Version 1.1 Adopted September 5, 2012

Version 1.0 Devleloped by

Northeast Oregon Economic Development

District

Adopted June 2011

Version 1.1 Amendments Developed by

Northeast Oregon Public Transit

Adopted September 2012

Acknowledgements:

The regional Special Transportation Fund Agencies appreciate the efforts of numerous local and regional stakeholders who participated in the development of this update. Their creative input, energy and commitment to the future of mobility options in Northeast Oregon were essential components in the efforts culminating in this plan. In addition, the following organization, agencies and individuals made significant contributions toward this effort:

Baker County STF Committee

Mell Cross – Aviation Mark Estes – Riders with Disabilties Mike Kee – Baker City Manager Patty McClure – ODOT Region V Tammy Pierce – Department of Human Services Erik Plaza – Baker City Police Department Bill Shumway – Ag & Outlying Area Warren Thompson – Baker County Sheriff’s Department Brad Van Gaasbeck – Developmental Disabilities Advocate

Union County STF Committee

Mike Boquist – City Planner, La Grande Libby Goben – District Manager, Seniors and People with Disabilities Cheryl Jarvis-Smith – Transportation Growth Management Planner, ODOT Region V Trish Koehn – Passenger, Advocate Ashley Wilhelm – Program Specialist, Union County

Wallowa County STF Commitee

Gary Moffit – Moffit Brothers Transportation Jean Butler – Elder Advocate Debra Brewer – Riders with Disabilities Susan Roberts – County Commissioner Helen Larsh – Elderly Riders Advocate Shandon Towers – Elderly Riders Advocate Richard Burch – Elderly Riders Advocate Sandy Lathrop – Wallowa County Administrative Assistant

Regional Transit Advisory Committee

Mike Boquist – City of La Grande Jean Butler – Elder Advocate Cheryl Jarvis – Smith, ODOT Region V Patty McClure – ODOT Region V Gary Moffit – Moffit Brothers Transportation Tammy Pierce – Department of Human Services Susan Roberts – Wallowa County Commissioner Brad Van Gaasbeck – Developmental Disability Advocate Hannah Voetberg – Riders with Disabilites

Consulting Teams

Northeast Oregon Economic Development District 2011 Orbis Group 2009 Donna Betts 2007 FLT Consulting 2005

Table of Contents:

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………..7

1.0 Introduction.…..…………………………………………………………………………………………..10 2.0 A Brief History ………………………………………………………………………………………..…..14 3.0 Definitions…….…………………………………………………………………………………………….17 4.0 Provider Inventory……..………………………………………………………………………………..22 5.0 Coordination Revisited..………………………………………………………………………………..82 6.0 Mission Accomplished….…………………………………………………………………………….…88 7.0 Unmet Needs and Services Gaps………………………………..………………………………….95 8.0 Goals and Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………..101 9.0 Program of Projects…..………………………………………………………………………………..104 10.0 Funding Inventory…..………………………………………………………………………………..117 11.0 For Further Discussion..…………………………………………………………………………….130

Appendices:

Appendix A – Surveys, Stakeholder Interviews and Outreach……………………………….139 Appendix B – Stakeholder Data Collection………………………………………………………….142 B-1 Eastern Oregon University………………………………………………………………..142 B-2 Bedroom Communities……………………………………………………………………..144 B-3 Passengers with Disabilities………………………………………………………………146 B-4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Community……………………………………………………….148 B-5 Community and Individual Consults…………………………………………………..149 B-6 Public Meetings and Professional Consults………………………………………….150 B-7 Baker County Survey Results………………………………………………………….…151 B-8 Tri-County Survey Results………………………………………………………………..152 Appendix C – Data Collection Sheet Sample..…………………………………………………….155 Appendix D – Draft Coordinated Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding……………..166 Appendix E – Public System Maps and Schedules……………………….……………………...168 Appendix F – Regional Provider Vehicle Inventory…………………………………………….. 176

Executive Summary

The Northeast Oregon Region (Baker, Union and Wallowa Counties) has been served by the presence of a Coordinated Plan mandated by OAR 732-005-0081.

The purpose of the STF Plan is to set out the long term vision for public transportation in the STF Agency’s service area, and guide investment of STF and STO moneys to maximize benefit to the Elderly and People with Disabilities within that area.

OAR 732-005-0081 (a)

This revision represents the third update to the Coordinated Plan since it was initially adopted in September 2007 (Betts, 2007) and later revised in June 2009 (Orbis 2009). Consistent with the studies that came before it, this effort exposed underlying truths limiting the growth of the coordinated systems:

 Coordination is a moving target – changes in eligibility for state and federal funding have in effect, prioritized certain types of providers within the regional mobility space (with short and long term implications).

 Coordination practices require periodic updates to remain current with a changing environment.

 Overall volume in the market has stabilized after six years of rapid growth. Demand volatility is limited to the public sector where it appears to be highly correlated to the rising consumer price of petroleum products.

 The infusion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act capital has allowed many of the regional providers to “catch up” on the projects prioritized in the last plan.

 The concept of public access in Northeast Oregon communities has evolved substantially since the humble beginnings of the transit network in the early 1990’s. Connections that were considered excellent (but distant) ideas 20 years ago are often taken for granted by today’s riding public. However, the systems that support them have demonstrated that they are neither as robust nor as complete as they may have appeared, even a couple of short years ago.

This study also confirmed some of the trends noted in Orbis 2009, specifically:

 Outside of the efforts of the region’s dominant public transit interest, coordination is still more of a concept than a practice.

 Of all the deficient Transportation System Plans (TSP’s) identified by Orbis 2009, only the City of La Grande has a pending revision. While public transit is still meeting many projected needs, it is still doing so without local support.

 A handful of new providers have entered the market in this plan cycle but their impact on the regional mobility has been negligible.

Orbis 2009 was commissioned by ODOT Public Transit Division through a Contract with the Association of Oregon Counties to address deficiencies in Betts 2007. This was part of a project between PTD and AOC addressing deficiencies in the initial Human Services Coordinated plans statewide. The research contained herein sought to develop and recommend improvements over Orbis 2009 while updating to meet specific requirements of governing regulations.

Developed:

 New sections

o A Brief History describes efforts of predecessors to this update

o Funding Inventory provides a basic listing of available resources

o Definitions clarifies terms used in ORS and OAR that may not be immediately familiar to readers

o Mission Accomplished identifies completed projects

o For Further Discussion provides promising lines of inquiry for future conversations that exceeded the scope of this update

Recommended:

 Establishment of evaluation criteria

 The use of technology for plan management and maintenance

 A revised coordination model

The recommendations developed in this update attempt to address the condition of the region as it exists with an improved understanding of factors that shape it. Upon implementation, the projects and practices contained herein may assist the served communities in reaching a sustainable level of public mobility services.

In the final analysis this update finds that community mobility may never have been as necessary as it is today. Conversely, for all of its gains over the last decade the network has never been so fragile. Decision makers can look forward to a decade (or more) of difficult choices on competing and worthy priorities. The struggle of the future is likely to be one of improvised preservation rather than innovative growth strategies.

1.0 Introduction:

Plans and Reference Materials Reviewed for This Update: This update reviewed (and makes reference to) plans and guidance already in circulation that have informed the activities in its development. These plans include:

The Wallowa County Transportation Systems Plan (Wallowa County, 1997)

Nonurbanized Formula Program Guidance (FTA 5311 Circular 1998)

The Union County Transportation System Plan (Union County, 1999)

La Grande / Island City Transportation System Plan (La Grande, 1999)

The Baker City Transportation System Plan (Baker City 2005)

Coordination and Connectivity Strategies in Northeast Oregon (FLT 2005)

Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program Guidance and Application Instructions – FTA 5310 Circular #9070.1F (FTA 5310 Circular 2007)

New Freedom Program Guidance and Application (FTA 5317 Circular 2007)

STF Coordinated Plan Version I (Betts, 2007)

City of La Grande Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Plan (BiPed 2007)

Special Transportation Fund Program Guidebook (ODOT STF 2007)

STF Coordinated Plan Version II - Review and Recommendations on Public Transportation Services (Orbis, 2009)

State Management Plan for Public Transit Providers (SMP 2009)

Oregon Administrative Rules Special Transportation Fund Programs (STF 2010)

Assessment of Oregon Department of Transportation’ Section 5311 Grant Allocation Formula (Haire 5311 2010)

Northeast Oregon Economic Development District (NEOEDD 1.0)

Overview of Area and STF Target Population This section presents an overview of demographic characteristics of Baker, Union and Wallowa counties. It is based on demographic data from the 2010 . U.S. Census.

The population of Baker County is approximately 16,000, of which more than half of the residents (9,828 people) reside in Baker City.

The population of Union County is approximately 26,000, of which about half (13,082) reside in La Grande.

In Wallowa County, there are about 7,000 residents. About a quarter of the population or 1,940 residents live in Enterprise.

Figure 1-1 provides demographics for Baker, Union, and Wallowa counties. Actual service area engaged by regional providers is smaller than the Counties themselves, but this information portrays the STF target population of the region.

Figure 1-1 Demographic Characteristics: 2010

Baker % of Union % of Wallowa % of State of % of

County total County total County total Oregon total Total 16,134 25,748 7,008 3,831,074 Population Older Adults 3,185 20% 3,615 14% 1,364 19% 438,177 11% (aged 65+) Persons with 3,748 23% 4,557 18% 1,327 19% 593,301 15% Disability Source: Population Research Center at Portland State University, 2010

As the data indicates, all three counties recorded a higher share of older adults and persons with disabilities than the statewide average. Approximately twenty percent of the population residing in Baker and Wallowa counties consisted of persons aged 65 or older compared to 11 percent for the state as a whole. The regional population is aging. As of the 2010 census Wallowa and Baker Counties were in the top 10 oldest in Oregon.

Source: Population Research Center at Portland State University, 2010

Regional Geography

Baker, Union and Wallowa Counties comprise the entire northeast corner of the state. The region is adjacent to Idaho and Washington but because of rugged terrain there is far less interaction with neighboring states than is enjoyed by other border areas of Oregon. Union and Baker Counties lie along Interstate 84, an important transportation corridor which parallels (more or less) the Old Image 1-1 Oregon Trail. Access to Wallowa County is available via older two lane highway systems.

Population of the tri-county area is low. La Grande is the region’s largest city with an estimated population (combined with its bedroom community of Island City) of 14,071. Small communities separated by great distances are common. Counter intuitively, the residents enjoy one of the shortest travel-to-work times in the state (less than 17 minutes, compared to an Oregon average of over 22 minutes).

Process

This plan stands on the shoulders of those that predate it. It refines rather than retools what has come before. It was developed in consultation with the providers, funders and users of regional mobility services through the review of historic data, surveys, public input meetings and direct stakeholder interviews.

Orbis 2009

This study retained the useful framework of Orbis 2009. It resets projects and priorities consistently with collected inputs. However, by its own admission, Orbis 2009 left unaddressed the compelling questions of sustainable funding options, development of implementation strategies and improving on-going evaluation and forecasting models. This study presents the first “inventory” of available funding options and attaches evaluation methods to its prioritized projects. Coordination however, is presented in this study through the prism of the Oregon Administrative Rules and Federal Transit Administration Circulars which offer a more objective framework.

Betts 2007

The list of deficiencies addressed by Orbis 2009 left little referential value in this plan. Some layout strategies (such as Section 3.0 Definitions) were refined and included in this study.

FLT 2005

During plan review it became apparent that Betts 2007 was an abbreviation of FLT 2005. The primary weakness of FLT 2005 is scope. It predates the necessity of a Coordinated Plan and was written as consultation to a public transit provider.

County and Municipal Transportation System Plans

None of the plans reviewed by Orbis 2009 have been updated since its adoption. However, the City of La Grande is working on an update at the time of this study.

FTA Circulars / STF OARs and Handbook

This study relies heavily on the latest interpretations of governing authority relative to financial support of community mobility services. Wherever possible, references are provided wherever citations are made.

Surveys, Public Meetings and Stakeholder Interviews

See Appendix A for a list of outreach contacts.

See Appendix B for data collections referenced in this update.

2.0 A Brief History:

An effort has been made to present regional mobility in a manner useful to a broad audience. This section catalogs contributing events prior to Orbis 2009 that have not been included in prior plans.

Before Public Transit:

Prior to 1997 all regional providers were Client-Only (see Section 3.0). Local access was provided by a patchwork of nonprofits performing transit as an aside to a core mission. Developmental Disability Group Homes, Veterans Support and Senior Buses constituted the mobility mix.

In 1997, Oregon Department of Transportation’s Public Transit Division took a close look at the Section 5311 funding for Community Connection. The federal support for public transit in rural communities was serving elders and people with disabilities in over 99% of the agency’s trips. It was ODOT’s interpretation that more general public rides were necessary to justify continued use of the resource.

1997-2001:

Community Connection conducted outreach to Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) program and youth riders. During the next four years a system designed to deliver 30,000 rides to high needs riders served almost 60,000 (half of which were consumed by passenger with very different ideas about mobility). The new rides came from latent demand and had no effect on the remaining Client-Only providers.

2001-2003:

In January 2001 a mobility summit was held featuring major transit providers, partners in mobility demand, regional stakeholders and riders. The coalition resolved to draft a planning proposal in the following ODOT Discretionary Grant cycle (sponsored by the Union County Commissioners with Community Connection as the lead agency).

2003-2005:

The planning grant was approved, kicking off a year of research, development of a Technical Advisory Committee and finally the selection of FLT Consulting to provide an action plan (FLT 2005). FLT 2005 essentially became a Coordinated Plan prior to the stipulated requirement of STF regulations. It broke new ground in its treatment and analysis of unmet needs, networking of providers by specialty type, regional connection opportunities, public transit marketing and long term coordination strategies.

By the close of 2005 key elements of FLT 2005 – such as a fixed route in La Grande – had been launched as demonstration projects. Community Connection’s resulting system had become completely public and doubled annual volume. However, it failed to make an impact on demand for service experienced by Client-Only providers.

2005-2007:

This biennium was characterized by innovations called for or inspired by FLT 2005. For the first time the benefits of coordination began impacting Client-Only providers. New Day Enterprises received operations funding through a coordinated Purchased Services Grant drafted by Community Connection and sponsored by Union County. Regionally, the Medicaid Nonmedical transit contract was absorbed by Union County and coordinated through a regional provider for service delivery.

Concurrently, ODOT Public Transit was working through the implementation of a revision to the STF statutes – one aspect of which was the requirement of a three year plan. The first of these (Betts 2007) was facilitated by the Association of Oregon Counties, funded by ODOT Public Transit. Adopted in September 2007, Betts 2007 met the statutory obligations but failed to break new ground relative to FLT 2005.

Based primarily on the strength of successes attributed to FLT 2005, Community Connection was the recipient of Coordinated System of the Year honors at the Oregon Transit Association’s annual conference. The same year they were a successful applicant for the first round of a ConnectOregon capital project – funding a coordinated transit hub serving the region.

2007-2009:

ODOT Public Transit Division hired consultants to review Human Services Coordinated Plans throughout the State, and by the middle of the biennium shortcomings in these first plans were identified. The AOC was once again retained by Public Transit to perform a second round of consultation. The Orbis 2009 plan was the result of this project. During this same period Community Connection, a regional transit provider, also retained Orbis Group to complete a project of its own around regional coordination. Community Connection collaborated with AOC and Orbis developing the two plans congruently, and produced a separate report for its own planning purposes (Review and Recommendations on Public Transportation Services, June 2009).

The most notable development of this biennium was ODOT’s reinterpretation of OAR 732-020-0005.4(b) which calls for a competitive process for the award of biennial Discretionary Grants. Prior to 2007, competition was a statewide proposition. In the

following biennia funding was allocated to STF Agencies based primarily on population. Competition was to occur within the funded jurisdiction.

2009-2011:

The ’09-’11 biennium was characterized by an early funding deficit. The population based allocation model had reduced regionally available resources by almost 40%. Services were preserved by a combination of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act capital and Special Transportation Operations and Jobs and Transit Act of 2009 operational funding. The latter funding source was (at the time) unique in its adherence to FTA 5310 Circular 2007. Regional Client-Only providers who failed to meet the coordination standard were not eligible recipients.

FTA 5310 Circular 2007 notwithstanding, coordination continued between the counties and provider types. New Day Enterprises continued to receive passive Purchased Services support; Union County continued to coordinate Title XIX nonmedical transit; regional Public Transit (Community Connection) expanded coordination to support ARC Cab Company with after hour operation agreements for paratransit riders. The groundbreaking provider inventory cataloged by Orbis 2009 expanded opportunities for providers of all classes to share resources and improve available mobility alternatives.

2011-2013:

At the time of this draft the most significant biennial change has been ODOT Public Transit’s adherence to the coordination standards of FTA 5310 Circular 2007 as they apply to Client-Only providers. Inability to clear the coordination standard has made regional Client-Only providers ineligible to receive Section 5310 and STG (State Discretionary Grants).

As an account of history merged into contemporary speculation, compelling questions of function, eligibility and evaluation emerged. Please see Coordination Revisited and For Further Discussion for more details.

3.0 Definitions:

Whenever possible, transit industry jargon has been kept to a minimum in this update. However, the composition of a technical document frequently requires citation of terms that reflect compliance with standards ore regulations. Terms the reader can expect to encounter include:

“Advisory Committee” means a committee appointed by the Special Transportation Fund Agency to advise and assist the STF Agency in carrying out the purposes of the Special Transportation Fund. OAR 732-005-0010(3)

“Capital Equipment” means tangible property having a useful life of more than a year and an acquisition cost of more than $5,000. Examples include and are not limited to: vehicles, buildings and passenger shelters. OAR 732-005-0010(4)

“Client-Only” refers to transportation providers that only serve riders who are affiliated with their agency in another way. For example, an Assisted Living Facility providing mobility services only to their residents is considered a Client-Only provider.

Composite FTA C9070.1F

“Contract Only” refers to transportation providers that operate under contractual agreement with a larger “Second Tier” provider such as a Medicaid brokerage.

Defined in this process

“Complementary Paratransit” also called Paratransit is a mandate under the Americans with Disabilities Act on every provider of a fixed route service. It requires the provider to make equivalent mobility services available to people who are prevented from using a fixed route due to a disability. Complementary Paratransit providers are obligated to restrict their service only to people who meet an eligibility screening. Paratransit must be available within ¾ of a mile on either side of a fixed route line and during the same schedule as the fixed route system it supports. Paratransit providers are OBLIGATED to provide transit within these conditions as a civil right to eligible riders who request a ride a day in advance.

Defined in this process

“Coordination”

1) For the purpose of the Special Transportation Fund and Special Transportation Operations, coordination means working cooperatively with Providers and other individuals and agencies representing people unable to drive, low- income, Elderly and People with Disabilities, to more effectively apply funding and other resources to meet common transportation needs. Coordination actions reduce duplication of services, reduce costs, increase service levels or make services more widely available in the community. OAR 732-005-0010(5)

2) For the purposes of Section 5310 and the State Discretionary Grant Program (commonly known as STG) coordination means:

a. Provision of service to riders not affiliated with the recipient agency. FTA C9070.1F VI-5a

b. During the period the vehicle is used to serve the project or program for which it was acquired, the sub-recipient shall make it available for use on other projects or programs. FTA C9070.1F VI-5b

c. As it is ODOT Public Transit’s prerogative to do, they have exceeded the FTA standard to include guidance on evidence of coordination under the 5310 and STG programs including:

1. Marketing of (or other attempts to grow use of) the coordinated resource.

2. Formal agreements (contracts, leases, memorandums of understanding) between coordinating partner and a public transit provider.

3. Certificates of Insurance that demonstrate the public transit provider or their driver(s) on the coordinating agency’s insurance policy.

4. Recording and reporting of coordinated hours, miles and rides.

a. Annual Minimum Use standards are as follows:

i. 576 service hours per year ii. 6,000 in-service miles iii. 1,152 passenger rides

“Cut Away” refers to a style of mobility vehicle usually seating between 12 and 30 passengers. Cut Aways are typically transit modified vehicles designed for an RV chassis. See image 3-1.

Image 3-1

“Disabled” or “Person with a Disability” means a person(s) who by reason of illness, injury, advanced age, congenital malfunction or other permanent or temporary incapacity, has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. This definition does not include substance abuse disorders resulting from the illegal use of drugs.

OAR 732-005-0010(6)

“First Tier Provider” means a transit provider who physically produces transit services. Orbis 2009

“Elderly” or “Seniors” means individuals who are 60 years of age or over. OAR 732-005-0010(12)

“Formula Allocation” means an amount of STF moneys made available to the STF Agency on the basis of the STF Agency’s share of resident population in proportion to the population of the state as a whole. OAR 732-005-0010(13)

“Legacy Capital” means a capital asset such as a vehicle that is past its Useful Life but due to regular maintenance and serviceable condition remains an asset to the community it serves. Typically Legacy Capital is liquidated from the fleet of its original purchaser at a discount to another provider in the public interest for use in work similar in intent to the criteria for its original purchase. Legacy Capital can also be shared and coordinated between providers without transfer of ownership.

Defined in this process

“Operations” means the provision of transportation services. OAR 732-005-0010(18)

“Provider” means a city, county, district, Indian tribe or any other person or agency, whether public or private, that maintains, operates or sponsors vehicles and facilities for Public Transportation Services for profit or on a nonprofit or voluntary basis. OAR 732-005-0010(22)

“Public Transportation Services” means any form of passenger transportation by car, bus, rail or other conveyance, either publicly or privately owned, which provides service to the general public (not including charter or sightseeing or exclusive school bus) on a regular and continuing basis. Such transportation may include services designed to meet the needs of a specific user group, including for the Elderly and People with Disabilities, and for purposes such as health care, shopping, education, employment, public services, personal business or recreation. OAR 732-005-0010(23)

“Second Tier Provider” means transit providers who order or purchase transit services but do not physically produce them. Orbis 2009

“Secure Transport” means the delivery of passenger In Custody or On Diversion to an Approved Holding Hospital or a Nonhospital facility. OAR 309-033-0432

“Special Transportation Fund” also “STF” means moneys generated by a tax on cigarettes, or from other sources, appropriated to ODOT Public Transit Division for distribution to STF Agencies for the purpose of financing and improving transportation programs and services for the Elderly and People with Disabilities. OAR 732-005-0010(27)

“STF Agency” means the mass transit district, transportation district, county in which no part of a mass transit or transportation district is located or Indian tribe that is eligible to receive STF moneys directly from the Division. OAR 732-005-0010(29)

“STF Plan” means a plan developed by the STF Agency to guide the investment of STF moneys over at least a three year period. OAR 732-005-0010(30)

“Coordinated Plan” means federal transit law, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, requiring projects selected for funding under the Section 5310, Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom programs to be “derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan” and that the plan be “developed through a process that includes representatives of public, private and non- profit transportation and human services providers and participation by members of the public”.

FTA C9070.1F V-1

“Transit Advisory Council” also known as TAC, means an board of stakeholders in each county that advised the public transit provider and contributes toward the development of the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. Defined by FLT 2005

4.0 Provider Inventory:

Key Updates

As a part of this inquiry an inventory of the region’s existing transit providers was updated.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian and Corridor Assessment featured in Orbis 2009 were removed from this update. In its efforts to be comprehensive, Orbis 2009 often included items beyond the intended scope of this plan. It is not for example, within the STF Committee’s purview to make recommendations on paving of an Interstate or the condition of a local sidewalk, irrespective of their value to your providers and consumers. When necessary, relevant data points have been addressed through citations to the appropriate plan.

