Concho Valley Regional Coordination Transportation Plan

The 2016 Concho Valley Regional Coordination Transportation Plan

A plan for closing gaps in public transportation services for Coke, Concho, Crockett, Irion, Kimble, Mason, McCulloch, Menard, Reagan, Schleicher, Sterling, Sutton, and Tom Green counties.

Prepared by: Kenneth L. Stewart, Director Community Development Initiatives Angelo State University

Rachael Lisewsky, Graduate Research Assistant Community Development Initiatives Angelo State University

Baylea Evans, Mobility Manager Concho Valley Transit District

Ashley Spratley, Regional Services Coordinator Concho Valley Council of Governments

Acknowledgements

Concho Valley Transit District would like to acknowledge the Regional Coordination Planning Committee (RCPC) for all of their hard work and effort that was put in to make this plan come together. With our knowledgeable and compassionate representatives, Concho Valley Transit District is able to better understand the specific and individual needs of our very special community. This information will allow CVTD to provide the best service to all those who you care so dearly for. RCPC, we thank you for everything you do!

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...... ii Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 Mission Statement ...... 3 Regional Coordination Process ...... 4 Transportation Resources in the Region ...... 8 Gap Analysis & Assessment of Unmet Transportation Needs ...... 10 Transit Dependent Groups...... 10 The Transit Gap Index (TGI) ...... 12 The Survey of Rural Drivers and Health and Human Services Providers ...... 15 Identification of Rural Public Transit Needs ...... 16 Prioritization of Needs ...... 18 Priority Weighting the TGI and WC Results ...... 20 Gap Analysis of Unmet Transportation Needs ...... 21 Comparing the Counties ...... 24 Comparing Transit Dependent Groups ...... 26 Sustainability of Planning and Implementation...... 29 Project Development ...... 30 Performance Measures to Evaluate Effectiveness ...... 36 Local Performance Metrics ...... 36 Statewide Performance Metrics ...... 36 References ...... 38 Acronyms ...... 39 Appendix A: Inventory of Regional Transportation Resources...... 40 Appendix B: Rural Health and Human Service Providers ...... 46 Appendix C: Planning Project Instruments & Detailed Results ...... 50 Survey for Drivers and Providers ...... 50 Statements Identified in Document Review ...... 56 Prioritization of Needs ...... 57 Appendix D: Mason County……………………………………...... 61 Appendix E: Stakeholder Signature Approval and Plan Adoption …….…………………….………………..62

iii

Executive Summary

The Concho Valley stretches over 16,000 square miles and encompasses 13 sprawling counties. These counties house nearly 160,000 residents with a vast array of transportation needs. From travel to work, doctors’ appointments or simply to the grocery store, the Concho Valley populaces are constantly on the move. These are a few of the many reasons that Concho Valley Transit District (CVTD) has made regional coordination a top priority. CVTD strives to be able to provide satisfactory service in these very rural areas. Information gathered from the Regional Coordination Plan Committee (RCPC), CVTD rural drivers and previous year’s census data was used to conduct multiple analyses of the current transportation needs for these vulnerable populations. The analyses were used to: highlight populations in need of transportation, measure the extent of their needs, and understand where current services are meeting these needs, as well as, where they are not meeting the needs. This plan serves as a document to identify gaps in services, and more importantly, how the community can work to fill these gaps and provide transportation to those group and/or areas where underservice may occur.

The Transit Gap Index (TGI) analysis resulted in identifying each county as either under or overserved, as well as, acknowledged specific underserved populations within these counties. Crockett, McCullough, Schleicher and Sutton are amongst the highest overserved counties in respects to resources versus documented needs. Concho, Irion and Sterling counties were identified as being counties where highest amount of under service is occurring. With regards to the dependent groups, the TGI indicated the following specific gaps of underservice: Workers in Irion County, households with low vehicle access in Irion and Sterling counties, medically uninsured persons in Irion and Sterling counties, persons living on low income in Concho and Sterling counties, the Medicaid population in Irion County, seniors in Concho, Irion, and Sterling counties and persons with disabilities in Concho County. These results will allow CVTD to target specific areas and populaces to fill gaps and provide the best possible transportation services for the residents of the Concho Valley. Introduction

The 78th Legislature's HB 3588, Article 13, established Regional Coordination to create opportunities and incentives for improving coordination of public transportation throughout the state. The statute changed the definition of public transportation to include service providers receiving federal, state, or local public funds for transit services to their clients. The authorizing legislation encourages coordination among agencies and programs to improve delivery of regional transportation service and requires development of region-wide service plans.

Development of this coordinated transit plan for the Concho Valley region is conducted as a partnership project between Concho Valley Transit District (CVTD), the Concho Valley Regional Coordination Planning Committee (RCPC), the Concho Valley Council of Governments (CVCOG), and Angelo State University (ASU).

CVTD is serving as the lead agency for this project to develop a Regional Coordination Transportation Plan for the Concho Valley region. CVTD was originally authorized in 1986 under Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 458, to receive state funds for transit services as a rural transit district. Today, the public transportation system covers 12 counties in central and western Texas, including Coke, Concho, Crockett, Irion, Kimble, McCulloch, Menard, Reagan, Schleicher, Sterling, Sutton, and Tom Green Counties (Figure 1). This excludes Mason County in Region 10 that is provided public transportation services through Hill Country Transit District.

Figure 1 Concho Valley Transit District

This Regional Coordination Transportation Plan is focused on the 13 county Planning Region 10. However, CVTD assumed responsibility for urbanized (UZA) public transportation services in the City of San Angelo urbanized area (UZA) in 2006. The agency has also operated since then as an urban transit district (UTD). The San Angelo Metropolitan Planning Organization (SA-MPO) partners with CVTD to conduct a separate coordinated planning activity for the UTD.

Vision Statement

The mission of the Concho Valley Transit District is to provide safe and efficient transportation services to the Concho Valley while positively contributing to the economy and community

Mission

The goal of the Concho Valley RCPC is to develop coordinated transportation plans and recommendations that facilitate improved capacity and delivery of services, enhance satisfaction with public transit services within regional communities and among transit dependent groups, and encourage cooperation to meet the transportation needs of the region. The RCPC is a diverse group comprised of representatives from local agencies and organizations who voluntarily come together to identify, discuss and plan for the various transportation

3 needs of the Concho Valley.

Goals and Objectives

Safety: Ensure that safety is of the utmost priority for our employees, passengers and general citizens of the Concho Valley and surrounding areas

Reliability: Deliver quality services resulting in consistent mobility for our rural and urban passengers

Friendliness: Create a comfortable and welcoming atmosphere for Concho Valley citizens and transit passengers

Regional Coordination Process

The regional coordination effort for this plan started on December 17, 2015 at an RCPC meeting. The Regional Services Coordinator presented the Regionally Coordinated Plan process, goals, and objectives. The Coordinator also provided an overview of the planning process work plan and deliverables.

At the Coordinator’s request, members of the RCPC suggested potential individuals and stakeholders in the community for addition to the RCPC at the start of the planning process. Table 1 depicts the membership of the RCPC after Coordinator’s follow-up. At a later meeting in April of 2016, the RCPC approved the Steering Committee listed in Table 1 to lead the planning effort.

Discussion of regional transit needs began at a February, 2016 meeting of RCPC members. Members shared their viewpoints on priorities for allocating limited transit resources based on their “local wisdom” about the community and its vulnerable populations. Members initially advocated priorities for transit service improvement to meet needs of veterans, low income individuals, seniors and disabled persons. Members also highlighted needs for improved branding of CVTD and community outreach.

Table 1 Regional Coordination Planning Committee (RCPC), 2015 – 2017 Vicente Huerta Concho Valley Transit District [email protected] Dolores Pina Disability Connections [email protected] June LaFoy MHMR of the Concho Valley [email protected] Betty Teston Texas Hunger Initiative [email protected] Lynne Transki Community volunteer [email protected] Lisette Alverio Workforce Solutions [email protected] Richard Porter Citizen [email protected] Jan Heinen CV Workforce Development [email protected] Mark Bethune CV Community Action Agency [email protected] Carol Harrison United Way [email protected] Toni Gutierrez Area Agency on Aging [email protected] Michael Hemmeter Howard College [email protected] Major Hofheins San Angelo MPO [email protected] Delma Childress TxDot [email protected] (non-voting member) Kenneth Stewart ASU [email protected] Marilynn Golightly Adult Literacy Council [email protected] Brigitte Rogers Texas Silver Haired Legislators [email protected] Stacey Stroud City of Big Lake [email protected] Dolores Schwertner West Texas RSVP [email protected] Mary Landa 2-1-1 [email protected] Jessica Crowe Concho Valley Errand Service [email protected] Justin Walcott Concho Concierge [email protected] Lettitia McPherson ARC of San Angelo [email protected] Regional Coordination Planning Steering Committee, 2015 – 2017 Vincente Huerta Concho Valley Transit District [email protected] June LaFoy MHMR of the Concho Valley [email protected] Lynne Transki Community volunteer [email protected] Jan Heinen CV Workforce Development [email protected] Lisette Alverio Workforce Solutions [email protected] Kenneth Stewart ASU [email protected] Mary Landa 2-1-1 [email protected] Brigitte Rogers Texas Silver Haired Legislators [email protected]

Collaboration between the Regional Services Coordinator and ASU produced two elements of the planning process during the months of March, April, and May of 2016. First, ASU analyzed data from the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-Year sample files covering the years 2006-2014. The analysis produced a Transit Gap Index (TGI) designed to measure potential demand for public transit services across the 12 county service region based on the proportionate sizes of their transit dependent populations. Dependent populations included in

5 the TGI were workers, households with low vehicle access, medically underinsured groups, low income residents, seniors, and disabled individuals.

The TGI was reviewed by the RCPC and was later revised based on their feedback. The revised TGI established a key demography-based pillar for the gap analysis and assessment of unmet transportation needs that informs this Coordination Transportation Plan.

The Regional Coordinator, assisted by ASU, led the effort to conduct a qualitative survey of rural transportation service vehicle drivers and a sample of health and human services providers in the rural communities of the region. The Coordinator worked through the vehicle drivers, first by asking each of 11 drivers serving the rural counties to complete a simple survey requesting descriptions of the “3 most challenging transportation related issues” they see from serving their riders. In addition, drivers were asked to gather descriptions of challenging issues from individuals representing key health and human services agencies in their respective counties.

The survey returned responses from 38 individuals offering open comments on transportation issues in nine counties including Concho, Crockett, Kimble, McCulloch, Menard, Reagan, Schleicher, Sutton, and Tom Green. To create another tool for use in the gap analysis and assessment of unmet needs, ASU conducted a keyword (i.e. word cloud) analysis to quantify comments from the 38 respondents identifying challenging issues affecting transit dependent groups. The word cloud identified 130 specific comments on issues concerning scheduling, awareness of services, accessibility, seniors, capacity, appointments, low income individuals, persons with disabilities, and Medicaid riders.

ASU took the lead during June of 2016 for the next step of the planning project. The objective was to lead the RCPC through a process of prioritizing identified public transit needs in the rural areas. The step started with a review of prior planning projects and transportation assessments completed in the CVTD service region between 2005 and 2014. Examination of the reports identified specific statements of needs existing among transit dependent groups, tied to specific rural communities or counties, or needs associated with the capacities and operations of the rural demand-response transit system.

Using the combined results of the document review, the survey of drivers and service agencies, and the TGI, ASU proceeded to formulate a summary list of need statements. The summary statements were crafted to meet two basic criteria. First, each need statement had to be relevant to the capacity and quality of services provided for transit dependent populations in the region, including workers, households with low vehicle access, medically uninsured or underinsured groups, low income residents, seniors, or disabled persons. Second, each summary statement had to specify a measureable gap between need and service, thus making

6 the statement amenable to gap analysis and assessment for planning purposes. The process generated thirteen summary need statements on scheduling, awareness, accessibility, seniors, capacity, appointments, low vehicle access, veterans, uninsured, low income, disabilities, worker utilization, and Medicaid service.

The Steering Committee and the RCPC reviewed and prioritized the summary list of needs during a meeting in June of 2016. ASU followed up by collaborating with CVTD to conduct a gap analysis and assessment of unmet transportation needs in the rural transportation service system. The following resources were used to develop the gap analysis and assessment:

 Transit Gap Index (TGI) results based on regional demographic data.  Results of the survey of drivers and health and human services agencies.  Results of the ASU review of prior planning projects and transportation assessments.  Results of the prioritization of summary needs by the Steering Committee and RCPC.  Information provided by CVTD on the distribution of budget and resource allocations across the rural counties.  Information provided by CVTD on rural ridership.

The RCPC reviewed the gap analysis at its meeting in August, 2016. RCPC feedback was subsequently incorporated into the Gap Analysis and Assessment of Unmet Transportation Needs section of this report. The Gap Analysis and Assessment section, in turn, serves as the foundation for the 2016 Concho Valley Regional Coordination Transportation Plan recommendations and project proposals.

Transportation Resources in the Region

Public transportation options in the rural counties of the Concho Valley are extremely limited. Table 2 provides partial listing of existing options open to the public, as well as some additional client-focused transportation provided by regional organizations and schools.

