HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Coordination Committee - Agenda - 8/4/2020
(715) 373-6144 Phone/TDD • (715) 373-6130 FAX • www.bayfieldcounty.org • baycodhs@bayfieldcounty.org
Department of Human Services
117 East Fifth Street
P.O. Box 100
Washburn, WI 54891-0100
BAYFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Carla Becker Carrie Linder Sam Ray
Jeff Benton Jeremy Oswald Carol Salimen
Mary Dougherty Beth Probst Perri Shuga
Lori Keefe Rachel Pufall
RE: August, 4th 2020 Transportation Coordinating Committee Meeting
Dear Committee Members:
Please be advised that the quarterly meeting of the Bayfield County Department of Human Services
Aging & Disability Services Advisory Committee will be held on Monday, August 4th, 2020 at 1:00 p.m.
via Microsoft Teams.
Notice is hereby given, in the event the standing committee does not have a quorum, the County
Board Chair or Vice Chair may act as an ex officio member (County ordinance, Chapter 3, section 2-3-1
(c)).
Any person planning to attend who, because of a disability, requires special accommodations, should
contact the Department of Human Services at 715-373-6144, at least 24 hours before the scheduled
meeting time, so appropriate arrangements can be made.
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
AGENDA
1. Call to Order and Introductions
2. Introduction to the Transportation Coordinating Committee
A. History and purpose of the committee
B. Paperwork for committee members
3. Discussion: Reflection Questions
2
A. Values and perspectives
B. Expectations and goals
C. Needs and objectives
4. Process Mapping
A. Introduction to process maps
B. Summarize discussion into the beginning of a process map for this committee
5. Next Meeting Date and Next Steps
6. Motion to Adjourn
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Jenise Swartley
Facilitator of Community Care Networks at CORE Community Resources
c: Bayfield County DHS Transportation Coordinating Committee Members
Purpose:
The Transportation Coordination Committee
is a coalition of transportation partners and riders
working together to improve access to reliable transportation networks
to increase social connectivity, economic prosperity,
and community well-being.
No. 2020-02
2020 Department of Human Services Resolution to
Restructure the Transportation Coordinating Committee
WHEREAS, DHS Resolution No. 2019-04, passed the 22nd day of August 2019
established a Transportation Coordination Committee (TCC) under Wis. Admin. Code
§Trans. 2.10 to develop a plan to address public transportation needs including those
of the elderly and other vulnerable populations served by the Human Services
Department; and
WHEREAS the TTC was established as a subcommittee of the Aging and
Disability Services Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS it is desirable to restructure the TCC as an independent
subcommittee to the Human Services Board; and
WHEREAS, henceforth the TCC will report directly to the Human Services
Board;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Bayfield County Department
of Human Services Board assembled this 25th day of June 2020 does hereby
approve the restructuring of the Transportation Coordinating Committee or TCC to
an independent advisory subcommittee to the Human Services Board.
____________________________
James Crandall, DHS Board Chair
Resolution
Reflection Questions
Please reflect on these questions prior to our first meeting on August 4th at 1 PM. We will be
sharing and discussing our reflections to these questions during that meeting.
Values and Perspectives
1. Why do you care about rural transportation?
2. What perspective(s) do you bring to this committee?
Expectations and Goals
3. What would you like to see this committee accomplish together?
4. What do you expect to be able to contribute to this committee?
5. What are your expectations for this committee?
• How often would you like to meet?
• How would you like to communicate between meetings?
• How would you like to work together to accomplish tasks?
Needs and Objectives
6. What information gathering and presenting needs to happen?
7. Who needs to be involved, and in what ways? Consider how we can communicate and
collaborate with these people.
8. What kinds of support and resources will be necessary? Consider financial costs,
research, outreach, networking, logistics, and more.
