BOULDER COUNTYTRANSPORTATION GAP ANALYSIS

UCD MURP ProgramAmina Adnan, Jaxon Fagan,, Jonathan Hayden

ADULTS 60+

FALL 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

“The Denver Regional Mobility and Access Council (DRMAC) was established in 2005 to address the specialized transportation needs for citizens of the greater Denver metro area. Our mission is to ensure people with mobility challenges have access to the community by increasing, enhancing, sharing, and coordinating regional transportation services and resources. Through active collaboration, DRMAC seeks to coordinate and bring together transportation providers and human services agencies to maximize efficiencies of scale, provide access to specialized transportation for each citizen who requires it and to improve the overall specialized transportation system.”

-- DRMAC

Demographic AnalysisGrowth Trends

Statistical Analysis

Geographic Analysis

Mobility AuditFindings

Methodology Critique

Stakeholder InterviewsIntroduction

Stakeholder Response

Observations

Gap Analysis

Recommendations

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

The growth and redistribution of the elderly population in the United States—and in Colorado in particular—will have vast effects on the way local officials and planners structure transportation systems. The uneven geography of the aged will also have major socio-demographic consequences in the coming years, necessitating of the continued attention of state and local policymakers.1 Driven by the aging of the Baby Boomer generation, the next two decades will see more people enter retirement age than at any other point in our country’s history.2 In Boulder County—which is projected to gain more than 80,000 total residents by 2040—the proportion of residents age 60 or older is projected to increase by more than 50%: from 10.7% in 2010 to 16.5% in 2030.3 Similarly, the median age of a Boulder County resident has increased from 31.7 in 1990 to 36.6 in 2013, and is projected to exceed 40 by 2040.4

Yet numbers alone do not adequately convey the ramifications of a rapidly aging Boulder County on transportation infrastructure, services, and policy decisions. Not only will there be more

elderly residents of Boulder County, but there will also be more elderly residents who lack basic access to transportation options. Already, 10,468 Boulder County residents are over 65 years old and living alone.5 With median household sizes shrinking and the number of elderly increasing, this number is projected to more than double to over 25,401 by 2040, creating a sizable demographic without traditional familial support systems.6

Perhaps most disconcerting, however, is the number of elderly who will remain in the labor force. Currently, 7,398 Boulder County residents over the age of 65 are members of the labor force.7 But this number is projected to balloon to nearly 20,000 by 2040, far outstripping total population growth and even population growth among the elderly.8 Higher labor force participation means more elderly residents commuting to work, necessitating a transportation strategy that is elderly-inclusive and tailored to the particular needs of aging Boulder County Residents.

Introduction

1

2

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Boulder County has a total population of 293,205 people. The county is distributed into seven blocks that each have a unique population. The range of these blocks is 103,102 to 164 total people, with the blocks being arranged by order of magnitude, with block 1 being the most populous, and block 7 least populous. The median population is 21,065. The total number of males residing in Boulder County is 147,269 which accounts for 50.23% of the total population. The total number of females in Boulder County is 145,942 or 49.77% of the total population.

Of the 293,205 people residing in Boulder County, 43,141 are sixty years or older. These older adults account for 14.71% of the total population of Boulder County. Females account for 23,155 of the older adult population, or 53.6%. Males account for 19,986 or 46.4% of the older adult population. The range of the total older adult population within the seven blocks of Boulder County is 15,209 to 71. The median population of the seven blocks is 3,227. The

range of the total population that older adults account for within the seven blocks is 43.29% to 10.74%. The median is 14.75%. The percentage of older adults falls with the range of 14.32% and 15.32% in blocks 1 through 5. Older adults compose only 10.74% of the population in block 6, and 43.29% of the population in block 7. The older adult population in these blocks is significantly different from the average of 14.71%, but this could be explained by these blocks relatively small populations of 540 in block 6, and 164 in block 7, compared to the total populations ranging from 103,103 in block 1, to 10,786 in block 5.

The statistical analysis of Boulder County’s population will help inform our recommendation to DRMAC in a number of ways. First, it shows us the geographic distribution of our focus community within Boulder County. There is a

Area Total Population Males Females Females Over 60 Males Over 60 60 + Population 60- PopulationBlock 1 103,103 52,167 50,936 8,128 7,081 15,209 87,894

35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35%Block 2 93,867 46,730 47,137 7,376 6,243 13,619 80,248

32% 32% 32% 32% 31% 32% 32%Block 3 63,680 31,557 32,123 4,995 4,417 9,412 54,268

22% 21% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22%Block 4 21,065 10,916 10,149 1,719 1,508 3,227 17,838

7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7%Block 5 10,786 5,513 5,273 874 671 1,545 9,241

4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4%Block 6 540 305 235 34 24 58 482

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Block 7 164 78 86 29 42 71 93

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Boulder County 293,205 147,266 145,939 23,155 19,986 43,141 250,064

3

Results for Boulder County Older Adults

diverse range of populations within the seven blocks that Boulder County is divided into. This will allow for the appropriate allocation of resources per block. The statistical analysis also shows the gender breakdown of the adult population and county and block level, both within all age ranges and within older adults only. This will be useful in determining the allocation of transportation resources, as gender may prove to be a factor that affects usage of transportation. Finally, it will help our group in conducting a precise mobility audit of pre-existing Regional Transportation District (RTD) bus routes that serve our focus community.

4

AccessThe Map of Boulder County reveal its broad boundaries that include 3 major cities and multiple towns.

The map acknowledges the population of older adults who reside outside the main city boundaries that most likely have limited options to access and may handicap the ability to recieve mobility services.

The density of local roads are planned out in cities and become few and far between as the population radiates out from the urban nucleus .

Male & Female PopulationAccording to the “Americans on Aging” government association, 3 out of 5 older adults are women. The statistic proves spatially in the Boulder County Maps where women represent a higher demographic of older adults. In support of this, is the fact that women have a longer average life expectancy than men, with 79.4 years for women and 73.9 years for men (according to 2000 demographic trends).

% of Total PopulationImportant to note on the maps are areas where there are higher densities of older adults, yet fewer local roads for potential access.

GEOGRAPHICANALYSIS

Location & Population Characteristics

5

LON

GM

ON

T

BO

ULD

ER

ERIE

LOU

ISVI

LLE

LAFA

YETT

E

SUPE

RIO

R

LYO

NS

NED

ERLA

ND

WA

RD

JAM

ESTO

WN

BR

OO

MFI

ELD

Lege

nd City

Bou

ndar

ies

MA

JOR

_RO

AD

S

HIG

HW

AYS

Old

er A

dults

% o

f Tot

al P

op.

0% -

0.1%

0.11

% -

0.22

%

0.23

% -

0.34

%

0.35

% -

0.47

%

0.48

% -

0.62

%

0.63

% -

0.83

%

0.84

% -

1.2%

1.21

% -

1.83

%

Acc

ess

to O

lder

Adu

lts in

Bou

lder

Cou

nty

Plan

ning

Met

hods

9/18

/201

3

Am

ina

Adn

an, J

axon

Fag

on, J

onat

han

Hay

den,

Chr

istia

n M

iller

LON

GM

ON

T

BO

ULD

ER

ERIE

LOU

ISVI

LLE

LAFA

YETT

E

SUPE

RIO

R

LYO

NS

NED

ERLA

ND

WA

RD

JAM

ESTO

WN

BR

OO

MFI

ELD

Lege

nd City

Bou

ndar

ies

MA

JOR

_RO

AD

S

HIG

HW

AYS

Old

er A

dults

% o

f Tot

al P

op.

