Transit Analysis Older Adults Adams County, CO Alex Bergeron, Mathieu Menard

2010 Population 443,605 54,688 older adults Older Adults comprise 12.4% of total population

Stakeholder Interview Held October 15, 2013 Two older adults present Two senior center employees present Two interested parties present Question and answer panel format Data from stakeholder interview used for gaps analysis and recommendations (to follow)

Adams County Transit Providers RTD- Fixed Route Access-a-Ride- Tethered to RTD lines Call-n-Ride- Operated by RTD in underserved areas A-Lift- Non-profit, operates in Denver Metro Area of Adams County VIA- Non-profit, operates in Brighton

Trip Purpose Gaps A-Lift limits leisure trip to five miles Assumption is leisure activities require car access If no car/ ride available RTD is only option Recommendations Allow unlimited distance leisure trips throughout service area Increase funding to non-profits

Service Area Gaps RTD does not service low-density parts of Adams County RTD and tethered Access-a-Ride did not serve stakeholders RTD does not serve locally desirable destinations Transfers necessary to access broader Denver Metro Area VIA only serves Brighton in Adams County A-lift only serves “Denver Metro Area”, south-west Adams County Recommendations Expand RTD service Increase funding to non-profits Encourage municipalities to invite non-profits into their community

Service Time Gaps Neither VIA nor A-Lift operate on weekends VIA operates 7:30 A.M.- 5 P.M. on weekdays A-Lift operates 6 A.M.- 6 P.M. on weekdays Recommendations Increase funding to non-profits Expand RTD service

Eligibility Gaps The most contentious set of eligibility requirements is associated with RTD’s Access-a-Ride service Older adults feel outcompeted for seats on RTD Call-n-Ride vehicles and feel as though they are therefore ineligible Recommendations It might be advantageous for RTD to ease its intimidating application requirements RTD could increase its desirability to members of the target community by actually restricting eligibility on its Call-n-Ride service

Type of Service Gaps Access-a-Ride makes fixed routes available to disabled older adults but in a narrow geographic range Vehicles for all services are supportive of stakeholder needs but fleets could be enhanced Recommendations In general, the type of service offered by the four analyzed specialty services seems adequate There is room, however, for improvement in vehicle selection

Affordability Gaps The cost of Access-a-Ride makes it undesirable, especially when compared to other available services Other services are reasonably priced, particularly A-Lift as it is donation based and is often free to low-income riders Recommendations Reducing the cost of Access-a-Ride would make the service seem more attractive to many people It is clear that the VIA and A-Lift services are in many ways philanthropic and should continue charging as they do