HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-04-2013 - 5fORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 4, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 5 -f
SUBJECT: Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections — PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
Transportation; Aging
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Locally Coordinated Human Service Al Terry, 919 - 245 -2002
Transportation Plan (Under Separate Janice Tyler, 919 - 245 -4255
Cover) Craig Benedict, 919 - 245 -2592
PURPOSE: To approve a four year updated Locally Coordinated Human Service
Transportation Plan for Orange County which will allow the County to apply for additional North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Public Transportation Division Grants.
BACKGROUND: The Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization ( TARPO) has taken the lead
in developing this update to the Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan, with
cooperation from Chatham Transit Network (CTN), County of Lee Transit System (COLTS),
Moore County Transportation Services (MCTS), Orange Public Transportation (OPT), and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation Public Transportation Division (NCDOT -PTD).
The TARPO region encompasses Chatham (partially), Orange (partially), Lee, and Moore
counties. The parts of Chatham and Orange counties that are not part of the TARPO are
included in the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO)
for the northeastern Chatham and southeastern /central Orange, or the Burlington- Graham
Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO) for west - central Orange.
Community Transportation Systems and human service agencies are dependent on both state
and federal funded grants to sustain their transportation administration and operations. The
purpose of this Plan is to provide a viable and effective public transportation service network in
the four counties that comprise the TARPO, complying with current federal regulatory
requirements pertaining to human service public transportation coordination. This adopted plan
will allow Orange County access to future federal funding sources to include a Mobility Manager
for the Department on Aging.
The Plan is focused on rural services similar to those OPT provides rather than urban services
(e.g. Chapel Hill Transit). It should assist (along with other proposed outreach activities) in the
implementation of the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan with regard to rural areas
and connections to urban public services /networks.
The locally coordinated human service transportation plan workshops were held on April 25 and
26, 2013. Local elected officials (including members of the Board of Commissioners), Human
Service agencies, and the general public were invited to participate. These workshops resulted
in the development of a coordinated plan that serves and qualifies the local transit providers for
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding assistance under Section 5310 (Enhanced Mobility
for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities) and other federal assistance programs.
Summary of Process:
The following activities have been conducted as part of this plan update:
• A review of the 2009 plan document;
• Collection and development of updated demographic data and mapping, using
information from the 2010 Census and the 2007 -2011 American Community Survey five -
year dataset (most recent available);
• Collection of updated transit service statistics for the region, as reported to NCDOT for
the years 2010 -2012;
• Two half -day workshops with stakeholders and interested individuals in the region to
identify needs, strategies, and priorities. One workshop focused on Lee and Moore
counties while the other focused on Chatham and Orange counties;
• A survey (both hard copy and online) to collect information from stakeholders and
interested citizens in the region;
• A website with links to the 2009 plan, the online survey, and information on the two
workshops; and
• Documentation of the outcome of the surveys and workshops.
Key Sections of Plan: (Page Numbers at Bottom of Pages)
Purpose and Background P. 1
The Planning Process pp. 1 -2
Orange County Recommendations pp. 43 -57
Summary of Orange County Recommendations pp. 57 -58
For additional information, including the 2009 Locally Coordinated
Plan: http: / /www.tarpo.org /topics /lcp.shtml
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Orange County Board of Commissioners approved a new Mobility
Manager position for the Department on Aging on December 11, 2012 for FY2013/2014. This
Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan will meet the federal requirements and
allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Public Transportation Division to
dispense grant funds (80% federal, 10% state, and 10% local) to support the Mobility Manager
position. Although this position is to be housed in the Department of Aging, coordination with
OPT will be paramount. Future application for grants through NCDOT will also be considered.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve the Locally
Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan for Orange County which will allow the County
to apply for additional North Carolina Department of Transportation, Public Transportation
Division Grants.
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO)
Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan
May 2013
In Cooperation With:
Chatham Transit Network (CTN)
County of Lee Transit System (COLTS)
Moore County Transportation Services (M GTS)
Orange Public Transportation (OPT)
(D
0"
"Ir ,
0,5,(jr
L
K
This page left intentionally blank
Table of GDatents
Insert Table of Contents Here at end of Ran Approval Process
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran
This page left intentionally blank
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human SBrvice Transportation Ran
7
Purpose and Background for the Plan
Community Transportation E,tstems and human service agencies are dependent on both state and
federal funding grants to sustain their transportation administration and operations. The purpose of
this plan is to provide a viable and effective public transportation service network in the four counties
that comprise the Triangle Area RAral Ranning Organization, complying with current federal regulatory
requirements pertaining to human service public transportation coordination.
The federal transportation funding law, MAP -21, includes provisions requiring a locally- developed and
coordinated human service public transportation plan. The Triangle Area RAral Ranning Organization
(TAWO) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) havejoined with local public
transportation agencies in scheduling local workshops and in developing a regionally- coordinated
service plan that conformsto the current federal regulatory requirements. These workshops were held
on April 25th and 26th, 2013. These efforts resulted in the development of a coordinated plan that
serves and qualifies the local transit providers for Federal Transit Administration (FFA) funding
assistance under Section 5310 (Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities) and
synchronizes thiswith other federal assistance programs such as FFA Section 5311 (RAral Area Formula
Grants), Community Action, Medicaid, Independent Living Centers, and Agency on Aging programs. In
the development of this plan, the dient needs, service gaps, and other issues of each local
transportation provider have been considered. This coordinated plan is intended to be flexible and
capable of being expanded or modified at a future date to incorporate additional efforts and initiatives
to meet the needs of each local transit provider. This is an update to a previous Locally Coordinated Ran
that was developed in 2009'.
FFA has proposed that the following key elements should be induded in any Locally Coordinated Ran:
• An assessment of transportation needsfor individualswith disabilities, older adults, and persons
with limited incomes,
• An inventory of the available services, identifying areas of redundant service and gaps in service;
• Identification of strategiesto addressthe gaps in service, eliminate or reduce service
duplication, and promote more efficient utilization of resources; and
• Prioritization of the implementation strategies.
The Planning Process in the TARPO Region
The Triangle Area RAral Ranning Organization (TAWO) has taken the lead in developing this update to
the Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran, with cooperation from Chatham Transit
Network (CTN), County of Lee Transit Sjstem (COLTS), Moore County Transportation Services (MOTS),
Orange Public Transportation (OPT), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation Public
2009 plan available online at http:// www. tarpo. orq/ docs/topics/humsery /Ichstcp.pdf
Triangle Area WO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran
Transportation Division (NCDOT -PTD). The following activities have been conducted as part of this plan
update:
• A review of the 2009 plan document;
• Collection and development of updated demographic data and mapping, using information from
the 2010 Census and the 2007 -2011 American Community &Arvey five -year dataset (most recent
available);
• Collection of updated transit service statistics for the region, as reported to NCDOTfor the years
2010 -2012;
• Two half -day workshops with stakeholders and interested citizens in the region, to identify
needs, strategies, and priorities. One workshop focused on Lee and Moore Counties while the
other focused on Chatham and Orange Counties,
• Asurvey (both hard copy and online2) to collect information from stakeholders and interested
citizens in the region;
• Awebsite with links to the 2009 plan, the online survey, and information on the two workshops;
and
• Documentation of the outcome of the surveys and workshops.
Stakeholder workshopswere held in Sanford on April 25, 2013, and Chapel Hill on April 26, 2013.
Invitations were sent to a broad range of individuals identified as stakeholders by the transit agencies
within each county. Additionally, public notices were sent out to media organizations and the workshop
information was posted on the TAFFOwebsite. For a list of invitees and attendees for these workshops,
please see Appendix A
The workshops consisted of small group exercises intended to identify needs, identify potential
strategies to address those needs, and prioritize the strategies for implementation. Therewerefour
exercises: (1) a brainstorm among all participants in attendance regarding transit needs in the region; (2)
a small group exercise examining potential strategiesthat could be used to address the identified needs;
(3) a small group exercise mapping location- specific strategies; and (4) a prioritization voting exercise
among all the participants, to identify the highest - priority strategiesfor implementation in the near -
term. The information that came out of these two workshops and the information gathered from the
survey serve as the primary basis for developing the recommendations found in this plan.
The plan was adopted by each of the following boards on the dates noted:
Chatham Transit Network Board of Directors— DATE
Lee County Board of Commissioners— DATE
Moore County Board of Commissioners —DATE
Orange County Board of Commissioners— DATE
2 Online survey is no longer active, following project completion. A paper copy of the survey and a summary of the
results can be found in Appendix B.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 2
9
Triangle Area Feral Planning Organization Regional Profile
The Triangle Area RAral Ranning Organization (TARPO) region encompasses the four following counties
in North Carolina: Chatham (partial), Orange (partial), Lee, and Moore. The partsof Chatham and
Orange Countiesthat are not part of TAFFOare included in the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro
Metropolitan Ranning Organization ( DCHCM PO) for northeastern Chatham and southeastern/ central
Orange, or the Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Ranning Organization (BGM PO) for west - central
Orange.
At the time of the 2010 Census, the combined population of the four TAFFO counties was 343,419,
which represented a 19% increase over the population in 2000. Approximately 209,023 of these
residents lived within the TARPO area, with the remainder living in the DCHCM FO and BGM PO areas.
The following table and graphs show the population totals for each county and include the breakdown
by urbanized areas (densely - populated areaswith more than 50,000 population), urban dusters
(densely - populated areaswith 2,500 to 49,999 population), and rural areas.
2010 Census Population Statistics for TARPO Counties
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
A
Chatham Lee County Moore Grange
County County County
0000 Rjral Population
iiiiiii Urban Cluster Population
uuuuu Urbanized Area Population
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 3
Chatham County
Lee County
Moore County
Orange County
Total Fbpulation
63,505
57,866
88,247
133,801
Urbanized Area
6,513
-
-
95,625
Population
Urban Ouster
15,128
33,120
43,543
-
Population
RAral Fbpulation
41,864
24,746
44,704
38,176
Non - urbanized (Urban
56,992
57,866
88,247
38,176
Ouster + RAral)
M FO Population
16,738
-
-
117,658
RPOPopulation
46,767
57,866
88,247
16,143
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
A
Chatham Lee County Moore Grange
County County County
0000 Rjral Population
iiiiiii Urban Cluster Population
uuuuu Urbanized Area Population
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 3
10
Five parameters are generally considered in determining the "transit- dependent" population of an area:
(1) number of persons age 60 or above; (2) number of disabled persons; (3) population in households
under the federal poverty level; (4) number of households without access to motor vehicles; and (5)
minority population. Based on historic patterns, these five indicators tend to provide information on
areas where the demand for human - services transit service is likely to be highest. The following table
provides information about these parameters for the TAWO area.
Demographic Information on "Transit- Dependent" Parameters (based on 2010 Census)
* Information in these categories comes from the 2009 -2011 American Community survey, and isbased on extrapolated sample data over a
three -year period rather than a full population count. Fercentageson these items are calculated using three -year estimate data.
* *Minority, as used here, includes persons who selected a race/ ethnicity other than" White Alone - Non - Hispanic' on the Census.
The counties in the TAFO region have experienced significant growth in the years between 2000 and
2010, growing from a total population of 288,845 in 2000 to 343,419 in 2010 (18.9% growth). The
population of the rural portions of these counties also grew, from 192,473 in 2000 to 241,281 in 2010
(25.4 %growth). General trendswithin the region include the growth of the Hispanic/ Latino population
(particularly in the Sler City area of Chatham County, the Sanford area of Lee County, and the Fbbbins
area of Moore County); growth in the population over the age of 60 (particularly in Chatham and Moore
Counties); and continued residential growth driven by people commuting to the nearby Paleigh,
Durham, and Fayetteville regions. The maps on the following pages display information on the "transit -
dependent" parameters3 at the Census Tract level (smallest geography with available data).
3 Disability information is not currently available at the Census Tract level due to changes in the American
Community Survey methodology in 2008. This information should be available in future years, however. At this
time, maps have not been created for disability status. Refer to the table for county -level data.
Triangle Area FO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 4
11111110n, 1
1111111027,11-3
1111113763
Total Fpulation
308,745,538
9,535,483
63,505
57,866
88,247
133,801
Total Households
116,716,292
3,745,155
28,845
22,058
37,540
51,457
Fpulation 60
57,085,908
1,772,118
16,266
11,168
26,254
19,643
and Over
Percent 60 and
18.5%
18.6%
25.6%
19.3%
29.8%
14.7%
Over
Disabled
36,499,048
1,232,302
7,198
8,596
12,200
11,180
Fbpulation*
Fercent
12.0%
13.2%
11.4%
15.1%
14.1%
8.4%
Disabled*
Fpulation in
Households
45,768,084
1,596,887
7,026
10,575
13,162
23,276
under Poverty
Level"
Percent under
15.2%
17.2%
11.2%
18.5%
15.1%
18.8%
Fbverty Level"
Households
without motor
10,419,039
243,221
1,395
1,963
2,145
3,590
vehicle access
Fercent without
motor vehicle
9.1%
6.6%
5.4%
9.3%
5.8%
7.0%
access
Minority
111,927,986
3,311,488
18,320
23,545
19,760
39,130
Population ""
Percent
36.3%
34.7%
28.8%
40.7%
22.4%
29.2%
Minority-
* Information in these categories comes from the 2009 -2011 American Community survey, and isbased on extrapolated sample data over a
three -year period rather than a full population count. Fercentageson these items are calculated using three -year estimate data.
* *Minority, as used here, includes persons who selected a race/ ethnicity other than" White Alone - Non - Hispanic' on the Census.
The counties in the TAFO region have experienced significant growth in the years between 2000 and
2010, growing from a total population of 288,845 in 2000 to 343,419 in 2010 (18.9% growth). The
population of the rural portions of these counties also grew, from 192,473 in 2000 to 241,281 in 2010
(25.4 %growth). General trendswithin the region include the growth of the Hispanic/ Latino population
(particularly in the Sler City area of Chatham County, the Sanford area of Lee County, and the Fbbbins
area of Moore County); growth in the population over the age of 60 (particularly in Chatham and Moore
Counties); and continued residential growth driven by people commuting to the nearby Paleigh,
Durham, and Fayetteville regions. The maps on the following pages display information on the "transit -
dependent" parameters3 at the Census Tract level (smallest geography with available data).