0% -

0.1%

0.11

% -

0.22

%

0.23

% -

0.34

%

0.35

% -

0.47

%

0.48

% -

0.62

%

0.63

% -

0.83

%

0.84

% -

1.2%

1.21

% -

1.83

%

Acc

ess

to O

lder

Adu

lts in

Bou

lder

Cou

nty

Plan

ning

Met

hods

9/18

/201

3

Am

ina

Adn

an, J

axon

Fag

on, J

onat

han

Hay

den,

Chr

istia

n M

iller

6

Lege

nd City

Bou

ndar

ies

Old

er F

emal

e22

0

Old

er_F

ema

Old

er_M

ale

HIG

HW

AYS

MA

JOR

_RO

AD

S

Old

er A

dults

% o

f Tot

al P

op.

0% -

0.1%

0.11

% -

0.22

%

0.23

% -

0.34

%

0.35

% -

0.47

%

0.48

% -

0.62

%

0.63

% -

0.83

%

0.84

% -

1.2%

1.21

% -

1.83

%

Rat

io o

f Old

er M

en v

Wom

en in

Bou

lder

Cou

nty

Plan

ning

Met

hods

9/18

/201

3

Am

ina

Adn

an, J

axon

Fag

on, J

onat

han

Hay

den,

Chr

istia

n M

iller

Lege

nd City

Bou

ndar

ies

Old

er F

emal

e22

0

Old

er_F

ema

Old

er_M

ale

HIG

HW

AYS

MA

JOR

_RO

AD

S

Old

er A

dults

% o

f Tot

al P

op.

0% -

0.1%

0.11

% -

0.22

%

0.23

% -

0.34

%

0.35

% -

0.47

%

0.48

% -

0.62

%

0.63

% -

0.83

%

0.84

% -

1.2%

1.21

% -

1.83

%

Rat

io o

f Old

er M

en v

Wom

en in

Bou

lder

Cou

nty

Plan

ning

Met

hods

9/18

/201

3

Am

ina

Adn

an, J

axon

Fag

on, J

onat

han

Hay

den,

Chr

istia

n M

iller

7

Lege

nd City

Bou

ndar

ies

Old

er M

ale

1 D

ot =

5

Old

er_M

ale

Old

er F

emal

e1

Dot

= 5

Old

er_F

ema

HIG

HW

AYS

MA

JOR

_RO

AD

S

Old

er A

dults

% o

f Tot

al P

op.

0% -

0.1%

0.11

% -

0.22

%

0.23

% -

0.34

%

0.35

% -

0.47

%

0.48

% -

0.62

%

0.63

% -

0.83

%

0.84

% -

1.2%

1.21

% -

1.83

%

Old

er M

ale

& F

emal

e D

emog

raph

ic in

Bou

lder

Cou

nty

Plan

ning

Met

hods

9/18

/201

3

Am

ina

Adn

an, J

axon

Fag

on, J

onat

han

Hay

den,

Chr

istia

n M

iller

Lege

nd City

Bou

ndar

ies

Old

er M

ale

1 D

ot =

5

Old

er_M

ale

Old

er F

emal

e1

Dot

= 5

Old

er_F

ema

HIG

HW

AYS

MA

JOR

_RO

AD

S

Old

er A

dults

% o

f Tot

al P

op.

0% -

0.1%

0.11

% -

0.22

%

0.23

% -

0.34

%

0.35

% -

0.47

%

0.48

% -

0.62

%

0.63

% -

0.83

%

0.84

% -

1.2%

1.21

% -

1.83

%

Old

er M

ale

& F

emal

e D

emog

raph

ic in

Bou

lder

Cou

nty

Plan

ning

Met

hods

9/18

/201

3

Am

ina

Adn

an, J

axon

Fag

on, J

onat

han

Hay

den,

Chr

istia

n M

iller

8

MOBILITY AUDIT

The chosen route focuses in on a four-mile segment that connects two urban cores; Louisville and Lafayette, where an even distribution of older adults is indicated, compared to the spotted spatial distribution of Older Adults in broader Boulder County.

The audit avoids larger population centers like the City of Boulder and Longmont with the hypothesis that these municipalities were better serviced. The objective was to reveal service interruptions that if fixed, could reap greater benefits to Older Adults currently lacking mobility services.

The route considers start and end points in which it was intentional that the Louisville Recreation and Senior Center was included in the audit because it is a landing place for the Older Adult population. It

is hypothesized that a well-serviced route along this segment could be most beneficial to the 65+ Boulder County demographic. Recent flood events that affected Boulder County was also accounted and effectively chose to avoid areas most afflicted by the event (i.e. Lyons and Longmont) that might have skew the accuracy of data collection from uncommon occurrences.

Methodology

A windshield study was conducted and was determined the most appropriate approach because of the relatively large stretch of road that needed to be covered. The focus was on individual bus stops and not the stretch of road that connected each stop. Prior to conducting the audit we concluded that the most efficient and accurate

Introduction

WB09WB10WB11WB12WB13WB14WB15

EB10EB09EB08EB07EB06

6789108 9 10 11

WB16

EB05

11

7

WB17WB18WB19WB20WB21

Start/End

WB2312

13

14

151

2

34

5

6

EB04EB03EB02EB01

1 5 76432

913 1115 1014 812

9

way to collect information was to limit the number of surveyors to two people. This way inconsistency from individual observations could be limited. The two surveyors reviewed a map, marked the route and resolved the criteria for judging each of the bus stops to ensure rational, fair results. We chose to physically record observations with pen on paper using the spreadsheet DRMAC provided and to take photos of each site as a permanent record and for later reference. One surveyor was designated as the driver and the other as the recorder where both could collaborate on observations and less clear judgment calls could be assessed.

Safety was a consideration for conducting the audit in which we took into account the frequency of stops and wanted to avoid surveying on a weekday in rush hour. Additionally, the audit was planned

around favorable weather conditions on a Saturday in late September (specifically 9.21.13). The estimated the amount of time needed to conduct the audit was 6 hours allowing for travel time to and from the site and accounted for the number of stops and time spent at each stop for recording.

Once the audit was complete, the two surveyors recorded collected data in the excel spreadsheet, discussed findings to ensure consistent data input, reviewed and labeled photos and followed by updating data collection for each stop in DRMAC’s google document. Finally, the group discussed mobility audit observations and conclusions and determined possible methodology for uncovering meaningful and relevant outcomes.

