'ransportatiod rWIC',2007\I3oard Orders\MCCoord Plan Noah 2007 Exhibit A.doc
C: Members, Board of Supervisors
P. Branson, EHSD
C. Dahlroren,County Connection &Transportation Alliance
P. Engel, CCTA
S. Goetz,CDD
F. Knudsen. MTC
EXHIBIT B
Elderly & Disabled Component of the
Coordinated
Public Transit/Human Services
Transportation Plan
DRAFT Report
September 24, 2007
Portions Only
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan ^ Elderly
& Dv�m�n�d Component ^ DRAFT Report
' ' ' ' -- '- - - -' -
mEEmopourAwTRANSPORTATION oumm/oumw
Table of Contents
PAGE
Chapter 1' -'_--._..--_-_'----__--.'_'------_-'_.1-1
8AFETEA-LD Pkonn' Rcuuircnerto--------.--'---.------------]Chapter -]
2' Project Methodology-'...-~_.~.-...--,-~.'~..._.~.~.,_.-...'-- ~--...%-1
Literature Search/Best Practices............................................................................................2-1
DemographicProfile............................................................................................................%'l
Document Existing Transportation Services.........................................................................2-|
�
Stakeholder Involvement......................................................................................................2-2
FocusGroup..........................................................................................................................Z'2
Needs Assessment-------------------------------------2-3
Identification ofSolutions......................................................................................................Z-3
Coordination Strategies---------'-----------------------'-2-3
Chuptor3Lmhic Profile-.--'---'..'--'-----___-_._--_-_.---'_-_.....3-1
Low |oomne Popuktion----------------------------------.3'2
The Older Adult Population-------------------.-----------_3-2
People with Disabilities........................................................................................................3'7
Chapter 4. Existing Transportation Resources.~-_.~-~._'....~_._'~._...._'_--4-1
PublicTransportation.............................................................................................................4-|
Human Service Transportation Programs-------------------------..4-}
AlamedaCounty..................................................................................................................4-3
ContraCosta County............................................................................................................4-5
Marin County ------------------------------.-------.,..4-7
NapaCounty........................................................................................................................4'7
San Francisco County----------------.----_--.-----------...4'8
San Mateo County -------------------------------_----...4'0
SantaClara County............................................................................................................4-lO
8olanoCounty...................................................................................................................4-}2
8onpmu County.-------------------._-----.------------.4-l3
Chapter 5. Stakeholder Involvement................................................................................5-8
PublicOutreach....................................................................................................................5'l
Stakeholder Interviews.........................................................................................................5'5
Chapter 6. Documentation pfUnmet Needs......................................................................6-8
Summary ofGaps: Older Adults and Persons with Disabilities..............................................6'l
Summary ofGaps: Low-Income Persons..............................................................................6-3 �
Chapter 7. Solutions toGaps.............................................................................................7-1
Evaluation Criteria..............................................................................................................
7'l5
Chapter 8. Strategies toEnhance Coordination oJService Delivery...............................0-
Enhance Land Use and Transportation Coordination............................................................8'2
�
Page ^ NelsonINygaaird Consulting Associates �
�
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component - DRAFT Report
POETROPOLi.TAN TRANSPORTf,TICN OON':N. ISSION
Table of Contents (continued)
PAGE
Promote Coordinated Advocacy and Improve Efforts to Coordinate Funding
with Human Service Agencies............................................................................................8-1 1
Improve Interjurisdictional and Intermodal Travel..............................................................8-16
Mobility Management................................. . .......................8-17
Chapter9. Next Steps........................................................................................................9-1
Y~ _ Page ii NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION L
Table of Figures
PACE
Figure 3-1: Basic Population Characteristics: A Snapshot...................................................3-1
Figure 3-2: Older Adults as a Percentage of Total Population in Each County.....................3-3
Figure 3-3: Older Adult Population in Each County............................................................3-4
Figure 3-4: Growth in the Older Adult Population, 2005 to 2030.........................................3-5
Figure 3-5: Older Adults with a Disability...........................................................................3-6
Figure 3-6: Low-Income Older Adult Population...............................................................3-6
Figure 3-7: Older Adult Population with No Access to a Vehicle........................................3-7
Figure 3-8: Percent of People with a Disability....................................................................3-8
Figure 3-9: People with a Disability in Each County...........................................................3-9
Figure 3-10: Low Income Status and Access to a Vehicle for People with Disabilities........3-10
Figure 4-1: Agencies Providing Highest Number of Trips...................................................4-2
Figure 5-1: MTC Human Service Transportation Coordination - Outreach Meetings...........5-2
Figure 5-2: Stakeholder Interviews................................................:................................:....5-6
Figure 6-1: Constituent Group..........:......................................... ..................6-4
.......................
Figure 7-1: Additions or Improvements to Paratransit that exceed ADA Requirements.......7-1
Figure 7-2: Additions or Improvements to Demand-Responsive Services Other than ADA
Paratrans it.........................................................................................................7-2
Figure 7-3: Additions or Improvements to Transit Services.................................................7-3
Figure 7-4: Improved Access to Transit Services.................................................................7-3
Figure 7-5: Information and Assistance...............................................................................7-4
Figure 7-6: Miscellaneous (including solutions that fall into multiple categories)................7-5
Figure 8-1: Estimated Spending on Transportation Services for the Transportation-
Disadvantaged by Federal Agencies in Fiscal Year 2001 ................................8-12
Figure 8-2: Implementation of Coordination Strategies......................................................8-19
Page ill . NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
.... .... .. .. ....... _ . . ,......,.., .
Chapter 1 . Introduction/Background
The purpose of this project is to prepare a Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services
Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area that is consistent with the requirements of
the Safe. Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU). The planning effort is overseen by The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC). MTC is both the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and
the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area—
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and
Sonoma Counties.
SAFETEA-LU was signed into law on August 10, 2005, and authorizes the provision of$286.4
billion in guaranteed funding for federal surface transportation programs over five years (Fiscal
Years 2005-2009), including $52.6 billion for federal transit programs. Starting in Fiscal Year
2007, projects funded through three programs included in SAFETEA-LU--the Job Access and
Reverse Commute Program (JARC - Section 5316), New Freedom (Section 5317) and the
Formula Program for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310)--are
required to be derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services
transportation plan. SAFETEA=LU guidance issued 'by the Federal Transportation
Administration (FTA) indicates that the plan should be a "unified, comprehensive strategy for
public transportation service delivery that identifies the transportation needs of individuals with
disabilities, older adults,and individuals with limited income, laying out strategies for meeting
these needs, and prioritizing services."]
Because considerable resources have recently been dedicated toward planning efforts that have
focused on the transportation needs of low-income residents in the Bay Area, MTC staff has
already completed the low-income component of the coordinated plan by synthesizing the results
from these efforts. This element of the plan focuses on transportation needs of older adults and
persons with disabilities. It serves as a parallel effort to the low-income component and together
they comprise the Coordinated Public Transit-Hurnan Services Transportation Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area.
SAFETEA-LU Planning Requirements
As mentioned above, SAFETEA-LU requires that projects selected for funding under the Section
5310, JARC, and New Freedom programs be "derived from a locally developed, coordinated
public transit-human services transportation plan' and that the plan be "developed through a
process that includes representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human
services providers and participation by members of the public." The Federal Transit
Federal Register:March 15,2006(Volume 71,Number 50.page 1 3458)
Page 1.1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
Administration (FTA) issued three program circulars, effective May 1, 2007,to provide guidance
on the administration of the three programs subject to this planning requirement.
This federal -uidance specifies four required elements of the plan, as follows:
1. An assessment of available services that identifies current transportation providers (public,
private, and non-profit);
I An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults; and
people with low incomes. This assessment can be based on the experiences and perceptions
of the planning partners or on more sophisticated data collection efforts, and gaps in service;
3. Strategies, activities, and/or projects to address the identified gaps between current services
and needs. as well as opportunities to achieve efficiencies in service delivery;and
4. Priorities for implementation.based on resources (from multiple program sources), time, and
feasibility for implementing specific strategies and/or activities.
The three sources of funds subject to this plan are intended to improve the mobility status of
persons with disabilities, older adults, and low-income individuals, as described below.
Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC, Section 5316)
The purpose of the JARC program is to fund local programs that offer job access services for
low-income individuals. JARC funds are distributed to states on a formula basis, depending on
that state's rate of low=income population. This approach differs from previous funding cycles,
when grants were awarded purely through Congressional appropriations, or earkmarks. JARC
funds will pay for up to 50% of operating costs and 80% for capital costs. The remaining funds
are required to be provided through local match sources.
Examples of eligible JARC projects include, but are not limited to:
• Late-ni(=ht and weekend service
• Guaranteed Ride Home Programs
• Vanpools or shuttle services to improve access to employment or training sites
• Car-share or other projects to improve access to autos
• Access to child care and training
New Freedom Program (Section 5317)
The New Freedom formula brant program aims to provide additional tools to overcome existing
barriers lacina Americans with disabilities seeking integration into the work force and full
participation in society. The New Freedom Program seeks to reduce barriers to transportation
services and expand the transportation mobility options available to people with disabilities
beyond the requirements of the ADA.
Page 1-2• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
VETPGFC-'TAN "Rr tiSPGRTi'.!rir vQFiE:iISS10�
New Freedom funds are available for capital and operating expenses that support new public
transportation services beyond those required by the ADA and new public transportation
alternatives beyond those required by the ADA designed to assist individuals with disabilities
with accessing transportation services, including transportation to and from jobs and employment
support services. The same match requirements as for JARC apply for the New Freedom
Program.
Examples of eligible.New Freedom Program projects include, but are not limited to:
• Expansion ofparatransit service hours or service area beyond minimal requirements
• Purchase of accessible taxi or other vehicles
• Promotion of accessible ride sharing or vanpool programs
• Administration of volunteer programs
• Building curb-cuts, providing accessible bus stops
• Travel Training programs.
Elderly and Disabled Program (Section 5310)
Funds for this program are allocated by a population-based formula to each state and are
available for capital expenses to support the provision of transportation services to meet the
special needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities. In California, a'20% local match
is required for the federal funds.Examples of capital expenses include, but are not limited to:
• Buses and vans
• Radios and communication equipment
• Vehicle shelters
• Wheelchair lifts
• Computer hardware and software
• Transit related Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)or other.technology.
Local Match Requirements
Each federal program requires a share of total program costs be derived from local sources,
which cannot include federal Department of Transportation funds. Some examples of local
match that can be used for any or all of the local share include: state or local appropriations;
other non-DOT federal funds, dedicated tax revenues; private donations; revenue from human
service contracts; toll revenue credits; private donations; and revenue.from advertising and
concessions. In-kind contributions, such as donations, staff time or volunteer services, can also
be counted toward the local match as long as the value of each is documented and supported,
Page 1-3- NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
11
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
"cTF,C?DI_ IA:ft �RAN�ri;r?TC,i!QIL' cc�r,,rrtss�ora
represents a cost which would otherwise be eligible under the program, and is included in the net
project costs in the project budget.
Project.Goals
MTC serves as the designated recipient for the urbanized portions of JARC and New Freedom
funds for the region.`' MTC is required to distribute these funds to local entities through a
competitive process, and, starting in Fiscal Year 2007, to certify that projects funded are derived
from the region's coordinated plan. The overarching goal of this planning effort, then, is to
respond to SAFETEA-LU requirements for receiving these federal funds.
The plan also provides an opportunity for a diverse range of stakeholders with a common interest
in human service transportation to convene and collaborate on how best to provide transportation
services for these targeted populations. Specifically, the stakeholders are called upon to. identify
service gaps and/or barriers, strategize on solutions most appropriate to meet these needs based
on local circumstances, and prioritize these needs for inclusion in the plan.
Indeed, stakeholder outreach and participation is a key element to the development of this plan,
and federal guidance issued by FTA specifically requires this participation, and recommends that
it come from a broad base of groups and organizations involved in the coordinated planning
process, including (but not limited to): area transportation planning agencies, transit riders and
potential riders, public transportation providers, private transportation providers, non-profit
transportation providers, human service agencies funding and/or supporting access for human
services, and other government agencies that administer programs for targeted population,
advocacy organizations, community-based organizations, elected officials, and tribal
representatives.3
This plan is intended both.to capture those local stakeholder discussions, and to establish the
framework for potential future planning and coordination activities.
Federal and State Roles to Promote Human Service
Transportation Coordination
Incentives to coordinate human services transportation programs are defined and elaborated upon
in numerous initiatives and documents. Coordination can enhance transportation access,
minimize duplication of services, and facilitate cost-effective solutions with available resources.
Enhanced coordination also results in joint ownership and oversight of service.delivery by both
human service and transportation service agencies. The requirements of SAFETEA-LU build
upon previous federal initiatives intended to enhance social service transportation coordination.