3 Disability information is not currently available at the Census Tract level due to changes in the American
Community Survey methodology in 2008. This information should be available in future years, however. At this
time, maps have not been created for disability status. Refer to the table for county -level data.
Triangle Area FO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 4
I
I�
i
I
I
i
I
y
i
CHATHAM COUNTT
Rohbino-
Garlhcye
MOORE COUNTY
Rirxhtni
FoRFl,e
r
i
i
IJ
f
ORANGE COUNT
J
i
Nil s6OMLgh
Flnr
Yo ��
R trsbo
EC
ail Hill
_ 1
r
.l
11
Triangle Area RPO
Locally Coordinated
Human Service
Transportation Plan
2013 Update
Minority
Population
(shown as
percentage
of total)
Legend
TARPO Boundary
r L
' CoumY gpvmn 4pry
hhalor Roods
Census Tract Data
0 - 17.05%
- 17.35 - 34.70°/6
34.70 - 52.05 °lo
_ 52.05 - $4-40%
over n
Mop Qarei April 12, 2413
Crt *fed by! TARPO
DgkQ 'Frpm! AmtriCGn
Community Surwey
2007 -1 1 Five -year
Esiimaies
0 2,5 5 10 i
rwliles I—
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 5
� I
i
CHATH MTt0VNrr
Mar Clrp
r+slah�rvs
Cn' I I
MOORE COUNTY
/I
f
a
4TY'
hllli�araugh
PPEs ro
LEE -0 MTI
5
op
k,
I
Con-rtrar+ •, -
-rwhlrprring Plws ff
Yi ii, 1
Sc a�tlf�t� �. r
]0[41 J
4
12
Triangle Area RPO
Locally Coordinated
Human Service
Transportation Plan
2013 Update
Population
Over Age 60
(shown as
percentage
of total)
Legend
TARPO Boundary
Ccwrwty 89Un4;:l4rY
Major Roods
Census Tract Do in
0 - 9A%
9.3 - 19.69/6
18.6 - 77.9 °lu
27 -9 - 37 -20/a
- o+er 37.21Yu
Map Date; April 12, 2013
Ce *044 br! TARPO
Nt4 frprre Ame�riopn
Community Survey
2007 -11 Five -ye -ar
E&Ifmales
T3 R
0 2.5 5 10
fi,5ile5
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 6
i
Iy
i
i
I
CHATHAM CouNTY
4& -
5i1 ■r clrk
AA*..
i
ORANGE
�1 }
Pahhire ` 11
�I
CsarNsaQe
MOORE COUNTY Cnnerar' -�
Ispering Pims
Tar Iprsa.r
Rhel -a-sl
! f f Fosll.e - -A e.
PimbuFF
ff ��
HI
, -f--ChakW Mill
PIrlsGOro
COUNTY
}
13
Triangle Area RPO
Locally Coordinated
Human Service
Transportation Plan
2013 Update
Population
in Poverty
(shown as
percentage
of total)
Legend
= TARPO Boundary
0wrrty gQkPndgrY
Major Roods
Census Tract Data
O - 8.6"14
6.6 - 17.24/6
M 17.2 - 25.8"16
over 34.4%
Map Date; April 12, 2013
C+e4+ed br! TARPO
QQt4 frprre Ame�riopn
Community Survey
2007 -11 Five -ye -ar
&Ifmales
0 2.5 5 10
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 7
I
� J
Y%
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
ORANGE COUNT
r-J al,oiau
I
Cur
rb4r4
Chp rI VIII
CHATHAM COUNTY
I
51w C., "r"..
' LEE COUM'
Carthage
MOORE COUNTY c4m[{4rl-
k
hleperina Plna
V1.
Te, glo'ew
Pln huw
Faafire Lr mrs r
J
en
Plirbluii
r
14
Triangle Area RPO
Locally Coordinated
Human Service
Transportation Plan
2013 Update
Zero -Car
Households
(shown as
pericentage
of Iota 1)
Legend
TARPQ Boundary
- Cgynty BaUnd4r7
MulDr Roads
Census Tract data
6.6 - 9.9%
_ 4.9 - 1 3 -2%
Map Dare: April 12, 2 -013
Cmoheed by= TARPO
Dana from: Amerioan
-Cammuriby Survey
2007 -11 Flve -year
Estimates
dx 23 5 10
mines
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 8
15
Regional -level Faecommendations
The county -level recommendations presented below serve as the primary focus of this plan document.
However, there are several over - arching issues of a regional nature that work across these county lines.
One major topic of discussion in the workshops was the issue of inter - county cooperation, with a
particular focus on the coordination of medical trips from the three southern counties that are traveling
to hospitals in Chapel Hill and Durham. Another topicthat was generally agreed upon in both
workshops isthe need for more general- purpose transit service in the TAFF0 counties, rather than
limiting services to medical trips and other contract services. Other topics with broad support among
the workshop partici pants and survey takers induded: the need to address certain areas of each county
that are currently underserved by transit; the need to provide door -to -door service for the elderly and
disabled; the need for improved communication of transit information with the public, and the need for
more education on available services, programs, and eligibility requirements.
County -level Summaries
,Specific information on existing service characteristics, needs, potential strategies, and prioritiesfor
implementation have been developed for each county within the TAFF0 region. This section provides
information tailored to the needs of each county, and the rural service providerswithin that county.
Inventory of Current Service
Chatham Transit Network (CTN) is a non - profit organization that provides a mixture of fixed -route and
demand - response service within Chatham County. Its two fixed routes are the `PX Fbute' connecting
Rttsboro and Chapel Hi 114 and the'64 Fbute' connecting Rttsboro and 91er City. The following list
provides an inventory of CTN'svehide fleet as reported in the 2011 National Transit Database:
• One 10 -seat 2009 cutaway van
• One 6 -seat 1996 minivan (not ADA equipped)
• One 13 -seat 2002 van (not ADA equipped)
• One 24 -seat 2004 cutaway van (not ADA equi pped)
• One 16 -seat 2006 cutaway van
• Two 9 -seat 2006 vans
• One 9 -seat 2007 van
• One 16 -seat 2008 cutaway van
• One 6 -seat 2002 minivan (not ADA equipped)
• One 16 -seat 2003 cutaway van
4 Three round trips of the PX Fbute each day are operated by CTN; additional runs are operated by Chapel Hill
Transit.
Triangle Area FF0 Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 9
16
• One 9 -seat 2006 van
• One 16 -seat 2007 cutaway van
• One 16 -seat 2009 cutaway van
• Two 16 -seat 2010 cutaway vans
• Three 8 -seat 2011 vans
This provides a total of 19 vans, of which 15 are equipped with wheelchair lifts.
In 2012, CTN reported having 28 X full- time - equivalent employees, of which 3 X were administrative
and 25 were drivers. In- county demand response service and medical trip services are provided
between 8 AM and 5 PM on weekdays. CTN operates three round trips of the 'PX' and '64' routes each
weekday. CTN offers curb -to -curb service countywide.
CTN carried 62,396 passengers in 2012, which is almost 250 passengers per day. 13% of CTN's trips
were paid through Medicaid and 51% were paid through other types of contract services. 36% of trips
were non - contract trips.
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 10
17
Chatham County has a relatively low population density overall, although it does have pockets of higher
density in 91er City, Rttsboro, and northeast Chatham. CTN's fixed routes connect these three areas of
higher - density population, as well as providing a connection to nearby Chapel Hill.
Population (2010)
63,505 (10% urbanized area, 24% urban duster, 66% rural)
Land Area (2010)
682 square miles
Average Fopulation Density (2010)
93 persons per sq.mi.
CTN Historical Operating Statistics
Survey and Workshop Outcomes
The stakeholder workshop for Chatham and Orange Countieswas held on April 26, 2013 at the Orange
County SDuthern Human 9=rvicesCenter in Chapel Hill. Alist of attendees can be found in AppendixA.
In the first exercise of the workshop, the part id pants were asked to brainstorm a list of needswithin this
two - county region. The group identified the following thirty -three needs:
• Door -to -door service
• F;bturn tripsfor medical emergency
• F;L-eval uat i on of routes serving Senior Center
• Expansion of general transportation service
• Expanded service in northern Orange/ rural areas
• Collaboration with medical services
• Addressing food deserts
• Trips need to serve county service centers
• Funding partnerships (e.g medical)
• More even i ng/ weekend/ morni ng servi ce
Triangle Area WO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 11
2010
2011
2012
%change'10 -12
Total Service M iles
478,140
598,304
639,502
+33.7%
Total Service Hours
18,456
23,634
24,992
+35.4%
Total Passenger Trips
44,400
54,343
62,396
+40.5%
Passengers per Hour
2.41
2.30
2.50
+3.7%
Passengers per M i I e
0.093
0.091
0.098
+5.3%
Non - Contract Trips per Non -urban Population
0.41
0.40
0.57
+39.0%
Cost per Mile
$1.64
$1.93
$1.79
+9.1%
Cost per Hour
$42.48
$48.78
$45.91
+8.1%
Cost per Trip
$17.66
$21.21
$18.39
+4.1%
9absidy per Trip
$7.37
$9.66
$5.40
-26.7%
Federal Funding
$172,170
$313,015
$221,847
+28.9%
State Funding
$155,267
$211,757
$115,219
-25.8%
Local Contract Funding
$353,726
$533,474
$694,987
+96.5%
Other Local Funding
$88,930
$84,488
$91,702
+3.1%
Fares
$13,915
$10,089
$23,642
+69.9%
Survey and Workshop Outcomes
The stakeholder workshop for Chatham and Orange Countieswas held on April 26, 2013 at the Orange
County SDuthern Human 9=rvicesCenter in Chapel Hill. Alist of attendees can be found in AppendixA.
In the first exercise of the workshop, the part id pants were asked to brainstorm a list of needswithin this
two - county region. The group identified the following thirty -three needs:
• Door -to -door service
• F;bturn tripsfor medical emergency
• F;L-eval uat i on of routes serving Senior Center
• Expansion of general transportation service
• Expanded service in northern Orange/ rural areas
• Collaboration with medical services
• Addressing food deserts
• Trips need to serve county service centers
• Funding partnerships (e.g medical)
• More even i ng/ weekend/ morni ng servi ce
Triangle Area WO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 11
ir.
• Access across county lines
• Coordination with DSSIMedicaid; access for people eligible but not yet enrolled
• Education
• Higher frequency
• Address decentralization of medical facilities
• Orculator routeswith remote collection points (rural)
• Assuring timelinessof service
• County -to- county transfers
• Affordability of service
• Coordination of service (staff person)
• More detailed instruction for riders
• Customer service improvements
• Amenities for transit stops
• Recreation trips
• Dissemination of user- friendly information
• Information in other languages
• Training for "Go Triangle" call center
• Enhancementsfor mobility- impaired
• Coordination with neighbor systemson transfers (e.g. timing for medical trips)
• Bike racks at stops and on vehicles
• Improved transportation to education centers
• Volunteer driver program
• More park & ride lots
In the second exercise of the workshop, part id pants worked in smaller groupsat the individual county
level to examine strategiesthat could potentially be used to addressthe area's needs. The participants
were asked to examine a list of potential strategies, determine whether that was an appropriate type of
strategy to use within that county, and consider which needswould be addressed by that strategy. They
were also asked to identify any additional strategies that should be considered. There was one small
group from Chatham County, whose responses are summarized below:
19
Vouchers
Yes
Collaboration with medical services;
coordination with DS3Medicaid; address
decentralization of medical facilities,
affordability of service
M obi Iity M anager
Yes
More detailed instruction for riders
Increased visibility/ marketing/
education
Yes
More detailed instruction for riders,
dissemination of user- friendly information
New/ improved express services
No
Transit passes
No
Agency - operated services
No
Vanpools
No
Large transit vehicles
No
Park and ride facilities
No
Door to door service
Yes
Expansion of general transportation
service; customer service improvements
New /improved in -town
circulators, shuttles, and other
localized services
Yes
Expansion of general transportation
service
Changes to institutional policy
???
Brokered trips
No
Car - sharing services
No
Bike racks on buses
No
Linkages/ transfers with other
providers
Yes
County -to- county transfers; coordination
with neighbor systems on transfers
Changestoland
use /development policy
Yes
Increased scheduling flexibility
Yes
TBD
For the third workshop exercise, the participants stayed within their small groups and worked with a
large map to determine specific locational strategies, barriers, and needs. The map developed by the
Chatham County small group is presented on the next page.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 13
Recommended Improvements In Chatham County
N
Map Date: May 1, 2013 Miles A
Created by TARPO 0 1 2 4 6 8
N
O
21
In the final exercise of the workshop, the partici pants once again combined into one large group with
representatives from both Chatham and Orange Counties. In this exercise, each participant was given
seven stickers and asked to place stickers on the strategies that they considered to be the highest
priorities for implementation within the next four to five years. The list below summarizes the results of
this priority voting (those receiving more than ten votes are in bold):
• New/ improved fixed routes and deviated fixed routes -15 votes
• New/ improved early morning) evening service —12 votes
• New /improved weekend service —4 votes
• Volunteers (drivers, trainers, etc.) —6 votes
• Vouchers — 3votes
• Mobility manager -10 votes
• Increased visibility/ marketing) education —20 votes
• New /improved express services —no votes
• Transit passes —4 votes
• Agency - operated services — no votes
• Vanpools- 3votes
• Larger transit vehicles— no votes
• Park and ride lots— 6 votes
• Door -to -door service — 4 votes
• New /improved in -town circulators, shuttles, localized services -2 votes
• Changes to institutional policy -13 votes
• Brokered trips -1 votes
• Car - sharing services -2 votes
• Bike racks on buses— no votes
• Linkages/ transfers with other providers -4 votes
• Changesto land use /development policy — no votes
• Increased scheduling flexibility — 2votes
• More funding -14 votes
• Collaboration with Hospitals -8 votes
• Connectingwith churches, neighborhoods, etc for park and ride —12 votes
• Transit amenities —2 votes
In addition to the half -day workshop, a survey was made available both online and in paper form. Of the
50 responses received, 14 indicated that the respondent lived or worked in Chatham County. The
survey responses for these 14 respondents from Chatham County are summarized below. A summary of
all survey responses (for all counties) can be found in Appendix B.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 15
22
Question 1: Which county do you live and/or work in? Pease check all that apply.