VIA AP

PIA WA

Y

SOUTH BOULDER ROAD

START/ENDLOUISVILLE RECREATION & SENIOR CENTER

START/ENDINTERSECTION OF PUBLIC RD & S. BOULDER

LOUISVILLE

LAFAYETTE

RTD DASH ROUTE

Start/End

WB01WB02WB03WB04WB05WB06WB07WB08

EB17EB16EB15EB14EB13EB12EB11

1234512 13 14

WB09WB10WB11WB12WB13WB14WB15

EB10EB09EB08EB07EB06

6789108 9 10 11

98 10 11 12 13 14

15 37 26 4

10

FindingsTwenty-nine bus stops were surveyed for their accessibility, safety, and information displayed for the elderly and disabled populations. Numerous measures were used, including the physical characteristics of the bus stops themselves, the availability of bus schedules and route information, lighting, crossing aids, and traffic calming or control devices. There are numerous obstacles to the accessibility and safety of the bus stops to the elderly and/or disabled populations. A large database of information was compiled, and subsequently edited to arrive at the relevant information contained in the summary table. The properties selected to highlight the findings were based on their relevancy to the goal of identifying barriers to accessibility and safety. The counts of each relevant measure are shown in a bar chart.

The bus stop at South Boulder Road and Plaza Drive exemplifies many of the accessibility issues that were prevalent in the survey of bus stops. This bus stop in question is the closest bus stop to a grocery store, an important destination for elderly residents. There was a sign indicating that it is a bus stop, but similarly to 27 of the 29 stops, there was no posted scheduling information, a significant accessibility issue, as many elderly people lack the technological skills to access online schedules via computer or smartphone. There was road construction on the adjacent sidewalk at the time of the interview, and as no alternative path was built for people with wheelchairs, any person in a wheelchair would be forced to take a longer route to access the grocery store. There was a strip of grass

between the sidewalk and landing area, effectively preventing people in wheelchairs from accessing transportation, a characteristic shared by 13 of the 29, or 45% of surveyed bus stops. This stop, like 23 of the 29 bus stops, lacked a shelter to protect riders from rain, snow, cold, and sun. Boulder County experiences significant rain and snow each winter, as well as many sunny days, and the lack of shelters poses a health risk to potential riders. The risk of rain and snow is significant to elderly rider’s health, but the most significant health risk posed by lack of shelters is sun exposure, as some elderly people are at risk of skin cancer, and take precautions to stay out of direct sun. This stop also lacked any type of seating, a characteristic shared by 19 of 29 bus stops. This is not an issue for people in wheelchairs, but for an elderly person who uses a walker or has health issues, standing for any amount of time can be difficult or impossible.

Overall, the bus stop in question received the lowest possible rating, and exhibited many traits that made it an unsafe and difficult stop for elderly residents to use. Though many stops were rated higher overall, every stop surveyed exhibited some type of negative trait that limited its accessibility to the elderly. On average, the measure of ‘Overall Accessibility of Bus Stop to the Elderly or People with Mobility Challenges’ was rated at 3.7 on a scale of 1 to 5. This information will allow DRMAC to prioritize and allocate resources in the most pressing issue affecting accessibility and safety of the bus stops.

11

12

Methodology CritiqueOverall, the mobility audit methodology distributed by the Denver Regional Mobility and Accessiblity Council allowed us to identify some of the most pressing challenges to transportation access facing riders of the DASH bus line. The identification of obstacles, availablility of shelter, and presence of nearby traffic control devices are all huge considerations necessary to determining the frequency and severity of transportation “gaps.” The methodology serves as a fairly comprehensive tool for evaluating factors as diverse as suface conditions, information availability, sufficiency of lighting, and surrounding environmental conditions. In addition, the methodology allowed for flexibility in that it allowed auditors to craft their own responses when conditions did not fit neatly into a given category.

While the breadth and flexibility of the methodology allows auditors to take into consideration a vast number of factors, it also results in lost efficiency. We identified three general problem areas inherent in the methodology that should be addressed to create a more streamlined process: repetitiveness, subjectivity, and inapplicability to our target demographic.

First, by repetitiveness we mean that a given property often shared the same value throughout an entire field. For example, one survey question asks “are the bus route numbers clearly indcated on signage at the bus stop,” for which the answer--in every instance--was “yes.” While this may just be a particularly well-designated route corridor, a more likely explanation is that every stop is required under RTD policy to include a sign with servicing route names/numbers.

This was also the case for sidewalk widths (which were uniform), bus stop “type” (all are curbside), and prevalence of stop-controlled intersections or crosswalks (present at every stop). Such information is likely readily available beforehand, so it would be worth the time to peruse an RTD policy manual or contact an RTD official before embarking upon an inquiry with only one possible outcome.

Second, much of the methodology requires auditors to make a subjective assessment without clear guidelines or criteria. This is most obvious on

questions that ask auditors to rate specific factors on a 1-5 scale. While rating the “overall conditionof the sidewalk” contained some guidelines (A “5” should consist of “Hazardous, cracks, very rough or broken, sloping, difficult to navigate surfaces”), asking auditors to rate the “overall accessibility of the bus stop” and asking “Overall, how would you rate this bus stop and/or the surrounding block?” are vague questions that include no criteria and do little to advance an objective understanding of the stop’s condition--separate auditors could have completely different ideas of what constitutes a “1” versus a “5” and everything in between.

Likewise, while we found the ability to use our own responses to questions like “identify type of obstacle” added a great deal of flexibility, this again is a very subjective analysis that requires categorization after the fact. Should “sloping in sidewalk” and “sloping between sidewalk and landing area” be considered in the same category of general obstacles, or do they warrant their own? Without knowing what will be found, these determinations are difficult to make in the field. We suggest creating categories based on our preliminary results that allow auditors to assign obstacles to general categories in the interest of more easily quantifying data.

Finally, the methodology prescribed by DRMAC does not sufficiently identify or assign “weight” to factors that would allow us to assess their relative importance to our target demographic: the elderly. Clearly, elderly riders will be much more challenged by sidewalk obstacles or a lack of traffic crossing aids than a relatively narrow landing area, yet there is no way to capture this in the methodology.

Similarly, it seems that some of the factors that would be most important to a demographic that suffers from degenerative ailments like loss of eyesight, hearing, etc. are given short shrift: visual issues are addressed only in the “lighting” category, and auditory issues are not captured at all. We would thus suggest that new categories are added to address the needs of the specific demographics being assessed, which may require some research into the most common accessibility problems faced by the elderly.

13

BOULDER COUNTY ADULTS 60+

STAKEHOLDERINTERVIEWSIntroduction

Takeaways

Five interviewees attended the meeting who were all advocates for +60 adult mobility transportation in Boulder County. Organizations and demographics represented included the Boulder County Agency on Aging, a division of the Boulder County Community Services Department; Boulder Care Connect, who provide Boulder County seniors and people with disabilities transportation to medical appointments; Denver Regional Mobility and Access Council, and representatives of both the City of Longmont and the rural seniors of Boulder County.

Though information gathered did not come directly from the focus community members, advocates provided general mobility issues facing the elderly community in Boulder County to an extent that would have been impossible coming directly from the focus community. Advocates provided insight on mobility issues faced by the various municipalities of Boulder County, the mountainous and lowland rural populations, as well as to the specific transportation uses of the wider elderly population, such as medical appointments and senior lunches. To gather this breadth of information directly from the focus community would have entailed multiple interviews in the various municipalities and rural areas of Boulder County.