Among these are:
The California Department of Transportation serves as the designated recipient for.IARC and New Freedom funds in the small
urbanized and rural areas,and all Section 5.10 finds for the state.
Federal Register:March 15.2006(Volume 71,Number 50.pages 1 3459-60)
Page 1-4• NelsoMNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
ETROPOL(T;N TRANSPORTATION OOMMISSION
Presiciential Executive Order: In February 2004, President Bush signed an Executive
Order establishing an Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility to focus 10 federal agencies on the coordination agenda. It may be found at
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/?004/02/20040224-9.html
A Framework,for Action: The Framework for Action is a self-assessment tool that states
and communities can use to identify areas of success and highlight the actions still
needed to improve the coordination of human service transportation. This tool has been
developed through the United We Ride initiative sponsored by FTA, and can be found on
the United We Ride website: http://www.unitedweride.gov/1_81_ENG_HTML.htm
• Aledicaid Transportation Initiatives:
Transit Passes: Federal regulations require that Medicaid eligible persons who need
transportation for non-emergent medical care be provided transportation. For many
people, the most cost-effective way to provide this transportation is with public
transportation. Medicaid rules now allow the purchase of a monthly bus pass as an
allowable Medicaid program expense. While this has proven to be a cost-effective
method of providing non-emergency medical transportation for Medicaid eligible persons
in many states, California has yet to allow the use of Medicaid funds to purchase transit
passes.
Previous research: Numerous studies and reports have documented the benefits of
enhanced coordination efforts among federal .programs that fund or sponsor
transportation for their clients.`
The following chapter describes the methodology that was followed to complete this component
of the plan.
4 Examples include United States General Accounting Office(GAO)reports to Congress entitled Transportation Disadvantoged
Populations, Sonre Coordination E.fortsAmong Yrngrunzr Providing Tiansportalior; but Obstacles Persist, (,lune 2003) and
Tranaportation Disadvantaged Seniors—Efforts to Enhance Senior Mobility Could Benefit From Additional Guidance and
/nfor•nration,(August 2004).
Page 1-5• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
on
Chapter 3. Demographic Profile
The San Francisco Bay Area is a geographically diverse metropolitan region that surrounds the
San Francisco Bay. It encompasses the cities of San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland, and their
many suburbs. It also includes the smaller urban and rural areas of the North Bay. Home to
almost seven million people, it comprises cities, towns. military bases, airports, and associated
regional, state, and national parks over nine counties and connected by a network of roads,
highways, railroads, bridges, and commuter rail. San Jose is now the largest city in the Bay Area
and the tenth largest city in America.
This portion of the plan reports on demographic information pertaining to low-incorne
populations. older adults, and persons with disabilities in the Bay Area. It also examines the
overlap among these groups; for example, the extent to which older adults are also in poverty, or
have a disabling condition.
Figure 3-1: Basic Population Characteristics: A Snapshot
w ..
persons.
%persons
County Total population aged 65+ wl disability' %poverty,Im ,%low income2
Alameda 1,419,998 10.5% 18.7% 11.0% 24%
Contra Costa 938,310 11.4 16.8 7.6 19
Marin 237,535 14.6 15.4 6.6 16
Napa 119,585 14.5 19.0 8.3 23
San Francisco 765,356 14.8 20.3 11.3 26
San Mateo 697,649 13 16.4 5.8 16
Santa Clara 1,653,531 10.4 16.4 7.5 19
Solano 378,431 10.3 19.1 8.3 23
Sonoma 451,145 12.6 17.7 8.1 22
Bay Area 6,661,540 10.6 17.6 8.6 20.6
• 17.6%of Bay Area population reports a disability
• 10.6%of population is aged 65 or older
8.5%of population is below federal poverty level
20.60/0 of population is below 200%of federal poverty level
• 28%of persons with disabilities are low-income
•
24%of older adults are low-income
• 38%of older adults have a disability
Disabilit} status for persons';years and older
'Defined at 20(1"• of federal pw-crtx level
Page 3.1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
li:_.7"':0 —..,. A„moi 'i`.. ..€!,"V ..0i'Fi i JJ10N
Low Income Population
Figure 3-1 illustrates the Bay Area population by poverty level. Nearly 9% of the Bay Area
population earns below 100% of the federal poverty level. In previous studies that focus on the
Bay Area's low-income population, MTC has doubled the poverty level to 200% to account for
the high cost of living in the Bay Area. This percentage is consistent with several Bay Area
or�,anizations that use income to determine prograrn eligibility such as the Bay Area Food Banks
and the Women Infant and Children (WIC) program that use 185%of the federal poverty level as
the benchmark to make eligibility determinations. When looking at this threshold, approximately
21%of Bay .Area residents earn below 200%of the federal poverty level.
The Older Adult Population
In the Bay Area as a whole there were about 762,000 people age 65 or older in 2005, according
to the U.S. Census's American Community Survey. For purposes of this plan, this group will be
called "older adults.” Older adults accounted for 11.3% of the Bay Area's population in 2005.
The percentage of older adults varies considerably from county to county, from a low of 10.1%
in Santa Clara and Sonoma counties to a high of 14.6% in San Francisco and 14.2% in Marin
County. Figure 3-2 provides the percentages for all nine counties. These percentages mask great
variation within counties. For example, within Santa Clara County there are pockets with very
high concentrations of older adults.
Figure 3-2: Older Adults as a Percentage of Total Population in Each
County
POPULATION 65+YEARS OLD(2005)
______________________________________________________
IIT _____________.
145;}__ _______..________________________. .
12:�I___-._____..___- __ ___ ___ ---- ___________________
____ ____ ____ ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ _.
____ ____ ____ ___ ____ ___ ----
4% ___4%}_ ____ .___ ____ ____ ____ ____ _.
2I1_ ____ ____ ____
0%
Plametla Cuune C.M. Marin Napa San Ran.— Sen Mateo .S-M Clara Solano Sanama
Dago Srnere'US Fmnnrar.Cammun:ly Survey?005
Page 3-2• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
t:: T?.: -!'i' ... .FEA .,,^an 7..T IOP; 0M, iISSON
A low percentage of older adults does not mean that there are few older adults. In fact, the
largest numbers of older adults are in counties with lower-than-average percentages, including
Santa Clara and Alameda as shown in Figure 3-3. There are significantly more older women
than men. y
Figure 3-3: Older Adult Population in Each County
POPULATION 65+YEARS OLD BY GENDER(2005)
00a00T-------------------------------------------------------
❑Males
90000 1 -----' -----' ----- ------ ----
- !Females
80.000 11---- -----------------------------------------------
70000 I --- -------------------------------------------- _ ;.
60 000
50.000 ______________________ _ ___________
t
40.000 +- ."
'.
...y' ..:
30.000 ____ .:x> .: � ______________ _
20.000 ___ ---
I
10.000 }-'':. ___ .. ___ _____
g
Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Sonoma
Data Source US A—r—n Comm—y Survey 2005
According.to projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments, in 2030 the
older adult population will have increased by 162% compared to 2005. Figure 34 provides
county-by-county detail. The highest growth rates are expected. to he in Santa Clara and Solano
counties, where the number of older adults is expected to grow by 184% and 213% respectively.
In Napa and San Francisco by comparison, the number of older adults is expected to increase by
12')% and 99% respectively. These totals hide differences in the composition of the older adult
population. For example, San Francisco may have many more "very o'ld'.' adults, 80 years and
older, than other counties.
Page 3-3• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
i>>=TFc..`{r.,..ti . -.A N... ;: -.. c.N .;iss!or!
Figure 3-4: Growth in the Older Adult Population, 2005 to 2030
GROWTH IN OLDER POPULATION 2005•2030
500,000—_________________________________________________
an
450.000 --------------------------------------------------- ....
..,-------------
1112005 '
"
02030 r;z
400,00011 --- ---------- "----------------------
350,000 __ ':.:� .�e� ___________________
ti
300.000 "
250.000+...._ ..
200.000- - F•. ----- ------------------------ ----- ---------- --------------------
N
DA
_ '-- ..
150.000 f
____ �� '�^
100.000 --- - ---- ----- - ----- --
.,
50:000- '
CI..t.
;.r
Alameda Contra Costa Mann Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Sonoma
Sources U.S.Census 2005 American Community Survey,ABAG Projections 2005.
About 38% of older adults have some type of disability according to the 2005 American
Community Survey, as shown in Figure 3-5. Tile Census definition of a disability is provided in .
the nest section along with more detailed demographics of the disabled population. Older adults
are most likely to be. disabled in San Francisco and Solano counties, and least likely to be
disabled in Marin County.
Page 3-4• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human, Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
ME 0❑n: T :r n rn n
.....TR 7A�v' : R�N� ORT TE.:Iv ..vfeiC�ISS10N
Figure 3-5: Older Adults with a Disability
Total.Older OlderAd'ultsvJith: :" Bercentof.-I er:.Adiilts
County P Adults' a Disability J. vrith a Disability
Alameda 144,255 55,282 38%
Contra Costa 110,646 40,558 37
Marin 33,477 9,285 28
Napa 16,687 6,252 37
San Francisco 105,176 45,474 43
San Mateo 86,631 30,316 35
Santa Clara 169,440 63,476 37
Solano 40,180 16,725 42
Sonoma 1 55,387 21,704 39
® OUR=
I
Source:American Community Survey,2005
About 24% of older adults live in households with incomes less than 200% of the Federal
poverty level (Figure 3-6). In general, the percent of low-income people among older adults is
similar to that for the general population. The key exception is San Francisco, where 35% of
older adults live in low-income households compared to 26% of all people. Similar
circumstances exist for the most urbanized areas of other counties, such as Oakland, Richmond,
and some parts of San Jose.
Figure 3-6: Low-Income Older Adult Population
Percent in Low-Income;Households
CountY;: Older Adults All Peop ie au
Alameda 27% 24%
Contra Costa 20 19
Marin 14 16
Napa 22 23
San Francisco 35 26
San Mateo 17 16
Santa Clara 22 18
Solano 23 23
Sonoma 22 22
Note 'Low income'=Living in households with income less than 200%of Federal Poverty Level
Source:2000 U.S.Census
Page 3-5• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
NIETRu?OLi-r:t -R,4NSPvr. ,.�TiON COiMM.ISSION
About 15%of older adults live in households with no motor vehicle, as shown in Figure 3-7. By
comparison, only 7% of the total population lives in households with no motor vehicle. A
similar pattern exists in all nine counties. San Francisco and Alameda have the highest
percentages of older adults (and others) without access to a vehicle, while Marin, Napa, Solano,
and Sonoma have the lowest. Note that "access to a vehicle" does not indicate whether or not
the individual is able to drive or has a license.
Figure 3-7: Older Adult Population with No Access to a Vehicle
County Percent with No Vehicle(01der Adults) Percent with No Vehicle(All People}
Alameda 15% 8%
Contra Costa 10 5
Marin 8 4
Napa 9 4
San Francisco 36 21
San Mateo 10 4
Santa Clara 11 4
Solano 9 5
Sonoma 9 4
Source•.U.S.Census Public Use Microsample(2000)
People with Disabilities
There were about 726,000 people with a disability living in the Bay Area in 2005 according to
the U.S. Census's American Community Survey. This amounts to about 12% of the population
age five and older. Figure 3-8 provides detail by county.
In these figures, a person is counted as having a disability who:
Has long-lasting blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment; OR
Has a longi-lasting condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities
such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying; OR
Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, has
difficulty learning, remembering, or concentrating: dressing, bathing, or getting around
inside the home; or(if 16 years old or over) going outside the home alone to shop or visit
a doctor's office or working at a job or business.'
'"American Community Survey/Puerto Rico Community Survey 2005 Suhiect Definitions,"U.S.Bureau of the Census Lno date)
(http:!(N+�alv.census.gov/acsh+m,xt,/I)oxvntoads/2005/usedata/S ubj'ect_Detin itions.pdf)
Page 3-6• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation. Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
=TRS O :T:. NS .,... T1;rN 11CL1N;13,S:0N
Figure 3-8: Percent of People with a Disability
POPULATION(ALL AGES)WITH A DISABILITY(2005)
15% ----------------------------------------------------------
10%—- ----- ----- ----- -----
59S -- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---=- ----- ----- ---
D%
—Di5
Aiameoa Contra Costa Mann Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Sonoma
Source:American Community Survey,2005(Age 5 and older).
People who are disabled by this definition are not necessarily eligible for ADA paratransit,
althouUh they may be eligible for discounted transit fares.
Some counties with lower-than-average percentaues have very large total numbers of people
with disabilities, as shown in Figure 3-9. Notably, Santa Clara has the second highest number of
people with disabilities despite having the lowest percentage. San Francisco has the highest
percentage of people with disabilities. A majority of people with disabilities (55%) are female,
possibly because many people with disabilities are older adults.
