ACTION PLAN: A LOCALLY DEVELOPED, COORDINATED …media.metro.net/projects_studies/images/Coord Plan CH 1-4.pdfPUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

FINAL SEPTEMBER 2007 1

ACTION PLAN:

A LOCALLY DEVELOPED, COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION

PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

This plan is prepared in response to the coordinated planning requirements set forth in SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act – A Legacy for Users, P.L. 190-059) in three sections of the Act: Section 5316-Job Access and Reverse Commute, Section 5317-New Freedom Program and Section 5310-Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program. The coordinated plan establishes the construct for a unified comprehensive strategy for transportation service delivery in Los Angeles County that is focused on unmet transportation needs of elderly individuals, persons with disabilities and individuals of low income. Its principal outcome will be to identify potential strategies and projects which are responsive to serving the identified needs and which can be eligible for funding under the various FTA programs. CHAPTER 1: THE COORDINATION ACTION PLAN 1.1 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM GUIDANCE Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines require that the coordinated plan must contain the following four (4) required elements consistent with the available resources of each individual agency/organization:

An assessment of available services that identifies current providers (public, private and non-profit);

An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes –this assessment can be based on the experiences and perceptions of the planning partners or on data collection efforts and gaps in service;

Strategies and/or activities and/or projects to address the identified gaps between current services and needs as well as opportunities to improve efficiencies in service delivery;

Priorities for implementation based on resources (from multiple program sources), time, and feasibility for implementing specific strategies and/or activities identified.

As the first plan of this type for Los Angeles County, though building upon related efforts in the past, this document provides initial guidance for selecting and implementing coordination projects and represents a starting point for future planning efforts.

1.2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION PLAN



Access Services Inc. initiated development of this coordinated transportation plan given its designation as the consolidated transportation services agency (CTSA) for Los Angeles County. CTSAs were created in 1979, with the passage by the State legislature of the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act for purposes of promoting the benefits of coordinated transportation among specialized transportation providers. Access Services was designated as the CTSA for Los Angeles County by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency in 1994, in compliance with California Code Sections 15975 and 15951-15952, authorized by the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act. The Act required conduct of an inventory and preparation of an Action Plan at least every four years to guide coordination activities. As amended in 2002, AB 2654 eliminated the requirement to submit Action Plans to the State Legislature, adding the new requirement that county transportation commissions and regional planning agencies prepare and adopt Action Plans. These Action Plans are to “designate …single agency or multiple agencies as consolidated transportation services agencies.” [Section 15975 (a)] The Action Plan is to specify the most feasible approaches to the consolidation or coordination of services for purposes of improving service efficiency or effectiveness. Access Services as Los Angeles County’s designated CSTA , has continued to be responsible for undertaking an inventory and preparing an Action Plan around social services transportation coordination needs and opportunities.

The most recent Los Angeles County Action Plan and Inventory was undertaken in 2002 by Multi-Systems and Nelson Nygaard & Associates on behalf of Access Services. The 2002 Action Plan articulated five goals and six key strategies as “most promising for the county”:

• Increase the availability of information to the public about all transit and paratransit options in the County.

• Provide travel training to those paratransit passengers who would be able to use fixed route service independently and safely with this type of assistance.

• Facilitate transfers between services (both fixed route and paratransit) by means of a universal fare system.

• Expand the sub-regional paratransit systems to include contiguous communities and/or nearby human service agencies or non-profit organizations.

• Add technical assistance programs.

Six strategies to realize these goals were set forth in the 2002 Action Plan: 1. Create a Structure for Regional Coordination Planning and Implementation 2. Enhance Public Information Efforts 3. Implement a Travel Training Program. 4. Implement a Universal Fare System (UFS). 5. Expand Sub-regional Paratransit Systems 6. Pilot Local Coordination Projects.

As described in Chapter 6 of this document, Access Services continues implementation efforts on aspects of the 2002 Action Plan, largely those related to public information, travel training and technical assistance to human service transportation providers. A formalized structure for regional coordination planning and implementation was not implemented, lacking the funding and authority by which to establish a Regional Coordination Council. Access Services works informally to support other coordination-friendly strategies through METRO advisory committees and its own technical and citizen advisory committees.



Access Services sought to anticipate the need for a regional coordinated plan responsive to Federal SAFETEA-LU guidance and chose to link this planning effort with the Action Plan process of the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act. Early in 2006, Access Services announced a competitive procurement for an updated inventory of Los Angeles County specialized transportation resources, anticipating the not-yet-known Federal coordination planning requirements of SAFETEA-LU. Access Services selected the transit planning team of, A-M-M-A with Judith Norman-Transportation Consultant to conduct its 2007 Inventory and prepare a new Action Plan in anticipation of new Federal coordination requirements.



CHAPTER 2: APPROACH TO A PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

This chapter establishes the general direction for development of a locally developed coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan for Los Angeles County. 2.1 THE SETTING Los Angeles County is part of a complex, metropolitan region that is home to over 10 million persons. The county’s 2200 square miles area sits in a basin that borders Orange County on the south, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties to the east and Ventura County on the northwest (Figure 2.1). Los Angeles County has ocean coastline, desert regions and 88 incorporated cities, plus pockets and areas of unincorporated County. There are also several far-flung areas, including City of Avalon (Santa Catalina Island) about 40 miles out into the Pacific Ocean, and the Antelope Valley area whose residents face long-distance commutes into downtown Los Angeles (Figure 2-1). Los Angeles County, incorporated cities and unincorporated areas include many diverse neighborhoods, communities and sub-regions. It has some of the country’s largest immigrant populations, a broad-based economy and a wide-range of employment, education and training opportunities. It is also the site of many internationally known medical facilities, with individuals traveling here from other areas of the country and elsewhere to avail themselves of Los Angeles County’s health care services. 2.2 WORK PLAN, APPROACH AND PROJECT TIMING Work activities were undertaken in three phases. Phase one was the development of the inventory, constructing the database and establishing a strong foundation from which to conduct the inventory survey. Phase two was the development of the Action Plan consistent with the historical processes of AB 120 Action Plans, developed every four years. The third and final phase was the public review process around the draft plan, to ensure that there was sufficient comment opportunity around the direction proposed. The project was planned as a twelve month effort. Drawing upon Federal and State directives, but also in light of related coordination experience over the past two decades, three working plan goals were proposed:

The coordination action plan must serve as a comprehensive, unified plan that promotes community mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities and persons of low income.

The coordination action plan shall establish priorities to incrementally improve mobility for the target populations.

The coordination action plan shall develop a process to identify partners interested, willing and able to promote community mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities and persons of low income.

It was also understood that the plan would address the requirements of the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) program which shares the goals outlined above.


FINAL SEPTEMBER 2007

5



6

Phasing of Action Plan Activities Phase I, the construction of the database as the backbone of the coordination effort, took longer than anticipated given a breadth and quantity of contact sources. The inventory methodology in Chapter 3 describes the 26 different sources that were integrated and cross-checked, as well as web-based searches and collection of updated agency address and contact information. These processes took through the summer and early fall originating from a listing of over 7,000 agencies, and the mailing of just over 4,100, and subsequent reduction of the list to about 3,700 unduplicated agencies. The inventory survey was distributed to stakeholders countywide in November 2006. In December 2006, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro – MTA), as the designated recipient of Section 5316 and 5317 funds, began its processes for announcement of funding availability. Metro and Access Services staff met with the consultants and staff from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - Los Angeles Metropolitan office to discuss the inter-relationship of the locally developed plan, under Access Services direction, and Metro’s funding allocation processes related to the distribution of funds. Strategic Planning Committee In an effort to ensure stakeholder participation in development of the plan and oversight of the plan and to enrich and strengthen both the planning effort and the end product, a Strategic Planning Committee was established. Representatives from the major public transportation agencies, as well as, cities and human service agencies/organizations, the County Board of Supervisors, adjacent county representatives, and others in the county were invited to participate as members of the committee. The list of invitees is shown below in Table 2-1. Although participation on the committee was encouraged, it was strictly voluntary. Ultimately, the composition of the committee of about 12 to 15 persons over the course of three project meetings included representatives from the following agencies and organizations, as well as Access Services staff:

Department of Public Social Services East Los Angeles Regional Center Developmental Disabilities Area Board X Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Los Angeles City Commission on Disability Pomona Valley Transportation Authority Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Southern California Association of Governments ITNSantaMonica