The interviewees identified several factors that could have prevented actual members of the focus

community from attending. The physical location of the Boulder Community Hospital in a high traffic area with little available parking, in addition to the interview room location on the second floor of the building, presented barriers to elderly attendance. The interviewees said that of all possible locations in Boulder County, the City of Boulder has the most developed transportation system, and to truly get perspective from the focus community, the meeting should have been held closer to where they reside.

Two major takeaways were realized towards the conclusion of our participant session. The first was recognized upon asking the question regarding whether there existed currently a single point of contact for transit options. Because participants pointed to two different transit services; Via and DRMAC, by default the answer is No; there is not one point of contact for transit options. This is a crucial underlying issue that must be addressed if regional transportation services were to successfully connect seniors across multiple municipalities within Boulder County (and beyond) as well as achieve economies of scale. If there is not a common understanding of who to contact for consistent and reliable information among seniors, their advocates (i.e. adult children and care takers) and subsidiary transit services then the lack of coordination creates instances of duplicated trips and/or lack of

14

accessible transit when it is needed.

The Longmont representative was insistent that Via was the most reliable and cohesive legislative body to provide coordinated rides while the Care Connect representative said that she consistently refers people to DRMAC as a single point of contact. It was further asked of the representative from Longmont to further explain her position for choosing Via that limits service to Boulder, Longmont and Brighton residences, over DRMAC who has the capability to serve a larger community within and across counties. From her point of view, most seniors in Longmont are looking for Boulder County Information which Via has effectively been able to provide through their dedicated hotline and subsequent coordination of services that include medical mobility, call and ride, public transit and reimbursement programs, etc. There seemed to be a general agreement that DRMAC was “Denver centric” and has shown less community outreach than its fellow coordinated service providers (specifically Via).

The determinative suggestion is that DRMAC, in order to realize their mission, vision and goals; to show value and usefulness to the community, to ensure mobility services on a regional scale and to show their commitment to its stakeholders, it needs to commit a greater effort to connecting with senior service representatives, fellow service providers (like Via) and the seniors that it intends to serve. The chosen location and participants (i.e. lack of senior citizen attendance) at the interview and apparent nominal malice, may represent a fundamental disconnect between DRMAC and the needs of Boulder County. Without a broad understanding of the diverse actors and their needs, DRMAC is limited in succeeding in its intent. We hope that this stakeholder interview and the representative conclusions may be the first of many steps to achieving mobility access for all.

The other repeated complaint from stakeholders is that current routes are simply insufficient to meet the transit needs of older individuals. These complaints generally fell into one of three categories: geographic scope, temporal scope, and the process through which routes are created.

Geographically, concerns regarding the lack of access to locations outside the City of Boulder. Three of the stakeholders interviewed, agreed that transit options are lacking in Lafayette, Louisville, Longmont, especially compared to Boulder’s extensive transit network. This is probably due to Boulder’s large student population, but one

stakeholder pointed out that Longmont will likely surpass Boulder in population over the next decade, yet has only a fraction of the transit options.

A bigger hurdle is faced by older adults wishing to travel from rural areas into town. All stakeholders agreed that rural residents and those who live in the mountains have extremely limited options. RTD is virtually non-existent in these areas, and services like VIA and Call and Ride often take a long time or face scheduling conflicts that preclude travelling so far from other users.

Those who want to travel outside of Boulder County—or up into the mountains—are even worse off. The “N” line is the only RTD route that serves mountain residents—and only a few times a day. Southwest Weld County—outside of Greeley—has NO public transit options, nor are there any routes connecting Greeley with the RTD system.

Temporally, multiple stakeholders cited a lack of night and weekend transit options as a large barrier to transit accessibility. While most routes are developed with commuting workers in mind, most elderly adults do not work and have schedules that often necessitate trips at off-peak hours. Call and Ride and Via are both fallback options, but access to even these services is limited from community to community based on capacity and needs. In addition, elderly residents who ride during the morning and early afternoon often have to compete with students for transit access, and may elderly people cannot get Call and Ride during the school commuting hours.

Finally, the stakeholders were unhappy with the process by which routes are developed and maintained, especially by RTD. In Longmont, for example, public transit availability has continuously decreased over time, despite a growing population. There are fewer routes with fewer pickup times—creating a feedback loop. Less flexibility and access leads fewer people to use public transit options, leading to decreased demand and decreased motivation for the city to fund transit programs, ultimately resulting in the decrease in routes and schedules that created the problem in the first place.

In addition, RTD’s process for soliciting and incorporating public opinion has been met with criticism. Many citizens have been upset by the poor advertisement of public meetings, which predictably leads to poor turnout and little integration of public sentiment into RTD’s decision-making process. Most of the stakeholders we

15

interviewed agreed that at the end of the day, RTD fails to adequately consider the concerns of Boulder County’s elderly riders, and makes its decisions based solely on ridership statistics and budget.

The best role for DRMAC to play in mitigating some of these challenges is probably to serve as a facilitator and publicist; advocating for the needs of underserved potential riders by encouraging services like RTD to take a more comprehensive look at their route development and scheduling process, which should reflect more than mere ridership numbers.

Interview TranscriptThe following are generalized responses agreed upon by the participant group who was chosen to represent the +65 demographic group who this report will serve.

How informed are you about transportation services in your community, in your daily experiences?

(Includes carpooling, shuttles, buses, lightrail (i.e. any type of transportation services).

Via surveys reveal that about 25% of respondents are unaware of transit and mobility options.

Most older people are somewhat informed, but their adult children are not informed. In Longmont they have taxis, RTD, Call and Ride, and Via. There are no light rail options.

The FLEX route was recently adopted which services trips from Longmont to Ft Collins.

Longmont does not have the transit options available in the City of Boulder, and neither do Lafayette, Louisville, or East Boulder County.

The presence of the additional buses in Boulder helps to raise awareness of transportation options. People see the HOP, SKIP, and JUMP buses around town all day and are aware that the service exists in Boulder.

What do you mean when you say that there is less awareness by adult children?

Many older adults who ride specialized transportation are 75 y.o. +. Further, many adult children end up in a caregiver role and play a part in convincing their elderly parents to give up driving.

After mom and dad stop driving, the adult children want to know what alternative transportation is available. Especially because transportation is one of the early caregiving duties.

Do you believe there are adequate transportation options for people in your community?

In Longmont, nights and weekends are an issue. But, scheduling options are the biggest issue.

Call and Ride is the fallback option to Via, but conflict is created school commutes where the elderly population is not adequately accomodated while before and after school services are being offered.

If older adults call the day of, they will probably not be serviced by Via either. The scheduling limits are more compelling than nights and weekends.

Generally speaking, limitations vary community to community based on capacity and needs.

Boulder County Care Connect (a non-profit that supports medical rides through volunteer service) requires 7 days notice. Meaning there is no “on demand”/urgent care service offered.

Also, volunteer drivers cannot take people who are undergoing major operations with anesthesia involved as there are liability concerns.

Most people are going to say that once they can’t drive and go wherever they are, their options are not adequate.