Page 3-7 • NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
F - _EPO T ;'..,".... =CV.-t.- :fit si SI_,;
Figure 3-9: People with a Disability in Each County
POPULATION(ALL AGES)WITH A DISABILITY(2005)
10D.000 —_______________________________________________________________________-
❑Males
90,000 ----------- ---------------- -------- --- --------- ------- ■Females
80.000 --- ------------------ ----------------
70,000 --- -----------------------------------
80,000 ----- ---------------------------------
So,000 -- '
--- ---- ---------- -----------
40,000
;-
30000 -_ n ___ ___________________ a .:. _____________ _. .
___________________
. 10,000 ..
F< fix• .
Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solan. Sonoma
Source:American Community Survey,2005.(Age 5 and older).
About 22% of people with a disability live in households with income below 150% of the
Federal poverty level compared to 15% for the =eneral population. In every county, people with
disabilities are more likely to be low income than the general population. About 13% of people
with disabilities live in households without access to a motor vehicle. The details by county, as
shown in Figure 3-10,are very similar to those for older adults as shown before.
Page 3-8• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
Figure 3-10: Low Income Status and Access to a Vehicle for People
with Disabilities
Percent of Disabled in'�` Percent of Disabled with No
Low-Income Households Vehicle
Alameda 24% 15%
Contra Costa 20 10
Marin 19 9
Napa 22 10
San Francisco 30 32
San Mateo 17 9
Santa Clara 18 9
Solano 20 8
Sonoma 23 8
TOTAL 22% 13%
Note:"Low income"=Living in households with income less than 150%of Federal Poverty Level
Source:U.S.Census Public Use Microsample(2000)
Page 3-9. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
.Chapter 7. Solutions to Gaps
Solutions to Gaps
Possible solutions have been identified that address the craps that emerged from the outreach process
and review of local plans. These solutions are based on suggestions received in the outreach process,
and ideas contained in local plans. Each solution is described along with gaps that it addresses. The
solutions are illustrated using specific implementation possibilities. Some solutions address multiple
gaps, and some of the gaps are addressed by multiple solutions. The possible solutions are grouped into
Five categories:
• Additions or improvements to ADA paratransit
• Additions or improvements to demand-responsive services other than ADA paratransit
• Additions or improvements to transit services
• Improved access to transit services
• information and assistance
Sit:tables are provided, one for each of the five solution categories just listed, and one for solutions that
fit into multiple categories. Each table summarizes all of the solutions, the gaps they address, and
implementation issues that will need to be addressed. V
Table 7-1: Additions or Improvements to ADA Paratransit
Proposed Solution Gaps Addressed Implementation issues
Premium services on Service beyond ADA-required areas Some would be operationally easy(e.g.
ADA paratransit and hours. service pending eligibility longer hours or larger area)while others
determination,same-day requests, could be very complicated (e.g.
inter-county service. shorter trip times, intermediate stops and time-certain
intermediate stops.time-certain . arrivals). Main obstacle would be cost.
arrivals.
Feeder service connecting Excessive trip times for certain trips if Need to address trip planning and
to fixed-route transit or offered as an optional service(distinct coordination with transit schedules.
BART from a required mode as permitted by especially for transfers from fixed-route to
ADA for some customers and trips). paratransit.
Escorted travel using Need for assistance by some riders May be difficult to recruit, train, and
volunteers on paratransit who have no attendants. Also some retain volunteers.
return trip issues, picking up at large
complexes.
Transfer assistance to help Coordination problems making inter- Limited number of locations with
with multi-operator operator trips sufficient volume;cost of staffing.
paratransit trips and
transfers between
paratransit and fixed-route
service
Discounted paratransit Affordability of service for people Could be oversubscribed, Cost.
fares with limited incomes, high medical
expenses, need for frequent trips.
Page 7-1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'
Table 7-2: Additions or Improvements to Demand-Responsive Services Other than
ADA Paratransit
Proposed Gaps Addressed Implementation Issues
Solution
Demand- Non-ADA eligible people who cannot use transit Good models exist.
responsive *roup if they need to carry packages.
shopping service
Volunteer driver Need for assistance, help carrying packages, Working well in some areas, but others
programs, intermediate stops such as waiting for a rider at a have difficulty recruiting volunteers.
including.training pharmacy or bank, shorter travel times. Need to address insurance issues.
and recruitment of
drivers
Taxi discount Same-day service, service pending ADA Depends on availability of quality taxi
programseligibility, service when ADA paratransit does service; lack of accessible taxicabs.
not operate, travel times,travel needs of non-
ADA people.
Incentives or Lack of taxi service accessible to wheelchair Requires cooperation of taxi
assistance for users. companies,drivers, and cities that
wheelchair- regulate taxis.
accessible taxicabs
Incentives or Service issues limit usefulness of taxis for older Few models to follow. Needs
assistance to people and people with disabilities. cooperation of taxi companies, drivers,
improve the and cities that regulate taxis. May
quality of taxi require financial incentives.
service
Help for Lack of alternative services,financial difficulties Depends on community organizations
community of community organizations, insufficient with capacity and interest to provide
organizations to vehicles, insurance issues. service. Should be coordinated with
expand or ADA paratransit.
maintain service
Non-emergency Lack of appropriate, affordable service, if implemented by a transit operator,
medical especially for dialysis trips. may require separation from ADA
transportation for paratransit and resolution of issues
Medi-Cal patients concerning use of Federally funded
equipment, competition with private
sector.
Page 7-2• Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc-
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Table 7-3: Additions or Improvements to Transit Services
Proposed Solution Gaps Addressed Feasibility Issues
Senior-friendly shuttles, Difficulty using transit for local trips, Funding.
jitneys, or circulators trips with packages, shopping carts,
etc. Stops that are far from facilities or
with long walks to the door.
Discounted transit fares or Affordability of some long trips.multi- Need to resolve eligibility, consistency
other subsidies beyond those operator trips. among operators, impact on ADA
already provided for seniors eligibility process. Cost.
and people with disabilities
Expanded fixed route transit Limited or no existing public transit Feasible, but need to address cost and
services services in some areas, nights and productivity.
evenings, and on weekends.
Better connections between Issues with physical access,schedule Feasible to address physical issues, but
transit systems coordination, multi-operator trips to may require multi-agency cooperation,
important destinations. including cities. Schedule
coordination can be difficult.
Additional wheelchair spaces Long waits if all wheelchair spaces are Depends on equipment and routes.
on transit vehicles taken. Equipment is not always assigned to
specific routes. Space may also be
lacking for other passengers.
Additional driver training on Issues with securement and passing-up Could be contract issues at some
accessibility issues and wheelchair users at bus stops with no operators. Securemeni issues often
features explanation. involve inherently difficult to secure
mobility devices.
Table 7-4: Improved Access to Transit Services
Proposed Solution Gaps Addressed Feasibility Issues
Infrastructure improvements Limited access due to sidewalk Implementation depends on
condition, crossings, curb cuts,waiting cooperation of cities. Some transit
areas,etc. agencies have ceded control,of bus
stop amenities to others.Cost.
Targeted transit route and Lack of stops and routes that are Feasible, but each will need to be
stop adjustments convenient to destinations important to examined for operational impact.
seniors and people with disabilities.
Targeted law enforcement Traffic and parking violations near Requires cooperation of cities and
stops, which create dangerous police.
conditions and limit access to transit.
Pedestrian safety planning in Short crossing times and right turn on Requires cooperation of cities and
the vicinity of transit stops. red limit access in some locations. police.
Infrastructure improvements and law
enforcement needs.
Courtesy or flag stops for Long distances between stops. Feasibility will vary by type of area,
people with disabilities availability of safe stopping locations.
Issues include liability, driver training,
who can request courtesy stops.
Page 7-3• Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates.Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMIS11 SIO0.N
Table 7-5: Information and Assistance
Proposed Solution Gaps Addressed Feasibility Issues
Transit information in Hard-to-read, confusing schedules; Need to establish solutions locally in
accessible formats lack of alternatives for blind or low- the absence of clear standards.
vision riders.
Enhanced regional Lack of live information for multi- Cost. Need to identify an appropriate
information(using 511 or operator trips. Very limited agency or agencies.
other means)about public information in other languages.
transportation for paratransit
users. people with
disabilities, and speakers of
languages other than English
Enhanced local information Lack of comprehensive mobility information needs to be.updated and
and referral systems information that includes resources verified frequently.
other than conventional transit and
ADA paratransit.
Travel training, including Fear of using transit. lack of Feasible.
orientation and mobility knowledge and familiarity with transit
training and training for options.
individuals and groups
Training for older drivers Limited knowledge of alternatives It may be hard to add material about
among long-time drivers; need for help mobility options to nationally
planning for driving retirement. established driver training curricula.
Partnership with the DMV to Limited knowledge of alternatives Requires cooperation with DMV.
assist people who have just among long-time drivers; need for help
lost their licenses planning for driving retirement.
Targeted marketing to Lack of knowledge, unrealistically Feasible.
encourage seniors and negative perceptions that deter people
people with disabilities to from using transit.
ride transit.
Comprehensive mobility Lack of comprehensive mobility Information needs to be updated and
guides information that includes resources verified frequently. Responsibility for
other than conventional transit and distribution.
ADA paratransit.
Increase awareness of Mobility devices that cannot be safely Resistance due to price, lack of
wheelchair securernent secured,while safe alternatives exist. standards, insurance limitations.
issues amon.;transit and
paratransit riders
Transit safety education Fear of crime on transit Needs cooperation of police,
curriculum development.
Page 7-4• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Table 7-6: .Miscellaneous(including solutions that fall into multiple categories)
Proposed Solution Gaps Addressed Feasibility Issues
Improved service quality measurement Gaps or limits of service quality Requires training and monitoring to
with rider participation measurement by contractors. ensure objectivity.
Sharing of provider training and Inconsistent quality regarding Need to address issues of contractor
methods passenger assistance,transfers, proprietary information, different
etc. policies and equipment among
systems, impact on contractor
operations.
Funding assistance for items such as Lack of funding to specifically Cost.
fuel purchases address fluctuations in fuel
prices and alternative fuel
solutions
Funding for the development of Lack of specifically designated Cost
emergency evacuation training funds for evacuation of people
programs with disabilities
Increased funding flexibility to allow Current Federal and State Federal and State contracting
for more energy efficient and contracts provide limited range procedures may take long time to
accessible vehicle purchases,for of vehicles i-or volume change.
example as part of the 5310 prograrn purchasing at discounted rates
Funding for specific technological Current funding parameters do Federal and State contracting
improvements such as cell phones with not accommodate technology procedures may take long time to
GPS devices that could be useful for change.
improved service delivery,to
address problems such as
locating riders at large
complexes
Intelli(,ent Transportation Systems Service quality issues, problems Details about uses of technology
(ITS) improvements waiting for vehicle arrivals, and related customer policies need
limited booking hours. to be resolved by each operator.
County-wide mobility management, Insurance, audit and report Effective implementation will vary
including public/private partnerships issues for small agencies, based on local structures.
uncoordinated service,
uncoordinated information,
underutilized equipment.
Wheelchair breakdown service No service is available in most Responsible entity will vary in each
areas, or is extremely area.
expensive. Lack of such
service may limit willingness to
use transit.
Page 7-5•NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
E.T 4;-3 ''oL!..-,ir . RANSPORT.L,7loti nor'.:r:rss�or�{ .. .. ..... .. ,.................<
Additions or Improvements to ADA Paratransit
• Premium services on ADA paratransit
Premium services could respond to desires for service that exceed ADA requirements. Examples
include the following types of service:
• Service beyond the ADA-required three-quarter mile corridors around transit routes. Some
form of paratransit service beyond ADA-required areas would help people living in low-
density and rural areas reach essential services.
• Service beyond the hours when transit routes are in operation. Extended hours would help
people who cannot drive and have no way to get around after transit (and therefore also ADA
paratransit) stops running.
• Interim service in the period when ADA paratransit eligibility applications are pending.
Interim service would respond to needs of individuals when they first become disabled or are
discharged from a hospital. Affordable, accessible transportation is generally not available
before the individual is able to go through the process of obtaining ADA paratransit
eligibility application materials and completing the application, and before the eligibility
assessment process is completed. Under ADA regulations it can take up to 2l days to
complete the eligibility process.
• Same-day requests. Same-day service would respond to a need for trips to deal with non-
emergency but urgent medical appointments requiring same-day attention.
• Seamless inter-county trips. Such trips would address issues related to uncoordinated fares,
inaccessible transfer locations, and difficulty making reservations.
• Guaranteed exclusive rides with no stops for other passengers. This feature would help
riders who cannot tolerate long ride times, especially for long-distance trips.
• Intermediate stops to allow passengers to stop en-route, for example to fill a prescription,
without needing to wait for a second vehicle.
