Rural and Specialized Passenger Transportation - Description and Review of Alternative Policies for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation - Wisconsin TransLinks 21
Click HERE for graphic. MISSION STATEMENT TRANSLINKS 21-- Wisconsin's 21st century transportation plan- will outline a comprehensive transportation system that moves people and goods efficiently, strengthens our economy, protects our environment, and supports our quality of life. Working with DOT, the public will identify Wisconsin's transportation needs -- and help to make tomorrow's transportation choices. RURAL AND SPECIALIZED PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION Prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation Rural and Specialized Passenger Transportation Work Group June 1994 This document will be made available in alternative format upon request ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared through the collaborative effort of the interdepartmental Rural and Specialized Transportation Work Group consisting of Toya Nelson, Director of the Bureau of Transit and Local Transportation Aids; Ron Morse, Chief of the Specialized Transportation Programs Section; Linda Lovejoy, Chief of the Public Transit Section; @ Kieck, Beth Trautsch, And Abou Bakarr Amara of the Specialized Transportation Section, Don Chatfield of the Public Transit Section, Greg Stelmacher of the Division of Highways District 4 Office; and Mark Mansfield of the Division of Planning and Budget; Transportation Services Section. Significant input was provided by Donald Wamke, Director of the Bureau of Fiscal Services, Department of Health and Social Services; Shirley Holman, U Crosse County Board of Supervisors; Mike Scott, Director of the Fond du Lac County Senior Services; Don Kush of the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission; Jan Scalpone of the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission; Bob Fisher of the Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission; and the participants from the region TRANSLINKS forums held in the fall of 1993 and the Rural Transportation Thematic Forum held on December 8, 1993. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter One: Existing Resources and Services 3 S.85.21 Specialized Transportation Assistance Program for Counties Section 16/s.85.22 Capital Grant Program Federal Section 18 Small Urban & Rural/Intercity Public Transportation Program s.85.20 State Urban Transit Operating Assistance Program Department of Health and Social Services Programs Other Transportation Related Programs Chapter Two: Gaps 10 Unmet Mobility Needs Service Gaps Other Gaps Chapter Three: Better Utilization of Existing Resources and Services 11 Passenger Transportation Planning Coordination Transportation Coordinating Committees Regional Passenger Transportation Planning Planning Resources Chapter Four: Funding and Policy Alternatives 13 Maintain Current Policies and Programs Increased Funding to Meet Mobility Needs Substantial Increase to Meet Mobility Needs Meeting Most Local Transportation Needs Summary 19 Appendix A: Allocations of s.85.21 Aid (1994) Appendix B: Specialized Transportation Services Provided By Agencies Funded Under Programs Administered By the DH&SS RURAL AND SPECIALIZED PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION TRANSLINKS 21 gives us an opportunity to examine a portion of the total transportation picture in Wisconsin which sounds rather simple but, in fact is very complex and personal. Rural passenger transportation involves not only service provided to the elderly and disabled but also affects persons looking for jobs, medical services, and others with priority mobility needs who are transit dependent because they can't afford an automobile, are unable to drive, or don't have relatives, friends, or neighbors willing or able to give them a ride. For the purpose of this issue paper, the focus is twofold: rural areas with populations of 5,000 or less and specialized transportation for the elderly and persons with disabilities. However, this paper will also examine shared-ride taxi systems as an alternative for meeting mobility needs of citizens within and around small urban areas with populations between 2,500-50,000. Transportation programs in Wisconsin are not consistent when it comes to availability and eligibility. A public demand responsive transit service is available to everyone within the service area for whatever purpose. Where a fixed route bus service is provided, the proximity to the route determines service availability. Specialized transportation programs which are administered by WisDOT limit eligibility to the elderly and persons with disabilities, with the general public carried on a space available basis. The counties to whom these funds are allocated may establish criteria which limit the person's ability to utilize the service. Such criteria may include trip purpose priorities. The need for transportation is influenced by such factors as the person's ability to drive, financial capacity to purchase and operate a vehicle, availability of their existing vehicle, etc. The program, in turn, is structured around the target group which is identified by the county and the service levels based upon the available funds and revenues collected. Other non-DOT funded transportation services may be available to certain groups or individuals as part of a particular social service program. Eligibility may be based upon income level, trip purpose or other such qualifications. Again, the target group influences how the program is shaped. Most transportation programs are statewide, countywide, or local in nature. Consequently, aspects of any particular program may impact on services to urban areas as well as rural areas and a separation between rural and urban may not be possible. The paper will also touch upon other related