Navigating the Plan
Plan Overview
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
Phase V
Appendices & PDFs

Strategic Plan: Phase II

This phase of the study was designed to document existing conditions, undertake outreach efforts to the community, prepare a needs assessment, and identify best practices in senior transportation.

Section 3 : : Section 4 : : Section 5 : : Section 6 : : Section 7

Section 3 Overview
Summary of Existing Conditions
A survey of organizations in Cuyahoga County was conducted to determine if they were engaged in the provision of senior transportation and to update a similar survey conducted in 1995. The survey was distributed to public entities (local governments and other public entities), nonprofit corporations, hospitals and residential facilities, and private, for profit operators of transportation that may serve the elderly.

In addition to the Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority, a range of public and nonprofit entities provide services to seniors throughout Cuyahoga County. While there are a variety of providers, many of these organizations operate under some constraints, such as limited hours and days of operation, trip purpose restrictions, or limited service areas.

> download section 3 in pdf format

 

Overview

Survey of Senior Transportation Providers

Public Transportation Providers

Public, Nonprofit, and Private Paratransit Services

Short- or Long-Range Plans for Senior Transportation Services and Subjective Assessment of Needs and Opportunities

Critical Analysis of Existing Services

Section 4 Overview
Community Outreach Efforts
Community outreach efforts were accomplished through a survey distributed through two special media publications. Surveys were solicited in English and Spanish. There were a total of 333 valid surveys returned as a result of this effort. The majority of survey respondents indicated limited hours of service, inconvenient routing, and difficulties in scheduling as the biggest barriers to the use or greater use of existing transit service. Limited days of service was the least commonly indicated barrier to transportation. Several respondents also indicated other problems such as ‘no rain shelter’, ‘long travel times’, and ‘no physical help’ as barriers to use of the various transit modes.

> download section 4 in pdf format

 

Survey Methodology

Survey Results

Section 5 Overview
Demographic Analysis
Cuyahoga County’s senior population totaled 273,212 persons according to Census 2000. This represents a decline of 7.6 percent during the decade, 1990 - 2000. The decline in senior population, however, occurs in the age cohorts from 60 through 74 years of age. Thereafter, Cuyahoga County is experiencing a net growth in older adults. An examination of the growth rates suggests that each age cohort from 75 years or above is growing at comparable rates to that as the United States as a whole. When expressed as a percentage of the total population, elderly age cohorts in Cuyahoga County represent a larger percentage of the population than that of the United States.

> download section 5 in pdf format

 

General Demographic Trends in Elderly Population in the United States

Comparative Demographic Trends: Cuyahoga County and the United States

Implication of Demographic Data

Demographic Projections

Geographic Trends in the Elderly Population, Cuyahoga County: 1990 – 2000

Section 6 Overview
Potential Demand for Paratransit Services Among the Elderly
Based on the summary of existing conditions, existing public and nonprofit organizations are providing about 355,673 unlinked passenger trips per year to the elderly while institutional for-profit corporations (housing/residential and medical facilities) are providing an additional 26,827 trips per year. At present, no breakdown is available from GCRTA regarding the number of annual CRT trips that are taken by persons 60 years of age or greater. Management speculates that about 30 percent of all trips may fall into this category. This translates to an additional 93,268 unlinked passenger trips per year. Total existing services provide 475,768 annual unlinked passenger trips for the elderly.

Demand estimates were computed for both a base year (2000) and in 2010. Demand is project to actually decline during this period, due to the decline in population in the 60 – 75 year old age cohorts. Compared to the “low” level of projected demand, existing services are providing about 20 percent of the latent demand for paratransit services among the elderly.

> download section 6 in pdf format

 

Parameters and Limitations

Types of Demand Forecasting Methodologies

Model Review and Selection

Projected Demand

Comparison to Existing Services

Section 7 Overview
Best Practices in Senior Transportation
Best practices were identified from news accounts in various trade journals (e.g., Passenger Transport), consultant staff participation at various trade conferences and expositions, scholarly papers documenting such practices (e.g., Transportation Research Board (TRB) papers), and the consultant’s own understanding of such best practices. This process was facilitated by the fact that a national conference on senior transportation was held in early 2002. The “National Conference on Aging & Mobility,” was a national showcase of best practices in senior mobility in the 21st Century. Fifteen (15) projects were identified.

From the compiled list of best practices, four (4) selected projects were invited to attend the “Best Practices Community Forum,” held in Cleveland on June 20, 2002. The purpose of this forum was to allow a wide range of project participants, project stakeholders, and other communities of interest in Cuyahoga County to learn more about innovative practices being employed in other communities to improve and enhance senior transportation services. The forum was organized as a series of formal presentations and individual break out session permitting participants to directly interact with selected speakers.

Four (4) projects were selected for participation in the forum:
• Planning – Regional Action Plan on Aging & Mobility, Maricopa County, AZ
• Coordination – Ride Connection, Greater Portland, OR
• Technology – Access Services, Los Angeles, CA
• Alternatives to Fixed Route Services – Flexline Mobility Service, Gothenburg, Sweden

> download section 7 in pdf format

 

Introduction

Criteria Used in the Review, Evaluation, and Selection of “Best Practices” Projects

Selected Best Practices in Senior

Model Review and Selection

Selection of Projects for Participation in the Best Practices Community Forum

Summary of the Community Forum on Best Practices in Senior Transportation

 
   
 


All Contents of this site copyright © 2006 Senior Transportation Connection
This site designed and built by Studio Graphique, Inc.