Coordinated Human Services
Transportation Plan
for
Warren, Washington, and
Northern Saratoga Counties 2014 Update
Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Acknowledgments
A/GFTC wishes to thank the representatives from the following organizations and municipalities
for lending their time, experience, and expertise towards the preparation of this document:
Adirondack Manor HFA
Cornell Coope rative Extension Warren County
Community Work and Independence
Double H Ranch
Fort Hudson Health System
Fort Hudson Nursing Center
Glens Falls Hospital Behavioral Health Services
Glens Falls Housing Authority
Greater Glens Falls Transit
Liberty House Foundation
Moreau Community Center
Pleasant Valley
Prospect Child & Family Center
Southern Adirondack Independent Living Center
The Oaks at Fort Hudson
The Pines at Glens Falls
Voices of the Heart
Warren County Dept. of Social Services
Warren County Healt h Services
Warren County Veterans Services
Warren/Hamilton Counties Office for the Aging
Warren Washington & Albancy Counties ARC
Washington County Office for the Aging
Washington County Public Health & Hospice
Washington County Social Services
Washington County Veterans Ser vice Agency
Washington County Youth Bureau/Alternative Sentencing Agency
Westmount Health Facilty
Washington County Economic Opportunity Council
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………….. 3
2. Federal Transit Programs that require a CHSTP ……………………………………………………………. 4
3. Regional Geography and Demographics ………………………………………………………………
……… 6
4. Survey Results ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………… 11
5. Conclusions ………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………. 18
Appendix 1: Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan for Warren, Washington, and
Northern Saratoga Counties (2008)
Appendix 2: Summary of CHSTP Survey, 2012
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 3
1. Introduction
The Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council is the designated Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for Warren and Washington Counties, and the Town of Moreau in Saratoga County.
The mission of the MPO is to facilitate cooperative trans portation planning and decision-making
between area municipalities and state and federal agencies and to establish a process for the allocation
and use of federal highway and transit funds available to the region. In addition, A/GFTC is responsible
for conducting a continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation planning process and for
developing and updating a short-term program of federally funded transportation projects known as the
Transport ation Improvement Program (TIP) and a regional long-range transportation plan (LRP). As part
of the ongoing planning process, A/GFTC has worked closely with Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT),
New York State Department of Transportation, area municipalities , and human service agencies and
transportation providers to develop this regional Coordinated Human Services Transp ortation Plan
(CHSTP ).
The purpose of the CHSTP is to provide a framework for the coordination of transportation services for
aging adults, persons with disabilities and individuals with economic disadvantages w ithin the planning
area. This Plan , which updates the 2008 Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan, will provide a
structure for the development of projects that will address the transportation needs of the targeted
population s by improving coordination between the many transportation stakeholders (agencies,
clients, operators and regulatory entities). See Appendix 1 for a copy of the 2008 CHSTP.
A specific goal of the Plan is to maintain and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of transportation
services provided in the area by reducing service duplications, identifying and addressing service gaps,
extending the range of services available throughout the area, maximizing interagency cooperation, and
prioritizing future investment strategies and candidates.
Given the extensive outreach effort conducted as part of the 2008 CHSTP, this 2014 update consist s of a
confirmation or revision of the needs, obstacles, vision, actions, and recommendations of the original
plan , as well as updated funding program information. As such, this plan update includes the following
elements:
1. MAP -21 funding program information. The 2008 plan was written under the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). In 2012, this
pro gram expired and was replaced by Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, or MAP –
21. MAP -21 contained significant changes in Federal Transit Administration funding programs,
which are addressed in this update.
2. Updated demographic info for population, age, disability, vehicle access, and poverty levels.
This plan update incorporates data from the 2010 US Census and the 2010 American
Community Survey. Preliminary analysis indicates that any shifts in demographic trends are not
significant enough to warrant a full re-issue of the service agency survey conducted in 2008.
3. Human services agency outreach. A/GFTC conducted a very thorough outreach effort in 2008,
including a mailed survey and in -person brainstorming sessions with human service agencies. As
it is anticipated that the charters of these agencies have not changed significantly since 2008,
(although budgets and operating capacities may be different ), the outreach effort focused on
maintaining active communication with the agencies to determine current transit priorities. This
consist ed of two steps:
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 4
a. Confirm the list of active agencies with transportation component. Contacts from
agencies which participated in the 2008 plan were confirmed. New agencies, including
the most recent 5310 applicants, were identified. For any agencies which did not
participate in the 2008 plan, information about the services provided, clients, and
service area was collected.
b. Confirm needs, obstacles, vision, actions, and recommendations of the original plan.
Using the co ntacts from the list generated above, the agencies were contacted to
determine if their priorities concerning coordinated transit have changed significantly
since the 2008 plan.
4. Updated needs, obstacles, vision, actions, and recommendations. Based on the input received
in the outreach effort, as well as coordination efforts undertaken since 2008, these portions of
the plan were revised.
This process is intended to result in an updated CHSTP that is compliant with the requirements of MAP –
21.
2. Federal Transit Programs that require a CHSTP
The CHSTP was originally drafted to fulfill the requirements of three separate programs, funded under
SAFETEA-LU:
• Section 5310 – Transportation for Elderly Persons and Pesrons with Disabilities:
capital
expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and
persons with disabilities
• Section 5316 – Job Access and Reverse Commute :
c apital, planning and operating expenses
for projects that transport low income individuals to and from jobs and activities related
to employment, and for reverse commute projects
• Section 5317 – New Freedom : c apital and operating expenses for new public transportation
services and new public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the Americ an with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), that are designed to assist individuals with disabilities .
Since that time, the legislation for these programs has expired. The most recent federal transportation
law , MAP -21, has eliminated Sections 5316 and 5317 as individual programs. Projects previously eligible
for funding through Section 5316 are now eligible activities within Sections 5307 (Urbanized Area
Formula Program) and 5311 ( Formula Grants for Other than Urbanized Areas ), while projects eligible for
funding from the former Section 5317 program are now eligible for the new Section 5310 program,
now known as Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities .
The 5310 program provides formula funding to increase the mobility of seniors and persons with
disabilities. Funds are apportioned based on each State’s share of the targeted populations and are now
apportioned to both States (for all areas under 200,000) and larg e urbanized areas (over 200,000).
Projects selected for funding must be included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human
services transportation plan.
At least 55 percent of program funds must be spent on the types of capital projects eligible under the
former Section 5310 program – public transportation projects planned, designed, and carried out to
meet the special needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities when public transportation is
insufficient, inappropriate, or unavailable. The remaining 45 percent may be used for:
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 5
• public transportation projects that exce ed the requirements of the ADA
• public transportation projects that improve access to fixed -route service and decrease
reliance by individuals with disabilities on c omplementary paratransit
• alternatives to public transportation that assist seniors and i ndividuals with disabilities
Using these funds for operating expenses requires a 50 percent local match while using these funds for
capital expenses (including acquisition of public transportation services) requires a 20 percent local
match.
Several organizations within the A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area have previously applied for
5310 funding for new vehicle purchases, including :
• Community, Work and Independence (CWI)
• Moreau Community Center
• Hudson Headwaters Health Network
• Saratoga ARC
• Adirondack Tri -County Nursing and Rehabilitation, Inc.
• Battenkill Community Services, Inc.
• Double H Ranch
• Greenwich Interfatih Fellowship
It is important to note that the sub -allocations for Section 5310 have been revised. MAP -21 calls for 20%
of the available funds to be sub -allocated to Small Urbanized Areas (SUZAs) , including the Glens Falls
and surrounding area , and 20% to rural areas. These changes will likely result i n funding that is 38%
lower than the levels historically awarded to projects in the A/GFTC region.
In addition, MAP -21 has altered the project selection mechanism for 5310. Within the Glens Falls
Urbanized Area, A/GFTC will have the responsibility to r ate and rank the applications. However, for
projects within the MPO boundary, but outside the Urbanized Area, the ranking responsibility shifts to
NYSDOT. It is anticipated that FFY 2013-2014 funding for rural areas will be devoted to vehicle purchases
only. In the A/GFTC region, many potential project sponsors could conceivably apply for either SUZA –
eligible funds or rural area funds.
It should also be recognized that there are dozens of other federal and state programs that provide
funding for t ransportation in this community, such as Medicaid. The majority of the agencies surveyed in
this plan update receive transportation funding from non -FTA sources ; collectively they far exceed the
potential resources of the FTA programs. Future transportation coordination efforts should recognize
the scope and significance of these other programs and incorporate them whenever possible (see
www.unitedweride.gov).
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 6
3. Regional Geography and Demographics
• Geography
The Planning and Programming Area for A/GFTC includes Warren County, Washington County, and the
Town of Moreau in Saratoga County. The major population center with in this area is the Glens Falls
Urban Area that includes the following municipalities:
o City of Glens Falls
o Town and Village of Fort
Edward
o Village of Hudson Falls
o Town of Kingsbury
o Town & Village of Lake
George
o Town of Moreau
o Town of Queensbury
o Village of South Glens Falls
The Urban Area is located at the
southeastern extreme of Warren
County and the western extreme
of Washington County. Th is poses
some inherent difficulties in access
to services as the majority of the
region’s land area and
approximately ½ of its population
are rural. Many of those rural
residents are located in outlying
hamlets and villages , including:
o Village of Cambridge
o Chestertown
o Village of Granville
o Village of Greenwich
o North Creek
o Village of Salem
o Warrensburg
o Whitehall
As shown in Map 1 , other outlying service areas are closer to certain subareas of the A/GFTC area :
Albany, Saratoga Springs , and Bennington (VT) are potentially more convenient to southern Washington
County, while Ticonderoga is a frequent destination for those living in northern Warren or northern
Washingt on Counties. Rutland, VT also attracts service clients from northeastern Washington County.