The section on Interstate Mobility was likewise edited from this revision pursuant to a more objective interpretation of regional coordination.

Actionable data that informs the local discretionary funding discussion was requested from the providers in this update. Specifically, fleet size, ADA capacity, replacement scheduling and annual cost of ownership was measured and reported by most traditional grant recipients. An inquiry into receptivity and barriers to the future of Coordination (See Section 5) was also solicited.

The Annual Cost of Ownership considered three variables: Insurance, Maintenance and Cost of Replacement. The last factor is in itself variable based upon the type of vehicle, replacement cost, anticipated useful life and the match requirements of replacement grant funding (10.27% is the common rate on traditional funding sources profiled in 10-1). The following illustration is used to demonstrate the Annual Cost concept throughout this update. A MS Excel calculator is included in the accompanying CD.

2009 Chevy Arboc – 14 passenger lowered floor ADA accessible Cutaway

Purchase Price Local Match Useful Life Annual Replacement Cost

108,324 10.27% 10 Years $1,112

Annual Insurance $1,848

Annual Maintenance $1,122

Annual Cost of Ownership $4,082

Annual cost of ownership is in effect, a expression of the duplicated expense from provider to provider. It considers the cost of each vehicle in inventory before fuel and human resources. It can therefore be considered a premium that agencies (and their underwriters) are paying to preserve each vehicle that is not (or cannot be) deployed in a coordinated manner.

First Tier Providers

This update preserves the provider dichotomy pioneered by Orbis 2009. Entities appearing in the First Tier are providers who physically produce regional mobility services. They have been broken into two classes.

Class A = Providers who are open to the general public

Class B = Client-Only providers

Class A Providers

ARC Cab Company______

ARC Cab Company Type of Service Mode Community Served Public Demand Response Union County, some out of county Cab Fare Dispatch Model Schedule Variable Via cell phone 24 / 7 /365

ARC Cab Company operates two cabs in the Union County area each with the capacity for 4 passengers but lacks ADA accessibility. ARC is currently producing around 1,000 rides per month (12,000 for the year). This number shows a continued decrease in ridership since 2008 (16,172) and 2009 (13,000). They dispatch via cell phone to keep operating expenses low. They have no public office or facility.

Passengers:

ARC Cab Company serves the general public. They offer a list of demand responsive access to most of the region. Everyday needs fulfilled by the cab include shopping, medical appointments and employment destinations.

Cab fares vary by destination:

ARC Cab Fares Origin to Destination General Elderly

Inside La Grande / Island City $8 $5 La Grande to Cove or Union $23 $23 La Grande to Elgin $25 $25 La Grande to North Powder $36 $36 La Grande to Baker City $75 $75 La Grande to Pendleton $90 $90

ARC does not track categories of passengers and cannot provide percentages.

Passengers:

Current Coordinated Support:

ARC Cab Company coordinated with Community Connection to help provide rides for paratransit clients for service after hours.

Fleet:

ARC owns and operates two sedans. The Sedans are not ADA accessible.

Fleet Replacement Schedule Snapshot 0 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years 2 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0% Fleet Composition Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan 0% 0% 0% 100% Estimated Annual Cost of Replacement at 10.27% Local Match $1,550 $675 $493 $370

ARC Cab’s estimated cost of insurance and maintenance is $5,250 per vehicle. For the sake of consistency, ARC’s annual cost of ownership is around $5,600. While capital funding opportunities outside of private funding is rare for ARC Cab, the estimate doesn’t change significantly when late model sedans, five year useful life estimates and 100% private capitalization assumptions are applied.

Coordination Interest:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop

When they need more capacity

When they need a larger vehicles

If the cost for using the vehicle covers insurance and maintenance AND is less X expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if available when they need it X

When they need additional ADA capacity X

Coordination efforts with ARC Cab have been (and are likely to remain) a mixed bag. Designated parking and Cab Shift Change space has recently been developed at the Northeast Oregon Public Transit Hub. While Coordinated Legacy Capital demonstrates promise, there are insurance contingencies that will require more work – specifically, workman’s compensation coverage for drivers who are essentially independent contractors in ARC’s model.

Baker Cab Company______

Baker Cab Company Type of Service Mode Community Served Public Demand Response Baker City and Baker County Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule Via cell phone 24 / 7 /365

Baker Cab Company did not respond to the invitation to participate in this update. Absence of participation was likewise noted by Orbis 2009, Betts 2007 and FLT 2005. The information in this profile was compiled from the entries in previous reports and from publicly available sources.

Detailed fare information was not available but a Google search indicated that Baker Cab offers discounts to seniors on Wednesdays and Sundays. This discovery is worthy of mention because (when coupled with other gathered data) it appears to indicate the use of fares to target a heavy use demographic on otherwise low volume days. Baker Cab may be the only provider indentified in this update that is attempting to use fare incentives as an effective Transit Demand Management strategy.

Passengers:

This update was unable to learn specifics about the users of Baker Cab Company’s services. In previous studies (specifically FLT 2005) they have not enjoyed the same passenger confidence as ARC Cab in La Grande – where parallel clientele and outcomes are presumed to exist. However, between studies Baker Cab has changed ownership.

Fleet:

Nothing was reported on the size or condition of Baker Cab Company’s fleet.

Current Coordination Support:

At the time of this update, no coordination support or interest has been reported from Baker Cab Company. However, the recent change in ownership may indicate renewed opportunities. Future updates should continue to solicit input from this under represented partner in regional mobility.

Community Connection of Northeast Oregon Inc.

Community Connection – which also operates services under the name Northeast Oregon Public Transit – provides mobility services in multiple modes in Baker, Union and Wallowa Counties. For the purposes of clarity and formatting, each service is delineated and summarized by county.

Baker County Community Connection operates four services in Baker County:

 Fixed Route serving Baker City  Complementary Paratransit serving Baker City  InterCity from Baker City to La Grande  Demand Response service in Richland and Halfway

In addition, Community Connection provides the communities of Baker County with Medicaid Contract service and special mobility for incidental and event driven demand.

The Baker City Trolley Type of Service Mode Community Served Public Fixed Route Baker City Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule T $1.00 Two Way Radio 7am to 6pm Monday thru Friday

The Baker City Trolley runs on a one hour headway connecting St. Elizabeth Health Services, the Baker City Truck Corral and six formal stops in between (see Appendix E). Service runs from 7:00 am-6:00 pm Monday through Friday.

Passengers:

Passengers on the Baker City Trolley are predominantly general public riders. Neither the elderly nor passengers with disabilities are estimated to consume more than 5% of the annual 11,000 deliveries they produce.

Baker City Paratransit Type of Service Mode Community Served Public Paratransit Baker City Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule $2.00 Two Way Radio 7am to 6pm Monday thru Friday

Passengers:

Baker City Paratransit utilizes an application based eligibility process consistent with its obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to reserve the service for people who are prevented from using a fixed route due to a disability. By definition, all of their 207 unduplicated riders are living with a disability (which may or may not be the result of advanced age). The agency produces an estimated 15,000 deliveries using this service every year.

The Baker Bow Type of Service Mode Community Served Public InterCity Baker City, La Grande and cities between Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule Variable Two Way Radio 7 am to 6:15 pm Monday thru Friday

The Baker Bow is an InterCity route serving Baker City, La Grande and the communities of Haines and North Powder in route. Bus fares vary with the origin, destination and whether or not the passenger intends to ride one way or round trip.

Baker Bow Bus Fares Origin to Destination One Way Round Trip

Baker City to Haines $2 $3 Baker City to North Powder $4 $6 Baker City to La Grande $5 $8 Haines to North Powder $2 $3 Haines to La Grande $5 $7 North Powder to La Grande $4 $6

Passengers:

The Baker Bow produces an estimated 3,000 annual rides. Elders and Passengers with Disabilities combine to consume less than 7% of these deliveries.

Baker County Rural Demand Response Type of Service Mode Community Served Public Demand Response Halfway, Richland, Baker City Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule Variable Two Way Radio Variable – Mon, Wed, Thr, Fri

Baker County Rural Demand Response is a bus deployed in Halfway that also serves Richland and Baker City once per week.

Demand Response serves Richland and Halfway on Monday and Thursday, respectively. The bus comes to Baker City (passing through each rural community in route) on Wednesdays.

Passengers:

The services on Monday and Thursday are used predominantly by the elderly for access the Area Agency on Aging Congregate Meal Sites and related services in each community. The Wednesday service to Baker City features more diversity than any other rural Demand Response route in the agency’s regional profile.

During the research phase of Orbis 2009 access to mental health care was identified as a significant barrier in the Pine Valley section of the Baker County. The county’s mental health provider and Public Transit worked together to develop a Friday route and refined intake schedule. These riders contribute heavily toward the demographic diversity of the passenger profile in an otherwise typical rural service.

This service is estimated to produce 2,700 trips per year. More than 75% of the trips are consumed by the elderly and riders with disabilities. Almost all of the remaining rides are delivered to people seeking county seat services in Baker City.

Incidentals:

In addition to the foregoing, Community Connection in Baker County provides seasonal access to the Anthony Lakes Ski Resort, mobility during three day holiday weekends for festivals in Sumpter and approximately 1,000 medical access trips using volunteers in private vehicles.

Fleet:

Community Connection operates a fleet of 10 vehicles in Baker County (90% are wheelchair accessible).

Fleet Replacement Schedule Snapshot 0 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years 3 2 3 0% 30% 20% 30% Fleet Composition Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan 10% 50% 10% 30% Estimated Annual Cost of Replacement at 10.27% Local Match $1,550 $675 $493 $370

Baker County spends an estimated $1,900 per vehicle on insurance, licensing and maintenance annually. Estimated aggregate replacement cost is $675 per inventory unit for a total Annual Cost of Ownership of $2,575.

Coordination:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop X

When they need more capacity X

When they need a larger vehicles X

If the cost for using the vehicle covers X insurance and maintenance AND is less expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if X available when they need it

When they need additional ADA X capacity

Other –

Community Connection – Baker County satisfies its coordination obligation under FTA 5310 Circular 2007 by operating public fixed routes, complementary paratransit support and demand responsive services. The agency exceeds the expectation by making its vehicles available to other providers (a practice in the process of formalization – See Resource Sharing in the Program of Projects).

Union County Community Connection operates three services in Union County:

 Fixed Route serving La Grande and Island City  Complementary Paratransit serving La Grande and Island City  Demand Response service in Elgin, North Powder and Union

In addition, Community Connection provides the communities of Union County with Medicaid Contract service and special mobility for incidental and event driven demand.

The La Grande / Island City Trolley Type of Service Mode Community Served Public Fixed Route La Grande, Island City Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule $1.50 Two Way Radio 7:30am to 5:30pm Monday thru Friday

The La Grande / Island City Trolley runs on a one hour headway connecting Eastern Oregon University, Wal-Mart and six formal stops in between (see Appendix E). Service runs from 7:30 am-5:30 pm Monday through Friday.

Passengers:

Passengers on the La Grande / Island City Trolley are predominantly general public riders. Neither the elderly nor passengers with disabilities are estimated to consume more than 5% of the annual 38,000 deliveries they produce.

La Grande / Island City Paratransit Type of Service Mode Community Served Public Paratransit La Grande Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule $2.50 Two Way Radio 7:30am to 5:30pm Monday thru Friday

Passengers:

La Grande / Island City Paratransit utilizes an application based eligibility process consistent with its obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to reserve the service for people who are prevented from using a fixed route due to a disability. By definition, all of their 545 unduplicated riders are living with a disability (which may or may not be the result of advanced age). The agency produces an estimated 18,000 deliveries using this service every year.

Union County Rural Demand Response Type of Service Mode Community Served Public Demand Response Elgin, North Powder, Union, La Grande Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule Variable Two Way Radio Variable – Mon, Wed, Thr, Fri

Union County Rural Demand Response deploys local buses in Elgin, North Powder and Union. Services operate on the following schedule:

Union County Demand Response Schedule Origin to Destination Day Schedule

Union to Union Tues 10 am – 2 pm Union to La Grande Wed 10 am – 3 pm Elgin to La Grande Wed 10 am – 3 pm North Powder to La Grande Wed 10 am – 3 pm Elgin to Elgin Thr 10 am – 2 pm Union to North Powder Fri 10 am – 3 pm North Powder to North Powder Fri 10 am – 2 pm

Bus fare for Demand Responsive services is $2 per day for unlimited service within the community of origin and $3.50 per day for unlimited service outside of the community.

Passengers:

Passengers using Demand Response services are almost exclusively elderly. The most common use of transit is access to community meal programs for the elderly operated by Elgin Community Center, Union United Methodist Church and Wolf Creek Grange in North Powder. Community Connection uses incidental and event driven demand to reach the annual Minimum Use Standard.

Fleet:

Community Connection operates a fleet of 13 vehicles in Union County (11 are wheelchair accessible).

Fleet Replacement Schedule Snapshot 0 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years 4 3 1 31% 23% 8% 0% Fleet Composition Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan 8% 54% 8% 31% Estimated Annual Cost of Replacement at 10.27% Local Match $1,550 $675 $493 $370

Union County spends an estimated $2,577 per vehicle on insurance, licensing and maintenance annually. Estimated aggregate replacement cost is $550 per inventory unit for a total Annual Cost of Ownership of $3,127.

Coordination:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop X

When they need more capacity X

When they need a larger vehicles X

If the cost for using the vehicle covers X insurance and maintenance AND is less expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if X available when they need it

When they need additional ADA X capacity

Other –

Community Connection – Union County satisfies its coordination obligation under FTA 5310 Circular 2007 by operating public fixed routes, complementary paratransit support and demand responsive services. The agency exceeds the expectation by making its vehicles available to other providers (a practice in the process of formalization – See Resource Sharing in the Program of Projects).

Wallowa County Community Connection operates four services in Wallowa County:

 Demand Response general public Dial-a-Ride in Enterprise  InterCity service between Joseph and La Grande  Commuter bus service between Wallowa and Enterprise  Seasonal Deviated Fixed Route service between Wallowa and Wallowa Lake

In addition, Community Connection provides the communities of Wallowa County with Medicaid Contract and incidental service for event driven demand.

Wallowa County Public Demand Response Dial-a-Ride Type of Service Mode Community Served Public Demand Response Enterprise, Joseph, Wallowa Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule $3.00 Two Way Radio Variable – Mon, Tue, Wed, Fri

Wallowa County Demand Response Dial-a-Ride operates different days and schedules designed to the needs of the communities served.

Wallowa County Demand Response Schedule Communities Served Day Schedule Enterprise and Joseph Tues 8:30 am to 2:30 pm Wallowa and Enterprise M-W-F 10:00 am to 2:30 pm

Passengers:

Passengers on Wallowa County’s Demand Response Dial-a-Ride are diverse. Of the estimated 5,600 annual rides they deliver, almost 20% are consumed by general public riders, 10% by passengers with disabilities and the balance to their traditional elderly service population.

The Wallowa Link Type of Service Mode Community Served Public InterCity Joseph, Enterprise, Lostine, Wallowa, Elgin, Imbler, Island City, La Grande T Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule $5.00 Two Way Radio Monday and Thursday

The Wallowa Link runs between Joseph and La Grande serving the communities of Enterprise, Lostine, Wallowa, Elgin, Imbler and Island City in route. The schedule is carefully synchronized to arrivals and departures of Greyhound Lines in La Grande. See Appendix E for route and scheduling information.

Passengers:

The Wallowa Link is a lifeline for the last otherwise unconnected corner of the state. The service delivers more rides to the elderly and people with disabilities than the Baker Bow and the (now defunct) La Grande Arrow combined.

Wallowa County Commuter Type of Service Mode Community Served Public Commuter Wallowa, Lostine, Enterprise Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule $3.00 Two Way Radio Mon – Fri 7:15 am and 5:00 pm

The Wallowa Commuter runs between Wallowa and Enterprise (serving the community of Lostine in route).

Passengers:

Passengers on the Wallowa Commuter are almost exclusively Job Access and Reverse Commute riders. The service delivers an estimated 1,500 deliveries each year.

Wallowa County Seasonal Deviated Fixed Route Type of Service Mode Community Served Public Deviated Route Wallowa, Lostine, Enterprise, Joseph Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule $1.50 Two Way Radio Mon – Fri 7:00 am and 4:00 pm

Wallowa County’s deviated fixed route system runs between Wallowa and Wallowa Lake beginning (traditionally) Memorial Day Weekend and ending in late September. The route is not subject to the Complementary Paratransit obligations of Baker City and La Grande’s fixed routes because it deviates for anyone, upon request.

Passengers:

During the summer months, the population of Wallowa County can easily double with seasonal tourists. The Deviated Route system serves Job Access and Reverse Commute riders who access Wallowa Lake for temporary work and (increasingly) tourists for whom a bus ride to town is preferable to unhooking and driving an RV.

Fleet:

Community Connection operates a fleet of 8 vehicles in Wallowa – all of which feature wheelchair accessibility.

Fleet Replacement Schedule Snapshot 0 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years 4 1 0 50% 13% 0% 0% Fleet Composition Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan 0% 63% 13% 24% Estimated Annual Cost of Replacement at 10.27% Local Match $1,550 $675 $493 $370

Wallowa County spends an estimated $2,834 per vehicle on insurance, licensing and maintenance annually. Estimated aggregate replacement cost is $650 per inventory unit for a total Annual Cost of Ownership of $3,484.

Coordination:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop X

When they need more capacity X

When they need a larger vehicles X

If the cost for using the vehicle covers X insurance and maintenance AND is less expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if X available when they need it

When they need additional ADA X capacity

Other –

Community Connection – Wallowa County satisfies its coordination obligation under FTA 5310 Circular 2007 by operating public fixed routes, complementary paratransit support and demand responsive services. The agency exceeds the expectation by making its vehicles available to other providers (a practice in the process of formalization – See Resource Sharing in the Program of Projects).

Moffit Brothers______

Moffit Brothers Type of Service Mode Community Served Charter Charter Western States Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule Quote based Scheduled trips Client demand Moffit Brothers serves the general public on a contract for service basis. They run charter buses in the Portland area for gambling excursions, scenic tours and festival events in the region. They also contract with the school districts in Wallowa and Enterprise, and on occasion with EOU. They operate adventure tours out of Kennewick Washington as well.

Fleet:

Moffit Brothers operates 10 school busses (two for activities), and 9 charter buses all with a 47 passenger capacity, and one charter bus in Portland with a 52 passenger capacity. None of the buses are ADA accessible according to letter of the law. There are no lifts. They mention that they can accommodate wheelchair passengers if they are transferable and able to get on the bus on their own. They have room to store collapsible wheelchairs. They can rent accessible buses with enough advance notice.

Fleet Replacement Schedule Snapshot 0 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% Fleet Composition Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan 100% 0% 0% 0% Estimated Annual Cost of Replacement at 10.27% Local Match $1,550 $675 $493 $370

Moffit Brothers schedules buses for refurbishment rather than replacement. Major component overhauls are performed to avoid new purchases. Insurance and Maintenances costs (which for the purpose of the Moffit model include those in lieu of replacement) can reach as high as $7,000 annually per vehicle.

Coordination Interests:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop

When they need more capacity

When they need a larger vehicles

If the cost for using the vehicle covers insurance and maintenance AND is less X expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if available when they need it X

When they need additional ADA X – but capacity very low

frequency event

Other – X

The Coordinated Legacy Capital project proposed in Section 9 presents an excellent opportunity to assist Moffit Brothers with hedging their need for ADA Accessible equipment.

Class B Providers

Caveat:

Class B Providers (those who provide services only to a defined clientele) presented this update with a diverse range of data quality. The respondent with the most experience with Discretionary Grants (New Day Enterprises) provided the most comprehensive data sets. The rest were compiled from a combination of their responses, previous plans and publicly available information sources.

To preserve a common denominator, a second inquiry was made of representative Class B providers using various vehicle sizes. The providers were presented with the expenses reported by New Day Enterprises and then asked to estimate whether or not the costs were consistent with their expectations of their own fleet. In the event that the respondent indicated the New Day model was inconsistent with the cost profile of their own fleet, a follow up question was prepared to estimate (by way of percentage) the difference. This question turned out to be unnecessary.

The data acquisition strategy for Class B Providers was a statistical trade off. Asking a leading question of people who are not primarily engaged in the delivery of regional mobility has resulted in a New Day Enterprises profile baseline by consensus. On the other hand, doing so has provided an educated estimate that prevents the complete invalidation of the Annual Cost of Ownership model through the absence of actionable data.

When appropriate, the consensus model was refined during the construction of the provider profile to reflect the influence of variables such as annual use and availability of public replacement capital funding. Notation has been appended in each instance where these modifications were made.

Alpine House______

Alpine House Type of Service Mode Community Served Client-Only Demand Response Wallowa County Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule None Demand Response Alpine House provides an outing every month for residents of their assisted living facility. They are staffed to provide rides to residents for medical appointments except in an emergency.

Passengers:

Alpine House is an assisted living facility in Wallowa County. All of their clients are seniors and people with disabilities. They indicated that 70% of these residents are of low income. They provide 12 rides a month.

Fleet:

Alpine House operates one ADA accessible vehicle.

Fleet Replacement Schedule Snapshot 0 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 0% 0% Fleet Composition Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan 0% 0% 100% 0% Estimated Annual Cost of Replacement at 10.27% Local Match $775 $338 $247 $185

Staff at Alpine House was unable to provide a cost of insurance and maintenance for their support vehicle.

Modifications: The maintenance component of the consensus baseline was reduced to 8.5% of the New Day profile to compensate for the dramatically lower use. Annual replacement reserves were also reduced to account for improved anticipated Useful Life based on the very low requirement for annual hours, miles and rides.

The refined Estimated Annual Cost of Ownership for Alpine House is $1,031 per vehicle.

Coordination Interests:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop

When they need more capacity

When they need a larger vehicles

If the cost for using the vehicle covers insurance and maintenance AND is less X expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if available when they need it X

When they need additional ADA capacity X

Baker County Disabled American Veterans Association

Step Forward Type of Service Mode Community Served Client-Only Demand Response Baker City to VA Medical Center in Boise Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule None Appointment Appointment Driven Demand Response The DAV van only transports veterans to medical appointments at the VA medical center in Boise.

Passengers:

50-80% of the veterans are over the age of 60. The majority are disabled. 100% of non-veteran passengers are the spouses of the veterans traveling. They provide an estimated 36 rides a month.

Fleet:

Baker County DAV Association operates one straight van that is not ADA accessible.

The DAV owns and operates the van through VA Medical Centers. The VA proper pays for the insurance. These costs were not made available to the Baker County DAV Association. The DAV maintains and services the van while it is being used. No figures were submitted by the DAV.

Modification: forgoing insurance and replacement costs borne by a Federal benefactor, the maintenance was reduced to 17% of the New Day consensus standard to compensate for dramatically lower volume but significantly higher miles per trip metrics.

The refined Estimated Annual Cost of Ownership for Baker County Disabled American Veteran Association is $68 annually making it the least expensive (at least to the local provider) in this update.

Coordination Interests:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop

When they need more capacity

When they need a larger vehicles

If the cost for using the vehicle covers insurance and maintenance AND is less X expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if available when they need it X

When they need additional ADA capacity X

Barriers to effective coordination with DAV are bidirectional. The bureaucracy of the Veteran’s Administration makes shared use of everything from capital equipment to volunteers cumbersome at best. From a local perspective, it’s difficult (if not impossible) to meet the economy of local match provided by DAV.

