JARC Coordination Plan - Oklahoma Department of Transportation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 3: Summary of Transportation Services Figure 3.1: Size of Service Area for Survey Respondents Statewide 11-40 Counties 6-10 Counties 2-5 Counties 1 County or less 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Number of Agencies with a Given Service Area Types of Services Among the survey respondents that provide transportation directly or through a contractor(s), demand response transportation is the most commonly provided type of transportation service. This is mostly likely due to the low-density nature of the State which makes it difficult to serve populations with fixed route services. However, as shown in Figure 3.2, more than half of agencies are providing some sort of fixed route or flexible fixed route services. Many agencies provide more than one type of service and in many regions of the State multi-county demand response systems often serve as feeders to city/town fixed route systems. Over 30 percent of agencies offer subscription services and some agencies also mentioned offering other types of services in emergencies or on an as-needed basis. Figure 3.2: Types of Transportation Services Provided On Demand Only On Demand + Fixed Route Fixed Route Only Fixed Route + Subscription Service 12% 9% 5% 32% On Demand, Fixed Route, & Subscription Services 5% Subsription Service Only On Demand + Subscription Services 18% 19% Oklahoma Locally Coordinated Public Transit 24 Human Service Transportation Plan
Section 3: Summary of Transportation Services Types of Trips Survey respondents indicated a wide variety of trip types and destinations including medical, employment-related, educational, recreational, congregational, shopping and personal business trips. Some agencies only provide trips to and from their building or other specified human service locations, some only serve clients that meet selected criteria, but many agencies provide services for the public at large. As shown in Figure 3.3, approximately 44 percent of agencies do not have restrictions on the type of trip or the clients served. Figure 3.3: Agency Restrictions Trip Type / Human Service Program 38% Not Restricted 44% Elderly and Disabled 18% Vehicle Fleets Most human service agencies that own vehicles have fewer than ten vehicles in their fleet. Many operate their services with just one or two vehicles, or vehicles provided by volunteers. Most of the tribal governments operating transit indicated a fleet size between five and twenty vehicles. The small urban systems in Lawton and Norman each had approximately 30 revenue vehicles. The large urban operators in Tulsa and Oklahoma City have fleets of approximately 100 vehicles each, while the largest transit operator, KiBois Area Rapid Transit (KATS), operates 183 vehicles across 12 counties in east-central Oklahoma. Other transit operators with more than 30 vehicles in their fleet included Grand Gateway (Pelivan), United Community Action Program (Cimarron Public Transit), Home of Hope, First Capital Trolley, Oklahoma Department of Veteran’s Affairs, INCA Community Services (JAMM Transit), Muskogee County Public Transit, and Calla-Ride Public Transit. Figure 3.4 on page 26 shows the characteristics of vehicles across the State. Agencies that responded to this survey indicated that there are at least 1,332 vehicles and 786 American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) compliant vehicles available for Oklahoma Locally Coordinated Public Transit 25 Human Service Transportation Plan
Page 1: February 2012
Page 4 and 5: Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Ta
Page 6 and 7: This page is intentionally left bla
Page 8 and 9: Section 1: Introduction to the Plan
Page 10 and 11: Section 1: Introduction to the Plan
Page 12 and 13: Section 2: State Demographic Profil
Page 14 and 15: Table 2.3: Data Categories U.S. Cen
Page 32 and 33: Section 3: Summary of Transportatio
Page 34 and 35: Coordination with Other Transportat
Page 36 and 37: Section 3: Summary of Transportatio
Page 38 and 39: Table 4.1: Projects Receiving Fundi
Page 40 and 41: Section 4: Previously Funded Projec
Page 42 and 43: Section 5: Transportation Gaps and
Page 50 and 51: Section 6: Key Issues Impacting Ser
Page 58 and 59: Section 7: Evaluation the project o
Page 60 and 61: Section 7: Evaluation Other Project
Page 62 and 63: This page is intentionally left bla
Page 64 and 65: Oklahoma Locally Coordinated Public
Page 66 and 67: Appendix A: Funding Sources Job Acc
Page 68 and 69: Appendix A: Funding Sources Urbaniz
Page 70 and 71: The Temporary Assistance for Needy
Page 72 and 73: Appendix A: Funding Sources Senior
Page 74 and 75: Table B.1: County Specific Populati
Page 76 and 77: Appendix B: County Specific Data Ta
Page 78 and 79: Appendix B: County Specific Data Ta
Page 80 and 81:
Appendix C: Oklahoma Department of
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88:
show all

JARC Coordination Plan - Oklahoma Department of Transportation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?