issues within the TRANSLINKS 21 process which provide additional mobility opportunities for persons in rural areas. These issues include connectivity with intercity bus service, urban transit, rail and air passenger service. Passenger transportation in rural areas is a very complex issue, primarily because of the number of federal, state and local programs which provide for specific client services. In many cases, transportation is only a portion of the program services provided by an agency. Distance to services is another factor which adds to the complexity of providing efficient transportation in rural areas. This paper will examine the existing rural and specialized transportation resources and services. Its focus will be on the federal and state programs which the department administers but will also discuss those programs which we are aware of that are administered by other state and local governmental agencies. It will identify some of the known gaps in existing resources and services, identify ways to better utilize existing resources and services, and provide a look at passenger transportation system alternatives based upon various funding strategies. 2 CHAPTER ONE Existing Resources & Services WisDOT is only one of the governmental agencies through which state and federal funds affecting rural passenger transportation are administered. Most of the funds are passed through to counties and other local levels of government to provide services for the general public, the elderly and persons with disabilities or specific client groups. DOT is one of the few agencies whose programs are specifically for transportation purposes. In addition, the Department of Health & Social Services administers a myriad of programs for some general groups such as the elderly and some very specific client based groups. Transportation is an allowable expenditure in some of these programs. There are other state and local programs which are neither readily identifiable nor generally advertised which makes it difficult to portray an accurate picture of the existing resources and services available. This chapter will give a detailed description of DOT's transportation resources and services and give a general perspective of the other agency transportation programs. Wisconsin Department of Transportation: s. 85.21 Specialized Transportation Assistance Program for Counties The Specialized Transportation Assistance Program for Counties (s. 85.21, Wis. Stats.) was created by the legislature in 1978. It annually provides allocations to each Wisconsin county to assist them in their provision of passenger transportation services to the general elderly and disabled populations. The counties are required to provide a 20% match to their state allocation. In a number of counties with large cities, approximately 75% of the services available to the elderly and disabled are provided within the urban areas. The amount of money allocated to a particular county is based on its estimated proportion of the state's total elderly and disabled population. Since 1982, a minimum of 1/2% of the total appropriation has been guaranteed to the smaller counties in order to provide them with a reasonable amount with which to provide specialized transportation services. APPENDIX A shows the most recent distribution of program funds. Twenty-two of the state's 72 counties received the minimum allocation. 3 Each county provides the department with an annual plan which specifies how it intends to spend it's allocation during the project year. The counties may use their allocation to directly provide services, to purchase services from another source, fund volunteer organizations which provide driver escort services or establish a fare reduction program known as a User-side Subsidy (USS). FIGURE 1 Shows the types of services provided during 1994. The specialized category includes services provided with vans or minibuses whether they are operated directly or purchased from another operator. Click HERE for graphic. The growth in the program funding can be seen in FIGURE 2. In the 17 years that the s. 85.21 program has been in existence, the annual appropriation has grown from $1 M to $5.06 M. Similarly, one-way trips have grown from 2,138,000 in 1984 to 2,688,600 in 1992 as shown in FIGURE 3. 4 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Section 126/s 85.22 Capital Grant Program The federally funded Section 16 and the state funded s. 85.22 Capital Grant Program provide capital funding for specialized transit for the general elderly and disabled community. The Section 16 program began in 1975, and the companion s. 85.22 program was started in 1978. The grants awarded through this program cover 80% of the purchase price of various types of vehicles used to provide transportation services for these two subgroups of the general public. It is a competitive annual grant program which is open to eligible applicants from all parts of the state. In order to be eligible, an applicant must be one of the following: A) A private, non-profit organization B) A local public body that has certified that there are no private, non-profit organizations available to provide transportation services in its proposed service area. 5 C) A local public body that has been approved by WisDOT as the coordinator of services for the elderly and disabled in its proposed service area. The eligibility of local public bodies as described in B) and C) above is the result of new legislation passed in the most recent Budget Adjustment Bill. Administrative rule changes to implement this new legislation are being developed. Once determined to be eligible, an applicant may submit an application for consideration. It is scored against fixed criteria and ranked among all of the others submitted that project year. Coordination with other agencies and maximum utilization of the vehicle are important