Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03042003 - SD2 y TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS f ', '; Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE Costa-6 " COMMITTEE (SUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA, CHAIR County DATE: March 3, 2003 SUBJECT: Contra Costa Paratransit Study Update and Response to Contra Costa Transportation Authority's {CCT!) Request for the County to Participate Financially in the Study SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter responding to CCTA's request that the County participate financially in a study of paratransit issues in Contra Costa County and providing comment on the study (see Exhibit C). FISCAL IMPACT None to the General Fund. The County will cover its contribution to the cost of the study through our membership on the Regional Transportation Planning Committees or the Congestion Management Agency,which rely on other funding sources. The amount of our contribution will be determined once the costs of the study are known and once other funding partners are identified. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On November 12, 2002, the Board of Supervisors transmitted a letter to OCTA asking that they partner with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in conducting a study of paratransit issues in Contra Costa County (Exhibit A). The Authority agreed to allocate up to $100,000 for the study from its paratransit budget. Of this amount, $50,000would be allocated to the study and $50,000 would be an in-kind contribution. The CCTA also requested that the County participate financially in the study. A letter making this request is included as (Exhibit B). A draft letter responding to this request is included as (Exhibit C). Relevant comment on the study is included. Please be aware that the Committee will meet on this matter on March 3rd. The chair of the Committee will report to the Board on the Committee's action at our March 4th meeting. This draft report is provided to help expedite the Board's response to the Authority's request. The remainder of this report provides the background information that the Committee will consider in making its recommendation to the Board. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES _REMMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES : u ervisor John Gioia Su ervisor Donna Gerber ACTION OF BOARV ON= 4. M APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED __X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT Nm ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE AYES: NOES: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SHOWN. DISTRICT III SEAT VACANT ATTESTED wam 4 M JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF Contact: John Cunningham (925/335-1243) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS cc: Community Development Department (CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Members, PCC c/o Bill Liskamm BYj,_S,1v0L- "�..,�--���----: , DEPUTY G:\Transportation\Cunningham\paratransit\march 03 board orderlfinaRoaratranslt response board order.doc Contra Costa Paratransit Study Update March 3, 2003 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)' CCTA's request of the Board was a response to an initiative of the Board, which began on September 26, 2000. At that time the Board of Supervisors transmitted a letter to MTC requesting that a study of paratransit issues in Contra Costa be performed. The following month the Chair of MTC responded, agreeing to provide assistance and indicating that MTC'staff would coordinate with County staff in developing options for proceeding with the study. MTC included an item in their workplan "Paratransit Planning Assistance In Alameda and Contra Costa counties" and allocated funding for the effort in their budget. In November of 2002 the Board of Supervisors transmitted a letter to MTC reaffirming their request to study paratransit issues in Contra Costa. The Board also transmitted a letter to CCTA, requesting that they act as a local partner with MTC in the conduct of the study. After CCTA agreed to work with MTC as the local partner in this study, they referred the issue of the scope of the paratransit study to the Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC)for comment. A subcommittee of the PCC has since met and developed a recommendation for a study scope to be presented at the full PCC (See Exhibit D). The Board should be aware of the fact that the PCC supported the Board's original request to MTC for this study. The PCC, and its members have also addressed this matter on several other occasions. Excerpts from the minutes of PCC meetings that cover the Board's request are attached as Exhibit E. At its March 3`d meeting, the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee will review the recommendation of the PCC Subcommittee and discuss the need to provide comments concerning the scope of the study. The Committee understands the concern that a broad scope of work may lead to a prohibitively expensive study. Existing information should be utilized to help reduce the cost of the study. But the recommendation of the PCC Subcommittee suggests the following comments. A consumer survey suggested by the PCC Subcommittee should be included in the study. A survey would accomplish two objectives. It would help understand the transportation issues facing existing and potential patrons of paratransit