Collier County transportation disadvantaged system evaluation and enhancement study

Collier County transportation disadvantaged system evaluation and enhancement study

Material Information

Collier County transportation disadvantaged system evaluation and enhancement study
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Naples (Collier County) Metropolitan Planning Organization
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit -- Florida -- Collier County ( lcsh )
Paratransit services -- Florida -- Collier County ( lcsh )
People with disabilities -- Transportation -- Florida -- Collier County ( lcsh )
Older people -- Transportation -- Florida -- Collier County ( lcsh )
Poor -- Transportation -- Florida -- Collier County ( lcsh )


General Note:
"September 1994."
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for the Naples (Collier County) Metropolitan Planning Organization by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
C01-00013 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.13 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nmm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s1994 flu|||| |||||| eng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00013
0 245
Collier County transportation disadvantaged system evaluation and enhancement study.
n Technical memorandum no.2,
p public input on community transportation /
c prepared for the Naples (Collier County) Metropolitan Planning Organization by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
Tampa, Fla. :
b Center for Urban Transportation Research,
"September 1994."
Local transit
z Florida
Collier County.
Paratransit services
Collier County.
People with disabilities
x Transportation
Collier County.
Older people
Collier County.
Collier County.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Naples (Collier County) Metropolitan Planning Organization.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856




COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED SYSTEM EVALUATION AND ENHANCEMENT STUDY Technical Memorandum No. 2: Public Input on Community Transportation Prepared for the Naples (Collier County) Metropolitan Planning Organization by the Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Flo rida iCUTR September 1994


Naples (Collier County) Metropolitan Planning Organization 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 33942 (813) 643-8300 P roj ect Managers: Jeffory Perry Diane Holling Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E Flower Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, Florida 33620 (813) 974-3120 Director: Project Director: Project Manager: Project Staff: Reviewers: Ga ry L. Brosch Rosemary G. Matbias R. Benjamin Gribbon Fredaly n Frasier Josep h Hagge Kathryn Colestock F. Ron Jones Beverly Ward


Preface This is the second of three technical memoranda produced by th e Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) for the Naples (Collier County) Metropolitan Planning Organization, as part of the Collier County Transportation Disadvantaged System Evaluation and Enhancement Study. Technical Memorandum No. 1 summarizes an evaluation of the community transportation coordinator. Technical Memorandum No. 2 summarizes collected public input. Technical Memorandum No. 3 will present a summary of an analysis of operations. A Final Report will summarize the entire project and suggest re commended actions


Acknowledgments CUTR thanks rhe many organizations and people who assisted in this task by providing their input or assisrance.


Table o f C on t en ts Introduc tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Public Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Summary of Public Inpu t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Appendix A : Public Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Appendix B: Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B


List of Tables Table 1: Key Issues for Community Transportation Workshop as Identified by Attendees 6 Table 2: Community Transportation Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 3: Possible Service Improvements ............... ............ 18 List of Figures Figures I 4: Profile of Survey Respondents ......................... 12 Figures 5 8 : Trips of Survey Respondents .................. ...... 14 Figures 9 11: Interest in Fixed Routes and Improvements . . . . . . . 17


Introduction In August 1990, the Collier County Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (LCB) recommended the Training and Educational Center for the Handicapped (TECH), Inc. to the Naples (Collier County) Metropolitan PlanniDg Organization (MPO) as the Community Transportation Coordina tor (CTC) for Collier County: Following the recommendation of the MPO, the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with TECH to provide services for the transportation disadvantaged (TD) population... TECH has served as the transportation coordinator and prov i der since 1991. This transportation service is known as Community Transportation (CT) Earlier this year the MPO contracted with the Cente r for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) to conduct a Collier County Transportation Disadv a ntag ed System Evaluat ion a nd Enhancement Study. The primary goals of this study are t o determine h ow well the current system meets the needs of the transportation disadvantaged pu blic and to develop alternatives to improve and enhance the system while identifying any opportun it ies tha t th ese enhancements might provide for the general, non -TD, pub li c The study was recommended following a Transit Feasibility Study conducted in 1993, during which it was suggested that enhanc ing the CTC might help to meet some of the potential need for public transportation. This study includes f o ur tasks. Task 1 was a general evaluation of TECH as the CTC i n Collier County Task 1 was summarized in Tech nical Mem orandu m No. 1 Task 2 is the gathering of public inp ut regarding Community Transportation which i s summarized in thi s document, Technical Memorandum No. 2. The task included a public workshop, a survey of Community Transportation users and interviews with key peop le in Collier County. Task 3 is a m ore detailed analysis of Commun it y Transportation opera ti ons, which will be summarized in Technical Memorandum No 3. A summary of the entire project and recommendations will be presented in a ftnal r e port to be prepared in Task 4 TECH' s name was changed in May 1994 t o TECH of Collier County, Inc . The Florida Disadvantaged Commission was renamed the Commissi-on for the Transportation Disadvantaged in 1994. COllier County TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 1 September. 1994 Center for Urban Transportation Research


Task 2 Re su lt s The process and results asso ciated with the public workshop, user s u rvey, and interviews are described in separate sections of this document. This r eport faithfully do cuments the issues raised by the public, however, it should be noted that these iss u es reflect perceptions These comments have helped to inform the other tasks in this project and to bring these perceptions to the atte nt ion of those concerned with transportation in Collier Co unty. This report does incl ude some interpretation of this input and draws some conclusions. Additional and supporting information is pres ented in the Endno te s and Appe n d i ces at the end of this document. COllier County 'I'D Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 2 sep tember, 1994 CenJer for Urban Transportation Researd


Public Workshop One of the most essential elements of any eva l uation process is the collection of public input, and any solicitation of public input must include a general forum whereby any member of the public can offer their opinion. A public workshop was held May 16, 1994 to provide this forum Scope Prior to the workshop, C UTR discussed the format for the public workshop with MPO s taff and prov i ded an outline of the target audiences and issues that were to be discussed The workshop was targeted to exist ing and potential Community T ransportation clients/users. Per the intent of the project, input was desired from the public on the existing service, and on potential improvements and/or new services (includ ing fixed-route public transportation) that might better meet their needs. Specifically, the workshop was des i gned for anyone who: Has an interest in community transporta t ion; Has used TECH's Community Transportation services; Has ideas for improved public transportation; andfor Needs transportation alternatives. The participants were invited to discuss: Ways that Community Transportation could better serve persons who are transportalion disadvantaged; Locations that especially need transportat i on service; What transportation services are most important; a n d Wha t additional transportation services are needed in Collier County. Publicity The MPO staff arranged and publicized the workshop whil e CUTR s taff prepared for the workshop itself. MPO staff designed and distr ib uted a flyer, presented in Appendix A The Naples daily new spaper also was contacted, and an article was run the morning of the workshop urging reside nt s to attend The article is shown in Appendix A. Collier COunty TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 3 September, 1994 CenJer for Urban Transportation Research


