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 nam 2200361Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029078544
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110906s1995 flu ot 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00135
Jones, F. Ron.
Paratransit and land use
h [electronic resource] :
b facility siting considerations /
F. Ron Jones.
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research ;
[Springfield, VA :
Available through the National Technical Information Service,
1 online resource (89 p. in various pagings).
Performed by the National Urban Transit Institute in cooperation with the U.S. Dept. of Transportation under contract no.
Description based on print version.
z United States
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
National Urban Transit Institute (U.S.)
i Print version:
Jones, F. Ron.
t Paratransit and land use.
d Tampa, Fla. : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research ; [Springfield, VA : Available through the National Technical Information Service, 1995]
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
PARATRANSIT AND LAND USE: FACILITY SITING CONSIDERATIONS F Ron Jones Principal Investigator Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida March 1995 CUTR Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering, University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, Flor i da 33620-5350 Ph ( 813) 974-3120, Fax (813) 974-5168
TI!CH N ICAL AEPORf STANDARD TlfLt PAGE I RoponNo. 1 3. Ko. 4 Tout ..W Sub!i'lll 5 Ropon oa1o 6 f>olfomung COO. 7 Avll>(tl 8 AOQon No 9. Porfom'lioo Qrow!ittcG'I Nfi'Mo01'14 .. 10 \'10111. U nil NO. Nationa l Urban Institute Center for Urban Transportation Research Un i vers i ty of South Florida 11 Ccnrr&lQ&t'IINo D T RS 93-G-0019 4202 E. Fow ler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, F L 33620-5350 12. SPOI\40M9 At>n 13. fyPt ot RtPOI'I atld P.,!Qcll Cov.red Office of Research a nd Special Programs U S Department of Transportation. Wash in gton, D.C 20690 14 AQeotley CodQ I S Su""omoniOf'( M$s Supported by a grant from t he U.S. Departmen t of Tra n sportation U n iversity Res earch In stitute Program 16. This study uses written and t elepho n e surveys of soc ial serv ice facilities w h ose c l ients include li kely pa rat ransit users to determine th e exten t to whic h the and oost of paratra n sit services are fac t ored i nto fac i lity location decisions. Numero u s c ross tabu l ations of survey responses are presented The st udy a l so develops a classification of fac i l ity types base d o n t h eir clients rela t ive use of paratransit services. The study conc l udes that t h e availabi lity of tra n sportation is an i mportant factor i n socia l service facil ities' location decisions bu t tha t the cost of t r ansportation i s not usually because of third-party payment of the t ra n sportation cost. Th e study s u ggests that econo m ica lly efficient l ocat io n dec is ions will require tha t the third-p art y runders of transportatio n exert influe nce on the loca tion decision process. 11. K o y Vl.'
TABLE OF CONTE NTS Ackno wledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v i I ntrod u ction ........ . . ...... . . .. .................. . ... . 1 Objective of St udy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overv iew o f Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Theory Review . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Equity versus Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Provis i on of Transportat i on .... .... ....... ... ................. . . 2 Capital Costs versus Opera ti n g Costs .... . . ... ... ..... ... . .... 3 Non -User Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 P rocess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Survey Descr i ption ... . . . . . .. ..... .... .. .......... .... 5 Data Ana l ys i s and Res u lt s . . . . .... .... ... ............ . ...... ... ....... 7 Types o f TransP.ortation Serv i ces P rov i d ed ... .... ... ...... ... ... . . . 7. Dependence on Paratransit Serv i ce .... ....... . .......... ... .. ... .... 8 Facto r s Affec t i ng Loca t ion Decis i ons . . .... ..... .... . . . ... . 9 Transportat ion as a Loca t ion Fac tor ....... . ....... ........ ...... ... ... 1 7 Co n c l usion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 Future Research .......... ...... . ... ... . .... . ... ....... ... . 22 Append i x A : S urvey Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 1 Append i x B Tabl es of Crosstab ul ated S u rvey Responses ... ... ......... . B-1 Append i x C Ope n ended responses to Q u estio n 111-2 C-1 Appen di x D Open-e n ded responses to Q u estion 111-3 D 1 Appe n d i x E Open-e n ded responses to Q uest ion 111-4 .. . ... ...... .. ...... E-1 jjj
Figure 1 F i gu r e 2 Table 1 T a b le 2 Table 3 Tab l e 4 Tabl e 5 Tab l e 6 Tab l e 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 T able 11 Tab l e 12 Table 13 Tab l e 14 Tabl e 1 5 Tabl e 16 Table 17 Table 18 T ab l e 19 LIST OF E XHIB IT S Fac i lity Type by Average Mode Spli t . . . ................ .. ... ........ 9 F aci l ity Type by Average and Range of Paratra nsit Use . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 M i scellaneous Data for the Count i es Incl uded i n the Survey .......... .... . 4 Number of Responden t s by Facility Type . . ... .............. ...... .. 8 Facility Type by F r equency of Client V i sits ......... ... ... ... ......... 10 Faci l ity Type by Percent Use of Paratrans it Serv ice. . . . . . . . . . . 12 Facility Type by Pe r cent Use of Fixed Route Bus Service ... . .... ... .. .. .. 13 Location Dec i s ion Factors by Facility Type ............ . .... ...... .... 1 4 Location Decis ion Factors by Organization Type ...... ...... .. ... ........ 15 Location Dec i sio n Factors by C l i e n t T ype . . . .......... ...... ... 15 Average Mode Sp li t by Clie n t Type .... . .................. ....... 15 Frequency of Client Vis its by Client Type ... ................ . .... ..... 16 Locat i o n Dec i s i on Factors by Frequency of Client V i s it s ..... .. ........ ... . 16 L ocat i o n Dec i s i on Factors by Ava i lability of Res i dent i a l Serv i ces . . . . . . . 1 7 Location Decis i on Factors by Prior i ty of Access to Pub lic Transportation . . . . 17 Priority of Access to Pub l ic Transportat ion by Facil ity Type ............... .. 18 Priority of Access t o Public Transportat ion by Organization Type ....... . . 18 Priority of Access to P u blic Transportation by C l ient Type .......... .. ...... 19 Priority o f Access t o Pub lic Transportation by Freq u ency of C lient Visits ..... . 19 Priority of Access to Public Transportation by Availab i li ty of Residentia l Services .. 20 Priority of Access to Pub l ic Transporta t ion by Ava il ability of F i xed Route Bus Serv ice 20 iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This pro j ect is made possible t h roug h a grant from the U.S Department of Transportat i on University Research I nstitute Program Its support is. gratefully acknow l edged Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South F lorida T ampa F l orida 33620 D irector: Pro j ect D i rector: P roj ect Manager. Project Staff: Reviewers: v Gary L. Brosch F Ron Jones Laura Lacha n ce !)teven E. Maas Michele LaBruce Julee Green Terry Re i ss Rosemary Mat h ias Steven Polzi n Ron S h eck
ABSTRACT This study uses written and telephone surveys of social service facilities whose cl i ents include likely users to determine the extent to which the availability and cost of paratransit services are factored into facility location decisions. Numerous cross tabulations of survey responses are presented. The study also develops a classifica t ion of types based on the i r clienls' relalive use of paratra nsit services. The study concludes that the availability of transportation is an important factor in social service facilities locat ion decisio ns but that the cost of transportation is not usually because of third-party payment of the trans porta t ion costs The study suggests that economically efficient l ocat io n dec i sions will require that the third-party funders of transportation exert influence on the location decision process. vi
INTRODUC TIO N Transportation is a key element in th e de livery or provision of social services for a commun ity and therefore should be a consideration in facility sit i ng Public managers i nvolved i n t h e policy mak ing or planning fie lds can appreciate the importance of improving transportation and acce ss to this transpo rtation for those i n need of social services. The provision of transportation for social services i s complex i n that t h e goal is to provide as many people as possible access to t hese facilities while still maintaining effociency. Florida has experienced rap id growth i n population a nd deve lopment in the past few decades. In 1950. the pop u latio n of Florida was j ust under 3 m illion. By 1990 Florida's pop ulation had reached n early 13 m illion Based on the latest demographic assumptions. Florida is expected to reach a population of 19 million by the year 2010. Consequently, F l orida st i ll is experiencing tre m endous growth-and attendant growing pains-in t he demand for services, including social serv ices OBJECTIVE OF STUDY The objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between transportation and facil ity siting More speci fica lly where does the cost. availability and accessibility of transportation fit in to the social service facility debsion-making process? The objective is to describe the i nterre latio nship between t he location decisions of major attractors and producers of para trans it t rips and the efficiency with which t hose trips can be provided. For the purposes of this study, paratransit service is defined as de m and responsive service provided to transportation disadvantaged persons which are persons with disabilities, elderly persons, low-income persons. and children at risk Among the questions this s t u dy addresses are: Are F lorida's social service facilities taking transportat io n i nto consideration when locating new facilities or relocating existing faci liti es? Are th ey attempting to minimize transporta tio n costs by clustering facil i ties or consolidating services? If they are taking transportation into consi deration what are the reasons? I f they are not taking it into consideration. what other factors are influencin g loca tio n and why is tra n s porta tion no t incl uded i n those factors? OVERVIEW OF STUDY This report i s organized into four main sections. The first section, the introduction, is a general analysis of the location dec isio n -mak i ng proc ess employed when siting social service facilities. This informa tion is based on natio na l and international l iterature and i nforma l i nterv iews with people who are either coordinators of t hese faci li t i es or provide transportat ion for the clients of these facilit i es The second section discusses the collection of data on social service facilities. To accomp l ish this ten co unt i es were chosen as case studies. Wrthin these counties social service fac i l ities were surveyed and interviewed. In the third section. data and comments from the survey and phon e interviews were analyzed to identify factors that determine loca tion and t h e relationship between transportation specifically specialized 1
