COORDINATED - Clark TCC · Environmental Justice is defined and motivated by several statutes and regulations the are: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The National Environmental

COORDINATED

PUBLIC TRANSIT - HUMAN SERVICES

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

FY2008 – FY2012

June, 2007

CLARK COUNTY – SPRINGFIELD TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE

John W. Sesslar, Chairman

Citizen Member

Robert A. Warren, Vice Chairman Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce

Elmer Beard Mayor, Village of Enon Robert Bender City Manager, City of New Carlisle Nancy Brown Trustee, Bethel Township James Campbell National Trail Parks & Recreation District John Detrick Clark County Commissioner Kathy Estep Trustee, Mad River Township William George Springfield City Area Transit Timothy Gothard Director, City of Springfield Planning and Engineering Herbert Greer Fiscal Officer, Springfield Township

David Hartley Clark County Commissioner Thomas Junk Citizen Member Toni Keller Mayor, Village of South Vienna Gene Kelly Clark County Sheriff John Krabacher Council Member, City of New Carlisle David Locke Trustee, Pleasant Township Jim Mann Service Director, City of Springfield Kevin O’Neill

Springfield City Commissioner G. Matthew Parrill ODOT District 7 Leo Shanayda Engineer, City of Springfield

Kent Sherry President, BIA of Clark County Bruce Smith Clark County Engineer Geoff Steele Assistant Director, Job & Family Services Roger Tackett Clark County Commissioner Orphus Taylor Springfield City Commissioner Alan Thompson WESTCO Port Authority Marjorie Travis Council Member, Village of Enon Sarah Wildman Manager, Village of South Charleston Paul Wilson Trustee, Harmony Township

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

Thea J. Walsh Transportation Director J. Lamar Daniel Planner II Eric B. Ottoson Planner II Scott G. Schmid Planner II Larry W. Himes Secretary-Treasurer WESTCO Port Authority James Guerrieri Intern Sue Harber Fiscal Officer Joyce A. Davis Administrative Secretary Phone 937-324-7751 Fax 937-328-3940 Email [email protected] Website www.clarktcc.com

Address Springfield City Hall, 4th floor 76 East High Street Springfield, Ohio 45502

This report was prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, the Ohio Department of Transportation, the Ohio Public Works Commission, the West Central Ohio Port Authority, transit and rail freight service providers, and the local governments of Clark County. The preparation and publication of this document was financed cooperatively by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Ohio Department of Transportation, Clark County, the West Central Ohio Port Authority and the City of Springfield. The contents of this Plan reflect the views of the Clark County-Springfield Transportation Study, which is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view and policies of the Ohio Department of Transportation or the U.S. Department of Transportation. This Plan does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 3 PURPOSE........................................................................................................................................................ 4 PLANNING AREA ......................................................................................................................................... 5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 7 TRANSPARENT PLANNING PROCESS.............................................................................................. 16 RESOURCES................................................................................................................................................. 17

MOBILITY TODAY .......................................................................................................... 21

PROVIDER SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 22 COORDINATION EFFORTS .................................................................................................................... 29

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT............................................................. 30

SURVEY ......................................................................................................................................................... 31 MOBILITY TOMORROW ............................................................................................... 52

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................... 53 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED AND PRIORITIZED ACTION PLAN................................................................................................................... 57

FISCALLY CONSTRAINED AND PRIORITIED ACTION PLAN ................................................. 59 STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT RECORD ............................................................................................................................. 63

1

BACKGROUND The Clark County-Springfield Area Transportation Study was organized in 1964 to comply with the requirements of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962. The organization is more commonly known by the name of its policy committee, the Clark County-Springfield Transportation Coordinating Committee, or CC-STCC. The CC-STCC is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for transportation in Clark County as designated by the Ohio Department of Transportation acting in behalf of the Governor in accordance with federal law (23 USC 134). The MPO is the forum for cooperative transportation decision-making by the principal elected officials of general purpose local government. The CC-STCC is composed of local elected and appointed officials, transportation professionals, and citizen members. The TCC reviews and approves plans and programs involving expenditures of federal-aid transportation funds in Clark County. The scope of the CC-STCC’s planning focus includes Transit and Paratransit Planning. Previous local program initiatives have included continued planning assistance for local agencies which provide transit and paratransit services with the assistance of Federal Transit Administration program funding. The staff of the CC-STCC assists the City of Springfield in planning and oversight for the Springfield City Area Transit service (SCAT). On behalf the city, the CC-STCC’s work is primarily focused on the development, implementation and maintenance of the SCAT fixed route, on-demand and paratransit public transportation services within the political boundary of the City of Springfield. Continuous assistance is rendered for operating and capital projects, recordkeeping and reporting, transit financing, administrative practices, service improvements, and interpretation of federal and state rules and regulations. Further assistance is granted on an as-needed basis which includes: coordination with local employers to develop service options for access to jobs, participation with the stakeholders in development of multi-modal transportation plans and transit focused safety and security planning. The staff of the CC-STCC assists multiple county-wide agencies in operating paratransit services including the following agencies: Elderly United, WorkPlus, Clark County Mentally Retarded / Developmentally Disabled (MR/DD) Agency and the Salvation Army. Primarily planning assistance is rendered to the paratransit agencies for participation in the Specialized Transportation Program, coordination program activities for paratransit vehicles, record keeping and reporting on ADA services. Previously, through transit and paratransit planning initiatives the CC-STCC from time to time has worked with stakeholders and the public to develop plans to address needs, gaps and duplication in the service area. This plan is preceded by the Springfield – Clark County Transportation Development Plan of 2001. The plan made ambitious recommendations, developed implementation strategies and created a short-term plan to guide development of transit and paratransit planning. The plan had a five year horizon. Although the plan had

2

some effect on improvements to the public transportation system not all of the recommendations of the plan were utilized. Upon the plan horizon in August of 2005, Congress passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), reauthorizing the surface transportation act. As part of this reauthorization, grantees under specific Federal Transit Authority programs were required to be involved in coordination efforts outlined in a “locally developed coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan.”

3

INTRODUCTION In August of 2005, Congress passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), reauthorizing the surface transportation act. As part of this reauthorization, grantees under the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (known as the Specialized Transportation Program in Ohio) -Section 5310, Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) -Section 5316, and New Freedom Initiative- Section 5317 grant programs must meet certain requirements in order to receive funding for Fiscal Year 2007 (beginning 10/01/06) and beyond. SAFETEA-LU requires that projects from the programs listed above must be part of a “locally developed coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan.” This plan is required to be developed through a process that includes representatives of public, private and non-profit transportation services, human services providers and the general public. CC-STCC policy board members and staff have taken the lead in developing this plan for the Clark County – Springfield planning area. Also participating in this plan were: Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, the Springfield City Area Transit service (SCAT) the WorkPlus division of the Clark County Department of Jobs and Family Services, Elderly United, Clark County Mentally Retarded / Developmentally Disabled (MR/DD) Agency, the Salvation Army and a local grass-roots citizen action non-profit agency by the name of Justice Action Mercy (JAM). The duration of this Plan is five years. The overall CC-STCC MPO Transportation Plan is anticipated to be adopted by July, 2008. Appropriate documentation herein will be incorporated into the Transportation Plan. Any project deemed consistent with this Plan should be processed in accordance with the corresponding application procedures without the need for any Plan revision. The Plan will only be modified if a justified need is established. As appropriate, projects will be included in the CC-STCC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This plan will be adopted in accordance with CC-STCC’s regular process. The CC-STCC policy board meets monthly. As necessary, revisions may be acted upon by the policy board.

