National Academies Press: OpenBook

Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services (2004)

Chapter: Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models

« Previous: Section III: Techniques For Improving Current Coordination Efforts
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 179
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 180
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 181
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 182
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 183
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 184
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 185
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 186
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 187
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 188
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 189
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 190
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 191
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 192
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 193
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 194
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 195
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 196
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 197
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 198
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 199
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 200
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 201
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 202
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 203
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 204
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 205
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 206
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 207
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 208
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 209
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 210
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 211
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 212
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 213
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 214
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 215
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 216
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 217
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 218
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 219
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 220
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 221
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 222
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 223
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 224
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 225
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 226
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 227
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 228
Page 229
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 229
Page 230
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 230
Page 231
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 231
Page 232
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 232
Page 233
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 233
Page 234
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 234
Page 235
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 235
Page 236
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 236
Page 237
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 237
Page 238
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 238
Page 239
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 239
Page 240
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 240
Page 241
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 241
Page 242
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 242
Page 243
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 243
Page 244
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 244
Page 245
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 245
Page 246
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 246
Page 247
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 247
Page 248
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 248
Page 249
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 249
Page 250
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 250
Page 251
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 251
Page 252
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 252
Page 253
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 253
Page 254
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 254
Page 255
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 255
Page 256
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 256
Page 257
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 257
Page 258
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 258
Page 259
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 259
Page 260
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 260
Page 261
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 261
Page 262
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 262
Page 263
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 263
Page 264
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 264
Page 265
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 265
Page 266
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 266
Page 267
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 267
Page 268
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 268
Page 269
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 269
Page 270
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 270
Page 271
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 271
Page 272
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 272
Page 273
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 273
Page 274
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 274
Page 275
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 275
Page 276
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 276
Page 277
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 277
Page 278
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 278
Page 279
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 279
Page 280
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 280
Page 281
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 281
Page 282
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 282
Page 283
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 283
Page 284
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 284
Page 285
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 285
Page 286
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 286
Page 287
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 287
Page 288
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 288
Page 289
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 289
Page 290
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 290
Page 291
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 291
Page 292
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 292
Page 293
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 293
Page 294
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 294
Page 295
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 295
Page 296
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 296
Page 297
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 297
Page 298
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 298
Page 299
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 299
Page 300
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 300
Page 301
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 301
Page 302
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 302
Page 303
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 303
Page 304
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 304
Page 305
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 305
Page 306
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 306
Page 307
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 307
Page 308
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 308
Page 309
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 309
Page 310
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 310
Page 311
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 311
Page 312
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 312
Page 313
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 313
Page 314
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 314
Page 315
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 315
Page 316
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 316
Page 317
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 317
Page 318
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 318
Page 319
Suggested Citation:"Section IV: Casebook Of State and Local Coordination Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13751.
×
Page 319

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Section IV Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models 185 CASEBOOK OF STATE AND LOCAL COORDINATION MODELS This fourth component of the Toolkit includes a “casebook” of case studies of successful state and local models of coordinated transportation efforts. This section begins with information gained from a survey of the coordination efforts in all 50 states. Elements of successful state coordination efforts are examined, as are common problems and solutions. The second chapter in this section provides an in-depth look at 29 specific local communities, including those of Native American examples. Benefits of coordinating transportation in rural communities, challenges and opportunities, and recommendations for success are presented from interviews with the directors of local coordinated transportation services. Detailed information is provided on each case, including service types, areas and persons served, ridership and expenses, major funding sources used, and coordinating agencies. Section IV

Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 187 MODEL PROCESSES FOR STATEWIDE COORDINATION MODEL PROCESSES FOR STATEWIDE COORDINATION All states were contacted to assess the level of coordination for their state and to ask about important coordination-related issues facing their state. Information was received from every state and several responded with a great deal of information on coordinated transportation services in their state. This chapter describes coordination activities on a national basis, based on the information gathered, followed by an in-depth examination of the coordination efforts of 10 states. THE NATIONAL COORDINATION PICTURE All of the state coordination contacts (100 percent) reported that their state encouraged coordination. (See Table 10.) Ninety percent of the respondents reported that their state was involved with coordination. Both of these numbers are encouraging, as they show that most states are at least aware of the potential benefits to be realized from coordination. Even more encouraging is the fact that nearly one-half of the states (46 percent) have a coordinating body in place. Although only 38 percent of the states have passed legislation requiring coordination, 57 percent of those with coordinating bodies have passed such legislation. Just over one-fifth of all states (22 percent) have adopted a coordination plan, while 43 percent of those with coordinating bodies have done so. Although there is no guarantee that the appointment of a coordinating body will lead to future coordination successes, it is clear that the establishment of a coordinating body is a major step in the process. Chapter 7 . . . the establishment of a coordinating body is a major step in the process. Table 10 reports that all States encouraged coordination.

188 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV State Encourage Involved w/ Passed Coordinating Regular Meetings? Adopted n Plan? Statewide Medicaid ALABAMA ALASKA ARIZONA ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE FLORIDA GEORGIA HAWAII IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING % Responding Yes 100% 90% 38% 46% 40% 22% 18% Every state responded to the research team’s questionnaire Coordination? Coordination? Legislation? Council/ Coordinatio Brokerage? Board? Table 10: STATE COORDINATION ACTIVITIES

Table 10 shows state coordination activities for all 50 states. The table shows that most states encourage coordination and are actively involved in some aspect of the process. Kentucky, Rhode Island, and Vermont are notable for being involved in all aspects of coordination. Coordination activities have been implemented in various ways across the various states. Three main techniques are by legislation, by executive order, or through less formal agreements, committees, or working groups. Table 11 shows the primary coordination mechanism for various states and the Federal Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. As shown in the table, interagency agreements and other informal arrangements are the most frequent institutional tools for coordination, followed closely by coordination legislation; executive orders are relatively rare. ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL COORDINATION EFFORTS Several common elements of success emerged from examining the results of the national survey and the practices of the most successful states. These ideas/actions/items have proven to be effective and essential components of the coordination process and could be applied to coordination efforts in other states. Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 189 Several common elements . . . have proven to be essential components of the coordination process . . .

190 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV Table 11: HOW COORDINATION ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED Source of Authority for Coordination States or Agencies Using this Technique Legislation Arkansas California Florida Idaho Iowa Kansas Maine Missouri Pennsylvania South Carolina Texas Virginia Executive Order Alabama Louisiana Maryland North Carolina Interagency agreement/committee/Working Group US DOT / US DHHS Georgia Kentucky Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico North Dakota Ohio Oregon Tennessee Utah

Specific Support for Coordination The first category of successful strategies needs to be that of general and specific support for coordination. Key items in this list would include ✦ Coordination encouragement or requirements in legislation or regulation, such as in – State laws in many states including Florida, North Carolina, Washington, Iowa, California, Pennsylvania, and others, totaling 38 percent of all 50 states. (A good example of such legislation is shown in Appendix I.) – Executive orders. ✦ Interagency coordinating councils or boards within 46 percent of the states. ✦ Instructions and encouragement from state agencies supporting the coordination of the transportation activities of their grantees. The establishment of regional meetings to discuss specific coordination plans within states (such as the regional coordination meetings spearheaded by FTA in 1998, 1999, and 2002). Quality Control Standards, Oversight, and Monitoring Florida’s Committee for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) sets the standard for quality control with clearly defined standards across the board, thorough reporting, and extensive oversight and monitoring. Their Quality Assurance Program is especially important because they contract with private agencies for over 43 million trips annually. Florida uses local coordinating board meetings to monitor their Community Transportation Coordinators’ (CTCs’) financial performance and payments to subcontractors. Florida conducts annual reviews of local CTCs in order to refine policies and standards. The state also administers an ombudsman program, which provides a repository for customer complaints and a forum for grievance procedures. In addition, Florida contracts with an accounting firm to monitor nonpayment issues and to conduct audits of the rates billed to the CTD and to conduct financial reviews of the CTD itself. Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 191

Technical Assistance Nearly every state involved with coordination provides technical assistance to local officials and transit operators. Florida provides technical assistance at a level unmatched by any other state. In addition to driver safety training and CPR, Florida provides first aid training, driver sensitivity training, and passenger assistance training. For coordination officials, Florida provides management training, planning guidelines, contract management guidelines, quality assurance reviews, operational reviews, financial evaluations, employee drug testing programs, and assistance with Federal guidelines. Establish Guiding Principles Early in Process The State of Washington has established a comprehensive, easily understood set of guiding principles for its coordination effort. These principles set a uniform standard of quality and service for the statewide transportation network, and the standard was established in the legislative process and written into the legislation. All subsequent coordination activities and decisions have been governed by these principles. The first principle is simply stated but carries a great deal of weight. It states that “Organizations serving persons with special transportation needs share responsibility for ensuring that their customers can access services.” This guiding principle sets the tone for the entire coordination effort in Washington State by putting the needs of the client above any operational issues. Officials can point to it anytime there is a “turf” dispute or whenever there is an argument over responsibility. Extensive Local Planning Process Several states, such as North Carolina, New Jersey, Iowa, and Maryland employ an extensive local planning process as part of their coordination efforts. These include the community transportation service planning process and the transportation advisory boards in North Carolina, the interagency steering committees in New Jersey, the technical advisory committees and policy boards in Iowa, and the local coordinating committees in Maryland. 192 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV Florida provides technical assistance at a level that is unmatched by any other state. Several states support an extensive local planning process. “Organizations serving persons with special transportation needs share responsibility for ensuring that their customers can access services.”

Comprehensive System Vermont has built a statewide coordinated transportation system that encompasses all modes of transit, all degrees of urbanization (i.e., rural, urban, and suburban), and all potential trip purposes including Medicaid and Welfare to Work. No other state can point to a transportation system that is so comprehensive and completely integrated from top to bottom. The key factor in the development of this statewide transportation network was the establishment of the Vermont Public Transit Association in 1986. The VPTA is a private nonprofit corporation that serves the purpose of a statewide coordinating body. It provides information to transit providers and policymakers, acts as an advocate for transit, and works to develop and coordinate transit services statewide. State DOT Assistance with “Selling” Coordination The Iowa DOT is working with the Iowa Department of Health on a series of presentations designed to convey the benefits of coordination to health care providers. The Iowa DOT has also produced a video entitled “Iowa Coordination Pledge” that is available to the transit providers in the state. Iowa coordination officials say that the DOT marketing efforts have been very helpful. Input from Nontransit Agencies Oregon’s coordination planning process is unique because it involves several agencies that are seldom considered transit related. The governor has appointed representatives from the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Corrections, and Housing and Community Services to participate in the development of the coordination plan, and their presence has been extremely beneficial. They have created many new partnerships and motivated other representatives to rethink their views of how transit relates to their community. In addition, they have rethought the ways in which transit relates to their agencies and have re- examined their own policies to make them more transit friendly. Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 193 Vermont has built a transportation system that is comprehensive and completely integrated. Iowa DOT produced a video promoting coordination. Oregon’s coordination planning process is unique in including many departments.

Handbooks and Guidebooks Ohio and Maryland have both experienced a great deal of success with the publication of handbooks and guidebooks. The publications provide technical assistance to local systems and officials on the coordination process and have become very popular. Ohio, for example, has distributed over 1,200 copies of its 1997 publication, “A Handbook for Coordinating Transportation Services.” Demonstration Projects The Ohio coordination process made extensive use of demonstration projects, especially very early on. The demonstration projects in Richland County served as a test bed for the statewide effort, allowing the testing of ideas for addressing state regulations and policies that were seen as barriers to coordination. Areas Where Additional Assistance Is Needed The major area where additional assistance is needed, even in states that actively encourage coordination, is that of coordination incentives. Although such incentives are now found infrequently at the state level, transportation operators have a keen interest in seeing such incentives come into place, as they most vocally reported in responses to surveys conducted for this project, as well as at the July 1, 1998 meeting of the Advisory Panel to the HHS/U.S. DOT Transportation Planning Workgroup. The kinds of incentives that states have recommended include ✦ Funding for both coordination planning and operations; ✦ “Bonus points” that would favor coordinated systems over non- coordinated systems in funding applications; ✦ Additional funding for the most cost-effective operations; ✦ Coordination requirements inserted into grant applications; and 194 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV Ohio and Maryland have both experienced a great deal of success with handbooks. Transportation operators have a keen interest in seeing Coordination Incentives come into place. Ohio is making a statewide effort to address barriers to coordination.

✦ Investigation of how to implement disincentives to uncoordinated planning and operations (Burkhardt, 1998). COMMON PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS Coordination efforts do not always run smoothly. As can be imagined, when one begins reallocating resources and re-assigning responsibility statewide, individuals and agencies can sometimes feel threatened. Turf battles can result, necessitating substantial amounts of time and hard work. Beyond that, complex problems may affect coordination efforts, such as working with program regulations attached to specific funding sources, be they state or Federal regulations. The following discussion presents some commonly cited problems and solutions found in the course of this study. Medicaid Funding Many states (most notably Florida) have experienced problems with Medicaid co-payments and reductions in nonemergency Medicaid transportation funding. (This is now also a serious problem in Colorado and California.) In response to these problems, Florida has created a Medicaid committee in cooperation with the Agency on Health Care Administration. Together, they have developed an action plan and a best practices handbook for nonemergency Medicaid transportation. The action plan was scheduled to be implemented in the year 2002 through a process of joint statewide training, which was also to include an updated Medicaid Transportation Manual. Vehicle Standards Washington State and Maryland both cited a lack of vehicle standards as a barrier to coordination. The lack of standards prevents vehicle sharing among agencies and, in some cases, it prevents ride sharing among agency clients. Maryland, in response to this problem, has included state-sanctioned standards for vehicles and drivers in its forthcoming 5-year plan. Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 195 Nonemergency Medicaid transportation funding has experienced serious reductions in several states. The lack of standards prevents vehicle sharing among agencies . . .

Problems with Trip Costs in Coordinated Transportation Systems North Carolina and Vermont reported that their local agencies were experiencing problems with trip costs in coordinated systems. In some cases, human service agencies that once provided transportation “in house” are now purchasing it from a coordinated system. In other cases, the local transit provider had funding problems. In North Carolina, state DOT officials are meeting with providers to discuss ways of lowering insurance and other costs. They also meet with human service agencies and help them calculate the actual costs of providing in house transportation, which is usually much higher than they previously thought. In Vermont, VPTA officials try to steer providers away from searching for new funding and toward making more efficient use of the funds they already have. To that end, Vermont offers its transit providers training in cost allocation and budgeting. Problems with Synchronizing Funding Timelines One of the touted benefits of coordination is the ability to combine funding sources and to fund projects from multiple sources. New Jersey and Maryland both pointed to problems with synchronizing the timing of these funding sources to coincide with project schedules. Maryland intends to eventually coordinate all funding through a single source, but is in need of a short-term solution. New Jersey is having serious problems coordinating Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and TANF funding with project timelines, and they are currently working with Federal officials to alleviate these problems. Lack of Administrative Funds for Coordination Kansas coordination officials pointed to an almost total lack of administrative funds as a major barrier to coordination. Federal administrative funds are available to human service agencies, but these agencies do not necessarily want to share their administrative personnel (or money) with the coordinated transportation systems. Section 5311 funds are supposed to provide for administrative costs, but some states choose not to spend them in this manner. Kansas coordination officials are working with the state to try to solve these funding problems, but no solution is imminent. 196 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV Vermont is making more efficient use of funds the state already has. A benefit of coordination is the ability to combine funding sources and to fund projects from multiple sources.

Head Start Vehicles Iowa coordination officials point out that, starting in 2006, all Head Start clients will have to be transported in school buses. This will cause problems for many statewide coordinated systems, such as in Iowa, where Head Start funds over 25 percent of the coordinated trips. Chapter 2 has a more detailed explanation of this problem. Confidentiality Issues Clients of coordinated systems in Ohio expressed concern that personal medical information was being shared without safeguards or permission. They also complained about having to provide this information again and again. In addition, transit providers were having problems because human service agencies, citing confidentiality rules, frequently refused to share client information. Overall, confidentiality became a very serious barrier to coordination in Ohio. In 1994, the Ohio Family and Children First Initiative staff formed a Confidentiality Work Group for the purpose of tackling this issue. Their goal was to provide a method for agencies to share essential client information, while providing privacy safeguards. They developed the Member Agreement for Information Sharing, which allows sharing of client information only for the purpose of improving the quality, availability, efficiency, or coordination of service. The agreement also specifies how the information will not be used and includes conditions of amendment and termination. The member agreement also requires a consent-for-release form from the client or his or her parent or guardian. STATEWIDE COORDINATION PROFILES In the responses to the survey of state coordination activities, several states seemed to be highly committed to the coordination process, more so than the average state. Some of these states have been involved with coordination since the early 1980s, while others began their statewide coordination process less than 5 years ago. Some have mature statewide coordinated transportation systems with years of operation, while others Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 197 Confidentiality had become a very serious barrier to coordination. See Chapter 2 for information about Head Start transportation coordination.

have not yet adopted a coordination plan. These states not only responded to the questionnaire, but they provided additional information such as statewide coordination plans, local coordination handbooks, and various other sources of information. The common theme for all of these efforts is the overall commitment to the idea of coordination, and the comprehensive scope of their vision. 198 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Florida has long been at the forefront of innovative thinking with regard to public transportation, especially for persons who have disabilities or are elderly. Long before most states had considered the idea of coordinated transportation, Florida was already moving forward with its Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) program. The TD program was established in 1979 to provide “efficient, cost-effective and quality transportation services for persons with disabilities, elderly persons, and at-risk children with no other transportation.” TD services are provided through a “coordination of multiple funding sources at the local level” where “limited funds are maximized to provide citizen transportation.” Since 1989, the Independent Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) has administered the Transportation Disadvantaged program. The CTD is the state-level policy board responsible for the overall implementation of TD services. The CTD appoints a local coordinating board for each county, usually contracting with an MPO or other local planning agency. The local coordinating board is responsible for appointing, evaluating, and generally overseeing the community transportation coordinator (CTC) in each county. Local coordinating boards also provide local assistance to the CTCs, identifying needs and providing information, advice, and direction. The CTC is responsible for the actual delivery of transportation services for the disadvantaged residents of a county and may provide TD services directly or contract with local providers through competitive procurement processes. Funding is provided by the TD trust fund, which receives $24 million per year (this amount has not been increased in 8 years!) and is administered by the TD Commission. The $24 million comes from the Public Transit Block Grant Program, which was established in 1990. The TD program has succeeded in providing cost-effective service and improving uniform standards of quality for service through its quality assurance program. The program has also improved oversight and accountability for the participating agencies; this is important given that 86 percent of the 51 million annual TD trips are provided by private-sector agencies. Despite the overwhelming success of the TD program, Florida recognizes that there is still much work to be done. TD officials estimate that over 1.6 million trips were not provided last year because of lack of funding and that this number of unmet trips is growing. Currently, TD officials are working to find ways of meeting those unserved needs, through legislative and other efforts. In addition to the unmet needs, other difficulties are facing the Florida TD Commission: ✦ Lack of funding for nonagency-sponsored trips, ✦ Rising costs of gasoline and insurance, ✦ Medicaid copay mandates, and ✦ Reduction in the funding of Medicaid nonemergency transportation. Florida is taking several steps to address these issues. A Medicaid committee has been established within the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged and is working to eliminate the Medicaid copayment and to maintain Medicaid funding at the current level. The committee also will work with the Agency for Health Care Administration to develop an action plan and a best practices handbook for dealing with nonemergency Medicaid transportation funding issues. Florida provides extensive technical assistance to the CTC in each county. Florida’s TD program provides courses in CPR, first aid, driver safety, passenger assistance, and driver sensitivity. For CTC officials, the TD program provides guidelines for planning, program management training, contract management, quality assurance reviews, operational reviews, financial evaluations, drug testing of employees, and information on Federal guidelines. Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 199 Florida

Washington In 1998, statewide special-needs transportation coordination became a reality in Washington with the passage of Chapter 47.06B RCW by the state legislature. The legislation, entitled “Coordinating Special Needs Transportation,” provided for the inception of the Program for Agency Coordinated Transportation (PACT), and the formation of the Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation (ACCT). The creation of PACT was intended to “increase efficiency, reduce waste and duplication, enable people to access social and health services, provide a basic level of mobility, and extend and improve transportation services to people with special transportation needs.” According to the legislation, PACT employs a statewide approach to coordination that will encourage the development of community-based coordinated transportation systems according to the following guiding principles: ✦ Organizations serving persons with special transportation needs share responsibility for ensuring that their customers can access services. ✦ There is a single entry point for consumers. ✦ Consideration is given to transportation costs and providers’ input when decisions are made with respect to siting of facilities or program policy implementation. ✦ Open-market competition is allowed. ✦ Vehicle sharing is allowed. ✦ There should be maximum sharing of operating facilities and administrative services. ✦ Trip sponsors and service providers agree on a process for allocating costs and billing for shared use of vehicles. ✦ There are minimum standards for safety, driver training, maintenance, vehicles, and technology, in order to remove barriers that may prevent sharing vehicles or serving the mix of clients. ✦ Systems are user-friendly and easy to access, regardless of funding structures, eligibility, contracting, and service delivery. ✦ There is continuous improvement of systems through sharing of technology, best practices, and research. ✦ Performance goals and an evaluation process are established that lead to continuous system improvement. The entire list of guiding principles has been included because they can apply to systems at any level of coordination: statewide, regional, or countywide. These principles are at the core of the ACCT coordination effort because they establish a uniform standard of quality and service that applies to all systems in the state. The ACCT is charged with implementing and managing PACT. The ACCT consists of nine voting members and eight nonvoting, legislative members. The voting members include a representative from the governor’s office, two paratransit users, one representative from the Washington Association of Pupil Transportation, one from the Washington State Transit Association, and one from either the Community Transportation Association of the Northwest or the Community Action Council Association. The eight nonvoting members consist of four members of the state House of Representatives and four state Senators. The state Secretary of Transportation serves as the chair. The ACCT is responsible for local planning guidelines, state policy guidelines, facilitating the sharing of information among counties, mediating disputes, developing guidelines for performance measures, developing criteria for monitoring and reporting, providing technical assistance, and reporting to the state legislature. The primary task of the ACCT is selecting a lead agency for each community. The lead agency coordinates with public and private transportation providers, private and non-profit transportation brokers, local governments, and transit users. It operates according to the guidelines of PACT discussed above, and may 200 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

operate as a provider, a broker, or both. The ACCT may require a local government to convene a local transportation-planning forum as a condition for receiving transportation funds. These local community forums are intended to get the local stakeholders involved with the selection of a lead agency, as well as with clarifying roles, identifying functional and geographical boundaries, developing performance measures, and raising any new issues. Neighboring counties are encouraged to combine local planning forums in order to increase intracounty coordination. PACT receives funding from several Federal and state sources, which it then distributes to the lead agencies via the ACCT. Recently, PACT received a $1.7 million Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) grant and secured $4 million in state and Federal funds. In addition, PACT receives funding from the general fund and property taxes. In addition to funding, the ACCT provides several types of technical assistance to counties participating in the coordinated system. ACCT officials offer information on the different approaches to coordination, as well as various strategies for effective communication. They also provide strategic insight on building coalitions and creating alliances. When asked if there was any needed technical assistance that they did not provide, ACCT officials expressed the need for successful examples of coordination approaches. ACCT officials pointed out several difficult issues they are facing in their coordination efforts. The most pressing issue is coming up with the necessary funding to support the coordination efforts. This also involves managing the various categorical funding streams and the regulations that are attached to the funding. In addition, ACCT mentioned problems with differences in vehicle standards, leading to problems with vehicle sharing among agencies. They have also experienced difficulty with getting all involved agencies to participate. Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 201

The State of North Carolina has long been involved with coordinated transportation efforts. In 1978, Governor Jim Hunt signed an executive order that mandated coordination of human service transportation in the State of North Carolina. In doing so, he placed North Carolina at the forefront of coordination efforts nationwide and took an important step toward improving the safety, reliability, and cost-effectiveness of transit and paratransit services throughout his state. The primary purpose of these coordinated systems is to provide high-quality, reliable, and cost-effective human service transportation to core agencies. Core agencies that use human service transportation in North Carolina include county social service departments (for Title IX, Work First, and Medicaid recipients); county, private, and nonprofit programs for the aging; mental health programs; sheltered/vocational workshops; and county health departments. The coordination process begins with a Community Transportation Services Plan or CTSP. The CTSP examines the transportation needs and resources and looks at trends and performance measures over a 5-year period. Each county in North Carolina is required to produce a CTSP every 5 years, and the work is usually completed by contracted outside consultants chosen by the state. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) also assigns an NCDOT employee to assist each county with producing its CTSP and working with an assigned consultant. The NCDOT will sometimes award the contracts to bidders in regional blocks, so that there is a coordinated, regional perspective among the plans for neighboring counties. The transportation advisory board is an important factor in the process of completing a CTSP. A county’s transportation advisory board consists of representatives from transportation providers, human service agencies, transit users, and county government. The board oversees the CTSP process, manages public meetings, and ultimately approves or rejects the final product. Once the CTSP has been approved, the transportation advisory board will oversee the implementation of the plan. Currently 55 human service transportation systems in North Carolina are operating under three types of service arrangements: ✦ Coordinated systems—Two or more service agencies working together through a lead agency to maximize resources and efficiency; ✦ Consolidated systems that provide their own services—Single transportation programs that use their own vehicles and drivers to provide service to various agencies (In most cases, the agencies handle eligibility and screening); and ✦ Consolidated systems contracting for transportation services—Single transportation programs that purchase transportation services and contracts for operations with private transportation companies. For FY 99, coordinated human service agencies in North Carolina spent $8.5 million to provide 623,974 passenger trips and 3.5 million revenue miles of service. At just over $10 per trip, the cost-effectiveness was more than reasonable for a statewide system covering so many rural areas. Despite many successes and accomplishments, some problems currently face the coordination efforts in North Carolina. The primary problem is finding an appropriate funding source for coordinated human service transit. The funding for transit has always come from the state highway fund, which makes it difficult to obtain necessary increases in funding. Transit funding is a very small part of the state highway fund, and any increased human service transit needs are sometimes overlooked or regarded as a very low priority by managers. To address this problem, officials from NCDOT and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services are meeting to discuss other potential sources for funding. 202 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV North Carolina

Another problem is the rising cost of operating coordinated systems. Many human service agencies that previously provided transportation services to their clients are complaining that the cost of participating in the coordinated system is too high. Most of these agencies were unaware of what they had previously been spending in terms of lost person-hours, vehicle maintenance, and fuel costs. Some agencies are also being forced to pay higher insurance costs. NCDOT officials are meeting with transit systems to discuss ways of lowering insurance and other operating costs. Many local systems are complaining about discrepancies between Federal and state regulations that make it difficult to achieve coordination-based efficiency benefits, such as vehicle sharing, pooling funds, and combining trips. Again, NCDOT officials are meeting with local systems, working to find ways to minimize requirements and to consolidate as much as possible to eliminate red tape and other difficulties. Finally, there has been a very high turnover rate among local system directors who are frustrated with the problems discussed above. NCDOT is working with the Institute for Transportation Research (ITRE) to develop a system accreditation program for directors. The agency is also increasing administrative salaries in an effort to retain its best transit personnel. Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 203

In New Jersey, coordination efforts began in 1997 to meet the mobility needs of the participants in the Work First New Jersey program. Each New Jersey county was required to establish an interagency transportation steering committee to develop a community transportation plan. These committees brought together representatives from human service agencies, transit agencies, planning departments, employment services, and non-profit organizations. Each local transportation plan contains four parts: ✦ An introduction to the planning process and a review of local demographic data, ✦ An inventory of local transportation resources, ✦ An examination of any gaps in the provision of local transportation services, and ✦ Locally oriented strategies for transporting Work First clients, low-income individuals, and other transit-dependent persons. The planning process proved to be very successful, and it encouraged the various participants to move away from traditional transit and agency transportation models and toward coordinated community transportation services. Many innovative strategies were presented, including the use of feeder services to connect rural and suburban areas with fixed-route services, expanded dial-a-ride services, the use of brokerages, and improved marketing and outreach efforts. As of 2000, all 21 counties in New Jersey had completed their plans and submitted them to the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and the New Jersey Department of Human Services. This made every county in the state eligible for JARC grants from FTA, Welfare-to-Work grants from the Department of Labor, grants from the NJDOT Transportation Innovation Fund, and Work First New Jersey grants. Since 1999, transit systems in New Jersey have received over $8 million in JARC grants, $4 million from the Transportation Innovation Fund, and $6 million in Work First grants. Representatives from several state agencies (including the Departments of Transportation, Human Services, Labor, and Employment and Training) are working with counties in New Jersey to help them implement their community transportation plans. The county-based steering committees are also beginning the process of updating the community transportation plans. In terms of financing, the State of New Jersey provides outstanding support to its transit systems via the Casino Revenue Fund, created in 1982 through a ballot amendment to the New Jersey constitution. The fund is used to provide additional or expanded services and benefits to senior citizens or persons with disabilities. In 1999, the fund collected $330 million, which was used to fund programs such as Lifeline Credit, property tax reduction, Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled (PAAD), Community and Residential Care, home-delivered meals, and transportation assistance. For the most recent fiscal year, transportation assistance received approximately 7.5 percent of the Casino Revenue Fund, which amounted to $23 million. Eighty-five percent of this money was split among the 21 counties in New Jersey to fund coordinated, countywide paratransit systems and feeder services. Between 8 and 10 percent was spent on improving the accessibility of New Jersey’s bus and rail systems, and the remaining amount was spent on program administration. In 1997, the Casino Revenue Fund paid for 1,794,669 of the 3,805,176 paratransit trips taken statewide, which amounts to 47 percent. The fund also paid for 406 of the 837 paratransit vehicles in service state wide. According to NJDOT officials, the most important coordination issues facing the state involve synchronizing funding mechanisms, timelines, and goals. All of the state and Federal agencies must coordinate plans with respect to when a project begins, when it ends, and what it should set out to accomplish. This task has been especially difficult when trying to coordinate the JARC and TANF funding with a project schedule because of delays in JARC funding. NJDOT officials are working with state and Federal officials to try to alleviate future problems. New Jersey DOT officials are also looking for improved Federal guidelines for reporting. 204 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV New Jersey

In 1992, the Kansas legislature mandated that all recipients of FTA’s Section 5310 and Section 5311 funding must be part of a Coordinated Transit District (CTD) by July 1, 1995. CTDs were established for three major purposes: ✦ Providing transportation services either directly or through a subcontract with eligible agencies, ✦ Enhancing coordination among the transit providers in each district by controlling Federal and state funding through a contract with the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), and ✦ Monitoring and oversight of transit operations within the district to ensure compliance with all applicable state and Federal regulations. Seventy-five transit providers are operating in 15 CTDs that coordinate transit service for the 105 counties in the State of Kansas. The system is operated under the guidance of the Kansas Coordinated Transit District Council, a state-level office with representatives from each CTD. Officials from KDOT, the Department of Aging, the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, and the Commission on Disability Concerns also meet regularly to discuss ways of improving coordination, improving the quality of service provided, and maximizing resources. Kansas is facing several difficult coordination issues. The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services was working toward a statewide Medicaid transportation brokerage last year, but the project was shelved indefinitely. Reductions in funding at the state level led to a redefinition of what constitutes eligible nonemergency Medicaid transportation. The new, more restrictive definition made the statewide brokerage infeasible. There are difficulties with administrative funding in urban and rural areas. Section 5310 funding, provided for human service agencies in urban areas, does not provide any administrative funding. This restriction creates problems for the administrative personnel at the social service agencies because they are expected to handle administrative tasks relating to the 5310-funded vehicles and service, but receive no compensation. In rural areas, the Section 5311 funding is supposed to be used for administrative expenses, but the state refuses to allocate the funds for that purpose. The state provides minimal administrative funding to each CTD—solely for recordkeeping and reporting. This again puts an administrative burden on personnel at the human service agencies. The agencies are reluctant to “share” employees when they think that the state is not providing an equitable amount of funding. Agency transportation will always be provided by human service agencies until there is a source of administrative funding for transit agencies. The only administrative funding currently in the CTDs goes to human service agencies, and it is not intended for transportation purposes. KDOT is meeting with the agencies involved, and they are working on solutions, but these problems will take time to address. In the meantime, agencies and transit providers are looking for their own solutions. The transit providers in Kansas have started an email discussion list to share ideas and solutions to these and other problems. KDOT provides some technical assistance to transit systems and CTDs operating within the state. The statewide drug-testing consortium is probably the most successful program and an excellent example of the benefits afforded through coordination. The state also provides extensive technical assistance for managerial techniques and training. KDOT officials expressed a need for several types of technical assistance. They would like a good set of case studies and examples to demonstrate how to overcome startup costs and difficulties. They would also like a “template” or decision matrix to help systems evaluate whether coordination is the right option for them. Finally, they would like to provide potential participants with sample contracts/agreements for coordination and/or purchase of service. Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 205 Kansas

The coordination effort in the State of Vermont has brought about a statewide system that is unmatched in terms of scope and organization. Vermont’s coordinated system encompasses all modes of transit, covers urban and rural areas, and even includes a statewide brokerage for nonemergency Medicaid transportation, job training, and welfare-to-work clients. The statewide system operates under the Vermont Public Transit Authority (VPTA), a private nonprofit corporation established in 1986 for the purpose of encouraging, developing, and providing transportation services to access employment, education, medical, social, recreational, and other services. The VPTA contracts with nine community transportation agencies to act as coordinating bodies and/or transportation providers for their respective service areas. These agencies are the sole recipients for state and Federal transit funding for their service areas. The VPTA also provides resources, information, and other forms of technical assistance to transit agencies across the state, as well as collecting and reporting statewide data. Community transportation agencies in Vermont can operate as providers, purchasers, brokers, or some combination of the three. These agencies provide (either directly or via contract) general public transit, coordinated human service transportation, complimentary paratransit service for those who are elderly or have disabilities, and nonemergency Medicaid transportation. These agencies may also provide special routes for tourist destinations, Head Start transportation, and special commuter routes. Coordinated human service transportation in Vermont was instituted with the passage of 24 VSA 5090 Human Service Transit. Of interest is the section that states: The secretary of Human Services shall direct agency programs to purchase client transportation through public transit systems in all instances where public transit services are appropriate to client needs and as cost-efficient as other transportation. Since the passage of this legislation, nearly all agency transportation has been provided by the community transportation agencies, which receive all Section 5310 and 5311 funding for their service areas and are responsible for the coordination of service. The Medicaid/Reach Up program provides nonemergency Medicaid transportation to residents of Vermont via a statewide brokerage operation. Agencies in Vermont deliver coordinated transportation services through nine Medicaid brokers statewide (the same nine community transportation agencies), operating under an agreement with the Office of Vermont Health Access. The objective of the Medicaid/Reach Up program is to provide the most cost-effective, appropriate transportation, based on individual needs, medical circumstances, and available community resources. Any resident who is eligible for a Medicaid trip contacts their local broker and schedules a trip. The brokers choose from volunteer drivers, taxi services, and transit agencies, depending on the specifics of the trip. For FY 2001, the Medicaid/Reach Up program provided over 380,000 one-way passenger trips statewide. Thirty-eight percent of these trips were provided with buses, 19 percent by taxi, and 6 percent with vans, which means that less than 50 percent of the trips were provided via transit. In addition to Medicaid transportation, the Medicaid/Reach Up program provides welfare-to-work transportation, transportation to job training, and transportation for other medical purposes. The coordination effort in Vermont is facing several important issues. Some of their transit providers are having difficulty managing their financial resources and maintaining their level of operations. The state wants these providers to focus less on obtaining additional funding and more on maximizing their existing resources. To this end, the state is offering technical assistance in cost allocation and budgeting and training in grant application writing. It is also implementing an electronic application and billing form to relieve some of the paperwork burden. In the past, transit providers in Vermont were given state grant funds with little oversight. In recent years, the state has required a higher standard of accountability and reporting, and 206 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV Vermont

many systems are having difficulty meeting this standard. Some of these systems simply do not have the professional management skills required. Although the state is trying to train and assist the providers with the reporting process (as mentioned above), the assistance has created a significant demand on the time and resources of state personnel. The state is considering reorganizing some of the transit region boundaries and may combine some of the systems in order to reduce overhead expenses and gain greater efficiency with professional management. A more serious problem concerns turf issues created by geographical boundaries and interagency disputes. Public transportation in Vermont grew out of local community action agencies, and these agencies had developed their own service areas. When the transit regions were established in 1986, changes were mandated for everyone involved, and this gave birth to the turf disputes that remain to this day. State officials are concerned that this situation is preventing the state from reaching a higher level of coordination and that riders cannot move freely between transit regions. At this time, the state is still looking for solutions. Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 207

