HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03162004 - C.14 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS g L
_ Contra
FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee •;� `:
. � Costa
(Supervisor Millie Greenberg, Chair) °� j, --�
o_s County
oe/#'DATE: March 8, 2004 COU
SUBJECT: Contra Costa Paratransit Improvement Study&Options for the Reauthorization of Measure C
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
SUPPORT the comments on the Contra Costa Paratransit Improvement Study and
Measure C related issues as recommended by the Transportation, Water and
Infrastructure Committee; and AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board to sign a letter(Exhibit
A)transmitting these comments to the Chair of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority(CCTA) contracted with the IBI Group in 2003
to conduct the Contra Costa Paratransit Improvement Study. The Authority initiated this
study at the request of the Board of Supervisors and other interested parties. CCTA and
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission funded the study. The original completion
date for the study was January but was extended by CCTA to March 2004.
The Committee has received periodic reports on the progress of the study and on March
Stn discussed the Draft Final Report and Action PlanExhibit B . At this meeting( } g the
Committee developed comments on the study and how the recommendations in the study
could be effectively implemented by relating them to the current Measure C reauthorization
effort. The Committee recommends the Board of Supervisors transmit the attached
comments (Exhibit A) to the CCTA.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR =RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
mow
SIGNATURE (S): Su ervisor Millie Greenber ervis ale . Uilkema
ACTION OF BOARD ON march 16, 2004 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS ABSENT Now 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 Cunningham (925/335=1243)
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED march 16, 2004
Rick Ramacier, CCCTA JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF
Advisory Council on Aging THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BYtiz.-YbEPUTY
GATransportation\Board Orders&Green ies120041paratransit measure c.doc 0
March 16, 2004
The Honorable Amy Worth, Chair
CC Transportation Authority
3478 Buskirk Ave#100
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
Dear Chair Worth,
On March 16, 2004, the Board of Supervisors discussed the Draft Final Paratransit Improvement Study
and how the recommendations in the study could be addressed in the reauthorization of Measure C. The
Board authorized me to forward our comments to the Authority. This letter summarizes our comments.
The Board finds a number of the recommendations in the draft study encouraging,but believes that steps
should be taken to ensure implementation. It is our o�inion that Measure C.represents an excellent
opportunity to make some positive changes in the provision of paratransit, and an promising start in
positioning the county to respond to the impending increase in demand for services directed to seniors and
persons with disabilities.
The Board embraces the findings in the study and proposes that the recommendations be implemented in
a reauthorized Measure C as a part of a"Paratransit Improvement Program". The funding of these specific
recommendations would be in addition to funding for paratransit operations. Funding of this
recommendation would be minimal and would ensure the Measure C funds provided for operations will
be spent cost effectively.
The following are the recommendations that the Board finds most promising along with comments that
are intended to ensure that the recommendations are implemented and effective:
1. Develop a Comprehensive Technology Plan (Recommendation 7.3): Funding for implementation
and ongoing staffing, support and maintenance of this program needs to be provided. We are aware
that the consultant highlighted this need during discussions with the Technical Advisory Committee
but neglected to include it in the Draft Final Report and Action Plan.
2. Integrating Sedans into the Fleet Mix (Recommendation 7.1.1): Funding could be made available
in a reauthorized Measure C to subsidize the purchase of sedans by transportation providers.
3. Establish a Coordination/Mobility Manager Function (Recommendation 7.6): This
recommendation is promising in that it represents the beginnings of increased expansion of
coordination activities. As the senior and disabled populations grow,these types of activities will be
necessary if not compulsory. Given the likely demands placed on this function during the life of a
reauthorized Measure C. the Board believes that the funding burden listed in the study is an
underestimate.
4. Establish an Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation (ACAT) (Recommendation
7.7): This committee is an excellent candidate to oversee the implementation and long-term
responsibility for the plan's recommendations. Considering the changes that are to occur in the
paratransit landscape during the life of the Measure, this Committee will need a budget for planning
activities. The composition of this committee should be structured to include, at a minimum,
representatives from the operators, and appointees from the regional transportation planning
committees.
Other considerations to take into account to ensure effectiveness and implementation of the
aforementioned recommendations:
5. Cost Survey: A cost survey should be done to verify and provide greater detail on the amount of
funding needed to implement the recommendations found in the study and discussed above.
6. Long-Term Relevance: The recommendations of the study must be relevant during the life of a
reauthorized Measure C. It is the Board's suggestion that the study and the recommendations be
amended and/or updated as appropriate by the ACAT or its functional equivalent.
In regards to the amount of paratransit operations funds that should be allocated in a reauthorized Measure
C, it is the Board's opinion that paratransit operations should be funded at a level greater than what is
currently being provided. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority(OCTA)may also wish to consider
making paratransit operations funding available to transportation providers' subject to their participation
on ACAT and in.the implementatation of the recommendations in the Paratransit Study.
It is the Board's hope that our suggestions can,generate some discussion on this matter so that a well-
planned, effective approach to address paratransit issues may be developed for inclusion in a reauthorized
Measure C.
The Board of Supervisors commends the CCTA for their proactive role in addressing paratransit issues by
sponsoring and conducting the paratransit study. It is precisely because of this effort that we, as a county,
can now begin to take a strategic approach to addressing transportation issues for seniors and persons with
disabilities in the reauthorization of Measure C.
Sincerely,
Federal D. Glover, Chair
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
c: Members,PCC
Advisory Council on Aging
EXHIBIT B
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
•;-- ___ F _-fir �,• 651 Pine Street,North Wing - 4th Floor
Martinez CA 94553
VAN Al i
�'�•,, ,•ti�4 Telephone: 925 335-1290
sr-�'coUn Fax: (925) 335-1300
F.y.y:.x.:y..'.air•:,: ...:r:.i:.y.}.,>y.,.......
x::::::::p::.fiY:n4lr::::::::.:J:::l$+°}:::YFi$f•.-Zi.:4:<wY$l.J:•4Y/.,5:05J+Y$'l.>:
TO: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
FROM: John Cunningham, Transportation Planning Division
DATE: March 3, 2004
SUBJECT: Update on Paratransit Issues: Contra Costa County Paratransit Improvement Study
:.:::..:
:.. .......
...:r.:•}:a}}}•?Y..l::: i :..:iiYi:Y:$$:o"•<{:vii.•i.^:n:..::}.':::::.:..nr•: N:4n:i:•:vY'•'-x<,J,t:::":f..:v:Y:aairiti,vv:..: •'••:n::v . :
....:...:............ .....................<...........:..........,......k..,..........R..:..:..:.}...:..nC.ta::::..::r.,•:.vf..,..:,:•i.::..•kE•:,::.:.L3nY:{Y,...::n,.:l.•.:.... n...S<.c..•:f<:,,..:,c.n«....fto.r:a:::.'•:7;•::
Background
Paratransit Improvement Study:The Contra Costa Transportation Authority(OCTA)contracted with the IBI Group in
2003 to conduct the Contra Costa Paratransit Improvement Study.CCTA and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
funded the study. The original completion date for the study was January but was extended by CCTA to March 2004.
Issues/Status
Paratransit Study Issues:
The study is in Final Draft form;the Executive Summary is attached(Exhibit 1).A March 3,2004 County staff comment
letter is also attached(Exhibit 2). A response from CCTA staff(Exhibit 3)to this letter was received just prior to this
report being submitted.
Below are some of the recommendations from the plan that are the most encouraging and may be of interest to the
Committee. If the Committee supports these recommendations,one approach to ensure implementation would be to:
1. Make the implementation of the recommendations a condition for use of Measure C paratransit funds and/or
2. Directly allocate funding to these activities.
Develop a Comprehensive Technology Plan(Recommendation 7.3)
There is significant opportunity in the fact that the major transit operators currently use the same transit software platform.
