Gulf Coast Region Updated Regionally Coordinated Transportation Plan

BLANK PAGE

i GULF COAST REGION UPDATED REGIONALLY COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PREPARED BY THE HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

APPROVED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATION SUBCOMMITTEE

TO THE H-GAC TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

OCTOBER 2011

ACCEPTED BY THE H-GAC BOARD OF DIRECTORS

PLANS AND PROJECTS REVIEW COMMITTEE

DECEMBER 2011

Disclaimer: Funding for the preparation of this document was provided through a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are solely responsible for the opinions, findings and conclusions presented herein, and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

ii Table of Contents

List of Tables iv List of Figures v Executive Summary vi

1. Introduction 1 a. Background 1 b. Methodology/ Planned Approach 6 2. Transportation Resources in the Region 16 a. Transportation Providers 19 i. FTA Direct Recipients ii. Other providers b. Transportation Planning Agencies 21 3. Public Transportation Needs Assessment 22 a. Unmet Transportation Needs 23 b. Inefficiencies in Delivery of Transportation Services 43 4. Planning for Comprehensive Services 45 5. Efforts to Streamline Parallel Planning Processes 56 6. Staff Structure and Process to Sustain Planning and Services 57 7. Vision, Mission, Goals and Objectives 59 8. Leveraging resources/ Sustainability 61 9. Performance Measures to Evaluate Effectiveness 73 10. Next Steps 78 11. Appendices 81 a. Public Involvement Summary b. Transportation Providers Inventory c. Gulf Coast Region Population Growth d. Regional Transit Coordination Subcommittee Members e. Transit Needs Index Methodology f. Texas Health and Human Services Commission Offices- Gulf Coast

iii List of Tables

1. Summary of Transit Vehicles Purchased- H-GAC Buy 2. Public and Private Transportation Providers (H-GAC Survey) 3. Gulf Coast Demographic Summary 4. Socioeconomic Indicators 5. Limited English Proficiency 6. Literacy Skills Summary 7. Transportation and Mobility Recommendations- Care for Elders 8. METRO Local Weekday Comments- 2007 Onboard Survey 9. Medical Transportation Program Summary 2007, 2008 10. Highest Volume County to County Flows (2000) 11. Highest Volume County to County Flows (2025 placeholder) 12. Houston JARC and New Freedom Program Funds 13. Fort Bend County (FBC) Transit- Development History 14. FBC Transit Funding partners 15. FBC Transit County Participation 16. Colorado Valley Transit District Partners for JARC Project 17. City of Baytown Fixed Route Service Partners 18. Transportation Initiative Grants-United Way Texas Gulf Coast 19. Commuter and Transit Services Pilot Projects 20. H-GAC Area Agency on Aging Title 3B Transportation Funding 21. METRO Key Performance Indicators 22. 2011 Action Plan-Potential Pilot Projects 2011-2015

iv List of Figures

1. Gulf Coast Planning Region 2. The Importance of a Much Improved Mass Transit System 3. METRO 2035 Long Range Plan 4. Montgomery County Demand Response Ridership 5. METRO Bus and Rail Ridership 6. Regional Transit Service Guide 7. Fort Bend County Transit Demand Response Ridership 8. Harris County Transit Fixed Route Structure 9. Baytown Ridership Growth 10. GCC Connect Passenger Boardings 11. Transportation Providers 12. Houston HOV Lane System 13. Gulf Coast Regional Transit Needs Index 14. Harris County Transit Needs Index 15. Limited English Proficiency Households in La Porte 16. Overall Factors Affecting the Decision to Use Public Transit 17. Regional Environmental Justice (EJ) Areas 18. EJ Areas Inside Beltway 19. Transit Travel Time Bands to the CBD 2011 and 2035 20. Project Access 21. METRO and METROLift Service Areas 22. Urbanized Areas 23. Medical Transportation Program Origins 24. Medical Transportation Program Destinations 25. Onboard Transit Survey Origins 26. Onboard Transit Survey Destinations 27. County to County Travel Patterns 2000 28. County to County Travel Patterns Flows 2025 (placeholder) 29. Gulf Coast Transit Coordination Organizational Structure 30. Planning and Coordination Conceptual Framework 31. AARA Stimulus Funding Summary 32. Developing More Sustainable Pilot Projects 33. Population Accessibility 34. Employment Accessibility 35. User Benefits

v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Executive Summary presents a very brief overview of the key findings and recommendations that are included in the Updated Regionally Coordinated Transportation Plan (RCTP) for the Gulf Coast Region. Following are a series of related questions and their answers.

What is the RCTP ?

The RCTP is a comprehensive multi-agency plan to better coordinate the public transportation services in our region. It is part of a statewide planning process that includes the councils of governments in Texas. The purpose of the coordination plan is to ensure that all of the agencies that are responsible for planning and providing public transportation are working together to make their services more convenient for their customers and more efficient.

Why is the RCTP important ?

When the transportation service providers, regional planners and health and human service agencies work together it can save the tax-payers money and increase the effectiveness of the transportation services in our communities.

What’s in it for me ?

Do you (or someone you know) need a ride ? Are you too young or too old to drive ? Do you sometimes not have enough gas money to get where you need to go and get back? Do you know about the low-cost public transportation options in your community ? If not, call 211, the United Way Helpline for information about available transportation options in your area. For more details about the regional transit coordination plan, visit the project website at www.ridethegulfcoast.com.

The RCTP contains information about the public transportation options in your community and about the ongoing efforts to improve the regional public transportation system based on the transportation related needs that we heard about in the past. Many new projects have been implemented in response to those needs and we want to make sure that: 1) you are aware of those new or expanded services; and 2) that your unmet transportation related needs are documented for future action.

What we heard in the past:

Within the METRO service area there are many people that use the METRO and METROLift services on a regular basis and generally they can get to and from their

vi desired destinations. There are also some communities within the METRO service area where people have had limited success in using the METRO system for various reasons including but not limited to the following: they could not use it easily for cross-town trips, for mid-day, evenings or weekends or for longer distance trips that required more than one transfer.

Communities that are outside of the METRO Service Area have had very limited public transportation options in the past. Most of those communities are in Eastern Harris County or the outer counties. Those communities have had some form of a limited demand response service (dial-a-ride) for the elderly and disabled in parts of their areas. There has been a lack of adequate funding for county-wide demand response public transportation services for the general public in the outer counties in the Gulf Coast region. The general public with limited mobility options also includes those with lower incomes, youth, students and adults for various trip purposes including but not limited to employment, educational opportunities and recreation.

What has been done:

New and/or expanded transit services have been implemented recently in many communities that are responsive to transportation related needs that were identified before. Those new or expanded public transportation services are in Fort Bend County, Montgomery County, Eastern Harris County, Galveston and Brazoria Counties and Austin County. A regional transit services guide has been developed to provide more information to the general public and stakeholders about public transportation options. Transportation service providers in our region can now purchase transit vehicles through the H-GAC Buy cooperative purchasing program, saving taxpayer dollars.

What else needs to be done ?

Several projects have been identified to advance the coordination between service providers and stakeholder agencies in the region. Those projects include providing more information about the existing services and the benefits of using transit to elected officials as well as to the general public in more forms. A seamless regional transit fare policy is being pursued as well as coordinated training for drivers and operations staff, insurance pools and maintenance agreements are being considered among other strategies.

Respondents to a recent survey by Care for Elders of more than a thousand seniors in Houston and Harris County indicated that transportation and mobility challenges are

vii their highest priority concerns. Table ES-1 summarizes some recommendations to improve the transportation system from their perspective.1

Table ES-1. Transportation and Mobility Needs, Seniors 2010

Transportation and Mobility- Recommendations Frequency Percent Improve how current transportation programs 669 58.22 operate so that they better meet seniors’ needs. Make it safer for seniors to get around outside their 205 17.84 homes by doing things like putting in sidewalks and allowing more time to cross the street. Provide helpers on Metro buses and other transit 173 15.06 vehicles to help riders get on/off, carry packages, etc. Reduce the cost of current transportation programs. 102 8.88

Total 1149 100

There were 12,897 validated responses to the 2007 Onboard Transit Survey representing more than 329,000 transit system trips (boardings) on METRO, the Woodlands Express and Island Transit.

Those survey respondents who used the METRO local bus system offered many comments about the service that can be viewed as suggestions for improvement or transit related needs. The top responses by categories are noted below. 2

Table ES-2. METRO Local Weekday Comments

Improvement Related Comments Frequency Concern about operating transit services on time. 1,318 Expand levels of service (earlier service, later service, more frequent 1,304 service, add midday service). Compliments or comments specific to a particular service. 1,054 Concern about driver attitude/courtesy/safe driving habits 757

1 Care for Elders, www.careforelders.org, 2010. 2 H-GAC 2007 Transit Onboard Survey, Dikita Management Services, RSM Services Corporation.

viii transit deficiencies and needs was developed. The most significant results of those efforts are summarized below.

The Non-Rider Survey reported responses from 452 people throughout the TMA region. Overall, safety was the most influential factor affecting the decision to use public transit, followed by direct routes and then frequency of service.

Figure ES-1. Overall Factors Affecting the Decision to Use Public Transit3

Regional transit needs include the following:

• New commuter based services will be needed to meet the demand of the projected population growth in suburban communities. • New local services needed to connect local communities with the regional services. • Investments in right-of-way improvements or other transit priority measures to reduce the impact of traffic congestion. • Network of coordinated local and regional transit services to provide seamless regional travel”. 4

3 Source: H-GAC Regional Transit Framework Study Non-Rider Telephone Survey, 2010. 4 H-GAC Regional Transit Framework Study—Regional Transit Deficiencies and Needs Report, 2010.

ix recently organized in relation to that challenge through the United Way of Greater Houston. It was titled “Bridging the Social Services Transportation Gap: A Workshop on Forming Strategic Collaborations”. The purpose of the workshop was to better understand the transportation stakeholder agencies and to get acquainted with their representatives and staff from various non-profit organizations. In addition, the participants discussed transportation related challenges and potential solutions to address those challenges.

In general terms, there are several opportunities to enhance the public transportation system in the Gulf Coast Region to be more coordinated. Some of the more apparent opportunities relate to the following:

• Local match funding that could be used to leverage other resources, • Overlapping service areas, • Uncoordinated county-level delivery systems.

Each of those opportunities are explained more thoroughly in the RCTP document in the section that discusses inefficiencies in the delivery of transportation services (pages 43-45).

Next Steps, 2012-2015

The following outline provides some guidance in advancing the transit service planning and coordination activities in the region for the next few years.

• Review and Re-prioritize Pilot Projects (as needed) for regional coordination, including but not limited to expanded Resource Sharing and Public Information. • Develop a 2012 Coordination Action Plan and prioritize potential pilot projects for implementation in the 2012-2015 timeframe with assistance from the Regional Transit Coordination Subcommittee (RTCS) members. • Prepare an analysis of Non-Emergency Medical Trips using the Demand Response Accessibility Tool (DRT) or similar tools and techniques. • Conduct Travel Pattern Analyses of County-to-County Flows for total trips (Work and Non-Work trips). • Coordinate Regional Transit System Monitoring and Evaluation. • Expand the Coordinated Voucher Program to Brazoria and Galveston Counties through Intra-local Agreements with Gulf Coast Connect and Fort Bend County (FBC) through FBC Transit. • Develop a regional transit coordination financial plan. • Evaluate the locations of LEP households relative to transit access. • Update and refine the Transit Needs Index (TNI) methodology as more detailed Census 2010 data becomes available.

x The most recent public outreach provided comments that are supportive of the general directions of the regional coordination plan; to expand and improve the public transportation options in the greater Houston region and to coordinate the services better. More information about that recent public outreach is presented in Appendix A. There are several new potential Pilot Projects based on that recent public input as summarized below:

• Transportation Options Counseling. • Infrastructure/Service Improvements in high transit need areas. • Car-share Program • Volunteer Driver Voucher Program

“I don’t get around. I can’t go anywhere. It’s stressful to be alone too much”--71 year old Montgomery County woman with multiple health challenges

“It’s like living out in the wilderness. It’s in Houston but it’s in another world”--East Houston Woman over age 60 5

1. INTRODUCTION

The comments above are samples of the input that was received during the public outreach efforts for the 2006 regional transit coordination plan. Since that time transit services have been significantly improved in Montgomery County and Eastern Harris County. As a region we’ve come a long way, and we still have a long way to go relative to regional public transportation coordination. The greater Houston region has been recognized nationally as a model for some of its transportation coordination projects like the Harris County RIDES program which started as a pilot project more than seven years ago. The basis for that model is a user-side subsidy program with sponsoring agencies working in collaboration with public and private sectors (a Public, Private, Partnership or PPP).

Background

The Texas Gulf Coast Planning Region (the Region) includes the 13 counties shown in Figure 1 which is the same area that is covered by the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), a voluntary association of local governments. The Region has a population of 6.1 million people (Census 2010) and is projected to grow to 8.7 million people by 2035. H-GAC serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the eight counties

5 Assessing Transportation Challenges: Findings and Opportunities, United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast and the Texas Citizen Fund (2006).

in the Houston Transportation Management Area (TMA), (see the shaded area in Figure 1) an area of 4.5 million people. The eight counties in the TMA are designated as non- attainment for Air Quality Standards (ozone) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The remaining five counties in the region are predominantly rural in character.

The MPO is responsible for the development of the long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2035 RTP included the 2006 regional transit coordination plan as Appendix F. The regional transit coordination plan covers the 13-county region. The different geographic areas such as the Gulf Coast Region, the TMA, urban, and non- urban areas will require different funding strategies for transit service planning and coordination activities.

Figure 1. Gulf Coast Planning Region

Rural Counties (5)

Transportation Management Area (TMA) 8 counties.

There are still many service related gaps and challenges associated with transit service coordination in this region. That is partly due to its sheer size (12,000 square miles) and partly due to the fact that many smaller transit systems in smaller communities throughout the region have not historically connected with the central core area of Houston. That connectivity will be more important in the future as the region grows in population and employment and as the bus and rail system in Houston expands to accommodate some of that growth in regional travel. A key related highlight was gleaned from the 2010 Houston Area Survey as shown in Figure 2. It indicates the public perception of the increasing importance of improving the mass transit system in the Houston area (top line) and the need to include a rail component in that system (bottom line). Over the ten-year time period represented in the graph, those lines have started to converge at a significantly higher level of importance than reported in the early 1990s. 6

Figure 2. The Importance of a Much-Improved Mass Transit System and of Including a Rail Component (1991-2010) 80

The development of much-improved mass transit system is "very important" for future 75 success of Houston. And it is "very important" for that transit system to have a rail component. 70 65 62 63 62

58 60 57 (r=+.111, p.=.000) 56 58 55 52 (Mass-transit system.) (r=+.181, p.=.000) 50 51 49 47 45 46 45 45 40

Percent Saying, Saying, Percent Important." "Very (Rail component.) 35 34 30 32

20 1991 1993 2000 2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2010 Year of Survey

Mass transit connections between the central city bus and rail systems, the rural and intercity bus and inter-regional high capacity transit systems will be more important in the future, see Figure 3. In addition, the development of the associated infrastructure improvements for better regional transit access and mobility should also be considered and programmed as funding becomes available.

6 The Changing Face of Houston, S. Klineberg, Rice University, April 2010.

Figure 3. METRO 2035 Long Range Plan

There are still many opportunities for public transportation stakeholders and service providers to collaborate and coordinate their services better in the future. The process of working through the details to implement those collaborative actions will require more education about the potential benefits and leadership among the stakeholder agencies to guide that process.

For example, in Montgomery County when the Brazos Transit District worked with the Friendship Center and provided county-wide general public demand response transit services in 2008-2009, ridership levels increased significantly as shown in Figure 4. 7 Figure 4. Montgomery County D&R Ridership FY 2009-FY 2010

In recent years, transit ridership in the core part of the region utilizing the METRO Bus and Rail system has decreased slightly, partly due to the economic downturn and other factors such as changes in the METRO fare system. See Figure 5.

7 Brazos Transit District presentation to the Technical Advisory Committee, 2010

Figure 5. METRO Bus and Rail Ridership

Methodology/ Planned Approach This updated 2011 transit coordination plan will highlight the recent accomplishments in terms of projects that have been implemented since 2006 that are responsive to needs previously identified. This plan will also focus on the highest priority regional transit coordination recommendations from the 2006 coordination Action Plan and identify the priorities for the next steps. Those next steps will necessarily require more and closer coordination with Houston METRO as a partner and facilitator of regional mobility and connectivity, along with other transit stakeholders in the region.

