transportation gaps analysis : persons with disabilities adams county, colorado
DESCRIPTION
Transportation Gaps Analysis : Persons with Disabilities Adams County, Colorado. Conducted by students of the University of Colorado Denver Masters in Urban Planning Program for the Denver Regional Mobility & Access Council Planning Methods ● URPL 5010-001 ● Fall 2013 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Conducted by students of the University of Colorado Denver Masters in Urban Planning Program for the
Denver Regional Mobility & Access Council
Planning Methods ● URPL 5010-001● Fall 2013Waverly Klaw ● Mario Kuebler ● Laia Mitchell
Transportation Gaps Analysis:Persons with DisabilitiesAdams County, Colorado
Demographic AnalysisPercentage of Persons with Disabilities in Adams County, 2000 Average:
19.2% Highest:
38.8%
Demographic Analysis
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
- 500,000
1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 5,500,000
Population of Colorado from 1980 to 2012
Year
Popu
latio
n
Population increasing in Colorado
Adams County, faster than state average
Number of persons with disabilities increasing
Findings:
Mobility Audit Field Survey RTD Route 31
Federal Boulevard
62nd to 88th Ave. (3 miles)
Lack of Sidewalks
Open Drainage Ditches
Mud, Dirt and Gravel
Uneven, Sloping Sidewalks & Landings
Physical Obstacles
Inadequate Signage and Lighting
Stakeholder InterviewsCoded Stakeholder Responses by Type and Tone October 15, 2:30 to 4:30
Adams County Health and Human Services building
9 stakeholders present
Comment Type Comment Tone Total
Positive Neutral Negative
Service Type 4 4 8 16
Service Area 1 5 9 15
Service Time 1 2 10 13
Affordability 6 3 2 11
Cost 1 5 2 8
Accessibility 1 4 3 8
Trip Purpose 1 2 2 5
Eligibility 1 1 2 4
Efficiency 0 3 1 4
Externalities 1 2 1 4
Alternative Transport 0 1 2 3
Total 17 32 42 91
Key:
Strongly Positive Tone
Neutral Tone
Slightly Negative Tone
Strongly Negative Tone
Gaps AnalysisMajor Gaps identified: No evening and weekend demand-response service such as A-
LIFT and VIA Geographic service area limitations (there is no service in East
Adams County) Required call-ahead scheduling is challenging for users Eligibility documentation process is confusing and difficult to
access RTD fixed-routes are not always accessible or useful
Recommendations
Demand-Response Improve Maps across Provider Websites Coordinate and Extend Demand-Response Service Area Improve Service Time to Include Evening and Weekend Availability Encourage Uniform Policies Promote use of Fuel-efficient, Right-sized Vehicles Encourage RTD-Community Partnerships for Efficiency Expand or Focus RTD Call-and-Ride Expand DRMAC documents to explain RTD Eligibility Process
Recommendations
Fixed-Route Expand Number of Fixed-Routes Increase Access to County Services Address Physical Barriers to Access Improve Urban Design for Mobility Needs Advocate for Fixed-Routes to New Rail Lines