2018 Bayfield County Transportation Survey Results
Table #1: Where People Reside & Travel To By Reason for Travel
Travel for:
Residence (#) “Errands” (6A) “Medical Care” (7A) “Other Needs” (8A)
Barnes (7) 71% Hay, 29% I.R. 54% Hay, 18% Ash, 18% D/S 55% Hay, 27% D/S, 18% Ash
Bayfield Area (129) 63% Bay, 21% Ash, 16% Was 85% Ash, 6% R.C., 4% D/S 46% Ash, 22% Bay & Was, 12% D/S
Bell/Corney Area (26) 54% Ash, 46% Was 72% Ash, 16% D/S, 6% I.R 40% Was, 33% Ash, 15% D/S, 11% Bay
Cable (100) 69% Cab, 72% Hay 79% Hay, 20% Ash 50% Hay, 30% Cab, 12% Ash, 9% D/S
Clover/Herb Area (13) 50% Ash, 22% D/S, 17% Was 44% D/S, 35% Ash, 22%, I.R. 30% Ash & D/S, 15% Bay &Was
Delta/Mason Area (175) 80% Ash, 9%, I.R., 6% D/S 79% Ash, 7% D/S 6% Hay & I.R 60% Ash, 17% D/S, 7% Hay&IR
Drummond (54) 56% Cab, 33% Hay, 11% Ash 48% Hay, 43% Ash, 7% D/S 64% Hay, 19% Ash, 15% Cab
Iron River Area (218) 73% I.R., 15% Ash, 12% D/S 48% D/S 34% Ash 17% I.R. 47% D/S, 31% Ash, 18% I.R.
Namakogan (27) 63% Cab, 26% Hay, 11% Ash 58% Ash, 42% Hay 57% Hay, 21% Ash, 17% Cab,
Orienta/Port Wing (58) 56% I.R., 25% Ash, 19% D/S 51% D/S, 28% Ash, 19% I.R. 67% D/S, 20% Ash, 13% I.R.
Red Cliff/Russel (31) 75% Bay, 22% Ash, 3% Was 47% Ash, 47% R.C., 6% D/S 45% Ash, 31% Bay, 14% D/S, 10% W
Washburn (291) 64% Was, 34% Ash, 2% Bay 88% Ash, 6% Dl/S & Was 49% Ash, 21% Was, 16% Bay, 13% D/S
Breakdown of Veterans
The 217 veterans who responded to the survey are scattered throughout Bayfield County.
The breakdown is as follows:
27% live in Washburn area
16% live in the Iron River area
16% live in the Delta/Mason area
11% live in the Cable area
The remaining 30% of the veterans are scattered throughout the county, with between 2% and
5% living in any particular area.
Locations veterans travel to most often for various services.
For Errands: For Medical Care: For Other Services:
28% travel to Ashland 58% travel to Ashland 43% travel to Ashland
20% travel to Iron River 21% travel to Duluth/Superior 21% travel to Dul/Sup
20% travel to Washburn 13% travel to Hayward 13% travel to Hayward
16% travel to Cable 3% travel to Iron River 11% travel to Washburn
8% travel to Bayfield 3% travel to Red Cliff 5% travel to Iron River
5% travel to Hayward 2% travel to Washburn 4% travel to Cable
3% travel to Duluth/Superior 3% travel to Bayfield
Residence by likelihood of using more local transportation services (1C)
Of the 556 respondents who said, they would use one or more local transportation services, if
the services were available:
22% reside in Washburn area
22% reside in the Iron River area
15% reside in Delta/Mason area
11% reside in the Bayfield area
9% reside in the Cable area
7% reside in the Orienta/Port Wing area
5% reside in the Drummond area
3% reside in the Clover/Herbster area
3% reside in the Bell/Cornucopia area
3% reside in the Red Cliff /Russel area
Of the 544 respondents who said, they would use one or more local transportation services, if it
were convenient to schedule pick-up and return trips:
26% reside in Washburn area
22% reside in the Iron River area
15% reside in the Delta/Mason area
9% reside in the Bayfield area
7% reside in the Cable area
6% reside in the Orienta/Port Wing area
3% reside in the Drummond area
3% reside in the Clover/Herbster area
3% reside in the Bell/Cornucopia area
3% reside in the Red Cliff /Russel area
1% reside in the Namakogan area
1% reside in the Barnes area
Table #2: Preferred Service (percentage) by Residence (2C)
For those who said they would use a local transportation service if available (923)
Residence Comm. Van/Bus Taxi/Uber/Lyft Volunteer Driver Veterans Adm. SMV
Barnes 71% 14% 14% 0% 0%
Bayfield Area 59% 27% 10% 1% 3%
Bell/Cornucopia 68% 20% 12% 0% 0%
Cable 56% 28% 12% 3% 1%
Clover/Herbster 71% 19% 5% 5% 0%
Delta/Mason 54% 25% 14% 4% 3%
Drummond 51% 22% 20% 5% 2%
Iron River Area 52% 26% 16% 3% 3%
Namakogan 46% 46% 4% 0% 4%
Orienta/Port Wing 45% 31% 16% 6% 2%
Red Cliff/Russel 64% 16% 3% 6% 10%
Washburn Area 61% 27% 8% 3% 1%
It appears that regardless of where one resides the preferred transportation service is a
Community Van or Bus service, followed by a Taxi-cab, Uber or Lyft service. The third most
preferred (though well behind the first two) service would be a Volunteer Driver/Escort service.