Map 1 – A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area
with proximity to other service areas
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 7
• Population Patterns
Within the A/GFTC area, population grew by 4.0% between 2000 and 2010. Interestingly, many
communities experienced a reversal in population grow th as compared to the 1990-2000 period. This
was most evident in Kingsbury, which reported a 1 3% growth rate from 2000-2010, in strong contrast to
the 6% decline in growth in the Town from 1990-2000. See Map 2. This trend seems to indicate a return
of growth to Village centers, which mainly experienced positive growth, and away from rural and
suburban areas, many of which declined in population.
• Aging Demographics
Regional population distribution within the A/GFTC area has been far from uniform across age
segments. Surprisingly, despite the trend for upstate communities in New York towards an aging
populace, several of the communities in the A/GFTC area were revealed to have relative ly young
populations (Map 3 ). The under -30 age cohorts make up the highest percentage of the population in the
Town of Fort Ann, the City of Glens Falls, and the Villages of Hudson Falls, Fort Edward, and Granville. .
Conversely, the remainder of the A/GFTC area has much higher percentages of older residents. As such,
Map 2 – Population Change, 2000-2010
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 8
those agencies seeking to serve seniors in more rural areas may experience difficulties coordinating
transit services, due to the lack of population density.
Map 3 – Age by Mode, 2010 US Census
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 9
• Disability Data
Statistics regarding the poplation of p ersons with disabilities can be an indicator of need for
transportation services. According to the 2010 American Community Survey, 12.5% of the overall
population is estimated to have one or more physical disabilities ; this is slightly higher than the
statewide average of 10.6%. Anecdotal evidence gathered from human service agencies suggests that
the number of disabled persons in the A/GFTC area is higher than reported. As the relative percentage
of persons with disabilities tends to increase by age segment, it can be expected that the number of
diasb led persons will continue to increase. It may be useful in the future to examine what por tion of this
population participates in programs offered by agencies such as CWI and Saratoga County ARC, although
such an effort is outside the scope of this update. Due to the range of barriers to transportation caused
by disability, both physical and mental, more detailed data on disabled individuals in the A/GFTC area
could prove valuable.
• Automobiles per Household
Access to automobiles is another
important determinant of regional
mobility. According to the 2010
American Community Survey ,
approximately 41% of households in the
A/GFTC area have access to one or fewer
vehicles. Given that the average
household size is about 2.4, and that
approximately 42% of households are
made up of people between the ages of
18 and 65 according to the 2010 US
Census, this statistic suggests that there
are a number of working-age residents
that lack access to vehicles. This lack of
transportation access may pose a large
hurdle to finding employment. Lack of
transportation to work has been cited by
some agencies as a large barrier to finding employees. Vehicle ownership trends are also expected to
continue in the near future as the costs associate d with auto ownership continue to rise. This will place a
greater demand on shared transportation services.
• Income
The 2010 American Community Survey estimates that 9.6% of the population within the Glens Falls
metropolitan area is currently living below the poverty level. This is about 5% lower than the estimate
for New York State for the same time period (14.9%) Although a more refined analysis is not currently
available, A/GFTC’s Environmental Justice Review (2005) identified 16 Census Block Groups in its
Planning and Programming Area that had an average household income of 80% or less of the median
county household incomes. While most of those areas occurred within the Greater Glens Falls area,
several rural areas displayed distinct moderate income populations, including:
o Town of Johnsburg
o Town of Warrensburg
o Town and Village of Whitehall
o Town and Village of Granville
o Town of Argyle
Figure 2 – Vehicle Availability by Household,
2010 (estimated)
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 10
Conclusions from Census data
The A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area is characterized by a unique geography in that the
concentration of human service providers is not central to either Warren or Washington Counties, and
in many cases is not much closer to residents of Moreau than the Saratoga Springs area. The Albany –
Troy -Schenectady area is actually closer to residents of southern Washington County than Glens Falls,
and residents of the northern areas of Warren and Washington County may choose to utilize services
based in Ticonderoga or Rutland, VT. Therefore, although the Gl ens Falls area is a regional population
and service hub, it may not be the prima ry destination for all clients in the Planning and Programming
Area.
Age data suggests that although there is not a disproportionate percentage of elderly persons currently
living in the area, those populations are certain to increase as compared to other age cohorts. Income
data suggests that rates of poverty within the A/GFTC area are well below state averages, but certain
outlying rural areas warrant additional consideratio n. The trends indicating a gradual decline of
automobiles per household and a gradual increase in households with no automobiles are expected to
continue as fuel and commodity costs rise in proportion to income.
All of these factors contribute to an incr easing demand for human service transportation, but it is the
broad geographic distribution of clients and providers coupled with mul tiple service destinations in and
outside of the area that would appear to pose the major challenge to human service transp ortation
coordination. As the project solicitation and selection process evolves, more refined and geographically –
specific data and projections may be required within future analyses to more accurately assess priorities
within the Planning and Programming Area.
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 11
4. Public Transportation
• Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT)
Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) is the designated publicly operated local transit system that provides
fixed route bus service and demand responsive paratransit service throughout most of the urbanized
area. (See Map 4 ). GGFT is a department of the City of Glens Falls. Services are funded in part with funds
from the Federal Transit Administration and the NYS Department of Transportation, in addition to fares
and local government support. A summary of GGFT’s services is included below.
o Fixed-Route Service
The fixed -route bus system consists of seven primary routes designed as a radial pulse system focused
on downtown Glens Falls, with all routes converging at an o n-street terminal located along the east side
of Ridge Street opposite City Hall. The pulse system allows passengers to easily transfer between routes;
GGFT offers timed transfers and will hold buses for a few minutes to make sure services meet. The full
s ystem operates primarily on weekdays between 6:00 AM and 6:30 PM. Selected routes also operate on
Saturdays.
o Seasonal Trolley Service
In addition to the regular route system, GGFT operates on -road trolley service in Lake George during the
summer months from late June through Labor Day. Routes extend north and south from the Steel Pier
on Beach Road in the Village of Lake George for about 20 miles between Bolton Landing and downtown
Glens Falls. The seasonal trolley routes operate seven days per week at times and service frequencies
that are primarily oriented to visitors’ travel schedules and itineraries.
o Freedom and Mobility Express (FAME) Service
GGFT offers complementary paratransit service to individuals unable to access the fixed -route services.
This service is branded as Freedom and Mobility Express (FAME). FAME is available for travel within ¾
mile of GGFT’s fixed-route services and all passenger pick -ups and drop -offs must be within this area.
The service is available during the fixed -route operati ng hours and based on the route schedule. Fares
for FAME trips are double the fare on the fixed-route system.
• Other Agency Services
Several area public departments and social service agencies (including Offices for the Aging, Veterans
Services, and public senior health care facilities) as well as private organizations (examples include Glens
Falls Home, Community Work and Independence Inc, Hudson Headwaters Health Network) and others
offer varying levels of transportation services to their respective clients. Although these services are not
truly public in that they are only available to limited segments of the population or specific clients, they
do serve particular mobility needs for specific segments of the population and often operate in areas
where sustained public transit is not feasible. While many of these operators cater to unique clients or
geography, overlap of services does exist. Coordination of human services transportation has the
potential to increase significantly the efficiency and range o f area transportation services.
o Medical Answering Services
The 2010 – 11 New York State Budget amended Section 365 – h of the Social Services Law to give
authority to the State to assume the management of Medicaid transportation in any county and to
select a contractor for this purpose . The intent was to improve the quality of transportation services,
reduce the local administrative burden for transportation services and local management contracts, and
achieve projected budgeted Medicaid savings. The Medicaid transportation services in Warren,
Washington, and Saratoga County are now being handled by a centrailized agency, Medical Answering
Services, a Syracuse – based non -emergency medical transportation management company . The impact
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 12
of MAS on the established transportation systems around the state has been very significant. Generally
the impact of this change has been to shift trips to private taxi and ambulette services.
Map 4 – Greater Glens Falls Transit Service Area
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 13
5. Survey Results
The 2008 C HSTP included a survey distributed by A/GFTC to human service organizations within th e
planning and programming area. Meetings were conducted with the County Administrations in both
Warren and Washington Counties to introduce department heads to this planning process and to
attempt to maximize responses. In all, 2 6 completed surveys were returned to A/GFTC.
In updating the C HSTP, a new survey was developed. The intent of this new survey was to identify any
changes which had occurred in human service agencies since 2008. Unlike the previous effort, this
survey was distributed to those agencies that stated that they provided transp ortation services in the
2007 survey. In addition, several agencies which had not been included in the 2008 outreach effort
were contacted and invited to participate. These agencies were identified through reviewing previous
5310 applications, and through discussions with stakeholder groups.
In all, 25 surveys were distributed via email. Nineteen responses were collected. These responses are
summarized below.