Table 2 Transportation Resource Inventory

Name City Location Ownership

Public Transportation Providers CVTD TRANSA (UZA - Urban Fixed Route) San Angelo Public CVTD Thunderbird (Rural Demand-Response) San Angelo Public Conestoga San Angelo Private Concho Coaches San Angelo Private Red Ball Taxi and Shuttle Service San Angelo Private Silsbee Tours San Angelo Private Granny Shuttle/Taxi San Angelo Private Concho Valley Errand Service San Angelo Private Concho Concierge San Angelo Private Client-Focused Services House of Faith San Angelo Human Services West Texas RSVP San Angelo Human Services Rio Concho Manor San Angelo Human Services Rio Concho West San Angelo Human Services Baptist Retirement Community San Angelo Human Services Adult Enrichment Center San Angelo Human Services Christians in Action San Angelo Human Services MHMR of the Concho Valley San Angelo Human Services Bronte Health and Rehab Bronte Human Services Stonebridge Training Residence San Angelo Human Services Bronte Senior Center Bronte Human Services Robert Lee Senior Center Robert Lee Human Services Sutton County Senior Center Sonora Human Services Irion Mertzon ISD Schleicher Eldorado ISD Brady Brady ISD Reagan Big Lake ISD San Angelo San Angelo ISD

CVTD is the primary provider for the 12-county regional planning area including Coke, Concho, Crockett, Irion, Kimble, McCulloch, Menard, Reagan, Schleicher, Sterling, and Sutton, and Tom Green counties (Mason County receives public transportation services through Hill Country Transit District) (see Figure 1 above).1. Urban service is branded as Transa and provides services for the city of San Angelo. This includes fixed route services, as well as, ADA paratransit and demand response. Thunderbird is CVTD’s rural service. Thunderbird deploys a fleet of 19 wheelchair accessible vehicles to service the rural areas of Tom Green County and the 11 additional member counties.2 All rural service is provided on a demand-response basis.

The listing in Table 2 is not intended to be a comprehensive provider inventory. Instead, the providers included represent potential partners for coordination with CVTD based on their target service population, fleet available, service schedules, rates and fees, and their willingness to potentially share services. Of particular importance in the evaluation is who the transit organizations served, as it could signify a specific need that is being addressed. Appendix A includes a detailed inventory of the services listed in Table 2.

Inter-city bus service is extremely limited in the Concho Valley region. Concho Coaches and Greyhound Lines provide private intercity bus service in CVTD’s service area, and CVTD provides connections to these services at its multimodal terminal facility location in San Angelo. Some health and human services organizations have transportation for clients.

Taxi service companies operate in the region and provide service on a 24 hour, 7 day basis. However, these services are based in San Angelo; providing very limited access to rural residents. Compounding the limitation is the general inability of taxis to provide para-transit services.

Concierge service is emerging in the region. Two concierge providers have recently been established. This feedback from customers prompted the concierge services to include transit services as a substantial part of both concierge providers. While the new trend of concierge service is promising, the availability is limited to individuals living in the urban area of San Angelo.

Ultimately, transit service providers in the Concho Valley are very restricted. As the inventory outlines, there are very few potential partners that CVTD can work with to coordinate day-today transport needs of the transit dependent population. While private operators represent

1 CVCOG also includes Mason County among its members. Hill Country Transit District provides public transit service to Mason County. 2 The inventory in Appendix A identifies a fleet of 54 Thunderbird vehicles in CVTD possession. CVTD management advises the RCPC that only 19 are in use. The remainder are awaiting sale, transfer of ownership, or salvage. 9 alternatives to public transit, the costs generally exceed the ability of many transit dependent individuals to pay. CVTD public transit still remains the most cost effective transportation option for dependent groups, especially in the rural areas of the Concho Valley.

Gap Analysis & Assessment of Unmet Transportation Needs

Table 3 depicts basic demographic features of Table 3 CVTD’s Concho Valley service area. The Concho Valley population for the region is 153,840 people. Transit District Demography Approximately three of every four residents Population by County County Number of People Percent live in Tom Green County. The remaining rural Coke 3,260 2.1% counties range from 1,360 to 8,245 people. Concho 4,091 2.7% Crockett 3,871 2.5% The proportion of elder residents in the CVTD Irion 1,626 1.1% Kimble 4,522 2.9% service region is significantly higher than the McCulloch 8,245 5.4% statewide ratio. More than 23,000 people age Menard 2,193 1.4% Reagan 3,520 2.3% 65 and over live in the region. They comprise Schleicher 3,281 2.1% slightly more than 15 percent of the Sterling 1,360 0.9% Sutton 3,995 2.6% population. This compares to approximately 11 Tom Green 113,516 74.0% percent of the statewide population. Service Area Total 153,480 100% Age Distribution White, non-Hispanic residents form a majority Age Groups Number of People Percent Under Age 18 35,944 23.4% of the regional population. Hispanics comprise 18 to 64 94,261 61.4% the largest minority population group, and the 65 and older 23,275 15.2% Service Area Total 153,480 100% most rapidly growing ethnic segment. Indeed, Race and Ethnicity the Hispanic population is changing the ethnic Race Number of People Percent composition of the region. Hispanics account White, non-Hispanic 86,308 56.2% for most of population growth in this slow- Black, non-Hispanic 5,159 3.4% Hispanic 58,788 38.3% growing region of Texas. Other 10,244 6.7% Service Area Total 153,480 100%

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010-2014 5 Year sample estimates.

Transit Dependent Groups

Table 4 depicts the region’s transit dependent population groups including employed workers; seniors; children; disabled persons; individuals with low vehicle access; people living on low income; and limited English speaking groups.

The number of employed workers using Table 4 public transportation for the commute Transit Dependent Populations to work is relatively small in the CVTD in the Concho Valley region. The 2010-2014 American Worker Utilization Workers Number Percent Community Survey estimates about 106 Workers using public transit 106 0.15% workers in the region utilize public Employed Workers 69,906 100% transit. This amounts to 0.15 percent of Household Vehicle Access the Vehicle Access Households Percent Households with no vehicle 3,289 5.8% Low access households 4,191 7.4% Total Households 56,932 100% region’s 70,000 employed workers. The Low Income estimate for employed workers Poverty Status Number Percent statewide is 1.6 percent. Below twice poverty Level 58,100 37.9% Below poverty level 23,417 15.3% Under 50% poverty level 9,311 6.1% The same American Community Survey Total Population 153,480 100.0% dataset indicates about 3,289 of almost Health Coverage Health Insurance Status Number Percent 57,000 households in the region have Medicaid 21,389 13.9% no vehicle access. Another 4,191 are Veterans Administration 656 0.4% identified as low access households No health insurance 30,220 19.7% Total Population 153,480 100.0% because they have three or more Seniors occupants with access to only one Seniors Number Percent vehicle. About 13.2 percent of all Age 65 and Older 23,275 15.2% households in the region have low or Total Population 153,480 100% Disabled no access to vehicles. Disability Status Number Percent People with a Disability 21,571 14.1% The Census Bureau used an income of Total Population 153,480 100% $24,257 for a household of four as the Children Children Number Percent threshold for statistical identification of Under age 18 35,944 23.4% 3 people in poverty in 2015. More than Total Population 153,480 100% 23,000 residents of the CVTD region live Limited English Proficient Households (LEP) below the poverty threshold. More Proficiency Status Households Percent than 9,000 of these individuals have Limited English Proficient 2,328 4.1% Total Households 56,932 100% incomes below half the threshold. Source: US Census Bureau, America Community Survey 2010-2014, 5 Nearly 38 percent of the regional Year sample estimates population lives on incomes less than twice the poverty threshold.

3The threshold varies by household size, number of children, and certain adjustments for elders. For complete details, see: https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html. 11

Transit dependent groups in the CVTD region include people with certain health insurance statuses. Approximately 30,220 people, or 19.7 percent of the regional population, have no health insurance. An additional 21,389 people (13.9%) have Medicaid coverage, and those with health service from the Veterans Administration (VA) number approximately 656 (0.4% of the population).

Seniors aged 65 and older comprise about 23,275 residents or 15.2 percent of the regional population. Individuals with a disability (including seniors) make up 14.1 percent (21,571 persons) of the population. Children under age 18 number 35,944 or 23.4 percent.

A household without members over the age of 13 able to speak English well is defined as Limited English Proficient (LEP) by the Census Bureau. Approximately 2,238 of the region’s 56,932 households are LEP residences. About 11,333 or 7.9 percent of the population age five and over live in these mostly Spanish-Speaking households. Similarly, about 7.3 percent (5,126) of the region’s 69,906 workers are LEP according to American Community Survey estimates.

The Transit Gap Index (TGI)

ASU developed the Transit Gap Index (TGI) as a means of integrating measured estimates of demand for rural public transit into the gap analysis and assessment of unmet transportation needs. Developers used multiple datasets from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-Year sample files to estimate public transit demand based sizes of transit dependent groups in each of the 12 CVTD counties. The TGI includes separate estimates for workers, veterans, households with low vehicle access, Medicaid enrollees, the medically uninsured, low income residents, seniors, and disabled individuals.

Although the American Community Survey interviews about 3.5 million households each year, it turns out the annual samples from cities or counties with fewer than 65,000 residents are too small to compute estimates with acceptable margins of error. Consequently, the Bureau combines interviews conducted over five years to yield for small populations (under 65,000). Thus, the 5-Year samples depict populations, and population trends, over five year time periods.

Still, samples representing small populations remain subject to higher degrees of error, even using the Bureau’s 5-Year sample files. This is why trend data for an area like Sterling County often show wider swings up and down over time compared to a place like Tom Green County.

To control the higher error margins typical for small samples, ASU used all available 5-Year data files of the American Community Survey. The first, covering the 2006-2010 time frame, was

12 originally released by the Census Bureau in 2010. Four additional available datasets covered 2007-2011, 2008-2012, 2009-2013, and 2010-2014.

After acquiring the datasets, ASU computed the percentages of workers using public transit; households with low vehicle access; persons with Medicaid coverage; veterans with VA health services; individuals with no health insurance; residents with low income under twice the poverty level; senior population; and disabled persons. Then, average proportions for Texas and each of the 12 CVTD counties were calculated across the available datasets. Table 5 reports the results.

Table 5 Percentage of Transit Dependent Groups in the Population of Texas and the CVTD Counties, 2006-2016

Under Worker Vehicle No Health County Medicaid Veterans Twice Seniors Disabilities Utilization Access Insurance Poverty

Coke 0.00% 9.08% 10.15% 1.13% 22.58% 36.34% 25.64% 15.66% Concho 0.00% 9.12% 18.76% 0.06% 25.27% 41.45% 16.25% 17.10% Crockett 0.00% 14.09% 15.48% 0.33% 19.10% 39.07% 16.66% 11.01% Irion 0.28% 13.75% 6.98% 0.69% 24.30% 28.15% 16.59% 10.71% Kimble 0.00% 9.14% 17.80% 0.09% 21.82% 37.83% 23.90% 18.18% McCulloch 0.03% 13.05% 21.34% 0.42% 16.94% 44.69% 20.31% 17.10% Menard 0.00% 8.93% 20.90% 0.77% 26.68% 41.68% 22.43% 25.73% Reagan 0.00% 15.22% 12.12% 0.28% 30.70% 35.28% 12.28% 8.63% Schleicher 0.01% 12.91% 13.13% 0.00% 25.13% 36.07% 14.46% 12.12% Sterling 0.00% 14.32% 16.08% 0.00% 26.18% 43.93% 15.26% 11.12% Sutton 0.00% 9.64% 8.86% 0.31% 26.54% 34.35% 14.69% 8.80% Tom Green 0.32% 13.76% 13.99% 0.49% 20.22% 39.90% 15.49% 13.57% Texas 1.60% 14.64% 16.41% 0.38% 22.37% 38.37% 13.00% 11.55% Source: US Census Bureau , American Community Survey, 5 Year sample estimates, 2006-2010, 2007-2011, 2008- 2012, 2009-2013, and 2010-2014.

After computing the average proportions across all the years, ASU developed a series of Transit Gap Index (TGI) scores to rate potential demand for transit services in the various counties. The rating method used the percentages for Texas (the bottom row in Table 5) as benchmarks to derive the TGI scores depicted in Table 6.

Table 6 Transit Gap Index (TGI)

Under Worker Vehicle No Health County Medicaid Veterans Twice Seniors Disabilities Utilization Access Insurance Poverty

Coke 5 1 1 5 3 2 5 5 Concho 5 1 3 1 3 3 5 5 Crockett 5 2 2 2 2 3 5 2 Irion 4 2 1 5 3 1 5 2 Kimble 5 1 3 1 2 2 5 5 McCulloch 4 2 5 3 1 3 5 5 Menard 5 1 4 5 3 3 5 5 Reagan 5 3 1 1 5 2 2 1 Schleicher 4 2 2 1 3 2 4 3 Sterling 5 2 2 1 3 3 5 2 Sutton 5 1 1 2 3 2 4 1 Tom Green 4 2 2 4 2 3 5 3 Source: US Census Bureau , American Community Survey, 5 Year sample estimates, 2006-2010, 2007-2011, 2008-2012, 2009-2013, and 2010-2014.

The scores in Table 6 are based on comparisons between the percentages of transit dependent groups in the county populations and the proportions for Texas (Table 5). However, scoring on utilization of the public transit by workers required a somewhat different approach to scoring than the other seven groups in Table 6. The following rubrics describe the scoring process:

1) The scoring method assumes counties with higher percentages of households with low vehicle access, individuals on Medicaid and Veterans Health services, medically uninsured, individuals with low income, seniors, and persons with disabilities have more need for public transit service than counties with lower percentages. The process assigns each CVTD county a score ranging from “Low Need = 1” to “High Need = 5.” Texas statewide population percentages for these transit dependent groups served as comparison benchmarks as follows: a) “Low Need” scores of 1 indicate counties with group proportions that are 20 percent or more below the corresponding statewide benchmark. b) Scores of 2 specify counties with group proportions that are one to 19 percent below the statewide benchmark. c) Scores of 3 depict counties with group proportions equal to or up to 20 percent higher than the statewide benchmark.

d) Scores of 4 designate counties with group proportions 21 to 30 percent higher than the statewide benchmark. e) “High Need” scores of 5 indicate counties with group proportions that are 30 percent or more above the corresponding statewide benchmark. 2) Scoring for workers using public transportation for the journey to work presents a special situation. First, opposite of the other transit dependent groups in Table 6, the scoring method assumes that counties with lower percentages of workers using transit have more need for service. In addition, the fact that few Texas workers, and still fewer Concho Valley workers, use public transportation presents a special circumstance for scoring. The available American Community Survey data indicates that virtually no workers ( 0%) in eight counties use transit, and the proportions for the other four counties are much lower (at least 80% below) than the statewide benchmark of 1.6 percent. Consequently, the following describes the scoring rubric for worker utilization of transit: a) “High Need” scores of 5 indicate counties where virtually no (0%) workers use transit for the journey to work. b) Scores of 4 depict counties where small percentages of workers (at least 80% below the statewide benchmark) use public transit.