Some recent examples of that regional collaboration were the start-up of the Baytown Express Park and Ride, local bus services in Baytown and eastern Harris County and the Pasadena Park and Ride service. Those projects included partnerships between the Harris County Transit Services Division, METRO, the cities of Baytown, Pasadena and La Porte, Lee College, the Pasadena Towne Square Mall and others. Other notable models of coordination were related to the implementation of new and expanded transit services in Galveston County, Southern Brazoria County and Austin County.

An Action Plan was included in the 2006 regional transit coordination plan which contains a long list of potential pilot projects that would address the highest priority transit related needs and respond to many of the barriers and constraints to

coordination that were previously identified. The highest priorities for regional service planning and coordination were categorized as Resource Sharing, Public Information and Seamless Fares. Working groups were formed to address each of those priorities with members from the Regional Transit Coordination Subcommittee to the H-GAC Technical Advisory Committee. Other priorities that were identified related to a lack of county-wide general public demand response transit services in Montgomery, Liberty and Chambers counties. The development of transit plans to address those transit service gaps were identified as the highest sub-regional priorities. The 2006 Action Plan is reproduced in the following pages with notes summarizing the progress to date.

Regional Transit Coordination Action Plan (2006) and 2011 Updates 8

An action plan was developed from data analysis, public involvement, and extensive input by the steering committee. The plan includes nine categories of actions to be adopted as a blueprint to better coordination in the region with its attendant service and efficiency benefits. The categories include the following:

• Consumer Information Program. Although not all of the 12,000 square miles of the region are covered by transportation services, the study found that many citizens are not aware of the services that do exist. Potential pilot projects to address this need include establishing a transportation specialist within the local 211 program and establishing a regional mobility manager.

o A Mobility Manager and six Ambassadors were hired for the Harris County RIDES+ Program. In 2011, two additional Ambassadors are being hired. Fort Bend County Transit hired a Mobility Manager and has secured funding for Escorts. o Transportation related information and training for transportation related referrals was provided to the 211 operators. o Regional Transit Brochures were prepared and distributed to transit providers, Health and Human Services (HHS) agency staff and other transportation stakeholders in the region. A sample brochure is shown as Figure 6.

8 Excerpts from the Gulf Coast Region Coordinated Regional Public Transportation Plan, December 2006, Houston- Galveston Area Council, The Goodman Corporation, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Texas Southern University Center for Transportation, Training & Research.

Figure 6. Regional Transit Brochure—Harris County Example

• Business and Public Officials Information Program. The study found that business leaders, employers, and public officials are uninformed about the transportation services that affect them, their employees, and their constituents. In addition, they are uninformed of the advantages and benefits associated with utilizing public transportation. A potential pilot project to address this need includes developing a regional transportation alliance to identify transit champions and share information. (Not done yet).

• Cooperative Resource Development. At the heart of good coordination practices are multiple agencies working together to share the burden of routine activities to reduce costs and spread knowledge and expertise. This region has several excellent models to emulate throughout the region and beyond. Potential pilot projects to address this need include expansion and publicizing H-GAC’s cooperative purchasing program; developing universal certification standards for training of several staff functions such as drivers, mechanics, dispatchers; expansion of the Brazos Transit District’s shared maintenance program; establishing a regional training coordinator; and establishing a regional transportation ambassador program. In addition, through the transportation inventory, the project team compiled a cross reference between agencies that have the capability to provide six categories of services to others and agencies that requested assistance with those same six categories of services. An action item will be to hold a service providers’ fair where these two groups can come together.

o In 2006 there was a barrier between the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the H-GAC Buy cooperative purchasing program that prevented FTA funded transit providers from purchasing transit vehicles. Through discussions with the cognizant agencies and the RTCS Resource Sharing Work Group, that barrier to coordination was removed. Subsequently, there has been a significant increase in the volume of transit vehicles purchased cooperatively in Texas and other states through the H-GAC Buy program as summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Transit Vehicles Purchased Year Units Total Value 2007 10 $ 604,546 2008 7 $ 588,258 2009 379 $ 46,291,525 2010 111 $12,649,520

o Efforts were started to implement a regional seamless fare system and has been postponed due to technical challenges and financial constraints. Independent and smaller transit operators are pursuing smart card technology. Ideally, future implementation of smart card technology should include compatibility with the METRO Q-Card system. Enabling that compatibility will require closer coordination with METRO. o Insurance Pool options have been briefly discussed among the RTCS. o A Transit Fleet Fuel card is now available to regional transit service providers through the H-GAC Buy cooperative purchasing program. It is anticipated that the smaller transit operators might benefit more from the fuel card since the larger systems already have discounted fuel programs available to them.

• Revised Rules and Regulations. In developing the barriers and constraints report and other discussions with the steering committee and other providers, there were many suggestions for streamlining the rules and the way they are interpreted and/or put into practice. Direct actions are limited, but regional activists individually and as a group can urge the lawmakers and rule makers to ease regulations which inhibit trip chaining, trip sharing, encourage ineffective gate-keeping, and abruptly terminate experimentation. Potential pilot projects to demonstrate the impact of rule modifications include short-term Medicaid dispatching modifications, use of school buses during off-school peak times for health and human service transportation; development of a capital replacement strategy for the region-wide vehicle fleet which averages five years old; and collaborating on better matching of medical services to transportation need. o Not done yet

• Overall Coordination Body. The activities through H-GAC during the last year have been useful in bringing agencies together and highlighting great local examples of coordination. The resulting plan includes many actions that will further increase coordination and improve services to the citizens. A continuation strategy is needed to ensure that the initial progress is not lost and that the recommendations are implemented. Thus a permanent coordination body is recommended to keep the process moving.

The Regional Transit Coordination Subcommittee (RTCS) to the H- GAC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established. Quarterly meetings have been facilitated with average attendance of about 25 participants. Those meetings have provided a forum for information sharing, networking and problem-solving activities that have helped to foster more coordination in the region among transportation providers.

• Establish New Services. In examining the needs of communities throughout the region, many service gaps were identified along with existing services that are lacking in sufficient coverage (area, hours, days). Thus 31 service recommendations were made. These include all funding categories, rural, urban, and categories of service.

Since the 2006 transit coordination plan was developed, there have been several new and expanded transit system elements, including but not limited to the following:

• Austin County JARC Route serving Austin and Colorado counties, the Workforce Centers and their clients; • Brazos Transit-New park and ride service from the Sterling Ridge Park and Ride lot; o Montgomery County General Public county-wide Demand Response Service, Sam Houston Shuttle (discontinued); • Fixed Route transit services were added serving eastern Harris County areas including Baytown, Pasadena, La Porte, Deer Park; • The Harris County RIDES program expanded services for the disabled and elderly in Northwest and West Harris County including the cities of Katy, Jersey Village, Spring, Humble, Atascocita, Tomball and Cypress using New Freedom funding; • Galveston County Mall of the Mainland park and ride service and fixed route bus services in the cities of Texas City, La Marque, Dickinson, Bacliff, San Leon; • Southern Brazoria County fixed route services in the cities of Angleton, Clute, Freeport and Lake Jackson; • Fort Bend County continuation of TREK Express to Uptown and Greenway Plaza; o New Park and Ride service to the Texas Medical Center

Significant recent growth in transit ridership has been reported in Fort Bend County, Eastern Harris County; Baytown, Pasadena and La Porte, mainland Galveston County and Southern Brazoria County as shown in Figures 7-10 on the following pages.

Figure 7. Fort Bend County (FBC) Transit Demand Response Ridership Growth

Demand Response Trips Figure80000 8- Harris County Transit Fixed Route Structure70580 70000

60000 50452 50000

40000 31004 30000

20000 4210 7042 10000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 8. Harris County Transit Fixed Route Structure

Figure 9. Baytown Ridership Growth

Baytown Fixed Route Service July 2008 - June 2010

4000 3406 3500 3386 3066 3000 2859 2656 2587 2416 2303 2500 2271 2190 2135 2145 2063 1934 1925 1934 2004 2000 1865 1707 1689 1682 1504 1509 1500

Number of Trips 1000 638 500

Jul-08 Jul-09 Sep-08 Nov-08 Jan-09 Mar-09 May-09 Sep-09 Nov-09 Jan-10 Mar-10 May-10 New projects/programs funded through the annualMonth call for projects for Job Access

Figure 10. GCC Connect Passenger Boardings, FY 2007 -2010

Passenger Boardings 25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

- FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 General Public 13,621 16,213 18,457 22,006

Over an extended period of time, those new transit services should be carefully monitored and evaluated for opportunities to improve and to sustain them if feasible. In almost all cases, a dedicated source of local matching funds or some innovative budgeting is needed to realize the transportation funding that is available to the region in a cooperative coordinated system. For example, a recurring theme to be discussed more in the financial section of this plan is the fact that many local funds are budgeted each year for a variety of transportation services that are not coordinated.

As a result, the value of those local dollars are not documented in a way so that the potential for using those funds for local match in a coordinated system could be used as leverage to garner more funds from other sources. Another key concern is the sustainability of services that are begun using demonstration or temporary pilot project funds. Ongoing funding allocations should be part of a funding formula that doesn’t change from year to year. In essence, a dedicated funding source is needed. One proposal would utilize a small portion of the region’s toll road revenues for the expansion and maintenance of public transportation services in the region that are outside of the METRO service area. Another proposal would utilize a small portion of the regional sales tax revenues to sustain public transit services in the region underserved by public transit and outside of the METRO core service area.

• Flexible Insurance. Insurance costs are a large portion of transportation providers’ budgets. The constant on-the-road exposure to potential liability requires extensive coverage. There are some good examples of insurance pool participation in the region and some legislative relief through the Tort Claims Act. Ongoing research into improved insurance practices, pooling and other resources is recommended. Options and tradeoffs have been discussed and a method to start the process to implement a regional insurance pool for transit service providers has been considered, but not yet implemented.

• Equipment and Technology. There are many advances in this category that can greatly facilitate coordination and can save money. There are also unfunded mandates, such as in relation to alternatively fueled vehicles that present challenges to ongoing operations. Pilot projects recommended to address equipment and technology issues include developing a rational strategy for reducing transit vehicle pollution in the region; developing policies and procedures for fare sharing, transfers, and the electronic media (smart cards) to support their seamless implementation; and improved communications between the drivers and passengers. o Advances in this area have been made for several transit providers using ITS technology. The development of a regional smart card for a seamless fare system has been delayed due to technological and cost factors.

• Access to Public Transportation. One of the important outcomes of the public meetings, surveys, and focus groups was the magnitude of the challenges to individuals in accessing and using public transportation. Leaving home, getting to the bus stop, and returning home can all be fraught with impediments. Pilot projects recommended to address this problem include travel counseling, individual home improvements, neighborhood improvements, and trip assistance.

o Meetings have been held in cooperation with the local American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to organize an effort to address transportation and mobility challenges for seniors in Houston and Harris County. A transportation improvement strategy has been developed and is in the beginning stages of building a collaborative process to acquire funding to begin implementation of pilot projects to address some of the transportation and mobility challenges. o Meetings have been facilitated by Texas One Voice; a collaborative for Health and Human Services agencies with METRO staff to improve access to and utilization of the METRO system for special needs population groups including but not limited to the elderly, disabled and low/no income. o In 2008 the Homeless Coalition of Houston and Harris County worked with One Voice to survey non-profit agencies that would be negatively impacted by the METRO fare increase and other fare system changes as the Q-Card system was implemented. As a result of meetings with representatives of those agencies, METRO provided some flexible fare options (METRO Money) to the non-profits to mitigate some of the negative potential of the fare increase and the elimination of bus tokens. Those bus tokens were used by the non- profit agencies for lifeline bus services for individuals moving from homelessness and other economically distressed situations. It was estimated at that time that the bus tokens purchased by the non- profit agencies exceeded $340,000 in cash value each year. The value of that purchasing power should be considered in future funding discussions as local match. This updated coordination plan has been discussed at two quarterly meetings of the RTCS in 2011, and a preview copy of this document was made available for to the RTCS members for review and comments (which have been addressed). Approval of the final draft document will be requested of the RTCS after public comments have been received and responses to those comments have been documented.

2. TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES IN THE GULF COAST REGION

Figure 11. Transportation Providers Gulf Coast Region

Part of the 2006 coordination plan included a transportation provider inventory for agencies and organizations providing various transportation services in the region. Between June and August of 2009, the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) under contract with the Texas Department of Transportation Public Transportation Division updated the 2006 provider inventory for the direct recipients of funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

Public Transportation Providers (surveyed by TTI) Public transportation service in the Gulf Coast region is provided by several public transit providers serving different areas of the region as outlined below and illustrated in Figure 11: • Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) serves approximately two-thirds of Harris County. • Harris County Transit and Harris County RIDES Program serves customers outside the METRO service area or those who cannot access METRO or METROLift services.

• Fort Bend County Transit serves the residents of Fort Bend County and commuters to Harris County employment centers in the Uptown/Galleria, Greenway Plaza and the Texas Medical Center. • Island Transit serves the City of Galveston • The Brazos Transit District (the District) provides transportation services in Liberty, Montgomery and Walker counties in the Gulf Coast Region. • Connect Transit, a subdivision of the Gulf Coast Center, provides services in Galveston and Brazoria counties. • Colorado Valley Transit District provides services in Austin, Colorado, Waller and Wharton counties. • American Red Cross provides services for eligible clients in the greater Houston/Harris County area. • R-Transit provides transit services in Matagorda County under contract with the Friends of Elder Citizens through the Victoria MPO.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) has been recognized recently by auditors of the State of Texas for its efforts to improve its efficiency, effectiveness and financial recordkeeping. METRO is not required by law to participate in the regionally coordinated transportation planning process because of its status as a transit authority. Nevertheless METRO staff have been continuously involved with the coordinated planning process and that involvement is becoming increasingly more important to facilitate the regional partnerships needed to advance the transportation coordination projects of regional significance. For example, METRO recently implemented a smart card technology, the Q-Card, to improve its fare collection system. During the implementation of the Q-Card system it was learned that the new fare system had some unintended negative consequences for some of the lowest income patrons who formerly used bus tokens or day passes that were provided by local non-profit agencies. By working with the non-profit agencies and the One Voice Collaborative for Health and Human Services steps have been taken and are still being considered to improve that situation. METRO operates the most extensive system of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes of any major city, carrying more than 140,000 daily passenger trips. The primary purpose of that HOV system has been utilized during peak periods. In the future the rights of way within and along those HOV lane corridors could be utilized by higher capacity transit options. The development of such a higher capacity system will require close coordination between METRO and other local planning agencies.

Figure 12. Houston HOV Lane System

Through its partnership with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) METRO has been able to develop and advance several light rail corridors using local funding from sales tax revenues for significant portions of the costs of those major projects. In addition, several projects have applied for grant funding through the Job Access Reverse Commute program in partnerships with METRO. Those partnerships have provided access to more local funds to leverage more federal (FTA) dollars to the greater Houston region. The leadership at the “New METRO” is guiding the agency towards more regionally coordinated transportation efforts. That guidance is summarized in a recent statement from METRO’s President and Chief Executive Officer:

“The goals of the new METRO are clear: 1) restoring public trust and confidence 2) completing five new light rail lines, and 3) enhancing the backbone of METRO – our bus service. In recent years, too many members of our community have perceived that METRO was not really listening to them or responding to their concerns in good faith. The new Board members and I know that perceptions are ultimately reality. Going forward, we will work in a way that gives citizens confidence that they know what METRO says and does is genuine and bankable.” 9

In the spring of 2011, H-GAC sent letters to 200 non-FTA direct recipients inviting them to respond to a comprehensive inventory survey of their transportation services. A total of 20 responses were completed. The purpose of the survey was to identify regional transportation resources that may be useful in enhancing local efforts for better transportation coordination. Table 2 summarizes the respondents to the H-GAC survey. A detailed inventory of the responding agencies is provided in Appendix B.