Center for Human Development _____

Center for Human Development Type of Service Mode Community Served Client-Only Demand Response Mostly Union County Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule None Appointment Appointment Driven Demand Response CHD provides rides for clients of their mental health, alcohol and drug recovery, and developmental disability programs.

Passengers:

CHD declined to share the category of riders or the number of rides provided on a monthly basis.

Fleet:

CHD operates a fleet of 14 vehicles, the majority of which (9 – 64%) are two or four door passenger cars. Three of their vehicles feature ADA accessibility. They declined to respond to the replacement dates for the majority of the fleet. They simply mentioned that one to two would need to be replaced this year.

Fleet Snapshot 0 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years 2 0 0 0 14% 0% 0% 0% Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan 0% 7% 14% 79% Estimated Annual Cost or Replacement at 10.27% Local Match $1,550 $675 $493 $370

Cost to Operate fleet:

CHD did not provide any information about insurance or maintenance costs.

Modification: Center for Human Development’s Annual Cost of Ownership Profile was compiled from a more representative source than the New Day consensus. Specifically, sedans, straight vans, mini vans and sedans are all operated by Community Connection in Union County so an analog was easily developed.

Community Connection’s annual cost by vehicle type was reduced to 34% of insurance and maintenance based on a comparison of actual miles since the inventory compiled by Orbis 2009. The resulting baseline is as follows:

Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan $2,612 $1,987 $1,563 $1,088

CHD’s adjusted Annual Cost of Ownership came to $1,338 per vehicle. This refined estimate is heavily influenced by the presence of less expensive consumer grade sedans in their fleet.

Coordination Interest:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop

When they need more capacity

When they need a larger vehicles

If the cost for using the vehicle covers insurance and maintenance AND is less X expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if available when they need it X

When they need additional ADA capacity X

Other – If there was damage to the X vehicle upon sharing

Type of vehicle that we didn’t have X that we needed to use (pickup or something)

The Center for Human Development is the most enthusiastic potential coordination partner identified by this study. On paper their costs appear contained by their reliance on passenger vehicles. However, the regular use of transit style vehicles that justifies their initial capitalization is a persistent drag on the efficiency of CHD’s core mission. The Coordinated Legacy Capital Project in Section 9 could act to reduce both per trip and per vehicle costs within the larger system. The realized savings in insurance alone could be annually significant.

At the time of this update, Center for Human Development is coordinating with Community Connection in the form of bus ticket purchases and referral of rides performed under contract with Cascades East Ride Center.

Grande Ronde Retirement Residence

Grande Ronde Retirement Residence Type of Service Mode Community Served Client-Only Demand Response La Grande Only Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule None Appointment/schedule Demand Response Residents at Grande Ronde Retirement Residence are scheduled for medical appointments on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, and into the afternoons when additional time is required. They also provide shopping trips three times a week for the residents.

Passengers:

Grande Ronde Retirement Residence is an independent living and long term assistive care facility in La Grande. GRRR serves clients whom are all over the age of 60. GRRR indicates that they have zero clients with disabilities. They provide an estimated 50 rides a month for their clients.

Fleet:

GRRR operates 1 vehicle which features ADA accessibility.

Fleet Snapshot 0 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years 0 0 1 100% Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan 100% Estimated Annual Cost or Replacement at 10.27% Local Match N/A $675 N/A N/A

Cost to Operate fleet:

GRRR did not provide any information about insurance or maintenance costs.

Based on the New Day Consensus model, Grande Ronde Retirement Residence’s Annual Cost of Ownership is estimated at $1,488 per vehicle.

Coordination Interest:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop

When they need more capacity

When they need a larger vehicles

If the cost for using the vehicle covers insurance and maintenance AND is less X expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if available when they need it X

When they need additional ADA capacity X

Other – for use of Medicaid Residents X

Meadowbrook Place______

Meadowbrook Place Type of Service Mode Community Served Client-Only Demand Response Baker City Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule None Appointment Demand Response Meadowbrook Place did not respond to the profile inquiry. Publicly available information indicates that Meadowbrook Place residents rely on facility buses and Community Connection of Baker County for their mobility needs for medical transport.

Passengers:

Meadowbrook Place is an assisted living facility serving clients over the age of 60.

Fleet:

Meadowbrook Place did not respond to the profile inquiry. Publicly available information indicates that Meadowbrook Place operates 3 vehicles (one of which is ADA accessible) with an average capacity of 10 passengers each for the service of their residents.

Fleet Snapshot 0 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years N/A N/A N/A N/A

Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan 0% 0% 33% 67% Estimated Annual Cost or Replacement at 10.27% Local Match N/A N/A $493 $370

Cost to Operate fleet:

Meadowbrook Place did not respond to the profile inquiry.

Based on the New Day Consensus model, Meadowbrook’s Annual Cost of Ownership is estimated at $1,520 per vehicle.

Coordination Interests:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop

When they need more capacity

When they need a larger vehicles

If the cost for using the vehicle covers insurance and maintenance AND is less

expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if available when they need it

When they need additional ADA capacity

New Day Enterprises

New Day Enterprises Type of Service Mode Community Served Client-Only Demand Response Primarily La Grande Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule None Assignment / Contract Demand Response Passengers:

All of the passengers within New Day’s system are living with a disability (14 are over age 60 as well). They reside in the agency’s six group homes (half of which are characterized by the presence of medically frail clients). They consume an estimated 52,500 trips annually.

New Day Enterprises utilizes two different delivery styles (both demand responsive by design) benefiting adults living with Developmental Disabilities in La Grande.

Supported Vocational Workshops and Contracts:

Service is delivered on a scheduled basis pursuant to the requirements of the worksite or contract.

Group Home Support:

New Day’s group homes each feature a resident support vehicle that is available 24 hours a day for scheduled and emergent medical needs.

Fleet:

New Day Enterprises operates a fleet of 29 vehicles; 7 of their vehicles feature ADA accessibility.

Fleet Replacement Schedule Snapshot 0 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years 3 12 9 5 10% 41% 31% 18% Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan 0% 0% 53% 30% Estimated Annual Cost or Replacement at 10.27% Local Match N/A N/A $493 $370

New Day estimates the annual cost of insurance and maintenance at $1,150 per vehicle. Based on the passenger delivery inventory profile provided by the agency, the annual replacement cost adds another $450 to each vehicle for a total annual cost of ownership around $1,600.

Coordination:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop X

When they need more capacity X

When they need a larger vehicles X

If the cost for using the vehicle covers X insurance and maintenance AND is less expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if X available when they need it

When they need additional ADA X capacity

Other – Disaster / client relocation X

– Sharing their vehicles when they are not in use

Settler’s Park Assisted Living Facility

Settler’s Park Assisted Living Facility Type of Service Mode Community Served Client-Only Demand Response Baker City Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule None Appointment/scheduled Demand Response Residents are transported for doctor appointments on Tuesday and Thursday mornings and Wednesday afternoons. They also provide shopping trips on Mondays.

Passengers:

Settler’s Park operates a memory care and assisted living facility in Baker City. Settlers Park residents are both seniors and people with disabilities. The majority are of low income. They do not track the number of trips provided and did not submit an estimate.

Fleet:

Settler’s Park operates 1 ADA accessible cutaway bus. They stated that they have no schedule for replacing the vehicle.

Fleet Snapshot 0 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years N/A N/A N/A N/A

Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan N/A 100% N/A N/A Estimated Annual Cost or Replacement at 10.27% Local Match N/A $675 N/A N/A

Cost to Operate fleet:

Settler’s Park did not provide any information about insurance or maintenance costs.

Based on the New Day Consensus Model Settler’s Park’s Estimated Annual Cost of Ownership is $1,375 per vehicle.

Coordination Interests:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop

When they need more capacity

When they need a larger vehicles

If the cost for using the vehicle covers insurance and maintenance AND is less X expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if available when they need it X

When they need additional ADA capacity X

Step Forward______

Step Forward Type of Service Mode Community Served Public/Client-Only Demand Response Baker City/within one mile of Baker City Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule None Appointment/scheduled 6am to 11pm Daily Step Forward provides demand response services for it clients seven days per week. Vehicles are on standby during the hours they are not in scheduled use. Vocationally, vehicles operate 8:00 am to 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday for the occupational commutes of community group home residents. Step Forward also serves Eastern Oregon Support Services brokerage clients, which includes adult foster care.

Passengers:

Step Forward serves the residential and occupational needs of semi- independent adults living with developmental disabilities in Baker City. They indicate 70% of their riders are living with a disability, 6% are over the age of 60 and 24% are other passengers who are not low income. They average 2,170 rides a month.

Fleet:

Step Forward operates 10 vehicles, 3 of which are ADA accessible. They declined to share vehicle classifications or plans for replacement except to state that their fleet is aging and they would like to replace all the vehicles within the next five years. They mentioned that there is no state money available for vehicle replacement and they anticipate difficulty with filling this need.

Cost to Operate fleet:

Step Forward indicates insurance and maintenance cost averaging $1,828 per vehicle. The New Day Consensus standard has been applied to cost average cost of replacement to arrive at an Annual Cost of Ownership estimate of $2,350.

Coordination Interests:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop

When they need more capacity

When they need a larger vehicles

If the cost for using the vehicle covers insurance and maintenance AND is less X expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if available when they need it X

When they need additional ADA capacity X

Union County Disabled American Veterans-La Grande_____

Union County DAV Type of Service Mode Community Served Client-Only Demand Response La Grande to Wall Walla VA Medical Center Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule None Appointment Demand Response The DAV van is run with two volunteer drivers. It runs to Wainwright Memorial VA Medical Center in Walla Walla. Appointments are arranged and provided by volunteers.

Passengers:

The veterans served by the DAV van are all ambulatory (it is not ADA accessible). Liability insurance and training costs for drivers has prevented the VA from owning and operating ADA accessible vehicles. The current volunteer driver makes 3 to 5 deliveries a month.

Fleet:

The Wainwright Memorial VA Medical Center owns the DAV van which is on loan to CBOC (Veteran’s Clinic) in La Grande. It’s a non-accessible straight van with a 12 passenger capacity. The van currently has about 85,000 miles on it (anticipated for replacement by the Veterans Administration at 150,000 miles). Absence of reliable volume has made the on-going availability of this resource uncertain for the last several years.

Costs and Coordination:

All operations costs are provided by Wainwright Memorial VA Medical Center. As a result, there are no coordination opportunities with this provider.

Wallowa Valley Center for Wellness______

Wallowa Valley Center for Wellness Type of Service Mode Community Served Client-Only Demand Response Wallowa County Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule Currently None Appointment Demand Response WVCW occasionally takes individual outside of the county for medical appointments, recreation, or meetings in Salem where medical health consumers are meeting.

Passengers:

Wallowa Valley Center for Wellness did not respond to category of passengers but mentioned the transport of individuals for medical appointments who cannot wait for Cascade East Ride Center indicating Medicaid eligible clients. WVCW does not track rides.

Fleet:

Wallowa Valley Center for Wellness operates a fleet of 8 vehicles, one is ADA accessible. One vehicle resides in Joseph, three in Wallowa, and four in Enterprise. They do not have a replacement schedule for their vehicles.

Cost to Operate fleet:

WVCW did not know the cost of insurance or maintenance cost per vehicle at the time of submitting their profile.

Modifications: The Maintenance component of the New Day Consensus standard was discounted to 44% before being applied to WVCW based on their use profile.

WVCW’s estimated Annual Cost of Ownership is $940.

Coordination Interests:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop

When they need more capacity

When they need a larger vehicles

If the cost for using the vehicle covers insurance and maintenance AND is less X expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if available when they need it X

When they need additional ADA capacity X

Wildflower Lodge ______

Wildflower Lodge Type of Service Mode Community Served Client-Only Demand Response Mostly Union County Bus Fare Dispatch Model Schedule None Appointments/schedule Demand Response Residents are transported for doctor appointments, scenic drives, and shopping.

Passengers:

Wildflower Lodge provides memory care and long term assisted living in La Grande. The majority of their clients are over the age of 60. They did not indicate any clients with disabilities. They do not track the number of rides provided and did not submit an estimate.

Fleet:

Wildflower operates 1 ADA accessible cutaway bus. They stated that they have no schedule for replacing the vehicle.

Fleet Snapshot 0 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years N/A N/A N/A N/A

Transit Bus Cut Away Straight Van Mini Van / Sedan N/A 100% N/A N/A Estimated Annual Cost or Replacement at 10.27% Local Match $675

Cost to Operate fleet:

Wildflower did not provide any information about insurance or maintenance costs.

Based on the New Day Consensus Model Settler’s Park’s Estimated Annual Cost of Ownership is $1,825 per vehicle.

Coordination Interests:

Coordination Interests Not Indifferent Interested Very Coordination Circumstance Interested Interested When their vehicle(s) is/are in the shop

When they need more capacity

When they need a larger vehicles

If the cost for using the vehicle covers insurance and maintenance AND is less X expensive than the Annual Cost of Ownership In lieu of purchasing new vehicles – if available when they need it X

When they need additional ADA capacity X

Second Tier Providers

Second Tier providers are those who fund, authorize and consume mobility services on behalf of their clients but do not physically produce transit themselves.

Cascade East Ride Center______

CERC Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides CCNO-Union, Baker and Wallowa Counties, District-Union, Baker, and Wallowa counties Paul’s Medical Taxi, Sprinter Shuttle Annual Unduplicated clients you purchase Annual Number of Rides Consumed rides for Annually

Approximately 1,626 Approximately 7,800 Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R

History:

Cascade East Ride Center provides coordinated Medicaid brokered services and paratransit service in Central Oregon. CERC processes over 100 calls an hour (entered into a proprietary web based scheduling system known as iTABs). In addition to ride planning CERC coordinates billing for over 20 providers (each with individually defined rates and bid options) resulting in over 4,500 rides per month delivered at the lowest cost per trip.

CERC routinely measures the significant indicators of their business including volume, complaints, denials and verifications. Their operation is scalable to meet the demand for mission based services as well as contract opportunities.

In addition to their Medicaid work, CERC has a subsidiary service called Cascade East Transit providing demand response and intercity service to Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson Counties. They run 14 cutaway conversion vans varying between 12 and 22 passengers in capacity (all ADA accessible). CET dispatches via two way radio and cell phone.

Needs of Clientele:

The ride center coordinates rides to and from medical appointments for people who are on the Oregon Health Plan Plus who have no other means of getting a ride to their appointments. Approximately 2.5% of people on the OHP Plus plan have need of this service.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

Rides encompass all doctor offices, hospitals, mental health facilities and other health related sites.

Challenges of Clientele:

Many clients do not drive due to a disability and have no other means of transportation. Many are in wheelchairs or are in a fragile state of health.

Perceived Gaps in Service:

CERC mentions that having only one wheelchair provider in Wallowa and Baker Counties, and two in Union County is an issue when a provider is broke down and cannot perform rides.

Department of Human Services-Child Welfare______

DHS-Child Welfare Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides District-Union, Baker, Wallowa, Grant, and CCNO-Union, Baker and Wallowa Counties, ARC Harney counties Cab Co. Unduplicated clients you purchase rides for Annual Number of Rides Consumed Annually

N/R N/R Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R

History:

The Child Welfare program at DHS has been a traditional purchaser of transit services on behalf of their clientele. They have identified in the past that 90% of their caseload relies on transit, family or friends for mobility. A significant portion of demand among this population is serviced through CERC. Others receive aid through the TANF or self sufficiency programs. Child Welfare struggles most frequently with households who lack access to transportation and are not eligible for the services through the other programs.

Needs of Clientele:

Access to childcare, education and job access opportunities.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

Child Care, Medical, Education, Job Access and professional support services.

Challenges of Clientele:

Perceived Gaps in Service:

Transportation of minor children for visitation with court ordered supervision continues to be a gap in service.

Department of Human Services-Self Sufficiency ______

DHS-Self Sufficiency Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides CCNO-Union, Baker and Wallowa Counties, ARC Union County Cab Co. Un duplicated clients you purchase rides for Annual Number of Rides Consumed Annually

Don’t know Don’t know Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent 0% unknown Unknown 0% 0%

History:

Self Sufficiency serves the TANF, Food Stamp, and Oregon Health Plan Plus caseloads. As a requirement of TANF, recipients must be engaged in work search activities. Each year Self Sufficiency purchases bus passes (called WorkZone passes) on behalf of their clients in Union County. In Wallowa County, Self Sufficiency sponsors event related transit such as access to life skills classes during nontraditional hours.

Needs of Clientele:

Access to child care, education, work search, vocational, medical and professional support services.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

Child Care, Medical, Education, Job Access, Food Banks and professional support services.

Challenges of Clientele:

Perceived Gaps in Service:

Bus services on weekends (specifically Sundays) and evenings have been identified as a large gap in service by DHS Self Sufficiency. These services were available until early 2011 when budget difficulties resulted in reduced service offerings in La Grande. Baker City will likely be closing their Saturday service in Fiscal Year 2012, spreading this gap into a wider area of the service region.

Department of Human Services-Seniors & Disabled Services______

DHS-Seniors & Disabled Services Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides District-Union, Baker, Wallowa, Grant, and CCNO-Union, Baker and Wallowa Counties Harney counties Unduplicated clients you purchase rides for Annual Number of Rides Consumed Annually

N/R N/R Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent 90% N/R N/R 0% 0%

History:

The Seniors and Disabled Services program at DHS has traditionally been a purchaser of transportation on behalf of their clients. As the Medicaid provider to the region, the program utilizes the brokerage system of Cascade East Ride Center as well as Title XIX Non Medical Transit in their participant care plans.

Needs of Clientele:

Senior and people with disabilities have a wide range of transportation needs including, but not limited to: medical appointments, shopping, social services, and social events.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

The most common destinations for their clients are local doctor offices, Grande Ronde Hospital, St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center, local pharmacies, post offices, supermarkets, residential care facilities and the Senior Centers.

Challenges of Clientele:

Many seniors have given up their cars or lost their license to drive. Other challenges include physical disabilities that making climbing the steps onto the bus difficult, or worse, have confined them to wheelchairs.

Perceived Gaps in Service:

No bus service on weekends, late evenings, and Sundays are the gaps identified by this program. Local taxis lack ADA accessibility.

Eastern Oregon Support Services Brokerage______

GRH Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides Community Connection of Union County, ARC Union County Taxi Unduplicated clients you purchase rides for Annual Number of Rides Consumed Annually 3396 taxi rides 39 3 clients have bus passes-rides consumed unknown Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent 0% 0% 2% 0% 2%

History:

Eastern Oregon Support Services Brokerage is a provider of cascading supportive services for people living with developmental disabilities in northeast Oregon. Every year EOSSB purchases transit bus passes and taxi rides for their higher functioning clientele to promote maximum independence in the community.

Needs of Clientele:

EOSSB clients need to be able to get around town easily. They are all disabled and do not drive. Public Transportation, or family and friends are the only option they have.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

The most common destinations for EOSSB clients are shopping centers. Some destinations are medical in nature, or meetings for Vocational Rehab.

Challenges of Clientele:

The number one challenge is the lack of driving skills due to developmental disabilities. Others also have the compounded issue of a minor physical disability such as the difficulty in using stairs, or the need for a walking aid such as walker or crutches.

Perceived Gaps in Service:

Many of the clients cannot read and, therefore, cannot use the bus system. However, EOSSB stated that Community Connections bus drivers are good at helping the higher functioning clients overcome threading/understanding barrier which allows a few to use the system.

Lack of bus service on weekends is an identified gap by EOSSB.

Access to La Grande from Union, Cove, Elgin, North Powder and smaller bedroom communities continues to be a challenge for EOSSB clientele.

Eastern Oregon University______

EOU Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides

La Grande Community Connection of Union County Unduplicated clients you purchase rides for Annual Number of Rides Consumed Annually Entire student body of 4,000, but only small % Approximately 6,943 use bus Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent 0% >1% Unknown 0% 100%

History:

Eastern Oregon University was founded in 1929 as a teacher’s college in La Grande. The current student body is 4,000. EOU creates the critical mass necessary to sustain the fixed route transit system in La Grande - consuming on average 23% of the annual ridership. Students support the transit system through their student activity fees ($3.13 per student a year).

Needs of Clientele:

Students at EOU need access to downtown, shopping, grocery stores, etc.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

The most common destinations for students are Wal-Mart and Safeway.

Challenges of Clientele:

A perception barrier identified by a senior class project continues to drag on full utilization by the students who financially support Public Transit. People who use fixed route are seen as unable to afford private transportation.

Perceived Gaps in Service:

Orbis 2009 found an opportunity in the closing of the pool at EOU. Student access to La Grande’s public pool was perceived as a gap. While no connector presently exists, this need was not substantiated by research for this update. Weekends and evening continue to be the most frequently identified gap in available services.

Grande Ronde Hospital______

GRH Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides CCNO stretcher Service, Taxi services, Union County private/volunteer, injury care ambulance company, and Cabulance (Wallowa Co.) Unduplicated clients you purchase rides for Annual Number of Rides Consumed Annually N/R N/R

Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent

N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R

History:

Grande Ronde Hospital is a private non-profit critical access hospital serving northeast Oregon. GRH most commonly purchases services from ARC Cab Company for patients with impaired function or during nontraditional hours. Often when the passenger is paratransit eligible, GRH’s Community Case worker arranges access with Community Connection of Union County.

Needs of Clientele:

Patients with impaired function require rides to and from medical appointments locally. In addition patients requiring skilled care often need transportation to Elks in Boise or Providence in Walla Walla.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

Many patients in Elgin, Cove, and Union need transportation to GRH. Patients throughout the county require rides to Walla Walla, Pendleton, or Boise on occasion.

Challenges of Clientele:

Some patients in the outlying communities may receive taxi vouchers for rides into GRH, but this does not cover everyone. The least expensive local injury care ambulance charges $6.00 a mile. Volunteers also charge a per mile fee, but may vary from one volunteer to another.

Perceived Gaps in Service:

GRH identified gurney transport (non-emergency) as the most commonly faced challenge and biggest gap in service for patients. This gap in service was identified in the last Coordinated Plan. This need was met by Community Connection of Union County 2010 with the purchase of a stretcher van. This update therefore indicates a gap in the flow of information to those who are most in need of this local resource.

Reliable connections between Union County’s bedroom communities and La Grande were confirmed as an on-going service gap.

Nonmedical Rescue Response was identified as a low frequency but high consequence local gap. An example of this need is a motor vehicle accident that effectively leaves uninjured occupants stranded (while injured occupants are transported via ground or air ambulance). There is a need in Union County for transport of uninjured individuals for the collection of belongings and delivery to Grande Ronde Hospital, local hotels, or other support services.

Head Start______

Head Start Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides District-Union, Baker, Wallowa, Grant, and CCNO-Union, Baker and Wallowa Counties, Harney counties school district bus systems Un duplicated clients you purchase rides for Annual Number of Rides Consumed Annually

none N/R Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

History:

Head Start is a program of the United States Department of Health and Human Services that provides comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and their families.

Needs of Clientele:

Self Sufficiency clients need rides for their children to and from school and rides to appointments for themselves.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

The destination of the clients is to and from Head Start centers.

Challenges of Clientele:

No challenges reported

Perceived Gaps in Service:

No service gaps reported.

