Princeton Senior Shuttle Service

Similar documents
PASSENGER HANDBOOK. Cody Roggatz Transportation Director City of Aberdeen

Transit Development Plan And 2013 Annual Report. Asotin County PTBA

WOKING COMMUNITY TRANSPORT LTD THE TOWN CENTRE BUGGY SERVICE - APPLICATION FOR SUPPORT

SF Access Services SF Access Reservations and Where s My Ride

Office of the City Manager CONSENT CALENDAR May 19, 2009

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, COLORADO

Once you have provided all necessary information, the TMS operator will tell you how your request will be met.

Enclosed is a registration packet that provides you with a Passenger Information Sheet, Waiver Form, Registration Form and an Agreement Checklist.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, COLORADO AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015

Rural Transportation Forum, Walkerton, ON

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY 2004/05 VENTURA INTERCITY SERVICE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (VISTA) CONEJO CONNECTION

San Francisco Paratransit

The City of Sarnia TRANSIT SERVICE & PROPERTY TAXATION. People Serving People

Federal Assistance 13% Charges for Services 5% Appropriated Fund Balance.5% Other 3% Administration 6% Building Maintenance 3% Other 2%

1/31/2019. January 31, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION. Notice of Public Hearing and Opportunity to Comment on Proposed Rules

2017 Paratransit Customer Satisfaction Study Access-A-Ride

APPENDIX F-1: CATS Baseline Conditions and Needs Assessment

Committee of the Whole Transit Roundtable Discussion. Engineering, Planning & Environment Division

Impact of the Living Wage on Paratransit Services

Delaware, Dubuque and Jackson County Regional Transit Authority Commerce Park Dubuque, IA

Travel, Subsistence and Expenses Policy

2018 Regional Transportation Improvement Program: Amendment No. 1

CAPITAL TRANSIT MISSION STATEMENT FY13 PROPOSED BUDGET $6,707,900 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CORE SERVICES FUNDING SOURCES FOR CAPITAL TRANSIT

Clark County School District 5100 West Sahara Ave. Las Vegas, NV March 23, Dear Administrator:

Funding Local Public Transportation

Governor s FY 2018 Revised, FY 2019 and Capital Budget Recommendations House Finance Committee April 12, 2018

WAIVER TRANSPORTATION RATE STUDY METHODOLOGY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS BUSINESS/TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT REGULATIONS

Senior Mobility Program Project U Funding and Policy Guidelines March 2016

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Metro Budget Overview

One Gateway Plaza Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA goo REQUIRES 213 VOTE PER Administrative Code , Part D

JP Morgan Public Finance Transportation Utility Conference

Title VI Fare Equity Analysis

2013 STA Passenger Survey Results. Attachment E Title VI Attachment E

QUALITY TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY

NJ TRANSIT BOARD CUSTOMER SERVICE COMMITTEE MEETING OPEN TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

MEETING DATE: November 17, SUBJECT: 2005 Wheel-Trans Operating Budget

Wake County. People love to be connected. In our cyberspace. transit plan CONNECTING PEOPLE, CONNECTING THE COUNTY

Governor s FY 2017 Revised, FY 2018 and Capital Budget Recommendations House Finance Committee April 12, 2017

TSCC Budget Review TriMet

Overview of the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Program

QUALITY TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY

Public Transportation

HISTORY OF MASS TRANSIT FUNDING IN PENNSYLVANIA

Local County and Tribal Agency Biennial Health Care Access Services Plan

Travel Expenses Policy

Allen ISD Travel Guidelines

ALAMEDA County Transportation Commission. Alameda County Transportation Commission GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM GUIDELINES

System Performance Summary for FY 2016/17 Fixed Route

Transportation Fee FY2017

SUBMISSION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA ON THE STATE TRANSPORT PLAN

Overview of Minnesota Highway and Transit Finance. Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee June 22, 2015 and July 13, 2015

Business Travel Policy

Terms and Conditions

COTA SA: DRAFT SUBMISSION ON THE SA TRANSPORT PLAN

Program Evaluation and Audit COUNTY CONTRACTOR ADA COST REVIEW DARTS AND SCOTT COUNTY

Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority P.O. Box Birmingham, AL Phone: (205) Fax: (205)