Chatham
14
Lee
1
M core
0
Grange
2
Question 2: Pease indicate whether you agree with the following statements regarding public transit
service needs in your county.
"There is not enough public transportation service available."
Strongly Agree
12
(86 0%)
Agree
2
(14 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
0
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"The daily hours of operation should
be extended."
Strongly Agree
11
(79 0%)
Agree
3
(210%)
Neutral or Don't Know
0
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be service available on nightsand
weekends."
Strongly Agree
11
(79 0%)
Agree
2
(14 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(7 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There should be more focus on employment - related trips."
Strongly Agree
9
(64 %)
Agree
1
(7 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
3
(21 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
1
(7 %)
"There are areas of the county that
are currently underserved and should be addressed."
Strongly Agree
11
(79 %)
Agree
2
(14 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(7 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 16
23
"There needsto be more coordination with service providers in neighboring counties."
Strongly Agree
7
(50 0%)
Agree
3
(210%)
Neutral or Don't Know
4
(29 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be more coordination
among
different service providerswithin my county."
Strongly Agree
8
(57 0%)
Agree
3
(210%)
Neutral or Don't Know
3
(21 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There should be `door -to -door' service for the elderly and disabled."
Strongly Agree
11
(79 0%)
Agree
2
(14 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(7 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be more education on available services, programs, and eligibility
requirements."
Strongly Agree
9
(64 %)
Agree
5
(36 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
0
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There is a language barrier for the
users of services in my county."
Strongly Agree
6
(43 %)
Agree
4
(29 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
4
(29 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"Sxvice providers need to better communicate information to the public (website, advertising,
etc.)."
Strongly Agree
8
(57 %)
Agree
4
(29 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
2
(14 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 17
/.'
"9arvice providers need to be more consumer- friendly."
Strongly Agree
5 (36 0%)
Agree
5 (36 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
3 (21 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"Using transit istoo complicated and requirestoo much advance planning."
Strongly Agree 5 (36 0%)
Agree 3 (210%)
Neutral or Don't Know 5 (36 0%)
Disagree 0
Strongly Disagree 1 (7 %)
Other need (written -in): Need more connection from Chatham to RTP, Raleigh, other parts of the
Triangle
Other need (written -in): Chatham County needs a real bus service!
Question 3: Out of the statements above, which do you believe is the most important to address in the
near future?
"There is not enough public transportation service available." 4 (31 %)
"The daily hours of operation should be extended." 3 (23 %)
"There needsto be service available on nights and weekends." 1 (8 %)
"There should be more focus on employment - related trips." 1 (8 %)
"There are areas of the county that are currently underserved and should be
addressed." 2 (15 %)
"There needsto be more coordination with service providers in neighboring
counties." 0
"There needsto be more coordination among different service providers
within my county." 0
"There should be `door -to -door' service for the elderly and disabled." 1 (8 %)
"There needsto be more education on available services, programs, and
eligibility requirements." 1 (8 %)
"There is a language barrier for the users of services in my county." 0
"9arvice providers need to better communicate information to the public
(website, advertising, etc.)." 0
"9arvice providers need to be more consumer- friendly." 0
"Using transit is too complicated and requires too much advance planning." 0
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 18
25
Question 4: If you do not currently use public transportation, why? Choose all that apply.
I have a personal vehicle that is reliable and convenient 12 (86 0%)
I have a family member or friend who drives me places when needed 0
Public transportation does not go the places I need to go 7 (50 0%)
Public transportation does not operate at the times I need to travel 6 (43 0%)
Public transportation takestoo long or has inconvenient timing 4 (29 0%)
I do not know how to use it 0
I did not know it was available 0
I DO use public transportation 1 (7 %)
Other: I would definitely use publictransit if it were available. My husband
drives to the UNC bus terminal near Cole Park Raza every weekday for work.
He would have gladly taken the Rttsboro to Chapel Hill bus, but it traveled
during non business hours, which made no sense. I also would have used it for
my frequent tripsto Chapel Hill, but again, the hourswere strange, and the
time allowed to be in Chapel Hill wasvery short. I also traveled to Raleigh
frequently for work, and commuted for years. There are so many who do, and I
would have so appreciated a commuter bus to Raleigh and back. It would have
to run at realisticwork hoursthough. 1 (7 %)
Question 5. Do you have any other comments on public transportation in your community that may be of
help in developing this plan?
not at the present time
Chatham County lost most all industrial jobs but Lee and Durham Counties are showing growth.
Unfortunately, residents lack transportation to get to the other counties early morning and back home
evenings so they can work thisjobs.
Chatham County is in dire need of "real" public transporation that is available to everyone and that goes
placesthat people need to go. Publictransportation needsto be reliable, affordable, and accessible by
everyone regardlessof age/insurance status/ language, etc. I know of some familieswho are paying
people $20 for a trip within 91er City to shop at Walmart. The need is real.
SBe above. But there should be early transportation from, and later, early evening transportation back,
to Chatham County. People would use transit that was realistically scheduled. I never understood the
scheduling of the Pboro to CH bus. Also, why is there no transit from Pboro to 91er City?
I grew up in a. Louis and the bus route wasALLover not just one or two counties.
http: / /www.metrostlouis.org/ Default.aspx Check out that website and see the wide range the bus
travels R_USthere is the train .... its goes all the way to Illinois. The train is ran by electric.
Summary of Reoommendations
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human SBrvice Transportation Ran 19
P
The information in the previous section provides detailed list of needs, strategies, and priorities within
Chatham County. The following strategies stand out as being both appropriate and a high priority for
implementation based on the results of the workshop. This summary is not all - inclusive, and should not
be interpreted as a limit on potential future actions, but rather as away to identify some of the highest
prioritiesfor implementation.
• New /improved fixed routesand deviated fixed routes —the mapping exercise identified a need
for new routes connecting Sler City to Sanford and connecting Rttsboro to Sanford. The
strategy identification exercise also identified a need for a route connecting to Asheboro.
• New /improved early morning/ eveningservice — theabilitytoaccommodatetripsearlierand
later in the day was an item of concern for workshop participants
• Mobility manager — thiswould improve customer service and provide better information to
riders
• Increased visibility/ marketing /education — thiswashighlighted as an important need
This isvery similar to the list of items identified as priorities in the survey, which found the three highest
priorities in Chatham County to be expanding the amount of transit service provided, extending daily
hours of operation, and serving areas of the county that are currently underserved. A major topic of
discussion during the workshop was the need for more coordination with neighboring counties,
particularly Lee County.
Inventory of Current Service
County of Lee Transit Qjstem (ODLTS) is administered by the Lee County Department of Senior Services,
and provides a mixture of fixed -route and demand - response service within Lee County. Its fixed route,
the " Dash," operates in a loop around the City of Sanford, with some fixed stops and some deviations.
The following list provides an inventory of the OOLTSvehide fleet as reported in the 2011 National
Transit Database:
• Four 12 -seat 2009 vans (not ADA equipped)
• One 8 -seat 2009 van
• Two 9 -seat 2008 vans
• Four 13 -seat 2008 vans (not ADA equipped)
• One 9 -seat 2003 van
• Two 9 -seat 2006 vans
• Two 12 -seat 2007 vans (not ADA equi pped)
• One 9 -seat 2007 van
• One 8 -seat 2010 van
This provides a total of 18 vans, of which 8 are equipped with wheelchair lifts.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 20
27
In 2012, COLTS reported having 18 % full- time - equivalent employees, of which 2 % were administrative
and 16 were drivers. Services are provided between 7 AM and 6 PM on weekdays. COLTS operates six
round trips of the 'Dash' route each weekday. COLTS offers curb -to -curb service countywide.
COLTS carried 66,658 passengers in 2012, which is over 250 passengers per day. 13% of COLTS trips
were paid through Medicaid and 53% were paid through other types of contract services. 34% of trips
were non - contract trips.
Lee County has a relatively high population density for a 'rural' county, primarily due to the relatively
large, dense population in the City of Sanford. The 'Dash' route is focused on serving the common
transit destinations in the City of Sanford.
Population (2010)
57,866 (57% urban cluster, 43% rural)
Land Area (2010)
255 square miles
Average Population Density (2010)
227 persons per sq.mi.
COLTS Historical Operating Statistics
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 21
2010
2011
2012
% change'10 -12
Total Service Miles
1446,976
425,963
492,559
+10.2%
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 21
R
Total Service Hours
23,280
22,348
23,666
+1.7%
Total Passenger Trips
61,764
63,579
66,658
+7.9%
Passengers per Hour
2.65
2.84
2.82
+6.4%
Passengers per M ile
0.138
0.149
0.135
-2.2%
Non - Contract Trips per Non -urban Population
0.98
0.90
0.94
-4.1%
Cost per Mile
$1.38
$1.50
$1.43
+3.6%
Cost per Hour
$26.59
$28.52
$29.81
+12.1%
Cost per Trip
$10.02
$10.03
$10.59
+5.7%
Subsidy per Trip
$5.21
$5.39
$4.59
-11.9%
Federal Funding
$124,068
$143,811
$144,411
+16.4%
State Funding
$197,976
$198,693
$161,553
-18.4%
Local Contract Funding
$243,582
$241,728
$295,831
+21.5%
Other Local Funding
$23,394
$23,786
$66,257
+183.2%
Fares
$29,903
$29,407
$37,533
+25.5%
Survey and Workshop Outcomes
The stakeholder workshop for Lee and Moore Countieswas held on April 25, 2013 at the Enrichment
Center in Sanford. Alist of attendees can be found in Appendix A. In the first exercise of the workshop,
the participantswere asked to brainstorm a list of needs within this two-county region. The group
identified the following twenty -one needs:
• Gross- county line transportation
• Increase time span of service
• Increase service to meet general needs (e.g. non - medical trips, etc.)
• Need user- friendly information
• Ability to update information (internal and external) in atimely manner
• Getting information to drivers
• Stopswith transit amenities
• Increase number of stops
• Increase local service- deviated fixed routes
• Timeliness of pickup and dropoff
• Cooperation with private providers
• Ability to accept vouchers
• Language barriers/ translation
• Oarity about what is covered (Medicaid, etc.)
• Need to serve employment centers
• Access to community college and job training
• Strengthen Transportation Advisory Board
• Link transit and land use planning
• " Door -to- Door" service
• F;bcreation, after - school, and summer trips
• Service to elderly and disabled
Triangle Area WO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 22
e
In the second exercise of the workshop, participants worked in smaller groups at the individual county
level to examine strategies that could potentially be used to address the area's needs. The participants
were asked to examine a list of potential strategies, determine whether that was an appropriate type of
strategy to use within that county, and consider which needswould be addressed by that strategy. They
were also asked to identify any additional strategies that should be considered. There were two small
groups from Lee County, whose responses are summarized below:
New/ Improved Fixed Fbutes and
Yes (1), No (1)
Cross county -line transportation; increase
Deviated Fixed Fbutes
number of stops, increase local service;
increase service to meet general needs
New/ improved early
Yes (2)
Increase time span of service; more
morning/evening service
accessibility
New/ improved weekend service
Yes (2)
Increase time span of service; more
accessibility
Volunteers (drivers, trainers,
Yes (1), No (1)
Increase service to meet general needs;
etc.)
increase number of stops; cooperation
with private providers; language
barriers/translation; darity about what is
covered; recreation, after - school, and
summer trips
Vouchers
Yes (2)
Cooperation with private providers; ability
to accept vouchers; more accessibility and
options for passengers
Mobility Manager
Yes (1), No (1)
Need user- friendly information; ability to
update information in atimely manner;
getting information to drivers
Increased visibility/ marketing/
Yes (2)
Language barriers/ translation; strengthen
education
TAB, link transit and land use planning; so
more passengers will be informed
New/ improved express services
Yes (2)
Need to serve employment centers; for
more private providers to provide for
passengers
Transit passes
Yes (2)
Ability to accept vouchers, would be more
convenient
Agency - operated services
No (2)
Vanpools
No (2)
Large transit vehicles
Yes (1), No (1)
For incidentswith wheelchairs
Park and ride facilities
No (2)
Door to door service
Yes (2)
Service to elderly and disabled; more
flexibility for customer
New /improved in -town
Yes (1), No (1)
Increase service to meet general needs
circulators, shuttles, and other
localized services
Changes to institutional policy
No (2)
Brokered trips
No (2)
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 23
30
Car - sharing services
No (2)
Bike racks on buses
No (2)
Linkages/ transfers with other
providers
Yes (2)
Cross- county line transportation; better
opportunities
Changesto land
use /development policy
Yes (1), No (1)
Link transit and land use planning
Increased scheduling flexibility
Yes (1), No (1)
Need to serve employment centers; access
to community college and job training
For the third workshop exercise, the participants stayed within their small groups and worked with a
large map to determine specific locational strategies, barriers, and needs. The two maps developed by
the Lee County small groups have been combined into one map on the next page.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human SBrvice Transportation Ran 24
at
D
D
ru
v
0
r-
0
n
v
n
O
O
Q
D
at
rt
fD
Q
2
C
aa)
D
to
fD
G
fD
v
D
70
O
rt
v
O
D
v
D
Recommended Improvements in Lee County f -
r,
Improve Tran SIT access
to Pilgrim's Pride plant
Currently - underserved area
with low population density
Currently - underserved area
with low population density
V
Establish radial service zones for COLTS, t
to improve efficiency of service (five zones `
identified on map by orange circles)
Currently - underserved area
with low population density
I % t
*0,wo Routes serving northern Sanford Route connecting Sanford and Broadway
Bro
1 Route connecting Sanford and Lemon Springs
Map Date May 2, 2013
Created by TARPO N
Miles A
0 7 2 4 6 8
�
I I
ICY
32
In the final exercise of the workshop, the partici pants once again combined into one large group with
representatives from both Lee and Moore Counties. In this exercise, each participant was given seven
stickers and asked to place stickers on the strategies that they considered to be the highest priorities for
implementation within the next four to five years. The list below summarizes the results of this priority
voting (those receiving more than five votes are in bold):
• New/ improved fixed routes and deviated fixed routes— 8 votes
• New/ improved early morning/ evening service -3 votes
• New/ improved weekend service — 7 votes
• Volunteers (drivers, trainers, etc.) —no votes
• Vouchers — 3votes
• Mobility manager — no votes
• IncreasedvisibiIity / market ing/educat ion — 2votes
• New/ improved express services —no votes
• Transit passes -1 vote
• Agency - operated services— no votes
• Vanpools -2 votes
• Larger transit vehicles -3 votes
• Park and ride lots -4 votes
• Door -to -door service — 3 votes
• New/ improved in -town circulators, shuttles, localized services — 7 votes
• Changes to institutional policy — 2votes
• Brokered trips —no votes
• Car - sharing services— no votes
• Bike racks on buses -1 vote
• Linkages) transferswith other providers -18 votes
• Changesto land use /development policy -1 vote
• Increased scheduling flexibility — 2votes
• Online access(payment, scheduling, information) —7 votes
In addition to the half -day workshop, a survey was made available both online and in paper form. CAF the
50 responses received, 7 indicated that the respondent lived or worked in Lee County. The survey
responses for these 7 respondents from Lee County are summarized below. A summary of all survey
responses (for all counties) can be found in Appendix B.