The Survey of Public Transportation Service Drivers and Health and Human Services Providers

Assisted by ASU, the Regional Coordinator at CVCOG conducted a qualitative survey of the rural vehicle drivers and a sample of health and human services providers in the rural communities of the region. Appendix B contains a comprehensive list of Health and Human Service Providers (including faith-based) serving CVTD’s rural areas.

The Coordinator first asked each of 12 rural county drivers and multiple urban paratransit drivers to complete a simple survey requesting descriptions of the “3 most challenging transportation related issues” they see from serving their riders.

In addition, the Coordinator asked drivers to visit up to five individuals representing key health and human services agencies in their respective counties. Drivers were advised to visit with front-line agency workers engaged in direct service to members of the transit dependent groups. They, too, were asked by the drivers to describe the “3 most challenging transportation related issues” they see from serving community members. The response yielded open comments from 38 individuals from nine CVTD counties including Concho, Crockett, Kimble, McCulloch, Menard, Reagan, Schleicher, Sutton, and Tom Green. Appendix C provides copies of the driver and provider survey forms and the comments from respondents.

To analyze the qualitative information from the driver and provider survey, ASU conducted a keyword (i.e. word cloud) count to abstract and quantify comments identifying needs of transit dependent members of the respective communities. The word cloud (WC) count identified 130 specific comments on issues concerning scheduling, awareness of service, accessibility, seniors, transit capacity, transportation to keep appointments, low income individuals, persons with disabilities, and Medicaid riders. Table 7 reports the outcomes of the WC count.

Table 7 Driver and Provider Survey Word Cloud Count

Low Total County Scheduling Awareness Accessibility Seniors Capacity Appointments Disabilities Medicaid Income Count Coke 0 Concho 2 2 Crockett 5 5 2 3 5 7 2 1 30 Irion 0 Kimble 7 3 2 4 2 2 1 21 Mason 0 McCulloch 3 4 3 3 1 5 5 1 1 26 Menard 1 1 2 Reagan 8 2 3 1 14 Schleicher 1 3 1 1 6 Sterling 0 Sutton 12 5 2 2 1 3 25 Tom Green 1 3 4 Total Count 37 15 21 7 9 12 18 4 7 130

Identification of Urban and Rural Public Transit Needs

ASU took the initiative to lead the RCPC through a process to prioritize a set of identified public transit needs. The process started with a review of 11 prior planning projects and transportation assessments completed in the CVTD service region between 2005 and 2014. The reviewed documents are:

 San Angelo Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2005  CVCOG Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2011  Assessing the Transit Needs of Concho Valley Residents, 2012  Assessing the Transit Need of ASU Students, 2013  CVTD Concho Valley Regional Coordination Transportation Plan, 2013  SA-MPO Survey of Pedestrian and Bicycle Project Priorities, 2013  CVCOG Area Agency on Aging, Area Plan, 2014

 SA-MPO Public Participation Plan, 2014  SA-MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), 2014  SA-MPO Transportation Needs Assessment Survey, 2014  SA-MPO Voyage 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan, 2014

Examination of the reports focused on identifying statements of needs affecting transit dependent groups, and tied to specific RURAL communities or needs associated with the rural demand-response transit system. Appendix C includes a list of statements identified in the document review.

Also, ASU conducted a keyword count similar to the word cloud analysis for the community feedback received in the survey of drivers and service providers. The count tabulated 34 keywords identifying concerns about scheduling, public awareness, access to transit, seniors, capacity, low income, and disabilities. Table 8 details the results.

Table 8 Keyword Count from Review of Previous Reports

Low Total Report Scheduling Awareness Accessibility Seniors Capacity Disabilities Income Count Area Agency on Aging Plan 3 3 Assessing the Transit Needs of Concho Valley 5 1 1 7 Residents Concho Valley Regional Coordination 2 1 1 1 5 Transportation Plan Assessing Transit Needs of 3 1 3 1 8 Concho Valley Residents Bicycle and Pedestrian 2 2 Plan Comprehensive Economic 2 2 Development Strategy

Assessing the Transit 1 1 2 Needs of ASU students

SA-MPO Public 1 1 Participation Plan

Transportation Needs 1 2 1 4 Assessment Survey

Total Count 12 3 7 3 4 2 3 34

ASU proceeded to formulate a summary list of need statements based on the resources generated from the document review, the survey of drivers and service providers, and the TGI.

The summary statements were crafted to meet two requirements. First, each need statement had to be relevant to the capacity and quality of services provided for transit dependent populations in the region. Also, each summary statement had to specify a measureable gap between need and service. The resulting summary list of 13 needs follows:

1. Scheduling: More frequent and convenient stops and destinations with consistent run times. Historically, the demand-response system serving the rural Region 10 areas has had scheduling inefficiencies, and there are no regularly scheduled stops and destinations. 2. Awareness: Increase public information and awareness of transit services. 3. Accessibility: More accessibility for transit dependent populations not being served. 4. Seniors: improve awareness and access to transit services for the senior population in the region. 5. Capacity: Increase vehicles and services in rural areas; enable more intra-county and intra-city service. 6. Appointments: Improve appointment procedures and scheduling in demand-response services; resolve issues over scheduling Medicaid and other priority riders. 7. Low Vehicle Access: Improve awareness and access to transit services by regional residents lacking access to vehicles. 8. Veterans: Improve awareness and access to transit services by veterans, active duty service personnel and their families, especially for medical and workforce purposes. 9. Uninsured: Improve awareness and access to transit services for medical purposes by medically uninsured residents in the region. 10. Low Income: Improve awareness and access to transit services for low income residents of the region. 11. Disabilities: Improve awareness and access to transit services for the disabled residents of the region. 12. Worker Utilization: Increase utilization of transit services for the trip to/from work. 13. Medicaid Service: Improve services for Medicaid patients in rural areas.

Prioritization of Needs

Working together, the Regional Services Coordinator and ASU guided the RCPC through a process of prioritizing the summary list of needs. Appendix C includes copy of the prioritization instrument developed by ASU to facilitate the process. The instrument requested the Steering Committee and RCPC members to rate each of the 13 identified summary needs on three criteria:

 Prevalence: Thinking about the entire population of transit dependent groups (not just current riders) rate each need item on a 1-5 point scale where: 1 = Very few transit dependent people affected, and 5 = All or nearly all transit dependent people affected.

 Impact: Thinking about how severely the lives of the affected members of transit dependent populations are impacted, rate each need item on a 1-5 point scale where: 1 = Minimum or minor severity of impact, and 5 = Major or maximum severity of impact.

 Consequence: Thinking about the viability of social and economic life in the local community, rate the consequences of not taking action to solve each need using a 1-5 point scale where: 1= Minor or insignificant consequence, and 5 = Highly significant or major consequence.

Ten of the 23 Steering Committee and RCPC members completed the prioritization process. Figure 2 summarizes the average ratings of prevalence, impact, and community consequence the respondents assigned. Appendix C includes fully detailed results.

Figure 2 Average of Prevalence, Impact, and Consequence Prioritization Rating Scores (Based on 10 responses from RCPC stakeholders) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Scheduling 3.87 Awareness 4.18 Accessibility 4.25 Seniors 4.16 Capacity 3.89 Appointments 4.39 Low Vehicle Access 4.17 Veterans 4.01 Uninsured 3.99 Low Income 4.38 Disabilities 4.00 Worker Utilization 2.33 Medicaid Service 2.67

The highest priority based on the average ratings of Steering and RCPC members is the need to improve appointment procedures and scheduling in demand-response services and to resolve issues over scheduling of Medicaid and other priority riders. Closely following is the need to improve awareness and access to transit services for low income residents of the region. Although none of the 13 summary needs receive an extremely low average rating, the lowest priority assigned by Steering and RCPC members was the need to increase utilization of transit services for the journey to work.

Priority Weighting the TGI and WC Results

ASU used the priority rating scores represented in Figure 2 to apply weights for the various transit needs of the dependent groups in the TGI and the WC from the survey of drivers and service providers.

The top panel in Table 9 reports priority weighted results from the TGI. The values weighted by multiplying the TGI results in Table 6 by the priority scores assigned to the needs of the various transit dependent groups in Figure 2.

Thus, reading down the Vehicle Access column teaches that Reagan County has a notably higher percentage of households with low vehicle access, and the Steering and RCPC member feedback rates this as a relatively high priority need for transit service. Also, reading across the row for Reagan County indicates the County has relatively high demand for transit service stemming from a large uninsured population segment, even though the public feedback assigns a somewhat lower priority to the transit needs of this group.

Similarly, the bottom panel in Table 9 depicts weighted WC results from open comments offered by drivers and service providers. Reading down the Low Income column in this part of the table reveals that service providers in Crockett County reported challenges faced by low income people more often than other counties, and public feedback assigned high priority to meeting these needs. Reading across rows shows that service providers in Sutton County noted scheduling problems more often than other issues, even though this need was assigned a somewhat lower priority in the feedback from Steering and RCPC members.

Table 9 Priority Weighting of Transit Needs in Rural Region 10 TGI Weighted by Prioritization Rating Scores Under Twice Vehicle No Worker County Seniors Veterans Disability Medicaid Poverty Access Insurance Utilization

Weight 4.38 4.17 4.16 4.01 4.00 3.99 2.67 2.33 Coke 9 4 21 20 20 12 3 12 Concho 13 4 21 4 20 12 8 12 Crockett 13 8 21 8 8 8 5 12 Irion 4 8 21 20 8 12 3 9 Kimble 9 4 21 4 20 8 8 12 McCulloch 13 8 21 12 20 4 13 9 Menard 13 4 21 20 20 12 11 12 Reagan 9 13 8 4 4 20 3 12 Schleicher 9 8 17 4 12 12 5 9 Sterling 13 8 21 4 8 12 5 12 Sutton 9 4 17 8 4 12 3 12 Tom Green 13 8 21 16 12 8 5 9 Driver and Provider Survey WC Weighted by Prioritization Rating Scores Low County Appointments Accessibility Awareness Seniors Disability Capacity Scheduling Medicaid Income

Weight 4.39 4.38 4.25 4.18 4.16 4.00 3.89 3.87 2.67 Coke Concho 8 Crockett 22 31 21 8 8 12 19 3 Irion Kimble 9 9 9 13 16 27 3 Mason McCulloch 22 22 13 17 12 4 4 12 3 Menard 4 4 Reagan 13 8 4 31 Schleicher 4 13 4 3 Sterling Sutton 9 21 8 4 46 8 Tom Green 13 4 Note: The weighted values in this table are derived from multiplying the original TGI and WC results by the weights from the Steering and RCPC member prioritization outcomes in Figure 2. Weighted values are rounded to the nearest integer.

Gap Analysis of Unmet Transportation Needs

Development of a systematic gap analysis of unmet transportation needs was a key objective of the 2016 Concho Valley Regional Coordination Transportation Plan project. The aim was to craft an analysis focused on transit dependent groups in CVTD’s rural counties and rooted in measurement of resources and unmet needs. The analysis was designed to:

 Serve as a model to enable replication, updating, and refinement of future gap analyses and need assessments of the CVTD system.  Lay a foundation to formulate and seek funding and other resources for proposals and projects to progress toward closing service gaps in CVTD services.  Serve as a platform for developing and refining integrated, measurable indicators for tracking and measuring progress toward closing service gaps.

The priority weighted TGI and WC represent two useful measures of transportation needs. The TGI measures pools of potential demand for public transit service reflected by the presence of transit dependent groups in the rural counties. The WC measures commentaries representing the local wisdom of transit drivers and service providers in the region. One additional set of measures is needed. To complete the gap analysis, ASU requested the following data items from CVTD to gauge the distribution and deployment of transit resources across the rural Region 10 counties.

1. Current annualized operating costs by county. 2. Runs by county. 3. Revenue miles by county. 4. Revenue hours by county. 5. Total riders by county.

Due to on-going improvements to the activity tracking system, CVTD was confident about the accuracy of data items 2-5 only for the most recent quarter at the time of the ASU request. Consequently, information on these items was limited to the March-June quarter of 2016. Table 10 profiles the available annualized operating costs and deployment data used as resource measures for the gap analysis.

The gap analysis focused on comparing the distribution and deployment of transit system resources (Table 10) with the priority demands for services represented by the weighted prioritization scores for the transit dependent groups (Table 9, top panel). The process required ASU researchers to assess each county’s prioritization scores for each transit dependent group in Table 9 with each of the transit system resource measures in Table 10. The total number of assessed comparisons was 576 (12 counties times 8 transit dependent groups times 6 resource measures).

Table 10 Distribution of Operating Costs and Deployment of Resources in Rural Areas Percent Annualized Revenue Revenue Total Riders Geography Runs* Operating Costs Miles* Hours* Riders* per Run* Coke 8.7 166 17,440 829 1,119 6.7 Concho 5.3 70 4,530 446 288 4.1 Crockett 10.5 155 19,101 1,200 2,644 17.1 Irion 4.5 37 1,255 27 37 1.0 Kimble 4.3 83 5,195 423 853 10.3 McCulloch 13.5 254 26,244 1,633 4,946 19.5 Menard 3.6 81 11,903 557 455 5.6 Reagan 15.1 173 17,073 1,219 1,655 9.6 Schleicher 9.7 147 13,564 1,097 1,553 10.6 Sterling 3.2 83 4,641 389 257 3.1 Sutton 8.9 147 8,268 915 2,204 15.0 Tom Green 12.8 2,776 116,914 6,840 15,426 5.6 Rural 100.0 4,172 246,128 15,575 31,437 108.1 System Source: Concho Valley Transit District, July, 2016 *These items report data for the March-June Quarter of 2016.