The State of Iowa has been involved with transit coordination since 1976, when the General Assembly mandated in Chapter 601J of the Iowa Code that all public funds for transit must be spent in accordance with the state transit plan. The state transit plan, known as “TransPlan 76,” was released the same year, and contained provisions for the establishment of multicounty regional transportation systems that covered the entire state. The planning agency for each region received state funds for the preparation of regional transit development plans and could then apply for state and Federal transit assistance funding. Chapter 601J was amended in 1984 to require that any entity spending public funding on transportation must coordinate with the designated urban or regional transit system in that area. This essentially established a statewide coordinated system consisting of 16 regional systems. In 1991, Iowa responded to the new ISTEA regulations by extending the scope of its coordination efforts. The state’s 16 regional transit authorities and 8 small urban providers became the direct recipients of Section 16 (5310) funding, which allowed them to combine funding for those who are elderly or have disabilities with the small urban transit and general public transit funding. Local officials representing the cities and counties were allowed to choose whether to remain in their current transit region, join with another region, or partner with other counties to form a new Regional Planning Affiliation (RPA). Currently, 18 regional transit authorities provide service to the State of Iowa. Each authority establishes a transit planning process, which culminates with the review and approval of a regional transportation plan every 5 years. The plans include long-term and short-term strategies for the development of a coordinated, intermodal transportation system. The plans also include an evaluation of the facilities and vehicles available for service, a 20-year forecast of the facilities and service needs, an examination of funding needs for the next 20 years, and a collection of strategies for meeting those needs. Each region has established a technical advisory committee and a policy board to assist and guide the planning process. The technical advisory committee consists of citizens living in the service area who have expertise in the fields of engineering and planning. The policy board comprises local elected officials from the region and has final approval over all transportation plans and projects in the region. State representatives attend all planning and policy meetings to help coordinate the statewide planning efforts. The state DOT is also providing assistance with “selling” the idea of coordination to health care providers and human service agencies. State DOT personnel are working with the Iowa Department of Health on a series of presentations intended to raise awareness among health care agencies and educate them on the benefits of coordination. DOT personnel have also produced a video, “Iowa Coordination Pledge,” which is being distributed by CTAA to interested parties in the state. The major problem facing Iowa’s coordination efforts involves the Head Start program. Iowa officials are concerned about a Head Start regulation that will require Head Start children to be transported exclusively in school buses starting in 2005. Some of the Head Start agencies are already pulling out of the coordinated system and making alternate plans for 2005. Others are expected to follow. Given that Head Start trips account for 20 to 25 percent of the total coordinated trips provided in the state, this would be a tremendous blow to coordinated transportation in Iowa and could jeopardize the economic viability of the entire coordinated system. 208 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV Iowa

In 1996, the State of Oregon recognized that efforts to provide special needs transportation were insufficient to meet existing and projected demand. According to the director of the Oregon Department of Human Services About a third of Oregon citizens have limited mobility because of age, disability, or income. And in 20 of our 36 counties, volunteer and human service agencies provide the only mobility options available. The population served by these smaller groups is growing. We’re not getting ahead of the problem…our job is to try to find a way to reach these people with better service—especially the ones who have the greatest difficulty with mobility. Improved statewide coordination was seen as a way to increase productivity and service without requiring additional resources. As part of his Oregon Strategy for Social Support, Governor Jim Kitzhaber requested representatives from agencies that provide or purchase transportation to participate in a transportation coordination working group charged with developing strategies for coordinating transportation resources in Oregon. The group produced a report, “The Coordination Challenge,” in June 2000, which detailed their recommended strategies for coordination, the benefits of coordination, potential barriers to coordination, and strategies to overcome those barriers. Oregon is now in the next phase of the coordination process—developing the state coordination plan. The governor has appointed representatives from several key agencies to participate in the development of the coordination plan, including Human Services, Veterans, Education, Corrections, Employment, and Housing and Community Services. The inclusion of representatives from agencies not generally associated with specialized transportation, such as veterans and housing, is intentional. In fact, the chairman of the state Agency Transportation Project is from the Department of Housing and Community Services. The chairman believes that the location of housing has a profound effect on how people use transportation and that his agency should work in partnership with transportation agencies when it comes to locating facilities for persons who are elderly or have disabilities. As such, he has a strong interest in the coordination effort. In addition, it may have been a wise choice to select a chairman who had no background in public or specialized transportation, to avoid any questions of bias or favoritism. In a recent interview printed in a state coordination newsletter, members of the state Agency Transportation Project outlined several of their goals and ideas that constitute their vision for the state coordination plan. They included ✦ Seamless interface system—one phone number for trips anywhere in the state; ✦ Efficient and inexpensive service; ✦ Improved intercity service; ✦ Pooling resources among providers; ✦ Coordination of nonprofit agencies, dial-a-ride, local transit systems, and pupil transportation systems; ✦ Improved performance monitoring; and ✦ Flexibility with the solutions. The state coordination plan was scheduled for completion during 2002 and then for approval by the state legislature. There are several current examples of coordinated systems in Oregon. Two Medicaid transportation brokerages operate in the state—Tri Met covers the Portland area and Sunset Empire Transit covers Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 209 Oregon

Clatsop, Columbia, and Tillamook Counties. Tri Met contracts with Paratransit Services, Inc., to operate their brokerage, which has been a great success. The number of trips provided has increased, while actual costs have been cut by 15 percent. The presence of the Medicaid program has also improved the overall quality of private transportation services in the region by raising awareness and encouraging the purchase of accessible vehicles. Sunset Empire Transit operates their brokerage directly and was the first rural Medicaid brokerage in Oregon. They have managed to integrate their services with services provided by Columbia County Public Transit and Tillamook Transit District. The director of Sunset Empire won an innovation award from the Oregon Public Transit Association for her efforts in planning the system. Several other Medicaid brokerages are scheduled to begin operations soon. In September, a brokerage serving Jackson, Josephine, Coos, Curry, and Douglas Counties will begin service, and a brokerage serving Wasco, Hood River, Sherman, Gilliam, and Wheeler Counties is planned for 2004. Eventually, the Oregon Department of Human Services intends for the entire state to be covered by Medicaid brokerages. In addition to the Medicaid brokerages, four coordination demonstration projects, covering eight counties, began in June 2002. The demonstration projects will examine strategies for improving coordination among schools, employers, public and private human service agencies, and transit operators. These strategies include centralized dispatching, coordination of fleets, sharing of resources, and joint planning efforts. Oregon sees the coordination effort as a significant opportunity to improve all aspects of human service transportation in the state. Implementing an effective statewide coordinated transportation system is not a simple process. Oregon has taken many important steps toward this goal and appears to be ready to reach its objectives. The state has established a solid foundation for the coordination effort, which provides needed support to regional and local coordination efforts. In the coming years, as the coordination effort extends to cover the entire state, the benefits should become readily apparent to all involved. 210 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Although there have been coordination activities in Ohio as far back as 1988, the statewide coordination effort began at an FTA-sponsored workshop in Chicago in 1996. Several Federal agencies made presentations on the benefits of coordinated transportation, after which the attendees were guided through the process of setting up an action plan for coordination efforts in their own states. In attendance from Ohio were representatives from the Department of Transportation, Department of Human Services, Department of Aging, and the Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (MRDD). These four agencies, along with representatives from the Governor’s Family and Children Initiative, formed the statewide Transportation Coordination Task Force in July 1996. Since then, the task force has added representatives from the Ohio Department of Development, the Ohio Department of Mental Health, the Ohio Department of Education, the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, the Ohio Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, the Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission, the Ohio Head Start program, and the Governor’s Council on People with Disabilities. The task force has been very active in developing and refining the statewide Coordination Action Plan. One of its major accomplishments was the publication of “A Handbook for Coordinating Transportation Services” in 1997, created in response to the overwhelming number of requests for technical assistance. Over 1,200 copies of the handbook (essentially a “how to” guide for anyone interested in coordination) have been distributed since it was first published. Another important accomplishment was establishing the Ohio Coordination Program (OCP) in 1996. The OCP was established to fund demonstration projects for coordination at the county level. The first demonstration project in Richland County (1996) was very successful and was followed by six other grantees that year. Coordination projects in other counties followed in rapid succession. In 1997, projects included Harrison, Delaware, Carroll, Logan, Mahoning, and Seneca counties. Projects in 1998 included Greene, Huron, Mercer, Muskingum, and Sandusky counties. Projects in 1999 included Clark, Hardin, Highland, Morrow, and Union counties. For 2000, projects included Adams, Licking, and Shelby counties. In 2001, the projects included Fairfield, Coshocton, Holmes, and Vinton counties. To date, 34 counties have received funds from the OCP. In each of the projects, a grantee was designated for each county, and the funds were used to expand the availability of transit service, reduce duplication, and make better use of existing resources. Counties with no transportation service received priority in funding. More recently, the task force has achieved two significant successes in their coordination efforts. First, the Department of Education revised its safety rules governing the use of school buses. The revisions allow for the use of school buses in transporting Ohio Works First participants. Across the country, very few school authorities allow school buses to be used for other forms of transportation. The inclusion of the Department of Education in the task force was a key factor in this accomplishment. Another recent coordination success occurred when the state Rehabilitation Services Commission provided funding to the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) in the amount of $250,000. This marks the first time in history that another state agency has given (not a grant or a loan) funding to ODOT. It may be the first example nationwide as well. The funds are intended to support coordinated transportation and come as a direct result of the state Coordination Task Force’s efforts. Ohio provides outstanding technical assistance to counties that either are looking to coordinate or looking to improve their current coordinated system. ODOT provides two very useful publications, “A Handbook for Coordinating Transportation Services” and “A Guide for Implementing Coordinated Transportation Systems.” Both publications are well organized and easy to understand, and both provide exhaustive amounts of information on any coordination-related issue. ODOT staff members are also responsive to any questions or issues that arise from their counties. Ohio coordination officials mentioned a few coordination-related difficulties that they are working to overcome. Confidentiality requirements have created some problems with transporting certain agency Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 211 Ohio

clients in brokerage systems. These concerns are being addressed with a member agreement and consent release forms that will control exactly how client information is used. There are also specific problems with ridesharing on vehicles belonging to MRDD. It is looking into a waiver for the regulations that are causing the problem. Some counties are having difficulty with the proper interpretation of Federal rules and/or limitations. The state is addressing this through increased educational efforts, both from project coordinators and ODOT staff. There are also the usual turf problems, but these seem to be less prevalent than those found in other states. 212 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

The statewide coordination effort in Maryland began officially in 1997, with Executive Order 01.01.1997.06. The executive order, enacted by Governor Parris Glendening in response to a growing senior population and the Americans with Disabilities Act, established an independent Maryland state Coordinating Committee for Human Service Transportation. The executive order outlined the membership of the coordinating committee as including representatives from the Departments of Transportation, Human Resources, Aging, and Health and Mental Hygiene; a representative from the Governor’s Office on Individuals with Disabilities; and additional members as recommended by the Governor. The primary responsibilities of the coordinating committee include the following: ✦ Examining the transportation needs of those who are elderly or people in need of transportation because of disabilities or for employment, medical visits, training, senior activities, education, or other special programs; ✦ Coordinating Maryland’s human service transportation by working with appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies and with transportation providers, clients, and customers; ✦ Devising a 5-year plan to provide cost-effective, affordable, high-capacity, high-quality, easily understood, safe, and accessible human service transportation; ✦ Serving as a clearinghouse for transportation coordination issues throughout the state, identifying important local and statewide issues, identifying cost saving measures, inventorying resources, and investigating the need for standards for vehicles and drivers. The coordinating committee has met monthly since its inception. One of its first major accomplishments was the hosting of 10 regional Transportation Coordination Forums from February through April 1998. The forums discussed the need for coordination and began the process of identifying needs and resources. One major benefit realized from the forums was the formation of several regional coordinating committees. These regional committees continued to identify needs and resources in their region and to serve an important role in the planning process. Overall, state officials report that support for the regional planning efforts has been extremely successful. Another of the coordinating committee’s major accomplishments was the development of the “Maryland Transportation Coordination Manual” (MTA, 1998). The Manual provides a collection of strategies and objectives for local and regional coordination efforts and has been distributed to transit agencies and human service providers across the state. The coordinating committee has also been successful in obtaining funding from the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program and combining JARC funds with TANF funds to support numerous projects across the state. The most important accomplishment of the coordinating committee will be the completion of the “Five-Year Human Services Transportation Plan,” which was endorsed in draft form by state agencies in 2002. The 5-year plan will address all of the major coordination issues facing the state, as well as addressing many of the specific issues raised by the regional coordinating bodies. Several current issues concerning the coordination effort in Maryland are being addressed by the coordinating committee. The first issue is the desire for a seamless, integrated, easy-to-use system. To reach this objective, Maryland has made a Smart Card system available to all providers in the state, both urban and rural. Another issue concerns problems with trying to coordinate funding from several state agencies. Some providers are reporting problems with the timing of the funding and with conflicting regulations. The state is looking into several solutions, including the use of the regional coordinating bodies to review and coordinate the grant process. The long-term solution will be to coordinate all funding through one state agency. Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 213 Maryland

The most serious barrier to the coordination effort is the difference in standards (in terms of driver training and qualifications, insurance, accessibility, vehicle maintenance and upkeep, and vehicle standards) among the various agencies participating in coordinated systems. These differences in standards could prohibit one agency’s clients from riding in another agency’s vans or prevent one agency’s driver from operating another agency’s vehicles. To address this problem, the coordinating committee has included state-sanctioned standards for driver training, driver qualifications, and all vehicle standards, in the “Five-Year Human Services Transportation Plan.” When asked if any type of technical assistance was needed in Maryland, state officials pointed to two improvements that they would like to see. The first is an easy reference point for learning about coordination efforts in other states. The second is greater leadership on coordination issues at the Federal level, possibly through the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. 214 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

SUMMARY This chapter provided 10 examples of states that are making or have made substantial progress in their statewide coordination efforts. Each example provides insight into the specific techniques and ideas that (along with considerable hard work) helped to make their plans a reality. These techniques can be used when state agencies or personnel are building or fixing their own coordinated systems. State agencies have successfully encouraged and supported coordinated transportation services by ✦ Offering specific support for coordination, including – Encouraging or requiring coordination in legislation or regulation or Executive orders, – Establishing interagency coordinating councils or boards, – Creating a statewide coordinated transportation plan, – Funding local coordinated transportation plans, – Providing instructions and encouragement from state agencies supporting the coordination of the transportation activities of their grantees, and – Conducting regional meetings to discuss coordination and specific coordination plans within the state; ✦ Providing quality control standards, oversight, and monitoring; ✦ Providing technical assistance; ✦ Establishing guiding principles for coordination; ✦ Supporting extensive local planning efforts; ✦ Supporting comprehensive services, including all modes of transit, all degrees of urbanization, and all potential trip purposes; ✦ Providing state DOT assistance with “selling” coordination; ✦ Obtaining input from nontransit agencies; ✦ Providing handbooks and guidebooks; and ✦ Funding, supporting, and evaluating demonstration projects. Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 215

Some of the elements mentioned above, such as quality control standards, technical assistance, and local planning processes, are neither innovative nor groundbreaking. However, they do indicate important areas of emphasis that may not be obvious to a coordination neophyte. The use of handbooks, demonstration projects, and guiding principles is nothing new, but their particular applications in this process can be most helpful. Other elements, such as state DOT assistance with selling the idea of coordination and input from nontransit agencies, are unique and innovative and should be of interest to anyone participating in a coordination effort. The examples of common problems and solutions should be seen as a troubleshooting “repair kit” for a coordinated transportation system. If a community’s transportation system is experiencing difficulties with Medicaid funding or confidentiality issues, for example, one could find a potential solution in these sections, or at least be pointed in the right direction. More serious and systematic problems, such as the Head Start vehicles problem or the lack of administrative funding, may require serious consideration at the Federal or state level. 216 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 217 METHODOLOGY Rural transportation operators were contacted to find local-level coordination strategies that have been beneficial in and applicable to a wide variety of rural communities. First, transportation professionals were contacted for recommendations regarding rural transportation systems considered worthy of examination for the coordination lessons they could offer. Next, the research team made telephone and in-person contacts with these systems. Two key questions addressed in the interviews were ✦ What are the significant coordination issues that you are facing? ✦ What can be done to address these issues? What service and institutional approaches appear appropriate to these issues? Operators were asked about their transportation system and services (e.g., operating, service, performance, equipment data, system characteristics, types of services, contracts, and organizational structure). They were also asked about county or service area characteristics (e.g., location and population), the kinds of coordination in place and being achieved, and the kinds of purchase-of-service agreements and provider contracts in place. Operators were also asked about the coordination development process, including how coordination started and who was involved. Questions were asked about the benefits and problems of coordination and about support that the respondents received from the state and other sources, the kinds of Chapter 8 SUCCESSFUL, INSIGHTFUL, COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN RURAL COMMUNITIES

mistakes they made in the coordination process, and how they recovered from those problems. Finally, operators were asked to identify the best advice they could give to others who were interested in starting or improving coordinated services. Throughout the case studies, several themes emerged. First, coordinating transportation is sometimes a struggle but a worthwhile one. Second, personalities and parochial concerns often play key roles in determining just how much coordination can be accomplished. Third, many benefits can be derived from coordinating transportation services in rural communities, and those who have successfully created coordinated services are eager to share what they have learned from their efforts. Finally, rural transportation providers were extremely eager to share their experiences in a “keys to success” section for operators of rural transportation services in other communities. BENEFITS OF COORDINATED RURAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES In these case studies of rural communities, many specific benefits of coordinating transportation services were cited. The benefits of coordinating transportation often included one or more of these outcomes: ✦ Access to a greater level of funding and to more funding sources; ✦ Access to the specialized expertise of a wide variety of transportation providers and human service agencies; ✦ Access to state agency expertise and support; ✦ Lower trip costs for riders; ✦ Lower trip costs for agencies; ✦ Transportation services provided in areas formerly without service; ✦ Transportation services provided to riders formerly without transportation service (this allows some people to remain independent in their own homes for a longer time than would otherwise have been possible, thus reducing both personal and social costs of unnecessary institutionalization); 218 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

✦ Transportation services available for a wider variety of trip purposes than in the past; ✦ Transportation services available more frequently than in the past; ✦ Greater customer satisfaction with transportation services; ✦ Agency clients travel with a broader segment of society; ✦ An overall increase in the number of trips provided within the community; ✦ Reduced vehicle travel—less duplication of services; ✦ Greater productivity—more riders per vehicle over the entire service period; ✦ Centralization of administration and control; ✦ One-stop shopping for customer access to transportation services available in the community; ✦ Higher quality transportation services (i.e., more timely, more responsive, and more reliable); ✦ Higher quality (i.e., safer) transportation services, resulting from enhanced training programs and more rigorous risk management; ✦ Better access to jobs, health care, and shopping; ✦ Increased activity for local businesses; ✦ Enhanced image, name recognition, and visibility for transportation providers; ✦ Enhanced ability of human service agencies to focus on their primary missions, instead of on transportation; ✦ Stronger support and funding commitments from local elected officials and key leaders in the social service network; ✦ A better match between services and transportation needs; and ✦ Broader community support for maintaining and expanding transportation services. Which of these benefits are achieved in a given community depends strongly on local conditions, including the resources and activities of the transportation providers and other key stakeholders, as well as local political considerations. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 219

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Respondents for the case studies often mentioned a wide range of challenges and opportunities regarding coordinating transportation services in rural areas. The many specific responses fall into relatively few categories: ✦ Funding, ✦ Interpersonal relationships, ✦ Political support and power sharing, ✦ Lack of knowledge about transportation services, and ✦ Understanding coordination. Funding Many respondents would agree with the director who reported that, “By far, the most formidable challenge is securing reliable funding.” Most coordinated systems are implemented with at least some notion of making more efficient use of existing resources, but having enough transportation funding remains a problem for many rural communities. Most coordinated systems tap as many funding sources as possible, but this effort requires substantial effort and resources. As one director reported, “the population to be served has grown, but the money has not.” Another director considered funding to be “the key barrier to successful coordination and consolidation.” Besides the sufficiency of funds, numerous challenges are related to funding. Receiving funds from state offices, insurance companies, and others in a timely fashion is a common problem. The complexity of billing has been noted as a disincentive for coordination and consolidation. The stability of funding from year to year is also a common concern. Competition from other sources—such as road and bridge projects—for scarce public funding is a common complaint. 220 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Interpersonal Relationships Many persons involved in coordination would agree with the assessment that “the greatest barrier has been trying to work with uncooperative people.” There are various reasons people do not want to cooperate—some fear they will lose funding, others do not want to try something new, some just do not understand the potential benefits of coordination, and some do not want to give up their own vehicles. Over time, as persons who are initially reluctant to coordinate see the success of coordinated system operations, they are more likely to participate in coordination activities. Other systems noted that “interpersonal skills are critical. Front line leadership on a daily basis is required.” Political Support and Power Sharing “Yes, indeed,” said one system’s director, “we should have worked more closely with these influential political leaders throughout the coordination process.” Agencies and even entire communities were reluctant to give up control of their own resources in any way (even on a shared-responsibility basis). One of the issues complicating consolidation was how operating costs should be shared by the participating jurisdictions. Should cost sharing be based on population? What constitutes an equitable division of operating costs between unincorporated areas and more urbanized areas? Should cost sharing be based on operating costs per mile, passenger trips per mile, or other factors? The answer appears to be “whatever works in your own community.” Some communities were successful in convincing the partners in coordination that they could keep their independence but still experience the benefits of coordination. One system noted the importance of generating the need to get early commitments from influential political figures and then to reward them with publicity and recognition. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 221

Lack of Knowledge In many areas, it could be said truthfully that “public transportation was a new concept to this rural region, and the residents did not know of the benefits public transportation could offer their communities.” It is important to recognize that “not everybody understands how transportation services will help the community.” Some people had inaccurate, preconceived ideas that the services were only for limited client groups. To educate the residents about public transportation, several systems have written newspaper articles on public transit, made presentations in the community, and advertised through brochures, television, radio, and newspapers. Understanding Coordination A final challenge is that many people who get involved in coordination efforts have only a limited knowledge of what it is all about. Coordination is a lot of work, this effort needs to be ongoing, and results may be slow in coming. It is crucial to recognize that coordination must be seen as beneficial to all of the parties who are potential coordination partners. The need for both a champion and a sparkplug for coordination efforts was also not recognized by many parties as they entered into their initial coordination activities. Coordination support “higher up the chain” was also seen as critical: not all local services thought that they had sufficient support from state agencies. Working within the context of these understandings often leads to much greater success in coordinating local resources. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUCCESS Representatives of the 29 coordinated rural transportation services interviewed had considerable wisdom to share. According to these rural system operators, the factors presented in this section best represent their reasons for success in coordinating transportation services. Many of these factors are presented here in the original words of the system operators who were interviewed; some recommendations have been 222 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

edited for additional clarity. Some recommendations are generally applicable to many localities; the applicability of other suggestions may depend on specific conditions or situations. Although some suggestions apply to many parts of the coordination process, they have been categorized for clarity into four main headings: ✦ Getting Started, ✦ Coordinating with Others, ✦ Developing Plans for Services, and ✦ Operating and Managing Services. Getting Started ✦ Get started right away, but be patient in the process. Don’t procrastinate in starting the coordination process, but invest time to find out the best way to set up and implement the system so you can provide quality service. It takes time for people to develop trust and confidence in each other and to work together and make compromises. ✦ Join forces with agencies that are committed to coordinated transportation and have access to funding. ✦ Know the pros and cons of coordination. Make these pros and cons clear to potential partners before you get started. ✦ Be realistic. Don’t make promises you can’t keep. ✦ Build trust and a knowledge base among coalition members; this is crucial. Work diligently to get to know the other agencies and transportation providers in the area early on in the coordination process. Developing a strong base of knowledge among providers allows greater success in working together creatively and effectively. ✦ Search for consensus. As coordination begins, everyone may agree there is a need for transportation, but they may disagree on how to meet that need or what the priorities are. If leaders can be tapped who recognize that consensus on the need for transportation exists, they can direct coordination’s efforts to that end when disagreements arise. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 223

✦ Work with individuals and agencies committed to the project and realize it is not always possible to win everyone over. ✦ Do not stop when you encounter roadblocks. For example, if coordination efforts meet policy hurdles at the state level, lobby federally for approval to move forward. Don’t be afraid to take issues beyond the local or state level. Coordinating with Others ✦ Cultivate partnerships. A mutual support system is necessary to succeed. ✦ Establish strong relationships with partner agencies to enhance the client referral process and to improve outreach and education about the service. ✦ Establish clear roles and responsibilities among all partners. ✦ Ensure that participating agencies are fully vested in the program. This ensures that agencies do not attempt to steer riders to the coordinated operations to save on their own operating costs. ✦ Secure funding. Find funding sources with sufficient money to cover initial needs and to expand services once the initial funds are spent. ✦ Ensure honest, reliable, and accountable business relationships. The principles of coordination should spill over into every aspect of business practices. ✦ Be flexible; maintain an ability to adapt to changing needs and conditions. ✦ Work closely with the local decision-makers/community organizers and respond to changing markets, to accommodate the transportation needs of individual jurisdictions. ✦ Seek a good mix of local elected officials; ensure you have staffers who can respond to their needs. The process should be overseen and directed by political leaders who can make the difficult decisions and move the process forward. ✦ Establish a transportation advisory committee consisting of people and agencies with a common goal of meeting the local transit needs regardless of constituency (e.g., persons with disabilities, job seekers, or elderly people). 224 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

✦ Maintain collaborative relationships with network providers. Treat relationships with network providers as collaborative and supportive. Cooperation in problem solving leads to longer term solutions than simple enforcement of existing contracts. ✦ Remember that coordination efforts breed advocates. Successful coordination can lead to more local and regional advocates and the identification of more unmet needs. For this reason, coordination efforts can perpetuate a positive cycle in terms of addressing unmet needs, even if they do not lead to actual cost savings. Developing Plans for Services ✦ Identify the needs of the community or communities and all relevant interest groups. ✦ Identify unmet needs; from there, determine which services will best meet those needs. ✦ Tailor your services to the needs of the community. Programs from other areas cannot necessarily be replicated in a simple fashion. Other programs will have different funding sources to satisfy, different resources in their community, and different geography. Every county and every system is different. What works in one location may not work in another. ✦ Offer the public, the community, and agencies involved in coordination efforts a set of products and services of true value. ✦ Involve the public. For example, private vehicles with volunteer drivers are a significant untapped and cost-effective transportation resource in our society. Some community members may feel that good neighbors should provide rides without any reimbursement. By understanding coordinated transportation programs, policymakers and the public will support funding for reimbursement programs, allowing them to grow. ✦ Establish systems that are easy to administer. A key need is a billing and reporting system to handle complex accounting and data. These systems are critical to obtaining and keeping funding and to tracking performance. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 225

✦ Approach the coordination process as you would to start a business. Remember that providing transit service is a business. Develop a business plan up front to guide program growth. ✦ Leverage funding. Finding funding is a significant challenge. By cultivating partnerships, new sources can be discovered and traditional funding sources can be leveraged. ✦ Clearly define what services will be provided in contracts and when applicable, clearly demonstrate potential cost savings. ✦ Pay close attention to the bottom line. Put in place reliable systems for invoicing and tracking revenues and expenditures. If your organization does not have this capability, bring in a CPA or consultant to assist you. Local volunteer expertise may be available at little or no cost. Operating and Managing Services ✦ Listen intently to both customers and providers. Successful coordination requires a lead agency that is able to moderate an ongoing dialog between people with transportation needs and those people that control the resources to provide transportation. ✦ Select a lead coordination agency that can function as a mobility manager. Broadly scoped agencies are often more willing to use a wider range of community resources (fiscal and human) to address transportation needs and thus make better candidates for lead agencies for coordination efforts. Agencies that have a tendency to use conventional tools and focus on one primary clientele (such as the able-bodied public) often make poorer lead agencies for coordination efforts. ✦ Create and deliver safe, personalized, and accessible door-to- door services. Safe, quality service is its own best advertising. ✦ Maximize resources. Use community resources wisely and avoid redundancy with other transportation providers by setting appropriate eligibility criteria. ✦ Mobilize an effective volunteer network. A volunteer network can be a potent means of saving large amounts of labor costs. Volunteer workers can provide a high level of service. But volunteers do require compensation in the form of recognition, quality treatment, and training and appreciation. 226 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

✦ Create a strong commitment to training. Train all staff, including volunteers. Volunteers can provide an equal or higher level of service as paid employees if they receive the proper training and are recognized for quality work. ✦ Develop a clear and comprehensive program policy manual. It is much less work to retain staff than to train new staff. ✦ Identify what state and Federal regulations will affect your volunteer program. Volunteer driver programs work, but standards are not well developed. ✦ Market your service. Referrals help, but many people may believe that service is limited to only specific riders or communities. Selling the service to the larger community will help ensure the program’s success. ✦ Establish sound managerial and business systems and procedures. Collect and carefully monitor fiscal, operating, and client data. Find the right software package that will allow you to track revenues more efficiently, allocate trip costs to specific funding sources more accurately, and improve efficiency, monitoring, and operations. ✦ Retain legal expertise and develop formal contracts with participating agencies. Informality may cause some problems collecting receivables. ✦ Recognize and take advantage of opportunities that present themselves with the emergence of new programs and funding sources, such as welfare reform’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Federal Transit Administration’s Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program. New programs can create opportunities to involve new agencies and riders. They can present new transportation services to integrate and coordinate. ✦ Document and disseminate institutional knowledge. Ongoing documentation and dissemination of information during coordination can safeguard against the demise of a program due to the loss of one or two key staff members. ✦ Understand and deal effectively with the “P” factors. When facing roadblocks, discover which of these P factors (personality, power, and politics) you are dealing with and work with or around each of these factors. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 227

CASE STUDIES OF LOCAL COORDINATION EFFORTS Overview of the Cases The following pages present 29 case studies of coordinated transportation services in rural communities. For each case, background of the agency, the coordination process, benefits of coordination, problems encountered, and recommendations are presented. The cases are particularly notable for their variety and for the commitment of local stakeholders to fashion workable solutions while addressing the unique needs and resources of specific localities. These cases were chosen because each of them demonstrates valuable lessons in using coordination to achieve more effective and productive rural transportation services. These cases demonstrate that the concept of “level of coordination” is difficult to measure. As the numbers of agencies, funding sources, and service areas increase, opportunities for coordination benefits increase, but so does the level of administrative complexity. There may not be one generally applicable level of coordination for all rural communities, as these cases demonstrate that successful, cost-effective operations are found at many different levels of coordination and complexity. The cases presented here generally start with less complex operations. The case studies progress from some more modest coordination attempts to the more ambitious in terms of the complexity of coordination activities. Single-county systems with few funding sources that serve relatively focused groups of passengers and trip purposes in relatively small geographic areas are examined first. The perspective progressively expands to include multicounty, multifunded operations that provide multiple transportation and nontransportation services in rural and urban settings and across state lines. Even with this attempt to present these cases in order of their general overall level of complexity, it is not necessarily accurate to say that a system is more or less coordinated than those near to it in this list of systems. 228 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Case Studies ✦ Greene County, Ohio: Countywide Public Transit Coordination; ✦ Buffalo County, Nebraska: Coordination Through Brokerage; ✦ Huron County, Ohio: Coordination Among Agencies, Transit Systems, and Counties; ✦ Bay County, Michigan: Transit System Brokerage; ✦ Northwest Montana: Blackfeet Transit; ✦ Roseau County, Minnesota: Small-Scale Agency Coordination; ✦ Ottawa County, Ohio: Growing from Agency to Public Transportation; ✦ Alger County, Michigan: Coordinated Public Transit Services; ✦ Holmes County, Ohio: Coordinated Services and Dispatching; ✦ Union County, Ohio: Contracted Local Services; ✦ Hubbard County, Minnesota: Public, Agency, and Intercity Services; ✦ Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska: Nearing Consolidation; ✦ Mason County, Washington: Countywide Coordination; ✦ Butte County, California: Attempting to Consolidate Services; ✦ Northwestern California: Klamath Trinity Non-Emergency Transportation; ✦ Wasco County, Oregon: Multistrategy Countywide Coordination; ✦ Riverside County, California: Volunteer Transportation for Multiple Agencies; ✦ Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas Counties, Oregon: Multicounty Coordinated Volunteer Services; ✦ Fresno County, California: Multiprovider Coordination; ✦ Kern County, California: Countywide Public Transportation Coordination; Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 229

✦ Western Indiana: Multicounty Public Transit Services; ✦ Malheur County, Oregon: Coordinated Agency Trips; ✦ Merced County, California: Consolidated Services; ✦ Baker, Union, and Wallowa Counties, Oregon: Program Coordination Within One Agency; ✦ South Central Illinois Mass Transit District: Progress Toward Coordination; ✦ Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah: Navajo Transit System; ✦ Southern Illinois: Centralized Multicounty Services; ✦ North Central Minnesota: Regional Public Transit Services; and ✦ Eastern Washington and North Central Idaho: Multiple Coordination Strategies. 230 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Program Greene Coordinated Agency Transportation System (CATS) Sponsoring Organization Greene County Commissioners, MRDD, DJFS, other social service agencies City, State Xenia, OH Service Type Demand response Service Area Greene County, OH Service Area Population 147,886 Service Area Size (sq mi) 421 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 54,776 Annual Expenses $1,074,275 Cost/Trip $19.61 Major Funding Sources FTA Section 5311 Coordinating Agencies Greene County Commissioners, County Board of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities, Department of Job and Family Services, social service agencies (informal) Other Broker for 51 participating agencies Background: The Greene Coordinated Agency Transportation System (CATS) offers countywide public transportation service. Major funding comes from the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Section 5311 program administered by the Ohio Department of Transportation. Greene CATS has an agreement with Greene County Commissioners to provide Section 5311-funded service. Greene CATS is also, through the Greene County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, the lead agency for coordinating local transportation services. Greene CATS has service contracts with the Greene County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services to provide their transportation service. Arrangements between Greene CATS and social service agencies participating in the brokerage system are informal. A private company operates under contract to Greene CATS to provide transportation service for the Section 5311 program. Greene CATS’ vehicles are stored and maintained by the county. Greene County is located in southwest Ohio and is adjacent to the City of Dayton and Montgomery County. In 2000, Greene County had a population of 147,886 with a land area of 421 square miles. The largest communities in the county are Beavercreek (33,626); Fairborn (31,300); and Xenia (24,664). Despite being adjacent to Dayton, Greene County is highly rural in character. Rural land accounts for more than 95 percent of the land area in the county. Greene CATS operates demand-response service on weekdays, 5:00 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturdays 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Sundays 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Overall days and hours vary by agency according to specific agency needs. The base fare is $1. A staff of three manages the brokered service. All requests for transportation and brokering are centralized through CATS. In addition to managing the public transportation service, Greene CATS is the transportation broker for 51 participating agencies. This brokering is achieved without contracts or memoranda of understanding. The 51 Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 231 GREENE COUNTY, OHIO: COUNTYWIDE PUBLIC TRANSIT COORDINATION

agencies have 97 vehicles, representing 86 percent of the social service agency vehicles in the county. Twenty-three agencies operate a transportation service, 34 agencies purchase services, and some do both. Greene CATS simply facilitates connections among agencies with transportation needs and those with available transportation capacity. The agencies work directly among themselves and each uses its own billing rates. All billing and payment for services is handled directly among the agencies at rates that the various agencies have established. The participating agencies discovered that they had more options to purchase trips to satisfy the needs of their clients. Trips are provided for work, medical, agency appointments, and other purposes. Most of the trips are referred by Greene CATS participating agencies (80%). Five percent are self-referrals and 15 percent are from agencies outside the brokering system. Greene CATS has helped participating agencies. For example, it has helped a senior center locate funding for dialysis transportation, a local taxi company to obtain a wheelchair accessible vehicle and place it in service, and the local county council on aging to obtain funding for brokered trips. Coordination Process: Before 1994, the desire to coordinate transportation services was an ongoing discussion for many years, with fits and starts as key players changed. In 1994, through the initiative of the metropolitan planning organization (MPO), a decision was made to conduct a study of the need for coordinated transportation services in the county. The study was supported by a grant from the MPO, which provided technical assistance to key Greene County stakeholders for completion of the study. The study was completed in 1996. In earlier years, when consolidation of services was entertained, turfism emerged as a critical issue that thwarted progress. An important outcome of the 1996 study was the consensus that it is acceptable to be protective of legitimate personal interests. The study recommended that a brokerage system be established to help participating agencies provide the best transportation they could. When the study was completed, the right people were participating and strong consensus had been achieved. In the words of the CATS director, it “just made sense” to take action. Strong political support, especially from county commissioners, was present at the outset of the needs study and carried over to implementation. Based on the study’s recommendations, Greene CATS was organized in 1997 as a 501C(3) not-for-profit agency. This structure was created because the participating agencies that saw a need for organizing transportation service delivery were not-for-profit agencies. Greene CATS has a 13-member board, with an executive director, and all members are participating not-for-profit agencies. In January 2001, public transportation service started with funding from the Section 5311 rural transportation program. Benefits of Coordination and Success: According to the transportation coordinator, the principal benefits of coordination have been the following: ✦ Access to more funding (Federal, state, and local), ✦ An expansion in transportation options, ✦ Better use of vehicle capacity, ✦ An increase in overall trip making, and ✦ Enhanced visibility and image resulting from the presence of newer vehicles. Other benefits include increased productivity and higher quality, more competitive service among three taxi companies, which are stronger transportation providers as a result. The quality of service delivered by local taxi companies has improved with their purchase of $150,000 to $200,000 in transportation services. A third taxi company has opened in the county, adding additional competition. While no formal criteria have been developed, the rides are distributed on a fair share basis, with satisfactory performance required for a company to maintain its trip level. Agencies have shared their vehicles with the clients of other agencies, so that service among participating agencies is no longer client only. If agencies need more transportation than they can provide, agencies can purchase transportation from the contract service provider. A peer review system has been put in place to 232 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

ensure that agencies do not dump their clients on the transportation system. Contract rates have been established by agencies to discourage dumping. CATS is negotiating with a local hospital to take title to its van and integrate its transportation needs into the coordinated system. The biggest success to come from coordination efforts is that of 51 participating organizations, not a single agency has left. There have been few disagreements and a high level of trust has been achieved. Support, Problems, Barriers, Mistakes, Solutions: The biggest, or most surprising, problem has been the realization that coordinating has been much harder to achieve than was imagined. Interpersonal skills have been critical. Frontline leadership on a daily basis is required. Recommendations to Others: The best advice is to offer to the public, the community, and agencies involved in coordination efforts a set of products and services of true value. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 233