transportation, and locatio n decisions The analysis focuses on why transporta t ion is or i s not a factor i n the location decision-making process, and, if transportation is not a factor, what the relevant factors are. The fina l section exam i nes possibilities for future research based on quest i ons that came out of this study. THEORY REVIEW A great amount of research has been done in both locatio n theory and in the rela t i onship between transportation and la nd use. This research has been performed by profess io nals in a number of fields from economics to geography The approaches to the research are as varied as the fi elds, rang i ng from complex quantitative models to generalistic qualitative models. The determ i nation of th e l ocation of any private-sector fac il ity generally is based on an effort to minimize total costs. The determ i natio n of optimal public facility locations is a speci al case of l ocation theory because of issues that arise when dealing with p ublic goods. The goats and ince ntives of providing public goods are different from the provision of private goods and services. Following i s an examination of the pub lic facility locatio n process and the issues involved in this process. Some of the following issues are not uni que to public facilities but are i ncluded in this section in order to cover all relevant i ssues i n pubtic facility locat i on decisions Equity vs. Efficiency The major difference betwee n t he pub l i c facility loca t ion process and the profrt-maximiz i ng private facility location process is that the pub lic sector (or non-profit) aims to accomplish the highest degree of social sat i sfaction whil e efficienUy using avai l able resources. Profit maximizing faci litie s on the other hand focus on m i n i m i z in g total costs while meet i ng demand. Soc ial equity is sues generally do not p l ay a role in loca ting these fac i lities. How does a f acil i ty balance the often compe ting goals of equity and efficiency? A socia l serv ice faci lity strive to serve as many clients as possible at a low cost per client. Cluster or agglomeration econom i es offer equity as well as efficiency benefrts, but are pa rt icu larly difficuH for social serv ice fa cilities to achieve. Clustering of facilities has two major benefits: it increases c l ien t access and co nvenie nce and it eliminates t h e need for some trips Faci li t ies tend to be conscious of the firs t benefit and to factor that into the i r lo cation decisions However. because they often do not bear the costs of transportation. t hey tend to ig no re the second benefit. The result is t hat cl uste r i n g of facil i ties is undervalued and does not occur to the extent that i s economically des i rable. Provision of Transportation The cost of prov id ing transportation for pub l ic facilities can be borne by many different part i es. These part i es include t h e consumer the provider, or a government entity. Who provides and pays for transportation has an effect on the in cent i ves i n the locatio n decision-making p r ocess. If the fac i lity pays 2
for t he transportation o f its c l ie nts those costs w i ll be inco rporated i nto the f acility s operating expenses. Transporta t io n wou l d then be a f actor in t he location decision-maki n g process of t hat f acility. Furthermore, t he way a facil i ty pays for transportat io n if it i s provided by a third party, can affect its decision-making process Many providers i n Florida charge facil it ies on a per-trip basis, r egardless o f trip l ength. The r e fore, there is no t ransportatio n -cost i ncentive for a fac i l ity to locale closer Ia its cliente l e Capital Costs vs. Operating Costs A major issue to consider in loca t i n g public facilit i es i s the costs that t hese facil i ties i ncur and how these expenses are fund ed This study s telephone survey of social service facil i t i es suggests that many of them receive fund i ng in a lu m p sum to bu i ld o r rent a fac i lity This f u n ding can come from man y different federal, state loca l, and private so u rces According to the socia l service agencies, t hey tend to m i n i mize costs for the start-up of these facil i ties by minimizing the cost of land and building. The refore, loca t ions tend to be dete rm i ned by mi n imizing only cap ital cos ts. Operati n g costs. especially transportatio n costs often are not fully considered un t i l after t he faci l it ies are establ i s h ed. In addition, operating costs are often not funded by t he same m i x of sources as cap i tal costs. Therefo re a facility does not have the incentive to minimize operating costs while considering capital costs and vice versa. F i nally operat i ng costs ot h er than transportation costs te n d not to vary by loca tion for social service facilities within a community Therefore when the costs of t ransportat i on are not borne by the facility, t he so le determinants of l ocation become capital cost a nd cl i ent access, which m ay not result i n the mos t cost efficient l ocation decis io n s. Non-User Cost I n addition to t he direct costs of prov i ding the serv i ce t h ere are real and/or pe r ceived i ndi r ect costs that are borne by non-users. Many social service fac i lities (e g .. homeless shelters or group homes) are viewed as undesi rab l e by a community because t he residents fear i ncreased crime and lowered property values. Thus. pub lic press u re often makes it difficult to locate a faci l ity i n a given commun i ty. When residents perceive that man y such facilities are to be grouped in c l ose proximity i n the i r community, these fears often p romo te zon i ng rest ri c t ion s (e g., restrictio n s on how close together group homes can be located) When the publ i c objects to a faci l ity s proposed loca tion t h e objective of the location d ec i sion may change from cost minimization to poli tica l harmony and acceptable-not min i mum -cost. I n that circumstance, where s ignificant compromises are made on ca pita l cost it m ay be d iffiCult for the dec ision make r to give sufficient we i ght to tra n sportation costs 3
DATA COLLECTION Fo r the Florida analysis ten urba n counties were c h osen as case studies. These include t h e seve n most popu l ous count i es and t h ree smaller urban co un ties. All but one of the co u nties hav e fixed -rout e transit service Tabl e 1 contains statistics for each county on population demographics s ize, a n d service information. TABLE 1 Miscellaneous 1992 Data for the Counties Included in the Survey Total Population Transportation Fixed-Route County Population Density per Disadvantaged Transit S q u are Mile Population B r evard 417,740 410. 2 146,579 Yes Broward 1 ,294,090 1 ,070. 5 496,406 Yes Dade 1 ,982,901 1 019.7 753 726 Yes Duval 693 546 896.2 2 1 0 ,845 Yes Hillsboro ugh 853 ,990 812.5 283,434 Yes Orange 712,637 785.2 211,380 Yes Palm Beach 896,970 440 9 380,047 Yes Pasco 290 ,2 7 4 389.6 15 2 ,764 No Pinellas 860, 736 3,071.9 377,299 Yes Polk 420 885 224 5 164, 186 Yes Sources: Florida Statistical Abstract, 1993. Sta tewide Operations Report FY 1 991-1992. Florida TO Commissi o n Withi n t h ese counties faci li t ies w h ose clientele are t r adit i onally dependent, to some degree, o n para t r ans it s e rvices were surveyed. Data were collected thet wo ul d allow an analysis of t h e fac i l it ies rela t i ve depe ndence o n paratr a n sit services and the r elative i mpac t s of t ra n sportat io n cons i derat io n s on their location decis i ons PROCESS The first step was to id entify soc i al service faci l it i es (e g. group h omes. s h eltered workshops, adu lt day care fac il it i es) within t he se lec ted count ie s The next step was to survey these fac il it ies for informatio n such as their service function type of c l i entele tran sportation of c l ien t s and loca tion decision factors The final step in this task was to conduct phone interviews of a s ub set of responden ts f rom th e survey 4
From the informa t ion obta i ned i n the survey t h e facilities were classified by service function. The data from the survey were analyzed to determine the degree of paratransit depende n cy of d i fferent facilities. and how this i s affected by different c haracterist ics such as organization st ru cture, average frequency of visits to facil it ies by c l ie nts, and the avai la bility of transit. In addition the priority of paratra n s i t as a l ocation factor was evaluated to establish if t he re were any correlations b e tween this factor and any of the previous l y mentioned characterist i cs. The phone i nterviews were i nt e nded to supplement information obtained from t he mail-back surveys. From each of the established faci l ity classifications. samples of facilities with high and low relative depe nde nce on paralransit were contacted. This process y ielded valuable anecdotal i n formation The focus of the questions was to give an u n derstanding of the factors determin i ng a facility's d ependence on paratrans it and to explore how the dependence on paratransrt affected the location decision-mak ing process SURVEY DESCRIPTION The mai l-back survey was used as the firs t contact with selec te d facil i ties within t h e ten selected counties. The survey instrument, which is included as Appendix A, was composed of t hree major sections: genera l i nformation, transportat i on i nformation, and l oca t i on decision factors. Eac h of these sections was designed to be helpful i n determini n g : first. a faci l ity s dependence on p aratransit a nd t ran sit as the means of transportation for its clientele ; second whether this dependence influe nced the location of the facility; and third, if there are any characteristics gathered from the general information questions that effectively i nfluence a fac ilit y's depende n ce on paratra n s i t a nd transit. Detailed survey r esponses and cross tabu la tions of the responses are incl uded i n Append i ces B throug h E. Summaries are presented in the text tables. The general informa t ion collected i n the survey inc l ude d t he service f u nction of t he fac i li ty (e.g sheltered workshop, pub l i c hea lth clinic, vocational center), the ownership of the organ ization (e.g., private for-p r ofit private non-profit p ub lic), primary distinguish i ng c ha racter isti c of c l i entele (e.g. elderly, ment ally disabled, physically disab l ed, deve lo pmenta lly disabled, l ow-i n come), and the freque n cy of visits by c lients. For transp ortat io n informa ti on the respondents of the survey were asked to ident ify the means by which clients traveled to and from th eir fac i l ity in a typ i cal week. Th is quest i on was asked to determ in e the dependence of the i n dividual fac i li t ies o n both fixed-route transit and specialized tra nspo rtat ion. The l ast four questions of t he survey were related to loca t ion decision factors. One quest i on attempts to capture all factors that are relevant in determining the location of a fac i lity. These factors i nclude la nd and/or facil ity costs access t o public tran sportation access to h ig h ways/roads, proximity to othe r social services, and government funding A narrower question on location fac tors was also asked to determ ine if the availabil ity of paratransi t and/or regu l ar bus service was a high, medium or low prio rity i n the decision to loc ate the facil it y. Finally two open ended questions were asked allow i ng the respondent the opportunity to discuss problems they have expe rie nced with transporta tio n d u e to thei r location, and asking them what location factors t h ey would consider if they relocated 5
A to tal of 1 ,710 surveys were mailed out to facilities i n ten urban counties i n F lo rida Names of fac il ities were gathered from a variety of sources i nclud i ng five -year transportat io n disadvantaged plans and social service di recto ries for each county. In many counties, the United Way was able to provide comprehensive l ists of social services facilities. Out of the 1 710 surveys, 426 were retu rned for a 25 percent response rate. Out of the 426 ret urn s, 32 had to be discarded for various reaso ns 6
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS In the mai l-back survey a n d the tele phone i nterviews with social service facili t ies w h ose c lients are po t ential users of paratransit services, data were collected to answer the followin g four quest ions : 1 What types of tra n sportatio n service are used by t he c l i ents of eac h type of facil it y? 2. To what exte n t do the i r c l i ents de pe nd on paratransit serv ice ? 3. What f actors affect the f a c i li ties' loca t i o n dec i s ions ? 4 How important is transportation in those l ocation dec isions? Data from t h e survey a lso were used to develop the classification of facil ity types shown in Tab le 2 T hese 12 facil ity types account f o r the vast major ity of soc ia l serv ice agency t rips made by u sers of paratransit services. Not i ncluded i n t hi s s t udy are trips t o facil ities whose l ocat i on dec i sions are tess l i kely to be i nfluenced by paratransit serv i ce such as shopp i ng trips to grocery stores and rec reational t rips to t h eaters. The exception to this is that t rips f.r.Q..m o n e of the 12 facility types to s h oppi ng theater s. and other des t inat ions are i n c luded Th e trips i ncl ude th ose arranged a n d paid for by both the facilit ies a nd t h e users as well as by t hird parties. T h e types of trips associated w ith the facil it ies include : Home to f aci l ity Home to work Home to med i cal ap p ointment Fac i lity to shopping medica l appoi ntm ent etc Faci lity t o worl< Fac i lity to facil i ty Tab l es B-20. B-21 a n d B-22 in A ppend i x B show to w hat extent th e facilities are private for-p rofit, privat e non-profit o r publ i c ; t o wha t extent t hey offer resident i al serv ices; and what ty pes of c l i ents t hey serve. TYPES OF T RANSPOR TATION SERVICES PROVIDED The types of transportation use d by the clients of th e different facil itie s i s shown i n Fig u re 1. Th e sheltered workshop category shows t h e heav iest use of paratransit, followed c lose l y by nursing/retirement homes adult day ca r e cen t ers. and group h omes (Trips prov i ded by the facilit ies themselves u s i ng b u ses. vans etc. are i ncl uded in "other".) It is i nteresting to not e t hat home less shelters a r e the smallest users of paratra n s it but t he b i ggest u sers of fix ed-route bus service Th is probably r eflect s t h e fact that i n Flor ida t here has been a concerted effort to sw itc h low-i ncome p erso n s and others who can u se r egula r t rans i t service, f r om paratransit to fixe d r ou te transit. C l ients of mental hea l th centers are the o ne s most li ke l y to drive themselves, w hi l e c h il dren goin g to chi l d care centers are mos t l ikely to trave l as passengers i n automobi le s This same data are prov i ded in tab le format in Appendi x B. Tab l e B-1 7