Preferred Days (4C) and Times (5C) by Residence
For those who said they would use a local transportation service if available, there were no
statistical differences between residence and preferred days and times. For example, residence
did not matter in terms of the preference for Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Additionally,
residence did not matter in terms of preference for morning and afternoon services.
Table#3: Employment Status By Where Travel To For Errands
Employment Status Ashland Bayfield Cable Dul/Sup Hayward Iron River Washburn
Retired 31% 8% 12% 5% 7% 20% 18%
Working FT/PT 31% 11% 11% 3% 4% 17% 23%
Not Working Oth. 37% 17% 4% 0% 7% 15% 21%
Table#4: Employment Status By Where Travel To For Medical Care
Employment Status Ashland Dul/Sup Hayward Iron River Red Cliff Washburn
Retired 61% 18% 12% 6% 2% 2%
Working FT/PT 62% 17% 10% 6% 3% 2%
Not Working Oth. 55% 9% 11% 13% 6% 6%
Table #5: Employment Status By Where Travel To For Other Needs
Employment Status Ashland Bayfield Cable Dul/Sup Hayward Iron River Washburn
Retired 40% 5% 5% 22% 12% 7% 9%
Working FT/PT 39% 10% 4% 23% 10% 4% 11%
Not Working Oth. 46% 10% 2% 10% 10% 8% 13%
Tables 3, 4, and 5 show that regardless of travel the reason or employment status, people are
most likely to travel to Ashland for services.
Table #6: Likelihood of Using a Local Transportation Service if Unable to Drive (UAD) by
Residence
Percentages in the table indicate the combined percentage of those who said they would be
either “most” or “somewhat” likely to use a local transportation service if they were
temporarily or permanently unable to drive (UAD).
Residence Temporarily UAD ( 12a) Permanently UAD (1d)
Barnes 75% 80%
Bayfield Area 70% 85%
Bell/Cornucopia 25% 42%
Cable 35% 77%
Clover/Herbster 25% 63%
Delta/Mason 24% 51%
Drummond 17% 64%
Iron River Area 28% 59%
Namakogan 22% 53%
Orienta/Port Wing 29% 57%
Red Cliff/Russel 83% 88%
Washburn Area 71% 88%
The likelihood of using a local transportation service varies by both residence and by time-
period of inability to drive oneself. In a situation in which someone is unable to drive for a year
or less, a majority of residence of Barnes, Bayfield, Red Cliff, and Washburn would likely use a
local transportation service if available. In a situation in which someone was permanently
unable to drive, a majority of residence in all areas of Bayfield County, except for the
Bell/Cornucopia area, would likely use a local transportation service if available.
Key Findings from the 2018 Transportation Service Questionnaire Tri-
County Transit Team (prepared by Kevin Schanning & Jacob DeBruin)
Purpose
The transportation survey was designed to provide information to the Tri County Transit Team
for Ashland, Bayfield and Douglas Counties about transportation services, interests and
capabilities, particularly in the more remote, rural portions of the three counties. Through the
survey process, information was obtained from area residents regarding their interest in utilizing
transportation services now and in the future as their needs and the services themselves evolve.
The following sections of key findings correspond to sections of the survey as it was originally
distributed, except that demographics summaries from Section E are presented first.
Section E: Demographics
✓ When asked about their employment status, 31% (10% decrease compared to 2007
survey) of respondents reported being employed full-time or part-time, 45% reported
being retired and not working (8% increase compared to 2007 survey), and 20% reported
being retired and working or volunteering part-time (9% increase compared to 2007
survey).