4

PURPOSE This plan is a locally developed, coordinated public transit – human services transportation plan that was developed through a process that included representatives of public, private and non-profit transportation and human service providers; participation by the public and included those representing the needs of welfare recipients and eligible low income individuals. Projects developed from the plan will be integrated into the metropolitan, state and federal transportation planning processes. The plan includes a wide variety of purposes focused on public transportation mobility in and around the Clark County – Springfield transportation planning area. The purposes of the plan run the spectrum from assessment of current public transportation mobility options through implementation of further mobility options. The following are the primary purposes of the plan:

□ An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and persons with limited incomes;

□ An inventory of available services that identifies areas of redundant service and gaps

in service; □ Strategies to address the identified gaps in service; □ Identification of coordination actions to eliminate or reduce duplication in services and

strategies for more efficient utilization of resources; □ Prioritization of implementation strategies; and;

□ Improvement and expansion of public transportation service options offered to

residents in Clark County and Springfield, including the expansion of service to areas and demographics currently with little or no mobility opportunities.

5

PLANNING AREA The area covered by this plan consists of Clark County in Ohio. This is also the regional transportation planning area for the CC-STCC Metropolitan Planning Organization. Although this plan is only intended to impact the CC-STCC planning area it is likely that proposals from the planning document may include mobility opportunities for residents of the planning area to access a greater region. This will be accomplished through coordination efforts with public transportation providers servicing areas within the West Central Ohio greater region (including those outside of the political boundary of Clark County).

6

Clark County – Springfield Transportation Coordination Committee Transportation Planning Area

7

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS

The CC-STCC considers sensitive populations within the transportation planning area when preparing plans and studies that consider projects or service changes. This is done through an Environmental Justice assessment, which identifies protected populations. The assessment focuses on identifying distributive effects to the sensitive populations of minority, elderly, disabled and low-income community members. Considerations of both benefits and adverse effects proposed in the transportation planning process are required as a measure of protection for the sensitive populations. Environmental Justice is defined and motivated by several statutes and regulations the are: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Title 23 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 and President Clinton’s Executive Order 12898 in 1994 titled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” The CC-STCC policy board adopted its Clark County Environmental Justice Analysis in September 2006. The Analysis provides the following planning guidelines for considering protected populations. The guidelines were used to prepare this plan.

□ What, if any, protected population types projects from the plan will affect. □ What, if any, possible impacts (both positive and negative) the proposed project from

the plan will have on the identified protected population type(s)

□ What actions the local project sponsors will need to take to enhance beneficial impacts and/or minimize or avoid adverse impacts when implementing the plan.

The following exhibits and analyses were provided as a manner of consideration for protected populations throughout the planning process for this plan. The exhibits conservatively expand upon the basic protected populations analysis in the CC-STCC’s Clark County Environmental Justice Analysis. For further the underlying analysis that

8

This map shows, by census block group, the number of residents that are 60 years or older in Clark County. Refer to the legend in the lower left corner to see the color code range. Listed below are a summary of block groups that have either increased or decreased their elderly population between the 1990 and 2000 census. SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN AGE 1990 - 2000 CENSUS TRACT 4 8 9.01 9.01 9.02 14 14 14 16 18 19 21 22 22 23.02BLK GRP 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 4 4 1 2 2 1 2 2 ACTION - - - - + - - - - - - + - + + TRACT 24 24 24.01 24.01 24.01 25 29 29 30 30 30 31 33 33 33.02BLK GRP 2 4 5 6 7 3 3 5 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 ACTION + + + + + + + + + + + + - + -

There appears to have been a shift of elderly people living in the City of Springfield to the adjacent and near suburbs of the city. This is shown by the drop in elderly population in the City and increases in areas such as Moorefield, Mad River and Bethel townships.

9

The movement of this population outside of the City requires that they have access to either their own car, transportation from a friend or other means. This reliance on other than themselves for transportation may cause an Environmental Justice concern. Presently there is no fixed route or van service provided outside of the City by the Springfield City Area Transit (SCAT). Because of financial constraints it is unlikely that there will be service outside of the city in the near future. There is some service provided on a limited basis by a few agencies in the area. These services may not always be able to satisfy the time or destination needs of some elderly clients. As the Elderly population ages and their ability to drive a car diminishes, there will be a need to provide alternate means of transportation for this population. Because of this we should expect a growing need for van service outside of the existing SCAT service area. Present sources of this service such as Elderly United, Salvation Army and other private organizations may not have the resources to meet this need.

10

This map of Clark County, by census block group, shows the number of households, based on the 2000 census, that do not have a vehicle . Listed below are only those block groups that experienced a change in vehicle ownership between the 1990 and 2000 census. Except for block group 33.02/3, all other block groups that showed a lower number of households without cars were either in or adjacent to the City of Springfield.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN VEHICLE OWNERSHIP 1990 - 2000 CENSUS TRACT 2 2 3 5 5 8 8 9.01 9.01 9.01 9.01 BLK GRP 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 4 ACTION - - + + + - - - - - - TRACT 9.02 9.02 10 10 11.01 11.02 11.02 12 12 12 13 BLK GRP 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 6 6 ACTION - - + - - - - - - - - TRACT 14 14 14 14 15 17 24.01 24.01 33.02 BLK GRP 1 2 4 5 5 3 7 8 3 ACTION - + + - - - + - -

11

There may be a couple of reason for this downward shift. Since the start of the “Welfare to Work” program, more people have been getting jobs and may be able to afford a vehicle. Also, since the city has lost over 5,000 residents from 1990 to 2000, some of these people may not have owned a vehicle. From an Environmental Justice perspective it is beneficial for more people to have the independence of their own vehicle. Having a vehicle potentially increases their job opportunities and quality of life. This also provides other sources of transportation to transportation dependent members of the community. Block groups that showed an increase in the number of zero vehicle households may show where efforts need to be made to ensure that these transportation dependent residents are aware of the transportation opportunities available through SCAT, Social Service agencies or other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s).

12

The attached map shows the approximate number of disabled residents, by block group. There is no individual block group list of changes from 1990 to 2000 since, except for block group 3.0/4, all other block groups increased the number of disabled residents. On the face of it, this might appear to be a very serious problem. Between 1990 and 2000 the definition of a “disabled” person changed. A disabled person may be defined as follows: “A person who, because of physical, mental, or developmental impairment, is limited in his capacity to adequately perform one or more essential activities of daily living. Activities of daily living include, but are not limited to, personal and health care, mobility, communication, and money management.” We feel that because of the broad scope of this definition, many people answering the 2000 census may have felt they could be considered disabled. Certainly this increase cannot be wholly set aside because of a change in definition nor can it be assumed that every person that fits the strict interpretation of “disabled” requires special considerations of their needs. What it does indicate is that more people may now be eligible for disabled services than had been before 1990. A partial remedy to this situation is to ensure that there is broad and ongoing information provided to the public to ensure they are aware of their rights and opportunities to assisted transportation. This will hopefully encourage people with disabilities to contact appropriate government and other organizations to identify their needs. Coupled

13

with this is a need to have a reasonable amount of transportation that can help support this population.

14

The attached map identifies, by block group from the 2000 census, the number of households whose income was under the poverty level. The following list identifies which block groups either increased or decreased the number of households living under the poverty level from the 1990 to 2000 census.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN POVERTY 1990 - 2000 CENSUS TRACT 1 6 7 7 8 8 9.01 9.01 10 10 BLK GRP 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 4 1 2 ACTION - - + + + + + + + +

TRACT 11.01 11.02 11.02 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 BLK GRP 2 1 2 2 5 6 1 6 1 4 ACTION - + - - + - + - + -

TRACT 16 16 17 17 19 21 24.01 24.01 24.02 26.01 BLK GRP 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 7 8 3 ACTION + - - - - - - + + -

TRACT 27.01 27.02 28 29.02 30.01 30.02 33.02 BLK GRP 3 1 1 4 1 1 3 ACTION + + + - + - -

15

The biggest change from 1990 to 2000 was in Tract 24.01 block group 7. It went from the 0 - 49 household range in 1990 to the 98 – 147 range in 2000. This change may be the result of local employment problems and under funded retired families. One government subsidized apartment complex in this block group contacted SCAT to provide them with bus service. The apartment management had received numerous requests from residents for bus service. In many cases both renters worked but had only one vehicle. For service to be provided the city required that the apartment complex provide some matching funds. Since this was not available, service has never been provided to this site. This is just one example of the lack of transit service outside of the city because of insufficient funding for the extra service. Regarding the other block groups that have changed, there does not seem to be a specific pattern except that most of the changes have occurred in Springfield. What it does show is that the highest concentration of poverty is in the city and adjacent block groups.