Question 1: Which county do you live and /or work in? Pease check all that apply.
Chatham
1
Lee
7
M core
0
Grange
1
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 26
33
Question 2: Pease indicate whether you agree with the following statements regarding public transit
service needs in your county.
"There is not enough public transportation service available."
Strongly Agree
2
(29 0%)
Agree
4
(57 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(14 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"The daily hours of operation should
be extended."
Strongly Agree
4
(57 0%)
Agree
1
(14 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(14 0%)
Disagree
1
(14 0%)
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be service available on nightsand weekends."
Strongly Agree
6
(86 0%)
Agree
0
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(14 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There should be more focus on employment
- related trips."
Strongly Agree
4
(57 0%)
Agree
3
(43 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
0
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There are areas of the county that
are currently underserved and should be addressed."
Strongly Agree
3
(43 0%)
Agree
4
(57 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
0
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be more coordination
with service providers in neighboring counties."
Strongly Agree
4
(57 0%)
Agree
3
(43 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
0
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 27
34
"There needs to be more coordination among different service providerswithin my county."
Strongly Agree
4
(57 0%)
Agree
3
(43 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
0
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There should be `door -to -door' service for the elderly and disabled."
Strongly Agree
5
(710%)
Agree
2
(29 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
0
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be more education on available services, programs, and eligibility
requirements."
Strongly Agree
3
(43 0%)
Agree
3
(43 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
0
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
1
(14 0%)
"There is a language barrier for the
users of services in my county."
Strongly Agree
1
(17 0%)
Agree
5
(83 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
0
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"Sxvice providers need to better communicate information to the public (website, advertising,
etc.)."
Strongly Agree
1
(14 0%)
Agree
5
(710%)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(14 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"Sxvice providers need to be more consumer- friendly."
Strongly Agree
2
(29 0%)
Agree
3
(43 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(14 0%)
Disagree
1
(14 0%)
Strongly Disagree
0
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 28
35
"Usingtransit is too complicated and requires too much advance planning."
Strongly Agree 1 (14 0%)
Agree 1 (14 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know 4 (57 0%)
Disagree 0
Strongly Disagree 1 (14 0%)
Question 3: Out of the statements above, which do you believe is the most important to address in the
near future?
"There is not enough public transportation service available." 0
"The daily hours of operation should be extended." 3 (50 0%)
"There needs to be service available on nights and weekends." 1 (17 0%)
"There should be more focus on employment - related trips." 0
"There are areas of the county that are currently underserved and should be
addressed." 1 (17 0%)
"There needs to be more coordination with service providers in neighboring
counties." 0
"There needs to be more coordination among different service providers
within my county." 0
"There should be `door -to -door' service for the elderly and disabled." 1 (17 0%)
"There needsto be more education on available services, programs, and
eligibility requirements." 0
"There is a language barrier for the users of services in my county." 0
"9arvice providers need to better communicate information to the public
(website, advertising, etc.)." 0
"9arvice providers need to be more consumer- friendly." 0
"Using transit is too complicated and requires too much advance planning." 0
Question 4: If you do not currently use public transportation, why? Choose all that apply.
I have a personal vehicle that is reliable and convenient 3 (75 0%)
1 have a family member or friend who drives me places when needed 1 (25 0%)
Public transportation does not go the places I need to go 0
Public transportation does not operate at the times I need to travel 2 (50 0%)
Public transportation takestoo long or has inconvenient timing 1 (25 0%)
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 29
36
I do not know how to use it
0
1 did not know it was available
0
1 DO use public transportation
0
Question 5. Do you have any other comments on public transportation in your community that may be of
help in developing this plan?
Chatham County lost most all industrial jobs but Lee and Durham Counties are showing growth.
Unfortunately, residents lack transportation to get to the other counties early morning and back home
evenings so they can work thisjobs.
We need public transportation competition.
Summary of Recommendations
The information in the previous section provides a detailed list of needs, strategies, and priorities within
Lee County. The following strategies standout as being both appropriate and a high priority for
implementation based on the results of the workshop and survey. This summary is not all - inclusive, and
should not be interpreted as a limit on potential future actions, but rather as away to identify some of
the highest priorities for implementation.
• New/ improved weekend service
• Linkages/ transfers with other providers —this was identified as the highest priority in the
workshop, and considerable time was spent discussing this issue
• Extending the daily hours of operation —there was a mixed reaction to this item in the
workshop, but it was identified as the highest- priority need on the survey
In general, the workshop and survey results for Lee County are similar, with the exception of the issue of
extending the hours of operation. A major topic of discussion during the workshop was the need for
more coordination with neighboring counties —there was discussion about working with both Moore
and Chatham counties on cross - county coordination, particularly with regard to medical trips to UNC
Chapel Hill and Moore F;bgional Hospital. The mapping exercise also highlighted the need for improved
efficiency of existing services (perhaps by using a zone system for routing/ dispatch) and the need to
identify a cost effective way to serve areas of very low development density.
Inventory of Current Service
Moore County Transportation SBrvices (MCTS) is a county agency that provides demand - response
service within Moore County. The following list provides an inventory of the MCTSvehicle fleet as
reported in the 2011 National Transit Database:
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human SBrvice Transportation Ran 30
37
• One 8 -seat 2011 van
• Two 12 -seat 2010 cutaway vans
• One 6 -seat 2010 minivan (not ADA equipped)
• One 12 -seat 2010 van (not ADA equipped)
• Two 8 -seat 2009 vans
• One 12 -seat 2009 van (not ADA equipped)
• Two 13 -seat 2008 vans (not ADA equi pped)
• Eght 9 -seat 2008 vans
• Five 9 -seat 2006 vans
• One 13 -seat 2007 van (not ADA equipped)
• One 9 -seat 2007 van
This provides a total of 25 vans, of which 19 are equipped with wheelchair lifts.
In 2012, MCTSreported having 23 full- time - equivalent employees, of which 3' /2were administrative and
19' /2were drivers. In- county demand response service and medical trip services are provided between
6 AM and 6 PM on weekdays.
MCTScarried 57,922 passengers in 2012, which is over 200 passengers per day. 27% of M CTStrips were
paid through Medicaid and 33 %were paid through other types of contract services. 40 %of tripswere
non - contract trips.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 31
C
Moore County has a relatively low population density overall, although it does have a large area of
relatively -dense development in the southern half of the county that may be able to support higher
levels of service.
Population (2010)
88,247 (49% urban cluster, 51% rural)
Land Area (2010)
698 square miles
Average Population Density (2010)
126 persons per sq.mi.
MCTS Historical Operating Statistics
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 32
2010
2011
2012
% change'10 -12
Total Service Miles
630,936
859,570
815,596
+29.3%
Total Service Hours
38,280
42,771
42,844
+11.9%
Total Passenger Trips
50,340
54,080
57,922
+15.1%
Passengers per Hour
1.32
1.26
1.35
+2.3%
Passengers per Mile
0.080
0.063
0.071
-11.3%
Non - Contract Trips per Non -urban Population
0.37
0.45
0.53
+43.2%
Cost per Mile
$1.97
$1.16
$1.33
-32.5%
Cost per Hour
$32.41
$23.27
$25.38
-21.7%
Cost per Trip
$24.65
$18.41
$18.78
-23.8%
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 32
39
Subsidy per Trip
$8.31
$7.25
$6.63
-20.2%
Federal Funding
$179,661
$161,383
$175,728
-2.2%
State Funding
$238,625
$230,627
$208,314
-12.7%
Local Contract Funding
$693,596
$461,179
$393,298
-43.3%
Other Local Funding
$103,795
$142,275
$297,481
+186.6%
Fares
$25,105
$0
$12,666
-49.5%
Survey and Workshop Outcomes
The stakeholder workshop for Lee and Moore Countieswas held on April 25, 2013 at the Enrichment
Center in Sanford. Alist of attendees can be found in Appendix A. In the first exercise of the workshop,
the participantswere asked to brainstorm a list of needs within this two-county region. The group
identified the following twenty -one needs:
• Gross- county line transportation
• Increase time span of service
• Increase service to meet general needs (e.g. non - medical trips, etc.)
• Need user- friendly information
• Ability to update information (internal and external) in atimely manner
• Getting information to drivers
• Stopswith transit amenities
• Increase number of stops
• Increase local service— deviated fixed routes
• Timeliness of pickup and dropoff
• Cooperation with private providers
• Ability to accept vouchers
• Language barriers/ translation
• Oarity about what is covered (Medicaid, etc.)
• Need to serve employment centers
• Access to community college and job training
• Strengthen Transportation Advisory Board
• Link transit and land use planning
• " Door -to- Door" service
• F;bcreation, after - school, and summer trips
• Service to elderly and disabled
In the second exercise of the workshop, part id pants worked in smaller groups at the individual county
level to examine strategies that could potentially be used to address the area's needs. The participants
were asked to examine a list of potential strategies, determine whether that was an appropriate type of
strategy to use within that county, and consider which needswould be addressed by that strategy. They
were also asked to identify any additional strategies that should be considered. There was one small
group from Moore County, whose responses are summarized below:
Triangle Area WO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 33
W
New/ Improved Fixed Fbutes and
Yes
Gross- county line transportation; stops
Deviated Fixed Fbutes
with transit amenities; increase number of
stops, increase local service; timeliness of
pickup and dropoff; need to serve
employment centers; access to community
college and job training; link transit and
land use planning; recreation, after - school,
and summer trips; service to elderly and
disabled
New/ improved early
Yes, evening
Increase time span of service; increase
morning/evening service
service to meet general needs
New/ improved weekend service
Yes
Increase time span of service; increase
service to meet general needs
Volunteers (drivers, trainers,
No
etc.)
Vouchers
Yes
Increase service to meet general needs;
ability to accept vouchers, need to serve
employment centers; access to community
college and job training; service to elderly
and disabled
Mobility Manager
Yes
Gross- county line transportation; increase
service to meet general needs; need user -
friendly information; ability to update
information in timely manner; getting
information to drivers; increase local
service; timeliness of pickup and dropoff;
cooperation with private providers;
language barriers/ translation; clarity about
what is covered; strengthen TAB;
recreation, after - school, and summer trips;
service to elderly and disabled
Increased visibility /marketing/
Yes
Increase service to meet general needs;
education
cooperation with private providers;
strengthen TAB, link transit and land use
planning
New/ improved express services
Yes
Timeliness of pickup and dropoff
Transit passes
Yes
Gross- county line transportation; increase
service to meet general needs; increase
local service; timeliness of pickup and
dropoff; need to serve employment
centers; access to community college and
job training
Agency - operated services
Yes
All identified needs
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 34
41
Vanpools
Yes
Cross- county line transportation; increase
time span of service; increase service to
meet general needs; stopswith transit
amenities; increase number of stops;
increase local service; timeliness of pickup
and dropoff; cooperation with private
providers; need to serve employment
centers; access to community college and
job training; link transit and land use
planning; service to elderly and disabled
Large transit vehicles
Yes
Cross- county line transportation; increase
time span of service; increase service to
meet general needs; increase number of
stops, increase local service; timeliness of
pickup and dropoff; ability to accept
vouchers; need to serve employment
centers; access to community college and
job training; recreation, after - school, and
summer trips; service to elderly and
disabled
Park and ride facilities
Yes
Cross- county line transportation; increase
time span of service
Door to door service
Yes
Increase service to meet general needs;
need to serve employment centers; access
to community college and job training;
door -to -door service
New /improved in -town
Yes
Cross- county line transportation; increase
circulators, shuttles, and other
service to meet general needs; stopswith
localized services
transit amenities; increase number of
stops, increase local service; need to serve
employment centers; access to community
college and job training; recreation, after -
school, and summer trips, service to
elderly and disabled
Changes to institutional policy
No
Brokered trips
No
Car - sharing services
No
Bike racks on buses
Yes
Link transit and land use planning;
recreation, after - school, and summer trips
Linkages/ transfers with other
Yes
Cross- county line transportation; increase
providers
time span of service; increase service to
meet general needs; increase number of
stops, increase local service; timeliness of
pickup and dropoff; cooperation with
private providers; need to serve
employment centers; access to community
college and job training
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 35
42
Changesto land
use /development policy
Yes
Link transit and land use planning;
recreation, after - school, and summer trips
Increased scheduling flexibility
Yes
Ability to update information in timely
manner; timeliness of pi ckup/ dropoff;
cooperation with private providers; door -
to- door service
Online access (payment,
Yes
This additional strategy was added to the
scheduling, information)
list
For the third workshop exercise, the participants stayed within their small groups and worked with a
large map to determine specific locational strategies, barriers, and needs. The map developed by the
Moore County small group is presented on the next page.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human SBrvice Transportation Ran 36
v
Z3
Do
D
rD
at
v
O
r-
0
n
v
C)
O
O
_Q
Z3
v
rD
Q
C
3
v
Z3
rD
G
n�
rD
v
Z3
Ln
O
r-r
at
r-r
O
Z3
ET
Z3
Park and Ride Lot
Rob
Connection /transfer
with Montgomery County
Circulator route serving: Walmart,
Dicks /Harris Teeter, Douglass Center,
So. Pines Housing Authority, Pinecrest
Plaza, Big Lots, Best Buy, KoMs/Hobby
Lobby, Lowes, and Sandhills Comm. Coll.
