Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges review of senior transportation model, questions volunteer-driver approach
Summary
A Roseville resident from the Terraces of Roseville told the commission that dial-a-ride wait times and a new reimbursement-based volunteer program create barriers for seniors without family drivers and urged the city to reassess volunteer management and local speed concerns around senior facilities.
During the public-comment period at the Aug. 13 Roseville Senior Commission meeting, a resident who identified herself only as Jennifer described transportation challenges for seniors living at the Terraces of Roseville on Sunrise Avenue and asked the commission to follow up.
Jennifer said the street is "a very, very busy street" and raised concerns about emergency access and ambulance traffic near her community. She told the commission she believes the California Vehicle Code sets a 25 mph default "for schools, residential... and around senior facilities" where a local speed has not been set; the posted limit at her location is 35 mph. She urged the commission and city staff to review speed and safety around senior communities.
Her primary concern was changes to ride programs for seniors. Jennifer described dial-a-ride (Arrow) service as difficult because of long time windows and waits and said a new reimbursement model — which pays 70 cents per mile and places the administrative burden on the senior to recruit and manage drivers — is not serving people who lack family or established volunteer networks. She said a prior approach, in which an organization or agency managed a volunteer pool, better served people who rely on nonfamily volunteer drivers.
Jennifer asked whether liability and waivers could be structured to allow volunteer-coordinated transportation without shifting management to the senior. Commissioners asked follow-up questions while the resident remained at the meeting and encouraged staff to take the concern under advisement; the commission did not take formal action on the matter during the meeting.
Because this issue arose in public comment, staff and commissioners said it may be appropriate for follow-up outside the meeting process and that further information from the city’s transportation program would be needed to determine options.