This-software is used for automated scheduling,dispatching and supporting inter-agency Transfers.This is highlighted in
the study. This presents a large opportunity for"digital coordination"and may perhaps set the stage for the expansion of
coordination activities. This action could be supported via a specific allocation under Measure C. In fact this may be
necessary to ensure implementation. The recommendations list a fiscal impact of $70000, which is likely to be a
substantial underestimate.A survey of similar activities could provide a more accurate estimate.
In addition,an excellent observation from the consultant,which was not included in the report,highlights the fact that you
need substantial ongoing technical staff to maintain and fine-tune the software in order to get the most benefit.Ongoing
funding for a staff position such as this,with a budget for software enhancements,upgrades,and necessary subcontracts
would also benefit from dedicated funding under Measure C.
Initiate Supplemental Taxi/Sedan Service(Recommendation 7.1)
This action has the possibility to result in substantial savings and improvements in service as noted in the study.An option
the Committee may wish to consider is providing dedicated funding through either the current Measure C or in a
reauthorized Measure C to encourage the implementation of this recommendation.
Establish a Coordination/Mobility Manager Function(Recommendation 7.6)
This recommendation is likely to have modest immediate effects on service but is potentially the beginnings of increased
expansion of coordination activities. As the elderly and disabled populations grow, these types of activities will be
necessary if not compulsory. Although its implementation will be difficult since most of these community-based
organizations and transportation providers operate independently.
The anticipated funding demand listed in the plan is unrealistic,substantially underestimating the budget for this activity.A
survey examining similar operations would be useful in obtaining a more accurate funding requirement.
A related event is the establishment of the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility by the
Executive Branch of the Federal Government(Exhibit F).As the elderly and disabled populations grow the expectation is
that the state and federal government will begin to provide either incentives and/or requirements for increased coordination.
Establish an Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation(ACAT)(Recommendation 7.7)
This committee is a possible candidate to oversee further development or implementation of the plan's recommendations.
The composition of this committee should be structured to include professional planning staff including,at a minimum,
representatives from the operators, community based transportation agencies and appointees from the regional
transportation planning committees.
Related Issues
Existing Policy
County staff was recently made aware of existing CCTA policy related to the provision of paratransit service.This policy
affirms CCTA's desire to use Measure C funding to provide transportation services above and beyond the minimum
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is attached here for your information(Exhibit 4)
Contra Costa Paratransit Coordinating Council(PCC)Activities
The PCC, at their March 1"2004 meeting, had reservations regarding the content of the study in that it was not fully
responsive to their previous comments.However,given the late distribution of materials they moved to again ask for more
time to review the document rather than provide a complete set of comments.
The PCC, at their February 23rd meeting; concluded that CCTA's description of paratransit in the Expenditure Plan
alternatives does not provide adequate information on the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities(Exhibit 5). The
PCC-makes the observation that other projects and programs in these alternatives include supporting discussions suggesting
the paratransit topic is being treated inequitably.The PCC suggested some language for inclusion.
Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)Issues
CCTA addresses the looming increase in demand for paratransit in the DEIR for the 2004 Update to the Countywide
Transportation Plan as follows,"A reduced level offunding such as in the first two alternatives(A-Project Focus[3%],B-
Local Focus [5%]) may not allow continuation and expansion of current Transportation Services for the Elderly and
Persons with Disabilities service to the horizon year."
This information,while accurate,is incomplete.In fact,funding even at the"C"level(13%)is not likely to allow for the
"continuation and expansion"of paratransit services.The document should be amended to include this information as well
as to describe the methodology for these determinations being made.Without these changes the unstated suggestion is that
something above 5%may "allow for continuation and expansion"of paratransit services. This is misleading as well as
incorrect.
Attachments
Contact Information
John Cunningham, Senior Transportation Planner
PH: 925-335-1243
FAX: 925-335-1300
EMAIL:jcunn@cd.cccounty.us
cc: Steve Goetz, C D D
Paul Branson, EHSD
Contra Costa AAA c/o Kitty Barnes
PCC c/o Bill Liskamm
Dave Murray, CCTA
GATransportation\TWiC\Packet Information\2004\March\march 04 twi paratransit report.rev.doc
IBI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July 2003 CCTA and MTC selected IBI Group, in association with Nelson/Nygaard and DKS
Associates, to undertake a Paratransit Improvement Study for Contra Costa.The purpose of the
study is to develop a set of prioritized recommendations and action plan to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of the paratransit services in Contra Costa County. Recommendations regarding
coordination with other agencies and non-profit organizations in Contra Costa providing or
supporting services for their clients is also part of the study.
This Executive Summary profiles salient points raised in the respective chapters(reflecting key
project activities or tasks)of the report including:
• ES 1 (Chapter 1) Introduction
• ES 2 (Chapter 2) Profile of Paratransit Operations;
• ES 3 (Chapter 3) Paratransit Consumer and Provider Survey;
• ES.4 (Chapter 4)Analysis of Other Services and Delivery Models and Applicability to
Contra Costa;
• ES 5(Chapter 5) Review of Management Issues;
• ES 6(Chapter 6) Ranking of Proposals for Enhancing the Efficiency and Effectiveness
of Paratransit Services in Contra Costa; and
• ES 7 (Chapter 7)Action Plan (Recommendations).
ES 1-2 Introduction
Elderly individuals and people with disabilities in Contra Costa County are served by a variety of
demand response transportation services (i.e. advanced booked door-to-door or curb-to-curb,
shared ride public transit). Four public ADA operators serve Contra Costa: Western Contra Costa
Transit Authority(WestCAT), Central Contra Costa Transit Authority(County Connection LINK),
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority(Tri Delta Transit)and The East Bay Paratransit Consortium
(EBP), (operated by AC Transit and BART). Public service is also provided both directly and
indirectly, by individual cities, including Richmond, San Pablo, EI Cerrito, Pleasant Hill, San Ramon
and Antioch.A variety of non-profit and private Community-Based Agency Transportation (CBAT)
providers also make service available in certain parts of Contra Costa. These CBATs include
program specific transportation provided by a variety of social service agencies, senior residential
facilities, and faith-based agencies.
The costs of providing paratransit services are increasing. The demand for these services is also
increasing, as a result of population growth,the aging of society, changing settlement patterns, and
other contributing factors. In order to address the future provision of transportation services for
Contra Costa's elderly and disability communities, this Paratransit Improvement Plan presents a
series of recommendations providing for cost-effective and qualitative enhancements for the
provision of ADA, non-ADA and CBAT transportation services.
This study's work program was designed to review the delivery of community transportation
services and identify opportunities for alternate approaches to administration and operations in
February 24,2004 IBI
GROUP
IBI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
order-to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the services provided. Included is the review
and subsequent development of policies and procedures, management strategies, governance/
administration and operative techniques to improve the customer serviced and cost-effectiveness of
paratransit transportation services.
The following guiding principles provide the foundation for the development of service plan
strategies:
• Universal access including an accessible infrastructure;
• Flexible mobility options with a cost-effective mix of accessible shared-ride, public
transportation services; and
• Maximum utility and investment in accessible conventional transit(mobility
management strategies)to encourage a shift from paratransit to conventional public
transit.
S 2: Overview of Paratransit Operations
For the purposes of analysis the services have been divided into three categories:
• Public ADA Paratransit: Four public ADA operators serve Contra Costa County:
WestCAT for Western Contra Costa Transit Authority, County Connection LINK for
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority,Tri Delta Transit for Eastern Contra Costa Transit
Authority and East Bay Paratransit Consortium (EBP)for AC Transit and BART.
• City-based Paratransit: Public service is also provided either directly or indirectly, by
individual cities, including Richmond, San Pablo, EI Cerrito,Antioch, Pleasant Hill and
San Ramon.
• Community-Based Agency Transportation: A variety of non-profit and private
Community-Based Agency Transportation providers (CBAT) make service available in
certain parts of Contra Costa County. These CBAT's include program specific
transportation provided by a variety.of social service agencies, senior residential facilities
and faith based agencies.Although not formally a CBAT provider, the Rossmoor
residential offers a substantial paratransit service to its residents.