Table 2-1, Coordination Action Plan – Strategic Planning Committee Invitees



7

Stakeholder Agencies and Organizations City of Avalon Ms. Audra McDonald Administrative Analyst Avalon County Community and Senior Services Dept. Ms. Cynthia Banks Director Los Angeles Developmental Disabilities Area Board X Ms. Melody Goodman Systems Advocate Glendale DPSS GAIN Program Division Mr. George Paccerelli Program Manager City of Industry DPSS GAIN Program Division - PPS I Mr. Ruben Almendral HAS I City of Industry DPSS Bureau of Program and Policy Mr. Philip Ansell Assistant Director City of Industry Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center Ms. Frances Jacob Community Services Dept. Mgr. Alhambra Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center Ms. Gloria Wong Director Alhambra GAIN Program Ms. Leticia Colchado Human Services Administrator City of Industry Healthy Life Adult Day Healthcare Mr. Steve Gratwick Coordinator Los Angeles Immediate Needs Transportation Program Ms. Eva Woodward Project Manager Los Angeles Institute of Urban Research and Development Mr. Joe Colletti Executive Director Los Angeles ITSNSanta Monica Ms. Ellen Blackman Program Manager Culver City L.A. City Commission on Disabilities Mr. Luis Mata Chairperson Los Angeles LA Care Health Plan Ms. Lily Quiette Manager Los Angeles L.A. Coalition to End Homeless and Hunger Mr. Bob Erlenbusch Executive Director Los Angeles Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Ms. Natalie Profant-Kamoru Dir. of Policy/ Legislative Affairs Los Angeles National Mental Health Association Ms. Judy Cooperberg Director Lancaster North Los Angeles County Regional Center Ms. Cristina Vahid Transportation Coordinator Van Nuys R&D Transportation Services Ms. Veronica Martinez Transportation West Covina Salvation Army Mr. Philip Swyers Commissioner Long Beach Sheltered Partnership of Los Angeles Ms. Ruth Schwartz Executive Director Los Angeles TELACU - East Los Angeles Community Union Mr. David Lizarraga Chairman Los Angeles United Cerebral Palsy Ms. Terri Lantz Client Rights Advocate Woodland Hills Westside Regional Center Mr. Mike Danneker Director Culver City Other Public Agencies CalACT Ms. Jacklyn Montgomery Executive Director Sacramento California Department of Transportation Mr. Horacio Paras 5310 Coordinator Sacramento California Department of Transportation Mr. Peter Steinert Caltrans BRT Task Team Chair Sacramento Infoline Ms. Maribel Marin Executive Director San Gabriel Los Angeles County Transportation Authority Mr. Larry Torres Metro Project Manager Los Angeles Los Angeles County Transportation Authority Ms. Elizabeth Carter ADA Paratransit Prgrm. Admin. Los Angeles Office of Federal Transit Grants Ms. Kimberly Gayle Chief Sacramento Southern California Association of Governments Mr. Andre Darmanin Asst. Regional Transit Planner Los Angeles Adjacent County Transportation Agencies Antelope Valley Transportation Authority Mr. Randy Floyd Executive Director Lancaster North County Transit District (San Diego) Ms. Alane Haynes ADA Coordinator Oceanside North County Transit District (San Diego) Ms. Karen King Executive Director Oceanside Pomona Valley Transportation Authority Mr. George Sparks Secretary Administrator La Verne Riverside County Transportation Committee Ms. Tanya Love Transit Program Manager Riverside SANBAG-San Bernardino Ass. Governments Mr. Mike Bair Dir. Transit and Rail Programs San Bernardino Ventura County Transportation Commission Ms. Ginger Gherardi Director Ventura Federal Transit Administration Federal Transit Administration Ms. Bryna Helfer

Program Manager Human Services Washington DC

Federal Transit Administration Mr. Paul Page Community Planner San Francisco Federal Transit Administration Mr. Leslie Rogers Regional Administrator San Francisco Federal Transit Administration Mr. Doug Birnie Acting Director Washington DC Federal Transit Administration Mr. Ray Tellis Project Manager Los Angeles Elected Officials Hall of Administration - 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall Ms. Janet Neal Chairperson Los Angeles Hall of Administration - 821 Kenneth Hahn Hall Hon. Zev Yaroslavsky Supervisor District 3 Los Angeles Hall of Administration - 822 Kenneth Hahn Hall Hon. Don Knabe Supervisor District 4 Los Angeles Hall of Administration - 856 Kenneth Hahn Hall Hon. Gloria Molina Supervisor District 1 Los Angeles Hall of Administration - 869 Kenneth Hahn Hall Hon. Michael Antonovich Supervisor District 5 Los Angeles Hall of Administration - 866 Kenneth Hahn Hall Hon. Yvonne B. Burke Supervisor District 2 Los Angeles



8

CHAPTER 3 – RESOURCE AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSES To understand specialized transportation needs and resources within Los Angeles County, two quantitative analyses are presented. A demand estimation is described to suggest the scale of need for specialized transportation. Access Services’ stakeholder inventory process, last undertaken in 2002, was conducted in the winter 2006/2007 and is reported here. 3.1 DEMAND ESTIMATION FINDINGS A census-based estimate of demand was undertaken to identify the Los Angeles target populations and project their potentially needed trips. Details of this demand estimation process are included as Appendix A. A range of 1.06 million to 1.77 million persons was estimated for the target population. These individuals are adults between ages 16 to 64 who are low income or disabled and seniors age 65 and older. They represent between 11 percent and up to 19 percent of Los Angeles County’s 2000 population of 9.5 million residents. This proportion of the population was projected using general population estimates developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and other assumptions about changes in the senior population and the base adult population were made. These projections suggest that increasing proportions of Los Angeles County residents will be within the target populations, as follows:

by 2010, up to 2.1 million persons or 20 percent of the population; by 2020, up to 2.4 million or 21 percent of the population; and by 2030, up to 2.7 million persons or 22 percent of the population.

Trip demand was estimated for the target population. Average trips per day were estimated, as well as the proportion of public transit trips. Potentially a range of 58 to 97 million trips were projected to be needed adults who are low income or disabled and seniors. In addition, those trips requiring special assistance were estimated at 10 percent of the total trips, reflecting a range of 5.8 to 9.7 million trips. This contrasts favorably with the 6.5 million documented trips provided by the public paratransit providers in Los Angeles County, suggesting that the levels of unmet need are not impossible to meet and are within the range of what is now provided. This plan examines the characteristics and nature of those specialized transit trips that are not available to, not provided for or not made by the target populations. Table 3-1 following presents the number and basic characteristics of Los Angeles County target populations of interest to this plan, based upon the 2000 Census. Various subgroups of the total population are presented for seniors and for adults ages 16 to 64. Children are not considered in this demand estimation as they usually travel with an accompanying adult, potentially with that adult’s income level or disability including them among the target populations.



9

Three ranges of target populations are included – low end, mid-range and high end – because of the possibility among these groups for overlapping characteristics. Table 3-1 identifies for the base 2000 census population the low end of the range as just over 1 million persons and the high end of the range as 1.76 million persons.

Table 3-1

2000 Census Attribute, Summary File 3 People by Category

[2000]

% of Population Subgroup

% of Total L.A. County

Population

Los Angeles County Total Population [1] 9,519,338 100%

ADULTS 16-64 [2] 6,195,555 65%

Adults "go-outside-home" disability, ages 16-64 (non-insitutionalized) [4]

628,422 7%

Disabled adults as percentage of age 16-64 population 10%Low-income (ages 18-64) (Below poverty level as defined by the Census Bureau) [3]

940,899 10%

Low-income adults as percentage of age 16-64 population 15%

SENIORS [2] 825,198 9% Seniors, ages 65-74 395,778 48% 4% Seniors, ages 75-84 323,839 39% 3% Seniors, ages 85+ 105,581 13% 1%

1%11%

Seniors "go-outside-home" disability (non-institutionalized) [4] 2%Disabled seniors as percentage of all seniors. 26%

TOTAL TARGET POPULATION RANGESLow End: Adults with disabilities (16-64) and only seniors 75+ 1,057,842 11%Mid Range: Adults with disabilites (16-64) and all seniors 65+ 1,453,620 15%Hi End: Low income adults (16-64) and all seniors 65+ 1,766,097 19%[1] Census 2000 Summary File 3, Total Population.[2] Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, Sex by Age.[3] Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, Poverty Status in 1999 by age.

[4] Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, Age by types of disability for the civilian non-institutionalized population 5 years & over with disabilities. The "go-outside-the-home" disability includes those who because of a physical, mental or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, have difficulty going outside the home alone to shop or to medical appointments.

TARGET POPULATIONS for JARC, New Freedoms, and Section 5310 Programs

Low Income Seniors (Below poverty level as defined by the Census Bureau) [3]

93,555

212,452



10

3.2 2006 STAKEHOLDER INVENTORY APPROACH 3.2.1 Previous 2002 AB 120 Inventory A central development activity of this Action Plan was the update of Access Services’ AB 120 Los Angeles County Inventory. The inventories have traditionally been conducted approximately every four years, in compliance with California’s Social Services Transportation Improvement Act of 1979, (commonly known as the AB 120 inventory) after the authorizing assembly bill. The last Inventory conducted was in 2002, distributing surveys to a total of 2,428 agencies and organizations and generating a total response of 357, a total which included 23 agencies submitting more than one survey (for different programs within the agency).

The 2002 Inventory activity was targeted to agencies/organizations providing transportation, with 73% of the surveys received reflecting agencies/organizations providing and/or participating in transportation in some fashion – directly providing, contracting or arranging. A little more than a quarter (27%) of the agencies/organizations did not report a transportation function, although this group includes respondents for whom limited information was obtained (either they provided no information on the agency type or on the transportation services supported by the agency). In addition, there was a large group of stakeholder agencies/organizations not responding or providing very limited “Other” information (97 total). As a result, there were only 260 agencies/organizations for which detailed information was provided. Of the responding agencies/organizations, 96 or 27% can be categorized as publicly operated services. Considering the fact that more than one response was received from some 23 agencies/organizations, it should be noted that only 63 total agencies/organizations fall into this category. Another one-third of the responses were from human service agencies/organizations, and 7% from faith-based organizations. Commercial providers and state agencies within offices in Los Angeles were also represented, albeit in small numbers. 3.2.2 Methodology and Approach to 2006 Inventory Constructing a Mailing List Considerable effort was expended to construct a master database that would reflect the fullest possible breadth of human services and public organizations in county. A variety of sources were compiled to create a comprehensive listing. Table 3-2 shows the data sets that were imported from Metro, Access Services and other sources1, creating an initial listing of 7,054 records.

1 The largest single new listing included the California Motor Vehicle Department listing for vehicle terminal inspections. This listing is required by California code for the operation of vehicles seating ten passengers or more. The current statewide listing of vehicle terminal inspections was obtained from the California Highway Patrol and Los Angeles County listings extracted from this master listing of 258,875 total records, statewide. Los Angeles County records numbered 66,061 of which 54,371 were marked as “active.” Selected from these were records matching two categories that the CHP data staff indicated were most likely of interest to this project: BusType 1>0 and BusType 2>1. This generated a subset of 1,378 records which were then subsequently reduced to the 929 records through the elimination of duplicative information.