criteria in the evaluation process. Those who score a minimum of 100 points out of a possible 270 points are eligible to receive a grant for vehicles provided there are sufficient funds. Grants are awarded according to rank order of the scored applications until the appropriation is exhausted. Thus, it is possible to write a grant which deserves funding but is unable to receive any because of limited funding. The annual combined state and federal appropriation for this program has grown from $623,000 in 1975 to over $1.8 M in 1994 as shown in FIGURE 4. The appropriations measured on a constant dollar basis show that up until 1987, the program enjoyed a substantial positive cushion beyond the rate of inflation. However, this cushion diminished quickly from 1987 to 1991 where it remained constant until the present. Most of this decline is a result of a leveling and sometimes decline in the federal contribution. Currently, there are over 600 active vehicles statewide providing mobility to the elderly and disabled. Click HERE for graphic. 6 Federal Section 18 Small Urban & Rural/Intercity Public Transportation Program The Section 18 Program is a federally funded program which is available to non-urbanized areal (populations under 5,000). Local public bodies and federally recognized tribal governing bodies are eligible for operating assistance (maximum 50% of operating losses) and capital assistance, up to 80% of the cost of vehicles, facilities and other transit related items. Each state is allocated a proportionate share of a national appropriation based upon the number of persons in non-urbanized areas. FIGURE 5 shows Wisconsin's annual allocations since the program began in 1979. When the program began, only a few of the specialized transportation systems in Wisconsin restructured their systems and opened the service to the public, becoming eligible for this new source of funding. Consequently, recipients of Section 18 funds in this state have enjoyed a level of funding not enjoyed by many Section 18 recipients in other states where the conversion from specialized to public transit did take place. Click HERE for graphic. 7 Wisconsin currently has five rural bus transit systems. They are: Bay Area Rural Transit System near Ashland Menominee Tribal Transit in Menominee County Oneida Transit System near Green Bay Rusk County Transit System Wisconsin Winnebago Transit System near Black River Falls. For the most part, these systems provide demand responsive and commuter type transportation. They serve to tie small communities and residential areas to each other and to larger populated areas. Currently, these rural bus systems receive the maximum federal operating assistance (50% of operating losses) and most are not eligible for any state transit funding. The portion not covered by Section 18 funding must come from other sources such as local tax base or other unrestricted state and federal funds. s. 85.20 State Urban Transit Operating Assistance Program Local public bodies are eligible to receive 42% of their operating expenses to provide mass transit services in urban areas of 2,500 populations or more. There are 35 shared-ride taxi systems in urban areas between 2,500 and 50,000 populations receiving both state and federal Section 18 funds described above to a maximum combined total of 70% of expenses. The remaining unfunded portion of the expenses are covered by fares and/or local tax revenues and unrestricted state aids. Although the emphasis is on service in the urban area, the state program allows up to 1/3 of the total system miles to be operated outside the urban boundaries. FIGURE 6 shows the growth in shared-ride taxi programs since 1978. Like the growth in participants, shared-ride taxi ridership has experienced continued growth as shown in FIGURE 7 to a 1992 level of almost 900,000 passenger. Estimates for 1993 are in the vicinity of 1,000,000 rides. The average size of communities starting shared-ride taxi service is under 10,000 with 9 out of 16 in the last four years with populations under 5,000. Approximately 80% of the rides on participating shared-ride taxi systems are taken by elderly persons or persons with disabilities. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. 8 Department of Health & Social Services: The programs administered through the Department of Health & Social Services (DH&SS) respond to specialized transportation needs in a different fashion. In addition to programs for the elderly and persons with disabilities, transportation is provided for specialized client groups such as Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Family Planning and Migrant Health Services. In most cases, programs allow transportation as an element of a more comprehensive program of client services. Consequently, data specific to transportation is not normally broken out by program. Further confusion arises from the fact that funds tend to be blended from a variety of sources into a block grant concept to provide services to a specific target group. For example, DH&SS has reported that $832 million was expended in 1992 on program services for the following target groups: Developmentally Disabled Mental Health Alcohol & Drug Physically Disabled Delinquent Child Abuse/Neglect Children/Family Adults & Elderly Out of $832 million total, $5.8 million is spent on specialized transportation service to program clients. However, because of the way programs report and funds are blended, there is no way to determine how much is spent by an individual program nor its identity as state or federal aids. Separate from the previously mentioned DH&SS programs is the Medical Assistance Program which provides medicaid transportation to eligible individuals. This program directly tracks transportation expenditures and is therefore able to give a reliable categorical accounting. In FY 1993, $12.15 M in state GPR