1 A full copy of the survey is included as Appendix 2.
• Transportation Services
Survey participants were asked to confirm whether the agency provides direct, indirect, or no
transportation services. The responses of the agencies which provide transportation services are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Transportation Services Provided
Provides both direct & indirect transportation services 5 31%
Provides direct transportation services only 8 50%
Provides indirect transportation services only 3 19%
Total 16* 100%
*Three agencies responded that no transportation services were provided by their agency.
The reponses indicate that the vast majority (81%) of transportation services provided contain a direct
transportation element. This would suggest that there is still an opportunity to coordinate direct
transportation services across agency lines.
• Changes since 2008
Survey participants were asked to note any changes which affect transportat ion issues that have
occurred si nce 2008. These responses are summarized in Figure 3. Funding/staffing changes were noted
as a critical factor, as well as changes in the number or type of client base. Forty -two percent of the
survey participants also indicated that these changes affected thei r ability to provide transportation
services. Explanations for these changes included:
o Increased demand for transportation to Albany
o Scope of services has been limited to minimize transportation services
o Decreases in, or elimination of, funding
o Increases in client number
o Cost of service increase s for subcontractors
1 Due to the limited scope of this plan update, the survey results were not weighted. As such, the responses of very
small agencies received the same consideration as very large agencies. It may be useful to apply a weighting system
to future outreach effor ts, so that the results reflect a more accurate distribution according to the number of trips
provided by the agency and/or the number of clients served.
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 14
• Transportation Netw ork Issues: Gaps
Participants were presented with the issues noted in the 2008 plan as “gaps” in the transportation
network, and were asked to rate these issues on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not important, and 5
being very important. The gaps included rural services, night & weekend services, transportation
services for young adults, and short notice trips.
Significance
Low Highh
0 2
4
6
8
10
12
Number/type of clients served has
changed
Area of clients served has changed
Funding/staffing changes
Change in number of available
vehicles
Organizational charter has
changed
No significant changes
Other
Number of Responses
Figure 4 – Importance of Gaps in the Transportation Network
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 15
The most crucial gap was rural services, as shown in Figure 4 . Fourteen participants (74%) noted that
this was a very important issueand none identified the issue as not important. In contrast , responses to
other gaps indicated that the other gaps may be important to some, but not all, of the agencies
surveyed. This suggests that, across the varied charters and organizational goals of the agencies, the
provision of service to rural areas is a c ommon denominator. More detailed analysis, conducted as part
of a future coordination effort, may reveal overlaps and other specific circumstances within these gaps.
The responses to the transportation network gap were also mapped using GIS software. Man y of the
agencies are located within a close distance to one another, or are co -located in the case of some
County agencies. The purpose of mapping these priorities was to determine if any easily identifiable
geographic patterns exist among the service age ncies.
The results of this mapping are shown on Maps 5 and 6 . The mapping suggests that, from a purely
geographic perspective, there may be opportunities to address these gaps by coordinating services
between those closely-located agencies that provide t ransportation services to and from the main
office.
• Transportation Network Issues: Obstacles
Coordination among human service agencies is dependent on more than just location. As the 2008 plan
noted, different agencies service separate client bases and have varied transportation n eeds.
Organizational and administrative obstacles, such as insurance policy restrictions, also serve as a barrier
to coordination. The survey participants were asked to rank the significance of these obstacles on a scale
of 1-5, with 1 being an insignificant issue, and 5 representing a very significant issue. The results are
summarized in Figure 5 below.
These results indicate that funding
restrictions are the most significant
obstacle to transportation
coordination , followed by
organizational policies. While much
can be gained at the County level by
loosening policy restrictions between
departments, the issue of funding
source restrictions will not be solved
at the local level without assistance
from State and Federal partners.
C lient unwillingness can often be
overcome by provision for “bus
buddies” or “door -through-door”
service. This type of program , in
which older riders and people with
disabilities may benefit from additional assistance, can be a useful application of 5317 funding.
Tranportation training such as this is already offered by some agencies in the A/GFTC area, such as the
Southern Adirondack Independent Living Center. It may be possible for other agencies to contract for
client training on an as -needed basis, rahter than try to create new training programs where none
currently exist. As noted in the 2008 plan , only four of the 21 responding agencies that provide
transportation services reported that they did not restrict those services to their own clients. A more
thorough examination of the trip capacity of those four agencies is required if further coordination is to
be possible.
Figure 5 – Significance of Obstacles to
Transportation Coordination
Significance
Low Highh
Funding
Restrictions
Client
Unwillingness
Client
Incompatibility
Insurance Restrictions
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 16
Map 5: Importance of Gaps in the Transportation Network (Night/Weekend and Rural Services)
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 17
Map 6: Importance of Gaps in the Transportation Network (Short-Notice and Young Adult Services)
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 18
• Transportation Network Issues: Needs
Survey participants were also asked to rank the needs identified in the 2008 pla n, which included
centralized mobility management, regional vehicle repair center, additional staff, additiona l training,
more vehicles, and more funding. These results are summarized in Figure 6.
It is perhaps unsurprising that the most significant need among human services agencies is more
funding. The next most important need is for additional vehicles. The survey results reveal that
additional staff and training are somewhat important to important for several of the agencies.
Centralized mobility management and a regional vehicle repair center were ranked as important/very
important by a few agencies, although an almost equal number of agencies note that these needs are
not applicable or unimportant to their agencies. This suggests that, given current conditions, active
coordination efforts (such as centralized mobility management and a regional vehicle repair center) may
not be useful to all of the survey participants. Access to additional funds and vehicles, however, would
fulfill an immediate need. It is important to note that, although funding increases would address some
problems on an individual basis, coordination among agencies may prove to be a sustainable way for
agencies to make more efficient use of the resources they have. For example, regional vehicle repair
services are already provided to many agencies by CWI, which runs a fully -staffed garage. Expanding this
service to other agencies may pro vide some benefit, as one step towards a sustainable coordination
effort. Future regional coordination efforts should explore these types of incremental opportunities.
6. Conclusions
As noted in the 2008 plan, coordination of transportation among human serv ice agencies is a
complicated prospect. There is an extensive range of human services clients throughout the A/GFTC
Planning and Programming Area, spanning all age brackets and char acteristics. More organizations serve
adults and seniors than children and young adults. Physical disabilities, income limitations, and mental
illnesses were the most common handicapping characteristics. Medical appointments and social and
recreational programs were the domina nt trip purposes. These responses emphasize that providing
transportation is more complex than simply supplying a vehicle and a driver, as many of these clients
require additional assistance, special equipment or supervision.
Figure 6 – Needs/Opportunities for Transportation Coordination
Significance
Low Highh
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 19
In general, the Vision of the 2008 plan is still valid, based on the information received during the survey.
The Actions and Recommendations of the 2008 plan were re-examined, using the information gathered
in this update, and have been re-affirmed or revised, as listed below. It is also crucial to note that,
despite the current uncertainty of transportation funding, some form of coordination of transportation
services among human service agencies should continue to be pursued, even if these programs are
reduced or eliminated.
Actions:
1. The 2008 CHSTP called for the establish ment of an areawide Human Services Transportation
Committee (HSTC) to review and monitor progress of this Plan and its recommendations.
Although the original intent was to create a standing committee with regular meetings, this
committee structure proved to be impracticable. This is due to a combination of factors,
including the irregular funding cycles of 5310 and other programs , as well as the difficulty in
maintaining interest and scheduling meetings among agencies across three counties . This
update therefore recommends that the HSTC continue to meet on as -needed basis, to review
and monitor this Plan and to coordinate on issues of shared interest.
2. As stated in the 2008 plan, t he Section 5310 program application review process was updated to
reflect the additional commitment necessary for coordination of transportation services. This
update re-affirms the need for Section 5310 applications to demonstrate progress in
coordination activities, regardless of funding availability. Although demonstrable progress in
coordination among agencies continues to be a chief goal of this plan, funding formula
modifications have reinforced the need to maintain existing levels of service. Given recent
limitations on funding, and the requirement to utilize at least 55% of 5310 funds on capital
expenses, this updated plan also stresses the importance of fleet maintenance and continuity .
For many local transportation providers, replacement of fleet vehicles is necessary to prevent
reduct ions in service.
3. As stated in the 2008 plan, A/GFTC will continue to commit staff resources as available and
requested towards working with public agencies and private not -for-profit organizations to
continue identifying and implementing transportation c oordination activities.
Recommendations:
1. This update re-affirms the recommendation that service coordination opportunities be initiated
at the municipal or County level. A/GFTC is not a regulatory entity and has limited influence on
the actual provision and operation of human services transportation. County -level
transportation services offer many opportunities to further transportation coordination well in
advance of any foreseen inter -county collaborations. A/GFTC staff is committed to assist with
these efforts.
2. As stated in the 2008 plan, a further quantification of transportation needs should be
determined through a more refined geographic analysis. A/GFTC staff is committed to assist
with these efforts to establish a strategy to develop a functional and comprehensive system of
mobility management that improves transportation options and reduces duplication of
operations. An updated list of service providers and an inventory of existing services should be
completed before this task is initiated.