• Time-certain arrivals for jobs.training, etc.
Fares charged for premium services could exceed those charged for ADA paratransit ("premium
fares'). All oi' these service gaps can also be met by non-ADA services run by cities or
community organizations. Many of these gaps can also be addressed with other solutions
described in this memo such as subsidized taxis and volunteer driver programs.
• Feeder service connecting to fixed-route transit or BART
Feeder trips can be faster than shared-ride paratransit for certain lengthy trips and for some trips
between paratransit service areas. This service, provided as an option for customers, is distinct
from the mandatory feeder-service that ADA regulations permit operators to use as a service
delivery method for certain passengers and trips.
• Escorted travel using volunteers on paratransit.
Page 7-1 • NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
Escorted travel can overcome difficulties faced by some people using ADA paratransit. Escorts
could provide assistance beyond lobby areas of buildings for those who need it. For people who
live in large complexes, escorts or volunteer drivers could address problems that occur when a
paratransit vehicle cannot wait in front or in clear view of the customer's front door. Escorted
travel could also help people who currently miss return trips because they have difficulty finding
and staying at a designated waiting spot. (Note, volunteer driver programs also respond to this
,gap.)
• Transfer assistance or other measures to help with multi-operator paratransit trips and
transfers between paratransit and fixed-route service.
Trips between counties, and in some cases within counties, are difficult to make because they
often require transfers between .operators. These trips may require more advance notice than
other trips and may require multiple calls to make reservations. Problems with coordination of
drop-off and pick-up at the transfer point inhibit travel and may result in individuals being
stranded. Customers'rnaking connections between paratransit and fixed-route can also suffer .
from difficulties in coordination and would benefit from assistance in many cases. It may be
most practical to provide transfer assistance at locations where staff is already present for other
reasons.
• Discounted paratransit fares or other subsidies for people with limited incomes.
Paratransit fares can be a significant issue for people with limited incomes. especially if they
have high medical expenses or need to make frequent trips or use multiple systems requiring
multiple fares. Discounted paratransit fares could be provided for people already on other
means-tested programs. Subsidies for customers facing hardship could be provided through a
non-profit organization.
Additions or Improvements to Demand-Responsive Services Other than ADA
Paratransit
• Demand-responsive group shopping service.
A group shopping service would help people who can use transit for many trips, but cannot use it
if they need to carry packages.
• Volunteer driver programs including steps that would support such pros==rams. such as
insurance, driver training, and assistance with recruitment. y
Volunteer driver programs may be helpful in providing* escorted transportation, transportation
before the ADA eligibility process is completed, assistance with shopping and pharmacy trips in
which drivers can wait for their passengers, and many other forms of service that ADA
paratransit does not provide as listed earlier under the heading "Premium services on ADA
paratransit." This category may also include programs that use paid.drivers, like the
Independent Transportation Network operated in Portland. Maine.
Page 7-2• Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
hSTROPO',€A -RnkSPORTATION .^.olriNUSSION
• Taxi discount programs
Taxi discounts would help address the lack of same-day paratransit and paratransit for people
who are waiting for completion of their ADA paratransit eligibility applications. Discounted
taxis can provide service at times when conventional transit service and ADA paratransit do not
operate and for people with disabilities and seniors who are not ADA eligible but find transit
unworkable for some trips. Taxis would provide direct rides for people who cannot endure
occasional long paratransit ride times due to stops for other passengers. Taxi discounts can be
provided using scrip, smart cards, vouchers, or electronic authorization by the subsidizing
agency. Given the limited number of.accessible taxi vehicles in the Bay Area, the ability for
wheelchair users to receive equivalent service would need to be addressed.
• Incentives or assistance for taxicab companies to buy or convert accessible taxicabs.
Accessible taxicabs would extend the benefits of taxi discount programs to people who use
wheelchairs and cannot transfer to a car seat. Even without discounts, accessible taxicabs would
expand the transportation options of wheelchair users.
• Incentives or assistance to improve the quality of taxi service for people with disabilities
and seniors.
The ability and willingness of seniors and people with disabilities to use taxicabs is limited not
just by price and accessibility but by service quality issues, including driver training, passenger
assistance. and reluctance to accept trips that require extra effort or are unlikely to result in a tip.
Local jurisdictions that regulate taxicabs do not always enforce existing local regulations and
federal non-discrimination regulations.
• Help for community organizations to maintain or expand service.
Increasing the supply of alternative services would address many of the limitations of existing
paratransit services, already noted. Assistance could take the form of providing retired
paratransit vehicles together with maintenance or operating assistance, or simply funding the
purchase of new vehicles. In addition, to maintain existing service, assistance is needed to
periodically replace vehicles that need to be retired. Assistance with insurance issues would also
be helpful.
.• Non-emergency medical transportation for Medi-Cal patients.
Numerous proposals for providing non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) would .
require regional or state action. One thing that local providers can do on their own is become
NEW providers under existing Medi-Cal arrangements. This would address a lack of providers
now available, improve access to medical care for people who have difficulty using ADA
paratransit, and provide an alternative to ADA paratransit that provides a higher level of
Page 7-3•NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
assistance, for example for dialysis patients. Since NEW is free to the rider, this service would
address issues of affordability related to frequent travel on ADA paratransit.
Additions or Improvements to Transit Services
• Senior-friendly shuttles, jitneys, or circulators to shopping, medical facilities, and local
services, including flexible route services.
These services can help address some of the needs for short notice or spontaneous travel that are
difficult using next-day ADA paratransit reservations. They can help address the travel needs of
seniors who no longer drive but are not ADA-paratransit eligible. They may accommodate
riders with wheelchairs or shopping carts more easily than conventional .transit services.
Assistance with grocery bags would help people who can use fixed-route transit for most trips,
but cannot use it if they need to bring home packages.
• Discounted transit fares or other subsidies beyond those already provided for seniors and
people with disabilities.
This could also take the form of free transit during off-peak hours for riders with an ADA card;
or very low-income riders with a Regional Transit Connection Discount Card. In the case of
riders with an ADA card,the offer could extend to personal care attendants. Even with available
discounts using the Regional Transit Connection Discount Card, fares can still be a.problem for
some people, especially for long trips involving zone fares or multiple operators. Even for trips
on a single operator, very long trips can require multiple fares because of transfer time.limits.
An additional discount.for ADA-paratransit eligible riders may also be useful to encourage those
with conditional eligibility to use fixed-route transit whenever possible.
• Expanded fixed-route transit services in areas with limited or no existing public transit
services, nights and evenings, and on weekends.
Limited service in some low-income areas and low-density areas makes it difficult for seniors
and people with disabilities to travel.. Limited evening and weekend service is widespread.
• Better connections between transit systems especially where these are needed to reach
regional medical facilities and county offices.
Limited or uncoordinated schedules and physical issues at transfer points make it difficult to
reach regional facilities and county offices. This is particularly true where counties are served by
multiple transit operators (such as Contra Costa, Solano, Sonoma, eastern Alameda, and rural
portions of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties). Connections between counties and between
buses and regional rail services also pose barriers to reaching important destinations.
Coordination measures may include coordinated schedules, schedules that take into account time
limitations of people making long trips, accessibility improvements at transfer points, restrooms
at transfer points, and improved signage.
Page 7-4.NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
_. N._ '0_ ...IN R R T=.TIQN 1-0 NiISSIV.N
• Additional wheelchair spaces on transit vehicles.
On some routes that are popular with customers who use wheelchairs, lack of wheelchair spaces
is an issue. A particular priority would be routes with long intervals between buses, so that
waiting for the bus is a hardship. Impacts on other customers, for whom space may also be an
issue, would need to be considered.
• Additional driver training on accessibility issues and features.
Passengers with disabilities continue to report difficulty related to proper securement and being
passedupat bus stops. Aside from discouraging pass-ups and training drivers on proper
mobility aid securement, training could address advising passengers about the reasons for pass
ups and arranging for back-up transportation when appropriate. (A regional strategy related to
wheelchair securement may also be needed.)
Improved Access to Transit Services
• Infrastructure improvements to improve pedestrian access; especially in the vicinity of
transit stops.
Infrastructure improvement may include removing barriers on sidewalks, and improved or
additional sidewalks, curb cuts, pedestrian crossings and signals (including audible signals and
countdown signals), lighting, benches, shelters, and other pedestrian enhancements.
Technological solutions akin to wayfinding devices might help blind people locate bus stops.
These improvements would address problems that people have accessing transit service and also
help people make some trips by walking. These improvements would help address traffic safety
and fear of crime, bring existing facilities (in addition to key stations where accessibility is
mandated by ADA) up to ADA accessibility standards, and create accessible pathways to transit
stops. Many of these improvements would involve working with local jurisdictions.
• Targeted transit route and stop adjustments to assist seniors and customers with
disabilities.
Scheduled variations in transit routes (such. as commonly provided for schools or large
employers) and locating bus stops based on the needs of seniors and people with disabilities, can
make fixed-route service more usable and reduce dependence on paratransit. Paratransit ride
data may show the locations of common destinations that customers could access by
conventional transit service with minor adjustments in routes or schedules.
• Targeted law enforcement to improve pedestrian safety near transit stops in areas of special
concern to older people and people with disabilities.
Crosswalk violations, parking violations, and dangerous behavior by bicyclists and
skateboarders, especially in the vicinity of transit stops, make it harder for older people to use
Page 7-5. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
CN -R ICN �^OVMISSiON
public transportation. Parking violations limit the ability of buses to pull up to the curb, making
it difficult for older people and people with disabilities to board.
• Pedestrian safety planning focusing on priorities for low-cost items such as retiming
crosswalk signals and right-turn-on-red restrictions, as well as priorities for infrastructure
improvements and targeted law enforcement in the vicinity of transit stops.
Difficult street crossings and traffic conflicts are particularly dangerous for seniors and people
with disabilities trying to use transit.
• Courtesy or flag stops for people with disabilities.
Long distances between bus stops (such as on bus rapid transit lines), often implemented to
speed bus operation, may prevent people with disabilities frorn using bus service. Allowing
passenaers to "flag down' a bus between marked stops, or allowing passengers on a bus to
request a "courtesy stop' between marked stops can address this issue. While some transit
systems in low-density areas may permit drivers to use their judgment to identify safe stopping
locations, others may need to develop more detailed policies or specific safe courtesy stop
locations. Practical policies would be needed about which passengers can request stops.
Information and Assistance
• Transit information in accessible formats.
Transit routes and schedules can be hard to read for people with limited vision and can be
confusing for people unfamiliar with transit. Making information available in a wider variety of
formats, standardized among transit systems, would help many older people and people with
visual disabilities.
• Enhanced regional information about public transportation for paratransit users, people
with disabilities, and speakers of languages other than English.
Enhanced rcc=ional information. whether in the form of additions to 51 Lora and the 51 1
telephone information service, or by other means. would help in making trips by multiple
operators and increase understanding of public transportation in general. Live information about
making trips on multiple operators is currently not available.
• Enhanced local information and referral systems to provide better access to information
about transit. paratransit, and community transportation resources.
Lack of information prevents some people from using public transportation. Information about
smaller programs run by cities, counties, or community groups may be confusing or difficult to
find. Enhanced information and referral could address the needs of people who do not speak
English and people who cannot navigate internet-based information (such as 511.org and
operator web sites). Comprehensive mobility information would permit creation of one-stop
Page 7-6• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
information sources covering not just transportation but also housing and social services for
seniors and people with disabilities. Note that such a function may also be a part of mobility
management as discussed earlier.
• Travel training and transit familiarization
Seniors and people with disabilities who have never used public transportation have real
concerns and fears of the unknown. Some have unrealistically negative impressions of public
transportation that would be overcome by successful experiences using transit in the company of
others. Relevant programs, provided free of charge, include one-on-one instruction about how
to ride transit, bus buddies who ride along with new riders, group demonstrations and field trips.
• Training for older drivers
Training for older drivers may include components to increase awareness of public transportation
options, how to ease the transition from driving to alternatives, and how to maintain safe driving
skills. This may include partnering with existing providers of older driver training to incorporate
transit familiarization into these.pro grams.
• Partnership with the DMV to assist people who have just lost their licenses by providing
information and assistance.
Seniors who may need to begin limiting their driving, or who have had their license rescinded,
may be afraid to try transit because they don't know how to use it or because they have
unrealistically negative perceptions of transit service. Cooperation with the DMV could help
steer older people to needed assistance at the moment when license restrictions are imposed.
• Targeted marketing to encourage seniors and people with disabilities to ride transit.
Promotions and programs such as free ride days, merchant sponsorships, organized field trips
and "transit ambassadors" (seniors and people with disabilities who promote transit to their
peers) would help seniors and people with disabilities learn about transit and how to use it.
Transit ambassadors able to work with non-English speakers are also needed.