9 Letter from George Grenias, METRO 2009 Annual Report.

Table 2. Public and Private Transportation Providers

Provider Type of Trip Purpose Type of Service Counties Served Client Southwest Elderly Medical Congregate Demand Response Harris, Fort Bend, Regional SWR Disabled Meals Galveston

The Friendship Elderly Medical Shopping Flexible Route - Montgomery Center Disabled Social recreational Deviation Congregate Meals

Regional Elderly Welfare to Work Fixed Flexible Harris, Fort Bend, Medical Disabled Medical Educational Subscription Galveston, Brazoria, Transportation Students Shopping Nutrition Demand Response Matagorda, Waller Others Ride Sharing

Pasadena Taxi Elderly Work Medical Demand Response Harris & Galveston Disabled Educational Shopping Students Nutrition Others

Franklin Elderly Work Medical Demand Response All Counties Transportation Disabled Educational Shopping Ride Sharing Services Students Nutrition Work Others West Elderly Work Medical Demand Response Harris & Galveston Galveston Disabled Educational Shopping Ride Sharing County Students Nutrition Interfaith Work Caring Others Ministries Family First Elderly Medical Social Demand Response Harris, Fort Bend, Transportation Disabled Recreational Shopping Students Work Others Northwest Elderly Medical Social Flexible route Deviation Harris County Assistance Disabled Recreational Shopping Subscription Demand Ministries Others Response Others Seniors Wheels Alamo Bus Elderly Work Medical Demand Response Harris County Services Inc. Students Educational Shopping Others Others Personal Business

City of West U Elderly Medical Shopping Demand Response Personal Business Others

Excelsior Elderly Educational Shopping Demand Response Houston- Galveston Stage Coach, Students Social Recreational Others – Corporate Areas Inc. Others and/or Private Coaches

WCJC Elderly Medical Social Demand Response Colorado Colorado Recreational Shopping County Senior Nutrition Program Village Disabled Work/ Seeking Fixed RT Flexible RT Harris Learning & Employment Medical Subscription service Achievement Educational Other Demand Response Center Senior Center Elderly Medical Social Fixed RT Flexible RT Walker (only clients of Walker Recreational Shopping Subscription in Huntsville) County Nutrition Alpha Medical Elderly Medical Social Fixed RT Flexible RT Harris Brazoria Transport Disabled Recreational Shopping Subscription service Montgomery Ft Bend Welfare to Other Demand Response Work Ridesharing Students Others Southwest Elderly Medical Flexible RT Route Harris, Brazoria, Ft Regional and Disabled Deviation Bend AMT Others Royal Elderly Shopping Social Demand Response Harris, Ft Bend Carriages Others Recreational Ridesharing Galveston Limousine, Montgomery Inc. RR Elderly Work/ Seeking Demand Response Harris, Galveston Transportation Disabled Employment Medical Chambers, Ft Bend Services Inc. Students Social Recreational Liberty, Brazoria Welfare to Nutrition Educational Montgomery, Waller Work Other Others Jewish Elderly Social Recreational Demand Response Harris Community Disabled Nutrition Center of Students Houston Others Liberty County Medical Social Subscription service Liberty Project for the Shopping Recreational Demand Response Aging Nutrition

Survey Analysis

Of the 20 agencies that responded, 95 percent provide transportation services for seniors and 71 percent for disabled persons. Most of these agencies are restricted to serve their own clients, and for those that serve the general public, their coverage areas are restricted within their county only. The highest trip purpose is for medical, shopping and personal business. Significantly less transportation services are available for seniors and disabled persons on weeknights; however, a moderate amount of service is available on the weekends, and most trips are demand response services.

H-GAC also asked survey respondents if they have vehicles that are idle during portions of the day when they might be available for other uses (excluding standard spares), and if so, when those vehicles might be available. Almost 68 percent indicated that they have idle vehicles and most are available on weekdays during the midday, weekday evenings, Saturdays and Sundays. Most agencies are interested in receiving assistance from another agency in addressing the following areas: 73 percent in driver training and 55 percent for customer/ information/referral service. 2-b. Transportation Planning Agencies The transportation planning functions in the Gulf Coast Region are carried out by several agencies that work cooperatively as outlined below. More details about the transportation planning activities are provided in the 2011-2012 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) which is available on the H-GAC website at www.h-gac.com/taq.

• The Houston- Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) is the Council of Governments (COG) in the 13-county Gulf Coast Region. Within H-GAC, the Transportation Policy Council (TPC) is designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the 8-county Transportation Management Area. • The Texas Department of Transportation has several district offices that have transportation planning responsibilities in the counties in the Gulf Coast Region. Those include the Beaumont, Bryan, Houston and Yoakum Districts. Those districts have been combined recently into the Southeast TxDOT Planning Region. • The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) coordinates with H- GAC in the development of its long range transit plan in the METRO service area. • The Harris County Community Services Division Office of Transit Services has worked to implement plans to fill some of the service gaps outside of the METRO service area and provides transportation for elderly, disabled and low income residents who cannot effectively access METRO or METROLift services. • Other counties in the region have either an engineer or other staff with transportation planning responsibilities. • The cities of Houston, Galveston, Pasadena and other larger cities in the region have staff with transportation planning responsibilities within their respective jurisdictions.

3. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

This section is based on anecdotal information, demographic data and a series of sub- regional transit needs assessments that have occurred over a 3-4 year timeframe. The sub-regional level of focus has provided more transit service planning and coordination details within some of the communities that would not be apparent in a regional transit needs assessment. Some anecdotal information from public outreach efforts is summarized below:

“When I was working with Katrina folks who were housed near the Airport, we worked with METRO who would bring out a bus and we could show them how to use the bus. It can be done…we improved the ridership. A lot of places were accessible, the bus stop was right outside the complex, but they were fearful.” (J. Edwards)

“I think that one of the issues that we face is getting people across county lines. That’s one of the challenges we face in the Bay Area. Jobs are available in Galveston, but people live in Harris County….We need a service that crosses county lines.”

“Demand response is not always open to low-income…demand response may be accessible to persons with disabilities and seniors. (The provider doesn’t) get the subsidy (for serving a low- income person) that they get for a person with a disability or a senior.”

“One of the issues of the vanpool program. The driver has to take the lease, the person has to assume that responsibility for having the credit record to lease the vehicle. That’s very difficult for low-income individuals. It would be nice if the lease could be in the name of a social service organization, a governmental organization so that it would be accessible to the low-income person.” (B. Jasso)10

“Whether it is walking to the mailbox at the end of the driveway or sailing off on an Alaskan cruise, the ability to travel from Point A to Point B is important to everybody. Too many people who are blind are confined to idle lives at home because they haven’t learned reliable travel skills or don’t have the confidence to use the skills they’ve learned. Texas Confidence Builders helps consumers meet this challenge head-on by teaching a variety of travel techniques. All DBS consumers go through white cane training as part of developing their travel skills. They learn that traveling with a cane is a basic and reliable skill that will serve them well in navigating a variety of settings with confidence. With white cane in hand, consumers learn how to negotiate city sidewalks, cross busy intersections, ride the bus, maneuver through a bustling airport—or take a

10 Excerpts from H-GAC Public Comments received during the development of the 2006 regional transit coordination plan.

quiet walk on a country road. They develop the confidence to travel where and when they want, even when others doubt they can!”11

3-a. Unmet Transportation Needs

Areas of transit related needs were identified in the 2006 regional transit coordination plan, as well as in the 2025 and the 2035 Regional Transportation Plans RTPs (2005 and 2007, respectively). As part of the public involvement process for the 2006 coordination plan, focus groups were conducted in many of the communities of higher transit need previously identified in the 2025 RTP.

The development of the 2006 transit coordination plan included the review of the results of thousands of questionnaires in response to numerous surveys and focus groups held throughout the region. It is estimated that more than 4,500 Consumer Survey (general public) questionnaires were received and summarized. There were responses from 136 Social Service Agency representatives, 146 responses from business owners to the Economic Development Survey, and responses from 23 transportation providers to the Public Transportation Inventory survey. Twelve additional focus groups were coordinated through the United Way of the Texas Gulf coast and the Texas Citizen Fund’s complementary efforts.

That public involvement process generated a wealth of information about transit related needs in the Gulf Coast Region, providing a basis for ongoing improvements to the public transportation planning and coordination activities in the Region. In addition, there have been several sub-regional and county level transit planning studies and related public involvement activities and surveys more recently that contributed to the base of knowledge about transit related needs and public perspectives on the improvements needed.

The limited mobility options for young adults and children has been identified relative to school related transportation options in places where regular school bus services have been reduced or eliminated near some schools. Access to educational, social and recreational activities is a challenge in some areas that do not have regularly scheduled public transportation available particularly outside of the METRO bus local system service area. The transit service providers in the region offer reduced fares for children and students.

During the development of the Matagorda County Transit Plan (2010) a gap in transportation services was identified relative to school-age children:

11 Excerpts from Texas Confidence Builders Division for Blind Services brochure, made available during a presentation to the RTCS by Bill Weaver, Field Director, Division for Blind Services DARS.

“According to the Bay City ISD Transportation Director, there are approximately 200 students who live within this “No Transportation Zone, and would benefit from transit service to school….[he] indicated that the district did not have any financial resources that it could dedicate to local transit to support these services but that the parents of some children may be able/willing to pay for transportation services.” 12

Lack of Public Transportation for Youths:

Most school districts have a large investment in buses, both capital and operations. They are able to draw funds from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to help support school bus operation. Many have observed that school buses are idle part of the time, during the school day and during the summer. TEA will only allot funds for 180 days, except for certain circumstances. The State of Texas will provide funding support for a school’s transportation services for those students who reside farther than two miles from the school. Other factors related to public transportation for youth are noted below:

• Outside the METRO service area there is often no way for youth to get to recreational activities taking place inside the Houston area (such as Downtown & the Museum District).

• Teenagers who are willing to work may not have access to public transportation to their place of business.

• Many youth may need to run errands or take care of personal business while their parents are at work.

Suggested Action for School Bus Demonstration

A potential pilot project could coordinate with a demand response service provider and a school district to provide demand-response service during off-peak weekday times, on weekends and during the summer time.

In areas where students reside further than two miles from the school a Pilot Project could be initiated to provide school tripper service as regularly scheduled mass transportation service that is open to the public. This service should be designed or modified to accommodate the needs of school students and personnel and use various fare collection or subsidy systems.

A summary of key demographic factors is shown in Table 3. The 25% population growth between 2000 and 2010 is higher than the previous decade.

12 Matagorda County Transit Service Plan, October 2010, The Goodman Corp. for H-GAC.

Table 3. Gulf Coast Demographic Summary13

2000 Population 4,854,454

2010 Population Estimate 6,087,133

2000 – 2010 Change 25.40%

Persons over 65 Years Old 197,224 (3.4%)

Persons Under 5 Years Old 8.34%

Persons With a Disability 16.5%

Persons Hispanic or Latino 1,832,674

Average Median Household Income $53,689

Persons Below Poverty Line 10.09%

Households Without Automobile 7.4%

“From 2007 to 2008, the Houston metro area experienced the nation’s second-largest total population increase, adding 130,185 people; Harris County had the second-largest total increase among all U.S. counties, adding 72,153 people.” 14

Most of that population growth in Harris County was a result of the relocation of evacuees from Hurricane Katrina. More details about the population growth in the Houston metro area and other demographic data is summarized in Appendix C.

Table 4 is a summary of socioeconomic indicators for the poorest counties in the Gulf Coast Region based on median household incomes and the percent of the population in poverty. Texas has a lower median household income and higher percent of population in poverty than the U.S. Within the Gulf Coast Region several counties have lower median household incomes and higher percentages of persons in poverty than the state of Texas. Those factors contribute to the potential need for public transportation services in those counties.

13 Census 2000 is the source for year 2000 population, persons with disability and households without automobiles. Other data is from the American Community Survey Demographic and Housing estimates 2006-2008 or the 2010 Census. 14 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 4. Summary of Socioeconomic Indicators-200815

Area Median HH Population in Population Income ($) Poverty (%) under 18 in Poverty (%) U.S. 52,029 3.2 8.2 Texas 50,049 5.8 2.5 Liberty County 48,374 6.3 2.8 Wharton County 41,678 6.3 3.6 Matagorda County 40,578 8.0 7.0 Colorado County 39,441 7.9 5.2 Walker County 38,244 3.5 2.4

Transit Needs Index

The 2006 coordination plan included a Transit Needs Index (TNI) for each of the 13 counties in the region. The methodology for calculating the TNI was first developed in the mid 1990’s and involved identifying geographic concentrations of data that indicated a propensity to use transit based on transit systems in small towns in Texas at that time. The geographic data for that model was enhanced for the 2006 coordination plan based on Census 2000 block groups. For the 2011 Coordination Plan the TNI model was updated to use Census 2010 or American Community Survey data however the data that is currently available is for a different geographic level of detail which represents larger areas. Data was collected on the following six demographic categories:

• Population density (persons/square mile) • Race (all races other than “White, Not Hispanic”) • Median Household Income • Auto ownership (zero and one-car households) • Senior population (persons 65 and older) • Disabled population

The updated TNI Map for the Gulf Coast Region is displayed as Figure 13 with the darker shaded areas representing the higher transit needs. Figure 14 is an inset for Harris County showing the distinctions between the more urban higher density areas and other areas of transit need. Changes in the Transit Needs Index for counties would

15 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey.

be anticipated as new services are implemented and could be monitored over time. A suggestion has been made by H-GAC staff to revisit the theoretical basis for the TNI model and to update it to better reflect more current information about public transportation needs and the propensity to use transit. See Appendix E for more details.

Figure 13. Gulf Coast Transit Needs Index

Figure 14. TNI Harris County

Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

Public outreach efforts for the transportation planning activities at H-GAC have included information in multiple languages for several years including but not limited to Spanish, Vietnamese and Chinese, depending on the population in the area of interest. Most recently, in the development of the Matagorda County Transit Plan (2010), a Spanish version of a transit needs questionnaire was used because of the larger proportion of Spanish residents in Matagorda County.

The H-GAC Public Participation Plan is being updated this year to include a plan for outreach to the Limited English Proficiency population groups as summarized in Tables 5 and 6.

TABLE 5. LEP Population for the Gulf Coast Region

Total % Total % Total % Total MPA MPA LEP LEP MPA Spanish MPA Asian Population of Spanish of Total Asian of Total Total 2000 Census 4,854,454 679,587 14.00 1,104,856 22.76% 149,071 3.07%

2009 American 5,518,481 1,026,451 18.60 1,599,260 28.98% 242,267 4.39% Community Survey

% Change 13.68% 51.04% 44.75% 62.52%

Source: 2009 American Community Survey www.census.gov and 2010 Census.

Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is classified as any person whose primary language is other than English and who indicated that their ability to speak English was “well”, “not well,” or “not at all”.

LEP data is not available for Austin, Chambers, Colorado. Liberty, Matagorda, Walker, Waller and Wharton counties from the 2009 ACS data. Instead, “Speaking a language other than English at home” is used as proxy for LEP from the American Fact Finder 2005-2009.

The data in Tables 5 and 6 are initial steps in identifying the quantity of the LEP populations in the region. Next steps will require closer identification of the locations of the LEP households in the region as demonstrated in the map of LEP populations based on school district data in eastern Harris County, see Figure 15. In the interim a proxy for the LEP household locations is represented by those areas with the highest transit need index scores in the region as shown in Figures 13 and 14. Several of the counties listed in Table 6 have higher percentages of their populations lacking basic literacy skills when compared to the State of Texas with 19%.

TABLE 6. Percentages of Gulf Coast Region Population Lacking Basic Literacy Skills*

Location Population** Percent Lacking***

State of Texas 14,426,233 19% Austin County 19,026 15% Brazoria County 161,882 13% Chambers County 18,276 12% Colorado County 15,424 20% Fort Bend County 234,905 24% Galveston County 179,288 13% Harris County 2,376,786 21%

Liberty County 45,766 16% Matagorda County 27,837 22% Montgomery County 205,447 11% Walker County 37,732 18% Waller County 21,092 20% Wharton 30,325 20% * Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Adult Literacy ** 2000 Census population, 18 years and older in households *** 2003 estimates.

“To augment the public involvement activities of the 2006 transit coordination plan, the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast awarded a grant to the Texas Citizen Fund to gather input on mobility challenges from persons with disabilities, seniors, low-income residents, and others through a consumer survey available in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, online, in large print and over the telephone/TTY-VRS. [The] Texas Citizen Fund analyzed 3,544 surveys, the results of which provide a basis for a snapshot of how [those residents] within Fort Bend, Harris, Montgomery and Waller Counties travel and what constrains their mobility”.