Format The workshop was conducted as part of a special meeting of the LCB. CUTR organized and facilitated the meeting; TECH staff attended to observe; the LCB members attended both to observe and participate. The public attending was expected to provide input about community transportation in Collier County. The Workshop was h e ld on Monday, May 16, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. at the Golden Gate Community Center. 1 The wodcshop was attended by 40 people -24 members of the public, and 16 representatives from the organizations involved, including TECH, the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT), the LCB, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWPRPC), the MPO, CUTR, and the Naples Daily News. A list of attendees is presented in Appendix A. The meeting was brought to order and MPO staff introduced the project and CUTR. CUTR staff then explained the role of the workshop as part of the TD Evaluation and Enhancement Study and explained the role of participants. CUTR staff also explained how the workshop would be organize d and what kind of input was being sought. CUTR staff ind icated to participants that no decisions were to be made at the workshop, but that thei r input would provide planning information for TECH, the LCB, and the study. Handouts and other materials were used as needed.1 The first step in the workshop was to identify the most important issues to be discussed. CUTR staff d istribu t ed a handout that asked participants to: 1. Take five minutes to list the three most important issues regarding communi ty transportation in Collier County. These issues may be ideas for improvements, transportation alternatives, locations that needs better service, or any other issu e regarding existing transportation service or public transportation needs in Collier County. 2. Tum to the person next to you and compare your lists. 3. Together, select from both lists the two most important issues regarding community transportation in Collier County. Choose one person to share these Community uansportation, when :mown in lower case, is used generically to reflect an interest in issues beyond the existing system. Collier COunty TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 4 September, !994 Center for Urban Transportation Research


with the group. We will try to be sure to discuss these issues during the workshop. This exercise was designed to stimulate panicipam s to begin thinking constructivel y about the issues impo rta n t to them and, by pairin g with someone else begin ta l king about these issues The issues listed by each person are compiled in Endnotes of this document. CUTR staff then asked each pair of panicipants to share the roost important of these issues with the group. CUTR summariz.ed these most imponant issues on an overhead transparency as key issues to cover during the discnssion. Some additional issues were added that panicipants had not originally listed, but also felt were important. This combined list, organized by topic, is shown in Table 1. After listing the most important issues, discussion on these and other issues began. Ini tially, discussion was to follow a prepared outline of topic areas. The panicipants however, were allowed to direct the course of the workshop and issues were addressed as they came to mind or as they followed on another's comments. CUTR staff facilitated the discussion in an interactive style. A microphone was passed to each speaker and the facilitator probed issues, solicited details, posed questions, and summarized concerns. CUTR staff also made available a handout requesting additional comments about transportation in Collier County in case any participant ha d to leave before a top i c c ou l d be adequately cover ed. By the close of the workshop, panicipants indicated that they had expressed all of their concerns. The LCB, MPO, and CUTR staff thanked the members of the public for their input and panicipation. Summary of I ss u es The major issues raised and discussed at the workshop are explained below. The explanations are presented by topic, rather than by tlie order in which they were raised. It must be noted that the issues described below reflect only the comments of the participants. Stlltements include perceptions as well as fact. collie r coun

Table 1 Key Issu es for Community Transportation Workshop as Identified by Attendees Other Tra nspo rta t io n Services some needs can be met by taxis some transport atio n is too expensive trolley a n d taxis Ongoing Concerns and Priorities size of county quality of service and vehicles is important transportation to medical facil iti es cost-effectiveness of service provision More of Existing Serv ic e more transporta t io n and drivers i ncrease capacity more wheelchair buses access to t he system is l i mited more buses neededl i ncrease capacity Improvements better i nforma t ion regardi n g eligibility an d services applications should be processed in five days (curre ntly takes two to three weeks) monthly passes cou l d reduce noshows and i n c r ease system efficiency time l iness of service is low en force no-show policy Expansion weekend and ho liday service social events, church and education exte nded evening hours to attend evening funct ions transportation for unp la n ned events additional f unding sources and resources to expand services expand trips/transportation to include lower prior ities wheelchair accessible vehicles changes should plan and allow for system expansion more transportatio n for job and school Fixed Routes a bus is needed with coordinated routes scheduled bus stops t h r o ughout the county, i.e fixed routes fixed routes at affordable and reasonable rates/fares publ ic transportation could reduce cost of parking/p r oviding parking community transportation is needed, howeve r other service Is neede d Source: Public Workshop; May 16, 1994. Collier Count y TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Publ ic Input 6 september' 1994 Center for Urban Transportation Research


Other Services It was pointed out that some private transportation providers besides TECH offer transportation services to the general public that meet som e of the needs of the transportation disadvantaged (e.g. the Naples trolley and taxis). One taxi operator indicated that he provides service anywhere in town, without advance notice required, 24 hours a day, for only $4.00 each way. Although this cost seems to be low, it also was seen to be too high by many of the attendees. One taxi operator stated that he provides free transportation each Sunday to one church. One taxi opera tor also claimed to have an appropriate mix of vehicles to provide any transportation services. The trolley in Naples was also seen as prohibitive in cost at $9.00 and apparently only stops at lo cations that serve advertisers on the trolley. Ongoigg Concerns and Prio ri ties The large size of the county is a major i ssue, especially in terms of transportation and planning. One part icipant questioned the quality of Community Transportation vehicles. Sufficient transportation to medical facili tie s is still and should remain an important issue The cost of service also is an irnportant'issue Existing Service Capacitv Many participants described problems related to capacity, especially requesting trips that could not be accommodated. Some described calling too far in advance of the trip to schedule it, then calling again too close to the trip to fit it into the schedule. A number of people specifica lly indicated that more drivers and vehicles arc needed, especially lift equipped vehicles. Others described long trips or waits that also may be related to limited capacity. The need for more service was expressed in a variety of ways by a number of participants Others indicated a need for expanded hours of service andlor additional services, described below. Improvements Some people were surprised to fmd that certain trips were not allowed (most out -ofcounty trips, for example). Some comments suggested that more information about the purpose and limitations of the program is needed along with clarification of eligibility requirements The perceived shortage of drivers and vehicles is likely related to limited reveaue. collier county TD Study Tech Memo No 2: Public Input 7 september. !994 Center for Urban Transportation Research ,,, .


A couple of people commented that i t takes too much time to get set up for the first trip. They felt that the applications should be processed within five days rather than two to three weeks. One person was unhappy with the amount of income information requested on the application. A number of people complained abo u t poor on-time performance, including: canceled trips, long wa i ts, late pickups, and long rides with too many stops. Several people complained about passenger no-shows and requested that the policies regarding noshows be uniformly and strictly e nforced. The difficulty described is riding out -ofone's way on a vehicle just t o pick up a person that does not show O n e participant suggested that Commu n ity Transportation consider an advance payment system, like a weekly or monthly pass, which could possibly reduce no-s hows, in addition to other advantages pxpansion Many people would like to see the existing service expanded to include transportation i n the evenings, on weekends, and on holidays. Similar ly, many participants expressed a desire to see service include transportatio n for lower priority trip purposes such as: social events, c h urch, education, and shopping. A few mentioned a need for transportation for short notice o r unplanned t rips, recognizing that Community Transportation does try to accommodate these, but often is unable to do so Several people had suggestions regarding p l anning for expansion A hope was expressed that addit i onal funding sources and resources can be found to expand services. It also was suggested that changes andfor expanded services should be planned to allow for growth or further expansion Fixed Routes There was a great deal of interest in some kind of regularly scheduled fixed route transportation. The participants seemed to be very flexible with regard to its actual design and seemed interested in flexible variations on ftxed routes, such as community circulators and service routes, or different routes on different days. Many of the participants had far more to say about th i s subject than they did about the existing d em and responsive Community Transportation service. Some would like to see bus stops throughout the county. Others would like to see at least some coordinated fiXed routes. Several people specifically collier county TD Study Tecll Memo No. 2 : Public Input 8 September, 1994 Ce.mer for Urban Transportation Research


mentioned the need for fixed routes at affordable r ates. Some suggested that public transportation could reduce congestion (and help the environment) and could reduce the costs and constraints of parking, both for businesses and patrons. Some specific locations were suggested and it was mentioned several times that fixed routes should make it possible to shop, see a doctor, and pick up prescriptions. Conclusions About half of the participants were interested in getting some type of regularly scheduled, no reservation required transportation service established, especially fixed route transportation for the general public. The special concerns about Community Transportation were not unusual or surprising given the system's rapid growth and the type of specialized transportation that it provides. The input from the public workshop can be summarized into the following suggestions and general observations. Existing private service could be considered an opti on for some of those whose needs cannot be m et by Community Transportation due to capacity. However, the disadvantages of privately provided service will continue to be prohibitive for many. The size of the connty, the quality of the service and vehicles the need for cost effectiveness and efficiency, and the provision of medical transportation should remain prio r ities in planning. Capacity needs to be expanded, while no-s hows and cancellations should be minimized. More wheelchair-accessible vehicles are needed. Recent improvements should be marketed, as should the intent and priorities of the Program. On-time performance should be improved. Based solely on the input from workshop participants. Collier COunty TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 9 september' !994 Gerner for Urban TrQ/tSpOrt(Jlion Research