TABLE 2 Number of Respondents by Facility Type Facility Type Number of Respo ndents Sheltered Workshop 14 Nursing Home/Retire 77 Adult Day Care 33 Group Home 23 H eal t h Clinic 30 Congregate Dining 19 Genera IN A Hospital 20 Mental Health Center 15 Child Care Center 22 Vocational Center 39 Substance Abuse 16 Homeless Shelter 1 7 U n known 69 I TOTAL I 394 Table 3 shows the f requen cy with which clients visit each type of facility. For residentia l facilities. travel tends to be weekly shopping and recre at ion trips and occas i onal medical and social trips. DEPENDENCE ON PARA TRANSIT Figure 2 shows the extent to which facilities' clients u se paratransit services. It shows both the range of use for eac h faci lity type as well as t he use by th e average f acility For all facil ity types t h ere i s at least one facility that has no clients usi ng paratransit services, and for three facility types there i s at least one facility where all the clients use paratransit as their primary means of traveling to and from t he facility. On average, sheltered workshops, nursi ng homes, adult day care facilities, and group homes are relatively high users of paratransit services while home l es s shelters, substance abuse centers, vocational centers, and child care centers are low users The same data are provided i n table format in Appendix e. Table B. Table 4 shows additional detail on the use of paratransit services by the clients of the different Table 5 shows the same detail on the use of fixed -route transit service. 8
FIGURE 1 Facility Type by Average Mode Split Shelte r ed Worksho p Nursing Home/Retire Adult Day Care Group Home Health Clinic Congregate D i n ing Generai/V A Hospital Mental Health Center Child Care center Vocationa l Center Substance Abuse 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Mode Split Paratransit 0 Auto Driver mil Bus llllJ Other [3 Auto Passenger See AppendiX B. Tabfo 8 for taw data. FACTORS AFFECTING LOCATION DECISIONS When a list of poss ib l e facto r s t o take int o consideration for fa c i l ity loca t ion was prov i ded in the writte n survey (Question 111-1 ), the facto r mos t often cited as affecting l ocation decisio n s was facility costs. Tab l e 6 shows the factors ci ted by each facility type. (Multip le answers were permitted.) Access to transporta t io n was freque ntl y cited, and an exam i nation of the responses to open-ended Question 1114 ("If and when you do r e l oca te what factors would you consider i mportant for re l ocat i on?") also revea l s that most facilities say transportation is an important factor in their location decisions. However, at the same t i me. many say that they may l ocate away f rom t h e desired tra nsp ortatio n due to fac i l ity and la n d costs Their open-e nd ed a n swe rs also sugges t that many facili t ies consider transportat i on important because of client service and access but do not consider transportat ion costs i n thei r l ocation decisio n s In add i tion, a lt ho ugh a l arge number of facil i t ies checked "proximity to o ther socia l services" as an i mportant factor i n Question 111 1, very few listed that as an i mportant consideration in Question 111-4. 9
TABLE 3 Facility Tvpe by Frequency of Client Visits Facility Type Residents Sheltered Workshop 7% Nursing Home/Retire 96% Ad u lt Day Care 6%a Group Home 79% Health Clinic 0% Congregate Dining s% GeneraiN A Hosprtal 0% Mental Health Center 7% Child Care Center 5%b Vocational Center 0% Substance Abuse 50% Homeless Shelter 80% Total 33% See Appendix B Table B-2 for raw data. a These are multi-purpose facilities. 5 Days per Week 79% 4% 35% 2 1 % 4% 42% 17% 7% 81% 29% 29% 0% 23% b These serve abused or special nae
FIG URE 2 F acility T ype by Average and R ange of Paratransit U se S h e l tere d Wof1
TABLE4 Facility Type by Percent Use of Paratnnsit Service Facility Type 0% O+% to 20+% to 40+% to 60+% to 80+% to Average 20% 40% 60 'lo 80 'lo 100 % Wor1
TABLES Facility Type bv Percent Use of Fixed-Route Bus Service Facility Type 0% 0+% to 20+% to 40+% to 60+% to 80+% to Average 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Sheltered Workshop 36% 45% 9% 9% 0% 0% 1 0% Nursing Home/Re t ire 63% 15% 15% 5% .2% 0% 10% Adult Day Care 72% 10% 14% 3% 0% 0% 7% G r o up Home 30% 40% 10% 5% 5% 10% 20% Heal t h Clinic 32% 32% 12% 16% 4% 4% 21% Congregate D i ning 40% 33% 13% 13% 0% 0% 12 % Ge neraiN A Hosp i ta l 46% 46% 8% 0% 0% 0% 4% Menta l Hea l th Cente r 67% 25% 0% 0% 8% 0% 7% Chi l d Care Center 55% 30% 5% 0% 5% 5% 13% Vocational Center 12% 52% 6% 18% 6% 6% 26% Substance Abuse 55% 27% 0% 0% 0% 18% 20% Ho m eless S h elter 8% 31% 0% 31% 15% 15% 45% Total 45% 31% 9% 8% 3% 4% I I See Appendix B Table B-5 for raw data. 13
TABLE 6 Decision Factors by Faciliti Type Land Facility Acces s Access Gov't Facility Type to Pub. t o Hwys ther Other Costs Costs Transp. & Ro ads Ser. Funding S heltered Workshop 21% 64% 50% 36% 29% 21% 36% Nursing Home/Retire 51% 51% 21% 34% 40% 16% 19% AduH Day Care 27% 45% 21% 33% 30% 30% 36% Group Home 61% 43% 65% 48% 52% 30% 17% Heal t h Clinic 33% 50% 33% 40% 30% 30% 37% Co ngregate Dining 32% 68% 58% 37% 42% 42% 26% Ge neraWA Hospit al 4 5% 20% 15% 50% 10% 20% 50% M enta l Health Center 27% 80% 40% 67% 40% 13% 13% Child Care Center 41 % 41% 18% 27% 18% 36% 41% Vocational Center 13% 49% 62% 54% 54% 36% 18% Substance Abuse ssA> 63% 44 % 31% 25% 13% 13% Homeless SheHer 53% 71% 65% 41% 71% 24% 0% Total 38% 52% 39% 40% 38% 25% 26% See Appendix B. Tabl e ror raw data. 1 4
TABLE 7 Loc:.tion Decision Factors by Organization Type Land Facility Access Access Prox. of Gov't Organization Ty pe to Pub. to Hwys Other Other Costs Costs Transp. & Soc. Ser. Funding Private forProfi t 20% 25% 9% 18% 19% 3% 7% Private Non-Profit 15% 21% 17% 15% 14% 6% 11% Public 11% 14% 14% 16% 13% 21% 10% Total 15% 20% 15% 16% 15% 10% 10% See Appendix B. Tabf e for raw data. TABLE 8 Location Decision Factors by Client Type Land Facility Access Access Prox. of Gov't Client Type to Pub. to Hwys Other Other Costs Costs Transp. & Roads Soc. Ser. Funding Elderly 19% 21% 10% 1 5% 14% 10 % 12% Mentally Disabled 15% 23% 17% 15% 16% 9% 6% Phys i cally Disabled 14% 12% 10% 21% 10% 12% 21% Developmentally Dis. 1 7% 22% 15% 13% 9% 9% 15% Low-Income 1 3% 20% 18% 15% 16% 10% 9% Total 15% 20% 15% 16% 15% 10% 10% See Appendix B. Table 8 8 for raw data TABLE 9 Average Mode Split by Client Type Client Type Paratranslt Bus Auto Auto Other Passenger Driver Elderly 29% 9% 21% 19% 22% Mentally D i sabled 26% 13% 26% 20% 15% Physically Disabled 24% 16% 34% 20% 6% Developmentally Dis 39% 6% 27% 5% 23% Low-Income 7% 24% 29% 29% 10% Total See Appendix B. Table B-9 for raw data. 15
TABLEJO Frequency of Client Visi t s by Clien t Type 5-7 Days 2-4 Days 1 D ay 2-3 Days 1 Day Client Type Residents per Week per Week per Week per Month per Month o r Less Elderly 56% 13% 20% 2% 3% 6% Mentally D i sabled 23% 35% 16% 16% 6% 3% P h ysically Disabled 13% 20% 33% 0% 13% 20% Deve l opmentally Dis 35% 60% 0% 0% 0% 5% Low-lncome 13% 29% 13% 7% 12% 25% Total 33% 23% 17% 6% 7% 14% See Appendi x B T abl e B-10 for raw data. TABLE 11 Location Decision Factors by Frequ ency of Client Visits Frequenc y of Land F acility Access Access Prox. of Gov't to Pub. to Hwys Other Other Client Visits Costs Costs Fund ing Transp. & Roads Soc. Ser. Residents 20% 21% 14% 13% 18% 7% 7% 5-7 Days/Week 13% 20% 16% 1 5% 11% 11% 1 4% 2-4 Days/Week 12% 20% 12% 16% 14% 12% 14% 1 Day/Week 1 1% 26% 18% 21% 16% 4% 5% 2-3 Days/Month 10% 19% 19% 14% 18% 1 3% 7% 1 Day/Month or Less 12% 18% 14% 20% 12% 12% 12% Total 15% 20% 15% 16% 15% 10% 10% See Appendix B, Table 8 1 1 for raw data 16
TABLE 12 Location Decision Factors bv Availability of Residential Services Are Residential Land Facility Access Access Prox. of Gov't to Pub. to Hwys Other Other Services Available? Costs Costs Transp. & Roads Soc. Ser. Funding l::s I 19% 20% 15% 13% 17% 8% 7% 11% 20% 15% 17% 13% 11% 13% I Tota l I 15% 20% 15% 16% 15% 10% 10% See Appendix 8 Table 8-1 2 f o r raw data. TABLE 13 Location Decision Factors b'' Priority of Access to Public Transportation Priority of Access Land Facility Access Access Prox. of Gov't to Public Costs Costs to Pub. to Hwys Other Fund i ng Other Transportation Transp. & Roads Soc. Ser. Low 21 o/o 24% 4% 16% 12% 10% 14% Medium 11% 19% 18% 19% 16% 9% 8% High 12% 19% 25% 13% 17% 9% 5% I Total I 15% 20% 15% 16% 15% 10% 10% See Appendix B. Table 8-13 f or raw data. TRANSPORTATION AS A LOCA TION FACTOR Whe n asked to r ate the priority of paratransit and bus service as a location factor the differe nt facility types r esponded as shown in Tab le 1 4 Hosp ital s and child care centers gave this lo calion fac tor the lowest priority. Homeless she lt ers and vocationa l centers gave it the h i ghest (measured as the combined med i um and hig h responses) The priority of paratransit and bus service was also cross tabu l ated against organizat io n type ( Question 1 -2), c l ient type (Question 1-3), freq uency of visits (Question 1-4), residential serv i ces (Question 1 -5). and availab i lity of fixed-route bus service. The se resul ts are shown i n Tables IS through 19. Table 15 suggests that non-p r ofit facil ities give more consideration to tr ansportation than do for profit facilities, which is logical if t ransportation is viewed not as a cost b ut as cl i ent service If transportation were viewed as a cos t to be controlled and if third-party funders of transportation costs were not a major factor. we would expect forp ro fit facil iti es to give it a higher prio rity than the non-profit facilities. 17
TABLE 14 Priority of Access to Public Transportation by Facility Type Facility Type Low Medium High Sheltered Workshop 19% 25% 56% Nursing Home/Retire 21% 41% 38% Adult Day Ca re 25% 42% 33% Group Home 31% 23% 46% Health Clinic 31% 23% 46% Congregate Dining 39% 22% 39% Ge neraiN A Hospital 41% 28% 31% Mental Health Center 44% 36% 20% Child Care Center 54% 23% 23% Vocational Center 57% 21% 21% Substance Abuse 68% 11% 21% Homeless Shelter 77% 15% 8% Total 43Gfe 27% 30% See Appendix B. Tobie 8-14 for raw data. TABLE 15 Priority of Access to Public Transportation by Organization Type Organization Type Low Medium High Private forPro fit 57% 27% 16% P r ivate Non-Profit 39% 26% 36% Public 46% 28% 26% Total 43% 27% 30% See Appendix B. Table 8 for raw data. Table 16 suggests that paratransit and bus service i s more of a consideration to facilities serving l ow-income clients and c l ie nts with physica l and menta l d i sabilities than it i s to facilities serving elderly persons and persons w ith deve lopmental disabilities. 18
TABLE16 Prioritv of Access to Public Transportation by Client Type Client Type Low Med ium High 30% 37% 33% Phys i cally D isab led 35% 47% 18% Mentally D i sab led 40% 13% 4 7% Developmentally D i s 4 7% 26% 26% Elde rly 56% 23% 21% Total 43% 27% 30% See Appendix S Table B-16 for raw dat a. There is n ot a clear pa ttern to t h e data in Table 17, but it appears that where visits are mo r e frequent the priority of t ran sportation i s s lightly higher, which is the directio n one wou l d expect al t h ough t he magnit ude i s no t as great as might be expected. TABLE 17 Priority of Access to Public Transportation by Frequency of Client Visits Frequency of Low Medium High Client Visits Res i dents 46% 22 % 33% 5 7 Days/Week 39% 24% 36% 2 -4 Days/Week 52% 28% 20% 1 Day/Week 53% 16% 32% 2-3 Days/Mo n th 33% 48% 19% 1 Day/Mont h or Less 43% 35% 23% Total 43 % 27% 30% See Appendi x B, Tabt& B-17 for raw data. Whether fac i l i t ies p rovide r es i de n tial or no n -reside nt ial serv i ces has little affect on th e priority given to transportation, as shown i n Tab l e 18 One might expect that non-residential facili t ies would be more concerned abo u t transpo rta tion t h an resident ia l faci l ities because of t he need to get t h e clie nts to facil iti es on a regular basis That may be offset. however. by t he fact that the c l i ents of m any reside nt ia l facilities make n umerou s trips to socia l recreational, and medica l facilities 19
