The URL can be used to link to this page

Min 08/20/2002 123 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building August 20, 2002 Items 1 & 2 The City Council of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas met in regular session on the above date in the Council Room of the Memorial Auditorium Building at 8:30 o'clock a.m., with the following members present: Johnny Burns - Mayor Pro Tern Arthur Bea Williams - Councilors Linda Ammons James Esther, Jr. - Michael Norrie - Harold Hawkins - James Berzina - City Manager Bill Sullivan - City Attorney Lydia Torres - City Clerk Bill Altman - Absent Mayor Pro Tern Burns called the meeting to order. Item 2 The following persons spoke under Public Comments. David Brock, 1819 Hines, asked that the Council subcommittee take action on the grazing issue. Richard Graham, 1340 N. Saratoga, recommended that backup battery language be reinstated in the Residential Code. Councilors Williams, Esther, and Hawkins concurred that that this issue be placed on the next Council agenda for action. Item 3 Reverend Mel Hammer, Faith Lutheran Church, gave the invocation. Item 4 Mayor Pro Tern Burns proclaimed the month of September as United Way month in Wichita Falls, celebrating the successes of United Way. United Way Executive Director Rene Moquin accepted the proclamation and thanked the Council and Councilor Williams for serving on the United Way Board. Mayor Pro Tern Burns announced the Registry Awards and made presentations to the following winners. District 1 Gary & Karen Goodin, 3207 Seymour Road David & Jane Styles, 4515 Wendover District 2 Henry & Bertha Henderson, Jr., 305 Elwood Tammer Easter, 1005 Williams District 3 Jim and Sheryl Pulley, 5405 Starwood Warren & Dawn Vassar, 2221 Piedmont 124 Item 4 continued District 4 Elsie Schmitt & Tammy Trembley, 4900 Cypress Jon & Jerilee Robbins, 2506 Amherst District 5 Wileen Rose Lewis, 1421 Longview Charlie Jones, 10A Nehls, SAFB Business Franklin Pharmacy, 1013 Brook Rolling Meadows, 3006 McNeil Avenue Item 5 The minutes were approved as distributed. Items 6a-7d City Manager gave a briefing on the items listed under the Consent Agenda. Moved by Councilor Williams that the Consent Agenda be approved. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 6a RESOLUTION NO. 85-2002 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE SECONDARY RESERVOIR PIPELINE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT TO BOWLES CONSTRUCTION CO.; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Item 6b RESOLUTION NO. 86-2002 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE SECONDARY RESERVOIR WATER STORAGE POND ADDITION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT TO PRATER EQUIPMENT CO.; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Items 7a-7b Minutes of the following board and commission meetings were received. a. Transportation Policy Committee — July 24, 2002 b. Wichita Falls Traffic Safety Commission — June 6, 2002 c. Landmark Commission — July 17, 2002 d. Wichita Falls Economic Development Corporation — May 13, 2002 Councilor Hawkins noted that draft copies of the minutes were provided to Council and he felt that was a better way of handling the board/commission minutes. He expressed appreciation to Staff for providing draft minutes. 125 Item 8a A public hearing was held for the FY 2002/2003 Transit Grant. Mayor Pro Tern Burns declared the public hearing open. Mrs. Karen Montgomery Gagne provided information on the Transit System Grant. She mentioned that the projects for this funding are for surveillance cameras on the buses, a wheel balancer, preventative maintenance, and an Alternative Fuel Study. Susan Sportsman, R.N., 3410 Taft, presented Council with copies of a Transportation Study funded by the Priddy Foundation and United Regional Health Care Foundation. A copy of the Study is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Mrs. Sportsman stated that this Study identifies some of the transportation issues that continue to exist. Mayor Pro Tern Burns called for additional public comments. There being none, Mayor Pro Tern Burns declared the public hearing closed. Item 8b A public hearing was held on hazardous structures. Mayor Pro Tern Burns declared the public hearing open. Mr. Dave Clark stated that this was an opportunity for those persons on the list to express their comments and concerns. 2215 Piedmont Michelle Collier, 2710 Brook, stated that there are loopholes in the hazardous structure process that benefit the City. She pointed out the repairs that had been made and said that she plans to move in within three weeks. Mr. Clark provided a history on this property and stated that Staff recognizes that progress has been made on this property. 1410 25" Street Mr. Clark stated that he had received a letter from the owner of this property requesting a 30-day extension to finalize the sale of this property. Mr. Clark recommended that nothing be removed from the demolition list unless the property owner appears before Council and has a plan for the repair of the building. He recommended that the property owners be given a time frame and also be required to escrow the demolition cost so that if the time frame is not met Staff would proceed with the demolition. Councilor Hawkins stated that he had spoken with Mr. Ledue who is out of town today. He mentioned that Mr. Ledue has kept the taxes current but the water was turned off in 2000. It was noted that the structure was not secured and a transient had been living there. City Manager stated that there may be some loopholes in this ordinance but they have been in favor of the property owners, not the City. He was concerned that property owners come in and say they are going to fix the property, however, they put down $1500 on a $20,000 job and say they have a building permit, when in fact it is a rehabilitation permit. He described the dilapidated condition in which these structures are when property owners come before Council. I am going to propose that Staff work up something to the effect of requiring full plans and if this is a building permit that we treat it as a new building, along with cost estimates. Instead of escrowing the money to demolish, that property owners be required to escrow the cost to repair the structure. They change ownership and they play the game in some cases and we still have the structure tucked out there with maybe a sheetrock or two tacked on to it, and we still have the same problem. I think that we need to talk about how a structure like the one you have just looked at gets up to where it meets and passes the Code and be renovated, not just a lick and a promise. Councilor Williams commented that the issue of transferring property ownership also needed to be addressed. She suggested that everybody's time be tied to the first permit unless there is some extraordinary improvement. Council should not continue to allow 126 Item 8b continued extensions over and over again. City Manager said that we do a disservice by not letting the people know at the very beginning that for a few dollars they are going to meet the Codes. At that time we need to let them know we need plans showing what it is going to look like when it is completed. Councilor Hawkins stated that if you start bringing in architects or plan designers you are going to run the cost of some of these old buildings out of sight when the only thing you can do is tear it down. He cautioned Council to be considerate of some of the houses, especially on the east side because some of the people are fortunate to have a roof over their heads. If we make it so tough on the owner that they cannot afford to make any repairs then we are going to demolish a lot more houses. We need to take what the City Manager said and temper it a little bit. Councilor Esther suggested that Staff assist in coming up with a rough estimate so the owner will know that it will take quite a bit of money to repair and what it will take to meet Code. City Manager commented that the City needs to be careful not to get into designing a home. 1633 Pearl Ed Crawford, 205 W. Washington, Iowa Park, said he had a Contract for Deed on this property and requested an additional 90 days to rehab. He has been working in Amarillo but will be finished within one month and will return to work on this property. He plans to reside at this property when he completes repairs. He said that he would secure the property and will provide Mr. David Clark a copy of the Contract for Deed along with a description of what his plans are for the house and a cost estimate for those repairs, as well as maintain the structure secured. He agreed to put up the escrow to demolish in the event he does not meet the 90-day timeframe. 2010 Taylor Mark David, 2010 Taylor, requested an additional thirty days to demolish this structure. Mayor Pro Tem Burns called for additional public comments. There being none, Mayor Pro Tern Burns declared the public hearing closed. City Council recessed at 9:55 a.m. and reconvened at 10:10 a.m. Item 9a ORDINANCE NO. 66-2002 ORDINANCE CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING AND FINDING CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND/OR STRUCTURES TO BE DANGEROUS; COMMANDING PROPERTY OWNERS TO DEMOLISH SAID BUILDINGS AND/OR STRUCTURES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Esther that Ordinance No. 66-2002 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Ammons. Moved by Councilor Norrie to amend the proposed ordinance by removing 2215 Piedmont from the demolition list. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None 127 Item 9a continued Moved by Councilor Williams to amend proposed ordinance by suspending 1633 Pearl for ninety days from today, with the provisions that Mr. Ed Crawford provide the City proof of ownership, copy of contract for deed, present rehabilitation plan along with cost estimate, and that he escrow approximate amount for demolition. He is to provide the written documentation within ten days. Mr. Crawford will not be allowed more than ninety days for full completion of these provisions and the rehabilitation. Everything has to be done within the ninety-day time frame. Motion seconded by Councilor Ammons and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None Moved by Councilor Hawkins to amend the proposed ordinance by suspending 1410 25tn Street from the demolition list for ninety days from today with the provisions that Mr. Michael Ledue, property owner, deposit with the City escrow money for approximate cost of demolition and based on a ninety day period of compliance to rehabilitate the structure. Mr. Ledue needs to secure and clean the property. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther and failed by the following vote. Ayes: Councilors Williams, Esther, and Hawkins Nays: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Ammons, and Norrie Main motion as amended carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9b ORDINANCE NO. 67-2002 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 97-84 DATED AUGUST 21sr 1984 TO REMOVE 1810 BURNETT STREET FROM THE DEMOLITION ORDER; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Esther that Ordinance No. 67-2002 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams. David Brock, 1819 Hines, property owner of 1810 Burnett Street, requested that the stipulations be removed so that he can get the necessary funding to rehab this structure. He stated that he already has all the materials to secure the building. He said that he would clean the entire property and rehab it upon receipt of the funding. Mayor Pro Tem Burns noted that if Mr. Brock does not comply with securing, cleaning, and rehabilitating this property this would be placed back on the demolition list. Moved by Councilor Hawkins to amend Section 1 in the proposed ordinance by deleting the following wording: "upon compliance with the conditions of Section 2." Section 1 would then read as follows: "The demolition order dated August 21, 1984, for the property located at 1810 Burnett Street, is hereby vacated." In addition, that the first Section 2 be deleted. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None 128 Item 915 continued Main motion as amended carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9c ORDINANCE NO. 68-2002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS AMENDING EXHIBIT A IN ORDINANCE NO. 56-2002, REPLACING ELECTION OFFICIALS FOR THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2002 SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Ordinance No.68-2002 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10a RESOLUTION NO. 87-2002 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF STREAM FLOW AND RESERVOIR CONTENT GAUGING STATIONS; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Williams that Resolution No.87-2002 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10b RESOLUTION NO. 88-2002 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE WICHITA RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL PROJECT; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Williams that Resolution No.88 -2002 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None 129 Item 10c RESOLUTION NO. 89-2002 RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID AND CONTRACT FOR THE 2001-2002 WATER BUDGET UTILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Ammons that Resolution No. 89-2002 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10d RESOLUTION NO. 90-2002 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT FOR INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL AUDITING SERVICES WITH MATHIS, WEST, HUFFINES, & COMPANY FOR TWO ADDITIONAL YEARS; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Resolution No. 90-2002 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 11 a Moved by Councilor Ammons to award the City's insurance program bid to Texas Municipal League as set out. Building and Contents $84,552 Extra Expense Included Boiler and Machinery Included Electronic Equipment $ 2,748 Total $87,300 Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 11 b Moved by Councilor Williams to award the bid for the City's estimated annual requirement of permethrin based adulticide to Public Health Equipment & Supply Company, Inc., in the amount of$43,125.00. Motion seconded by Councilor Ammons and carried by the following vote. 130 Item 11 b continued Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 11 c Moved by Councilor Ammons to award the bid for the demolition, clearing and cleaning of various City owned properties at Lake Arrowhead and Lake Kickapoo to Environmental Service and Technology in the amount of$27,854.00. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Pro Tern Burns, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 12a Councilor Williams informed that the stop sign at 10th and Indiana Streets is still being run and asked the Police Department to look into that violation. Councilor Williams stated that the roast held in her honor supported the Alzheimer's organization. She noted that it was very well attended and thanked everyone who participated. Councilor Ammons commended Mayor Pro Tern Burns for doing a very good job in chairing today's meeting. She mentioned that the Hotter "N Hell would be held this week and asked everyone to be very cautious with all the cyclists. She welcomed everyone that was coming here for this event. Councilor Hawkins mentioned that the schools were now in session in Wichita Falls and asked everyone to drive very careful especially around the school zones and to watch out for the children. Councilor Hawkins referred to the anaerobic septic systems and stated that a better inspection method and better requirements for the back fill, especially when they are on our lakes, needed to be developed. He asked for an update on the lake levels and Mr. Scott Taylor provided that information. Councilor Esther congratulated the Registry Award winners and thanked them for working on their yards. Councilor Esther asked the Police Chief to continue to monitor the intersection at Airport Drive and Sheppard Access Road for stop sign violators. Councilor Hawkins added that the intersection at Airport Drive and SH 240 also needed to be monitored. Councilor Norrie commended Mr. Dave Clark and Code Enforcement for the way they handle their job. Councilor Norrie congratulated Mayor Pro Tern Burns for doing a good job this morning. Mayor Pro Tern Burns asked drivers to pay close attention in the school zones and to watch out for the children. Mayor Pro Tern Burns stated that it had been his privilege to conduct this meeting and thanked the Council for their patience and support. 131 Item 12b City Manager informed that budgets are being distributed to Council and work sessions are scheduled to begin Tuesday, August 27 at 1:30 p.m. continuing on Wednesday, August 28 at 8:30 a.m. and on Thursday, August 29 at 8:30 a.m., in necessary. City Manager complimented Mayor Pro Tern Burns on the excellent job he did this morning. City Council adjourned at 11:35 a.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this_day of 2002. WILLIAM K. ALTMAN MAYOR ATTEST: Lydia Torres City Clerk 1 1 1 L 'w REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION NEEDS IN WICHITA FALLS AND SURROUNDING AREAS MIDWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY College of Health Sciences & Human Services Health and Public Administration May, 2002 Funded by The Priddy Foundation ( And United Regional Health Care Foundation Shundra Stanley Kerry Wycoff i Table of Contents Page ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................. i Conclusions.............................................................................................................. i Recommendations................................................................ ................................... Report on Transportation Needs in Wichita Falls and Surrounding Areas .........................I Introduction................................................ ...........................................................I Background..............................................................................................................I Wichita Falls Transit System ..................................................................................1 Texoma Area Paratransit System, Inc..................................................................... 2 Rolling Plains Management Corporation....................................... Other Non-Profit Providers.................................................................................... 4 Inadequate Access to Transportation...............................................................7 Objectives of the Study..............................................................................8 TargetPopulation.................................................................................................................8 Assessment Methodology...................................................................... .......................8 Findings................................................................................................................................9 Responses from Social Service Agencies.........................................................10 Reasons for Lack of Mobility In Target Areas...................................................12 Transportation Issues for the Elderly..............................................................12 Use of Public Transportation.............................................................................................14 Involvement of City/County Government.........................................................................15 Specific Transportation Needs...........................................................................................16 Transportation Barriers......................................................................................................17 Perceptions of Improvement in the Transportation System...............................................18 Suggestions of Agencies to Improve Transportation Systems in Target Area..................19 Survey Results from Transportation Company..................................................................21 Responses from Wichita Falls Transit System Consumers...............................................23 Evaluation of Transportation System.................................................................................26 WaitingTime.....................................................................................................................28 Observations of Students Riding the Wichita Falls Transit System Bus:..........................29 Conclusions...................................... .34 Recommendations...................................................................................3 5 TableA.................................................................................................................................3 TableB.................................................................................................................................4 TableC...............................................................................................................................15 TableD...............................................................................................................................17 iTable E...............................................................................................................................17 TableF...............................................................................................................................19 TableG...............................................................................................................................30 TableH...............................................................................................................................31 TableI................................................................................................................................32 Figure 1. Percent of Surveys Completed and Missing .............10 4 g Y p g ......................................... Figure 2. Percent of Survey Distribution ..........................................................................10 Figure 3. Survey Agency Demographics Figure4. Client Population................................................................................................12 Figure 5. Percent of Elderly that Drive................................... .....................................13 Figure 6. Would Elderly Drive With Access to Reliable Transportation?........................14 Figure 7. 1 to 4 Scale Measuring Relationship with City Regarding Transportation .......15 Figure 8. Transportation Services Clients Use to Come to Agency..................................16 Figure 9. Past Five Years of Transportation Improvements in the Area. ..........................18 Figure 10. Transportation Company Demographics..........................................................21 Figure 11. Consumer Demographics: Location.................................................................23 Figure 12 Consumer Demographics: Gender....................................................................23 Figure 13. Consumer Demographics: Race. ......................................................................24 Figure 14. Consumer Demographics: Senior Citizens Status............................................25 Figure 15 Consumer Demographics: Disability Status......................................................25 Figure 16. Transportation Used to Get People to Goods, Services, and Social Interactions........................................................................................................................26 Figure 17 Local Transportation Situation.........................................................26 Figure 18 Satisfaction with Local Transportation...............................................27 Figure 19. Past Five Years of Transportation Improvements in the Area................. ..28 Figure 20. Transportation Pick-up Waiting Times ...........................................................29 Figure 21. Reasons for Lack of Mobility........................... ...........................29 Appendix A: Transportation Survey Questionnaires...........................................37 Appendix B: Core Transportation Operations............................................ .....48 Appendix C: FTA or Other Federal Support of Core Transportation Operations.. ..50 Appendix D: Suggestions from City/County Officials for Design of a TransportationSystem..............................................................................52 References..........................................................................................................................54 i iii systems. It is also not known how many elderly remain isolated in their homes because of perceptions about convenience of available transportation. 3. The greatest needs identified b dents from the social service agencies are in g Y respondents p g providing transportation for medical care and activities of daily living. This is particularly true for elderly or disabled citizens living in the rural areas. Major barriers to meeting these needs include a lack of service at convenient times and the cost of transportation services, particularly for those whose travel is not subsidized. 4. There are widely divergent suggestions from.various stakeholders to improve transportation systems in the target area. Given this diversity, mechanisms to coordinate services throughout the region are likely to be helpful. 5. Less than half of the respondents from social service agencies believe city government works with the agencies on transportation issues. 6. Funding issues were identified by respondents from transportation companies as barriers to providing effective service,but lack of coordination was also seen as a problem. 7. Those who ride the Wichita Falls Transit System buses are, in general, satisfied with the service. New riders (the MSU students) were also positive about the riding ex experience. Keeping to the scheduled times for pick u however, may be a p p g p p, Y problem. 8. The elderly and disabled make up a minority of the riders of the Wichita Falls Transit System, and satisfaction with the service may not be generalized to that segment of the population. 9. City/county officials, particularly in the rural areas, are not closely connected to transportation issues in their areas and may not see the resolution of these problems as a responsibility of their offices. 10. The transportation companies in the target area have proposed a one-call brokerage service to the Texas Transportation Commission. 11. Community members in the target area often do not know of the transportation resources that ARE available to them. 12. Five Texas cities similar in size to Wichita Falls have paratransit services for both the elderly and the disabled. v Recommendations 1. Coordinate transportation efforts in the urban and rural areas. This might be accomplished through some of the coordination efforts underway by the Texas Department of Transportation(TxDOT)or the national Community Transportation Association of America in Washington, D.C. A central coordination point should be determined,perhaps through the development of a Mobility Manager as suggested by the KFH Study. There should also be a steering committee for this effort, which includes representatives of the transportation companies, social service agencies, city/county government and consumers of the transportation systems. Individual meetings with city/county officials, particularly in the rural area, prior to organization would be helpful. 2. Increase community collaboration regarding transportation through initiation of town meetings in strategic rural areas. 3. Develop a media campaign to make community members in the target area aware of the transportation options currently available. 4. Develop a paratransit system for the elderly and disabled operated by the City of Wichita Falls. This system would be based on a reservation system with clients making reservations for trips 1 to 14 days in advance. Services would be provided through the purchase of several vans and by contracting with city taxi companies. Infrastructure necessary to operate such a system should include a digital geographic database, automated routing and scheduling software, a global positioning system (GPS, and automatic vehicle location(AVL) and communication system. Criteria for eligibility should be flexible enough to allow ample access for the elderly who are not disabled. For example, the criteria established by the paratransit system of the City of San Angelo provides such flexibility. 5. Develop a non-profit agency, through a coalition of senior citizens centers in the region, to provide by appointment, transportation in a van for medical visits or personal business for the elderly. Riders would pay a flat fee (perhaps $5-10) and the remainder of the costs would be covered through grants and donations. Personnel for this agency would include an Executive Director and 0.1 FTE Driver. (Coordination of rides would be through of Senior Citizens Center personnel to the Executive Director of this agency). Priority service would be medical transportation for the elderly who are not eligible for Medicaid. 6. Continue collaboration of transportation providers in the area through the TxDOT meetings. Publicize proceedings through a mail-out to all parties interested in transportation, including city/county officials and employees. vi 7. Develop, through area faith-based communities, an effort to provide perhaps volunteer escorts for frail elderly who need assistance during transportation to and from medical visits. 8. Support the development of a one-call broker system as requested by the Transportation Committee of Wichita Falls. 9. Consider benefits to the city of becoming a member of the Community Transportation Association of America(CTAA), a national organization in Washington, D.C. 1 vii Report on Transportation Needs in Wichita Falls and Surrounding Areas A P g Introduction Access to transportation is the lifeblood of any community in today's mobile society. Community members must be able to move about easily in order to meet their economic, social, and health care needs. This is simple to achieve if one has ready access to private transportation; it is much more difficult for those who depend on a public transportation system. In order to insure an adequate quality of life, communities must provide public transportation to meet the needs of those who depend on it, regardless of their age, socioeconomic level, or level of physical and/or emotional disability. This report focuses on the public transportation needs of citizens of the City of Wichita Falls and eleven surrounding counties. Background The public transportation in the eleven-county north central Texas target area is provided through a combination of city-run and non-profit corporations, which provide services in both urban and rural areas. Services include both fixed route and demand response service offered via public and paratransit systems. The three public transportation providers in the target area include Wichita Falls Transit System, Texoma Area Para Transit System (TAPS) and Rolling Plains Management Corporation (RPMC), also known as Sharp Lines Rural Transportation. According to the surveys done as part of this report, these three public transit systems operate a total of approximately 107 transit vehicles and provide more than 620,000 passenger trips a year. There are ten additional agencies in the district that provide approximately 30,000 passenger trips for the elderly and disabled each year. These agencies include Montague County Carpenters Shop; Bowie Senior Citizens; Clay County Senior Citizens Services; Senior Citizens Club of Petrolia, Inc.; Senior Citizens Activity Center of Burkburnett, Inc.; Melior Bridge; MidTown Manor, Inc.; Electra Service Corporation; Young County Olney Senior Club Center, Inc.; and Young Community Senior Citizens, Association, Inc. Wichita Falls Transit System The Wichita Falls Transit System is owned and operated by the City of Wichita Falls and classified as an "urban public" transportation system by the Federal Transit Administration(FTA). Buses travel five routes distributed geographically across the City of Wichita Falls. In addition to the five regular routes, a sixth express route is offered between Sheppard Air Force Base and Sikes Senter Mall (transfer site) seven days a week. The Sheppard express route service is not normally utilized by the general public because of lack of pick-up and drop-off points along the route. The five routes operate from 5:30 am to 7:30 pm Monday through Friday. Weekend service is offered from 10:30 am to 5:30 pm. 1 With the exception of the Sheppard Express route for which the fare is $1.00, general public fares are 75 cents, with a discounted fare of 35 cents for children and students aged 5-18, senior citizens aged 65 years or more and persons with disabilities. Children under five years of age ride free and must be accompanied by an adult. In 2000, the Wichita Falls Transit System had a total ridership of 256,566, which includes regular passengers, transfers,route deviations and ticket sales. Future growth is expected to be close to one percent annually from 2000 to 2005 (City of Wichita Falls, Public Transportation Division). The Wichita Falls Transit System operates a "route deviation" system that offers curbside service. This service is available for all eligible, certified mobility-impaired individuals. The system changed to "route deviation" from a "fixed route" system in January 1992, to comply with requirements in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Officials of the transit system opted for this approach rather than a paratransit system, because of the expense of operating a paratransit system. Buses will deviate up to two blocks from a scheduled route in order to make curb pick-ups and drop-offs. Requests for route deviation service must be prearranged a minimum of one/day(24 hours)prior to using the next-day service for either a pick-up or drop-off. A rider must contact the transit dispatcher to arrange for service; the bus driver is not allowed to deviate without prior approval. The route deviation program is only available to the disabled so certified by their physician or agency caseworker. Elderly who are not disabled do not qualify for this service. In 2000, 5088 disabled passengers used the route deviation system; in 2001, 4277 used the system. In fiscal year 2002, (September to February) route deviation passengers averaged 300-400 trips per month. In comparison, in February 2001, there were 226 such trips, as compared to 450 trips in February 2000, (Larry Blowers, Personal Communication, March 29, 2002). Texoma Area Para Transit System, Inc. Texoma Area Para Transit System, Inc. (TAPS) is a publicly sponsored, non-profit corporation with headquarters in Sherman, Texas, outside the target area for this study. Within the target area, TAPS provides public transit and client transportation services (Medicaid, aging programs,job training programs, Head Start, mental health services and other programs) in Clay and Montague counties and Medicaid transportation in Jack County. Services are specifically contracted by the Area Agency on Aging and the Department of Health (for Medicaid transportation.). Funding sources include Texas Public Transportation Funds Section 5307 and 5311, fare box revenues, Medicaid-Title lIl, United Way and several municipalities and agency contracts. Operating bases for TAPS in the target area include Bowie, Nocona, Petrolia, and Saint Jo, Texas. At any given time, an average of 7 TAPS vehicles are dispatched from these four bases. Services are available Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Trip 2 reservations must be made no later than 3:00 p.m. the day before the ride is needed. Subscription services are provided for recurring needs. General public fares are$2.00 in town, $2.50 within a county and $3.50 out-of-county. Students, those 60 years old or older, and persons with disabilities are charged one dollar less than the general public fare. Rolling Plains Management Corporation (Sharp Lines Rural Transportation) The Rolling Plains Management Corporation(RPMC), also known as Sharp Lines Rural Transportation, provides general public and coordinated human service transportation services in the following counties within the target counties: Archer, Cottle, Foard, Hardeman, rural Wichita, Wilbarger, and Young. Table A outlines the types of transportation services offered in each county. Services include demand-response, subscription and deviated fixed-route service; customers call the central dispatcher to schedule a ride. Table A: Rolling Plains Management Corporation (Sharp Lines) Services Offered By County County Services Vehicles