San Luis Obispo - Caltrans - State of California

SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION
COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN
funds, urban Section 5307/ 5309 (56 percent), specialized transit capital Section 5310 (12
percent) and rural Section 5311 service (11 percent). Farebox revenues were noted by the
public operators as a continuing source. By contrast, the funding picture for responding human
service organizations is more diverse. The largest single funding source is private donations,
with seven agencies noting this (30 percent). Tri Counties Regional Center and/or the California
Dept. of Developmental Services are identified as a source by four agencies. Community
Development Block grants and Federal Department of Health and Human Services funding
were identified by just two agencies (2 percent). One of these was Ride-On, presumably noting
its Medi-Cal, Federal Title XIX funding, a major funding source in other states for nonemergency
medical transportation.
3.3 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY SUMMARY
This survey has developed a picture of specialized transportation resources and issues in San
Luis Obispo County. The survey generated a sixteen percent 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
picture that emerges of the state of coordination in the region appears to be grounded in a
broad-base of perspectives 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 were heard from.
Thirty-two agencies, over half, have some type of transportation function, including 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 by responding agencies were just under a million passenger trips annually
(882,624 one-way trips annualized) with 89 percent of these provided by the public transit
operators, which includes Ride-On, and 11 percent provided by the responding human services
agencies. Applying just the operations costs presented, the public transit cost of a one-way trip
is $10.45 while the human services agencies are providing trips for $2.45 in reported trip 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) and then day-time work between 8
and 6 tied with visiting family or friends (both 60 percent).
43
OCTOBER 2007