The public would like to see service expanded to include evening, weekends, holidays, shonnotice, and l o wer priority trips. There is a great deal of inte res t in regularly scheduled s ervice Collier COunty TD Study Tocll Memo No. l: Public I npu t 10 September, 1994 Ceruer for Urban Transp<>11atlon Res

Survey In additio n t o the public workshop, CUTR conducted a written survey of representative users of Community Transportation to get additional publi c input. The purpose of the survey was to elicit opin i ons about Communi ty T ransportati on and to identify future areas for service improvements.' This information, along with the input from public workshop previous ly described and the intervi ews that will be described in the next section, comprise a good picture of the public image of Communit y Transportation specifically and public transportation in general. Survey Overview On J une 17, 1994, a two-page survey was mailed to 426 registered users of Community Transportation. In addition, a pre-survey postcard alerting potential respondent s about the survey was mailed approximately one week prior to the survey (see sample postcard in Appendix B ) The random sample was drawn b y selecting every tenth system user listed in Community Transportation's data base. Copies of the survey were provid ed in English and Spanish The complete survey is shown with responses in Appendix B. The survey mailings were handled b y TECH, to ensure confidentiality of th e respondents Surveys were r eturned direct ly to CUTR in postage paid envelopes. Fifty surveys were not deliverab le and were returned by the post office. Ninety-seven (about one-quarter) of the delivered surveys were comple ted and returned.The results o f the surve y are summarized in the remainder o f this section. Survey R espo n dents Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of the survey respondents were women Almost half (47 percent) of the respondents were in the 18to 64year-old age group, 44 percent were age 65 or older, and 9 percent were younger than 18. The majority of survey s (87 percent ) were completed in English Most respondents live in the N ap les area; J:K>wever, 17 percent of the Community Transponalion conduct$ surveys of its passengers and sponsoring agencies t o maintain an on going assessment or service quality, Four surveys were returned in mid-to late Augusr. too late to be ir)cluded in the survey analys is. COllier County TD Sludy Tccb Melli() No. 2 : Pu blic lnpul 11 SCp1embCi. 1994 Ctllltr tor Urban TrtVUportation Restarch


respondents were from Immokalee. This profile of survey respondents is shown in Figures l-4. This respondent profile very closely resembles the acrual profile of Community Transportation registrants. 5 Figures 1-4 Profile of Survey Respondents nguret -Agures ""Pil' Collier COunty TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input A= North Napies, 8 = lncotporated Naples, C = lmmol

Trip Information Survey respondents were asked to indicate how they usually booked trips when rid ing with Community Transpo rtation. Nearly three-quarte rs (74 perce nt) of the r espondent s repo rted calling TECH to book their own trips. Only 16 percent repo rted that a friend o r relati ve ca ll s to reserve trips; 11 percent reporte d that an agency calls to book trips on their behalf. Survey respondents also were as ked when they made their most recent trip. Responses were fairly evenly distributed among the five categories ; that is, 23 percent used Comm unity Transportation with in the past week, 24 perc ent within the past month, 14 percent within the past three months, 23 percent within the past year and 16 percent more than a year ago (see Figure 5). Whe n asked about the purpose of their most recent trip, 70 percent reported travelin g to a medical appointment. Work and education trips wer e the next most common trip types (16 percent), recreation and other trips accounted for 9 percent of the trips, and shopping for 5 percent o f the trips. Figure 6 sho ws this breakdown of the responses. R espo ndent s also were as ked whethe r they p aid their own fares when using Community Transpo rtation. Of those respon ding to the su rv ey. more than half (54 percent) reporte d that they al ways pay their own fare. Another 20 percent reported sometimes pa ying a fare. The remaining 26 percen t repo rt e d that they never pa y a fare, indicating that their fares are p aid by a sponsoring agency (see Figure 7). For those who reported so me ti mes or a l ways paying a fare, twothirds (67 percent) reported paying a $3.00 fare per one-way trip while the remaining one-third (33 perce nt) reported paying a $1.00 fare per o neway trip (shown in F igur e 8). Respond ents who rep o rted only sometimes or n ever paying a fare were ask e d to answe r whether Med icaid p ays for any of their trip s. A ceor d ing to the responses. more than half (57 p e rcent) reported that M edicaid pays for some or all of their trips Medi caid trips acrually account for 17 percent of all trips, or appr oximately 22 percent of all fully sponsored trips.' This indicates that riders raking Medicai d trips also u se Community Transportation for othe r trip purposes The percentage of survey respondents for whom Medicaid pay& for transponation could be as high as 8S pcrc:cnt. as some respondents indicated always paying a fare and that Medicaid pays for some trips. Collier COUnty TO Sludy Tech Memo No 2: Public Iopu1 13 Sepaemb

Figures 5-8 Trips of Respondents& Conununity Transportation Ratings One goal of the survey was to analyze how well Community Transportation is performing in its role as service provider. Thus, survey respondents were asked to rate various aspects Qf Community Transportation's service on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Although a colunm for "no opinion" was provided, responses shown in Table 2 reflect those respondents with a stated opinion. Further, for simplicity, the rating scale has been collapsed for Cotlier County TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 14 September, IY94 Center for Urban Transportalion Research


reporting purposes to indicate ratings of 1 as "poor 2, 3, and 4 as "good, and 5 as "excelle nt On the whole, Conununity Transportation was rated highly by survey responde n ts. Specific findings are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Community Transportation Ratings No. of Aspeet Evaluated Responses Poor Good Excellent Overall Sa t isfaction 79 5% 46% 49'l'o D r iver skill and safety 81 1% 28% 70% Veh i c l e cleanli ne ss 79 0% 33% 67% Pick-up and drop-off locat i ons 73 0% 37% 63% Driver commu n ication 71 3% 35% 62% Vehicle equipment 75 2% 40% 57% Registering for my first trip 76 1% 41% 54% Courtesy on telephone 80 6% 43% 51% On-time pick-up 76 5% 46% 49% On-tim e arrival 73 7 % 45% 48% Service ava i lable when I want 80 18% 45% 38% Prompt pick-up for return trip 75 12% 53% 35% From the table it appears that Community Transportation is doing a very good job with respect to its driver skills and safety, v ehicle cleanliness, pick-up and drop -off locations, and driver conununication. Community Transportation also is well-regarded with respect to vehicle equipment, registering for the ftrst trip, and courtesy on the telephone Areas to examine for potential improvement relate to ontim e pick -up and on time arrival. One of the two areas cited as poorest relate to service availability, which is a function of funding and the ability to expand service hours, days, and number of vehicles. The other Collier Counly TO Sludy Tccb Memo No. 2: Public I np u t 15 September, 1994 Center for Urban Transportallon Research


area receiving the poorest rating was prompt pick -up for return trip, which is a function of scheduling, dispatching vehicle/driver availability, and communica tio n of expectations. Both of these areas will be explored in more detail in the section on service enhancements Service Changes and Enhancements Another goal of the survey was to assess opin ions about possible service changes and enhancements that would increase the opportunities for using public transportation services in Collier County. Toward this goal, respondents were asked about their level of interest in using more traditional bus service, offered on fixed routes and schedules. In panicular, respondents were questioned as to whether they would be willing to use a regularly scheduled bus wute that provided service every h our during the daytime, if it went where they needed to go. Two thirds of the respondents (67 percent) answered, "yes, they would be willing to use service (see Figure 9) Another 28 percent answered, "maybe, they would be willing to use this service. Only 4 percent answered, "no," they would not be willing to use this type of fixed-route service. Respondents then were asked whether they thought they would still need the service provided by Community Transportat i on if fixed-route bus service was available. Most respondents answered, "yes," they would still need Community Transportation (55 perceot) or, "maybe" they would need Community Transportation (33 percent). Only 11 percent answered, no ," they would not need Community Transportation if bus service was available (see Figure 10). To assess opinions about a variety of possib le service improvements and enhancements, the survey listed 19 possible service improvements and asked respondents to check the three they would most like to see. Figure 11 and Table 3 show the List and the frequency of re spon ses Most respondentS selected three response-s; however, several indicated more choices. All responses were included in this frequency disuibution. Collier County TD study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 16 sep tember. 1994 for Orban Transportmion