In an ideal world, transportation options would offer round-the-clock, on demand service to wherever you want to go, (exactly what a personal automobile accomplishes), but that is not a reality.

Hopefully we can move towards service that can more closely meet these needs. More is available here than in most parts of the country, but the various factors that affect the quality of service include:

How quickly can you change it?How far out can you arrange it?

Cross county line trips are an issue.

16

Do you currently drive?

37 percent of 85+ said they no longer drive, while 6 percent of 65-85 said they don’t (according to representative from Boulder County).

The demographics are changing, with increased numbers of older seniors, more and more will be giving up driving privileges.

Some are only comfortable in short distances, when the weather is good, or during the day. Many people would say, not out of my town, not comfortable with the speed, not comfortable with congestion.

How do trip destination requests and demand rank among eachother?

Meals is probably first, then medical, then incidentals ,like getting hair done, coffee with a friend, etc…. Heavy time is around noon hour due to senior meals.

The Agency on Aging provides funding to Care Connect for medical rides, and Via for elderly rides, including rides to congregate meal sites at senior centers--open everyday in all 4 boulder county cities.

Medical mobility provides cross county line rides, while Via is limited to Boulder County. Via keeps track of cancellations and denials.

Does Via try to coordinate with transportation services in adjoining counties to make cross county trips possible?

That depends on the county. Southwest Weld county, outside of Greeley, has little transport services. Broomfield has good services within town but it is hard to get to Boulder for medical services.

Many older people who live east of Boulder County, in rural Longmont, have no transportation services into Longmont. Though their bank and post office services are all in Longmont (they reside in the adjacent county) and have no Via service. Instead, they must take a taxi, drive, or catch a ride with a friend of family member.

Average distances traveled?

According to the Boulder county website, medical requests in Boulder County average at 15-20 mile distances where 50 to 60% of those being between two cities. Medical rides generally lead to higher

distances traveled versus things rides for meals.

In Longmont, the city is still dense, meaning very short trips within town, but medical trips are generally further to Boulder or Denver.

How satisfied are you with transportation options available in your community?

Longmont people are somewhat satisfied. Longmont puts in over $100,000 per year to transportation which is where Lafayette and Louisville may be lacking.

Boulder would probably say they are satisfied since it is the most serviced municipality in the County.

To stay in your present neighborhood as your age, how important are the following?

Curb and gutter cuts.Longmont has had a curb and gutter program for over 5 years, and have been diligent about replacing curb and gutter according to a plan that improves accessibility.

Improved access to public transportation.Part of it is a mindset, we are westerners and drive our cars. Older people have the same attitude towards wanting to drive their car and not using public transportation.

Personal automobiles offer flexibility. Some people have had to wait for a half hour or hour for public transport after a medical appointment, sometimes in the heat or hot sun. Most people drive a car or ride in a car, even when other transportation options are available. When you drive it is easy to go to something like a medical appointment and know that your vehicle will be available when you are finish. In Longmont, public transit availability continues to decrease over time--there are fewer routes and fewer pickup times. Even as advocates are informing people of how to use public transportation are less transit options available feeding an endless cycle.

Less flexibility and accessibility leads to fewer people utilizing public transit options that leading to decreased demand, and decreased motivation for the city to fund transit programs--leading to fewer routes and pickup times…etc….

In the mountain and rural areas, everyone drives because they have to. The sidewalk conditions (if they even exist) are poor and lead people to move

17

from their existing locations to somewhere more accessible.

It has been tricky to coordinate volunteers in the mountain areas, because people don’t want o be driving on dirt roads or in snowy/icy conditions.

If Via can’t give you the ride, they will give mileage reimbursement to whoever gives you the ride.

You mentioned that a lot of people express dissatisfaction with the job that RTD and VIA are doing? Who do they go to with those concerns, and do they usually get addressed adequately?

Most people get upset with RTD because they hold public meetings and don’t advertise for them. It has gotten to be a big deal for Longmont, and the transportation coordinator for Longmont tries to work on plans but services continue to be cut.

There is poor turnout at meetings.

“I can’t tell you when RTD made a change based on public input”.

How is RTD making their decisions, if they are not making them based on public input? Based on ridership and budget.

If you use, or were to use public transportation, how much of a problem are each of the following?

Most of the buses have lifts for wheelchairs and stepping on, so this is not a major issue.

Being able to get a seat depends on the route. Before school and after school stresses the system with increased student ridership.

When the buses are crowded, it becomes more dangerous for the elderly if they cannot get a seat.For people with walkers, they may be able to navigate the 3 steps up without the lift, but it is still difficult to negotiate a crowded bus.

There was an issue about people who are undergoing anesthesia and being able to accomodate their mobility needs, could you please speak more on this issue?

Response from Care Connect representative: It is a liability issue. We can coordinate a driver to take someone to an appointment, but cannot have volunteer drivers take liability for someone who has

“gone under”.

Most facilities require a driver to sign a liability waiver before they will release an anesthesized patient into their care and then requires the person who drives there to be a medical advocate, which most volunteers cannot do.

In the medical community they call this ‘orphaned adult’ or unfriended adult. If you are someone who has “no one” (no family or mobile friends) who can sit through a procedure with you, you are out of options.

How often do you make a trip for each category; Medical, Pharmacy, Social trip, Worship group, Grocery Shopping, Eating out, Leisure/Recreation, Volunteer, Work, Bank.

RTD has a program that will help people figure out public transit. For people with serious cognitive deficits it is hard to even read a schedule.

RTD has changed their routes and eliminated stops so often that it makes it difficult for people to get to stops that are often farther away. What used to be right outside the door is now several blocks away.

What is the RTD program that tried to help people with cognitive deficits to understand transit options and scheduling?

It is a Via program, and it is called Travel Trainer, and is useful for anyone new to transit, not just those with cognitive deficits. They do create a hands on process where seniors can actually be accompanied on a ride with a trainer.

The program also helps people who are fearful of public transit. But it is not widely used.

What type of transportation do you use most? By trip purpose?

Public transit serves employees who work away from where they live, specifically RTD. In Boulder, the buses serve students.

The elderly view the RTD system as serving other demographics.

Access a Ride (an adjunct of RTD that supports people with disabilities)--is an option but the membership qualification process is intensive.

18

Seniors have to go to Denver to get certified, meet financial requirements, prove that they live within a certain radius of a bus stop. And even if you are approved, typically, you have to live within ¾ of a mile of a route. If the route is changed it can affect eligibility.

A representative from DRMAC sat in on the conversation and expressed the following thoughts:

One challenge is that the power chairs are larger and heavier than normal chairs, and affect the ability to fit in the aisle, as well as use the power lifts, especially if the user is obese. The small Via buses have more lift capacity than RTD buses.

Each community has their primary routes that they shovel and Meals on Wheels and Via cannot access certain areas. This even affects the elderly who can drive and their ability for their needs to be met.

Do most of these people utilizing these options work or are they retired?

More general, the elderly population is retired with increasing numbers of elderly working part-time. Most adults using Care Connect, VIA, and Call a Ride are retired, while older adults using RTD are mostly working.

Care Connect’s response - The population that Care Connect serves are 95% retired. But of course they are serving a narrow demographic.