funds and $17.35 M of federal medicaid funds (Title 19) were used to provide medically related transportation service. In addition to these targeted or categorical aids, there are a number of federally funded social service programs which allow transportation as an eligible expense. A list of programs funded primarily through the federal Department of Health & Human Services and administered by the Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Services is found in APPENDIX B of this report. It is the same list which was contained in WisDOT's "3052 Report" on The Status of Transportation Programs and Services for the Elderly and Disabled in Wisconsin. Other Transportation Related Programs: There are other federally funded programs which do not pass through WisDOT nor DH&SS. One such program is the Veterans Services Program which is directly administered at the county level. In most counties, client related transportation expenditures and ridership data are not kept separate from other client service expenditures. There are likely other locally funded (county/city) programs which provide mobility for people which do not receive state or federal funding or oversight. Since there is no central focal point in which to identify these programs and collect relevant data, it is impossible to identify them on a statewide basis. 9 CHAPTER TWO Gaps Unmet Mobility Needs. Demand for transportation services is generated from the activities which individuals choose to undertake. The basic transportation needs which are categorized as medical, nutrition and job-related are difficult to project, let alone the social and other transportation needs which are even harder to measure. Even if people have transportation choices such as an automobile or bus service, there are variables which influence a person's choice such as time of day, frequency of service and length of trip. All of this results in very fluid and uncertain demand levels. An attempt to project transportation demand on a statewide level would not be reliable under existing circumstances. Not only is the basic data to substantiate even the existing ridership and expenditures not available, each county or area within the state has unique geographic and demographic characteristics. A far more logical and appropriate universe to be examined is the county. A good planning process at this level should be able to provide a more reliable estimate of transportation needs and compare them to the existing services to arrive at the "unmet needs. An aggregate of the counties would produce a statewide picture. Service Gaps We are able to identify some service gaps which have been identified on a general basis through our involvement with various projects involving counties, regional planning commissions, rural transit associations and other resources. The more prevalent gaps which have been identified are: * Short-notice service which includes transportation to a medical facility not requiring an emergency medical vehicle (ambulance). * Job-related transportation. Existing service, whether public or specialized transportation, normally does not provide an opportunity to seek work or to work anything but a daytime shift. Even then, some programs only allow limited number of rides per week. This is particularly true for the low-income and disabled. * Lack of service on holidays, weekends and evenings. Just as in most urban transit systems, transportation in rural areas is not normally available on holidays, weekends and evenings. The most prevalent reason cited is the lack of funds. This type of service is usually under-utilized and does not justify the high cost to provide it. * Regional services and facilities are sometimes many miles from an origin of a trip and in a number of cases require the crossing of jurisdictional boundaries. These normally involve medically related services and are very expensive to provide. Some specialized treatment requires numerous trips within short periods of time. This usually limits the other types of trips which can be offered. 10 * Intercity bus service. In recent years, intercity bus service in Wisconsin has substantially declined. This is particularly evident in the rural areas. While this is a rural passenger transportation issue and concern, intercity bus is being considered as a separate issue under the general subject of intercity passenger transportation. Connectivity of rural services with available intercity bus service is not common in our rural communities. As with any service, the amount provided is normally based on the availability of funds. The specialized transportation community treats medical services as the top priority for its elderly and disabled. This is followed by nutrition, jobs and social transportation. While public transit is not allowed to prioritize trips, the fixed routes in rural areas are normally structured to serve medical, nutrition and job related facilities. Other Gaps * Types of vehicles. Because of the construction standards required for vehicles which are registered as "Human Services Vehicles"(HSV), some newer style vehicles which are on the market can't be purchased. These newer style vehicles which do not meet the current HSV standards but do meet federal safety standards, give a more comfortable ride than the school bus type vehicles. This is particularly important to those in the rural areas who must travel long distances over rough roads. Administrative rule changes are being proposed which allow these newer styles of vehicles to be purchased. * Awareness. It is difficult for persons who need transportation to find out what is available and how to access it. This is particularly true of the elderly and low-income. Since some programs are so poorly funded, their availability is not well publicized. CHAPTER THREE Better Utilization of Existing Resources and Services Passenger Transportation Planning One of the key ingredients to providing effective and efficient transportation is short-term and long-term planning. With the exception of a few counties and a couple of regional planning commissions, little or no countywide passenger transportation planning is performed. Transportation planning for those urbanized areas which have public transit systems is required. Virtually, no regional passenger transportation planning which involves crossing jurisdictional boundaries is being done. The primary reason for this lack of planning is that most counties have not given passenger transportation planning a priority even though it has been identified in a number of surveys as one of the top concerns, particularly of the elderly and disabled. 