Many social service agencies also purchase trips on the public ADA services, often on a regular,
pre-booked subscription basis. Feedback from the operators suggests that this practice is
increasing, putting some pressure on the public ADA providers to maintain their demand response
service to their dial-a-ride ADA registrants. A significant purchaser is the Regional Center of the
East Bay(RCSB). Funded by the State of California Department of Developmental Services, RCEB
serves 11,000 individuals and their families with developmental disabilities in Contra Costa and
Alameda counties(data was not available from RCEB on the proportion of trips accommodated in
Contra Costa County. RCEB was not identified as a local provider in this study due to its private
contracting of transportation and specific funding source (State Department of Developmental
Services), but all of its trips accommodated on public ADA services were included in statistics of
ridership and operating costs.
The 2002 annual one-way trip and cost figures (all trips in the report are one-way)for the public
ADA, non-ADA and CBAT transportation services respectively are shown in Figures ES 2-1, ES 2-2
and ES 2-3.
February 24,2004 Page 2
IBI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Figure ES 2-1 Public ADA Providers-Annual One-Way Trips&Costs
Annual One- Operating
Way Trips Costs 2002
Public ADA Operator 2002 $000 $Ave/Tri
Tri Delta Transit 101,000 $1,834 $18.16
CC LINK 125,000 $2,720 $21.76
W estCAT 662000 $190351 $15.68
EBP(Contra Costa only) 90,000 $39051 $33.90
Total 382,000 $8,640f__$22.62
Figure ES 2-2 City-based non-ADA Providers-Annual One-Way Trips&Costs
Annual One- Operating
City based non-ADA Way Trips Costs 2002
service 2002 $000) $Ave/Tri
Richmond 279000 $358 $13.24
EI Cerrito 51600 $62 $10.98
San Pablo 17200 $51 $42.42
Pleasant Hill 11400 $7 $4.71
San Ramon 49300 $11 $2.53
TOTAL 3995001 $488 $12.34
Figure ES 2-3 CBAT Providers Annual One-Way Trips and Costs
Community Based I Annual One- Operating
Agency Way Trips Costs 2002
Transportation 2002 $000 $Ave/Tri
Las Trampas,Inc. 41800 $50 $10.42
CC ARC dba CAP-Concord 500 $37 n.a.
CC ARC dba CAP-Antioch 500 $32 n.a.
CC ARC Inroads 421900 $58 $1.35
CC ARC CAP-Hilltop 10,100 $41 $4.10
Monument Crisis Center 5,200 $30 $5.77
Guardian ADHC 30,200 $119 $3.93
TOTAL 949200 $367 $3.90
February 24,2004 Page 3
IBI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
ES 3: Paratransit Consumer and Provider Survey
Survey research and consultation was an important element of this study process. The former
included the design and administration of consumer surveys including a telephone survey and on
board survey. The consultation component included a series of focus group and workshop
sessions. These sessions included representation from:
• Consumers;
• Operating agencies; and
• Agencies and organizations representing the elderly and disability communities.
The findings from the consumer surveys suggest:
• A high proportion of senior registrants and users;
• A high proportion of inactive paratransit registrants;
• Limited use of fixed route and non-ADA paratransit by ADA paratransit registrants; and
• A relatively high degree of user satisfaction with the quality of ADA paratransit service
in Contra Costa County.
,The purpose of the focus group and workshop sessions was to: (a)complement the telephone and
onboard consumer surveys with a more in-depth set of insights from users of services; (b)meet with
officials of the operating agencies to discuss management issues and solutions or opportunities;
and (c)to get a better understanding for the needs and requirements from representatives from
agencies and organizations representing the elderly and disability communities. Discussion with
the former also included further exploration of opportunities around the coordination of community-
based services or resources.
ES 4: Analysis ofOther Services and Delivery Models
The difficulties encountered in providing cost-efficient and effective paratransit services, such as
both the ADA and non-ADA paratransit services in Contra Costa, are causing transit agencies
throughout North America to review their arrangements for service provision. A review of industry
practices suggests that:
• Financial pressures have historically encouraged many transit agencies to seek an
expanded role for the private sector in paratransit provision specifically in the area of
supplemental sedan or taxi service.
• Rising demand has increased the use of multiple.private operators, while there is a
decreased use of non-profit providers in the industry.
• The implementation of various demand management strategies including travel
training, free-fare programs, etc. have typically resulted in some"off-loading"of
demand from the paratransit services to accessible fixed-route transit. Also of interest
are anecdotal reports suggesting that there is a marginal increase in trip generation
rates by older adults and persons with disabilities. That is, in addition to some"off-
loading"of demand, additional trips are being taken on fixed-route transit.
February 24,2004 Page 4
IBI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
• The use of coordinated paratransit service delivery programs appears to be primarily
limited to smaller transit agencies.
• Notwithstanding the fact that many municipalities contract all or a portion of their
paratransit services to the private sector,there is a growing tendency to bring some of
the program responsibilities in-house.
Transit agencies are continuing to evolve their methodology for providing paratransit services.
There is a growing tendency for municipal transit operations to assume operation of core services,
namely wheelchair accessible van or bus services and contract.out supplemental services such as
sedan, taxi or accessible taxi services. Cost and accountability are the major factors driving
decisions about paratransit service delivery methods.
Applicability to Contra Costa
The Literature Search and the analysis of other services and delivery models, provided insight into
opportunities applicable to Contra Costa. Such opportunities address: coordination of existing
transportation resources and ancillary considerations including information referral and joint
planning; alternate delivery models including the use of supplemental sedan services; eligibility and
certification; and other demand management strategies.
In determining the applicability of other services and delivery models to the operating environment
in Contra Costa County, a range of governance models(administration, service delivery and
coordination models)addressing the delivery of paratransit services were reviewed. The models
were typically structured around the operations and service areas of the fixed-route services.
The lessons learned from these models coupled with outcomes from the survey research and
consultation with consumers, agencies and organizations,the operating agencies, and members of
the Technical Advisory Committee and the Paratransit Coordinating Council form the foundation for
the development of opportunities for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of paratransit
services in Contra Costa County.
S 5: Review of Management Issues
The following challenges, related to the management and operation of paratransit services,were
identified in the provider surveys, and agency and consumer consultation:
• There may be increased expectations for mobility by older adults who will be wealthier
and better educated.
• Lower density settlement patterns generate longer trip distances, more limited
opportunities for ride sharing, lower trip densities, and perhaps relatively lower
numbers of inter-agency transfers.
• The operators have experienced significant rising costs, including capital and operating
costs, and face limited funding resources and opportunities. Labor is the principal cost
factor impacting rising costs, with insurance costs also significant. There has been no
direct linkage between the allocation of funding and the rates of increase in demand.
• Redundant/duplicative services exist, including ADA and non-ADA services, human
service and agency-specific transportation services. These include client-specific
programs, such as dialysis and adult day health care rehabilitation programs, some of
which are also accommodated on public services as subscription trips.
February 24,2004 Page 5
IBI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
• Consumer expectations for service quality are expected to rise, including affordability,
minimizing trip refusals, on-time performance, readily available information/
communications (including for use of accessible fixed route transit and BART), and
simplification of regional travel/inter-agency travel (elimination of longer advance-
booking requirement, and the precarious position with trip confirmations).
• Consistency in policies and procedures among operators is desirable including
scheduling procedures including 30-minute(pick-up)window, advance booking
requirement, and subscription rules.
• Inter-agency transfers account for less than seven percent of all ADA paratransit trips.
While the number of transfers is relatively small, there are opportunities to better meet
customer needs through the possible automation of existing processes in the booking,
scheduling and confirming transfer trip requests.
Operating data was available to enable a comparison of the Contra Costa and other nine-county
Bay Area ADA providers. On the key indicators, (such as cost per trip or cost per hour)Contra
Costa's providers are close to or even below the regional averages. While performance is in-line
with Bay Area averages,the larger undercurrent in future planning for operating dosts and budgets
is the high rate of growth of operating costs,with labor being the key driving factor.