TABLE 18 Priority o f Acce ss to Public Transportation by Availability of R es idential Services Are Residential Low Medium High Services Available? Yes 41% 24% 35% No 45% 30% 25% Total 43% 27% 30% See Appendix B. Table 8 for raw data. The existence of fixed-route transit also appears to have no affect on the given to transportat i on, although one wou ld expect that if fi xed-route service were available there would be some effort to locate on or near t hos e routes (see Table 19). TABLE 19 Priority of Access to Public Transportation by Availability of Fixed-Route Bus Service Is Fixed-Route Bus Service Available Low Medium High in the County? Yes 46% 25% 29% No 36% 32% 32% Total 43% 27% 30% See Appendix B Table 8-19 for ra.w data Although some of the above c ross tabulations appear to be counter intuitive the explanations given in the open-en ded part of Question 111 provide some insight as to why a different prio rity was given tha n might hav e bee n expected. F i rst i n many cases the la n d on which the facility is l ocated was donated. Therefore, the savings on th i s capital cost overshadowed all other costs. Second many facilities provide their own transportation with fac i lity -owned vehicles. Because of this, public transportation was disrega rded because it is not used by their clients Third. some respondents indicated that public transportation was not adequate enough to even consider i n the equation for determining location They feH as thoug h paratransit and fixed-rou te service were impe rmane nt relative to the construction o f a facil i ty. Fourth, many of the facilities do not consider 'transportation a high priority beca use their clients do not use t his type of transportation. Finally a few of the facilities were b ui lt prior to the availability of paratransit and fixed -route service. Therefore, the presence of pub l i c transportation could not have been a factor. For the fac i l ities that in d icated that public transportation was a high priority two main explanations were revealed In almost all cases. t he facility was focusing on the needs of their clients and real izing t hat public transportation was the primary mode by whic h they a rrived at t he i r facility; or the facil ity was required to be accessible by fixed route and paratransit service by a funding or licensi ng agency 20
There a l so were a number of transportation prob l ems c i ted in response to Questio n 111-3 that may have affected the ex t e n t to wh ich facilit ies are willing to rely on paratransit and bus serv i ce and, consequently that may have affected the priority they give to those serv i ces. The four most common prob le ms cited were (1) paratransit service being i nadequate or undependable, (2) fixedr o u te service o r public transportatio n in general bei ng i nadequate or undependable, (3) i nadequate funding fo r transportation. and (4) not being ab l e to transport people safely and i n secure veh i c l es. The transportation problem most often cited by the responding social seNice facilities was the inadequacy and undependabi l it y of paratransit service within their counties. Many commented that the service was not specialized enough to accommodate frail elderly persons the severely disab l ed or small children. The problems seem to be the i nfrequency of service tile un dependability of the timing of pickups waiting lists for service that a r e extremely long lack of hours on weeke nds and evenings, and i n suffic i ent supply. In add i tion to complaints about pa r atrans i t transportat i on, the respon d ents a l so c i ted problems with fixedr o u te transportatio n These problems include i naccess i bi l ity of buses for persons with disab i l it i es lac k of bus routes near facil i t ies. r eq u i rement of too many transfers, buses not going to some areas of the county such as low-inco me areas, and lim i ted hours of serv ice. The third t ransportation problem identified by t h e survey respondents was the i nadequacy of fund i ng for t ra nsport a t i on. The responses ranged from general to specific in regard to funding. Some commented that there is j ust not enough fun d ing for paratransit in general. Other respondents i ndicated that t he fares for transportat i on are too high for lowi ncome clie nts to pay themse l ves or for t h e facility to pay The fourth freque n tly c i ted prob lem was t h e issu e of safety of their clients on pub l i c transportation This concern has to do pri marily wit h clients fa lling on buses getting lost and being stranded. It is not for the most part. a crime issu e. CONCLUSION Accordi ng to the survey results social service programs that are heavy users of paratra n s i t serv i ces give l ittle thoug ht to how the cost of thei r clients' transporta t ion will be affec t ed by t he locatio n of the programs' facili t ies They also give little thought to how c l ustering of different types of facil i ties can eliminate trips and reduce transportat i on costs. To the ex t en t that i t is desirable that social serv i ce facilit i es locate so as to minimize total social costs. an educational process is needed that wou l d make social serv ice programs an d their funding agencies aware of the importance of transportat i on costs and the role that facility s i ti n g plays in these costs. However when soc i al serv ice facilities do not bear the costs of transportation, as i s often the case an i mportant incentive to control these costs is missing. A dditional research is needed to determine how best to address t his missing incentive 21
FUTURE RESEARCH This study look e d at t he loca t ion decision processes of facili t ies that are major producers or attractors ofparatransit tr ips. Among the study's find ings are that these facil it ies do take into consideration the availability of transportation when locating but that their consideration is limited primarily to client access to tra nsportation Thes e facili ti es seldom take i nto consideration the cost of transportation and how it varies wtth location. Consequently there i s very litt1e consideration given to clustering of facili t ies. which could reduce the total amount of transportation required. Clustering also would reduce complaints about the quality of paratransit services-which were numerous in the study's survey-because it would allow for productivity improveme nts in paratransit services and consequently, ease the pressures on these overburdened services. As noted earlier fac i lities tend not to consider the impa cts of their location decis i ons on t ransportation cost because they often do not bear the cost of transportation. This raises the question of whether or not they should bear these costs, which is not a trivial issue For i nstance. it is not immed iately clear why they shou l d be asked to bear the cost of paratransit service for thei r clients but not the cost of private automobile service for the same clients. The more i mportant question raised by the study s research is to what extent the public funders of paratransit services should attempt to i n flue nce locat ion dec isions. Th is study looked at t he facility side of .the loca t ion issue. The next area that needs to be examined is the transportation fund i ng side of the issue. Loca l f un ders of pa rat ransit services and loca l transportation planning agencies are p robab ly i n the best position to see and infl u ence the bigger picture of facility siting Local funders also are the pri mary fina n cial beneficiaries of faci l ity c l ustering and, th e refore, have the greatest i n cen t ive to encourage efficient siting-i nclud i ng clustering--of faci l ities. Future research should examine the extent of savings tha t could be realized by t he lund i ng agencies and the ways that their funding methods and planning age ncie s proce dures could be changed to provide appropriate i n cent ives for more efficient siting of facil i ties that rely on paratransit services. 22
APPENDIX A Survey Form A-1
Ill Paratransit and Land Use Survey CUTR ____________________________________________ ____ ___ D.Ue Survey Completed:------------------------------------------------________________________________ Address of Organization:----------------------------------------------Clty Cowtty State Zip Within your county, which of the following describes your facility? a) Branc:h facility b ) Main and/or only facility? Section I. General Information I) Wh.U is your service function? (Please drde all types that apply.) a) Sheltered Workshop g) Substance Abuse Center m) Rehabilitation Hospital b) Adult Day-care h) Child care Center n) Community College c) Group Home I) Gene ra l Hospital o) Homeless Shelter d) Nursing Home j) VA Hospital p) Women' s Health C linic e) Congregate Dining facility k) Dia l ysi s Center q) Public Health Clinic f) Vocational Center I) Psychiatric Hospital ______________________________________________________ __ 2) What type of organization are you? (Please circle one.) a) Private for-profit b) P ri vate non-profit c) Public d) Other ______________________________________________________ __ 3) What Is the primary distinguishing characteristic of your clientele? (Pl ease circle one.) a) Elderly d) Developmentally disabled b) Mentally disabled e ) Low-income c) Physically disabled f) Other-----------------------------------4) On average, how often do your dlents visit your fac:ility? (Please circle one.) a) Residents of facility e) 1 day per week b) Twice per day f) 2 times per month c) 5 -7 days per week g) I day per month or less d) 2-4 days per week h) Other---------------------------------5) Does your facility offer residential servic:es? a) Yes your dlents are residents? (Please indicate percentage.) b) No If so, what percentage of % -----(over, please)
Section II. Tr;wsport.Ulon Information 1) In a typical week, how many of your clients use Cite following as dtelr primary means of cravel to and from your faclnty? (Please lndiC4te number and percentage-if possible-of clients and answer olll that apply. Please account for all clientele.) Number Percenu.ge a) Regular bus system b) Paratrans l t or other specialized transportation systems (e.g., dial-a-ride, taxi services, vans. etc.) c) Private automobile as passenger d) Private automobile as driver e) Ambulan ce 0 ____________ __________ ___ TOTAL Section Ill. Location Decision factors 1) In general, please Indicate Cite factors taken Into consideration for the location of your fadllty (e.g., land and/or fadllty costs, cranspomdon). (Please circle .111 types that apply.) a) Land costs d) Access to highwayS/roads b) Facility costs e) .Proximity to other social services c) Access to public transportation 0 Government funding ______________________________________________ __ l) How much of a priority was the avaiJablllty of paratranslt and/or regular bus service during Cite dedslon to locate your fadllty? Please explain. (Please circle one and use additional space for explanation.) a) High priority b) Medium priority c) Low priority 3) Wbat problems regarding client cransportadon have you experienced In your location 7 Would Cite availability of cranspomdon for your Clients be better If your fadllty were located at anodter site? If so, why Is Cite fadllty not located In an area more suited to your cranspomdon needs? 4) If and when you do relocate, what factors would you consider Important for rdocadon 7 Thank you! Please return this survey by July llnd in the postage paid envelope provided or fax to (813) 974-5168. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Laura Lachance at (813) 974-9793, SunCom 574-9793, or Efirstname.lastname@example.org usf.edu. If you misplace the envelope. mall to CUTR/USF, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., ENB 118, Tampa, FL 33620..5350.
APPENDIX B Tables of Crosstabulated Survey Responses B-1
Facility Type Sheltered Workshop Nursing Home/Ret i re Adult Day Care Group Home Health Clinic Congregate Dining GeneraiN A Hospital Mental Health Center Chi ld Care Center Vocational Center Substance Abuse Homeless Shelter Other Total TABLE B-1 Facility Type by Average Mode Split (Question 1-1 by Question 11-1) Paratransit Bus Auto Auto Passenger Driver 38% 10% 29% 4% 36% 10% 19% 11% 35% 7% 34% 8% 30% 20% 12% 5% 18% 21% 34% 25% 17% 12% 9% 31% 16% 4% 42% 30% 14% 7% 24% 51% 9% 13% 56% 0% 8% 26% 22% 40% 5% 20% 28% 31% 3% 45% 17% 21% 8% 12% 27% 41% 20% 15% 26% 23% B-2 Other Total 19% 100% 25% 100% 15% 100% 31% 100% 3% 100 % 31% 100% 8% 100% 4% 100% 22% 100% 5% 100% 17% 100% 14 % 100% 12% 100% 16% 100%.
