Click Here For PDF

Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update

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