11 Counties are the primary recipient of most program funds of which transportation is a component part and it is the county that makes most of the decisions on 1) how the funds are distributed, 2) who is eligible to receive the services and 3) how the services are provided. Often these decisions are made in isolation and coordination opportunities are missed. In addition, public involvement is not always a part of the decision making process. Coordination Transportation planning at the county level is important because it is the basis on which coordination and improved utilization of resources and services can be achieved. Another benefit of a planning process is the ability to identify all resources, not only funding resources but also service provider and equipment availability. It is also a mechanism to determine mobility need of its public or targeted groups. Public input is a key ingredient of a good plan. Statewide projections of mobility needs have been attempted but with little success because the necessary data is not kept. A planning process should be able to identify existing resources, needs and services. From the identification of this key information, coordinated service plans can be implemented which provide a more effective and efficient use of available resources. An added benefit of a planning process is the improved reliability of support for additional resources. Transportation Coordinating Committees A number of counties have established "transportation coordinating committees" but most have very little authority and minimal responsibilities. There is no consistency in either the membership of the committees or the duties performed. A properly empowered transportation coordinating committee with defined minimum responsibilities would provide counties with a mechanism to carry out effective and efficient service delivery. Regional Passenger Transportation Planning Regional Passenger Transportation Planning is a more difficult process because, in most cases, it deals with multiple jurisdictions and the need to cross jurisdictional boundaries. Regional planning commissions are the logical organizations to undertake this long- range (20-30 years) planning. Part of the long-term workplan should involve the feasibility of a regional public transit system which would provide service to meet the mobility needs for travel within the region while connecting with other modes, such as intercity bus, for longer distance trips. Client based transportation could be contracted for with the regional service provider or broker. This concept may require legislation to create an appropriate entity to effectively implement the service. Planning Resources There are existing rural passenger transportation planning funding resources from which to draw. Planning is an eligible expense under the s. 85.21 County Aid Program. Also, the Section 18 Program can be used to fund special studies involving public transportation. In addition, regional planning commissions can use federal Section 8/26 (a) (2) (A) funds provided through WisDOT if such planning is part of its annual workplan. 12 CHAPTER FOUR Alternatives Chapter Four takes a look at four alternatives which produce different levels of transportation services based upon different funding strategies and policies to achieve specific benefits at each level. Each level assumes a constant dollar level for existing non-DOT programs adjusted for inflation, and that any increased funding for WisDOT programs would not displace existing nonDOT program funds. Alternative One - Maintain Current Policies and Programs Under this scenario, WisDOT would maintain its current commitment to programs affecting rural public and specialized programs. Existing levels of transportation service would continue and additional discretionary rides would be available through coordination efforts. In most cases, trip priorities would continue to be established because of the shortage of resources at all levels. Funding Strategies: Possible strategies include the following: Provide the current level of funding for the Elderly & Disabled County Aid Program (s.85.21), adjusted for inflation. Provide the current level of funding for the Elderly & Disabled Capital Grant Program (s.85.22), adjusted for inflation. Maintain the current level of funding for the rural public transit systems which is 50% of deficit (expenses minus revenues) for areas under 2,500 populations and 70% of expenses for small communities 2,500 - 50,000 population. Policy Strategies: Possible strategies include the following: Encourage coordination of existing funding sources and services. Provide technical assistance to transportation providers and agencies. Encourage the expansion of shared-ride taxi systems for communities with populations of 2,500 - 50,000. 