Program R.Y.D.E. (Reach Your Destination Easily) Sponsoring Organization Buffalo County Community Health Partners Transportation Social Work Group City, State Kearney, NE Service Type Door-to-door transportation services Service Area Buffalo County, NE Service Area Population 37,477 Service Area Size (sq mi) 968 Data for Year Ending 2002 One-way Trips per Year 81,789 one-way boardings Annual Expenses $475,000 Cost/Trip $475,000/81,789 = $5.81 Major Funding Sources JARC Coordinating Agencies Local university, City of Kearney, Buffalo County, local cab and livery companies, local school districts, Mid-Nebraska Community Action, Inc., hospital Other The total agency annual budget is $9.5 million; transportation gets 5 percent, according to 2002 annual report. Transit gets input and resources from Nebraska Department of Roads Transit Division. Background: Buffalo County, Nebraska is located in south central Nebraska. With a population of 37,477 and 968 square miles, Buffalo County is situated in the heart of Nebraska’s farmland. The County’s only city is Kearney, which has varied medical or major shopping facilities. With many people traveling to Kearney from outlying areas, transportation was always a problem. Many different systems of delivering transportation were in place in Buffalo County in 1996, yet many people were still unable to make the necessary connections to life services, such as medical appointments, employment, and shopping. In early 1996, four separate committees in Buffalo County looked into ways of delivering transportation services. Coordination was found to be the lacking factor in having a viable transportation alternative. Coordination Activities: R.Y.D.E. Transit started operation in Buffalo County on January 3, 2000, after 4 years of research, planning, and hard work by the Buffalo County Community Health Partners Transportation Goal Work Group. The Goal Work Group brought together representatives from more than 20 different agencies in Kearney and from Buffalo County. Agencies represented were as diverse as the local university, the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, employment specialists, health care representatives, local cab and livery companies, representatives from state agencies on transportation and human services, and local school district representatives. The Nebraska Department of Roads Transit Division gave valuable input to the process by providing leadership and resources for this group. This unique planning process made R.Y.D.E Transit a true community effort. From the beginning, the Goal Working Group realized eliminating duplication of planning and coordination resources was the best solution to a rural county’s transportation needs. 234 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV BUFFALO COUNTY, NEBRASKA: COORDINATION THROUGH BROKERAGE

The Goal Work Group focused on commonalities inherent in community transportation, thereby allowing a greater breadth of partnership to develop. R.Y.D.E. Transit serves Kearney and Buffalo County with on- demand public transportation and represents the first brokered transit system to operate in Nebraska. The idea is based on the utilization of existing community resources to meet the need of public transportation in rural areas. Mid-Nebraska Community Action, Inc. (MNCA), the local community action agency, took the lead in the effort by offering office space, salaries, and executive direction for the transit operation. R.Y.D.E. Transit began operation by assuming the responsibilities of a vehicle owned and operated by the local hospital, Good Samaritan Health Systems, the “Health Express.” R.Y.D.E. operates this vehicle through a contract with the hospital. This vehicle was underutilized in its role of connecting people with mobility limitations to health care. Immediately, the ridership of the vehicle grew from an average of 5 boardings a day to more than 15 boardings a day within the first 2 weeks of operation. R.Y.D.E. then assumed the operational duties of the two existing public transit vehicles in Kearney, operated by MNCA. These three vehicles were brought under one dispatch system to help use resources more effectively. MNCA then allowed R.Y.D.E. to rehabilitate two vehicles to expand the fleet to five. R.Y.D.E. contracted with a local agency that provides transportation services to persons with disabilities. A few months later a contract with a local employment agency was written, allowing R.Y.D.E. to provide transportation for them. This brought the number of vehicles in the system to seven. These vehicles, when not in use for the contracts, are used to provide public transportation for Kearney and Buffalo County. The Buffalo County Community Health Partners Transportation Goal Work Group and Nebraska Department of Roads Transit Division still provide direction and leadership for R.Y.D.E. Through this collaboration, R.Y.D.E. Transit has been able to be involved with many different projects. Benefits of Coordination: By bringing these vehicles “under one roof,” R.Y.D.E. has been more responsive to customer needs in Buffalo County. R.Y.D.E. eliminated barriers to providing transportation to the public. Original operating hours before R.Y.D.E. took over were 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and were expanded to 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. This has allowed R.Y.D.E. to better serve those community members who need to take public transportation to and from work. R.Y.D.E. also abolished the waiting and time requirements. Before R.Y.D.E., strict rules existed for scheduling rides 24 hours in advance and for providing intake information, which needed to be recorded before rides were given. R.Y.D.E. has also established operations on holidays to give mobility-limited customers access to health care, employment, and social activities on those days. Additionally, R.Y.D.E. has expanded transportation access to rural Buffalo County. R.Y.D.E. now has vehicles available to serve residents outside of Kearney 5 days a week. Before R.Y.D.E., established routes served only part of Buffalo County once a week. The expansion of these routes has been offset in part by the contract with the hospital. This has allowed for better service to mobility-limited rides outside of Kearney. R.Y.D.E. further expanded service to rural residents as part of the 2000 Job Access Reverse Commute/Job Access Grant, which was awarded to them in January 2001. The system has also been granted funds to implement intelligent transportation systems or ITS into rural transit. R.Y.D.E. is using these funds to upgrade the radio dispatch system to include telephone line access for the drivers, giving them safe, secure access to emergency personnel and the dispatch staff in times of emergency. The system is also implementing computer-aided dispatch software to increase the reliability of the system for the customers. R.Y.D.E. saw rapid growth in ridership in the first year of operations. R.Y.D.E. provided a total of 33,000 rides in 2000. In 1999, public transportation provided 11,000 rides in Buffalo County. During its first month of operation, the system provided 1,000 rides in Kearney and Buffalo County and that number increased to more than 38,000 rides in December 2000. After its first full fiscal year in operation, R.Y.D.E. had provided more than 50,000 public transportation rides in Buffalo County. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 235

Program Huron County Transit Sponsoring Organization Huron County Transit Board City, State Norwalk, OH Service Type Demand response Service Area Huron County, OH + some Service Area Population 56,240 Service Area Size (sq mi) 497 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 14,500 Annual Expenses $199,142 Cost/Trip $13.73 Major Funding Sources Section 5311 Coordinating Agencies Erie County, Sandusky County, 15 local agencies, 3 Erie County agencies, Sandusky Transit (Huron County Transit has contracts with 10 of those agencies) Background: In Huron County, the Huron County Transit Board is the Section 5311 rural transportation grant recipient and the direct provider of transportation services. Huron County Transit serves Huron County and contiguous areas representing a service area of more than 497 square miles with a population of 56,240 in 1990. Through coordination with Erie County and a link in a transportation corridor connecting two counties, travel is coordinated with the transportation system in Sandusky County. Huron County Transit provides more than 14,500 passenger trips annually. Current operations include 197,449 vehicle miles and 10,929 vehicle hours of service. The Huron County Transit Board provides demand response service from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends. The cost is $2 within the county. Transfers are $3 for the U.S. 250 corridor, where a significant concentration of employers are located. Huron County Transit has eight employees: three are in administrative positions and five are in operations positions. As of 2001, the system had five vehicles. Four vehicles are handicap accessible and will seat 10 riders plus two wheel chairs; the other vehicle seats 11 passengers. Recent operating information is shown in Table 12 and Figure 1. 236 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV HURON COUNTY, OHIO: COORDINATION AMONG AGENCIES, TRANSIT SYSTEMS, AND COUNTIES

Transportation is coordinated among 15 agencies in Huron County and 3 agencies in Erie County. Huron County Transit and Sandusky Transit have coordinated a scheduled transfer between the two systems through service in the U.S. 250 corridor. Scheduling and dispatching is done by Huron County Transit. The primary coordination takes place between the counties. They are looking into establishing a call system and implementing a computer software program to do scheduling. Huron County Transit has contracts for service with 10 agencies, including county Departments of Job and Family Services, Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (MRDD), and Health, as well as the Erie County Senior Center and Sandusky Transit. All vehicles are shared and covered under county insurance. Contracts and memoranda of understanding have been executed with another 19 agencies to provide transportation. Purchase orders for transportation service are accepted from those who do not have contracts. Through this coordination of service, clients from different agencies, supported by various funding sources, are transported on the same vehicle. The Huron County Transit Board participates with neighboring counties to offer “World Link” service. Passengers transfer to Lorain County transportation service for $3 and are able to travel to Cleveland Hopkins Airport and thus “link to the world.” Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 237 Huron County Transit Funding Sources Local Assistance 19% Contract Fares 24% Passenger Fares 7% State Assistance 50% Contract Fares State Assistance Local Assistance Passenger Fares Operating Expenses* Operating Funds Performance Measures Total operating costs $122,314 Federal assistance 0 Operating Recovery Ratio 49% Total administration costs $76,828 State assistance $101,712 Operating Expense/Vehicle Mile Total system costs $199,142 State E&D assistance 0 $0.99 Local assistance $37,468 Operating Expense/Trip $13.49 Passenger fares $12,954 Passenger Trips/Vehicle Mile Contract fares $47,010 $0.08 Other revenues 0 Total revenues $199,144 * 2001 estimate Table 12: Operating Statistics for Huron County Transit Figure 1:

Coordination Process: In 1994, several human service agencies recognized there was no transportation available for individuals who were not eligible for county services. The Huron County Health Department, Huron County Job and Family Services, Huron County Senior Center, MRDD Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation, and the vocational school worked together and received a grant from the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) in 1998. The county commissioners were the grantee and the Huron County Senior Center served as the lead agency. During the first 2 years, coordination was only within Huron County. In 2000, intercounty coordination began as a result of the unmet need for transportation to and from employment. Because of a large number of service jobs in Erie County, people needed to travel from Huron to Erie County. Coordination with Erie began. There were not enough vehicles for the new route to connect with Sandusky Transit so additional funding was sought. This effort was supported by the inclusion of transportation questions in a needs assessment being conducted by the Huron County Health Department. The results of the survey indicated a needs assessment for transportation. The result was that a county commissioner supported the establishment of a demonstration project to purchase vehicles. Next, county commissioners established a county transit board. The board facilitated a decision to submit an application for rural transportation funding from ODOT. Current plans call for pursuit of this grant for 2003. In addition to new rural transportation service, coordination effort will continue to meet the needs that the new rural transportation service cannot meet, such as prioritizing transportation needs of those with nonemergency medical treatment. Huron County is collaborating with Sandusky County to develop the capability to use Sandusky’s computer dispatching and scheduling system with a single call center in Sandusky County. Three or four providers would access the system via an Internet connection, with scheduling done at the call center. Benefits of Coordination: The biggest success has been coordinating services between the two transit systems that operate in the U.S. 250 corridor. This coordination provides a transfer from Huron County Transit to Sandusky Transit in Erie County. It also provides a link to Lorain County. Other counties are now contacting them and trying to coordinate services. Another success has been providing transportation to and from work, which accounts for 60 percent to 75 percent of the trips. Other benefits of coordinating service are vehicle sharing, which reduces trip duplication and in turn reduces costs. Transportation service to more areas and more trips overall have resulted. The number of trips over the past 2 years has significantly increased (see Figure 2). Figure 2 238 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV Huron County Transit’s Ridership Increase 2403 10497 14754 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 1999 2000 2001Trips

Support, Problems, Barriers, Mistakes, Solutions: From the start, elected officials have been involved, providing letters of support to accompany grant applications for financial support for local matching funds. Continuing support is maintained by inviting them to meetings and sending out a newsletter. Huron Transit has also received a great deal of support from ODOT, including funding, guidance, and advice. The greatest barrier has been trying to work with uncooperative people. The various reasons that agencies and potential riders do not want to cooperate include fear that they will lose funding, not wanting to try something new, and not wanting to give up their own vehicles. Recommendations for Others: Huron County Transit staff offered these suggestions: ✦ It is good to learn from others, but remember that every county and every system is different. What works in one location may not work everywhere; ✦ Identify the unmet needs and determine what will work best for your community; ✦ Realize as coordination begins, everyone may agree there is a need for transportation, but may differ on how to meet that need; ✦ Be patient, it will take time to work together and make compromises; and ✦ Work with individuals and agencies committed to the project and realize it is not always possible to win everyone over. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 239

Program Bay METRO Sponsoring Organization MDOT and Consolidation Transportation Program City, State Bay City, MI Service Type Demand response, fixed route, curb to curb Service Area Bay County, MI Service Area Population 110,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 477 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 655,546 Annual Expenses $5,600,000 Cost/Trip $8.54 Major Funding Sources Property tax levy Coordinating Agencies “Almost all human services agencies in the community” (YMCA, social services, preschools, area agencies on aging, Head Start), recently Arenac County Background: Bay METRO provides fixed-route and curb-to-curb service throughout Bay County. It has contracts with almost all human service agencies in the community, such as YMCA, Social Services, preschool programs, Area Agency on Aging, and Head Start. The system emerged in the 1970s and, since its beginning, has been responsible for transportation coordination in the community. Every agency that had a vehicle was encouraged to coordinate with Bay METRO. Bay METRO transports persons with disabilities, seniors, children in after school programs and in local programs for at-risk children, and others. The Board of Directors governs the system. The board hires the general manager who manages day-to-day operations. Bay County, Michigan, has an area of 477 square miles and a population of 110,000 persons. The principal city—Bay City—has a population of just under 40,000; the urbanized area has a population of about 75,000. Transportation system characteristics are outlined below: ✦ Number of vehicles: 47 buses (6 large, 7 medium, 34 small), 1 trolley, and 12 lift vans; ✦ Annual transportation budget: FY2002 operating budget is $5,600,000; ✦ Other services provided in addition to transportation: none; ✦ Number of employees: 110 full time, 10 part time; ✦ Number of passengers: 655,546 in FY2001; ✦ Cost per passenger: $5,600,000/655,546 = $8.54. This is an average cost; this cost is higher for demand-responsive service and lower for fixed-route service. Service hours are from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Saturday. Private carriers are contracted for after-hours service. Reimbursement is done using price per trip fare, which is $3.91 per trip from Bay METRO and $1 for each passenger traveling in the urbanized areas. For after-hours carriers, Bay METRO purchases vehicles, maintains them, and trains drivers. Although drivers are responsible for buying liability insurance, Bay METRO has an umbrella insurance policy that covers private carriers. 240 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV BAY COUNTY, MICHIGAN: TRANSIT SYSTEM BROKERAGE

Contracts are in place with all previously mentioned agencies, as well as with school districts, community action programs, and county commissioners in other counties in order to provide non-stop multi-county transportation for people going to a hospital in another county. Coordination Process: Coordination efforts started with the MDOT Coordination and Consolidation Transportation Program more than 20 years ago. Now Bay METRO has a property tax levy of 75 cents on every $100,000 net worth. That levy generates $1.6 million a year, 30 percent of that provides Bay METRO’s total budget. Bay METRO has just started to coordinate transportation services in neighboring Arenac County with 15,000 people. Arenac County did not have transportation services until Bay METRO provided its services. The request to do so came from Michigan DOT. All operational work is subcontracted, however, Bay METRO is doing scheduling and administration. Data are not currently available to document the need for coordination because of the long period of time over which coordinated services developed. However, there is strong recognition that there certainly had been an unmet need for the transportation services in the community before. Bay METRO has strong political support from people of the community. During the last tax levy renewal in August 2000, it had experienced better than expected voting results from the surrounding communities. The transit authority is focused on providing services that are needed by the people. County and city officials work together with Bay METRO to improve services and better coordinate transportation. Local businesses are also very supportive, because Bay METRO transports people to them. Bay METRO is governed by a board of directors, which has nine members approved by county commissioners. The Specialized Service Committee, which consists of representatives from the participating agencies (about 20 to 50 members), is the driving force behind the transportation coordination. It meets monthly. To get the service functioning, interlocal agreements with other counties were executed so that some groups of passengers do not have to transfer when crossing county borders. Agreements were developed with school districts, community action programs, all subcontractors, all participating agencies, and county commissioners of other counties. Schedules, bus stops, and transfer points were created in the 1970s. Benefits of Coordination: All the usual benefits of transportation coordination apply to Bay METRO: ✦ Access to more funding; ✦ Lower trip costs for riders; ✦ Lower trip costs for agencies; ✦ Provision of transportation in areas formerly without transportation service; ✦ Overall increase in the number of trips provided; ✦ Reduced vehicle travel and less duplication of services; ✦ Greater productivity, more riders per vehicle; ✦ Better access to jobs, health care, and shopping; ✦ Increased activity for local businesses, and ✦ Enhanced image and visibility for transit. Support, Problems, Barriers, Mistakes, Solutions: Problems with coordination: “Funding is not a problem for us. We are very forgiving: we say you have to work with us and we will provide you with our service. If you are looking for reasons not to coordinate, there’s always something that stops you from doing it. But if you determined to do it, nothing is a problem. Working with a community, you provide services that are needed.” Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 241

State support: “The State has been helpful, for the most part. Again, you just have to work with them, help them and do not embarrass them. They have asked us to manage transportation services in the county to the north of us (Arenac County), they know we have good practices and they trust us.” Additional help: “It would be helpful if people knew what they need and what they are ready to contribute. Some agencies do not have a very clear understanding of that they need and what it takes to accomplish it.” People involved with the Bay County System also noted that ✦ Coordination is seen as a lot of work, which some people would like to avoid. Transit managers are seen as the worst enemies of change: most of them do not want to be bothered with new ideas. ✦ Satisfaction with service is high. A recent rider survey indicates this: METRO’s service is rated as excellent by 54 percent of its riders. Another comment is one testimony to Bay METRO’s formula for success: “We are expected to be everything to everybody and often we are, people have very high expectations for our services. Local groups and agencies have changed the way they do business depending on how we are able to provide the service. They would come to us and say “We need service, how does it work into your schedule?” We often try to tell groups and agencies not to set up any programs before they talk to us. We may not be able to accommodate their transportation needs, however, if we work together we should be able to work something out.” Recommendations for Others: Know the need of the community, and tailor your services accordingly. The services you provide at the moment may not be the services the community wants. 242 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Program Blackfeet Transit Sponsoring Organization Blackfeet Reservation City, State Browning, MT Service Type Dial-a-ride transit service Service Area Blackfeet Reservation and City of Browning, including most of Glacier County, which is largely unpopulated and stretches north to Canada. Service Area Population 1,065 (year 2000) Service Area Size (sq mi) 2,343 Data for Year Ending 2002 One-way Trips per Year 23,000 Annual Expenses $155,000 (rough estimate) Cost/Trip $7.65 first quarter of 2003; $5.04 second quarter of 2003 Major Funding Sources FTA 5311 (50%) and self-funded (50%) Coordinating Agencies MDT for FTA funding coordination, organizations located in Browning and the Blackfeet Reservation, including Indian Health Services, the community college, community health representatives, nursing homes, and markets. Background: Blackfeet Transit in Northwest Montana has been providing transportation service since 1978. It is a growing program serving the Blackfeet Reservation and Browning. The Reservation is approximately 1.5 million acres and includes most of Glacier County, which is largely unpopulated and stretches north to the Canadian border. The Blackfeet Tribe consists of 14,700 enrolled members, approximately 9,000 of which live on the reservation. Browning, located just east of Glacier National Park (a popular tourist destination), and within the Blackfeet Indian Reservation at the junction of U.S. Highway 2 and State Highway 89, is the largest city in the county and is the headquarters for the Blackfeet Indian Tribal Government and the hub of tribal activity. Browning’s population was 1,065 in 2000, a 9-percent decline from 1990. Approximately 16 percent of the population of the reservation and Browning combined is non- Indian. Other communities in the Blackfeet Reservation include Starr School, Blackfoot, East Glacier, St. Mary, Babb, Kiowa, Boarding School, Seville, and Heart Butte. Blackfeet Transit provides more than 23,000 one-way, dial-a-ride trips a year to people within Browning and the outlying Blackfeet Reservation area combined. Blackfeet Transit serves anyone in need of a ride within the service area, including persons with disabilities, those going to medical appointments, senior citizens, people transitioning from welfare to work, and students. The program prides itself on being inclusive and available to anyone, regardless of whether they are a tribal member, have special needs, or any other factor. The community has become familiar with Blackfeet Transit primarily through word-of-mouth referrals. A dispatcher is on call for 8 hours, scheduling dial-a-ride service at least a day in advance. Service is available Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. At this time, dial-a-ride is the only type of service being offered; a fixed-route system with bus stops was originally envisioned but later considered to be too expensive and a lower budget priority. The program operates one 7-passenger van, two 12-passenger buses with wheel chair lifts, and one 18-passenger bus also with a wheel chair lift. These vehicles are operated 5 days a week, except for one of the two passenger buses that is used less frequently. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 243 NORTHWEST MONTANA: BLACKFEET TRANSIT

Blackfeet Transit has been growing since its inception in 1978, in terms of ridership and funding levels. As program staff found methods to raise awareness of the availability of transit service, ridership increased. With the increased ridership, Blackfeet Transit was able to secure additional funding and more vehicles. But staff say that resources are still not enough to meet estimated demand. The budget has increased by an estimated $69,000 over the past 14 years. Blackfeet Transit functions completely as a demand-response program, but given the program’s growth, different routing and organizational structures are being explored. Expansion to serve the entire 40-mile reservation is also envisioned. Organization and Funding: The Blackfeet Indian Tribal Government is the public agency that operates Blackfeet Transit. A transportation advisory committee (TAC) assists program staff with management and decision-making. The TAC consists of tribal members and representatives of tribal organizations with a transportation interest or skill, such as the tribal planning department. Five staff people currently operate Blackfeet Transit: one supervisor, one dispatcher, two full-time drivers, and one 9-month driver. Working with the TAC, the Blackfeet Transit program is mainly self-governed and has seen little need for formal partnerships with outside agencies. The exception to this is the relationship that Blackfeet Transit maintains with the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), which enables the tribe to receive Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 funds. Section 5311 funds provide one-half of the program’s resources, while the other half is provided directly by the tribe. MDT pays for 80 percent of the tribe’s vehicles, while 20 percent of vehicle funding comes from the tribe. Blackfeet Transit does not receive any funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The FY2003 operating budget was approximately $155,000. Coordination at Blackfeet Transit: As mentioned, Blackfeet Transit coordinates with MDT to receive funding and comply with applicable regulations. Yet, the primary focus of Blackfeet Transit coordination is with (Indian and non-Indian) individuals and organizations in the Blackfeet Reservation and Browning. These organizations include, but are not limited to, community health representatives, nursing homes, the program for the deaf and persons with disabilities, the welfare office, Blackfeet Community College, IGA supermarket, the Indian Health Services hospital, the tribal office, shelters, and law enforcement officials. The advisory governing body, or TAC, consists of representatives from tribal organizations, including the above businesses and agencies. TAC members were selected for their transportation expertise, interest in Blackfeet Transit’s mission, and/or affiliation with people who have specialized transportation needs. While Blackfeet Transit actively promotes its service to end users, coordination among agencies predominantly occurs when an organization seeking to assist its constituents approaches Blackfeet Transit, rather than through efforts by Blackfeet Transit to form alliances with organizations. Blackfeet Transit does not formally contract with these organizations. Rather, informal coordination practices are in place with an emphasis on the service delivery and quality. Dial-a-ride service is scheduled by the individual who contacts Blackfeet Transit, as well as by certain organizations, such as senior centers, on behalf of their clients. Blackfeet Transit contracts with a nearby garage because it does not have its own maintenance facility. This is the extent of current outsourcing but as the program grows it may need to work with more contractors or form operational partnerships. Benefits of Coordination: Increasing demand, ridership, and associated resources are the most substantial successes of coordinated service. By offering service in response to and coordination with the Indian and non-Indian organizations in Browning and the outer areas of the reservation, the number of locations and riders has expanded. More vehicles have been obtained, enabling faster and more frequent service. Blackfeet Transit has been able to achieve these increases through perseverance. Staff have consistently tried a range of promotions to end users to expand awareness and use of public transportation offerings. A related benefit is the community-wide knowledge of Blackfeet Transit’s availability. Blackfeet Transit is the only public transit service in the Browning area that individuals and organizations can contact directly or refer people to for rides. Initially, people thought that Blackfeet Transit was just for elderly people, but staff have succeeded in educating people that it is for everyone. Challenges and Lessons Learned: Having been in operation for almost 26 years now, the core advice that Blackfeet Transit’s supervisor would offer other tribal programs is to keep trying different tactics if one does 244 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

not work. For example, if ridership is low, then try a different promotional approach. Over time, people will become aware and ride. Now, ridership is growing so fast that the existing management framework is being challenged, and new organizational structures are being explored. As a small program, Blackfeet Transit has found it most efficient for the tribe to operate the program in coordination with the TAC and community it serves, rather than in partnership with another governing body. As the program grows, organizational and operational changes may require new types of coordination. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 245

Program Roseau County Transit Sponsoring Organization Roseau County Transit City, State Roseau, MN Service Type Flexible fixed-route service and dial-a-ride service with 24 hours advance scheduling Service Area Roseau County, MN Service Area Population 16,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 1,663 Data for Year Ending 2000 One-way Trips per Year 17,185 Annual Expenses $123,307 Cost/Trip $7.18 Major Funding Sources Federal (Section 5311 rural transportation funding); Minnesota Department of Transportation; Roseau County Coordinating Agencies Social Services; County Commissioners; Roseau County Committee on Aging; Occupational Development Center; Focus Corporation; Rehabilitation Service Office; Head Start; a nursing home Background: Roseau County is a very rural county located in northeastern Minnesota on the Canadian border. Roseau County has a population of 16,000 and a land area of 1,663 square miles. The county has five towns, and each has a population less than 2,500 persons. Roseau County Transit provides flexible, fixed-route service and dial-a-ride service with 24 hours advance scheduling. The Roseau County Committee on Aging took the initiative to organize transportation service and is the operating agency for delivery of service. A flexible fixed-route bus usually deviates only 1 mile from the route, but it can deviate sometimes several miles. Fixed-route service runs only two times a day: in the morning and in the afternoon. Roseau County Transit operates two vehicles, both wheelchair accessible with a capacity for 16 passengers and two wheelchairs. Staff includes one full-time manager, a part-time, assistant dispatcher, and nine part- time drivers. Roseau County Transit bills participating agencies $25 per hour for transportation service. Roseau County Transit’s operating budget in the year 2000 was $123,307. In 2000, Roseau County Transit provided 95,179 vehicle miles of transportation service, providing 17,185 rides. Service is available weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Roseau County Transit provides transportation for social services, including the Occupational Development Center, Focus Corporation, Head Start, and a nursing home. Head Start has its own vehicle, but they cannot accommodate all their trips with one vehicle, especially during the day. Coordination Process: In 1990, the Northwestern Regional Development Commission conducted a survey among residents of Roseau County and found out that there was a strong need for transportation. No coordinated transportation services were available at that time. The Roseau County Committee on Aging decided to step forward and organized an advisory committee to deal with public transportation. The 246 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV ROSEAU COUNTY, MINNESOTA: SMALL-SCALE AGENCY COORDINATION

Advisory Committee included the Occupation Development Center, Social Services, county commissioners, Focus Corporation, and the Rehabilitation Service Office. The Advisory Committee decided that getting a vehicle was most important and subsequently received a vehicle from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) through the Section 5310 Specialized Transportation Program. Being without operating funds, the Roseau County Committee on Aging relied on volunteer labor and organized fundraising campaigns to cover costs. Two years later, Roseau Transit ran out of operating funds and requested emergency funds from MnDOT. The result was that MnDOT worked with Roseau County to establish Section 5311 rural transportation funding. In 1993, the original vehicle was sold to Head Start and a new vehicle was purchased with Section 5311 funding. In 1997, another vehicle was purchased. In 1999, Roseau County Commissioners decided to cover 35 percent of the operating budget. Before that, Roseau County Transit received fixed allocations from participating cities and the county, which were generally not sufficient. After accounting for farebox revenues, MnDOT provides the remaining 65 percent. This change resulted from an evaluation initiated by the Roseau County Committee on Aging that resulted in the recommendation adopted by the cities and county. The evaluation and recommendation focused on the value of public transportation to the county. Benefits of Coordination: Roseau County Transit recognizes the following benefits of coordination: access to more funding; filling gaps where there was no service; better access to jobs, health care, and shopping; increased activity to local businesses; and enhanced visibility and image of transit. Their biggest success has been bringing local agencies together to achieve better access to funding. Support, Problems, Barriers, Mistakes, Solutions: The major problem has been the turnover of staff. This is due in part to the nature of volunteer service. Additionally, talking to agencies and bringing them together sometimes is a problem. Roseau County Transit feels it has been successful, but it requires continuing attention. MnDOT has been supportive in communication with local governments. It took local governments a period of time to recognize the role that transportation plays in a community. MnDOT provides annual assistance with contracts and agreements and provides education and training about new programs and opportunities available. Greater coordination could be achieved by coordinating with neighboring counties. Recommendations for Others: “Do not get discouraged. Coordination is really beneficial, especially when you see passengers riding the bus.” Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 247

Program Ottawa County Transit Agency (OCTA) Sponsoring Organization Ottawa County Transit Board City, State Port Clinton, OH Service Type Curb to curb Service Area Ottawa County and trips to Erie, Wood, Sandusky, Huron, Lucas, and Seneca counties Service Area Population 40,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 253 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 46,000 Annual Expenses $613,736 Cost/Trip $21.15 Major Funding Sources Ottawa County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (MRDD), ODOT, FTA, Ottawa County Commissioners, agency contracts, fares Coordinating Agencies County MRDD Board, Department of Job and Family Services, Salvation Army, United Way, Goodwill, retirement communities, nursing homes, school, area agencies on aging, Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation Other Annual trips are those within the county. Background: Ottawa County, located on the northern border of Ohio and southern border of Lake Erie, covers 253 square miles. Ottawa County has a population of approximately 40,000 residents. It is described as having a “small town feel,” but it is also “home to a vast network of businesses, industries, and institutions that are leading the world in technology, development and investment.” Despite many public highways, rail service, nearby airports, and even water transportation, public transportation services have only been available since 2000. The Ottawa County Transit Agency (OCTA) provides curb-to-curb transportation service within the county and to six nearby counties (Erie, Wood, Sandusky, Huron, Lucas, and Seneca). OCTA is governed by the Ottawa County Transit Board and coordinates transportation efforts among the County MRDD Board, Department of Job and Family Services, Salvation Army, United Way, retirement communities, nursing homes, schools, Goodwill, area agencies on aging, and Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. OCTA is funded through the Ottawa County Board of MRDD, Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Ottawa County Commissioners, agency contracts, and passenger fares. Coordination Process: The need for public transportation had been discussed for 25 years, but it was not until 1992, when the Ottawa County Board of MRDD had the idea to extend their existing service to the public, that coordination began. At that time, MRDD was really the only agency that provided countywide transportation services. Other agencies transported clients in their own cars when transportation was needed. In 1994, MRDD decided to investigate grants and funding opportunities to develop a coordinated 248 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO: GROWING FROM AGENCY TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

system. In 1996, 16 agencies agreed that they needed and wanted a coordinated service. Following a grant proposal to the ODOT, Ottawa County was awarded a state coordination grant of $46,000 for 1997. MRDD was the lead agency and served as the governing board. There was also an advisory board made up of the regional planning director, an advocate for those with disabilities, an employee of Job and Family Services, and community members. The coordination grant was used to bring key agencies together to determine how transportation service would be coordinated. Representatives from counties already coordinating service were brought in for advice and guidance. MRDD played a key role as the lead agency because they were the only county agency with a sizable transportation service. To get agencies interested, free transportation service was provided until the third month when a fee structure was implemented. During the first several months, problems were worked out as they arose. The number of trips has grown from 30 trips during the first month to the current 3,000 trips per month. Initially, service was only available to agencies. Securing participation was relatively easy because most agencies needed transportation, but did not provide it themselves. There were few issues associated with giving up their own vehicles or drivers to join in the coordination effort. In fact, agency staffs recognized that they would be freed from transporting clients themselves and have more time to tend to their primary responsibilities. OCTA has a contract with Job and Family Services to provide transportation to all of their clients for employment and Medicaid trips. OCTA provides bus service for sheltered workshop employees and local schools. Seven daily routes cover the county and provide nearly 46,000 passenger trips each year. OCTA also has memoranda of understanding with several other agencies. In addition to providing transportation with their own vehicles, OCTA also has a provider contract with a local cab company. This is a benefit to OCTA because they can offer more rides, and it is also a benefit to the cab company, which had difficulty maintaining business year round. As the system grew, OCTA began thinking about offering transportation to the general public. The philosophy of MRDD in Ottawa County is to start and grow programs in the community and help those programs become independent. Becoming a county transit board was naturally the next step. In 1999, OCTA began providing service to individuals in need of transportation. In 1999, it also received $50,000 from the Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission to support development of coordinated services for its clients. In January 2000, OCTA became a public transportation system. To inform the public of the service, OCTA advertised in newspapers, placed rider guides throughout the community, and mailed letters. Benefits of Coordination: The biggest success in coordinating is providing good service that was not previously available. OCTA also has gained access to additional funding. OCTA has acquired 12 vehicles through state and Federal funds that supported 90 percent of the cost. MRDD has benefited because they still pay the same amount for transportation as they always have, but now the service is expanded service. Other agencies can now offer transportation to clients, and their employees are freed from driving clients in their own cars. Support, Problems, Barriers, Mistakes, Solutions: ODOT has provided support through their expertise, guidance, and a manual on transit coordination. Their support has been very helpful. There were not many problems with coordination. Agencies were eager to have a transportation service. Most of the problems are related to funding. As agencies face budget cuts, they try to reduce costs by paying less for transportation. This represents a potential cost increase to OCTA. Another example of problems with funding is that those who are eligible for free rides through Job and Family Services do not take time to fill out paper work and instead just pay the passenger fare. Consequently, the reimbursement rate of $11 per trip is lost. Recommendations for Others: OCTA’s best advice would be to work with at least one agency that is well funded and tax supported. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 249