Figures 9 11 Interest i n Fixed Routes and I:litpr ovements9 Figure 11 Possible Service lmpr oveme;,:u::;;;ts-,--,--,--,--,-----, Simpler application process Other Better vehicles a n d equ ipment Clearer procedures More transporta t ion f o r education More assistance from drivers whe n boarding t h e vehicle More transportation for rec r ea tion and visiting Mor e transportation f or work Fares related to length of trip Evening transportation FIXed-route transportafion on a published schedule Trips scheduled closer t o the time I want to travel Mor e t i mely i nitial pick-u p More tran sporta t ion f o r s hopping and errand Inexpensive service More transportation fo r medica l reason s More time l y p i ck-ups for retum trips Weekend transportatio n Provide service the same day as requested ' < 0 2 . '' ---' -.... .. ,_._,, 4 6 8 1 0 12 percent Collier COunty TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Inpu t 1 7 Septembet, 1994 Ce11ter for Urban Transportation Research


Tabl e 3 Possible Serv i c e I mpro v ements Improv emen t I Pe rcentage Providing serv ice the same day as requested 12% We eke nd tra n sportat ion 11% Mo r e t i mely p i c kups for r e t urn trips 10% M o r e t r a n sportation for medi ca l reasons 9% I nexpe n sive serv ice 8% Mor e tra n sportat i o n for s hoppin g a nd err ands 7% Mo r e time l y i n i t ia l pick-up 7% Trips s ch e duled c l oser to t h e t i me I want t o travel 6% Fixed-r o ute t r a n sportat i o n on a publ ished s chedul e 6% Evening tra n sportat i o n 5% Fares related to l e n gth o f t rip 4 % M o r e transportat i on for work 3% M ore transpo rt at i on for recrea tion a n d vis iting 3% Mor e assis t an c e from dri vers whe n boardi n g lh e veh i c l e 2% Mo r e t r a n sporta t io n fo r edu catio n 2% C l earer proced ur es 2% Better ve h icles a n d eq u ipme nt 1% S i mpler applicatio n process 1% Oth e r 1 % C omme n ts In add ition to the specific questions discussed above, the survey posed two open-ended questions. Q uestion No. 14 asked respondents who had not used Community Transportation in more than three months why. Of the 48 responses, 26 responses were neutral -the user no longer needed the service, or needed it infrequently. Another 22 responses indicated some aspect about service that caused t h e m t o c hoose n o t use the s ervice. Some of the negative Colher County TD Study T ech Memo No. 2: Public Input 18 septemb er. !994 Cenrer for Urban Transponarion Research


reasons cited include: the required advance notice, the fare, the wait for rerum trips, the hours of service or limited service area, and capacity problems. Question No. 15 asked survey respondents to list any other ideas, comments, or improvements they would lilce to see. The 43 comments were varied, and many were positive 15 Responses were positive comments about Community Transportation. Ten comments included complaints about timeliness, eligibility, and availability. 22 Comments includes suggestions for improvements including: expanded service hours, capacity and service area; changes in policies regarding eligibility, fares, and scheduling; and recommendations for fixed route or public transportation. All of the responses ro these two open-ended questions are included with the survey in Appendix B The combined counts of comments by type exceed the total because some co1nments included more than issue. collier County Oi'o Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 19 September, 1994 Center for Urban Transportation Research


Interviews The purpose of conducting interviews w ith social service agencies that use Community Transportation and other transportation providers in Collier County is twofold. First, such interviews are helpful in identifying the current and potential use of TO services. Second, interviews serve as an excellent method to elicit comments regarding potential changes that would enhance the existing service provided by Community Transportation. Additionally, the manner in which Community Transportation and other transportation issues are perceived can strongly influence whether they are considered a local priority. In June of 1994, CUTR conducted a dozen interviews with individuals representing a cross section of local interests which included the human services sector, the business community, local government agencies, elected officials, and users. 10 This section provides a summary of those interviews in which the participants' impressions of the current service provided by Community Transportation were discussed as well as their general perception of transportation in Collier County. The summary is outlined in the following three topics: perceptions, improvements, and policy issues. Perceptions As is the case with most public services, the community's perception varied, depending on the level of contact or familiarity with the service. This became very apparent throughout the course of the interviews The majority of individuals interviewed had a general understanding of Community Transporta tion's role as a service provider: to provide transportation to the TO population of Collier County However, not all agreed that the current type of service was best at meeting their particular agency or clients' needs. More often, each interviewee had di fferent expectations of the level and type of service This and other comments reflecting similar sentiment appear to indicate that some users of the system are not familiar with the actual operational aspects or service priorities of Community Transportation Most of the respondents characterized Community Transportation's primary users as economically disadvantaged, elderly, or Medicaid clients, although several mentioned social service programs such as STRIVE. Collier County TO Study Tech Memo No. 2: Pub l ic lnpul 20 sep tember, 1994 Center for Urban Transportalion Research


In addition to varying perceptions of Community Transportation's role in Collier County, two other conimon themes surfaced throughout the interviews One theme centered upon demand . for Community Transportation services; the second, focused on accessibility. It was the general consensus of those interviewed that Community Transportation was straining to keep up with the demand for transportation services in the county and despite the organization's efforts to address the growing population of eligible TD recipients, they recognized that there are service limitations inherent to specialized transportation. One interviewee observed that the lack of other affordable modes of transportation coupled with the growth within the county has contributed to Community Transportation's increasing operational constraints. It was pointed out that as a resu l t of the high demand for Community Transportation services many potential trips such as shopping, recreation, and employment are not available because they are considered lower priority and are most often preempted by medical trip requests. The result of this situation had not gone unnoticed by those interviewed. Although most of the individuals interviewed felt that it was necessary to establish trip priorities, they also expressed the importance of addressing the non medical transportation needs that exist in the county. As one respondent stated, "t h ere is a need to address the socialization aspects of the clients' lives." Almost every individual interviewed could identify clients or other groups of people who could benefit from the services offered by Community Transportation Some of the areas and special populations that were identified included Goodlette Arms, an elderly subsidized ho using complex, River Park and George Was hi ngton Carver Apartments in Naples, and Summers Glen and Farm Workers' Village in Immokalee, all of which are subsidized housing complexes. Other areas suggested were Everglades City and Ochopee. Most of the individuals int erv iewed agreed that the level of awareness of Community Transportation in the county was mixed. It was pointed out that most social service agencies were familiar with the services provided by Community Transportation, but not with detailed program information such as eligibility and trip priorities The general public's awareness was considered much lower. Several individuals felt that information regarding Community Transportation was not readily accessible in the community, bu t the fact that tbe buses and vans advertise the service was a start. However it was also pointed out that most of the Collier County 'I'D Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 21 september. 1994 Center for Urban Transportalion Research


conununity was fam iliar with TECH (the organization through which Community Transpo rtation is operated) and it is an organizalion that is viewed favorably within the county. In tenns of registering for the serv ice, th e interviewees agreed that the application process was relatively easy, but there were several comments made that it should n ot take two weeks for potential clients (non-Medicaid) to get into the system. Improvement s The ideas for improvements to Community Transportation's service were varied and keenly reflected the respondents' perceived needs of their client base or constituency The majodty of the individuals agreed that Community Transportation has put forth a strong effort to be responsive to its rapidly expanding number of clients. The number of administrative issues brought up by the interviewees were few. Most of the individ uals interviewed felt tbat the fares for Community Transportation services were equitable. However, several interviewees noted that the no-show policy and imposition of a $5 00 fme sometimes appeared arbitrary. It was apparent that clarification of tbe no-show policy needed to be better comm unicated with client agencies and users of the sys t em. A numb er of improvements suggested by the individuals interviewed were more logislical in nature. It was the general consensus of tbose interviewed that Community Transportation needed to examine issues of coordination within the context of the services they currently offer and how they are delivered as well as coordination with external services (i.e., existing and potential transp ortation providers). Some respo ndents felt that as Commu nity Transportation reache s a point of "critical mass," its use of subcontractors would have to adjust accordingly, particularly if transportation needs other than medical trips were to be addressed in the county. As one interviewee stated, "Co mmunity Transportati on needs to form a beaer partnership with private providers and the issue of safery requirements (that pdvate providers must meet] should be readdressed and logically adjusted. . Most considered the issue of coordination as being the integral component of a successful and effic ient TD system. Severa interviewees noted that some of their more common concerns with Community Transportation's services such as reliability, timeliness and level of service Colber County TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 22 September, 1994 CtnUr for Urban TTOJUportotion Rtstflrch