Researchers applied the following rubrics for the analytical purpose of counting over or under service gaps in the rural counties:

1) The OVERSERVED county rubric: A county with a LOW weighted TGI score compared to other counties (Table 9) and a HIGH resource measure compared to other counties (Table 10) is OVERSERVED. For example, McCulloch County workers are somewhat overserved on operating costs because the County uses a high 13.5 percent costs (Table 10) but has a relatively low worker utilization weighted TGI score of 9 (Table 9). 2) The UNDERSERVED county rubric: A county with a HIGH weighted TGI score compared to other counties (Table 9) and a LOW resource measure compared to other counties (Table 10) is UNDERSERVED. In Menard County, for instance, workers are somewhat underserved on operating costs because it uses a low 3.6 percent of costs (Table 10) while its weighted TGI score for worker utilization is a relatively high rating of 12 (Table 9). 3) The COUNT rubric: Identify the county with the largest over service gap between the resource measure (Table 10) and the dependent group weighted TGI score (Table 9). Then identify the county with largest under service gap between the same resource

measure (Table 10 and group weighted TGI score (Table 9). COUNT both the OVERSERVED and the UNDERSERVED counties in the gap analysis. For example, Reagan County manifests the largest over service gap among the counties with its 15.1 percent of operating costs (Table 10) and its weighted TGI score of 12 on worker utilization. Sterling County shows the largest under service gap with its 3.2 percent of operating costs (Table 10) and weighted TGI score of 12 for worker utilization. Reagan COUNTS as OVERSERVED and Sterling COUNTS as UNDERSERVED on worker utilization. 4) The STOP COUNTING rubric: Reiterate the COUNT rubric. Since every OVERSERVIVE logically implies a corresponding UNDERSERVICE, however, STOP COUNTING if an identified over service county cannot be matched with an identifiable under service county. Reagan, McCulloch, Tom Green, and Schleicher, for example, were OVERSERVED counties matched with Sterling, Menard, Kemble and Irion as UNDERSERVED counties in assessing the comparisons between operating costs (Table 10) and worker utilization (Table 9). These counties were COUNTED in the gap analysis. Then the STOP COUNTING rule took effect because no further matches of OVERSERVED and UNDERSERVED counties could be made.

Following these rubrics, the researchers counted 280 over and under service gaps between transit system resource measures and weighted TGI scores in the rural counties. The gaps were evenly divided (140 over service and 140 under service gaps) because the STOP COUNTING rubric required that each over service observation have a matching under service observation. The 248 gaps counted comprise 48.6 percent of the total 576 observations comparing transit system resource measures to prioritized dependent groups in the counties.

Comparing the Counties

The gap analysis enables two ways to compare the rural counties. One way asks which counties have a majority of over service and which ones have a majority of under service gaps? Table 11 depicts the answers.

This approach to the gap analysis reveals that seven of the 12 (served by CVTD) rural counties are over served to varying degrees. Counties where 100 percent of the counted gaps indicated over service include Crockett, McCulloch, Schleicher, and Sutton. Coke, Reagan, and Tom Green are also counties where a majority of gaps indicated over service.

Contrasting results characterize five counties. All (100%) the gaps counted in Concho, Irion, and Sterling counties indicate under service. Kimble and Menard counties also had many more gaps indicating under service than over service.

Table 11 Which counties have a majority of over or under service gaps? Under Service Over Service Gaps County Percent Percent Gaps Gaps Counted Coke 2 28.6% 5 71.4% 7 Concho 33 100.0% 0 0.0% 33 Crockett 0 0.0% 28 100.0% 28 Irion 37 100.0% 0 0.0% 37 Kimble 13 92.9% 1 7.1% 14 McCulloch 0 0.0% 28 100.0% 28 Menard 17 94.4% 1 5.6% 18 Reagan 1 3.3% 29 96.7% 30 Schleicher 0 0.0% 11 100.0% 11 Sterling 36 100.0% 0 0.0% 36 Sutton 0 0.0% 17 100.0% 17 Tom Green 1 4.8% 20 95.2% 21 Gaps 140 50% 140 50% 280 Counted Note: Cells with green tint indicate counties with a majority of under service gaps. Red tinted cells highlight counties with a majority of over service gaps.

The second way to compare the counties asks which counties have a higher share of the under or over service gaps? Table 12 reports the results corresponding to this approach.

Whereas the previous way of comparing the data revealed whether the balance of the gap count for each county indicated under or over service, this second method helps identify the counties that are most severely under or over served. Table 12 shows that Irion and Sterling counties are the most severely underserved among the counties with a majority of under service gaps in the previous results,. While the total under service gaps counted for all counties represents 24.3 percent of the 576 total comparisons made by the ASU researchers, Irion County had 26.4 percent of the total under service count, and Sterling had 25.7 percent. No other counties had higher shares of the overall under service gap count.

Since the gap counting rubrics required matching between over and under service count, the total number of over service gaps also numbered 140 or 24.3 percent of the 576 total

25 comparisons. Table 12 documents that none of the CVTD counties had a disproportionately large share of the over service gaps however.

Table 12 Which counties have a higher share of over and under service gaps? Under Service Over Service County Gaps Counted Percent Gaps Counted Percent Coke 2 1.4 5 3.6 Concho 33 23.6 0 0.0 Crockett 0 0.0 28 20.0 Irion 37 26.4 0 0.0 Kimble 13 9.3 1 0.7 McCulloch 0 0.0 28 20.0 Menard 17 12.1 1 0.7 Reagan 1 0.7 29 20.7 Schleicher 0 0.0 11 7.9 Sterling 36 25.7 0 0.0 Sutton 0 0.0 17 12.1 Tom Green 1 0.7 20 14.3 Total Gaps Counted 140 24.3 140 24.3 Total Comparisons 576 Note: Cells with green tint indicate counties a disproportionately high share of under service gaps.

Comparing Transit Dependent Groups Table 13 also asks which counties have higher shares of the under or over service gaps? However, this query expands the previous county-centered focus to breakout each of the transit dependent groups. Consequently, Table 13 includes eight nested data panels, one panel for each of the dependent groups. Disproportionate shares of the observed service gaps suggest lack of transit resources in the region results in under serving the following seven transit dependent groups, particularly in the counties indicated:

1. Workers in Irion County. 2. Households with low vehicle access in Irion and Sterling counties. 3. Medically uninsured persons in Irion and Sterling counties. 4. Persons living on low income in Concho and Sterling counties. 5. The Medicaid population in Irion County. 6. Seniors in Concho, Irion, and Sterling counties. 7. Persons with disabilities in Concho County.

Table 13 Which counties have a higher share of over and under service gaps by transit dependent group? Worker Utilization No Insurance County County Under Service Percent Over Service Percent Under Service Percent Over Service Percent Coke 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Coke 1 5.3% 0 0.0% Concho 5 26.3% 0 0.0% Concho 4 21.1% 0 0.0% Crockett 0 0.0% 3 15.8% Crockett 0 0.0% 6 31.6% Irion 6 31.6% 0 0.0% Irion 6 31.6% 0 0.0% Kimble 2 10.5% 0 0.0% Kimble 0 0.0% 1 5.3% McCulloch 0 0.0% 6 31.6% McCulloch 0 0.0% 6 31.6% Menard 2 10.5% 0 0.0% Menard 2 10.5% 0 0.0% Reagan 0 0.0% 3 15.8% Reagan 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Schleicher 0 0.0% 1 5.3% Schleicher 0 0.0% 1 5.3% Sterling 4 21.1% 0 0.0% Sterling 5 26.3% 0 0.0% Sutton 0 0.0% 2 10.5% Sutton 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Tom Green 0 0.0% 4 21.1% Tom Green 0 0.0% 4 21.1% Total Gaps Total Gaps 19 26.4% 19 26.4% 18 25.0% 18 25.0% Counted Counted Total Total 72 72 Comparisons Comparisons Low and No Vehicle Access Under Two Times the Federal Poverty Line Coke 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Coke 0 0.0% 2 10.5% Concho 2 11.8% 0 0.0% Concho 6 31.6% 0 0.0% Crockett 0 0.0% 4 23.5% Crockett 0 0.0% 1 5.3% Irion 6 35.3% 0 0.0% Irion 4 21.1% 0 0.0% Kimble 1 5.9% 0 0.0% Kimble 0 0.0% 0 0.0% McCulloch 0 0.0% 6 35.3% McCulloch 0 0.0% 2 10.5% Menard 2 11.8% 0 0.0% Menard 3 15.8% 0 0.0% Reagan 0 0.0% 2 11.8% Reagan 0 0.0% 5 26.3% Schleicher 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Schleicher 0 0.0% 3 15.8% Sterling 5 29.4% 0 0.0% Sterling 6 31.6% 0 0.0% Sutton 0 0.0% 3 17.6% Sutton 0 0.0% 5 26.3% Tom Green 1 5.9% 2 11.8% Tom Green 0 0.0% 1 5.3% Total Gaps Total Gaps 17 23.6% 17 23.6% 19 26.4% 19 26.4% Counted Counted Total Total 72 72 Comparisons Comparisons Note: Cells with green tint indicate counties with a disproportionately high share of under service gaps. Red tinted cells highlight counties with a disproportionately high share of over service gaps.

Table 13 (Continued) Which counties have a higher share of over and under service gaps by transit dependent group? Medicaid Seniors County County Under Service Percent Over Service Percent Under Service Percent Over Service Percent Coke 0 0.0% 2 10.5% Coke 0 0.0% 1 5.3% Concho 3 15.8% 0 0.0% Concho 4 21.1% 0 0.0% Crockett 0 0.0% 3 15.8% Crockett 0 0.0% 2 10.5% Irion 5 26.3% 0 0.0% Irion 4 21.1% 0 0.0% Kimble 3 15.8% 0 0.0% Kimble 1 5.3% 0 0.0% McCulloch 0 0.0% 2 10.5% McCulloch 0 0.0% 4 21.1% Menard 2 10.5% 1 5.3% Menard 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Reagan 0 0.0% 3 15.8% Reagan 0 0.0% 6 31.6% Schleicher 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Schleicher 0 0.0% 1 5.3% Sterling 4 21.1% 0 0.0% Sterling 6 31.6% 0 0.0% Sutton 0 0.0% 2 10.5% Sutton 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Tom Green 0 0.0% 4 21.1% Tom Green 0 0.0% 1 5.3% Total Gaps Total Gaps 17 23.6% 17 23.6% 15 20.8% 15 20.8% Counted Counted Total Total 72 72 Comparisons Comparisons Veterans Disability Coke 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Coke 1 5.3% 0 0.0% Concho 4 21.1% 0 0.0% Concho 5 26.3% 0 0.0% Crockett 0 0.0% 3 15.8% Crockett 0 0.0% 6 31.6% Irion 4 21.1% 0 0.0% Irion 2 10.5% 0 0.0% Kimble 2 10.5% 0 0.0% Kimble 4 21.1% 0 0.0% McCulloch 0 0.0% 2 10.5% McCulloch 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Menard 2 10.5% 0 0.0% Menard 4 21.1% 0 0.0% Reagan 1 5.3% 4 21.1% Reagan 0 0.0% 6 31.6% Schleicher 0 0.0% 5 26.3% Schleicher 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Sterling 4 21.1% 0 0.0% Sterling 2 10.5% 0 0.0% Sutton 0 0.0% 2 10.5% Sutton 0 0.0% 3 15.8% Tom Green 0 0.0% 1 5.3% Tom Green 0 0.0% 3 15.8% Total Gaps Total Gaps 17 23.6% 17 23.6% 18 25.0% 18 25.0% Counted Counted Total Total 72 72 Comparisons Comparisons Note: Cells with green tint indicate counties with a disproportionately high share of under service gaps. Red tinted cells highlight counties with a disproportionately high share of over service gaps.

Sustainability of Planning and Implementation

The Transit Cooperative Research Program under the National Transportation Research Board identified Mobility Management as a key element of its recommended strategies to increase coordination of services in its 2004 Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 105.4 Today, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) makes a “concerted effort to embrace mobility management as an effective transportation coordination strategy.5

With Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding support, CVTD hired a Mobility Manager during 2016 to serve as core management staff member responsible for developing and annually updating a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan identifying the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults and individuals with lower incomes. Responsibility to develop and implement strategies to meet local needs and priorities for transportation services falls to the Mobility Manager.

The Mobility Manager has worked closely with the Regional Services Coordinator, the RCPC, and ASU since being appointed to the position. With completion of this Regional Coordination Transportation Plan, the Mobility Manager and the CVCOG Regional Services Coordinator will form the backbone of personnel to implement, update, and sustain the plan by leading continuous efforts to secure funding and formulate collaborative strategies to work with stakeholders across the rural areas.

4 See Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, TCRP REPORT 105 (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2004), p. 34. 5 See Mobility Management in Texas, Texas Department of Transportation FTP server, retrieved October, 2016: https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/ptn/mobility_management.pdf. 29

Project Development

The gap analysis and assessment revealed unmet needs in providing rural transportation services to workers, households with low vehicle access, medically uninsured persons, low income individuals and families, Medicaid patients, seniors, and persons with disabilities. The assessment also documents variations in the severity of these needs in the different rural counties.

CVTD invites community-based organizations to develop joint or coordinated project funding proposals for consideration by TxDOT or other public transit funding agencies. To be in alignment with CVTD’s Regional Coordination Transportation Plan, organizations are encouraged to develop proposals that will enhance transportation services to their stakeholders by leveraging funds and/or building regional capacity to address identified and assessed gaps in needs and services. Community-based organizations interested in developing joint or coordinated project proposals should consult with CVTD’s Mobility Manager.

In addition, CVTD and CVCOG will employ the leadership of the Mobility Manager and the Regional Services Coordinator to implement the specific projects listed below as key elements of a regional strategy to close the gaps. Some key projects will benefit both the urban fixed- route and rural demand-response systems operated by CVTD (e.g. In-House Maintenance and State of Good Repair). Other projects focus on the fixed-route system to realize improvements that will enhance integration between the urban and rural systems (e.g. Centralized Dispatch) or facilitate connectivity between the systems (e.g. Transportation Connection Points). Additional projects open opportunities for local public, non-profit, and private agencies and organizations to support public transit by participating in CVTD advertising, branding, and marketing projects.

