coordinated transportation plan

Transcription

Senior Services of Southeastern Virginia
COORDINATED
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Final Report
October 2012
COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION PLAN | FINAL REPORT
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... ES-1
Background ............................................................................................................................................ ES-1
Findings ................................................................................................................................................... ES-2
Preliminary Strategies ......................................................................................................................... ES-3
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. ES-4
Recommendations Summary ............................................................................................................ ES-10
1
Introduction......................................................................................................................1-1
Report Outline ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1
2
Population and Major Destinations .................................................................................2-1
Population and Demographics ............................................................................................................ 2-1
Demographic Profile ............................................................................................................................. 2-3
Major Destinations ............................................................................................................................... 2-14
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 2-19
3
Existing Transportation Services ......................................................................................3-1
American Cancer Society ..................................................................................................................... 3-5
Catholic Charities of eastern Virginia ............................................................................................... 3-5
The Children’s Center ............................................................................................................................ 3-5
Christian Outreach Program Isle of Wight ....................................................................................... 3-6
City of Franklin Department of Social Services ............................................................................... 3-6
East End Baptist Church......................................................................................................................... 3-6
Franklin Redevelopment and Housing Authority .............................................................................. 3-7
Guardian Angel Transport................................................................................................................... 3-7
Gethsemane Baptist Church ................................................................................................................. 3-7
Hampton Roads Transit......................................................................................................................... 3-7
Nansemond River Baptist Church ........................................................................................................ 3-9
PORTCO .................................................................................................................................................. 3-9
Senior Services of Southeastern Virginia ........................................................................................ 3-10
Suffolk Parks and Recreation ............................................................................................................ 3-15
Suffolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority ............................................................................. 3-15
The Village at Woods Edge .............................................................................................................. 3-15
Trinity United Methodist Church ........................................................................................................ 3-16
Virginia Regional Transit .................................................................................................................... 3-16
Western Tidewater Community Services Board ............................................................................ 3-18
Other Transportation Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-18
Comments from Survey Respondents ............................................................................................... 3-20
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 3-20
4
Outreach and Needs Assessment ....................................................................................4-1
Stakeholder Interviews ......................................................................................................................... 4-1
Unmet Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 4-2
Preliminary Strategies and Opportunities ........................................................................................ 4-3
5
Preliminary Strategies ......................................................................................................5-1
6
Priority Strategies and Implementation Structures............................................................6-1
Three Additional Action Items.............................................................................................................. 6-2
7
Recommendations ...........................................................................................................7-1
Priority Strategy 1: Central Resource Directory.............................................................................. 7-1
Priority Strategy 2: Flexible TRAVEL Vouchers ............................................................................... 7-4
Priority Strategy 3: Joint Procurement ............................................................................................ 7-10
Priority Strategy 4: Volunteer Drivers ............................................................................................. 7-17
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i
Appendices
Appendix A: Federal Funding Sources
Appendix B: Glossary of Technical Terms
Appendix C: RCC Resources
Appendix D: List of Attendees for Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting on June 11, 2012
and Priority Strategies Workshops on June 12, 2012
Appendix E: Meeting Summaries for Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting on June 11,
2012 and Priority Strategies Workshops on June 12, 2012
Appendix F: Sample Memorandum of Understanding and Bylaws for Regional Coordinating
Council
Appendix G: Transportation Provider Survey
Appedix H: Outgoing Call Protocols
Appendix I: Examples of Marketing Materials
Appendix J: Best Practices for Transportation Vouchers
(Flexible Travel Vouchers and Taxi Subsidy Vouchers)
Appendix K: Provider Directory Authorization Form
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ii
Table of Figures
Page
Figure ES-1
Figure ES-2
Figure ES-3
General Structure for a Flex Travel Voucher Program ............................................... ES-5
Service Areas for Current Regional Volunteer Driver Programs ............................... ES-8
Recommendations for Short and Long Term Implementation ................................... ES-10
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 2-4
Figure 2-5
Figure 2-6
Figure 2-12
Figure 2-13
Figure 2-14
Figure 2-15
Figure 2-16
Ten Block Groups with Highest Population Density ........................................................ 2-2
Population Density, by Block Group ................................................................................. 2-3
Ten Block Groups with Highest Percentage of Older Adults ....................................... 2-4
Older Adults as a Percentage of the Total Population, by Block Group .................. 2-5
Ten Block Groups with Highest Percentage of Persons with Low Income .................. 2-6
Persons with Low Income as a Percentage of the Total Population,
by Block Group ..................................................................................................................... 2-7
Ten Block Groups with Highest Percentage of Households without a Vehicle .......... 2-8
Households with No Vehicle as a Percentage of Total Households,
by Block Group ..................................................................................................................... 2-9
Ten Block Groups with Highest Percentage of Youth Under 18................................ 2-10
Youth Under 18 as a Percentage of the Total Population, by Block Group .......... 2-11
Ten Block Groups with Highest Transportation Service Dependency
Index Ranking ...................................................................................................................... 2-12
Transportation Service Dependency Index, by Block Group ..................................... 2-13
Persons with Disabilities as a Percentage of Total Population .................................. 2-14
Major Destinations and Employers .................................................................................. 2-15
Major Destinations .............................................................................................................. 2-16
Major Employers ................................................................................................................. 2-18
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 3-7
Figure 3-8
Figure 3-9
Survey Respondent Transportation Services ................................................................... 3-1
Transportation Providers in the Study Area .................................................................... 3-3
Former HRT Routes in Suffolk ............................................................................................. 3-9
I-Ride Franklin and Courtland .......................................................................................... 3-11
I-Ride Isle of Wight ............................................................................................................ 3-12
Fixed Route Ridership and Cost Figures......................................................................... 3-14
Ridership by Fixed Route .................................................................................................. 3-14
VRT Routes in Suffolk ......................................................................................................... 3-17
Taxicab Companies............................................................................................................ 3-18
Figure 7-1
Figure 7-2
Figure 7-3
General Structure for Setting up a Flex Travel Voucher System ................................ 7-7
Geographic Coverage of Volunteer Driver Programs ............................................... 7-18
Cost Comparison of Drive Training Programs............................................................... 7-20
Figure 2-7
Figure 2-8
Figure 2-9
Figure 2-10
Figure 2-11
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Senior Services of Southeastern Virginia (SSSEVA) develops and operates coordinated programs
for seniors 60 and older and their families and caregivers, and serves as a resource center for
adults with disabilities for the Western Tidewater Region.
As the aging population continues to grow and expand in the SSSEVA’s service area, a requisite
need for transportation services to medical facilities is also continuing to increase. Moreover, the
general trend of budget reductions for agencies that fund SSSEVA is predicted to continue. To
address these concerns, SSSEVA obtained a grant from the Obici Healthcare Foundation to
develop a plan that would prepare the region for future coordination of transportation services.
This Coordinated Transportation Plan was written to achieve several goals, including:

Examining existing transportation services in areas of Suffolk, Isle of Wight County,
Southampton County, and Franklin City.

Developing a work plan to coordinate existing transportation services in order to increase
the availability of services.

Identifying potential funding sources and institutional support for a coordinated
transportation service delivery model.

Identifying coordination strategies to improve access to health care by improving
transportation options.

Developing an implementation plan that will result in a coordinated service network that
customers can access through a single contact (“one call/one click” center)
To accomplish these goals, the study team used a variety of methods, including:

Collecting demographic and Census data about older adults and transit-dependent
populations;

Conducting a survey of existing transportation providers in the region;

Conducting interviews with stakeholders across the region who serve older adults,
persons with disabilities, or persons with low income; and,

Working with a Stakeholder Advisory Committee to gather information about
transportation needs and solutions.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-1
FINDINGS
Demographic/Economic Findings
The provision of transportation services is a challenge because the vast extent of the Western
Tidewater Region is rural in nature. This diffuse population density contributes to a prominent
spatial mismatch between residential areas of need and major destinations in the region. High
needs exist in southern and southwestern Southampton County, southern Isle of Wight County,
and areas surrounding but not within downtown Suffolk where many regional destinations exist,
meaning that residents need to travel long distances to arrive there. Major destinations are almost
exclusively in the largest towns of these counties – Franklin, Smithfield, and downtown Suffolk.
Also, many major employers are east in the Hampton Roads area, with many residents
commuting to these employers, including the military installations.
As seniors grow older and less able to access these destinations on their own, the area’s
transportation network becomes more critical to helping them gain access to healthcare services
and other important programs.
Transportation Programs and Resources
There are 19 organizations that provide transportation services to the region. A majority of these
organizations provide tickets for clients, arrange or schedule trips for clients through other
providers (including Medicaid), or make referrals to existing services. Fourteen (14) organizations
operate transportation services in the region directly - two operate services for the general public
and twelve for organization clients only. Two organizations have staff who occasionally drive
clients to and from appointments in the staff’s own vehicle. Six organizations - SSSEVA, Suffolk
Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Catholic Charities of Eastern Virginia, the American
Cancer Society, Christian Outreach Program, and East End Baptist Church- coordinate a pool of
volunteer drivers.
Unmet Needs/Preliminary Strategies
A stark spatial divide between need and available transportation services is apparent in the study
area. This lack of options was the most prevalent difficulty cited by stakeholders, along with other
needs as follow:

The low density of residents, long distances, and spatial mismatch between residents who
need transportation and the location of healthcare facilities and other major destinations
presents a challenge to providing transportation, especially given the limitations in
financial resources. As a result, the number of transportation options are limited. And
those that exist often have limited service areas and hours.

Residents are not aware of existing services.

Existing services within the region generally do not connect with each other or with
regional transit services.

Some organizations are interested in coordinating transportation services but have
difficulty overcoming institutional or regulatory barriers such as the liability issues
inherent to providing volunteer driver transportation.

Vehicle maintenance, insurance, and other costs can be cost-prohibitive and extremely
inconvenient for many organizations, especially small ones.
Stakeholders and existing transportation providers shared a number of ideas for strategies to help
address unmet needs in the region, with an eye toward their own organization and/or clientele,
including:

A one-call, one-click system that would serve as a central repository for information about
transportation resources, and that could also provide referral services.

Enhanced technology and advanced scheduling and dispatch software to improve
efficiency and coordination.

A method for providing liability coverage for a volunteer driver programs. Several
stakeholders mentioned a state initiative that could provide expanded coverage for
volunteer drivers, and that is key toward recruiting and retaining volunteer drivers.

Connections between existing services and better coordination of existing transportation
service schedules to connect to Norfolk and Portsmouth

Better geographic and temporal coverage to unserved and underserved areas.

Financial support to maintain existing service levels and to continue attempts to meet the
needs of individuals across the region.

Ways to reduce costs through coordination of maintenance services.
PRELIMINARY STRATEGIES
In response to the stakeholder list of unmet needs and preliminary strategies, the following
Mobility Management strategies were developed and presented to the group.
The eight Mobility Management strategies include:
1.
Establishing a Central Directory of Community Transportation Resources
2. Expanding or Better Coordinating Existing Volunteer Driver Programs
3. Establishing a Vehicle Sharing Program
4. Establishing a Flex Travel Voucher Programs
5.
Coordinated Funding and Grant Writing
6. Sharing the Cost of Support Resources via Joint Procurement/Provision of Maintenance,
Insurance, Fuel, Driver Training, etc)
7.
Implementing Mobility Options to Improve Access to Jobs
8. Purchasing of Service from Existing Providers as an Alternative to Direct Operation
At the same time, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee identified three action items that require
implementation before or concurrent to the implementation of Mobility Management strategies.
These include:
1.
Forming a Regional Coordinating Council (RCC) to propagate and oversee the
implementation of Mobility Management and coordination activities within the region.
RCCs are typically made up of one representative from each organization that provides
transportation, the regional planning agency, each municipality in the region,
representatives from the business community, and human service agencies and advocacy
organizations. The RCC will have an Executive Committee, made up of the Chair, Vice
Chair, and Treasurer, and other committees and subcommittees to lead project
initiatives.
2. Hiring a Regional Mobility Manager to serve as staff for the RCC and to spearhead the
implementation of local Mobility Management strategies within the region and possibly
manage some of those Mobility Management programs/services.
3. Creating and Conducting a Marketing and Education/Awareness Plan to ensure that the
community is aware of the new transportation amenities available to them. The region
should coordinate its marketing efforts and create an action plan for public outreach and
to exhort prospective municipal funders to invest in coordinated community
transportation services.
RECOMMENDATIONS
After reviewing the costs and benefits of each of the eight Mobility Management strategies, the
Stakeholder Advisory Committee voted on four priority strategies for which to create Action
Plans. The following recommendations are based on these Action Plans. The four priority
strategies include:

Implementing a Centralized Information & Referral Service to address the information
gap.

Implementing a Flex Travel Voucher Program to provide custom transportation solutions
for individuals.

Implementing Joint Procurement/Provision of Support Services to ease the cost burden
to transportation providers.

Coordinating Volunteer Driver Programs to fill spatial gaps in transportation service
coverage.
Strategy 1: Implementing a Centralized Information Directory
People in search of transportation services often do not know where to begin or what services are
available to them. A central information and referral service provides customers with a single
point of contact to learn about available community transportation resources in order to schedule
rides they need for daily activity or for occasional appointments.
The Virginia 2-1-1 system is a willing partner to take on this function for the region. The RCC
should take the following actions in beginning the implementation process for this strategy:
1.
The RCC Central Resource Directory Sub-Committee should work with participating
organizations and Virginia 2-1-1 to finalize the screening questions a caller will answer to
determine which transportation options are available to them.
2. Each provider must give permission for their organization’s information to be included
on the Virginia 2-1-1 directory – both online and over the phone.
3. As permission forms are returned, the approved information for that provider will be
supplied to 2-1-1 Database Coordinator Marketa Haywood to be added to the central
directory.
4. The RCC will need to get the word out to the community that Virginia 2-1-1 is a
comprehensive directory for transportation services in the region. See recommendations
for creating a marketing plan in Chapter 6.
Strategy 2: Implementing a Flex Travel Voucher Program
Flex vouchers can be issued or sold to eligible individuals and used to purchase trips from public
or private transportation providers, or to reimburse volunteer drivers. They may serve as a way to
reduce the cost of current transportation programs and provide new service to rural areas where
people currently are not being served such as rural Southampton and Isle of Wight counties and
areas of Suffolk.
The RCC should take the following actions to begin the implementation process for this strategy:
1.
The RCC needs to determine how to structure the Flex Travel Voucher program. Figure
ES-1 presents one such model using a Mobility Manager (or lead agency), Sponsor,
Customer, and Provider system of scrip and funding. This general structure can be
modified to suit the Western Tidewater Region.
Figure ES-1 General Structure for a Flex Travel Voucher Program
2. The RCC Grants Sub-Committee must identify grants and/or sponsoring organizations to
provide the subsidy component. The report details several potential funding sources
mentioned during the stakeholder committee workshops, including the City of Suffolk,
healthcare foundations, other private resources, and religious resources.
3. The RCC Flexible Voucher Sub-Committee will need to identify vendors in the region to
participate in the program. This may involve developing a fact sheet to provide to
vendors, including volunteer driver programs, that includes information about how the
voucher works and how to redeem the vouchers for cash.
Strategy 3: Implementing Joint Procurement of Support Services
Joint Vehicle Maintenance
SSSEVA, Western Tidewater Community Service Board (WTCSB), Children’s Center, Guardian
Angel, and the Church Affiliates have shown an interest in joining together to negotiate better
rates with maintenance providers. An RCC sub-committee will need to designate a lead agency,
such as WTCSB, to write a bid that includes the group of interested organizations and negotiate
with representatives of bid respondents to obtain the best rate.
Fuel cards
Currently, organizations in the region are using two different discount fuel options – the State
Fuel Card and the Wright Express gas card.
Interested organizations - SSSEVA, Children’s Center, WTCSB, and the Church affiliates – will
need to determine which of the two available options are most cost-effective for them
individually. The State Fuel Card allows participants to purchase fuel at 90% of gas stations
nationwide at a tax-exempt rate. The Wright Express card saves time because an organization
does not need to apply for the State Fuel Card; however Wright Express fuel is full price and not
tax-exempt. The advantage of Wright Express is that it provides more data than the State Fuel
Card, which may result in additional cost saves by making drivers more efficient. Participating
organizations need to weigh the costs and benefits of both options and make a decision based on
what is best for them.
Joint Purchase of Insurance
Currently, SSSEVA uses Selective Inc. for insurance which provides coverage of their transit
vehicles and volunteer drivers for about $64,000 per year. Selective Inc. provides its own training
as included in the premium. Volunteer drivers who drive SSSEVA vehicles are covered by
Selective if they receive the same training as the professional drivers (through Selective Inc.
online training program) and provide their DMV record. Volunteer drivers who drive their own
vehicles are covered primarily by their own insurance and secondarily by SSSEVA’s Selective
policy (included in the annual premium).
A representative from each interested organization – SSSEVA, Catholic Charities, Children’s
Center, Guardian Angel, and WTCSB - should meet with Selective Inc and other providers to
discuss creating a joint insurance program and negotiate a lower rate.
Joint Driver Training Programs
There are several options for providing community transportation driver training in the region;
through Selective Inc. Insurance, through a local organization, such as WTCSB, through a
national safety company, such as AAA, or through the Community Transportation Association of
America. It is also important to coordinate the joint insurance initiative with the driver training
program to ensure that the insurance company accepts the driver training program and will
provide cost savings in the form of reduced rates as a result of enhanced driver safety training.
The type of training that is best for the group will be based on which insurance option the group
decides to pursue. The ultimate outcome is for the group to save money on insurance rates and
improve the quality of service. The RCC should determine which insurance provider they want to
pursue jointly before they choose a training provider.
Coordinated Operating Procedures and Manuals
This strategy is especially important for possible future coordination because each organization
needs to be aware of the special needs of the collective group. For example: The Children’s Center
has policies and procedures specifies to car seats, children, and children with disabilities, etc.,
while a few of the other transportation services provide trips only to adults or older adults. There
are two options for managing this strategy:

SSSEVA will be hiring a Mobility Manager this fall. Creating a directory of all the
operating procedures and manuals could be one of their job requirements.

Alternately, one of the organizations in the working group, such as WTCSB, could lead
this strategy. Kelly Hatton from WTCSB has offered to begin gathering operating
procedures, but may not have sufficient availability to fully coordinate this strategy.
Strategy 4: Coordinating Volunteer Driver Programs
The region has several volunteer driver programs operating today (see Figure ES-2). Each of these
services is operating independently for different population groups and would be able to better
serve the community by coordinating with each other and sharing resources and information.

Catholic Charities of Eastern Virginia

The American Cancer Society

East End Baptist Church

Trinity United Methodist Church

Suffolk Redevelopment and Housing authority

The Christian Outreach Program
In addition to these six current volunteer driver programs, which exclusively provide volunteer
drivers for clients, cancer patients, and church members, SSSEVA is in the process of developing
their own volunteer driver program which will operate for qualified members of the general
public (older adults and persons with low income).
Figure ES-2 Service Areas for Current Regional Volunteer Driver Programs
The RCC should take the following short-term steps to better coordinate these programs:
1. The RCC should bring together a leader from each program to discuss the extent to which
each volunteer driver program wants to work together. At this time, coordination efforts
are likely to include sharing ideas, mapping gaps in service coverage, and organizing
recruitment (to avoid duplication).
2. The RCC will need to identify a joint volunteer driver insurance provider. All volunteer
drivers in the region should be trained through the same program in order to be eligible
for the joint insurance program (see Strategy 3: Joint Procurement/Provision of Service).
3. Based on the chosen insurance provider, the RCC will need to identify a volunteer driver
training program. As described in Strategy 3: Joint Procurement/Provision of Service,
there are several options for volunteer driver training programs.

Selective Inc. Insurance provides driver training for volunteer drivers included in the
annual premium.

AAA is also able to provide driver safety training for volunteers as part of their
standard defensive driver course.
4. The RCC should develop for the various volunteer driver programs a model program to
enhance driver recruitment and retention. A coordinated recruitment effort should be
aimed at areas where volunteer drivers are needed the most.
5.
To improve the chances of winning grants, the region transportation providers should
collaborate on applying for grants to split between the different volunteer driver
programs. The RCC should designate a lead agency to coordinate this strategy.
In addition to the short-term steps, the region showed interest in developing
recommendations for creating a regional volunteer pool which requires the following longterm steps:
1.
The RCC should create a regional volunteer driver pool through the future SSSEVA
volunteer driver program. The SSSEVA volunteer driver program is currently in the
planning phases, but when it is formally implemented, members of the general public will
be eligible to request rides through the program (rather than only clients of certain
agencies or church members).
2. The RCC should recruit organizations that would benefit from volunteer drivers. Several
organizations in the region do not have volunteer drivers through their own organization
and would benefit from being able to tap into a pool of volunteer drivers.

Suffolk DSS has ten vehicles total - eight sedans and two SUVs – but need volunteer
drivers to take clients to doctor’s appointments.

Endependence Center has one vehicle that is not used often, to some degree due to
lack of drivers.
RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
The following table outlines the prioritized strategies and action items for the Coordinated
Transportation Plan. The “Responsible Party” designation indicates which organization is best
suited to lead the action item. This designation is not proscriptive, and this responsibility can be
transferred to another organization. The “Time Needed” column estimates the number of hours
needed to complete the action. “Timeframe” estimates the length of time needed from the
formation of a sub-committee or the initial meeting on the topic. It is understood that not all
action items can be undertaken simultaneously in the first three to six months of the formation of
the RCC.
Figure ES-3 Recommendations for Short and Long Term Implementation
Responsible
Party
Time
Needed
Timeframe
Work with Virginia 2-1-1 to finalize
eligibility and screening questions.
NN
1-3 hours
< 3 months
Obtain permission from each
provider included in the provider
directory.
NN
4-6 hours
< 3 months
Provide the provider directory to
Virginia 2-1-1.
NN
1 hour
< 3 months
RCC Marketing
Committee
8-10 hours
< 3 months
RCC
8-10 hours
3-6 month
Search for grants/sponsoring
organizations to provide funding for
vouchers.
RCC subcommittee
hours
6-9 month
Identify vendors to participate in the
program.
RCC sub
committee
8-10 hours
3-6 months
Joint Vehicle
Maintenance
Write a joint bid for vehicle
maintenance providers
RCC subcommittee
8-10 hours
< 3 months
Joint Fuel
Purchasing
Determine the most cost-effective
option
Individual
organizations
4-6 hours
< 3 months
Joint Insurance
Meet with insurance providers to
discuss options for a joint insurance
program
RCC subcommittee
2-3 hours
< 3 months
Joint Driver
Training
Choose a driver training option
based on insurance decisions
RCC subcommittee
2-3 hours
> 3 months
Operating
Manuals
Decide if the future SSSEVA
Mobility Manager or a member of
the working group will lead this
strategy
RCC subcommittee
2-3 hours
< 3 months
Short-term
Strategy
Implement a
Centralized
Information and
Referral Service
Action
Create a marketing and information
plan.
Short-term
Short-term
Determine how to structure the
flexible voucher program.
Implement a
Flex Travel
Voucher
Program
Long-term
Short-term
Strategy
Coordinate
Volunteer Driver
Programs
Responsible
Party
Time
Needed
Timeframe
Decide the level of coordination
necessary for the region.
RCC
8-10 hours
1-2 months
Determine joint volunteer driver
insurance policy.
RCC subcommittee
8-10 hours
3-6 months
Find an organization to provide joint
volunteer driver training
RCC subcommittee
8-10 hours
3-6 months
Create a volunteer driver
recruitment plan.
RCC subcommittee
1-3 hours
<3 months
Search for grants/sponsoring
organizations to provide funding for
volunteer drivers.
RCC subcommittee
8-10 hours
6-9 months
Create a regional volunteer driver
pool
SSSEVA/RCC
sub-committee
40+ hours
12-24 months
Recruit organizations that would
benefit from volunteer drivers.
RCC subcommittee
1-3 hours
<3 months
Action
1 INTRODUCTION
Senior Services of Southeastern Virginia (SSSEVA) is the Area Agency on Aging serving residents
of Chesapeake, Franklin, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Isle of Wight and
Southampton counties. SSSEVA develops and operates coordinated programs that assist seniors
60 and older, their families and caregivers, and serves as a resource center for adults with
disabilities. As the population continues to grow and expand in the SSSEVA’s service area, a
requisite need for transportation services will follow, especially in the smaller, more rural areas of
the region because large healthcare facilities will be slower to locate in these smaller communities,
and travel to the larger regional hospitals will still be necessary to access certain healthcare
services.
Moreover, many agencies who provide transportation for their clients or customers are faced with
difficult decisions related to service reductions, fare increases, or both. Budget reductions for
agencies that funded SSSEVA between 2010 and 2011 resulted in a 10% reduction in the overall
budget, an occurrence growing more and more frequently for small operators across the nation.
Furthermore, as the population ages, more people will need specialized transportation or clientbased services once they can no longer use fixed-route transit services, or if the services for other
reasons do not meet their needs.
It is with all of these circumstances in mind that SSSEVA obtained a grant from the Obici
Healthcare Foundation to conduct a coordinated transportation planning project that will achieve
several goals, including:

Examine existing services in areas of Suffolk, Isle of Wight County, Southampton County,
and Franklin City (reflecting only a portion of the SSSEVA catchment area but one where
access to vital services is especially challenging).

Develop a work plan to coordinate existing services in order to increase the availability of
services

Identify potential funding sources and institutional support for a coordinated service
delivery model

Identify coordination strategies to improve access to health care by improving
transportation options

Develop an implementation plan that will result in a coordinated service network that
customers can access through a single contact (“one call/one click” center)
REPORT OUTLINE
Chapter 2:
Population and Major Destinations include Census data for the study area
region, specifically documenting, by block group, the populations that are typically more likely to
be dependent on transit services. The chapter also includes data about major employers in the
area and major destinations.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1-1
Chapter 3:
Existing Transit Services documents transportation services from public,
private, and nonprofit sectors, including SSSEVA, Virginia Regional Transit, and other providers.
Ridership data, schedules, funding, and operational statistics are detailed as available.
Chapter 4:
Outreach and Needs Assessment details the results of stakeholder
interviews and assessed unmet needs to compile a more complete picture of transportation needs
in the community.
Chapter 5:
Preliminary Strategies provides a brief description for each of the eight
mobility management strategies discussed at the April 2012 stakeholder advisory meeting. The
purpose for providing this information was to allow project stakeholders to investigate the
opportunities in more detail in advance of meetings schedule for June 2012. This chapter
provides general information about each strategy, benefits and potential obstacles in
implementation, preliminary recommendations for application and implementation in the
Western Tidewater Region, examples of national leaders who successfully implemented each
strategy, and preliminary costs and financial benefits.
Chapter 6:
Priority Strategies and Implementation Structures discusses the process
for identifying the four priority strategies during the third Stakeholder Advisory Committee
(StAC) meeting in June 2012. The Committee reviewed the eight preliminary strategies detailed
in Chapter 6 and prioritized four to develop further.
Chapter 7:
Recommendations provides guidance on steps to begin implementation of the
four priority mobility management strategies identified in Chapter 6. This Chapter also specifies
for each step, the responsible party, the time needed and the timeframe for implanting the
strategy.
2 POPULATION AND MAJOR
DESTINATIONS
This chapter includes maps and an analysis of data that are typically used as indicators of trip
origins and destinations. Trip origins are reflected by demographics of specific populations that
tend to utilize transit services more than average. The residential locations of these populations
are examined as an indicator of trip origins; these populations include older adults, youth under
18, persons with low income, and households without a vehicle. Trip destinations are reflected by
major employer data as provided by the Isle of Wight County’s Department of Economic
Development, Franklin Southampton Economic Development, Inc., Virginia Employment
Commission, and Franklin Department of Economic Development, as well as other major
destinations. These indicators are being used for this analysis because limited community
transportation services exist.
The demographic profile in this chapter reviews Census data to determine the likely residential
origins for trips on transportation services. Starting with simple population density, a number of
additional factors that have been recognized to indicate potential transportation use (households
without vehicles, people with low income, and percentage of youth or older adults) were compiled
into a Transportation Service Dependency Index showing the areas of the study area with a high
percentage of individuals likely to rely on transit to access services. Also mapped are potential trip
attractions such as employment centers, shopping areas, schools and social service facilities.
POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
This section analyzes demographic data from the American Community Survey (ACS) that was
collected over the years 2005-2009. This is the most recent data set available on the block group
level that contains information about household income and vehicle ownership (the 2010
Decennial Census no longer includes these questions). 1
The study area is characterized by low density development that ranges from suburban to rural.
Southampton County, Isle of Wight County, and Suffolk are all very low density outside of one or
two nodes in each area. The City of Franklin is slightly higher density than surrounding
Southampton and Isle of Wight counties. Smithfield in Isle of Wight and downtown Suffolk are
both higher density nodes. Some areas in eastern Isle of Wight County and Suffolk that border the
urban Hampton Roads region are more suburban in nature than rural.
Transit dependent analyses also typically include data about residents with disabilities. The Decennial Census no longer
includes these questions, and the data is also not available in the 5-year ACS data used for the other measures in this
chapter. Questions to ascertain disability type were changed in 2008 and will therefore not be available in 5-year ACS
data for several more years. Current disability data is only available in the 2009 1-year ACS estimates, and 1-year
estimates are only available for geographies with populations of 65,000 or more, which excludes Franklin and the
counties of Isle of Wight, Southampton and Suffolk.
1
The region as a whole has an average population density of 105.4 persons per square mile, which
is fairly rural. Figure 2-1 shows the population density by block group. The most dense block
groups are in and around the City of Suffolk.
Figure 2-1
Rank
Ten Block Groups with Highest Population Density
Block Group
Persons per Square Mile
1
Block Group 2, Census Tract 655, Suffolk city, Virginia
6,928.1
2
6,226.0
3
5,822.7
4
5,014.7
5
4,075.4
6
3,898.2
7
3,897.7
8
3,731.1
9
3,563.4
10
2,656.1
Source: US Census American Community Survey 2005-2009
The population density map shows the densest block groups to be in downtown Suffolk, with
other high-density block groups in the cities of Franklin and Smithfield. Several block groups in
northeast Suffolk bordering Portsmouth are also denser than the remainder of the study area.
Figure 2-2
Population Density, by Block Group
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
When analyzing the existing transportation services network and unmet transportation needs, it
is important to consider the two primary markets for public transportation:


Discretionary riders who have adequate resources and abilities to operate a private vehicle
but choose to use transportation services because they offer comparable convenience and/or
because of other personal lifestyle and value choices. Discretionary riders are also more likely
to use transportation services for commuting purposes, or in situations where transit offers
an advantage over driving, such as where parking fees are high and/or roads are congested.
Transportation service-dependent riders who use public transportation services
because they lack access or are unable to operate a private vehicle. By definition, dependent
riders use the bus for many trips, including for travel to/from work, but also to get to
appointments, shop, and visit friends/family.
People who ride community transportation typically fall somewhere between discretionary and
transportation service-dependent riders. In general, transportation service-dependent riders
include the following population groups: older adults, people with disabilities, people living below
the poverty line, and youth under 18. The analysis of dependent riders typically examines these
specific demographic groups that tend to have a higher proclivity to use transportation services
and the size and distribution of these groups in the study area. The analysis of discretionary
riders, on the other hand, is generally reflected as part of the broader community’s population
and employment. This next section examines the size and distribution of demographic groups
typically associated with a higher use of transportation services.
Older Adults
Older adults are more likely to use transportation services than some other demographic groups,
largely because as people age they tend to become less comfortable driving themselves. The study
area’s over 65 population comprises 12.3% of the total, compared to just 13% of the US.
Older adults - those 65 and over - are relatively concentrated in a few block groups within
Franklin and the City of Suffolk. Moderate levels of older adults live in the eastern areas of Isle of
Wight County though not in close proximity to Smithfield, Virginia.
Figure 2-3
Rank
Ten Block Groups with Highest Percentage of Older Adults
Block Group
% of Adults
Over 65
1
100.0%
2
Block Group 3, Census Tract 901, Franklin city, Virginia
43.7%
3
31.2%
4
26.4%
5
23.9%
6
22.6%
7
21.8%
8
Block Group 4, Census Tract 2802, Isle of Wight County, Virginia
21.5%
9
Block Group 3, Census Tract 2801.03, Isle of Wight County, Virginia
20.2%
10
19.4%
Senior populations are concentrated in very specific block groups in the study area. Many of these
block groups are adjacent to block groups with very low levels of senior populations, resulting in
an uneven distribution of older adults throughout the region. Note that the population of the
Block Group with 100% adults over 65 is only nine residents.
Figure 2-4
Older Adults as a Percentage of the Total Population, by Block Group
Persons with Low Income
Financial constraints mean persons with lower incomes are less likely to sometimes or always
have access to a vehicle. As a result, they are more likely to use transportation services as
compared with other members of the population. The median household income in the study area
is $52,728, higher than the national average of $50,046, and less than Virginia’s average of
$60,655.2 However, within the study area, 18.8% of households have an income ratio of 1.5 times
the poverty line or less, according to the 2005-2009 ACS estimates.
Figure 2-5
Rank
Ten Block Groups with Highest Percentage of Persons with Low Income
Block Group
% of Persons
with Low Income
1
64.0%
2
62.7%
3
55.2%
4
55.1%
5
48.3%
6
46.4%
7
46.0%
8
Block Group 1, Census Tract 2002, Southampton County, Virginia
45.5%
9
43.9%
10
42.5%
Persons with low incomes appear to be concentrated within the City of Suffolk and in areas of Isle
of Wight County near the City of Franklin. High percentages of persons with low incomes also live
in areas of western Southampton County. Some of the block groups with greater low income
populations are also block groups with significant levels of youth under the age of 18.
2
Median Household Income 2010, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2011).
Figure 2-6
Persons with Low Income as a Percentage of the Total Population, by Block Group
Households without a Vehicle
The households in the study area have relatively high vehicle ownership rates with just 6.8% of
households owning no vehicle compared to 8.9% of households in the US.
The block groups with the greatest number of households owning no vehicles are in and around
the City of Franklin. These low vehicle ownership rates are significant compared to the study area
as a whole, between 23 to 35% of households in these block groups own no vehicles. Low vehicle
ownership rates are also prevalent in central areas of the City of Suffolk.
Figure 2-7
Rank
Ten Block Groups with Highest Percentage of Households without a Vehicle
Block Group
% of Households
without a Vehicle
1
35.5%
2
31.2%
3
25.9%
4
24.6%
5
23.7%
6
23.6%
7
21.6%
8
21.0%
9
20.2%
10
19.6%
Figure 2-8
Households with No Vehicle as a Percentage of Total Households, by Block Group
Youth Under 18
Youths aged five to 18 are considered part of the transportation service-dependent population
because while many have a need or interest in traveling independently, most are not old enough
to drive or do not reliably have access to an automobile.
Figure 2-9
Rank
Ten Block Groups with Highest Percentage of Youth Under 18
Block Group
% of Youth
Under 18
1
40.2%
2
36.0%
3
34.5%
4
31.4%
5
31.3%
6
31.0%
7
30.0%
8
29.8%
9
29.8%
10
29.8%
Like the senior population, the percentage of youth under 18 living in the study area is
predominately in and around the cities of Franklin and Suffolk. Youth population is more evenly
distributed across the study area than other demographic groups.
Figure 2-10 Youth Under 18 as a Percentage of the Total Population, by Block Group
Transportation Service Dependency Index
To create the Transportation Service Dependency Index, the previous four indicators - older
adults, youth under 18, persons with low income, and households without a vehicle - are
combined to create an index showing the relative level of need as a percentage of the population,
by block group. This analysis allows a look at the combined impact of these four population
groups and represents relative need within the study area itself and is not relative to other
national or statewide indices.
This index shows that the highest composite need exists in two block groups located in the City of
Franklin and outside the City of Suffolk. High needs areas are also visible in southern and
southwestern Southampton County, southern Isle of Wight County.
Figure 2-11 Ten Block Groups with Highest Transportation Service Dependency Index Ranking
Rank
Block Group
TSDI
1
Very High
2
Very High
3
Very High
4
High
5
High
6
High
7
High
8
High
9
High
10
High
Figure 2-12 Transportation Service Dependency Index, by Block Group
Persons with Disabilities
Since the US Decennial Census in 2010 did not contain questions about disability status, and
newer data sets published since the 2000 Decennial Census do not contain data at the geographic
level needed for this type of analysis, the study team used data from the 2000 Decennial Census
to provide a general basis for analysis. This data set is older and therefore not included in the
Transportation Service Dependency Index. New disability data will not be available for at least
another year from the US Census Bureau.
Figure 2-13 Persons with Disabilities as a Percentage of Total Population
MAJOR DESTINATIONS
After examining the primary trip origins for the study area - where residents likely to use
transportation services live - the next step is examining trip destinations. Major destinations
generally include medical facilities, shopping centers, governmental offices, educational
institutions, senior centers, social services centers and large employers.
Figure 2-14 displays locations in each of these categories, along with city and county boundaries.
Figure 2-14 Major Destinations and Employers
Medical, Retail, and Community Destinations
The majority of medical and health facilities in the study area are centrally located in the cities of
Franklin, Suffolk, and Smithfield. Shopping and retail destinations in Franklin, Suffolk and
Smithfield, include two Walmart stores and shopping centers such as Armory Plaza, Smithfield
Shopping Center and Plaza. Primary community destinations include many social services offices
and senior centers located within Franklin and Suffolk. Libraries in the area are less centrally
located, with the exception of the Ruth Camp Campbell Memorial Library. However, the Walter C.
Rawls Library is near medical and social service centers in Southampton County.
Figure 2-15 Major Destinations
Destination
Address
City/County
Type
Paul D. Camp Community College
100 North College Drive
Franklin
College
Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation
Center
1030 University Boulevard
Suffolk
College
Southampton Court House
22350 Main Street
Courtland
Courthouse
DaVita Harbour View Dialysis
1039 Champions Way
Suffolk
Dialysis
Fresenius Medical Care Southampton
1333 Armory Drive
Franklin
Dialysis
RAI Dialysis Care Center
1812 South Church Street
Smithfield
Dialysis
Bon Secours Health Center at Harbor View
5818 Harbor View Boulevard
Suffolk
Hospital
Courtland Health and Rehab Center
23020 Main Street
Courtland
Hospital
Courtland Medical Center
22708 Main Street
Courtland
Hospital
Family Medicine Center
1548 Holland Road
Suffolk
Hospital
Greater Suffolk Medical Center
114 N. Main Street
Suffolk
Hospital
Lakeview Medical Center
2000 Meade Parkway
Suffolk
Hospital
Main Street Physicians
157 N. Main Street #A
Suffolk
Hospital
Sentara Obici Healthcare
2800 Godwin Boulevard
Suffolk
Hospital
Sentara St. Luke’s
20209 Sentara Way
Carrollton
Hospital
Sentara BelleHarbour
3920 Bridge Road
Suffolk
Hospital
Smithfield Medical Center
Smithfield
Hospital
Virginia Medical Center
1301 Armory Drive
Franklin
Hospital
Southampton Memorial Hospital
100 Fairview Drive
Franklin
Hospital
Western Tidewater Free Clinic
2019 Meade Parkway
Suffolk
Hospital
Ruth Camp Campbell Memorial Library
280 North College Drive
Franklin
Library
Suffolk Law Library
150 North Main Street
Suffolk
Library
Walter Cecil Rawls Library
22511 Main Street
Courtland
Library
Windsor Public Library
18 Duke Street
Windsor
Library
Pharmacy of Boykins
18215 Virginia Avenue
Boykins
Pharmacy
Destination
Address
City/County
Type
Franklin Downtown Market
120 South Main Street
Franklin
Recreation
James L. Camp YMCA
300 Crescent Drive
Franklin
Recreation
Martin Luther King Center
683 Oak Street
Franklin
Recreation
High Street Seniors
208 N. High Street
Franklin
Senior Center
SSSEVA Courtland Office
21300 Plank Road
Courtland
Senior Center
SSSEVA Franklin Office
100 West 4th Avenue
Franklin
Senior Center
Suffolk Senior Center
110 Finney Avenue
Suffolk
Senior Center
Armory Plaza
1311 Armory Drive
Franklin
Shopping Center
Armory Station
1459 Armory Drive
Franklin
Shopping Center
Franklin Shopping Center
1100 Armory Drive
Franklin
Shopping Center
Plaza Azteca Shopping Center
Suffolk
Shopping Center
Red Barn Food Store
18169 Beaton Avenue
Boykins
Shopping Center
Salvation Army Thrift Store
Franklin
Shopping Center
Smithfield Shopping Plaza
1282 Smithfield Plaza
Smithfield
Shopping Center
Smithfield Square Shopping Center
Smithfield
Shopping Center
Southampton Shopping Center
1382 Armory Drive
Franklin
Shopping Center
Target
300 Manning Bridge Road
Suffolk
Shopping Center
Walmart
Suffolk
Shopping Center
Walmart
1500 Armory Drive
Franklin
Shopping Center
Whitely’s Service Mart
18036 Johnsons Mill Road
Sedley
Shopping Center
American Red Cross
Franklin
Social Services
Citadel Family Services
Suffolk
Social Services
Disabled American Veterans
139 South Saratoga Street
Suffolk
Social Services
Franklin City Department of Social Services
306 N. Main Street
Franklin
Social Services
Franklin City Health Department
200 Fairview Drive
Franklin
Social Services
Levoc Family Services
1100 Armory Drive
Franklin
Social Services
Southampton Social Services
26022 Administration Center
Drive
Courtland
Social Services
Suffolk Social Services
135 Hall Avenue
Suffolk
Social Services
Suffolk Health Department
135 Hall Avenue
Suffolk
Social Services
Isle of Wight County Offices
17090 Monument
Isle of Wight
Social Services
Isle of Wight Health Department
Smithfield
Social Services
Source: Hampton Roads Area Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordinated Plan, March 2008; Nelson\Nygaard
SSSEVA Demand Response Destinations
Anecdotal data from drivers of demand-response vehicles for SSSEVA reported in the
Southampton and Franklin Transit Development Plan the following most popular destinations for
riders:

Walmart (Southampton Crossing Shopping Center)

Food Lion (Southampton Crossing Shopping Center)

Food Lion (Courtland)

Walmart (Franklin)

Rite Aid (Franklin)

Walgreens (Franklin)
All of these destinations appear above in the map and table.
Major Employers
One of the dominant industries in the study area is manufacturing. Several national food and
household product manufacturers are located in Suffolk in particular, including, Kraft, SYSCO,
Unilever/Lipton and Sara Lee Foods. Governmental services of local county and city
administrations are also major employers.
Several of these employers operate on nontraditional work schedules and have multiple shifts
throughout the weekdays and weekends. An employee working the evening shift at Walmart, for
instance, may leave work at 11:00 PM. Even if that employee could take public transportation on
the way to work, the ride home on public transportation is not available. Second and third shift
workers as well as weekend workers in the study area have limited public transportation options
for accessing their jobs. The table below shows the major employers for the study area. 3
Figure 2-16 Major Employers
Employer
Industry
Address
City/County
Narricot Industries
Manufacturing
32056 East Circle
Boykins
Deerfield Correctional Center
Services
21360 Deerfield Drive
Capron
Southampton County Administration
Services
26022 Administration Center
Drive
International Paper
Manufacturing
34040 Union Camp Drive
Franklin
Walmart
Retail
1500 Armory Drive
Franklin
Isle of Wight County Offices
Services
17090 Monument
Isle of Wight
Hubbard Peanut Co
Manufacturing
30275 Sycamore Avenue
Sedley
Gwaltney of Smithfield, Inc.
Manufacturing
601 North Church Street
Smithfield
Smithfield Foods, Inc.
Manufacturing
200 Commerce Street
Smithfield
Southampton County Public Schools
Services
Multiple
Courtland
Southampton
An employer is categorized as “major” if they are among the top twenty employers in the study area based on
number of employees.
3
Employer
Industry
Address
City/County
BASF Chemical Company
Manufacturing
2301 Wilroy Road
Suffolk
City of Suffolk
Services
441 Market Street
Suffolk
Cobham Composite
Manufacturing
6900 Harbour View Boulevard
Suffolk
Kraft/Planters
Manufacturing
245 Culloden Street
Suffolk
QVC Distribution Center
Retail
1 QVC Drive
Suffolk
Sara Lee Food Service
Manufacturing
1368 Progress Road
Suffolk
Sentara Healthcare
Healthcare
2800 Godwin Boulevard
Suffolk
SYSCO Foods
Manufacturing
7000 Harbour View Boulevard
Suffolk
Target
Retail
300 Manning Bridge Road
Suffolk
Unilever/Lipton
Manufacturing
1046 West Washington Street
Suffolk
Walmart
Retail
Suffolk
Source: Isle of Wight County Department of Economic Development, Franklin-Southampton Area Chamber of Commerce, Virginia Employment
Commission, Franklin Department of Economic Development, Franklin-Southampton Economic Development, Inc.
CONCLUSIONS
The demographic and economic analysis reveals several important themes from the region.