0> 1.> Facility Type Residents Number of Respondents S hellered Workshop 1 Nu rsing Home/Retire 73 Adull Day Ca r e 2 Group Home 15 Health Clinic 0 Dining 1 Gener aVV A Hospit a l 0 Menta l Hea lth Center 1 Chi ld Care Center 1 Vocational Center 0 Substance Abuse 7 Homeless Shelter 12 Other 6 Total 119 TABLE B 2 Facilit y Type b y Freq u e ne y of C lient Vis it s ( Question 1 b y Que s ti o n 1 -4) 2 V Isits 5-7 Days 2-4 Days 1 Day 2 3 Days per Day per Week per Week per W eek per Month 0 11 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 11 18 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 8 9 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 1 2 8 2 0 17 2 0 0 0 10 10 2 9 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 10 13 9 9 0 83 61 21 25 1 D ay per Month Unknown Total or Less 1 0 14 0 1 77 0 2 33 0 4 23 20 5 30 1 0 19 1 2 2 20 0 1 15 1 1 22 3 5 39 0 2 1 6 0 2 17 13 9 69 51 34 394
"' .I. Facility Type Resi dents Percent of Respondents SheHered Wott
TABL E B-3 Facility Type by Average nod Run ge of P aratrans it Use (Question 1-l bv Question 11-lb ) Facility Type M inimum Maximum Average Sheltered Workshop 0% 95% 38% Nursing Home/Retire 0% 100% 36% Adult Day Care 0% 100% 36% Group Home 0% 100% 30% H ealth Cl inic 0% 56% 18% Co ng regate D i ni n g 0% 70% 17% GeneraiNA Hosp i tal 0% 70% 1 6% Mental Health Center 0% 43% 14% Ch i l d Care Cente r 0% 67% 9% Vocati o nal Cente r 0% 40% 8% Substance Abuse 0% 20 % 5% Hom e l ess S helter 0% 20% 3% Other 0% 76% 8% B-5
ID 0, Facility Type Number of Respondents Sheltered Workshop Nursing Home/Retire AduH Day Care Group Home Health Clin i c Congregate Dining GeneraWA Hospital Mental Heallh Center Child Care Center Vocational Center Substance Abuse Homeless Sheller Othe r lrotal I 0% 1 12 5 8 1 5 1 3 15 12 6 7 27 103 TABLE B-4 Facility Type by Percent Use of Paratransil Service (Question 1 1 by Question 11-lb) 0+% to 20+% to 40+% to 60+ 'lo to 80+ 'lo to 20% 40 ;. 60% 80% 100% 4 1 2 0 3 12 11 10 8 6 8 4 5 4 3 3 2 1 4 2 16 4 4 0 0 6 1 1 2 0 9 1 1 1 0 5 3 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 16 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 2 2 0 1 14 38 28 22 14 Total Unknown 11 3 59 18 29 4 20 3 25 5 15 4 13 7 12 3 20 2 33 6 11 5 13 4 58 11 319 75
"' .:... F acility Type Percen t o f Res p onden t s Sheltered Workshop N ursing Home/Ret ire Adult Day Care Gro u p Home Hea lth C l i ni c Congrega t e D i ning Ge n era I N A Hospital Mental Heallh Cen ter Chil d Care Cent e r Vocat i onal Center S u bstance Ab u se Home l ess S h etter Olher T o ta l I 0% 9% 20% 17% 40% 4% 33% 8% 25% 7 5% 36% 55% 54% 47% 32% 0+% to 20% 36% 20% 28% 15% 64% 40% 69% 42% 5% 48% 45% 46% 40% 36% T A BLE B-4 (continued ) 20+% to 40 + % to 40% 60% 9% 18% 19% 17% 14% 17% 10% 5% 1 6% 16% 7% 7% 8% 8% 25% 8% 10% 5% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 3% 12% 9% 60+% to 80+% to Tota l Ave r age 80% 100% 0 % 27% 1 00% 38% 14% 10% 1 00% 36% 1 4% 10% 100% 36% 2 0 % 10% 100% 30% 0% 0% 100 % 18% .. 13% 0% 100% 17% 8% 0% 100% 1 6% 0% 0% 1 00% 14% .5% 0% 100% 9% 0% 0% 100% 8% 0% 0% 100% 5% 0% 0% 100% 3% 3% 0% 100% 8% I 7 % 4 % 1 00% 20% I ----
Facility Type 0% Number o f Respondents She l tered Workshop 4 Nursing Home/Retire 37 Adult Day Care 21 G r oup Home 6 Hea lth Cli nic 8 :e Cong regate Di ning 6 GeneraVV A Hospita l 6 Mental H ealth Ce n ter 8 Ch i ld Care Center 11 Vocational Center 4 Substance Abuse 6 Home less She l ter 1 Olher 25 Total 143 -TABLE B-S Fac ilit y T y pe b y Percent Use of Fixed-Rout e Bu s Sen ice ( Question 1-1 by Question 11-h) 0+ %to 20+% to 40+% to 60+ '.1. to 80+% t o 20% 40 'lo 60% 80% 100% 5 1 1 0 0 9 9 3 1 0 3 4 1 0 0 8 2 1 1 2 8 3 4 1 1 5 2 2 o 0 6 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 1 1 17 2 6 2 2 3 0 0 0 2 4 0 4 2 2 22 5 3 1 2 99 30 25 10 12 ----------------Total Unknown 11 3 59 18 29 4 20 3 2 5 5 15 4 1 3 7 12 3 20 2 33 6 11 5 13 4 58 11 319 75
"' "' Facility Type Percent of Respondents Shel t ered Workshop Nu r sing Hom e/Re tir e Adult Da y Care Group Home H ealth Cl i n i c Con g r egate Di ni ng GeneraiNA Hospital Mental Hea lt h Cente r Child Care Cen ter Voca ti onal Cente r Substance Abuse Home les s She lt e r Other Total , 0% 36% 63% 72% 30 % 32% 40% 46% 67% 55% 12% 55% 6% 43% 45% I 0+ %to 20% 4 5% 15% 10% 40% 32% 33% 46% 25% 30% 52% 27% 31% 38% 31% I TABLE B-5 (continued) 20+% to 40+% to 40% 60% 9% 9% 15% 5% 14 % 3% 10 % 5% 1 2% 16% 13% 13% 8% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 6% 16% 0% 0% 0% 31% 9% 5% 9% I 8% 60+% to 80+% to 80% 100% Total Avera g e i 0% 0% 100% 10% 2% 0% 100% 10% 0% 0% 100% 7% 5% 10% 100% 20% 4% 4% 1 00% 21% 0% 0% 100% 12 % 0% 0% 100% 4% 6% 0% 100% 7 % 5% 5 % 100% 13%. 6% 6% 100% 26% 0% 16% 100% 20% 1 5% 1 5% 100% 45% 2% 3% 100 % 12 % I 3% I 4% I 100% 15%
"" 0 Facility Type Number o f Responde nts Shattered Worl
!p Facility Type Percent of Respondents S h e l t e r ed Wor kshop Nursing Home/Re tire Adult Day Ca re Group Home Health C l inic Congreg ate Dinilg G eneraWA Hospaat Me ntal Health Cente r Child Care Center Voca tiona l Center S ubstance Abu se Home less Shelter Other I Total I Land Facility Costs Costs 2 1% 6 4 % 51% 51% 2 7 % 45 % 61% 43 % 33% 50% 32% 68% 4 5% 20% 27% 80% 41% 41% 13% 4 9% 56% 63% 53% 71% 35% 52% 38 % 52% TABLE B-6 (continued) Access To Pub. Transp. 50% 21% 2 1 % 65% 33% 58% 15% 40% 18% 62% 44% 65 % 4 5% 39 % Access Prox. of Government I To Hwys Other Other Funding & R oads Soc. Ser. I I 36% 29% 21% 36% 34% 40% 16% 19% 33% 30% 30% 36% 48% 52% 30% 1 7% 40% 30% 30% 37% 37% 42% 42% 26% 50% 10% 20% 50% 67% 40% 13% 13% 27% 18% 36% 41% 5 4 % 54% 36% 18% 31% 25% 1 3% 13% 41% 71% 24% 0% 39% 36% 20% 32% 4 0 % 38 % 25% 26 %
"' "' Organization Type Number of Respondents Private lor-Profit Private Non-Profit Public Unknown Total Percent of Respondents Private lor-Profit Privale Non Profil Public Unknown Total Land Costs 30 89 27 4 150 20% 15% 11% 20% 15'4 TABLE B-7 Location Decision Factors by Organization Type (Question III-I by Question 1-2) Facility Access Access Prox. of Government To Pub. To Hwys Other Costs Transp. & Roads Soc. Ser. Funding 38 13 27 29 5 126 10 2 88 86 38 35 34 40 31 51 4 3 3 2 3 203 152 158 148 97 25% 9% 18% 19% 3% 21% 17% 15% 14% 6% 14% 14% 16% 13% 21% 20% 1 5% 15% 10% 15% 20% 15% 16% 15% 10% Other Total II 10 152 68 597 25 243 1 20 104 1 ,012 7% 100% 11% 100% 10% 100% 5% 100% 10'/o 100%
Ill "' Client Type Number of Respondents E l der l y Menta ll y Disabled Physically D isa b led Deve l opmentally D i s low-Income Other Total Percent of Respondents Elderty Mentally Disab led Physically D i sabled Developmentally Dis low-Income Other ITotal I Land Costs 53 16 6 9 32 34 150 19% 15% 14% 17% 1 3% 13% 15% TABLE 8-8 Location Decision Factors b y Clie n t Type (Question 111-1 by Q u est i on 1-3) Facility Access Access Prox. of To Pub. To Hwys Other Costs Transp. & Roads Soc. Ser 59 27 42 39 25 18 16 1 7 5 4 9 4 1 2 8 7 5 50 47 38 40 52 48 46 43 203 152 158 148 21% 10% 15% 1 4% 23% 17% 15% 16% 12% 10% 21% 1 0% 22% 15% 13% 9% 20% 18% 15% 16% 19% 18% 17% 16% 20Yo 1 5% 16% 15% Government Othe r Total Funding 28 34 282 1 0 6 108 5 9 42 5 8 54 26 22 255 23 25 27 1 97 104 1,012 10% 12% 100% 9% 6% 100% 12% 21% 100% 9% 1 5% 100% 10% 9% 100% 8% 9% 1 00% I 10% 10% I 100% li
Client Type Elderly Mentally Disabled Physically Disabled Developmentally Dis Low-Income Other Total TABLE B-9 Average Mode Split by Client Type (Q u est ion 11-1 by Question 1-3) Paratransit Bus Auto Auto Passenger Driver 29% 9% 21% 19% 26% 13% 26% 20% 24% 16% 34% 20% 39% 6% 27% 5% 7% 24% 29% 29% 12% 15% 28% 29% 20% 15% 26% 23% B-14 Other G 22% 100% 15% 100% 6% 100% 23% 100% 10% 100% 15% 100% 16% 100%
Clien t Typ e Resident s Number of Respo n den t s E l derly 67 Menta l ly D i sabled 7 Physically Disab l ed 2 Deve l opmentally D is. 7 Low-Income 1 2 Othe r 2 4 "' Tota l 119 Percent of Respondents E lderl y 55% Mentally Disab l ed 21% Phys i cally D i sabled 9% Developmentally Dis 33% Low-Income 1 3% O ther 24% jTot a l I 30% TABLE B-10 F r e q uency o f C l ient Visi t s by Client Type (Quest ion 1-4 by Ques t ion 1-3) 2 Visits 5-7 Days 2-4 Days 1 Day 2-3 Da y s 1 Day per Day per Week per Week pe r Week per Mont h pe r Month o r Less 0 16 24 2 3 7 0 1 1 5 5 2 0 3 5 0 2 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 26 1 2 6 1 1 22 0 1 5 1 5 8 7 17 0 83 61 21 25 5 1 0% 13% 20% 2% 2% 6% 0% 32% 1 5% 15% 6% 3% 0% 14% 23% 0% 9% 1 4 % 0% 57% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 28% 1 3% 6% 12% 23% 0% 1 5% 15% 8% 7% 17% 0% 2 1% 15% 5% 6% 13% -------Unknown Total 2 121 3 34 7 22 1 2 1 5 94 16 102 3 4 394 2% 100% 9% 10 0 % 32% 1 0 0 % 5% 100% 5% 100% 1 6% 100% 9% 1 00% '
Land Frequency of Visits Coste Number of Respondents Residents 59 2 per Day 0 'P -... f>-7 DayS/Week 29 2-4 Days/Week 17 1 Day/Week 6 2-3 Days/Month 7 1 DayiMonth or Less 17 Unknown 15 Tota l 150 ----TABLE 8-11 Location Decision Fa ctors by Frequency of C li ent Visits (Question III I by Question 1 -4) Facility Access Access Prox. of Government To Pub. To Hwy s Other Costs Transp. & Roads Soc. Ser. Funding 60 41 38 53 21 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 35 34 2 4 24 29 18 23 21 18 15 10 12 9 2 14 14 10 13 9 25 19 27 16 16 15 15 14 12 7 203 1 52 158 148 97 Other Total 19 291 0 0 30 221 21 147 3 57 5 72 17 137 9 87 104 1,012