Archer Medicaid Services 1 vehicle; lift-equipped service is available, as needed Baylor General public, Head Start, 2 vehicles that are not lift daycare, school, senior and special equipped. (Lift-equipped care clinic transportation service is available on call Cottle General public, Head Start, As above daycare, school, senior, and special care clinic transportation Foard General public, Medicaid, Head 2 vehicles, one with lift Start, daycare and school transportation Hardeman General public, Senior, Head Start, 3 vehicles, one of which is daycare, and school transportation lift-equipped Wilbarger General public, Head Start, day 4 vehicles, two with lifts care, school, Medicaid, Vernon Regional Junior College, and a special care clinic transportation Wichita (rural) General public, senior and school 4 vehicles, one with a lift transportation Young General public, Medicaid, school, 3 vehicles, one with a lift and special care clinic transportation, and in cooperation with the senior citizens center 3 RPMC (Sharp Lines) also operates long-distance medical transportation on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from Quanah, Paducah, Crowell, Vernon and Seymour to Wichita Falls. Service is available Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in each of these counties. General public fares are, on average, 45 cents a mile. Federal funding sources for RPMC (Sharp Lines) include Sections 5310 and 5311 and Medicaid. Other Non-Profit Providers In addition to these transportation providers, a variety of non-profit agencies provide transportation services funded under the Federal Transportation Act, Section 5307 (Urban Public Transportation Provider), Section 5310 (Elderly and Disabled Providers) and 5311 (Rural Public Transportation Provider). Additional agencies who provide these services include Montague County Carpenters Shop, Montague; Bowie Senior Citizens, Inc., Bowie; Montague County Individual Development Corporation, Nocona; Clay County Senior Citizens Services, Henrietta; Senior Citizens Club of Petrolia, Inc., Petrolia; Senior Citizens Activity Center of Burkburnett, Inc., Burkburnett; Milior Bridge, Wichita Falls; MidTown Manor, Wichita Falls; Electra Service Corporation, Electra; Young County Olney Senior Club Center, Inc., Olney; and Young Community Senior Citizens Association, Inc., Graham. Helen Farabee Regional Mental Health and Mental Retardation Centers (HFRMHMRC) also provide some form of transportation for the facilities located in the target area. The services include transportation for training, medical appointments, psychosocial rehabilitation activities and residential services for clients of HFRMHMRC. The following table summarizes public transportation services available in each of the counties in the target area. Table B: Public Transportation Services by County/City County Community Provider Services Archer Throughout RPMC(Sharp Lines) Rural Public Transportation for some Medicaid the county HFRMHMR services,client transportation Baylor Throughout RPMC(Sharp Lines) Rural Public Transportation Provider,Head Start, the county HFRMHMR daycare,school,client transportation Baylor Seymour RPMC (Sharp Lines) Elderly and Disabled Provider designee ClayThroughout TAPS Rural Public Transportation,Elderly and Disabled the county Provider designee Community Action Corporation of Wichita Medicaid trips 0 iP P Falls HFRMHMR Client transportation 4 Clay Henrietta TAPS Rural Public Transportation,Elderly and Disabled Provider designee Clay County Senior Elderly and Disabled Provider designee,shopping for Citizens'Services the elderly in the city Clay Petrolia Senior Citizens Club of Elderly and Disabled Provider designee Petrolia TAPS Elderly and Disabled Provider designee Throughout Rural Public Transportation,Elderly and Disabled Cottle the county RPMC(Sharp Lines) Provider designee,Medicaid,Head Start,school,and daycare HFRMHMR Client transportation Throughout Rural Public Transportation,Elderly and Disabled Foard the county RPMC(Sharp Lines) Provider designee,Medicaid,Head Start,school,and daycare HFRMHMR Client transportation Foard Crowell Foard County Senior Transportation to the senior citizens center,to medical Citizen Corporation appointments,shopping and other personal needs Throughout Rural Public Transportation,Elderly and Disabled Hardeman the county RPMC(Sharp Lines) Provider designee,Head Start,daycare and school Transportation HFRMHMR Client transportation Chillicothe Travelers Transportation for seniors to medical and dental Hardeman Chillicothe (Private,non-profit appointments and for shopping needs company) Quanah Senior Citizens Transportation services to an arthritis class,group trips Hardeman Quanah Center for special events,and transportation to medical appointments Jack Jacksboro TAPS Medicaid services only HFRMHMR Client transportation g county p Montague Within the TAPS Rural Public Transportation HFRMHMR Client transportation Montague Bowie Bowie Senior Center Elderly and Disabled Provider designee Montague County Individual Development Elderly and Disabled Provider designee Monta ue Corp. 5 Montague County Elderly and Disabled Provider designee,transportation 1 Montague Nocona Carpenters Shop to the senior citizen center,shopping and other personal needs Montague Saint Jo TAPS Rural Public Transportation,Elderly and Disabled Provider designee RPMC (Sharp Lines) Rural Public Transportation,Elderly and Disabled Vernon Regional Junior Provider designee,Head Start,day care,and school Wilbarger Vernon College Senior Citizens transportation,Medicaid,Vernon Regional Junior Center College,access to medical appointments and aggregate meals,grocery shopping and other social needs Wichita Throughout RPMC (Sharp Lines) Rural Public Transportation,Medicaid services,Elderly (rural) the county HFRMHMR and Disabled Provider designee,client transportation Senior Citizens Activity Elderly and Disabled Provider designee,transportation Wichita Burkbumett Center of Burkburnett,Inc. to senior citizens center,grocery shopping,recreation and other personal needs RPMC(Sharp Lines) Elderly and Disabled Provider designee,Rural Public Wichita Electra Electra Service Corp. Transportation,Medicaid and school transportation for (Senior Center) any reason for those 60 or older and Medicaid recipients for medical appointments Wichita Iowa Park RPMC(Sharp Lines) Elderly and Disabled Provider designee,Rural Public Transportation,Medicaid and school transportation Wichita Falls Transit Melior Bridge Urban Public Transportation, Elderly and Disabled Wichita Wichita Falls Midtown Manor Provider designee(2),transportation for preschool children to the 3 WF Head Start Programs Head Start Program of Wichita Falls 1 Throughout RPMC(Sharp Lines) Rural Public Transportation,Medicaid,school and Young the county HFRMHMR Elderly and Disabled Provider designee,client transportation RPMC(Sharp Lines) Elderlyand Disabled Provider designee(2),Medicaid, g Young Graham Young County Senior school transportation,transportation to senior center, Citizens Association,Inc. grocery shopping and other personal needs. RPMC(Sharp Lines) Elderly and Disabled Provider designee(2), Young Olney Young County Olney transportation to senior citizen center and for personal Senior Club Center, Inc. needs of seniors 6 Inadequate Access to Transportation Inadequate access to transportation services has been identified on a number of occasions as problems for the eleven north central Texas county area under consideration. In July of 2000, the North Texas Regional Planning Commission published a report, "North Texas Regional Public Transportation Plan"by KFH Group. The purpose of the KFH study was to develop a plan for implementation of a regional coordinated transportation network enabling North Texans to have access to services and employment throughout the region. KFH conducted a written survey, followed up in some cases with a telephone survey, of public transit services and human services agencies that either operated client transportation or purchased/reimbursed for it. The North Texas Regional Public Transportation Coordination Plan, Final Report, July 2000, noted that transportation needs within the Wichita Falls city limits included a) more buses, drivers and monitors in the Head Start program to reduce transportation time for small children, b) more transportation available for seniors to attend senior centers, since taxi and bus fares are too high, c) more medical and grocery transportation for seniors, d) availability of a bus stop at the North Central Community Health Care Center, e) wider geographic coverage and more bus stops throughout the transit system, f) transportation to dialysis, which starts early and ends as late as 8:30 p.m., and g) access to job training including evening job training classes (North Texas Regional Public Transportation Coordination Plan, July, 2000). Needs outside of the city of Wichita Falls included a) more rural general public service; b) affordable public transit (rural service is more expensive than most low income and elderly can afford); and c) service from Burkburnett and Iowa Park to Wichita Falls for rehabilitation activities. This report indicated that coordinating human service and public transportation services in the North Texas area is challenging given the region's size, the various participants, the clustering of designations in Wichita Falls and the resulting distance involved in traveling between homes and destinations. For a variety of reasons, the strategies suggested in the KFH Study were not implemented. In November 2000, The Priddy Foundation hosted a meeting of nonprofit organizations to identify problems that adversely affect life in Wichita Falls. At this meeting, accessible, affordable transportation, particularly for children, the elderly and the disabled, was again identified as a need. In 2001, "A Countywide Assessment of Health and Human Service Needs and Opportunities."by the United Way of Greater Wichita Falls, also noted that affordable transportation for the elderly was a very serious concern for 17% of the key informants and a major concern for 44.7%. In addition, affordable transportation for the disabled was a very serious concern for 17.7% of the key informants and a major concern for 45.3%. In a ranking of the most serious problems in Wichita County, transportation was ranked twelve by the key informants. In addition, transportation needs were identified in nine of the eleven listening groups hosted during this needs assessment. Objectives of the Study Since at least three studies/needs assessments in Wichita Falls and surrounding counties in the last several years have cited concerns regarding transportation needs, the Priddy Foundation awarded funds to United Regional Health Care Foundation to develop a process to identify barriers to accessible, affordable transportation for children, the elderly and the disabled and solutions to overcome these barriers. The specific objectives of this project, which were implemented by faculty and students from the Midwestern State University(MSU) College of Health Sciences and Human Services, were as follows: 1. To identify barriers to accessible and affordable transportation in designated areas for children, the elderly and the disabled,which prevent them from receiving appropriate health care, educational and social services and participating in recreational and personal activities. 2. To generate practical solutions to overcome barriers to accessible and affordable transportation for children, the elderly and the disabled. Target Population The target area for the project under discussion included: *Archer *Cottle •Jack •Wilbarger •Baylor •Foard •Montague *Young *Clay •Hardeman *Wichita Assessment Methodology A three-member Community Advisory Committee representing United Regional Health Care Foundation, the Senior Citizens Centers of North Texas, Inc. and the Nonprofit Center of Wichita Falls met with faculty representatives of MSU College of Health and Human Services to initiate the proposed assessment. This committee identified service agencies, city officials and transportation companies throughout the targeted area to participate in the assessment process. Potential respondents were selected according to the following criteria: a) The agency is involved in transportation, city/county government, or educational, health, social or recreational services in the designated area and b) individual respondents are those who manage transportation issues at the designated agency. A questionnaire (Appendix A) designed specifically for representatives of the identified groups was developed by MSU faculty and reviewed by the Advisory Committee. This questionnaire focused on respondents'perceptions regarding transportation needs in the target area and possible solutions to meet these needs. 