Baker School District______

Baker School District Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides

Baker County Baker County School District Unduplicated clients you purchase rides for Annual Number of Rides Consumed Annually 1,791 309,843 Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent 0% .06% (1 total) <1% 0% >95%

Needs of Clientele:

Rides to and from school consume the bulk of the rides. The bus service is also used for other learning activities such as field trips and extracurricular activities such as travel for athletics.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

Outside of travel to and from school, the most common destinations of many of the extracurricular activities are John Day, Burns, Ontario, Milton- Freewater, and La Grande. Field trips go to Seattle, Seaside, Astoria, Eugene, local nurseries, and the Forest Service.

Challenges of Clientele:

The main challenge the school district faces is wheelchair accessibility when picking students up at their homes.

Perceived Gaps in Service:

The Baker School District does not see any gaps in their service. The service is tailored to the needs of the students so that the students do not need to adapt to system.

Career Center-La Grande School District______

Angel Fun Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides Community Connection-Union County, School La Grande School District buses, private Unduplicated clients you purchase rides for Annual Number of Rides Consumed Annually

115 N/R Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

History:

The La Grande School District Career Center helps homeless children and minors living on their own remain in school. It utilizes donated resources to purchase bus passes on the public transit system, gas cards, and food bags for homeless teenagers and families.

Needs of Clientele:

The basic need of all the students is to get them to and from school. Teenage parents need rides to daycare and then to school. Small children living with families in hotels need rides to the nearest school bus stop.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

The most common destinations are all the schools in the district, the Riveria Activity Center (Kid’s Club After School Program) and school bus stops around town.

Challenges of Clientele:

The biggest challenge for children living in motels is lack of proximity to a school bus stop. The parents of these children often lack reliable transportation.

Perceived Gaps in Service:

Access to evening and weekend public transit (beyond access to school) is seen as a barrier among the recipients of Career Center services.

Training and Employment Consortium-Jobs Program______

TEC-Jobs Programs Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides CCNO of Union and Wallowa Counties, taxi Union County and Medical Springs services Unduplicated clients you purchase rides for Annual Number of Rides Consumed Annually

0 0 Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%

History

Training and Employment Consortium is the Workforce Investment contractor for the region. Every year TEC purchases bus passes and cab fare on behalf of their clientele. Approximately 35% of their clientele rely on public transit or family and friends to access services.

Needs of Clientele:

One of the largest needs of TEC clients is transportation to and from daycare. Job access and client services are also a secondary need. TEC’s clients that are TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) eligible must get to the DHS office for mandatory services often with small children in tow which creates many unforeseen complications.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

The important destinations for their clients are DHS, CHD, Employment Department/TEC, Grande Ronde Child Care Center, Head Start, and the Salvation Army for food boxes. Less used destinations that are still important to the clientele are to and from Elgin, Imbler, Union and Cove; ER visits, pediatric clinic, and dentist offices that participate in the Oregon Health Plan.

Challenges of Clientele:

Most of the clients have very limited transportation options. Those who use public transit have found frequency to be a barrier. They state that “clients often have to wait an hour for the bus.”

Those riding the Wallowa Link and Baker Bow into La Grande face several hours of layover until the bus returns in the late afternoon. For TANF clients coming into the La Grande DHS office this makes it impossible to see their children off to school or to return home in time to greet them.

Perceived Gaps in Service:

This study uncovered another communication breakdown between providers, recipients and stakeholders. TEC indicates a significant service gap in the absence of access to Salvation Army Food Box services. However, the fixed route bus passes the Food Box Distribution Center twice an hour.

They also believe that there is a lack of communication about information available on a continuous basis about public transportation and how to use it. This clearly is supported by the above comments.

TEC would like to see information passed through the schools monthly. They also suggested sending information to employers, DHS and CHD clients, and TEC to insert into information packets. They suggest that their clients who use the system may need visuals as means of better communicating the service. The need for pictography was also supported by Eastern Oregon Support Services Brokerage.

Union County Community Corrections______

Union County Community Corrections Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides

Union and Wallowa Counties Community Connection of Union County Unduplicated clients you purchase rides for Annual Number of Rides Consumed Annually Estimated 300 720 Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent 0% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Needs of Clientele:

According to Union County Community Corrections, most offenders are starting over in life. An estimated 80% of their time is spent on 10% of the offenders in the system. The majority of that 10% do not have current driver’s licenses. Transportation to job sites and court mandated treatments are a paramount concern.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

The most common destinations for their clients are CHD, DHS, the Courthouse, 3rd Street Station, employment department/TEC, and grocery stores.

Challenges of Clientele:

The biggest challenge for their clients is the lack of driver’s licenses. Most clients can walk, but this is not an option for those living in our outlying communities. Clients from these communities are required like any other to report to court ordered treatments such as Narcotics or Alcoholics Anonymous or counseling. Lack of transportation also limits the client’s ability to get to and from work making it difficult for them to start over and work toward independence.

Perceived Gaps in Service:

UC Community Corrections spoke with Human Resources Department at a major regional light industry employer who stated that they didn’t like to hire people who were dependent upon others to get rides into work. It leads to absenteeism when the driver becomes sick. UCCC believes that transport to and from the factories on a daily basis would be helpful in placing clients into jobs.

They stated that the lack of transportation to and from Elgin is a ‘big’ gap in service and that it would be nice if it existed.

They mentioned as well the hope of keeping the service that we already have in La Grande. They stated that there is more demand for the bus passes they issue through Community Connection of Union County, but due to budget constraints on their part, they are unable to purchase more for their clients.

Union County Veteran’s Services______

Union County Veteran’s Services Snap Shot Community Served Provider of Rides

Union County Community Connection of Union County, DAV Unduplicated clients you purchase rides for Annual Number of Rides Consumed Annually N/A 2,800 on fixed route Use mobility Visually or Working Single Over age 60 Fulltime Students device Hearing Impaired Parent 50% 1% 1% 0% 0%

Needs of Clientele:

Veteran’s Services is housed in the CHD building. They help Veterans navigate their benefit packages, educate them as to their rights under the law, and help with any other issues that may arise. They do not provide rides for veterans but assist them in finding resources from others.

Common Destinations for Clientele:

The most important destinations for veterans are to the local CBOC (Community Based Outpatient Clinic), VA Medical Center in Walla Walla, and the Veteran Services office. Secondary destinations would include, but are not limited to, pharmacies, grocery stores, veteran social halls, senior center, etc.

Challenges of Clientele:

Through Community Connection, veterans who are able to ride the fixed route in La Grande receive free unlimited lifetime passes. Ambulatory vets receive free rides in the DAV van to Walla Walla. The challenge is finding rides for disabled veterans in the county. Disabled vets in the La Grande area also have access to the fixed route, but those outside of the bus line, or the community have difficulty in finding rides mainly to Walla Walla for medical appointments because the DAV van cannot transport wheelchairs or veterans on oxygen due to liabilities.

Perceived Gaps in Service:

Disabled veterans do not receive the same transportation benefits as ambulatory veterans because veteran organizations are not equipped to handle them. To combat this Union County Veterans Services is coordinating with Community Connection of Union County (and to a lesser degree the American Legion and the local CBOC) to provide transportation for disable veterans who are wheelchair bound or on oxygen to Walla Walla.

An all inclusive plan is under development to provide transportation for ALL veterans in Union County for rides that are not limited to just medical services. The Plan is spearheaded by Community Connection of Union County and Veteran Services which involves coordination of existing public resources and a potential grant sponsored by the American Legion.

5.0 Coordination Revisited

This study found that the promise of a coordinated network envisioned by FLT 2005 remains largely unrealized. Instead, coordination has become a moving target characterized by uncertain indicators. As a result the market has been divided between dedicated practitioners and those to whom a compelling case for coordination has yet to be made. Contributing factors include:

 Poor initial understanding of provider motivations

 Changing funding delivery models

 Shifting coordination based funding eligibility standards

 In its ambition FLT 2005 under estimated the systemic inertia of many providers within the mobility sphere of service

o The subsequent publication of Betts 2007 and Orbis 2009 skewed rather than challenged these assumptions

A Better Understanding

The potentially fatal deficiency of FLT 2005’s work on coordination was their focus on preservation of function for the existing systems – which were not in any way coordinated. FLT 2005 proposed a coalition of providers who would continue to do what each does best while voluntarily branding themselves as members of a larger network. Failure to call for any meaningful improvements created passivity among the majority of affiliates.

FLT 2005 spent the majority of its time working with the public transit provider, conducting public meetings, interviewing potential riders from a public University and hosting focus groups assembled from a public solicitation. As a result the study advanced the regional understanding of an underserved demographic but failed to catalog the needs of (what was at the time) the plurality of regional mobility consumers.

The unintentional public bias was amplified by subsequent studies until an apples and oranges dichotomy emerged (throwing region decision makers into a sea of cross currents). Put simply, both Public and Client-Only providers play important roles in the market but they come at it from opposite directions. The following illustration provides an over simplified model to demonstrate this observation at work.

A Public Transit Provider – Passenger Driven Delivery Model:

Public Transit providers are primarily in the business of moving passengers around the communities they serve. Mature systems (like those serving Baker City and La Grande) that feature fixed routes and complementary paratransit support have a largely fixed cost structure. The more rides the provider can move through the system, the more cost effective their operation becomes.

A Client-Only Provider – System Driven Delivery Model:

Client-Only providers offer transportation as a means to serving an altogether different end. A Residential Care Facility for example, may use their vans primarily to get residents to and from Sheltered Workshop Contracts. Any extra ride (or stop, carry on, accommodation, etc.) represents a drag on the efficiency of the system and therefore an additional cost to be borne by the core mission that generated the demand for transit to begin with.

The motivational characteristics of the respective systems are value neutral and mutually exclusive. Fixed Route systems are (by design) not likely to be timed to the shift clock of a Sheltered Workshop facility. By way of comparison, a Client-Only system isn’t designed for public accommodation. Consequently, even if an Administrative Assistant lives next door to the group home and works for the Sheltered Workshop Employer, a Client-Only bus isn’t going to go out of its way, make extra stops and wait curb side while she drops the kids off at daycare.

Local decision making faces significant challenges from similar treatment of the different delivery models. For example, the STF Formula application asks for information on things like marketing and evaluation that mean very different things to the respective provider types. Public Transit markets and evaluates to grow and improve efficiency. Client-Only providers aren’t likely to spend program dollars to advertise something that (if utilized) would increase the burden on scarce resources. Moreover standard transit metrics (rides per hour, rides per mile, rides per FTE, rides per capita, etc.) are meaningless in a System Driven Delivery Model.

It is the conclusion of this update that effective Coordination as envisioned by FLT 2005 cannot be meaningfully advanced until a more comprehensive level of understanding is reached by providers, underwriters and stakeholders alike.

Undermined by Underwriting

The Coordination that evolved in the region resulted in a reduction of duplicative tasks by those with the most interest in economy. In the wake of FLT 2005, two lead partners emerged: Union County and Community Connection of Northeast Oregon, Inc.

Union County became an active supporter of coordinated discretionary grant applications which reduced the number of subsequent grant agreements necessary to serve the region. Community Connection consolidated their local applications for the region as a whole; they also included other providers (specifically New Day Enterprises) in their proposals for funding. These collaborations helped the region successfully compete for discretionary grants until the “completion” part of the 5310/STG model was revisited in the 2007-2009 biennium (See Section 2.0).

Grant applications for the 2009-2011 cycle were consolidated between Baker, Union and Wallowa Counties through an intricate process that honored the spirit of coordination without replicating its outcomes. Community Connection wrote all of the grants, Union County sponsored them on behalf of the region and New Day Enterprises was passively funded in a Purchased Service proposal under the 5310 agreement.

In the 2011-2013 discretionary grant cycle, further evolution in ODOT Public Transit’s eligibility standards caused regional coordination to grind to a stop. A standard of coordination that is outside the reach of most Client-Only providers left Community Connection alone, repeating a process with Union County that no longer made sense. At least in terms of cyclical funding, the means of coordination were no longer justified by the end. While the intellectual bubble surrounding regional coordination has effectively collapsed, it has left an actionable framework and need for networking in its ashes.

The New Rationale for Coordination

Orbis 2009 produced the first comprehensive snapshot of regional rolling stock. Of the three large Client-Only providers serving the region, New Day Enterprises and Center for Human Development provided the best data sets. The difference between these agencies and Step Forward appears to be the use of State and Federal resources to obtain some of the vehicles in service – which requires a more formal record set.

When Orbis 2009 was adopted, New Day and CHD owned 74% of the vehicles actively deployed in Client-Only services and delivered an estimated 79% of the Client- Only rides in the region. While the sample wasn’t statistically representative, the significance of the implications overwhelmed the margin of error.

When Orbis 2009 was adopted the average age of vehicles in CHD and New Day’s fleet was 8 years and just under 13 years respectively. Of the 29 vehicles the combined agencies deployed, 21 (72%) were past the ODOT Contract Crosswalk useful life standard – See Appendix F. If the same standards were applied to the data today, all of the vehicles from the original inventory would exceed useful life.

The coordination guidance in FTA 5310 Circular 2007 and (more recently) ODOT Public Transit is biased toward Client-Only providers offering services to passengers outside of their defined mission or sharing the surplus capacity of their vehicles with the Public Transit provider. For reasons consistent with the Better Understanding subsection this isn’t a realistic regional option. Age, state of repair, capacity and ADA accessibility limitation of some Client-Only inventory may not make it suitable for use by Public Transit (even if it were available). These barriers make meeting the minimum use standards of Coordination described in Section 3.0 unlikely at best.

It is the conclusion of this study that the region’s Public Transit providers are preserving core function on borrowed time. Attrition in the Client-Only fleet will inevitably result in expanded demand for expensive Complementary Paratransit services that public providers are neither staffed nor funded to address. It is therefore in the mutual interest of each provider type to develop a coordination strategy that supports Client-Only services with Public Transit’s surplus capacity.

Ride Connection

The Coordination Entity project in Orbis 2009 calls for the development of surplus vehicle clearing house similar to the RideConnection model in Portland. To grossly oversimplify the concept, the Coordination Entity matches vehicles of appropriate size and equipment with regional mobility providers on a fee for service basis. The entity provides maintenance, insurance and training for the driver (who is an employee or volunteer of the subscriber). The subscriber provides a driver and fuel. Governed by nonexclusive use agreements, the Coordination Entity minimizes the expenses associated with Client-Only services and maximizes the potential uses of a publicly funded capital resource.

There is a significant economy of shared use to all parties involved. The average estimated Annual Cost of Ownership from the provider profiles is $2,350 (before gas and labor). As an eligible recipient of Replacement Capital and Preventative Maintenance the Public Transit Provider is able to offset the bulk of these costs in ways Client-Only operators cannot. Adding drivers or volunteers of subscribers to an existing insurance

policy is cost effective relative to the expense of a duplicate policy held by another insured. Even at the high end, a subscription priced at $150 a month would represent an almost 25% savings PER VEHILCE to the Client-Only provider who has an altogether different mission to fund.

Beyond the mutual financial benefits a Coordination Entity:

 Creates instant scalability in the inventory of their subscribers

 Leverages the time and fuel of their subscribers to produce trips in the market that may otherwise not be served

 Generates reportable rides under Sections 5310 and 5311

 Offers a cost effective alternative to the purchase of new or replacement specialty vehicles such as ADA, Stretcher and Secure transport

 Expands the opportunities for the development of services that fill gaps and resolve unmet needs

It is the conclusion of this study that the Coordination Entity is the only viable long term strategy that meets the regional providers where they are – and in the direction they are most likely to continue to go. It will transcend (because it passively reinforces) turf and funding silo defense strategies that are prevalent in smaller communities. With the recent infusion of ARRA vehicle replacement, the project can feasibly be launched with Legacy Capital resident in local Public Transit systems.

Sustainable vs. Episodic Coordination

Coordination practices that developed in the region prior to 2011-2013 broke down because they were almost exclusively front loaded. The cooperative efforts took place at or near the time of application for funding. After grant agreements were signed there wasn’t much incentive for providers to escape their respective comfort zones – which seldom included mission driven collaborations. The future of coordination in the region will be more intentional, participatory and democratic.

The Coordination Entity identified by Orbis 2009 and confirmed by this update effectively shifts the collaborative object from money to a vehicle. The more physical and durable nature of the coordinated resource necessitates more communication and long term cooperation between the entity and its subscribers. As a result subscribers

will become regular stakeholders in local processes that are currently more autonomous such as:

 Entity vehicle procurements

 Coordinated service development

o Creation of reliable redundancy without unnecessary duplication

 Information exchange, dispatch and coordinated mobility reporting

 Future updates to the Coordinated Plan

o Prioritization of submissions to the Program of Projects

An increased focus on a community of providers responding to (and anticipating) communities of need will create opportunities of scale, efficiency and functional economy. These are likely to be sustainable improvements that grow over time rather than episodic, project driven endeavors that leave the market when funding sources evolve.

6.0 Mission Accomplished:

This section handles two factors of prioritized projects that were unaddressed by Orbis 2009. Most obviously, Mission Accomplished provides an opportunity to remove completed items from the Program of Projects. It also provides a forum for clearing and evaluating projects that were addressed and later abandoned.

The studious reader may note that all of the projects in this section were derived from Orbis 2009. Betts 2007 recognized its own limitations. Contained in its section on Future Actions were four bullet points. The first called for continuation of what was already occurring. The second and third were addressed by Orbis 2009 and the final point (“Market, market, market”) was of little actionable value. By way of comparison, Orbis 2009 contained project layouts including descriptions, timelines and budgets that are only marginally improved upon by this update.

Creation of the four star scale for this section paraphrases the Federal Transit Administration’s publication, A Framework for Action. It is designed to pique the reader’s attention toward commonalities in completed projects (successful and otherwise). It is the intent of the contributing team for future Mission Accomplished updates to reference measurable observations to better inform long term prospective projects.

Star Key

No Stars = Project failed; project did not meet its stated objectives

1 Star = Project performed poorly relative to its stated objectives

2 Stars = Project performed within an acceptable range but failed to meet objectives

3 Stars = Project performed within an acceptable range and met stated objectives

4 Stars = Project performance exceeded projections and stated objectives

This version of Mission Accomplished is somewhat hobbled by the absence of associated evaluation criteria. Explanations for performance (or lack thereof) are the opinions of those responsible for the projects. The adoption of formal performance measurements will improve the usefulness of this section in subsequent updates.

Completion of NE Oregon Public Transit Building $1,025,000

The Northeast Oregon Public Transit Building opened on December 1, 2008. It has successfully coordinated Fixed Route, Paratransit, InterCity, InterState and Contract Ride services within a one-stop facility. The local taxi provided did not set up an office in the facility as originally planned and (at the time of this draft) it has not incorporated its BiPed 2007 related amenities.

Passenger Stop Amenities – La Grande $19,390

Five acrylic bus shelters were purchased and installed in La Grande during Fiscal Year 2010. While these shelters are a visible and functional improvement, they have failed to leverage lighting, striping and other recommended improvements to create a more functional link between transit and the Bicycle-Pedestrian mobility mode.

Planning Consultation $28,756

The planning consultation called for was a vestige of a public mobility effort that resulted in a public-private partnership which generated Orbis 2009. The plan itself was delivered on time and well under budget.

Wallowa County Commuter Route Review <$1,000

Originally slated to evaluate compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this project received the direct attention of Nelson-Nygaard Consulting in Fiscal Year 2011 as a participant in a regional Paratransit Plan review. The consulting itself was free to the region and it was determined that as a commuter route with a set schedule, few stops and service to multiple communities the system did NOT require a complementary paratransit component.

Capital Purchase – Baker City / La Grande $270,000

A grant for the purchase of two mock trolleys (one for Baker City’s fixed route and one for La Grande’s) was executed in Fiscal Year 2010. The local match requirement was dropped from 17% to 10.27% and was covered by Business Energy Tax Credits originally generated through the operation of a public transportation system.

Regional Connection Routes $270,010

Originally funded by Section 5311(f) – a source independent of the STF Committee – this project launched services between Joseph and La Grande, Baker City and La Grande, Elgin and La Grande, and La Grande and Mission in fiscal year 2009. The composite services resulting in the two star rating are detailed below.

Joseph to La Grande

The Wallowa Link between Joseph and La Grande has filled the last remaining hole in the larger statewide mobility infrastructure. As a lifeline service connecting Wallowa County to Greyhound (in La Grande) its function is as important as its volume – which has exceeded forecasts, averaging almost three riders per trip, two round trips per week.

Baker City to La Grande

The Baker City Bow delivers passengers to La Grande five days per week – serving the smaller communities of Haines and North Powder in route. With an average ridership of almost eight per day the service performs at its forecasted levels.

Elgin to La Grande

The Elgin Stage was abandoned after six months of disappointing use. Public meetings were held, community centered marketing was performed, promotional offers were made but ridership failed to materialize. When the service was discontinued a stop was added to the Wallowa Link to preserve community connectivity. As of this update, it has never been utilized.

A proposed project amendment was adopted in September 2012 to expand a demonstration project providing InterCity service in Elgin with a curb to curb local component (Weekly Access for Union County Bedroom Communities – see page 109). The system allowed the public transit provider to serve the communities with one newer vehicle from La Grande rather than three older ones (each deployed in a satellite community). Three months into the project it was slated for expansion to Union due to promising passenger use.

This project was upgraded to two stars in Version 1.1.

La Grande to Mission

Commonly known as the La Grande Arrow this service had significant challenges from the beginning. A few months into the collaboration the local provider learned that the tribal partner had chosen not to use STG funding to support their part of the project – meaning in order to continue additional local match had to be committed. Delivering almost 7,000 rides per year at its peak the initial investment appeared to be the right move.

As the project matured heavy local subsidies became less and less manageable. In March 2011 the local provider informed the tribe of its intent to end participation in the project June 30, 2011. At the time of this update the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation is expected to continue the service on its own beginning the following day.

Baker City to Ontario

This project was launched in the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2012 but failed to deliver the on its original promise. In the time between planning and deployment the region endured an economic downturn that may have played a significant role in reducing projected demand.

This project may be profitably revisited for future viability but is likely to require dedicated marketing and period certain underwriting such as Section 5311(f).

TAC Development $4,200

For reasons detailed in the Coordination Revisited section of this document, this project became obsolete. Beyond the staff resources committed by the public transit agency notwithstanding, no discretionary dollars were exhausted on this project.

Bicycle Racks on Buses $2,000

Bicycle racks have been installed on each fixed route bus serving the region. Use among cyclists has been mixed with the bulk of the volume coming from La Grande. For the most part these projects were incorporated into existing capital grants to minimize local expenses. In Wallowa County the project was driven by a local fund raising effort resulting in improved community buy-in and elevated use and visibility during their seasonal fixed route.

Develop Reciprocal Ticketing Agreements $2,000

Memorandums of Understanding between the public transit providers in Baker, Union and Wallowa Counties have established the rights of passengers to ride on neighboring systems under the authority provided by passes or other forms of scrip purchased in their home market. The providers have also agreed to paratransit eligibility compatibility between markets.

The promise of interlining agreements with Greyhound, Amtrak and commercial air carriers has not enjoyed the same progress. At the heart of the issue is a perceived duplication of available local services. The public transit provider doesn’t wish to compete with local travel agents. Greyhound itself doesn’t wish to have more than one outlet in a county. Beyond staff time committed by the local public transit provider, no resources have been exhausted on this project.

Vehicle Purchases

Orbis 2009 acknowledged its forecasting limitations on capital vehicle purchases citing the angular roles of price, demand, market providers, functioning modes, useful life and coordination strategies beyond seven years. Beyond these deficiencies, this study uncovered shortcomings in recording what had been projected.