EMPLOYEE TRAVEL POLICY

MEMORANDUM. To: Fred Butler and Shelley Winters From: Stephen Falbel Re: NHDOT Public Transportation Policy Date: May 11, 2018

Governor s FY 2019 Revised, FY 2020 and Capital Budget Recommendations House Finance Committee April 9, 2019

Public Auto Questionnaire

Public Transit Services Summary of Submitted 2015 Budget From Rates

ADA Paratransit Plan

TRAVEL AND ENTERTAINMENT POLICY OF THE ARIZONA COMMERCE AUTHORITY

Medicaid Non-Emergency Transportation Request for Proposals. Responses to Questions Received by the March 11 Deadline (Posted March 17, 2011)

Intercity Transit Community Update

Program of Capital Assistance to Nonprofit Agencies for Transportation of the Elderly and Handicapped

Affordable Fares Task Force Recommendations. March 26, 2015

Public Transportation

Vanpool Alliance Participation Agreement

Resolution Establishing Special Event Permit Requirements For Larimer County Roads

Centro Rider Survey Final Report

Board Policy No. 7 Board Member Compensation and Travel Expense Reimbursement

Feasibility of Using Private Operators and Independent Contractors for ADA Paratransit Services

Toronto Transit Commission

3330 A Procedures and Limitations: Employee Travel

Local County and Tribal Agency Biennial Health Care Access Services Plan

Strategic Plan Performance Metrics & Targets

Streamline Bus Five-Year Business Plan Community Conversations. Lisa Ballard, P.E. November 13, 2012

Internal Auditor s Report. July 25, The County Council and County Executive of Wicomico County, Maryland:

Peer Agency: King County Metro

TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND AGREEMENT

Overview of the Final New Starts / Small Starts Regulation and Frequently Asked Questions

ONBOARD ORIGIN-DESTINATION STUDY

The School Board of Collier County Administrative Procedures

Right-Sizing Transit: What is a Reasonable Level of Transit Investment?

February 1, Transportation Reimbursement Incentive Program (TRIP) MMC

KITTITAS COUNTY TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT POLICY

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. Westchester Bee-Line ParaTransit For Hire Car Services YONKERS

2013 Household Travel Survey: High Level Overview

STATE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS JUDICIAL BRANCH TRAVEL POLICY

ST. LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY VEHICLE POLICY. Revised August 23, 2013

Polk County Transportation Authority

Deseronto Transit ACCELERATING RURAL TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS. Case Study

MADERA COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

SALEM-KEIZER TRANSIT 555 Court St. NE Suite 5230 Salem, OR

How to submit Travel Request and Reimbursement Expenses

TransHelp Program and Accessible Transportation 2008 Budget Document

Transcription:

Princeton Senior Shuttle Service By James Mejia Micah Perlin REPORT AS PART OF WWS 527A TRANSPORTATION POLICY ANALYSIS FALL 2003 1.0 Executive Summary The senior population in Princeton is underserved in some respects. As residents of Princeton age and retire they tend to move to other communities that more readily meet the needs of the senior population. Some communities in the surrounding area target their community services to seniors, enticing many new residents every year. One of the areas in which Princeton seniors are underserved is in the area of public transportation. As individuals are unable to drive or choose not to drive, their mobility in Princeton is severely limited. This lack of mobility may inhibit visits often taken for granted including trips to the doctor s office or grocery shopping, and cultural and shopping visits throughout Princeton and contiguous municipalities. For those seniors unable to drive or with physical limitations, the Crosstown 62 shuttle is available for door-to-door service. However, age and mobility requirements prevent wider use of this taxi service. Working with the CWW, an organization of approximately 400 seniors in Princeton that exerts influence on senior-related issues in the Princeton area, a survey was conducted in order to identify the locations where seniors travel most often. This information was then used to develop two routes for a shuttle-based transportation service that would serve able-bodied Princeton seniors.