11

Table 3-2, 2006 Inventory Data Sources and Counts

Data Source NASI Member Agency Roster 40Transit Providers Advisory Committee Roster 24METRO Bus Operations Subcommittee Roster 19METRO Local Transportation Systems Subcommittee Roster 29Job Access and Reverse Commute Recipients 9Job Access and Reverse Commute Mailing List 14705310 Applicants 2000 245310 Applicants 2001 245310 Applicants 2002 185310 Applicants 2003 155310 Applicants 2004 165310 Applicants 2005 1285310 Applicants 2006 1035310 Applicants 2007 20RideInfo - Multisystems (2002 listing) 2468RideInfo - NewDir table-Rideinfo.mdb 190RideInfo - TranData table-Rideinfo.mdb 338RideInfo - Category-Contacts.mdb 154Senior Centers 117Faith Based Agencies 29Independent Living Centers 14Adult Day Health Care Centers 28Social Service Agencies 848CHP-California Motor Vehicle terminal inspection list 929

Additionally, searches on the Internet generated further listings and current address information for senior centers, dialysis centers, adult day health care centers (ADHCs) and other major human service agencies/organizations. Delete duplicate activities were performed to remove and consolidate records where several contacts existed. Approximately 2,000 records were deleted or combined in the initial “delete duplicates” activity, prior to the survey mailing. A second, more detailed “delete duplicate” activity further consolidated records, where an agency was listed several times but with different contact persons. Also, bad addresses returned as a result of the initial mailing were deleted as well. This reduced the master database to a total “n” of just under 4,000 agencies. Survey Design The survey tool, included as Appendix B, was designed to make it as convenient as possible for stakeholders to respond, by including questions that were short and easy to understand. The survey included a number of check-box and closed-ended responses. In addition, the survey was intended to be applicable to agencies and organizations that do NOT operate transportation, as well as those who do operate transportation. The first eight questions of the survey were designed to be answered by all respondents and sought information about the responding agency/organization, as well as to solicit opinions about unmet transportation needs and interest in coordination. Stakeholder agencies and



12

organizations operating transportation were asked to complete all survey questions, which included providing specific information on service-related issues and financial information. The survey was tested informally in various settings and significant attention was paid to the language and sequencing of questions. The final version of the survey included 25 questions, as follows:

• 5 agency characteristic questions; • 4 questions on client/customer need and coordination issues; and • 15 questions to obtain resource information about the transportation services operated

Survey Distribution Access Services distributed the survey in early November 2006. The survey was disseminated to 4,118 stakeholder agencies and organizations. A cover letter from the Executive Director of Access Services was included which explained the survey’s intent relative to the preparation of the locally-developed coordinated action plan for Los Angeles County. A return envelope was included, to facilitate return of the survey. Stakeholders were instructed to return the survey by fax or email. One of the challenges of survey administration is to ensure that the survey instrument is ultimately completed by the appropriate person within the agency/organization. Therefore, in an effort to ensure that the survey reached the appropriate agency/organization representative, in cases where two names were identified and existed in the database, these were both listed on the address label. In other cases if only one agency/organization name was identified, or no names were included, the mailing label identified “Current Director” as the addressee. Care was taken around this to encourage passing the survey to the proper individual within the organization who was aware of transportation needs and concerns. To improve the response rate, the surveys were also distributed using other face-to-face outreach techniques that included:

• Distribution in person at scheduled presentations to committees of both Metro and Access Services (citizen’s advisory committees and transit advisory committees); and

• Distribution during outreach interviews and at several other public meetings, including ones targeted to Regional Centers and 5310 applicants;

The Strategic Planning Committee was also asked to distribute and promote completion of the survey. In addition, Access Services and Metro staff made follow-up calls and contacted key agencies, to encourage their response. 3.3 2006 STAKEHOLDER INVENTORY RESPONSES AND FINDINGS This subsection summarizes the responses and findings of the 2006 stakeholder inventory with database reports detailing various responses included as Appendix C-1 thru Appendix C-19, 3.3.1 Response Rate There were 208 completed surveys returned from Los Angeles County stakeholders, representing approximately a 5.4% return rate on the mailing of 4,100 addresses.



13

At first glance, the 5.4 percent return rate appears low in comparison with the previous 2001 Access Services inventory which reported 357 surveys returned out of 2,428 distributed (14.7 percent return rate). In these settings a survey response rate of 7-14 percent is typical. The project team identified numerous factors which impacted the survey return rate. As a result of project team efforts to determine which agencies/organizations had not responded, we discovered that although the return previous survey rate appeared considerably higher, there were instances of a single agency/organization responding more than once. Specifically, those agencies/organizations operating transportation completed a separate survey for each of the services that they operated. Some double counting of surveys completed in the previous inventory artificially inflated the previous survey response rate. Moreover, since the current survey design was all encompassing and allowed agencies and organizations to provide information on all of their services using a single survey, this contributed to a lower number of total surveys received than in the previous inventory. With these facts in mind, the return rates between the two inventories were comparable. In addition, although significant project team resources were expended using mail, email and in person to increase survey circulation and response, the low number of surveys received can also be attributed to distribution of the survey during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season. Timing of survey distribution is always a key factor in the successful administration of any survey. Holiday and vacation periods are not considered optimal times for survey distribution. The inventory results nonetheless have considerable value. First, the agencies who did respond are those who are understood to be interested, willing and potentially able to participate in the effort to identify and respond to unmet transportation needs for the target populations. Secondly, these agencies and organizations, by virtue of their expressed interest, have provided valuable information and insight into the individual unmet needs of the target populations, which facilitates development of recommendations tailored to the needs of the targeted populations. These respondents may be small in number but they represent a strong central core of key agencies and organizations, operating a significant amount of transportation services in Los Angeles County. 3.3.2 Characteristics of Responding Agencies Figure 3-1 shows the largest group of responding agencies were private, non-profit (99 agencies - 48 percent), followed by public agencies at one-third of respondents (68 agencies - 33 percent). Private, for-profit agencies/organizations submitted 32 completed surveys (15 percent) and faith-based organizations submitted 9 surveys (4 percent). Figure 3-1 shows the percentage of responding agencies/organizations sorted by legal type. In addition, a complete alphabetical listing of responding agencies and organizations by legal type is appended to this report.



14

Figure 3-1

2006 Inventory, Responding Agencies by Legal Type, n=208

15%

33%

48%

4%Faith based org

Private, for profit

Public agency

Private, non-profit

The project team found it useful to analyze some survey responses by geographic area, consistent with the five Metro’s service sectors. Although the response rate in each of the sectors was not the same, viewing the survey results geographically allowed us to gain some understanding of the needs and resources in each of the five areas of the county. Figure 3-2 depicts the boundaries for each service sector.



15

Figure 3-2

**Note – current Metro Sector n=207; which excludes one (1) agency located outside of Los Angeles County.



16

Over 50 percent of the responses to the survey were received from the Westside/Central and San Gabriel Valley areas of the county (Westside/Central 64 agencies-31 percent; San Gabriel Valley 54 agencies-26 percent). Lower numbers of surveys were received from the San Fernando Valley, South Bay and Gateway cities. Specifically, the San Fernando Valley returned 34 agencies’ surveys (16 percent); the South Bay returned 28 agencies (13 percent); the Gateway Cities returned 27 agencies’ surveys (13 percent). Agency Reported Caseloads and Ridership Stakeholder agencies and organizations were asked to estimate the number of persons on their caseloads, the average daily attendance or daily ridership and selected characteristics of these persons, as applicable. Responses are detailed in Table 3-3 following.

Table 3-3 2006 Inventory, Reported Caseload and Daily Ridership

n=208Private,

For Profit

Private, Non-Profit

Public Agency

Faith Based Org.

32 99 68 9Enrolled clients/ consumers 852,659 16,800 234,942 597,317 3,600Daily attendance/ ridership 38,776 3,289 19,679 15,474 334

Percent of caseload attending/ riding daily 5% 20% 8% 3% 9%

Clients requesting transportation assistance door to curb 46,290 4,572 31,930 9,687 101% of enrolled caseload 5% 27% 14% 2% 3%

Clients in wheelchair/ mobility devices 32,167 315 15,995 15,834 23% of enrolled caseload 4% 2% 7% 3% 1%

ADA eligible riders 41,027 493 16,581 23,938 15% of enrolled caseload 5% 3% 7% 4% 0%

Caseload Related Questions

Caseload information, for this data set, suggests that more than 850,000 persons are served to varying degrees by the agencies responding. Of these individuals, 39,000 (5%) are traveling daily to activities, programs, training or services provided by responding agencies. On a daily basis, responding public agencies and non-profit agencies report that they see over 15,000 persons and 19,000 persons, respectively. These numbers show that non-profit agencies and organizations interface with a larger proportion of the total caseload attending or riding daily (19,679 persons – 8 percent of caseload) than do public agencies (15,474 persons – 3 percent of caseload). This is consistent with the understanding that non-profit human service agencies and organizations work daily with their clients/consumers to provide all types of services, not just limited to transportation. Consumers needing assistance between the door and the curb, where the vehicle is waiting, were estimated at 5 percent overall by all agencies. But a much higher proportion, (27 percent) is reported for the for-profit organizations, many of whom are adult day care facilities or medical services. Similarly, private, non-profit organizations indicated a high proportion needing door-to-curb assistance, at 14 percent of reported caseloads. The low level of just 2 percent was reported by public agencies



17

Mobility devices were observed in use by 4 percent of the overall population, with the highest incidence reported by the private non-profit agencies (7 percent) and lowest proportion for faith-based organizations. When asked about the number of clients who are ADA eligible, responding agencies noted that overall 5 percent of their consumer base was thought to be ADA eligible for complementary paratransit services.