In the longer term, more extensive trip lengths due to increasing suburbanization and more limited
provision of major social and health activity centers may impact negatively on operating efficiencies
and costs. These are major structural trends being experienced nationally, not just in Contra Costa
County, but are not purely a given, in planning for future demands and needs. There are a variety of
options for strategies that can play a part in containing these costs;these are the subject of the
evaluation and recommendations sections of the report.
FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
Approximately$10.8 million is currently spent annually on public ADA paratransit services and
locally supported city-based non ADA services in Contra Costa County. Of this,the core
expenditure is the$8.6 million incurred on operating the public ADA services(This includes the
proportion of East Bay Paratransit Consortium service in Contra Costa County).A little under$0.5
million is incurred in operating the city-based non-ADA service and just under$0.4 million by the
CBAT providers identified in the study.
Most of the current funding for operating ADA service is from federal and state sources-54% in
2001-02 and 52% in 2002-03. Fares account for less than 10% of total income, in line with the
experience of ADA operators across the country. Measure C funds are applied at varying levels
across each operator but in total account currently for approximately one quarter of the total
funding. The funds are drawn from 2.97% of the annual total available Measure C and allocated to
paratransit on a population-based formula (the rate was adjusted upwards from 2.9%after review in
2001).
ES 6: Ranking of Proposals for Enhancing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of
x
Paratransit Services) in Contra Costa
The identification of issues from a multitude of sources including consumers(surveys and Focus
Group discussions), paratransit officials and representatives from various agencies and
organizations representing the elderly and disability communities, set the foundation for the
development of these conceptual alternatives and strategies or opportunities.
February 24,2004 Page 6
IBI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
THE RANGE OF PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES AND STRATEGIES
In response to the key issues identified in Chapter 5,two paratransit service management models
and a series of individual service strategies have been developed for evaluation and consideration.
The service management models include a Decentralized Model and a Centralized Model. The
management models determine-a general framework for the administration and delivery of
paratransit.programs,while the service strategies affect more specific service policies and
operations. The proposed service strategies provide a"toolbox"of ideas for the improvement of
paratransit service efficiency and quality in Contra Costa. They offer an integrated approach to
meeting the current and future mobility needs of persons with disabilities and seniors in Contra
Costa. The"toolbox"can serve as a menu of short term and longer-term strategies that the
individual agencies can choose from in relation to their resources and what might be operationally
or politically feasible within their service area. Many of the following service strategies have
applicability in both a Decentralized and Centralized Models.
Figure ES 6-1 provides a comparative assessment of the Decentralized and Centralized Paratransit
Management Models. Figure 6-2 provides a summary of the individual services strategies and a
comparative assessment listing advantages and constraints.
Figure ES 6-1 Comparative Assessment of the Decentralized and Centralized Paratransit
Management Models
Decentralized Model Centralized Model
More responsive and accountable Efficiencies through the
over eligibility policy,fare policy, consolidation of management
Advantages service policies and service positions,facility requirements, and
parameters. the procurement of vehicles,
scheduling and communications
Closer integration with local agency technology and contracted services.
fixed route transit services.
Regional standardization of
Encourages shorter distant trips. eligibility policy,fare policy,service
policies and service parameters—
Greater potential for higher seamless regional travel.
productivity.
Elimination of inter-agency transfers
EBP registrants living in ESP's for regional travel within Contra
Coritra Costa service area do not Costa.
require transfers to and from
destinations in Berkeley, Oakland
and beyond.
Disadvantages Although marginal, additional costs Loss of direct, local accountability
related to some duplication in over eligibility policy,fare policy,
management positions and facility service policies and service
space as well as smaller scale, parameters—need to standardize
independent procurements by policies and operating parameters.
independent agencies.
Less potential for the close
Inter-agency transfers required for integration with local fixed route
February 24,2004 Page 7
1131 GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Decentralized Model Centralized Model
regional trips within Contra Costa. transit services•-unless these are
also centralized under a single
Eligibility,fares, service policies and entity.
service parameters vary throughout
Contra Costa. By eliminating the need to transfer,
the average trip distance could
increase-overall service
productivity could decrease and
additional service hours may be
required to provide basic ADA
capacity.
Contra Costa residents currently
residing in the EBP service area
would require inter-agency transfers
for trips into EBP's Alameda county
service area.
EBP's relative administrative
overhead costs could increase with
the loss of the Contra Costa
ridership market.
Figure ES 6-2 Comparative Assessment of the Service Improvement Strategies
Strategy Advantages Constraints
Integrating Sedans • Typically less expensive cost More problematic for those who
into the Fleet Mix per trip use a mobility aid
• Less expensive capital (vehicle • Possible labor relation
purchase) requirements implications
• Additional transport option,
freeing-up capacity on
paratransit vehicles
• May apply to both ADA and
non-ADA paratransit services
(and those CBAT that provide
their own transportation)
Supplemental Taxi • Typically less expensive cost • Need to create business
Services per trip opportunity for professional taxi
• No capital requirement service, ensure financially viable
• Greater flexibility-purchase Taxi industry often unfamiliar
only service as required and with needs of persons with a
greater potential to satisfy disability
customer preferred travel times • Additional administrative burden:
• Business opportunity for private o developing terms&
sector participation conditions of contract
February 24,2004 Page 8
IBI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1 MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Strategy Advantages Constraints
• Additional transport option, o training
freeing-up capacity on o contract monitoring
paratransit vehicles (service quality)
• May apply to both ADA and • Possible regulatory constraints
non-ADA paratransit services such as limited taxi licenses or
(and CBAT applications for provision for accessible taxis
client transport) • Possible labor relation
implications
• More problematic for those who
use a mobility aid
• Potential oversight and audit
problems
Separate Operating 0 Eliminate the need for inter • Duplicative administrative,
Entity to Coordinate agency transfers , operating&service delivery
Transfers • Greater probability that trip framework at an additional cost
request would be confirmed in • Fragment the market, detracting
real-time from the ability for ride sharing
on the local services
• Detract from further integration
with fixed-route transit(&BART)
Taxi Scrip . Typically less expensive cost • Additional administrative burden
per trip in program management
• No capital requirement . Abuse can be difficult to audit
• Greater flexibility—purchase and control
only service as required . Often viewed as"Income
• Business opportunity for private supplement"rather than
sector participation transportation
• Additional transport option, 0 Fragment the market, detracting
freeing-up capacity on from the ability for ride sharing
paratransit vehicles
• May apply to both ADA and
non-ADA paratransit services
(and CBAT applications for
client transport)
• Flexibility in determining level of
transportation subsidy to be
provided—different agencies
can provide different levels of
subsidy
February 24,2004 Page 9
IBI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Strategy Advantages Constraints
Standardize Policies Formalize use of scheduling window(15 min. before and 15 minutes after a
Regarding Scheduling scheduled pick-up time)
Parameters
• Scheduling window provides for • Scheduling windows viewed as
greater flexibility to an inconvenience by some
accommodate trip insertions in consumers(having to be"ready"
response to cancellations& no- for up to 30 minutes—15 min.
shows before & 15 min. after scheduled
pick-up time)
Use of"calculated"overbooking of service
• Maximize use of transport • Need to establish overbooking
resources in addressing parameters based on historical
unproductive time as a result of data and trends
cancellations and no-shows . Problematic if available capacity
• Able to use supplemental taxi (through cancellations)does not
contract as"capacity insurance" happen
Automate Scheduling e Enable trip confirmations in • Technical risk in that the ADA
of Inter Agency real-time paratransit agency's scheduling
Transfers 0 Reduced administrative burden software currently not set-up for
(currently had write&fax inter this capability
agency trip requests)
Allocate a Dedicated . Enable real-time trip Some redundancy in .
