READING AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY

Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan

September 2013

Approved: Technical Committee: September 5, 2013 Coordinating Committee: September 19, 2013

READING AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY C/O BERKS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 633 COURT STREET, 14TH FL READING, PA 19601

Phone: (610) 478-6300 Fax: (610) 478-6316

Email: [email protected]/planning

Web Site: http://www.co.berks.pa.us/planning

The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policies of either the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA) or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at the time of publication. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Past Funding Programs ...... 1 1.3 Latest Federal Requirements ...... 2 1.4 Guidance from PennDOT (prior to MAP-21) ...... 2 2 APPROACH ...... 3 2.1 Planning Process ...... 3 2.2 Plan Update and Organization...... 4 3 EXISTING COORDINATION...... 5 3.1 BARTA Special Services ...... 5 3.2 Human Service Transportation Coordination Study ...... 5 3.3 Regional Transit Coordination Study ...... 6 3.4 Commuter Services of Pennsylvania ...... 6 4 INVENTORY OF PROVIDERS...... 6 4.1 BARTA ...... 6 4.2 Human Service and Non-Profit Transportation Services ...... 6 4.3 Private/Other Providers ...... 8 5 SERVICE AREA PROFILE ...... 12 5.1 Description ...... 13 5.2 Population Trends...... 14 5.3 Population Density ...... 16 5.4 Target Populations ...... 17 5.5 Employment and Commuting ...... 21 5.6 Major Trip Origins and Destinations...... 22 6 MOBILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT ...... 28 6.1 Mobility Needs Score and Methodology.…………………………………………………………………..28 6.2 Berks County Health and Human Services Survey……………………………………………………..29 6.3 Human Service Transportation Summit…………………………………………………………………….29 7 IDENTIFICATION OF STRATEGIES ...... 30 7.1 Guiding Principle ...... 31 7.2 Goal Statements ...... 31 7.3 Project Development Framework……………………………………………………………………………..32 8 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...... 34 8.1 Prioritization of Strategies ...... 34 8.2 Mobility Management ...... 35 8.3 Volunteer Driver Networks...... 36 8.4 Job Access Strategies ...... 36 8.5 Non-Profit Program ...... 37 8.6 Coordination Committee…………………………………………………………………………………………….38

APPENDIX A - Human Service Transportation Summit Documentation

APPENDIX B - Public Participation Documentation

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this plan is to help improve transportation services for persons with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower incomes in Berks County through a better coordinated transportation system. The lead agency in such transportation planning initiatives is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region, which for Berks County is the Reading Area Transportation Study (RATS) in coordination with the Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority (BARTA). BARTA operates the public transportation system to assure mobility for Berks County residents and access to employment, shopping, medical and recreational sites in the communities within the County.

The preparation of this plan is required by federal transportation regulations and will provide a framework for the development of projects to address the transportation needs of these targeted populations and ensure that RATS and its public transportation and human service agencies coordinate their federally funded transportation resources. Essentially, the Coordinated Plan will identify the transportation needs of individuals in the target population(s), provide strategies for meeting these local needs, and prioritize potential solutions for funding and implementation. In this case, “local” refers to an area within the boundaries of Berks County, Pennsylvania.

The majority of this plan was produced, for BARTA, by an outside consultant, Gannett Fleming. The original plan was adopted prior to the passage of MAP-21. Cooperatively, RATS and BARTA have expanded on this original consultant prepared document to make it more applicable to the needs of the target populations within our region and new federal funding legislation (MAP-21). 1.2 Past Funding Programs Historically, the following funding programs were formula driven and allocated based on the number of senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and individuals with low incomes that live in each state. Award of funds was through a discretionary process, usually requiring a 20 percent local match for capital expenses and planning activities and 50 percent for operating expenses. These programs have been consolidated as the result of new federal transportation funding authorization as detailed in the following section. The previously identified program goals and their targeted populations, as listed below will continue to apply to any future identified and coordinated mobility projects:

• Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) Program - The JARC program included two distinct components. The goal of the “job access” component was to improve access to transportation services to employment and employment-related activities (training, child care, etc.) for welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals. The goal of the “reverse commute” component was to transport residents of urbanized and non- urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities. • New Freedom Program - The stated goal of the New Freedom program was to provide additional transportation options to help Americans with disabilities overcome existing 1

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

barriers to full integration with the workforce and participation in society. Dating back to the time period preceding passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), lack of adequate transportation has long been identified as the primary barrier between persons with disabilities and stable employment. The New Freedom program was intended to support fully accessible mobility options beyond those prescribed by the ADA. • Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) Program - The stated goal of the Section 5310 program was to improve mobility for elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities. Section 5310 projects were designed to meet these special transportation needs. 1.3 Current Federal Requirements On July 6, 2012 new transportation funding legislation known as Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) was signed into law. The bill is a two-year $105 billion surface transportation reauthorization. This new funding authorization consolidates previously separate Federal Transit Administration (FTA) human service transportation programs: Section 5310 Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program, Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC) and Section 5317 New Freedom Program. MAP-21 took effect on October 1, 2012 and eliminates the JARC and New Freedom programs. Under MAP-21, JARC funds are consolidated with the Section 5307 and 5311 programs, and New Freedom funds are consolidated with the Section 5310 program. Funding for these consolidated programs are offset from increases into the formula funding, and by FY 2014 the Section 5310 and Section 5307 program will grow by more than 90 percent and 7 percent respectively compared to FY 2012 funding levels. The FY 2012 allocation of JARC and New Freedom funds were the last allocation for these programs with funds already obligated for these programs able to be expended for current projects through Sept. 30, 2015.

As with the previous funding legislation, MAP 21 continues to allow recipients of Section 5310 funds to sub-allocate to private nonprofits or state/local government authorities, provided that the state/local authority coordinates service and has certified that no private nonprofit is readily available. The Section 5310 program recipients must certify that the projects selected are included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. The law requires that this plan be “developed through a process that includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public.” The FTA defines a coordinated plan as a unified, comprehensive strategy for public transportation service delivery that identifies the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, individuals with limited incomes, lays out strategies for meeting these needs, and prioritizes services. Coordination of services will enhance transportation access, minimize duplication of services, and facilitate the most appropriate cost-effective transportation services. 1.4 Guidance from PennDOT (prior to MAP-21) Projects listed in coordinated plans and selected for funding through the competitive selection process have to be incorporated into both the local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). If the coordinated plan or

2

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013 competitive selection is not completed in a timeframe that coincides with the development of the TIP and STIP, an amendment process needs to be conducted so the competitively selected projects can be placed onto the TIP and STIP and be eligible for federal funding.

Based on the likely modest amount of any grant awards, as well as the anticipated strong competition for program funds across the Commonwealth, PennDOT advised that JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 funds could be applied to capital projects, or could be applied to operating projects for a maximum of three years; to allow other candidate projects to advance. Therefore, long-term sustainability of projects has been an important issue in the project decision-making process. With respect to the Section 5310 program, PennDOT receives and reviews completed program applications, ensures that these applications are derived from the Coordinated Plan, and awards program funds as appropriate. For JARC and New Freedom programs, PennDOT directed RATS staff to solicit program applications from eligible transportation providers (including the Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority – BARTA), ensured the accuracy and completeness of each application, ranked applications in priority order, and forwarded this information to FTA; including in this submission the documentation of the process used to solicit, review, and rank applications.

PennDOT has historically provided the local match for JARC and New Freedom projects, but typically did not provide matching funds for operating projects because the funding for these programs is unstable and not guaranteed. As such PennDOT has placed the highest priority on funding capital items, vanpool programs, information technology, JARC services, and “shovel ready” projects. The agency has given higher rankings to project applications which demonstrated local support for the project after the initial federal funding grant expired.

2 APPROACH 2.1 Planning Process The FTA requires the states to carry-out the federal coordination initiative and develop policies and procedures to administer the federal funding programs, with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) assigned to carry out this program on behalf of the state and the agency’s Bureau of Public Transportation (BPT) responsible for administering the program. PennDOT is the designated recipient of the Federal 5310 program for the entire state and historically served as the designated recipient for the JARC and New Freedom programs for small urban and non-urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or under. The small urban and nonurbanized areas have been responsible for conducting the application and selection process using the historic JARC/New Freedom program guidance and selection criteria provided by PennDOT. The Reading Area Transportation Study (RATS) is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Berks County and is responsible for preparing transportation plans and programs that must be consistent with federal legislation in order for the county to receive federal transportation funds. The transportation planning staff of the Berks County Planning Commission serves as the technical staff to the MPO. The MPO is comprised of local elected

3

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013 officials and representatives from the county and local municipalities, BARTA, PennDOT, the Berks County Planning Commission, and the Reading Regional Airport Authority. These individuals participate in the MPO through two committees – the Coordinating Committee and the Technical Committee. The Technical Committee reviews items brought before the group and recommends actions to the Coordinating Committee. The Coordinating Committee is the policy body that formally adopts items reviewed by the Technical Committee. BARTA serves on both committees. The Reading MPO conducts a 30-day public comment period and holds a public hearing before taking action on plans and programs. The last Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan (CPTHSTP) was approved on May 30, 2007.

Since the completion of the initial coordinated plan, there have been no human service transportation services or programs in Berks County funded using JARC or New Freedom programs and only one project in the county funded by the 5310 program (i.e., the acquisition of a van by the Boyertown Area Multi-Services, Inc. in 2007). 2.2 Plan Update and Organization This document represents the first update to the Berks County CPTHSTP and includes some of the same steps that were performed previously such as preparing an inventory of the existing transportation system and analyzing the demographic and economic characteristics in the county, but also reaffirms and/or identifies new transportation needs and identifies additional strategies to maximize existing resources in order to maintain and/or increase service levels and travel mobility options for senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and individuals with low incomes (i.e., target populations).

Guidelines indicate that coordinated plans should be updated at least every four or five years, or at intervals that align with the local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This Plan Update was prepared at the same time as the BARTA Transportation Development Plan (TDP) which is updated approximately every five years and is used to determine the future direction of the system. Accordingly, most of the data in this document was derived from the BARTA TDP.

The major difference in this plan from the initial coordinated plan is an emphasis on policies designed to ensure human service transportation in Berks County moves forward in a predictable manner and implements projects and activities that are consistent with local priorities and state and federal guidelines.

The remainder of this plan is organized into the components outlined below: • A summary of existing coordination occurring in Berks County; • An inventory of the existing transportation services available in Berks County, including public, private and non-profit services; • A demographic and economic profile of Berks County prepared using current information from the 2010 U.S. Census and other relevant planning documents;

4

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

• The formulation of guiding principles to provide direction for continuing human service transportation in Berks County along with formulation of project development steps; and • The Identification of projects and activities to be pursued that can improve the provision and availability of coordinated human service transportation in Berks County.

3 EXISTING COORDINATION 3.1 BARTA Special Services BARTA has been providing coordinated human service transportation in Berks County since 1978, when County Commissioners ordered 33 publicly funded social service agencies in the county to end their transportation programs and consolidate their services under the transit system to control costs and maintain consistent service quality. Today, BARTA’s Special Services Division is responsible for operating and administering virtually all human service transportation in Berks County, including the Shared Ride, ADA, and Medical Assistance Transportation Program (MATP) programs. All administrative and customer service functions are centralized under BARTA with the delivery of service provided using both directly operated and contracted services, such as provided by the Easton Coach Company.