• Comprehensive mobility guides, covering all mobility options for seniors and people with
disabilities.
Printed or on-line mobility guides including modes other than conventional transit and ADA
paratransit. such as community-based transportation, and services provided by cities and
counties, would help individuals and people who provide them information.
• Increase awareness of wheelchair securement issues among transit and paratransit riders.
Page 7-7•NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public TransitlHuman Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
Many riders, suppliers of wheelchairs, and medical professionals who recommend or specify
wheelchairs are not aware of options for mobility devices that are safe to use on public
transportation. (Better cooperation among these groups may require regional or higher-level
strategies.)
• Transit safety education
Presentations by police officers to senior groups, in conjunction with transit agencies, can
provide tips for riding transit safely and may help allay fears about crime on transit.
Miscellaneous Solutions
• Improved service quality measurement with rider participation.
Programs that involve paratransit riders in measuring service quality can spot issues missed by
traditional methods and increase consumer understanding of service delivery issues. Riders are
provided with data collection forms and training about the importance of objective and complete .
observations. A neutral party recruits riders and compiles results with assured confidentiality.
• Sharing of provider training and methods to improve paratransit service quality and
consistency.
Shared training on topics such as passenger assistance techniques, general principles of customer
service, requirements of the ADA, complaint follow-up, coordinating transfers and multi-
operator reservations have the potential to address customer issues with service quality and
consistency.
• Funding assistance for items such as fuel purchases.
Given the fluctuations in fuel prices paratransit providers, particularly non-profit organizations,
would benefit from a source of funding to minimize cash flow impacts.
• Funding for the development of emergency evacuation training programs
Local emergency evacuation programs should incorporate a focus on people with disabilities and
older adults. Likewise, any regional uuidelines for emergency.evacuation of older adults and
people with disabilities could be disseminated to the local level.
• Increased funding flexibility to allow for more energy efficient and accessible vehicle
purchases, for example as part of the 5310 program
Page 7-8 • NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
SF'G ;..710t 11S�ON
The vehicle bulk purchasing programs available through Caltrans and other federal and state
funding sources are too limited. The do not facilitate the purchase of-energy efficient vehicles, or
allow much flexibility in the availability of a variety of accessibility features.
• Funding for specific technological improvements such as cell phones with GPS devices
Some technological improvements such as cell phones with GPS devices can help address the
problem of missing riders in large complexes, which in turn could benefit operator productivity.
• Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements that enhance service in ways that
exceed requirements of ADA.
Some ITS features, such as automated stop announcements, are being used to comply with ,ADA
requirements(while also improving service for the general public). Others (such as automated
vehicle location) are being used to improve the quality or efficiency of ADA paratransit and
provide more accurate measures of service quality. Beyond these steps, ITS solutions can
address issues that bo beyond basic ADA compliance and service quality. For example,
automated telephone technology or the Internet can be used to address the inconvenience for
some riders of making reservations during regular business hours. Vehicle arrival notification,
using automated phone calls or hand-held notification devices, might reduce the need to wait
outside for a paratransit vehicle and reduce missed connections for passengers in large facilities
or residential complexes.
• County-wide mobility management or brokerages, including public/private partnerships, to
coordinate currently under-used resources and help address coordination barriers.
Mobility management could expand the availability of services beyond those required by ADA
paratransit by coordinating currently underused resources, such as vehicles operated by assisted
living facilities and other senior housing. A mobility manager might also help with insurance to
cover volunteer drivers and-vehicles, insurance for shared vehicles, vehicle maintenance,
recruiting volunteers, compliance with reporting and audit requirements, and other issues that
inhibit community-based paratransit services. A mobility manager could also provide
comprehensive mobility information and connect individual riders with appropriate services.
• Wheelchair breakdown service that would provide a ride home for wheelchair users
experiencing mechanical problems with their wheelchairs.
Such a service is lacking in many areas, and would provide an extra measure of confidence to
enable wheelchair users to rely on fixed-route public transportation instead of paratransit.
Page 7-9• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
M,E T ROPOLiTAN, SNS?-0RTi;110N 0"„14zSsI0N
Evaluation Criteria
Preliminary evaluation criteria were presented at outreach meeting and have been modified based
on suggestions made at the meetings. These criteria are intended to be used as a guide for
evaluating projects for funding based on the priority gaps and solutions in this plan.
The criteria are intended to.be flexible, so that differences among counties and even within
counties can be taken into account. The order of presentation does not correspond to order of
importance—no one category is considered more important than the others.
Federally-established requirements will also apply to specific funding sources. For example,
New Freedom funds must support new public transportation services and new public
transportation alternatives that exceed the requirements of the ADA and must (1) be targeted
toward individuals with disabilities: and (2) meet the intent of the program by removing barriers
to transportation and assisting persons with disabilities with transportation, including
transportation to and from jobs and employment services." (FTA C 9045.1., May 1, 2007.)
Financial Criteria
Cost: Is the overall cost of a project within a range that can realistically be funded with available
sources,taking into account grants from the private or public sector or user fares/fees?
Cost per beneficiary: The number of project beneficiaries is compared to the cost of a program.
If a program's total cost .is low but reaches very few people it may have a high cost per
beneficiary. This would not necessarily eliminate a project from.consideration if it ranked highly
on other criteria including those listed under"Transportation Benefits Criteria' and "Community
Criteria." Similarly, if a program's total cost is high, but reaches many people it may have a low
cost per beneficiary.
Funding availability and sustainability: To the degree possible, projects should have stable
sources of funding to cover match requirements. In the case of pilot, demonstration, or capital
projects, there should be reasonable likelihood of continued funding for operations. It is
recognized that continued funding can never be guaranteed, as it is subject to budget processes,
as well decisions and priorities of funders.
Levern,ine resources: It is desirable for projects to tap into other funding sources, including
human services agencies that low-income, elderly and disabled populations, as well as new
funding sources not previously available. Displacing existing funding is discouraged.
Page 7-10• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
,i; -;,ASS1 0R', T 1 NG':!:^IS5 ON
Implementation Criteria
implementation time-frame: Projects that will produce results quickly are preferred, as long as they are
also sustainable. Projects with long-term payoffs should have some form of measurable
accomplishments in the short run.
Sta<ginCan the improvement be implemented in stages?
Coordination: Projects that involve coordination, for example multiple organizations working together to
address a need, are desirable.
Transportation Benefits Criteria
Number of problems and trip types: Projects are preferred that address multiple problems and serve
multiple customer groups and trip purposes.
Number of beneficiaries: In general, improvements that benefit many people are preferred to those that
benefit few. However, the needs of relatively small groups might be considered particularly critical
based on criteria under the heading "Community."
Unserved needs: Projects are preferred that address gaps left by other services rather than duplicating,
overlapping with, or competing with other services. Note that the relative importance of various needs
is a matter for local priorities as addressed under"Community."
Measurable benefits: As much as possible, there should be ways to measure how a project is benefiting
target groups, whether in terms of numbers of people served, numbers of trips provided, improved
measures of service quality, etc.
Community Criteria
Community support: Community support may take the form of formal endorsement by organizations
and individuals, support by elected governing bodies, and connections to adopted plans.
Acute needs: The importance of needs will normally be reflected in community support, but also in
priority designation in locally-adopted plans or policies. Acute needs may include needs of small groups
who have been left unserved by other programs due to expense or other difficulties.
Unserved croups: Identifiable groups that are not able to use existing services may include people who
face ianaua�,2e and cultural barriers.
While this chapter presented solutions to close identified transportation gaps and ways to evaluate those
solutions,the following chapter discusses over-arching strategies to enhance coordination of service
delivery to all three populations—low-income, the elderly and persons with disabilities.
Page 7-11 • NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
Chapter B. Strategies to Enhance
Coordination of Service
Delivery
As indicated previously through this planning effort, there is significant overlap in the types of
transportation gaps expressed by low-income persons, the elderly, or by persons with disabilities.
Possible solutions to these gaps were grouped into five categories:
• .Additions or improvements to ADA paratransit
• Additions or improvements to demand-responsive services other than ADA paratransit
• Additions or improvements to transit services
Improved access to transit services
• Information and assistance
These solutions represent potential projects, which could be eligible for SAPETEA-LU funds
subject to this plan, or other sources of funding.
In addition to considerinn which projects or solutions could directly address these gaps, it is
important to consider how best to coordinate services so that existing resources can be used as
efficiently as possible. These strategies outline possibilities for a coordinated approach to service .
delivery with implications beyond the immediate funding of local projects, which may be short-
term in nature. Examination of these coordination strategies is intended to result in consideration
of policy revisions, infrastructure improvements, and coordinated advocacy and planning efforts,
which, in the long ruin, can have more significant results to address service deficiencies.
As noted in Chapter 2, a range of potential coordination strategies was identified primarily
through consultation with a number of key stakeholders already involved in the planning and
implementation of human service transportation. Stakeholders were asked to identify successful
coordination efforts.. as well as barriers, or additional steps that are needed to promote
coordination.
These strategies were then reviewed and discussed in detail at a focused workshop with public
transit and human service agency stakeholders convened in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa
County was selected because of previous coordination studies recently completed, and because
several innovative coordination efforts have recently been implemented within the county.
Perhaps the most important "lesson learned" from the focus group and stakeholder consultation
is that successful implementation of coordination strategies will require the joint cooperation and
efTort of multiple entities that may or may not have coordinated well in the past. Often, a
champion is needed to assume leadership and manage implementation efforts: this "champion"
Page 8-1 • NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
O W V."S;.fv1 FJ
may vary from case to case. Implementing some strategies may require leadership on the part of
cities or other local jurisdictions, while others may be assumed by social service agencies, transit
agencies, Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs), advocacy groups, MTC or, as discussed
further in this memorandum, designated mobility managers.
The coordination strategies are identified as follows:
• Enhance Land Use and Transportation Coordination
0 Promote Enhanced Pedestrian Access to Public Transit and other Alternative Modes of
Travel
• Promote Coordinated Advocacy and Improve Efforts to Coordinate Funding with Human
Service A-encies
• Improve Interjurisdictional and Intennodal Travel
• Develop and implement Mobility Management Approaches.
Each strategy is described in more detail below, along with desired results, implementation steps
needed, partners to participate in implementation, and potential barriers to implementation.
Enhance Land Use and Transportation
Coordination
The need for better coordination between land use development and transportation was raised in
a number of meetings in the outreach phase of this project. Examples were cited of social service
agencies, medical facilities, senior housing, or employment centers that are not easily accessible
by public transportation. Rather than locating key services near transit routes, often a facility
will be builtor relocated with the expectation that public transit can and will accommodate this
location decision. For example, Contra Costa County's Health Services Homeless Program is
planning to locate a one stop center and shelter for homeless individuals released from hospital
in a remote industrial area that has no weekend bus service. The program, which has outgrown
its current facility, is being relocated from Concord's Monument Corridor, which is ideally
served by a variety of County Connection bus routes.
Page 8-2 •Nelson%Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
:. . ? _'T.;N -tRAN5:1RT..TivN' 0 'all15S1ON'
. . „ ......,.....
Major Bast Bay,Medical<Ceiater reconsiders move to a low transit density location
Children's Hospital Oakland seriously considered relocating:from Oakland to East Alameda or
'Contra;`Costa County in order to serve-.the-needs of=tlie'growing number:of families'in'those-
areas. Another reason'was th"e''relatrvely lower coristructioia costs,.that would be: evolved in
building anew facility,rather than implementing seismic::upgrades in the Oakland facility :Given
thea lower density. transit network in the areas under corisideraflon current Oakland based
a.:
patients would have had a;difficult tmie`accessing the.new=facility if"it was"but lt Based::on a.;
variety:of conside"iations; including substantial;input fro.in Oalaand.eleewd officials;the hospital:
decided to stay and4 expand. its existing, facility fl6wcv& opposition from neighborhood
residents,to the expansion points to the difflCUlties faced by human Service agencies and medical
faci'lifies that-seehto:locateor expand in"densely populated areas
,...
Tlie results of incompatible location decisions and public transit routingpatterns are profound
because:
• Persons who are transit dependent have great difficulty in accessing some locations or
cannot get there at all
• After the location decision has already been made, transit operators are put in the difficult
position of needing to realign service or make a decision not to provide service at all due
to lack of resources.
• Transit-dependent residents who need to get to essential services are forced to
increasingly rely on others for rides. or pushed from fixed-route public transit onto more
costly paratransit services.
Furthermore, focusing efforts to encourage 'localities to plan and zone in such a way that
essential services are clustered in transit-accessible centers could be a far more cost-effective
strate<ay than continuing to plan and subsidize expensive and continuing expenditures on special
transit services.
While the impacts of these location decisions are receiving increasing recognition among policy-
makers, developing solutions to address these impacts has become particularly challenging due
to the dramatic increase in construction and land costs. Financiallv strapped human service
agencies are inclined to move to lower cost facilities in order to free up program funds for other
social service expenditures.