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update – 2014
Page 20
3. This update re-affirms the recommendation that p rivate practice providers of services are
hereby encouraged to work with the human services agencies to coordinate scheduling on a
geographic basis to the extent possible to reduce the need for rural -to-urban trips. Some
successes have been realized with pre -arranged on -site visits to larger care facilities but it is very
likely that significant additional improvements can be made in this area. Service agencies should
recognize participating practices and encourage their clients to utilize them.
4. This update re-affirms the recommendation that agency directors and local officials should
begin the process of removing departmen t-level obstacles such as organizational policies.
Where restrictions are attached to the funding conditions at the State and Federal program
levels, those restrictions should be inventoried and presented as barriers towards
implementation of shared servic es to the appropriate State and Congressional representatives
for their consideration.
APPENDIX 1
Coordinated Human Services
Transportation Plan
for
Warren, Washington, and
northern Saratoga Counties
A dirondack / Glens F alls Transportation Council
Acknowledgments
A/GFTC wishes to thank the representatives from the following organizations and municipalities
for lending their time, experien ces and expertise towards the preparation of this document:
Adirondack Manor HFA
Eden Park Health Care Center
Community, Work, and Independence
Cornell Cooperative Extension (Warren County)
Glens Falls Hospital
Glens Falls Housing Authority
Greater Glens Falls Transit
Home Front Development Corporation
Liberty House Foundation, Inc.
New York State Department of Transportation
The Oaks at Fort Hudson
Office for Community Services for Warren and Washington Counties
Pleasant Valley Nursing Home
Prospect Child and Family Center
Voices of the Heart, Inc.
Warren County Assigned Counsel
Warren County Board of Supervisors
Warren County Health Services
Warren County Public Defender’s Office
Warren County Probation Department
Warren County Department of Social Services
Warren County Veterans Services
Warren County Youth Bureau
Warren/ Hamilton County Office for the Aging
Warren ‐Washington County ARC
Washington County Office of the Administrator
Washington County Office for the Aging
Washington County Board of Elections
Washington County Department of Social Services
Washington County Economic Opportunity Council
Washington County Veterans Service Agency
Washington County Youth Bureau
Westmount Health Facility
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 1
1. Introduction
The Adirondack /Glens Falls Transportation Council is recognized by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as the designated Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) for Warren and Washington Counties, and the Town of Moreau in
Saratoga County. The mission of the MPO is to facilitate cooperative transportation planning
and de
cision ‐making between area municipalities and state and federal agencies and to
establish a process for the allocation and use of federal highway and transit funds available to
the region. In addition, A/GFTC is responsible conducting a continuing, comprehensive and
cooperative transportation planning process and for developing and updating a short ‐term
program of f
ederally funded transportation projects known as the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and a regional long ‐range transportation plan (LRP). As part of the ongoing
planning process, A/GFTC has worked closely with Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT), New York
State Department of Transportation, area municipalities and human service a
gencies and
transportation providers to develop this regional Coordinated Human Services Transportation
Plan (HSTP).
Current federal transportation law adopted in 2005 and known as the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA ‐LU, hereafter
referred to as SAFETEA) made a number of changes to the transpor
tation planning process.
Among those new provisions was the requirement for areas to have in place a coordinated
public transit‐human services transportation plan in order to access certain new and existing
programs funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Those programs are:
• Section 5310 ‐ Elderly and I
ndividuals with Disabilities
• Section 5316 ‐ Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC)
• Section 5317 ‐ New Freedom
SAFETEA requires that projects selected for funding under the three programs be “derived from
a locally developed, coordinated public transit ‐human services transportation plan,” and that
the plan be “developed through a process that incl
udes representatives of public, private and
nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public.”
The purpose of the HSTP is to develop a process that will help to improve transportation
services for aging adults, persons with disabilities and individuals with economic disadvantages
within the planning area. This Plan will provide a structure for th
e development of projects that
will address the transportation needs of the targeted populations by improving coordination
between the many transportation stakeholders (agencies, clients, operators and regulatory
entities).
A specific goal of the Plan is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of transportation
services provided in the area by reducing service du
plications, identifying and addressing service
gaps, extending the range of services available throughout the area, maximizing interagency
cooperation, and prioritizing future investment strategies and candidates.
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 2
2. Federal Transit Programs that require a HSTP
Section 5310 provides 80‐20% grant funding, usually for capital projects, to private nonprofit
groups and selected public entities to help address the transportation needs of their elderly and
disabled clients. Ideally, 5310 funds are awarded only in cases where existing transportation
services (public and private) are unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate to me
eting those
needs. Examples of eligible capital expenses include but are not limited to:
• purchase or lease of new vehicles
• vehicle rehabilitation and preventative maintenance
• communications equipment
• component installation costs
• acquisition of transportation services under contract
• technology and transit ‐related intelligent transportation systems (ITS
)
• new mobility management and coordination programs among public and/or human
service transportation providers
Presently the 5310 program is administered by NYSDOT with A/GFTC provided a limited
opportunity to review applications. NYSDOT makes the final decision to which applicants receive
funding. Several organizations within the A/GFTC Planning and Programming Are
a have applied
for 5310 funding, including:
• Transit Connection/Community Workshop Inc.(now known as Community, Work and
Independence)
• Moreau Community Center
• Hudson Headwaters Health Network
• Saratoga ARC
• Adirondack Tri ‐County Nursing and Rehabilitation, Inc.
• Battenkill Community Services, Inc.
To date, all applications reviewed by A/GFTC have been for new vehicle purchases.
Section 5316 is a grant program designed to assist municipal and non ‐profit entities with the
provision of transportation services for low ‐income persons to and from jobs (Job Access) and
for residents of urban, rur
al and suburban areas to suburban employment (Reverse Commute).
Funding is apportioned directly to public transit systems. Eligible expenses for 5316 funds
include but are not limited to:
• expanded fixed ‐route transit operations, including late ‐night and weekend services
• promoting use of transit by workers with nontraditional work sche
dules
• transit vouchers
• use of employer ‐provided transportation
• establishing and operating demand ‐responsive services
• ridesharing and carpooling activities
• establishing regional mobility managers or transportation brokerage activities
Section 5316 is now a formula program as opposed to the previous discretionary program. As is
the case with 5310, the Fe
deral/local share is 80/20 for capital projects; operating projects are
funded at a 50/50 share. Twenty percent of the overall national program total is proportioned
between smaller urbanized areas (those with populations less than 200,000 persons) based
upon relative populations of low‐income persons within those areas.
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 3
Section 5317 is a new formula grant program for services and facility improvements that
address the transportation needs of persons with disabilities by providing accommodations that
exceed the minimum requirements of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 5317 funds can be
used for associated capital and operating costs to provide these services in
cluding but not
limited to purchasing vehicles, support for accessible taxi, ride ‐sharing, and vanpooling
programs, expanding the range of required paratransit service and supporting mobility
management and coordination programs .
Federal funds are allocated on a discretionary basis based upon the number of persons with
disabilities. As is the case with 5316 f
unds, 20% of the national funding totals are to be
apportioned to small urban areas. The Federal share for the net project capital cost of a project
may be up to 80 percent but not more than 50 percent of the net operating cost of a project.
3. Regional Ge
ography and Demographics
• Geography
The Planning and Programming Area for A/GFTC includes Warren County, Washington County,
and the Town of Moreau in Saratoga County. The major population center within this area is the
Glens Falls Urban Area that includes the following municipalities:
o City of Glens Falls
o Town and Village of Fort Edward
o Village of Hud
son Falls
o Town of Kingsbury
o Town and Village of Lake George
o Town of Moreau
o Town of Queensbury
o Village of South Glens Falls
The Urban Area is located at the southeastern extreme of Warren County and the western
extreme of Washington County. This poses some inherent difficulties in a
ccess to services as the
majority of the region’s land area and approximately ½ of its population are rural. Many of those
rural residents are located in outlying hamlets and villages, including:
o Village of Cambridge
o Chestertown
o Village of Granville
o Village of Greenwich
o North Creek
o Village of Sal
em
o Warrensburg
o Whitehall
As shown in Map 1 , other outlying service areas are closer to certain subareas of the A/GFTC
area: Albany, Saratoga Springs and Bennington (VT) are potentially more convenient to southern
Washington County, while Ticonderoga is a frequent destination for those living in norther
n
Warren or northern Washington Counties. Rutland, VT also attracts service clients from
northeastern Washington County.
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 4
• Population Patterns
Within the A/GFTC area, population grew by 5.0% between 1990 and 2000, the highest growth
rate among urbanized areas in upstate New York during that time. However, most of that
growth occurred in suburban areas; populations of the City and urban Villages declined by rates
ranging from 3.9% to 11.8% during that tim
e. The trend of rural and suburban areas growing at
higher rates as traditional urban area populations decline is common throughout the United
States and highlights the decentralization that is occurring within the Glens Falls area itself.
While more and more people are relocating to the area, they are typically se
ttling at greater
distances from established service areas. The land use implication of this trend is that the
service sector will follow its clients, further exacerbating decentralization and making access to
those services that much more difficult to coordinate.