16

TRANSPARENT PLANNING PROCESS

The CC-STCC is committed to a transparent planning process for the citizens of the Clark County – Springfield transportation planning area through the Public Participation Process, adopted January 2007. CC-STCC’s commitment to public involvement includes actively engaging the public in the transportation planning process, keeping the public informed of transportation related activities, encourage participation in the transportation planning process and continuously improving public participation. Planning tools described in the Public Participation Plan will be used through out the development of this plan.

□ Information about plan development and implementation will be distributed to new outlets via the CC-STCC Public Information Contact List. The information about plan development, the draft plan and the final plan will be hosted on the CC-STCC website: www.clarktcc.com.

□ Information about the plan development was incorporated in and distributed via the

TCC NEWS, CC-STCC biannual newsletter. The newsletter is hosted on the agency website and is distributed to an extensive list of area stakeholders and businesses.

□ The plan incorporated the use of a survey in order to measure the needs of

community. Comment forms were used at the planning workshop for the prioritization of the plan as well as the public involvement sessions.

□ Two open houses were held for public inspection of the plan. The first open house was

held during the plan development on April 3, 4, and 5, 2007 at the Clark County Public Library in Springfield, Smith Park in New Carlisle and Town Hall in South Charleston.

□ Newspaper Advertisements and News Releases were used in announcing the survey

distribution and the public open houses.

□ The workshop to prioritize the plan and public involvement open houses incorporated the use of comment forms for feedback about the plan.

The CC-STCC has specific procedures for developing a plan in the public eye. The procedure used to develop this plan is described in the Public Participation Process as the Transit Development Plan (TDP) process. Using the TDP process required that two public meetings were held: both prior to CC-STCC policy board adoption. Comments regarding the draft plan were accepted from the date of the draft plan public meeting through two weeks after the final public meeting. Printed copies of all draft documents were available during normal business hours at the CC-STCC office during the development of the plan.

For more information regarding the public participation required for the development of this plan please refer to the CC-STCC Public Participation Process, adopted January 2007.

17

RESOURCES

As noted in the Introduction, SAFETEA-LU requires that projects from the three specified Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs must be part of this locally developed coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. Provided below is background information regarding the three specific programs. Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) The Section 5310 program was established in 1975 as discretionary capital assistance program. In cases where public transit was inadequate or inappropriate, the program awarded grants to private non-profit organizations to serve the transportation needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities. FTA (then the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, UMTA) apportioned the funds among the States by formula for distribution to local agencies, a practice made a statutory requirement by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). In the early years of the program, many of the subrecipient non-profit agencies used the vehicles primarily for transportation of their own clients. Funding for the Section 16(b)(2) program, as it was then known, ranged between $20-35 million annually until the passage of ISTEA in 1992, when it increased to the $50-60 million range. ISTEA also introduced the eligibility of public agencies under limited circumstances to facilitate and encourage the coordination of human service transportation. Increasingly, FTA guidance encouraged and required coordination of the program with other Federal human service transportation programs. In lieu of purchasing vehicles, acquisition of service in order to promote use of private sector providers and coordination with other human service agencies and public transit providers was made an eligible expense under ISTEA. Other provisions of ISTEA introduced the ability to transfer flexible funds to the program from certain highway programs and the flexibility to transfer funds from the Section 5310 program to the rural and urban formula programs. The goal of the Section 5310 program is to improve mobility for elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities throughout the country. Toward this goal, FTA provides financial assistance for transportation services planned, designed, and carried out to meet the special transportation needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities in all areas - urbanized, small urban, and rural. The program requires coordination with other federally assisted programs and services in order to make the most efficient use of Federal resources. A local subrecipient may be a private non-profit organization, if the public transportation service provided is unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate; or a governmental authority that is approved by the State to coordinate services for elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities or certifies that there are not any non-profit organizations readily available in the area to provide the services. Funds for the Section 5310 program are available for capital expenses as defined in Section 5302(a)(1) to support the provision of transportation services to meet the special needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities.

18

Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) (Section 5316) The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program has had a dramatic impact on the lives of thousands of welfare recipients and low-income families, helping individuals successfully transition from welfare to work and reach needed employment support services such as childcare and job training activities. JARC was established as part of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), passed in 1998, to address the unique transportation challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-income persons seeking to get and keep jobs. With many new entry-level jobs located in suburban areas, low-income and/or welfare recipients have found it difficult to access these jobs from their inner city, urban and rural neighborhoods on a daily basis. Further, many entry-level jobs require working late at night or on weekends when conventional transit services in many communities are either reduced or non-existent. Finally, many employment-related trips are complex for low-income persons, often involving multiple destinations, including reaching childcare facilities and other services as part of the work trip. Section 3037 of TEA-21 required that JARC project selection be made through a national competition based on statutorily specified criteria. FTA conducted competitions and selected projects for funding appropriated in FY 1999-2002. However, beginning in FY 2000, Congress also began designating specific projects and recipients to receive JARC funding in the conference reports accompanying the annual appropriations acts, and directed FTA to honor those designations with statutory language specifying that “notwithstanding any other provision of law, projects and activities designated [in the conference reports] shall be eligible for funding.” Each year, more projects were congressionally designated until finally all JARC project funding was allocated to congressionally designated projects and recipients. Although SAFETEA-LU repealed Section 3037 of TEA-21 and substituted the new provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5316, those projects designated by Congress under Section 3037 and not yet obligated remain available to the project for obligation under the terms and conditions of Section 3037. As required under TEA-21, FTA and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) undertook a number of special studies and evaluations intended to provide an overview of the program accomplishments and to identify challenges the grant recipients faced. FTA required substantial data reporting from grantees to support the evaluation of what was then considered a pilot program. With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, JARC funding is allocated by formula to States for areas with populations below 200,000 persons, and to designated recipients for areas with populations of 200,000 persons and above. The formula is based on the number of eligible low-income and welfare recipients in urbanized and rural areas. The formula-based program is intended to provide an equitable funding distribution to States and communities as well as stable and reliable funding in order to implement locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plans. FTA continues to provide maximum flexibility to communities in designing plans and projects to meet the transportation needs of low-income individuals and welfare recipients.

19

The goal of the JARC program is to improve access to transportation services to employment and employment related activities for welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals throughout the country. Toward this goal, FTA provides financial assistance for transportation services planned, designed, and carried out to meet the transportation needs of eligible low-income individuals in all areas - urbanized, small urban, and rural. The program requires coordination of federally assistance programs and services in order to make the most efficient use of Federal resources. In non-urbanized areas or small urban areas under 200,000 in population, the designated recipient is the State agency designated by the chief executive officer of a State to receive and apportion amounts under JARC that are attributable to the State for small urbanized and non-urbanized areas. A subrecipient may be a local government authority, non-profit organization, or operator of public transportation services that receives a grant under JARC indirectly through a recipient. Funds are available for capital, planning, and operating expenses that support the development and maintenance of transportation services designed to transport low-income individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their employment. New Freedom Program (Section 5317) The New Freedom Program is a new program authorized in SAFETEA-LU to support new public transportation services and public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The New Freedom Program grew out of the New Freedom Initiative introduced by the Administration under Executive Order 13217, "Community-Based Alternatives for Individuals with Disabilities," on June 18, 2001. The Order states: "The United States is committed to community-based alternatives for individuals with disabilities and recognizes that such services advance the best interests of the United States" and calls upon the Federal government to assist States and localities to swiftly implement the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L.C. Executive Order 13217 directed six Federal agencies, including the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development and the Social Security Administration to "evaluate the policies, programs, statutes and regulations of their respective agencies to determine whether any should be revised or modified to improve the availability of community-based services for qualified individuals with disabilities." The Departments of Transportation and Veterans Affairs, the Small Business Administration, and the Office of Personnel Management, though not named in the Executive Order, also joined in the implementation effort. Together, these agencies formed the Interagency Council on Community Living under the leadership of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Individuals who are transportation-disadvantaged face different challenges in accessing services depending on whether they live in urban, rural, or suburban areas. The geographic

20

dispersion of transportation-disadvantaged populations also creates challenges for human service programs hoping to deliver transportation for their passengers. Over the years, in response to these challenges, Federal, State and local governments, and community-based organizations created specialized programs to meet particular transportation needs. At the Federal level alone, there are at least 62 separate programs, administered by eight Federal departments, and even more agencies, that provide special transportation services to individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes. Most of these are human service programs that fund limited transportation services to provide eligible participants with access to particular services, such as job training, health care, senior centers, or rehabilitation programs. The President has included funds for the New Freedom program in the annual budget request to Congress since FY 2003; however, it was not until the enactment of SAFETEA-LU that funding was authorized by Congress. Funding was first appropriated for the transportation provision in FY 2006. The New Freedom program is intended to fill the gaps between human service and public transportation services previously available and to facilitate the integration of individuals with disabilities into the workforce and full participation in the community. The New Freedom formula grant program aims to provide additional tools to overcome existing barriers facing Americans with disabilities seeking integration into the work force and full participation in society. Lack of adequate transportation is a primary barrier to work for individuals with disabilities. The 2000 Census showed that only 60% of people between the ages of 16 and 64 with disabilities are employed. The New Freedom formula grant program seeks to expand the transportation mobility options available to persons with disabilities beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In non-urbanized areas or small urban areas under 200,000 in population, the designated recipient is the State agency designated by the chief executive officer of a State to receive and apportion amounts under New Freedom that are attributable to the State for small urbanized and non-urbanized areas. A subrecipient may be a local governmental authority, non-profit organization, or operator of public transportation services that receives a grant under the New Freedom program indirectly through a recipient. New Freedom program funds are available for capital and operating expenses that support new public transportation services beyond those required by the ADA and new public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the ADA designed to assist individuals with disabilities with accessing transportation services, including transportation to and from jobs and employment support services.

21

MOBILITY TODAY

The following transportation services represent what is currently available to Clark County residents.

The Springfield City Area Transit (SCAT) operates a fixed route bus service Monday thru Friday from 6:40 a.m. to 5:40 p.m. Hourly service is provided on most routes. Bus service is not offered on most federal holidays. All SCAT buses are equipped with special wheelchair lifts. Wheelchair users should call the SCAT Hotline so a lift bus can be assigned to the proper route. Persons with disabilities should be able to travel independently. Minimal driver assistance is provided. SCAT also provides Paratransit and Dial-a-Ride services.

Elderly United provides transportation for Clark County residents age 60 and above to medical appointments, nutrition sites, grocery shopping, and essential errands. The agency maintains door to door service with wheelchair lifts and regular mini vans for ambulatory clients. The service will provide transportation to medicals in surrounding cities such as Dayton, Columbus and Cincinnati with a minimum of 2-3 week notice. Services are provided on a donation basis, and is available Monday-Friday from 8:30-4:30.

WorkPlus Transportation Service provides transportation to income eligible people who need rides to and from work, work activities, medical appointments, support services, and to MR/DD customers.

MR/DD Transportation Services provides transportation services to MR/DD clients that are eligible for MR/DD services.

The Salvation Army provides transportation in coordination with specific programs for physically handicapped people. Mental Health Services provides transportation services to Mental Health Services clients that are eligible.

Ohio Masonic Home provides transportation to Ohio Masonic Home properties residents. A snapshot of each provider service is provided in the following fact sheets.

22

PROVIDER SERVICES

CLARK COUNTY - SPRINGFIELD AREA SERVICE PROVIDER FACT SHEET PROVIDER Springfield City Area Transit UNMET DEMAND Unknown LEVEL OF UNMET DEMAND Unknown PARATRANSIT PROVIDER Yes ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TRANSIT Fare based service DIAL A RIDE (ON DEMAND) Fare based service PARATRANSIT FTA guidelines SERVICE AREA TRANSIT City of Springfield fixed-route system DIAL A RIDE (ON DEMAND) City of Springfield

PARATRANSIT Up to 3/4 of a mile outside of fixed-route service area

RESPONSE TIME TRANSIT 30 minute to 1 hour loop time DIAL A RIDE (ON DEMAND) Greater than 24 hours PARATRANSIT Greater than 24 hours after eligibility is determined FARES TRANSIT $0.75 DIAL A RIDE (ON DEMAND) $1.50 per route zone PARATRANSIT $1.50 per route zone TRIP RESTRICTIONS None SERVICE AVAILABILITY TIMEFRAME Weekdays 6:40am - 5:40pm CAPACITY RESTRAINT Only on subscription trips per FTA regulation. RIDERSHIP INFORMATION Actual Counts PERSON / TRIPS PER MONTH 550 - 650 AGE OF CLIENTS LESS THAN 17 X 17 - 65 X GREATER THAN 65 X WHEELCHAIR / TRIPS PER MONTH 300 TRIPS REQUIRING ATTENDANT PER MONTH 2 BLIND / DEAF CLIENT TRIPS 0 PURCHASED TRIPS PER YEAR 0 TOTAL COST 0 FLEET DATA TOTAL VEHICLES 19 TOTAL SEATS 449 TOTAL WHEELCHAIR POSITIONS 38 OVERALL FLEET CONDITION Good FUNDING SOURCES FTA 5307 Operating FTA 5309 Capital Grant ODOT OPTGP City of Springfield Local Share Fares

23

CLARK COUNTY - SPRINGFIELD AREA SERVICE PROVIDER FACT SHEET

PROVIDER Clark County Board of MR/DD UNMET DEMAND Occasionally LEVEL OF UNMET DEMAND 30 per month PARATRANSIT PROVIDER Yes ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS must have verifiable handicap SERVICE AREA Clark County RESPONSE TIME 3 days FARES ELIGIBLE CLIENT None NON-ELIGIBLE CLIENT $15.50 per one way trip TRIP RESTRICTIONS GEOGRAPHIC within Clark County

REASON Employment or Daytime Habilitation Services

SERVICE TIMEFRAME 5am - 10pm 7days a week CAPACITY RESTRAINT Yes, vehicle capacity restraint RIDERSHIP INFORMATION Estimated PERSON / TRIPS PER MONTH 10,500 AGE OF CLIENTS LESS THAN 17 X 17 - 65 X GREATER THAN 65 X WHEELCHAIR / TRIPS PER MONTH 928 TRIPS REQUIRING ATTENDANT PER MONTH 96 BLIND / DEAF CLIENT TRIPS 100 PURCHASED TRIPS PER YEAR 24115 TOTAL COST $65.917.50 FLEET DATA TOTAL VEHICLES 33 TOTAL SEATS 564 TOTAL WHEELCHAIR POSITIONS 93 OVERALL FLEET CONDITION Good to Fair FUNDING SOURCES Clark County matching funds 5310 Specialized Vehicle Program State funding

24


PROVIDER Clark County Department of Jobs and Family Services - WORKPLUS

UNMET DEMAND Frequently LEVEL OF UNMET DEMAND 1,000 per month PARATRANSIT PROVIDER Yes ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS Dependant on the funding program SERVICE AREA Clark County RESPONSE TIME 48 hours FARES None (except for trips to work after 90 days) TRIP RESTRICTIONS Yes, dependant on the funding program SERVICE TIMEFRAME Weekdays and Saturday 6am - 11pm CAPACITY RESTRAINT Limited to 2 out of county trips per day (medical only) RIDERSHIP INFORMATION Actual PERSON / TRIPS PER MONTH 3,300 - 4,400 AGE OF CLIENTS LESS THAN 17 X 17 - 65 X GREATER THAN 65 X WHEELCHAIR / TRIPS PER MONTH Not Reported TRIPS REQUIRING ATTENDANT PER MONTH Not Reported BLIND / DEAF CLIENT TRIPS Not Reported PURCHASED TRIPS PER YEAR Not Reported TOTAL COST Not Reported FLEET DATA TOTAL VEHICLES Not Reported TOTAL SEATS Not Reported TOTAL WHEELCHAIR POSITIONS Not Reported OVERALL FLEET CONDITION Not Reported FUNDING SOURCES TANF, Other Federal and State programs County General Fund Fares

25


PROVIDER Elderly United UNMET DEMAND Never LEVEL OF UNMET DEMAND None PARATRANSIT PROVIDER Yes ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS Must be 60 years of age or greater SERVICE AREA Clark County RESPONSE TIME immediate to 10 working days FARES Donation basis

TRIP RESTRICTIONS Essential errands only (generally health related)

SERVICE TIMEFRAME Weekday 8:30am - 4:30pm CAPACITY RESTRAINT None RIDERSHIP INFORMATION Estimated PERSON / TRIPS PER MONTH 3,400 AGE OF CLIENTS LESS THAN 17 17 - 65 X GREATER THAN 65 X WHEELCHAIR / TRIPS PER MONTH 150 + TRIPS REQUIRING ATTENDANT PER MONTH Unknown BLIND / DEAF CLIENT TRIPS Unknown PURCHASED TRIPS PER YEAR None TOTAL COST 0 FLEET DATA TOTAL VEHICLES 14 TOTAL SEATS 101 TOTAL WHEELCHAIR POSITIONS 14 OVERALL FLEET CONDITION Fair to Good FUNDING SOURCES Local Levy United Way 5310 Specialized Vehicle Program

26

CLARK COUNTY - SPRINGFIELD AREA SERVICE PROVIDER FACT SHEET PROVIDER Clark County Salvation Army UNMET DEMAND Yes LEVEL OF UNMET DEMAND 2 a month PARATRANSIT PROVIDER Yes ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS None SERVICE AREA Unlimited RESPONSE TIME Not Reported FARES None TRIP RESTRICTIONS No service Tuesday & Thursday SERVICE TIMEFRAME 9am – 4pm weekdays only CAPACITY RESTRAINT Not Reported RIDERSHIP INFORMATION Estimated PERSON / TRIPS PER MONTH 30 AGE OF CLIENTS LESS THAN 17 X 17 - 65 X GREATER THAN 65 X WHEELCHAIR / TRIPS PER MONTH 10 TRIPS REQUIRING ATTENDANT PER MONTH None BLIND / DEAF CLIENT TRIPS Not Reported PURCHASED TRIPS PER MONTH Not Reported TOTAL COST Not Reported FLEET DATA TOTAL VEHICLES 2 TOTAL SEATS 30 TOTAL WHEELCHAIR POSITIONS six OVERALL FLEET CONDITION Fair to Good FUNDING SOURCES Donations

5310 Specialized Vehicle Program

27


PROVIDER Mental Health Services of Clark County UNMET DEMAND 0 LEVEL OF UNMET DEMAND 0 PARATRANSIT PROVIDER Yes ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS Must be a client

SERVICE AREA Clark County Area, primarily City of Springfield

RESPONSE TIME 30 minutes FARES None TRIP RESTRICTIONS Health Related Trips SERVICE TIMEFRAME 7am - 4:30pm CAPACITY RESTRAINT Not Reported RIDERSHIP INFORMATION PERSON / TRIPS PER MONTH Not Reported AGE OF CLIENTS LESS THAN 17 0 17 - 65 97 GREATER THAN 65 3 WHEELCHAIR / TRIPS PER MONTH 1 TRIPS REQUIRING ATTENDANT PER MONTH 0 BLIND / DEAF CLIENT TRIPS 0 PURCHASED TRIPS PER MONTH 0 TOTAL COST Not Reported FLEET DATA TOTAL VEHICLES 1 TOTAL SEATS 10 TOTAL WHEELCHAIR POSITIONS 1 OVERALL FLEET CONDITION Good - Fair FUNDING SOURCES Local Levy State and Federal Sources

28


PROVIDER Ohio Masonic Home UNMET DEMAND 0 LEVEL OF UNMET DEMAND 0 PARATRANSIT PROVIDER Yes ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS Must be a resident

SERVICE AREA Clark County Area, primarily City of Springfield

RESPONSE TIME 30 minutes FARES $5.50 first 5 miles, $0.60 per mile thereafter TRIP RESTRICTIONS None SERVICE TIMEFRAME 8am - 4pm CAPACITY RESTRAINT Not Reported RIDERSHIP INFORMATION PERSON / TRIPS PER MONTH 150 AGE OF CLIENTS LESS THAN 17 0 17 - 65 0 GREATER THAN 65 All WHEELCHAIR / TRIPS PER MONTH 70 TRIPS REQUIRING ATTENDANT PER MONTH 30 BLIND / DEAF CLIENT TRIPS 0 PURCHASED TRIPS PER MONTH 0 TOTAL COST Not Reported FLEET DATA TOTAL VEHICLES 3 TOTAL SEATS 23 TOTAL WHEELCHAIR POSITIONS 7 OVERALL FLEET CONDITION Good FUNDING SOURCES Private Sector Business

29

COORDINATION EFFORTS

A coordination effort was in place for the specialized program (5310) in earlier years by the TAC Industries Transportation Department (a division of the Clark County MR/DD Transportation Services) and the Elderly United of Springfield/Clark County, Inc. This was called “Transportation Connections”. The United Way of Springfield/Clark County provided transportation funding to seed the program in 1995. The funding was utilized to provide transportation services to those that needed it. They allotted $10,000 dollars for TAC Industries to take the lead in providing transportation services above and beyond its own clients and trip purposes. These trips were usually reimbursed at $1.25 per mile. Elderly United also provided trips during their vehicles down/slow time. It took approximately 4 years to deplete the seed resources provided by the United Way for the Transportation Connections Program. Once the resources were depleted, the coordination effort went by the wayside until approximately the 2000-2001 Specialized Transportation Program year when coordination emphasis was stressed by the Federal Government (FHWA) and ODOT. At that point in time coordination efforts were encouraged through a Coordination Grant Program provided by the FTA and administered by ODOT. The Coordination Grant Program was put to use in Clark County. The Clark County Department of Jobs and Family Services applied for the funding. The awarded funds were used to purchase a vehicle to transport not only Medicaid patients, but also for recipients of public assistance to newly acquired employment sites in the region. The coordination program resources extensively added ridership to the Department of Jobs and Family Services Transportation Program. The program operated from 5am until 12am daily. Elderly United, TAC Industries, and the Salvation Army were all participating in the coordination effort. Each agency had a mileage reimbursement from $1.25 up to $1.75. However the program produced ridership in excess of service availability, the demand quickly exceeded the service capacity. The coordination program was ongoing until 2005 when Department of Jobs and Family Services indicated that the services were no longer needed.

30

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT

31

SURVEY A survey was developed by the planning team and the provider services representatives for determining unmet needs, service gaps and duplications of services for this plan. The survey was a voluntary survey. They were advertised on the CC-STCC website, in the Springfield News Sun Newspaper twice and were discussed on two local talk radio programs on WULM and WHIO. They were distributed throughout Clark County by several social service agencies, provider services, local government agencies, employment agencies, employers and condo associations. The method of distribution primarily was physically handing them out and direct mail. The primary method of collection was business reply mail. 9,000 surveys were distributed. Nearly 1,100 surveys were completed and returned. The response rate for the survey was 12%. The survey response was favorable since 5% is statistically significant. Survey respondents were 63% females. The median age of the respondents was 46.6 years old. The median age of the county population is 37.6. Approximately 80% of the respondents reported that they live in zip codes that make up the City of Springfield and nearby township areas. Nearly 61% of the population in Clark County actually lives within the same area. The survey follows on the next three pages. Following the survey are exhibits developed from survey responses. The information gleaned from the surveys provides the plan with information about the respondents as well as the current service preferences. This information is a key component in determining unmet needs, service gaps and duplications of the public transportation service being provided in Clark County today.

32

33

34

35

Female

Male

Blank Responses

S1

684

383

220

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Transit Survey Respondents

As mention previously a majority of the survey respondents were females.

36

Zip Code of Residence

43

1 1 1 8 3

73

1

37

7 4 1 1

28

253

108

235

284

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Did no

t resp

ond

4304

443

078

4531

945

323

4534

145

344

4534

945

368

4536

945

372

4538

745

501

4550

245

503

4550

445

505

4550

6

As mention previously a majority of the survey respondents live in the Springfield zip code areas.

37

This exhibit compares the survey population with the 2000 census population. The survey is fairly consistent with the census population except in the 45505 and 45506 zip codes. The survey population was substantially 10 – 20% higher in these zip codes.

COMAPRISON OF CENSUS TO SURVEY BY ZIP CODE

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%

4304

445

319

4534

145

349

4536

945

387

4550

245

504

4550

6 SURVEY

CENSUS

38

Hourly Wage of Respondents

More than $6 an hour but less than $9 an

hour, 129, 33%

Less than $6 an hour, 83, 21%


hour, 66, 17%

More than $24 an hour, 38, 10%


hour, 11, 3%


hour, 10, 3%


hour, 18, 5%


hour, 29, 8%

More than half of the respondents reported making an hourly wage of less than 9$ an hour. A quarter of the respondents made more than 9$ an hour and less than 15$ an hour. Less than a quarter of the respondents reported making more than 15$ an hour.

39

Current Mode of Transportation

Car, 515, 32%

Walk, 224, 13%

Bike, 61, 4% Taxi, 28, 2%

SCATVAN, 16, 1%Workplus, 56, 3%

SCATBUS, 387, 23%

MRDDVan, 20, 1%EUVan, 49, 3%

Friend, 290, 17%

SAVan, 6, 0%Other Van, 22, 1%

A majority of survey respondents reported using their own automobile as their current more of transportation. 32% of the survey respondents reported using Public Transportation provider services as their current mode of transportation. 36% of the survey respondents reported using alternative means of transportation as their current mode of transportation.

40

Public Transportation Preference

64

365

426

147

87

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Did not answer A bus system like SCAT A service I couldcall...home to exactly

A service I couldcall...near to near

I would not prefer to usePublic Trans.

39% of the survey respondents reported they would prefer a public transportation system that is on demand. 34% if the survey respondents reported that they would prefer a fixed route public transportation system. Overall 86% of the respondents showed some preference to a public transportation system.

□ Unmet Need - On demand service only made up 9% of the Current Mode of Transportation but is the highest preference in public transportation.

o Goal Area – Services, Coordination, Marketing, Financial Resources

□ Service Gap – Overall Public Transportation was preferred. However, 68% of the Current Mode of Transportation was not public transportation.

o Goal Area – Services, Marketing

41

Auto Owners Transit Preference

24

97

123

58

40

8

60

38

2631

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Did Not Respond A bus system like SCAT A service I couldcall...home to exactly

A service I couldcall...near to near


Females

Males

A majority of survey respondents that own their own vehicle prefer a public transportation system. Survey respondents prefer an on demand service.

42

Non-Auto Owner Transit Preference

16

125

151

38

1210

73

108

25

4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Did Not Respond A bus system like SCAT A service I couldcall...home to exactly

A service I could call...nearto near


Females

Males

A majority of survey respondents that do not own their own vehicle prefer a public transportation system. Survey respondents prefer an on demand service.

43

69

206

169

108

306

72

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Cost

Hours

Destination

Convenience

No Reason

Other

Reason for NOT using Public Transportation

34% of the survey respondents for this question cited “No Reason” for not using available Public Transportation. However, 61% of the question respondents cited a characteristic of the current public transportation system as the reason for not using it. Hours and Destination of the current system were primary reasons why respondents did not use public transportation. Only 7% of the respondents cite cost as a reason for not using the current public transportation system.

□ Unmet Need – Although cost is a consideration, respondents prefer a system with different hours and destinations than those currently available.

o Goal Area – Services, Coordination, Financial Resources

44

0

115

0

70

25

2

59

42

2

47

31

4

173

79

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Cost Hours Destination Conveinence No Reason

Auto Owners-Why not use Transit? Did not indicate Sex

Female

Males

46% of survey respondents that own vehicles have no reason to use the available public transportation systems available. However, 53% of survey respondents that owned an automobile cited characteristics of the available public transportation system as their primary reason for not using public transportation.

□ Unmet Need – Although cost is a consideration, respondents prefer a system with different hours and destinations than those currently available.


45

0

34

19

3

63

45

2

38

26

0

17

11

0

29

21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Cost Hours Destination Conveinence No Reason

No Auto- Why not use Transit?Did not Indicate SexFemaleMale

84% of survey respondents that do not own their own automobile, cited characteristics of the available public transportation system as their primary reason for not using it. Specifically, 34% of survey respondents that did not own their own automobile did not use the available public transportation system because of the hours.

□ Unmet Need – Survey respondents prefer a system with different hours and destinations than those currently available.


46

Service Time Preferences

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Early4am - 7am

Morning7am - 10am

Mid Day10am - 3pm

Afternoon3pm - 6pm

Evening6pm - 9pm

Late9pm - 1am

A majority of survey respondents that stated their public transportation service hour preferences preferred weekday mornings the most. Weekday afternoons and midday were also preferred the most. Although evening ours and weekend hours for public transportation were not preferred the highest there is still a preference for them. This is important as there are is very little public transportation services available during those times.

□ Unmet Need – Survey respondents prefer a system with hours that are currently available for public transportation and hours that currently have limited availability.


47

No answer statedCorner Along

Routes Hub DowntownNot Sure where to

catch bus

10

55

24

74

42

122

31

147

6

10

3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Auto Owner - Know where to catch a bus?

Did not Indicate SexFemaleMale

Survey respondents that own their own car are less likely to know where to catch a bus in the City of Springfield.

48

Transit Use in the City and its correlation to Work Status

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Work Primary,Middle, or High

School

JVS 2yr College 4yrUniversity Dr./Hosp./Rxvisit

Social Services Shop Social Outing

In Springfield and WorkingIn Springfield and NOT Working

Survey respondents that claimed to live in the city, to use public transportation and have a job are more likely to use system to access their job, make medical trips and go shopping. Survey respondents that claimed to live in the city, to use public transportation and are not employed are more likely to use system to access their medical appointments, shopping and social services.

49

Transit Use outside of the City and its correlation to Work Status

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Work Primary,Middle, or High

School

JVS 2yr College 4yrUniversity Dr./Hosp./Rxvisit

SocialServices

Shop Social Outing

Outside Springfield and WorkingOutside Springfield and NOT Working

Survey respondents that claimed to live outside of the city, to use public transportation and have a job are more likely to use system to access their job, make medical trips and go shopping. Survey respondents that claimed to live outside of the city, to use public transportation and are not employed are more likely to use system to access their medical appointments, shopping and social outings. In general, survey respondents who claimed to live outside of the city are less likely to prefer access to social services.

50

Reason to NOT use Transit in the City and its correlation to Work Status

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Cost Hours Destination Convenience No Reason

In Springfield and WorkingIn Springfield and NOT Working

Survey respondents that claimed to live in the city, to use public transportation and have a job are more likely to not use the system because of the hours. Survey respondents that claimed live to in the city, to use public transportation and are not employed are more likely to not use system for no reason.

51

Reason to NOT use Transit outside the City and its correlation to Work Status

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Cost Hours Destination Convenience No Reason

Outside Springfield and WorkingOutside Springfield and NOT Working

Survey respondents that claimed live to outside of the city, to use public transportation and have a job are more likely to not use the system because they have no reason to or because of the destination. Survey respondents that claimed to live outside of the city, to use public transportation and are not employed are more likely to not use the system because they have no reason or because of the destination.

52

MOBILITY TOMORROW

The following goal and objective areas were developed in a visioning workshop on March 28, 2007. Further analysis and development of the specific goals and objectives were outcomes of the public involvement open houses in April 2007 and May 2007.

53

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Marketing

Goal: Effectively inform the public of all public transportation opportunities and target populations with specific transportation needs.

Objectives:

□ Advertising Services o Personalize marketing approaches to specific populations of need.

□ Use fliers that give visual clues about the service advertised. □ Advertise onboard vehicles.

o Make use of existing websites to market all providers’ services and link to other service provider’s sites when applicable.

□ City of Springfield Website □ Clark County Website □ Springfield City Schools Website (specifically conduct and schedule

limitations) □ SCAT Website □ CC-STCC Website

o Advertise all public transportation services with television and radio stations that have similar demographic interest as existing ridership.

o Partner with agencies, retailers and government agencies outside the City of Springfield to market the existing public transportation services available.

o Provide route and bus stop identifying signage for SCAT routes. □ Identify and Locate Target Populations

o Find new approaches to advertise public transportation services to underserved demographics.

o Partner with local employers to market to specific working populations that could be taking advantage of existing provider’s services and seek opportunities for financial partnerships toward needed expansions of service.

o Partner with agencies, retailers and government agencies outside the City of Springfield to determine specific transportation needs in the area and develop financial assistance for services.

□ Marketing Coordination

o Develop a unified brand name and logo for the all public transportation providers to advertise under.

□ Give the appearance of one large public transportation service. • Use in all advertising. • Use on the side of all vehicles, regardless of primary provider

name.

54

Coordination

Goal: Take every opportunity to coordinate all public transportation services and consider new ideas for more efficient use of the combined provider services as one public transportation system.

Objectives: □ Service Provider Philosophy

o Each of provider services should share in the responsibility of all of the service providers.

o Each service providers should consider the transportation need for the county as a combined mission for service.

o Each service provider should become familiar with the all of the other service providers grant funding requirements so that each provider can provide services to all potential passengers.

o Each service provider should have staff trained to provide quality service to all of the service providers’ clients and equipment.

o Each of the service providers should become familiar with all of the other service providers services and be prepared to assist others as needed.

□ Full Countywide Mobility Initiative o Form a Mobility Committee with diverse stakeholder and service provider

representation. Membership shall include but is not limited to: Service Providers Municipal Corporations and specific subordinate Government Agencies

of those corporations Private Businesses Public advocacy groups (ex. Latino Coalition and JAM) CC-STCC Board Members and Staff

o Mobility Committee and CC-STCC staff should lead a study of the merits of consolidating all/ some of the provider services with the goal of a more efficient use of financial resources.

o Consider using the Mobility Manager concept from the 2001 Transit Development Plan done by RLS and associates.

55

Funding Resources

Goal: Consider new and creative uses of existing funding opportunities to assist in meeting goals and objectives.

Objectives: □ Consider using the following new funding opportunities first:

o FTA5310 Elderly & Disabled “Specialized Program” o FTA5316 Job Access Reverse Commute Program o FTA5517 New Freedoms Program o Clark County 1 ½ % un-voted sales tax o Administration on Aging Funding Programs o Medicaid/Medicare o Employer Subsidy Program o Transit Oriented Development o Exactions and Impact fees from land use developments

□ Evaluate current use and / or better use of existing resources including:

o FTA5307 Urban Transit Funding - City of Springfield o Administration on Developmental Disabilities o Local Levies- Aging and MR/DD o TANF – Low income/ employment o Volunteer providers o Title XX o Mileage reimburse for low income w/vehicle o Passport- Aging Program o CDBG- City (entitlement) o CDBG - County (non-entitlement) o Private Investment o Transit pass subsidy w/cap for employers and benefit to employees

56

Service

Goal: Efficiently maintain current provider service levels and seek new opportunities as needs become apparent.

Objectives:

□ Expand SCAT Service o Time o Days o Areas of Service o Coordinate with City School District if possible and provided that it does not

interfere with initial services provided

□ Expand WORKPLUS Services

□ Develop Pilot Programs where is need is demonstrated for county level services o Use a survey for specific areas

57

FISCALLY CONSTRAINED AND PRIORITIZED ACTION PLAN

FY08 - FY12 Coordinated Public Transportation Plan - Draft Project Listing

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

FY07 TANF 50,000

CPG 25,000

Partner

5310 32,000

SA 8,000

5310 32,000

CSS 8,000

5310 32,000

WP 8,000

5310 32,000

SCAT 8,000

5310 32,000

CCMR/DD 8,000

5310 32,000

EU 8,000

5317 60,000

SCAT 15,000

5316 60,000

WP 15,000

Partner

TCC 1/1/2008

75,000 TCC 1/1/200810 WP JARC ApplicationIncrease job accessability

through transportation

9 SCAT NF ApplicationExtend ADA service beyond requirements

Aquire a specialized transportation van for paratransit services 40,000 TCC 10/1/20076 SCAT Specialized Van Application

WP Coordinated Services Study

5 WP

Specialized Van Application

4 CSS

A study to devise the structure and capablility for

all of the transit and paratransit service to be

provided by one provider. 75,000

Project Start Date

State Fiscal Year

Assisting Agencies

Federal Share of Costs for Federal-aid Projects or Total Costs for Non-Federal Projects

Project Description

Total Project C

ost

Type of Funds

Priority Ranking #

Sponsor Agency Project Name

1

40,000

Aquire a specialized transportation van for paratransit services 40,000

75,000

10/1/2007TCC7 CCMR/DD Specialized Van Application

Aquire a specialized transportation van for paratransit services

10/1/2007TCC

SA

EU Specialized Van Application

10/1/2007

8

TCC, CCMR/DD, EU, SA, CSS,

SCAT 6/1/2007


Aquire a specialized transportation van for paratransit services 40,000 10/1/2007TCC

3

TCC

Aquire a specialized transportation van for paratransit services 40,000 TCC

10/1/2007Specialized Van Application


11 TCC Coordinate Pilot Projects Service Expansion ??? TCC 7/1/2008

in house TCC 7/1/20072 TCC & MVRPCFederal Contract

Union Liability Clause Negotiate with local unions

58 - 62


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Project Start Date

State Fiscal Year

Assisting Agencies


Project Description

Total Project C

ost

Type of Funds

Priority Ranking #


5310 32,000

SA 8,000

5310 32,000

CSS 8,000

5310 32,000

WP 8,000

5310 32,000

SCAT 8,000

5310 32,000

CCMR/DD 8,000

5310 32,000

EU 8,000

5317 60,000

SCAT 15,000

5316 60,000

WP 15,000 TCC 1/1/2009

NF ApplicationExtend ADA service beyond requirements

19 WP JARC ApplicationIncrease job accessability

through transportation

TCC

10/1/2008

40,000 TCC

1/1/2009

12 Specialized Van Application


17 EU Specialized Van Application

Aquire a specialized transportation van for paratransit services 10/1/2008



10/1/2008

15 SCAT Specialized Van Application

Aquire a specialized transportation van for paratransit services 40,000 TCC 10/1/2008