For those wishina to influence.these location decisions, it is often difficult to identify how the
decisions are made and by whom, and these decision-making structures may vary considerably
from one county to another. Moreover, quantifiable data on the costs and benefits of facility
relocations are hard to come by. The cumulative effect of these factors is that facilities are being
located with minimal public input, resulting in adverse impacts on both service clients and transit
Page 8-3• Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
Ftr ILTk.hi - 5 - :..TE"hJ 0te`.ts5 SIGN
agencies. These adverse impacts can in turn serve to undermine the positive results of
coordination practices proposed elsewhere in this plan.
A key to success in implementing enhanced land use and transportation coordination, then, is to
identify and engage those who influence location decisions, and to educate them of the impact
these decisions have for the populations of concern for this plan: persons with disabilities, older
adults, and low-income persons. As an initial phase, extensive outreach to decision-makers
responsible for siting social service agencies, healthcare facilities and other important
community services should be undertaken. MTC can work with the CMAs through the
Transportation and Land Use Solutions (T-PLUS) Program to work with local jurisdictions to .
implement location decisions that favor access by public transit. In fact, MTC has recently
included in its T-PLUS contracts with CMAs the expectation that CMAs will work with local
jurisdictions to develop recommendations to implement .land use findings that emerge from this
plan, and to conduct workshops to.assist local jurisdictions, transit agencies and health and
human and social service providers implement land use findings emerging from the plan.
Another key stakeholder to engage is the Joint Policy Committee (JPC), which coordinates the
regional planning efforts of the Association of Bay Area Government, the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the MTC, and
pursues implementation of the Bay Area's Smart Growth Vision as expressed in the Smart
Growth Premnble and Policies and the Smart Growth Strateg-v/Re-ional Livability Footprint
Prrject. The JPC is a key stakeholder because of members' more direct connections with local
governments; it could begin by looking at the effectiveness of policies used in other regions and
states to encourage locating key services near transit services in the Bay Area.
For example, in California, Executive Order D-46-01, adopted by the governor in 2001, requires
the Department of General Services to consider"sound and smart growth patterns" when locating
state agencies, and to consider the following criteria:
• Siting agencies or leasing facilities in central cities or similar areas;
• Proximity to public transit; and
• Pedestrian access to retail and commercial facilities.t
National frust for Historic Preservation (2002) State Agencq Locations: Smart Grmsth Tools for Main Street p. 2. see:
http:i;nlhp.org/smartL,ror�Ihhoolkit statea2enc.N.pdf
Page 8-4• Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation .Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
_.;'v RR, SP0RTkTICNJ .:OFRI.t:iIS510`;
Several other states, including -
Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, From the City of Corvallis, Oregon's Transit
Indiana, Oregon and Pennsylvania have Master Elan.
adopted similar and sometimes more "Those seniorsand pers..ons with disabtlities;:who'.
stringent policies regarding the location of can use the fixed-route bus service should be using
state agencies.' Pennsylvania, for the: fixed-route 'bus to reduce the demand on:.
example, calls for primary consideration to special transportation resourcesIn the:long range:.
be given to the reuse of existing structures work to minimize the need for:special senior and::
and downtowns when locating state disabled. services; which will ::always. be far:: less..
agencies, and gives the state's Department productive than .the regular system . To do :this;:
of General Services power to deny p'rnut new-senior and disabled-orienle.d housing
requests from state agencies to locate or and activrt)) terriers OJVLY;: nn ahe prm�nry
relocate outside of' a downtown. At-the corridors or on other rria�or ui tertals K lzer e transit
federal level, Public Law 106-208, will be easy anddogical.to pr o;w e '
adopted in 2000, encourages federal
agencies to consider locating their offices in historic properties in central cities.
I-low effective.have these existing federal and California policies been.in improving the transit
accessibility of recently opened facilities and offices? A thorough literature and policy review
can help to answer these questions. Completing a similar review of the policies adopted in other
states can help determine whether there are better models in effect around the country, which
could be considered for the Bay Area.
Implementing this strategy involves the following steps:
1. Provide documentation of the issue: During the outreach phase of this planning process,
participants provided compelling anecdotal evidence of the problems caused by putting
social services in hard-to-reach places. An important first step is to move from anecdotes
to clear, quantifiable documentation of the access problems and the high transportation
costs that have resulted. Conducting a sampling of Bay Area health facilities, senior
centers and social service agencies can provide compelling documentation of the
difference between transit accessible and transit inaccessible locations.
2. Document examples of policies that have effectively addressed locational decisions: Over
the past 30 years; numerous states, cities, counties and other public agencies have
adopted policies that either encourage or require agencies to locate in transit-accessible
locations.3 Reviewing these existing policies should serve two purposes. First, reviewing
existing state and local policies would determine which policies are already in effect, how
they are enforced and whether they have been effective. Second, documenting policies
from other states can identify effective models that might be adopted in the Bay Area.
National Trust for Historic Preservation (2002) State Aacncv Locations: Smart Growih Tools for Main Street. See:
http:/i'nthp.org!smarttrowth/toolkit staieagencv.pol'
Many or these policies are. aimed at muttipte goals (in addition to transit acccssibilitv). such as revitalizing city centers,
preserving agricuhural lands and restoring historic huildings. -
Page a-s• NeisonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public TransitlHuman Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
N1 T RU L.7 Ati .F.,NSf.:r'..'I
I Engage key stakeholders in the development of a regional strategy: Develop a new
regional strategy— with county CMAs, JPC, transit agencies, health providers and local
governments-- to better understand and encourage effective local decisions regarding the
siting of critical health facilities, senior centers, and social service programs. As an
initial phase, extensive outreach to decision-makers responsible for siting social service
agencies, healthcare facilities and other important services should be undertaken. This
could take the form of interviews, focus groups, surveys and/or symposia. A second
phase should convene a "summit' of health care professionals, planning directors, city
managers, lenders, elected officials, and public transit operators in.order to begin to
develop elements of reg=ional strategy.
4. Build on the regional FOCUS program to incentivize positive location decisions:
"Focusing Our Vision" (FOCUS) is a program to promote compact and equitable
development that enhances quality of life and preserves open space. This initiative can
be used to develop incentives to. locate social service programs within Priority
Development Areas (PDAs) in proximity to public transit, and to conduct a cost-benefit
analysis that includes consideration of savings through avoided paratransit or non-
emergency medical transportation costs.' Another step to advance this strategy could be
to develop specific tools, such as model language for local zoning codes, to identify
social service facilities as "conditional uses," with the condition that transit services
appropriate to the clientele are in place.
Promote Improved Pedestrian Access to Public Transit and
other Alternative Modes of Travel
Improved Pedestrian Access to Public Transit
The issue of enhanced pedestrian access to transit was raised extensively in public outreach
convened for this project, and by various constituent ;roups. In urban areas, such as San
Francisco, pedestrian safety is perceived as a key transportation issue. Residents or visitors in
San Francisco are less likely to have cars than residents of other counties. and are more likely to
rely on public transit, or walking to get where they need to go. On average, there is one
pedestrian fatality per week in San Francisco. People ag*e 65 and older are more likely to be
killed as a pedestrian than persons from any other are group.'
' Fill'provides federal transportation Brants to cities which locate housing units hear high quality transit at 30 units per acre or
higher. TLC provides funding for prcliects that provide for a ranee of transportation choices. support connectivity between
transportation invesunents and land uses,and are developed through an inclusive community planning effort.
` HIP provides federal transportation grants to cities which locate housing units hear high quality transit at +0 units per acre or
higher. TLC provides funding for pruiects that provide for a rank of transportation choices_ support connectivity between
transportation investments and land uses.and are developed through an inclusive community planning effort.
n Traffic Safety Aiuotiu Older Adults: Recommendations for California, California Task Force on Older adults and Trallic
Salety.Center for Injur}-Prevention Policy and Practice,San Diego Staic University.
Page 8-6• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan • Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
In suburban communities, members of the California Vehicle Code;Section 467 (a) A'
.public have identified the need to better
pedestrian" is any person who is afoot or who '
synchronize pedestrian walk signals with the is using a.`means of conveyance°propelle d 131",:
traffic flow, especially at multi-lane ,human`' power. fiother .,th h a
intersections that are difficult to cross. Some Pedestrian',' includes any person who
' " `
portions of rural areas also dont haveoperatln� a self propelled wheelchair; iinvalid
sidewalks, which makes it difficult to get to tricycle, OVmotorized, quadrzcycle and; by
and from public transit. Some bus stops in 'reas`on of.;;physical disability, is otherwise
outlying areas may be difficult for someunab]e to move` about 'asa pedestrian, .,as
people, especially persons with disabilities, tospeeified'in subdivrision{a)
navigate when passengers are required to
disembark onto the shoulder of a road, on a
steep hillside. etc.
As with land-use planning, implementing pedestrian improvements to enhance access to public
transit can be challenging because usually cities or counties, and not transit agencies, are
responsible for maintaining local streets and roads. Often, the best way to influence
implementation of specific pedestrian improvements is.through the development of city-based
pedestrian plans, such as that completed by the City of Oakland.
Oakland;was the:.first ,city in California, and ane .of ch .first in the nation ao develop a
coniprchensive pedestrian p]an. It can be found`at
littp'://www 6aklandriet.com/go.verfiinent/Fedesteiaii/index titin] M"Y
`.
This document highlights the importance of a.viable pedestrian access to use public transit, and ,
points out that 148,000 weekday pedestrian trips are to and_from�C..Transit bus lines within,the
City of Oaklanda ands an. estimated 57;000 ;weekday.,pedestrian ;firips are to and from ,BART'
stations in the'City of Oakland: The plan has`.devcloped a;policy response to existing conditions;_-
which directly address the plan s`goals,. '
A.•, Pedestriansafety "�.
• Pedestrian access,
•: Streetscaping and land use
• -Education' M n
In the Irve years since.the Wan was, progress has been made.on three important fronts
• City-wide collision analyses ennphasze pedestrian safety as an Oakland policy concern
the'plan illuminated a.problerri that required a"response
•::. The pari -provided design guidelines that.introduced, new:design' concepts x that have:
subsequently become standardized,particularly bulb,outs olid refugeislands
a:
Streetscape andcmmajors developnnent projects are now routinel}j ret sewed against the:
Pedestrian vlaster flail to ensure.policy consistency
Page 8-7.NelsonkNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
OV M,i.:j1:0,pj
MTC has completed planning specific to pedestrian safety that has relevance to this plan; in
particular, these include the Bay Area Pedestrian Districts Study and the Bicycle-Pedestrian
Safety Toolbox.
The Bar Area Pedestrian Districts Study was commissioned by MTC in 2006 to explore the use
of pedestrian districts as a concept for creating better pedestrian environments in the Bay Area.
Through the development of the pedestrian district typologies and real-life case studies, the study
identifies the types and costs of pedestrian facilities that have the greatest impact on improving
the pedestrian environment.
The Bigycle-Pedestrian Safefi Toolbox'contains a description of the types of policies, codes, and
standards jurisdictions can adopt to improve bicyclist or pedestrian safety or encourage
pedestrian and bicycle travel. Sample policy documents are provided, including General Plans,
Specific Plans, Redevelopment Plans, codes and bicycle and pedestrian plans. Roles for city and
county governments are outlined. along with identification of potential funding sources. The .
toolbox was intended as educational, and to highlight best practices and illustrative actions local
agencies could undertake in order to improve pedestrian access.
Both of these resources provide practical examples and tools to assist local jurisdictions
implement pedestrian improvernents. Since their completion, MTC has conducted training and
sponsored forums where these materials have been distributed and discussed. Efforts could also
be taken to disseminate information from these studies to non-traditional stakeholders such as
social service agencies who may be encouraged to become involved in the local pedestrian
planning process.
Many pedestrian-related concerns and gaps have also surfaced through the Community-based
Transportation Program (CBTP). Projects recommended to close these gaps may be eligible for
funding through MTC's Lifeline Transportation Program (LTP). Tile LTP, . which is
administered by each county's Congestion Management Agency (CMA) or other designated
entity. funds projects that will improve the mobility of low-income residents of the Bay Area,
with a focus on addressing gaps emerging from CBTPs. Both the Regional and County-
sponsored Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs would also be funding possibilities to advance
pedestrian projects, as well as those available at the local level. Flowever, successful
implementation of these efforts will require the ownership of local jurisdictions to ensure
projects are consistent with local priorities, and to ensure they are successfully carried out and
maintained over the long term.