Program Alger County Transit Authority (Altran) Sponsoring Organization Transit authority City, State Munising, MI Service Type Demand response and some deviated fixed-route service Service Area Alger County Service Area Population Less than 10,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 913 Data for Year Ending 2000 One-way Trips per Year 90,000 Annual Expenses $714,000 Cost/Trip $7.93 Major Funding Sources Federal and state funds, contracts with Family Independence Agency, Michigan Works, school districts, Meals on Wheels, Headstart, etc. Coordinating Agencies Family Independence Agency; Michigan Works; three of the four school districts in the county; summer schools; youth programs; Meals on Wheels; parks and recreation programs; mental health services; nursing homes; Head Start; churches (for Sunday worship services) Other Three times a day, Altran provides trips to a neighboring county where the regional hospital and the University are located. The hospital pays Altran $15 for each patient that Altran transports. Background: Alger County is located in the Upper Peninsula, in northern Michigan. The county population is under 10,000. The county is 913 square miles in size. The Alger County Transit Authority (Altran) serves Alger County, including the City of Munising. Munising is the county seat. Altran is located in Munising and provides demand response and some deviated fixed-route service. As a transit authority, Altran is governed by a board of directors. Altran provides countywide service, Monday through Friday, between 5:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays, between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Altran’s operating budget was $714,000 in the year 2000. Operating 304,774 vehicle miles with a staff of 8 full-time and 14 part-time employees, Altran provided 90,000 passenger trips. Older adults account for 60 percent of Altran’s riders. Altran operates 13 medium duty vehicles, 11 of which are wheelchair accessible. Vehicles can accommodate between 18 and 25 passengers. Altran has agreements with several agencies. These agencies include the Family Independence Agency (the agency through which financial assistance programs for low-income families are provided), Michigan Works (the state program implementing Welfare to Work), three of the four school districts in the county, summer schools, youth programs, Meals on Wheels, parks and recreation programs, mental health services, nursing homes, and Head Start. Three times a day, Altran provides trips to a neighboring county where the regional hospital and the university are located. The hospital pays Altran $15 for each patient that Altran transports. Informal agreements are in place with churches to provide transportation for Sunday worship services. Altran also 250 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN: COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES

provides transportation to support recreational programs and hiking and backpacking programs (people park their cars, hike to a certain location, and use Altran for the transportation back to the cars). Except for the school districts, Altran is the only agency in the county that has vehicles for transportation service. Other agencies receive their transportation service from Altran. Altran is responsible for all trip reservations, vehicle scheduling, and dispatching. In addition to maintaining its own vehicles, Altran provides maintenance for county law enforcement vehicles. Coordination Development Process: Countywide public transportation services were initiated in January 1982. The Alger/Marquette Community Action Board was the third-party operator of transportation services for Alger County until March 1990. Altran was created in March 1990 under Michigan Act 196 as a transit authority to provide the countywide public transportation services. Establishing Altran to provide coordinated transportation services was initiated by several community organizations and agencies. Since 1990, Altran has experienced ridership growth of about 8 percent a year and recently finished building a new operations facility. The current Altran general manager has been the key person behind the development of transportation service in Alger County since its initiation in 1982. Altran, since 1990, has developed into a mature public transportation organization with high levels of customer service and professional operations. Before 1991, Alger County had a much smaller transit system than now. Coordination made a great impact on ridership level and overall operating performance and quality. Since Altran is organized as a transit authority, no approval from the county or state had to be secured. The Board of Directors decided to coordinate with certain agencies, and the Transit Authority executed that decision. Because Altran mostly provides demand response service throughout the county, no schedules needed to be developed and printed. Advertisement was done by trading with the local radio station (“We put their logo on our buses, they did advertise our services”) and by participating in different fairs and big public events. Since 1997, transit providers in 15 counties in the Upper Peninsula of northern Michigan have been coordinating transportation services among themselves. Because all providers have been organized as transit authorities under state statutes, they have the independent authority to act, thus they do not need approval from county officials. Benefits of Coordination: By coordinating transportation services, Altran has experienced better access to funding, lower costs to riders, less duplication of service, better vehicle use, fewer gaps in service, ability to meet more travel needs, and better image and visibility in the community. Altran also attributes its 8-percent annual growth in ridership to effective coordination. Over the last 10 years, the biggest success in coordination has been full community support. Altran provides a valuable service to the community. By coordinating transportation services, they have been able to increase the level of services provided. This has been beneficial for Altran, the community, and participating agencies. Altran has the trust and confidence of the community. Support, Problems, Barriers, Mistakes, Solutions: The major problem that still exists is the lack of funding. Altran lacks the financial resources to take advantage of available technology. Most helpful in this area would be computerized scheduling software and a geographic information system (GIS) to improve operating efficiencies. In addition, some state regulations hamper the delivery of transportation services. An example is limitations on the ability of Altran to provide service that crosses county boundaries. For the past 10 years, Altran did not receive much help from the state. It was said that the state needs to do more planning and coordination programs especially in rural communities like Alger County. Altran enjoys strong support from community leaders and local elected officials. Recommendations for Others: To be successful in coordination of transportation, the transportation service provider needs to be involved in the community as much as possible. It is also important to learn how to listen. By listening, you find out what customers want. As a result, transportation services are better suited to meet the needs of customers, and unnecessary service is avoided. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 251

Program Holmes County Transportation Coordination (HCTC) Sponsoring Organization Holmes County Commissioners City, State Millersburg, OH Service Type Curb-to-curb service to senior citizens, developmentally disabled students, residents with medical appointments outside of the county Service Area Holmes County; some travel outside of the county Service Area Population 38,943 Service Area Size (sq mi) 423 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 16,000 Annual Expenses $220,000 Cost/Trip $13.75 Major Funding Sources Coordinating agencies must participate financially. Coordinating Agencies 27 agencies, including a senior center, three school districts, the Department of Job and Family Services, Every Woman’s House, Juvenile Court, County Home, Red Cross Other HCTC began operations in April 2000. Transportation coordination was initiated as a result of planning required to prepare for new financial assistance and support service programs implemented in response to welfare reform. Background: Holmes County Transportation Coordination (HCTC), which began operations in April 2000, provides coordinated transportation services in Holmes County. HCTC works in partnership with member agencies to provide transportation for eligible Holmes County residents. HCTC provides curb-to-curb service to senior citizens, developmentally disabled students, schools, and residents with medical appointments outside of the County. County Commissioners have key decision-making authority: the Operations Director, who is managing day-to-day operations at HCTC, reports directly to them. HCTC has eleven vans, two of which are wheelchair accessible. HCTC operates with a budget of $220,000 and a staff of nine employees, three of whom are full time. The base fare for transportation service is $3 per trip within the county. For travel outside the county, the fare is $6 for trips up to 40 miles from the point of pickup with a $30 flat rate after that. In 2001, HCTC carried 16,000 passengers. HCTC is providing coordinated transportation service with 27 agencies, including a senior center, three school districts, the Department of Job and Family Services, Every Women’s’ House, juvenile court, adult court, county home, and Red Cross. The participating agencies have 130 vehicles in service. HCTC takes all of the trip reservations and completes the vehicle scheduling. HCTC contacts each agency to assign their specific trips. Residents, participating agencies, and agency clients make trip requests. Trips are being coordinated to reduce duplication and increase service levels. School district contracts are in place with the County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities and two school districts for transportation of developmentally disabled students. These students require transportation to schools that offer special needs classes. Typically, a student is picked up by a school district bus within his or her district. HCTC meets the school bus, and HCTC transports the student to the special needs school. 252 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO: COORDINATED SERVICES AND DISPATCHING

Holmes County is coordinating intercounty transportation service for medical trips with Morrow County. For 2 days of each month, HCTC provides trips for the residents of Holmes and Morrow Counties to hospitals in Cleveland while Morrow County Transit provides residents of both counties trips to Columbus hospitals. A single telephone number has been established for people to call to schedule pickup. Holmes and Morrow Counties are not contiguous; they are separated by Knox County. Several locations within Knox County are used for HCTC and Morrow County vehicles to meet to transfer passengers for the Cleveland and Columbus trips. The transfer locations are at interstate interchanges along Interstate 71. This service is provided using a pool of volunteer drivers. The result has been lower cost for passengers, reduced vehicle miles, and higher ridership. Coordination Process: Transportation coordination was initiated as a result of planning required to prepare for new financial assistance and support service programs implemented in response to welfare reform. In Ohio, each county was required to execute a partnership agreement with the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. A countywide needs study was completed. Transportation emerged as the biggest concern of county residents. As a result, a transportation committee that included representatives from most social service agencies in the county was formed. The committee currently has 12 members. To begin coordinated transportation service, agreements were executed between 23 participating agencies and the Holmes County Commissioners. Before this initiative, coordination of transportation services among the agencies did not exist. Benefits of Coordination: The benefits of coordination have been broad. Coordination has reduced the need for wheelchair accessible vehicles. Rather than many agencies having such vehicles, vehicles are shared, resulting in higher vehicle use. HCTC has been able to effectively use technology, such as a two- way radio system, that dramatically reduced the need to use cell telephones for communication. The biggest success is that by coordinating efforts, one central telephone number has been established with one scheduling office. The result has been a dramatic reduction in duplication of service. Support, Problems, Barriers, Mistakes, Solutions: Funding has been a roadblock to participation for some agencies. Coordinating agencies must participate financially. Some agencies have difficulty recognizing the need and agreeing to do this. As a rural county, hiring qualified drivers is difficult at times. Recommendations for Others: Focus on good communication among agencies. Additionally, make available a 24-hour telephone consumer line. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 253

Program UCATS Sponsoring Organization Department of Job and Family Services City, State Marysville, OH Service Type Demand response; door-to-door service to clients of participating agencies (for medical appointments, groceries, etc.) Service Area Union County, OH Service Area Population 40,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 460 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 17,000 Annual Expenses $280,000 Cost/Trip $16.47 Major Funding Sources Contracts (93%), grants (5%), fees and donations (2%) Coordinating Agencies 33 local agencies Other In-county trips cost $1.79 ($1.83 to contractors, $2 tokens to noncontractors), Out-of-county trips are $20 for less than 1.5 hour wait and $40 for dropoff and pickup. Service area is 437 square miles in Union County and some areas in four surrounding counties. Trips out of county are primarily for medical appointments Background: UCATS provides demand response, door-to-door service to clients of its participating agencies to transport them to medical appointments, grocery stores, malls, work, and social and recreational activities. There are no fixed routes or transfers. UCATS works with 33 agencies. It has formal contracts with some agencies, and others have signed memoranda of understanding. The transportation coordinator reports to the director of Job and Family Services that serves as the lead agency for a transportation coordination project funded by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). Union County, located in west central Ohio, covers 437 square miles. The county has approximately 40,000 residents, with about one-quarter of the residents living in the city of Marysville. Union County is the third fastest growing county in Ohio and is home to both farmland and industry. UCATS provides transportation to approximately 17,000 passengers per year within the county and to four surrounding counties. Most trips outside of the county are to medical appointments in Columbus and Cleveland. UCATS operates Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. and occasionally will provide service outside of those hours with contracted agencies. The cost is $1.79 per mile and, for county agencies that have a contract, the cost is $1.83 because of a 4 cents surcharge. For agencies who do not have a transportation budget or have clients who do not use transportation services frequently, tokens for $2 for a one-way trip may be purchased. Agencies then give tokens to their clients as needed. Trips outside of the county cost $20 if the driver does not have to wait for more than 1.5 hours. If a passenger is dropped off and picked up, the cost is $40. Eligibility for service is determined by the agencies. The annual budget for UCATS is $280,000. Estimates based on the quarter ending December 31, 2001, indicate contracts bring in 93 percent of their income, grants 5 percent, and the remaining 2 percent comes 254 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV UNION COUNTY, OHIO: CONTRACTED LOCAL SERVICES

from fees and donations. UCATS has seven employees. All of their vehicles are 13-passenger minivans or high-top vans. UCATS’ mission is “to promote coordination of transportation resources among county agencies and on a limited basis provide transportation to county residents.” UCATS fulfills its mission by ✦ Linking individuals needing transportation with transportation resources in the community, ✦ Assisting agencies in locating transportation resources for their clients, ✦ Providing overflow transportation for participating agencies, ✦ Helping to prevent duplication of effort by coordinating trips for participating agencies, ✦ Helping to negotiate the purchase of service contracts among agencies, and ✦ Seeking out additional sources of funding to improve transportation services in the county. Coordination Process: In 1997, centralized transportation service did not exist in Union County. Although many agencies recognized there was a need, Job and Family Services initiated and coordinated the efforts. The Health Department and Adult Basic Learning and Education (ABLE) were very involved and helped organize efforts. A transportation study was conducted by the ODOT to determine eligibility for Section 5311 funding and to recommend ways services could be coordinated. One option was to create a brokerage or clearinghouse, and the other was to set up a separate service to meet the needs of the smaller agencies. Because they did not have any vehicles or drivers, the brokerage option was eliminated. The decision was made that a transportation service to meet participating agency needs would be established. As a result of the study and local decisions, transportation coordination grant funding was received from ODOT. It was awarded in 1999. Matching funds came from Union County. Elected officials have been supportive. An advisory board made up of members representing agencies, the local government, and local businesses was created. The advisory board meets quarterly and has authority to make changes. There is also a partner board that meets twice a year and is made up of county residents, agency personnel, and representatives from area businesses. Although this board does not have authority to make changes, they can make recommendations for change. This board contributes through discussions of issues and development of ideas. As an example, UCATS was concerned about how to advertise because the service is not open to the general public. The board did not want people to get the idea that anyone could use the service, but it wanted to make those who qualify aware. The board appointed a committee to explore this topic and it reported back with several ideas, including making presentations at meetings held for the local agencies, distributing information in agency offices, and advertising in the newspaper. The Job and Family Services agency took the first step toward coordination of services by using some of the grant money to hire a transportation coordinator. The transportation coordinator started the coordination process by following the advice offered in using an ODOT coordination handbook. Advisory board members visited other systems that were in areas similar to Union County. This was helpful because it enabled the members of the advisory board to see what was possible. Next, an implementation plan was developed. Meetings were held with directors of the local agencies to develop relationships and identify their needs. Most of these agencies were already providing transportation so they were somewhat skeptical about joining UCATS. Other agency concerns included not wanting clients of other agencies using their vehicles, the cost of coordinated service, and losing their existing funding. However, it was discovered that most of the agencies did not have the time or money for preventive vehicle maintenance. They also needed training for their drivers. Transportation coordination funding was used to set up a package deal with a local garage to provide preventive maintenance (oil changes, detailing, etc.) for the vehicles and to pay for driver training. To build trust and enlist participation, these benefits to agencies were offered in exchange for joining UCATS. This approach proved to be effective. Other relationships have developed as UCATS has identified needs and found creative ways to meet those needs. The Veterans Administration (VA) was not interested initially in contracting services because they had sufficient funding. However, the funds from the VA only cover costs for transportation to VA appointments. By contracting with UCATS, the VA can now offer veterans transportation to several destinations. In 2000, a contract was executed with the county hospital. UCATS agreed to provide Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 255

transportation in exchange for one of the hospital’s vehicles and drivers. The hospital was concerned that patients would not receive good service, so conducting satisfaction surveys became a requirement of the contract. The survey indicated the passengers were pleased with the service. Now that agencies’ needs are being met, UCATS is looking to expand service by providing transportation to local industries (Honda, Scotts, and Goodyear) particularly on second and third shifts, where these employers need employees. Benefits of Coordination: Coordinating services has provided several benefits. The cost of trips is reduced because there are now more people on the same vehicle, eliminating duplication. Agencies that previously did not provide transportation can now benefit from UCATS. An example is the Adult Basic Learning and Education program where there are now more people who can take advantage of this program because they have transportation. By consolidating trips that were occurring across agencies, UCATS now provides more trips overall. UCATS does not have much data because each agency was keeping its own records. Support, Problems, Barriers, Mistakes, Solutions: Although the coordinated system was starting as a new system, UCATS has been very successful. ODOT was extremely supportive. ODOT provided very useful literature and training. Funding was more than adequate to get coordinated transportation service started. County commissioners have been strong supporters. The biggest success was getting agencies to cooperate. Agencies that did not want to participate initially were won over after seeing the service in action. This was accomplished through meeting the needs of agencies and being patient. There are still some “turf” issues, but not nearly as many as earlier. It is recognized that it will take time to deal with these concerns. Recommendations for Others: UCATS staff offered the following advice: ✦ Don’t be in a rush. Invest time to find out the best way to set up and implement the system so you can provide quality service. ✦ Secure funding. Find funding sources so there is enough money to cover needs and to expand once grant money is spent. ✦ Personality, Power, and Politics. When facing roadblocks, discover which of these “P” factors you are dealing with and work with or around each of these factors. 256 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Program Hubbard County Heartland Express (HE) Sponsoring Organization Hubbard County Government City, State Park Rapids, MN Service Type Curb-to-curb service for all residents, bus routes, dial-a-car, and city bus services Service Area Hubbard County, MN Service Area Population 18,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 1,000 Data for Year Ending 2000 One-way Trips per Year 17,344 Annual Expenses $179,373 Cost/Trip $10.34 Major Funding Sources County government Coordinating Agencies Park Rapids Schools, the Development Achievement Center, Greyhound, social service and transportation agencies in neighboring counties Background: Hubbard County, located in the northern central part of Minnesota, is a rural county with population of 18,000 and land area of 1,000 square miles. Hubbard County Heartland Express (HE) provides curb-to-curb transportation service for all residents of Hubbard County. Service includes general bus routes that can deviate up to 4 miles, dial-a-car, and city bus services. HE coordinates transportation services with agencies, including Park Rapids Schools, the Development Achievement Center, and social service and transportation agencies in neighboring counties. Dial-a-car is a service provided by volunteer drivers that have agreements with HE. Volunteer drivers are reimbursed at a rate of 36.5 cents per mile. Transportation service is available Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Because Hubbard County does not have a Greyhound bus service, HE coordinates with Greyhound service that is available in a neighboring county. Passengers are transported to the Greyhound station and back 5 days a week, Monday through Friday. HE is administered by the county government. HE works with an advisory committee that consists of representatives of participating agencies. Decision authority rests with the county and participating municipalities. HE operates three vehicles and had an operating budget for 2000 of $179,373. HE operated 65,877 miles of bus service providing 14,582 trips. Through its dial-a-car service, HE provided 108,306 miles of service and transported 2,762 people. HE coordinates trip reservations and vehicle scheduling for participating agencies. HE shares the vehicle wash bay in its new transit garage with other transportation agencies that have agreements with HE. Coordination Process: Transportation coordination began with the initiative of the current coordinator. As a social service agency director, the coordinator worked with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to secure a grant to start countywide transportation service. Coordination started with a medical assistance transportation program in 1989. In 1991, the Development Achievement Center joined. From 1997 to 1998, Park Rapids helped HE establish transportation service in the city. HE has developed service Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 257 HUBBARD COUNTY, MINNESOTA: PUBLIC, AGENCY, AND INTERCITY SERVICES

agreements with the county Department of Human Service, the Development Achievement Center, and other participating agencies. County commissioners and elected officials in Park Rapids have been strong supporters of the coordinated transportation system. The coordinator also communicates regularly with state representatives to build and maintain support. As the service grew, HE started to place ads in the newspapers; local banks were helpful by inserting ads into bank statements. The operations director made many presentations in places where potential riders were located. Benefits of Coordination: The benefits of coordination have been broad. They include access to more funding, lower costs to riders, less duplication of service, better vehicle utilization, fewer gaps in service, ability to meet more travel needs, and better image and visibility in the community. Customer surveys are used to evaluate satisfaction with services. The cost of trips, level of ridership, types of riders, and age groups are monitored. According to the coordinator, “Our biggest success is the ability to work together with those who provide transportation services and understand each other.” But the coordinator thinks that they are still in progress of accomplishing better working relationships and that they need and can do better. Support, Problems, Barriers, Mistakes, Solutions: The biggest problem is the time required to manage and deliver transportation service because the coordinator still serves as an agency director, managing other agency programs as well. The coordinator said that she just does not have enough time to cover all aspects of coordination. Funding is a continuing concern, especially the potential of state budget cuts. HE has a desire to expand its services, but needs funding to support the purchase of an additional vehicle and the hiring of a driver. Providing access to employment for people with limited mobility is difficult because of the cost of providing daily transportation. It is much easier to provide the less frequent trips for shopping and medical appointments. Reliance on private vehicles for work trips is essential. Technical assistance from MnDOT has been helpful to HE. They were particularly helpful in developing the coordination service model that has been established. MnDOT requires that counties address coordination of services as part of their grant award process. While coordination is not mandated, MnDOT encourages it. HE has found that coordinating transportation service helps support its annual request for funding. Recommendations for Others: According to the coordinator, “do not try to write up a concrete scenario or plan. It may not work. It is better to get an idea and put it out there. See how the public reacts to it, see how it works.” 258 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Program Matanuska-Susitna Community Transit (MASCOT also known as Mat-Su Transit) Sponsoring Organization Matanuska-Susitna Community Transit, a private, nonprofit corporation City, State Wasilla, Alaska Service Type Fixed-route and paratransit Service Area Matanuska-Susitna Borough, primarily in the Mat-Su Valley Service Area Population 59,847 Service Area Size (sq mi) 24,000 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 45,224 Annual Expenses $600,000 Cost/Trip $13.27 Major Funding Sources 15 funding sources, including 40 percent Federal funds and contributions from local nonprofits Coordinating Agencies 90 agencies, including nonprofit agencies (e.g., United Way, Boys and Girls Club), government agencies (e.g., Medicaid, local schools), and human service agencies (e.g., Mat-Su Recovery Center) Other Information Most nonprofits that were previously providing their own transportation services are now consolidated under MASCOT. About 1⁄4 of the riders are seniors over the age of 60 and just under 1⁄3 are youth under 18. Approximately 80 percent of the total ridership is on the fixed-route system. Background: Established on March 3, 1999, as a private, nonprofit corporation, MASCOT (Matanuska- Susitna Community Transit), also known as Mat-Su Transit, operates both fixed-route and paratransit service in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. MASCOT is open to the general public and is coordinated with a number of nonprofit, government, and human service agencies throughout the borough to provide more specific transit services. Located approximately 40 miles north of Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Borough is one of the fastest growing communities in Alaska, gaining more than 20,000 new residents between 1990 and 2000. The majority of people live in the southern part of the borough, just north of the Anchorage metropolitan area, known as the Mat-Su Valley. The valley has two small towns, Palmer and Wasilla, each with a current population of roughly 5,000 residents. The Mat-Su Valley is largely residential, with approximately 80 percent of the workers commuting south to Anchorage for their jobs. MASCOT operates both local and commuter fixed-route service on seven separate lines and will provide route deviation service of up to 3⁄4 mile off the route. Fixed-route service is operated with five 20-passenger lift-equipped cutaway vans. Additional service is provided to the Boys and Girls Club with a used school bus. Paratransit service is provided with one wheelchair-equipped vehicle to individuals who cannot use the fixed-route service. Fares on MASCOT are $2 each way and $5 for an all-day pass. If the bus deviates, the fare can range from $4 to $5. A monthly pass is available for $85. One-way service to Eagle River (with connections to the Anchorage People Mover) costs $2.50 and a joint MASCOT/People Mover monthly pass costs $99.95. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 259 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA: NEARING CONSOLIDATION

In addition to the fixed-route and paratransit services, MASCOT has a contract with Alaska Valley Cab to provide trips to Medicaid clients for medical appointments. Alaska Valley Cab bills MASCOT directly for these trips. MASCOT also provides a number of transportation services for nonprofit agencies throughout the borough, both on a regular and semiregular basis. Examples of nonprofit agencies that receive regular service include the United Way of Mat-Su, the Boys and Girls Club and the Mat-Su Recovery Center. As needed, service is also provided throughout the year for programs such as for the Juvenile Detention Center and local schools. MASCOT’s current transportation budget (calendar year 2001) was approximately $600,000. Total ridership on the system in the same year was 45,224. Staff estimates the cost per trip on MASCOT at $13.27 per trip. About one-quarter of the riders on MASCOT are seniors over the age of 60, and just over one-third are youth under 18. Approximately 80 percent of total ridership was on the fixed-route system. Because of the extreme winters in Alaska, ridership on MASCOT tends to be higher in the winter months, though ridership is strong throughout the year. Staff reports that 20 percent of the total rides on MASCOT were coordinated services (i.e., contracts with government, nonprofit organizations, or services provided for Medicaid clients on Alaska Valley Cab). MASCOT has one program director, an operations manager, and an administrative assistant who is also responsible for dispatch. In addition, there are eight full-time drivers and three stand-by drivers. A board of directors consisting of nine members oversees the agency. The board consists of members throughout the Mat-Su Valley, including private business owners, local government officials, and chambers of commerce leaders. Consolidation Efforts: While consolidation in the Borough is not 100 percent seamless, a number of nonprofit agencies and other organizations depend on MASCOT to transport their clients or customers. Before MASCOT, social service agencies and nonprofit organizations were providing their own transportation services to their clients and customers, and there was no formal public transportation. Because of these factors, a study called Project “Getting There” was the first effort to address these issues and discuss the possibility of transit consolidation in the Borough. The study, sponsored by the United Way of Mat-Su, was conceived in 1995 and began the following year with funding from the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Rural Passenger Transportation Technical Assistance Program, which is administered by the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA). The process for Project “Getting There” began with the formation of a 12-member steering committee. The committee consisted of business members, local and state government officials, and representatives from other community organizations such as senior centers and chambers of commerce. Several of these members currently serve on MASCOT’s Board of Directors. The first task for the committee was to participate in a 2-day strategic planning workshop, designed to establish a framework for the study. Out of that workshop, the committee developed a project mission statement, vision statement, project values and a detailed list of strategies and goals. The goals were ultimately developed to help guide the CTAA, ADOT&PF, and the Steering Committee in the planning and development that was the next process in the study. The study continued by taking a detailed look at the communities in the borough and by conducting a survey of existing transit services. The survey revealed through an inventory of all transportation programs and resources in the borough that approximately $750,000 was being expended for transportation services with a total fleet of 77 vehicles. It was determined that these services were not accommodating a latent demand for more than 77,000 trips annually. The study finally concluded that no one strategy could adequately address the diverse transit needs in the Borough. Two components were identified: a commuter service between the Mat-Su Valley and downtown Anchorage, and a “checkpoint” service within the Palmer-Wasilla corridor. The checkpoint service was intended to provide service to both the general public and the agency client needs by offering unscheduled rides at specific checkpoints, as well as demand response service rides over a larger area. MASCOT service began in 1998 as a pilot program with a refurbished vehicle from the Alaska Mental Health Trust. Full service began in August 1999 with the delivery of five new vehicles. The service is currently 260 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

overseen by a board of directors and operated by a private contractor. MASCOT staff currently occupy a small office space in the Wasilla Area Senior Center, but have recently obtained a grant for improved offices. Revenues for operations come from about 15 different sources, 40 percent of which is from the Federal Government. Other sources of revenue include passenger fares, advertising, and contributions from local nonprofit agencies, such as the United Way (that purchases around $50,000 worth of tickets annually), the Boys and Girls Club, and Mat-Su Services. Up until recently, there were no formal contracts or memoranda of understanding (MOU), but a recent Mental Health Trust grant required an MOU. The program director would like to keep the agreements informal and flexible because so much of their funding sources come from nonprofit agencies that also rely on many different funding sources. Resources for advertising have been limited to radio and newspaper ads. MASCOT has largely relied on word of mouth. The operations manager maintains a useful web site that includes schedules, fare information, advertising rates, and basic information on the board and staff. Benefits of Consolidation: According to the program director, transit consolidation in the borough has been very successful. Most nonprofit agencies that were providing their own transportation services recognized the benefits of a consolidated transit system, and in fact were instrumental in making it happen. Only a few agencies still provide private transportation services for their clients. Since inception, ridership on MASCOT has increased dramatically. While the first month of service (August 1999) attracted only 125 passengers, ridership skyrocketed to 2,332 in August 2000, and continues to grow. In January 2002, MASCOT carried nearly 6,000 passengers. Consolidation in the borough has been successful for many reasons. First of all, as the study pointed out, there was a latent demand for transit for the general public. In addition, the Mat-Su Valley’s population has continued to grow. And most importantly, there was strong support from a number of key nonprofit and social service agencies to pursue consolidation and the willingness to help fund the service. Other benefits to consolidating the service include ✦ Ability to access more funding; ✦ Less duplication by nonprofit and other agencies; ✦ Improved access to jobs, shopping, and health care; ✦ Increased activity to local malls and businesses; ✦ Ability to provide more trips overall; and ✦ Improved image of transit due to MASCOT’s success. Efforts to evaluate and improve the service are currently underway. Staff is developing a passenger survey that will provide them useful feedback on their services. Additionally, the program director has been involved in discussing the benefits of transit consolidation with businesses and other groups in the community. Sometime in the future she would like to formalize a process to receive complaints and comments regarding the service, but currently relies on word of mouth from drivers and other sources. In general, they would like to stabilize and improve their current services before becoming too concerned with expansion. Successes and Challenges: MASCOT’s program director feels that their efforts to contract with Alaska Valley Cab to provide trips for Medicaid clients was one of their greatest successes. She is also proud of the fact that they are able to provide free trips to seniors in the Mat-Su Valley. Another key success for MASCOT has been the service they provide for school kids to and from the Boys and Girls Club. One of the most pressing challenges for MASCOT is securing a steady funding source. As pointed out earlier, funding for MASCOT comes from approximately 15 different sources. Another minor issue is that at least one senior center is still providing their own transit services and has not fully embraced the concept of consolidation. To help spread the word regarding the benefits of consolidation, the program director would like to improve education efforts for both non-profit agencies and private businesses. Keys to Success: According to the program director, ADOT&PF has been extremely helpful in ensuring MASCOT’s success. ADOT&PF has not only suggested ways to improve the service, but they also sponsor the annual Alaska State Transit Conference, which provides training, workshops, and roundtables on transit operation and administration. Along with ADOT&PF, the FTA and the CTAA were also extremely helpful in conducting the Project “Getting There” study and kicking off the service. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 261

The future looks bright for MASCOT as it prepares for the delivery of five new vehicles and improved commuter service in the main corridors. The program director would like to streamline the current fixed-route operation by providing fewer route deviations and expanding the paratransit service. Another priority for the agency is to examine the possibility of providing trips into Anchorage for nonemergency medical appointments. As with most other transit services, however, future expansion requires a secure source of funding. Considering the initial and continued support for the consolidated service, however, the program director hopes to continue working with the local community to meet the ever-growing demand. 262 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Program Mason County Transportation Authority (Mason Transit) Sponsoring Organization Mason County Coordinated Transportation Coalition City, State Shelton, WA Service Type Dial-a-ride, fixed route, commuter services, school/transit bus Service Area Mason County, WA Service Area Population 40,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 700 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 300,000 Annual Expenses $1,200,000 Cost/Trip $4 Major Funding Sources Local sales tax, contracts, Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation (ACCT) Coordinating Agencies Mason County’s Coordinated Transportation Coalition Overview: The Mason County Transportation Authority (Mason Transit) provides public transportation in Mason County, Washington—a county covering an area of 700 square miles with a population of about 40,000. The county is quite rural and has only one city, Shelton, home to approximately 8,000 residents. Much of the remaining population is scattered to the north and east of Shelton and around the many bays that penetrate the county from Puget Sound. The transit authority was voted into existence in 1992 and began providing general public dial-a-ride service shortly after. Mason Transit now provides fixed-route, dial-a-ride, and commuter services. Ridership on the system has grown from 60,000 trips during its first year to more than 300,000 in 2001. Mason Transit is a publicly funded transit agency with 30 vehicles and a $1.2 million annual operating budget. It contracts out all of its services to outside providers. Mason Transit receives both Federal and state operating funds, but is funded in large part by a local sales tax. Mason County is one of only a few rural counties in Washington that have passed a replacement sales tax to compensate for revenue lost after the passage of Initiative 695. I-695 eliminated the state motor vehicle excise tax, which generated approximately 40 percent of the operating revenue for Washington transit agencies such as Mason. In 2000, Mason Transit started to receive funding from the state Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation (ACCT) for its school/transit bus program. History of Coordination in Mason County: Since its inception, Mason Transit has been coordinating with other social service providers in the county. Even before the ACCT was formed, Mason County had its own Coordinated Transportation Coalition. The coalition is still very active and currently has 66 members, including approximately 15 that provide transportation services. The transit authority subcontracts trips to social service providers, including a large transportation service for people who are disabled called Exceptional Foresters, Inc. (EFI). Mason County is home to one of the largest populations of people who are disabled in the state of Washington, due in large part to a large sheltered workshop located in Shelton. EFI is the primary transportation provider for citizens who are disabled attending the workshop. Mason Transit contracts with EFI to provide general public demand response trips when they have available space. Mason Transit dispatchers can track EFI vehicles and contact their drivers when an EFI vehicle is in the range of a desired general public pickup. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 263 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON: COUNTYWIDE COORDINATION

One of the more exciting outcomes of Mason Transit’s long-standing commitment to using community resources is a program developed to coordinate school district and public transit resources. Mason Transit received a 1997 demonstration grant of $69,410 from the ACCT for a 1-year demonstration project. The four primary objectives of the project were ✦ Build a transportation coalition with local agencies to establish community consensus relative to rational expectations and achievable goals, ✦ Identify transportation deficiencies, ✦ Develop coordination and collaboration addressing identified deficiencies in the transportation system, and ✦ Increase transportation opportunities. Even before Mason Transit received the ACCT grant, community activist groups had been meeting to discuss methods for providing afternoon transportation for students in the Shelton School District. Citizen groups had approached the transit agency about providing this service, but the agency’s resources and vehicles were already spread thin because of a significant commute hour demand. In fact, Mason Transit was already cutting service to rural areas in order to provide additional vehicles for the afternoon commuter. With the impetus of the ACCT grant and several vocal community activists, Mason Transit and the Shelton School District developed a coordination plan to address these two major service gaps: (1) insufficient service to rural areas of the county and (2) no transportation for students to attend extracurricular activities. In spring 2000, Mason Transit contracted with the Shelton School and North Mason School Districts to use the bus after school (around 5 p.m.) to provide local public transportation. This demonstration program combined the transportation of middle and high school students needing a ride home from after school programs with those of the general public. Mason Transit paid the school district $19.86 per hour and an additional 85 cents per mile to provide service on three rural routes using the district’s yellow bus vehicles. The school district also contributed funds to pay for students traveling to and from after-school activities. Overall, the cost per mile of service is very comparable to what Mason Transit pays its contractor to operate its own coaches. Two of the initial routes were deviated fixed routes, and a third operated as a zone route. The zone route allowed Mason Transit to remove a demand response vehicle they regularly deployed to serve the zone area and use it elsewhere. The contract with the school district also eliminated the need for Mason Transit to purchase new vehicles. More than 1,200 Mason County residents work at the Puget Sound Navel Shipyard located in Kitsap County to the north. About 35 percent of the service deployed by Mason Transit goes to meeting the commute needs of these and other residents working in neighboring counties. This means that in the late afternoon, when after school activities are getting out, Mason Transit’s own buses are being used to pick up commuters. The shared service on the school buses allows Mason Transit to provide service to previously unserved areas. Mason Transit is also exploring the use of school buses to transport special needs students out of the county. These buses currently deadhead empty to and from the dropoff site. The transit agency would like to use them for public transportation during the periods when the buses are empty. There has been significant interest from school districts and transit providers in neighboring counties. Although the school/transit bus demonstration program ended in June 2001, Mason Transit was able to continue funding for two of the three routes serving the Shelton School District. North Mason District is very interested in reinstating the third route, and Mason Transit expects that funding will be available to revive service on that route later this year. A third school district in the county, Pioneer, is also very interested in the program. Mason Transit also runs a worker/driver program for employees of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. The program trains workers at the site to drive transit vehicles; the vehicles are then loaned to employees to operate and ride. The Navy pays approximately $100 per employee per month for the service. In turn, Mason Transit loans two 35-foot coaches to employees of the Naval Shipyard. Loads on both vehicles are very high, and there is often only standing room available. 264 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Benefits of the Coordination Project: The following is a summary of key benefits of coordination efforts in Mason County, including the school/transit bus program: ✦ Provides rides for school children attending after school programs and allows many children who were previously unable to attend after school activities to attend them. ✦ Fills gaps in Mason Transit’s rural service during the afternoon commute when commuter services use all available vehicles. ✦ Creates a much larger pool of certified transit drivers in the area. School bus drivers operating the shared routes are required to participate in Mason Transit’s driver training program. This is an important benefit because it can be difficult to find certified drivers in a rural area like Mason County. ✦ Provides additional revenue to school district bus programs. The program provides additional operating revenue for a poorly funded school district transportation program. ✦ Creates additional wage earning hours for school bus drivers. A third school district in the county is pushing to enter a similar contract with Mason Transit, in part to generate revenue for driver wages. ✦ Provides cheap fuel prices for Mason Transit. The transit authority shares a fueling station with the school district, allowing them to buy fuel at bulk rates. ✦ Generated community interest in the transit system and acted as an educational process. After some initial confusion about the school/transit bus program, its success has become a point of pride for citizens of Shelton and surrounding areas. Challenges, Opportunities, and Lessons Learned from Coordination Efforts: Mason Transit and the participating school districts have faced a number of challenges in the course of the school/transit bus coordination project. A highly committed board of directors at Mason Transit has helped to ensure the project’s success. Mason Transit’s executive director noted that members of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the ACCT also played key roles in overcoming various obstacles. A key factor in determining the potential success of school bus/public transit coordination is whether planned strategies benefit both parties. Mason County attributes its success in part to the mutual benefit from coordination to both the transit authority and the school district. Mason Transit’s executive director cautioned that although local school districts were excited to work with the transit authority, state school administrators were harder to work with. For example, the Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction attempted to invoke rules on charters and nonpupil transportation to stop the coordination efforts. He issued an edict that no member of the general public was to be allowed on a school bus with school children. After some review, it was determined that these rules were not applicable, and efforts were allowed to continue. Mason Transit’s Executive Director believes that once school bus and public transit providers come to the table, there is much common ground for them to work from. The following list outlines a number of obstacles and challenges faced by Mason Transit in coordinating general public transportation services with the local school district and other regional providers. ✦ School buses do not have programmable headsigns and all carry school logos. Magnetic signs announcing Mason Transit were placed over the school district signs when the bus was being used for public transportation. ✦ Safety and stop lighting are different on school buses than on public transit vehicles. The transit agency agreed not to use the school bus safety equipment to stop on rural roads. Rather, buses are required to move off the road for pickups and dropoffs. ✦ Fare collection on school buses is problematic. Mason Transit is a fare free system. Over the last year, the transit agencies board has been looking into implementing fares for fixed-route and demand response trips. Were it to implement a per-trip fare, this could cause significant problems on the shared vehicle routes because the school district is not interested in installing fareboxes or asking drivers to collect fares. ✦ Communication systems are not compatible. Communications are an issue that is yet to be resolved. Mason Transit is not able to communicate with drivers on school bus vehicles because of configurations of the different radio systems. The two systems are currently working together to resolve this issue. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 265