'P -... Frequency of VIsits Percent of Respon dents Residents 2 per Day 5-7 Days/Week 2-4 Days/Week 1 Day/Wee k 2 Days/Month 1 D ay/ M o nt h o r l e ss U n kn o w n jTotal -------I Land Facility Cos ta Costs 20% 2 1 % n/a nla 13% 20% 12% 20% 11% 26% 10% 19% 12% 18% 17% 17% 1 5 % 20% T A BLE B ll (continued) Access Access To Pub T o Hwys Transp & Road s 14 % 13% nla "nla 16% 15% 12% 16% 18% 21% 1 9 % 14% 14 % 20% 17 % 16% 1 5% 16% Pro x of Other Soc. Ser. 18% nla 1 1 % 14 % 16% 18% 12% 1 4% 15% G overnment Oth e r T o t a l Funding 7% 7% 100% n/a nla 100 % 11% 1 4 % 1 00% 12% 1 4 % 100% 4% 5% 100% 13% 7% 100% 12% 12% 100% 8% 1 0% 100% 1 0% 10% 100 %
"' "" Are Residential Services Availabl e? N umber o f Respondents Yes No Unknow n Total Perc ent of Respondents Yes No Unknown Total TABLE B -12 Location De cis ion Factors by Availabilit y of R es idential Services (Q u es tion 1111 b y Questio n 1) Land Facility Access Access Prox of Government T o Pub. To Hwy s Other Costs Costs Transp & Roado Soc. Ser Funding 7 4 79 5 8 52 67 29 63 111 82 97 7 0 61 13 t3 12 9 1 1 7 150 203 152 158 148 97 19% 20% 15% 13% 17% 8% 11% 20% 15% 17% 13% 11% 19% 19% 18% 13% 16% 1 0% 15% 20 % 15% 16% 15% 10% .. -------------Other Total 27 386 75 559 2 67 104 1,012 7% 100% 13% 100% 3% 100% 10% 100% ---------
co "' Priority o f Access to Public Transportation Number of Res pondents Low Medi u m High Unk n own Total Percent of Respondents Low Med i um High Unknow n Total TABLE B-13 Ll)catio n Decisil)n Factl) r S by Priority o f Acc e ss t o Public Transport a t ion (Question III I by Questil)n III-2) La nd Facility Access Access P rox. of Governmen t Costs Costs To Pub. To Hwys O ther Funding Transp. & Roads Soc. Ser. 67 78 12 50 38 33 29 47 46 48 4 1 22 4 1 64 84 45 57 29 13 1 4 1 0 15 12 13 150 203 152 1511 148 97 21% 24% 4% 16% 1 2% 10% 11% 19% 18% 19% 16% 9% 12% 19% 25% 1 3% 1 7% 9% 13% 14% 10% 15% 1 2% 1 3% 15% 20% 15% 16% 15% 1 0% Other Total : 4 4 322 21 254 16 336 23 100 104 1,012 14% 100% 8% 1 00% 5% 100% 23% 100% 10% L1oo% J
T ABLE B -14 P ri o rit y o f Acc e s s to P ublic by Faci lity Type ( Ques t i on Ill-2 b y Q uest io n 1-1) F acility Type II Low I Me d ium I High Total Number of Respond e nts H ome l ess S h e lter 3 4 9 1 6 Voca tiona l Cen ter 7 14 13 3 4 Shelt e red W orkshop 3 5 4 12 Substance Abuse 4 3 6 13 Co n gregat e Dinin g 4 3 6 13 Grou p Ho mes 9 5 9 2 3 A d u l t Day Care 12 8 9 29 Hea l t h Clin i c 11 9 5 2 5 Nu r s i ng Hom es/Re t i re 33 1 4 14 61 M enta l Hea l th Center 8 3 3 14 Child Care Cente r 13 2 4 19 Genera IN A Hoopital 10 2 1 13 Other 26 16 16 5 8 Total 1 4 3 88 99 330 P e r c e n t of Resp o ndent s Home l es s She lte r 1 9 % 2 5% 56% 1 00% V oca t iona l C en ter 2 1 % 41% 38% 1 00% She lt e red Works hop 25% 42% 33% 100% Substan ce Abuse 31% 23% 46% 100% Congregat e D i ning 31% 23% 46% 100% Group Homes 39% 22% 39% 100% Ad ult Day Car e 41% 28 % 3 1 % 100% Health C l i nic 44% 36% 20% 100% N urs i ng Homes/Retire 5 4 % 2 3% 23% 100% Men ta l H e a lt h Cent e r 57% 21% 21% 10 0 % C h i ld Care C enter 68% 11% 2 1 % 100% Gen era W A Hos pital 77% 15% 8% 100% Other 45% 28% 28% 100% T o tal 43 % 27 % 30 % 100 % B -20 Unkn o wn 1 5 2 3 6 0 4 5 16 1 3 7 11 64 nla n /a n/ a nla n/a nla n/a n/a nla nla nla nla nla n/a
TAB LE B-15 Priori t y o f Access t o Public Transportation by Organization Type (Question III-2 by Question 1 -2) Organization Type Low Medium High Total Number of Respondents Private for-Profit 29 14 8 51 Private Non -Profit 77 51 71 199 Pub l ic 34 21 19 74 Unknown 3 2 1 6 T otal 1 4 3 88 99 330 Pencent of Respondents Private for-P rofit 57% 27% 16% 100% Private N on-Profit 39% 26% 36% 100% Public 46% 28% 26% 100% Unknown 50% 33% 17% 100% Total 43% 30% 100% B-21 Unkno w n 11 34 18 1 64 n/a n/a nta n/a n/a
T A BL E B 1 6 Priority o f Access t o P ub l i c T r an s p o rtatio n by C lient Type ( Questio n 111-2 b y Q u esti o n 1 -3) Clie n t Type Low Medium Hig h Total Numbe r of Respo n den ts El derl y 5 5 23 2 1 99 M entally D isabled 12 4 1 4 30 Physically D isa bled 6 8 3 17 Dev el o pme n tally D i s 9 s 5 1 9 Low -I ncom e 25 30 27 82 Othe r 36 18 2 9 83 Total 143 88 99 330 Percent o f R es pondent s Ekler1y 56% 23% 21% 100% M entally D isab led 40% 13% 47% 100% P hysica l ly Disable d 35% 47 % 1 8% 100 % Dev el opm entall y D i s 4 7% 26% 26 % 1 00% L ow-I n com e 3 0 % 37 % 33 % 1 0 0 % Other 4 3% 22% 35% 1 00% Tota l 43 % 27 % 30% 100 % B-22 U nknown 22 4 5 2 1 2 1 9 6 4 nla nla nla n/a n/a n / a nla
TABLE B-17 Priority of Access to Public Transportation by Frequency o f Client Visits (Question lll-2 by Ques t ion 1 -4) F r equency of L o w Medium High Total Unknown Client Visits Number of Respondents Residents 46 22 33 101 18 2 per Day 0 0 0 0 0 5-7 Days/Week 29 18 27 74 9 2-4 Days/Week 26 14 10 so 11 1 Day/Week 10 3 6 19 2 2 3 Days/ Month 7 10 4 21 4 1 Day/Month or Less 17 14 9 40 11 Unknown 8 7 10 25 9 Total 1.(3 88 99 330 1>4 Percent of Respondents Residents 46% 22% 33% 100% nla 2 per Day n/a nla n/a n/a nla 5-7 Days/We ek 39% 24% 36% 100% nla 2-4 Days/Week 52% 28% 20% 100% nla 1 DayNJeek 53% 16% 32% 100% n/a 2-3 Days/Month 33% 48% 19% 100% n/a 1 Day/Month or Less 43% 35% 23% 100% n/a Unknown 32% 28o/o 40% 100% n/a Total 43% 27% 30% 100% n/a B-23
TAB L E B-18 Priority of Access to Public Transporta tio n by Availability of R esidential Services (Q u estion III-2 by Que s tion 1 -5) A re R esi d entia l Lo w M ed ium High Total Un k no w n Serv i ce s A v ailab l e? N umber o f Respondents Yes 52 30 44 126 21 No 85 56 46 187 39 Unknown 6 2 9 17 4 Total 143 88 99 330 84 Perce n t o f Respond en t s Yes 41% 24% 35% 100% n la No 4 5% 30% 25% 100% nla Unknown 35% 12% 53% 100% nla Total 43 % 27 % 30'4 100% nla B -24
TABLE B-19 P rio r ity of Ac ,ces.s t o P u bl ic Trans p ortation b y Availa bility of Fixed-Route Bus S ervic e ( Questi o n 111-2 by Table I ) Is Fixed-Route Bus Service Available Low Medium High Total Unknown i n the County? Number or Respondents Yes 105 57 67 229 45 N o 34 30 30 94 1 9 Unknow n 4 1 2 7 0 Total 143 88 99 330 64 Percent or Respondents Yes 46% 25% 29% 100% n/a No 36% 32% 32% 100% n/a Unknown 57% 14% 29% 100% n/a Total 43% 27'/o 30% 100% n/a B-25
Facility Type Number of Respondents Sheltere d Workshop Nursing Home/Retire Adult Day Care Group Home Health Clinic Cong regate D i ni ng Ge nera i N A M e ntal Health Center Child Care Center Vocational Center Substance Abuse Homeless Shelter OCher Total Percent of Respondents S heltered Workshop N ursing Home/Retire Adult Day Care Group Home Health Clinic Congregat e Dining GeneraWA Hospital M e ntal Hea lth Center C h i l d Care Center Vocation al Center Substance Abuse Homeless Shelter Other Total TABLE B-20 F acility Type by Organi z ati o n T yp e ( Question 1 b y Ques tion 1 -2) Private Private Public f o r-Profit Non-Profit 0 12 2 50 17 7 0 21 11 2 2 1 0 2 16 12 0 11 7 2 9 9 1 12 2 2 1 6 4 0 15 23 0 15 1 0 17 0 3 51 14 62 233 92 0% 86% 14% 65% 22 % 9% 0% 64% 33% 9% 91% 0% 7% 53% 40% 0% 58% 37% 10% 45 % 45% 7% 80% 13% 9% 73% 18% 0% 38% 59% 0% 94% 6% 0% 100% 0% 4% 74% 20% 16% 59 % 2 3% B -26 Unknown Total 0 14 3 77 1 33 0 23 0 30 1 19 0 20 0 1 5 0 22 1 39 0 16 0 17 1 69 7 394 0% 100% 4 % 100% 3% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 5% 100% 0% 100% 0% 1 00% 0% 100% 3% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 1% 100% 2 % 100 %
TABLE B-21 Facility Type by Availability of Residential Servi ces (Question 1-1 by Question 1 5) Residential Residential Facility Type Services Services Unknown Available Not Available Number of Respondents Sheltered Workshop 5 8 1 Nursi ng Home/Ret ire 70 2 5 Adu l t Day Care 3 29 1 Group Home 20 0 3 Healt h Cli nic 0 30 0 Congregate D i ning 5 1 3 1 G e n era I N A Hospijal 1 1 8 1 Menta l Heal t h Center 2 1 2 1 Ch ild Care Center 4 18 0 Vocationa l Center 0 37 2 Substa nce Abuse 10 4 2 Homel ess Shelter 1 3 0 4 Other 14 55 0 Total 147 226 2 1 Percent of R espond ents S h elte r ed Works h op 36% 57% 7% Nursing Home/Reti r e 9 1 % 3% 6% Adult Day Care 9% 88% 3% Group Home 87% 0 % 13% Health Clinic 0% 100% 0% Cong reg a t e D in i n g 26% 68% 5% Gene rai/VA Hosp ital 5% 90% 5% Mental Health Center 1 3% 80% 7% Child Care Center 1 8% 82% 0% Voca tio na l Center 0% 95% 5% Substance Ab use 63% 25% 13% Ho meless S h elte r 76% 0% 24% O t h er 20% 80% 0% Total 37% 57% 5% B-27 Total 14 77 33 23 30 19 20 15 22 39 16 1 7 69 394 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100 % 100% 100% 100% I 1 00% I
Facility T ype E l derly Number of Respondents SheHeted Wo
APPENDIX C Open-Ended Responses to Question 111 How much of a priority was the availability of paratransi t and/or regular bus service during the decision to locate your facility? C-1
() APPENDIX C Anecdotal Responses to Sect ion Ill Q ue stion 2 Of the Mail-Back Su111ey High Medium Low Sheltered Workshops Property was donated to the fac il ity. Adult Day Care Centers We depend on our clients being abl e to Thi s program includes transportation None virtually no bus se111ice was get to the on their own power provided by Palm Beach County and the ava i lable at that t i me routes are adjusted for part i c i pant pick up Bei ng c l ose to bus routes is necessary Land was donated, so center was b u ilt for licensing there At start of facility, most clients were brought by pa r ent. We provide transportation in our vans. Our c l ients are frail or handicapped and would not be able to use a regular bus service. Having a center was the i mportant factor no matter where it was located. Our location was dictated to us but is centrally l ocated and accessible paratransil se111ice wou l d a llow us to seNe more clients i n need
0 w High Group Homes Bec a u se can not a ff ord to p r ovide transport atio n whe n not b e i ng rei mbursed for it When we construcled faci lities about 30 years ago, public transpote. Paralransit responds 10 needs as they arise.