In 2006, MTC adopted a policy(MTC Resolution 3765)that stipulates that projects funded all or
in part with regional funds (e.g. federal, State Transportation Improvement Program, bridge tolls)
shall consider the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These recommendations
are intended to facilitate the accommodation of pedestrians, which include wheelchair users, and
Both reports can be[bund in their entirety on NIX"s�Neb site as follows:
h1tpJ/w-,Ntit.nitc.ca.gov/planninJbicvclespedeslrians/Ped Districts/index.htm
http://n•wtv.mtc.ca.goi•iplanni nJttia clespcdestrians�safet},�framettork.htm
Page 8-8• Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
bicyclist needs into all projects where bicycle and pedestrian travel is consistent with current,
adopted regional and local plans.
The policy further requires that MTC, its regional bicycle and pedestrian working groups, the
county congestion management agencies (CMAs) and other stakeholders develop a project
checklist to be used by implementing agencies to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian facility needs.
MTC anticipates launching the checklist by the end of 2007 and will monitor the results to see
how this policy affects future non-motorized accommodations.
The Regional Pedestrian Committee (RPC), an advisory committee to MTC, is charged with
addressing pedestrian-related issues in the Bay Area. At present, it is developing a series of
pedestrian planning needs that will result in a paper describing how pedestrian needs can be
addressed at the regional level.
Promote Alternative Modes of Travel
A fundamental principle of MTC's Lifeline Transportation Program is the recognition that not all
gaps in the transit network are effectively met through provision of additional fixed route
service. The cost to increase fixed route service may be prohibitive, and inefficient if few
passengers are being carried (e.g.. late at night or on weekends.) Other alternatives, such as
community shuttles, guaranteed ride home programs, taxis, vanpools, .etc. may better address
identified gaps, and be more cost effective than fixed-route transit.
An additional advantage to supporting alternative modes of service is that they can be designed
and implemented specifically to address a local community's needs. For example, a new
deviated route shuttle service was recently designed and implemented within the Monument
Corridor of Contra Costa County to better link health care and shopping facilities to public
transit. This project emerged through the local Community Based Transportation Plan, and was
designed by project stakeholders.
Members of the disability community (with the exception of San Francisco) spoke to the need
for additional taxi services, especially those that are wheelchair accessible. Taxis provide a
flexible approach to meeting transportation needs in that they do not require a previous
reservation and often operate where and when fixed route or paratransit is not available.
However, taxis are re-ulated at the local level, and most jurisdictions do not require the
availability of accessible vehicles within the local taxi fleets. Even within a county, regulatory
oversight of taxi programs is not necessarily consistent from city to city. While sorne counties
(i.e. Alameda, San Francisco, Santa Clara) rely on taxis as an integral component of their
paratransit programs, others are still exploring opportunities to better integrate taxi programs into
their services.
Use of taxis can also be effective in meeting the needs of seniors who may need some special
care with their travel but may not be ADA paratransit eligible. Likewise, use of taxis has been
identified as a possible strategy for low-income residents traveling during off-hours, or for
emergency purposes, when regular transit may not be available.
Page 8-9.NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
l
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
In December.2005;'thc Marin.County Tani Cab'Joint Powers"Authority adopted'a countywide`
ordinance:to"regulate.all taxi cab companies anddrivers operating m the member munictpaliues ;
The Marin Streetlight Acquisition is a Joint Powers Authority set up to a'bsorb.respansibilities;-
"of the former Street Light JPA, including ad"ministration of'street light program; abandaried,=
vehicles taxi re ulations and other ro ms.
�.., ,g a . P g ra
Other counties within the Bay Area may be interested"in monitoring the status=of Implementation
of this ordinance or in using it as an example of,how to consolidate or better-=coordinate multiple::
'tax'i programs'.
;The Marin County.Transit District also recently completed a study on Enhanced Taxi SBrvices:
for Social Service Transportation.and,Public TransitPe6grams m Marin Caunty Thepurposes
the `project.:was. to .identify opportunities for enhanced taxi services ni` Marin County to
s
supplement and support current and,future social servlce:transportatio,, programs 'Tile study was;
;funded by,MTC; and isintended.to be a model to intarm'other.counties or local Jurisdictions on
how to.enhance tax'iservices within`their:localities ;
San Leandro FLEX Shuttle Implementing this strategy involves
The shuttle" service consists of a series of:;
the following steps:
shuitle.,,stops throughout:San�Learidro at;key I Build upon previous MTC work
focusing on pedestrian planning and
]ocafions of interest to 'older adults and g P P g
-; safet in , disseminate
people` with disabilities; such as,residential� y
facilities, shopping; transit and community information resulting from the Bay Area
centers The FLEX Shuttle is available to'-" Pedestrians Districts Study and the
residents wl?o are 60 years ar older of ADA Bicycle-Pedestrian Safety Toolbox to
paratransit eligible. to addition, the Curb-to cities, human service agency .partners,
`Curb.. service allows.residents whotransit and aratransit operators,qualify to , P
call and.ir`Iake a
reservation far the shuttle to:: community based organizations involved
``
pickthel�t.up and drop.them„:aff at a`specific in MTC's CBTP, senior associations or
location within San Leandro, and,,.is available others interested in promoting pedestrian
to residents who ares 75 years or older or safety. Regional non-profit agencies
ADA parAtransit eligible. that focus on local development issues
(i.e. Transportation and Land Use
Coalition, Urban Ecology) may also
have an interest
2 Encourage community-based transportation plans (CBTPs) as an avenue to identify and
address pedestrian-related barriers at the neighborhood level. The CBTPs address a
variety of transportation gaps and barriers specific to low-income communities within the
Paye 6-10• NelsonlNygoard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
ETR,0- .,_ ,. - R.. FS"C _T. N , 0 10110 1 N
Bay Area, and solutions are developed in direct consultation with neighborhood residents
or advocates.
3 Encourage the development of county or citywide taxi ordinances that would enhance the
provision of accessible subsidized taxi programs. For example, local jurisdictions
authorized to issue taxi permits or licenses could provide incentives for companies and/or
individual owners who provide accessible vehicles. In many communities,the issuance of
new taxi permits are restricted, and preference could be given to permitting new
accessible taxis.
4 Distribute and share the results of the recently completed Marin County Enhanced Taxi
Services Project with EDAC, transit and paratransit program staff and other interested
stakeholders.
Promote Coordinated. Advocacy and improve
Efforts to Coordinate Funding with Human
Service Agencies
The need for expanded public transit was raised more frequently in the outreach process than any
other transportation barrier. Fixed route service does not always operate where or when it is
needed, especially outside the urban core. There is also a critical need for additional paratransit .
services and funding. The region currently spends $110 million per year to provide ADA
complementary paratransit services, an increase of 5% from the previous fiscal years Over the
next two decades. the aging of the population will result in a significant increase in demand for
paratransit or other specialized services. Stakeholders and outreach meeting participants support
efforts to seek additional funding to allow for this expansion.
Many stakeholders also expressed the need to overcome barriers that prevent combining
transportation funds with human service agency funds. Often, social service funds are dedicated
to meeting the needs,of a specific clientele (e.g. developmentally disabled individuals, seniors,
etc.) and funding source or agency rules preclude using these funds in combination with others
because of their need to ensure agency funds are appropriately utilized for their respective
clients. This "silo" effect prevents effective mixing and matching of a variety of fund sources
that could contribute to a more cost-effective and responsive transportation system.
Recent federal initiatives9 support the development of coordinated transportation programs.
However, only federal transportation dollars are subject to coordination planning activities,
despite the fact that the Department of Health and Human Services spends more on human
service transportation than does the DOT,as illustrated in Figure 8-1.
MIC Statistical Sunman.March 2007
.4 Frantemnr-k fiu-,4ctiot7: The Framework for Action is a self-assessment tool that states and communities can use to idcntifv
areas of success and hiahliSht the actions still needed to improve the coordination of human service transportation.This tool has
been developed through the United We Ride initiative sponsored by FTA, and can be found on FTA's webshe.
http:/%«�+w.unilcdweridc.eov/1_A 1_ET�G_F11ML.111m
Page 8-11 NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
.
:I;ir. r`... 0 ,kP. *'Si 0 .---iGr �-Oir'fi! StDld
Figure 8-1: Estimated Spending on Transportation Services for the
Transportation-Disadvantaged by Federal Agencies in
Fiscal Year 2001
Amount spent on.- .
transportation for . Number of Total number of
transportation h` programs programs that
disadvantaged. Percent of total` included in provide
Agency (millions) estimate estimate transpoitatiori '
Department of Health $1,771 72.4% 10 23
and Human Services
Department of $317.3 13°l0 6 6
Transportation
Department of Veterans $160.8 6.6% 3 3
Affairs
Department of Education $135.3 5.5% 2 8
Department of Labor MA 1.1% 3 15
Department of Housing $21.7 0.9% 4 4
and Urban Development
Department of $13 0.5% 1 2
Agriculture
Total(for 8 agencies) 1 $2,445.5 100% 1 29 62
Sources:GAO Summary of HHS,DOT,VA,Education,DOT,Agriculture,HUD data and estimates. "
In February 2004, President Bush signed an Executive Order intended to direct federal agencies
to coordinate their transportation programs. Through that Executive Order, an Interagency
Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) was established to focus
10 federal agencies on the coordination agenda.'' CCAM launched United We Ride, a national
initiative to implement the Executive Order and the Action Plan established by the CCAM. The
CCAM submitted a status report to the President in 2005, which outlined actions taken to
decrease duplication and increase efficiencies. CCAM has focused on five key recommendations
included in the 2005 Status Report, including: (1) coordinated planning, (2) vehicle sharing, (3)
cost sharing, (4) performance measures and (5) demonstration grants to simplify access for
consumers.
Some states have taken the initiative to formally and actively pursue coordination through the
establishment of coordinating councils or other appointed groups representing public transit and
social service agencies. Recent State of Washington legislation, for example, reauthorized the
10 AS included in: "transportation-Uisadvantaeed Populations: Some Coordination Etlbrts Among Programs Providing
Transportation Scr%ices. but Obstacles Persist. United States General Accounting Office. Report to Congressional Requesters,
.lune 200_
The full text of E\CCLI1iVe Order 413330 mai he FOUnd at wwxv.whitehouse.uov/nevus/releases!2004/02/20040224-9.html
Page 8-12• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
;G. 3_'T nr,..;F'0^1:.,k 1.N .r,OS`P?ISSi0N
Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation (ACCT), which is charged with promoting
coordinated human service transportation within the state of Washington. Likewise, the State of
Florida has established a similar Commission charged with statewide human service
coordination. Excerpts from legislative language establishing these councils follow:
2006:State of Florida;Statutes: CHARTER 427TRAN:SPORTATION SERVICES (ss 427:011
427.017)
u F �
"The Commission fore the Transportation Disadvantaged, purpose and:$responsibilities= The
:purpose of the commission.is tm''accomplish the coordination of transportation services provided.;
to-the transportation'disadvan taged. The goal. of this coordination .shall be :to assure the. cost
efTective provision of transportation byp qualified o
"community transportation cordinators or.`
transportation operators for.the transportation disadvantaged without any bias or presumption in ,
favor of multi operator systems. or not-fbr profit,transportatiorr operators over single op'elator
systems or for=profit transportation operators
w„
SHB`1694 (State of Washington) C 42I L 07 A, a
:r
n
"I n 1998 the Legislature cre'at'ed the Program for"Agency Coordinated Transportation (PA.CT or
the Progiam)`and the Agency Counctl ori.CoordinatedTransportation,(ACCT,orthe:..Councii)for,.
a
'the:.purpose of'improving the;:efficiency and coordination of transportation:systems for persons'+
with special""transportation.needs,.and to facilitate :a statewide approach to "didinatiorr that:
x
supports.. the.. development of,community based coordinated transportation systems serving;
persons with special transportation needs.
The.Council is-required to perform various duties, incoordination with'stakeholders;designed to
assure implemeiitatipri of the Program. To that end,the Council's duties Include (1`) developing
guidelines for local planning of coordinated special.-need's transportation; (2) providing a state
level forum at which state..agencies may discuss and resolve:coordination`:and program policy,,
issues; (3); administering and ,;managing grant .funds `to "develop, test,, and facilitate the
implementation of coordinated systems, identifying,,barriers to,coordinated 'transportation
and,.-(5) recommending, ..statutory changes .fo the. . Legislature ':to assist in ,coordinated
transportation.
13 '... x:
11 The State of Florida administrative code rceulatin,, the Commission may be found at:
http:/iw%vtiv.dot.state.fl.us/ctd/docs/chaptcr4l.pdf .
"The Pull test of the legislation may be fottnd it:http://apps.le2.wa.covfbillinfc)/summarv.asp\"bili=1694
Page 8-13• NelsonMygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public TransitlHuman Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
f;`.�i?�.C. `� ''.•ThK ;ni'u�.7,.;1;,,, ...i,lf.'�i"t..!0Fr .... ,. < .. ...._ _..... . ... . . .. ... .. ..,. ..