✦ Increases in administrative costs. Administrative demands of the school/transit bus program have required Mason Transit to hire additional administrative staff. Initially demands came from stakeholder and policy group meetings; now with the program’s success, the dissemination of information has become very demanding on staff time. ✦ School buses are not lift equipped. Because the larger vehicles on the school/transit routes are not lift equipped, the district has a smaller lift equipped school bus on stand-by to pick up any wheelchair passengers. ✦ Concerns about the safety of school children riding with the general public. Mason Transit and the Shelton School District had to overcome the Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s edict that no member of the general public share a school vehicle with school age children. A legal review by the state showed that there was no Washington law that clearly prohibited such sharing of vehicles. ✦ Public confusion over identify of buses. There was a lot of confusion and curiosity when the school buses with magnetic Mason Transit logos first rolled out. In fact, Mason Transit’s executive director claims that this was probably their best advertising because people were calling in constantly to see what was going on. The success of the program has now become a real source of pride for this relatively poor rural community. ✦ Small financial contributions by the school districts. Mason Transit currently pays the majority of the costs for the school/transit services even though a greater percentage of the ridership is school children. The school districts realize that they will have to find a way to pay a higher percentage of the cost to make the service more sustainable. ✦ Lack of stable funding to keep the program running and to expand. Mason Transit faces the challenge of keeping a very popular program running with limited financial support. In the face of pressure by the public and school districts to expand the program, Mason Transit is being forced to make difficult decisions about how much service its budget can support. For example, Pioneer School District wants to join the program, in part to provide additional revenue to pay drivers who are currently being paid to sit around, but it does not have the funding to contribute to additional service. ✦ Compatibility of drug and alcohol testing requirements. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sets drug and alcohol testing rules for school bus drivers, whereas the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) sets these rules for transit drivers. Upon examination, FTA determined that the rules were not really different and agreed that the school bus drivers tested under FHWA rules could also be transit drivers. ✦ Labor or union issues raised by school bus drivers performing public transportation services. Mason Transit administration faced no significant objection from the regular drivers because (1) all service is contracted out; (2) the contract drivers are not unionized; and (3) the service constituted supplementary, not replacement, work. 266 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Program Butte County, CA Sponsoring Organization Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) City, State Chico, CA Service Type Fixed route, paratransit, and/or senior dial-a-ride Service Area Butte County, CA Service Area Population 203,171 Service Area Size (sq mi) 1,400 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 2,000,000 Annual Expenses $4,094,405 Cost/Trip $2.05 Major Funding Sources Diverse sources among the seven coordinated transportation providers Coordinating Agencies Chico Area Transit (CATS), Oroville Area Transit, Butte County Transit (rural), Chico Clipper, Paradise Express, Oroville Express, Gridley Golden Feather Flyer Background: In fall 1999, representatives from Butte County, along with its cities, towns, and transit agencies began a process to explore opportunities for consolidating all or some of the seven transit services operating within the county. An earlier study had recommended fare coordination, but had identified consolidation as a strategy for overall cost savings. While the eventual outcome of the process suggested that high levels of coordination were preferred to consolidation, a committee of transit staff representatives and political leaders from the various jurisdictions met frequently over a 11⁄2 year period to discuss the range of logistical alternatives related to consolidation. The Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) spearheaded the effort, with the cooperation of the county and local jurisdictions. Representatives from the state of California were not asked to participate and did not provide assistance in the transit coordination and consolidation process. Within the nearly 1,400 square mile service area are three fixed-route transit providers. They are Chico Area Transit (CATS), the urban system operating within the largest city, the local route operated by the City of Oroville (Oroville Area Transit), and the Butte County Transit rural service that connects key population centers while supplementing local service within Paradise, Chico, and Oroville. Four other services in Butte County—the Chico Clipper, Paradise Express, Oroville Express, and the Gridley Golden Feather Flyer—are ADA complementary paratransit and/or senior dial-a-ride systems, each operated by its local jurisdiction. Butte County’s transit systems collectively carry nearly 2 million passengers per year. With a combined total operating cost of $4,094,405 (FY2001), the seven systems provide nearly 110,000 annual hours of service using 48 vehicles. The largest system, CATS, has 16 coaches (with the largest seating up to 50 passengers), while Gridley, the smallest operator, has one six-passenger van. The cost per passenger varies widely across the systems, from about $2 on the larger Chico fixed-route system to approximately $10 on the three largest paratransit services. Coordination Activities: Although the primary impetus for considering consolidation was cost savings and improved service quality, some coordination efforts were already in place. For example, the Butte County Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 267 BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: ATTEMPTING TO CONSOLIDATE SERVICES

Transit administrator’s services were already being purchased by two cities, so she was responsible for administering four of the county’s transit services: the Butte County system, the fixed-route and dial-a-ride systems in Oroville, and local Paradise services. (The two Chico systems and the small Gridley system are being administered by their respective city staffs.) All transit services were contracted and, with the exception of Gridley, all were provided by ATC/Vancom. Having one administrator and one contractor has facilitated coordinating timed transfers between systems. Nevertheless, each system continues to have significant variation in services: ✦ On weekdays, service hours begin as early as 5:30 a.m. on Butte County Transit and as late as 8:00 a.m. on the Gridley Golden Feather Flyer. Weekday service runs until 6:00 p.m. on Oroville Express and Paradise Express; service is provided until 10:00 p.m. on the Chico Clipper; ✦ While all services in Butte County operate Monday through Friday, not all operate on weekends. OATS does not operate weekends. Neither CATS nor the Gridley Golden Feather Flyer operates on Sunday; ✦ Significant variation exists in fleet type and fueling; ✦ Each system has a distinct fare instrument and set of fare policies; and ✦ Each system conducts it own marketing, and has its own set of customer service procedures. Over the study period, numerous technical reports were developed and meetings facilitated. The study group identified how they would structure a consolidated system, including identifying the organizational model (a joint powers authority), who would become the administrative agency (BCAG), and who would be represented on the policy board. Benefits of Coordination: In the opinion of city staffers and political leaders who participated in the consolidation study process, the outcome was mixed. Although there was agreement on the many benefits of consolidation, policymakers in Chico were reluctant to surrender oversight power to a board with a high proportion of elected officials from rural areas and smaller communities. Furthermore, the city would have seen its own financial contributions to transit increase through consolidation because it pays a lower contractor rate in its more densely populated service area. In addition to the study advisory group, project milestones were presented to and discussed with the county’s social service transit advisory committee. This group included persons with disabilities and representatives from social service agencies. Overall, members were enthusiastic about the customer- orientation they perceived would result from a coordinated or consolidated transit system in Butte County. In the short-term, it is unlikely that the systems will consolidate. Nevertheless, representatives of the participating jurisdictions indicate that through service and fare coordination, they intend to achieve the numerous qualitative benefits of consolidation they had discussed throughout the study process. As a result, the new focus within Butte County is on coordination. The consolidation evaluation determined that Butte County’s transit systems overall would achieve almost $140,000 in annual administrative cost savings if the administrative function for all systems were transferred to the BCAG. Today, BCAG staff administers four of the systems and is soon expected to begin administering the Chico services. This has been the greatest success to result from the consolidation study. ATC/Vancom is the contract provider for the systems administered by BCAG. While some transfer and pass agreements are currently in place, Butte County’s transit providers have indicated their interest in expanding these agreements and moving forward with other shared service improvements, including the reduction of service duplication, schedule simplification and consistency, improved transfer coordination, and coordinated marketing. Challenges and Opportunities: One of the issues complicating consolidation was how operating costs should be shared by the participating jurisdictions. Cost sharing within Butte County is currently based on population. For example, Butte County pays a significant portion of the operating costs for Chico’s CATS system because much of the CATS service area is beyond the city boundaries, in unincorporated areas considered part of the urbanized area. Likewise, cost-sharing agreements are in place for the rural Butte 268 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

County Transit routes, assigning a proportion of operating costs to each of the incorporated cites and towns where service is provided. In the short-term, these existing cost-sharing agreements remain in place. Aside from agreements with cities and towns to pay operating costs for Butte County Transit, the system also receives funds from the local regional center to operate specific general public commute routes that are intended to serve its physically and developmentally disabled clients. Operating costs, in excess of fare revenues, are fully funded by the regional center. Because the regional center has a number of clients who depend on the various fixed-route and dial-a-ride systems within the county, they also purchase transit passes from the providers for their clients. California State University in Chico also coordinates with and pays for local and intercity transit services for its faculty, students, and staff. The university and its associated students organization provide annual payments. In return, university identification cards afford cardholders no-fare access to buses. Lessons Learned: One of the most significant shortcomings of the transit consolidation effort was the lack of support by certain influential political leaders, particularly those representing Chico. Early in the consolidation evaluation process, an effort was made to include—as part of the oversight committee—both rural and urban representatives from the County Board of Supervisors. Although this was accomplished, the consolidation plan was not presented to a large body of countywide policymakers until a series of final recommendations was endorsed by the oversight committee (which included two policymakers along with a much larger group of county and city staff representatives). It was at this point that prospects for consolidation were derailed by dissenting political leaders. Although they commended many of the potential benefits of coordinating transit services, they were particularly concerned about giving up local control. In hindsight, consolidation advocates concede that they should have worked more closely with these influential political leaders throughout the process and offer this as a suggestion to other communities considering transit consolidation. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 269

Program Klamath Trinity Non-Emergency Transportation Program (K/T NeT) Sponsoring Organization K/T NeT in partnership with Community Benefits of St. Joseph’s Health Systems in Humboldt County City, State Willow Creek, CA Service Type Fixed-route transit service, dial-a-ride nonemergency medical transportation to be added Service Area Communities in Humboldt County where service is planned for: Orleans, Weitchpec, Pecwan, Willow Creek, Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. All are not yet served yet because the program was recently started in January 2003. The focus of this case study is the service to and from the Hoopa Reservation. Service Area Population 2,633 Indian people reside and 403 non-Indian people reside on the Hoopa Reservation. Service Area Size (sq mi) 3,594 Data for Year Ending Program started in 2003. Quantitative data are for first quarter of 2003, while qualitative data includes development period before launch One-way Trips per Year No data yet Annual Expenses No data yet Cost/Trip No data yet Major Funding Sources FTA 5310, Humboldt County Social Services, National Presbyterian Committee for Self-Development of People, Humboldt Area Foundation. Coordinating Agencies St. Joseph’s Health Systems Background: Klamath Trinity Non-Emergency Transportation (K/T NeT), under development since 1999, launched its operations in January 2003. K/T NeT is a nonprofit organization established to provide connections to preexisting transit service and rides to unserved and underserved areas for the tribal and general populations in Humboldt County. Humboldt County, located in northwest California, encompasses 2.3 million acres, which are 80 percent forestlands, protected redwoods, and recreational areas. The main growth areas in Humboldt are the cities of Eureka and Arcata, which together have more than one-third of the county’s population. K/T NeT provides or plans to provide service to five communities in Humboldt County: Orleans, Weitchpec, Pecwan, and Willow Creek to Arcata. Since its recent operations were launched, K/T NeT has primarily served the tribal residents of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation (or Hoopa). Service was also initiated, although was soon cut back because of funding shortages, to two communities north of Hoopa: Weitchpec, where Karuk tribal members reside, and Orleans, where there is a community of Yurok tribal members. Once additional funding is found, K/T NeT hopes to resume service to these communities. The Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation is approximately 30 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean along the Trinity River Valley, approximately 12 miles north of the community of Willow Creek on State Highway 96. The area is approximately 8 miles by 2 miles at the western edge of the Klamath Mountains, with a range of 270 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA: KLAMATH TRINITY NON-EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION

elevation from flat to very steep areas. Access to the area is through State Highway 299, which runs east and west between Arcata and Redding, California. The 2000 census indicated that there are 2,633 Indian people residing on the reservation and 403 non-Indian people residing on the reservation. K/T NeT makes a special effort to meet the needs of the economically disadvantaged population to get to and from work, training, shopping, childcare, healthcare, and other services. The Hoopas represent an isolated pocket of extremely high unemployment. Transportation to employment has been a core problem, one which K/T NeT hopes to change. The nearest job market is more than 120 miles roundtrip in the Eureka and Arcata area. In addition to fixed-route service, K/T NeT was also formed to provide a specialized nonemergency medical paratransit service for people who are elderly or have mental or physical impairments. K/T NeT currently operates one 14-passenger bus and has ordered a second bus that will meet medical paratransit needs 24 hours a day. K/T NeT operates its fixed-route system 5 days a week and provides dial-a-ride service to people with special needs on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Organization and Funding: Community benefits of St. Joseph’s Health Systems in Humboldt County partners with K/T NeT by referring riders and sharing office space in the Willow Creek Resource Center. K/T NeT has five employees who include the executive director, an accountant, a lead driver, an evening driver, and an on-call driver. Signmaking and miscellaneous building services are contracted out to a Hoopa nonprofit called the Tribal Civilian Community Corps (TCCC). Governance occurs in conjunction with a board of directors and a membership committee. K/T NeT is a membership-driven organization, and members have the same voting power as the Board of Directors. The National Presbyterian Committee on the Self-Development of People (SDOP) awarded a $30,000 grant for staffing to K/T NeT to show its support for the establishment of “a feeder transportation system linking California communities within a 50-mile radius of Willow Creek.” Other funding sources and agreements include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for provision of FTA 5310 funds; a $40,000 grant from Humboldt County Social Services for insurance, an office, and bus equipment; $8,500 from St. Joseph’s along with donated office space; $6,000 from the Humboldt Area Foundation for the first K/T NeT business plan in 1999; and $2,000 from the Senior Citizens of Humboldt County. K/T NeT is also seeking funding from Federal Transportation Administration’s (FTA’s) 5311 program, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), as well as subsidies from Hoopa and other tribal communities within the service area. Tribal and BIA funds were not available for this first operating year and need to be programmed into each organization’s budgeting process if the organizations decide to fund K/T NeT. The Hoopa tribe has indicated that they are considering programming funds for K/T NeT. Routes and Services: The K/T NeT bus schedule has been designed to coordinate with the Humboldt Transit Authority’s (HTA) bus service running to and from Willow Creek and the Arcata transit station. Once fully implemented, K/T NeT will serve five communities in Humboldt County and act as a connector between county buses and other transit providers, (primarily Greyhound, HTA, and Redwood Transit System) throughout the region. For example, a K/T NeT bus will connect people from communities on the northeastern side of Willow Creek to the HTA bus that commutes between Willow Creek and the coastal region. K/T NeT service transports tribal and nontribal youth, elderly people, and others to medical appointments, employment, job training, social services, postsecondary education, and recreational and shopping trips. K/T NeT operates its fixed-route service 5 days a week. Three runs a day are made to the Hoopa Reservation covering a total of 78 miles each day. One of the core Hoopa trips is between Willow Creek and the Kiamaw Medical Center to transport tribal and nontribal people to the Hoopa’s main medical center and social services office. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, fixed-route service is provided to other locations such as the community of Hawkins Bar. A second 7-passenger bus has been ordered that will enable K/T NeT to provide 12-hour advance notice nonemergency medical dial-a-ride service. K/T NeT is also seeking a van with a wheelchair lift and some smaller vehicles that would make it easier to reach reservation residents and others who live in mountainous areas. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 271

Coordination and Development Process: There is significant informal coordination between K/T NeT and the Hoopa Tribe, now and over the past 4 years of program development. However, there is a substantial degree of autonomy between the tribe and non-tribal organizations such as K/T NeT. The Hoopa tribal government is experiencing dramatic changes because of the tribe’s designation as a self-governance demonstration tribe in 1988. As such, Hoopa has moved from being one of the most regulated tribes controlled by the U.S. Government to a position of freedom from regulation unprecedented among Indian tribes. K/T NeT and the Hoopa tribe have worked to together to design service that targets the appropriate locations and people within the reservation. K/T NeT has informal arrangements with tribal organizations, such as medical and social service offices, to provide rides to their clients and establish bus stops. As mentioned, the tribe is exploring providing a subsidy to K/T NeT for service to the reservation. K/T NeT anticipates that this subsidy will become part of the Hoopa annual budgeting process, but at this time no formal funding agreement or subsidy is in place. Early on, a member of the Hoopa tribe was a board member and instrumental in the program development process, writing the K/T NeT bylaws and serving as the economic development director. He remains involved with K/T NeT in an advisory capacity. Other tribal members from tribal agencies (planning, transportation, and social services) participate in the advisory committee, but at this time prefer to keep their involvement informal and not serve as board members. During its initial development period, K/T NeT worked hard to coordinate planning with tribal and nontribal communities to understand the need and desire for transportation service. Surveys and focus groups were conducted with each tribal community. K/T NeT identified a strong need for transportation services, and a business development plan was developed in response. This plan is currently being implemented. K/T NeT obtains tribal and other clients through word of mouth and formal advertising, including fliers, television announcements, press releases, and articles in local newspapers. K/T NeT has also worked closely with members of the Yurok and Karuk tribes in Orleans and Weitchpec, although service to these communities has been postponed until more resources are available. There is ongoing operational coordination between K/T NeT and the Hoopa Tribal Civilian Conservation Corps, or TCCC, for help with signs and miscellaneous building projects. K/T NeT also recently hired a driver from the Hoopa tribe. In addition to tribal coordination efforts, K/T NeT also has relationships with organizations in Humboldt County, such as the Humboldt County Elderly and Disabled Office, that refer clients. There is coordination with the Humboldt Transit Authority (HTA), which enables K/T NeT riders to travel on to the coast from the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation and the Willow Creek Family Center. While there are no formal contracts, HTA has seen the need for K/T NeT’s service in the tribal and other unserved areas. HTA has helped K/T NeT at every stage of program development, including giving it a bus. Similarly, the Redwood Transit System (RTS) in Arcata informally provides rides to customers from the K/T NeT service area. K/T NeT also serves and coordinates with nontribal communities and destinations surrounding the Hoopa Reservation, such as Ray’s Food Place and Margaret’s House of Beauty. On a more formal level, K/T NeT has agreements with Caltrans relating to its 5310 funding and with its partner, Community Benefits of St. Joseph’s Health Systems in Humboldt County, for office space and related administrative resources. Need for Coordination and Lessons Learned: According to the K/T NeT executive director, coordination is needed to achieve every aspect of the program, including funding and delivery of service to those in need. Additional and more formal coordination is being pursued with tribes to obtain funding subsidies, and perhaps in-kind assistance, that will enable continued service to the Hoopa Reservation, planned and resumed service to Orleans and Weitchpec, and service to additional underserved parts of Humboldt County. K/T NeT’s development and launch resulted from significant coordination and cooperation among stakeholders and community organizations. The tribal element of this coordination has been mostly informal 272 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

but it has been very effective in designing and initiating service to Hoopa members. The role of coordination, particularly the need for formal agreements and subsidies versus informal support and cooperation, is likely to become more critical as K/T NeT matures and seeks to expand. At this time, one of the key needs related to tribal coordination and faced by K/T NeT surrounds funding. Tribal subsidies for transit service are being considered and are needed for K/T NeT’s continued operation in Hoopa. Already, service to the tribal communities of Orleans and Weitchpec has been cancelled because of funding issues. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 273

Program Mid-Columbia Council of Governments (MCCOG)/The Link Sponsoring Organization Transportation Network City, State The Dalles, OR Service Type Demand response Service Area Wasco County, OR Service Area Population 22,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) “Several thousand square miles” Data for Year Ending 2000 One-way Trips per Year 20,621 Annual Expenses $225,800 Cost/Trip $10.95 Major Funding Sources STF (state cigarette tax revenue), FTA (primarily Section 5311), fare revenue, Wasco County, The Dalles, Mid-Columbia Senior Center, Greyhound, Oregon DOT Coordinating Agencies Senior centers, hospital Other Wamic Senior Bus (a door-to-door demand response subcontractor) open to everyone, but primarily for seniors and persons with disabilities, donation only Background: The lead transportation agency for Wasco County is the Mid-Columbia Council of Governments Transportation Network. The Transportation Network operates its own local demand responsive service in The Dalles and coordinates resources to ensure service area available throughout Wasco County. Wasco County covers several thousand square miles and has a total population of approximately 22,000 people. The largest urbanized area in the county is The Dalles with a population of approximately 11,765. The Dalles is located on the northern border of the county along the Columbia River and Interstate 84. The next largest towns in the county all have populations under 1,000. History of Coordination in Wasco County: In 1994, Wasco County commissioned a countywide social service needs assessment study. The study, completed by a research group from the University of Oregon, identified senior and disabled transportation services as a major gap in services in the county. At that time, the County Department of Senior and Disabled Services handled the small allocation of Special Transportation Formula (STF) funds (state cigarette tax revenues) received by Wasco County. Transportation services were highly segmented: the hospital provided medical trips, the senior center provided senior transportation services, and two rural senior programs provided trips in rural parts of the county. As a result of the needs assessment, the County Board of Commissioners appointed a Special Transportation Committee to address the need for better senior and disabled transportation. At the same time, the Mid-Columbia Council of Governments (MCCOG) was appointed as the lead agency in developing a coordinated transportation network. Initial efforts by the committee were spearheaded by one county commissioner who was very interested in the process and pushed for extensive public and stakeholder 274 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV WASCO COUNTY, OREGON: MULTISTRATEGY COUNTYWIDE COORDINATION

outreach. The committee’s first action was to ask stakeholders what they wanted out of the process. Several stakeholder meetings were held, including one to which every conceivable stakeholder was invited. After input was collected from the larger stakeholder group, MCCOG staff met with interested parties one-on-one. These meetings served as the basis for developing cooperative relationships and the eventual development of the Transportation Network. Stakeholders such as senior centers, the hospital, and a local workshop for those with disabilities responded positively to the outreach, especially to the prospect of developing a coordinated body to improve funding opportunities. One of the first programs implemented was a joint fuel purchasing program. This program provided significant cost savings to local providers by having the county buy fuel at bulk rates. Shortly thereafter, the local senior center and the hospital turned their vehicles over to the MCCOG to provide local services, which now operates under the name, The Link. The MCCOG then developed service contracts with two senior groups—Wamic Seniors and Mosier Valley Seniors—to provide rural services in the south and west county. Funding: The Transportation Network has been able to diversify its funding greatly over the last few years. Table 13 shows a breakdown of the Transportation Network’s FY2000-2001 operating budget of $225,802. The Link’s major operational funding sources are state Special Transportation Formula funds and the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) operating funds for small urban and rural areas (primarily FTA’s Section 5311 program). Fare revenue is the Transportation Network’s third largest source of revenue, equaling $42,000 in FY2000-2001. The Link also receives funding from Wasco County, The Dalles, and the Mid-Columbia Senior Center and through an agreement with Greyhound. Table 13: OPERATING FUNDS FOR THE LINK (FY2000-2001) Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 275 Funding Source Amount Allocation Special Transportation Formula $51,842 General operations FTA operating funds for small cities $50,000 Operations Oregon Department of Transportation $32,860 Elderly and disabled transportation operations Special Transportation Grant (discretionary funds from STF) $17,000 General operations Wasco County, The Dalles, Mid-Columbia Senior Center $20,000 General operations Greyhound $12,000 General operations Fare revenues $42,000 General operations Donations $100 General operations TOTAL $225,802

Services Provided: The Mid-Columbia Council of Governments Transportation Network provides public transportation services within the City of The Dalles (The Link) and subcontracts countywide services to two volunteer operators, Seniors of Mosier Valley and Wamic Senior Bus. The Transportation Network also subcontracts some services to the Columbia Gorge Center, a disabled workshop located in The Dalles. In FY1999-2000, the Transportation Network provided 20,500 rides with an operating budget of approximately $225,800. This is equal to a cost per ride of $10.95, which is considered to be a low per trip cost for general public demand-responsive service. The Transportation Network owns and maintains most service vehicles in the county. They operate a coordinated vehicle replacement program through which they leverage Federal capital funds for new vehicles and pass on older vehicles to volunteer providers throughout the county. The MCCOG retains ownership of these vehicles and handles all maintenance. The MCCOG has also coordinated with the county to develop a consolidated fuel purchasing program, allowing providers of all types to purchase fuel at lower costs. The Transportation Network staff includes six paid employees and three volunteers. Four of its paid employees are drivers (three full time and one part time). The three volunteers are all drivers who work approximately 4 to 5 hours per week. Volunteer drivers staff a total of 9 percent of the 145 weekly service hours provided by The Link. With a FY2000-2001 operating cost of $225,800, The Link operates at a cost per hour of approximately $30. This means it saves nearly $20,000 per year through volunteer operator labor. Table 14 shows the number of driver hours and the percentage of paid and volunteer hours required to staff current vehicle operations. Table 14: TRANSPORTATION NETWORK DRIVER HOURS 276 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV The Link has five lift-equipped vehicles with a maximum vehicle pullout of four vehicles. The Link has had difficulty keeping up with increasing demand over the last several years despite high productivities. The service carries approximately six riders per revenue hour, very high for a demand-response system. Elderly and Disabled Transportation Services—The Transportation Network also works with the Mosier Senior Center to provide elderly and disabled transportation services to residents in the Mosier Valley west of The Dalles. Volunteers from the center run a single non-ADA-compliant van, which is owned in part by Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Mosier Senior Center. The van provides regularly scheduled trips to The Dalles each Friday and trips to Hood River on the first and third Tuesday of each month. The service does provide other medical and emergency trips on demand, although this generally accounts for just a few additional trips per week. Wamic Senior Bus is a volunteer-based system that provides service in the southern part of Wasco County through a subcontract with the Transportation Network. Wamic Senior Bus operates two vehicles, a 15- passenger van and a 7-passenger van. They recently upgraded to ADA-compliant vehicles through a vehicle-sharing program that allows the Transportation Network to pass on older vehicles when it receives new equipment. Type of Driver Number of Drivers Number of Hours (Per Week) Percent of Total Hours Full-time employee 3 112.5 78% Part-time employee 1 19.5 13% Part-time volunteer 1 5 3% Part-time volunteer 2 8 6% TOTAL 7 145 100%

Wamic Senior Bus provides door-to-door demand-response service in the Wamic area, which includes the rural communities of Pine Grove, Maupin, Shaniko and Antelope. Weekly trips are also provided to The Dalles. The service operates on a donation only basis and is funded by Oregon Special Transportation Formula funds. The service is provided primarily for seniors and disabled residents of the area, but is also open to anyone who wishes to use it. Estimated ridership on the service is approximately 150 passengers per month. The Columbia Gorge Center operates two vehicles for sheltered workshops in Wasco County. They also subcontract with the Transportation Network, providing trips primarily to sheltered workshop participants. MCCOG owns both of the lift-equipped vehicles operated by the Columbia Gorge Center. Intercity and Local Transportation Services—MCCOG is also working with several Washington and Oregon counties stretching along the Columbia River Gorge from Portland and Vancouver to east of The Dalles. This bistate committee was originally formed to address (1) the lack of intercity transportation service along the Washington side of the Gorge and (2) the lack of transportation between the two states. The committee is charged with developing coordinated strategies for improving intercity and local transportation services along this natural corridor. Greyhound, which has been an active member of the committee, has a history of coordination with public transportation providers in the Gorge. MCCOG Transportation Network handles ticket sales for Greyhound and shares a terminal where connections can be made from The Link to the seven Greyhound coaches that serve The Dalles each day. Other committee members include charter bus services, Amtrak, and several county and local transit providers. The committee will address both long- haul medical and general public transportation needs, as well as cross-border transportation issues. Coordinated Dispatching—The Transportation Network operates a coordinated dispatch center from its office in The Dalles. It dispatches rides to both The Link and its partner agencies. It is also in the process of significantly expanding its dispatch capabilities; it is setting up a five-county Medicaid brokerage. MCCOG has received a $50,000 grant from ODOT to start a Medicaid transportation brokerage in a five-county area: Wasco, Hood River, Sherman, Wheeler, and Gilliam Counties. The Oregon Department of Human Services has matched the $50,000 grant to provide startup assistance for the brokerage. The Oregon Medical Assistance Program (OMAP) brokerage would be modeled on the existing Tri-Met Medicaid Brokerage in the Portland area, which was started 6 years ago and has grown exponentially over its short lifespan. Benefits of Coordination: The MCCOG Transportation Network’s executive director recognizes several key benefits of coordination in Wasco County. The following list highlights some of those key rewards of coordination: ✦ There has been a tremendous increase in the number of annual rides provided throughout the county, primarily to elderly and disabled citizens. Many of the Transportation Network’s clients were previously mobility impaired. ✦ The coordinated network makes it possible to provide service to the majority of this very rural county and to ensure that clients can move throughout the county, not just within their own region. ✦ The use of volunteer services has enabled the Transportation Network to provide cost-effective service. ✦ MCCOG’s ability to purchase vehicles and capital equipment through government contracts is a benefit to smaller providers such as senior centers and the sheltered workshop. This has allowed providers to operate lift-equipped vehicles in rural areas where such vehicles were not previously available. ✦ A higher quality level for all transportation services has been achieved through the development of coordinated policies, particularly better risk management policy development. ✦ The Transportation Network is able to ensure that passengers throughout the county receive safer transportation services. Challenges and Opportunities in Coordinating Services: The following is a list of important lessons learned by MCCOG as its coordination program has developed: Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 277

✦ Accept the fact that funding will always be a challenge, but realize that there are creative ways to make it work. MCCOG’s success in improving services has created significant demand growth. This presents a constant challenge in ensuring that sufficient operating funds are available to support the demand for service. The Transportation Network’s executive director cited the lack of adequate and stable funding as the primary hurdle to surmount in providing coordinated transportation in rural areas. ✦ Ask stakeholders what they really need. Talk to every stakeholder up front and ask them the simple questions: “What problems are you having?” and “How can we help?” In setting up a coordinated countywide network, MCCOG took painstaking efforts to ensure that it reached out to every stakeholder group and really listened to their needs. It doesn’t need to stop here, however, it is important to keep an ongoing dialog with stakeholder groups. ✦ Ensure buy-in by elected officials. Make sure that elected officials are involved and “buy-in” to the process of developing coordinated transportation services. The executive director of the MCCOG Transportation Network cited one example of how they achieved this goal: After they purchased their first new vehicle, they shot a photo with the vehicle and all the elected officials for the newspaper. ✦ Find a champion early on. MCCOG benefited greatly from having a highly supportive county commissioner on its board from the very beginning. Make sure that you have an active and influential champion outside your organization and let them be your spokesperson whenever possible. 278 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Program Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) Sponsoring Organization Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities City, State Riverside, CA Service Type Volunteer driver reimbursement program that uses a case management model, which includes referral, monitoring, and control. Service Area Persons using TRIP must begin and end their round trip in Riverside County; no restriction on crossing jurisdictional boundaries; trips are restricted to 50 miles one way Service Area Population 1,500,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 7,200 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 48,350 Annual Expenses $350,157 Cost/Trip $7.24 Major Funding Sources Measure A (Riverside County’s half-cent transportation tax); Office on Aging’s Title III funds; the City of Blythe’s allocation of state Local Transportation Funds; SunLine Transit; small donations; and Chapter XXII Senior Low Vision Program funds Coordinating Agencies Partnership to Preserve Independent Living (a nonprofit agency); 130 nonprofit and government partners; an 11-member Board of Directors oversees the program Other Older persons are the primary clientele. TRIP defines itself as a social assistance program with an escort and transportation component. A key feature is the education and counseling provided by staff and through other educational programs. Background: The Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) complements public transportation services in Riverside County, California, by reimbursing volunteers to transport individuals where no transit service exists or when the individual is too frail to use other transportation. Older persons are the primary clientele. By using volunteers, a needed service is provided at a small fraction of what it would cost using more conventional methods. TRIP is a program of the nonprofit Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. In FY2000-2001, TRIP’s annual transportation expenses were $350,157. With this budget, TRIP served 537 people by providing 48,350 one-way trips at a cost of $7.24 a trip. These trips were provided by more than 1,000 volunteer drivers, who are reimbursed at a rate of 28 cents a mile for use of their personal vehicles. Persons using TRIP must begin and end their round trip in Riverside County, which is located in Southern California about 60 miles west of Los Angeles. The county includes several cities, the largest of which is Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 279 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: VOLUNTEER TRANSPORTATION FOR MULTIPLE AGENCIES