Some of the most significant findings are summarized below:

1. The mobility of persons with disabilities, seniors, and low income persons is tenuous, whether they use public transportation or report driving. Three in five (59.8%) of the respondents reported that they had been unable to travel where they wanted or needed to go within the last six months because they lacked transportation. Two in five (40.2%) of those surveyed, who reported they drive, had been unable to travel where they wanted or needed to go within the last six months because they lacked transportation.

2. Medical care and groceries are the chief destinations to which access is limited.

3. Travel to, from, and within Harris County is a challenge throughout the region for those who use public transportation.

4. Passengers have significant concerns about their safety and security when using public transportation.

5. Potential public transportation customers are often unaware of transportation services.

6. Passengers cite affordability as a challenge. 16

An example of recent efforts to ensure inclusion of the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) population groups in the transportation planning process is shown in the service planning efforts for new bus routes in east Harris County by the Harris County Community Services Division Office of Transit Services . Figure 15 shows the locations of the LEP populations in the vicinity of a new bus route in the La Porte area based on data that was provided by the school district.

Figure 15. LEP Households La Porte ISD

Respondents to a recent survey by Care for Elders of more than a thousand seniors in Houston and Harris County indicated that transportation and mobility challenges are

16 Assessing Transportation Challenges: Findings and Opportunities, United Way Texas Gulf Coast and Texas Citizen Fund, 2006.

their highest priority concerns. Table 7 summarizes some recommendations to improve the transportation system from their perspective.17

Table 7. Transportation and Mobility Needs, Seniors 2010

Total 1149 100

There were 12,897 validated responses to the 2007 Onboard Transit Survey representing more than 329,000 transit system trips (boardings) on METRO, the Woodlands Express and Island Transit.

Table 8. METRO Local Weekday Comments

As part of the Regional Transit Framework Study a Non-Rider telephone survey was conducted and several focus groups were coordinated to identify the transit related issues (needs) for riders and non-riders. In addition, a report that identified the regional transit deficiencies and needs was developed. The most significant results of those efforts are summarized below.

17 Care for Elders, www.careforelders.org, 2010. 18 H-GAC 2007 Transit Onboard Survey, Dikita Management Services, RSM Services Corporation.

Figure 16. Overall Factors Affecting the Decision to Use Public Transit19

“Focus groups for the H-GAC Regional Transportation Framework Study were conducted from December 2009 and January 2010. A total of 17 focus groups were held in six different counties. Participants for the focus groups were recruited by Decision Information Resources (DIR) through random sampling, recruiting drives, email blasts, and distribution of flyers at various locations in the region. STAR Vanpool and Island Transit also assisted DIR in the recruitment of non-riders in Brazoria and Galveston Counties. A total of 154 persons (66 existing transit users and 88 non-users) participated in the 17 focus groups.

Each focus group meeting averaged approximately an hour in length and featured a variety of questions to ascertain participants’ opinions about and experience with public transit service. The focus groups provided a wealth of information regarding transit service throughout the region which has already provided valuable input into the framework study process. A brief synopsis of the collective responses from each county is provided below.

• Montgomery County focus group participants expressed a strong interest in more transit options to Houston and the surrounding areas.

19 Source: H-GAC Regional Transit Framework Study Non-Rider Telephone Survey, 2010.

• Brazoria County non-rider participants talked extensively about building a rail line from Harris County through Brazoria County, while transit riders focused on the need/desire for more park and ride locations throughout the county. • Harris County participants provided feedback regarding improving the entire transit system including more stops, faster travel times, and a more secure travel experience. Non-rider participants favored extending the current Main Street light rail line to more areas within Harris County. • Fort Bend County participants expressed a need for more park & ride locations in the area, as well as the implementation of commuter rail. • Galveston County non-rider participants talked about having a commuter rail line from Galveston to Houston, while transit rider participants suggested improvements to the Island Transit System (i.e. additional bus stops, extended service span, increased frequency, etc.). • Chambers County participants are interested in more transit options within the county, as well as the possibility of commuter rail service.” 20

The key findings of the Regional Transit Framework Study--Regional Transit Deficiencies and Needs Report are summarized below:

“The significant growth in population and employment that is projected for the Houston region will require a continued investment in transportation services and infrastructure in order to meet the needs and ensure long-term economic and commercial competiveness. Chapters 2 through 4 provided a summary of regional demographics, projected traffic conditions, and existing and planned transit service and capital investments in order to better understand potential future public transit deficiencies and needs.

As outlined in chapter 5, there are many common and unique transportation related deficiencies and needs in the region both existing and in the future. The common public transit related deficiencies, which will be further analyzed in the next phase of the Regional Transit Framework Study, include the following:

Projected traffic congestion will impact the performance of existing and planned transit services.

Some currently developed areas of the region have limited or no transit service.

Population growth will occur in new and emerging areas of the region that are not currently served by public transit, or have no current plans for future transit services.

20 Regional Transit Framework Study Focus Group Update Memo, HDR Engineering Inc. February 2010.

Expanded transit services potentially lack required support infrastructure such as O&M facilities, park-and-ride facilities (including capacity at existing facilities).

Regional transit needs include the following:

As illustrated in the following map (Figure 17 ) the Environmental Justice Communities or areas of EJ concerns are highlighted. The EJ communities identified are based on a composite EJ index. The EJ index is higher for communities with a combination of a higher percentage of minorities, elderly, and low income persons.

21 H-GAC Regional Transit Framework Study—Regional Transit Deficiencies and Needs Report, 2010.

Figure 17. Regional EJ Areas

Figure 18. EJ Areas (Inside Beltway 8-Insert)

Note the higher concentrations within Harris County on both the south and north sides of downtown in areas known locally as the Third Ward, Sunnyside, Acres Homes and Fifth Ward.

Any reductions in local bus services in those EJ Focus areas that result in the elimination of access to public transit should be reconsidered. Further, the transit accessibility as measured by travel times to the downtown area for those communities indicates many low income neighborhoods within the Loop 610 that require excess transit travel time (60-90 minutes) to get to downtown, as shown in light green in Figure 19. Some other neighborhoods inside the Loop 610, particularly in the southeast and east side (shown in blue require 90-120 minutes to get to downtown by transit (bus and light rail). There is some overlap between some of the EJ Focus areas and those areas that require longer travel times by bus to reach downtown or other employment centers for various trip purposes. Other suburban communities much farther away have faster transit travel times to the CBD (by commuter bus) which raises the question of equity in the supply of transit system benefits.

Figure 19a. Transit Travel Time Bands to the CBD- 2011

Areas of Concern

That level of transit access would improve with the implementation of the 2035 transit system as reflected in Figure 19b.

Figure 19b. Transit Travel Time Bands to CBD-2035

There is another category of the special needs transportation population group that is reflected by homeless individuals or those making a transition from homelessness. Project Access is a transportation service that is provided by the Healthcare for the Homeless, a non-profit agency that serves homeless individuals in Houston. The transportation project was developed based on survey results that pointed out the major barrier to health care for the homeless was transportation. The project has been funded by the City of Houston using a $120,000 CBDG grant. The group contracts with Coach U.S.A., a charter bus company, to run the route from 7:00 a.m. until about 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. This program is considered to be successful and is being replicated in other cities. The transportation project is basically one bus that carries their customers from shelters to various business locations to take care of personal business needs such as registration for identification, for various programs, and for medical and

dental care and other essential services. Current demand for the transportation service at 40,000 annual trips exceeds the capacity of the one vehicle and a stable funding source will be needed in the future. Some of the unique characteristics of the individuals using the service make those trips difficult to serve with traditional general public bus service routes. For example, women needing emergency shelter would need to keep their locations private for their personal safety.

Figure 20. Project Access

In eastern Harris County, outside of the METRO service area. Efforts were made to start up new fixed route transit services in those areas in partnership with the Harris County CSD Transit Services office with initial funding for some services provided by Social Services Block Grants (SSBG). Those services are discussed further in Section 8, Leveraging Resources for Sustainability.

3b. Inefficiencies in Delivery of Transportation Services

In general terms, there may be several opportunities to enhance the public transportation system in the Gulf Coast Region to be more coordinated. Some of the more apparent ones relate to 1) potential local match funding that could be used to leverage other resources, 2) overlapping service areas, and 3) uncoordinated county- level delivery systems.

Potential Local Match Several transportation projects are funded with resources that could be counted as local match in a more coordinated transportation system. For example, the coalition of non- profit organizations identified more than $340,000 in funding that had been used to purchase bus tokens (annually) in the past.

The Healthcare for the Homeless initiated Project Access in response to a local transportation need for people transitioning from homelessness. Funding for that project has been provided through a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) from the City of Houston for $120,000.

Another example is the funding provided by the United Way to fund transportation initiatives in several counties totaling almost $62,000.

The Veterans Transportation Network (VTN) has provided medical transportation for hundreds of veterans each month to the Texas Medical Center. The VTN utilizes volunteer drivers and a fleet of 14 vans that have been donated or provided through the Government Services Administration (GSA). Fuel costs are paid by the VA transportation facility. An estimate of 2000 hours of volunteer drivers’ time was provided in February 2009.22

Overlapping Service Areas Within Harris County there appears to be an overlap between the service areas for non- emergency medical transportation services provided by METROLift, Harris County RIDES, and the Medical Transportation Program (MTP). Each of those projects provides a unique transportation service for their customers and provides them with options for some of their travel needs. In theory, it would seem that a coordinated dispatching system that includes METROLift, Harris County RIDES, and the MTP would be more efficient. That type of recommendation would require closer review for feasibility because of the fact that there appears to be more local demand for those non- emergency transportation services than there is capacity available to handle the demand. As a result, a unique transportation “niche market” is evolving with private sector companies providing non-emergency medical trips as well.

Figure 21 shows the MetroLift service area as a subset of the larger METRO bus service area with a ¾ mile buffer around local bus routes. There are gaps between the

22 Source- email message from Bryan Dyck, Voluntary Service Program Manager, March 2009.

two service areas potentially indicating places needing additional fixed bus routes and para-transit services. The MetroLift Program carries approximately 5000 trips per weekday at an average cost of $25.12 per trip (METROLift Statistics 2009).

Figure 21. METRO and METROLift Service Areas

Uncoordinated County-Level Delivery Systems The general notion is that a coordinated service delivery system will be more efficient and more effective. Alternatively there is another notion based on local wisdom that says “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. In other words, there could be some unintended consequences that might result from changing some public transportation delivery systems in an attempt to make them more efficient and more effective. A good example is the network of senior centers that have provided congregate meals, Meals on Wheels to homebound elderly and transportation to the elderly and disabled throughout the Gulf Coast Region for many years with limited resources and volunteered help. In many counties, the senior centers operate independently of the public transportation provider

within the county, except in Chambers County which does not have a designated public transportation provider.

Again, in theory it would seem that a coordinated transportation delivery system between the public transportation provider and the senior centers would be more efficient. A closer review of the coordination options and tradeoffs is recommended within each county as part of the continuing regional transit service planning and coordination effort to address any potentially negative unintended consequences.

4. PLANNING FOR COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES

This section describes how this updated plan leads towards the integration of various programs including:

a. FTA Funded Programs (5307, JARC, New Freedom) for Urban, Non- urban areas b. HHS Services Programs- MTP c. Workforce Programs d. Others- State Public Transportation Funds

One of the biggest challenges to overcome in developing regionally comprehensive transit services is the historical development of the various transit funding sources and their relative independence over time. That development process has led to funding “silos,” and their associated rules and regulations in the past have not been favorable for sharing resources among various agencies.

Moving towards a more coordinated and more comprehensive transit service delivery system will require a better understanding of the overlaps and gaps in the service delivery system from the customers’ and funders’ perspectives. A local workshop was recently organized through the United Way of Greater Houston. It was titled “Bridging the Social Services Transportation Gap: A Workshop on Forming Strategic Collaborations”. The purpose of the workshops was to better understand the transportation stakeholder agencies and to get acquainted with their representatives and staff from various non-profit organizations. In addition, the participants discussed transportation related challenges and potential solutions to address those challenges. The nonprofits routinely work to understand the transportation options available for their customers to access various social and economic activities. That workshop was one example of the type of communication and information sharing needed on various levels to move closer towards a more comprehensive and better coordinated transit system in the future. As noted earlier, the various funding programs are tied to different geographies in the region with the largest funding available to the Houston Urbanized Area, based on population and transit service characteristics. The Urbanized areas in

the region based on the Census 2000 adjusted boundaries are shown in Figure 22. The size of the Houston Urbanized area is anticipated to increase based on Census 2010 data.

Figure 22. Urbanized Areas in the Greater Houston Region

Following is an outline to guide further discussions about various sources of revenues that could be used in a more comprehensive system over time.

FTA Funded Programs (FY 2010)

• Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula funds – $68 million for the greater Houston Urbanized Area for METRO, Harris County and Fort Bend County transit services. • Section 5316 Job Access Reverse Commute – $2.9 million (Houston UZA)

• Section 5317 New Freedom – $1.3 million (Houston UZA). • Small Urban and Non-urban transit system funding (outside of the Houston UZA) is based on a funding formula that is coordinated through the TxDOT Commission.

The Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom Program funds have been awarded to the following projects in the Houston UZA:

• Fort Bend County Transit – New Services

• WHEELS and GAPS (JARC and New Freedom Projects)

• Harris County Transit RIDES +

• Mobility Manager and Ambassadors

• Taxi Cabs – wheelchair accessibility 24/7/365

• Family Services – Ways to Work Program

• Low interest loans for used cars for working poor families, ridesharing .

• Regional Vanpool Program

• SH 288 Brazoria County Park and Ride (pending)

• Energy Corridor District Eldridge Cross-town Circulator

Medical Transportation Program (MTP)

“Medicaid provides health care for 2.6 million Texans, but a lack of transportation can make those services difficult to access. The Medical Transportation Program (MTP) gives people on Medicaid ways they can get to visits with the doctor or dentist. On May 1, 2008, the MTP officially transferred to the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from the Texas Department of Transportation.23

In the Gulf Coast Region, the MTP program carries almost half a million trips annually, which are not reported in the Texas Transportation Statistics at a cost that ranged between $18 and $12 million in FY 2007 and FY 2008, respectively.

The MTP contract requires that the MTP vehicles are used exclusively for medical trips by the Medicaid recipients. Some questions related to potential coordination of the services as provided is whether or not there is any excess capacity to carry other

23 Source: www.hhsc.state.tx.us

patrons en route to similar destinations such as the Texas Medical Center, local clinics or other medical facilities. Another question is whether or not the MTP vehicles could be used for other trips in between the prescheduled medical appointments for the Medicaid patrons. Current regulations do not allow for those potential coordination activities.

Following is a summary of the MTP program in the Gulf Coast Region for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008. More recent data and more in-depth analyses are planned for the near future.

Table 9. Summary of Medical Transportation Program, Gulf Coast Region

Fiscal Year Trips Costs Cost/Trip 2007 490,492 $18,507,973 $37.73 2008 477,664 $12,118,213 $25.37

The following Figures 23 and 24 illustrate the clustering of the MTP patrons’ origins and destinations by zip code. Only the top ten zip codes are shown.

Figure 23. Top Ten Medical Transportation Program Origins

The highest volume origin locations are in southwest Houston (77036) with more than 10,200 annual trips and the midtown vicinity (77004) with more than 9,400 trips.

Figure 24. Top Ten Medical Transportation Program Destinations

The highest volume destination locations are the Texas Medical Center (77030) with over 61,000 trips and southwest Houston (77074) with more than 26,400 trips.

Regional Transit Travel Patterns

In future discussions about developing a more comprehensive and better coordinated public transit system, it will be useful to understand the commuting patterns of current bus riders.

The following graphics show the transit origins and destinations of bus riders from the 2007 Onboard Transit Survey. They help to illustrate the scattered locations where people travel from and to, making it difficult for traditional fixed route transit services to provide comprehensive regional transit coverage. The areas shown in blue in Figure 25 represent more than 100 trips (boardings) from those locations. The largest concentrations are in southwest Houston, south Houston (Third Ward and Sunnyside), northeast Houston (Fifth Ward) and northwest Houston. The gold shaded area shown in the inset represents 500 originating trips in the vicinity of the Texas Medical Center.