✓ The number of respondents who reported being a U.S. military veteran, was 19% (6%
decrease compared to 2007 survey).
✓ Respondent’s annual household annual income before taxes for 2017 varied significantly
with 6% of respondents reporting a household annual income of $10,000 or less (20% of
respondents reporting a household annual income of $19,999 or less, 11% reporting an
annual income between $30,000-39,999 (4% decrease compared to 2007 survey), and
20% reporting their income at $75,000 or more (8% increase compared to 2007 survey).
The most frequently reported income category was $50,000 to $74,999 (23%). This
differs to the 2007 survey, with the most frequently reported income category being
$10,000 to $19,999.
Section A: How Respondents Get Around Locally
✓ The vast majority of respondents (96%) lease or own their own vehicles and have valid
driver’s licenses (96%).
✓ The cities of Ashland is the most frequently traveled to destinations to complete local
errands, receive medical care, and other reasons.
✓ Sixty-two percent of respondents drove a personal vehicle to make local trips
✓ Sixty-four percent of respondents reported that gas price has not affected or changed their
driving habits. Of the respondents who reported that gas prices do affect or change their
driving habits, 35% made fewer trips and 32 percent combined trips.
✓ Most respondents would rely on friends, family members, other household members and
neighbors to meet their transportation needs in the event that respondents would be
temporarily unable to drive themselves to complete errands or access services.
✓ Only 23 percent of respondents reported being very satisfied with locally available
transportation services. The majority (47%) of respondents reported being neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied with these services (6% decrease compared to 2007 survey).
Section B: Respondent’s Knowledge and Use of Local Transportation Services
✓ For the 60% of respondents who answered the question about the one best source of
information about local transportation services the most common responses were
reported: the newspaper (27%), the phonebook (14%), a government service agency
(13%), and word of mouth (11%).
✓ Respondents reported that the most important things they would need to know about local
transportation services are: what services are available where they live (61% [26%
decrease compared to 2007 survey]), do the services travel where I want to go (70%), the
schedule of such services (57% [22% decrease compared to 2007 survey]), and how
much these services would cost (39% [39% decrease compared to 2007 survey]).
✓ The words that best describe a respondent’s community’s current transportation services
that were most selected include: Nonexistent (413, 17%), Accessible (290, 12%),
Inconvenient (217, 8.75%), and Convenient (212, 8.55%).
✓ For the respondents who answer the question concerning the best way(s)to improve
transportation options, common responses include: more information, more accessibility,
and more convenience.
Section C: Priorities for Local Transportation Services
✓ Respondents reported that they would use one or more local transportation services, if
services were available (14%) or if it were convenient to schedule pick-up and return
trips (14%).
✓ Respondents reported that, if available, they were much more likely to use a community
van or public bus service (same as 2007 survey) than use any other service.
✓ The most important trip purposes for respondents to be able to make use of local
transportation services include: medical care provider(s) (587, 53%), shopping (570,
50%), services (post office, hair care, legal, accounting, etc.) (327, 32%), and job (225,
25%).
✓ Respondents reported that they would most likely use a local transportation service
during the week as opposed to the weekend (same for 2007 survey).
✓ Respondents stated they were most likely to use a local transportation service in the
mornings and afternoons (same as 2007 survey).
✓ Most respondents reported that transportation specialists providing “one call does it all”
information about services and options (485, 50%), expansion of existing services so they
would be readily available (430, 46%), and marketing to promote awareness of the local
transportation services that are available (367, 38%).
Section D: Factors that May Limit Travel
✓ Eighty-eight percent of respondents who answered yes or no as to whether age, health,
income, or some other factor currently limits their ability to make local trips
independently reported no. This is different from the total of 81% of respondents who
reported that some factor such as age, health or income currently limit their ability to
make local trips, with the primary causes of their limitation being disability, financial
constraints, and age restrictions, in the 2007 survey.
✓ Sixteen percent of respondents reported that someone else, most frequently a family
member, frequently takes them where they need or want to go (9% decrease compared to
2007 survey).
Section E: Non-demographic Questions
One final question from section E deserves special attention. When asked about how the cost of
transportation services should be charged to the user, 39% of respondents said that fees should be
a percentage of actual costs using a sliding scale based on the rider’s income (4% decrease
compared to 2007 survey.