Southeast Minnesota Together Convening Discussion Activity Summary

Transcription

1 Southeast Minnesota Together Convening Discussion Activity Summary November 15, 2018 INTRODUCTION The Southeast Minnesota Regional Transportation Coordinating Council (SE MN RTCC) planning team participated in the Southeast Minnesota Together Convening meeting on November 15, 2018 at Riverland Community College in Austin, Minnesota. The purpose of the meeting was to raise awareness about the planning effort and begin to discuss transportation coordination priorities, gaps in service, and the goals of the SE MN RTCC. The meeting started with a presentation by Kelly Harder, Dakota County Community Services Director on the Dakota County Transportation Coordinating Collaborative, GoDakota. Mary Karlsson then represented the SE MN RTCC planning team and presented a summary of the effort for SE MN, including five key questions for discussion: Do people in your community experience issues with traveling where and when they need? Or do businesses experience issues with customers or employees traveling to their facility? What kind of issues do they face (access, timeliness, cost, etc.)? Has your community reached out to a transportation provider for help with coordinating transportation? What kinds of issues led to the request for help? Were the issues resolved? What kind of conversations has your community had about transportation coordination? Is your community doing transportation coordination that is working well? What are you doing? How do you anticipate that a regional transportation coordinating council could complement or potentially create challenges with your work? Attendees were provided comment sheets and idea boards to generate ideas. They were then instructed to fill out the comment sheets and then discuss their observations with other meeting participants at their tables. They were given the opportunity to populate idea boards with post it notes which contained their prioritizing themes in general categories. The section that follows is a summary of all post its on the idea boards. The individual responses are available as an attachment. SUMMARY Generally, the responses across all categories were often concerned with how transportation can be prioritized for different populations. The most frequent comments regarded prioritization of users, particularly of seniors, children, and the disabled compared to regular users, especially when those populations are either travelling during off peak periods or against the flow to cities that are not common destinations like Rochester. Other comments underlined the importance of providing regular service to the most common users prioritized over off 1

2 peak or specialized services. These comments appeared in almost all categories and were split evenly between the two viewpoints. Comments also frequently recommended coordination with other transportation providers to establish the most efficient service. Suggestions included park and ride services, hotel shuttles, school districts, ride sharing boards, multi modal transportation facilities, and nearby transportation systems in Iowa and Wisconsin. Coordination with other agencies could improve mapping and communicating information about available options for riders travelling to less common destinations, as well as provide the most cost benefit for services. Cost of services or efficiency of cost was mentioned as a key consideration several times. Other themes that were suggested frequently included education and the integration of new technologies with new or existing transportation systems. Concern for educating the public, especially the elderly, was mentioned more than once. This was related to technology opportunities wherein websites could be improved to better aid users, or information available to the public could be made available to specific populations that would need it. The comments also mentioned new technologies and their integration with a transportation system, including mentions of apps like Uber and Lyft and of autonomous vehicles. RESPONSES Issues traveling where and when needed Time/distance issues for rural Distance to providers Limited locations for providers Distance and time cost to transportation asset to go to client and deliver to location and then return trip. Having conversations with employers about what they see with their employees having problems getting to work Issues with single occupancy vehicles parking, equity issues with ownership require to work; how to transition away from single occupancy vehicles in rural MN Cost vs value Travel against the flow or not to/from major centers Cost Workforce needs affordable, reliable transportation also Unmet needs not being looked at too much focus on single vehicle transportation Current transit structure timelines and frequency are a barrier to individuals Ability/willingness to pay and spend time for public transit Inefficiency How do we address risk when mixing demographics (kids on public transit, vulnerable adults in Uber, Lyft driver transporting mentally unstable etc.)? 2

3 Technology can t communicate interdependently Buses limited services; to and from Rochester downtown only Communications with Transportation Providers Consumer control Schedule to address student needs (esp. post secondary students) Include school districts and their bus companies in the conversation Community Conversations About Transportation Small community buses Priority is for regular users Example: Children to and from daycare and school Seniors, disabled and individuals have to wait they are a lower priority Lack of awareness of transportation needs and options in SE MN Better education for public about options available Communication language, how to ride Could we leverage options for getting high school kids to work based learning opportunities? Too many different populations who need transportation assistance: Seniors who need to get to appts (structured timeline) Seniors who need groceries, etc. (less structured, more social) People who need to get to work (but don t have a car) Teens/tweens who need to get to activities often in summer Families who need help transporting children to daycare/preschool Consumers understanding What s available How to access it Immigrant population. Newcomers not speaking English, have trouble getting a driver's license and getting to work Asset efficiency Management of city/county fleet vehicles (stand idle after hours certain times of the year (winter); vehicle maintenance) Road funding mechanisms don t favor active transportation options. No one trains the elderly how to ride bikes, bike fleets Built environment readiness for autonomous vehicles and where are they in this discussion? Public works/engineering is siloed from planning and siloed from community services on this issue 3

4 Keep workforce transportation in the mix, not just community service (i.e., not just people using County human services) Transportation Coordination Can we better incentivize/leverage park and ride and/or hotel shuttles? Coordinate (ride share boards) filling seats to car pool Distance and routes of current (mapping) and who coordinates that? Workforce commuting into region from IA and WI. Is there an effort to coordinate services across borders? Assets in this conversation Retired people who can still drive and have a flexible schedule School buses, church vans, etc. that sit vacant and unused between trips Infrastructure around Uber and Lyft Feasibility of options How will this not become Mayo centric Working to be more multi modal Need for dispatch or website to coordinate One stop shop for transportation needs for all types of clients Lack of understanding of people on how to access assets Plan and coordinate beyond county (and state) borders RTCC Role in Helping Solve Issues for Communities (Regional Transport Coordinating Council Impact) Commissioners will say just another board wasting time. and where is the money for match coming from, staff will say no one consulted our department. Questions for Kelly Harder, Dakota County Budget for Regional Transportation Coordinating Collaborative? Goals # of riders expected, average cost per rider to create your budget? Lack of education for users How to use/access Pay for Eligibility Coordinating council has to engage better with communities/cities/counties as progress is being made 4

