San Luis Obispo - Caltrans - State of California

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPROACH TO THE PLAN In anticipating the plan’s development, three goals were articulated. The plan must: • Serve as a comprehensive, unified plan that promotes community mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities and persons of low income. • Establish priorities to incrementally improve mobility for the target populations; • Develop a process to identify partners interested, willing and able to promote community mobility for the target populations. From the plan development process, an important fourth goal developed which was to promote and encourage planning partners who may be interested, willing and able to develop projects that will address needs the plan identifies. To achieve these goals, the planning process involved: • Quantitative analyses including a demand estimation to estimate need and a stakeholder survey of countywide stakeholders to identify resources, needs and potential partners. • Qualitative activities included public meetings and interviews with major agencies and organizations funding human services, with representative direct service providers, and with consumers representing the target group constituencies. • An assessment of existing public transit services was undertaken to provide initial informational tools of value to the target populations and their representatives. DEMAND ESTIMATION FINDINGS A census-based estimate of demand was undertaken to identify the San Luis Obispo region’s target population and project their potentially needed trips. A range of 41,600 to 57,200 persons was estimated for the target population. These individuals are adults between ages 16 to 64 who are low income or disabled and seniors age 65 and older. They represent between 10 percent and up to 23 percent of San Luis Obispo County’s 2000 population of almost 247,000 residents. This proportion of the population is projected forward, using general population estimates developed by the SLOCOG and the California Dept. of Finance with other assumptions about changes in the senior population and the base adult population. The projections suggest that increasing proportions of residents will be within the target populations: by 2010, up to almost 70,000 persons or 25 percent of the population; by 2020, up to almost 85,000 persons or 27 percent of the population; and by 2030, up to over 100,000 persons or 28 percent of the population. Average trips per day were estimated for the target population, and the proportion of those trips that might be served by public transit (general public transportation options). These public transit trips represented potentially 780,000 to almost 2 million trips needed annually by these adults who are low income or disabled and seniors. From among these, those trips requiring special assistance were hypothesized at 25 percent, or one in four trips, between 195,000 to 508,000 annual trips for the 2000 census population. This contrasts favorably with the almost 2 million documented trips provided by the public transit providers; of which 14 percent or 276,453 trips are specialized transit currently trips. Current trips provided are above the bottom of the demand range. In combination with the survey-documented trips of almost 100,000 human service agency trips, total specialized trips reported are in mid-range of the projected trips needed. The plan examines the characteristics and nature of those trips that are presently either not met, not provided or not available. vi OCTOBER 2007
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN STAKEHOLDER SURVEY A survey of potential planning partners develops a picture of specialized transportation resources and issues for the San Luis Obispo region. The survey generated a sixteen percent (16%) survey response rate with 61 agencies and organizations responding, coming from throughout the region. These organizations clearly reflect the breadth and diversity of organizations concerned with the transportation of persons of limited means, of seniors and of individuals with disabilities. The suggested state of coordination in the region appears to come from a broad-base of perspectives as represented by survey respondents. Agencies responding represented a caseload of 110,000 persons, spread across the breadth of consumer groups. There was a good mix of public and non-profit, as well as for-profit social service agencies and commercial transportation providers. A small number of faith-based organizations responded but no tribal organizations. Thirty-two agencies, over half, have some type of transportation function. These included directly providing it, contracting for it or as a contractor, subsidizing bus passes and tokens, or arranging for it on behalf of their consumers. Public operators were more likely to directly provide or contract for services, while social service agencies were more likely to subsidize bus tickets or taxi trips. Vehicles reported were just over 300, with 111 operated by pubic transit providers, 147 reported by social service agencies. The balance was reported by commercial providers and possibly duplicates some of the agency vehicles reported. Human service agency vehicles were more likely to be smaller and only 10 percent were lift-equipped. Trips reported were almost 882,000 passenger trips annually, with 89 percent of these provided by 9 public transit operators, which includes Ride-On, and just 11 percent provided by the 23 responding human service providers. Applying just the operations costs presented, the public transit cost of a one-way trip is $10.45, while the human services agencies was $2.45 in reported costs. Reported needs for client transportation differed somewhat between public transit operators and human services agencies but with overlap. Human services agencies saw medical trips as the highest priority, by 71 percent, followed by shopping and a.m. trips (multiple errands), and then training and education trips. Public transit agencies also saw medical trips as the greatest need (90 percent) followed by kids to day care (70 percent). Then trips for day-time work between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. tied with visiting family or friends (both 60 percent). Barriers to coordination were frequently noted as related to staff time and funding, with very limited staff time available to develop the cooperative relationships necessary. One respondent wrote of the “hidden costs” of coordination. There was concern about regulatory requirements of schedules and licensing, notably with the three school districts responding and the University. Several agencies spoke of the difficulties of finding and retaining sufficient drivers. Eight agencies noted they do have cooperative agreements in place, several involving Ride-On. This 16 percent sample of agencies and organizations reported over $12 million in funding for paratransit and specialized transportation. Differences in the funding base were significant, with public transit reporting a stable, continuing funding stream that they largely expected to increase. Human services agencies reported much more diverse funding types, with significant reliance upon donations and fees and far less likelihood of future increases. vii OCTOBER 2007
Page 1 and 2: COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES - PUBLIC
Page 3 and 4: SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED
Page 5: SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED
Page 13 and 14: Gaps in service, continued SAN LUIS
Page 51 and 52: 3.2.3 Coordination Interest and Exp
Page 57 and 58:
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
GOAL 2.0: BUILD CAPACITY TO MEET IN
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
___________________________________
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Ride-On Interview at Ride-On office
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199:
show all

San Luis Obispo - Caltrans - State of California

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?