Route connecting Robbins, Carthage,
and Pinehurst/So. Pines /Aberdeen area
Park and Ride Lot
ou
Pin ehurst
Connection /transfer
with Lee County
Connection transfer
with Lee County
' Recommended Improvements
Pin eblu/f , in Moore County
1 f` Connection trans-.
j with Hoke County Map Date May 2, 2013
Created by TARPO N
Miles j,
V 0 1 2 4 S 8 ILVI
v
W
..
In the final exercise of the workshop, the partici pants once again combined into one large group with
representatives from both Lee and Moore Counties. In this exercise, each participant was given seven
stickers and asked to place stickers on the strategies that they considered to be the highest priorities for
implementation within the next four to five years. The list below summarizes the results of this priority
voting (those receiving more than five votes are in bold):
• New/ improved fixed routes and deviated fixed routes— 8 votes
• New/ improved early morning/ evening service — 3votes
• New/ improved weekend service — 7 votes
• Volunteers (drivers, trainers, etc.) —no votes
• Vouchers — 3votes
• Mobility manager — no votes
• IncreasedvisibiIity / market ing/educat ion — 2votes
• New/ improved express services —no votes
• Transit passes -1 vote
• Agency - operated services— no votes
• Vanpools -2 votes
• Larger transit vehides -3 votes
• Park and ride lots -4 votes
• Door -to -door service — 3 votes
• New/ improved in -town circulators, shuttles, localized services — 7 votes
• Changesto institutional policy —2 votes
• Brokered trips —no votes
• Car - sharing services— no votes
• Bike racks on buses -1 vote
• Linkages) transferswith other providers -18 votes
• Changesto land use /development policy -1 vote
• Increased scheduling flexibility —2 votes
• Online access(payment, scheduling, information) —7 votes
In addition to the half -day workshop, a survey was made available both online and in paper form. CAF the
50 responses received, 6 indicated that the respondent lived or worked in Moore County. The survey
responses for the 6 respondents from Moore County are summarized below. Asummary of all survey
responses (for all counties) can be found in Appendix B.
Question 1: Which county do you live and /or work in? Pease check all that apply.
Chatham
0
Lee
0
M core
6
Grange
0
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 38
45
Question 2: Pease indicate whether you agree with the following statements regarding public transit
service needs in your county.
"There is not enough public transportation service available."
StronglyAgree
1
(17 0%)
Agree
4
(67 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(17 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"The daily hours of operation should
be extended."
Strongly Agree
0
Agree
3
(50 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
3
(50 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be service available on nightsand weekends."
Strongly Agree
0
Agree
1
(17 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
4
(67 0%)
Disagree
1
(17 0%)
Strongly Disagree
0
"There should be more focus on employment
- related trips."
Strongly Agree
2
(33 0%)
Agree
2
(33 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
2
(33 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There are areas of the county that
are currently underserved and should be addressed."
Strongly Agree
1
(17 0%)
Agree
4
(67 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(17 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be more coordination
with service providers in neighboring counties."
Strongly Agree
4
(67 0%)
Agree
1
(17 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(17 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 39
ER
"There needs to be more coordination among different service providers within my county."
Strongly Agree
3
(50 0%)
Agree
2
(33 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(17 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There should be `door -to -door' service for the elderly and disabled."
Strongly Agree
1
(17 0%)
Agree
3
(50 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
2
(33 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be more education on available services, programs, and eligibility
requirements."
Strongly Agree
1
(17 0%)
Agree
4
(67 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(17 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There is a language barrier for the
users of services in my county."
Strongly Agree
0
Agree
2
(33 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
3
(50 0%)
Disagree
1
(17 0%)
Strongly Disagree
0
"Sxvice providers need to better communicate information to the public (website, advertising,
etc.)."
Strongly Agree
1
(17 0%)
Agree
4
(67 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(17 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"Sxvice providers need to be more consumer- friendly."
Strongly Agree
0
Agree
1
(20 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
3
(60 %)
Disagree
1
(20 %)
Strongly Disagree
0
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 40
47
"Usingtransit is too complicated and requires too much advance planning."
Strongly Agree 0
Agree 1 (17 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know 2 (33 0%)
Disagree 3 (50 0%)
Strongly Disagree 0
Question 3: Out of the statements above, which do you believe is the most important to address in the
near future?
"There is not enough public transportation service available." 3
"The daily hours of operation should be extended." 0
"There needs to be service available on nights and weekends." 0
"There should be more focus on employment - related trips." 1
"There are areas of the county that are currently underserved and should be
addressed." 0
"There needs to be more coordination with service providers in neighboring
counties."
"There needs to be more coordination among different service providers
within my county."
"There should be `door -to -door' service for the elderly and disabled."
"There needsto be more education on available services, programs, and
eligibility requirements."
"There is a language barrier for the users of services in my county."
"9arvice providers need to better communicate information to the public
(website, advertising, etc.)."
"9arvice providers need to be more consumer- friendly."
"Using transit is too complicated and requires too much advance planning."
(50 %)
(17 %)
1 (17 %)
0
0
1 (17 %)
0
0
0
0
Question 4: If you do not currently use public transportation, why? Choose all that apply.
I have a personal vehicle that is reliable and convenient 5 (83 0%)
1 have a family member or friend who drives me places when needed 0
Public transportation does not go the places I need to go 3 (50 0%)
Public transportation does not operate at the times I need to travel 0
Public transportation takes too long or has inconvenient timing 1 (17 0%)
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 41
MP
I do not know how to use it 2 (33 0%)
1 did not know it was available 2 (33 0%)
1 DO use public transportation 1 (17 0%)
Other: I don't qualify for the types of public transportation that are currently
available. I would use public transportation if it was available and convenient
for me. 1 (17 0%)
Question 5. Do you have any other comments on public transportation in your community that may be of
help in developing this plan?
If local service provi ders were provided with away of tracking their dients' transportation needs over
the course of a period of time then they might be better equipped to answer these sorts of questions.
For most of them this meeting will come as a surprise.
Summary of Reoommendations
The information in the previous section provides detailed list of needs, strategies, and prioritieswithin
Moore County. The following strategies standout as being both appropriate and a high priority for
implementation based on the results of the workshop. This summary is not all - inclusive, and should not
be interpreted as a limit on potential future actions, but rather as away to identify some of the highest
prioritiesfor implementation.
• New /improved fixed routesand deviated fixed routes —Moore County does not currently have
any fixed route service, and this was noted as a primary need by the workshop participants. The
mapping exercise identified a potential route connecting Fbbbins and Carthage with the
Rnehurst /Sbuthern Rnes/Aberdeen area, aswell as a circulator route within the urban area of
the county.
• New/ improved weekend service
• New /improved in -town circulators, shuttles, and localized services— in particular, a need for a
circulator serving parts of SDuthern Pines and Aberdeen was identified in the mapping exercise.
• Linkages/ transfers with other providers —this was a major topicof discussion at the workshop.
For Moore County, coordination with Lee, Hoke, and Montgomery countieswas identified as a
priority.
• Online access (payment, scheduling, information)
The workshop results are consistent with the survey results, which found the highest- priority issues to
be coordination of service (both with other counties, and with other service providers within Moore
County) and the provision of more public transportation service in general.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 42
i •
Inventory of Current Service
Orange Public Transportation (OPT) is a county agency that provides a mixture of fixed -route and
demand - response servicewithin Orange County. OPTworkswith Triangle Transit and Chapel Hill Transit
to provide the Fbute 420 bus connecting Hillsborough and Chapel Hill (operated by Triangle Transit), and
also has Hillsborough Orculator route. OFF operates a midday route connecting Hillsborough and
Chapel Hill /Carrboro, to supplement the peak -hour service provided by Triangle Transit. OPTalso
operates a deviated fixed route in the Efland and Cedar Grove sections of northwestern Orange County.
The following list provides an inventory of OPTsvehide fleet as reported in the 2011 National Transit
Database:
• Two 6 -seat 1999 minivans (not ADA equipped)
• One 18 -seat 2001 cutaway van
• One 14 -seat 2001 cutaway van (not ADA equipped)
• One 24 -seat 2002 cutaway van (not ADA equi pped)
• One 10 -seat 2002 cutaway van
• One 18 -seat 2003 cutaway van
• Two 10 -seat 2003 cutaway vans
• One 24 -seat 2004 cutaway van (not ADA equi pped)
• One 18 -seat 2005 cutaway van
• Two 18 -seat 2009 cutaway vans
• Five 22 -seat 2009 cutaway vans
• One 20 -seat 2010 cutaway van
This provides a total of 19 vans, of which 14 are equipped with wheelchair lifts.
In 2012, OPT reported having 13'/2full- time - equivalent employees, of which 2 were administrative and
11 ' /2were drivers. In- county demand response service and medical trip services are provided on
weekdays. The `420' route operates every half hour during peak periods (operated by Triangle Transit)
and the Hillsborough Orculator operates in a loop eight times a day.
OPT carried 116,483 passengers in 2012, which is over 450 passengers per day. 5 %of OPTstripswere
paid through Medicaid and 16 0/owere paid through other types of contract services. 79 %of tripswere
non - contract trips.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human SBrvice Transportation Ran 43
50
i
Hillsborough CI mule for operates
8 rimes per day In o loop
Triangle Tronra R..:. 420 (Hill to Hill)
Canners Chapel H311 end Hlllshereugh
Runs every half -hour during peak periods
PART Route 4 operores nd
one rou-r rip
ar day --ding Winston- Salem,
ensbom, and Burlinglm . irh UNC
::nd Duke Hospitals
Transit Routes in Orange County
I
MPO ARIEA t Greyheund to P. lelg h/Greensba m lCharla ne
And P.W, Beyond
No Stop. in Grange County
Amirok Carolini— to Ne- York/Chorlolre
Amtrak piedmenf to lane
1 {three round trips dolly)
I No stops in Orange County
t
f
� Triongk Tronra rourr:. wnnre
Chapel Hill with Durham (400/405),
RTP (8001805), end Re lelgh (C RX)
Chapel Hill Tr ,ii provides many
Larcc': I Axed mutes within Cho pel H111
t and Carebom
•- l es N
— 1 0 1 _ 4 e e A
Orange County has the highest population density of the four counties in the TARPO region, primarily
due to the large portion of the county that is urbanized, including Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough,
and Mebane. The fixed route services in Orange County are primarily focused on serving these
urbanized areas.
Population (2010)
133,801 (71% urbanized area, 29% rural)
Land Area (2010)
398 square miles
Average Population Density (2010)
336 persons per sq.mi.
OPT Historical Operating Statistics
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 44
2010
2011
2012
% change '10-12
Total Service Miles
407,580
465,377
404,820
-0.7%
Total Service Hours
28,572
36,290
25,000
-12.5%
Total Passenger Trips
113,436
113,600
116,483
+23%
Passengers per Hour
3.97
3.13
4.66
+17.4%
Passengers per Mile
0.278
0.244
0.288
+3.6%
Non - Contract Trips per Non -urban Population
0.07
0.06
0.50
+614.3%
Cost per Mile
$2.16
$1.84
$1.95
-9.7%
Cost per Hour
$30.84
$23.62
$31.50
+2.1%
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 44
51
Cost per Trip
$7.77
$7.54
$6.76
-13.0%
Subsidy per Trip
$3.93
$3.59
$2.83
-28.0%
Federal Funding
$193,065
$183,092
$107,395
-44.4%
State Funding
$252,284
$225,206
$221,891
-12.0%
Local Contract Funding
$142,597
$171,909
$251,105
+76.1%
Other Local Funding
$261,374
$247,099
$207,049
-20.8%
Fares
$31,716
$29,796
$0
-100.0%
Survey and Workshop Outcomes
The stakeholder workshop for Chatham and Orange Countieswas held on April 26, 2013 at the Orange
County SDuthern Human SBrvices Center in Chapel Hill. Alist of attendees can be found in AppendixA.