It is also important to point out that BARTA operates an extensive ADA accessible fixed route bus system that is heavily concentrated in the City of Reading and the surrounding Reading urbanized area, which is where the majority of Berks County’s residents live and where most of the county’s major employers and activity centers are located. The fixed route system provides a vital and affordable mobility option in the areas in which it operates and should be preferred over Special Services whenever possible since there is little or no cost associated with more people using the service. Further, senior citizens age 65 and older can ride the BARTA fixed route bus system for free and the transit system also provides a half-fare program for persons with disabilities. 3.2 Human Service Transportation Coordination Study In July 2009, PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Department of Aging, and Office of the Budget released a report providing a statewide assessment of human service transportation in the state. The study was mandated by Act 44 legislation and was guided by the following objectives:

1. Improve customer service 2. Improve service delivery 3. Quantify human service transportation needs 4. Maximize service efficiency and control the rate of cost growth 5. Develop objective and measurable service criteria

The main finding of the study was that regional consolidation of management and service delivery would provide the greatest opportunity for improved efficiencies and cost savings as well as increased service, quality, and availability.

5

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

3.3 Regional Transit Coordination Study One of the outcomes of the statewide human service transportation study was the conduct of a nine-county regional transit coordination demonstration pilot project conducted in South Central Pennsylvania funded by PennDOT and undertaken by the Susquehanna Regional Transportation Partnership (SRTP) with BARTA serving as the grantee. The purpose of the demonstration study was to determine if the transit agencies that operate within the nine-county study area could coordinate with one another to increase mobility options for the area’s residents, workers, and employers. The plan was completed in September 2011. Among its many findings, it includes recommendations for providing intercounty connections between Berks County and Lebanon County by linking bus routes operated by BARTA and Lebanon Transit. 3.4 Commuter Services of Pennsylvania Commuter Services of Pennsylvania is a regional transportation demand management organization that provides professional services to regional employers and commuters to promote options other than driving alone. In addition to Berks County and BARTA, participating counties include Adams, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Perry and York and the transit agencies that operate in these jurisdictions. The organization is funded by federal Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality funds, PennDOT, and the regional planning organizations in the nine-county service area. Commuter Services works closely with BARTA and the Reading MPO to promote the services offered by the organization and has established an Emergency Ride Home Program. The Emergency Ride Home Program is a free ride home for commuters who use alternatives other than commuting alone in their personal vehicle and are enrolled in the Commuter Services program.

4 INVENTORY OF PROVIDERS

4.1 BARTA BARTA operates both fixed route bus service and demand responsive Special Services for residents with special needs. The services include fixed route bus service on 21 routes which operate six days per week (Monday through Saturday). In addition, BARTA provides paratransit service for those persons eligible under provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as senior citizens. BARTA Special Services is responsible for the management, oversight, and operation of a variety of major state and federally funded human service transportation programs. The organization, through either direct operation or use of a contractor, provides approximately 800 to 1,000 trips on weekdays and about 100 trips on Saturdays. 4.2 Human Service and Non-Profit Transportation Services There are a number of non-profit agencies that supply transportation to individuals in need of Special Services. Some of these agencies subcontract through BARTA to provide Special Services to persons when BARTA experiences limitations to their existing Special Services schedule. These agencies include:

6

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Boyertown Area Multi-Services, Inc. – The Boyertown Area Multi-Service, Inc. is a non-profit social services agency that serves the Boyertown area and provides Meals on Wheels, non-emergency medical transportation, and occasional trips that BARTA Special Services is unable to provide. The agency relies primarily on volunteers using their own vehicles, but does own one van to provide non-emergency medical trips and the occasional trip it receives from Special Services. The Meals on Wheels program is for older adults aged 60 and older who are homebound and/or unable to shop for groceries or prepare meals for themselves and is similar to the program coordinated by the Berks County Area Agency on Aging. The non emergency medical transportation service is for individuals living in the Boyertown area who are unable to drive and have no other means to access medical appointments. Before a person can access the program, they are required to speak with a Multi-Service case manager and complete an intake form. Transportation is available on weekdays from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM with the majority of trips confined to Berks and Montgomery Counties. There is no cost to use this service but riders are encouraged to provide a donation. Reservations must be made one week in advance of the scheduled medical appointment. This program is provided using the agency owned vehicle and volunteer drivers. The transportation programs provided by Boyertown Area Multi-Service are funded by the United Way, the Berks County Area Agency on Aging, the Montgomery County Aging and Adult Services, individual donors and general community support. The system also receives revenue from any trips they provide for Special Services.

Veterans Transportation – The Berks County Chapter of the American Red Cross operates weekday transportation to the Lebanon VA Medical Center for transit-dependent veterans living in Berks County. The Red Cross operates the service using two minivans operated by volunteers, with supplemental transportation to the VA facility provided by volunteers using their own vehicles. This program is operated on a space available basis and there is no charge for veterans to use this service.

Ready Ride Transportation Service – Ready Ride Transportation Service provides transportation assistance to Berks County residents aged 60 and older who have unexpected transportation needs related to medical or dental appointments, hospital discharges, or shopping needs. The service is operated by volunteers and administered by Diakon Volunteer Home Care and receives funding from the Pennsylvania Department of Aging and the Berks County Area Agency on Aging.

Exeter Ambulance Association – The Exeter Ambulance Association is a non-profit organization that provides emergency ambulance service, as well as non-emergency medical transportation to/from medical appointments, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, and assisted living homes throughout Berks County. The non-emergency transportation is available to the general public and costs $51.00 per trip plus $3.00 each additional mile. Riders covered under a medical plan pay a lower fare. Transportation is provided using two lift-equipped wheelchair vans operated by certified emergency medical technicians (EMT). Service is available 7 days a week from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM and requires trips to be scheduled 24 hours in advance.

7

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Western Berks Ambulance Association – The Western Berks Ambulance Association is a non-profit organization that provides emergency ambulance service, as well as nonemergency medical transportation primarily in western Berks County and the southeastern portion of Lebanon County; the organization does operate certain non-emergency medical trips into other areas of Berks County on a space available basis. The non-emergency transportation is provided using four lift-equipped wheelchair vans operated by certified emergency medical technicians (EMT). The service is available to the general public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at a cost of $69.00 per round trip. Riders covered under a medical plan pay a lower fare.

Southern Berks Regional Emergency Medical Services – The Southern Berks Regional Emergency Medical Services is a non-profit organization that provides emergency ambulance service, non-emergency medical transportation and general purpose transportation to residents living in municipalities in the southern portion of Berks County, including Amity Township, Birdsboro Borough, Brecknock Township, Cumru Township, Kenhorst Borough, Mohnton Borough, Robeson Township, Shillington Borough, and Union Township. The nonemergency and general purpose transportation is provided using lift-equipped wheelchair vans operated by certified emergency medical technicians (EMT). The service is available to the general public 16 hours per day on weekdays and 12 hours per day on weekends. The cost of a round-trip varies depending if the rider is a member or a senior citizen and/or covered by a medical plan. A typical round-trip ranges in price from $40.00 to $100.00. 4.3 Private/Other Providers In addition to the publicly supported services provided by BARTA, the County is served by a number of private carriers providing fixed-route intercity and taxi services.

Bieber Tourways – This firm operates five intercity bus routes that provide service from Berks County to Harrisburg, New York City and Philadelphia, with the routes making stops in a number of urban areas in the surrounding counties (i.e., Allentown, Bethlehem, Hershey, Lebanon, Norristown, and Pottstown) depending on the route and the time of day. The primary stops in Berks County include the Intercity Bus Terminal in downtown Reading and the Bieber Bus Terminal in Kutztown. Of the five routes, one serves Harrisburg, two serve Philadelphia, and two serve New York City. The Harrisburg and Philadelphia routes receive assistance from PennDOT’s Intercity Bus Operating Assistance Program, which helps finance a portion of the deficit of intercity bus routes that are considered essential links in the regional/statewide intercity bus route network. The five bus routes are summarized in below.

• Reading-Lebanon-Harrisburg – As of July 1, 2013 this route no longer exists due to lack of ridership.

• Reading-Kutztown-Allentown-Bethlehem-Philadelphia – This route operates five round trips on weekdays and two round trips on weekends and holidays between the Bieber Bus terminal in Kutztown and the Greyhound Bus Terminal in Center City Philadelphia. The route makes stops in Wescosville, Allentown, Bethlehem, Quakertown, and two additional stops in Center City Philadelphia. 8

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

• Pottsville-Reading-Norristown-Philadelphia – This route operates five round trips on weekdays and two round trips on weekends and holidays between Union Station in Pottsville (Schuylkill County) and the Greyhound Bus Terminal in Center City Philadelphia. On weekdays, the Bieber Bus Terminal in Kutztown is the origin and destination point for the first outbound trip and third inbound trip, with all other trips beginning and ending at Union Station in Pottsville. The route makes stops in Schuylkill Haven (Penn State Schuylkill Campus), Reading (the Intercity Bus Terminal), Pottstown, Norristown, and two additional stops in Center City Philadelphia.

• Reading-Kutztown-Wescosville-Hellertown-New York City – This route operates 19 round trips on weekdays and eight round trips on weekends and holidays between Berks County and the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City. On weekdays, ten of the outbound trips and 15 of the inbound trips originate and terminate at the Intercity Bus Terminal in Reading, with nine of the outbound trips and four of the inbound trips originate and terminate at the Bieber Bus Terminal in Kutztown. The four inbound trips that end in Kutztown also stop in Reading.

• Harrisburg-York-Lancaster-Norristown-New York City – This route offers a single outbound trip in the early morning on weekdays from the Intercity Bus Terminal in Reading to the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City. This route is oriented to intermediate travel and not trips between Berks County to New York City.

The weekday service operated by Bieber Tourways provides earlier outbound service and later inbound service in the afternoon and evening hours between Berks County and Harrisburg, New York City and Philadelphia. This practice is designed to meet the needs of the commuting public who use these routes to get to and from work. Weekend service operated by Bieber Tourways – which is offered on both Saturday and Sunday – has start and stop times that vary from the weekday service. Bieber Tourways is also used by BARTA Special Services to transport MATP clients to medical facilities in Hershey and Philadelphia if the trips are more cost effective than using BARTA in-house or contracted operations.

Taxi Services - Taxicabs operating in Pennsylvania must be licensed by the Public Utility Commission (PUC), maintain adequate insurance coverage, charge fees approved by the PUC and adhere to the Commission’s driver and vehicle safety regulations. Taxi companies must also comply with certain standards regarding service set by the commission such as:

• Providing service upon demand, regardless of the distance of the trip; • Taking the shortest route to the requested destination; • Charging a fare based on an approved flat rate, odometer mileage, a meter reading or in accordance with zones; • Posting rates inside vehicles; • Ensuring the passenger area and trunk are clean and sanitary; and

9

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

• Ensuring vehicles meets all Pennsylvania equipment and inspection standards;

PUC Enforcement Officers conduct taxicab inspections throughout the year to ensure taxicabs are safe and clean, drivers are properly licensed, and companies are providing reasonable service. Insurance coverage is also monitored to ensure it remains in effect. A taxicab company failing to meet the commission’s driver, vehicle and service standards may be subject to fines and/or loss of its operating license. Four taxi companies were identified that operate in Berks County, with three of the four operators based in the City of Reading or the Reading urbanized area. This inventory may not be inclusive of all taxi companies operating in Berks County and the information that was available varies among the operators that were identified. The four taxi companies are listed below:

• Reading Metro Taxi – This taxi operator is based in the City of Reading and operates a fleet of 38 sedans and two wheelchair accessible vans. They provide 24- hour service, 7 days a week throughout Berks County and also provide out-of-county service and airport transportation. The taxi operator is also bilingual. Reading Yellow Cab and Reading Checker Cab are affiliated with Reading Metro Taxi. The cost to use the service is $2.50 for the first 1/6 of a mile plus $1.80 for each additional mile. A waiting fee of $0.40 per minute is also charged to customers.

