Summary of Comments by student19

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 14

									                                                                    Date:   November 15, 2006
                                                                    W.I.:   1311
                                                             Referred by:   PAC
                                                                Revised:    12/19/07-C


                                         ABSTRACT
                                 Resolution No. 3787, Revised


This resolution adopts the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan.

The following attachment is provided with this resolution:

       Attachment A— Low-Income Component of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human
       Services Transportation Plan. Attachment A will be amended at a later date and will
       include the elderly and disabled component of the plan, as well as a section focused on
       coordinated solutions to address the transportation needs of the low-income, elderly and
       disabled populations in the Bay Area.

This resolution was revised on December 19, 2007 to add the elderly and disabled component of
the plan to Attachment A.

       Attachment A – Low Income Component and Elderly and Disabled Component of the
       Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan

Discussion of this plan is included in the Programming and Allocations Summary sheets dated
November 8, 2006 and December 12, 2007.
                                                                  Date:   November 15, 2006
                                                                  W.I.:   1311
                                                           Referred by:   PAC



RE: Low-Income Component of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services
    Transportation Plan


                   METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
                             RESOLUTION NO. 3787


       WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional
transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Government Code §
66500 et seq.; and

       WHEREAS, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act
(SAFETEA) requires that projects funded through the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC),
New Freedom, and Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities programs be derived
from a from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan
(Coordinated Plan) beginning in Fiscal Year 2007; and

       WHEREAS, MTC will complete the Coordinated Plan for the region; and


       WHEREAS, MTC has dedicated significant resources toward planning efforts that have
focused on the transportation needs of low-income residents in the Bay Area, including welfare
to work transportation plans in each of the nine counties, a regional welfare to work
transportation plan and the community-based transportation planning program launched in 2002;
and


        WHEREAS, MTC has hired a consultant to complete the elderly and disabled component
of the coordinated public, as well as a chapter of the plan that identifies coordinated
transportation strategies that address the overlapping transportation needs of the low-income,
elderly and disabled populations in the Bay Area; and


       WHEREAS, the consultant will review and incorporate results from the MTC-completed
low-income component of the Coordinated Plan to the chapter of the plan focused on
coordinated transportation strategies for all three populations; now therefore be it
MTC Resolution No. 3787
Page 2

      RESOLVED, that MTC approves the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services
Transportation Plan as forth in Attachment A of this resolution.


                                METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION




                                Jon Rubin, Chair




The above resolution was entered into by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission at a regular
meeting of the Commission held in Oakland,
California, on November 15, 2006.
                                                              Date:   November 15, 2006
                                                              W.I.:   1311
                                                       Referred by:   PAC
                                                          Revised:    12/19/07-C

                                                          Attachment A
                                                          MTC Resolution No. 3787




               Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan


                                 Low Income Component
                                           and
                             Elderly and Disabled Component


Both components of the plan are incorporated by reference. The low-income component of the plan is
available on-line at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/pths/Low-Income_Component_Coord_Plan.pdf. The
elderly and disabled component of the plan is available on-line at
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/pths/Elderly and Disabled_Component_Coord_Plan.pdf. Both
components and their appendices are also available in the MTC/ABAG Library.
                                                    Date:   November 15, 2006
                                                    W.I.:   1311
                                             Referred by:   PAC

                                                Attachment A
                                                MTC Resolution No. 3787




                 INSERT
     Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan
      Low Income Component and Elderly & Disabled Component



                                See

[INSERT pathname of document that combines both
        components into Attachment A]
                   Metropolitan Transportation Commission
                   Programming and Allocations Committee
November 8, 2006                                                              Item Number 3b
                                   Resolution No. 3787
Subject:           Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan: Low-Income
                   Component


Background:        MTC is completing a Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services
                   Transportation Plan pursuant to requirements in the Safe, Accountable,
                   Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA). Starting in FY
                   2007, projects funded through three programs included in SAFETEA are
                   required to be derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-
                   human services transportation plan. These programs are (1) the Job Access
                   Reverse Commute (JARC) program, which funds transportation projects
                   benefiting low income populations, (2) the New Freedom program, a new
                   program that will fund projects benefiting the disability community, and (3)
                   the Formula Program for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
                   Disabilities, known as section 5310.