• Aging Demographics
Figure 1 shows that regional population distribution within the A/GFTC area has been far from
uniform across age segments. In 2000, the age segments with the largest number of persons
were 45‐54 years old and 35‐44 years old (14.3% and 16.6% of the total population). Future
growth in the older age br
ackets is expected to be higher than in other segments as advances in
medical technology continue to prolong life and as people currently in the middle age brackets
grow older. Although it is more common for seniors to choose to continue to own and operate
their own vehicles we
ll into the later stages of life than it has been in the past, the eventual
Map 1 – A/GFTC
Planning and
Programming Area with proximity to
other service areas
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 5
aging of the now middle ‐aged populations is expected to generate a significant increase in the
demand for human services and transportation assistance.
• Disability Data
Persons with disabilities can be used as an indicator of need for services. According to the 2005
American Community Survey, 14.6% of the overall population is living with one or more physical
disabilities. As the relative percentage of persons with disabilities tends to increase by age
segment, it can be expected that the nu
mber of diasbled persons will continue to increase.
• Automobiles per Household
Access to automobiles is another important determinant of regional mobility. The mean number
of automobiles available per household decreased slightly between 1990 ‐2000, while the
number of households with no automobile increased slightly. While not yet statistically
significant, these trends are also expected to continue in the near future as the costs associated
with auto ow
nership continue to rise. This will place a greater demand on shared transportation
services.
• Income
Poverty statistics show that 11.6% of the A/GFTC area population in 2000 lived below the
poverty level based upon 1999 income levels, a percentage that is well below the 2000 New
York State average of 18.6%. Using a more refined analysis, A/GFTC’s Environmental Justice
Review (2005) identified 16 Census Block Groups in its Planning and Programmi
ng Area that had
an average household income of 80% or less of the median county household incomes (see Map
2 ). While most of those areas occurred within the Greater Glens Falls area, several rural areas
displayed distinct moderate income populations, including:
• Town of J
ohnsburg
• Town of Warrensburg
• Town and Village of Whitehall
• Town and Village of Granville
• Town of Argyle
• Conclusions from Census data
The A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area is characterized by a unique geography in that the
concentration of human service providers is not central to either Warren or Washington
Counties, and in many cases is not much closer to residents of Moreau than the Saratoga Springs
area. The Albany ‐Troy‐Schenectady area is actually closer to residents of southern Washington
Figure 1 –
Percentage of Total
Population by Age Group
Source: 2000 Census
of Population
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 6
County than Glens Falls, and residents of the northern areas of Warren and Washington County
may choose to utilize services based in Ticondero ga or Rutland, VT. Therefore, although the
Glens Falls area is a regional population and serv ice hub, it may not be the primary destination
for all clients in the Planning and Programming Area.
Age data suggests that although there is not a disproportionate percentage of elderly persons
currently living in the area, thos e populations are certain to incr ease as compared to other age
cohorts. Income data suggests that rates of poverty within the A/GFTC area are well below state
averages, but certain outlying rural areas warrant ad ditional consideration. The trends indicating
a gradual decline of automobiles per household an d a gradual increase in households with no
automobiles are expected to continue as fuel and commodity costs rise in proportion to income.
All of these factors contribute towards the demand for human service transportation, but it is
the broad geographic distribution of clients and providers coupled with multiple service
destinations in and outside of th e area that would appear to pose the major challenge to human
service transportation coordination. As the proj ect solicitation and selection process evolves,
more refined and
geographically ‐
specific data and
projections may
be required within
future analyses to
more accurately
assess priorities
within the
Planning and
Programming
Area.
Map 2 – Census Block Groups within the
A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area with
Average Household Incomes less than 80% of the Countywide Averages
Source: 2000 Census of Population
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 7
4. Survey Results
A survey developed by the Capital District Transportation Committee was adapted and
distributed by A/GFTC to human service organizations within the planning and programming
area (the survey is included as Appendix A). Meetings were conducted with the County
Administrations in both Warren and Washington Counties to introduce department heads to
this plan
ning process and to attempt to maximize responses. In all, 26 completed surveys were
returned to A/GFTC. Those results are summarized below:
• Client Characteristics
Most of the agencies listed seniors (ages 60+) and adults (ages 18 ‐59) as the age groups that
they cater their services to, outnumbering childre
n (0 ‐12) and youth (13 ‐17) by nearly two ‐fold.
Seven of the responding organizations tailor their assistance exclusively to seniors and ten of the
organizations serve clients in all of the four age classifications. The special needs subgroups
identified most frequently by service agencies were as follows (in descending order)
:
• persons with physical disabilities
• low‐income or public assistance clients (tie)
• persons with mental illness (tie)
• persons with medical problems
• persons with developmental disabilities
Children with disabilities were served by the fewest number of respondents, followed closely by
clients with substance abuse issues.
Slightly more agencies (22
) reported clients residing in Warren County than in Washington
County (17) with only 9 organizations serving clients in northern Saratoga County. Two agencies
reported clients in Hamilton County and one listed clients in Essex County. Outside of those
defined areas, one organization provided assistance to homeless clients. C
umulatively the
agencies responding to the survey serve over an estimated 143,000 client requests annually.
That number is approximately equal to the total population of Warren County, Washington
County, and the Town of Moreau.
The proportion of clients identified by agencies as having some sort of transportation limitation
ranged from 2.0% to 100.0
% with an average rate among the agencies of 58.8%. No respondents
reported that 100% of their clients did not have a limitation. Five respondents categorized all of
their clients as having some transportation limitation(s). The issue of financial limitations
(people that cannot afford a personal vehicle or other transporta
tion costs) was cited by the
most agencies, followed closely by physical disabilities, living in remote locations, and age ‐
related disabilities. Mental health and developmental disabilities were cited somewhat less
frequently, and hearing and visual impairments were reported with the least frequency. As for
the types of assistance that clients with t
ransportation limitations required, assistance getting in
and out of a vehicle, the need for a personal care attendant or escort and wheelchair lifts were
listed most often.
Slightly over ½ of the responding agencies dedicated staff on either a full ‐ or part ‐time basis to
assist clients with trip plan
ning or travel training assistance. Twelve of the responding agencies
reported that 90‐100% of their clients were responsible for arranging their own transportation,
and nine of those twelve do not reimburse their clients for their transportation expenses.
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 8
• Agency Transportation Characteristics
When asked to provide their concerns about the provision of transportation service to those
clients in need, three common themes emerged:
• challenges posed by the rural geography of the area
• issues relating to time (span and duration of services, travel times, and
not having sufficient plan
ning time to react to client requests)
• cost
All three of those concerns were cited with equal frequency. Other issues noted included access
to existing services, availability of escorts, equipment limitations, administrative issues related
to Medicaid, insufficient number of vehicles and/or seating capacity, reliability, and prioritizing
clients based upon need.
Sixte
en out of the twenty ‐five organizations that responded provide direct transportation
assistance to their clients, usually in the form of agency ‐owned or leased vehicles. Employees or
volunteers using their own vehicles to assist with client transportation were far less common,
and, more often than not, those employees were not reimbursed for expe
nses related to client
transportation. As a practice, the provision of purchased transportation was far less common
than direct transportation assistance. Of the eleven organizations that reported that purchased
transportation assistance was available, six of those also provided direct transportation. The
most common purchased transportation assistance was the provision of tokens or passes for
use on Great
er Glens Falls Transit services, followed by contractual arrangements with not‐for
profit transportation providers and cash reimbursements for transportation costs. Four
organizations provided no transportation assistance to their clients.
An estimated 143,575 one ‐way trips were provided or arranged by the 21 organ
izations that
offered transportation assistance to their clients, with 98.9% of those trips occurring from
Monday through Friday of any given week. Only four organizations did not restrict their services
exclusively to their members. A slightly higher number of the restrictions (9) were due to
funding source requirements rather than organization
al policy (7). Demand‐responsive and
special event ‐related trips outnumbered fixed‐route or recurring trips as set by either the
agency or the consumer. Restrictions on range of services were typically more closely aligned
with what municipality the organization was a part of (i.e. County agencies often could only
transport County residents) rather tha
n fixed distances, although three organizations did limit
trips to only those under 35 miles in length.
A wide variety of trip purposes were listed, with medical appointments and social or
recreational programs occurring most often. Personal errands and social service and treatment
appointments were also common. Congregate meal
s, legal assistance and court activities were
comparatively less common.
Mirroring the age groups that the various organizations are geared towards, most
transportation services were provided to seniors (60+) and adults (18 ‐59). Only six organizations
provided transportation to children twelve years of age and under. Physical disa
bilities and
medical problems were the most common handicapping characteristics of transported clients.
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 9
• Fleet and Operator Characteristics
Of organizations that operated their own vehicles, ½ performed their own fleet maintenance
and the other ½ contracted with an outside vend or or another municipal department. Only two
agencies relied on volunteers to drive those vehicles; the other organizations were again evenly
split between using dedicated drivers on staff and non‐driving‐specific staff. The vast majority of
those driving vehicles have received some form of additional training or certification despite the
fact that only four of the responding orga nizations stated that that was a requirement.
Map 3 – Relative Intensity of Transportation Services
Darker shading indicates a higher
concentration of service providers
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 10
Two ‐thirds of the affected organizations were required to comply with NYSDOT vehicle
inspections. Seven organizations reported one or more challenges incurred while operating their
respective transportation programs. Specific challenges noted most frequently included lack of
adequate funding, difficulty recruiting and/or training drivers, inadequate number of vehicles,
and insufficient responsiveness to client reques
ts due to vehicle maintenance issues.