Orbis 2009 provided an aggregated cost projection and vehicle need statement but failed to provide any guidance on who required the vehicle or how it was to be used. When coupled with the capital intensive nature of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – which could not have been predicted – it is difficult to determine what has been completed and what remains to be done.

FY 2009 to FY 2014 $450k to $940k

Orbis 2009 identified 17 vehicles for replacement during the first five years of the plan. Assessments performed under this study identified the delivery of 9 new vehicles and the 5 others in various stages of procurement. With 82% of the planned rolling stock on the road (or in the pipeline) during the first half of the forecast period it would appear that the region is well ahead of schedule. However, no quantifiable observation can be made relative to their originally intended use.

FY 2013 Minivans (x2) – Union County $89,400

The Minivans prescribed by this project were delivered in September 2012. One of the minivans subject to replacement will be refurbished and deployed as a backup unit through 2016 when the next minivan exits useful life. The remaining minivan is slated for legacy capital deployment pursuant to the Resource Sharing project or to a qualified recipient in a local market impacted by service delivery model changes in FY 2013.

Fixed Route Baker City $92,200

The fixed route serving Baker City was launched in Fiscal Year 2010. While it struggled with ridership initially, it has subsequently expanded use in the market by over 15%. Volume improvements of this nature result in increased availability of Section 5311 funding – typically used to match what the STF Committees provide in 5310, STG and STF allocations.

Resource Sharing – Union County $15,700

Sometimes called Coordinated Legacy Capital, this project was built around the idea that well maintained rolling stock that has exceeded useful life can play a meaningful community role when stakeholders and public transit collaborate (See Ride Connection, page 85). A demonstration project launched in Fiscal Year 2012 successfully matched the interests of Anthony Lake Ski Resort with public access during ski season 2011-2012. The project stopped short of realizing its full promise late in the season due to an insurance issue with the resort. The project also concerned Public Transit’s risk management underwriters.

At the time of this draft (Version 1.1) the project remains viable. However, the available fleet is expected to be significantly reduced as Public Transit downsizes its aging fleet. It is anticipated that the dispossession (slated for Q2 FY 2013) will result in inexpensive purchase – perhaps even gifting – legacy capital opportunities for communities, providers and stakeholders impacted by changes in service delivery.

Veteran’s Access – Union County <$10,000

The Veteran’s Access project was originally planned and deployed for less than $1,000 (funded primarily by Section 5311). The project was fatally flawed by Interstate Commerce regulations that exceed the licensing class of the public transit provider. In short, buses designed to hold more than nine passengers (driver inclusive) that cross a state border are subject to Interstate Commerce. Lacking the necessary credentials relegated the provider to a smaller vehicle that dropped passenger potential below the breakeven threshold.

A side project that provides free fixed route rides in La Grande to Veterans and Active Duty service personnel continues to be used with sustainable frequency. The entire project is worthy of being revisited in a future planning cycle if critical mass or licensing barriers can be overcome.

Automated Ride Share Coordination $44,000

Automated Ride Share Coordination (referred to in Version 1.1 and beyond as DriveLess Connect) was funded by a direct state contract with Community Connection in the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2012. A part time DLC Coordinator was hired to promote the web based ridshare functions. Originally a temporary position, the project was extended by up to 12 months in the final quarter of FY 2012.

To date progress on the project has been difficult to measure due to a regional definition algorithm in the underlying technology. In short, we can’t define the regional enrollments separately from those registered in Central Oregon. At the time of this draft a regional dataset is being evaluated in a test environment but will not be able to capture our performance retroactively. Our best anecdotal estimate is 40 regional enrollments.

The original work plan for DriveLess Connect was completed during Fiscal Year 2012 resulting in the Version 1.1 entry in the Program of Project and direct support of several new and existing entries. At the time of this adoption a new work plan is under development.

7.0 Unmet Needs / Gaps in Service

This update weighed the conclusions of Betts 2007 and Orbis 2009 against market surveys, stakeholder interviews and public outreach events conducted between January and May 2011.

Survey Work

Between January 3 and February 28, 2011 survey data was collected from self selecting website users at www.neotransit.org via www.surveymonkey.com. Results are recorded in Appendix B.

Table 6-1 provides a snapshot of the region by Need/Gap, Study and present market sentiment.

Figure 6-2 Gaps in Service Analysis

Gap Description Identified By Status 1. Non users are unaware of the existence of public transit Betts 2007 Improved 2. Target populations don’t fully utilizes available transit systems Betts 2007 Improved 3. The public transit provider (CCNO) is perceived as Client-Only Betts 2007 Resolved 4. InterCity Connections are nonexistent Betts 2007 Resolved 5. Service needed during nontraditional hours and weekends Betts 2007 Confirmed 6. There are currently no bus shelters or capital infrastructure in place Betts 2007 Resolved 7. Transit resources are very tenuous / Sustainability of funding is unpredictable Betts 2007 Confirmed 8. Greyhound location makes connectivity challenging Betts 2007 Resolved 9. Transit services are poorly marketed Betts 2007 Confirmed 10. Aging rolling capital among all providers Orbis 2009 Improved 11. Fixed route public transit in Baker City Orbis 2009 Resolved 12. Central coordination serving all providers Orbis 2009 Confirmed 13. Access to Pendleton Airport Orbis 2009 Open 14. Access to Blue Mountain Community College Orbis 2009 Open 15. Stretcher car service Orbis 2009 Resolved 16. No connections between public schools and public transit Orbis 2009 Open 17. Paratransit efficiency best practices / scheduling software Orbis 2009 Pending 18. No service to bedroom communities Update 2011 Open 19. Limited transit schedule (evenings, weekends, holidays) Update 2011 Open 20. Wheelchair access in Elgin Update 2011 Open 21. Day care and Job Access services Update 2011 Open 22. Out of town medical access (non Medicaid) Update 2011 Open 23. Secure transport Update 2011 Open 24. Nonmedical Rescue Response Update 2011 Open

6-1.1 Service Awareness: Improved

Awareness of the existence of public transit and a working knowledge of how to use it was surveyed at 78.75%. The weakness of this study is resident in its measurement of those who self identified as transit interested through participation in a survey, public meeting or stakeholder interview. However, there is strong anecdotal evidence that the resolution of 6-1.6 (bus shelters) has raised the profile of public transit even among those who are never likely to ride.

6-1.2 Utilization among Target Populations: Improved

While Betts 2007 failed to provide an objective benchmark, research for this update indicated that the target population makes meaningful use of supported transit services. When asked to check all that apply, 74 respondents generated in excess of 160 clicks across the following modes: Provided by support agency, Bicycle, Personal car, Public transit, Ride with friends, Taxi, Walking and Motorcycle. Public Transit was recorded almost 15% of the time. By way of comparison, the personal car and agency assistance garnered 45% and 4%, respectively.

6-1.10 Aging Rolling Stock: Improved

While Orbis 2009 failed to provide many of the details necessary to quantify the improvement by mode, it did call for 17 replacement vehicles in the first five years. This study found that two years into the plan, nine vehicles have subsequently been delivered and five others are presently in procurement.

Mission Accomplished

Several identified gaps in service were resolved but not all included in the Mission Accomplished section because neither Betts 2007 nor Orbis 2009 elevated them to the level of Goals, Objectives or Projects. For example:

6-1.3 Public Transit / Client-Only Resolved

Entering its sixth year of fixed route service, three factors raised the profile of Community Connection beyond the stereotypical “Senior Bus”. Introduction of the mock trolley in 2009, construction of bus shelters in 2010 and opportunistic marketing provided visual public indicators that transit is for everyone.

6-1.15 Stretcher Car Service Resolved

Community Connection purchased a dual use stretcher vehicle in 2010.

Remaining, Renewed and Confirmed Gaps in Services

6-1.5 Evenings and Weekends Confirmed

Responses to this gap are skewed by the dominance of respondents in La Grande but nevertheless valid. Until recently, this gap had been addressed in the region’s largest population centers. It was curtailed in La Grande on January 31, 2011 to address budget concerns. Weekends are the highest priority for reinstatement among participating passengers.

6-1.7 Tenuous Funding Confirmed

This study estimates that almost 257,500 deliveries of riders with disabilities, the elderly and people with low income will be made in the coming fiscal year. Of those 205,000 will be provided by “soft money” nonprofit organizations such as:

. Center for Human Development . Community Connection . New Day Enterprises . Step Forward, Inc.

With the exception of Community Connection, none of these providers are primarily in the business of providing transportation, rather mobility is a service they offer as a means to another end consistent with their agency mission. None of these providers enjoy the predictability of a tax base or annual operating funding from served counties or municipalities. All of them can best be described as operating on a constantly shifting estimate of available support.

This study attempts to expand the resource base by compiling a list of available support options. Intentional maintenance will be required if the guidance is to be of lasting and meaningful value.

6-1.9 Poor Marketing Confirmed

Of all the regional providers only ARC Cab, Baker Cab, Community Connection and Greyhound are interested in growing their annual volume (to everyone else every extra rider represents an expense not explicitly tied to their core mission). Of these only Community Connection has a marketing plan. Community Connection’s marketing plan can best be described as passive use of available and inexpensive resources.

6-1.12 Central Coordination Confirmed

The RideConnection model (central coordination entity linking surplus vehicles to providers with passenger demand) referenced in Orbis 2009 is persistently popular among regional stakeholders. In the 2011 survey a Coordination Entity Serving All Providers was seen as Important or Critical by over 50% of regional respondents.

Open Questions Orbis 2009

Two related gaps identified by Orbis 2009 remain open questions. Access to the Pendleton Airport and Blue Mountain Community College have been identified by this study as unmet needs, however operational history does not support them with frequent demand. In the last biennium, public transit served less than 10 rides to the Seaport Air in Pendleton and had no request for BMCC.

Orbis 2009 also indicated that Public Transit lacked a connection to local public schools – specific to La Grande. However, an experimental route run between July 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010 failed to produce significant demand in the school districts it accommodated.

While these gaps are included in Table 6-2 and are supported by the Goals and Objectives section, this study recommends the consideration of historic use while assigning priorities based on cost, timelines and feasibility.

Open Questions

Open questions identified during this update fell into two distinct categories. The first class was characterized by the toggle effect between what was once needed, later addressed and still later, sacrificed to meet a budget. The rest identify deficiencies in the delivery strategy as it presently exists.

6-1.18 Service in Bedroom Communities Open

With the exception of Wallowa County, service to regional bedroom communities is limited at best. Cove, Elgin, Halfway, Huntington, Imbler, and Richland are served once or twice per week. Hilgard, Perry, Summerville and Unity aren’t served at all.

6-1.19 Limited Service Schedule Open

Scheduling limitations are almost exclusively a Union County concern. Due primarily to their disproportionate dependence on personal automobiles, Wallowa County residents are generally happy with their level of service. In Baker County the fixed route system represents a novel service that has yet to reach market saturation.

The Union County problems were recently exaggerated by the loss of weekend and late evening service. However, prior to the January 31, 2011 cuts the service was still perceived by most stakeholders as a safety net – a valued service not quite sufficient to meet the demand.

6-1.20 Wheelchair Service in Elgin Open

During the research phase of this update it was discovered that the aging cutaway vehicle deployed in Elgin is frequently plagued by a malfunctioning wheelchair lift. The bus is not slated for replacement but its maintenance costs are exceeding maintenance plan schedules.

6-1.21 Daycare and Job Access Open

In both Baker and Union Counties the fixed route systems were preceded by a public transit demand responsive dial-a-ride system. In the prior system a passenger could drop children off at daycare in route to work. The majority of these passengers are not paratransit eligible and are poorly served by a fixed route that will not wait while they escort small children into the daycare facility.

6-1.22 Out of Town Medical Access for Non Medicaid Riders Open

Passengers seeking medical attention from an out of area physician are well accommodated if they are Medicaid recipients (see Cascades East Ride Center in Second Tier providers). However, private pay individuals often find the same access to service cost prohibitive.

Community Connection has made its volunteers available on a private agreement basis but at $0.51 per mile (present IRS mileage reimbursement rate) a trip to Portland can still run in excess of $250.

6-1.23 Secure Transport Open

Like Stretcher Car transport identified by Orbis 2009, the need for secure transport in the region is characterized by low frequency but high financial consequence. The nearest provider of available Secure Transport services is in Umatilla County meaning local costs include over 100 deadhead miles and two hours per staff member of skilled labor.

Community Connection and the Center for Human Development have expressed an interest in a multiple use vehicle that may be shared between the agencies to help fill this identified service gap in a cost effective manner.

6-1.24 Nonmedical Rescue Response Open

Identified in this update by Grande Ronde Hospital, Nonmedical Rescue Response addresses the immediate mobility needs of people involved in vehicular collisions that disable their cars. Injured parties are transported via medical response services but uninjured occupants are often stranded. Support for access to belongings and local recovery services was identified as an unmet service need.

Duplication of Services

Betts 2007 and Orbis 2009 both featured a bias against “Duplication of Services”. This study finds that the subsequent niche markets carved out by the regional providers has contributed to an unintended gap in service. With all redundancy effectively squeezed out of the system, a rider has few (if any) alternatives when their mode of choice fails.

It is therefore the bias of this update that there is a legitimate place for duplicative services in the market under two conditions. First, the functional layer of service must be deliberately and intelligently deployed so that it is scalable to the need without becoming financially cumbersome to the provider network. Second a “safety layer” that backs up basic mobility services is best managed through the central coordination of surplus capacity that already exists in the fleet of regional providers.

100

8.0 Goals and Objectives

While this study did not uncover goals and objectives that broke new ground, some of the ideas reported in Orbis 2009 were notably absent. In some cases this can be directly attributed to the Mission Accomplished section, in others it more accurately reflects the dynamics of a market in motion. This section has been laid out to capture ideas that have been reinforced without losing what was at one time (and perhaps may again be) important.

Guiding Principles

Orbis 2009 defined its overall goal as follows:

“Develop a regionally coordinated transit network with emphasis on improving the livability of local communities, collaborative management of existing resources and professional planning for sustainability of service.”

The findings of this study don’t quarrel with the guidance so much as the definitions contained within it. Coordination for example, means something materially different than it did when research was conducted for Betts 2007 or Orbis 2009.

The guiding principles extracted from outreach efforts of this update support a regional network that informs the local process, not the other way around. Coordination is seen as the active sharing of resources (as they presently exist) among providers of all classes in order to provide maximum choice and flexibility to the passenger at a minimal cost per delivery and the preservation of long term sustainability.

Planning is of acute interest to all providers because it drives funding conversations. Nevertheless, as the statutory obligation of the STF Agency (OAR 732- 006-0010.30) none of the assessed providers had an interest in acting as the lead partner or sponsor for future updates. The planned maintenance model must keep pace with the fundamental shifts in the evolution of the market space.

Sustainability is a concept varying widely from one industry to another. Since the majority of the providers covered in this plan offer mobility as a complementary function to a core mission it was difficult to arrive at consensus. This study substitutes the term Preservation which implies on-going operations with the additional benefit of featuring a measurable meaning relative to each provider – and therefore the network as a whole.

Finally, the stakeholders agree that nothing is expendable. It is reasonable to expect the entire Program of Projects section to be completed. Priorities have been established exclusively to determine where to begin.

101

Goal 1: Preservation of Existing Services

Preservation means maintaining the level of service as it exists on the day this plan is adopted. This is the minimum acceptable threshold of service to the region characterized by the following objectives:

1) Maintenance of appropriate community access alternatives to the passengers who presently rely upon them.

2) Maintenance of the profile of transit options within each served community.

a. Residents know transit exists and how to use it

3) Maintenance of a coordinated clearinghouse of available transit support resources was initiated in this update – See Funding Inventory.

4) Maintenance of the necessary flexibility to react to mobility deficits identified on a local level.

Goal 2: Improve Transit Integration

Under Orbis 2009, Transit Integration meant raising the profile of transit as a public service in the minds of decision makers. It was correctly seen as a more cost effective strategy to build in transit amenities (and public accommodations) at design time. While this is still a worthy outcome, today Transit Integration has more to do with the necessity of cooperation among providers and stakeholders during seasons of lean resources and rising demand for service. Objectives are as follows:

1) Promote transit as economic development to elected officials and regional decision makers.

2) Improve relationships with Tier Two providers to reduce dependence on discretionary grants.

3) Promote demand management strategies to improve low performance capital deployments.

4) Promote savings between providers through legacy capital equipment and shared resource agreements.

5) Identify local transit deficiency and recommend solutions.

102

Goal 3: Improve Mobility Planning for the Elderly and Passengers with Disabilities

Recognizing that it is likely the last of its kind, this study captured the need for a formal process that provides the plan updates required in OAR 732-005-0081. Objectives include:

1) Develop an open platform for plan review and update (subject to adoption by the STF Agency) by participating stakeholders.

2) Create a planning line item in the regular agenda for meetings of the STF Committee to consider timely updates.

3) Move fluid sections of the plan such as A Brief History, Mission Accomplished and Program of Projects to addenda that can be updated with less formality.

4) Create Addenda for the agency plan of each participating provider.

Goal 4: Promote Alternative Delivery Strategies to Expand Ridership

Orbis 2009 recognized but failed to address the disproportionate emphasis of mobility services within the region’s largest population centers – specifically Baker City and La Grande. Research for this update repeatedly uncovered community mobility in bedroom communities as an unmet need. Uncertainty in the funding structure of regional providers dictates the consideration of service delivery strategies that do not presently exist in the region.

1) Explore feasibility of vanpool and coordinated ride share models in Cove, Elgin, Halfway, Imbler, North Powder, Richland, Summerville and Union, Oregon. 2) Consider service delivery strategies that make more efficient use of capital deployments in communities of 2,500 residents or less. 3) Develop agreements with mobility interests in small communities for use of surplus capacity on existing capital deployments. 4) Create community specific marketing campaigns to promote coordinated transit and shared ride projects.

103

9.0 Program of Projects

This study developed a Program of Projects solicited from the needs of all STF, Section 5310 and STG eligible funding recipients in the region. The characteristics of the needs were described on a boiler plate project form (contained in Appendix C) for ease of evaluation. Projects were prioritized through a local process involving the STF Agency, STF Committee and Human Service Partners and other stakeholders, pursuant to FTA C9070.1F Chapter V, Section 2(b)4:

" Priorities for implementation based on resources, time, and feasibility for implementing specific strategies and/or activities identified.”

The selected projects address (to the extent possible) the gaps in service consistent with the Goals and Objectives in preceding sections.

First Tier Projects are those that can be feasibly completed within existing and projected resources in 12 to 24 months from the adoption of this update.

Second Tier projects are realistic inside of 36 months – or the projected life of this update. Often the project in the Second Tier are characterized by a limitation that hasn’t been resolved at the time of this draft. Solidifying a partnering funding source or clearing a regulatory hurdle can quickly jump a Second Tier Project into a high regional priority.

Third Tier projects cover a range between 3 and 15 years and are anticipated to inform future updates.

First Tier Projects

In Version 1.1 the following projects were moved to Mission Accomplished:

. Resource Sharing – Union County

. Baker City to Ontario Connector – Baker County

. Minivan Purchase (x2) – Union County

The Bus Stop Amenities project carries over from NEOEDD 1.0 but has been updated for this revision to include new Union County elements and to exclude Baker County elements in limbo between funding and delivery. In the next revision the Baker County elements will be appended to the Mission Accomplished section.

104

14 Passenger Cutaway Replacement $111,593

Proposed By Community Connection – Wallowa County Type of Service Start Up Cost Annual Cost Acquisition Useful Life Public $111,593 $4,584 Q4 FY 2013 5 Years Local Match Source of Funding Source of Local Match $18,970 State of Good Repair Local Service Contracts

Description: Purchase of a replacement 14 passenger cutaway in Wallowa County.

This project benefits riders of all classes and services in Wallowa County. It will be deployed alternatively between Deviated Fixed Route, Paratransit and InterCity service.

Coordination: This project is public in nature.

Evaluation: This project will be measured using:

 Cost per Mile  Cost per Hour  Cost per Ride  Rides per Hour

Estimated Impact: This project is intended to reduce costs through increased fuel efficiency. The agency will realize maintenance savings up front which will degrade as the vehicle approaches the end of useful life. If this project is partially funded or declined for funding, it is not likely to be performed.

Future and Other Necessary Resources: All future project costs (maintenance, insurance and replacement) are contained in the Annual Cost of Ownership.

Version 1.1 Update Notes: This project is slated for completion during Fiscal Year 2013. The budget for this project was updated in Version 1.1 to reflect the local preference for a lowered floor vehicle from Category D of the ODOT Contract Crosswalk plus local secondary procurements (radio, paint, graphics, etc.).

105

Bus Stop Amenities $14,800

Proposed By Community Connection – Union and Wallowa Counties Type of Service Start Up Cost Annual Cost Acquisition Useful Life Public $1,800 $1,200 FY’12 to FY’16 20 Years Local Match Source of Funding Source of Local Match $1,520 Sections 5310, 5311, 5311(f) STG, Local Service Contracts

Description: Purchase of three acrylic passenger shelters in Wallowa County. Additional purchase of bus stop signs, park-n-ride signs, benches, garbage cans and lighting/striping partnerships with municipal partners in all three counties.

This project benefits fixed route, deviated route and intercity riders in all three counties.

Coordination: To the extent feasible, site plans will feature the benefits of shared use and multimodality in the selected locations.

Evaluation: This project will be measured using:

 Rides per Year

Estimated Impact: This project will improve the image and community awareness of public transit within the deployed communities. An improved perception of reliability will result in an increase in rides and a less tangible positive attitude toward transit by non users. If this project is partially funded it will be deployed in phases with priority given to the highest volume stops. If funding is not awarded for this project it is not likely to be pursued.

Future and Other Necessary Resources: Annual cost of cleaning and maintenance is estimated by the shelters deployed in La Grande to be $75 per unit per quarter. The balance is to address maintenance, garbage service and incidental annual expenses at stops that feature signs and benches but no shelter.

Other Notes: Start up cost of shelters includes the shelters themselves, staff time involved in the Designated Exclusion process with DEQ, site planning for local municipalities and assembly of the shelters on site. The annual cost is based on the estimate in La Grande (5 shelters presently deployed) calculated at $75 per shelter, per quarter.

106

Bus Purchase $115,875

Proposed By Community Connection – Baker County Type of Service Start Up Cost Annual Cost Acquisition Useful Life Public $115,875 $4,584 Q3 FY 2017 7 Years Local Match Source of Funding Source of Local Match $11,900 STIP, State of Good Repair, Section 5310 Local Service Contracts

Description: Purchase of an ADA Accessible Category D passenger bus.

This project benefits paratransit, fixed route and intercity riders in Baker County. If the vehicle replaced by this project meets a mechanical fitness assessment it will be deployed in a backup capacity (and an existing backup vehicle will be liquidated). If the existing backup is functionally superior, the replaced vehicle will exit the agency fleet.

Coordination: This project is public in nature.

Evaluation: This project will be measured using:

 Cost per Mile  Cost per Hour  Cost per Ride  Rides per Hour

Estimated Impact: This project will improve performance against evaluation benchmarks by replacing an aging vehicle presently assigned to its intended tasks. It is the intent of this project to also reduce costs through improved fuel efficiency. The agency will realize maintenance savings up front which will degrade as the vehicle approaches the end of useful life. If this project is declined or partially funded the agency will continue using the aging (but well maintained) vehicle for as long as fiscally possible.