• Grab-A-Cab – This taxi operator is located in Muhlenberg Township. They provide 24-hour service primarily in the Reading area and operate sedans that are not wheelchair accessible. The cost to use the service is $2.80 for the initial flag and $1.40 per mile.

• Access Airport and Cab Company – This taxi operator is based in Hamburg and operates 24-hour service throughout Berks County, as well as provides out-of-county service to various destinations such as major airports.

• Andrews Transportation – This taxi operator is based in Wyomissing and operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and operates 24 hour service throughout Berks County, as well as provides out-of-county service to major airports.

Reading Hospital Shuttle Bus Service – The Reading Hospital operates shuttle service for patients and visitors at the hospital’s main campus in West Reading, as well as provides transportation between the West Reading campus and other medical facilities owned by the hospital that are located in Wyomissing, Reading, Muhlenberg Township, and Hamburg. The service is available at no cost and is available Monday through Thursday from 5:30 AM to 9:30 PM and on Fridays from 5:30 AM to 8:30 PM.

Kutztown Area Transport Services, Inc. – Kutztown Area Transport Service, Inc., is a for-profit ambulance and transportation company offering emergent and non-emergent Advanced and Basic Life Support ambulance services. In addition they offer other transportation services including Paratransit (wheelchair van), and Paratransit Bus for larger group outings, Bariatric

10

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Paratransit and Ambulance transports, as well as Medical Car service for those needing only mobility assistance. All transportation services are provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, throughout Berks and Lehigh Counties.

Albright College Shuttle Service – Albright College operates a van service 7 days a week for students needing transportation to access on-campus destinations, as well as service to local shopping and restaurants located off-campus. The on-campus service is operated from 7:45 AM to 3:45 PM and then from 8:00 PM to approximately 2:00 AM. The off-campus service is operated Thursday through Saturday from 9:00 PM to 3:00 AM and Sunday through Wednesday from 8:00 PM to 2:00 AM.

Kutztown University Shuttle Bus Service – Kutztown University operates on-campus and off-campus transportation Monday through Saturday during the fall and spring semesters. This service is available to students, faculty and staff, as well as community residents. The students pay for the bus through their student activity fee while faculty, staff and community residents are required to purchase a one semester bus pass for $35.00. On weekdays, separate on-campus and off-campus loop routes operate continuous service from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM. An evening loop route providing continuous service between the campus and off-campus destinations operates Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays between 7:00 PM and 3:00 AM. Another route provides service to a different regional shopping center each Wednesday night during the semester between 6:00 PM and 9:30 PM. The shopping centers include Broadcasting Square and the Berkshire Mall in Berks County and the Lehigh Valley Mall and Promenade Shops in the Lehigh Valley.

Senior Citizen Facility On-Site Transportation – There are several senior citizen facilities in Berks County that offer on-site transportation to their residents on an as needed basis for personal reasons (i.e., medical appointments, shopping) or for group outings. In most instances, the cost of transportation is included in the overall package of services they provide to their residents. As shown in Table 1, there are 26 facilities that provide on-site transportation in Berks County, with three of the facilities charging riders some type of fare to access on-site transportation.

Table 1 - Senior Citizen Facilities On-Site Transportation Facility Housing Type Location Keystone Villa Assisted Living Housing Douglasville & Fleetwood Twin Spruce at Myerstown, Inc. Assisted Living Housing Myerstown Berks Leisure Living Personal Care Homes Leesport Chestnut Knoll Personal Care Homes Boyertown Columbia Cottages Personal Care Homes Wyomissing Country Meadows of Wyomissing Personal Care Homes Wyomissing Elmcroft of Reading Personal Care Homes Reading Evans Retirement Center* Personal Care Homes Fleetwood Golden Ridge Assisted Living, Inc. Personal Care Homes Robesonia Grand View Manor Personal Care Homes Fleetwood The Heritage of Green Hills Personal Care Homes Reading

11

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Harmony Hill Assisted Living* Personal Care Homes Womelsdorf The Hawthorne Personal Care Homes Reading Hearthstone Personal Care Homes Amity & Maidencreek The Highlands at Wyomissing Personal Care Homes Wyomissing The Manor at Market Square* Personal Care Homes Reading Phoebe Berks Village Personal Care Homes Wernersville Rittenhouse Senior Living of Reading Personal Care Homes Reading Sacred Heart Villa Personal Care Homes Reading The Lutheran Home at Topton Personal Care Homes Topton Comfort Keepers In-Home Care Kutztown & West Lawn Assured Assistance In-Home Care Shillington Home Care Solutions In-Home Care Reading Home Helpers/Direct Link In-Home Care Wyomissing Seniors Helping Seniors In-Home Care Wyomissing United Disabilities Services In-Home Care Sinking Spring Visiting Angels In-Home Care Reading Facility Housing Type Location

5 SERVICE AREA PROFILE

The focus of this chapter is to present the demographic characteristics and geographic distribution of senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and individuals with low incomes, which are the primary beneficiaries of the FTA human service transportation programs under MAP-21. Carless households were also included in this analysis since this group is considered to be entirely dependent upon alternative transportation sources.

This chapter uses data from the 2010 U.S. Census and one-year (2009) and five-year (2005-2009) estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) to compare the demographic and economic changes that have occurred in Berks County since the completion of the initial coordinated plan in 2007 that relied primarily on data from the 2000 U.S. Census. It should be recognized that the federal Section 5310, JARC and New Freedom funds apportioned to the states still relied on the 2000 U.S. Census, FFY 2012 was the first year the federal government used the 2010 Census to allocate funding to the states.

Other information in this chapter includes an overview of the general population and employment characteristics in Berks County, as well as location of major trip origins and destinations in the county frequented by the target populations, including multi- family/affordable housing, shopping centers, employment sites, senior citizen facilities, medical centers, etc. The target populations may have difficulty accessing many of these activity centers without adequate transportation service. Lastly, the areas in Berks County with the greatest numbers and concentrations of the target populations and households are identified to create a transit dependent population profile for the county.

The demographic and employment characteristics, as well as the location of the major trip origins and destinations are presented at the municipal and county levels and were derived

12

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013 from a variety of sources other than the U.S. Census and ACS, including the Berks County Planning Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, and the U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics for the years 2002 and 2009.

Information on senior citizens, low income individuals and carless households was derived from the 2005-2009 ACS, which provides the most current population estimates for geographical areas with less than 20,000 people and is based on a five-year average of population counts and characteristics collected between January 2005 and December 2009.

More recent information regarding persons with disabilities at the municipal level cannot be presented at this time due to the U.S. Census revising the disability question in 2008 as a result of the agency overstating the disabled population in the 2000 Census. The revised disability question is more in-line with the disability definition used by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 49 CFR 37.3, which protects individuals from transportation discrimination who have either a physical, mental, or sensory disability. The ADA definition now in use by the U.S. Census is more specific compared to the broader definition used in the 2000 U.S. Census long form.

The revised disability information was incorporated into the ACS for geographical areas with more than 65,000 people beginning in 2008; however, revised information on the disabled population for smaller areas under 20,000 people is not available at this time. Accordingly, data on the disabled population in Berks County will be presented at a higher level using the 2009 ACS and will include Berks County, the Reading urbanized area, and the City of Reading. The 2009 ACS is a one-year estimate of population statistics collected between January 2009 and December 2009.

It is important to recognize that the ACS is an estimates based survey using sample data that is subject to a margin of error and is not as accurate as the decennial census. However, even with this limitation, the ACS provides more timely information and a reasonable estimate of the population changes that have occurred in Berks County since the 2000 Census. 5.1 Description Berks County comprises an area of 864 square miles with a population of 411,442 persons (2010 U.S. Census). The county is located in southeastern Pennsylvania and bordered by Schuylkill County (north), Lehigh County (northeast), Montgomery County (east), Chester County (southeast), Lancaster County (southwest), and Lebanon County (west). Sections of the Appalachian Mountains form its northern and southern boundaries.

The county is divided into seventy-three municipalities (44 townships, 28 boroughs, and one city). An elected body governs each of the municipalities, with each municipality responsible for establishing and administering municipal financial budgets, providing general services and road maintenance, and responsible for land use controls, such as zoning and subdivision regulations and building permits. A map of Berks County and the surrounding area is presented in Figure 2. 13

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Approximately two-thirds of the population resides within the Reading urbanized area (i.e., defined as an area with at least 50,000 people and an overall population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile), which spreads out from the central portion of Berks County and Encompasses all or portions of about half of the municipalities in the county. At the core of this urbanized area is the City of Reading, which is the largest population center and principal city in the county and also serves as the county seat. The Reading urbanized area is the primary economic activity center and labor market in the county. The BARTA fixed route bus system is primarily concentrated in the City of Reading and the surrounding municipalities in the Reading urbanized area. Except for three urban clusters (i.e., urban areas with less than 50,000 people but with an overall population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile) that have developed around the Boroughs of Hamburg, Kutztown and Topton, the remaining sections of the county are still largely comprised of open space and woodlands with low residential densities and limited commercial activity.

Berks County is served by a number of federal and state highways – I-176, I-76 (the Pennsylvania Turnpike) I-78, US-222 and US-422 – that provide access to regional urban centers, including Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Baltimore and New York City. The driving time from the Reading area to reach Harrisburg and Philadelphia is approximately one hour, with the Baltimore and New York City areas being about a two hour drive. 5.2 Population Trends Berks County has experienced a consistent rate of growth dating back to the 1990 U.S. Census. During the ten year period between 1990 and 2000, the county’s population increased from 336,523 to 373,638, an increase of 11 percent. From 2000 to 2010, the population in Berks County increased from 373,638 to 411,442, an increase of approximately 10 percent during this ten year period. Berks County is presently the 9th most populous county in Pennsylvania, and was the 5th fastest growing county in the state during the past decade in terms of numeric growth and was ranked 16th for its overall rate of growth. Population projections prepared by the Berks County Planning Commission estimate that by 2020 the county’s population will grow by approximately nine percent to 449,306. This data shows that Berks County has gained approximately 37,000 residents every ten years, with this trend expected to continue through the current decade. The historical and projected population in Berks County is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 – Berks County Population Changes Y Population Percent Year Population Change Change 1990 336,523 -- -- 2000 373,638 37,115 11.0 2010 411,442 37,804 10.1 2020 449,306 * 37,864 * 9.2 * * Projected Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Berks County Planning Commission Population

14

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Hu man Services Transportation Plan2013

With 88,082 residents, the City of Reading is the most populous municipality in Berks County with a population over three times higher than the next largest municipality, Spring Township (pop. 27,119) and accounts for approxi mately one-fifth of the county’s total population. The mo st populated municipalities are concentrated in the central portion of the county and are located in or adjacent to the Reading urbanized area (Figure 3). The least populated municipalities with less than 1,500 residents are located in the outlying areas of the county and are mostly comprised of smaller boroughs less than one square mile in size. The least populated municipality is New Morgan Borough with 71 residents.