13 Discussion: This alternative would result in specialized transportation continuing to be the primary means for transit dependent persons to meet their mobility needs where public transit is not available. With a growing elderly population, a maintenance of current funding would likely leave mobility "gaps" in many areas, falling short of providing optimal service levels. Alternative One would do little to improve the connectivity with whatever long distance modes, such as intercity bus service, exist in the rural areas. Alternative Two- Increased Funding to Meet Mobility Needs Under Alternative Two, incremental increases in specialized transportation programs would provide gradual improvements meeting the priority needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities. Better connections with improved intercity bus services would be accomplished by countywide and regional passenger transportation planning efforts. The quality of life (independence) in the rural areas would be strengthened without the need for substantial increased transportation revenues or trade-offs with other transportation programs. Funding Strategies. Possible strategies include the following: Incremental increases in the Elderly & Disabled County Aid Program, adjusted for inflation. Incremental increases in the Elderly & Disabled Capital Grant Program, adjusted for inflation. Provide current level of funding for the rural public transit systems and small urban shared-ride taxi systems. Provide targeted increases for low-income transit dependents. Provide financial incentives for countywide and regional passenger transportation planning efforts. Policy Strategies: Possible strategies include the following: Encourage development of improved mobility, focusing on priority trip purposes. Develop passenger transportation planning on countywide and regional basis. 14 Examine the feasibility of regional public transit systems. Provide linkage to improved intercity bus service and other passenger modes. Actively encourage the expansion of shared-ride taxi systems for communities of 2,500 - 50,000 population. Discussion This alternative would gradually meet the priority needs of the elderly and disabled on a long term basis. It would also provide long distance travel options for citizens by connecting the public and specialized services with other transportation modes, particularly intercity bus. The concept of regional,rural public transit would be explored which looks at travel between cities. In the short term, Alternative Two would be relatively easy to implement because it does not deviate from the current program concepts and the increased services it produces would be implemented in an orderly fashion. The long term implication would be examined through planning on a countywide and regional basis and coordination with other funding sources and services would be heightened. Alternative Three- Substantial Increases to Meet Mobility Needs While this alternative does not differ substantially from Alternative Two in structure, the amount of funds devoted to the various transit programs increases mobility at a much faster rate. Priority needs would be met much faster than Alternatives One or Two and service gaps such as weekend or evening service could begin to be addressed. Connectivity with long distance travel modes such as intercity bus and rail service would offer a much higher level of mobility for the rural citizens. Funding Strategies: Possible strategies include the following: Substantial periodic increases in the Elderly and Disabled County Aid Program. Substantial periodic increases in the Elderly & Disabled Capital Grant Program. Allow rural public transit systems in areas under 2,500 population to participate in the state operating assistance program. Provide the current level of funding for the rural public transit systems and small urban shared-ride taxi systems. 15 Provide targeted increases for low-income transit dependents. Provide financial incentives for countywide and regional passenger planning efforts. Policy Strategies: Possible strategies include the following: Encourage development of improved mobility, focusing on improvements to priority trips and service gaps such as evening and weekend service. Examine the feasibility of regional public transit systems. Provide linkage to improved intercity bus service and other passenger modes. Actively encourage the expansion of shared-ride taxi systems for communities of under 50,000 population. Encourage the establishment of regional approach to meeting mobility needs focusing on a central point of contact. Discussion This alternative greatly enhances the mobility of persons in the long term. From an administrative perspective, this alternative would be identical to what is presently in place. However, the substantial increase in funding may only happen if transportation revenues are increased or there is a redistribution of existing funds. This alternative also brings us closer toward a regional concept of passenger transportation. @ transportation needs would be largely met with shared-ride taxi systems and specialized transportation services. Long distance travel opportunities are increased with substantial improvements in intercity bus service to rural communities and the coordination of the increased rural services with these modes. Alternative Four- Meeting Most Local Transportation Needs Alternative Four develops a passenger transportation system over the long term which provides for most of the needs of all citizens. Local mobility is met through connections by a state wide network of expanded shared-ride taxi systems serving all communities of 2,500 - 50,000 population in Wisconsin. Travel needs between communities in the rural areas would be met through a regional public transit system. Specialized transportation services is still provided in areas where public transit cannot meet the needs. However, all services would be coordinated from one central source. Intercity long distance travel would be substantially improved with expansion of intercity bus and rail passenger service and intermodal transfer facilities. 