8 Eight MSU graduate and undergraduate students were assigned to various identified agencies or officials and oriented to the protocol for completing the questionnaire. A letter from the Dean of the College of Health Sciences and Human Services was sent to 196 agencies, introducing the purpose of the project . A follow-up call was made by MSU administrative personnel to identify the student completing the interview and confirming the appropriate respondent from each agency. Students completed all interviews between October and December 2001. The majority of interviews were done in person, although some were conducted over the telephone. r Sixteen undergraduate students in the MSU Social Work Program, working in airs rode 81' I�' g P the Wichita Falls city buses as a further evaluation of area transportation services. Students were asked to respond to a questionnaire developed to identify if the bus was on time, comfortable and easy to use and if the driver was helpful. Students were asked to imagine what the bus service would have been like if they were disabled. On each trip, students were also to select 2 to 3 people they encountered during the ride to answer questions about their perceptions of the bus service. The questions students asked are listed in Appendix A, Section IV: Questions to Consumers. After the initial data collection and analysis phase had been completed in February 2002, the preliminary findings of this study were presented at a transportation meeting hosted by the TxDOT Transportation Advisory Panel Committee in Wichita Falls. The following organizations were represented at that meeting: Texas Department of Transportation, Wichita Falls Transit System, RPMC (Sharp Lines), TAPS, United Way of Greater Wichita Falls, North Texas Senior Citizens Center, Bowie Senior Citizens Project, Electra Senior Citizens Center, county judges from Clay, Baylor, Wichita, Throckmorton, counties, and the Agency on Aging. In addition, the Wichita Falls Transit System services for the elderly and disabled were compared to transit services of five similar-sized Texas cities. Findings In total, 196 surveys were distributed and 156 (80%), completed and included in the analysis of data. Thirty five percent of the 156 responses came from consumers riding the bus, 1% from transportation companies, 19% from students riding the bus, 19% from city officials and 26% from social service agencies.(Figure 1) r 9 Figure 1: Percent of Survey Distribution 35.0% 26.0% 19.0% 19.0% 1.0% 5 Goo �54 1-41 pp Responses from Social Service Agencies Forty-three of the individuals involved in arranging transportation for clients in social service agencies within the target area were interviewed. The majority(72.1%) of agencies employing the respondents were located in Wichita Falls and 27.9%were located in the surrounding rural counties. (Figure 2) Figure 2: Survey Agency Demographics 72.1% 27.9% Urban Location Rural Location � 10 Responses from Social Service Agency Representatives The respondents from social service agencies considered transportation to be very important, because some form is necessary for clients to attend programs and other services offered by the agency. The agency activities, which were specifically impacted by limitations in available transportation included: Congregatemeals..................................................................................................8 agencies Provision of transportation for personal services..................................................6 agencies Provision of transportation for medical care.........................................................8 agencies Services provided at the agencies requiring clients to come to the agency........25 agencies After school activities...........................................................................................4 agencies Adult Daycare agency.....................................................................1 agencies As noted in Figure 3, agencies that provided services to school children/youth and the elderly were equally represented in the group of respondents. In addition, almost half (44.2%) of the agencies responding deal with either the elderly or the disabled,both of whom may have similar transportation needs. Figure 3: Client Population Elderly 25.6% 18.6% Disabled 16.3% General School/Youth 25.6% Missing 13.90% PF Missing"refers to missing data because respondents did not categorize the type of population served. 11 Responses from Social Service Agency Representatives ' This demonstrates that the agency respondents selected to participate in this survey broadly represented constituents who most frequently need transportation assistance. Reasons for Lack of Mobility in Target areas ' Respondents identified possible reasons for the lack of mobility of clients served in their agencies as illustrated in Figure 4. Emotional and physical health concerns, economic concerns and transportation access and options were seen as equally impacting client movement by 21% of the respondents. Transportation access and options alone was seen by 40%of the respondents. This illustrates the impact of poor public transportation on the clients of the selected social service agencies. Figure 4: Reasons for Lack of Mobility Emotional and Physical Health All the Abow Concerns 21% 21% Economic Concerns 18"�u Transport.Access and Options 40% Transportation Issues for the Elderly The elderly often become isolated in their own homes, because of their inability to drive. Conversely, in an effort to remain a part of the community, the elderly may continue to ' 12 Responses from Social Service Agency Representatives drive beyond when they are physically able. Because of the difficulties that both perspectives can cause, respondents who worked with the elderly were asked how many clients drove their own cars to the agency. Slightly less than one-third of the respondents noted that more than 20% of their clients drive their own cars to the agency as illustrated of the respondents working with the elderly indicated that m Figure 5. Sixteen percentp g y their clients would drive less if they had access to reliable transportation. In comparison, 21% said reliable transportation would not change theclients' driving habits. (Figure 6) Figure 5: Percent of Elderly Who Drive Less Than 5% 5% 20% 7% ' Missing NA Greater Than 60% 20% 28% "Missing N/A"includes respondents to the survey who do not serve the elderly. 13 Responses from Social Service Agency Representatives A p g Y P Figure 6: Elderly Would Drive Less with Reliable Transportation Yes 16% Missing NA 63% No ' 21% "Missing N/A"includes respondents to the survey who do not serve the elderly. Use of Public Transportation ' When asked to describe what transportation services clients used to come to their agencies, only 25% of the respondents, as noted in Figure 7, indicated that clients use any public transportation, including Wichita Falls Transit Company, RPMC (Sharp Lines), TAPS, or local cabs. This further illustrates the lack of dependency on public transportation by clients of social service agencies in the target areas. ' 14 Responses from Social Service Agency Representatives 1 Figure 7: Public and Alternative Modes of Transportation ' TAPS Other the 5% RPMC 5% WFTS Cab Service 5% 10% Own Car Friend 22 19% Spouse or Relative 19% Involvement of City Government Respondents were asked to describe ways in which the city works with social service agencies to provide transportation. Table C outlines these responses. Table C: Ways in which the City Works with the Agency to Provide Transportation ' Relationship with City Agencies Examples Reporting No public transportation 6 City is Supportive 9 Provides building(2) Pays insurance (2) Pays insurance for van Provides gas at cost Pays water bill (2) ' Agency doesn't deal with 2 city Little/no contact with city 1 ' City doesn't help 5 Hard to schedule a pickup Client must wait 2-3 hours City Coordinates with 3 Coordinates with Sharp lines others Pays a private vendor Coordinates with WFISD Police Department handles runaways ' 15 Responses from Social Service Agency Representatives In addition, slightly less than half(46%) of the respondents identified that the city government is involved in meeting the transportation needs of the agencies. Agency respondents were asked to rate, from excellent to extremely poor, the relationship the agency had with the city regarding transportation. As described in Figure 8, almost 14% of participating agencies did not rate their relationship with the city where they are located. Close to one- half(48.8%) of those who did respond, rated their relationship with the city as poor(18.6%) or extremely poor(30.2%). Figure 8: Rating of Relationship with City and Transportation i Excellent 14.0% Good 23.3% Poor 18.6% Extremely Poor 30.2% ' Missing 13.9% iThis indicates a certain level of dissatisfaction with available public transportation by the employees of social service agencies in the area. ' Specific Transportation Needs Respondents were asked to identify specific transportation needs for their clients,which ' they believe to be most critical to quality of life. Table D outlines these specific needs. ' 16 Responses from Social Service Agency Representatives Table D: Specific Transportation Needs Identified by Social Service Agencies ' Specific Need Number of Agencies Identifying Need Out-of-town medical appointments 7 In-town medical appointments 7 Maintenance of basic needs (Shopping,bill 10 paying, etc) in-town Maintenance of Basic needs out-of-town 3 Lack of resources for gas 1 Transportation to agency for service 8 ' Transportation to get home at night 1 Transportation to and from work 6 No available transportation 1 Lack of transportation to child care 2 facilities or school Transportation for job search 1 Transportation to medical appointments and for maintenance of basic needs, both in-town and out-of-town (for rural areas) were seen by the respondents from the agencies as being the greatest need. Transportation Barriers Respondents were also asked to identify major barriers to meeting the transportation needs in the target areas. Table E outlines the factors identified. ' Table E: Barriers to Meeting Transportation Needs Barrier Number of Agencies Identifying Barrier Clients do not own car 1 ' Long wait for TA-PS/Sharp Lines 2 Lack of reliability ofpick-up time 2 Lack of sufficiently frequent service during the day and 5 night Difficulty of women taking small children on the bus 2 ' Bus service requires transfers 1 Bus doesn't go to specific areas (Holiday Creek apts.) 1 Limited night hours 3 ' Lack of funds of clients 6 Need for transportation at unscheduled times 1 RPMC (Sharp Lines)provides limited services 2 Cost of RPMC (Sharp Lines) services to others besides 3 ' 17 ' disabled and/or Medicaid patients is prohibitive Lack of predictability of medical appointments-getting 3 patients to and from bus stop at appropriate times Stigma associated with riding the bus 1 Agency restrictions on out-of-town trips 1 ! Lack of communication 1 Bus routes not easily available to some agencies/homes 2 Amount of time required to take children to child care and 1 get to work Lack of door-to-door service for frail elderly1 Inability to pay cost of transport 1 ' The list of barriers according to the agency respondents was diverse; however, the largest number centered around a lack of service at times convenient for clients and the cost of the transportation services, particularly for those whose transportation is not subsidized. Perceptions of Improvement in the Transportation System Respondents were asked to rate the improvement in public transportation in the target area in the last five years. Almost one-half of the respondents (46.5%) felt that the bus ' transportation system in their area had stayed the same over the last five years. Less than a quarter(23.3%) felt the transportation system has improved over the