Primary Clients Served There is some overlap among populations served by the responding agencies. Table 3-4 shows that overall; seniors are reported as the largest single target group served by responding agencies (87 agencies). Of the 208, four agencies/organizations in 10 serve able-bodied seniors, and about one-third report serving frail seniors. Almost 4 out of 10 of the agencies/organizations responding report that they serve people with physical disabilities. In addition, about one-quarter report that they serve behavioral disabilities which include both physical and developmental disabilities. Agencies/organizations serving those with sensory impairments, such as blindness or deafness, were fewest in number (8 agencies). Another third of the organizations serve persons of low income. Youth were reported as served by a small proportion of all respondents, just 8 percent (16 agencies). In the “other” category, agencies provided additional detail such as “Cambodian seniors in Long Beach” (Asian & Pacific Islander Task Force), “HIV homeless population” (Project New Hope-Echo Park) and “seniors with dementia” (Rancho USC/Alzheimer Research Center).

Table 3-4 2006 Inventory, Client Groups Served by Agency Legal Type

n=208 32 % 99 % 68 % 9 %Seniors, able-bodied 87 42% 10 31% 32 32% 40 59% 5 56%Seniors, frail 74 36% 12 38% 35 35% 24 35% 3 33%

Persons w/ physical disabilities 78 38% 12 38% 38 38% 27 40% 1 11%Persons w/ behavioral disabilities 56 27% 7 22% 25 25% 23 34% 1 11%Persons w/ sensory impairments 8 4% 1 3% 6 6% 1 1% 0 0%

Persons with low income 61 29% 9 28% 31 31% 16 24% 5 56%Youth 16 8% 2 6% 10 10% 3 4% 1 11%

General Public 19 9% 4 13% 4 4% 11 16% 0 0%Other 10 5% 2 6% 5 5% 2 3% 1 11%

Faith Based OrgPrimary Client Groups Served Private For ProfitPrivate, Non-

Profit Public Agency

As highlighted in Table 3-4, within the organizational legal category, the emergence of the for-profit adult day care and adult day health care community is evident, as well as health care in the for-profit sector, with 38 percent of the private for-profit organizations serving frail seniors.



18

The private-non profit respondents are fairly well-distributed among the various population groups, with about a third within every category except youth which represented at just ten non-profit agencies (10 percent) and sensory impairments served by 6 agencies (6 percent). Public agencies are predominantly serving the able-bodied senior (40 agencies, 59 percent). Of the 9 responding faith-based organizations, 5 (56 percent) are serving able-bodied seniors and 5 (56 percent) are serving low-income populations. Another way to understand the populations served by the survey respondents is by service categories. These categories were assigned to agencies/organizations upon receipt of the completed survey to suggest the breadth of consumer groups and service types represented. Figure 3-3 shows that of the 852,659 consumers reported, the broadest caseload representation was in the medical/ health area, not surprising given the number and size of the major hospitals responding, including LA USC, Harbor UCLA Medical Center and Kaiser Foundation Hospital, among a handful of others, reporting over 426,000 active consumers. Public transit agencies, including cities and several responding municipal transit operators in the region, reported about one in five of the consumers, almost 156,000 persons. Social service agencies focused specifically on seniors reported 135,000 persons, while general social services reported less than half that, 60,000 persons caseloads. Smaller groups were reported by those serving low-income populations, almost 52,000, and agencies serving youth reported under 3,000 consumers.

Figure 3-3

2006 Inventory - Percent of Total Caseload Reported by Consumer Group Served (Caseload = 852,659)

0%

0%

1%

1%

6%

7%

16%

18%

50%

Youth/ Child

Faith Based

Commercial Operators

Education

Low Income

General Public, Social Services

Senior/ Disabled, Social Services

Public Transit Agencies

Medical/Health

Percent of Enrolled Clients Reported by Client Group



19

The eight commercial transit operators reported a total of 4,655 consumers while four educational institutions responding reported 11,250 students. Responding faith based organizations reported the smallest caseload of 3,325 people. 3.3.3 Transportation Services Provided Agencies were asked to describe the transportation they may provide and were offered a number of ways in which to characterize that service, including:

• no transportation operated, contracted or subsidized • operating transportation with full responsibility for the transportation by this agency • acting as the contractor for one or more agencies to provide transportation services • subsidizing transportation through agency purchase of coupons, scrip, passes, fares or

mileage reimbursement • arranging for transportation by assisting with information but clients responsible for

follow-up Figure 3-4 presents the responses from stakeholder agencies and organizations.

Figure 3-4

2006 Inventory Transportation Services Provided, n=208

1%

8%

23%

25%

25%

26%

36%

Other

Acts as contractor

No transportation

Arranges

Subsidizes

Contract with anotherentity

Agency operates

Less than one-quarter of all respondents indicated that they do not operate transportation (47 agencies-23 percent). In addition, these agencies/organizations indicate that they are neither directly providing transportation nor assisting consumers in obtaining transportation services. By contrast, another quarter (52 agencies, 25 percent) are at a minimum arranging transportation for consumers in a variety of ways. This can mean simply providing phone numbers and letting consumers request their own trips. Or, their efforts could include making



20

trip arrangements for clients/consumers. Usually this function does not involve any expenditure of funds by agencies/organizations. Figure 3-4 shows that agencies/organizations that operate transportation are the largest group (74 agencies-36 percent), while the smallest group of agencies and organizations responding act as contractors to provide transportation to others (16 agencies-8 percent). About one-quarter of those agencies and organizations responding to the survey are contracting for service with others (54 agencies -26 percent), arranging for transportation (52 agencies-25 percent) or subsidizing bus passes or taxi script (53 agencies-25 percent). Two advocacy organizations are classified in the “other” category. Table 3-5 presents this data by organization type, showing the agency operating with full responsibility was most common among the private for-profits (50 percent), while public agencies were most likely to contract (49 percent). Non-profit agencies were about evenly split between operating with full responsibility (32 percent), arranging (31 percent), and subsidizing (28 percent). These non-profits were least likely to contract for services (10 percent). Faith-based transportation providers were just nine in number, a small sample, but of these four were directly operating transportation.

Table 3-5, 2006 Inventory Transportation Services Offered by Agency Legal Type

Total

n= 208 32 99 68 9

47 23% 6 19% 28 28% 10 15% 3 33%Other \1 2 1% 0% 2 2% 0% 0%

Agency operates / full responsibility 74 36% 16 50% 32 32% 22 32% 4 44%Contract for service with other entity 54 26% 10 31% 10 10% 33 49% 1 11%Subsidizes 53 25% 4 13% 28 28% 18 26% 3 33%Arranges 52 25% 6 19% 31 31% 13 19% 2 22%Acts as contractor 16 8% 4 13% 10 10% 2 3% 0 0%

Note: \1 Although more agencies are reported as "other" in the detailed reports in the appendices, in fact all but two were offeringcomments as to the nature of their transportation service.

Faith Based Org.

No transportation provided, contracted, arranged

Transportation Services Provided

Private, For Profit Private, Non-Profit Public Agency

Agencies Operating Transportation In summary, two-thirds of responding agencies or organizations (134 agencies-64 percent) indicated that they are providing transportation services in some form – either directly operating, contracting for service, subsidizing bus passes or taxis, or arranging for transportation. Clients Served With Transportation Respondents were asked to whom they provide transportation and only 10 percent of those responding reported general public (21 agencies). The most common form of transportation authorization was for any person the agency serves (44 agencies, 22 percent). Second most common were only formally enrolled clients (42 agencies, 21 percent), presumably reflecting the requirement for seniors and persons with disabilities to register in advance with their transportation providers. Clients approved for purchased transportation were third-most



21

common, numbering 27 agencies (13 percent) of which regional centers are a prime example. Regional Center clients must be formally authorized to use agency transportation services. (Figure 3-5).

Figure 3-5

2006 Inventory Transportation Services Provided

By Client Category

10%

17%

27%

32%

General Public

Clients Approved forTransport

Any Person the AgencyServes

Only Formally EnrolledAgency Clients

% of Transportation Providing Agencies (n=126)excludes commercial operators

Of the responding public transit agencies, a majority have indicated that only formally enrolled clients can be transported (17 agencies, 45 percent), (Table 3-6). Human service agencies are weighted only slightly more towards any person the agency serves (31 agencies, 35 percent) but also have a significant number of agencies where the client is approved for transport (16 agencies, 18 percent).

Table 3- 6, 2006 Inventory, Categories of Clients Receiving Transportation

by Agency Type

Total

Respondents = 126 38 88

Only Formally Enrolled Agency Clients 40 32% 17 45% 23 26%Any Person the Agency Serves 34 27% 3 8% 31 35%Clients Approved for Transport 21 17% 5 13% 16 18%General Public 13 10% 11 29% 2 2%

Transportation Services Are Provided To: General Public Transport Human Services

Note: Excludes commercial operators



22

Vehicle Availability Over 1,600 vehicles were reported by for-profit, non-profit and public agencies/organizations through this inventory process. In addition, Metro did not provide vehicle inventory information. As a result, a total of 927 agency vehicles were identified as shown in Table 3-7 following.

Table 3-7, 2006 Inventory

Number of Vehicles Reported for Transportation Services

Vehicle CharacteristicsAll

Agenciesn=208 n=100 n=34 n=66

Total Vehicles 1,629 927 355 22% 572 35%

Vehicles Used Daily 1,545 859 291 19% 568 37%93% of total veh 82% of total veh 99% of total veh

Passenger CapacityUp to 9 pax 756 408 47% 75 26% 333 59%

10-14 pax 283 266 31% 112 38% 154 27%15-24 pax 210 202 24% 118 41% 84 15%

25+ pax 361 32 4% 27 9% 5 1%

Wheelchair/ lift equipped 715 411 48% 238 33% 173 24%% of Total Vehicles 44% 44% 67% 30%

General Public Transport

Human Services Agencies

Note: Vehicles reported by commercial operators are included in the total count (All Agencies) but not detailed in the breakdown by General Public providers and Human Services providers to avoid double counting by agencies with whom they are contracting.