16 Funding Strategies: Possible strategies include the following: Substantial increases in the Elderly and Disabled Transportation programs during the short term to cover priority needs and service gaps. Substantial increases in public transportation funding in the later years to meet the increase in regional public transit systems. Policy Strategies: Possible strategies include the following: Develop regional public transit systems to meet the travel needs between cities. Develop a system of shared-ride taxi systems in communities for meeting local mobility. Local and countywide passenger transportation planning is developed. High tech initiatives such as Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS) and Global Positioning is used to provide connectivity with intercity bus and efficiency of improving the local transit system operations. Regional passenger transportation planning required. Discussion This alternative attempts to meet most, if not all, of the mobility needs primarily through establishing regional public transit systems which include a network of shared-ride taxis, regional transit service between communities and interconnectivity of these services with greatly improved intercity bus, rail, urban bus and air services and intermodal facilities. The administrative function of the present specialized transportation programs would change dramatically, particularly in the latter years of the TransLinks 21 period. The emphasis would be on public transportation service. This alternative would also require substantial investment in both operation assistance and capital (vehicles, maintenance facilities, etc.) which could result in the need for increased transportation revenues or a major shift in transportation priorities. 17 Summary of Alternatives There are obviously sublevels of the four alternatives described above. These four alternatives represent options for determining, in a general sense, the direction the public wants the department to take to meet the mobility needs of its citizens when it comes to rural and specialized transportation passenger services. In all alternatives, coordination is a key ingredient in maximizing funding and services to meet the needs in an efficient and effective way. Of course, the larger the financial commitment and the sooner that commitment may be desired, the more impact it will have on the need to find additional resources or reallocate existing resources. 18 SUMMARY Mobility options in the rural areas of the state are limited. There are over 150 communities with populations between 2,500 and 50,000 which do not have a public shared-ride taxi system. In a number of counties with large urban cities, approximately 75 % of the services available to the elderly and disabled are provided within the urban areas. The elderly aged 65 and older accounted for nearly half of the total net gain in the state's population over the last decade. The group over age 85 has grown most rapidly. About 14% of Wisconsin's population is mentally or physically disabled. While we know that a large percentage of the elderly, disabled and low income are located in urban settings, there is still a sizeable percentage in rural settings which need access to services if they are to maintain their independence. The alternatives presented in this issue paper provide an array of options to close the gaps in rural passenger programs and services. Each alternative is also tied to decisions in other modal issues such as intercity bus because of the opportunity to connect with these other modes, thus providing more mobility options. Obviously, the greater the commitment from this department, the faster the gaps will close. However, each alternative requires a trade-off or an increase in user fees. Even Alternative One which calls for continuing existing. programs will be difficult to achieve given the growing state and federal environmental mitigation requirements within current revenue limits. There was concern expressed at one of the TRANSLINKS 21 forums about the department investing "transportation" dollars in "social" programs such as the s. 85.21 Elderly and Disabled Program. While the department believes that this is a legitimate use of the segregated trust funds, we cannot ignore the importance roads play in the rural areas and the impact a shortage of funds to maintain and improve those roads may have on the rural community. All of the alternatives contain varying degrees of actions which seek to improve existing programs and services. Planning and coordination are the foundation on which major improvements can be made. This will require cooperation among all levels of government and the private sector. The improvements realized will help fill the gaps identified by the rural transportation providers and users. -One additional concern is the commitment of the other federal, state and local governmental entities. If the choice is made to provide an incremental or substantial investment in rural passenger transportation programs, we would want to insure that the funds we invest are used to improve services and provide more mobility, not replace existing commitments. The next round of forums will provide further opportunity for input into the alternative decisions which the Secretary will eventually make. While we have attempted to lay out four alternatives with varying strategies and actions based upon the concerns expressed during the various forums and from the written comments received, there may be other options which will surface during the next phase of public participation which we will analyze in greater depth. 