services. It also could be used as part of an outreach program to ensure the target population has meaningful involvement in the study. The Authority and MTC should form an oversight committee for this study that includes the PCC and well as other interested agencies or organizations. A broader range of participants help address the needs of senior and disabled residents who are not ADA-eligible or are not users of existing services. The study should include an examination of alternative service models and administrative arrangements for providing paratransit service. This specific task was included in the Board's original request to MTC in 2000, which was supported by the PCC. * The study should evaluate the benefits of reducing the need for transfers and serving same-day requests for service. Both of these changes are likely to provide a safer, more direct trip and may reduce costs. G:1TransnortationlCunninahamloaratransitlmarah 03 board ordeMiinahoaratransit response board order.doa The' Board of Supervisors Contra � X� �►-� � John sweeten Clerk of the Board est and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (925)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293 j C}~�unt John Gioia, 1st District County t�( Gayle B.Uilkerna,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District � Mark De$autnier,4th District Federal D.Glover,5th District c ' Donald P. Freitas, Chair '�` November 12, 2002 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Dear Chair Freitas. In September of 2000, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors transmitted a letter to the Chair of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) requesting that MTC study paratransit issues in Contra Costa County. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Paratransit Coordinating Council assisted in editing the letter and voted to support sending the letter. MTC saw the value in such a study and the following month Chairman Beall responded, agreeing to provide such assistance. County and MTC staff have had some preliminary conversations on how to proceed. At this time MTC is asking that a local partner be identified to assist in the conduct of the study. The Board of Supervisor's view is that the most appropriate entity to act in that capacity is CCTA. The Board has authorized me to request that CCTA consider acting as the local partner for this important study. The Board of Supervisors has also authorized me to send you the attached report that details the issues the Board has considered in advocating for this study. Among other issues, the report identifies the upcoming Measure C reauthorization as significantly underscoring the importance of the study. Please call me if you have any questions on this request or the Board's interest in promoting this study. Sincerely, John M. Gioia, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors JMGvc:ml-k Attachments cc: Members,Board of Supervisors Sharon J. Brown,Chair—Metropolitan Transportation Commission Leon Morphew,President-Advisory Council on Aging Members,Paratransit Coordinating Council Charles Anderson,WestCAT Rick Fernandez,AC Transit Jeanne Krieg,Tri Delta Transit Thomas Margro,BART Rick Ramacier,CCCTA G:\Transportation\CunningHamtparatransit\i 1_12_02.Board©rder\fmai\cccta itr.doc CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS: January 6,2003 DweeP.Frefas Hon.John Gioia,Chairman Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors JVIIa pierce 651 Pine Street VIca-Chatr Martinez, CA 94553.1293 Janet Abelson RE: Your Request for the Authority to"Partner"with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC) in Conducting a Study of Paratransit Services and Issues Irma L..Anderson Charlie Abrams bear Chairman Gioia: MadeAlegria At its December 18,2002 meeting,the Authority discussed the County's request for it to partner John Mora with the MTC and conduct a study of paratransit services and issues. As you knew,the Planning Committee had forwarded the County's request to the Authority with a recommendation to support Federal 0"r the effort if the budget was limited to$100,000 to$150,400--to be fundedwith a$50,000 erg urx contribution from MTC and$50,000 to $100,000 from Measure C Paratransit Funds. The Authority chose to defer action on this request,and instead asked that the Paratrransit Coordinating' nta,.rr ri#arke Committee(PCC)review the proposal in tight of the need for local paratransit funds to be used to OW T'at* help defray the cost. The next PCC meeting will be in late January. Members were concerned with several aspects of the proposed study. First,the application of Robert K.WCteaY local paratrarrsit funds that would otherwise be used for paratransit services raised'a"red flag." Ezecullm Director Second, some members felt that the scope of the study envisioned by the County significantly exceeded what could be done for$150,000. The bread scope offered by the County, as well as the focus of the study on "social services"also caused some concerns. The Authority also asked that a request be forwarded to the County to determine if your agency would participate financially in the study,should it move forward. There was some sentiment that the County,as originator of'this request and with specific responsibilities for social services, should be a significant funding partner in such a study. Accordingly,this letter formally requests your participation at a level that would:match any funding provided by the Authority. We appreciate your interests in promoting improved paratransit services,and look forward to hearing from you regarding the study and your prospective funding of a portion of it. If you have any questions,please call me(925.313.2373)or Bob McCleary of our staff(923.256.4724). 