Future and Other Necessary Resources: All future project costs (maintenance, insurance and replacement) are contained in the Annual Cost of Ownership.

107

DriveLess Connect $44,000

Proposed By Community Connection – Union County Priority: BC – NR, UC – 3, WC – NR Type of Service Start Up Cost Annual Cost Acquisition Useful Life Public $44,000 $44,000 FY 2013 1 Year Local Match Source of Funding Source of Local Match $0 DriveLess Connect None Required

Description: Linking riders to shared ride resources through promotion of the Drive Less Connect website and integration into Public Transit and other coordinated access points in the region. Drive Less Connect promotes choices that reduce the economic, environmental and social impact of single person, single vehicle commutes.

Coordination: The project coordinates through, promotes and develops carpooling, vanpooling and alternative mobility resources through public and private connection channels. This objective is achieved through education and other informational programs and services. Specifically targeted are the region’s major employers and destination based attractions including Ash Grove Cement, Northwood Manufacturing, US Forest Services, public agencies, medical facilities, high density housing developments, Blue Mountain Community College and Eastern Oregon University.

Evaluation: This project will be measured using:

 Regional Registrations  Regional Connections Made

Estimated Impact: This project will improve performance against evaluation benchmarks by encouraging use of shared or coordinated rides using regional and programmatic incentives. Target registration is 200 people with at least 80 participants actively using the system at any given time.

Future and Other Necessary Resources: Start up and annual on-going costs are based on the FY 2013 cost of part time, personnel and marketing allocations. If this project is not renewed or is only partially funded the sustainable components will be blended into preserved outreach and marketing efforts undertaken by Northeast Oregon Public Transit.

108

Weekly Access for Union County Bedroom Communities $18,200

Proposed By Community Connection – Union County

Type of Service Start Up Cost Annual Cost Launch Date Duration of Project

Public $18,200 Q2 FY 2013 Indefinite

Local Match Source of Funding Source of Local Match

None STF, Section 5310, Section 5311, Section 5311(f) This project does not feature local match

Description: This project serves passengers in Elgin, Imbler and Union with access to La Grande one day per week. Rather than the historic approach of deploying aging capital in low use communities, it sends newer and better equipped vehicles from La Grande.

Coordination: This project is public in nature but will also coordinate (whenever possible) with Client-Only providers to provide public access to and from the served communities.

Evaluation: This project will be measured using:

 Cost per Ride  Rides per Mile  Expenses vs. Revenue

Estimated Impact: A precursor of this project exists in demonstration mode in Elgin. Participation appears stable. Short term prospects for the City of Union are more promising due to frequent demand for two way traffic (Union Medical Clinic, Buffalo Peak Golf Course and Hot Lake Hotel). First biennium service estimates are:

 500 direct service hours  600 rides between communities and 2,500 additional rides on La Grande’s Public Transit system

Future and Other Necessary Funding: Costs associated with this service are on-going and can be expected to rise with labor, fuel and insurance expenses. If this project is partially funded it can be scaled to fit available resources by reducing the frequency of routes (for example, twice per month rather than weekly). In the absence of this project services to Elgin would be exclusively reliant on an Intercity route twice per week from Wallowa County; the community of Union would be unserved.

109

Park-n-Ride Development $<1,000

Proposed By Community Connection – Union County

Type of Service Start Up Cost Annual Cost Launch Date Duration of Project

Public <$1,000 In-Kind Q3 FY 2013 Indefinite

Local Match Source of Funding Source of Local Match

None STF, Section 5310, Section 5311, Section 5311(f) In-Kind

Description: This project develops Park-n-Ride capacity in existing lots owned or operated by local partners. Specifically targeted in the first round are the communities of Elgin and North Powder that sit along access arteries. Haines and Imbler could easily come online as lot partners are identified.

Coordination: This project is public in nature but will also coordinate (whenever possible) with Client-Only providers and private interests through companion projects such as DriveLess Connect.

Evaluation: This project will be measured using:

 Total Shared Rides  Vehicle Miles Saved  On-going Expense vs. Existing Support (financial and in-kind)

Estimated Impact: This project supports regional InterCity connections, DriveLess Connect and other high priority projects in the PoP. While it will not generate rides of its own, it will actively contribute rides and add tangible value back to the other projects. It receives support from the Bus Stop Amenities Project.

Future and Other Necessary Funding: Minimal one-time costs are associated with this project from a planning and infrastructure perspective. Long term support comes in the form of in-kind contributions of parking space using existing (or in development) lots. If in-kind support is at risk in the future, a small fee could be passed on to the rider in the form of a parking fee.

110

Vehicle Security Cameras $3,000

Proposed By Community Connection – Baker County Type of Service Start Up Cost Annual Cost Launch Date Useful Life Public $4,500 <$500 Q4 FY 2014 Indefinite Local Match Source of Funding Source of Local Match $462 Section 5310 Capital Local Contract Revenue

Description: Install digital surveillance security cameras and recorders in five public transit buses serving Baker County.

This project benefits the safety and security of all passengers using the public transportation system in Baker County.

Coordination: None.

Evaluation: This project will be measured using:

 Incidents per 10,000 Rides  Substantiated Incidents per 50,000 Rides

Estimated Impact: It is anticipated that these deployments will reduce the reported Incidents per 10,000 Rides by allowing shift supervisors to refine and resolve performance outside of tolerance before it becomes apparent to the riding public. Conversely, they may raise Substantiated Complaints per 50,000 rides through relatively easy access to neutral observation.

Purchases and deployments against this project will be made up to the level of funding availability.

Future and Other Necessary Resources: Annual cost estimates include staff time to periodically review captured footage and incidental technical assistance. Startup costs include installation and training.

Other Notes: No useful life standards exist for these deployments. However, the industry standard equipment reviewed for this project is modular – meaning it can move from bus to bus when vehicles are upgraded or replaced. It is reasonable to expect the durability of the initial hardware to outlive the chronology of this update.

111

Fixed Route Bus Purchase $122,275

Proposed By Community Connection – Union County Type of Service Start Up Cost Annual Cost Acquisition Useful Life Public $122,275 $5,034 Q3 FY 2015 7 Years Local Match Source of Funding Source of Local Match $20,787 State of Good Repair Local Service Contracts

Description: Purchase of an ADA Accessible Category D passenger bus. The replacement vehicle will be up to 30 passengers in capacity with a preference for a lowered floor model.

This project benefits fixed route users in La Grande. The vehicle replaced features a heavy duty wheelchair lift. It will be deployed as a backup vehicle in the Public Transit fleet until it is scheduled for disposition in FY 2018.

Coordination: This project is public in nature but will spawn a surplus capacity vehicle that may be used in the Vehicle Sharing pool in addition to its backup utility.

Evaluation: This project will be measured using:

 Cost per Mile  Cost per Hour  Cost per Ride  Rides per Hour

Estimated Impact: This project will improve performance against evaluation benchmarks by replacing an aging vehicle. If this project is partially funded or declined for funding, it is not likely to be performed.

Future and Other Necessary Resources: All future project costs (maintenance, insurance and replacement) are contained in the Annual Cost of Ownership.

112

Vehicle Replacement (Sedans x3) $67,300

Proposed By Center for Human Development – Union County Type of Service Start Up Cost Annual Cost Acquisition Useful Life Client-Only $67,300 $1,088 FY 2012 to FY 2015 5 Years Local Match Source of Funding Source of Local Match $7,700 Federal Substance Abuse Treatment Funding

Description: Purchase of replacement passenger sedans in Center for Human Development’s aging fleet.

This project benefits the agency’s clients who are unable to access public transit due to disability or geographic barriers. This project represents an investment in community based care for recipients of mental health services that may otherwise require treatment in more expensive institutional settings.

Coordination: The project itself does not feature a coordination component as proposed but CHD is an active partner in the Coordinated Legacy Capital project in Section 9.

Evaluation: This project will be measured on a Cost per Mile basis.

Estimated Impact: This project is intended to reduce costs through increased fuel efficiency. The agency will realize maintenance savings up front which will degrade as the vehicles approach the end of useful life. If this project is partially funded or declined for funding, purchases will be scaled back to fit within existing resources. Reduced capacity means curtailed availability for a vulnerable service population.

Future and Other Necessary Resources: All future project costs (maintenance, insurance and replacement) are contained in the Annual Cost of Ownership.

113

Minivan Purchase $35,900

Proposed By Community Connection – Union County Type of Service Start Up Cost Annual Cost Acquisition Useful Life Client-Only $34,750 $1,088 FY 2012 to FY 2015 7 Years Local Match Source of Funding Source of Local Match $4,100 Federal Substance Abuse Treatment Funding

Description: Replacement of an aging minivan in Center for Human Development’s fleet.

Coordination: The project itself does not feature a coordination component as proposed but CHD is an active partner in the Coordinated Legacy Capital project in Section 9.

Evaluation: This project will be measured on a Cost per Mile basis.

Future and Other Necessary Resources: All future project costs (maintenance, insurance and replacement) are contained in the Annual Cost of Ownership.

114

Second Tier Projects

In Version 1.1 the following projects were moved to Mission Accomplished:

. Veteran’s Access – Union County

. Automated Ride Share Coordination

Bus Barn Construction $435,614

Proposed By Community Connection – Wallowa County Type of Service Start Up Cost Annual Cost Launch Date Useful Life Public $435,614 $600 50 Years Local Match Source of Funding Source of Local Match 10.27% - 20% Contract Revenue and Reserve Funding

Description: Construction of a 3,500 square foot facility capable of housing all of the existing and planned capital rolling stock and inventory (tires, chains, program supplies) in Wallowa County. The estimate includes land acquisition, engineering and construction.

This project benefits the significant investment of available resources the communities of Wallowa County have made in capital rolling stock.

Coordination: At design time there may be opportunities to coordinate with other entities in need of similar facilities who can participate with matching and program resources of their own.

Evaluation: This project will be measured using:

 Cost per Mile  Cost per Ride

Estimated Impact: It is anticipated that improved sheltering of capital equipment would improve useful life and reduce maintenance costs resulting in lower operations costs. If this project is declined or partially funded it is not likely to be built.

Future and Other Necessary Resources: Annual costs are based on utilities and building maintenance of the existing bus barns in Baker City and La Grande.

115

Third Tier Projects

Bus Barn / Maintenance Facility $977,526

Proposed By Community Connection – Union County Type of Service Start Up Cost Annual Cost Launch Date Useful Life Public $977,526 $80,800 50 Years Local Match Source of Funding Source of Local Match 10.27% - 20% Contract Revenue and Reserve Funding

Description: Construction of a 7,500 square foot facility capable of housing the key existing and planned capital rolling stock and inventory (tires, chains, program supplies). The estimate includes land acquisition, engineering and construction. This project assumes equipment and tools necessary to begin in-house maintenance.

This project benefits the significant investment of available resources the communities of Union County have made in capital rolling stock.

Coordination: There are opportunities to make the in-house maintenance available to other providers as an alternative to more expensive local repair contractors.

Evaluation: This project will be measured using:

 Cost per Mile  Cost per Ride  Maintenance Cost Per Mile

Future and Other Necessary Resources: Annual costs are based on existing utility and maintenance costs and a .75 FTE ASE Certified mechanic.

Other Notes: This project is scalable insofar as an on staff mechanic is not necessary to meet a substantial proportion of the anticipated outcomes. Likewise, construction isn’t entirely necessary if a suitable location or partnership becomes available.

116

10.0 Funding Inventory

It is the intent of this plan to address the requirements of funding under several similar resources – each featuring important differences. Section 10.1 briefly describes traditional cyclical programs. Section 10.2 provides general ideas on where nontraditional support may be obtained. Section 10.3 provides a couple of leads to sources that are frequented by the regional Public Transit provider for discovery of emergent opportunities.

10.1 Traditional Cyclical Funding Sources:

Section 5310 – Elderly and Passengers with Disabilities Origination Authority Guidance Agency Delivery Channel SAFETY-LU 49 U.S.C. 5310 FTA C 9070.1F FTA ODOT Public Transit Eligible Recipients Non Profits, Governments (if non profits are not readily available), Governments approved by the State to coordinate services to the elderly and individuals with disabilities – FTA C9070.1F III-6

Notable Requirements Local match – FTA 9070.1F III-9 Projects derived from the Coordinated Plan - FTA C9070.1F IV-1 Shared vehicle use to meet needs of the elderly and people with disabilities – FTA 9070.1F V-5 Provide service to elderly and people with disabilities not affiliated with specific agency – FTA C9070.1F V-1a

Established in 1975, the goal of 5310 is to improve mobility for the elderly and individuals with disabilities. It is made available biennially through Oregon Department of Transportation’s Public Transit Division. Shared target populations, delivery cycles, delivery channels and a local process have lead to 5310 sometimes being referred to as STF Discretionary funding – this is an inaccurate description. There are three important differences (see also Special Transportation Formula Fund):

 STF is State Funding – 5310 is Federal

 STF funding is open to literally anyone providing services to target population – 5310 has coordination requirements of Client-Only providers

 STF is discretionary – 5310 is reserved for capital and capitalized expenses

Section 5310 funding is allocated to STF Agencies throughout the state based on a formula that heavily weights the population of the funded jurisdiction. STF agencies create subawards to eligible recipients serving the target population through a public process described in OAR 732-005-000.

117

Section 5311 – Nonurban General Public Origination Authority Guidance Agency Delivery Channel

SAFETY-LU 49 U.S.C. 5311 FTA C 9040.1E FTA ODOT Public Transit Eligible Recipients Public bodies, Indian tribes, or private non-profit agencies operating general public services in rural areas that are not part of a designated urban area – State Management Plan VI-2a

Notable Requirements Local match – State Management Plan VI-2d Services open to the public, unrestricted - State Management Plan VI-2b

Section 5311 is dedicated to public transit providers in nonurban areas (under 50,000 residents) not connected to an urbanized area. It is the goal of the program to assist in the development and improvement of public transportation that promotes orderly, efficient and economical operation of small city and rural systems. The resource supports almost 40 transit systems in Oregon (most of which would not exist without the help of federal and state funding).

Section 5311 is divided statewide based on a formula that weights the population of the service area, the number of rides provided in the previous year and the number of revenue service miles generated in the process of those deliveries. The fourth (silent) variable in the formula is the number of recipients relative to available funding. Traditional recipients are protected by a fluctuation buffer that will not allow funding to raise (or drop) more than 10% year over year.

ODOT Public Transit recently received a study on the topic of the 5311 Allocation Formula (Haire 5311 2010). Oregon is among only a handful of states that use a formula allocation process (most are competitive). At the time of this draft no action has been taken to revise the process but new models – including those that consider population zones (if at all) may characterize future cycles.

A subprogram of Section 5311 – Section 5311(f) – provides support for public Intercity bus service between communities of at least 2,500 people and the next largest community – where better access to the Statewide mobility network is presumed to exist.

118

ODOT makes 5311 available to eligible recipients on an annual basis through direct service contracts. Section 5311(f) is allocated biennially through a competitive grant application process. Neither process utilizes the STF Agency or the Coordinated Plan directly but both are supported within the framework.

119

Section 5316 – Job Access and Reverse Commute Origination Authority Guidance Agency Delivery Channel SAFETY-LU 49 U.S.C. 5316 www.fta.gov FTA ODOT Public Transit Eligible Recipients Eligible subrecipients are private non-profit organizations, State or local governments, and operators of public transportation services including private operators of public transportation services.

Notable Requirements Local match – http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_3550.html Derived from Coordinated Plan - http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_3550.html

The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program was established to address the unique transportation challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-income persons seeking to obtain and maintain employment. Funding is awarded by ODOT Public Transit on a competitive grant basis biennially. While projects are required to be supported by the Coordinated Human Services Plan they are not subject to the local STF Agency process.

120

Section 5317 – New Freedom (Beyond the ADA) Origination Authority Guidance Agency Delivery Channel

SAFETY-LU 49 U.S.C. 5317 FTA C 9045.1 FTA ODOT Public Transit Eligible Recipients Private non profits, state or local government authority, operators of public transportation services including private operators – FTA C9045.1 III-5

Notable Requirements Project must go beyond requirements of the ADA – FTA c9045.1 III-11 Project must target People with Disabilities – FTA c9045.1 III-11 Project must remove barriers to transit including to and from jobs – FTA c9045.1 III-11 Project must be supported by the Coordinated Human Services Plan – FTA c9045.1 V-2 The New Freedom formula grant program aims to provide additional tools to overcome existing barriers facing Americans with Disabilities seeking integration into the workforce and full participation in society. ODOT Public Transit awards Section 5317 funding on a biennial basis through a competitive grant process. Projects are intended to be self supporting at the end of the grant cycle.

121

Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009 - JTA Origination Authority Guidance Agency Delivery Channel State of Oregon OAR 731-050-0030 www.odot.state.or.us ODOT Public Transit ODOT Public Transit

Eligible Recipients The portion of the Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009 that was allocated to multimodal public transit was coordinated through the STF Agencies by the Section 5310 guidelines

Notable Requirements See Section 5310

The 2009 Oregon Legislature allocated additional federal funds to the Public Transit Division’s 5310 grant program. Because the funds result from collaboration on a 2009 legislative initiative called the Jobs and Transportation Act, the new program is called the “Jobs and Transportation Act Transit Program,” or JTA 5310 program. At the time of this study JTA had not been reauthorized – contrary to the course of early speculation – but is noted in this report because its framework remains largely intact.

122

Special Transportation Formula - STF Origination Authority Guidance Agency Delivery Channel State of Oregon OAR 732-0005-0000 www.odot.state.or.us ODOT Public Transit ODOT Public Transit

Eligible Recipients A city, county, district, Indian tribe or any other person or agency, whether public or private, that maintains, operates, or sponsors vehicles and facilities for Public Transportation Services for profit or on a non profit or voluntary basis. – OAR 732-005-0010 (22) Notable Requirements Reserved for Individuals with Disabilities and the Elderly – OAR 732-005-0016 (1) STF may not supplant other target rider money supplied by the STF Agency – OAR 732-005-0016 (6) Will be considered by STF Committee consistent with Coordinated Plan – OAR 732-005-0031

Created by the State of Oregon in 1985, the Special Transportation Formula Fund is derived from a $0.02 per pack tax on cigarettes. STF Formula provides a flexible, coordinated, reliable and continuing source of support for transportation systems serving people with disabilities and the elderly. While it encourages provision of public or coordinated service, STF is virtually unique insofar as it does not require it.

STF Funds are distributed to STF Agencies biennially and are allocated to subrecipients on the basis of competition within the jurisdiction. Funded projects must serve the Elderly, Riders with Disabilities, or both. Funded projects must be supported by the Coordinated Human Services Plan – See also STO.

123

Special Transportation Operations - STO Origination Authority Guidance Agency Delivery Channel State of Oregon OAR 732-0005-0000 www.odot.state.or.us ODOT Public Transit ODOT Public Transit

Eligible Recipients A city, county, district, Indian tribe or any other person or agency, whether public or private, that maintains, operates, or sponsors vehicles and facilities for Public Transportation Services for profit or on a non profit or voluntary basis. – OAR 732-005-0010 (22) Notable Requirements Reserved for Individuals with Disabilities and the Elderly – OAR 732-005-0016 (1) May not be used to support a capital grant request – OAR 732-005-0016 (4) May not supplant other target rider money supplied by the STF Agency – OAR 732-005-0016 (6) Will be considered by STF Committee consistent with Coordinated Plan – OAR 732-005-0031

Special Transportation Operations Funds function just like STF Formula with one important exception – they cannot be use to purchase capital equipment. OAR 732-005- 0010 (4) defines capital equipment as:

“Tangible property having a useful life of more than one year and with an acquisition cost of more than $5,000”

Special Transportation Operations Funds were not reauthorized in the last legislative session. Heavy reference to STO residual in the OARs and an intact delivery system would make them easily streamlined back into the funding mix if there is a future shift in political will.

124

State Transportation Grants - STG Origination Authority Guidance Agency Delivery Channel State of Oregon www.odot.state.or.us ODOT Public Transit ODOT Public Transit

Eligible Recipients Non Profits, Governments (if non profits are not readily available), Governments approved by the State to coordinate services to the elderly and individuals with disabilities

Notable Requirements STG is state funding that plays by the same rules as Section 5310 STG can be used to match federal funding sources STG is targeted toward mobility for the elderly and passengers with disabilities

STG is a very small fund to the region (each county is at the $30,000 per biennium flooring level). STG is unique insofar as it plays the rules of Federal Section 5310 but can be used to match Federal Funding – since it is derived from State of Oregon funding sources.

Due to the service of a similar target population STG is often confused with STF Formula. However, STG is deployed with the funding source it is more or less intended to match. STF Formula is a standalone (except when accompanied by STO) source allocated through its own process.

125

10.2 A General Guide to Agencies That Fund Transportation

This section documents the funding programs used to provide transportation services. 46 Federal programs administered by: the Departments of Health and Human Services (23 programs), Labor (15 programs), and Education (8 programs) were identified as funding transportation services for the target populations. The Departments of House and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture and the Inteiror administer and addition 10 programs. A study released by the General Accountability Office (GAO) in 2003 examined these programs, assesses the extent of coordination among them and made recommendations on how to overcome these obstacles.

According the GAO, Federal, State and Local spending for transportation services is in the billions of dollars. Because transit spending is usually not separate from other priorities (as in the case of Client-Only providers) the full extent of related spending is unknown. For the sake of functionality, the list of sources was pared to the 25 programs known to be significantly involved in providing transportation services to their recipients. Given the overlap in the multidisciplinary agencies providing Client-Only services in the region, this list provides a workable jumping off point for the beginning grant seeker.

126

This chapter documents the funding programs used to provide transportation services. Sixty-two federal programs, administered by the Departments of Health and Human Services (23 programs), Labor (15 programs), Education (8 programs), and Transportation (6 programs), were identifi ed as funding transportation services for the target populations. The Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Veteran Affairs, Agriculture, and the Interior administer the remaining 10 programs. A study released by the General Accountability Offi ce (GAO) in 2003 examined these federal programs, assessed the extent of coordination among the various programs, and identifi ed obstacles to coordination and made recommendations on how to overcome these obstacles. According to GAO, federal, state, and local spending for transportation services is in the billions of dollars. Because transportation spending is usually not separate from other programs, the full extent of spending is unknown. State and local agencies often provide funding to fulfi ll matching requirements. Twenty seven federal programs were identifi ed as being signifi cantly involved in providing transportation services to their recipients. The remaining programs also fund transportation services, but do so minimally, or the extent of transportation funding is unknown (See Appendix G for a list of the 62 federal AGENCY PROGRAM & DESCRIPTION

127

10.3 Funding Leads

During this update the review team did not discover an untapped reservoir of regional transit finance development talent. However, the evaporation of resources through the sourced delineations in the previous sections has made ongoing research a functional imperative. To prevent rapid obsolescence, this section has been designed to provide guidance toward funding sources rather than specific project opportunities.

SAMSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration):

Website: www.samhsa.gov/grants/

SAMSA, a subdivision of the Department of Health and Human Services, facilitates a grant program called Access to Recovery (ATR) through Single State Agencies for Substance Abuse (Department of Human Services, Addiction and Mental Health Division in the State of Oregon). Transit is an eligible expense for ATR grant recipients.

USDA Rural Development:

Website: www.rurdev.usda.gov

USDA Rural Development frequently features opportunities for technical assistance to providers of rural services. These awards are frequently in the millions of dollars and awarded to large national nonprofits. Acquired affiliation with successful grantees can result in access to significant assistance for struggling rural delivery systems.