The rural and suburban nature of the study area makes transportation planning a difficult
task. Long distances between pick-ups and a low density of potential riders equals a high
cost of service provision through high expenditures of fuel and a lower collection of fares
due to lower ridership.

Individuals with the highest levels of need live not only in the primary nodes of density –
Franklin, Smithfield, and downtown Suffolk, but also in block groups further out in the
counties and rural areas of Suffolk.

Major destinations are almost exclusively in the largest towns of these counties –
Franklin, Smithfield, and downtown Suffolk. Major employers are primarily east in the
Hampton Roads area, with many residents commuting to these employers, including the
military installations.
A prominent spatial mismatch exists between residential areas of need and major destinations in
the region. High needs are visible in southern and southwestern Southampton County, southern
Isle of Wight County, and areas surrounding but not within downtown Suffolk.
3 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES
Two transportation services exist in the region for the general public. SSSEVA operates fixed
routes in Courtland, Franklin, and Smithfield that are open to the general public. Virginia
Regional Transit operates two fixed routes in the City of Suffolk for the general public. A number
of additional private and nonprofit transportation providers are present in the area, but primarily
operate for a specific clientele and not for the general public.
The study team utilized an online survey to gather data about each transportation provider in the
region. The survey included questions about service area and span, rider eligibility, fares, and type
of vehicles owned and operated. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix G.
Additional sources included previous studies and telephone interviews to obtain more detailed
information where necessary.
Thirty-nine organizations in the region responded to the provider survey. Of those, 14 operate
transportation services - four operate services for the general public and twelve for the
organization’s clients only. A majority of respondents provide tickets for clients, arrange or
schedule trips for clients through other providers (including Medicaid), or make referrals to
existing services. Two organizations have staff that occasionally drives clients to and from
appointments in the staff’s own vehicle. Six organizations - Suffolk Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, Catholic Charities of Eastern Virginia, the American Cancer Society, Christian
Outreach Program, Trinity United Methodist Church, and East End Baptist Church- coordinate a
pool of volunteer drivers.
Figure 3-1
Survey Respondent Transportation Services
15
14
7
2
Operate
transportation
4
Staff drive clients Purchase tickets or Schedule trips for Make referrals
(in private
reimburse clients
clients
vehicles)
6
Coordinate
volunteer drivers
The following table summarizes data for organizations that provide transportation, either to the
public or to their clients. These organizations are further described in the remainder of this
chapter, along with other available transportation resources in the region. For organizations that
did not respond to the survey, data was collected from stakeholder interviews and other research
methods.
Figure 3-2
Transportation Providers in the Study Area
No.
Organization
Eligibility
Service Area
Service Hours
Vehicles
Transportation Staff
Call Center1
Must provide doctor’s note, must
be a cancer patient
United States
Upon request
Volunteers provide their own
vehicles
4 volunteer drivers in Southampton
12 volunteers in Suffolk
12 volunteers in Isle of Wight
Yes
Older adult
Southeastern Virginia
Upon request
vehicles
Volunteers
No
Early Head Start participant or
parent
Franklin, Isle of Wight County,
Southampton County, Suffolk
Mon.-Fri. 7-9AM, 2:30-4:30PM
10 light duty buses
4 minivans
2 15-passenger vans
7 sedans
11 drivers
2 full-time
No
Low income
Isle of Wight County
Upon request
vehicles
Volunteer drivers
No
Church member only
Entire Hampton Roads area, but
mostly within Suffolk or Portsmouth
Occasional out-of-state trips
Mon, Tues, Thurs, Fri, Sat 9:005:00
Not available Sunday and
Wednesday because it’s used to
pick up members for church
service
2 15-passenger vans
vehicles
None
2 volunteer drivers
No
1
American Cancer Society
2
3
The Children’s Center
4
Christian Outreach Program Isle of Wight
5
6
City of Franklin Department of Social Services
Residents of Franklin City
Franklin
As needed
Staff vehicles only
None
No
7
Franklin Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Public housing resident
Franklin
Mon.-Fri. 8:30AM – 5PM
2 minivans
1 15-passenger van
1 SUV
<1 full-time
No
8
Guardian Angel Transport
General Public
Suffolk and surrounding areas,
Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Norfolk,
Virginia Beach
Mon.-Fri. 8:00AM-6:00PM
Saturday by scheduled
appointment only
2 minivans
1 8-passenger mini bus (1WC)
1 full-size converted WC van
2 full time staff
3 full time drivers
1 part time driver
No
9
Gethsemane Baptist Church
Church members only
Southern part of Suffolk
As needed, 9:00AM – 5:00PM
1 standard 15-passenger van
1 converted 15-passenger van
Not available
No
10
Hampton Roads Transit
General Public
Norfolk, Portsmouth, Virginia
Beach, Newport News, Hampton,
Chesapeake
Sun.-Sat. 5AM-1AM (Varies by
city)
9 light rail trains
227 buses
1,027 full-time
Yes
11
Nansemond River Baptist Church
Church members only
Suffolk, Isle of Wight, Chesapeake,
Portsmouth, Newport News,
Hampton
Mon.-Sat.
1 vehicle (type unknown)
N/A
No
12
PORTCO
Person with developmental
disability
Norfolk, Portsmouth, Franklin,
Suffolk
Mon.-Fri. 7-9AM, 2:30-4:30PM
4 light duty buses
1 full-time
No
13
Varies by service
Beach, Chesapeake, Suffolk,
Southampton County
Senior Demand-Response: Mon.Fri. 8AM-9PM, Sat. 10AM-10PM,
Sun. 10AM-4PM
Fixed routes: 8AM-4PM
Others services vary
15 minivans
4 15-passenger vans
7 converted 15-passenger vans
10 cargo vans
5 other vans
23 full-time
23 part-time
Yes
No.
Organization
Eligibility
Service Area
Service Hours
Vehicles
Call Center1
Program participant
Suffolk
Varies
Not available
Not available
14
Suffolk Parks and Recreation
15
Suffolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Suffolk
Mon.-Fri. 8AM – 5PM, except
holidays
1 15- passenger van
Unknown
No
16
The Village at Woods Edge
Assisted living resident
Franklin, Southampton County,
Tidewater area bordering NC
Mon.-Sat. 9AM-2PM
Sun. 9AM-12:30PM
1 minivan
1 14-passenger van
1 full-time
No
17
Church members only
Smithfield, Isle of Wight
Depends on need and availability
of drivers
Staff vehicles only
vehicles
Staff and volunteer drivers
No
18
Virginia Regional Transportation
General Public
Suffolk
Orange and Green routes:
Red route:
Mon.-Fri. 9:30 AM-2:30 PM
4 light duty buses
9 part-time drivers (Suffolk only)
In development
19
Western Tidewater Community Services Board
Clients/Customers
Isle of Wight, Suffolk, Southampton
County, and Smithfield
70 sedans
15 minivans
6 standard 15-passenger vans
12 light-duty buses
3 full-time
No
1Indicates
if an organization has staff dedicated to answering calls for transportation requests.
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
The American Cancer Society (ACS) is a nationwide nonprofit organization that provides support
for cancer patients and their families. ACS provides volunteer drivers to those diagnosed with
cancer through a program called “Road to Recovery.” This service is available for people who have
been diagnosed with cancer and need transportation to medical treatments. Participants must
provide a doctor’s note to be eligible. The service can provide one-time or reoccurring
transportation.
To get a ride, a person calls the national or regional call center hotline four business days in
advance to when they need transportation and provides the date, time, and length of
appointment. The call center attendee inputs the location and other information into a database
which provides a list of volunteer drivers who may be able to provide a ride. The Road to Recovery
volunteer drivers only provide curb-to-curb transportation services to ambulatory cancer
patients; they are not allowed to provide walking assistance. The volunteers provide their own
vehicles and gas and are not given a reimbursement.
In the Western Tidewater region, there are approximately 26 Road to Recovery volunteer drivers:
four in Southampton, 12 in Suffolk, and 12 in Isle of Wight.
CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF EASTERN VIRGINIA
Catholic Charities is a national nonprofit with sites throughout the nation. In the study area, the
local office is based in Virginia Beach. Catholic Charities provides home-based care for 198 clients
across the metropolitan region, a small percentage live in the study area. Clients have case
managers who visit them at their homes and provide a wide range of services.
Catholic Charities has one staff member who maintains a database of volunteers willing to help
clients with a variety of services, including transportation. The staff member matches volunteers
to client requests on a case-by-case basis. Volunteers are available to transport clients to medical
appointments and are reimbursed at the IRS mileage rate. Catholic Charities screens drivers and
has a waiver in place for liability coverage. Catholic Charities will also pay for clients to take taxis
if a volunteer driver is not available.
THE CHILDREN’S CENTER
The Children’s Center is a nonprofit Early Head Start and Head Start center based in Franklin,
with three sites in Franklin, three sites in Suffolk, two in Smithfield, and one in Courtland. The
Children’s Center provides transportation to and from agency programming for children enrolled
in its programs as well as transportation for parents for meetings and socializations.
The Center has 15 buses (12 in use, and three spares) and is in the process of purchasing another
Early Head Start bus. Seven of the buses are more than 10 years old. Three buses are based at the
main Suffolk location, and two at the Pruden location in Suffolk. Four are based at the main
facility in Franklin and one at the Smithfield location. Head Start buses have not been placed as of
yet. Five buses have a 20 passenger capacity. Five buses have a capacity of 15 passengers. The
Head Start buses are full size.
Currently, the Children’s Center employs 11 drivers and two additional staff members who
coordinate the transportation program.
Drivers decide on the route for the buses to travel in order to most efficiently pick up children.
Buses pick up children between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and drop them off between 2:30 p.m.
and 4:30 p.m. Centers operate either on a Monday-Friday or Monday-Thursday schedule. Each
center has different programming options.
Approximately 300 children receive transportation services. The Center maintains a waiting list,
which contains approximately 50 additional individuals needing transportation. Last Year, the
Center completed approximately 2,400 trips. Last year, the Center spent approximately $62,000
on transportation. That number will be much higher in 2012-2013.
The Center is limited in its ability to serve northern Suffolk and western Southampton County
because of program rules – Head Start regulations do not allow students to travel on the bus for
more than one hour, and serving these areas would require travel time of over one hour.
A significant challenge for the Children’s Center is vehicle maintenance costs and logistics.
Currently, maintenance is provided locally in Suffolk and Franklin. However, buses often have to
travel to Chesapeake for major repairs, and can be out of operation for up to 10 days because of
high demand for this service. This results in waiting periods for repairs.
CHRISTIAN OUTREACH PROGRAM ISLE OF WIGHT
In 2011, the Christian Outreach Program had a team of volunteer drivers to help needy people get
to medical appointments. Volunteers provided transportation for five elderly people who could
not afford to hire transportation to medical, dental, and physical debilitation appointments.
Volunteers drove more than 2,500 miles at a value of $1,387.57.
The Christian Outreach Program also has a food pantry and delivers food to low income families
in need. They assist with housing repairs, dental bills, prescription medication costs, school
lunches, and donate cars to people in need of personal transportation. The Souper Saturday
annual COP community fundraiser raises over $10,000 to assist families in need with rent, gas,
oil, utility payments, furniture, appliances and household needs.
CITY OF FRANKLIN DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
The City of Franklin Department of Social Services (Franklin DSS) is a human services
organization providing services to City of Franklin Residents. Franklin DSS staff provides rides
within the City to their clients on an as needed basis using their own vehicles and are not
reimbursed for mileage. Many DSS clients who receive rides are homeless, or meet the
requirements for an adult services case or child protective services ongoing case. In some cases, a
client may have an emergency intake need and will require immediate transportation. Franklin
DSS will also purchase tickets, passes, or rides for clients from a transportation provider.
EAST END BAPTIST CHURCH
The East End Baptist Church provides church-related transportation for members of the church
on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Church-related activities include bible
studies, training, youth programs, and other infrequent activities out of the state. The majority of
the trips are within Suffolk County or occasionally to the adjoining City of Portsmouth. On
Sunday and Wednesday, the vans are used to transport members who do not have access to
transportation to and from church service and youth service.
The church owns two 15-passenger vans and has two drivers. The service is provided from
9:00am to 5:00pm. The church also has a volunteer driver pool that consists of two regular
volunteer drivers.
FRANKLIN REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
The Franklin Redevelopment and Housing Authority is the public housing authority for the City
of Franklin. Residents may call the central office to request transportation to self-sufficiency
classes, job fairs, resident meetings and job opportunities. Transportation is available Mondays
through Fridays between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM, as staff is available. The Authority owns two
minivans, a converted 15-passenger van, and an SUV to serve its residents for these types of trips,
as well as other programming. The Authority estimates that only about 50 trips are completed
each year through this service.
GUARDIAN ANGEL TRANSPORT
Guardian Angel Transport is a private for-profit non-emergency transportation provider serving
the general public in Suffolk and surrounding areas. They specialize in wheelchair, catastrophic
cases, and ambulatory services providing transportation to medical appointments, places of
employment, the airport, and many other areas. Guardian Angel owns four vehicles: 2 minivans,
one 8-passenger mini bus (accommodates 1 wheelchair), and one full-sized converted raised roof
wheelchair van. They have two staff members who work on transportation issues and three fulltime drivers, and one part-time driver. They charge a rate based on mileage and level of service.
GETHSEMANE BAPTIST CHURCH
Gethsemane Baptist Church operates a free van service on the southern side of Suffolk only for
members of the church. The church owns two vans, one standard and one wheelchair accessible,
paid for through church funds. A staff member drives members from their homes to church
service and activities on an as needed basis.
HAMPTON ROADS TRANSIT
Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) operates service throughout the Hampton Roads region. In the
study area, limited HRT service is available in two areas - a commuter service between Newport
News and Smithfield and a local route between Portsmouth and Suffolk.
Route 64
Route 64 begins at the Newport News Transportation Center at 4:40 AM, traveling over the
James River Bridge into Isle of Wight County and Smithfield. The bus arrives at Smithfield of
Gwaltney, a meat packing company, at 5:16 AM. The run returns to Newport News, making stops
at the Park and Ride along Route 10/258 and the Bartlett Park and Ride along Route 17 before
serving a number of stops in Newport News. A second trip leaves the Newport News
Transportation Center at 6:20 AM, arriving at Smithfield Gwaltney at 6:56 AM.
Afternoon service leaves Newport News at 2:00 PM, making multiple stops in Newport News
before arriving at Smithfield of Gwaltney at 3:05 PM and returning to Newport News at 3:43 PM.
A second afternoon trip leaves Newport News at 3:35 PM and arrives at the plan at 4:40 PM,
returning to Newport News at 5:18 PM.
Former Service in Suffolk
HRT operated fixed routes and paratransit service in Suffolk between 2008 and 2011, taking over
service from the City in February of 2009. The City of Suffolk had previously been leasing buses
from HRT and operating service with city-employed drivers.
Four HRT fixed routes operated from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM at 60-minute headways throughout
the day. Route 71 operated where the current VRT Route 71 runs – between the Suffolk Bus Plaza,
Obici Hospital and other points north - and carried 23,352 passengers in FY11. Route 72 operates
where the current VRT 72 operates – between the bus plaza and points southeast - and carried
13,305 passengers in FY11. Route 73 operated between the Suffolk Bus Plaza and points northeast,
including QVC - and carried 12,266 passengers in FY11. Route 74 operated to points southwest of
downtown Suffolk and carried 20,632 passengers in FY11. Paratransit service operated between
6:30 AM and 6:30 PM and carried 1,0174 passengers in FY11. Twenty-six passenger buses were
used for the fixed routes.
The City of Suffolk paid HRT $270,000 for membership with HRT, which is charged to all seven
member cities, plus an additional fee per year for service. This fee was primarily based on service
levels.
Fare for a one-way trip was $1.50, which is the current VRT fare. In January 2012, Suffolk
transitioned to VRT service.
4
Extrapolated from eight months of data, for which 678 riders were calculated.
Figure 3-3
Former HRT Routes in Suffolk
NANSEMOND RIVER BAPTIST CHURCH
The Nansemond River Baptist Church provides transportation for their members to church
activities. The church provides as needed transportation services Monday-Saturday to members
who live in Suffolk, Isle of Wight, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Newport News, Hampton.
PORTCO
PORTCO is a nonprofit based in Portsmouth that focuses on providing employment opportunities
to persons with disabilities. Services are available statewide.
PORTCO transports clients from their homes to work sites around the region, many of which are
federal or state contracts. In the study area, PORTCO has work sites in Franklin and in Suffolk;
each site is served by one vehicle. Approximately 15-20 clients utilize these transportation
services every day.
Clients ride the same bus each day, and when a new client is added to a work site, the driver
decides on the best way to reroute the bus. Some clients are eligible for Medicaid and arrange
their own transportation through the state’s private Medicaid transportation broker, Logisticare
(see “Medicaid Non-emergency Medical Transportation” below). Due to scheduling difficulties
and the regulations surrounding PORTCO’s governmental contracts, PORTCO prefers to
transport clients on its own rather than referring clients to Logisticare, despite the added costs.
PORTCO owns a number of vehicles for client transportation, including three small buses
acquired through Section 5310 grants (program described below). Four additional 5310 vehicles
were awarded to PORTCO this year. An additional vehicle is funded through Section 5316, Job
Access-Reverse Commute section of the Federal Transit Administration. PORTCO also owns
several other types of vehicles suited to particular work sites. PORTCO employs eight drivers, one
of whom also serves as the organization’s transportation coordinator. PORTCO does not track
transportation costs separately from program costs; however, transportation costs have been
rising in the past several years.
SENIOR SERVICES OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA
Senior Services of Southeastern Virginia (SSSEVA) has provided a range of services to area
seniors for over four decades. SSSEVA has long provided demand-response transportation
services to area seniors and expanded its transportation program in 2008 to include routes open
to the general public. On these routes, priority is still given to seniors to ensure their needs are
met first. As of January 2012, SSSEVA is also providing complementary ADA paratransit service
for Suffolk in conjunction with fixed-route service from Virginia Regional Transit.
In Fiscal Year 2011, 46,260 rides were provided across all eight of its transportation programs
(not including ADA in Suffolk). Over 11,100 different individuals used the transportation services,
including nearly 6,000 older adults.
SSSEVA has four offices in the greater Hampton Roads region - its headquarters in Norfolk; a
satellite office of four staff members in Franklin; the Center for Aging with three staff members in
Nike Park; and an office in White Marsh Plaza in Suffolk, with six staff members. Four I-ride fixed
route vehicles are stored at Franklin City Hall and two at the SSSEVA office in Franklin at Fourth
Street and Main Street.
Clients call the Norfolk or Franklin offices and ask to speak with a transportation scheduler;
callers are then routed to one of the two SSSEVA locations. Most calls are for scheduling service
on the medical shuttles. Neither site is equipped with scheduling or route-optimization software.
Vehicles are not equipped with GPS or mobile data terminals.
SSSEVA operates a fleet of 15 minivans, four 15-passenger vans, seven converted 15-passenger
vans, five other types of wheelchair-equipped vans, and 10 cargo vans. The organization is
scheduled to receive five new vehicles this year through Section 5310.
I-Ride Fixed Route Services
SSSEVA expanded its transportation program in 2008 to begin operating fixed routes in three
towns in the study area – Courtland, Franklin, and Smithfield. Trips on I-Ride are $1. Riders
under 12 years of age ride for free. One spare vehicle is available for the Franklin and Courtland IRide services.
I-Ride Franklin
I-Ride in Franklin is a fixed route that is open to the general public. The route operates at 80minute headways, making six round trips per day between 8:00 AM and 4:25 PM. Service is
available Monday through Friday, but not on major holidays. I-Ride Franklin makes stops at
major destinations within the city and in small areas of Isle of Wight County, including City Hall,
the Airway Shopping Center, the Paul D. Camp Community College, Walmart, and other shopping
centers and community service centers. The route is displayed below in Figure 3-4. I-Ride
Franklin utilizes one 14-passenger vehicle.
Figure 3-4
I-Ride Franklin and Courtland
I-Ride Courtland
I-Ride Courtland is a fixed-route service available in the town of Courtland in Southampton
County, with a connection to the City of Franklin. Seven trips run on Mondays, Wednesdays, and
Fridays, between 9:12 AM and 1:48 PM, with the exception of major holidays. Members of the
general public may ride. The route serves several major destinations, including the Southampton
Court House, downtown Courtland, Courtland Medical Center, Food Lion, and Walmart. The
route can be seen in Figure 3-4 above. I-Ride Courtland uses one 14-passenger vehicle.
I-Ride Isle of Wight
Fixed-route service is available in Smithfield in Isle of Wight County and operates four runs per
day between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM. All members of the general public may ride. The routes
serves most major destinations in Smithfield, including downtown Smithfield, the Paul D. Camp
Community College, Smithfield Medical Center, Smithfield Station, Smithfield Square Shopping
Center, and a number of residential areas. The route is shown below in Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-5
I-Ride Isle of Wight
Shuttles and Demand-Response Services
SSSEVA also operates demand response service for seniors in the region; these services have been
in existence for much longer than the fixed routes. Like the fixed routes, additional services have
been added in recent years to fulfill unmet needs. No fare is charged for the shuttles or demandresponse services. Passengers are asked to donate to offset costs.
Western Tidewater Free Clinic Shuttle
The Western Tidewater Free Clinic Shuttle began operating in 2010 and is available only on
Thursday evenings. The shuttle is demand response and only available to individuals who do not
have insurance and who are traveling from Southampton County to the Western Tidewater Free
Clinic in Suffolk for an appointment. The shuttle makes two round trips each Thursday.
In fiscal year 2011, the shuttle averaged 10 passengers each month; in the fall of 2011, however,
ridership more than doubled to 22 in September. The Free Clinic shuttle is operated using one 12passenger van.
Ivor Medical Center Shuttle
The Ivor Medical Center Shuttle began operating in 2011. This shuttle is also only for medical
trips, but is open to all adults over 18. The shuttle operates on Mondays through Fridays from
Southampton County to Ivor.
Southampton County Senior Demand Response Transportation
Demand-response transportation is available to all adults over 60 years of age in Southampton
County. Each senior is allotted up to four trips per month. Service is available Monday through
Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM within Southampton County. Demand-response service for
seniors is operated using two 10-passenger vans.
A grant from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation has enabled SSSEVA to
expand service hours for senior demand-response service. This shuttle is available for seniors in
Southampton County between the hours of 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM Monday through Friday and
11:00 AM to 4:00 on Saturdays and Sundays.
The service was recently modified based on recommendations from the 2011 SouthamptonFranklin Transit Development Plan in order to improve efficiency of the service and reduce costs.
Instead of running the service to all areas within Southampton County on each day, the modified
schedule allows the service to provide the same basic service, but only in specific areas of the
county on designated days. The service now provides pick‐ups in a designated zone of the County
on a specified day and transport users to the City of Franklin for services. Service outside of
Southampton County is not provided on these days, but is provided on other specific days. This
creates a more efficient system because the time during which the vehicle would otherwise be idle
in Franklin would be utilized to respond to requests for demand response service within the City
of Franklin.
Senior Center Transportation
Shuttles are provided to meal sites in Southampton County for senior congregate meals. This
service is available Monday through Friday.
Volunteer Drivers
Volunteer drivers are utilized to transport meals to seniors. A volunteer driver program to take
seniors to medical and other appointments is currently being developed, but is not yet
operational.
Contracted ADA Service
SSSEVA is the contracted ADA provider for the City of Suffolk. Virginia Regional Transit provides
fixed-route services. SSSEVA began ADA service provision in Suffolk in January 2012. Fares for
ADA in Suffolk are $3. In 2012, SSSEVA marketing efforts, mainly through door-to-door visits,
has caused ridership to increase from 74 in January to 125 in May.
Ridership and Trends
The table below displays ridership data for I-Ride fixed routes and shows only partial-year data
for FY08, since the routes did not operate for a full 12 months. FY11 data is based on estimates
and not actual cost data.
Figure 3-6
Fixed Route Ridership and Cost Figures
Measure
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
2,176
5,301
5,285
5,664
1.2
1.9
1.9
2.03
Cost/Trip
No data
No data
$23
$37.50
Cost/Service Hour
No data
No data
$38.50
$67
Operating Cost
No data
No data
$123,000
$212,000
Annual Trips
Trips/Service Hour
Source: Southampton & Franklin Transit Development Plan
Ridership on the Franklin route far outpaces the Courtland route, which reflects the much higher
population of Franklin and the more frequent service (five days per week versus three days per
week for Courtland). The Isle of Wight route has approximately 1,000 less riders a year than the
Franklin route. Overall, all three routes show a positive growth trend.
Figure 3-7
Ridership by Fixed Route
Source: Southampton & Franklin Transit Development Plan and Senior Services of Southeast Virginia
Ridership on the demand-response and shuttle services shows similar variation. The meal center
transportation has the highest ridership, with 8,267 trips completed in FY11. Senior demandresponse also had relatively high ridership with 3,570 trips in FY11.
Other programs with limited hours that were just initiated within the last year have much lower
ridership. The senior demand response evening and weekend service only completed 36 trips
between August 2011 and December 2011. The Western Tidewater Free Clinic carried more riders,
with 123 trips. The Horizon Medical Shuttle carried 10 trips between May 2011 and December
2011.
Funding
For all transportation programs combined, SSSEVA spent approximately $1,501,843 in Fiscal
Year 2011. Of this, $225,276 was for administrative costs. In FY11, SSSEVA received $132,700 in
federal funding through Title IIIB and Medicaid, $30,000 in local funding, and $29,000 in
private foundation funding for the operations of its I-Ride routes, for a total of $191,700.
SSSEVA does not currently receive any funding through the Federal Transit Administration’s
Section 5311 rural transit program. Nor do they receive any funding through Section 5316 for Job
Access-Reverse Commute transit, or for Section 5317 New Freedom projects.
SSSEVA does receive Section 5310 capital funding for senior transportation vehicles. The
Southampton and Franklin Transit Development Plan completed in 2011 recommends that
SSSEVA apply for 5311 funding for some of its rural transit services to offset costs.
SUFFOLK PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Suffolk’s Parks and Recreation department operates a vehicle to transport participants
to and from department programs. This service is provided on an as-needed basis and does not
operate on specific days or at specific times.
SUFFOLK REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
The Suffolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority is a political subdivision of the state
providing affordable housing opportunities for low/moderate income residents of the city
Suffolk. The Authority is made up of dedicated professionals and commissioners who
are committed to achieving the mission of neighborhood redevelopment, conservation
and revitalization including the development and operation of affordable, decent, safe and
sanitary housing in attractive and suitable living environments. The Authority uses
planning as a top priority tool to meet evolving community redevelopment, conservation,
and housing needs and listens to clients and stakeholders to serve better their needs and
improve the conditions under which we all live, work and play in the City of Suffolk.
Suffolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority partners with community transportation
providers to expand transportation availability for residents when possible for daily
living, shopping, recreation and social events. The Authority owns and operates one 15passenger van to transport residents to Authority sponsored events, community programs,
and residential engagements.
THE VILLAGE AT WOODS EDGE
The Village at Woods Edge is a private assisted living facility in Franklin. The Village provides
transportation only within the City of Franklin, though many of its residents need assistance
traveling into Norfolk for medical appointments. Using one minivan and one 14-passenger van,
the Village offers transportation in the mornings and early afternoons every day of the week.
Approximately 10 residents per day utilize this service. One staff member takes call requests and
schedules trips.
TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
Trinity United Methodist Church provides transportation to its members through staff or
volunteers driving their own vehicles. Church members are given rides depending on their need
and the availability of drivers. These services are offered for church members traveling within Isle
of Wight County.
VIRGINIA REGIONAL TRANSIT
Virginia Regional Transit (VRT) is a private nonprofit transit provider specializing in the
provision of transit in rural areas. VRT operates transit service in the Eastern Shore and in
Augusta, Rockingham, Culpepper, Orange, Warren, Clark, and Loudon counties. VRT operates
fixed route public transit service in Suffolk under contract to the City. SSSEVA operates the
required ADA paratransit service and charges $3.00 per ADA ride.
Fixed Routes
VRT operates two routes in Suffolk; both are open to the general public. Service is available
Monday through Friday only, between the hours of 6:30 AM and 6:30 PM. Fares are $1.50 oneway, with an all-day pass available for $3.00. Tickets are available at the Suffolk Treasurer’s
office, the Community Services Board, and The Genevieve Shelter as well as on the bus, for
customers with exact change.
VRT owns the vehicles and includes maintenance fees as part of the $70 operating cost per hour it
charges to the City of Suffolk. Currently, three 15-passenger buses are in use. In the future,
especially along the Green Route, ridership may warrant a larger bus. All buses are equipped with
bike racks.
Green Route
The Green Route serves the Suffolk Bus Plaza and points north, including Sentara Obici Memorial
Hospital. Service begins at 6:30 AM, stopping at Godwin Boulevard and Main Street, Sentara
Obici Hospital, and Kings Fork Road and Pruden Boulevard before returning to the Suffolk Bus
Plaza at 7:18 AM. Headways are 60 minutes. The bus makes 12 trips per day, the last leaving the
Bus Plaza at 5:30 PM and returning at 6:18 PM.
Orange Route
The Orange Route serves the Suffolk Bus Plaza and points southeast in the White Marsh
neighborhood. Service begins at 6:30 AM at the Suffolk Bus Plaza and operates hourly until 5:30
PM. The bus stops at Dill Road and Carolina Road, White Marsh Plaza, Chisolm Lane and
Blythewood Lane, and returns to the Suffolk Bus Plaza. The bus makes 11 trips per day, with an
additional morning trip. This run begins at 5:53 AM at Dill Road and Carolina Road, stops at
Chisolm Lane and Blythewood Lane, and terminates at the Suffolk Bus Plaza at 6:19 AM.
Red Route
The Red Route serves Magnolia Gardens on Prospect Street and points east of downtown Suffolk,
as well as the Suffolk Bus Plaza, Lakeview Medical Center, and Sentara Obici Hospital. The route
operates only five hours each day and makes five trips between 9:30 AM and 2:30 PM.
Figure 3-8
VRT Routes in Suffolk
Ridership and Trends
Service along the two routes began in January 2012. Between January 3rd and March 21st,
passenger trips totaled 10,367. Expenditures for the same period totaled $116,851.12, for a total
cost per trip of $11.27.
Funding
The City of Suffolk pays the entire cost of operations for transit service. Hampton Roads Transit
(HRT) is the designated recipient of Section 5307, formula funds for urban transit service, for the
region, and Suffolk is no longer under the HRT umbrella. The State of Virginia does not recognize
Suffolk as a rural area, rendering Suffolk ineligible for Section 5311 formula funding for rural
transit service. VRT is in the process of appealing the rural designation and applying for Section
5311 formula funding.
WESTERN TIDEWATER COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
The Western Tidewater Community Services Board (WTCSB) provides day treatment and
residential facilities for residents of Isle of Wight, Suffolk, Franklin, Southampton County, and
Smithfield. WTCSB has 14 facilities and residential homes throughout the Western Tidewater
region.
WTCSB provides transportation for clients who need transportation for medical purposes only;
transportation services are provided Monday-Friday from 6:30am to 5:30pm. Three full-time
staff members are responsible for running the 106 vehicle program. WTCSB owns 70 sedans, 15
minivans, 6 standard 15-passenger vans, 3 converted 15-passenger vans, and 12 light-duty buses.
The program is funded primarily through Medicaid.
OTHER TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES
Taxicab Companies
A number of taxicab companies are available in the region, though some are not considered
reliable.
In Norfolk, Hampton Roads Transportation, Inc. (HRTI) provides dispatch and administrative
services for all taxi companies operating in the Hampton Roads region. All area taxi companies,
including Black and White Cabs of Norfolk, Black and White Cabs of Virginia Beach, Norfolk
Checker Taxi, Yellow Cab of Norfolk, Yellow Cab of Hampton, and Yellow Cab of Newport News.
Figure 3-9
Taxicab Companies
Company
Base Town/County
Cottles Taxi Service
Suffolk
Yellow Cab of Suffolk
Suffolk
United Taxi Service
Suffolk
Street Car Taxi
Suffolk
Buck’s Taxi
Courtland
Lula B Taxi
Courtland
Suffolk Medical Cab
Suffolk
Steve’s Taxi
Smithfield
Smithfield Taxi
Smithfield
Andy’s Taxi
Virginia Beach
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
Taxicab fare can be extremely high for the long-distance trips required in the rural parts of the
study area. Access from the study area into the urban areas of Hampton Roads can be exorbitant.
A fare for Andy’s Taxi, for example, from Norfolk to Franklin is $110.
Medicaid Nonemergency Medical Transportation
The state Department of Medical Assistance Services coordinates the state’s nonemergency
medical transportation (NEMT) for Medicaid recipients. The state contracts with Logisticare, a
private brokerage company, to manage a transportation provider network, screen eligible
Medicaid clients, arrange transportation to and from medical appointments, and pay
transportation providers for services.
Suffolk, Franklin, and Isle of Wight and Southampton counties are in Region 4, the Norfolk
region, for NEMT service delivery. Medicaid clients call a central number at Logisticare to arrange
a ride to an approved medical appointment. Logisticare matches the clients to available providers
in the area, which can include ambulette services, stretcher cars, vans, or volunteer drivers.
SSSEVA and VRT, among other agencies, recently became NEMT providers, contracting with
Logisticare.
5310 Recipients
The Section 5310 Program is intended to improve mobility and independence for the elderly and
persons with disabilities. Funds are apportioned to states annually based on a statutory formula
that reflects the size of a state’s population of older adults and disabled population. The most
recent federal transportation bill, Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (2005) includes a coordination element to 5310 funding that
requires all states and metropolitan areas receiving funds to have a coordinated public transithuman services plan in place. The Hampton Roads Coordinated Plan fulfills this requirement.
The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit distributes Section 5310 funding.
Recipients of 5310 funding in the region include:

Peninsula Area Agency on Aging

Hampton-Newport News Community Services

PORTCO

Western Tidewater Community Services

Arc of the Virginia Peninsula


Bon Secours Senior Health
Virginia 2-1-1
Virginia 2-1-1 is a state program offering information on health and human services resources
throughout the state. Any resident may call 2-1-1 to request information or a referral to a range of
health and human services, including transportation services.
2-1-1 maintains a database of providers which includes the following information about each
provider:

Eligibility

Service area

Service hours

Fees
The database allows alerts to be placed on providers if unique characteristics are present, such as
operating hours only on several days during the week. Providers have access to the database and
can update the information as often as necessary. 2-1-1 is required to update the database
annually and can send an automatic request for updates to providers. The database includes
nonprofits and public transportation providers and is capable of including private providers if a
specific service is rendered, such as transportation.
2-1-1 maintains five sites statewide, including one in Norfolk. Community Resource Specialists at
all of the five sites have access to the same database of providers and therefore may answer calls
from any region in the state. Service to the callers is free, and information requests are
confidential.
2-1-1 has in place several quality control measures. The Community Resource Specialist asks the
caller if the information given is useful and appropriate. Further, service satisfaction surveys are
also conducted by staff other than the call-taker to assess satisfaction with not only 2-1-1 service
itself, but also with the provider to which the caller was later connected.
2-1-1 is funded through the Virginia Department of Social Services with federal and state funding.
COMMENTS FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS
When asked what they would you like to see in the future of human services agency
transportation in the study area, survey respondents gave the following responses:

Four respondents saw a need for a central system or call-center for information, referrals,
and reservations

Six respondents would like to see service expanded to new areas, especially in rural areas,
and half of those respondents also noted that service hours should also be extended

Five respondents want expansion of low-cost transportation options, especially demand
response service for elderly and people with disabilities who need transportation to
medical treatments

A few respondents added that an ideal system would be coordinated and operate across
county lines.

Three respondents noted a need for better information and marketing so area residents
have full knowledge of all the transportation options available to them
CONCLUSIONS
Though a number of transportation services exist in the study area, very few are available to the
general public. Only fixed routes in Franklin, Courtland, Smithfield, and downtown Suffolk are
open to the general public. Only residents in these areas live close enough to walk to a bus route.
Further, no bus stops have permanent signage or indication of the stop.
Connections between these services are not available, limiting transit options to these downtowns
and eliminating the possibility of connections to the urban areas of Hampton Roads. The one
exception is the connection to HRT service at the Suffolk Bus Plaza. However, transfers are not
timed, and an individual would need to wait 30 minutes between being dropped off by one service
and picked up by another.
Seniors in the region have more transportation resources available to them, primarily through
SSSEVA.
There are no weekend services available with the exception of SSSEVA’s grant-funded demandresponse service for seniors. Similarly, evening service is only available through this senior
program, after fixed-route services terminate at 4:00 PM (I-Ride) and 6:30 PM (Suffolk VRT).
Beyond these spatial and temporal service gaps are informational and marketing gaps. Many
residents are unaware of any transit service in the region. Many associate I-Ride with seniors and
assume that the general public may not ride. The transition from HRT to VRT in Suffolk has
received attention since it resulted in the elimination of two routes.
The rural nature of the study area makes transportation service expensive to operate and difficult
to plan. Thus, lack of service in areas far from population-dense clusters in the primary towns is
easy to explain; the result, however, is a large and aging population with no options for accessing
essential services such as healthcare.
4 OUTREACH AND NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
Beyond the demographic data collection and existing resources analysis, the study team
conducted a number of stakeholder interviews to acquire a qualitative look at the existing
conditions and to learn about needs of the community in more detail.
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Interviews were held with the staff from following organizations:

Sentara Obici Hospital

Virginia Regional Transit

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization



Virginia 2-1-1

PORTCO
Specific needs varied between stakeholders due to the wide variety of services provided; however,
several overarching themes were apparent from all:

Across all stakeholders, the enthusiasm for transportation coordination is very
high. Nearly all stakeholders are already active on area committees to increase
cooperation and coordination among transportation providers. Many have served on
other study committees and are eager to work together to overcome barriers to
coordination as a group.

The study area suffers from a general lack of transportation services. There are few
or no transportation options for some members of the population, especially for residents
of southern Suffolk where two HRT routes were just discontinued. Stakeholders
described some situations in which family members or co-workers charge each other $20
or $30 for rides to appointments or to work because no other services are available as an
alternative. Some stakeholders stated that the existing fixed routes needed to provide
higher frequencies on their existing routes.

Among transportation providers, there is a strong need for coordination of
transportation services. Some stakeholders perceive redundant vehicle operations to
similar destinations from central locations.

There is a need for more connectivity to Norfolk and Portsmouth. Transfers
between existing services are inconvenient or impossible, and very few connections even
exist.

Transportation is prohibitively costly for some residents. Not only taxi services,
but spending $3 for a round-trip is too much for some individuals to spend each day.

Some services, such as taxis and Medicaid non-emergency medical transportation
services are unreliable. In many cases, these are the only options for individuals, even
though the vehicle may not show up or may be exceedingly late. This unreliability makes
service provision for healthcare providers and others even more difficult as patients are
not dropped off on time.

Some transportation providers are struggling with a lack of funding for new vehicle
purchase. Some providers are not eligible for Section 5310 funding, and as vehicle
prices escalate more and more quickly, new vehicles are not possible for some providers.

As new vehicles are harder to come by, maintenance costs are rising and becoming
a constraint to service growth for some providers. Distance to mechanics and the
high cost of specialized commercial mechanics are taking a larger portion of
transportation funds. As vehicles age – and as some organizations have difficulty
purchasing new vehicles – maintenance costs are even greater.
UNMET NEEDS
A stark spatial divide between need and available transportation services is apparent in the study
area. The Transportation Service Dependency Index indicates a high level of need in the
downtowns of Suffolk and Franklin, but also in several prominent block groups in parts of the
region that lack service.
This lack of options was the most prevalent difficulty cited by stakeholders, along with other
needs as follow:

Difficult service area for transportation services due to low density of residents, long
distances, and spatial mismatch between residents who need transportation and major
destinations.

Transportation options are limited. Outside of Franklin, Smithfield, and downtown
Suffolk, no services exist for the general public. Residents from Harborview and northern
Suffolk, for instance, have no transportation options.

Residents are not aware of existing services. Further, there is no central information
system for learning about transportation options.

No timed transfers exist to Portsmouth for commuting. Residents can transfer from VRT
service to HRT service at the Suffolk Bus Plaza, but they must wait at least 30 minutes.

Existing services with the region do not connect. The service areas of I-Ride and VRT do
not overlap.

Some organizations are interested in coordinating a volunteer driver program but have
difficulty overcoming the liability issues inherent to providing transportation in a private
driver’s vehicle.

Vehicle maintenance is cost-prohibitive and extremely inconvenient for some
transportation providers. Moreover, vehicle prices are increasing drastically. One
provider cited the cost of $50,000 for a 20-passenger bus only four years ago; the current
price is more than $91,000.

Secure bus parking is a concern for one provider. Vandalism and break-ins have been a
problem in unsecured bus parking lots in both Franklin and Suffolk.

Many Medicaid transportation providers, the only lifeline for many residents who need
access to healthcare, are highly unreliable. One organization is taking on additional
transportation costs in order to transport clients themselves instead of relying on
Medicaid non-emergency medical transportation. Others report unreliable Medicaid
taxicabs for bringing patients to appointments.

Transportation is inhibiting the growth of services. At least one provider stated that if
their organization could transport more people, they could serve an even larger
population.
PRELIMINARY STRATEGIES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Stakeholders and existing transportation providers shared a number of ideas for strategies to help
address unmet needs in the region as they see them for their organization and/or clientele.
Additionally, several opportunities are apparent from the demographic and transportation
resources analysis.
Though the lack of access to services is a prominent unmet need in the region, expansion of
service is also one of the more challenging strategies to implement due to costs.
Further exploration of the following preliminary strategies will be part of the next phases of this
Coordinated Transportation plan:

A one-call, one-click system for transportation information and referral.

Enhanced technology and advanced scheduling and dispatch software is
highly desired by some providers and could greatly improve efficiency and coordination.

A method for providing liability coverage for a volunteer driver pool. Several
stakeholders mentioned a state initiative that could provide expanded coverage for
volunteer drivers.

Connections between existing services or better coordination of existing
transportation service schedules and better connectivity to Norfolk and Portsmouth

Better coverage to unserved areas.

Financial support to maintain existing service levels and to continue attempts to meet
the needs of individuals across the region.

Ways to reduce costs through coordination of maintenance services.
5 PRELIMINARY STRATEGIES
This chapter provides a brief description for each of the eight mobility management strategies
presented at the June 2012 Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting. The purpose for providing
this information was to allow all members of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee to investigate
the opportunities in more detail in advance of workshops scheduled following the meeting.
This information is intended to help stakeholders better understand the options for implementing
mobility management services in the Western Tidewater Region and help fine-tune the analytical
framework of the project.
The Mobility Management Strategies included in this chapter include:
1.
Central Directory System
2. Volunteer Driver Program
3. Vehicle Sharing
4. Flex Voucher Programs
5.
Coordinated Funding and Grant Writing
6. Shared Support Resources
7.
Job Access Strategies
8. Purchase of Service
This chapter provides general information about each strategy, benefits and potential obstacles in
implementation, preliminary recommendations for application and implementation in the
Western Tidewater Region, examples of national leaders who successfully implemented each
strategy, and preliminary costs and financial benefits.
Regional Coordinating Council
Prior to launching mobility management strategies, it is necessary to forge partnerships among
the key stakeholder agencies in the region. This is a low cost strategy for setting the framework for
coordination and mobility management activities. In the Western Tidewater region, developing
local coordinating councils is one of the most critical initial steps. By bringing all transportation
providers and transit administrators to the table, councils can come to an agreement for service
priorities and plans for the future. Members of the councils can delegate tasks among themselves
and participating organizations and agencies may serve as leads for certain mobility management
activities.
Preliminary Strategy 1 – Central Directory System
People in search of transportation services often do not know where to begin or what services
are available to them. A central information and referral service provide customers with a single
point of contact to learn about available transportation resources in order to schedule rides they
need for daily activity or for occasional appointments. A central directory may provide:

Program information including service characteristics, eligibility criteria, and referral.

Counseling assistance including itinerary planning, determination of eligibility for
services, and ombudsperson or advocacy services.