                   MTC has dedicated considerable resources toward planning efforts that
                   have focused on the transportation needs of low-income residents in the
                   Bay Area, including welfare to work transportation plans in each of the
                   nine counties, a regional welfare to work transportation plan and the
                   community-based transportation planning program launched in 2002.
                   Therefore, MTC has completed the low-income component of the
                   coordinated plan by synthesizing the results from these efforts.


                   While MTC has conducted planning efforts related to elderly persons and
                   persons with disabilities, MTC has not completed in-depth planning that
                   identifies transportation needs specific to these population in the Bay Area
                   as described in the Federal Transit Administration’s guidance for the
                   coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. MTC hired
                   a consultant to complete this component of the plan. In addition, the
                   consultant will review the MTC-completed component focusing on low-
                   income populations and include a section of the plan that evaluates the
                   overlapping transportation needs of the low-income, elderly and disabled
                   populations, and identifies potential strategies to address them.


                   The draft low-income component of the plan was reviewed by MTC’s
                   Minority Citizens Advisory Committee, MTC’s Elderly and Disabled
                   Advisory Committee, the Regional Welfare to Work Transportation
                   Working Group and the Partnership Board. Comments were either
                   incorporated into the draft, or will be addressed in the section of the plan
                   that focuses on coordination and the overlapping needs of the low-income,
                   elderly and disabled populations.
Programming and Allocations Committee                                             Agenda Item 3b
November 8, 2006
Page 2


Issues:                 The timeline for completing the low-income component of the Coordinated
                        Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan is consistent with the
                        interim Lifeline Transportation Program timeline, which is funded, in part,
                        with JARC funds. Should the low-income component of the coordinated
                        public transit-human services transportation plan be adopted, JARC monies
                        can be used to fund projects recommended in the interim Lifeline
                        Transportation Program.


Recommendation: Adopt the low-income component of the Coordinated Public Transit-
                Human Services Transportation Plan.


Attachments:            1) MTC Resolution 3787: Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services
                        Transportation Plan – Low-Income Component,
                        2) Summary of Comments Received on the Draft Low-Income Component
                        of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan,




J:\SECTION\ALLSTAFF\Resolution\TEMP-RES\MTC\Nov PAC\tmp-3787.doc
Programming and Allocations Committee                                                           Agenda Item 3b
November 8, 2006
Page 3


                         Comments on the Draft Low-Income Component of the
                    Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan


                  Comment                           Group                                   Action


Increase federal funding for transportation        MCAC           This is a transportation solution included in the low-
programs                                           Members        income component of the plan
Increase peak-hour buses                           MCAC           This is a transportation solution included in the low-
                                                   Members        income component of the plan
Improve bus-boarding technology for                MCAC           This comment will be incorporated into the elderly and
disabled passengers                                Members        disabled component of the plan
Initiate additional auto loan programs for         MCAC           Auto loan programs for low-income families is a
low-income families, especially in Alameda         Members        transportation solution included in the low-income
County
                                                                  component of the plan
Increase bus frequency                             MCAC           This is a transportation solution included in the low-
                                                   Members        income component of the plan
Assess existing funding and re-prioritize           MCAC          An assessment of existing funding is currently being
                                                   Audience       undertaken through work on Environmental Justice
                                                                  with the MCAC/Partnership Board sub-committee
Need regional and county leadership for             MCAC          The Regional Welfare to Work Transportation Plan
projects in which no project sponsor exists        Audience       notes that there may be some types of projects that
                                                                  require the leadership of MTC and MTC’s partners
Evaluate the Lifeline Transportation Program        MCAC          MTC has committed to evaluating the Lifeline
                                                   Audience       Transportation Program through Resolution 3726.