Key Projects:

1) Establish a Concho Valley Rural Planning Organization. The National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) recently released a report on the status of rural planning organizations (RPOs) in Texas and 31 other states. RPOs serve to provide rural transportation planning support to places located outside of designated metropolitan planning areas that are served by metropolitan planning organization such as SA-MPO. Many Texas councils of government, including CVCOG, have passed resolutions to operate RPOs. According to NADO, however, the Texas Transportation Institute identifies only 12 or 13 established RPOs that effectively provide a forum for enhanced communications with state transportation officials to work cooperatively to develop

rural transportation improvement programs to complement similar programs regularly formulated by metropolitan planning organizations.6

Under the leadership of elected officials representing CVTD’s 12 rural counties, the Mobility Manager and Regional Services Coordinator will work to establish a vibrant forum to enhance communications and engage knowledgeable local representatives in transportation improvement planning and programming with CVTD and TxDOT officials.

Funding: No funding is needed for this project. Abetted Gaps/Populations: All transit dependent groups and gaps in rural areas are potentially aided through the creation of an RPO.

2) In-house Maintenance. Construction of an in-house maintenance facility for the CVTD fleet is an essential capacity-building project to enable closing the unmet need gaps in rural transportation services. To increase community connectivity, CVTD will collaborate with Howard College – San Angelo for training of mechanics, and provide internships and jobs for local students.

In-house maintenance will increase passenger safety, reduce operating costs, and improve service efficiencies through the adoption of a corresponding vehicle maintenance tracking system.

Funding: A feasibility study is already funded for this project through Coordinated Call. Additional funding options for a facility may be 5339 or Coordinated Call. Abetted Gaps/Populations: All transit dependent groups are supported through the addition of an in-house maintenance facility, especially seniors and persons with disabilities who will benefit from well-maintained lifts and ramps on CVTD’s accessible vehicles.

3) State of Good Repair. The in-house maintenance project will augment CVTD’s initiative to establish a State of Good Repair management framework which will improve the system’s asset procurement and salvaging process to maximize passenger safety and minimize costs of operations.

6 Regional Rural Transportation Planning: State Models for Local Consultation, Regional Coordination, and Regional Transportation Planning Organizations, National Association of Development Organizations, July, 2016: https://www.nado.org/17573-2/. 31

Funding: A funding option for instituting the State of Good Repair framework is 5337. Abetted Gaps/Populations: Similar to in-house maintenance, this program will aid all transit clientele with safer and more reliable vehicles.

4) Centralized Dispatch. CVTD began the process of centralizing its dispatch system in 2016. Continuation and completion of an integrated dispatch system to serve both the urban fixed route services and the rural demand response services of CVTD will increase the convenience and efficiency of scheduling, create opportunities for more flexible and efficient deployment of fleet resources, and open new opportunities for connectivity between the rural and urban system services. Adoption of a bus tracking phone app and an automated fare system will further advance the conveniences, efficiencies, and connectivity options open to both rural and urban patrons.

Funding: No funding is currently needed to continue to this project. Local funds will be required to complete the system software implementation to integrate rural and urban services, the bus tracking phone app, and the automated fare system. Abetted Gaps/Populations: Centralized dispatching helps low SES individuals (2x below the poverty level, those with no insurance or Medicaid) with the addition of a toll-free number. The process of making a trip has been made easier for seniors and individuals with disabilities who may have many appointments or have difficulties.

5) Quality Assurance Plan. CVTD management will continue developing and implementing a Quality Assurance Plan to train employees to record information and data meeting compliance requirements of the FTA Triennial Review and Audit. This project reinforces the driver to achieve operational efficiencies and effectiveness in the transit system. It also ensures the accuracy of essential data and information required for useful performance measures to evaluate and document future progress toward meeting unmet needs and closing service gaps.

Funding: Coordinated Call is a funding option for this project. Abetted Gaps/Populations: The creation of a quality assurance plan has potential to aid all transit dependent populations. Compliance with funding sources allows CVTD to maintain services for the citizens of the Concho Valley.

6) Pilot New Fixed Routes. CVTD sees increased demand in the urban areas for Airport service and Downtown San Angelo Lunch service. Piloting new routes in urban TRANSA services creates opportunity for additional scheduling options for rural county riders under an integrated Centralized Dispatch system.

Funding: Funding options for new pilot routes are 5309 or Coordinated Call. Also public agencies, health and human service organizations, or private employers interested in joint or collaborative projects for new fixed routes to better serve stakeholders should consult with the CVTD Mobility Manager. Abetted Gaps/Populations: CVTD fixed routes serve many different passenger populations including low poverty and workers. Piloting new routes can allow for public transportation to reach more residential and industrial areas of the urbanized areas.

7) Intercity Bus Service. Enhance rural transit services by adding scheduled bus routes to and from rural counties to the urban San Angelo area.

Funding: A funding option for this enhancement is 5311 (f). In addition, public agencies, organizations, or private employers interested in joint or collaborative projects for new fixed routes to better serve stakeholders should consult with the CVTD Mobility Manager. Abetted Gaps/Populations: ICB brings seniors, persons with disabilities and workers to the urbanized area and beyond to build economic growth and to attend appointments for necessary health and human services.

8) Transportation Connection Points. Establish connectivity for rural riders to transfer to and from the UTD fixed route system for day travel inside the urban San Angelo area. Health and Human service agencies, public agencies, and private employers should be able to work together with CVTD on local funding to provide better service for stakeholders.

Funding: Funding options are 5311 (f), 5307 or 5309. Abetted Gaps/Populations: Persons on Medicaid, seniors, individuals with disabilities, workers and those with low vehicle access will feel the ease of connecting routes throughout the urbanized area for faster transportation services.

9) Passenger Amenities. Create sheltered bus stops with curb cuts, lighting, and trash cans in the UTD fixed route system. Ensure equal amenities at rural pick-up points. These amenities will increase ridership in the urban and rural systems. They improve safety for passengers in both systems, as well as for those who transfer between systems. Amenities provide improved access for seniors, individuals with disabilities, and other transit dependent groups. They also provide areas for posting information for branding and increasing awareness of CVTD services, as well opportunities for local businesses, public agencies, and health and human services organizations to support the transit system through advertising.

Funding: With an increase of rural passenger transfers to urban services, funding options may include 5339 (b) or 5317. Helping the system provide passenger amenities is also a valued way for private businesses, public agencies, and regional service organizations to collaborate and support the transit system. Abetted Gaps/Populations: All transit dependent groups are aided through the construction and/or installation of new transit amenities including benches, shelters, trashcans and lighting.

10) Shell Building Completion. Completion of the shell buildings which were originally constructed with CVTD’s Multi-Modal Facility in San Angelo will create community connectivity by enabling public agencies and community-based organizations to schedule events and meetings at the facility. Completion of this project will also enhance passenger safety and increase operational efficiencies by providing resources for professional training of dispatch operators and vehicle drivers.

Funding: Shell building completion is already funded. Additional funding options through Coordinated Call may be needed for training resources. Abetted Gaps/Populations: All urban and rural populations have the ability to find resource in the completion of the adjacent building to the transit Multi-Modal Facility. This building will be used for public trainings and meetings.

11) Branding and Marketing. The Mobility Manager and Regional Services Coordinator will collaborate to develop a branding and marketing strategy to work with a newly established RPO and community stakeholders. This plan will to increase public awareness, knowledge, and understanding of current and evolving capacities and services of CVTD. The branding and marketing strategy aims to increase ridership and to provide the essential public knowledge and awareness needed as the system gains capacity to close the service gaps among transit dependent groups and in underserved counties.

Funding: Coordinated Call and local funds are options for funding the branding and marketing strategy. Health and human service agencies, private employers, and public agencies, interested in collaborating with CVTD to help raise revenue and improve service should consult with the CVTD Mobility Manager. Abetted Gaps/Populations: All transit dependent groups will have the ability to better identify CVTD vehicles, specifically for seniors and persons with disabilities who may have difficulties recognizing CVTD vehicles.

12) Advertising. Advertise transit system information and services at bus stops and onboard buses can augment the Branding and Marketing strategy, while creating opportunities for local funding through advertising revenues from local businesses, public agencies, and health and human services organizations. Advertising revenue generates local funding to partially support joint or coordinated projects of interest to CVTD and/or various community-based organizations. Organizations interested in participating in the CVTD advertising project should contact the Mobility Manager.

Funding: Project-based grants like Coordinated Call for Projects or Regionally Coordinated Pilot project are available to aid exploring new advertising avenues. Abetted Gaps/Populations: Workers in business areas and seniors, Medicaid users and persons with disabilities who frequent doctors’ offices are subject to viewing new advertising ventures.

13) Comprehensive System-Wide Transportation Study: SA-MPO and TxDOT. Collaborate with SA-MPO and TxDOT to conduct a long range planning study to assess community transportation partnerships enabling a multi-provider call center and integration of a multi-provider transportation compatible scheduling software into CVTD services. The project holds potential for significant integration and coordination of public and privately operated transportation services across CVTD urban and rural areas.

Funding: The current potential funding option is the Out of Cycle proposal sent to the TxDOT funding programs manager. Abetted Gaps/Populations: This study will aid all transportation dependent groups to better coordinate transportation services within the urban and rural areas, specifically persons with disabilities and seniors who may be lifts/ramps or extra help boarding and alighting vehicles or those with low vehicle access.

Performance Measures to Evaluate Effectiveness

Local Performance Metrics

The Lead Agency will collaborate with representatives participating in an established RPO and other stakeholders to refine and elaborate the performance measurement and evaluation framework provided by the gap analysis and assessment of unmet needs at the core of this plan. The Lead Agency will contribute to this collaborative effort by producing:

1) Annual Updates of a regional TGI, or successor instrument, to reflect demand for transit services as reflected in the demographic representation of transit dependent populations within the rural counties. 2) Annual canvassing interviews or surveys of unmet transit needs reported by key informant representatives of regional health and human service organizations and of residents using the services of the rural transportation system. 3) Annual updates of rural transportation statistical data reflecting the distribution and deployment of rural county resources and utilization of the system by members of the various transit dependent groups.

In turn, representatives participating in an RPO will assess CVTD’s progress toward closing gaps and establish annual updates of the unmet need priorities. The Mobility Manager and the Regional Services Coordinator will report the annual performance measurement and evaluation produced by the Lead Agency and the RPO to TxDOT and to the public.

Statewide Performance Metrics

The annual performance measures and evaluation reports for TxDOT will provide data and documentation of statewide performance measures, including:

 Data and information on community collaboration: number of formalized active community partnerships, and number of persons engaged in transportation planning and education activities within the region.  Identification and data on gaps and inefficiencies: number of gaps and inefficiencies identified in the coordinated plan and its updated evaluations, including those concerning priority transit dependent population groups.  Recommended actions in the coordinated plan and its updated evaluations for resolving gaps and inefficiencies.  Actions in the plan that move from a planning to implementation phase: Number of activities identified in the coordinated plan that are:

36 o Underway, but not completed. o Completed (with an available local assessment of effectiveness for closing gaps and inefficiencies, if applicable).

References

Area Plan, Area Agency on Aging of the Concho Valley. Concho Valley Council of Governments. 2015-2016. Assessing the transit needs of ASU Students. Kayla Hullum, Jacqueline Coty, and L.F. Jones. 2013. Assessing the transit needs of Concho Valley residents. Makayla Cisneros, Susan McLane, L.F. Jones and Kenneth L. Stewart. 2012. Assessing the transit needs of Concho Valley Residents. Laurence F. Jones, Jacqueline Coty, Kayla Hullum and Feleseya Joshua. 2013. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, Concho Valley Economic Development District. 2011. Concho Valley Regional Coordination Transportation Plan. Jessica Pena, Regional Coordinator, Concho Valley Transit District, Lead Agency and Concho Valley Regional Coordination Planning Committee. 2012. Mobility Management in Texas, Texas Department of Transportation FTP server, October, 2016: https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/ptn/mobility_management.pdf. Public Participation Plan. San Angelo Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2014. Regional Rural Transportation Planning: State Models for Local Consultation, Regional Coordination, and Regional Transportation Planning Organizations, National Association of Development Organizations, July, 2016: https://www.nado.org/17573-2/. Review of Texas’ Regionally Coordinated Transportation Plans, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, 2012. San Angelo Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Wilbur Smith Associates. 2005. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, TCRP REPORT 105 (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2004). Survey of Pedestrian and Bicycle Project Priorities, Kenneth L. Stewart, 2013. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), San Angelo Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2014. Transportation Needs Assessment Survey. Kenneth L. Stewart and Susan McLane. 2014. United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 Year sample estimates, 2006- 2010, 2007-2011, 2008-2012, 2009-2013, and 2010-2014. VOYAGE 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan, San Angelo Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2014.