Access to transportation services including carpools, vanpools, or commuter services,
car-sharing programs, bus schedules and ticket information.
These services may be provided through a call center, web site, or when provided together, a
One Call/One Click Center. Some agencies are comprehensive in nature, providing information
about all human services within a geographic area. Other agencies are specialized, providing
information about resources for specific population groups, such as veterans, or only
Information and referral services are aimed primarily at improving access to service. Advanced
trip planners have the potential to reduce costs by reducing the labor involved in assisting
passengers with trip planning. Similarly, improvements in the referral process that help
streamline access to service and direct customers to the most appropriate service also have the
potential to reduce costs and improve utilization of resources.
Benefits
Potential Obstacles and Challenges

Simplifies access to information
about transportation services.

Maintaining accurate and relevant
information for many different agencies.

Streamlines the eligibility process
for multiple programs.

May be challenging to establish protocols
to assure that customers’ needs are met.

Uses community resources
effectively.

Determining service area and extent of
coordination and developing evaluation
methods and procedures.

Need to find operating funding.
Application and Implementation in the Western Tidewater Region
Existing directory services in the Western Tidewater Region include the call centers operated by
SSSEVA and Hampton Roads Transit, and the statewide Virginia 2-1-1 service. SSSEVA and
Hampton Roads Transit provide information about specific rides, scheduling, and dispatching
services, while Virginia 2-1-1 provides general information about available transportation systems
that participate in the program. In addition to specific services that SSSEVA provides, it may be
useful to provide information about regional transportation services, eligibility requirements,
fares, schedules, and other relevant information to those seeking regional trips or those looking
for services not routinely covered by the usual provider. Additional services could range from an
on-line database of transportation providers and online trip-planners to uniform tracking of trips
that are not able to be served, to the appointment of an ombudsman who would ensure that
individuals needing service are provided with assistance in getting their transportation needs met.
The Virginia 2-1-1 system is a willing partner available to serve as the central resource for the
region. As a result of the Coordination Planning effort, a new database of transportation resources
for the region will be provided to Virginia 2-1-1 to ensure that there is a comprehensive list
available. Part of the 2-1-1 services include maintaining and updating the database and providing
follow-up evaluation with clients. The service is available over the phone and online. As part of
the implementation, project stakeholders and regional providers will provide permission to use
their contact information and agree to participate in the service on an ongoing basis.
Examples
Marin Transit, San Rafael, CA. The Marin Access Mobility Management Center is a one-call,
transportation information and referral service, focused on meeting the mobility needs of Marin
County’s older adults, persons with disabilities and low-income residents. Marin Access features
telephone and on-line information regarding the various transportation options available in
Marin – public, non-profit, and for-profit. This service helps riders identify which type of
transportation will best meet their needs.
Access Services, Inc., Los Angeles County. Since 1992, Access Services, Inc. has provided a
telephone referral service called RIDEINFO that provides callers with quick and accurate referrals
to over 200 public, private, and human service specialized transportation providers in Los
Angeles County.
North Texas Transit Cooperation Association, Dallas/Fort Worth area. The transit
information website created by the North Texas Transit Cooperation Association for the
Dallas/Fort Worth area is a searchable directory of regional transit providers with basic contact
and service information provided for each county or each region.
The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), Toronto, Canada. TTC offers multi-language
transit information in more than 70 languages. Information can be obtained on-line or by
telephone.
Costs & Benefits
Costs are dependent upon the type of system implemented and whether it augments an existing
system or is free-standing. In other areas, the cost for the development and implementation of a
basic web-based resource directory is in the range of $10,000 - $25,000 with an average yearly
maintenance cost of between $5,000 and $10,000. A more enhanced trip-planner will range
between $25,000 and $50,000, whereas a custom brokerage system could cost well over
$100,000 to build and implement. In the study area, Virginia 2-1-1 is an existing system that can
integrate the database of area providers for very little cost. Staff time must be committed from
each agency to maintain up-to-date information on 2-1-1’s website. Other than this administrative
commitment, costs for this strategy are minimal.
Preliminary Strategy 2 – Volunteer Driver Programs
Volunteer driver programs typically provide mileage reimbursement to individuals that
operate their own vehicles when they take individuals to medical appointments or other
services, thereby negating the need for additional labor and capital costs. These programs can
also utilize agency vehicles with volunteer drivers. Volunteer driver programs are a key
strategy used by human service programs to provide much-needed trips in a cost-effective
manner and aid in filling transportation gaps in the community, often providing services
where no others exist. Centrally managing existing volunteer driver programs enables
providers to make the best use of their resources, coordinate with each other, and ultimately
improve the services provided.
Many volunteer driver programs supplement transportation for seniors and are often operated
in conjunction with meal delivery services, or other support services geared to providing
companionship, social interaction, or assistance in shopping, putting away groceries, or paying
bills. These programs have a number of universal elements, including: standardized training,
safety, and service standards, ability to maintain service if the regular volunteer is not
available, and a marketing effort to maintain the pool of volunteer drivers.
Benefits

Providing joint training can reduce
the burden on individual
programs.

Coordination may enable programs
to better serve passengers needing
to travel across jurisdictional
boundaries, living in rural areas, or
requiring an accessible vehicle.


Coordination due to the variety in
populations served.

Using volunteers for multiple activities,
in addition to driving.

Reaching agreement on standards and
process for joint recruitment and
screening of volunteer drivers.
Joint marketing has the potential
to increase the number of
volunteers.
The region has several volunteer driver programs operating today. Catholic Charities of Eastern
Virginia provides volunteers upon request for older adults. SSSEVA’s volunteer driver program is
currently in development. Additionally, the Suffolk Redevelopment and Housing authority
provides volunteer drivers who provide transportation for classes, job fairs, resident meetings and
job opportunities on an as-needed basis. Each of these services is operating independently for
different population groups and would be able to better serve the community by coordinating
with each other and sharing resources and information.
In order to better coordinate services, the existing programs will need to identify the type of
support they would find most useful. Specific activities could be designed around those needs. For
example, they might identify regional or longer distance trips as an area to work on, joint training
of volunteers, pooled driver screening, recruitment, or mileage reimbursement. Support for these
activities would be administered by a lead agency - possibly SSSEVA. At a minimum, the agencies
could provide back-up drivers for each other. If more collaboration or even consolidation is
warranted, the lead agency can link together each of the independent systems to form one
consolidated regional system and will manage this system to provide the link between each
provider.
Examples
Ride Connection5, Portland, OR, is an exceptional example of a well-coordinated regional
support program for volunteer drivers. Ride Connection was created by TriMet, the public transit
system serving the Portland Metropolitan area, to meet the needs of seniors and people with
disabilities by coordinating transportation services provided by local social service agencies and
volunteer programs. Ride Connection supports and utilizes volunteers through a variety of
programs and services, including:

Ride Together, a program developed to allow riders to recruit their own volunteer
drivers. After drivers complete the Ride Connection driver approval process and training,
they are eligible for mileage reimbursement.

Road to Recovery: The American Cancer Society and Ride Connection are working
together to provide the Road to Recovery program in the Portland Metro Area.

Trained Ride Ambassador: Volunteers support the program by advocating, copresenting, and leading group Riders’ Club trips using public transit.

Veterans helping Veterans Volunteer Transportation Program: This program
helps buffer the loss of independence by providing no-charge, personalized
transportation to veterans who can no longer drive or use public transportation.
Independent Transportation Network (ITN), Maine. ITN is a national private nonprofit
that was first established in Portland, Maine as a means of providing seniors with rides in
exchange for a membership fee, trading in the cars they rarely used, and/or prior donated
volunteer driving time. The value of the donated car is credited to the senior’s debit account,
which is drawn on each time a ride is requested (averaging $8 per ride). The rides may be used for
medical appointments, shopping trips or social visits or events. Maine has enacted legislation that
enables ITN to sell its surplus vehicles and reinforces an earlier law prohibiting insurance
companies from raising premiums for volunteer drivers. ITN networks are growing more popular
across the country, especially the East Coast, as a way for private individuals to receive
transportation services. Often, public entities are not involved in the development of ITN
networks.
Costs & Benefits
Although volunteer driver programs require startup and ongoing operations investments, they
generally result in reduced trip unit costs because of the direct reduction in labor expense. The
costs of this strategy will depend on the level of funds required to establish and support regional
volunteer programs. However, there will be a role for a transportation coordinator (15% of FTE or
$13,000/year; $10,000 in start-up costs) to support volunteer program coordination activities.
5
www.rideconnection.org
It is worth noting that to the extent that a unified effort can be made to solicit volunteers,
administer volunteer programs, and apply for grant funding, improved program performance
would be expected. However, administrative costs would be shifted from the participating
agencies to the agency coordinating the program.
Preliminary Strategy 3 – Vehicle Sharing Programs
Vehicle sharing can be accomplished in several ways. An agency might own and maintain a
fleet of vehicles that are used by one or more organizations, with each agency paying for their
share of the vehicle based on capital investment and miles used. Two agencies could agree to
share a single vehicle; agencies might agree to share access to back-up vehicles; or agencies
may have agreements that allow clients from different programs to ride on a single vehicle.
Shared vehicles can be rented on an ongoing or one-time basis and may fill a number of
different needs, including temporary increased demand or temporary decreased supply (due to
out of service vehicle).
This provider-oriented strategy is designed to reduce unnecessary vehicle expenses, resulting
in a total fleet that is the right size for the region. This strategy might include providers with
complementary vehicle requirements sharing vehicles – for example, an agency that needs to
use vehicles in the peak periods can be paired with one needing vehicles during mid-day
periods or on weekends only. Vehicle sharing might be limited to back-up vehicles or it may be
used for vehicles that are an active part of the vehicle fleet.
Vehicle sharing can reduce capital costs as well as operating costs for participating agencies.
One way costs are saved is by reducing the number of vehicles that are insured. Vehicle
sharing can also make accessible vehicles available to a wider range of passengers.
Benefits

Enhances existing community
transportation resources.

Reduces capital investment in
vehicles.

Reduces operating costs especially
for insurance.

Enhances ability to obtain capital
grants where ranking includes
coordination.

Different agencies have different
insurance policies and driver
requirements.

Gaining agreement on cost sharing.

Establishing protocols regarding process
for sharing, reporting of mechanical
problems, etc.

Shared vehicles accrue more miles, so
may need to be replaced sooner.
This strategy could potentially work for any organization that provides transportation in the
region. Transportation providers SSSEVA, PORTCO, and VRT only operate during certain times
of the day and week making their vehicles available part of the day and on the weekend. A
brokerage or sharing system would allow these vehicles to be used by other service providers who
need an affordable alternative to buying their own vehicles.
Potential borrowing organizations include the Children’s Center, which requires additional
transportation options for the Early Head Start and Early Intervention program. Though the
vehicles may not be allowed to be used to transport children, they could transport parents for
meetings and visitation. Also, the various churches in the region that provide transportation to
elderly and disabled members, but do not have the funding to purchase a dedicated vehicle, may
be willing to purchase vehicle time on the weekends or Wednesday evenings for services.
There are several ways that vehicle sharing may work in the region. The first is the borrowing
organization provides the driver, who is trained by the agency that is lending. The lending agency
can also provide the driver or a volunteer driver may be included in the package for the borrowing
organization. Another option is for one agency to have a separate fleet of rentable accessible
vehicles that can be rented out on a short term or ongoing basis to organizations in need of
flexible transportation options. This would require joint driver training.
Implementation involves establishing a lead agency that will serve as a broker and will link
transportation operators with available groups of vehicles and will link agencies that need to
augment their transportation needs with organizations that have available vehicles or vehicle
hours.
Examples
DARTS in Dakota County, MN. DARTS shares the operation of a Section 5310 vehicle with
the City of Farmington Senior Center and St. Michael’s Church. DARTS applied for the 5310
vehicle, paid the local match, and pays insurance and maintenance costs. DARTS operates the
vehicle Monday through Thursday. The City of Farmington Senior Center operates the vehicle on
Fridays and for special after hours and weekend events, providing the driver and paying for fuel
and a maintenance and insurance fee. St. Michael’s Church operates the vehicle on weekends
using volunteer drivers; they pay for the fuel. All drivers operating the vehicle must complete
DARTS drivers’ training program and be certified by DARTS.
BerkshireRides, Berkshire County, Massachusetts 6 United Way worked with
BerkshireRides to set up a vehicle sharing pool to meet common needs of transporting school kids
to after school programs. The seven primary partners provide trips to/from after-school activities
and youth development activities. Agency members pay an annual fee of $1,500 for the priority
scheduling on one vehicle. Secondary users can rent the vehicles for $100 per day when they are
available. All agencies must hire or pay their own drivers and pay for fuel.
Jefferson Union High School (JUHSD)2 Daly City, CA. JUHSD was awarded a local grant
in conjunction with the City of Daly City, CA which allowed them to purchase five new vans for
the purpose of supporting outdoor activities for teenagers. During school days, JUHSD has first
priority for the use of the vans, but Daly City has priority access to the vans during breaks and
after school. The vehicles are used only by the District and Daly City.
Costs & Benefits
The primary cost of establishing vehicle sharing is staff time. A portion of the transportation
coordinator’s time, approximately 10% or approximately $8,000, would need to be allocated to
administer this program. An estimated one-time cost of $10,000 - $20,000 should be budgeted
to spearhead this program; although, this could require additional funds depending on the
programs scope, complexity and partners.
A vehicle sharing program could range from a simple arrangement to more complex legal and
cost-sharing arrangements. It could also be implemented in a phased approach. The actual
amount of time and resources required would depend on how the vehicle sharing program is
structured. Another factor in creating the vehicle sharing program involves addressing liability
6Vehicle
Sharing Program Demonstration Project Final Report, March 2010, Valley Regional Transit. Report available at:
http://mobilitywebsite.web.officelive.com/Documents/VRT%20Vehicle%20Sharing%20DFT%20FINAL%20Combined.pdf
issues, i.e. who insures the vehicle, what is needed to ensure that all drivers meet the insurer’s
standards, etc.
Potential costs and savings would need to be calculated for each specific vehicle sharing model. It
is important to note that vehicle and insurance costs vary widely. The following example makes
assumptions of $2,000 per year for insurance and an average annual total capital cost of $5,000.
A cost is included for administration of the program. In addition a cost is assigned to reflect the
heavier use of the existing fleet since they will wear out sooner. There is a 21% reduction in fleet
size so 21% of $5,000 was included as the cost of using the vehicles more heavily.
Comprehensive Vehicle Sharing Example
Four agencies decide to share vehicles for both active and back-up fleets. Together they have 28
vehicles of a variety of types. Their joint peak hour requirement is for 18 vehicles. They need four
vehicles as back-ups because of the diversity of vehicle types they operate. This results in a total
fleet requirement of 22 vehicles, a savings of 6 vehicles.
Annual savings can be estimated at:
No longer insuring six vehicles @ $2,000 each per year
$12,000
Capital savings of $5,000 per vehicle for six vehicles
$30,000
Vehicle sharing administration
-$8,000
Heavier use of existing vehicles @ $1,100 per vehicle for 22 vehicles
Net Annual Savings
-$24,200
$9,800
Preliminary Strategy 4 – Flex Voucher Programs
Flex vouchers can be issued or sold to eligible individuals and used to purchase trips from
public or private transportation providers, or to reimburse volunteer drivers. One of the
most common uses for flex vouchers is for taxicab service, which offers an immediate, but
costly, transportation option. Typically, sponsoring agencies subsidize the cost of the trips,
so that riders are able to receive service at a reduced cost. Eligibility is based on age,
disability, income criteria, or the need for a specific type of trip, such as employment
transportation.
Flex voucher programs, particularly those that can potentially be used with any type of
service and recognize family members as eligible providers of service, could fill temporal and
geographic gaps in fixed-route and demand-response service for older adults and persons
with disabilities. Voucher programs could also offer a means of employment transportation
for individuals requiring access to jobs in areas not served by public transportation or during
hours when those services are not in operation.
Similar to other types of programs that provide subsidies to individuals rather than to
transportation providers, flex voucher programs are consumer-driven, and allow consumers
to control resources directly and to make their own decisions about service providers. Other
advantages include low start-up and administrative costs, support for existing
transportation providers and services, and the flexibility to adapt to a variety of local
conditions.
Benefits

Voucher programs maximize use of
existing transportation services

Programs can allow volunteers
and/or family members to be
reimbursed expand transportation
options.

Voucher programs offer an
affordable option for long-distance
trips.

Users have their choice of
transportation provider.

Low start-up costs.

Voucher programs require an agency
to assume responsibility for day-to-day
administration.

Measures must be implemented to
prevent fraud.
This strategy could be implemented in the region by identifying a sponsor or sponsors of voucher
subsidies, an administrative lead agency to run the program, and participating agencies to
distribute vouchers (often the same as sponsors). SSSEVA could possibly serve as the lead agency.
The role of the lead agency is to develop the vouchers, coordinate sponsorships, raise funds in
support of the subsidies, and manage the vendors and users. The lead agency would process
subsidy payments to transportation providers and also implement fraud controls, such as a secure
numbering system.
Sponsoring agencies would have a say in the governing policies of the program, would set their
own eligibility standards, and would likely provide oversight through an advisory committee
structure. Agencies that could serve as either sponsoring or participating agencies, or both,
include: human service agencies, local governments, Medicaid NEMT brokerages, hospitals, nonprofit organizations, employment centers, and aging services. Specific examples of organizations
in the region that could sponsor or participate in the program include the Sentara Obici
Healthcare Center, Courtland Medical Center, Suffolk Social Services, Walmart Stores, and High
Street Senior Center, among many others.
Flex vouchers may serve as a way to reduce the cost of current transportation programs and
provide new service to rural areas where people currently are not being served such as rural
Southampton and Isle of Wight counties and areas of Suffolk.
Examples
Weber County Human Services7 operates an innovative voucher system in Weber County,
Utah. Low-income and isolated seniors can use coupons to pay family members, friends,
neighbors, and taxi operators for the trips that they provide to the seniors. Taxis are paid the
meter rate; trips provided by friends or neighbors are reimbursed at $10 each.
The Rehabilitation Services Administration 8 of the U.S. Department of Education, the
Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL), and the University of Montana’s
Rural Institute developed a model program and provided technical and financial assistance for
the creation of voucher programs in ten areas across the country, including Fall River,
Massachusetts, and Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. In each area, APRIL’s Traveler’sCheque model
program features a sponsoring agency to determine eligibility, establish other policies, and assist
with the provision of insurance coverage; a community transportation coordinator, who identifies
a network of transportation providers and consumers and manages the operation of the program;
and the development of an individual transportation plan for each program participant. With a
focus on employment and independent living transportation for persons with disabilities, the ten
Traveler’sCheque programs provided nearly 93,000 trips to just under 600 individuals during the
first four years of program funding.
The DuPage County (IL) Pilot II Subsidized Taxi Service is a nearly county-wide, user-side taxi
subsidy program. Each sponsor (municipalities and human service agencies) defines its eligibility
criteria and decides how much to charge for a voucher/coupon that is worth $5.00 towards a taxi
fare. Service is available countywide 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
Costs & Benefits
One of the flexible aspects of a transportation voucher program is that levels of subsidy per user
and total annual subsidy amount can be set by each participating agency. In the ten APRIL
demonstration programs described above, which typically relied on volunteer drivers for longer
trips and public transportation and taxi services for shorter trips, subsidies averaged $4.34 per
trip and $.39 per mile during the first four years of operation. A transportation coordinator could
7Wasatch
8Wasatch
Front Mobility Management Project Final Report, Appendix G, http://www.weberhs.org/home/
Front Mobility Management Project Final Report, Appendix G, http://www.weberhs.org/home/
administer a Flex Voucher Program using about five percent of a full-time position or about
$4,350/year. A one-time start-up cost of about $10,000 is assumed.
The amount of subsidy will determine the number of trips provided. Assuming a subsidy of
$20,000 per year and an average cost per trip of $5, a total of 4,000 trips could be provided.
Preliminary Strategy 5 – Coordinated Funding and Grant Writing
Coordinated funding and grant writing is a strategy that provides for a single agency to
prepare and manage grants for several agencies. It reduces the amount of time spent by
individual agencies on writing competing grants; establishes relationships between a lead
grant writing agency and partners in the community; can provide for uniform management of
grant funds; and creates unique opportunities for leveraging existing funds to meet grant
matching requirements.
In this strategy, a lead agency develops co-sponsored grant applications and fosters multipleagency grants. It requires that participating agencies agree upon how grant funds will be
shared, addressing priorities for funding before submitting a unified application.
Coordinated funding and grant writing efforts can benefit partners as they will become more
competitive for transportation funds where coordination, partnerships, and program
efficiency are evaluation criteria.
Benefits

Provides wider access to a range of
funding programs.

Maintaining relationships between
partners requires time and effort.

Reduces regional costs for pursuing
grants.


Gives access to more specialized
grant-writing and planning staff.
Agencies may focus more on
protecting their own turf than
working together.

Extra effort and coordination will be
required for those agencies with
agency-specific requirements.

Grant management requires that
agencies have protocols and policies
in place to meet grant standards as
well as contractual relationships
(MOUs, IGAs, etc).

Increases funding/local match
opportunities.

Facilitates more centralized planning
and management of transportation
resources.

Increases awareness of transportation
issues among the public and key
stakeholders.
A good example of how this might be applied in the region is in applying for Virginia Department
of Rail and Public Transportation funding for rural transportation grants. Both SSSEVA and
PORTCO are experienced in applying for FTA grants, and therefore, either entity could serve as a
lead agency for submitting consolidated grants for vehicles or other capital equipment, for
mobility management activities, or for services (e.g. rural public transit funding for regional
services under the Rural Transportation program, New Freedom program, or Job Access and
Reverse Commute program).
In addition to rural transportation funding, several agencies in the region receive FTA 5310
funding for improved mobility and independence for the elderly and persons with disabilities.
FTA 5310 funding recipients in the greater region include: Peninsula Area Agency on Aging,
Hampton-Newport News Community Services, Western Tidewater Community Services, Arc of
the Virginia Peninsula, and Bon Secours Senior Health.
Similarly, consolidated applications might be used to apply for funding such as FTA’s various
discretionary capital grants or for grants through foundations. Working together on joint funding
may also assist in ensuring that transportation services are considered in Community Services
Block Grant programs or similar programs where funding is allocated to small urban areas.
Example
North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, Fort Collins, CO 9. North
Front Range MPO is one of many organizations that prepares, files, and manages unified grant
applications on behalf of transportation providers in its region. As is common, sometimes a
consolidated application is filed and other times individual agencies file their own. The objective
is to obtain the most funding for providers in the region while minimizing duplication of effort,
reporting and management requirements.
Costs& Benefits
Costs and benefits (revenue) are dependent on the type of coordinated funding effort and number
of grants applied for.
9http://www.nfrmpo.org/Home.aspx
Preliminary Strategy 6 – Shared Support Resources
Sharing support resources (also called Joint Procurement) allows participating agencies to
lower costs by splitting common expenses between two or more independent agencies.
Examples of support resources commonly shared include insurance, maintenance services,
fuel, driver training, and contracted staff, such as volunteers and grant writers (grant writers
are discussed as a distinct strategy previously in this document).
Agencies can also benefit from information sharing, which includes policy and procedure
manuals, training curriculum, evaluation guidelines, and safety standards. Information
sharing creates standards among transportation agencies in the region which can result in
improved service quality and safety which can eventually lower insurance costs.
In addition to saving money, an advantage of sharing resources is that it paves the way to early
coordination because it helps build trust among participating agencies. A transportation
coordinator at the lead agency can help transportation providers share resources and support
services by using or purchasing another agency’s resources using an interagency agreement.
This strategy could also develop incentives for agencies who are actively working to coordinate
services, especially existing service providers working within highly coordinated networks.
Benefits

Reduces cost, improves efficiency,
increases safety and service quality

Enables agencies with limited
resources to have access to full
services upon request




More than likely, a formal interagency
agreement is needed among
participating agencies. It may have little
influence over agencies who do not sign
the agreement.
Enables agencies to develop their
own specialties and serve
communities with higher expertise

Without uniform cost accounting,
calculating cost of agencies’ service is
often a challenge.
Supports maintenance of existing
community transportation services

May be difficult to establish a fair,
understandable and reliable system that
supports existing operators as well as
supports new service providers.
In the Western Tidewater Region, the overall strategy should be led by a Regional Coordinating
Council. Once a coordinating council is designated, sharing resources among agencies can be
done relatively quickly and produce tangible positive outcomes. The course of action to follow is
to determine which services to begin consolidating and then start working with the providers of
those services to develop new agreements.
In addition to the Regional Coordinating Council, a lead agency will be needed for each of the
shared services. The Regional Coordinating Council will designate leaders for each strategy during
implementation.
In the Western Tidewater Region, there is no regional entity that provides driver training for
transit vehicles; therefore, an option for operating a training program is to consolidate individual
agency driver training programs into one agency. Training would be provided to public and
private transportation providers that pay a fee to be included. Transportation providers save
money by contracting out driver training, especially on specialized equipment training. Moreover,
well-trained drivers positively affect the consistency of service quality more than any other factor.
Example
DARTS, Dakota County, MN10, a non-profit agency operator, established a Vehicle
Maintenance Services (VMS) subsidiary that maintains vehicles for 80-90 organizations. VMS
serves organizations located in the Twin Cities region that operate specialized vehicles for transitdependent riders. Transportation providers that use DARTS VMS decrease their vehicle operating
costs, reduce vehicle downtime, and improve vehicle safety for their riders.
The Kanawha Valley Regional Transit Authority (KRT) in Charleston, West Virginia,
implemented a joint purchase fuel program that allowed tax exempt private and public nonprofit
entities receiving FTA funds to purchase lower cost fuel from KRT. KRT administers the program
for qualified eligible recipients.
The Non-Profit Insurance Program (NPIP) in Washington State administers a Joint
Insurance Purchasing program. NPIP members jointly purchase insurance and claims
adjustment, risk management consulting, and loss prevention services. Primary benefits are lower
insurance premiums and stable access to the insurance market.
Massachusetts Rural Transit Assistance Program (MArtap), Massachusetts11.The
Massachusetts Rural Transit Assistance Program (MArtap) provides driver training programs to
adhere to MassDOT-mandated training requirements for all vehicle acceptance recipients under
the Mobility Assistance Program (MAP). MArtap provides training free of charge to all MAP
recipients, which includes both paid and volunteer drivers for transportation and human services
organizations.
Costs & Benefits
Costs of resource sharing programs are primarily the administrative labor required to establish
sharing arrangements. For fuel, maintenance and insurance once these arrangements are set up
there is relatively minimal labor required to maintain the shared arrangement. It is assumed this
administrative function could be provided by a transportation coordinator for between 5% and
10% of a full time position per year, or approximately $4,350 - $8,700. Startup costs for shared
services range between $5,000 and $10,000 for each program. Benefits depend on the services
shared.
10Wasatch
Front Mobility Management Project Final Report, Appendix G,.
11http://www.martap.org/drivertraininginfo/drivertrainingprogram.html
Preliminary Strategy 7 – Job Access Strategies
This strategy focuses on linking people, and especially those with lower incomes, with job
opportunities. Some possible strategies include establishing shuttle services that link transit
hubs to employment sites/areas; and ridesharing and vanpool services, along with supporting
strategies such as guaranteed ride home services and child transportation services. Some
possible strategies include creating new shuttle services linking stations or hubs to
employment sites/areas and reverse-commute vanpools, plus strategies such as guaranteed
ride home services and child transportation services.
Benefits


Opens suburban job markets to
urban residents, especially transitdependent individuals.
Partnerships with employers may
provide opportunities to reduce
costs.

Most job access routes can be relatively
easily implement but require financing

Reverse commute strategies may
require partnerships with employers.
Insufficient commuter service was cited as a top priority for the Stakeholder Advisory Committee.
There are currently limited options for workers commuting from the Western Tidewater region to
major cities in the area, including Newport News, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, and Chesapeake.
Hampton Roads transit provides limited commuter service between Newport News and
Smithfield and Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Chesapeake. However, the region still lacks commuter
service for people commuting to jobs with odd hours, such as night and weekend shifts.
Vanpools provide a potential solution for the Western Tidewater region because they are ideal for
longer-distance commutes along corridors with very limited or no existing transit service. They
consist of a group of five to 15 commuters who share rides to and from work in vans leased from
an outside operator who owns and maintains the vehicles and provides insurance and other
support. In some cases, vans can be provided by an employer or can be owned by an individual.
One of the vanpool participants serves as the primary driver and another as a backup driver.
These drivers usually ride free in exchange for their additional driving and coordination
responsibilities. The cost for participants depends on the size of the van, the length of the
commute trip, the number of participants, and the availability of employer or government
subsidies. Average costs are approximately $100 per month per person.
Government agencies, transportation management organizations, or large employers typically
provide administrative, ridematching assistance, and financial incentives and subsidies. These
may include an initial startup subsidy, a subsidy to help cover the fare of a lost participant, and an
ongoing subsidy of van leasing costs.
Potential partners in the region include the Sentara Obici Healthcare Center, Walmart Stores,
SYSCO Foods, Unilever/Lipton, Smithfield Foods, Inc., and other major employers.
Examples
Child Transportation Services. Chattanooga, TN The Chattanooga Area Regional
Transportation Authority (CARTA) provides demand-response transit service to day care facilities
and to schools. Vans are equipped with on-board monitors to protect young children traveling to
and from day care without parents.
Pace’s Vanpool Services, Pace, IL - Pace’s Vanpool program is comprised of four different
programs, the Advantage Program, the Vanpool Incentive program, and a traditional ride share
program. The Advantage Program provides a transit alternative to persons with disabilities that
commute on a regular basis to work sites or rehabilitative workshops. This program not only
provides service to persons who might otherwise request ADA paratransit service from Pace, it
also is an alternative for those people living outside the ¾ mile ADA paratransit service area. The
Vanpool Incentive program provides a group of commuters with a van and pays for fuel,
maintenance, insurance, and tolls for a flat, monthly fare.
Costs & Benefits
Vanpool expenses (fuel, insurance, maintenance and repairs) are typically covered by the fares
paid by vanpool members; drivers often commute free of charge. In some cases, costs are covered
by a separate entity or a subsidy is provided by a sponsoring agency like a major employer to
eligible low income vanpool members to help cover the fare. Partnerships with major region
employers may provide opportunities to subsidize the cost of their employee’s trips. Multiple
employees along a major transportation corridor could share the cost of supporting the program.
Costs for shuttles vary greatly depending on operating characteristics. Hourly operating costs for
shuttle services typically range between $55 and $65 per hour. Operating costs include driver
wages, gasoline, light maintenance, management/supervision and basic level of dispatch. 12
12
Wasatch Front Mobility Management Project Final Report, Appendix G, 2010.
Preliminary Strategy 8 – Purchase of Service
Purchase of service from one organization by another involves taking advantage of down-time
associated with some services and using this excess capacity to satisfy unmet demand at other
organizations. Accordingly, those needing to expand capacity could purchase service from
human service agency operators with idle vehicles or excess capacity.
In order to successfully purchase service, both entities have to determine the fully allocated
cost of providing that service. Cost allocation is the process of identifying all costs attributed to
a transportation program in order to understand how much it really costs for each entity
involved and to understand the benefits that result from purchase of service. Cost allocation
allows providers to charge the correct amount for providing service.
The typical process for allocating costs is in two steps. First, all costs must be identified
including the hourly-based costs (e.g. driver wages and benefits), mileage-based costs (e.g.
maintenance), fixed costs (administrative staff) and capital costs. Second, costs must be
entered into a cost allocation spreadsheet model that includes unit costs for per hour, per mile
and per trip which becomes the basis for cost sharing.
Once both entities have decided on a rate, it is important for each trip to be accurately
recorded and billed. The most accurate way to do this is through enhanced scheduling and
dispatching technology and in-vehicle technology that enables time and location stamping.
Best practices technologies include:

MDT/AVL Technology, incorporating mobile data terminals (MDTs) and automatic
vehicle locating system (AVL) technology into paratransit services to track vehicle
movements.

Automated Cost Allocation of Co-Mingled Trips - Automated cost allocation of comingled trips involves tracking the live (or “real”) travel time or mileage for each trip.

Smart Card Technology - Client and eligibility information could be stored on a card,
which is swiped in (or held in proximity of) a reader as riders board and exit the
vehicles
Benefits

Increases efficiency in service
delivery.

Maximizes existing services and
provide more choices to riders.

Lowers per trip costs.

Maximizes fleet utilization.

Increases revenues for
organizations that “sell” excess
capacity.

Improves service quality for clients
through increased service options.

Concern among existing service
providers who may be reluctant to give
up a portion of the market.

Ensuring potential agency contractors
are familiar with ADA regulations such
that the services are administered
according to agency standards.

Scheduling/dispatching and in-vehicle
technologies can be costly.
Similar to the vehicle sharing program, there is potential for purchase of service in the Western
Tidewater Region. SSSEVA, PORTCO, and VRT only operate during certain times of the day, so
their vehicles are inactive for part of the day and many times on the weekend. A sharing system
would allow these vehicles to be used by other service providers who need an affordable
alternative to buying their own vehicles. Potential purchasing organizations include the Children’s
Center, which needs transportation options for participants in the Early Head Start and Early
Intervention programs, and the various churches in the region who provide transportation to
elderly and disabled members, but do not have the funding to purchase a dedicated vehicle.
Examples
Norwalk Transit District (NTD), Norwalk, CT. In Norwalk, to meet its ADA paratransit
obligation, the Norwalk Transit District (NTD) utilizes external resources before expanding to its
directly-operated fleet. NTD accordingly contracted with five different agencies to provide ADA
service, filling unused capacity on the contracting agency vehicles. This has resulted in lower rates
per hour for NTD and creates revenue for subcontractors as vehicles would otherwise be idle.
Winston-Salem Transit Authority (WSTA), Winston-Salem, NC. This countywide
authority provides fixed-route transit, complementary paratransit, and rideshare matching
services to an urbanized area in the piedmont area of North Carolina. The organization
coordinates ADA paratransit, senior transportation, and Medicaid transportation needs. The
Authority has long embraced technology to schedule and manage its fixed-route and paratransit
operations, including automated scheduling/dispatching, automatic vehicle location, and trip
itinerary planning. WSTA is expanding its efforts by hosting the regional customer database; this
regional customer database is designed to facilitate regional travel among different transit
providers by persons with disabilities.
MDT/AVL Technology and Trip Sponsorship. The ADA/Dial-A-Ride and Ride DuPage
services in DuPage County utilize a version of Trapeze (supplied by Pace) in conjunction with
MDT/AVL capabilities that automatically record the location and arrival and departure times of
vehicles.
Automated Cost Allocation. Outreach, the ADA paratransit broker in Santa Clara County,
California uses a version of Trapeze that allocates shared trip mileage among sponsors.
Costs & Benefits
The cost of purchasing service depends on the rate determined by the transportation provider
using a cost allocation model.
Scheduling and dispatching technologies and in-vehicle technologies can be costly, ranging from
$150,000 to $400,000, depending on the number of modules and complexity of the system.
Some larger systems spend up to $1 million on their software. However, these can be considered
capital funds and are eligible for FTA 5310 and 5311 funding.
6 PRIORITY STRATEGIES AND
IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURES
At the third Stakeholder Advisory Committee (StAC) meeting on June 11, 2012, the Committee
reviewed the eight preliminary strategies detailed in Chapter 5 and voted on which of the eight
strategies they would like to see implemented in the short term. The results of the voting exercise
were four priority strategies for the group to discuss further and for the Consulting Team to
develop recommendations.
The four mobility management strategies that received the highest number of votes during the
June 11th StAC meeting were:

Central Directory (Unanimous)

Flexible Vouchers (19 votes)

Shared Support Resources (17 votes)
 Volunteer Drivers (16 votes)
The other four strategies that did not receive enough votes to become priority strategies could still
be potentially beneficial to the region and should be considered at a future date:

Coordinated Funding and Grant Writing (11 votes)

Vehicle Sharing (11 votes)

Purchase of Service (7 votes)

Job Access Strategies (5 votes)
On June 12, 2012, Stakeholder Advisory Committee members attended one-hour, in-depth
workshops for each of the four priority strategies in order to provide feedback and
implementation guidance. These four workshops culminated in Action Plans that were
subsequently submitted to the Stakeholder Advisory Committee in July 2012. The
recommendations in Chapter 7 are based on these Action Plans.
THREE ADDITIONAL ACTION ITEMS
Three additional action items were identified during the June 11-12 StAC meetings as necessary
to complete in order to create the infrastructure to carry out the four prioritized strategies:

Form a Regional Coordinating Council

Hire a Mobility Manager

Create a Marketing and Information Plan
Form a Regional Coordinating Council
A Regional Coordinating Council (RCC) role in essence is to propagate and oversee the
implementation of mobility management and coordination activities within its region. It is
important that the RCC see itself as the body championing the mobility management and
coordination process in its region.
RCCs are typically made up of one representative from each organization that provides
transportation, the regional planning agency, each municipality in the region, representatives
from the business community, and human service agencies and advocacy organizations that
understand the needs of seniors, people with disabilities, persons with low income and others
who rely on community transportation. Additionally, it is beneficial to have a place for a few
customers from two or three of the above market segments in order to provide customer
perspectives.
The first step to becoming an organizational member of an RCC is to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), signifying that the organization will participate in this coordination effort.
Once the MOUs are signed and representatives from each agency selected, the RCC would adopt a
set of bylaws, which would address issues such as membership, officers, meetings, voting,
committees, etc. Once the bylaws are approved by each member of the council, they can be
amended to accommodate changing needs in the region. A sample MOU and set of Bylaws for an
RCC are presented in Appendix F.
RCC Officers
It is recommended that the RCC have the following officers:

Chair

Vice Chair

Treasurer

Secretary
The Chair (or in the event of his/her absence, the Vice Chair) will preside at all meetings of the
Council and will have the power to establish committees and appoint committee members. The
Treasurer is responsible for collection of annual dues (if any) and disbursement of funds for the
conduct of Council business. The Secretary is responsible for disseminating information to
Council members, writing Council correspondence, keeping meeting attendance records, and
taking minutes of meetings. It is not required that the Secretary be a member of the Council.
Collectively, the Chair, Vice Chair, and Treasurer will comprise the Executive Committee. The
Chair, Vice Chair, and Treasurer must be members in good standing. Each officer will be allowed
to serve a term of one year and may serve multiple terms.
While one important function of the RCC is to champion mobility management, it is equally as
important that the Chair also embodies this championing function. The Chair should also be
adept at fostering effective committee activity.
RCC Committees
The following standing committees are recommended

Executive Committee

Membership Committee

Marketing Committee

Grants and Fundraising Committee

Project Committees:

Centralized Directory Subcommittee

Flexible Vouchers Subcommittee

Shared Resources Subcommittee

Volunteer Drivers Subcommittee
Regional Coordinating Council Formation Timeline
Action
Call for RCC Volunteers
Mission Statement and MOU
finalized
MOUs signed
Bylaws finalized; committees formed
Responsible
Party
Timeframe
SSSEVA
September
Stakeholders
and
Consultants
September/
October
RCC Members
September/
October
RCC and
Consultants
October
Hire a Regional Mobility Manager
SSSEVA plans to hire a Regional Mobility Manager to serve as staff for the RCC and to spearhead
the implementation of local mobility management strategies within the region and possibly
manage some of those mobility management programs/services, as detailed later in this chapter.
Regional Mobility Manager Job Description
The job of the Regional Mobility Manager will be to improve the mobility and access of persons in
the Western Tidewater Region who rely on community transportation by coordinating
information, support services, and service delivery.
This position will be responsible for mobility management which, under the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) definition, “consists of short‐range planning, management activities and
projects for improving coordination among public and private transportation service providers
with the intent of expanding the availability of services.”
The duties and responsibilities of the Mobility Manager include, but are not limited to, the
following:

Provide support to, and implement mobility management policies and strategies of the
Regional Coordinating Council.

Enhance and facilitate access to community transportation information and services.

Gather and analyze data to satisfy funding agency reporting needs and to evaluate the
extent to which mobility and access is improved by mobility management policies and
strategies implemented.

Assist/spearhead grant-writing and fund-raising/leveraging activities.

Implement recommendations of the Senior Services of Southeast Virginia Coordination
Plan.

Cooperate with area transportation service providers to ensure optimum transportation
opportunities for customers in light of mandates, regulations and expectations.

Assist in developing printed material and forms to make information clearly obtainable
for those using and funding the program.

Coordinate recommendations with the regional planning agency and public
transportation operators in the region (Virginia Regional Transit and Hampton Roads
Transit), Virginia Department of Rail and Transit, and the United We Ride Committee.
It is recommended that candidates for this position have a bachelor’s degree with three years
experience, or equivalent in community transportation planning and/or operations, experience in
facilitating meetings with diverse groups of people, and knowledge of the principles, procedures
and strategies of coordinated human services transit transportation planning. Top candidates will
have some knowledge of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) policies, procedures and practices
and will have excellent interpersonal, written and verbal communication skills. Candidates will
have the ability to provide leadership and speak before public groups.
Additional Resources for Mobility Manager Job Descriptions
Additional mobility manager job descriptions are available on the CTAA website:
http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/anmviewer.asp?a=372
Create a Marketing and Education/Awareness Plan
Three of the prioritized strategies - centralized directory, flex vouchers and volunteer drivers require a marketing and education/awareness effort to get the word out to the public. The region
should coordinate its marketing and public outreach efforts. Ideas for marketing and spreading
information discussed during Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings include:

Creating informational flyers to pass out at meetings of various organizations, such as
Ruritans, Christian Outreach Programs, churches, community centers, Suffolk Recreation
Center, public libraries, Electric Coops, Salvation Army, the Rotary, Kiwanis, senior
centers, and Women’s Clubs, among others.

Attending special community events, such as the Isle of Wight health and education fairs,
and annual Fish Fry.

Advertising in the free Suffolk Herald newspaper, Cooperative Living, or on the local
public access TV channels.

Coordinating with chambers of commerce and large companies.
For examples of marketing materials used by similar transportation providers to promote
mobility management activities, see Appendix I.
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
The June 2012 Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings (as described in Chapter 6) yielded
four priority mobility management strategies for the Western Tidewater Region. The study team
then created and submitted for review brief Action Plans corresponding to each of these
strategies. Based on feedback received from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, these Action
Plans have been expanded to form short-term and long-term recommendations for the four
priority strategies:

Central Directory

Flexible Travel Vouchers

Shared Support Resources

Volunteer Drivers
PRIORITY STRATEGY 1: CENTRAL RESOURCE DIRECTORY
A central resource directory provides customers with a single point of contact to learn about
available community transportation resources in order to schedule rides they need for daily
activity or for occasional appointments.
In the study region, the Virginia 2-1-1 service -- available by telephone or the internet -- already
provides information on human services, and limited information on transportation options in
the region. The service employs a system for the hearing-impaired, and has Spanish-speaking
operators as well as a translation system. Virginia 2-1-1 staff members are responsible for
maintaining and updating the database and soliciting feedback from clients. The system has a
reputation of excellent customer service.
The Virginia 2-1-1 system also retains all the data that is gathered during eligibility screening
process and from a follow-up satisfaction survey. The eligibility screening process determines the
customer’s age, origin and destination, the type of request, and if they fit into a certain target
group, such as low income individuals, persons with disabilities, etc. For each of the eligibility
screening questions (see below), Virginia 2-1-1 will gather and store the responses and will be able
to provide this information to interested transportation providers. Additionally, Virginia 2-1-1
conducts a quality assurance call at a later date to determine if the customer’s needs were met. If
their needs were not met, the quality assurance call will collect information about any problems
they encountered. The intention of this follow-up is to make the Virginia 2-1-1 system better, but
the information can also be given to the transportation providers. Appendix H describes the
protocol for all outgoing Virginia 2-1-1 calls and quality assurance calls.
George Harden, Regional Director of the Virginia 2-1-1 system, has been a member of the
Stakeholder Advisory Committee for this study and from the beginning has expressed a
willingness to utilize the Virginia 2-1-1 infrastructure for the region’s central resource directory.
Because Virginia 2-1-1 is a service already in place with an excellent community reputation, it is
the logical solution for creating a central resource directory for the region. The purpose of the
recommendations in this chapter is to ensure that up-to-date and accurate information on
community transportation resources in the region is provided to the Virginia 2-1-1 system in a
consistent fashion. For ongoing management and updating of provider information within the
system, Virginia 2-1-1 sends an automatic reminder to each provider every six months requesting
an update, but organizations must also be proactive in updating their own information. It is
envisioned that the new SSSEVA Mobility Manager will act as a liaison between the providers and
2-1-1.
Eligibility and Screening Questions
Virginia 2-1-1 has approved the following eligibility and screening questions for their operators
to ask callers in search of transportation options. These screening questions will also be asked to
customers using the Virginia 2-1-1 website.
Virginia 2-1-1 has agreed to send out a survey to each of the providers with these questions. This
survey could also include an “other” section for providers to fill in additional questions that a
person seeking transportation may need to answer to receive information about viable
transportation options available to them.
The approved eligibility and screening questions are as follows:

What is your age?