Focus on implementation of the                      MCAC          The low-income component of the plan mentions
transportation solutions                           Audience       several elements that need to be in place for successful
                                                                  solution implementation to occur.
Include projects funded projects in an              MCAC          An appendix will be added that lists projects that have
appendix – tie these to transportation needs       Audience       been funded through the three Low Income Flexible
                                                                  Transportation cycles.
Involve local agencies, especially in solution      MCAC          Local stakeholders have been involved in the planning
implementation                                     Audience       processes to date, and will continue to be involved in
                                                                  the development of the elderly and disabled component
                                                                  of the plan.
Include information about all types of             Welfare to     This comment will be addressed further in the
transportation services, such as services not     Work (WtW)      coordinated section of the plan, as it relates to all three
funded by Department of Transportation           Transportation
                                                                  populations (low-income, elderly and disabled)
                                                 Working Group
dollars (i.e. Health and Human Services,                          covered in the plan
Veterans Affairs, etc.)
Programming and Allocations Committee                                                         Agenda Item 3b
November 8, 2006
Page 4


If citing funding sources to implement              WtW          Non-transportation funding sources are included as
solutions, make sure to include those outside   Transportation   possible funding sources for solutions listed in
of traditional transportation funding sources   Working Group    community-based transportation plans. This comment
                                                                 will also be addressed in the elderly and disabled
                                                                 component of the plan, as well as the section on
                                                                 coordination.
Make sure the needs of all low-income               WtW          Welfare to Work Transportation Plans have been
populations are included (i.e. those not        Transportation   completed in all nine Bay Area counties. Likewise,
necessarily located in communities of           Working Group
                                                                 nine community-based transportation plans covering
concern or transitioning from welfare to                         eleven communities have been completed. Final plans
work)                                                            illustrate that the transportation needs raised in these
The group acknowledged that there is a broad                     planning efforts are similar throughout the region. A
range of solutions identified in the low-                        host of wide-ranging, multi-modal solutions are
income component of the plan, and that the                       proposed in the low-income component of the
solutions from the welfare to work planning                      coordinated plan to meet a variety of low-income
did align with the community-based                               transportation needs.
transportation planning results.
Good representation of low-income                   WtW          No action required
transportation work completed in the region     Transportation
                                                Working Group
Make sure to include and track funding for       Partnership     As noted above, this comment will be addressed
transportation services funded through              Board        further in the coordinated section of the plan, as it
agencies other than Department of                                relates to all three populations (low-income, elderly
Transportation.                                                  and disabled) covered in the plan.
When conducting outreach, manage public           Partnership    Attention will be given to this issue during the
expectations regarding the outcome of the           Board        outreach phase of the project when engaging the
planning process.                                                elderly and disabled populations
Need to focus attention on coordination and       Partnership    Similar to the previous comments related to
shared funding responsibility with other            Board        coordination, this comment will be addressed further in
agencies. Providing or funding transportation                    the coordinated section of the plan, as it relates to all
service often becomes the responsibility of                      three populations (low-income, elderly and disabled)
transit providers when other agencies should                     covered in the plan.
share in the responsibility.

Keep tabs on ADA rulemaking and its impact        Partnership    This issue will continue to be monitored.
on funding.                                         Board

Editorial comments                                 Various       Edits incorporated as suggested
                    Metropolitan Transportation Commission
                    Programming and Allocations Committee
December 12, 2007                                                              Item Number 3a
                               Resolution No. 3787, Revised
Subject:            Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan: Elderly and
                    Disabled Component


Background:         MTC has completed a Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services
                    Transportation Plan pursuant to requirements in the Safe, Accountable,
                    Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA). Starting in FY
                    2007, projects funded through three programs included in SAFETEA are
                    required to be derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-
                    human services transportation plan. These programs are (1) the Job Access
                    Reverse Commute (JARC) program, which funds transportation projects
                    benefiting low income populations, (2) the New Freedom program, a new
                    program that will fund projects benefiting the disability community, and (3)
                    the Formula Program for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
                    Disabilities, known as section 5310.