There were 19 municipalities t hat grew faster than the countywide average of 10.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, and of this group, nine had growth rates exceeding 30 percent (Figure 4). Almost one-half of the municipalities exhibited growth rates that were below the county average, and about one-quarter of the municipalities lost population over the ten year period.

Figure 4 – Municipalities Exceeding Berks County’s Popula tion Growth Rate

Source: 2010 U.S. Census

15

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Hu man Services Transportation Plan2013

Population growth is fairly evenly distributed throughout Berks County with the only noticeable pattern being that the municipalities that gained the most residents are generally located along the major corridors such as US -222, US-422, I-76 and I-176. The municipalities that lost population are primarily located in th e northern, northwestern, and eastern sections of the county; three of the municipalities that lost population are located in the Reading urbanized area. The largest population decline occurred in Shoemakersville Borough, where the overall population dropp ed by approximately one -third. The spatial distribution of municipal population change by percent is shown in Figure 5.

In terms of numeric population change, a total of 12 municipalities accounted for approximately 90 percent of the total population grow th in Berks County (Figure 6). Of this group of municipalities, ten were located in or within close proximity to the Reading urbanized area with the other two municipalities – Maxatawny Township and Caernarvon Township – located in the northern and souther n peripheries of the county, respectively (Figure 7). There were 21 municipalities located throughout Berks County that added less than 100 residents between 2000 and 2010, with this group almost evenly divided between boroughs and townships. Numeric popul ation change follows a similar pattern to population change on a percentage basis, with Shoemakersville Borough also losing the largest number of residents in Berks County over the ten year period ( -746).

Figure 6 – Municipalities Accounting for 90% of Berks County Population Growth from 2000 to 2010

Source: 2010 U.S. Census

16

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

5.3 Population Density According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the overall population density in Berks County is approximately 676 persons per square mile, which is the 12th highest among Pennsylvania counties and is approximately two-thirds higher than the statewide average of 280. The population density of each municipality in Berks County is presented in Figure 8.

The City of Reading and several of the smaller boroughs located throughout Berks County exhibit the highest density levels. This is to be expected, as these urban areas were historically built at much greater densities on smaller lots compared to later development patterns and have generally been limited from annexing additional land, which constrains their land area and tends to increase their density. It should be recognized that the density total will exceed the actual population total if the municipality is less than one square mile in size.

The Reading urbanized area comprises the most densely populated area in the county with approximately 2,600 persons per square mile. In contrast, most of the remaining land area in Berks County exhibits density levels below the county average of 476 persons per square mile. With the exception of the outlying Boroughs of Boyertown, Kutztown and Topton, the municipalities with population densities of at least 2,500 persons per square mile are served by the BARTA fixed route bus service. 5.4 Target Populations The section below presents the demographic characteristics of senior citizens, persons with disabilities, individuals with low incomes, and carless households that comprise a significant portion of the ridership base using public transportation. All of the demographic data is presented at the municipal level and derived from the ACS. As noted previously, information for seniors citizens, individuals with low incomes, and carless households is from the 2005-2009 ACS. For comparison purposes, the population changes that have occurred among these populations and households since the 2000 U.S. Census is included in the analysis. Information on the disabled population is only available in the 2009 ACS for geographical areas with population larger than 65,000 people. As a result, disability statistics are presented for Berks County, the Reading urbanized area, and the City of Reading. Because of the different ways in which disability information was reported in the 2000 U.S. Census compared to how the information is currently presented, there was no comparison for the disabled population.

Again, it is important to recognize that the ACS is an estimates based survey using sample data that is subject to a margin of error and is not as accurate as the decennial census. Since the municipalities in Berks County vary in size, both geographically and in population, three maps for each population group were created – one that shows the absolute numbers of persons, a map showing the density (persons per square mile) and another map showing the percentage of the population. For example, a large geographic area will dilute the density of a large population, while a smaller population spread over smaller geographic area will have a higher density. As a result, the three separate maps viewed together provide a more useful measure of the conditions throughout Berks County.

17

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Senior Citizen Population – Persons over 65 years old typically exhibit a greater reliance on public transportation compared to other age groups. Often, these individuals have limited income and in some instances, may have a disability which limits their ability to operate an automobile. Senior citizens also tend to locate in the more urban areas, where access to healthcare and other activities are more readily available. However, it is important to recognize that with the baby boom generation – those born between 1945 and 1964 – beginning to retire, the traditional assumptions used to assess the travel behavior of this demographic category is rapidly changing. First, compared to previous generations of senior citizens, the senior citizen population of today has much less familiarity with public transportation and continues to rely on the use of their personal automobile well into old age. Second, a growing trend among the senior citizen population is the preference to age in place at home rather than enter some type of senior care facility. These two areas will provide considerable challenges for transit systems in the near future.

According to the 2005-2009 ACS, there are approximately 57,000 senior citizens living in Berks County, which represents 14.2 percent of the total county population and is slightly below the statewide average of 15.3 percent. Since the 2000 U.S. Census, the senior citizen population in Berks County has increased by 0.2 percent, which is in contrast to the 0.5 percent decline incurred statewide.

The geographic distribution of the senior citizen population in Berks County is shown in Figure 9. Municipalities with more than 1,500 senior citizen residents are located in or partially within the boundary of the Reading urbanized area. The senior populations in these municipalities range from 1,682 in Bern Township to 7,622 in the City of Reading.

There are 13 municipalities in Berks County where the senior citizen population density exceeds the countywide average of 676 persons per square mile (Figure 10). Of this group, ten are clustered in the Reading urbanized area with their senior citizen density levels ranging from 530 in Wernersville Borough up to almost 2,000 seniors per square mile in West Reading Borough. The three remaining municipalities are all boroughs and include Boyertown, Kutztown, and Shoemakersville. With 1,320 senior citizens per square mile, Boyertown has the second largest senior citizen density in the County. Kutztown and Shoemakersville exhibit 600 and 480 senior citizens per square mile, respectively.

In almost one-half of the municipalities in Berks County, the senior citizen population exceeds the countywide average of 14.2 percent (Figure 11) with the majority of these municipalities located in or partially within the Reading urbanized area or in the northern and eastern sections of the county. Municipalities where senior citizens comprise at least one-quarter of the population include West Reading and Wyomissing in the Reading urbanized area and Lyons and Boyertown which are located in the northern and eastern sections of Berks County, respectively.

18

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Individuals with Low Incomes – Lower income individuals tend to rely more heavily on public transportation because many are unable to afford an automobile, or choose not to use their limited income for an automobile. The 2005-2009 ACS indicated a total of 45,733 residents in Berks County living at or below the poverty level, which represents 11.8 percent of the total population in the county and is slightly lower than the statewide average of 12.1 percent. Since the 2000 U.S. Census, the poverty rate in Berks County increased 33.7 percent which was more than double the 12.1 percent increase incurred statewide.

Figure 12 shows the overall population of low income individuals in each municipality in Berks County. Municipalities with at least 1,000 low income residents are primarily located in or partially within the boundary of the Reading urbanized area and include the City of Reading, Muhlenberg Township, Spring Township, and Exeter Township. The other municipality with at least 1,000 low income residents is Kutztown Borough; however, this high number could be attributed to the student population attending Kutztown University.

In terms of density, Figure 13 shows that low income populations in five municipalities exceed the countywide average of 676 persons per square mile. Four of the municipalities are in the Reading urbanized area and exhibit densities ranging from approximately 700 in Kenhorst Borough to almost 2,800 in the City of Reading; the remaining municipality is Kutztown Borough where there are almost 1,200 low income residents per square mile, which represents the second highest rate in Berks County after Reading.

There are seven municipalities where the percentage of low income residents exceeds the countywide average of 11.8 percent; of this group, the number ranges from 15 percent in Maxatawny Township to a high of 34.7 percent in the City of Reading. The location of these municipalities is shown in Figure 14.

Autoless Households – Households without access to a private automobile is an important statistic as this group is considered to be entirely dependent upon alternative transportation sources. The 2005-2009 ACS indicated there were 12,090 carless housing units in Berks County, which represents eight percent of the total housing units in the county and is lower than the statewide average of 11.2 percent. Since the 2000 U.S. Census, the number of carless housing units in Berks County declined 19.7 percent, which exceeded the 10.7 percent decline in carless housing units that occurred statewide.

Municipalities with more than 200 housing units without access to an automobile are primarily located in or partially within the boundary of the Reading urbanized area with Boyertown Borough and Maxatawny Township also exhibiting at least 200 housing units without automobiles (Figure 15). The high number of carless housing units in Maxatawny Township may be attributed to students attending Kutztown University without having access to an automobile. The City of Reading is a significant outlier in that the city has over 7,000 housing units without access to an automobile, which far surpasses the municipality with the second largest number of carless housing units in Berks County – Cumru Township.

19

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

The density of housing without access to an automobile is shown in Figure 16. Not surprisingly, the City of Reading has the highest number of carless housing units per square mile with 769. In addition to Reading, two other municipalities in the Reading urbanized area exhibit more than 200 carless housing units per square mile, West Reading Borough with 265 and Laureldale Borough with 213. The only other municipalities in Berks County with more than 125 carless housing units per square mile include Boyertown Borough with 306 and Kutztown Borough with 167. Overall, the vast majority of the municipalities in Berks County have less than 25 carless housing units per square mile.

Figure 17 shows that there are seven municipalities where the number of autoless housing units exceeds the countywide average of eight percent. Three of these municipalities are located in or adjacent to the Reading urbanized area and include the City of Reading, West Reading Borough and Lower Heidelberg Township. The other municipalities include Boyertown Borough, Maxatawny Township, Kutztown Borough and Hamburg Borough. Over one-quarter of housing units in Reading do not have access to an automobile, which is the highest rate in Berks County and accounts for approximately two-thirds of the total number of carless housing units in the county. The percentage of carless housing units among the other six municipalities range from 9.2 percent in Kutztown Borough to 13.3 percent in Boyertown Borough.

Persons with Disabilities – Persons with disabilities are another segment of the population that has an above average need for transit services due to the potential for lessened access and mobility. In many instances, the disability experienced by this population group prevents them from driving an automobile. When discussing disabilities in this section, all disabilities are considered together; this includes hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care and employment. Further, the disabled population in this section reflects working age residents 18 years and older. As noted previously, the 2005-2009 ACS did not provide information on this population group on account of the Census Bureau introducing a new set of disability questions beginning in 2008. As a result, the most current information on the disabled population is only available in the 2009 ACS. Although analysis at the municipal level is not possible at this time, a broader overview of the disabled population residing in Berks County, the Reading urbanized area and the City of Reading can be provided using the 2009 ACS, as these areas have populations in excess of 65,000 people.