3478 Ov0rk Ave Sincer ,.452a Id P.Freitas Chairman cc. Authority members•,Board of Supervisors members Hon.Sharon Brawn "W"� ee� ,r� �♦ �'`��`}�j'�` John Sweeten The Board of Supervisors Contra L...i. � Clark oftheBoard Costa and County Administration Sutkting CauntyadmiNstrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (925)335-1900 Martinez, California 94553-1293 County olt f my/, John Gloia, 1 st District � Gayle S.Uitkema,2nd District a Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSsuinter,4th District Federal 0.Glover,5th District Donald P. Freitas, Chair March 4, 2003 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Dear Chair Freitas: I am responding to your January 5th letter regarding funding issues related to the paratransit study requested by the County. The County is prepared to participate as a funding partner in the study. The characteristics of paratransit service delivery are such that the geographic scope of the study must be countywide. Given this, we propose that our financial participation be through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees, or through the Congestion Management Agency {CMA} in conjunction with the other jurisdictions benefiting from the study. I have some additional funding concepts below for the Authority to consider. The Board shares the Authority's concern for using scare paratransit fundsto fund this study. Since the information produced by the study can be used to help reauthorize Measure C, the Board requests that the Authority consider providing additional funds for this study using the funding source used for the Measure C reauthorization activities. In considering this option the Authority should bear in mind that the last significant study on paratransit',in this county was completed over 12 years ago. A study would serve as an example of the Authority's efforts to ensure that the sales tax dollars are being spent as efficiently as possible. The Authority should consider this funding option in order to preserve the vital service that would be provided by paratransit funds. Your request letter has raised several questions at the County. Previously, the Authority has funded from the appropriate project/program category or from countywide revenues such as the CMA budget. This funding request seems to be a departure from this practice. Furthermore, to request funding contributions for a countywide study solely from the jurisdiction that identifies the need for the study is, in our view, inappropriate. At the December 18th Authority meeting and in the January 6t°letter paratransit is referred to as a "social service" and it was suggested that the County has "significant responsibilities" in this area. Viewing paratransit as a social service is a misperception. Paratransit'is a transportation issue, specifically a public transit service. Given the shortage of transportation services for the elderly and disabled, a variety of public and private agencies are forced to provide transportation services to fill the gaps. However, this situation does not shift the primary responsibility of providing transit service away from the principal service providers and the OCTA, a key countywide planning and funding agency. Chair Freitas Letter March 4,2003 Page 2 The Board of Supervisors thanks you for following up with us on this important matter. We applaud your efforts to work with MTC in addressing paratransit issues; a facet of transportation planning that is frequently neglected. We sincerely hope the inspiring attitude of Jeanne Kreig, General Manager of Tri-Delta Transit will be the defining approach to this study: One of the great things about our industry is the contagious enthusiasm our members have for trying new products, trying new ways of doing things and looking for better ways to conduct business.(Transit California Magazine April 2002) Please call me if you have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, Mark DeSaulnier, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Mil/3C/mlk cc: Members,Board of Supervisors Gerald Sharrock,President-Advisory Council on Aging Members,PCC c/o Bill Liskamm Members,Senior/Disabled Stakeholders for Measure C X DKFT 2120103 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PAR.ATRANSIT COORI)INATING COUNCIL 1340 Treat Blvd.,suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925)939-9PCC February 20, 2003 (Revised 2/21103) MEIVIORA"UM TO: PCC Members FROM. Subcommittee on County Paratransit Study RE: Recommendations on Study Scone Attendees: Abelson,Paasch,Krieg,Anderson,Dahlgren,Masson,Witucki,McGee Guests: Hammon,Branson,Cunningham,Landau Staff: Haugse, Liskamm Following a discussion of the history and background of the proposed study, and a review of the study scope as proposed by MTC,the subcommittee concluded that the proposed scope does not address the issues that can help paratransit consumers and operators in the County. Attendees were reminded that many of the issues that were originally raised when the study was requested, were multi jurisdictional issues(for example,seamless trips without transfers between jurisdictions). Multijurisdictional issues require regional actions to accomplish any solutions, and are more than a Contra Costa County issue. The subcommittee then developed the following recommendations for the study: 1. The study must be from the consumer's viewpoint. 2. The study must be done with PCC's guidance as to its detailed tasks. 3. The study should: • Identify key paratransit service problems by service area. (What are consumers happy with, and not happy with?) • Provide an analysis of the identified problems in relation to funding constraints, including identification of existing inefficiencies. • Develop recommendations on how hest to address these problems within our critical budget constraints(e.g. research,alternative service delivery models,etc.),including infonnational tools regarding paratransit operations(costs of services vs. funding allocations,percentage of regional trips,etc.)for use by policymakers, governmental officials,paratransit operators and consumers. work of our task force on using BART for long-range trips,and(2)the difficulty in attracting and keeping drivers. Alice Armes(CCCTA)suggested encouraging travel training to get more people to use fixed route transit. Deborah Workman:suggested we support the Long Term Care Integration Project's recommendations,particularly the recommendation to have a mobility manager to coordinate trips related to this population. Janet Abelson asked whether Measure C funds were used for many non-ADA trips? The response was that it is used for very few passengers in Central and East County. 2.4 Response to County Staff on Draft letter to MTC y V Bill Liskatnm described the status of this letter requesting MTC study paratransit services in Contra Costa County. He said the letter had been revised to meet PCC's concerns, and that it was scheduled to go before the full Board of Supervisors soon. Shirley.Huyck moved, and Gerhard Demut seconded this motion, to forward the letter in its new form. Janet Abelson said that the new letter may not be correct. She pointed out that the letter states: "with four paratransit prodders operating in the County". She added that this statement is not correct as we have six providers plus AC Transit and BART. She also suggested that the order of the last two sentences of Item#I should be reversed. Janet added that she doesn't think this will improve service in'West County. John Cunningham(County)replied that PCC had said earlier that current service levels should not be reduced. Janet said that MTC may not be the right agency to do this study. Jeanne Krieg said that the Supervisors have decided to send the letter. PCC can help draft it, and we can speak at the Supervisors'meeting. Gerry Witucki, Chair, called for a voice vote. The motion was approved with Janet Abelson and Jeanne Krieg voting no, and with Francis.Masson abstaining. 2.5 Report From East Bay P'aratransit Consortium Service Review Advisory Committee Janet Abelson reported that the East Bay Consortium went out to bid for new software that will help with the certification process,and will help in dispatching and in real time scheduling. This will be followed by bidding for the pamtransit broker. She said its been five yews since the original broker was hired. Janet also reported on reducing demand for paratransit services, and that the time"window"to cancel trips has been changed to two hours. Reservation times have also been changed. Janet has been elected'Vice Chair of BRAC. Deborah Workman asked the status of voluntary negotiated reservations. Janet said that they don't.have the time to do this. Lori Teachout(El Cerrito) asked if this will effect "standing order"rides? Francis Masson replied that this will not impact service delivery. He added that frequent "no shows'will result in people losing their subscription trips. He suggested that, if the driver doesn't shove up "on time", to let the provider know afterward so that the consumer isn't penalized. Minutes ofSeptcmber 19,2000 PGC meeting page 4 L 1.3 Approval of Minutes of the May 22,2000 PCC Meeting Donald Redlingshafer moved, and.Jeanne Krieg seconded the motion, to approve these Minutes which were approved by voice vote. Shirley Huyck, Dave Sanderson, Rosemary Meade, and Jeanne Krieg abstained as they were absent at the May 22, 2000 meeting. 2.0 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/COUNCIL ACTION 2.1 Report on Supervisors' Meeting and County Letter Bill Liskamm reported on the June 5, 2000 meeting of the County Supervisors'Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee in which several PCC operators gave presentations regarding their paratransit services. As a consequence of that meeting, Supervisors Gioia and Ullkema directed County staff to draft a letter to MTC requesting a study of how paratransit services in Contra Costa County might be made more convenient and seamless for consumers. He introduced John Cunningham, Transportation Planner with the County who asked for comments and suggestions from PCC members regarding the draft letter that was included in the Agenda packet. Janet Abelson pointed out that MTC represents nine counties, not just Contra Costa County. She added that the draft letter was inaccurate, as PCC didn't attend the meeting with the Supervisors, only the bus operators did. She also pointed out that the needs of West County residents are different from Central and East County, as West County residents travel more often to