Riverside, with a population of 255,000. Much of the 7,200 square miles comprising Riverside County consists of sparsely populated rural areas. For this reason, the average one-way trip provided by TRIP is 22.6 miles. Nearly a third of the county’s 1.5 million residents live in unincorporated areas, and almost 13% are 65 years of age or older. Program Evolution and Structure—The concept of a volunteer driver reimbursement program grew out of focus groups in the eastern part of the county. In 1993, the Riverside County Transportation Commission voted to provide funding for senior transportation to the Senior and Disabled Citizens’ Coalition, an existing nonprofit organization, which is now called the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. An 11-member Board of Directors oversees the program. Initially, there was not a clear understanding of how widespread the problem was of inadequate or inaccessible transportation. Consequently, no screening criteria existed, and the resources were soon overwhelmed. Now, TRIP uses a case management model, which includes referral, monitoring, and control. TRIP is not advertised. Instead, individuals are referred to TRIP by its 130 nonprofit and governmental partners, such as the Department of Social Services; the Office on Aging; visiting nurses; the Multipurpose Senior Services Program, and Care Teams that consist of the District Attorney’s office, police, licensing agencies, adult day care programs, and the Better Business Bureau. TRIP is staffed by the executive director of the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living, an administrative coordinator, and a clerical assistant, who together spend 63 hours a week on TRIP functions. TRIP contracts with an accountant and with Senior HelpLink, operated by the County Office on Aging, to supplement staffing. TRIP pays $41,000 a year to Senior HelpLink to screen potential applicants. This amount funds 1.5 full-time equivalent employees, who determine eligibility by questions such as whether the caller is unable to drive, needs assistance getting in and out of a vehicle, or has no family members to provide a ride. Potentially eligible callers are then sent an application, which is subsequently reviewed by an eligibility review committee. About one-third of the applicants are denied eligibility because the committee determines that the individual can use other transportation options, such as Dial-a-Ride. TRIP is considered a service of last resort. Senior HelpLink receives about 17,000 transportation-related calls a year. Of those, 187 new clients were enrolled in TRIP in FY2001-02. The rest were counseled on community resources available for specific problems and given information on other transportation options. Therefore, TRIP is only one part of a much larger network aimed at keeping seniors healthy and independent. In fact, TRIP is not considered a transportation program, but rather a social assistance program with an escort and transportation component. A key feature is the education and counseling provided by the staff. The Partnership also offers other educational programs: ✦ Vital Connections, a web portal visited about 1,000 times a month. Vital Connections offers links to news sources and topics, such as health and nutrition, gardening, and home repair. ✦ Health Education Video Program, featuring two dozen videos available for staff training, events, and broadcast on public access television. In addition, the National Association of the Deaf is distributing one of the videos nationally. Videos cover such topics as how to access community services, exercises for persons in wheelchairs, Tai Chi exercises, elder abuse, harmful medicine interactions, prevention of falls, how to maintain good mental health, and care of Alzheimer’s patients at home. ✦ Meeting the Challenges Quarterly, a publication with a readership of 35,000. Self-help articles are aimed not only at seniors but also to a wider readership. For example, an article might assist children of the elderly in helping their parents. The magazine is distributed widely to educate the public and key stakeholders, such as the County Board of Supervisors, to build support. Adult Protective Services distributes it through their in-home support services. Characteristics of Trips and Riders—The constituency of TRIP is considered “at risk.” Typically, a client is in the program for no more than 3 years. This is because persons accepted into the program are generally 280 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

unable to live independently longer than 3 more years or because they have died within that time-frame. The attrition rate is estimated at 85 percent in 3 years. Because one of the funding sources of TRIP, the Older Americans Act, prohibits income qualifications, eligible riders do not have to be low income, although most are. The following is a profile of TRIP riders: ✦ 70 percent are female, ✦ 70 percent are 70 years or above, ✦ 27 percent are 80 years or above, and ✦ 100 percent have one or more health-related problems. Because services needed by these riders are not confined to Riverside County, the Riverside Transportation Commission decided from the outset that there would be no restriction on crossing jurisdictional boundaries. For example, some trips cross into Arizona. Although the trips can go out of the county, the round trip must begin and end in Riverside County. Trips are restricted to 50 miles one way with a monthly maximum of 300 miles. (Residents of Blythe, which borders Arizona, are allotted 460 miles because of the great distances they must travel.) Riders turn in their monthly odometer mileage and are paid 28 cents per mile, which they use to reimburse their drivers. A rider can have multiple drivers in a month for different trips. Although trip purposes may vary month to month, trip data from January 2002 are reported to be fairly typical. During that month, medical trips accounted for 29 percent of total travel, shopping trips for 27 percent, dining for 14 percent, and personal errands for 10 percent, with a variety of other trip purposes accounting for less than 20 percent of the overall total. In a 2001 survey of 149 riders, 94 percent reported that, before enrollment in TRIP, they had not been able to travel for medical purposes when necessary, and 93 percent said that they had been unable to get needed groceries. Before TRIP was available to them, 13 percent said they never left their residence, and 49 percent said they could travel only one to two times a month. After enrolling in TRIP, 96 percent reported an increase in their ability to travel. (TRIP’s data indicate that participants take an average of 7.5 trips per month.) Riders had a 100-percent satisfaction rate with the way they had been treated by TRIP staff. Volunteer Drivers—The philosophy behind TRIP is that people must take responsibility for the outcomes in their lives. Therefore, riders are asked to recruit their own drivers. TRIP staff coaches them in how to approach friends and neighbors and how to assure them that they are not asking for charity because they can reimburse the driver. One of the problems of elderly people is isolation, which leads to giving up. Finding a driver encourages people to get to know their neighbors and reduces the feeling of dependency and victimization. The driving record of a new volunteer driver is checked through the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Drivers can have no violations in the past 3 years. Out-of-state drivers are turned down until they register with the DMV. Drivers must also have automobile insurance. TRIP then adds the driver to its own policy for a cost of 50 cents per year per volunteer driver, which covers any liability. Because drivers often help their frail or disabled riders out of the house and into the vehicles, TRIP’s liability insurance also covers falls. In addition, the riders must sign a waiver, releasing TRIP from liability. When TRIP started, riders were required to find their own drivers without TRIP’s assistance. Fearful that liability claims could be filed against the agency and the county, over time the Board of Directors and Riverside County staff reconsidered. First, they were reassured by the experience of the national Retired Senior and Volunteer Program (RSVP), which insures its volunteer drivers. Second, they discovered that their own insurance underwriter would write the coverage for 50 cents per year per driver in conjunction with the $1 million liability policy TRIP carries. Since then, TRIP has learned that other organizations have received contradictory answers from their insurance carriers, denying coverage of volunteer activities. While the issue does not seem to be settled within the insurance industry, TRIP is willing to risk the uncertainty based on its own continuing coverage of volunteer drivers. Although 85 percent of TRIP clients are successful in recruiting a driver, TRIP staff has begun a volunteer driver corps to help the remaining 15 percent. The concept is to partner with existing organizations to recruit Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 281

reserve drivers from within those organizations. When an organization has developed a pool of at least six reserve drivers, TRIP performs a DMV check, adds them to its insurance, gives them an identification card and lapel pin, and refers riders to the organization as needed. TRIP’s executive director has targeted 22 organizations for the Volunteer Driver Corps. Besides free publicity, the organizations will be included in TRIP’s grant proposals. Although the program is just getting underway, three organizations have already signed up, including the Family Services Association at the Wellness Center. Benefits of Coordination: TRIP’s staff reported the following benefits of coordination: ✦ Expands available transportation. As a program of last resort, TRIP supplements rather than competes with public transportation. In fact, TRIP insists that its clients be unable to use public transportation before they are accepted into the program. Therefore, TRIP expands the availability of transportation, increases the number of trips overall, and fills gaps where there is no public transportation service. ✦ Access to more diverse funding. TRIP receives funds from Measure A, which is Riverside County’s half-cent transportation tax and has received some transportation money from SunLine Transit, the public fixed-route and dial-a-ride operator in the Coachella Valley. In addition, TRIP’s budget is funded by the Office on Aging’s Title III funds; Blythe’s allocation of state Local Transportation Funds; small donations; and Chapter XXII Senior Low Vision Program funds from the Community Access Center. It also receives about $6,000 from the Office on Aging in in-kind contributions for office space and utilities, mail and copying services, and information management. Therefore, through coordination with diverse types of agencies, TRIP’s modest budget of $350,157 taps into other sources unavailable to a typical transit provider. ✦ Lower cost of trips for agencies and the public. If the public transportation providers were to take over the TRIP program with paid drivers and publicly owned vehicles, the costs would be at least five times higher. From 1997 to 1998, four demand responsive programs in Riverside County operated by various cities had an average operating cost of $1.72 per mile. This cost, multiplied by the average 22.6 miles per trip for TRIP clients in 2000-2001, equals a cost of $38.87 per trip if done by one of the city programs. Instead, TRIP’s cost per trip was $7.24. This is a savings to the operators and the public of $1,529,208 (the difference between 48,350 annual trips times $38.87 versus the same number of trips times $7.24). (In fact, the savings would be even greater if the 2000-2001 public transportation costs were used and if the value of a personalized escort service were included.) ✦ Reduced staff time. In addition to quantifiable costs, there is a benefit to other social service agencies for the counseling and support TRIP staff provides to clients. This service not only reduces the amount of staff time other agencies would need to spend, but also may defer or prevent costs of health care and institutionalization. TRIP also aids public transit marketing efforts by teaching seniors how to access public transportation. ✦ Avoided capital costs. Because TRIP relies on privately owned automobiles, there is no costly fleet of vehicles to purchase, maintain, store, and replace. In this way, the program maximizes existing community resources. ✦ Reduced vehicle travel. TRIP is in the process of extracting data on trip chaining by its clients. When the data are available, an additional economic benefit to both transit operators and riders can be calculated. For example, a rider returning from a medical appointment may stop at the grocery store with his or her volunteer driver on the way home. Generally, this would be two trips by dial-a- ride, costing the rider two fares. Thus, the mileage for public agencies, and the attendant costs, could be substantially higher than the TRIP program’s annual mileage because of dial-a-ride’s typical single purpose trips. In this example, the added trip to the grocery store by the rider and driver together in the same trip also reduces overall vehicle travel. Challenges and Opportunities: Funding—Funding is the most significant problem faced by volunteer driver programs, according to the executive director. Few foundation grants are available for ridesharing programs. It would be counter- productive to siphon transit dollars from government sources. Yet no other significant government funding categories are designated for ridesharing programs such as TRIP. TRIP is working with the California Senior Legislature to persuade the State Legislature to earmark funds for a demonstration project. Through a 282 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

demonstration project, TRIP hopes to create awareness of such ridesharing reimbursement programs as a cost-effective way of expanding elderly transportation. Reporting—TRIP tracks its clients, trips, mileage, and expenses by funding source for three subdivisions of Riverside County: West County, Coachella Valley, and Blythe and Palo Verde Valley. This complex cost allocation will become even more complicated now that the Office on Aging is requiring the program to perform a further breakdown by U.S. Census Bureau tracts. In response, TRIP is developing stand-alone software which will provide management capabilities that include monitoring, control, and reporting. Called Trip Trak, the software can be customized for adaptation by other programs nationally. The software will be the product of a pro bono partnership with a programming firm, an accounting firm, and a technical support firm. TRIP will offer it to others for a small annual lease fee. Non-aligned Missions—Public transit operators see their mission as transporting people, whereas TRIP defines itself as a social assistance program with a transportation component. This difference in the definition of mission has recently caused the ties to be severed between SunLine Transit and TRIP. The two agencies have disagreed over program eligibility rules, service area, and types of trips. Lessons Learned: TRIP has been chosen as an exceptional program model in a national study by the Beverly Foundation, which is currently using the model as the basis of a demonstration project in Pasadena, California. In addition, several communities have adapted the model for wider use in their own cities. These include ✦ “Out and About Vista,” Vista, California; ✦ “Enabling Transportation,” Mesa Senior Center, Arizona; and ✦ Scottsdale, Arizona. TRIP’s executive director has the following advice for those interested in adapting the TRIP model: ✦ Cultivate partnerships. A mutual support system is necessary to succeed. ✦ Develop screening techniques. Use resources wisely and avoid redundancy with other transportation providers by setting appropriate eligibility criteria. ✦ Tailor programs to your own community. TRIP cannot simply be replicated. Other programs will have different funding sources to satisfy, different resources in their community, and different geography. ✦ Establish systems that are easy to administer. Using its 8 years of experience, TRIP has developed a billing and reporting system to handle its complex accounting and data. These systems are critical to obtaining and keeping funding and to tracking performance. ✦ Leverage funding. Finding funding is a significant challenge. By cultivating partnerships, new sources can be discovered and traditional sources can be leveraged. ✦ Educate the public. Private vehicles with volunteer drivers are a significant untapped and cost- effective transportation resource in our society. However, the initial reaction by some community members that good neighbors provide rides without any reimbursement had to be overcome. By understanding programs such as TRIP, policymakers and the public will support funding for reimbursement programs, allowing them to grow. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 283

Program Ride Connection Sponsoring Organization Tri-Met City, State Portland, OR Service Type Senior and disabled transportation Service Area Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas Counties, OR Service Area Population 1,444,219 Service Area Size (sq mi) 3,027 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 236,000 Annual Expenses $4,600,000 Cost/Trip $19.49 Major Funding Sources FTA Section 5311, Tri-Met, STF (state cigarette tax revenue), Federal Jobs Access, private foundation grants Coordinating Agencies 32 agencies and senior centers Other Used by approximately 8,800 people Background: Ride Connection is a nonprofit community service organization that offers transportation assistance to persons with disabilities and seniors without alternative transportation. Ride Connection serves a three-county area, including Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas Counties. The service area is both urban and rural, because it incorporates Portland and surrounding suburban communities, but also stretches beyond the urban growth area to serve the rural portions of the three counties. The organization prides itself on an ongoing commitment to identifying transportation needs and filling them. Ride Connection has grown to include a network of more than 30 agencies and senior centers and more than 330 volunteers providing 236,000 rides annually. An estimated 8,800 residents of the three-county area benefit from participating agency trips each year. Eligibility for the service is self-declared. Ride Connection has an annual operating budget of approximately $4.6 million. More than two-thirds of these funds go to more than 30 provider organizations. Ride Connection’s internal budget is just over $1 million, which funds 15 staff members and a number of support programs. Ride Connection has developed partnerships with 32 separate partner agencies and holds 22 separate contracts with its participating providers. These groups include ✦ Adult and senior centers, ✦ Mental health clinics, ✦ Health care providers, ✦ Community centers, ✦ Health and rehabilitation centers, ✦ Independent living resource centers, 284 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV WASHINGTON, MULTNOMAH, AND CLACKAMAS COUNTIES, OREGON: MULTICOUNTY COORDINATED VOLUNTEER SERVICES

✦ Denominational community organizations, ✦ YMCA, ✦ Private taxi services, ✦ Private transportation providers, and ✦ Other community organizations. The single largest partner is the Clackamas County Transportation Consortium, which include 11 separate organizations. Among these organizations are adult and senior centers, mental health clinics, community centers and other transportation services. History of Coordination: In 1986, Tri-Met, the tricounty regional public transportation provider in the Portland area, formed the Citizen’s Advisory Committee on Elderly and Disabled Transportation to evaluate the needs of elderly and disabled residents. The Committee represented a highly inclusive cross-section of the special needs rider population and a number of key providers. The Committee found that there were already a large number of agencies providing special needs transportation, but that many had little expertise and had been forced to start programs to meet client needs. The Committee determined that there was significant opportunity for coordination among existing senior, disabled, and social service providers and hired a consultant to design a coordinated provision system. Ride Connection (originally called Volunteer Transportation) was formed in May 1988 on the recommendation of the Citizen’s Committee on Elderly and Disabled Transportation with the collaboration of Tri-Met. The committee’s vision to provide better alternative transportation service for frail elderly citizens and persons with disabilities reflected a recognized need among the community. The organization prides itself on an ongoing commitment to identifying transportation needs and filling them. The organization has a five-part mission statement that describes its objectives as ✦ Serving those persons without viable transportation alternatives, giving priority to elderly people and persons with disabilities; ✦ Coordinating transportation services in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties and coordinating systemwide training and safety programs; ✦ Developing and securing financial, volunteer, and equipment resources for Ride Connection’s network; ✦ Developing and maintaining provider programs; ✦ Acting as a liaison among funding organizations and community agencies. Ride Connection is strongly dedicated to using and supporting volunteer provider services. The executive director came to the organization from a member provider through a personal initiative to coordinate volunteer training. She believes strongly, as does the organization, that volunteer drivers and staff provide equally, if not more, reliable service as paid employees. In her more than 10 years working with volunteer providers, she has witnessed very few performance failures because of employee status. Ride Connection has a consolidated training program designed to allow all provider drivers and dispatchers to receive the same level of training. The executive director believes that this is a key element of the program’s success. Another aspect of the coordinated services provided by Ride Connection is a consolidated capital application process. This program was developed early in the coordination process to help small providers leverage Federal capital funds for vehicle replacement. Ride Connection now owns all the vehicles used by its 70+ contract providers. One of the clauses in the agency contracts is that they keep the vehicles in use full time. Ride Connection has been loosely responsible for seeing that member agencies properly maintain its vehicles, but has had problems with upkeep by some providers. The organization recently received a grant from the Oregon Department of Transportation to develop a preventative maintenance program. The program will still allow participating agencies to handle vehicle maintenance, but will require that they comply with much stricter standards. Several of Ride Connection’s contract providers are very small agencies or organizations that operate one or two vehicles using volunteer services. Many of these agencies face a significant challenge finding an Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 285

insurance company willing to provide coverage to volunteer-operated vehicles. To decrease insurance costs and ease the burden of finding providers, Ride Connection has developed an insurance pool program that allows small providers to purchase insurance through them. Ride Connection also has a planning staff that provides coordinated planning services that benefit participating agencies throughout the three-county area. Ride Connection planners work to identify service gaps and opportunities around community-based transportation. They also act as policy planners and advocates helping to forward transportation policies that support the mobility needs of its clientele. Funding: Ride Connection has built a diverse funding base over the last 10 years and has grown steadily, with a FY2000-2001 operating budget of $4.6 million. The organization receives Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 funds for services provided in rural Washington County. Tri-Met provides funding from its General Fund and the State of Oregon contributes Special Transportation Formula Funds (cigarette tax) designated for elderly and disabled transportation provision. Ride Connection recently received its first Federal Jobs Access grant funding allowing it to transport its first general public riders. It has also been very successful in soliciting private foundation grants. Ride Connection receives funding from a Meyer Memorial Trust Grant, an Oregon Community Transportation Grant, and a number of other small private grants. Reasons for Success: Ride Connection attributes the success of its programs to a simple set of values: ✦ Recognize, nurture, and appreciate volunteers. Ride Connection believes strongly that volunteer workers can provide the highest level of service available. But it should be recognized that volunteers do require compensation in the form of recognition, quality treatment and training, and appreciation. ✦ Maintaining collaborative relationships with network providers. Although Ride Connection is at times required to act in an enforcement role, it treats its relationships with network providers as a collaborative and supportive one. Ride Connection believes that cooperation in problem solving leads to longer term solutions than simple enforcement of its existing contracts. ✦ Delivering safe, personalized, and accessible door-to-door services. Ride Connection operates under the belief that safe, quality service is its best advertising. All Ride Connection services are fully accessible. ✦ Ensuring honest, reliable, and accountable business relationships. Ride Connection believes that the principles of coordination should spill over into every aspect of its business practices. ✦ Strong commitment to training. Ride Connection has a very strong commitment to training its volunteers. The organization believes that volunteers can provide an equal or higher level of service as paid employees if they receive the proper training and are recognized for quality work. Benefits of Coordination: Ride Connection has seen a number of benefits of its coordination efforts in the three-county area it serves: ✦ Efficiency gained by eliminating the duplication of services; ✦ Provide access to a number of private and foundation funding sources that are not available to private providers; ✦ Increased the ability of smaller providers to leverage operating and capital funds; ✦ More service for frail and elderly citizens in the three-county service area; ✦ Better quality and safer service for its passengers; ✦ Greater flexibility in responding to community needs than a public agency or transit provider; ✦ Ability to provide coordinated services without requiring participating providers to homogenize their services, thereby losing their ability to respond directly to client needs. Challenges: Like any lead organization in a major coordination effort, Ride Connection has faced some challenges. The following issues were identified by Ride Connection’s executive director: ✦ Caregivers underestimate the fitness of passengers. Ride Connection has had problems with caregivers underestimating the fitness of referred passengers. This situation often forces drivers to provide medical assistance for which they are not trained. Ride Connection typically addresses bad referrals by contacting the caregiver directly. 286 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

✦ Passengers underestimate their personal fitness. The same problem also occurs when passengers underestimate their personal fitness or do not reveal their true condition because they feel their transportation options are limited. ✦ Providers neglecting vehicle maintenance. Ride Connection has had several issues with providers neglecting vehicle maintenance. Many of these problems occur because member providers cannot afford or are poorly equipped to handle maintenance. Ride Connection is addressing this problem through the development of a preventive vehicle maintenance program. ✦ Challenge of playing conflicting roles of contract enforcement and collaborative support network. Ride Connection staff sometimes feel “schizophrenic” because they are responsible for enforcing contract agreements with member providers and must also act as the primary support network for providers. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 287

Program Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) Sponsoring Organization Council of Fresno County Governments (COFCG) City, State Fresno, CA Service Type CTSA consists of the Fresno County Rural Transit Agency that primarily serves the general public, primarily through a dial-a-ride system and intercity fixed-route service and the Fresno County Economic Opportunities Commission (FCEOC) that handles group trips through contracts with social service agencies. Service Area Rural portion of Fresno County Service Area Population County population is 823,900. FCRTA serves the nonmetropolitan area, excluding the cities of Fresno and Clovis, or about 39 percent of the county’s population. Service Area Size (sq mi) 6,005 Data for Year Ending FY2002 One-way Trips per Year 448,902 Annual Expenses $3,082,527 Cost/Trip FCRTA’s cost per passenger was $6.87; FCEOC’s cost per passenger was $6.06. Major Funding Sources Social service agencies; adult day care centers; FCEOC; California’s Transportation Development funds, a permanent source of transit funding. Coordinating Agencies FCRTA and FCEOC are co-designated as the CTSA for the rural portion of Fresno County. Other FCRTA provides a coordinated general public transit service through 20 subsystems to the rural areas of Fresno County, 13 rural incorporated cities and 25 unincorporated communities (outside the Urban Fresno- Clovis Metropolitan Area). Background: Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA) has been co-designated with the Fresno County Economic Opportunities Commission (FCEOC) as the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) for the rural area of Fresno County, California. FCRTA serves the general public, primarily through a dial-a-ride system, while FCEOC handles group trips through contracts with social service agencies. FCRTA has 55 vehicles covering a service area of 6,005 square miles and operating 6 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday. It administers 20 subsystems, which are operated by contractors or by small cities. It serves the unincorporated areas of the county and cities ranging from 500 to 5,000 in population. FCEOC has 175 vehicles, used to transport Head Start children to preschool, students with developmental disabilities to sheltered workshops, special education students to school, elderly people to meals programs and to deliver meals to congregate meals programs. FCEOC is the lead agency responsible for overall program administration, including liaison with social service agencies, data collection, development and implementation of the operations program and budget, and execution of service contracts. FCRTA is the claimant and administrator of state funds for rural CTSA operations. 288 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: MULTIPROVIDER COORDINATION

Expenditures for the Fresno County Rural Transit Agency were $3,083,527 for FY2000-2001. FCRTA’s cost per passenger was $6.87. FCEOC’s cost per passenger was $6.06. The cost for meal delivery was 80 cents. History of Coordination: In 1979, the State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 120, the Social Service Transportation Improvement Act. The goal was to reduce duplication of services, address increasing transportation needs, and better use diminishing resources. AB 120 encouraged transportation coordination and consolidation through the formation of CTSAs. CTSAs are eligible claimants in California for 5 percent of Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to operate their services. TDA funds are a permanent source of transit funding, generated from a tax of one-quarter of 1 percent on all retail sales in each county in California. COFCG wrote its AB 120 Action Plan, which created the rural CTSAs and the corresponding urban CTSA (the FCEOC and the Fresno Area Express operated by Fresno). A key feature of the Action Plan is the maintenance of effort required by social service agencies. There was a concern that agencies might simply supplant TDA funds for the funds they had been spending out of their own budgets. To ensure that the TDA funds could be used for expansion of services, the plan requires that the 45 percent of the budget, which comes from TDA 4.5 funds, be matched with 45 percent from social service agencies. The remainder meets the state’s requirement that 10 percent of rural public transit be funded from the farebox. Initially, COFCG resisted the mandate from the state to coordinate. They opposed the bill, stating ✦ “The creation of a consolidated transportation agency would have created another layer of government. ✦ The Bill would have created an agency similar to a transit district, but without voter approval. ✦ There was no provision in the Bill that the governing board of the consolidated agency would be composed of elected officials. ✦ The ability of the consolidated agencies to claim Local Transportation Funds (LTF, a category of TDA funds) would strip the local cities and counties of their right to determine how LTF funds would be spent.” However, when the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) threatened legal action, COFCG wrote and implemented its Action Plan in 1982. A survey of all social service agencies was conducted, and in 1983 the CTSAs began serving five social service agencies operating 11 programs. Now, the urban and rural CTSAs together serve 24 social service agencies, which operate 45 different programs. Social service agencies, which were reluctant to join the CTSA in the beginning, experienced an insurance crisis in the early 1980s. When insurance costs skyrocketed 300 percent, the social service agencies turned to the CTSA to insure and operate their vehicles. The vehicles then became available for use by other organizations that purchased service from the CTSA. Eventually, the vehicles were sold, and the replacements purchased under Federal Section 5310 funding became the property of the CTSA. Nonetheless, with turnover, there is a continuous need to re-educate managers of social service agencies about the benefits of belonging to the CTSA. Despite COFCG’s early objections, the coordinated plan has been very successful in Fresno County. However, most other counties have not complied with AB 120. FCRTA’s manager attributes this situation to the lack of attention Caltrans has given to legislative requirements for a progress report on coordination every 2 years. Without Caltrans’ active followup, only 12 of the state’s 58 counties have formed CTSAs. Benefits of Coordination: Formation of the Fresno County Rural Area CTSA has resulted in increased community exposure, improved service reliability, reduced overall costs, and fewer demands for new fixed and dial-a-ride routes. It has accomplished these results by meeting the following objectives: ✦ centralized administration, ✦ consolidated funding, ✦ centralized dispatching, ✦ centralized maintenance, Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 289

✦ conducting driver training programs, and ✦ combined purchasing. The Fresno County CTSAs have consolidated all Older Americans Act funding for transportation and food delivery services in Fresno County. This resulted in the ability to merge a number of routes and eliminate others for a cost savings. Centralized maintenance reduced costs from outside vendors and lowered the operating cost per vehicle. In addition, driver training and risk management efforts contributed to a significant reduction in insurance premiums. The CTSA participates with 180 agencies in an insurance pool through the California Association of Coordinated Transportation. With the exception of a few agencies that continue to insist on providing their own very limited transportation services, the rural CTSA reports that nearly all nonspecialized social service transportation services in Fresno County are now being coordinated, provided by, or assisted by, at least one of the three CTSAs. Some additional adult care centers are now participating in the CTSA programs, resulting in greater use of CTSA vehicles. Challenges for Expanded Coordination: Although FCRTA focuses on general public dial-a-ride, it does provide some single trips for clients of social service agencies. However, most nonemergency medical transportation continues to be performed by private operators. The complexity of billing is a disincentive for further consolidation of these trips. Not only is there a significant amount of paperwork required by insurance companies for reimbursement, but FCRTA needs to carry the trip costs for 3 or 4 months before it is paid. The CTSAs see a need to raise the current maximum of 5 percent of TDA funds that they can receive. The 5 percent maximum was set decades ago. The population to be served has grown, but the money has not. Raising the maximum to 10 percent with a corresponding requirement for matching funds would allow needed expansion. An additional funding problem is the lack of a source for capital funds to build a $1 million maintenance facility and to buy a new vehicle fleet. Reasons for Success: The FCRTA director reports the following reasons for its coordination successes: ✦ Commitment by elected officials to implement the AB 120 Action Plan, ✦ Centralization of key functions, ✦ Clear roles and responsibilities among the CTSA co-designees, ✦ Leveraged resources through the requirement to match TDA 4.5 funds, and ✦ Demonstrated cost savings for social service agencies. 290 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Program Kern Regional Transit Sponsoring Organization Kern County City, State Bakersfield, CA Service Type Intercity services, several local fixed and dial-a-ride, school trips Service Area Kern County, CA Service Area Population 660,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 8,141 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 556,000 Annual Expenses $3,800,000 Cost/Trip $6.88 Major Funding Sources Federal Coordinating Agencies Nonprofit agencies, city-operated transit systems, limited local services, neighbor counties Other Service area is larger than Massachusetts or New Jersey Background: Kern County is California’s third largest county. Covering 8,073 square miles, Kern County is larger than several states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Hawaii. The largely rural county’s largest city is Bakersfield, with a population of nearly 250,000. The size of the county, development patterns, and the remoteness of some communities are particularly challenging for transit service. Transit-dependent populations are found throughout this county of 660,000 residents. Transit conditions vary by geographic subregion. Kern County’s agricultural west is very different from the desert in the east. Many West Kern transit operators, serving high numbers of Spanish-speaking residents employed in agricultural jobs, must adapt to often unpredictable population fluctuations because of high numbers of seasonal migrant workers. In the central mountain communities, small, dispersed populations reside in difficult to reach areas. And in the East Kern desert, unpopulated expanses separate both small and large communities and settlements. Within the county, one county-operated transit system, Kern Regional Transit, serves nearly all corners of this large and diverse county, providing intercity services, and several local fixed and dial-a-ride services. The county transit network also includes 10 city transit operators that range from the two-passenger cars used to transport riders in Shafter to the 73-bus Golden Empire Transit (GET) system operating throughout metropolitan Bakersfield. Kern Regional Transit is the county’s primary rural transit service provider and second-largest system after the urban GET system. Kern Regional Transit carried nearly 556,000 passengers in FY2001. The system provides commute trips, medical trips to Bakersfield and Los Angeles County, school trips, and local dial-a- ride services. The system operates 12 fixed routes and local dial-a-ride services in five communities. Each route or dial-a-ride service operates on a unique schedule, but the major services operate weekdays from Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 291 KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: COUNTYWIDE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION

about 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Some routes operate earlier and later hours. The system’s vehicles traveled more than 2 million revenue miles in 2001 with yearly operating costs at $3.8 million. Systemwide, the 2001 cost per passenger was $6.88. Coordination Efforts: Although it has not been especially proactive in coordination activities, the system has participated in a combination of consolidation and coordination efforts. For example, Kern Regional Transit works closely with county social services to plan and develop routes to meet an array of special social service needs. Although the county operates almost all of its own services through a single contractor, it also contracts with social services and local transit providers in smaller communities. Several examples illustrate the diversity of coordination in Kern County: ✦ Contracting with nonprofit service providers. For one of its routes, Kern Regional Transit pays a local senior center to operate a senior center-owned bus. The service is available to the general public between the community of Buttonwillow and Bakersfield. Since 1985, the county has had a contract with Pioneer Senior Citizens of Buttonwillow, paying the senior organization an operating fee in addition to annual vehicle depreciation costs. ✦ Contracting with city-operated transit systems. As in many rural communities, the county pays smaller transit operators to provide service to persons living in unincorporated areas just beyond city boundaries. For example, Kern County pays the city of Ridgecrest, a somewhat isolated Mojave Desert community in the northeast corner of the county, to operate dial-a-ride services beyond its boundaries. It also pays for a lifeline fixed-route service from the small town of Randsburg to Ridgecrest. The county has similar arrangements to fund services adjacent to other small communities. The county has formal contracts with each city, which must be approved by the cities and the county. ✦ Supplementing limited local service. For most of the day, Arvin Transit provides service between the farming cities of Arvin and Lamont. The service allows Arvin residents to connect to Kern Regional Transit service in Lamont to travel to Bakersfield. However, Arvin Transit does not operate very early or late evening runs. To allow Arvin residents to connect to Lamont, Kern Regional Transit operates its own early morning and late evening service between the two cities, providing an alternative transit option. ✦ Coordinating with neighboring county transit systems. Kern County Transit buses are scheduled to allow for transfers between transit systems in neighboring counties. In Delano, on the northwest side of Kern County, riders can transfer to Tulare County Transit buses. Kern Regional Transit buses meet the Metrolink trains and provide for connections to AVTA and Santa Clarita Transit in the outlying Los Angeles County cities of Lancaster and Palmdale. In Ridgecrest, riders can transfer to services provided by Inyo and Mono Counties. ✦ Consolidating local services. The Kern Regional Transit system has been in a process of slow consolidation, assuming operation of services that were previously operated by Kern County localities. The ongoing process has continued for many years. Recent movements in consolidation have included the county assuming administrative and operational responsibilities for a local and rural dial-a-ride in Tehachapi previously operated by the city, and the establishment of a county-funded fixed route to replace an intercity service previously operated and paid for jointly by the cities of Wasco and Shafter. Even with the array of coordination efforts, the small communities within the county remain fiercely independent, and many policymakers and transit users are reluctant to see a regional transit system fully operated and administered by Kern County. Communities that continue to operate their own services include Bakersfield, Ridgecrest, Shafter, California City, Wasco, Delano, McFarland, Taft, and Arvin, although Kern Regional Transit provides intercity service to all of these communities. Regardless of an impasse in consolidation activities, the County Transit system staff and Kern Council of Governments have been the primary motivators. County Transit staff regularly have scheduled meetings with local transit operators to discuss how their operations might be turned over to the county. Coordination is expected to provide benefits through a combination of administrative cost efficiencies (Kern Regional 292 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Transit’s administrative and planning staff stay the same size, even though new services are regularly added); operational efficiencies (a toll-free number for dial-a-ride services so several services are handled by a single dispatcher); and a better product for the customer. There is an assumption—not always correct—that Kern Regional Transit performs more efficiently and effectively than some of the local transit systems. No transfer arrangements currently exist between Kern Regional Transit and the local providers. For systems that have consolidated, performance goals have not necessarily been met, but the county has been able to get a better handle on the operations of those services. Some earlier coordination efforts were unsuccessful. A regional coordinated fare and transfer system was implemented and discontinued within 1 year. The system for sharing fares and obtaining transfers was deemed inequitable by some jurisdictions that were losing thousands of dollars each month in fare revenues. Likewise, some efforts on the part of Kern Regional Transit to assume the operation of local services in certain jurisdictions have been met with resistance when the smaller jurisdictions were reluctant to give up local control. The many coordination examples are, in many respects, piecemeal efforts to include the most vocal communities and address the interests of the county’s political leaders. The county believes it has a responsibility to provide regional rural transit services, many of which are developed in response to findings of unmet needs hearings. Unmet transit needs hearings are held throughout the county. Input at these meetings is reviewed to determine whether the needs expressed are reasonable to meet. Other stakeholders in identifying opportunities for coordination include members of the Transit Operators Group, a countywide committee that meets quarterly to plan and discuss transit issues, including coordination alternatives. In addition, the Kern Council of Governments, which channels certain funds to the county operators and oversees coordination studies, holds regular meetings of its social service technical advisory and transportation committees. Keys to Success: The Department of Human Services has been key in the introduction of special Welfare- to-Work services and some involvement by other local social service agencies has taken place, particularly for those routes that carry a high number of social service riders. While the regional transit system administrators are responsible for much of the effort to encourage individual jurisdictions to purchase the county transit services, some of the coordination outcomes have come about when social service agencies or individual cities have approached the county. For example, Pioneer Senior Citizens negotiated with Kern County to operate the service between Buttonwillow and Bakersfield. Nevertheless, all planning and scheduling for Kern Regional Transit services is done by the transit staff and does not necessarily involve the jurisdictions it serves. Challenges and Opportunities: Political support for coordination is mixed. Many cities are reluctant to give up control of their local transit services because they do not want to give up control of their local TDA funds. Support for transit in the county is not necessarily strong, and some jurisdictions dedicate less money to transit than others. At the countywide level, political leaders are generally supportive of transit for “persons who need it,” such as the poor, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities. Recently, the county was notified of a potential loss of Federal transportation funds because it is not meeting air quality standards— primarily due to agricultural particulate matter and airflow from the Los Angeles and San Francisco basins. The result, politically, is a somewhat greater interest in transit, with politicians considering the mode as part of comprehensive strategy to improve air quality. Whether this can be channeled into stronger land use regulations and increased funding for transit is unknown. Many in Kern County believe that outside help is needed to improve transit coordination in rural areas. Inadequate finances have been a concern for Kern Regional Transit, and the competition for funding from street and roads projects plays a major role in determining how effective a coordinated transit system can be. Another source of useful assistance can be to bring in a consultant. The Kern Council of Governments recently initiated a study to develop a rural regional transit strategy. Part of the focus of the study is to Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 293

identify the benefits of a higher degree of coordinated transit services. It is anticipated that high levels of coordinated services, according to a strategic plan, will accomplish what many in the county have sought for years. The study is being overseen by stakeholders representing jurisdictions throughout the county, as well as social services that work with seniors, job seekers, and persons with disabilities. Study outcomes are expected to address a simplified coordinated service plan, provide opportunities for fare and marketing coordination, and determine how rural transit services should be organized and administered in the county. 294 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Program Ride Solution Sponsoring Organization Four Rivers Resource Service, Inc. (a United Way agency) City, State Washington, IN Service Type Door-to-door demand response Service Area Greene, Sullivan, Daviess, Martin, and Pike Counties, IN (Pike County is not included in data provided in this case study) Service Area Population 87,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 1,756 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 14,400 Annual Expenses $529,000 Cost/Trip $8.65 Major Funding Sources Each agency is reimbursed per trip by Four Rivers Ride Solution; Section 5311, local matching, fares Coordinating Agencies Wabash Valley Human Services, Senior and Family Services, Martin County Council on Aging, Greene County Council on Aging, Area 7 AoA and Disabled Other NOTE: Agency is reporting unduplicated passengers per year, not annual trips. Southern Indiana Development Commission receives 5311 funding through Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). Background: Ride Solution is the transportation service provided by the Four Rivers Resource Service, Inc. Four Rivers Resource Services is a United Way agency that has been serving Greene, Sullivan, Daviess, Martin, and Pike Counties in Indiana since 1986. It is a private, nonprofit organization, overseen by a board of volunteers and paid for primarily through state and Federal funds and local support. Four Rivers is the lead agency in Ride Solution, a public transportation system that began in January 2001. The system is available to anyone in the five counties who needs a ride. Ride Solution provides door-to-door demand response public transportation to the five counties. (Pike County, because it is a recent addition to the system, is not included in the information reported here.) The population of the first four counties is approximately 87,000. Agriculture and mining are the major industries in this rural region. Transit is important because there is very limited access to major highways. Ride Solution has contracts with Wabash Valley Human Services, Senior and Family Services, Martin County Council on Aging, Greene County Council on Aging, and Area 7 Agency on Aging and Disabled. They also have an interagency agreement with the workshops for disabled residents in each of the four counties. The workshops are divisions of Four Rivers. For each workshop there are corresponding routes. If a disabled rider who lives along Route X needs a ride back to Four Rivers, then the driver for Route X will pick him or her up. Ride Solution has 11 vehicles and 12 employees, serves as the central dispatch, and schedules the rides. It sends each agency a list of scheduled pickups for the next day. Agencies contract with Ride Solution to Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 295 WESTERN INDIANA: MULTICOUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES

provide vehicles and drivers and to receive transportation services. Each agency is responsible for its budget, maintenance, fuel, and insurance. Ride Solution pays each agency for the number of trips they provide each month. Service is coordinated among eight agencies. In addition to the drivers directly employed by Ride Solution, it uses 11 drivers who are employed by the contracted agencies. Although these drivers are paid by their agency, they are representatives of Ride Solution. These 21 drivers operate daily 10 vans; 8 of the vans are ADA accessible. Approximately 75 vehicles are available across all the agencies; 45 of those belong to Four Rivers. The fleet has one 18- passenger mini-bus and a few cars. Most of the vehicles are mini vans and full-size vans. Service operates from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Cost each way is $1 in town, $2 in the county, and $3 county to county. The cost per passenger is $8.65, and 1,200 unduplicated passengers are served each month. The annual transportation budget is $529,000. Ride Solution received $238,200 in Federal funding and received a 50-percent match from local funds. Passenger fares account for about 10 percent of total revenues. Coordination Development Process: In 1998, a grass roots effort began in Greene County when a local minister asked his congregation about the needs of the community. Transportation was a concern to many of the parishioners. The minister initiated the first meeting of what became The Greene County Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). Members of the committee represented participating agencies and local businesses. Four Rivers Resource Services is the largest agency involved and became the lead agency. The next step was to locate funding to conduct a feasibility study. Four Rivers received a 2-year grant from the Vocational Rehabilitation Center that was used as seed money to hire a consultant, who in turned assisted Four Rivers in hiring a staff person to conduct the feasibility study. During the feasibility study, surveys were completed by provider agencies to identify their needs and to encourage them to join in the process. When the feasibility study was completed, it served as the basis for an application for FTA Section 5311 funding from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) to the Southern Indiana Development Commission (SIDC). SIDC contracted with Four Rivers to be the lead agency. Other agencies contract with Four Rivers. Only a few agencies had a desire and the funds to participate. Since receiving the Section 5311 funding, more agencies have expressed interest in participating, and Ride Solution has expanded into another county. Benefits of Coordination: Customer satisfaction and enhanced recognition of public transit have been the biggest successes in coordinating services. Ride Solution was able to accomplish this by working hard to meet the needs of its customers while keeping costs to a minimum. Another benefit of coordination is the integration that has occurred. Clients from different agencies are now riding in the same vehicle. Initially this was a concern to some riders, but now it is no longer an issue. Overall, riders are very pleased with the service. This is evidenced in positive feedback through letters, telephone calls, and from the results of a rider survey indicating 96-percent satisfaction. The agencies are now able to offer more rides to more locations as a result of the coordinated efforts. Recognition as contributors to Ride Solution also gives them more publicity. Support, Problems, Barriers, Mistakes, Solutions: Initially, many agencies were reluctant to be involved because they were concerned about maintaining their autonomy. To get these agencies to participate, Ride Solution told these agencies to continue to provide transportation on their own, but asked that they contribute at least one vehicle and one driver and matching funds (amount dependent on agency budget) to become part of Ride Solution. By doing this, agencies were able to keep their independence but also experience the benefits of coordinating. Another problem Ride Solution faced was working with agencies that disagree because they have different missions. They have worked through this problem over time by communicating and negotiating. Once the system was ready, public education was the next priority. Public transportation was a new concept to this rural region, and residents did not know of the benefits public transportation could offer their communities. Some also had inaccurate, preconceived ideas that the services were only for mentally retarded, developmentally disabled, or elderly riders. To educate the residents about public transportation, Ride Solution has written newspaper articles on public transit, made presentations in the community, and advertised. 296 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