The 2009 ACS indicated that a total of 43,621 persons in Berks County have some type of disability, which represents approximately 11 percent of the county population and is lower than the statewide average of 12.1 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the disabled population in Berks County lives in the Reading urbanized area, which is very similar to the overall share of the county’s total population residing in this area. However, almost one-half (42.5 %) of the disabled residents in the Reading urbanized area live in the City of Reading even though the city comprises approximately one-third of the urban area’s total population (30.1%), according to the 2009 ACS. The disproportionate number of disabled residents living in the City of Reading is likely attributed to the concentration of services that are available, as well as the fact that the city is well served by the BARTA fixed route bus system. The break-out of the disabled population by geographical area is shown in Table 3. 20

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Table 3 – Disabled Population Percentage of Area Number Population Berks County 43,621 10.9% Reading Urbanized Area 29,795 11.6% City of Reading 12,675 15.7% Pennsylvania 1,491,217 12.1%

Source: 2009 ACS 5.5 Employment and Commuting The need for and the nature of the public transportation services in an area also depends on certain economic factors such as employment and the commuting patterns of employees in a given area. It is essential to understand these factors when planning for employment related transportation services. Employment data and commuting patterns for Berks County was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) for the years 2002 and 2009.

Employment Trends and Characteristics – According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, employment in Berks County Increased from 163,080 jobs in 2002 to 163,304 jobs in 2009, an increase of less than one percent (+224).

At the municipal level, the City of Reading posted the largest absolute increase in jobs during the eight year period, with the city’s job base expanding from 37,055 jobs in 2002 to 40,520 in 2009. This translates to a growth of 3,465 jobs, or an increase of 9.4 percent. Approximately one-quarter of the jobs in Berks County were located in Reading in 2009, a slight increase from the 22.8 percent share in 2002. Conversely, West Reading Borough posted the largest drop in employment during the eight year period, as the number of jobs in the municipality fell from 8,822 in 2002 to 3,973 in 2009. This represents a loss of 4,849 jobs, or a decline of 55.0 percent. The top 10 municipalities that experienced the highest rates of employment growth or employment decline between the 2002 to 2009 period are listed in Figure 18.

21

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Figure 18 – 2002 to 2009 Employment Change by Municipality

Reading City 9.4% Spring Township 42.3% Richmond Township 31.9% Wernersville Borough 215.8% Amity Township 31.9% Robesonia Township 58.9% Tilden Township 52.9% Caernarvon Township 22.5% Ontelaunee Township 20.6% Maidencreek Township 22.1% Bally Borough -20.5% Hamburg Borough -20.9% South Heidelberg Township -24.2% Birdsboro Borough -35.4% Womelsdorf Borough -53.6% Fleetwood Borough -45.6% Heidelberg Township -64.5% Muhlenberg Township -8.5% Wyomissing Borough -16.5% West Reading Borough -55.0% -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

Figure 19 shows the total number of jobs in 2009 by municipality as well as the density of employment. Based on the overview of Berks County’s population and development characteristics, it is not surprising that employment is heavily concentrated in the City of Reading and other municipalities within the Reading urbanized area, as this area is where many of the county’s services, institutions, and important transportation corridors are located. Other relatively high concentrations of jobs are evident in the Boyertown and Kutztown areas.

Employment density is a good indicator of land use patterns supportive of transit for work trip destinations. The areas with the highest densities of jobs are generally served by BARTA’s fixed route bus system. Areas with relatively high employment densities but are not served by fixed route service include Boyertown and Kutztown. Areas not served by fixed route bus service are served by BARTA Special Services, which includes the Shared Ride program which is open to the general public. The relatively low concentration of jobs in the other outlying areas of Berks County is consistent with the rural character and limited commercial activity occurring in these areas at this time. Berks Park 78 is a new 2,932,000 square foot employment center located close to the I-78/US 501 interchange in Northwestern Berks County. Once fully operational this facility will employ approximately 1,000 persons and be serviced by the BARTA fixed route system. 5.6 Major Trip Origins and Destinations It is important to provide public transportation to certain locations where area residents,

22

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013 especially transit dependent populations, generally need to travel to and from to access employment opportunities, basic needs and/or lifeline services. These locations are referred to as activity centers and include major employers (i.e., at least 500 employees at a single location) or a grouping of employers at business and industrial parks, medical facilities, retail destinations (shopping centers and malls and stand-alone big-box retailers), senior citizen facilities, and multi- family housing.

The major trip origins and destinations were identified through various government web sites such as the Pennsylvania Center for Workforce Information and Analysis, the Pennsylvania Department of Aging, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, the Berks County Planning Commission, the Berks County Human Services and Resource Directory, and internet searches. Figure 20 depicts the distribution of the major trip origins and destinations throughout Berks County with Table 5 providing the inventory of the generators and their location. There are certain attractions such as medical centers and shopping centers that are depicted twice on the map since they also act as major employers. Examples include Reading Hospital, Kutztown University, and Cabela’s.

Table 5 – Major Travel Generators Major Employers (>500 Employees) Location Reading Hospital Reading East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. Lyons Carpenter Specialty Alloys Reading St. Joseph Medical Center Reading Kutztown University Kutztown Penske Logistics Cumru VF Outlet Reading Wells Fargo Reading Boscov’s Reading Alcon Laboratories, Inc. Sinking Spring Ashley Furniture Industry Leesport Arrow International, Inc. Reading RM Palmer Co. West Reading Reading Community College Reading Sweet Street Desserts Reading Bachman Co. Wyomissing CMU Reading Caron Treatment Center Wernersville Cabela’s Hamburg Exide Technologies Reading First Energy Corp. Reading Morgan Corp. Morgantown Worley Parsons Cumru

23

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Shopping Centers Location VF Outlet Reading Boscov’s Reading Cabela’s Hamburg Target Muhlenberg Wal-Mart Supercenter Temple Wal-Mart Wyomissing Wal-Mart Supercenter Bechtelsville Exeter Commons Reading Reading Mall Reading Shelbourne Square Exeter Kenhorst Plaza Kenhorst Kings Mall Shopping Center Kutztown Fairgrounds Square Mall Reading Madison Square Shopping Center Reading Penn Plaza Reading Towne Square Plaza Wyomissing Broadcasting Square Wyomissing Spring Towne Center Sinking Spring Berkshire Mall Reading Medical Centers Location Reading Hospital Reading St. Joseph Medical Center Bern Caron Treatment Center Wernersville Emergency Department Reading Wernersville State Hospital Wernersville Senior Citizen Facilities Location Hamburg Center Hamburg Lutheran Home at Topton Topton Berks Heim Leesport Berkshire Center Reading Golden Living Center Reading Highlands at Wyomissing Wyomissing Kutztown Manor Inc. Kutztown Laurel Center Hamburg Manorcare Health Services Laureldale Manorcare Health Services Sinking Spring Manorcare Health Services West Reading Mifflin Center Cumru Phoebe Berks Health Care Center, Inc. Wernersville Spruce Manor Nursing & Rehab Center West Reading Transitional Care Center Wyomissing

24

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Kindred Transitional Care Reading Henner Senior Apartments Womelsdorf Oakshire Senior Apartments Reading Reading Elderly Reading Columbia Cottage Wyomissing Dayspring Homes, Inc. Reading Grand View Manor Fleetwood Hearthstone at Maidencreek Reading Berks Leisure Living Leesport Chestnut Knoll Boyertown Country Meadows at Tulpehocken Wyomissing Evans Retirement Center Fleetwood The Heritage of Green Hills Cumru The Hawthorne Reading Liberty Square Stouchburg Miller Personal Care Home Reading Romyn’s Country Home, Inc. Birdsboro Colonial Manor Adult Home Douglasville Danken House Wernersville Golden Ridge at Furnace Knoll Robesonia Harmony Hill Assisted Living Womelsdorf Sencit Townehouse Apartments Cumru Reading Elderly Housing Reading Multi-Family Housing Location 100 Park at Wyomissing Square Wyomissing Amity Gardens Apartments Douglasville Amity Manor Apartments Douglasville Antietam Arms Apartments Lower Alsace Autumn Park Reading Azzolina Apartments Reading Berkshire Gardens Apartments Reading Berkshire Hills Sinking Spring Berkshire Terrace Apartments Reading Berkshire Village Apartments Reading Birdsboro Estates Birdsboro B’nai B’rith House of Reading Reading Bookbindery Reading Briar Cliff Townhouses Kutztown Brighton Apartments Reading Cambridge Commons Apartments Reading Carsonia Manor Apartments Reading Century Hall Apartments Reading

25

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Chestnut Court Apartments Reading Clearview Apartments Hamburg Concord Court Apartments Reading Country Club Apartments Reading Court Street commons Apartments Reading Court Tower Apartments Reading Deer Path Woods Townhouses Reading Deerfield Townhomes Cumru Dwight D. Eisenhower Apartments Reading Eastwick at Exeter Reading Edgemont Terrace Apartments Reading Elm View Apartments Reading Episcopal House of Reading Reading Flying Hills Apartments Cumru Franklin & Noble Manor Shoemakersville Franklin Court Apartments Boyertown Franklin Tower Reading Furnace Creek Manor Robesonia George M. Rhodes Reading Glenside Homes Reading Goggleworks Apartments Reading Governor Mifflin Apartments Cumru Henner Apartments Womelsdorf Hillcrest Village Boyertown Hollywood Court Apartments Reading Hugh Carcella Apartments Reading Jamestown Village Reading John Lutz Apartments St. Lawrence Kennedy Towers Reading Knitting Mill Hamburg Kutztown Garden Apartments Kutztown Laurel Court Apartments Fleetwood Lincoln Park Apartments Reading Lincoln Residences Reading Market Square Apartments Reading Miller Enterprises Reading Mt. Penn Manor Mt. Penn Northmont Apartments Reading Northvale Hill Apartments Womelsdorf Oak forest Apartments Reading Oak Meadow Apartments Reading Oakbrook Homes Reading

26

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Oakshire Senior Apartments Reading Park Court Apartments Womelsdorf Park Place Bally Penn’s Common Court Apartments Reading Penn’s Crossing Senior Apartments West Lawn Pennside Manor Apartments Reading Providence House Reading Queen of Angels Apartments Reading Rittenhouse Apartments Boyertown Riverloft Apartments Reading Samual G. Hubert Reading Saucony Cross Apartments Kutztown Saucony Meadows Apartment Kutztown Settlement at Reed Farm Reading Shillington Commons Apartments Cumru Southgate at West Ridge Leesport Spring Valley Apartments Reading Springside Manor Apartments Reading Springwood Garden Apartments Reading St. Lawrence Garden Apartments St. Lawrence Tarsus Manor Fleetwood Township Village Apartments Reading Victoria Crossing Reading Warwick Apartments Boyertown Weidner Manor Douglassville Will-O-Hill Apartments Reading Wilson Manor Kutztown Woodgate Apartments Reading Woodland Plaza Apartments Reading Wyndciffe House Apartments Hamburg Wynnewood at Wyomissing Reading Wyomissing Garden Apartments Reading Post-Secondary Schools Location Reading Area Community College Reading Kutztown University Kutztown Albright College Reading Penn State Berks Campus Spring Alvernia College Reading

There are a total of 23 employers in Berks County with at least 500 employees at a single location. Employers with employees at multiple locations throughout the county such as school districts or government offices are not included in this list. In general, 15 of the 23 employers

27

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013 are located in the Reading urbanized area with a significant concentration of employers located in the City of Reading. In general, the majority of trip generators are concentrated in the Reading urbanized area where most of the county’s population resides. Smaller pockets of transit generators can be found in the eastern, northern, and northeastern sections of the county in and around the boroughs of Hamburg, Kutztown, and Boyertown, respectively. Overall, most of the trip origins and destinations are served by BARTA fixed route bus service, with most of the un-served origins and destinations located in the eastern and northeastern peripheries of Berks County, which includes the boroughs of Boyertown and Hamburg.