Figure 25. Transit Passenger Origins

As shown in Figure 26, the transit destinations are more dispersed with clusters in the same general areas as the origins, but more clustered inside the Beltway 8. The inset shows more details for the inner loop area with the red and gold colored areas representing more than 500 trips destined to those areas near the Texas Medical Center.

Figure 26. Transit Passenger Destinations

The following graphics provide a better understanding of the county- to-county general travel flows during the morning peak periods for work trips. The highest volume travel patterns are between Fort Bend County, Montgomery County and Galveston County into Harris County. The transit share of those inter-county trips is relatively small today, partly because there is not a comprehensive transit system that currently connects each major freeway corridor with the central core represented by Harris County. The general travel patterns between counties will increase significantly with the projected population and employment growth in the region (see Figures 27 and 28). The relative transit shares will also likely increase with that projected growth.

Figure 27. County-to-County Traffic Patterns, 2000

Table 10. County-to-County Highest Travel Volumes, 2000

County From To # Trips Fort Bend Harris County 46,127 Montgomery “ 31,518 Galveston “ 20,894 Brazoria “ 16,643

Figure 28. County-to-County Travel Patterns, 2025

Table 11. County-to-County Highest Travel Volumes, 2025

County From To # Trips Fort Bend Harris County 100,503 Montgomery “ 85,888 Galveston “ 30,650 Brazoria “ 31,420

In addition to more comprehensive local and regional travel improvements, there should be some consideration for inter-regional and interstate travel options by public transit. As the State of Texas grows, it will become more important to link the mega-regions with multiple viable travel options including, but not limited to automobile, express bus, and higher capacity transit such as commuter rail or higher speed rail.

5. EFFORTS TO STREAMLINE PARALLEL PLANNING PROCESSES

Subsequent to the development of the 2006 transit coordination plan, numerous transit- related planning activities have been completed or initiated that provide new information for future improvements to the public transportation system. Those transit planning studies are noted below:

• 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (2007) o Appendix B – System Analyses (auto and transit systems deficiencies/ needs); o Appendix C – Environmental Justice; o Appendix F – Regionally Coordinated Transit Plan- Executive Summary • 2035 RTP Update (2010) • 2007 Onboard Transit Survey • Montgomery County Transit Plan (2008) • One Voice, Homeless Coalition – METRO Survey (2008-2009) • Liberty County Transit Plan (2009) • Chambers County Transit Plan (2009) • Matagorda County Transit Plan (2010) • Colorado Valley Transit Plan- Update (2011) • Walker County Transit Plan (anticipated 2011) • Regional Transit Framework Study (2010) o Non User Survey o Regional Transit Deficiencies and Needs o Katy Area Transit Coordination Plan (?) • 2040 RTP – Scheduled for completion in 2014.

Steps are being taken to build on information previously developed in other planning studies to reduce the need to recollect or reanalyze information.

6. STAFF STRUCTURE AND PROCESS TO SUSTAIN PLANNING AND SERVICES

Figure 29. H-GAC Organizational Structure for Coordinated Planning

H-GAC Board of Directors Transportation Policy Council (TPC) MPO Director

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Regional Transportation H-GAC Staff Support Regional Transit Stakeholders, Kari Hackett, Transp Coordination General Public Program Manager Subcommittee Lydia Abebe, (RTCS) Transportation Planner Work Groups (3) Public Information Public Information, Planner Resource Sharing, Seamless Fares

The Regional Transit Coordination Subcommittee (RTCS) to the H-GAC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed to serve as the Steering Committee for regional transit service planning and coordination. The RTCS established three work groups to address the highest priorities for regional transit coordination as identified. Simultaneously, transit planning activities were continued from the regional (RTP) and subregional county level perspectives by H-GAC and other transportation stakeholder agencies.

Figure 30 shows the conceptual sequence of activities from the development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) where the regional transportation needs were identified through the implementation and monitoring of pilot projects for continuation if feasible. The Updated Regionally Coordinated Transportation Plan will be included as part of the ongoing regional transportation planning process and incorporated into the 2040 RTP which is scheduled to be completed in 2012.

Figure 30. Gulf Coast Regional Transit Service, Planning and Coordination Conceptual Framework24

The regional transit service and coordination plan focuses on activities that are responsive to the transit-related needs identified in the 2035 RTP. That planning process has provided for the development of sub-regional and county-level transit plans that have resulted in more specific planning information and recommendations. As the recommendations from the sub-regional and county-level transit plans have been and are still being implemented, new transit services have been initiated in some communities that have been well received and highly utilized.

24 The Regional Transit Framework Study is being developed to provide direction for the 2040 RTP scheduled for approval in 2012.

7. VISION, MISSION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES

The Vision Statement from the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was developed through extensive public involvement that included hundreds of stakeholders meeting in multiple transportation visioning workshops:

“Our community will have a better quality of life through improved mobility, better access and a healthier environment.”25

The Mission Statement is derived from the purpose of the Regional Transit Coordination Subcommittee:

• To provide guidance related to the implementation of regional transit coordination pilot projects; • To assist with tasks related to the development of regional transit planning initiatives for the Gulf Coast/H-GAC planning region (13 counties). • To promote coordination among existing and future public and private transportation providers.

The transit-related goals from the 2035 RTP are:

• Improve mobility, less congestion and cost.

• Build stronger communities (by coordinating transportation and land uses).

• Increase transit.

• Healthier environment.26

To a certain extent, each of these RTP transit-related goals can be advanced through the enhancement of the public transportation system by including better coordination of transit service planning activities. Additional benefits will be realized by coordinating local and regional transportation plans with adjacent land uses and by utilizing other commute options as alternatives to solo commuting by automobiles for travel. Other related goals are summarized below for the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom grant programs.

JARC Program Goal

The goal of the JARC program is to improve access to transportation services to employment and employment-related activities for welfare recipients and eligible low-

25 Bridging our Communities, 2035 Houston-Galveston Regional Transportation Plan, (RTP) 2007. 26 The transit related goals are a subset of the regional transportation goals from the 2035 RTP.

income individuals and to transport residents of urbanized areas and non-urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities.

New Freedom Program Goal

The goal of the New Freedom formula grant program is to reduce barriers to transportation services and expand the transportation mobility options available to people with disabilities beyond the requirements of the ADA of 1990.

Objectives are summarized below and are based on the intent of Texas HB 3588 related to the statewide coordination of public transportation services and the 2035 RTP goals for the Houston-Galveston region: 27

• Eliminate waste in the provision of public transportation services, • Generate efficiencies that will permit increased levels of service, and further the state’s efforts to reduce air pollution. • Increase accessibility and mobility options for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, freight carriers and special need segments of the population, • Enhance the integration, connectivity and coordination of the transportation system and services for people and freight across all modes, • Provide protection to the human and natural environment and promote resource and energy conservation, • Improve the safety of the transportation system for all motorized and non- motorized users.

These objectives are measurable and will address the identified needs as articulated in the Regional Transportation Coordination Action Plan. The development of related Pilot Projects, programs and strategies over time will mitigate the transportation service gaps in the region. The timeframe for implementation, evaluation and sustaining those activities depends on the availability of financial resources.

27 Objectives related to the intent of HB 3588 are from the Gulf Coast Region Coordinated Regional Public Transportation Plan, 2006. The 2035 RTP Goals and Objectives are from Bridging Our Communities, 2035 Houston- Galveston Regional Transportation Plan, Table 10, August 2007.

8. LEVERAGING RESOURCES/SUSTAINABILITY

This section describes how the Gulf Coast Region will leverage other resources to sustain the regionally coordinated transportation planning activities beyond 2012. An additional and related discussion pertains to the utilization of local resources to leverage other funds to sustain new or experimental projects that are determined to be successful.

Essentially the coordination planning activities will be incorporated into the regional transportation planning process used to develop the long range transportation plan for the region. In addition, it will be important to identify other local sources of matching funds that can be used to leverage more state and federal funding for the region to sustain successful projects. For example, opportunities to partner with Houston METRO should be encouraged for several reasons. Those partnership opportunities could utilize available sales tax revenues to leverage more federal funds to the region.

Some examples of existing resources that could be better coordinated in the future are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Shown below are two recent ribbon-cutting ceremonies for expanded public transportation services in Texas City (in Galveston County) and Pasadena (in East Harris County). These transit services are gap-fillers in communities that have been underserved by public transportation for many years. The funding sources for those projects are tenuous.

Texas City Fixed Route Transit Service Ribbon Cutting Photo courtesy of Guidry News Services Inc.

Lower than anticipated ridership on the Pasadena Park and Ride service and lack of local matching funds has resulted in that service being terminated recently.

Pasadena Park and Ride Ribbon Cutting photo by K. Hackett

Approximately $106 million in federal funding was provided to the Houston Region as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (AARA). Also known as the Economic Stimulus Act, it provided funding for some new capital facilities and transit vehicles to upgrade well-used fleets for smaller transportation providers outside of the service area of the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) as outlined below.

Figure 31. AARA Stimulus Funding Summary

TRANSIT FUNDING (Millions of $) Funded Projects Grant (Let/Awarded or Approved For Letting) Award Transit Total 106.476 Houston Urbanized Area1 93.210 Transit $106M Formula Funds 90.902 Fixed Guideway 2.309 MPO/ Other Urbanized Areas 6.251 District State Galveston 1.575 $122M $360M Lake Jackson-Angleton 1.387 Texas City 1.609 The Woodlands 1.680 Nonurbanized (Rural) 7.015 The District (Brazos Transit District) 4.563 Fort Bend County 0.622 Gulf Coast Center 0.898 Colorado Valley Transit 0.932 1. Houston Urbanized Area Providers: METRO, Harris Co. Transit and Fort Bend Co. Transit

That economic stimulus funding combined with the availability of Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds for relocated Hurricane Ike victims enabled some transportation providers to start new transit services for some communities in east Harris County, Galveston and Brazoria counties during the economic downturn.

Several new and innovative projects have been implemented recently that will eventually generate more positive transportation benefits to the overall community. Federal funds from the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom grant programs have been used to bridge some gaps in the existing transit service delivery system in the Houston Urbanized Area (UZA). In addition, innovative collaborations have been developed over the past few years to implement those projects.

The remaining balances of the federal funding that has been apportioned to the Houston UZA for the JARC and New Freedom Programs for FY 2009-FY 2011 are summarized in Table 12. The summary reflects the balances in those grant programs when the projects recommended for funding in 2011 are contracted. There is some uncertainty about the level of funding that will be available in FY 2011 because the new transportation bill has not yet been reauthorized. Therefore the funding shown for FY 2011 is based on the February 2011 Federal Register notice of the five-twelfths apportionments. The availability of those JARC and New Freedom funding sources into the future would provide another source for needed transit improvements in the region that could address some of the transit service gaps.

Table 12. JARC/New Freedom Funds Summary, Remaining Balances After Approvals

Program FY2009 FY2010 FY 2011* Total

JARC $ 0 $ 264,504 $1,135,989 $ 1,400,493

New $ 0 $ 1,293,535 $ 512,291 $ 1,805,826 Freedom Total $ 0 $ 1,558,039 $1,648,280 $ 3,206,319

*NOTES: The FY 2011 estimates are based on the 5/12th apportionments as of February 2011.

Figure 32. Developing More Sustainable Transit Pilot Projects, Conceptual Plan

Planning-Identifies Implementation of Monitoring and Needs Pilot Projects Evaluation

Not Successful, Successful Revise and Reevaluate

Sustainable Five Year + Financial Transportation Plan Projects.

The conceptual plan outlined above summarizes the key steps in the development of more sustainable transit pilot projects in the region. It begins with the identification of transit related needs and implements pilot projects with measurable goals to address those needs. The monitoring and evaluation step is one that has not been developed so far in the Gulf Coast region. If a pilot project is determined to be unsuccessful or marginal this process would provide the opportunity to make adjustments to make it more successful and reevaluate the pilot project before it is terminated. The historical development of transit pilot projects in the Gulf Coast region has seen most of them terminated due to lower than anticipated ridership levels or a lack of local matching funds, even though they were considered to be successful from the users’ and societal benefits viewpoints.

One of the related challenges has been the difficulty in developing realistic and achievable goals in advance of implementing a pilot project. Another significant challenge relates to how success is defined by different stakeholders. Pilot Projects that are determined to be successful in meeting the established goals would be recommended for continued funding through dedicated revenue sources. The measures of success should include factors related to the societal benefits of providing

better access to jobs, educational opportunities, non-emergency medical services and recreational/social activities.

The local transit providers in the Gulf Coast Region have developed some unique partnerships to leverage federal funds and enable sustainable transit systems. The systems highlighted here are Fort Bend County Transit, Colorado Valley Transit and Harris County CSD.

Table 13. History of Fort Bend County Public Transportation Services, 2005-2010

Fiscal Year Total Budget Staff Size Fleet Size Trips (buses) 2005 $3, 806,920 1 2 3,819 2006 $3,147,961 3 15 76,898 2007 $4,952,912 3.75 17 118,189 2008 $4,812,045 10.25 22 166,806 2009 $7,713,766 11 32 178,992 2010 $9,379,412 13 37 *103,131 *Trips for October through April.

Table 14. Fort Bend County Transit Funding Partners

New Freedom Grant Local Match The ARC of Fort Bend $25,751 The George Foundation $25,751 United Way- TGC $25,751 TEXANA In-Kind Training Commuter Service City of Sugar Land (TREK) $70,000 TREK (In Kind Services) $41,000

Table15. Fort Bend County Participation

Fiscal Year Total Budget County Share 2005 $3, 806,920 $1,758,199 2006 $3,147,961 $1,851,876 2007 $4,952,912 $1,631,638 2008 $4,812,045 $1,756,728 2009 $7,713,766 $2,123,280 2010 $9,379,412 $1,952,798

A picture is worth a thousand words. The commuters in the photo below are utilizing a newly-funded Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) route in Austin County that was developed by the Colorado Valley Transit District (CVTD). A stable funding source will be needed to sustain that service into the future.

Table 16. CVTD Partners for Job Access Reverse Commute Project

TxDOT Federal JARC Rural Funds $143,570 TxDOT State JARC Match $ 38,000 H-GAC Workforce Division $ 50,000 H-GAC Economic Development $ 25,000 Corporation (EDC) Bellville EDC $10,000 Sealy EDC $ 5,500 Wallis EDC $ 1,000 City of Sealy $ 5,500 Wal Mart Distribution Center $ 1,500 Wal Mart Super Center $ 1,000 TOTAL Budget $ 282,570

The local and state matching funds provided by the CVTD partners total approximately $140,000, approximately 50 percent of the needed operating budget for that JARC project. The economic downturn and other fiscally related events resulted in some of those commitments not being available in the future for ongoing local match.

Several challenges were identified by the CVTD director as important considerations for transit services in that area in the future as listed below:

CVTD Challenges:28

• Stable funding • Limited Federal funding • Decreasing State funding • Economic uncertainty • Loss of jobs • Rising fuel cost • Increasing fares and losing passengers • Partners facing funding restraints

Another example of an effective Public Private Partnership has been developed by the Harris County Transit Services Division to provide local bus services in the City of Baytown. A detailed case study of the Harris County transit services system of routes is available in a recent TxDOT Publication. Some of the information from that document relative to the Baytown local bus service is summarized in Table 17. 29

Table 17. City of Baytown Fixed Route Service Partners

Source of Funds Amounts (or Comments) AARA Shelters, Capital Cost of Contracting City of Baytown $100,000 Lee College $100.000 FTA Section 5307 Operating expenses, sustainable funding after AARA funds are expended. Total Operating expense (FY 2009) $327,360

Harris County Transit also used Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds for demonstration transit services through a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for Hurricane Ike victims. After the SSBG funds have expired, Harris

28 Colorado Valley Transit – V. Olier, Presentation to the H-GAC Technical Advisory Committee, 2010. 29 Sizing and Serving Texas Urban Gaps, by TTI, TxDOT Report 0-6473-1 published April 2011.

County plans to use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for its transit services that connect “to medical services, community centers, employment, education and retail establishments.”30

The United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast has provided local funds to various non-profit organizations for transportation services as shown in Table 18. Those local funds totaling close to $62,000, could be considered as local matching dollars in a coordinated transportation system that could be used to leverage additional funding from other sources in the future.