• Vehicle Utilization Characteristics
Denied or cancelled trip requests were very infrequent among the respondents with one
notable exception. One organization that caters exclusively to seniors noted that an estimated
75% of its trip requests were denied based upon insufficient capacity.
Three organizations reported occasional surplus or un
used vehicle capacity. Occasional vehicle
downtime was reported by six organizations; four of those characterized that downtime as
being predictable.
Only five organizations stated that they participated in some sort of vehicle or service
coordination arrangement with other agencies. Those arrangements were limited to the
transport of non ‐organiza
tional customers, coordinating services with other agencies, or the
sharing of vehicles, drivers, or dispatching services. No organizations jointly funded vehicles,
maintenance services, or fuel. Of the five organizations that provided transportation to clients of
other agencies, two of those arrangements were established via contract or MOU, another two
relied upon in
ter ‐organizational reimbursement based upon the volume of services provided,
and the fifth does not have a reimbursement arrangement in place.
• Conclusions from survey data
There is an extensive range of human services clients throughout the A/GFTC Planning and
Programming Area, spanning all age brackets and characteristics. More organizations serve
adults and seniors than children and young adults. Physical disabilities, income limitations, and
mental illnesses were the most common handicapping characteristics. Medical appointments
and social and recr
eational programs were the dominant trip purposes. These responses
emphasize that providing transportation is more complex than simply supplying a vehicle and a
driver, as many of these clients require additional assistance, special equipment or supervision.
Over one‐half of the responding agencies dedicated full ‐ or part ‐time staff services for the
purpose of ar
ranging client transportation. Many of these staff hours could likely be spent
furthering other agency objectives should a coordinated and cooperative transportation service
system be instituted. One ‐half of the organizations that operated their own vehicles were reliant
upon another organization for vehicle maintenance. Ideally it should not be necessary for every
organization that has cli
ents with transportation limitations to have dedicated staff and vehicles
for client transportation.
The most commonly cited challenges to transportation provision were rural geography, time,
and cost. Extending the service hours of public transportation to include additional night and
weekend services partially addresses those concer
ns within the urban area but does not solve
the issue of limited service to rural clients. Based upon the existing geographic range of
transportation availability, the following locations can be classified as underserved by access to
and from the Glens Falls Urban Area:
o Northern Warren County (North Creek, Hague, Chestertown and Warrensburg)
o Southern and eastern Washington County (Cambridge, Salem, Gre
enwich)
o Northern Washington County (Whitehall, Granville, Putnam)
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 11
o Town of Moreau (not a function of distance; many responding organizations provide
services that are specific to either Warren or Washington County ‐based clients)
Few agencies reported having to deny trip requests with one major exception. This indicates
that although services and providers are somewhat dispersed, the needed accommodations for
most cli
ents are generally being met. The volume of annual trip requests (over 143,000, with
almost 99% of those estimated to be between Monday and Friday) suggests two things: (1)
coordination could have substantial benefits to many clients and organizations, and (2) that the
issues of service coordination are largely manageab
le within the standard municipal work week.
5. Public Transportation System
Within the Glens Falls urban area, Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) operates year round public
transportation services to eleven contiguous municipalities (map below). In 2007, GGFT carried
329,000 passengers on its fixed‐route, paratransit, and seasonal trolley services. Transit service
operates between the hours of 6:00am and 10:00pm Monday through Friday and from 8:00am
until 10:00pm on Saturda
ys. The base fare is $1.00 with a 30‐cent charge for transfers. Persons
sixty years old and older and those with disabilities may ride for ½ fare. GGFT also offers a
variety of discounted passes and tokens for frequent riders as well as agency cl
ients.
In December 2007, GGFT began operation of extended evening hours through the cooperation
of the Departments of Social Services in both Washington and Warren Counties. GGFT has
regularly adjusted its routes when warranted to accommodate service needs of commuters and
elderly & disabled passengers.
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 12
6. Issue Summary: Gaps, Needs, and Obstacles
• Service Gaps
Based upon 2000 Census data, the results of the survey, several face ‐to‐face meetings and
discussions with operators and providers, and general knowledge of client needs that are
commonly unmet by transportation providers, the following underserved areas or elements of
the population have been identified within the A/GFTC Planning an
d Programming Area:
Rural Services
Outlying population centers are typically underserved by transportation services, despite the
fact that those services are becoming increasingly necessary. General and specialized medical
services, retail outlets, grocery stores and other services continue to prefer the customer and
client bases afforded by urban and suburban settings. When those services locate in more
densely popu
lated areas, the associated jobs and social and economic activity follow suit.
Additionally, seniors continue to enjoy longer lives through advances in medical care and a
greater emphasis is placed on home ‐based rather than institutionalized care. The cumulative
effects of these trends are that (1) a greater number of people are living at gr
eater distances
from both necessary and desired services than in the past, and (2) jobs are concentrating away
from rural areas. Past efforts to operate regular fixed ‐route public transportation services to
rural areas have proven to be financially unsustainable due to the operating costs associated
with travelling extended rou
tes with limited ridership.
Night, Weekend and Services
The majority of human services trips are generated on weekdays during standard business
hours, but there remains a demand for expanded transportation availability to include nights
and weekends, particularly for job access and shopping. Some potential clients may be those
that have driving restrictions that preclude night driving. While Greater Glens Falls Transit does
operate on Sat
urdays, the number of trips to and from the various regular destinations is slightly
reduced from a typical weekday. Sunday services are currently not offered. GGFT has re ‐
instituted nighttime services along two of its most heavily travelled service runs on a trial basis
to assess potential ridership. Th
e well ‐utilized seasonal trolley services operated by GGFT also
address many of the needs of summertime retail workers, but these services are only available
locally during the peak tourist season of May ‐October. Additional financial assistance could be
used to sustain or expand evening, weekend and trolley services as well as e
xpand the utility of
those services by modifying vehicle characteristics to better accommodate groceries or other
difficult ‐to‐carry items.
Transportation Services for Young Adults
While medical care trips are the predominant form of human services transportation within the
A/GFTC area, mobility for able ‐bodied young adults is often overlooked. Of particular concern is
the growing number of teenagers that work at a considerable distance from home. For many,
the personal costs of transportation can quickly nega
te the economic benefits of either part ‐ or
full ‐time employment.
Short ‐Notice Trips
Many service organizations noted that trips arranged on short notice (such as those
necessitated by urgent medical appointments or as a result of cancellations or rescheduling) are
very difficult to accommodate. Contracting transportation providers such as taxi services often
schedule well in advance and the availability of service is often predicated by ad
jacent
appointments or trips. The variety of transportation operators whose services that may or may
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 13
not be available at a given time compounds the problem. Despite the significance of this issue,
working towards the goal of service coordination is not likely to address this in a meaningful
way.
• Service Needs
For the purpose of this Plan, service needs are defined as those resources, facilities and other
considerations that have been id
entified by participating agencies as having the ability to
positively impact the availability and provision of human services transportation.
Centralized Mobility Management
There is broad support among Plan participants for the establishment of a centralized mobility
management center. The full evolution of this concept would be a human service transportation
center that could both coordinate and provide transportation services for a wide variety of
clients and trip purposes. Such an evolution would likely never replace the need for all existi
ng
independent operators and agency ‐specific trip purposes but could defray human service
agency transportation costs through economy of scale. Although such a concept cannot be
implemented quickly, there are a number of incremental steps that can be taken in the short
term to adva
nce this goal.
Regional Vehicle Repair Center
Shared and coordinated services can take many forms. While several organizations indicated
that they have maintenance agreements in place with other departments, a regional vehicle
repair center of sufficiently large scale to allow its operator to accommodate the routine
maintenance and repair needs of vehicles owned by other outside agencies has the potential to
further save on maintena
nce costs, staff time, parts procurement, and other expenses related to
operating vehicles. No such facility has been identified to date; construction and/or operation of
a shared repair center would appear to be eligible for Section 5310 funds per Federal statute
should New York State rela
x its own funding restrictions on the program.
Additional staff resources
Many organizations noted that more services could be provided with more personnel that are
available. Aides, drivers, and trip coordinators are in demand. Many of these functions are
served on a part ‐time or as‐needed basis by employees that were not necessarily hired or ideally
qualified to do so.
Addition
al training
The issue of additional training was raised in two forms: travel training and staff training. Travel
training consists of providing clients with information that will allow use of the existing
transportation services with minimal difficulty. Such training can tac agency resources and in
some cases the required information may be given by less‐than ‐experie
nced personnel.
Expanding the capabilities of existing staffs through training and/or certifications is another
strategy to improve transpoprtation utilization. Training can likely be coordinated within the
region by shared or pooled funding. While expanding the capabilities of staff to provide proper
assistance to those clients with disabilities is cer
tainly beneficial, having employees that are
qualified to perform more tasks is only a partial solution to the larger issue of limited staff
resources.
More Vehicles
Having more vehicles dedicated to human services transportation would improve upon the
range and frequency of existing services, but most participating agencies readily acknowledge
that solving the many issues related to transportation coordination is more involved than simply
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 14
expanding the size of the collective motor pool. Vehicle ownership and operation entail a variety
of direct and indirect costs in terms of capital and personnel resources that some departments
are either unwilling or unable to assume. Yet, others have clients whose needs cannot be met by
other organizations or operators. Section 5310 funds will c
ontinue to provide new vehicles to
qualifying organizations, but this Plan should reinforce that those vehicles are granted towards
applicants that have (1)demonstrated in the past or are willing to engage in service coordination
activities, or(2) clients whose needs simply cannot be addressed by other participating
organizations.