In the first exercise of the workshop, the part id pants were asked to brainstorm a list of needswithin this
two - county region. The group identified the following thirty -three needs:
• Door -to -door service
• F;bturn tripsfor medical emergency
• F;L—eval uat i on of routes serving Senior Center
• Expansion of general transportation service
• Expanded service in northern Orange/ rural areas
• Collaboration with medical services
• Addressing food deserts
• Trips need to serve county service centers
• Funding partnerships (e.g medical)
• More evening /weekend /morning service
• Access across county lines
• Coordination with DS3Medicaid; access for people eligible but not yet enrolled
• Education
• Higher frequency
• Address decentralization of medical facilities
• Orculator routeswith remote collection points (rural)
• Assuring timelinessof service
• County -to- county transfers
• Affordability of service
• Coordination of service (staff person)
• More detailed instruction for riders
• Customer service improvements
• Amenities for transit stops
• F;bcreation trips
• Dissemination of user- friendly information
• Information in other languages
• Training for "Go Triangle" call center
Triangle Area WO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 45
52
• Enhancementsfor mobility- impaired
• Coordination with neighbor systemson transfers (e.g. timing for medical trips)
• Bike racks at stops and on vehides
• Improved transportation to education centers
• Volunteer driver program
• More park & ride lots
In the second exercise of the workshop, part id pants worked in smaller groupsat the individual county
level to examine strategies that could potentially be used to address the area's needs. The participants
were asked to examine a list of potential strategies, determine whether that was an appropriate type of
strategy to use within that county, and consider which needswould be addressed by that strategy. They
were also asked to identify any additional strategies that should be considered. There were four small
groups from Grange County, whose responses are summarized below:
New/ Improved Fixed Fbutes and
Yes (4)
Expansion of general transportation
Deviated Fixed Fbutes
service; expanded service in rural areas;
addressing food deserts; higher frequency;
circulator routeswith remote collection
points; assuring timelinessof service;
recreation trips; improved transportation
to education centers; access across county
lines; county -to- county transfers; bike
racks at stops and on vehicles; trips need
to serve county service centers; more
evening/ weekend/ morning service;
coordination with DS3Medicaid;
education; affordability of service;
coordination of service; amenitiesfor
transit stops; enhancementsfor mobility -
impaired; volunteer driver program; more
park & ride lots; re- evaluation of routes
serving senior center; address
decentralization of medical facilities
New/ improved early
Yes (4)
All identified needs
morning/evening service
New/ improved weekend service
Yes (4)
Fbturn tripsfor medical emergency;
expansion of general transportation
service; expanded service in rural areas;
addressing food deserts; higher frequency;
circulator routeswith remote collection
points; assuring timelinessof service;
recreation trips; improved transportation
to education centers; door -to -door
service; more evening/weekend /morning
service
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 46
53
Volunteers (drivers, trainers,
Yes (3), No (1)
Dissemination of user- friendly
etc.)
information; more detailed instruction for
riders; customer service improvements;
education; coordination with DS3
Medicaid; volunteer driver program;
expansion of general transportation
service; expanded service in rural areas;
trips need to serve county service centers,
address decentralization of medical
facilities; circulator routeswith remote
collection points; affordability of service;
coordination with neighbor systems on
transfers; improved transportation to
education centers
Vouchers
Yes (3), Maybe (1)
Collaboration with medical services;
circulator routeswith remote collection
points; county -to- county transfers;
affordability of service
M obi I i ty M anager
Yes (3), Maybe (1)
Al identified needs
Increased visibility/ marketing/
Yes (4)
Education; coordination with DS3
education
Medicaid; amenities for transit stops;
more detailed instruction for riders;
customer service improvements; training
for" Go Triangle" call center; coordination
of service; expansion of general
transportation service; expanded service
in rural areas, collaboration with medical
services, trips need to serve county service
centers; address decentralization of
medical facilities; dissemination of user -
friendly information; information in other
languages; enhancementsfor mobility -
impaired; improved transportation to
education centers; volunteer driver
program
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 47
54
New/ improved express services
Yes (4)
Door -to -door service; return t rips for
medical emergency; expanded service in
rural areas; accessacross county lines;
improved transportation to education
centers; trips need to serve county service
centers; expansion of general
transportation service; higher frequency;
county -to- county transfers, bike racks at
stops and on vehicles; more detailed
instruction for riders; amenitiesfor transit
stops, dissemination of user- friendly
information; information in other
languages; coordination with neighbor
systems on transfers
Transit passes
Yes (4)
Collaboration with medical services;
circulator routeswith remote collection
points; county -to- county transfers;
affordability of service
Agency - operated services
Yes (3), No (1)
Volunteer driver program; collaboration
with medical services, funding
partnerships; address decentralization of
medical facilities; customer service
improvements; coordination with
neighbor systems on transfers
Vanpools
Yes (4)
Improved transportation to education
centers; volunteer driver program;
affordability of service; higher frequency;
county -to- county transfers, access across
county lines; circulator routeswith remote
collection points, funding partnerships;
expanded service in rural areas; trips need
to serve county service centers; more
evening/ weekend/ morning service;
address decentralization of medical
facilities; assuring timeliness of service;
recreation trips; enhancementsfor
mobility - impaired; coordination with
neighbor systems on transfers; improved
transportation to education centers;
volunteer driver program
Large transit vehicles
No (3), Maybe (1)
Depends on where and how vehicles are
used
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 48
55
Park and ride facilities
Yes (4)
More park and rides; circulator routeswith
remote collection points; expansion of
general transportation service; expanded
service in rural areas; collaboration with
medical services, customer service
improvements; amenitiesfor transit stops,
coordination with neighbor systems on
transfers
Door to door service
Yes (3), Maybe (1)
Door -to -door service; return t rips for
medical emergency; address
decentralization of medical facilities,
customer service improvements;
enhancementsfor mobility- impaired; re-
evaluation of routes serving senior center;
expansion of general transportation
service; expanded service in rural areas;
collaboration with medical services;
addressing food deserts; trips need to
serve county service centers; more
evening/ weekend/ morning service;
recreation trips; affordability of service
New /improved in -town
Yes (4)
Higher frequency; addressing food deserts;
circulators, shuttles, and other
expansion of general transportation
localized services
service; trips need to serve county service
centers; improved transportation to
education centers; coordination with DS3
Medicaid; return trips for medical
emergency; circulator routeswith remote
collection points; re- evaluation of routes
serving senior center; expanded service in
rural areas; collaboration with medical
services
Changes to institutional policy
Yes (3), Maybe (1)
Coordination with neighbor systems on
transfers; collaboration with medical
services; funding partnerships;
coordination with DS3Medicaid; address
decentralization of medical facilities,
assuring timeliness of service;
dissemination of user- friendly information;
information in other languages; addressing
food deserts; more evening/ weekend/
morning service; county -to- county
transfers; recreation trips; volunteer driver
program
Brokered trips
No (2), Maybe (1), No
Fbsponse (1)
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 49
56
Car - sharing services
Yes (2), No (1), No
M ore evening/weekend/ morning service;
response (1)
access across county lines; address
decentralization of medical facilities,
improved transportation to education
centers
Bike racks on buses
Yes (4)
Coordination with neighbor systems on
transfers; bike racks at stops and on
vehicles
Linkages/ transfers with other
Yes (3), No response
Expansion of general transportation
providers
(1)
service; funding partnerships; access
across county Iines; county -to- county
transfers; coordination of service;
enhancementsfor mobility- impaired;
address decentralization of medical
facilities; assuring timeliness of service;
recreation trips
Changesto land
Yes (2), No (1), No
Coordination with DS3Medicaid; address
use /development policy
response (1)
decentralization of medical facilities, (one
group noted that this was unclear)
Increased scheduling flexibility
Yes (3), No response
Expansion of general transportation
(1)
service; expanded service in rural areas;
collaboration with medical services; more
evening/weekend/morning service;
addressing food deserts; trips need to
serve county service centers; address
decentralization of medical facilities,
recreation trips; higher frequency
Collaborate with Hospitals
Yes (1)
This strategy was added to the list by one
group
Collaborate with CANSto
Yes (1)
This strategy was added to the list by one
establish park & ride, vouchers
group
Transit amenities
Yes (1)
This strategy was added to the list by one
group — amenities for transit stops;
coordination with neighbor systems on
transfers; training for" Go Triangle" call
center; information in other languages
M ore funding
Yes (1)
This strategy was added to the list by one
group — assuring timeliness of service;
affordability of service; improved
transportation to education centers
For the third workshop exercise, the participants stayed within their small groups and worked with a
large map to determine specific locational strategies, barriers, and needs. The maps developed by the
four Grange County small groups have been combined into the map shown on the next page.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human SBrvice Transportation Ran 50
Existing OPT deviated fixed
route serving northwest Orange
r
Several potential routes to
serve northwestern Orange
(including potential alternatives
to current routing)
I
Mebane
Several potential routes to
serve southwestern Orange
I
I
Route serving northern Orange
connection to Caswell County
1
J
I
J
I
1 f
Route serving southwestern
t`77
Orange /connection to
Alamance County
Carr boro
Route to connect to
�, T
Pittsboro/Central Carolina
Community College
Ui
N
Route serving northeastern Orange
j Route serving eastern Orange
MPO AREA I
r
Existing Hillsborough Circulator
I
r
Park and Ride Lot
Existing OPT Route connecting
Hillsborough and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Major Destinations
+ Existing Triangle
J
Transit routes � Rural Collection Point
ap €I Hill 1 Recommended Improvements
in Orange County
J
Map Date: Mav 2. 2013
Created by TARPO N
Existing Chapel Hill Miles f
- — Transit routes 0 1 2 4 6 a
U1
A
In the final exercise of the workshop, the partici pants once again combined into one large group with
representatives from both Chatham and Orange Counties. In this exercise, each participant was given
seven stickers and asked to place stickers on the strategies that they considered to be the highest
priorities for implementation within the next four to five years. The list below summarizes the results of
this priority voting (those receiving more than ten votes are in bold):
• New/ improved fixed routes and deviated fixed routes -15 votes
• New/ improved early morning) evening service —12 votes
• New /improved weekend service —4 votes
• Volunteers (drivers, trainers, etc.) —6 votes
• Vouchers — 3votes
• Mobility manager -10 votes
• Increased visibility/ marketing) education —20 votes
• New /improved express services —no votes
• Transit passes —4 votes
• Agency - operated services— no votes
• Vanpools- 3votes
• Larger transit vehicles— no votes
• Park and ride lots -6 votes
• Door- to- door service — 4votes
• New/ improved in -town dreulators, shuttles, localized services -2 votes
• Changes to institutional policy -13 votes
• Brokered trips -1 votes
• Car - sharing services -2 votes
• Bike racks on buses— no votes
• Linkages/ transfers with other providers -4 votes
• Changes to land use/ development policy — no votes
• Increased scheduling flexibility — 2votes
• More funding -14 votes
• Collaboration with Hospitals -8 votes
• Connecting with churches, neighborhoods, etc for park and ride —12 votes
• Transit amenities —2 votes
In addition to the half -day workshop, a survey was made available both online and in paper form. Of the
50 responses received, 25 indicated that the respondent lived or worked in Orange County. The survey
responses for the 25 respondents from Orange County are summarized below. A summary of all survey
responses (for all counties) can be found in Appendix B.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 52
59
Question 1: Which county do you live and /or work in? Pease check all that apply.
Chatham
2
Lee
1
M core
0
Grange
25
Question 2: Pease indicate whether you agree with the following statements regarding public transit
service needs in your county.
"There is not enough public transportation service available."
Strongly Agree
14
(56 0%)
Agree
8
(32 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
2
(8 %)
Disagree
1
(4 %)
Strongly Disagree
0
"The daily hours of operation should
be extended."
Strongly Agree
8
(35 %)
Agree
9
(39 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
6
(26 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be service available on nightsand
weekends."
Strongly Agree
10
(40 %)
Agree
10
(40 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
5
(20 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There should be more focus on employment - related trips."
Strongly Agree
10
(40 %)
Agree
5
(20 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
9
(36 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
1
(4 %)
"There are areas of the county that
are currently underserved and should be addressed."
Strongly Agree
16
(67 %)
Agree
2
(8 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
6
(25 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 53
.1
"There needsto be more coordination with service providers in neighboring counties."
Strongly Agree
11
(44 0%)
Agree
7
(28 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
6
(24 %)
Disagree
1
(4 %)
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be more coordination
among
different service providerswithin my county."
Strongly Agree
13
(52 %)
Agree
9
(36 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
3
(12 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There should be `door -to -door' service for the elderly and disabled."
Strongly Agree
16
(64 %)
Agree
8
(32 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
1
(4 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be more education on available services, programs, and eligibility
requirements."
Strongly Agree
16
(67 %)
Agree
6
(25 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
2
(8 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There is a language barrier for the
users of services in my county."
Strongly Agree
5
(20 %)
Agree
5
(20 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
12
(48 %)
Disagree
3
(12 %)
Strongly Disagree
0
"Sxvice providers need to better communicate
information to the public (website, advertising,
etc.)."
Strongly Agree
13
(52 %)
Agree
10
(40 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
2
(8 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 54
61
"Sarvice providers need to be more consumer- friendly."
Strongly Agree
9
(36 0%)
Agree
7
(28 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
8
(32 %)
Disagree
1
(4 %)
Strongly Disagree
0
"Using transit is too complicated and requi
Strongly Agree 11
Agree 3
Neutral or Don't Know 5
Disagree 6
Strongly Disagree 0
res too much advance planning."
(44%)
(12 %)
(20 %)
(24 %)
Other need (written -in): Service to major health (UNC, Duke, Health Dept) and food hubs are important.
Other need (written -in): MAP-21 also includes Transportation Enhancements, Fbcreational Trailsand
Safe Fbutesto Spool. Areyou considering these elements?
Other need (written -in): Older adults are the largest population within the digital divide.
Communications needsto be provided via non - digital media.
Question 3. Out of the statements above, which do you believe is the most important to address in the
near future?
"There is not enough public transportation service available." 11 (44 %)
"The daily hours of operation should be extended." 1 (4 %)
"There needs to be service available on nights and weekends." 1 (4 %)
"There should be more focus on employment - related trips." 1 (4 %)
"There are areas of the county that are currently underserved and should be
addressed." 6 (24 %)
"There needs to be more coordination with service providers in neighboring
counties." 0
"There needs to be more coordination among different service providers
within my county." 0
"There should be `door -to -door' service for the elderly and disabled." 2 (8 %)
"There needs to be more education on available services, programs, and
eligibility requirements." 0
"There is a language barrier for the users of services in my county." 0
"Sarvice providers need to better communicate information to the public
(website, advertising, etc.)." 0
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 55
62
"Sxvice providers need to be more consumer- friendly." 1 (4 %)
"Using transit is too complicated and requires too much advance planning." 1 (4 %)
Other (written -in): MAP-21 also includes Transportation Enhancements,
Fbcreational Trails and Safe Fbutesto School. Are you considering these
elements? 1 (4 %)
Question 4: If you do not currently use public transportation, why? Choose all that apply.