Total GP Trans + Human Services

A review of the vehicle resources of public transit as compared with those reported by human service agencies/organizations shows that public transit maintains a surplus of vehicles over and above the number needed for day-to-day service operation. These vehicles are known as spares and are used when necessary to avoid service interruptions. This surplus of vehicle resources does not exist for human service providers. Public transit reports that 82 percent the available vehicles are used daily, while human services agencies/organizations report that 99 percent are used in service on a daily basis. This suggests that the vehicle resources of human service agencies/organizations are limited and vehicle reliability is likely an issue that may impact their ability to operate efficiently in their day-to-day environment.

Understanding the level of capital resources needed to operate existing transportation services is a necessary step in the formulation of future coordination strategies.

The fleet characteristics of public transit in comparison with human service agencies/organizations are also significantly different. Human service agency/organizations’ vehicles are smaller, and only one in ten are lift-equipped. Public transit agency vehicles are distributed across all vehicle size categories, and eight in ten are lift-equipped.



23

Vehicle Trips and Miles Operated The survey contained questions designed to ascertain the amount of service provided by agencies and organizations operating transportation in the county. Collection of trips provided and mileage operated will provide us with a baseline profile of the quantities of service operated by stakeholder agencies and organizations. This data can be used to quantify increases in service levels (trips and miles traveled) over time, and can be used to measure the success of coordination projects that are implemented in the county. Reported data is presented for public transit and for human service agencies in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8, 2006 Inventory Vehicle Trips and Annual Miles Reported

Vehicle Utilization

N=78 N=30 N=48Total Daily One-Way Trips Reported 10,789 6,078 4,711Annualized One-Way Trips 2,751,195 100% 1,549,890 56% 1,201,305 44% * 255 days (no weekends)

Total Daily Service Miles Reported 26,231 12,309 13,922Annualized Service Miles 6,688,905 100% 3,138,795 47% 3,550,110 53%

* 255 days (no weekends)




Table 3-9 shows the service hours reported for general public services and human services agencies transportation. Provision of service is categorized by time of day to provide a picture of how many agencies and organizations are operating transportation at certain times on weekdays, Saturday and Sunday.

Table 3-9, 2006 Inventory Service Hours and Days of Operation

Service Hours Table Service by General Public Agencies and Human Services Agencies

Weekdays General Public Human Services Early (before 8am) 17 15 General (8am-6pm) 29 48 Late (6pm-10pm) 10 8 24/7 2 6

Saturday Early (before 8am) 4 4 General (8am-6pm) 22 9 Late (6pm-10pm) 5 3 24/7 2 6

Sunday Early (before 8am) 4 4 General (8am-6pm) 19 7 Late (6pm-10pm) 4 2 24/7 2 6



24

Human service agencies are operating the highest level of service on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p. m., but having significantly less coverage in the early morning and late evening hours. Agencies/organizations providing services to the general public report that they are operating in the early morning and late hours to accommodate same day transportation needs to and from work and school. Numbers of organizations operating on Saturday and Sunday between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. by agencies/organizations providing services for the general public were comparable to the same operating periods on weekdays. The number of human service agencies who reported that they operate service on Saturdays and Sundays is very limited even during the 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. operating period.

Based upon agency/organization responses, transit dependent individuals within the target populations who need to use specialized services on weekends or in the early morning hours have few travel options.

3.3.4 Transportation Needs Responding agencies were asked to characterize the needs of consumers they believe to be poorly served. Figure 3-6 ranks these needs for all responding agencies and organizations.

Figure 3-6

2006 Inventory - All ReportingClient Trip Needs Poorly Served

14%

18%

19%

21%

23%

24%

25%

29%

29%

30%

30%

33%

35%

53%

59%

Environmental barriers to fixed rt./ bus

Adult school - evenings/ weekends

Employment trips - late night or early a.m.

Employment trips - 8 am - 5 pm

Children to day care, school

Senior programs/ senior nutrition

Visiting family or friends

Adult day care/ or health care

Long trips - beyond local community

Recreation - daytime

Recreation - evenings

Recreation - weekends

Shopping and multiple errand trips

Same day transportation service

Medical trips

Percent Responding Agencies (n=208)



25

Stakeholder responses show that medical trips, same day transportation, multiple errand trips and weekend and evening service ranked as the top five areas of need, accordingly:

• Medical trip needs outrank other needs reported (123 agencies – 59 percent); • Same-day trips (110 agencies – 53 percent) are needs reported by more than half of

the respondents Figure 3-7 (which excludes the nine (9) commercial transit providers that are neither public transit nor human services) shows that some interesting variances surface from this data when analyzed by agency type. It is immediately apparent that somewhat more information on need was provided by the human service agencies and organizations, with 70 percent of human service agencies and organizations reporting medical trip needs (107 agencies) and 60 percent reporting same-day trips needs (91 agencies). The next-most frequently reported need was for shopping and multiple errand trips (39 percent-60 agencies). The next categories of transportation need included weekend recreation, evening recreation and visiting family or friends.

Figure 3-7

2006 Inventory - Reported by Agency Type Client Trip Needs Poorly Served

18%

50%

35%

16%

20%

24%

28%

29%

32%

25%

33%

31%

35%

39%

60%

70%

23%

8%

15%

10%

13%

13%

13%

20%

28%

23%

28%

40%

18%

23%

Environmental barriers to fixed rt./ bus

Adult school - evenings/ weekends

Employment trips - late night or early a.m.

Employment trips - 8 am - 5 pm

Children to day care, school

Senior programs/ senior nutrition

Visiting family or friends

Adult day care/ or health care

Long trips - beyond local community

Recreation - daytime

Recreation - evenings

Recreation - weekends

Shopping and multiple errand trips

Same day transportation service

Medical trips

Percent Responding Agencies by TypeHuman Services =152; General Public Transit =40; n=192

Human ServiceG.P. Transit



26

Public operators are reporting some level of transportation need, but with somewhat less frequency than do the human service and social service agencies/organizations who work with their client/consumer bases in different ways. There is also some overlap in recognition of specific types of need. More than half of the public operators identified long trips beyond the community (50 percent-20 agencies) as a need. Second and third ranked responses were same day transportation (40 percent-16 agencies) and evening recreation trips (35 percent -14 agencies). Medical trip needs ranked first by the human services was ranked fourth by public operators.

Notably, same day transportation was the one area of need ranked highly by both groups, ranked in second place by both human services agencies and by public transit operators.

The top trip need rankings reported by both public transportation and human service agencies and organizations were as follows:

Human service agencies/organizations top ranked trip needs: Medical trips Same-day transportation Shopping and multiple errands Recreation on weekends

Public transit agencies/organizations top ranked trip needs:

Long trips – beyond the local community Same-day transportation Recreation evenings Medical trips

It should be mentioned that medical trips, ranked as the number one trip need by the human services organizations and long-trips, beyond the local community, ranked as the number one trip need by the public transit agencies are often the same type of trip. Medical trips generally require medium to longer distance travel where medical destinations are frequently outside jurisdictional boundaries.

3.3.5 Assessing Interest in Coordination Survey respondents were asked about their interest in coordination. Specifically, the question asked was: “Are you interested in transportation service coordination?” Stakeholders were invited to check as many options among the ten choices that might apply. Figure 3-8 shows that slightly over one-third of responding agencies reported they are not interested in coordination in the areas listed on the survey. Of those willing to coordinate, respondents showed the greatest interest in coordinated trip scheduling and dispatch (45 agencies–22 percent). Not only do respondents want to work with other agencies/organizations operating services to coordinate trip scheduling, these responses may also indicate a desire by some agencies/organizations to purchase trips or to obtain vehicle capacity through a coordinated system, without having to directly operate transportation themselves.



27

There are similar levels of interest in the next four potential coordination areas, as 12 to 15 percent of agencies/organizations reporting some interest in: contracting to provide transportation to other agencies; coordinated vehicle and other capital purchases; pooling or sharing of vehicles; joint purchase of supplies or insurance and shared fueling or maintenance facilities. Between 24 and 32 agencies indicated interest in pursuing each of these coordination opportunities.

Figure 3-8

2006 Inventory, All Reporting -- Coordination Areas of Interest

8%

9%

12%

13%

13%

15%

15%

22%

33%

Other

Pooling $s to better coodinate service

Shared fueling/ maint/ storage facilities

Joint purchase supplies/equip./ insurance

Pooling or sharing of vehicles

Coordinated vehicle/ capital purchases

Contract to provide trans to other agencies

Coordinated trip scheduling/ dispatch

Not Interested

Percent of Responding Agencies (n=208)

The project team also examined coordination opportunities relative to the two communities of interest -- public transit and human service agencies/organizations. Figure 3-9 reveals a smaller proportion reporting no interest in coordination – 20 percent by human services and 28 percent by public transit agencies.

The data suggests human service agencies appear to be more open to coordinated transportation solutions than do public transit, in that a greater proportion of human service agencies/organizations indicated some level of interest in coordinating their transportation efforts with others.



28

Figure 3-9

2006 Inventory, Agencies by Type -- Coordination Areas of Interest

3%

3%

8%

8%

3%

3%

3%

8%

28%

7%

5%

5%

7%

13%

6%

8%

14%

20%

Other

Pooling $s to bettercoodinate service

Shared fueling/ maint/storage facilities

Joint purchasesupplies/equip./ insurance

Pooling or sharing ofvehicles

Coordinated vehicle/capital purchases

Contract to provide transto other agencies

Coordinated tripscheduling/ dispatch

Not Interested

Percent of Responding Agencies (Hum.Serv.=152; Gen. Pub.=40)

Human ServiceGen.Pub. Trans

Human service agencies/organizations indicated that coordinating of trip scheduling and dispatch (22 agencies–14 percent) followed by the other options where between 5 percent and 7 percent of agencies (7 to 10 agencies) expressed interest in the remaining choices. Responses in the “Other” category included interest in bus tokens and taxi vouchers, information sharing, referring and surveying of needs, vehicle sharing and brokering of trips. One agency was interested in identifying coordinated vehicle funding opportunities. The public operators expressed only limited interest in coordinated transportation functions, with just 3 percent to 5 percent of the responding agencies indicating some possible interest. Conversely, 31 of 67 human services agencies, just under half, indicated that they would consider coordination, under the right circumstances.