Not shown on the map are social service agencies – employment assistance and job training, counseling, government services – which play an important role for many of the riders that utilize the BARTA transit system. The majority of social service agencies in Berks County are located in the City of Reading, which is consistent with the city being the county seat and principal urban center in the county. Many of the other social service agencies are located in adjacent municipalities in the Reading urbanized area.

6 MOBILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

An assessment of mobility need was performed to identify areas in Berks County with the greatest need and potential demand for public transportation service. A dozen variables were used to rate each municipality in terms of transit potential. These variables include both rates and aggregate measures of mobility need. Rates such as the percentage of seniors in the total population and the density of the senior population are useful in understanding the composition of an area. Aggregate measures, such as the total senior citizen population indicate the potential for travel in general, and transit trip making in particular. 6.1 Mobility Needs Score and Methodology The 12 variables used to analyze transit need for Berks County include: population density, senior population in terms of number, percent and density, low income population in terms of number, percentage and density, zero car households in terms of number, percent and density, and employment in terms of number and density. A notable exclusion from this list is persons with disabilities. As noted previously, data for this population group at the municipal level was not available in the 2005-2009 ACS data set used for this report.

For all variables, higher values are indicative of greater need and likelihood of transit use. For example, a municipality with high senior citizen density or a high low income population exhibits greater mobility need and propensity for transit use. In this analysis, a standardized score has been used to combine the different variables. With this approach for each variable, the municipality with the lowest value is assigned a score of zero while the municipality with the highest value is assigned a value of 100. The other areas are computed by interpolating between maximum and minimum values. These scores can then be added for 12 variables. Accordingly, the highest possible score would be 1,200.

28

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Figure 21 presents the Mobility Needs Score by municipality for Berks County. Overall, approximately two-thirds of the municipalities score below the countywide average of 138. The higher mobility need scores are evident in the Reading urbanized area and in various boroughs located in the outlying sections of the county, which is not surprising as these areas include above average levels of target populations and households. The City of Reading exhibits the highest mobility needs score of 1,007 and is followed by the Borough of West Reading with a score of 543. Of the municipalities with a mobility needs score of at least 250, the boroughs of Boyertown and Kutztown are the only municipalities in Berks County that are not served by the BARTA fixed route bus system. 6.2 Berks County Health and Human Services Survey As part of the outreach effort to engage the agencies that provide and/or coordinate human services transportation throughout Berks County, a survey was prepared and sent out accompanied with a self-addressed stamped envelope along with the invitation to the Human Services Transportation Summit. The survey was designed to solicit input from the various providers as well as understand exactly what types of services are being offered and by whom. A total of 65 surveys (a copy of which can be found in the appendix) were distributed to the various providers that were invited to the summit. Out of those 65 surveys, eleven were returned. Although the number of returned surveys was less than staff would have hoped for, we were still able to glean valuable information from them. A number of the surveys conveyed similar concerns with the current state of transportation for the target populations. The following is a list of those concerns/needs:

• Transportation wait times are problematic when scheduling medical appointments.

• Mass transit is unavailable in certain areas and rural locations are underserved.

• The transit provider’s schedule conflicts with the needs of the target populations.

These concerns were also reiterated during the Human Services Transportation Summit and subsequently incorporated into the strategies for improving transportation to human services populations. 6.3 Human Service Transportation Summit On May 1, 2013 the Reading Area Transportation Study (RATS) along with the Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority (BARTA) held a Human Services Transportation Coordination Summit. Invited to the summit were local government agencies, transit operators, advocacy groups, non-profit and for-profit agencies who provide service to, and advocate for, individuals who have specialized transportation needs. A total of 65 agencies that provide transportation to the target populations in Berks County were invited, approximately nine representatives of said agencies attended. A list of the agencies invited, the letter of invitation, and attendee list can be found in the appendix of this document.

29

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

The summit activities included a presentation of funding programs, group participation in assessing current transportation conditions and identifying transportation needs, and establishing a framework for assessing priority projects and subsequent grant submissions. Although attendance at the summit was low, the group of attendees included representatives from a broad spectrum of agencies that provide and/or coordinate human service transportation for their clients. Outcomes of the group discussion on identifying needs include:

• The need for more opportunities for job and life skill training for adolescents and adults with disabilities.

• BARTA should consider extending service hours so that they coincide with medical provider hours of operation.

• Barriers to cross-county transportation should be eliminated where possible.

• Maximize opportunities to serve varied population groups with service expansion.

• Increase awareness on the qualifications for liaisons and agencies that serve the target populations.

• The process for which information gets disseminated to the human services agencies should be streamlined so that it is more efficient and reaches all of the human service transportation providers in a timely manner.

• Geographical gaps should be addressed so as to better service rural clients that are not easily accessible with lower wait times.

• More should be done to increase awareness, participation, and outreach in the coordinated planning process.

These outcomes expand upon the project development framework identified in the earlier section. Applying these strategies as well as the project development framework will assist Berks County to ensure that future projects that apply for funding are selected because they are viable, meet the needs of the target populations, and satisfy state and federal requirements for funding eligibility.

7 IDENTIFICATION OF STRATEGIES

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a set of guidelines consistent with local, state and federal principles to guide the direction of human service transportation in Berks County, as well as the development of a process for selecting projects to be funded with 5310 grants to improve transportation services and increase mobility options in the county for target populations.

30

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

7.1 Guiding Principles It is important that the coordinated planning process clearly define local priorities and core objectives to ensure that human service transportation initiatives progress in a predictable manner and are consistent with local, state, and federal transportation priorities. Moreover, these principals should influence the selection of projects to be included in the TIP. Guiding principles can establish the framework for prioritizing strategies and guide the development of projects, as well as assist in evaluating and monitoring the success of projects and the plan itself. Guiding principles should be developed through a collaborative process between BARTA, county officials, organizations involved in the provision, funding and/or support of human service transportation, and consumers and the general public.

Guiding principles applicable for use in Berks are listed below. Projects developed according to these principles should be designed to address specific transportation needs and priorities that have been identified through the coordinated planning process.

• Projects should be part of a comprehensive strategy to address the transportation needs of the target population groups (i.e., senior citizens, persons with disabilities and individuals with low incomes); • The development of projects and initiatives to improve human service transportation in Berks County should be consistent with and support the overall goals and objectives of public transportation in the county; • Provide a variety of convenient and affordable transportation options to improve mobility; • Projects and initiatives should be designed to improve efficiency and effectiveness to control costs and achieve long term sustainability • Public transportation services should be developed in coordination with private providers and other forms of transportation to maximize service coverage; and • Project outcomes should be evaluated against specific performance measures and standards to ensure that objectives are being achieved. 7.2 Goal Statements Immediate – Through long-term goals to build upon the identified principles for coordinated transportation are outlined in this section. GOAL #1: Improve communication among providers to fill gaps and eliminate unnecessary duplication of service – Improving inter-agency communication is the first goal for Berks County because it represents a fundamental aspect of establishing a network of coordinated transportation. Each of the organizations and public stakeholders who participate in this planning process identified some unmet transportation needs that could be satisfied or at least reduced through communication between transportation providers.

GOAL #2: Collaborate to improve and increase transportation services - Funding and policies that require public transportation providers to operate primarily within their individual jurisdictions (i.e., counties, municipalities, and towns) restrict the ability for these operators to meet the

31

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013 increasing needs for people to travel between counties. Strategies and objectives discussed under this goal are intended to be steps toward overcoming jurisdictional boundaries and facilitate access to employment, medical, and social opportunities for people with disabilities, older adults, individuals with low incomes, and the general public.

GOAL #3: Promote mobility options to increase awareness - Marketing and promoting a positive image for public and coordinated transportation is the focus of this goal. In some cases service to meet transportation needs are already available but older adults, people with disabilities, and the general public do not use them because they may have a perception that public transportation is not for them. Promotion of existing and new transportation programs, including educational materials to teach passengers how to utilize the services are the objectives listed under this goal.

GOAL #4: Expand service characteristics (area, hours, etc.) to meet specified needs - Throughout the county, human service agency transportation providers typically operate service on weekdays between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Private taxi companies are the exception. Transportation providers need to expand their hours and days of service to facilitate full access to medical center hours of operation, and additional vehicles could provide more service coverage to avoid long waits due to infrequent service.

GOAL #5: Improve safety and accessibility to vehicles, stops and shelters - Transportation amenities include bus stop benches, signs, and shelters. Stakeholders indicated that, in some areas of the county, the bus amenities are appropriate but they are not accessible for people with disabilities and/or older adults. Sidewalks with wheelchair accessibility are needed around bus stops and shelters, especially for the suburban service areas.

GOAL #6: Incorporate new technology and capital to improve mobility options - Technology creates new levels of efficiency in terms of scheduling trips, billing, and managing a safe transportation program. As the service capacity and areas increase, transportation providers will benefit from incorporating new technology into their programs. Additional capital resources, along with technology, will create efficiencies and improve communication within and between providers. 7.3 Project Development Framework Through these goals, Berks County can identify its needs and establish priorities for human service transportation. In general, priorities will likely fall into one of three categories: (1) sustain existing services, (2) expand existing services, and (3) introduce new services.

Sustain Existing Services – These projects would be designed to ensure that existing services, whether operated by BARTA or another provider, continue in operation for transit dependent individuals in Berks County. Project elements may include operating assistance, vehicle replacement, purchase of technology, or other capital enhancement.

32

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Expand Existing Services – This category includes projects that would expand the level of existing services such as additional hours of service or the expansion of the service area to address an identified need. Specific project elements may include operating assistance, planning assistance, purchase of vehicles for service expansion, purchase of technology, or other capital items.

Introduce New Services – Projects in this category would respond to emerging community needs by implementing services to meet an identified need, for which no existing service is provided. Examples of such services may include:

Implement new transportation services to meet the needs of specific user groups (e.g., geographical coverage or hours of operation);

Implement new programs or activities such as mobility management, vanpools, volunteer driver network, etc.; and

Develop partnerships that increase resources or reach out to new riders and geographical areas.

Once the project scope is determined, the next step would be to develop a project proposal, with the proposals tailored to meet federal and state guidelines for 5310 funding. The project proposal would include four specific components:

Project Elements – The project elements would include the type of service that would be provided (i.e., additional service hours, expanded/new services, mobility management, etc.) as well as the equipment (e.g., vehicles) and staffing needs. For technology projects, the elements would also include the hardware and software (e.g., scheduling software) that would be required. This element would also include demonstrated evidence of adequate technical, administrative, and managerial personnel and skills to properly administer the program.

Coordination – All projects must be derived from a local Coordinated Plan. The applicant will be asked to provide a description of their participation in the planning process, and the priority or recommendation documented in the plan that this project addresses.

Project Costs – Based on the levels of service, equipment, and technology needs, an estimate of the project’s operating and capital costs would be developed. The operating and capital costs should be projected for a three- to five-year time frame to ensure compliance with federal requirements for financial capacity.

33

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Project Funding – Local, state and federal funding sources should be identified to show the project is sustainable (i.e., that the project costs can be covered) beyond the initial funding period. Similar to the project costs, funding should be projected for a three- to five-year time frame to ensure compliance with federal requirements for financial capacity.