2

2.0 Research and Data Collection The Transportation Study Group of the CWW served as the conduit to the senior community, assisting in the development, distribution, and collection of a senior transportation needs survey. After discussion with representatives from CWW, fifty popular destinations were pre-selected and included with the survey. The survey asked seniors to list the top-ten destinations to which they travel most frequently, including the days and times during which these trips are usually made. Seniors were given the option of choosing from the included list of destinations or writing in their own trip destinations. Sixty-one seniors completed and submitted the survey. Of the 61 respondents, 44 seniors provided their age. The age spread was from 63 to 90 years of age. The majority were from Princeton (38), and 10 were from Lawrenceville. The following table lists the city of origin of the seniors that participated in the survey: City of Origin # of Occurrences Newton, PA 1 Skilman, NJ 1 Hillsborough, NJ 1 Rocky Hill, NJ 1 West Windsor, NJ 1 Monmouth Junction, NJ 1 Monroe Township, NJ 1 Hopewell, NJ 2 Kendall Park, NJ 2 North Brunswick, NJ 2 Lawrenceville, NJ 10 Princeton, NJ 38 Total 61 3

3.0 Survey Results Given that the survey was not conducted in a random fashion, the results are not assumed to be statistically significant, nor are they assumed to reflect the needs of all seniors living in Princeton. However, given the overwhelming popularity of certain destinations, as expressed by the group surveyed, we believe there is sufficient support (particularly among CWW members) for piloting a senior shuttle program with two different routes. It is assumed that these routes will be adapted as ridership increases. One-fifth of all seniors responding to the survey chose the Princeton Dinky train and/or the Princeton Junction train station as one of the 10 most important destinations. These responses illustrate the importance of connecting any shuttle service to train service and other systems of mass transportation in the Princeton area. The other most-frequently listed destinations included local medical centers, shopping malls, and the library. The top-twenty destinations (some of which were located in the same shopping centers) were used to develop the two potential routes for the senior shuttle system. 4.0 Current Public Transit Options for Princeton Seniors Crosstown 62 - Founded in 1977, Crosstown 62 is a service of Princeton s Department of Human Services. The door-to-door subsidized taxi service is available to any Princeton Borough or Princeton Township resident aged 62 or older who does not drive and resident with limited disabilities. Through a contract with A Princeton Taxi Company, rides are provided to qualifying seniors. One must be 62 and unable to drive or handicapped with either a permanent 4

or temporary disability. All riders must register with Princeton Human Services prior to utilizing the taxi service. The Crosstown 62 annual budget is $37,000. The service costs $11 and is subsidized by Princeton government at a rate of $9 per ride. Each rider pays $2 per trip. Every trip must occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 9:30am and 3pm. Reservations for the service must be made by calling a Princeton taxi in advance one to seven days in advance is recommended and must be made between 3 and 7 pm. Many trips are reserved six weeks in advance. In a typical month, 400 riders are registered with Princeton s Department of Human Services and 611 rides provided. Last year the service provided 4,010 rides to members of the senior community. Demand for service has increased 10-15% per year. It is estimated that 4,500 trips will be provided in the next 12 months. Many seniors in Princeton feel limited by the parameters of the program. Trips are restricted to Princeton Township and Borough which includes an approximate 10 mile radius. Reservation requirements limits wider use and seniors that can drive but choose not to, do not consider Crosstown 62 as most appropriate for their needs. American Red Cross Recognizing the limits of Crosstown 62, the Princeton Area Chapter of the American Red Cross provides individual rides and fixed route service to medical 5

appointments and shopping centers, plus special trips. Seniors and handicapped persons may make reservations for either service. TRADE ( Transportation Resources to Aid the Disadvantaged and Elderly) Offers fixed route service, special shopping and other trips by reservation. While the trips are limited, the fare is free. Bus Service - Two public bus routes currently serve the city. The buses pass popular destinations such as the Princeton Shopping Mall, Princeton Public Library, and Nassau Street. However, the public bus system is not popular with seniors who seek a more personalized service. 5.0 Proposed Shuttle Service Given the limitations of current public transportation and survey results, the proposed shuttle service should target the following: Addressing the lack of available after-hours transportation; Keeping costs at the minimum level possible; Expanding the service area currently covered by Crosstown 62; Exploring the possibility of transportation on demand, which is less expensive than a taxi, but without a reservation requirement like Crosstown 62 or the American Red Cross; Identifying a transportation solution that is more comfortable and personal than current bus service; Including collection and distribution to the Princeton Dinky Train Station; 6

