San Luis Obispo - Caltrans - State of California

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN Barriers to coordination were frequently noted as related to staff time and funding, with very limited staff time 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. Top ranked coordination interest was most strongly expressed in relation to coordinated dispatching and scheduling of trips and coordinated service. Between 60 and 50 percent of public operators selected these options and more than 20 percent of the responding human service organizations. This speaks to the successful model of Ride-On, although there was stronger support for this among the public transit providers than among the human services agencies, suggesting the importance of continued outreach to the social services community. 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. 3.4 SPECIALIZED TRANSIT TRIP DEMAND ESTIMATE 3.4.1 Introduction Planning for increased coordination and consolidation of demand response services for San Luis Obispo County is informed by an understanding and measuring of the specific populations that use public transit, demand response programs and specialized transportation services. These individuals are best characterized by the target populations of the three SAFETEA-LU programs: Section 5310, Capital Assistance for Seniors and Disabled Individuals, Section 5316, JARC, and Section 5317, New Freedom. The populations served by these programs are seniors, persons with disabilities, and persons of low income. This section quantifies the people within these population groups in San Luis Obispo County and projects the future population among these groups. A further rationale for quantifying the specialized trips these individuals may need is proposed. It is noted that children are among those using public transportation services, notably regular riders on the many trolley and dial-a-ride services in the region, but for purposes of developing this demand estimate, only adult population data is considered. 3.4.2 Target Populations The Federal Transit Administration has identified three populations as of concern to the SAFETEA-LU programs, Sections 5316, 5317 and 5310. These are persons of low income, including persons on welfare, persons with disabilities and seniors. Table 3-11 identifies the numbers of these individuals in San Luis Obispo County from selected 2000 Census variables. Table 3-11 considers the adult population only; persons age 16 and older with the exception of persons below the poverty line (ages 18 – 64). Certainly there are children in poverty and children with disabilities, which could be involved in some of the initiatives this plan may 44 OCTOBER 2007
Page 1 and 2:
COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES - PUBLIC
Page 3 and 4:
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10: 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 59: SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED
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?