I have a personal vehicle that is reliable and convenient 16 (67 %)
I have a family member or friend who drives me places when needed 0
Public transportation does not go the places I need to go 12 (50 %)
Public transportation does not operate at the times I need to travel 8 (33 %)
Public transportation takes too long or has inconvenient timing 9 (38 %)
I do not know how to use it 3 (13 %)
I did not know it was available 2 (8 %)
I DO use public transportation 0
Other: I also live very much in town and bike regularly. But I know lots of
folks out in rural areas don't have the same kind of access... 1 (4 %)
Other: I would definitely use publictransit if it were available. My husband
drives to the UNCbus terminal near Cole Park Raza every weekday for work.
He would have gladly taken the Rttsboro to Chapel Hill bus, but it traveled
during non business hours, which made no sense. I also would have used it for
my frequent tripsto Chapel Hill, but again, the hourswere strange, and the
time allowed to be in Chapel Hill wasvery short. I also traveled to Raleigh
frequently for work, and commuted for years. There are so many who do,
and I would have so appreciated a commuter bus to Raleigh and back. It would
have to run at realisticwork hours though. 1 (4 %)
Other: There does not seem to be any public transportation out where I live. 1 (4 %)
Other: I have to drop my son off at preschool before going to work. It's
theoretically possibly by transit but would take a lot of time and energy. 1 (4 %)
Other: I live in the county, only 3 milesfrom my town worksite, but there is no
transportation available to me. I would have to drive several miles in the other
direction to use a park- and -ride, and then have to change buses, and it would
take about an hour. 1 (4 %)
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 56
63
Question 5: Do you have any other comments on public transportation in your community that may be of
help in developing this plan?
Need to coordinate better between service providers and expand rural services beyond only medical
related, i.e. cover food deserts.
Chatham County lost most all industrial jobs but Lee and Durham Counties are showing growth.
Unfortunately, residents lads transportation to get to the other counties early morning and bads home
evenings so they can work thisjobs.
We do have some numbers of food deserts and transportation deserts (where houses have no car) from
the American Communities9arvey. Transportation has health consequences! I'll be coming from Grange
County Health Department to add that voice to the table. Thanks for hosting us.
9re above. But there should be early transportation from, and later, early evening transportation back,
to Chatham County. People would use transit that was realistically scheduled. I never understood the
scheduling of the Pboro to CH bus. Also, why isthere no transit from Pboro to 91er City?
I think that there should be a door -to -door service for the elderly and disabled. Transport for these
individuals sometimes involves going to the doctor or dinics and could perhaps be partially supported by
the large medical centers. It would cut down on the cost of unnecessarily using an ambulance.
We need to change new developments (and redevelopment) to be more dense and compact so that it
will be easier for people to use transit.
There needsto be a route in Northern orange county
I understand one factor may be to accomodate personswith low income but I would like to be able to
take a busto work instead of driving myself (1 person) to and from work. I'd also like to see more
sidewalks throughout the county.
When I was disabled, I was home bound. Carrying oxygen means door to door service was essential.
The "majority' of Public Transportation serves the southern part of the county - I'm not in the southern
part !!
Summary of Reoommendations
The information in the previous section provides a detailed list of needs, strategies, and priorities within
Grange County. The following strategies standout as being both appropriate and a high priority for
implementation based on the results of the workshop. This summary is not all - inclusive, and should not
be interpreted as a limit on potential future actions, but rather as away to identify some of the highest
prioritiesfor implementation.
• New /improved fixed routesand deviated fixed routes —the mapping exercise identified a need
for new routes in multiple areas of the county, particularly feeder routes into the rural areas,
and a route running east -west between Mebane, Hillsborough, and Durham (possibly as an
express route).
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human 9?rvice Transportation Ran 57
M.,
New/ improved early morning/ evening service —the ability to accommodate trips earlier and
later in the day was an item of concern for workshop participants
Mobility manager —this would improve customer service and provide better information to
riders, as well as helping coordinate with services
• Increased visibility /marketing/education —this was highlighted as an important need
• Changes to institutional policy —an example that was quoted by several workshop attendees
was the fact that OFF cannot transport people who are eligible for Medicaid but not yet
enrolled, and without providing that transportation it is difficult for these people to get enrolled
Two additional strategies that received a great deal of attention during the workshop were suggested by
participants: increasing the amount of funding available for transit, and connecting with churches,
neighborhood groups and others to identify remote locations that could be used as rural collection
points/ park and ride lots.
The results of the workshop are generally in line with the results of the survey. The survey identified the
highest needs in Grange County as: expansion of the amount of public transportation service available;
serving areas of the county that are currently underserved; providing door -to -door service to the elderly
and disabled; improving education on available services, programs, and eligibility requirements, and
better communicating transit information to the public.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 58
65
Appendix A: Workshop I nvitees and Attendees
The following pages provide a list of those who received an invitation to participate in the two Locally
Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan workshops and those who attended the workshops.
The lists are broken out by county. Pease note that in addition to invitations that were sent out directly
to certain stakeholders by the transit agencies, TAFFO also sent public notices to media outlets within
the TAFFO region and posted information about the workshops on theTARPOwebsite. Several counties
also sent out public notices via various means. Atotal of 18 persons attended the workshop in Sanford
on April 25, 2013 (including the facilitator and one person by phone). Atotal of 28 persons attended the
workshop in Chapel Hill on April 26, 2013 (including the facilitator).
Chatham County
INVI =S°
ATTBVDEEB
Angel Dennison, Chatham County COA
panda Lane, Citizen
Tamra Shaw, NCDOT PTD
F;bsa Sutton, Sster 2 Sster Transportation
Marie Gasters, Child Care Networks
Mike Zelek, Chatham County Public Health
Department
dndy 9iipes, Chatham County DSS
Matt Alexander, Chatham County dtizen
Shawn Foe, Chatham Trades, Inc.
Bizabeth Shay, UNCChapel Hill
Karen Allen, COOC/ CTN Board
Mary Martin, Center for Behavioral Health Care
Brian Bock, Chatham County Board of
Commissioners/ CTN Board
Dan Stroupe, Chatham Transit Network
Pat Hackney, CTN Board
Tamra Shaw, NCDOT PTD
Vicki McConnell, Chatham County/ CTN Board
Matt Day, TAFFO
Genevieve Megginson, Chatham County
Partnership for Children
Jennifer Park, Chatham County Health Department
/ CTN Board
Marda Perritt, CTN Board
Hernan Sedda, Hispanic Liaison of Chatham County
/ CTN Board
Alex Fbta, Chatham County Spdal Services
Allison Palmer, Vocational F;bhabilitation Services
Bill Lail, Family Fbsource Center
Bob Ender, Chatham Hospital
Carolyn Worley, Laurels of Chatham
Cathy Cole, dub Insight
John Crimes, Town of Sler dty
Bett Foley, Town of Pttsboro
Sara Lambert, COOC
Diane Campbell, Chatham County Schools
Dina F;bynolds, Chatham County United Way
Donna Johnson, Crystal Transportation
Giselle Easters, Chatham County Head Start
Kim Caraganis, Chatham County Together
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Pan 59
..
Holly Coleman, Chatham County Health
Department
ATTBVDEEB
Janet Groce, Chatham Chapter AF; Cof NC
Diane 9nnamon, Reming Transportation
Chris Carter, Chatham County CCA
Lois Reming, Reming Transportation
Carolina Dialysis
Kevin Pearson, Central Carolina Community
College
Chatham Child Development Center
9dney Morgan, County of Lee Transit Sjstem
91er City Care & Fbhabilitation
Christopher M. Vverette, Lee County Industries,
I nc.
Dennis Gilmore, Chatham County COA
Melanie Lamb, Carolina Dialysis
Marie Jordan, Chatham County Group Homes
Leon Jackson, Department of Workforce Solutions
(Lee County.bblink)
Randy Voller, Town of Rttsboro
Debbie Davidson, Senior Services
F;bsa Sutton- Lockett, 9ster 2 9ster Solutions
Shirley Rijkse, LCI Inc.
JOOC'A
Bob McCarthy, Lee County —at large
Jessica Godfrey, Chatham Trades Inc.
F;bger Bailey, Stevens Center
9hirelle Lee, Chatham County Together
Terrell Jones, Lee County Health Department
* Chatham County also sent out a public notice via email to a broader distribution list including the
general public
Lee Courrty
INVIT EB
ATTBVDEEB
F;bckie Dillon, Center for Independent Living
Diane 9nnamon, Reming Transportation
Michael Sperico, Central Carolina Hospital
Advanced Life Support
Lois Reming, Reming Transportation
Evangeline 9rnith, Central Carolina Community
College
Kevin Pearson, Central Carolina Community
College
Bob Joyce. Sanford Chamber of Commerce
9dney Morgan, County of Lee Transit Sjstem
Jan Hayes, Lee County United Way
Christopher M. Vverette, Lee County Industries,
I nc.
Meg Moss, Lee County Industries
Melanie Lamb, Carolina Dialysis
Jane Wesley, Economic Development
Leon Jackson, Department of Workforce Solutions
(Lee County.bblink)
Josepheus Thompson, Employment Security
Commission
Debbie Davidson, Senior Services
Terrell Jones, Lee County RAblic Health
Department
Shirley Rijkse, LCI Inc.
Caleb Villalobos, Bethel Church
Bob McCarthy, Lee County —at large
Melanie F;bdgers, Lee County Board of
Commissioners
F;bger Bailey, Stevens Center
Lesa Price, Lee County Department of Social
Services
Terrell Jones, Lee County Health Department
Lyn Hankins, Lee County Partnership for Children
Tamra Shaw, NCDOT PTD (by phone)
John Crumpton, County Manager
Matt Day, TAFFO
Jobie Deese, Sandhills Center for Mental Health
Susan Condlin, NCGooperative Extension
Tamra Shaw, NCDOT PTD
9d Morgan, The Enrichment Center / COLTS
Debbie Davidson, The Enrichment Center / 9anior
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 60
67
Services
ATTENDEES
Blondine Hawkins, Local Citizen / Passenger
John Benton, Moore County Transportation
Angelina Noel, Work First/ Lee County DDS
Tawanna Williams, Moore County Transportation
Robert McCarthy, Local Citizen / Passenger
Jeremy Rust, Moore County Planning &
Community Development
Kay Cuaton- Maier, Carolina Dialysis
Tim Emmert, Moore County Planning &
Community Development
Fenton Wells, Local Citizen
Tamra Shaw, NCDOT PTD (by phone)
Bob Bridwell, City of Sanford Planning
Matt Day, TARPO
Lois Fleming, Fleming Transportation
Mike Fliss, Orange County Health Department
Matthew Day, TARPO
Darcy Zorio, Triangle Transit
Roger Bailey, Stevens Center
Donna King, Orange County Health Department
Moore County
INVITEES
ATTENDEES
Need to add
John Benton, Moore County Transportation
Tom Altieri, Orange County Planning
Tawanna Williams, Moore County Transportation
Abigaile Pittman, Orange County Planning
Jeremy Rust, Moore County Planning &
Community Development
Pete Hallenbeck, Orange County Planning Board
Tim Emmert, Moore County Planning &
Community Development
Al Terry, Orange Public Transportation
Tamra Shaw, NCDOT PTD (by phone)
Pearl Waite, Orange Public Transportation
Matt Day, TARPO
Orange County
INVITEES*
ATTENDEES
Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning
Alex Castro, Orange County Transportation
Advisory Board
Tom Altieri, Orange County Planning
Dick White, Orange County Advisory Board on
Aging
Abigaile Pittman, Orange County Planning
Tammy Grubb, Chapel Hill News
Pete Hallenbeck, Orange County Planning Board
Kathy Porter, Orange County Department on Aging
— RSVP 55+ Volunteer Program
Al Terry, Orange Public Transportation
Janice Tyler, Orange County Department on Aging
Pearl Waite, Orange Public Transportation
Hank Maiden, Orange County Citizen
Paul Guthrie, Chair OUT Board
Mike Fliss, Orange County Health Department
Alex Castro, OUT Board
Darcy Zorio, Triangle Transit
Janice Tyler, Orange County Aging Director
Donna King, Orange County Health Department
Kathie Kearns, Orange County Aging
Pearl Waite, Orange Public Transportation
Nancy Coston, Orange County DSS
Anna Kenion, Orange County Health Department
Serena McPherson, Orange County DSS
Patrick McDonough, Triangle Transit
Robert Gilmore, Orange County DSS
Serena W. McPherson, Department of Social
Services
Margaret Hauth, Town of Hillsborough
Lindsey Shewmaker, Department of Social Services
John Talmadge, Triangle Transit
Tom Altieri, Orange County Planning
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 61
Z.,]
Brian Litchfield, Chapel Hill Transit
Ann Stroobant, Orange County Resident
Montrena Hadley, City of Mebane
Al Terry, Orange Public Transportation
Trish Gala, Justice United
Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director
Orange County Board of Commissioners Members
Tamra Shaw, NCDOT PTD
Bonnie Hauser, Orange County Voice
Ed Flowers, Department on Aging Advisory Board
Laura Streitfield, Preserve Rural Orange
Matt Day, TARPO
* Orange County also sent out a public notice via email to a broader distribution list including the
general public
As part of the workshop, participants were asked to fill out a voluntary Title VI form to provide
demographic information on the group of participants. The following table and graphs below provide a
summary of the 26 forms that were turned -in. For privacy reasons, all results are summarized together
and not broken -out by county.
Number of Forms Showing Each Category:
County:
Gender:
Race:
Ethnicity:
Household Income:
Chatham
6
Female
12
White
19
Hispanic
1
Under
6
$50000
Lee
4
Male
14
Black
6
Non-
22
$50000-
13
Hispanic
$100000
Moore
3
Other
1
No
3
Over
4
Response
$100000
Orange
13
No
3
Response
County
Gender
Lee
County
15% Moore
County Female
Orange k 12% 46%
County Male
50% Chatham 54%
County
23%
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 62
Men,
F Other Race
4%
Black /Afr
ican
America
n
23% it
White
73%
in
Household Income
Did Not
Respond
12%
Over Under
$100,000 $50,000
15% 23%
$50,000
to
$100,000
50%
Hispanic
Did Not Ethnicity 4%
Respond
11%
Non -
Hispanic
85%
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 63
70
Appendix B— Stakeholder Survey and Summary of Results
This appendix contains the full summary results of the stakeholder survey, as well as a copy of the paper
version of the survey. There were 50 respondents in total. The survey was available online from April 2,
2013 until May 1, 2013. Paper versions were made available to the transit agencies for them to
distribute as needed and were also available for participants who attended one of the two workshops.