29

3.3.6 Barriers to Coordination Agencies were asked to discuss challenges or deterrent to coordination. More than 80 respondents, almost 40 percent, answered this question. The detailed responses are included in Appendix C (Question #8-Difficulties with Transportation Coordination).

The issue that surfaced most frequently was the “mixing” of clients/consumers on transportation services that have numerous and often conflicting specialized trip need. This issue is routinely reported by agencies and organizations in other settings, and can present challenges to agencies and organizations especially in operating environments where vehicle resources are limited and where the profile of the client/customer base is varied (e.g. dialysis patients, blind, mental health patients, seniors who were not socially comfortable with others, and youth who have problems riding with other groups).

Additional deterrents to coordination cited by respondents are summarized below.

Can't coordinate due to consumer needs 15Limited staff 9Limited number of vehicles 8Geography/ trip lengths 8Funding inadequate 6Not aware of other agencies 6Language issues 5Liability insurance 5Need to cross county or city jurisdictions 4Service quality/ on-time concerns 3Same day trip requirements 3Availability/ quantity of tokens 2Need mobility training 2

Willing to coordinate with others 5 [As noted here in the response to barriers] A second large group of respondents indicated that they do not have sufficient staff or vehicles to effectively coordinate with others. This reason has been identified as a continuing barrier to coordination, as agencies and organizations will require both additional staff and financial resources to develop coordinated plans and programs. This includes funding for staffing, vehicles, drivers, insurance, fuel or maintenance expense, all of the critical elements needed to operate service, either as a single agency/organization or in a coordinated operating environment. Geography and trips lengths were identified as barriers relative to isolated areas such as the City of Avalon (Catalina) and the Antelope Valley, Palmdale and Lancaster communities. This issue also emerged in relationship to the political feasibility of agencies and organizations providing transportation which extends beyond city/county boundaries as well as, the associated cost of lengthy inter-city/county trips. Language issues of various sorts were noted: typically Spanish, but also Chinese and Cambodian. A school for the deaf noted the difficulties of their consumers in communicating with drivers in coordinated services.



30

Respondents spoke of time-related concerns that inhibit coordinated transportation, including timely pick-ups and drop-offs for medical trips, work, education and training classes, as well as the need for same day transportation of their client/consumer base which limits vehicle availability for others. In this question on barriers, several agencies (5) did indicate a willingness to coordinate with others while another group, of six agencies, indicated that they knew no one with whom to coordinate. Cooperative Agreements or Arrangements Forty-four (46 agencies/organizations or 22 percent) reported that they have in place some type of cooperative service agreement or arrangement. Almost one-third are reported as arrangements/agreements between cities and public transit operators, typically passenger transfer agreements between multiple operators, and in one case transfers across county lines. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works was identified five times as an entity with whom such agreements were made. Agreements between human service agencies were identified in at least nine instances. Agreements with taxi operators were reported by five agencies. Agreements with commercial ambulance or gurney transporters were referenced by two hospitals, and one human services organization indicated they had a transportation agreement with the L.A. Unified School District. This suggests that there is a willingness on the part of human service agencies/organizations and other community-based entities to pool their resources when necessary to leverage resources and improve the mobility of the target populations. Describing Transportation Needs Thirty-seven (37) agencies/organizations responded when asked to describe other transportation needs in Los Angeles County. The responses received commonly focused on more that one issue. Most commonly, agencies/organizations indicated a need for a greater number of trips being available and characterized these trips as “better” if they are targeted to the individual needs of consumers. This effectively translates to increased levels of higher quality service. Appendix C17 includes the full text of these comments. Identifying the funding to increase transportation service levels is an issue reported by many. In addition, the responsibility for funding and operating services is a topic of some debate. For example, the City of West Hollywood spoke to the need for “human services/ social services agencies must be more proactive in funding [providing] their own transportation services. Door-to-door assistance is difficult to provide but needed.” Villa Esperanza spoke to funding of a particular type “We would like to see more funding available for maintenance of vehicles. Maintenance is very costly especially for modified vans.” Respondents also indicated the need for increased numbers of and/or better vehicles. Some, including Watts Labor Community Action Committee spoke to the need for increased numbers of lift-equipped vehicles available.



31

The need for information came up with some frequency, with the City of Los Angeles, DOT noting that “transportation services are plentiful but the public must be informed on where and how to access… information should be apart of a specific program to meet [consumer] needs.” The provision of information and the need for increased communication in and between agencies and organizations, as well as, continuing the dialogue established as a part of this project will be critical in establishing opportunities to coordinate in Los Angeles County. This is evidenced by the fact that some respondents, such as the United Community Action Network (UCAN) expressed interest in coordination, but indicated that they would need more detailed information. 3.3.7 Transportation Funding Annual Transportation Budgets Reported A combined total of over $170 million in total funding annually was reported by both public transit and human service providers (Table 3-10). This figure represents specialized transportation only, as budgets for fixed-route transit were excluded from information reported. Seventy-nine agencies/organizations or (62%) responded of those reporting involvement in some type of transportation function. The commercial systems reported only limited funding.

Table 3-10, 2006 Inventory Transportation Budgets Reported For Paratransit and Specialized Transit

Transportation Budget

n=79 n=30 n=49

Vehicle operations (drivers, maintenance, fuel) $106,974,903 63% $96,768,253 70% $10,206,650 32%New vehicles and equipment $27,276,755 16% $27,131,467 20% $145,288 0%Bus passes and bus tokens $23,380,331 14% $6,607,600 5% $16,772,731 53%Taxi vouchers/ mileage reimbursement $12,399,594 7% $7,916,740 6% $4,482,854 14%

Other (administrative, marketing) $909,343 1% $689,433 0% $219,910 1%

Total Reported Budgeted Dollars $170,940,926 100% $139,113,493 100% $31,827,433 100%Percent of total reported budgeted dollars 81% 19%




Vehicle operations accounted for six in ten of the total dollars reported while expenditures on capital replacement and on bus passes or bus tokens were 16% and 14% respectively. Taxi voucher and mileage reimbursement programs totaled over 7% of the funding and included both volunteer mileage and staff mileage reimbursements for the transport of clients. Public transit reports the highest expenditure of operating dollars reported, almost 70% of the funding, with another 20 percent of funds reserved for capital replacement.2 This contrasts sharply with the funding reported by human services agencies which represent 32% of the funding for vehicle operations, both directly operated and contracted. Very little funding is reported for capital replacement by human service agencies ($145,000).

2 Some agencies reported only total dollars, inclusive of capital and other expense. In these instances, these amounts were placed into the vehicle operations category.



32

Significantly, a large funding allocation for bus passes and tokens was reported, over $23 million, over 50 percent of all funding reported by human service providers. Funding reported in the “other” category included administrative and marketing, or other promotional expense. Responses concerning the likelihood of future budget increases or decreases were evenly split between increasing (57 agencies-27 percent) and staying the same (59 agencies-28 percent), with only a handful anticipating a decrease (3 percent). This doesn’t total to 100 percent, as almost half of the agencies did not respond to this question. Funding Sources The funding picture that emerges for the responding agencies and organizations is one that provides insight into the challenges and difficulties of promoting coordination (Table 3-11). Public transit operators for the most part have predictable and stable funding sources, which include Federal, State and local sources. Human services organizations report high levels of dependency on donations and fees, with limited on-going funding. The funding resources utilized by the responding agencies/organizations to operate services are detailed below.

Table 3-11, 2006 Inventory Reported Funding Sources

Reported Funding Sources

n= 126 38 88

COUNTY/ LOCAL FUNDINGProposition A or C sales tax revenue 38 30% 29 76% 9 10%Other 20 16% 9 24% 11 13%

STATE FUNDINGTransportation Development Act 8 6% 7 18% 1 1%Education Department 1 1% 1 3% 0 0%Department of Developmental Services 9 7% 0 0% 9 10%Department of Aging 3 2% 1 3% 2 2%Department of Rehabilitation 3 2% 0 0% 3 3%Department of Health Services 4 3% 0 0% 4 5%Medicaid/ MediCal 10 8% 0 0% 10 11%Other 11 9% 4 11% 7 8%

FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDINGFTA Section 5307/5309 6 5% 6 16% 0 0%FTA Section 5310 vehicles/ capital 16 13% 8 21% 8 9%FTA Section 5311 0 0 0Community Development Block Grants 5 4% 0 0% 5 6%Health and Human Services 3 2% 0 0% 3 3%Other 9 7% 4 11% 5 6%

OTHER FUNDINGClient/ parent/ rider fees and fares 18 14% 10 26% 8 9%Private donations/ fees 21 17% 0 0% 21 24%United Way 2 2% 0 0% 2 2%Other 12 10% 5 13% 7 8%






33

The public transit agencies report that they receive funding from a number of sources including:

• Local Return sales tax revenue generated through Propositions A and C (76 percent of general public operators);

• State Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding (18 percent) • Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds; • Section 5307/ 5309 and capital Section 5310 (16 to 21 percent).

Thirty-six of the 38 responding public transit operators provided funding information. Among those selecting “Other”, six noted they received funding from the cities’ General Funds. By contrast, the funding picture for responding human service organizations is more diverse and with funding resources reported by many fewer entities. Sixty-one of the 88 human services agencies/organizations responded. Medi-Cal funding is reported by 11 percent of these agencies/organizations. The largest single funding source reported is private donations (24 percent). Regional Centers and the California Department of Developmental Services are identified as a source by about ten agencies, excluding three commercial providers. Community Development Block Grant funding was among the human services funding sources identified, although by just two agencies.