30 Ibid.

Table 18. Summary of Transportation Initiative Grants, United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast Area Funded ORGANIZATION Served 2010-2011 AIDS Foundation of Houston, Inc. FB 0 East Fort Bend Human Needs FB 0 Fort Bend County Women's Center FB 5,000 Fort Bend Family Health FB 5,000 Fort Bend Family Promise FB 2,400 FB Fa mily Pro mise - Community FB 7,500 The Salvation Army FB 4,000 Sub-Total For t Bend 23,900 Colorado Valley Transit WC 5,000 Focusing Family WC 3,000 Titus Community WC 5,000 Titus Residential WC 5,000 Sub-Total Waller 18,000 Bay Area Council BA 5,000 Bay Area Turning Point BA 5,000 Innovative Alternatives BA 5,000 Interfaith Caring Min istries BA 5,000 Sub-Total B ay Area 20,000 TOTAL ALL AREAS 61,900

Another example of a potential model for further implementation is the Transit Worker Fund. This fund was started as a Small Business Administration (SBA) initiated challenge grant program (through H-GAC) and provided a structure for public private partnerships to pool local resources that could be used for local match to leverage more federal and/or state funding. That TWF fund was discontinued (at H-GAC) due to lower than anticipated benefits, however a similar approach could be developed in the future to augment scarce local match funding. Some of the funding that was made available through the challenge grants was used to support the JARC funded route in the Colorado Valley Transit service area.

Significant levels of federal funding have been available in the Houston TMA to start commuter transit pilot projects through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). Table 19 provides a summary of the most recent CMAQ funded transit pilot projects. Ongoing funding support is needed to sustain the pilot project services after the initial three-year pilot project period if they are determined to be “successful”.

Table 19. Summary of Commuter & Transit Services Pilot Projects31

Service Operational Date CMAQ Funding Baytown Express Park and Ride October 2007 $258,610 Service Sterling Ridge Park and Ride January 2008 $1,218,322 The Woodlands Circulator July 2007 $591,179 Pasadena Park and Ride April 2009 $317,550 Island Connect Park and Ride (aka July 2010 $725,097 Mall of the Mainland) Fort Bend Express Park and Ride to 2010 $423,048 TMC

Past experiences with commuter pilot projects in the Houston TMA region have shown difficulties in sustaining even the most successful pilot projects for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to the following:

• Actual ridership below anticipated goals; • lack of marketing, promotional incentives; • reduced municipal budgets as a potential source of local match; • lack of monitoring and evaluation to refine the pilot projects to be more successful.

The most successful commuter pilot projects in the Houston Region were first organized through the TREK Transportation Management Organization (TMO). The TREK Express commuter services have been in operation for 11 years between Fort Bend County and the Uptown/Galleria and Greenway Plaza major employment centers. Today those services carry approximately 500 daily, or about 120,000 annual boardings.

Another source of grant funding for transportation for seniors and disabled persons has been provided through the Area Agency on Aging (AAA) to the senior citizen centers throughout the region (outside of Harris County). In FY 2008, approximately $700,000 was provided to various senior centers as listed in Table 20.

31 Source; H-GAC Air Quality staff, as of September 2010.

Table 20. Transportation Funding Through AAA32

Title III Funding Funding Vendor Name Service Area(s) Match and Match Amount Colorado Valley Transit District Austin County $ 57,876 Waller County $ 39,047 $ 18,829 Actions of Brazoria County Brazoria County $ 142,958 $ 127,072 $ 15,886 First United Methodist Church of Anahuac - Senior Citizens Chambers County $ 20,356 Program $ 14,766 $ 5,590 Wharton County Junior College - Colorado County $ 43,038 $ 25,109 $ 17,929 Senior Citizens Programs Wharton County $ 44,669 $ 40,202 $ 4,467 Fort Bend Senior Citizens Fort Bend County $ 375,645 $ 166,602 $ 209,043 Galveston County Senior Citizens Galveston County $ 107,955 Program $ 76,026 $ 31,929 Liberty County Project on Aging Liberty County $ 21,160 $ 15,311 $ 5,849 Cleveland Senior Citizens Liberty County $ 14,155 Program $ 3,194 $ 10,961 Friends of Elder Citizens Matagorda County $ 33,725 $ 14,250 $ 19,475 MC Committee on Aging (Dba Montgomery County $ 353,750 The Friendship Center) $ 158,324 $ 195,426 Senior Center of Walker County Walker County $ 53,124 $ 21,202 $ 31,922 Grand Total $ 1,268,411 $ 701,105 $ 567,306

32 H-GAC Area Agency on Aging, FY 2008 Title IIIB Funding by Transportation Vendor and Service Area.

1. PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS

Various performance measures are used by transportation service providers in the Gulf Coast Region. The largest transportation service providers (such as Houston METRO) as FTA Direct Recipients are required to report annually on a variety of data items that are summarized in the FTA National Transit Database.

The FTA uses some program measures for the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom grant programs that relate to the Gulf Coast regional transportation goals and objectives.

JARC Program Measures a. Actual or estimated number of jobs that can be accessed as a result of geographic or temporal coverage of JARC projects implemented in the current reporting year. b. Actual or estimated number of rides (as measured by one-way trips) provided as a result of the JARC projects implemented in the current reporting year.

New Freedom Program Measures a. Increases or enhancements related to geographic coverage, service quality and/or service times that impact availability of transportation services for individuals with disabilities as a result of the New Freedom projects implemented in the current reporting year. b. Additions or changes to environmental infrastructure (e.g., transportation facilities, sidewalks, etc), technology, and vehicles that impact availability of transportation services as a result of the New Freedom projects implemented in the current reporting year. c. Actual or estimated number of rides (as measured by one-way trips) provided for individuals with disabilities as a result of the New Freedom projects implemented in the current reporting year.

Other transit providers that receive funding directly from TxDOT also use a standard reporting process summarized in the annual Texas Transit Statistics reports. The Texas Transit Statistics reports on cost effectiveness as the operating expense per unlinked passenger trip. Service effectiveness is defined as the number of unlinked passengers per vehicle revenue mile.

This section will discuss some alternative performance measures developed locally and are related to the transportation vision and goals stated in section 7.

METRO reports several Key Performance Indicators to their Board of Directors each month which are summarized in Table 21 below:

Table 21. METRO Key Performance Indicators

INDICATOR FY 2008 GOAL YTD ACTUAL (2Q)

Operating Ratio 19.0% 17.9 %

Distance Between 5,250 6,000 + Failures.

On-Time 61% < 60% Performance – Local Buses

On-Time Park-and- 70% <70% Ride

Accidents – Bus 54 <50

Accidents – Rail 3 4

Complaint 3,200 (maximum) 2,000 Calls/month

Major Security 50 30 Incidents

The key indicators shown above capture some important statistics about the reliability, safety, security and customer satisfaction values. It is important to keep in mind that performance measures for large urban transit systems are not directly comparable for small urban and rural transit systems partly due to the vast differences in the levels of services provided and the relative population and employment densities.

Other measures related to the locally developed transportation vision and goals include improved access to transportation services and more transportation mobility options for people who are underserved by transit.

One way of measuring the changes in regional transit accessibility is shown by calculations of the regional population and employment within specific time bands by time of day for the current and future (2035) transportation system. Figure 33 and 34 highlight the share of regional population and employment accessible within 30-minute time bands by walk access to a local transit service, bus or light rail.

Accessibility for Population

The population that can access the transit system by walk access to transit and get to the center of downtown between 30 and 60 minutes will increase from 252 thousand in 2011 to over 594 thousand in 2035. That equates to better transit access for twice as many people close to the central core area of Houston in the future. In some corridors where a light rail line is planned there would be improved access to the transit system at locations where proposed light rail stations are planned.

Figure 33.Population Accessibility by Walk to Transit

Population Access 1200000

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

0 0.1-30 30-60 60-90 90-120 >120

Pop 2011 Pop 2035

Accessibility to Employment

The number of jobs that would be available by walk access to transit within 30 to 60 minutes of the center of downtown will increase from 254 thousand in 2011 to 580 thousand in 2035. That represents a significant increase in the number of jobs that would be accessible by walking to local transit in the future.

Figure 34 Employment Accessibility by Walk to Transit

Employment Access 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 0.1-30 30-60 60-90 90-120 >120

Emp 2011 Emp 2035

Summit-User Benefits

Another analytical technique uses the Summit software program which generates color coded plots that represent changes in system accessibility between alternative system improvements. The measure that is used, User Benefits, is based on a microeconomics theory relative to the value of time saved for users of the transportation system. The areas where travelers would save time are shown in green, and the areas in red/orange show travel time losses. The losses in travel time are likely the result of increased regional growth in demand, without significant increases in the transportation system in those areas. Figure 35 shows the user benefits for the 2035 RTP compared to a No Build scenario for all origins. Overall, the analyses shows improvements in most areas. Closer review is needed for those areas indicated as losing travel time benefits.

Figure 35. User Benefits 2035 RTP33

33 2035 RTP Build vs No Build Scenario.

Next Steps, 2012-2015

The following outline provides some guidance in advancing the transit service planning and coordination activities in the region for the next few years.

Table 22 highlights some potential Pilot Projects for further development that were summarized in the Action Plan from the 2006 Regional Transit Coordination Plan. More details are available in the original published documents, copies are available by request to H-GAC or at (www.ridethegulfcoast.com).

Table 22. Potential Pilot Projects, 2012-2015

2012 Action Plan Potential Pilot Projects Summary Consumer Information 211 Transportation Specialist Program Regional Mobility Manager

Web based information (new). Business and Public Regional Transportation Alliance Officials Information • Identify transit champion(s) Program • Share information. Cooperative Resource Expand and publicize H-GAC Buy, Development Regional Training Coordination Universal Certification Standards • Drivers • mechanics • dispatchers Shared Maintenance Program

Regional Transportation Ambassador Program

Service Providers Fair- for agencies that requested technical assistance paired with agencies that offered technical assistance (6 categories).

Revised Rules & Focus on Rules: Regulations • that inhibit Trip Chaining & Trip Sharing • Encourage ineffective gate-keeping (ie, abruptly terminate experimentation)

Review and update Barriers, Constraints, Opportunities relative to; Medicaid dispatching modifications Use of School Buses for off peak HHS Transportation. Capital Replacement Strategy for vehicles better matching of medical services to transportation needs.

Overall Coordination Continuation strategy- Regional Transit Coordination Body Subcommittee, TAC, TPC, H-GAC Board Establish New Services • Review service gaps, areas lacking sufficient coverage (area, hours, days), • 31 service recommendations were identified.

Flexible Insurance Insurance pool. Equipment and • Utilization of alternative fuels, strategies to Technology reduce emissions from transit vehicles • Policies and procedures for fare sharing transfers, electronic media (smart cards) for seamless fare system • improved communications between drivers and passengers Access to Public • Travel Counseling Transportation • home improvements • neighborhood improvements • trip assistance Funding Strategy Federal, State, local Resources • Coordinated pursuit of grant funds by H-GAC and four TxDOT Districts (Gulf Coast region) • Combining resources of traditionally separate funding streams • Include funding concerns on legislative agendas at local, state and federal levels • Establish financial plans for pilot projects • Create a position for liaison (specialist) to pursue state and federal grants for the region • Actively pursue funding sources outside of state and federal grants

Other potential Pilot Projects based on public input:

• Transportation Options Counseling. • Infrastructure/Service Improvements in high transit need areas. • Car-share Program • Volunteer Driver Voucher Program

APPENDICES

A. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY FOR REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING AND COORDINATION

B. TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS- SURVEYED BY H-GAC

C. GULF COAST REGION POPULATION GROWTH

D. REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATION SUBCOMMITTEE

E. TRANSIT NEED INDEX METHODOLOGY

F. TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION OFFICES IN THE GULF COAST REGION

APPENDIX A

Gulf Coast Region

Updated Regionally Coordinated Transportation Plan (RCTP)

34 Fall 2011 Public Involvement Summary

At the July 20, 2011 quarterly meeting of the Regional Transit Coordination Subcommittee (RTCS), a recommendation was made to conduct additional public outreach efforts in regards to the development of the Updated RCTP. In August 2011 HGAC staff and partners in the region invited the public to four Open House Public Meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to inform and educate the public about the Draft RCTP and to provide opportunities for community members, local groups, and agencies to provide input and comments on the RCTP.

The public meetings were held at various locations throughout the region to be accessible to the general public. The meetings were held in public facilities on weekday evenings. Flyers and press releases advertising the availability of the RCTP materials and the public meetings were developed in English and Spanish. The RCTP flyers and related materials were posted online, distributed by email, posted in local libraries and coordinated with regional TxDOT Public Information Officers.

The email distribution networks included various transportation stakeholder agencies, non-profit organizations and others. Two of the public transit providers, Harris County Transit and Fort Bend County Transit, upon request, transported some of their regular riders to meetings in their service areas after their normal operating hours.

A short RCTP video was prepared that summarized the key components of the coordination plan. It was posted to various agencies’ and public websites including Face Book and You Tube (more than 128 views). Approximately 50 CD Rom copies were distributed at various meetings that contained the RCTP information. In order to provide another option for submitting comments and to reach out to those residents too far away to attend one of the RCTP public meetings a toll free telephone number (855) 363-2516 was established to receive voicemail comments by phone.

34 This is a brief summary of the public comments that were received. More details are available in the audio recordings of the public meetings which are available on the project website at www.ridethegulfcoast.com.

The public comment period was extended through September 14, 2011. Approximately 60 people participated in the public meetings (including 4-5 H-GAC staff at each meeting to set-up and take down the displays and the audio visual equipment).

Table A-1. Fall 2011 RCTP Public Meetings

Location/Attendance Date

H-GAC Offices Aug. 16, 2011

Houston, Texas – (Central) (5:30-7:00 p.m.)

Attendance: 22

Baytown Civic Center Aug. 23, 2011

Baytown , Texas – (East) (6:00-8:00 p.m.)

Attendance: 14

Fort Bend County Transit Offices Aug. 25, 2011

Sugar Land, Texas -(Southwest) (6:00-8:00 p.m.)

Attendance: 15

The Lone Star Convention Center Aug. 30, 2011

Conroe, TX - (North) (6:00-8:00 p.m.)

Attendance: 10

The public meetings had the same general set-up with display boards, informational materials, the RCTP video (looping) and a formal presentation. The first meeting also included display tables from ten (10) stakeholder agencies including health and human service agencies and transit providers. A staff member from each agency was available at each table to explain their particular service.

The presentations were followed by comments, questions and discussion of issues and concerns. The following Table A-2 contains a summary of the comments received by categories with an indication of the frequency of the comments and examples. Suggestions for operational improvements have been shared with representatives of the appropriate transit service provider.

Table A-2. Summary of Public Comments by Categories

CATEGORY FREQUENCY EXAMPLES Transit Service Expansion 13 Expand service hours later on weekdays. More frequent services. Add weekend service. Expand service area to cover gaps. More wheelchair spaces needed. More capacity for ADA patrons. More bus stops, shelters.

Transit Service 10 Improvements in customer service, Improvements driver training. Transit vehicle enhancements; signage, fare-boxes, counters, replacement buses. Improve medical transportation. Enforce rules against food, beverages. Complimentary 9 Grateful for transit services, drivers doing a good job, ambassadors are helpful..

Negative 2 Complaint about driver. Do not want services expanded, Stop wasting tax- payers money. Public Information 4 More marketing, advertising, promotions.

Regional Coordination 14 Add Transportation Options Counseling. Infrastructure improvements in high transit need areas.

Regional Coordination Work with faith-based organizations. (cont’d) Implement Car-share program, Volunteer driver voucher program. Organization needed for regional transit coordination. Trip planning, automated public input to database, one call/one click information resource.

Miscellaneous 15 Expand HOV lane system. METRO Q Card, METRO Money. Street lights needed, corrections or clarifications to RCTP document text.