Question 1: Which county do you live and /or work in? Pease check all that apply.
Chatham
14
Lee
7
M core
6
Grange
25
Question 2: Pease indicate whether you agree with the following statements regarding public transit
service needs in your county.
"There is not enough public transportation service available."
Strongly Agree
26
(52 %)
Agree
18
(36 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
5
(10 0/0)
Disagree
1
(2 %)
Strongly Disagree
0
"The daily hours of operation should
be extended."
Strongly Agree
20
(42 %)
Agree
17
(35 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
10
(21%)
Disagree
1
(2 %)
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be service available on nightsand
weekends."
Strongly Agree
25
(50 %)
Agree
13
(26 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
11
(22 %)
Disagree
1
(2 %)
Strongly Disagree
0
"There should be more focus on employment - related trips."
Strongly Agree
22
(44 %)
Agree
12
(24 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
14
(28 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
2
(4 %)
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 64
71
"There are areas of the county that are currently underserved and should be addressed."
Strongly Agree
28
(57 0%)
Agree
13
(27 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
8
(16 0%)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be more coordination
with service providers in neighboring counties."
Strongly Agree
24
(48 0%)
Agree
14
(28 0%)
Neutral or Don't Know
11
(22 0%)
Disagree
1
(2 %)
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be more coordination
among
different service providerswithin my county."
Strongly Agree
27
(54 %)
Agree
15
(30 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
8
(16 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There should be `door -to -door' service for the elderly and disabled."
Strongly Agree
30
(60 %)
Agree
16
(32 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
4
(8 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
0
"There needsto be more education on available services, programs, and eligibility
requirements."
Strongly Agree
26
(53 %)
Agree
19
(39 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
3
(6 %)
Disagree
0
Strongly Disagree
1
(2 %)
"There is a language barrier for the
users of services in my county."
Strongly Agree
11
(22 %)
Agree
14
(29 %)
Neutral or Don't Know
20
(41%)
Disagree
4
(8 %)
Strongly Disagree
0
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 65
72
"Sarvice providers need to better communicate information to the public (website, advertising,
etc.)."
Strongly Agree 22 (44 0%)
Agree 21 (42 %)
Neutral or Don't Know 7 (14 %)
Disagree 0
Strongly Disagree 0
"Sarvice providers need to be more consumer- friendly."
Strongly Agree 16 (33 %)
Agree 14 (29 %)
Neutral or Don't Know 15 (31%)
Disagree 3 (6 %)
Strongly Disagree 0
"Using transit istoo complicated and requirestoo much advance planning."
Strongly Agree 14 (28 %)
Agree 8 (16 %)
Neutral or Don't Know 17 (34 %)
Disagree 10 (20 %)
Strongly Disagree 1 (2 %)
Other need (written -in): Need more connection from Chatham to RTP, Raleigh, other parts of the
Triangle
Other need (written -in): Chatham County needs a real bus service!
Other need (written -in): Service to major health (U NQ Duke, Health Dept) and food hubs are important.
Other need (written -in): MAP-21 also includes Transportation Enhancements, Fbcreational Trailsand
Safe Fbutesto School. Areyou considering these elements?
Other need (written -in): Oder adults are the largest population within the digital divide.
Communications needsto be provided via non - digital media.
Question 3. Out of the statements above, which do you believe is the most important to address in the
near future?
"There is not enough public transportation service available." 18 (38 %)
"The daily hours of operation should be extended." 5 (10 0/0)
"There needsto be service available on nights and weekends." 4 (8 %)
"There should be more focus on employment - related trips." 2 (4 %)
"There are areas of the county that are currently underserved and should be
addressed." 9 (19 0/0)
"There needsto be more coordination with service providers in neighboring
counties." 1 (2 %)
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 66
73
"There needs to be more coordination among different service providers
within my county." 0
"There should be'door -to -door' service for the elderly and disabled." 4 (8 %)
"There needs to be more education on available services, programs, and
eligibility requirements." 2 (4 %)
"There is a language barrier for the users of services in my county." 0
"Sxvice providers need to better communicate information to the public
(website, advertising, etc.)." 0
"Sxvice providers need to be more consumer- friendly." 1 (2 %)
"Using transit is too complicated and requires too much advance planning." 1 (2 %)
Other (written -in): MAP-21 also includes Transportation Enhancements,
Fbcreational Trails and Safe Fbutesto School. Are you considering these
elements? 1 (2 %)
Question 4: If you do not currently use public transportation, why? Choose all that apply.
I have a personal vehicle that is reliable and convenient 34 (74 %)
I have a family member or friend who drives me places when needed 1 (2 %)
Publ i c t ransportat i on does not go the places I need to go 21 (46 %)
Pu bl i c t ranspo rt at i on does not operate at the times I need to travel 13 (28 %)
Public transportation takes too long or has inconvenient timing 15 (33 %)
I do not know how to use it 5 (110/0)
I did not know it was available 4 (9 0/0)
I DO use public transportation 2 (4 %)
Other: I also live very much in town and bike regularly. But I know lots of
folks out in rural areas don't have the same kind of access... 1 (2 %)
Other: I would definitely use publictransit if it were available. My husband
drives to the UNC bus terminal near Cole Park Raza every weekday for work.
He would have gladly taken the Rttsboro to Chapel Hill bus, but it traveled
during non business hours, which made no sense. I also would have used it for
my frequent tripsto Chapel Hill, but again, the hourswere strange, and the
time allowed to be in Chapel Hill wasvery short. I also traveled to Raleigh
frequently for work, and commuted for years. There are so many who do,
and I would have so appreciated a commuter bus to Raleigh and back. It would
have to run at realisticwork hours though. 1 (2 %)
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 67
74
Other: There does not seem to be any public transportation out where I live. 1 (2 %)
Other: I don't qualify for the types of public transportation that are currently
available. I would use publ i c t ransportat i on if it was available and convenient
for me. 1 (2 %)
Other: I have to drop my son off at preschool before going to work. It's
theoretically possibly by transit but would take a lot of time and energy. 1 (2 %)
Other: I live in the county, only 3 milesfrom my town worksite, but there is no
transportation available to me. I would have to drive several miles in the other
direction to use a park- and -ride, and then have to change buses, and it would
take about an hour. 1 (2 %)
Question 5. Do you have any other comments on public transportation in your community that may be of
help in developing this plan?
not at the present time
Need to coordinate better between service providers and expand rural services beyond only medical
related, i.e. cover food deserts.
Chatham County lost most all industrial jobs but Lee and Durham Counties are showing growth.
Unfortunately, residents lads transportation to get to the other counties early morning and bads home
evenings so they can work thisjobs.
Chatham County is in dire need of "real" public transporation that is available to everyone and that goes
places that people need to go. Public transportation needs to be reliable, affordable, and accessible by
everyone regardless of age/ insurance status/ language, etc. I know of some familieswho are paying
people $20 for a trip within 91er City to shop at Walmart. The need is real.
We do have some numbers of food deserts and transportation deserts (where houses have no car) from
the American Communities 9arvey. Transportation has health consequences! I'll be coming from Orange
County Health Department to add that voice to the table. Thanks for hosting us.
SBe above. But there should be early transportation from, and later, early evening transportation back,
to Chatham County. People would use transit that was realistically scheduled. I never understood the
scheduling of the Pboro to CH bus. Also, why isthere no transit from Pboro to 91er City?
I grew up in a. Louis and the bus route wasALLover not just one or two counties.
http: / /www.metrostlouis.org/ Default.aspx Check out that website and see the wide range the bus
travels PLUSthere is the train .... its goes all the way to Illinois. The train is ran by electric.
If local service providerswere provided with away of tracking their dients' transportation needs over
the course of a period of time then they might be better equipped to answer these sorts of questions.
For most of them this meeting will come as a surprise.
We need public transportation competition.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human SBrvice Transportation Ran 68
75
I think that there should be a door -to -door service for the elderly and disabled. Transport for these
individuals sometimes involves going to the doctor or dinics and could perhaps be partially supported by
the large medical centers. It would cut down on the cost of unnecessarily using an ambulance.
We need to change new developments (and redevelopment) to be more dense and compact so that it
will be easier for people to use transit.
There needsto be a route in Northern orange county
I understand one factor may be to accomodate personswith low income but I would like to be able to
take a busto work instead of driving myself (1 person) to and from work. I'd also like to see more
sidewalks throughout the county.
When I was disabled, I was home bound. Carrying oxygen means door to door service was essential.
The "majority' of Public Transportation servesthe southern part of the county - I'm not in the southern
part!!
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 69
76
p Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan Survey
The Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) is working with its transit partners (Orange
Public Transportation, Chatham Transit Network, County of Lee Transit System, and Moore County
Transportation Services) to update the region's Locally Coordinated Plan (LCP). Please answer the brief
five- question survey below to help us better understand the transportation needs within your community.
For more information on the LCP process, visit www.tarpo.orgltopicsllcp.shtml. You can also complete
this survey online at www.surveymonkey.com /s /9N3SNYF.
1. Which county do you live and/or work in? Please check all that apply.
Chatham Lee Moore Orange
2. Please indicate whether you agree with the following statements regarding public transit
service needs in your county. Place a check -mark in the appropriate box for each statement.
Neutral or
Stongly Don't Strongly
Agree Agree Know Disagree Disagree
"There is not enough public transportation service
available"
"Service providers need to be more'consumer-
friendly"'
"There are areas of the county that are currently
underserved and should be addressed"
"There needs to be more education on available
services, programs, and eligibility requirements"
"There is a language barrier for the users of
services in my county"
"The daily hours of operation should be extended"
"There should be 'door -to -door' service for the
elderly and disabled"
"Service providers need to better communicate
information to the public (website, advertising, etc.)"
"There needs to be service available on nights and
weekends"
"There should be more focus on employment -
related trips"
"There needs to be more coordination among
different service providers within my county"
"Using transit is too complicated and requires too
much advance planning"
"There needs to be more coordination with service
providers in neighboring counties"
Other Needs (please specify):
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 70
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 70
77
Tt99 Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan Survey
3. Out of the statements above, which do you believe is the most important to address in the near
future? (check one)
4. If you do not currently use public transportation, why? Choose all that apply.
"There should be more focus on employment- related trips"
"There are areas of the county that are currently underserved and should be addressed"
"Service providers need to better communicate information to the public (website, advertising,
etc.)"
"There is not enough public transportation service available"
"The daily hours of operation should be extended"
"There should be'door -to -door' service for the elderly and disabled"
"There needs to be more coordination among different service providers within my county"
"There needs to be more education on available services, programs, and eligibility requirements"
"There needs to be more coordination with service providers in neighboring counties"
"There needs to be service available on nights and weekends"
"There is a language barrier for the users of services in my county"
"Service providers need to be more 'consumer-friendly"'
"Using transit is too complicated and requires too much advance planning"
Other (written -in on question above)
4. If you do not currently use public transportation, why? Choose all that apply.
5. Do you have any other comments on public transportation in your community that may be of
help in developing this plan?
Thank you for participating! Please return completed surveys to: Matt Day, TARPO, PO Box 12276,
Research Triangle Park, INC 27709.
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 71
I have a personal vehicle that is reliable and convenient
I have a family member or friend who drives me places when needed
Public transportation does not go to the places I need to go
Public transportation does not operate at the times I need to travel
Public transportation takes too long or has inconvenient timing
I do not know how to use it
I did not know it was available
I DO use public transportation
Other (please specify):
5. Do you have any other comments on public transportation in your community that may be of
help in developing this plan?
Thank you for participating! Please return completed surveys to: Matt Day, TARPO, PO Box 12276,
Research Triangle Park, INC 27709.
Triangle Area RPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan 71
M]
Appendix C— Additional Written Comments From Workshop Participants
As part of the workshops, participantswere given comment sheets on which they could write any
additional comments they had on the Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran or the
planning process. The following is a compilation of these written comments, grouped by workshop
(Sanford or Chapel Hi 11).
Additional Comments Provided in Sanford Workshop
Presentation and material exceptional. In order to accomplish/ reduce transportation issue is to link
services through effective collaborative efforts.
This is not a useful tool if we only sit in a room for 3 hours every 5 years. It might be a useful strategic
tool if done more frequently. It also seems like a good opportunity to develop strategic linkages
between county jurisdictions. Also, I learned somethings today— more than 5 years ago —so this might
be a good idea for education of (potential) partners.
Follow up!
Additional Comments Provided in Chapel Hill Workshop
This is a great way to capture information about future services to be provided to taxpayers of Orange
County. It would be great to include more public input —perhaps a separate session for public only.
As NCQATiitle V=trainee, and citizen aging in place, the morning offers entry points for improving
focus group training. These processes become evermore complex for citizen groups and advocates for
thosewithout mobility, limited fundsand ongoing isolation deficits. Senior centers, faith -based
organizations and specialized interest groups can benefit from this quality presentation. Community
workshops need to be held in all townships.
Chatham participation may have been better in Chatham County.
Institution policy change to allow OPTservice expansion to enable rural residents publictransit meansto
get to supermarkets (coverage for "food desert')
I wish the health and social services departments had more time to follow -up before your processwere
done. With a few weeks we could have taken questions from this workshop and gotten better data on
that. Perhaps in the future you could target —ask for specific data sets from key services?
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 72
79
There have been many forums, workshops, and focus groups addressing transportation —using data
from these activities for all these new grants/ applications may avoid repeating or re- hashing the same
issues — I understand if the application process requires a forum /workshop each time.
Would have liked to have more consumers participate in the workshop. Would have liked to have more
time to advertise the workshop. Needed to have aworkshop in the Central and Northern part of the
County.
Triangle Area FFO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Ran 73