HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Coordination Committee - Agenda - 11/4/2020
(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
FROM: Carrie Linder, Aging and Disability Services Manager
DATE: October 28, 2020
RE: TCC Meeting Notice
The Bayfield County Department of Human Services Transportation Coordinating
Committee will meet on Wednesday, November 4, 2020 at 3:30 p.m. Due to
COVID-19, attendance will be remotely via phone by calling 1-866-516-3949 at the
start of the meeting and entering participant code 1642457.
Any person wishing 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 includes: Discussion and Possible Action-Election of Chairman; Discussion
and Possible Action-Election of Vice Chairman; Discussion and Possible Action-Review
of the August 4 and October 7, 2020 Meeting Minutes; Program Presentation – Mobility
Management Program, BART Mobility Manager Shari Nutt; Specialized Transportation
Assistance Program Application – Review of current projects and 2021 application;
2018 Bayfield Transportation Survey Results-Review key findings; Future Meeting
Dates; and other business that may come before the Committee.
cc:
Post (bulletin board and website)
E-Mailed:
Dennis Pocernich, County Board Chair
Mark Abeles Allison, County Administrator
Scott Fibert, County Clerk
Human Services Board
Elizabeth Skulan, BCDHS Director
Management Staff
Sara Wartman, Health Dept. Director
Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources, Inc. (GWAAR)
DCS, Rhinelander
Red Cliff-Tribal Chair
Daily Press
County Journal
K:\Agendas and Minutes\A&D Services Committee\Meeting Notices\2020-11-04 TCC Meeting Notice
(715) 373-6144 Phone/TDD • (715) 373-6130 FAX • www.bayfieldcounty.org • baycodhs@bayfieldcounty.org
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.
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 Salminen
Mary Dougherty Beth Probst Perri Shuga
Lori Keefe Rachel Pufall
RE: November 4th, 2020 Transportation Coordinating Committee Meeting
Dear Committee Members:
Please be advised that the next Transportation Coordinating Committee Meeting will be held on
Wednesday, November 4th, 2020 3:30pm – 5pm via Microsoft Teams.
Join Microsoft Teams Meeting
Learn more about Teams | Meeting options
Roll Call
1-866-516-3949
Pin Code: 1642457
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)).
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
AGENDA
1. Call to order
2. Discussion and Possible Action-Elect Chair
3. Discussion and Possible Action-Elect Vice Chair
4. Discussion and Possible Action-Review of the August 4 and October 7, 2020 Meeting Minutes
2
5. Program Presentation - Mobility Management Program, BART Mobility Manager Shari Nutt
6. Specialized Transportation Assistance Program Application -
Review of current projects and 2021 Application
7. 2018 Bayfield Transportation Survey Results - Review key findings
8. Decide on future meeting dates
9. 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
Bayfield County Transportation Coordinating Committee
August 4, 2020
1 PM
Zoom Video Conference
Committee members present: Carrie Linder, Carla Becker, Jeff Benton, Mary
Dougherty, Jeremy Oswald, Beth Probst, Rachel Pufall, Sam Ray, Carol Salminen,
Perri Shuga-Campbell, Nick Esberner, Jenise Swartley
Committee members excused: Lori O’Keefe
Carrie Linder called the meeting to order at 1:02 PM.
Committee members introduced themselves.
Carrie Linder provided a brief history of the Transportation Coordination
Committee’s (TCC) formation and explained the need for a coordinated response to
specialized transportation needs in Bayfield County.
The TCC will meet every two months initially and then move to an as-needed basis.
The TCC is an advisory committee -- the committee’s recommendations go to the
Human Services Board and then to the County Board.
The TCC’s recommendations will likely be implemented in 2022.
TCC members are eligible for a per diem of $75.00 per meeting and Carrie sent them
the necessary paperwork.
Jenise Swartley, CORE Community Resources, introduced herself and explained her
role as the TCC committee’s coordinator.
The committee members discussed their perspectives and goals re: transportation
issues and the following were common themes: make transportation more
accessible, consolidate information re: existing resources into one spot, coordinate
rides, and research options for our region.
Jenise will gather information re: existing transportation resources in our region and
present them at the October meeting.
Focus of the next meeting: identify gaps and opportunities from the transportation
mapping and elect a chair and vice-chair.
Next meeting: October 7th 3:30 PM
Meeting adjourned at 2:35 PM
Minutes respectfully submitted by Mary Dougherty
1
BAYFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE
MICROSOFT TEAMS MEETING
October 7th, 2020
3:30 PM
Committee Members Present: Carla Becker, Jeff Benton, Mary Dougherty, Jeremy Oswald,
Beth Probst, Rachel Pufall, Sam Ray, Carol Salminen, Perri
Shuga-Campbell, Jenise Swartley, Pat Daoust, Lori Keefe
Committee Members Excused:
Committee Member Absent:
Staff Present: Carrie Linder
Other Present: Pat Daoust
Call to Order and Introductions
Carrie Linder called the meeting to order at 3:32 PM and introductions were made.
Agenda item
2. A. Committee members felt that the current list of transportation options in Bayfield County
was complete.
B. Committee members discussed the County’s public transportation gaps and barriers such
as geographic limitations, limited hours of operation, last minute transportation needs,
weekend access, access to transportation outside of the Odanah to Red Cliff corridor along the
lake, and lack of volunteer drivers.
C. Opportunity for community-wide education re: BART’s accessibility, hours of
operation, access to mobility manager services.
3. A. Discussed the focus of this committee -- possible expansion of BART hours of service,
on-demand transportation like Uber/Lyft, transportation options outside the Odanah to Red Cliff
corridor.
B. The solutions/goals/process map issues are complex -- geographic constraints, physical
constraints, age/disability issues. Review the 2019 survey for possible solutions and goals, as
well as to learn what transportation options are available outside the Odanah to Red Cliff
corridor. Kellie Pederson has a list of the communities represented in the survey.
C. Pat Daoust will ask if Sherrie, BART’s Mobility Manager, can do a presentation at the
November TCC meeting. The committee will review the 2019 transportation survey at the
November TCC meeting.
Future Meeting Date
November 4th at 3:30 PM
Adjournment
Motion by Carrie Linder, second by Mary Dougherty to adjourn at 5:30 PM, motion carried.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Mary Dougherty
DRAFT: Subject to change at
the NEXT meeting
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.