Are most retired adults on fixed incomes? Are people having trouble paying for rides?

Call and Ride is a 2 dollar fixed fare. Via is based on donations only. There are a lot of elderly people who do not pay, that could. Likewise, there are elderly adults that really want to compensate for the service but can’t.

People who pay for Via use it primarily because of mobility (lack of driving), and not because of lack of funds.

Is there a single point of contact for transit options?

Via is the point which has a dedicated hotline for medical mobility, call and ride, public transit, Via services and reimbursement programs. Care Connect also refers clients to DRMAC that also provides a hotline for transportation options.

Longmont Representative Response:

Most people calling her are looking for Boulder County information and therefore Via is a better alternative to DRMAC DRMAC Representative:

Theoretically, DRMAC should be the lead on all Denver area.DRMAC is Denver centric.

Longmont Representative:

This process is an example of DRMAC not recognizing Boulder County. This location (referring to Boulder Community Hospital) for a meeting space was an example of the disconnection between DRMAC and Boulder County, as it is difficult for elderly to get there. Boulder has the best mobility access in the entire county, and the truly disenfranchised, underserved citizens are located in outlying areas.

The role of DRMAC is to understand the broader services and bring together diverse actors in the transportation sector.

If you could identify one thing that would most improve your services, what would you choose?

Longmont Representative:

Nights and weekends.

More service in mountains.

Medical urgency. Not immediate emergency, but day or two out including Urgent Care.

In between ambulance and Via service.

19

GAP ANALYSIS

Service AreaThe geographic scope of transportation options is fairly limited outside of the City of Boulder. This is especially true of RTD, the main service provider for older adults. RTD’s normal service is extremely lim-ited in both rural and mountainous Boulder County. Just one route—the “N”—travels west of Boulder into the mountains, and the only rural routes are those connecting municipalities. In addition, RTD’s Call and Ride service is limited to just one service area in Boulder County: Longmont.

RTD’s lack of service areas in rural Boulder County is reflected in the ridership statistics of the next largest service provider for elderly adults: Via. Sixty-percent of Via’s riders live outside of Boulder, 17% of which live in unincorporated areas. Yet Via alone cannot pick up all the slack, as stakeholders reported long wait times for the service when rural pickups were requested. Services like Care Connect and Careful Wheels will sometimes service these areas, but those organizations restrict ridership to those with medical needs, and do not transport older adults who need to travel to work or run errands.

Unfortunately, older adults make up the greatest proportion of the population in just those areas that are outside RTD’s traditional service areas.

Service Provider Trip Purpose Service Area Service Time Eligibility Type of Service AffordabilityFaith In Action All purposes Boulder County M-F 8am-5pm (some

weekends)Mobility issues D-T-D, VS Free

RTD All purposes Boulder, Lafayette, Louisville, Longmont

22/7 General public, PWD FR, C-T-C, LA $2.25-$13 one-way

RTD call-n-ride All purposes Longmont, Louisville Varies General public FR, DR, LA $1.10-$2.25 one-way

RTD Senior Ride All purposes RTD District Varies General public - 10+ ppl D-T-D, LA, DR $2.25-$10 one-way

Via Mobility All purposes Boulder County M-F 7:30am-5:30pm, Boulder/Longmont (sat/sun)

Older adults, PWD, low inc. D-T-D, LA, DR, C-T-C $1.25-$2 one-way local, $4 one-way inter-city

Care Connect Medical Boulder County M-F 9am-5pm Older adults, PWD D-T-D, VS Donation $5-$20

Careful Wheels Medical Denver Metro (100 mile radius)

24/7 General public D-T-D, LA, DR Free

First Transit-CO Medical Boulder County 24/7 Medicaid FR, DR, LA Free

Vets Helping Vets Medical Boulder County M-F 8am-4:30pm Veterans D-T-D, VS Free

Super Shuttle DIA Boulder/Longmont 24/7 General public FR, D-T-D, LA, DR Varies by zip code

Abbreviations: D-T-D: Door-to-Door, VS: Volunteer Service, LA: Lift Available, DR: Demand Response, C-T-C: Curb-to-Curb, FR: Fixed Route

This is illustrated in the map of “Older Adults in Boulder County” on page 6, which shows that concentrations of older adults are proportionally highest in the rural areas northwest of Boulder and surrounding Longmont. With such a large proportion of elderly residents in these areas, DRMAC should focus on a way to extend services areas to these areas if it wants to provide truly equitable transportation access to all Boulder County residents.

EligibilityThe two largest service providers—RTD and Via Mobility—do not exclude older adults with any sort of eligibility restrictions. As mentioned above, however, these services are far from comprehensive, and older adults who require transportation options that are more narrowly tailored to their mobility needs may face obstacles to access.

Services like Faith in Action, First Transit-CO and Vets Helping Vets, for example, only serve particular segments of the population: people with mobility issues, Medicaid recipients, and veterans, respectively. In addition, Care Connect and Careful Wheels only serve those who are travelling to address medical needs.

20

AffordabilityVirtually all the service providers we analyzed provide services for significantly discounted rates, if not for free. Those services that cater to particular segments of the population—Faith in Action, First Transit-CO and Vets Helping Vets—offer their services for free, but restrict eligibility to a relatively narrow group of individuals. The two service providers who cater to medical needs—Careful Wheels and Care Connect—are also significantly discounted, with the former being free and the latter only asking for donations.

The bulk of ridership, however, occurs on services that are not free, but whose rates can vary depending on the destination. RTD provides a senior discount that amounts to a more than 50% reduction, but fares can still range from $1.10 to $6.50. Similarly, Via Mobility charges riders anywhere from $1.25 for a one-way local fare to $4.00 for an inter-city trip. RTD also provides discounted day, month, and annual passes, but in many cases the rider would need to use it daily to make such a purchase financially advantageous.

Trip PurposeMedicalAccording to testimony from the advocates who attended the stakeholder interview, as well as statistics from VIA Colorado’s website, medical trips are the most common type of trip for the elderly in Boulder County.In VIA’s 2012 Annual Report, 60% of surveyed riders live with a disability or advanced frailty, and 22% live with a chronic disease or condition. The providers of medical trips include VIA, Boulder Care Connect (BCC), Call-n-Ride, Careful Wheels, First Transit-CO, and Vets Helping Vets. If a resident of Boulder County has a medical emergency and cannot drive themselves or get a ride with a friend or family member, their only option is to ride in an ambulance, which can be costly. VIA can schedule rides a day ahead of time, but availability is not guaranteed. Call-n-Ride schedules medical trips as soon as two hours ahead of time, but riders must first register at their Denver office. First Transit Colorado serves Medicaid patients, and requires reservations at least 48 hours in advance. Boulder Care Connect’s Medical Mobility program requires one week advance notice.

Despite the variety of medical mobility options, the Medical Mobility advocate from Boulder Care Connect, stated that in her professional opinion the most significant medical mobility gap occurred in cases of medical urgency one or two days in the future. The ambulance is for emergency only, and it can be difficult to schedule a short notice trip with the transportation providers due to availability. Of the two main medical trip providers in Boulder County, VIA and Boulder Care Connect, only BCC will travel across county lines to connect patients from adjacent counties with medical services that are most likely located in Boulder or Denver.

