Date: W.I.: Referred by: Revised:
November 15, 2006 1311 PAC 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: W.I.: Referred by:
November 15, 2006 1311 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: W.I.: Referred by: Revised:
November 15, 2006 1311 PAC 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: W.I.: Referred by:
November 15, 2006 1311 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 Resolution No. 3787 Subject: Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan: Low-Income Component 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 transithuman 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 lowincome 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. Item Number 3b
Background:
Programming and Allocations Committee November 8, 2006 Page 2
Agenda Item 3b
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 TransitHuman 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 November 8, 2006 Page 3
Agenda Item 3b
Comments on the Draft Low-Income Component of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan
Comment Increase federal funding for transportation programs Increase peak-hour buses Improve bus-boarding technology for disabled passengers Initiate additional auto loan programs for low-income families, especially in Alameda County Increase bus frequency Assess existing funding and re-prioritize
Group MCAC Members MCAC Members MCAC Members MCAC Members MCAC Members MCAC Audience
Action This is a transportation solution included in the lowincome component of the plan This is a transportation solution included in the lowincome component of the plan This comment will be incorporated into the elderly and disabled component of the plan Auto loan programs for low-income families is a transportation solution included in the low-income component of the plan This is a transportation solution included in the lowincome component of the plan An assessment of existing funding is currently being undertaken through work on Environmental Justice with the MCAC/Partnership Board sub-committee The Regional Welfare to Work Transportation Plan notes that there may be some types of projects that require the leadership of MTC and MTC’s partners MTC has committed to evaluating the Lifeline Transportation Program through Resolution 3726. The low-income component of the plan mentions several elements that need to be in place for successful solution implementation to occur. An appendix will be added that lists projects that have been funded through the three Low Income Flexible Transportation cycles. Local stakeholders have been involved in the planning processes to date, and will continue to be involved in the development of the elderly and disabled component of the plan. This comment will be addressed further in the coordinated section of the plan, as it relates to all three populations (low-income, elderly and disabled) covered in the plan
Need regional and county leadership for projects in which no project sponsor exists Evaluate the Lifeline Transportation Program Focus on implementation of the transportation solutions Include projects funded projects in an appendix – tie these to transportation needs Involve local agencies, especially in solution implementation
MCAC Audience
MCAC Audience MCAC Audience
MCAC Audience
MCAC Audience
Include information about all types of transportation services, such as services not funded by Department of Transportation dollars (i.e. Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, etc.)
Welfare to Work (WtW) Transportation Working Group
Programming and Allocations Committee November 8, 2006 Page 4
Agenda Item 3b
If citing funding sources to implement solutions, make sure to include those outside of traditional transportation funding sources
WtW Transportation Working Group
Non-transportation funding sources are included as possible funding sources for solutions listed in 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. Welfare to Work Transportation Plans have been completed in all nine Bay Area counties. Likewise, nine community-based transportation plans covering eleven communities have been completed. Final plans illustrate that the transportation needs raised in these planning efforts are similar throughout the region. A host of wide-ranging, multi-modal solutions are proposed in the low-income component of the coordinated plan to meet a variety of low-income transportation needs.
Make sure the needs of all low-income populations are included (i.e. those not necessarily located in communities of concern or transitioning from welfare to work) The group acknowledged that there is a broad range of solutions identified in the lowincome component of the plan, and that the solutions from the welfare to work planning did align with the community-based transportation planning results. Good representation of low-income transportation work completed in the region Make sure to include and track funding for transportation services funded through agencies other than Department of Transportation. When conducting outreach, manage public expectations regarding the outcome of the planning process. Need to focus attention on coordination and shared funding responsibility with other agencies. Providing or funding transportation service often becomes the responsibility of transit providers when other agencies should share in the responsibility. Keep tabs on ADA rulemaking and its impact on funding. Editorial comments
WtW Transportation Working Group
WtW Transportation Working Group Partnership Board
No action required
As noted above, this comment will be addressed further in the coordinated section of the plan, as it relates to all three populations (low-income, elderly and disabled) covered in the plan. Attention will be given to this issue during the outreach phase of the project when engaging the elderly and disabled populations Similar to the previous comments related to coordination, this comment will be addressed further in the coordinated section of the plan, as it relates to all three populations (low-income, elderly and disabled) covered in the plan.
Partnership Board
Partnership Board
Partnership Board Various
This issue will continue to be monitored.