Acronyms

ASU Angelo State University CVCOG Concho Valley Council of Governments CVTD Concho Valley Transit District FTA Federal Transit Administration LEP Limited English Proficiency NADO National Association of Development Organizations RCPC Concho Valley Regional Coordination Planning Committee RPO Rural Planning Organization SA-MPO San Angelo Metropolitan Planning Organization TGI Transit Gap Index TIP Transportation Improvement Program TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation UZA Urbanized Area VA Veterans Administration WC Word Cloud

Appendix A: Inventory of Regional Transportation Resources

Public Transportation Providers Concho Valley Transit District TRANSA 510 N. Chadbourne St San Angelo, TX 76903 Phone: 325-947-8729 www.cvtd.org Wheelchair accessibility: Yes, para-transit service available to those who qualify, and only available within three-quarters of a mile of a fixed route during the same days and hours as the fixed route. Wheelchair accessible vehicles are available. Schedule: Monday – Friday 6:30 am – 6:30 pm Saturday 7:30 am – 6:30 pm Rates: base fare for fixed route is $1.00 Base fare for para-transit is $2.00 Demand-response service: Yes, for the general public and eligible participants of Medical Transportation Program and local human service programs. Out-of-county trips must be scheduled at least 24 hours in advance. Fleet size: 23 vehicles Concho Valley Transit District Thunderbird 510 N. Chadbourne St San Angelo, TX 76903 Phone: 325-947-8729 www.cvtd.org Wheelchair accessibility: Yes, para-transit service available to those who qualify. Schedule: Monday – Friday 6:30 am – 6:30 pm Saturday 7:30 am – 6:30 pm Rates: base fare for all regional counties except for Tom Green: $.50 In-town: $.75 In-county: $1.50 Out-of-county: $2.00 Tom Green County: $2.00 Demand-response service: Yes, Thunderbird is exclusively a demand-response service. Available for the general public and eligible participants of Medical Transportation Program and local human service programs. Out-of-county trips must be scheduled at least 24 hours in advance. Fleet size: 54 vehicles

Conestoga San Angelo, TX Phone: 325-651-0938 Service provided: charter rentals Rates: call for pricing Fleet size: one 45 passenger bus Concho Coaches 510 N Chadbourne St San Angelo, TX 76903 Phone: 325-658-7644 Services provided: Greyhound connection to Midland and Abilene. Provides service to and from the Midland/Odessa airport. Rates: call for pricing Fleet Size: 3 passenger vans Red Ball Taxi and Shuttle Service San Angelo, TX Phone: 325-942-8899 Services provided: both a taxi and shuttle service Rates: 15 passenger vans are rented at $75.00 hourly. 8 passenger vans are rented at $60.00 hourly Fleet Size: Four 15 passenger vans Four 8 passenger vans Silsbee Tours – operated by D&L Enterprises San Angelo, TX Phone: 325-653-3664 Services provided: Rates: prices begin at $50 hourly, in town Fleet size: One 48 passenger bus One 46 passenger bus Granny Shinanigan San Angelo, TX Phone: 325-234-5696 Services provided: shuttle/taxi service geared towards servicing the military base and airport Fleet size: 1 van, 1 wheelchair accessible van

Concho Valley Errand Service San Angelo, TX Phone: (325) 939-0120 Service provided: errand running such as dry cleaning drop-of and pick-up, grocery shopping, package pickup, ect; elderly service such as welfare checks or assistance with shopping; also a Medicaid transportation provider, must request Concho Valley Errand Service when arranging transportation with Medicaid Rates: $10 per hour for errand service Fleet size: one vehicle Cliental served: general public Concho Concierge San Angelo, TX Phone: (325) 450-5534 Service Provided: hospitality service, errand running service, transportation service exclusively for their private members. Rates: free to obtain private membership. Transit rates vary: flat $15 fee for in San Angelo city limits for a single stop - an additional $5 for added stops, or if the driver needs to wait on the customer. Out of town rates vary but begin around $20 an hour. Call for quotes. Fleet size: 10-15 personal vehicles owned by independent contractors Cliental served: general public, transportation necessitates a free private membership. Client- Focused Services House of Faith 321 Montecito Dr San Angelo, TX 76903 Phone: 325-486-8637 http://www.hofministries.org/ Service provided: transports students to and from House of Faith programs and events Fleet size: 12 vans and 5 buses. West Texas RSVP 618 S Chadbourne St San Angelo, TX 76903 Phone: 325-223-6388 Service provided: medical appointments for the frail elderly exclusively. RSVP conducts client intake to ensure the client has no other means of transportation. Fleet size: volunteer driver pool. Elderly volunteers use their personal vehicles without reimbursement

Rio Concho Manor 401 Rio Concho Dr San Angelo, TX 76903 Phone: 325-653-3351 Rio Concho West 6359 Appaloosa Trail San Angelo, TX 76901 Phone: 325-944-9564 Baptist Retirement Community 902 N Main St San Angelo, TX 76903 Phone: 325-655-7391 Service provided: transportation is provided through various programs on campus such as transportation to medical appointments at no charge; the life enrichment coordinator plans various activities such as weekly trips to Wal-Mart; the personal assistance program allows residents to schedule transportation based on their own needs at a nominal fee. Rates: services limited to campus residents Fleet size: 3 buses, 2 cars, 1 SUV Adult Enrichment Center 6146 Appaloosa Trail San Angelo, TX 76901 Phone: 325-942-9253 Services Provided: transportation to and from the center daily provided by CVTD Rates: call the center for information Christians in Action 555 E 6th St San Angelo, TX 76903 Phone: 325-5127 Services provided: this agency provides Concho Valley Transit District bus passes for those seeking transportation as part of their services Rates: call organization for more information MHMR of the Concho Valley San Angelo, TX Phone: 325-234-5696 Services provided: transportation for daily activities for their live-in clients; transportation for their vocational services and employment assistance/supported employment program clients Rates: MHMR can only provide transit services for their clients 43

Fleet size: 3 vans; 6 sedans, one of which is wheelchair accessible Bronte Health and Rehab 900S. State St. Bronte, TX Phone: (325) 473-3621 Service provided: residents are transported to various activities and medical appointments Rates: free for residents, CVTD fares for the public Fleet size: 2 vans via partnership with CVTD Stonebridge Training Residence San Angelo, TX Phone: (325) 655-3884 Service provided: residents are transported to medical appointments, store, church, recreational activities – wherever they may need to go Rates: free for residents Fleet size: 2 SUVS Cliental served: STR is a residence facility for disabled adults – transit is exclusively available to their residents Bronte Senior Center 613 East Oliver St. Bronte, Texas 76933 Phone: (325) 473-6471 Service provided: driving meals to homebound seniors Rates: provided as part of nutrition program Robert Lee Senior Center 1402 Austin St. Robert Lee Phone: (325) 453-2314 Service provided: driving meals to homebound seniors Sutton County Senior Center 106 Wilson Sonora, TX 76950 Phone: 325-387-5657 Service provided: driving meals to homebound seniors Rates: provided as part of nutrition program Fleet size: 2 vans

Irion ISD 302 N. 3rd Street Mertzon, TX 76941 Phone: 325-835-6111 Service provided: vehicles exclusively for school related activities Fleet size: 9 buses, 3 suburban’s Schleicher ISD 205 Fields Ave Eldorado, TX 76936 Phone: 325-853-2514 Service provided: vehicles exclusively for school related activities Fleet size: 3 - 77 passenger buses; 1 - 47 passenger buses; 2 – 54 passenger buses; 3 – 35 passenger buses; 1 – 24 passenger buses; 1 – 44 Passenger Activity Bus; 6 – Suburban’s; 1 – Chevy Astrovan

Brady ISD 1003 West 11th Street Brady, TX 76825 Phone: 325-597-2301 Service provided: vehicles exclusively for school related activities Fleet size: 23 school buses; 10 pickups; 11 SUVs; 3 sedans Reagan ISD 1111 12th Street Big Lake, TX 76932 Phone: 325-884-3705 Service provided: vehicles exclusively for school related activities San Angelo ISD 1621 University Ave San Angelo, TX 76904 Phone: 325-947-3700 Service provided: vehicles exclusively for school related activities

Appendix B: Rural Health and Human Service Providers

Churches

First United Methodist Church 5 Counties 37 E Beauregard Ave, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-655-8981

St. James Mission Coke 302 N. Washington, Bronte, TX 76933 325-365-2687

Our Lady of Guadalupe Mission Coke 601 W 10th St, Robert Lee, TX 76945 325-365-2687

Victory Assembly Of God Church Coke E 6th St, Robert Lee, TX 76945 325-453-2208

First Baptist Church 7 Counties 37 E Harris Ave, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-655-4101

St. Charles Parish Concho P.O. box 575 Eden TX, 76837 325-869-8311

Trinity Lutheran Church Concho 3536 Lutheran Way, San Angelo, TX 76904 325-944-8660

Our Lady of Perpetual Help Parish Crockett 302 Bitela St, Ozona, TX 76943 325-392-3353

Ministerio Ir y Predicar Internacional Crockett 810 12th St, Ozona, TX 76943 210-557-3059

Church of Christ Crockett 1003 11th St Ozona, TX 76943 325-392-2718

New Beginnings Church Crockett 354 Hwy 163 S., Ozona, TX 76943 325-266-3060

Vision Heights Church McCulloch 2300 Menard Hwy, Brady, TX 76825 325-597-0377

St. Patrick's Catholic Church McCulloch 406 South Bridge Street, Brady, TX 76825 325-597-2324

St. Theresa Parish Kimble 7th & Oak Street, Junction, TX 76849 915-446-3393

First Presbyterian Church Kimble, Schleicher 32 N Irving St, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-655-5694

St Margaret of Cortona Reagan 107 E 1st St, Big Lake, TX 76932 325-884-3221

Community Baptist Church Schleicher 12 E Warner Ave, Eldorado, TX 76936 325-853-3288

St. Paschal Mission Sterling 803 5th St., Sterling, TX 76951 325-465-8062

St. Ann Parish Sutton 311 W Plum St, Sonora, TX 76950 325-387-2278

St. John's Episcopal Church Sutton 404 E Poplar St, Sonora, TX 76950 325- 387-2955

Sacred Heart Parish Menard 609 Ellis St., Hwy 83, Menard, TX 76859 325-396-4906

Federally Qualified Health Centers

Frontera Clinic 5 Counties 2033 W Beauregard Ave, San Angelo, TX 76901 325-233-8129

Frontera Dental Clinic Menard 119 Ellis St, Menard, TX 76859 325-396-4612

La Esperanza Clinic (2) Tom Green 35 E 1st St, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-942-8577

Rural Health Clinics

Brady Medical Clinic McCulloch 2010 Nine Rd, Brady, TX 76825 325-597-2114

Family Health Center of Ozona Crockett 104 Ave H, Ozona, TX 76943 325-392-3788

Junction Medical Clinic Kimble 109 Reid Rd, Junction, TX 76849 325-446-3305

Schleicher County Family Clinic Schleicher 400 E Murchison Ave, Eldorado, TX 76936 325-853-3137

Sonora Medical Clinic Sutton 301 Hudspeth St # B, Sonora, TX 76950 325-387-7911

Public Health Facilities

Region 9 Clinic Sutton, McCulloch 103 E Main St, Sonora, TX 76950 325-387-2234

Region 9 Sub-Office Tom Green 622 S Oaks St., San Angelo, TX 76901 325-659-7850

Local Health Department McCulloch 101 E. Main St., Brady, TX 76825 915-597-2125

Local Health Department Reagan 800 North Main, Suite 3 915-884-3743

Hospitals

Shannon West Texas Memorial Tom Green 120 E Harris Ave, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-653-6741

Shannon Medical Center: St. John's Tom Green 2018 Pulliam St, San Angelo, TX 76905 325-659-7290

River Crest Hospital Tom Green 1636 Hunters Glen Rd, San Angelo, TX 76901 325-949-5722

San Angelo Community Medical Center Tom Green 3501 Knickerbocker Rd, San Angelo, TX 76904 325-949-9511

Reagan Memorial Hospital Tom Green 805 N Main Ave, Big Lake, TX 76932 325-884-2561

Concho County Hospital Concho 614 Eaker St, Eden, TX 76837 325-869-5911

Kimble Hospital Kimble 349 Reid Rd, Junction, TX 76849 325-446-3321

Lillian Hudspeth Memorial Hospital Sutton 308 Hudspeth St, Sonora, TX 76950 325-387-2521

Heart of Texas Healthcare System McCulloch 2008, Nine Rd, Brady, TX 76825 325-597-2901

Schleicher County Medical Center Schleicher 102 US-277, Eldorado, TX 76936 325-853-2507

Mental Health Facilities

West Texas Counseling and Guidance 6 Counties 242 N Magdalen St, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-944-2561

MHMR Service of Concho Valley Tom Green 1501 W Beauregard Ave, San Angelo, TX 76901 325-658-7750

Renal Disease Treatment Facilities

Angelo Kidney Connection Tom Green 2901 Sherwood Way, San Angelo, TX 76901 325-617-2496 Southwest Plaza Shopping Center, 3518 DaVita San Angelo Dialysis Tom Green 325-949-6035 Knickerbocker Rd, San Angelo, TX 76904 Shannon Medical Center Outpatient Tom Green 2018 Pulliam St, San Angelo, TX 76905 325-659-7360 Dialysis Center

West Texas Renal Care Center Tom Green 3501 Executive Dr, San Angelo, TX 76904 325-949-5081

Shannon Dialysis Services-Brady McCulloch 2008 Nine Rd, Brady, TX 76825 325-659-7231

Skilled Nursing Facilities

Robert Lee Care Center Coke 307 W 8th St, Robert Lee, TX 76945 325-453-2511

Bronte Health And Rehab Center Coke 900 S State St, Bronte, TX 76933 325-473-3621

Concho Health & Rehabilitation Center Concho 613 Eaker St, Eden, TX 76837 325-869-5531

Schleicher County Medical Center Schleicher 102 US-277, Eldorado, TX 76936 325-853-2507

Sterling County Nursing Home Sterling 309 5th St, Sterling City, TX 76951 325-378-2134

Menard Manor Menard 100 Gay St, Menard, TX 76859 325-396-4515

Crockett County Care Center Crockett 102 Ave H, Ozona, TX 76943 325-392-3096

Reagan County Care Center Reagan 805 N Main Ave, Big Lake, TX 76932 325-884-5850

Hill Country Care Center Kimble 111 Hospital Dr, Junction, TX 76849 325-446-3351

Brady West Rehab and Nursing Center McCulloch 2201 Menard Hwy, Brady, TX 76825 325-597-2906

Physical Therapy Community Medical Center Outpatient Tom Green 3501 Knickerbocker Rd, San Angelo, TX 76904 325-949-5900 Rehab Shannon Medical Rehabilitation Center Tom Green 20 E. Harris Ave., San Angelo, TX 76903 325-481-8680

West Texas Rehab (Ozona) Crockett 106 Medical Dr, Ozona, TX 76943 325-392-9872 Reagan Memorial Hospital Physical Reagan 805 N Main Ave, Big Lake, TX 76932 325-841-2561 Therapy Home Health Agencies

Accolade Home Health Care 7 Counties 133 W Concho Ave #102, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-659-6919

Angels Care Home Health 11 Counties 3308 Foster St, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-655-5099