34

CHAPTER 4 – NEEDS ASSESSMENT: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT FTA noted in the implementing circulars that initial plans may be less complex in one or more of its various elements, anticipating different levels of complexity as the locally developed process matures. The process documented here links this locally developed process with significant stakeholder agencies, termed by FTA as “appropriate planning partners.” 4.1 INTRODUCTION This Coordination Action Plan articulates a unified comprehensive strategy for public transportation delivery speaking specifically to the mobility needs of the three target populations: 1) seniors; 2) persons with disabilities and 3) low income persons. Outreach was undertaken to a representative group of agencies and organizations knowledgeable about transportation needs of the target populations. This included both agencies providing transportation, as well as those who don’t provide transportation but do serve consumers and understand their mobility challenges. Outreach also included speaking directly with consumers themselves in various settings. 4.2 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY In addition to achieving consistency with FTA-funding related guidance and requirements, the project team designed an outreach process to accomplish a number of other project-specific objectives, such as:

1. Validating inventory survey information. The dialogue with stakeholders in interpreting and validating survey responses relative to consumer/client needs, existing resources and barriers and/or deterrents to coordination.

2. Obtaining views and perspectives of stakeholder agencies/organizations, and

clients/consumers on specific issues relative to coordination of transportation services;

3. Informing and educating stakeholders about importance of coordination between public transit and human service sectors;

4. Building community goodwill and cooperative relationships with key stakeholders

and the community-at-large; These objectives served as the basis for the activities conducted between September and March 2007.



35

Methodology Recognizing the need to reach as many stakeholders as possible in a short amount of time, the project team:

Informed and involved agency/organization stakeholders in the project; Participated in the on-going coordination “dialogue” with local, regional, state and

federal agencies and organizations; and Solicited input from Los Angeles County stakeholders relative to coordination of public

transit and human service agencies. The target audiences of the outreach effort included the following:

Management and staff representatives of agencies and organizations operating

transportation and/or serving the day-to day need of clients and consumers; Clients and consumers of specialized transportation services; Staff representatives of regional, municipal and community-based public transit

systems in Los Angeles County; Citizens Advisory group representatives; and Local, regional, state and federal transit/transportation and human service

agency/organization representatives. All elements of the stakeholder involvement effort, which ran concurrent with the survey inventory, including on-site face-to-face interviews, meetings, briefings and presentations to both public transit and human service agencies and organizations in Los Angeles County are presented below. The summary of the stakeholder involvement effort is included as Figure 4-1.



36

Figure 4-1 Action Plan

Summary of Public Involvement Efforts Public Workshops

CalAct Town Hall Meeting, Glendale - September 28, 2006 CalAct SAFETEA-LU Coordination Workshop, Los Angeles - November 28, 2006 Caltrans Section 5310, 5316, 5317 Planning Workshop, Diamond Bar - January 18, 2007 CalAct, Spring Conference, Workshop on Urban Mobility Management, Yosemite - April 27, 2007 CalAct/ Access Services Coordination Summit, Los Angeles - July 28, 2007 Strategic Planning Committee Meetings

Access Services – Metro – FTA LA Subregional Office, Coordination Meeting - December 8, 2006 Access Services, Inc., Los Angeles - December 14, 2006 East Los Angeles Regional Center - January 30, 2007 Access Services, Inc., Los Angeles - April 3, 2007 Committee Presentations

Metro Bus Operations Subcommittee (BOS) - January 16, 2007 and September 2007 Metro Local Transportation Services Subcommittee - February 1, 2007 Metro Accessibility Advisory Committee - February 8, 2007 Access Services Transportation Professional Advisory Committee - February 8, April 12, 2007, June 2007 Access Services Citizens Advisory Committee - February 13 and May 8, 2007 On-Site Outreach Interviews

Arcadia Mental Health Clinic, Arcadia - January 11, 2007 Maxine Waters Employment Center, Los Angeles - January 16, 2007 Rancho Los Amigos/ USC Research Ctr., Downey - January 16, 2007 Catholic Charities/ Good Shepherd Women’s Village, Los Angeles - January 17, 2006 Chinatown Service Center, Monterey Park - January 23, 2007 Community Rehabilitation Training Center (CRTC), West Covina - January 24, 2007 Didi Hirsch Psychiatric Services Center, Culver City - January 29, 2007 San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center, Pomona, - February 2, 2007 All Peoples Christian Center, Los Angeles - February 2, 2007 MAP Health Providers, Pasadena - February 13, 2007 Pomona First Methodist Church, Pomona - February 20, 2007 Family Adult Health Care Center, Lomita - February 21, 2007 Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment (PACE), Head Start – February 21, 2007 Community Transit Unit, L.A. County Sheriff’s Dept – June 30, 2007 [telephone] Funding/ Peer-Regional Agency Interviews

LA Care Health Plan, Los Angeles - February 1, 2007 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services - February 6, 2007 Los Angeles County Headstart Program, (see outreach interviews above) Los Angeles Regional Centers Community Service Coordinators - March 10, 2007 Consumer Focus Groups

Washington Park Community Center, Pomona - March 28, 2007 Good Shepherd Center for Homeless Women & Children Los Angeles - March 30, 2007 Sunny Day Adult Health Care, El Monte - April 6, 2007



37

4.3 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Strategic Planning Committee At the outset of the project, the project team established a Strategic Planning Committee to ensure local agency/organization participation and community involvement in development of the comprehensive unified coordination plan for Los Angeles County. Discussed in Chapter 2, this activity was considered to be a part of the overall outreach effort. The Strategic Planning Committee met three times during the study process and offered comment and advice on a wide range of matters. Meeting summaries and lists of attendees are included as Appendix D. Participation and Presentations at Regional Forums and Public Transit Workshops The Coordination Town Meeting held during the CalACT Autumn Conference September 28, 2006 was the kick-off of the Action Plan coordination effort for Los Angeles County. This provided an opportunity for the presentation of the Los Angeles County approach to the coordination planning process. Access Services led the Town Hall meeting, held in conjunction with CalACT's fall conference, which gave participants exposure to the outline of the Los Angeles County approach to provide a forum for discussion of the issues. Over 100 persons participated in the Town Hall meeting and an active discussion included an Access Services-sponsored panel of representatives from the Federal Transit Administration, from Caltrans headquarters and from two other Southern California counties involved in coordination planning. The proceedings of the Town Hall discussion are included as Appendix F. Topics addressed in dialogue with participants included discussion of local, state and federal roles and responsibilities in the plan development process, recommendations on the Section 5310 program and its scoring criteria, and aspects of the state administration of the Sections 5316 and 5317 programs. The Town Hall meeting proceedings, included in the appendices, were provided to the Federal docket to offer further input to the process of finalizing the circulars for coordination planning under Sections 5316, 5317 and 5310. Stakeholder Interview Process An integral element of our approach is our recognition of the need to conduct outreach to both the larger “peer/funder” agencies/organizations, as well as, individual agencies and organizations. This approach was designed to help us to gather and interpret both the regional perspectives of the “peer/funder” agencies and organizations, and the localized viewpoints of individual agencies and organizations, for the purpose of creating a thorough depiction of client/consumer needs and agency/organization resources county-wide. To facilitate and expedite the interview process, the project team elected to interview agencies/organizations that had previously submitted completed surveys, in order to obtain more in-depth information. In addition, we developed a short interview guide (Figure 4-2) to assist us in collection of information from agencies/organizations about the current needs of clients/consumers, and to provide us with insight into culture of these entities relative to the provision and/or need for transportation, and the issues related to coordination.



38

The project team collected information on the following issues:

1. The role of transportation relative to the overall responsibilities of the agency/organization;

2. Whether their organization or agency operated transportation, and/or level of awareness

of other public or private transportation programs and options;

3. Direct or indirect experiences with individuals and/or families having difficulty making trips (work, school, medical) for lack of transportation, and perceived impacts to their organization;(Specifying individual or situational experiences with clients/consumers);

4. Their perspectives on the barriers to coordinating relative to services they operate for the

benefit of their clients/consumers;

5. Their understanding of needs that remain unmet and/or areas underserved;

6. Recommendations on methods to improve access to and availability of transportation services in the local community; and

7. Their suggestions on potential project ideas and their priorities.

Using the interview guide (Figure 4-2) team members completed eighteen (18) face-to-face interviews with human service agencies, including:3

Adult Education Center focused on preparing adults for employment, core

academics and vocational training; Service Center providing in-home care services for seniors, disabled and low

income; Mental Health Center providing mental health, substance abuse treatment and

prevention services throughout Los Angeles County Senior Center providing outreach to isolated seniors Catholic Charities serving homeless mothers and children A Pacific Asian Consortium of Head Start A Chinese-language based Adult Day Care program A faith-based organization serving low income persons

These face-to-face interviews proved useful in further assessing transportation needs, barriers to coordination and soliciting ideas for potential coordination projects. Interestingly interviews with two of the larger peer/funding agencies (Regional Centers and Dept. of Public Social Services) yielded some good transportation budget-related information which will be detailed later in this report. The key findings of this effort follow agency/organization interview summaries are also appended to this report.

3 Late in the study process, the consultant team was made aware of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept. transportation unit. Discussions about the transportation problems of homeless persons upon release from jail ensued. These contacts are included in Figure 4-1 although the interviews were by telephone.



39

4.4 KEY FINDINGS OF THE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS The project team developed a matrix which summarizes the results of the stakeholder interviews, specific to three important elements and detailed subsequently (Appendix D2):

Transportation needs Barriers to coordination; and Suggestions for potential coordination projects.

4.4.1. Transportation Needs Logically, the transportation needs expressed by stakeholders during the interview process are varied and will be challenging to address and/or resolve since most issues are focused upon very specialized need. The details of the discussion issues covered during the interviews are included as Appendix D-1. A snapshot of the key issues is presented below.