Edits incorporated as suggested
Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee
December 12, 2007 Resolution No. 3787, Revised Subject: Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan: Elderly and Disabled Component 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 transithuman 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. Item Number 3a
Background:
Programming and Allocations Committee December 12, 2007 Page 2
Agenda Item 3a
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 December 12, 2007 Page 1
Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 3a
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 corrections to Inventory Additions / corrections to County gaps Additions / clarification to Chapter 7 Meeting information corrections Terminology
Almost 20 comments requested the addition of providers or corrected information in the transportation inventory (Appendix C). Two comments added information on County transportation gaps.
All information included in inventory These comments duplicated information already in the report All comments added
Five comments added information to Chapter 7, Solutions to Gaps.
Five comments corrected information on Outreach meetings, such as the number of people attending or the name of the host. Three comments asked for terminology changes.
Meeting information updated All terminology changes made
Comments by Issue Area Topic
Comment
Response
Access to transit Accessible taxis
Additional / reformatted information
Two individuals made four comments asking that bus ―bulb-outs‖ be added to Ch. 6, 7 and 8 as solutions to unsafe access to transit. Nine comments on accessible taxis noted that: a) there is a shortage of taxis, both accessible and not accessible b) fixed-route should be the first choice where it would work for disabled travelers c) there is a need for the creation of taxi voucher programs d) one form of financial assistance to accessible taxis would be to 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. Requests were made for county maps and a table of contents of the inventory.
Added to the report Comments a – e added to report Comment f – Taxis are already included in paratransit solutions
A list of all agencies by County was added to the inventory. A map of the Bay Area was added to Chapter 3
Programming and Allocations Committee December 12, 2007 Page 2
Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 3a
Topic
Comment
Response
Connecting land use to transit
Coordination between transit agencies Demographic Information
Comments (7) indicated support for recognizing the importance of this issue, and for siting social services and housing near transit to the point of requiring this through zoning. One comment suggested that siting services near housing might limit the location of housing options for seniors and disabled. Many transit agencies are not limited to a particular county; inter-agency transfers are an agency issue rather than a county issue. Break out senior demographics into finer categories (rather than 65 and older)
No change to report, as these comments primarily supported text already included in this section Added to report
Funding
Information Plan Process
Program examples
Several (5) comments said the plan did not recognize the shortage of funds for the proposed projects and transportation in general. There was some confusion about how funds would be combined and used for specific populations. There were also requests for clarifying statements about funding sources and how Medi-Cal funds can be used for transportation. Others suggested developing a list of funding sources for recommended projects and a worksheet to help Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom Program grant applicants Minor changes and additions to Tables 7-3, 7-4 and 7-5 on feasibility and information at bus stops a) Two comments questioned how the low-income component would be integrated with the Elderly and Disabled component. b) One comment asked to clarify that this plan informs the 2009 RTP update in 2013. c) One person commented that the plan process should have included more outreach to private for-profit transportation companies such as cab companies. Two comments questioned the choice of the peers used as best practice examples, what the selection criteria were, and whether Monument Corridor was a good choice. A program in the Philadelphia Plan was recommended as an example of a volunteer driver program in which older drivers who carried other seniors could accumulate credit for when they are no longer able to drive.
The intent of this section 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 Additional and clarifying information was added. Comments for worksheets and tables will be forwarded to funding programs as a suggestion to be included in calls for projects Changes and additions made Comment a is covered in Chapter 6 Comments b and c added
Information was added on the criteria for selecting peer programs. The examples suggested 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 December 12, 2007 Page 3
Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 3a
Topic
Comment
Response
Program suggestions
Regional mobility management
Solution evaluation
Eight comments were received suggesting changes or additions to programs, including paid (vs. volunteer) travel escorts, travel training (including safety), wheelchair breakdown service and clarification about the Lifeline Program funding cycles. Five comments addressed regional coordination as follows: a) Request that MTC allow a mobility management center to be eligible for Federal funding programs (listed on p 1-3) b) Ease navigation of inter-jurisdictional and inter-modal travel using a regional travel coordinator c) Clarify and add information about Consolidated Transportation Service Agencies Three comments expressed concern about the emphasis in evaluating solutions, specifically over- and under-emphasis on cost-effectiveness, lack of emphasis on encouraging people to take fixed-route transit, and the lack of emphasis on the ―community‖ element.
Added to Chapters 7 and 8
Comment a added Clarifications/information added for b and c
Projects will be prioritized in competitive selection processes for funding. Evaluation criteria in the report is not prioritized or weighted