When do you need the trip? (for lead time only, not scheduling)

What time of day/day of week? (some providers do not have weekend service)

Do you need an accessible vehicle?

Do you use a wheelchair?

If yes, what size wheel chair – standard or wide?

Do you need a low-riding vehicle?

Do you need door-to-door service? Or do you need assistance getting into a vehicle or
bus?

Is anyone accompanying you?

Are you Medicaid eligible?

What is the trip purpose?

Where do you live? (need boundaries for each provider)

Where are you going? (need boundaries for each provider)

Are you a member of a special group? (includes veterans, cancer patients, others?)

Are you a member of a faith-based organization? Which one?

Do you need a one-time or recurring trip? (Dialysis?)
Short-term Recommendations for the RCC
1. Work with regional transportation providers to finalize eligibility and
compose screening questions.
The RCC Central Resource Directory Subcommittee should work with participating
organizations and Virginia 2-1-1 to finalize the screening questions a caller will answer to
determine which transportation options are available to them.
2. Obtain authorization from each community transportation provider to
be included in the provider directory.
Each community transportation provider must give written authorization for their
organization's information to be included on the Virginia 2-1-1 directory – both online and
over the phone. This recommendation is currently being implemented by the study team
and will become the first priority of the new Mobility Manager. The provider authorization
form is located in Appendix K.
3. Provide the provider directory to Virginia 2-1-1.
As authorization forms are returned to Virginia 2-1-1, the community transportation
services of that organization will be added to the directory.
4. Create a marketing and education/awareness public outreach plan
The RCC will need to communicate to the community that Virginia 2-1-1 is a comprehensive
directory for transportation services in the region. See recommendations for creating a
marketing plan in Chapter 6.
Central Directory Timeline
Responsible Party
Cost/Time
Needed
Timeframe
Work with Virginia 2-1-1 to finalize
eligibility and screening questions.
NN and
Mobility Manager
1-3 hours
< 3 months
Obtain permission from each provider
included in the provider directory.
NN and
Mobility Manager
4-6 hours
< 3 months
Provide the provider directory to Virginia
2-1-1.
NN and
Mobility Manager
1 hour
< 3 months
Create a marketing and information plan.
RCC Marketing
Committee
8-10 hours
< 3 months
Short-term
Action
PRIORITY STRATEGY 2: FLEXIBLE TRAVEL VOUCHERS
Flex travel vouchers can be issued or sold to eligible individuals and used by those individuals to
purchase trips from public or private transportation providers, or to reimburse volunteer drivers.
Typically, sponsoring agencies subsidize the cost of the trips, so that riders are able to receive
service at a reduced cost; that is, they can access transportation options that were not previously
available or affordable to them. Eligibility can be based on age, disability, income criteria, or the
need for a specific type of trip, such as employment transportation. As with any subsidy program,
sponsorship is really up to the sponsoring organization which sets its own ground rules.
For the Western Tidewater Region it is envisioned that flex travel vouchers could enable
individuals to get to needed services and medical appointments, employment opportunities, and
shopping, especially in rural Southampton and Isle of Wight counties and areas of Suffolk where
there is a lack of community transportation, and during weekday evening and weekends when
there is a dearth of community transportation throughout the Western Tidewater Region.
Best Practices for Flexible Travel Vouchers
Flexible transportation vouchers (or flex vouchers) are typically in the form of checks that
eligible riders can use to “purchase” a ride. Funded by one or more sponsoring agency, flexible
vouchers give the customer control over what kind of transportation they want to use. Usually
the customer will use flexible vouchers to either:

Subsidize the cost of a ride on any mode of public transportation that has a fare or
requested donation (e..g, transit, paratransit, taxi, senior van)

Pay volunteer drivers, friends, family members, or neighbors for rides
The “checkbook” model is the most common operating structure for flexible voucher programs.
Customers receive a pre-printed checkbook with an allocation of miles from a support agency.
The customer trades the check for a ride with a volunteer, taxi driver, or transit or human
services agency driver. The support agency helps locate rides, offers planning support, allocates
vouchers and reimburses drivers. Support agencies are funded through existing programs,
special grants, and/or additional sponsoring agencies. Volunteers are reimbursed the standard
IRS reimbursement amount and other transportation providers, such as taxis, negotiate a per
mile rate.
Below are descriptions of the APRIL Traveler’s Cheque Program and WIRL Transportation
Checks program, which are both successful examples of the checkbook model.
APRIL Traveler’s Cheque Program
The Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL) is a national, nonprofit,
grass roots membership network of over 230 rural centers for independent living (CILs), other
organizations, and individuals who work with people with disabilities in rural America. Through
an FTA funded program, in 2008 APRIL created a national demonstration project to implement
and demonstrate a voucher program – called the Traveler’s Cheque Program – in ten pilot sites.
In the Traveler’s Cheque voucher model, eligible riders receive a checkbook with an allocation of
miles from a sponsoring agency. The sponsoring agency helps the rider identify and cultivate
potential volunteer drivers (including friends, family members and neighbors) and negotiates
with public or private transportation providers to accept the voucher checks as payment for
rides. The sponsoring agency financially manages the voucher system by allocating vouchers to
riders and reimbursing providers.
The Traveler’s Cheque model uses mileage rather than dollars for a two main reasons. First, the
model resembles a checking account that draws on a pool of mileage per participant;
participants know how many miles they have used and how many they have left. Second, all
trips involve distance and most distances are easy to estimate or calculate. A program
participant is able to estimate the number of miles and the bookkeeper can calculate the amount
due to the provider based on the different negotiated rates and the current federal mileage
reimbursement cap. The disadvantage of using a mileage allocation system is that it creates
more work for a bookkeeper who has to keep a list of the various rates and apply and calculate
payments based on those rates.
The APRIL toolkit provides a framework and steps for planning and implementing a voucher
program using the Traveler’s Cheque model (see Appendix J). The following information can be
accessed in more detail by contacting [email protected] and requesting the APRIL
toolkit for $20.13
WILR Transportation Check Program
Rural Wyoming is too sparsely populated to rely on buses alone to transport individuals who are
unable to drive due to a disability. Using FTA formula funds, Wyoming established a statewide
flexible transportation voucher program that reimburses senior center transit providers and
volunteers for mileage when transporting eligible passengers.
Administered by the Wyoming Independent Living Rehabilitation organization (WILR), the
Transportation Check Program provides an affordable way for people with disabilities to meet
their transportation needs. The Transportation Check program was first started with $10,000
set aside by WILR for a four-year pilot program for four counties. After four years, WILR
expanded the program statewide and acquired Wyoming Department of Transportation
(WDOT) funding to continue the program indefinitely.
Participants are eligible to receive WILR Transportation Checks if they have a documented
disability and cannot drive due to that disability. WILR assigns customers checks to pay for their
trips; either through senior center transit providers for bus trips or to reimburse mileage costs
of a ride provided by a friend, co-worker, neighbor, volunteer, or public provider.
Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living, Toolkit for Operating a Rural Transportation Voucher Program,
2012.
13
Mileage reimbursement is provided at $0.36 per mile. To be eligible for mileage reimbursement,
drivers must be a licensed driver with appropriate insurance in compliance with state law, they
cannot be a spouse of the rider, and they must drive a licensed vehicle. Senior center transit
providers are reimbursed at the rate that they charge any rider, $1 per one-way trip.
The participant fills out the check to indicate the origin and destination of the trip, the trip
mileage, the name and address of the driver, and the purpose of the trip (see Appendix J). Each
check has a check number to discourage fraud. After receiving the check from the customer at
the end of a provided ride, the transportation provider submits the check to WILR for cash
reimbursement. Participants in the program are responsible for organizing and securing the
trips that they need.
To apply for the program, a participant must fill out an application, sign a liability waiver, and
complete brief program training on how to use the vouchers and are given information for
providers on how to submit transportation checks for cash. A participant then completes a
seven-day trip diary (see Appendix J) and works with a WILR transportation coordinator to
determine all trips that a participant wants to take, even if they are not usually able to take those
trips. WILR transportation coordinators work the participant to determine which trips should
be paid for using the transportation checks.
After completing the trip diary, a participant meets with a staff coordinator to complete a
mileage plan (See Appendix J) that defines the number of miles they will be allowed per quarter
and annually based on the their average weekly travel. Participants can receive up to 2,000
miles of transportation per year or 500 per quarter. By knowing the number of miles a
participant can use per year and the associated transportation mileage rates, the program is able
to estimate annual transportation costs. WILR monitors usage to ensure that customers are not
exceeding the mileage limit; adjustments to mileage limits can be made if unusual
circumstances arise.
WILR provides more than 20,000 trips per year and is administered by one full-time staff
person dedicated to voucher reconciliation and payments14.
For more information about flexible vouchers and taxi subsidy vouchers, please
see Appendix J.
14
Emails and presentations sent from Ken Hoff at WILR on August 31, 2012.
1. Determine how to structure the flex travel voucher program.
Below is the general structure for setting up a flex travel voucher system using a Mobility
Manager (or lead agency), Sponsor, Customer, and Provider system of voucher (or scrip)
and funding. This general structure can be modified to suit the Western Tidewater region.
Figure 7-1 General Structure for Setting up a Flex Travel Voucher System
 Mobility Manager (or lead agency): The Mobility Manager collects funding from a
sponsoring agency in exchange for “scrip” to give to their customers. A scrip usually has a
value printed on it and can be used as money in exchange for transportation with certain
providers. The Mobility Manager prints and controls the scrip, coordinates the
participation of sponsoring organizations, reimburses providers based on scrip
surrendered, and implements fraud control strategies.
 Providers bring scrip to the Mobility Manager to be reimbursed at face value for the
scrip surrendered. Providers will enter into an agreement with the Mobility Manager to
agree to accept scrip as a form of cash.
 Customers receive scrip from a sponsoring agency. The sponsoring agency can decide
the level of subsidy. For example, the sponsoring agency could give eligible customers scrip
at no cost. Or they could sell eligible customers scrip at a discount, e.g., a $100 scrip book
could be sold to the customer for $50. The customer would then use the scrip as cash.
Depending on how much a trip costs, customers can pay for whatever the scrip does not
cover by paying directly to a provider.

Sponsoring agencies provide funding to subsidize the customer’s trips by buying
scrip at cost from the Mobility Manager, and issuing scrip to customers as described
above.
2. Search for grants/sponsoring organizations to provide funding for
vouchers.
Several potential sponsoring organizations might include:
 Local Municipalities or Counties: If all of the non-profit organizations that are
members of the RCC collectively contribute $10,000 total and request matching funds from
local municipalities and counties (such as the City of Suffolk, for example), this would allow
the group to leverage $20,000. The group may be able to use the $20,000 as local match to
receiving receive federal grant money (most FTA programs require a 20% local match).
These sponsors may choose how to distribute the vouchers and to whom.
 Healthcare Foundations: The Virginia Healthcare Foundation, for example, has
funded volunteer driver programs in the past, though they are moving to a different focus
for funding projects.
 Other Private Resources: The Camp Foundations in Franklin and Southampton
County, the Isle of Wight Ruritans, and the Smithfield Company Foundation are possible
examples. A great source for finding foundations in the region is the Foundation Center.org
search function.
 Fundraising Program: As described in Chapter 4, the Christian Outreach Program
has a Souper Saturday community fundraiser program that raises over $10,000 to assist
families in need with rent, gas, oil, utility payments, furniture, appliances and household
needs. The region could set aside some of this money for travel vouchers or could set up a
similar fundraising program.
For many of these examples, sponsoring organizations' subsidy, if originating from a non-FTA
source, could be used to leverage FTA funding that requires a local match.
3. Identify vendors to participate in the program.
The RCC Flex Travel Voucher Subcommittee will research community transportation
providers (including volunteer driver programs) in the region to participate in the program
by accepting the scrip as payment. This may involve developing a fact sheet for providers
that includes information about how the scrip works and how to redeem scrip for cash. In
addition to the transportation providers present at the June workshop, the Stakeholder
Advisory Committee identified Hampton Roads Transportation taxi company which was
not present during the meeting, but has participated in similar programs in the past.
Flexible Vouchers Timeline
Short term
Action
Determine how to structure the flexible voucher
program.
Responsible
Party
Cost/Time
Needed
Timeframe
RCC
8-10 hours
3-6 month
Search for grants/sponsoring organizations to
provide funding for vouchers.
RCC
Subcommittee
Identify vendors to participate in the program.
RCC
Subcommittee
10-20 hours
8-10 hours
6-9 month
3-6 months
PRIORITY STRATEGY 3: JOINT PROCUREMENT
Joint procurement (also called shared support services) allows participating independent
organizations to lower costs by splitting common expenses. Community transportation providers,
by banding together, could save on volume co-procurements of insurance, maintenance services,
fuel cards, driver training, and possibly other purchases.
Agencies can also benefit from information sharing, which helps to create standards among
transportation agencies in the region. This is turn can result in improved service quality and
safety and thus eventually lower insurance costs. Examples of shared information include policy
and procedure manuals, training curriculum, evaluation guidelines, and safety standards.
For the Western Tidewater region, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee identified five support
services that could possibly be shared among multiple organizations/agencies, including:

Vehicle Maintenance

Fuel Cards

Insurance

Driver Training

Operating Manuals
Joint Vehicle Maintenance Procurement
There are two large-scale vehicle maintenance providers in the region – Beach Ford and Master
Auto - that provide maintenance services to the two largest transportation providers – SSSEVA
and the Western Tidewater Community Service Board (WTCSB). Both of these maintenance
companies responded to a bid from SSSEVA and WTCSB and have a contracted special rate for all
services.
WTCSB and SSSEVA have the two largest fleets in the area and would be logical leaders to
coordinate a joint procurement of vehicle maintenance. Both organizations request bids from
maintenance organizations annually. If the two organizations requested bids for vehicle
maintenance together, they may be able to negotiate a lower rate. Other organizations could also
join the bid with WTCSB and SSSEVA to benefit from lower rates.
Both companies were contacted as part of this study, but are not willing to discuss rates without a
formal bid release. Below are descriptions of the two maintenance providers:

Beach Ford in Virginia Beach: Beach Ford is the current maintenance provider for
WTCSB and has the capacity to service about fifty vehicles at the same time. Beach Ford
also has a location in Suffolk. Beach Ford is WTCSB’s preferred vendor, but the
organization is not required to use them exclusively. Other respondents to WTCSB’s bid
can also provide service if Beach Ford does not have availability at any given time.
WTCSB has shown interest in combining vehicle maintenance with other organizations to
save money; last year they spent about $100,000 in repairs. WTCSB has the largest fleet
(116 vehicles) in the region, which makes them a logical choice for serving as the lead to
smaller organizations.

Master Auto in Norfolk: Master Auto in Norfolk is SSSEVA’s current maintenance
provider. Master Auto is SSSEVA’s preferred vendor, but they are not required to use
them exclusively if they do not have availability.
In addition to these two private maintenance providers, the Virginia Department of
Transportation also has a district headquarters which houses state vehicles that build and
maintain the districts roads, bridges and tunnels. For the Hampton Roads district, the location is
at 1700 North Main Street, Suffolk, VA 23434.
Short-term Recommendation for the RCC
Write a joint bid for vehicle maintenance
SSSEVA, WTCSB, Children’s Center, Guardian Angel, and the Church Affiliates have shown
an interest in joining together to negotiate better rates with maintenance providers. The
RCC Subcommittee will need to designate a lead agency, such as WTCSB, to write a bid that
includes the group of interested organizations. The lead agency will also negotiate with
representatives of bid respondents to obtain the best rate.
Fuel Cards
Organizations maybe be able to negotiate lower rates by joining together to purchase fuel or fuel
cards. Currently, organizations in the region are using two different discount fuel options.
The State Fuel Card program is run through the Voyager card under Mansfield Oil Company
and provides flexibility to fuel at 90% of gas stations nationwide. It allows cardholders to
purchase tax-exempt motor fuels at participating retail stations. Cardholders can purchase all
brands of fuel products, including immediate use items such as motor oil, windshield washer fluid
or general repair and oil change. The card provides details about how many miles per gallon the
vehicle is getting, and provides the ability to rack fuel purchases by vehicle, driver, location and
gallons purchased. WTCSB uses the State Fuel Card, and the Isle of Wight Sherriff’s Office does as
well.
Eligible cardholders (state, farming, non-profit, and educational organizations) must fill out three
forms:

Certificate of Farming or State Use

Certificate for State Use or Nonprofit Educational Organization Use

Mansfield Oil Company Fuel Card Enrollment Form
More information about the State Fuel Cards including application forms can be found at:
http://www.dgs.virginia.gov/OfficeofFleetManagementServices/StateMotorFuelProgram/FuelCa
rdProgram/tabid/1175/Default.aspx.
SSSEVA uses a system called Wright Express gas cards, which is operated as a credit account.
Wright Express gas cards are given to each driver. SSSEVA is billed for what is charged by their
drivers. Wright Express gives them the ability to track fuel purchases by vehicle, driver, location
and gallons purchased. There is no discount associated with the Wright Express gas card.
Determine the most cost effective option
Interested organizations - SSSEVA, Children’s Center, WTCSB, and the Church affiliates –
will need to determine which of the two available options are most cost effective for them
individually. As discussed earlier, the State Fuel Card allows participants to purchase fuel at
a tax exempt rate while the Wright Express card saves time because an organization does
not need to apply for the State Fuel Card. However, Wright Express fuel is full price and not
tax exempt, and both the State Fuel Card and Wright Express provide similar data
collection capabilities. Participating organizations need to weigh the costs and benefits of
both options and make a decision based on what is best for them.
Joint Procurement of Insurance
Currently, SSSEVA uses Selective Inc. for insurance. Selective provides coverage of transit
vehicles and volunteer drivers for about $64,000 per year. As a requirement of the insurance,
drivers must submit their DMV driving records. Selective gives SSSEVA a lower rate because the
organization submits both background checks and drug/alcohol tests for their professional
drivers. However, this is not required for all Selective applicants. Selective Inc. provides its own
training at no additional cost. The National Safety Council’s Online Defensive Driving course is
required for every driver in order to receive the best rates. This online course is an eight-hour
course, separated into seven sessions and valid for one year.
Selective covers volunteer drivers who drive SSSEVA vehicles if they receive the same training as
the professional drivers (through Selective Inc. online training program) and provide their DMV
record.
Volunteer drivers who drive their own vehicles are covered primarily by their own insurance and
secondarily by SSSEVA’s Selective policy (included in the annual premium). According to Virginia
law, volunteer drivers must have their own insurance as their primary insurance if they are
driving their own vehicles.
Meet with Selective Inc. to discuss options for a joint insurance program.
A representative from each interested organization – SSSEVA, Catholic Charities,
Children’s Center, Guardian Angel, and WTCSB - should meet with Selective Inc. to discuss
creating a joint insurance program and to negotiate a lower rate.
Joint Transit Driver Training
There are several options for providing driver training in the region; through Selective Inc.
Insurance, through a local organization such as WTCSB, through a national safety company such
as AAA Tidewater Virginia, or through the Community Transportation Association of America
(CTAA). The section below outlines these options.
It is also important to coordinate the joint insurance initiative with a joint driver training
program to ensure that the insurance company accepts the driver training program and will
provide cost savings in the form of reduced rates as a result of enhanced driver safety training.
Organizations interested in joining together to purchase insurance include SSSEVA, Church
Affiliates, Guardian Angel, Children’s Center, Endependence Center, and WTCSB.
Option A: Selective Inc.
As discussed above, Selective Inc. provides its own training included in the annual premium cost.
If other organizations switch to Selective for insurance, they would be eligible to receive the same
training.
Option B: WTCSB
Other organizations pay a fee for participating in WTCSB’s training. WTCSB provides a standard
training curriculum with additional training for drivers who get traffic tickets. Currently, Kelly
Haton at WTCSB provides training for about 400 staff. All staff members are required to take
driver safety, wheelchair training, and behavior training (includes sensitivity and disability
training).
Option C: AAA
Negotiate with AAA to provide their fleet driver training at lower rates for multiple organizations.
AAA’s current program, called Fleet Driver Improvement Program, can include CDL training if
necessary. AAA also has a train-the-trainer fleet training program. They currently provides
specialized fleet training for The Children’s Center, which requires their drivers to go through a
DMV-approved course each year because they are driving children under the age of eight. AAA is
a DMV-approved training organization.
AAA’s fleet course is in a classroom setting only; the course does not include training inside a
vehicle or training of equipment such as a wheelchair lift. The classroom courses include
defensive driving, risk awareness, breaking distance, interaction, etc., but the curriculum be
tailored to specific needs of each organization. Highly qualified, experienced instructors that are
nationally certified lead the training. Courses typically range from six to eight hours long. Courses
can be structured in many different ways – once a year, once a month, at the AAA Virginia Beach
location, at a Suffolk location – and the price will vary based on frequency and amount of travel.
Additionally, AAA is able to tailor a training program to the specific requirements of an insurance
company to ensure the best rates.
Typical curriculum for the fleet training course includes the following elements:

Perception: How a driver can effectively view his or her environment.

Communicating: How to “read” traffic and communicate with other drivers.

Adjusting Speed: Factors drivers often overlook when determining a safe speed.

Margin of Safety: The real purpose of keeping a safe distance in traffic.

Driving Emergencies: The best way to handle emergencies.

Aggressive Driving: How to avoid aggressive drivers and their consequences.

Distracted Driving: What it is and how to handle it.
Based on discussions with Catherine Wilson, Manager of Public Affairs and Traffic Safety at AAA
Tidewater Virginia, the cost of the fleet course is negotiable and would decrease based on how
many organizations participate and how often the training will occur. Currently driver training is
$55-$65 per person. The Children’s Center negotiated a $5 discount for their annual training.
Options D and E: CTAA
The Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) provides training, accreditation,
and certification for community transportation providers. They develop customized training
solutions based on the needs of each unique community transportation system.
There are two options for utilizing the CTAA driver training program (Options D and E below).
Members of the joint training program will need to weigh the costs of each to determine the most
cost effective option.

Option D: Pay CTAA to provide training to each organization individually.

Option E: Jointly procure CTAA to provide driver training to all organizations.
CTAA Driver Training Course Description:
The Passenger Service and Safety (PASS) Driver Certification Program ensures that community
transportation drivers have current expertise in passenger assistance techniques and sensitivity
skills appropriate for serving persons with disabilities. The PASS program is a three-day Trainthe-Trainer program to certify trainers or a two-day program for the CTAA trainers to directly
train drivers. The program provides up-to-date training for how to serve passengers with special
needs, training for emergency situations, certification oversight, and updates for participants on
relevant regulatory changes.
The organization receiving training provides the classroom site, a wheelchair, a lift-equipped
vehicle, and audiovisual support. The total cost for the entire three days of training (which
includes all travel and related expenses for the trainer) is $7,500. CTAA members will receive a
$500 discount for a total of $7,000. For CTAA member organizations, the PASS driver
certification fee is reduced from $50 to $35 per driver.
For further information, contact Len Cahill at 202-415-9653.
Additional Training Opportunities
Additionally, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee also showed interest in additional training
opportunities in the region. The Endependence Center provides a no-cost sensitivity training
course for individuals working with elderly and disabled populations. The sensitivity training
includes watching a video called the “Ten Commandments for Communication with People with
Disabilities” and a presentation that provides further guidance. For more information about this
training option, contact Emily Fisher at [email protected].
Choose a training option based on insurance decisions
The type of training that is best for the RCC will be based on which insurance option the
group decides to pursue. The ultimate goal is for the group to save money on insurance
rates and improve the quality of service. The RCC should determine which insurance
provider they want to pursue jointly before they choose a training provider.
Coordinated Operating Procedures and Manuals
This strategy is especially important for possible future coordination because each organization
needs to be aware of the special needs of the collective group. For example: The Children’s Center
has policies and procedures specific to car seats, children, and children with disabilities.
This strategy is also important because of the reporting requirements for each organization. The
Committee members agreed that it would be very beneficial if reporting could be streamlined for
the RCC group. This would also allow the group to access the same funding streams.
Organizations interested in coordinating operating procedures and manuals include SSSEVA, the
Church Affiliates, and WTCSB.
Decide if the future SSSEVA Mobility Manager or a member of the RCC will
lead this strategy.
To succeed, this strategy will need a point person to gather the relevant information from
the respective agencies of the RCC. For example, SSSEVA will be hiring a Mobility Manager
this fall. Creating a directory of all the operating procedures and manuals could be one of
their job requirements.
Alternatively, one of the organizations in the working group, such as WTCSB, could lead
this strategy. Kelly Haton from WTCSB has offered to begin gathering operating procedures
since WTCSB has such extensive procedures manuals, but she alone may not have sufficient
availability to fully coordinate this strategy.
Joint Procurement/Provision of Service Timeline
Action
Responsible Party
Time
Needed
Timeframe
Vehicle
Maintenance
Write a joint bid for vehicle maintenance
providers
RCC Subcommittee
8-10
hours
< 3 months
Fuel Cards
Determine the most cost-effective option
Individual
organizations
4-6 hours
< 3 months
Joint Insurance
Meet with insurance providers to discuss
options for a joint insurance program
RCC Subcommittee
2-3 hours
< 3 months
Joint Driver
Training
Choose a driver training option based on
insurance decisions
RCC Subcommittee
2-3 hours
> 3 months
Operating
Manuals
Decide if the future SSSEVA Mobility
Manager or a member of the working
group will lead this strategy
RCC Subcommittee
2-3 hours
< 3 months
Short-term
Strategy
PRIORITY STRATEGY 4: VOLUNTEER DRIVERS
Volunteer driver programs are typically comprised of individuals that operate their own vehicles
when they take individuals to medical appointments or other services, but they can also utilize
agency vehicles with volunteer drivers. Human service programs use volunteer drivers as a key
strategy to provide trips in a cost-effective manner and aid in filling transportation gaps in
communities, particularly rural communities.
The region has several volunteer driver programs operating today (see map below). Each of these
services is operating independently providing volunteer drivers for specific population groups.
These services would be able to better serve the community by coordinating with each other and
sharing resources and information.

Catholic Charities of Eastern Virginia provides volunteers upon request for older
adults. Catholic Charities does not provide a reimbursement to their volunteer drivers.
They recruit through their website, volunteer match program, notifications at libraries,
church bulletins, United Way, and many different events. The organization is very
interested in learning more about joint insurance programs and other joint programs for
volunteer drivers.

The American Cancer Society provides volunteer drivers to cancer patients in the
region under a program called Road to Recovery. In the Western Tidewater region, there
are approximately 26 Road to Recovery volunteer drivers: four in Southampton, 12 in
Suffolk, and 12 in Isle of Wight.

East End Baptist Church has several volunteer drivers for their church members.

Trinity United Methodist Church also has several volunteer drivers for their church
members.

Suffolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority has volunteer drivers who provide
transportation for classes, job fairs, resident meetings and job opportunities on an asneeded basis.

The Christian Outreach Program has a small volunteer driver program that provides
rides for low income elderly members of the community who cannot afford to pay for
transportation to medical appointments.
In addition to these six current volunteer driver programs that exclusively provide volunteer
drivers for clients, cancer patients, and church members, SSSEVA is in the process of developing
their own volunteer driver program which will operate for qualified members of the general
public (older adults and persons with low income).
Figure 7-2
Geographic Coverage of Volunteer Driver Programs
Best Practices for Volunteer Drivers
There are many ways to implement a volunteer driver program. Organizations must make
several decisions – from how to fund a program to how to handle driver recruitment and
retention – that require advance planning and local knowledge. The suggestions below suggest
options for creating a successful volunteer driver program.
Most of the information found in this section is available through The Beverly Foundation,
www.beverlyfoundation.org/volunteer-driver-programs. The Beverly Foundation is a nonprofit organization with a mission to foster new ideas and options to enhance mobility and
transportation for current and future older populations. Their website houses an extensive
library of volunteer driver resources that provide a variety of technical materials for
organizations in the beginning stages of implementing volunteer driver programs.
Funding
TriMet, who operates RideConnection in Portland, OR, recently won a $330,728 grant from
the Federal Transit Administration through its Veterans Transportation and Community
Living initiative.15 ITN Racine County, located in Racine County, Wisconsin won a grant as
well, $45,000 from the Helen Bader Foundation based in Milwaukee. 16 These two examples
serve to demonstrate that funding sources can be diverse. One element to consider is that
certain funding sources can prove challenging for volunteer driver organizations as their
contractual requirements mandate things like drug testing, record keeping, and audit
procedures.
Potential sponsors include17:

Public Transit Agencies

Aging and Social Services

Paratransit Services

Volunteer and Fellowship Groups

Community Transit Services

Churches and Interfaith Groups

Hospitals and Health Centers

Federal Transit Administration
Costs
A survey of five volunteer driver programs in Arizona, California, Colorado, and Maryland
found that the cost per trip ranged from $5.33 to $24.19, with an average cost of $14.33.18
Another survey of volunteer driver programs found budgets ranging from $6,500,000-$15,000
as shown in the table below:
15 Eckert, Kurt. “Agencies prepare for aging populations,” The Hillsboro Argus, November 22, 2011.
http://www.oregonlive.com/argus/index.ssf/2011/11/agencies_prepare_for_aging_pop.html. Accessed August 30,
2012
16 “Organization Notes: July 28,” The Journal Times, July 28 2012. http://www.journaltimes.com/lifestyles/faith-andvalues/ce3a2e72-d75a-11e1-8d2c-001a4bcf887a.html. Accessed August 30, 2012
17 Volunteer Driver Programs Fact Sheet http://beverlyfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet-6-Vol-DriverPrograms.pdf
18 Koffman, David, Richard Weiner, Amy Pfeiffer, Scott Chapman. Funding the Public Transportation Needs of an Aging
Population, March 2010, American Public Transportation Association, p. 26-27
Figure 7-3
Cost Comparison of Drive Training Programs19
Location
Budget
Annual
Rides
Riders
Volunteer
Drivers
Ride Connection
Portland, OR
$6,500,000
374,000
10,500
600
YCCAC
Sanford, ME
$460,450
59,529
3324
110
Columbia, MD
$137,500
750
125
Faith In Action Caregivers
Austin, TX
$510,552
25,237
2226
1590
Peninsula Shepherd Senior
Center
San Diego, CA
$15,000
2,500
100
30
Agency name
Neighbor Ride
The costs of the program can result from a number of factors, ranging from the size of the
service area to capital costs such as vehicles.
Most organizations reimburse volunteers for mileage, based on current mileage rates for paid
employees.20 Others provide a more diverse array of incentives for driving such as free oil
changes or volunteer lunches.21 These ideas are discussed in the recruiting section below.
Reimbursement
Currently the Standard Mileage Rates section of the IRS Tax Code allows charities to reimburse
volunteers, on a nontaxable basis only, up to the charitable mileage rate of $0.14 per mile.
Alternatively, volunteers are permitted to deduct their “out of pocket” expenses incurred in
providing donated services from taxes — when those expenses are not reimbursed. The
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has the authority to regulate volunteer mileage rates for
business and medical/moving purposes, but not for charitable activities. The charitable rate
can only be adjusted through legislation, and has remained unchanged since 1997.
A change to this regulation is currently in congress – called the Giving Incentives to Volunteers
Everwhere (GIVE) Act to address the inequities between the charitable rate and those for
business and medical/moving purposes. Current standard mileage rates for 2012 are as
follows:

$0.55 per mile for business miles driven; up from $0.51

$0.23 per mile for medical/moving purposes; up from $0.19

$0.14 per mile driven in service of charitable organizations; unchanged22
19 The Beverly Foundation Fact Sheet, http://beverlyfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet-7-Vol-Drivers.pdf
20 Washington State Department of Transportation Volunteer Drivers Guide
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Transit/Training/vdg/Sponsor.htm
21 Beverly Foundation Volunteer Driver Idea Book, http://beverlyfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/idea-book.pdf
22 http://www.independentsector.org/vehicle_mileage
Recruiting Volunteer Drivers
Volunteer driver programs use a variety of strategies to recruit and retain drivers. Some
suggestions are detailed below.
Targeted Paid Advertising
Many agencies use written blurbs or brief commercial spots targeted toward a population that
would be inclined to act as volunteer drivers. A list of potential advertising mediums is below:
23

Website
 Senior-oriented cable shows

Newspapers
 Radio spots/interviews

Medical Brochures
 AARP Mailings

Non-profit newsletters
Presentations
Similarly, presenting to selected audiences can be an effective method of communicating the
benefits of and need for volunteer drivers, as well as testimonials. The list below outlines some
venues for presentations:24

Church Councils

Information booths at fairs/events

Community Groups

Schools

Senior Groups

Service Organizations
Person-to-Person
One of the most effective advertising methods in general is word-of-mouth, and recruiting
volunteer drivers is no exception. Volunteer driver program leaders consistently say that the
volunteer driver coordinator, program coordinator, program director, agency representative,
and current volunteer drivers are key driver recruiters. 25 While this can happen organically, the
Beverly Foundation lists several options to facilitate word-of-mouth recruitment:

Facilitate a contest using current volunteers. An agency could offer a prize for the most
new drivers recruited, such as a gift card or free gas.26

Invite potential volunteers to driver training classes, recognition events or to ride along
on a volunteer driver ride. This can provide potential new drivers with a “sneak peek” into
the inner workings of the system.
Incentives
While most programs reimburse for mileage, offering other types of incentives can help to
induce people to serve as volunteer drivers. For example, VINE Faith in Action in Mankato,
MN, reaches out to management at larger businesses to ask them to give employees a few paid
hours off each month to provide a ride for a local senior. An example of a non-monetary type of
incentive is business owners providing rides and using their participation as a way to publicize
their business.27
Training
All drivers should be appropriately trained to safely carry out their responsibilities – and some
funding agencies might require specific types of training. This can include training in the
following topics:

Defensive Driving

Vehicle Operation

Lift Operation, Wheelchair Securement

Emergency measures such as CPR and Basic First Aid

Abuse, Neglect, Abandonment and Exploitation

Passenger Treatment

Senior Sensitivity

Agency Information

Drug-Free Workplace
Additional training might be necessary. For example, drivers who provide door-through-door
transportation may need to learn how to help passengers walk or stand. Those who provide
transportation to small children may need to learn how to use car seats or booster chairs. 28,29
Organization and Staffing
The Beverly Foundation recommends a consistent communication system for volunteer
drivers, including a location for volunteers to meet with each other and with staff as well as
regular driver meetings.30 A fledgling program for a county or regional volunteer driver
program will need at least 15% of a full-time Mobility Manager (about $13,000/year).
In particular, they recommend that agencies use an electronic administration system with the
following capabilities:31

Provide for simple data entry
28 Beverly Foundation, http://beverlyfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/recruitment_training_retention_strategy.pdf
29 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Transit/Training/vdg/DriverTraining.htm
30 Beverly Foundation State Up Advice http://beverlyfoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/general_start_up_advice.pdf
31 Beverly Foundation Computer Program for Good Management http://beverlyfoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/computer_program_for_good_management.pdf

Easy to operate and able to perform complicated multi-step tasks

Maintain and cross-reference detailed client and volunteer profiles

Allow reference to history of service and contact

Provide data security and protect client confidentiality

Have the ability to generate in-depth reports

Include an automated and reliable backup system of all data on a nightly basis as well as
redundant off-site storage of backup data to assist in disaster recovery eligibility
Utilities such as RideScheduler (ridescheduler.com) can provide this type of support at
affordable rates.
More Information/Technical Assistance
The Beverly Foundation’s “Turnkey Kit” provides supporting literature for the planning,
implementation and evaluation of a volunteer driver program.
 Link: http://beverlyfoundation.org/volunteer-driver-turnkey-kit/
The Washington State Department of Transportation maintains a Volunteer Drivers’
Guide to Best Practices that outlines the roles of drivers, driver trainers, sponsoring
organizations and more for organizations beyond those in Washington State.
 Link: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Transit/Training/vdg
The National Conference of State Legislatures and the AARP Public Policy
Institute have released “Aging in Place: A State Survey of Livability Policies and Practices.” A
section of this guide outlines much of the legal myths and facts attributed to volunteer driver
programs.
 Link: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/Aging-in-Place-2011.pdf
Ride Connection in Portland, OR, offers a variety of services to help organizations create
volunteer driver programs at affordable rates. Ride Connection was established in the mideighties to provide support for local volunteer driver programs. To do this, Ride Connection
offers a variety of services that help manage risk. These include:
 Extensive, multi-tiered driver training tailored to the specific organization
 Driver screening, DMV records checks, criminal background checks
 Pooled insurance
 Fleet management including vehicle maintenance, inventory control, assistance with FTA
compliance issues
 Grant management and administrative oversight
These services require a great deal of work to maintain and deliver in a quality, effective way.
Ride Connection has a staff of over 50 employees. They can partner with other non-profits,
human services or transportation agencies, or for-profit transportation consultants to provide
these services.
Their supported volunteer driver program combined with the vehicle sharing and travel
training programs save TriMet over $8 million per year. In turn, TriMet invests heavily in the
Ride Connection program because the program can stretch dollars farther than would
otherwise be possible if TriMet ran these services alone.
For more information about Ride Connections services, see www.RideConnection.org.
1. Decide the level of coordination appropriate for the region.
Bring together a leader from each organization that has a volunteer driver program to discuss
the extent to which each program wants to work together. At this time, coordination efforts
are likely to include sharing ideas, mapping gaps in service coverage, and organizing
recruitment (to avoid duplication).
It is unlikely that coordination would entail sharing volunteers and clients between
organizations or creating one pool of drivers for the region. Many of the current volunteers do
not want to provide rides to someone outside of the organization for which they are
volunteering.
2. Ensure that volunteer drivers are covered by the joint insurance policy.
The Joint Insurance strategy as described in this report will determine the joint insurance
policy. All volunteer drivers in the region should be trained through the same program in
order to be eligible for the joint insurance program (see Strategy 3: Joint
Procurement/Provision of Service).
If another volunteer driver program decides to join SSSEVA’s insurance provider – Selective
Inc. – the volunteer driver coverage is covered by the annual premium. According to Virginia
law, the driver’s own insurance is the primary insurance and Selective Inc. insurance would
be secondary insurance in the case that the primary insurance does not cover all damage and
liability costs.
3. Find an organization to provide joint volunteer driver training
As described in Strategy 3: Joint Procurement/Provision of Service, there are several options
for volunteer driver training programs. Briefly:

Selective Inc. Insurance provides driver training included in the annual premium.
 AAA is also able to provide driver safety training for volunteers as part of their standard
defensive driver course.
4. Create a volunteer driver recruitment plan.
There should be a system in place for rewarding repeat volunteers and recruiting new
volunteers. The RCC should target recruitment in areas where volunteer drivers are needed
the most, which mapping existing programs can determine. Each community should have a
network of recruiters who are actively looking for new volunteer drivers and are prepared to
provide information about a local volunteer driver program. This may involve creating an
information sheet for prospective volunteer drivers. Other ideas for creating a volunteer
driver recruitment plan are identified in the volunteer driver best practices section above.
Additionally, AAA has confirmed that they would be able to provide information about
regional volunteer driver programs at their training courses. AAA provides a safe driving
program for seniors who are still able to drive; those who successfully complete the course
would be excellent candidates to become volunteer drivers. Trainers can provide information
about volunteer opportunities in the safe driving graduation packets.
5. Search for grants/sponsoring organizations to provide funding for
volunteer drivers.
To improve the chances of winning grants, the region should collaborate on applying for
grants to split between the different volunteer driver programs. See Strategy 3 for
recommendations on looking for grants.
Long-term Recommendations for the RCC
1. Create a regional volunteer pool through the SSSEVA volunteer driver
program
The SSSEVA volunteer driver program is currently in the planning phase, but when it is
formally implemented, members of the general public will be eligible to request rides
through the program (rather than only clients of certain agencies or church members). The
SSSEVA pool of volunteer drivers should be made available to other organizations that are
not able to build their own volunteer driver programs, and an appropriate cost-sharing
structure should be put in place.
2. Recruit organizations that would benefit from volunteer drivers.
Several organizations in the region do not have volunteer drivers through their own
organization and would benefit from being able to tap into a pool of volunteer drivers who
are not specifically designated for a certain organization.
 Suffolk DSS has 10 vehicles total - eight sedans and two SUVs – but needs volunteer
drivers to take clients to doctor’s appointments.
 Endependence Center has one vehicle that is not used often, in some cases due to lack
of drivers.
Volunteer Driver Program Timeline
Responsible
Party
Cost/ Time
Needed
Timeframe
RCC
8-10 hours
1-2 months
Determine joint volunteer driver insurance policy.
RCC Subcommittee
8-10 hours
3-6 months
Create a volunteer driver recruitment plan.
RCC Subcommittee
1-3 hours
<3 months
Search for grants/sponsoring organizations to
provide funding for volunteer drivers.
RCC Subcommittee
8-10 hours
6-9 months
SSSEVA/RCC
Subcommittee
40+ hours
12-24 months
RCC Subcommittee
1-3 hours
<3 months
Long-term
Short-term
Action
Decide the level of coordination necessary for
the region.
Create a regional volunteer driver pool
Recruit organizations that would benefit from
volunteer drivers.
APPENDIX A
Federal Funding Sources
Appendix A Federal Funding Sources
Public transit systems in the United States are funded through a combination of programs, and
most systems typically get a significant portion of the system costs from federal grants. Most
systems rely on a combination of resources for the remaining funds, such as state grants,
passenger fares, advertisement revenues and local contributions. This chapter provides an
overview of available federal funding programs.
Federal Funding Programs
There are four major federal programs managed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) that
are used to support rural public transit. 1 Some programs are dedicated to pay for capital,
operating or planning purposes, while other programs offer more flexibility.
In general, federal programs will pay for up to 80% of capital costs and up to 50% of operating
and planning costs. Most funding programs are formula based, meaning the funds are distributed
according to a population based formula. Other grants, most notably the Elderly and Disabled
Transportation Program (Section 5310), Job Access Reverse Commute (Section 5316), and New
Freedom Funds (Section 5317) are awarded based on a competitive grant process. An overview of
these major FTA funding programs is provided below.

Elderly and Disabled Transportation Program (Section 5310) – funds capital projects to
support transportation services for older adults and persons with disabilities. Funds are
awarded based on a competitive grant process that may be distributed to both urban and
rural areas.

Rural Transit Assistance Program (Section 5311) – funds capital, operating and
administrative purposes, including training and technical assistance. Program may also
be used to fund intercity bus service. Funds are distributed according to a formula to
small urban fixed-route and community transportation services in areas with populations
less than 50,000.

Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program (Section 5316) – funds new transit
service to assist low income individuals with transportation to jobs, job training and other
support services, such as child car. Funds are awarded based on a competitive grant
process and may be distributed to both urban and rural areas.