Fleet of Vehicles for confirmations administrative and operational
Inter Agency 0 Shorter travel times for overhead
Transfers—providing consumers(not having to • Fragment the market, detracting
direct intra and inter transfer) from the ability for ride sharing
county transportation on the local services
• Detract from further integration
with fixed-route transit(&BART)
• Increased deadheading (non-
revenue miles)when providing
service outside of"home"
service area
Adherence to . A demand management 0 Perceived as degradation in
Minimum ADA strategy—control demand (for service
Service Area those services currently
Requirement provided beyond ADA service
area)
February 24,2004 Page 10
IBI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Strategy Advantages Constraints
Lifeline Transit 0 Provides public transit for entire Additional work is required in the
Service community in rural &low- development of service
(including joint-use of density(urban) areas of Contra standards and
resources) Costa operational/service planning
• Effective use of agencies
transportation resources
Demand • Able to provide cost-effective Community expectations of
Management mobility options for elderly and demand responsive paratransit
Strategies disability communities may make it difficult to
(opportunities to • Maximize use of accessible encourage the use of
change the relative fixed-route transit and alternatives such as fixed route
attractiveness of infrastructure (for some people, possible for
fixed-route transit, Preserve the integrity of ADA some of their trips)
including BART) (and non-ADA) paratransit for
those with little or no
alternatives
Coordination of . Reduce or eliminate duplication • Initially, additional administrative
Community-Based or redundancy in community burden in establishing Mobility
Agency transportation services Manager
Transportation • Maximize the use of Agencies may be reluctant to
community-based relinquish direct control of their
transportation resources services and funding.
• Provides a framework for the
future participation of ADA and
non-ADA paratransit providers
• Provides a framework to
address ancillary
considerations'including shared
planning, travel training,joint
procurement, etc.
At this time,the consulting team recommends the continued delivery of ADA paratransit services in
Contra Costa under the current Decentralized Model. There are greater gains to be made through
the implementation of the various service strategies(Figure ES 6-2)than through dramatic changes
to the way paratransit services are administered and delivered in Contra Costa (Figure ES 6-1).
Under the current model, improvements to service efficiency and service quality are possible
through the implementation of selected elements from the following "toolbox"of service strategies.
However,through time,there may be more advantage to the centralization of ADA paratransit
services if fixed route transit in Contra Costa or the broader region is consolidated under a single
agency.
ES 7: Action Plan (Recommendations)
This section presents study recommendations. They address administrative, operations and
service delivery for the public ADA, non-ADA paratransit and community-based agency
February 24,2004 Page 11
IBI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
transportation. The Action Pian provides a menu of short term and longer-term strategies that the
individual agencies can choose from in relation to their resources and what might be operationally
or politically feasible within their service area.
The menu of recommendations is:
• Use of sedans and supplemental taxi services;
• Standardized trip scheduling parameters;
• Automated scheduling of inter-agency transfers(and the need for the preparation of a
Technology Plan);
• Adherence to minimum ADA service area requirement;
• Lifeline services beyond ADA service area including the joint use of vehicles;
• Demand management strategies;
• Coordination of community-based agency transportation (mobility manager); and
• Advisory input on accessible transportation.
The recommendations are designed to:
• Preserve the integrity of paratransit(both ADA and non-ADA)services for individuals
with a disability who are unable to use accessible conventional transit;
• Maximize the utility of the investments made by the respective transit agencies in
accessible conventional transit and accompanying infrastructure;
• Provide flexible mobility options for the County's elderly and disability communities with
a cost-effective mix of accessible shared-ride public transportation services; and
• Recognize the legislative requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA).
From a public policy perspective, a key goal is to integrate as many persons with disabilities as
possible in all aspects of public life.
It is important to identify potential improvements in meeting fiscally responsible mandates in the
delivery of paratransit services --demand management measures. These measures are intended
to ensure adequate customer and revenue volume for services, or to divert demand from more
costly to less costly services using incentives, information, and other voluntary measures.To
accomplish this, there exists a vast range of what in essence are opportunities to change the
relative attractiveness of accessible fixed route transit services.
Key Findings
Combined with the guiding principles identified above are a number of key findings that have
formed the foundation for the in development of the recommendations. The key findings are:
• There is a high level of customer satisfaction with the delivery of the public ADA
paratransit services.
February 24,2004 Page 12
IBI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
• The current costs for the public ADA paratransit services.are in-line with regional
average figures for key characteristics including cost per trip and cost per mile.
• Inter-agency transfers account for less than seven percent of all ADA paratransit trips.
It is recognized that governance strategies targeting transfers may detract from
efficiencies in the delivery of the other ninety-three percent of trips that are.more local
in nature. Opportunities do exist however to better automate existing processes in the
booking, scheduling and confirming transfer trip requests.
• A number of community-based agency transportation services are being provided or
required for program clients. There are opportunities to better coordinate the operation
and delivery of these services.
• A number of issues have emerged including:
Growth/demand (doubling of demand over the next 20 years);
Settlement patterns;
Rising costs; and
Legislative compliance.
Recommended Service Improvement Strategies
A summary of the recommended service improvement strategies is presented in Figure ES 7-1.
A summary of the recommendations are presented below in Table 7-1, Summary of Paratransit
Improvement Recommendation. Included in the table are the individual recommendations,the
tasks or actions that are necessary to implement each recommendation, the impact of the
recommendation on current paratransit operations and/or the cost benefit that will result from the
recommendation and the timeframe for implementation.
Figure ES 7-1 Summary of Paratransit Improvement Recommendations
Recommendation
CategoTask 1 Action Impact Target Date
7.1 Supplemental i) Initiate discussions with vehicle- 5%of trips @ 20% less i) May`04
Taxi/Sedan Services for-hire industry& regulatory cost/trip
bodies savings$223.5k/year
(based on 2025 trip ii)Sept. `04
ii) Develop service standards& volumes)
parameters for use of taxis/sedans
7.2 Standardize Formalize use of 30 minute Increased opportunity to do Sept. `04
Scheduling Parameters scheduling window and trip insertions&greater ride
communicate to customers sharing
• Increased productivity&
more service available to
registrants.
• 30 min.window may be
perceived problematic to
some.
July Dec.
7.3 Technology Plan CCTA or designate assume • Automate inter-agency trip Juy
primary responsibility for the requests `04
conduct of a comprehensive Real-time trip confirmations
technology plan to address Other ITS applications for
Intelligent Transportation System enhanced efficiencies
February 24,2004 Page 13
!BI GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Recommendation
Cate. o Task/Action- Impact Target Date
(ITS) applications for paratransit in • 3rd party to undertake
general and address inter-agency Paratransit Technology
travel specifically. Plan: approx. $70k
7.4 Joint Use of The public transit agencies 0 Public transit in areas Sept. `04
Vehicles develop service standards and otherwise unserved
undertake service planning . Efficiency gains with
general public¶transit
customers sharing
resources
• Administrative burden
• 3rd party develop service
Ian: approx. $50k.
Demand Management Strategies
7.5.1 Travel Training CCTA or designate explore 0 Administrative burden: Sept. `04
opportunities to partner with $75k/year
community-based organizations 0 Transit fares/passes:
in the development and $60k/year
administration of a county wide • Total costs:app�ox. $135k I
travel training program for Contra year
Costa's elderly and disability 0 Benefits:
community. 0 Potential savings: $150k/
year
Paratransit services shall be • Additional transport options
provided on an interim or for elderly&disabled
temporary basis for some • Facilitates spontaneous
applicants to assist in- travel
transitioning to fixed-route transit . Enhanced integration
services.
Free transit passes shall be
made available for participants of
the travel-training program.
7.5.2 Fare Incentive i) MOU with participating Economic incentive for i)Sept.`04
Program agencies paratransit customers
• Potential cost savings for
ii) Free fare policy for regional/ paratransit agencies ii)Jan. 05
inter-a enc travel
7.6 Coordination/ i) Convene Working Group: with Administrative burden/resource i)June `04
Mobility Manager community-based agencies/ requirements: $40-$60k
Function organizations and transportation
providers
ii) Designate administrative body ii)Sept. `04
&prepare Business Plan
ii) Develop needs&resource iii)Jan. `05
database
February 24,2004 Page 14
181 GROUP DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1 MTC
CONTRA COSTA PARATRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Recommendation Task J Action Impact Target Bate
Category
7.7 Advisory Committee CCTA or designate facilitate the Administrative burden/resource Sept.`04
on Accessible development of a Terms of requirements; $15-$20k
Transportation(ACAT) Reference for ACAT -Develop Terms of Reference
-Need to reflect integrated (more -Convene discussion groups to
holistic)approach to accessible solicit input on structure&
transportation mandate
-Forum for community partners
within Mobility Management
framework*
February 24,2004 Page 15
Dennis M.Barry,AICP
Community Contra Community Development Director
Development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building E
651 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez,California 94553-0095
Phone: (925) 335-1243 March 3,2004
Mr. David Murray
CC Transportation Authority
3478 Buskirk Ave#100
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
Dear David,
Per Hank Haugse7s request I ani providing you with the issues that I raised at yesterday's.Paratransit Study TAC
meeting as well as a few other comments I have developed-in the interim. I will try and develop more coninients
in the next day but am hampered by the late distribution of'materials. As well I question the value in dedicating
the tune to provide additional input when the colm-nents in my last letter have yet to be addressed, this deTite
direction from the Planning Conulittee at their last Meeting
:>to do so.
I Explanation or clarification needs to be provided on why the scope of the study has not been fulfilled,
specifically the requirement to develop an "element for inclusion in Measure C". The consultants answer in,
the meeting yesterday that, "internal colTunulic'ation with CCTA staff describing specifically what not to
include in the study', requires Ruther clarification. The consultant should explain to the Planning
Conunittee why the absence of aii element for Measure C is justified in,their submittal.
2. The action at the last Plaming Committee included direction to staff to address the issues raised in the letters
from. CCCTA and Co-unty staff. This direction was reiterated at the January CCTA ineeting, including the
need to address any conunents made by the TAC and the PCC on the Final Draft. I have not seen a direct
response nor do I see the issues raised in the County's letter addressed in the body of the study.How win the
direction of the Planung Cmiu-nittee and the fall CCTA Board be addressed?
3. The fust step in the inipleinentation of the study's recommendations should be to distribute the action plan
and recorm-riendations to the transit operators and have them indicate why recommendations have not been
implemented in the past and how the study now makes it possible and/of attractive to now implement the
changes.
4. hi addition to circulating the Action Plan's recolinuendations to public transit operators, the
recon-u-nendations also need to be circulated to Community Based Transportation Agencies (CBTA). Ulis
is most relevant to the recommendation to forn-i the Mobility Manager Working Group. TIie motivation for
CBTA's to change their way of operating or to devote any resources to participate in the-Working Group is
not obvious.
5. The action plan should specify the responsible agencies/organizations to implement each recommendation.
6. The action plan should *MCILde provisions for: 1) monitoring implementation of each reconunendations, 2)
evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts and 3)updating reconu-neridations as appropriate.
7. As I indicated to the consultant yesterday, the infon-nation provided in Figure 6-1 is arbitrary,
unsubstantiated and in at least one case, incorrect. I provided specific examples in my last con-unent letter so
I will not elaborate here.
Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m.
nffinin is rinqsari thin 1 gzt -'Irri X r-tth Fririq%/,Q of inprh mnnth
r
8. How will CCTA's existing adopted policy on paratransit be addressed, which was distributed by me
yesterday to the TAC members and last week to David M-LuTay? Resolution 96-14-P affirms your Board's
desire to use Measure C fimding to go above and beyond the nih*mLun paratransit service levels mandated
by the Ameficans Orith Disabilities Act. The TAC was not hiforn_ned that this policy has been superseded.
Therefore,it should be addressed in CCTA's study to evaluate ways to improve paratransit in Contra Costa.
9. I will echo Cindy Dahlgren's comments questioning the appropriateness of including a number of the
funding sources in Section 7.10. The consultant made the point that .under a coordinated transportation
prograrnn a diversity of fielding streams could potentially be accessed which is an accurate statement.
Realistically however, these fun&rig streams are secondarj at best (Head Start, LIFT, TL C, Ryan white,
Healthy Start, CDBG) and should be presented that way. The omission of Measure C in this list is
incomprehensible. Please include it or explain to the Planning Committee why it isn't there. This continent
has been made previously by the PCC and the TAC and has not yet been addressed. The lack of Measure C
being listed misguides the reader.
Please, let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for the opporhmity to provide comment on this
important study,
f
Sincerely, '
I ,
I �
t
/f
John um ingham
Transportation Planning Division
Attachments -
c: Transportation,water and Infi asti-ucture Committee
Steve Goetz,CDD
Paul Branson,EHSD
Members,PCC c/o Bill Liskanlm
r:•1T,a„ „nrt;,r;nn�t'inn;ngfamhentltr\march 3 04 oaratl•ansit comment lettendoc
Sent by: G.C. Transportation Auth. 9254070128; , 03/02/04 18:10; Jeff
V,&_#892;Page 2/4
gro""s)i,
CONTRA COSTA
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
COMMISSIONERS., March 2.,2004 03 *
Amy Worth John Cunningham
Chale
Transportation ftuWng Division
Anat AM= Community Development Department
we-Chair
Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
Uiaarkb Abram 651 Pine St. 4th Floor,North Wing
Mafia kegris Ma Inez, CA 94553
P.Freitas DeaTJohii,
John Gioia
Federal Glover Tbank you for your participation in the Paratransit improvetneat Study,,
Orad Nix On your question yesterday about OCTA Resolution No. 36.14-A,1 have researched our
juoepie" archives. Apparently the resolution was the outcome of 4 public workshop on the
Kafen Stappat implementation of the ADA in Contra Costa. The following issues were raised at the
Kris Pals ed workshop: 1) Should Measure C funds used for paratransit service be limited only to ADA
eligible customers? 2)Should paratransit service providers focus their activities on only
those who live within 3/4 of a mile of a fixed route,service or stop? 3) Should same day
paravansit services be provided as opposed to a 24-hour notice? At the April 1996
Authority meeting,Commissioners commented that each recipient of Measure C funds has
Robed K McWaary uTdqae service characteristics, and that the funds should be used to support their best
Executive ntrer4or efforts. The motion,which provided the diTeCtionfor Resolution No, 96-14-A was
uneximously approved by the Authority Board as follows: "a motion for staff to generate
foi-inal resolution stating the desired goals of the paratransit providers in return for
Meastwe C funds,based on the points as described by Chair Twin: 1) same day service
when possible,2) encourage,but not require,service outside the%mile radius, 3) allow
3476 Buskirk Ave. providers to determine who is eligible,4)provide an annual report to the Authority on the
SWID Im use of Measure C funds, and 5)provide a description of costs for service and how they are
Pleasant NN determined," T would also note that Mr. Tatzin also conunented on the scope of work for
CA 04523 the current study when it was being developed, and emphasized his direction for a focus on
efficiency.
PHONE-1
9251407-0121 A number of your other comments have been addressed directly by the consultants or in
FAX our conversations.,but I ' d to take an opportunity as the study is winding down to
9251407-0128 wante
make sure that a few points were also tied up.
Sent by: C.C. Transportation Auth. 9254070128; 03/02/04 18:11 jtjt-EVX-#892;Page 3/4
Mr. Jolin Cunnhigh,ani
March 2, 2004
Page 2
As to your general point regarding the consultants" responses to the TAC and PCC meetings,a
summaxy list of those comments was documented, together with a response from dic consultants as
to how the intent to address each of these. This Was done for the January 51h meetings,and will be
done for the ineefings held yesterday. The summary and responses for the March 0 meeting will
be distributed to TAC and PCC members and will be handed out at the Planning Conunittee
meeting.
With regard to your specific comments, I would respond as follows:
I Although a considemble put of the consultants work has involved analyst's of existing
conditions,the consumer and provider surveys conducted in the early part of the study were
prominent in the original scope of work- and perceived to be a key part of this study by
members of both PCC and TAC.
2. The consultants have expanded the recor=eudafioas to describe the tasks and actions,
impact, and target implementation dates.