were indirect by -produciS of minimal efforts toward coordioat ion. Several o f the individuals interviewed stated that clien t s sometimes have to wait for what they consider to be an ex tended period of time before they are pick ed up. It was pointed out that many individua ls that use the TD service are physically frail and cannot end ure long waits for return trips especially after receiving medical treaunent. As a result, timeliness is an important issue. The level of service currently provided by Community Transportation was discussed extensively. Most of the respondents felt that there were areas aod special populations within the county that could greatly benefit from TD services. Several others suggested that the level of service could be improved for areas such as Immokalee. One respondent felt that a tremendous need for expanded TD services within as well as to and from Immokalee existed It was pointe d out by one social agency representa tive that ther e was enough need for medical transportation between Immokalee and Naples to warrant a regular bus. The coordina tion of trips with other social agencies t o common destinations, particularly out-of county trips, was also discussed as an area for improvement. Most of the respondeniS felt that there were areas within the county that could definitely benefit from some type of modified fixed-route service similar to that offered in Immokalee. It was pointed out that such a service did not have to be operated by Community Transportation, but perhaps could serve as a pilot program for a public transit system Most agreed that the most appropriate goal is for Community Transportation to remain focused on iiS existing priority of meeting the transportation needs of the TD population in Collier County. P o licy Issue s Among the majority of individuals interviewed, TD services and public tran sportation were seen as low-ranking policy issues with in t h e county Several interv i ewees noted that although Community Transportation had a number of supporters, transportation service was not considered a funding priority in the political arena Most felt that there was mediocre support among the taxpayers of Collie r County for expanded TD services and/or public transit. The need for enhanced coo rdination with other transportation providers was seen as an important policy issue that needs to be addressed within Community Transportation's COllier County TD stUdy Tech Memo No. 2 : Public Input 23 september, 1994 Ctnru for UriJan TrQIISponorlon R.seo.rch


organization. Specifically, the stringent safety require ments for subcontractors. Also, most felt that the no-show policy needs to be clarified. Interview Swnmary The growing TD population in Collier County, coupled with competing interests of TD clients who have specialized needs, has made the delivery of transportation services an increasing challenge for Community Transportation. There were many suggestions offered by the individuals interviewed as to how Community Transportation cou ld address these c h allenges . Their general consensus was that Community Transportat i on must develop creative and flexible approaches to providing all types TD trips (i.e., shopping, recreational, and employment trips). Issues such as trip coo rdina tion and extended level of service to other areas in the county were considered subjects that warranted further examination. Also, communication between Community T ransportation and subscribers was mentio ned as an area that could be improved. Overall, the respondents agreed that Community Transportation has been very responsive in its effort to meet the various transportation needs within the county. Several respondents recognized that limited financial resources limit Community Transportation. As one individual noted, "a lot of good marketing on Community Transportation s behalf is needed and once they demonstrate the need exists, securing additional fund in g from local government as well as the private sector for program enhancements will become easier." Collier County TD Study Tccb Memo No. 2: Public Input 24 September, 1994 Center for Urban Transportation Research


Summary of Public Input CUTR was pleased to fmd that all three methods of gathering public input provided similar results, which were consistent with Task 1 findings. In general, TECH enjoys a very positive reputation. The users of Community Transportation in particular are generally appreciative of the service available, but can identify areas they would like to see improved The ease of the application process was an important issue for some people, although the survey indicated that people found initial registration for service relatively simple Since Task 2 was undertaken, Community Transportation has implemented a revised r egistrat ion process resulting in faster response time and apparently, greater accuracy. All three sources of public input indicated a need for increased capacity. The availability of service is clearly limited. Increases in funding for Community Transportaiion from the Commission for TD will certainly help to address this concern. The consistency with which this concern is expressed suggests that the to tal volume of trips that can be provided should remain important criteria in aoy expansion and enhancement options. This issue will be addressed, in part, by CUTR in Task 3 of this study, and should a l so be considered by TECH and the LCB as future directions are planned for. Capac i ty constraints were also reflected in the common operational concerns raised These concerns i nclud ed: on-time perfonnance the wait for return trips, long rides, and no show is sues. Somew hat related to the availability and capacity issue was the common concern about the advance n otice required. Specific concerns, however, varied. For m any the advance notice requirement for trips reservations was in itself not a problem, but in combinatio n with limi ted capacity was a problem (e.g., there is a perception that one has call at just the righ t time to get a trip). Others expressed concern that many important trip s cannot be predic ted and the inability to arrange trips on short notice interferes with some essential service. All three sources o f public input also revealed a lot of interest in service expansion, however the suggested directions for expans ion vary considerably. There is interest in expanding both CoUler Councy TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 25 September, 1994 Center for Urban Transportation Research


the days and hours of service, and including lower priority trip purposes, although emphasis varied among {ec{eation, chu{Ch, education, and employment Interestingly, all three forums revealed a lot of interest in fixed routes as a specific fonn of service expansion. Recommendations ranged from establishing some special paratransit runs to a complete public transit system, and included in the spectrum variations such as point deviation fiXed routes and service routes. A number of locations were suggested for consideration, including: t h e hospital, courthouse, beach, malls, to doctors offices post office, grocery store, pharmacies the pier, major employers, main thoroughfares, along US 41, Good Jette Road, Golden Gate Parkway, 3rd Street, 5th Avenue, several routes suggested by a private/taxi operator, a route north to Coastland Mall and southeast to the mall with Cobb Theatre (past Wal-Mart), up county road 951 to Golden Gate Parkway to mall to Watergate down 41 to 951, a connecting bus from Naples to Immokalee, Old Naples, Golden Gate, East Naples, Tc.nns assigned by CUTR, based on services described. Collier County TD Study september, 1994 Cenler for Urban Traruponation Research Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 26


Good Little Arms, River Park, George Was hi ngton Carver Ap a nments, Ft. Myers, Everglades City Choppy, Goodland, Ochopee, Chokoloskee, Golde n Gate Community Ce n ter, the D avid Lawrence Cent e r Carson road side of Immokalee, the Babcock Shopping Center in Immokalee a n d Farm Workers Village in Immo k alee. The various concerns and opinions offered by the public throug h this pub li c inp u t process and summarized in this technical memorandum should help to guid e TECH and the LCB in managing and advis in g the TD program in Collier County. The spec i fic i ssues raised will also gu i de CUTR i n Task 3 of th e TD Evaluat i o n and Enhancement Study. Collier COunty TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 27 September 1994 Cemtr [ or Urban Tl'ansportation Research


