San Luis Obispo - Caltrans - State of California

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