3. The focus of the study is on future actions'and implementing the recommendations,rather
Mara historical reasons the recommendations haven't been implemented already. The
consultants have,however, endeavored to note where there are barriers to effective use of
services by consumers.
1
4. The survey results you refer to in the Task I technical memorandum were updated in the
survey chapter of task 6. The consultants did not find any evidence,either friarn these
surveys or in reviewing any of the audited data provided by tho operators,that there was any
violation of the ADA regulations.
S. The consultwits have expanded the discussion of the various models cited and evaluated the
operational impacts.
6. The survey results indicate a*generally high level of satisfaction with existing service. This
I- ---
is an important point and the consultants have worked to follow the direction from the PCC
discussion to increase the promirience of this finding. The issue of maintaining the integrity
of service quality against a background of rising demand and costs is an important
managernent issue.
7. The comparison of major operators on the key indicators was not intended as an in-depth
exploration of issues ofcompetitiveness witb the rest of the Ray Area. Rather, it served to
provide a general comparison of costs, and alsotO provide a baselijie position of the
aper.itor's costs for an analysis of future conditions.
I
Sent by: C.C. Transportation Auth. 9254070128; 03/02104 18:11 ; LEVX #892;Page 4/4
Mr. Jolui Cunningham
March 2,2004
Page 3
8. The consult=ts have expanded the discussion of the county-wide service delivery model as
requested by you and Paul Branson(see section 6.3.2 of the report). However I would
remind you that the survey results,,and data from the operators,suggest that county-wide
travel currently involving transfer trips is not of the magnitude perhaps envisioned prior to
the commencement of the study.
9, The consultants have provided an additional discassion of the impacts/benefits of hidividual
recommendations.
l0. Fonnatting issues were addressed in the final report,
11. With regard to your Janaary 2003 memo to the stakeholders group and your January 2004
letter to me(with a copy to the.Authority), I understwid that there is not agreement from the
operators on several of your assertions.
12. The forecasting of future costs is undertaken on a constant dollar basis. The introduction of
wi additional variable such assumptions about labor costs 'increasing faster than inflation,is
inconsistent with that approach. Moreover, effective management of costs to promote long-
term transit financial stability is a need that goes well.beyond Measure C contributions to
paratransit,services, and has been raised as an issue by MTC as pad of the 2005 RTP
process.
Thank you again for your continued interest and input to the study.
Sincerely,
David Murray
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
r en-CLF-G!'Jl'J'-f 1 YJ•1 NJ r'.1����l�
ORIGINAL
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION Af;TI'HORITY
RESOLUTION NO.96-Id-P
RE: Policy Relating to Measure C Paratransit Funds and rite Ainedcam with Disabilities Act
WHEREAS,transit operators are required to meet federal regulations arising Americans with Disabilities
Act(ADA)relating to paratr-ansit;and
WHEREAS,Measure C funds ace entirely locally generated,and Masure C grants for pamimnsit to .
transit operators arc not subject to federal ADA regulations;and .
M'HEREAS,-a workshop on pamtransit held by the Authority on April 17.1996 discussed what is the
appropriate Authodry role with msp=t to the following issues:sen ing those that are not ADA-eligible;
providing-service outside the ADA-mandated minimum thtre-quarter toile medius from a fixed route
scrviM and providing same day p it service over and above the ADA minimally mquimd 24 Hour
advance day registmdon;and
1NMREAS,at this carne April 17 workshop.the jack of standardized methods of accounting pasarransit
costs was identified as an issue that needs to be rasolYed;and
NOW PORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the Authority believes that the Boards of 1Xrectots of the
transit operators are best equipped to dcadc how their resources should be utilized,however the Authority
encourages the transit operators: .
1. to use Measure C funds to provide the appropriate level of paratransit service for senuions and
disabled not found ADA eligible;
I to use Measure C funds to provide the appropriate level of it wxviae for seniors and
disabled living outside the'thtee-quarter mile radius from a fixed route secvic&
3, to use Measure C funds to provide sane day atransit,service,if space is available.which 'r
would enhance the productivity of s vice.
]BE IT FURTxaER OLVED,that the Authority requests drat the Ps:atransit'Coordinating Council.
with the assistance of Authority staff and the r hu"r.'develop standardized cost accounting
rncasures adopted by all Measure C recipients of paratna�sit funds allow the authority to better evaluate
the Measure C para sit ivrogram's of ciency and effectiveness. These cost treasures would be .
incorporated in the Annual Report to the Authority.
ti
Do atrin,Chale
This RESOLUTION was entered into at a. .
rrmeedng of the Contra'Costa Transportation
Authority bold May i s.1996 irl Walnut mak,CaIfOWL .
bort
K.M�6
Exec c Director
TOTRL P.02
MAR-02-2004 08:16 P.02/02
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PAR.ATRANSIT COORDINATING COUNCIL
Houltston Square
3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100
Pleasant HiD, CA 94523
�
(925)939-9PCC
February 24,2004
MEMORANDUM
Nt TO: PCC Members
FROM: Subcommittee on Paratransit Study,Plan Update and DEIR Review
The subcommittee met on February 23rd,and concluded that the section on paratransit in
the Expenditure Plan Alternatives of the 2004 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
' Update (pg A-49) does not include any discussion on the needs of seniors and persons
with disabilities. Other projects and programs described in the DEIR do include
supporting discussions. The subcommittee recommends that the following be inserted in
� this document.
� Measure C and Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Transportation
'
The population of adults with disabilities is projected to grow by 41%#and the
number of seniors aged 65 and over is projected to expand by IZS%.
Given these exploding growth rates, the small percentage ojjurading for transportation
y � for the elderly and disabled in the current Measure C(2.97%of the sales fax)fallsfar / �
short of the dollars needed to help fund transportation services today and in the future �tid��
for this vulnerable part ojour population, marry of whom cannot drive an automobrle.�A
new, balanced "Measure C"should take this into account and provide a sufficient
amount of the reauthorized sales tax dollars to elderly and disabled transportation
services. Anew Measure C must be constructed that meets the transportation needs of
all interests in the county
1,214 es nee e an e y
The subcommittee also recommends that the DEIR for this Plan include language that
males it clear the percent of the reauthorized sales tax for Paratransit is independent of
environmental impacts. Therefore,paratraasit is independent of any of the alternatives
evaluated in the DEIR as it is based on the needs of this vulnerable population--a
population that is growing significantly faster than the general population of the County.
TOTAL P.02
Executive Order Human Service Transportation Coordination Page 1 of 3
... ::'• / _ .:fir.
k 'C�� k i:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 24,2004
Executive Order Human Service Transportation Coordination
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and
to enhance access to transportation to improve mobility, employment opportunities, and access to community
services for persons who are transportation-disadvantaged, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. This order is issued consistent with the following findings and principles:
(a)A strong America depends on citizens who are productive and who actively participate in the life of their
communities.
(b)Transportation plays a critical role in providing access to employment, medical and health care, education, and
other community services and amenities. The importance of this role is underscored by the variety of
transportation programs that have been created in conjunction with health and human service programs, and by
the significant Federal investment in accessible public transportation systems throughout the Nation.
(c)These transportation resources, however, are often difficult for citizens to understand and access, and are
more costly than necessary due to inconsistent and unnecessary Federal and State program rules and
restrictions.
(d)A broad range of Federal program funding allows for the purchase or provision of transportation services and
resources for persons who are transportation-disadvantaged. Yet, in too many communities, these services and
resources are fragmented, unused, or altogether unavailable.
(e) Federally assisted community transportation services should be seamless, comprehensive, and accessible to
those who rely on them for their lives and livelihoods. For persons with mobility limitations related to advanced
age, persons with disabilities, and persons struggling for self-sufficiency, transportation within and between our
communities should be as available and affordable as possible.
(f)The development, implementation, and maintenance of responsive, comprehensive, coordinated community
transportation systems is essential for persons with disabilities, persons with low incomes, and older adults who
rely on such transportation to fully participate in their communities.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
(a)As used in this order,the term "agency" means an executive department or agency of the Federal
Government.
(b) For the purposes of this order, persons who are transportation-disadvantaged are persons who qualify for
Federally conducted or Federally assisted transportation-related programs or services due to disability, income, or
advanced age.
Sec. 3. Establishment of the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility.
(a)There is hereby established, within the Department of Transportation for administrative purposes,the
"Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility" ("Interagency Transportation
Coordinating Council toor"Council"). The membership of the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council
shall consist of:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/print/20040224-9.html 3/4/2004
Executive Order Human Service Transportation Coordination Page 2 of 3
(i)the Secretaries of Transportation, Health and Human Services, Education, Labor,Veterans Affairs,Agriculture,
Housing and Urban Development, and the Interior, the Attorney General, and the Commissioner of Social
Security; and
(ii)such other Federal officials as the Chairperson of the Council may designate.
(b)The Secretary of Transportation, or the Secretary's designee, shall serve as the Chairperson of the Council.
The Chairperson shall convene and preside at meetings bf the Council, determine its agenda, direct its work, and,
as appropriate to particular subject matters, establish and direct subgroups of the Council,which shall consist
exclusively of the Council's members.
(c)A member of the Council may designate any person who is part of the member's agency and who is an officer
appointed by the President or a full-time employee serving in'a position with pay equal to or greater than the
minimum rate payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule to perform functions of the Council or its subgroups on
the member's behalf.
Sec 4. Functions of the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council. The Interagency Transportation
Coordinating Council shall:
(a)promote interagency cooperation and the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to minimize duplication
and overlap of Federal programs and services so that transportation-disadvantaged persons have access to more
transportation services;
(b)facilitate access to the most appropriate, cost-effective transportation services within existing resources;
(c)encourage enhanced customer access to the variety of transportation and resources available;
(d)formulate and implement administrative, policy, and procedural mechanisms that enhance transportation
services at all levels; and
(e)develop and implement a method for monitoring progress on achieving the goals of this order.
Sec. 5. Report. In performing its functions, the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council shall present to
me a report not later than 1 calendar year from the date of this order. The report shall:
(a) Identify those Federal, State, Tribal and local laws, regulations, procedures, and actions that have proven to
be most useful and appropriate in coordinating transportation services for the targeted populations;
(b) Identify substantive and procedural requirements of transportation-related Federal laws and regulations that
are duplicative or restrict the laws'and regulations'most efficient operation;
(c) Describe the results achieved, on an agency and program basis, in:
(i)simplifying access to transportation services for persons with disabilities, persons with low income, and older
adults;
(ii)providing the most appropriate, cost-effective transpoftation services within existing resources; and
(iii)reducing duplica-tion to make funds available for more services to more such persons;
(d) Provide recommendations to simplify and coordinate applicable substantive, procedural, and administrative
requirements; and
(e) Provide any other recommendations that would, in the judgment of the Council, advance the principles set
forth in section 1 of this order.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/print/20040224-9.html 3/4/2004
Executive Order Human Service Transportation Coordination Page 3 of 3
Sec. 6. General.
(a)Agencies shall assist the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council and provide information to the
Council consistent with applicable law as may be necessary to carry out its functions. To the extent permitted by
law, and as permitted by available agency resources,the Department of Transportation shall provide funding and
administrative support for the Council.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the functions of the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c)This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to,
and does not, create any right or benefit, sub-stantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party
against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities or entities, its officers or employees, or any
other person.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 24, 2004.
---------------------------- ------------ ------
----------------------------------- ----------------------
Return to this article at:
bjjp//www.wh itehouse.clov/news/re lea ses/2004/02/2 0040224-9.html
.............................................................. ..................... ...................................................... ................................ ................................... ..........
-n-
Click to Prii 2
this doc.-p-mient
http-://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/print/20040224-9.html 3/4/2004
The Board of Supervisors
John Sweeten
County Administration Building Clerk of the Board
651 Pine Street, Room 106 Costa and
Martinez,California 94553-1293 County Administrator
County
{925)335-1900
John Gioia,1st District
Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District
Millie Greenberg,3rd District
Mark DeSaulnier,4th District
Federal D.Glover,5th District !�^i
,\vy _
moi _ .� � •'i A�'
March 16, 2004
The Honorable Amy Worth, Chair
CC Transportation Authority
3478 Buskirk Ave#100
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
Dear Chair Worth,
On March 16, 2004, the Board of Supervisors discussed the Draft Final Paratransit Improvement Study and how
the recommendations in the study could be addressed in the reauthorization of Measure C. The Board
authorized me to forward our comments to the Authority. This letter summarizes our comments.
The Board finds a number of the recommendations in the draft study encouraging, but believes that steps should
be taken to ensure implementation. It is our opinion that Measure C represents an excellent opportunity to make
some positive changes in the provision of paratransit, and a promising start in positioning the county to respond
to the impending increase in demand for services directed to seniors and persons with disabilities.
The Board embraces the findings in the study and proposes that the recommendations be implemented in a
reauthorized Measure C as a part of a "Paratransit Improvement Program". The funding of these specific
recommendations would be in addition to funding for paratransit operations. Funding of this
recommendation would be minimal and would ensure the Measure C funds provided for operations will be
spent cost effectively.
The following are the recommendations that the Board finds most promising along with comments that are
intended to ensure that the recommendations are implemented and effective:
L Develop a Comprehensive Technology Plan (Recommendation 7.3): Funding for implementation and
ongoing staffing, support and maintenance of this program needs to be provided. We are aware that the
consultant highlighted this need during discussions with the Technical Advisory Committee but neglected to
include it in the Draft Final Report and Action Plan.
2. Integrating Sedans into the Fleet Mix (Recommendation 7.1.1): Funding could be made available in a
reauthorized Measure C to subsidize the purchase of sedans by transportation providers.
3. Establish a Coordination/Mobility Manager Function (Recommendation 7.6): This recommendation is
promising in that it represents the beginnings of increased expansion of coordination activities. As the senior
and disabled populations grow, these types of activities will be necessary if not compulsory. Given the
likely demands placed on this function during the life of a reauthorized Measure C, the Board believes that
the funding burden listed in the study is an underestimate.
4. Establish an Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation (ACAT) (Recommendation 7.7): This
committee is an excellent candidate to oversee the implementation and long-term responsibility for the
plan's recommendations. Considering the changes that are to occur in the paratransit landscape during the
life of the Measure, this Committee will need a budget for planning activities. The composition of this
committee should be structured to include, at a minimum, representatives from the operators, and appointees
from the regional transportation planning committees.
Honorable Amy Worth Letter
March 16,2004
Page 2
Other considerations to take into account to ensure effectiveness and implementation of the aforementioned
recommendations:
5. Cost Survey: A cost survey should be done to verify and provide greater detail on the amount of funding
needed to implement the recommendations found in the study and discussed above.
6. Long-Term Relevance: The recommendations of the study must be relevant during the life of a reauthorized
Measure C. It is the Board's suggestion that the study and the recommendations be amended and/or updated as
appropriate by the ACAT or its functional equivalent.
In regards to the amount of paratransit operations funds that should be allocated in a reauthorized Measure C, it is
the Board's opinion that paratransit operations should be funded at a level greater than what is currently being
provided. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (OCTA) may also wish to consider making paratransit
operations funding available to transportation providers' subject to their participation on ACAT and in the
implementatation of the recommendations in the Paratransit Study.
It is the Board's hope that our suggestions can generate some discussion on this matter so that a well-planned,
effective approach to address paratransit issues may be developed for inclusion in a reauthorized Measure C.
The Board of Supervisors commends the CCTA for their proactive role in addressing paratransit issues by
sponsoring and conducting the paratransit study. It is precisely because of this effort that we, as a county, can now
begin to take a strategic approach to addressing transportation issues for seniors and persons with disabilities in the
reauthorization of Measure C.
Sincerely,
ederal . Glover, Chair
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
FDGVC
c: Members,PCC
Advisory Council on Aging