National Center for Senior Transportation:

Website: www.seniortransportation.easterseals.com

NCST regularly solicits applications for technical assistance, demonstration and innovative projects that deliver mobility to the elderly.

128

Community Transportation Association of America:

Website: www.ctaa.org

CTAA features an entire section on financing for transportation providers called the Community Development Transportation Lending Services Fund. Their partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program allows them to offer innovative finance options in the form of long term, short term, lease purchase, equity financing and credit enhancement support.

In addition to these sources a number of private foundations in Oregon regularly support traditional recipients of local mobility services. This update found significant opportunities to develop new Second Tier Providers through supplemental transit requests written into existing grant proposals. While these revenue streams would be modest, the on-going reliance of most potential providers on private foundations may provide a predictable level operations funding to partners in Client-Only and Public Transportation alike.

129

11.0 For Further Discussion

During the course of this update topics of relevance were discovered that fell outside of the scope of study. Insufficient research was devoted to these concepts to elevate them to the level of recommendations but they’re conversations your stakeholders found worth having.

STF Formula and the Supplanting of Resources:

STF 2010 contains a provision to prevent STF agencies from substituting STF Formula funds for money they would otherwise have allocated from local sources to transportation for the Elderly and People with Disabilities. Specifically, OAR 732-005- 0016 (6) states:

Except in the case of a uniform budget reduction, STF and STO moneys will not be used to supplant moneys currently appropriated by STF Agencies for transportation projects benefiting the Elderly and People with Disabilities.

ODOT STF 2007 clarifies the point in the following excerpt from Page 10:

Image 11-1

The capacity to make supplanting decisions on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis is provided for in STF 2010. Specifically OAR 732-005-0061 2(E)(b) states:

130

The STF Agency may impose additional requirements under its own authority.

By definition, supplanting is the polar opposite of leverage. Rather than using STF and STO funds to bring more dollars to bear on the regional service gaps, it removes resources from the mobility space. Each dollar allocated to a supplanting recipient results in a dollar (or some portion thereof) that would otherwise be committed to transit services leaving the system. For this reason, the stakeholders who favor a prohibition against STF supplanting by providers view it as a mobility imperative.

On the reverse side of the issue, inability to supplant may limit a provider’s ability to deliver other necessary services. If a transit project is fully funded, a Residential Care Facility may be able to hire an additional CNA. While care professionals aren’t specifically transit oriented it is not uncommon for them to accompany high needs passengers on regular mobility trips.

Grey Areas of Eligibility

Within almost every eligible recipient of any of the varieties of funding entertained by the STF Agency, this study found activities that may not be grant eligible.

Substance Abuse as a Disability (STF Formula): OAR 732-005-0010 (6) defines Disabled (also People with Disabilities or Individual with Disabilities) as follows:

A person or persons who, by reason of illness, injury, advanced age, congenital malfunction, or other permanent or temporary incapacity, have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities. This definition does not include substance abuse disorders resulting from the current illegal use of drugs.

The OAR doesn’t provide guidance on the definition of the word current. It is the best estimate of this study that there may be an acuity issue to work out for substance abuse treatment transports but this complicates the issue more than it resolves it. Consider…

o A rider being transported to detox may be profoundly impaired but the disability is likely to be the result of the current illegal use of drugs and therefore ineligible.

o A rider being transported to on-going substance abuse counseling may no longer be ineligible due to the current illegal use of drugs, BUT he or she is also likely to have shed the defining impairments that would create an eligible passenger to begin with.

131

Fortunately, the regional providers of Substance Abuse services are also involved with Mental Health and service to people with Developmental Disabilities. At the risk of revisiting the supplanting conversation, this may be an opportunity to fund a clearly eligible population that will have the effect of freeing the provider’s own resources to provide transit to one that is, by definition, more sketchy.

Contract Considerations (All State Channeled Funds): During the course of this review the research did NOT find evidence that any regional provider is using public funding to support the operational encumbrances of a private contracting agreement. However, since doing so is illegal in the State of Oregon it’s important for applicants and decision makers alike to be clear about how public resources are being spent.

The development of private service agreements related to an agency’s core function is a growing solution to traditional sustainability problems. One of the largest agreements of this type in terms of geography, ride volume and funding is between Community Connection of Northeast Oregon, Inc. and Cascades East Ride Center for nonemergency Medicaid transportation. Fortunately, it is a text book example of best practices on the subject.

Community Connection submits rates to Cascades East Ride Center for nonemergency Medicaid contract rides of less than 70 miles (one way) and bids for trips of 70 miles or more. Rates are refined quarterly and bids on a trip by trip basis.

Community Connection relies on a combination of volunteers in private vehicles and their own staff/fleet (on an incidental basis) to accommodate contract demand. Since the method of service delivery can’t be reliably know at the time rate/bid is made, the agency uses their fully allocated cost per trip plus a contingency percentage on each submission. As a result the agency is rarely (if ever) the low bidder on any particular trip. It is more accurate to think of them as the high volume safety net of a larger patient support system.

The Community Connection approach to this contract ensures that public funds never enter the equation. Community Connection has never failed to turn a regional surplus on this agreement – meaning money was left over to fund their other transit operations after every related expense was satisfied.

132

By way of comparison, the potential for unintentional mixing of funding sources exists. For example, a not for profit group home for adults with Autism may be eligible to use public funds for some but not all destinations. Medical, shopping and recreation trips are eligible. Transit to independent work (or work provided internally by the not for profit) is likewise eligible. However, if the not for profit has secured work for its clients through a competitive bid process, access to these work sites would not be an eligible expense. Moreover, the fully allocated cost of administering the work contact (including transit and a contingency cushion) should be built in at bid time.

To reiterate, this study did not find incidence of contracting improprieties. The recommendation For Further Discussion is limited to an improved understanding of potential conflicts and the development of tools to help avoid them.

Service Evaluation Metrics

The decision making stakeholders who participated in this update have expressed a strong interest in developing and applying evaluation criteria for use in resource allocation. The following table provides some of the standard transit performance measurements that were considered for entries in the Program of Projects.

Performance Measurement Performance Indicator Cost Efficiency Cost per Mile Cost per Hour Cost per Vehicle Cost Effectiveness Cost per Passenger Trip Revenue per Passenger Trip Ridership per Expense Service Utilization Rides per Mile Rides per Hour Rides per Capita Quality of Service Average Speed Complaints per 100,000 Miles Incidents per 50,000 Miles Accidents per 1,000,000 Miles Labor Productivity Rides per FTE Miles per FTE Coverage Miles per Capita

133

For reasons discussed in Coordination Revisited, it is the finding of this update that the struggles of the STF Committees are not so much about what to measure, but how to evaluate. For example, a Public Transit system achieves a lower Cost per Ride by putting more rides through the system; a Client-Only provider achieves the same results by limiting access. This is just one example of how a standard measurement can be legitimately used by differing provider types to demonstrate how well their system is doing while achieving diametrically opposed outcomes.

What the decision making stakeholders were really asking for is a metric that can measure community impact while accounting for dissimilarities among providers. For Further Discussion, this study demonstrates how ODOT Public Transit style formula allocations can help. Since the practice is used by the State’s largest distributor of mobility funds, it benefits from a broad range of established research. In the ODOT model the most common variables are:

. Population . Volume (annual rides) . Revenue Service Hours . Revenue Service Miles

ODOT puts more emphasis on some variables more than others. The STF Committees are of course welcome to use and weight these or other variable any way they wish. For the sake of the demonstration on the following page we are portraying the following assumptions:

Service Variable Weight

Population 50% Volume 25% Revenue Service Hours 15% Revenue Service Miles 10%

Financial Variable Value Available Funding $80,000

Competitive % 25%

Applicants In the Pool 4

The exercise on the following page assumes that the Committee has $80,000 to work with and that they have elected to reserve 25% for a separate competitive process. It also assumes that all four applicants for funding are eligible to receive funding under the hypothetical funding stream.

134

Unduplicated Annual Passengers by Applicant % Elderly Disabled Total 32% Provider A 247 111 358 Provider B 312 158 470 43%

Provider C 14 44 58 5%

Provider D 81 143 224 20%

Available Funding = $30,000 Total Riders 1,110 100%

Ride Count By Applicant Elderly Disabled Total %

Provider A 27,417 42,180 69,597 38% Provider B 32,448 12,324 44,772 25% Provider C 2,912 22,880 25,792 14% Provider D 21,060 20,020 41,080 23%

Available Funding = $15,000 Total Rides 181,241 100%

Rides and Miles By Applicant

Hours % Miles % Provider A 7,474 40% 187,722 40% Provider B 4,888 26% 120,142 26% Provider C 2,712 14% 67,280 14% Provider D 3,741 20% 93,512 20%

Total 18,815 468,656 Funding Available = $9,000 Funding Available = $6,000

Resulting Formula Allocation

Population Rides Hours Miles Total Provider A $9,600 $5,700 $3,600 $2,400 $21,300 Provider B $12,900 $3,750 $2,340 $1,560 $20,550 Provider C $1,500 $2,100 $1,260 $840 $5,700 Provider D $6,000 $3,450 $1,800 $1,200 $12,450 Total $30,000 $15,000 $9,000 $6,000 $60,000

135

The model on the previous page demonstrates some of the pros, cons and caveats of the formula allocation method.

Pros: The system is flexible and responsive to change. Change any variable in the assumption set and the end allocation will update accordingly.

A formula can easily be built into a common spreadsheet to update performance, priority and available resources on the fly – see accompanying CD.

Following the ODOT example, the system doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Depending on the parameters of the funding source, STF Committees can allocate a portion of their available resources to formula and another portion to a competitive process.

The system can be constructed with a certain level of predictability from cycle to cycle. For example, the Section 5311 allocation model presently in use by ODOT Public Transit limits the growth or shrink of formula funds to a recipient to 10% annually based on performance and populations variables.

A non competitive formula doesn’t call for an apples to oranges comparison of dissimilar delivery models using subjective evaluation metrics.

Cons: Once it is understood, a formula based system can be “gamed” by applicants. For example an applicant may choose to specialize in less productive trips if hours and miles are valued relative to passengers and ride counts.

Formulas require maintenance. ODOT Public Transit refines its Section 5311 formula model periodically. In fact they recently commissioned a study on the subject – Haire 5311 2010.

136

Caveats: Some funding sources may not lend themselves to formula allocation. For example Section 5310 requires a competitive process.

The underlying assumption that bears repeating is that the fictional applicants are eligible for the fund in question. At the time of this update, many of the available funding sources that are processed through the STF Committees aren’t open to all traditional applicants.

Another method of reconciling the dichotomy of service delivery models is so similar to the formula approach that it doesn’t merit the same guided discussion. STF Committees who wish to invest the time can simply prescribe and weight the evaluation criteria that they wish each applicant to use. Committing to this framework would require the Committees and their STF Agencies to have a values based discussion about the impacts they wish to prioritize in their jurisdictions (for example, pitting transit for Veterans against mobility for people with Developmental Disabilities). While neither approach to the conversation is right or wrong, this update discovered more support for a qualitative than a quantitative process.

Finally, evaluation measurements are frequently requested by local decision making bodies but seldom utilized. For example, in one of the evaluated counties the STF Formula Application requests evaluation criteria but never asks the proposer to report on the stated metrics from previous funding cycles. In some cases the point is academic since there is often only one eligible recipient. Nevertheless, failure to use even the fundamental evaluation objects that have been in play for several biennia negates the impetus for requiring them.

Future Plan Updates

Section 2.0 on the history of plans leading to this update indicates an unintentional but unsustainable pattern. The original coordination planning work benefiting the region was commissioned and paid for by the provider with the biggest stake in its outcome. While intentional efforts have been made to cast a broad net, this update carries forward the same essential flaw. If the Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Plan is to reach the fullness of its intent funder FTA 5310 Circular 2007 a more open and democratic update process is necessary.

137

For Further Discussion this review suggests an improved use of technology to expand and preserve its on-going update requirements. One of the most promising ideas generated by this study is the development of a simple Wiki script residing on the web site of a lead STF Agency.

Wikipedia style software has many compatible and useful features that grew out of the needs of users and ideas of developers. However, features and options can mean complexity – often stemming from functionality that may not be useful. The ideal configuration will:

 Host a publicly available read-only copy of the current plan and archived versions of referenced planning documents

 Provide access for periodic provider updates o Vehicle inventory o Program of Projects progress o Mission Accomplished, History and For Further Discussion topics

 Provide publicly available discussion forums for stakeholder input

 Provide administrative privileges to a key Lead County staff member o Administrator will moderate input (solicited and otherwise) o Periodically post links for input (www.surveymoney.com) o Compile compelling developments to the Program of Projects or Goals and Objectives or Funding Inventory for consideration by STF Committees  Module for periodic solicitation from the Lead County to regional providers for updates o Updates to be adopted by STF Committees and Agencies before older versions are archived and reviews replace them as the current read- only copy.

Fortunately, the Wiki revolution and the emergence of cloud computing have produced a number of open source or freeware solutions. They tend to travel in a broad range between out-of-the-box and feature rich deployments. Of all the options considered For Further Discussion, the most viable is participation in “WikiFarm”.

Wikifarm is a generic term for commercial – and often open source – sites that host WikiEngines which allow for the deployment of wiki sites without local hosting. The advantages include no technical setup or bandwidth from the Lead Agency Server. The only potential drawback is minimum traffic requirements. Most sites reviewed for this update will delete dormant sites with between 30 and 90 days of inactivity.

138

Appendix A Surveys, Stakeholder Interviews & Outreach

During the course of this update multiple surveys, stakeholder interviews and public outreach meetings were conducted. A broad spectrum in the qualitative value of stakeholder selection, inquiry development and data collection was noted – sometimes within the same process. As a result some results have more statistical significance than others. This appendix documents the outreach effort and demonstrates the raw data collection in the actionable form cited in the update.

Focus Group Inquiries

Eastern Oregon University Amy Bathke Tiffany Hansen Emily Patterson Allison Seymour Anthony Wiedenmann

Bedroom Community Stakeholders Rusty Aldrich Jeff Beneke Denise Christenson Cheryl Coe Daryl Howes Ernie Smith

Passengers with Disabilities Tim Black Iola Clausen Tricia Koehn Dixie Moore

Bicycle Pedestrian Stakeholders Nathan Forsythe Mark Larson Tyler Shaw

139

Individual Stakeholder Interviews:

Ruby Allen Elderly Passenger Union, Oregon June Bauck Elder Advocate North Powder, Oregon Betty Bronson City Councilor Union, Oregon Ken Hall Elder Citizen Perry, Oregon Claudia Hamilton Elder Volunteer Union, Oregon Ilene Hill Community Advocate Cove, Oregon Joyce Lawyer City Councilor North Powder, Oregon Mike Snyder Passenger w/ Disability La Grande, Oregon

Public Meeting Participants:

Cheryl Able Donna Amos Winnie Andrews Sue Briggs Josie Boyk Ray Crapo Myrna Davis Jessica Evans Fred Erickson Randy Erickson Sharon Evoy Nathan Forsythe Vangie Guze Brain Halloran Cheryl Jarvis-Smith Kenneth Kirk Ed Klimchock Tricia Koehn Dick Mason Raymond McVey Marge Savage Jerry Sebestyen Lesa Shaffer Mike Snyder Reta Snyder Dana Thomas Linda Vallette

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation made written comment

Professional Consults:

Teri Berry, Account Representative Worksource Oregon Patty Brady, Community Case Worker Grande Ronde Hospital Carl Brownson, Owner ARC Cab Company Mike Boquist, Planner City of La Grande Carl Deidrich Baker Cab Company Dale Delong, Mayor City of Island City Dwight Dill, Director Center for Human Development Pam Dodds, Program Manager La Grande Public School District Nichole Edvalson Settler’s Park Assisted Living Facility Nancy Fields, Director EO Support Services Brokerage Gayle Gazley Meadowbrook Place Jennifer Graffunder DHS – Child Welfare

140

Professional Consults (continued): Judy Hector, Director Chamber of Commerce Jessie Huxoll Grande Ronde Retirement Residence Zee Koza, Director New Day Enterprises Stephen Kliewer Wallowa Wellness Center Tammy McEnroe Head Start Roberta Moffit, Owner Moffit Brothers Transportation Bennie Moses, International Program Eastern Oregon University Wendy Langford, HR Specialist DHS Self Sufficiency Desiree Nawras DHS Seniors and People with Disabilities Tammy Pierce DHS Seniors and People with Disabilities Jeannie Rice Alpine House Assisted Living Cheryl Jarvis-Smith, Planner ODOT Region V Susan Roberts, Commissioner Wallowa County Marianne Sipe, Workforce Development Training and Employment Consortium Chris Still Northeast Oregon Housing Authority Ron Stokes Baker School District Sean Sweeny, Agency Sales Manager Greyhound Suzi Thompson, Chapter President AARP David Tift, Crisis Worker Shelter from the Storm Brad Van Gaasbeck Step Forward Activities, Inc. Beth Walsey, Director Union County Farmer’s Market Bob Warner Baker County DAV Organization Robin Weinman, Student Activities Eastern Oregon University Byron Whipple, Veterans Services Officer Veteran’s Services Ashley Wilhelm, Executive Assistant Union County Melanie Ybarra, Director Cascades East Ride Center

Funding Partner Consults:

Wallowa County STF Committee June 10, 2011 Baker County STF Committee June 13, 2011 Union County STF Committee June 14, 2011

Union County STF Agency (lead agent) for Adoption June 29, 2011 Union County Board of Commissioners (lead agent) for Recommended Amendments September 5, 2012

141

Appendix B Stakeholder Data Collection

This appendix summarizes responses from the outreach efforts associated with this project. For ease of reference and citation it has been divided into sections. Not all of the feedback received was incorporated into the update but each scrap was recorded here for its potential future use.

B-1 EOU Focus Group

Summary of Process:

The EOU Focus group was given a set of four questions to work on several days before the meeting:

1) Why do you think fixed route services are not more heavily utilized by EOU students?

2) What are the gaps in service that prevent EOU students from making more meaningful use of the fixed route service?

3) At what price per gallon does the fixed route system (which is free to those holding a valid EOU Student Activities Card) become your mode of choice?

4) What is it about EOU students that the delivery and marketing of public transit indicate that local providers simply don’t get?

Summary of Outcomes:

EOU Students are generally satisfied with the convenience, headway and accessibility of the fixed route transit system in La Grande. Those who were underclassmen when a cutaway was the primary fixed route vehicle are pleased with the addition of a mock trolley which they feel eliminates the stigma of “the short bus”. Criticisms of existing services fell into two camps:

1) Access to services as late as 9:30 pm are important because campus functions regularly run as late as 9:00 pm. Absence of weekend services was also seen as an operational gap that students were interested in seeing restored.

142

2) There is still a stigma surrounding public transit – specifically, students believe people who use public transit are generally those who cannot afford cars. The focus group recommended a marketing effort that rebrands public transit use as the environmentally responsible choice. They believe that a positive association with a perceived morally superior choice (even when a passenger, in reality, doesn’t have the financial means to avoid the choice) will resonate with the student body.

The Focus Group Students believe that gas prices ($3.85 per gallon locally at the time of the meeting) were sufficiently high to remove most financial barriers to using public transportation. However, they indicated that the local mobility picture is more complicated. Public Transit, at least in the student world, becomes a choice after several other mobility support options have fallen through. For example, if a student’s car is in the shop, he or she has a schedule that won’t allow carpooling with a room-mate, his or her bicycle tire is flat and it’s raining outside, Public Transit becomes a very appealing option. The students indicated that marketing efforts that appeal to their ideals could be effective in elevating transit from perhaps the fourth default position to the third but were unlikely to make it their first choice.

The EOU Focus Group didn’t think public transit providers had a complete understanding of their predilections. Of the life experiences they value, there was really only one they felt transit could evolve to accommodate; specifically spending time in the company of good friends. In the most compelling finding of what Transit doesn’t understand about EOU students, you are not alone. Most of their immediate needs (including spending time in the company of good friends) are met on campus or in the student housing units adjacent to it. Transit is often seen as the means to arrive at something they have to do (shopping, laundry, jobs). Life on or near campus is a part of what they want to do. To the extent transit for EOU students is driven by attractions within the community, it is largely beyond your control.

Takeaway Lessons:

1) Marketing with an emphasis on environmental impact is critical.

2) Most highly effective marketing channel on campus is likely to be free pens imprinted with transit’s key messages.

143

3) Investment in the development of “Student Ambassadors” (such as upper classmen who know something about the community) who can show incoming students how to access community attractions via transit is likely to pay significant dividends.

B-2 Bedroom Community Focus Group

Summary of Process:

People residing in small communities outside the region’s population centers were asked:

1) What level of transportation service would be meaningful in your community?

2) How many passengers would have to ride each time the service was offered for you to feel as if it has been meaningfully used?

3) At what price per gallon does public transportation become your mode of choice?

4) What is it about your community that the delivery and marketing of public transit indicate that local providers don’t understand?

Summary of Outcomes:

People who live in very small communities are not as dissatisfied with the absence of service as one may initially expect. This update found a broad range of consensus on the level of service in a community defined as meaningful. In each case it was correlated to the existence of a service that the stakeholders desired to see preserved at current levels. In smaller and unincorporated communities (such as Cove and Perry in Union County) where transit is not regularly offered, the perception of need was not as prevalent among focus group respondents.

144

In communities where transit exists, use that is meaningful was universally defined as preservation at existing levels. The interview stakeholders agreed that the price of fuel (between $3.60 and $3.75 depending on community and interview schedule – at the time of this update fuel prices were rising several cents per gallon per week) were within pain tolerances. However, residents of very rural communities (with a population of less than 2,500 people) indicated a strong connection to their personal automobiles.

In order to cope with the high price of fuel, very rural residents have developed the cooperative mechanisms you might expect. While formal ridesharing has yet to catch on, some people “ride to town” with neighbors when it is convenient. A more common strategy is neighbors picking up things for one another while they are “in town” for other purposes.

Providers of transportation services may not completely understand the motivations of those who reside in bedroom communities. While there are some low income residents (such as in North Powder, Oregon) who have secured housing where property values are most affordable, most have made the intentional choice to live in very rural settings. If transit has not already been established, it is seen as something that would be nice to have but it doesn’t have the same level of urgent expectation noted in the regional population centers.

Takeaway Lessons:

1) Public transit is not necessarily critical to every wide spot in the road.

2) To the extent that transit systems are used in rural communities, they are considered vital. New services or services with increased frequencies may take a very long time to find a following.

3) Life in the region’s very rural communities is heavily dependent on access to a personal automobile. Viability of regular public transit in these communities would require a significant cultural shift that is beyond the scope of marketing and system design of regional providers.

145

The bedroom communities of Elgin and Union were revisited between July and August of 2012 for the development of the Weekly Access for Bedroom Communities project (page 109). The meaningful service and meaningful use discussion initiated under NEOEDD 1.0 took a materially different turn when the served communities were faced with the prospect of financial participation in the available mobility options. At the time of this adoption, the passenger use of the public InterCity demonstration project in Elgin is outperforming the previous offering that used volunteers and dedicated capital. A functionally identical model is in development for Union.

The Takeaway Lesson for Version 1.1 may be the explicit vulnerability of local mobility when rural municipalities rely 100% on a soft money organization to deliver services. More work remains to be done on the role of Legacy Capital (coordinated and otherwise) to remedy changes in the way services are delivered in very low demand markets. Lifeline programs must be grown and diversified to survive. Preservation of traditional offerings will require (at the very least) an equitable distribution of costs from the served communities.