INDOT has provided state support by sending staff to participate in several transportation advisory committee meetings. INDOT would also like to support Ride Solution through Federal funding, so Ride Solution can reach more people with its existing service and in the future expand its schedule. INDOT would also like to support Ride Solution. Recommendations for Others: ✦ Jump in head first, do not procrastinate. ✦ Establish a transportation advisory committee with persons and agencies with the common goal of meeting the local transit needs regardless of constituency (i.e., person with disabilities, job seekers, seniors, or others). Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 297

Program Malheur County Transportation Service (MCTS) Sponsoring Organization Malheur Council on Aging and Community Services (MCOA) City, State Ontario, OR Service Type Demand special needs transportation Service Area Malheur County, OR and small portions of Baker County, OR; Washington, Payette, Gem, and Canyon Counties, ID Service Area Population Elderly and disabled residents Service Area Size (sq mi) 12,580 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 32,236 Annual Expenses $318,000 Cost/Trip $9.86 Major Funding Sources Agency contracts, Oregon STF (state cigarette tax revenue), fares, Oregon Medicaid Assistance program Coordinating Agencies Oregon Volunteer Services Program, nursing homes, mental health agencies, several assisted-living projects, and Ontario School District for special needs students Other Service area is 9,280 square miles in Malheur County, 2,500 sq mi in Baker County and 800 square miles in Idaho Background: Malheur Council on Aging and Community Services (MCOA) is a nonprofit organization serving Malheur County, Oregon. MCOA provides coordinated transportation services to elderly and disabled residents of Malheur County, as well as small portions of bordering Baker County, Oregon, (Huntington) and the neighboring Idaho counties of Washington, Payette, Gem and Canyon. The agency’s senior and disabled transportation service, Malheur County Transportation Service (MCTS), provides an excellent example of successful grassroots coordination in a very rural area. Although MCTS has a contract to serve all 9,280 square miles of Malheur County, its practical service area in Malheur and Baker Counties is approximately 2,500 square miles, plus about 800 square miles across the border in Idaho’s Treasure Valley. In addition to special needs transportation, MCOA provides a range of services to seniors and low- income families, including low-income energy assistance, weatherization, a food bank pantry, an emergency shelter for homeless persons, and farm worker housing assistance. The majority of MCTS trips are for medical, shopping, social, education, employment, or volunteer activities. MCTS uses 10 lift-equipped vehicles, all owned and insured by Malheur County. During FY2000-2001 MCTS carried 32,236 passenger trips, operated more than 11,000 vehicle hours, and covered approximately 110,000 loaded vehicle miles. The council estimates that its operating cost per vehicle hour is $28.62 and that its operating cost per vehicle mile is $1.60. Annual operating costs of the Malheur Transportation System for FY2000-2001 were approximately $318,000. Program Evolution and Structure: In 1990, Malheur County Board of Commissioners appointed a Special Transportation Board to deal with the issue of rural elderly and disabled transportation. The impetus for the formation of this task force was a countywide needs study that identified senior and disabled transportation as the number one gap in county social services. The original stakeholders represented on the Special 298 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV MALHEUR COUNTY, OREGON: COORDINATED AGENCY TRIPS

Transportation Board were and continue to be regional social service agencies, the county mental health clinic, privately and publicly owned residential care facilities, the city of Ontario, the county senior citizens centers, and a local taxi company. Around this same time, the County Board of Commissioners encouraged MCOA to apply for state Special Transportation Formula (STF) funds (cigarette tax) for seed money to develop some form of a coordinated special needs transportation network. MCOA applied and received $120,000 in seed money from the state. MCOA also successfully assisted three local senior centers with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) capital grant applications that allowed each to purchase a lift-equipped van. MCOA used the STF seed money to purchase a 1993 medical minivan that enabled MCOA to transport dialysis patients. MCOA also used these funds to hire a full-time dispatcher. Shortly afterward, the council initiated a 2-week trial coordination effort, bringing together dispatching efforts from both its transportation services and Oregon Volunteer Services Program. The success of this trial led to a permanent merger and spurred MCOA to hire a full-time coordination manager, who had extensive experience working with social service providers throughout the county, was very familiar with elderly and disabled transportation needs, and was well connected in the region. MCOA staff identified this as a key turning point in the evolution of their services. Shortly thereafter, MCOA began negotiating contracts with local agencies to provide transportation services for the agencies’ clients. MCOA took over services for several nursing homes, mental health agencies, and assisted-living projects and even developed a contract with the Ontario School District to provide transportation services for special needs students. The MCOA Board still holds a contract with Malheur County to operate the county’s special needs transportation program. The transportation department of MCOA has a supervisor responsible for overseeing dispatch and MCTS’s eight drivers. Malheur County owns the majority of vehicles used by MCTS, although MCTS occasionally borrows vehicles from senior centers or other providers. MCOA transports seniors for three privately operated senior centers, all of which have at least one lift-equipped van that they loan to MCOA on an as-needed basis. All participating agencies still belong to the Special Transportation Board, participate in decisions about the dispersal of STF funds, and help to develop regional transportation policy. The state has been a key player in developing coordinated transportation services in Malheur County. Not only have they provided financial support for the program, Oregon DOT Public Transportation has provided important training for MCOA staff. For example, MCOA staff cited a recent Full Cost Allocation Workshop held by Oregon DOT as a key turning point in helping the organization to develop sound financial management practices. Funding: MCOA does not receive Federal operating funds. The Council’s primary funding source is the revenue it collects from various service contracts. MCOA contracts with a wide range of social service, senior service, and medical organizations. In return for providing transportation services, MCOA requires that any participant organization release 100 percent of its available transportation funds to its program. Among the groups to whom MCOA provides transportation services are Oregon Medicaid Assistance Program, Idaho Medicaid, Ontario School District, mental health agencies, assisted-living projects, and several senior centers. Annual revenue from contracts with participant agencies totaled $193,487 in FY2000-2001. MCOA’s second largest funding source is the Oregon STF. In FY2000-2001, the council received $72,232 from the program. (The county receives all state funding and disperses it through the county fiscal office.) The service also carries general public riders who pay cash fares. Farebox revenues for the last fiscal year were just over $7,000. In FY2000-2001, MCOA received a small Section 5310 Capital Grant (Capital Program for Elderly and Persons with Disabilities) of $21,729. The MCTS staff is now working with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) and is optimistic that they will soon be eligible for operating and capital assistance from ITD. MCOA recently received an Oregon DOT planning grant to evaluate the feasibility of becoming a regional Medicaid brokerage. Although MCOA currently acts informally as the local brokerage for medical and Medicaid trips, the state is pushing the council to begin brokering all Medicaid trips in a three-county area in eastern Oregon. Although MCOA has yet to determine the feasibility of taking on such a role, serving as Medicaid broker would likely increase MCOA’s annual revenues for operations and administration and Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 299

provide funds for software and hardware upgrades. MCOA has already received its Oregon Medical Assistance Program (OMAP) provider contract number, substantially increasing its per mile reimbursement for Medicaid trips. The Idaho Medicaid program is also in the process of a rate restructuring that could mean increased revenues for Idaho based Medicaid trips. Type of Coordination—MCOA provides coordinated dispatching for agency-funded transportation. Participant agencies include Community Partnership Team volunteers, Vale and Nyssa Senior Centers, the Ontario School District, the Ontario City Bus, and a number of other agencies and organizations. These individual agencies make referrals to MCOA, and it dispatches the available service. MCOA provides all scheduling and dispatching services and employs eight drivers. MCOA is responsible for all driver hiring, training, and monitoring. Its fleet of 10 lift-equipped vans is owned and insured by Malheur County. MCOA handles all administrative and accounting functions for the service and coordinates (actually prepares) the quarterly and annual reports for Oregon DOT for its participant groups (except Ontario Bus). Types of Trips—The majority of MCOA provided trips are to physicians, dentists, and therapists in Ontario, Oregon; Payette, Idaho; and Fruitland, Idaho. The council also provides medical trips to Idaho hospitals and physicians in Boise, Meridian, Caldwell, and Nampa. MCOA also has a 5-day per week contract to provide medical and employment trips for developmentally disabled residents from their homes to a workshop in Ontario. Regular service hours are 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. MCTS is available at other hours and for weekend and holiday trips. However, these special services are typically limited to dialysis patients. Benefits of Coordination: MCOA staff cited numerous benefits from its evolving coordination efforts. The primary benefit to the region and communities is greater access to rides and mobility services for senior and disabled citizens. However, this basic service has improved lives of these citizens in numerous other ways. For example, staff pointed out that its services have allowed many elderly people to remain independent in their homes longer that they would have been able to otherwise. Among the other benefits of MCOA’s coordination successes are ✦ Ability to provide an important public service not previously available, increasing the level of mobility for elderly and disabled citizens of Malheur County, Baker County, and the Treasure Valley in Idaho. ✦ Availability of transportation services to a larger percentage of the elderly and disabled population. ✦ Development of an informal, but highly effective referral system for riders. Because MCOA is a community action agency, which provides a variety of social services, drivers are able to refer riders to other programs the agency offers. ✦ Better access to operating and capital grant funds available because MCOA is recognized as a well- established transportation provider. ✦ Ability to serve riders of all types with better, safer equipment. ✦ Economic benefit enjoyed by other agencies that are able to eliminate more expensive transportation programs. ✦ Establishment of one central location for riders to contact for all their transportation needs. Lessons Learned: MCOA has faced a number of challenges over the past 10 years as its transportation program developed. One of the primary challenges for the council was keeping staffing needs and administrative expertise in line with program growth. MCOA entered into the transportation business as a community action agency with no expertise in managing a transportation program. This presented challenges in setting up an efficient dispatching system, developing contracts with participating agencies, dispatching riders, monitoring services, and accounting, billing, and revenue collection. MCOA provided a few key recommendations for agencies new to transportation provision or dispatching: ✦ Approach it exactly like you are starting a business! Develop a business plan up front to guide program growth. ✦ Pay close attention to the bottom line! Put in place reliable systems for invoicing and tracking revenues and expenditures. If your organization does not have this capability, bring in a CPA or consultant to assist you. 300 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

✦ Develop a clear and comprehensive program policy manual. It is a lot easier to train than retrain. ✦ Purchase scheduling and dispatch software that meets your organization’s needs. Finding software that matches your needs can vastly improve efficiency, monitoring, and operations for even small organizations or agencies that are brokering rides. ✦ Retain legal expertise and develop formal contracts with participating agencies. For a number of years, MCOA operated with relatively informal contracts. Although most agencies paid invoices promptly, the informality did cause some problems collecting receivables. ✦ Ensure that participating agencies are fully vested in the program. MCOA has required new agencies to pay an annual fee equivalent to their full operating budget for transportation services. This ensures that agencies do not attempt to pass off riders to MCOA to save on their own operating costs. MCOA recently contracted a CPA to handle the accounting for the MCTS program. Up until that time, staff had never had a clear picture of program costs and revenues. MCOA staff cites this as a crucial step in ensuring the financial future and success of the MCTS program. The council also hired a consultant with expertise in policy and economic development to help them establish clear policy goals and aid in program administration, a move they cite as invaluable. Another key step in the evolution of the MCTS program came when it purchased Mobilitat’s Easy Rides dispatching software, which has improved accounting practices, service monitoring, and overall efficiency significantly. Reasons for Success: MCOA staff attributes its success to date to a number of fiscal, geographical, and human factors: ✦ Unwavering support from the County Board of Commissioners and county government in meeting its goal of providing quality transportation services to elderly citizens and people with disabilities. ✦ A long history of cooperative working relationships between public and social service agencies and organizations in Malheur County. The rural nature of the county and distance from any major metropolitan area has taught agencies and service providers to rely on one another for support. ✦ The limited funding availability for services in rural eastern Oregon and western Washington has taught MCOA and other providers to be creative and cooperative in developing programs to provide quality services for their clients. ✦ Staff retention and stability has helped the transportation program develop efficiently. MCOA’s current executive director has been with the council longer than its transportation service has been in place. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 301

Program Merced County Transit (“The Bus”) Sponsoring Organization Consolidated transit systems of Merced County and six cities, administered by the Merced County Department of Public Works City, State Merced, CA Service Type Urban and intercity fixed-route, paratransit, and dial-a-ride services Service Area Merced County, CA Service Area Population 210,554 Service Area Size (sq mi) 16,000 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 736,822 Annual Expenses $5,800,000 Cost/Trip $4.04 fixed route; $9.98 dial-a-ride Major Funding Sources Local AAA, fares Coordinating Agencies Merced County and cities of Merced, Los Banos, Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston Other Annual trips are 587,946 fixed route, 148,876 dial-a-ride. Annual expenses are said to be “current.” Background: Merced County Transit (MCT), in California’s Central Valley, provides a good example of transit system consolidation. MCT was officially created in January 1995 with the consolidation of the former Merced County Regional Transit System (fixed route and paratransit), the Merced City Shuttle (fixed route and paratransit), and a dial-a-ride service in the city of Los Banos. The consolidated system was established with the adoption of a joint powers agreement (JPA) between Merced County and the cities of Merced, Los Banos, Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine and Livingston. The JPA policy board consists of five representatives from the County Board of Supervisors and one representative from each of the six cities. This is the same board as the local Association of Governments. The consolidated transit system—locally referred to as “The Bus”—operates local urban fixed routes in the small city of Merced, intercity fixed routes, a general public dial-a-ride in the outlying communities, and ADA- compliant services 6 days per week. The service area of approximately 16,000 square miles includes six incorporated cities, the unincorporated county and 13 townships. MCT has a total of 54 vehicles, 32 of which are in operation at any given time. The current annual transportation budget is $5.8 million, of which $4.8 million is dedicated to operating costs. The county employs four administrative staff and 10 mechanics, but the service is primarily staffed by the contract operator, with 49 drivers, three road supervisors and four dispatchers. The 2001 cost per passenger for the fixed-route services was $4.04; for dial-a-ride services, the cost was $9.98 per passenger. In 2001, MCT carried 736,822 passengers (587,946 fixed route and 148,876 dial-a-ride). The consolidated transit system is seamless, serving all key destinations throughout the county. The system operates from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with a couple of routes to the local junior college operating until 11:00 p.m. (through JARC funds). The successful consolidated system currently coordinates with the local area agency on aging (which subsidizes the cost of monthly bus passes for eligible seniors). MCT expects to be 302 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: CONSOLIDATED SERVICES

contracted by the University of California, which is building a new campus 8 miles outside of the largest community, Merced, to extend routes and increase frequencies on some routes. History of Coordination: How consolidation came about is attributed to a discussion at the Annual City- County Dinner in 1992. With state funding cutbacks, the jurisdictions were under pressure to reduce costs. They considered combining police or fire services, but not all communities would agree to cede local control of those services. The discussion turned to transit, based on the outcome of a 1991 fare coordination study. Spearheaded by two city council members from Merced and two county supervisors, the transit consolidation effort enjoyed a high level of political support. All decisionmaking efforts throughout the consolidation process were based on consensus-building and agreement among mayors, council members, and county supervisors. Local transit unmet needs hearings also played a role in the consolidation of Merced County’s transit systems. Public participation countywide had been low. Haphazard coordination among the communities meant solutions to intercity transit needs were complicated to develop, operate, and fund. It was hoped that by consolidating responsibilities under one system, the problems faced by all systems regarding public input, service coordination, and transfers would be solved. The process of consolidation included many meetings among political leaders, three major public hearings, and extensive staff time in reviewing policies and procedures for a consolidated transit operation. One key to success is the agreed-upon level of service for each entity. Each jurisdiction agreed to a minimum level of service and a corresponding level of state TDA funds to pay for this service. The cost-sharing strategy for local and intercity services is based on the number of service hours. That is, each city has an agreed-upon number of service hours operating in its jurisdiction and is required to pay for those service hours based on the system’s hourly cost of operation. The JPA states that there is a base level of service (defined by number of service hours) in each jurisdiction. For this minimum level of service hours, each jurisdiction is required to contribute a guaranteed level of TDA funds. A jurisdiction is entitled to increase this service given two conditions: (1) equipment availability and (2) financial capacity to contribute the additional funds needed to operate this service. When the transit agencies consolidated, no new administrative agency was created. The Merced County Department of Public Works was assigned responsibility for administering and managing the service as well as vehicle maintenance. The county transportation manager continued his role of managing the service. An assistant position was created, and the transportation coordinator from Merced was transferred from the city to the county. In addition to these two dedicated employees, Merced County Transit “purchases” administrative services from the county for purchasing, finance, and other functions as needed. Additionally, the County Association of Governments assists MCT in posting official meeting notices and other administrative filings. The MCT director describes the result of the consolidation process as “wholesale change.” The director reports that “all schedules were redone, every route was modified, all hours were made to be uniform, and an ADA component was put in place for all services in the county.” Benefits of Consolidation: Transit consolidation is considered successful in Merced County. The primary measure of success was a 40-percent increase in ridership during the first year of operation compared to the level of investment. This enormous growth in ridership is attributed to improved service and scheduling, integrated timed transfers, and eliminating passenger confusion about separate services and different fare structures. Other advantages of the effort include the following: ✦ Access to more funding. The combined political power and size of the consolidated system made it easier to attract funds from the local Air Quality District. ✦ Reduced vehicle travel and less duplication. Although MCT eliminated all duplication, the participating cities and Merced County now have some misgivings. According to the director, if they had to do it all again, they would not have eliminated all of the duplication from the intercity services. Interlining those services would have provided better frequencies along some key corridors and would have reduced the need for many riders coming from the most rural parts of the county to transfer. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 303

✦ Lower cost of trips for riders. No more intersystem transfers and a countywide zonal fare system reduced the travel costs for some riders. ✦ More riders per vehicle. Ridership has increased and the system is considered a success. ✦ Better access to jobs, health care, shopping. The seamless system makes it easier for everyone to travel using transit. ✦ Increased activity to local businesses. Local merchants have enthusiastically supported the consolidated system. ✦ Ability to provide more trips overall. With the combined resources of what had been several transit systems, vehicles can be used more effectively and service levels have increased. ✦ Enhanced visibility and/or image of transit. A new, easy-to-recognize name and logo for the countywide system, as well as a television and radio advertising campaign, have raised awareness of transit in Merced County. Consolidation also brought about a more effective unmet needs process, with higher public turnout and a more informed community. ✦ Cost savings for transit provider. Before consolidating services, administrative costs accounted for about 12 percent of system costs for each of the three transit services. Currently administrative costs represent about 8 percent of MCT’s total operating costs. Challenges and Opportunities: Even with these many advantages, some minor shortcomings persist. While the greatest success of the consolidated system is that all of the agencies in the county are working together cooperatively, some communities on the far west side of the county still have only lifeline transit services. This should change in 2003 when new services are implemented that will complete objectives outlined in the recommended consolidated service plan. MCT believes the State of California has done very little to encourage transit coordination and consolidation. While the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans) sent representatives to meetings, they provided no special funding or technical assistance to make consolidation a possibility. Funding is the key barrier to successful coordination and consolidation. Another barrier for MCT has been Amtrak. Even though four MCT routes make a total of 70 stops each day at the Amtrak station, the rail provider has refused to allow the transit operator to post a bus stop sign and transit schedules on its property. Lessons Learned: The director’s advice for successful consolidation is to get a good mix of local elected officials together and to have staffers who can respond to their needs. The process should be overseen and directed by political leaders who can make the difficult decisions and move the process forward. He believes that consolidation has worked well in Merced County because he is responsive to each city’s individual needs. By working closely with the city managers and responding to changing markets, MCT is able to accommodate the transit needs of the individual cities. Through this ongoing cooperative relationship, the cities have not experienced a “loss of control”—a commonly stated fear about consolidation. 304 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Program Community Connection of Northeast Oregon Sponsoring Organization Community Action Agency, Area Agency on Aging City, State LaGrande, OR; satellite offices in Baker and Wallowa counties Service Type Dial-a-ride and commuter service between Wallowa and Enterprise Service Area Baker, Union, and Wallowa counties Service Area Population 48,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 8,300 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 52,000 Annual Expenses $332,800 Cost/Trip $6.36 Major Funding Sources Section 5311, STF (state cigarette tax revenue), fees and fares, fundraising and donations, contracts, vehicle rentals, local government contributions, United Way Coordinating Agencies LaGrande Taxis Other This system has provided transportation since the 1970s. Of the 48,000 riders, 57 percent are ambulatory seniors, 32 percent are persons under age 60, and 11 percent are persons with disabilities. Background: Community Connection of Northeast Oregon is a community action agency serving the counties of Baker, Union, and Wallowa, which form the northeastern corner of the state. The three counties cover considerable area—more than 8,200 square miles, much of it in national forest lands. The total population of the tricounty region is approximately 48,000. The largest city in the region is La Grande, county seat of Union County, with a population of more than 12,000 residents. As the region’s community action agency, Community Connection serves as the area’s central repository for a wide variety of social services. The agency is based in La Grande, but has satellite offices in Baker and Wallowa counties. In addition, Community Connection is the local area agency on aging and is responsible for providing a range of senior services. They operate senior centers, prepare congregate meals, provide in- home care, administer Meals on Wheels, and provide legal aid and tax assistance, among other services. Community Connection is also an Oregon Food Bank Network Regional Coordinating Agency (RCA). As an RCA, they store and distribute emergency food to local food program partners like churches, soup kitchens, and homeless shelters. Community Connection also operates a daycare center for children in grades K to 6 and develops affordable housing. Community Connection is the only public transportation provider in the region. It operates a fleet of 15 lift- equipped vehicles. Community Connection’s transit service is available to the general public and is primarily dial-a-ride, except for commuter service between the towns of Wallowa and Enterprise 5 days a week. Service runs Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Baker and Wallowa counties and until 7 p.m. in Union County. The local taxi operator in La Grande provides service to clients with prepurchased vouchers on the weekends. In Baker City, the agency also provides after-school service, transporting elementary school children to day care centers. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 305 BAKER, UNION, AND WALLOWA COUNTIES, OREGON: PROGRAM COORDINATION WITHIN ONE AGENCY

During FY2001, Community Connection provided more than 52,000 trips. Seniors with no disabilities accounted for approximately 57 percent of these trips, persons under age 60 accounted for 32 percent, and disabled individuals made up 11 percent of total trips. Community Connection’s total transportation budget for FY2001, including operations, administration, and maintenance was $332,800. Cost per trip equals $6.36, very low for dial-a-ride systems. The executive director attributes this to the high number of volunteer hours they use for drivers. The largest line item was for personnel, which comprised 65 percent of the budget. Revenue comes from a variety of sources including FTA Section 5311 funds, Oregon Special Transportation Formula (STF) (state cigarette tax revenues) funds, fees and fares, fundraising and donations, contracts, vehicle rental revenue, local government contributions, and United Way. Coordination of Transportation Services: Community Connection has provided transportation since the 1970s, predating the current executive director. The service began small and has grown and evolved along with the agency. Community Connection coordinates public transportation in the three-county area, with scheduling and dispatching occurring from three separate offices, one in each county. Because Community Connection is the central social service provider in the area, particularly for senior citizens, most of the “coordination” occurs within the agency and takes the form of referrals. To further illustrate how coordination occurs internally, funds from the county can be shifted and split into senior programs or transportation, as Community Connection’s needs warrant. Agency staff are fully aware of the services available; therefore, if clients need transportation, staff can either schedule on behalf of the clients or pass on the information. There is also cross-agency referral from other providers in the area, including the Department of Human Services, food banks, and clinics. In small communities, like those in northeastern Oregon, social service organizations know each other, support each other, and work together to deliver assistance to those in need. Sometimes vehicles are shared or rented to fellow agencies. These relationships are informal. Community Connection also has a fee-for-service contract with the Department of Human Services to provide nonmedical Medicaid trips. In addition, the agency recently negotiated a contract to provide medical trips in Union and Wallowa counties, and in March 2002, began providing medical trips in Baker County. Community Connection uses paid staff and volunteers to transport Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) clients to medical appointments locally and out of the area to cities with comprehensive medical facilities like Walla Walla, Boise, and Portland. In exchange, the agency is paid per ride, usually a per mile rate. As noted earlier, Community Connection also partners with the school district in Baker City to provide after- school transportation to day care. The after-school transportation provided for schoolchildren is paid for by the school, the parent, or the day care provider, depending on the situation. The executive director was uncertain how the school decides which trips to subsidize or not. The service grew out of the school district identifying a need and knowing that Community Connection is a transportation provider. Finally, the local taxi operator in La Grande provides service over the weekend. Passengers schedule their own rides through the taxi service. Union County subsidizes these trips through STF dollars. To authenticate eligibility for subsidized trips, passengers must obtain vouchers from selected sites in the area, including Community Connection and City Hall. The taxi operator then submits the vouchers to Community Connection or Union County for reimbursement. Benefits of Coordination: The following are benefits of rural coordination that Community Connection has identified: ✦ Public receives better service, in a more timely fashion, and at an affordable cost. ✦ Other social service providers know their clients have a reliable source of transportation. With Community Connection firmly in place, these providers feel less pressure to provide transportation services and can focus resources on their primary care objectives. ✦ Providing service gives the sponsoring agency visibility in the community, resulting in improved name recognition and a positive image. ✦ Active referrals help to increase outreach about related social services available in the community. 306 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Challenges: Community Connection identified two major challenges to coordination, both related to funding: ✦ By far, the most formidable challenge is securing reliable funding. Community Connection taps as many funding sources as possible, but this requires substantial effort and resources. ✦ Receiving funding from Oregon DOT is not timely and results in situations where the agency has to write checks against other accounts to maintain the service. Community Connection has been able to do this without too much difficulty because they have been financially stable and have adequate unrestricted funds. However, this is not a comfortable situation. Recommendations: Community Connection provided a number of recommendations for rural providers interested in setting up coordinated transportation networks: ✦ Be flexible and maintain an ability to adapt to changing needs and conditions. The executive director cited this as one of their defining qualities and a primary reason for their success as an agency. ✦ Establish strong relationships with partner agencies to enhance the referral process and to improve outreach and education about the service. ✦ Share vehicles to maximize their utility. Establishing strong relationships with partner agencies will facilitate this. ✦ Mobilize your volunteer network. In FY2001, Community Connection benefited from approximately 2,600 hours contributed by volunteer drivers, with a value well over $15,000. ✦ Market the service. Referrals only go so far. Many people still believe that Community Connection’s service is only for seniors or persons with disabilities. To raise visibility, the agency has purchased magnetic decals to affix on to their vehicles. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 307

Program South Central Transit Sponsoring Organization South Central Transit Corporation, Marion County City, State Centralia, Mt. Vernon, Salem, West Frankfort and New Baden, IL Service Type Fixed public transportation, curb-to-curb demand (door-to-door with request) Service Area Marion, Jefferson, Clinton, Washington, and Franklin Counties, IL Service Area Population 171,437 Service Area Size (sq mi) 2,600 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 250,000 Annual Expenses $2,167,116 Cost/Trip $9.49 Major Funding Sources Formed with IDOT grant, became Mass Transit District, now gets direct funding from IDOT and FTA Section 5311 Coordinating Agencies Businesses and schools, rehabilitation workshops, senior centers meal delivery, DHS and health centers. Background: South Central Transit (SCT) currently provides public transportation and offers curb-to-curb demand-response service (door-to-door on request) in five counties. SCT offers transportation services to businesses and agencies on a contractual basis. Handicapped accessible transportation is provided for area businesses and schools. A transit board governs SCT. SCT provides service for the counties of Marion, Jefferson, Clinton, Washington and Franklin in south central Illinois. Service is provided 1 day a week to the smaller communities in these counties. The service area is 2,600 square miles and includes a variety of destinations: shopping malls, medical centers, places of employment, and recreational areas, including sporting events. STC has fixed routes to shopping areas and express routes to sporting events and entertainment (Redbird Express, Six Flags Express, St. Louis Blues Express, St. Louis Rams Express and Muny Express). SCT currently operates a fleet of 50 vehicles from five locations throughout its service area in Centralia, Mt. Vernon, Salem, West Frankfort and New Baden. Vehicles include mini vans, raised roof vans, and medium- duty and heavy-duty buses ranging from 6- to 29-passenger capacity. Many of the vehicles are wheelchair accessible. The total number of trips in 2001 was 250,000. The number of trips has been growing by up to 15 percent annually in recent years. 308 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV SOUTH CENTRAL ILLINOIS MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT: PROGRESS TOWARD COORDINATION

Service is available Monday through Friday as follows: Centralia 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Nashville 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Salem 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. West Frankfort 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Mt. Vernon 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Benton/West City 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Carlyle 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Coordinated transportation services include trips to rehabilitation workshops, senior centers, meal delivery, Department of Human Services (DHS) and health centers. SCT provides training for third part, CDL certification and shares a new maintenance/facility. SCT’s fare structure is complicated because of the size of the service area and the nature of trips that are provided. The base fare for adults is $1 for curb-to-curb service and $2 for door-to-door service. For older adults, the base fare for curb-to-curb service is 50 cents. For door-to-door service, riders pay $1. Service must be scheduled a day ahead, but riders can pay an extra $2 for same-day curb-to-curb service and an extra $3 for same-day door-to-door service. Monthly passes are available for passengers, including school students. The full fare structure is shown in Table 15. Coordination Process: South Central Transit Corporation was formed in October 1989 by a 5711 grant through Marion County and the Illinois Department of Transportation. The 5711 grant was awarded to Marion County and South Central Transit to provide transportation services to the elderly and handicapped in Marion County and in Brookside Township of Clinton County. Service has grown from a monthly average of 300 trips in 1989 to the present monthly average of 20,000 trips. In June 1992, Marion County Board voted 15 to 0 to form a transit district. At this time, South Central Transit Corporation ceased to operate, and the South Central Illinois Mass Transit District (also called South Central Transit or SCT) was created. The impacts of the creation of the transit district included the following features: ✦ Creation of a governmental entity as a transit district that is responsible for the public transportation needs in the district. ✦ Direct funding from the Illinois Department of Transportation rather than through the County Board. ✦ As a governmental entity, SCT is entitled to privileges such as reduced liability insurance, no taxes on fuel or properties, and district funding. ✦ Ability to establish fixed routes within the district. ✦ As a transit district, SCT is eligible for grants and funding from Federal and State Governments. ✦ Ability to annex additional counties into the district to provide service in those counties and establish fixed intercity routes. ✦ Ability to work directly with legislators to receive more funding (Downstate Transportation Act). ✦ Ability to pursue contracts with major industries, social service agencies, businesses, etc. ✦ Ability to be solely in the transportation business. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 309

Coordination started in 1993. Decisionmaking authority belonged to the Board of Directors, which consists of five members, one from each county. In May 1993, the Jefferson County Board and the SCT Board of Directors voted to annex Jefferson County into the transportation district, and in July 1993 Jefferson County was officially annexed, and SCT assumed the existing Jefferson County Transit. In October 1994, Clinton County was annexed into SCT by resolution of the Clinton County Board and the SCT Board of Directors. Plans for expansion of services and feeder routes linking up with Bi-State Bus in Clinton County were in the works. In 1997, SCT continued working toward annexation of Washington and Bond Counties into the transportation district. An interagency agreement between SCT and Community Transportation Development (CTD) was entered into to allow for the purchase of services between the two organizations to provide an integrated system of transportation services to mutual clients and the public. Because there was no transit service before, to get the system started new bus stops needed to be built, and the new services needed to be marketed. Advertising was done through brochures and public service announcements. 310 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV Table 15: SOUTH CENTRAL TRANSIT’S FARE STRUCTURE Call 532-8076, 242-0202 or 1-800-660-7433 Door-to-Door Service Curb-to-Curb Service Seniors (60 and over) $1.00 $ .50 Seniors - Mt. Vernon (60 and over) $1.00 No charge* Adults (17-59) $2.00 $1.00 Children (8-17 without adult) $2.00 $1.00 Children (8-17 with adult) $1.00 $ .50 Children (0-8 with adult) No charge No charge Shopping Shuttle-per stop (8-59) N/A $ .50 Scheduled Transfers (regardless of age) $ .50 $ .50 Same Day Service (regardless of age) $5.00 $3.00 Child School Pass One- Way K-8th grade N/A $30.00 Child School Pass Round Trip K-8th grade N/A $40.00 Senior Pass (Centralia/Salem) (60 and over) N/A $15.00 Shopping Shuttle Pass (regardless of age) N/A $15.00 Adult Pass (13-59) N/A $30.00 The above fares/passes are only valid with 1- day prior scheduling of all pickups, transfers and returns (with the exception of same day service) and are valid within city limits * In conjunction with Jefferson County Comp. Services. NEW SERVICE HOURS 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in Mt. Vernon & Centralia 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in Salem 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. in Nashville & West Frankfort Scheduled transportation available Monday through Friday, 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in Mt. Vernon and Centralia, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in Salem. Call for quotes outside of these hours.