5 11/21/2018 SOUTHEASTERN MN REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COUNCIL Southeast MN Together Convening November 15, 2018 Mary Karlsson, Kimley-Horn Proposed Southeast Minnesota Regional Transportation Coordinating Council (SE MN RTCC) Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Goodhue Houston Mower Olmstead Rice Steele Wabasha Winona Figure from Three Rivers RTCC Grant Proposal 1

6 11/21/2018 Current Environment 70+ different transportation providers Agency-sponsored, private for-hire, shuttle, specialized, taxi, public transit, paratransit, ridersharing, volunteer driver Vary in geographic area served, population served, operating hours, capacity, dispatch system, driver training, structure, mission Current Environment Example transportation coordination issues County expense for veteran travel to VA appointments Equipment hampering transportation choices for people with disabilities Employer/workforce priorities that benefit people with public assistance work requirements Redundancy and bureaucracy, territorialism, and limitations of narrow focus on disadvantaged households 2

7 11/21/2018 Current Environment: Bottom Line Service restricted by geographic boundaries Geographic and temporal service gaps Redundancies (equipment, dispatch) Difficult to navigate for customers Fragmented Expensive 2017 Regional Transit Coordination Plan for Southeast Minnesota (Local Human Services-Public Transit Coordination Plan) Coordinate and Consolidate Transportation Services and Resources Mobility Strategies Communication, Training and Organizational Support Other Share Resources Coordinate Dispatch Address Barriers Improve Convenience Maintain Volunteer Drivers Enhance Accessibility Create Regional Coordination Body Improve Awareness of Resources & Programs Maintain Central Website Contract with Common Carrier Develop low-cost partnership with ridesharing or TNC Discussion: Are there opportunities for the RTCC to leverage existing partnerships or strategies currently underway? 3

8 11/21/2018 Why did we apply to start a RTCC? 2017 Regional Transit Coordination Plan Identified convene a regional coordination body as a priority (since 2011) Partners Three Rivers Community Action Southeast Minnesota Center for Independent Living (SEMCIL) Southeast Minnesota Area Agency on Aging (SEMAAA) Human Services Directors for Region 10 Rochester-Olmstead Council of Governments Southeast MN Together SEMCAC MnDOT, DHS, MN Council on Transportation Access (MCOTA) Fill gaps, streamline access, provide more options for where and when to travel What is a Regional Transportation Coordinating Council? Ongoing, local organization Support from Minnesota Council on Transportation Access (MCOTA), MnDOT, and Minnesota Department of Human Services Delivers effective transportation coordination Transportation providers, service agents, and private sector Benefits everyone Including transportation disadvantaged, e.g., people with disabilities, older adults, people with low incomes, and military veterans 4

9 11/21/2018 What will an RTCC do? Identify gaps, redundancies, and service inefficiencies Work to address challenges of current system Develop solutions toward providing more safe, efficient, affordable regional transportation service Streamline access Work to decrease costs for riders and providers Develop regional policies and procedures Coordinate grant and funding opportunities Other? RTCC Start-Up Process Phase 1 Organizational planning and development July 1, 2018 June 30, 2019 Phase 2 Organizational implementation Start delivering improvements After concluding Phase 1 (e.g., July 1, 2019+) 5

10 11/21/2018 Current Phase Organizational Planning/Development Identify geographic region served Articulate goals and objectives Describe how the RTCC will help meet the needs/strategies identified in the 2017 Regional Transit Coordination Plan for Southeast Minnesota Membership, organizational structure, bylaws Organizational resources for implementation Annual budget proposal and funding scheme, including how a 15-20% local match will provided to leverage MnDOT grants Work plan of activities for Relationships SE MN RTCC Organizational Framework and Implementation Plan Financial Plan How will the RTCC function? Meetings of administrative body composed of representatives Collaborate toward solutions Make formal recommendations to MnDOT Set regional policies and protocols Structural and operational details to be established in Phase 1: Organizational Planning and Development 6

11 11/21/2018 How will the RTCC be funded? Initial budget split between MnDOT (80%- 85%) and local match (20%-15%) MnDOT will continue to be involved in RTCC administration, will not provide additional funding for service Stakeholders and partners will provide local match Total budget will depend on work program (volunteer programs, travel training, vehicle sharing, call center, etc.) What can I do? Share your community s or organization s needs and concerns Provide support from your community s or organization s leadership Serve on or engage with SE MN RTCC Share Your Thoughts Jennifer Prins, Three Rivers Community Action jprins@threeriverscap.org, Mary Karlsson, Kimley-Horn mary.karlsson@kimley-horn.com,

12 11/21/2018 Discussion Questions Do people in your community experience issues with traveling where and when they need? Or do businesses experience issues with customers or employees traveling to their facility? What kind of issues do they face (access, timeliness, cost, etc.)? Has your community reached out to a transportation provider for help with coordinating transportation? What kinds of issues led to the request for help? Were the issues resolved? What kind of conversations has your community had about transportation coordination? Is your community doing transportation coordination that is working well? What are you doing? How do you anticipate that a regional transportation coordinating council could complement or potentially create challenges with your work? 8

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74