Aquire a specialized transportation van for paratransit services TCC



40,000

75,000

75,000

TCC

10/1/2008

10/1/2008

13 CSS

14 WP

16 CCMR/DD

18 SCAT

SA

58 - 62



State Fiscal Year

Assisting Agencies


Project Description

Total Project C

ost

Type of Funds

Priority Ranking #


5310 32,000

SA 8,000

5310 32,000

CSS 8,000

5310 32,000

WP 8,000

5310 32,000

SCAT 8,000

5310 32,000

CCMR/DD 8,000

5310 32,000

EU 8,000

5317 60,000

SCAT 15,000

5316 60,000

WP 15,000

TCCNF ApplicationExtend ADA service beyond requirements 1/1/2010


through transportation 75,000 TCC 1/1/2010

26 SCAT

10/1/2009

24 CCMR/DD Specialized Van Application





10/1/2009TCC


75,000


10/1/2009

10/1/2009

10/1/2009TCC

20 SA

21 CSS Specialized Van Application

22 WP Specialized Van Application

Aquire a specialized transportation van for paratransit services 40,000 Specialized Van ApplicationEU


25

58 - 62



State Fiscal Year

Assisting Agencies


Project Description

Total Project C

ost

Type of Funds

Priority Ranking #


5310 32,000

SA 8,000

5310 32,000

CSS 8,000

5310 32,000

WP 8,000

5310 32,000

SCAT 8,000

5310 32,000

CCMR/DD 8,000

5310 32,000

EU 8,000

5317 60,000

SCAT 15,000

5316 60,000

WP 15,000

TCC 1/1/2011


through transportation 75,000 TCC 1/1/2011

34 SCAT NF ApplicationExtend ADA service beyond requirements


40,000 TCC



32 Specialized Van Application

31


10/1/2010

TCC 10/1/2010



75,000

40,000

40,000

TCC 10/1/2010

TCC

TCC

TCC

10/1/2010

10/1/2010

33 EU

28 SA Specialized Van Application



CCMR/DD

SCAT Specialized Van Application

Aquire a specialized transportation van for paratransit services 40,000 10/1/2010

58 - 62



State Fiscal Year

Assisting Agencies


Project Description

Total Project C

ost

Type of Funds

Priority Ranking #


5310 32,000

SA 8,000

5310 32,000

CSS 8,000

5310 32,000

WP 8,000

5310 32,000

SCAT 8,000

5310 32,000

CCMR/DD 8,000

5310 32,000

EU 8,000

5317 60,000

SCAT 15,000

5316 60,000

WP 15,000 1,025,000 43 WP JARC Application

Increase job accessability through transportation

42 NF ApplicationExtend ADA service beyond requirements 75,000 SCAT

TCC 10/1/2011

40 CCMR/DD Specialized Van Application








SA Specialized Van Application


1/1/2012

40,000

40,000

36

41

40,000


75,000

TCC 10/1/2011

TCC

TCC 10/1/2011

TCC 10/1/2011

TCC 10/1/2011

Specialized Van ApplicationEU

TCC 1/1/2012

58 - 62

63

STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT RECORD

In June 2006, Justice Action Mercy (JAM) and the Clark County Commissioners hosted a meeting at the County Commission Chambers as a call to action for community transportation needs. JAM requested that the County Commissioners and the TCC review the Transit Development Plan from 2000 and start working with local transit providers to extend service areas and hours to the needs of the greater Springfield - Clark County area. In July 2006, a kickoff meeting was held at the Clark County- Springfield Transportation Coordinating Committee’s office to define the planning team participants, announce the schedule, review existing transit systems and develop a Locally Developed Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan. A meeting of the planning team in August 2006 focused on the area’s 2000 Transit Development Plan statistics and the development of a survey to be distributed to the public. Area transportation providers were invited to this meeting to discuss the development of this plan and their inputs to the plan. At a September 2006 meeting, the planning team prepared for the Fall Assembly of the JAM church congregations and interested parties. The planning team introduced a public opinion survey. The Fall Assembly of JAM was used to advertise and distribute the surveys to the public and various social service agencies, as well as citizens of the Springfield- Clark County transportation planning area. In October 2006, the planning team met. The meeting focused on the status of the surveys and preliminary findings of the returned surveys. The planning team discussed the remaining surveys to be returned and the next steps in the development of the plan which would be the needs based assessment derived from the surveys. Further discussion was focused on the method of compilation of data from the surveys. By the time that the planning team met for a November 2006 meeting approximately 8,000 surveys had been distributed of which, 600 had been completed and returned to the TCC. Preliminary findings of these surveys were discussed. In December 2006, the planning team held a meeting. An additional 500 surveys had been received, bringing the total for completed and returned surveys to 1,100. Prioritization of unmet needs and research of possible types of transportation services to be considered were the focus of discussion at the meeting. Surveys were still being returned at this time. The due date for the surveys was extended to December 31, 2006. The planning team met in January 2007 to benchmark and identify all of the possible transportation services that would be feasible components of the plan being developed for the Clark County- Springfield transportation planning area. Also in January the TCC policy board, passed a resolution for the staff to apply for a planning funds grant of $45,000 for small MPOs and rural areas, announced by ODOT-Office of Public Transit. It was anticipated

64

that the grant would be used for expenses incurred by the TCC related to the development of the plan. It was explained and understood that capital equipment and direct service provisions were not eligible costs for the grant. The planning team met in February 2007. The planning team members reviewed survey responses and planned to a one day workshop to present needs data and develop and prioritize goals and objectives for the plan. On March 28, 2007 the planning team held a one day workshop to workshop to present needs data and develop and prioritize goals and objectives for the plan. 30 representatives from local transportation, human service, public, private and non-profit agencies attended the workshop and were actively involved in formulating the goals and objectives in the plan. On April 3 -5, 2007 the plan was on display at Public Open Houses for the Transportation Improvement Program. One comment about the general process of developing the plan was received from these meetings. On April 30, 2007 the planning team met to make final comments on the plan before the second draft was presented to the public. On May 14, 2007 the draft plan was presented at the Spring JAM Action Assembly. Clark County Commissioner, Roger Tackett committed to the Commission’s cooperation in implementing the plan. Between April 1, 2007 and May 17, 2007 the draft plan was available in the TCC office and the agency’s web site for review for approximately 45 days. On May 17, 2007 the draft plan and a Powerpoint Presentation was on display at Public Open Houses held at two (2) locations.

• Salvation Army, Inc. 10am-12pm • Elderly United, Inc 4pm-6pm

Notice of the open houses was sent to the local media and ran for two (2) days in the local newspaper. The open house at the Salvation Army had the most citizens review the plan with a total of 21 sign in for the two hour period. No comments were completed and submitted at this open house comment sheet available. The open house held that afternoon at Elderly United had a total of two people come in and watch the power point presentation. No comments were left at this evening open house. The plan was presented for adoption at the June 8, 2007 CC-STCC Policy Board meeting. Open House Advertising and Sign-in Sheets follow.

65

66

Take this opportunity to review and provide your comments on projects listed in the 2008 – 2011 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for Clark County.

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 Wednesday, April 4, 2007

4:00-6:00 p.m. 4:00-6:00 p.m. Gaier Meeting Room Log Cabin

Clark County Public Library Smith Park 201 S. Fountain Avenue New Carlisle

Springfield

Thursday, April 5, 2007 4:00-6:00 p.m.

Town Hall 35 S. Chillicothe Street

South Charleston

The Locally Developed Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan will also be available for review at each location.

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM

Informational Open Houses

April 2, 2007 – April 13, 2007

The final drafts of the State Transportation Improvement Program and the Transportation Improvement Program of each of the 17 Ohio Metropolitan Planning Organizations are available at the Clark County-Springfield TCC office, located on the 4th floor of Springfield City Hall, 76 E. High Street. All transportation projects throughout the state which will utilize Federal funding are listed in these documents. Public review is encouraged. The Clark County-Springfield Transportation Improvement Program is available to view at all library branches and all city, township and village offices. The Transportation Improvement Program can also be found on the TCC’s website at: www.clarktcc.com. For further information or special accommodations contact Scott Schmid at 324-7689 or [email protected].

Public Review & Comment Period

67

68

Documents

COORDINATED - Clark TCC · Environmental Justice is defined and motivated by several statutes and regulations the are: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The National Environmental