last five years and 16.3%believe it has improved only slightly. Slightly more than ten percent (11.6%) felt ' the bus transportation had worsened. (Figure 9) ' Figure 9: Five-Year Perception of Transportation Improvements 46.5% ' 23.3% 11.6% ' 2.30% Improved Stayed Worsenedlmproved Missing ' Only The Same Slightly ' 18 Responses from Social Service Agencies Suggestions from Agencies to Improve Transportation System in Target Area the currents stem. improving Y The respondents were asked to suggest strategies for p g Table F identifies these strategies. ' Table F: Suggestions to Improve System Number of Agencies Identifying- Suggestions Specific agency starting a medical transport system 1 Weekend services for agency transport I Bus/Van service specific to individual agency • New van 1 • More vans 4 Vans for Children 2 Vans for Disabled 1 More flexible scheduling 1 Volunteer Drivers 1 Increase accessibility of affordable transportation I for elderly/disabled I More out-of-town services in rural areas I WFISD should provide more transportation for ' after-school activities I Don't charge children for bus transportation if they ' are going to Bo s/Girls Clubs I Get parents involved in transporting children I Better advertisement of services provided 5 Pickups at bus stops available every 15 -30 minutes 2 Improve communication I RPMC (SharpLines) rates lowered I ' More cooperation with RPMC (SharpLines) I Combine transportation services amongagencies I Transportation system should include assistants for ' assen ers 5 Expand bus routes to decrease waiting time between pickup I Offer unlimited ride/transfer without purchase of month long ass I Decrease the number of transfers required 2 Increase the evening and weekend van/bus schedule I Provide transportation for children with or without ' parents 19 Responses from Social Service Agency Representatives overcoming barriers were widely diverse; however, a number for o g Again, the suggestions Wichita Falls Transit System ed on improving of respondents focus roving the accessibility of the P routes. The wide range of suggestions may speak to the variety of single needs. Strategies to improve coordination among agencies involved in transportation as a way to increase available resources for each of them might reduce these needs. Respondents were also asked, "If you were to design a transportation system, what would it look like?" The results were similar to the responses found in the previous table. 20 Survey Results from Transportation Companies Representatives from three public transportation companies operating in the target area were interviewed. Two of the companies, including one in Wichita Falls, were based in 1 urban areas.(Figure 10) ' Figure 10: Transportation Companies' Demographics ' 67.7% ' 33.3% ' Urban Location Rural Location The representative from one company indicated that the company's core operations are in p p Y both the rural and urban areas. The remaining two companies identified the location of their core operations as either rural or urban. Two-thirds of the companies are involved ' in transportation related to human services. City government, of course, operates the Wichita Falls Transit System. The remaining two companies are not-for profit organizations. None of the companies interviewed is for-profit or operates a charter bus, ' school bus or taxi service. (See Appendix D for appropriate graphs related to core transportation operations.) Respondents were asked what FTA or other federal block grants they regularly receive in support of the core transportation operations. Two-thirds receive FTA-Section 5307, FTA-Section 5311 and FTA-Section 5300 grants. All receive money from the Older ' Americans Act III-B, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)/ Workforce Development Act, Social Services Block Grants (Title XX) and Community Service Block Grants. Two-thirds receive Medicaid funding ' and two, FTS Section 5309 funding. (See Appendix E for graphs, which further illustrate demographics regarding the three public transportation companies participating in the ' study). 21 ' Responses from Transportation Company Representatives When asked about requirements for the use of seat belts, the two non-profit companies indicated they required passengers to use seat belts. One even stated that children must be in car seats. Seatbelts are available in Wichita Falls Transit System buses, but use is optional. (See Appendix F for related graphs). The employees of the transportation companies were asked to describe the strengths and weaknesses of their company. In general, good employees, a strong supportive agency, and the opportunity to stop along the route to pick up passengers or to deviate from the route for the handicapped were seen as strengths. Related to barriers, the Wichita Falls Transit System respondents noted that buses did not cover enough of the city. The other two companies identified insufficient funding, inadequate hours and difficulty keeping employees as overall weaknesses. The employees interviewed were asked to identify specific problems experienced by their company in assuring adequate transportation and what could be done to resolve them. ' Two out of the three companies identified lack of funding as a specific problem. Employees of the transportation companies were also asked to identify barriers to affordable and accessible transportation to health, education or social services and strategies they might suggest to overcome these barriers. The barriers identified centered on the lack of hours that transportation services were available and the lack of flexibility in service. When asked to identify solutions to overcome the identified barriers, increased funding was suggested. In addition, a respondent from the Wichita Falls Transit System suggested that a unified effort to coordinate transportation within the region is necessary because the existing system is very complicated. 22 Responses from Wichita Falls Transit System Consumers Fifty-four consumers were interviewed while they were riding a Wichita Falls Transit System bus. As described in Figure 11, almost sixty percent (59.3%)were urban ' residents; 18.5% lived in a rural area. ' Figure 11: Consumer Demographics by Location 59.3% 18.5% Urban Rural ' Almost two-thirds of the riders were male and onlyone-third was female(Figure 12 . ( g ) Figure 12: Consumer Demographics by Gender ' 63.0% 33.3% ' Male Female 23 Responses from Transit System Consumers The preponderance of male riders of the Wichita Falls Transit System may reflect the proximity of Sheppard Air Force Base and this population's need to ride the bus to the shopping mall. iAs illustrated in Figure 13, Blacks accounted for 38.9% of the respondents; Whites accounted for an almost equal number(40.7%). Hispanics accounted for 13% and one percent of the riders classified themselves as "other." Figure 13: Consumer Demographics by Race Black 38.9% White 40.7% Hispanic 13.0% Other 1.9% The ethnic distribution of riders of the Wichita Falls Transit System does not reflect the racial distribution of the target area, since 74%of the residents of Wichita County are White, 8% are Black, 12.3% are Hispanic and 3.1% are considered "other." When residents of the rural counties surrounding Wichita County are included, 81.7% of the target population are White, 52% are Black, 10.4% are Hispanic and 1.8% is considered "other" (Center for Health Economics and Policy, 2000). As depicted in Figures 14 and 15, only 13% of the riders were senior citizens and 16.7% were disabled. It is unknown how many riders were both elderly and disabled. 24 ' Responses from Transit System Consumers Figure 14: Consumer Demographics by Senior Citizen Status 87.0% 13.0% Yes No Figure 15: Consumer Demographics by Disability Status 83.3% r 16.7% Yes No The small number of senior citizen and disabled riders is unusual for a public transportation service in a metropolitan area. However, this is consistent with the opinion of the employees of the social service agencies that few elderly depend on public transportation. 25 Responses from Wichita Falls Transit System Consumers Evaluation of the Transportation System Only a small number(5.6%) of consumers rated the bus service as poor. The remainder rated it as excellent (18.5%), good (59.3%), or adequate (14.8%). (Figure 16) Figure 16: Transportation Ratings on Getting to Goods, Services and Social g P . Interactions 59.3 18.5% 14.8% 5.6% Poor Adequate Good Excellent ' Figure 17: Local Transportation Situation 37% 35.2% 18.5% 3.7% A Major Somewhat of a Not Much of a No Problem At Problem Problem Problem All 26 Responses from Wichita Falls Transit System Consumers Similarly, only 3.7% of the respondents thought the local transportation situation was a major problem and 18.5% thought it was somewhat of a problem in their own life. (Figure 17) The majority of the respondents (85.2%) were either satisfied or very satisfied with the bus service. Only 5.6% of the respondents were dissatisfied, and 3.7%were very dissatisfied. Missing data represented 5.5%. (Figure 18) Figure 18: Satisfaction with Local Transportation 63.0% ' 22.2% 5.6% 3.7% 5.5% 1 Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Missing Satisfied Dissatisfied As noted in Figure 19, 6 1.1% of the respondents thought the transportation system in the area had stayed the same over the last five years, whereas 9.3% thought the system had slightly improved. Twenty four percent of the respondents thought the transportation system had improved in that time. Only 3.7% of the Wichita Falls Transit System consumers felt that transportation in the area had worsened in the last five years. 27 Responses from Wichita Falls Transit System Consumers Figure 19: Five Years of Transportation Improvements in Area 61.1% 24.1% 0 9.3% o 3.7 /0 5.50 /o Im roved Worsened Stayed the Improved Missing P Y P Same only Sightly Clearly, the majority of respondents were generally pleased with the services they received from the transit system. However, 56% of the respondents said that a new transportation system or improvements are needed. Almost 15% felt that such changes were not needed, and 24.5% did not know. It is reasonable to assume that the number of young people, perhaps from Sheppard Air Force Base, who ride the bus may have influenced the positive responses regarding the city transportation services. This assessment may not reflect opinions of elderly or disabled riders. Waiting Time Many people object to riding the bus because of the amount of time they must spend waiting at the bus stops for the bus to come. The largest percentage of respondents reported waiting for the bus for 1/2 hour(40.7%), 18.5%reported waiting 45 minutes and 25.9%waited one hour. Only 1.9%reported waiting more than 1 hour and 15 minutes. Missing data accounted for 13%. At the TxDOT Transportation Advisory Panel Committee meeting held after the data collection phase of this project, a representative of the Wichita Falls Transit System noted that the drivers on the buses on which some of the student interviewers rode, expressed concern that the questions on the survey might have been misunderstood. He suggested that the consumers may have interpreted the question, "What is the normal transportation pick-up time?" to mean, "How long did you ride on the bus for one trip?" If this question was, in fact, misunderstood, the data from this query may be misleading. 28 Responses from Wichita Falls Transit System Consumers Figure 20: Transportation Pick-up Waiting Time 40.7% 25.9% 18.5 13.0% 1.9%' M' 1 Hour 45 1/2 Hour 15 Missing Minutes Minutes Despite the general satisfaction with the Wichita Falls Transit System by the majority of riders, the majority of the respondents (40.9%) noted that lack of transportation ease is likely to limit the mobility of citizens. (Figure 21) This is similar to the response by the representatives of the social service agencies to the same question. Figure 21: Reasons for Lack of Mobility Missing Emotional and Transport. 