Ballinger Home Health Inc Coke, Concho 112 S 7th St A, Ballinger, TX 76821 325-365-3889

Baptist Home Health and Hospice ALL 902 N Main St, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-655-7391 McCulloch, BHCS Brady Office Concho, 1700 S Bridge St., Brady, TX 76825 325-597-3994 Menard Caprock Home Health Services 11 Counties 3471 Knickerbocker Rd #506, San Angelo, TX 76904 325-944-3666

Carter Healthcare 11 Counties 2725 Sherwood Way #700, San Angelo, TX 76904 888-951-1112

Concho Valley Home Health Care 7 Counties 3103 Southwest Blvd, San Angelo, TX 76904 325-944-8916

Country Home Health LLC Menard 204 E College Ave, Mason, TX 76856 325-347-9600

Encompass Home Health 11 Counties 136 E Twohig Ave, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-486-0400

McCulloch Hill Country Memorial Home Care 808 Reuben St, Fredericksburg, TX 78624 830-997-1336 Menard Home Health Services of Mason, 6 Counties 717 East Rainey Street 325-347-5145 Kimble, and Menard Inc Intrepid Healthcare Services 10 Counties 3310 West Loop 306, San Angelo, TX 76904 325-658-5550

Kinder Hearts Path Coke 842 N Mockingbird Ln, Abilene, TX 79603 325-672-6135

Gentiva Hospice San Angelo 7 Counties 402 N Bryant Blvd, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-481-0123

Girling Home Health San Angelo 7 Counties 1518 W Beauregard Ave, San Angelo, TX 76901 325-949-1108

North Runnels Home Health Agency Coke 106 N Main St, Winters, TX 79567 325-754-4141

San Angelo Home Health 10 Counties 423 S Irving St, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-655-6600

Shannon Home Health Services 6 Counties 2030 Pulliam St # 6, San Angelo, TX 76905 325-659-7480

Other

Concho Valley Region Food Bank ALL 1313 Hill St, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-655-3231

Eden Housing Authority Concho 104 E Blanchard St # 23, Eden, TX 76837 325-869-6491

Brady Housing Authority McCulloch 405 E Main St, Brady, TX 76825 325-597-2951

First Baptist Church Food Ministry McCulloch 1103 W. 17th St., Brady, TX 76825 325-597-2956

Helping Hands McCulloch 1404 S Oakes St, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-655-6700

Sterling Senior Citizens Center Sterling 415 Stadium, Sterling City, TX 76951 325-378-4400 Concho Valley Community Action Tom Green 36 W Beauregard Ave, San Angelo, TX 76903 325-653-2411 Agency Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council for the Tom Green 3553 W Houston Harte Expy, San Angelo, TX 76901 800-880-9641 Concho Valley

Appendix C: Planning Project Instruments & Detailed Results

Survey for Drivers and Providers

Health and Human Services and Public Transit Survey (HHSPTS)

Name of DRIVER or PROVIDER:

Name of Organization/Agency:

Clientele served:

What are the 3 most challenging transportation related issues you see when serving your clients?

Driver Reponses

Driver County Statements/Challenges People not knowing about the service of transportation in different areas. Some clients need to be CVTD Menard better informed about our service. Some people on fixed income are having an issue with paying to ride the bus. Need to look for other CVTD Menard assistants to help fund the trip CVTD Menard The comfort of the bus on long trips to San Angelo Thunderbird Big Lake/ Have more people riding Transit Reagan Thunderbird Big Lake/ Be nice if the holes were fixed here in Big Lake so we could have even roads Transit Reagan Thunderbird Big Lake/ Need more passengers Transit Reagan Thunderbird Big Lake/ Poor road infrastructure; i.e pot holes Transit Reagan Big Lake/ CVTD We need more exposure. Residents need to know we are available in town but also out of town Reagan Big Lake/ Some clients don’t want to be in San Angelo all day and we have clients that do dialysis so we have CVTD Reagan to wait for them to finish Big Lake/ CVTD Roads are very bad in town. Reagan CVTD Concho Dispatch- time when to call CVTD Concho information for the clients CVTD Concho what is there for people in your town Thunderbird Sutton/ I have a lot of clients with Medicaid that ride as 60+ instead of Medicaid. Spanish language as a first Transit Schleicher language they are unable to communicate to call Medicaid for trips. Thunderbird Sutton/ Clients 60+ have monthly minutes on their cell phone. They are hesitation to call dispatch in the Transit Schleicher future because of limits minutes Thunderbird Sutton/ Paying $5 to go to Angelo versus 200 per trip. Clients are willing to pay a quote instead of per trip Transit Schleicher when in Angelo Brady/ Rural Clients trying to deal with changes and understanding new programs McCulloch Brady/ dealing with clients and their individual needs- lack of information exchange between drivers, city Rural McCulloch officials, clients and director of senior center Brady/ Rural Different needs of clients McCulloch I think one of the issues is the charging especially the low incomes. I feel they might not be CVTD Crockett comfortable and don’t ride. I explain to them but I believe it will take time The calling to Angelo, sometimes, they don't know is they need a ride till that day or if they get sick CVTD Crockett and need to go to the doctor CVTD Crockett I will think the pressure they will feel with all this change. Not many but for them. CVTD Kimble Being available Monday through Friday in the Kimble Co. area for local trips CVTD McCulloch Indigent clients unable to pay for transportation CVTD McCulloch Intra-county accessibility- knowledge of service i.e rochelle, lohn, melvin CVTD McCulloch Handicap- ADA accessibility in areas of the city. Difficulty gaining access to and from bus CVTD Crockett Money, many of our clients do several trips daily CVTD Crockett Don't want to call in CVTD Crockett Not scheduling appointments with Medicaid because it is too time consuming

Organization Reponses

Organization County Statements/Challenges Mendar Manor and Menard No complaints Retirement Home County Treasurers Citizens who have no means of transportation needing to get to county owned buildings Menard Office including courthouse and community center County Treasurers If costs to travel on Thunderbird Transportation rises, some low income individuals who need Menard Office the service will not be able to use the service Community Center Menard The people without Medicaid not being able to get a ride Community Center Menard The people that need in town rides can't get help because the is on a trip Community Center Menard That every time you get off the bus on a trip you have to pay. Frontera Healthcare Menard Patients are not able to schedule a ride through the Medicaid program (find a ride) Network None. They very good at responding to the clients. Doing a terrific job. Glad we have them Trail Blazers Reagan here in Big Lake None- if a customer cannot physically come to the office to pay their bill, they can call by telephone to make payment or mail their payment. **Thunderbird has been a valuable asset City of Big Lake Reagan to our community. The staff are polite, professional and punctual. Service they provide is immeasurable to our non-driving citizens. When a patient’s visit goes over the 12 pm or 5 pm time and no one is there to take patient Hickman Rural Clinic Reagan home. Hickman Rural Clinic Reagan Need longer transportation hours Many do not have reliable transportation for everyday activities. Becomes difficult for some Lawyer Reagan to make appointments Lawyer Reagan We need a standard schedule, specific points in town for pick up and drop off Lawyer Reagan Communication of routes, pick up times, etc. Website maps and schedule is needed Lawyer Reagan **All in all this service does a very good job in Big Lake these are just some ideas Trail Blazers Reagan I am extremely please with the staff and service we receive for our community. Thank you City of Big Lake Reagan Making trips to the Doctor in the surrounding area- San Angelo, Midland, Odessa, Big Spring Local transportation is needed for people who do not drive or they have no other City of Big Lake Reagan transportation. Being able to go to the store, pay bills, local doctor appointments

Lillian M. Hudspeth Inability to operate a vehicle due to medications and/or limb surgeries and some use assistive Sutton Memorial Hospital devices which requires not only transportation but assistance to get to and from the vehicle

Lillian M. Hudspeth Cardiac rehab patients are unable to operate a vehicle due to weakness and pain after Sutton Memorial Hospital surgery. Also, clients are ordered not to drive for certain amounts of time

Lillian M. Hudspeth Clients may not own vehicles and have to rely on others to transport them to therapy doctor Sutton Memorial Hospital appointments, store etc. family and friends are not always available The school doesn’t provide in town transportation for our students, so many of our kids are Sonora Middle responsible for finding a ride to or from school every day. They are never certain of what their Sutton School plan is and are constantly calling their parents to ask how they will get home or relying on other kids parents to take them. I have given rides, personally, several times At one time the Thunderbird service was able to drive kids to and from school. Since this Sonora Middle service was discontinued, many of our kids have been affected. If kids are required to walk to Sutton School school, distance and cold or rainy weather often makes their trip difficult to they do not attend school at all

Organization County Statements/Challenges

I also find it dangerous for kids to walk to school in the winter months where it is still dark in Sonora Middle Sutton the mornings. Many of the kids in our community need in town transportation to and from School school for their safety and also to promote school attendance. Lillian M. Hudspeth No vehicle- elderly population that is unable to drive or do not have vehicle and do not have Sutton Memorial Hospital access to one Hours are not convenient i.e. public transit only available certain hours. Not available during Lillian M. Hudspeth Sutton weekends- very important that clients have some type of way to get to grocery store, Memorial Hospital pharmacy etc. Also limited number of times it goes to San Angelo need to add more Lillian M. Hudspeth Some clients cannot afford to pay for a ride to San Angelo or cannot afford to ride 3-4 times a Sutton Memorial Hospital week for local appointments Sonora Senior Sutton Need medical transportation Apartments Sonora Senior Sutton Shopping Apartments Sonora Senior Sutton Work with people in scooters or wheelchairs and don’t have cars Apartments Sutton County Food Sutton Transportation to and from food pantry during food distribution Pantry Sutton County Food Sutton To and from San Angelo to go shopping and receive medical services Pantry Sutton County Food Sutton Everyday needs such as grocery, doctor visits, post office, bank, etc. Pantry Senior Center Sutton Cost being too much for elderly Family Health Center Trying to schedule appointments for patients to see a specialists out of town is sometimes Crockett of Ozona challenging, have to check if Thunderbird is available Family Health Center When it’s noon and our patient is done seeing the doctor, there is no one to give them a ride Crockett of Ozona to the pharmacy or home I feel like the monetary piece is a bit exaggerative. Of course when one has money its fine, but Church of God of Crockett one doesn’t always have funds. It would be a great problem for our community if this Prophecy: Spanish transportation would go away because of the economic piece I am not good from my eyes. Every now and then I can drive, and sometimes I can't and I have Church of God of Crockett utilized this transportation. Now with this new change it would be a problem and I feel like for Prophecy everyone else as well Church of God of It would be a bit inconvenient for me because I don't have fixed income. Sometimes I have Crockett Prophecy and sometimes I don’t have gas money and this transportation is very utilized by me

United Methodist When unexpected situations arise with a need for transportation, scheduling in advance with Crockett Church Concho Valley Transit District would ne be feasible The distance between Ozona and any large town/city creates a barrier for low income United Methodist Crockett individuals. Individuals with low income are less likely to own a private vehicle and/or afford Church the gasoline for transportation United Methodist In Ozona, CVTD is the only public service for transportation, which limits the destination of Crockett Church individuals County We are in a small rural community. Our citizens are mostly on small low income for the Commissioner/ Crockett month. Changing each time they get off or on is not acceptable. This is not what this service Knights of Columbus was meant to be used. It was made to benefit the low income. County Limiting the Thunderbird Service during the week to just one bus is not acceptable. We have 2 Commissioner/ Crockett buses and one seems to be used to pick others from other cities instead of our citizens. Our Knights of Columbus county government did not agree to this.

Organization County Statements/Challenges I represent served non-profit organizations which purpose is to provide assistance others in County need. I am also a county commissioner and would really like to visit with Thunderbird Commissioner/ Crockett Management because Thunderbird service is not providing the service we originally agreed Knights of Columbus to. Frontera Healthcare Kimble Transportation schedule limited and difficult to make appointments locally and out of town Network Frontera Healthcare Patients are not aware of what public transportation is available and where it can take them Kimble Network and when Frontera Healthcare Kimble Very poor clients lack communication skills, and resources to obtain assistance Network HPSC Home Health Kimble As long as patients schedule visits on available days (Van goes to Kerrville Wednesday) HPSC Home Health Kimble Local residents have to change days for IT, MCD, PT appointments (override) Meals on Wheels Kimble Availability of transportation- local rides get canceled because of Medicaid rider out of area Meals on Wheels Kimble Most of fixed very low income- cannot afford to pay Calling to schedule a ride is very difficult. Most only have few minutes for their phones or they Meals on Wheels Kimble do not have phones Kimble Hospital Kimble Transportation very limited. Bus is out Wednesday Local PT unable to make appointments due to van being out on MCp rides or patients that are Kimble Hospital Kimble wheelchair bound have a ride to appointment but not a ride home When I first moved to San Angelo in October 2014, I looked for evidence of public Veterinarian-Former transportation such as bust stops, signs, buses, etc. I visited the welcome center in town but Tom Green Goodfellow Vet still did not find information on whether there was an active transportation system and if so, where does it run, and is it open to the public Six months later, I saw one bus stop on the other side of town but I never saw a bus or person at the stop. I also, noticed buses at what looked like the town's train station downtown. It Veterinarian-Former Tom Green looked like it was just a bus barn, so I didn’t ever stop to check it out. Initially, I was interested Goodfellow Vet in public transportation to limit the amount of driving/cars to get back and forth to work and other public places My sister in law moved to San Angelo with us in 2015. She is not military but became a Goodfellow Employee soon after moving here. She did not have a car and needed Veterinarian-Former Tom Green transportation badly. Again, not knowing where to look for info, she never found it and Goodfellow Vet getting back and forth became a big struggle for her and those helping her around. I hope this info helps you with your efforts. Workforce Solutions Tom Green Frequency of the routes of the Concho Valley Schleicher County Having transportation that they can count onto The way things are now they can't rely on the Schleicher Senior Center Tbird to be here when they may need it Frontera Healthcare Kimble Transportation schedule limited and difficult to make appointments locally and out of town Network Frontera Healthcare Patients are not aware of what public transportation is available and where it can take them Kimble Network and when Frontera Healthcare Kimble Very poor clients and lack communication skills to obtain assistance Network Carter Healthcare Tom Green Wheelchair bound or non-weight bearing clients have difficulty getting to appointments Elderly clients have to rely on each other so often because there may not be a care giver , Carter Healthcare Tom Green child, or friend to help for transportation Our clients have difficulty setting to a "last minute" doctor appointment when they recently Carter Healthcare Tom Green became ill.