Linking with other personal and public forms of transportation; and Serving as a model to expand to other shuttle services linking to other forms of transportation Considering the most popular destinations and numerous points of origin, the proposed shuttle service will use two vans serving fixed routes and two (to four) cars serving as collection taxis. Collection vehicles accommodating 4-passengers each will be used as on-call taxis to pick-up passengers at their homes and transport them to shuttle hub sites. In order to be picked up, seniors would be required to call a local telephone number two hours prior to the time of pick-up. For purposes of efficiency, the Princeton area has been divided into four quadrants to be served by the collection taxis. Each collection vehicle will serve two quadrants during the pilot phase of the project. If participation is expanded, additional collection vehicles can be added to serve each quadrant. The two fixed routes will be served by 12-passenger vans. Both fixed routes will overlap at two hub sites, the Suzanne Patterson Center (SPC) and Palmer Square. Ideally the SPC would operate as the only hub, however currently the facility is not open after 5:00PM, so Palmer Square was included to address the need for a central hub location for evening pickups. If the shuttle service expands, it is recommended that the SPC extend the hours of operation into the evening so that seniors have a warm, public space to wait for the shuttle. 7

The recommended routes include the 20 most popular destinations as expressed in our survey. Route 1 serves the north and north east part of the Princeton Borough and Princeton Township, eventually reaching popular destinations in Mercer County. Route 2 serves the central part of Princeton Borough including Nassau Street and extends through the Princeton Township reaching destinations in Somerset County. In order to accommodate the transportation needs of seniors living in Princeton, the routes should run 6 days a week from 10 am to 3 pm and from 6 pm to 11 pm. The following three maps show the division of the region into quadrants, the two fixed routes, and senior residences as the points of origin. 1 Costs This section includes a comparison of the costs between leasing and purchasing vehicles for the shuttle service. In the case of purchasing vehicles, there is obviously a much larger cost for year one when compared with leasing. The following years (2 to 5 years) continue to be more expensive with the purchasing option, but the cost difference decreases after year one compared with the leasing option. Costs estimates are based on four employees earning $20/hour, working 60 hours a week and 4 weeks a month. A passenger lift is also incorporated into both plans to accommodate seniors in wheelchairs. The lifts are more expensive for the purchased vehicles than the leased ones. The largest cost difference between the two plans is with respect to insurance costs. Insurance for the leasing option assumes that the leasing company will offer insurance coverage, a common 1 While the senior residences shown on the map were intentionally altered in order to protect privacy, the locations still reflect the general vicinity of actual senior residences. 8

practice in most states. Insurance available under the option of owning vehicles is typically more than twice the cost of leased insurance. SENIOR SHUTTLE COST COMPARISON # LEASING PURCHASING Monthly Cost Annual Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost 12 Person Van 2 $ 400 $ 9,600 $ 2,167 $ 52,008 Passenger Lift 2 $ 100 $ 2,400 $ 750 $ 18,000 4 Person Car 2 $ 300 $ 7,200 $ 1,650 $ 39,600 Van Drivers 2 $ 4,800 $ 115,200 $ 4,800 $ 115,200 Car Drivers 2 $ 4,800 $ 115,200 $ 4,800 $ 115,200 Insurance 4 $ 1,500 $ 72,000 $ 4,000 $ 192,000 Salary: 6 days/wk, 10 hrs/day 4 weeks/mo Year 1 $ 321,600 $ 532,008 Year 2 $ 206,400 $ 422,400 Year 3 $ 206,400 $ 422,400 Year 4 $ 206,400 $ 422,400 Year 5 $ 206,400 $ 422,400 5 Year Total $ 1,147,200 $ 2,221,608 The costs presented assume no in-kind contributions. Cost reductions could be achieved by using donated or loaned vehicles and/or volunteers or drivers that are compensated at a lower level. Finally, the largest cost reduction can be achieved with insurance costs. If insurance were obtained through a self-insured entity, such as the municipality of Princeton, insurance rates could be drastically reduced. Indeed, insurance costs should be sought from the municipality as a pro bono contribution to serve the seniors of the Princeton community. * Cost estimates were obtained from: State Farm Insurance in Denver, Colorado Zee Medical Services in Las Vegas, Nevada Mike Naughton Ford in Denver, Colorado Risk Management Department of the City and County of Denver, Colorado 9

11

12