APPENDIX A (cont’d)

H-GAC Regional Transit Planning Public Involvement Summary, 2007-2010

2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Public Outreach Efforts

Date Location/ Attendance Type of Effort / Topic Ad Published / Other Publicity

6/07/07 NORTH: Montgomery Public Meeting/ Open • Houston Chronicle Sunday and This County, Lonestar House – 2035 RTP Week sections Convention Center, • Email Conroe • News Media • H-GAC Web site Attendees: 40 • Letters to Elected Officials

6/12/07 WEST: Fort Bend Public Meeting/ Open • Houston Chronicle Sunday and This County, House – 2035 RTP Week sections • Email Stafford Centre, • News Media Stafford • H-GAC Web site • Letters to Elected Officials Attendees: 50

6/13/07 SOUTH: Galveston Public Meeting/ Open • Houston Chronicle Sunday and This County, Walter Hall House – 2035 RTP Week sections Pavilion, League City • Email • News Media Attendees: 50 • H-GAC Web site • Letters to Elected Officials 6/14/07 CENTRAL: Harris Public Meeting/ Open • Houston Chronicle Sunday and This County, H-GAC, House – 2035 RTP Week sections Houston • Email • News Media Attendees: 130 • H-GAC Web site • Letters to Elected Officials 6/20/07 EAST: Harris County, Public Meeting/ Open • Houston Chronicle Sunday and This Baytown Community House – 2035 RTP Week sections Center, Baytown • Email • News Media Attendees: 30 • H-GAC Web site • Letters to Elected Officials

Regional Transit Coordination: County Transit Plans

Date Location/ Attendance Type of Effort/Topic Ad Published/Other Publicity

3/18/08 Lone Star Convention & Montgomery County Transit • Houston Chronicle Expo Center, Conroe Plan • Local County Newspapers 2 p.m. (Vollmer PR) Attendance: 70 Public Meeting on Draft Plan • Emails w/ comment period • Fliers • H-GAC Website • Letters to Elected Officials • Fliers to County Libraries and Area Colleges 4/30/08 Liberty County offices, Liberty County Transit • Area Media PR Liberty Summary Recommendations • Emails 11 a.m. • Posted Mail Attendance: 15 Briefing for Elected and Area • H-GAC Website Officials w/ comment period • Letters to elected and area officials, libraries, school districts • Telephone follow-up 5/14/08 Liberty County Liberty County Transit • Area Media PR Courthouse, Liberty Summary Recommendations • Editorial Op/Ed (County Judge) 3 p.m. Public Meeting w/ comment • Houston Chronicle Attendance: 36 period • Emails • Posted Mail • Fliers • H-GAC Website • Letters and fliers to elected officials, libraries, school districts • Handouts at area economic development group meeting • Telephone follow-up 5/20/08 KSHN Radio, Liberty Liberty County Transit • KSHN Station Website added w/County Judge Phil Summary Recommendations link to H-GAC for public 8:30 Fitzgerald, Kari Hackett, comments a.m. and station manager/ The K-Shine Radio “PartyLine,” • Local Media a daily live, on air call-in show, • Emails host Bill Buchanan 8:30 – 9:30 a.m. • Listener call-in/ talk radio Audience: Broadcast format and Web online listeners in Liberty & Chambers areas

5/27/08 Liberty County Liberty County Transit • Area Media PR Commissioners’ Court, Summary Recommendations • Emails 10:30 Liberty Workshop/ Public Meeting w/ • Posted Mail a.m. comment period • H-GAC and County Websites Attendance: 19 • Letters to elected and area officials • Legal postings at Courthouse • Telephone follow-up 6/10/08 North Liberty County, Liberty County Transit • Area Media PR City of Cleveland City Summary Recommendations • Emails 6 p.m. Council Workshop/ Public Meeting w/ • Posted Mail comment period • H-GAC and City Websites Attendance: 56 • Letters to elected and area officials • Legal postings at City Hall • Telephone follow-up 6/20/08 United Way Community Waller/ Austin Counties • Email Awareness Resources Transit Summary Group Recommendations Briefing (U. Williams) Waller County, Brookshire

Attendance: 30

7/08/08 Chambers County Chambers County Transit • Beaumont/Port Arthur papers Commissioners’ Court, Summary Recommendations • Area Media PR 10:30 Anahuac • Emails a.m. Briefing for Elected and Area • Posted Mail Attendance: 37 • H-GAC and County Websites Officials • Letters to elected and area officials • Legal postings at Courthouse • Telephone follow-up 8/14/08 West Chambers County, Chambers County Transit • Area Media PR City of Mont Belvieu City Summary Recommendations • Houston Chronicle PR 3 p.m. Hall • Emails Public Meeting w/ comment • Posted Mail Attendance: 22 period • Fliers • H-GAC and City Websites • Letters to elected and area officials, libraries, school districts

8/26/08 Chambers County Chambers County Transit • Area Media PR Courthouse, Anahuac Summary Recommendations • Houston Chronicle PR 2 p.m. • Emails Attendance: 18 Public Meeting w/ comment • Posted Mail period • Fliers • H-GAC and County Websites • Letters to elected officials, libraries, school districts

Transportation Public Outreach Efforts (Regional Coordination:

County Transit Plans and JARC-New Freedom Grant Programs)

Date Location/ Attendance Type of Effort/Topic Ad Published/Other Publicity

2/19/09 Public Meeting/ Open Liberty County Transit Plan • Area Media PR House • Houston Chronicle (Legal and display) The Liberty Center • Cleveland Advocate (Legal) • Area radio station Liberty • Emails • Posted Mail Attendance: 17 • H-GAC Website • Letters to elected and area officials, libraries, school districts, senior centers • Telephone follow-up 3/10/09 Public Meeting/ Open Liberty County Transit Plan • Area Media PR House • Houston Chronicle (Legal and display) Cleveland City Hall, • Cleveland Advocate (Legal) • Area radio station Cleveland • Emails • Posted Mail Attendance: 15 • H-GAC Website • Letters to elected and area officials, libraries, school districts, senior centers • Telephone follow-up 3/10/09 Cleveland City Council Liberty County Transit Plan • Area Media PR Meeting, • Emails • Telephone follow-up Cleveland City Hall, Cleveland

Attendance: 33

4/28/09 Chambers County Chambers County Transit Plan • Area Media PR Commissioners’ Court • Emails • H-GAC Website Anahuac • Comm Court Agenda posting and materials Attendance: 25 • Chambers Co Transit Plan Flier • Notice to elected and area

officials • Telephone follow-up

5/11/09 Public meeting, Mont Chambers County Transit Plan • Area Media PR Belvieu City Hall • Houston Chronicle (legal and display) Mont Belvieu • Area radio station • Emails Attendance: 13 • Posted Mail • H-GAC Website • Letters to elected and area officials, libraries, school districts, senior centers • Telephone follow-up 5/11/09 Mont Belvieu City Chambers County Transit Plan • Area Media PR Council meeting • Emails • Council Agenda posting and Mont Belvieu materials • Chambers Co Transit Plan Attendance: 25 Flier • Notice to elected and area officials • Telephone follow-up 5/27/09 H-GAC Job Access Reverse Commute • Emails (JARC) & New Freedom (NF) • H-GAC Website Attendance: 19 Workshop • Telephone follow-up

6/23/09 Liberty County Liberty County Transit Plan • Emails Commissioners’ Court • Comm Court Agenda posting and materials, including area Liberty media • Notice to elected and area Attendance: 20-25 officials

8/21/09 United Way Service Waller County and Austin • Area media Center County Transit Plans – • Emails • Transit Plan Flier Brookshire County Sub-Regional Planning • H-GAC Website w/ Colorado Valley Transit • Letters to elected and area Attendance: 23-25 District officials • Telephone follow-up

8/25/09 Chambers County Chambers County Transit Plan • Emails Commissioners’ Court • Comm Court Agenda posting and materials, including area Anahuac media • Notice to elected and area Attendance: 20-25 officials

10/21/09 Bay City Chamber of Matagorda County Transit • Emails Commerce & Plan • Telephone follow-up Agriculture Series of discussions with area Bay City officials, including County Judge and Mayors of Bay City Attendance: 20 and Palacios, chamber and economic development officers

Liberty County Transit Plan Related Meetings

Date Location/Attendance Group Holding Meeting Presenter Topic

3/10/09 Cleveland Cleveland Senior Center Kari Hackett Liberty County Transit Plan; area needs and Attendance: 6 community resources

3/17/09 Liberty Liberty Senior Activity Kari Hackett Liberty Co Transit Center Plan; area needs and Attendance: 5 community resources

3/17/09 Liberty Liberty County Indigent Kari Hackett by Liberty Co Transit Health Care Program Teleconference Plan; area needs and Attendance: 2 community resources

Public Transportation Meetings & Workshops – Regional Transit Coordination Subcommittee, County Transit Planning & JARC-New Freedom Grant Programs

Date Location/ Attendance Type of Effort/Topic Ad Published/Other Publicity

1/14/10 H-GAC offices Regional Public Transportation • Emails Coordination Subcommittee • Telephone follow-up 9:30 a.m. Houston • H-GAC websites Attendance: 20-30

2/02/10 Bay City Chamber of Matagorda County Transit Service • Emails Commerce Bldg. Plan – Stakeholder Workshop • Telephone follow-up

Bay City, TX

Attendance: 18

3/16/10 Bay City Civic Center Matagorda County Transit Service • Houston Chronicle legal Plan and Comment Period, w/ notice Bay City, TX General Public online survey • Local newspapers (English, Spanish) and individual • Display ads (2 meetings) H-GAC Website Employer interviews • • Matagorda Co Transit 12:30 Attendance: 23 Project Website p.m. Attendance: 7 • Email Area Media PR 6:00 • p.m.

3/17/10 Palacios Recreation Matagorda County Transit Service • Houston Chronicle legal Center Plan and Comment Period, w/ notice General Public online survey • Local newspapers Palacios. TX (English, Spanish) and individual • Display ads • H-GAC Website Employer interviews (2 meetings) • Matagorda Co Transit 12:30 Project Website p.m. Attendance: 12 • Email Area Media PR 6:00 p.m. Attendance: 10 •

4/08/10 H-GAC offices, Regional Public Transportation • Emails Coordination Subcommittee • Telephone follow up 9:30 a.m. Houston • H-GAC websites Attendance: 20-30

4/19/10 Liberty County Law Liberty County Transit Plan Phase • Emails Library, Liberty, TX II Stakeholder Workshop • Telephone follow-up 1:30 p.m. Attendance: 12

6/02/10 H-GAC offices, Job Access Reverse Commute • Houston Chronicle legal (JARC) & New Freedom (NF) notice 10 a.m. Houston Workshop • Emails • H-GAC Website Attendance: 19 • Telephone follow-up 7/08/10 H-GAC offices Regional Public Transportation • Emails Coordination Subcommittee • Telephone follow-up 9:30 a.m. Houston • H-GAC Websites Attendance: 28

7/19/10 Matagorda County Matagorda County Transit Service • Comm Court Agenda Commissioners Court, Plan and Comment Period posting and materials, 9:30 a.m. including area media Bay City, TX • Notice to elected and area officials Attendance: 41 • Houston Chronicle legal notice • Local newspapers • Display ads • H-GAC Website • Matagorda Co Transit Project Website • Matagorda County Website • Emails • Area Media PR 7/19/10 Bay City Civic Center, Matagorda County Transit Service • Houston Chronicle legal Plan and Comment Period notice 12 Noon Bay City, TX • Local newspapers • Display ads Attendance: 7 • H-GAC Website • Matagorda Co Transit Project Website • Matagorda County Website • Emails • Area Media PR

7/19/10 Palacios Recreation Matagorda County Transit Service • Houston Chronicle legal Center, Palacios, TX Plan and Comment Period notice 5:30 p.m. • Local newspapers Attendance: 2 • Display ads • H-GAC Website • Matagorda Co Transit Project Website • Matagorda County Website • Emails • Area Media PR 10/14/10 H-GAC offices Regional Public Transportation • Emails Coordination Subcommittee • Telephone follow-up Houston • H-GAC Websites Attendance: 28

APPENDIX B. TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS DETAILED INVENTORY

Provider Address Type of Trip Type of Span of Counties Total # of Idle Assistance Client Purpose Service Services Served Vehicles Vehicle Needed Availabilit y 1 Southwest 16617 W. Elderly Medical Demand Weekdays Harris, 10 Weekday Driver Training Regional SWR Hardy Rd. Disabled Congregate Response Weekends Fort Bend, Midday Parts Houston, Meals & Holidays Galveston Purchasing Texas 6:00 a.m- Customer/ 6:00 p.m. Information Marketing

2 The 1202 Elderly Medical Flexible Weekdays Montgomery 9 Weekday Driver Training Friendship Callahan, Disabled Shopping Route - 8:00 a.m- evenings Center Conroe, TX Social Deviation 6:00 p.m. Saturdays 77301 recreational Sundays Congregate Meals 3 Regional 11601 Elderly Welfare to Fixed Weekdays Harris, No Weekday No Response Medical Shadow Disabled Work Flexible 5:00 a.m. Fort Bend, Response Midday & Transportation creek pkwy Students Medical Subscription 8:00 p.m. Galveston Evenings Pearland TX Others Educational Demand Brazoria Saturdays 77584 Shopping Response Matagorda Nutrition Ride Sharing Waller

4 Pasadena 311 W.Shaw Elderly Work Demand Weekday Harris & 28 Weekday No Response Taxi Ave. , Disabled Medical Response Weekend & Galveston Midday & Pasadena, Students Educational Holidays Evenings TX 77506 Others Shopping 5:00 a.m. Saturdays Nutrition 10:00 p.m.

5 Franklin 719 Weeping Elderly Work Demand Weekday All Counties 8 No No Response Transportation Willow Way, Disabled Medical Response Weekend & Response Services Magnolia Students Educational Ride Sharing Holidays Work Shopping 5:00 a.m. Others Nutrition 10:00 p.m.

6 West 4205 Elderly Work Demand Weekdays Harris & 1 No No Response Galveston Jackson Disabled Medical Response 7:00 a.m. Galveston Response County Street Santa Students Educational Ride Sharing 6:00 p.m. Interfaith Fe, Work Shopping Caring TX 77517 Others Nutrition Ministries 7 Family First 4922 Vintage Elderly Medical Demand Weekdays Harris, 1 Customer No Transportation Grove Ct. Disabled Social Response Weekends Fort Bend, Information Response Students Recreational & Holidays Referral Work Shopping 5:00 a.m- Services Others 10:00 p.m. 8 Northwest 15555 Elderly Medical Flexible Mondays & Harris No No No Response Assistance Kuykendahl Disabled Social route Wednesdays County Response Response Ministries Others Recreational Deviation Seniors Shopping Subscription Wheels Demand Response Others 9 Alamo Bus 5202 Elderly Work Demand Weekdays Harris 2 No No Response Services Inc. Maudlin Students Medical Response Weekends County Response Houston, TX Others Educational Others & Holidays 77087 Shopping 5:00 a.m- Personal 10:00 p.m. Business

10 City of West U 6104 Auden Elderly Medical Demand Weekdays 1 No Customer Street Shopping Response 8:00 a.m. Response Information

Personal Others 6:00 p.m. Referral Business Services 11 Excelsior 2890 W. Elderly Educational Demand Weekdays Houston- 65 Weekday Driver Training Stage Coach, Sam Students Shopping Response Weekends Galveston w/no Midday & Preventative Inc. Houston Others Social Others – & Holidays Areas wheelchair Evenings Maintenance Pkwy South Recreational Corporate 5:00 a.m- accessible Saturdays Routine & #A20 and/or 10:00 p.m. Sundays Major Repairs Houston, TX Private Parts 77024 Coaches Purchasing Inventory Management Customer/Info Referral Services Planning & Programming 12 WCJC 316 Spring Elderly Medical Demand Weekdays Colorado 3 No No Response Colorado St, Social Response 8:00 a.m- Response County Senior Columbus, Recreational 6:00 p.m. Program TX 78934 Shopping Nutrition 13 Village 3819 Plum Disabled Work/ Fixed RT Weekdays Harris 3 No Route/ Learning & Valley Seeking Flexible RT 6:00 a.m- Response Scheduling Achievement Kingwood, Employment Subscription 6:00 p.m. & Dispatch & Center TX 77339 Medical service Sundays Driver Educational Demand after 8 a.m. Training Other Response Preventative Maintenance Routine Repairs Customer/Info/ Referral Services Planning Programming 14 Senior Center 340 F Hwy Elderly Medical Fixed RT Weekdays Walker (only 2 No No Response of Walker 75 North Social Flexible RT 8:00 a.m- clients in Response County Recreational Subscription 6:00 p.m. Huntsville) Shopping Nutrition 15 Alpha Medical P.O. Box Elderly Medical Fixed RT Weekdays & Harris 2 Route/ Transport 16769 Disabled Social Flexible RT Saturday Brazoria Scheduling Houston, TX Welfare to Recreational Subscription 5:00 a.m- Montgomery Dispatching 77722 Work Shopping service 6:00 p.m. Ft Bend Driver Training Students Other Demand Parts Others Response Purchasing Ridesharing Planning/ Programming 16 Southwest 16617 West Elderly Medical Flexible RT Weekdays Harris 22 Weekday Customer/Info/ Regional and Hardy Rd. Disabled Route Weekends Brazoria Ft Midday & Referral AMT Others Deviation & Holidays Bend Evenings Services 5:00 a.m- Saturdays Marketing 6:00 p.m. Sundays 17 Royal 9212 Elderly Shopping Demand Weekdays Harris 19 Weekday Marketing Carriages Rasmus Dr., Others Social Response Weekends Ft Bend Midday & Limousine, Houston, TX Recreational Ridesharing & Holidays Galveston Evenings Inc. 77063 5:00 a.m- Montgomery Saturdays 10:00 p.m. Sundays 18 RR P.O. Box Elderly Work/ Demand No Harris No No No Response Transportation 1501, Disabled Seeking Response Response Galveston Response Response Services Inc. Bellaire, TX Students Employment Chambers 77402-1501 Welfare to Medical Ft Bend Work Social Liberty Others Recreational Brazoria Nutrition Montgomery Educational Waller Other 19 Jewish 5601 S Elderly Social Demand Weekdays Harris 3 No Route/ Community Brasewood Disabled Recreational Response 8:00 a.m- Response Dispatching