Project Benefits – Lastly, the project would justify how it would address the unmet transportation need and improve the access, efficiency, and effectiveness of human service transportation. Specific performance measures will be developed in coordination with the state and MAP-21.

Applying the Project Development Framework will assist Berks County to ensure that future projects are viable, adhere to the stated goals of this plan, meet the needs of the target populations, and satisfy state and federal requirements for funding eligibility.

8 IMPEMENTATION PLAN

The objective of this planning update to the initial coordinated plan is to continue to build off the success of the coordinated transportation system operated by BARTA as well as provide strategies for improving the overall human service transportation network in Berks County. The strategies included in this plan provide effective ways to provide transportation services to target population groups through the most appropriate use of limited resources and a focus on maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of service. This plan does not expect BARTA to solve every human service transportation problem in Berks County because existing resources will not allow for this to happen. Instead, improvements will require the participation of multiple entities to partner with BARTA to accomplish these objectives.

The following strategies were developed using data from this plan as well as information derived from the on-going BARTA TDP. 8.1 Prioritization of Strategies One of the important recommendations is to maintain existing transportation services through maximizing resources and strategically allocating funds to projects and activities that are critical in meeting transportation needs and/or can be implemented in a cost-effective manner. Accordingly, replacing vehicles used in the delivery of Special Services transportation that have exceeded their useful life is a top priority, as is obtaining additional funding to cover operating and capital expenses. Both of these are recognized by BARTA staff and has guided the Special Services Division. Further, implementing additional service or operating new services should be provided through the utilization of existing resources or by using potentially more cost effective non-traditional service delivery methods. To ensure the most appropriate services are being provided, the project solicitation and selection process should be reviewed by BARTA and the Reading MPO to determine if the current process of evaluating projects is best suited to local conditions and priorities.

34

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

8.2 Mobility Management In the BARTA Strategic Plan, the transit authority recognized the importance of mobility management and its role in leading this effort in Berks County to address the changing mobility needs and travel patterns occurring in the county. Mobility management is a systems approach to managing transportation resources and seeks to optimize all transportation resources in a community. Instead of focusing on one mode or on specific services, mobility management takes a broad approach by matching the transportation needs of individuals – including senior citizens, persons with disabilities, individuals with low incomes – with a range of transportation options.

Because BARTA operates virtually all public transportation in Berks County, is the primary recipient of transportation funding in the county, and has the technical and managerial expertise to oversee the implementation of a diverse array of projects, the transit system is ideally suited to lead mobility management activities in the county.

This function could be facilitated through the hiring of a Mobility Manager that would be housed at BARTA and serve as a technical resource to help plan, design, and administer projects and coordination activities to increase mobility options, conduct outreach, coordinate policy, or support operations. Other job responsibilities could include:

• Lead coordination planning efforts in Berks County and possibly chair the HSTCC;

• Increase awareness of existing transportation services throughout Berks County;

• Identify federal, state, local, and private funding to help finance various projects and activities and prepare grant applications;

• Develop partnerships with local employers and various organizations and institutions throughout the county to increase financial support for various transportation services;

• Assist in the implementation of various technology improvements underway and/or planned by BARTA that will improve service efficiency and the dissemination of public information;

• Partner with dialysis and medical facilities to coordinate appointments and clinic hours with BARTA transit schedule;

• Administer human service transportation projects and/or activities and evaluate and monitor their performance;

• Increase coordination among the various transportation services in Berks County – BARTA, non-profits, private entities – to maximize service efficiency and expand service coverage; and

35

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

• Serve as the communication liaison for BARTA at various transportation planning events and work with regional transportation relating planning organizations such as Commuter Services of Pennsylvania to address coordination and transportation issues.

It is recognized that for the Mobility Manager to be cost effective, he or she would have to perform other functions and support a variety of activities at BARTA such as planning, marketing and information technology. This situation reflects the current work load of the Special Services Director and the need for more support in administering the demand responsive system and maintaining a coordinated approach.

Mobility management can be funded under many FTA funding programs, including Section 5310 and is considered a capital/administrative expense, which means that 80 percent of the cost of this position can be covered by federal funding and require only a 20 percent local match. Alternatively, BARTA could develop various projects and activities to be implemented and rely on Commuter Services for implementation and oversight. 8.3 Volunteer Driver Networks BARTA should explore establishing a centralized volunteer driver reimbursement program to serve trips that cannot be made using BARTA services. This program would be applicable throughout Berks County to not only help address transportation service gaps but also provide a travel option for individuals requiring a level of personalized care BARTA is unable to provide. This program could be administered by BARTA or an existing agency like the Berks County Area Agency on Aging which administers the Meals on Wheels program in Berks County using volunteer drivers. Funding would be needed to cover costs related to providing insurance coverage above the volunteer driver’s policy coverage, recruiting, screening and training drivers, mileage reimbursement costs, and various administrative expenses related to registering participants, scheduling and assigning trips, etc. The program could begin in certain areas and/or be limited to individuals with the greatest need for the service and expand as resources allow.

Funding options will need to be explored with the termination of the New Freedoms and JARC programs under MAP-21.

Increasing the number of transportation providers in Berks County that cater to specific client groups may become important in the coming years due to the expected increase in the number of senior citizens “aging in place” throughout the county that will be difficult to serve using the conventional model of transit currently being used, as well as the uncertainty regarding the MATP program 8.4 Job Access Strategies Providing access to employment is a critical function of public transportation and is one of the primary objectives of this plan. Individuals with limited mobility options may have difficulty accessing jobs located in the rural areas of Berks County and/or during non-traditional hours (i.e., early morning, late evenings, and weekends) because BARTA service is not available

36

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013 or not in service. BARTA provides transportation to employment sites located in the outlying areas of the county through CMAQ funding and also has used Welfare to Work grants sponsored by the State to provide individuals with discounted or free bus passes. A series of strategies to facilitate this objective are listed below:

• Employer Survey and Analyze Employee Travel Patterns – The Reading MPO in cooperation with BARTA and/or Commuter Services of Pennsylvania should survey employers throughout Berks County to determine the level of transportation need among their respective workforces, as well as determine the time in which transportation service would be most beneficial. An analysis of the travel patterns of Berks County’s workforce should accompany this survey to determine possible markets for alternative transportation services. Based on the findings of this planning work, the most appropriate job access transportation services could be identified.

• Alternative Transportation Services – Working with Commuter Services of Pennsylvania, and the MPO, BARTA could assist in establishing ridesharing and vanpool services, as well as supportive services such as guaranteed ride home programs and child transportation services. Commuter Services is already active in Berks County and has established an Emergency Ride Home Program commuting employees enrolled in this free program.

• Public/Private Partnerships – Use whatever funds are available and appropriate to operate specifically-defined, targeted shuttle services to Berks County employers or to areas with a high concentration of jobs that are not well served by transit. The local match for this service could be paid for through partnerships with major employers, employment agencies, human service agencies, etc. These funds could also pay for additional service hours to provide access to targeted shuttle services to employment centers. BARTA has developed a good working relationship with the business community in Berks County and provides as much service as it can to local employers within the confines of limited resources. Building off this positive relationship, it is possible that BARTA could leverage financial support from local businesses to offset a portion of the costs related to increasing service hours or operating shuttle service to job sites. Historically, JARC applications that could demonstrate sustainable vanpool programs or demonstrate a local funding commitment are viewed favorably by PennDOT. However, with the elimination of JARC funding under new legislation the future remains uncertain. Funding from employers, Commuter Services, employment agencies, etc. could increase the likelihood of receiving whatever new funding may be available. 8.5 Non-Profit Programs In the rural areas of Berks County, the geography and dispersion of the population makes it difficult and expensive for BARTA to operate a level of service similar to that provided in the Reading urbanized area. As a result, transit dependent individuals living in the rural portions of Berks County generally have to rely on BARTA Special Services, which does not operate sameday, evening or weekend services unless an individual lives within a three-quarter mile radius of fixed route service and is eligible to use the ADA program operated by Special Services. Further, Special 37

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

Services fares can be cost prohibitive for individuals if they do not qualify for subsidized transportation and have to pay the full fare.

The non-profit organizations that operate transportation services in areas of Berks County where BARTA is limited or not available provide an important mobility option that needs to be maintained and possibly even expanded in certain areas of the county. Accordingly, BARTA should develop a more collaborative relationship among the local human service transportation providers and non-profits by assisting them in developing a county-based capital improvement program that prioritizes capital needs to maximize the limited funding available from the federal Section 5310 program. This capital improvement program would likely be used to plan for vehicle acquisitions and vehicle accessibility features. This process may also encourage Section 5310 eligible organizations that may want to provide transportation service but cannot afford the cost of purchasing a vehicle. The overall objective of this strategy is to ensure the continued operation of as many services throughout Berks County as possible, as long as these providers coordinate their services and/or address a transportation need identified in this coordinated plan, and do not duplicate the transportation services operated by BARTA.

This strategy could also support the creative use of Section 5310 funds to purchase vehicles as long as the organizations abide by the rules of the programs. Using JARC and New Freedom funds to support vehicle acquisitions may increase the likelihood of organizations receiving federal capital assistance to replace vehicles or obtain new vehicles to expand service.

Increasing the number of transportation providers in Berks County that cater to specific client groups may become an important issue in the coming years due to the expected increase in the number of senior citizens “aging in place” throughout the county and the uncertainty regarding BARTA’s continued participation in the MATP program.

Another possible option to provide transportation services to the target populations could be a Transportation Management Association (TMA). A TMA is a non-profit, member-controlled organization that provides transportation services in a particular area, such as a commercial district, mall, medical center or industrial park. A TMA is generally a public-private partnership, consisting of area businesses with local government support. The Reading MPO could explore developing a TMA as a supplement to the services that BARTA currently offers. 8.6 Coordination Committee During the summit the attendees were asked if they or a representative from their organization would be willing serve on a Human Service Transportation Coordinating Committee (HSTCC). Attendees expressed a willingness to establish a committee. They were informed that a HSTCC would provide an ongoing forum for members and other individuals or interest groups to discuss local transportation needs, particularly those affecting target population groups. A member of the HSTCC could be selected to act as a liaison to the Reading MPO’s Coordinating Committee or Technical Committee, ensuring that issues affecting human service transportation and its users are included in the overall countywide transportation planning process. Other responsibilities of the HSTCC could include: 38

Reading Area Transportation Study Draft Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan2013

• Identify transportation needs in Berks County and provide BARTA and the Reading MPO with prioritized projects that should be pursued;

• Provide input to the competitive selection process;

• Assist in the public involvement element for future coordinated planning updates;

• Responsible for reviewing future updates of the coordinated plan before it is adopted by the Reading MPO; and

• Host one or two meetings each year in cooperation with BARTA and the Reading MPO to discuss human service transportation issues related to operations, service quality/customer service, funding, state and federal legislation, etc. These meetings could also provide a forum to discuss accessibility and land use issues in the county that impede mobility for people with disabilities and senior citizens.

Although a certain level of advocacy currently exists in Berks County, a countywide structure would create a platform from which the issues and concerns of the constituencies served by the participating agencies could be heard. RATS with the cooperation of BARTA will continue to coordinate on the best ways to establish an HSTCC. It is envisioned that the BARTA Advisory Committee for Special Services could possibly transition from under BARTA to RATS, where the group would be expanded and lead human service transportation coordination discussions in Berks County.