Organization County Statements/Challenges

McCulloch Senior Many elderly clients are on a fixed income already subsidizing meals by coning to the center McCulloch Center for lunch so it becomes a hardship when having to pay for the transit ride to get that meal Having to call 24 to 48 hrs. In advance for transit ride. Clients become ill- get doctor McCulloch Senior McCulloch appointments for that day but are not able to receive transit ride due to policy of Center appointments for transit McCulloch Senior New transit bus needs step realigned. Clients are not able to step up or down off transit safely McCulloch Center due to step being too narrow, causing a hazard and risk of a fall Helping Hands McCulloch patients getting to and from appointments Helping Hands McCulloch patients not having caregiver to help them make and arrive on time to appointments Brady Medical Clinic Brady elderly patients trying to make appointments have problem getting here Brady Medical Clinic Brady knowledge of the service Brady Medical Clinic Brady paying for services Crockett County Crockett to have affordable public transportation for the citizens of Crockett County West Texas Tom Green People who cannot physically drive themselves Rehabilitation Center West Texas Tom Green scheduling issues, limited availability Rehabilitation Center West Texas Tom Green people who do not have transportation Rehabilitation Center Cr. County Senior No Computers- lack of understanding computers- lack of phones and understanding how to Crockett Center call long distance even if it does not cost. Cannot think to call the day before Cr. County Senior Crockett Lack of mobility. Cannot get on or off of bus. Cannot sit for long periods of time Center Cr. County Senior Crockett Cannot afford the rates on a fixed income Center They have no transportation: thunderbird is very helpful for my tenants. To buy everyday Ozona Senior Crockett needs and pay bills, doctor visits. Some are disabled so this is also helpful for them as well. For Apartments Thunderbird to be AFFORDABLE is very important. These tenants live off very low income

Statements Identified in Document Review

Page Report Year Statement # Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2005 low public transit for the disabled 17 "with large expansion of population, industrial development will 2011 CEDS-SWOT analysis 2011 28 necessitate construction of better transport systems" CVCOG Area Agency on Aging, Area 2015-16 mentions addressing identified transportation needs 28 Plan CVCOG Area Agency on Aging, Area 2015-16 transportation- demand response 34,45 Plan Assessing the transit needs of the 2012 need for convenient routes and convenient/consistent scheduling 2 Concho Valley residents Assessing the transit needs of the not enough time and route schedules to meet publics particular 2012 3 Concho Valley residents need Assessing the transit needs of the 2012 Most stressed need: convenient routes 20 Concho Valley residents Assessing the transit needs of the 2012 need for a bus service for college students 36 Concho Valley residents Assessing the transit needs of the 2012 need more information and awareness of system 40,55 Concho Valley residents Assessing the transit needs of the 2012 need for extended hours 40,55 Concho Valley residents ASU: assessing the transit needs 2013 higher percent of students would use a public transport system 34,45 Concho Valley Regional Coordination 2013 unmet needs and dissatisfaction with overall level of service 8 Transportation Plan Concho Valley Regional Coordination Process Need: public frustrated with lack of information and 2013 8 Transportation Plan training Assessing Transit Needs of Concho concern about availability of transit schedules, need for enhanced 2013 2 Valley Residents marketing Assessing Transit Needs of Concho transit facilities and vehicles accessibility to those with special 2013 2 Valley Residents needs Assessing Transit Needs of Concho 2013 need for better routing and travel time later 2 Valley Residents Assessing Transit Needs of Concho 2013 driver safety improvement 10 Valley Residents Assessing Transit Needs of Concho 2013 need for college student transportation 12 Valley Residents Assessing Transit Needs of Concho 2013 in rural area: need for better appointment scheduling and system 12 Valley Residents Assessing Transit Needs of 2013 need for accommodation of language barrier 16 Concho Valley Residents SA-MPO Public Participation Plan 2014 Better transit for LEP 25 Transportation need assessment Transportation issues: unsafe roads, congestion, lack of bike 2014 3 survey (TNAS) lanes and sidewalks Transportation need assessment providing better public transit is 2nd on the long term 2014 3 survey (TNAS) development projects priority list (1st- sidewalks)

Prioritization of Needs Prioritization Instrument

Instructions: Prevalence Impact Consequence Comments Thinking about the Thinking about how severely Thinking about the viability entire population of the lives of the affected of social and economic life transit dependent members of transit in the local community, groups (not just dependent populations are rate the consequences of current riders) rate impacted, rate each item on a not taking action to solve Please offer comments to Rate the items listed below in each item on a 1-5 1-5 point scale where: each need using a 1-5 point clarify or edit this compliance with the instructions for point scale where: 1 = Minimum or minor scale where: need or to explain each column to the right. 1 = Very few transit severity of impact, and 1= Minor or insignificant dependent people 5 = Major or maximum consequence, and the priority ratings affected, and severity of impact 5 = Highly significant or you assigned. 5 = All or nearly all major consequence transit dependent people affected.

A note on assigning points: Feel free to use decimal points to express you view when you think an item is between two whole numbers in the 5-point scale. For instance, if you believe an item is between 3 and 4, then you might like to assign something like "3.6" to express your view. Scheduling: more frequent and convenient stops & destinations with consistent run times Awareness: increase public information & awareness Accessibility: more accessibility for transit dependent populations not being served Seniors: improve awareness and access to transit services for the senior population in the region Capacity: increase vehicles & services in rural areas; enable more intercounty and intercity service Appointments: improve appointment procedures & scheduling in demand-response services; resolve issues over scheduling Medicaid & other priority riders Low Vehicle Access: improve awareness & access to transit services by regional residents lacking access to vehicles Veterans: improve awareness and access to transit services by veterans, active duty service personnel & their families, especially for medical and workforce purposes Uninsured: improve awareness and access to transit services for medical purposes by medically uninsured residents in the region

Prioritization Instrument (Continued)

Instructions: Prevalence Impact Consequence Comments Thinking about the entire population of Thinking about the viability Thinking about how severely transit dependent of social and economic life in the lives of the affected groups (not just the local community, rate members of transit Please offer current riders) rate the consequences of not dependent populations are comments to Rate the items listed below in each item on a 1-5 taking action to solve each impacted, rate each item on a clarify or edit this compliance with the instructions for each point scale where: need using a 1-5 point scale 1-5 point scale where: need or to explain column to the right. 1 = Very few transit where: 1 = Minimum or minor the priority ratings dependent people 1= Minor or insignificant severity of impact, and you assigned. affected, and consequence, and 5 = Major or maximum 5 = All or nearly all 5 = Highly significant or severity of impact transit dependent major consequence people affected A note on assigning points: Feel free to use decimal points to express you view when you think an item is between two whole numbers in the 5-point scale. For instance, if you believe an item is between 3 and 4, then you might like to assign something like "3.6" to express your view. Low Income: improve awareness and access to transit services for low income residents of the region Disabilities: improve awareness and access to transit services for the disabled residents of the region Worker Utilization: increase utilization of transit services for the trip to/from work Medicaid Service: improve services for Medicaid patients in rural areas

Add up to three needs that you think should be included, and be sure to make your priority ratings

Prioritization Responses by Summary List Needs

Scheduling Seniors Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case 1 3 3 3 3 Case 1 4 4 4 4 Case 2 5 5 5 5 Case 2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Case 3 3 3 2 2.67 Case 3 5 4 5 4.67 Case 4 5 5 5 5 Case 4 4 4 3 3.67 Case 5 5 5 5 5 Case 5 5 5 5 5 Case 6 3.5 4 3.5 3.67 Case 6 5 5 5 5 Case 7 3 3 3 3 Case 7 3 3 5 3.67 Case 8 4 3 2 3 Case 8 4.5 3 3 4 Case 9 5 5 5 5 Case 9 5 5 5 5 Case 10 5 4 1 3.33 Case 10 3 4 4 4

Prioritization Weighting Score 3.87 Prioritization Weighting Score 4.16

Awareness Capacity Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case 1 3 3 3 3 Case 1 5 5 5 5 Case 2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Case 2 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 Case 3 5 3 4 4 Case 3 3 3 3 3 Case 4 5 5 5 5 Case 4 3 3 4 3.33 Case 5 5 5 5 5 Case 5 0 0 0 0 Case 6 5 5 5 5 Case 6 4 4.5 4.5 4.33 Case 7 5 3 4 4 Case 7 3 4 2 3 Case 8 4 4 4.2 4.07 Case 8 4.5 4 4 4.17 Case 9 5 5 5 5 Case 9 5 5 5 5 Case 10 4 4 2 3.33 Case 10 4 3 3 3.33

Prioritization Weighting Score 4.18 Prioritization Weighting Score 3.89

Accessibility Appointments Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case 1 4 4 4 4 Case 1 5 5 5 5 Case 2 4 4 4 4 Case 2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Case 3 4 4 5 4.33 Case 3 4 3 3 3.33 Case 4 4 4 5 4.33 Case 4 4 4 4 4 Case 5 5 5 5 5 Case 5 0 0 0 0 Case 6 3 4 5 4 Case 6 5 5 5 5 Case 7 5 2 5 4 Case 7 5 5 5 5 Case 8 4 4 3.5 4 Case 8 4 4 4 4 Case 9 5 5 5 5 Case 9 5 5 5 5 Case 10 4 5 3 4 Case 10 4 4 4 4

Prioritization Weighting Score 4.25 Prioritization Weighting Score 4.39

Low Vehicle Access Veterans Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case 1 4 4 4 4 Case 1 4 4 4 4 Case 2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Case 2 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Case 3 5 4 4 4.33 Case 3 4 3 4 3.67 Case 4 5 5 4 4.67 Case 4 5 5 3 4.33 Case 5 0 0 0 0 Case 5 0 0 0 0 Case 6 5 5 5 5 Case 6 5 5 5 5 Case 7 5 4 4 4.33 Case 7 5 4 4 4.33 Case 8 4.2 4.2 4 4.13 Case 8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.50 Case 9 4 5 5 4.67 Case 9 5 5 5 5 Case 10 3 3 3 3 Case 10 3 4 4 3.67

Prioritization Weighting Score 4.17 Prioritization Weighting Score 4.01

Uninsured Low Income Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case 1 4 4 4 4 Case 1 4 4 4 4 Case 2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Case 2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Case 3 5 4 5 4.67 Case 3 4 5 5 4.67 Case 4 5 5 4 4.67 Case 4 5 5 5 5 Case 5 0 0 0 0 Case 5 0 0 0 0 Case 6 5 5 5 5 Case 6 5 5 5 5 Case 7 5 4 4 4.33 Case 7 5 4 4 4.33 Case 8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.50 Case 8 4 4 4 4 Case 9 5 5 5 5 Case 9 5 5 5 5 Case 10 3 2 2 2.33 Case 10 4 4 4 4

Prioritization Weighting Score 3.99 Prioritization Weighting Score 4.38

Disabilities Worker Utilization Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case 1 5 5 5 5 Case 1 3 3 3 3 Case 2 4 4 4 4 Case 2 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Case 3 4 5 5 4.67 Case 3 3 4 3 3.33 Case 4 5 5 5 5 Case 4 2 3 3 2.67 Case 5 5 5 5 5 Case 5 5 5 5 5.00 Case 6 3 3 3 3 Case 6 2 3 3 2.67 Case 7 5 5 5 5 Case 7 5 5 5 5.00 Case 8 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Case 8 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.20 Case 9 5 5 5 5 Case 9 5 5 5 5 Case 10 4 4 4 4 Case 10 2 2 3 2.33

Prioritization Weighting Score 4.00 Prioritization Weighting Score 2.33

Medicaid Service Case Prevalence Impact Consequence Average Case 1 4 4 4 4

Case 2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

Case 3 2 3 3 2.67 Case 4 4 4 4 4 Case 5 0 0 0 0 Case 6 5 5 5 5 Case 7 5 5 5 5 Case 8 4 4 4 4 Case 9 5 5 5 5 Case 10 3 3 2 2.67 Prioritization Weighting Score 2.67

Appendix D: Mason County

Below are the Transit Gap Index analysis results for the transportation needs in Mason County based on the identified dependent population groups and information gathered from the U.S. census data. Mason County currently receives public transportation services from Hill Country Transit, a CVTD adjacent transit district. ASU and CVTD were not able to receive adequate information, nor recruit a Mason County representative to produce a more accurate identification of the extent of the gaps that occur in the county of Mason. The given scoring information allows only the understanding that Mason County falls around the midrange in regards to transportation needs against the other counties in the Concho Valley.

Worker Vehicle Under Total County Insurance Seniors Disability Utilization Access 2X FPL Score

Reagan 5 1 3 2 2 1 14 Sutton 5 1 2 2 4 1 15 Schleicher 4 1 2 2 4 3 16 Irion 4 2 2 1 5 2 16 Coke 5 1 1 2 5 5 19 Mason 5 1 2 1 5 5 19 Crockett 5 4 1 3 5 2 20 Sterling 5 2 3 3 5 2 20 Kimble 5 1 2 2 5 5 20 Concho 5 1 3 3 5 5 22 Tom Green 4 3 2 3 5 3 20 Menard 5 1 4 3 5 5 23 McCulloch 4 3 2 3 5 5 22

Appendix E: Stakeholder Signature Approval and Plan Adoption

CVTD was unable to acquire the following signatures:  Dolores Pina, is no longer an active employee with Disability Connections and did not obligate a successor to attend meetings thereafter  Delma Childress, as a TxDOT employee, is a non-voting member in the stakeholder committee  Letitia McPherson, a new member, only attended 1 meeting and was not comfortable adopting the plan

Although CVTD was unable to receive all the signatures that were sought out, all eight representative categories adopted the plan