                    MTC adopted the low-income component of the Coordinated Plan in
                    November 2006. This component of the plan is a synthesis of the planning
                    results in low-income communities that MTC has sponsored, including
                    welfare to work transportation plans in each of the nine counties, a regional
                    welfare to work transportation plan and community-based transportation
                    planning plans. Five community-based transportation plans (South and
                    West Berkeley, San Francisco’s Outer Mission and Civic Center, Roseland
                    in Santa Rosa and Bay Point) have been completed since the low-income
                    component was adopted. By way of this resolution revision, these
                    executive summaries are added to Appendix 5.4 of the Plan.


                    MTC hired a consultant to complete the elderly and disabled component of
                    the plan. This process included assessing existing transportation services,
                    documenting transportation needs (through public outreach), and
                    identifying potential solutions to address transportation gaps. In addition,
                    the consultant reviewed the low-income component of the plan and
                    included chapters that review the overlapping transportation needs of all
                    three groups and identify potential strategies to enhance coordination.


                    The draft elderly and disabled component of the plan was reviewed with
                    MTC’s Elderly and Disabled Advisory Committee, MTC’s Minority
                    Citizens Advisory Committee, the Partnership Transit Coordinating
                    Council’s Accessibility Committee, the Regional Welfare to Work
                    Transportation Working Group, the Transit Finance Working Group and
                    the Transit Planners Working Group, and was available on-line for public
                    comment.
Programming and Allocations Committee                                   Agenda Item 3a
December 12, 2007
Page 2


Recommendation: Refer MTC Resolution No. 3787, Revised to the Commission to adopt the
                Elderly and Disabled Component of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human
                Services Transportation Plan.


Attachments:       1) Attachment 1: Summary of Comments Received on the Draft Elderly
                   and Disabled Component of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human
                   Services Transportation Plan
                   2) MTC Resolution No. 3787, Revised with excerpt from Attachment A:
                   Executive Summary of Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services
                   Transportation Plan – Low Income Component and Elderly and Disabled
Programming and Allocations Committee                                           Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 3a
December 12, 2007
Page 1


                                           Summary of Comments


Following is a summary of the comments received on the Elderly and Disabled component of the
Coordinated Plan, organized by topic. Nine comments did not request a change, but acknowledged
appreciation for the project or provided information outside the scope of this plan, and are not included
below.
General Comments
    Topic                                          Comment                                             Response


Additions and       Almost 20 comments requested the addition of providers or corrected        All information included
corrections to      information in the transportation inventory (Appendix C).                  in inventory
Inventory
Additions /         Two comments added information on County transportation gaps.              These comments
corrections to                                                                                 duplicated information
County gaps                                                                                    already in the report
Additions /         Five comments added information to Chapter 7, Solutions to Gaps.           All comments added
clarification to
Chapter 7
Meeting             Five comments corrected information on Outreach meetings, such as the      Meeting information
information         number of people attending or the name of the host.                        updated
corrections
Terminology         Three comments asked for terminology changes.                              All terminology changes
                                                                                               made

Comments by Issue Area
   Topic                                           Comment                                             Response


Access to transit   Two individuals made four comments asking that bus ―bulb-outs‖ be          Added to the report
                    added to Ch. 6, 7 and 8 as solutions to unsafe access to transit.
Accessible taxis    Nine comments on accessible taxis noted that:                              Comments a – e added to
                        a) there is a shortage of taxis, both accessible and not accessible    report
                        b) fixed-route should be the first choice where it would work for
                             disabled travelers                                                Comment f – Taxis are
                        c) there is a need for the creation of taxi voucher programs           already included in
                        d) one form of financial assistance to accessible taxis would be to    paratransit solutions
                             encourage transit agencies to purchase ―trip levels‖ to support
                             accessible taxis
                        e) New Freedom funds should be used to subsidize accessible taxis
                        f) Taxi service should be added as a solution to paratransit gaps
                             aside from enhancing paratransit service itself.
Additional / re-    Requests were made for county maps and a table of contents of the          A list of all agencies by
formatted           inventory.                                                                 County was added to the
information                                                                                    inventory. A map of the
                                                                                               Bay Area was added to
                                                                                               Chapter 3
Programming and Allocations Committee                                             Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 3a
December 12, 2007
Page 2