1. The predominant issue raised by a number of stakeholders related to the reliability and on-time performance of current transportation services. Since the clients of these agencies and organizations are traveling to destinations which include work, medical and school or training, clients’ ability to arrive on time is both important to the individual and critical to the day-to-day objectives of the agencies/organizations themselves.

2. It is challenging for clients to "navigate" using public transportation, difficult to

figure out routes/schedules and many consumers have a low "frustration level", and some clients are on medications and can become disoriented. The cost of service is of paramount importance as many have extremely limited financial resources and are making the most basic choices about where to put their limited dollars.

3. There is no easy access to bus passes which would be much more cost-effective

and give single moms and others more opportunity. Agencies can afford to provide only 4 bus tokens a week to each client. This is inadequate for job seeking and training. Tokens are used in lieu of transfers as one can't get a transfer with a token, this uses up tokens even faster. There is a need for better distribution of tokens to agencies for use by families or crucial to find ways to simplify acquisition of bus passes.

4. The frailest segment of the population needs assistance in booking the trip.

These individuals are not able to organize the trip independently. It is difficult, if not impossible, for these individuals to find their own escort. These individuals need door-through-door assistance at both ends of the trip -- leaving home and at the destination.

5. Importance of addressing the special needs of those with cognitive

impairments, including those with Alzheimer’s or brain injuries and attendant memory impairments.

6. Public transportation is not an option for those with infectious diseases and or

some severe behavioral problems.



40

7. Vans are the best mode for transporting disabled clients and other homeless individuals. Medical appointments cannot be provided by fixed-route.

8. Special training is needed to develop skilled drivers who understand needs of

those individuals with developmental disabilities; Need better screening of drivers to prevent client abuse.

The issues raised and discussed illustrate the complexity of the day-to-day specialized needs of clients and consumers of transportation, and also emphasizes the necessity to develop alternative coordination initiatives that will work to address this individualized need. 4.4.2. Barriers or Deterrents to Coordination with Other Agencies When asked their opinions about possible barriers to coordination of transportation services, almost all of the agencies and organizations interviewed, with the exception of two agencies, indicated that there are currently no barriers or deterrents to coordination. For the most part, their responses show that either they already coordinate with other agencies and organizations and/or that they would be willing to coordinate efforts with others. Some agencies/organizations indicated that they currently have formal arrangements in place with other agencies/organizations, including Department of Public Social Services, Employment Development Department, Child Care Centers and Early Education, etc. However, barriers mentioned by the two agencies were: • Lack of funding • Liability issues • Non-Profit status • Policy and regulatory limitations to allow aides to travel with clients • Limitations on funds relative to transportation contractors • Language challenges • Would consider coordinating services however there are logistical and geographical

concerns. Have sites all over Los Angeles County. A client may live in one city but seek services at a site in another city. May need to visit multiple agencies.

The barriers cited during the interviews with representatives from these agencies/organizations are typically reported as deterrents to coordination. However, it is encouraging that these agencies expressed both interest and willingness to coordinate their transportation services. 4.4.3. Suggestions for Potential Coordination Projects The project team encouraged stakeholders to consider potential coordinated approaches that would improve transportation options for their clients/consumers. A number of ideas regarding potential coordination projects were expressed and summarized as follows: • Bulk purchase of bus passes and resell to consumers • Driver training programs conducted by mental health clinic personnel • Update rider guides and transit information • Shared vehicle use project • Creation of a transportation coordinator position • Expanded bus programs, smart card technology for taxi trips; • Travel training program



41

• Inclusion of transportation funds for clients on Electronic Benefit Transfer card • Install GPS • On-call vehicle program to assist patients who miss their scheduled departure time • Vehicles needed to provide peripheral parking shuttles. Need to expand service, there are

three housing projects (have considered remote parking) • Need for bus shelters. • Shuttles to/from local trip generators for groups of consumers • Free bus fares for low income • Bus pass program which clearly identifies persons with disabilities • Programs and/project to address language issues • Non-emergency medical project potentially involving public transit and healthcare providers 4.5 OTHER STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES 4.5.1. Public Transit and Specialized Transportation Committee Meetings In an effort to ensure that local and regional public transit and specialized transportation representatives were included in the stakeholder involvement process, the project team attended and made numerous presentations to stakeholder groups and committees. Detailed previously on Figure 4-1, these presentations were designed to provide information to agencies and organizations about the action plan, emerging funding requirements and to encourage active participation in the project planning process. 4.5.2. Consumer Involvement The funding regulations speak to the need to involve consumers and clients of agencies and organizations in the outreach dialogue. Logically, involving the beneficiaries or users of transportation services operated in the county offers a more realistic understanding of client and consumer needs. In addition to meeting with the consumer advisory committees of both Metro and Access Services, three consumer focus groups with various constituencies were conducted. Members of the project team were able to schedule and conduct meetings with the following consumer groups:

• Homeless women between the ages of 30 and 60 in a transitional housing facility; • Hispanic seniors in a nutrition site program; and • Chinese-speaking seniors receiving services in an adult day health care facility

Highlights of the meetings are presented, as follows. In addition, the detailed summaries of these sessions are documented and appended to this report (Appendix D-2). Hawkes Transitional Residence, Women’s Village of the Good Shepherd Center The project team met with eleven women varying in ages who are current residents of the facility. They represent a range of educational backgrounds with several women educated beyond high school, and two with master’s degree level work. Race and ethnicity included Caucasian, Latino and Asian.



42

These women are all regularly using public transit, traveling extensively around Los Angeles County on fixed-route transit as they pursue possible job opportunities and housing possibilities. Several women were also addressing medical issues and traveling distances to the physicians and clinics that would accept their Medi-Cal health insurance. Most spend several hours on the buses each day. A summary of issues related to transportation identified by this group include the following:

- Use of bus tokens limits access to transportation services. The amount of tokens issued by agencies/organizations to these individuals is limited and tokens are not accepted as payment on all public transit systems.

- Real time information (vehicle arrival and schedule information) about buses will do much to improve the ride and lower anxiety of regular bus riders.

- Buses are passing by riders without any clear indication as to why, as these buses are not apparently full. Several women reported “pass up” experiences.

- Driver attitude improves the quality of the ride experience. The women appreciated helpful, polite drivers. Increased driver training is needed.

- More shelters and amenities are needed at bus stops. Wait times for the bus and between transfers can be lengthy and is problematic in inclement weather.

City of Pomona, Palomares Park Community Center, Senior Nutrition Site Pomona, California This nutrition site provides noon-day meals weekdays to seniors between the ages of 40 and 65 most seniors were Spanish-speaking. Some individuals answered in English, others in Spanish. The focus group session was translated by community center staff. The majority of seniors traveled to the site by the local paratransit service, some walked and some traveled by fixed-route bus. Consumers take Foothill Transit, Pomona Valley Transportation Authority (PVTA) and Access Paratransit. Some individuals expressed the desire to use Omnitrans but are not familiar with system schedules or routes. When asked which services are used seniors responded, as follows: Get About (Pomona Valley Transportation Authority) 17

Foothill Transit 10 Omnitrans 2 Access Services 1 The primary issues discussed by this group of seniors were:

- Need for improved customer service and a desire to communicate with less difficulty with dispatchers and drivers.

- Better information about vehicle arrival times. - Many compliments about paratransit service but some concerns about too-

early arrivals – this was from a group of persons using subscription paratransit services traveling to the meal site.

- Communication difficulties – noted by several individuals, both consumers and staff. It is difficult for the Spanish speaking senior who has limited English to make his or her needs known.



43

Sunny Day Adult Day Health Care Center (ADHC) El Monte, California This is a large facility that provides services to both able-bodied Chinese seniors and to those who are frail and have multiple health problems. Staff met with exclusively Chinese speaking consumers previously to obtain comments about transportation, and presented these in writing at the outset of the meeting with members of the project team. In addition, three clients of the facility were brought in, with their caregivers, to discuss particular concerns. Feedback obtained from eight participants included:

• Late and too early pick-up and drop off times • Lengthy travel times • Difficulty communicating with dispatch and drivers by non-English speaking seniors • Need for a back-up plan when dispatching systems is down.

This agency does provide some of its own transportation with a fleet of seven vehicles, including two back-ups. But none of these vehicles are lift-equipped. Consumers are reportedly much happier on the agency-provided transportation than on public paratransit services. Agency staff also reported a good working relationship with Access paratransit focused on problem-solving. The issues raised by these groups are not new, and echo sentiments heard during the agency/organization interviews. Some of the public transit/paratransit issues and improvements that were mentioned by this group can be effectuated through greater communication and coordination between public transit and human service agencies/entities (e.g., improved fare media reciprocity, standardization of bus stop amenities, improved customer service policies and accompanying training for personnel, etc...). The guide used for agency interviews and consumer focus group discussions is presented as Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2

Stakeholder Interview Guide

1. What is the role of transportation relative to the overall responsibilities of the agency/organization?

2. Whether the organization (or agency) operates transportation, and/or is aware of other public or private transportation programs and options;

3. What are the direct or indirect experiences with individuals and/or families in making trips (work, school, medical, other)? Is there a lack of transportation for them? What might be perceived impacts to the organization (specifying individual or situational experiences with clients/consumers)?

4. What are the organization’s opinions about possible barriers to the coordination of transportation services for clients and/or consumers?

5. What types of transportation needs are unmet and/or which areas are underserved for your target population(s)?

6. Any recommendations on how to improve access to transportation services (and/or increase the availability of transportation services) in the community?

7. Any interest in participating in potential coordination projects? What are some of the potential project ideas and agency priorities or viewpoints? (exploratory discussion).

8. Other ideas or issues from the participants?

ACTION PLAN: A LOCALLY DEVELOPED, COORDINATED …media.metro.net/projects_studies/images/Coord Plan CH 1-4.pdfPUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES

Documents