Endnotes I. Golden Gate Community Cen ter: 470 1 Golden Gate Parkway 2. The following materials w ere u sed in the workshop: Signi n s heet ; Hando ut f o r first exercise; H andout to collec t additional comments; Ove rhead projec t o r and transparenc ies t o summarize issues; M icrop h one to increase clarity; and a Tape reco rder to record comments. 3. The most importan t issues regar d .ing community t ranspo rtation in C o lli e r County as written out by worksh op atte n d ees a re shown below verba tim These issue s wer e recorded on handouts, and from these issues the most important conce rns were selected for discussion as Key Issues shown in the main body of this report These comments are not edited. The y are o rganized by subject by C UTR. These issues represent only the 15 worksheets that were re turned. Condi t i ons service area this is a vas t county with many d i ff ere nt type s of needs: med ical a ppointments 9 to 5 trips all the other trip s Chapter 427 creates a lot of confusi on Priorities business f requency of service and p rice cost effective planned for future affordable fares and/or subscri ptions for job p artici p ation M ore of Exi s ting Service w e need more frequent servi c e transportation to medical, hospita l d e nti s t e tc transportatio n to medical facili t ies/drug sto re b e tter pickup times both g oing and coming fro m medica l and busine s s app o i ntme nts more adequate service in outlying areas, i.e rural Go lden Gate Esta tes, C h o k o l o s k ee, Evergla des City, Ochopee COllier County to Study Th Memo No. 2: Public Input 28 stptCiiibCi, 1994 C.nur for Urbon TraJUponarion Rts"rch


pickup on time better advertising of transportation system who is eligible Expansion weekends evenings transportatio n for lower (CTC/LCB) priorities 24 hour/365 day transportation evening scheduling for social activities weekend transportation night time hours (after 5 p.m. ) to go to evening workshops at David Lawrence or Adult Education Centers Saturday and Sunday hours for appointments, social events and church attendance transportation for groceries, department stores transportation to shopping, church, friends transportation for necessary needs : food shopping, clothing needs, post office general personal n eeds for those who are handicapped the service must be expanded, medical transportation is so important but so are social needs, shopping, etc. Ejx,ed Rou!tl whether or not there is any expansion to include public transportation fixed route scheduled fixed routes fixed routes [severa l people listed this item] regular bus service bus service would take some of the cars off the road, especially would remove older drives who shou ldn't be driving in the first place from the road bus service period 7 days a week on a schedule people do work after hours so would n eed 24 bus serv ice but do no t need it as frequently bus north and south and can cross intersections going east and west don't want to have to call someone to make an appointment need for some type of regular bus service open to all re sidents from various areas to other areas of Collier County that a resident can use without necessity to call ahead this [regular] service can start on a small scale doesn't have to be big gas guzzlers maybe even a regular service in a mini van routes should be able to connect to reach larger areas from old Naples to grocery store from old Naples to mall from old Naples to doctor it seems obvious from the people attending that the need for transportation is primarily for handicapped if public transportation were needed wouldn't more of Collier County TD Study Tetb Memo No. 2: Public Input 29 September, 1994 Cenler for Urban Transponation Research


the general public be represented? this is not about public transportation Several comments were raised is response to questions from the facilitator that were noted on the overheads: Additional Services and Transportation Needs we need transit key locations medical facilities, shopping, 5th Ave -job and school transportation; scheduling could be sc heduled better some private transportation exists 3 routes [county road) 951 to mall Coordination and CQ1llmunication cumbersome process information required is very detailed increase number of available transportation providers One conunent was left on the "Additional Comments Ha ndout ": Additional Comment please just START some type of public transportation [sic). 4. The data base of system users was purg ed, approximately six months earlier, of those that had not used the service in about six months. This resulted i n a survey pool including those had used the service sometime within the past year. 5. T he actual rider profile as of August 26, 1994 is: 68% Female 45% Age 18-84 43% Age 65+ 12% Age 0-17 84% English speaking 17% Living in Immokalee 6. The data supporting Figures I through 4 is outlined below: Figure I is a pie chart showing the two gender categories: (Q8) Female=60 (72%) Male=23 (28%) N=83 Figure 2 is a pie chart showing the three age categories: (Q9) 0-17 = 8 (9%) Collier COunty TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 30 September, 1994 Ctnrtr for Urban Transportation Research


18-64 = 43 (47%) 65+ = 40 (44%) N=91 Figure 3 is a pie chart showing two l anguage categories: (no Q) English = 84 (87%) Spani sh =l3 (13%) N = 97 Figure 4 is a pie chart showing zip code information (QlO) Immokalee=I S (17%) I ncorporated Naples=I4 (16%) North Naples=6 (7%) South/East N aples=26 (29%) Golden Gate & Estates =16 (18%) Remaining Coastal Collier County42 (13%) N = 89 7. Based on preliminary FY 1994 to tal provided by TEC H on July 12, 1994: 137 ,115 total trips, 22,773 Medicaid trips, and 35,389 TD trips (with fare). 8. Data support ing figures 5-8 is detailed below: Figure 5 is a pie chart for mo st recent trip (Q I) Past Week=21 (23%) Past Month=22 (24%) Past Three Months -13 (14%) Three Months-One Y car=21 (23%) More than One Ycar=15 (16%) N=92 Figure 6 is a pie chart for most common trip (Q3) Medical=57 (70%) Work!Education=13 (16%) Recreation/Other=? (9%) Shopping=4 (5%) N=8 1 Figure 7 is a pie chart showing responses as to whether they pay a fare (QII) Always=49 (54%) Sometimes=l8 (20%) Never=23 (26%) N=90 Collier County TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 31 September, !99'1 Center for Urban Transportation Research


Figure 8 is a pie chart showing fare charged (Q 12) $1=21 (33%) $3=42 (67%) N = 63 9. The supporting data for Figures 9 and 10 is detailed below: Figure 9 is a pie chart (Question S) Yes =64 (67%) Maybe=27 (28%) No=4 (4%) N=9S Figure 10 is a pie chart (Question 6) Yes=S3 (55%) Maybe=32 (33%) No=ll (ll%) N =96 Supporting data for Figure II i s included in the text as a table. I 0. The following people were interviewed for Task 2C: June 29. 1994 Mr. Lou Shultz, Director of Veterans Affairs Honorable Alan Korest, Vice Mayor, City of Naples Ms. Nelda Miller, LCB Member I Help on Wheels I Elderly advocate Mr. Bob Peacock, CPA Mr. Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation June 30, 1994 Mr. Morvin Wirtz, User I LCB Member Ms. Beth Lambert, Girls, Inc. Ms. Sally Kimble, Immokalee Outreach Office Ms. Barbara Stratton, Tri-County (Immokalee) I LCB Advisor Ms. Carol Hall, David Lawrence Center Mr. Richard Akins, Marian E. Feathers Clinic (Immokalee) Ms. Ophelia Allen, The Pines, Immokalee A number of other key people in Collier County were contacted regarding potential interviews. Collier County TD Study Tech Memo No. 2: Public Input 32 September, 1994 Center for Urban Transportation Research


Appendix A Public Works hop


Residents urged to_ attend public transportation workshop to give ideas By MICHAEL COTE Staff wrltet You can't get here from there? County transportatfon planners want to know about il Collier County residents who have needs not being met or have idea s for .improving public transportation are being asked to attend a workshop today. The meeting is part of a study to evaluate the county's Community Transportation sys tem, which offers low -cost bus service for sick, elderly, disab led a nd rural residents. It's sched uled for p.m. at the Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Park way. The University of Sou th Florida Center for Urban Transportation Research began the. $46,000 study at the county's request ro deter mine how the system can be Improved "We're trying ro get some of the public we're not serving to come so we can determine how we can serve them/' said Diane Holling, a _,, __ We're trying to get some of the public we're not serving to come so we can determine how we can serve them." . -Diane Holling, Naples Metropolitan Planning Organization: planner with the Naples (Collier County) Met ropolitan Planning Organization. Commu ni ty TranspOrtation has eli ents who depend on its lleet of nearly 30 vans; and station wagons for rides to medica l offices and other services. Riders who are sponsored by social service agencies such as Medicaid or Collier County Senior Service receive doorlodoor service for free. The program also provides rides at $3 per trip to the elderly, disabled and those living east of State Road 951. . MPO officials are working on ways to ex pand the program to the public .with bus routes to the Coaslland Center ma II and other high-demand destinations. Last summer, the MPO rejected spending grant money to plan a mass transit system, de term in ing the county is not big enough lor one. Both the city and the county rejected mass transit in the 1980s for the same rea. sons. "Several of the commissioners are delaying (a mass transportation study) because they want to see the resu lts of the program," Hoi ling said. About 100 riders a month are denied trips in order to supply service to thos e who need transportation to medical care. County olll cials .view expanding the program as a n alternative to establishing a mass transit system. The county could qualify for u p to $600,000 in federal grants by providing some form of public transportation, Holling said


