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