The State of Washington can serve as an effective model in part because the ACCT is established
state legislature, and is directly accountable to the legislature. Elected officials serve on the
Council, which develops an annual work plan and reports on its progress to the legislature in a
formal report every two'years. In addition, many of the activities undertaken by ACCT are
prescribed through legislation. One recent initiative of ACCT was to establish the requirement
for human service agencies to track their purchased transportation costs, an effort which can set
the baseline for future coordination efforts.
In California, Caltrans intends to sponsor a planning project (Mobility Action Plan), based in part
on the Washington model, which will support goals to better coordinate human service
transportation at the statewide level. In particular,the project.would:
Develop a Memorandum of Understanding between the Health and Human Services.
Agency and the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to support coordination
efforts;
Develop a comprehensive funding matrix to identify agency expenditures for
transportation;
• Develop a proposal for a demonstration pilot project that would allow for the utilization
of transit passes for Medicaid elio ible persons needing to access medical services.
• Establish, through a directive of the Governor, a statewide Mobility Council and Mobility
Task Force.
This project could have implications for Bay Area and other state stakeholders by establishing a
solid baseline of funding information for state agencies that sponsor human service
transportation. It will also result in the development of a statewide transportation council,
similar to the State of Washington, that will be charged with promoting coordination and, for the
first time, provide a forum for statewide coordination efforts between social service and
transportation agencies.
State legislation modifvini state requirements for human services transportation could directly
affect the ability to coordinate service delivery to seniors and persons with disabilities. Such
legislation could.include:
Direct state agencies receiving transportation funds to report on the services provided
with these funds
• Require human service programs to plan for transportation services and evaluate their
performance in consultation with public transit.agencies and other relevant stakeholders
Directly enable and encourage the use of human service funding to match transit funds or
to otherwise combine their funding with other sources of funds to allow more "bang for
the buck."
Seek to streamline other administrative barriers (i.e. purchasing or procurement rules,
insurance requirements, etc.)that may impede coordination efforts at the local level
Page 8-14• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component • DRAFT Report
P 0R T A`I,-- v ON'M,1SS1ON
Implementing this strategy involves the following steps:
1 In consultation with MTC advisory committees and other local and statewide
stakeholders, develop a comprehensive legislative platform as described above.
2 Re-initiate previous MTC legislative efforts from the mid-1990's to promote human
service transportation in California. Since that time, a number of developments suggest
that the present climate is more conducive to enhancing coordination efforts, including
the federal United We Ride effort, new funding sources specifically designated for
coordination, and Caltrans' Mobility Action Plan.
3 Identify key state leg=islators willing to sponsor statewide 'legislation intended to
accomplish coordination objectives.
4 Actively seek the support of partner organizations such as National Council of
Independent Living (NCIL), The World Institute on Disability (WiD), the Transportation
and Land Use Coalition (TALC)and others to place greater emphasis on the coordination
of elderly and disabled transportation services in their advocacy efforts.
Improve. Interjurisdictional and Intermodal Travel
For persons whose transit trips cross from one service area into another,the resulting transfer can
be time-consuming and at times confusing. The need to improve interjurisdictional travel was
raised by each of the three constituency groups, whether they use fixed route transit or
paratransit. In some cases, trips may cross county lines, which may mean transferring to another
service provider or even a different mode of service (for example, bus to rail, or bus to ferry).
Even within some counties (i.e. Contra Costa County), the presence of multiple transit operators
can trigger the need to transfer within the county.
Each of over 20 transit auencies has adopted its own fare structure and.service policies, which
are in some cases inconsistent with neighboring transit agencies.
In April 2006, MTC adopted a "Transit Connectivity Plan" including a series of
recommendations specific to the following:
.. The need for better signage at major-transit points and transit hubs;
• Schedule and route coordination between connecting operators;
Access to transit information whether via 511,web sites,or paper information;
• The availability of"real time"transit information at key stops and stations;
Amenities such as benches, shelters, lighting, etc., for a more comfortable wait for
connecting services: and
The availability of "last mile" services not otherwise provided by regular fixed route
services, such as taxis or community shuttles, which can get people from a transit center
or bus stop to their final destination.
Page 8-15• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
t;l - Q! (1L.i •:N ,:d ..4.. (0 N .,,.:S'ISSIOtti
The Regional Transit Connectivity Plan outlines a series of enhancements intended to improve
connectivity, which are in various stages of implementation. MTC is providing funding to
implement the majority of this work. MTC has also adopted Interagency Transfer Guidelines for
the region's paratransit providers to improve services for paratransit customers who transfer from
one system to another. These guidelines have not been evaluated or updated in several years. As
a result, transit agencies may not be consistently implementing the guidelines, .which can result
in confusion for paratransit customers and operators alike. Although very few paratransit trips
are interjurisdictional in nature, they can be costly and time-consuming to arrange for, and
inconvenient and difficult for many customers.
Implementing this strategy involves the following steps:
1 As MTC and the transit agencies proceed to implement the connectivity improvements at
key transit hubs they should take steps to ensure that these improvements take into
consideration the specific transportation needs of older adults and persons with
disabilities.
2 Prior to full implementation, test key connectivity improvements such as improved
wayfinding signage, or 511 improvements to ensure their accessibility for senior and
disabled populations.
3 Review the status of the SB 1474 Plan (MTC Resolution 3055) to ensure respective
coordination policies, such as the paratransit interagency guidelines, regional ADA
paratransit eligibility program and other policies are and up to date and reflect actual
practice. Support PTCC Accessibility Committee's efforts to encourage seamless
paratransit transfers through greater coordination such as that resulting from the monthly
meetings recently initiated by the four paratransit providers in Contra Costa County.
Mobility Management
Achievina advances in current mobility management efforts will depend on the effectiveness of
the coordination and advocacy strategies cited earlier in this report. Although not a new concept,
mobility management activities may now be funded through three SAFETEA-LU programs
(,IARC, Section 5310. New Freedom). These activities consist of short-range planning and
management activities and projects for improving coordination among public transportation and
other human service transportation-service providers. Mobility management is considered an
eligible capital expense. which requires a 20% local match to the federal funds, rather than the
50% local match required for operating expenses.
Mobility management is intended to build coordination among existing public transportation and
human service transportation providers with the goal of cost-effectively expanding the overall
level of service 'for seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income persons. According to
guidance issued by FTA, eligible mobility management activities may include:
Page 8-16• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
i:;_-Rrvr: L.T.,N R.... .'0 RTE,TICiN 0UN115S'ON
• The promotion, enhancement; and facilitation of access to transportation services,
including the integration and coordination of services for individuals with disabilities,
older adults, and low income individuals;
• Support for short term management activities to plan and implement coordinated.
services;'
• The support of State and local coordination policy bodies and councils;
• The operation of transportation brokerages to coordinate providers, funding agencies and
customers;
• The development and operation of one-stop transportation call centers to coordinate
transportation information on all travel modes and to manage transportation program
eligibility requirements and arrangements for customers among supporting programs; and
• Operational planning for the acquisition of intelligent transportation technologies to help
plan and operate coordinated systems inclusive of Geographic Information Systems(GIS)
mapping,. Global .Positioning System technology, coordinated vehicle scheduling,
dispatching and monitoring technologies as well as technologies to track costs and billing
in a coordinated system, and single smart customer payment systems. (Acquisition of
technology is also eligible as a stand-alone capital expense).
Testing and implementing technology that could account for individual client activity on
a vehicle supported with multiple fund sources.
Establishing a Mobility Manager for a defined geographic area would help ensure that staffing
resources are provided to carry out coordination activities. Ideally, a mobility manager would
assume responsibility for coordinating programs, funding, information, and transportation
services of all modes to meet the needs of low-income, elderly and disabled persons. A transit
ag=ency could serve as mobility manager, as could a social service agency, nonprofit agency, or a
Consolidated Transportation Service Agency(CTSA).
In California, one mechanism for promoting the concept of mobility management is through the
designation of CTSAs. The Social Service Transportation Improvement Act of 1979 mandated
improvements to social services transportation, and led to the designation of CTSAs. By. law,
CTSAs are to identify and consolidate all funding sources and maximize the services of all
public and private transportation providers. CI'SAs are authorized to directly claim TDA and
STA funds.
Page 8-17• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public TransitlHuman Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
(:Sc-RGPi.Tt
C'fSAs are designated by the local Regional
S The Contra Costa,Measure.j Expenditure
Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), Plan supports;funding for )
(a managing the. i
_
which is MTC for the nine-county Bay Area. <'prob arri ` b retentionof:"a tri bilit" 'inana er
.) Y Y g.
Currently,there are no active CTSAs within thec coordi-nation with non rofit services . d
region. With the full implementation of the esfablishinent.and/or.mainteiiance off
paratransit provisions of the ADA in 1996, comprehensive paratransrtaechnology
which required transit operators to assume im leinentation lan'.and e .facilitation of,,. _
P P �,)
responsibility for the provision of =`
P Y P countywide travel and integration-with fixed a
complementary paratransit. the role of CTSAs
route`and BART
changed and many were in fact assumed under
the auspices of the transit agencies..
Implementing this strategy involves the following.steps:
1 Encourage the establishment of mobility managers. Doing so would establish a more
formal mechanism for promoting coordination between human service and public transit
agencies at the local level.
2 Throu-h a mobility management approach, test and implement technology that could
track individual client activity on a vehicle supported with multiple fund sources.
3 Convene a regional workshop to focus on providing technical assistance and information
sharing for those interestedin developing mobility management activities.
Fieure 8-2 summarizes the proposed strategies and corresponding implementation steps. As
recognized throughout this planning effort, successful implementation will require the joint
cooperation and participation of multiple stakeholders. For some, a clear leader has not been
identified. Chapter 9 of this report proposes a series of next steps, which can serve as a starting
point for launchings these implementation efforts.
Figure 8-2: Implementation of Coordination Strategies
Enhanced Land Use and Transportation Coordination:Implementation,
StepsPartners/Stakeholders
Provide documentation of the issue TBD
Document examples of policies that have effectively addressed TBD
locational decisions
Engage key stakeholders in the development of a regional strategy. JPC,CMAs
Build on the regional FOCUS program to incentivize positive locational JPC,CMAs through T-Plus program
decisions
Promote Alternative Modes of Travel jncluduig,Improved Pedestrian
Access:to Transit.lmplementaiion Steps: Partners/Stakeholders
Build upon previous MTC planning work specific to pedestrian safety, Local jurisdictions
and disseminate the results to other partner organizations.
Encourage pedestrian-related planning at the community level through MTC,CMAs
CBTPs.
Page 8.18• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Plan Elderly
& Disabled Component DRAFT Report
Encourage the development of countywide taxi ordinances that would Counties,CMAs
enhance the provision of accessible taxi programs
Distribute and share the results of the recently completed Marin County
Enhanced Taxi Services Project with EDAC,transit and paratransit Marin County,PTCC Accessibility Committee.EDAC,Counties
program staff and other interested stakeholders. and Cities
Promote Coordinated.Advocacy and Improve Efforts to Coordinate partnerslStaketiolders ' '
r
Punding.with Human Service Agencies:Implementation Steps:
Develop a comprehensive legislative platform to address improved MTC,Bay Area Partnership,transit agencies and other local
human service transportation coordination stakeholders
Re=initiate previous MTC legislative efforts to promote human service MTC,Advisory Committees,Bay Area Partnership,human
transportation in California. service agencies,other local stakeholders
Identify a legislator willing to sponsor statewide legislation intended to MTC,elected official(s)
address the platform defined above.
Actively seek the support of partner organizations such as National
Council of Independent Living(NCIL),The World Institute on Disability
(WID),the Transportation and Land Use Coalition(TALC)and others to Local advocacy organizations,MTC Advisory Committees
place greater emphasis on elderly and disabled transportation needs in
their advocacy efforts.
Partners/Stakeholders
Improved Interjurisdictional Travel Imiplementation.Steps �- ' >; :. .�
Prioritize connectivity improvements at transit hubs MTC,MTC Advisory Committees,transit agencies,human
service agencies
Prior to full implementation,test key connectivity improvements such as MTC,MTC Advisory Committees,transit agencies,human
improved wayfinding signage,or 511 improvements to ensure their
accessibility for senior and disabled populations service agencies
Review the status of the SB 1474 Plan(MTC Resolution 3055)to ensure MTC,MTC advisory committees,transit operators,PTCC
respective coordination policies,such as the paratransit interagency Accessibility Committee,human service agencies
guidelines,are accurate and being implemented.
Mobility Management:Implementation Steps Partners/Siaketiolders '
Encourage the development of Mobility Managers TBD
Research and share examples of mobility manger models of excellence MTC.human service agencies,Transit and Paratransit
established elsewhere. Operators,PCCs
Test and implement technology that could track individual client activity MTC.local stakeholders
on a vehicle supported with multiple fund sources.
Page 8-19• NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.