     Topic                                         Comment                                                 Response


Connecting land   Comments (7) indicated support for recognizing the importance of this            No change to report, as
use to transit    issue, and for siting social services and housing near transit to the point of   these comments primarily
                  requiring this through zoning. One comment suggested that siting services        supported text already
                  near housing might limit the location of housing options for seniors and         included in this section
                  disabled.
Coordination      Many transit agencies are not limited to a particular county; inter-agency       Added to report
between transit   transfers are an agency issue rather than a county issue.
agencies
Demographic       Break out senior demographics into finer categories (rather than 65 and          The intent of this section
Information       older)                                                                           of the plan to provide a
                                                                                                   general overview of the
                                                                                                   older adult population in
                                                                                                   the Bay Area. For
                                                                                                   detailed demographics
                                                                                                   and analysis, refer to the
                                                                                                   Older Adults
                                                                                                   Transportation Study,
                                                                                                   MTC, 2002
Funding           Several (5) comments said the plan did not recognize the shortage of funds       Additional and clarifying
                  for the proposed projects and transportation in general. There was some          information was added.
                  confusion about how funds would be combined and used for specific                Comments for worksheets
                  populations. There were also requests for clarifying statements about            and tables will be
                  funding sources and how Medi-Cal funds can be used for transportation.           forwarded to funding
                  Others suggested developing a list of funding sources for recommended            programs as a suggestion
                  projects and a worksheet to help Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom             to be included in calls for
                  Program grant applicants                                                         projects
Information       Minor changes and additions to Tables 7-3, 7-4 and 7-5 on feasibility and        Changes and additions
                  information at bus stops                                                         made
Plan Process           a) Two comments questioned how the low-income component                     Comment a is covered in
                            would be integrated with the Elderly and Disabled component.           Chapter 6
                       b) One comment asked to clarify that this plan informs the 2009
                            RTP update in 2013.                                                    Comments b and c added
                       c) One person commented that the plan process should have
                            included more outreach to private for-profit transportation
                            companies such as cab companies.
Program           Two comments questioned the choice of the peers used as best practice            Information was added on
examples          examples, what the selection criteria were, and whether Monument                 the criteria for selecting
                  Corridor was a good choice. A program in the Philadelphia Plan was               peer programs.
                  recommended as an example of a volunteer driver program in which older
                  drivers who carried other seniors could accumulate credit for when they          The examples suggested
                  are no longer able to drive.                                                     for statewide coordination
                                                                                                   will be forwarded to the
                                                                                                   state’s mobility action
                                                                                                   planning project as
                                                                                                   referenced in Chapter 8.

                                                                                                   Language was added to
                                                                                                   illustrate the example of
                                                                                                   senior volunteer driver
                                                                                                   programs.
Programming and Allocations Committee                                         Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 3a
December 12, 2007
Page 3


     Topic                                      Comment                                                Response


Program         Eight comments were received suggesting changes or additions to               Added to Chapters 7 and
suggestions     programs, including paid (vs. volunteer) travel escorts, travel training      8
                (including safety), wheelchair breakdown service and clarification about
                the Lifeline Program funding cycles.
Regional        Five comments addressed regional coordination as follows:                     Comment a added
mobility             a) Request that MTC allow a mobility management center to be
management                eligible for Federal funding programs (listed on p 1-3)             Clarifications/information
                     b) Ease navigation of inter-jurisdictional and inter-modal travel        added for b and c
                          using a regional travel coordinator
                     c) Clarify and add information about Consolidated Transportation
                          Service Agencies
Solution        Three comments expressed concern about the emphasis in evaluating             Projects will be
evaluation      solutions, specifically over- and under-emphasis on cost-effectiveness,       prioritized in competitive
                lack of emphasis on encouraging people to take fixed-route transit, and the   selection processes for
                lack of emphasis on the ―community‖ element.                                  funding. Evaluation
                                                                                              criteria in the report is not
                                                                                              prioritized or weighted

								
To top