High Medium Low Retlremen UNursing H omes (continued) Most elde rl y residents residing the Most of my res i dents are too old to travel complex do not have a care Therefo re, alone or abl e to get on a bus they re ly on the t.ansit system We felt that 80% of our people woul d Land was ava i lab le from Parish. need pub li c IJ'ansportat i on Own transporlation p rogram Parat.ansit must comply by county ordi n ance. We provid e t ransportation for our res ident s who do not have their own veh i cles. ParaiJ'an s ft in this county does not provide for the needs of fra i l e l derly too long a waft Faci lity provides transportat ion (b u s and l imo ) due to age of clients Cong regate Dining Facilities With all fac i l iti es n ot sit ua ted in a se nior Located In the city for easy access Center is primarily for the use of ac tiv e low income housing fa ci lity bus use rs D ia l-a-Ride i s avail ab l e (city t ra nsportation is a high prior"y since contract) for t hose who need/des i re il many of our sen ior cannot drive safely and could not attend w ithout bus IJ'ansportation
Hig h Medium low Congregate Dining Facii!Ues (contin ued) Transportation r outes wer e added l a t e r to s erv e l oca tion. Vocational Rehabilitation Center A n abso l ute requiremen t was t hat our Part of gov ernm ent dec i sion I n 1 940 I do not bel i eve t he r e was b u s off i ce s be on t h e busl ine. s ervice So that custome r s co u l d have better Th i s was med i u m p ri or i t y because the Bus serv ice is l i mi ted t h roughout the access b u s sys t em i s so poo r t hat many are county in regar ds to bo t h ro u tes ava i l able unab l e to ride. and hours of service T hey do a good job but peop l e don't want to go mo r e t han a f e w blocks f rom home for serv ice s s: an d/ o r wor k . I was n ot per sonalty i n on the decision for Proximi t y to HRS serv i ces were hig h es t l oca t ion of the facility However, I think a relatively hig h prior ity was p l aced on availab l e pub lic t r anspo rt ation due t o t he fact t hat many of o u r c u stomers r e l y o n such transportat i on Office i s p r esently on a b u s li ne which 20 year f aci li ty a t the time pa r atransit was the decid ing factor i n renting the was n't a conside r ation space. Substance Abuse Centers Cl ie nts a r e low i n come without p rivate Majority peop l e that l i ve in or a r ound No adequa te publ i c t ransporta t i on i n our t ranspo rt at i on fac il ity wal k here. Very few peop l e use county cars t o come u n l ess for special services ---
High M edium L o w Child Care Centers The majority of the clients we serve do Head Start provides fund ing for buses not have the i r own transportation and related costs We have a public bus stop outside our Churc h was al ready there front door Howeve r, more c l ients need ' paratransit. Since this was an education a l facility for teaming hand icapped children It was presumes thai parents would provide this service. T hi s church was bu i lt in 197 4 with the knowledge was i n an area without bus service It was not a real considetation The p r ogram serves children of worl
0 .:., High M e n ta l Hea l th Cen ters We target t h e "worl
High Medium Low Public Health Centers (contlnuedl We had no options is located in service area c lo se to population who use our facility more than others. We are on a b us line Other Faciliti es We want high access i bility by all forms of Public transportation seems fair l y nonWe are part of a la rge hospita l system transportation. existent is this county Therefore, we were located physically close to the We need to be access ible by public bus Center i s 18+ years old Transportation would not locate more than 3 blocks from was not a consideration bus route. The vast majority of our clients depend OUr clients currently rely on on public transportation at one po i nt or transportatioo provide d by their foster another in their visits to our offiCe parents as that has been the safest and The greater variety of transportation most reliable to date systems ava ilable, the better Mos t of our client population drive or have access to transportation Facility is located in public school so that transport ation would be minimal. We have no realistic hope that the county will ever provide transportation here. Other factors outweigh th i s. -------------
APPENDIX 0 Open-Ended Responses to Question 111-3 What problems regarding client transportation have you experienced in your loeation? Would the availability of transportation for your clients be better if your facility w.ro located at anothor site? If so, why is the facility not located in an area more suited to your transportation nef!!ds? D-1
APPENDIX D Anecdotal Responses to Section Ill Question 3 Of the Mall-Back Survey Sheltered Wor1
We are located o n maj or b u s r o u tes G roup Homes The undependabil i ty of paratra n s i t t r ansportation by the l ocal coordinato r is a problem. Transportat io n would not be any bette r at another loca tion because our facility i s located 1 mi l e from downtown. Buses don t run often enough o r l a t e enough i n evening and weekends Another locatio n wou l d be better for transportatio n but the need for safety was first priority The mai n problem is the lengt h of t ime i t takes for a c lient to get picked-up. Our facil it y is located i n an excellent t r a n sportation area No real problems regarding clien t transportatio n RetiremenVNursing Hom e Transportation wou l d be bette r if there was more of it, and if share-a van c h anged its schedule to accommodate t h e needs of e l derly c l i ents Very difficult to access publ i c transportation for recrea t ional needs Paratransit transportat i on comes to early or on days no one goes to t he doc t or Better neig h borhood Insuffic ient amount of assisted transportat i on. Ou r l ocation is basically excellent for our clients. Location has no bea ri ng on the prob l em Lack of transportatio n for incapac i tated seniors i s the prob l em No Our facil ity is l ocated one block f r om the b u s l ine. Need more transportat i on Handicap tra n s p ort (whee l chai r van) t hat is a socia l service is so u nreliab l e that it should be cons i dered a disserv i ce Not able to t ransport groups safely and in secure vehicle Drivers extort ing money from res i dents No shows. Not allowing escorts for indigent residents. Our t ransportation needs are sa t isfacto ri ly be i ng mel at t his facil i ty is easi l y ava i lab l e 0 3
Wheelchair lransport i s sometimes not readily availab le. Parat ransit does not provide for the needs of frai l elderly. Too l ong a wait. The seniors don't li ke waiti n g so l ong for some fonns of transportation. Cannot change the site, wou l dn't make a difference. Residents going from he re to medical facilities often have to for hours for return transportation to their apartments. Not a problem because we provide our own transportation Problems socia l serv i ce system. Transportation for low income on short notice. There has been too man y delays i n getting adequate transportation Perfect site. We need a handicap bus serv ice. Our clients who are handicapped are not able to easily use our bus Congregate D ining Facil ity Have n o prob lems. The c l ients who eat here could use some transportation to get here especially those ha n dicapped. Transportation costs are much too high. Staffing (and funding) remains a big problem. Another location would not be better. because area transportatio n is very ba d. A few of our s i tes would do better in other areas. but t he re are no "low cost" facilities availab le, or if there are there is not a feas i ble plan for th e buses to go in and out safely. Vocational Rehabilitat i on Center Our prob lems rega rdi ng cl i ent tra n sportation has to do with the avai la b il ity of public transportation No problems. Have easy access. D-4
Bus does not run often e n ough. Cha n ged bus r oute after we mov ed. Some prob l em s ex i s t wilh the changes of t he special t ranspo rta tio n service designed to assist those wit h d i sabilities as part of t h e Da d e C ounty Transportation Service. Bus t ransport at t h i s loca t ion is good. Poor overall bus system co u nty wide. Our locatio n is very appropriate Program has expa n ded its serv i ces to r es i de nt s of ot h er et h nic groups an d their pub li c transportat i on to this office i s diffic u lt. Spec i al transporta t ion servi ces a r e freq u ently l ate D ri vers do no t exit th eir veh i cles to call for th e c li ent who may b e v i sually i m pai r ed Paratrans it sys tem n o t reli able No. there would be not better locat i on. Our bui lding i s i n a great loc ation. The prob lem is gett i n g our cl i ents picked u p from r emote loca t i ons Our locati on has n o t bee n a prob l em. We a re on a bus l i ne How eve r c l ie nts l i v i ng i n areas where t here i s no transportation/b u s r o ut e have difficu lty. We are cent r ally loca ted as far as p ub lic t ra nspo rtation. It's just t hat pub lic tra nsportation in our ci t y i s very poo r .( Miami) No proble m s that's w h y w e are loc ated h ere. Bus stop r equi r es disable d and ot h ers t o walk thro u gh par k i n g lots w i th drug activity New b u s rout es require mor e trans f ers f r om South St. Pete rs burg to our services a nd t raining l ocatio n s. Taxis a r e no t a l ways time l y Ot h er agency vans no t always timely. N o access and lim ited r o ute s Wa it i n g l ists. Poor overall b u s system county-w i de We are on Best Bus Li n e b ut client may hav e to take severa l buses to get somewhere Lackin g b u ses eac h h our often they must lo n g t ime. Some people ha ve no access to bus system Th e major problem we encounter is in suffic i ent tran s port atio n fo r the severely d isabled consumer. Not a problem for b us t ransp ortation if the st udent l i ves wit h in a 2 3 mile rad iu s. Stud ents li ving 15+ m i l es comp l ain o f a 1 1/ 2 to 2 h our jou r n ey D-5
1 No parking avai lable. 2. Yes 3. Because we get free rent from the county 2. Yes 3. fac i lity renta l costs No prob lems except f r equency of serv ice It would be better to be centrally loca ted, such as Pat rick Air Force Base but space was not available and I may not pay rent. Substance Abuse Centers Th e outpatient p rogram is approx i mate ly 1 1/2 m i les from the resi den ti a l p rogram. The area is suitable but due to a l arge adolescent popula t i on. transportation is a problem. Lac k of pub lic tra n sportation Client popu la t io n has shifted over past 15 years. Most clients now mid-county. Currently looking at sites in mid-co u nty. We do not experience many prob l ems with regard to transportation Length of lime to reach some services. Buses do not go into some low i ncome neighborhoods. Not enough service. Limited hours. Limited service area Given the current s i tuation of no adequate public transportation in t h e county no other site is better. We were donated a p rope r ty that we were i n much n eed of. therefore transportation was less of a factor in the d ec i sion to accept. Lac k of pub lic tra n sportation for genera l u se Currently "publ i c transportation" is door to door service. Chi l d Care Centers Infrequen t bus service Loca t i on of faci lity has no bearing. The problems exist w i th lo n g bus rides to a ll corners of Florida A centralized loca t io n would shorten the rides, however, the sc hoo l was foun ded before children were bussed home weekly. We are trying to relocate bu t are facing zoning issues We can t fin d anywhere that's appropriate at th i s t ime. We need he lp. We are i n the p rocess of expanding to serve more students at a n other site more centrally located We are also writing gran t s to obtai n our own school b us so we can transport students and parents 0-6
At one time h ad a mini bus st op 112 b l ock away -no longe r avai l ab le. We really need one more van for our ow n use, but our site is very accessible to shopping and service for our clients. families don't nave the money to pay for public transportation (bus/Metro Rail) to gel here. The facility is in perfect spot to use p u b lic t ranspo rta tio n or taxi or personal. Biggest problem is i n t h e paratransit system. Our clients/parents are always waiting for pick-up (up to 2 to 3 hours) and somet i mes forgotten. 3 to 4 calls need to be made to assure pic k u p GeneraiNeteran's Administrat i on Hosoitals No prob l ems since t he bus stop has been located i n front of t he h ospital. No better site available. The pub l ic roadway s ystem is a problem for access to campus No better site avai lable. We are in a remote area w i th only m i n i mal p ub lic transportatio n Much of the pop u l ation is without use of private automobiles. Due to the aging ve t eran population t h i s has now become a major problem. They wa n t a low cost or free system that is quite diHicu lt for the county to ac com p lish due to budgetary constraints Pasco county, at present. only has limited access t o a system named "STAR Transportation" Maj or problem i n he l pi n g pat i ents to o btai n transport for follow -up appointments to doctors offices or government offices. The community transport system is ext r emety b u sy i f yo u miss you wait from hours for t h eir ret urn. Hosp i ta l serves Pasco a nd P i n ellas cou n t ies. No public transportation i n Pasco except taxis and these pa t ie nts h ave problems accessin g t he h ospitaL Mental Health Centers T her e ,s no reliab l e p ubl'lc tra n s po rtat ion system i n the area t ha t covers the county and is convenient for custqmers We are loca ted here because we are next to a regional hosp i t al. Our t ransportat i on i s very poor due to t he l ength of Brevard County and the lack of funds. No matter where we \ocate our county \s farge wi\h primary mode of transporta"on pr\vate\y--owned vehicles Public t ransporta tio n is poor and safety is a major issue 0-7