2% 1 Phyical Health Access& Concerns Options 13% 49% Economic Concerns 36% i Observations of Students Riding the Wichita Falls Transit System Bus Students assigned to interview passengers riding the bus were asked if the bus was � comfortable during the ride and if the bus driver was helpful during the trip. In general, ' 29 Table H: Factors Influencing Affordable and Accessible Transportation Services Number of Strategies Number Barriers Responses of Responses No barriers 8 Don't know 17 Don't know 11 It is the county judge's 2 responsibility Small communities with a 4 It is the responsibility of 1 lack of services another jurisdiction Access to destination in a I reasonable time frame County ve f poor 1 This group of respondents also was asked to suggest designs for a new transportation system. These suggestions can be found in Appendix G. The participants of the TxDOT Transportation Advisory Panel Committee identified barriers to accessible transportation similar to other respondents in this study, i.e. lack of coordination among groups, lack of communication and marketing of r funding, of coo g g . available services (particularly m the rural area), lack of companions to accompany the frail elderly to medical visits, inflexible regulations, and multiple funding streams which cannot be mixed. When the group was asked to identify strategies to overcome these barriers, they outlined the following suggestions: Pool funding from the Department of Health, AAA, etc., to provide transportation for non-Medicaid individuals • Coordinate trips between transportation systems so that if, for example, RP (Sharp Line) drops a patient from Vernon at a medical service location in Wichita Falls, the van is able to transport another client from that location somewhere else in the city on the way home. • Develop a paratransit system as part of the Wichita Falls Transit System (Cost per rider of a paratransit system was estimated to be $21/rider as compared to $4.50/rider for the current transit system.) When the Wichita Falls Transit System services are compared to services in five similar sized Texas cities, all five had some sort of paratransit system for the elderly and disabled. Table I describes these services in more detail. 31 i Table I: Comparison of Services for the Elderly and the Disabled City Population Type of Eligible Riders Costs Other Service to Riders Abilene, 115,930 ADA Para- Riders whose $1.00- Managed by ' Texas transit Van physical/mental 1.501 McDonald system, disability prevent trip Transportation provided on a them from using Company. demand- accessible fixed- route service Abilene also response, has an I advanced registration, advanced shared rider reservation, basis. demand response evening van system, offered from curb-to-curb. Service is provided from 6:15 pm to midnight Monday through Saturday. Work-related trips receive first Driority. Amarillo, 174,727 Paratransit Available to the $1.00- An additional Texas demand- disabled and frail $6.00 van is being added to the response van elderly(Frail et in service. elderly compose fleet response to approximately P 20% of riders). increasing demand. San 90,000 Specialized Criteria for Angelo, (approx- Transportation ridership include: Texas imately) System •Can't get to a I (Vans). fixed route bus Services stop, or board a offered 6:30 bus if that bus has am to 6:30 pm a lift. Monday- •Can't board, use Friday; 9:30 or get off the bus 32 Conclusions 1. Respondents from social service agencies identify transportation as a significant impediment to mobility and resultant quality of life for citizens, particularly the elderly, in the target area. This validates concerns regarding the lack of transportation found in the KMG study and the Community Needs Assessment spearheaded by the United Way of Wichita Falls. These same needs have been identified in a major study by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) in 1997. 2. A majority of elderly do not use public transportation but continue to drive or depend upon relatives or friends. (Elderly citizens are not eligible for route- deviation services of the Wichita Falls Transit System, unless they are also disabled.) It is unknown if this lack of dependence is due to personal preference or related to the design of the transportation system. It is also not known how many elderly remain isolated in their homes because of perceptions regarding the 1 convenience of available transportation. 3. The greatest needs for transportation as identified by respondents from the social service agencies are in providing transportation for medical care and activities of daily living. This is particularly true for elderly or disabled citizens living in rural areas. Major barriers to meeting these needs include a lack of service at times convenient for clients and the cost of transportation services, particularly for those whose travel is not subsidized. 4. There were widely divergent suggestions from various stakeholders to improve transportation systems in the target area. Given this diversity, mechanisms to coordinate services throughout the region are likely to be helpful. 5. Less tha n half of the respondents from social service agencies believe city government works with the agencies on transportation issues. 6. Funding issues wer e identified by respondents from transportation companies as barriers to providing effective service, but lack of coordination was also seen as a problem. 7. Those who ride the Wichita Falls Transit System are, in general, satisfied with the riding experience. New riders (the MSU students) were also positive about the riding experience. However, keeping to the scheduled times for pick-up may be a problem. 8. The elderly and disabled make up a minority of the riders of the Wichita Falls Transit system and satisfaction with the service may not be generalized to that segment of the population. 34 9. City/county officials, particularly in the rural area, are not closely connected to transportation issues in their areas and may not see the resolution of these problems as a responsibility of their offices. 10. The transportation companies in the target area have proposed a one-call brokerage service to the Transportation Commission. 11. Community members in the target area often do not know of the transportation resources that ARE available to them. 12. Five Tex as cities of similar size to Wichita Falls have paratransit services for the elderly and disabled in their community. Recommendations 1. Coordinate transportation efforts in the urban and rural area by utilizing some of the efforts underway by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) or the national Community Transportation Association of American in Washington, D.C. It is likely that there should be a central coordination point, perhaps through the development of a Mobility Manager, as suggested by the previous KMG study. Initial efforts to coordinate services should focus on transportation for medical care and activities of daily living for elderly and disabled throughout the region. There should be a steering committee for this effort which includes representatives of the transportation companies, the social service agencies, city/county government and consumers of the transportation system. Individual meetings with city/county officials, particularly in the rural area, prior to organization, would be helpful. 2. Increase community collaboration regarding transportation through initiation of town meetings in strategic rural areas. 3. Develop a media campaign to make community members in the target area aware of the transportation options currently available. system for the elderly 4. Develop a paratransit Y and disabled operated by the City of Wichita Falls. This system would be based on a reservation system with clients making reservations for trips 1 to 14 days in advance. Services would be provided through the purchase of several vans and by contracting with city taxi companies. Infrastructure necessary to operate such a system would include a digital geographic database, automated routing and scheduling software, a global positioning system (GPS), and automatic vehicle location(AVL) and communication system. Criteria for eligibility should be flexible enough to allow ample access for the elderly. For example, the criteria developed by the City of San Angelo provide sufficient flexibility. 35 5. Develop a non-profit agency, through a coalition of senior citizens centers in the region, to provide transportation in a van(by appointment), for medical visits or personal business for the elderly. Riders would pay a flat fee (perhaps $5-10 dollars) and the remainder of the costs would be covered through grants and donations. Personnel for this agency would include an Executive Director, and 0.1 FTE Driver. (Coordination of rides would be through personnel of Senior Citizen Centers to the Executive Director of this agency.) The priority service would be medical transportation for the elderly who are not eligible for Medicaid. 6. Continue the collaboration of transportation providers in the target area through the TxDOT Meetings. Publicize proceedings through a mail-out to all parties interested in transportation, including city/county officials and employees. 7. Develop, pep g perhaps through the faith-based communities, an effort to provide volunteer escorts for the frail elderly who need assistance during transportation to and from medical visits. 8. Support the development of a one-call broker system as requested by the Transportation Committee of Wichita Falls. 9. Consider the benefits to the city of becoming a member of the Community Transportation Association of America(CTAA), a national organization in Washington, D. C. 36 APPENDIX A: (Transportation Survey Questionnaires) 1 37 ID No. TRANSPORTATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ALL RESPONDENTS: THIS INFORMATION IS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL AND INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN ELEVEN COUNTIES OF NORTH WEST TEXAS. Agency/Organization Name: Contact Person/Title Address Phone E-Mail Urban Location Rural Location I. Ouestions to Service Agencies/Advocates/Educational Agencies 1. Please circle one of the following that best describes your client population. a. Elderly b. Disabled c. General Population' d. School/Youth 1. If your answer is "a"please answer the following questions. What percent of elderly drive their own cars to your agency? a. Less than 5% b. 10% c. 20% d. More than 20% 1. Do you think more of the elderly would drive less if access to reliable transportation were provided? a. Yes b. No 2. Please describe the activities sponsored by your agency. 3. Please describe how well your city works with your agency to provide transportation to your clients. ' General population is defined as labor force commuters during prime time working hours. 38 4. On a 1 to 4 scale how would you rate your relationship with the city regarding transportation? a. Excellent b. Good c. Poor d. Extremely poor 5. Please circle what transportation services clients use to come to activities offered by your agency. a. Texoma Area Paratransit System, Inc. (TAPS) b. Rolling Plains Management Corporation c. Wichita Falls Transit System d. Own car e. Spouse or other relative f. Friend g. Cab service h. Other 6. What transportation needs do your clients typically have? r 7. Over the past five years,has transportation in your area: a. Improved b. Worsened c. Stayed the same d. Improved only slightly e. If circled question item 6-d please explain. 8. What external, internal, and/or interagency barriers are present which make it difficult for transportation needs to be met? 9. Which of the following best describes why the movement of clients is limited. and physical health erns a. Emotionala p y concerns b. Economic concerns c. Transportation access and options d. Other 39 10. What other agencies do you typically partner with regarding: 1. Transportation issues? 2. Other issues? 11. What are your suggestions for improving the transportation problems of your clients? 12. If you could design a transportation system for your clients, what would it look like? 40 Agency/Organization Name: Contact Person/Title Address Phone E-Mail Urban Location Rural Location 0 Il, Questions to Transportation Companies 1. What is your target population? 2. Approximately how many total passenger trips do you provide per year? 3. Approximately what percent of your annual ridership consists of: a. Children b. Elderly c. Disabled d. General Population 4. How many vehicles do you operate? 5. How many of your vehicles comply with"school bus"federal motor vehicle safety standards concerning emergency exits,body joint strength, and rollover protection? 