Benefits of Coordination: Access to more funding, lower cost of trips for rider, lower cost of trips for agencies, filling gaps where there was no service, ability to provide more trips overall, reduced vehicle travel, more productivity, better access to jobs, health care, and shopping, increased activity to local businesses and enhanced visibility of transit are all recognized as benefits of coordination of transportation services for SCT. Benefits of coordination were determined quantitatively by the increase in the number of trips (15% annually). The DHS benefited from the coordination because their staff no longer had to spend time providing transportation and could spend the time meeting their clients’ other needs. Challenges and Problems: Funding and allocation of resources is the greatest concern. The distribution of funds and resources is not proportional. For example, 5310 funding for purchasing vehicles is given to everyone who asks rather then evaluating who has the greatest need. This is a problem because agencies continue to receive vehicles; consequently they are less inclined to coordinate services. Another example is senior agencies that are awarded 5311 funding. Because this funding requires that their service be open to the public, the scheduling and location of services they provide must accommodate the general public, whereas STC service tends to focus primarily on seniors. Transportation is the number one problem in Illinois, particularly in rural areas. The state has 43 counties without transportation. To address this problem, the state is looking into what can be done to meet this need. Coordination of transportation services is at the top of the list. Recommendations for Others: Communicate with many agencies and people in the community to reach a diverse group of people and select a transportation committee. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 311

Program Navajo Transit System (NTS) Sponsoring Organization Navajo Nation City, State Window Rock, AZ Service Type Fixed-route transit service Service Area NTS serves the Navajo Nation located in the four corners area of the southwestern United States, including the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. NTS provides mobility throughout the reservation primarily with intercity service and also with limited local service. NTS also operates a charter service throughout the United States using a separate fleet. Service Area Population Navajo Nation is the largest tribe in the United States, with a population of 180,765 in the year 2000. Service Area Size (sq mi) Navajo Nation reservation is approximately 27,000 square miles. Data for Year Ending All data from the Short-Range Transit Plan, provides 5-year projections through 2015. One-way Trips per Year 81,415 (in 2002) Annual Expenses $857,400 (total cost for the public transit service operated by Navajo Transit in FY2001, excluding capital and charter service) Cost/Trip $10.97 (=cost per passenger, FY01) Major Funding Sources FTA 5310 and 5311 (mainly 5311 funding) Coordinating Agencies Other Navajo Nation tribal agencies, including Fleet Management, area agency on aging, Indian Health Services, and Community Health Representatives. Coordinate also with the Hopi Reservation and Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah for receipt of FTA 5310 and 5311 funds. Background: The Navajo Transit System (NTS) serves the Navajo Nation (or Navajo Reservation), which occupies nearly 27,000 square miles in the southwestern United States, including parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. NTS provides transportation throughout the Reservation, primarily through intercity bus service linking distant portions of the Navajo Nation and through limited local service. The Navajo Nation is the largest Native American tribe in the United States, with a population of 180,765 as of 2000. The Navajo Nation is approximately 96 percent Navajo, 3.5 percent white, and 0.5 percent other races. The Reservation also has a large number of visitors every year. NTS has provided fixed-route transportation since 1980 along a few major corridors on the Reservation. NTS has 15 buses that often travel more than 100 miles to get to developed areas. The primary riders are members of the Navajo tribe, although some rides are provided to members of the Hopi Nation, which is in the center of the Navajo Nation. Service is currently oriented toward the tribal administrative offices and services in Window Rock and Fort Defiance, Arizona, which are not centrally located within the Navajo Nation. These services include health care, employment, education, job training, and government services. Navajo Transit System represents the only means of reaching these services for transit-dependent persons. Although the Navajo Nation has a high unemployment rate (40%), jobs are available in the larger communities of Window Rock, Fort Defiance, Chinle, Kayenta, Tuba City, and Page on the Reservation and in the neighboring communities of Gallup, Flagstaff, and Holbrook. Access to these communities is critical. 312 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH: NAVAJO TRANSIT SYSTEM

Organization and Funding: The NTS is managed by a director who reports to the head of the Navajo Nation Division of General Services. NTS is organized into three sections: (1) Fixed Route System/Section 5311 Program, (2) Charter and Special Operations, and (3) Administration. NTS has approximately 23 staff and over half are drivers in the Section 5311 program division. The Navajo Transit System Short-Range Transit Plan states that NTS has effective practices in the areas of daily operations, cost and revenue tracking, and strategic planning. There is also a high level of participation in state and national transit training programs. Navajo Transit System’s noncharter operations are primarily funded by the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 5311 program. NTS also receives vehicles through the 5310 program. Coordination Efforts: NTS coordinates with tribal agencies on the reservation by providing vehicles or picking up passengers, enabling a variety of specialized transportation services. The NTS currently coordinates with other organizations and internally in the following ways. ✦ Vehicle loans and agreements with other organizations in the reservation—NTS allows Navajo and other Indian-related organizations to use their vehicles, generally for elderly, handicapped, and employment training/access uses. NTS also has agreements to transport clients that require specialized service on NTS buses. Vehicles and rides are based on contractual agreements with Navajo and Indian health, employment, and social service organizations including the following: – Navajo Nation Fleet Management (NNFM)—NNFM has seven offices across the Navajo Nation to distribute 1,800 four-wheel drive vehicles. NTS vehicles supplement this fleet for clients with special needs. – Navajo Nation Area Agency on Aging—The agency uses vans to bring clients to meal sites and coordinate with Navajo senior centers throughout the reservation. – Indian Health Services (IHS)—NTS is one of four contractors that provide emergency medical transportation to IHS and is funded through state Medicaid funding and reimbursements from New Mexico and Utah. – Community Health Representatives (CHRs)—CHRs use tribal motor pool vehicles for their outreach efforts throughout the reservation, only providing rides for clients in emergencies. – Navajo Nation Workforce Development—The agency has approximately five vehicles that they rarely use because of lack of time to provide rides. Navajo Transit is exploring ways to provide service to workforce clients via fixed route. ✦ Intratribal coordination with the Hopi Reservation—NTS provides service to the Hopi Nation situated in the center of the Navajo Nation. NTS coordinates with the Hopi Senom Transit System (HSTS), which has been operating two fixed routes and a vanpool (open to the general public) from Flagstaff to Kykotsmovi for approximately 13 years. NTS provides daily bus service through the Hopi area between Tuba City and Window Rock, thereby extending the destinations that the Hopi Nation can reach via transit. In addition to connecting the existing fixed routes, HSTS and NTS are also discussing the possibility of Navajo Transit providing Hopi passengers with rides to Winslow and Leupp/Flagstaff as well. ✦ Coordination with states—NTS works with Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah for receipt of FTA 5311 and 5310 funds, as well as other subsidies through the Older Americans Act and Medicaid. ✦ Coordination with nearby community organizations—NTS has been pursuing coordination regarding service delivery and funding with nontribal, low-income, welfare-to-work, and senior agencies located in surrounding communities and within the reservation. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was recently initiated between NTS and these organizations following discussions that have been underway for a year. The MOU, which has not been implemented yet, was developed to promote additional NTS services to agencies in need and new processes to coordinate with the agencies. Need for Coordination: NTS is the only transit service available in the large isolated region that the reservation covers. Aside from a few shorter trips, typical travel ranges from 80 miles into Winslow and Homer to 160 miles into Flagstaff. Coordination with both tribal and nontribal organizations and people residing in the Reservation is necessary because other options for meeting transportation needs do not exist. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 313

NTS is facing the following challenges for which they are likely to need additional coordination in the form of funding or other agreements to ✦ Develop an effective vehicle replacement program; ✦ Construct a new administrative and bus maintenance facility; and ✦ Provide access to more parts of the reservation, including service to adjacent border towns for employment and services. Challenges and Lessons Learned: The Navajo Nation is a very large area and it has been challenging for NTS to coordinate with all of the organizations that either need their services or that NTS needs assistance from, although they are making huge efforts to do so. Beyond the reservation borders, there are numerous organizations to coordinate with as well and it takes resources and processes to pursue opportunities that may stretch beyond NTS’s capacity at this time. One situation that has challenged NTS over the past few years is their attempt to provide better service to Gallop, Arizona. To date, NTS has been driving Navajos to Gallop but not providing rides to the residents of Gallop, who also are in need of transportation service. Funding is being sought to overcome this barrier. Additionally, Indian Health Service and NTS attempted to work out an arrangement to take individuals to the Gallup Indian Health Service Center, but administrative problems over the method of payment kept the arrangement from being a success. Another area, previously mentioned, is NTS’ pursuit of service delivery and funding coordination with nontribal, low-income, welfare-to-work, and senior agencies located in surrounding communities and within the reservation. An MOU has been negotiated with these agencies. However, new coordination has not yet resulted from this MOU. Some of the reasons why enacting change and fostering coordinated transit activities has been a lengthy process are the enormous transit distances that need to be covered, the sovereignty of the Navajo Nation, and the resources required to carry out new services. 314 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Program RIDES Mass Transit Sponsoring Organization N.A. City, State Harrisburg, IL Service Type Door-to-door, several residential routes Service Area Pope, Hardin, Gallatin, Saline, White, Hamilton, Wayne, Edwards, and Wabash Counties, IL Service Area Population 105,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 3,361 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 224,760 Annual Expenses $2,286,472 Cost/Trip $10.17 Major Funding Sources JARC, JFS, workshops Coordinating Agencies 70+ agencies (alternative schools, churches, social services, insurance companies, sheltered workshops, etc.) Background: RIDES is a coordinated transportation system that serves the general public and special populations in Pope, Hardin, Gallatin, Saline, White, Hamilton, Wayne, Edwards, and Wabash counties in southern Illinois. RIDES offers door-to-door service and operates several residential routes. RIDES began 25 years ago and today works with more than 70 agencies, including social services, sheltered workshops, churches, alternative schools, and insurance companies. RIDES Mass Transit District covers 3,361 square miles; 76 percent of this area is rural. The population of the nine counties is just over 105,000. In 2001, the system provided 224,760 trips. RIDES’s operating expenses in 2001 were $2,286,472. The vehicle fleet numbers 53. The average trip length is 11 miles one way. Operating hours are from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. RIDES provides employment service 7 days a week, 24 hours a day in some counties. Service is available for any trip purpose; there are no restrictions. Trips are provided to work, medical facilities, shopping, school, and to after-school, sheltered workshop, and other agency programs. Fares vary depending on age, qualifying for special programs, and whether travel is within the county. The base fare is $1.50 with a 75-cents fare for riders aged 6 to 11 years of age. Riders under age six ride free. Discount tickets and monthly passes are available. Special service is available at a premium fare of 85 cents per mile. Vehicles may wait at a cost of $10 per hour of wait time. RIDES has four offices in nine counties and more than 70 employees. It has a full-time trainer who conducts commercial driver licensing (CDL) training. CDL testing is available onsite. Driver sensitivity training, defensive training, and CPR are also available. They have several vehicles ranging from 40-passenger vehicles to modified minivans. RIDES has its own vehicle storage and vehicle maintenance facilities. RIDES does all its own scheduling and dispatching, using CTS software for billing. Coordination Process: Coordination began in 1976 when the Golden Circle Senior Citizen Center was awarded a 2-year Section 147 Research and Demonstration Project to provide transportation in Pope and Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 315 SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: CENTRALIZED MULTICOUNTY SERVICES

Hardin Counties. In April 1977, RIDES (then standing for Rural Initiative Development of Effective Services) began operations with four 15-passenger vans in Pope and Hardin Counties. Under a purchase of service agreement with Golden Circle Nutrition Programs, RIDES established a route in each county to bring people to nutrition centers and to deliver meals to the homebound. The current chief executive officer became director in 1976 and began coordinating service. To get the service operational, time was spent talking with people one on one and through informational group meetings. During these interactions, the key objective was to listen to everyone’s input, identify unmet transit needs, explain the benefits of coordination, and provide a realistic picture of the amount of time and effort that would be involved. It was relatively easy to get people to attend informational meetings, but when it was time to coordinate services and sign contracts, resistance surfaced. People did not want to give up their buses, and they were afraid the new service would not be as good as the existing service. As time passed and the reluctant agencies and people saw the success of coordinated transportation, they were willing to join in. RIDES now has several contracts and memoranda of understanding. The Department of Human Services and the Sheltered Workshop were agencies that contracted in the beginning. The success of the system has drawn more people in, and the system has continued to grow and expand. For the first 13 years, the governing authority of the system was the Senior Citizen’s Center. This hindered RIDES’ ability to provide service to everyone and so, in 1990, RIDES formed the first rural mass transit district in Illinois. The transit board then became the governing authority. The board is made up of a representative from each county, a senior citizens representative, a representative for disabled residents, and a collegiate representative. A county must vote to join the district and then they are registered with the state. The organization has a chief executive officer, chief operations officer, and chief financial officer, supervisors, and drivers. RIDES’ timeline for development of coordinated transportation services was 1977–1978 Awarded Section 147 Research and Development Grant. 1980 RIDES expanded into Gallatin and Saline County, receiving Section 18 Funding 1989 RIDES expanded its services to include White County 1990 RIDES formed the first rural mass transit district in Illinois (RMTD) 1994 RIDES begins providing a limited service in Hamilton County 1997 Wayne and Hamilton Counties joined the district 1998 Edwards and Wabash Counties joined the district 2000 Rides Mass Transit District was presented the Transit System of the Year Award from the Community Transportation Association of America in Fort Lauderdale, FL during EXPO 2000 2001 Shawnee Queen River Taxi began operations as part of the Rides Mass Transit District Benefits of Coordination: RIDES has experienced many benefits during their two decades of coordinating service. The most obvious benefit is providing transportation that was almost nonexistent. There is now transportation to work, health care, shopping, colleges and universities, and more. The cost of trips is less per rider than it would be without the coordination. The expansion of the service from two counties to nine is evidence of the need for transportation and the effectiveness of the RIDES system. Their biggest success is the benefit it provides to the community. Not only are people able to travel where they need to go, but there is an impact on businesses and the economy. For example, RIDES has provided service to 450 individuals under the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program from June 1999 to mid-April 2000. More than 270 participants rode to employment, 164 of which are still employed, with 46 still riding the bus to work. These 164 individuals who are still working bring approximately $1 million annually in wages back to spend within the district. Considering the Job Access and Reverse Commute grant, the RIDES payroll, and the payroll of those who have been riding for years, the estimated transit, related, or supported wages are between $2.5 and 3 million. It has been estimated that for every dollar spent on public transportation, a community realizes $4 to $5 in economic return. 316 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Support, Problems, Barriers, Mistakes, Solutions: The greatest difficulty was working with agencies that did not want to give up the use of their vehicles. To address this concern, RIDES created a brochure called “Hands Off Transportation.” The brochure describes all the things (drivers, training, maintenance, gasoline, insurance) that agencies will not have to spend their time doing if they contract for transportation service instead of providing their own. One other challenge was overcoming the idea that RIDES was just for seniors. Because RIDES was operated by the senior center, the public did not realize RIDES provided service to general public. To overcome this, RIDES advertised through brochures, television, radio and newspaper advertisements, and made presentations. People really became aware of its services when it formed a mass transit district. RIDES has few problems with turnover. This is attributed to their hiring practices. All drivers are first hired as part-time employees. They do experience some turnover, but those staff members who stay with the job are then moved on to full-time positions. RIDES has not had any difficulty with billing despite the size of the organization. They use a software package that has been very effective. Recommendations for Others: ✦ Identify the needs of the community; ✦ Join forces with agencies that are committed and have access to funding; ✦ Know the pros and cons of coordination and make those clear to agencies before you get started; ✦ Be realistic, don’t make promises you can’t keep; ✦ Don’t let people think everything is free, remember providing transit service is a business; and ✦ Clearly define what services will be provided in contracts. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 317

Program Arrowhead Transit (AT) Sponsoring Organization Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency (AEOA) City, State Virginia, MN Service Type Dial-a-ride, route deviation, route guarantee Service Area Atkin, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis (except city of Duluth) Counties, MN Service Area Population 322,073 Service Area Size (sq mi) 18,221 Data for Year Ending 2000 One-way Trips per Year 335,300 Annual Expenses $2,239,283 Cost/Trip $6.68 Major Funding Sources JFS, Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency Coordinating Agencies Duluth Transit Authority (DTA) (informal agreement) Background: Arrowhead Transit (AT) is one of the largest public rural transit program providers in the United States. Operated by Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency (AEOA), Arrowhead Transit provides coordinated public transit services to the residents of Aitkin, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis (excluding the city of Duluth) Counties. Service operates from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and consists of dial-a-ride, route deviation, and route guarantee services with all vehicles wheelchair accessible to ensure that everyone can ride buses (Annual Transit Report, 2000). Arrowhead Transit is governed by a board of directors consisting of equal representation among people with incomes below poverty, elected officials, and business people. AT operates throughout the entire seven-county rural service area. Arrowhead operates a fleet of 53 vehicles: 6 large buses, 18 medium buses, and 29 small buses. A core of 60 volunteer drivers is also available to provide transportation service. In 2000, Arrowhead carried 335,300 riders, operating 1,655,239 miles of service, with operating costs of $2,239,283. Arrowhead coordinates its service with county agencies serving developmentally disabled clients. Some of the multicounty trips provided by Arrowhead serving these agencies are extremely long; some are up to 60 miles one way. Arrowhead Transit is coordinating services with the Duluth Transit Authority (DTA). Duluth has transfer points where Arrowhead passengers can transfer to DTA buses and vice versa. Also, these transfer points are noted on bus schedules of both transit providers. The transfer fee is 25 cents. The two systems coordinate legislatively; they draw from the same funding and educate and lobby local elected officials for funding together. There is no formal agreement between Arrowhead Transit and DTA. Coordination Process: Coordination started in the 1970s with a joint effort among several agencies, including the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). MnDOT encouraged agencies to coordinate. Historical data to support the need for services before coordination are not available, but the focus at that time was on improving and expanding transportation opportunities. 318 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV NORTH CENTRAL MINNESOTA: REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES

Major stakeholders that were and are involved in coordination efforts are AEOA, county commissioners, elected city officials, and MnDOT. Coordination efforts have always had full political support. Development of coordination was driven by logistics and money, not politics. Benefits of Coordination: AT has experienced many of the usual benefits of coordination, including ✦ Access to more funding, ✦ Less duplication of services; ✦ Fewer service gaps, ✦ An overall increase in the number of trips provided, ✦ Better access to jobs, health care, and shopping, ✦ Higher service productivity, and ✦ An enhanced image and visibility for transit. Rider surveys are conducted every year to measure customer satisfaction. AT’s biggest success occurred last year when a plant burned down in an AT service area. Workers were temporarily moved to a functioning plant in Wisconsin. AT does not have interstate authority, but DTA does. DTA began taking clients from Minnesota to and from work in Wisconsin. Support, Problems, Barriers, Mistakes, Solutions: Money is always an issue, but AT is not in desperate need for it. Education is the major problem; not everybody understands how transportation services will help the community. MnDOT was very helpful, trying to encourage agencies to coordinate whatever and whenever possible. Recommendations: “Work at it! If it saves money—coordinate! It gives you more riders and better service.” Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 319

Program COAST Sponsoring Organizations Council on Aging & Human Services (COA&HS), WSDOT, Coalition of Regional Transportation Providers City, State Colfax, WA Service Type Social services, nutrition, transportation and subnursing home care Service Area Four Washington and five Idaho counties Service Area Population 115,000 Service Area Size (sq mi) 23,000 Data for Year Ending 2001 One-way Trips per Year 75,000 Annual Expenses $700,000 Cost/Trip $9.33 Major Funding Sources Property tax from three counties and three of the four largest communities, United Way, WA State Medicaid, Brokerage Rural Mobility, ID Medicaid, veterans, FTA (5311, 5311(f), 5309, 5310 capital, 5310 purchase of service), Job Access and Reverse Commute Coordinating Agencies 18 different transportation provision and assistance programs. Many are coordinated with one another, and many use other local and regional services and resources. Other 41,000 of the riders were from Washington; 34,000 were from Idaho Overview: The Council on Aging & Human Services (COA&HS) is a nonprofit, public benefit, social service agency. Its administrative office is in Colfax, Washington, the county seat for Whitman County, located in rural eastern Washington along the Washington-Idaho border. The largest community in Whitman County is Pullman, with a population of 24,000 that includes 18,000 Washington State University students. The COA&HS provides a broad range of programs, including social services, nutrition, transportation, and subnursing home care. The transportation program, COAST, delivers specialized public transportation services to the residents who live in four Washington and five Idaho counties—a huge service area, covering 23,000 miles. The population density of the service area is very low, averaging about five persons per square mile. COAST is the primary contractor for every available Washington State, Idaho, and Federal funding source. COAST also receives direct property tax funding from three counties and three of the four largest communities in the service area. COAST holds multiple contracts with individual agencies and programs. In addition to being a direct service provider, COAST is also a service broker, the operator of a 32-vehicle insurance pool, a vanpool operator, a carpool supporter, a training service provider, the operator of a drug consortium and the operator of a nine-county information, referral and dispatch services center. In addition, COAST serves as a technical assistance and grant writing consultant, a community development agent, a legislative advocate, and a regulatory agency intervention agent. COAST runs three different volunteer transportation programs and contracts with several others. 320 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV EASTERN WASHINGTON AND NORTH CENTRAL IDAHO: MULTIPLE COORDINATION STRATEGIES

History of Coordination: COAST has a long history of successful coordination. When COAST’s executive director first came to COA&HS in 1983, the small transportation program had one van, one staff person, and a $25,000 per year budget. In 1983, COAST submitted an application for Federal (16(b)2) funds for a new lift-equipped vehicle. At the same time, the county’s primary disabled transportation service provider was also applying for capital assistance for a bus. WSDOT decided that a lead agency should be appointed to oversee vehicle purchasing in the area. COAST became the lead agency and this led to the formation of a coalition of regional transportation providers. The original coalition was quite diverse and included representatives from schools, child care centers, public transportation systems, Washington State University, a private airporter service, DSHS, a local community action agency, and other service providers. Early on, COAST’s executive director began pooling the budgets of coalition members to leverage FTA’s Section 18 (now Section 5311) operating funds. At the time coalition members had a combined annual operating expenditure of approximately $300,000 compared with COAST’s $25,000 budget. The Section 18 funds were then redistributed to the participating agencies based on the percentage of their annual operating budget used to leverage the funds and on need. This initial program was based on the informal goal that no program dollars would be used for any discretionary costs and that FTA general public funds would be used to meet costs that did not fit other specific program requirements. The Coalition met monthly throughout the first 3 years and quarterly for the next 3 years. During this time, member agencies and providers took turns hosting monthly meetings. At these meetings, the host agency would provide a tour of its facilities and operations and talk about its transportation and program needs and challenges. This created a strong understanding of regional transportation problems among coalition members and was extremely valuable in identifying opportunities to coordinate service, eliminate duplicative service, and fill unmet regional needs. The meetings also helped coordinate other human services as well. By 1990, the Transportation Coalition segued into COAST’s lead agency role; however, the group’s structure and broader focus was assumed by formation of the Whitman County Human Services Alliance. Throughout its 20-year history as a transportation provider and broker, COAST has maintained an active and supportive Board of Directors. COAST’s Executive Director attributes COAST’s success to the dedication of its board to the principle that “they couldn’t improve the lives of seniors and their communities unless they worked together to enhance the lives of all rural people.” In essence, the Board of Directors has taken a strong support role in allowing its dedicated executive director and staff to move forward on a number of innovative service projects. The following quote from COAST’s executive director summarizes the agency’s dedication to finding innovative solutions and providing services to the mobility impaired. “Many transportation providers, both public and private, would balk at providing many of the direct and indirect services that I will describe. It is easy to describe the numerous roadblocks and cite the reasons why these arrangements would not seem to be in the best interests of the provider. My counter argument is simple. Mobility is the foundation for participation in a free society. How do various population subsets become excluded from the “general public?” For COAST, it is not a question of whether or not we will choose to provide service. The question is whether or not we have the will to find a way to provide the service. Working at the COA&HS is not about saying, “No!” Instead, it is about finding a way, after we have already said, “Yes!” (Johanson, 2000). During FY2000-2001, COAST provided approximately 75,000 one-way trips (41,000 in Washington and 34,000 in Idaho) and over 710,000 service miles. This includes only services where COAST is the direct provider and does not include trips provided by other Coalition partners in the area. The estimated FY2000- 2001 operating budget for coast services was $700,000. The average cost per trip for direct services provided by COAST was $8, although individual trip costs vary significantly based on type and distance. COAST has developed a cost allocation system that allows them to assign trip costs to specific funding sources retroactively. Trips that do not apply to specific funding sources are considered general public and paid for with Section 5311 funds. Among COAST’s numerous funding sources are area agency funds, United Way, Washington State Medicaid, Brokerage Rural Mobility, Agency Council on Coordination funds, Idaho Medicaid, veterans, and FTA Sections 5311, 5311(f), 5309, 5310 capital, 5310 purchase of services, and Job Access and Reverse Commute. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 321

Types of Coordination—COAST has 18 different transportation provision and assistance programs. Many of these programs are coordinated with one another, and many use other local and regional service and resources. The following is a brief description of the most relevant services provide by COAST.* Direct Service Provider and Broker—COAST is a direct service provider in six of the nine counties in its service area. In the three other counties, COAST serves as a pure broker (e.g., secures funding sources, takes trip requests, assigns the trips to subcontractors and reimburses the providers for the assigned trips). COAST’s direct services range from regular weekly and biweekly routes linking small communities with area service centers, demand response, and volunteer escort services. COAST serves as the lead agency for a coalition of public, private for profit, and nonprofit mobility providers. For three counties in Washington, COAST is the contracted broker for Washington State’s Medicaid Assistance Program. As a Washington MAA Broker, COAST must determine eligibility, ascertain the appropriate level of service, and then assign the lowest cost, most-appropriate service provider. Appropriate services may range from gas vouchers for the client to ground transportation coupled with airfare to a final destination. Regional Information and Dispatch Center—COAST operates a regional information and dispatch center for the entire service area. Three full-time dispatchers receive trip requests and assign the trips to available service providers including COAST. One of those providers, Link Transportation Systems, has five scheduled trips per day to Spokane, Washington. These trips originate in Moscow, Idaho, and are routed through several communities, including Pullman and Colfax, Washington. COAST dispatchers monitor Link radio traffic and COAST’s traffic. In cases of vehicle breakdown or emergency the two agencies support each other with vehicle loans and driver co-utilization. COAST has a unique noncompetition agreement with Link. This arrangement has greatly facilitated funding applications that frequently require approval from area commercial providers. Link operates standard passenger vans that are not ADA accessible. COAST provides the ADA- required accessible vehicles for Link. In December 2001, COAST was one of the first rural systems to purchase and install Mobilitat’s Easy Rides dispatching, billing and record keeping software. The software has been customized by Mobilitat so that is the Nation’s first comprehensive “full brokerage” software. Volunteer Escort—One of COAST’s volunteer-based programs is a fairly traditional service called Volunteer Escort. COAST recruits, screens, trains, reimburses, and supports a pool of one hundred volunteer drivers who operate their own automobiles. COAST also contracts with other agencies that operate registered volunteer driver pools, allowing them to use COAST’s operating guidelines. Vehicle Loans and Leases—The second type of volunteer service arranged by COAST is a vehicle loan and lease program. Under this program several churches and denominational nursing homes rent lift- equipped vehicles from COAST to serve special weekly needs, such as transporting seniors to Sunday church services. Each participant is required to send its volunteer drivers through a 16-hour CTAA certification process. Vehicle rental costs are then shared among participants on a rotating basis, with one stipulation. Drivers are required to perform 3- to 4-hour shifts and to serve the needs of other participants during the Sunday that they are “on-duty.” This program has been operating successfully for more than 5 years. Community Vehicles—The Community Vehicle Program has similar aspects to the Vehicle Loan Program, but in this instance the full-time operation of the vehicle is turned over to a group of community volunteers. The volunteers operate the vehicle, full time, as a public transportation resource. For 2 years, COAST has been implementing the program in two rural Washington communities. Four other communities are currently interested in starting the program. Grant applications for three new vans may make two older vans available to expand this program. The basic “agreement” is that the central agency provides a vehicle, technical assistance and insurance, and driver training; the community provides official status for the organizing committee, gas and oil, an operating board, and drivers and fundraisers for vehicle replacement. Maintenance can be shared or either 322 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV * These descriptions are directly adapted from Johanson, 2000.

party’s sole responsibility. COAST has added options to the basic model, allowing each community to become a subcontracted service provider for other programs and funding sources. This relationship makes it possible to contract with the community for Medicaid or Section 5310 services. In this way, services can be extended to priority residents of other small communities. The relationship also creates an operating revenue source to supplement donations. Once the program is in place, the vehicle, in theory, can transport groups 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for any legal purpose. Insurance Pool—The COAST insurance pool started with just one vehicle. COAST now holds the master policy that now has basic coverage of $1.5 million with a $5 million dollar umbrella. Six agencies and 32 vehicles are currently covered by the policy. Each agency pays an average of $900 per year per vehicle and is a “named insured” on the master policy. COAST charges the participating agencies $60 per vehicle, per year, to administer the program. Depending on the prevailing market (hard versus soft) the total amount is one-half to one-third lower than what similar coverage would cost the agencies. Vehicle Pool—COAST is the lead agency in the service area for vehicle acquisition. COAST assists smaller rural providers in acquiring vehicles to meet their service needs. COAST often competes for new vehicles through the FTA 5310 Program. The agency requesting the vehicle puts up the needed 20 percent match at the time the vehicle is delivered. Instead of getting the new vehicle, the requesting agency gets a well- maintained, serviceable van—one of COAST’s used vehicles—because COAST is the only agency in the area that can generate sufficient trips and miles to be competitive to receive the new vehicles. When the title reverts at 100,000 miles, COAST signs the title over to the entity that provided the original match. For 17 years, COAST has been awarded every 5310 grant that it has requested. During the past 2 years, COAST has acquired five new vehicles for three participating agencies. Training Broker—Most of the transportation providers in COAST’s large service area are too small to maintain “in-house” certified training capacity. COAST has two driver trainers on staff who regularly conduct driver training for a wide variety of community agencies with volunteer and paid drivers. COAST provides the training for no charge. Idaho drivers attend with expenses paid by the Community Transit Association of Idaho (CTRI). The driver-training course is the 16-hour, nationally certified course offered through the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA). School District Contracts—COAST has been successful in getting rural school districts involved in the provision of public transportation. COAST found that most rural transit providers do not have the capacity to contract to provide school district transportation the way providers often do in urban areas. Public law 94- 142 required school districts to provide accessible, lift-equipped vehicles for special education students in the late 1970s almost 15 years before passage of the ADA; consequently, most districts have a small bus that is lift equipped. COAST has been able to negotiate four contracts (three in Washington, one in Idaho) with rural school districts. In return for an hourly fee, the district transports groups of seniors and persons with disabilities to needed services, such as medical, shopping, and nutrition. The districts have each been willing to operate the service all year even though school is not in session in the summer. Trained school district drivers in safe, well-maintained vehicles provide the services. The districts benefits from the revenue and because the riders begin to view the school facilities as community resources instead of youth resources. The Council on Aging & Human Services has located senior meal sites at two of the schools. COAST staff notes that the program has had windfall benefits in terms of community integration. Seniors have become important resources in the schools as aides, day care staff, tutors, and evaluators. Mail-Passenger Contracts—In rural areas, private contractors make bulk mail deliveries and pickups. For 4 years COAST had a private nonprofit contract with a mail contractor, a Link Transportation Systems. Link also provides airport passenger service and van pool service. Six days a week, a Link van delivers and picks up bulk mail for eight small communities outside Moscow, Idaho. The van goes out with mail in the early morning and then returns mid-morning carrying passengers. The seats are added at the end of the mail run. In the mid-afternoon the passengers ride home and the mail is picked up on the return to Moscow. COAST compensates the riders for half the fare (user subsidy) and pays Link an additional $300 per month to maintain the service (provider subsidy). Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 323

Benefits, Challenges and Lessons Learned—After almost 20 years of leading coordinated transportation efforts, COAST has developed a very mature coordination network within its service area. Although still in place, the regional transportation coalition it developed 20 years ago no longer meets in a group setting. Participating agencies have developed a familiarity with one another’s resources and efforts that allows them to address area needs and issues in more efficient one-on-one and small group settings. The following is a list of key lessons that COAST has to share from its 20 years as lead agency on coordination in eastern Washington and western Idaho. ✦ Lead agencies for coordination need to be mobility managers. Transit “properties” often make poor lead agencies for coordination efforts because they have a tendency to use conventional tools and focus on the able-body public as their primary clientele. More broadly scoped social service agencies are often more willing to use a wider range of community resources (fiscal and human) to address transportation needs. ✦ Don’t be afraid to take issues beyond the local or state level. COAST’s executive director attributes COAST’s many successes to the fact that COAST was not willing to stop when it encountered roadblocks. In fact, several of its coordination efforts have met policy hurdles at the state level, forcing them to lobby federally for approval to move forward. ✦ Listening to customers and providers alike is a key to success. Successful coordination requires a lead agency that is able to moderate an ongoing dialog between those with transportation needs and those that control the resources to provide transportation. ✦ Building trust and a knowledge base among coalition members is crucial. COAST and the regional coalition worked diligently to get to know the other agencies and transportation providers in their area early on in their coordination process. Developing a strong base of knowledge among providers has allowed them to work together creatively and effectively for more than 20 years. ✦ Collection and monitoring of fiscal, operating, and client data are crucial. COAST cites the purchase of a software package to handle grant management and accounting as an important step for the agency. This software package allowed COAST to track revenues more efficiently and allocate trip costs to specific funding sources more accurately. ✦ Coordination efforts breed advocates. COAST’s executive director has found that successful coordination invariably leads to more local and regional advocates and the identification of more unmet need. He feels that, for this reason, coordination efforts perpetuate a positive cycle in terms of addressing unmet needs, but rarely lead to actual cost savings. ✦ Volunteer driver programs work, but standards are not well developed. COAST’s executive director is currently working with the state of Washington to develop better volunteer driver standards. COAST has operated volunteer services for a number of years and is well aware of the many state and Federal regulatory issues that challenge volunteer programs. ✦ Transfer of institutional knowledge is important, but often overlooked. COAST’s executive director has been the lead person on coordination efforts in the area for almost 20 years. He now holds 20 years of knowledge about local needs, system operations, and state and Federal policy related to coordination. COAST is beginning to consider the effects of his departure. Although COAST has not yet developed a transition plan, it is an important issue because it will represent the loss of an important resource. Ongoing documentation and dissemination of information during coordination can safeguard against the demise of a program due to the loss of one or two key staff members. 324 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

SUMMARY Coordination works. While sometimes requiring a long and arduous process, coordination has been beneficial to many different kinds of rural communities in many parts of the country. Reducing overlap and duplication increases funding for expanded services to new communities, new users, and new destinations at new hours of the day and days of the week. Rural communities are extremely diverse, and so are the coordinated transportation systems that they have implemented. Some communities have engaged relatively few partners in their coordination efforts, while other communities have extensive arrangements that cross many of the traditional boundaries of passenger types, service modes, funding sources, and political jurisdictions. Respondents for the local case studies often mentioned a wide range of challenges and opportunities regarding coordinating transportation services in rural areas: ✦ Funding, ✦ Interpersonal relationships, ✦ Political support and power sharing, ✦ Lack of knowledge about transportation services, and ✦ Understanding coordination. Some individuals who are implementing coordinated services can be daunted by coordination’s challenges. They need to know that coordination efforts have been successful elsewhere. This Toolkit offers examples of successful coordination in a wide variety of locations. Key local level success strategies included the following: ✦ Get started right away, but be patient in the process. Invest sufficient time to find out the best way to set up and implement the system to provide quality service. ✦ Work with individuals and agencies that are committed to coordinated transportation and have access to funding. ✦ Be realistic. Don’t make promises you can’t keep. ✦ Build trust among coalition members; search for consensus. ✦ Know the pros and cons of coordination. Chapter 8 Successful, Insightful, Coordinated Transportation Services in Rural Communities 325

✦ Do not stop when you encounter roadblocks; look for alternatives. ✦ Establish a transportation advisory committee with persons and agencies who share a common goal of meeting local transportation needs for their constituencies. ✦ Get a good mix of local elected officials together; ensure you have staffers who can respond to their needs. ✦ Offer services of real value; listen intently to customers and providers. ✦ Work closely with local decisionmakers to respond to changing markets and new opportunities. ✦ Cultivate partnerships. Establish strong relationships with partner agencies. Establish clear roles and responsibilities among all partners. ✦ Ensure that participating agencies are fully vested in the program. ✦ Secure funding to cover initial needs and to expand services once the initial funds are spent. ✦ Be flexible; maintain an ability to adapt to changing needs and conditions. ✦ Approach coordinated transportation like a business. Watch the bottom line! 326 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV

Next: Bibliography »
Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 101: Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services examines strategies and practices used to coordinate rural transportation services, and identifies model processes used for local coordination efforts in rural communities. A stand-alone executive summary of the report provides information, instructions, and lessons learned from rural communities that have implemented coordinated transportation services.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!