Alameda and San Francisco Counties. Jeanne Krieg agreed, and said that letter should';include the needs of all nine counties. She added that MTC was probably not the right agency to.took at only Contra Costa County. Donald Redlingshafer said that Item#2 of the draft letter should be revised to say "a single paratransit entity for the entire nine county region". Francis Masson pointed out-that trips aren't just within Contra Costa County(as stated in the draft letter)but include links with Alameda and San Francisco Counties too. He asked what was meant by"integration and consolidation of public and private paratransit operations"? John Cunningham replied that the letter was being kept broad for now. Charlie Anderson said the letter seems to assume that consolidation would mean some administrative and cost efficiencies. Janet Abelson pointed out that the letter includes items that would actually cost more and reduce service. She added that they would have a negative impact on the quality of life, on paratransit, and on welfare to work rides. Janet said that MTC is working on improving regional coordination throughout all nine counties, and that the Partnership Transportation Coordinating Committee (PICC) is also looking into this issue. Paul Boyce said that Tri-Delta Transit makes his attendance at PCC meetings possible. Francis Masson pointed out that the obligation to provide paratransit service is a federal mandate, not a County requirement. He said that PCC should support the County's interest in paratransit. However, he added,the letter seems to indicate some lack of understanding of existing services and requires some revisions so PCC can support the County's efforts. He suggested that he and Bill Liskamm might attend the next Supervisors'Committee meeting to help resolve these issues. Minutes ofluty 24,2000 PCC Page 2 Janet Abelson shared some comments that have been made in other paratransit groups: ♦ people had difficulty using the current form t a revised farm is needed now. ♦ those permanently disabled need a simplified form(and no need to review). • an"appropriate" professional needed to evaluate eligibility, not just a "medical" professional. Janet Abelson moved, and Gerhard Demut seconded, that PCC send its comments on the scope of this study to MTC. The motion was approved by voice vote. 2.3 County Request to MTC Regarding Paratransit Study Connie Soper of MTC said that she was here to listen to PCC`s input on the County's request. She described MTC's role as taking the regional perspective. She added that MTC conducts studies on paratransit operations, including transfer sites, consolidation of services, funding, and Consolidated Transportation Service Agencies (CTSAs). They would serve as the facilitator of an MTC/Contra Costa County paratransit study. Connie added that they are interested in PCC`s reactions to this proposed study. Francis Masson said the letter requesting this study was from the County Supervisors to MTC. He added that several PCC members felt the request was for items already being studied. Francis said that PCC would like to have input into the scope of this study. Janet Abelson added that she lives in a part of the County that is served by AC Transit and PART. She said the study request assumes the County is "a unit of measure". She added that a study of this "unit" would be difficult. She said that solutions should focus on more than just the County. She pointed out that this is a difficult time for paratransit(e.g. driver shortages, etc.). She suggested that paratransit issues should be identified by consumers, and they should not be pre-determined solutions. Gerry Witucki asked how to get comments and problems to MTC? Connie Soper replied that workshops would be a good way to get comments, priorities and to define the scope of work. MTC can provide a facilitator. She added that the workshop should include a larger group, as the request came from the County Supervisors. Janet Abelson said we need to look at what are the major problems of paratransit from both the operators and the consumers point of view. Walter Romer said shortage of drivers is the main problem. Charlie Anderson said regional trips are also a major problem. He added that there is tension between regional trips and local trips. Charlie said that we need to look at the cost of providing regional trips, and how to deal with it. He added that the source of funds for paratransit needs to be clarified. He pointed out that MTC has a regional responsibility, and that regional trips are draining resources away from local trips. Donald Redlingshafer said that Paul Boyce uses paratransit to this meeting from Pittsburg, and that the vehicle and driver must wait three hours until the end of this meeting. He added that this is not efficient, and a central dispatch would be a more efficient way. He pointed out that lack of a central dispatch is a main problem. Minutes of January 22,2001 PCC meeting Page 3 Charlie Anderson said that we don`t know the demand of regional trips vs local trips. Donald Redlingshafer said that in 1976 he arranged transportation for 10,500 people from downtown San Francisco to the Cow Palace and back (by using the reverse direction of commute buses). Janet Abelson asked why was ADA passed? She said it is a civil rights measure and an unfunded mandate. She added that perhaps the funding stream needs to be studied. She said that the lack of money to do a good