More fundi
ng
The greater availability of funds can potentially address several of the items previously listed to
some degree, if perhaps not all at once. Short ‐term investments will be necessary to address
immediate resource shortages, but the shared vision of a centralized and coordinated
transportation management entity will not be realized by dedi
cating all available funding to
address the specific needs of several organizations independently. In fact, continuing to expand
the number of agencies that are granted their own vehicles and equipment outside of a
coordinated program will serve to increase the magnitude of the problem that this Plan is
tasked to address.
• Obstacles
The partici
pating agencies had much to share with regards to conditions or policies that
contribute to the shortage of coordinated transportation services. Although there is cause for
optimism that the formulation and implementation of this Plan will help address some of the
cited issues, still others will require fu
ndamental changes in statewide or national policies
before they can be resolved. The following are noted as realistic challenges towards full
implementation of a coordinated human services transportation system, but should not be
considered as “fatal flaws.”
Funding source restrictions and organizational policies
As noted in the survey results, only four of the 21 responding agencies that provide
transportation services reported that they did not restrict those services to their own clients.
The two primary limitations that were identified were (1) restrictions on funding and (2)
organizational policy. While much can be gained at the County leve
l by loosening policy
restrictions between departments, the issue of funding source restrictions will not be solved at
the local level without assistance from State and Federal partners.
Client Unwillingness
Frequently cited as an obstacle was the tendency for certain clients to not want to share their
transportation services with other clients, some even going as far to obtain notes from their
physicians stating that the patient is not fit to ride a bus. While in some cases (such as those
involving dev
elopmentally disabled children or their parents that may feel as though their
children require special care or are vulnerable to distrubance from other clients) this may be a
legitmate issue, this concern would seem to be well beyond the span of influence for the client
who is likely being tranpo
srted as a service at little or no direct cost to the individual. Improved
coverage and efficiency of transportation services that could result from enhanced coordination
would ideally mitigate some of these reservations.
Client Incompatibility
A much more substantial issue than unwillingness is the fact that certain clients will not be
compatible with one another, particularly those served by different organizations. Still others
have handicapping characteristics or care requirements that make sharing services unrealistic.
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 15
Legal issues could arise in the cases where clients that have criminal histories or existing parole
conditions could be grouped with children or the physically or mentally disadvantaged. Agencies
that provide transportation will need to be afforded the necessary legal cover to obtain
information regarding the nature and history of the cl
ients that they are transporting to avoid
potentially undesirable consequences.
Insurance Policy Restrictions
As an example of another obstacle that will not be removed at the local level, Plan participants
also noted insurance and liability restrictions that would likely prevent the sharing of vehicles or
the integration of differing client bases if left unchanged. Intuitively it would stand to reason
that coordinating services by redu
cing the number of operators acting independently in
conjunction with providing those services through a greater number of professionally trained
and licensed drivers and aides would reduce potential liability.
7. Vision , Actions and Recommendations
VISION
The demand for improved and expanded human services transportation services will increase in
the very near term as the largest segments of the domestic population enter their later stages of
life and will be sustained as advances in medicine and care technology allow people to live
longer lives. The current Fe
deral emphasis on shifting assistance from institution ‐based towards
more home ‐based care will accelerate that upward trend in demand.
Most organizations contacted throughout the development of this Plan are accommodating the
majority of the transportation needs of their clients, albeit at significant costs in terms of
finances, time and person
nel. The intent of this Plan is not to state that the existing
transportation services as a regional collective are inefficient or broken, but rather that they can
be improved. Fortunately, no entities acknowledge this more readily than the human service
organizations themselves. While some agencies without vehicles are justified to seek new
equip
ment and vehicles in order to meet their needs, others would like to rid themselves of the
requirements of vehicle ownership and operation altogether.
In order to maximize regional transportation efficiencies, all future coordination efforts should
first seek to maximize the use of available public transit services. In cases wh
ere public transit is
unable to meet service needs, a coordinated system that shares community transportation
resources and needs shall be developed over time in a way that is responsive to the needs
identified within this plan. Areas for potential coordination include but are not limited to:
sharing of vehicle capa
city, shared maintenance facilities, joint training, and centralized
scheduling as appropriate.
ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The principal goal of this Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan is to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of existing services. In many cases, the motivation to do so already
exists in the desire to reduce associated costs and e
xpand services to clients that are currently
underserved. The commitment of municipalities and service providers to engage the issues
associated with transportation coordination is essential for this Plan to succeed. Improvements
can be realized at the individual municipal level well before a regional coordinated system could
evolve. Noting tha
t, the following Actions and Recommendations have been compiled to
forward the implementation of steps designed to improve the coordination of existing services
in the shorter ‐term while working collectively towards the longer ‐term goal of a regional, mult ‐
imunicipal transportation coordination system.
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 16
Actions:
1. A/GFTC will establish and chair an areawide Human Services Transportation
Committee to review and monitor progress of this Plan and its recommendations.
Regular participation and/or communication with this committee will be required of
agencies that seek funding from Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs.
2. The Section 5310 program application review proc
ess will be updated to reflect the
additional commitment that is necessary to advance this Plan. Beginning in SFY 2008 ‐
2009, funding priority will be given to applicants that can demonstrate a history of
service coordination activities before other applicants will be considered. Beginning in
SFY 2010 ‐2011, no Section 5310 funds w
ill be awarded to agencies that cannot
demonstrate progress in coordination activities, regardless of funding availability.
3. Based on the consensus opinion that the public transit operator is in the most
advantageous position to provide meaningful and regular job ‐related transportation to
the non‐ disabled, Section 5
316 funds will be directed towards sustaining or expanding
existing GGFT operations, including evening and weekend fixed ‐route services.
4. Mobility management activities will be the primary focus of Section 5317 fund
distribution. Shorter‐term investments designed to build upon existing transportation
services will be entertained as well, but some fu
nds made available from this program
will be pooled annually to build the necessary reserve to initiate true service coordination
activities.
5. A/GFTC will commit staff resources as available and requested towards working with
public agencies and private not ‐for ‐profit organizations to continue identifying and
implementing transportation coordination activities.
Recommendat
ions:
1. NYSDOT is hereby requested to consider expanding eligible project candidates for
Section 5310 funds. Historically, 5310 funds have only been used within New York State
for the purchase of new vehicles. Mobility management, communications equipment,
contracted services, and preventive maintenance are example of eligible activities as
defined by FTA tha
t could potentially be more beneficial towards advancement of
services coordination than simply expanding the size of the regional vehicle fleet.
2. Service coordination opportunities should be initiated at the municipal level. A/GFTC is
not a regulatory entity and has limited influence on the actual provision and operation of
human servic
es transportation. County ‐level transportation services offer many
opportunities to further transportation coordination well in advance of any foreseen
inter ‐county collaborations. A/GFTC staff is committed to assist with these efforts.
3. A further quantification of transportation needs should be determined through a more
refined geographic analysis. It is an
ticipated that overall value of funding requests will
exceed the amount of available funds. Therefore, new programs and awards will require
careful prioritization to ensure that the human service transportation funds are directed
towards the most pressing needs or to those programs that will have greatest benefit to
region ‐wide mobility.A
n updated list of service providers and an inventory of existing
services should be completed before this task is initiated.
A/GFTC Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Page 17
4. Private practice providers of services are hereby encouraged to work with the human
services agencies to coordinate scheduling on a geographic basis to the extent possible
to reduce the need for rural ‐to‐urban trips. Some successes have been realized with pre ‐
arranged on ‐site visits to larger care facilities but it is very li
kely that significant
additional improvements can be made in this area. Service agencies should recognize
participating practices and encourage their clients to utilize them.
5. Agency directors and local officials should begin the process of removing department ‐
level obstacles such as organizational policies. Where restrictions are a
ttached to the
funding conditions at the State and Federal program levels, those restrictions should be
inventoried and presented as barriers towards implementation of shared services to the
appropriate State and Congressional representatives for their consideration.
APPENDIX 2
1 of 9
AGFTC CHSTP
1. Agency Name:
Response
Count
19
answered question 19
skipped question 0
2. Does your agency currently provide transportation services? This incl
udes direct
transportation services, such as dedicated vehicles and/or drivers, or i
ndirect assistance,
such as helping clients to access public transportation or taxi services
.
Response
Percent Response
Count
Yes (Direct Transportation
Provider) 68.4% 13
Yes (Indirect Transportation
Assistance) 42.1% 8
No Transportation Services
Provided 15.8% 3
answered question 19
skipped question 0
2 of 93. In terms of transportation issues, what is the biggest change which h
as occurred in your
agency in since 2008? (Check as many as appropriate)
Response
Percent Response
Count
Number/type of clients served has
changed 31.6% 6
Area of clients served has changed 15.8% 3
Funding/staffing changes 57.9% 11
Change in number of available
vehicles 5.3% 1
Organizational charter has changed 0.0% 0
No significant changes 15.8% 3
Other (please specify)
21.1% 4
answered question 19
skipped question 0
4. Has this change affected the ability of the agency to provide transpo
rtation services? If
so, how?