19 APPENDIX A ALLOCATIONS OF S.85.21 AID 1994 Matching County Allocation Share * Adams $25,000 $5,000 * Ashland $25,000 $5,000 Barron $52,290 $10,458 * Bayfield $25,000 $5,000 Brown $162,368 $32,474 * Buffalo $25,000 $5,000 * Burnett $25,000 $5,000 Calumet $30,017 $6,003 Chippewa $59,830 $11,966 Clark $39,008 $7,802 Columbia $52,190 $10,438 * Crawford $25,000 $5,000 Dane $277,242 $55,448 Dodge $89,120 $17,824 Door $31,910 $6,382 Douglas $48,266 $9,653 Dunn $31,919 $6,384 Eau Claire $79,770 $15,954 * Florence $25,000 $5,000 Fond du Lac $94,577 $18,915 * Forest $25,000 $5,000 Grant $53,960 $10,792 Green $33,770 $6,754 Green Lake $26,907 $5,381 * Iowa $25,000 $5,000 * Iron $25,000 $5,000 *Jackson $25,000 $5,000 Jefferson $67,665 $13,533 Juneau $28,963 $5,793 Kenosha $120,922 $24,184 * Kewaunee $25,000 $5,000 La Crosse $93,870 $18,774 * Lafayette $25,000 $5,000 Langlade $27,406 $5,481 Lincoln $32,869 $6,574 Manitowoc $92,560 $18,512 Marathon $108,446 $21,689 Marinette $50,820 $10,164 * Marquette $25,000 $5,000 * Menominee $25,000 $5,000 Milwaukee $969,567 $193,913 Monroe $43,232 $8,646 Oconto $35,430 $7,086 Oneida $42,080 $8,416 Outagamie $121,952 $24,390 Ozaukee $60,173 $12,035 * Pepin $25,000 $5,000 Pierce $27,345 $5,469 Polk $41,330 $8,266 Portage $51,235 $10,247 * Price $25,000 $5,000 Racine $161,703 $32,341 * Richland $25,000 $5,000 Rock $133,620 $26,724 * Rusk $25,000 $5,000 St. Croix $41,115 $8,223 Sauk $57,643 $11,529 * Sawyer $25,000 $5,000 Shawano $48,293 $9,659 Sheboygan $112,738 $22,548 * Taylor $25,000 $5,000 Trempealeau $33,167 $6,633 Vernon $34,570 $6,914 Vilas $27,928 $5,586 Walworth $78,697 $15,739 * Washburn $25,000 $5,000 Washington $77,445 $15,489 Waukesha $242,029 $48,406 Waupaca $59,226 $11,845 Waushara $27,930 $5,586 Winnebago $138,929 $27,786 Wood $79,959 $15,992 TOTAL $5,084,000 $1,016,800 * = Guaranteed Minimum Allocation APPENDIX B SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PROVIDED BY AGENCIES FUNDED UNDER PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY THE DH&SS The client transportation provided to recipients of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services programs is funded at a level greater than any other specialized transportation assistance program. The following is a list of programs funded primarily through the federal Department of Health and Human Services which will give a detailed illustration of the involvement that social service programs may have in specialized transportation. 1) Indian Health Service - provides transportation for patients and escorts between health facilities or from residence to health facilities when private transportation is not available. 2) Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Services Block Grant - provides transportation to community mental health center clients and other beneficiaries of the services funded with the block grants. 3) Maternal and Child Health Block Grant - transportation of mothers in need of prenatal services and infants in need of medical care. 4) Community Health Centers - transportation services for those clients of the centers who have special difficulties in accessing the center's services. 5) Family Planning - transportation is an authorized program expense. 6) Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant - transportation is an allowable service. 7) Sexually Transmitted Diseases Control Grants - transportation is an allowable service. 8) Childhood Immunization Grants - transportation is an allowable grant. 9) Migrant Health Centers - transportation services for those clients of the centers who have special difficulties in accessing the center's services. 10) Adolescent Family Life/Demonstration Projects - transportation is an allowable service. 11) Mental Health Services for Cuban Entrants - transportation is an allowable service. 12) Community Support Program - transportation is an allowable service. 13) Health Programs for Refugees - transportation is an allowable service. 14) Home Health Services and Training Grants and Loans - transportation is an allowable service. 15) Tuberculosis Control Programs - transportation is an allowable service. 16) AIDS Cooperative Agreements - transportation is an allowable service 17) Black Lung Clinics - transportation is an allowable service. 18) Medicare, Part B - transportation by ambulance only if other means of transportation would endanger the client's health. 19) Social Security Administration - reimbursement to persons who travel to medical examinations, reconsideration interviews and hearings, under certain circumstances. 20) Aid to Families with Dependent Children - states choosing to establish a community work experience program may pay for transportation of program enrolles. 21) Office of Human Development Services - currently planning a national initiative to promote the coordination of transportation services for its target population (i.e., elderly, children from low-income families, disabled persons, and native Americans) . 22) Administration for Children, Youth, and Families - transporting children to and from day programs. 23) Administration on Developmental Disabilities - transportation of DD individuals from community living situations to employment, recreation, and medical appointments. 24) Administration on Aging - transportation is an allowable service and is funded under Title III of the Older Americans Act. 25) Social Services Block Grant - funding is used by the states to provide transportation services which support a variety of social service programs. 26) Work Incentive Program - states may be reimbursed for transportation costs either as -an administrative expense or as an optional medical service. 27) Medicaid - transportation services may be provided or reimbursed. 28) Community Service Block Grant - transportation is an authorized expense. 29) Community Service Employment for Older Americans (Title V- OAA). 30) Job Training Partnership Act. Wisconsin Translinks 21 FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS TOPIC, CONTACT: RON MORSE CHIEF, SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 7914 MADISON, WI 53707-7914 FOR ADDITIONAL COPIES CALL: OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 608/266/3581