B-3 Passengers with Disabilities Focus Group

Summary of Process:

Passengers with disabilities and their advocates were asked

1) What is the minimum level of transportation service is meaningful to you?

2) How many passengers would have to ride each time the service is offered for you to feel as if it has been meaningfully used?

3) What is the most important gap in service transit providers should be working toward addressing?

146

4) What is it about riders living with disabilities that the delivery and marketing of public transit indicate that local providers don’t understand?

Summary of Outcomes:

Provision of meaningful service to people with disabilities is a moving target. A service, once established, sets a new baseline for what is essentially a transit dependent population. When unsustainable offerings are removed the memory of once having had access continues to resonate within this passenger demographic. They feel as if a contributor toward their quality of life has been lost – even among those who were only aware of the service without actually using it themselves.

In terms of meaningful volume, riders with disabilities indicated that our research was asking the wrong question. They preferred to measure the utility of a service by unduplicated rider count. From their perspective the importance of a mobility offering is defined by the number of people who count on it rather than those who regularly use it.

Passengers with disabilities were unable to reach consensus on the single most important gap transit providers should be working to fill. Instead they presented a laundry list of sorts that was prioritized for the purposes of this update. In order of importance, gaps for riders living with disabilities are:

1) Saturday service 2) Transit later in the evenings 3) Service on Sunday 4) Accessible vehicles for Taxi providers 5) Discount fares for people with disabilities

Passengers with disabilities don’t think that transit providers completely understand that (just like the rest of us) they have good days and bad days. Some days they need more assistance with the necessities of travel (such as carry on items) than others. One focus group participant who recently spent several months receiving treatment in Portland was very concerned about what she saw as the competing roles of fixed route and paratransit. She wanted to make sure that feeling up to using an occasional fixed route didn’t jeopardize her eligibility to access paratransit services.

147

In general, passengers with disabilities wish to be served at their level of ability like any other rider. On days when they are unable to perform at top level, they don’t feel as if they should have to invoke their civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act to receive accommodation.

Takeaway Lessons:

1) Once aware of a service, this population considers it the baseline. As an incredibly transit sensitive demographic, it may not be suitable for demonstration type projects. Unsustainable offerings may even run contrary to their interest irrespective of short term benefits. Taking something away is harder on this population than never having offered it to begin with.

2) Most of the gaps in service identified by the focus group could be accommodated with improved coordination of capital assets that are otherwise just sitting in a parking lot.

B-4 Bicycle-Pedestrian Focus Group

Summary of Process:

The Bicycle-Pedestrian focus group was asked:

1) How can transit providers improve your community mobility experience?

2) What are gaps in service that you think transit providers may be able to address?

3) What is it about Cyclists and Pedestrians that the delivery and marketing of public transit indicate that local providers don’t understand?

Summary of Outcomes:

148

It was surprising to hear that the Bicycle-Pedestrian community is already supportive of the efforts of public transit. They cited bicycle racks on buses and passenger shelters as evidence that their concerns had been heard during the research phase of Orbis 2009. Most likely as residual commentary from Orbis 2009, the focus group was interested in striping and lighting improvements that transit’s investment in structural amenities may be able to leverage.

The Cyclist and Pedestrian community is one of pragmatists. They understand that transit providers can’t influence the placement of bicycle lanes or the construction of sidewalk improvements. However, they pointed out obvious oversights within the existing system. For example, there is no bicycle rack at the otherwise “multimodal” Northeast Oregon Public Transit Building.

Cyclist and Pedestrians feel misunderstood but not specifically by transit providers. They don’t think the average person gets the fact that they bike and walk for pleasure – not necessarily with a destination in mind. This group was most concerned about safety. They’re not worried about transit providers per se (who they view as safe and reliable), they’re worried about infrastructure. Specifically, they were concerned about motorists who frequently use lanes intended for bicycles as right hand turn lanes. Takeaway Lessons:

Pedestrians and Cyclists are generally supportive of the work of transit in their communities and are potentially excellent local allies.

B-5 Community and Individual Consults

Individual Consults were compiled into community profiles (see Appendix C) for Cove, Elgin, North Powder, Perry and Union. The profiles formalized and supported the impressions gathered from the Bedroom Community focus groups.

Cove: Pop. 600 Incidental service from Union Bus Cove features no awareness of mobility services available to it. It views transit as something that may be a nice convenience but not for practical use. Mobility orients primarily toward La Grande.

149

Elgin: Pop. 1,700 Community Connection Bus Elgin is generally aware of the Community Connection bus stationed within it but is unaware of the service running through it twice per week (from Joseph to La Grande). Volume in Elgin is very low but considered essential. Mobility orients primarily toward La Grande.

North Powder: Pop. 500 Community Connection Bus Elders who attend the senior meal site in North Powder know about the Community Connection Bus, the rest of the community generally does not. No one is aware of the bus running through between Baker City and La Grande twice per day. Volume is extremely low but considered essential. Mobility demand is directed heavily toward La Grande but features a significant orientation toward Baker City.

Perry: Pop. 35 No Service No real demand. Community sees transit access as meaningful even if no one rides. Transit orientation is almost exclusively toward La Grande populated by aging residents who are increasingly losing mobility.

Union: Pop. 2,000 Community Connection Bus Participants at Union’s senior meal site know about the Community Connection Bus, no one else has any awareness. Elders are interested in preservation of service, younger leaders are interested in access to La Grande and the economic development opportunities resident in reverse access to Union’s golf course. Orientation is heavily toward La Grande with occasional demand for access to Baker City.

B-6 Public Meetings and Professional Consults

These inputs were reduced to data collection tools exhibited in Appendix C and utilized to construct Sections 4.0 Provider Inventory, 5.0 Coordination Revisited and 7.0 Review and Assessment.

150

B-7 Baker City User Survey Results

In December 2010 a survey was conducted of all registered paratransit users in Baker City’s public transit system. Of 157 surveys distributed, 55 (35%) were returned. Questions and answers were as follows:

1 I have been using Community Connection Transportation for: 6 months or less 7 13% 6 months to 1 yr 4 7% 1 - 3 yrs 14 25% 3 to 5 yrs 8 15% only once 18 33% 4 7% 55

2 Before I began using CCT, arranging transportation to my appts. was: always a problem 17 31% sometimes a problem 25 45% never a problem 13 24% 55

3 Since using CCT getting to my appointments is: easier 46 84% about the same 8 15% more difficult 1 1% 55

4 I would rate the reliability of CCT services as: Very satisfied 44 80% Somewhat Satisfied 8 15% Neutral 1 1% Somewhat dissatisfied 2 4% Very Dissatisfied 0 0% 55

151

5 Using CCT: helps me to remain independent 44 80% makes no difference in my ability to remain independent 6 11% Does not help me to remain independent 2 4% 52

I would rate my overall satisfaction with CCT service 6 as: Very Satisfied 46 84% somewhat satisfied 8 15% neutral 0% somewhat dissatisfied 1 1% very dissatisfied 55

Requests to learn more about Public Transit: 12 (21%)

B-8 Tri-County Survey Results

Between January 3, 2011 and February 28, 2011 a set of surveys were conducted on the Northeast Oregon Public Transit website (www.neotransit.org). 80 responses were received breaking down as follows:

City Responses County Responses La Grande 30 Baker City 27 Enterprise 9 Union 41 Elgin 8 Baker 28 Island City 2 Wallowa 9 Halfway 1 Undisclosed 2 Union 1 Undisclosed 2

The age range of the respondents is presented below as a point of reference. As a sample of self identified individuals who were interested enough to take a survey on a transit website – where they were presumably seeking to find information

152

rather than providing it – the demographics say more about the tech savvy of regional age cohorts than rider profiles in general.

0 to 22 3 3.75% 23 to 44 51 63.75% 45 to 66 9 11.25% 67 to 88 7 8.75% 89 and over 6 7.50% Undisclosed 4 5.00%

The majority of the respondents (63 – 78.75%) said public transit exists in their community and they know how to use it. This is perhaps not surprising given the fact that the data was collected through a public transit website.

When presented with multiple selection opportunities, 74 people who responded to the question, “How do you typically get around inside your community (check all that apply)” the personal car achieved a commanding plurality (44.72%) of all checks. Walking was the next most popular with 16.77%. Transit came in third with just under 15%. By way of comparison, 7.50% of all respondents elected not to answer this question.

Attempts to gather focus group type input, specifically, the amount of service necessary to be meaningful to a community and the number of rides it would need to produce for the respondent to consider it meaningfully used, did not transfer well to this medium and the results were thrown out.

The only question in the survey that was answered by 100% of the respondents was, “At what price per gallon does public transit become an attractive option for you?” Answers were as follows:

Doesn’t matter, I will continue to drive 2 2.5% I don’t have a car 4 5% $3.75 4 5%

153

$3.90 1 1.25% $4.00 8 10% $4.20 1 1.25% $4.50 11 13.75% $5.00 27 33.75% $5.50 6 7.5% $5.60 1 1.25% $6.00 8 10% $6.50 4 5% $10.00 3 3.75%

At the time of this update the local cost of fuel $3.96 per gallon) is near or above the pain threshold of 16% of the survey respondents. $5 appears to be the regional tipping point. When asked to identify barriers to personal mobility within their communities, the most common response for survey respondents was to skip the question (27.5%). The next most common response was None –as in no barriers – reported by 13.75%. This result doesn’t let transit off the hook given the indicators we received from our stakeholder and focus group interviews. In fact the remaining 58.75% of survey respondents provided the following barriers:

 Limited schedules  Weekend services  No service to smaller communities  No service on holidays  Poor weather

154

Appendix C Data Collection Sheet Samples

PROGRAM OF PROJECTS DATA SHEET

Transit Provider:

Type of Service: Public Client-Only Contract Only

Description of Project:

Estimated Cost of Project: ______Funding Source(s): ______

Estimated Cost of Local Match: ______Funding Source(s): ______

Estimated Completion Date: ______Anticipated Useful Life: ______

How will this project benefit people with disabilities, the elderly and people with low income?

Will this project coordinate by providing public service or rides to passengers outside of your defined clientele? Yes No

If so, please describe your marketing efforts to attract new riders

Will this project coordinate by sharing vehicles with a public transit provider? Yes No

If so, please describe the nature of your agreement (MOU, Lease, shared driver / volunteer, etc.)

155

Which measurement best evaluates the performance standards of your project (check all that apply)?

Cost per Mile Rides per Hour Other (describe):

Cost per Hour Rides per Capita

Cost per Ride Rides per FTE

How will your project generate improvements in the selected performance standard(s) and/or leverage similar improvement among other coordinated providers?

What will happen to the transit services you presently provide if this project is partially funded or declined? Please be specific. How many hours of service will be lost, how many rides will not be provided. When do you anticipate service impacts to begin.

What resources have you sought or secured outside of the STF, STO, STG and 5310 processes to launch or preserve your project?

156

COMMUNITY PROFILE SHEET:

COMMUNITY EVALUATED: ______

What is the population of the community: ______Elderly: ______% of Elderly: ______

Does community have a TSP or is it included in one? Yes No

How is the community served by public or private providers of transportation?

Describe the level of local awareness of public transit services and how to use them:

Who are the primary users of transit services in the community?

Described the level of public transit services that would be meaninful to the people who reside in the profiled community.

Describe the level of local use of public transit that would be considered meaningful by the people in the profiled community.

157

What are the primary transit challenges (gaps in service) experienced by the residents of the profiled community?

At what price per gallon do residents of the profiled community begin to see public transit as an attractive option? : $______.

When people leave the profiled community for the following trips, where are they typically going?

< 20 miles (any purpose): ______

21 to 50 miles (any purpose): ______

51 to 100 miles (any purpose): ______

Over 100 miles (any purpose): ______

Medical care: ______

Shopping: ______

Other professional services: ______

What is the most important thing that could be done in the profiled community to improve access to public transportation?

158

FIRST TIER PROVIDER PROFILE 2011

Provider Name: ______

Type of Service: Public Client-Only Contract Only

Describe Service Schedule:

Describe Service Area:

Describe Fares for Service:

Describe Dispatch Model:

How many vehicles do you operate? ______How many are wheelchair accessible? ______

How many vehicles will require replacement in…

0 to 5 years: _____ 6 to 10 years: _____ 11 to 15 years: _____ 16 to 20 years: _____

Counting each rider in only one category, how many rides would you estimate that you provide every month to:

People with disabilities: ______

People age 60 or over: ______

People who are low income: ______

Others: ______

Total Rides: ______

159

What is your annual estimated cost for maintenance and insurance per vehicle? ______

The following scale assumes there is surplus capacity available in wheelchair accessible vehicles. Please place a check in the box that best indicates your level of interest in using this capacity to meet your demand for service in each circumstance.

Not Indifferent Interested Very Circumstance Interested Interested

When your vehicle(s) is/are in the shop

When you need additional capacity

When you need a larger vehicle

If the cost for using the vehicle covers insurance and maintenance AND is less than what you are presently paying

In lieu of purchasing new vehicles

When you need ADA capacity

Other (Please define):

160

SECOND TIER PROVIDER PROFILE 2011

Provider Name: ______

Describe Needs of Provider’s Clientele:

Describe Provider’s Service Area:

How many unduplicated clients does the provider purchase rides for annually? ______

By way of percentage how many:

Are over age 60 ______%

Use personal mobility devices ______%

Are visually or hearing impaired ______%

Are working single parents ______%

Fulltime Students ______%

Approximately how many annual rides do the providers clients consume? ______

Describe a Few Common Destinations for Provider’s Clients (i.e. medical, work, shopping, etc.):

161

What Mobility Challenges Are Commonly Faced by Provider’s Clients?

What Gaps in Services Does The Provider Perceive in Terms of Local Mobility?

162

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW

STAKEHOLDER: ______

Stakeholder represents: ______

Stakeholder identified by: ______

Address: ______City: ______Phone: ______

Community of interest: ______

What can you tell me about transportation in your community?

What are the gaps in service or unrealized opportuntites from your perspective?

163

At what price per gallon does transit become an appealing option for you? $ ______

Why do you think more people don’t use public transit?

What is it that about your community that the delivery and marketing of transit indicates that region providers have indicated they don’t understand?

When people leave the profiled community for the following trips, where are they typically going?

< 20 miles (any purpose): ______

21 to 50 miles (any purpose): ______

51 to 100 miles (any purpose): ______

Over 100 miles (any purpose): ______

Medical care: ______

Shopping: ______

Other professional services: ______

164

What is the most important thing that could be done in the profiled community to improve access to public transportation?

165

Appendix D Draft Coordinated Vehicle MOU

Public Transit Shared Resources Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) By and Between Community Connection of Northeast Oregon, Inc. and Coordination Partner

This is an agreement between Community Connection of Northeast Oregon, Inc., hereinafter called CCNO and Coordination Partner, hereinafter called Partner.

I. PURPOSE & SCOPE The purpose of this MOU is to clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of each party as they relate to the sharing of a capital resource in the mutual interest of both parties.

Both parties should ensure that program activities are conducted in compliance with all applicable Federal laws, rules, and regulations including Civil Rights and OMB regulations governing cost issues.

The provision of CCNO’s capital funding sources also require compliance (including training to proficiency) on disability service equipment.

In particular, this MOU is intended to: Increase utilization of CCNO’s surplus capacity Increase access to and use of the Partner’s services Minimize the costs associated with access to the Partner’s services by both parties

II. CCNO responsibilities under this MOU CCNO shall undertake the following activities: Allocation of surplus capacity on appropriate vehicles for the use of the Partner Providing a clean vehicle full of fuel Scheduling coordinated vehicles and drivers identified by the Partner Training drivers indentified by the Partner to proficiency on the use of coordinated vehicles and their associated disability service equipment Bill subscription fee on a monthly basis Other responsibilities that the parties may from time to time negotiate and incorporate into this MOU

166

III. The Partner’s responsibilities under this MOU The Partner shall undertake the following activities: Provide CCNO with an anticipated schedule of need for a coordinated vehicle Maintain record of boardings Complete CCNO form detailing any incidental maintenance needs Report incidents or accidents immediately to CCNO Return the coordinated vehicle clean, with a full fuel tank Provide driver(s) to be trained to proficiency and insured by CCNO Other responsibilities that the parties may from time to time negotiate and incorporate into this MOU

IV. It is mutually agreed to and understood between the parties that: 1. Bus allocation: The Coordinated Vehicles being made available from CCNO to the Partner are non exclusive. While CCNO will do its best to provide a vehicle of appropriate size and equipment, the Partner may not enjoy access to the same vehicle every week. 2. Demonstration Project: The parties mutually agree that the Coordinated Vehicles are being offered as part of a Demonstration Project (scheduled for reevaluation in June 2011).The term of this agreement will run until June 20, 2011 when the parties may agree to renew or renegotiate terms if the project continues. 3. Termination: Either Party may exit this agreement by providing the other 30 days written notice via US Mail. Written notice is considered to have been given on the day post marked by the US Postal Service. 4. Consideration: The parties agree to a monthly subscription fee of $50 payable to CCNO from the Partner. A subscription fee will not be charged during months when a vehicle has not been scheduled for the Partner’s use.

V. Effective Date and Signature This MOU shall be effective upon the signature of authorized officials of the parties. It shall be in force from ______, ____, 2010 to ______, _____, 2011.

Signatures and dates

______Margaret Davidson, Executive Director Date Community Connection of Northeast Oregon, Inc.

______Partner Signer Date

167

Appendix E Public System Maps and Schedules

168

169

La Grande / Island City Fixed Route Schedule

Paratransit Area of Service in La Grande and Island City

170

The Bus Shuttle Service – Seasonal Wallowa County

* Pickup/Drop Off Locations *

1. Wallowa (A) Community Center 2. Lostine (A) Post Office 3. Enterprise (A) Warde Courtyard (B) Video Buffs Parking Lot

4. Joseph (A) Joseph Visitor Center

(B) Indian Lodge Motel

5. Wallowa Lake (A) North End of Wallowa Lake (Call for Ride)

(B) Boat Marina Parking Lot

Special Note:

All above locations will be marked with “Ride the Bus” sign at each pickup/drop off location for your convenience. These times are approximate, drivers will make every effort to arrive and depart on time.

Age Limit to Ride Shuttle without Adult Is 12-Years Old

Kids 5 and under ride FREE

$1.50 per Ride

Punch cards and Day passes are available.

$1.50 Each Time You Board the Bus

The Bus Shuttle Schedule

Leave and return time schedule for Wallowa & Lostine Only

171

Cities Locations Leave Return

Wallowa Community Center 7:15 AM 5:30 PM

Lostine Between Crow’s Store & 7:30 AM 5:20 PM Post Office

The cities of Wallowa and Lostine have only 1 Morning trip and 1 Afternoon trip daily, Monday thru Thursday. Leaves Enterprise @ 5:00 P.M. (Pick up Stops @ Hospital & Coleman & Chrisman Office)

Monday through Saturday Schedule Summer Schedule / Enterprise to Wallowa Lake

6 Round Trips Daily Monday thru Saturday 541-426-3840

Arrive / Leave Cities / Pick up Locations Times

LEAVE ENTERPRISE/WARDE COURTYARD 8:00 AM

LEAVE VIDEO BUFFS PARKING LOT 8:05 AM

ARRIVE JOSEPH

LEAVE JOSEPH VISITOR CENTER 8:25 AM

LEAVE INDIAN LODGE MOTEL 8:30 AM

LEAVE North End of Wallowa Lake-call for ride 8:35 AM

ARRIVE WALLOWA LAKE

LEAVE BEACH PARKING LOT 8:45 AM

LEAVE EAGLE CAP CHALET 8:55 AM

ARRIVE JOSEPH

LEAVE INDIAN LODGE MOTEL 9:05 AM

LEAVE JOSEPH VISITOR CENTER 9:10 AM

ARRIVE ENTERPRISE

LEAVE WARDE PARK 9:25 AM

LEAVE VIDEO BUFFS 9:30 AM

172

Arrive / Leave Cities / Pick up Locations Times

ARRIVE JOSEPH

LEAVE JOSEPH VISITOR CENTER 9:45 AM

LEAVE INDIAN LODGE MOTEL 9:50 AM

LEAVE North end of Lake- call for ride 9:55 AM

BREAK 10:05 – 10:20

LEAVE BEACH PARKING LOT 10:20 AM

LEAVE EAGLE CAP CHALET 10:30 AM

ARRIVE JOSEPH

LEAVE INDIAN LODGE MOTEL 10:40 AM

LEAVE JOSEPH VISITOR CENTER 10:45 AM

ARRIVE ENTERPRISE

LEAVE VIDEO BUFFS 11:05 AM

ARRIVE JOSEPH

LEAVE JOSEPH VISITORS CENTER 11:20 AM

LEAVE INDIAM LODGE MOTEL 11:25 AM

LUNCH 11:30 – 12:00

LEAVE North end of Lake- call for ride 12:00 PM

LEAVE BEACH PARKING LOT 12:10 PM

LEAVE EAGLE CAP CHALET 12:20 PM

ARRIVE JOSEPH

LEAVE INDIAN LODGE MOTEL 12:30 PM

LEAVE JOSEPH VISITOR CENTER 12:35 PM

ARRIVE ENTERPRISE

173

LEAVE VIDEO BUFFS 1:00 PM

LEAVE JOSEPH VISITORS CENTER 1:20 PM

LEAVE INDIAN LODGE MOTEL 1:25 PM

LEAVE BEACH PARKING LOT 1:40 PM

LEAVE EAGLE CAP CHALET 1:50 PM

ARRIVE JOSEPH

LEAVE INDIAN LODGE MOTEL 2:00 PM

LEAVE JOSEPH VISITORS CENTER 2:05 PM

LEAVE WARDE PARK 2:20 PM

LEAVE VIDEO BUFFS 2:25 PM

ARRIVE JOSEPH

LEAVE JOSEPH VISITORS CENTER 2:45 PM

LEAVE INDIAN LODGE MOTEL 2:50 PM

LEAVE North end of Lake- call for ride 2:55 PM

BREAK 3:05 – 3:20

LEAVE BEACH PARKING LOT 3:30 PM

LEAVE EAGLE CAP CHALET 3:40 PM

ARRIVE JOSEPH

LEAVE INDIAN LODGE MOTEL 3:50 PM

LEAVE JOSEPH VISITORS CENTER 3:55 PM

ARRIVE ENTERPRISE

LEAVE WARDE PARK 4:15 PM

LEAVE VIDEO BUFFS 4:20 PM

ARRIVE JOSEPH

174

LEAVE JOSEPH VISITORS CENTER 4:40 PM

LEAVE INDIAN LODGE MOTEL 4:45 PM

LEAVE North end of Lake – call for ride 4:50 PM

LEAVE BEACH PARKING LOT 5:00 PM

LEAVE EAGLE CAP CHALET 5:10 PM

ARRIVE JOSEPH

LEAVE INDIAN LODGE MOTEL 5:20 PM

LEAVE JOSEPH VISITORS CENTER 5:25 PM

ARRIVE ENTERPRISE

LEAVE WARDE PARK 5:45 PM

END OF THE DAY 5:50 PM

175

Appendix F Regional Rolling Stock Inventory

ROLLING STOCK:

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

INVENTORY RECONSTITUTED FROM ORBIS 2009 (THESE RESPONDENTS DECLINED TO SHARE THEIR VEHICLE RECORDS FOR THIS UPDATE)

185

186

187