Response
Percent Response
Count
No 36.8% 7
N/A 21.1% 4
Yes (please specify)
42.1% 8
answered question 19
skipped question 0
3 of 95. The CHSTP lists a number of issues related to gaps in the human servi
ce transportation
network. Please rate the importance of each of these gaps to your agency
, if applicable, on
a scale of 1 –
5 with one being a low priority and five being a high priority. Please describe
any gaps not listed in the “ other ”
box.
Not
Important Very
Important N/A Rating
Average Response
Count
Rural services 0.0% (0) 0.0%
(0) 10.5%
(2) 15.8%
(3) 73.7%
(14) 0.0%
(0) 4.63 19
Night, weekend services 5.6% (1) 16.7%
(3) 22.2%
(4) 33.3%
(6) 22.2% (4) 0.0%
(0) 3.50 18
Transportation services for young
adults 16.7% (3) 0.0%
(0) 27.8%
(5) 5.6%
(1) 38.9% (7) 11.1%
(2) 3.56 18
Short – notice trips 5.9% (1) 0.0%
(0) 35.3%
(6) 17.6%
(3) 41.2% (7) 0.0%
(0) 3.88 17
Other (please specify)
3
answered question 19
skipped question 0
4 of 96. The CHSTP lists a number of opportunities to coordinate human service
transportation
system. Please rate the importance of each of these to your agency, if a
pplicable, on a
scale of 1 – 5 with one being low importance and five being very important. Please describe
any opportunities or needs not listed in the “ other ”
box.
Not
Important Very
Important N/A Rating
Average Response
Count
Centralized mobility management 11.1% (2) 11.1%
(2) 16.7%
(3) 27.8%
(5) 16.7% (3) 16.7%
(3) 3.33 18
Regional vehicle repair center 22.2% (4) 11.1%
(2) 27.8%
(5) 22.2%
(4) 0.0% (0) 16.7%
(3) 2.60 18
Additional staff 0.0% (0) 5.6%
(1) 33.3%
(6) 27.8%
(5) 16.7% (3) 16.7%
(3) 3.67 18
Additional training 5.6% (1) 5.6%
(1) 38.9%
(7) 22.2%
(4) 11.1% (2) 16.7%
(3) 3.33 18
More vehicles 5.6% (1) 5.6%
(1) 11.1%
(2) 33.3%
(6) 27.8% (5) 16.7%
(3) 3.87 18
More Funding 0.0% (0) 0.0%
(0) 11.1%
(2) 33.3%
(6) 50.0% (9) 5.6%
(1) 4.41 18
Other (please specify)
3
answered question 18
skipped question 1
5 of 97. The CHSTP lists a number of obstacles related to the coordination of
transportation
services. Please rate the severity or significance of each of these obst
acles, if applicable,
on a scale of 1 – 5 with one being a low significance and five being highly significant. Please
describe any obstacles not listed in the “ other ”
box.
Not
Significant Very
Significant N/A Rating
Average Response
Count
Funding source
restrictions/organizational policies 0.0% (0) 11.1%
(2) 11.1%
(2) 33.3%
(6) 38.9% (7) 5.6%
(1) 4.06 18
Client unwillingness 22.2% (4) 22.2%
(4) 27.8%
(5) 16.7%
(3) 0.0% (0) 11.1%
(2) 2.44 18
Client incompatibility 0.0% (0) 22.2%
(4) 16.7%
(3) 38.9%
(7) 11.1% (2) 11.1%
(2) 3.44 18
Insurance policy restrictions
22.2% (4) 5.6%
(1) 16.7%
(3) 22.2%
(4) 16.7% (3) 16.7%
(3) 3.07 18
Other (please specify)
2
answered question 18
skipped question 1
6 of 9
7 of 9Q1. Agency Name:
1 Community Work & Independence, Inc./Transit Connection Jan 13, 2012 7:41 AM
2 Moreau Community Center Jan 9, 2012 12:16 PM
3 Warren/Hamilton Counties Office for the Aging Jan 9, 2012 11:42 AM
4 The pines at glens falls Jan 9, 2012 11:22 AM
5 Warren County Health Services Jan 9, 2012 11:03 AM
6 Glens Falls Hospital Behavioral Health Services Jan 9, 2012 11:00 AM
7 Washington Co Alternative Sentencing / Youth Bureau Jan 9, 2012 10:41 AM
8 Washington County Department of Social Services Jan 9, 2012 10:40 AM
9 Washington County Public Health Nursing Service Jan 9, 2012 10:38 AM
10 Washington County EOC, Inc. Dec 28, 2011 3:18 PM
11 Glens Falls Housing Authortiy Dec 28, 2011 2:08 PM
12 Southern Adirondack Independent Living Center Dec 22, 2011 10:28 AM
13 Warren-Washington ARC Dec 22, 2011 8:52 AM
14 Liberty House Foundation, Inc. Dec 22, 2011 7:30 AM
15 The Pines at Glens Falls Dec 21, 2011 2:52 PM
16 Washington County CARES Dec 21, 2011 12:50 PM
17 Greater Glens Falls Transit Dec 21, 2011 12:32 PM
18 Washington County Veterans Service Agency Dec 21, 2011 12:24 PM
19 Cornell Cooperative Extension of Warren County Dec 21, 2011 12:20 PM
8 of 9Q3. In terms of transportation issues, what is the biggest change which
has occurred in your agency in since
2008? (Check as many as appropriate)
1 we have eliminated the majority of our direct serve transporters in an a
ttempt to save the County $$. Close to the same time frame, the State started a pi
lot
taking over the coordination of Medical transportation for Medicaid clie
nts. We
willingly enrolled in the pilot. Jan 9, 2012 10:40 AM
2 We have a continued need seen through those we serve for accessible transportation. Dec 22, 2011 10:28 AM
3 Some route restructuring; addition of evening service; fixed route rider
ship and trolley ridership up over 10% Dec 21, 2011 12:32 PM
4 Reduced transportation service from 5 days a week to 3 days a week. Dec 21, 2011 12:24 PMQ4. Has this change affected the ability of the agency to provide trans
portation services? If so, how?
1 We are finding that more clients are in need of transport to Albany. Jan 9, 2012 11:22 AM
2 It has been made clear that the scope of our services is meant to be car
e managment or clinical care and NOT provision of transportation. Jan 9, 2012 11:00 AM
3 Decreased funding has affected our ability to transport. Reduced transpo
rtation for community service projects. Jan 9, 2012 10:41 AM
4 in effect this has lessened our flexibility in-house. Jan 9, 2012 10:40 AM
5 limited trips Dec 22, 2011 7:30 AM
6 Increased rehabilitation patient to 40 from 18. Patient’s consistently
require follow up medical appointments in the community. We currently have 1 fa
cility
van shared between 120 patients. Dec 21, 2011 2:52 PM
7 Cost of services has increase – we subcontract with another agency – wit
hout being able to increase our funding we cannot expect them to provide addi
tional
services. Dec 21, 2011 12:50 PM
8 Budget will not sustain pirchase of replacement vehicles Dec 21, 2011 12:20 PM
9 of 9Q5. The CHSTP lists a number of issues related to gaps in the human ser
vice transportation network. Please rate
the importance of each of these gaps to your agency, if applicable, on a
scale of 1-5 with one being a low priority
and five being a high priority.
Please describe any gaps not listed in…
1 Older adults and families that require transportation to get to grocery
stores and various social opportunites and do not have it then have impacts in othe
r areas
of their life. Jan 9, 2012 10:40 AM
2 We deal mainly with medical appointment transport. Many are due to chan
ges in status and are of short notice. It is difficult to arrange rides withou
t a minimum of
two week notice. Also, taxi contracts are unreliable. We have had pts.
left or put
off for a paying fair. Jan 9, 2012 10:38 AM
3 LInking transportation resources to the larger network. Dec 21, 2011 12:50 PMQ6. The CHSTP lists a number of opportunities to coordinate human servi
ce transportation system. Please rate
the importance of each of these to your agency, if applicable, on a scal
e of 1-5 with one being low importance and
five being very important.
Please describe any opportunities or needs not …
1 Don’t really have enough knowledge on the issues to provide an educated opinion Jan 9, 2012 11:03 AM
2 Additional capcity would be helpful. A centralized scheduling center wo
uld be beneficial. Not sure what training would consist of: confidentiality? s
afety?
prioritizing? Jan 9, 2012 10:38 AM
3 Again our biggest gap in service is people with a disability seeking to
find necessary transportation and especially in rural areas. Dec 22, 2011 10:28 AMQ7. The CHSTP lists a number of obstacles related to the coordination o
f transportation services. Please rate the
severity or significance of each of these obstacles, if applicable, on a
scale of 1-5 with one being a low
significance and five being highly significant.
Please describe any obstacles…
1 We operate a volunteer transportation program for medical appointments,
so much of this survey does not apply. We also help to fund routine bus
transportation for the various towns in the county and for seniors to ac
cess these
busses for other purposes. We are limited to serving the over 60 popula
tion. Jan 9, 2012 11:42 AM
2 Don’t have specific knowledge to comment Jan 9, 2012 11:03 AM