COMMIJNITY TRANSPORT AT/ON PIJBLIC WORKSHOP Monday, May 16, 1994 5:30 p.m. at the Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway WHO SHOIJLO AmNO? Anyone who . has an interest in community transportation has utilized TECH's community transportation serviCM has ideas tor improwd public transportation needs transportation altematiYes WHAT CAN I TALK ABOIJT? Ways that Community Transportation could better serve Collier County's Transportation Oisadl'antaged Locations that especially need transpottation service What transportation services are most impottant to you What additional transporlation services are needed i11 Collier County The Transportat ion D isadvantaged Local Coordinati ng Board, in conjunction with the Training and Education for the Handicapped (TECH), Is hosting a Publi c Workshop to determine the public's needs and concerns regarding the Community Transportation System. The Wor1

Attendees at Community Transportation Workshop May 16, 1994 Name 1. Jill erato 2. Mr. Gus Stamatinos 3. Mrs. Gus Stamatinos 4 Beverly Hewy 5. Gloria Grayer 6 Gladys Broome 7. L. Smith 8 Julia D. Tennant 9. Rose Mary Pollard 10. Dolores B. Dougherty 11. June Wirtz 12. Margo Berk 13. Diane Lo ng 14. Lisa Lewis 15. Stephanie Divane 16. Reed Jarvi 17. Angelo Mami 18. Connie Mam i 19. Did not sig n in (6) 25. Mike Cote 26 Cheryl Whitney 27. Nick Whitney 28. Laura Altaratz 29. Mary Cuell 30. Chet Per kins 31. Morvin Wirtz 32. Art Dobberstein 33. Ne lda M i ller 34. Fran Theberge 35. Dick Shine 36. Julia B. Davis 37. Diane Holling 38. R. Benjamin Gribbon 39. Fredalyn Frasier 40. Joe Hagge Representin g Sel f Self Self Self Self sen Self Self Self Self Self J. L. WalkerNoTe<::h J. L. WalkerNo-Te<::h STRIVE Salvation Army Transit Advisory Committee Naples Taxi Naples Taxi Various Naples Daily News Community Transporta t ion Community Transportat io n TECH TECH Board LCB LCB LCB LCB LCB FOOT SWFRPC MPO CUTR CUTR CUTR


Appendix B S u rvey


Survey Announcement Postcard June 3, 1994 Dear Community Transportation Patron: We would like to have your input! Very soon, you will receive a short survey in the mail from the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR). The survey will ask for your input about community transportation in Collier County. Please complete the survey and return it right away in the envelope that will be provided. This will help us serve you better. Thank you in advance! John J. Lawson TECH, Inc Estimado pasaj ero de Community Transportation : /Queremos saber sus ideas y opin i ones! Muy pronto usted reciblrA por correo una encuesta b r eve desde e l Centro de lnvestigaci6n de Transporte Urbano (CU TR). La encusta les preguntara acerca de transporte publico en el condado de Collier. Favor de completir Ia encuesta y devolverta pronto en el sobre includio. Esto nos ayudara a servirfes mejor. ;Por adelantado. muchas gracias!


Community Transportation Passenger Survey [Survey responses are added in italics throughout survey.] TECH, Inc., the Naples (Collier County) Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) would like to Improve community transportation. Please help us by answering the questions below and returning the survey to CUTR In the enclosed, postage-paid envelope by June 27, 1994. Responses=97 (Eng/ish=84 Spanish= 13) 1. When was your most recent trip on Commun i ty Transportation? (check .lone) 21 0 Within the past week 22 0 Within the past month 13 D Within the past 3 months 21 D Between 3 months and one year 15 D More th an one year ago 2. When you use Community Transportation, who usually calls to reserve your trip? (check .I all that apply fo r your trips) 72 0 1 call 15 D A friend relative, or ca r egiver calls 11 D An organization I agency calls 3 What is the purpose of the Community Tra nsportation trip you take most frequently? (check .I one) 57 D Medical 4 D Shopping and errands 9 D Work 5 D Recreation and visiting 4 D Education 0 D Nutritional 2 D Other: 1 =Dental aeJ21., 2=Eye aeJ21. The survey continues on the back .,..


4. H o w would you rate the followi n g aspects of Community Transportation? (c ircle a number from 5 excellent to 1, poor or 0): Excelle n t Good Poor No 5 4 3 2 1 Opinio n Regis t ering for my first trip 44 14 16 1 1 21 Courtesy on telepho n e 41 15 15 3 5 17 S e rvic e a vailabl e when I want 30 12 1 8 6 14 17 O n-time p i ck -up 37 1 8 10 7 4 2 1 On-time a rrival 35 14 13 6 5 24 D rive r' s skill and safety 5 7 1 6 7 0 1 16 Vehic l e cleanliness 53 17 7 2 0 18 Vehicle equipment 43 18 10 2 2 22 P r ompt pick-up for r eturn trip 26 15 11 14 9 22 Driv e r communication 44 14 10 1 2 26 P i ck-up and d r opoff locations 46 11 14 2 0 24 OVERALL SATISFACTIO N 39 13 20 3 4 18 5. Wou l d you be willing to use a r egularly schedu l ed bus rou t e that provided service every hour duri ng t he daytime, i f it we n t where y ou needed to go? 6 4 0 Ye s 4 0 N o 27 0 M a ybe 6. If bus se rv ice were avai l able wou l d you still need Com munity T r ansportation for some t r i ps? 53 0 Yes 11 0 N o 32 D M aybe 7 P l ease chec k J' the three (3) s e rvice i mpr o ve m ents that yo u would l ike most. 21 D M ore t imel y ini tial p ick-up 30 D More timely picku ps f o r return trips 18 0 Trips scheduled closer to the time I want to travel 36 0 P r oviding s erv ice the same day as r e qu e sted 1 7 0 Fixed -rou t e transportation on a pu b lish e d schedul e 6 0 More assistanc e fro m drivers when b o ardin g the ve hicl e 4 D Better vehi c les and equipment 11 0 Fa res r ela t ed t o length of trip 2 3 0 Inex p e nsive serv i ce 5 0 C l eare r procedures 2 D S impler application process 3 2 0 Weeke nd tran s port a tion 14 0 E v en i ng t r an s portati o n 9 0 Mo r e t r an sp ortation for work 5 0 More tr a ns p ortation fo r education The surv e y continues o n the b ac k


27 0 More transportation for medical reasons 22 0 More transportation for shopping and errands 9 0 More transportation for recreation and visiting 3 0 Other : 1=accessible transportation to Fort Myers 1 =holiday transportation 1=we need a bus 24 hours 8. Now, please tell us a little about yourself or the person you are completing the survey for. 23 0 Male 60 0 Female 9. 6 0 Age 0-5 3 0 60-64 1 0 6-15 1 0 16 -17 7 0 18-24 33 0 24 59 40 065 or older 10 What is the Zip Code where you live?-----15=33934 (Immokalee) 1 =33937 (Marco Island) 14=33940 (Incorporated Naples) 12=33942 (Central Naples) 3=33961 (South Naples) 23=33962 (East Naples) 6=33963 (North Naples) 3=33964 (Rural Estates) 12=33999 (Golden Gate) 11. Do you personally pay a fare for Commun ity Transportation? 49 0 Always 18 0 Sometimes 23 0 Never 12. !f you always or sometimes pay for Community Tran sportation how much do you pay per trip? 21 0$1 42 0 $3 13. If you sometimes or never pay for Community Transportation does Medicaid pay for any trips? 38 0 Yes 29 0 No 14. !f you have not used Community Transportation for more than three months, please tell us why. Responses to Question No. 14: We used it when I got a new knee in Sep 93. Have not needed At times I can't wait for 3/4 days. Two days at tops is my feeling about it. The survey continues on the back IS'