New Freedom Program (Section 5317) – funds new transportation services and public
transportation alternatives beyond those required by the Americans with Disability
(ADA) action. Funds are awarded statewide based on a competitive grant process and are
available to both rural and urban areas.
Does not include FTA Section 5309 New Starts Funds, which can be used to fund new or extensions to fixed guideway
systems.
1
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | A-1
Health and Human Services
Administration on Aging - Grants for Supportive Services (Title IIl-B)
The Administration on Aging (AoA) is responsible for the administration of a number of programs
authorized by the Older Americans Act. Title III of the Older Americans Act (OAA) supports
programs and services which are intended to aid active seniors and older adults who are at risk of
losing their independence. Part B (Support Services) of Title III considers transportation as an
allowable expense. People transported using these funds must be aged 60 or more and the
operator cannot charge passengers a fare, although voluntary contributions are allowed.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Program provides block grants to states to
help finance support services for individuals receiving federal cash assistance in their efforts to
find and maintain employment. According to guidance jointly issued by the Departments of
Health and Human Services, Labor and Transportation, 2 examples of allowable uses of TANF
funds (both federal dollars and state funds that are used to provide the required non-federal
share) for transportation include the following:

Reimbursement or a cash allowance to TANF recipients for work-related transportation
expenses

Contracts for shuttles, buses, car pools or other services for TANF recipients

Purchase of vehicles for the provision of service to TANF recipients

Purchase of public or private transit passes or vouchers

Loans to TANF recipients for the purpose of leasing or purchasing a vehicle for work
travel

Programs to obtain and repair vehicles for use by TANF recipients

One-time payments to recipients to cover expenses such as auto repair or insurance

Payment of "necessary and reasonable" costs for new or expanded transportation services
for use by TANF recipients

Assistance to TANF recipients with the start-up of a transportation service

Transfer of TANF funds to a Social Services Block Grant for use in efforts to provide
transportation services for disadvantaged residents of rural and inner city areas

Payment of TANF agency expenses associated with the planning of transportation
services for TANF individuals
A caveat concerning the use of TANF funds for transportation services is that, according to the
definition of "assistance" in the proposed TANF regulations, a transit pass constitutes assistance,
and counts toward the lifetime limit of 60 months (states may set shorter limits, or provide
assistance for a longer period using state funds) that a family is entitled to receive TANF benefits.
This is an important stipulation that may influence an individual’s decision to obtain
transportation assistance.
Use of TANF and WTW Funds for Transportation; Dear Colleague letter from the Secretaries of Health and Human
Services, Labor, and Transportation dated May 4, 1998.
2
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Title XIX of the Social Security Act of 1965 established the Medicaid program as a joint effort on
the part of the federal and state governments to ensure health care services for individuals and
families who meet certain income and resource requirements, or who belong to other needy
groups. Medicaid issues program guidelines and requirements, but each state is responsible for
the design of its own Medicaid program, including such components as eligibility standards; the
type, amount, duration and scope of services to be provided; rates of payment for services; and
administrative procedures. Access to health care is considered part of the Medicaid services, thus
non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) funded by Medicaid has emerged as a major
transportation program.
Department of Labor
Workforce Investment Act
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) provides support for national, state and local programs
directed at supporting workers and employers. At the state and local level, WIA provides funding
for workforce development programs as well as the establishment of “One-Stop” centers. “One
Stop” centers provide employers and individuals with a centralized site for job training and
development, job skills assessment, job search and placement assistance. Transportation
expenses and support services are an allowable use of these funds.
Department of Education
Rehabilitation Act
The Rehabilitation Act authorizes formula grant programs to support vocational rehabilitation,
support employment, independent living and client assistance for individuals with disabilities.
Among the programs funded by the Rehabilitation Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation (VocRehab)
Grants to State are highly relevant to transportation funding. This formula program offers grant
funds for services, including transportation. There is a local matching requirement of 21.3% of
program costs.
Department of the Army
Mass Transit Benefit Program
In 2001, the Department of the Army created a Mass Transportation Benefit Program (MTBP) to
reimburse federal employees for transportation costs associated with commuting to work. This
program is available for employees using commuter buses or trains, subway, light rail, ferries, and
vanpools. Each individual is allowed up to $230 per month for commuting transportation costs.
Individuals can receive transit passes directly, vouchers for a specific type of fare media or transit
pass, or reimbursement for transportation costs, such as a vanpool.
Individuals eligible for the MTBP include:




Army Active Component military service members
Army Reserve Component military service members
DA Federal civilian employees (including part-time, temporary, and interns)
DA Non-Appropriated Fund personnel
The program does not allow several other groups of affiliated individuals to be eligible for the
program, including Army Reserve Component service members in an Inactive Duty for Training
status, contractors, service members and civilian employees on TDY, deployed service members,
ROTC students, Army military and Army civilian employee retirees, dependents of military or
civilian personnel, and several other groups. Funds could be used to purchase tickets or vouchers.
A flexible and highly useful aspect of the MTBP is the vanpool allowance. A qualifying vanpool
can be operated by a transit authority or a private company (such as VPSI) and can have as few as
six passengers. Vanpools are especially conducive to low density areas where fixed route or flex
bus service may not be a viable option. Individuals pay a flat base rate (such as $60) plus a
variable rate based on mileage and gas each month and are reimbursed by the MTBP. All riders
do not have to be Federal employees participating in the MTBP program; other individuals must
pay the same rate, but through other means.
This program does not directly contribute funds to transit services; however, as a user-side
subsidy, the MTBP has the potential to increase ridership on existing transit services and increase
mobility in the region.
The table below summarizes the funding sources available.
Figure 24
Federal Funding Sources
Agency
Programs with
Major
Transportation
Component
Passenger
Eligibility
Matching
Requirement
Coordination Potential
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
Centers for Medicaid and
Medicare
Administration on Aging
Administration for
Children and Families
Medicaid
Medicaid
Recipient
None
Medium - Medicaid cannot pay for nonMedicaid eligible service or individual but
cost sharing arrangements allow for shared
service delivery.
Title III-B
Individual aged
60+
15%
Medium – Title III-B funds can be used to
purchase service from existing providers,
but passengers cannot pay a fare.
TANF
TANF eligible
None
High – TANF funds can purchase service
from existing providers, including bus
passes.
5307 Urbanized
Area Formula
Program
General Public
20% Capital
50% Operating
High – Most fixed-route services serve a
multitude of populations.
5309 Bus and Bus
Facility Program
General Public
20% Capital
High – Most fixed-route services serve a
multitude of populations.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Federal Transit
Administration
Agency
Programs with
Major
Transportation
Component
Passenger
Eligibility
5310 Capital
Assistance
Older Adults and
Program for
Persons with
Elderly Persons
Disabilities
and Persons with
Disabilities
Matching
Requirement
Coordination Potential
20% capital
High – In NY, funds are used for capital
purchases only. Vehicles may be used to
support some but not all other client based
5311 Non
urbanized Area
Formula Program
General Public
20% Capital
50% Operating
High – Rural and small urban transit
services serve general public and special
populations.
5316 Job Access
and Reverse
Commute
General Public
20% Capital
50% Operating
High – Program design is intended to serve
low income and high need populations.
5317 New
Freedom
Services and
programs that
go beyond ADA
20% Capital
50% Operating
High – Program design is intended to serve
low income and high need populations
Workforce
Investment Act
Support workers
and employers
None
Medium – Potential for service contracts
with transportation services, but many
programs are arranged based on individual
needs
Vocational
Rehabilitation
Grants to States
Services for
individuals with
disabilities
21.3% for
programs
Medium – Potential for service contracts
with transportation services, but many
programs are arranged based on individual
needs.
STOA
General Public
None
High – Program must serve general public
but funds can be used to match other
federal DOT and non-DOT programs
SDF
General Public
None
High – Program must serve general public
but funds can be used to match other
federal DOT and non-DOT programs
Mass
Transportation
Benefit Program
Federal
employees
None
Medium - Allows for increased use of public
transit and creation of vanpools to share
rides.
Department of Labor (DOL)
State Funding Programs
NYSDOT
Department
of the Army
APPENDIX B
Glossary of Technical Terms
Appendix B Glossary of Technical Terms
Accessible Vehicle
(Or WheelchairAccessible Vehicle or
ADA Accessible
Vehicle)
Public transportation revenue vehicles, which do not restrict access,
are usable, and provide allocated space and/or priority seating for
individuals who use wheelchairs, and which are accessible using
ramps or lifts.
Ambulatory
Capable of walking.
Arc or ARC
ARCs were founded in the 1950s with the mission to provide quality
of life and independent living programs to those with intellectual or
developmental disabilities. Originally founded as the Association
for Retarded Children, the organization was renamed Arc of the
United States in 1992. State and county chapters are a part of the
overall national association.
Charter Service
A vehicle hired for exclusive use that does not operate over a
regular route, on a regular schedule, and is not available to the
general public.
Coordination
A group of people working together to expand one or more
transportation related activities through joint action for increased
benefits.
Demand Response
A transit mode comprised of passenger cars, vans or small buses
operating in response to calls from passengers or their agents to the
transit operator, who schedules a vehicle to pick up the passengers
to transport them to their destinations. Demand response operation
does not operate on a fixed route and typically vehicles are
dispatched to pick up multiple passengers at one or many origins
before taking them to their destinations.
Eligible Rider/Client
An individual meeting a set of criteria that qualifies him/her for an
organization’s services. For example, eligibility for ADA paratransit
services is determined according to ADA law.
Fixed Route Service
Service provided on a repetitive, fixed schedule basis along a
specific route with vehicles stopping to pickup and deliver
passengers to specific locations, such as rail and bus. Unlike
demand response and vanpool services, each fixed route trip serves
the same origins and destinations. (NTD)
Flex Service
A bus service which operates along a fixed route with normal bus
stops, but that can also travel off-route to pick up and drop off
passengers closer to their origin or destination. Flex service only
occurs within a designated service area and passengers must make
advance reservations for a flex trip. There are no eligibility
requirements; anyone within the designated boundaries may
schedule a flex trip.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | B-1
Level of Assistance
Level of assistance given to passengers who need help boarding or
exiting transit or agency vehicles, especially paratransit vehicles.
Assistance can be curb-to-curb, meaning the passenger is not given
assistance to and from the door of their destination; door-to-door,
meaning the passenger is assisted from the door of their residence
to the door of their destination; or door-through-door, meaning the
passenger is assisted out of their home to the vehicle, and from the
vehicle into their destination.
Mass Transit Benefit
Program
(Or MTBP) A program created by the Department of the Army in
2001 to reimburse federal employees for transportation costs
associated with commuting to work. This program is available for
employees using commuter buses or trains, subway, light rail,
ferries, and vanpools. Each individual is allowed up to $230 per
month for commuting transportation costs. Individuals can receive
transit passes directly, vouchers for a specific type of fare media or
transit pass, or reimbursement for transportation costs, such as a
vanpool. Eligible individuals include Army Active Component
military service members, Army Reserve Component military
service members, DA Federal civilian employees (including parttime, temporary, and interns), and DA Non-Appropriated Fund
personnel
Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO)
These agencies distribute federal transportation dollars in
urbanized areas and are responsible for regional planning and air
quality conformity.
Mobility Manager
(Or Coordinator)
The person (or agency) responsible for leading a coordination
program or otherwise causing coordination to occur.
Multi-Modal Hub
(Or Multi-Modal
Station)
A passenger station or central location that serves a variety of
transportation modes, including transit services and non-transit
services such as bicycling and walking.
Non-Emergency
Medical Transportation
(Or NEMT) Transportation to or from any medical service for the
purpose of receiving treatment and/or medical evaluation. NEMT
service can be provided by ambulance (ground and air), ambulette
(wheelchair van) and taxi or livery vehicles.
Paratransit
Passenger transportation which is more flexible than fixed-route
transit, but more structured than private automobile use.
Paratransit is often used to describe only Complementary ADA
Paratransit, which is a demand-response service specific to ADA
clients, governed by ADA law. Paratransit most often refers to
wheelchair-accessible, demand response service, but can also
include shared-ride taxis, carpooling, vanpooling and jitney
services.
Productivity
A ratio comparing the number of passengers per revenue service
hour. Errors in reporting from affiliated transportation services such
as taxi services used during overbooking, etc, can result in
overstating productivity; for instance, if an organization reports the
number of passengers carried by taxis but not the length of time the
trips took.
Ride-Sharing
A program that encourages or arranges for two or more individuals
to share a vehicle for a commuting trip. Examples include
carpooling and vanpooling.
Service Area
A measure of access to transit service in terms of population served
and area coverage (square miles). For fixed-route service, service
areas are typically arranged in corridors. Complementary ADA
paratransit services are required by ADA law to extend ¾ mile
beyond the fixed-route corridors. As demand response serves a
broad area and does not operate over a fixed route, the “service
area” encompasses the origin to destination points wherever people
can be picked up and dropped off. (NTD)
Service Span
The hours at which service begins and ends during a typical day.
Travel Training
A training program that teaches users how to use public
transportation services, including reading a schedule, paying a fare,
and transferring between routes or services.
Vanpool
A transit mode comprised of vans, small buses, and other vehicles
operating as a ride sharing arrangement, providing transportation to
a group of individuals traveling directly between their homes and
regular destination within the same geographical area. Vehicles
have a minimum seating capacity of seven persons, including the
driver. Some programs are sponsored by a public entity, which can
own or lease the vehicle(s). Programs can be combined with
ridesharing arrangements. (NTD)
Vehicle Hours/Miles
The hours/miles that a vehicle is scheduled to or actually travels
from the time it pulls out from its garage to go into revenue service
to the time it pulls in from revenue service. This measure includes
deadheading, operator training, and maintenance testing. (NTD)
Vehicle Revenue
Hours/Miles
The hours/miles that vehicles are scheduled to or actually travel
while in revenue service, including layover/recovery time, but
excluding deadheading, operator training, and maintenance testing.
(NTD) For demand response service, this covers the time from the
first completed pick up to the last completed drop off.
Volunteer Drivers
Individuals who drive vehicles in revenue service to transport
passengers for a transit provider but are not employees of the
transit provider and are not compensated for their labor. (NTD)
Voucher/Subsidy/Pass
Program
Any financial assistance covering some or all of the cost of a trip on
public transit, in a taxi, or in another private transportation service.
Programs are typically sponsored by governmental agencies serving
older adults, persons with disabilities, or persons with low income,
or by nonprofits serving these populations. Some programs use
paper vouchers or scrips, which are distributed on a regular (i.e.,
monthly) or as-needed basis. Some programs assign participants a
number that can be used to reserve trips or as a pin code to pay for
spontaneous taxi trips.
APPENDIX C
RCC Resources
Wasatch Front Mobility Management Project • Appendix H • February 2010
WASATCH FRONT REGIONAL COUNCIL • UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY • MOUNTAINLAND ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Suggestions for a Statewide
Coordination Framework
Introduction
As discussed at the end of Chapter 7, the Project Steering Committee assigned high priorities to
several strategies, one of which was to establish mobility management functions for the project
area to champion/promulgate/help design and implement, and in some cases, manage
local/regional coordination efforts within the region. This prioritization in turn generated several
additional questions:
•
Would it make sense to provide a Mobility Manager for just the project area (UTA service
area), or would a larger area that includes the UTA service area make more sense?
•
What organization would hire the Mobility Manager (or provide mobility management
functions) within that area?
•
Given that management functions are highly specialized, and that there are not a bunch of
trained, unemployed mobility managers out in the workforce ready to be employed, what
would be the best way to train the Mobility Manager so that he/she could be effective?
•
What would be an appropriate body within the region to help decide what coordination
efforts the Mobility Manager should focus on?
In consideration of these questions, the Steering Committee felt that:
1. The best way to initially introduce mobility management functions in the project area would
be to create two Regional Coordinating Councils reflecting the WFRC and MAG regions,
respectively, and for each of these AOGs to hire or contract for a Mobility Manager. The
Steering Committee also felt that stakeholders within the UTA service area in Brigham City
(in Box Elder County) should be invited to participate in the WFRC RCC and would benefit
from services rendered by the WFRC Mobility Manager. If the mobility management
function is contracted by WFRC and/or MAG, the mobility management staff would
presumably be based at the contractor’s facility. Alternatively, WFRC or MAG
could provide office space at their facilities.
2. Eventually, consideration should be given to combining the RCCs from these two areas
into one RCC, so that the UTA service area is all in one region. In support of this design,
the Steering Committee also noted the significant amount of inter-regional travel patterns
and the rapid growth that is occurring in some of the counties within the WFRC and MAG
boundaries. While it may make sense to eventually house some or all of the mobility
management function at the UTA, we suggest that initially WFRC and MAG take the lead
because of their broader geographic scope and perhaps because of their impartiality.
3. As long as WFRC and MAG have two separate RCCs, there should be an executive
committee that includes members from both RCCs and the UTA to discuss inter-regional
issues.
Page H-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Some of the questions raised by the Steering Committee ventured beyond the geographic scope
of the project, including:
•
Are other regions within the state also thinking about the benefits of a Mobility Manager?
If so, which regions?
•
Rather than have each Mobility Manager trained separately and try to re-invent the wheel
in implementing common coordination strategies within their own region, would it be more
efficient to provide common training to each Mobility Manager and set-up a communication
network for them and a repository of information?
•
Is there a need at the state level to foster these regional coordination efforts -- by
eliminating policies or practices that thwart coordination, or creating new policies and
practices that encourage coordination – and to assist these regional Mobility Managers
and regional advisory bodies, as needed? If so, what body at the state level would be
best for that?
In response to these broader questions, the Steering Committee asked the Project Team to
identity the frameworks from other states that have successfully fostered coordination efforts at the
regional and local level. As discussed later in this Appendix, the result of this research was very
clear: the successful states all had some kind of inter-agency working group or council at the state
level that helped to foster local/regional coordination activities, and in most cases, these groups
formed as a result of gubernatorial direction or order or as a result of legislation, or both.
In the successful states that did not mandate coordination, this state level group helped to provide
assistance to groups or regional and local stakeholders and Mobility Managers, as needed; the
more efficient of these states, developed low-cost programs to help develop these groups and to
train/support the regional Mobility Managers, if they felt that would be helpful. And, the more
successful of these states had a plan or framework for what these regions were. In some states,
the regions equated to counties, with multi-county regions growing organically. In some states, the
regions centered about transit and community transportation providers. In other states, the regions
followed planning district boundaries. But in all cases, the common thread was that regions were
established by a state level entity or council. Another common thread among these successful
efforts was that regional or local coordination councils were established or evolved from
coordination study advisory bodies to help guide the regional/local coordination efforts.
Armed with this information, the Steering Committee asked the Project Team to suggest a
framework for the state. The results of this effort are included in this Appendix. While not within
the purview of the scope of this project, the Steering Committee felt that a formalized
infrastructure or framework for coordination in Utah would greatly facilitate the promulgation of
coordination activities not only within the project area but in other regions in Utah.
The end game of coordination is to better coordinate information, support services and service
delivery mechanisms among the many separate community transportation services, to in turn
stretch the existing funding for community transportation services. In doing so, efficiencies are
created that in turn can be put toward keeping up with a growing demand and/or expanding
services to new areas and times and trip purposes. The Steering Committee felt strongly that
such a framework would enhance the likelihood of coordinated efforts and services being
implemented not only within the project area but within the state. Given the examples in other
states, the Steering Committee also believes that without such a framework, the efficiencies
sought may not be realized, or realized to their full potential.
The strategy below suggests one approach that Utah could take.
Summary of the Coordination Framework
This approach involves the development of a “framework” for the coordination of community
transportation services in Utah. It combines a number of inter-related strategies including:
•
The establishment of a Statewide Coordinating Council (SCC) for Community
Transportation that would evolve from the United We Ride Working Group. As part of the
discussion, we suggest both a make-up of the SCC that would be more inclusive than the
current United We Ride Working Group, and detail some of its roles. Note that the United
We Ride Working Group could serve as the SCC, i.e., the name could remain the United
We Ride Work Group. However, for the sake of brevity, we shall refer to this as the SCC.
•
The establishment of Community Transportation Regions within which coordination efforts
would be championed and guided by a Regional Coordinating Council, and coordinated or
managed through a Regional Mobility Manager. This framework also provides for the
establishment of single-county or multi-county Local Coordination Councils within each
region if the local stakeholders feel there is such a need. Establishing this coordination
infrastructure/framework for the state should be one of the tasks to be undertaken by the
SCC. In a number of regions throughout the state, advisory committees were formed to
help guide SAFETEA-LU coordination plans. It is reasonable to harness the relationships
and partnerships from these groups. In the same way that we see the SCC evolving from
the United We Ride group, we see the RCCs or LCCs evolving from these advisory
committees.
One of the first steps of the approach therefore is to establish the SCC and help the SCC
establish community transportation regions, each to be guided by a Regional Coordinating
Council (RCC) that would help bring about coordination activities in its region. The SCC’s
responsibility therefore will be to establish these regions and to help the RCCs and their Mobility
Managers, as needed. As an alternative, regions could initially establish their own RCCs to begin
coordination efforts. As the need to address issues on a statewide basis grows and when state
support for RCCs becomes necessary, the SCC could be established.
As part of the approach, we discuss the interrelationships among the SCC, the RCCs, Mobility
Managers, and the Community Transportation Regions
•
The SCC - Briefly, it will be the SCC’s responsibility to foster the coordination of
community transportation services throughout Utah, by establishing policies and
recommending to state agencies that they adopt policies that will encourage (as opposed
to mandate) coordination, while at the same time revising or abolishing policies that
thwart coordination. It is envisioned that the SCC, perhaps through one of its members,
would provide technical assistance to Mobility Managers in each Community
Transportation Region.
•
The RCCs - The RCC’s role in essence is to propagate and oversee the implementation of
coordination activities within its region. The RCC would have a similar make-up to the
SCC but with a more local flavor and include consumers. The RCC also has an important
function with respect to the SCC – that is, to provide feedback regarding state/agency
policies that are working and those that are not working. The RCCs will also need to work
together where strategies straddle community transportation region borders. If there is
grant money for coordination that comes to the region, as a direct result of RCC grant
writing or indirectly through SCC grant writing, the RCC will be instrumental in prioritizing
the projects that that funding would support.
•
Regional Mobility Managers - In each region, there would be a Mobility Manager who
would have the day-to-day responsibility for helping to plan and implement coordination
activities within the region and between regions. The Regional Mobility Manager’s role
may vary from region to region but the core responsibilities will be to assist in – if not
spearhead -- the implementation of local coordination activities within the region and
possibly manage some of those services. It is envisioned that the Regional Mobility
Manager would serve as staff for the RCC. Some of these strategies might be focused
on assisting customers with information about community transportation services and
perhaps some rudimentary trip-planning. Other strategies might focus on helping to
coordinate information and support services among providers. Eventually, the Regional
Mobility Manager might also take on the role of coordinating service delivery within the
region. Most likely, the Mobility Manager will be a person who is hired by one of members
of the RCC, such as an AOG or a transit agency.
•
Local Coordinating Councils - Note that this framework also provides for Local
Coordinating Councils (LCCs) which, if local circumstances dictate, would be formed on a
subregional (county or bi-county) level. These LCCs would not be mandatory but might be
a good idea for certain counties. If there is a local group that feels that an LCC would
benefit local coordination strategies, the Regional Mobility Manager would assist that
group to establish itself and provide technical assistance to that group as needed.
With that as an introduction to the envisioned coordination framework, we detail each component
in the following sections.
1. Establish a State-Level Coordinating Council
As of 2004, at least 38 states had established state-level inter-agency councils or advisory
committees focusing on the coordination of community transportation services, while 25 states
(some of them overlapping with the 38 states above) had either established Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs) or informal agreements between the State Departments of Transportation
and the State Department of Human Services. In addition, 19 of those 38 states had also
established statutes or legislation requiring some level of coordination of community
transportation services. 1 In this section, we examine the composition and success of state-level
coordinating councils from four states: Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, and Ohio.
Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged
Florida is often regarded as a model throughout the country for human service coordination. The
Florida Legislature first created the Coordinating Council on the Transportation Disadvantaged in
1
Transportation Research Board, TCRP Report 105, Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for
the Transportation Disadvantaged, 2004.
1979 to foster coordination; the program was amended in 1989 with the establishment of the
Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) to improve coordination for the costeffective provision of transportation for the transportation-disadvantaged population.2 Housed
within the Florida Department of Transportation, this commission is an independent state agency
that serves as the policy development and implementation agency for Florida’s Transportation
Disadvantaged (TD) program, and to otherwise oversee coordination in the state. The legislature
included 27 specific tasks in the statute for the Commission, including acting as an information
clearinghouse, developing coordination policies and procedures, determining performance
standards and liability insurance requirements, and designing and developing training programs.
Members of the commission include seven voting members appointed by the Governor. These
seven include:
•
•
•
Two members who have a disability and who use the TD system
Five members from the business community
At least one of the seven members must be 65 or over
There are also eight “ex-officio” non-voting members, all but one coming from various state
agencies, and noting that delegates may be appointed by the Secretaries or Directors.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Children and Families
Director of Workforce Innovation
Executive Director of Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Department of Elder Affairs
Secretary of Agency for Health Care Administration (Medicaid)
Director of Agency for Persons with Disabilities
County Administrator or Manager (appointed by the Governor)
A major function of the CTD is administration of the Transportation Disadvantaged Fund. This
fund is largely comprised of revenues from vehicle registration fees but also includes grants from
the Florida DOT and Highway Trust Fund. These funds are disbursed to the community
transportation coordinators for the transportation disadvantaged, defined as those persons who
because of physical or mental disability, income status, and/or age are unable to transport
themselves and whose trips are not otherwise sponsored by an existing program. Hence, this
program provides the “funding of last resort” for non-sponsored trips.
FY 2005 revenues from all sources that went through the community transportation coordination
system totaled $353 million. The CTD contributed about 16% while Agency for Health Care
Administration (Medicaid) contributed about 17%. Other large purchasers of service included
Department of Children and Families (6%), Florida Department of Transportation (4%),
Department of Elderly Affairs (3%) with local agencies purchasing the largest share at 42%.
Another major function of the CTD is to provide technical assistance. The CTD staff provides
extensive technical assistance to local coordinating bodies.
Iowa State Level Transportation Coordination Council
2
Chapter 427 of the Florida Statutes
Iowa has a state-level Transportation Coordinating Council that is responsible for setting
coordination policies and allocating demonstration funding. The state legislation that established
this council also established 16 regions, each with a designated transit agency to lead the
coordination efforts in that region; and required that all agencies spending public funds for
passenger transportation (other than school transportation) must coordinate or consolidate that
funding with the lead coordinator in their region. Thus, these lead transit agencies must
coordinate planning for transportation services at the urban and regional level by all agencies or
organizations that receive public funds and that purchase or provide transportation services.
Housed within the Iowa DOT Office of Public Transit, the Transportation Coordination Council is
comprised of representatives of the following state agencies and organizations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Department of Transportation
Iowa Public Transit Association
Federal Transit Administration
Department of Public Health, Bureau of Health Care Access
Department of Elder Affairs
Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities
Department of Veterans Affairs
Department of Education
Iowa Association of School Boards
Department of Human Rights
Iowa Workforce Development
Iowa State Association of Counties
Iowa League of Cities
MPO/RPA Representative
United Way
The Iowa Transportation Coordination Council focuses much of its ongoing efforts on educational
awareness and outreach, which has included sponsoring coordination conferences and workshops
and providing extensive technical assistance. It has also been instrumental in the formation of
regional Transportation Action Groups (TAGs) that function as regional coordinating councils.
As part of its technical assistance efforts, the Iowa State Department of Transportation is
responsible for distribution of a $500,000 state coordination fund that comes from general state
funds. This fund is used for 2-year grants to help fund fledgling coordination efforts on the
local/regional level. These grants require a 20% local match in Year 1 and a 50% in Year 2 and
cover both operating and capital needs.
North Carolina Interagency Human Service Transportation Council
In December 1978, the Interagency Transportation Review Committee (ITRC) was established by
executive order. Composed primarily of representatives from the State Departments of
Transportation and Health and Human Services, the ITRC was primarily a technical committee
with the job of reviewing all transportation funding applications for both departments to determine if
proposed projects met certain goals such as coordination and accessibility.
The ITRC continued until 1991 when it was replaced by the North Carolina Human Service
Transportation Council (HSTC) which was authorized by another executive order. The Council
continues in operation today and meets quarterly, serving in an advisory capacity to the N.C.
Department of Transportation, the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services and other
state agencies in addressing needs, barriers, policies and opportunities for the provision of
human service transportation.
The HSTC also undertakes studies and demonstration projects to enhance the state’s coordination
efforts. Its mission is to provide leadership in improving the coordination of human service
transportation and to ensure that funds are maximized to serve as many elderly, disabled, and
financially disadvantaged individuals in the state of North Carolina as possible in a safe, efficient,
and effective manner.
With the support of the state-level council, NCDOT initiated the Community Transportation
Program (CTP) which involved consolidating FTA Section 5310, Section 5311, and several state
funded programs into one community transportation service block grant. The unique element of
this block grant program is that the counties (there are 100 in North Carolina) must prepare a
coordination plan to receive the grant monies. Thus, coordination effectively becomes a required
element.
North Carolina also has coordination incentive grants under its Human Service Transportation
Management (HSTM) Program using the state highway fund as the primary financial source to
help assist local agencies interested in coordination to conduct planning and implementation
activities. HSTM funds can be used to pay for staff to support human service transportation
systems in their coordination efforts. Lead agencies identified by locally adopted transportation
development plans are the designated recipients for HSTM funds, which can be used for up to
75% of the cost of the salary and benefits of a fulltime coordinator.
Ohio Statewide Transportation Coordination Task Force
As part of the Transportation Partnership of Ohio, a Statewide Transportation Coordination Task
Force was established to improve and increase access to state agency programs and services
and enhance service and program quality, and ultimately the quality of life, for Ohioans through
transportation coordination.
Efforts of the Task Force have focused on reducing duplicative programs and services,
eliminating conflicting state requirements and regulations, and making better use of local, state,
and federal resources. The mission of the Task Force is to “provide leadership that facilitates
citizen mobility through the coordination of transportation resources and effect pro-coordination
policy and communication at all levels.”
Task Force goals include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increase awareness and access to information about transportation coordination and
statewide transportation resources
Increase the Task Force’s presence statewide
Empower local leaders to achieve coordination
Educate the state legislature and state leaders about transportation coordination
Make existing rules and regulations coordination-friendly
Identify and use technology resources to accomplish the action strategies needed to meet
the goals
Maximize the availability, use, and flexibility of funding resources to support coordination
•
Support local agencies in their efforts to increase consumer access to transportation
services
Through ODOT, the Task Force oversees a Coordination Fund, financed from the state general
fund, used to provide seed money to fledgling coordination efforts on the local level. The primary
goal of the Coordination Program is to enhance and expand transportation through coordination
in Ohio's counties with no public transportation system. All projects must demonstrate some level
of interagency coordination in their local area to be eligible for funding, and must designate a lead
agency to administer day-to-day operations, execute memoranda of understanding with all
participating agencies, have a full time coordinator, and commence the project within 90 days of
contract award.
The total funding available for these grants in FY 05 was $1.3 million. Since beginning this effort,
ODOT has provided approximately $6.3 million in grants to 37 projects. As a result of this program,
the number of counties in Ohio without any public or coordinated transportation services has been
reduced from 42 to 14, out of a total of 88 counties.
Lessons Learned
Four primary lessons learned from these successful state-level coordinating bodies are:
•
There needs to be a state-level council or body to foster coordination in the state.
Bi-level oversight is also necessary, with local/regional coordination councils charged with
implementing coordination policies on the local level, overseeing local/regional
coordination efforts, and providing feedback to the state-level coordinating council.
•
Membership in the state-level council should be inclusive. The state-level
coordination councils in the four states reviewed all include the representation from key
state agencies. Some of the councils made it a point to include the Department of
Education, Head Start, and the Association of School Boards. One also included a
representative from the Governor’s Office. Three of the state-level bodies also have
representations from additional stakeholder organizations such as an Association of
Counties or County representative, a League of Cities, the state’s Public or Community
Transportation Association, Veteran’s Affairs, and the United Way.
•
The Councils are established by legislative statute or Executive Order. This
legitimizes its mission and gives the council some permanence. It can also formalize the
council’s composition.
•
Councils have “teeth” over coordination policies and the coordination
infrastructure. While all provide – either directly or indirectly – significant technical
assistance, it is the councils that provide incentive/seed funding and/or require
coordination (with the power to withhold funding for non-compliance) that have
successfully overseen the establishment of coordination efforts on the local/regional level.
Establishing a State Coordinating Council in Utah
Thus, one of the initial steps is to establish the SCC via an Executive Order or Legislation (latter
preferred for longevity) to give it some teeth. Such Executive Order or Legislation would prescribe
SCC membership and possibly prescribe changes for some funding programs. Alternatively, and
in consultation with the Governor and Inter-Governmental Round Table, the United We Ride
Working Group could expand its role and membership. This is discussed further below.
Organizational steps would include: (1) memorializing membership between agencies and other
organizational members with Memoranda of Understanding; (2) agreeing on mission statements,
goals and responsibilities, and bylaws; (3) electing officers; (4) establishing a committee structure,
members, and action plans, and (5) agreeing on financial responsibility for staffing the SCC.
Once the organizational structure and mission of the SCC is set, the committee will need to focus
its attention on two inter-connected efforts:
•
Working on increasing the level of coordination at the state level.
•
Developing a statewide coordination infrastructure to create and support local level
coordination by: (1) establishing the Community Transportation Regions; (2) assisting to
establish/develop the Regional Coordinating Councils, as needed; and (3) providing
training and support to the network of Mobility Managers, as needed.
The SCC’s goals would be:
•
Providing the educational/awareness and technical assistance efforts throughout the
state, and otherwise taking any actions that will encourage or foster the coordination of
community transportation services;
•
Streamlining, coordinating, and consolidating grant/funding applications and
disbursements for community transportation services;
•
Removing or revising duplicative and/or administratively-burdensome reporting
requirements associated with state funding/grants, i.e., that are not beyond the control of
the governmental entities on the SCC; and
•
Removing coordination barriers at the state level through the use of multi-agency action
plans or policy directives which would be agreed upon by the SCC agency members and
then implemented at the individual agencies.
In light of these goals, specific efforts that the SCC could undertake might focus on:
•
Educating agency leaders about coordination and their role in helping to develop pilot
programs on the local level.
•
Seeking funding to jointly fund and support a network of Mobility Managers and pilot
coordination projects.
•
Seeking funding to procure a common software product that can support the Mobility
Managers and the coordination of services across the state.
•
Streamlining reporting requirements and/or identify my common reporting elements for
transportation funding programs across funding agencies.
•
Linking reporting requirements to a common monitoring and performance management
system for all community transportation programs.
Adjusting existing or developing new state policies and rules to better support coordination
(require listing transportation as line item in budget, develop cost allocation models, etc.).
•
•
Eliminating coordination barriers at the state level through the use of multi-agency action
plans or policy directives which would be agreed upon by SCC agency members and then
implemented at individual agencies.
Membership in the Utah State Coordination Council
The United We Ride (UWR) Working Group is the one council in Utah that most closely
resembles a SCC. The strategy for Utah, given that the UWR group has no real authority, would
be to seek that authority by way of Executive Order or Legislation, as discussed above, and in
doing so broaden the membership so that it is more inclusive.
The UWR Working Group is currently comprised of several state agencies (UDOT, the Division of
Aging and Adult Services, the Utah Developmental Disabilities Council, the Utah Department of
Workforce Services, Work Ability Utah, the Utah Office of Rehabilitation, the Division of Health
Care Financing (Medicaid), the Division of Services for People with Disabilities), a representative
from the Governor’s Office, a transit agency (the UTA), a planning agency (Wasatch Front
Regional Council), and a local agency that serves persons with disabilities (the Work Activity
Center).
In short, the composition of the UWR Working Group is fairly comprehensive and consistent with
the composition of state-level coordinating councils from other states. Moreover, since the overall
mission of the UWR Working Group is consistent with what we envision the mission of the SCC to
be, it makes sense that the UWR Working Group would form the nucleus of the SCC. The SCC
could be even more inclusive however by adding in some of the individuals mentioned above.
We also suggest representation from the Utah Association of School Boards, Utah Department of
Community and Culture, Utah League of Cities and Towns, and United Way of Utah.
The next question to answer is what level of person from each organization is appropriate. Our
feeling is that it should be left up to the organization, but that the person should have a basic
understanding of the organization’s transportation involvement/issues and should be able to
make decisions on behalf of the organization. Accordingly, we suggest that the representative
sought should be the Director or Head of each organization or his/her designee.
With all this in mind, a suggested draft list of organizations and members is provided below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Executive Director of the Department of Transportation, or designee.
The Executive Director of the Department of Community and Culture, or designee.
The Executive Director of the Department of Workforce Services, or designee.
The Director of the Division of Aging and Adult Services, or designee.
The Director of the State Office of Rehabilitation, or designee.
The Director of the Division of Services for People with Disabilities, or designee.
The Director of the Division of Healthcare Financing, or designee.
A representative of the Office of the Governor.
A representatives from two Associations of Governments (one urban, one rural),
appointed by the Governor.
A representative of a Metropolitan Planning Organization, appointed by the Governor.
A representative of a philanthropic organization, appointed by the Governor.
Seven representatives from transportation providers, the business community, and
statewide organizations, appointed by the Governor.
Under the last bullet, the number of representatives is somewhat arbitrary but gives the Governor
some leeway in ensuring that key transportation providers are represented. Such organizations
might include the UTA and URSTA (or one or more other transit providers such as Park City
Transit, CVTD, etc.), Work Ability Utah, Utah League of Cities and Towns, and the Utah
Association of School Boards.
Action Plan for Establishing a State Coordinating Council in Utah
Action Step 1:
Establish the Statewide Coordinating Council. An SCC can form independently of any
institutional or legal authorization. However, we think the best approach would be for the United
We Ride Working Group to pursue legislative authorization or an Executive Order to strengthen
the SCC’s legitimacy, thereby increasing its effectiveness. Of the two, we prefer a legislative
statute as it gives the SCC more permanence. Therefore, the United We Ride Working Group
would work with the Joint Interim Transportation Committee to formalize the SCC by way of a
legislative statute. In the interim, the group, along with new prospective members of the SCC,
should meet, discuss, revise (as needed) and then sign the SCC Memorandum of
Understanding (see Attachment 1). Step 1 should take place immediately following the
completion of the Wasatch Front Mobility Management Project.
Responsible Party: A draft of the MOU, which defines the broad objectives of the
SCC, is included at the end of this Appendix (Attachment 1). Signing the MOU
indicates that organizations commit to forwarding coordination of community
transportation services in Utah and participating in the SCC. The Chair of the United
We Ride Working Group should take the lead in inviting new members to a meeting
where the wordage of the MOU can be discussed and (if needed) modified. From
there, it will be the responsibility of the all prospective SCC members to take the
revised/agreed-upon MOU back to their organizations, and to deliver a signed MOU to
the next organizational meeting of the SCC.
Timeframe: 1st Quarter 2010
Action Step 2:
Establish Bylaws for the SCC. SCC members (i.e., those who have signed the MOU) must
next approve the bylaws (see Attachment 2) that will define how the SCC is organized. SCC
members will need to meet and agree upon this document before adopting it.
Responsible Party: The Chair of the United We Ride Working Group should take the
lead in organizing the second SCC meeting, at which time the bylaws can be
discussed, modified, if necessary, and approved. Officers can be elected and
subcommittees can be set at this meeting or the next.
Action Plans for Resolving Operating Arrangements for SCC
Action Steps 3 through 4 describe some of the internal issues the SCC will need to address,
including logistical details like hiring administrative staff, as well as goals for membership and
institutional framework.
Action Step 3:
Ensure the SCC has adequate representation from interested/relevant parties. One of the
first tasks of the SCC will be to ensure that there is appropriate representation on the SCC.
There are other potentially interested parties who may wait to sign on after the SCC has been
formed. There also may be other organizations that the core members of the SCC may wish to
add to the SCC. The bylaws include requirements and procedures for adding additional
members to the SCC. This step involves outreach on the part of the SCC.
Responsible Party: The SCC will be responsible for reaching out to parties that they
determine would be valuable members of the SCC.
Timeframe: 1st Quarter 2010. The SCC may begin to identify other interested parties
at the time of approving the bylaws, but the membership of the SCC will change and
grow over the years, so this step is part of an ongoing process.
Action Step 4:
Determine the administrative needs of the SCC. The SCC may determine that it requires
administrative staff, and if so, must determine how to raise funds to pay for this staff. This is an
eligible capital expense for FTA New Freedom and JARC funding.
Responsible Party: The SCC must address this internally.
Timeframe: As necessary: it may be that no paid staff is needed in the short term.
Action Plans for the Remaining Implementation Stages
The next series of steps are those that must be completed by the SCC in order to lay the
groundwork for the next stages of implementation.
Action Step 5:
Determine Community Transportation Regions. A suggested division of Utah into 7
community transportation regions is discussed below. The SCC would formally adopt these
regions, or revise these regions (if needed) per internal discussion and then adopt these
regions. This would ideally be done as a precursor to forming the Regional Coordination
Councils, noting that the SCC will eventually help establish the RCCs (see Action Step 8)
Responsible Party: The SCC, with input from potential RCCs members.
Action Step 6:
Approve/implement changes to policy/reporting requirements: An ongoing task of the SCC
will be to identify changes to policies and reporting requirements that would foster coordination
in Utah. The SCC must discuss, revise (if necessary), and ultimately endorse -- if not implement
-- these changes, especially those that are under the control of each member agency. For
agencies that have a stake in the success of coordination, it is reasonable to expect that they
will make an effort to address policies or practices that are also deemed detrimental to
coordination. The SCC should help these agencies determine what changes can be made to
foster or improve the opportunities for coordination. Following along the same lines, the SCC
should also promote new, alternative policies and practices that agencies can adopt to facilitate
coordination.
Responsible Party: The SCC, with input from funding agencies.
Timeframe: 2010
Action Step 7:
Determine need for – and seek – common IT solution: The SCC may wish to explore the
costs and benefits of common IT solutions for each Mobility Manager. For the purposes of
consistency, common reporting, better support, etc., it may make sense for all Mobility
Managers to use the same package.
Responsible Party: The SCC, with input from RCCs and Mobility Managers.
Timeframe: 2010/2011
2. Establish Community Transportation Regions
As mentioned previously, most states that have successfully fostered local/regional coordination
efforts have had a state-level coordinating council (SCC), with regional or county-level
coordinating councils (RCCs) on the local level overseeing/guiding coordination efforts. Such an
infrastructure makes sense for Utah, especially since most of the initial coordination activities will
be on the local level.
There are several positive premises for regionalization: (1) Coordination is based on trust and
cooperation among local partners. Individual approaches to this will differ from locality to locality.
One model does not fit all. The individual attention required to foster these relationships is best
done on the county or regional level by a local entity. (2) Regionalization takes into account -- and
better addresses -- the need for and provision of inter-county trips of the target populations that
depend on community transportation; and (3) Regionalization simplifies statewide administration
and support of local coordination efforts; instead of having to keep tabs on efforts in each of
Utah’s 29 counties, regionalization might reduce that number to between 7 and 10. (Typically,
regions comprise 25% to 33% of the total number of counties.)
Community Transportation Regions in Other States
•
County Based: New Jersey (21 counties), Pennsylvania (67 counties), and North
Carolina (100 counties) all have county-based transportation systems that have varying
degree of coordination between services for seniors and persons with disabilities (and in
some cases Medicaid and other human service agencies), noting that North Carolina is
currently looking at opportunities to regionalize.
•
Predominantly County Based: Florida’s 67 counties have coordinated systems that are
mostly county-based, although there are some regions that have evolved into multi-county
efforts. Currently, there are 51 Community Transportation Coordinators (Mobility Managers)
that cover the state’s 67 counties. It is also noteworthy that 13 of the 23 transit systems in
Florida also serve as Community Transportation Coordinators. Colorado’s coordination
infrastructure plan is to base most coordinated efforts in each of its 63 counties, but allows
multi-county regions to evolve organically.
•
Transit Agency Based: Community transportation regions in Iowa are based on the
service areas of the state’s 18 regional transit agencies.
•
Planning District Based: New Mexico’s current plan is to set-up Community
Transportation regions based on planning district regions, and to take set-up transit
agencies where they exist within those regions as the coordinators of community
transportation.
•
Based on Public Transportation and Human Service Providers: The regionalization
plan that was recently implemented in New Hampshire is comprised of 10 regions that
were finalized by the SCC, but that remain a work in progress (the RCCs in two of the
regions are currently in merger discussions). Unlike most states, county-based programs
are not prevalent in New Hampshire, and so there were no inherent reasons to base the
regions on county boundaries. Some of the 10 regions do exactly contain one or two
counties, but others crossed county borders to better reflect community transportation trip
patterns and existing instances of local coordination. Vermont’s coordination structure is
very similar to New Hampshire’s.
Community Transportation Regions in Utah
In Utah, there are several precedents for regionalization of agency-provided services. At a broad
level the main agencies responsible for serving the three target populations are already
regionalized: there are 12 Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) regions, 15 DSPD regions, and 5
Medicaid regions (with 12 distinct local offices), noting that Medicaid transportation is largely
handled by one statewide broker, PickMeUp, in all but three counties. Additionally, Utah is divided
up into 7 planning regions, noting that it was through these planning agencies (mostly AOGs) that
distinct Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plans were prepared in
response to SAFETEA-LU coordination planning requirements. The state’s seven planning
regions are also being used by UDOT to prioritize and select projects to be funded with FTA
Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 funds. Other grant programs (e.g., CSBG, SSBG, CDBG), and
human service programs (such as housing, vocational rehab, mental health, etc.) are organized
semi-congruently with the AAA regions and/or planning regions. While none of these regional
approaches are congruent with the others, one commonality is that they all use county
boundaries, i.e., none of the regional boundaries segment county boundaries.
Of these, the regions that would have the highest potential for the formation of RCCs would be
either the planning regions (7) or the AAA regions (12). See Figure H-1.
A variation on this model could include forming a larger RCC region for the Wasatch Front that
encompasses the entire UTA service area.
In favor of the planning regions, many already understand the issues of coordination and have
already formed groups of stakeholders (for coordination studies and for assisting UDOT with
prioritizing grant applications for FTA funds) into steering/advisory committees that could evolve
into the RCCs. Meanwhile, the AAA regions have in place funding mechanisms for senior
transportation efforts that would likely be participants in any local/regional coordination effort. If
regions were based on planning districts, the AAA’s and other stakeholder groups organized at
the sub-regional level would likely wish to be represented on the RCC. Looking at Figure A-1,
there are two planning regions that have two AAAs each, and one (WFRC) that encompasses
four AAAs. The other four planning regions each have one AAA. If regions were based on AAAs,
there would be three planning agencies which would need to serve on multiple RCCs.
A third option involves a hybrid of using planning regions as the starting point for forming RCCs,
but would allow sub-regional Local Coordinating Committees (LCCs) to emerge as subcommittees to the RCCs.
Under this scenario, LCCs would form at the county or multi-county level, or even at the AAA
level. For example, Weber Human Services has a strong connection with Morgan County for
delivery of human service programs. An LCC that consists of Weber and Morgan Counties may
form to discuss local transportation issues, needs and potential projects common to both
counties.
LCCs will likely form as subcommittees of existing advisory or policy bodies for already
established human service grant programs or transportation programs. For example, Salt Lake
County COG has a Grants Coordinating Committee that is comprised of agency staff and elected
officials. This committee, or a subcommittee within this group, could be supplemented with
additional members with backgrounds relevant to community transportation to form an LCC for
Salt Lake County.
LCCs and RCCs could meet quarterly with complementary schedule rotation so that RCC and
LCC meetings do not overlap. This would allow members of both committees to attend all
meetings if desired. To illustrate this, the RCC might meet in January, April, July, and October
while LCCs would meet in February, May, August, and November.
Not all members of the LCCs would attend all RCC meetings. LCCs would send two or three
delegates to RCC meetings to report on LCC activities and represent the LCC in RCC activities.
Larger RCCs would have fewer delegates from each LCC. Smaller RCCs would be able to
permit more delegates from participating LCCs.
Figure H-1: Planning Districts vs. Area Agencies on Aging
Planning Districts (7)
Bear River AOG
Wasatch Front Regional Council
(WFRC)
Mountainland AOG (MAG)
Six County AOG
Five County AOG
Uintah Basin AOG
Southeastern Utah ALG
Area Agencies on Aging (12)
Bear River AAA
Weber Human Services AAA
Davis County Council on Aging
Salt Lake County Aging Services
Tooele County AAA
Mountainland DAAS
Six-County AAA
Five County AAA
Uintah Basin AAA
Golden Age Center COA
Southeastern Utah AAA
San Juan County AAA
Counties (29)
Box Elder, Cache, and Rich
Morgan and Weber
Davis
Salt Lake
Tooele
Summit, Utah, and Wasatch
Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne
Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane and Washington
Daggett and Duchesne
Uintah
Carbon, Emery and Grand
San Juan
LCCs would be permitted to have membership in more than one RCC. However, only one LCC
will be permitted in any given geographic area. Thus, Box Elder County may be part of two
separate RCCs (e.g. Wasatch Front RCC and Bear River RCC), but only one LCC will serve the
Box Elder County area.
Since Box Elder County would be part of more than one RCC, the Box Elder County LCC would
have dual membership in the Wasatch Front RCC and the Bear River RCC.
The advantage of this hybrid option is that it simultaneously exploits the benefits of the planning
region-based and AAA-based scenarios presented previously. It also avoids some of the pitfalls
of requiring LCCs at the AAA level because LCCs are permitted to form only if there is a desire at
the local level.
Basing the regionalization on planning districts rather than AAA regions takes advantage of
current and past inter-organizational relationships and encompasses more of the inter-county
community transportation trip patterns. Having fewer regions would also simplify state support of
Mobility Managers.
At the same time, we also like the local flexibility of the third scheme described, which provides
for – but doesn’t require -- the establishment of single-county or multi-county LCCs, and allows
representatives from an LCC to participate in one or more RCC, as appropriate.
For these reasons, we recommend that the Community Transportation Regions follow the
planning district boundaries in Utah, while noting that the formation of LCCs and their
representation on one or more RCCs has some great advantages. A map of these is found in
Figure H-2 on the following page. Additional discussion about the WFRC and MAG area
Community Transportation Regions and RCCs is found in Chapter 8.
Figure H-2:Utah Planning Regions
!Bear River As·oi;rti
011
of Goveu ments.
Momn'i1inhuHk
Afi.sociiliion of,
Jo:i I fl
WilSlatcll Fro"nt
Re9io·nml CouncU
Six County
A-s$oti·l1'ou of
Govel!ll numts
-
Govenunen
/
Uintah Bi!Sin
Ass o da•i(Hill of
GovMmnetns
- S·oulhe·astem IIJta'l
.or lo c;'ll
Ass Cl cioUG·mt
Gove: •m1euts.
FivCro uuly
A'Sosoci.mou of
G ove•mue-nts
-
Source: Asso ciatio n of Governments Map . Utah Asso ciation of Governments. 16
Sept. 2009. <http ://www.9 ov ernor. state.ut.us/plannin9/ao 9/ao 9maptest.htm>.
Action Plan for Establishing a State-Wide Coordination Infrastructure
Action Step 8:
Determine Community Transportation Regions. A division of Utah into 7 community
transportation regions has been suggested. However, this should be vetted with state agencies,
transit agencies, counties, and local stakeholders, with input used to confirm or revise these
regions, leaving the door open also for counties as the basic building block as well. The SCC
should take on this task and then finalize and approve these regions. This must be done as a
precursor to forming the Regional Coordination Councils
Responsible Party: The SCC with input from stakeholders.
3. Establish Regional Coordination Councils
The next step will be for the SCC to help establish a Regional Coordination Council (RCC) in
each of the Community Transportation Regions. The role of each RCC would be to:
•
Decide what coordination strategies should be pursued locally, put together a
“Coordination Action Plan” for the region, and implement the plan.
•
Lead/be involved in coordination grant application efforts.
•
Select, guide, assist, monitor, and if necessary, replace a lead entity (organization or
person) to serve as the Mobility Manager for the region.
•
Provide feedback to the SCC, relative to the policies that are – or are not – working well in
their region.
Purpose and Need
In Utah, while there are advisory committees that were established to assist with the regional
SAFETEA-LU coordination plans, there are few local inter-organizational councils that continue to
meet regularly to discuss local transportation needs, gaps, and strategies to improve the
coordination of services. The Executive Order or Legislation that establishes the SCC could also
formally establish the Community Transportation Regions and accompanying Regional
Coordinating Councils (or it could be left to the SCC to formalize this framework). In the end, the
purpose of creating regions and RCCs is to “funnel” stakeholders from a specific area into a
single unit to meet and discuss relevant transportation issues.
RCCs could be the direct or indirect recipient and distributor of JARC/New Freedom funding in
their respective regions, especially if the SCC keeps with the regionalization scheme
recommended above. [The organizational recipient and contracting body for these funds would
likely be the planning agency on behalf of the RCC.] Thus, a softer, but equally effective
approach would be to authorize the RCCs as the recipients of JARC/New Freedom funding for
the regions. Hence, if there is no RCC or the RCC does not comply with minimum
standards/obligations as established by the SCC, the region does not get any JARC or New
Freedom funding.
Thus, the additional role of the SCC with respect to this process would be to:
•
Set goals and expectations for the RCCs, including minimum requirements for
participating agencies, frequency of meetings, and reporting expectations;
•
To distribute JARC and New Freedom funding to the RCCs for re-distribution to local
coordinating projects (unless the RCCs each become the recipient for these funds); and
•
Provide technical resources to facilitate the establishment and provide for staffing of
RCCs.
Composition of the RCCs
We envision that each RCC be composed of organizational members and a few individual
members. The organizational members might include regional representatives of the state funding
agencies, representatives from other purchasers of service, representatives from one or more
service providers (although there is a possibility of conflict of interest in the case of private, forprofit service providers), and representatives from other stakeholder organizations as well. Of
particular note, the RCC should also have a representative from the regional planning agency;
indeed, this could end up being the Mobility Manager (see below). We also think it’s a good idea
to have a place for a few individual members; the perspective of one or two customer/riders,
perhaps representing two different market segments, would help on certain decisions the RCCs
make. To assist the SCC in helping with the formation of Regional Coordination Councils, we have
also developed a sample MOU and a sample set of bylaws. Our supposition here, based upon our
assisting the formation of RCCs in other states, is that the first step to becoming a bona fide
organizational member of an RCC is to sign the Memorandum of Understanding, signifying that
the organization will participate in this coordination effort. Once the MOUs are signed and
representatives from each agency selected, the RCC, like the SCC, would adopt a set of bylaws,
which would address issues such as membership, officers, meetings, voting, committees, etc.
Once the bylaws are approved by members of each council, they can be amended to
accommodate changing needs in the region. A sample MOU and set of bylaws for an RCC are
presented in Attachment 3 and 4, respectively.
Once the Community Transportation Regions have been determined, the SCC can help each RCC
to form, noting that the seeds of this effort have already begun in several regions as a result of
previous coordination studies. This assistance can involve the provisions of
facilitation/technical assistance, as well as the provision of seed funding for planning. Or, the SCC
may decide that the best way to encourage the RCCs to form may be through making seed grants
available on a competitive basis. As organizations meet and begin to coalesce, MOUs, which
describe the mission of the RCC, and bylaws, which describe how it will function, will be
introduced to the groups. Once stakeholders have agreed to the MOU, representatives from each
agency will assemble as Regional Coordination Councils to revise, as needed, and approve their
bylaws, and to either confirm and approve the recommendations for their region’s RTC, or begin
the process to select one. Drafts of MOUs and bylaws, as well as suggestions for parties to include
in the RCCs, are provided in the Task 2 Technical Memorandum.
Note: If the establishment of an RCC in any particular region presents a challenge, it may be
prudent for the SCC to work with local stakeholders to identify a local champion to help get other
local stakeholders to the table and to champion the coordination concept.
Action Plan for Establishing Regional Coordination Councils
Action Step 9:
Bring together interested parties in regional coordination summits. The SCC must reach
out to local stakeholders who are likely to be involved in coordination, either as providers or as
purchasers of service. For each of the regions in the state, the SCC will conduct a regional
coordination summit to explain the overall coordination plan and the role of the RCCs and to
encourage local stakeholders to become involved. In some regions, the nucleus of the RCCs
might be the advisory committees or groups of stakeholders that were involved in the
preparation of the local SAFETEA-LU coordination plans.
Responsible Party: The SCC will be responsible for organizing these summits and
assisting/facilitating the formation of these groups. Once formed, the SCC should
formally designate/authorize each RCC.
Timeframe: 2010
Action Step 10:
Regional stakeholders agree upon and sign a RCC Memorandum of Understanding: As a
result of the regional coordination summits, regional stakeholders must meet, discuss, revise
(as needed) and then sign the RCC Memorandum of Understanding, similar to the process
describe above regarding the formation of the SCC.
Responsible Party: A draft MOU template is provided in Attachment 3. The SCC will
facilitate the distribution of this MOU, but interested parties must work together to
modify it, as needed, and then sign up for participating in their RCC.
Timeframe: 2010
Action Step 11:
Establish Bylaws for the RCC: Once stakeholders have signed onto the MOU, members must
approve the bylaws that will define how the RCCs are organized. The bylaws should be similar
across the many RCCs.
Responsible Party: A draft template for these bylaws is provided as Attachment 4,
but it will be up to the members of each RCC to finalize, modify (if necessary) and
approve them.
Timeframe: 2010
Attachment 1: Template for Statewide
Coordination Council Memorandum of
Understanding
Memorandum of Understanding
WHEREAS there are several different community transportation programs currently providing
service within Utah to seniors, persons with disabilities, and persons with low income;
WHEREAS there are significant unmet needs for individuals requiring such community
transportation services;
WHEREAS this service gap is anticipated to grow significantly in the next twenty years due to
demographic trends;
WHEREAS coordination efforts have been shown to result in increased service through improved
cost efficiency, elimination of duplication, and access to additional funding; and
WHEREAS there is a need – and an opportunity – to create a balanced network of diverse
transportation services and mobility options by coordinating community transportation in Utah,
BE IT KNOWN THAT
intends to participate in the
establishment and functioning of a Utah Statewide Coordination Council for Community
Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the Council or the SCC).
This Memorandum of
Understanding documents this intent and the organization’s commitment to the primary mission of
the Council.
The primary mission of the Council is to:
•
Help develop, implement, and provide guidance to the coordination of community
transportation services within Utah so that (1) seniors, persons with disabilities, and
persons with low income can access local and regional transportation services; and (2)
operators, funders and purchasers of community transportation services can more
effectively utilize and leverage funding in order to expand services to address unmet
needs.
•
Set/revise statewide coordination policies, help establish Community Transportation
Regions and Regional and Local Coordination Councils (and assist these regional efforts
as needed), help these Regional and Local Coordination Councils secure funding to help
implement and sustain regional mobility management programs, and monitor the results
of these programs.
In signifying this intention and commitment,
pledges to:
•
Designate one representative (and/or up to two alternate representatives) to the Council,
and ensure that the representative attends regularly scheduled meetings of the Council
and is active in the functioning of the Council and Committees.
•
Provide meeting space for the Council and/or Committees, as needed
Signing this Memorandum of Understanding does not signify a commitment of funding at this
time.
Either party may cancel this Memorandum of Understanding with 14 days written notice.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, indicates its support and intent:
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Signature:
Date:
ACCEPTANCE BY:
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Signature:
Date:
Attachment 2: Template for Statewide
Coordination Council Bylaws
Article I: Name
The name of the Council shall be the Utah Statewide Coordination Council for Community
Transportation (hereinafter called the Council or SCC).
These bylaws shall provide the
procedures for conduct of business of the Council.
Article II: Purpose
Established by its founding members, the Council is organized to:
•
transportation services and information within Utah so that (1) seniors, persons with
disabilities, and persons with low income can access local and regional transportation
services; and (2) operators, funders and purchasers of community transportation services
can more effectively utilize and leverage funding in order to expand services to address
unmet needs.
•
Set/revise statewide coordination policies, help establish Community Transportation
Regions and Regional and Local Coordination Councils (and assist regional efforts as
needed), help Regional and Local Coordination Councils seek funding to implement and
sustain mobility management programs, and monitor the results of these programs.
Article III: Membership of the Council
III.1 Membership Eligibility Criteria
Any of the following organizations are automatically a member of the Council upon formal
adoption of the Council's Memorandum of Understanding by that governmental unit or
organization, and formal acceptance by the Council:
1. Any public or private non-profit organization based in Utah which currently funds,
arranges or provides such transportation services for its citizens, clients or customers.
2. Organizations representing groups of consumers and constituents that would be positively
affected by such mobility and access improvements in Utah.
Each organizational member shall designate one representative and up to two alternate
representatives to the Council.
III.2 Rights and Responsibilities of Membership
Each member is afforded one full vote on any decision put to a vote. Each organizational
member’s vote can be cast by his/her representative or alternate representative.
To be in “good standing,” a member (1) must attend at least 75% of the regular monthly
meetings, and miss no more than two consecutive regular monthly meetings in a calendar year;
and (2) must participate in some facet of the Council's work program. The Chair may determine if
a missed meeting is excused; an excused miss shall not count as non-attendance.
III.3 Annual Membership Dues
There may be annual membership dues to cover the administrative costs and other business of
the Council, the amount to be determined annually.
Article IV: Officers of the Council
IV.1 Officers and Terms of Office
The Officers of the Council shall be as follows:
•
Chair
•
Vice Chair
•
Treasurer
•
Secretary
The term of each officer shall be one year. Officers may serve multiple terms.
IV.2 Election of Officers and Operating Year
The Council’s operating year shall begin at the regular
meeting.
Officers will be elected by majority vote on an annual basis at the Council's
regular
meeting.
Nominations for officers must be given to the Secretary no later than at the Council's last regular
meeting of the calendar year.
IV.3 Responsibilities of the Officers
The Chair, or in the event of his/her absence, the Vice Chair, shall preside at all meetings of the
Council; but neither shall be deprived of his/her right to vote.
The Chair or Vice Chair shall have such other powers and perform such other duties as may from
time to time be voted by the Council, including the establishment of committees and appointment
of committee members as may be necessary or convenient for carrying out the business of the
Council.
The Treasurer shall be responsible for collection of annual dues (if any) and disbursement of
funds for the conduct of Council business.
The Secretary shall be responsible for disseminating information to Council members, writing
Council correspondence, keeping meeting attendance records, and taking minutes of meetings.
It is not required that the Secretary be a member of the Council.
Collectively, the Chair, Vice Chair, and Treasurer shall comprise the Executive Committee. The
Chair, Vice Chair, and Treasurer must be members in good standing.
IV.4 Vacancies
If an officer vacates an office for any reason (non-attendance, resignation), the Chair (or Vice
Chair if the vacancy is the Chair) shall declare the vacancy at the next regularly scheduled
meeting.
The Chair (or Vice Chair if the vacancy is the Chair) can wait until the next
nomination/election period or may accept nominations from the floor at the meeting at which the
vacancy has been declared. If nominations from the floor are accepted, voting will take place at
the next scheduled meeting.
IV.5 Removal of Officers
Members, by 2/3 vote of members present, may remove an officer. An officer under
consideration for removal should have the opportunity to be advised and be able to speak to the
concerns of the membership. Such matters and discussions should take place in an executive
session. The officer under consideration for removal may be given a 30-day period to correct any
deficiencies before the vote is taken.
Article V: Meetings of the Council
V.1 Regular Meetings
The Council shall meet monthly on the
from
to
or on another date
and/or at another time at the call of the Chair. The Council may vote at a prior meeting not to
hold the next regular monthly meeting. The Chair may also cancel a regular monthly meeting.
At the regular meetings, the Council may take such actions, pass such resolutions, or conduct
such other business as are on the agenda or may otherwise be properly brought before it.
V.2 Special Meetings
The Chair, or in the event of his/her absence, the Vice Chair may call a special meeting of the
Council as required and shall call a special meeting at the request of one-third (1/3) of the
members. Business at special meetings shall be limited to the subjects stated in the call for
them.
V.3 Information Meetings
The Chair may call an informational meeting as may be required for the presentation and
dissemination of reports, analyses, or other data, and for the informal discussion thereof by the
Council. No formal action by the Council shall be taken at such meetings. Resolutions may be
introduced and discussed at such meetings, but formal debate and action on such resolutions
may take place only at future regular or special meetings.
V.4 Meeting Notice and Agenda; Open Meetings
Not less than seven days advance notice in writing of regular or informational meetings shall be
given to all members. Not less than three business days advance notice in writing of special
meetings shall be given to all members. Such notices shall contain the time, place, proposed
agenda, proposed resolutions on substantive matters, and the substance of any matter proposed
to be voted on.
All meetings of the Council shall be subject to the open meetings act.
All meetings of the Executive Committee shall be posted three business days in advance, and
shall be open to all Council members in good standing.
V.5 Quorum
Fifty percent of the membership constitutes a quorum.
V.6 Structure and Conduct of Meetings
Parliamentary discretion for the conduct of meetings shall be vested with the Chair. Council
procedures shall provide an opportunity for all members to be heard on any given issue and for
the efficient conduct of business.
V.7 Public Participation at Meetings
Any person is welcome to attend all regular and special meetings of the Council, excluding any
required executive sessions, and be permitted to address the Council under direction from the
Chair.
There shall be two separate opportunities for public comment in these meetings – the first shall
be specific to agenda items, the second specific to other business. The Chair shall dictate when
these opportunities shall occur in the agenda. Each public comment shall be limited to 3 minutes.
This limit may be extended at the discretion of the Chair.
Prior to these meetings, any person wishing to comment at the meeting must first provide a
written synopsis of the comment, along with his/her name, address, and contact information to
the Secretary, who in turn will submit these written synopses to the Chair.
Article VI: Vo ting
No vote on a substantive matter shall be taken unless the issue to be voted on has been listed in
the proposed agenda, and timely notice (see Article V.4) has been given to all members. Election
of Officers and Citizen Members are considered to be substantive issues. Dues payments or
financial commitments of Council members are also considered substantive issues. A quorum
must exist before any formal vote is taken (see Article V.5).
Each member is afforded one vote on any decision put to a vote and must be present to vote. In
the absence of a voting organizational member representative, a designated alternative may cast
the vote if present at the meeting. Otherwise, no proxy voting is permitted.
All decisions put to a vote, with the following exceptions, require a majority vote of all members
present to pass. The exceptions which require a 2/3 vote of all members present to pass include
changes or amendments to these by-laws (see Article VIII) and officer removals (see Article IV.5).
Article VII: Committees of the Council
On an annual basis, Council shall establish or continue standing committees as may be
necessary or convenient for carrying out the business of the Council. Standing committees will
be chaired by members of the Council but can include non-Council members. Additional standing
committees can be established if deemed necessary or convenient to conduct the business of the
Council. These committees can be established upon the affirmative vote of the majority of the
Council members present at a regular or special meeting.
The Chair, or in his/her absence, the Vice Chair, shall establish ad-hoc committees and appoint
committee members as may be necessary or convenient for carrying out the business of the
Council. Non-members, because of their special expertise or association with particular issues,
and at the discretion of the Chair, may be appointed to ad-hoc committees.
Article VIII: Amendments
These by-laws may be amended by the affirmative vote of 2/3 vote of the Council present at a
regular meeting thereof, if the notice of such meeting has contained a copy of the proposed
amendment. Amendments are considered a substantive issue.
Article IX: Effective Date
These by-laws will become effective upon adoption by 2/3 vote of the Council present.
Attachment 3: Template for Regional
Coordination Council Memorandum of
Understanding
WHEREAS the term “community transportation” is defined as any public transportation service or
human service agency transportation service or program, whether it be provided by a public or
private entity, that focuses on transportation for seniors, persons with disabilities, and persons
with low income;
WHEREAS there are several different community transportation services currently within the
region;
WHEREAS there are significant unmet needs for individuals requiring community transportation
services within the
region;
WHEREAS these unmet needs are anticipated to grow significantly in the next twenty years due
to demographic trends in the
region;
WHEREAS the coordination of community transportation information and services has been
shown to result in increased service through improved cost efficiency, elimination of duplication,
and access to additional funding; and
WHEREAS there is a need – and an opportunity -- to create a balanced network of diverse
community transportation services and mobility options by coordinating community transportation
in the
region,
BE IT KNOWN THAT
establishment and functioning of the
Regional Coordination Council for Community
Transportation.
This Memorandum of Understanding documents this intent and the
organization’s commitment to the primary mission of the Council.
This
region includes the Counties of
.
The primary mission of the Council is to:
•
transportation services within the
region so that (1) seniors, persons with
disabilities and persons with low income can access local and regional transportation
services and information; and (2) operators, funders and purchasers of community
transportation services can more effectively utilize and leverage funding in order to
expand services to address unmet needs;
•
Help recruit, select, guide, assist, and monitor the efforts of a Regional Mobility Manager
who will have the day-to-day responsibility for encouraging, planning, evaluating, and in
some cases, managing, the coordination of community transportation services and
information in the region;
•
Work together with other Regional Coordinating Councils that form in other regions of the
state to help promote coordination and develop solutions to inter-regional community
transportation needs; and
•
Provide feedback to state agencies that fund/sponsor community transportation relative to
policies and practices that successfully foster and that adversely affect the coordination of
community transportation services and information.
pledges to:
•
•
Provide meeting space for the Council and/or Committees, as needed
Signing this Memorandum of Understanding does not signify a commitment of funding at this
time.
Either party many cancel this Memorandum of Understanding with 14 days written notice.
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Signature:
Date:
ACCEPTANCE BY:
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Signature:
Date:
Attachment 4: Template for Regional
Coordination Council Bylaws
Article I: Name
The name of the Council shall be the
Regional Coordination Council for Community
Transportation (hereinafter called the Council or RCC). These bylaws shall provide the
procedures for conduct of business of the Council.
Article II: Purpose
This region includes the Counties of
.
•
transportation services and information within the region so that (1) seniors, persons with
disabilities, and persons with low income can access local and regional transportation
services; and (2) operators, funders and purchasers of community transportation services
can more effectively utilize and leverage funding in order to expand services to address
unmet needs;
•
Help recruit, select, guide, assist, and monitor the efforts of a Regional Mobility Manager
who will have the day-to-day responsibility for encouraging, planning, evaluating, and in
some cases, managing, the coordination of community transportation services and
information in the region;
•
Work together with other Regional Coordinating Councils that form in other regions of the
state to help promote coordination and develop solutions to inter-regional community
•
Provide feedback to state agencies that fund/sponsor community transportation relative to
policies and practices that successfully foster and that adversely affect the coordination of
community transportation services and information.
Article III: Membership of the Council
The Council shall be composed of organizational and citizen members as follows:
•
Organizational members – Any of the following organizations are automatically a
member of the Council upon formal adoption of the Council's Memorandum of
Understanding by that governmental unit or organization, and formal acceptance by the
Council:
–
Any public, private non-profit, or for-profit organization based within or near the region
and that currently funds, arranges or provides community transportation services to,
from or within the region;
–
Any local or regional public transportation provider or state/regional/county/municipal
agency involved in the planning or provision of public/passenger transportation in the
region;
–
Organizations representing groups of consumers and constituents that would be
positively affected by such mobility and access improvements in the region.
•
Citizen members – Citizen members must be residents of the region and take an active
interest in improving mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities, and/or persons with low
income within the region. There shall be at least 1 citizen member on the Council. The
maximum number of citizen members on the Council shall equate to no more than 10% of
the total organizational members. The term of each citizen member shall be two years.
Citizen members may serve multiple terms, but must submit an application at the end of
each term. Applications to be a citizen member must be submitted to the Secretary no
later than the Council's regular
meeting. Appointed by the Chair, the
Membership Committee will review the applications and recommend the appropriate
number of citizen members, to be voted upon by the council at the Council's regular
meeting. Citizen members have voting rights but do not have the right to
designate an alternate.
member’s vote can be cast by his/her representative or alternate representative. Citizen
members must be present at meetings to vote; proxy votes for citizen members will be not be
permitted.
and (2) must participate in some facet of the Council's work program. The Chair may determine if
a missed meeting is excused; an excused miss shall not count as non-attendance.
the Council, the amount to be determined annually. Membership dues for any citizen member
may be waived per the vote of the Council.
Article IV: Officers of the Council
•
•
•
•
Chair
Vice Chair
Treasurer
Secretary
meeting.
regular
meeting.
The Chair or Vice Chair shall have such other powers and perform such other duties as may from
time to time be voted by the Council, including the establishment of committees and appointment
of committee members as may be necessary or convenient for carrying out the business of the
Council.
Chair, Vice Chair, and Treasurer must be members in good standing. It is not required that the
Secretary be a member of the Council.
IV.4 Vacancies
meeting.
Members, by 2/3 vote of members present, may remove an officer. An officer under
session. The officer under consideration for removal may be given a 30-day period to correct any
deficiencies before the vote is taken.
Article V: Meetings of the Council
The Council shall meet monthly on
from
to
or on another date
them.
agenda, proposed resolutions on substantive matters, and the substance of any matter proposed
to be voted on.
V.5 Quorum
Fifty percent of the membership constitutes a quorum.
Chair.
these opportunities shall occur in the agenda. Each public comment shall be limited to 3 minutes.
This limit may be extended at the discretion of the Chair.
Article VI: Voting
No vote on a substantive matter shall be taken unless the issue to be voted on has been listed in
the proposed agenda, and timely notice (see Article V.4) has been given to all members. Election
of Officers and Citizen Members are considered to be substantive issues. Dues payments or
financial commitments of Council members are also considered substantive issues. A quorum
must exist before any formal vote is taken (see Article V.5).
Each member is afforded one vote on any decision put to a vote and must be present to vote. In
the absence of a voting organizational member representative, a designated alternative may cast
the vote if present at the meeting. Otherwise, no proxy voting is permitted.
present to pass. The exceptions which require a 2/3 vote of all members present to pass include
changes or amendments to these by-laws (see Article VIII) and officer removals (see Article IV.5).
Article VII: Committees of the Council
necessary or convenient for carrying out the business of the Council. Standing committees will be
chaired by members of the Council but can include non-Council members. Standing committees
may include:
•
Advocacy Committee
•
Consumer Liaison Committee
•
Executive Committee
•
Finance Committee
•
Land Use/Transportation Planning Committee
•
Marketing/Public Information Committee
•
•
Projects Committee
•
Regulatory/Policy Committee
Local Coordinating Councils that form within the region will also be represented as a committee of
the Council.
Additional standing committees can be established if deemed necessary or convenient to conduct
the business of the Council. These committees can be established upon the affirmative vote of
the majority of the Council members present at a regular or special meeting.
Article VIII: Amendments
Article IX: Effective Date
DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES FOR RCC OFFICERS
Officers for the Regional Coordinating Council (RCC) are recommended to be:

Chair

Vice Chair

Treasurer/Secretary
Often, officers serve a one-year term and can serve multiple terms. However, the by-laws can
dictate any length of term. Below is a brief description of duties for each of the officers. These
duties can be adjusted as needed to fit with the goals of the RCC.
Collectively, the Chair, Vice Chair, and Treasurer/Secretary comprise the Executive Committee. It
is recommended that the Executive Committee meet more often than the RCC. These meetings
could be bi-weekly or just monthly. At the least, one meeting should take place the week of and
prior to the RCC meeting in order to plan the agenda and discuss outstanding issues.
Duties of the Chair
The Chair presides over RCC meetings and may call or cancel regular meetings as needed. The
Chair is responsible for ensuring that RCC meetings advance the intent of the RCC and promote
cooperation among members. (It is advised that member organizations sign MOUs so involvement
is clear.) The Chair may also create subcommittees and appoint committee members and
subcommittee chairs.
The Chair can also serve the RCC by representing the RCC members and collective goals to the
greater community. This may involve testifying at relevant hearings, attending meetings with
governmental agencies or other organizations, and participating in relevant efforts on an asneeded basis as determined by the Executive Committee or RCC.
Duties of the Vice Chair
The Vice Chair presides over RCC meetings when the Chair is absent. The Vice Chair may also fill
in for the Chair on an as-needed basis.
Duties of the Treasurer/Secretary
The Treasurer/Secretary is responsible for advising the RCC on policy matters pertaining to
financial management and the disbursement of funds for the conduct of RCC business (if any).
The Treasurer/Secretary is also responsible for disseminating information to RCC members,
writing RCC correspondence, keeping attendance records, and taking minutes of meetings and
distributing to the RCC.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1
APPENDIX D
List of Attendees for Stakeholder Advisory
Committee Meeting on June 11, 2012 and
Priority Strategies Workshops on June 12,
2012
Appendix D
List of Attendees
Meetings on 6/11/12
and 6/12/12
6/11/12 Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
Will Rodman, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Ellen Oettinger, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Sarah Moser, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Cindy Creede, SSSEVA
John Skirven, SSSEVA
Cathy Spriggs, SSSEVA
Ruth Stanley, SSSEVA
Susan Story, SSSEVA
Deborah Cotton, Virginia 2-1-1
Inez Craig, Suffolk Department of Social Services
Janet Robertson, Isle of Wight
Miriam Beiler, Western Tidewater Free Clinic
Ellen Couch, Smart Beginnings Western Tidewater
Rosalind Cutchins, Children’s Center
Pete Farmer, Isle of Wight Ruritan
Emily Fisher, Endependence Center
David Gonzales, PORTCO
Kelly Haton, Western Tidewater Community Services Board
Maria Ptakowski, Virginia Regional Transit
Christopher Tan, Catholic Charities of Eastern Virginia
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | D-1
Shared Support Services Workshop – 6/12/12 8:00am-9:30am
Inez Craig, Suffolk Dept. of Social Services
Barbara Davis, Sentara Obici Hospital
William Freedman, East End Baptist
Barbara Kelly Gibbs, Sentara Obici Hospital
Sylvia Morgan, East End Baptist
Jeff Storm, IOW Sherriff's Office
Orpah West, East End Baptist
Angela Wilson, Guardian Angel
Jeff Zeigler, The Children's Center
Central Directory Workshop – 6/12/12 10:00am-11:30am
Peter Farmer, Commission on Aging
Kelly Haton, WTCSB
Flexible Vouchers Workshop – 6/12/12 12:30pm-2:00pm
Emily
Fisher, Endependence Center
Volunteer Driver Workshop – 6/12/12 2:30pm-4:00pm
Barbara Davis, Sentara Obici Hospital Emily
Fisher, Endependence Center
APPENDIX E
Meeting Summaries for Stakeholder Advisory
Committee meeting on June 11, 2012 and
Priority Strategies Workshops on
June 12, 2012
Appendix E
Meeting Notes
June 11 & 12
Stakeholder Advisor Committee Meeting #3
Date & Time: June 11, 2012, 11:00am-4:00pm
Location:
Smithfield Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attendees
Will Rodman, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Ellen Oettinger, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Sarah Moser, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Susan Story, SSSEVA
Deborah Cotton, Virginia 211
Inez Craig, Suffolk Department of Social Services
Janet Robertson, Isle of Wight
Miriam Beiler, Western Tidewater Free Clinic
Ellen Couch, Smart Beginnings Western Tidewater
Rosalind Cutchins, Children’s Center
Pete Farmer, Isle of Wight Ruritan
Kelly Haton, Western Tidewater Community Services Board
Christopher Tan, Catholic Charities of Eastern Virginia
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | E-1
Summary
This meeting was a general overview of the eight mobility management strategies
that are recommended for the Western Tidewater Region. The purpose of the
meeting was to provide information about each strategy and have the
stakeholders prioritize which four strategies they would like to discuss in hourlong workshops on the following day.
In the first 15 minutes of the meeting, John Skirven gave a presentation on recent
grant successes, future plans, and hiring a mobility manager. Ellen Oettinger and
Will Rodman from Nelson\Nygaard gave an hour-long presentation on the eight
strategies, which was followed up with a group discussion and voting exercise to
determine the four priority strategies.
The Workshops for Tuesday 6/12 were determined as follows:
8:00am-9:30am – Shared Resources
10:00am-11:30am – Central Directory
12:30pm-2:00pm – Flex Vouchers
2:30pm-4:00pm – Volunteer Drivers
Voting Results
Volunteer Driver Programs = 16
Job Access Strategies = 5
Purchase of Service = 7
Coordinated Funding and Grant Writing = 11
Shared Support Resources = 17
Vehicle Sharing = 11
Flexible Vouchers = 19
(Central Directory was decided to be a priority strategy before the voting exercise,
so it was excluded as an option.)
Count of vehicles in the study area:
•
PORTCO – 8
•
Suffolk 10
•
Franklin – 5
•
Endependence - 1
•
East end - 2
•
VRT – 3
•
WTCSB – 124
•
SSSEVA – 20
Questions/Issues/Concerns to be Discussed in the Workshops
•
John: Can municipalities sell fuel to non-profit organizations? How does it
work for fuel sharing?
•
Cindy: If all of us start to update information on 2-1-1 and suddenly there
are more resources, how is this going to influence 2-1-1? Will it be
overloaded? Deanna: No the resources are spread out throughout the
state, so a small increase in one area will not overload the system.
•
Are we talking about volunteer driver programs for just within the study
area? Volunteer drivers don’t want to drive long distances – don’t want to
leave general area where they live. But there is a need to go further
distances, such as the VA in Hampton.
•
What insurance would the volunteer drivers use? Usually insurance is
under the vehicle owner. We need to identify insurance carriers who work
specifically with volunteer driver programs.
•
The group was very interested in pooling vehicle insurance among
multiple organizations.
SSSEVA COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES PLAN
Priority Strategies Workshops
Date & Time: June 12, 2012, 8:00am-4:00pm
Location:
Smithfield Center
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SHARED SUPPORT SERVICES
Workshop Attendees
William Freedman, East End Baptist
Sylvia Morgan, East End Baptist
Orpah West, East End Baptist
Jeff Zeigler, The Children's Center
Discussion
Shared support services include gas/fuel, training, insurance, maintenance,
operating procedures and manuals. The goal of shared support services is to
expand service and serve more people, with fewer resources to have cost savings
and to become more cost efficient.
1. Maintenance:
•
WTCSB has the largest fleet and are the most logical choice for providing
maintenance for other smaller groups. They bid a contract out every year.
Usually they use Beach Ford because they have the capacity to service a
number of vehicles at the same time. Other respondents to the bid can also
provide service if Beach Ford does not have availability. WTCSB has
preferred vendors, but are not required to use them exclusively. WTCSB
would be interested in joining forces for maintenance and fuel. Last year
they spent about $100,000 in repairs.
•
SSSEVA also bids out maintenance. Their current provider is Master Auto
in Norfolk which have dealerships in Franklin and are trained in the type
of vehicle SSSEVA has.
•
Questions/Concerns:
o Joint maintenance may not be cost effective is the maintenance
facility is too far of a distance away.
o Joint pool of 5310 vehicles that are obtained by a grant process,
these could be included in the maintenance.
2. Fuel cards:
•
SSSEVA purchases fuel from the county, which means that they cannot
also receive a rebate from the state. But this saves time by not having to
apply for the rebate. They use a system called Right Express gas cards.
•
WTCSB uses the State Fuel Card. Kelly is going to send us information
about the program. WTCSB is interested in discussing joint fuel cards.
•
Sherriff’s office uses the state fuel card, which offers the flexibility of
getting fuel anywhere. Voyager is the company that runs it. They offer
competitive prices and ease of use. Plus the card provides details about
how many miles per gallon the vehicle is getting.
•
Question: Does an organization need to be tax exempt to get the fuel
discounts? Guardian Angel transportation would be interested in
participating but they are a for-profit business.
•
Next Step:
o Contact Right Express and Voyager to see who is eligible to
participate.
o Contact Sherriff’s office contact about their program.
Sherriff’s office fuel card contact:
Sandra Bailey
Business Development Coordinator
Office of Fleet Management Services
Department of General Services
2400 W. Leigh Street, Richmond, VA 23220
804-367-4962
[email protected]
Mansfield oil – helped the Sherriff’s office
Linda Franklin
Mansfield oil – Government services
678-450-2275
[email protected]
Email fuel card: [email protected]
3. Insurance:
•
SSSEVA uses Selective Inc. for insurance. Their rates have dropped to $11
a vehicle, provided that all drivers received the same training. Volunteer
drivers who drive SSSEVA vehicles are covered by Selective if they receive
the same training and provide their DMV record, and drug and alcohol
testing. SSSEVA is interested in insurance coordination.
•
WTCSB is very interested in joint insurance.
•
Question: Are you volunteer drivers CDL? Cindy responds that they don’t
have to be. Paratransit drivers though a contract with the city require that
they are CDL. Some back up drivers are CDLs.
•
Something to keep in mind: Volunteer drivers are given limited liability
through the Good Samaritan Act.
•
Next Steps:
o
Meeting with Selective. Are they interested in a joint insurance
program? What is useful in people bringing to a meeting with
Selective?
o Need to follow up with Catholic Charities about their insurance
program for volunteer drivers.
o Can we insure drivers who drive their own vehicles? Does anyone
here have such a policy?
4. Driver Training program
•
WTCSB provides a standard training curriculum with additional training
for people who get traffic tickets. Kelly does the training for 400 staff and
every staff member has to be trained. Kelly is going to be on the working
group. She will collect driver training curricula and the policies and
manuals.
•
Why is a joint driver training system important? Build upon the existing
system and add modules for specialty programs. This will raise the bar for
all driver training programs in the area and make the entire system safer,
which will lower the costs of insurance.
•
There are a couple of options for using CTAA for driver training. CTAA
based in DC has a driver training program that focuses on Community
Transportation; this program has a cost. Members of the joint training
program will need to weigh the costs of Plans A, B, and C.
o Plan A: One organization will provide driver training and other
organizations will pay a fee for participating
o Plan B: Pay CTAA to individually provide training to each
organization
o Plan C: Jointly procure CTAA to provide driver training to all
organizations.
•
AAA (not in attendance) offers driver training for free for members. There
is a defensive driving course and the training can be tailored to different
groups. AAA is eager to become more involved in the community and
would likely be open to create a program for transit drivers. AAA is also a
good recruit method for volunteer drivers. People who have completed the
training program could be provided with a volunteer driver brochure.
•
Question: Could we provide training that is not just driver training, i.e.
conflict resolution, medical emergencies, crisis, how to work with the
elderly and disabled populations? The Endependence Center provides
training on sensitivity to elderly and disabled populations.
•
Next Steps:
o The insurance company that is chosen for joint insurance
procurement has to first accept the driver training program.
o The City of Suffolk has a driver training program. What is this
program?
o IOW Sherriff’s office uses an insurance based training program.
Leigh sets this up. Need to find out what this program is?
o
Does CTAA have a train the trainer program? Need to look into
this.
o Follow up with Emily about their training program.
o State associates will sponsor some training – CALACT represents
smaller drivers
5. Operating procedures/manuals
•
SSSEVA will be hiring a mobility manager for October 1. They could be
responsible for coordinating this strategy.
•
This strategy is especially important for possible
coordination/consolidation because each organization should be aware of
the special needs of the group. For example: The Children’s Center has
entirely different procedures having to do with car seats, kids with
disabilities, etc.
•
This strategy is also important because of the reporting requirements for
each organization. It would be very beneficial if reporting could be
streamlined for the group.
•
East End Baptist Church – members of the Church Affiliates – suggested
that they create a mini consortium among the other church affiliates to
utilize these strategies.
•
Next Steps:
o Who will gather operating procedures? Kelly from WTCSB.
What organizations would participate in each of these strategies?
Maintenance
SSSEVA
Children’s
Center
Guardian
Angel
Church
Affiliates
(maybe)
WTCSB
Fuel
SSSEVA
Endependence
Center
Guardian
Angel
Children’s
Center
Insurance
SSSEVA
Catholic
Charities?
Guardian
Angel
Children’s
Center
Church
Affiliates
(maybe)
WTCSB
WTCSB
Driver
Training
SSSEVA
Church
Affiliates
Guardian
Angel
Children’s
Center
Operating
manuals
SSSEVA
Church
Affiliates
WTCSB
Endependence
Center
WTCSB
Next Steps for Strategy
•
Cindy will schedule meeting with Voyager and other fuel sharing providers
and will schedule a meeting with Selective Inc. Insurance.
•
Working group for Shared Support Services
o Cindy/Cathy
o Children’s Center
o East End Baptist
o Sherriff’s Office
o Kelly
Vehicle Sharing (not a priority strategy)
•
Guardian Angel is very interested in shared vehicles. They want to provide
their own drivers and fuel. SSSEVA charges $47 an hour with driver and
includes insurance. Driver wages and fringe are 70% of this cost.
•
Need to research 5310 funding for seniors and people with disabilities.
According to David Gonzales, VDRPT is not allowing PORTCO to use their
buses for anyone other than their clients. Cindy and John request more
information about 5310 and need a list of places that are sharing vehicles.
Regional Coordinating Council
•
Is there usually one person from each organization represented or one
person from each sector? There is usually one person represented from
organizations that provide transportation, municipalities, and there is also
sector representation, i.e. needs of seniors, needs of people with
disabilities, independent living center, and finally, there is representation
from the business community.
•
Currently the Stakeholder Advisory Committee group is missing a
representative from the municipalities and the business community.
Possibly could speak with Lynn Powell about being the business
community leader.
•
The Regional Coordinating Council is made up of an executive,
membership, project committees, among others, and sub committees for
each strategy, such as an insurance committee.
•
To work properly the RCC needs a really passionate Chair to champion the
cause – ideas for a Chair? David Gonzalez? Lynn Powell?
•
Subcommittees: Definitely need one for grants. Suffolk DSS is very
interests in joint grant writing. Inez was offered as the possible lead of this
subcommittee to be on the lookout for private foundations, sources for
homelessness, health foundations, etc.
CENTRAL DIRECTORY SYSTEM
Workshop Attendees
Kelly Haton, WTCSB
Discussion
•
The Central Directory System will be housed in the Virginia 211 system.
211 Database Coordinators: Kate Mahar and Kenny Clemens – 757-6229268
•
The 211 system is highly effective because you can speak directly to a
person and do not have to navigate automatic prompts. They have been
said to have excellent customer service.
•
Other advantages of 211: They have a system for the hearing impaired and
have Spanish-speaking operators and a translation system.
•
Virginia 211 receives 3,500 calls per month at the regional call center and
they track each call by topic (including transportation).
Implementation Steps
1. Use the current provider directory
2. Obtain permission from every provider who filled out the survey
3. Provide the provider directory to Kenny/Kate
4. Kenny enters it into the database
5. Contact each of the providers for follow up and updates
Questions to include in the 211 database to determine eligibility and
type of ride:
•
Age – 60 and older
•
When do you need the trip (lead time)?
•
What time of day/day of week (some providers do not have weekend
service)?
•
Do you need an accessible vehicle?
•
Do you use a wheelchair?
•
What size wheel chair – standard or wide?
•
Do you need a low-riding vehicle?
•
Do you need door-to-door service? Or do you need assistance getting into
a vehicle or bus?
•
Is anyone accompanying you?
•
Are you Medicaid eligible?
•
What is the trip purpose?
•
Where do you live? (This is a tricky question because different providers
have eligibility requirements based on where a person lives. VRT asks
what street do you live near and based on the response finds the closest
bus stop. For 211 – will phone assistants have to use a map to see if it’s in
the catchment zone? Need to find out from 211.
•
Where are you going? Is it crossing jurisdiction lines? Need origin and
destination questions.
•
Are you a member of a special group? Includes veterans, cancer patients,
others?
•
Are you a member of a faith based organization? Which one?
•
Do you need a one-time or recurring trip? (Dialysis?)
Questions for 211
•
Can we ask income level as an eligibility question?
•
Can 211 provide an address lookup function? Or will customer service
agent be able to look at a map to determine if someone is within a certain
area (to be eligible to receive transportation from a certain provider)? How
will this work?
•
Does 211 provide information on turn downs? Can providers see this
information? Can there be a “provider portal” where they can see this kind
of data and make changes to their information?
•
What kind of information does 211 gather in their follow up? Do they ask:
Was the info useful? Did you get a ride? If not, why not? Was there an
affordability issue?
•
Similarly, what kind of monthly data can they feed back to providers? Are
there statistics on how many requests they receive? How many of these
requests were actionable? How many unfulfilled requests? Who were the
three or so transportation options that popped up for this individual?
•
Would it be possible to provide an optional survey at the end of a call to
gather information about callers and types of rides they need? Does 211
have Customer Satisfaction surveys?
Next Steps:
•
Question for the group: What do we do about data gaps on the
database? Can the providers contact 211 directly with changes? Do they
want to? Or should the Mobility Manager do all the update coordination?
•
What other questions do we need to ask the providers?
•
Need to have policies for personal attendees or companions
•
Need to work out permissions for each group
•
Need to put together a formal document, a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) for each organization and share these with 211
•
PORTCO does have a call center, which could be used as a possible later
step for a one-call/one-click center.
FLEXIBLE VOUCHERS
Workshop Attendees
Discussion
•
Mobility Manager: The MM collects funding from a sponsoring agency and
provides sponsors with scrip which has a dollar value. The MM develops the
vouchers, coordinates sponsorships, raise funds in support of the subsidies,
and manage the vendors and users. The MM would process subsidy payments
to transportation providers and also implement fraud controls, such as a
secure numbering system.
•
Providers: Brings scrip to Mobility Manger to receive money for providing
service to Customer. If additional money is needed for a trip, Providers can
collect directly from Customers.
•
Customers: Are provided scrip from the sponsoring agency which can be
used as cash to pay for a trip provided by a Provider. Depending on how much
a trip costs, customers can pay for whatever the scrip does not cover by paying
directly to a Provider. Alternately, a Customer can help pay for the cost of the
trip by paying the Sponsor. Is it more reasonable to ask the customer to pay
money upfront? The group decided that the sponsors should just give
customers the scrip and let them decide what transportation to use with it.
•
Sponsors: Agencies or organizations that provide funding to subsidize the
Customers trips (can include organization that has the MM). Sponsoring
agencies would have a say in the governing policies of the program, would set
their own eligibility standards, and would likely provide oversight through an
advisory committee structure. Agencies that could serve as either sponsoring
or participating agencies, or both, include: human service agencies, local
governments, Medicaid NEMT brokerages, hospitals, non-profit
organizations, employment centers, and aging services.
Uses for Vouchers
•
Volunteer drivers: Vouchers may encourage more volunteers to participate
in volunteer drivers.
•
Pete Farmer talked about having ticket books for transit provided to a
small number of people who need recurring transportation but cannot
afford to pay anything. Flex vouchers will work here because they are even
more flexible than ticket books and can be used on many types of
transportation.
•
Is it more reasonable to ask the customer to pay money upfront? The
group decided that the sponsors should just give customers the scrip and
let them decide what transportation to use with it.
Potential Sponsors/Partners/Vendors
•
All Sponsors: If an organization would be willing to spend a little money
for a local match, this money can be leveraged with federal dollars. Money
from customers can sometimes be used as match also, but cannot be
counted as local match and fare revenue.
•
Sponsor: City of Suffolk: Get all the agencies here today to come up with
$10k total and ask the City of Suffolk to match and leverage the $20k into
federal grant. The grant can say that at least half is going to go to Suffolk
residents. Sponsors get to choose who to give the flex vouchers to.
•
Sponsor: Camp foundations in Franklin and Southampton County
•
Sponsor: Healthcare foundations, such as the Virginia Healthcare
Foundation has funded volunteer driver programs in the past.
•
Sponsor: Suffolk DSS received money for a similar program in the past.
They received $10,000 which paid for 50 people providing trips to
Richmond and Norfolk mostly. Provider ran four times a week –
sometimes paid him for all day – which cost about $1000 a month.
Although it was considered a valuable service, no one complained when
the service was cut.
•
Sponsor: IOW Ruritans
•
Sponsor: Smithfield Co. foundations? Other foundations: Look through
the Foundation Center search function.
•
Vendor: Guardian Angel (Angela confirmed)
•
Vendor: Hampton Roads Transportation Taxicab Company would
probably be interested in being a provider. Contact: Frank Azzalina.
Questions/Concerns
•
Could the paratransit $ be used as match?
•
Problems with federal funds: funding needs to be sustainable. It helps to
have buy-in from a broad base of participants.
VOLUNTEER DRIVERS
Workshop Attendees
Discussion
1. Group insurance:
•
Goal: Can we drive down individual costs for volunteers by safety training?
Group insurance is the primary incentive to the funders and driver safety
training that is consistent across all drivers will results in reduced rates.
•
SSSEVA has Selective Inc. for the RSVP volunteers and CIMA insurance
which takes up where other insurance agency leaves off to cover volunteer
drivers driving their own vehicles. This costs pennies extra.
•
We need to find out more details about Catholic Charities’ insurance
program. How are they screening volunteers? Are drug tests standard for
volunteer drivers?
•
What does American Cancer Society do in terms of screening volunteers?
Criminal back ground checks? Probably aren’t doing drug and alcohol
testing.
•
Most of the programs that have current system with volunteers who have
been with them for a long time haven’t been brought up to the same
standards as newer programs. Is this a problem that needs to be
addressed?
•
There was a law passed in the Virginia General Assembly by Senator
Blevitz protect volunteer drivers.
2. Centralization/Coordination
•
Need to get the heads of each program together to discuss how they can
work together to improve each of their programs.
•
In some cases we don’t want to mess with a program if it is working well
for an organization. There may be a problem with providing backup
service because of overlap between organizations whose volunteers do not
want to provide rides to someone outside of that organization.
•
Coordination at this first stage should be a sharing ideas and gap mapping.
Also the group should coordinate so that recruitment isn’t overdone in
some areas.
3. Driver recruitment
•
There needs to be a system in place for rewarding repeat volunteers and
recruiting new drivers.
•
Start recruiting into areas that need it most. First need to see where there
are gaps in geography and types of populations.
•
There needs to be a network of recruiters in every community who are
actively looking for drivers in every community arena.
•
Could create a system of a finder’s fee for new volunteer driver recruits.
4. Training
•
Training may involve working with the AAA
•
See above Shared Support Resources for the training plan
5. Mileage reimbursement
•
Reimbursement should be in the form of driver’s mileage, because it’s
easier for drivers.
•
Insurance coverage is also an incentive (or not a disincentive). We should
also be giving out rewards/awards and recognition, and flex vouchers
could also be used.
Potential Organizations
•
Suffolk DSS has ten vehicles total - 8 sedans and 2 SUVs – but need
volunteer drivers to take clients to doctor’s appointments.
•
Endependence Center has one vehicle that is not used a lot, but one reason
that it’s not used is because of a lack of drivers. Volunteer drivers would be
very useful to have.
•
Catholic Charities has 160 volunteers, many of whom are based in VA
beach, have some in the Franklin and Southampton area. What is their
reimbursement amount?
•
Christian Outreach Program (COPS). Need to follow up with Peter Farmer
about his contacts. COPS takes people past the SSSEVA district. SSSEVA
usually refers to COP if they cannot take someone where they need to go.
•
SSSEVA offered to help to lead this group. SSSEVA’s RSVP
volunteer program operates in Isle of Wight and Southampton Counties.
RSVP was reduced in funding last year. They recruit volunteers for transit
and home delivery meals. They are trying to expand their service past
seniors driving other seniors; they want people of all ages to volunteer.
Recruitment is going on at the Ruritan meetings, churches, AARP meeting,
Senior Club meeting in Franklin. They are also planning to do training in
the Franklin Area with Kim and Janice – transportation professionals.
•
Neighbors Driving Neighbors program: Reverend Peggy Scott, Head of
Ministries in Franklin? Ask Cindy.
•
What are Lee’s friends? Ask Cindy.
Next Steps
•
Need to map each of the volunteer driver programs.
•
Need to investigate the successful volunteer programs, including
ambassador program, to determine what makes volunteers come back
again. We should not just look at transportation, but all volunteer
programs. We need to look at the Beverly Foundation in CA that gives
awards to programs and grants.
•
Need to do origin and destination research and share information between
organizations.
•
Need to create a Volunteer Driver Subcommittee in the RCC.
•
How can we involve the Paul D. Camp Community College? Statistic
project or political science project? Or we could take the project to the
schools districts and ask them to work with the raw data?
•
Take a look at the Anthem Blue Cross foundation Wellness plans, which
creates wellness incentives and has paid for itself.
•
Talk to each partner and give them the opportunity to define what they
want to do and how inclusive they want to be.
•
Mutually beneficial programs to recruit to retain and train, raise the bar,
mix and match with different drivers and then we talk about whether it
makes sense to expand any of these programs.
•
As the Beverly foundation about what insurance providers are good for
volunteer driver programs.
•
John thinks we are missing a bunch of churches who may provide
volunteer drivers, mostly informally. What are the catholic churches in
Suffolk? There is the Good Sheppard in Smithfield. What about Franklin?
Southampton?
•
Look into the grants that Obici gave to Meals on Wheels, which uses
volunteers.
•
Need historical data to see where people are going – especially for Dialysis
or other recurring treatments
•
Medtran through the Virginia Healthcare Foundation is no longer funded;
however it can be used as a model that would work in the area.
•
Peninsula Area on Agency is not within our study area, but they have 1520 regular volunteers who drive their own vehicles. This program is not
funded.
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
•
HRT gets 5307, but VRT and the City of Suffolk does not qualify for 5311.
•
VRT - 962 Route that goes to Portsmouth is being discontinued at the end
of June.
MARKETING AND INFORMATION
•
How do we get the word out about 2-1-1 and other programs?
•
Organizations: such as Ruritans, COPS, churches, community centers,
Suffolk Recreation Center, public library, Electric Coops, Salvation army,
•
Community Events: Isle of Wight Health fair & Education fair through
IOW, May fish fry – IOW
•
Advertise in the free Suffolk Herald
•
Public access TV channel
•
Cooperative Living – sends out a book
•
Women’s Clubs
NEXT STEPS FOR THE PROJECT
•
Within two weeks – Action Plan report goes to SSSEVA:
o Results from the full discussion yesterday – chapters with priorities
o List of attendees for each
•
In July, take steps to create RCC :
o Next steps for working groups
o Call for volunteers for the RCC
o Preliminary group comes together and decides who is missing and
who needs to recruit
•
In August: RCC meets for the first time
•
In September: Kick off meeting
•
How are we going to communicate with the group?
o Mission Statement
o MOU
o ByLaws
APPENDIX F
Sample Memorandum of Understanding and
Bylaws for Regional Coordinating Council
Regional Coordination
Council
Memorandum of Understanding
MISSION: To foster, organize and guide local and regional coordination efforts that directly or
indirectly improve the mobility of seniors, persons with disabilities and person with low income
for the benefit of the community.
WHEREAS the term “community transportation” is focused on any public transportation service
or human service agency transportation service or program, whether it be provided by a public
or private entity, that focuses on transportation for seniors, persons with disabilities, and
persons with low income;
WHEREAS there are several different community transportation services currently within
County;
WHEREAS there are significant unmet needs for individuals requiring community transportation
services within
County;
WHEREAS these unmet needs are anticipated to grow significantly due to demographic trends
in
County;
WHEREAS the coordination of community transportation information and services has been
shown to result in increased service through improved cost efficiency, elimination of duplication,
and access to additional funding; and
WHEREAS there is a need – and an opportunity – to create a balanced network of diverse
community transportation services and mobility options by coordinating community
transportation in
County,
BE IT KNOWN THAT
establishment and functioning of the
Transportation.
The
home of the
County Coordination Council for Community
Association of Governments, intends to initially serve as the administrative
County Regional Coordinating Council.
This Memorandum of Understanding documents this intent and the organizations’ commitment
to the primary mission of the Council.
To fulfill its mission, the primary roles of the Council are to:

transportation services within
County so that (1) seniors, persons with
disabilities and persons with low income can better access local and regional
transportation services and information; and (2) operators, funders and purchasers of
community transportation services can more effectively utilize and leverage funding in
order to expand services to address the growing needs of the community;

Help recruit, select, guide, assist, and monitor the efforts of a Mobility Manager who will
have the day-to-day responsibility for encouraging, planning, evaluating, and in some
cases, managing, the coordination of community transportation services and information
in the region;

Work together with other Regional Coordinating Councils that form in other regions of
the state to help promote coordination and develop solutions to inter-regional community

Provide feedback to governmental agencies and other organizations that fund/sponsor
community transportation relative to policies and practices that successfully foster and
that adversely affect the coordination of community transportation services and
information.
pledges to:

Either party many cancel this Memorandum of Understanding with 14 days written notice.
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Signature:
Date:
Representative (if different from above):
Alternate 1 (Name):
Alternate 2 (Name):
ACCEPTANCE BY:
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Signature:
Date:
Regional Coordination
Council
Bylaws
MISSION: To foster, organize and guide local and regional coordination efforts that directly or
indirectly improve the mobility of seniors, persons with disabilities and person with low income
for the benefit of the community.
Ar ti cl e I : Na me
The name of the Council shall be the
County Regional Mobility Coordination
Council (hereinafter called the Council). These bylaws shall provide the procedures for conduct
of business of the Council.
Ar ti cl e I I : Pur p ose

transportation services and information within the region so that (1) seniors, persons with
disabilities, and persons with low income can better access local and regional
transportation services; and (2) operators, funders and purchasers of community
transportation services can more effectively utilize and leverage funding in order to
expand services to address unmet needs;

Help guide, assist, and monitor the efforts of a Regional Mobility Manager who will have
the day-to-day responsibility for encouraging, planning, evaluating, and in some cases,
implementing and managing, coordinated efforts, services and information in the region;

Work together with other Regional Coordinating Councils from other regions of the state
to help promote coordination and develop solutions to inter-regional community

Provide feedback to governmental agencies and other organizations that fund/sponsor
community transportation relative to policies and practices that successfully foster and
that adversely affect the coordination of community transportation services and
information.
Ar ti cl e I I I : M ember shi p of t he C ou nci l
The Council shall be composed of organizational and citizen members as follows:

Organizational members – Any of the following organizations are automatically a
member of the Council upon formal adoption of the Council's Memorandum of
Understanding by that governmental unit or organization, and formal acceptance by the
Council:
–
Any public, private non-profit, or for-profit organization based within or near the
region and that currently funds, arranges or provides community transportation
services to, from or within the region;
–
Any local or regional public transportation provider or state/regional/county/municipal
agency involved in the planning or provision of public/passenger transportation in the
region;
–
Organizations representing groups of consumers and constituents that would be
positively affected by such mobility and access improvements in the region.

Citizen members – Citizen members must be residents of the region and take an active
interest in improving mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities, and/or persons with
low income within the region. There shall be at least 1 citizen member on the Council.
The maximum number of citizen members on the Council shall equate to no more than
10% of the total organizational members. The term of each citizen member shall be two
years. Citizen members may serve multiple terms, but must submit an application at the
end of each term.
Applications to be a citizen member must be submitted to the
Secretary no later than the Council's regular
meeting. Appointed by the Chair,
the Membership Committee will review the applications and recommend the appropriate
number of citizen members, to be voted upon by the council at the Council's regular
meeting. Citizen members have voting rights but do not have the right to
designate an alternate.
member’s vote can be cast by his/her representative or alternate representative.
Citizen
members must be present at meetings to vote; proxy votes for citizen members will not be
permitted.
and (2) must participate in some facet of the Council's work program. The Chair may determine
if a missed meeting is excused; an excused miss shall not count as non-attendance.
the Council, the amount to be determined annually. Membership dues for any citizen member
may be waived per the vote of the Council.
Ar ti cl e I V : Offi cer s of the Counci l



Chair
Vice Chair
Treasurer

Secretary
meeting.
regular
meeting.
The Chair or Vice Chair shall have such other powers and perform such other duties as may
from time to time be voted by the Council, including the establishment of committees and
appointment of committee members as may be necessary or convenient for carrying out the
business of the Council.
Chair, Vice Chair, and Treasurer must be members in good standing. It is not required that the
Secretary be a member of the Council.
IV.4 Vacancies
meeting.
Members, by 2/3 vote of members present, may remove an officer.
An officer under
session. The officer under consideration for removal may be given a 30-day period to correct
any deficiencies before the vote is taken.
Ar ti cl e V : M eeti ngs of t he C ou n ci l
The Council shall meet monthly on
from
to
or on another date
them.
agenda, proposed resolutions on substantive matters, and the substance of any matter
proposed to be voted on.
V.5 Quorum
Fifty (50%) of the membership constitutes a quorum.
Chair.
these opportunities shall occur in the agenda. Each public comment shall be limited to 3
minutes. This limit may be extended at the discretion of the Chair.
Ar ti cl e VI : V oti ng
No vote on a substantive matter shall be taken unless the issue to be voted on has been listed
in the proposed agenda, and timely notice (see Article V.4) has been given to all members.
Election of Officers and Citizen Members are considered to be substantive issues.
Dues
payments or financial commitments of Council members are also considered substantive
issues. A quorum must exist before any formal vote is taken (see Article V.5).
Each member is afforded one vote on any decision put to a vote and must be present to vote.
In the absence of a voting organizational member representative, a designated alternative may
cast the vote if present at the meeting. Otherwise, no proxy voting is permitted.
present to pass. The exceptions which require a 2/3 vote of all members present to pass
include changes or amendments to these by-laws (see Article VIII) and officer removals (see
Article IV.4).
Ar ti cl e VI I : C o mmi ttees of t he Co unci l
necessary or convenient for carrying out the business of the Council. Standing committees will
be chaired by members of the Council but can include non-Council members.
Standing
committees may include:

Advocacy Committee

Consumer Liaison Committee

Executive Committee

Finance Committee

Land Use/Transportation Planning Committee

Marketing/Public Information Committee


Projects Committee

Regulatory/Policy Committee
Local Coordinating Councils that form within the region will also be represented as a committee
of the council.
Additional standing committees can be established if deemed necessary or convenient to
conduct the business of the Council. These committees cane be established upon the
affirmative vote of the majority of the Council members present at a regular or special meeting.
Ar ti cl e VI I I : Am end men ts
Ar ti cl e I X : Eff e cti ve Dat e
APPENDIX G
Transportation Provider Survey
SSSEVA Provider Survey
Instructions to Survey Respondent
Senior Services of Southeastern Virginia is leading a study to enhance human service transportation
coordination efforts in the Western Tidewater region, which includes Suffolk, Southampton County, Isle
of Wight County, and Franklin City. The study will result in strategies to build on partnerships between
various agencies and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing transportation services.
As part of this planning process, the study team would like to create an inventory of community
transportation services available in the region. Your assistance in this matter is paramount. Please
complete the following survey to the best of your ability.
If you have any questions, please contact Ellen Oettinger at [email protected] or (212)
242-2490.
Page 1
Organization Characteristics and Services Provided
1. Identification of Organization
Your Name
Title
Organization
Street Address
City
County
Telephone
E-mail
Website
2. Please check the box that best describes
your organization. (Please choose one of the following options.)
j Publicly Sponsored Transit Agency
l
m
j Local/Town Office on Aging
l
m
j Social Service Agency - Public
l
m
j Nonprofit Senior Center
l
m
j Social Service Agency - Nonprofit
l
m
j Assisted Living
l
m
j Medical Center/Health Clinic
l
m
j Shelter or Transitional Housing
l
m
j Faith-Based Organization
l
m
j Nursing Home
l
m
j For-profit chair car carrier
l
m
j Taxi Operator
l
m
j Not-for-profit carrier
l
m
j Volunteer Driver Organization
l
m
j Veterans Organization
l
m
j Other (please specify)
l
m
3. What are the major functions/services of your organization? (Select all of the following
e
f
c Transportation
e
f
c Residential Facilities
e
f
c Health Care
e
f
c Recreation/Social
e
f
c Social Services
e
f
c Home Health Care
e
f
c Day Treatment
e
f
c Housing
e
f
c Job Training/Job Placement
e
f
c Information/Referral
options that apply.)
e
f
c Employment
e
f
c Other (please specify)
Page 2
4. What geographic area does your organization serve?
Page 3
5. How does your agency ensure your clients/consumers have transportation?
e
f
c We operate a van, shuttle or bus for members of the public.
e
f
c We operate a van, shuttle or bus for use by our clients and consumers.
e
f
c Our staff will drive clients to appointments/services using their own or agency vehicles.
e
f
c We purchase tickets, passes, or rides for our clients from a transportation provider (such as the local transit operator or taxi company).
e
f
c We reimburse clients, family members or volunteers for transportation expenses.
e
f
c We make arrangements for client transportation by calling and scheduling trips with a transportation service (such as the local transit
operator or taxi company) for them.
e
f
c We provide information or referrals to other transportation services.
e
f
c We coordinate a pool of volunteer drivers to take individuals to appointments or for other purposes. (If yes, please answer question 6
below.)
e
f
c Other (please specify)
6. If you coordinate a pool of volunteer drivers to take individuals to appointments or for
other purposes, how many volunteer drivers do you have?
5
6
7. What are the eligibility requirements to qualify for your organization's transportation
service (i.e., requirements associated with age, ability, income level)?
5
6
Page 4
8. If your organization operates a vehicle for clients, what are the hours on each day of the
week that transportation service is available? (e.g. from 8:00am to 6:00pm)
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
24-hours, 7 days per week
Page 5
9. How many rides and how many people are served by your agency's transportation
service? Please provide statistics for the most recently completed 12-month period
possible.
("Unduplicated rider" refers to the number of unique individuals who used transportation
services during the reporting period. "Passenger trips completed" refers to the total
number of one-way, completed passenger trips provided by your organization.)
Total number of unduplicated riders who
used your transportation services
Total number of passenger trips completed
Total number of passenger trips completed
by individuals using a wheelchair
Time period for the counts provided above
(Ex: July 2008-June 2009)
10. For the same period reported, approximately how much money did your agency spend
providing transportation? Include, if possible, amount paid to another organization or
private company for transportation, staff time, fuel, maintenance, insurance, dispatching,
scheduling, reporting, etc.
Total Expenditures
Administrative Expenditures
Capital Expenditures
11. Approximately how many staff members spend most of their time working on
transportation issues for your organization?
5
6
12. Does your organization have a call center? If so, how many employees staff the call
center?
5
6
Page 6
13. Does your organization charge a fare or fee for transportation services it provides?
j No
l
m
j Yes. How much?
l
m
14. Does your organization accept any donations to offset the cost of providing
transportation services?
j No
l
m
j Yes. What is the suggested donation amount?
l
m
Page 7
15. What are the sources of your transportationoperating revenues?
e
f
c Fares or co-pays collected directly from the passenger (cash or tickets)
e
f
c Revenues collected from cash or tickets purchased by third parties on behalf of passengers
e
f
c Revenues collected through contracts for services purchased from third parties
e
f
c Local (county/city/town) government funds
e
f
c State government funds
e
f
c Title III (Older Americans Act)
e
f
c Medicaid
e
f
c Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
e
f
c Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) or Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)
e
f
c Veteran's Administration or Local Veteran's group
e
f
c Vocational Rehabilitation
e
f
c Agency/organization fundraising programs
e
f
c Contributions from independent charitable foundations
e
f
c Other Federal funding source (please answer in question 16 below).
e
f
c Other, not listed above (please list).
16. If you listed "Other Federal funding source" as a source of your transportation
operating revenues in Question 15 above, please list the Federal funding sources below.
5
6
Page 8
17. If you provide transportation, please provide the following information regarding your
agency's vehicle fleet used in the provision of transportation services provided directly by
your agency.
Please list total number of vehicles, then the number that are wheelchair-accessible in
parentheses.
Sedans
Station wagons
Minivans
Standard 15-passenger vans
Converted 15-passenger vans (e.g., raised roof,
wheelchair lift)
Light-duty bus (body-on-chassis type construction seating
between 16-24 passengers)
Medium duty bus (body-on-chassis type construction
seating over 22 passengers with dual rear wheel axle)
Medium or heavy duty transit bus
Other Wheelchair Van
Cargo Van
Other Misc.
Other (please describe)
Page 9
-----------------------------------
18.What do you see,or what would you like to see,in the future of human service agency
transportation in the Western Tidewater region?
Page 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thank you for your time!
C'
If you would like to speak to a study representative to discuss this survey or the study in general, please check the box and someone will
contact you at the number you provided.
Page 11
APPENDIX H
Outgoing Call Protocols
Outgoing Call Protocols
Guidelines for contacting callers
1. There are two types of contacts made by 2-1-1 VIRGINIA Community Resource Specialists (CRS)
to callers. One is a Quality Assurance Call made to gather information on the quality of service
provided by 2-1-1 VIRGINIA. The other is a Follow-up Call to ensure a caller received the services
through referrals provided by a 2-1-1 VIRGINIA.
2. Both types of caller contacts require entering the caller’s name, telephone number and permission to
call back during the initial call. A CRS should request this information on all referral,
advocacy/intervention and crisis/emergency calls and enter it into the contact record.
3. In the event that a call back would endanger the caller, do not schedule a follow-up call and mark the
Do not call for QA box.
Quality Assurance Calls
Fifteen percent of all eligible referral calls are randomly pulled by GetCare for Quality Assurance.
Eligible calls are those where a referral was given, include a name and phone number, and are not slated
by a CRS for follow-up.
Quality Assurance calls are assigned a Center that did not take the call. Every 2-1-1 VIRGINIA CRS is
responsible for making Quality Assurance calls.
Protocol for Quality Assurance Calls
1.
“This is (first name). I am calling from 2-1-1 VIRGINIA. May I speak with (name of caller)?”
2. If you get a voice mail, do not leave a message.
3. If the person is not there, say "Thank you" and hang up. Do not reveal any information regarding the
inquirer’s contact with you. Document the date, time and result of non-contact.
4. If you speak to the caller, explain why you are calling. Ask "Do you remember talking with 2-1-1?"
If no, thank the customer, indicate the response in Notes and close the call.
5. If they do remember the call, explain why you are calling: “To improve our level of service, may I
ask you a few questions about your call to 2-1-1 VIRGINIA?” If the answer is no, close the call. If
the answer is yes, go to the Quality Assurance Questions.
Quality Assurance Calls: Measuring 2-1-1 VIRGINIA’s effectiveness
These are the CRS questions that will display for the 2-1-1 VIRGINIA Quality Assurance Calls:
1. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not at all helpful and 10 being very helpful, how helpful was the
information you received from 2-1-1 VIRGINIA?
2. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being little to no knowledge and 10 being extremely knowledgeable,
how would you rate the knowledge level of the call specialist who assisted you?
3. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied
overall were you with the service you received from 2-1-1 VIRGINIA?
4. Would you use 2-1-1 VIRGINIA again?
5. Would you recommend 2-1-1 VIRGINIA to other?
6. On the call you made to 2-1-1 VIRGINIA, you were given referrals to agencies that could provide
assistance in the area (name of need area). Did you contact any of the agencies to which you were
referred?
Quality Assurance Calls: Measuring the quality of referrals
If the caller answers “No” to the number six, ask why they did not contact any agencies, put notes in the
notes section and close the call. If the caller answers “No” and requests additional assistance, start a
new referral call in the Contact Record.
If the caller answers “Yes, I did contact referrals”, then continue through the list of referrals to
determine whether the need was met, not met or in progress.
Protocol for CRS to determine whether needs were met by referrals
Ask: “Were you able to get assistance in the area of (name of need)?” Choose answer (Met, Unmet, In
progress) in I &R log.
If the need was not met, click on “show referrals” link in I & R log. Ask “Which agency did you call?”
Ask “Why was (name of agency) unable to meet your need?” Choose the best answer from the drop
down menu beside that referral. Continue this process for all agencies the caller contacted.
If referrals were given for more than one need, the same procedure should be followed for each.
Attempts to call for Quality Assurance
Enter each attempt to contact the caller. After three unsuccessful attempts, close the record.
If you reach a caller who would not answer questions, close the call as unsuccessful. Ask: “Is there
anything else I might help you with today?”
If the caller needs additional referrals, start a new call record for the individual with the “Start new call”
link.
If the caller does not need additional referrals, state to the caller: “Thank you for your willingness to
help us improve 2-1-1 VIRGINIA.”
Follow-up Calls
Every 2-1-1 VIRGINIA Community Resource Specialist is responsible for entering and making Followup Calls. Follow-up calls are scheduled and made by a CRS to clarify if the caller received services.
Types of calls that require follow-up:
•
All endangerment situations (dangerous to themselves or others, classified as Contact Type
Crisis/ Emergency). If the caller was connected or referred to crisis line, call the crisis line to
check on the status of the caller within 24 hours. If the call was not transferred to a crisis
hotline, follow-up with the caller within 24 hours. In the event that a call back would endanger
the caller, do not schedule a follow-up.
•
Where the specialist has reason to believe the inquirer lacks the capacity to follow through and
resolve their problems
•
All inquiries with the Contact Type Advocacy/Intervention
•
All MFP calls must receive a follow-up within 24 hours.
Scheduling Follow-up Calls
Centers should make all follow-up calls within one week of the date that a call was received. Centers
may establish shorter deadlines if deemed more useful.
Attempts to Follow-up
Once a call has been selected for follow-up, the Community Resource Specialist will attempt to reach
that caller three times on different days and/or times. Each unsuccessful attempt to shall be recorded in
the follow-up the notes field. When a third unsuccessful attempt has been made to contact a caller
selected for follow-up, mark as unsuccessful and close.
Basic Protocol for Follow-up Calls
Initial Call Record
1.
During the initial call, ask the caller for permission to follow-up. To be eligible for follow-up, the
inquirer must provide their name and phone number. Document this information and check the
“Schedule follow-up?” box. Schedule the follow-up in “Proposed date”.
2.
Calls may be made by the CRS who took the initial call or assigned to a different CRS within that
Center.
Follow-up protocol
If there is no answer, record the result of non-contact. Do not leave a voicemail message. Add a
detailed note on your attempt to contact the caller. After three unsuccessful attempts to reach the caller,
close the call as unsuccessful.
If someone answers, introduce yourself: “I am calling from 2-1-1 VIRGINIA. May I speak with (name
of caller)?” If the person is not there, say "Thank you" and hang up. DO NOT reveal any information
regarding the inquirer’s contact with you. Document the date and result of non-contact. Add a note on
your attempt to contact the caller. After three unsuccessful attempts to reach the caller, close the call.
When you are speaking with the inquirer directly, identify yourself and say that you are with 2-1-1
VIRGINIA. Document the date and result of contact. Explain the purpose of your call. Remind the
consumer why he/she contacted 2-1-1 VIRGINIA and the referrals that were given.
Example: “Mrs. Smith, this is (your name) with 2-1-1 VIRGINIA. You called us last week
regarding financial assistance for your light bill. You were referred to SACRA and the Salvation
Army. In order to improve the service we provide, may we ask you a few questions about your
experience?”
Follow-up Calls: Measuring whether needs were met
If the caller answers “Yes, I did contact referrals,” ask: “Were you able to get assistance in the area of
(name of need)?” Choose answer (Met, Unmet, In progress).
If the need was not met, ask “Which agency did you call?” Ask “Why was (name of agency) unable to
meet your need?” Record the needs were not met by each agency they contacted.
If referrals were given for more than one need, the same procedure should be followed for each.
Closing the Call
Ask: “Is there anything else I can help you with today?” If additional referrals are requested, search for
the needed resources through the link in the follow-up call.
To close the call, state: “Thank you for your time. If we can help you find answers again, please dial 21-1.”
Additional Advocacy Requirement for Follow-up Calls
As a result of follow-up, it may be necessary to call an agency to which a referral was made and
advocate for the inquirer. Ask permission from the called party and document this permission in the
follow-up record notes field before contacting another organization on her/his behalf.
Changes to Follow-up Policies and Procedures:
Centers may each adopt additional requirements as long as they do not contradict these policies.
APPENDIX I
Examples of Marketing Materials
WHERE CAN I GET
MORE INFORMATION?
WHO AND WHAT ARE
PARTNERSHIPS?
The CountyRide Information
Booklet will answer further
questions. This will be supplied
after registration, or you can call
our reservation line with specific
questions at 410-887-2080.
CountyRide has a new web page;
the address is:
www.baltimorecountymd.gov and
then search for “CountyRide”, or
e-mail us at:
Baltimore County is proud to acknowledge
the following hospitals for participation in the
CountyRide Public/Private Partnership
Program. These hospitals are financially
assisting in the transportation of the elderly,
disabled and rural residents of Baltimore
County, to their medical facilities. Their
participation in the partnership program helps
to support the continuation of this critical
service. Only the names acknowledged
below are participants in this program. If you
do not see your hospital mentioned it is not a
current participant.
[email protected]
In Baltimore City WHAT ABOUT
CANCELING A RIDE?
You are asked to cancel a ride 24
hours in advance. If this is not
possible please leave a message on
our answering machine the morning
of the ride. Cancellations received
with insufficient notice may result in
a late cancel warning. Frequent
abuse of the cancellation policy may
result in possible suspension. We
do realize that there may be
extenuating circumstances, therefore
suspensions are reviewed on an
individual basis.
**If you have difficulty, reaching CountyRide in
an emergency situation, call Senior Information
& Assistance at 410-887-2594.
·Good Samaritan Hospital
·Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center
·Johns Hopkins Hospital
·James Lawrence Kernan Hospital
·Maryland General Hospital
·Mercy Medical Center
·St. Agnes Health Care
·Sinai Hospital of Baltimore
·Union Memorial Hospital
·University of Maryland Medical System
Serving Baltmore County:
Senior Citizens ages 60 & over
Disabled persons ages 21 to 59
and Rural Residents of all ages
410-887-2080
M-F
8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
410-887-4565
Cancellations Only, 24 hours a day
TTY: 410-769-8439
Fax: 410-887-8281
In Baltimore County -
·Franklin Square Hospital Center
·Greater Baltimore Medical Center
·Northwest Hospital
·Saint Joseph Medical Center
Baltimore County
Department of Aging
CountyRide
611 Central Avenue
Towson, MD 21204
This information is available in
alternate formats
CountyRide is an equal opportunity service provider
HOW DO I GET A RIDE?
HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
You must be a Baltimore County resident,
and be registered to ride. You can obtain
a registration form by calling CountyRide
at (410-887-2080), or by stopping at any
of the Baltimore County Senior Centers.
Complete the registration form, and mail it
to CountyRide, or fax it to 410-887-8281.
It will take approximately two weeks to
process your application, then you may
arrange for transportation.
This depends on various circumstances.
If you pay with cash the following
applies to you:
County Residents, disabled, rural residents, or persons over the age of 60Cash One-way trip within Baltimore County $ 3.00
Cash Round Trip within Baltimore County
$ 6.00
Cash One-way to a Baltimore City Hospital $ 6.00
Cash Round Trip to a Baltimore City Hospital $ 12.00
Rural Residents, under the age of 60, and not
disabledPlease see fair structure above.
WHAT INFORMATION DO I
NEED BEFORE I CALL?
Please see CountyRide General
Information booklet, or CountyRide Trip
Information Form.
WHAT OTHER PROGRAMS
DOES COUNTYRIDE HAVE?
TAXI 2
Priority One
Priority Two
CountyRide Shopping Shuttle
Priority 2
Volunteer Driver Program
WHEN DO I PAY FOR THE
RIDE?
Full payment for all rides, round trip or
one-way, is due as you step on the van
for the first ride of the day (no
exceptions). Exact change only. You
may pay with cash, check or tickets.
If you purchase tickets the fare is cheaperCounty Residents, disabled, rural residents, or persons over the age of 60-Tickets One-way within
Baltimore County
1 ticket = $ 2.50
Tickets Round Trip within Baltimore County
2 tickets = $ 5.00
Tickets One-way to a Baltimore City Hospital
2 tickets = $ 5.00
Tickets Round Trip to a Baltimore City Hospital
4 tickets = $10.00
Rural Residents, under the age of 60, and not
disabledPlease see fair structure above.
One book of 6 tickets
= $15.00
WEATHER POLICY
Radio –WBAL 1090 AM, WLIF 102 FM,
WPOC 93.1 FM
TV WBAL Channel 11, WMAR Channel
12, WJZ Channel 13.
There are several types of announcements
made regarding late openings or closings.
Please listen carefully.
WHEN CAN I CALL TO
SCHEDULE A RIDE FOR
MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS?
You can schedule your ride in advance
(anywhere from 1 – 14 days before your
appointment), or the same day of your
appointment, during hours of operation.
Calling days in advance to schedule, helps
to assure that you will get a ride (the more
notice the better your chances).
WHEN CAN I CALL FOR OTHER
TYPES OF APPOINTMENTS (I.E.
SHOPPING, BANK, OR
LIBRARY)?
You can schedule your ride in advance
(anywhere from 1 - 7 days before your
appointment/trip), or the same day of
your appointment/trip, during hours of
operation. Calling days in advance to
schedule, helps to assure that you will
get a ride (the more notice the better
your chances).
WHERE CAN I GET
TICKETS?
CountyRide tickets can be purchased at
the CountyRide office, either by mail or
in person. You can also purchase
tickets at any of the local senior centers
in Baltimore County.
**CountyRide will help you reach MTA
light rail or the closest bus route.
*Changes may occur after publication, confirm information accuracy when necessary.
Baltimore County
CountyRide
Volunteer Driver
Program
Department of Aging
COUNTYRIDE
CountyRide has a program sponsored by the
State of Maryland and
VOLUNTEER DRIVER
Baltimore County that
PROGRAM
supports the elderly in
their activities of daily
living by supplying
transportation for medical and social needs.
This program is in addi-
CountyRide
611 Central Ave
Towson MD 21204
410-887-2080
tion to the service pro-
TTY: 410-769-8439
vided by CountyRide
(Fax) 410-887-8281
and is coordinated along
Hours of Operation
with CountyRide delivery of transportation to
Monday—Friday 8:00am—4:00 pm
the elderly living in Bal-
24 Hour Cancellation line: 410-887-4565
timore County.
Email: [email protected]
Web: baltimorecountymd.gov
Serving Senior Citizens age 60 and
over
CountyRide Volunteer
Driver Program
If you are a new client registering for CountyRide
transportation and wish to
How This Option
Works For You
By choosing a Volunteer
Driver it enables you to ob-
have a volunteer transport
tain transportation when
you in their personal vehi-
CountyRide cannot provide it
cle, check the box titled
during the week. The cost is
“Volunteer Driver” on the
the same but instead of a
front of the registration
CountyRide vehicle coming to
form . If you are already
transport you, a volunteer
registered with
check and their skills veri-
will arrive in their personal
CountyRide
fied. They will transport
vehicle, which has been in-
you while they are in con-
spected for safety by Coun-
tact with the CountyRide
tyRide, and assist you. The
dispatcher by radio and
volunteer driver will arrive in
the cost is exactly the
uniform and has received the
same as a trip on Coun-
same training as a profes-
tyRide’s buses.
you may call
the office during business
hours stated
on the back of this brochure
and tell the intake specialist
to enroll you in the pro-
sional driver and has had a
gram.
background check, license
A Resource Guide to Transit Services for Older Adults
Living in the Metropolitan Denver Area
Printed courtesy of DRMAC, the Denver Regional Mobility & Access Council, a Project of the Colorado Nonprofit Development Center
1128 Grant Street, Denver, CO 80203 • phone- 303.861.3711 • fax- 303.861.3717 • email- [email protected]
Fixed Route Runs on regular schedule and route. Most frequent and least expensive service. Available to all riders.
Updated September, 2008
Art Shuttle
Englewood
Service
Available For
General Public
Free
Wheelchair
Accessible
Yes
M-F 6:30am - 6:30pm
303-762-2342 www.englewoodgov.org
Clean Air Transit Company
(CATCO)
Front Range Express
(FREX)
Castle Rock
General Public
Free
Yes
M-Sat 7:15am - 6pm
303-814-6407 www.crgov.com
Colorado Springs, Denver,
Monument, Castle Rock
General Public
$4-$9 one-way. Senior and
disabled fare from 10 am 3 pm; 50% of posted fare.
Yes
M-F 3:45am - 9:50pm
719-636-FREX (3739) www.FrontRangeExpress.com
1-877-425-3739
Regional Transportation
District (RTD)
Denver Metro Area
General Public
$1.75-$4 one-way.
Yes
7 days/week
Times vary by service and day.
303-299-6000 main 303-299-6089 TDD (hearing impaired) www.rtd-denver.com
For seniors and individuals with disabilities, a Special Discount Card may be obtained
by calling 303-299-2667.
Shopping Cart - Littleton
Littleton
55+, Disabled
Donation
No - Call Omnibus/ M-Sat 10am - 2pm
M-F 3pm - 5pm
Littleton below.
Transit Provider
Demand Response
From/To
Cost*
Hours of Service
More Information
303-795-3700 www.littletongov.org
Must reside in the City of Littleton.
Must schedule ride. Rider must often be pre-certified (for ADA certifications contact RTD at 303-299-2960). Restrictions may apply. Fares often subsidized.
Transit Provider
From/To
Service
Available For
60+, Disabled
Donation
Wheelchair
Accessible
Yes
Cost*
Hours of Service
M-F 6am - 6pm
Some weekend service.
Advance Times to
Schedule Rides
More Information
303-235-6972 www.srcaging.org
Weekend service for dialysis appointments only.
Adams County residents only.
303-464-5534 www.broomfield.org/senior
Must be a resident of Broomfield. Shopping routes available.
Call for schedule. Medical trip outside Broomfield M-W.
720-540-5566. Must live in Denver or Arapahoe counties.
Must call to register prior to trip. Trips are for medical,
nutritional and local priority needs only.
2-3 business days, 10 days 303-987-4826 www.lakewood.org
for medical appointments. Lakewood residents only. Must register first.
A-LIFT
Adams County; serves
the Denver Metro Area
Broomfield Easy Ride
Broomfield
60+, Disabled
Varies, $1-6 round-trip.
Yes
M-F 8am - 2pm
First Ride
Arapahoe and Denver Counties
60+
Suggested Contribution $3
each way.
Yes
M-F 9am - 4pm
Lakewood Rides
Lakewood
60+, Disabled
Yes
M-F 7am - 5pm
Medicaid eligible
Yes
24/7 service.
3 business days.
Scheduling - 1-800-284-5150. Trips are to nearest provider.
Omnibus/Littleton
Douglas, Larimer, Boulder,
Broomfield, Arapahoe, Jefferson,
Denver and Adams Counties
Littleton
Varies, up to $3 one-way
within Lakewood.
Free - Need a valid Medicaid
ID number.
55+, Disabled
Donation
Yes
M-F 8am - 4pm
2 business days.
RTD access-a-Cab
Denver Metro Area
ADA certified
only
Yellow Cab only.
24/7 service.
6am - 9pm scheduling.
Same day.
RTD access-a-Ride
Denver Metro Area
Yes
21 Metro Service Areas
$1.75; $.85 for seniors.
Yes
Corresponds to fixed-route
hours.
Varies by area.
1 - 3 business days.
RTD call-n-Ride
ADA certified
only
General Public
Customer pays $2 up front,
RTD pays next $12.
Customer pays fare over $14.
2 x RTD's fixed-route fare.
303-795-3700 www.littletongov.org
Must reside in the City of Littleton.
Scheduling - 303-244-1388 www.rtd-denver.com
Seniors' Resource Center
Jefferson County to Denver
Metro Area
60+
Donation
Yes
M-F 8am - 4:30pm
Limited weekend service.
Special Transit
Boulder County, Brighton, Rural
Adams County and Estes Valley
60+, Disabled, low
income
$1.25 - $2 one-way local;
$4 one-way inter-city.
Yes
M-F 7:30am - 5:30pm Days and
times may vary in smaller
communities. Limited weekend
service in Boulder & Longmont.
LogistiCare
*Fares Subject to Change
2-3 business days exceptions made if space
available.
1 business day for travel in
Broomfield, 2 business days
for doctor’s appointments.
3 business days.
Minimum of 1 hour in
advance.
1 - 14 business days –
exceptions made if space
available.
1-14 business days, Can
request a same day ride.
Scheduling - 303-299-6560 www.rtd-denver.com
Must be ADA certified.
303-299-6000 www.rtd-denver.com
Trips are within service areas only.
Scheduling - 303-235-6972 www.srcaging.org
Weekend service for dialysis appointments only.
303-447-9636 www.specialtransit.org
Visit www.gettingthereguide.com for latest updates.
Medical Service Providers
Transportation generally provided to individual medical and other essential appointments only. Hours and location of service limited.
Transit Provider
From/To
Denver Metro Area
American Red Cross
Adams, Arapahoe, Denver,
Douglas, Jefferson Counties
Denver Metro Area
Midtown Express
Other Providers
Service
Available For
Cancer treatment
Free
Medical trips
$15 one-way.
Serves mainly
seniors
Varies
Cost*
Wheelchair
Accessible
No
Yes, lightweight
chairs only.
Yes
M-F 9am - 3pm
Advance Times to
Schedule Rides
2 business days.
M-F 10am - 2pm
4 business days.
M-Sat 5am - 5pm
On-Call,
prefer 2 business days.
Hours of Service
More Information
1-866-500-3272 www.cancer.org
Volunteer program.
303-607-4764
303-722-7474 Must register. Volunteer program.
303-282-8085 [email protected]
Provides free medical transportation for those with
medical and home care management.
Transportation provided to support individual agency program. Hours and location of service limited.
Transit Provider
From/To
Wheelchair
Accessible
Service
Available For
60+, Disabled
Donation
No
M-Th 8am - 4pm
Advance Time to
Schedule Rides
ASAP, First come first served.
Cost*
Hours of Service
Seniors! Inc.
Denver Metro Area
Castle Rock Senior Center
Castle Rock, Central Douglas
County
50+, Disabled
Donation
Yes
M-F 8:30am - 4pm
1 week.
Community Ride
Chaffee Park, Elyria,
Globeville, Swansea
$1.00 round-trip
Yes
M-Th 9am - 5pm
Neighbor Network
Douglas County
General Public
Groups of 5
or more
Douglas County
residents, 60+
Must pay one time membership No
fee of $35 (no per-ride cost).
Varies
Home pickup available for
ages 60+ and the disabled.
First come first served.
At least 7 business days.
RTD - Saturday Shopper
Denver Metro Area
Saturdays
Entertainment events in the Denver
Metro Area
65+ $1.75 round-trip;
under 65 $3.50.
RTD local and regional
fares apply; 65+ half price.
Yes
RTD - Senior Ride
Serves mainly
seniors
Serves mainly
seniors
Yes
Varies
Monday prior to Saturday
shopping day.
Call RTD for details.
More Information
303-300-6906 www.seniorsinc.org
Food and medical trips only. Volunteer program.
303-688-9498 www.castlerockseniorcenter.org
Serves members and non-members. Will transport to
the center and to medical appointments.
303-292-3203, Leave message. www.rtd-denver.com
303-660-7519 Douglas County Residents only.
Volunteer program.
303-299-6503 www.rtd-denver.com Picks up at
senior housing complexes and senior community centers.
303-299-6503 www.rtd-denver.com RTD publishes
a quarterly calendar of events, must register with groups
of 10 or more.
For-Hire For-Hire transit services provided by passenger carriers. Fares and service schedules on file and subject to Public Utility Commission approval. Transportation open to the general public.
Mobile Access
Denver Metro Area
Service
A
vailable For
General Public
and Medicaid
55+, Disabled
Mobility Transportation
Services
Taxicabs
Freedom Cab
Metro Taxi
Shamrock Yellow Cab
Yellow Cab
Statewide
General Public
Charge by mile.
Yes
M-F 6am - 5pm
Limited weekends.
24/7
Denver Metro Area
Denver Metro Area
Longmont Area
Denver Metro Area
General Public
General Public
General Public
General Public
Meter
Meter
Meter
Meter
No
No
No
Yes
24/7
24/7
24/7
24/7
On-Call
On-Call
On-Call
On-Call
Zone Cab
Denver Metro Area
General Public
Meter
No
24/7
On-Call
Transit Provider
Dialed-In Sedan
From/To
Denver Metro Area
Cost*
Charge by mile.
Wheelchair
Accessible
Yes
$30-$60
Yes
Advance Time to
Hours of Service
303-745-2114
M-Sat 5am - 6pm
Schedule Rides
24 hrs
On-Call; Also take standing
appointments.
On-Call
303-274-9895 www.mobileaccess.com
303-444-4444
303-333-3333
303-772-5222
303-777-7777
Call 2 hours in advance for wheelchair accessible vehicle.
303-444-8886
*Fares Subject to Change
ADA Certification: To determine your eligibility for services provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act, contact RTD.
The certification process includes an evaluation interview and may require a physician's verification.
More Information
303-295-3900
Visit www.gettingthereguide.com for latest updates.
There is no application fee. Call RTD at (303) 299-2960 to schedule a certification appointment.
How to use
CONTACS
Dial 602-263-8900
or toll free 1-800-799-7739
The operator will provide current
information about available
emergency and transisitional beds
available in Maricopa County.
Como usar el
programa CONTACS
Llama
602-263-8900.
Llamada sin costa
el condado de Maricopa
1-800-799-7739. Un operador
le asistira proporcionandole
information actualizada sabre
haspeda je de emergencia y
transicional disponible
en el condado de Maricopa.
ra
_..ar.orJ
Community
Information
Referral
&
Keep this cardhandv
if vou have questions about:
Human Services • Heath Needs
Emergency Food • Crisis Counseling
Emergency Housing • Mental Health
Legal Assistance • Financial Assistance
Disabilities Resources • Support Groups
Or any other problems and
you don't know who to call
CONTACS
(COmmunity NeTwork for ACcening Shelter)
SHELTER HOTUNE
Linea Comunitaria para Acceso a Refugio..
For help in locating an emergency.
homeless or domestic violence
shelter in Maricopa County
Community
Information &
Referral
.cir.ors
www.cir.org
Community
Information &
Referral
Bringing People and Services Together Since 1964
In the Phoenix Metro area including
Glendale, Scottsdale,Tempe, Mesa
and other neighboring Maricopa
County communities Dial:
602-263-8856
Outside Maricopa County, Dial toll Free:
1-800-352-3792
Se Habla Espafiol
24 HOUR
EN ESPAÑOL . . .
“Bringing People and Services Together Since 1964”
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
& REFERRAL
(Información y Referencia) es una
agencia de cardidas que mantiene
líneas telefónicas gratuitas para
ayudar a las personas que buscan
recursos humanos.
HELP HOTLINE
Other services provided by
Co
rral:
mmunity Information & Refe
Homeless Management
Information System
(HMIS) Project
(602) 263-8845
COmmunity NeTwork
for ACcessing Shelter
(CONTACS)
(602) 263-8900
¿QUÉ TIPO DE AYUDA?
Representantes de las lineas de ayyda
le pueden informar en español sobre
9,000 programas y servicios sociales
que se enguentran en la comunidad.
Valley Lifeline
(602) 263-8845
Community Voice Mail
(602) 263-8845
¿CUÁNTO CUESTA EL
SERVICIO?
El servicio es completamente
gratuito y todas las llamadas
son confidenciales.
Where to call for Help . . .
602-263-8856
¿CUÁNDO PUEDO LLAMAR?
Si usted tiene una problema o
busca información sobre un servicio
pero no sabe a donde llamar,
comuníquese a las líneas telefónicas
de Información y Referencia.
Las líneas están disponibles las
24 horas del día, incluyendo
días de fiesta.
Outside Maricopa County
1-800-352-3792
Printing Courtesy of:
602-263-8856
AFUERA DEL CONDADO
DE MARICOPA:
1-800-352-3792
“Bringing People and Services Together Since
1964”
Should you need this publication in an
alternative format, please contact the
CIR administrative office at 602-263-8845.
2200 North Central Avenue, Suite 601
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM
AND YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE TO GO FOR
HELP, CALL THE CIR HELP HOTLINE AT
602-263-8856 • 1-800-352-3792
(Listed below are only some of the 58 major information services
categories.)
FOOD & HOUSING
Food assistance programs • Emergency food
Clothing resources • Homeless shelters • Domestic violence
shelters • Utility assistance • Donation resources
HOW CAN COMMUNITY
INFORMATION & REFERRAL (CIR)
HELP ME?
CIR operates a confidential Help Hotline
service that provides individuals with
information, answers and referrals to
human services and health programs.
HOW DOES THE SERVICE WORK?
When you call the Help Hotline, a Specialist
will first find out what kind of assistance
you are looking for, and then, will direct
you to agencies and programs that may
be able to help. Spanish-speaking
assistance is available. The CIR Help
Hotline Specialists are knowledgeable
about community services and use
updated computerized listings to find
accurate information for callers.
HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
FAMILY
Day care services • Adoption services
Foster care programs • Parenting skills
Literacy programs • Victim assistance programs
Volunteer opportunities • Legal aid resources
FINANCIAL
Emergency financial assistance • Unemployment
compensation • Employment and training programs
Worker’s compensation • Consumer issues
Tax assistance • Financial counseling
HEALTH
AIDS services • Crisis & long-term counseling
Services for the deaf and blind • Immunizations
CPR training • Services for the physically disabled
Chemical and drug dependency • Reproductive services
Mental health programs • Health clinics
The Help Hotline service is absolutely free.
CALLING THE CIR HELP HOTLINE CAN ALSO...
WHAT TIME CAN I CALL?
The CIR Help Hotline is available 24-hours a
day, seven days a week, including holidays.
WHAT KINDS OF PROGRAMS DO
YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON?
The CIR Help Hotline Specialists can
help you find information on over 9,000
health and human services provided by
governmental and nonprofit organizations.
put you in touch with many other programs and services
including numerous self-help support groups dealing with:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
GRIEF COUNSELING
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
DRUGS OR ALCOHOL DEPENDENCY TREATMENT
MEDICAL HEALTH (DISEASES OR DISORDERS)
MENTAL HEALTH
Funded by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), City of Phoenix, City of Scottsdale, City of Glendale,
City of Mesa, Season for Sharing/AZ Republic,
corporate and individual contributions, and by the
sale of our annual directories.
Helping You Travel
in DuPage County
DuPage County
The Subsidized Taxi Service Program
assists eligible DuPage County Senior
Citizens and persons with disabilities with
their transportation needs by providing
coupons that reduce the cost of a taxi fare.
Inter-Agency Paratransit Coordinating
Pilot
II
Subsidized
Taxi Ser vice
Council (IAPCC)
Program Overview
The program relies on the sponsorship of
various local government and social
service agencies. These sponsors design
the guidelines by which their programs
operate, setting their own eligibility
requirements and procedures for obtaining
the travel coupons. The cost of each
coupon varies by location.
Contact the sponsor directly to
complete an application for their
program. Each participant will be issued
a photo ID card which must be presented
with each coupon used.
City of Wheaton
Attention: Finance Dept.
303 West Wesley Street
Wheaton, IL 60187
(630) 260-2000
Brochure developed and provided by:
DuPage County Human Services
421 N. County Farm Road
Wheaton, IL 60187
(630) 407-6500
1-800-942-9412 (Toll-free)
(630) 407-6502 (TDD)
http://www.dupageco.org
Serving Senior
Citizens and
Persons with
Disabilities
Eligibility / Costs
Eligibility Guidelines
 City of Wheaton residents who are at least
age 65 are eligible.
 City of Wheaton residents with a
documented disability are eligible.
The Coupons
 The coupons have a face value of $5.00
and cost $2.00 each.
 Multiple coupons may be used for trips to
medical appointments. Only one coupon
may be used for other destinations.
General Program Rules and Regulations
 Do not use this program in place of
other existing
paratransit services.
For more on additional
resources, please call
DuPage County
Human Services at (630) 407-6500.
 Call the cab company no less than 90
minutes to arrange a pickup. Identify
yourself as a Pilot II participant and
inform them where you’ll be waiting.
 Reservations may be made up to one
week in advance.
 Visit the location listed below during
regular business hours or mail a check to:
City of Wheaton
Attention: Finance Department
303 West Wesley Street
Wheaton, IL 60187
(630) 260-2000
Make check payable to: City of Wheaton
Revoking Eligibility
Program eligibility will be revoked:
 if requested information and/or
documentation is proved to be falsified.
 the guidelines of this program are not
followed.
 if you have been documented as a “no-
show patron”.
 To cancel a reservation, call the cab
company one hour prior to pickup time
 Customers who fail to cancel a ride will
be charged a $10.00 “no show” fee and
may be cancelled from the program.
 You may travel with more than one
person for a single fare: additional
program participants ride free and nonparticipants are charged 50 cents.
Everyone must board and exit at the
same locations.
 Show the driver your ID card and valid
coupons when you enter the cab. The
driver will return your ID card and the
last copy of the coupons.
 Customers are responsible for tipping
and paying for any fare not covered by
the coupons.
 Change will not be given if the value of
the coupon is more than the fare.
 The driver is responsible for assuring
that customers can safely enter and exit
the cab. The driver is not responsible
for transporting customers or their
parcels into or out of buildings.
 Lost, stolen or destroyed coupons will
not be replaced.
 Replacement ID’s cost $10.00. Checks
should be made payable to: DuPage
County Treasurer and mailed to
County of DuPage, Human Services —
Attn: IAPCC, 421 N. County Farm Road,
Wheaton, IL 60187.
 Report any problems immediately to
your sponsor.
 Coupons are not transferable.
 Please do not fold or staple coupons.
APPENDIX J
Best Practices for Transportation Vouchers
(Flexible Travel Vouchers and
Taxi Subsidy Vouchers)
TRANSPORTATION VOUCHERS
Transportation vouchers, distributed by sponsoring organizations to help make the cost of
existing transportation services more affordable, has been around for decades, and first came into
prominence with taxi vouchers in the 1970's. The idea is quite simple: provide vouchers to
customers, clients or constituents at a discount -0r at no cost; the vouchers can then be used in
lieu of a fare or to offset the cost of the transportation for the consumer. To make this idea work,
there needs to be (1) a sponsoring organization, i.e., an entitiy that is willing to subsidize the full
or partial cost of transportation for a customer, client or constituent; (2) a transportation service
provider or providers willing to accept vouchers; and (3) a program manager if there a mulitple
sponsoring organizations. Programs of this type ar sometimes also called transportation subsidy
programs, as voucher-less programs have been devised.
Voucher programs can serve specific customers (seniors, people with disabilities, persons with l
limited income, human service agency clients) or provide general public transportation. A fetaure
of such programs is that they take advantage of both formal and informal transportation networks
including public transit, taxi, private companies, volunteer drivers, family, and neighbors.
Voucher programs are consumer-oriented and promote independent living; instead of merely
providing transportation, these programs provide resources and support to individuals which
gives them the opportunity to use creativity and personal resources to achieve their own
transportation goals.
Most prominent are two types of transportation voucher programs:

Flexible Transportation Vouchers

Taxi Subsidies
Each of these are described below.
Flexible Transportation Vouchers
Flexible transportation vouchers (or flex vouchers) are typically in the form of checks that eligible
riders can use to “purchase” a ride. Funded by one or more sponsoring agency, flexible vouchers
give the customer control over what kind of transportation they want to use. Usually the
customer will use flexible vouchers to either:

Subsidize the cost of a ride on any mode of public transportation that has a fare or
requested donation (e..g, transit, paratransit, taxi, senior van)

Pay volunteer drivers, friends, family members, or neighbors for rides
The “checkbook” model is the most common operating structure for flexible voucher programs.
Customers receive a pre-printed checkbook with an allocation of miles from a support agency.
The customer trades the check for a ride with a volunteer, taxi driver, or transit or human services
agency driver. The support agency helps locate rides, offers planning support, allocates vouchers
and reimburses drivers. Support agencies are funded through existing programs, special grants,
and/or additional sponsoring agencies. Volunteers are reimbursed the standard IRS
reimbursement amount and other transportation providers, such as taxis, negotiate a per mile
rate.
Below are descriptions of the APRIL Traveler’s Cheque Program and WIRL Transportation
Checks program, which are both successful examples of the checkbook model.
APRIL Traveler’s Cheque Program
The Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL) is a national, nonprofit, grass
roots membership network of over 230 rural centers for independent living (CILs), other
organizations, and individuals who work with people with disabilities in rural America. Through
an FTA funded program, in 2008 APRIL created a national demonstration project to implement
and demonstrate a voucher program – called the Traveler’s Cheque Program – in ten pilot sites.
In the Traveler’s Cheque voucher model, eligible riders receive a checkbook with an allocation of
miles from a sponsoring agency. The sponsoring agency helps the rider identify and cultivate
potential volunteer drivers (including friends, family members and neighbors) and negotiates with
public or private transportation providers to accept the voucher checks as payment for rides. The
sponsoring agency financially manages the voucher system by allocating vouchers to riders and
reimbursing providers.
The Traveler’s Cheque model uses mileage rather than dollars for a two main reasons. First, the
model resembles a checking account that draws on a pool of mileage per participant; participants
know how many miles they have used and how many they have left. Second, all trips involve
distance and most distances are easy to estimate or calculate. A program participant is able to
estimate the number of miles and the bookkeeper can calculate the amount due to the provider
based on the different negotiated rates and the current federal mileage reimbursement cap. The
disadvantage of using a mileage allocation system is that it creates more work for a bookkeeper
who has to keep a list of the various rates and apply and calculate payments based on those rates.
The APRIL toolkit provides a framework and steps for planning and implementing a voucher
program using the Traveler’s Cheque model (see Figure 1). The following information can be
accessed in more detail by contacting [email protected] and requesting the APRIL toolkit
for $20.1
Figure 1
APRIL Traveler’s Cheque Program Implementation Steps
Traveler’s Cheque Program Implementation Steps
Identify key players

Sponsoring agency

Community transportation coordinator or mobility manager

Site bookkeeper

Riders

Transportation providers
Develop partnerships

Organize a transportation interest network composed of public, private, and political
entities
Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living, Toolkit for Operating a Rural Transportation Voucher Program,
2012.
1
Set goals

Establish short-term goals such as securing a certain amount of funding, increasing
transportation providers willing to accept the vouchers, and recruit eligible riders

Establish long-term goals such as developing a comprehensive transportation plan, and
organizing a public awareness campaign
Seek funding

Seek financial support from state agencies administering Section 5310, 5311, and 5317
funds

Seek funding from the government of the county in which the program operates

Seek funding from local service agencies
Develop policies

Develop eligibility policies – residency, age, disability, household income

Develop trip purpose policies – type, purpose, length

Develop Mileage allocations – number of people vs. mileage

Develop special needs policies – certain communities have specific needs

Determine types of providers permitted – family members, taxies, private companies

Calculate provider miles – when to start calculating reimbursable miles

Determine how to time provider payments – every two weeks, every month

Determine how to waive the rules – for special circumstances
Publicize

Advertise the program for sponsors, vendors, volunteer drivers, and riders
Print checks

Print checks and check registers – standard check book paper
Contract with providers

Recruit volunteers – identified by rider and organizations

Contract with public and private providers – taxis, senior center transit, agency transit,
medical transportation, hospital or guide service

Organize a meeting to train venders on how to use the vouchers

Coordinate with local employers for ride sharing
Work with riders

Enroll riders and develop an individual transportation plan

Complete a rider trip diary

Complete an initial mileage allocation and schedule for allocating miles

Train riders on using the check book

Determine if multiple trips per check are allowed – 10 one-way work trips, for example

Explain program operation – for example: how and when to add miles, how to negotiate
rates, how to pay volunteer drivers
WILR Transportation Check Program
Rural Wyoming is too sparsely populated to rely on buses alone to transport individuals who are
unable to drive due to a disability. Using FTA formula funds, Wyoming established a statewide
flexible transportation voucher program that reimburses senior center transit providers and
volunteers for mileage when transporting eligible passengers.
Administered by the Wyoming Independent Living Rehabilitation organization (WILR), the
Transportation Check Program provides an affordable way for people with disabilities to meet
their transportation needs. The Transportation Check program was first started with $10,000 set
aside by WILR for a four-year pilot program for four counties. After four years, WILR expanded
the program statewide and acquired Wyoming Department of Transportation (WDOT) funding to
continue the program indefinitely.
Participants are eligible to receive WILR Transportation Checks if they have a documented
disability and cannot drive due to that disability. WILR assigns customers checks to pay for their
trips; either through senior center transit providers for bus trips or to reimburse mileage costs of
a ride provided by a friend, co-worker, neighbor, volunteer, or public provider.
Mileage reimbursement is provided at $0.36 per mile. To be eligible for mileage reimbursement,
drivers must be a licensed driver with appropriate insurance in compliance with state law, they
cannot be a spouse of the rider, and they must drive a licensed vehicle. Senior center transit
providers are reimbursed at the rate that they charge any rider, $1 per one-way trip.
The participant fills out the check to indicate the origin and destination of the trip, the trip
mileage, the name and address of the driver, and the purpose of the trip (see Figure 2). Each check
has a check number to discourage fraud. After receiving the check from the customer at the end of
a provided ride, the transportation provider submits the check to WILR for cash
reimbursement. Participants in the program are responsible for organizing and securing the trips
that they need.
Figure 2
WILR Transportation Check
To apply for the program, a participant must fill out an application, sign a liability waiver, and
complete brief program training on how to use the vouchers and are given information for
providers on how to submit transportation checks for cash. A participant then completes a sevenday trip diary (Figure 3) and works with a WILR transportation coordinator to determine all trips
that a participant wants to take, even if they are not usually able to take those trips. WILR
transportation coordinators work the participant to determine which trips should be paid for
using the transportation checks.
After completing the trip diary, a participant meets with a staff coordinator to complete a mileage
plan (Figure 4) that defines the number of miles they will be allowed per quarter and annually
based on the their average weekly travel. Participants can receive up to 2,000 miles of
transportation per year or 500 per quarter. By knowing the number of miles a participant can use
per year and the associated transportation mileage rates, the program is able to estimate annual
transportation costs. WILR monitors usage to ensure that customers are not exceeding the
mileage limit; adjustments to mileage limits can be made if unusual circumstances arise.
WILR provides more than 20,000 trips per year and is administered by one full-time staff person
dedicated to voucher reconciliation and payments 2.
2
Emails and presentations sent from Ken Hoff at WILR on August 31, 2012.
Figure 3
WILR Seven-Day Trip Diary
w ifr
w3om inJ irukp nJn { fivinJ r2hahififafion, inc.
305 1Uut fit Jln! CaJp!r W3ommJ 81.6ot
bo712.66 ,6
'F (J071. .66-6q?7 idqr//""""'-"*UI!II
TRIP DI.I\RY
PEsimSVii :r :t:li.-:! fotkm.in_g q;w:!siioo.abo:&t trips
in at ca:r,V81li, m tsxi, o:r o(he:r VMde.
'\ y(s) of (he wee ktiltri. ?
Su:!td'.o!y
llood.ay
Thesda y
yot11 Vii31TI.ted,
,Ved:!t--:!:s:day _Thu.:r:sday _ _Frida y
TRIPSYOU W1TED TO T.I-\KE E\fEN D.i'
YOU DIDN'T CO
Ohew.the re.:s.o:n. for eacih. ride
y::m w.=:f!b:.<!!. reeded to t:!l-2
11 U
- :;e a, rew row for &dt
des.ti.n;:.tio:n., even.1fy tJ.
C0!IlbinadJ tf
- .-..d ::;zl - ili!!:io.?,lli!l!i
Sdtoci
- .-..d ::;zl
Sdtoci
i::;zl
Yes.
-""
y- No
_w
Ye5
Seci:!t•R.eH
ilibo?,lli!.3
w
Ye5
_SdtOti!i _Sec1:!1<R.eH ue.
SOO.?,lli
No
Yes.
3!!:io.?,lli:ttB
ili!!:io.?,lli!lB
No
""
""
i:z1
_SdtOti!i _Seci:!t,Rel
w
_Sdtoci _Seci:!t'R.eH
you!
ilie:reand
hsr:k?
Seci:!t,R.el ou;
Seci:!VR.eH
.-..d ::;zl
at bte to _get
Yes.
Sdtoci
ed ::;zl
\\re
it till this.0 2.1!.d.
ib;:.cik (ro1.1'.d. trip
d.t:.t:J'tc:)?
- ::.bo..:r. _w
\ .-..d 21 _i:!iho?,lli:r.3
SdtOti!i
HelW ay 11ets.
No
Sec1:!1/Rr:H oue.
Sam:rday
'TRIPS YOU TOOK
Seci !VR.eH ou;
- ed ::;zl- ::> 00?,lli
SdtOti!i
_w
Tl.:eo:r atcma11y take
No
Yes.
No
No
Yes.
No
If you had. ttoubl'e gett:in,r; wlltu}-ou nud.ed rto go rtollay
what wa:s rt he maim !PYO'bl'em o:r rr e.a:son?
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 6
If yoo :J)e:r.siO:Ill all}·
paid fo:r 8 :r14e ltov;.·
m-wreM ]'OU y ?
Figure 4
WILR Mileage Plan/Individual Transportation Plan
'Ilieartdtll.1mn..:pat.litimC'.oad v;ill
'&9:
oofam tm e3ti.mie:mni>?:rof :mi1:1:;:
fallm¥>:!1. R...-.;·llttc>!
monmlim fetacfed -in tb:y! tr1p cb!y aid tM
oo,gmlslisted m >! Pfrnmspa. !hltipty mrab::rof rru!id tr i!ttoeeth c!!e::tmtimby
:1t11fl'b:rofmile:ifil dt rom<!! a-ipto ca'ku'late 'dte::.-ti.1med Dialtt:fcc eathc!!estmtim cl:l:ial
!fl.
cypb31...k.
p:a!1tid:JE!i.ta:n.d ttt1: m:!t onCootdM hlw:! tr s: U!i :ora
f1ml detofftt:::lt ofrn:ile:e8lloo:te toa :pmtiti]Etl 'Thi.s. c!!et:!!'mimtil:m v;iU car.<:.
of mile:;: :and (t:e d ea!hd=c31:1Mtim.
Top "fin amt inporta.ut
dtltiinatfo:nDr nfiidlJOU
Iftd.tra.mporta:im
(e;g _ l\IO:rk,!idloo],.
f!.tnb::r
BI:Jr;vmany
Daysoftbt l\
Iftd.to gotbtre?
JOU
ru.d:fca],.,
Rli,'gicm., »da.1!, etc)?'
Su M 'iFWThFS
1.
SuM T \V'Th F 'S
2
SuM T W ThFS
3.
Su!I T W ThF S
4.
Su!I T W ThFS
.5.
Su I T \V Th F S
:Potmti3J
P:roridm;
rrund.ltlr:P Albouthlmi
hrtms
ti
m
Incllude:
tortms
do )l)Utftd. many
d!:mmtfo:n
each11ftk?
E&imatM
is thett«almiiiH
rotmd.
pe:r "L1ieek
trp
i?.
Iftded..
FSIIlL\nD'iiUFALll.m.FSNEIDIDPER WEEK:
Ji:Dl..E!.\.GE AU.OC...J\TION:
Ji.fil'H&T 11omb.= (nt!tl;; :x4.3):
MllE o!.\.GE .4ILOCATION:
lfil'H&r 'Qla:rm =(week :x 1!3):
Fim1Cmm=:ll.S::
(' D".a1Ibcatims tbat Iftll.a
aJt s:pecffic:IIIUS't !be .approrredt.fbt 'I'Ira.mpomtimCoo:rdiinator
.and.domiDtllted.lbebv)
Partki:JE!i.t"s S1gmture:
Partki:JE!i.rs ID:;:
D:;.te:
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 7
_
Taxi Subsidy Programs
Municipalities and human service organizations have used taxi subsidy programs since the 1970's
to provide transportation to (1) residents in general or specific target populations (e.g., seniors or
persons with doisabilities) and clients or coustomers of a specif agency
With the advent of ADA paratransit, several transit agencies have utilized user-side taxi subsidy
programs both as a way to provide another mobility option to customers as well as a cost reducing
control strategy for their ADA paratransit service. The latter can be accomplished if the subsidy
associated with "newly created" subsidized trips taken on taxis is less than the difference between
the paratransit and taxi trip subsidies for trips "diverted" from paratransit to taxis.
In addition to using these subsidies for taxis, sponsoring agencies might allow livery and other
private providers, such as private medical transportation providers, to also participate in the
program, which can give customers a greater range of transportation options including access to
accessible vehicles. The subsidy programs generally do not usually include volunteer drivers,
such as friends and family of the customer, because the subsidies usually supersede the maximum
per mileage reimbursement amount dictated by the IRS to maintain volunteer status.
Typically, these taxi subsidy programs have the following characteristics:

The sponsoring agency provides vouchers to eligible customers or to participating taxi
companies to cover all or part of a taxi ride.

The sponsoring agency also makes arrangements with one or more taxi companies to
accept these vouchers.

Customers request trips either directly from the taxi companies, or through a call-center
that in turn forwards the trip requests to the taxi company of the customer’s choosing.

In many programs the voucher, again distributed to either the customer or the
participating taxi companies, covers only a portion of the trip. In these programs, a
customer might pay a base fare - the voucher covers the rest of the fare up to a prescribed
amount, and if the fare is more, the customer pays the balance.

These programs are usually limited in terms of service area (i.e., within a municipality)
and the number of trips a customer may take within a prescribed period of time (e.g. 5
trips a week), especially in programs where there is no ceiling on the worth of the voucher
and/or where the program budget is limited.

Upon service being delivered, the customer pays his/her share of the fare (if any); the
driver typically fills out the voucher with details of the trip. The customer then signs the
voucher, thereby acknowledging that the information completed by the driver is correct.

The driver then turns in the voucher for the cash equivalent of the trip, less fare collected.
The taxi company then sends an invoice, along with the vouchers as back-up, to the
sponsoring transit agency.

The sponsoring transit agency then pays the taxi company per the invoice, but also may
undertake some fraud control activities to ensure that the trips were actually taken and
that the length of the trip was not exaggerated.
Access-a-Cab in Denver, CO
The Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Denver established the Access-a-Cab service in
1997 to address a high denial rate and to reduce the per trip cost of its ADA paratransit service,
called Access-a-Ride. The service is only available to Access-a-Ride customers, but it is explicitly
non-ADA service.
Passengers paid the flag drop of $2.00, which was equivalent to the Access-a-Ride fare. The RTD
covers up to $12 of the fare (about 5 miles in length), with passengers paying the portion of the
fare over $14.00 (for longer trips). Hence, the maximum subsidy ceiling for the RTD is $12.00.
For the RTD, this program produced some real savings. RTD found that the trips that shifted to
Access-a-Cab were largely same-day shopping trips, and averaged 4.5 miles. According to RTD
staff, almost all these trips would have been taken on Access-a-Ride (with an advance reservation)
i.e. very little “new, spur of the moment” trips have resulted from this program. In 2010, Accessa-Cab provided 118,968 trips with a total cost of $1,427,616 for the year. If these trips had been
taken on Access-a-Ride it would have cost RTD $2,791,782, which is a $1,364,166 cost saving.
Almost half of the trips taken by Access-a-Cab in 2010 were for trips less than two miles in length,
costing $4.50-$6.50.3 In addition, the Access-a-Ride denial rate fell from 10% to less than 1%,
partially as a result of the taxi program.
Meanwhile, the real benefits for customers who utilize this service are (1) convenience – they get a
direct ride when they’re ready (as opposed to when Access-a-Ride is ready), (2) longer reservation
hours (Access-a-Cab has longer reservations hours than Access-a-Ride), and (3) comfort - they ride
in a sedan as opposed to a van.
To lower instances of fraud, customers are directed to call the Access-a-Ride call center to request
an Access-a-Cab trip. Thus, RTD has a record of the request. The call center call takers log onto
the Access-a-Cab line to ask the customer to pick a cab company they would like to serve the trip,
and that request is transferred electronically to that company. Another anti-fraud measure is the
flat $12 per trip which circumvents the need for auditing mileage.
In addition, RTD found that one of the keys to successful user-side taxi subsidy programs, and
especially minimizing the incentive to commit fraud, was to make sure that the program was
attractive to drivers. By providing a flat $12 fare for drivers, many of the trips actually cost less
than this amount allowing the drivers to keep the remaining dollars as their tip.
Because of these measures, instances of fraud on the Access-a-Cab system are infrequent. As a
result, RTD was able to cut down the number of FTEs involved in auditing from three to one.
Post trip calls are still made, however, primarily to confirm that the trip was taken (as opposed to
a no-show). About 25 calls are made daily, representing about 15% of the daily trips. With
centralized calling, RTD is also able to able to keep better track of the number of requests that are
made daily.
Yet another benefit to the customers and to the community that has resulted from this program is
that one of the cab companies recently purchased 20 accessible cabs. 4
3
4
http://www.apta.com/mc/bus/previous/2011/Presentations/RTDTaxi-B-Abel.pdf
Will Rodman, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, 2012
METROLift Subsidy Program in Houston, TX
In Houston, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA)’s paratransit service is called METROLift.
METROLift service delivery is vested with two operational contractors, one of whom operates
accessible vans, the other (a taxi company) sedans. Both operate as dedicated fleets. Taxis are
also used in non-dedicated mode for overflow trips and back-up purposes. In addition to its
paratransit service, METROLift also has a user-side taxi subsidy program called METROLift
Subsidy program (MSP).
The impetus for the establishment of the MSP program was the disability community’s concern
that METROLift’s regular paratransit service was unable to provide spontaneous travel. Under
MSP, METROLift contracts with four taxi companies, and supplies them monthly with a limited
number of blank vouchers (see Figure 5), which the taxi companies supply to the drivers.
Customers are free to call any of the companies for service with one-hour advance notice. If a
voucher is available, and the customer is qualified, the trip is dispatched. The customer then pays
the first $1.00 of the fare, METRO pays the next $8.00, and the customer pays the balance of the
fare in excess of $9.00. Customers tend to use MSP for shorter trips: 3.5 miles on MSP compared
to 12.4 miles on METROLift.
To address fraud, METROLift issues each of the four taxi companies a specific number of
randomly-generated voucher numbers per day that may be used during specific times of the day.
Once the vouchers for a specific time slot are used up, customers are refused service and must call
for the next time slot. However, each rider is guaranteed a ride home at any time if they receive a
voucher on their origin trip.
In 2009, MSP provided 102,948 passenger trips. Because of the volume of trips that are
associated with this program, and the competition that exists within the Houston taxi industry,
METROLift is given a 4% discount on their meter fare portion.
MSP has proved to be more successful than was initially anticipated. The FY04 average subsidy
per trip was $6.80, compared to the maximum subsidy for any MSP trip of $8.00. This compares
very favorably to the $19.23 per trip subsidy for the “regular” METROLift van and sedan contract
service (which includes all contractor costs except for vehicle depreciation). 5
5
Figure 5
MSP Subsidy Program Voucher
Taxi Access Program in Chicago, IL
Pace and the City of Chicago established the Taxi Access Program (TAP) to give certified
paratransit customers an opportunity to travel in taxis at reduced rates for trips that originate
within the City of Chicago.
Within the last two years, the Pace TAP program has shifted from a paper voucher system to an
electronic system through an electronic Swipe Card. Customers can go online to track trips they
make, purchase additional trips, and see the balance on their cards.
Customers pay $5.00 for a $13.50 TAP trip (added to their TAP Swipe Card) that can be purchased
by mail, at Pace offices, at Chicago department of aging centers, and online. A TAP trip may be
used for a one-way taxi trip and multiple TAP trips may not be used for a one-way trip. Customers
must pay the difference if the metered fare at the end of the trip exceeds $13.50. For example: if
the trip costs $15.00, the customer is responsible for the additional $1.50. Up to 30 vouchers may
be purchased per week per person, but customers are limited to four trips per day and trips must
not be within ten minutes of each other. TAP trips must be used within one year from the
purchase date.
Customers are able to schedule a taxi trip up to thirty minutes before their trip. They can call
participating taxi companies or hail one on the street. Upon entering the taxi vehicle, customers
must present their TAP Swipe Card and picture identification; the driver will confirm
identification and swipe the TAP Card. At the end of the trip, the driver will swipe the TAP Card
again and the electronic system will deduct one trip from the customer’s account. Customers are
responsible for paying the driver’s tip. The electronic system automates the process of paying the
cab company for the swiped trip. Taxi companies then pay the drivers.6
6
Subsidized Taxi Service in DuPage County, IL
The Interagency Paratransit Coordinating Council started the Subsidized Taxi Service in DuPage
County, IL in 1998. The program was originally designed to ease transportation obstacles for
senior citizens and persons with disabilities, but has been expanded to offer transportation
subsidies to many other DuPage County residents.
Eligible participants apply through sponsoring cities, villages, townships and social service
agencies in the county. The program is administered by DuPage County to allow participants to
travel anywhere in the county 24 hours per day, every day of the year.
Initially, the program provided a coupon for one taxi ride within a certain area, however, it has
since been modified to provide a $5 cash value for each coupon. Participants purchase $5
coupons from their sponsoring agency at a reduced rate (rates vary by sponsoring municipality).
The customer must provide cash for tips and for paying any additional cab fare over the amount
the coupon will cover. Multiple coupons may be used; for example, if a taxi ride costs $12 the
customer can use two $5 coupons, and is personally responsible for paying the additional $2
owed and the tip for the driver.
Three cab companies participate in the program. Customers will provide to the taxi driver the $5
coupon and any additional amount owed, including the tip. The taxi driver will turn in the
coupons for $5 cash value to the taxi company. The taxi company turns in the coupon to the
sponsoring agency for the $5 cash value.7
Afterhours Cab Program in Iowa City, IA
In 2008, Iowa City Transit (ICT) started a taxi voucher program, using JARC funds, to provide
transportation options within the city limits when transit is not running at night or during the
weekend. Eligible participants are issued a rider card which must be presented with a valid Iowa
ID to a taxi driver before the ride can occur. Contracted taxi companies are given a regularly
updated list of approved riders.
Upon completion of the cab ride, riders pay only 50% of the total fare. Monthly, the contracted
cab company remits a detailed invoice to ICT requesting payment of the remaining 50%. The
invoices shows the date of ride, the passenger name(s), the program ID number, the start and end
point, time of pick up and drop off, the destination, and total mileage. Once the invoice is
approved, ICT submits a check to the taxi company. ITC then bills the JARC program for their
part of the payment (25%) and ITC pays for the remaining 25% of the invoice. 8
7
8
http://www.aaa1b.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/RFP-Literature-Review.pdf
APPENDIX K
Provider Directory Authorization Form
PROVIDER DIRECTORY AUTHORIZATION FORM
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Phone Number:
Email:
Attached is the Transportation Provider spreadsheet with information about your
organization’s transportation service(s). Please review the spreadsheet to make sure that this
information is complete and accurate.
Please indicate changes needed below.
Please sign below to authorize Senior Services of Southeastern Virginia to submit information to
Virginia 2-1-1. This information will both be posted online and used by phone operators to match
callers with transportation options for which they are eligible. Only people who are eligible to
receive transportation from your organization will be provided with contact information for your
organization to arrange a trip.
Please sign here.
Date
Transportation Providers in the Study Area
No.
Organization
Eligibility
Service Area
Service Hours
Vehicles
Call Center1
Must provide doctor’s note, must
be a cancer patient
United States
Upon request
vehicles
4 volunteer drivers in Southampton
12 volunteers in Suffolk
12 volunteers in Isle of Wight
Yes
Older adult
Southeastern Virginia
Upon request
vehicles
Volunteers
No
Early Head Start participant or
parent
Southampton County, Suffolk
Mon.-Fri. 7-9AM, 2:30-4:30PM
10 light duty buses
4 minivans
2 15-passenger vans
7 sedans
2 full-time
No
Low income
Isle of Wight County
Upon request
vehicles
Volunteer drivers
No
Church member only
Entire Hampton Roads area, but
mostly within Suffolk or Portsmouth
Occasional out-of-state trips
Mon, Tues, Thurs, Fri, Sat 9:005:00
Not available Sunday and
Wednesday because it’s used to
pick up members for church
service
2 15-passenger vans
vehicles
None
2 volunteer drivers
No
1
2
3
4
Christian Outreach Program Isle of Wight
5
6
City of Franklin Department of Social Services
Residents of Franklin City
Franklin
As needed
Staff vehicles only
None
No
7
Franklin Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Franklin
Mon.-Fri. 8:30AM – 5PM
2 minivans
1 15-passenger van
1 SUV
<1 full-time
No
8
Guardian Angel Transport
General Public
Suffolk and surrounding areas,
Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Norfolk,
Virginia Beach
Saturday by scheduled
appointment only
2 minivans
1 8-passenger mini bus (1WC)
1 full-size converted WC van
2 full time staff
3 full time drivers
1 part time driver
No
9
Gethsemane Baptist Church
Church members only
Southern part of Suffolk
As needed, 9:00AM – 5:00PM
1 standard 15-passenger van
1 converted 15-passenger van
Not available
No
10
Hampton Roads Transit
General Public
Beach, Newport News, Hampton,
Chesapeake
Sun.-Sat. 5AM-1AM (Varies by
city)
9 light rail trains
227 buses
1,027 full-time
Yes
11
Nansemond River Baptist Church
Church members only
Suffolk, Isle of Wight, Chesapeake,
Portsmouth, Newport News,
Hampton
Mon.-Sat.
N/A
No
12
PORTCO
Person with developmental
disability
Norfolk, Portsmouth, Franklin,
Suffolk
Mon.-Fri. 7-9AM, 2:30-4:30PM
4 light duty buses
1 full-time
No
No.
Organization
Eligibility
Service Area
Service Hours
Vehicles
Call Center1
Varies by service
Beach, Chesapeake, Suffolk,
Southampton County
Senior Demand-Response: Mon.Fri. 8AM-9PM, Sat. 10AM-10PM,
Sun. 10AM-4PM
Fixed routes: 8AM-4PM
Others services vary
15 minivans
4 15-passenger vans
10 cargo vans
5 other vans
23 full-time
23 part-time
Yes
Program participant
Suffolk
Varies
Not available
Not available
13
14
Suffolk Parks and Recreation
15
Suffolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Suffolk
Mon.-Fri. 8AM – 5PM
1 15- passenger van
2 full-time
4 volunteer drivers
No
16
The Village at Woods Edge
Assisted living resident
Franklin, Southampton County,
Tidewater area bordering NC
Mon.-Sat. 9AM-2PM
Sun. 9AM-12:30PM
1 minivan
1 14-passenger van
1 full-time
No
17
Church members only
Smithfield, Isle of Wight
Depends on need and availability
of drivers
Staff vehicles only
vehicles
Staff and volunteer drivers
No
18
Virginia Regional Transportation
General Public
Suffolk
3 light duty buses
90 full-time
No
19
Western Tidewater Community Services Board
Clients/Customers
Isle of Wight, Suffolk, Southampton
County, and Smithfield
70 sedans
15 minivans
6 standard 15-passenger vans
12 light-duty buses
3 full-time
No
1Indicates
if an organization has staff dedicated to answering calls for transportation requests.

coordinated transportation plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Preschool Pufferbellies - Virginia Museum Of Transportation

Graduation Announcement Order Form - Printing Services

Centrahealth.com - Holiday Lake 4

- Virginia Beach City Public Schools

Open living room

Welcome to 225 Fairglen Avenue

V irginia Native Americans built homes, called longhouses (yehakin

Beverly Shockley, RN - Suffolk Partnership for a Healthy Community

see brochure preview here - vareal

Froggy Drawing handout2 - Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority