HomeMy WebLinkAbout0100.092~I
'1 !
-
(D. . .""
,-,',: '1<"'" ..
January 5, 1992
HONORABLE CITY COlINCIL
Palo Alto, california
AInericans With Disabiliti~ct:
Districtlg Draft Paratrans~n
Members of the Council:
REPORT IN BRIEF
santa Q.lAr-.<! County Transit
This is an infonnational report; ~10 Council action is r-equested~
This report provides a summary of the provisions of tfie Americans
with Disabilities paratransit service regu,lations, a review-of thp..
main elements of the Santa Clara County Draft Paratransi t Plan,
staff's evaluation of the impacts on Palo Alto and the city's
Proj ect Mobility program, and a summary of the cOIrmlents and
recommendations that. staff has transmitted to the Sa,nt.a clara
County Transportation Agency (SCCTA) for consideration by the Board
of supervisors on January 24, 1992.
The timing of t~e key impacts on Palo Alto and the city's Project
Mobility program are:
• Santa Clara Co,-]nty Transit District ..,i11 begin the five year
phase of its ADA Paratransit Service in 1992 and -will
initiate the precess to hire a County-...ride paratransit broker.
• In FY 1992-93~ the SCCTA lo,"i11 begin f":lnding Project Mobility
at approximately double the level of current TDA funding.
• In July 1994 the County broker's operation will b~ extended
to Palo Alto and Stanford. The Project Mobility program
-woulQ be eliminated.
• By 1997, the County's paratransit program will reach full
compliance with ADA requirements for $er~ice that is
kcomparable M to fixed-route service, -with no capacity
constraints or restrictions based on trip purpose or distance
traveled.
C!!R:100:92
..
B,At:KGBQUND
O~ JL\ly 2, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) ~hich guarantees disabled individuals equal
rights, and provid6& for non-discrimination a~d a~co~odations for
persons with disabilities in employment, transpo.:-tation, government
services, com~unications, and p~lic facilities.
On September 6, 1991, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued
the Final Rule (regulations) r9gardinq the implementation of the
transportation provisions of the ADA. The Final Rule mandates
that:
• Rail systems must acqu i r~ ;::oor.'essible cars and must operate at
least one accessible car per train bjo' 1995.
• Transit agencies operating fixed-route sen' ice must acquire
accessible vehicles (this is already la~ in California).
• PYbllc transit agencies aust provide compl .. eDtary
par. transit services tor individuals with disabilities who
CanDot u •• fi:z:ad-rout. 8arvice~ Par.transit services must be
uco.p~rabl.u to tbe 1evel of services provided to iJ),4ividuala
without disaLiliti8. who use fixed-route service.
• Each public transit district must submit a plan to the Urban
Mass Transit Transportation Adnlinis,trat.ion (UMTA) by January
2', 1.'2. Full implementation of the plan must be completed
by January 1997.
The SCCTA issued its Draft Plan in early November and held a seri~s
of twelve community meetings in mid-November to solicit public
input, including two in Palo Alto~ These meetings were attended hy
approximately 150 individuals. A summary of the comments from the
two public meetings in Palo Alto is provided as Attachment t2. On
Decembe.l' 11 a public hearing ..... as-held by the Transportation
Commission. The commission voted to make a preliminary
recommendation to the Soard of Supervisors endorsing adoption of
the Draft Paratransit Plan, but to dela)r final action until its
next meeting. The remaining delivery dates in the development of
the plan are:
January 8
14
26
Recommendation by Tran~portation Commission
Approval by Board of supervisors
Submittal of Final Plan to UMTA
ADA P;RATBANSIT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
The U.s. Department of Transportation Final Rule for imple~entation
of the ADA establishes comprehensive requirements for paratransit
services to be provided ~y public transit operators. Agencies are
CMR: 100:92 1/9/92
Page 2
,-<.
"~:~.
+_,0:"
......
i
!
L
-
allowed five years to reach full compliance. and :must
measurec1 progress d'Urir.q the five year phase-in period.
ADA Paratransit service Sta,.ndarg§.
achieve
o Paratransit must be "compa~·able" to fixed-route service,
excluding Commuter Routes
• l..DA Paratransit operators cannot limit general service by
capacity constraints, Le., no restrictions based on trip
purpose ,e.g~~ meaical, shopping, ~ork. etc.} ~ and no
administrative constraints such as wait lists~
• Service must be provided at minimum within a 3/4 mile
corridor on each side of fixed-route service.
• service must be available same hours/days as fixed-route.
• The shape of the service area can change by time and day of
weeJc.
• -Next Day Service~ must be provided to anyone who calls a day
ahead for a trip.
• Fares cannot exceed twice the full adult fare for fixed-route
bus service; one personal care attendant may travel free~
Implementation of the ADA regulations will ultimately result in a
comprehensive and coordinated County paratransit program that
c~nnot have the typical capacity constraints that now exist with
paratransit programs such as Project MobilitYt wherein limits on
the number of trips and the distance traveled have been imposed in
order to serve the most people with limited funding~ There will be
greater uniformity of eligibility requirements (standard region
~ide procedures for eligibility screening are being developed by
the Metropolitan Transportation Co~ission) and improved
coordination of inter-county paratransit trips that involve more
thar. one transit operat0r.
COUNTY TBANSIT'S PARATBpNSIT PLAN
Paratransit Serviqe Alternatives
County Transit statf considered four alternative institutional
arrangements for the delivery of paratransit services in the
county:
(1) CUrrent paratransit operators (Palo Alto, Sunnyvale,
Vantrans, Outraach and Escort. and Transit Assist) would
continue to claim TDA ~unds directly and provide ADA service
through contracts and additional funding from SCCTA~
CMR:100:92 1/9/92
Page 3
-
(2)
(3)
(4)
SCCTA would cl~im all TDA funds and contract out ~ith taxi
and van operators; e~istin9 paratransit operators would not
be i nvol voed ;
SCCTA would claim all TDA fur.ds and 'Would contract .... ith a
combinati¢n of existing agencies and other providers; and
SCCT~ ~ould claim all TDA funds and contract ~ith a single
paratransit broker who would contr~ct directly with taxi and
V.!IIn service providers.
county Transit's analysis of these options is provid~d as
Attachment 3.
The SCCTA staff is recocmending alternative 14: PQntracti~th
an organization to broker paratransit service CO:.lntvwide. SCCTA
staff believes that this servic~ format would eliminate unnecessary
administrative functions, reduce SCCTA's role in direct oversight
of paratransit operations# foster equality of services ~ithin the
county, and lead to a slmplifiE'd user-fr-iendly Countywide program.
The broker would certify and enroll eligible paratransit riders and
provide and/or contract for paratransit services. The broker
system could alloW' existing TOA-funded providers to continue to
partiCipate in the paratransit system as subcontractors. For the
three nonpr'"ofit TDA providers (Vantrans# Transit Assist}' and
OUtreach and Escort) which own and o?erate fleets of vans, this is
s distinct possibility. However, the two City programs {Project
Mobility and Sunnyvale para transit) in essence now fUnction in the
same capacity as a broker, by managinq the programs through
contracts with taxi and van companies. The bruker could take over
these. functions directly, ..... ithout the additional layer of City
administration.
Service parameters
The ADA defines the minimum parat,ransit service area as a :t/4 mile
band around all bus and rail routes. The service area can change
by time of day and day of week, as bus service ~overage changes a
In order to simplify the system for the riders, SCCTA staff has
proposed service be provided s~ven days a week, witL thlee time of
day components: (l) the Core service Area, from 5:00 a.m. to
midnight, will encompass the urbanized areas of the County,
exclusive of the foothills and rural areas; (2) from midnight to
2:00 a.m., servic:e would be limited to the ilUIOediate vicinity of
the grid routes in operation at that time (in north county the area
would be limited to the 3/4 mile radius of El Camino Real); and
(3) from 2:00 a.M. to 5:00 a.m., ~nen transit service is shut down,
no paratransit service ~ould be offered.
CMR:100:92
-L
1/9/92
Fage 4
,
I
I
I
!
I
l
I
'",,'.
,
The ADA allows transit agencies to charge para transit riders up to
douJ:.le the basic fare for a similar transit trip. Since the
current Transit District fares range from $.5J to $2.00, the rates
charged to paratransit riders could be as low as $1.00 or up to
$4.00. The final decision on paratransit fares 'Will occur at a
later date4' and will follow the Transit District 's normal tare
setting procedures, .... hich include community outreach, extensivE:
public hearings, and Board approval.
DUe to the complexity of the issues involved in the shift to
co~nty-operated paratransit service, SCCTA staff proposes that the
transition to a broker and the elimination of constralr.ts on
service occur over th~ five year phase-in period allo~ed under the
feaeral legislation.
AQ.A Paratransi t P] an Imp} ementation Timelin.e
1991-92 RFP process for sele~tion of a Paratran5it Broker.
1992-93 SCCTA claims TDA
operators; SCCTA
Broker.
funds and contracts with existi~g
executes contract ~ith paratr3nsit
1993-94-Pa.ratran::;it Broker takes over Outreach , Escort service
area; the four remaining operators continue contract with
SeCTA.
1994-95 Paratransit Broker takes over North county service: Palo
~tO'8 Project ~obi1ity pr09ram, Sunnyvale, and Vantrans
(Hountain View, L-os Altos and Los Altos Hills). SCCTA
negotiates reciprocal agreements with Samtrans.
1995-96 Paratransit Bro}cer takes over Transit Assist service (Monte
Sereno, Los Gatos and Saratoga).
1996-97 FUll implementation cf Paratransit Plan~ all capacity
constraints elimi~ated.
l.J..M.nc ia 1 Dnpact
SCCTA staff e3timates that over 52,000 County residents are
eligibla for ADA paratransit service; and 1,226,4-41 annual trips
would be required to meet the minimum deIl!and ~or paratransit
service. Currently, only 599,429 are being provided by TDA
programs (112,145 "general" trips) and other social service
agencies ,487,2B4 nprogramn trips to site specific destinations).
The cost to provide the anticipated level of ADA service in 1992
dollars is $17,636,675, of which $7,786,4Q4 is currently availaole
from a variety of funding sources. The estirr,ate1 funding deficit
county Transit would be responsible for is $9,850,272 in 1992. The
cost of full compliance, at the end of the five year transition
CKR: lOa: 92 1/9/92
Page 5
~.".'C ,-
.-. ~
"
c,' •• , ••••• ,
..
I
J ,~"" i ,';~:"
period in 1997, is estimated to.be $25,351,613, -",'ith an anticipated
funding deficit of $14,554,911.
The ADA was enacted without any corresponding increase in federal
funding'. HOllo-ever, t.he oepartmer.t of" Transpcrtation Final Rule
includes provisions for transit districts to seek a ... aiver based on
financial ha:tdship, if they cannot meet all of the ADA service
criteria by ~997. county Transit staff has indicated they do not
intend to pursue this option at this time, but will reserve the
option to see.k a waiver in the future.
Tbe sourc<e(5) of fundinq for the estimated deficit are not
identified in the draft plan. The establishment of secure f~nding
for this program is the most critical issue facing county Transit.
options range from reducing other transit servic;.;.es, to seeking
federal and state legislation for funding of ADA programs, to
includinq paratransit funding in future 1/2 cent sales tax measures
(as Alameda and Sa~ Mateo Counties have done).
IMPACT ON PALO ALTO AND PROJECT MOBILITY SE~
The approval ot the Paratransit Plan will result in the elimination
of the Project Mobility program in July 1994, due to Palo Alto's
loss of TDA funding and tt~e expansion of the broke red service.
DUring the transition phase between 1992 and 1994, however, the
SCCTA will increase funding to the current paratransit programs,
includinq Project Mobility, to enable existing programs to offer a
hiqher level ot service closer to the level mandated by the ADA_
The County'G decision to establish a brokered system raises the key
issue of whether the Cjty is willing to relinquish direct
responsibility for providing paratransi t services to Palo Alto
residents. On the one hand, there are compensating benefits in the
SCCT~ paratransit plan for current users of the Project Mobility
program:
• The amount and scope of transportation service ~ill expand
significantly.
• P.iders \riill have the ability to travel to oes't.inations
currently restricted due to funding li&itations. e~g. trips
to non-medical destinations in mid-to-south cvunty.
• The -next ~ay service" that Project Mobility offers ~ould be
ma inta i ned,
• Rider fares "Would 1 Deely remain ....,ithin the existing (or a
modestly increased) range ($1.00 -$4.00 per trip), compared
to existing Project Mobility fares ($1.50 -$3.00).
C!{R:100:92 1/9/92
Page 6
• t$
-
• The great majorjty of disabled residents whc now participate
in the Project Mobility program ¥oul~ be eligible~
• service to important destinations in San Mdteo Ccunty (Menlo
Clinic, Kaiser Hospital, etc~) ~ill be maintained: expanded
service to other inter-county destinations will b£ available,
coordinated between Samtrans a'1d Santa Clara County Transit
District~
On the other hand, the unique demand-responsive nature: of the
Project Mobility taxi and van service ( .. here the riders schedule
their trips directly with the taxi or van dispatcher) would be
replaced by the county broker 'Who 'Would act as an intermediary
between tha rider and the taxi and van operator~ Unde~ a typical
broker system, the broker would ass ign each call to the most
appropriate service provider. The close coordination that now
exists bet~een City staff and the Palo Alto Senior Center staff,
who interview and e~roll project Mobility riders, ~euld give ~ay to
a potentially more remote and impersonal system, 'Phich may not
offer a project Mobility type service. Staff believes the demand
responsive service arranqe~ent could function in a broker system,
and should be evaluatea as the brcker concept is refined.
While Project Mobility can very adequately provide service in the
Palo Alto area, via contracts 'With local taxi companies, the
program is not structured to handle long haul trips fro~ one end of
the County to th~ other, which will be offered under the ADA and
are more.costly and complicated to 'Schedule. If Palo Alto 'Were
interested in continuing to operate an independent paratransit
program for Palo Alto and Stan~o=d residents at the level required
under the ADA, the scope of the program and the funding ~equired
would be threefold the current level:
Number of Enrollees
Annual Trips
Funding Needed
1991-92
Bud~1;
1,000
18,820
$189,667
projected
~DA Budget
3,100
36,000
$621,720
CUrrently, the Project Mobility program is funded fully from rider
fares and TDA revenues. For Palo Al to to operate its own ADA
program for the SCCTA, or to continue Project Mobility as an
independent service supplementary to the ~DA service, a significant
investment of General FUnd r-evenue and an increase in staffing
would be required ~
In summary, staff believes the unlimited level of transportation
ultimately required under full compliance with the ADA, its
financing, and the ne~d for intra-and inter-county coordination,
support the overall concept of a Count}'¥o'ide para transit program
CHR:100:92 1/9/92
Page 7
,
.. ~
I.
-
rather than tne continua.tion of ina.ividual sub-regional programs.
Palo A!to has provided direct paratransit service far ever 16 years
and, as "With other existing operators, has an appreci1.tion and
under-standing of th-e needs of its client€l.le. Because of this, the
ci"ty and other existing providers should continue to provide direct
input and oversight in the implementation of the County's
paratransit program, particularly in the further refinement of the
requirem~nts tor, and selection of. the countywide broker. This
could be accomplished by the City's continued participation in the
Paratransit Coordinating Council o~ a potenti~l successor advisory
body, to assist SCCl'A in the im.plementation of the par;atransit
plan.
CON'CruSIONS
staff supports the general findings of the Draft Paratransit Plan,
~ith the additional comments and recommendations described in the
preceding section~ staff has communicated the fol1o~in9 comments
to the SCCTA staff in time for their consideration in the
development of the Final Plan. Staff ~ill report back to Council
on any substantive changes in the Final Paratransit Plan.
1.. The Draft Paratransit Plan is a balance.d and thoughtful response
to the ADA law, and vill ultimately provide the level of
para transit service that the disabled residents in Santa Clara
County have long needed~
2~ We are concerned that the Draft Plan does not ensure the
continued input and participation of the City and other existing
paratransit operators, in further implementing the ADA para
transit service~ We recc~end that the plan formally designate
the Para transit Coordinating Council, or a successor ADA
Paratransit Committee, to function in an advisory capacity to
County Transit during the five year phas~-in of the plan. The
committee should include representation !rom existing TDA
p~ovid~rs, consumers, and agencies that work with the disabled
and seniors.
3. Specifications for the paratransit broker operation need to be
considered very carefully. We suggest that the service criteria
include an array of options that complement the diverse needs of
the disabled population, from demand-responsive service for the
most independent individuals to escorted transportation for the
most frail and disabled.
4.. We are concerned that the draft plan meets only the minimum
service area requirements of the ADA, and thus "Would exclude
Palo Alto residents living "West of Foothill Expressway, "Who are
currently eligible for Project Mobility paratransit se:nric~~
Cl(R:100:92
~ .. _---.----". __ .--,._.-, -
1/9/92
Page a
-----"" ... 1iiIII'·IIIIl·
.""'.
The number ~f ADA-eligible residents in these areas is
relatively low, and oxpansion of serJice would ensure equity of
servic€! to all County residents ..,ho iIIIouId qu3.1ify for ADA
service based on their disability status.
5~ The long-term iinancinq ot the paratransit plan is a concern not
adequately discussed in the draft plan. We recognize that the
financial burden of the plan could impact the delivery of other
existing transit services, unless supplemental source (5), of
funding, h~ they federal, local, or state revenues, are secured~
The Board of Supervisors will need to address tha long-term
funding of para transit and pursue ne ... ~ revenues from state,
federal and local sources, including future transportation
funding plans tbat are submitted to the voters.
Respectfully 5ubmitte~,
GAYLE LIKENS
Senior Planner. Transportation
~HML~\~ cr:~G--
Assistant city Manager
:t:/M.d/t /f )/f;"j;7
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Di~ector of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachments: 1. p-raft Paratransit Plan Executive summa~, SCCTA,
November 1991
2. Summary of comments from Palo Alto public meetings
3. SCCTA summary of implementation alternatives
4. Letter to James Unites transttitting staff co~~ents
cc: Senior Coordinating Council
James Unites, SCCTA
CMR: lOO:92 l/9/92
Page 9
~" .
, "" {.
-" . . _,~:~.:~~r·~4. , ,;'-:', ;Sf~~ .
-.:~::;:.:.
',",
__ .' ____ • __ J.... ., __ ._--... .•. __ _
Santa Clara County Transit District
Americans With Disabilities Act
Draft
Paratransit Plan
November, 1991
. @'Santa Clara County TransportatiolT Agency
.
", .:, . ...;
. _ ..... '
,
j
I
I
1. INTRODUCTION
J
SANTA CLARA COUNTY T~~~S!T DISTRICT
AME~ICANS WITH DISABILITIES ~CT
DRAFT PARATRANS!T PLAM
EXECUTIVE SU~~Y
The C~aft Paratransit plan is developed to comply vith
regulations i~plementing the A~ericans Witr. tisabilities Act
(ADA) of 1930~ As ~n ope rater of bus and light rail se~vice,
Santa Clara Co~nty Transit District {SCCTDJ is required to ens~re
that complementary paratransit service is provided to ~ligible
individuals vith disabilities and that the le~el of service
is comparable to service pro~ided to persons who use the bus and
light rail system.
Generally. the regulations specify standards and a process to
d~termine who is eligible fer the paratransit se~vice and how th€
service should be designed to be ccmparable to the bcs and light
rail-system.
Thls Executive Summary describes ~CCTD's Draft P~ratransit Plan.
Sections of this summary correspond to chapters or the full
report~
2. DESCRIPTION OF SCCTD BUS AND LIGHT RAIL SYSTE~
Santa ~lara County is comprised of 15 cities ~nd unincorporated
area and has a total population cf 1,513.000 persons. SCCTD
~erves the urbani~ed portien of the county with a fleet of"
512 buses and SO light rail vehicles. Service is Frovi~e~ on
80 bus routes and 1 light rail line. 7 days a w~ek with scme
routes starting abcut S:OC am and operating as late as 2:00 am.
Th~ fare for regular service is $1.00. $O~SO for ycuth and $0.25
for senior citi~ens and dis~bled persons. A midday fare of SO.SO
is also in place, along with day anc monthly passes. Higher
fares are ch~rged for Express and Super Express ser4ice~
In Fiscal Year 1991, ridership is estimated to be 41.7 millien on
the bus syste~ and 2.5 million for light rail.
SCCTO does not provide any paratr~nsit service directly.
Rather, paratransit in the county is provided by a combination
of two methods.
General parat~ansit trips are provided by five organizations,
mainly funded by Transportation Development Act Articl~ 4.5
r
.I
IT 1991·92
r .... og.r Trips
IT 1991·92
Op.r.tin~ Cn!ts
Bonlee AfAR
i
Service Descnptil'lo
i I
,
i
I*' -"', ,,'
,
FrGU~E "
CHAnACTmttSTICS OF'l'DA 4,/; FUNDED
PARATRANSlT PROVIDERS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
City of P.t. Altc Sunnyvale Supple,
'ITansit AMist ,V AN'l'RANS Projed. MohHity mental Tl"anatt
13,913 15,900 18,820 59,84n -
$205,366 $235,163 $189,667 $465,'00
L:l. GatM, Mt. View, Los Palo A~to, SlfInfGtd Sunnyvale
S&t'AVt{tllj M~nte Alto., U.! Ait09
SM~no Hin.
Directly 01""0"'0 OiC"oa<::lfy opo/h"ftU:!d OiBtounts cmlr'!0n3 OiMOunt coupons.
./'ICff!!'H,ihle v;'JiS »al)S~ihJ~ VDfj~: for tnxi nnrl for taxi llncl
BOMO cOI"lt.rut:lna aucslllhlc van nete1l!.Iibie v&n
~em~ ,. .
":':'!~'" Outrode" &
Esoo1't. tnc .
(
218,819 \'
$2.043.975
San Jme, Stmtfll.
CI8:ra~ MHpitM,
Cupertino,
Cnmpbl'll, G~I"()y.
San Murtin,
Morgon Hill
Orok.ered trud and
\
A~eMible '.lAO;
IibmfJ rliredly
operated B~rvke
.
.' ~".' ..... ' •. "
, ".' <
" ,
,/
•
...
---'
funds. A summary of these five paratransit providers is shown
O~ Fi9ur~ A. In Fiscal Year 1992, 326.952 trips are expected to
be prov~ded. The majority of these trips are take~ by persons
considered to be eligible for paratrbnsit un~er ~OA.
Agency or program trips are operated by social service agencies
to carry their clip.nts to and f~om programs. Over 30 agencies
provid~ 4S7,2S4 ADA-eligible trips annu~lly. A detaileci
inventory of these agencies i5 included in the full plan.
SOMe additional important ch~racteristics of the paratransit
ServiCE currently being provid~d are:
• 66\ of the trips provided by th~ TDA 4.5 funded providers
are general trips (taken by an individual to the destination of
their choic£), and 34\ are pro~ram trips.
• Pepending on the abilities of the riders. both curt-to-curb and
door-to-door service is provided.-
• aet~een 15\ and 25\ of paratransit trips require the use of a
wheelchair lift.
• Of the trips provided by the five TDA <.~ fu~d~d crgani2ations
about 70\ are in taxis.
(. COMPARABLE PARATRANSIT SERVICE PLAN
This chapter describes the p~ratransit services required to be
provided under ADA requirements. G~nerally. this chapter answers
four ~ain questions.
PEMAND ESTH1.ATE
1. What is the demand or number of ADA paratransit trips
expected to be provided:
The San Francisco Say Area Region~l Paratra~sit Plan presented a
methodology for Estimating paratransit demand. BaSically. this
involvei multiplying the number of Feople eligible for
paratra~sit bf the number of trips they vould take. 1n Santa
Clara County, 52,447 people are considered transit disabled or
eligible for paratransit. Based on studies of paratransit
systems across the country, yhich have ~ell-developed. "ideal"
service, the trip rate for qeneral trips is 1.0 trip per month
per person. Added to this is the number of program trips
requi red.
Overall an estimat~d 1.266.441 paratransit trips are required to
meet the ADA demand for both general and program trips.
Currently 814.416 trips are being provide~, leaving an unmet
demand of 4S2,025 trips, When the ADA paratransit system is in
full compliance with the regulations there can be no restrictions
-.... q
-.
on the n.umber of pcH'!It!'ansit trips tC!Ke!'!. This is an estimate of
the n~mber of trips necessary to fulfill this requireme~t.
PARATRANS1T SERVIC~ UNDER FULL COMPLIANCE
2. What viii the ADA parat[a~sit service loo~ like ~hen it is
!ully operational?
This section describes what seCTO's A~A paratransit ser~ice ~ill
be when full co~pliance an~ implementation is reached in 1997.
The key te ADA paratransit service is that it be comparable t~
SCCTO's fixed route bus and -light tail service, as described by
the crit~[ia belo~.
Service Area, Bours and Days: The ADA paratransit setvice area
15 defined as areas 3/4 mlles on each side of all bus and rail
routes plys ~mall hole~ not covered by the 3/4 mile band. The
~ervice area for SCCTD ADA paratransit are shown on Figures 5 and
C. These service areas are only different ba5~d ~n time of cay
and for South County as sho1,m bela ...... :
Regular Late
Service Hours Service Bours
p days a ..... eek) 17 days • week)
Core Service Area 5 em to 11: 59 pm Midnight to 2 am
South County 5 am to 7:59 pm 5 pm to 2 am
Fares: While the proposal for ADA paratransit fares is not
complete, a review of the regulations and SCCTD's current fare
st[uct~re indicate the direction to be taken. ADA regulations
alloy tvice the bast~ fare fcr a similar fixed route fare to b~
charg:?d for ADA paratransit trips. A.DA also allows n·,at person.al
care attendants ride free and on~ companion can !i~e but must pay
the far~. Additional perscns can ride if space is availablE~
·ti7en SCCTD'5 fare structure of $0.50 midday~ $1.00 regular,
$1.50 express and $2.00 super express, ~DA. fares could be double
these amounts or in the range of $l~OO to $4.00 per trip. The
actual fare paid would depe~d on the type. length and time of the
trip. The fares for ADA paratransit ~ill undergo a complete
review and approval process similar to that when bus and light
rai~ fares are Changed.
SCCTD can also negotiate higher f~res with social service
agencies for trips used to transport their cli~nts to and from
programs.
Trip purposes/Capacity Constraints: When full implementation
15 reached no ~estrictions on trip purpose, dista~ce or number
t~ken or waiting lists can exist. Subscripticn s~rvices ~il1
be developed ~nd these may be restricted by number and trip
priority.
--
, .... j
;
I
-
c: " ,., 0.' -~ c..<
< '" o .~
< ~
G~ u 5 VlU
•
J
I r t·
I
~
i
I'
l
!
-
· .•. ~~.
i
I
-.-
'-_r
. !:
-~-
" '" ~
" " -<
c:: '"
C§ .~
'" < .."
<";:: tiE
u Z
"''=;
" -'
,.
:,
.,~-
--
:J
'I
'y
,
~
" -_. -/
I
') :
!!
I
)
"' ,I
,-
I ,
\
<
~, 1:~~
<." 1 ,
~
-
.'
ReSeonse Time~ ADA paratransit Eligible persons will be ~b!~ to
request a trip during the normal business hours of S:CG am to
5:00 pm any day and be p~ovided a trip the follc~ing day_ Trips
can be scheduled Yp to 14 days in ad~ance.
IXPLEME~TATI0~ PLAN
3~ Bow ~nd when vil! the ADA p~ratransit ~ervice be irnp!emented?
At full complianc~, SCCTD will contract with anc fund a
countywide broker of paratransit services. The broker ~ill be
the place in S~nta Cl~ra Cvunty to call to access paratransit
services. The broker will conduct ADA pa~atr5nsit eligibility
certification and ~il1 provide and/or contract for paratransit
services. Eligible riders will call the brok~r to schedule their
trips. The broker will then assign the ~rips based ~n the most
productive mode v~ich can meet the rider's needs: taxis~
accessible van~ transfer to and from the fixed route, etc. The
broker will be responsible for coordinating trips which cross
county boundaries in San Mateo and Alamed~ county.
This will be i~plemented in steps or phases ever the next S years
so the complete system is in place i~ 1997. Th~ implementation
phil5in9 is .shown in Figure O. The main components are briefly
desC'cibed below.
support Services: SetTD will hire an Accessibility/paratransit
Manager i develop a Request for Proposals to obtain th~ county~ice
broker, monitor the ongoing &ctivities of the broker and develop
and implement a travel training program.
Funding -TCA & STA: SCCTD ~ill take th~ necessary $:e~s to
st~rt ~laiming TOA and STA funds now allocated directly to the
service providers. The current prcviders will conti~~e tc
receive fund~ng in the same amounts from SCCTC directly, until
the broker incorporates their service ~r~a.
Eligibility Ctiteria and Process: As described in Chapter S~
SCCTD will implement interim eligibility requirements until the
[esional eligibility certification process is finalized.
Phase In of County-wide Broker: As shown in Figute D~ the
countywide broker will be phased in over a period of sev~ral
years as it incorporates the service areas of the current
paratransit prOViders. It is estimated that the ccntract ~ith
th~ brok~r ~ill be signed in January 1993. The first area to b~
incorporated will be that of Outreach & Escort in July 1993.
Other areas will be incorporated by July 1995.
Service Criteria: As each current paratransit provid~r is
Lncorporated into the countywide broker, each area of the county
will be brought into ADA compliance with regaLd to far~st service
area, hours and days ~nd response tim~. With additional funds
:~~!
, ' ~-,., . . ~
I r
I
I
J
" :) , 'i"", ", I 'l~'iii"'i: I """,~' "",;1(. -':,"1" ''''rJ
i
!
,
FIGUR( 0 IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
JULY 1991~UNE 1992 JULY 1992.JUNE 1993 JULY 1993~UNE 199-4 JULY 1994.JUNE 1995 ,'UlY 1995.JUNe 1996 JUI.Y 1996.JUNE 1991
SuppM R.FP process lor broker. CIn1)olng, 0l'<.I01"1, 0l'<.I01"), OngoIng, Clni)oI"l,
S .... c.s SeCTO !Iolfing, T'aVIII
~.lnIno, Conll"""
f811n11lO'.dju.Kf'I,J .. Mea
R'ft3, hours. days,
I TDNSTA FUI'<I, SCCTO w;,rks WI!h MTe SCCTO fur,d, Ih. ''''' SCCTO ~nd, br.""" seem lund. brolol, seeTO foods broke,. StelO funds brckor,
/0 «()tM 00 -/fading-01 current Po1rato11"lsU IAR. and .., ,..vldell and T rans/f Anlst
j
lOA 4,5 and Sf A lunds, proWfers artll!R, ertttpIO.!!:!.
l. I ElIglllllly Implement Inlllrlm 1$3 • Imp'ernflOl Cfr,goi,,), OnQ<>Ing. Onoolf'I,J, 00g01"J,
eliO/rnlily Cf~6rl8 .m:1 ''OiM'" 6N(;iMly
appea!s process, CtIrtlflcallon.
~
Broker Pha~·ln 1.'l3· SCCTD "gn. OAE inoo'1lO,,"d InlO PalO Mo. S ..... yv., •• & T ,anslt Assist arOkO' Is coun~,
(set! dalalled (,,"lraeioMlh "'o~'" !legl. ncgoff, VANTAANS """"",. Ino>rpof.,od ~Io "'o~"', I la~" on broker) CQ\mtywlde broker. \I\lans 'or I~rporttllon 01 aled Inlo bfokef. 8eOln
PalO AIIo, Sunnyv.'" & ne90~allof'ls lor Ir'IC(If'
VANTR,A.NS. Inlefcoul'lly ~fjllion 01 TfaM~ I aQreernenl wllh AC Auls!. Intercoll'lty I
!
Ttansll. agreemenl will
SamTrans. ItoR
functions assumed by
bfOhr.
Sir Service Providers dear waiting Implcmenl ADA la~8~, Implcmanl ADA Iilta!., lmplemel11 AOA lorl!!. ElmIM'" 1In"\1 f.ml'llning
) Crllet1B , ~'1$ and begin se~ IvSJ(I<,),!. teMce soMeI'! r",Jdays, MMCfI NI)days, I tal"'i~ co."",.",
e_panslon 01 ~(!rvlC8 area, no,' day respol'Ise servit(! Clf8a. 00', dey seMoo 8(ea, ne~' day "',Id.". '1'1 04e 'SeNIf;g arna. resp:'lnseln Palo AlIo, response In Monte '~. COnllnLJO 10 oJpand SeN. SUf1nyvaiB, MI. View, SefflnO, SAralOOa,los
htsJdays fl olhm' ateSS. les Ano~. lh~ Alfil'!l 0. ..... n._.1p ~ nnl~r ~rlp RI~lriCl\on511 Hill~. ContintJfllO (BSlnc"ons rl'n.WltyMdo. ,
Iundlr'loJ avalt~hle. 81pand servia! hr!oJd<,ys:
In Mon\e Sereno,
SMdC09d, Los Gato~.
Subscription and Maln'''in SQ!'IJice lavols Main!enaoco. I ",,'.Ie •• I1OO. seem develops Go.,,,,,, PO'C'{ mp/nmenl ~llCie' on
i Al,lem:y Tnps and e~is~ng premium 1 \'lOliCics on slJbscllpllqn develoPMent and ,ubSCliption tnps and I
IMtB 10f a<}!l'cy tnpl; /lip'~ and aqal'lCy ,rips. rolin&menl. aqe1r;~ lrips. n
I
, , ~
';..' .~_t.
",," ,.'
. .
.....
from SCCTD, however, cu:t~nt provid~rs may be able to phase-i~
compliance earlier. Tr.e first p~iorjty will be to ~leac waiting
lists, adding only AOI1, eligible persons. The seccnd priority
yill be to expand service hours and days. Existing trip limits
based on trip purpose ~ill remain in place. out will be removed
over time.
Subscription ~rips and Agency Tri~ SCCTD's first priority
is tc expand opportunities for general trip taki~g. When some
stability in this area is achieveo, SCCTD will work ~ith human
service agenciES to m~tch their transportation needs with SCCTD
capabilities. This vould be done by agreeing on policies
regarding priorities and capacity constraints fer 5ubscripti~n
trips and premium fares for agency trips. Until thi5 oc~yrs,
the current paratrensit providers and the broker ~ill maintain
the 6tatus quo on subscription and age~cy t~ips.
OPEP.ATING .BUOGET
4. Bc~ much will th~ ADA paratransit service cost to implement?
The operating budget for paratransit ser~ice when full compliance
under ADA is achieved is presented in figure E. In addition tc
expected ~xpenditures and revenue5, the figure shews projected
demand for ADA-eligible general and program trips th[~ugh fiscal
year 1997. A major component of the expe~diture projection, the
cost per trip for general and TDA 4.5 pro9ram trips is based upon
the current paratransit trip cost adjusted ~p~ard for ~hanges
required by the AD~ regulations. A key assumption of the reyenue
projection is that SCCTO will allocate all the TDA 4.5 and STA
funding available to the county to the ADA implementation
pro'g'ram.
The cost, revenue, and deficit lines show fig~re5 that reflect
full compliance to the ADA [pgulations be9inni~g in fiscal year
1992. Actual complianee, nowever, will occur grad~ally over a
six year period ending in lS97. The annual financial resources,
over and above expected revenue, which will be provided by SCCTD
to achieve complj~nce is estim~ted in the compliance fu~ding plan
line. Approximately $14.5 million is ne~ded in 1997 to fully
offset the expected funding deficit and th~reby achieve full
compliance with ADA regulations.
5. ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION_PROCESS
SCCTO &taff. as part of the R€gional Transit Association
Accessibility Committee, is involved ~ith the development of a
region-wide eligibility certification process ~hjch is expected
to be implemented by January. 1993. During the interim, the
paratransit providers in santa Clara County ~ill continue to use
their current eligibility certification process, but using
guidelines ~hich adhere to th~ ADA [egulations •
•
(:
• I : ,
I ;
I
I
I
-'-'-i-.'-.
----""-------.:!.~~-~--.-...... '---
'" Fl GU R E E -,-..,
OP'EPAl'IN:; 5..o::;;w' -nJtL C01PLINn ~. A..A
IJE>O\ND
r192 ro3 ro4 F'i95 n% F'i97
C-.en Trps* 667,012 686,,55 706,260 725,741 747,811 769,5<)3
'II:A 4.5 112,145 113,1!27 115,535 11"".1 ,269 119,021 12() ,812
P1;cq Trps'
~'lI:A4.5 487,284 494,59;' 502,012 509,542 517,18S 524,943
P<cq Trpo'
'!btaJ. 1,266 1 ~41 1,294 1 776 l,323,8C£ 1,353,551 1.384,029 L415,2S9
rTips
==1=
FY92 rnl ro4 rns FY9S FY97
Cost • .-Ce.I] , 17 .21 18.13 19.04 19_99 20.99 22.04
'II:A 4.5
Prog Trp-*
Cost Goo' $13,<56,041 $14,510,110 $15,647,106 S16,873,579 $18,196,595 $19,623,782
'ID!'. 4.5
P1;cq TIp;
COst~ 4,160,634 4,452,375 4(741,7-80 5,049,995 5.378.245 5,727,831
'ID!'.4.5 Prog
Trp&****
'!btaJ. 17,~1<5,E75 16,%2,485 20. :;as ,8::;:; 21,921,5i4 21,574,640 25,351.613
Cost
!!EIImJE
F'!!olVl"riF 1.31 1.3<1 1.44 1.52 1.59 1.67
r"BQxfI:" 1,020,696 1.10C,fSSl 1,18<5,897 l,279,93D 1,380,266 1,468,544
~ ... 412,000 432,188 453,165 475,580 498,BB4 523,329
!O:n-'ID!'.4.5 4,180,634 4,4.5:2,315 4,741,780 S,049,~9S S,37!,245 5,727.631
P1;cq Trp
f\.rd
"IDA. 4.Su, 2,173,074 2,515,000 2,e40,7S0 :i., 772,788 2,911,427 3,056,998
'!btaJ. 7,786,404 6,5<)0,214 9,022,792 S,57B,293 10,168,841 10,796,702
~
Deficit (9,650,272)(10,462,271)111,366,0941112,345,281)111,405,'98)(14,554,911) .......
2,000,000 6,000,000 9,000,Q()O 11,000,000 14,554,911
•
•••
.".1"'"
fiGURe E (Contineed)
2.9' Annual .gro..t. ... A:tl! for ~ne-ral trips; 1.;\ fer pr-ogr.m tri;s .
S\ Inflatia'l rate foe costs, fares. rat'2l:ox. calC"Ulat'!'1 only
for general , 'l!:A. 4.:5 prcw;nr:t tr-ips.
4.9' Arrnual increase in ~ for inflatia.l; 5\ a..~J1'.Ja1 incr~as!'
in 'IIl.'. 4.5 for inf!.atioo tegiMing in FY94 iper 1'rl'C).
6.5\ 9lowth rate foc inflation ~~ program inc,!as~s.
OI!ofie:~t rOW' a5S\.m1e'S i.tm:IeOiate f'..tll cctTpliar'.cE'; ect:'pliance vill ocC'Ur
gradually as shQ.n in ~lionc. F\lrGi"9 ~lan 'N.
A..~as;
1. As.sufes full C'I:I'I'9liiU1Ce to N:A. beginr.inq in Fi"9~. In reali ty ~ ccrrpliar.eE
\rIOr.Ild o:::cur in shps ave r the 5 year-pe dad.
2. A.sstm!$ that sa:1D 'will be ahll!' to' establish !re.intenance of effort
agtl!EtIElilS w.ith. the '\Ii!!riOOJS social RMe@ agenc:ies am ot'gat'loi-r.aticns
currently prCN'iding ncn-'IDA.. 4.5 furOed pCo; ram tdp;.
3~ F'I.Jrdi.no fra:il local m3;tch :.as, ~n rerrcved. assuninc t.:'.at entities
will re....aJ.locate t.1-,.is tT"Crl£'Y to MJA iP.elj gible tripS r557a ,554 1.'"1 1''1 92).
•
1
-----,._--
Whil~ all cur cent rEgistrant! vill be allowe~ to r~oe, th~y must
be r~c~rtified when the regional eligibility process is
impleme~ted. All new rt;istrants must. i~ fa~t. b~ ADA
para transit eligible to ride. A person is generally ca~side[ed
eligible for ADA paratransit service under the crite~ia given
ie:. Fig-ore F.
Applicants vho are denied eligibility have t~e risht to appeal
vithin 60 days Qf the denial. Th~ denial yill be issued by the
paratr~nsit provider anc SOt to maintain sEparation of functions,
the appeal ~ill be conducted by SCCTD. The appeal hearing ~ill
consist of a meeting between the person or his/her [e?rese!'ltati'J~
and a Co~ittEe consistin9 of sccrD staff and representatives
from the PCC 4tld the Ad 80c Committe~ on Transportation for Hie
Mobility Impaired.
6. PUBLIC PAP.TICIPATION PROC£SS
A public p~rticipat!on process is required under ADA reg~latio~s
and is a critical element in the success of this plan. SCCTC
&taff has already been m~eting with groups suc~ as the Santa
Cl~r~ County Transportation Commission, the Par~transit
Coordinating Council and the Ad Hoc Comrnittet! on Transpc.rtation
for the ~obility Impaired. Additicnally, the Paratransit Plan
Advisory Committee was est~blished. composed of members of the
above gr~ups. This committee advises SCCTD 00 the development of
the plan.
To ensure the entire community js a~are of ar.c ca~ participate in
the review and development of the Paratransit Plan. a public
information and outreach p£ogram ~as established. This program
includes:
• Development of a mailing list including 300+ pe[~o~s and
organizations concerned with ~aretransit. The draft Plan will
be distributed using this list.
• A news release about the plan and the comllH.:nity meetings will
be sent to 58 Bay Area newspapers. 22 radio a~d 22 televisior.
:5tation$~
• Notice of the community meetings, public hedring cnd draft plan
availability will be in ~CCTD's Riders Ne~s. the Merc~ry News
and community newspapers.
• The plan will be distributed to libraries, senier centers and
other locations.
• Twelv~ community meeting3 (listed on Figure G) ...,ill be held t~
presen~ the draft plan and solicit public comment.
1
i
I
1
1
I
fr6~RE f
ADA Paratransit Eligibility Standards
Disabled i!1divldu.ls are eligible for para transit services u."d., any of
the following circumstances:
INDIVIDUAL'S DISABILITY
Any individual who is unable, bec"ust of a disability, to
independently board, ride or disembark from an accessible vehicle
LIMITED SYSTEM ACCESSIBILITY
Any individual with a disability who is able to independently board,
ride or disembark from an accessibl" vehicle, when the system is not
fully accessi.ble
o the boarding or disembarking location the disabled person
wishes to use is not '.ccessib!e
o a ·common" wheelchair cannot be accommodated
o there is not at least one accessible car per train
o key rail stations are not accessible
ABIUIT TO TRAVEL TO
. OR FROM BOARDING·LOCA TION .
Individuals whose disability prevents them from traveling to a
boarding location or from a disembarking location
Q key word is ·prevents"
o architectural barriers do not alone constitute eligibility, but
interaction of barrier with an individual's disability may
I
.j
........ ...;...'-'-.... _c ..... ___ -C--. ___ ._.-".
fIGURE G
COMMUNITY XEETING SCHEDULE
November 12. Tues~ay
9,30 am
Milpitas ~enior Center
160 N. M3in Street
Milpitas
November 12, Tuesday
1,30 pm
Eastside Senior Center
21S0 Alum Rock Avenue
San Jose
Novemher 14, Thcrsday
9:30 am
Santa Teresa Library
Community Room
290 International Circle
San Jose
Novembe~ 15, Friday
9 dO am
Gilroy Senior Center
7371 Hanna Street
Gilroy
November 19, Monday
9,30 am
Santa cla.:a Corrur.unity
Recreation Center
969 Keily Boulevard
Santa Clara
November 19. Tuesday
9:30 am
'"Lucie Stern Center
1305 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto
November 20, Wednesday, 1:30pm
Campbell Community Center
1 West Ca~pbell Avenue
Campb.ll
November 21, Thursday, 9:30am
Co~nty Gov~rnment Center
Lower Level Classroo~
70 W. Bedding Street
San Jose
November 14. Thursday
7:00 po
County Government Center
Lower Level Classroom
70 W. Hedding Street
San Jose
Novembet 18, ~oncay
7:00 pm
Gilroy 5~nic: Center
7371 Eanna Street
Gilroy
Nove~ber 19. Tuesda~
7:0': pm
Palo Alto City Eall
Council Chall',be rs
250 Eamilten Avenu~
Pale Alto
and 7:00pm
.xi'll
"
.-
8. ENDORSEMEKTS AND CERT!FICATIONS
The Final Paratra~sit plan will be adopted by the S:CTC Beard of
Supervisors on January 14, 1992. The Met,cpcljt~n Transportation
Commissian (~TCl ,...ill also revie .... and certify that the plan is in
conformance .... ith the ~egional Transportation Fla~.
9. UNDUE FINANCIAL BURDEN WAIVER
SCCTD eould request a ~aiver of providing the [equir~d
paratransit service based 64 undue financial burden. sccr~ is
not pursui~g this vaive! now but reserves the right to do so jf
finan~.al conditions chang~.
10. ANNUAL PLAN UPDATES
This plan must be updated annually for submittal tc ~MTA by
January 26 of each year. updates must d~~cribe any changes frc~
this initial plan. Plan updates will include public
participation similar to that used for th€ development of this
initial plan.
'VI
•
-~~ .
• c_",
"
* Written comments on the pl~n may be sent to:
Sa~t! Clara County Transportation Agency
Attention: Ma~ketin9. ~DA
P.O. Box 611900~ Sar. Jose. CA 95161-1900
• The public may also call (409)299-4141 O~ fax th~ir comments
to (408)292-7244, Attention: ~arkEtir.g. AOA.
Also, a public hearing is requited on the plan. This ~ill be held
by the Transportation Commission O~:
December 11. wednesday. 7:30 pm
Countv Government Center
Board-Chambers
70 W. Hedding Street
San Jose
Comments receivec at the community I?:Ieetings, by telephone ot"
~ail and at the public hearing will be addressed and included in
the Final Para~ransit Pl~n. C~~ments ~ust be received by
December 13 to ensure inclysion in the final plan. The final
paratransit Plan is scheduled to be revie"o.led and approved by the
SCCTD Board of Supervisors on:
January 14, 1992. Tuesday, 9:00 am
County Government Center
Board Chambers
70 W. H~dding Street
San Jose
The final' plan will be submitted to the urban M~ss Transpo[tatio~
Administration by the January 26, 1892 c~adline.
7~ COO~INATION WITH OTEER TP~SIT SYSTEMS
SCCTD exp~cts to negotiate intercounty paratransit service
a9reements vith the two counties ~hose ADA paratransit ~e(vice
areas overlap with ours: San Mateo County and Alameda County. To
do this effectively, SCCTD has Establish~d a set of principles
which will be shared vith and hopefully. adopted by SamTrans anc
AC 'transit.
The principles set guidelines for determining who ~il1 be
responsible for SCheduling the trip~ ~her. the ho~e county
operator will provide the entire trip, when a transfer is
required, and where the transfer points will be. They enCOlJrar;e
operator coordination which ~ill t~ke advantage of cpportunities
to increase producti~ity and improve service to the customer.
They also allow for financial reimburseroent bet~een operators if
aigoifieently more trips are being taken in on~ direction than
another.
-
t. 1·,< ,
Lucie Stern Cerlter
Noveab~r 19 6 1991
J '"'-
1305 Middl~field RD.p Palo ~lto
9:30 a.m. 12 Attend~es
ATIACHMENT 2
1. ~oraine Milligan, a nursing center director is requited to provide
1 outiog per month, at th~ minimuM, for people who would need
transportation for the purpose of sociel and re~reational travel.
These people are in wheelchairs, walke~s or have al%ehimers or other
health prcble~s and are unable to us~ publi~ traflsportation. Ms.
Milligan asks would paratransit service be available for agency use
because at the present time there are r~strictions and pro~iders
request that the service be used for doctors appointments only.
~urrent providers usually only accommodate one person at a time.
Ms. Milligan, states that she currently h~s one special van that is
only available for doctor's apPOintments. She ~ou!d like to see the
pro9ram an umbrella fcr all uses.
2. ~ean Gasperini, a representative fro~ the Peninsula Center for the
Blind states that their clients come from allover the county and now
have a difficult time due to di£fetent providet boundaries. They a~e
very encouraged that all distances would be provided for with the
propos~d plan. They would like to start the long trip dist~nces as
soon as possible.
Ms. Gasperini also submitted a letter which is attached.
3. Ruth Lacey would like criteria for selecting broker to include
having multilingual personnel to answer telephones and schedule ttips.
4. Diane Snow works with 0 & Escort which has long waiting list. She
is not as concerned with unlimit~d tides as providing for some access
for ~11 in the Plan.
Roseana F.ronick states that idea of having a hroker versus direct
contract with the provider should be carefully considered as it is
another link in the chain of co~mand that can lead to ptoblems.
Roseana Kronick complains that if there is a broker bet~een setvice
providers ~nd clients there is greater danger of misunderstanding in
communication.
Palo Alto City Ball Council Chamber 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto
November 19, 1991 7:00 p.m. 11 Attendees
1." Michael Bell asks why th~re aren't any seatbelts on the bus beyond
drivers Plnd 'Wheelchai"r users.
Michael B~11 submits a letter whieh is attachEd.
2~ Becky Mann asks how to qualify the frail and elderly.
3. Angel Nunez states that there is a need to define disabilities
better to prevent being vague. He also complains that illegal parking
in disabled parkin9 spaces leads to large r~venue losses for
communities as well as limiting legal parking to the cities, and we
must ~crack down-on illegal use of disabled placards and parking.
4. General concerns are expressed about ~h2re the money to implement
the plan will come from.
•
..
\
'_"_~ _____ .,.1" ________ . ____ _
" -----_._-..... -,. .....
ATTACHMENT 3
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ARRA.'IlGEMENTS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF ADA COMPLEMENTARY PARATRA.c"JSIT
SERVlCE IN SANTA CLARA COUN'IY
OPTION 1, STATUS QUO
Description
• Outreach & Escort, Transit Assist, VANTRA.'\'S, City of Palo Alto,
Sunnyvale (referred to a~ ~cuITent claima.nts") would contirlue to
claim TDA 4.5 funds, provide sernce directly, and .contract ~;th t:.axi
and van service providers.
• seCTA, using funds from other BOurc<S (sales tax, UMTA, TDA 4,0),
would prov:ide additional local match for end contract with the
current claimants to implement the ADA complementary paratransit
service plc.n in the county.
• Current claimants would modify fares and eligibility and sen~ce
criteria to ronform with ADA plan,
Obsen~ations
• Would provide for least disruption to current Sen-1CE arrangements.
• Would ut:i.lize expertisc and experience of current claimants.
• Parat.."'"aDsit users in current claimants' service CI.reas would still call
them directly to a~ss service; the changes would be transparent to
them,
• Could me advantage of the fact that some current claimants
(Outreach & Escort, VANTRANS) can apply fo" mITA 16t.b)(2)
capital funds,
• Would be likely to preserve l{lcal match dollars from other sources
such as cities and social sernce agencies.
• Each of the current claimants would maintain its separate identity.
• Would require SCCTA to work out contracts with each of the five
c:urrent claimants. Each of these contracts would have to be
monitored to ensure ADA compliance.
• SCCTA would be a step removed fyom paratransit, acting as a major
prov:ider of local match funding to TDA 4.5 claimants,
1
{,;; .
• ~
OPTION 2:
:, Q
seCTA AS S!(OKER OF PARATRANSIT SERVICE
Description
• SCCTA would claim all TDA 4.5 funds for Santa Clara County and
provide addItional funding through other sourCes.
• SCCTA wouJd contract out service to tari and van pro\.;ders.
• Current claimants would not be involved in this altErnative except
possibly as van pro,,-iders
Observations
• All funds wauld be claimed and service provision consolidated by
SCCTA.
• Paratranslt users in Santa Clara COW1ty would have one phone
D-:.unber to call for paratranslt service.
• Vlould disru.pt current senice arrangements and would not take
advantage of experience and expertis~ of C".,lrrent claimants.
• Outreach & Escort and VA.~'"TRANS could bid on contracts for van
service.
• Would intimately invoh~e SCCTA in p~v:isiol'1 of paratransit;
eligibility certification, scheduling, dispatching.
• Might result in loss oflocal match funds.
OPTION 3: seCTA AS PARATRANSIT AD~11NISTP.ATOR
Description
• SeCTA would claim all TDA 4.5 funds for Santa Clara County and
provide additional funding through other Sources.
• SCCTA would administer para transit service through a combination
of contracts with some OT all of'the CUrrent dai!D.ants (Outreach &
Escort, Transit Assist, etc.), and contracts v.ith service pro,,;ders,
2
Observations
• AI! fu"ds would be claimed by SCC~·A.
• Would provide for less disruption of current service arrangements
than Option 2 since SCCTA would be contracting with some or all of
til<> cunent claimants.
• Could utilize some current clai=nts' ability to apply for UMTA
Section 16(bX2) capit.al funds.
• Paratransit usen in current cl&.imants· service areas would s.tili call
them directly to access service; the changes would be transFarent to
them.
• sceTA wou1d primarily be administering contracts rather than
brokering &ernce •.
• Would require SCCTA to work out contracts "ith the current
claimants and other pro,,;ders. EdCh of these contracts would have to
be monitored to ensure ADA compliance.
OPTION 4: SCCTA CONTRACTS WJTI! PAR. .. TRANSIT BROKER
DeScription
• SCCTA would claim all 'I'DA 4.5 funds for SanLa Clara County and
provide additional ftmding through other sow-ces.
• Through a competitive bid process, SCCTA would select a contr_etcr
to broker para transit service.
• The broker could be a for-profit or non-profit organization and would.
in tum_. contract directly Vv"ith taxi and van service pro\oiders.
Obsen~ations
• All funds would be C'laimed and service provision consolidated by
SCCTA through its oontract with the broker.
• Paratransit users in Santa Clara County would have one phone
number to call for paratr-ansit service.
• SCCTA would be administering and monitoring one contract fo!'
paratransit service.
3
, ,
•
•
\ .'
.,",'.
~~ _____ , "::-. __ ~~,,,.,,;,,,,,,,"'''''~iQ .. :t .. ___ ....... ...;;;..&
.. ~
• To avoid the requirement for a low-bid competitive procurement
process, SCCTA oould work out. "trade" of funds 00 that TDA 4.5
funds (which have the low-bid requirement) are not spent on
paratransit.
• Depending upon whether a current claimant was the successful
bidder for the broker. current .e,",~C€ arrangements could be
disrupted.
• If a current claimant was not chosen .as broker, local match funds
might be lost and expertise ar.d experience of current claimants
would not be utilized_
• Broker could contract with Outreach & Escort and/or VANTRANS as
van service providers.
• Hthe paratransit broker were 8. for profit organization, it would not
be eligible to apply for UMTA Section 16(bX2) capital funds_
• Using UMTA Section 16(bX2) vehicles belonging to a non-profit
broker would crea te the appearance of locking in the broker contract.
4
OPTION 1: STATUS QUO
TDA 4.5 $
I I
Taxis Vans Empfoyees Emp0)lges T3).is Vans EmplOy~ Vans Taxis Var.$ T~i$
OPT/ON 2: SCCTA AS BROKER OF PARA TRANSIT SERVICE
TOA4.5$
I
seCTA 1---
7 \
Taxi Van
Providers Providers
5 tor a~
claimants
Other $
·Sa~ Tax
• UMTA
• TDA 4.0
•
OPTION 3: SCCTA AS p,Q TRANSIT AD.'M!':!!IN!!I!!.S!..:TR'-'.A~TO:::.!..!;_> _______ _
Tax's Val"l s Employees E.'7lp!oyees
LOt~
I SCCg I~'~-------'
TaXlS Vans ;::~ploye ... s V .. ns Tax~s
OPTION 4: SCCTA CONTRACTS WITH PARA TRANSIT BROKER
TDA4"S$
0
SCCTA •
(ompelltille
pfOC1.ne IT16nt)
Broker
(fo;-profrt or
not·jor-profrt)
/ ~
TalCi Van Brokei's
PTO\l~{S Pro"iders Employees
---'~, .. 'tq ,
»"
'r
o" .. ,:'!" 01" Cl7Y "''''N''c;.£~
(415) 329-2563
Mr. James unites
ADA coordinator
P. ,=. ~<;; ..... J::::250
",,,, .. -:: ..... '_-:,::: .... :<4.3<::<3
December 16, 1991
Santa Clara County TransPQrtation Agency
P.O. Box 611900
San Jose, CA 95161-1900
Dear Mr. unites:
-........ -.
AlTACHMENT 4
We have reviewed the Americans ~ith Disabilities Draft Paratransit
Plan and ~ould offer the following staff comments at this time:
1. The Draft Paratransit Plan is a balanced and thoughtful response
to the ADA law~ and ~e support the overall goal of the plan which
will provide the level of paratransit service that the disabled
in Santa Clara county have long needed.
:2. We are concerned that the draft Plan does not ensure the
continued input and participation of the City of Palo Alto and
other existing paratransit operators in the further implemen
tation of the ADA paratransit service. We recol!llt'\end that the
plan formally designate the Paratransit Coordinating Council, or
a successor ADA Pcsratransit COTI\..,.-nittee, to function in an a1.visory
capacity to county Transit during the five year phase-in of the
plan~ The committee should ir.clude repres6ntation from existing
TDA providers, consumers and agencies that work with the disabled
and seniors.
)~ The specifications for the paratransit broker operation need to
be considered very carefully. We suggest that the service
criteria incluee an array of options that complement the diverse
needs of the disabled population, such as demand-responsive
service for the most independent individuals to escorted
transportation for the Thost frail and disabled.
4. We are concerned that the draft plan :meets only the minimum
service area requirements of the ADA, and thus would exclude Palo
Alto residents living west of Foothill Expressway, who are
currently eligible fer Project Mobility paratransit service. 'I'he
---,
1
~I
.. j
1
I
i
•
.":
",-' _, ..... ~,.,4ioII"' .. AMh
Mr. Jam6S unites
D~cemher .16, 1991
Page 2
number of ADA-eligible residents in these areas is relatively low
and the expansion of service would ensure equity of service to
all county residents .... 'he would qualify for ADA servicE: based on
their disability s"t.atus~
5~ The long-term financing of the paratransit pla:1 is a major
concern that is not adequately discussed in the draft plan. We
recognize that financial burden of the plan could impact the
deliv'ery of ether existing transit services, unles:s supplemental
source(s) of funding for the ADA paratransit program are secu~ed#
be they federal, local or state revenues. The Board of
Supervisors ...-ill need to address the long-tenn funding of
paratransit, and pursue new revenues from state, federal and
local SOUT.ces, including future transportation funding plans that
are submitted to voters.
We recognize the extraordinary effort that went into the oevelopment
of this plan within the tight time frame mandated by UMTA. Thank you
for the opportunity to comment 0;-); the plan. We trust that our
comments will receive serious consideration in the final plan.
CC: city Council
Very truly yours,
~~
W.rlilam Zaner
City Manager
Barbara Tryon, Chairperson, Transportation co~ission