6. Check as many of the following boxes as appropriate for characterizing your core transportation operations. a. Urban b. Rural c. Public Transit d. Human Services Transportation e. Fixed-Route f. Demand-Response g. Paratransit 41 h. Unit of Government i. Nonprofit j. For-profit k. Charter bus operation 1. School bus contractor m. Taxi n. Volunteer program o. Other 7. What is your policy concerning seat belt use on your vehicles? a. No seat belts are available b. Belts are available,use is optional c. All passengers are required to use belts d. Passengers younger than must use belts. 8. Which of the following FTA and other federal block grant(or formula-based) funds do you regularly receive in support of your core transportation operations(check as many as needed)? a. FTA Section 5307 b. FTA Section 5311 c. FTA Section 5310 d. Older Americans Act III-B e. TANF(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) f. Job Training Partnership Act/Workforce Development Act g. Social Services Block Grants(Title XX) h. Community Services Block Grants i. Medicaid J. Other(please describe other) 9. What do you charge your consumers? 10. What health, educational, or social service agencies do you work with? 11. Are there special contractual rates for specific populations? 12. What are the strengths of your services? 42 13. What are the weaknesses of your services? 14. What specific problems do you have, and what do you believe would solve them? 15. What are the external, internal, and/or interagency barriers for children,elderly,the disabled, and general population to use affordable and accessible transportation services to health,education or social services? 16. How would you suggest that these barriers be overcome? 17. How do you meet ADA2 guidelines? Z ADA stands for Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 43 CONSUMER DEMOGRAPHICS Urban Location 0 Rural Location 0 Day of Week: M T W TH F S Time: A.M. P.M. Male 0 Female Black White Hispanic 0 Other Senior Citizen Disabled III. Questions to Consumers 1. Transportation used to get people to and from crucial goods, services, and social interactions. a. Excellent b. Good c. Adequate d. Poor 1 2. What is the normal wait time for transportation pickup? a. %2 hour b. 45 minutes c. 1 hour d. 1 hour 15 minutes e. More than 1 hour 15 minutes 3. Which of the followingbest describes how the mobility of clients is inhibited? tY a. Emotional and physical health b. Economic well being c. Ease of transportation access and options 4. Over the past five years, has transportation in your area: a. Improved b. Worsened c. Stayed the same d. Improved only slightly 5. If b or d,please explain. 1 44 6. Overall how satisfied are you with local public transportation? a. Very satisfied ' b. Satisfied c. Dissatisfied d. Very dissatisfied 7. How would you describe your local transportation situation as it affects your daily life? a. A major problem b. Somewhat of a problem c. Not much of a problem d. No problem at all 8. Do you believe that new transportation or transportation improvements are needed in your area? a. Yes needed b. Not needed c. Don't know ' 45 ID.No. College of Health Sciences and Human Services Transportation Study Social Work Student Project Directions In pairs,select a bus route. Ride the entire bus route once in the morning hours during the time people are going to work and once in the evening when people are going home. Select at least 2-3 people to answer to the attached Consumer Questionnaire. Tell them you are a student at MSU and are working on a study funded by The Priddy Foundation to determine strategies to improve the transportation in Wichita Falls rAfter your have completed your bus ride,please complete the questionnaire below. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. MSU Student Observations Name 1. Was the schedule information you received helpful? Yes No 2. Was the bus on time? Yes No 3. Was the bus driver helpful? Yes No How? 4. Was it easy to transfer from one bus to another? Yes No 5. Was the bus comfortable? Yes No Explain. 6. Is this the first time you have ridden the bus in Wichita Falls? Yes No If no,how frequently have you ridden the bus ? 7. Have you routinely ridden city transportation anytime in your life? Yes No If yes, where 8. What is your general impression of the bus service in Wichita Falls? What would the bus service in Wichita Falls be like if you were disabled? _ ' 46 Agency/Organization Name: Contact Person/Title Address Phone E-Mail Urban Location = Rural Location 0 IV. Questions to City Officials ' 1. What transportation services are available in your community for children,elderly, and the disabled, and general population to receive health, educational or social services? 2. Does your city work with other cities in the area to provide transportation services? 3. Please describe how well your city works with community agencies to provide transportation. ' 3. On a 1 to 4 scale how would you rate your relationship with community agencies regarding transportation? 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Poor 4. Extremely poor 3. What are the external, internal,and/or interagency barriers for children, elderly,the disabled, and general population to use affordable and accessible transportation services to health, education or social services? 4. How would you suggest that these barriers be overcome? 5. If you could design a transportation system for your area, what would it look like? 47 APPENDIX B: (Core Transportation Operations) S 48 Core Services Identified by the Transportation Companies The following table outlines responses regarding the core services from the representatives of the three transportation companies interviewed. ' Target Population Urban-67% Rural-33.3% Company Provides Public Yes-67% No-33.3% Transportation Company Provides Human Yes-33.3% No-66.7% Services Transportation Type of Service Fixed Route-33.3% Demand-Res onse-66.7% Provides paratransit service Yes-0% No-100% Operated by a unit of the Yes-33.3% No-66.7% government Operated as a non-profit service Yes-66.7% No-33.3% Uses volunteers Yes-33.3% No-66.7% Operates as a school bus Yes-0% No-100% contractor,charter bus,or taxi. 49 ' APPENDIX C: (FTA or Other Federal Support in Support of Core Transportation Operations) a 50 Funding Sources to Support Core Transportation Operations The following table outlines Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) or other federal block grant(or formula-based) funds that support the operation of the transportation companies as reported by the company representatives. Federal Funding Source Percentage Received Percentage that do not ' Receive FTA Section 5307 66.7% 33.3% FTA Section 531 L 66.7% 33.3% ' FTA Section 5310 66.7% 33.3% Older Americans Act III-B 0% 100% Temporary Assistance for 0% 100% Needy Families Job Training Partnership 0% 100% Act/Workforce ' Development Act Social Service Block Grants 0% 100% (Title XX) Community Service Block 0% 100% Grants Medicaid 33.3% 66.7% Other Support 33.3% 66.7% (FTA Section 5309) ' 51 i ' APPENDIX D: (Suggestions from City/County Officials for Design of a Transportation System) 52 Suggestions from City/County Officials for Design of a Transportation System Use small vans and buses to transport people to other areas (43 responses). Things are fine now, but we need a transportation system to transport people to other ' areas. Provide more buses- (2 responses). Need a transportation system in small towns for the elderly and handicapped(3 responses). ' Provide a shuttle service for recipients (2 responses0). 53 References 1. City of Wichita Falls, Public Transportation Division, Application for State Public Transportation Funds. Texas Department of Transportation. State Fiscal Year, 2002. 2. Survey: Children And Community Transportation, Community Transportation ' Association of America, 1341 G St, NW 10`h Floor Washington, DC 20005, Phone 202 628 1418, Fax 202 737 9197 3. Straight, Audrey, Community Transportation Survey, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), 601 E Street, NW—Washington, DC 20049, ' www.aarp.or 4. Health and Nurses in Texas. The Supply of Registered Nurses: First Look at Available Data. The Center for Health Economics and Policy(CHEP) The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Winter, 2000. ' 54 NOTICE OF MEETING Regular Meeting Of The Mayor And City Council Of The City Of Wichita Falls, Texas To Be Held In The City Council Chambers Of The Memorial Auditorium, 1300 Seventh Street, On Tuesday, August 20, 2002, Beginning At 8:30 a.m. City Council: Mayor William K. Altman - Councilors Arthur Bea Williams, Linda Ammons, James Esther, Michael Norrie, Johnny Burns, and Harold Hawkins 1. Call to Order. 2. Comments From The Public To Members Of The City Council On Items That Are Not On The City Council Agenda. (The Regular agenda will begin upon completion of public comments, or no later than 9:00 a.m. Individuals who prior to this Council meeting signed up to speak, but could not be heard before 9:00 a.m. due to time constraints, may speak at the conclusion of the meeting.) TELEVISED SERVICES TO BEGIN 3. Invocation: Reverend Mel Hammer Faith Lutheran Church 4. Presentations: (a) United Way Proclamation (b) Registry Awards 5. Approval of Minutes. CONSENT AGENDA 6. Resolutions a. Resolution To Accept The Secondary Reservoir Pipeline Project And Authorize Final Payment To Bowles Construction Co. (City Council Bill # 163) b. Resolution To Accept The Secondary Reservoir Water Storage Pond Addition Project And Authorize Final Payment To Prater Equipment Co. (City Council Bill # 164) 7. Receive Minutes: City Council Agenda Tuesday, August 20, 2002 Page 2 a. Transportation Policy Committee — July 24, 2002 b. Wichita Falls Traffic Safety Commission — June 6, 2002 c. Landmark Commission — July 17, 2002 d. Wichita Falls Economic Development Corporation — May 13, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA 8. Public Hearings: a. Public Hearing For The FY 2002/2003 Transit Grant b. Public Hearing On Hazardous Structures 9. Ordinances: a. Public Hearing On Hazardous Structures, An Ordinance Declaring Certain Structures As Dangerous, In Violation Of Ordinance And Commanding Certain Action With Regard To Same. (City Council Bill #165) b. Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 97-84 Declaring Certain Structures As Dangerous By Removing the Demolition Order for 1810 Burnett Street. (City Council Bill #166) c. An Ordinance Amending Exhibit A In Ordinance No. 56-2002 Replacing Election Officials. (City Council Bill #167) 10. Resolutions: a. Resolution To Approve Joint Funding Agreement With U.S. Geological Survey For Operation And Maintenance Of Stream Flow And Reservoir Content Gauging Stations. (City Council Bill #168) b. Resolution Expressing Support For The Wichita River Basin Chloride Control Project. (City Council Bill #169) c. Resolution To Award Bid And Contract For The 2001-2002 Water Budget Utilities Improvement Project. (City Council Bill #170) d. Resolution Authorizing The City Manager To Extend The Contract For Independent Financial Auditing Services With Mathis, West, Huffines, & Company For Two Additional Years. (City Council Bill #171) 11. Award of Bids: City Council Agenda Tuesday, August 20, 2002 Page 3 a. Award Of Proposal For The City's Insurance Program. b. Award Of Bid For The City's Estimated Annual Requirement Of Permethrin Based Adulticide To Public Health Equipment & Supply Company, Inc., In The Amount Of $43,125.00 c. Award Of Bid For Demolition, Clearing And Cleaning Of Various City Owned Properties At Lake Arrowhead And Lake Kickapoo To Environmental Service And Technology In The Amount Of $25,854.00. 12. Other Council Matters: a. Discussion Of Items Of Concern To Members Of The City Council. b. Staff/Council Discussion. 13. Adjourn. Wheelchair or handicapped accessibility to the meeting is possible by using the handicapped parking spaces and ramp located off the east parking lot on the Sixth Street entrance. Spanish language interpreters, deaf interpreters, Braille copies or any other special needs will be provided to any person requesting a special service with at least 24 hours notice. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 761-7409. CERTIFICATION I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at Memorial Auditorium, Wichita Falls, Texas on the day of , 20 at o'clock (a.m.)(p.m.). City Clerk