39

BARTA Fixed Route Bus System Figure 1

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Hamburg Maxatawny 78 Perry Kutztown CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Hereford Fleetwood Rockland CD29 Jefferson Tulpehocken Penn District CD419 Bernville CD12 CD183 Muhlenberg Ruscombmanor Bern Pike Washington Bally CD100 North Heidelberg CD12 Marion Lebanon Alsace Bechtelsville Heidelberg CD73 Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Earl Lower Alsace Robesonia Colebrookdale Boyertown CD562 South Heidelberg Sinking Spring Montgomery Exeter CD662 Legend Amity Douglass Spring CD345 BARTA Bus Routes Cumru CD625 CD568 Birdsboro CD724 Highways Robeson ¤£222 Reading Urbanized Area CD345 Union City of Reading Brecknock Municipal Boundaries Lancaster CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, U.S. Census Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Berks County Service Area Figure 2

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345 Legend Cumru CD568 Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Reading Urbanized Area CD625 CD724 Robeson Highways City of Reading ¤£222 CD345 Developed Land Municipal Boundaries Union Brecknock Open Land County Boundaries Lancaster Wooded Land CD10 New Morgan Water Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, U.S. Census Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning 2010 Municipal Population Figure 3

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345

Legend Cumru CD568 Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Population CD625 CD724 Robeson Highways Greater than 10,000 ¤£222 CD345 Union Reading Urbanized Area 5,000 - 9,999 Brecknock City of Reading 3,000 - 4,999 Lancaster 1,500 - 2,999 Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries Under 1,500 Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, U.S. Census Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Municipal Population Change by Percent Figure 5 2000 - 2010

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345 Legend Cumru Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Percent Change CD625 CD568 CD724 Robeson Highways Greater than 20% ¤£222 CD345 Reading Urbanized Area 15% - 19.9% Union Brecknock City of Reading 9% - 14.9% 0.1% - 8.9% Lancaster Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries -35.1 - 0% Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, U.S. Census Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Municipal Population Change Figure 7 2000 - 2010

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345 Legend Cumru Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Population Change CD625 CD568 CD724 Robeson Highways Greater than 2,000 ¤£222 CD345 Reading Urbanized Area 1,000 - 1,999 Union Brecknock City of Reading 100 - 999 1 - 99 Lancaster Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries -746 - 0 Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, U.S. Census Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning 2010 Municipal Population Density Per Square Mile Figure 8

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345 Legend Cumru Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Population Density CD625 CD568 CD724 Robeson Highways 2,500 - 9,175 ¤£222 CD345 Reading Urbanized Area 1,500 - 2,499 Union Brecknock City of Reading 1,000 - 1,499 476 - 999 Lancaster Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries 12 - 475 Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, U.S. Census Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning 65 Years and Older Population by Municipality Figure 9

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345 Legend Cumru Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Population (65 yrs+) CD625 CD568 CD724 Robeson Highways Greater than 1,500 ¤£222 CD345 Reading Urbanized Area 1,000 - 1,499 Union Brecknock City of Reading 700 - 999 300 - 699 Lancaster Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries Under 300 Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, ACS 2005-2009 Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning 65 Years and Older Population Density by Municipality Figure 10

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345 Legend Cumru Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes 65+ Population Density CD625 CD568 CD724 Robeson Highways 1,000 - 1,983 ¤£222 CD345 Reading Urbanized Area 476 - 999 Union Brecknock City of Reading 200 - 475 100 - 199 Lancaster Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries 0 - 99 Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, ACS 2005-2009 Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Percent of Population 65 Years and Older by Municipality Figure 11

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345 Legend Cumru Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Percent of 65+ Population CD625 CD568 CD724 Robeson Highways Greater than 25% ¤£222 CD345 Reading Urbanized Area 20% - 24.9% Union Brecknock City of Reading 14.2% - 19.9% 10% - 14.1% Lancaster Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries Under 10% Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, ACS 2005-2009 Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Low Income Population by Municipality Figure 12

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345

Legend Cumru CD568 Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Low Income Population CD625 CD724 Robeson Highways Greater than 1,000 ¤£222 CD345 Union Reading Urbanized Area 600 - 999 Brecknock City of Reading 200 - 599 Lancaster 100 - 199 Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries Under 100 Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, ACS 2005-2009 Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Low Income Population Density by Municipality Figure 13

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345

Legend Cumru CD568 Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Population Density CD625 CD724 Robeson Highways Greater than 676 ¤£222 CD345 Union Reading Urbanized Area 400- 675 Brecknock City of Reading 200 - 399 Lancaster 100 - 199 Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries Under 100 Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, ACS 2005-2009 Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Percent of Low Income Population by Municipality Figure 14

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345

Legend Cumru CD568 Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Low Income Population CD625 CD724 Robeson Highways Greater than 11.8% ¤£222 CD345 Union Reading Urbanized Area 9% - 11.8% Brecknock City of Reading 6% - 8.9% Lancaster 3% - 5.9% Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries Under 3% Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, ACS 2005-2009 Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Zero Car Housing Units by Municipality Figure 15

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345

Legend Cumru CD568 Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Zero Car Housing Units CD625 CD724 Robeson Highways Greater than 200 ¤£222 CD345 Union Reading Urbanized Area 150 - 199 Brecknock City of Reading 100 - 149 Lancaster 50 - 99 Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries Under 50 Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, ACS 2005-2009 Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Density of Zero Car Housing Units by Municipality Figure 16

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345

Legend Cumru CD568 Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Zero Car HU Density CD625 CD724 Robeson Highways Greater than 125 ¤£222 CD345 Union Reading Urbanized Area 100 - 125 Brecknock City of Reading 50 - 99 Lancaster 25 - 49 Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries Under 25 Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, ACS 2005-2009 Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Percent of Zero Car Housing Units by Municipality Figure 17

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345

Legend Cumru CD568 Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Zero Car Housing Units CD625 CD724 Robeson Highways 12% - 21.6% ¤£222 CD345 Union Reading Urbanized Area 8% - 11.9% Brecknock City of Reading 5% - 7.9% Lancaster 2% - 4.9% Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries 0% - 1.9% Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, ACS 2005-2009 Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Job Distribution and Density by Municipality Figure 19

Albany !( CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor !( Lehigh !( !( 5 Lenhartsville !( Greenwich Maxatawny Tilden !( CD143 ¤£222 Hamburg !( ¨¦§78 (! Upper Tulpehocken !( Perry Topton CD419 !( Upper Bern Kutztown !( !( !( Shoemakersville !( !( (! !( !( Longswamp Bethel !( Richmond !( CD645 CD501 Maidencreek Centre !( Rockland Hereford Ontelaunee !( Jefferson !( !( Penn !( CD662 District CD29 !( (! !( !( !( !( Ruscombmanor !( Tulpehocken CD12 CD183 Pike Washington Bern Muhlenberg !( !( North Heidelberg (! !( Marion !( ! CD100 !( (!( CD12 !( Bechtelsville Lebanon !( !( Heidelberg Alsace CD73 !( Lower Heidelberg Colebrookdale !( Robesonia !( Oley !( !( !( (! (! Earl !( (! !( !( (! !( Boyertown !( CD562 !( (! !( Amity Douglass South Heidelberg !( Exeter Montgomery (! 222 CD662 ¤£ CD724 !( !( (! Spring CD345 (! CD10 CD568 Cumru Birdsboro !( Legend CD724 Robeson BARTA Bus Routes Job Density Job Distribution ¤£222 CD568 !( Highways Greater than 1,500 Greater than 5,000 CD345 (! !( !( Reading Urbanized Area 1,000 - 1,499 2,500 - 4,999 (! Brecknock City of Reading 692 - 999 Union !( 1,000 - 2,499 Lancaster New Morgan Municipal Boundaries 300 - 691 !( 500 - 999 CD10 County Boundaries Under 300 !( !( Under 500 Chester ¨¦§76 (! Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, U.S. Census Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Primary Trip Generators and Destinations Figure 20

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh Lenhartsville 5 !( !( !( !( Greenwich !( Hamburg Tilden CD143 222 !( ¤£ Maxatawny !( !( 78 !(Kut!(ztown ¨¦§ Perry !( !( CD419 n !( Upper Bern Topton !( !( Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Strausstown Richmond Lyons Bethel !( !( !( CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek !( !( Ontelaunee !( Fleetwood Hereford !( Rockland !( !( CD29 Jefferson !( !( District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 !(Muhlenberg Washington !( CD183 !( Ruscombmanor !( !( !( !( !( !( Pike Bally !( !( !( CD100 North Heidelberg Bern CD12 Marion !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( Bechtelsville Lebanon !( !( !( !( !(!( !( jk !( Alsace CD73 Heidelberg !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( Reading !(!( !( !(!( n !( n !(!(!(!(!(!( Oley Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg !( Earl !( !( !(!( Lower Alsace Robesonia !( !( !( !( !( !( Colebrookdale !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(n!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( jk !( Wyomissing !( !( !( Boyertown !( jk!( jk!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( CD562 Sinking Sp!(ring!(!( !( South Heidelberg !( !(!(!( !( Exeter !( !( !( !( n !( !(!( !( !( !( jk !( !(!( Montgomery !( !(!(!( !( 662 Amity CD Douglass Legend Spring CD345 !(!( BARTA Bus Routes !( Major Employers !( !( Cumru !( !( !( !( 568 Birdsboro !( !( CD625 CD CD724 !( Highways !( Shopping Centers !( Robeson Reading Urbanized Area !( Senior Citizen Facilities ¤£222 CD345 Union City of Reading !( Multi-Family Housing Brecknock Municipal Boundaries !( Business / Industrial Parks Lancaster County Boundaries Medical Centers jk CD10 New Morgan n Post Secondary Schools Chester ¨¦§76 Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, !(!( Berks County Department of Emergency Services, BARTA, PA Center for Workforce Info and Analysis, PA Dept of Ag, PA Housing Finance 0 4.5 9 Caernarvon Agency, Berks County Human Services and Resource Directory Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning Mobility Needs Score Figure 21

Albany CD737

Schuylkill

Windsor Lehigh 5 Lenhartsville Greenwich Hamburg Tilden CD143 ¤£222 Maxatawny Kutztown 78 Perry CD419 ¨¦§ Upper Bern Topton Upper Tulpehocken Shoemakersville Longswamp Richmond Lyons Bethel Strausstown CD645 CD501 Centre Maidencreek Ontelaunee Fleetwood Rockland Hereford CD29 Jefferson District Tulpehocken Penn CD419 Bernville CD12 Muhlenberg Washington CD183 Ruscombmanor Pike Bally CD100 North Heidelberg Bern 12 Marion CD Lebanon Bechtelsville Alsace CD73 Heidelberg Reading Womelsdorf Lower Heidelberg Oley Lower Alsace Earl Robesonia Colebrookdale Wyomissing Boyertown CD562 Sinking Spring South Heidelberg Exeter Montgomery Amity CD662 Douglass Spring CD345

Legend Cumru CD568 Birdsboro BARTA Bus Routes Needs Score CD625 CD724 Robeson Highways 400 - 1,007 ¤£222 CD345 Union Reading Urbanized Area 250 - 399 Brecknock City of Reading 139 - 249 Lancaster 0 - 138 Municipal Boundaries CD10 New Morgan County Boundaries Chester ¨¦§76

Source: Berks County Planning Commission, Berks County Mapping, Berks County Department of 0 5 10 Caernarvon Emergency Services, BARTA, U.S. Census, ACS 2005-2009 Miles BAB 9/13 www.countyofberks.com/planning