BCC is supported by volunteer drivers that are not legally allowed to transport people undergoing major operations with anesthesia involved. Most medical facilities require a driver to sign a liability waiver before they will release an anesthesized patient into their care. Until BCC purchases some type of liability plan, they cannot ask their volunteer drivers to put themselves at legal risk.

Food Related TripsTrips to the grocery store comprised 8% of VIA’s total trips in 2012, while trips to senior meals accounted for 4%. In general, trips to purchase or eat at senior meals can be planned out well ahead of time, especially senior meals that are regularly scheduled. This allows elderly residents to schedule transportation with one of the providers ahead of time, ensuring service availability. Though there are service gaps that apply to food related trips, they are not specific to this type of trip, and will be discussed in greater detail in the other sections of this write up.

EducationThe RTD bus system, especially in the City of Boulder, is heavily used in the commutes to and from the city’s schools. The buses are often crowded at these times, which effects elderly residents who may find it hard to navigate the chaos of a crowded environment.

Other TripsOther types of trips include recreation, personal, and employment, and like food related trips, the gaps in service that affect these trip types are more general, and will be discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

21

www.viacolorado.org

VIA Ridership

www.viacolorado.org

22

Service TimeThe advocates in the stakeholder meetings stated that from the perspective of riders, their transportation offerings would ideally offer the flexibility and range of a personal vehicle, offering on demand, door to door service 24 hours a day. In reality, the providers have limited resources, and cannot hope to offer such services, but they see their role as trying to best meet riders scheduling needs within their constraints. The advocates stated that though service is lacking on nights and weekends in some areas, it is scheduling services that is the most important time related issue.

SchedulingTrips for purposes planned well in advance allow riders to schedule a ride ahead of time, and the can usually find transportation through one of the providers. However, If riders need transportation the day of their trip, they are unlikely to find a ride through VIA, but may be able to find a ride with RTD Call-n-Ride. However, if their trip is during the before or after school commutes, they may be out of luck even with Call-n-Ride.

NightsFor non-medical trips, RTD is the only transportation provider with service past 5:30 p.m., but their routes are often inconvenient to elderly riders, especially in rural areas. Other non-medical transportation providers end their services by 530. Two of the four medical mobility organizations, Careful Wheels and First Transit Colorado offer 24 hour service seven

days a week, but both require advanced scheduling.

WeekendsFor non-medical trips, RTD Bus service is the main provider of weekend services, supplemented by VIA in Boulder and Longmont. RTD Call-n-Ride does offer weekend services in Longmont between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., but these services are restricted to the city limits.

Learning to Negotiate SchedulesSome elderly residents experience cognitive deficits that inhibit their understanding of how to schedule transportation. Both RTD and VIA have ‘travel trainer’ programs that teach riders about available services, how to schedule a ride, and pair riders with a volunteer trainer to physically go through the process of boarding and getting off the bus or van.

Type of Service Demand Response ServiceAccording to the advocates who attended the stakeholder interview, there was no on demand service available in Boulder County, despite the claims of the information provided by DRMAC that there were three transportation providers that provide on demand service. Upon contacting the three organizations, we learned that the RTD Senior Rides serves the exclusive purpose of pre-planned group trips to events and grocery stores; VIA Mobility services can sometimes be reserved as soon as an hour before pickup; and Careful Wheels did not pick up any phone calls throughout an entire day, rendering claims of on demand service invalid.

Curb-to-CurbRTD is the only curb to curb transportation provider in Boulder County, and the majority of elderly riders use it to get to and from work. The RTD buses do have lifts available, but they cannot handle the load that the VIA lifts can.

Door to DoorOf the 10 transportation providers in Boulder County, 6 offer door to door services, including VIA, the most significant provider of transportation services after RTD. For many elderly residents who are no longer functionally mobile due to physical or mental health issues, door-to-door service is a necessity.

Lifts Available7 of the 10 transportation providers in Boulder County have lifts. According to the advocates in the stakeholder interview, VIA had lifts that could accommodate the greatest weight. One advocate cited the case of one regular rider who is both overweight and in a motorized wheelchair who could not ride on the RTD Buses due to weight concerns, but could ride on the smaller VIA buses.

23

RECOMMENDATIONSService Area GapsBased on stakeholder interviews, ridership statistics, and route maps, it is clear that DRMAC should implement a comprehensive program to address transportation gaps in service area. Fortunately, there is ample room for coordination between services like RTD, Via, and CareConnect that can increase geographic coverage while streamlining the transit experience for users.

This approach should consist of three sequential steps: 1) identifying transit “generators” that are frequent destinations for elderly residents; 2) determining appropriate service models for reaching those generators, based on proximity to the generator and to existing routes; and 3) integrating the services of various Boulder County providers in a manner that draws on their respective areas of expertise, thus maximizing their added value and increasing overall efficiency. DRMAC should also explore alternative funding options, some of which are discussed below.

Identify GeneratorsIn order to determine which service models are appropriate, DRMAC must first ascertain the most frequently visited destinations, or transit “generators.” The primary destination for public transit riders in small urban and rural areas is work, which accounts for 34 percent of all trips.9 While riders in the 65+ demographic are less likely to work due to age, labor participation among this population is on the rise10. In addition, local health care centers, regional medical centers, and national hospitals are all major hubs for small urban and rural areas and their transportation centers.

DRMAC should survey elderly riders to determine their most frequent destinations and establish active lines of communication with these institutions to determine when demand for transit to and from these destinations will be highest. Using these ridership statistics, DRAMAC will be able to more effectively determine which service model is appropriate.

Determine Appropriate Service ModelsBased on ridership demographics and stakeholder interviews, a shift toward demand-responsive services would increase overall efficiency if property coordinated with existing fixed route services. A brief overview of the three main service models is outlined below, along with recommendations for how they can fit into a comprehensive plan to expand service are.

• Fixed route services: These are traditional transit routes that operate along a fixed and predetermined course on a regular, established schedule. While these are effective along high-transit corridors where they can transport large numbers of riders efficiently, they are extremely ineffective in rural areas, where both their size and the dispersion of riders. Such routes can derive the most usefulness from rural and displaced riders by coordinating with smaller, demand-oriented modes to pick up riders from “feeder routes” and allow those operators to continue servicing riders in areas without access to a fixed route.

• Route deviation: This is a transit route that responds to passenger requests and deviates to pick-up/drop-off passengers, but still travels along a fixed route otherwise. Such a route may be employed to service passengers in areas where ridership is too limited to necessitate a fixed route, but too large to make pure demand response feasible.

• Demand response: This model is based on a reservation system in which passengers call ahead to reserve a trip to a particular destination. Transit vehicles that service this model are typically smaller than fixed-route buses, but can more easily access remote locations. With much smaller ridership numbers than fixed routes, they are also more costly. Much of these costs can be reduced, however, by eliminating those portions of the trip that are already serviced by fixed-route or route-deviation models.