job was a major problem. Kathy Duncan said the original plan for regional service was so everyone could take BART for longer trips(with transfers at each end). She said the current regional trips system is very tiring for consumers. Rosemary Meade said that regional trip transfers are handled efficiently. Janet Abelson said the study should define(after 10 years of ADA): ♦ what works well ♦ what doesn't work well r funding (capital and operations) ♦ public transit vs private transportation ♦ demand/census Gerhard Dernut said there should be consolidation stations. Rosemary Meade pointed out that they now have safe transfer locations with "hand-offs" between drivers. Donald Redlingshafer said that coordination is needed. Janet Abelson said she recently had a poor experience with a regional trip from San Francisco using one vehicle (no transfers). She added that eliminating transfers doesn't eliminate all problems. Charlie Anderson said the problem has become political. He suggested that we should just state the facts (demand, cots, etc.) including underfunding and expectations. He added that we need to tell the Supervisors what the facts are. Gerhard Demut said we should consider the airporter model. Gerry Witucki suggested a special PCC task force on this issue. Jeanne Krieg said the task force should be established by MTC. Connie Soper agreed. Cindy Dahlgren(guest) added that we must look at other providers too, including non-profits, County, etc., not just public providers. Janet Abelson said we should look at other models (e.g. Sweden, etc.) and the WestCAT model that transports the public as well as seniors and the disabled. She said we also need to look at door to door service as well as traditional service to bus stops. Walter Romer said we should include ferries in this study. 2.4 TRANSPLAN Request for PCC Representation Bill Liskamm described a letter from TRANSPLAN requesting PCC representation on an east county transportation study committee. Jeanne Krieg said this study is part of the Governor's Traffic Congestion Relief Plan. Bill Liskamm said that Mary Rocha, a resident of East County, has applied for PCC membership, and has volunteered to represent PCC on this study committee. Jeanne Krieg said she knew of Mary Rocha's service in East County, and that she endorses her for PCC membership. Janet Abelson said that consumer members of PCC should be paratransit riders. As Mary Rocha is not a paratransit rider, she should be a social service member of PCC. Minutes of January22,200I PCC rneetinR Page 4 oo � Transportation Services for People with Disabilities in Eastern Contra Costa County Report presented to: Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors June 5, 2000 Report presented by: Jeanne Krieg General Manager Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority Tri Delta Transit (925) 754-5622 jkrieg@eceta.org eccta.org E5 ,astern Contra Costa Transit Author,,-., Tri Delta Transit Service Area: Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority(Tri Delta Transit) provides public transportation services to the 225 square mile area in Eastern Contra Costa County including the cities of Antioch,Brentwood, Oakley,and Pittsburg and unincorporated areas of East County. ➢ Equipment: 38 fixed route buses - all equipped with wheel chairs lifts &bicycle racks -most can"kneel"to lower the first step height closer to the curb - capacity: two wheelchairs 2 regional shuttle buses (Pittsburg—Martinez) -both equipped with wheelchair lifts -capacity: five wheelchairs 16 paratransit vehicles - all equipped with wheelchair lifts - capacity: five wheelchairs 6 commuter coaches (East County—Livermore Valley) - all equipped with wheelchair lifts&bicycle racks - capacity: two wheelchairs 2 supervisor vehicles -both equipped with wheelchair lifts - capacity: five wheelchairs ➢ Types of service: 1. Traditional fixed route service Monday—Friday(3:49am— 1:l4am) Saturdays (5:5 lam—2:04am) Sundays &Holidays(6:51 am—2:04am) 2. Subscription commuter service to Livermore Valley(beginning 7/3/00) 3. Shuttle service from Contra Costa County health Clinic to Merrithew hospital Operates Monday—Friday 8:00am—5:00pm 4. Para,trransit Service("Dial-a-Ride") a.)ADA-Service(for ADA-certified individuals)Operates the same hours as fixed route service for trips within Y4 mile of fixed route service. Individuals pay when they tape the trip can call up to three days in advance for reservations. b.) Subscription Service(for ADA-certified individuals making recurring ADA-eligible trips) Operates the same hours as fixed route. Passengers pre-pay one month at a time and do not have to call for reservations. c.) Senior and Disabled Service(for individuals 65 and over and non-ADA eligible disabled individuals who have attended a travel-training class) Operates Monday—Friday 6:30am—5:30pm, Saturday 10:00am 5:30pm) 5. Antioch Senior Bus. Operated by the City of Antioch in conjunction with Tri Delta Transit for seniors traveling within Antioch city limits. 6. Brentwood Dunes-a-Ride.Flag-stop circulator service in the City of Brentwood with fares subsidized by the City of Brentwood. 