Center of Blvd. Students Nutrition 6:00 p.m. Driver Training Houston Houston, TX Others Preventive 77096 Maintenance 20 Liberty County 2000 Medical Subscription Weekdays Liberty 4 No No Response Project for the Panther Social service 7:30 a.m- Response Aging Lane, Liberty Shopping Demand 6:00 p.m. TX 77575 Recreational Response Nutrition

APPENDIX C:

Gulf Coast Region Population Growth, 2000 – 2008

Exhibit 1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Population Growth

The region’s population rose by an estimated 20.8 percent between 2000 and 2008, led by strong growth in Fort Bend, Montgomery and Brazoria counties. Fort Bend County was the nation’s 20th- fastest growing county during this period, with 50.1 percent growth, while Montgomery County ranked 30th with a 46.4 percent increase. In all, the counties comprising the Houston MSA increased their populations by 21.5 percent while the populations of the region’s four non-metro counties rose by just 1.1 percent. (Exhibit 1)

From 2007 to 2008, the Houston metro area experienced the nation’s second-largest total population increase, adding 130,185 people; Harris County had the second-largest total increase among all U.S. counties, adding 72,153 people.

The population of the Gulf Coast region increased by an annual average of 2.4 percent from 2000 to 2008, compared to 1.9 percent in Texas. In the year following the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the population in the region increased by 182,031, or 3.3 percent, with Harris County adding 123,357

residents, representing 67.8 percent of the region’s total increase. Comparatively, the region’s previous year population increase was 110,374, or 2.1 percent. In that year Harris County added 62,384 residents, or 56.5 percent of the region’s overall increase.

By 2007, Gulf Coast population growth decreased to 2.0 percent; consistent with years prior to Hurricane Katrina. (Exhibit 2)

Exhibit 2

Population Percent Change

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Exhibit 3

Population by Ethnicity, U.S., Texas and Gulf Coast Region

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Ethnicity

The Gulf Coast region was 42.7 percent white in 2008, followed by Hispanics at 33.9 percent, blacks at 16.5 percent and Asians at 5.5 percent. The remaining 1.4 percent fell in the “other” category, including American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander and those claiming descent from two or more races. Exhibit 3 compares the Gulf Coast region’s ethnic distribution to that of the state and U.S.

From 2000 to 2008, the white population rose by 6 percent, well below the region’s overall growth of 20.8 percent. As a result, the share of white population fell from 48.7 percent in 2000 to 42.7 percent in 2008.

The Hispanic population rose by 42.9 percent from 2000 to 2008, increasing its Gulf Coast share from 28.6 percent to 33.9 percent. The black population increased by 18.7 percent overall (maintaining its 16.5 percent share), and Asians rose by 39.0 percent. The “other” ethnicities increased by 57.8 percent. Forty percent of Texas’ Asian population resides in the Gulf Coast region.

The black population increased significantly following Hurricane Katrina, adding 62,000 residents, compared to 14,300 in the previous year. The percent growth of the black population spiked 7.0 percent from 2005 to 2006, up from 1.6 in the previous year.

While the “other” population only represents 1.4 percent of the population, it is the fastest growing ethnic demographic in the region. From 2007 to 2008, this demographic increased by 5.5 percent.

100

Hispanics increased 4.3 percent, followed by Asians with 4.1 percent growth. Blacks increased 1.5 percent, similar to growth in years prior to Hurricane Katrina. The white population increased 0.7 percent during this period (Exhibit 4).

Exhibit 4

Annual Population Percent Change by Race, Gulf Coast Region

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Age

The age distribution of the Gulf Coast population closely mirrors that of the state. Nearly 38 percent of both the region’s and the state’s residents are under the age of 25, above the U.S. distribution of 34.1 percent. On the other end of the spectrum, 8.4 percent of Gulf Coast residents are above the age of 65, compared to 10.2 percent in Texas and 12.8 percent in the U.S. (Exhibit 5). In the region’s non-metro counties, 37.2 percent of the population is under the age of 25, while 13.1 percent are 65 years and over.

Exhibit 5

101

2008 Population by Age, U.S., Texas and Gulf Coast Region

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Income

The median income for all Texas households was $50,000 in 2008. The region’s median household incomes ranged from $38,244 in Walker County to $83, 968 in Fort Bend County. The ten counties of the Houston-Sugar-Land-Baytown MSA had the highest median household incomes in the region, ranging from $48,374 to $83, 968 (Exhibit 6).

102

Exhibit 6

2008 Gulf Region Socioeconomic Indicator

Percent of Median Household Population in Percent of Population Under Age 18 in Area Income Poverty Poverty, 2008 2008 2008

U.S. $52,029 13.2% 18.2%

Texas $50,049 15.8% 22.5%

Fort Bend $83,968 8.0% 10.2%

Chambers $66,033 9.1% 12.8%

Montgomery $65,801 9.4% 13.2%

Brazoria $63,959 9.6% 12.5%

Galveston $57,950 11.9% 16.1%

Harris $52,391 15.3% 22.6%

Waller $50,653 15.5% 21.1%

Austin $49,721 10.6% 14.9%

Liberty $48,374 16.3% 22.8%

Wharton $41,678 16.3% 23.6%

Matagorda $40,578 18.0% 27.0%

Colorado $39,441 17.9% 25.2%

Walker $38,244 23.5% 22.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

103

APPENDIX D

REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATION SUBCOMMITTEE

Regional Transit Coordination Subcommittee Primary Member Alternate Michael Worthy, City of Galveston (Vacant) Kurt Luhrsen, METRO Clint Harbert, METRO James Hollis, Gulf Coast Center/Connect Rick Elizondo, Gulf Coast Center/Connect Transit Transit Margie Lucas, Brazos Transit District Wendy Dickey Brazos Transit District Amar Mohite, City of Houston Paresh Lad, City of Houston Travis Madison, TxDOT-Houston Carolyn Bednar-Wood, TxDOT-Houston Darla Walton, TxDOT-Bryan (Vacant) Valerie Marvin, City of Missouri City Scott Elmer, P.E., City of Missouri City Paulette Shelton, Chair James Hoss, Fort Bend County Public Transportation Fort Bend County Public Transportation Patrick Walsh, P.E., City of Sugar Land Dale Rudick, P.E., City of Sugar Land Chamane Barrow, Brazoria County Center for Tony Koosis, Houston Center for Independent Living Independent Living (BCCIL) (HCIL) Ken Fickes, Vice-Chair Harris County Transit Vernon Chambers, Harris County Transit Vastene Olier, Colorado Valley Transit (Vacant) Anthony Cochran, TxDOT-Beaumont (Vacant) Wanda Carter Dyer, TxDOT-Yoakum (Vacant) Rebecca Jasso, United Way of Greater Houston (Vacant) Steve Atchison, American Red Cross (Vacant)

104

APPENDIX E

TRANSIT NEEDS INDEX METHODOLOGY 35

Transit Needs Index In order to identify transit needs and evaluate various transit service alternatives for the Gulf Coast Region, the project team has applied the TNI model to help further analyze data to prioritize areas by the greatest needs. This will result in determining potential transit projects, expansion of existing services, and other enhancements that could be made to improve the menu of travel choice.

Methodology The methodology for calculating the TNI (derived from the Brazoria County Transit Feasibility Study Report, April 6, 1995 developed by LKC Consulting Services Inc.) involved identifying geographic concentrations of transit dependency, need, and demand. The project team replicated the TNI model using U.S. Census 2000 data collected on the following six demographic categories: Population density (persons/square mile) Race (all races other than “White, Not Hispanic”) Median Household Income Auto ownership (zero and one-car households) Senior population (persons 65 and older) Disabled population

For each demographic characteristic listed above urban and rural weights are applied to determine a level of transit need. Urban and rural block groups were based on Census Bureau urbanized area boundaries. Urban block groups include areas in predominantly rural areas where surrounding blocks have a density of at least 500 people per square mile. The weights applied are based on experience from other small transit systems in Texas. By applying the weights listed below, a decision could be made to determine if fixed-route or rural demand-response service would be applied to specific block group.

Table 3.1 – Transit Needs Index Weights Need Characteristic Urban (Fixed Route) Rural (Demand-Response) Population density 2.0 1.0 Median household 3.5 2.5 income Minority population 2.0 1.0

35 The TNI data will be revised based on Census 2010 data when it become available at smaller geographic levels of detail. The theoretical basis for the TNI model is being reconsidered in light of more current research and literature.

105

Zero/one car 1.5 1.5 households Senior population 0.5 2.0 Work force disability 0.5 2.0

By applying these demographic factors and weights in the model, we are trying to identify where the transit needs are in the 13-county area. There are assumptions for this model: In a densely populated area, people depend more on public transit, and population density has stronger influence to transit needs in urban area than in rural area; Households with low income will depend more on transit, so an area with higher concentration of low-income households will have more demand on transit. This concentration has more effect on transit needs in urban area than in rural area; The larger the minority (non-white) population is, the more people depend on transit, especially in urban areas; Households without a car (or with one car) will depend more on public transit. This is true for both urban and rural areas; Populations with high senior concentration have more demand for transit and this is more obvious in rural than in urban areas; and Populations with higher concentration of work force disability influences depends more on transit and this is more obvious in rural areas than in urban areas.

The TNI factors were calculated as follows: Block groups were assigned an “urban” or “rural” classification based on the region’s urbanized area boundaries defined by the Bureau of the Census; Individual factor indices were calculated as follows:

Table 3.2 – Individual Factor Indices Calculations Need Factor Index Calculation Population density Divided the block group density by the regional density Median household income The negative of the difference of the block group median income (BGI) and regional median income (RGI) divided by the regional median income

BGI − RGI − RGI Higher Block Group median incomes compared to the region will result in a negative income index, suggesting a lower financial impact in owning an automobile Minority population Divided the percentage of minorities in each block group by the regional percentage Zero and one car Divided the percentage of households without autos in households each block group by the regional percentage

106

Senior population Divided the percentage of population over 65 in each block group by the regional percentage Work force disability Divided the percentage of disabled in each block group by the regional percentage

Urban or rural weight factors were applied to each factor index. The factor indices for each block group were summed to get the total transit need index for each block group.

107

APPENDIX F Texas Health and Human Services Commission Offices in the Gulf Coast Region36

HHS Offices in the Gulf Coast Region

Division for Blind Services (DBS)

HOUSTON FIELD 427 W 20TH (800) (713) (713) MAP HEADQUARTERS SUITE 407 687- 802- 802- HEIGHTS 7028 3100 3132 MEDICAL TOWER HOUSTON, TX 77008-2430

SOUTHEAST 10060 FUQUA (800) (713) (713) MAP FIELD HOUSTON, TX 687- 948- 948- HEADQUARTERS 77089-1337 7036 7960 7993

Division of Rehabilitative Services (DRS)

HOUSTON 450 N SAM (713) (281) MAP NORTH FIELD HOUSTON PARKWAY 267- 999- OFFICE E SUITE 220 8550 2999 HOUSTON, TX 77060

HOUSTON 8866 GULF FWY. (713) (713) MAP HOBBY FIELD SUITE 225 866- 947- OFFICE HOUSTON, TX 7750 8521 77017

HOUSTON 3721 BRIARPARK, (713) (713) MAP SOUTHWEST SUITE 150 866- 977- FIELD OFFICE HOUSTON, TX 7700 6484 77042

HOUSTON EAST 5425 POLK STREET (713) (713) MAP END FIELD SUITE 410 928- 928- OFFICE HOUSTON, TX 7700 7740 77023

HOUSTON 2636 SOUTH LOOP (713) (713) MAP SOUTH FIELD WEST SUITE 525 349- 349- OFFICE HOUSTON, TX 1360 1379

36 A comprehensive listing of HHS offices is available at http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us.

108

77054

CLEAR LAKE 18333 EGRET BAY (281) (281) MAP FIELD OFFICE BLVD. SUITE 590 333- 333- HOUSTON, TX 7980 7981 77058

HOUSTON THE HEIGHTS (800) (713) (713) MAP WEST FIELD MEDICAL TOWERS 687- 802- 802- OFFICE 427 WEST 20TH 7028 3100 3177 SUITE 407 HOUSTON, TX 77008

HOUSTON 11811 EAST FWY (713) (713) MAP NORTHEAST SUITE 250 866- 451- FIELD OFFICE HOUSTON, TX 7735 5679 77029

HOUSTON 1475 W GRAY ST (713) (713) MAP MULTI-SERVICE HOUSTON, TX 535- 529- CENTER FIELD 77019-4926 7430 1615 OFFIC

HOUSTON 6220 WESTPARK, (866) (713) (713) MAP REGIONAL SUITE 110 281- 267- 267- OFFICE HOUSTON, TX 1804 8510 8514 77057

HOUSTON 3311 RICHMOND (713) (713) MAP CENTRAL FIELD AVE, SUITE 175 866- 942- OFFICE HOUSTON, TX 7765 9981 77098

HUMBLE FIELD 10203 BIRCHRIDGE (713) (281) MAP OFFICE DRIVE SUITE F 802- 548- HUMBLE, TX 77338 3185 1472

HUNTSVILLE 168A COL. (936) (936) MAP FIELD OFFICE ETHEREDGE BLVD 435- 436- HUNTSVILLE, TX 8500 0769 77340

KATY FIELD 810 MASON ROAD (888) (281) (281) MAP OFFICE SUITE 315 KATY, TX 701- 644- 644- 77450 9591 3920 3930

LAKE JACKSON 479 THIS WAY LAKE (800) (979) (979) MA P FIELD OFFICE JACKSON, TX 77566 847- 299- 299- 0480 5300 5309

LIBERTY FIELD 1405 MONTA (936) (936) MAP OFFICE LIBERTY, TX 77575 336- 336- 7283 4896

LIVINGSTON 410 EAST CHURCH (800) (936) (936) MAP

109

FIELD OFFICE STREET SUITE D 687- 327- 327- LIVINGSTON, TX 4571 1490 1273 77351

PASADENA 4111 FAIRMONT (281) (281) MAP FIELD OFFICE PARKWAY SUITE 454- 454- 104 A PASADENA, 2300 2301 TX 77504

ROSENBERG 117 LANE DRIVE, (800) (281) (281) MAP FIELD OFFICE SUITE 44 687- 239- 239- ROSENBERG, TX 8583 1230 1250 77471

TEXAS CITY 2000 TEXAS (409) (409) MAP FIELD OFFICE AVENUE, SUITE 950 949- 949- TEXAS CITY, TX 3900 3901 77590

TOMBALL FIELD 444 HOLDERRIETH (281) (281) MAP OFFICE BLVD SUITE 3 290- 351- TOMBALL, TX 77375 3060 2858

WHARTON 416 N. ALABAMA (979) (979) MAP FIELD OFFICE ROAD WHARTON, TX 532- 532- 77488 8005 8361

110