24

DRMAC should look to generator statistics and rider destination surveys for indicators of which model is appropriate for a particular origin or destination. DRMAC can facilitate coordination by geospatially recording existing route services—sorted by service model and agency—and looking for redundancies once these maps are combined. We recommend transitioning to a zone-based model in which demand response is used in sparsely populated geographic areas as “feeder” routes to more traditional fixed-route zones. This would enable both models to continue doing what they do best, and eliminating the need for demand response options to travel into areas already serviced by more efficient modes.

However, this model does come with costs. While it will likely result in expanded geographic coverage, it will also require riders to transfer more frequently and perhaps increase trip times. We hasten to add that this model may only be ideal during peak times when there will not be long layover times. For this reason, it is perfectly feasible for demand response models to provide door-to-door service when it is convenient to do so—when demand in their geographic zone is low or when availability of fixed-routes to transfer to is limited.

Integrate ServicesIn order to facilitate the most efficient model possible, DRMAC must build on each existing service’s area of expertise. For example:

• RTD has strong system of fixed routes serviced by large buses

• Via has smaller shuttles that can more easily and efficiently reach isolated destinations

• CareConnect has accrued substantial knowledge of healthcare generators frequented by older adults

Because many of the efficiency gains outlined above depend on multiple service models being integrated in a single route, coordination between different service providers is key. For example, a typical trip from rural Boulder County may consist of a Via shuttle picking up scattered residents and delivering them to a transfer point where RTD can take them to the final generator destination. This requires open lines of communication between service operators to make sure transfers occur efficiently. DRMAC can facilitate this communication by creating a uniform communication system that will allow operators to let each other know when and where to expect a particular transfer to occur.

In addition, this coordination will require some sort of revenue sharing for trips that utilize multiple service providers. DRMAC is again in a good position to facilitate negotiations over how revenues will be allocated, whether it be based on time, mileage, or real costs.

Issues of eligibility must also be addressed, as it would be extremely inefficient for a service like CareConnect to simply pass by a prospective but ineligible rider and necessitate a lengthy trip by Via or RTD. Services may have to contemplate expanding their eligibility to include a broader range of riders for the sake of efficiency, perhaps in exchange for additional revenue shares. Again, DRMAC is a good position to facilitate this discussion and reach an equitable solution

Service TypeAfter review of the Demographic Analysis, Mobility Audit, and Stakeholder Interviews, it is clear that DRMAC should implement measures that address transportation gaps in Service Type, specifically in the area of medical transportation. Measures should focus on addressing three key issues: 1) determining the specific types of medical trips that are currently underserved; 2) connecting appropriate providers with gaps in medical transportation service; 3) coordination of the transportation providers into a more integrated, responsive, efficient system.

Determine Underserved Medical Trips VIA and Boulder Care Connect are the main providers of medical transportation outside of emergency medical trips, which are provided by ambulance services. According to the advocates in the stakeholder interviews, a major gap in transportation service are cases of medical urgency, when the patient has a medical appointment one or two days in the future. Currently, it is possible that providers are at full capacity, and cannot schedule these types of trips. Providers should increase capacity in order to provide enhanced service availability, ensuring that patients with urgent medical issues will receive transportation.

Another significant medical transportation gap are trips from residents located in adjacent counties close to the border in the outlying areas of Longmont and Lafayette. The City of Boulder has the majority of the medical facilities in the county, and most medical trips from the adjacent counties are headed there.

25

A final recommendation involves patients undergoing operations that require anesthesia. For liability reasons, BCC cannot provide post operation transportation of these patients. In order to do so, they must purchase liability insurance that will require additional funding.

Connect Providers With Service Gaps Currently, Boulder Care Connect requires trip scheduling one week in advance. With increased funding and volunteer resources, BCC can provide shorter scheduling times that can serve trips of medical urgency. VIA only requires 24 hours advance trip scheduling, but does turn down riders due to lack of availability. Similarly to BCC, increased funding will allow VIA to increase its service capacity to serve trips of medical urgency.

Currently only Boulder Care Connect will travel across county lines. To serve this population, VIA should alter its regulations and policies, and seek additional funds to build the required capacity to provide services in these areas.

Coordinate Medical Transportation ProvidersMore than any other type of trip, medical trips are critical to the safety and wellbeing of Boulder County residents. As such, it is necessary that the providers coordinate their services more efficiently. However, the advocates were skeptical as to DRCOG’s capacity in this area, as they are seen as focused on Denver. Currently, VIA serves as the umbrella organization for the county’s transportation providers, and as such, is best suited to continue and enhance this role. In order to better serve medical transportation needs, the providers should compare their services in order to identify service overlaps and more efficiently make use of their resources.

Service TimeAfter review of the Demographic Analysis, Mobility Audit, and Stakeholder Interviews, it is clear that DRMAC should implement measures that address transportation gaps in Service Time. Three key issues should be addressed: 1) Coordinate with transportation providers to provide more on demand transportation scheduling options; 2) identify transportation providers that can provide more night and weekend transportation options, and implement those programs.

On Demand ServiceFor various reasons, including family emergencies, last minute social calls, medical trips, and others, elderly residents require on demand transportation. Comprehensive on demand service is impossible, but with additional funding, existing transportation providers can begin to provide some on demand transportation services. In order to efficiently use their resources, transportation organizations should identify the times and days of the week when on demand services are most likely to be required, and begin by providing the most critical services before expanding service to include additional times and days.

Nights and WeekendsTransportation providers should compare scheduling options in order to identify overlaps in service, and coordinate which organizations can provide additional night and weekend service. Currently, the only nighttime provider is RTA, but they do not provide door to door service, a requirement of many seniors who cannot get to a bus stop. As the most significant provider after RTA, VIA is the obvious choice to expand into nighttime services, which will require additional funding or cuts to current daytime transportation options. Outside of RTA, VIA operates limited weekend service within Longmont city limits, but weekend, door to door services should be expanded to meet the needs of elderly residents.

26

SOURCES1 Rogers, Andrei. “The Elderly Mobility Transition: Growth, Concentration, and Tempo.” Research on Aging 11.1 (1989): 3-32.

2 Macunovich, Diane K. “Echoes of the Baby Boom and Bust: Recent and Prospective Changes in Living Alone among Elderly Widows in the United States.” Demography 32.1 (1995): 17-28.

3 “Population Forecasts by Age and Gender.” Population Data. Colorado Department of Local Affairs State Demography Office, 2013. Web. 10 Sept. 2013..

4 “Projected Median Age by County: 1990-2040.” Population Totals for Colorado Counties. Colorado Department of Local Affairs State Demography Office, 2013. Web. 10 Sept. 2013. .

5 “Colorado Household Projections: 2000-2040.” Housing and Households. Colorado Department of Local Affairs State Demography Office, 2013. Web. 10 Sept. 2013. .

6 Ibid.

7 “Labor Force Participation by Age and Gender.” Population Totals for Colorado Counties. Colorado Department of Local Affairs State Demography Office, 2013. Web. 10 Sept. 2013. .

8 “Population Forecasts by Age and Gender.” Population Data. Colorado Department of Local Affairs State Demography Office, 2013. Web. 10 Sept. 2013. .

9 “Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys.” American Public Transportation Association, 2007.

10 See p. 2, supra.

27