1 ➢ Policies Effecting Disabled Passengers: Fixed Route: • Full bus policy: If all wheelchair spots on a fixed route bus are full, a supervisor van is dispatched to transport the wheelchair passenger and companions to their destination. • Fares: Disabled persons(with a Regional Transit Discount Card)pay 25cents. Personal care attendants ride free • Stops: The driver announces all major intersections and transfer locations. • Lifts: Wheelchair lifts are deployed whenever requested(for individuals who cannot walk up stairs) Paratransit Dial-a-Ride: • Reservations: can be made up to three days in advance • Service: Door-to-door service with package assistance offered if requested • Companions: One personal care attendant may ride at no charge and companions may ride at the same rate as the Dial-a-Ride passengers. • Fares: range from 60cents to $1.50 depending on distance traveled. ➢ Regional Transportation: For an individual traveling from East County to other locations: Non-Disabled: -Fixed route bus,transfer to BART or -Fixed route bus,transfer to County Connection at a shared stop in East County or Martinez Disabled: If they are able to use fixed route service: Fixed route bus,transfer to BART or transfer to County Connection at a shared stop in East County or Martinez If they are unable to use fixed route service: Dial-a-Ride to North Concord BART,transfer to County Connection ECCTA Board of Directors City of Antioch Mayor Mary Rocha Council member Manny Soliz City of Brentwood Former mayor/council member Barbara Guise Police Chief Larry Shaw City of Oakley Council member Jeff Huffaker Council member Carol Rios City of Pittsburg Mayor Lori Anzini Council member Frank Quesada* Contra Costa Former Pittsburg council member Mary Erbez County Former Antioch council member Barney Parsons Member-at-large Former fire chief Joe Tovar** * Frank Quesada:FY 1999-00 ECCTA Chair,Board of Directors **Joe Tovar: FY 1999-00 ECCTA Vice-Chair,Board of Directors 2 E Responses to Transportation, Water, And Infrastructure Committee questions: 1. If sufficient funding were available,what changes should occur to make paratransit services better and more seamless to the user's ➢ More equipment to operate more service ➢ Automatic Vehicle Locator systems ➢ Mobile Data Terminals ➢ Two possibilities would be viable in East County: 1. No transfers on trips within Contra Costa County. The operator where the trip originates completes the whole trip. The return ride is provided by the operator where the return trip originates. Establish three transfer locations for trips outside Contra Costa County: 'West County(for trips in the I-80 corridor), Orinda(for trips beyond the Caldecott Tunnel), and San Ramon(for trips to the Livermore Valley). This service would be very costly in terms on cost per passenger and passengers per hour. It would also require additional equipment and personnel. 2. Accessible subsidized taxi system for regional trips. An accessible taxi is a low-profile van with a ramp,conventional van with a lift, or a modified taxi with a ramp and raised roof. Accessible taxis may be purchased by a public entity and leased to taxi companies or purchased directly by the taxi companies. Frequently,]the public entity subsidizes use of taxis by eligible paratransit riders. (examples: San Francisco, Benicia, Los Angeles,Boston, and Ottowa) ➢ An additional possibility that would require more staff time and result in some local policies being changed is: 1. One Paratransit Agency operates all paratransit systems in Contra Costa County. Currently each region has different policies about eligibility, fares, and service hours. These policies were set in response to the needs of the local communities but would have to become the same if one agency were to operate the paratransit service for the whole county. 2. Are there other paratransit models in practice elsewhere that may have an application in the county? ➢ Accessible taxi system used in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Benicia, Boston, and Ottawa. ➢ Service route system is Boras Sweden that is designed to bring fixed-route buses as close as possible to the residences and destinations of the target population to minimize walking distances. 3 3. Does further privatization or contracting-out of paratransit services have merit in the county? .All operators currently operate privatized paratransit service. An accessible taxi program would benefit our disabled population. 4. To what extent are transfers from paratransit to fixed route taking place now and how can famed-route and rail system operators better accommodate the need of the paratransit population? * Transfers are minimal. Most people who use paratransit service cannot, because of their disability,use fixed route service. * To better accommodate disabled individuals desiring access to the fixed route system: -route deviation system to get fixed route buses closer to homes - automatic information and communication technologies -bus identifier kits for visually impaired -more funding for more extensive travel training programs - accessible taxis - facilitated travel program(An escort travels with a disabled person until they are familiar with the fixed route system) -more trip planning services - low floor buses - safe, well-lit buss stops and transfer locations * To better accommodate disabled individuals desiring access to the fixed route system, our city and county planning departments can: -require bus pullouts in all new subdivisions - install curb cuts in older sections -require good pedestrian access to major arterials when planning new commercial and residential development 5. Can the faith community become more involved in providing transportation assistance to the paratransit population,similar to the"Drive a Friend Program" in Miami? In East County, the faith community is as active as possible given the financial requirements to own, operate, and maintain equipment. Most do not have wheelchair lifts nor do they have drivers who are trained to deal with disabled individuals. 