The few clients who c ome by bus get h ere with relative ease. T r ansportation difficulty seems to be with uncertainty of time bus will arrive (somet i mes earl y other times late ) Ava i lability is not a prob l em It would help to have transportat i on for adolesce n ts. No bus service has been establ i shed at this t ime. Clie nts have not complained yet about transportat i on. Poor, limited local transport. Home l ess Shelters Safety issues and the need f o r im m ed i ate departu r e Cl i ents not h av i ng tile mon ey for bus fare. Intervals of b u s service a re t oo l ong. The current s i te is app r opriate for transportation. We need transportation f o r our men w h o are on crutches or i n wheelchairs. There i s no o n e to get them to doctors. Special i zed transportat i on won t come a n ymore. Men are on med i caid and they don t accep t it. Clients own jun k cars t ha t break down fr e q uently O u r locat i on is d i rectly on the bus line and with in walking distance t o shopp i ng and pu b lic schools Th e faci l ity i s ideally located for our transportation needs O u r fac i l ity is loca te d ri ght on the bus l i ne. The bus stop is right outside our door. Our problem i s that the bus on l y stops once pe r hour More frequent serv i ce would help. Pub li c transportatio n is so u navai l able h ere tha t the locatio n wou l dn't have mattered It wou l d still h ave been unavailabl e No p roblems. Good bus serv i ce When t he f aci lity was built we looked for the nearest bus stop around for all of our client Many of our client h ave b een m u gge d a t t h i s location. We a r e l ocated too near the bad part of town Our girls are s i ngle mothers w i th c h il d ren. Man y h ave been abused an d d o not need to be tllreatened by t h eir env i ronment outs i de o f the ho me. lack of money is t h e m a j or p r oblem i nvolv i ng transportat i on Women's Healt h Cente rs We are nea r tile publ i c t ransportation that is ava i lab le. 0 8
We moved tas t wee k to new faci l ity to i mprove our t r ansportation avai l abi l ity. The facility i s now l ocated on a b us tine. Transportation costs i s a n i ss u e We are not-for-profit sup p orted b y donatio n s H i g h t raffic area; safety; co n ven i ence ; public t ransportatio n Public Hea l t h Centers Pasco county patie nts have diffic uHy gett in g t o St Petersburg. The cente r is well l ocated i n regards to cl i ent population. And p u b l i c transportation prob lems have incl u ded poor service on part o f provi d ers a n d i nconve n ience to c lients in -adverse weather The ava ila bil i ty of regu lar b u s service is so sparse no l ocation wou ld be access ib l e It's approx i ma tel y 4 5 b l ocks from b u s termina l ; not easy to find i f you have never been there. We are wi t hin walki n g dis tan ce of part o f comm unity-whole commun i ty is rural. Peop l e frustrated w ith usi ng b u s service time, t r ansfers No publi c t ran sportat ion availabl e for a rea so i s moot. A noth e r location i n Ze p h yrh i lls would be no better Not an i ssue Many migrants have no perso na mea n s of transporta tionn o public transportation i n area We are a very rural a r ea County bus li nes do not r each areas w h e r e our patients are We hope f u lly will have o u r own van soon. as we have i n the past. We j ust got a bus I t is 6 b l oc ks away by l oca l agreement. We are in a n a r e a of need No prob l ems We have 1 7 facil i t ies l ocated cou ntywide. Our office has good avai l abil i ty i n p r esent l oca t ion Fac i lity i s not on main b u s l ine b ut d rop off points are o n ly a b l ock away Most c lients do not have bus fare and that i s t h e mai n problem. Bus t o k e n s a r e ava i l able for low income medicaid clients (a l so, med ica id cab.) D 9
Patients anx i ous if have n' t seen doctor and last bus to home looms This was property t hat was avai l ab l e f rom the county to b ui ld. The solution i s not to relocate but to bring public trans portat i on to our faci lity. Other Ou r clients are mostly on Medica i d and Medica i d will not pay for o u r enrollment appo i ntment when Coasta l Transportation is used. ( Enro llment s i te for Chi l dren s Medical Serv i ces Primary Care Program .) Bus iransportation is ava i lab l e but freque n tly d i fficult for our often t i mes disabled and elderly clientele Taxis are too expensive. Site l ocat i on is fine and could not be i mproved upon. Orange, Osceo la, a n d Sem i n ole Count ies have a limi ted publ i c transportation system with a low p r oportio n of reskfents utilizing it. We are part of a l arge hospital system Therefore, we were located physically close to t h e hosp i tal. We have pare nts of small children, who are too young to ride public transportation alo n e that cannot afford t h e gas expense invo l ved to enter the i r children in our programs A downtown s it e woul d requ ire f ewer bus transfers than our current location The cost o f a facil ity downtown would hav e been prohibitive. Recently i m proved b u s service from 2 days a week to 5 days a week. Th e l ack of t ransportat i on i s t he m ain p roblem. Senio r want doo r to door service w hich we are unab l e to provide We provide t he majo ri ty of our tra n sportatio n. We a r e on excelle n t b u s li nes and on major so i t i s easy to give people directions We t ried to located somew hat centrally We also have a c ha rg e account with a cab company. The aging popu l at i o n would be better served if public t ransportation was more readily available. N o mass transit syst em. We need this desperately! Star Transit will only transport children accompan i ed by an adu lt. B u s l ines are very slow and inconven i ent. Takes several hours for a c l ie nt to get here by bus when it is a relatively short distance. The greatest problem i s not l h e ava i labil ity of p ub l i c transportation but its Many of our clients simply cannot afford the c urrent h ig h fares D -10
Because there is n o other transportat i on. we must provide i t to and from our program. No other locatio n would be better because we are currently in close proxi m ity to our cli entele migrant trailer camps. Our s it es are all easily r e ached by p ub lic transportation. Some c l ie nts use m ed i caid t o pay for taxi service They are l ate and cannot go home on time. Not good b us service c l ose by. Need for public transportatio n/ b u s t h roughout Broward county. 1 don't believe the site is a prob lem. Irs the lac k of public transportation we have very li m ited bus transportation in B r evard County We have no bus service at all in this communijy Cli ents need a mass trans i t alternative. Clients from rural areas do not have adequate tra nspo rtat io n to get to our offices. D-11
APPENDIX E Open-Ended Responses to Question 111-4 If and when you do relocate what factors would you consider important for relocation? E-1
APPENDIX E Anecdotal Responses to Section Ill Question 4 Sheltered Workshops Not planning on relocating. Adult day Care Center Acreage Access roads. Proximity to target popu l ation. Convenience of l oc ation; area safe for clients and close to population center for typical client. Grou p Ho mes Land costs; transportat i on. Ne ig hborhood environment; yard space ; zoning restrictions; public transit accessibility Regular bus system with stops very close t o the fac i lity would be imperative. Access to shopping, c hu r ches restaurants etc. Ne ig hborhoo d Nursinq!Retirement Home Close to shopping, h ospitals, and doctors Because of changing demograp h ics t h is facility (b uilt 22 years ago) is no lo nger convenient to t he Jewish Community. Location of transportation system ; less densely populated area. Nearer to or located on bus route to prov i de transportation for elderly visitors to our facility. Neighborhood setting. E-2
Public transportat i on; close to shopp i ng. Located near elder l y popula t i on ; low cost facility; bus tra n sportation avai labl e 5 days a week. Vocational Rehabilitat i on Center Availability of p u b lic t ran sportat i on; sufficient parking; affordability Access Access i bility; cost; proximity t o b u sinesses and j ob opportu n it i es. Bus system ; l ocate n ear clie n ts. Public t ransportat i on : park i ng fac ilit ies; access for t h e physically handicapped. Pub lic tra n sportat i on. Access to highways/roads Land costs ; facil i ty costs ; access to public tran sportation; access to h i ghways/roads; government funding. Tran spo rta t io n ; prox im ity t o o ther social services. Bus route and s i dewa lks: central l oca tion. Client accessibility; econom i c area ; rent costs. Fac i lity costs ; ADA regu l at i o n s ; g eograp h i c area. Accessib i lity Facility costs ; access to p u b l i c tran sportation; proxim i ty to o ther soc i a l serv i ces. Pub lic transportation access; proximity to socia l serv i ces Access to pub lic transportation ; bu i lding accessibil it y; p r ox i mi ty to major i nterstate. Parking ava i lab i li ty ; bus service Bus location; parking spaces ; COIocation of other social services. Accessibility; centra l location; non dup li catio n of service E 3
Access i bility t o applica nts. Cente r of co u nty; free s p ace. Substance Ab u se C e nters Transporta t ion. Bu i ldi n g and la n d cosUiease c ost: interstate and transportation access. Zon i ng Costs ; taxes; pu blic t ransportat i on. Price; aocess to resources i nclud ing transportation. Transportatio n Child Care Cente r s Centralized loca t io n : a d equate space for parking b u ses Proxim i ty to client need ; access to affordab l e transporta ti on; access to m ed i ca l care for child c li ents on an on-call bas is; HRS l i c e nsing standards La n d costs; faci l ity costs. More a ccessibil ity to commun ity ; l arg er; more conven i ent faci l ity; e n v i ronmentally f ri endly; site in corresponde n ce w i th i n co m e leve l of area. Nea r pu bli c transportatio n a nd access i ble to. all drivers Access to highways/roads; access to public elementary schools. GeneraiNe t eran s Ad mi n i s t ration Hospitals L and ava i la b i lity /cost po pu lation ; p u bl i c roadway system capabil i ty. Proximity to populatio n in need o f service. H ighway access; p u bl i c t ransportat i on Size of facil i ty and ren t ; e a se o f finding the cl i nic. E-4
Accessibi l ity to c l ients : ce nter of p opu l at io n A ccess to f aci l ity; safety ; size of site: ha nd i capped a ccess i ble; off-street parki ng; layout of offices Proximity t o main county r oads Avai la b i lity ; access: cost s: s iz e Accessib i lity ; fac i l it y costs Land price; zoning. Access to clients : centralized loc ation: b u s line Home l ess Shel te rs Zoni ng ; transportation; job avai l abi l ity Close t o h osp i ta l facili t i e s. Access to publ i c t r ansporta tion: schools; shopp i ng; and ot her serviCes req u ired by lowi ncome f ami l ies. Cost of fac i li ty ; con ven i ence f o r job h unti ng; quality of locat io n Available funds; l a nd an d fac i lity costs We are not p lan ni ng to relocate. Tha t's why we need t r ansportat io n for our people he re Lower fac i l ity costs: access to p ub lic transporta t ion P r ox i m ity to othe r soc ial services; accessibil i ty to pu bl i c transportat i on. Women s Hea lth Ce nt e rs Visibil ity ; easy access Handicap access i bi l ity; park i ng; available t ran sportation ; cost; size of fac i lity ; privacy for clients. C l ose to h osp ital and c l ose to s h opp i ng area (potentia l c l i ent employm ent ). P u blic Health Centers Faci litie s prov i ded by govern m ental agencies. E 5
Access to public t r a n sportatio n : cos t of faci l ity rental: access to the farmworker community Easy access Accessibility to services within t h e county; paved roads; central location within the county. close proximi ty to other commu n ity resou r ces; buildi n g costs The availability of publ i c transportation plus the availabi l ity of on-and-off street parking are extremely i mportant Easi l y accessi b le; c o s t Proximity to our low i ncome clients; office on a major bus route; office location easy to find. E