I applied for Community Transportation but recovered from illness quickly and didn't use it. I rBCeiva SSI. I have M edicare for Ins /live on a fixed income and cannot afford $6 a visit to a DR or just trying to get around the Community I have had to wait for 2 112 3 hrs to get a ride home from your transport a tion and when the nurse calls and tells whoever they have nerve to get nasty. Have never had to use it so far. I have not driven for two years Used to be alway s taking others Since moving into Lely Pa lms Retirement Community they provide transportation to doctors only certain times and days Therefore additional means of transportation is needed from your agency Also, occasional shopp ing or visiting friends trips are desirable We ekend is desired, too, because only a limited number of churches are on their schedule I have friends who p r ovide me with transportati o n Legally blind fear of getting into wrong vehicle I began using Community Transportation 4-94 My son hasn t had a appt. to see a doctor in St. Pete I was left stranded at a dentist office When I called for retum trip I was told it would b e right there I was left in the heat for two hours. I am 92 years old. This i s not for me. Because it costs us too much to ride $12.00 round trip Difficulty in getting re s ervation for trip callin g the day before is ok but the phon e lines are all busy and wh e n I get through th ere is no space leff for me. I have had to postpone eye appointment s four times I could not give two days notice that the Community Transportation operator requested. No more appts My husband was not well I gratefully utilized Comm Trans wh en my car was out of service Can't pay that m u ch had to acquire doner trav el/ broke my hip last year Be cause I do not have Med icaid that will entitle me, to be able to go to Ft. M yers dentist! Very unsatisfied with service and attempts to rectify situation were unsuccessful Out o f town for summer The s urv ey c onti nues on the bac k oa-


Difficult to get away during the week as my husband works and I need him to help me. I have MS and am a quadriplegic in a wheelchair. Lucky to have someone take me Mr "X" had a seizure, not allowed to drive for a year. Is now allowed to drive our own vehicle Due to our age 80 and 85 he may be in need of your services again. I Leased a pickup truck I am living in New York city. I will be visiting and staying long periods when I come back to Florida T old them to pick me up at Dr but nobody showed It took some time but I got it together with the help from Sally Kimble. Most of the time they won't pick you up unless you call way in advance and don t have enough vehicles to drive you In season, it is hopeless too many people do we need some good transportation, this is a big county and we are behind the limes, why don't we have some smaller type buses (which is safer) that could serve the people who need it, and take some of there ????? off the roads I think a lot of older people (and some younger) would like a good bus service It is very dangerous in season or out of season, during ??? Naples and Collier County, let's get going and do something to help the people get around. Always used There isn t Community Transportation for the places I go Sometimes make appts. but then don't go and sometimes they re late because Comm Trans is late Used Comm Trans for one year. Stopped using because lack of information in Spanish Must set Comm Trans appt one day in advance, but in an emergency can't get trans. Not available all the lime One of the reasons I ??? up alone. and now I have my sister in law living with me and she drives but she goes away quite often so have to rely on neighbors and friends Because I have been going through a lot of hassles such as getting a divorce and other things as in moving and court, but I will be getting in touch in the future. The few times I needed Transportation I was not able to get it. They were all booked. I'd gladly pay the $3 if I could even get them for the day I needed them. No reason try to stay away from doctors The survey con t inues on the b ack IS"


Not necessary when needed to go to medical appointments. Only somet i mes Mom works once in awhile When she is hom e I don't need transportation No same day service, not fast enough after appt. is over with I am in Naples, Florida only during the winter months I am not using this service because a friend is taking me to the doctor, and my friend translates for me at the doctor's office. 15. List below any other ideas, comments or improvemen t s you would like to see. Responses to Question No. 15: We travel to Immokalee from Naples. Going home we make many stops. Some people are sick We would like them not to be contagious. A more direct route would be appreciated We really appreciated the service that we received I'm just hoping that someday you would l i ke to offer us ? weekend transportation for work but everything is fine, I'm satisfied. As I stated above at times 3 or 4 days to be picked up is not feasible Now that I have a better understanding of your service I'll use it more frequently and I thank you. We need bus transportation I would like for Collier County or Naples to have public Community Transportation. Bus routes on a time schedule. Designate pickup and stops. Bus routes to go past Hospital, Courthouse, Beach, Malls. Cost for a ride to be fixed at about $.50 to $ 25 a ride Special pickups for disabled people to continue as in th e past. If a Dr. calls one before the 3 day period your transportation won't pick me up. It's not my fault if they call. If I had to use the service, I would not like a long wait for return trip. I sometimes have to wait 2 hours for Dr. app That is not fair sometimes it isn't bad. English should be our National language Above, last two sentences, regarding churches on Sunday and Bible Study at Covenant Presby Church. Bible Study was a regular weekly trip with Community Transportation last year until your people decided their little van was too small to accommodate those who needed medical treatment and me for Bible Study Larger buses might be a good idea. Lower fares We would really like to have a bus here in a Immokalee something that goes 24 hours a day a lot of people don't have a car or the money to pay someone The survey continues on the back """


I am pleased and grateful Satisfied Where we came from in Pa. the lottery paid for senior citizens to ride the CTC regular bus for free from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm anywhere in the county as long as you got bus to bring you home at 3 :00 pm Also on Sundays to the mall The emphasis of this setvice seemed to be solely for the low income in ????? There are many more fortunate who although are not ????? need this setvice because of handicaps but still can t afford tax fares for medical appointments. Very satisfied My only comm ent is to say the setvice is very good and the drivers are always very helpful and polite, and we always enjoy our trips with them I think if would be nice to have some public transportation available in this area I would like, to be able to, be in a position t o have an accessible way of transportation that is inexpensive to attend a dental appointment in Ft. Myers. Community Transportation enabled me to work after 5 years of being on public assistance. No words could ever express the grat i tude I have for the drivers and staff ther e It is time for the MPO to pull their heads out of the sand and realize that Naples need some type of public transportation. I guarantee that come November I will not be voting for any Councilman who does not support the idea. The community bus in Immokalee does not run on our side of town To catch the bus you have to walk a mile or a mile and a half to catch the bus. We live on Carson Road and there is a lot of people that live on this side of town The original idea of transportation for disabled was a good one but out of town trips seem to be a problem e.g late arrivals and pickups Onc e an hour bus setvice along US41 would not only help a substantial number of people who presently have tro uble getting about, but it will also minimize traffic congestion and improve safety by providing an alternative to those who pre sently drive, but shouldn't A route running north to Coast/and Mall and southeast to the mall which is just past Wal-mart and contains Cobb theatre Weekend setvice please Even if improvements can not be had please continue setvice Appreciated all setvices we received while using your setvice I would like to see that when I get dropped of for medical or therapy I do not get stranded for 45 minutes for a return trip, because I get scared Th e su rvey cont inu es o n t he bac k s-


pick up before 9:00am They should let you eat on the bus, let you listen to music, they should let you stop in the store Community transporlation is a fun bus ride No don't thank me I would be thanking you More buses running where you like to go especially when you don't drive Good service please don't be fate Please have a Spanish speaking person who can provide information everything is fine More accommodating and understanding of the elderly, more assistance from drivers We have found your drivers to be outstanding people better vehicles and more promptness From what I've experienced from those I've talked to mostly elderly patrons, and what drivers say all points to extremely poor management. If improvements are obvious in terms of what simple policy changes would drastically upgrade the system, then I feel upgrade the system than I f eel there's not much excuse for inefficiency. I cannot rate them fairly I was never able to get them the day I needed them I only called a few times Have transporlation for emergencies (medicaQ. For example: the same day someone gats sick, or have a medical need. Not a need to call the day before. Improvements to Trans service need batter service for work and medical no regularity in hours need to wait 2-3 hours to be picked up and sometimes late arriving 30 minutes to 1 hour Transportation on weekends Drivers needs to be more communicable Community transporlation service is excellent. Thank You! Please return to CUTR, University of South Florida in the envelope provided. 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ENB 118, Tampa. FL 33620


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.