4 The Board of Supervisors �����-� John Sweeten Clerk of the Board and County Administration BuildingCosta County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553-1293 ounty t925)335-190D John Gioia,1st District Gayle B.Ullkema,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District i Federal D.Glover,5th District Donald P. Freitas, Chair r, March 4,2003 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk.Avenge, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Dear Chair Freitas: I am responding to your January 6`l' letter regarding funding issues related to the paratransit study requested by the County. The County is prepared to participate as a funding partner in the study. The characteristics of paratransit service delivery are such that the geographic scope of the study must be countywide. Given this, we propose that our financial participation be ;through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees, or through the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) in conjunction with the other jurisdictions benefiting from the study. I have some additional funding concepts below for the Authority to consider. The Board shares the Authority's concern for using scarce paratransit funds to fund this study. Since the information produced by the study can be used to help reauthorize Measure C, the Board requests that the Authority consider providing additional funds for this study using the funding source used for the Measure C reauthorization activities in order to preserve the vital service that would be provided by paratransit funds. In considering this option the Authority should bear in mind that the last significant study on paratransit in this county was completed over 12 years ago. A study examining alternative administrative arrangements would serve as an example of the Authority's efforts to ensure that the sales tax dollars are being spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. The Authority should consider a study scope that will produce implementation steps to be referred to in the new Measure C as a pledge to the voters that the funds will be spent responsibly. This is especially critical given that a request to increase paratransit funding is anticipated. Your request letter has raised several questions at the County. Previously, the';Authority has funded studies from the appropriate project/program category or from countywide revenues such as the CMA budget. This funding request seems to be a departure from this practice. Furthermore, to request funding contributions for a countywide study solely from the jurisdiction that identifies the need for the study is, in our view, inappropriate. At the December 18'h Authority meeting and in the January 6'h letter paratransit is referred to as a "social service" and it was suggested that the County has "significant responsibilities" in this area. Viewing paratransit as a social service is a misperception. Paratransit is a;transportation issue, specifically a public transit service. Given the shortage of transportation services for the elderly and disabled, a variety of public and private agencies, including the County, are forced to provide transportation services to fill the gaps. Mr.Donald P.Freitas Letter March 4,2003 Page 2 The County has been forced to use very scarce funds and staff resources to address the deficiencies in service. County efforts have included working with the transit agencies and providing local match for Low income Flexible Transportation grants, CalWORKS children's transportation efforts and many other projects and programs. However, this situation does not shift the primary responsibility of providing transit service away from the principal service providers and the OCTA, a key countywide transportation planning and funding agency, nor should this be the desired effect. Forcing reluctant agencies to provide transportation services that are not, by design, structured to provide these services, results in inefficient, fragmented service. By suggesting that the Authority and transit providers have limited responsibilities in this area serves to perpetuate this inefficient structure! The Board of Supervisors thanks you for following up with us on this important matter. We applaud your efforts to work with MTC in addressing paratransit issues, a facet of transportation planning that is frequently neglected. We sincerely hope the inspiring attitude of Jeanne Kreig, General Manager of Tri-Delta Transit will be the defining approach to this study: One of the great things about our industry is the contagious enthusiasm our members have for trying new products, trying new ways of doing things and looking for better ways to conduct business. (Transit California Magazine April 2002) Please call me if you have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, Mark DeSaulnier,Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors MD/jc:mk cc: Members,Board of Supervisors Gerald Sharrock,President-Advisory Council on Aging Members,PCC c/o Bill Liskamrn Members,Senior/Disabled Stakeholders for Measure C Members,Regional Transportation Planning Committees